The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a disaster for the human race.

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Russia is first country that the Jews took into slavery. For those who will talk about the USA or England, they fell into Jewish slavery a little later. In any case, George Patton could tell the truth about Jews and remain a 4-star general of the United States, and he was killed only after the end of World War II.
The Bolshevik Revolution was scarier than the industrial Revolution. Although without the Industrial Revolution, Bolshevism would never have been born.The first state in the world where foids were given equal rights (the opportunity to file for divorce and alimony) was the USSR, and Feminism came to the West only in the 1960s.
@DarkStar

 

[SoycuckGodOfReddit]

the bolshevik revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

 

[supersoldier]

i mostly don't like all of these "people's friendship" "Great Russian chauvinism" multinational bullshit they brought upon Russia, they made Russians second-class citizens in their own country compared to nacmens they liked so much.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

the bolshevik revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

An absolute truth, it receives undeservedly little attention within the framework of world historiography.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

the bolshevik revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

Bolshevism is a cancerous tumor that grew in the West in the 1960s, and now it is in its death throes. Woke, feminism, LGBT environmental hysteria, the demand for white people to repent for colonialism or slavery - all this is Bolshevism.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

i mostly don't like all of these "people's friendship" "Great Russian chauvinism" multinational bullshit they brought upon Russia, they made Russians second-class citizens in their own country compared to nacmens they liked so much.

Yes, but the Russian people couldn't even think about it and realize that the Bolsheviks had taken them into slavery. There is not a single Russian family who would not have had one relative shot or sent to the Gulag. But every Russian city still has statues of Lenin.

 

[Ubermenschvirtues]

the bolshevik revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

 

[Ubermenschvirtues]

Marx wrote in his manifesto that communism should take over the world.
Guess what jews used other tactics to enslave us.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Marx wrote in his manifesto that communism should take over the world.
Guess what jews used other tactics to enslave us.

Yes, but he believed that the revolution would begin with France, Britain or Germany, where there was a strong industry: many factories, many working class. In Russia, by 1917, 80% of the population were peasant farmers who lived in villages and raised livestock and plants for sale.

 

[Ubermenschvirtues]

Yes, but he believed that the revolution would begin with France, Britain or Germany, where there was a strong industry: many factories, many working classes. In Russia, by 1917, 80% of the population were peasant farmers who lived in villages and raised livestock and plants for sale.

Yea they killed the peasants when the government decided to take most of their food leading to Holodomor.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Yea they killed the peasants when the government decided to take most of their food leading to Holodomor.

Yes, collectivization and surplus distribution, which implied the forcible seizure of food, seeds, livestock and other things, caused famine, because hunger is an effective way to enslave the population, because the hungry and exhausted cannot rise normally uprising due to exhaustion.

 

[Arook]

Russia is still feeling the effects of the genocide of the intelligence that the bolsheviks carried out.

 

[RandomGuy]

the bolshevik revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

An absolute truth, it receives undeservedly little attention within the framework of world historiography.

Yea they killed the peasants when the government decided to take most of their food leading to Holodomor.

View: https://youtu.be/gfdnbMd9BiE?si=7Ot0RRERtQxKOWKb

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

View: https://youtu.be/C_n_qtgUKnY?si=laW0AkHzUGd4HZ_2

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Russia is still feeling the effects of the genocide of the intelligence that the bolsheviks carried out.

Even you can feel the consequences of this revolution - the feminism that we suffer so much from today is an invention of the Bolsheviks. They were the first to give Foids equality before exporting it to the west through Jewish liberal professors colleges in 1960s.

 

[ratk]

Yes, but he believed that the revolution would begin with France, Britain or Germany, where there was a strong industry: many factories, many working class. In Russia, by 1917, 80% of the population were peasant farmers who lived in villages and raised livestock and plants

Wasn't Lenin's whole attraction to the peasantry is that he would offer land but he never did, how he amassed such a following.
Didn't a lot of this "socialist enlightenment" in russia predate back to the Nardoviks, who failed because they treated the peasantry on the same level as them. Honestly the only people who noticed the systemic issues were the upper middle class and above who lived in the cities, Russia was a very disconnected nation.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Wasn't Lenin's whole attraction to the peasantry is that he would offer land but he never did, how he amassed such a following.
Didn't a lot of this "socialist enlightenment" in russia predate back to the Nardoviks, who failed because they treated the peasantry on the same level as them. Honestly the only people who noticed the systemic issues were the upper middle class and above who lived in the cities, Russia was a very disconnected nation.

In fact, the Bolsheviks were never interested in peasants, they were always interested in the working masses, which consisted of former peasants who poured into the cities in search of work in factories and were torn away from their families and loved ones. An ordinary peasant seemed unreliable to the Bolsheviks in the sense that it was difficult to raise him for the revolution, since he had his own piece of land, his own house and his own family to feed + he was not educated enough to understand communism. Lenin promised the peasants land, but did not keep his word, because he did not care about them. Communism was created as an ideology for factory workers from large cities, and not for rural farmers. The peasants themselves very often staged uprisings against the Soviet government, for example, the Tambov uprising.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Wasn't Lenin's whole attraction to the peasantry is that he would offer land but he never did, how he amassed such a following.
Didn't a lot of this "socialist enlightenment" in russia predate back to the Nardoviks, who failed because they treated the peasantry on the same level as them. Honestly the only people who noticed the systemic issues were the upper middle class and above who lived in the cities, Russia was a very disconnected nation.

The Narodniks failed because they consisted of urban intellectuals who could not find a common language with rural farmers, many of whom could not even read and write, so the peasants themselves wrote denunciations of the narodniks to the tsarist police. I think if Stolypin had survived and Russia had remained neutral in the First World War, the Bolsheviks would have remained small marginals.

 

[ratk]

The peasants themselves very often staged uprisings against the Soviet government, for example, the Tambov uprising.

Post civil war soviet union was absolutely horrific in terms of the amount of violence

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Post civil war soviet union was absolutely horrific in terms of the amount of violence

Tambov Rebellion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Bolsheviks are the only ones in history who used poison gas against their own people.

 

[ArcticAngel]

The communists did not believe in their own ideology, when the ussr fell many communist elites turned into oligarchs or became part of the new government.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

The communists did not believe in their own ideology, when the ussr fell many communist elites turned into oligarchs or became part of the new government.

These were the grandchildren of those first Communists, that is, the third generation of the first Bolsheviks.

 

[SoycuckGodOfReddit]

Wasn't Lenin's whole attraction to the peasantry is that he would offer land but he never did, how he amassed such a following.
Didn't a lot of this "socialist enlightenment" in russia predate back to the Nardoviks, who failed because they treated the peasantry on the same level as them. Honestly the only people who noticed the systemic issues were the upper middle class and above who lived in the cities, Russia was a very disconnected nation.

the bolsheviks wouldn't have gained as much support or taken power then without the first world war, which heavily destabilized russia and was a conflict of unexpected severity

even the 'paris commune' was basically just a hairbrained experiment carried out in a nation during a losing war effort.

times of war can encourage this kind of socialist experimentation, but after leaving WWI the bolsheviks eventually realized that populist marxism was untenable and instituted the NEP, followed by centralized stalinism

 

[opioidcel]

untenable

 

[SoycuckGodOfReddit]

over for tenablecels

 

[proudweeb]

This is true, Russia was actually improving rapidly before the disaster that ww1 was for them

 

[decafincel]

Russia still has a lot of Jewish influence

 

[Freixel]

It was bad because Jews managed it for their own interests, not because of the socialist system itself.

The same thing happens with liberalism

What matters is whether the ruling class works for the people or for a foreign elite (which happens in both the USA and the USSR).

Also, I would not have liked to be a worker in Western Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries, fuck working 16 hours locked in a factory without seeing the sun and sleeping 4 hours, I would have also joined a socialist revolutionary movement in that situation too.

But the majority of the population in Russia were peasants, and they lived off their own production, so it's another story.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Yes, but, but the Communists bypassed the tsar in terms of rigidity - they returned collective farms (serfdom) when you were forced to work in one village and not go beyond it, since you did not even have a passport in your hands. A lot of slave prison labor from gulags. Communism took on a human face only after Khrushchev came to power, Soviet people finally began to live well - they were given the opportunity to get free higher education, get a free apartment from the state for 25 years of work at a factory or 20 years of service in the army.

It was bad because Jews managed it for their own interests, not because of the socialist system itself.

The same thing happens with liberalism

What matters is whether the ruling class works for the people or for a foreign elite (which happens in both the USA and the USSR).

Also, I would not have liked to be a worker in Western Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries, fuck working 16 hours locked in a factory without seeing the sun and sleeping 4 hours, I would have also joined a socialist revolutionary movement in that situation too.

But the majority of the population in Russia were peasants, and they lived off their own production, so it's another story.

 

[Freixel]

Communism took on a human face only after Khrushchev came to power, Soviet people finally began to live well - they were given the opportunity to get free higher education, get a free apartment from the state for 25 years of work at a factory or 20 years of service in the army.

Yes, the USSR was a long-lived state with a very long history, to be simplistic and say that Russian communism was a single thing and nothing more would be sinning from ignorance.

Its first decades were brutal, and even many Marxists admit that Stalin was a tyrannical son of a bitch. Atrocities were also committed during Lenin's rule too.

The Red Revolution caused brutality and destruction throughout all Russia, releasing destructive forces that lay dormant, not only on the communist side.

The white army committed many atrocities too.

The reality is that all revolutions are brutal and destructive, followed by periods of tyranny and political instability, just take a look at what happened with the French revolution

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Yes, the USSR was a long-lived state with a very long history, to be simplistic and say that Russian communism was a single thing and nothing more would be sinning from ignorance.

Its first decades were brutal, and even many Marxists admit that Stalin was a tyrannical son of a bitch. Atrocities were also committed during Lenin's rule too.

The Red Revolution caused brutality and destruction throughout all Russia, releasing destructive forces that lay dormant, not only on the communist side.

The white army committed many atrocities too.

The reality is that all revolutions are brutal and destructive, followed by periods of tyranny and political instability, just take a look at what happened with the French revolution

The Red Terror was proclaimed as the official policy of the Bolsheviks after the assassination of the communist Uritsky against opponents of the Soviet government. White terror was never proclaimed by the whites as an official policy and was several times less than that of the Reds.

 

[Justpilled]

Tinfoil hat Jew post

 

[Freixel]

The Red Terror was proclaimed as the official policy of the Bolsheviks after the assassination of the communist Uritsky against opponents of the Soviet government. White terror was never proclaimed by the whites as an official policy and was several times less than that of the Reds.

I'm not going to talk about numbers

But a long time ago I listened to a historian with a YouTube channel and he explained the atrocities committed by both sides and the entire period of instability between 1917 and 1923, the white army was cruel, ruthless and inhuman as well.

Both sides sought the total destruction of the other.

As I say, these are things that happen when a revolution is carried out and a nation-state is destabilized: Power groups fight with blood and fire to gain complete control of the territory and annihilate their enemies.

The problem here is the Jew: they worked to impose their own tyranny with a socialist mask on top.

(Here someone is going to come out and say that communism is by nature Jewish and blah blah blah and I am going to redirect them to my thread on the complexity of Marx)

 

[Freixel]

If I remember correctly, during the French Revolution the Jacobins also called themselves something referring to terror, or that Terror was part of the strategy of the groups in power

It's like...

Yes, those atrocities happened, but they are the natural result of revolutions, it is something that happens due to the very nature of these historical phenomena.

The Red Terror existed because it could not not-exist.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

If I remember correctly, during the French Revolution the Jacobins also called themselves something referring to terror, or that Terror was part of the strategy of the groups in power

It's like...

Yes, those atrocities happened, but they are the natural result of revolutions, it is something that happens due to the very nature of these historical phenomena.

The Red Terror existed because it could not not-exist.

I understand your position, but this happened because the Bolsheviks lost the elections to the Constituent Assembly of Russia and took only 3rd place among the parties, losing to the Social Democrats (SR) and Liberals (Constitutional Democrats) They had no choice but to use violence to force others into submission by force of arms and fear.

 

[weaselbomber]

Yes, those atrocities happened, but they are the natural result of revolutions, it is something that happens due to the very nature of these historical phenomena.

It's not. There have been many bloodless revolutions.

Revolutions of 1989 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The only violent one was Romania.
Few other examples:

Singing Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Carnation Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rose Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It only really happens if the ideology in question is interested in totalitarianism and the banishment of opposition.

 

[Freixel]

It's not. There have been many bloodless revolutions.

Revolutions of 1989 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The only violent one was Romania.
Few other examples:

Singing Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Carnation Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rose Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It only really happens if the ideology in question is interested in totalitarianism and the banishment of opposition.

Were those revolutions you mention to completely change the status quo and remake the state basically from 0?

Genuine question, I don't know them (i'm not european)

 

[Freixel]

I understand your position, but this happened because the Bolsheviks lost the elections to the Constituent Assembly of Russia and took only 3rd place among the parties, losing to the Social Democrats (SR) and Liberals (Constitutional Democrats) They had no choice but to use violence to force others into submission by force of arms and fear.

I now raise a philosophical question.

Would the red terror and all the chaos, destruction and forceful measures carried out to stabilize the new socio-political paradigm in power be justified if it were not for the Jew?

Let's take the Jew out of the equation

Let's say that the Soviet ruling elites were genuine Russians who were working to create another type of nation-state that they believed was better, let's say that they believed they were doing what was best for the indigenous Russian working-class population and that they were not working for international Jewry.

Would criticism be so harsh?

 

[weaselbomber]

Were those revolutions you mention to completely change the status quo and remake the state basically from 0?

Yes.

 

[PureImagination]

Russia is first country that the Jews took into slavery.

Wrong. It was france

 

[Freixel]

I now raise a philosophical question.

Would the red terror and all the chaos, destruction and forceful measures carried out to stabilize the new socio-political paradigm in power be justified if it were not for the Jew?

Let's take the Jew out of the equation

Let's say that the Soviet ruling elites were genuine Russians who were working to create another type of nation-state that they believed was better, let's say that they believed they were doing what was best for the indigenous Russian working-class population and that they were not working for international Jewry.

Would criticism be so harsh?

Here I have no other way than to give my personal opinion.

But I say that many things would be justified.

Like, if I am a revolutionary I do not seek to reach power through voting and legal means, I take all the violent means necessary to conquer power and defeat my enemies.

Of course if I got power and I'm supposed to be working for those I consider my class I won't be as tyrannical or cruel as the Jewish elites were.

I return to my initial message, here the problem is the Jew, not the ideology, not the revolution, not the chaos or the use of violent means.