Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack H. Obama

LOLFag · 11-12-2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaaaaake

Have you even seen the documentary? Lenin was "positive change" to the Russians...

Indeed he was. He was positive change. Lenin's ideals adhered much more to Marx's than to Stalin's.

You obviously don't know who Lenin was.

DamnImGood · 11-12-2009, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marypaintscars

"Free" health care won't be free. We'll all be paying for it through taxes!

But you seem to have no problem giving money monthly to a greedy insurance company who would jump at the first opportunity to cease your coverage.

And if things like reattaching a finger cost $40,000, think of how many decades will have to pass before you pay that in taxes. Such a dumb argument.

Esmo · 11-12-2009, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOLFag

Indeed he was. He was positive change. Lenin's ideals adhered much more to Marx's than to Stalin's.

You obviously don't know who Lenin was.

Hmmmm... Perhaps positive change compared to tsardom, but Lenin unleashed a coup upon the Provisional Government knowing that he had to act before the November elections. He was a backward step after two steps forward.

BadaBing · 11-12-2009, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esmo

Hmmmm... Perhaps positive change compared to tsardom, but Lenin unleashed a coup upon the Provisional Government knowing that he had to act before the November elections. He was a backward step after two steps forward.

Ye but tht wasn't his fault. Russia at tht point was near meltdown. People didn't want elections they wanted revolution and they saw provisional government as promoting counter revolution. Revolution was inevitable.

Esmo · 11-13-2009, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadaBing

Ye but tht wasn't his fault. Russia at tht point was near meltdown. People didn't want elections they wanted revolution and they saw provisional government as promoting counter revolution. Revolution was inevitable.

The Provisional Government was impeded by a fundamental lack of legitimacy. It hadn't been democratically elected, and if the Bolsheviks hadn't come up at the 11th hour then it probably would have seen through to a democratic constituent assembly, so the inevitability of revolution seems questionable.
I think you're wrong in saying that the people specifically wanted immediate revolution - most of the popularity for the far-left parties went to the Mensheviks and SRs, who were more willing to co-operate with the government in order to fulfill the next stage of Marxist theory, precisely what Lenin was going against, or at the very least twisting to suit him.

Lenin was politically calculating to seize power, because he knew that the revolutionary votes in the upcoming elections would probably go for the Mensheviks and SRs as above, and a coup would be much harder against a legitimate government.

dandaitalianman · 11-13-2009, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadaBing

I don't understand how "free" health care is a bad thing.

"Free"

I need food to live. Therefore, I should get it for free.

I have stated time and time again how it is a a horrific thing for the government to compete with the private sector. Such should never happen, with very few exceptions. Actually in those exceptions, the private sector competes with the government and is actually doing better than the government in some cases. Obama admitted it too.

DamnImGood · 11-13-2009, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dandaitalianman

"Free"

I need food to live. Therefore, I should get it for free.

I have stated time and time again how it is a a horrific thing for the government to compete with the private sector. Such should never happen, with very few exceptions. Actually in those exceptions, the private sector competes with the government and is actually doing better than the government in some cases. Obama admitted it too.

What's truly horrific is people being turned away when they need medical help.

LOLFag · 11-13-2009, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esmo

Hmmmm... Perhaps positive change compared to tsardom, but Lenin unleashed a coup upon the Provisional Government knowing that he had to act before the November elections. He was a backward step after two steps forward.

And thus still a step forward.
The same may or may not apply here. It's up to you to decide.

---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esmo

The Provisional Government was impeded by a fundamental lack of legitimacy. It hadn't been democratically elected, and if the Bolsheviks hadn't come up at the 11th hour then it probably would have seen through to a democratic constituent assembly, so the inevitability of revolution seems questionable.
I think you're wrong in saying that the people specifically wanted immediate revolution - most of the popularity for the far-left parties went to the Mensheviks and SRs, who were more willing to co-operate with the government in order to fulfill the next stage of Marxist theory, precisely what Lenin was going against, or at the very least twisting to suit him.

Lenin was politically calculating to seize power, because he knew that the revolutionary votes in the upcoming elections would probably go for the Mensheviks and SRs as above, and a coup would be much harder against a legitimate government.

Are you sure? From what I know, the Provisional government was a complete failure and the country faced economic ruin under its policies. I highly doubt that the proletariats would have accepted the government, even if it were legitimate, simply because it was a steaming pile of garbage. Revolution was inevitable if the government was to be made legitimate. If not, the revolution would still be inevitable, as history has shown. Furthermore, I was under the impression that the Bolshevik faction had the support of the majority, hence the name, not to mention that after the October revolution, the Bolsheviks gained a majority in the Second Congress of the Soviets.

In any case, it is true that he was twisting Marx's original ideals, but that wasn't such a bad idea since he was twisting them to fit an agrarian nation. I'm not too sure about the technological aspects of Russia at that time, but if it was true that the majority of the economy was centered on agriculture, I'm not sure if that's a bad idea. But placing politics in front of economics, not so wise.

Again, I'm not sure if it's true that the votes would've gone to the minority factions.

Esmo · 11-14-2009, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOLFag

And thus still a step forward.

If you step over the time between February and October 1917, then yes, it's a step forward from Tsardom to Bolshevik rule. But considering the potential that there was for democracy, I still think there's some validity in calling it a step backwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOLFag

Are you sure? From what I know, the Provisional government was a complete failure and the country faced economic ruin under its policies.

Not it's policies, as such, more it's position. It could not leave the war that was ruining the country without bringing greater ruin. But the simultaneous onset of democracy and the end of the War in November were promises for a new start when the government would actually have the opportunity to prove itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOLFag

I highly doubt that the proletariats would have accepted the government, even if it were legitimate, simply because it was a steaming pile of garbage. Revolution was inevitable if the government was to be made legitimate. If not, the revolution would still be inevitable, as history has shown.

It's true there was a sweeping radicalisation of politics in the approaching months to October, and in that atmosphere the revolution made sense. But that the government had survived so far under near daily agitation and danger spots such as the July Days and the business with Kornilov, I don't think it was inevitable before November.

After November, surely the opportunity for revolution was weakened, as Lenin himself thought, because the war was over and the government was now voted in from a radical electorate? The small demography of proletariat that there was was more anti-government than pro-Bolshevik.

I always think historical examples are such dangerous, because I figure that the human element in history can often render things unpredictable no matter how hard one looks into the past. But what are your examples?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOLFag

Furthermore, I was under the impression that the Bolshevik faction had the support of the majority, hence the name

The names arose from during the Social Democrats Second Congress, when those wanting a small, committed party membership got the majority vote for their views and therefore took the moniker of 'Bolsheviks' and vice versa for the Mensheviks. The Mensheviks were actually larger and more powerful as they took a wider membership base and had posts in the Provisional Government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOLFag

not to mention that after the October revolution, the Bolsheviks gained a majority in the Second Congress of the Soviets.

Hardly surprising, since the Bolsheviks were practically the only socialists left. The majority of Mensheviks and right-wing SRs had walked out in protest. Or, as Trotsky put it, 'consigned themselves to the dustbin of history'

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOLFag

Again, I'm not sure if it's true that the votes would've gone to the minority factions.

As in the Mensheviks and SRs? I've already demonstrated that they were hardly minority factions, and Lenin was certainly unsure enough about the election to initiate a coup.

LOLFag · 11-14-2009, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esmo

If you step over the time between February and October 1917, then yes, it's a step forward from Tsardom to Bolshevik rule. But considering the potential that there was for democracy, I still think there's some validity in calling it a step backwards.

Not it's policies, as such, more it's position. It could not leave the war that was ruining the country without bringing greater ruin. But the simultaneous onset of democracy and the end of the War in November were promises for a new start when the government would actually have the opportunity to prove itself.

It's true there was a sweeping radicalisation of politics in the approaching months to October, and in that atmosphere the revolution made sense. But that the government had survived so far under near daily agitation and danger spots such as the July Days and the business with Kornilov, I don't think it was inevitable before November.

After November, surely the opportunity for revolution was weakened, as Lenin himself thought, because the war was over and the government was now voted in from a radical electorate? The small demography of proletariat that there was was more anti-government than pro-Bolshevik.

I always think historical examples are such dangerous, because I figure that the human element in history can often render things unpredictable no matter how hard one looks into the past. But what are your examples?

The names arose from during the Social Democrats Second Congress, when those wanting a small, committed party membership got the majority vote for their views and therefore took the moniker of 'Bolsheviks' and vice versa for the Mensheviks. The Mensheviks were actually larger and more powerful as they took a wider membership base and had posts in the Provisional Government.

Hardly surprising, since the Bolsheviks were practically the only socialists left. The majority of Mensheviks and right-wing SRs had walked out in protest. Or, as Trotsky put it, 'consigned themselves to the dustbin of history'

As in the Mensheviks and SRs? I've already demonstrated that they were hardly minority factions, and Lenin was certainly unsure enough about the election to initiate a coup.

Thanks for enlightening me. I'm not all too familiar with history. Not my forte.