Why couldnt the russians escape despotism despite having a massive

>>8606828
Any governmental system that allows for changing of the laws without any restrictions, life long rule, complete economic domination, complete political and societal domination and the complete and the unchallenged ability to order the deaths of millions is bound to become despotic. Even America has become despotic, despite all of the actions taken to protect against that very thing.

>>8606828
Lenin was an authoritarian just like Stalin. Don't be fooled by his temporary democratic phase; this was his (genius and resoundingly successful) attempt at getting mass appeal.

The Bolshevik revolution did not fail. Lenin was a Machiavellian mastermind who said and did just what he needed to get his party in power.

>>8606828
this belongs in >>>/his/
and anyway iirc lenin said that democracy was necessarily going to end up as a de facto oligarchy because the rich control the private sphere, which is what creates the public sphere

>>8606916
Well, one can say that you need such people for any revolution. What should have been done differently? Should the revolution have sprung up from some sort of massive grass roots movment? Should it have been started by intellectuals and philosophers? What..
Not just Lenin was the sole revolutionary. It was a huge amount of people involved. They missed something that had to be changed in order to avoid the eventual same old story of a dictator..
They did not manage to get to the source of the problem in some aspects which eventually led to another "monarchy" only under a different pretense.

>>8606828
because ideologies that
1) attempt to explain everything
2) don't actually work
necessitate totalitarian control or they fall apart. Think of the history of the regime as a constant low-intensity civil war against dissidents

>>8606918
You are right. My bad, I was posting on both and accidently started it here.

>>8606921
>Should it have been started by intellectuals and philosophers?
It *was* started by intellectuals and philosophers. Not just Lenin, but most Bolsheviks, came from the intellectual class. Lenin was kicked out of law school after he started leading student riots, which he did because his brother was executed in a failed attempt at assassinating the Tzar.

>>8606934
And yet the US managed to grow into a republic despite its people and intellectuals coming from monarchic origins.

>>8606828
>What is it that the revolutionaries missed?
That Liberalism in its various forms (Capitalism, Communism, Socialism Republicanism, Feminism, etc.) is incoherent and irrational

>>8606988
what does irrational mean in this context?

>>8607003
Nonsensical; not logical

>>8607065
>>8607065
okay, so you're saying the conclusion doesn't follow from its premises. What are those premises that don't produce the conclusion as claimed?

>>8606988
Let me guess, the solution is to be an unironic fascist and/or monarchist.

>>8607074
Per encyclopedia B and standard PoliSci;
'Liberalism: the ideology that holds the primary or only legitimate goal of government is to maximize individual liberty and equality. Liberalism is divided into two broad categories: those that focus on individual liberty (Classical Liberals) and those that focus on individual equality (Social Liberals, or Progressives).'
Pretty straightforward and a definition that has held true for quite some time.
Here's the thing - internal politics/governance is about resolving disputes. In order to resolve disputes in a coherent manner you *must* have a set of people who are unequal (those that enforce laws) and the disputes *must* be resolved by limiting the freedom of at least one individual.
Thus Liberalism demands that we use inequality to force equality and the limitation of freedom to maximize freedom.
Incoherent concept.

>>8607093
Depending on your definition Fascism usually means 'any political system the speaker doesn't like' or 'Liberalism in sharp uniforms'.
I am an unironic monarchist, but I don't think it is "the answer".

>>8606916
Pure ideology

>>8607128
Yeah, I know it's becoming a buzzword - meant it in the dictionary sense, as in "an authoritarian government, often nationalist, with a central figure who holds a lot of unrestricted power". Monarchies arguably have a lot of overlap, the main difference being that they're hereditary.

>>8607123
>In order to resolve disputes in a coherent manner you *must* have a set of people who are unequal (those that enforce laws)
Maybe, but it doesn't have to and probably shouldn't be a permanent *class* of people - ideally you'd rotate who did it frequently so no one group can take unfair advantage of their position.

>>8607137
I was wondering if there's any actual evidence for >>8606916.

>>8607123
you mean because liberalism is attempting an aproximation rather than an ideal it's irrational?

I feel like you don't have a rational counter program.

>>8607151
Whether the group that does so is permanent (or meant to be) doesn't matter.
>you mean because liberalism is attempting an aproximation rather than an ideal it's irrational?
No.
Liberalism is akin to drying your clothes by spraying them with water. It makes no sense.

>>8606988
>communism
>liberalism

>>8607438
that doesn't follow from what you presented us.

You described something that looks like drying your clothes by hanging them up in a place with unfortunately high air humidity.

The revolution never conformed with Marx's predictions, it was carried out by a small, elitist group. It was always more of a coup than a revolution. The vast majority of the populace didn't participate and Russian society remained backward despite the intelligentsia and cultural avant garde.
Modernisation and industrialisation became necessities as a result of external pressures, and the only way to ensure that could happen was centralisation, which led to despotism and dictatorship.

>>8606828
>Why couldnt the russians escape despotism despite having a massive revolution of the supposed proleteriat?
There is no clear reason, but I think in general you can put it down to the failure of the larger revolution (esp the Scandi countries not taking a leap). This lead to instability, a kind of series of night of the long knives type skirmishes, and a vacuum that allowed the local councils to be authoritarian. Soviet communism was a lot like feudalism, and incredibly aggressive to anarchist movements.

>>8607093
Institutionalized aristocracy is the best option for everyone involved.

>>8608362
Unless you want to have any level of wealth development

>>8608368
That's a meme the elite rich started. They gain control in every system, may as well stop lying to ourselves. Most social progression has just been the super rich destroying the slightly less rich.

>>8608385
I mean that aristocratic societies as a whole develop wealth slower than bourgeois societies

>>8608408
Conquer and plunder the weak.

>>8608459
You eventually run out of other societies to conquer
Non-aristocratic societies tend to be more peaceful

>>8608468
That's accurate, but it's also the major error with the current capitalist scam, which needs a much more rapid and continuous stream of new resources to remain stable. While aristocracy and capitalism are certainly not exclusive of each other, a proper aristocracy would almost certainly be easier to maintain than the petit bourgeois driven world capitalist system currently developing. The predictable outcome of capitalism is debt; there will be more debt than total capital unless it starts raining gold. In contrast, (social) power is an infinitely renewable resource and a system where conflict is an inherent positive can better coexist with human nature.

>>8606988
>Communism is a form of liberalism
Read a book