It makes you wonder what would the world have been like if the White Army had beat the Reds during the Russian revolution. The Whites had the same problems as the modern liberty/patriot/conservative movement in America. Overall the Whites were anti-monarchist, anti-communist, conservatives but that is where their unity ends. They were also divided into camps with some who were anti-Semitic and wanted a culture of only certain Slavic people. They accepted autocracy while being suspicious of "politics" (which they characterized as consisting of speeches, elections, and party activities).
Aside from being anti-Bolshevik and patriotic, the Whites had no set ideology or main leader. The White Armies did acknowledge a single provisional head of state, the so-called Supreme Governor of Russia, but this post was prominent only under the leadership of Alexander Kolchak.
The movement had no set plan for foreign policy; Whites differed on policies toward Germany, debating whether or not to ally with it. The Whites wanted to keep from alienating any potential supporters and allies, and thus saw an exclusively monarchist position as a detriment to their cause and recruitment. White movement leaders such as Anton Denikin advocated for Russians to create their own government, claiming the military could not decide in Russians’ steads. Admiral Alexander Kolchak succeeded in creating a temporary wartime government in Omsk, acknowledged by most other White leaders, only for it to fall with the loss of his armies.
Some warlords who were aligned with the White movement, such as Grigory Semyonov and Roman Ungern von Sternberg, did not acknowledge any authority but their own. Consequently, the White movement had no set political leanings: members could be monarchists, republicans, rightists, Kadets, etc. Among White Army leaders, neither General Lavr Kornilov nor General Anton Denikin were monarchists, yet General Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel was a monarchist willing to soldier for an elected, democratic Russian government. Moreover, other political parties supported the anti-Bolshevik White Army, among them the democrats, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, and others who opposed the Bolshevik October Revolution of Lenin. But, depending on the time and place, those White Army supporters also exchanged right-wing allegiance for allegiance with the Red Army. Is all this starting to sound vaguely familiar fellow patriots? I have been asking
my associates to stop supporting the OWS tactics and stop supporting the anarchist/libertarian agenda for awhile now. I suppose thats human nature in this gang, a bunch of type A, independent-minded folks if there
ever was one. Trying to get a clear consensus among this group is like being a cat-cowboy. You ever try riding herd for a bunch of felines instead of bovines ? Cat wranglerhood ain't all its cracked-up to be.
The foundation of the Soviet model of trade and investment was centralization under the guise of "universal public ownership". The entire goal of communism in general was not to give more social and political power to the people, but to extinguish alternative options and focus power into the hands of a select few. The process used to reach this end result can vary, but the goal always remains the same. In most cases, such centralization begins with economic hegemony, and it is in our fiscal structure that we have the means to see the future. Sovietization in our financial life will inevitably lead to sovietization in our political life.
Does the U.S. economy’s path resemble the Soviet template exactly? No. And I’m sure the very suggestion will make the average unaware free market evangelical froth at the mouth. However, as I plan to show, the parallels in our fundamentals are disturbing; the reality is that true free markets in America died a long time ago."