Spontaneous Uprisings?

[¿Que?]

I just finished the 8th chapter of Trotsky's Russian Revolution ("Who Led the February Insurrection?"), and I don't totally understand it.

Trotsky argues against a spontaneous uprising, but I am not clear as to who actually led the February revolution. He certainly says it wasn't the Bolsheviks, as all the leadership was in exile. So it seems spontaneous to me, although Trotsky repeatedly says this is nonsense. Here's how he concludes the chapter:


To the question, Who led the February revolution? we can then answer definitely enough: Conscious and tempered workers educated for the most part by the party of Lenin.That seems to suggest to me that it was a spontaneous action by educated workers. But not if you ask Trotsky.

Also, I read a paper that argued that Rosa Luxemburg favored spontaneous action of the proletariat over Lenin's centralist strategy. However, aside from that, I don't really know what the logic behind each argument was.

So what are the arguments for and against spontaneous action?

[FSL]

Also, I read a paper that argued that Rosa Luxemburg favored spontaneous action of the proletariat over Lenin's centralist strategy. However, aside from that, I don't really know what the logic behind each argument was.

So what are the arguments for and against spontaneous action?

One of these two ended up murdered by nationalist thugs. You probably know/can understand which one.


Edit: And by the way Luxembourg and other german communists did found the KPD after all, even if it was too late.

[Blake's Baby]

It depends by what you mean when you say 'spontaneous'. Neither Lenin, nor Trotsky, claimed that the Bolsheviks had led the revolution. That's fine; they didn't. Trotsky's argument is that the propaganda work of the RSDLP helped the working class in the process of becoming class-conscious, but that it was the working class, the most advanced elements of the working class, that 'led' the revolution; not that there weren't leaders but that the leaders were those who, in the factories and the neighbourhoods, agitated and organised locally. These people he argues were inspired and educated by the Bolsheviks.

Luxemburg also sees a similar proces going on, though she's critical of the Bolsheviks' methods of organisation. Honestly, I think the distinction between 'Luxemburg the Spontaneist' and 'Lenin the Manipulator' is pretty spurious. Both believed that the party, representing the most theoretically-advanced sections of the working class (a 'vanguard' if you will) had a role to play in propagandising to the working class, and both believed that it was up to the working class itself to make a revolution.

[chegitz guevara]

Spontaneous is a strange word. The Russian word that is often translated as spontaneous is stikhiinyi. It actually means something close to elemental, primordial, a deep unconscious instinct. It's not planned, but comes from an elemental urge. The German word that was used by revolutionaries was urwüchsig, which has a similar meaning to the Russian word.

In English, spontaneity also means unplanned, but frivolously so, whimsical. Oh, I feel like having a revolution today, lol!

From what I've read, the February revolution was not led by any particular party, but it was led by people who had been influenced and led by the socialists (Menshevik, Bolshevik, and SRs). Imagine if you had been working with some workers at a factory, and they went and led a strike. Your organization would not have led the strike, but those workers you were working with would have done so.

[ComradeOm]

With regards February, this article (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~semp/revolution.htm) (The Russian Revolution of February 1917: The Question of Organisation and Spontaneity) may be of interest