• tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The BV’s were initially grass roots, along with other communists in Russia at the time, but after Lenin got control the policies all came from above with little to no input from the workers below, and the BV’s became the defacto only party.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That stands in direct contrast to the actual structure of the USSR, and a misunderstanding of Democratic Centralism. The Soviets were the organizational organ of the USSR, as shown here:

      Secondly, being a single party does not mean democratization lowers. Parlimentarianism obscures the material impact of a Worker’s voice. A single party system can be bad, such as in Nazi Germany, where there was little to no actual democracy. A single party system can be good, such as in the USSR.

      As per your previous statement that “most of us want bottom-up revolutions,” that’s correct, but “most of us” do not agree that the October Revolution was a “top-down” revolution.

      I recommend reading the following texts, if you have not done so already:

        • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Gulag in Siberia

          Except during the years of World War 2, the Gulags had a better quality of life and lower risk of mortality than contemporary prisons in many much wealthier and more developed countries. Despite the enduring cultural legacy of the fiction novel Gulag Archipelago, the truth of the matter is that after the revolution the Communists reformed the Tsarist work camps into what were at the time the most progressive rehabilitation regimes in the world.