64
Mbappe dropped by Chinese brands for 'offending national sentiments' (www.channelnewsasia.com)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 week ago (14 children)

Lenin went full dictator the second the workers’ soviets didn’t vote the way he wanted, I’m good on his bs. The revolutionary vanguard acting like they know better than the actual proletariat is just the same style of oppression under new management.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (12 children)

    The vanguard is proletarian. It isn't that they know better than the proletariat, it's that the vanguard is the organized section of the proletariat, one that is disciplined and studies the science of revolution. Not every proletarian can afford the time or energy to do so, but this does not mean that nobody can.

    As for Lenin going "full dictator," the masses of the people supported the Bolsheviks, who coalesced the soviets into one established socialist state. There were various factions that opposed the Bolsheviks, and they lost the Civil War.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (11 children)

    The Bolsheviks were so popular with the masses that they lost the election of 1917 to the socialist revolutionaires. The bolsheviks were doubled up on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (10 children)

    The elections in the provisional government, correct, not the soviets. You're mixing up governments, the provisional government was the one supported largely by the liberal establishment. Further, the left and right SRs had a split right before the election without the majority of workers knowing, and further still the left SRs and Bolsheviks immediately formed a coalition. You may want to brush up on your history a bit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (9 children)

    I know that provisional government election was not the same thing as the concurrent workers Soviets, I was illustrating a point that they didn’t even receive a plurality of the votes in that election to challenge the idea that the Bolsheviks were the most popular.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (8 children)

    And I already said that most workers didn't even bother voting in the provisional government elections, because the soviet government was the one that represented them, and that the election itself was hairy because the SRs had split shortly before the election without news spreading wide enough. Further, the left SRs did form a coalition with the Bolsheviks, and supported the revolution to overthrow the provisional government.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    What makes you say most didn’t bother voting? More than half of eligible voters cast ballots

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (6 children)

    Key words "eligible voters."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    That was just an age gate, though. 20 for civilians, 18 for military men. I know of no limits based on class, land ownership, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Not formally, no. In practice, due to World War I and the brewing civil war, the administrative failures of the Provisional Government, and the general chaos in Russia, voters were skewed heavily towards urban areas, while Russia was largely peasant at the time. The Bolsheviks were popular among the peasantry as well, and this is further backed by how the peasant soviet elections went.

    In either case, the provisional government was deeply unpopular, and replacing it by soviet power was deeply popular. Carrying out the revolution was the correct action, and to go against the revolution would be to go against the people. The fact that the revolutionaries coalesced around the Bolsheviks after the fact does not mean that this was not the will of the people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    I thought the Bolshevik support bent towards the urban proletariat whereas the SR support was from the rural peasantry

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    The Bolsheviks had broad support, the Left SRs were more among the peasantry. As I said, however, they both supported overthrowing the provisional government, which happened, and then support coalesced around the more correct Bolsheviks.

    Asking you honestly, do you disagree with Lenin for going ahead with overthrowing the provisional government, or do you think the soviet government should have coalesced around the Left SRs simply because the provisional government swang that way? Which part was "undemocratic" in your view?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I find it convenient that the second their policies hit a snag in the assembly they dissolved the legislature and handed power to the Soviet congress that they had full control of due to the Mensheviks and the center and right SR’s walking out. That was clearly a blunder for those groups to back the wrong horse in the Provisional government, but if the Bolsheviks truly had a mandate from the people I don’t see why they couldn’t have won a new round of elections within the provisional government framework to then enact their policies as they saw fit. They chose after all to engage in electorialism in the first place with the 1917 election, after all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    The chain of events is pretty clear:

    1. The provisional government becomes deeply unpopular, for massacring protestors and supporting continuing World War I.

    2. The SRs have popularity, especially among the peasantry, and win the Provisional government elections despite a split weeks before. The Left SRs support overthrowing the provisional government and replacing it with the Soviet government.

    3. The Bolsheviks, this time, already have better support among the urban workers, and the Petrograd Soviet votes to overthrow the provisional government, and actually has the power to do so.

    4. The SRs continue to fracture, and while they were popular among the peasantry for a time, the Bolsheviks swap tactics and advocate for land reform among the peasantry. This is the "land" part of "Peace, Land, and Bread." The Bolsheviks support ending the war, which is popular, they support land reform, which is popular, and they support the needs of the urban workers, which is also popular.

    5. As the SRs fall apart from their split, a bunch join the Bolsheviks, same as the Mensheviks, in solidifying Soviet Power. The Bolsheviks have been consistently correct the entire time, and do not have the same fracturing due to practicing Democratic Centralism. They succeed in gaining influence and broadening it, resulting in the Soviet Union.

    The idea that the Bolsheviks ever needed a mandate from the provisional government elections is wrong. Even if we assume the Left SRs had a mandate from those elections, the SRs supported overthrowing the provisional government anyways, and then the SRs fell apart while the Bolsheviks strengthened. At no point did Lenin alienate himself from the desires of the people, and in time the people became coalesced around the Bolsheviks.

    Say you're Lenin. What part would you do differently? Should they have stood by and not overthrown the provisional government, even though it was clear that that was what the workers wanted? Should they have not adopted land reform and won over the peasants, making them the most broadly supported platform? Should they have prevented the SRs from collapsing, or turned away their members requesting to join?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent