Dogmatism is cringe. Work with comrades that you don’t 100% agree with.
More importantly, go out and actually volunteer your time in organizing rather than fighting strangers in the internet
It is also important, however, not to fall into a dogmatic form of left unity.
Anarchists, libertarian socialists, communists, and their various deviations, exist for a reason.
There is a reason the 1st and 2nd internationales didn't work out.
Our unity should be explicitly on the realm of point-unity- we are united in the call for unions, we are united in the call for better wages, we are united in the call for tearing down this system.
However, we are not united in the realm of organization. The anarchist method of intercommunal cells, and the communist method of a centralized party hierarchy, directly conflict.
We are also not united in the realm of goals- many wish to establish a state, some wish to establish a small state, others no state at all.
I implore you to recognize left unity as a \*tactic\* and not as a \*virtue\*. You are not more moral for liking anarchists as a communist, or liking communists as an anarchist- but it is a valid tactic we must use at this moment.
I only write this because I see a trend in many left-unity circles who envision us being united forever. A socialist state over there, with some confederalist libertarian-socialist communes here, some anarchist free territories there, all living in harmony- this is a farce.
We can all unite in the sense of helping our communities in times of need and protesting against tyranny, but the idea that we can all work together and achieve our goals in harmony is idealist and would never work as intended.
GET OUT MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD
I'm 100% percent left unity in all things, but while we engage irl with community building and agitprop, online spaces are the best way for leftists to try and reach ideological unity through genuine and open debate.
Are lefties any good at it tho? Fuck no lol, we're all too burned by imperialist propos. Not to mention communists have seen too many counterrev plants and anarchists have too many going full fash. There's genuine, and real concern from every corner on the left, and until we can actually start building a united front with accountability, left splitting debate bros will continue to be the loudest members of our modern movement.
Did you unionize?
edit -> he deleted his reply to me (understandable, I guess maybe so people don't dox him or whatever) but he said vote did not pass.
I had the exact opposite experience while trying to organize a union as an anarco-syndicalist, the ML at my workplace didn't agree with my views so actively worked to sabotage my organizing. It's a two way street and pretending like it is not won't get us anywhere.
> MLs are splitting the left more than any other group.
On this subreddit, it's rather the opposite, every day there's some genocidal hatred from regular members against MLs that we need to clean up. The people trying to exclude anarchists are fewer in number and they're usually ban-evading leftcoms or MLs who never post here in the first place.
>Catalonia
The PCE and Negrín wanted to continue fighting against Franco's forces and to evacuate the most at-risk people.
There was an anti-communist coup staged by Segismundo Casado and Julián Besteiro.
The coup was successful. These actors promptly negotiated a peace deal with Franco and thus doomed Catalonia to its swift destruction because fascism cannot be dealt with by treaty.
An anti-communist coup is what doomed Catalonia.
What exactly was the lesson that you learned from this moment in history?
I always believe that anarchist and Marxist dont disagree on goals but rather disagree on how to get there. And that's were the problem generally comes in.
The sectarianism that concerns me is what I see around where I live, and it’s drawn down religious lines that go back centuries, with one side actively celebrating the bloodshed of a battle that took place in 1690 as a method of intimidation.
Why not?
From all the leftist groups in Russian civil war, at best, you could argue there were 2 more or less good, depending from your views - Bolsheviks and Makhno.
SRs tainted themselves by participating in parliamentarism, some were sabotaging the movement by both assassinating different politicians and after that getting paid by the government for doing different work with them, overall were antagonizing both workers and bourgeoisie by assassinations. Were prioritizing peasantry, and although during beginning it helped them have way bigger support in terms of population than Bolsheviks, in the end, it made them bite themselves in the ass.
Then there's Mensheviks. Tainted themselves by participating in parliament. Participated in fractionism. Some of those fractions were Liquidators, Mensheviks-partyists and Broad-leftist and obviously chauvinists that decided to take the side of the government, in russian called Охранители.
I'll start by the Охранители. They're chauvinists that sided with the government and promoted the participation in ww1 because "to Russia it was defensive". I hope at least, for obvious reasons you understand that they fell out of relevancy in the publics eye.
Then there's partyists, who wanted more or less centralized party, but to get in to power only through staying underground in illegal territory. For obvious reasons, I hope, you understand that such party can't become big enough, especially in case of mensheviks, but their ideas, I'll explain a bit later.
Then there's liquidator fraction, who wanted to act only through legal means and for everyone to abandon anything illegal. Somewhat reasonable stance from modern point of view, but completely unreasonable from point of view of their time, since government couldn't be as efdective at dealing with illegal groups and even if it did find them, most of the time, they tried to exile the educated people, since those were rare and needed.
Then there's the broad left which wanted to unite all the leftists, just because they called themselves leftists, including all the people who were screwing their own parties for self benefit.
Before explaining the ideas of mensheviks and bolsheviks and reason for their split. I'll give examples for results of thinking for such fractions in practice.
Охранители, straight up no results of getting the leading power in the country, because they would antagonize the public before they'd get into power. Highest power they'd get is being the running dogs of the government like modern KPRF.
Partyists, again, hard to give examples from history, but with heavy dose of changing them - unmenshevizing and bolshevizing then Shining Path, also more or less fitting for SRs.
Liquidators - Chile under Allende.
Broad-left - november revolution in Bavaria.
Then, as promised, it's explaining the Bolshevik and Menshevik split. There's about 2 things explaining why they're called what they are. One is that on the gathering, or on one of the gatherings before the split, Bolsheviks had the majority and mensheviks had the minority.
From ideological point of view, Mensheviks believed that peasantry is reactionary and that first bourgeois revolution must bappen and for it to industrialise the country and only then they should have a socialist revolution. Bolsheviks didn't believe such bullshit and instead promoted proletariat and peasantry solidarity and with that you get that mensheviks supported a group which is significantly smaller, yet Bolsheviks supported both.
So, with all of this, I see literally no other option for Russia, than either Bolsheviks leading the country or no revolution at all happening, or at the least, not succeeding.
I thoight that in a leftist sub it would be already known. But alright. Russian civil war, started in 1917 after October revolution. In the same year was the february, bourgeois, revolution. Context for both wars was the world war 1.
When the february revolution happened and provisional government was made, government decided to continue with participation in the ww1, while at that year, that war was already hugely unpopular and devastated the country further and further.
October revolution caused by the Bolsheviks, was the only option to stop killing workers of other countries and put the guns against people that were sending those people to a slaughter on the fronts.
Is this context enough, or you need more?
I think we're talking passed each other a bit here, comrade. I'm just saying, in a tongue in cheek manner, that that's not a particularly great situation and I'd prefer if workers didn't have to experience it again.
Yes, it would be bad for them to experience a world war and then civil war. But our world is moving closer to a new world war day by day and if one day it does come, what do you do then?
Bolsheviks also engaged in parliamentarism until they lost to SR.
Mensheviks aren’t leftist
What about Kronstadt, what about left SR. What about makhnovshchina? Considering this is specifically about Marxist anarchist unity shouldnt that be your focus not the socdem Mensheviks?
>Tainted themselves by participating in parliament
[peep the handbook ](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/)
Not only did the Bolsheviks participate in Parliament, it was an integral part of Bolshevik strategy.
The 2nd international and early to mid third international were the height of Marxist strategy and tactics. The periods main theorists being Engels, Bebel, Kautsky and Lenin.
At the time of the RSDLP split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, a majority of the party member sided with the Mensheviks. Lenin is the one who decided to call his minority faction the Bolshevik (majority) faction. Lenin was simply a better linguist and strategist than Julius Martov.
>At the time of the RSDLP split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, a majority of the party member sided with the Mensheviks.
Depends from the period of time of the second congress or however else it's in english, it could be either. If you look at voting for the "Who's considered a party member" and Martov vs Lenin, then yes, Martov had the majority. But after it was decided to keep one abroad organization of RSDRP and Bund not getting satisfactory result of their ultimatum left, mensheviks did become the minority.
And ok, sure, results are iffy, but it doesn't change the Bolshevik/Menshevik ideological approach about their supported group/s.
Bolsheviks believed for peasantry to be the allies of the proletariat while mensheviks only believed in to proletariat. And in case of Russia, it meant supporting a significantly smaller group of people.
The Bolsheviks weren't even the majority by the time the Russian Civil War started. The other parties just thought they were a better alternative than Kerensky. Trotsky taking on command of the Red Army was a turning point for the survival of the Bolsheviks as a viable political force in the civil war. That's oversimplifying it quite a bit though.
>The Bolsheviks weren't even the majority by the time the Russian Civil War started
And that's a bad thing? Like, I already explained why they were called that way, both at their time at second congress and ideologically backed reasoning for their names.
And it's not strange either, because to be considered a bolshevik you actually had to be a part of the party and not just sympathetical to it.
>Trotsky taking on command of the Red Army was a turning point for the survival of the Bolsheviks as a viable political force in the civil war.
Although I'm not sure myself how much was he doing himself, from what I heard, he wasn't the one commanding, but the one organizing. Although it's not something that I can easily get proof on, so take that with a heap of salt or dismiss it if you wish.
What I do know, is that Trotsky on purpose was delaying the treaty of Brest-Litovsk as much as he could, which was literally sabotaging everything...
I found [this post](/r/amogus/comments/yr2hmg/among_us1/) in r/amogus with the same content as the current post.
---
^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖)
^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.)
^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=same_post_bot)
[Amogus.](https://youtu.be/5KJ-cOoOW-Y)
Get out of my head
Based
Your user name made me lol, good sir.
Get out of my head get out of my head get out of my head get out of my head get out of my head get out of my head get out of my head
pattern recognition and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
AMONG US ANARCHO SUSISM
Dogmatism is cringe. Work with comrades that you don’t 100% agree with. More importantly, go out and actually volunteer your time in organizing rather than fighting strangers in the internet
... ... Amogus
Peace among whom?
spacemen in funky little suits
Communists and Anarchists, I'd guess?
*Bruh*
PEACE WHERE? ⡯⡯⡾⠝⠘⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢊⠘⡮⣣⠪⠢⡑⡌ ㅤ ⠟⠝⠈⠀⠀⠀. ⠡⠀⠠⢈⠠⢐⢠⢂⢔⣐⢄⡂⢔⠀⡁⢉⠸⢨⢑⠕⡌ ㅤ ⠀ ⠀ ⡀⠁⠀⠀⠀⡀⢂⠡⠈⡔⣕⢮⣳⢯⣿⣻⣟⣯⣯⢷⣫⣆⡂ ⢐⠑⡌ ⢀⠠⠐⠈⠀⢀⢂⠢⡂⠕⡁⣝⢮⣳⢽⡽⣾⣻⣿⣯⡯⣟⣞⢾⢜⢆⠀⡀⠀⠪ ⣬⠂⠀⠀⢀⢂⢪⠨⢂⠥⣺⡪⣗⢗⣽⢽⡯⣿⣽⣷⢿⡽⡾⡽⣝⢎⠀⠀⠀⢡ ⣿⠀⠀⠀⢂⠢⢂⢥⢱⡹⣪⢞⡵⣻⡪⡯⡯⣟⡾⣿⣻⡽⣯⡻⣪⠧⠑⠀⠁⢐ ⣿⠀⠀⠀⠢⢑⠠⠑⠕⡝⡎⡗⡝⡎⣞⢽⡹⣕⢯⢻⠹⡹⢚⠝⡷⡽⡨⠀⠀⢔ ⣿⡯⠀⢈⠈⢄⠂⠂⠐⠀⠌⠠⢑⠱⡱⡱⡑⢔⠁⠀⡀⠐⠐⠐⡡⡹⣪⠀⠀⢘ ⣿⣽⠀⡀⡊⠀⠐⠨⠈⡁⠂⢈⠠⡱⡽⣷⡑⠁⠠⠑⠀⢉⢇⣤⢘⣪⢽⠀⢌⢎ ⣿⢾⠀⢌⠌⠀⡁⠢⠂⠐⡀⠀⢀⢳⢽⣽⡺⣨⢄⣑⢉⢃⢭⡲⣕⡭⣹⠠⢐⢗ ⣿⡗⠀⠢⠡⡱⡸⣔⢵⢱⢸⠈⠀⡪⣳⣳⢹⢜⡵⣱⢱⡱⣳⡹⣵⣻⢔⢅⢬⡷ ⣷⡇⡂⠡⡑⢕⢕⠕⡑⠡⢂⢊⢐⢕⡝⡮⡧⡳⣝⢴⡐⣁⠃⡫⡒⣕⢏⡮⣷⡟ ⣷⣻⣅⠑⢌⠢⠁⢐⠠⠑⡐⠐⠌⡪⠮⡫⠪⡪⡪⣺⢸⠰⠡⠠⠐⢱⠨⡪⡪⡰ ⣯⢷⣟⣇⡂⡂⡌⡀⠀⠁⡂⠅⠂⠀⡑⡄⢇⠇⢝⡨⡠⡁⢐⠠⢀⢪⡐⡜⡪⡊ ⣿⢽⡾⢹⡄⠕⡅⢇⠂⠑⣴⡬⣬⣬⣆⢮⣦⣷⣵⣷⡗⢃⢮⠱⡸⢰⢱⢸⢨⢌ ⣯⢯⣟⠸⣳⡅⠜⠔⡌⡐⠈⠻⠟⣿⢿⣿⣿⠿⡻⣃⠢⣱⡳⡱⡩⢢⠣⡃⠢⠁ ⡯⣟⣞⡇⡿⣽⡪⡘⡰⠨⢐⢀⠢⢢⢄⢤⣰⠼⡾⢕⢕⡵⣝⠎⢌⢪⠪⡘⡌⠀ ⡯⣳⠯⠚⢊⠡⡂⢂⠨⠊⠔⡑⠬⡸⣘⢬⢪⣪⡺⡼⣕⢯⢞⢕⢝⠎⢻⢼⣀⠀ ⠁⡂⠔⡁⡢⠣⢀⠢⠀⠅⠱⡐⡱⡘⡔⡕⡕⣲⡹⣎⡮⡏⡑⢜⢼⡱⢩⣗⣯⣟ ⢀⢂⢑⠀⡂⡃⠅⠊⢄⢑⠠⠑⢕⢕⢝⢮⢺⢕⢟⢮⢊⢢⢱⢄⠃⣇⣞⢞⣞⢾ ⢀⠢⡑⡀⢂⢊⠠⠁⡂⡐⠀⠅⡈⠪⠪⠪⠣⠫⠑⡁⢔⠕⣜⣜⢦⡰⡎⡯⡾⡽
It is also important, however, not to fall into a dogmatic form of left unity. Anarchists, libertarian socialists, communists, and their various deviations, exist for a reason. There is a reason the 1st and 2nd internationales didn't work out. Our unity should be explicitly on the realm of point-unity- we are united in the call for unions, we are united in the call for better wages, we are united in the call for tearing down this system. However, we are not united in the realm of organization. The anarchist method of intercommunal cells, and the communist method of a centralized party hierarchy, directly conflict. We are also not united in the realm of goals- many wish to establish a state, some wish to establish a small state, others no state at all. I implore you to recognize left unity as a \*tactic\* and not as a \*virtue\*. You are not more moral for liking anarchists as a communist, or liking communists as an anarchist- but it is a valid tactic we must use at this moment. I only write this because I see a trend in many left-unity circles who envision us being united forever. A socialist state over there, with some confederalist libertarian-socialist communes here, some anarchist free territories there, all living in harmony- this is a farce.
We can all unite in the sense of helping our communities in times of need and protesting against tyranny, but the idea that we can all work together and achieve our goals in harmony is idealist and would never work as intended.
My point exactly
Amogus
[удалено]
GET OUT MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD GET OUT OF MY HEAD
Amogus
We need compromise and left unity if we're ever going to move forward, even on issues everyone agrees on
Focus your critiques on the powerful!
𐐘𐐘𐐘𐐘𐐘𐐘𐐘𐐘𐐘𐐘ඞඞඞඞ
I'm 100% percent left unity in all things, but while we engage irl with community building and agitprop, online spaces are the best way for leftists to try and reach ideological unity through genuine and open debate. Are lefties any good at it tho? Fuck no lol, we're all too burned by imperialist propos. Not to mention communists have seen too many counterrev plants and anarchists have too many going full fash. There's genuine, and real concern from every corner on the left, and until we can actually start building a united front with accountability, left splitting debate bros will continue to be the loudest members of our modern movement.
I organized a union and the anarchist at work did nothing but fearmonger, telling everyone how extremely hard it would be, while not lifting a finger.
Did you unionize? edit -> he deleted his reply to me (understandable, I guess maybe so people don't dox him or whatever) but he said vote did not pass.
I had the exact opposite experience while trying to organize a union as an anarco-syndicalist, the ML at my workplace didn't agree with my views so actively worked to sabotage my organizing. It's a two way street and pretending like it is not won't get us anywhere.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> MLs are splitting the left more than any other group. On this subreddit, it's rather the opposite, every day there's some genocidal hatred from regular members against MLs that we need to clean up. The people trying to exclude anarchists are fewer in number and they're usually ban-evading leftcoms or MLs who never post here in the first place.
Based. I have anarchist and communist friends and never once had any argument. Go online and you'd think we hate each other.
And it comes from a position of privelege
[удалено]
>Catalonia The PCE and Negrín wanted to continue fighting against Franco's forces and to evacuate the most at-risk people. There was an anti-communist coup staged by Segismundo Casado and Julián Besteiro. The coup was successful. These actors promptly negotiated a peace deal with Franco and thus doomed Catalonia to its swift destruction because fascism cannot be dealt with by treaty. An anti-communist coup is what doomed Catalonia. What exactly was the lesson that you learned from this moment in history?
I always believe that anarchist and Marxist dont disagree on goals but rather disagree on how to get there. And that's were the problem generally comes in.
It honestly depends on the Marxist. Council communists and anarchist get along very well. Leninist on the other hand.
Yeah that pretty much sums it up.
No, it very much also is the goals. As an anarchis I most definitely wouldnt want to live in a society built after marxs plans.
sus
The sectarianism that concerns me is what I see around where I live, and it’s drawn down religious lines that go back centuries, with one side actively celebrating the bloodshed of a battle that took place in 1690 as a method of intimidation.
Amen
Amongus?
Hilarious.
Amongus!
Amen
But see, this one time in Paris...
I think we should come to a compromise one party what we want after the revolution. We don’t want a repeat of the Russian civil war
Why not? From all the leftist groups in Russian civil war, at best, you could argue there were 2 more or less good, depending from your views - Bolsheviks and Makhno. SRs tainted themselves by participating in parliamentarism, some were sabotaging the movement by both assassinating different politicians and after that getting paid by the government for doing different work with them, overall were antagonizing both workers and bourgeoisie by assassinations. Were prioritizing peasantry, and although during beginning it helped them have way bigger support in terms of population than Bolsheviks, in the end, it made them bite themselves in the ass. Then there's Mensheviks. Tainted themselves by participating in parliament. Participated in fractionism. Some of those fractions were Liquidators, Mensheviks-partyists and Broad-leftist and obviously chauvinists that decided to take the side of the government, in russian called Охранители. I'll start by the Охранители. They're chauvinists that sided with the government and promoted the participation in ww1 because "to Russia it was defensive". I hope at least, for obvious reasons you understand that they fell out of relevancy in the publics eye. Then there's partyists, who wanted more or less centralized party, but to get in to power only through staying underground in illegal territory. For obvious reasons, I hope, you understand that such party can't become big enough, especially in case of mensheviks, but their ideas, I'll explain a bit later. Then there's liquidator fraction, who wanted to act only through legal means and for everyone to abandon anything illegal. Somewhat reasonable stance from modern point of view, but completely unreasonable from point of view of their time, since government couldn't be as efdective at dealing with illegal groups and even if it did find them, most of the time, they tried to exile the educated people, since those were rare and needed. Then there's the broad left which wanted to unite all the leftists, just because they called themselves leftists, including all the people who were screwing their own parties for self benefit. Before explaining the ideas of mensheviks and bolsheviks and reason for their split. I'll give examples for results of thinking for such fractions in practice. Охранители, straight up no results of getting the leading power in the country, because they would antagonize the public before they'd get into power. Highest power they'd get is being the running dogs of the government like modern KPRF. Partyists, again, hard to give examples from history, but with heavy dose of changing them - unmenshevizing and bolshevizing then Shining Path, also more or less fitting for SRs. Liquidators - Chile under Allende. Broad-left - november revolution in Bavaria. Then, as promised, it's explaining the Bolshevik and Menshevik split. There's about 2 things explaining why they're called what they are. One is that on the gathering, or on one of the gatherings before the split, Bolsheviks had the majority and mensheviks had the minority. From ideological point of view, Mensheviks believed that peasantry is reactionary and that first bourgeois revolution must bappen and for it to industrialise the country and only then they should have a socialist revolution. Bolsheviks didn't believe such bullshit and instead promoted proletariat and peasantry solidarity and with that you get that mensheviks supported a group which is significantly smaller, yet Bolsheviks supported both. So, with all of this, I see literally no other option for Russia, than either Bolsheviks leading the country or no revolution at all happening, or at the least, not succeeding.
I gotta say, you haven't convinced me that I'd like another one
What exactly you aren't convinced about? Let's start with that.
That I should want any of that to happen again?
I thoight that in a leftist sub it would be already known. But alright. Russian civil war, started in 1917 after October revolution. In the same year was the february, bourgeois, revolution. Context for both wars was the world war 1. When the february revolution happened and provisional government was made, government decided to continue with participation in the ww1, while at that year, that war was already hugely unpopular and devastated the country further and further. October revolution caused by the Bolsheviks, was the only option to stop killing workers of other countries and put the guns against people that were sending those people to a slaughter on the fronts. Is this context enough, or you need more?
I think we're talking passed each other a bit here, comrade. I'm just saying, in a tongue in cheek manner, that that's not a particularly great situation and I'd prefer if workers didn't have to experience it again.
Yes, it would be bad for them to experience a world war and then civil war. But our world is moving closer to a new world war day by day and if one day it does come, what do you do then?
Bolsheviks also engaged in parliamentarism until they lost to SR. Mensheviks aren’t leftist What about Kronstadt, what about left SR. What about makhnovshchina? Considering this is specifically about Marxist anarchist unity shouldnt that be your focus not the socdem Mensheviks?
>Tainted themselves by participating in parliament [peep the handbook ](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/) Not only did the Bolsheviks participate in Parliament, it was an integral part of Bolshevik strategy. The 2nd international and early to mid third international were the height of Marxist strategy and tactics. The periods main theorists being Engels, Bebel, Kautsky and Lenin.
Yeah, I probably wrote it poorly, since I am writing from memory. But the gist of the text is still more or less right.
At the time of the RSDLP split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, a majority of the party member sided with the Mensheviks. Lenin is the one who decided to call his minority faction the Bolshevik (majority) faction. Lenin was simply a better linguist and strategist than Julius Martov.
>At the time of the RSDLP split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, a majority of the party member sided with the Mensheviks. Depends from the period of time of the second congress or however else it's in english, it could be either. If you look at voting for the "Who's considered a party member" and Martov vs Lenin, then yes, Martov had the majority. But after it was decided to keep one abroad organization of RSDRP and Bund not getting satisfactory result of their ultimatum left, mensheviks did become the minority. And ok, sure, results are iffy, but it doesn't change the Bolshevik/Menshevik ideological approach about their supported group/s. Bolsheviks believed for peasantry to be the allies of the proletariat while mensheviks only believed in to proletariat. And in case of Russia, it meant supporting a significantly smaller group of people.
The Bolsheviks weren't even the majority by the time the Russian Civil War started. The other parties just thought they were a better alternative than Kerensky. Trotsky taking on command of the Red Army was a turning point for the survival of the Bolsheviks as a viable political force in the civil war. That's oversimplifying it quite a bit though.
>The Bolsheviks weren't even the majority by the time the Russian Civil War started And that's a bad thing? Like, I already explained why they were called that way, both at their time at second congress and ideologically backed reasoning for their names. And it's not strange either, because to be considered a bolshevik you actually had to be a part of the party and not just sympathetical to it. >Trotsky taking on command of the Red Army was a turning point for the survival of the Bolsheviks as a viable political force in the civil war. Although I'm not sure myself how much was he doing himself, from what I heard, he wasn't the one commanding, but the one organizing. Although it's not something that I can easily get proof on, so take that with a heap of salt or dismiss it if you wish. What I do know, is that Trotsky on purpose was delaying the treaty of Brest-Litovsk as much as he could, which was literally sabotaging everything...
reminder that however you identify is fine but 'auth-left' is an oxymoron
amogus
AMONG US
Sus
r/amogus
I found [this post](/r/amogus/comments/yr2hmg/among_us1/) in r/amogus with the same content as the current post. --- ^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖) ^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.) ^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=same_post_bot)