How the Bolsheviks Seized Power [Archive]

Severian

30th January 2005, 01:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:40 PM
[Not surprising; that famous scene with a whole mob of people storming the front gate of the Winter Palace...never actually happened at all.
Source? In fact it did happen, as well infiltration through other doors. See Reed's Ten Days, for example.

There were few casualties among those storming the Palace because...the defenders were little motivated to shoot. None at all were motivated to die fighting.

The lack of mass demonstrations, a gradual process of winning over the old regime's army. etc, during the October insurrection, leads superficial people call it a coup. But all that happened - just in advance of the actual insurrection. The Petrograd Soviet held a day of mass demonstrations and meetings on October 22, for example. In a series of meetings in late October, the various units of the garrison voted to obey the Petrograd Soviet and not the Provisional Government. Etc.

Far from an indication of shallow support, the ability to do this in advance is an indication of the very strong support the insurrection had among the workers and garrison of Petrograd.

While coups typically rely on surprise, the October Revolution's date, like that of a few other great revolutions in history, was more or less fixed in advance...everyone knew it would happen around the time the 2nd Congress of Soviets met. Again, an indication of the revolution's strength that there was so little the old government could do about it

NWOG, any book on the Russian Revolution will tell you that only a few people died in the October insurrection. None at all on the Provisional Government's side, IIRC.

redstar2000

30th January 2005, 04:20

Originally posted by flyby+--> (flyby)But the revolution itself was not a "coup" -- it was a protracted armed struggle (a true people's war) that lasted for years and moved back and forth across the vast country.[/b]

If you want to characterize the Russian civil war as "a true people's war", I have no problem with that.

But that had nothing to do with October 1917; I don't think the civil war actually began until March or April of 1918.

And had not the imperialist countries provided the counter-revolutionaries with material support and troops, the civil war would probably have been over in a few months. We know that because when that support was withdrawn (by late 1920 or so), the domestic counter-revolution utterly collapsed.

There is a legacy of ruling class historians that deny the Russian revolution was a genuine popular revolution -- and they act like there was nothing other than this "coup" in Petrograd.

There were "coups" in all the Russian urban centers and some fairly serious street-fighting in some of them; in Moscow, 500 Bolsheviks were killed in November fighting.

The distinction made by ruling class historians -- and one that I agree with -- is that in October, only a very small proportion of the population actively took part in the insurrection (Bolsheviks mostly).

February 1917 was "the real thing"...a true revolution that involved the direct participation of millions and even tens of millions of workers and peasants.

By contrast, October 1917 was a coup.

Severian
Source?

A People's Tragedy : the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 by Orlando Figes.

I've seen it in other works as well...but, as flyby has noted, probably all "ruling class historians".

Far from an indication of shallow support, the ability to do this in advance is an indication of the very strong support the insurrection had among the workers and garrison of Petrograd.

Obviously, support for the Bolsheviks was a good deal more than "shallow" -- if I'm not mistaken, the source mentioned above states that the Bolsheviks had an actual majority of the Petrograd Soviet in the weeks leading up to the coup.

And they may even have had a narrow majority in the All Russian Congress of Soviets that met the next day and retrospectively approved the coup.

Call it, if you wish, a "majoritarian coup"...but it was still a coup.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

30th January 2005, 07:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:20 PM
The distinction made by ruling class historians -- and one that I agree with -- is that in October, only a very small proportion of the population actively took part in the insurrection (Bolsheviks mostly).

February 1917 was "the real thing"...a true revolution that involved the direct participation of millions and even tens of millions of workers and peasants.
Ah. I see that the Petrograd Soviet made a serious mistake in not calling out more of its supporters during the insurrection itself. "Comrade! Get up! I know we don't really need your help overcoming token resistance, and you've actively participated in the revolutionary process many times before this insurrection and will do so again in the future - but we need your help right now in order to convince future capitalist historians and pseudo-Marxists that this isn't a coup!"

"Shut up. It's the middle of the night, it's cold out, and I do work for a living y'know. Besides, I don't have a rifle. I'll get out of bed when you have a real reason the revolution needs me. Haven't you ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?"

The "true revolution" in February, BTW, left the state machinery intact, with the exception of the police. The new regime immediately set to work trying to convince the soldiers to go back to obeying their officers again. One has to wonder if it's recognized as "true" primarily because it resulted in capitalist power, i.e. it had the result both you and the capitalist historians prefer.

And they may even have had a narrow majority in the All Russian Congress of Soviets that met the next day and retrospectively approved the coup.

Funny, even Encarta Encyclopedia says "On October 25, while the insurrection was in progress, the second Congress of Soviets began its deliberation. Of the 650 delegates, 390 (60 percent) were Bolsheviks." No "may" there.

Another 100 delegates were Left SR, and there were a few other supporters of Soviet power. With them, the majority is not so "narrow." On November 11, a Congress of Peasant Soviets, with a Left SR majority, also voted to support the Soviet government.

Call it, if you wish, a "majoritarian coup"...but it was still a coup.

Sounds like a contradiction in terms. Do we even mean the same thing by the word?

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coup%20d%27etat)
gives a couple definitions of "coup d'etat": " The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority." or "a sudden, decisive exercise of power whereby the existing government is subverted without the consent of the people; an unexpected measure of state, more or less violent; a stroke of policy." or "a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force"

The first two don't apply to the October insurrection; the last makes no distinction between revolution and coup.

Regardless of what definition you're using, the agreed-on facts show the October insurrection had nothing in common with the officers' conspiracies which "coup" usually refers to. Nor is it a "putsch" in the sense that Marxists have always condemned: the action of an isolated group who do not have the support of the masses.

I'll check your source when I get a chance; the impression I get from amazon.com is this guy's more anticommunist than a lot of capitalist historians. Certainly most of them agree with you about the "coup", but most seem to think John Reed was a pretty good eyewitness.

YKTMX

30th January 2005, 10:38

And they may even have had a narrow majority in the All Russian Congress of Soviets that met the next day and retrospectively approved the coup.

Call it, if you wish, a "majoritarian coup"...but it was still a coup.

The Bolsheviks spent their whole existence fighting the supporters of premature "coups". Your natural aversion to state power means that anytime you see someone who has taken it, you assume they're involved in some kind of mass conspiracy.

What you call a "coup", most people call socialist revolution.

Call it, if you wish, a "majoritarian coup"...but it was still a coup.

Excuse me Red but that's just foolish. A "coup" is a change at the top of society involving (usually) the upper sections of the armed forces. The actual removal of murderous leaders must be a thing to be conquered by a few persons, the laws of physics dictate that "millions" can't take part in this.

But then again, do the laws of physical reality impinge on your world, who knows?

Severian

30th January 2005, 11:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 10:20 PM
February 1917 was "the real thing"...a true revolution that involved the direct participation of millions and even tens of millions of workers and peasants.
Oh. BTW. The population of Petrograd in 1917 was about 2 million. So it seems unlikely that "millions" participated in the February Revolution unless every single inhabitant did so....let alone "tens of millions" unless there's some insurrectionary equivalent of "vote early and often."

redstar2000

30th January 2005, 14:37

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)I see that the Petrograd Soviet made a serious mistake in not calling out more of its supporters during the insurrection itself.[/b]

I see a remarkably surrealistic effort to evade the obvious difference between February 1917 and October 1917.

The former involved direct participation of the masses; the latter was a military operation conducted by a small group.

The former wished to simply end the Czarist autocracy -- which it did. The latter was an effort to seize political power for a small minority of the population -- which was also successfully accomplished.

Here's a question for you to ponder: why didn't the Bolsheviks -- with their majority in the All Russian Congress of Soviets -- go before the congress and ask it to declare itself sovereign ahead of the actual coup?

Why did they stage the coup first and then ask for retroactive approval of the congress?

May I suggest that Lenin & Company were not as confident of that support as you are...and decided to present the congress with a fait accompli.

Not even the Petrograd Soviet approved the coup in advance...it had simply set up a military committee dominated by the Bolsheviks -- and that was the formal organ that actually dispatched troops to occupy government offices, the train stations, the Petrograd telephone exchange, the telegraph office, etc.

I wonder if Lenin also wanted to set a precedent as well; the Bolsheviks act and afterwards seek approval from the delegates of the masses.

If so, it worked...by 1921 at the latest, the Soviets had become impotent organs that met only to give ceremonial and retrospective approval to any Bolshevik decree.

One has to wonder if it's recognized as "true" primarily because it resulted in capitalist power, i.e. it had the result both you and the capitalist historians prefer.

It is not a matter of either my preferences or those of capitalist historians. Bourgeois revolution was "on history's agenda" for Russia in 1917.

That was known at the time. Lenin and the Bolsheviks thought a determined minority could go "much further" even in the face of contrary material conditions -- but by 1921, Lenin's "New Economic Policy" was a de facto admission of defeat.

Unlike others, I don't ascribe this trajectory of events to Bolshevik "villainy"...I have no reason to believe that the Bolsheviks were not completely sincere in their attempt to make a "socialist" revolution in a semi-feudal despotism with a few islands of capitalist development.

They thought that "revolutionary will" was "enough".

But it isn't.

Funny, even Encarta Encyclopedia says "On October 25, while the insurrection was in progress, the second Congress of Soviets began its deliberation. Of the 650 delegates, 390 (60 percent) were Bolsheviks." No "may" there.

Correction accepted. :P

The population of Petrograd in 1917 was about 2 million. So it seems unlikely that "millions" participated in the February Revolution unless every single inhabitant did so....let alone "tens of millions" unless there's some insurrectionary equivalent of "vote early and often."

February was not limited to Petrograd; it happened all over Russia, including thousands of small uprisings in the countryside that expropriated the landed aristocracy.

I think the number of participants certainly were in the millions...and may even have reached the tens of millions.

YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Your natural aversion to state power means that anytime you see someone who has taken it, you assume they're involved in some kind of mass conspiracy.

The Bolsheviks at the time evidently thought they were engaged in a "conspiracy" -- why else were they so pissed off at Zinoviev and Kamenev for "blowing the whistle" in public?

By the way, my "aversion" to state power is not "natural" -- it was learned.

What you call a "coup", most people call socialist revolution.

No, not "most people" -- just people who accept the Leninist paradigm as "still valid".

The actual removal of murderous leaders must be a thing to be conquered by a few persons, the laws of physics dictate that "millions" can't take part in this.

Evasion. Only a few people arrested the Czar; millions took part in his removal and the removal of his aristocracy.

But then again, do the laws of physical reality impinge on your world, who knows?

Cute...especially coming from a Leninist. :huh:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Roses in the Hospital

30th January 2005, 17:45

QUOTE
On the subject of Bolshevik/Lenin trivia more people were actually injured during the making of the film 'October' than were injured in the events it depicts.

Slightly off topic but interesting I think...

Source, please?

I can't actually remember where I read that. It might have been from an old A level text book. I'll check next time I'm at the library...

flyby

30th January 2005, 18:49

Hmmmm.

My basic remark on these important issues is to encourage people to read the articles i initially started this thread with.

Because these analyses of "how this uprising happened" reveals how it was not some simple little event -- but the complex culminaiton of a whole process of revolutoinary preparation and struggle, involving huge efforts by the masses of people.

The theories that this was just a little putch, are refuted by these pieces -- which also (by the way) disprove the Trotskyist analysis of the October Revolution (and their related theories of how revolution in the U.S. could happen) which base so much on the assumption that the "coming over" by reguolar troops formed the backbone of the armed efforts.

The formation of red guards in the working class districts and their mobilization to seize power in Petrograd was the opening shot of the revolution, its first battle. The fact that it was a relatively quick victory does not mean that the larger revolution wasn't difficult and bloody and protracted.

"The revolution" in russia involved both "armed insurrection" and then "civil war."

The armed insurrections were themselves different -- in Petrograd the forces of the Bolsheviks were strong, and the forces opposing them were weak. In Moscow it was much harder.

Anyway -- I urge you to read the essays I linked to. I found them very thought provoking.

___________________
Also, as an aside: I remarked on "ruling class historicans" and redstar commented on that remark.

let me just be clear.

First, i read "ruling class historians." I read the works of all forces around a controversiy. And, frankly I dn't assume that the "ruling clas shistorians" tell no truths, or that the communist or progressive historians tell no falsehoods. The world is more complicated.

In fact, authors may raise important facts and insights, even if their overal theses or verdicts are wrong. And certainly on the other hand, (and unfortunately) it is true that there is a thick vein of self-decemption and fudging of facts on the side of "communist" writers of many kinds. And this is something that the revolutionary communists are fighting to break with.

Avakian has written some rather burning stuff on this. Particularly in the work [ http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/new_speech/ava...ship_speech.htm (http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/new_speech/avakian_democracy_dictatorship_speech.htm) ]

"One time someone wrote me a letter and asked: how do you read things, do you do what's called "proof-texting"? -- which is a way of reading to refute something. Do you read it in order to make your point? What he was referring to was the approach of only looking for things that confirm what you already believe; for example, you start out with a disagreement with somebody and in reading what they write you look for those things that you don't agree with, things that prove your point, and then sort of tautologically you go around in a circle. You end up with: "Aha, it's wrong." And I replied, no I don't approach things that way. Even things I vehemently disagree with, going in, I still try to look to see what there is that they are grappling with, what ideas they may hit on even inadvertently or may stumble on, or may actually wrangle with more systematically. There are things to be learned even from reactionaries. There are things to learn from reactionaries, even about politics and ideology, let alone other spheres. That doesn't mean we take up their outlook or their politics. [laughs] But there are things to be learned. And this is an important point of orientation."

In his essay A Discussion with Comrades on Epistemology (http://rwor.org/a/1262/avakian-epistemology.htm) he writes: ""EVERYTHING THAT IS ACTUALLY TRUE IS GOOD FOR THE PROLETARIAT, ALL TRUTHS CAN HELP US GET TO COMMUNISM."

In other words, we need to fearlessly seek what is true, even if it makes us cringe, even if some trush are (currently) being raised by our enemies, even if they expose our own mistakes,

"And: Objective and partisan is like this: If it’s true, it should be part of advancing, getting us where we’re going. If it’s not true, it would get in the way. If it’s true, even if it reveals the ugliest side of what we’re about—if that black book thing were true we’d have to say how did that happen and how do we prevent that?—but the thing is, what matters is that whatever is true, we can encompass it and make it part of what we’re all about, even when it’s truths that reveal bad aspects of what we’ve done. [The "black book" refers to a book purporting to tell the "true story of communism"—and to attack it as a monstrous crime—it is a combination of slanders and lies mixed in with some references to actual shortcomings and errors in the experience of socialist society so far.]

"That’s the synthesis of partisan and objective. Either we actually believe the most fundamental truth about capitalism and communism is what it is—either we have a scientifically grounded understanding of why communism should and can replace capitalism, all over the world—or we don’t, in which case we end up fearing truth.

"We have to rupture more fully with instrumentalism—with notions of making reality an "instrument" of our objectives, of distorting reality to try to make it serve our ends, of "political truth."

This is radically different than the method of many leftists (including within the communist movement historically and currently!) And I find it a challenging standard to aspire to.

Severian

30th January 2005, 21:46

Flyby wrote:
"The revolution" in russia involved both "armed insurrection" and then "civil war."

It involved a lot more than that. Both you and Redstar are making the same error, I think; reducing the revolution to armed conflict. The October insurrection was part of a revolutionary process of political conflict, winning over the workers, soldiers, and peasants, that developed over the previous months and following years.

Contrary to the theory of "prolonged popular war", it is not only in armed conflict that working people can increase our class-consciousness and organization through active participation in the revolutionary process.

It was as a result of that process that the ranks of the Provisional Government's army mostly supported its overthrow, and in no case were willing to fight for it. Also that of the roughly 400,000 industrial workers in Petrograd, 20 to 30 thousand were armed and organized in Red Guard units which universally supported Soviet power. (See Red Guards and Workers' Militia in the Russian Revolution by Rex. A. Wade.)

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:37 AM
February was not limited to Petrograd; it happened all over Russia, including thousands of small uprisings in the countryside that expropriated the landed aristocracy.
Oh, BS. Every history I've ever seen says that Petrograd made the February Revolution; the rest of the country only ratified it, with no fighting and little or no attempt by old authorities to hold on to power.

Peasant actions that "expropriated the landed aristocracy" did not mostly occur around the time of the February Revolution; rather they gradually increased between February and October and greatly increased after October.

These actions were opposed and suppressed by the bourgeois regime that "naturally" came out of the February Revolution - but encouraged and supported by the Bolsheviks and the Soviet government. So there's no reason to consider these later peasant actions part of the February Revolution. Seems you're engaged in a juggling act to inflate the scope of the revolution you like better.

You're shoehorning everything you possibly can into a box labelled "February Revolution", regardless of the time and place where it occurred. Then you compare it to the October Revolution, which you define as only those actions occurring in Petrograd during what, three days?, in order to call it a coup. (If you went just a few days earlier, to October 22, without even looking at the rest of the country, there were huge rallies of hundreds of thousands in support of the Soviets taking power, probably as large as anything in February.) Apples and oranges.

Evasion. Only a few people arrested the Czar; millions took part in his removal and the removal of his aristocracy.

No, not millions in the removal of the Czar; see above. Millions in taking the power and property of the nobility, yes, as well as other landlords and the capitalists....in the course of a revolution commonly named October after one of its episodes.

Oh, incidentally, how you can identify the February Revolution with the removal of the aristocracy, when the Provisional Government was initially headed by a prince, I have no idea.

***

Why didn't the Bolsheviks wait for the Congress? Partly because of actions by Kerensky - ineffectual though his government was, it wasn't simply going to wait around as its overthrow was openly debated, and didn't. Partly, yes, because Lenin figured it'd be more strongly supported after it was shown that here at last was action and not just more talk. In any case, sheds little light on the question of how many people participated in the October Revolution. Seems like one of your evasive subject-changes.

Yes, conspiracy was involved; it usually is in insurrections where one does not want to disclose every detail to the enemy. Compared with most revolutions, a surprising amount was carried out openly; it was certainly not a "sudden" blow as one dictionary includes in its definition of coup.

There are also revolutions of the "spontaneous" February type, which involve no conspiracy because they have no centralized leadership; these are endorsed by the capitalists and their supporters because the class which makes the revolution cannot obtain power as a result.

A similar historical example was the Iranian Revolution; Redstar could not ask for a revolution which was farther from a coup. Perhaps a greater percentage of the population participated than with any other revolution in world history. And, as usual, capitalist figures including Khomeini "naturally" took power as a result.

Plenty of unarmed crowds gunned down by the forces of the state, too. If you liked the February Revolution, you'll love the Iranian Revolution.

flyby

30th January 2005, 22:32

severian is confused. he said "Both you and Redstar are making the same error, I think; reducing the revolution to armed conflict. The October insurrection was part of a revolutionary process of political conflict, winning over the workers, soldiers, and peasants, that developed over the previous months and following years.

Contrary to the theory of "prolonged popular war", it is not only in armed conflict that working people can increase our class-consciousness and organization through active participation in the revolutionary process.

which is neither what i said or think.

In fact revolution is the overthrow of one class by another -- and it is a complex process by which all of society is thrown up in the air. The revolutonary process touches on ecnomics, production, art, culture, even sports! Hardly just the raw military seizure itself -- however important that may be.

However in this thread we were talkinga bout one part of the revolutionary process.

we were particularly debating how power was seized in russia and what to draw from that. And we were dealing with the charge (from some) that the October revolution was a putch (or a coup) -- implying that the new socialist state was illegitimate and isolated from the beginning, and so its supposedly "dictatorial" nature arose from how it came to power.

The Maoist theory of people's war does not say that working people only learn class consciousness through armed coflict.... which would be absurd. And maoists are not inclidned to mouth absurd things.

If you are really curious how Maoists think class consciousness develops....

I suggest looking at the process describes as "create public opinion, seize power" which is discused at lenght here: an intense but thorough discussion of how class consciousness is developed, and revolutonary preparations are made:

Create Public Opinion, Seize Power -- Prepare Minds and Organize Forces for Revolution (http://rwor.org/margorp/a-create.htm)

It is a view based on Lenin's analysis, but developed in light of experience and new thinking -- a kind of "What is To Be Done Plus"

Severian

30th January 2005, 23:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 04:32 PM
which is neither what i said or think.
.....
we were particularly debating how power was seized in russia and what to draw from that. And we were dealing with the charge (from some) that the October revolution was a putch (or a coup) -- implying that the new socialist state was illegitimate and isolated from the beginning, and so its supposedly "dictatorial" nature arose from how it came to power.
Right. And your initial answer was:

But the revolution itself was not a "coup" -- it was a protracted armed struggle (a true peoples war) that lasted for years and moved back and forth across the vast country.

You do make some mention of how:
Because these analyses of "how this uprising happened" reveals how it was not some simple little event -- but the complex culminaiton of a whole process of revolutoinary preparation and struggle, involving huge efforts by the masses of people.

But for the most part, your answer to the alleged illegitimacy of the insurrection was: that "does not mean that the larger revolution wasn't difficult and bloody and protracted."

The logical corollary would be that revolutions that are relatively less bloody are less legitimate, or result in a less thorough transformation of society. And in fact, that has been argued by Maoists...see below.

Let me just suggest that violence is necessary to overcome the violence of the exploiters...it is a necessary evil, not a positive good. Particularly when it involves the deaths of supporters of the revolution. (One reason I'm not enamored of February-style mass demonstrations as a means of insurrection, if other means are available.)

The Maoist theory of people's war does not say that working people only learn class consciousness through armed coflict.... which would be absurd.

Hey, you said it, not me: absurd. But that's what you'd have to assume to logically conclude what Maoists say: that a revolution can only be real and lasting if it results from a long and bloody armed conflict. Mao's government argued the Cuban Revolution was easily corrupted by "revisionism" because the revolutionary war wasn't long and bloody enough. As Castro accurately pointed out, this ignores the ongoing process of revolutionary education and mobilization which has never ended in Cuba. Edit: Here's the RW still pushing this "absurd" line. (http://rwor.org/a/v19/920-29/927/che.htm)

BTW, something you mentioned earlier about the role of the armed workers compared to the soldiers, and the "Trotskyist conception" of this:

It's probably true that Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolutionunderstates the role of the Red Guard. As an organizer of the insurrection, Trotksy was mostly concerned with the garrison, and like other members of the Military Revolutionary Committee spent most of his time worrying about wavering units which might support the government. This focus has affected other historians as well, to the extent they rely on documents of the MRC and accounts by its members.

One reason the Petrograd Soviet's committee may have underestimated the Red Guard: as Rex A. Wade explains in his detailed academic study, the Red Guard was a highly decentralized collection of nonparty organizations and its factory leaders greatly understated the numbers of their weapons in order to ask for more, and perhaps remembering past attempts at confiscation by the Menshevik-SR Soviet leadership. His 20 to 30 thousand estimate is based on figures compiled after the fact; nobody could have known it at the time.

The armed workers were the most active and determined participants in the insurrection; John Reed says patrols of soldiers were "invariably" commanded by a Red Guard and that Red Guards were in the forefront of those rushing the Winter Palace. (eh, just noticed the RW article quotes him on both. Funny little coincidence.)

But the soldiers were larger in numbers, better armed, and mostly better combat-trained; some had combat experience; their support or at least neutrality was essential for the success of the insurrection.

Heck, their support was important for organizing the Red Guard; both as a source of weapons and of instructors. Wade goes into this in detail as well.

I'm looking through the RW article a bit, and it seems fairly inaccurate on the nature of the Red Guards. For example: "In October the Bolsheviks had moved to transform these Red Guards into the backbone of a proletarian army." As Wade documents, that didn't happen until much later - in October the Red Guards were still autonomous, factory-based, nonparty organizations, with only the most rudimentary citywide staff. What structure there was, largely resulted from initiative from below - sometimes initiative by individual Bolsheviks, but not action by the leadership or the party as an organization, which unfortunately had paid little organizational attention to workers' militias. The Bolsheviks' main contribution was propaganda for arming the workers. There was some effort by the Petrograd Soviet to help Red Guards get more weapons in the weeks before the insurrection, writing an order to the Sestroresk Arms Factory for example.

As for the insurrection itself, Wade writes "Almost all known MRC orders are to military units; none is to a specific Red Guard detachment." On the 24th, the garrison units were ordered to prepare for battle "but if any similar order was sent to mobilize the Red Guard it is not recorded." Contrary to RW's description that "The Military Revolutionary Committee, or MRC, was created by the Petrograd Soviet to coordinate proletarian fighting forces and those troops who supported the revolution" it was created to investigate whether the city's garrison should be sent to the front, and expanded its mission to take full charge of that garrison. It had no mandate to coordinate armed workers' groups and as Wade says there's no evidence that it did so to any large extent.

(Incidentally, it's progress that the RW admits the MRC existed; past Stalinist efforts have tried to write it out of history and pretend some other body organized the insurrection. Its chairman, Trotsky, is still being airbrushed out of the photo naturally.)

The Red Guard acted almost entirely on its own initiative, mostly the initiative of individual units or district staffs. RW mentions examples of this and only one example of an MRC order to Red Guards: the citywide staff was ordered to send guards to Smolny. That's the only one I know of, and probably the reason for Wade's "almost". Yet RW persists in saying, contrary to the evidence, that the party and MRC directed and relied on the Red Guard.

RW also selects facts carefully in order to downplay the role of the soldiers; for example it lists a number of bridges that were reopened but neglects to mention that sailors from the Aurora opened one.

Also: "The insurgents stepped up their sorties against the defenders, gradually gaining ground under severe fire"

Eh, if this is the kind of thing Redstar means, he's right that the storming of the Winter Palace was a myth. There was some shooting at times but it hardly qualifies as "severe fire" seeing as how there were few casualties. Reed quotes one revolutionary rushing the palace: "Don't trust them, comrades! They'll shoot at us, surely!" or something like that. A funny thing to have to say if one had already taken "severe fire".

There's a few other things that seem to be an effort to argue that the insurrection was sufficiently bloody to be legitimate by Maoist standards "forging their army in the heat of battle" and so forth. Not accurate.

All in all I'd say the RW has quite a ways to go if it's going to practice what Avakian's preaching about telling the truth in all respects. See my comments on their Tibet article for another example. Lemme suggest that Avakian's fine words mean in practice: "Drop the more outrageous lies that almost nobody believes anyway."

Severian

31st January 2005, 00:39

Oh, crap. I just noticed the RW article cites Wade's book - the Ugarov quote is from p.193. But it cites it anonymously - "a book about the Red Guard" - perhaps because God forbid anybody might go find and read the book, they'd find out how false the article is in other respects.

redstar2000

31st January 2005, 01:58

Originally posted by Severian
The October insurrection was part of a revolutionary process of political conflict, winning over the workers, soldiers, and peasants, that developed over the previous months and following years.

Indisputable...but the title of the thread is "How the Bolsheviks Seized Power".

Contrary to the theory of "prolonged popular war", it is not only in armed conflict that working people can increase our class-consciousness and organization through active participation in the revolutionary process.

Why do I have the sense that something is being "hinted at" here?

And what is that "something"?

Is an SWP (U.S.) election campaign "part of the revolutionary process"?

You're shoehorning everything you possibly can into a box labeled "February Revolution", regardless of the time and place where it occurred. Then you compare it to the October Revolution, which you define as only those actions occurring in Petrograd during what, three days?, in order to call it a coup.

Historical interpretation is perforce "arbitrary". Your "shoebox" is different from mine...as is flyby's.

What you cannot dispute is the massive and spontaneous character of February compared to the relatively narrow character of October.

Well, you can dispute it...but you'd be wrong.

Oh, incidentally, how you can identify the February Revolution with the removal of the aristocracy, when the Provisional Government was initially headed by a prince, I have no idea.

Oh? And how long did he remain in office? And did he get to keep his estates?

There are also revolutions of the "spontaneous" February type, which involve no conspiracy because they have no centralized leadership; these are endorsed by the capitalists and their supporters because the class which makes the revolution cannot obtain power as a result.

I welcome your clear enunciation of the central Leninist dogma -- spontaneous revolutions (in the absence of a Leninist party) "can't win".

Leaving us with the enthralling task of choosing which Leninist despotism to support.

And "enthralling" is exactly the right word -- after we choose, we all get to be thralls. Hooray!

Plenty of unarmed crowds gunned down by the forces of the state, too. If you liked the February Revolution, you'll love the Iranian Revolution.

Well, what's your take on Iran? Lack of "Bolshevik-Leninist" (Trotskyist) leadership spelled doom for the Iranian proletariat?

:lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

31st January 2005, 17:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:58 PM
What you cannot dispute is the massive and spontaneous character of February compared to the relatively narrow character of October.
Sure. Comparing the October insurrection, and excluding everything outside Petrograd, to the February insurrection, tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. And I certainly have no reason to claim the October insurrection was spontaneous, as I don't consider that a virtue.

What I can and have disputed is your "millions or tens of millions". That's just plain ridiculous and you've added nothing new to support it.

And I can say that October was part of a larger revolutionary process than February was....perhaps outside the topic of the thread, but if you can bring in stuff you think is part of the same process as the February insurrection, why can't others bring in stuff broader than the October insurrection?

Or then again, we could regard both insurrections as episodes in the same revolutionary process - which continued without interruption from one to the other - and say that one should not be counterposed to the other.

Oh, incidentally, how you can identify the February Revolution with the removal of the aristocracy, when the Provisional Government was initially headed by a prince, I have no idea.

Oh? And how long did he remain in office?

'til after the July days. As with Miliukov and others who resigned from the Provisional Government, he seems to have resigned under pressure....from the forces who went on to make the October Revolution, including the Bolshevik party.

Hm...you seem to be bringing in the larger process February was part of...again. But we still can't do that with October, huh?

And did he get to keep his estates?

'til October, I would guess. Most did.

Certainly the February regime - with or without him - was committed to seeing that he did, suppressing the peasant revolt to the best of its ability, and postponing land reform to the Constituent Assembly, which was itself indefinitely postponed.

I welcome your clear enunciation of the central Leninist dogma -- spontaneous revolutions (in the absence of a Leninist party) "can't win".

Oh, they can win, (who are you quoting?) but without a centralized leadership, the revolutionaries don't take power. You call this a dogma, but do you have some example where the opposite has happened?

On Iran, the point is that it's as mass and spontaneous you could ask for, but the resulting regime not so wonderful, yes?

flyby

1st February 2005, 01:39

I don't feel like wasting everyone's time unraveling distortions. And I won't discuss all the cheap shots that sometimes go down. You are all quite capable of comparing different people and their methods.

But it is important to point out that Mao and Maoists never criticised the Cuban revolution (and Castro) cuz the rise to power wasn't "bloody" enough is ridiculous. And no one can document that charge exactly for that reason, it is ridiculous.

Mao and Maoism has criticized "the Cuban Road" and Guevarist Focoism -- as an attempt to make a "short cut" to power, that leaves the masses in a weak position to really carry on the revolution.

Maoism holds that "peoples war" is universally needed to make successful revolutions: i.e. that war needs to be waged in radically new ways, relying on the conscious activism and support of the masses of people (and not just those from themasses who directly join the revolutoinary armies.)

At the same time, maoism holds that in semi-feudal and semi-colonal countries it is possible and positive to have "protracted peoples wars" where revolutonary political base areas are developed, where the revolutionary forces can gather their strength militarily and politically, where cadre can be trained, where methods of leadership and new social relations can be developed and refined.

[Note here: peoples war are universally needed, but something specific, protracted poeples war, corresponds to what is possible in semi-feudal countries -- like peru or the philippines or nepal, where stable base areas can exist over periods of time, as a growing and attractive "counterpole" to the central government of the oppressors.]

It is hard to defeat an old order. It is even harder to create a new revolutionary state and society in one leap.

And mao showed how it was possible to develop new ways of fighting, living and working in political base areas -- that then made it possible to defeat and replace the reactionary forces as the revolution rose to match their strenght.

In some countries, progressive forces have come to power quickly (in Thomas Sankara's Burkina-Faso, or Castro's Cuba, and Ortega's Nicaragua for example) -- often because the central governments in third world countries are very weak, and because the crises of those countries sometimes cause the old regimes to crumble like a rotten edifice.

But just coming to power, without deep revolutionary movements and radical transformations among the people, without the experiences of peoples war, and the political possibilities that those experiences creates -- often creates a situation where you find new goverments with shallow roots, where the masses themselves are not able to fully participate (in land reform, in overseeing the new order, in acting on their own behalf etc.) and so "socialism" becomes a series of decrees with little resonance or implementation at the bottom.

The point is not that anyone want "more blood" (and, as I said, that is a ridiculous charge which is either based on deep ignorance or on an conscious attempt to simply smear other people in a discussion) -- the question is "how do we prepare the masses to rule" -- what are the methods of preparation (before the revolution and during it) that produce the new conditions (including the subjective factors of consciousness and organization among the masses) that mean that FURTHER leaps toward socialism and then communism are possible.

There has always been an element in guevarism, in castroism and in the line of the US-SWP of upholding coup-like grabs for power by "progressive forces." And while this is sometimes admirable, and such attempts are sometimes honest, they have not historically opened a road to socialism (not in Cuba, or Nicaragua, or other places they were tired.) Even if you "come to power" that way, you can't do anything good with it -- and the pull is to fume at the backward masses and seeking to flog them toward progressive goals despite their will, and in the process become new tyrants (even if wrapped in words about marxism or socialism).

I even think that some of the problems of Soviet socialism had to do with the "way they won" -- which involved the cities as great storm centers, but barely touched the millions of the countryside deeply, and left the revolutionary cores attempting to lead (and rule) masses of people in the countryside who were often highly resistent to socialist change and methods.

winning is not all that matters, how we win matters too. And that is one reason why revolutoinary political work including in political base areas over protracted periods of time (not focoism, and the supposedly "excitative" impact of the advanced actions of a few heroic beared ones), and why peoples war in particular etc. are important parts of successfully taking the road to socialism by drawing the mases of people deeply into their own process of liberation.

Severian

1st February 2005, 05:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 07:39 PM
IBut it is important to point out that Mao and Maoists never criticised the Cuban revolution (and Castro) cuz the rise to power wasn't "bloody" enough is ridiculous. And no one can document that charge exactly for that reason, it is ridiculous.
Yeah, after reading all that tripe you just posted, I think I summarized it fairly: the Cuban revolutionary war was too short. Which is a synonym for insufficiently bloody; the longer a war goes on the more blood is shed y'know.

And the reply still holds: the revolution, and the process of building class consciousness and political organization, do not end on taking power.

At least it hasn't in Cuba, for example. Even many capitalist observers are impressed by the support of most Cubans for the revolution. The extent of participation in the mass organizations is also impressive. Especially by contrast with the massive cynicism towards the betrayed ideals of socialism, which is typical of the inhabitants of the Stalinist and ex-Stalinist countries.

Mao's China truly has no right to go on about what it takes to build mass support and participation in a revolution as if they represented something other than a totalitarian state that treated people as sheep to be, as you put it, flogged along. The hypocrisy is deep.

Really, all this is just an after-the-fact excuse for the sheer grinding, bloody length of the Chinese guerilla war....which was in part due to the CCP's (and Comintern's) desire to reach an accomodation with Chiang, not overthrow him....after all, it was "natural" for the bourgeoisie to hold power in such a backward country, they held. A theory whose tradition runs from the Mensheviks through Stalin and Mao to Redstar and others today.

Mao saved Chiang's ass in the Mukden incident, and right up to the end was still trying to do a deal with him....everyone who welcomes the Chinese Revolution can be thankful to Chiang for refusing.

Similarly, Vietnam: the Viet Minh held the whole country coming out of WWII, gave most of it back on Comintern instructions, liberated most of it from France with great cost in lives, gave half of it back in exchange for a worthless promise of elections, then had to liberate it a third time at the highest cost of all.....and yet all that war, as prolonged and with as much popular participation as anywhere, didn't save Vietnam from "revisionism" according to Mao.

(The Nicaraguan guerilla war wasn't all that short either, y'know.)

It's especially galling to hear a Stalinist saying the Grenada revolution was weakened by taking power to easily...since it was the Stalinist faction led by Bernard Coard which destroyed that revolution, murdering its most popular leader, Maurice Bishop, and ordering the army to fire on a huge pro-revolution demonstration...about a fifth of the country's population. That's as big a popular base as you could ask for....mobilized by Bishop, dispersed with gunfire by Coard.

Then you mention Peru as a positive example of a "people's war" mobilizing "popular base areas"...why not Cambodia while you're at it? Tell us how Pol Pot was "relying on the conscious activism and support of the masses of people" rather than "fume at the backward masses and seeking to flog them toward progressive goals despite their will". If you're gonna paint Mao and the Shining Path as champions of freedom, why not Pol Pot while you're at it?

There's no revolutionary virtue in prolonged war; again, it's at best a necessary evil. It exhausts the revolutionary classes, kills many of the best fighters, and smashes the cultural and economic foundations needed for attempting to build towards socialism....all of which make it easier, not harder, for a capitalist or bureaucratic leadership to consolidate itself.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

1st February 2005, 05:55

Yeah, after reading all that tripe you just posted, I think I summarized it fairly: the Cuban revolutionary war was too short. Which is a synonym for insufficiently bloody; the longer a war goes on the more blood is shed y'know.

Goddamn it, read what was actually written. The matter of killing isn't what matters, but the build up which dictate the conditions under which any killing may happen. The point is that the Cuban Revolution, in Flyby's opinion, did not take sufficient time to build a large enough support base among the general populace.
I may be mistaken, but I think the idea is not necessarily drag out armed struggle in particular, but to first create a wide-based revolutionary consciousness before delivering the coup-de-gras. Under certain circumstances, this may require armed struggle against the existing apparatus of control.

And the reply still holds: the revolution, and the process of building class consciousness and political organization, do not end on taking power.

Indeed, but, in order to maintain power, there has to be some degree of pre-existing consciousness and organization, otherwise, a situation evolves in which a small group in power must 'herd' the masses toward desired goals . . . and I think it can be historically shown that this doesn't fucking work.

all of which make it easier, not harder, for a capitalist or bureaucratic leadership to consolidate itself.

Any revolution which places the means of violence and control in the hands of a single narrow party, and allows them to monopolize that power through the state, makes it easy for a capitalist or bureacratic leadership to consolidate itself . . . especially when the conditions that exist are those for a bourgeoisie, rather than authenticly socialist, revolution.

There's my stupid serious post for the night. Auuughhh.

Severian

1st February 2005, 06:54

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 31 2005, 11:55 PM
Goddamn it, read what was actually written....The point is that the Cuban Revolution, in Flyby's opinion, did not take sufficient time to build a large enough support base among the general populace.
Too short, didn't take sufficient time, tomato, tomahto. I realize the Maoists aren't proclaiming bloodshed as an end in itself, but they are claiming a long war is a necessary means to their claimed end of building a "large enough support base." And looking at Flyby's early posts in this thread, he certainly was claiming a bloody as well as prolonged war as proof of the Russian Revolution's legitimacy.

And for anyone who looks at facts, the Cuban Revolution has a plenty large base of support, especially compared to Mao's regime (during most of its existence). Ditto the early Soviet government.

Indeed, but, in order to maintain power, there has to be some degree of pre-existing consciousness and organization, otherwise, a situation evolves in which a small group in power must 'herd' the masses toward desired goals . . . and I think it can be historically shown that this doesn't fucking work.

"some degree of pre-existing consciousness and organization" needs to be considered even before launching an armed struggle....both the July 26th Movement and the Bolsheviks thought about this, certainly, and would not have won if they didn't have it. Both had sufficient support on taking power to lead, not herd.

Mao probably did initially as well...but chose to herd anyway.

Also, if sufficient consciousness doesn't exist to support and actively help carry out a measure....don't do it yet. Propagandize for it, wait for events to show its necessity, blows from the counterrevolution to make working people want to strike back, etc....the last is what happened with the Bay of Pigs, with Castro declaring the socialist character of the revolution afterwards. (A good example of doing the opposite is the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan...who did come to power with a lamentably narrow base, to be sure.)

The conditions for building popular consciousness and organization are far better after taking power than before...when the capitalists control most of the media, the schools, etc., not to mention the means of coercion and the economy.

Actually - linking back to the original thread topic for a moment - Lenin was making this point in the runup to October...that the majority of peasants will support the Bolsheviks only after they take the power and declare land and peace...actions, not words. Which most peasants did, as reflected in the Congress of Peasant Soviets in November, the results of the Civil War, etc.

Any revolution which places the means of violence and control in the hands of a single narrow party, and allows them to monopolize that power through the state, makes it easy for a capitalist or bureacratic leadership to consolidate itself . . . especially when the conditions that exist are those for a bourgeoisie, rather than authenticly socialist, revolution.

Which does nothing to support the rest of your post. If you're concerned the economic conditions for a "authenticly socialist" revolution don't exist, a long war won't help.

But I'll agree that communists should favor an armed organization of the class, not of the party....and in fact that's how the Russian Revolution was made. Nor should other workers' parties be banned....unless they choose to join the armed counterrevolution. If you're upset that the Bolsheviks became the only party in the Soviets, blame those who walked out of the Soviets.

redstar2000

1st February 2005, 17:12

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)...A theory whose tradition runs from the Mensheviks through Stalin and Mao to Redstar and others today.[/b]

I can't imagine where those other guys got the idea...here's my source.

Karl Marx
If therefore the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory will only be temporary, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in the year 1794, as long as in the course of history, in its “movement”, the material conditions have not yet been created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and therefore also the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie.--emphasis in the original.

Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality, 1847.

"Proletarian" (more properly, proletarian-peasant) revolutions in "backward countries" clear the way for the native bourgeoisie.

Material reality, as always, prevails.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

1st February 2005, 18:31

"As in the year 1794". He's talking about revolutions in a period before the modern industrial proletariat even existed. I might comment as well that Marx, before 1848, was not fully communist yet.

What you're doing here is using Marx's Collected Works as Christians use the Bible....with any sufficiently large body of work, you can of course find some quote to be yanked out of context and used to support any viewpoint.

redstar2000

2nd February 2005, 02:44

Originally posted by Severian
What you're doing here is using Marx's Collected Works as Christians use the Bible....with any sufficiently large body of work, you can of course find some quote to be yanked out of context and used to support any viewpoint.

Nice try. :lol:

Try being honest. Just say that "in my opinion, Marx got this one wrong."

It's ok to criticize Marx, really. The heavens won't fall or the earth split open and belch fire and brimstone.

Personally, I think this quotation is tremendously prescient...and fits very well within the corpus of his materialist analysis of history.

Of course, if you say that he's wrong...then you have to give reasons for that conclusion.

Perhaps it's better for you to just evade the issue.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

2nd February 2005, 16:50

Looking at the context (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/10/31.htm) I don't think he is wrong...it's an important insight into why the toilers couldn't end exploitation prior to capitalist development - basically, a statement of the historical materialist outlook; and also a good analysis of the 18th century bourgeois revolutions. Except one has to keep in mind he can't be talking about the proletariat in the sense he used the word later; rather the 'sansculottes' of Paris, and other plebeian elements who pushed forward the bourgeois revolution much farther than the bourgeoisie itself wanted to. Robespierre's government was the power of a petty-bourgeois revolutionary democracy relying on the support of more plebeian elements; the Directory was the power of the capitalists.

Incidentally, I have to doubt that's actually where you got the idea from first; it's a fairly obscure work and I doubt you read it until well into your political life. While various Stalinist ideas about the "Bloc of Four Classes", "national bourgeoisie" and so forth, you probably would have come across early in your political life in the Maoist factions of SDS.

But how about we stop with the exegesis and clarify what you are saying?

From that quote, one might think you were saying the workers and peasants should take power as "an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself". That clearly was an element of the October Revolution, and clearly the Soviet government did finish off semifeudal landlord property and take care of other bourgeois-democratic business far more thoroughly than any capitalist government has. Or as Marx goes on to say in that article "The terror in France could thus by its mighty hammer-blows only serve to spirit away, as it were, the ruins of feudalism from French soil. The timidly considerate bourgeoisie would not have accomplished this task in decades. The bloody action of the people thus only prepared the way for it." And the bourgeoisie is clearly far more "timidly considerate" of disturbing feudal and other precapitalist remnants now, in the 20th century, than it was in the 18th.

But then you also say it was "natural" for the bourgeoisie to take power, and seem to imply it was artificial and wrong for the Bolsheviks to do so. You often seem to have some hope that a capitalist government can carry out revolutionary social transformations, of the bourgeois-democratic sense; you even seem to think, contrary to facts, that the February regime took the property of the landed aristocracy.

So which one is it? Should workers' parties, in economically undeveloped countries, simply support some allegedly progressive capitalists taking power, or should they take power themselves as "an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution"? Those seem like very different positions to me.

And how economically developed does a country have to be before you favor socialist revolution? I gotta ask because in another thread you seemed to say that post-WWI Germany - one of the most, maybe even the most industrialized country in the world at the time - had the conditions only for a bourgeois and not a socialist revolution.

redstar2000

2nd February 2005, 23:31

Originally posted by Severian
Should workers' parties, in economically undeveloped countries, simply support some allegedly progressive capitalists taking power, or should they take power themselves as "an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution"? Those seem like very different positions to me.

But the outcome, in the long run, is the same...modern capitalism.

What a "workers' party" does when it seizes power in a backward country is "clear the road" for modern capitalism...it "speeds up" what would happen anyway.

Someone in a pre-capitalist or semi-capitalist country who really understood Marx's approach would realize at once that communism in their country could not be anything but an idealist fantasy...something that could not emerge as a serious possibility for a century or more at a minimum.

If you "try anyway", the result is not communism or anything remotely resembling communism. Like Lenin, you end up with some version of the "New Economic Policy" (capitalist restoration) or like Stalin, you end up with the "USSR, Inc." or its equivalent...which inevitably devolves into an "NEP" followed by capitalism.

All efforts to evade this dilemma by Leninist regimes in power have failed...communism remained as hopelessly out of reach as the surface of Pluto.

And how economically developed does a country have to be before you favor socialist revolution? I gotta ask because in another thread you seemed to say that post-WWI Germany - one of the most, maybe even the most industrialized country in the world at the time - had the conditions only for a bourgeois and not a socialist revolution.

The data to answer this question does not yet exist.

What we would need is an unequivocally successful revolution followed by a successful transition to communism. Then we could go back and say that this is the minimum level of development required to make it work. From that we could look at other countries and say "here's where it's possible" and "there are the places where it's not yet possible".

Based on the evidence in front of us right now, communism is not yet possible anywhere. If the case were otherwise, it would show.

Naturally there are "straws in the wind" (of all kinds) in the "west" that "point towards communism"...hints of what is becoming possible. The decline of superstition in western Europe is "a promising development". The rise of "open-source" software is another. It's possible that the renewed popular interest in anarchism is yet another.

But straws are...made of straw. A large and serious revolutionary working class movement that takes communism seriously doesn't exist anywhere right now. Until someone either builds it or it emerges spontaneously or some combination of the two, the best that we can legitimately say is that the possibility of communism has moved "closer".

I don't expect this view to find much favor with Leninists of any variety; they all proceed on the assumption that history can be commanded. If you have "mastered the dialectic", if you have the "correct line" or the "correct demands" or a "great leader", etc., then material reality can be "shoved aside".

Perhaps for a little while...but then material reality shoves back with irresistible force!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

3rd February 2005, 09:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 05:31 PM
But the outcome, in the long run, is the same...modern capitalism.
No, the outcome's not the same, unless you can show an example of a capitalist government, anytime since the beginning of the 20th century, acting in a revolutonary way to sweep away all the remnants of feudalism, etc....even in the long run. (And, y'know, in the long run we're all dead...or, to fit that saying to the subject at hand, in the long run some war among the capitalists goes nuclear and throws us back to the Stone Age to start over, if we're lucky.)

And you haven't answered the question. Congrats; as long as you refuse to state a position you are safe from all possible criticisms.

It's also profoundly annoying that you keep talking as if anyone in the Bolshevik Party was unaware of the fact that Russia was not economically ready for socialism. They were perfectly well aware of it, and frequently explained that the prospects for the revolution's survival, let alone getting to socialism, depended on the world revolution. I've pointed this out to you before but you still keep running on at the mouth the same way.

Like Lenin, you end up with some version of the "New Economic Policy" (capitalist restoration) or like Stalin, you end up with the "USSR, Inc." or its equivalent...which inevitably devolves into an "NEP" followed by capitalism.

Wait, capitalism was restored in the 20s with NEP, and then it was restored again later...c'mon how long has the USSR been capitalist exactly?

What we would need is an unequivocally successful revolution followed by a successful transition to communism. Then we could go back and say that this is the minimum level of development required to make it work.

That's a catch-22: don't overthrow capitalism until it's time, but you can't know it's time until somebody overthrows capitalism and makes the transition to communism. I mean, nobody sane is gonna volunteer to be a guinea pig if it's likely to fail, given the effort and sacrifice involved in revolution.

redstar2000

3rd February 2005, 16:13

Originally posted by Severian
No, the outcome's not the same, unless you can show an example of a capitalist government, anytime since the beginning of the 20th century, acting in a revolutionary way to sweep away all the remnants of feudalism, etc.

South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, etc. are all examples of this process taking place under bourgeois hegemony.

Of course, it took somewhat longer...but it happened anyway, just as I said.

If all the self-proclaimed "workers' parties" in the world were to suddenly disappear, the transition from feudalism to capitalism would still happen in those countries where material conditions demanded it.

And you haven't answered the question. Congrats; as long as you refuse to state a position you are safe from all possible criticisms.

Well, I have said in other threads that I always cheer on the Maoists in backward countries -- they're good at making peasant revolutions and giving U.S. imperialism a hard time (temporarily).

What else would you like?

And, y'know, in the long run we're all dead...or, to fit that saying to the subject at hand, in the long run some war among the capitalists goes nuclear and throws us back to the Stone Age to start over, if we're lucky.

Y'know it could happen that way...in which case the next stage will be the transition from savagery to barbarism.

I don't see anything we could do about that...do you?

It's also profoundly annoying that you keep talking as if anyone in the Bolshevik Party was unaware of the fact that Russia was not economically ready for socialism. They were perfectly well aware of it, and frequently explained that the prospects for the revolution's survival, let alone getting to socialism, depended on the world revolution.

Yes...but the "prospects for world revolution" turned out to be not so hot either. As I pointed out in passing (in the KPD thread), the failure of the Spartakist Bund uprising in January 1919 was due to the fact that the bulk of the working class did not support it.

It didn't fail because there was "no Bolshevik party". It didn't fail because Luxemburg and Liebknecht were fuckups. It didn't fail because Lenin or Trotsky or Stalin were not Germans and on the scene there from 1900 onwards.

It failed because most German workers were unready for that "leap".

Nor was the bulk of the working class anywhere else ready for that "leap" (including Russia!).

Lenin's whole estimate of what was really possible in the period 1917-20 was well-meaning...and wrong.

A communist revolution is not possible until the working class as a whole understands that it's not simply a matter of swapping leaders...it means the class itself must be prepared to rule.

Coups, on the other hand, are always possible...but, from a historical standpoint, nearly always marginal in their effects.

Wait, capitalism was restored in the 20s with NEP, and then it was restored again later...c'mon how long has the USSR been capitalist exactly?

You and the Maoists would have a great time wrangling over this...as if a precise and correct date would "solve anything" of importance.

But, ok, I'll toss some dates around for you.

By mid-1918 at the latest, the soviets (the organs of working class power) had become ceremonial bodies that met only to ratify Bolshevik decrees.

In March of 1921, the trade unions were rendered powerless by the 10th Party Congress.

In the same year, the NEP provided for the effective restoration of a capitalist economy...and by 1926-27, this had largely happened.

The Stalinist majority of the party halted and then reversed the process...opting for a state monopoly capitalist version of "socialism". (And turning back Trotsky's bid to be the new CEO of the "USSR, Inc.")

Following Stalin's death in 1953, Khrushchev and his successors "decentralized" -- much like large corporations do here from time to time. They "spun off" various economic enterprises into "quasi-independence" with big rewards for successful (profitable) mini-CEOs.

By 1992, those enterprises were ready to stand on their own and even compete with each other in Russia -- so the central economic bodies were dissolved and, there being no further use for "socialist" pretensions, capitalism was restored de jure.

So, when was capitalism restored in the USSR? In the sense of what it was like to live and work there, late 1921 would be my best estimate. In the sense of putting together the organizational requirements and legal norms of modern capitalism, it probably was an ongoing process from 1956 or so right up to 1992.

That's all a "quick & dirty" summary, of course. But then I have no concern to "pin the blame" on some individual "villain"...an effort in which the "date" becomes crucial.

The working class in Russia was simply not ready to rule itself -- and proved that by caving in to the Bolsheviks very early on. Which despot would come out on top and lead Russia to modern capitalism is, in my view, a trivial matter.

That's a catch-22: don't overthrow capitalism until it's time, but you can't know it's time until somebody overthrows capitalism and makes the transition to communism.

No, it's not a "catch-22". If the opportunity presents itself (or appears to present itself) to overthrow capitalism, you naturally should make the attempt.

But since we cannot predict the future in useful detail (even with "dialectics"), we will not know if we were right until afterwards.

The best way to avoid a premature (and thus doomed) uprising is to stand back and let the working class itself "do it". We should resist the temptation to "do it ourselves" (stage a coup) and then hope that we can somehow drag the class into the process.

That doesn't mean we can't offer advice, of course...

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Severian

4th February 2005, 10:16

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 3 2005, 10:13 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 3 2005, 10:13 AM)
Severian
No, the outcome's not the same, unless you can show an example of a capitalist government, anytime since the beginning of the 20th century, acting in a revolutionary way to sweep away all the remnants of feudalism, etc.

South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, etc. are all examples of this process taking place under bourgeois hegemony. [/b]
What? They've had various degrees of industrial development, but that's hardly the same thing as having a bourgeois-democratic revolution. Heck, Russia under the last few decades of tsarist rule had some pretty rapid industrialization, that didn't mean the semifeudal oppression of the peasants had been ended nor that democratic rights for the workers had been greatly expanded.

There's no capitalist country without some remnants of precapitalist oppression. Those which have had bourgeois-democratic revolutions have fewer. Economic growth by itself does not erase them.

Look at the land-ownership patterns in Japan for example...

I don't see anything we could do about that...do you?

Help make revolutions before they get around to blowing up the world. The point is, time is not unlimited nor the outcome inevitable.

Yes...but the "prospects for world revolution" turned out to be not so hot either. As I pointed out in passing (in the KPD thread), the failure of the Spartakist Bund uprising in January 1919 was due to the fact that the bulk of the working class did not support it.

Yes, and if the Bolshevik Party had been inexperienced enough to try an uprising in April 1917, you'd be saying the same thing about Russia.

The Stalinist majority of the party halted and then reversed the process...opting for a state monopoly capitalist version of "socialism".

A peculiar belief - almost as peculiar as the belief that the NEP partial retreat amounted to the restoration of capitalism - with some interesting implications...apparently it is possible to get from capitalism to socialism, as well as vice versa, without a revolution.

In the sense of putting together the organizational requirements and legal norms of modern capitalism, it probably was an ongoing process from 1956 or so right up to 1992.

Still not done, when you bring up "legal norms of modern capitalism". Have you been following the Yukos renationalization?

But then I have no concern to "pin the blame" on some individual "villain"...an effort in which the "date" becomes crucial.

Oh, I was just curious about the seeming contradiction in your multiple restorations of capitalism.

Your overall problem is that you're not basing any of this on a serious analysis of the property forms....and getting too hung up on changes in the political superstructure.

Incidentally, if you read Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" it's the far from pinning the blame on some individual villain, as you put it....once you get past the title page it won't set off the conditioned Pavlovian reflex that causes you to foam at the mouth every time you read the word "Trotsky". Not very often, anyway.

No, it's not a "catch-22". If the opportunity presents itself (or appears to present itself) to overthrow capitalism, you naturally should make the attempt.

At last, an answer to my question...I think.

But since we cannot predict the future in useful detail (even with "dialectics"), we will not know if we were right until afterwards.

You betcha, there is never a guarantee of victory when going into battle. On the other hand, you can definitely guarantee defeat, by not fighting to win for example....

The best way to avoid a premature (and thus doomed) uprising is to stand back and let the working class itself "do it".

This spectator's advice that cannot apply to a party that is part of the working class and unable to stand aside from the battles of the rest of the class or leave it to its fate. Reminds me of the July days and the Bolsheviks' reasons for not standing aside from that battle, which was initiated by other sections of the class against the Bosheviks' advice...

Similarly, the Bolsheviks could not simply stand back and wait for some future Kornilov to be successful...

In any case, if working people take power, even with solely bourgeois-democratic goals, that has certain implications...I'll go into it another time.