Undemocratic Methods vs. Isolation

[Red Sun]

It is my understanding that Trotskyists and Left Communists view the undemocratic nature of the Soviet Union for most of its history as the result of the revolution being isolated. They do not think that the Soviet Union became undemocratic because of the methods and tactics of the Bolsheviks themselves. Is this correct? And if so, if the revolution had succeeded in, say, Germany, how would things have been different in Russia? Thank you.

[Blake's Baby]

Not sure what you mean by 'undemocratic' here. If you mean that the Bolsheviks substituted themselves for the working class by taking control of the soviets, I think most Left Comms would agree with that, most of us (those of us who aren't Bordigists) believe that the role of the party is not to control the post-revolutionary state.

I've said before that the policies of the Bolsheviks shaped the degeneration of the revolution in Russia, but didn't cause it. Whatever policies the Bolsheviks adopted in Russia, without an extension of the revolution to Europe, to Japan and China, and ultimately to the Americas, the revolution was bound to fail.

In short, on the question of isolation, yes the isolation of the revolutionary territory means the failure of the revolution. It didn't cause the failure of the revolution, rather the failure of the revolution (particularly in Germany) was the cause of the isolation. The revolution is worldwide; if the world revolution only takes a few territories and many of them are quickly reconquered (for example, Bavaria and Hungary) then the surviving isolated territories must degenerate, there isn't any other dynamic that can occur.

I think generally Left Comms see the revolution as a constantly-expanding phenomenon. As long as the revolution is encompasing more of the globe, its dynamic is positive. When it goes into retreat, as happened from about 1919, it does so because capitalism has begun to fight back. This fightback will prove fatal for the revolution unless there is a fresh impetus to the revolutionary dynamic.

In the post-1917 period there were important positive dynamics but the majority of these were quickly crushed because they were for the most part weak and isolated. General strikes in Seattle and Winnipeg, the semi-insurrectionist 'Red Clydeside', the Shanghai Commune and other events proved that sections of the working class were prepared to launch desperate actions but these were not enough.

What would have happened if the revolution had succeeded in Germany? More likely in that case that revolutions would have quickly broken out in France, Italy, Netherlands and Britain, and in SE Europe, Turkey, Persia and then China and Japan. Of course, the same problems apply if the revolution is defeated in these places, because Russia + Germany is hardly much better than Russia on its own; but Russia + Germany + France + Italy + Netherlands + Britain + Romania + Bulgaria + Greece + Turkey + Iran + China (not to mention the ferment this would produce in the colonies - British East and South Africa, India, French West Africa, the Caribbean, Indonesia etc) starts to look like a hugely more powerful bloc of revolutionary territories.

If the revolution had only succeeded in Germany, little I think would have been very different in Russia. The 'revolutionary bloc', though somewhat larger, would still have been isolated and succumbed in a manner not to dissimilar to what happened. If the revolution succeeded in Germany however, then the conditions would have been better for the revolution to further extend. That's kinda the point.

[Red Sun]

Not sure what you mean by 'undemocratic' here. If you mean that the Bolsheviks substituted themselves for the working class by taking control of the soviets, I think most Left Comms would agree with that
That is what I meant. I guess I'd like to know how exactly a global revolution would have prevented the Bolsheviks from taking control of the soviets in Russia? Or would them taking control just not matter because there would be so many other revolutionary countries, that one case of the vanguard party substituting itself for the proletariat could be dealt with later.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That is what I meant. I guess I'd like to know how exactly a global revolution would have prevented the Bolsheviks from taking control of the soviets in Russia? Or would them taking control just not matter because there would be so many other revolutionary countries, that one case of the vanguard party substituting itself for the proletariat could be dealt with later.

My view is that the substitutionism was out of necissity at first and as the situation in Russia itself became more desperate and the chances for revolution in Europe dimmer, a sort of opportunistic dynamic began to happen where "doing favors" for the party meant getting better positions and this process started pretty quickly and eventially led to a beurocratic layer that was focused on running production and owed their induvidual positions to the party and so this was intstitutionalized by the time that "socialism in one country" became the policy.

Had there been a revolution in Germany, for one thing this would have taken a lot of military and economic strain off of Russia. 2nd, it would have opened the possibility for working class workers (rather than Russian beurocracts) and the industrial richness of Germany to aid Russia materially.

Lenin talked about this quite a bit. His view was that russia had (because of the revolution) working class political power, but lacked developed working class industrial capabilities whereas Germany had industry and very advanced workers but no political working class power. Revolution in Germany would have "balenced the equation" and in Lenin's view the larger and more sophisticated German working class would probably leap way ahead of Russia and that Russian workers would be largely taking their cues from the methods of the German workers. So Russia was like a working class revoltuon that the Bolsheviks (in their view) were sort of butressing together until the German Revolution could actually crack open the whole situation - throwing much of the rest of the capitalist world into revolution along with it (considering the shock-waves caused by Russia's revolution).

Assuming a German revolution where German industry was in the hands of workers, assuming that this allieviated the most urgen material problems in Russia, allowing for workers to begin to have a more stable life again, then there just would not have been a way for a growing Russian beurocracy to develop in the way it did. Socialism in one country became a "possibility" only because Russia needed to "modernize" and develop its economy and without a Worker-run German industry to supplement and help develop Russia's economy along socialist lines, the Bolsheviks floundered until intresests within the beurocracy that had been developed offered a different path forward.