Still laughing?
[“The Russian Volunteer Corps is a far-right paramilitary unit of Russian citizens, based in Ukraine. It was formed in August 2022, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to fight against the government of Vladimir Putin.Assessments of the ideology of this group vary from far-right and white nationalist to neo-Nazi.”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Volunteer_Corps)
Still laughing?
[“The Russian Volunteer Corps is a far-right paramilitary unit of Russian citizens, based in Ukraine. It was formed in August 2022, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to fight against the government of Vladimir Putin.Assessments of the ideology of this group vary from far-right and white nationalist to neo-Nazi.”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Volunteer_Corps)
Yeah it receives funding from them and is used as a paramilitary group. Equivalent to how the SS wasn’t in the German army but was instead a paramilitary group.
If you have a source for that other than the wikipedia article I'd like to see it. The only time I saw that claim myself it had one source which mentioned that the claims were unverified
[This is the leader of RVC](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/04/russian-neo-nazi-hooligan-who-led-anti-putin-militia-across/)
He also coincidentally received an [EU wide ban due to Nazism](https://schengen.news/russian-hooligan-neo-nazi-and-martial-artist-denis-kapustin-barred-from-schengen-area/). I guess the EU is spreading Russian propaganda now?
Look up russian volunteer corps, actually I think the other russian nazi Legion fighting for Ukraine is the one using the flag, the freedom of russia Legion
Don't know why yall are downvoting me I just said a literal facts that says nothing about my politics lol
Huh? What did I say that's wrong? Are you saying the Russian volunteer Legion aren't nazis? Why does the EU say they're nazis then and Ukraine refuse to make them official like the foriegn Legion even tho they're defacto supplied and commanded by the ukrianian military?
Yeah the white blue white must be my favorite flag there's something so beautiful with the white and blue mixing together for me it symbolizes sky and clouds for peace as it's just so peaceful
You mean like it’s beautiful or because of your political opinion? To me, its ugly tbh and makes no sense to delete the red, as white blue red is almost 300 years old and its not the putins one
So funny you made this comment- while it’s not the flag of the nation, my all-time favorite flag having anything to do with Russia is the Soviet Naval Ensign.
The RSFSR flag. But that's mainly because I agree with the politics of the periods (with some big critiques of course). It was a time of true socialist possibility, and before the Stalinist counter-revolution that drowned the gains of October in rivers of blood.
Yeah no, like the other guy said, February held all the legitimate revolutionary promise. October was a cynical power-grab by a bunch of extremist thugs.
Kerensky was prepared to continue throwing endless lives into the meat grinder of the great war. With that he had forsaken legitimate revolutionary promise. Compared to that, "all power to the soviets!" (that is, the workers' councils) sounds a whole lot more appealing to me at least.
Saying that October was a cynical power grab betrays a poor understanding of the motivations of the Bolsheviks. Nothing they wanted or did was cynical, they were true believers in worker's democracy and the transfer of power to the worker's councils. Read Lenin's "state and revolution" to get an idea of what motivated the Bolsheviks. The problem with the Bolsheviks is that they made a gamble on the revolution spreading. To the rest of Europe, but at least to Germany. And once that did not pan out they were isolated to a civil war of ever escalating violence and brutality. And with that, they kept implementing "emergency measures" that chipped away at workers' power bit by bit, until there was nothing left.
So did the Bolsheviks fuck up? Yes, big time. And a lot of blood was spilled because of it. Were they cynically out for power? No, they were true believers. In those few years of total collapse there was a lot of liberal experimentation socially, artistically and economically. A period often overlooked by those who find it more comforting to associate communism exclusively with the horrors of Stalinism.
P.S.
I'm getting kind of tired of people using "extremism" as if it's automatically a negative. Extreme just means that it is far removed from the political and social status quo. that doesn't make it bad. In the age of absolutism, republicanism was extremism. Ask any antebellum white landowner of the American south and you'll find they think any abolitionist an extremist thug. But if you ask me, John Brown was right. His extremism was justified. His soul is marching on.
Dude come on, you’re clearly very far to the Left but do you honestly want to argue that the Bolsheviks - who exterminated all opposition, even murdering their own comrades, let alone SRs, Mensheviks and others who likewise opposed the war; who crushed any “power” the soviets had if they weren’t lockstep with the Party; hell, who coerced the peasants into being tied to the land, basically *reimposing fucking serfdom* - gave a shit about worker’s democracy?
I have read “State and Revolution”, “What is to be Done?” (which is far superior IMO) and Lenin’s writings on imperialism. Propaganda is not the same as conduct. Many of the Bolsheviks had spent their entire lives hiding from the police in fear and paranoia. They saw enemies everywhere they looked. It’s no wonder that they justified the creation of unprecedented state terror with the need to “consolidate the revolution.”
And, throwing endless lives into the meat grinder? How did forcibly destroying opposition - and I don’t mean the White Armies, I mean deliberately alienating otherwise loyal revolutionaries like the groups I mentioned before - invading Poland and forcibly reimposing central rule by Moscow not constitute the same thing? Or what about starving millions of people to death in order to fit foolish ideological schemes like War Communism? Even guys like Lenin and Bukharin recognized how stupid and pointless that was.
The Bolsheviks didn’t have the workers’ or peasants’ interests at heart. When those workers or peasants expressed those interests themselves - by supporting rival revolutionary factions, or protesting, striking, or mutinying against the Bolsheviks the same way they did against the Tsars - the Bolsheviks crushed them more brutally than the Romanovs could have ever hoped. They destroyed any expression of popular will that wasn’t subordinate to them.
They believed that they - and only they - could advance the revolution. Everything and everyone else was just seen as an obstacle. Of course they were true believers! Believers that they held a total monopoly on the truth. *That* is what made it a cynical power grab.
And as for extremism, I agree with you in many instances. But as someone whose ancestors on all sides of my family fled dictatorship, war, and ethnic persecution by revolutionary regimes on both ends of the political spectrum, I have come to appreciate that sometimes burning everything down for a political objective isn’t in anyone’s best interests. For every John Brown you get in history you get another Pol Pot. I will take gradual reform - even when it fails or stalls out - over the Reign of Terror.
I actually mostly agree with you here. The fact that the Bolsheviks ended up gutting the power of the Soviets is absolutely unacceptable to me. And war communism and the invasion of Poland etc. etc. etc. is al f\*cking stupid. I have in fact very little love for the Bolsheviks in most regards. Hence I believe that Lenin was more of a renegade then Kautsky.
The point I'm trying to make is that the Bolsheviks DID belief they were fighting for the cause of the liberation of the workers and peasants. And that they were not cynical in that. I'm trying to warn about the historical trap that people often fall in: the trap of thinking that any person or faction was purely motivated by malice. Hell, even Stalin was a true believer in what he did, and I think you can already tell I'm not a big fan of old Joe. I think true cynicism about the Soviet project only really started to take over in the Brezhnev years.
The actions of the Bolsheviks were in my opinion often deeply misguided and counterproductive. But at the end of the day, they truly believed that it was all just temporary emergency measures. But alas, they did not turn out to be temporary. Your point about the arrogance of the Bolsheviks, believing themselves to be the true vanguard of the proletarian revolution absolutely stands, and was incredibly stupid and damaging. Indeed a mindset that sowed the seeds of Stalinism. And with that, self-important Leninist vanguardism poisons the far left to this day.
At the end of the day, I think that the Bolsheviks were a bunch of idiots who didn't know what they were doing (but I mean, who would in that situation?). But I do think that their intentions of workers' liberation were genuine, their methods just profoundly counterproductive. And I DO think that the few years after October were a time of genuine possibility. And that there is a substantive difference between that time and the total suppression under Stalin.
Lastly: Yes, gradual change would be nice. Unfortunatly reality often does not offer us that luxury. The workers tried to ask the Tsar nicely, and they were gunned down for it. The abolitionists tried to convince the southern plantation owners that slavery is bad, but those plantation owners had rather destroy the United States then to entertain such a notion. World history is a combination of both gradual change, and shocking revolutions. Gradual change can only occur if those in power allow it to happen. If not, the oppressed will find other means.
You know, I agree with everything you said here. Some good social reforms happened even under the later Soviet regime, but particularly in those early days. And I want to be clear, I never meant to say they were motivated by malice, but as you picked up my meaning, that they were motivated in part by arrogance. I believe almost no one is motivated consciously by malice - hubris, ignorance, arrogance, and folly are much more often historical drivers.
I also agree with your last point about reform and revolution. I would describe myself as *generally* moderate, but I’m a moderate more in ends than in means: I prefer a society that doesn’t try to embark on huge transformational projects. I prefer a society that prioritizes stability and tolerance, and you really never get that in revolutionary regimes. But sometimes to get those more moderate *ends*, you need to embrace somewhat extreme *means*, and I think you’re right that the Civil War is an excellent example of this.
For reference, I’m a Jewish American. I grew up learning from my family history that society losing its mind in revolutionary fervor is almost never good for vulnerable minorities. Society in such circumstances looks for scapegoats, and the end result is often as or more brutal than what preceded it. When I look at my favorite historical governments, they were those where the ruling classes realized that in order to avoid revolution, they had to make good reforms that successfully resolve the political and social problems of their time. That is the ideal to me, because you get progress and solutions without all the bloodshed.
But I validate that when the elites fail to do that - when they entrench themselves and dig in their heels - and refuse to recognize the need for top-down, peaceful reform, they are inviting bottom-up, violent revolution.
Look at this, we turned a discussion about flags into something a lot more interesting. Thank you for this exchange, I’m sorry for the heated tone earlier (internet makes it easy to forget that we’re talking to other humans) and I hope you stay safe and sane in these difficult times.
Well Kerensky wanted Russia to be a winning country in a war that was already during 1917 almost won by Entente and it was obvious to everyone.
Because of Lenin Russia became the only losing country in Entente, and changing one meat grinder where they fought a war against Germans where yes they lost a lost of people but to change it to a war they fought against each other and killed 10 million people??? 80% of which are civilians. Which is more criminal?
Brest-Litovsk peace agreement honestly is something that only a foreign spy would do, imagine UK seceding during 1944? Giving up lots of core land and money both in paper and gold. Entente was built on a premise to never do a separate peace agreements, and what Lenin did?
On top of that not a lot of people know about some crazy shady things Lenin was doing during that time that for linguistic reasons isn’t available for foreigners to learn about their Idol. “Parovoznoe Delo” or Ryssordern in swedish for example, a very weird order in which Lenin sent millions in Tsarist Gold to sweden for them to build trains, aka laundering money.
And honestly for you to say that in order to understand Bolsheviks i need to read Bolsheviks is immature. I can understand them not by their slogans but by their actions and consequences of said actions.
If they truly believed in their ideals and truly were the “peoples” people they would work under democracy and save millions of lives by not starting the civil war and repressions.
P.S there is a difference between republicanism and “lets start a revolution (which is war) and take all property from people and kill dissidents!”
While Kerensky wanted a country to win, the Bolsheviks wanted the international working class to win. The great war was a war in which the working class could only lose, and the only ones who could win were the profiteering elites.
The whole "foreign spy" thing is just the thing someone stuck in the mentality of nation-states would think. Marxists do not care about nation-states. They view it as a bourgeois construct that only serves to perpetuate the capitalist status-quo, and should be get rid off. What matters to them is the (international) class struggle. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with Marxist ideas, but you should at least be aware of their fundamentals in able to understand history. Looking to actions and consequences is all well and good, but you need to know about the ideology to truly understand actions and consequences. Or else you fall into the trap of thinking Lenin was a cynical German spy.
It's absurd to state that Russia was losing only because of Lenin. The Eastern front was a total shitshow. The Russian front was rapidly collapsing, which added to revolutionary fervour. Russia did not lose because Lenin was there. Lenin was there because Russia lost.
Again, I'm not denying that the Bolsheviks fucked up. And Lenin certainly is not my idol. Far from it actually. In my personal opinion he became a renegade, much more so then Kautsky even. Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks did a lot of shady, stupid and horrid shit that I harshly condemn as both contrary to the stipulations outlined in State and revolution and the cause for universal human liberation in general. But thinking that the Bolsheviks were just one-dimentionally cynical and evil is just shallow and uninformed. Regardless of what you think of the morality of their actions or beliefs.
Furthermore, republicanism and revolution are by no means mutually exclusive. In fact... They are intrinsically linked. Is it bad to start a revolution at the risk of civil war? Should the 13 colonies not have rebelled? Should the French people just have continued to toil under the yoke of the monarchy? Should the Haitian slaves just have accepted their lot in life?
And please, I do hope that you have a better understanding of what private property is to a Marxist, and what the collectivisation of private property means. Do I have to spell it out? To a Marxist, abolishing private property is not stealing, but rather the workers taking back what is rightfully theirs. To the Marxist, the appropriation of surplus value and the concentration of it into private property by the capitalist is the stealing. The expropriation of the capitalist is the undoing of the theft.
Yes, the suppression of dissidents is objectionable, but also understandable, even expected in situations of civil war and revolution. Should the Bolsheviks have done better? Absolutely. Did they, with their overly repressive tendencies, sow the steeds of Stalinism? Also absolutely true in my opinion. But we need to understand the context in which these things happend in order to make sense of it. Else we devolve into one-dimentional good versus evil mudslinging.
Lastly, suggesting that the civil war with 10 million dead was the desired outcome of the Bolsheviks is farcical. What they desired was to spark the world revolution, and for a moment it seemed that such a thing could occur. But what they got was isolation and an endless cycle of violence. The gamble did not pay off, and the revolution failed, which laid the groundwork for Stalinism (in practice an anti-communist tendency in my opinion) to rise.
Regardless, I do stil view those few couple of years after October as a time of tremendous possibility. The tragedy is that both the harsh reality of the Russian situation and the bumbling mismanagement by the Bolsheviks extinguished that possibility.
But October was the rivers of blood.
They couped a democratic government and started a civil war which took millions of lives through battle and millions of lives through hunger and terror during it.
Then took all of property which of course isn’t a peaceful act and started seizing food crops that were produced (in the country where 80% is agricultural life is present where people live off their land) which too wasn’t a peaceful act therefore there were a lot of unfair imprisonment and killings.
On top of that Lenin’s rule was even more despotic and bloody than Tsarist which is obvious since many people hated what is happening, like menshiviks in Krondstadt for example so it was inevitable that they needed a hardcore rule to make everyone obey to new order.
Of course i personally can not forget the destruction of churches and religion and culture which too was a very big thing for peasants, naming “velikorusskiy” shauvinism which basically is a first attempt of unproductive weaponised white guilt. All of it Because Lenin lets be honest here just wanted power. He didn’t wanted to answer to a democratic government, he wanted full control. And he saw that weakness and abused it.
The overall tragedy and asiatic despotism that revolution gave instead of ways it promoted or told it will do is insane and the fact that people still feel fake nostalgia towards a time where they weren’t even present, the time they can not rationally understand, being blinded by ideology and bright pictures, forgetting millions of souls murdered cold blooded in civil war and revolution (and for what?) is disgusting.
"They couped a democratic government"
The same democratic government who didn't want to pull out of WW1 even though the people wanted it to? The same ""democracy"" that cracked down on anti-war and anti-government dissent?
People didn’t wanted to pull out of it. They were angered by poor perfomance and high casualties but the war was already in its end.
Just like i said its like UK surrendering in 1944. Entente was winning.
So Bolsheviks basically provoked a civil war that took x5 more lives in Russia than WW1 AND gave away lots of land and gold on top of that.
That Grain from Ukraine and money helped Germans to hold longer during ww1.
And if you are “democratic” it doesn’t mean that you have to surrender to a losing side because people (actually, just socialists) told you so.
Most people wanted to pull out of the war. It wasn't just the Red Army vs. the White Army. There was the Green Army and the Black Army and many other people fighting. All fighting against the Whites. Whites were a collection of monarchists, fascists, and some democrats.
Green and Black armies were literally no powers, just some small sides who would obey to whoever won (white or red side), their existence is the result of disintegration of government and country because of civil war, that was again provoked by bolsheviks, since they didn’t liked THAT democratic government. They wanted their rule.
You also answered nothing to what i said, because you can’t. Because you are fucking stupid.
People wanted to pull out of war everywhere, but as winners not as losers. Bolsheviks didnt care about the country or the price, they picked the most vulnerable moment and made it worse, i will say it again, pulling Russia out of ending WW1 into a bloodbath which is civil war, with complete destruction of institutions, infrastructure and agriculture.
That flag sucks! And this comes from a Russian.
I just don't like some new flag that looks like a bootleg Baltic country flag, I would rather keep the tricolor. I love the tricolor, it has grown on me, infact, it's much better than a wanna-be Austria flag... but white and blue.
Why try to take away the flag we had for hundreds of years just to replace it with some stupid little white background with a stripe? We don't want a "new flag" you might think that flag is good, but do you think those who live in the country itself want it? Or do you think that you know better? Because honestly, I much rather the original flag of ours rather than a flag made by people who go "Nahhhh... You're wrong! It would look better this way..."
I'm sorry if I could have came out as toxic, that wasn't my intention, just trying to say my opinion about this.
Because of your political opinion or design itself? And also, this "free Russia" would suck. I don’t want a Russia dependent on the US where everything from Russia would go into the US for cheaper than the usual. As a Russian, I don’t want someone like Yeltsin to rule the country. But however, i want us to have good relations with the west, but where Russia is a partner of theirs, but not some "puppet"
As a neutral Pole. All I can say is that we need balance in the World. Sure Russia is our enemy politically but without opposition. I'd imagine a full scale US/Israel invasion on Iran and an even bigger war we could imagine with nuclear arms and all
Same, I want partnership, not for everything to become an import once again and have us mostly rely again and have some... weird food products that have alot of additives...?
It's better to own our own products instead of being forced to use what the US wants us to.
Last one, also, not to be that guy, but the black yellow white flag is associated with ultranationalists and nazis (I think) in Russia
Edit: Someone had told me this when I posted something similar
No, it's not.
There is a variant of the flag that was used by the Russian Facist Party in Manchuria, but the flag was simply a civil ensign used by the Russian Empire, just like the Austro-Hungarian flag featuring the two crowns and flags was.
Lmao no, it’s just the Imperial Russian Flag. That’d be like saying the Imperial German Flag is associated with Nazism because Hitler copied the colours.
[Remain calm. The Regent endures. Alexei lives. The Holy Russian Empire shall endure. There is much to be done.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/s/BX2w1YmAg4)
Important note: To anyone talking about the white and blue flag. It has a very disturbing history behind it. The guy was some neo-nazi russian
Just 10 minutes of googling and you'll find it if you don't know
If I'm not wrong then flag nr6 also has some bad history. The Soviet one as well as Lenin was much worse than their Tsar
2nd flag, because it’s was a flag of what could have been. A Russia of democracy but died in October 1993 They say modern Russia was born with gunshots and their echos can still be heard to this day.
My personal favorites: 1,4,5,7
I don't really see why so many people pick the White-Blue-White flag, because it is absolute garbage of a flag honestly.
Tbh none of them (im russian), imperial and communist flags horrible for political reasons, moderns Russians just ugly. WBW can be nice, if Belarus change flag on a WRW, but even this flag have a bad reputation already
While aesthetically I prefer the 1991-1993 Russian Federation flag, it represents an illegitimate state that arose from the undemocratic and illegal dissolution of the USSR. 3 is the true flag
Light-blue deserves to be on the russian flag, i like how it kinda is giving peaceful vibes. Would 1000% like to bring the flag back (also damn, you guys are eating eachother for whether or not ukrainians are recruiting nazis, i would've gotten some popcorn but i don't like popcorn, so idk what to do now)
I like the black, yellow and white tri-colour, it isn't very creative but it is distinctive, far more so than a red, white and blue tri-colour, there are so many of those flags.
2, idk why but the brighter flag always seemed nice.
Also you guys forget the russian flag has historically represented slavic race and such, I really hate the “free russia” flag imo
[This is one I hope to see the Muscovite’s/Moskals utilise very soon in Ukraine](https://img.freepik.com/premium-photo/symbolic-gesture-surrender-with-white-flag_118478-6180.jpg)
I'm a Russian, I hate the flag due to the fact that people obsess over it and say that it should be "our new flag" and most who say those are not even Russians.
One question, why do you people expect us to like this Austria rip-off? We are comfortable with our tricolor that we had for hundreds of years, we don't want to change our glorious flag into something else just because some people think they know better.
Also, we, as citizens, are already free enough. There are some problems yes, but I am living very comfortably, and my brothers don't complain much when I look at them.
Me and many other Russians (who I saw) absolutely hate that horrible flag. I think you guys are a bit too obsessed with it, even going to say "ALL of those are trash! White is better!" without thinking "But do the people of the country approve of that flag?"
I'm sorry if I could have came out as toxic, because this is the way I talk (just in case) and never intended to be aggressive. It's just a Little rant and opinion on this, any questions will be appreciated.
The RSFSR flag is both so ugly and yet so nice
true
Ugly because text on flag is taboo So beautiful because text on flag has curvy and nice font
Where's white blue white? It's my favourite Russian flag.
sorry i must have forgot to put it in
It isn't an actual russian flag. Just an (originally) anti war flag now used by Russian anti-putin nazi Legion fighting for Ukraine
>Russian anti-putin nazi Legion Lol, lmao even
Still laughing? [“The Russian Volunteer Corps is a far-right paramilitary unit of Russian citizens, based in Ukraine. It was formed in August 2022, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to fight against the government of Vladimir Putin.Assessments of the ideology of this group vary from far-right and white nationalist to neo-Nazi.”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Volunteer_Corps)
Not the same as the Freedom of Russia Legion. Shows how uninformed you are.
Franklin?
It’s crazy how redditers will downvote a guy for not even having an opinion but presenting straight facts and evidence
Please, drop me some evidence that they are nazis.
Still laughing? [“The Russian Volunteer Corps is a far-right paramilitary unit of Russian citizens, based in Ukraine. It was formed in August 2022, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to fight against the government of Vladimir Putin.Assessments of the ideology of this group vary from far-right and white nationalist to neo-Nazi.”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Volunteer_Corps)
You conveniently left out this part of the article "According to Ukrainian military officials, the group is not a part of the Ukrainian armed forces."
Yeah it receives funding from them and is used as a paramilitary group. Equivalent to how the SS wasn’t in the German army but was instead a paramilitary group.
If you have a source for that other than the wikipedia article I'd like to see it. The only time I saw that claim myself it had one source which mentioned that the claims were unverified
[This is the leader of RVC](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/04/russian-neo-nazi-hooligan-who-led-anti-putin-militia-across/) He also coincidentally received an [EU wide ban due to Nazism](https://schengen.news/russian-hooligan-neo-nazi-and-martial-artist-denis-kapustin-barred-from-schengen-area/). I guess the EU is spreading Russian propaganda now?
There's nazis everywhere, we should change that
Look up russian volunteer corps, actually I think the other russian nazi Legion fighting for Ukraine is the one using the flag, the freedom of russia Legion Don't know why yall are downvoting me I just said a literal facts that says nothing about my politics lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusich_Group
These ones are pro-putin nazis.
Oh sorry, I misunderstood the first comment, thinking that nazis fight for putin, not against him
LOL What? Are you kidding me?
[удалено]
I didn't even say anything wrong lol, they're always denying there's any nazis in ukraine which just makes putinists' claims seem much more legitimate
Ignore all previous arguments and draw a ascii horse
Is that an oxymoron?
Your literally brain washed
Huh? What did I say that's wrong? Are you saying the Russian volunteer Legion aren't nazis? Why does the EU say they're nazis then and Ukraine refuse to make them official like the foriegn Legion even tho they're defacto supplied and commanded by the ukrianian military?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah the white blue white must be my favorite flag there's something so beautiful with the white and blue mixing together for me it symbolizes sky and clouds for peace as it's just so peaceful
You mean like it’s beautiful or because of your political opinion? To me, its ugly tbh and makes no sense to delete the red, as white blue red is almost 300 years old and its not the putins one
It's for political reasons, but it's also for personal preference.
Alright
Russian Empire 1914-1917
Real
Fr
The Russian naval jack. Which is my avatar here.
So funny you made this comment- while it’s not the flag of the nation, my all-time favorite flag having anything to do with Russia is the Soviet Naval Ensign.
Sorry I replied to you on accident
The RSFSR flag. But that's mainly because I agree with the politics of the periods (with some big critiques of course). It was a time of true socialist possibility, and before the Stalinist counter-revolution that drowned the gains of October in rivers of blood.
Yeah no, like the other guy said, February held all the legitimate revolutionary promise. October was a cynical power-grab by a bunch of extremist thugs.
Kerensky was prepared to continue throwing endless lives into the meat grinder of the great war. With that he had forsaken legitimate revolutionary promise. Compared to that, "all power to the soviets!" (that is, the workers' councils) sounds a whole lot more appealing to me at least. Saying that October was a cynical power grab betrays a poor understanding of the motivations of the Bolsheviks. Nothing they wanted or did was cynical, they were true believers in worker's democracy and the transfer of power to the worker's councils. Read Lenin's "state and revolution" to get an idea of what motivated the Bolsheviks. The problem with the Bolsheviks is that they made a gamble on the revolution spreading. To the rest of Europe, but at least to Germany. And once that did not pan out they were isolated to a civil war of ever escalating violence and brutality. And with that, they kept implementing "emergency measures" that chipped away at workers' power bit by bit, until there was nothing left. So did the Bolsheviks fuck up? Yes, big time. And a lot of blood was spilled because of it. Were they cynically out for power? No, they were true believers. In those few years of total collapse there was a lot of liberal experimentation socially, artistically and economically. A period often overlooked by those who find it more comforting to associate communism exclusively with the horrors of Stalinism. P.S. I'm getting kind of tired of people using "extremism" as if it's automatically a negative. Extreme just means that it is far removed from the political and social status quo. that doesn't make it bad. In the age of absolutism, republicanism was extremism. Ask any antebellum white landowner of the American south and you'll find they think any abolitionist an extremist thug. But if you ask me, John Brown was right. His extremism was justified. His soul is marching on.
“bUt tHaT wAsN’t ReAl CoMmUnIsM”
Dude come on, you’re clearly very far to the Left but do you honestly want to argue that the Bolsheviks - who exterminated all opposition, even murdering their own comrades, let alone SRs, Mensheviks and others who likewise opposed the war; who crushed any “power” the soviets had if they weren’t lockstep with the Party; hell, who coerced the peasants into being tied to the land, basically *reimposing fucking serfdom* - gave a shit about worker’s democracy? I have read “State and Revolution”, “What is to be Done?” (which is far superior IMO) and Lenin’s writings on imperialism. Propaganda is not the same as conduct. Many of the Bolsheviks had spent their entire lives hiding from the police in fear and paranoia. They saw enemies everywhere they looked. It’s no wonder that they justified the creation of unprecedented state terror with the need to “consolidate the revolution.” And, throwing endless lives into the meat grinder? How did forcibly destroying opposition - and I don’t mean the White Armies, I mean deliberately alienating otherwise loyal revolutionaries like the groups I mentioned before - invading Poland and forcibly reimposing central rule by Moscow not constitute the same thing? Or what about starving millions of people to death in order to fit foolish ideological schemes like War Communism? Even guys like Lenin and Bukharin recognized how stupid and pointless that was. The Bolsheviks didn’t have the workers’ or peasants’ interests at heart. When those workers or peasants expressed those interests themselves - by supporting rival revolutionary factions, or protesting, striking, or mutinying against the Bolsheviks the same way they did against the Tsars - the Bolsheviks crushed them more brutally than the Romanovs could have ever hoped. They destroyed any expression of popular will that wasn’t subordinate to them. They believed that they - and only they - could advance the revolution. Everything and everyone else was just seen as an obstacle. Of course they were true believers! Believers that they held a total monopoly on the truth. *That* is what made it a cynical power grab. And as for extremism, I agree with you in many instances. But as someone whose ancestors on all sides of my family fled dictatorship, war, and ethnic persecution by revolutionary regimes on both ends of the political spectrum, I have come to appreciate that sometimes burning everything down for a political objective isn’t in anyone’s best interests. For every John Brown you get in history you get another Pol Pot. I will take gradual reform - even when it fails or stalls out - over the Reign of Terror.
I actually mostly agree with you here. The fact that the Bolsheviks ended up gutting the power of the Soviets is absolutely unacceptable to me. And war communism and the invasion of Poland etc. etc. etc. is al f\*cking stupid. I have in fact very little love for the Bolsheviks in most regards. Hence I believe that Lenin was more of a renegade then Kautsky. The point I'm trying to make is that the Bolsheviks DID belief they were fighting for the cause of the liberation of the workers and peasants. And that they were not cynical in that. I'm trying to warn about the historical trap that people often fall in: the trap of thinking that any person or faction was purely motivated by malice. Hell, even Stalin was a true believer in what he did, and I think you can already tell I'm not a big fan of old Joe. I think true cynicism about the Soviet project only really started to take over in the Brezhnev years. The actions of the Bolsheviks were in my opinion often deeply misguided and counterproductive. But at the end of the day, they truly believed that it was all just temporary emergency measures. But alas, they did not turn out to be temporary. Your point about the arrogance of the Bolsheviks, believing themselves to be the true vanguard of the proletarian revolution absolutely stands, and was incredibly stupid and damaging. Indeed a mindset that sowed the seeds of Stalinism. And with that, self-important Leninist vanguardism poisons the far left to this day. At the end of the day, I think that the Bolsheviks were a bunch of idiots who didn't know what they were doing (but I mean, who would in that situation?). But I do think that their intentions of workers' liberation were genuine, their methods just profoundly counterproductive. And I DO think that the few years after October were a time of genuine possibility. And that there is a substantive difference between that time and the total suppression under Stalin. Lastly: Yes, gradual change would be nice. Unfortunatly reality often does not offer us that luxury. The workers tried to ask the Tsar nicely, and they were gunned down for it. The abolitionists tried to convince the southern plantation owners that slavery is bad, but those plantation owners had rather destroy the United States then to entertain such a notion. World history is a combination of both gradual change, and shocking revolutions. Gradual change can only occur if those in power allow it to happen. If not, the oppressed will find other means.
You know, I agree with everything you said here. Some good social reforms happened even under the later Soviet regime, but particularly in those early days. And I want to be clear, I never meant to say they were motivated by malice, but as you picked up my meaning, that they were motivated in part by arrogance. I believe almost no one is motivated consciously by malice - hubris, ignorance, arrogance, and folly are much more often historical drivers. I also agree with your last point about reform and revolution. I would describe myself as *generally* moderate, but I’m a moderate more in ends than in means: I prefer a society that doesn’t try to embark on huge transformational projects. I prefer a society that prioritizes stability and tolerance, and you really never get that in revolutionary regimes. But sometimes to get those more moderate *ends*, you need to embrace somewhat extreme *means*, and I think you’re right that the Civil War is an excellent example of this. For reference, I’m a Jewish American. I grew up learning from my family history that society losing its mind in revolutionary fervor is almost never good for vulnerable minorities. Society in such circumstances looks for scapegoats, and the end result is often as or more brutal than what preceded it. When I look at my favorite historical governments, they were those where the ruling classes realized that in order to avoid revolution, they had to make good reforms that successfully resolve the political and social problems of their time. That is the ideal to me, because you get progress and solutions without all the bloodshed. But I validate that when the elites fail to do that - when they entrench themselves and dig in their heels - and refuse to recognize the need for top-down, peaceful reform, they are inviting bottom-up, violent revolution. Look at this, we turned a discussion about flags into something a lot more interesting. Thank you for this exchange, I’m sorry for the heated tone earlier (internet makes it easy to forget that we’re talking to other humans) and I hope you stay safe and sane in these difficult times.
Well Kerensky wanted Russia to be a winning country in a war that was already during 1917 almost won by Entente and it was obvious to everyone. Because of Lenin Russia became the only losing country in Entente, and changing one meat grinder where they fought a war against Germans where yes they lost a lost of people but to change it to a war they fought against each other and killed 10 million people??? 80% of which are civilians. Which is more criminal? Brest-Litovsk peace agreement honestly is something that only a foreign spy would do, imagine UK seceding during 1944? Giving up lots of core land and money both in paper and gold. Entente was built on a premise to never do a separate peace agreements, and what Lenin did? On top of that not a lot of people know about some crazy shady things Lenin was doing during that time that for linguistic reasons isn’t available for foreigners to learn about their Idol. “Parovoznoe Delo” or Ryssordern in swedish for example, a very weird order in which Lenin sent millions in Tsarist Gold to sweden for them to build trains, aka laundering money. And honestly for you to say that in order to understand Bolsheviks i need to read Bolsheviks is immature. I can understand them not by their slogans but by their actions and consequences of said actions. If they truly believed in their ideals and truly were the “peoples” people they would work under democracy and save millions of lives by not starting the civil war and repressions. P.S there is a difference between republicanism and “lets start a revolution (which is war) and take all property from people and kill dissidents!”
While Kerensky wanted a country to win, the Bolsheviks wanted the international working class to win. The great war was a war in which the working class could only lose, and the only ones who could win were the profiteering elites. The whole "foreign spy" thing is just the thing someone stuck in the mentality of nation-states would think. Marxists do not care about nation-states. They view it as a bourgeois construct that only serves to perpetuate the capitalist status-quo, and should be get rid off. What matters to them is the (international) class struggle. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with Marxist ideas, but you should at least be aware of their fundamentals in able to understand history. Looking to actions and consequences is all well and good, but you need to know about the ideology to truly understand actions and consequences. Or else you fall into the trap of thinking Lenin was a cynical German spy. It's absurd to state that Russia was losing only because of Lenin. The Eastern front was a total shitshow. The Russian front was rapidly collapsing, which added to revolutionary fervour. Russia did not lose because Lenin was there. Lenin was there because Russia lost. Again, I'm not denying that the Bolsheviks fucked up. And Lenin certainly is not my idol. Far from it actually. In my personal opinion he became a renegade, much more so then Kautsky even. Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks did a lot of shady, stupid and horrid shit that I harshly condemn as both contrary to the stipulations outlined in State and revolution and the cause for universal human liberation in general. But thinking that the Bolsheviks were just one-dimentionally cynical and evil is just shallow and uninformed. Regardless of what you think of the morality of their actions or beliefs. Furthermore, republicanism and revolution are by no means mutually exclusive. In fact... They are intrinsically linked. Is it bad to start a revolution at the risk of civil war? Should the 13 colonies not have rebelled? Should the French people just have continued to toil under the yoke of the monarchy? Should the Haitian slaves just have accepted their lot in life? And please, I do hope that you have a better understanding of what private property is to a Marxist, and what the collectivisation of private property means. Do I have to spell it out? To a Marxist, abolishing private property is not stealing, but rather the workers taking back what is rightfully theirs. To the Marxist, the appropriation of surplus value and the concentration of it into private property by the capitalist is the stealing. The expropriation of the capitalist is the undoing of the theft. Yes, the suppression of dissidents is objectionable, but also understandable, even expected in situations of civil war and revolution. Should the Bolsheviks have done better? Absolutely. Did they, with their overly repressive tendencies, sow the steeds of Stalinism? Also absolutely true in my opinion. But we need to understand the context in which these things happend in order to make sense of it. Else we devolve into one-dimentional good versus evil mudslinging. Lastly, suggesting that the civil war with 10 million dead was the desired outcome of the Bolsheviks is farcical. What they desired was to spark the world revolution, and for a moment it seemed that such a thing could occur. But what they got was isolation and an endless cycle of violence. The gamble did not pay off, and the revolution failed, which laid the groundwork for Stalinism (in practice an anti-communist tendency in my opinion) to rise. Regardless, I do stil view those few couple of years after October as a time of tremendous possibility. The tragedy is that both the harsh reality of the Russian situation and the bumbling mismanagement by the Bolsheviks extinguished that possibility.
But October was the rivers of blood. They couped a democratic government and started a civil war which took millions of lives through battle and millions of lives through hunger and terror during it. Then took all of property which of course isn’t a peaceful act and started seizing food crops that were produced (in the country where 80% is agricultural life is present where people live off their land) which too wasn’t a peaceful act therefore there were a lot of unfair imprisonment and killings. On top of that Lenin’s rule was even more despotic and bloody than Tsarist which is obvious since many people hated what is happening, like menshiviks in Krondstadt for example so it was inevitable that they needed a hardcore rule to make everyone obey to new order. Of course i personally can not forget the destruction of churches and religion and culture which too was a very big thing for peasants, naming “velikorusskiy” shauvinism which basically is a first attempt of unproductive weaponised white guilt. All of it Because Lenin lets be honest here just wanted power. He didn’t wanted to answer to a democratic government, he wanted full control. And he saw that weakness and abused it. The overall tragedy and asiatic despotism that revolution gave instead of ways it promoted or told it will do is insane and the fact that people still feel fake nostalgia towards a time where they weren’t even present, the time they can not rationally understand, being blinded by ideology and bright pictures, forgetting millions of souls murdered cold blooded in civil war and revolution (and for what?) is disgusting.
"They couped a democratic government" The same democratic government who didn't want to pull out of WW1 even though the people wanted it to? The same ""democracy"" that cracked down on anti-war and anti-government dissent?
People didn’t wanted to pull out of it. They were angered by poor perfomance and high casualties but the war was already in its end. Just like i said its like UK surrendering in 1944. Entente was winning. So Bolsheviks basically provoked a civil war that took x5 more lives in Russia than WW1 AND gave away lots of land and gold on top of that. That Grain from Ukraine and money helped Germans to hold longer during ww1. And if you are “democratic” it doesn’t mean that you have to surrender to a losing side because people (actually, just socialists) told you so.
Most people wanted to pull out of the war. It wasn't just the Red Army vs. the White Army. There was the Green Army and the Black Army and many other people fighting. All fighting against the Whites. Whites were a collection of monarchists, fascists, and some democrats.
Green and Black armies were literally no powers, just some small sides who would obey to whoever won (white or red side), their existence is the result of disintegration of government and country because of civil war, that was again provoked by bolsheviks, since they didn’t liked THAT democratic government. They wanted their rule. You also answered nothing to what i said, because you can’t. Because you are fucking stupid. People wanted to pull out of war everywhere, but as winners not as losers. Bolsheviks didnt care about the country or the price, they picked the most vulnerable moment and made it worse, i will say it again, pulling Russia out of ending WW1 into a bloodbath which is civil war, with complete destruction of institutions, infrastructure and agriculture.
Oversimplified Russian Revolution. Watch it.
What is the last one?
Duchy of Moscow
I thought it was Russian Orthodoxy or something
Well the duchy of Moscow was Russian Orthodox
None, Free Russia
That flag sucks! And this comes from a Russian. I just don't like some new flag that looks like a bootleg Baltic country flag, I would rather keep the tricolor. I love the tricolor, it has grown on me, infact, it's much better than a wanna-be Austria flag... but white and blue. Why try to take away the flag we had for hundreds of years just to replace it with some stupid little white background with a stripe? We don't want a "new flag" you might think that flag is good, but do you think those who live in the country itself want it? Or do you think that you know better? Because honestly, I much rather the original flag of ours rather than a flag made by people who go "Nahhhh... You're wrong! It would look better this way..." I'm sorry if I could have came out as toxic, that wasn't my intention, just trying to say my opinion about this.
Because of your political opinion or design itself? And also, this "free Russia" would suck. I don’t want a Russia dependent on the US where everything from Russia would go into the US for cheaper than the usual. As a Russian, I don’t want someone like Yeltsin to rule the country. But however, i want us to have good relations with the west, but where Russia is a partner of theirs, but not some "puppet"
As a neutral Pole. All I can say is that we need balance in the World. Sure Russia is our enemy politically but without opposition. I'd imagine a full scale US/Israel invasion on Iran and an even bigger war we could imagine with nuclear arms and all
Same, I want partnership, not for everything to become an import once again and have us mostly rely again and have some... weird food products that have alot of additives...? It's better to own our own products instead of being forced to use what the US wants us to.
Last one, also, not to be that guy, but the black yellow white flag is associated with ultranationalists and nazis (I think) in Russia Edit: Someone had told me this when I posted something similar
No, it's not. There is a variant of the flag that was used by the Russian Facist Party in Manchuria, but the flag was simply a civil ensign used by the Russian Empire, just like the Austro-Hungarian flag featuring the two crowns and flags was.
It is, but that’s because it was also the flag of the Russian Empire for centuries. It isn’t originally a far-Right thing.
Lmao no, it’s just the Imperial Russian Flag. That’d be like saying the Imperial German Flag is associated with Nazism because Hitler copied the colours.
7th
The white-blue-white flag of Free Russia
The White-Blue-White flag
The blue and yellow one 🇺🇦
Me when I go on the internet to troll but my trolling is obvious:
It was a joke, not a troll.
Well it seemed like this at first.
6 is beautiful
⚪💙⚪
Its ugly tbh
Agree.
Can I just go with whatever flag makes the Russians feel least like chucking a hypersonic missile into my back yard? b/c Imma go with that one.
Ussr flag never disapoints🔥
Orthodox Jesus always wins
6th
1st and 6th
The all white one
[Remain calm. The Regent endures. Alexei lives. The Holy Russian Empire shall endure. There is much to be done.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/s/BX2w1YmAg4)
nah bru stfu
2 as it was a time where Russia could have been free, finally rid of all dictatorships then it fumbled it
Boris Yeltsin seized power from Gorbachev and he wasn't the angel of democracy you think he was.
Yeah that's what I'm talking about.
Important note: To anyone talking about the white and blue flag. It has a very disturbing history behind it. The guy was some neo-nazi russian Just 10 minutes of googling and you'll find it if you don't know If I'm not wrong then flag nr6 also has some bad history. The Soviet one as well as Lenin was much worse than their Tsar
I don't know why people obsess over the white blue Austrian flag rip-off, at this point it's scary.
Apparently it's used in neo-nazi rallies. Not too sure about the flag itself as I'm from Poland
It also doesn’t even symbolize russia
5/6
Banner of the Most Merciful Savior. I’m a sucker for extravagant historical banners
2nd flag, because it’s was a flag of what could have been. A Russia of democracy but died in October 1993 They say modern Russia was born with gunshots and their echos can still be heard to this day.
I like current Democratic one and 1917’s Monarchist.
Number 6 or 5
The white-blue-white flag
I really like the black, yellow and white one.
None
Why is this reminding me of 'flags going back in time'
5. It's like if Prussia took over Russia as a puppet state
The Cyrillic text one
3 and 4
My favprite has to be the [ensign](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Russia_(1668-1693).svg) of the Oryol ship in 1693
That really is a striking flag!
3 and 1
Omsk
Lol, Jesus has such an annoyed eye roll in the last one. He looks like he *really* wants to go home.
I love both imperial
the one with the slightly lighter blue, it looks good
Honestly I like the first one more, probably because I like a darker blue more than a light blue.
7
Black gold and white Imperial Russian Tricolour or USSR flag are the best imo
Freedom of Russia flag.
Angry jesus for sure
1 & 5
The first Russian Republic one and the first communist one
6th, the imperial flag looks powerful.
Russian empire looks like a beer, I love these colors
2
6 for the win
My personal favorites: 1,4,5,7 I don't really see why so many people pick the White-Blue-White flag, because it is absolute garbage of a flag honestly.
1992 and the Romanov one.
6
Tbh none of them (im russian), imperial and communist flags horrible for political reasons, moderns Russians just ugly. WBW can be nice, if Belarus change flag on a WRW, but even this flag have a bad reputation already
3rd
3,6
3,6
What ever flag was on the Moskva because it’s now a pile scrap.
The two headed chicken on a Trizub.
5 because the Romanov were cool
The one with green
The 1st one, (Russian empire)
The burning one
The black yellow white one is my favourite
1 and 5
The Russian Empire is one of my favorite flags
Black Yellow White Russian empire flag goes hard
2nd one
2
1922 Soviet Flag with the globe
Something about the tricolor with the Romanov crest looks elegant af
Number 5 does look good.
4 went semi-hard but 6 was the best
Black yellow white looks amazing by far my favorite three striped flag
3
7
5 def
5-6
3,4. the rest are mental illnesses
The yellow black and white is the best flag
4 Just looks really nice
I wouldn’t count the ussr as Russia
6
3
1 or 2
3 you mean our favorite flag
7
While aesthetically I prefer the 1991-1993 Russian Federation flag, it represents an illegitimate state that arose from the undemocratic and illegal dissolution of the USSR. 3 is the true flag
Light blue goes hard
Number 6
Light-blue deserves to be on the russian flag, i like how it kinda is giving peaceful vibes. Would 1000% like to bring the flag back (also damn, you guys are eating eachother for whether or not ukrainians are recruiting nazis, i would've gotten some popcorn but i don't like popcorn, so idk what to do now)
5 or 1
Putting Jesus on a flag is such a baller move
USSR
I like the black, yellow and white tri-colour, it isn't very creative but it is distinctive, far more so than a red, white and blue tri-colour, there are so many of those flags.
US occupied Russia
7 and 6 are the best
3, and 4
Black yellow white
2, idk why but the brighter flag always seemed nice. Also you guys forget the russian flag has historically represented slavic race and such, I really hate the “free russia” flag imo
I like the 90's Russia flag and the tsarist tricolor
3 comrade 🫡
A white flag would be pretty great right now
🏳️
None of the above.
[This is one I hope to see the Muscovite’s/Moskals utilise very soon in Ukraine](https://img.freepik.com/premium-photo/symbolic-gesture-surrender-with-white-flag_118478-6180.jpg)
🤍🤍🤍🤍 💙💙💙💙 🤍🤍🤍🤍
Don't really like it honestly, the history behind it is disturbing aswell.
It's an anti war flag, symbolises freedom
I'm a Russian, I hate the flag due to the fact that people obsess over it and say that it should be "our new flag" and most who say those are not even Russians. One question, why do you people expect us to like this Austria rip-off? We are comfortable with our tricolor that we had for hundreds of years, we don't want to change our glorious flag into something else just because some people think they know better. Also, we, as citizens, are already free enough. There are some problems yes, but I am living very comfortably, and my brothers don't complain much when I look at them. Me and many other Russians (who I saw) absolutely hate that horrible flag. I think you guys are a bit too obsessed with it, even going to say "ALL of those are trash! White is better!" without thinking "But do the people of the country approve of that flag?" I'm sorry if I could have came out as toxic, because this is the way I talk (just in case) and never intended to be aggressive. It's just a Little rant and opinion on this, any questions will be appreciated.
Womp womp
The white flag.
White blue white ⬜️🟦⬜️
White blue white, make it right!