ITT: a bunch of lying ideologues that deny basic historical realities like the deliberate engineering of the holodomor or the brutal repression of dissent in soviet states
Maybe if “basic history” means “literally never read a book about it by a historian”. Your description is a debunked fringe theory that was only ever entertained by a single serious historian and he was a big Cold Warrior that embarrassed himself.
You should begin your education by reading Wheatcroft and Davies.
basic historical realities like the deliberate engineering of the holodomor
You should be embarassed. The consensus even among neoliberal historians (and not neoliberal pop-historians like Applebaum) is that it was not “engineered” and the Soviets did not desire to starve the soviet peasantry in the area because that’s a hysterical double-holocaust myth.
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
Removed by mod
ITT: a bunch of lying ideologues that deny basic historical realities like the deliberate engineering of the holodomor or the brutal repression of dissent in soviet states
Maybe if “basic history” means “literally never read a book about it by a historian”. Your description is a debunked fringe theory that was only ever entertained by a single serious historian and he was a big Cold Warrior that embarrassed himself.
You should begin your education by reading Wheatcroft and Davies.
You should be embarassed. The consensus even among neoliberal historians (and not neoliberal pop-historians like Applebaum) is that it was not “engineered” and the Soviets did not desire to starve the soviet peasantry in the area because that’s a hysterical double-holocaust myth.
https://www.villagevoice.com/2020/11/21/in-search-of-a-soviet-holocaust/
Removed by mod
Please, the liberals in this thread don’t even know what an Engels even is.
Engles killed 100 zillion people.
He’s my buddy I just asked for rent money
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
What dialectics does to a mfer
undefined> he political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution
I think the history has shown this to be false
White army anyone? Here’s a 2 min video for you https://youtu.be/uThpIDlfcBQ
Yes, they were both bad. Enemy of my enemy is not necessary my friend.
I’m pointing out why the state can’t just go away
So you agree that the premise that the state would just wither away is false?
No, I’m saying the state can’t just wither away if it’s necessary to defend against counter-revolutions and imperialism.
Defend what? Social democracy without democracy?