bolshevics

November 7, 1917 - October Revolution

Pictured - Storming the Winter Palace. Illustration by Villi Trubkovich in The First Days of October, written by Vladimir Bonch-Bruyevich.

The first Russian revolution of 1917 toppled the Tsar in March. The second, in November, ended the period of Provisional Government in Russia and started the Bolshevik era.

On November 6, the forces acting under the Bolshevik Milrevkom (Military Revolutionary Committee seized important strategic areas in Petrograd. The organ, first created to defend the Russian government from the right, now became the instrument of its demise. When Russian Prime Minister Alexander Kerensky ordered loyalist troops to arrest Bolshevik leaders before a planned soviet congress meeting that day, he ignited a revolution

Pre-empting Kerensky’s small forces, Red Guards took over the state bank, the telephone exchange, and posted guards on bridges over the Neva. A small flotilla and more than 9,000 sailors from the Kronstadt naval base joined the revolutionaries on November 7. Than evening, more than 18,000 Bolshevik supporters surrounded the Russian Duma in the Winter Palace. Barely 1,000 loyalists, mostly women soldiers, defended Kerensky’s government. It had been abandoned by everyone else.

At 10 o’clock that night the cruiser Aurora, manned by Bolshevik sailors, anchored in the Neva and fired several blank rounds near the Winter Palace. By 1 o’clock the Bolsheviks had stormed the gates, and the resistance gave up without a fight. The Bolshevik coup was an almost entirely bloodless affair.

Kerensky scuttled out of Petrograd in an American envoy’s car. After an abortive attempt to take back the capital, he fled for France, and then the United States. Lenin became Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, de facto head of the city. Leon Trostky became Commissar for Foreign Affairs. “It could not possibly last,” said the British ambassador’s daughter, a witness to the day. “Petrograd itself might perhaps be forced to submit to such a rule for a short time, but that the whole of Russia should be governed by them was not credible.” The world both misunderstood and underestimated the new Russian rulers.

Why did the Russian Provisional Government fall so quickly? When it replaced the Tsar in March, Western liberals had rejoiced at the emergence of a mighty new popular democracy. Yet within six months it had gone the way of the Romanovs. The October Revolution was not inevitable, and had Kerensky even decided not to try and stop the soviet congress on November 6, his regime may have survived. Doubtless more trouble was the decision to carry on the war, which by late 1916 had become wholly unpopular among Russians. The failure of the Provisional Government to convene the Constituent Assembly and hold real elections during its tenure was equally fatal, and undermined its stated democratic ideals. By November 1917 many Russians had decided on those who promised change now.

anonymous asked:

Dark Brett show us the forbidden ideologies

Hyper-forbidden ideologies:

Forbidden ideologies:

Ideologies just normally banned:

“For two decades the supporters of Bolshevism have been hammering it into the masses that dictatorship is a vital necessity for the defense of the so-called proletarian interests against the assaults of counter-revolution and for paving the way for Socialism. They have not advanced the cause of Socialism by this propaganda, but have merely smoothed the way for Fascism in Italy, Germany and Austria by causing millions of people to forget that dictatorship, the most extreme form of tyranny, can never lead to social liberation. In Russia, the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat has not led to Socialism, but to the domination of a new bureaucracy over the proletariat and the whole people. …
What the Russian autocrats and their supporters fear most is that the success of libertarian Socialism in Spain might prove to their blind followers that the much vaunted "necessity of dictatorship” is nothing but one vast fraud which in Russia has led to the despotism of Stalin and is to serve today in Spain to help the counter-revolution to a victory over the revolution of the workers and the peasants.“
- Rudolf Rocker, The Tragedy of Spain (1937)

“The fiction of the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion] was as adequate as the fiction of a Trotskyite conspiracy, for both contained an element of plausibility–the nonpublic influence of the Jews in the past; the struggle for power between Trotsky and Stalin–which not even the fictitious world of totalitarianism can safely do without. Their [totalitarians] art consists in using, and at the same time transcending, the elements of reality, of verifiable experiences, in the chosen fiction, and in generalizing them into regions which then are definitely removed from all possible control by individual experience. With such generalizations, totalitarian propaganda establishes a world fit to compete with the real one, whose main handicap is that it is not logical, consistent, and organized. The consistency of the fiction and strictness of the organization make it possible for the generalization eventually to survive the explosion of more specific lies–the power of the Jews after their helpless slaughter, the sinister global conspiracy of Trotskyites after their liquidation in Soviet Russia and the murder of Trotsky.

The stubbornness with which totalitarian dictators have clung to their original lies in the face of absurdity is more than superstitious gratitude to what turned the trick, and, at least in the case of Stalin, cannot be explained by the psychology of the liar whose very success may make him his own last victim. Once these propaganda slogans are integrated into a “living organization,” they cannot be safely eliminated without wrecking the whole structure. The assumption of a Jewish world conspiracy was transformed by totalitarian propaganda from an objective, arguable matter into the chief element of the Nazi reality; the point was that the Nazis acted as though the world were dominated by the Jews and needed a counterconspiracy to defend itself. Racism for them was no longer a debatable theory of dubious scientific value, but was being realized every day in the functioning hierarchy of a political organization in whose framework it would have been very “unrealistic” to question it. Similarly, Bolshevism no longer needs to win an argument about class struggle, internationalism, and unconditional dependence of the welfare of the proletariat on the welfare of the Soviet Union; the functioning organization of the Comintern is more convincing than any argument or mere ideology can ever be.

The fundamental reason for the superiority of totalitarian propaganda over the propaganda of other parties and movements is that its content, for the members of the movement at any rate, is no longer an objective issue about which people may have opinions, but has become as real and untouchable an element in their lives as the rules of arithmetic. The organization of the entire texture of life according to an ideology can be fully carried out only under a totalitarian regime. In Nazi Germany, questioning the validity of racism and antisemitism when nothing mattered but race origin, when a career depended upon an “Aryan” physiognomy (Himmler used to select the applicants for the SS from photographs) and the amount of food upon the number of one’s Jewish grandparents, was like questioning the existence of the world.

The advantages of a propaganda that constantly “adds the power of organization” to the feeble and unreliable voice of argument, and thereby realizes, so to speak, on the spur of the moment, whatever it says, are obvious beyond demonstration. Foolproof against arguments based on a reality which the movements promised to change, against a counterpropaganda disqualified by the mere fact that it belongs to or defends a world which the shiftless masses cannot and will not accept, it can be disproved only by another, a stronger or better, reality.”

-Hannah Arendt, “The Origin of Totalitarianism”, bolding mine

Against the fascist creep has like whole chapters dedicated to how syndicalism and Bolshevism are fertile ground for the fash but all that leftoids seem to glean from it is that egoism is fascist and you have to kill egoists because ARR handles egoist material so badly and has read so little of it and wants the postleft to go away so a stale whitewashed reformist organizationalist activist wobblyism can have total hegemony over anarchism, let’s shoot Emma Goldman for being a stirnerite and a nietzschian, amirite?

anonymous asked:

What does cultural Marxism mean? I read the post about it but I still don't get it :-( I'm sorry if this is dumb and I know I could look it up but I like reading your perspective

It’s a term used by white nationalists to refer to elements they see as functionally Marxist and in contrast with their view of how society should work. Anything from feminism to the notion that disable people should be financially supported regardless of ability to work to the acceptance of homosexuality- these can be called products of cultural Marxism. Anything which erodes the power of madness, whiteness, and the fascist nation falls under this category broadly.

It is really primarily, an antisemitic dogwhistle. I believe it comes from the term “cultural Bolshevism,” referring to the idea that communism is a Jewish conspiracy to erode the power of white nations and bring them under Jewish rule by concentrating power in the hands of a Jewish elite who would then subjugate everyone else. Many white supremacists still believe communism to be a Jewish plot to control white people, and that’s what you’re getting hints of in discussions about “cultural Marxism.” It is a coded term to refer to Jewish takeover of the world.

“Liberalism, then democracy, then subsequently socialism, radicalism, and, finally, Communism and Bolshevism, appear in history as no more than degrees of the same evil, stages in which each prepares the next in the totality of the process of downfall. And the beginning of this process stands at the point at which Western man broke his ties to tradition, denying every higher symbol of authority and sovereignty; he claimed for himself as an individual a vain and illusory freedom; he becomes an atom rather than a conscious part of the organic unity and hierarchy of a whole. And the atom, in the end, had to find, opposed to himself, the mass of other atoms, other individuals, and to be involved in the emergence of the reign of quantity, of the pure number, of the materialized masses and not having another God outside of the sovereign economy.”
— Julius Evola, Orientations

alt-right fascists: fuck sjws. especially those ugly manhating lesbians

sjws: fuck fascists. especially those ugly transmisogynistic lesbians

it reminds me of what i read about ww2 where nazis were calling homosexuality a “degeneracy of sexual Bolshevism” and communists were calling homosexuality a “bourgeois decadence” and “capitalist degeneration”. always painted as a social disease and as a result of bad politics.

The ‘theory’ of spontaneity is a theory of opportunism, a theory of worshiping the spontaneity of the labor movement, a theory which actually repudiates the leading role of the vanguard of the working class, of the party of the working class.

The theory of worshiping spontaneity is decidedly opposed to the revolutionary character of the working class movement; it is opposed to the movement taking the line of struggle against the foundations of capitalism; it is in favor of the movement proceeding exclusively along the line of 'realizable demands,’ of demands 'acceptable’ to capitalism; it is wholly in favor of the 'line of least resistance.’ The theory of spontaneity is the ideology of trade unionism.

The theory of worshiping spontaneity is decidedly opposed to giving the spontaneous movement a politically conscious, planned character. It is opposed to the Party marching at the head of the working class, to the Party raising the masses to the level of political consciousness, to the Party leading the movement; it is in favor of the politically conscious elements of the movement not hindering the movement from taking its own course; it is in favor of the Party only heeding the spontaneous movement and dragging at the tail of it.

Here is one of the numerous examples of the application of this 'theory.’ It is said that before the imperialist war the parties of the Second International threatened to declare 'war against war’ if the imperialists should start a war. It is said that on the very eve of the war these parties pigeonholed the 'war against war’ slogan and applied an opposite one, that is to say, 'war for the imperialist fatherland.’ It is said that as a result of this change of slogans millions of workers were sent to their death. But it would be a mistake to think that there were some people to blame for this, that someone was unfaithful to the working class or betrayed it. Not at all! Everything happened as it should have happened. Firstly, because the International, it seems, is 'an instrument of peace,’ and not of war. Secondly, because, in view of the 'level of the productive forces’ which then prevailed, nothing else could be done. The 'productive forces’ are 'to blame.’ That is the precise explanation vouchsafed to 'us’ by Mr. Kautsky’s 'theory of the productive forces.’ And whoever does not believe in that 'theory’ is not a Marxist. The role of the parties? Their importance for the movement? But what can a party do against so decisive a factor as the 'level of the productive forces’?…

— 

Joseph Stalin, Chapter 3, The Foundations of Leninism