When were the soviets closed?

[Leaf]

I can't remember exactly what they were called. In Russia, at the time of the Revolution, there were soviets or councils or something which might have given a voice to the average worker. I have heard that Lenin closed them. If so, when did he? and why do you think he did? do you think he did the right thing? do you think this point is important?
Was closing these things a way of giving more power to his party, making it more centralised?
Thanks very much.

[bots]

1919. he closed them because they were being way too lame about the revolution. members of the soviets were giving top secrets to the americans. soviet union was in a war scenario so lenin started "war communism" which totally made sense. even an idiot like stalin knew that so he kept it up. and that's how the soviet union was born.

[Outinleftfield]

1919. he closed them because they were being way too lame about the revolution. members of the soviets were giving top secrets to the americans. soviet union was in a war scenario so lenin started "war communism" which totally made sense. even an idiot like stalin knew that so he kept it up. and that's how the soviet union was born.

And then the transformation of the communist party into a monopolized corporation/state was complete.

[Misanthrope]

members of the soviets were giving top secrets to the americans. .

Ah, the classic accusation of espionage. Such a cliche tactic, the state oppressing the populace.

[bots]

9/11 was a ... soviet job? lenin knocked down the towers.

[Искра]

1919. he closed them because they were being way too lame about the revolution. members of the soviets were giving top secrets to the americans. soviet union was in a war scenario so lenin started "war communism" which totally made sense. even an idiot like stalin knew that so he kept it up. and that's how the soviet union was born.
is this meant to be a joke or you are seriously retarded?
fucking troll

[cenv]

FWIW, the Red Scare took place because communists "were giving top secrets" away.:rolleyes:

Actions that take place in the name of anti-espionage or anti-terrorism are always more complicated than that.

[Durruti's Ghost]

members of the soviets were giving top secrets to the americans.

You do realize that the United States was not a world power at the time and that only 13000 American troops (compared to 50000 Czechoslovakian, 40000 British, 28000 Japanese, and 24000 Greeks) were sent to aid the Whites during the Civil War, right? Not to mention that Allied economic and diplomatic pressure ultimately played a major role in forcing the Japanese (the last foreign forces to remain in the Soviet Union) to leave.

[bots]

you can call me as many names as you like but i notice that none of you have answered the fellows questions. maybe because you know i'm right.

lenin closed the soviets in 1919 after the kronstadt uprising because trotsky told him to. america wasn't a major military power but they were the dialectically superior power. they were on the upswing in the age of imperialism and they knew it. so did everybody else. why do you think the french gave america the statue of liberty?

seriously. wikipedia it.

[Leaf]

well if he is trolling, perhaps someone could give a serious response...? :)
+ is wolves of paris allowed such an avatar^?

[hefty_lefty]

Are you talking about The Council of People's Commisars, headed by Lenin, created just after the revolution of 1917?

[Trystan]

They were never really "closed"; they were taken over by Communist Party bureaucrats and ceased to be organisations of the working-class.

[Q]

you can call me as many names as you like but i notice that none of you have answered the fellows questions. maybe because you know i'm right.
No, it's because you're an idiot.


lenin closed the soviets in 1919 after the kronstadt uprising because trotsky told him to.
You mean the Kronstadt uprising in 1922? ... Yeah.

america wasn't a major military power but they were the dialectically superior power. they were on the upswing in the age of imperialism and they knew it. so did everybody else.
The changing point from British to American (financial) superiority would not take place for another few years. Military dominance was only established after WW2.


why do you think the french gave america the statue of liberty?

seriously. wikipedia it.
Ok.


The Statue of Liberty (French: Statue de la Liberté), officially titled Liberty Enlightening the World (French: La Liberté Éclairant le Monde), dedicated on October 28, 1886, is a monument commemorating the centennial of the signing of the United States Declaration of Independence, given to the United States by the people of France to represent the friendship between the two countries established during the American Revolution

The French had an amazing foresight indeed!

[bots]

No, it's because you're an idiot.


You mean the Kronstadt uprising in 1922? ... Yeah.

The changing point from British to American (financial) superiority would not take place for another few years. Military dominance was only established after WW2.


Ok.



The French had an amazing foresight indeed!

looks to me like you're using the TROTSKYITE ANALYSIS.

seriously though i don't think anyone can give a straight answer to Leaf's question. conjecture, sure. opinions, yep. but no real answers.

therefore i am correct. lenin closed the soviets on trotsky's orders in 1919 after the disastrous kronstadt affair and the french gave their new boyfriend america the statue of liberty as a gift for giving them top secrets from the soviet union.

i rest my case.

[Durruti's Ghost]

looks to me like you're using the TROTSKYITE ANALYSIS.

seriously though i don't think anyone can give a straight answer to Leaf's question. conjecture, sure. opinions, yep. but no real answers.

therefore i am correct. lenin closed the soviets on trotsky's orders in 1919 after the disastrous kronstadt affair and the french gave their new boyfriend america the statue of liberty as a gift for giving them top secrets from the soviet union.

i rest my case.

How fucking thick are you? The Kronstadt Rebellion occurred in 1921 (this is the only point on which Q was incorrect); the Party began taking over the soviets long before. Thus, the "closing" of the soviets--which, as Trystan pointed out, wasn't really what happened--could not have been the result of the rebellion. The Statue of Liberty, meanwhile, was given to the United States in 1886--long before the Soviet Union existed.

No one else has responded to the OP's question, true. That's because we've been too busy refuting your plainly false remarks. Please, do yourself a favor and stop trolling.

As to the OP's question, this article provides an interesting account of the various organs of workers' power that arose during the Russian Revolution and how they were ultimately crushed or absorbed by the State:

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/6498

[bots]

How fucking thick are you? The Kronstadt Rebellion occurred in 1921 (this is the only point on which Q was incorrect); the Party began taking over the soviets long before. Thus, the "closing" of the soviets--which, as Trystan pointed out, wasn't really what happened--could not have been the result of the rebellion. The Statue of Liberty, meanwhile, was given to the United States in 1886--long before the Soviet Union existed.

No one else has responded to the OP's question, true. That's because we've been too busy refuting your plainly false remarks. Please, do yourself a favor and stop trolling.

As to the OP's question, this article provides an interesting account of the various organs of workers' power that arose during the Russian Revolution and how they were ultimately crushed or absorbed by the State:


actually Q said 1922. looks like you're using the anarchist analysis.

ps

not trolling, making a roundabout point.

[revolt4thewin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S69s8YyJMlM

[bots]

i didn't know stalin quoted marilyn manson.

[bots]

ps to durruti's ghost:

i misread your post. sorry about that.

[Pogue]

by about mid 1918 they were basically ineffective and the bolshevik state was in full control.

[bailey_187]

Late 80s/91

[bots]

wow my views were purged. i feel split about my hurt feelings.

[Q]

How fucking thick are you? The Kronstadt Rebellion occurred in 1921 (this is the only point on which Q was incorrect);
I stand corrected :blushing:

[What Would Durruti Do?]

threads like this are why i keep coming back to RevLeft

[Devrim]

The date that the first soviet was closed down by the state was November 9th 1917:


November 9
Decree dissolving soviet in the People's Commissariat of Posts and Telegraphs. (52) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1917#52)
The concept of workers' control had spread even to the Civil Service. A soviet of Employees had taken control of the People's Commissariat of Posts and Telegraphs and another had established itself in the Admiralty. On November 9 an appeal was issued by the People's Commissar for the Ministry (sic) of Posts and Telegraphs which concluded "I declare that no so-called initiatory groups or committees for the administration of the department of Posts and Telegraphs can usurp the functions belonging to the central power and to me as People's Commissar". (53) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1917#53)


Devrim

[Devrim]

Are there no comments on the fact that the Bolshevik party started to close down soviets les than a month after the revolution?

Devrim

[Glenn Beck]

They were closed on Sundays. But they were open till 4 AM Saturday morning on a BYOB basis.

[Dave B]

The Bolsheviks did start to shut the soviets from 1918 onwards when the elections for them didn’t turn out they way they would have liked them and when they became disobedient.

It is covered in Brovkins ‘The Mensheviks After October’.

It actually wasn’t the first time the Bolsheviks revoked the Slogan ‘all power to the soviets’ although in a somewhat different context.

J. V. Stalin

SPEECHES
DELIVERED AT AN EMERGENCY
CONFERENCE OF THE PETROGRAD
ORGANIZATION OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
(BOLSHEVIKS)

July 16-20, 1917




Therefore, at the present stage the slogan "All power to the Soviets!" has become obsolete.


http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/SEC17.html (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/SEC17.html)

[mel]

by about mid 1918 they were basically ineffective and the bolshevik state was in full control.

Only if you don't know anything about the Russian revolution. I might agree that the soviets were "basically ineffective", but there was nothing so organized as "the bolshevik state" which had any sort of degree of control. The bolsheviks were a large, disorganized mass party whose relationship with the standing state apparatus was complicated and multifaceted. It's really a wonder that anything got done at all from the revolution through the civil war, since the government of the USSR had more or less no identifiable structure until the early-mid '20s, and wasn't really fully functioning as a "centralized" state until the late 20's or early 30's, depending on how you define "fully functioning".

[Die Neue Zeit]

Are there no comments on the fact that the Bolshevik party started to close down soviets les than a month after the revolution?

Devrim

Is that November 9 in the Julian calendar or, worse, in the Gregorian calendar (a mere two days after the revolution)? :ohmy:

[Morpheus]

Officially Soviets continued to exist until the end of the USSR. When the bolsheviks shut down soviets they replaced them with stacked soviets filled with bolsheviks. Later, as the state evolved and went through different constitutions, the USSR's equivalent of parliament and city councils were called soviets.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

As a rule of thumb, anyone who tries to draw broad moralistic circles around the Bolsheviks - whether entirely good or bad - is a troll.

[Devrim]

Is that November 9 in the Julian calendar or, worse, in the Gregorian calendar (a mere two days after the revolution)? :ohmy:

New calender.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

looks to me like you're using the TROTSKYITE ANALYSIS.
No amount of Trotskyist analysis can change the fact that Kronstadt rebellion was after 1919.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

New calendar.

Devrim

Was the shutting down of this soviet really serious from a political perspective? I mean, it was shut down before the Constituent Assembly was shut down, but this wasn't a major soviet.

[ComradeOm]

Are there no comments on the fact that the Bolshevik party started to close down soviets les than a month after the revolution?

DevrimBut did they really?

Soviets, as I'm sure that you are aware, were not organised along factory/enterprise/ministry lines. Rather their basis was geographic in scope - district soviets, city/provincial soviets, regional congresses, etc, etc. What you have described in the "Civil Service" could, at best, be described as factory committees

I say "at best" because the civil servants of the Tsarist state apparatus was not renowned for their radical tendencies. On the whole, there were obviously exceptions, the civil servants greeted the transfer of power to the soviets with unconcealed hostility. This was almost universally the case in the immediate aftermath of the October Revolution. I strongly suspect that this "soviet" that was dismissed was nothing more than a counter-revolutionary body convened by reactionary minded civil servants (again, I stress that there were few other kinds of civil servant) to obstruct the establishment of the new revolutionary government as provided for by the Congress of Soviets

In this context Glebov-Avilov's statement (I assume it was him) makes perfect sense. Far from dismissing a soviet, he is in fact upholding the authority of the democratic Congress of Soviets and the government (the Sovnarkom) that it oversaw. The objection that he raises is not relating to his personal power but how the existence of this body interferes with the mandate entrusted to him by the larger soviet movement; that is, his authority in the role of People's Commissar

Of course such distinctions or level treatment are not likely to be found in Brinton's hack job

As an aside, can you clarify whether the "Admiralty" referred to above is the headquarters of the Imperial Fleet or the Admiralty (or New Admiralty) Works? Unfortunately I've not got access to my reference material but I do recall that the latter were convulsed with strife between industrial workers and 'white collar' engineers during this period. I can't recall if it was prior to October or immediately afterwards though. May be relevant

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thanks for clarifying indeed, but Sovnarkom too wasn't really organized along geographic lines. ;)

[ComradeOm]

Thanks for clarifying indeed, but Sovnarkom too wasn't really organized along geographic lines. ;)Hmmm? I don't quite understand what you mean here

The Sovnarkom was indeed, as a product of the soviets, constructed and run on a geographic basis. That is, its jurisdiction was defined in spatial terms. Whereas the individual soviets were limited to their local areas - and the factory committees and unions to the individual workplace or industry - both the Congress of Soviets and Sovnarkom were All-Russian bodies that were responsible for activities throughout the RSFSR. Its just that the geographic scope of these latter two organisations happened to be national

Again, compare with the discrete workplace or industry wide organisations of the factory committees and unions respectively. But its not a major point

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, no, I meant that Sovnarkom was merely an organ of the Congress which later on became the superior body (already superior to the CEC earlier). Sovnarkom was more like a bourgeois cabinet than a soviet in any leftist interpretation: Trotskyist a la 1905 (without party involvement), council-communist a la factory committees (again, not much party involvement), or Menshevik-SR a la 1917 (formed by parties).

[Devrim]

But did they really?

Soviets, as I'm sure that you are aware, were not organised along factory/enterprise/ministry lines. Rather their basis was geographic in scope - district soviets, city/provincial soviets, regional congresses, etc, etc. What you have described in the "Civil Service" could, at best, be described as factory committees

The term 'Soviet' merely means workers council. Yes they were organised on a geographic basis, but were also organised on other basis too. For example there were Soldiers soviets. I don't know the details about the one at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, but I have no reason to doubt that it could be a soviet.

Nor do I think that closing down factory committees would be any more justifiable.



I say "at best" because the civil servants of the Tsarist state apparatus was not renowned for their radical tendencies. On the whole, there were obviously exceptions, the civil servants greeted the transfer of power to the soviets with unconcealed hostility. This was almost universally the case in the immediate aftermath of the October Revolution. I strongly suspect that this "soviet" that was dismissed was nothing more than a counter-revolutionary body convened by reactionary minded civil servants (again, I stress that there were few other kinds of civil servant) to obstruct the establishment of the new revolutionary government as provided for by the Congress of Soviets

It is the PTT (minus the last T as they weren't invented then). I hardly think that the average postman was a white guard officer.


Of course such distinctions or level treatment are not likely to be found in Brinton's hack job

Nor do I think Brinton's work is a 'hack job'. I disagree with his politics, but the documentation is impressive.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

The term 'Soviet' merely means workers council. Yes they were organised on a geographic basis, but were also organised on other basis too. For example there were Soldiers soviets. I don't know the details about the one at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, but I have no reason to doubt that it could be a sovietAnd the "soldiers' soviets" are typically referred to as "soldiers' committees" exactly for this reason - to distinguish them from the 'official' 'Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets' and the 'Peasants' Soviets'. That is, to emphasise the difference between a simple council of workers/soldiers/peasants and those associated with the revolutionary Soviet movement. I've already provided the example of the factory committees - technically 'soviets' (ie, 'councils') but nonetheless different from what we refer to as 'soviets'


Nor do I think that closing down factory committees would be any more justifiableA good thing that its a moot point then given that factory committees were overwhelming concentrated in industrial enterprises and its ludicrous to imagine civil servants forming one mere days after the October Revolution. Certainly I'm not aware of any such committee being affiliated with the Petrograd CCFC. So I was being extremely generous with my "best case" scenario


It is the PTT (minus the last T as they weren't invented then). I hardly think that the average postman was a white guard officerTo quote Brinton himself: "The concept of workers' control had spread even to the Civil Service". He then later refers to the Admiralty in the same paragraph/context. Do you also believe that the latter was a conflict with sailors?


Nor do I think Brinton's work is a 'hack job'. I disagree with his politics, but the documentation is impressiveThe problem being that his politics directly influences the documentation. Brinton is not a historian and this entire pamphlet (let's not pretend that it is a serious academic work) is nothing but an example of historical assassination. His trawling of the archives is impressive but the resultant work is a carefully chosen selection of out-of-context quotes and dates. He is little better than those on this site (one or two have already appeared in this thread) who are more than capable of producing a Lenin quote culled from MIA but lack even the most basic grasp of the events of 1917 and beyond. Its a politically motivated hatchet job that is fatally undermined by its intent. I'd actually rate the likes of Pipes above Brinton

To give a single example, according to Brinton the establishment of Vesenkha was intended to "silence still further the voice of the Factory Committees" but he ignores the fact that the Petrograd CCFC themselves had been amongst the first to advocate the creation of a national economic body following October! This is the sort of deliberate omission that typifies his work as he attempts to construct a false dichotomy in which the evil Bolsheviks are placed in conflict with the anarcho-syndicalist Factory Committees. In this narrative every move to centralise the economy is seen as some sort of Bolshevik plot foisted on the brave Committees while the popularity of the Bolsheviks is explained by their duplicitous nature*. In short, its nothing short of nonsense that uses politically motivated lies to construct a more pleasing anarchist narrative

You, and everyone else with an interest in this topic, should do yourself a favour and read Smith's Red Petrograd for a real and comprehensive academic work on the Petrograd labour movement from 1917-1918. It blows away many of the romantic myths that have grown up around the Bolsheviks and workers' control

* Apparently Bolshevik policy in the unions and FCs differed because, "they were not averse to a considerable amount of double talk in the pursuit of [a] double objective". Evil Bolsheviks. It couldn't be that the Bolsheviks in these various organisations (who incidentally almost invariably comprised the most militant and revolutionary workers) were receiving little direction from the party centre? Here Brinton ignores all research on the Bolsheviks (Rabinowitch was publishing long before this pamphlet was written) to insist that they were actually a monolithic organisation following a uniform party line and to gloss over the very real differences in policy amongst the fractions. There were, for example, major differences between Bolshevik dominated unions (the insistence of the woodturners' union to remain independent springs to mind) and ironically Smith concludes that, "as far as the Bolshevik leadership was concerned, the trade unions were less reliable allies than the factory committees"

[Devrim]

It is the PTT (minus the last T as they weren't invented then). I hardly think that the average postman was a white guard officerTo quote Brinton himself: "The concept of workers' control had spread even to the Civil Service". He then later refers to the Admiralty in the same paragraph/context. Do you also believe that the latter was a conflict with sailors?

No, I don't think that the Admiralty is a place run by sailors. Postmen are in many countries considered to be civil servants. When I was a postman in London , they were and I was even required to sign the Official Secrets Act to walk round the streets delivering letters.


And the "soldiers' soviets" are typically referred to as "soldiers' committees" exactly for this reason - to distinguish them from the 'official' 'Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets' and the 'Peasants' Soviets'. That is, to emphasise the difference between a simple council of workers/soldiers/peasants and those associated with the revolutionary Soviet movement. I've already provided the example of the factory committees - technically 'soviets' (ie, 'councils') but nonetheless different from what we refer to as 'soviets'

I am not at all interested in a semantic argument as to what qualifies as an 'official Soviet'.


The problem being that his politics directly influences the documentation. Brinton is not a historian and this entire pamphlet (let's not pretend that it is a serious academic work) is nothing but an example of historical assassination.

You seem to have a touching faith in academia. as seen on the other thread:


As an aside, I very much agree with which doctor. This is a particular pitfall when you study an event like the Russian Revolution and its exactly why I prefer professional historians. Personally I don't read works that have been explicitly motivated by political ends (I was recently discussing Brinton's hack job in another thread) because they're undermined by the sort of political assumptions that have no place in serious works of history

I don't share this faith. I also realise that professional historians have as much of a political axe to grind as political militants. Look at Eric Hobsbawn, or Niall Ferguson, both well respected British historians for obvious examples.


It couldn't be that the Bolsheviks in these various organisations (who incidentally almost invariably comprised the most militant and revolutionary workers) were receiving little direction from the party centre? Here Brinton ignores all research on the Bolsheviks (Rabinowitch was publishing long before this pamphlet was written) to insist that they were actually a monolithic organisation following a uniform party line and to gloss over the very real differences in policy amongst the fractions.

Just on a factual point Rabinowitch had published one book before two years before this pamphlet was published (not written). Most of his work came much latter.


In this narrative every move to centralise the economy is seen as some sort of Bolshevik plot foisted on the brave Committees while the popularity of the Bolsheviks is explained by their duplicitous nature*. In short, its nothing short of nonsense that uses politically motivated lies to construct a more pleasing anarchist narrative

Here, I didn't claim to agree with the political conclusions, buy said that 'the documentation was impressive'. However, Brinton wasn't an anarchist, and it is not in fact an 'anarchist narrative' as you claim, which sort of reflects your understanding of what he was arguing. Have you actually read it?

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

No, I don't think that the Admiralty is a place run by sailors. Postmen are in many countries considered to be civil servants. When I was a postman in London , they were and I was even required to sign the Official Secrets Act to walk round the streets delivering lettersAnd you assume that the same was the case in 1917 Petrograd? Please, Posts and Telegraphs was a government department like any other. The context of Brinton's writing definitely suggests, to me at least, that he was talking about the "Civil Service" (note capitals). If you can prove otherwise of course....

[Edit: That is, if you can show that this so-called "soviet" was in any way affiliated with the Petrograd CCFC or Workers' and Soldiers' Soviet]

Incidentally, John Reed notes (Chpt 6, Ten Days that Shook the World) that in the days following the transfer of power to the Soviets, "telegraphers refused to transmit despatches, the postmen would not handle their mail". All hail the revolutionary postmen of Petrograd :rolleyes:


I am not at all interested in a semantic argument as to what qualifies as an 'official Soviet'Of course you're not. Like Brinton you are content to apply the label of "soviet" to anything and everything that reflects poorly on the Bolsheviks regardless of the actual differences or realities. Its nothing short of intellectual dishonesty

And no, I'm not going to let you run to the refuge of "semantics". I'll ask again: do you believe that there were real and practical differences between the Factory Committees and the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets? If so, do you think it is acceptable for a historian to simply ignore these differences and refer to them all as "soviets"?


You seem to have a touching faith in academiaIts true that I do feel that the best people to write authoritative accounts of history are professional historians. Are they always shorn of bias? Of course not, that would be an impossibility. Nonetheless, in this regard all but the worst accounts of the Russian Revolution (such as Pipes) compare favourably to Brinton's


Just on a factual point Rabinowitch had published one book before two years before this pamphlet was published (not written). Most of his work came much latterPrelude to Revolution was published in 1968 and decisively tackled the issue of supposed Bolshevik unity. It was at the time one of only a handful of works by a Western academic that dealt exclusively with the revolutionary period of 1917 (I think Pipes beat him by a year or two). There's no excuse for historians to miss such landmarks of research... unless of course you disavow the role of historians to begin with. This is what happens when amateurs try and write history


Here, I didn't claim to agree with the political conclusions, buy said that 'the documentation was impressive'And I've said that that is worthless praise. In such a politically motivated work (Brinton's "political conclusions" shaped the pamphlet and not the other way round) the degree of "documentation" is [b]irrelevant because this documentation has been selectively sampled from


However, Brinton wasn't an anarchist, and it is not in fact an 'anarchist narrative' as you claim, which sort of reflects your understanding of what he was arguingI was referring to the wider case that the factory committees comprised some sort of syndicalist alternative to the Bolsheviks. Whatever about Brinton himself, this is very much an anarchist argument and has been forwarded by the likes of Avrich, not to mention countless drones here on RevLeft. Frankly I couldn't give a damn about Brinton's political position aside from the fact that his opposition to the Bolsheviks drips from almost every paragraph. In this regard he's no better than Pipes and substantially worse than Figes

[Devrim]

Incidentally, John Reed notes (Chpt 6, Ten Days that Shook the World) that...

Hang on a minute, he was a political militant not a historian, and he was certainly partizan. Is it OK to use histories that aren't written by professional historians that you agree with?


The context of Brinton's writing definitely suggests, to me at least, that he was talking about the "Civil Service" (note capitals). If you can prove otherwise of course....

Incidentally, John Reed notes (Chpt 6, Ten Days that Shook the World) that in the days following the transfer of power to the Soviets, "telegraphers refused to transmit despatches, the postmen would not handle their mail". All hail the revolutionary postmen of Petrograd :rolleyes:

Well the quote from 'Ten Days...' would certainly suggest that there was reason to suppress any talk of workers control in the Post Office.

I didn't claim that the postmen were revolutionaries, but that their 'soviet' was suppressed. Nor did I make any comment on whether the Bolsheviks were correct to suppress it. I do think though that one must attempt to win workers to revolutionary positions by argument not by decree from above.


Of course you're not. Like Brinton you are content to apply the label of "soviet" to anything and everything that reflects poorly on the Bolsheviks regardless of the actual differences or realities. Its nothing short of intellectual dishonesty

And no, I'm not going to let you run to the refuge of "semantics". I'll ask again: do you believe that there were real and practical differences between the Factory Committees and the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets? If so, do you think it is acceptable for a historian to simply ignore these differences and refer to them all as "soviets"?

The period of the revolution was one of intense confusion as revolutionary periods tend to be. I find it quite likely that there were organisations calling themselves soviets that don't fit with what some western academics would refer to as a soviet today. That does not mean that there were no differences between soviets and factory committees. Indeed in the summer, the Bolsheviks were looking to the factory committees rather than the soviets.


[B]Prelude to Revolution was published in 1968 and decisively tackled the issue of supposed Bolshevik unity. It was at the time one of only a handful of works by a Western academic that dealt exclusively with the revolutionary period of 1917 (I think Pipes beat him by a year or two). There's no excuse for historians to miss such landmarks of research... unless of course you disavow the role of historians to begin with. This is what happens when amateurs try and write history

Which agrees with what I said. Brinton's pamphlet was published in 1970.


And I've said that that is worthless praise. In such a politically motivated work (Brinton's "political conclusions" shaped the pamphlet and not the other way round) the degree of "documentation" is irrelevant because this documentation has been selectively sampled from

All historians selectively sample data, whether professional or not, to prove their own thesis. That does not mean that this data is irrelevant as you put it.


I was referring to the wider case that the factory committees comprised some sort of syndicalist alternative to the Bolsheviks. Whatever about Brinton himself, this is very much an anarchist argument and has been forwarded by the likes of Avrich, not to mention countless drones here on RevLeft. Frankly I couldn't give a damn about Brinton's political position aside from the fact that his opposition to the Bolsheviks drips from almost every paragraph.

This sounds like the same sort of sampeling and bias to me.

I ask again:


Have you actually read it?

Devrim

[chegitz guevara]

No amount of Trotskyist analysis can change the fact that Kronstadt rebellion was after 1919.

Luís Henrique

I am in awe at how many people Bots trolled so easily. :thumbup:

[ComradeOm]

Hang on a minute, he was a political militant not a historian, and he was certainly partizan. Is it OK to use histories that aren't written by professional historians that you agree with?Its a primary source, not a work of history


I didn't claim that the postmen were revolutionaries, but that their 'soviet' was suppressed. Nor did I make any comment on whether the Bolsheviks were correct to suppress it. I do think though that one must attempt to win workers to revolutionary positions by argument not by decree from aboveAnd I've rubbished the idea that the thoroughly reactionary Tsarist Civil Service (in which even lowly postmen were allocated a place in the Table of Ranks) ever organised 'soviets' in any revolutionary sense. There may well have been a 'council' established to resist the transfer of power to the soviets but it is farcical to today refer to these in the same sense as the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets or the factory committees

When you strip the phrase to its bare translation (ie, include any and all councils/committees), as you and Brinton have done, then it becomes absolutely meaningless and, I repeat, nothing short of dishonest. Do you also accept that the All-Russian Committee for the Salvation of the Homeland and the Revolution was similarly a "soviet"? What about the Black Hundreds and other reactionary cliques? Do you think that the OP meant either of these when he spoke of bodies that gave "a voice to the average worker"?

[Edit: Not to mention the Sovnarkom - Совет народных коммиссаров. You accept that this was also a soviet?]

The so-called soviet of the Posts & Telegraphs, never mind the Admiralty, appears to be nothing more than a counter-revolutionary body of civil servants that was unaffiliated with either the Congress of Soviets or the Petrograd CCFC and actively opposed the transfer of power to the Soviet. Yet you and Brinton accept the most banal and broadest definition of "soviet" in order to portray this reactionary assembly on par with the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets and thus damn the Bolsheviks for insisting that there could be no alternative to the latter

Yet you accuse me of semantics!


The period of the revolution was one of intense confusion as revolutionary periods tend to be. I find it quite likely that there were organisations calling themselves soviets that don't fit with what some western academics would refer to as a soviet today. That does not mean that there were no differences between soviets and factory committeesYet, and correct me if I'm wrong here, Brinton was not a early 20th C Russian worker. He was a (pseudo-)historian looking back from over half a century after the event and at a time when the terminology was quite well established. There is no just reason whatsoever for his failure to distinguish between a 'soviet' and simple council/committee. Indeed IIRC he consistently does so when differentiating between soviets and factory committees

I repeat once again that what we have here is nothing short of a disgraceful example of double standards, the sole purpose of which is to further Brinton's 'character assassination' of the Bolsheviks

Although perhaps you seriously contend that a reactionary body that called itself a soviet (as you said, meaning 'council') should be treated in the same manner as a factory committee or a 'proper' soviet?


Indeed in the summer, the Bolsheviks were looking to the factory committees rather than the sovietsHmmm? No, that was Lenin's position (rather briefly) following the July Days. It was never accepted by the rest of the party leadership who continued to advocate action through the soviets

I'm sorry, "...who continued to advocate action through the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets"


All historians selectively sample data, whether professional or not, to prove their own thesis. That does not mean that this data is irrelevant as you put itThere are very few professional historians (even around a field as charged as the Russian Revolution) who write from such a blatant political viewpoint. Let's not forget that we are not discussing an academic work but a pamphlet published by an anti-Bolshevik council communist (roughly) organisation. We have just discussed above a perfect example of how Brinton 'massaged' the facts and terminology to suit his thesis! I know of no other historian (even Pipes) who would make such a blatant mischaracterisation. This is a political work and can only be treated as such

I've also provided other examples in an above post as to how Brinton, and others, have constructed a historical narrative that bears little relation to reality by deliberately omitting or selectively including facts


This sounds like the same sort of sampeling and bias to meThen you have no idea what either term means. Although I am flattered that you consider me to be on par with a professional historian


Have you actually read it?Yes

[Devrim]

This is a political work and can only be treated as such


All histories are political works.


And I've rubbished the idea that the thoroughly reactionary Tsarist Civil Service (in which even lowly postmen were allocated a place in the Table of Ranks) ever organised 'soviets' in any revolutionary sense. There may well have been a 'council' established to resist the transfer of power to the soviets but it is farcical to today refer to these in the same sense as the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets or the factory committees

When you strip the phrase to its bare translation (ie, include any and all councils/committees), as you and Brinton have done, then it becomes absolutely meaningless and, I repeat, nothing short of dishonest. Do you also accept that the All-Russian Committee for the Salvation of the Homeland and the Revolution was similarly a "soviet"? What about the Black Hundreds and other reactionary cliques? Do you think that the OP meant either of these when he spoke of bodies that gave "a voice to the average worker"?

The so-called soviet of the Posts & Telegraphs, never mind the Admiralty, appears to be nothing more than a counter-revolutionary body of civil servants that was unaffiliated with either the Congress of Soviets or the Petrograd CCFC and actively opposed the transfer of power to the Soviet. Yet you and Brinton accept the most banal and broadest definition of "soviet" in order to portray this reactionary assembly on par with the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets and thus damn the Bolsheviks for insisting that there could be no alternative to the latter

Yet you accuse me of semantics!

I have actually made no comment on this thread about my opinions of the Bolshevik party. Nor have I claimed that this group of workers was in any way revolutionary. It is quite clear though that you are using a semantic definition of the word Soviet to justify the action taken.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

I have actually made no comment on this thread about my opinions of the Bolshevik party. Nor have I claimed that this group of workers was in any way revolutionary. It is quite clear though that you are using a semantic definition of the word Soviet to justify the action takenI think it is quite clear from the above that it is Brinton, and by extension yourself, that is engaging in semantic wordplay

The OP asked "when were the soviets closed?" and you respond by stating that on 9 November 1917 a council of some indeterminate shape or form was abolished by a People's Commissar. This is nothing short of dishonest and misleading; it is a case of deliberately mixing the terminology to further your case. And then you have the gall to openly challenge people to explain why "the Bolshevik party started to close down soviets"!

To restate, the reality is that the "soviet" of the Posts & Telegraphs was certainly not a 'soviet' in the sense of being an workers council officially affiliated with the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets. Given the behaviour of the Tsarist civil service in general, and the post office in particular (ref Reed), it was probably not a revolutionary organ in any way shape or form. This is not even touching on the Admiralty, in which Brinton also charges that a 'soviet' existed. It is ludicrous to suggest that these bastions of reaction somehow gave rise to revolutionary organs of workers' control

Yet you have no problem standing up and proclaiming that the Bolsheviks "closed down" soviets mere days after the transfer of power to the soviets. Now I have been using the definition of 'soviet' (ie, Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets) uniformly accepted by both common parlance and historians. Yet when I challenged you on this point it is you who retreated into semantics by using an extremely literal definition; one that, as noted above, would include the Sovnarkom and a host of openly reactionary White bodies!

Yet you have no qualms in using such a ridiculously broad definition to answer an honest question from the OP and then to accuse me of wordplay

[Die Neue Zeit]

When you strip the phrase to its bare translation (ie, include any and all councils/committees), as you and Brinton have done, then it becomes absolutely meaningless and, I repeat, nothing short of dishonest. Do you also accept that the All-Russian Committee for the Salvation of the Homeland and the Revolution was similarly a "soviet"? What about the Black Hundreds and other reactionary cliques? Do you think that the OP meant either of these when he spoke of bodies that gave "a voice to the average worker"?

[Edit: Not to mention the Sovnarkom- Совет народных коммиссаров. You accept that this was also a soviet?]

Did you read Macnair's critique of "all power to the soviets" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/separate-economic-parliaments-t118633/index.html?p=1573185)? Only this bourgeois cabinet equivalent could have coordinated the civil war effort, among other government functions, because it expressed the rule of political parties.