> All those countries were protecting assets sent to Russia and Czechs abused by Bolsheviks. If they were actually _participated_ in civil war, Bolsheviks will

> All those countries were protecting assets sent to Russia and Czechs abused by Bolsheviks. If they were actually _participated_ in civil war, Bolsheviks will be crushed in a week or so. Just because they didn't fully mobilize to crush the revolution doesn't mean they didn't participate. You're splitting hairs over definitions. "Protecting assets" with military action is... military action. > Yes, sure. "I'm not guilty, they've made me do it" - looks like favourite mantra for wrongdoers all over the world. I never said they're not guilty. I think they all fucked up. You're arguing against a strawman of your own devising. > Ok, why you're still calling USSR, Venezuela, Cuba etc socialist countries then? You'll note that I never mentioned a socialist state, but a socialist revolution. A revolution is socialist if it aims to achieve socialism. A revolution succeeds if the forces that attempt it seize power. All successful socialist revolutions have failed to achieve socialism after they seize power. It's a very simple argument. I've given a hypothesis for why that's the case: All the successful ones were achieved by military means and never demobilized. Their structures after the revolution grew to reflect the autocracy that is intrinsic to all known forms of effective military organization. Some tried more democratic military organization-- it failed spectacularly. Is it reasonable to conclude that socialism can't be achieved through violent confrontation? It's plausible. Honestly, you're being so combative that you have to resort to pedantry and strawmen. Who are you trying to convince with such a hostile uncharitable attitude?