Screw the Bolsheviks?

[Drace]

I find the Bolshevik's use of force for the achievement of democractical socialism to be contradictory task. Their violence was practiced not against the bourgeoisie but the people's will.

From their very beginning of power, the Bolsheviks ousted the provisional government. The election was stolen, which placed social democrats as the majority and the Bolsheviks only as 1/4 of the votes (receiving only 10 million votes out of about 44 million).

The surrounding nations, consisting of many ethnicities, were forced into the USSR. One of such was the First Republic of Armenia, already being led by the socialist Armenian Revolutionary Federation.

All this on a platform of a feudal society that was not ready for socialism.

The USSR built a very anti-democratic system. Lenin's concept of a Vanguard party itself made responsible a few man in charge of building socialism for a country of millions.

The rest of the history comes as totalitarianism, repression, purges, central planning, etc.

Democratic socialism can only be achieved democratically and only by the peoples will. Feel free to show me the greatness in the Bolsheviks. Until then, I am remain an Anarchist.

[commyrebel]

yes they did kinda fail but for lenin he wasn't in power long enough for him to be blamed for all of stalin actions plus the fact that stalin basically killed the rest of the competition to gain power

[La Comédie Noire]

I agree with everything you say, but you leave out the fact every organized party in Russia at the time wanted to keep Finland and other territories within the empire. You also have to remember the provisional government was very unpopular and viewed as incompetent, especially after the failed June Offensive.

[Drace]

I still disagree with Lenin's idea of a Vanguard Party as well as how he got into power (going against a popular vote by the people).


I agree with everything you say, but you leave out the fact every organized party in Russia at the time wanted to keep Finland and other territories within the empire.Including the Anarchists? :rolleyes:


You also have to remember the provisional government was very unpopular and viewed as incompetent, especially after the failed June Offensive.Right, and the Bolsheviks stopped the involvement in WW2 as soon as they got into power.
But was the Bolsheviks the only alternative to the provisional government?

Also, banning the ARF wasn't a big help. I wonder how popular the other socialist parties in other countries were.

[La Comédie Noire]

Including the Anarchists?

My mistake.



Right, and the Bolsheviks stopped the involvement in WW2 as soon as they got into power.
But was the Bolsheviks the only alternative to the provisional government?

I don't think it was, who knows what would have happened if all the socialist parties had been allowed to exist and the soviets truly had power.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

[Drace]

I don't think it was, who knows what would have happened if all the socialist parties had been allowed to exist and the soviets truly had power.



Exactly what I am wondering, but my guess it would have gone better otherwise.

[Crux]

the provisional government was not elected on the basis of one man one vote, but rather it was an income dependent voting system giving the boruguise and the rich landowning farmers a completly disproprtionate power. The provisional government wanted to continue the war effort in the fucking firtst world war. The bolsheviks called for power to be moved to the worker's coucnils, even when they themself did not have majority there, because those were far more democratic and representative bodies than the provisional government ever were. Krerenskij, leader of the provisional governemnt tried to stage a military coup together with general kornilov when they realized they were losing support.and no parties were outlawed by the bolsheviks, with excpetion of the fascist organisation the black hundreds, before they (the right wing of th so called "Socialist revolutionary party" the traditional peasants party and the mensheviks) choose to take up arms against the worker's councils. and you are right no party called for the independence of finland. Except for, you know, the bolsheviks. The right to national-self determination and all that you know. I could go on, but that ought to set at least some things straight.

[Drace]

Interesting, do you have any good reading on this?


and no parties were outlawed by the bolsheviks, with excpetion of the fascist organisation the black hundreds, before they (the right wing of th so called "Socialist revolutionary party" the traditional peasants party and the mensheviks) choose to take up arms against the worker's councils.

Considering the Soviet Union was a one party state, that's hard to believe.

The ARF as I already mentioned, was banned from 1920 all the way to 1991. If they banned socialist parties I am quite sure they banned just pretty much all others.

[Crux]

well, yes but as I said when the civil war started those parties that took up arms against the reds were banned. as far as I am aware most anarchists actually joined the red side. there actually a pretty cool letter by lenin on that. There were also plans for actually giving away a piece of russia to the anarchists, but as the war raged on it become more of either you are with us or against us. I would guess the anarchists were banned after the kronstadt uprising, of which I imagine we have different views, but which I think we can agree did take up arms against the Red Army. Civil wars are rarely pretty or orderly.

[Crux]

this might be of interest: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/aug/28.htm

[Devrim]

The surrounding nations, consisting of many ethnicities, were forced into the USSR. One of such was the First Republic of Armenia, already being led by the socialist Armenian Revolutionary Federation.

There is very little that is socialist at all about the ARF. It is an extremist nationalist organisation.

Devrim

[Comrade Anarchist]

Democracy will lead to socialism. Socialism will lead to totalitarianism. If you want a massive redistribution of wealth you must have a centralized state powerful enough to use force. Democracy will lead to socialism but once socialism has become the dominant then democracy becomes its enemy b/c of the unreliable and mob nature of democracy. Force is the only way to actually make people fit socialism. Lenin only had the revolution to gain personal power and he used the overwhelming public disgust toward the monarchy as a tool to gain power. Once in power he implemented a truly socialistic society without democracy and with total control of production and labor b/c without that control someone would benefit over others therefore defeating socialism. So in conclusion socialism has to do away with democracy or else it will be overthrown. I am against democracy and since it leads to socialism i am against socialism and in turn it leads to totalitarianism so i am against totalitarianism.

[danyboy27]

There is very little that is socialist at all about the ARF. It is an extremist nationalist organisation.

Devrim

and it was not the buisness of some foreign power to interphere in their societies.

Interventionism suck.

[RGacky3]

Democracy will lead to socialism. Socialism will lead to totalitarianism.

No it won't.


If you want a massive redistribution of wealth you must have a centralized state powerful enough to use force.

No you don't, the vast majority of the people just need to take the wealth from the small minority and then make it public, the small MINORITY, needs a strong state to stop that from happening.


Democracy will lead to socialism but once socialism has become the dominant then democracy becomes its enemy b/c of the unreliable and mob nature of democracy. Force is the only way to actually make people fit socialism.

No, because socialism IS democracy.


Once in power he implemented a truly socialistic society without democracy and with total control of production and labor b/c without that control someone would benefit over others therefore defeating socialism. So in conclusion socialism has to do away with democracy or else it will be overthrown. I am against democracy and since it leads to socialism i am against socialism and in turn it leads to totalitarianism so i am against totalitarianism.

He did'nt imliment a socialistic society at all, did the workers have control over the means of production? Was the economy democraticaly controlled? Nope, so it was'nt socialism was it, at all.

You don't know what your talking about AT ALL.


So in conclusion socialism has to do away with democracy or else it will be overthrown. I am against democracy and since it leads to socialism i am against socialism and in turn it leads to totalitarianism so i am against totalitarianism.

No it does'nt, socialism IS democracy.

[Zanthorus]

going against a popular vote by the people.

If I remember rightly Lenin lost the vote in the constituent assembly but won the vote from the soviets.

[Crux]

and it was not the buisness of some foreign power to interphere in their societies.

Interventionism suck. If this is an attempt at a dis against the bolsheviks I sure do hope you realize the massive irony.

[Crux]

Democracy will lead to socialism. Socialism will lead to totalitarianism.
So basically democracy leads tot totalitarianism? Newspeak much?


If you want a massive redistribution of wealth you must have a centralized state powerful enough to use force.
Absolutely, in fact the most common redistribution of wealth is that from the working class, in the form of surplus value extracted from their labour, to the capitalist class. The state of course is in the hands of the capitalist class, so, in the most simplified way, the state is the armed force of capital. Of course the state itself is also an arena for class struggle but just so you get gist.


Democracy will lead to socialism but once socialism has become the dominant then democracy becomes its enemy b/c of the unreliable and mob nature of democracy.
So you think democracy inevitably leads to socialism and thus you oppose democracy? I would disagree about the inevitability there, but sure the ruling class has always seen the latent threat of any system that gives people any kind of option not purely defined by profit. That's why you can find nary one example of market liberalization reforms that have been allowed to be directly affected by the democratic process, that's how the ruling class uses parliament. But in quite a few cases, like Chile or Russia (or countless other examples, tianmen square etc etc) they have been forced to use openly dictatorial measures to strengthen their position.


Force is the only way to actually make people fit socialism. Lenin only had the revolution to gain personal power and he used the overwhelming public disgust toward the monarchy as a tool to gain power. Once in power he implemented a truly socialistic society without democracy and with total control of production and labor b/c without that control someone would benefit over others therefore defeating socialism.
I would counter that with those pesky little thing's called "facts" and "history", but just to be sure, can you actually back anything of what you just said up? With any source at all? Lenin seem very much like some bizzare superhuman in your portrayal.


So in conclusion socialism has to do away with democracy or else it will be overthrown. I am against democracy and since it leads to socialism i am against socialism and in turn it leads to totalitarianism so i am against totalitarianism.
So slavery is freedom?

Here is a quote for you, as I suspect it is the lack of private property which causes you to throw around words like "totalitarian":

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

-The Communist Manifesto

[RGacky3]

yes they did kinda fail but for lenin he wasn't in power long enough for him to be blamed for all of stalin actions plus the fact that stalin basically killed the rest of the competition to gain power

No, but you can blame Lenin for Lenins actions, some of which were dispicable and hypocritical.


If I remember rightly Lenin lost the vote in the constituent assembly but won the vote from the soviets.

Won the vote from the soviets that the BOlsheviks recognized :P, many elections of other soviets were just ignored.

[Ismail]

yes they did kinda fail but for lenin he wasn't in power long enough for him to be blamed for all of stalin actions plus the fact that stalin basically killed the rest of the competition to gain powerWhat does this have to do with Stalin? He's talking about the 1917-24 period, and there was certainly enough centralization, erosion of direct workers control, etc. and overall actions done by the Central Committee at that time for discussion. It wasn't just "Lenin kinda did some stuff, and then died. Then Stalin came along and babies were eaten." Lenin's activities were done due to the unique position of Russia at the time, and although understandable, they had long-term repercussions.

A good (if liberal and dated) book on this can be sound online via Google search: The Origin of the Communist Autocracy (http://www.archive.org/details/originofthecommu012303mbp).

I would just like to note this:

The surrounding nations, consisting of many ethnicities, were forced into the USSR. One of such was the First Republic of Armenia, already being led by the socialist Armenian Revolutionary Federation.The Armenian SSR was a state within a state, and was guaranteed the safeguarding of its language and culture. To support self-determination for the sake of it is reactionary. Although there are legitimate concerns over chauvinism, the worst hit were the Chechens and overall Muslim peoples, not the Armenians, Baltic peoples, Ukrainians, etc.

See: http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-imperialism-nationalist-t128292/index.html?t=128292

[danyboy27]

If this is an attempt at a dis against the bolsheviks I sure do hope you realize the massive irony.

not against the bolshevik, against those who consider alright to send armed forced and agents to fuck up other peoples societies.

its up to the people to change their political and social environnement, nothing more, nothing less.

[Ismail]

and it was not the buisness of some foreign power to interphere in their societies.

Interventionism suck.But you're defending a bourgeois state, not the people within it. There's a difference between a society and a state. Had the Bolsheviks went in and tried to genocide the Armenians or deny them their language or whatever I'd see your point, but they didn't. The point is to focus on the nations within the states, not the states themselves. Self-determination does not automatically mean "X deserves a state," since under capitalism it isn't like most states are really independent to begin with (and to dispute that is to engage in bourgeois nationalism). Self-determination means the ability of a people to unite and to exist on an equal basis with other nationalities, which was the goal of the USSR: a federation of (constitutionally) independent states.

[ls]

and it was not the buisness of some foreign power to interphere in their societies.

Interventionism suck.

So it's not the case that revolutionaries should stop Armenian nationalists from murdering their own workers in the name of 'self-determination'?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

To be fair it didn't turn into a single party dictatorship until the Left Social Revolutionaries started a rebellion in Moscow. After reading a lot about the history the USSR started as a good thing but after a few months it had already gone downhill. But what really sucked was that the real competition was the Social Revolutionaries(The Mensheviks were almost irrelevant by now) among the socialist parties and they wanted to continue the war even if Russia was totally invaded because they didn't want German annexations of territories. Anarchists supported the war too because it was defensive and they didn't want to be under German rule. The only big party who wanted to end the war was the Bolsheviks. So if the war continued the Soviet state would have been most likely destroyed and since the war did end the Soviet state became a deformed workers state and then state capitalist.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I find the Bolshevik's use of force for the achievement of democractical socialism to be contradictory task.
I hope you are aware that every single social and economic system that ever existed was established at first through violence.

[bcbm]

I hope you are aware that every single social and economic system that ever existed was established at first through violence.

primitive communism?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I hope you are aware that every single social and economic system that ever existed was established at first through violence.
Yeah but in the American Revolution they didn't start a red, white, and blue terror did they.

[Dimentio]

Yeah but in the American Revolution they didn't start a red, white, and blue terror did they.

It wasn't really a revolution against a domestic elite, but a revolution by a domestic elite against a foreign elite.

[Dimentio]

primitive communism?

It was probably quite violent after the Toba eruption 75 000 years ago...

[Nolan]

Yeah but in the American Revolution they didn't start a red, white, and blue terror did they.

No one was overthrown. The British were kicked out, but the power structure barely changed. The colonial elite became the American elite.

[Ismail]

No one was overthrown. The British were kicked out, but the power structure barely changed. The colonial elite became the American elite.Yes, and there were certainly rebellions that were crushed (e.g. Shay's Rebellion).

A good book on this is Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html).

The encouragement the American "revolution" gave to the far more important French one years later is one of the few things that made the rebellion progressive.

[Drace]

A good book on this is Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html).

Im reading that right now. It certainly is a good book. I recommend it.