PACE: Commies suck

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
1. Irrelevant "who began it". Terror is terror, you don;t get an excuse. Also, I don;t buy the "estimates" bit either. You see, the White terror ended in 1922. The Red Terror didn't.

It's hardly irrelevent. When you and your ideological supporters are being slaughtered en masse, failing to respond in kind means extinction. The Whites killed millions upon millions of Soviets for the crime of not being on their side. The Red terror, at least, killed you for being aiding the White's side. As for the White terror ending in 1922, not quite. While their armies no longer rampaged across Russia, White terrorists continued to attack the Soviets up until the 1950s, and possibly beyond. The French kept Wrangel's army supplied and ready in Romania to strike across the border in case things in the USSR looked like they were going to fall apart. The situation was hardly so black and white as you'd like to have people believe.

The "Whites" were a catch all, anything from Cossack bandists, to MOnarchists, to Authoritarians, to the Kadets, so just saying "White" mean nothing.

What the Whites all had in common was that they were an armed band of thugs, rampaging across Russia slaughtering millions of people. Only the fact that they lost keeps us from using Byelo instead of Fascist. That's like saying people had lots of reasons to support the Nazis, so we shouldn't struggle against all of them.

And I don;t for a second buy the notion that Lenin ever saw a multiparty, system, not in the ruthless way he got rid of any leftists who were not bolsheviks.

Yeah, he sure got rid of Trotsky and Plekhanov and Martov and all the other Leftists who weren't Bolsheviks. He didn't get rid of other leftists, ruthlessly or otherwise. If the SRs found themselves on the wrong side of the Red Guards guns, they have only themselves to blame, after attempting to assassinate Lenin, successfully assassinate others Bolsheviks, and launch an attempted coup. If the right-leaning Mensheviks ended up in exile, they have only themselves to blame after they joined the White armies. They got rid of themselves by taking themselves out of the equation. Leftists who didn't carry out armed revolts against the revolutionary government didn't find themselves oppressed.

The Bolshevisk ruthlessly murdered any socialists, or simple liberals.

Bull****. Most anarchists and socialists who didn't follow Lenin and didn't take up arms against the Soviets ended up part of the Communist Party. The key distinction between those who got shot at and those who did was those who got shot at shot at the Soviets first. We shall never be ashamed of defending ourselves.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

It's hardly irrelevent. When you and your ideological supporters are being slaughtered en masse, failing to respond in kind means extinction. The Whites killed millions upon millions of Soviets for the crime of not being on their side. The Red terror, at least, killed you for being aiding the White's side. As for the White terror ending in 1922, not quite. While their armies no longer rampaged across Russia, White terrorists continued to attack the Soviets up until the 1950s, and possibly beyond. The French kept Wrangel's army supplied and ready in Romania to strike across the border in case things in the USSR looked like they were going to fall apart. The situation was hardly so black and white as you'd like to have people believe.

1. 500 is not "en masse". You also have the begining wrong-the Red Terror began after the assasination of Uritsky and the attempt on Lenin by Kaplan in Sept. 1918. It was the fear of an organized counter-revolution within Bolshevik controlled lands that stirred the terror.
2. That the amalgam of forces callled "The Whites" included sadistic killer does not excuse the work of Dzerzhinsky.
3. "Terrorism" is not "Terror". Different methods, different scale. Also, don;t speak to me as if I were an idiot, cause only an idiot would accept small acts of terrorism as an excuse for concentration camps.

What the Whites all had in common was that they were an armed band of thugs, rampaging across Russia slaughtering millions of people. Only the fact that they lost keeps us from using Byelo instead of Fascist. That's like saying people had lots of reasons to support the Nazis, so we shouldn't struggle against all of them.

Is this an attempt at actual conversation? I am not Fez. I avidly read long and fine histories of the Russian revolution. I know the different between Kolchak and Denikin, so don;t insult my intelligence wtih useless hyperbole, because it sure as hell does not lead to useful discussion.

Yeah, he sure got rid of Trotsky and Plekhanov and Martov and all the other Leftists who weren't Bolsheviks. He didn't get rid of other leftists, ruthlessly or otherwise. If the SRs found themselves on the wrong side of the Red Guards guns, they have only themselves to blame, after attempting to assassinate Lenin, successfully assassinate others Bolsheviks, and launch an attempted coup. If the right-leaning Mensheviks ended up in exile, they have only themselves to blame after they joined the White armies. They got rid of themselves by taking themselves out of the equation. Leftists who didn't carry out armed revolts against the revolutionary government didn't find themselves oppressed.

Trotsky and Martov left the Mensheviks and allied themselves to his program.

The biggest problem with your entire assumption is that the Bolshevkis somehow were the legitimate revolutionary government. Thye Left SR probably had far greater general support in 1918.

The Russian revolution left the state in chaos. The Bolsheviks, being the most organized, gained control of the key power centers, but they had no inherent legitimacy-the gained legitimacy by gaining power and control over greater and greater areas. As they did so, they squashed those opposed to their single party plans. That is an inherently anti-democratic movement. I don't expect more of them than of any other revolutionary group, but neither do I excuse their actions, or their ideology. Lenin had no toughts of sharing power, there was no discussion about coming to a comprimise on their program with the other forces rolling the vastness of Russia. The Bolsheviks were only one of a myriad of groups that wanted revolution in Russia and change. Their success in the end does not whitewash what they had to do in order to finally gain absolute power in Russia, nor does it hide the BOlshevik agenda, the Leninist agenda, which was inherently anti-democratic.

Bull****. Most anarchists and socialists who didn't follow Lenin and didn't take up arms against the Soviets ended up part of the Communist Party. The key distinction between those who got shot at and those who did was those who got shot at shot at the Soviets first. We shall never be ashamed of defending ourselves.

Look above.

[chequita guevara]

You read who, Pipes?

Anway, the White Teror began in Nov. 1917. Sept, 1918 is after that, thus, as I pointed out, the White terror predates the Red terror, by almost a whole year.

While it's true that 500 Bolsheviks in Moscow isn't en masse, you are deliberately ignoring the activities of the Whites and the Allied intervention over the succeeding years. The White terror in Finland in 1918 alone exceeded the estimates of the total numbers of the Red Terror during the three years of the Civil War.

This was not a concentional war. It was a war of survival. The Whites had no intention of establishing anything like a democracy. Everywhere they touched, they rounded up socialists and executed them. Everywhere they held power, they ruled as dictators. At least in Soviet held areas, there were still elections for a time.

The work of Dzerzhinsky is excused by the fact the enemies of the Bolsheviks were mass murderers of the worst kind, exceeded in scale only by the Nazis and Stalin. The Red Terror didn't go after people for not supporting the Reds. They went after people who actively supported the Whites.

As for concentration camps, what concentration camps?

The biggest problem with your entire assumption is that the Bolshevkis somehow were the legitimate revolutionary government.

They were elected. That's the only real determination of legitimacy. Yes, the Left SRs had more support in 1918, but they got cheated of their seats by the Right SRs in the Consituant Assembly, and the Bolsheviks walked out because of it. Hardly an example of them failing to support their socialist allies.

You keep talking about their single party plans. Where is the proof of these plans? Where did they say that they should be the only ones? Where did Lenin write that only he should rule? Or are you simply looking at what happened, ignoring the concrete reality that caused these things to happen, and then projecting backwards a will to single-party rule, despite all the contrary evidence?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
... Everywhere they touched, they rounded up socialists and executed them. ...

... The Red Terror didn't go after people for not supporting the Reds. They went after people who actively supported the Whites.

Quite a funny way of using words - one side slaughter, the other defend. One side kills supporters, and the other side do the same. Really, what is the difference ? Is socialistic supporters more innocent than non socialistic ditto ?

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You read who, Pipes?

Nope. Too dry, though I have access to his book. I liked Red Victory by W. Bruce Lincoln.

This was not a concentional war. It was a war of survival. The Whites had no intention of establishing anything like a democracy. Everywhere they touched, they rounded up socialists and executed them. Everywhere they held power, they ruled as dictators. At least in Soviet held areas, there were still elections for a time.

1. If it was a war for survival, which is what you use as an excuse, do not the same rules apply to the Whites?
2. Which Whites? The Kadets? They certainly would have created a state like England if they could. Kolchak's autocrats? Cossack badits who were no more than warlords? Which Whites?
3. Elections do not equal democracy all by themselves.

The work of Dzerzhinsky is excused by the fact the enemies of the Bolsheviks were mass murderers of the worst kind, exceeded in scale only by the Nazis and Stalin. The Red Terror didn't go after people for not supporting the Reds. They went after people who actively supported the Whites.

The evil of your enemy does not excuse your evil.

As for concentration camps, what concentration camps?

Gulags are concentration camps. Take people you don;t trust, concentrate them in a place you can watch them. That is the definition of the damned things.

They were elected. That's the only real determination of legitimacy. Yes, the Left SRs had more support in 1918, but they got cheated of their seats by the Right SRs in the Consituant Assembly, and the Bolsheviks walked out because of it. Hardly an example of them failing to support their socialist allies.

You keep talking about their single party plans. Where is the proof of these plans? Where did they say that they should be the only ones? Where did Lenin write that only he should rule? Or are you simply looking at what happened, ignoring the concrete reality that caused these things to happen, and then projecting backwards a will to single-party rule, despite all the contrary evidence?

"They got cheated"?? Are you claiming electoral fraud? If you are not, then so what if the people of Russia, when given a choice, voted for the Socialists revolutionaries to the tune of 299 seats to the Bolshevik's 168.

A basic tenant of believing in democracy is in accepting the choice of the people, even if it turns out your neato revolutionary plan might not be the most popular.

This is what Lenin said to justify his disolving of the Assembly:

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/decree1918.html

The issue at hand is not class solidarity, nor "supporting your socialist allies" because there is no inherent reason why the Bolsheviks should have won thier struggle for power. The way they reacted to their electoral defeat at the hand of the SR shows a anti-democratic tendency. If the people wanted the Right SR in power, POWER TO THE PEOPLE. That is democracy. But instead Lenin and the Bolsheviks assumed they were the only rightful leaders of the proleteriat in the revolution. Of course, most Russians were not members of the proleteriat in 1918.


Again, the Bolsheviks won because they were the most organized, disciplined force in post-Tsarist Russia. They made their way to absolute power the only way anyone was going to make it to absolute power, throught ruthlessness. That they did what they had to do in order to come to a position to try to carry out their program is just fine by me. I simpoly hold individuals and movements responsible for the actions they take. I don;t excuse. I understand, but I expect people to accept responsibility for their actions.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
1. If it was a war for survival, which is what you use as an excuse, do not the same rules apply to the Whites?

They Whites didn't have to start the war and the indiscrimate slaughter. No, the same rules don't apply. When you are defending yourself, you have the higher moral ground.

2. Which Whites? The Kadets? They certainly would have created a state like England if they could. Kolchak's autocrats? Cossack badits who were no more than warlords? Which Whites?

Which armies did the Kadets control? All they did was lend support to the autocrats. The Kadets had no chance to influence the outcome of things. They would have been like Hindenburg's Conservatives, handing power to the Nazis in order to "save" the country from the Reds. I have no sympathy for them. As for Cossak bandits, why are you worried about their rights?

3. Elections do not equal democracy all by themselves.

Are you claiming the elections were unfair? That's a claim no one else had made. At the very least, they do show an expression of the people's will.

The evil of your enemy does not excuse your evil.

That's hardly an absolute. The evil of bin Laden excuses the U.S. dropping a bomb on a compund where children were killed. The evil of Hitler excuses the bombing of German cities. If your enemy is slaughtering millions of your people, many unthinkable methods become legitimate. If you have to kill thousands to save millions, that is an exceptable trade. If they had done otherwise, today historians would be blaiming the Bolsheviks for not doing whatever they could to stop White fascism from arising in Russia.

As for concentration camps, what concentration camps?

Gulags are concentration camps. Take people you don;t trust, concentrate them in a place you can watch them. That is the definition of the damned things.

So something that appeared a decade after Lenin died is Lenin's fault?

"They got cheated"?? Are you claiming electoral fraud? If you are not, then so what if the people of Russia, when given a choice, voted for the Socialists revolutionaries to the tune of 299 seats to the Bolshevik's 168.

You are aware that before the elections, the Left and Right SRs split, but the lists were already drawn. The people's support of the Left SRs showed up as a massive victory for the Right SRs, because they controlled the list. The Left SRs were frozen out of their victory, and the Bolsheviks walked out in support of the Left SRs.

This is what Lenin said to justify his disolving of the Assembly:

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/decree1918.html

Which I said before and you seem to be unable to understand.

[techumseh]

Play my scenario, and learn the TRUTH! http://www.tecumseh.150m.com/Red%20October.html

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Originally posted by GePap
They Whites didn't have to start the war and the indiscrimate slaughter. No, the same rules don't apply. When you are defending yourself, you have the higher moral ground.

False. Self-defense is nothing more than that. There is no greater moral imperetive stating you deserve to live anymore than the other guy.

Which armies did the Kadets control? All they did was lend support to the autocrats. The Kadets had no chance to influence the outcome of things. They would have been like Hindenburg's Conservatives, handing power to the Nazis in order to "save" the country from the Reds. I have no sympathy for them. As for Cossak bandits, why are you worried about their rights?

On the last question, because they are human. Why should I care for Lenin's rights?

As for the greater issue-there was a difference between the different leaders of the Whitye movement. Kolchak was ineffectual and too autocratic. Denekin was a relatively moral man, but simply unable to control his rable, and unwilling to make any political choices, which made him even more ineffectual. Wrangel did bring discipline to his forces, but only at the very end.

Are you claiming the elections were unfair? That's a claim no one else had made. At the very least, they do show an expression of the people's will.

No. Simply pointing out that saying "they have elections" does not mean democracy.

That's hardly an absolute. The evil of bin Laden excuses the U.S. dropping a bomb on a compund where children were killed. The evil of Hitler excuses the bombing of German cities. If your enemy is slaughtering millions of your people, many unthinkable methods become legitimate. If you have to kill thousands to save millions, that is an exceptable trade. If they had done otherwise, today historians would be blaiming the Bolsheviks for not doing whatever they could to stop White fascism from arising in Russia.

Actually, that is an absoulte. As I said before, self defense grants you nothing in terms of a greater moral stance, and it certainly does not make random killing any more legitimate. It is an explination, not an absolution, of such actions.

At the end of the day, what gives you a greater right to live than Osama bin Laden? You turn religious all of a sudden? You believe in some greater moral absolutism? If someone tries to kill you, you get to try to kill them back. That is a statement of fact, not some grand moral revelation.

So something that appeared a decade after Lenin died is Lenin's fault?

Lenin's support of terror makes greater terror possible.

You are aware that before the elections, the Left and Right SRs split, but the lists were already drawn. The people's support of the Left SRs showed up as a massive victory for the Right SRs, because they controlled the list. The Left SRs were frozen out of their victory, and the Bolsheviks walked out in support of the Left SRs.

So? That was for the SR to come to grips internally. And if the right refused to back down, there could have been a call for new elections and a drawing of new lists.

Instead the Bolsheviks cancel the assembly, and elections of this kind never happen again because the other parties that had participated, including the Left SR are banned.

That is not an action in support of democracy, specially when you have one party banning what was obviously an even more popular party.