Troubling questions regarding the Bolsheviks

[Anti-Traditional]

One of the main criticisms of the Bolsheviks is that they intended to set up a one-party state all along. In itself, I don't think this would have been a problem, so long as they had declared it as their intention all along (A La Bordiga), however the fact that they chose to at least pretend to support Soviet democracy suggests that they might have just co-opted the Soviets as 'useful idiots' in order to install themselves as a new ruling class. I dont neccessarily to support this view but i've yet to recieve a satisfactory response to the below quotes, credit goes to user Die Neue Zeit:

Why did the "anti-soviet" Bolshevik coups d'etat of 1918 happen, ranging from gerrymandering to "military revolutionary committees" taking over "in the name" of their respective regions to outright shutting down those soviets... which actually threw out the Bolsheviks and replaced them with Menshevik-Internationalists and Left-SRs?

[I am addressing the one government thing that both Luxemburg and the renegade Kautsky failed to criticize about the Bolsheviks, since the former focused too much on the Cheka, and the latter the discredited Constituent Assembly.]

The Mensheviks after October

Quote:
[In Sormovo] The Bolsheviks tried to delay elections, but an outbreak of strikes forced them to give way. N. Bykhovskii reported that the election returns had brought 21 seats in the EC of the new soviet to the Mensheviks and 18 to the Bolsheviks and Left SRs... The Bolsheviks not only declined to make an accounting but refused to hand over power to the new majority.

[...]

The Bolsheviks came to power in Viatka province only in January 1918, just when the plants' production was drastically curtailed. Many workers were laid off. The opposition parties naturally blamed the Bolsheviks. In elections to the Izhevsk soviet in February 1918, the Menshevik-SR bloc, together with the nonparty delegates, won a majority... The Bolsheviks refused to honor the election results and insisted on new elections in May, at which they were soundly defeated: only 22 Bolsheviks were elected out of 170 delegates... This soviet was disbanded as well.

In the EC formed in Zlatous following elections there, the Bolsheviks held three seats, the Menshevik-SR bloc nine, and nonparty delegates nine. The chairman elected by the Menshevik, SR, and nonparty votes was arrested and the soviet disbanded... In Syzran, the newly elected soviet, with a Menshevik-SR majority, was disbanded and its chairman arrested.

[...]

Elections [in Rostov] were held, and the returns brought the Mensheviks a majority in the city soviet. The Mensheviks' victory could have ended tragically for them. It turned out that the Bolsheviks were planning to install machine guns in the soviet building and shoot the "Menshevik counterrevolutionaries" during the session. Cooler heads prevailed, however, and the soviet was simply disbanded...
It was a wave of Bolshevik coups d'etat. Since Soviet Russia was safe from imperialist adventurism briefly between the end of the civil war and Kronstadt, perhaps then would have been the best time for what was left of the Menshevik-Internationalists and Left-SRs to mobilize the exploited masses to "return" power to the soviets (in quotes because it is political parties that are ultimately in power in any event) and overthrow the Bolshevik putschists.

Perhaps?

--------
Credit here goes to the user Dave B:

Bolshevik Russia was a one party state capitalist dictatorship of a ‘party’ or a ‘new’ state capitalist ruling class that never comprised more than 1% of the population.

The other 99% or mass of proleterians, or 'casual factory workers' had to work and obey.

V. I. Lenin Speech At The First All-Russia Congress Of Workers In Education and Socialist Culture July 31, 1919


Quote:
When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party and, as you have heard, a united socialist front is proposed, we say, "Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position because it is the party that has won, .
---------

Now I dont neccessarily endorse either position but I've yet to see a satisfactory Leninist response.

This isnt intended to flame Leninists, just a few questions. I will have more questions later regarding Leninist relations with the Anarchists, and Lenin's definitions of state capitalism, socialism and communism but I must leave now.

[Камо́ Зэд]

A single-party configuration doesn't preclude democracy, in that party pluralism does not true democracy make.

[Thirsty Crow]

One of the main criticisms of the Bolsheviks is that they intended to set up a one-party state all along.
I'm sorry for cutting down on your post, but this is really all I need.

This claim is completely bogus and cannot be proven.

Why can't it be proven? Since it relies on unvoiced, unwritten, unexpressed, ultimately hidden intentions.

How can you rely on something which was hidden very well? Why of course, by crypto-intepretation of wiffy parts. With enough of a hidden intention of your own you can attribute almost anything to the Bolsheviks.

And don't get me wrong - by looking at the tendency thing you can notice that I don't tend to go easy on the Bolsheviks. Indeed, I think there were significant political mistakes made, as well as more theoretical. But this accusation is unadulterated crap. Disregard it.


A single-party configuration doesn't preclude democracy, in that party pluralism does not true democracy make. ...and here you go, a perfectly hypocritical answer.

Of course, no one here should fethishize party pluralism in itself, as an eternal principle or something.
But what of the internal structure of the party-state? What about factions?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

There is no snappy and concise response to explain why the Bolsheviks suppressed the Soviets where they did not have a majority. But mainly it is this: They had overthrown capitalism in Russia and were fighting to spread world revolution. The Mensheviks and Right SRs would have returned power to the bourgeoisie (and left Russia in control of foreign capital, or perhaps even a restored monarchy). These were extreme measures in extreme circumstances. The idea that the Bolsheviks would have said, "okay, you got a couple of more votes than we did so go ahead and liquidate the revolution," doesn't really make sense. Their biggest commitment was to world revolution, not to local soviet democracy. Lenin was no hypocrite. And there is a great deal of literature on this stuff. I recommend E.H. Carr's works on the Russian Revolution for a non-participant's view. And what came out of the revolution was not capitalism. Capitalism did not return to Russia until the 1990s. None of the Bolsheviks ever stated anywhere that is known a desire for a one-party state. And frankly, they may have made some errors in clamping down on factions -- but they were under siege, literally.

[Thirsty Crow]

And frankly, they may have made some errors in clamping down on factions -- but they were under siege, literally.I believe that the ban on factions came much closer to the end of the civil war and was primarily connected to the implementation of NEP.

[m1omfg]

Lol at the "1 percent" statement. Party membership in most socialist countries was 10-20 percent and most of them had very little priviledges. How many times will we have these authoritarianism/Stalin/Lenin/Trotsky circle jerks, it is fucking irrelevant and absolutely laughable.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One of the main criticisms of the Bolsheviks is that they intended to set up a one-party state all along. In itself, I don't think this would have been a problem, so long as they had declared it as their intention all along (A La Bordiga)

Their original intention was a Revolutionary Provisional Government:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-provisional-government-t163083/index.html

[Which the Kerensky government never was]


Credit here goes to the user Dave B:

Bolshevik Russia was a one party state capitalist dictatorship of a ‘party’ or a ‘new’ state capitalist ruling class that never comprised more than 1% of the population.

The problem is that Dave B supports bourgeois stagism by denouncing the shutdown of the Constituent Assembly. My critique was one that supported non-bourgeois stagism.


There is no snappy and concise response to explain why the Bolsheviks suppressed the Soviets where they did not have a majority. But mainly it is this: They had overthrown capitalism in Russia and were fighting to spread world revolution. The Mensheviks and Right SRs would have returned power to the bourgeoisie (and left Russia in control of foreign capital, or perhaps even a restored monarchy).

Please. I explicitly mentioned those soviets shut down for electing Left-SRs and Menshevik-Internationalists.

[Камо́ Зэд]

...and here you go, a perfectly hypocritical answer.


I beg your pardon, comrade, but whether you agree with my comment or not, what about it is "hypocritical?"

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Their original intention was a Revolutionary Provisional Government:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-provisional-government-t163083/index.html

[Which the Kerensky government never was]



The problem is that Dave B supports bourgeois stagism by denouncing the shutdown of the Constituent Assembly. My critique was one that supported non-bourgeois stagism.



Please. I explicitly mentioned those soviets shut down for electing Left-SRs and Menshevik-Internationalists.
Well, for one thing, it was not specifically mentioned that it was Left SRs and MIs in all of these cases, in fact it would seem that in some based on the quote, that was not the case. But, fetishizing soviet democracy, against the continued existence of the USSR is, in my mind highly problematic. Do you think that the Mensheviks would have cooperated with the Bolshevik government. Would they have defended the gains of the Russian Revolution?

[The Idler]

A single-party configuration doesn't preclude democracy
This is newspeak version of "democracy". A single-party configuration precludes democracy. For example by prohibiting starting an independent party. I take it you don't claim the Russian Empire under the Tsar could be considered a "democracy".


Why can't it be proven? Since it relies on unvoiced, unwritten, unexpressed, ultimately hidden intentions.

You can't mind read but you can criticise one of the first things and longest-lasting things they do in power.

There is no snappy and concise response to explain why the Bolsheviks suppressed the Soviets where they did not have a majority.


Lol at the "1 percent" statement. Party membership in most socialist countries was 10-20 percent and most of them had very little priviledges. How many times will we have these authoritarianism/Stalin/Lenin/Trotsky circle jerks, it is fucking irrelevant and absolutely laughable.
1 percent was the ruling-class not the largely powerless party membership.


The problem is that Dave B supports bourgeois stagism by denouncing the shutdown of the Constituent Assembly. My critique was one that supported non-bourgeois stagism.
A criticism of shutting down the Constituent Assembly does not amount to expressing a particular position of supporting measures.

[Dave B]

Fact.

Lenin supported the convocation of the constituent assembly throughout 1917.

Accused others of conspiring to prevent it.

And claimed that no one else could be trusted to convene the constituent assembly.

And justified seizing power in October in order to guarantee the convocation of the constituent assembly.

A short chronological survey on the Bolshevik position on the constituent assembly through 1917;

To Our Comrades in War-Prisoner Camp

Written in the middle of March 1917


The Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies insists on immediate convocation of the Constituent Assembly



http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/mar/15.htm


The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)
APRIL 24–29, 1917





Considering the above, the Conference resolves that:

1. Extensive work has to be done to develop proletarian class-consciousness and to unite the urban and rural proletarians against the vacillations of the petty bourgeoisie, for only work of this nature can serve as a sure guarantee of the successful transfer of the entire state power into the hands of the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies or other organs directly expressing the will of the majority of the people (organs of local self-government, the Constituent Assembly, etc.);
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/27c.htm



REPORT AT A MEETING OF BOLSHEVIK DELEGATES TO THE ALL-RUSSIA CONFERENCE OF SOVIETS OF WORKERS’ AND SOLDIERS’ DEPUTIES APRIL 4 (17), 1917



I should be glad to have the Constituent Assembly convened tomorrow,

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/04d.htm


Political Parties in Russia and the Tasks of the Proletariat


Published in pamphlet form in July 1917 by Zhizn i Znaniye Publishers. Published May 6, 9 and 10 (April 23, 26 and 27), 1917 in the newspaper Volna Nos. 20, 22 and 23.


9) SHOULD A CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY BE CONVENED?


D. (“Bolsheviks”). Yes, and as soon as possible. But there is only one way to assure its convocation and success, and that is by increasing the number and strength of the Soviets and organising and arming the working-class masses. That is the only guarantee.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/x02.htm



Speech Delivered at a Meeting of Soldiers of the Izmailovsky Regiment April 10 (23), 1917


The central state power uniting these local Soviets must be the Constituent Assembly, National Assembly, or Council of Soviets—no matter by what name you call it. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/10.htm

An Open Letter to the Delegates to the All-Russia Congress of Peasants’ Deputies

Published May 24 (11), 1917


We by no means deny the right of the Constituent Assembly finally to institute public ownership of the land and to regulate its disposal. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/may/07b.htm



On the “Unauthorised Seizure” of Land
FLIMSY ARGUMENTS OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTIONARIES
Published: Pravda No. 61, June 2 (May 20), 1917


The local peasants are to have the immediate use of these lands, which are to become the property of the people as a whole. Ownership will be finally decided by the Constituent Assembly (or the All-Russia Council of Soviets, should the people choose to make it the Constituent Assembly). http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/may/20b.htm

Constitutional Illusions

Published in Rabochy i Soldat Nos. 11 and 12, August 4 (August 5), 1917



The Constituent Assembly in Russia today will yield a majority to peasants who are more to the left than the Socialist-Revolutionaries. The bourgeoisie know this and therefore are bound to put up a tremendous resistance to an early convocation. With a Constituent Assembly convened, it will be impossible, or exceedingly difficult, to carry on the imperialist war in the spirit of the secret treaties concluded by Nicholas II, or to defend the landed estates or the payment of compensation for them. The war will not wait. The class struggle will not wait. This was evident enough even in the brief span from February 28 to April 21.

From the very beginning of the revolution there have been two views on the Constituent Assembly. The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, completely swayed by constitutional illusions, viewed the matter with the credulity of the petty bourgeoisie who will not hear of the class struggle: the Constituent Assembly has been proclaimed, there will be a Constituent Assembly and that’s all there is to it!

Everything else is of the devil’s making. Meanwhile the Bolsheviks said: only the growing strength and authority of the Soviets can guarantee the convocation and success of the Constituent Assembly.

The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries laid emphasis on the act of law: the proclamation, the promise, the declaration to call a Constituent Assembly. The Bolsheviks laid emphasis on the class struggle: if the Soviets were to win, the Constituent Assembly would be certain to meet; if not, there would be no such certainty.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/26.htm


Rumours of a Conspiracy

Written on August 18–19 (August 31–September 1), 1917


Our task now would be to take power and to proclaim ourselves the government in the name of peace, land for the peasants, and the convocation of the Constituent Assembly at the appointed time by agreement with the peasants in the various localities, etc http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/aug/19.htm


They Do Not See the Wood for the Trees
First published in Proletary No. 6, September 1 (August 19), 1917




instead of giving the people a plain statement of the facts showing how brazenly, how shamelessly the Cadets had been delaying and blocking the convocation of the Constituent Assembly since March, and instead of exposing the false evasions and the assertion that it was impossible to convoke the Constituent Assembly at the appointed time, the Bureau of the Central Executive Committee promptly brushed aside all “doubts” expressed even by Dan (even by Dan!) and sent Bramson and Bronzov, two lackeys of that bureau of lackeys, to the Provisional Government with a report “on the need to postpone elections to the Constituent Assembly until October 28-29”. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/01.htm


The Bolsheviks Must Assume Power[1]
A Letter to the Central Committee and the Petrograd And Moscow Committees Of The R.S.D.L.P.(B.


Nor can we "wait" for the Constituent Assembly, for by surrendering Petrograd Kerensky and Co. can always frustrate its convocation. Our Party alone, on taking power, can secure the Constituent Assembly’s convocation; it will then accuse the other parties of procrastination and will be able to substantiate its accusations. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/14.htm

Lessons of the Revolution





The convocation of the Assembly, however, is being steadily postponed by the capitalists. Now that owing to Bolshevik pressure it has been set for September 30, the capitalists are openly clamouring about this being “impossibly” short notice, and are demanding the Constituent Assembly’s postponement. The most influential members of the capitalist and landowner party, the “Cadet”, or "people’s freedom", Party, such as Panina, are openly urging that the convocation of the Constituent Assembly be delayed until after the war.


ending the convocation of the Constituent Assembly there should have been no other power in the state but the Soviets. Only then would our revolution have become a truly popular and truly democratic revolution. Only then could the working people, who are really striving for peace, and who really have no interest in a war of conquest, have begun firmly and resolutely to carry out a policy which would have ended the war of conquest and led to peace. Only then could the workers and peasants have curbed the capitalists, who are making fabulous profits “from the war" and who have reduced the country to a state of ruin and starvation. But in the Soviets only a minority of the deputies were on the side of the revolutionary workers’ party, the Bolshevik Social Democrats, who demanded that all state power should be transferred to the Soviets. The majority of the deputies to the Soviets were on the side of the parties of the Menshevik Social-Democrats and the Socialist-Revolutionaries,


Not a single step of any importance to further the revolution was taken by the capitalist government during this period. It did absolutely nothing even to further its direct and immediate task, the convocation of the Constituent Assembly;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/06.htm


The Tasks of the Revolution

First Published: 1917 in Rabochy Put Nos. 20 and 21, October 9 and 10 (September 26 and 27)


4. The Soviet Government must immediately declare the abolition of private landed estates without compensation and place all these estates under the management of the peasant committees pending the solution of the problem by the Constituent Assembly


7. A possibility very seldom to be met with in the history of revolutions now faces the democracy of Russia, the Soviets and the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties—the possibility of convening the Constituent Assembly at the appointed date without further delays, of making the country secure against a military and economic catastrophe, and of ensuring the peaceful development of the revolution.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/09.htm


To Workers, Soldiers, and Peasants!
[October 25]


it will ensure the convocation of the Constituent Assembly at the time appointed; http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/25-26/25b.htm



Letter to Comrades

Published in Rabochy Put Nos. 40, 41 and 42, November 1, 2 and 3 (October 19, 20 and 2


Is it so difficult to understand that once power is in the hands of the Soviets, the Constituent Assembly and its success are guaranteed? The Bolsheviks have said so thousands of times and no one has ever attempted to refute it. Everybody has recognised this "combined type",

Both the convocation and the success of the Constituent Assembly depend upon the transfer of power to the Soviets. This old Bolshevik truth is being proved by reality ever more strikingly and ever more cruelly.

will the famine agree to wait, because we Bolsheviks proclaim faith in the convocation of the Constituent Assembly?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/17.htm


Report on the Right of Recall at a Meeting
of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee
November 21 (December 4), 1917


Failure to grant the right of recall from the Constituent Assembly is failure to elicit the revolutionary will of the people, it is usurpation of the people’s rights. We do have proportional representation, which is indeed the most democratic. Under this system it may be somewhat difficult to introduce the right of recall but the difficulties entailed are purely technical and are fairly easy to overcome. In any case there is no contradiction between proportional representation and the right of recall. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/21.htm


Speech Delivered At The
Second All-Russia Congress Of Soviets Of Peasants’ Deputies
December 2 (15), 1917


Comrades, you know how the Constituent Assembly was elected. It was elected by one of the most progressive election methods, for it is not individuals who were elected, but representatives of parties. This is a step forward, for revolutions are made by parties and not by individuals. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/dec/02.htm


the stagiest theory as regards the economic and historical evolution of Russia was the universal Marxist position as also held by Lenin. Eg;


V. I. LENIN TWO TACTICS OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY IN THE DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION





The new Iskra-ists thoroughly misunderstand the meaning and significance of the category: bourgeois revolution. Through their arguments there constantly runs the idea that a bourgeois revolution is a revolution which can be advantageous only to the bourgeoisie. And yet nothing is more erroneous than such an idea. A bourgeois revolution is a


page 43

revolution which does not go beyond the limits of the bourgeois, i.e., capitalist, social and economic system. A bourgeois revolution expresses the need for the development of capitalism, and far from destroying the foundations of capitalism, it does the opposite, it broadens and deepens them. This revolution therefore expresses the interests not only of the working class, but of the entire bourgeoisie as well. Since the rule of the bourgeoisie over the working class is inevitable under capitalism, it is quite correct to say that a bourgeois revolution expresses the interests not so much of the proletariat as of the bourgeoisie. But it is entirely absurd to think that a bourgeois revolution does not express the interests of the proletariat at all. This absurd idea boils down either to the hoary Narodnik theory that a bourgeois revolution runs counter to the interests of the proletariat, and that therefore we do not need bourgeois political liberty; or to anarchism, which rejects all participation of the proletariat in bourgeois politics, in a bourgeois revolution and in bourgeois parliamentarism. From the standpoint of theory, this idea disregards the elementary propositions of Marxism concerning the inevitability of capitalist development where commodity production exists. Marxism teaches that a society which is based on commodity production, and which has commercial intercourse with civilized capitalist nations, at a certain stage of its development, itself, inevitably takes the road of capitalism. Marxism has irrevocably broken with the ravings of the Narodniks and the anarchists to the effect that Russia, for instance, can avoid capitalist development, jump out of capitalism, or skip over it and proceed along some path other than the path of the class struggle on the basis and within the framework of this same capitalism.
page 44
All these principles of Marxism have been proved and explained over and over again in minute detail in general and with regard to Russia in particular. And from these principles it follows that the idea of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save the further development of capitalism is reactionary. In countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism. The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of the old order which are hampering the broad, free and rapid development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working class. The bourgeois revolution is precisely a revolution that most resolutely sweeps away the survivals of the past, the remnants of serfdom (which include not only autocracy but monarchy as well) and most fully guarantees the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism.
That is why a bourgeois revolution is in the highest degree advantageous to the proletariat. A bourgeois revolution is absolutely necessary in the interests of the proletariat.
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TT05.html#c6

reiterated in 1914;



Left-Wing Narodism and Marxism Published: Trudovaya Pravda No. 19, June 19, 1914




The economic development of Russia, as of the whole world, proceeds from feudalism to capitalism, and through large-scale, machine, capitalist production to socialism.

Pipe-dreaming about a “different” way to socialism other than that which leads, through the further development of capitalism, through large-scale, machine, capitalist production, is, in Russia, characteristic either of the liberal gentlemen, or of the backward, petty proprietors (the petty bourgeoisie). These dreams, which still clog the brains of the Left Narodniks, merely reflect the backwardness (reactionary nature) and feebleness of the petty bourgeoisie.


When Put Pravdy reaffirmed the well-known Marxist axiom that capitalism is progressive as compared with feudalism,and that the idea of checking the development of capitalism is a utopia, most absurd, reactionary, and harmful to the working people, Mr. N. Rakitnikov, the Left Narodnik (in Smelaya Mysl No. 7), accused Put Pravdy of having undertaken the “not very honourable task of putting a gloss upon the capitalist noose”.

Anyone interested in Marxism and in the experience of the international working-class movement would do well to pander over this! One rarely meets with such amazing ignorance of Marxism as that displayed by Mr. N. Rakitnikov and the Left Narodniks, except perhaps among bourgeois economists.
Can it be that Mr. Rakitnikov has not read Capital, or The Poverty of Philosophy, or The Communist Manifesto? If he has not, then it is pointless to talk about socialism. That will be a ridiculous waste of time.


If he has read them, then he ought to know that the fundamental idea running through all Marx’s works, an idea which since Marx has been confirmed in all countries, is that capitalism is progressive as compared with feudalism.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/19.htm


The stagiest position, irrespective of whether anyone agreed with it or not , was not a desire or a wish.

Although Lenin himself made it sound like that. .

It was a belief about what was inevitable ie that socialism could only follow after the full development of capitalism or for that matter state capitalism.

Anything else was ‘leftwing childishness’, hence Lenin endorsed state capitalism.


The Bolshevik party membership in Lenin's era, and according to Lenin himself, briefly peaked at about 800,000. before being purged and trimmed back to about 400,000 or less.

Given that the adult population was circa 100 million it was never more than 1% of the population before say 1930.






.

[Камо́ Зэд]

This is newspeak version of "democracy". A single-party configuration precludes democracy. For example by prohibiting starting an independent party. I take it you don't claim the Russian Empire under the Tsar could be considered a "democracy".

Comrade, I'd be careful tossing around the word "newspeak," but a single-party governmental hegemony does not necessarily preclude the foundation of other parties, particularly "issue" and "pressure" parties. This types of parties exist even in bourgeois democracies, particularly in the United States where the hegemony of the two major parties is largely unchallenged. If party pluralism does not itself create democracy, then there it is not necessary; a party that represents the interests of the proletariat can easily see the development of factions that are not hostile to one another, but which exist in an agonist-dialectic relationship with one another and the main party line. I certainly don't say that the Russian Empire was a democracy, but this point is strange in that I never argued that single-party hegemony automatically equated democracy, either.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

If party pluralism does not itself create democracy, then there it is not necessary

I hate to nitpick comrade, but if party pluralism does not itself create democracy, then it is not sufficient. this still leaves room for party pluralism to be necessary for democracy (i.e. you cannot have democracy without party pluralism, although pluralism itself may not be enough to make democracy).

[Камо́ Зэд]

I hate to nitpick comrade, but if party pluralism does not itself create democracy, then it is not sufficient. this still leaves room for party pluralism to be necessary for democracy (i.e. you cannot have democracy without party pluralism, although pluralism itself may not be enough to make democracy).

This is a very good point, comrade, and it should be my hope that my understanding is improved by this observation.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Fact.

Lenin supported the convocation of the constituent assembly throughout 1917.

Accused others of conspiring to prevent it.

And claimed that no one else could be trusted to convene the constituent assembly.


The stagiest position, irrespective of whether anyone agreed with it or not , was not a desire or a wish.

Although Lenin himself made it sound like that. .

It was a belief about what was inevitable ie that socialism could only follow after the full development of capitalism or for that matter state capitalism.

Anything else was ‘leftwing childishness’, hence Lenin endorsed state capitalism.


The Bolshevik party membership in Lenin's era, and according to Lenin himself, briefly peaked at about 800,000. before being purged and trimmed back to about 400,000 or less.

Given that the adult population was circa 100 million it was never more than 1% of the population before say 1930.

.

Whoa, that was a lot of stuff, to take in. Main false premise is that a constituent assembly was a principle to the Bolsheviks, it was not. Whether or not to support it was a tactical question, based on the balance of forces and situation at a given moment. So it changed, comrade, it changed over time. To consider a quote from March 1917 about tactics and compare it with actions or statements made in November assumes a kind of static situation that did not exist. Obviously, the Bolsheviks were developing their tactics and strategies as things developed.

The Mensheviks were the ones fighting for capitalism so that the stage could be set, somewhere in the future, for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin's position before April was for the "Democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry." He realized somewhere that this was an amorphous and erroneous formula. This, btw, allowed for a fusion between the Bolsheviks and Trotsky's small group -- because Lenin came around to Trotsky's program of Permanent Revolution.

The constituent assembly, that would have voted to disperse the forces of the revolution, and bring in the imperialist armies or restore the Aristocracy so that they could return the land to the landlord and restore capitalism, was dispersed. GOOD!

[Anti-Traditional]

Thank you all for your responses.Right now I don't have the time to respond to all of them but I will address everyone tommorow.

DNZ: Earlier today Lev Bronsteinvitch made a good point that your sources do not explicitly mention that the suppressed Soviets belonged to the Left SR's or Menshevik Internationalists. Any response to this?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I believe that the ban on factions came much closer to the end of the civil war and was primarily connected to the implementation of NEP.
You are correct that the Civil War was winding down, but why would the Bolsheviks believe that it wouldn't be rekindled? And the country was in an economic crisis. The NEP itself was considered a necessary, but quite evil thing. Economically and politically matters did not really stabilize until mid to late 1923. I think the ban on factions was in large part due to Lenin's fear that Trotsky and Stalin would square off, and take each other down -- renting the party and increasing the chances of counterrevolution. I think it was a mistake -- it allowed Stalin to be a underground factionalist, while brandishing a sword against any that would form a faction in the party. I think it really slowed down Trotsky's counterattack (which was slow for a number of reasons).

[Dave B]

Lenin thought Trotsky’s permanent revolution theory was bolllocks, which it was.




They evade these specific issues by advancing pseudo-intellectual, and in fact utterly meaningless, arguments about a "permanent revolution", about “introducing” socialism, and other nonsense.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jun/17.htm


I don’t deny that Lenin spoke with a forked tongues to the workers and flip flopped from one position to another as opportunities presented themselves.

The Bolsheviks were opportunists and closed the constituent assembly that they had promised the workers that they would convene with armed force.

[Dave B]

The Bolshevik support for a bourgeois capitalist democratic revolution and constituent assembly was not just a 1917 position


Lenin 1911



When we look at the history of the last half-century in Russia, when we cast a glance at 1861 and 1905, we can only repeat the words of our Party resolution with even greater conviction:

"As before, the aim of our struggle is to overthrow tsarism and bring about the conquest of power by the proletariat relying on the revolutionary sections of the peasantry and accomplishing the bourgeois-democratic revolution by means of the convening of a popular constituent assembly and the establishment of a democratic republic ".
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/PRPPR11.html

[m1omfg]

Comrades, sometimes I feel you are all stuck in 1917 :(....

[Blake's Baby]

Have either the pro-Octobrists or the anti-Octoberists done anything significant since?

The most important periods in the development of socialist theroy revolve around the lessons of 1848, 1871, 1905, 1917-26, and 1968. These aren't the only periods that we can learn from of course but they're all hugely important because they all involved masses of workers in struggle. The end of the war, the revolutions in Russia, Germany and Hungary, the struggles in Italy, general strikes in Seattle and Winnnipeg, and other manifestations of class struggle from Red Clydeside to the Shanghai Soviet, involved millions of workers, took place over a decade, deposed three emperors and scared the representatives of the ruling classes witless.

Nothing of that size or frankly importance has happened since, or caused so much controversy, so obviously we keep going over it. How else to learn the lessons?

[Камо́ Зэд]

Comrades, sometimes I feel you are all stuck in 1917 :(....

It isn't as though these questions aren't of any importance. We can't help but repeat our past failures unless we learn from them.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The Bolshevik support for a bourgeois capitalist democratic revolution and constituent assembly was not just a 1917 position


Lenin 1911


http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/PRPPR11.html
And his positioned changed, comrade. He realized that the only way to accomplish the tasks of the bourgeois revolution in Russia meant overthrowing the bourgeoisie and capitalism and instituting the dictatorship of the proletariat. As I said earlier, Lenin came around to Trotsky's view, formulated in 1905, that the coming revolution in Russia would not be limited to simply overthrowing the tsar and placing the bourgeoisie in power, that it would have to place the proletariat in power, supported by sections of the peasantry. All this as a precursor to a world revolution.

Your view is so narrow, so tied to the superficial form of things that you cannot see the forest for the trees. The Russian Revolution was an enormous gain for the world's working class. The form of the government of the Russian Revolution is far less important than what they were trying to accomplish. The dispersal of the Constituent Assembly was necessary. It would have been class treason on the part of the Bolsheviks to hand power over to them.

You can't imagine a principled political figure, whose positions evolve? Based on rapidly changing circumstances that almost nobody expected (arguably, Trotsky did)? Lenin was not the cynic, comrade, you are. It appears that you are an anti-communist that would have been taking up arms against the Bolsheviks by the end of 1917.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, for one thing, it was not specifically mentioned that it was Left SRs and MIs in all of these cases, in fact it would seem that in some based on the quote, that was not the case. But, fetishizing soviet democracy, against the continued existence of the USSR is, in my mind highly problematic. Do you think that the Mensheviks would have cooperated with the Bolshevik government. Would they have defended the gains of the Russian Revolution?

The Menshevik-Internationalists were a pro-soviet bunch. As for the Left-SRs, maybe these coups helped trigger their terroristic antics later on.


Thank you all for your responses.Right now I don't have the time to respond to all of them but I will address everyone tommorow.

DNZ: Earlier today Lev Bronsteinvitch made a good point that your sources do not explicitly mention that the suppressed Soviets belonged to the Left SR's or Menshevik Internationalists. Any response to this?

My quote was very explicit. The author focused more on the Menshevik-Internationalists than the Defencists.

[Anti-Traditional]

A single-party configuration doesn't preclude democracy, in that party pluralism does not true democracy make.

Perhaps you are right. However the key question I am asking is that 'Was it Lenin's aim to establish a one-party state?', not 'Was Lenin right to establish a one party state?'


I'm sorry for cutting down on your post, but this is really all I need.

This claim is completely bogus and cannot be proven.

Why can't it be proven? Since it relies on unvoiced, unwritten, unexpressed, ultimately hidden intentions.

How can you rely on something which was hidden very well? Why of course, by crypto-intepretation of wiffy parts. With enough of a hidden intention of your own you can attribute almost anything to the Bolsheviks.



Fair point Menocchio and perhaps I should rephrase myself. How about this: 'Did Lenin manipulate the Soviets, and his initial majority therein, in order to establish a one party state?'


I believe that the ban on factions came much closer to the end of the civil war and was primarily connected to the implementation of NEP.

This is an interesting point of view. What makes you think that the implementation of the NEP to consider a banning on factions as neccessary?




My quote was very explicit. The author focused more on the Menshevik-Internationalists than the Defencists.

Sorry if this sounds rude, because I think your an intelligent poster, but your source is not explicit. The quote does not specify that the Soviets belonged to left SR's or Menshevik Internationalists, in fact the first source speaks of a Menshevik soviet which opposed a Bolshevik-Left SR bloc, surely the Menshevik Internationalists would not opppose the Left SR's? Perhaps I'm not seeing the quote in it's full context and you would be able to show that the author is definately focusing on the Internationalists/Left SR's? Also if you have any other sources demonstrating Bolshevik coups of Left SR/ Menshevik Internationalist soviets then I'd like to see them if possible. Thanks.

I'm aware I havent replied to everyone, but I will try to do so later today.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry if this sounds rude, because I think your an intelligent poster, but your source is not explicit. The quote does not specify that the Soviets belonged to left SR's or Menshevik Internationalists, in fact the first source speaks of a Menshevik soviet which opposed a Bolshevik-Left SR bloc, surely the Menshevik Internationalists would not opppose the Left SR's? Perhaps I'm not seeing the quote in it's full context and you would be able to show that the author is definately focusing on the Internationalists/Left SR's? Also if you have any other sources demonstrating Bolshevik coups of Left SR/ Menshevik Internationalist soviets then I'd like to see them if possible. Thanks.

Upon a second review of the book, you've got a point. The author isn't clear. This all the more vindicates Old Bolshevism's line on the Revolutionary Provisional Government and the later condemnation of all parties actively participating in the not-so-revolutionary Kerensky government.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I'll add that MIs were quite small. I don't think they controlled many soviets. But I might be mistaken. They were a small minority of the Mensheviks, no?

[Conscript]

Does anyone actually mourne the losses on the part of the MI and the left SRs?

[Art Vandelay]

I could be wrong (and I really don't want to drag this thread off topic) but it seems, comrade (anti-traditional) that you have some reservations on the topic of a one party state. As a supporter of a one party state, I hope to perhaps clear that up for you. Again if this is off topic then just ignore it, but it took me a while to track down this post from comrade Q on the topic from an older thread:


Just to feed your paranoia: Yes, we want a one-party state

To nuance: Since the party-movement in the sense Labor Days is talking about is really the working class constituted itself as a class-collective fighting for the communist project, it would really mean that the working class seizes power.

The party-movement here is not (necessarily) a single mass organisation. Much more likely would be a federation of organisations that all focus on their "field", be it unions, coops, educational collectives, social community centers, or something else. They'd all be united to the common project of revolutionary transformation of society and this is what the "political leadership" of the party itself would do: To politicize the whole movement and fight for the political program of working class power and globally overcoming the rule of capital.

This party-movement, when it comes to power, replaces the existing state with a semi-state that consists of institutions fits for majoritarian rule. It remains a "state" in the sense of enforcing the political hegemony of the working class, but is in reality an extreme democracy (demarchy) in every core capitalist country (where the working class is the majority of society). It ceases to function like a state when all other classes have collapsed into the working class and society becomes one of free producers.

If the issue of a one party state is one which is bugging you, I would be glad to point you into the direction of an older thread, which was one of the best I have ever seen on revleft, which discussed it extensively.

As far as the historical issue of the Bolshevik revolution and what exactly went down, I am not well enough read in those matters to really comment.

Again ignore, if this was way off topic.

[Anti-Traditional]

NRZ: Its not so much that I am opposed to a one party state on principle, rather that the idea of a workers government suppressing other organizations which claim to be in favour of the working class and Soviet democracy such as the Internationalists the SR's and of course Anarchists iscompletely contradictory. It puts workers in conflict with each other. The idea of a one-party state, far from uniting the class into a collective seems to divide them.

Also, how will we know who is 'the party"? Are all the various worker institutions supposed to fight it out until only one is left?!

[Dave B]

Lenin didn’t overthrow capitalism he introduced it himself in the form of state capitalism as he explicitly stated in ‘Leftwing childishness’ in April 1918.


And in doing so the Bolshevik party, of the 1% of the bourgeois intelligentsia, acted out and supplanted the historical ‘stageist’ role of their economic class cousins, the bourgeoisie proper, and became the state capitalist class.

An understandably attractive wet dream paradigm for our Bolshevik bourgeois intelligentsia of today, and we have some ‘real proletarians’ here now, clearly.


Where and when did Lenin state that he had come around to Trotsky's ‘pseudo intellectual and utterly meaningless’ view, formulated in 1905 ?

Or did he just not admit to it and only did so in embarrassed secrecy.

Maybe Lenin was just too stupid in 1917, like me now as a simple factory worker and ‘a casual element of all descriptions’, to understand Trotsky’s brilliant theory which was just too far ahead of its time in 1917?

In what way exactly would it be class treason and treachery to hand over power to the constituent assembly that the Bolsheviks had un-treasonably supported weeks earlier?

The constituent assembly was dominated by leftist peasants who called themselves 'socialist revolutionaries', if a name means anything.

The Kadets, who were in fact left of center by today’s standards for what it matters, were not allowed to sit and had a miniscule representation anyway .

In the twelve hours or so after the usual messing about establishing and agreeing on standing orders etc.

The constituent assembly agreed to the immediate transfer of land to the peasants and to work for an Armistice and end of the war etc.

Bolshevik policy.

Deferring rather than rejecting the debate on the Bolshevik’s idea of ‘dual power’ or ‘combined type’ as regards power sharing with the soviets.


On 7 October on the eve of the Bolshevik coup Trotsky on behalf of the Bolshevik Party read out to the Pre-Parliament a statement that ended with;

…….long live the Constituent Assembly!’


Weeks before they closed it down by an armed force of rent-a-thug, paid for and hired with German imperial State capitalist surplus value, after it had sat for less than a day.


Cynicism?


It was a dictatorship of the party of the ‘real proletariat’, the bourgeois intelligentsia and the 1%, who didn’t work in factories, over the casual elements like myself that did.


The armed rebellion against the Bolsheviks from leftists probably started after the failed left SR coup of July 1918.

Which was signalled by the assassination of the German Ambassador Mirbach. Who was then the conduit for the Kaisers imperial funding of the Bolshevik party, a sensible plan.

Two SR’s working in the Chekka asked to see Mirbach on a matter of urgency.


When they sat down they declared that they had discovered a plot to assassinate his Excellency.


Mirbach, shocked, responded;

‘how are they intending to do it?’

They answered;

‘like this’

and pulled a Browning 45 out of a bag.

I thought it was funny anyway.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Lenin didn’t overthrow capitalism he introduced it himself in the form of state capitalism as he explicitly stated in ‘Leftwing childishness’ in April 1918.


And in doing so the Bolshevik party, of the 1% of the bourgeois intelligentsia, acted out and supplanted the historical ‘stageist’ role of their economic class cousins, the bourgeoisie proper, and became the state capitalist class.

An understandably attractive wet dream paradigm for our Bolshevik bourgeois intelligentsia of today, and we have some ‘real proletarians’ here now, clearly.


Where and when did Lenin state that he had come around to Trotsky's ‘pseudo intellectual and utterly meaningless’ view, formulated in 1905 ?

Or did he just not admit to it and only did so in embarrassed secrecy.

Maybe Lenin was just too stupid in 1917, like me now as a simple factory worker and ‘a casual element of all descriptions’, to understand Trotsky’s brilliant theory which was just too far ahead of its time in 1917?

In what way exactly would it be class treason and treachery to hand over power to the constituent assembly that the Bolsheviks had un-treasonably supported weeks earlier?

The constituent assembly was dominated by leftist peasants who called themselves 'socialist revolutionaries', if a name means anything.

The Kadets, who were in fact left of center by today’s standards for what it matters, were not allowed to sit and had a miniscule representation anyway .

In the twelve hours or so after the usual messing about establishing and agreeing on standing orders etc.

The constituent assembly agreed to the immediate transfer of land to the peasants and to work for an Armistice and end of the war etc.

Bolshevik policy.

Deferring rather than rejecting the debate on the Bolshevik’s idea of ‘dual power’ or ‘combined type’ as regards power sharing with the soviets.


On 7 October on the eve of the Bolshevik coup Trotsky on behalf of the Bolshevik Party read out to the Pre-Parliament a statement that ended with;

…….long live the Constituent Assembly!’


Weeks before they closed it down by an armed force of rent-a-thug, paid for and hired with German imperial State capitalist surplus value, after it had sat for less than a day.


Cynicism?


It was a dictatorship of the party of the ‘real proletariat’, the bourgeois intelligentsia and the 1%, who didn’t work in factories, over the casual elements like myself that did.


The armed rebellion against the Bolsheviks from leftists probably started after the failed left SR coup of July 1918.

Which was signalled by the assassination of the German Ambassador Mirbach. Who was then the conduit for the Kaisers imperial funding of the Bolshevik party, a sensible plan.

Two SR’s working in the Chekka asked to see Mirbach on a matter of urgency.


When they sat down they declared that they had discovered a plot to assassinate his Excellency.


Mirbach, shocked, responded;

‘how are they intending to do it?’

They answered;

‘like this’

and pulled a Browning 45 out of a bag.

I thought it was funny anyway.





You are a laugh riot, comrade. Lenin was inconsistent in his characterization of the Soviet State. But it was not capitalist. In the form that emerged, almost all industry was owned by the state. The banks were state owned. So you can call it what you want, but to imply that it was not qualitatively different from anything that had existed hitherto, is simply wrong. Lenin's goals were pretty clear -- World socialist revolution. Your fetish of the constituent assembly is pretty much beside the point.

Also, the Bolsheviks were supported by the workers and the peasants because they UNDERSTOOD, the the Bolsheviks were the only party that would end the war and give land to the tiller. That's why they did not vote for the freakin' Kadet Party, the party of the bourgeoisie. The workers in the biggest cities strongly supported the expropriation of the bourgeoisie as well (the peasants, by and large probably didn't particularly care about this) and voted for the bolsheviks. Do you really judge if a country is democratic based on how many party members the ruling party has? If so, you are going to come up with some pretty hilarious conclusions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'll add that MIs were quite small. I don't think they controlled many soviets. But I might be mistaken. They were a small minority of the Mensheviks, no?

Syndicat was a poster here before. He said that no, in fact the MIs eclipsed the Defencists as the Civil War raged on.


Does anyone actually mourne the losses on the part of the MI and the left SRs?

By themselves, no, but consider the term "coup d'etat" that can now be thrown at the Bolsheviks for their anti-soviet actions.

[Geiseric]

If the bolsheviks did anything else the russian revolution would be as famous as the german one, i.e. not very.

Any authority the bolsheviks used had been established as fair by the menshevik and SR traitors, who backed the Czarist army. I don't pretend to know what the was could of been like, however they wouldn't organize an army, start war communism, and execute counter revolutionaries for no reason.

[Dave B]

This is yet another lie.


The Menshevik party had forbidden any of its members from participation in armed opposition to the Bolsheviks and giving any support to those that did.

Even after the Bolsheviks and Lenin had made Menshevism illegal and carrying the death penalty.

V. I. Lenin Eleventh Congress Of The R.C.P.(B.)March 27-April 2, 1922





“For the public manifestations of Menshevism our revolutionary courts must pass the death sentence, otherwise they are not our courts, but God knows what.” http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm

[Peoples' War]

This is newspeak version of "democracy". A single-party configuration precludes democracy. For example by prohibiting starting an independent party. I take it you don't claim the Russian Empire under the Tsar could be considered a "democracy".Is the only form of democracy a system where there are many parties? I think this is an absurd statement to make, really. Though I myself am not 100% decided on the question of a single party or multi-party state, you have to take into account the material conditions, and why these groups were suppressed. What were the Bolshevik critiques and reasoning, not just what you think it was, but what did they have to say?

We have to remember as well, that the Left SR's left, of their own accord, due to their opposition to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.


You can't mind read but you can criticise one of the first things and longest-lasting things they do in power.Which was?


1 percent was the ruling-class not the largely powerless party membership.Largely powerless within the party, or the soviets? Or do you mean largely powerless within the framework of the capitalist Russian nation. All of which are highly questionable claims to make.


A criticism of shutting down the Constituent Assembly does not amount to expressing a particular position of supporting measures.Even Rosa Luxemburg was in favour of shutting down the CA, once she had seen the struggle outside of prison. Not to mention that the old state machinery must be smashed; the proletariat cannot use it, it must create its own, the soviets.

"The National Assembly is an outmoded legacy of bourgeois revolutions, an empty shell, a requisite from the time of petit-bourgeois illusions of a ‘united people’ and of the ‘liberty, equality, fraternity’ of the bourgeois State.To resort to the National Assembly today is consciously or unconsciously to turn the revolution back to the historical stage of bourgeois revolutions; anyone advocating it is a secret agent of the bourgeoisie or an unconscious spokesman of petit-bourgeois ideology.

The struggle for the National Assembly is carried on under the war-cry of ‘democracy or dictatorship’. Even socialist leaders obediently adopt these slogans of counter-revolutionary demagogues without noticing that this alternative is a demagogic falsification.

Today it is not a question of democracy or dictatorship. The question that history has placed on the agenda is: bourgeois democracy or socialist democracy? For the dictatorship of the proletariat is democracy in a socialist sense. It is not a matter of bombs, coups d’etat, riots or ‘anarchy’, as the agents of capitalist profit dishonestly make out; rather it is the use of all the means of political power to realize socialism, to expropriate the capitalist class – in the interests and through the will of the revolutionary majority of the proletariat, that is, in the spirit of socialist democracy." - R. Luxemburg

There was no Bolshevik coups d'etat. There was genuine workers revolution, with the Bolsheviks at the lead, guiding, and supported democratically by the majority.

I must add, that many suggest that the masses opposed the Bolsheviks, or there was no majority support. With such an active, intelligent, and empowered proletariat, how could the workers capitulate to the "Bolshevik dictators" when they see what is happening. The answer is that they did not capitulate. The answer is that the Bolsheviks had majority support, and had had the APPROVAL, in everything they had done, by the majority.

[Geiseric]

The bolsheviks were an absolute majority in the soviets so none of this matters.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The bolsheviks were an absolute majority in the soviets so none of this matters.

They lost that support in the soviets, though, and this would have been more evident without the gerrymandering, election delays, etc.

[Anti-Traditional]

The bolsheviks were an absolute majority in the soviets so none of this matters.

I always find this logic strange. In effect you are using the doctrine of multi-party democracy to justify a one party state.
------------
Id also be interested to read any sources regarding Bolshevik relations with the Anarchists, both in Makhno Ukraine and in Russia proper. The two main 'troubling questions' which arise here are 'Why did the Bolsheviks suppress Makhno Ukraine and also did the assasination order on Makhno come directly from the Bolshevik command at a time when they were supposedly allies, and if so, why? Was he considered a threat to their one-party hegemony?

I'd also be interested to hear a response to the 'Socialism is state capitalism made to work for the people' quote from Lenin. Quite often Labour Vouchers are counterposed to this as a true socialist alternative, but isnt this really the same? Dont these vouchers just become a new currency? Isnt introducing Labour Vouchers just the same as introducing a single hourly wage which is the same for everyone?

[Peoples' War]

They lost that support in the soviets, though, and this would have been more evident without the gerrymandering, election delays, etc.
Where's the proof, the sources?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The OP cited my "Bolshevik coups d'etat of 1918?" thread, and I cited Brovkin's The Mensheviks After October on the subject.

[Art Vandelay]

NRZ: Its not so much that I am opposed to a one party state on principle

Good.


rather that the idea of a workers government suppressing other organizations which claim to be in favour of the working class and Soviet democracy such as the Internationalists the SR's and of course Anarchists iscompletely contradictory.

But does simply claiming to be in favor of the working class actually constitute being in favor of the working class? I think not. Take social democracy for instance, an entirely proletarian ideology (not the social democracy of today, but in historical context), which has continually sold out the working class. Now don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say that anarchist sell out the working class (I simply disagree with their tactics) and for the record I am against the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion.


It puts workers in conflict with each other.

And such will always be the case. Obviously, for socialism to be implemented, the majority of the working class will have become class conscious, but that doesn't change the fact that there will always be sections of the working class which has reactionary views.


The idea of a one-party state, far from uniting the class into a collective seems to divide them.

How so? What Q is talking about, in the quote, is a simply program uniting socialists for the revolutionary overthrow of capital. To paraphrase him from another thread, as long as everyone agreed on the very basic program (not these long winded programs we see today) then I don`t see why I could not be in an organization with a maoist, anarchist, or trot.


Also, how will we know who is 'the party"? Are all the various worker institutions supposed to fight it out until only one is left?!

It is of my opinion that the vanguard party will arise organically out of the class struggle and will be formed of multiple organizations and parties which will branch together.

[Geiseric]

Would anybody here of voted Menshevik or SR in 1918? I hope not, but otherwise why is this discussion important? All of the other parties supported the counter revolution, thus are as bad as the whites, when it comes down to it.

[Blake's Baby]

But that's just not true.

The Bolsheviks were the counter-revolution. What happened was the counter-revolution triumphed, cloaked in a red flag and claiming to be 'the proletarian vanguard'.

In 1918, the Left SRs and the Menshevik Internationalists and the different Anarchist groups all claimed to support the revolution. Just not the Bolsheviks.

If the Bolsheviks were already part of the problem (in that they were increasingly identifying themselves with the state, ie becomming managers of Russian state capitalism) then it's arguable that resistance to the Bolsheviks was the only thing that might have saved the revolution.

I don't agree, I think in 1918 the Bolsheviks hadn't definitively passed over to being enemies of the working class but pass over they did. At what point was resitance (as opposed to oppositional activity inside the party) viable or indeed the only tactic?

The purges of the oppositionists in 1927 is a pretty significant moment, as is the adoption of socialism in one country in 1925. These probably mark the final destruction of the Bolsheviks as a revolutionary party, but certainly the signs of mortal sickness can be seen much earlier - the double dealing with Makhno in 1918-21, and the suppression of Kronstadt, are the most obvious examples, though the negotiations with Germany and Turkey, as well as support for Chiang Kai Shek, are signs that the interests of the world revolution and the working class in Russia were being subordinated to Russian foreign policy, and deserve to live in infamy as betrayals of the working class worldwide.

[Geiseric]

They claimed to represent the revoluton, as long as the bourgeoisie was alright with it. Would you of voted fo either of those demagogue parties? If so, which one, nd why? They had their chance from februrary to october, and they failed to carry through with the proletariats demands of land, peace, and bread. They continued the war, how's that not class betrayal? They didn't carry out land reform, nor did they in reality do anything to help the starving masses of russia. They had state power and failed. They aided the whites, when the bolsheviks were VOTED A MAJORITY IN THE SOVIETS and carried out the demands. Again class betrayal.

[Камо́ Зэд]

It's a shame yet another thread has collapsed into a game of groundless assertions.

[Blake's Baby]

They claimed to represent the revoluton, as long as the bourgeoisie was alright with it. Would you of voted fo either of those demagogue parties? If so, which one, nd why? They had their chance from februrary to october, and they failed to carry through with the proletariats demands of land, peace, and bread. They continued the war, how's that not class betrayal? They didn't carry out land reform, nor did they in reality do anything to help the starving masses of russia. They had state power and failed. They aided the whites, when the bolsheviks were VOTED A MAJORITY IN THE SOVIETS and carried out the demands. Again class betrayal.

'Which of these demogogic parties (the Mensheviks or the SRs) would you vote for?', you asked in demogogic fashion. It's a shame you don't actually know anything about the Russian Revolution, really.

Or maybe you didn't read my post where I referred to the Left SRs and the Menshevik Internationalists. Or, seemingly, to the part where I said I didn't think that the Bolsheviks in 1918 had definitively gone over to reaction. Or the reference to the Anarchists.

So as an answer, I don't think they're the only two options. There were at least 4 pro-revolutionary currents in 1918 and who says one would have to vote for a 'party' anyway?

[Geiseric]

The mainstream Mensheviks and the mainstream SRs were really the only significant parties other than the Bolsheviks. Neither the Left SRs nor Menshevik Internationalists had anywhere near as many votes as the Bolsheviks did, in Petrograd, Moscow, the Urals, or anywhere except for the periphery of Russia. Sorry about my mistake though.

And that question I don't really see as demagogic. You could say you'd vote for none of them, however what would the alternative to the Bolsheviks of been post 1918, once the war started? Maxim Gorky, who I believe was a Left SR, sorry if i'm mistaken, opposed the Bolsheviks during the civil war, de facto supporting the whites.

Also why would they of fought the Whites, and ended the if they went over to the reaction?

State Capitalism was necessary to develop the economy as well, since Russia was one of the most backwards countries in the world. Even if whoever you think the "true revolutionaries," were took power, they would still need to have state controls over the economy to develop the country, which is State Capitalism, unless you think peasant farming was the right way to go.

Kronstadt was definitely not the glorified insurrection though that most people think it was. The ones who sided with the bolsheviks and the revolution were all dead by the time that happened, and the white army was poised, ready to invade directly through Kronstadt. French newspapers told about the insurrection two weeks before it happened, so it isn't really that simple.

What do you mean though "why is voting for a party necessary?" you're more or less voting for a program when the soviet elections happen, not individual candidates.

[Blake's Baby]

The mainstream Mensheviks and the mainstream SRs were really the only significant parties other than the Bolsheviks. Neither the Left SRs nor Menshevik Internationalists had anywhere near as many votes as the Bolsheviks did, in Petrograd, Moscow, the Urals, or anywhere except for the periphery of Russia. Sorry about my mistake though...

But the question was about what other revolutionary parties there werew, not who had the biggest majorities.


And that question I don't really see as demagogic. You could say you'd vote for none of them, however what would the alternative to the Bolsheviks of been post 1918, once the war started? Maxim Gorky, who I believe was a Left SR, sorry if i'm mistaken, opposed the Bolsheviks during the civil war, de facto supporting the whites...

While I don't support the Left SRs in their actions against the Bolsheviks, or the Germans, their actions were based on a desire to preserve and extend the gains of the revolution, in the face of what they saw as Bolshevik mistakes.


Also why would they of fought the Whites, and ended the if they went over to the reaction?...

Who, the Bolsheviks? Why would they have fought the Whites if they went over to reaction? Because they saw themselves as the administrators of the Russian state on behalf of the Russian working class. Why wouldn't they have fought the whites? You might as well ask 'if the British and Germans were both imperialists in WWI, why did they fight each other?'


...State Capitalism was necessary to develop the economy as well, since Russia was one of the most backwards countries in the world. Even if whoever you think the "true revolutionaries," were took power, they would still need to have state controls over the economy to develop the country, which is State Capitalism, unless you think peasant farming was the right way to go...

Quite wrong, Russia was the world's 5th biggest economy before WWI, the factories there were among the biggest in the world (the Putilov Works was the biggest in the world), some of the newest and best equipped that international capitalism had to offer. That's why there there was a militanty and well-organised working class in Russia, capable of overthrowing the tsarist state. That doesn't happen in 'backward' countries.

However, I'll agree that state capitalism was all that Russia could manage until the revolution was successful elsewhere.


...Kronstadt was definitely not the glorified insurrection though that most people think it was. The ones who sided with the bolsheviks and the revolution were all dead by the time that happened, and the white army was poised, ready to invade directly through Kronstadt. French newspapers told about the insurrection two weeks before it happened, so it isn't really that simple...

No, really it is. Analysis of the the signatories of the Kronstadt manifesto shows that they were mostly from engineering occupations on the ships, and where their service records can be checked they're long-serving members of the fleet, so these are Trotsky's 'heroes of the Revolution' of 1917. Furthermore, the majority of the Bolshevik Party in Kronstadt itself went over to the 'rebels' and the whole business began because of the strikes in Petrograd. These were solidarity actions with striking workers that were criminalised and fired on by their government. Now, you may have picked the side of the government in those kind of confrontations but I'm a Marxist so I'm on the side of the working class.



What do you mean though "why is voting for a party necessary?" you're more or less voting for a program when the soviet elections happen, not individual candidates.

'More or less'?

Soviets build from the bottom up. You don't vote for a party programme, you vote for a delegate. If that delegate has to be from a party (even worse, can only be from a specific party) then proletarian democracy is dead. From the Dictatorship of the Proletariat you have moved to a party dictatorship over the working class, a fusion of party and state that then becomes a new ruling class, and in this way, the Bolsheviks embodied the counter-revolution.