Why did lenin disband the Soviets?

[StoneFrog]

I was wondering since at the start the Bolsheviks where all for the soviets, what happened?

[fa2991]

The Bolsheviks wanted to centralize power in the party, presumably.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Lenin viewed the soviets as tools of political expediency and instruments of rule (especially against the Mensheviks, who took the position that the soviets would play second fiddle to more conventional organs of democratic republicanism once the dust had settled), rather than sovereign bodies. Once they had served their purpose, they were no longer needed, and steadily lost influence until they went the way of the dodo.

[thälmann]

lenin NEVER disband the soviets, they were the structure of the state until 92. the communist party led the soviets politically, what was right. wrong was the fact that the soviets become just subordinate for the party in daily work and has nothing to do.

[Os Cangaceiros]

lenin NEVER disband the soviets, they were the structure of the state until 92. the communist party led the soviets politically, what was right. wrong was the fact that the soviets become just subordinate for the party in daily work and has nothing to do.

I think that there's a pretty big difference between the soviets as they existed in the early years of the USSR vs. the soviets as they existed in '92.

[thälmann]

yes, of course. i just want to say that nobody disband the soviets, especially not lenin. they were powerful enough, that jelzin had to attack the highest soviet 1993 with tanks to make his privatization politics...

[syndicat]

the first local soviet elections to take place in Russia after the elections won by the Bolsheviks in Aug-Sept 1917 were in the spring of 1918. In 19 cities the Bolsheviks lost. In all those cases the Bolsheviks either overthrew the Soviet, replacing it with a party-controlled Revolutionary Military Committee, or refused to leave office, backing up the existing officials with armed groups. This was when Lenin started talking about "the dictatorship of the party."

Part of the theory of the "vanguard party" is that it is the repostory of true Marxism which is supposed to ensure it alone represents working class interests. So overthrow of the soviets was excused on the grounds that workers were "demoralized" by "petit bourgeois ideology"...since by definition only the Bolshevik party's ideology was proletarian.

So, the problem here is in seeing the party as the seed of socialism rather than seeing the direct rule of workers as the basis of socialism.

[StoneFrog]

From what i've heard, the Mensheviks thought of the soviets as to take the back seat to the party, and the Bolsheviks thought of it more as a focal point during the early years and leading up to the control of Russia. Is this true, if so did the Bolsheviks in essence take a Mensheviks stance?

[Lolshevik]

the first local soviet elections to take place in Russia after the elections won by the Bolsheviks in Aug-Sept 1917 were in the spring of 1918. In 19 cities the Bolsheviks lost. In all those cases the Bolsheviks either overthrew the Soviet, replacing it with a party-controlled Revolutionary Military Committee, or refused to leave office, backing up the existing officials with armed groups. This was when Lenin started talking about "the dictatorship of the party."

Part of the theory of the "vanguard party" is that it is the repostory of true Marxism which is supposed to ensure it alone represents working class interests. So overthrow of the soviets was excused on the grounds that workers were "demoralized" by "petit bourgeois ideology"...since by definition only the Bolshevik party's ideology was proletarian.

So, the problem here is in seeing the party as the seed of socialism rather than seeing the direct rule of workers as the basis of socialism.

documentation on this please?

[syndicat]

the overthrow of the soviet elections in the spring of 1918 is discussed in detail by historian Vladimir Brovkin in "The Mensheviks After October" and also by Sam Farber in "Before Stalinism".

[howblackisyourflag]

Because he was a bastard with no manners.

[Obs]

Welp, this turned into a circle-jerk pretty quickly.

[Zanthorus]

I'm not familiar with the details, but several objective factors certainly contributed to the 'disbanding' (This is, strictly speaking, not what happened. The Soviets did not 'disband', they became useless organs) of the Soviets above and beyond the Bolsheviks will to power. Sovnarkom was engaged in a civil war with the white armies which certainly stretched it's resources. Russia was still feeling of the economic crisis which had been going on since mid-1917. Perhaps the biggest problem was the peasantry. The Bolsheviks had organised land grabs for the peasantry which had broken up the large estates and (re)created a system of petty-family production by the lower and middle peasantry. This resulted in the peasantry being unwilling to send grain to the cities (A problem which had already been present in the war years in Tsarist Russia).


Lenin viewed the soviets as tools of political expediency and instruments of rule (especially against the Mensheviks, who took the position that the soviets would play second fiddle to more conventional organs of democratic republicanism once the dust had settled), rather than sovereign bodies. Once they had served their purpose, they were no longer needed, and steadily lost influence until they went the way of the dodo.

I don't think this is true, or at least not the premise that the Bolsheviks were out to outmaneveur the other Socialist parties in Russia. At the second All-Russia congress of Soviets the Bolshevik delegates endorsed the proposal of the menshevik Martov for a coalition government drawn from all the parties present at the congress. The Right Social-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, however, began denouncing the MRC's actions against the Provisional government, and walked away from the Soviets, ending the possibility of any coalition.

[StoneFrog]

Would anyone know any good reading sources on this subject? I feel i need to learn as much as i can about the role of the soviets, and how the Bolsheviks perceived their role.

[Paulappaul]

The British Libertarian Socialist, Maurice Brinton, does perhaps the most in Depth and Enlightening description of the relationship between the Bolsheviks and the Workers Organization - i.e. the soviets, the trade unions and cooperatives - from 1917 - 1921.

Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/index.htm)

[Amphictyonis]

There wasn't a large industrial working class, the countryside/farmers dominated the region at the time and there were so many factions and potential wars going on perhaps a single unified party was necessary to move forward. Once industry was established it would have been nice to see the soviets gain democratic control but it didn't happen. Stalin was a meatshit. I don't think advanced communism could have form in an isolated Russia anyhow. WW2 and the subsequent cold war also retarded the advance of socialism. It wasn't just the antidemocratic policies of Stalin.