Just What Was Fundamentally Wrong with Bolshevism?

Discussion in 'History' started by American_Jihad, Dec 27, 2012.

  1. American_Jihad
    Offline

    American_Jihad Flaming Libs/Koranimals

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,627
    Thanks Received:
    1,898
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
    Ratings:
    +3,232
    Just What Was Fundamentally Wrong with Bolshevism?

    November 29, 2012
    By Steven Plaut

    ---

    Hunger and starvation have so often accompanied “political revolution” that it would be safe to suggest that they are intrinsic parts of it. Communist revolutions have invariably produced famines and terror. The immediate trigger for “revolutionary terror” in early Soviet Russia was the same as in the French Revolution: the inability of the regime to obtain food for urban residents.

    The Bolsheviks had never had very much interest in the peasants in the first place. As great believers in Marxist theology, they advocated the imposition by the “proletariat” of urban workers of “its” will upon the country, including upon the agricultural laborers who constituted the bulk of the population. Even if the Bolshevik party could seriously be thought to represent the urban “proletariat,” they would still have constituted a movement representing only a very small portion of Russian society. Thus bolshevism’s most basic operating principles were anti-democratic.

    The Bolsheviks represented a movement seeking to impose the interests of this minority “class” over the interests of the bulk of Russian society (and later over non-Russian populations in the Soviet empire).
    ---
    The most violent terrorists and oppressors of others have always been the utopians. The French Revolution turned violent and the guillotine was introduced to attempt to terrorize actual humans into behaving according to the expectations of the utopianists. The leaders of the Soviet Revolution were no slower or more squeamish in following the same route.


    Just What Was Fundamentally Wrong with Bolshevism?
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
  2. mememe
    Offline

    mememe BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,363
    Thanks Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +51
    Just to add to

    "The Bolsheviks represented a movement seeking to impose the interests of this minority “class” over the interests of the bulk of Russian society (and later over non-Russian populations in the Soviet empire)."

    1. non-Russians in the Russian Empire were part of "Russian society", there were no colonies in classic sense of the word in the Russian Empire.

    2. Absolute majority of Bolsheviks were Jews, smaller proportion -- representatives of non-Russian ethnicities, and only few were Russian.

    3. They were seeking to impose the interests of this minority “class” LED BY ELITE (!!!) that knows best. In other words, they were seeking to use proletariat to advance their own interests and ideas.
     
  3. AnthonyMcPherso
    Offline

    AnthonyMcPherso Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    Bolsheviks first and foremost didn't rebel against the Czar as they claim in all of their historical lies. They STOLE the revolution from the civilian government that had forced the Czar out of office.

    They, the Bolsheviks didn't "raise" anyone "UP" in Russia, they just brought everyone DOWN to the lowest level of civilization... except thier own Communist leaders, and THEY replaced the Czar and his nobility as "lords and rulers" over the country people.

    It was a horrid and murderous regime which enslaved and imprisoned thier people. IF it were a good system, they wouldn't have tried to force people to stay IN. Many people died trying to get out of that place. Too many people today are too young to remember the news clips on the TV of people being shot by Soviet guards when they tried to leave, and our schools today are actually PRAISING the Soviets Union as a "good thing". That probably has to do with the leaders of so many of our Unions, including the Teacher's Union having "certain political standings and leanings".
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. mememe
    Offline

    mememe BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,363
    Thanks Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +51
    Darling, you need to tidy up the mess in your head before posting.

    Yes, you are right in saying that Bolsheviks did not oust Tsar; they picked up power after a short experiment in "capitalist development" that fell on its face by autumn 1917.

    In 1903 Russian Social-Democratic Workers Party became divided onto two major factions: left-wing extremist -- "bolsheviki" (because they were in majority) and liberal -- "mensheviki" (they were in minority).

    Those who became known as "bolsheviks" were professional revolutionaries mostly Jews with some addition of Poles, Georgians, Armenians, Latvians and other ethnic minorities. There were few Russians too. They had an idea of starting up a world-wide revolution to free the working class and abolish the institution of a state in favour of all-out unity of workers (it's a simplification of course, but pretty accurate). In the name of that idea Russia had to be sacrificed as they saw it as "a prison of nations".

    It must be pointed out that Lenin/Trotsky revolutionary group that started October revolution was financed mostly by Rothschild and Rockefeller families with Trotsky -- a go between them and revolutionaries in Russia. They were also helped by Germans who got Lenin's promise to get Russia out of the WW1.

    And so, after the October revolution bolsheviks found themselves in a position when the most numerous ethnos -- Russians did not quite support them seeing bolsheviks as a Jewish troublemakers and German spies. The only real military power loyal to bolsheviks were Latvian Riflemen and Volyn Regiment. Not much. In order to change that Trotsky came up with the idea of the Red Terror: Russian Orthodox churches were destroyed, clergy murdered, anyone suspected of disloyalty to "working classes" was in grave danger, Russian officers had to be recruited or murdered, etc. Who knows how it would've ended, but Whites also engaged in a similar terror in places they came to control. But the decisive factor in my opinion was when the Whites associated themselves with foreign military powers that invaded Russia.
    Now, Russians can forgive a lot, but not an invitation for foreigners to occupy them. From then on more and more ordinary, down to earth people were joining bolsheviks because they were offering all the poor classes needed so much: end of war, land, power to workers and equality; they were also fighting the foreign invasion. As more ordinary people were joining in, bolshevik's ideals had to change: people did not understand nor cared about "world revolution" and they were attached to their country. Besides, foreign intervention proved revolution needed strong borders behind which it can survive... New generation of bolsheviks had more concerns for the safety of the country, law and order and prosperity of the working classes -- that drew a decisive popular support for them by 1920-s and enabled them to win the civil war.

    After the civil war the internal differences within the Communist Party of bolsheviks (since 1918) became more and more pronounced leading to internal power struggle won by Stalin (who represented its anti-liberal wing) by the end of 1930-s.

    Why you hear no criticism of Trotsky and Lenin from Western propagandists/"historians"? Because they did a sterling job in dismantling the Russian Empire, did well at reducing ethnically Russian population and unleashed terror on Russian Orthodox Church during the Red Terror thought up by Trotsky -- all on Jewish money from UK and US.
    Why Stalin is vilified as "pure evil" by Western propagandists/"historians"? Because he -- an ethnic Jew -- put an end to Zionistic plans by giving Leninists-Trotskists what they fully deserved; rebuilt Russian Empire, making it strong enough to withstand not only economic blocade, but WW2; stopped persecution of Russian Orthodoxy; united all nations of the Empire around Russia; and turned it into a superpower.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  5. Mushroom
    Offline

    Mushroom VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    588
    Thanks Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
    Ratings:
    +81
    I think that was perfectly described by 4 men who are much wiser then I am.

    "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

    And while the majority of the Russian Revolution was simply a convoluted mess. Anarchists, Bolsheviks, Republicans, White Russians, the list just goes on and on and on of factions against factions.
     
  6. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    The idea that the individual man has no right to own himself for starters.
     
  7. mememe
    Offline

    mememe BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,363
    Thanks Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +51
    1. In what sense a man can "own" himself?

    2. Do you "own" yourself, and if "yes" in what sense?
     
  8. American_Jihad
    Offline

    American_Jihad Flaming Libs/Koranimals

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,627
    Thanks Received:
    1,898
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
    Ratings:
    +3,232
    Russian Social Democratic Labour Party...
     
  9. mememe
    Offline

    mememe BANNED

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,363
    Thanks Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +51
  10. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,541
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,660
    The fundamental problem was that it would take a basic shift in human nature to work. It's the same problem we see with libertarianism today. Beware of "isms". If someone has to check political dogma before making a decision, do they really care about you or their own ego?
     

Share This Page