Talk:Bolshevik
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This Communism related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
| ||||
Adding criticism[edit]
Would it be alright to add criticism to this article? They were responsible for annexing Ukraine (and causing the Holodomor) and also murdered the Russian royal family (not that I'm defending the monarchy, but they could've exiled them like Iran did with its royal family). Rational Dude (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
From a perspective of pure pragmatism, I think offing the Tsar's family makes the most sense. Otherwise a repeat of the Paris Commune could occur. The Whites were diametrically opposed to the Reds, and they didn't have a royal figurehead to center around. Not to say that the assassination of the royal family was ethical (it wasn't), but politics is ultimately about power. Not morality. Granted, it's a valid (moral) criticism. Still, people on this very wiki justify the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a "necessary evil," so whether or not something is ethical is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's necessary. Ultimately hindsight is 20/20, and we can spend all day arguing about the ethics or necessity of a given action. Vee (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)- I don't think this make any sense, even from a Schmittian perspective. Even if the Whites had won the war, monarchism is Russia was over. Most of the Whites were republicans, including Kornilov and Denikin. The war still lasted 4 and half years, and there were still Romanovs around after 16–17 July 1918. Killing a bunch of children didn't make the Reds win the war, the incompetence of the Whites did. Also, white kind of "ethics" are we talking about? Yeah, this article needs more criticism. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 02:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
It's easy to say that now from a historical lens, but back then things were much less certain. I don't think it implausible that this was the rationale (or part of the rationale) used to justify the slaughter of the royal family. Removal of potential threats is part and parcel for dictatorships.Actually you're right. Insert foot into mouth and all that. (I thought the monarchist element was a greater current amongst the Whites.) Vee (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)- I think very few people supported monarchism in Russia at that point (although, granted, there were monarchists among the Whites). The Black Hundreds were dissolved in 1917, and as far as I'm aware there were no Monarchist party on the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election
. Speaking of criticism, the fact that the Bolsheviks closed down the assembly after losing the election to the Socialist-Revolutionaries should be on this article. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds good. But what about adding that the Bolsheviks took over Ukraine and caused the Holodomor by stealing their crops and creating a famine? I feel that it should be added as well, because it's a major detail. Rational Dude (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- The Holodomor sounds a little too late for this - by that point the USSR had been firmly established and was a one-party state. The Bolsheviks meanwhile existed as one of many parties in the revolutionary period and slowly established control. I also sense you're relying on Ukrainian nationalist books given your implication that Ukrainians and the Soviets were mutually exclusive; Soviet historians prioritise the 1990s archives as a source of information - especially regarding the Holodomor.-- Forerunner (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that, and a video by a news source (I forgot if it was Vice or Vox or some other news source) basically stating how the bolsheviks annexing Ukraine gave way to the holodomor, as well as the fact that Stalin himself was a leading member of the bolsheviks and responsible for invading Ukraine.Rational Dude (talk)
- The Holodomor sounds a little too late for this - by that point the USSR had been firmly established and was a one-party state. The Bolsheviks meanwhile existed as one of many parties in the revolutionary period and slowly established control. I also sense you're relying on Ukrainian nationalist books given your implication that Ukrainians and the Soviets were mutually exclusive; Soviet historians prioritise the 1990s archives as a source of information - especially regarding the Holodomor.-- Forerunner (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds good. But what about adding that the Bolsheviks took over Ukraine and caused the Holodomor by stealing their crops and creating a famine? I feel that it should be added as well, because it's a major detail. Rational Dude (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think very few people supported monarchism in Russia at that point (although, granted, there were monarchists among the Whites). The Black Hundreds were dissolved in 1917, and as far as I'm aware there were no Monarchist party on the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election
- I don't think this make any sense, even from a Schmittian perspective. Even if the Whites had won the war, monarchism is Russia was over. Most of the Whites were republicans, including Kornilov and Denikin. The war still lasted 4 and half years, and there were still Romanovs around after 16–17 July 1918. Killing a bunch of children didn't make the Reds win the war, the incompetence of the Whites did. Also, white kind of "ethics" are we talking about? Yeah, this article needs more criticism. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 02:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)