I just started reading it today, reached page 54 (Right before is starts)
Any thoughts?
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-17 19:35
hello /co/mrade
never read it, just a reminder... don't expect as many answers here as you have on ... /co/ for example
as I think about it ... I maybe read the famous beginning ... but that's where my knowledge ends
your thoughts?
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-17 19:42
I'm reading it to hope to get a better view of the whole "communism vs socialism" thing.
I'm only in High School but I find this to be something to open my eyes a little into some political systems
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-17 20:03
well, I am from post-socialistic country, but I don't actually remember much... I was born exactly year before Velvet Revolution... but this is the way I look at it
communism is some ideal, where everyone has what they need, the proletariat has everything, there are no money, because people make everything in advance and they share it etc etc.
ideal, that will never work.
socialism is "interim solution" between capitalism and communism. communism never really existed and never will. even in China, they have socialism, not communism.
but I never actually read any of this. maybe I should.
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-17 20:33
Its an interesting topic to me, but what is the Velvet Revolution?
Velvet Revolution was a "revolution" in Czechoslovakia (back then, we were one state) in 1989
we "overthrew" the socialist government
but it's called velvet revolution because there was no violence
people just get to the streets
commies saw that they have no chance and that their economy is falling down, so they willfully gave the power to the "Civic Forum" - party lead by Vaclav Havel and these guys
the fact is, it was not a revolution - they just changed the keys to the state
look it up on wikipedia :)
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-17 21:16
I thought of wiki so I was like derr....
the Fact that a nonviolent revolution took place is pretty cool
Name:
Anonymous2009-09-19 17:22
I started to read it, wow, the ideas were great, just what was needed for that moment, but these wonderfull thesis were powered by hate and violence starting from the pages, therefore ending in the violent overthrow of the Tzars (who were murderous bastards) and the killing of the royal family (not cool man)
Also, usefull as such ideas were, one must remember "revolution" means "spin", had the comunism-socialism kept reinventing itself, advancing in an open-minded fashion, I believe it would be one of the most efficients political currents, now it's stained with the blood of centuries, and it's just and excuse for rulers to stay in power endlessly. For me, communism/socialism as a viable ideology is thrashed away in the utopy closet, but read it, you will learn what communism means instead of just hearing what your fathers/friends etc. have to say about it, you'll have your own notion about it, and how fucked up was the rightwing goverment before communism, how fucked up was the burgeoise and how they stomped on the proletariat mercylessly, creating their own monster
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 12:54
?
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-17 22:19
a non-violent revolution is either called putsch or a coup d'état. you could as well be calling the great bourgeois revolution a somewhat drawn-out demostration that got slighty out of hand. the russian revolution began with a coup as well.
>violent overthrow of the Tzars (who were murderous bastards) and the killing of the royal family (not cool man)
I think you are being too soft. It was Tsar Nicholas II. himself who burried his own grave. When Russia faced the humiliating defeat by an asian nation over Port Arthur Nicholas ordered to move the baltic to the Japanese seas as well, to have it drowned as predicted. He offered his protection to the magical monk who was buggering his wife as well as everything else on the court, male or female. Tsar Nicholas instated a paramilitary gang of thugs (the 'Black Hundred') purging ethnic and political minorities in eastern europe in a most barbaric manner. He triggered the First World war via full mobilisation just because the Habsburgs got significanltly pissed over the Serbia not handing over the murderer of their very last heir-to-the-throne. Last but not least the "Red Terror" was inspired and officially justified by the terror of the "Whites". Russian losses at the front were already quite beyond all reason, anon, because their guns just couldn't reach as far as the German ones (which is a bit of a pity in trench warfare). So they settled for human wave tactics and if the soldiers were even meddling they got shot as deserters. General Kornilov claimed "Russia" had to be "saved" even if it meant "three quarters of Russians have to shed blood for it", the British newpapers quoted a Russian officer answering their concern over their great human losses with an ensurance that they still "have more than enough of such shit." The USSR, the Islamic Republic of Persia and Khaddafi's Anarchism have one thing in common: they turnt into a monster while warding off foreign interventions that begun back when they actually weren't as bad. Isolation made any liberalism actually dangerous to the revolutionary cause.
This post bring a big surprise for me.I like those shell house.And i hope it is become the truth one day and i can live in it.It is a art.
Gucci http://www.gucci4love.com/
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-20 22:15
>>11
Actually brah, prolonged lack of checks and balances was going to inevitably corrupt soviet communism. Centralization of power carries this risk