>>1106086
Generous donations from ashamed oppressors who wanted their money to contribute to a just world of beautiful workers, obviously.
I don't remember where I heard it, but I once saw someone claim that it was to get back at the Whites who defaulted on a number of their debts.
>>1106107
Which explains the massive workers' exodus toward the USSR.
I'm a commie because liberty is better than liberties. So I don't feel that I am to explain lenin's actions and compromises as though I took responsibility for them. I would be a commie regardless of what had, as one would say, to be done.
In fact, I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm curious about it, as about a piece of history.
So please give me some details.
From what I can imagine though, it was because:
-they thought that the money would come back with interests, and felt no concern for the fate of Russia nor class solidarity; they did not think this could come back to bite them or their heirs on the ass, and history proved them right on this point
-"capitalists would sell us the rope to hang them"
-maybe some thought about using the bolcheviks for their own political or strategic interests
How do Nazis explain that the German empire used Lenin as their agent?
>>1106193
>In fact, I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm curious about it, as about a piece of history.
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf
>>1106284
>nazis
>german empire
I don't follow.
>>1106319
Nazis will spend exactly 23,87% of their time ccomplaining about how the wmpire was backstabbed and how good it was and stuff. They should like it at least a litle bit.
Communism has always been by and for bourgeois high finance.
>>1106193
>I'm a commie because liberty is better than liberties.
This is retarded
Liberty can only be experienced as a determinate instance of liberty
Fuck off with this shit
>>1106329
Who are you talking about?
>>1106329
I'd imagine they'd look at the Soviet Union the same way the States looks at ISIS. "Yeah we might have fucked around there a little but really it was their own fault, those people are just fucked."
It's not exactly uncommon to support political dissidents you don't necessarily agree with in foreign counties, even if it's retardedly shortsighted and regularly backfires.
>>1106395
Absolutely every nazi I ever read posting anything online, they all seem to praise the second empire.
>>1106428
Is that the same as complaining about Jews backstabbing it?
What do you mean by "Nazi?" Do you mean "people who like German culture?" Or do you mean "self-professed National Socialist and anti-Semite, follower of Adolf Hitler?" Because I'm genuinely unclear on what point you're trying to make about said Nazis.
>>1106329
Straw manning that hard
>>1106329
>23,87%
>>1106428
I like America even though I disagree with a bunch of stuff it does. What is your point I'm genuinely curious?
>>1107119
Fugg a Republican!!!!
>>1106381
>>1106393
>"determinate instance of liberty"
Would the liberty of fucking off at your leisure count as this?
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''american education'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
How do commies explain that it was usually the working class who led anti-communist revolts? (1953 Czechoslovakia, 1956 Hungary etc).
>>1110300
>It's another "commie calling someone who doesn't buy into communist lies an American" episode.
>>1106193
>I'm a commie
Get a free helicopter ride anytime.
>>1106086
Useful idiots.
Or is it the other way around?
hardcore liberals bettin for a borderlese europe.
Just like now
>>1110304
>T-they are brainwashed by capitalist movies, you capitalist!
>>1106086
Jews helping Jews.
>>1106086
So they would fuck up their foreign competition and make it easy for them to open up eastern European markets.
I don't think they seriously expected the communists not only to win but to be a roaring success and become a superpower to rival the USA.
>>1106193
>I'm a commie
Kill yourself
>>1110964
Are you that scared of historical inevitability anon
>>1110969
Even Marx didn't believe in "historical inevitability" you reductionist fag.
>>1110969
>historical inevitability
>>1106086
The phrase "The capitalists will sell us the ropes with which we will hang them sums it up pretty well."
I guess most donators simply thought the Bolsheviks were just a bunch of chaotic disorganizers and terrorists who would weaken Russia.
Nobody thought they were actually fucking serious about building Utopia and would cling to it so fanatically.
How do Lenin fans explain this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion
>>1106193
>capitalist would sell us the rope to hang them
>Jews would sell us the rope to hang them
Ftfy
>>1111578
>B-but Lenin was not like Stalin!
>>1111578
Anarchists can suck my dick that's your explanation.
This is troll thread, numerous objections were raised in this thread and the OP just ignored them.
>>1106729
>>1112283
Objections? To claim it was just some naive Wall Street people isn't that great of an objection.
>>1112369
>Objections? To claim it was just some naive Wall Street people isn't that great of an objection.
Not one person in that thread said it was jut naivety take a look at the actual responses in it
>>1112369
So are you actually going to reply to some of the points brought up in that thread or not?
>>1106086
their dogs got a little too wild, broke off the leash and bit them in the ass
>>1112706
Think about this. Was financing Bolsheviks for business opportunities worth giving power to a communist government of a powerful country? What would be more detrimental for this Wall Street people funding the Bolsheviks? Missing out on the business opportunities they saw in funding the Bolsheviks or helping people with an ideology opposed to capitalism attain control of a powerful country?
Thats why it's not illogical to think that Bolsheviks were puppets of this Wall Street people unless they were really reckless and only cared about doing business even if by doing so they were putting capitalism in danger.
>>1113137
>Think about this. Was financing Bolsheviks for business opportunities worth giving power to a communist government of a powerful country? What would be more detrimental for this Wall Street people funding the Bolsheviks? Missing out on the business opportunities they saw in funding the Bolsheviks or helping people with an ideology opposed to capitalism attain control of a powerful country?
Absolutely, wall street is aligned by the profit motive not attachment to ideology. Its for this reason we saw actions like the AIG insurance and ratings scandals.
Was giving insurance policies on subprime loans to the companies which sold them whilst giving them falsely high ratings in the interest of capatalism? Of course not however it made perfect sense profit wise for the companies involved.
They saw an oppertunity for enrichment and they took it
>attain control of a powerful country?
Thats why it's not illogical to think that Bolsheviks were puppets of this Wall Street people unless they were really reckless and only cared about doing business even if by doing so they were putting capitalism in danger.
Take a read of >>1107699 from that thread. Here is a good quote which breaks this argument.
>You would think a generation who has lived through all the shenanigans in the middle east let alone latin america would realise that just because you give a group money/supplies does in no way mean that you gain control of the group.
Providing technical personal and selling or giving supplies to group does not equal gaining control of that group or attempting to.
This is why its /x/ tier thinking because it imputes all these complex and grand narratives to rather mundane actions. All whilst assuming a hyper level of confidence and unity to to this plan.
I mean reread your post a few times particularity
"Wall Street people unless they were really reckless and only cared about doing business"
>>1113230
Precisely because it's logical to think a communist government might turn around on the capitalist hand that fed them is why it's not farfetched to think the Bolsheviks were Wall Street puppets. That or they were very naive by funding them, since they could achieve business with that new government but at the same time they are giving power to communists who posed a threat to capitalism because they could use their funding to invade countries and set up communist regimes unwilling to make business with Wall Street.
In other words, one thing was to think one communist goverment might make business with Wall Street, another thing is to think many other new communist regimes might do the same. Therefore unless it was all planned, then it was a very short term and naive move.
>>1106193
>commie because liberty
You're a very confused individual.
>>1113230
>>attain control of a powerful country?
They just wanted to get Russia out of the picture. That's how those bastards like to make money. That's why Stalin should be sanctified, he destroyed the Judeobolshevists.
>>1113516
>Precisely because it's logical to think a communist government might turn around on the capitalist hand that fed them is why it's not farfetched to think the Bolsheviks were Wall Street puppets.
It is when you consider the history of these kinds of actions which have been going on since even the Roman times.
Actually show how they were puppeted and not just consumers of western products.
With regards to the rest of your post, you are just ignoring me.
You ignored the divided and ideological nature of wallstreet I provided extremely recent evidence of the vast recklessness and short term thinking of Wall street and you just handwaved it.
Your whole line of thought is that Wallstreet is a united and ideologically motivated body who could never make short term or naive moves because of your own feelings.
You take a few facts, isolate them from history and then jump to huge and complex conclusions
>>1113682
>You ignored the divided and *un*ideological nature of wallstreet and when I provided extremely recent evidence of the vast recklessness and short term thinking of Wall street and you just handwaved it.
>commies get in power
>destroy all private industry
>gommies collapse
>wall street invests heavily/buys up the newly privatized industry
Why wouldn't wall street finance a group of enemy retards that wanted to destroy their own nations?
>>1113576
If you think so, it's that the dominant ideology blinds you.
Equality is worthless on its own, but it is absolutely necessary to maximize liberty.
>>1113772
commies didn't destroy their own nation fucking retard polfag
from a destroyed nation made up by 90% illiterate people to first man in space in a few decades
americans are retarded, legit born with some sort of birth defect which stops them from thinking straight
>>1113910
>muh space
Irrelevant shit.
>>1113910
>we put man in space, sergei! isn't that something?
>I'm hungry, papa
>hush now, we are only #1123 in the bread line soon we will eat
>my stomach hurts papa
>fill your belly with thoughts of space, young sergei
>>1113910
That is why people moved in mass to the Soviet Union, right?
