The fate of the October Revolution - a work in progress study

[BogdanV]

I'm not certain if this should go in the "Learning" section, but since its specifically a problem of history, I thought I should post here.

I want to make a study of the combined elements that lead to the Revolution's ideals being betrayed. I want to try to understand why did a proletarian revolution end up with replacing one master (the bourgoisie) with another (the beurocratic elite).

This will end up as a presentation for a "Communications Session" on history. (hopefully, at a national level).

I did some research and grasped the general outline.
What I'm lacking is details. I'd like to hear justifications both from the official, bolshevik line and from the opposition (menshevics, kadets, socialist-revolutionaries, etc.).

Lenin probably considered that the situation was too unstable to actually start giving freedoms to the newly formed workers commitees, but this is just my own speculations.

I'm not taking sides here; I just want to hear all the views from both sides.


Can anyone direct me to whatever reading material there is on this matter ?

Thanks in advance !

[Kiev Communard]

Can anyone direct me to whatever reading material there is on this matter ? Thanks in advance !

Of course!


Markus van der Linden. Western Marxism and the Soviet Union (Historical Materialism Book Series)



Western Marxism and the Soviet Union (Historical Materialism Book Series)
By Marcel van der Linden

http://th.gigapedia.com/th/34/336925.jpg


Publisher: BRILL
Number Of Pages: 380
Publication Date: 2007-07-30
ISBN-10 / ASIN: 9004158758
ISBN-13 / EAN: 9789004158757


Product Description:

If the Soviet Union did not have a socialist society, then how should its nature be understood? The present book presents the first comprehensive appraisal of the debates on this problem, which was so central to twentieth-century Marxism.

Hyperlink - (PDF, 19 MB) http://ifile.it/wjiv675/van_der_lind...viet_union.pdf

These books should be useful either:

Christopher Read. From Tsar to Soviets: The Russian People and Their Revolution, 1917-21 - Taylor & Francis, 1996

http://bks3.books.google.com.ua/books?id=PGpzByVknW4C&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&edge=curl&sig=ACfU3U29wbPpLPbbgpyOsvLYebV7nB2s3w

Written from the perspective of the factory worker and peasant at the ground level, this study of Russia during the Revolution 1917-21 aims to shed light on the realities of living through and participating in these tumultuous events. The book is intended for undergraduate courses in history, Soviet studies, and politics.

http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=PGpzByVknW4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=From+Tsars+to+Soviets&hl=uk&ei=nf3HTIshjYuzBtPD1MYG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Vladimir N. Brovkin. The Mensheviks After October: Socialist Opposition and the Rise of the Bolshevik Dictatorship (depicts October Revolution from the Menshevik point of view) - Cornell University Press, 1991

http://bks2.books.google.com.ua/books?id=cP0xLtu1aZgC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&edge=curl&sig=ACfU3U0zJzLUxdqW6aPQvzYycHH4_lQRJg

http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=cP0xLtu1aZgC&pg=PA46&dq=October+Revolution+Menshevik+view&hl=uk&ei=Yv7HTKv0CYaWswbtvoCVDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=October%20Revolution%20Menshevik%20view&f=false

Simon Pirani. The Russian Revolution in Retreat, 1920-24: Soviet Workers and the New Communist Elite. - Routledge, 2008.

http://bks0.books.google.com.ua/books?id=UYHqe8q3rIQC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&edge=curl&sig=ACfU3U26olZKqemVForeujmvaGKROVscow

This book examines the relationship between the Russian Communist Party and the Russian working class between 1920-24, immediately after the civil war and during the first years of the New Economic Policy (NEP). Based on extensive original research, which casts much new light on this period, both from the perspective of the rank and file as well as the leadership, the book discusses working-class collective action in 1920, workers' responses to the 1921 crisis, including the Kronstadt revolt, and the successes of the non-party workers' movement in the elections of 1921. It shows how during and after the 1921 crisis the working class was politically expropriated by the Bolshevik party, and how democratic forms such as soviets and factory committees were deprived of decision-making power. Simon Pirani examines how during this period the Soviet ruling class began to take shape, preferring in 1922-23 mass mobilization campaigns in which workers remained politically passive, rather than theparticipatory mass democracy which had flourished in 1917. The Russian Revolution in Retreat, 1920-24 shows how, whilst some people argued that the principles of 1917 had been betrayed, others accepted a social contract under which workers were assured of improvements in living standards in exchange for increased labour discipline and productivity, and a surrender of political power, with political power becoming concentrated in the party, and, increasingly, in the party elite.

http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=UYHqe8q3rIQC&pg=PA38&dq=Left+SRs&hl=uk&ei=MQDITMDnJsrKswaul7D2DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=Left%20SRs&f=false

Melissa Kirschke Stockdale. Paul Miliukov and the Quest for a Liberal Russia, 1880-1918 (pro-Cadet view)

http://bks9.books.google.com.ua/books?id=tyuFHvDDsSkC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=5&edge=curl&sig=ACfU3U1Ww68_zPw2TbFiXteT9FEU85Oiig

http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=tyuFHvDDsSkC&pg=PA354&dq=Miliukov+on+October+Revolution&hl=uk&ei=yQDITIvKFofAswbStrHGBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Miliukov%20on%20October%20Revolution&f=false

[Lyev]

Kiev, are you an advertiser for google books or something? :lol:
There are different analyses that postulate a variety of answers and conclusions as to why the the revolution was "betrayed". And maybe I am guilty of this at times, but often these different ideas will be tainted and effected in one direction or the other by sectarian bias. Sometimes people, pehaps myself included, read what they want to read, and then emphasize it, and ignore what they don't want to see, and downplay it.

Anyway, some historians might argue that, although the rank-and-file of the Bolsheviks' membership was largely proletarian in its class composition, the leading echelons of the party were, in fact, petit-bourgeois. And of course Marx tells us that our consciousness -- our class interests and actions thereof -- are a reflection of social being. So, then, the revolution, whilst havings an overwhelmingly proletarian (and peasant) base, degenerated because of the petit-bourgeois ideology that gradually seeped into the movement. There are perhaps various mistakes made by the Bolsheviks that follow from this, like some people talk about the liquidation of the factory-committees or the suppression of strikes or whatever. I'm not that well-read on this, so maybe when it comes to specific examples I'm a bit weak.

Furthermore, another big reason is, in short, the complication and setbacks caused by the civil war. It put a massive strain on internal party democracy (for example, the banning of factions in 1921, I think). Russia in general has always had problems with periodic famine, but surely the war will have worsened this, as the countryside (the peasantry) were subordinated to the urban, industrial cities in the name of the war effort. Also, on top of this, there was an economic slump - production lagged behind and, in 1920, was a fifth of what it was in 1913. I don't think full-scale nationalisation of industry could take place until late 1920, into '21 (this would have been more conducive to efficient production and distribution). And I think the more contentious aspects of Bolshevik policy (the NEP, War Communism) snowballed. I think they backed themselves into a corner. And the very rigid, strict way the civil war was carried out opened doors for a more bureaucratic, top-down administration.

One final point, linking into the civil war again, was the actual amount of people that simply died. The most dedicated and resolute party members would be the ones sent to front to die, yet these same theorists, writers and activists would also be the men and women needed later in consolidating and crystallizing the gains made by the revolution. The Russian working class was severely thinned out and watered down by the destruction of the war with the whites. This is something that ComradeOm (a user on here) talks about a lot. He says here that, by "1920 at the latest"
Petrograd [had] lost up to 75% of its population in 2-3 years, Moscow's [had] nearly halved

This process severely weakened the proletariat in terms of both its actual numerical strength and, more importantly, its class conciousness. The result was a corresponding collapse in the strength of the soviet movement which effectively ended any possibility of constructing a social order

[Kiev Communard]

Kiev, are you an advertiser for google books or something? :lol:

He asked about the sources that examined different viewpoints on the issue. It is not my fault that the majority of relevant sources in the Internet are not in open access, therefore we have to content ourselves with incomplete Google previews :D.

[Kiev Communard]

Concerning the official position of Bolsheviks, I think that Lenin's Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Kautsky, The Trade Unions, the Present Situation and the Trotsky's Mistakes, and Letter to the British Workers, as well as Trotsky's Terrorism and Communism are most helpful in this regard. All of them can be found in open access from Marxist Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/). Also, check the Workers' Opposition documents (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/workers-opposition/index.htm)from 1921 for dissident Bolsheviks' point of view.

[BogdanV]

Sorry for digging a ancient thread from the grave, but I thought it was worth the compromise because I'm still working on the subject and wanted to add some new thoughts here.

I've found a book from the Central Library here ("Lenin and Trotsky vs Ludendorff and Hoffmann" - translated title from romanian) that basically contains former intel reports (from the German and Austro-Hungarian intelligence), accounts and testimonies regarding Germany and Austro-Hungaria's interest and support of Lenin and its bolsheviks.

First thing that strikes me is that the bolsheviks cooperated with the imperialists and secondly, the promises that Lenin made to the German Reich, with regards to the Reichsbank's activities in Russia and the joint Russian-German exploitation of Russia's resources sounds really ... disturbing.

Okay, maybe it was a alliance of convenience (but I don't have the evidence to back this up). The Germans wanted the Eastern front neutralized and Lenin wanted its revolution. But still, all the accounts I've read have left a bitter taste in my mouth.

The Germans wanted, of all the revolutionary movements in Russia, for the bolsheviks to reign supreme. Considering how people were divided in their support, removing any and all forms of left-wing opposition really crippled democracy.

Also, the army; was it really necessary to weaken the military structure in such a unstable climate ? The Reich was, by definition, a class enemy. Same as for the tzarist and foreign reactionary elements inside.
Indeed, the actions taken in order to grant power to the soldiers were progressive, but IMHO, the time wasn't right.


Also, thanks for your links comrades. I'm still trying to search these books (not featured online) through libraries.

[ComradeOm]

I missed this first time round. Check my sig for a list of books that deal with the Revolution and the evolution of the young Soviet state. Lyev's given a good summary of some of the underlying factors but this is still a question that nobody, to my mind, has yet adequately answered. That is, how did a vibrant and democratic revolutionary movement degenerate into a despotic dictatorship? I've got a few good, if incomplete, ideas but one thing is certain - there is no single or easy answer to this question


The Germans wanted, of all the revolutionary movements in Russia, for the bolsheviks to reign supreme. Considering how people were divided in their support, removing any and all forms of left-wing opposition really crippled democracy.Lenin and the Bolsheviks were certainly not German agents. Their popularity and rise to power had nothing to do with Berlin. The only notable appearance of Germany during the events of 1917, aside from the actual war of course, was when Kerensky fabricated the claims that Lenin was a German agent in the aftermath of the July Days. Nor can the decline of the Mensheviks or Right SRs be traced to some German-Bolshevik plot


Also, the army; was it really necessary to weaken the military structure in such a unstable climate ?If by "weaken" you mean 'challenge the prevailing reactionary power structures within the military' then I would argue that this was necessary. Those who wanted to 'strengthen' the army were calling for the re-imposition of the death penalty and Tsarist disciplinary codes. Pretty much all the revolutionary parties in Russia were agreed that this was impossible and Order No 1 is something for which the Bolsheviks can take little credit for. Any other argument would have merely been revolutionary defencism


First thing that strikes me is that the bolsheviks cooperated with the imperialists and secondly, the promises that Lenin made to the German Reich, with regards to the Reichsbank's activities in Russia and the joint Russian-German exploitation of Russia's resources sounds really ... disturbing.Any more so than Soviet trade missions to Sweden or Britain? None of these external deals came to anything and the Bolsheviks proved surprisingly adapt at running rings around foreigners looking for economic concessions

[Rooster]

I'm not sure if I'll be lambasted for advising these but what ever. Look into Adam Curtis' documentary called Pandora's Box. It deals with ideas of technocracy and rationality and goes on about the Soviet Union for a good deal of it. And if you're wanting a good light distraction from hard study then look for Mark Steel's radio broadcast where he talks about the Russian Revolution. I can't provide links yet, but they're both readily available on the internet.

[S.Artesian]

Sorry for digging a ancient thread from the grave, but I thought it was worth the compromise because I'm still working on the subject and wanted to add some new thoughts here.

I've found a book from the Central Library here ("Lenin and Trotsky vs Ludendorff and Hoffmann" - translated title from romanian) that basically contains former intel reports (from the German and Austro-Hungarian intelligence), accounts and testimonies regarding Germany and Austro-Hungaria's interest and support of Lenin and its bolsheviks.

First thing that strikes me is that the bolsheviks cooperated with the imperialists and secondly, the promises that Lenin made to the German Reich, with regards to the Reichsbank's activities in Russia and the joint Russian-German exploitation of Russia's resources sounds really ... disturbing.

What do you mean by "cooperated"? If you mean did not wage a revolutionary war against Germany rather than accept the conditions Germany offered-- that was hardly cooperation. In December 1917, Lenin conducted meetings with representatives from the military fronts, urban garrisons, and navy fleets. The meetings included questionnaires that Lenin had the reps provide written response to.

The results of this confirmed that the Russian military was in no shape to continue combat with Germany, even in a defensive mode, much less undertake a broad offensive.

For more on this see Rabinowitch's The Bolsheviks in Power.

In any case, Lenin's position was the minority position in the central committee [and even more of a minority in the Petrograd and Moscow party organizations]. The left-communists held the majority-- until almost everyone decided to accept Trotsky's proposal to simply walk away from the negotiations and declare the war over as being the best solution.


Okay, maybe it was a alliance of convenience (but I don't have the evidence to back this up). The Germans wanted the Eastern front neutralized and Lenin wanted its revolution. But still, all the accounts I've read have left a bitter taste in my mouth.
It left a bad taste in everybody's mouth. Lenin, whatever shortcomings, authoritarian tendencies etc etc etc., he may have had was not in favor of revolutionary suicide. He was convinced international revolts would prevent the Central Powers from maintaining, for long, any territory ceded under the duress of the collapse of the Russian military.


The Germans wanted, of all the revolutionary movements in Russia, for the bolsheviks to reign supreme. Considering how people were divided in their support, removing any and all forms of left-wing opposition really crippled democracy.
And the bourgeoisie would have preferred the Mensheviks. So what? The Russian working class, after the low point of the July days, turned more and more to the Bolsheviks as the only party that would defend the revolution and would actually act on all power being centered in the soviets. The Russian working class was right.


Also, the army; was it really necessary to weaken the military structure in such a unstable climate ? The Reich was, by definition, a class enemy. Same as for the tzarist and foreign reactionary elements inside.
Indeed, the actions taken in order to grant power to the soldiers were progressive, but IMHO, the time wasn't right.The Bolsheviks didn't weaken the military. The class struggle weakened the military. You might as well ask if there was it really necessary to execute a revolution in such an unstable climate? In fact it is the "unstable climate" that makes the revolution necessary as the alternative is 2,3, many Kornilovs, Pinochets, Francos, whatever.

One more thing-- interesting book on the Bolsheviks' attempt to right the economy through trade [another form of "cooperation," and war] with imperialism:

Heywood's Modernizing Lenin's Russia