My feelings on the Russian Revolution

[Y2A]

I for one believe that the Russian Revolution was absolutely neccessary. While I do agree that it should have been accomplished under a banner other then the red flag, I still belive it was neccessary. The Czars did not care about the people and had millions die in the first world war. Thoughtout histroy, even in the feudal age, the Czars had mistreated the workers far worse then the west had mistreated theirs. For one to say that the revolution at that time was wrong is to say it with hindsight. How were they to know that the fruit of the revolution would eventually end up being a totalitarian state??? How were they to know considering that there had been no major communist revolutions in the past??? The fact is that as much as I despise communism, I must agree with the commies, that the russian revolution was neccessary.

[Felicia]

*deleted*

As for your opinion on the Russian revolution..... what am I supposed to say? Hmm? Am I supposed to be happy and gracious that all rightists aren't blind fools? Want me to invite you over for a spot of tea and a crumpet? No, wait, how about pepsi and freedom fries, that might be more your style.

*bows down before thee*

Oh thank you dear sir, would you like me to shine your shoes while I'm down here?

I'm a grumpy ass today.

*******

But yes, of course the Russian revolution was a necessity. When a government is corrupt and oppressive to the point where a revolution is successful in tearing it down, the new government is more than likely going to be better than the last. Now, I don't wnat this to turn into a debate over Stalinism because we're all fucking sick of that shit.

[Bradyman]

I agree that a revolution was necessary... but not to communism.

Russia was a backwards country with a very small working class population. How were they supposed to create a worker's state without workers? The conditions present at the time were not ripe for such a transition.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:17 AM
Now, I don't wnat this to turn into a debate over Stalinism because we're all fucking sick of that shit.
I've only said that marxist doctorine is flawed and thus eventually leads to Stalinism. I have never actually said that I think that the communist ideology is "wrong", however I do not agree with it. And for the record, I am not a "rightist".

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 09:19 PM
I agree that a revolution was necessary... but not to communism.

Russia was a backwards country with a very small working class population. How were they supposed to create a worker's state without workers? The conditions present at the time were not ripe for such a transition.
small workingclass population? There is something terribly wrong with that figure, it seems grossly underestimated, show me some kind of document saying that Russia had a small peasant class under the Tsars. You don't have to be a "worker" you can be a farmer, etc. I doubt Russia's population were all big bussinessmen

If the conditions at the time were not ripe for revolution, Lenin and the bolsheviks would not have led a successful movement against the Tsars. They would have failed if the people didn't want or support them.

Y2A

I've only said that marxist doctorine is flawed and thus eventually leads to Stalinism. I have never actually said that I think that the communist ideology is "wrong", however I do not agree with it. And for the record, I am not a "rightist".

Boo hoo.

The Marxist doctorine is flawed? Whoopy shit. Show me a doctorine that ISN'T flawed and then we can talk about this matter.

[Y2A]

Boo hoo.

The Marxist doctorine is flawed? Whoopy shit. Show me a doctorine that ISN'T flawed and then we can talk about this matter.

True, but Marxism calls for "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Now, I don't know about you but I do not trust any form of government inwhich absolute power is given to the individuals who control the government.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 09:45 PM

Boo hoo.

The Marxist doctorine is flawed? Whoopy shit. Show me a doctorine that ISN'T flawed and then we can talk about this matter.

True, but Marxism calls for "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Now, I don't know about you but I do not trust any form of government inwhich absolute power is given to the individuals who control the government.
yeah? and your doctrine calls for some "invisible hand" to guide the "free market"

whatever.

And I'm not going to debate the manifesto cause quite frankly, I don't want to read it and pick shit out. However, if the people support a government that inturn supports the poeple, than there shouldn't be a problem with a "dictatorship of the proletariat" now should there be?

I personally, am leaning away from centralized government and total control over a country's assests and such, but just for arguments sake...

[Felicia]

Originally posted by thegreathal+Feb 5 2004, 09:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (thegreathal @ Feb 5 2004, 09:47 PM)
[email protected] 6 2004, 02:19 AM
How were they supposed to create a worker&#39;s state without workers?
^ lol. too true.

Unfortunately, it was neccessary in Russia and should have happened much sooner, although it didn&#39;t turn out very well either... :blink: [/b]
The plan was to industrialise Russia, therefor creating workers...... (or whatever, lol, I&#39;m doing my stretches here....)

eh :D

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:45 AM
True, but Marxism calls for "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Now, I don&#39;t know about you but I do not trust any form of government inwhich absolute power is given to the individuals who control the government.
It would be a class dictatorship of the exploited over the exploiters. There have never been any "individuals" controlling any government. There have only been class dictatorships, and socialism is simply the dictatorship of those whose labor was once alienated from themselves for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful.

I also agree that the Russian revolution was not perfect, but necessary. However, I probably differ from you because I also think that Stalin was better than the Czar.

All countries will be industrialized sooner or later.

[General A.A.Vlasov]

Stalin was better than the Czar
Holy hell&#33;&#33;&#33; :blink: :o :angry:

..after THAT WE are not talking to you&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry:


KA:"That fuckin&#39; revolutinon was UNNECESSARY&#33;&#33;&#33; Because Nicolay II has refused from pristola, and 1st parlament started to work, but commies didn&#39;t wanted to be just a party...and you know what happened&#33;&#33;&#33;"

[Autarky]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:39 AM


small workingclass population? There is something terribly wrong with that figure, it seems grossly underestimated, show me some kind of document saying that Russia had a small peasant class under the Tsars. You don&#39;t have to be a "worker" you can be a farmer, etc. I doubt Russia&#39;s population were all big bussinessmen

Peasants are not "Workers". Workers, I believe, are the urban proles.

For a peasant revolution see: Mao Tse Tung.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by Autarky+Feb 6 2004, 04:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Autarky @ Feb 6 2004, 04:04 PM)
[email protected] 6 2004, 02:39 AM


small workingclass population? There is something terribly wrong with that figure, it seems grossly underestimated, show me some kind of document saying that Russia had a small peasant class under the Tsars. You don&#39;t have to be a "worker" you can be a farmer, etc. I doubt Russia&#39;s population were all big bussinessmen

Peasants are not "Workers". Workers, I believe, are the urban proles.

For a peasant revolution see: Mao Tse Tung. [/b]
You&#39;re trying to get technical aren&#39;t you?

haha, TOO BAD&#33;

Workers of the world, farmers of the world...... we don&#39;t need minor differences to separate the working class. Workers, peasants, farmers... they all work their asses off under the bourgeois minority. They are the working class, no matter which category you want to classify them in.

[synthesis]

Workers of the world, farmers of the world...... we don&#39;t need minor differences to separate the working class. Workers, peasants, farmers... they all work their asses off under the bourgeois minority. They are the working class, no matter which category you want to classify them in.

It does matter, from a Marxist perspective. While the peasantry does face equal exploitation as that of the proletariat, a country needs to be industrialized for a socialist revolution to mean anything.

The working class has many meanings, but peasants and serfs are not part of the proletariat. It is an important distinction, although Leninists have tended to overlook it. This leads to regression back to capitalism, as the pre-existing means of production are not enough to sustain a socially-oriented society.

Also, the farmers do not face the same process of technological obsolescence (that is, when technological improvement leads to the dismissal of workers) as industrial workers.

Essentially, while the peasants are not any less of human beings than the proletarians, they are not our "primary audience."

Autarky was correct on this one.


..after THAT WE are not talking to you&#33;&#33;&#33;

I won&#39;t complain.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Autarky+Feb 6 2004, 09:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Autarky @ Feb 6 2004, 09:04 PM)
[email protected] 6 2004, 02:39 AM


small workingclass population? There is something terribly wrong with that figure, it seems grossly underestimated, show me some kind of document saying that Russia had a small peasant class under the Tsars. You don&#39;t have to be a "worker" you can be a farmer, etc. I doubt Russia&#39;s population were all big bussinessmen

Peasants are not "Workers". Workers, I believe, are the urban proles.

For a peasant revolution see: Mao Tse Tung. [/b]
Doesn&#39;t the Hammer and Sickle represent unity between the industrial workers and the agricultral worker???

[Autarky]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 10:21 PM

Doesn&#39;t the Hammer and Sickle represent unity between the industrial workers and the agricultral worker???
Unsure.

The peasants didn&#39;t get along with the new government.

[Pete]

Yes it is supposed to represent that, but as we learned from the Russian Revolution, Leninism does not work. The vanguard does not work. There have been many other examples of this, just check your history book.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 05:21 PM
Doesn&#39;t the Hammer and Sickle represent unity between the industrial workers and the agricultral worker???
yeas it does&#33;

It represents the common bond and unity between workers and farmers.

Dyer

It does matter, from a Marxist perspective. While the peasantry does face equal exploitation as that of the proletariat, a country needs to be industrialized for a socialist revolution to mean anything.

Marx can kiss my ass, I don&#39;t care what he thinks. The way I see it is the proletariat are the proletariat, it doesn&#39;t matter what they do. Marx wrote his doctorine during the industrial revolution, so of course he;s going to focus his thoughts on the "urban proles," but farmers were (are?) the mass population.


The working class has many meanings, but peasants and serfs are not part of the proletariat. It is an important distinction, although Leninists have tended to overlook it. This leads to regression back to capitalism, as the pre-existing means of production are not enough to sustain a socially-oriented society.
OK, why aren&#39;t they part of the proletariat? Here, whether you&#39;re a farmer, plant worker, anything depending on your wages, are all proles in my opinion. I don&#39;t see why distinguishing them is important.


Also, the farmers do not face the same process of technological obsolescence (that is, when technological improvement leads to the dismissal of workers) as industrial workers.
ok, fine, so when machinery improves, there isn&#39;t such a need for physical workers.......ok, so when you have factory workers jobless, you still have farmers busting their rumps to produce for society...... There are also things like drought and disease that threaten crops, etc


Essentially, while the peasants are not any less of human beings than the proletarians, they are not our "primary audience."
why wouild one think they were any less in the first place? :blink:

ok, so you&#39;re saying that the peasants aren&#39;t the "primary audience." But the masses are the primary audience anyway. Peasants, workers, farmers, they make up the oppressed majority and they are more of a force combined than separated.

If I&#39;m misunderstading anything, let me know.

[redfront]

True, but Marxism calls for "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

The dictatorship is only the second fase (after revolution) in the process of communism. after dictatorship comes true communism (which hasn&#39;t really existed yet, as it&#39;s always the wrong peoples with the wrong intentions who get into power).
The second fase in the process is there to remove the capitalistic regime, but unfortunatly the leaders (like Stalin) has always stayed with dictatorship, because they liked the taste of power. When i think about it, this actually makes them cappies...

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 05:15 PM

True, but Marxism calls for "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

The dictatorship is only the second fase (after revolution) in the process of communism. after dictatorship comes true communism (which hasn&#39;t really existed yet, as it&#39;s always the wrong peoples with the wrong intentions who get into power).
The second fase in the process is there to remove the capitalistic regime, but unfortunatly the leaders (like Stalin) has always stayed with dictatorship, because they liked the taste of power. When i think about it, this actually makes them cappies...
Face it, Stalin was a marxist not a cappie. The theory of it being a transitional phase into true communism has been proven to be false time and time again. Marxism does not work.

[Soviet power supreme]

but unfortunatly the leaders (like Stalin) has always stayed with dictatorship, because they liked the taste of power. When i think about it, this actually makes them cappies...

Yes sovhozes and kolkhozes are pure capitalism.


KA:"That fuckin&#39; revolutinon was UNNECESSARY&#33;&#33;&#33; Because Nicolay II has refused from pristola, and 1st parlament started to work, but commies didn&#39;t wanted to be just a party...and you know what happened&#33;&#33;&#33;"

Kerenski continued the world war.The Russians got their asses kicked SO BADLY that proletariate would have eventually made it even without Bolsheviks.

[j.guevara]

I think the revolution was postive and caried out by the masses but then the Bolsheviks came in and ruined all the progress that the people were making. I also believe the Bolsheviks came to power with the aid of Wall Street cappies.

[synthesis]

Marx can kiss my ass, I don&#39;t care what he thinks.

It is fine that you disagree with Marx. Dissent is healthy, but I am trying to tell you that without industrialization, and more importantly the mechanization of labor, workers must be forced to work under conditions marginally better than they were before.


The way I see it is the proletariat are the proletariat, it doesn&#39;t matter what they do.

But the peasantry aren&#39;t the proletariat.

It has much less to do with the individual people of the class than you make it out to be. The issue isn&#39;t the peasantry or the proletariat in and of itself, it is the mode of production of a country in which the revolution takes place.

If a country is primarily composed of agricultural workers, with backwards technology, it is not in the capitalist mode of production. It is in the feudalist mode of production, and a nation must be capitalist to become socialist.

I&#39;m not sure how to spell this out to you any better than to point you to every socialist revolution in a country with the feudalist mode of production that has ever taken place. They are all capitalist now.

Again, it has nothing to do with the peasantry being any less valuable than the proletariat. It has everything to do with the state of the means of production.

[Sabocat]

Also, the farmers do not face the same process of technological obsolescence (that is, when technological improvement leads to the dismissal of workers) as industrial workers.

Not true. Thousands and thousands of farmers in the U&#036; have been pushed off of their farms by the big technologicalized Agri-businesses, in near epidemic proportions. They have been just as susceptable to reduction in force, loss of living wages, and over production as the industrialized worker. This is just another segment that has been pushed into the low paying service sector as a means of survival.

[Osman Ghazi]

People seem to be forgetting that the &#39;Russian Revolution&#39; was actually two revolutions: the February which put the Duma in charge and had the Tsar abdicate and the October Revolution which put the Bolsheviks in power.

Second, the USSR was only a totalitarian state under Stalin. Afterwards it got much better.

Also technically, to be a proletarian, you need to earn a wage. That is what distinguishes peasants and proletarians.

The Bolsheviks came to power with the aid of Wall Street? That is probably the most preposterus thing i&#39;ve ever heard. The Allies invaded on the side of the Whitesin the Russian Civil War. Why would they do that if they supported the Revolution?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 02:05 PM

Also, the farmers do not face the same process of technological obsolescence (that is, when technological improvement leads to the dismissal of workers) as industrial workers.

Not true. Thousands and thousands of farmers in the U&#036; have been pushed off of their farms by the big technologicalized Agri-businesses, in near epidemic proportions. They have been just as susceptable to reduction in force, loss of living wages, and over production as the industrialized worker. This is just another segment that has been pushed into the low paying service sector as a means of survival.
Yes, you&#39;re absolutely correct. I was thinking in the wrong terms at that point in time. Thanks for the correction.

[Autarky]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 9 2004, 02:34 PM

Second, the USSR was only a totalitarian state under Stalin. Afterwards it got much better.

Yeah, it got so "much better" that it collapsed. :D

[Osman Ghazi]

Yeah, it got so "much better" that it collapsed.

That was 40 years after Stalin you dumbass

[Autarky]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 10 2004, 01:50 PM

Yeah, it got so "much better" that it collapsed.

That was 40 years after Stalin you dumbass
Irrevelent.

I though things got better after Stalin died. Or was Gorbachev the "New Stalin"? :rolleyes:

[Osman Ghazi]

Gorbachev didn&#39;t come until 1986.
Under Krushchev, all the the policies of Stalin were reversed or at least relaxed. For example, the gulags were emptied and the power of the police was curbed. So yes it did get better after Stalin.
Secondly, Gorbachev tried to make the USSR more open and more Western so i don&#39;t see the comparison between him and Stalin.

Please try to learn a bit about this before you debate someone who knows mroe than you. :lol:

[Autarky]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 11 2004, 02:18 PM
Gorbachev didn&#39;t come until 1986.
Under Krushchev, all the the policies of Stalin were reversed or at least relaxed. For example, the gulags were emptied and the power of the police was curbed. So yes it did get better after Stalin.
Secondly, Gorbachev tried to make the USSR more open and more Western so i don&#39;t see the comparison between him and Stalin.

Please try to learn a bit about this before you debate someone who knows mroe than you. :lol:
*smacks hand on forehead*

[Osman Ghazi]

Umm...Thanks?