I don’t like spending this much time arguing against campism but they just keep talking at me.

  • Martti@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    What I meant is that bolsheviks were not popular nor they ever represented people of russia. And you still cant bother to read how the revolution went. Any totalitarian ‘socialist’ regime is not socialist, it is purely oligarchic corporcracy. Why corpocracy? Because both USSR and China busted worker unions, had hilarious elections, prevented regular people from becoming politicans or have any say. And ensured only their oligarchic circle could get to power. How is this different from authoritarian capitalist corporacy? Corporations also have planned economy, they also bust their worker union, and they also keep their people in fright of the state machine.

    This kind of system is just as far from socialism as a late-stage capitalist state, and serves capitalists and imperialists.

    • OilyArena@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      What the fuck? The Bolsheviks were incredibly popular, especially in the cities, which led to them leading the socialist revolution as the vanguard.

      Why do liberals love their anti-communist historical revisionism so much?

    • psycholocomotor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Literally do not care if they weren’t popular or didn’t have elections. It was necessary that they suppressed the SRs, because democratic socialists are idealists who will run you into the ground. The majority of Russians were antisemitic, does that mean that’s just fine?