The republic was not popular, but allowed a mechanism to remove it democratically. The Bolsheviks had the support of the industrial working class, but the vast majority of the agrarian workers still were deeply connected to Narodnik ideals. It is little wonder that the White reaction was composed of such weakened forces. They had already been weakened after being driven out during the revolution, had lost much of their leadership, and had to deal with other forces such as the Greens and Blacks that were opposed to the Bolsheviks but also opposed to the Whites. The Bolsheviks were easily the most well-organized party at the time and were able to establish connections to combatant forces they needed to instate their rule. Their popularity with the industrial working class allowed them control over the dimunitive industrial arm Russia had at the time, easily allowing them to have the most readily accessible supplies of the forces. No, the Bolsheviks did not succede in their coup and the brutal suppression of opposition because of popularity, but because they were the most prepared to act in such a situation.United Marxist Nations wrote:Threlizdun wrote:Perhaps. We'll never know now. We could have at least maintained the republic led primarily by the democratic socialist and narodnik parties the people actually wanted in power rather than the Bolshevik coup.
What state? That would cease to exist following the revolution.
They wouldn't have it removed; they would just have an equal role in it as everyone else. You have called for the disenfranchisement of the former capitalists before, and I believe you have also called for their extermination.
1) The people didn't want them to remain in power; they were very opposed to them because those parties continued the Great War. Why do you think the Red Army had more than the White?
What capital? Capital has been eradicated in the revolution. It would cease to have any value once society no longer recognizes its value. The capitalist class have control now despite being an extreme minority because they have control over the means of production, the flow of capital, and the state. Following the revolution the means of production would be socially owned, capital wouldn't exist, and the state wouldn't exist. The capitalists don't pose any threat now. You are panicking over the man with the spear after we have invented the gun. The former capitalist would be nothing but a minority with the same power as everyone else. Fearing them at that point is completely irrational.2) If we are not willing to create a state dominated by the proletariat, then the bourgeois will just subvert with capital to create a new one.
Which is why we help explain to them how this is actually beneficial for them as well. We can't befriend those we are oppressing.3) I have never called for their extermination. They would have their private ownership of it removed, which they would resent immensely.
Which is why Germany and Japan are both wish to kill all the former Allied forces right? No wait, both of them are allies with their former conquerors now because they didn't punish them and instead helped them rebuild their society.Constantinopolis wrote:Threlizdun wrote:No, I've said that the bourgeoisie are also oppressed and alienated (something which Marx would definitely agree with if you ever got around to reading his work) and should be treated equally following the revolution.
Uh-huh. Sure. Okay. I see you are very noble and just and honourable.
But you know what happens to people like that, right?
They should recieve counseling about why what they did was wrong, and if their actions actually resulted in injury or death during the revolution then they absolutely should cared for until they can be confrirmed to be in a mental state allowing reintegration into society. Other than that though, I can't see why we'd have any problems with them. Punitive "justice" has no place in such a society.Constantinopolis wrote:Bezombia wrote:
You see, all the ones that tried to kill us would be dealt with during the revolution
Fair enough. So we may just be arguing semantics about what point in time is defined as "after the revolution". If "after the revolution" is defined as "after the former capitalists no longer pose any threat", then of course at that point they are (by definition) no longer a problem, and should be treated equally.
But I understood Threlizdun's suggestion as saying that we should extend a general amnesty and ignore past wrongs as soon as armed conflict has ceased.
This is something we know to be objectively wrong in relation to the vast majority of human beings. Most people absolutely are capable of forgiving those they feel wronged them or even coming to agree with their point of view. Another thing we know is that the best way to do this is to treat them with compassion.Occupied Deutschland wrote:Treat people equally --> They kill you.
Therefore, the bourgoise cannot be treated equally.
It's a good thing unequal treatment doesn't spawn resentment and violence.
See above. I'm not talking about people in general, I'm talking about the former capitalists immediately after they have been overthrown. I'm pretty sure that they will have plenty of resentment against the new socialist government no matter what we do.
Part of my whole point is that if you are a communist and achieve any measure of political success, the capitalists will hate you and try to destroy you. There is NOTHING you can do to make them stop hating you or stop trying to crush you. All you can do is defeat them when they inevitably try to crush you.
