i would hope the mockery of the needs for a strongman to lead the "revolution" would give it away
Ok, that gave you away. I mean, the bolsheviks didn't even want a revolution but allied with the republicans to build a liberal bourgeois democracy
sure, meanwhile, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you
I don't even understand what that means. And some educated tankies will explain away why Stalin was right and Spain wasn't ready for a revolution. But some people don't know stuff.
it means that if you really believe that, you are gullible.
and I know "educated" tankies have put a lot of effort into some ham fisted explanations for why this and that bust have been the case, but, straight factually, with all the evidence we have, it shows that the USSR was a fascistic imperialist dictatorship using the aesthetic of communism, nowhere that the USSR intervened was spared from it trying to control the region.
infact that's the entire reason we disparage them as tankies, because they support the use of tanks and military might to subjugate vassals and destroy any political group not preview to their control, political groups like workers not wanting to be controlled by some shareholder class (what, you think the Russian oligarchy came from nowhere over the last 30 years?) with little vested interest in the actual running of the workplace
That sounds like a big misunderstanding. I said that the bolsheviks were against the revolution in Spain and I thought you were the tankie disagreeing with me. What is your standpoint and what do you think mine is?
so, first off, my standpoint is that the Bolshevik were against both of the revolutions because they wanted to quasi annex the Iberian Peninsula as another soviet client state.
you, as far as i have understood, believe that the USSR supplied the spanish goverment under some noble "just help" goal instead of the backdoor annexation that the USSR has become famed for
Ok, I guess my reading comprehension sucks at the moment, sorry. It's not my native language and I have other stuff occupying my mind right now.
I still don't understand what you mean by "both of the revolutions" but my view is that there was an anarchist revolution going on and the Soviets were against it because it would undermine their legitimacy as only path toward liberation (which they were not, neither the only nor any path to liberation)
I thought they supported the republicans but I might be wrong. That would be even worse. I still don't think it would have been realistic to annex the iberian peninsula. From all I know, they said that it's not time for any revolution, not that a bolshevik revolution would work.
the soviet did support the republicans, as far as the republicans were the "original" Spanish government, they imposed a lot of stipulations to their aid tho, stipulations that would allow soviet influence and later annexation of the region as most of its military being soviet supplied and having a large contingent of soviet "volunteers"
TIL. Thanks
Still: what do you mean "both of the revolutions"? Anarchist and bourgeois?
Spain had 2 revolutions, the first fascist, the second anarchist, why do you think it had a bourgeois revolution? that requires some next level not knowing anything about Spain beforehand...
I didn't think of the fascists as revolutionary so I was confused and asked. After you didn't answer me the first time, I asked again. If that would have made sense to me, I wouldn't have asked. Thanks anyway for using this opportunity to insult me.
You make claims about what happened during the Spanish Civil War, yet are upset when called out for not knowing who even participated? after having made claims as to the motives of a good deal of the people, somehow involved?
Also, since I didn't actually insult you, but do want to live up to your expectations: "are you an idiot or do you just repeat everything you heard a tankie say without thinking"?
i would hope the mockery of the needs for a strongman to lead the "revolution" would give it away
Ok, that gave you away. I mean, the bolsheviks didn't even want a revolution but allied with the republicans to build a liberal bourgeois democracy
sure, meanwhile, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you
I don't even understand what that means. And some educated tankies will explain away why Stalin was right and Spain wasn't ready for a revolution. But some people don't know stuff.
it means that if you really believe that, you are gullible.
and I know "educated" tankies have put a lot of effort into some ham fisted explanations for why this and that bust have been the case, but, straight factually, with all the evidence we have, it shows that the USSR was a fascistic imperialist dictatorship using the aesthetic of communism, nowhere that the USSR intervened was spared from it trying to control the region.
infact that's the entire reason we disparage them as tankies, because they support the use of tanks and military might to subjugate vassals and destroy any political group not preview to their control, political groups like workers not wanting to be controlled by some shareholder class (what, you think the Russian oligarchy came from nowhere over the last 30 years?) with little vested interest in the actual running of the workplace
That sounds like a big misunderstanding. I said that the bolsheviks were against the revolution in Spain and I thought you were the tankie disagreeing with me. What is your standpoint and what do you think mine is?
so, first off, my standpoint is that the Bolshevik were against both of the revolutions because they wanted to quasi annex the Iberian Peninsula as another soviet client state.
you, as far as i have understood, believe that the USSR supplied the spanish goverment under some noble "just help" goal instead of the backdoor annexation that the USSR has become famed for
Ok, I guess my reading comprehension sucks at the moment, sorry. It's not my native language and I have other stuff occupying my mind right now.
I still don't understand what you mean by "both of the revolutions" but my view is that there was an anarchist revolution going on and the Soviets were against it because it would undermine their legitimacy as only path toward liberation (which they were not, neither the only nor any path to liberation)
I thought they supported the republicans but I might be wrong. That would be even worse. I still don't think it would have been realistic to annex the iberian peninsula. From all I know, they said that it's not time for any revolution, not that a bolshevik revolution would work.
the soviet did support the republicans, as far as the republicans were the "original" Spanish government, they imposed a lot of stipulations to their aid tho, stipulations that would allow soviet influence and later annexation of the region as most of its military being soviet supplied and having a large contingent of soviet "volunteers"
TIL. Thanks
Still: what do you mean "both of the revolutions"? Anarchist and bourgeois?
Spain had 2 revolutions, the first fascist, the second anarchist, why do you think it had a bourgeois revolution? that requires some next level not knowing anything about Spain beforehand...
I didn't think of the fascists as revolutionary so I was confused and asked. After you didn't answer me the first time, I asked again. If that would have made sense to me, I wouldn't have asked. Thanks anyway for using this opportunity to insult me.
You make claims about what happened during the Spanish Civil War, yet are upset when called out for not knowing who even participated? after having made claims as to the motives of a good deal of the people, somehow involved?
Also, since I didn't actually insult you, but do want to live up to your expectations: "are you an idiot or do you just repeat everything you heard a tankie say without thinking"?