The BV’s were initially grass roots, along with other communists in Russia at the time, but after Lenin got control the policies all came from above with little to no input from the workers below, and the BV’s became the defacto only party.
That stands in direct contrast to the actual structure of the USSR, and a misunderstanding of Democratic Centralism. The Soviets were the organizational organ of the USSR, as shown here:
Secondly, being a single party does not mean democratization lowers. Parlimentarianism obscures the material impact of a Worker’s voice. A single party system can be bad, such as in Nazi Germany, where there was little to no actual democracy. A single party system can be good, such as in the USSR.
As per your previous statement that “most of us want bottom-up revolutions,” that’s correct, but “most of us” do not agree that the October Revolution was a “top-down” revolution.
I recommend reading the following texts, if you have not done so already:
Except during the years of World War 2, the Gulags had a better quality of life and lower risk of mortality than contemporary prisons in many much wealthier and more developed countries. Despite the enduring cultural legacy of the fiction novel Gulag Archipelago, the truth of the matter is that after the revolution the Communists reformed the Tsarist work camps into what were at the time the most progressive rehabilitation regimes in the world.
If a revolution from the bottom happens, there will still be new leaders appointed from those at the bottom. And will soon become less like the rest of us, and will become just like the old Masters
I think the only way it works is if you start chopping off hands and shit as punishment for corruption and that’s a whole can of worms, and there will still be certain people immune
A revolution from the top was always going to be bad. I think people in this forum are hoping for a revolution from the bottom.
What do you mean by a “revolution from the top?”
The BV’s were initially grass roots, along with other communists in Russia at the time, but after Lenin got control the policies all came from above with little to no input from the workers below, and the BV’s became the defacto only party.
That stands in direct contrast to the actual structure of the USSR, and a misunderstanding of Democratic Centralism. The Soviets were the organizational organ of the USSR, as shown here:
Secondly, being a single party does not mean democratization lowers. Parlimentarianism obscures the material impact of a Worker’s voice. A single party system can be bad, such as in Nazi Germany, where there was little to no actual democracy. A single party system can be good, such as in the USSR.
As per your previous statement that “most of us want bottom-up revolutions,” that’s correct, but “most of us” do not agree that the October Revolution was a “top-down” revolution.
I recommend reading the following texts, if you have not done so already:
Fair enough, carry on sir.
Makes joke about Stalin
Dies of exposure in Gulag in Siberia
Except during the years of World War 2, the Gulags had a better quality of life and lower risk of mortality than contemporary prisons in many much wealthier and more developed countries. Despite the enduring cultural legacy of the fiction novel Gulag Archipelago, the truth of the matter is that after the revolution the Communists reformed the Tsarist work camps into what were at the time the most progressive rehabilitation regimes in the world.
Ok, Marx
If a revolution from the bottom happens, there will still be new leaders appointed from those at the bottom. And will soon become less like the rest of us, and will become just like the old Masters
What if we keep replacing the leaders with new people from the bottom?
I think the only way it works is if you start chopping off hands and shit as punishment for corruption and that’s a whole can of worms, and there will still be certain people immune