/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain't driving 20 minutes to riot."

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join the Matrix: https://www.riot.im/app/#/room/!BnDgjhpLxZoHFVlyFA:matrix.org Visit the Booru: https://lefty.booru.org/

(171.40 KB 400x548 Socialist Revolutionary Party.jpg)
Why do the Bolsheviks repress other left-wing factions? Anonymous 01/13/2021 (Wed) 00:39:36 No. 1237226
One of the major flaws of the Soviet Union was its lack of political pluralism. It was ruled by one party, a party that issued a "temporary" ban on factions that lasted until 1989. One of the main factors that seems to be responsible for the lack of political pluralism in the Soviet Union was the repression off non-Bolshevik leftist factions. With this in mind, I have 4 questions: 1. Why do the Bolsheviks repress other left-wing factions? 2. Was such repression necessary? 3. Was such repression justified? 4. How can socialists in the future avoid going down the same path as the Bolsheviks and create a pluralistic political system? Don't feel compelled to answer all 4 questions. Just answer the ones you feel like answering.
>>1237597 Ah I see
(1.24 MB 1280x720 meme festo.png)
>>1237226 it made sense during the early days of the revolution everything else was a result of a dogmatic view of the concept of the vanguard party basically the bolsheviks convinced themselves they where the one and only vanguard of the revolution under any and all circumstances both inside and outside of the soviet union so obviously any dissenting tendency had to be somewaht counter revolutionay in comparission so yeah hopefully next time all parties will be banned and only workers soviets remain because parties fucking suck ass
>>1237523 having a general party line doesn't mean other tendencies can't exist
>>1237602 That's not what happened at all.
>>1237605 it did tho which is why many revolutions where made against the international party line of the soviet union
>>1237510 for good cause, I bet
>>1237512 Finally, a post that mentions factions other than Mensheviks and SRs
>>1290988 >it did tho It didn't. The Bolsheviks invited other parties into the government and they refused, deciding instead to side with the Tsarists.
>create a pluralistic political system What for?
>>1237523 Party line was decided on democratically. Not having a party line would turn the party into a glorified think tank that could only suggest things but not enforce anything, making it useless, exactly what was done in perestroika.
>>1237602 >basically the bolsheviks convinced themselves they where the one and only vanguard of the revolution under any and all circumstances both inside and outside of the soviet union What the fuck, no
>>1291353 Insular ruling cliques that have no diversity of thought are not able to adapt and behave dynamically, dooming them to irrelevance in the mid and long term
>>1291356 The problem is once the party line is decided on, that's it, you have to jump through a shitload of hoops to open debate about already decided policy again even as its showing signs of failing. Demcent creates ossified and intractable people and policy positions, an undynamic brick wall.
>>1291356 On paper maybe but in practice there were a lot of things that made it difficult. The Soviet execution of democratic centralism didn't allow for criticism of a policy as it was being implemented, and such criticism could easily get one expelled for factionalism. Also the entire party congress system was unwieldy and inefficient. In only allowed rank and file party members to influence policy once every five years, and they was basically no way to hold the CC accountable between congresses. The adoption of a party line at the congress and the refusal to entertain criticism or revision to this line between congresses also made it difficult to adjust to problems as they appeared. Also the government monopoly on news media and widespread censorship made it difficult for the public to get a good understanding of the successes of failures of various policies, and also prevented dissenting views from spreading. Imo the party congress should have met weekly and acted as a proper legislature. Also democratic centralism should have just included unity of action, but allowed for free criticism of the party line as it was being implemented.
nazi redfash tankie owned!!!1!!111!!!!!!sssssfddfdf
They didn’t. The factions they repressed were traitors and wreckers, simple as
>>1292014 >They didn’t. The factions they repressed were traitors and wreckers, simple as That wasn't the case with all of them. The Makhnovists, for example, were loyal to them until the the Bolsheviks backstabbed them. Plus, defeating and banning rival faction still counts as repression even if those factions were the aggressors.
>>1292007 t. Didn't read the OP
>>1292033 The Makhnovists were also utopians, often committing glorified banditry. The Soviets didn’t just break with them randomly.
>>1292047 >often committing glorified banditry Any reliable sources on this? When I see tome tankie make this claim they never have any evidence to back it up and get btfo by an anarkiddies with actual sources.
>>1292052 >Any reliable sources on this? Lol no
>>1292052 https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/64wkgf/polemic_the_anarchokulak_bandits_of_russia_and/ Here is one sourced write up. There seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest banditry in one form or another was at least fairly common. I don’t mean to imply that every Makhnovist was a bandit or whatever, just that the context isn’t as simple as cartoony Bolshevik power lust or a random stab in the back.
>>1292081 >Reddit
>>1292083 And? It quotes sources and lists them. Refuse to deal with the material if you want, but then you can’t complain about lack of sources.
>>1292089 >When your source is reddit
>>1292089 That isn’t a reliable source so the argument still stands
>>1292095 The source isn’t reddit ya fucking retard. The sources are listed at the bottom. >>1292097 According to whom?
Because they could, that's why. Politics 101.
>>1292124 >The source isn’t reddit ya fucking retard. The sources are listed at the bottom. Half of the sources are just Trotsky’s military writings >According to whom? According to me, and I’m the one who made the post
>>1292142 If you read it, you would know the sources for his writings are to source specifically his quotes. There are plenty of other sources right there. >According to me In other words you are willing to ignore sources without even examining them because they don’t match your infantile views.
>>1292184 No I just think it’s stupid. You don’t have to listen to me
>>1237226 I haven't seen any evidence that pluralism is good. Maybe I'm just too American.
>>1292217 >Maybe I'm just too American. You do realize that lack of pluralism is one of the biggest problems with the American political system, right? The countries with more than two parties are the ones that get free healthcare and free college and shit.
>>1292235 UK is effectively a two party system (lib dems are completely useless and UKIP is a meme) and it has the NHS. The root of America's problems runs much deeper than "they don't have a handful of Green Party congressmen instead of Democrats." You could also just as easily say that America would get things done much faster with just one party.
>>1292242 >UK is effectively a two party system (lib dems are completely useless and UKIP is a meme) and it has the NHS. The devil lies in the details here. It is not necessarily just the 2-party system in and of itself, but a) its rigidity and b) the parties it contains. The United States has had the same 2-party party system (Republicans and Democrats) since about the Civil War. The United Kingdom's 2-party system (Conservatives and Labour) only goes back to 1922. Secondly, we have to look at the nature of the parties. Neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party have remotely socialist or labor roots, while the Labour Party was explicitly (as its name suggests) founded around labor interests and has promoted socialism (in one form or another) throughout much of its history. Unlike pretty much every European country, the American working class has never had a major party of its own, so pursuing policies that benefit the working class, like an expanded welfare state, is much harder. The main reason I suspect that the 2-party system is more rigid in the US than in the UK is that the US has a presidential system (i.e. leader elected directly* by voters) while the UK has a parliamentary system (leader elected by legislature). The first-past-the-post electoral system (which both the US and the UK have) is well known for creating 2-party systems due to the spoiler effect. However, which parties will perform best will vary greatly from one place to another. If you have a district that is heavily dominated by one party, a new party can run there without having to worry to much about the spoiler effect, as it will be unlikely to cause a spoiler effect. You might end up with no party having a majority at the national level, but this isn't that big of a deal in a parliamentary system since you can form coalitions. However, in a presidential system, you don't just have elections in individual local governments, states, and congressional districts, but also at the national level. The spoiler effect is almost always unavoidable for a third party in presidential elections, so presidential elections tend to fuck them over. They are either forced to merge with one of the major parties (like the Populist Party in 1896) or fade away into oblivion (like the Socialist Party) as a result. I hope this makes sense. >The root of America's problems runs much deeper than "they don't have a handful of Green Party congressmen instead of Democrats." What would you say are "the root of America's problems"? >You could also just as easily say that America would get things done much faster with just one party. Well that's probably true. The question then is, would those things actually be good for the American people? I mean, Nazi Germany was a one-party state, but I doubt you would exactly use them as a role model for how a society should be run. *Technically the president is elected by the Electoral College rather than voters, but electors typically just vote according to how the plurality of voters in their state voted
>>1237226 Many of the other "left" groups were liberals who were fully in favor of bourgeois democracy. The Kerensky government wanted to keep Russia in the imperialist war, and didn't deliver what the people wanted. That is why a second revolution was needed. The Bolsheviks were aided in the october revolution by anarchists and left SRs, but they later tried to overthrow the Bolsheviks because "muh authoritarianism". Yes, the repression was necessary. Those who sabotage the dictatorship of the proletariat must be liquidated. Why would you want a pluralistic political system? Why would a society aiming for communism need more parties than the communist party? Multi-party systems are liberal nonsense.
>>1292365 >Why would you want a pluralistic political system? Because the working class is not a monolith and is going to have a variety of ideas for how things should be run. It is best to make sure that everyone has their voice heard. >Why would a society aiming for communism need more parties than the communist party? First of all, who gets to decide what a society as a whole is "aiming for"? Should it be the masses? Political party leadership? Or someone else? Secondly, communism may not even be what the masses want. If the masses want market socialism, let's give them market socialism. If the people want democratic confederalism, let's give them democratic confederalism. Thirdly, what exactly constitutes "communism" may be the subject of disagreement amongst those who support it. We may want multiple communist parties to represent multiple forms of communism, such as Trotskyism, eurocommunism, libertarian communism, and council communism.
>>1237226 >ban on factions that lasted until 1989. I wonder what the fuck happened in two years after that you fucking lib. They should have made that shit permanent and shot Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and your mother. Humanity fucking doomed itself by destroying the Soviet Union.
>>1292390 >I wonder what the fuck happened in two years after that you fucking lib. They should have made that shit permanent and shot Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and your mother. Humanity fucking doomed itself by destroying the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was already in terminal decline. It was almost certainly going to fall with or without that ban being removed.
>>1292033 To say the Makhnovites were loyal to them is an exaggeration, they rejected marxism and banned bolsheviks from soviets, and during the alliance they still had several violent clashes. Their arrangement with the reds was purely military, as Makhno knew he couldn't fight alone against the Whites. >>1292052 Check out pdf related
>>1292386 >Secondly, communism may not even be what the masses want. If the masses want market socialism, let's give them market socialism. No, fuck off
>>1292423 Could you elaborate on that? How can you be sure the masses will want communism specifically?
>>1292431 Because of dialetical materialism
>>1292433 Ah, the masses will prefer communism because they are destined to, got it.
>>1292443 We're just daring to presume that the masses are smart comrade
>>1237226 I hope it's because they did not unite with them during tough times. Very hard to defeat Nazis while you got comrades detractors and unrest at home. Sometimes pragmatism is more important than principles in war
>>1292431 communism isn't a matter of subjective desires, willed in and maintained because the people "want" it. this is basic marxism for pete's sake.
>>1237226 Because most other leftists factions were retarded anarkiddies who wanted gibs for u1ghurs and tr4annies
>>1292443 >>1292445 >>1292515 That still doesn't address the issue of a diversity of ideas on how to go about building socialism.

Delete
Report

no cookies?