My Historybook

[The Cheshire Cat]

Hello everyone,

With the beginning of the new school year I have received my new history books. There are 3 in total, and I was excited to see that 1 is completely devoted to the USSR under Stalin and Brezjnev (Until today I have never heard of the latter I must say). I immediately started reading, but ofcourse I already have discovered some false facts or half stories, for example, my book states that there were nearly no women part of the Bolsheviks. This is true ofcourse, but when you look at the rest of the world, you will see that in most countries women weren't even allowed to vote. So even those couple of women in an important political revolutionairy group and later in the government were already a huge step forwards. And they talk about the atrocities commited by the bolsheviks, but not of the other factions. They also claim there were only 2 groups in the RCW, the Reds, or the bolsheviks, and the Whites, the mensheviks. They completely ignore the other groups, like Greens and Blacks.

I could name some more falsities, but I am sure most of you have history books of their own, filled with lies that you can enjoy. I will point my teacher at this in the first history lesson, but I doubt it will have any effect.

I have also encountered some things that I doubt. For example, my book states the Soviets had nothing to do with the Bolsheviks in the beginning. My book isn't really clear about it, but they say something like this: First there was the February revolution. It started because there were mass strikes in Petrograd and soldier put down their weapons. This was because of the lack of food and other products. The tsar could not handle the situation and the Doema told the Tsar give up his rule, thus creating the Provision Government under leading of Kerenski of the SR's. On one side there was this government, which had no power. On the other side there were the Soviets, (which apparently spontaneously came into existence). During the February Revolution the Bolsheviks were a minority but they sprayed propaganda all of the place. They sometimes told things that were against their ideology, like that the farmers should own the land, just to get more support. This propaganda worked, and then the Soviets (they mean the councils of workers and soldiers with this) decided to join the Bolsheviks.

So they make it sound like the Soviets were completely separate from the Bolsheviks in the beginning, and they could have joined one of the other parties as well. They say that the Soviets just fell for Lenin's propaganda. But the Soviets were part of the Bolshevik ideology, right? I thought the Soviets were supported and organized by the Soviets. Am I terribly wrong, or the book?

My books also says the mensheviks looked for close cooperation with the Unions to improve the situation gradually, but did they really looked for cooperation with the unions? And were the unions powerful enough to accomplish anything at all?

It also makes me laugh how the writing style of my books switches when they talk about the bolsheviks and the whites. The Bolsheviks were basically communist monsters who wanted to destroy everything the people worked so hard for in order to achieve communism, and the mensheviks were innocent saints who wanted to make things better for people slowly, without hurting anyone.

There are so many things I question, that I am starting to question my own knowledge, as most of the text is written very vague, or in a way that you just know there is some part missing. I will continue reading it now. Thank you!

[Камо́ Зэд]

I'd definitely approach Bolshevik "atrocities" cautiously.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The Bolsheviks definitely did have something to do with the Soviets. If I remember correctly, the soviets first came to be during the Russo-Japanese war, where the soldiers were disstatified with the results of the war. So, they started setting up soviets, those were of corse only occupied by soldiers, so in that way I guess it is correct. But when the soviets came to Russia and where not just for Soldiers but also for proletarians and peasants, the bolsheviks had influence in them.

It is kind of correct, but since the time between the soviets for soldiers and the soviets for workers was so little that I think you can state that the Bolsheviks had something to do with them, rather quickly after the soviets came into existence.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I'd definitely approach Bolshevik "atrocities" cautiously.

How do you mean?

[The Cheshire Cat]

The Bolsheviks definitely did have something to do with the Soviets. If I remember correctly, the soviets first came to be during the Russo-Japanese war, where the soldiers were disstatified with the results of the war. So, they started setting up soviets, those were of corse only occupied by soldiers, so in that way I guess it is correct. But when the soviets came to Russia and where not just for Soldiers but also for proletarians and peasants, the bolsheviks had influence in them.

It is kind of correct, but since the time between the soviets for soldiers and the soviets for workers was so little that I think you can state that the Bolsheviks had something to do with them, rather quickly after the soviets came into existence.

Thank you. I guess it is the same as with the other 'facts' in my book then, most things are only half true. Do you happen to know what role those early soviets played in the society and what influence (if any) they had?

[Камо́ Зэд]

How do you mean?

I mean there are half-truths, there are omissions, and then there are those falsehoods that border on outright fabrication. Consider the death toll attributed to Stalin, which varies in sanctioned literature from ten million to forty million.

[Blake's Baby]

...
I have also encountered some things that I doubt. For example, my book states the Soviets had nothing to do with the Bolsheviks in the beginning. My book isn't really clear about it, but they say something like this: First there was the February revolution. It started because there were mass strikes in Petrograd and soldier put down their weapons. This was because of the lack of food and other products. The tsar could not handle the situation and the Doema told the Tsar give up his rule, thus creating the Provision Government under leading of Kerenski of the SR's. On one side there was this government, which had no power. On the other side there were the Soviets, (which apparently spontaneously came into existence). During the February Revolution the Bolsheviks were a minority but they sprayed propaganda all of the place. They sometimes told things that were against their ideology, like that the farmers should own the land, just to get more support. This propaganda worked, and then the Soviets (they mean the councils of workers and soldiers with this) decided to join the Bolsheviks.

So they make it sound like the Soviets were completely separate from the Bolsheviks in the beginning, and they could have joined one of the other parties as well. They say that the Soviets just fell for Lenin's propaganda. But the Soviets were part of the Bolshevik ideology, right? I thought the Soviets were supported and organized by the Soviets. Am I terribly wrong, or the book?...

The book more or less correct about the soviets. The Bolsheviks were not convinced of the role of the soviets (councils) in the beginning and didn't take them seriously. The Mensheviks had majorities on many workers councils, the Social Revolutionaries in the peasants' councils.

Trotsky had been involved with the Soviet in Petersburg in 1905, but he didn't join the Bolsheviks until August 1917.

It wasn't until Lenin began to see the soviets as the way the working class could take power that the Bolsheviks began to support the call for 'all power to the soviets', originally raised by the (Menshevik-dominated) co-operative movement. Previously the Bolshevik call had been for a 'democratic government of proletarians and peasants'.

Slowly the Bolsheviks gained support in the soviets, mostly I think because of their anti-war line.


...My books also says the mensheviks looked for close cooperation with the Unions to improve the situation gradually, but did they really looked for cooperation with the unions? And were the unions powerful enough to accomplish anything at all?...

As the majority of unions were linked to the Mensheviks it doesn't seem at all unlikely. But, no, the unions in Russia were quite weak, and not co-opted by the state as much as they were in Britain or the the Netherlands or Germany, which is one reason why the Bolsheviks never sufficiently criticised them.

However, the book does sound biased against the Bolsheviks, I don't think there's any doubt about that.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Remember guys, he's in history class, which means he doesn't have shit unless he's got a source to cite.

[The Cheshire Cat]

How is it possible that the Bolsheviks were not convinced of the Soviet? They seem like the ideal chance to give the power to the proletariat. And why did the Mensheviks support the Soviets, since they did not want all power to the proletariat?


However, the book does sound biased against the Bolsheviks, I don't think there's any doubt about that.

It wouldn't be a high school history book if it wasn't, I guess.

[Blake's Baby]

How is it possible that the Bolsheviks were not convinced of the Soviet? They seem like the ideal chance to give the power to the proletariat. And why did the Mensheviks support the Soviets, since they did not want all power to the proletariat?...

I'm conflating 1905 and 1917 here. The soviets were originally strike committes. The Mensheviks had more support than the Bolsheviks, more workers supported the Mensheviks, the trade unions mostly supported the Mensheviks. The fact of the matter is that it was the soviets that supported the Mensheviks. And the SRs.

Who told you the Bolsheviks wanted 'to give the power to the proletariat' and the Menshieviks 'did not want all power to the proletariat'? Was it a supporter of the Bolsheviks? There are people on this board that will argue both of those points with you.






It wouldn't be a high school history book if it wasn't, I guess.

All history is biased. You've been told that the Bolsheviks wanted "to give the power to the proletariat" and the Mensheviks " did not want all power to the proletariat". That's also biased.

You cannot believe everything you read; you shouldn't believe anything without checking it out.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Who told you the Bolsheviks wanted 'to give the power to the proletariat' and the Menshieviks 'did not want all power to the proletariat'? Was it a supporter of the Bolsheviks? There are people on this board that will argue both of those points with you.

I was using these terms to keep this thread simple and about my question. I did not want this question derailed in a flame war between Stalinists and non-stalinists.


All history is biased. You've been told that the Bolsheviks wanted "to give the power to the proletariat" and the Mensheviks " did not want all power to the proletariat". That's also biased.

You cannot believe everything you read; you shouldn't believe anything without checking it out.

I refered to the biased against the bolsheviks part. I have never heard of a school history book that defended the bolsheviks (or communist movement as a whole) with reasonable arguments. Or attacked the capitalist system.

History as we read it is per definition false, as the people who write it down always add their own vision to it, even when they try to stay unbiased.

And I can check out whatever I want, even then I am not sure wether it is even close to the truth. I am sure capitalists check things too before they speak. Yet they are in many ways wrong. At least, that is what I see as the truth.


The soviets were originally strike committes

I thought there were initially made by the soldiers after the Russo-Japanese war? At least, so I have been told. So do you mean a strike committee of soldiers?

[Blake's Baby]

Sorry, double post.

[Blake's Baby]

I was using these terms to keep this thread simple and about my question. I did not want this question derailed in a flame war between Stalinists and non-stalinists.

I refered to the biased against the bolsheviks part. I have never heard of a school history book that defended the bolsheviks (or communist movement as a whole) with reasonable arguments. Or attacked the capitalist system.

History as we read it is per definition false, as the people who write it down always add their own vision to it, even when they try to stay unbiased.

And I can check out whatever I want, even then I am not sure wether it is even close to the truth. I am sure capitalists check things too before they speak. Yet they are in many ways wrong. At least, that is what I see as the truth...

OK; I'm just warning you that replacing an argument based on false premises and faulty reasoning that is biased against the Bolsheviks, with an argument based on false premises and faulty reasoning that is biased for the Bolsheviks, isn't really much help.


I thought there were initially made by the soldiers after the Russo-Japanese war? At least, so I have been told. So do you mean a strike committee of soldiers?

No, as far as I can tell there was very little involvement of soldiers in the 1905 soviets. They started as strike committees, on the railways I think. It was 1917 when the soldiers led the movement to establish soviets.

I'll try to find out more info and then at least you can have some references.

[Marxaveli]

Student has a point, I've never seen a high school history book that was not biased against Communism. Oh well, that will change somewhat when you get to college. High school teaches you discipline, obedience, to accept authority, and to be a good little capitalist consumer. It is not until you get to college where they actually teach you to think critically about social and cultural norms. Is there a co-relation there as to why high school is compulsory, and college is expensive or is it just coincidental? :lol:

A little funny story: One of my friends told me that when he told his dad that he was going back to college to become a political science major, his dad replied "you know you are going to become a Communist, right?"

[The Cheshire Cat]

OK; I'm just warning you that replacing an argument based on false premises and faulty reasoning that is biased against the Bolsheviks, with an argument based on false premises and faulty reasoning that is biased for the Bolsheviks, isn't really much help.

I do not see what you mean, I think you got me wrong, could you explain what you mean?

[Blake's Baby]

I do not see what you mean, I think you got me wrong, could you explain what you mean?

This is quite obviously pro-Bolshevik propoganda, not historical 'truth':


How is it possible that the Bolsheviks were not convinced of the Soviet? They seem like the ideal chance to give the power to the proletariat. And why did the Mensheviks support the Soviets, since they did not want all power to the proletariat?...

Who says the Bolsheviks supported giving power to the proletariaqt? who says the Mensheviks were not in favour of the proletariat taking power?

The Bolsheviks, that's who. The Anarchists, for example, would claim that the Bolsheviks had no intention of giving power to the proletariat, and indeed that they took power from the proletariat.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Who says the Bolsheviks supported giving power to the proletariaqt? who says the Mensheviks were not in favour of the proletariat taking power?

I personally think the original Bolsheviks did really want to give the proletariat the power over time, as anarchy is the highest form of communism (and I think the original Bolsheviks believed in some form of communism). But the bolsheviks first established a new state, not granting the proletariat the power it should get, and they eventually failed thanks to this.

The Mensheviks were popular amongst social-democrats afther the Bolshevik-Menshevik split. Since when do social-democrats strive for giving the proletariat power?


The Anarchists, for example, would claim that the Bolsheviks had no intention of giving power to the proletariat, and indeed that they took power from the proletariat.

The proletariat never had any power, not in their normal lives and neither in the soviets, since the first soviets had no real power of society, except for organizing strikes. So the Bolsheviks did not take the power, but they did not give the power to the proletariat (as they promised) either. And I do agree with the Anarchists. But as I said, I am trying to look at this subject from the way it is written in my history book, to prevent derailing this thread. And I just like to be able to see at least 2 sides of a story, I know the anarchist side, but I'd also like to see the side my history book uses. I hope it still makes a little bit sense.

[Blake's Baby]

I personally think the original Bolsheviks did really want to give the proletariat the power over time, as anarchy is the highest form of communism (and I think the original Bolsheviks believed in some form of communism). But the bolsheviks first established a new state, not granting the proletariat the power it should get, and they eventually failed thanks to this.

The Mensheviks were popular amongst social-democrats afther the Bolshevik-Menshevik split. Since when do social-democrats strive for giving the proletariat power?
...

I don't think the failure of the revolution was due to the Bolsheviks 'establishing a new state'.

I think you need a grounding in 'social democracy' and how it developed before, during and after WWI. Lenin was a social democrat, Trosky was a social democrat, Luxemburg was a social democrat...


...
The proletariat never had any power, not in their normal lives and neither in the soviets, since the first soviets had no real power of society, except for organizing strikes. So the Bolsheviks did not take the power, but they did not give the power to the proletariat (as they promised) either. And I do agree with the Anarchists. But as I said, I am trying to look at this subject from the way it is written in my history book, to prevent derailing this thread. And I just like to be able to see at least 2 sides of a story, I know the anarchist side, but I'd also like to see the side my history book uses. I hope it still makes a little bit sense.

I disagree that the soviets never had power, so I disagree that the working class never had power.

A good many people on this site will argue that the Bolsheviks overthrew or usurped the power of the working class.