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.
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.
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.
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.