First of all, aw go on, coming back to the thread two days after the debate has ended, doesn't mean that you're going to get the last word in, no matter how pathethic that word may be.
It's fairly funny to see the assembled junior trots complimenting pretty much any old post that agrees with themselves, no matter how non-sensical the content may be.
It was the working class - all parties took part in this - were forced to find some way of managing a national economy, and the factory committees ignored the small anarcho-syndicalists and added their voice to their demand for nationalisation and economic supervision.
So, I suppose you think that "all parties" except the bolsehviks of course, took part in the decision to ban themselves! They just demanded that the bolsheviks supervised them out of existence? That is a tremendously plausible argument my dear fellow.
As the reality of the economic crisis bit, they were forced to reverse this.
Indeed, they were obviously forced to implement the policies and practice that they had been advocating since their inception. It was clearly a case of them trying desperately to not implement their stated policies of centralisation and control of the state while somebody just forced them to do so. Who was it that forced them to do so? Maybe it was the workers whose strikes they banned - "we demand that you impose your authority so that you can ban our strikes more effectively". Or maybe it was the soldiers - "we demand that you remove our elected officers and replace them with the hated tsarist generals" or maybe it was little green aliens?
junta...which could mean either a commune state or not in spanish
tu hablas buen la castellano? No! It could as much mean a little green alien as a commune state, you idiot.
is that rather than calling for soviets they called for a bloc of parties in certain proportions, ie the workers did not have their own, directly democratic bodies that they could change the composition of quickly like In Russia. Willing to hear differently if thats wrong..
Well, willing or not, you've done a pretty good job at stopping your ears and repeating your lies over and over. The FoD proposal was for directly delegated delegates of the unions, with no party involvement whatsoever. Unlike Russia, this would have been possible as, despite their best efforts, the Leninists still had not managed to shut down the mass workers organisations.
Then you descend into a classical leninist/stalinist denunciation of all the non-bolshevik political forces in russia which amounts to nothing more - on any count - than 'they didn't obey the bolsheviks therefore they were by definition counter-revolutionary and were demanding that they be executed' A scientific proof if ever I saw one.
But wait most anarchists I've read always say that the Bolsheviks are a petty bourgeous sect of middle class people who just want to be bureaucrats, and fool the working class into taking power for us. That's pretty "personal" isn’t it besides ridiculous.
Well the logic of bolshevik politics has been proved, better than almost any other theory in the social sciences, to lead to totalitarian dictatorships and you know this does attract a certain type of personality - arrogant managerial and completely disconnected from the reality of working in a capitalist world. There is nothing personal about this, just a scientific observation from the field of psycho-sociology. And it's one that has a tonne of evidence behind it. If you doubt it do a straw poll of non-party members about virtually any leader of a trot group, you will find that that you receive a remarkable uniformity in the adjectives that come back at you: "arrogant", "superior", "managerial", "dishonest", "bullying" and so on will crop up again and again.
Anyways, everyones' gone a bit silent on the grain question and banning the Mensheviks, those are clearly important questions nobodies got an answer to. no surprise there.
You dishonest little arrogant, managerial, superior toad. You know full well that a large portion of this thread (since it got derailed when you trots couldn't defend bolshevik brutality) has been precisely concerned with anarchists answering that question. Although, since you seem to think that murdering anybody who has a little too much grain with them in town is an acceptable answer, I don't really think that there's any point in continuing this 'debate', no more so than there would be with somebody who defends the holocaust - you are equally odious if a little more slimy.
