User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:23 am

Charles wrote:I have studied Marxism for many years at university and on my own. I know a marxist when I see one. Makhno was true believer just like Lenin, he would have made a nice addition to the Party.

The only difference I see is the means of how to achieve Socialism.

You should continue your curses, as you learned badly:
Makhnovists fought against "the Party", and no, Makhno did not believe in The Party.
You should know that the differences of means to a socialism are what makes a marxist or not. See my post above.
Continuing telling Makhno is a marxist will then be an insult to its memory, as I teached you he wasn't and he hated marxist dictatorship.

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:52 am

ERISS wrote:You should continue your curses, .



I believe you meant "courses", but I would recommend you take them yourself since you seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what Marxism is all about. ;)

Marx's ideas of what an ideal society should be, namely "from every man according according to his capacity, to every man according to his needs", refers to the end state. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Makhno as well all believed in this goal.

The difference between Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and apparently Makhno lies in the means to achieve that end. Bolsheviks believed in using violence and coercion to achieve their ends. Obviously, not everyone agreed with them.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:08 am

Charles wrote:The difference between Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and apparently Makhno lies in the means to achieve that end.

Marxism is a socialism. Anarchism can be a socialism (not all are).
All socialism are not marxism. It means Marxism is not equal to socialism: there are socialisms which don't want the Marx means.
If Bakunin's (or Makhno's) anarchism were a marxism, Marx would not have fired the anarchists from the 1st International.
YOU are wrong. Read again your courses (or maybe you had a bad professor).
EDIT: And yep Phil I stop about this.

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13410
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:33 am

Keep it cool please :cool:
Image

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:18 am

PhilThib wrote:Keep it cool please :cool:

[color="Blue"]This

It would be a shame to close this thread because people aren't able to stay on subject rather than focusing on the people they are discussing the subjects with[/color]
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE
Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER]

User avatar
Nikel
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Expaña

Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:10 am

I do not think that the Peloponnesian war can create this kind of problems :niark: ;)


But you never know :)

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13410
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:34 am

Well, who knows...a flame war between pro-Spartan facists and pro-Athenian democrats ? ;) :mdr: :D
Image

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:25 am

PhilThib wrote:Well, who knows...a flame war between pro-Spartan facists and pro-Athenian democrats ? ;) :mdr: :D

Errr... what what? Spartans were not fascists, they were the true democrats. Every citizen is a free man, how more democratic can it get???

Meanwhile Athens was democracy only on paper and in the imagination of some foolish historians! Athens was a mob rule where those with most money for bribery ruled and destroyed the state!!!



[SIZE="1"]Btw, just kidding, in case somebody thought I was serious :D [/size]
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:39 pm

PhilThib wrote:Well, who knows...a flame war between pro-Spartan facists and pro-Athenian democrats ? ;) :mdr: :D


"All power to the Athenian people's assembly!" :)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:54 pm

ERISS wrote:Marxism is a socialism. Anarchism can be a socialism (not all are).
All socialism are not marxism. It means Marxism is not equal to socialism: there are socialisms which don't want the Marx meanings.


This is really a question of semantics. Modern day political theory refers to Bolsheviks, Anarcho-Communists and even to very marginal groups like the Makhonites as "Marxists" since they follow Marx's economic theories.

"Marxist" is also seen as a more intellectually neutral term, since both "Socialist" and "Communist" have heavy political overtones, especially in Europe.

Lenin himself almost always used the term "socialist" or even "social-democrat" in public speeches to describe his policies, reserving "Marxist" for heavy duty internal doctrinal debates.

However, for the purpose of an internet debate about a RCW computer game, the terms "marxist", "socialist" or "communist" are pretty much interchangeable. ;)



If Bakunin's (or Makhno's) anarchism were a marxism, Marx would not have fired the anarchists from the 1st International.


Bakunin and Makhno were "Marxists" in the modern sense since they followed Marx's economic theories. The fallout between Bakunin and Marx were over method, not over the ultimate aim of a socialist revolution. :)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:48 pm

Charles wrote:This is really a question of semantics. Modern day political theory refers to Bolsheviks, Anarcho-Communists and even to very marginal groups like the Makhonites as "Marxists".
Bakunin and Makhno were "Marxists" in the modern sense since they followed Marx's economic theories.

We can't understand when somebody uses words with changed meanings.
Ask the anarchists, few should tell you they are marxists. And if some are marxists, they will tell you why, and you will find they* talk about real marxism with its means and goals (For me these 'anarchists' are lunatic).
Nowadays marxists want to hide the means of marxism for these means (party in a bourgeois democracy, then kind(?) dictatorship of this party) are no longer popular.
Telling black is red is propaganda: Marxists want to recuperate anarchists. That is typically a Lenin's tactic.

I actually understand what you say as "Modern marxism is defined as following Marx's economic theories". But, no, removing the means Marx advocated is hidding History, and that is not good.

Edit: In 'stopping it' in my above post, I wanted to mean what could be understood as personnal attack (Ok, I lied a little, as at first I wanted to actually stop this chat as it was becoming too passionate).

(* 'They': See my next post)

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:16 pm

ERISS wrote:
Edit: In 'stopping it' in my above post, I wanted to mean what could be understood as personnal attack.


I understood that. Interesting discussion so far, at least I found out more about Nestor Makhno. :)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:42 pm

*Okay: Some anarchists gave in to this modern marxist trick (since the 60's I'll say) and forgot about the means of marxism. But they are then no longer anarchists, they became ultra-Left.

For me ultra-Left are anti-marxists, who believe they are marxists, and wanting to be marxists! Weird.
They were many in the german revolution (they read Lenin and Trotsky, but they didn't agree what the bolsheviks were doing).
I don't know about the Russian Civil War: Who was then a self said marxist, but refusing the party or a dictatorship? (Nice come back to the topic lol)

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:20 pm

ERISS wrote:I don't know about the Russian Civil War: Who was then a self said marxist, but refusing the party or a dictatorship? (Nice come back to the topic lol)


The only one would be the Mensheviks.

Bolsheviks (russian word for "majority") led by Lenin and Mensheviks (russian word for "minority") led by Martov were two offshoots of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party which had split in the years following the 1905 Revolution.

Both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks believed in Marx's economic theories, but the Bolsheviks were the only ones calling for an immediate takeover and a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Mensheviks, for a variety of reasons, believed in gradual reforms and working through a parliamentary system.

The other main leftist party, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, were more what would now call a social-democratic party. They were not marxist, but wanted to carry out many social reforms. The more radical wing of the SRs, which became known as the "left SR" split from the party after the October coup and joined the Bolsheviks.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1843
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:49 pm

Looks like some "Foreign intervention" happened in this forum :) :)
But it will be in track :) there is many disagreement in left groups about how things must happen. This should be the main problem of the left.
But some parts of the thread should be informative also.


Jarkko wrote:Errr... what what? Spartans were not fascists, they were the true democrats. Every citizen is a free man, how more democratic can it get???

Meanwhile Athens was democracy only on paper and in the imagination of some foolish historians! Athens was a mob rule where those with most money for bribery ruled and destroyed the state!!!



[SIZE="1"]Btw, just kidding, in case somebody thought I was serious :D [/size]


There should be some truth even it is mentioned as a joke. :) History should be about lies, but in order to be telling truth it should be confirmed first by the opposing groups who had a conflict. If one side was dominant then history must have been written in a subjective manner. Which can result in a idealised history of the society that lived may be 2000 years ago. But it helps to find reasons for justifiying some actions or trying to find parts of his civilization(?) to identify himself.

This should influence Marx about how world must change and the superstition of the past of abstract idealised society distracting workers movement. :) :rolleyes:


ERISS wrote:We can't understand when somebody uses words with changed meanings.
Ask the anarchists, few should tell you they are marxists. And if some are marxists, they will tell you why, and you will find they* talk about real marxism with its meanings and goals (For me these 'anarchists' are lunatic).




I guess apart from other groups of anarchists , ultra left anarchist groups somehow should be formed in the era of Marx. They(left) should form the majority of groups in other anarchist groups. It should be directly related to industrialism not before..They should be the product of cities not villages. As they know better how the state characterized so they strongly against it. Left anarchist groups should not be too independent from Marxist ideology. but we can not say the same thing about village commune happened many many centuries ago.

Before Nestor Makhno or Pyotr Kropotkin there should some village Commune in some other parts of the world. One example I can give is "imece".
Which is villagers helping each other in case of any problem and there is some surplus of resources .No trade is needed. It is around Caucasus and north east of Ottomans(black sea). Interesting thing is they lived without the knowledge of nationalism even some of them from different religion an ethnic group. I suspect they heard about the great leader Nestor Makhno and his ideas. It should have happened by natural evolution or by a good village Elder. :) :p apy: or lack of technology(argumentative).


I have remembered a cartoon Peyo draw called " Smurfs "..(Socialist Men Under Red Father? :) )

There is a village.. Every one has different personality, Some beautiful,ugly,selfish, shy and hardworking. They live according to their needs, There was collectivizm. One smurf preparing food,other is interested in art,lazy one(even not working, tolerated )strong one is doing hard work, other with good sense of humour trying to amuse others and wise smurf with a glasses telling some of his ideas representing Trocky..

Enemy "Gargamel" as representing a greedy man(capitalists) who is threatening the commune society. As he is "opportunist" and likes to take advantage anything involving money.
And the village elder with a long white beard representing Karl Marx...
advisor only.

In one episode one of the smurfs(interested in economics) trying to biring currency to the commune. It could have created class struggle, and it was prevented so and so..

Passion to Makhnovism is understandable but how can the revolution in big Russia be successfull or survive without strong authority,party or state.? as it is no village commune without knowing so much about cities, working hours or class struggle..
there is some necessity to remove previous superstructure by some authority.

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:01 am

Baris wrote: If one side was dominant then history must have been written in a subjective manner. Which can result in a idealised history of the society that lived may be 2000 years ago.

And in an idealised modern one:
If democracy were a military aristocracy with the ruling of citizen upon slaves and women, then nowadays democracy can be an economical boss aristocracy with the ruling of citizen upon themselves (especially women) in waged labour!

ultra left anarchist groups somehow should be formed in the era of Marx. They(left) should form the majority of groups in other anarchist groups. Left anarchist groups should not be too independent from Marxist ideology.

"Ultra-Left" political wing are socialists refusing almost all means, even anarchists ones, and especially even marxists ones. But anarchists tolerate being with the ultra-Left as these socialists are the non-anarchists the less dictatorial ones: Ultra-Left found only the soviets as a mean for socialism, and many anarchists think the soviets are the better mean to go to a socialist anarchy (the soviets are not anarchy).

So, as "ultra left anarchist", I think, you actually mean the anarchists wanting socialism, and not the ultra-Left non-anarchist wing I just described.

I have remembered a cartoon Peyo draw called " Smurfs "..(Socialist Men Under Red Father? :) )
the village elder with a long white beard representing Karl Marx...

Lol. In France they are the "Schtroumphs".
Marx is very often idealized: He was a bastard, a 'whore', not so mischievous than Lenin, but more dishonnest. You should not show Marx your back... I'm not insulting, I'm describing Marx when he had a power: the power in the 1st International. EDIT: I know Bakunin could be a dictator and Proudhon was sexist.

how can the revolution in big Russia be successfull or survive without strong authority, party or state? as it is no village commune without knowing so much about cities, working hours or class struggle..
there is some necessity to remove previous superstructure by some authority.

You're not wrong, as the power of family was very strong in peasant villages. The revolution was needing some "May 68" to remove this power.
You're wrong in the knowing of villages. At least, anarchists were telling them what was "working hours", "class struggle", etc. Many anarchists went school teachers in villages.

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1843
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:58 am

ERISS wrote:And in an idealised modern one:
If democracy were a military aristocracy with the ruling of citizen upon slaves and women, then nowadays democracy can be an economical boss aristocracy with the ruling of citizen upon themselves (especially women) in waged labour!


Yes, so nothing to idealize about past. We see what we want to see in history or past. And commenting in todays perspective and justifiying our action. History is mainly the history of aristocracy or rulers. History tellers mainly telling what they suppose to tell about them, but I find it funny to connect anything happened 2000 years ago to todays evolution of society. Because there should be many gaps or dark parts we didn't explored yet or what happened between.

modern society can be called modern slaves looking to jump to upper class as a rather shallow but correct explanation.


ERISS wrote: "Ultra-Left" political wing are socialists refusing almost all means, even anarchists ones, and especially even marxists ones. But anarchists tolerate being with the ultra-Left as these socialists are the non-anarchists the less dictatorial ones: Ultra-Left found only the soviets as a mean for socialism, and many anarchists think the soviets are the better mean to go to a socialist anarchy (the soviets are not anarchy).

So, as "ultra left anarchist", I think, you actually mean the anarchists wanting socialism, and not the ultra-Left non-anarchist wing I just described.


Yes I know. I mean extreme left :) no state. What I mean is anarchist-communism history is not that long. It should be the reaction to industrilization and hard labour. They should have appeared in big cities. they dont agree with Marx ofcourse. But they also have some common(then other type of anarchists) things. But huge difference is no-state.

ERISS wrote:Lol. In France they are the "Schtroumphs".
Marx is very often idealized: He was a bastard, a 'whore', not so mischievous than Lenin, but more dishonnest. You should not show Marx your back... I'm not insulting, I'm describing Marx when he had a power: the power in the 1st International.


I know it was called Schtroumphs even I dont know one word of French. But because of the other name cartoon was banned in some countries that was the irony. Plus I don't know about Peyo. But what I have watched long before that he should be marxist-leninist. He was critizing Trotcky that he couldnt take care of the village after village elder gone :) He was described as sneaky, so the village call back the elder again :)

until 1960's communist parties in most countries I guess were Marxist-Leninist . After that left has mostly divided I guess (state,non-state) Before 1960's I think left(artisan or intellectuals) was ignorant and idealizing bolsheviks with no clue what is happening.


ERISS wrote: You're not wrong, as the power of family was very strong in peasant villages. The revolution was needing some "May 68" to remove this power.
You're wrong in the knowing of villages. At least, anarchists were telling them what was "working hours", "class struggle", etc. Many anarchists went school teachers in villages.


I can imagine that but I dont think I agree with that. In some countries and what I have seen even anarchists or left groups was trying to get support by educating or telling to villagers they were not succesfull. When they were not succesfull they blame the villagers. Villagers were never understood them. So Left groups and villagers started to hate each other more than state. Interesting part is government encouraged some kind of village institute with government officers educating. Classes were mostly about how beautiful or important to be peasant. The aim was to prevent peasants to migrate to big cities that what if they become anarchist or communists. I dont know about soviets peasants or villagers if they understood working hours by living in a farm. Because hard to teach that, one must live in big city. If some anarchists and some villagers are in the same family maybe. But I can give many examples that 2 brothers have opposite ideology can hate each other. but villagers should be somehow unconscious or couldnt predict about what will happen .. Because literate rate should be low. Apart from that there was no problem in village.Why they listen to anarchists? Lenin persuaded them and after a time it was too late for anarchists and villagers. Bolsheviks already sized their property as you said. So it looks anarchists were not succesfull about educating villagers before the bolsheviks got stronger.



" International. EDIT: I know Bakunin could be a dictator and Proudhon was sexist."


Edit: can be true,Proudhon can be sexist (but ideas not important?) just like Pablo Picasso Marxist but painting and drawing old style "cubism". Product of last centuries capitalist society..
I think that any extrreme anarchists or extreme fascists in the same country are the same product of the society. Can not be too independent.
Superstructure of any country should have some influence in any opposite groups that has even huge ideology differences...
And to break this superstructure pure anarchism shouldn't be enough. There should be some harsh authority to clean the ruins or base of this superstructure as Lenin did...

User avatar
andatiep
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:56 am
Location: Grenoble, France.

Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:51 pm

Nice thread.
Nice discussion.
I'm happy with all the political topics and points of vue. Richfull.
It's important to draw the world of the game.

But i hardly wait the game, its events and political choices the players have, and to read some more books to debate more precizely how it is or it would be good to simulate it in the game.
I don't know about the result of AGEOD staff researches on some points, like the detailed army forces.
E.g. ERISS said, Red army could have lost without the support of the Makhnovtchina. As far as i knew about it, i believed it was probably true but only in the Ukrainian theatre. But in fine if the ukrainian theatre was the one which finally determined the ciwil war... we could be back to the first proposal, who knows ?


I have some comments back about few topics in this thread :

-------------------------------------
About the question "No nazism without communism".

That's an old debate, which is of course very politicized even now.
I just would like to say to Charles and marcusjm, that they both base their opinion/analyse on true facts, but forget to interacte them :
the mutual fear of the fascism and the communism among european populations feed themselves all along the 20's and 30's. They are both responsible for growing each other.
And finally, there is the third political force, whatever you call it capitalists, liberals, ruling tradional industrial/aristocratic classes, which failed to understand that they better had to choose to really let the social-democrats working inside the system if they wanted to keep it, better than trying to control the fascists like they believed they could, like they believed Mussolini was in Italia. But Hitler transformed the german fascism into nazism, and it happen thanks to the direct support of the "traditional capitalist" ruling classes, not because of the communists...
Finally, i think this is a bad short cut to say that communism is risponsible for the fascism and the nazism.


------------------------------------
About who is marxist or not...

I found funny a Charles who said "Makhno said he was marxist" thanks to a quote were it is never written that he said he'is...
And on the other side, a ERISS who said something like "never believe and use a bolchevik or Lenin original paper, they said white and black in the same day".
I think we should use/compare facts AND original "paper" datas.

And try to name this people simply like they named themselves, even if it it absurd sometimes (i never understood this groups, whatever it is before or now, who called themself anarchist AND communist, since the word "communism" is de facto clearly defined by the 1848 Manifest of Karl Marx, which cleary call for a "unique Party" to lead the proletaria and a "dictatorship of the proletaria" ...so of the Unique Party which is supposed to show him the good way of course, which is absolutely the opposite of the anarchism principles.
That's maybe because of all this confusion that Charles comes to say that "Makhno was Marxist".

I think all the political terms, whatever they came from the XIX or late XX century with the "new-neo-marxist school 60's and 70's western university "VIP", are very confusing, so it's better to list the actors of this RCW by their official objectives and the actions they did or not to simulate a good game.

Does someone have a list of the different actors involved in the RCW and in the game ? Something like :
- Bolcheviks
- Mencheviks
- SR (as social-democrats)
- Anarchists (even if some confusingly call themeself anarcho-communist)
- "Green forces" (what is the difference between green and black ukrainian peasants ?)
- Ukrainian nationalists
- Polish (or pan-polish wanting to be the big brother of the baltic states and Ukrainia)
- White republicans
- White royalists
- Foreign intervention : i really wonder what was the missions orders of the UK, French and US troops around ? (BTW, the only film i ever saw about the French intervention is "Capitaine Conan" from B. Tavernier, which i advise you, but it don't explain well why they are still fighting somewhere in the east after 4 years of WWI...)
- other actors...?


Could we have some volunteers to speak about the white(s) side(s) political and military objectives, too ? I feel ignorant about it...
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Sun Sep 19, 2010 12:01 am

andatiep wrote:i never understood this groups, whatever it is before or now, who called themself anarchist AND communist, since the word "communism" is de facto clearly defined by the 1848 Manifest of Karl Marx, which cleary call for a "unique Party" to lead the proletaria and a "dictatorship of the proletaria" ...so of the Unique Party which is supposed to show him the good way of course, which is absolutely the opposite of the anarchism principles...

As you says, Marx believed in a communist PARTY as a mean to communism. Communism as a word existed before him.
Communist anarchists didn't believe a party in a bourgeois democracy could be a way to go to communism. They believed it was just leading in corruption of the leaders.
Nowadays, communism is believed as marxist communism, so you think those anarchist-communist are marxists as usual 'communists', but they are not. Communism is not a copyrighted trade mark of Marx.
Many words have their meaning broken, as democracy, soviets, communism, etc.

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Sun Sep 19, 2010 12:12 am

andatiep wrote:- "Green forces" (what is the difference between green and black ukrainian peasants ?)

Green where often happy to follow the pogrom words of some leaders asking to kill bolsheviks and jews.
Black never asked for pogroms (but they very often killed officers, those non-elected ones, bolsheviks or not), they even shot those who were talking bad about jews, as a though exemple to prevent overflows.
Green could fight between themselves. Anarchists gathered (but makhno was at first some mistrusted by international anarchists).

User avatar
Hohenlohe
Posts: 588
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Munich

Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:24 am

The last two posts from ERISS seems to be a good explanation of the situation in that timeframe.
Nowadays Communists per se plays often enough no greater role in Europe, but some Socialist Parties have a more communist wing inside like the LINKE here in Germany.
We Europeans had some political development the last two decades in which communist parties simply deterioted(hope its spelled rightful) and most of them are substituted by socialist movements/parties which are based on democratic principles.
In my country most people resisted the idea of a new socialist movement or even the idea of new socialist state.
We had too much of that the last seventy years.
But nowadays many people think that we need no more of a pure capitalism because of these crisis and they often prefer a christian founded "social economy" called "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" which is basically founded on christian ethic, in our case on catholic ethic principles.
But this actual finance crisis gives the Socialists some drive because the Neo-Liberals had so much influence the last decades that they destroyed often enough the social systems of some countries worldwide. During the Cold War they had not done so I think.

After the WWI many people were simply so shocked about their war experiences that they tried to overthrow the old political systems by some kind of revolution. Remember simply the fact that after WWI there was some political change in the party system of Great Britain. More voting rights to the lower classes and the strengthening of the Labour Party. That time the Liberals and Conservatives lost much of their influence in Britain.
In Germany the Monarchy was overthrown by two republican systems at the same time. The SPD proclaimed a republic and the communist USPD a Soviet republic which was later totally overthrown by the conservative military forces, the Reichswehr. In France there were certain multiple changes in the government by either socialist or conservative parties which was some reason for the indifferent position in the Russian Civil War.
The old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was destroyed by the results of Versailles and subsistuted by republics.
After WWI the political landscape in Europe got a big change with the upcoming of new states like Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovacia or the baltic states. Many of these states were confronted with heavy uprisings by socialist/communist groups which followed the idea of some kind of soviet systems. Many of them followed the Russian example but others went their own way. The latest try to install some kind of soviet system was by the socalled "People's Front" government in Spain in the early Thirties which was destroyed by the fascist and nationalist movement supported by the very conservative catholic church which played a major role that timeframe.

Nowadays we have in some way a kind of retardiation related to the political system like the Twenties. For Example Poland under the Kaszinskies confronted Germany with wrong accusations of being fascist and revanchist because of some missing discussion about this old feelings in the Eastern Bloc.
But the good thing is that we here in Europe are on a good way for a more Federated State system or Union like the US.
There are still many problems between our members or inside some members but for heavens sake there will be no more any communist state system here in Europe.
Many former communists made a confession to true democracy here in Europe and try to be inside the political system. All this are the consequences of two World Wars and even the Russian Civil War.
I think we Europeans have learned our lessons...

Sry for eventually being offtopic...

If someone should be declared guilty of installing the first soviet system then you can make the German Imperial Government responsible because they had invited Lenin to go to Russia to gain their "Siegfrieden" aka Victory Peace or so alike.

greetings

Hohenlohe, a liberal-conservative democrat...
R.I.P. Henry D.

In Remembrance of my Granduncle Hans Weber, a Hungaro-German Soldier,served in Austro-Hungarian Forces during WWI,war prisoner, missed in Sibiria 1918...

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1843
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:41 am

ERISS wrote:

You're not wrong, as the power of family was very strong in peasant villages. The revolution was needing some "May 68" to remove this power.


"May 68" should have happened differently in many countries. But starting point was students I guess. Protesters can consist of small bourgeoise(depends) and better educated class who knows and wonders what happens in the world globally. That "68 soul" shouldnt be necessarly favouring revolution. I guess it is more about "freedom". and ending wars. freedom should be a very relative concept if not backed up by well-thought doctrine.(not always necessary of course)

Irony is in some countries some protesters were convinced that in order to achieve "Freedom" Marxist-Leninist government is necessary.(protesters wanted strong leader and party)

Soviets(especially peasants) in the beginning of the century should have different opinion about freedom from students only wants "freedom".
they wanted more of a "status quo", only wanted farming the land freely until bolsheviks seize the land as you said.



andatiep wrote:
But i hardly wait the game, its events and political choices the players have, and to read some more books to debate more precizely how it is or it would be good to simulate it in the game.
I don't know about the result of AGEOD staff researches on some points, like the detailed army forces.


We should know some results of the researches I think. Because it can be hard to change the database or some events after it is released. At least players who have more knowledge about military aspects can compare or influence the research. But I dont know when the game start developing.

andatiep wrote:
And finally, there is the third political force, whatever you call it capitalists, liberals, ruling tradional industrial/aristocratic classes, which failed to understand that they better had to choose to really let the social-democrats working inside the system if they wanted to keep it, better than trying to control the fascists like they believed they could, like they believed Mussolini was in Italia. But Hitler transformed the german fascism into nazism, and it happen thanks to the direct support of the "traditional capitalist" ruling classes, not because of the communists...
Finally, i think this is a bad short cut to say that communism is risponsible for the fascism and the nazism.


Agree with that,common mistake ruling classes make, excluding some extreme groups. When they do that those groups will be the first revolters against the system..

I think capitalism is the first political force. Communism(apart from commune or some early collectivizm) and anarchism should be the "reaction"..
Fascism is the product of Aristocracy evolved in to bourgeoisie. So to control fascists are very easy for a capitalist . French(after napoleonic era) able to form millions of soldiers by the reference of nationalism and religion maybe. There wasnt communism(doctrine) at that time.(not very common)

As Marx said history is about class struggle, then extreme right should find the motivation from economical factors(wars,inflation) and smart moves of bourgeoisie(strong economical power) fooling people about bourgeoisie made nationalism..

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1843
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Sun Sep 19, 2010 4:16 am

ERISS wrote:

You're not wrong, as the power of family was very strong in peasant villages. The revolution was needing some "May 68" to remove this power.


"May 68" should have happened differently in many countries. But starting point was students I guess. Protesters can consist of small bourgeoise(depends) and better educated class who knows and wonders what happens in the world globally. That "68 soul" shouldnt be necessarly favouring revolution. I guess it is more about "freedom". and ending wars.
Irony is in some countries some protesters were convinced that in order to achieve "Freedom" Marxist-Leninist government is necessary.(protesters wanted strong leader and party)

Soviets(especially peasants) in the beginning of the century should have different opinion about freedom from students only wants "freedom".
they wanted more of a "status quo", only wanted farming the land freely until bolsheviks seize the land as you said.




andatiep wrote:
But i hardly wait the game, its events and political choices the players have, and to read some more books to debate more precizely how it is or it would be good to simulate it in the game.
I don't know about the result of AGEOD staff researches on some points, like the detailed army forces.


We should know some results of the researches I think. Because it can be hard to change the database or some events after it is released. At least players who have more knowledge about military aspects can compare or influence the research. But I dont know when the game start developing.

andatiep wrote:
And finally, there is the third political force, whatever you call it capitalists, liberals, ruling tradional industrial/aristocratic classes, which failed to understand that they better had to choose to really let the social-democrats working inside the system if they wanted to keep it, better than trying to control the fascists like they believed they could, like they believed Mussolini was in Italia. But Hitler transformed the german fascism into nazism, and it happen thanks to the direct support of the "traditional capitalist" ruling classes, not because of the communists...
Finally, i think this is a bad short cut to say that communism is risponsible for the fascism and the nazism.


Agree with that,common mistake ruling classes make, excluding some extreme groups. When they do that those groups will be the first revolters against the system..

I think capitalism is the first political force. Communism(apart from commune or some early collectivizm) and anarchism should be the "reaction"..
Fascism is the product of Aristocracy evolved in to bourgeoisie. So to control fascists are very easy for a capitalist . French(after napoleonic era) able to form millions of soldiers by the reference of nationalism and religion maybe. There wasnt communism(doctrine) at that time.(not very common)

As Marx said history is about class struggle, then extreme right should find the motivation from economical factors(wars,inflation) and smart moves of bourgeoisie(strong economical power) fooling people about bourgeoisie made nationalism..

As you said, in many countries they blame communists for fascism. This is a good reason(?) for extreme right to do everything they want with the support of bourgeoisie.



Hohenlohe wrote:After the WWI many people were simply so shocked about their war experiences that they tried to overthrow the old political systems by some kind of revolution. Remember simply the fact that after WWI there was some political change in the party system of Great Britain. More voting rights to the lower classes and the strengthening of the Labour Party. That time the Liberals and Conservatives lost much of their influence in Britain.


Well if they were shocked than they would be able to overthrow the old political system. The thing is those countries have strong aristocracy and bourgeoise even some have good labour movement. That means they were more industrilised. And that means before the WW1, Ruling classes in the west(Great Britain) were able to divide worker movement by paying different wage to workers.. Even some few workers became bourgeoise.
There is a definition called "Labor Aristocracy " by Marx...

By giving more voting rights or stronger Labour party should not be the reason of west(especially countries with more imperialistic tradition) for successfully preventing Communism.

Soviets should be less conservative(many ethnic groups and commune tradition in villages, and weak bourgeoise to influence fascists if any ) and more poor then west to bribe some workers. Not because they didnt learn the lesson well.

Hohenlohe wrote:Many former communists made a confession to true democracy here in Europe and try to be inside the political system. All this are the consequences of two World Wars and even the Russian Civil War.
I think we Europeans have learned our lessons...



Some former communists should have made peace with religion, true faith and true democracy... This is a good definition of "utopia", no need to search elsewhere..
I hope lessons about "true democracy" were practiced inside or outside the boundaries. As it looks more then lessons :) more like some balance of power.
But hard to know what will be next..

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:38 am

Hohenlohe wrote:In Germany the Monarchy was overthrown by two republican systems at the same time. The SPD proclaimed a republic and the communist USPD a Soviet republic which was later totally overthrown by the conservative military forces, the Reichswehr.
The old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was destroyed by the results of Versailles and subsistuted by republics.

To be better understood, you should write "soviet" for the real ones, and "Soviet" for the undead bolshevik one. Communists in USPD do were not bolshevik kinds (Bolsheviks will only have some power later by taking control of the spartakist KPD).
Many former communists made a confession to true democracy here in Europe and try to be inside the political system.

I think you're talking about nowadays "democracies", which are systems of democracy* stolen by bourgeois during the French Revolution, like the democracy (I mean the soviet system) was stolen by bolsheviks during the RCW.

* The (french) democracy was invented with imperative mandate, which the bourgeois succeded in forbiding. That's why the nowadays elections in our so called democracies have no meanings, as the elected is not tied to something the people want to be done, and can't be immediatly removed if he makes other thing than for which he has been elected.

The soviet system too used the imperative mandate, until the bolsheviks: People trusted Lenin and they neglected their own power for his beautifull words... Some months later Tcheka deceivingly controlled the people soviets...

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:55 am

Guys, I understand the temptation, and I see the interest, sharing in it myself, BUT:

[color="Red"]I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Stick to history and stay clear of anything post-WW2. If you can't respect this, I'll have to shut the discussion down, and I don't want tot do that.[/color]
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE

Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

[/CENTER]

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1843
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:37 pm

Hello Rafiki ,

The thread was mainly into the topic and thanks to the tolerance it became very informative. But the problem is:

If there is a comment like "We europeans have learned our lessons... " That means Other Nations did NOT learn or practice lessons well...

To be that wise one must know history,philosophy,economics and sociology. That is not even enough one must live with different countries also..

Thats why to prove lessons can not be learned easily I replied to the author in the other forum also( Revolution Under Siege engine planned).

If "we europeans learned our lessons" is NOT "out of topic" or tolerated, or some disrespectful comments written by named "tagwyn" then I better not post in this forum anymore.

Regards..

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:20 pm

Baris wrote:If there is a comment like "We europeans have learned our lessons... " That means Other Nations did NOT learn or practice lessons well...

Actually, it doesn't. It says nothing about other people, just something about Europeans. If you look at it in pure logical terms, saying that "all f are G" does not imply "all non-f aren't G". Nuance matters :)
Baris wrote:If "we europeans learned our lessons" is NOT "out of topic" or tolerated, or some disrespectful comments written by named "tagwyn" then I better not post in this forum anymore.

I'm sure tagwyn loves the attention he's getting for his postings :bonk:

[color="Blue"]Rule of thumb: if his posts irritate you or simply appear nonsensical, ignore them. If they offend you and you want me to address it, drop me a PM with a quote and a link to where he said it, and I'll deal with it. This goes for pretty much any posting, actually :) [/color]
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE

Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

[/CENTER]

Baris
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1843
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:33 pm

Rafiki wrote:Actually, it doesn't. It says nothing about other people, just something about Europeans. If you look at it in pure logical terms, saying that "all f are G" does not imply "all non-f aren't G". Nuance matters :)


Edit: I have understood what you mean about Nuance, sorry about that I thought first about his Nuance :)

One must experience and understand All non-F's before identifying his own F... (EDIT ) all F's are not necessary the same,like all G's. it is political after all. But nuance noted :blink: :) if there was any missed... (EDIT ) I have to say I saw Some F,H and G and lived some life in them.

But Russian and Fin civil war should be interesting, even I dont know one word of that languages..

The one, lacking perception and empathy should be more offended in the long run.

thanks :)

User avatar
Charles
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:44 pm

andatiep wrote:E.g. ERISS said, Red army could have lost without the support of the Makhnovtchina. As far as i knew about it, i believed it was probably true but only in the Ukrainian theatre. But in fine if the ukrainian theatre was the one which finally determined the ciwil war... we could be back to the first proposal, who knows ?


Makhno's Black Army was a merginal player in the RCW. At its peak, it numbered at most 100,000 in dec. 1919 while the Red Army had 5,500,000 men in 1920.

The Reds were allied with the Black Army because they had a common enemy in the Whites, but even if Makhno had allied himself with the Whites, the Reds would probably still have won.


- "Green forces" (what is the difference between green and black ukrainian peasants ?)


The "greens" is a modern term to represent the "peasants". The peasants were not a political force, but since they represented 80% of Russia's population and supplied most of the men and food to the rival armies, their support could have been decisive. However, most peasants tried to stay neutral and appeared to have equal dislike for the Reds, the Whites, the Blacks and anyone else who tried to tell them how to live their lives. :)



Could we have some volunteers to speak about the white(s) side(s) political and military objectives, too ? I feel ignorant about it...


The Whites is really a catch all designation for any opponent of the Reds in the RCW. They represented a wide range of views from those who wanted to reestablish the Tsar to liberal democrats.

The most influential were the Generals who were leading the White Armies. If the White Armies had succeeded, the most probable result would have been a right-wing authoritarian military dictatorship like Pilsudski's in Poland or Franco's in Spain.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1957
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:43 pm

Charles wrote:Makhno's Black Army was a merginal player in the RCW. At its peak, it numbered at most 100,000 in dec. 1919 while the Red Army had 5,500,000 men in 1920.
The Reds were allied with the Black Army because they had a common enemy in the Whites, but even if Makhno had allied himself with the Whites, the Reds would probably still have won.

. At the end of 1919, without the makhnovists, Denikin would have entered Moscow. Denikin's army retreated for the makhnovists had destroyed almost their back and stolen almost all their supplies. The Red army just followed the White backing movement.
Denikin had, again, underestimated the makhnovists: Makhnovists destroyed the better units Denikin had sent to kill them (it was though: son's officers(?)), and then destroyed main reinforcements (elite cavalry) and theft all the White supplies.
End 1919, Moscow was absolutly lost if Black and White were allied.
. There is a second time, I'll try to edit here if I remember/found when in my books.
The "greens" is a modern term to represent the "peasants". , most peasants tried to stay neutral and appeared to have equal dislike for the Reds, the Whites, the Blacks and anyone else who tried to tell them how to live their lives. :)

The Greens attacked many times the Red and Whites. I don't think the Greens attacked the Blacks, but the Blacks attacked a very few times some Greens band with the pretext those Greens were for killing jews. Often they killed just the Green leader.

Return to “RUS History club / Discussions historiques sur la Guerre Civile Russe”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest