Wow, I really have to take my hat off to "aw go on" it's rare that you come across such a deeply dishonest and simultaneously repugnantly bloodthirsty argument. I think we are in the exalted presence of one of the old-time trot ideologues here folks. Savour the moment, they're an endangered species and it's rare to spot one in this particular habitat. The few remaining samples of the species are normally only to be found in smoky back rooms at pubs where they can spin their bilious lies undisturbed by the harsh glare of reality. Methinks CR has roused one of these fabled beasts from his slumber and dragged him out into the world for a bit of back up. Be careful folks, these beasts spit venom.
CR, I take it that your interpretation of a 'good post' is one that agrees with your feeble opinions irrespective of content? Or is just anything that comes out of the twisted minds of your nah lah-lah-lah-lah-lah-leaders!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - brilliant. Ignore everything that the bolsheviks did; ignore everything that Lenin on Trotsky said; ignore the entire contents of the thread, ignore the entire contents of the FoD proposals; just breezily refer to "any account of the revolution" as if only an ignoramus could possibly differ. Hats off.
Now, considering the fact that on this thread I spelt out explicitly and in great detail exactly how the FoD proposals differed from the bolsheviks, only a few posts back, this unsupported assertion almost takes the breath away. So, to apply your logic to the 6 points that I presented, you are apparently claiming that the bolsheviks:
1. Advocated that the soviets take action without any positions of power being in the hands of the bolsheviks - difficult to square with their seizure of state power and their use of it to crush soviet democracy.
2 & 3. Called for a voluntary alliance of all the workers organisations in Russia including the SR's, mensheviks and Anarchists, with no party having a majority. How do you square this with the fact that the bolshies seized power with a permanent party majority, ignored all elections that returned the wrong results, then banned the opposition, then imprisoned them and eventually murdered them all?
4. Called for a severe limitation of the powers of the body that co-ordinated the war efforts - hmm, I seem to remember something about war communism and a dictatorship with total control over all aspects of russia, or maybe I'm imagining it.
5. Dismantled the hierarchy in the military - again difficult to square with the re-introduction of officers appointed from above, petty privileges and the quashing of elected officers.
6. They called for the banning of opposition parties that were physically attacking the workers - hard to square with the bolsheviks banning of all internal and external opposition.
By the same logic, I am "remarkably similar" to an orange - we both have skin after all.
You do realise that you are saying that it was okay to murder people who had a little too much grain with them when they came to town - but anything beyond that is "unfortunate". I think you are being a bit weak willed here comrade, the revolution needs iron discipline after all.
As has been pointed out on this thread by joe, Lenin and Trotsky made it quite clear that it was always their intention to introduce one man management and they civil war actually slowed down its introduction.
Nobody has said that they thought that the leninists in Spain should have been banned. I explained to you why the FoD's calling for their disbandment was qualititively different from the Bolshevik's banning of all opposition. If the mensheviks had been used primarily as a front for waging terror against the working class, I could see the case for banning them, but I still wouldn't agree with it as it happens. I can understand where the FoD were coming from and I wouldn't condemn them for this as the real problem was that their proposals were too little too late - by 1937 the structural problems in the CNT had already rendered the situation a bit hopeless.
You're quite the expert on this anarchism lark aren't you?
Did I read that right? You just said "to you the peasants are a homogenous community that you don't classify as [insert homogenous characterisation] petty bourgeois". Brilliant forensic logic.
CR, I take it that your interpretation of a 'good post' is one that agrees with your feeble opinions irrespective of content? Or is just anything that comes out of the twisted minds of your nah lah-lah-lah-lah-lah-leaders!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - brilliant. Ignore everything that the bolsheviks did; ignore everything that Lenin on Trotsky said; ignore the entire contents of the thread, ignore the entire contents of the FoD proposals; just breezily refer to "any account of the revolution" as if only an ignoramus could possibly differ. Hats off.
Now, considering the fact that on this thread I spelt out explicitly and in great detail exactly how the FoD proposals differed from the bolsheviks, only a few posts back, this unsupported assertion almost takes the breath away. So, to apply your logic to the 6 points that I presented, you are apparently claiming that the bolsheviks:
1. Advocated that the soviets take action without any positions of power being in the hands of the bolsheviks - difficult to square with their seizure of state power and their use of it to crush soviet democracy.
2 & 3. Called for a voluntary alliance of all the workers organisations in Russia including the SR's, mensheviks and Anarchists, with no party having a majority. How do you square this with the fact that the bolshies seized power with a permanent party majority, ignored all elections that returned the wrong results, then banned the opposition, then imprisoned them and eventually murdered them all?
4. Called for a severe limitation of the powers of the body that co-ordinated the war efforts - hmm, I seem to remember something about war communism and a dictatorship with total control over all aspects of russia, or maybe I'm imagining it.
5. Dismantled the hierarchy in the military - again difficult to square with the re-introduction of officers appointed from above, petty privileges and the quashing of elected officers.
6. They called for the banning of opposition parties that were physically attacking the workers - hard to square with the bolsheviks banning of all internal and external opposition.
By the same logic, I am "remarkably similar" to an orange - we both have skin after all.
You do realise that you are saying that it was okay to murder people who had a little too much grain with them when they came to town - but anything beyond that is "unfortunate". I think you are being a bit weak willed here comrade, the revolution needs iron discipline after all.
As has been pointed out on this thread by joe, Lenin and Trotsky made it quite clear that it was always their intention to introduce one man management and they civil war actually slowed down its introduction.
Nobody has said that they thought that the leninists in Spain should have been banned. I explained to you why the FoD's calling for their disbandment was qualititively different from the Bolshevik's banning of all opposition. If the mensheviks had been used primarily as a front for waging terror against the working class, I could see the case for banning them, but I still wouldn't agree with it as it happens. I can understand where the FoD were coming from and I wouldn't condemn them for this as the real problem was that their proposals were too little too late - by 1937 the structural problems in the CNT had already rendered the situation a bit hopeless.
You're quite the expert on this anarchism lark aren't you?
Did I read that right? You just said "to you the peasants are a homogenous community that you don't classify as [insert homogenous characterisation] petty bourgeois". Brilliant forensic logic.
