tell me something

[AnarchoSkeez]

to too busy to read this plus i have more important reading to do at the time. i just want a brief description of this book and the commi point of veiw of the russian revolution.

[turnoviseous]

Check out this thread

http://discussion.newyouth.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=161

also you can check this out:

http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/part1.html

Maybe you could also give us your view of it, since Ive never read a lot of anarchist stuff about the October anyway.

comradely

[AnarchoSkeez]

http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secA5.html#seca54

this is just a general history of the anarchist point of view. at the end of the russian segment it lists books that go more in depth.

[marx_was_right]

The anarchist article throws words like 'dictatorship' around alot but it does not back its claims up at all.

Perhaps an 'Anarchism or Marxism' topic deserves a thread of its own, I know you are keen to hear a Marxist point of view comrade

[AnarchoSkeez]

what do you mean by it doesnt back up its claims?

[djn]

Although I am not very well-versed in the Russian Revolution, I do know that the Bolsheviks were elected in most areas while the Provisional Government was still in power under Karensky in early to mid-1917 (someone will have to confirm this).

Since I don't know enough to condone or criticize the actions of the Bolsheviks, there was nevertheless a desperate need to create a central authority to effectively organize the defence of the Soviet Union, especially with the 1919-1921 invasion. As I mentioned in your other post regarding anarchism, AnarchoSkeez, centralization is necessary for survival in times of crisis. Again, this is not a defence of what the Bolsheviks did, merely an explanation of why, in part, it happened.

Regarding the Ukrainian Makhnovist movement, it is easy to see how the rest of the strangled, surrounded and starving soviets desperately required food from the rich Ukrainian wheatfields, which provided to so many more people than in the Ukraine alone.

Furthermore, the entire Anarchist FAQ speaks as though every "great" anarchist (notice the submerged hierarchy which I mention in the other post on anarchism) was an angel and could do no wrong, especially Makhno. The truth is, anarchist organizations rarely tolerate those who disagree, as I found out first-hand. History is no different.

[AnarchoSkeez]

will communists dont argree with varying points ethier. proven in hisrtoy during the times of the russian revolution to date. You have first hand experince with anarchists being close minded? they can be but who isnt at times? also.. whover reccounts the events of their respecting beliefs also tend be bias in the retelling to the story. ive many a communist literature that shows that commi's and do no wrong.

[djn]

As I will post on in the other thread regarding anarchism, I am not condoning what has happened in the past in the name of communism. Of course, everybody is falliable and everyone can be corrupted in certain circumstances. My experiences with anarchists being close-minded does imply that all my experiences have been devoid of close-minded communists (or marxists), simply because I didn't mention it. My points were made to counter the romantic and propagandistic notions of anarchism that the Anarchist FAQ, and many modern anarchists tend to promote. To repeat, anarchists are just as falliable as communists to abuses of power.