Lenin was an anti-revolutionary ? [Archive]

Brother No. 1

17th July 2009, 03:08

I saw this 10 min you-tube video of Chomsky claiming that Lenin was an anti-revolutionary:

and? anyone can claim something really. Just becuase Noam Chomsky claims Lenin was Anti-Revolutionary doesnt mean its true. Now did Noam Chomsky have evidence that supported his statement that Lenin was Counter-Revolutionary?

The Bolsheviks by Adam Ulam.

Heres a summary of his works.
Titoism and the Cominform - published in 1952 and based on his Ph.D. thesis, he argued that the Communists’ reckless pursuit of their goals risked social and economic disaster and internecine quarrels which could undermine their power.
His Unfinished Revolution (1960) was a searching exploration of Marxist thought. The Bolsheviks (1965) quickly became a standard biography of Lenin, and Stalin: The Man and His Era (1973) just as quickly for Stalin. The Expansion and Coexistence: The History of Soviet Foreign Policy, 1917-67 (1968) was perhaps his most widely read book. There were two sequels: The Rivals: America and Russia since World War II(1971) and Dangerous Relations: The Soviet Union in World Politics, 1970-1982 (1983). Several of his remaining books were dedicated to aspects of Russian revolutionary thought. In one of his last books, published in 1992 — the year he retired — Communists: The Story of Power and Lost Illusions, he commented on the fall of the Soviet Union, writing that communists lost because their ideology was misguided and growing awareness of that in the governing parties demoralized them and led to irrepressible conflicts within and between Communist nations.

His last book claim our ideology is "misguided."

did the revolution really die when Lenin's party took over?

The Bolshevik Party was one of the most Democratic partiy in the Russian Empire. But heres an article about them.

Posyed by ComradeOm, The Russian Revolution(Bolshevik)
Ultimate authority in the Bolshevik fraction derived not from Lenin or the (in)famous Central Committee but rather its wider membership. The responsibility for formulating the party's theoretical programme and deciding on broad strategy lay with the periodic national assemblies of delegates from across the Empire. Of these the two most relevant to the events of 1917 are the Seventh All-Russian Party Conference and the Sixth Bolshevik Party Congress of April and July of that year respectively. These were mass meetings in which over a hundred delegates, in turn elected from dozens of party regional and auxiliary organisations, gathered to discuss the party's direction and vote in a new Central Committee. Between these assemblies it was the responsibility of this Central Committee to manage the party's affairs and decide tactics; although we will see that in practice its ability to influence the wider party was severely limited. In turn the Central Committee operated on a democratic basis with measures passing by majority vote. Given the importance typically given to the Bolshevik's unity its worth noting that even at this highest level the party leadership was often hopelessly divided. Lenin was certainly not without influence but from April to July it was Kamenev's moderate faction that comprised the majority of the Central Committee. Furthermore, following the July Days Lenin's geographic isolation significantly weakened his input into the party's direction. Heated discussions were common and not always private. After the Central Committee deliberately suppressed one of his letters ('Marxism and Insurrection') from the party's wider membership in late September, Lenin took the surprising decision of going public with his criticisms of the party. Two articles ('Heroes of Fraud and the Mistakes of the Bolsheviks' and 'A Publicist's Diary') were sent to the Bolshevik paper Rabochii put' for publication but were censored and suppressed, respectively, by an editorial board that included both Kamenev and Trotsky. A precedent had been set for Zinoviev's and Kamenev's rather more famous open letter on the eve of the October revolution (for which neither were punished) but both are symptomatic as to the degree of conflict, most of it healthy and democratically resolved, present amongst the higher echelons of the Bolshevik organisation. Nor was it unique to these higher levels

Posted by ComradeOm,Russian Revolution(Bolshevik)

As the arrival of the revolutionary fleets from Kronstadt and Helsingfors (Helsinki) revealed the degree to which the Provisional Government's position had deteriorated, then an equally arresting example was being provided by the Second All-Russian Congress of the Soviets. As already shown, the Bolsheviks were, by some significant degree, the largest party represented (with 300 delegates) while of the 193 Socialist Revolutionaries over half supported the actions of the MRC. In contrast the Mensheviks could muster only 68 delegates, of whom 14 were Menshevik-Internationalists. On the basis of these numbers a new Presidium was elected comprising 14 Bolsheviks, 7 Left SRs, and 4 Mensheviks (the latter declining to take their allocated seats). No sooner than this had been accomplished then the Menshevik Martov tabled an emergency motion calling for an end to the street fighting and the establishment of a coalition government drawn from all the parties of the Soviet. This measure was very warmly received by all, including the Bolshevik fraction, and passed unanimously. Despite this, a series of Mensheviks and Right SR delegates then proceeded to vehemently denounce the MRC's action against the Provisional Government and the two parties, including Martov's Internationalists, withdrew from the Congress. In walking away from the soviets that they had once praised, these moderates destroyed any possibility of a unity government comprised of all socialists – most probably the outcome desired by the workers themselves - and revealed their fundamentally counter-revolutionary outlook. They would form the nucleus of the 'All-Russian Committee for the Salvation of the Country and Revolution' and align themselves with General Krasnov in seeking to restore the Provisional Government to power by force. In their absence the Congress of Soviets endorsed the revolutionary transfer of power and elected a new soviet government

If the Congress of Soviets represented the triumph of soviet rule then the demise of the non-revolutionary structures was sealed with that of the Constitutional Assembly. The new revolutionary regime permitted elections to go ahead but there was no question that this parliamentary body was deeply flawed in practice. The most obvious issue was simple – the Socialist Revolutionaries, who won the largest share of the vote, no longer existed as a unified party. The Left SRs, who supported soviet rule, were at an immediate disadvantage with the more established Right maintaining control of many of the party's local branches and papers. Even worse was the fact that the party's electoral list had been drawn up in September when the Right had dominated; thus voters were unable to choose whether they supported those SRs that supported the Revolution or those that opposed it. Ultimately the Left would wrest control of the party and its structures but the Constituent Assembly would not represent this or the immense popularity of the Soviet's legalisation of peasant land seizures. There was no such confusion over the Bolshevik tally however with almost 10 million votes representing the second highest count (behind the combined SRs) and a clear majority amongst the urban proletariat, northern army fronts, and villages close to urban centres. In contrast the Mensheviks scraped in with roughly 1.2 million votes cast in their favour - startlingly this was less than that amassed by the liberal Kadets – in a result that saw them decisively supplanted as the party of the working class and served as a resounding endorsement of Bolshevik policies

Given all the above, care must be taken not to overstress the disunity or decentralisation of the Bolsheviks. It may be true that the Bolshevik party of 1917 did not resemble a cadre of professional revolutionaries infused with 'iron discipline' but it was nonetheless a remarkably successful organisation. Disagreements were always present but the party never splintered under pressure, like the Mensheviks or SRs, and its propaganda machine remained remarkably effective. Perhaps most important was that the democratic and grassroots nature of the Bolshevik organisation gave it unparalleled knowledge as to the sentiments of the working class and allowed it the flexibility to adapt its policies to the ever changing circumstances. Similarly the majority of the Russian proletariat knew little about the Bolsheviks themselves or Marxist theory but supported their programme, unique amongst the major socialist parties, that continually advocated the transfer of power to the soviets

Below is a summary of the most important points from the above. If you've skipped down to the end then this is what you're looking for

Rather than being a rigidly structured organisation, the Bolshevik party was instead comprised of myriad regional and auxiliary committees over which the party's centre had little control. Nor was policy exclusively determined by the Central Committee, there was significant and dynamic interplay of views between the different party levels and organisations. The Bolshevik party was also a highly democratic organisation with policy decisions at all levels decided by vote

As befitting such an organisation, there were many conflicts of opinion within the party. More often than not Lenin was on the losing side of such arguments as the Central Committee was dominated by the Kamenev faction throughout the summer months of 1917. Such disagreements occasionally went public, most notably with the joint Zinoviev/Kamenev letter in October, but were not punished

In numerical terms the Bolsheviks experienced explosive growth throughout the year and by October 1917 was unquestionably the party of the Russian proletariat. In turn this swamped the party structures with an influx of new members, the vast majority of whom had little grasp of Marxist theory, and placed the party's veterans in a distinct minority. In some areas (particularly the Military Organisation) this had a very real impact on the conduct and methodology of the party

Such growth in the party's membership was due in large part to the Bolshevik's revolutionary programme (particularly with respect to transferring power to the soviets) and the activity of the party's lower branches in the district soviets, trade unions, and other grassroots bodies. The democratic nature of the party, together with its impressive propaganda efforts, served to attract many of the militant and active workers and soldiers

Success at grassroots level translated into dominance of the larger city soviets and eventually the Second Congress of Soviets. In this they were aided by the increasing isolation of the Menshevik and Socialist Revolutionary leaders from the revolutionary proletariat. In contrast Bolshevik policies proved attractive and flexible enough to increasingly control soviet bodies. When the garrison crisis gave rise to the Military Revolutionary Committee it was little surprise that its leadership was largely, though not exclusively, Bolshevik

Far from being a quick coup, the October Revolution was a prolonged struggle with the Kerensky regime that unfolded over a series of days. Thousands of armed workers, soldiers, and sailors were coordinated by the Military Revolutionary Committee which was a body elected by the Petrograd Soviet and endorsed by the Petrograd garrisons. Bolshevik contributions to the Revolution were almost uniformly channelled through soviet institutions such as the MRC

While the Bolsheviks were easily the largest party present at the Second All-Russian Congress of the Soviets, they endorsed Martov's resolution calling for an all-soviet government. However the decision of the Mensheviks and Right SRs to walk out of the Congress and align themselves with counter-revolutionary forces ended any possibility compromise with the moderate socialists. The Congress endorsed the actions of the MRC and elected a new Council of People's Commissars. Any doubts about the legitimacy of this government were dispelled when the Bolsheviks received the overwhelming backing of the proletariat in the elections to the Constituent Assembly

but Lenin does come across as anti-democratic

He didnt even have the majority of power. Most of the power was in the Soviets/other committies in Russia.

Link to the article: http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html

LeninKobaMao

17th July 2009, 05:44

Noam Chomsky... I rest my case.

Led Zeppelin

17th July 2009, 05:55

Chomsky didn't bother at all to consider the historical context of what he was saying. This is the hallmark of liberals. They speak of phrases like "democracy", "equality" and "freedom" without bothering to take into account the material circumstances. Yes, you can have all these values in any society in whatever political and economic shape it may be, as long as you really really really want it.

If you don't, you're an evil dictator and usurper of power.

The woman who spoke at the beginning of the clip is awesome by the way.

thejambo1

17th July 2009, 06:00

lenin set the foundations for stalins dictatorship,opposition parties were eliminated,people exiled or killed. lenin was anti working class for sure.

Kukulofori

17th July 2009, 06:01

He took power without popular support and when workers protested he had them killed and went to war with the rest of the country to set up a system that has very little in common with socialism.

He was socialist pretty much in rhetoric only.

Led Zeppelin

17th July 2009, 06:01

lenin set the foundations for stalins dictatorship,opposition parties were eliminated,people exiled or killed. lenin was anti working class for sure.

Did you know that the Mensheviks and left-SR's were allowed to run as legal parties but instead decided to walk out on the Soviets and join the reactionary Whites during the Civil War?

I bet you didn't know that.

Kukulofori

17th July 2009, 06:07

Bright Banana Beard

17th July 2009, 06:13

Bolsheviks was popular, but it later turn into bureaucratic even under Stalin. All revolution make mistakes.

LeninKobaMao

17th July 2009, 06:18

Don't bag Lenin he set an example for communists all over the world and me being only 14 he is my idol. He had no choice but to rule by a dictatorship because the whole country was divided and needed a strong leader. But apparently (don't quote me on this) he was actually starting to soften up a bit by getting rid of the NEP and establishing REAL socialism without the terror because by then the Bolsheviks/Communist Party must of had the majority of support. The SR's were too disorganized to do anything and the Mensheviks were too moderate.

JimmyJazz

17th July 2009, 06:19

Did you know that the Mensheviks and left-SR's were allowed to run as legal parties but instead decided to walk out on the Soviets and join the reactionary Whites during the Civil War?

I bet you didn't know that. Are those the ones that, y'know, anyone actually liked?

:confused:

The Bolsheviks honored their pledge to hold elections for the [Constituent] Assembly; these took place in Petrograd on November 12-14, and in the rest of the country in the second half of the month. Eligible, according to the criteria established by the defunct Provisional Government, were all male and female citizens twenty years of age and over; for men in uniform, the voting age was lowered to eighteen. The turnout was impressive: in Petrograd and Moscow some 70 percent of those eligible went to the polls, and in some rural areas the figure reached 100 percent. According to the most reliable estimate, 44.4 million persons cast ballots. On December 1, Lenin declared: "If one views the Constituent Assembly apart from the conditions of the class struggle which verges on civil war, then, as of now, we know of no institution which more perfectly expresses the will of the people."

The results of the voting cannot be precisely determined because of the large number of parties involved and because in many localities they formed electoral blocs; in Petrograd alone, nineteen parties competed. The largest number of votes--17.9 million, or 40.4 percent--went to the Socialists-Revolutionaries. Next came the Bolsheviks--with 10.6 million, or 24.0 percent. The Mensheviks and Left SRs were all but wiped out. The Constitutional-Democrats, as the most important nonsocialist party running, garnered the bulk of the nonsocialist vote (2.1 million, or 4.7 percent).

Kukulofori

17th July 2009, 06:27

I stand corrected.

thejambo1

17th July 2009, 06:30

The Ungovernable Farce

17th July 2009, 11:55

Your argument is basically calling the Spanish anarchists during the civil war counterrevolutionary because they eventually sided with the monarchy.
When did they do that?

Don't bag Lenin he set an example for communists all over the world and me being only 14 he is my idol.
I liked Lenin when I was 14 as well. I spent a lot of time doing stuff I now regret cos I didn't properly understand the nature of Leninism, so it'd have been good if someone had "bagged" Lenin a bit more to me when I was 14. Sorry if this comes across as hideously patronising, feel free to tell me to piss off if I am, but you're the one who brought it up. Do you know much about Rosa Luxemburg, btw?

:confused:
I like your selective highlighting of those results.
Let's look at what you wrote again:

The largest number of votes--17.9 million, or 40.4 percent--went to the Socialists-Revolutionaries. Next came the Bolsheviks--with 10.6 million, or 24.0 percent.

The largest number of votes--17.9 million, or 40.4 percent--went to the Socialists-Revolutionaries.
So, the SRs getting 7.3 million more votes than the Bolsheviks did proves the Bolsheviks were more popular, does it? :laugh:

NecroCommie

17th July 2009, 12:39

Are those the ones that, y'know, anyone actually liked?

Your argument is basically calling the Spanish anarchists during the civil war counterrevolutionary because they eventually sided with the monarchy.
Actually in practice it was more like monarchs siding with the anarchists... But whatever suits your argument...

Invariance

17th July 2009, 12:53

Do you know much about Rosa Luxemburg?What would an anarchist have in common with Rosa Luxemburg - a Marxist who fully supported a centralized state.

So, the SRs getting 7.3 million more votes than the Bolsheviks did proves the Bolsheviks were more popular, does it? :laugh:The Bolsheviks were more popular and representative where it counts - i.e. amongst the working class.

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7363/newpicture1isd.png

To quote Lenin:
From these figures it is evident that during the Constituent Assembly elections the Bolsheviks were the party of the proletariat and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the party of the peasantry. In the purely peasant districts, Great-Russian (Volga-Black Earth, Siberia, East-Urals) and Ukrainian, the Socialist-Revolutionaries polled 62-77 per cent. In the industrial centres the Bolsheviks had a majority over the Socialist-Revolutionaries. This majority is understated in the district figures given by N. V. Svyatitsky, for he combined the most highly industrialised districts with little industrialised and non-industrial areas. For example, the gubernia figures of the votes polled by the Socialist-Revolutionary, Bolshevik, and Cadet parties, and by the “national and other groups”, show the following:

In the Northern Region the Bolshevik majority seems to be insignificant: 40 per cent against 38 per cent. But in this region non-industrial areas (Archangel, Vologda, Novgorod and Pskov gubernias), where the Socialist-Revolutionaries predominate, are combined with industrial areas: Petrograd City—Bolsheviks 45 per cent (of the votes) Socialist-Revolutionaries 16 per cent; Petrograd Gubernia— Bolsheviks 50 per cent, Socialist-Revolutiollaries 26 per cent Baltic—Bolsheviks 72 per cent, Socialist-Revolutionaries—0.

In the Central-Industrial Region the Bolsheviks in Moscow Gubernia polled 56 per cent and the Socialist-Revolutionaries 25 per cent; in Moscow City the Bolsheviks polled 50 per cent and the Socialist-Revolutionaries 8 per cent; in Tver Gubernia the Bolsheviks polled 54 per cent and the Socialist-Revolutionaries 39 per cent; in Vladimir Gubernia the Bolsheviks polled 56 per cent and the Socialist-Revolutionaries 32 per cent.

Let us note, in passing, how ridiculous, in face of such facts, is the talk about the Bolsheviks having only a “minority” of the proletariat behind them! And we hear this talk from the Mensheviks (668,000 votes, and with Transcaucasia another 700,000-800,000, against 9,000,000 votes polled by the Bolsheviks), and also from the social-traitors of the Second International

The Bolsheviks were victorious, first of all, because they had behind them the vast majority of the proletariat, which included the most class-conscious, energetic and revolutionary section, the real vanguard, of that advanced class.

Take the two metropolitan cities, Petrograd and Moscow. The total number of votes polled during the Constituent Assembly elections was 1,765,100, of which Socialist Revolutionaries polled 218,000, Bolsheviks—837,000 and Cadets—515,400.

In the two chief cities, in the two principal commercial and industrial centres of Russia, the Bolsheviks had an overwhelming, decisive superiority of forces. Here our forces were nearly four times as great as those of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. We had here more than the Socialist Revolutionaries and Cadets put together. Moreover, our adversaries were split up, for the “coalition” of the Cadets with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks (in Petrograd and Moscow the Mensheviks polled only 3 per cent of the votes) was utterly discredited among the working people. Real unity between the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks and the Cadets against us was quite out of the question at that time. It will be remembered that in November 1917, even the leaders of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, who were a hundred times nearer to the idea of a bloc with the Cadets than the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik workers and peasants, even those leaders thought (and bargained with us) about a bloc with the Bolsheviks [I]without the Cadets!
Its worth quoting ComradeOm again on this:
As already shown, the Bolsheviks were, by some significant degree, the largest party represented (with 300 delegates) while of the 193 Socialist Revolutionaries over half supported the actions of the MRC. In contrast the Mensheviks could muster only 68 delegates, of whom 14 were Menshevik-Internationalists. On the basis of these numbers a new Presidium was elected comprising 14 Bolsheviks, 7 Left SRs, and 4 Mensheviks (the latter declining to take their allocated seats).
Communists support Soviets. Not parliaments. And certainly not the liberal intelligentsia reformists which the SRs were (excluding the left-wing, of course, which supported the actions of the MRC). Edit: I watched the first couple of minutes of the video. By no means were Pannekoek or Luxemburg 'mainstream Marxists.' They both represented the Left-Wing; along with Mehring, Liebknecht, Radek, Leo Jogiches, possibly Parvus etc.

Pogue

17th July 2009, 13:28

After he got power thats when he caused the revolution to degenerate, taking power from the workers and culminating in the supression of the working class uprising in Kronstadt. In short, he was a counter-revolutionary.

Stranger Than Paradise

17th July 2009, 13:43

Definitely a reactionary. Lenin laid the foundation for the bureaucratic ruling class of Russia to rise and rule, crushing the working class.

ComradeOm

17th July 2009, 14:06

Well this is a first, my arguments have reached the thread before me :lol:

As a newcomer, after reading books by Lenin I decided to read one on what he actually did - The Bolsheviks by Adam UlamPoor choice I'm afraid. Unfortunately many people when first reading about the Revolution don't appreciate that there's a major faultline running through the historiography on the subject. The traditional school (largely based in the US) is a product of the Cold War and pretty much contends that Lenin was a bastard and that revolution was imposed on Russia by he and his intellectual friends. Proponents include Pipes and Ulam. The opposing 'revisionist' school (as represented by Fitzpatrick or Rabinowitch) instead focuses on the social causes of the Revolution and contend that the Bolsheviks were a legitimate mass movement who enjoyed popular support

My own personal opinion is that the 'revisionists' are entirely correct. Histories written by the likes of Pipes and Ulam are ridiculously biased by Cold War logic and, while often good on the details, their analyses are of very limited historical worth. Frankly it never ceases to amaze me that they are still considered the standard texts on the Revolution in the US

Although it is always funny to see Pipes rolled out in defence of the Revolution :)

After he got power thats when he caused the revolution to degenerate, taking power from the workers and culminating in the supression of the working class uprising in Kronstadt. In short, he was a counter-revolutionary.And how does that work when a revolutionary movement brings a counter-revolutionary government to power?

Although I do love the assertion though that Lenin himself caused the "revolution to degenerate". Its unfailingly his critics who are the first to ascribe superhuman powers to the man or resort to one line denunciations

The Ungovernable Farce

17th July 2009, 14:33

What would an anarchist have in common with Rosa Luxemburg - a Marxist who fully supported a centralized state.
A revolutionary critique of Leninism, that's what. I realise that LKM may not want to hear a pure anarchist critique of Lenin, so I thought they might be interested in one coming from another Marxist.

The Bolsheviks were more popular and representative where it counts - i.e. amongst the working class.

And if they were more popular among the peasantry, I'm sure the Bolsheviks would've come up with some reason why the peasantry were where it counts.

Communists support Soviets. Not parliaments.
Then why did Lenin write "the Soviets of Peasants’ Deputies, primarily the uyezd and then the gubernia Soviets, are from now on, pending the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, vested with full governmental authority in their localities (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/05b.htm)"? That "pending" bit certainly makes it sound like he thought the Constituent Assembly was important.

Edit: I watched the first couple of minutes of the video. By no means were Pannekoek or Luxemburg 'mainstream Marxists.'
Mainstream Marxists certainly seem to have been pretty keen on Luxemburg.

NecroCommie

17th July 2009, 14:47

First of all: Lenin was not an allpowerful god despite the cult. Other factions held power too.

Second of all: How is it that you would have done better?

Pogue

17th July 2009, 14:48

First of all: Lenin was not an allpowerful god despite the cult. Other factions held power too.

Second of all: How is it that you would have done better?

I wouldn't have taken power from the factory committees, supressed strikes or crushed the Kronstadt rebellion, for starters.

But I wouldn't have done better because I wouldn't be in power, unlike Lenin I believe in democracy and mandates.

Hit The North

17th July 2009, 15:19

Although I do love the assertion though that Lenin himself caused the "revolution to degenerate". Its unfailingly his critics who are the first to ascribe superhuman powers to the man or resort to one line denunciations

An excellent point. The anarchist critique is so non-materialistic, as if the relations of power between the various social agents are merely voluntaristic and it is those with the iron will, or ambition, or control-freakery who dictate the flow of power. So we're left with the Machiavellian figure of Lenin, a counter-revolutionary posing as a revolutionary, who's skillful skuldugery is the reason the revolution did not succeed. The material and cultural backwardness of Russia; the international and political isolation of the Soviet Union; none of these things are seen as decisive compared to Lenin's 'will to power'. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Pogue
I wouldn't have taken power from the factory committees, supressed strikes or crushed the Kronstadt rebellion, for starters.
No, you wouldn't have centralise power at all and you would have been crushed by the white reaction.

But I wouldn't have done better because I wouldn't be in power
So at least we end on a cheerful note, as far as the world proletariat is concerned :lol:

Invariance

17th July 2009, 15:22

A revolutionary critique of Leninism, that's what. I realise that LKM may not want to hear a pure anarchist critique of Lenin, so I thought they might be interested in one coming from another Marxist.I'd certainly welcome a revolutionary Marxist critique of the Bolsheviks - however, it's rarely given. Either we get people claiming that Lenin, by his personal power and will alone (forgetting, of course, that he was sometimes outvoted and subject to restrictions like anyone else), betrayed the revolution, or we get people turning to the most biased anti-communist sources in support of their arguments. That's not a revolutionary critique of 'Leninism.' That's only an exercise in self-serving political agenda which results in no substantive lessons from the Russian Revolution at all and turns up, as this thread has demonstrated, into blanket statements of 'Lenin was a reactionary' rather than a dynamic analysis of the role of the Bolsheviks over the period.

Luxemburg was generally very supportive of the revolution, and generally supportive of the Bolsheviks. Of course, it must be mentioned that her critiques and support was only limited to her knowledge of the situation which was ended by her murder in early 1919. She critiqued Lenin in 1904 on the organisational question, more sympathetic to Martov and the Mensheviks who wanted a more open party like the German SPD versus the militants of the Bolsheviks. She was applying German principles to Russian conditions. Further, Lenin later stated that the positions taken in What is to be Done? were exclusive to that period and Russia alone. As for Luxemburg on the Bolsheviks:
Thus it is clear that in every revolution only that party capable of seizing the leadership and power which has the courage to issue the appropriate watch-words for driving the revolution ahead, and the courage to draw all the necessary conclusions from the situation. This makes clear, too, the miserable role of the Russian Mensheviks, the Dans, Zeretellis, etc., who had enormous influence on the masses at the beginning, but, after their prolonged wavering and after they had fought with both hands and feet against taking over power and responsibility, were driven ignobly off the stage.

The party of Lenin was the only one which grasped the mandate and duty of a truly revolutionary party and which, by the slogan – “All power in the hands of the proletariat and peasantry” – insured the continued development of the revolution.

Thereby the Bolsheviks solved the famous problem of “winning a majority of the people,” which problem has ever weighed on the German Social-Democracy like a nightmare. As bred-in-the-bone disciples of parliamentary cretinism,these German Social-Democrats have sought to apply to revolutions the home-made wisdom of the parliamentary nursery: in order to carry anything, you must first have a majority. The same, they say, applies to a revolution: first let’s become a “majority.”

The true dialectic of revolutions, however, stands this wisdom of parliamentary moles on its head: not through a majority, but through revolutionary tactics to a majority – that’s the way the road runs.
Only a party which knows how to lead, that is, to advance things, wins support in stormy times. The determination with which, at the decisive moment, Lenin and his comrades offered the only solution which could advance things (“all power in the hands of the proletariat and peasantry”), transformed them almost overnight from a persecuted, slandered, outlawed minority whose leader had to hid like Marat in cellars, into the absolute master of the situation.

Moreover, the Bolsheviks immediately set as the aim of this seizure of power a complete, far-reaching revolutionary program; not the safeguarding of bourgeois democracy, but a dictatorship of the proletariat for the purpose of realizing socialism. Thereby they won for themselves the imperishable historic distinction of having for the first time proclaimed the final aim of socialism as the direct program of practical politics.

Whatever a party could offer of courage, revolutionary far-sightedness and consistency in an historic hour, Lenin, Trotsky and all the other comrades have given in good measure. All the revolutionary honor and capacity which western Social-Democracy lacked was represented by the Bolsheviks. Their October uprising was not only the actual salvation of the Russian Revolution; it was also the salvation of the honor of international socialism.
She writes later:
Everything that happens in Russia is comprehensible and represents an inevitable chain of causes and effects, the starting point and end term of which are: the failure of the German proletariat and the occupation of Russia by German imperialism. It would be demanding something superhuman from Lenin and his comrades if we should expect of them that under such circumstances they should conjure forth the finest democracy, the most exemplary dictatorship of the proletariat and a flourishing socialist economy. By their determined revolutionary stand, their exemplary strength in action, and their unbreakable loyalty to international socialism, they have contributed whatever could possibly be contributed under such devilishly hard conditions. The danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity and want to freeze into a complete theoretical system all the tactics forced upon them by these fatal circumstances, and want to recommend them to the international proletariat as a model of socialist tactics. When they get in there own light in this way, and hide their genuine, unquestionable historical service under the bushel of false steps forced on them by necessity, they render a poor service to international socialism for the sake of which they have fought and suffered; for they want to place in its storehouse as new discoveries all the distortions prescribed in Russia by necessity and compulsion – in the last analysis only by-products of the bankruptcy of international socialism in the present world war.
and later:
In this sense theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of political power and the practical placing of the problem of the realization of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labor in the entire world. In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to “Bolshevism.”

And if they were more popular among the peasantry, I'm sure the Bolsheviks would've come up with some reason why the peasantry were where it counts.Unfortunately, yet totally practically, they that's what they did - giving concessions to the peasantry (which would later be reversed much to their resentment). If you know anything about Luxemburg's stance, you will know she criticised the Bolsheviks for this:
Surely the solution of the problem by the direct, immediate seizure and distribution of the land by the peasants was the shortest, simplest, most clean-cut formula to achieve two diverse things: to break down large land-ownership, and immediately to bind the peasants to the revolutionary government. As a political measure to fortify the proletarian socialist government, it was an excellent tactical move. Unfortunately, however, it had two sides to it; and the reverse side consisted in the fact that the direct seizure of the land by the peasants has in general nothing at all in common with socialist economy.

The Leninist agrarian reform has created a new and powerful layer of popular enemies of socialism on the countryside, enemies whose resistance will be much more dangerous and stubborn than that of the noble large landowners. [As Stalin later found out]
The Russian Revolution, Rosa Luxemburg. (http://www.marx.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch02.htm)

Then why did Lenin write "the Soviets of Peasants’ Deputies, primarily the uyezd and then the gubernia Soviets, are from now on, pending the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, vested with full governmental authority in their localities (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/05b.htm)"? That "pending" bit certainly makes it sound like he thought the Constituent Assembly was important.To be honest, I can't be bothered chasing up every thing Lenin has written and understanding it in the context in which it is made - that's something you should do. Did the Bolsheviks think that the Constituent Assembley was 'important?' It depends on which period we are talking about. When the situation changes, it demands a change in tactics. Some call this 'opportunist', others call it practical and tactically expedient.

Mainstream Marxists certainly seem to have been pretty keen on Luxemburg.Yet often totally oblivious to her positions. Luxemburg had the (historical) fortune of dying before the so-called degenration of the Russian revolution, hence was not around to exclusively formulate her opinions on it, or to later take a position on either Trotsky or Stalin (or on Lenin for that matter). Anarchists like her because she (apparently) opposed 'Leninism' (well, so did Kautsky if you're interested). In the same way Trotskyists admire her because of her support for the revolution and because of her fate. I find that Luxemburg belongs to her period alone, and cannot be allocated into this or that group or sect which were formed after her death. Historically, however, her positions on peasantry, on rejection of self-determination, on imperialist wars, on capitalist accumulation, on the role of unions would put her on the Left-Wing of the communist movements. I'm not a 'Luxemburgist' so I don't care apart from the historical validity of her claims - many of which were quite foretelling.

Ol' Dirty

17th July 2009, 15:32

Of course he was an anti-revolutionary... after he consolidated power.

17th July 2009, 15:37

Of course he was an anti-revolutionary... after he consolidated power.

:laugh:

This thread is pure gold.

Pogue

17th July 2009, 15:38

An excellent point. The anarchist critique is so non-materialistic, as if the relations of power between the various social agents are merely voluntaristic and it is those with the iron will, or ambition, or control-freakery who dictate the flow of power. So we're left with the Machiavellian figure of Lenin, a counter-revolutionary posing as a revolutionary, who's skillful skuldugery is the reason the revolution did not succeed. The material and cultural backwardness of Russia; the international and political isolation of the Soviet Union; none of these things are seen as decisive compared to Lenin's 'will to power'. :rolleyes:

No, you wouldn't have centralise power at all and you would have been crushed by the white reaction.

So at least we end on a cheerful note, as far as the world proletariat is concerned :lol:

Nah, I would have crushed the white reaction without, as Lenin did, crushing workers power in the process.

And its good I'll never be in power. Unlike Trots I don't subscribe to the great man analysis of history (but I do recognise the dictatorial power people like Lenin and Trotsky had, of course) so I don't see it being desirable or possible or in any way beneficial to the working class if I was their 'leader', much less a dictator like Lenin.

Invariance

17th July 2009, 15:47

http://www.endireitar.org/site/images/stories/aborto/lenin_hitler2.jpg

You know, just some proof or something that Lenin was a dictator. Thanks.

ComradeOm

17th July 2009, 15:51

... much less a dictator like Lenin.We've covered this before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-thoughtsi-t111962/index.html?t=111962) you and I. Twice (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-man-farce-t106926/index.html?t=106926). But I'll bite and ask again: how was Lenin a dictator? And I want more than rhetoric, I'm looking for a coherent analysis of Lenin's role within the Soviet government

Although before you answer that I'd like a response to my previous query as to how a revolutionary movement could provide a counter-revolutionary government

Pogue

17th July 2009, 15:52

We've covered this before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-thoughtsi-t111962/index.html?t=111962) you and I. Twice (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-man-farce-t106926/index.html?t=106926). But I'll bite and ask again: how was Lenin a dictator? And I want more than rhetoric, I'm looking for a coherent analysis of Lenin's role within the Soviet government

Although before you answer that I'd like a response to my previous query as to how a revolutionary movement could provide a counter-revolutionary government

In regards to the latter question, the Bolshevik party structure and tactics naturally led to it. Having gained power Lenin eroded the power of the workers organs and established a centralised state, which was the counterrevolution.

Sam_b

17th July 2009, 16:01

And its good I'll never be in power. Unlike Trots I don't subscribe to the great man analysis of history (but I do recognise the dictatorial power people like Lenin and Trotsky had, of course) so I don't see it being desirable or possible or in any way beneficial to the working class if I was their 'leader', much less a dictator like Lenin.

Instead you subscribe to ridiculous 'what if' scenarios and act them out with a click of the finger ('I would have crushed the whites'). Indeed, if you don't subscribe to 'great men of history' politics (which not one Trotskyist adheres to) you have a funny way of showing it - in a scenario placing yourself in the position of power. Surely the working class would have crushed the whites, and indeed the working class of Russia and the Bolsheviks did defeat the counterrevolutionaries.

Hit The North

17th July 2009, 16:02

And its good I'll never be in power. Unlike Trots I don't subscribe to the great man analysis of history

No, you seem to favour the 'bad man analysis of history'.

17th July 2009, 16:09

[email protected] Pogue resorting to trolling because he can't support his position.

ComradeOm

17th July 2009, 16:16

In regards to the latter question, the Bolshevik party structure and tactics naturally led to it. Having gained power Lenin eroded the power of the workers organs and established a centralised state, which was the counterrevolution.Yet the Bolsheviks (or Lenin for the purpose of this thread) were placed in power by a democratic and socialist revolution. Was he a master of disguise who managed to somehow fool the Russian proletariat into thinking he was a revolutionary? And why would a counter-revolutionary place themselves at the head of a revolutionary movement (assuming that was possibly) when he could have simply aligned himself with other counter-revolutionaries?

Oh, and I'd also like to know how the Bolshevik "structures and tactics" led to this. Surely you're aware of the actual mass, democratic, and open nature of the Bolshevik party in 1917? I mean, no one really takes that 'cabal of professional revolutionaries' nonsense seriously any more. And, don't forget to come back to that 'Lenin was a dictator thing'

Pogue

17th July 2009, 16:19

ComradeOm

17th July 2009, 16:34

I'm not talking about how he got into power, I'm talking about what he did when he was in power.Actually you're not talking about that either. I'm still waiting for a response to that dictator claim* :glare:

But my point is simple. You would expect a revolutionary movement to produce a revolutionary state. That seems to be a fairly obvious piece of logic. You know, revolutionary movements are not in the habit of putting counter-revolutionary parties into government. It would pretty much defeat the point of the whole revolution, no? So if you're going to claim that Lenin was a "counter-revolutionary" then you're left with the question of explaining how he got into power in the first place

But frankly that's what I've come to expect. A few slurs (dictator), Kronstadt, "crushing the workers", etc etc, all due no doubt to Bolshevik 'democratic centralism' and Lenin being a counter-revolutionary bastard. And then when pushed there's a remarkable lack of detail. Meh, the only surprise in this thread is that Chomsky who really should know better subscribes to the same truncated and simplistic 'analysis' (for lack of better term)

* Edit: And the "structures and tactics" one

Pogue

17th July 2009, 16:38

Actually you're not talking about that either. I'm still waiting for a response to that dictator claim* :glare:

But my point is simple. You would expect a revolutionary movement to produce a revolutionary state. That seems to be a fairly obvious piece of logic. You know, revolutionary movements are not in the habit of putting counter-revolutionary parties into government. It would pretty much defeat the point of the whole revolution, no? So if you're going to claim that Lenin was a "counter-revolutionary" then you're left with the question of explaining how he got into power in the first place

But frankly that's what I've come to expect. A few slurs (dictator), Kronstadt, "crushing the workers", etc etc, all due no doubt to Bolshevik 'democratic centralism' and Lenin being a counter-revolutionary bastard. And then when pushed there's a remarkable lack of detail. Meh, the only surprise in this thread is that Chomsky who really should know better subscribes to the same truncated and simplistic 'analysis' (for lack of better term)

* Edit: And the "structures and tactics" one

Tell you what. Give me 2 weeks maximum to write up an article/essay on Lenin's anti worker and anti socialist actions when the Bolsheviks were in power in Russia and we can have it out properly then, because I don't have the time or the sources to hand at the moment. I'll give it it's own thread and we can all have it out in there.

And yeh I'm alluding to things like the suppresion of the factory committees (their subordination to the state), and of course, Kronstadt. But I need time to go into detail.

JimmyJazz

17th July 2009, 16:45

I like your selective highlighting of those results.
Let's look at what you wrote again:

So, the SRs getting 7.3 million more votes than the Bolsheviks did proves the Bolsheviks were more popular, does it? :laugh:

He said Left SRs. Read more carefully.

robbo203

17th July 2009, 19:56

I saw this 10 min you-tube video of Chomsky claiming that Lenin was an anti-revolutionary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

As a newcomer, after reading books by Lenin I decided to read one on what he actually did - The Bolsheviks by Adam Ulam.

I understand there must be violence and dirty tough decisions, but Lenin does come across as anti-democratic, and he did try to consolidate the soviets into state power creating state capitalism. The workers seemed like they wanted to control things themselves - not hand control over to the state : how can they be called anti-revolutionary threats?
So - did the revolution really die when Lenin's party took over? Was Lenin thereafter an anti-revolutionary? Thanks for the help.

He wasnt an "anti-revolututionary". He was a capitalist revolutionary! Its as simple as that. Yes, he dressed up the Bolshevik revolution in marxian rhetoric but the Bolshevik Revolution was fated to be a capitalist revolution. There is no getting round this one. Socialism (aka communism) was simply not on the cards. There was no mass understanding and support for communism (support for the Bolsheviks was based rather on their slogan of "peace land and bread"). The technological infrastructure simply not exist to support a communist or socialist society. And, most tellingly, Russia was surrounded by hostile states while a genuinely socialist movement, then and now , was still relatively tiny on an international scale. So even if the Bolsheviks wanted to establish genuine socialism - and there were some of them who indeed wanted and understood what this meant - they could not achieve it. It simply was not possible.

The nature of a revolution has always to be judged in the last resort by its outcome not its agents. The establishment of a system of state capitalism leds us to only one conclusion that makes any sense - the Bolshevik revolution was a capitalist revolution and Lenin was, to all intents and purposes, a bourgeois revolutionary

Rjevan

17th July 2009, 21:24

He wasnt an "anti-revolututionary". He was a capitalist revolutionary! Its as simple as that. Yes, he dressed up the Bolshevik revolution in marxian rhetoric but the Bolshevik Revolution was fated to be a capitalist revolution.
Haha, this gets that absurd that it starts to be funny! I wonder how long it takes till Lenin is a "nazi-revolutionary"! :lol:
Btw, I'm convinced that Lenin was the devil himself, see, the similarity is unquestionable!
http://www.imprintedpromoproducts.com/embroideryclipart/Devils.Devil%20with%20long%20mustache.(SZMA011).(2 .4x1.85).3136.gifhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Lenin-1895-mugshot.jpg/180px-Lenin-1895-mugshot.jpg

There was no mass understanding and support for communism
Yes, right, tell that these people:
http://bss.sfsu.edu/jacksonc/H111/RussRev/july1917.jpghttp://www.avto.ru/foto/pervomajj/fotoMax/russia1917_20199_b.jpg
I'm sure they stood up, waved red flags, fought, risked their lives and died becuase they were bored and had nothing else to do but a good fight and maybe they wanted to make themsleves just angry with the red, just like bulls.

support for the Bolsheviks was based rather on their slogan of "peace land and bread"
Er... yes? What should they have promised? Dialectical Materialism studies all day long? "Das Kapital" free for everybody? I think there's nothing wrong with a communist, trying to achieve peace, land for the peasants insted of great land owners and food and work for the people.

The technological infrastructure simply not exist to support a communist or socialist society. And, most tellingly, Russia was surrounded by hostile states
Excuse me, what? So you say there can only happen a successfull revolution when the infrastructure is great and high developed and the country is surrounded by peaceful socialist nations? If that's the case I think we can wait for the revolution till hell freezes over!

So even if the Bolsheviks wanted to establish genuine socialism - and there were some of them who indeed wanted and understood what this meant - they could not achieve it. It simply was not possible.
Damn, why did nobody tell them that? Somebody should have stood up and should have said: "Hey, come on boys and girls, calm down, there's absolutely no use starting a revolution, you know, our infrastructure is shit and we're all living in wood huts and are not even able to read, not to speak of the German army invading our country and the lack of understanding for communism, so just go home and hail the Czar, I'm sure everything will get better. It really hurts me to disappoint you, but well, that's how things are, so don't even think of a revolution, it is simply not possible."

spiltteeth

17th July 2009, 21:48

First, thanks so much for the responses. I'm learning alot. The thing that struck me as possibly counter-revolutionary (with the little knowledge I have, I'm still learning) was really how Lenin got to power promising all power to the soviets and then people began to get upset when the Bolshevik's took over the soviets, put their own commissars in place of the peoples elected officials, and subordinated the soviets to the state.
I can't see how Lenin was a dictator. Surly he was a politician of awesome ability and vision.
Again, thanks for the responses.

LeninKobaMao

18th July 2009, 00:57

When did they do that?

I liked Lenin when I was 14 as well. I spent a lot of time doing stuff I now regret cos I didn't properly understand the nature of Leninism, so it'd have been good if someone had "bagged" Lenin a bit more to me when I was 14. Sorry if this comes across as hideously patronising, feel free to tell me to piss off if I am, but you're the one who brought it up. Do you know much about Rosa Luxemburg, btw?

I like your selective highlighting of those results.
Let's look at what you wrote again:

So, the SRs getting 7.3 million more votes than the Bolsheviks did proves the Bolsheviks were more popular, does it? :laugh:

I know a bit about Rosa Luxemburg not enough though I should read more about her. And no that doesn't feel hideously patronising and I don't feel pissed off.

The Ungovernable Farce

18th July 2009, 15:44

He wasnt an "anti-revolututionary". He was a capitalist revolutionary! Its as simple as that. Yes, he dressed up the Bolshevik revolution in marxian rhetoric but the Bolshevik Revolution was fated to be a capitalist revolution. There is no getting round this one. Socialism (aka communism) was simply not on the cards. There was no mass understanding and support for communism (support for the Bolsheviks was based rather on their slogan of "peace land and bread"). The technological infrastructure simply not exist to support a communist or socialist society. And, most tellingly, Russia was surrounded by hostile states while a genuinely socialist movement, then and now , was still relatively tiny on an international scale. So even if the Bolsheviks wanted to establish genuine socialism - and there were some of them who indeed wanted and understood what this meant - they could not achieve it. It simply was not possible.

The nature of a revolution has always to be judged in the last resort by its outcome not its agents. The establishment of a system of state capitalism leds us to only one conclusion that makes any sense - the Bolshevik revolution was a capitalist revolution and Lenin was, to all intents and purposes, a bourgeois revolutionary
Yep, you hit the nail on the head. Socialism in one country doesn't work, so Russia was never going to end up genuinely socialist. If revolutions had happened in other European countries, things might've turned out differently, but they didn't, so it was inevitable a new ruling class would form. That happened to be the Bolshevik bureaucracy led by Lenin.

First, thanks so much for the responses. I'm learning alot. The thing that struck me as possibly counter-revolutionary (with the little knowledge I have, I'm still learning) was really how Lenin got to power promising all power to the soviets and then people began to get upset when the Bolshevik's took over the soviets, put their own commissars in place of the peoples elected officials, and subordinated the soviets to the state.
And then repressed the Kronstadt uprising when it called for free elections to the Soviets. See, for instance, the texts here (http://libcom.org/tags/kronstadt).

Vargha Poralli

18th July 2009, 16:21

Yep, you hit the nail on the head. Socialism in one country doesn't work, so Russia was never going to end up genuinely socialist.

:rolleyes:

Damn right !!! Those stupid Bolshies should have just sat in thier homes and have waited for Western europeans like us to overthrow the capitalism.

If revolutions had happened in other European countries, things might've turned out differently, but they didn't, so it was inevitable a new ruling class would form.

Actually revolutions did occur in other european countries - especailly in Germany and Hungary but failed in them which led to the isolation of the Soviet Russia. I can argue that the failure is due to the fact those countries lacked a strong revolutionary movement like the Bolsheviks but that may to too idiotic.

Bolsheviks were created and developed with Russian Conditions along with the Russian Proletariat which led to success of the october revolution over the capitalist provisional government. They obviously could not last long precisely for that reason - the industrial backwardness of Russia, aspirations of the peasantry and also with the fact that they have won the power in a country ravaged from the imperilaist war and they had still to fight to keep the revolutionary government in power from constatnt attacks from the imperilist armies and the whites.

But who cares to learn or understand those details. I am an anarchist and Lenin screwed everything. So the Russian resolution was not a revolution in my opinion it was a coup and Bolsheviks should have let Kerensky take care of theing after all it is just a capitalist revolution.

That happened to be the Bolshevik bureaucracy led by Lenin.

Let us also convincingly forget that most of the Bolsheviks are slaughtered by bureaucracy by 1937.

The Ungovernable Farce

18th July 2009, 16:45

Actually revolutions did occur in other european countries - especailly in Germany and Hungary but failed in them which led to the isolation of the Soviet Russia.
I know about Germany and Hungary. And Clydeside, for that matter. The point is that they failed. So Russia was isolated, so things turned out like they did.

Bolsheviks were created and developed with Russian Conditions along with the Russian Proletariat which led to success of the october revolution over the capitalist provisional government. They obviously could not last long precisely for that reason - the industrial backwardness of Russia, aspirations of the peasantry and also with the fact that they have won the power in a country ravaged from the imperilaist war and they had still to fight to keep the revolutionary government in power from constatnt attacks from the imperilist armies and the whites. So what you're saying is that socialism in one country doesn't work, so Russia was never going to end up genuinely socialist? Thank you for repeating the point that I made, and that Robbo made before me.

I am an anarchist and Lenin screwed everything.
But I never said that "Lenin screwed everything". I said that the revolution failed to move beyond capitalism because of historical factors, like those that Robbo mentioned above. But of course arguing against what I actually said would just be too much effort, putting words into my mouth is so much easier.

Let us also convincingly forget that most of the Bolsheviks are slaughtered by bureaucracy by 1937.What definition of the word Bolshevik are you using here? And I don't deny that the Bolshevik bureaucracy devoured itself to a great extent. The fact that Stalin killed a lot of the Bolshevik elite in no way changes the fact that they were part of the new ruling class. Capitalism has always been cannibalistic.

ComradeOm

18th July 2009, 16:47

Yep, you hit the nail on the head. Socialism in one country doesn't work, so Russia was never going to end up genuinely socialistSo you are denying the socialist character of the October Revolution?

The Ungovernable Farce

18th July 2009, 16:55

So you are denying the socialist character of the October Revolution?
What do you mean by that? I'm sure that the vast majority of participants in the revolution genuinely wanted to create a socialist society. If I went and threw some rocks at the cops, my actions would have an "anarchist character", but it wouldn't create an anarchist society any more than the October revolution created socialism/communism.

mykittyhasaboner

18th July 2009, 17:00

What do you mean by that? I'm sure that the vast majority of participants in the revolution genuinely wanted to create a socialist society.
The character of a revolution isn't derived by "what people genuinely want".

If I went and threw some rocks at the cops, my actions would have an "anarchist character", but it wouldn't create an anarchist society any more than the October revolution created socialism/communism.

Lol, throwing rocks at cops doesn't have an anarchist character.

n0thing

18th July 2009, 17:22

Yet the Bolsheviks (or Lenin for the purpose of this thread) were placed in power by a democratic and socialist revolution. Was he a master of disguise who managed to somehow fool the Russian proletariat into thinking he was a revolutionary? And why would a counter-revolutionary place themselves at the head of a revolutionary movement (assuming that was possibly) when he could have simply aligned himself with other counter-revolutionaries?

Oh, and I'd also like to know how the Bolshevik "structures and tactics" led to this. Surely you're aware of the actual mass, democratic, and open nature of the Bolshevik party in 1917? I mean, no one really takes that 'cabal of professional revolutionaries' nonsense seriously any more. And, don't forget to come back to that 'Lenin was a dictator thing'

You talk like the idea of a populist vanguard manipulating a revolution to suit their own ends is some ridiculous, far-fetched notion. Lenin fooled the Russian proletariat into believing he was a socialist revolutionary in the same way Stalin and Castro fooled their country's proletariats into believing they were socialist revolutionaries. The one's that weren't fooled, and in fact spoke out against Lenin, were forcibly repressed. I'd love to hear your excuses for Lenin closing down the free-press and having his cheka secret police attack Anarchist headquarters.

There was democracy in the Bolshevik party, but not in Russia. If the Labour party put an end to the national election and declared a permanent Labour government, would you still call them democratic just because they practice democracy inside their own party?

ComradeOm

18th July 2009, 17:22

What do you mean by that? I'm sure that the vast majority of participants in the revolution genuinely wanted to create a socialist societySo you don't consider the class composition of a revolution to be of importance?

If I went and threw some rocks at the cops, my actions would have an "anarchist character", but it wouldn't create an anarchist society any more than the October revolution created socialism/communism.Of course. But if you and the working class population of your town rose up in arms, dispersed the bourgeois government, adapted an explicit programme of revolutionary social change, installed a system of worker councils, and declared their intent to socialise the means of production... well, wouldn't you consider that a socialist revolution? Even if it were ultimately crushed of otherwise failed?

Edit:

You talk like the idea of a populist vanguard manipulating a revolution to suit their own ends is some ridiculous, far-fetched notionWell that's because it is. Arguing that Lenin, despite all his words and deeds, was really some secretive and manipulative counter-revolutionary mastermind, who just happened to place himself at the head of a revolutionary movement, is simply ridiculous. Its a conspiracy theory and no more

There was democracy in the Bolshevik party, but not in Russia. If the Labour party put an end to the national election and declared a permanent Labour government, would you still call them democratic just because they practice democracy inside their own party?Perhaps you should spend less time dreaming up ridiculous hypotheses and more time considering the question you just posed - ie, how did a democratic movement give rise to a one party dictatorship? That's a lot more productive than the nonsense about some secret agenda of Lenin's :rolleyes:

Vargha Poralli

18th July 2009, 17:32

I know about Germany and Hungary. And Clydeside, for that matter. The point is that they failed. So Russia was isolated, so things turned out like they did.

Great alleast we agree on this.

So what you're saying is that socialism in one country doesn't work,

yes and Lenin and the Bolsheviks Knew this.

so Russia was never going to end up genuinely socialist? Thank you for repeating the point that I made, and that Robbo made before me.

Apart from that point both of you are ignorant about the fact that Bolsheviks knew that revolution cannot last in one country alone too.

Which could be understood when Zinonvev and Kamenev opposed anything of that sort in the first place. Bukharin was so dead against the Brest-Litovsk treaty. And despite of contardicting their own policy of National Self Determination the Red Army invaded poland to link up with the German revolutionaries.

Unlike your self and Roobo Bolsheviks lived through a revolutionary period under an oppressive government. They proved themselves to be internationalists and working class revolutionaries and did alll they can do to end capitalism not only in russia but on whole Europe.

But I never said that "Lenin screwed everything". I said that the revolution failed to move beyond capitalism because of historical factors, like those that Robbo mentioned above. But of course arguing against what I actually said would just be too much effort, putting words into my mouth is so much easier.

Never mind that comment I was just generalising. But don't deny that many of Anarchists have such views.

What definition of the word Bolshevik are you using here?

Bolsheviks menas one thing the faction of RSDLP which played a prominenet role in the october revolution.

And I don't deny that the Bolshevik bureaucracy devoured itself to a great extent.

Starnge that you call it "Bolshevik bureaucracy". By 1930's itself the party was seriosuly broken apart. majority of the Old Bolsheviks have either died or have been exiled. The Soviet bureaucracy with Stalin as its figurehead had to get rid of the revolutionary core so as to preserve its priviliges.

The fact that Stalin killed a lot of the Bolshevik elite in no way changes the fact that they were part of the new ruling class.

And if they have been a part of the ruling class why would they kill themsslves ? The bureaucracy that gained power under Stalin had nothing in common with the old Bolsheviks. It had to get rid of them in order to control the workers who had been wearcy of war,revolution and civil war in an efficient manner. It didn't want another October against itself.

Capitalism has always been cannibalistic.

Great rhetoric.

The Ungovernable Farce

18th July 2009, 18:24

So you don't consider the class composition of a revolution to be of importance?
I don't think that something automatically becomes communist just because lots of working-class people are involved in it. Lots of working-class people voted for Bush.

Of course. But if you and the working class population of your town rose up in arms, dispersed the bourgeois government, adapted an explicit programme of revolutionary social change, installed a system of worker councils, and declared their intent to socialise the means of production... well, wouldn't you consider that a socialist revolution? Even if it were ultimately crushed of otherwise failed?
I would call it a failed attempt to create a socialist revolution. I also notice how you miss out the bit where the worker councils get subordinated to my hierarchical vanguard party.

Well that's because it is. Arguing that Lenin, despite all his words and deeds, was really some secretive and manipulative counter-revolutionary mastermind, who just happened to place himself at the head of a revolutionary movement, is simply ridiculous. Its a conspiracy theory and no more
Was Stalin a secretive and manipulative counter-Bolshevik mastermind who just happened to place himself in the leadership of the Bolshevik party?

Bolsheviks menas one thing the faction of RSDLP which played a prominenet role in the october revolution.

Do you mean the mass of the party members, or the individual leadership of the party?

And if they have been a part of the ruling class why would they kill themsslves ?
Why would one section of the ruling class come into competition with another section of the ruling class? Are you serious? I know Nazi comparisons are bad form, but why would Hitler kill Ernst Rohm?

The bureaucracy that gained power under Stalin had nothing in common with the old Bolsheviks. It had to get rid of them in order to control the workers who had been wearcy of war,revolution and civil war in an efficient manner. It didn't want another October against itself.

Stalin also purged bureaucrats that had nothing to do with the old Bolsheviks, tho. How do you get around that?

ComradeOm

18th July 2009, 19:03

I don't think that something automatically becomes communist just because lots of working-class people are involved in it. Lots of working-class people voted for BushWas Bush advocating the destruction of the bourgeois state and the establishment of worker councils?

To put this in perspective, you are claiming that a worker mass movement that advocated the destruction of the bourgeois state and its replacement with a democratic system of worker councils was in fact a bourgeois plot? This is despite the fact that the events of 1917 far outstrip anything achieved by the proletariat in the more advanced West before or after that fateful year? That's just an attitude that I can't understand

I also notice how you miss out the bit where the worker councils get subordinated to my hierarchical vanguard partyFor a start, I should note just how meaningless that description is. If the Bolsheviks in 1917 were a "hierarchical vanguard party" then neither myself or the Russian proletariat at the time have any problem with that. It was a party, there was a (thoroughly democratic) hierarchy, and it did contain the most militant and class conscious segments of the working class

As for its relation to the soviets, I don't suppose that you can demonstrate that their eventual sad fate was always planned by Lenin and co? Because if Lenin did plan on installing a 'dictatorship of the party' then he went about it in a very funny way. That is, effectively freezing your party's agitation activities, maintaining the independence of soviet (and other party) fractions, and largely subjecting party interests/time to the soviets is not the most effective way to build your own personal dictatorship

But then you have no interest in the structure of either the Bolshevik party or the Soviet movement. You don't care about the direction and distribution of cadres. The social movements and status of the post-Revolution proletariat means nothing you. After all, why should it when you've already got it all figured out - the Russian Revolution failed because Lenin was a bad man

I would call it a failed attempt to create a socialist revolutionYet Lenin was a bourgeois counter-revolutionary at the head of a bourgeois revolution? :rolleyes:

Was Stalin a secretive and manipulative counter-Bolshevik mastermind who just happened to place himself in the leadership of the Bolshevik party?Stalin was a virtual non-entity in 1917 and indeed well into the early 1920s. He was a product of the revolution's degeneration and not its cause. So no, he did not dupe the revolutionary Russian proletariat because he did not have to. He did however do an excellent job of fooling the Bolsheviks

n0thing

18th July 2009, 19:15

Well that's because it is. Arguing that Lenin, despite all his words and deeds, was really some secretive and manipulative counter-revolutionary mastermind, who just happened to place himself at the head of a revolutionary movement, is simply ridiculous. Its a conspiracy theory and no more

Perhaps you should spend less time dreaming up ridiculous hypotheses and more time considering the question you just posed - ie, how did a democratic movement give rise to a one party dictatorship? That's a lot more productive than the nonsense about some secret agenda of Lenin's :rolleyes:
This is pathetic. If I say that George Bush had a secret agenda for invading Iraq, that's all well and good, but if I say Lenin had a secret agenda for obtaining power in Russia, that's just some absurd conspiracy theory? I say that because his actions, which included but are by no means limited to: shutting down the free-press, attacking other revolutionaries with different ideas about where power should be placed, seeking to maximize his party's control over workplaces, and his laughable ideas about what constitutes democracy, are trademarks of people who want to obtain and maximize their power. Stalin, and all of his future cohorts, were at the head of that revolutionary movement too. So I can't even call him a counter-revolutionary? Such hypocrisy.

The Ungovernable Farce

18th July 2009, 19:25

Was Bush advocating the destruction of the bourgeois state and the establishment of worker councils?
Are we talking about official programme or class composition? Make your mind up.

As for its relation to the soviets, I don't suppose that you can demonstrate that their eventual sad fate was always planned by Lenin and co? Because if Lenin did plan on installing a 'dictatorship of the party' then he went about it in a very funny way. That is, effectively freezing your party's agitation activities, maintaining the independence of soviet (and other party) fractions, and largely subjecting party interests/time to the soviets is not the most effective way to build your own personal dictatorship

Cos obviously he should've publicly announced in 1917 "All power to the Soviets for a little bit, then my faction will take it over"? Of course I'm not going to find anything like that.

Stalin was a virtual non-entity in 1917 and indeed well into the early 1920s. He was a product of the revolution's degeneration and not its cause. So no, he did not dupe the revolutionary Russian proletariat because he did not have to. He did however do an excellent job of fooling the Bolsheviks
So, it's not ridiculous for Stalin to be a secretive and manipulative counter-Bolshevik mastermind who just happened to place himself in the leadership of the Bolshevik party, but it is ridiculous for Lenin to be some secretive and manipulative counter-revolutionary mastermind, who just happened to place himself at the head of a revolutionary movement. And btw, a member of the Central Committee =/= a non-entity.

ComradeOm

18th July 2009, 20:05

This is pathetic. If I say that George Bush had a secret agenda for invading Iraq, that's all well and good, but if I say Lenin had a secret agenda for obtaining power in Russia, that's just some absurd conspiracy theory?Well yes, obviously. To contrast, one was the President of a major imperialist nation that had vested interests in the Gulf region and the other was a Russian revolutionary who spent thirty years working within the socialist movement. Of course its a fucking absurdity

Frankly I'm getting pissed off with these claims that offer not a shadow of proof whatsoever. Not only are they simplistic to the extreme (uh, Lenin was a bad man who did bad things...) but the assertion that Lenin was a counter-revolutionary his entire career is completely unfounded and rests on misconceptions and myths about post-October events. Which is depressing. We're not having a discussion as to the structure and direction of the early Soviet state, we're not talking about the eventual degeneration of said state, and we've completely missed the fact that Lenin was not superman

Then again, I have no one to blame for this but myself. It should be me looking to raise the level of this discussion and instead I'm batting away easy and inaccurate tosh on a point-by-point basis. But then it is fun to expose some of the complete nonsense being thrown my way. Let's have a look at the below...

...shutting down the free-press...You have a problem with censoring counter-revolutionaries in the midst of a revolution? No doubt you do. Others might think that the demand for a "free press" is a bourgeois demand that can be safely waived in the midst of a revolution and civil war. It should of course be noted that both the Left SR and anarchist presses were in no way censored until both groups succumbed to terrorist tactics after Brest-Litovsk

Which is not even touching on the fact that anyone who thinks that there is such a thing as a "free press" is simply wrong

...attacking other revolutionaries with different ideas about where power should be placed...Such as? The stance of the Bolsheviks was perfectly simple - power should lie with the Soviets. Those "revolutionaries" who were "attacked" were invariably those who disagreed with this analysis. Mensheviks, SRs (Left and Right), anarchists... all took the first shots at the Bolsheviks and were only crushed in defence. In all cases the decision to resort to terrorism was motivated by the reality that they could not compete with the Bolsheviks in the soviets. They simply weren't popular enough

...seeking to maximize his party's control over workplaces...I see you're having difficulty distinguishing between the Bolshevik party and the Soviet state

...and his laughable ideas about what constitutes democracy...True. How dare Lenin insist that all power should be assumed by local organs of workers rule. And what a bastard he was for insisting that all state power be based on the latter. Laughable

...are trademarks of people who want to obtain and maximize their powerSo tell me then, how did these counter-revolutionaries get into power in the first place? No one's been able to answer that question to my satisfaction yet

Are we talking about official programme or class composition? Make your mind up.One flows from the other. Duh

But seeing as you continue to dodge the point I'll put it to you again in a familiar form:

If [the Russian proletariat] rose up in arms, dispersed the bourgeois government, adapted an explicit programme of revolutionary social change, installed a system of worker councils, and declared their intent to socialise the means of production... well, wouldn't you consider that a socialist revolution? Even if it were ultimately crushed of otherwise failed?

Cos obviously he should've publicly announced in 1917 "All power to the Soviets for a little bit, then my faction will take it over"? Of course I'm not going to find anything like that.No, you won't. What you will find is Lenin arguing strongly for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and for a transfer of power to the soviets. You'll find a Lenin who had spent most of his life working within the revolutionary movement and writing countless works extolling the importance of the proletariat and its fate. You will find, in short, a revolutionary

Which makes the whole absurdity of this point even harder to bear. You know that's nothing to substantiate your claim and yet toy persist in making it. That's a conspiracy theory right there

So, it's not ridiculous for Stalin to be a secretive and manipulative counter-Bolshevik mastermind who just happened to place himself in the leadership of the Bolshevik party, but it is ridiculous for Lenin to be some secretive and manipulative counter-revolutionary mastermind, who just happened to place himself at the head of a revolutionary movementExactly. The Bolshevik party by the time Stalin's rise to power was no longer the revolutionary organ that it was in 1917. Hence Stalin did not need to fool anyone aside from certain party members. He was never a figure in the soviets or the streets like Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, etc, and nor did he have a major input into Bolshevik policy during 1917. As I said above, his arrival into power was the result, of the cause, of the Revolution's degeneration

And btw, a member of the Central Committee =/= a non-entityStalin was the most junior member of the CC and only there because of his supposed expertise on the 'national question'. He was not a major figure within the CC, he was not a major figure in the soviet movement, and he was not a major figure in the Revolution. The idea that you can even compare the standing of the two, both within the Bolsheviks and the wider proletarian movement, just displays ignorance

spiltteeth

18th July 2009, 22:58

Although I am a newcomer, I would like to point out that right before his stroke Lenin and Trotsky were planing a massive battle with the Bolshevik party against all the bureaucracy (although one could argue it was Lenin's opposition to a set legal constructs with laws that made bureaucracy necessary)
and that even on his death bed Lenin was trying to conceive of a way to put more power into the hands of the people via soviets.
I am not informed enough to comment on his terror tactics and shutting down menshivik presses, but it does distress me.

robbo203

19th July 2009, 01:44

Haha, this gets that absurd that it starts to be funny! I wonder how long it takes till Lenin is a "nazi-revolutionary"! :lol:
Btw, I'm convinced that Lenin was the devil himself, see, the similarity is unquestionable!."

Yes very droll. And of course needless to say, irrelevant. The Bolshevik revolution with Lenin at its head established a system of state capitalism and had no other option but to do so. Ergo, Lenin was a capitalist revolutionary however unpalatable this fact may be to you. I appreciate logic might not be your strong point but the one thing follows from the other...

Yes, right, tell that these people:
I'm sure they stood up, waved red flags, fought, risked their lives and died becuase they were bored and had nothing else to do but a good fight and maybe they wanted to make themsleves just angry with the red, just like bulls.

If this was supposed to be your retort to my point that there was no mass understanding of communism then perhaps you might care to explain how exactly you think this demonstrates I am wrong. Not even Lenin believed there was much socialist understanding among the Russian workers and the Russian workers themselves constituted only a small fraction of the total population. So yes there really was no "mass understanding and support" for a genuine socialist alternative. That is not to deny that the idea of a moneyless wageless stateless society did have a certain amount of currency among Bolsheviks as popularised by textbooks such Bogdanoff's but that didnt make the Russian proletariat as a whole socialist-minded, did it now? Still less the wider population of Russia. If you have evidence to the contrary lets hear it and frankly two faded photos of the Russian revolution does not constitute evidence in any meaningful sense

Er... yes? What should they have promised? Dialectical Materialism studies all day long? "Das Kapital" free for everybody? I think there's nothing wrong with a communist, trying to achieve peace, land for the peasants insted of great land owners and food and work for the people.
.

Again , irrelevant. The point we are discussing here is simply whether or not there was mass understading and support for socialism. The issue is not about the merits or otherwsies of the Bolsheviks opportunist reform programme.

Excuse me, what? So you say there can only happen a successfull revolution when the infrastructure is great and high developed and the country is surrounded by peaceful socialist nations? If that's the case I think we can wait for the revolution till hell freezes over!.

I am saying what anyone who claims to be a marxist at all would understand implicitly that without a sufficiently developed infrastructure to sustain a socialist (communist) society and without the mass understaidng and support for such an alternative globally, socialism is simply not possible. If you deny this then you dont understand the first thing about Marxism. Of course lack of socialist understanding and a sufficiently developed infrastrucutre does not prevent you having a revolution as such; all it means is that the revlution will be a capitalist and not a socialist revolution which was exactly what happened in Russia

Damn, why did nobody tell them that? Somebody should have stood up and should have said: "Hey, come on boys and girls, calm down, there's absolutely no use starting a revolution, you know, our infrastructure is shit and we're all living in wood huts and are not even able to read, not to speak of the German army invading our country and the lack of understanding for communism, so just go home and hail the Czar, I'm sure everything will get better. It really hurts me to disappoint you, but well, that's how things are, so don't even think of a revolution, it is simply not possible."

And still more irrelevance. Becuase I argue that the Bolshevik Revolution could not possibly have been a socialist revolution since the preconditions for such a revolution were wholly absent that, in your view, is tantamount to me saying that the workers should all "just go home and hail the Czar". Thats a bit of a pathetic argument, dont you think? On what grounds do you suppose that my rejection of the absurd claim that the Bolshevik Revolution was a socialist revolution constitutes a good reason for thinking I support tsardom. I oppose all tyranny - tsarist as well as Bolshevik. Both are anti-working class. But Like I said, logic is obviously not your strong point...

The Ungovernable Farce

19th July 2009, 11:55

I'm bored with this conversation. There's a point talking to people like Spiltteeth (and I do hope they don't mind me talking about them in the third person like this), because they're actually listening to what other people are saying; but I know I'm not going to shake your faith in Leninist dogma, and having accepted the Leninist explanation for a while, then found it didn't work, I'm not going to go back to it. So we're essentially just talking to ourselves here. You could probably program a Leninobot and an anarchobot to give our incredibly predictable responses from here on.

So tell me then, how did these counter-revolutionaries get into power in the first place? No one's been able to answer that question to my satisfaction yet
But you don't have a problem seeing Stalin as a counter-revolutionary. So clearly you don't think it's impossible for counter-revoltionaries to gain power from a revolution. And, for the record, I think Robbo's description of Lenin as a bourgeois revolutionary is more accurate.

One flows from the other. Duh

I don't think that having lots of working-class people involved automatically makes something communist. That view seems unsupportable.

But seeing as you continue to dodge the point I'll put it to you again in a familiar form:

If [the Russian proletariat] rose up in arms, dispersed the bourgeois government, adapted an explicit programme of revolutionary social change, installed a system of worker councils, and declared their intent to socialise the means of production... well, wouldn't you consider that a socialist revolution? Even if it were ultimately crushed of otherwise failed?

I would consider it an uprising with a great deal of socialist potential, but since it turned into the installation of state capitalism, I wouldn't call it a socialist revolution. Would you call Hungary 56 a socialist revolution?

No, you won't. What you will find is Lenin arguing strongly for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and for a transfer of power to the soviets.
That in no way contradicts what I said. Of course he wasn't going to argue strongly for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and a transfer of power to the central committee of the Bolshevik party, because that wouldn't have got any support.

You'll find a Lenin who had spent most of his life working within the revolutionary movement and writing countless works extolling the importance of the proletariat and its fate.
Just like Stalin. Does that mean that Stalin can't have been a counter-revolutionary? Mao? Do you agree that politicians can say they're in favour of things without being completely sincere.

Which makes the whole absurdity of this point even harder to bear. You know that's nothing to substantiate your claim and yet toy persist in making it. That's a conspiracy theory right there
I don't claim to know what Lenin or Stalin was thinking at any point. When Stalin was robbing banks ten years before the revolution, I doubt he was thinking "lol, this will get me into a good position to seize absolute power one day and destroy the last remnants of soviet democracy." I can only judge how things turned out, not what their intentions might have been.

Exactly. The Bolshevik party by the time Stalin's rise to power was no longer the revolutionary organ that it was in 1917.
Why was that?

Hence Stalin did not need to fool anyone aside from certain party members.
Exactly. If the Bolshevik bureaucrats led by Lenin hadn't destroyed Soviet democracy, then he would've needed to done more than "fool certain party members" in order to gain power. The fact that "certain party members" had so much power is clearly a problem in itself.

The idea that you can even compare the standing of the two, both within the Bolsheviks and the wider proletarian movement, just displays ignorance
Comparing things isn't the same as saying they're the same. But making it into the five-man Politburo during the war certainly doesn't sound like a non-entity. And I agree that Lenin wasn't that important. If he hadn't been there, I'm sure the rising bureaucracy would've found another figurehead. But he was there, so they had him.

ComradeOm

19th July 2009, 13:03

...I know I'm not going to shake your faith in Leninist dogma...Ah accusations of dogmatism, the last refuge of the desperate. But you are right in that this displays the fundamental difference between us. I am willing to look at history and make my judgements on the basis of, well, what actually happened. You on the other hand are content to cast your political judgements back in time and use these to construct a framework in which Lenin the socialist revolutionary becomes Lenin the bourgeois counter-revolutionary. Robbo will disagree with me on this point, but ultimately judgement of the Russian Revolution must stem from historical study and not political stances

But then again I am no 'Leninist'. Oh sure, I may write in support of the Bolsheviks and I may be a member of a 'Leninist' party but I'm really a post-left anarchist :nods:

You could probably program a Leninobot and an anarchobot to give our incredibly predictable responses from here onI'd like to think that a history book would be of more use. On that note, I'm going to take a break from point-by-point microdetail for a moment...

Exactly. If the Bolshevik bureaucrats led by Lenin hadn't destroyed Soviet democracy, then he would've needed to done more than "fool certain party members" in order to gain power. The fact that "certain party members" had so much power is clearly a problem in itselfHow many times do I have to say this? The Russian Revolution did not place Stalin in power. It was the degeneration of this revolutionary movement, through the deterioration of its social base and the soviet movement, that permitted his rise to power

In 1917 the Bolsheviks were the only significant faction to unreservedly oppose the Provisional Government, advocate the destruction of the bourgeoisie, and support the transfer of power to the soviets. Their revolutionary programme was unquestionably both socialist in character and hugely popular with the Russian proletariat. In October 1917 they were by far and away the largest party in the Congress of Soviets but they nonetheless supported the creation of a pan-socialist government. Even after the Mensheviks walked out of the Congress (and subsequently aligned themselves with the Whites) there were serious negotiations to build such a non-Bolshevik government. That failed and a Bolshevik government was formed that was elected by and responsible to the Congress of the Soviets (through the Central Executive Committee of the latter). Later intense efforts to get the Left SRs into government initially succeeded... only to be later dashed when the latter turned to terrorism

While all this was going on there were hugely significant changes occurring at grassroots level. Most notable was the emergence of the district soviets as real authorities in their own right, as these local worker councils took on the responsibilities of running their own neighbourhoods. Secondly was the decimation of the the Bolshevik party local organisations, and effective collapse of party work, as its cadres, the most militant and revolutionary members of the working class, were sucked into soviet work (either on a local scale or 'exporting' revolution to the countryside). These trends were not significantly reversed until the increasing demands of the Civil War took their toll (ie, end of 1918, 1919). Which is not even mentioning the conflict between nominally Bolshevik regional bodies (such as the collection clustered around Petrograd) and the central national organs in Moscow

So I put it to you that anyone who suggests that the Bolsheviks set out to build a party dictatorship or "destroy Soviet democracy" does not know what they're talking about. Indeed the Bolsheviks were entirely dependent on the latter! You, and others like yourself, are skipping ahead from 1917 to 1924, by which point the degeneration of the Revolution was becoming obvious, and ignoring the intervening years. Hence the myth of Lenin the counter-revolutionary

Now I know that none of the above is going to matter to you. Frankly if you can look at Lenin's works and actions pre-October and somehow deduce that he was a counter-revolutionary then you were never paying much attention to the historical reality in the first place

But you don't have a problem seeing Stalin as a counter-revolutionary. So clearly you don't think it's impossible for counter-revoltionaries to gain power from a revolutionAs for Stalin, well he was the symptom of the degeneration. A junior figure, at best, within the party prior to the Civil War years he played no role of note during the Revolution and made no original contributions (outside the field of linguistics) to its policies or programmes. Had the Soviet movement remained strong and vital then he never would have been able to create a nest for himself amongst the state's bureaucracy or turn this into a lever of power. No, his rise was mirrored by the collapse of the independence of the soviets, not due to a government dependent on them, but from the pressures of Civil War and economic collapse. The Russian Revolution was always a workers' revolution and it was entirely reliant on the proletariat. Given the huge hardship of the Civil War years in which the proletariat may have been reduced in number by upwards of 50% (a figure borne out by population falls in cities and the collapse of produce indices) it was inevitable that there would be repercussions on a political level. Lenin, who had been brought to power by a revolutionary proletariat, was not superman and he could not change these demographics or singlehandedly create socialism in a vacuum

So there were very different social currents that carried both men to power. Which is of course simplistic, we should be talking about systems and superstructures rather than men. So insert 'democratic Soviet rule' and 'bureaucratic Stalinism' for 'Lenin' and 'Stalin' respectively above

But then I expect such nuances or social-movements to be of little interest to yourself. This is more for the likes of spiltteeth

I don't think that having lots of working-class people involved automatically makes something communist. That view seems unsupportableAt this point you are merely being wilfully obtuse. You refuse to distinguish between George Bush (on the basis that he got some working class votes!) and the Bolsheviks (a working class movement!) when such an obvious difference should be self-evident

That in no way contradicts what I saidOf course it doesn't, I can't argue with a logical fallacy. You're arguing that the absence of proof is proof in itself. Lenin condemned the bourgeoisie and argued for a socialist revolution; ergo he was a bourgeois counter-revolutionary. That's just nonsensical

I can only judge how things turned out, not what their intentions might have beenOr, so it seems, what actually happened

And I agree that Lenin wasn't that important. If he hadn't been there, I'm sure the rising bureaucracy would've found another figurehead. But he was there, so they had him.Which is why your argument makes no sense. Instead of analysing Lenin's actions/words you are thrusting him into a predetermined historical role. In doing so you are completely ignoring what actually happened. The Russian Revolution failed and therefore, in your mind, it must have been bourgeois all along. No, that is not how history works

robbo203

19th July 2009, 13:15

Ah accusations of dogmatism, the last refuge of the desperate. But you are right in that this displays the fundamental difference between us. I am willing to look at history and make my judgements on the basis of, well, what actually happened. You on the other hand are content to cast your political judgements back in time and use these to construct a framework in which Lenin the socialist revolutionary becomes Lenin the bourgeois counter-revolutionary. Robbo will disagree with me on this point, but ultimately judgement of the Russian Revolution must stem from historical study and not political stances

In the final analysis Lenin was not a socialist revolutionary. That does not mean he did not understand or desire socialism. But he was forced by circumstances to head a revolution that established, not socialism, but state capitalism and in that sense he was quitessentially a capitalist revolutionary. "Counter revolutionary" is the wrong word because that presupposes that the Bolshevik Revolution was at some basic level a "socialist revolution" which Lenin somehow betrayed. It was not. It was essentially a capitalist revolution and Lenin's ideology was essentially congruent with the state capitalist outcome of this revolution.

Led Zeppelin

19th July 2009, 13:26

It was essentially a capitalist revolution and Lenin's ideology was essentially congruent with the state capitalist outcome of this revolution.

Out of curiosity, pure curiosity, when and where can a revolution be "socialist" according to you?

Only the advanced first world countries? Does this mean you oppose any socialist movement in an underdeveloped country because it is essentially capitalist according to you?

I want to know how reactionary you actually are when you scratch the surface.

Rjevan

19th July 2009, 16:04

Out of curiosity, pure curiosity, when and where can a revolution be "socialist" according to you?

Only the advanced first world countries? Does this mean you oppose any socialist movement in an underdeveloped country because it is essentially capitalist according to you?

I want to know how reactionary you actually are when you scratch the surface.
Thank you, this was just what I was going to ask Mr. Logic! I'm eagerly awaiting your answer.

The Bolshevik revolution with Lenin at its head established a system of state capitalism and had no other option but to do so. Ergo, Lenin was a capitalist revolutionary however unpalatable this fact may be to you. I appreciate logic might not be your strong point but the one thing follows from the other...

Oh, there we are again, the USSR was a state capitalist system from the very beginning and Lenin had no other intention than creating such an oppressive system... so, Lenin ignores his aristocratic heritage and possible advantages which may have come with it, joins the social democrats, is banned to Siberia, goes into exile, writes many marxist books and essays (which are, of course, opportunistic lies in order to hide his capitalist and tyrannic views, since capitalists are persecuted and socialists are dominating society), finally returns to Russia, just to set up a state capitalist dictatorship under his leadership, very well knowing, that nothing else is possible since Russian people were not all indoctrinated with marxist tomes and therefore are not all fanatic communists with an in-depth understanding for socialist matters, plus the infrastructure is shit... yeah, so much for logic.

So yes there really was no "mass understanding and support" for a genuine socialist alternative. That is not to deny that the idea of a moneyless wageless stateless society did have a certain amount of currency among Bolsheviks as popularised by textbooks such Bogdanoff's but that didnt make the Russian proletariat as a whole socialist-minded, did it now? Still less the wider population of Russia.
Yes, it did make them socialist-minded, to that extend that they supported the Bolsheviks and their aims. If you mean by socialist-minded that even the last peasant had in-depth knowledge about socialism/communism and an intense awareness for the question of the education of children in a truly socialist society, then, of course not. But if you want to wait till this is the case you will have to wait a very very long time.
And no support? Take a look at any history book. Demonstarting for peace and bread, fighting against the Czar, reestablishing the Duma, building workers' and soldiers' soviets (councils) and this all when Lenin wasn't in power... "no support" looks differently.

Again , irrelevant. The point we are discussing here is simply whether or not there was mass understading and support for socialism. The issue is not about the merits or otherwsies of the Bolsheviks opportunist reform programme.
Strange, maybe I'm suffering from halluciantions but I keep seeing this in your post:

support for the Bolsheviks was based rather on their slogan of "peace land and bread"
So you admit that there was support for the Bolsheviks because of their aims and as I outlined before (I know, it is irrelevant, maybe that irrelevant that you didn't even bother reading it) these Bolshevik aims are quite compatible to socialist/communist aims. So, greetings from our friend logic, the one thing follows from the other: if people supported the Bolsheviks and their aims they therefore supported socialist/communist aims, so there was support for socialist aims.

Hm, the aims of the Bolsheviks are opportunistic you say? Well, I am forced to admit this is very logical if you see a communist party proclaiming communist aims as opportunistic. So everybody (maybe besides of marx and Engels, but they are also quite fishy) in the past and present who claims to fight for socialits/communist aims is automatically opportunistic, even communists in a communist party. Again, what should they as communists have promised? What are our slogans right now? But thanks to your stunning logic I now know that we all must be opportunists.

I am saying what anyone who claims to be a marxist at all would understand implicitly that without a sufficiently developed infrastructure to sustain a socialist (communist) society and without the mass understaidng and support for such an alternative globally, socialism is simply not possible. If you deny this then you dont understand the first thing about Marxism.
Regarding to LZ's question, I ask myself if you understand what Marxism means. We already had the "support for the Bolsheviks"-thing, but now it even gets better: "support for such an alternative globally"! So, in this context that sounds not like it does in Marx works, it sounds like "If there's not the chance of the world revolution it is totally senseless to start or support a revolution of the working class because it can by no means be a socialist revolution and therefore must end as capitalist one." Ah, right... so just because Nazi Germany or today Bush's USA dislike communism it would be better if we all went home because no matter how much we dislike it, socialism is under these circumstances simply not possible. But bad enough, according to Marx, the world revolution doesn't happen out of the blue, it has to start somewhere first. Why not in Russia? Oh, right, the infrastructure, I forgot.

And yes, what about "third world" countries? No revolution for them? Bad infrastructure, so no communism? Well, sorry to disappoint you, but then we have no communism globally and therefore (the one thing follows the other) no chances for socialism/communism ever. So, what now, did I discover a flaw in communism? Does our ideology contradict itself? No, just your logic does.

And still more irrelevance. Becuase I argue that the Bolshevik Revolution could not possibly have been a socialist revolution since the preconditions for such a revolution were wholly absent that, in your view, is tantamount to me saying that the workers should all "just go home and hail the Czar". Thats a bit of a pathetic argument, dont you think? On what grounds do you suppose that my rejection of the absurd claim that the Bolshevik Revolution was a socialist revolution constitutes a good reason for thinking I support tsardom.
No matter if you like it or not the revolution brought much more freedom and control for the workers than ever before in history and achievements for the Russian people which were not even imaginable in tsarist Russia. So, there were only three main political sides: the Czar, Kerensky and the Bolshevik revolutionaries. If you reject the Bolshevik revolution, what is the alternative then? The Czar? Kerensky? Going home and waiting for better times and better infrastructure? If there was "no real socialist revolution in Russia and there would have also been none possible", what would your suggestion for the Russian people have been then? Oh, I forgot one political side: Kaiser Wilhelm II! So you're against the Czar. But I know that Kerensky would have continued the war, if the "opportunistic" Bolsheviks wouldn't have promised peace to the people, who supported them therefore, who therefore signed the peace of Brest-Litovsk. But maybe it would have been better if Willy would have conquered Russia, maybe he would have even built a proper infrastructure with German efficiency.

But Like I said, logic is obviously not your strong point...
Well, it seems like we have at least something in common.

rednordman

19th July 2009, 18:05

Lenin knew what he was doing, and quite frankly, as far as i see it, gave the working-class in Russia more than anyone else in their history. Sure crimes where committed, but without this, no one else would have done anything near what he achieved.

I mean, look at what happened in Spain. They had a democratically elected socialist government, and what happened? So he placed his infrastructor for a reason, and the role of the red army is indeed a very important one.

I do not condone his red terror, but can understand why it happened. At the time Russia was not very stable so he had no choice but to be a little hardline. Setting up a different type of economy is not easy, no matter when and where it is. Also, when the whites talk about reclaiming the government and land, people believed their proto-fascist claims. Afterall, whats the first thing that people look to go against when things are going bad?

robbo203

19th July 2009, 18:35

Oh, there we are again, the USSR was a state capitalist system from the very beginning and Lenin had no other intention than creating such an oppressive system... so, Lenin ignores his aristocratic heritage and possible advantages which may have come with it, joins the social democrats, is banned to Siberia, goes into exile, writes many marxist books and essays (which are, of course, opportunistic lies in order to hide his capitalist and tyrannic views, since capitalists are persecuted and socialists are dominating society), finally returns to Russia, just to set up a state capitalist dictatorship under his leadership, very well knowing, that nothing else is possible since Russian people were not all indoctrinated with marxist tomes and therefore are not all fanatic communists with an in-depth understanding for socialist matters, plus the infrastructure is shit... yeah, so much for logic..

It doesnt matter what Lenin's intentions are unless you subscribe to the great man theory of history - do you?. I could care a toss if Lenin wore a little pink dress with tiny bells on it and carried a placard around 24/7 annoucing the virtues of global socialism. The fact of the matter is as any Marxist would tell you, if you dont have sufficient support and understanding of socialism and if you dont have the technological potential to sustain a socialist society, you will not get socialism. End of story. In backward Russia neither of these preconditions were met. Lenin himself said that if Russia had to await mass understanding and support for socialism it would take 500 years to establish socialism. He thereby conceded that you couldnt have socialism un Russia at the time. Only idealists and dreamers like yourself can think otherwise

Yes, it did make them socialist-minded, to that extend that they supported the Bolsheviks and their aims. If you mean by socialist-minded that even the last peasant had in-depth knowledge about socialism/communism and an intense awareness for the question of the education of children in a truly socialist society, then, of course not. But if you want to wait till this is the case you will have to wait a very very long time.
And no support? Take a look at any history book. Demonstarting for peace and bread, fighting against the Czar, reestablishing the Duma, building workers' and soldiers' soviets (councils) and this all when Lenin wasn't in power... "no support" looks differently...

I did not say the Bolsheviks lacked support to begin with but this support was not for socialism; it was for the reform programme offered by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were not a socialist organisation but a state capitalist organisation with Lenin at its head urging the implementation of state capitalism in no uncertain terms. If you dont believe try reading what Lenin wrote about state capitalism

So you admit that there was support for the Bolsheviks because of their aims and as I outlined before (I know, it is irrelevant, maybe that irrelevant that you didn't even bother reading it) these Bolshevik aims are quite compatible to socialist/communist aims. So, greetings from our friend logic, the one thing follows from the other: if people supported the Bolsheviks and their aims they therefore supported socialist/communist aims, so there was support for socialist aims.

More of your weird "logic". If something is compatible with something else this does not make it the same thing as ,or imply support for, the latter. All it means it does not contradict or get in the way of the latter. But I actually think the Boslsheviks reformist state capitalist objectives were indeed incompatble with revolutionary socialism anyway

Hm, the aims of the Bolsheviks are opportunistic you say? Well, I am forced to admit this is very logical if you see a communist party proclaiming communist aims as opportunistic. So everybody (maybe besides of marx and Engels, but they are also quite fishy) in the past and present who claims to fight for socialits/communist aims is automatically opportunistic, even communists in a communist party. Again, what should they as communists have promised? What are our slogans right now? But thanks to your stunning logic I now know that we all must be opportunists.
.

I just you get yourself a good dictionary and look up the word opportunism. You clearly dont know what it means

Regarding to LZ's question, I ask myself if you understand what Marxism means. We already had the "support for the Bolsheviks"-thing, but now it even gets better: "support for such an alternative globally"! So, in this context that sounds not like it does in Marx works, it sounds like "If there's not the chance of the world revolution it is totally senseless to start or support a revolution of the working class because it can by no means be a socialist revolution and therefore must end as capitalist one." Ah, right... so just because Nazi Germany or today Bush's USA dislike communism it would be better if we all went home because no matter how much we dislike it, socialism is under these circumstances simply not possible. But bad enough, according to Marx, the world revolution doesn't happen out of the blue, it has to start somewhere first. Why not in Russia? Oh, right, the infrastructure, I forgot. .

Here we go again. More ridiculous non-sequiturs. Just becuase the preconditions of a socialist revolution are not yet in place does not prevent you from working to establish those preconditions does it now? Whereever the socialist revolution first breaks out it would have to be on the basis that there was a massive socialist presence more or less everywhere else in the world at the time. You cannot have an isolated country implementing "socialism" while support for socialism was virtually non existent elsewhere. The idea is absurd

And yes, what about "third world" countries? No revolution for them? Bad infrastructure, so no communism? Well, sorry to disappoint you, but then we have no communism globally and therefore (the one thing follows the other) no chances for socialism/communism ever. So, what now, did I discover a flaw in communism? Does our ideology contradict itself? No, just your logic does. .

No you havent discovered a flaw in communism only a flaw in your own logic. Socialism has to be global. A third world country may not have a sufficiently developed infrastructure but this does not matter from a global perspective since the world as a whole (of which that country is a part) has the technological wherewithal to sustain socialism. All this goes to show is that you cannot have a third world country trying to implement socialism on its own without mass support for socialism elsewhere

No matter if you like it or not the revolution brought much more freedom and control for the workers than ever before in history and achievements for the Russian people which were not even imaginable in tsarist Russia. ..

For a while it possibly did but after that things turned for the worse with the crushing of workers organisations , the elimination of political opposition and the installation of a vicious thuggish state capitalist dictatorship of the vanguard over the proletariat

So, there were only three main political sides: the Czar, Kerensky and the Bolshevik revolutionaries. If you reject the Bolshevik revolution, what is the alternative then? The Czar? Kerensky? Going home and waiting for better times and better infrastructure? If there was "no real socialist revolution in Russia and there would have also been none possible", what would your suggestion for the Russian people have been then? ..

Why do you limit the choice to the czar, kerensky and the bolsheviks. Why is it not possible to oppose all three and stand full squarely for a socialist alternative? Acknowledging that socialism was not possible at the time does not mean there is no point in being a socialist. Any kind of socialist influence however small is an influence for the better on the nature of existence under capitalism

Rjevan

19th July 2009, 22:33

Dont be ridiculous. If a socialist movement is in fact a genuine socialist movement I would support it wherever it exists.
I'm not sure if there will ever be a movement that is socialist in you eyes...

2) that there is mass understanding and support for socialism at a global level . Nowhere in the world at present is the revolutionary non-market anti statist (socialist) movement anything other than relatively small, if not negligible. but there is no reason it could not grow anywhere. However, the establishment of socialism, the successul implementation of socialist revolution, presupposes that the socialist movement has grown everywhere to a significant degree becuase socialism can only be a global alternative to capitalism - it is impossoble to have socialism in one country. Therefore there cannot be a socialist revolution either in a third world country or, for that matter, a first world country without this significant global socialist presence
That socialism in one country is impossible is your opinion, but that doesn't mean that it's absolute truth.
If you really want to wait till "the socialist movement has grown everywhere to a significant degree" I now have to say this is simply impossible. That even people in states like the USA which are based on conservative and capitalist views, not to speak of Tibet or Vatican City or Bhutan are in the large majority pro-socialism, sorry, I just can say it again, if we're waiting for this and every uprise of the working class is in vain and doomed form the very beginning till then, then I fear the world won't get old enough to ever see a "genuine socialist revolution".

What I would not support is an movement that purport to be socialist but is in fact a anti working-class movement in favour of state capitalism, That is something that the reactionary pro-capitalist left such as yourself might support but not a revolutionary socialist.
So your definition of a "revolutionary socialist" just sits there, looks at his checklist "When a revolution of the working class is 100% and unquestionable socialist" and refuses to support them, if your criterias are not 100% fulfilled becuase it must necessarily be an anti-working class state capitalist revolution then... this is what I call reactionary pro-capitalist left, you're condemning every revolution led by the working class just because your criterias are not fulfilled and no matter how socialist it would be and how much good it would do to the opressed workers and people, in your view it is false and deserves no support because it simply can't be socialist!

Here I'd like to quote our favourite reactionary capitalist, knowing that it might not be the most convincing tactic to quote the person in question to proove he's right, but totally and entirely agreeing with him:

I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.

In backward Russia neither of these preconditions were met. Lenin himself said that if Russia had to await mass understanding and support for socialism it would take 500 years to establish socialism. He thereby conceded that you couldnt have socialism un Russia at the time.
Well, I remember Lenin outlining quite well in "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" that there are better chances of a socialist revolution successfuly happening in underdeveloped countries, like Russia, where capitalism was still not that powerful than in high developed countries like Germany or Britain, where capitalism and imperialism were on their highest stages. And believing what he wrote he acted like that. If you don't believe me try reading what Lenin wrote about this in the book mentioned above.

More of your weird "logic". If something is compatible with something else this does not make it the same thing as ,or imply support for, the latter. All it means it does not contradict or get in the way of the latter. But I actually think the Boslsheviks reformist state capitalist objectives were indeed incompatble with revolutionary socialism anyway

So now the Bolshevists are also reformists! Before we go on, please show me where in the Bolshevik party programm their goals show reformism and what where their main aim, if not the ones the people supported them for or where lenin admitted that he has the intention to create a state capitalist system. You just claim that the Bolsheviks were state capitalists who just used socialist slogans in an opportunistic way to draw the masses on their side. But if you like it or not, they were a socialist party, I'm sure they would have used different tactics to get in power if this was the only thing they wanted, it's pretty ridiculous to set up a "socialist" party in order to hide your true powerhungry self and get to power in a time like that, this has probably been the most difficult, dangerous and laborious way to choose in tsarist Russia and definitely not the one which brought you to power easily.

I just you get yourself a good dictionary and look up the word opportunism. You clearly dont know what it means

ophttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifpor·tunhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifism n.: the conscious policy and practice of taking selfish advantage of circumstances, with little regard for principles. — opportunist, n. — opportunistic, adj.

Opportunism is interpreted in different ways, but usually refers to one or more of the following:

a political style of aiming to increase one's political influence at almost any price, or a political style which involves seizing every and any opportunity to extend one's political influence, whenever such opportunities arise.

the practice of abandoning in reality some important political principles that were previously held, in the process of trying to increase one's political power and influence.

a trend of thought, or a political tendency, seeking to make political capital out of situations with the main aim being that of gaining more influence or support, instead of truly winning people over to a principled position or improving their political understanding.
Ok, agreeing with this or do you understand anything else under "opportunism"? If you agree, please tell me in what way the Bolsheviks, as a revolutionary communist party, were opportunists. If fascist would have acted like them, if conservatives, social democrats, Mr. Obama would have acted like them, that would have been opportunistic. But they acted like a communists are expected to act. If there starts a (genuine) socialist revolution in Germany and I go to the streets and support them am I an opportunist then? In my opinion, no, I'm acting after my beliefs. If Mrs. Merkel runs out and supports tha masses and promises that the CDU will do the same, that is clearly opportunistic. So if the Czar would have done what the Bolsheviks did, he would have been an opportunist but the Bolsheviks just acted like they're expected to act: they, as communists, promised communist goals and supported the proletariat. Again, what's opportunistic when communists act like communists?

Here we go again. More ridiculous non-sequiturs. Just becuase the preconditions of a socialist revolution are not yet in place does not prevent you from working to establish those preconditions does it now? Whereever the socialist revolution first breaks out it would have to be on the basis that there was a massive socialist presence more or less everywhere else in the world at the time. You cannot have an isolated country implementing "socialism" while support for socialism was virtually non existent elsewhere. The idea is absurd
Well, for you maybe, for many other like me it is not. For me your idea that it's impossible to have a socialist country while there is not strong socialist presence around everywhere in the world seems much more absurd.

No you havent discovered a flaw in communism only a flaw in your own logic. Socialism has to be global. A third world country may not have a sufficiently developed infrastructure but this does not matter from a global perspective since the world as a whole (of which that country is a part) has the technological wherewithal to sustain socialism. All this goes to show is that you cannot have a third world country trying to implement socialism on its own without mass support for socialism elsewhere.
Elsewhere? You mean from first world countries, right? Are you honestly claiming that third world countries can never set up a socialist movement or revolution and achieve socialism/communism on their own since they are too underdeveloped and need us first worlders to help them out with mass support?

Why do you limit the choice to the czar, kerensky and the bolsheviks. Why is it not possible to oppose all three and stand full squarely for a socialist alternative? Acknowledging that socialism was not possible at the time does not mean there is no point in being a socialist. Any kind of socialist influence however small is an influence for the better on the nature of existence under capitalism
Yes, but what's your stance in this special sitaution? There was, according to you, no real socialist alternative, there were just these three sides which fought for power in Russia. So you would have stayed at home, maybe publishing socialist pamphlets and taking part in demonstrations but you would not have supported the revolution which means, sorry, there is simply no other way out, that either the Czar or Kerensky would have stayed in power and that Russia would have very likely been conquered by the German army and then... maybe you want to read a bit about "Ober Ost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ober_Ost)". And even if the Germans would have been beaten, I seriously doubt that life under Nicky or Kerensky would have been better and preferable compared to life in the USSR.

Nwoye

19th July 2009, 23:21

Such as? The stance of the Bolsheviks was perfectly simple - power should lie with the Soviets.
Except when Lenin thought it should lie with the factory committees.

Pogue

19th July 2009, 23:22

Except when Lenin thought it should lie with the factory committees.

He never thought this, and he openly admitted he was opposed to the committees.

ComradeOm

19th July 2009, 23:41

Except when Lenin thought it should lie with the factory committees.An extremely brief period in which Lenin's assumptions regarding the nature of the soviets were proven false. One of the occasions in which Lenin reverted to his left-wing instincts. Incidentally it also displays the degree to which Lenin did not decide Bolshevik policy - his proposals were marginalised by those Bolsheviks still in Petrograd and work within the various soviets continued uninterrupted

Nwoye

20th July 2009, 01:26

He never thought this, and he openly admitted he was opposed to the committees.
After the Bolsheviks came to power I'm sure he did.

An extremely brief period in which Lenin's assumptions regarding the nature of the soviets were proven false. One of the occasions in which Lenin reverted to his left-wing instincts. Incidentally it also displays the degree to which Lenin did not decide Bolshevik policy - his proposals were marginalised by those Bolsheviks still in Petrograd and work within the various soviets continued uninterrupted
Wait a sec, didn't the Bolsheviks originally support the factory committees? or at the very least work within them and defend them from outside criticism? I believe Lenin's position was pretty ambiguous on the matter, as he just insisted on some vague notion of "workers administering production" without explaining whether that meant through committees or through supervised state planning.

Led Zeppelin

20th July 2009, 11:18

Moved off-topic discussion to more suitable thread in History: Was the Bolshevik Revolution a "socialist" revolution? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/bolshevik-revolution-socialist-t113262/index.html)

ComradeOm

20th July 2009, 11:38

Wait a sec, didn't the Bolsheviks originally support the factory committees? or at the very least work within them and defend them from outside criticism? I believe Lenin's position was pretty ambiguous on the matter, as he just insisted on some vague notion of "workers administering production" without explaining whether that meant through committees or through supervised state planning.The Bolsheviks always worked closely with both the trade unions and factory committees. These, and other working class organs, were always bastions of support for the Bolsheviks and the transfer of power to the Soviet. However it was the latter that consistently remained the bedrock of Bolshevik propaganda and their image of a post-revolutionary society; the only exception being the brief period following the July Days when Lenin flirted with the idea of the factory committees (as opposed to the soviets) as the basis for revolution and socialism

And yes, you'd be amazed at just how much flak the Bolsheviks catch for the simple 'crime' of not being syndicalists

robbo203

20th July 2009, 19:44

The Bolsheviks always worked closely with both the trade unions and factory committees. These, and other working class organs, were always bastions of support for the Bolsheviks and the transfer of power to the Soviet. However it was the latter that consistently remained the bedrock of Bolshevik propaganda and their image of a post-revolutionary society; the only exception being the brief period following the July Days when Lenin flirted with the idea of the factory committees (as opposed to the soviets) as the basis for revolution and socialism

And yes, you'd be amazed at just how much flak the Bolsheviks catch for the simple 'crime' of not being syndicalists

From http://www.struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anticapPAM/antiorstate.html

Workers' Control or Controlled Workers?

It will be argued that Lenin advocated "workers' control." This is true, but a "workers' control" of a very limited nature. Rather than seeing "workers' control" as workers managing production directly, he always saw it in terms of workers' "controlling" those who did. It simply meant "the country-wide, all-embracing, omnipresent, most precise and most conscientious accounting of the production and distribution of goods." In other words, "over the capitalists" who would still manage production. Over time, this would "to the second step towards socialism, i.e. to pass on to workers' regulation of production."8

This is not all, this "workers' control" was always placed in a statist context. In May 1917, Lenin was arguing for the "establishment of state control over all banks, and their amalgamation into a single central bank; also control over the insurance agencies and big capitalist syndicates." He reiterated this framework later that year, arguing that "the new means of control have been created not by us, but by capitalism in its military-imperialist stage" and so "the proletariat takes its weapons from capitalism and does not 'invent' or 'create them out of nothing.'"9Thus "workers' control" would be exercised not by workers' organisations but rather by state capitalist institutions.
Once in power, the Bolsheviks implemented their version of workers' control and attacked other interpretations: "Accusations of 'anarcho-syndicalism' have always come in Russia from anti-worker, right-wing elements," one railroad committee spokesman put it, "how very strange that representatives of Bolshevik power now join in similar denunciations."10 The factory committees were hindered in their attempts to federate together and finally merged with the trade unions, bringing them under state control.
Lenin soon turned away from this limited vision of workers' control and raised the idea of "one-man management." This involved granting state appointed "individual executives dictatorial powers (or 'unlimited' powers)." Large-scale industry ("the foundation of socialism") required "thousands subordinating their will to the will of one," and so the revolution "demands" that "the people unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of labour." Lenin's "superior forms of labour discipline" are simply hyper-developed capitalist forms. The role of workers in production was the same, but with a novel twist, namely "unquestioning obedience to the orders of individual representatives of the Soviet government during the work."11
This support for wage slavery was combined with support for capitalist management techniques. "We must raise the question of piece-work and apply and test it in practice," argued Lenin, "we must raise the question of applying much of what is scientific and progressive in the Taylor system; we must make wages correspond to the total amount of goods turned out."12 Techniques designed and used by management to break the collective power of workers at the point of production were now considered somehow "neutral" when imposed by the Party.
_________________________________

Also check out these links which demolish the claims about the the Bolsheviks relationship with the
soviets and the factory committees
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/6498
http://libcom.org/library/role-soviets-russias-bourgeois-revolution-point-view-julius-martov