Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Collins vs De Valera
Comments
-
Snickers Man wrote: »I used to walk down Upper Mount St every morning back in the 1980s and was amused that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael party headquarters were each just across the road from each other. Within spitting distance, you might say.
Or even a stone's throw.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »
And as for modern parallels: Watch what happens with Boris, Rees-Mogg et al in England over this Brexit nonsense. They will try to shaft May, but after whatever deal is decided is done. Not before.
It's a fairly familiar Machiavellian tactic.
As I'm sure you know.
Stephen Colllins in today's Irish Times sees parallels between Mrs May's predicament and that of Michael Collins 98 years ago.
As a wise man once said, it's better to be wrong than vague when making forecasts and despite the fact that a rabid Torygraph journalist and Brexit-supporting oik confidently declared on BBC's Question Time last night that he wouldn't be surprised if Theresa May resigned before midnight tonight, I still think she will hang on until Brexit (hard, soft or downright squishy) happens on March 29th next year.
Who would want her job before then? They need a scapegoat to blame for everything.
She's it.
You can laugh if I'm wrong.
0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »Stephen Colllins in today's Irish Times sees parallels between Mrs May's predicament and that of Michael Collins 98 years ago.
As a wise man once said, it's better to be wrong than vague when making forecasts and despite the fact that a rabid Torygraph journalist and Brexit-supporting oik confidently declared on BBC's Question Time last night that he wouldn't be surprised if Theresa May resigned before midnight tonight, I still think she will hang on until Brexit (hard, soft or downright squishy) happens on March 29th next year.
Who would want her job before then? They need a scapegoat to blame for everything.
She's it.
You can laugh if I'm wrong.
In fairness, Rees-Mogg and BJ are unlikely to lead an armed takeover of the Old Bailey and wait it out 'til civil war should anything other than Hard Brexit pass through.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »I used to walk down Upper Mount St every morning back in the 1980s and was amused that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael party headquarters were each just across the road from each other. Within spitting distance, you might say.
What better way to keep an eye on each other?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It's not nonsense it happened. It was a huge split in the Socialist movement, and the next big split was the Sino-Soviet split, but this was long after the left-wing Socialists were buried.This is actually a load of nonsense - and the big split in international socialism was between the Marxist-Leninists (another misnomer because Lenin was a Marxist) and the Stalinists.
I don't need to talk about the "White Army" as they were just Imperialist scum, but the more interesting struggle during the civil war was between the right Socialists vs the left Socialists. The Bolsheviks were time & time again having to put down left-wing uprisings between 1918 - 1924 by the left Socialist Revolutionaries (Left SR) & the Revoltionary Socialist party, as well as the Anarchists & the Kronstadt Sailors.
FFS the person who shot Lenin, Fanny Kaplan was a Socialist Revolutionary Party member. And you are trying to tell me the Bolsheviks had no opponents from the left? Kaplan reminds of Corday, the French Revolutionary who stabbed Marat. And fair play to both women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_uprisings_against_the_Bolsheviks
Lenin even wrote a book called "Left-Wing" Communsim: An Infantile Disorder. Which in it he attacks people like Luxemburg, Pannekoek & Gorter. He also claims Communsim must relate to & win over the Lloyd George's (Liberals) & Churchills (Conservatives), which probably shows how delusional he was in that regard. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
How you can sit there & deny that Lenin never suppressed works by Marx & other Socialists is be on me. You seem to have a good grasp of the Russian Revolution & Civil War. You seem to want to put all blame on Stalin for mass killings & make Lenin out to be perfect with no flaws.
Leninism or Marxism-Leninism was a distortion of Marxism not a natural progression of it, Lenin was more worried in furthering his own class interests which was that of the radical intelligentsia, which he did very well, rather than furthering the intrests of the working class, who if they always had to rely on people like Lenin would never be able to liberate their class.
http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2015/11/how-lenin-distorted-marxis.html
https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_what_way_is_Lenins_interpretation_of_Marx_a_departure_from_Marxs_thoughtLenin's theory is often considered to be a logical development of Marx's in the sense of adding practise to Marx's theory. Yet Marx's own theory was closely tied to practise. Marx, in contrast to Lenin, saw communism as arising from a highly developed capitalism; his theory envisaged a working class that would be able to take on capitalism world-wide or face further defeats.
Lenin's analysis proceeds from the assumption that a minority working class in Russia (and soon thereafter the Soviet Union) would be able to inspire workers and peasants in other countries to seize state power - and not abolish the state as in Marx's analysis and political thought - and gradually, by power of persuasion and violence, bring the other - often hostile - classes round to joining the struggle for communism.When the Bolsheviks seized control of Petrograd in October 1917, they were supported by the Left SRs, a small but influential revolutionary group. As their name suggests, the Left SRs once belonged to the Socialist Revolutionary party, which until the revolution had been Russia’s largest left-wing political party. But the events of 1914-17 proved divisive and destructive for the Socialist Revolutionary movement. Populist and broad-based, the SRs had always contained a wide range of political views, along with conservative, moderate and radical factions. The onset of World War I further exposed these political fractures within the SR party, which was divided about how to respond. The majority of SRs favoured supporting the war effort, either as a patriotic gesture or a defensive measure- but the party’s radical left adopted an anti-war position, similar to that of the Bolsheviks. Several SR leaders became ministers in the Provisional Government during 1917 but their continued support for the war, along with the lack of progress on land reform and redistribution, led the Left SR faction to align with the Bolsheviks. The split in the SR movement was finalised by the events of October 1917. Dozens of Left SRs contributed to preparations for the overthrow of the Provisional Government – in fact, the chairman of the Military Revolutionary Committee, Pavel Lazimir, was a Left SR rather than a Bolshevik. On October 26th, when the Second Congress of Soviets was told that Red Guards had arrested the Provisional Government and seized power on their behalf, moderate SR delegates stormed out of the building – at which point they were famously consigned to the “dustbin of history” by Leon Trotsky. The Left SR delegates chose to remain, a decision that led to their expulsion from the broader SR organisation, after which they formed their own independent party. From this point, the Left SRs were aligned with the Bolsheviks. Shortly after the October takeover, Lenin offered them a role in a coalition government but the Left SRs wanted a Soviet-based government – a “united revolutionary front”, one called it – and rejected the offer. In early December they changed their minds and formed a coalition government with the Bolsheviks, accepting seven portfolios in the Sovnarkom.“The Left SRs were hardly less radical than the Bolsheviks themselves (they tended to stress peasant interests)… It is nevertheless possible that over a period of years, the coalition could have led to mutual restraint, which might in due course have mitigated the worst features of totalitarianism … It soon became clear, however, that the Bolsheviks did not want to share power with any party.”
Dmitri Volkogonov, historian
The de facto leader of the Left SRs during this critical period was Maria Spiridonova, a young female activist who had once murdered a tsarist police commander on his doorstep. Under Spiridonova the Left SRs supported most of the Bolshevik programme, though some significant points of difference were exposed and teased out during the first weeks of 1918. Land reform, reorganisation of the peasantry and rural self-sufficiency remained at the forefront of the Left SR agenda; Lenin, however, rejected these policies as “bourgeois-tinted dreams”. Of greater concern to some Left SRs was the exclusion of non-Bolshevik socialist and Soviet voices from government. Left SR leaders opposed the closure of the Constituent Assembly, though they were outnumbered and thus outvoted by the Bolsheviks. The extra-legal violence and intimidation wielded by the emerging CHEKA was accepted as necessary by some Left SRs but condemned by others. Isaac Steinberg, the Left SR lawyer who served as commissar for justice in the first Sovnarkom, regularly criticised the CHEKA and called for an inquiry into its conduct, with no success.
An American press report on the July 1918 fighting in Moscow The fragile alliance between the Bolsheviks and the Left SRs was brought to an end by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Left SRs considered the March 1918 treaty to be treacherous, a “sell-out” filled with cruel disregard for Russian peasants living in affected territories, and they opposed it intensely. Once the Bolsheviks had accepted and ratified the Brest-Litovsk agreement, the Left SRs withdrew from the Sovnarkom, leaving it entirely in Bolshevik hands. They continued to participate in the Congress of Soviets, however, the opportunistic measures taken by the Bolsheviks in 1918 widened the rift between the two parties. Among the Bolshevik policies bitterly opposed by the Left SRs were the imposition of state control in factories; the restoration of the death penalty; and the introduction of war communism. In the spring of 1918, the German army occupied Ukraine and violently suppressed peasant opposition there, while the Bolshevik government did nothing. The outraged Left SRs lobbied the Fourth Congress of Soviets (July 1918) to have the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk nullified, calling for a new declaration of war against Germany. The motion was defeated by the Bolshevik majority.
A group of anarchists who fought alongside the Left SRs in 1918 The following day the Left SRs took action into their own hands, sending agents to assassinate the German ambassador, Count Mirbach, in Moscow. Inspired by this success, a brigade of soldiers loyal to the Left SRs defied the Bolsheviks, refusing orders and even detaining Felix Dzerzhinsky, head of the much-feared CHEKA. The rebels held the upper hand in Moscow, where their troops outnumbered soldiers loyal to the Bolsheviks by almost three to one. With the city’s workers unwilling to defend the Bolsheviks, the Left SRs and their troops might have swept into the Kremlin to arrest Lenin and other members of the government. But the Left SR uprising was a spontaneous event: unlike the Bolsheviks in October 1917, their leaders had made no planning or provision for a takeover.
Though it took several days, the SR revolt was eventually crushed by Red Army and CHEKA reinforcements. Around 950 Left SRs were hunted down, arrested and given a show trial in late 1918, though they were treated with comparative leniency, with only 13 given short sentences in Soviet labour camps. Maria Spiridonova herself was sentenced to just one year in prison. The onset of the Civil War and the widening of the Red Terror soon produced tougher measures. The Left SR party was declared illegal in February 1919 and Spiridonova was arrested again shortly after, for publicly criticising the government. Other individual Left SRs were chased into exile, where they fought with peasant militias against the Red Army during the Civil War; some withdrew from political life but later agitated against the Bolsheviks in the early 1920s. As a political party, the Left SRs quickly faded into political oblivion. Their bold attempt to initiate a ‘third Russian Revolution’, mirroring the events of October 1917, was the last concerted stand against Bolshevism until 1921.
https://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/left-srs/
Trotsky himself oppossed a lot of Lenins ideas until the October Revolution when he jumped on board the bandwagon. But Trotsky was another of the radical intelligentsia and his class interests were tied closely to Lenin's.
I think why Stalin's violence was less subtle than Lenin's reign was because he was not apart of that class and he came from a more working class - lower middle class background, and it's maybe one of the reasons for his paranoid state of mind & why he purged the intelligentsia class, people like Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev & Smirnov.
But whatever about Stalin's crimes, Lenin mustvhave been the first dictator in Europe in the 20th century who formed a secret police & death squad in the Cheka. He used state power & the techniques of control & repression masterfully to crush any opposistion that got in his way.
And this version violent, authoritarian communism is the version that swept third world countries engaged in legitmate liberation struggles like Vietnam, Angola, Palestine & Cuba, and they & wanted a new order to replace the old imperialist systems & Bolshevik communism with it's anti-imperialist slogans was very intriguing to these countries, it's why the Irish Republican movement adopted it in the 1960's.0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement