Cyrus

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@VCHK_LVNA @SwampCommunist If you aren't working at all, just being a student, then yes, including "general education". The average amount of schooling globally is less than 9 years.

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@VCHK_LVNA @SwampCommunist They are the lower part of the intelligentsia, especially students old enough to be full-time laborers but who study instead.

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@kylenmclaughlin @celinedionysus_ @terry45640087 >droid that literally runs away from their master

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@die_rizzen @AinurIsLive Where British colonization strengthened the development of capital against the feudal order. Monopoly capital and its development in Europe also led to the development of the Labor Aristocracy. Yet this was also the beginning of the epoch of revolution.

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@die_rizzen @AinurIsLive I think it is a mistake to view every instance in the development of capital as "progressive" or "regressive". These terms have to be reserved for classes and modes of production. Spanish colonization was a complete failure all around for both Spain and its colonies.

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@avispartan1 @die_rizzen Marxism doesn't "support" anything except proletarian revolution, everything else has to be understood in its concrete historical development as a stage in the evolution of human society.

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@adam_newsw28111 @SaddamTransfem No, the Tsar abdicated under popular pressure from nearly everyone. That didn't make every socialist party under the sun an ally of the Bolsheviks.

If any of them were more popular then the would have won the civil war given they had the backing of every great power at the time

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@sipo6061 @joe_br1ght @SaddamTransfem "they didn't do it to an extent significantly greater than the paris commune"

Care to elaborate? It was pretty obviously done to a significantly greater extent than the Paris commune.

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@sipo6061 @joe_br1ght @SaddamTransfem The Paris commune was also a massive leap, but the leaders were not marxists and it was also crushed in under 6 months

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@sipo6061 @joe_br1ght @SaddamTransfem The bolsheviks escalated what would have been inevitable and were able to win because of it. That's the lesson you should take from the civil war, not that the bolsheviks were "too violent".

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@sipo6061 @joe_br1ght @SaddamTransfem They put history on the side of Marxism, before them there was no precedent for a successful worker's state. Objective revolutionary forces still need a subjective will to be acted upon, bolshevism is that subjective factor and they were a massive leap in a process still ongoing

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@sipo6061 @joe_br1ght @SaddamTransfem Actually no, it would. You just have a liberal conception of democracy where hostile classes can collaborate non-violently without repressing each other in any way. That was never what the communists were fighting for 🤷‍♂️

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@adam_newsw28111 @SaddamTransfem That they were never his allies and that it makes sense the bolsheviks turned their guns on them

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@sipo6061 @joe_br1ght @SaddamTransfem World revolution was only made possible because of what the Bolsheviks did. They did the impossible task of actually putting history on the side of Marxism. The class struggle has not ended and the masses do not forget the heroic acts of the Soviet people.

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@sipo6061 @joe_br1ght @SaddamTransfem Marx also always made it extremely clear that there is no ideal and that the class struggle will play out as historically constituted rather than whatever is theoretically formulated. There was no bloodless option for Russia in the age of imperialism.

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@sipo6061 @joe_br1ght @SaddamTransfem Except it didn't mean that at all, since the majority of the country was on the side of the Bolsheviks during the Civil War

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@adam_newsw28111 @SaddamTransfem The Bolsheviks made it clear their end goal was never overthrowing the Tsar, hence why they split to begin with.

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@sipo6061 @joe_br1ght @SaddamTransfem The eventual Bolshevik victory in the civil war meant more to the revolution, and to the masses all around the world, than any negotiated peace would have. Framing it as some undemocratic act of terror by a single man is completely disingenuous.

[Cyrus @CyThatguy]

@sipo6061 @joe_br1ght @SaddamTransfem and thus a hinderance to the revolution, which meant Lenin was right to dissolve it. Violence is central to the class-struggle, it wouldn't have been avoided with just a few more compromises else the whole revolution was compromised.