Why Did The Greens Hate The Reds?

[4thInter]

Why did the Party of Socialists Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks fued? If both far left why couldn't they share a seat in parliament, Lenin was going to expand it to hold more seats anyways.

[Anti-Traditional]

A number of reasons. The origin of it is the differing positions each took on the land question. The Bolsheviks believed all the land should be socialised and put under the authority of the future proletarian state whereas the SR's believed that after expropriating the big land owners that the land should be distributed amongst the peasants. When the revolution happened the working class in Russia was still a minority and needed the help of the peasants so the Bolsheviks adopted the SR Land Programme and everything was fine for a while. Then the civil war came and the people in the cities were starving so the Bolsheviks collectivised the land and it's produce to feed the cities as part of a general policy of 'war communism'. Often the Bolshevik expropriations of grain were excessive and left the peasants with very little left.

[Sasha]

The major split was over the signing of the peace treaty that ended the first world war; http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk which the bolschevics supported and the left SRs opposed.

[bropasaran]

SRs were socialist, the Bolsheviks were state-capitalist. In the Programme of PSR published in 1905 there is a line:

"In general the Socialist Revolutionary Party warns the working class against "state socialism," which is partly a system of half measures for the strengthening of the working class and partly a peculiar type of state capitalism that concentrates various branches of production and trade in the hands of the ruling bureaucracy for their financial and political aims."

[Remus Bleys]

SRs were socialist, the Bolsheviks were state-capitalist. In the Programme of SPR published in 1905 there is a line:

"In general the Socialist Revolutionary Party warns the working class against "state socialism," which is partly a system of half measures for the strengthening of the working class and partly a peculiar type of state capitalism that concentrates various branches of production and trade in the hands of the ruling bureaucracy for their financial and political aims."

So the Bolsheviks < SR's? BAN HIM ALREADY PURGE KILL DESTROY DO SOMETHING

[bropasaran]

Bolsheviks < almost everything. As Bakunin said: "this – the organization and the rule of the new society by socialist savants – is the worst of all despotic governments! ... It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge, and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe unto the mass of ignorant ones!"

[Queen Mab]

SRs were socialist, the Bolsheviks were state-capitalist.


Errr, is that why the SRs joined the Provisional Government? :confused:

[bropasaran]

Not all SRs joined or supported that, and also, I never said the SRs were anarchists.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

A number of reasons. The origin of it is the differing positions each took on the land question. The Bolsheviks believed all the land should be socialised and put under the authority of the future proletarian state whereas the SR's believed that after expropriating the big land owners that the land should be distributed amongst the peasants. When the revolution happened the working class in Russia was still a minority and needed the help of the peasants so the Bolsheviks adopted the SR Land Programme and everything was fine for a while. Then the civil war came and the people in the cities were starving so the Bolsheviks collectivised the land and it's produce to feed the cities as part of a general policy of 'war communism'. Often the Bolshevik expropriations of grain were excessive and left the peasants with very little left.

There was very little collectivisation under Military Communism. It was primarily a grain procurement measure, and one that proved to be more efficient than market mechanisms (which is why Military Communism, under the guise of the "Ural-Siberian Method", had to be reinstated before the real collectivisation drive, as the kulak element was strangling the workers' state). The food dictatorship fed the cities and the Red Army - therefore it can't have been excessive from our standpoint. Let the esers worry about the peasants.

The "Greens" were mainly peasant bandits opposing the food dictatorship, with some elements from the whiteguard Party of Socialists-Revolutionists and some from the remnant of the Party of Left Socialists-Revolutionists (the majority of that party had joined the Bolsheviks).

[Brutus]

Why did the Party of Socialists Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks fued? If both far left why couldn't they share a seat in parliament, Lenin was going to expand it to hold more seats anyways.

It all comes down to class interests. The Esers championed the peasants, whist the Bolsheviks were a proletarian party. Conflicting class interests overcome any self-proclaimed adherence to socialism.

[Sasha]

There was very little collectivisation under Military Communism. It was primarily a grain procurement measure, and one that proved to be more efficient than market mechanisms (which is why Military Communism, under the guise of the "Ural-Siberian Method", had to be reinstated before the real collectivisation drive, as the kulak element was strangling the workers' state). The food dictatorship fed the cities and the Red Army - therefore it can't have been excessive from our standpoint. Let the esers worry about the peasants.

The "Greens" were mainly peasant bandits opposing the food dictatorship, with some elements from the whiteguard Party of Socialists-Revolutionists and some from the remnant of the Party of Left Socialists-Revolutionists (the majority of that party had joined the Bolsheviks).

Wow, lol, may I advise people to read Emma Goldman's living my life part 2 for a complete and excellent demolishing of that ^ utter collation of bullshit.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Wow, lol, may I advise people to read Emma Goldman's living my life part 2 for a complete and excellent demolishing of that ^ utter collation of bullshit.

May I advise you to say what part of my post was "bullshit"?

[Sasha]

This most blatantly: " as the kulak element was strangling the workers' state). The food dictatorship fed the cities and the Red Army - therefore it can't have been excessive from our standpoint."

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This most blatantly: " as the kulak element was strangling the workers' state). The food dictatorship fed the cities and the Red Army - therefore it can't have been excessive from our standpoint."

Emma Goldman's "My Life" is a source on agricultural prices in 1928? I never knew that. Her life must have been quite interesting. As for the second sentence, what part are you disagreeing with?

[ComradeOm]

Why did the Party of Socialists Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks fued? If both far left why couldn't they share a seat in parliament, Lenin was going to expand it to hold more seats anyways.Careful, now. You're conflating two very different things. The SRs were not the same thing as the Greens. To break it down (while simplifying somewhat):

The Right SRs sided with the Mensheviks and opposing Soviet Power in October 1917. They established anti-Soviet governments (eg the Komuch) and fought alongside the White armies. Ultimately they were subsumed by the latter as military strongmen came to the fore of the White movement.

The Left SRs supported the Bolsheviks in October but broke with them in 1918 over Brest-Litovsk. There was an abortive rising and series of assassinations but ultimately the Left SRs as an organised force were suppressed. Despite this a good chunk of the membership rallied to the Bolsheviks during the Civil War.

The Greens were not a movement at all. The term is applied to a series of peasant risings throughout Russia during the Civil War period. All they really have in common is an opposition to Bolshevik grain procurements; there was no over-arching Green programme or party.

Obviously there were no firm lines between the above. Individuals floated from camp to camp and it was perfectly possible for someone to oppose the Bolsheviks today only to rally to Soviet Power tomorrow. That SRs tend to crop up regularly (particularly in the Green risings) is simply a product of their history as the party of the peasantry.


Then the civil war came and the people in the cities were starving so the Bolsheviks collectivised the land and it's produce to feed the cities as part of a general policy of 'war communism'.Collectivisation was not a feature of War Communism. Don't confuse it with forced procurement (prodrazverstka). There were no major policy clashes with the Left SRs on agriculture.


Not all SRs joined or supported that, and also, I never said the SRs were anarchists.Yeah, the SRs who didn't support the Provisional Government ended up allying with the Bolsheviks. Silly socialists :rolleyes:

[Geiseric]

Bolsheviks < almost everything. As Bakunin said: "this – the organization and the rule of the new society by socialist savants – is the worst of all despotic governments! ... It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge, and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe unto the mass of ignorant ones!"

LOL i want some of what you're smoking. This is why the SR party supported the imperialist war policy?

[exeexe]

Im more wondering why are the Party of Socialists Revolutionaries being seen as being green? I thought being green politically was being against pollution and shit like that.

[Per Levy]

Im more wondering why are the Party of Socialists Revolutionaries being seen as being green? I thought being green politically was being against pollution and shit like that.

greens in the russian civil war were something quite different then greens as political parties today. in the russian civil war there were many groups fighting each other who were labeld in certain colours, there were the red, the white, the black, the green and even the blue armies. there might be more but i dont know of any others.

[BIXX]

Im more wondering why are the Party of Socialists Revolutionaries being seen as being green? I thought being green politically was being against pollution and shit like that.


It's just a term. Being green as an environmental thing didn't happen until sometime with the hippies.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

greens in the russian civil war were something quite different then greens as political parties today. in the russian civil war there were many groups fighting each other who were labeld in certain colours, there were the red, the white, the black, the green and even the blue armies. there might be more but i dont know of any others.

An interesting note - the colour green seems to have been associated with deserters and bandits in the period of the First World War. In Austria-Hungary there was the so-called green cadre, for example.

The "blue armies" are probably the result of a historian desperately trying to think up a colour for the Antonovshchina. I suppose grey armies would be a bit dull, and brown armies just sounds like a euphemism for severe diarrhoea.