The Commies win in Moldava, what a great place to be a winner

[Kalinin]

Originally posted by akhmetbek
I wasn't complitly wrong.I got to admit,I don't know much about the last two,but I was right on target with the others.
BTW,why don't you(and other red-asses) call your idols by theyr REAL names?Why do you have to use the "pogonyalo"?

with the others.

Only Trotsky...theoretically speaking.

Well I don't know how many other people on this site know that Stalin's real name is Dhugashvili or Trotsky is Bronstein, we use the nicknames because they are most familiar (and short).

[akhmetbek]

Sort of like "Jack the Ripper",or "Slava Yaponchik",right?
BTW,Kalinin,did your mama ever teach you good manners? I said "HEY",you should've greet me back!

[Kalinin]

Originally posted by akhmetbek
Sort of like "Jack the Ripper",or "Slava Yaponchik",right?
BTW,Kalinin,did your mama ever teach you good manners? I said "HEY",you should've greet me back!

I didn't notice the hey, sorry- I seem to skip the bold title all the time....

Sort of like "Jack the Ripper"

Irony is they say Jack the Ripper was a Jew!

[akhmetbek]

Just like Lyon'ka Bronstaine...

[The_bolshevik]

by Kalinin:
Marx and Engels were by all means dreamers...theorists. Communism is possible, and so is true democracy- but both are unlikely to become because the current ruling classes wouldn't like losing power.

This is what Marx and Engels said the first, I hope you are aware of that fact. The only[!] point of this conclusion though is that the rulling class won´t go down with a mere talking and snitching, but by force and aggression of masses. And practice without theory is nothing.

by akhmetbek:
Marx,Engels - pipe dreamers...
Ulianov,Bronshtain - mass murderers...
Luxemburg,Libkneht- terrorists...

Nice examples,thanks for prooving my point!

You accuse Lenin and Bronshtain of being mass murderes. First of all I must accuse your prejudice agaisnt violence. You seem to think that violence is necessarily bad, principally bad, no matter what is the cause for it.

Now from a materialist point of view violence can be very progressive sometimes and this has been proved a lot of times in history. Let me give you just one very concrete example. The Jacobins, on the violence of which the whole capitalist world is based. They were really the most radical revolutionaries in modern human history. Jacobins purged the whole old tsarist apparatus which restricted the progress to the higher mode of production, capitalist production.

Again, it is clear that without such determined action, the revolution could never have triumphed against the powerful enemies ranged against it inside and outside the borders of France. All kinds of legalistic and moralistic arguments have been levelled against the Jacobins. But these miss the point. The essence of a revolution is that it is a decisive break with the old order. The ferocious resistance of the old possessing classes sometimes compels it to take drastic measures for its own self-preservation. But nobody has yet explained how Cromwell or Robespierre could have acted in any other way and succeeded in carrying out the Revolution.[!] After dispersing the Long Parliament, Cromwell commented that: "There was not so much as the barking of a dog or any general and visible repining at it." (Sir Charles Firth, Oliver Cromwell, p. 319.) The same could be said of the reaction of the masses to the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. At any rate up to the imperialist intervention, the Bolshevik Revolution was infinitely more peaceable than either of its great precursors.

No sooner had the workers and peasants taken power, than they were faced with armed imperialist intervention to overthrow the Soviet power. Early in 1918, British and French naval forces occupied Murmansk and Archangel in northern Russia. Within days their forces were marching on Petrograd. In April, the Japanese landed at Vladivostok, and an "Omsk All-Russian government" was established. Within two months this government was overthrown by a coup which established Admiral Kolchak as dictator. Meanwhile, German imperialism occupied Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and the Ukraine in collusion with White Guard Generals Krasnov and Wrangel. The pretext used was to assist the "population struggling against Bolshevik tyranny". In a pincer movement, the Bolsheviks were in danger of losing Petrograd in the autumn of 1919. "We were between hammer and anvil," wrote Trotsky. (Trotsky, My Life, p. 411.)

A lot of noise is made about the so-called Red Terror and the violent means used by the Revolution to defend itself. But what is conveniently forgotten is that the actual October Revolution was virtually peaceful. The real bloodbath occurred in the civil war when the Soviet republic was invaded by 21 foreign armies. The Bolsheviks inherited a ruined country and a shattered army. They were immediately faced with an armed rebellion by Kerensky and the White officers, and later by the armies of foreign intervention. At one stage, the Soviet power was reduced to just two provinces, the equivalent of the ancient Principality of Muscovy. Yet the Bolsheviks managed to beat back the counter-revolution. Even if we assume (incorrectly) that Lenin and Trotsky somehow managed to seize power at the head of a small group of conspirators without mass support, the idea that they could go on to defeat the combined might of the White Guards and foreign armies on such a basis, is frankly absurd.

War necessarily involves violence, and civil war more than any other. The weak and embattled workers' state was compelled to defend itself arms in hand, or else surrender to the tender mercies of the White armies, which, in common with all counter-revolutionary armies in world history, used the most bestial and bloodthirsty methods to terrorise the workers and peasants. Had they triumphed, it would have meant an ocean of blood. There is nothing more comical than the assertion that, if only the Bolsheviks had not taken power, Russia would have embarked on the road of a prosperous capitalist democracy. How does this idea square with the facts? As early as the summer of 1917, the rising of General Kornilov showed that the unstable regime of dual power established in February was breaking down. The only question was who would succeed in establishing a dictatorship - Kerensky or Kornilov.

To all the hypocritical attacks against the Bolsheviks for the so called Red Terror there is a very simple answer. Even the most democratic capitalist government on earth will never tolerate the existence of armed groups which attempt to overthrow the existing order by violent means. Such groups are immediately outlawed, and the leaders put in jail, or executed. This is regarded as perfectly lawful and acceptable. Yet the same standards are not applied to the embattled Bolshevik government, fighting for survival and attacked by enemies on all sides. The hypocrisy is even more nauseating if we bear in mind the fact that precisely these "democratic" Western governments organised the most military offensives against the Bolsheviks at this time.

And your accusation of Luxemburg and Liebknecht is baseless. Just because they wanted to overthrow capitalist class with violent means (which is the only way, as Kalinin correctly said) you call them terrorists. If they were, then Jacobins too were terorrists, upon which deeds our nowadays world is based.

Kalini said: Lenin and Trotsky, however, I could understand. Lenin made a huge mistake with his attempts at collectivization- man was a genius, but didn't think it through completely...but there's much more to it...Trotsky on the other hand, was not a mass murderer, but a potential mass murderer, if his ideas of eternal revolution were to have been followed by Lenin (who was against it, I believe), then there would have been true mass murder on the global scale.

Which was that Lenin´s mistake about collectivization, could you be more specific? Anyway, even the best plan will fail if objective conditions are absent.

And Lenin was never against the world revolution. The whole bolshevik programme was based on it!!! It was later when bureaucratic reaction reached its highest point, when the remnants of the old bolsheviks organized in Left opposition were destroyed and murdered, only then the reactionary programme of "socialism in one country" was won by Stalinist bureaucracy. And actually if socialist revolution succeeded in Europe, to where bolsheviks always had their eyes pelled, there would be no WW II, the real mass murder on the global scale.

comradely,