this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
265 points (91.8% liked)
Memes
56518 readers
627 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The provisional government was a liberal, pro-capitalist government. The counter-revolutionary thing to do would be to protect the provisional government. Further, it was not a black and white case of the Bolsheviks losing elections, the various parties of the time formed coalitions, which legitimized the Bolshevik coalition, as well as the peasant elections that you're ignoring.
Again more historical inaccuracies. The provisional government was a hodgepot of different ideas and it was very clear from the start that the rural socialist party would win the proposed election (as they did). These and somewhat allied anarchist thinkers proposed ideas that went well beyond the state-capitalism that the Bolshevik endorsed, so ursurping the provisional government and taking power in the november revolution by force was clearly counter-revolutionary. Coalitions that happened after that are sham when everyone just saw what happens when you stand in the way of how the Bolshevik take power.
Nope, no historical inaccuracies. You're referring to the Right-SRs, who had recently split from the Left-SRs. The rural socialists banded together with the Bolsheviks in a coalition. You're also ignoring that the workers and peasants already saw the provisional government as illegitimate, backing the Soviets. The anarchists may have had what they believed were good ideas, but the proletariat and peasantry largely disagreed and agreed with the socialists, who coalesced around the Bolsheviks.
Again more historical inaccuracies. For example the "Soviets" back then were not the Bolshevik, even if they later falsely claimed to represent them and usurped the term.
You really need lay off on the fan-fiction and self-serving election reports literally written by Lenin himself.
I never claimed Bolsheviks and Soviets were synonymous, only that both the soviet government and provisional government existed in a dual state, and that the Soviets stood opposed to the provisional government. The Soviet government did back the Bolsheviks, and eventually came to be entirely Bolshevik.
Again historical inacurracies. Yes obviously the Soviets opposed the provisional government. But they did not try to take it over as that would have invalidated the very idea they stood for.
What happened after the November revolution is no indication of how the members of the Soviets really felt as the Bolshevik started purging people that disagred with them quite heavily.
Why would the Soviets overthrowing the capitalist government "invalidate the very idea they stood for?" The Soviets stood for worker and peasant power. They succeeded in establishing that very concept and turning it into concrete political reality. As for the idea of the Bolsheviks "purging people," you are referring to the ensuing Civil War, where the workers and peasants joined the Bolsheviks and the Red Army. Even anarchists largely joined the Red Army to fight off the Whites.
More historical inaccuracies. The first people the Bolshevik purged were people that naively thought they were on the same side.
And no, the original Soviets wanted to create self-administered communities and work-places. Taking over centralized state power makes no sense with that goal in mind.
Nothing I have said is historically inaccurate. The Bolsheviks opposed cadets, mensheviks, and other groups that wished to retain the Tsar's colonies, wanted to prolong the war, and opposed Soviet power. The Soviets were a connected system, itself a state. Overthrowing the provisional government and solidifying the Soviet state as the only state does not oppose their purpose in the slightest, and it was a decision democratically approved.
More fan-fiction and post-hoc justifications. You seriously need to read some historically accurate accounts of what happened at the time.
I have read historically accurate accounts, though you define historical accuracy by it not being written by anyone succeeding. I've also asked for sources, and you haven't brought any beyond linking the anarchist library.
History written by the winners is ok according to you as long as you agree with it. That is really funny.
Nah, history is written by both winners and losers. What's important is historical accuracy, and which class's perspective and outlook is being presented. Equating socialist historiography with bourgeois historiography is a false equivalence.
You still haven't provided any sources
Yes but they started their sentences with "more historical inaccuracies" and "more fan-fiction" for the fifth time now and surely that counts for something.
Surely none of the losers of history have ever lost for good reason and stayed mad about it. Let's all renounce modern medicine and pledge loyalty to the Khmer Rouge, because they too were crushed by the awful communists.
Lol you are a child with a children's bedtime story understanding of history
I don't know what to call this level of historical revision in service of an obscure sectarian grudge from a hundred years before you were born.