Being a Communist

[Imran Siddiqui]

I always love when Commies call Karensky's government a government of the Czar.

They always seem to forget that there were two revolutions in 1917. They just never gave the first one a chance to work.

Oh, that and the fact they take credit for all the Socialist successes. Silly commies!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Hasn't Hellboy killed you a couple of times already?

Don't you know I'm unkillable?

nye, since you were unaware of the elections in Russia, you really don't know very much about went on there. The point of November was that there were two governments in Russia. One was elected, one was appointed. The elected one abolished the appointed one. That's what November was.

Now, there are those who will argue that the Provisional government was legitimate because it was appointed by the Duma. This ignores the fact that the Duma itself was a non-representive legislative body, in which the lower classes of Russia (who were 95% f the population of Russia) were allowed a tiny minority of the representation, while capitalists and aristocrats were handed the majority. The point, however, remains, no one elected Kerensky or any of the other ministers that were abolished in the November Revolution.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They always seem to forget that there were two revolutions in 1917. They just never gave the first one a chance to work.

Bolsheviks led both, they just weren't trying to lead one in February.

Oh, that and the fact they take credit for all the Socialist successes. Silly commies!

Just like the civil rights movement wouldn't have succeeded without Malcom X and the Black Panthers scaring white folks into dealing with MLK, you had over 100 years to enact the demands we made in the 1840s, and you never got around to doing it until we showed you the proof we could do without you. WIthout us scaring the capitalists, the Socialists would have continued to be as impotent as they were before the revolution.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Don't you know I'm unkillable?

I know enough to realize that isn't true. You just have an annoying habit of coming back from the dead.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Don't you know I'm unkillable?

nye, since you were unaware of the elections in Russia, you really don't know very much about went on there. The point of November was that there were two governments in Russia. One was elected, one was appointed. The elected one abolished the appointed one. That's what November was.

Now, there are those who will argue that the Provisional government was legitimate because it was appointed by the Duma. This ignores the fact that the Duma itself was a non-representive legislative body, in which the lower classes of Russia (who were 95% f the population of Russia) were allowed a tiny minority of the representation, while capitalists and aristocrats were handed the majority. The point, however, remains, no one elected Kerensky or any of the other ministers that were abolished in the November Revolution.

Can you point to a source for this 'election', other than Bolshevik party nominations?

I'm sortta waiting for you to lay it out for us, since you are the expert.

[chequita guevara]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_revolution

They alude to it, but don't go into very much detail. I'll see what else I can find.

[notyoueither]

I did find this.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSassembly.htm

After Nicholas II abdicated on 1st March, 1917, the new Provisional Government announced it would introduce a Constituent Assembly. Elections were due to take place on 17th September but problems caused by the need to prepare electoral lists resulted in them being postponed until November.

A total of 703 candidates were elected to the Constituent Assembly in November, 1917. This included Socialist Revolutionaries (299), Bolsheviks (168), Mensheviks (18) and Constitutional Democratic Party (17).

The Bolsheviks were bitterly disappointed with the result as they hoped it would legitimize the October Revolution. When it opened on 5th January, 1918, Victor Chernov, leader of the Socialist Revolutionaries, was elected President. When the Assembly refused to support the programme of the new Soviet Government, the Bolsheviks walked out in protest.

Later that day, Vladimir Lenin announced that the Constituent Assembly had been dissolved. Soon afterwards all opposition political groups, including the Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and the Constitutional Democratic Party, were banned in Russia.

Sounds like a coup to me.

[notyoueither]

Oh, and very free. Banning all the other parties is a hallmark of freedom, afterall.

[chequita guevara]

The elections for the Constituant Assembly were soemthing different. The CA itself was problematic in that a split had taken place in the Socialst Revolutionary Party just before the elections, and while the majority of the party when with the left, the right control the lists and thus were able to dominate the CA.

Nor was it shut down by Lenin. The Bolsheviks walked out of the CA, and then the guards that had been asigned to guard it decided they were tired (at about 4am) and wanted to go home and go to sleep. It never really recovered.

As for banning parties, the only parties that got banned were those that took up arms against the revolution. I hope you wouldn't suggest that they should have been obliged to seat the representatives of those in the field marching against them. The other parties ended up joining the Communists.

Unfortunately, with the death of Lenin, despite Lenin's warnings, Stalin was able to grab all the power for himself, and what had been a temprorary measure became permanent.

[notyoueither]

Ahhh. I found a reference to an election of Soviets in September.

However, it also says that Lenin still pressed to seize power, as if he had little patience.

Nowhere do I find references to parties other than the Communists after 1920. Can you point them out to me?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
However, it also says that Lenin still pressed to seize power, as if he had little patience.

No country can long stand two governments. One or the other must win out. If the Soviets did nothing, eventually the Provisional government would have abolished the Soviets, in fact they tried to do so, but it backfired and Kornilov tried to take power for himself.

Anyway, their slogan was "All Power to the Soviets." I realize we live in a cynical day and age, where we don't expect leaders to follow through on their promises, but the Bolsheviks did make an attempt.

Nowhere do I find references to parties other than the Communists after 1920. Can you point them out to me?

As I pointed out, the ones that fought them were abolished. The rest joined the Communist Party. If you mean, why weren't there any new parties A) the Civil War lasted until 1921, B) political life in Russia had collapsed in Russia during the civil war, C) by the time people were interested in politics again, the bureaucrats, through Stalin, had seized control and instituted a dictatorship.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You know it is easy to focus on one Presidential election and say, OH MY GOD, IT'S ALL RICH YALE PEOPLE! What about Clinton? Dole? Reagan? Carter? Humphrey? Nixon? Ford? None of them grew up rich! Simply because the last two US elections have had two rich Ivy League candidates doesn't mean that is what the leadership of both parties are....

Okay, so out of the past six presidents, only four of them went to Yale. That' representative of the American public.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Nowhere do I find references to parties other than the Communists after 1920. Can you point them out to me?

As I pointed out, the ones that fought them were abolished. The rest joined the Communist Party.

As I pointed out, they enjoyed the peace of the grave.

From someone who goes ape-**** over GWB, I find it really funny how you can argue that the Communists hijacking Russia for 70 years can be justified.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
As I pointed out, they enjoyed the peace of the grave.

That's your side's fault, not ours. Ours followed through on our promise to end the war. Your side started a new one. We wanted peace. You gave us war. So we devoted our society to preparing for the next invasion, and there were crimes committed, but it made us ready to fight the next invasion, and you should be glad we did, or you'd have German overlords, just like everyone else.

From someone who goes ape-**** over GWB, I find it really funny how you can argue that the Communists hijacking Russia for 70 years can be justified.

They were the legitimate elected government of Russia. If your side hadn't deliberately interfered, things may have turned out very different. Well never know, conveniently for you. It's as if you peed into someone's food, and then blamed them for being a bad cook.

Try to understand something, every single time we have come to power, whether by election or revolution, we have been attacked, invaded, suffered terrorism, espionage, boycotts, etc. . . . every single time. Not once, in our entire history, have we been left alone to try and build a better society without having to worry if tomrrow is the day the Yankees show up, or if some *******'s gonna burn our crops or home down. Israel only manages because the United States and Germany pour billions of free dollars into its economy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Okay, so out of the past six presidents, only four of them went to Yale.

Bush I and Bush II. Where, pray tell, are these other 2 Yale men Presidents?

Bush II - Yes
Clinton - No (Georgetown University)
Bush I - Yes
Reagan - No (Eureka College, CA)
Carter - No (Naval Academy)
Ford - No (University of Michigan)

And besides, Yale is one of the preeminent universities in America. I'd rather have my Presidents going to good universities and getting the best education.

the Socialists would have continued to be as impotent as they were before the revolution.

You mean the 1846 revolutions? The BOURGEOIS revolutions? The ones in which the liberals and socialists undertook?