i'm not okay with it, but i am willing to accept that accidental or unjust deaths occur in any war, even one fought with the intention of stopping the existing violence and greater harm that's occurring.
OP is right though, corruption is obviously bad and it's also not inevitable. We still need to limit harm as much as we practically can, while accepting that perfection isn't attainable.
I am also however consciously aware of Lenin's words on the purpose of the vanguard in those times. To uphold the revolution, and to press it against enemies both internally and externally. Their job, as he saw it, was nothing other than ensuring that revolution happens and that everyone against it was their enemy.
I agree with him. And I don't see it as attacks against "purity". I can see exactly why Lenin felt that way and the outcomes of the failed revolutions we've seen scare me enough to be completely on-side with such a demand for purity towards the revolution. Anyone against it or seeking to soften it is a threat of a terrifying sort.
Speaking in hypotheticals of course. It's not like this is remotely relevant right now.
I mean the usual argument is that the fuck ups of the committee directly led to the revolutionary governments loss and the rise of Napoleon. The main concern is that it heavily contributes to the failure of revolution. I think the purges that occurred throughout the 1920s heavily contributed to long term problems the soviet union had, obviously in a different context than the french revolution though.
i'm not okay with it, but i am willing to accept that accidental or unjust deaths occur in any war, even one fought with the intention of stopping the existing violence and greater harm that's occurring.
OP is right though, corruption is obviously bad and it's also not inevitable. We still need to limit harm as much as we practically can, while accepting that perfection isn't attainable.
Right I agree.
I am also however consciously aware of Lenin's words on the purpose of the vanguard in those times. To uphold the revolution, and to press it against enemies both internally and externally. Their job, as he saw it, was nothing other than ensuring that revolution happens and that everyone against it was their enemy.
I agree with him. And I don't see it as attacks against "purity". I can see exactly why Lenin felt that way and the outcomes of the failed revolutions we've seen scare me enough to be completely on-side with such a demand for purity towards the revolution. Anyone against it or seeking to soften it is a threat of a terrifying sort.
Speaking in hypotheticals of course. It's not like this is remotely relevant right now.
I mean the usual argument is that the fuck ups of the committee directly led to the revolutionary governments loss and the rise of Napoleon. The main concern is that it heavily contributes to the failure of revolution. I think the purges that occurred throughout the 1920s heavily contributed to long term problems the soviet union had, obviously in a different context than the french revolution though.