[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 96 KB, 686x770, Tsar_family_expertise_skulls_4a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16117359 No.16117359 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /Lit/ I am interested in some good literature covering the Bolshevik revolution, and particularly the violence that ensued.

I think this is highly relevant to the current US political sphere, and hope some kind anons are willing to share any knowledge they have about the history.

>> No.16117366

I would read about the forgotten Bolshevik, who could've made Soviet Union Great Again!


>> No.16117369

>I think this is highly relevant to the current US political sphere


>> No.16117370

Solzhenitsyn - 200 Years Together

>> No.16117372
File: 63 KB, 413x620, 6CB19A39-1EB7-42FB-B1A5-E47E5B74BAF3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

So, in what book?

>> No.16117379

What's funny about that?

>> No.16117385
File: 264 KB, 646x1050, 57257824-A703-44B1-9059-DF066BABDD0F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>CIA shill

>> No.16117396

>That title

In what way is the revolution unknown? It is pretty famous as the reason Russia dropped out of WW1

>> No.16117410

>Says a socialist shill

>> No.16117420


Congratulations, you got me to go to my bookshelf! I haven't been there, across my bed, in YEARS.

Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution, by Stephen F. Cohen.

>> No.16117454

It wasn’t well known at the time what happened to people after the revolution. Lenin decided not to go socialist because he didn’t think Russia was ready. First capitalist industrialization. So Trotsky went into Ukraine and killed a bunch of socialists, the slaughter at Kronstadt happened, and the workers were put under state control.
Voline was put in prison, and Emma Goldman came to visit him. They arranged for the whole prison (of socialists/anarchists) to be able to attend Kropotkin’s funeral.

>> No.16117468

>Gotta stick up for poor ol’ uncle Sam. Been gettin a black eye lately. Fugginyrannyniggarjew

Thank you.

>> No.16117469

What's the difference between capitalist industrialization and socialism? Certainly Socialism can be industrial.

Why did Trotsky kill Socialists in Ukraine? That seems nonsensical.

>> No.16117479

Congratulations, you are the first one to use racial slurs in this thread.

You're a namefag that shills socialism all the time. Questioning you calling a Russian author a CIA shill is reasonable.

>> No.16117481


Anything for you, weird butterfly symbol thing anon.


>> No.16117512
File: 43 KB, 500x300, 5E7B088B-F71B-4881-B37D-FF3798E201B4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The Soviets did it by state control. Very organized central planning like what China is doing with this “stage” of capitalism. It’s not socialism. It’s like European social-democracy, but more authoritarian. But that’s piss poor socialism.
After the Red and Black armies drove pit the invaders and defeated the White imperialist army, Trotsky went to kill the Black army. Making Nestor Makhno flee to France
They had to crush socialism. It is nonsensical. Just as nonsensical to call it a socialist nation and revolution. It failed. It was a simple coup

>> No.16117526

>drove pit
Out. Drove out.

Beg pardon.
“Fuggintrannyniggarjew” isn’t on Urban Dictionary is it?

>> No.16117528

See, I've had many conversations with socialists and this is always the hickup I have.

What is Socialism but a centrally planned economy? The answer I normally get is something like workers committees electing people...Which is just another state based on proles voting.

>> No.16117555
File: 57 KB, 287x428, 3315740E-6FC4-4B7D-960A-2367B5CC9060.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Ideally this. Direct democracy. Non-representative.
And a non-market gift economy.

Placing some limited faith in representation in governance only leads to pain. Laws aren’t real anyway. We ought to do without asap. The economy can be transitioned with a non accumulative currency, but eventually people are going to catch on to the fact they don’t even need that. Training wheels off.

>> No.16117567

Well, in the modern era I suppose you can make an argument for direct democracy.

How in the world could direct democracy happen in a country as disperse as Russia when even telegraph lines were high tech?

>> No.16117571

>No laws

How will that not lead to chaos and despotism?

>> No.16117592
File: 425 KB, 480x640, C1057B48-9B1C-4CF6-88FD-B0508F66DF09.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Gentle local assemblies would lay down some common sense rules, along with shared security measures. Nothing need be written down. A single generation of this (theoretically, since it’s unlikely to take root everywhere all at once) and we’d see such a change in people’s demeanors.

I don’t mean to take over the thread. Pardon.

>> No.16117609

>I don’t mean to take over the thread. Pardon.

It's fine, we're having civil discourse, and chans often are fueled by two people talking and lurkers watching.

>we’d see such a change in people’s demeanors.

Even chimps form gangs and raid other chimps....

>Nothing need be written down.

Seems ironic on a literature board. You really want to take us to before the code of hammurabi, the magna carta, and do away with the constitution? Why?

>> No.16117631

We’re better than chimps. States, empires, kingdoms are all illegitimate and unnatural. Yes, I want us to go that far back. That would free us as much as advanced technology does.
Isn’t it ironic that all this concentrated power leads us to an environmental crisis that it has no will to avert, and the best thing we can do is throw off its iron grip?

>> No.16117654

>We’re better than chimps.

In my experience, the people who are so quick to assert humanity better than animals are those least capable of empathy.

>Isn’t it ironic that all this concentrated power leads us to an environmental crisis that it has no will to avert

Which environmental crisis are you discussing? I think the lack of central power would ultimately wreak far more havoc to the environment. Yes, greed often subverts the institutions meant to protect and conserve, but I have a hard time imagining Yellowstone would be as nice as it is if Teddy Roosevelt hadn't protected it.

What happens when one of your local autonomous assemblies 100 miles upriver finds it convenient to dump their waste in said river, to the detriment of those down river?

How would environmental catastrophes like acid rain be averted if not for concerted government intervention?

>> No.16117702

>Yes, greed often subverts the institutions meant to protect and conserve
We’re in a death spiral.
Herod mentions assemblies making contracts about that sort of thing. It’s all about mutually beneficial results. In a way this is simply turning the masses into one big government. “Politics” originally meaning the people’s business. Not so much central but all encompassing. At first it would take getting used to, but this chaos would become anarchism. Which is orderly.

>> No.16117713

I've made 6 figures on link and I'm gonna make sure to buy whatever property you're renting and evict you

>> No.16117733

>We’re in a death spiral

That doesn't answer what current environmental catastrophe you're mentioning.

What you're describing sounds much like the Federated system the US already has.

I'm also glancing over the death totals of the Russian Civil war...Makes the US Civil war look like child's play.

>> No.16117737

The easiest way to counter that is to make sure to let my landlord know so he can properly gouge you.

>> No.16117747

>he actually is renting

>> No.16117752

I'm actually wiretapping a fiberoptic cable running through the national forest preserve I'm squatting in.

>> No.16117754

>the Federated system the US already has.
Well, it sure isn’t what the US has nor pretends to have.
And I’m not interested in a bloody coup and an idiot tankie state. The kind of thing I aim for is something even a sort of rightwinger would go for. Leave the Leninists in the dust with the GOP and DNC

>> No.16117768

>Well, it sure isn’t what the US has nor pretends to have.

How so? Local townships manage local affairs. States manage statewide affairs and settle disputes between townships. The federal government settles disputes between states and defends against foreign aggression. It's not perfect, but it's ultimately seeming similar to what you described. I will say, I am adamantly opposed to direct democracy. The common person does not have the time to dedicate to understand the issues he needs to.

You're also leaving out how you would accomplish this in a world where nations have never been stronger and which is trending towards world government.

>> No.16117833

There’s no such thing as a state, first of all. Legal fiction.
On top of that, the US is an oligarchy. The wealthy pick who we can vote on. Both candidates are in their pockets. Nothing else is allowed. This isn’t even representative democracy.
The “common person” is worked half to death. Leaving the lazy greedy bastards behind frees up a lot of time
We have the numbers. We only need the organization. It can work. But we’ll probably go extinct in 80 to 100

>> No.16117880

>There’s no such thing as a state

May as well say there's no such thing as local autonomous assemblies. Group belief makes it real. Try telling a cop that there's no state. Hell, by your reasoning you can say words themselves are a fiction (well, considering you want to do away with written laws...). Yet here we are communicating via text.

>On top of that, the US is an oligarchy. The wealthy pick who we can vote on. Both candidates are in their pockets. Nothing else is allowed.

The US actually does have a history of some third parties gaining prominence. They were ultimately re-absorbed, but only by having their issues and concerns addressed.

> Leaving the lazy greedy bastards behind frees up a lot of time

It does, and I hope to see a world where the common person get's more of their life back. However, that doesn't mean we're all going to become philosopher kings. Suggesting everyone become an expert at governing is like suggesting everyone learn to farm their own food, tailor their own clothes, be their own mechanic, be their own doctor, etc. And yes, all of these ARE issues that governing touches on. I believe most people would prefer to be able to spend some time every few years to pick someone they can trust to represent them, so that the commoner can go back to enjoying whatever pursuit he pleases.

Finally, the wealthy are not a single group. Even if oligarchy were provably unavoidable, commoners can still pit one oligarch against another. That's how Trump got elected.

>> No.16117967

Its true. Happenings are very similar.

>> No.16117993

This. Great book.

>> No.16118060
File: 84 KB, 1200x1555, D8319D16-4F0A-44D1-BAE0-51CBEBFD6D15.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I said that it is a legal fiction. Of course people believe in it. They’re kept dumb like that for the most part.
A republic always turns to an oligarchy. No exceptions.
>Philosopher kings
We’ll become a lot of thing. Kings, nevermore I hope. But there’s no expertise needed really. You just show up at the meetings and help vote on the direction of your community and continental issues as they come up. Experts will like speak and help direct things. Majority rule ought to be given a try someday. I don’t think the meetings will be that long or frequent after a while.
But regions may go the representative rout as they see fit.
None could exist in a world without accumulative currency. Whatever group they came from, they’re going to have to integrate back into human society

>> No.16118099

>But there’s no expertise needed really.

You really want common people to majority vote on complex scientific issues? You realize that would devolve into pandering and rhetoric rather than objective evidence and sound scientific understanding?

>without accumulative currency.

Sorry, I'm currently able to engage in this discussion because I was prudent enough to save a bank of cash that I could live comfortably on based on my frugal lifestyle.

> Kings, nevermore I hope.

You'd be wrong, again. People will be drawn to charismatic and charming speakers more so than logicians and lab rats. I don't know how you can rail against modern oligarchs and then believe in angels in the hearts of men.

>> No.16118173
File: 400 KB, 1302x2083, 4F668F65-58AC-4358-8063-46C6B57ACE9A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

What scientific issue? I imagine they’d vote for an expert or experts (in science or other field) to take charge of this or that.
Anarchism is about challenging unjustifiable hierarchies, not doing away with them. People in politics are assholes. They don’t even write most the policy they vote on, and of course it’s funneled to them by hired goons from the wealthy.
It is a workable alternative I’m suggesting. People can learn it quite easily
>bank of cash
I have a savings too. But it will become devalued or scarce as this depression sinks in. I would like to introduce a duel payment to workers. They can still earn money and pay taxes, but the community starts to honor the non accumulative currency.

>wrong again
Ah, you got me. You who want a representative government would elect an emperor who needlessly kills his neighbors and steal from them, so that your lazy ass can has a tiny portion.
You would do that. It’s not human nature to grovel, but you would do that. Tyrants and slavers are so cool.

It’s not angels I’m hoping to raise, its adults. Heroic just people

>> No.16118212

When Butterfags femcel arteries clog up and she dies the quality of /lit/ will rise exponentially.

>> No.16118232

>What scientific issue?

Have you forgotten your own talking points from earlier in the thread?

> I imagine they’d vote for an expert or experts (in science or other field) to take charge of this or that.

And how do they determine who is an expert? Again, you're recreating the situation we have today.

>Anarchism is about challenging unjustifiable hierarchies, not doing away with them.

You're contradicting yourself, again. You wanted to do away with the Constitution itself. That's not even a hierarchy, but something people rightly revere.

>They can still earn money and pay taxes, but the community starts to honor the non accumulative currency.

Sounds like friendship and brotherhood. You plan to regulate THAT?

>Tyrants and slavers are so cool.

Socialist projection from someone who seeks to destroy the existing hierarchy to take advantage of the ensuing death and destruction.

>> No.16118338

Fitzpatrick - The Russian Revolution
John Reed - Ten days that shook the world
Chamberlain - Soviet Russia
Trotsky wrote two volumes about the revolution if you're interested.
Go read the Notes and Explanations on Reed's book first if you haven't known much about the main actors/organisations in the revolution. It will be helpful.
You may want to read Isaac Deutscher's biographies. E.H.Carr's works are great too.

Also read "What is to be done?" and "The State and Revolution". They will be mentioned regularly whenever Lenin's thoughts are brought up so you may want to. Read them on this site https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/modsbook39.asp. Or found the unabridged versions on marxists.org, that is if you can stomach Lenin's polemical writings.

>the violence that ensued
James Harris - The Great Fear. I don't really remember much to recommend stuffs about Lenin's era, but there are works that may interested you so you may want to try finding them.
Solzhenitsyn - Gulag Archipelago and Conquest - The Great Terror. Read them as grounding point.
Roy Medvedev - Let History Judge. If you are interested in Stalinism.

Or just read everything on this site http://soviethistory.msu.edu and be done with it. If your need is higher you should just learn russian to read stuffs anyway.

>> No.16118346


>> No.16119684

>how do they determine who is an expert?
Implying you need a government to determine such things?
> you're recreating the situation we have today.
The constitution is an outdated piece of law that no one is following as it is. 1st amendment rights are screwed over daily.
>regulate friendship
Holding meetings would foster it naturally. Capitalism divides, socialism/communism unites.
But lastly, the Soviets weren’t successful In getting to socialism. Catalonia was for a time

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.