The Great October Socialist Revolution

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

In celebration of the 86th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, I have decided to post this awesome miniseries of articles all about the Bolshevik Revolution from the Revolutionary Worker that they put out a few years ago. I hope you enjoy these articles.

Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!
Long Live Lenin!
Long Live the Great October Socialist Revolution!
Power to the People!


80th Anniversary

The 1917 October Revolution:
How the Bolsheviks Seized Power
Revolutionary Worker #931, November 9, 1997

The ruling class preaches that armed revolution is impossible. They say the system is too powerful to be overthrown by oppressed people. And they say that even if revolution happened, the people would just make a mess out of everything, and end up suffering even worse. But history shows they are lying. History shows that revolution is possible and very liberating!

1997 marks the 80th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. In 1917 the working class in Russia rose in an armed insurrection and seized the capital city, Petrograd. It was the beginning of the first successful proletarian revolution in history....

Part I: http://rwor.org/a/v19/930-39/931/octrev.htm
Part II: http://rwor.org/a/v19/930-39/932/bolsh2.htm
Part III: http://rwor.org/a/v19/930-39/933/bol3.htm
Part IV: http://rwor.org/a/v19/930-39/934/bol4.htm

Enjoy, comrades, and have a great Bolshevik Revolution Day!

http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/ww/lenin/lenin-ix.gif

[Ian]

I'll follow up those article with one from last years Communist Party of Australia newspaper, The Guardian, called Commemorating the Russian Revolution



Commemorating the Russian Revolution


If anyone doubts the role for peace and social progress played by the
1917 Russian socialist revolution, the present dangerous world situation
should dispel such doubts. Following the dismemberment of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), imperialism is running virtually out of
control and the social and economic gains made by the people of the world
are under unprecedented attack.

The government of the socialist Soviet Union became for many years the main
voice for peace and disarmament. It was the Soviet Union that immediately
called for the banning of nuclear weapons both before and after it also
became a nuclear power. It was at the forefront in the United Nations in
efforts to eliminate chemical and biological weapons. The call was for ALL
NATIONS to dump such weapons and to steadily reduce all weapons of mass
destruction.

Together with the support of millions of people around the world and the
organised peace movements some progress was made. The Anti-Ballistic
Missile treaty was concluded which resulted in some reduction of nuclear
weapons. It is this treaty (among a number of others) that the Bush
administration has torn up.

Without the Soviet Union's strong voice for disarmament in the United
Nations there are now no real moves in this direction by any other country.

The Soviet Union exercised a strong restraining hand on the bellicose
leadership of successive US Presidents. Bush is merely the latest and the
most aggressive of all, but with no USSR to restrain him.

The Soviet Union's existence helped the liberation movements of the former
colonies. One after another they achieved their political, if not their
economic independence. They received generous material assistance from the
USSR and other socialist countries to start building up their economies.

The Soviet Union gave tremendous assistance to Vietnam and helped protect
Cuba from invasion. The breakup of the Soviet Union created great
difficulties for these and many other nations.

The socialist system gave the people of the Soviet Union free education to
university level and at a high standard. The people enjoyed universal
access to free medical services, extremely cheap rent and paid next to
nothing for public transport, telephones, central heating, electricity and
water.

The Soviet Union was the first country to introduce such standards and, by
example, helped the people of many other countries make gains in their
social services. In Australia, despite a number of advances (for example
Medicare and the abolition of university fees under Whitlam) we did not
achieve the same level as in the Soviet Union. Now the gains made are being
taken back.

The Soviet Union played by far the greatest role in the defeat of Hitlerism
in WW 2. Despite the enormous destruction wreaked by the Nazi invaders,
with a planned economy and the determination of the people, the economy of
the Soviet Union was quickly restored and developed to become the second
most powerful industrial power after the United States.

These achievements, and there were many more, were made under the
leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. They were building a
new type of society without exploiters and with a new morality based on the
collective good. That there were shortcomings and mistakes is beyond
dispute but the advances made for the people far surpassed anything
achieved by capitalism.

From day one of the Russian revolution the capitalist powers sought to
prevent the building of a socialist society and overthrow governments
committed to socialism. Socialism was and is a mortal danger in the eyes of
those who profit from the exploitation of the labour of others.

That they succeeded in overthrowing socialism in the Soviet Union is a
tragedy not only for the people of the former Soviet Union but for the
whole world.

If Bush should get away with the launch of a new war in the Middle East a
major factor in this will be the absence of the Soviet Union. The economic,
political and military power of the Soviet Union would have helped the
people of the world straitjacket such warmongering politicians as Bush,
Blair and Howard.

But time marches on and revolutionaries and progressives around the world
will not forget the experience and achievements of the Soviet Union. Not
even Bush is capable of stopping the march of history.


SOURCE (http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve5/1117edit.html)


HAPPY ANNIVERSARY COMRADES!

[ernestolynch]

Comradely Greetings and Regards to all 'Fellow Travellers'

Thanks Cdes Andrei and Ian for the above posts.

(10 minutes rapturous applause)

;)

[Ian]

:lol: *takes a bow*

"PEACE! BREAD! LAND!"

[apathy maybe]

I know I'm not the only one who doesn't like Lenin around here. In fact I have to say that he shouldn't have done what he did (kill of all the opposition). Russia could have stayed socialist, got out of the war with Germany, and fought of the forign forces, with out Lenin and Co seizing power.

[Ian]

Well most socialists, communists (Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists), and any historian would disagree with you, but hey if you have the fortitude to make such a claim go ahead, just dont back off when someone asks you to expand and put forward a convincing argument, which I am now doing. You made the claim, the onus is on your shoulders to convince me and any other person who reads what you wrote, by all means go ahead, just don't back off.


Anyone else notice the stupidity in saying


Russia could have stayed socialist [...] with out Lenin and Co seizing power.

I noticed a hell of a lot of stupidity, because as we all know the provisional government was socialist... oh no wait... that's right... socialism only came about AFTER 'Lenin and Co seizing power.'

So please enlighten us how the Socialist provisional government could have

Stayed Socialist
Got out of war with Germany
Fought off the foreign forces

Without 'Lenin and Co seizing power.', and please remember Russia was in the Nazi's Lebensraum and was not just attacked because of Lenin

[apathy maybe]

Right, this will take some time, so I will not be doing it now (at 10:23 PM). Give me a couple of days and I'll try and put forward a convincing arguement about how Russia could have done without Lenin and Co siezing power. So I guess the first point to make is, they could well have worked with the other socialists properly. The second is that the provisional govt. never had any power. The Soviets had the power, and the provisional govt. knew this. Will expand on this latter.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Lenin was a true revolutionary; he honestly believed in the principles of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. The somewhat authoritarian measures he ended up implementing were a response to Imperialist aggression and the Civil War, as well as counter-revolutionary elements in his own party.

The revolution was later betrayed by Stalin. He acted against Lenin's intentions, and turned Soviet Russia into a nightmarish police state; a terrible perversion of Lenin's dream.

Lenin had previously warned the Central Committee (in his political testament) about Comrade Stalin:



Comrade Stalin, having become general secretary has immeasurable power concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient control.' (29 December, 1922)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Stalin is too rude, and this fault, entirely acceptable in relations between communists, becomes completely unacceptable in the office of General Secretary. Therefore I propose to the comrades that a way be found to remove Stalin from that post and replace him with someone else who differs from Stalin in all respects, someone more patient, more loyal, more polite, more considerate.' (4 January 1923)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lenin was the master!!! We are not worthy to speak his name!!!

[the SovieT]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 8 2003, 05:36 PM
Lenin was a true revolutionary; he honestly believed in the principles of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. The somewhat authoritarian measures he ended up implementing were a response to Imperialist aggression and the Civil War, as well as counter-revolutionary elements in his own party.

The revolution was later betrayed by Stalin. He acted against Lenin's intentions, and turned Soviet Russia into a nightmarish police state; a terrible perversion of Lenin's dream.

Lenin had previously warned the Central Committee (in his political testament) about Comrade Stalin:



Comrade Stalin, having become general secretary has immeasurable power concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient control.' (29 December, 1922)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Stalin is too rude, and this fault, entirely acceptable in relations between communists, becomes completely unacceptable in the office of General Secretary. Therefore I propose to the comrades that a way be found to remove Stalin from that post and replace him with someone else who differs from Stalin in all respects, someone more patient, more loyal, more polite, more considerate.' (4 January 1923)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lenin was the master!!! We are not worthy to speak his name!!!
carefull now, we all know Lenin´s stance on the cult of personality ;)





and apathy, good luck (you'l need it ) :lol: :D :lol: :D

[ernestolynch]

Fuck me! One mini-trot and an anarchid are going to put us all to rights tomorrow.

Can't fucking wait. Anyone got any spreadsheets they want doing? :lol:

[Ian]

I hate spreadsheets, can't do them at all.

[ernestolynch]

Neither can I - but faced with a choice between a spreadsheet and the insane rantings of a Trot or an Anarkid, I know what I choose!

[Ian]

This may end up having comical value, I don't think you can ever say that in regards to spreadsheets.

[Hawker]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 8 2003, 11:25 AM
Right, this will take some time, so I will not be doing it now (at 10:23 PM). Give me a couple of days and I'll try and put forward a convincing arguement about how Russia could have done without Lenin and Co siezing power. So I guess the first point to make is, they could well have worked with the other socialists properly. The second is that the provisional govt. never had any power. The Soviets had the power, and the provisional govt. knew this. Will expand on this latter.
Comrade,Russia would have been destroyed by the Germans if Lenin hadn't come to power.Who was it who declared peace between Russia and Germany even against major opposition by the Russian people to continue the war,Lenin.Who was one of the people responsible for leading the Bolshieviks to victory against the Menshieviks and other corrupt communist parties and making Russia into the first communist country,Lenin.Russia could have never survived without Lenin going into power.

[Ian]

Well I've waited a week and still we have nothing! I'm starting to think that Apathy Maybe has run off and hidden...

[apathy maybe]

All right give me a break. I am currently doing exams (I'm not even supposed to be posting on BBs 'cause I should be studying), so in another week or so I'll post a lovely essay (or a crap one 'cause I can't write essays), and hopefully answer all your questions.

But to keep you thinking my main arguments are,
The Soviets where socialist (a couple of cities were running quite well, supporting themselves using a system of representative democracy and socialist ideas (such as from each according to each according).
As I've said before the Soviets had the real power, not the Provisional Govt. This was shown when the Soviets (led admittedly by the Bolsheviks) kicked them out.
The foreign armies weren't really doing any fighting. They, basically, supported the other white armies. And if the Red army was so good, how come the Poles could beat the shit out of it in 1920-21?
Any fool could have made peace with Germany, even a treaty (http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dml0www/brestlit.htm) as bad as the Bolsheviks got. (30% of Russia's people were lost, I think was one statistic.)
The Bolsheviks came to power by, basically, legalising things that had already happened and which they couldn't have changed. Such as saying that the peasants could seize the land, (such a communist idea isn't it; I thought the state was supposed to do that).

The February Revolution was a genuine uprising of the Russian people disgusted by the incompetence and corruption of the Monarchy. It was not led by any one party although many participated. The October Revolution was lead by one party, whose soul aim was to gain power in Russia. It was not one that was supported by the majority of the people (as shown by the elections to the Assembly), nor was it one that really cared about the people of Russia (as shown by "the Red Terror", "War Communism" and other such things.

[apathy maybe]

All right I've had my break. I don't think I'll write an essay. But my points outlined above basicly say it all. Replys now.

[The Children of the Revolution]

QUOTE]
The Soviets where socialist (a couple of cities were running quite well, supporting themselves using a system of representative democracy and socialist ideas (such as from each according to each according).
As I've said before the Soviets had the real power, not the Provisional Govt. This was shown when the Soviets (led admittedly by the Bolsheviks) kicked them out.
[/QUOTE]

The Soviets did hold a lot of power... in the cities. Don't forget that around 80% of the population were peasant farmers. Lenin had to appease them as a class, otherwise the cities would have starved. Soviets on their own would not have held enough authority over the country. The Germans would have walked all over Russia; if not the Germans then the "White" Imperialist armies of the Tsar.



Any fool could have made peace with Germany


Alas, not the coveted Provisional Government. They continued the War in the hope that the Western allies would send aid. AGAINST the wishes of the people!



... nor was it one that really cared about the people of Russia (as shown by "the Red Terror", "War Communism" and other such things.


These policies were unfortunate. But, in the circumstances, entirely necessary. Had War Communism not been imposed, the "White" armies would surely have defeated the Red Army. Civil Wars are always bloody, always tragic. Atrocities were committed by both sides; but in the end, the Reds won. This was because people feared the return of Tsarism more than the new Bolshevik regime.



Russia could have never survived without Lenin going into power.


Absolutely correct.



One mini-trot


Why? Why Trotskyite? Yes, he was an inspirational leader... But I was praising the goodness of Lenin!! All hail Lenin!! Hero of the Revolution!! Leader of exploited classes everywhere!!

(Yes, he would hate me for saying these things...)

[apathy maybe]

The Social Revolutionaries had the support of the peasents (as proved by their election to the Assembly). They had the support of many in the Soviets.
As I said, anyone could have made peace with the Germans, including a government made of the people not 'for the people'.
Many of the white armies were fighting against the Bolsheviks and would have been more then happy to fight against the Tzarists. (And many of them did.)

I am not supporting the the Prov Gov, I am opposing the take over of the country by a small band of 'profesional revolutionaries" who were not even ready for the Feb Revolution.