[Victoribus Spolia]

Orwell was possibly an Anarchist., but definitely opposed communism and socialism.

He hated tyrannical regimes and totalitarian states and saw these revolutions as leading to that (as seen in the USSR).

What more interpretation do you need?

[B0ycey]

What more interpretation do you need?

The Book?

Napoleon became the farmer not the Old Major.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Oh i see what you are asking.

My point was that the book was anti-communist in general. Like 1984 was anti-statist, and "How To Shoot An Elephant" was anti-imperialist.

[ingliz]

@Victoribus Spolia

Lenin said he wanted the working class armed and dangerous in 1917 when many were and then proceeded to disarm them in 1918.

Firearms: Russia 1917

Anyone who wanted one could acquire one. They were cheap enough. Pre revolutionary gun laws were lax. Moscow and St Petersburg were both awash with weapons.

Lenin's wheeze was to demand that the capitalists arm their workers.

[Victoribus Spolia]

For the purpose of executing the proletarian revolution.

Orthodox Marxism 101.

So what's your beef? You just like to be argumentative for its own sake?

[ingliz]

For the purpose of executing the proletarian revolution.

Obviously not.

He used the 'Vanguard' to overthrow the government.

what's your beef?

My beef is you insisting Lenin wanted to arm the masses en masse.

Clearly he didn't

[Victoribus Spolia]

My beef is you insisting Lenin wanted to arm the masses en masse.

Clearly he didn't

He did in 1917, as you conceded. He wanted the proletariat armed and dangerous.

As you yourself stated.

[ingliz]

He did in 1917

Lenin said he wanted the working class armed and dangerous in 1917 when many were and then proceeded to disarm them in 1918. He used the 'Vanguard' to overthrow the government.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Lenin said he wanted the working class armed and dangerous in 1917 when many were

Would it have been consistent with Leninism to have disarmed the working class in 1916?

Yes or No?

[ingliz]

Yes or No

Why would he?

But as political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and the Party must control the gun, the task of Social-Democracy is to combat spontaneity*.


* Lenin

[Victoribus Spolia]

Why would he?

Think about what I am asking you. I am asking you if it would have made sense, given Lenin's system, to have called for the Tsar to disarm the working class in Russia in 1916?

Yes or No?

[Potemkin]

Why would he?

But as political power grows out of the barrel of a gun and the Party must control the gun, the task of Social-Democracy is to combat spontaneity*.



*Lenin

After 1917, Lenin was faced with the same problem that Washington et al were faced with more than a century earlier - how to conserve a revolution. Their various, historically evolving solutions to that problem are why the Soviet system later disarmed most of its population, and why the USA, a nation founded on the ideal of liberty, currently incarcerates a larger percentage of its population than Stalin's Soviet Union did at the height of the purges.

[annatar1914]

Just curious, but how does the Stalinist interpret Animal Farm? Can Napoleon really be the good guy?

George Orwell literally took money from MI-6 to turn in names of Leftists, fact. I interpret ''Animal Farm'' as a book about talking animals. Literary fantasy propaganda allegory with little real connection to reality. Same with ''1984''.

[annatar1914]

After 1917, Lenin was faced with the same problem that Washington et al were faced with more than a century earlier - how to conserve a revolution. Their various, historically evolving solutions to that problem are why the Soviet system later disarmed most of its population, and why the USA, a nation founded on the ideal of liberty, currently incarcerates a larger percentage of its population than Stalin's Soviet Union did at the height of the purges.

@Potemkin ,

That's right; revolutions are cruel by their very nature, full of waste and bloodshed and stupidity, mistakes and horrific crimes. Not to absolve any evil, but revolutions do happen, and I believe are in the plan of the Almighty, and productive of much human good.

Conserving the revolution is something that lasts well beyond the lifespan of the original revolutionaries in my opinion, and what takes shape can be rather far from what they originally conceived. If we are to believe politically in Socialism/Communism, we must understand that like every human undertaking, it is subject to false starts, mistakes, fatal delays, and all the other elements of a longer drawn out... Transition stage to another mode of socio-economic production.

[ingliz]

armed and dangerous

1917

Armed and dangerous was good as long as the masses kept their guns under the bed. The last thing Lenin wanted to see was a spontaneous (uncontrollable) uprising of the workers and another bourgeois regime, a trade unionist's vision of what a socialist republic should look like, installed.

This determined opposition to pure and simple trade unionism, to the overestimation of spontaneity, to the underestimation of conscious revolutionary action, runs right through the entire pamphlet “What Is to be Done?”.

[Drlee]

....and why the USA, a nation founded on the ideal of liberty, currently incarcerates a larger percentage of its population than Stalin's Soviet Union did at the height of the purges.

Really Potemkin? You expect to get away with that?

So let me see. You will argue that our prison population is the result of capitalism which, by its very nature, creates permanent underclasses. Those 'naturally' turn to crime. Except it does not hold true across capitalist nations.

The US's huge prison population is a result of BOTH a permanent underclass largely defined by race and a disgruntled middle class crying in anger against crime. This is absolutely nothing like the political prisoners under Stalin. Stalin was not dealing with racism, poverty, crime and thuggery. He was dealing with a potential counterrevolutionary movement.

The US's crime problem, incorrectly remediated with long sentences to the point that 1 in 18 men are under correctional control. One in 13 black men under correctional control with over 20% of the ones on probation or parole headed to prison eventually.

The problem in the black community is far to complex to argue, off topic, here. But suffice it to say that the issues that led Stalin to choose to send people to the gulags or kill them out of hand are quite different from those causing the US to incarcerate large numbers of people. Ironically, it is out government, responding to the demands of racists and refusing to tap the wealthy for the money for real solutions that is making locking people up preferable to helping them up.

[Victoribus Spolia]

1917

Armed and dangerous was good as long as the masses kept their guns under the bed.

But didn't you acknowledge that the reason that the working class had such guns was because of the liberal gun laws at the time prior to the changes made in 1918?

How about you answer my question now;

I am asking you if it would have made sense, given Lenin's system, to have called for the Tsar to disarm the working class in Russia in 1916?

Yes or No?

@annatar1914 and @Potemkin, feel free to answer this question as well.

I wouldn't mind hearing @Bulaba Jones and @Red_Army's opinion on this too.

[Pants-of-dog]

So, have you found out whether the EZLN are orthodox Marxists or cultural Marxists?

[ingliz]

But didn't you acknowledge that the reason that the working class had such guns was because of the liberal gun laws at the time prior to the changes made in 1918?

Why do you think this relevant?

The Russian Empire, like most European countries, had very liberal gun laws, with no significant restrictions on sales, possession, or open carry. After 1905, you needed the permission of the local head of police to buy pistols and revolvers, but this was a very quick affair and granted as a matter of course. Newspapers advertised Brownings, Nagants, Mausers, and other models of handgun which were as popular as they were affordable. There were no laws on hunting rifles at all.

Within a month of the Bolsheviks seizing power restrictions on gun ownership were introduced.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Why do you think this relevant?

Because that is actually what the point in my OP is about.

So let me ask again, for like the fourth time....

Would it have made sense, given Lenin's system, to have called for the Tsar to disarm the working class in Russia in 1916?

Yes or No?