Democracy in the Russian Revolution and the Creation of the USSR

[WorkInProgress]

I am under the impression that a weakening of democracy led to the ultimate failure of the Russian revolution. 'In my belief, the Revolution was strongest when multiple parties of the left, the Meinsheviks, the Bolsheviks, and the Anarchists all took part in the struggle against the Whites and no centralized form of government existed. All power belonged to the Soviet councils in a sense, and thus the people had the most power they could have at the time.

However, the events following the October revolution, such as the rebelling of the Czech legion and the subsequent creation of the White Army, put pressure on the leftist forces to unite under the banner of the strongest party among them. Differences between the various organizations created friction and eventually violence and as a means to keep order, the Bolsheviks were forced to suppress dissent and combat rival parties for power.

Eventually, once victory had been achieved, Russia was in awful economic shape due to the unimaginable hardships of civil war, The Bolsheviks were once more in a strenuous position having to satisfy the demands of a brutalized people. By this time, the Soviets had little power, and were mostly ineffective as a means of transmitting the will of the people to the powers above. This was a result of the centralization of power that was a necessary step towards winning the civil war, but eventually proved counter-democratic when it came to establishing a productive peace. Worried that yet another group might unexpectedly rise to power to oppose them and shatter the victories of the revolution, the Bolsheviks found it necessary to quell dissent through the use of secret police.

In the end, the necessities of war and lasting order created a want of centralized power that would bring about an end to direct democracy so exemplary of the october revolution.'

I'm not sure if my belief is correct, so I would like to hear your thoughts and comments, just be sure to keep it respectful and constructive.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Hi WIP, It's nice to have you on the board.

Thank you for your contribution, above. I think you make a number of good points. But I'd like to take up your central point:


I am under the impression that a weakening of democracy led to the ultimate failure of the Russian revolution.

[...]

In the end, the necessities of war and lasting order created a want of centralized power that would bring about an end to direct democracy so exemplary of the october revolution.

The latter comment is entirely correct and I think it actually contradicts your original assertion that it was the weakening of democracy that caused the failure of the revolution.

That being said I don't think we can stop at the civil war and say that it was the fundamental cause for the revolution's degeneration. If we look deeper, the fundamental cause for the degeneration of the Russian Revolution was in fact the failure of the international revolution, the failure of the revolution to spread (in particular to Europe and most centrally to Germany), in other words, the isolation of the fledgling proletarian bastion.

This may help explain the point at greater length: "The Russian Revolution: Isolation spells the death of the revolution (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/075/russ-rev-03)".

[ComradeOm]

First of all, welcome to the forum. This (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html) may be of interest to you


I am under the impression that a weakening of democracy led to the ultimate failure of the Russian revolution. 'In my belief, the Revolution was strongest when multiple parties of the left, the Meinsheviks, the Bolsheviks, and the Anarchists all took part in the struggle against the Whites and no centralized form of government existedThe problem with a 'unity government' was of course that there were very few people that matched the Bolshevik's standards. The Mensheviks were ultimately proved to be reactionaries who sided with the Whites against the Soviet movement; the Left SRs famously reigned from government and embarked on a terrorist campaign after Brest-Litovsk; and the anarchists were, to be blunt, too few and too disorganised to be of any real significance in 1917 and beyond

Now in each of the above cases individual members did cooperate with, and ultimately join, the Bolsheviks but major differences remained on a party level


In the end, the necessities of war and lasting order created a want of centralized power that would bring about an end to direct democracy so exemplary of the october revolution.'The question is how did such a vibrantly democratic movement allow such an undemocratic state structure (in your view) take shape? The Soviet state could not have degenerated into a one-party (and ultimately no-party) state if the revolutionary proletariat that had created it was still powerful. In my mind its the degeneration of the latter, through the hardships of civil war and famine, that removed the checks on the 'centralising tendencies' and led to the subversion of the Soviet state. In short, the collapse of democracy with the Party and state was the result (not the cause) of the proletariat's own decline