Bolshevism : Good or Bad ?

[Redmau5]

Did the Bolsheviks taint the name of Socialism ? What do people think ? Is the Bolshevik model of government still applicable in todays world ?

[Cokane]

Bolshevism is definately a good thing, but people fear it because of what it led to in Russia.

Whether or not it is applicable today is questionable, it could work, but if America steps in, would it survive anywhere?

[NovelGentry]

Neither, just fairly wrong/stupid. Good and Bad are foolish words for such a thing -- as if the movement as a whole had a moral perspective, although I'll grant you this, still better than saying good or evil as some people would say.

[Kez]

Well, first for establishing if they were good or bad, create a list of criteria.

Did they create the world first ever workers state? Yes
Did they then defend this successfully against the capitalist onslaught? Yes
Did this improve the lives of millions in the countries? Yes

For this discussion lets create the criteria.

Then, who do we mean by Bolshevism? Lenin? Stalin? Khruschev?

So there are 2 issues to be resolved here (the 2nd being an entire discussion in itself) before we can say if they were good or bad

[rice349]

Again, when asking of whether you approve or disapprove of something is going to result in a subjective response (nobody is unbiased). Personally, i do not think the bolsheviks were failry wrong/stupid but this is based on my own personal beliefs and understandings. When regarding the topic of bolshevism, it usually revolves around a compare and contrast with menshevism, whether you support a disciplined but smaller and highly centralized party of professional revolutionaries (bolshevism) or a loose mass-based party. The Mensheviks resembled more characteristics of the social democratic movement where both parties originated. So in my opinion, bolshevism can be applied correctly and efficiently as opposed to menshevism. While overall there are much more complex aspects to the argument, this is just an initial assessment to your post.

[NovelGentry]

i do not think the bolsheviks were failry wrong/stupid

I don't think the Bolsheviks were stupid. I think the Bolsheviks were wrong, but Bolshevism is wrong... and for that matter stupid (or maybe a better word would be ignorant as it would apply to both).

I think the holy trio Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin -- Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit (AHAHAHAHA) were all quite brilliant, probably genius.

[Redmau5]

And what do you propose should have happened in post-revolutionary Russia ? The middle-classes were far too weak to successfully carry out the bourgeois revolution which Marx described. Which is why i believe the Bolsheviks were right to stage a revolution. I know the movement some-what degenerated under Stalin, Khrushchev etc., but i think if certain things had of happened (ie Trotsky becoming leader) then the USSR would have faired much better than it actually did.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

More importantly, given the differences between post-industrial capitalism in the countries where most of us live, and the pre-capitalist conditions in Russia, who gives a flying fuck about Bolshevism?

[NovelGentry]

And what do you propose should have happened in post-revolutionary Russia ? The middle-classes were far too weak to successfully carry out the bourgeois revolution which Marx described. Which is why i believe the Bolsheviks were right to stage a revolution. I know the movement some-what degenerated under Stalin, Khrushchev etc., but i think if certain things had of happened (ie Trotsky becoming leader) then the USSR would have faired much better than it actually did.

What should of happened and what I want to happen are two very different things. I don't blame Lenin and Company for the flaws of trying to find socialism out of a backwards society.

As such, what I would have wanted to happen in 1917 was socialist revolution, and I would have suppported and fought for it. Just like what I want to happen today is socialist revolution.

Should it? Well that depends, Objective should or subjective should? I think it should, but material conditions tell me it shouldn't, in both cases.


but i think if certain things had of happened (ie Trotsky becoming leader) then the USSR would have faired much better than it actually did.

I'm not saying there wouldn't have been some more admirable qualities -- I'm saying in the end, it would have failed, and it would have failed with similar "atrocities." Even if not caused by Trotsky. In a situation like that, the best you can hope for is to make people comfortable and hope that they will support you for that. I do not believe there is any way to instill the type of consciousness they would need to carry it on indefinitely.

[Colombia]

The fact that the Bolskeviks suppressed the Molshoveks in their mentality that "we are always right everyone else is wrong" could never work. It didn't work in the USSR and bolshevism won't work today.

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

Personally, there are some aspects of Bolshevism that I agree wholeheartedly with however, there are other areas that I trully dislike. As to whether it would work today, how can we tell? Thw world is such a different place now but, maybe it could work if it trully had enough support and another crop of inspirational leaders such as Lenin, Trotskey etc.

[iffiness]

Well this is an interesting topic. I truely belive that stalin destroyed communisms appeal to westerners. I believe that at the time thier was no other option to be honest, something new had to be injected into Russia and Lenin, Trotsky were the men to do it. Stalin for me is a paraniod power hungry man who created a different type of communsim that scared people out of believing in communsim. Bloshevism for me was the only option at the time and the way that the party played the game in the 1920s was the only way you could survive in those political conditions. I agree to some exent but someone new has to develop a way fo thinking something unheard of, maybe not a direct link to communisn but has features that are similiar.

[NovelGentry]

Something new? The provisional government and the decline of the Tsar's thrown weren't enough? Russia was on it's way towards "democratic" capitalism -- the attempt at socialism did little but ensure they'd see it about a half a century late.

It was good in the sense that coloring a picture before you draw it is good -- not extremely productive and a far cry messier. Not that capitalism is something to look forward to -- hell, I woulda been there with em, but saying it's needed?

[iffiness]

mmm well the provisional goverenment never really had any control over russia it was very weak in 1917. The first world war was still continuing and the provisional governemtn wanted to continue. Something the population didnt really want. They had other options but these were poor options that were seen as similiar to what they ahd before and they wanted change. "democratic" capatilism was still a fair way away and at the time blosheviks still promised democratic communism. The state Russia was in turmiol i highly doubt they would ahve been able to recover and become a super power as they did with capitalism.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 11:40 AM
The state Russia was in turmiol i highly doubt they would ahve been able to recover and become a super power as they did with capitalism.
this is in reply to this ,Russia was a superpower only under communism.under the title of the USSR.Capitalism has done nothing but increase unemployment and turn Russia into a country run by gangsters and oligarchies raping the country's resources for personal benefit in the imperialist fashion.
Bolshevism may not agree with everyone but it was a step in the right direction, so how could it have been bad.It brought a sense of dicipline to the state that was ruined through imperialist intrigues and false propaganda!

[NovelGentry]

mmm well the provisional goverenment never really had any control over russia it was very weak in 1917.

I wouldn't suspect many provistional governments would, they are, afterall provisional -- and it is not expected that they will be the successor to the system.


The first world war was still continuing and the provisional governemtn wanted to continue.

Indeed, but much the same, they were in a position to change the system. And certainly, with enough pressure, would have. The peasants were screaming for land long before Lenin rolled around.


They had other options but these were poor options that were seen as similiar to what they ahd before and they wanted change.

Yes of course, they had the option of actually rising up and ensuring they got what they wanted -- and what they wanted was not actually communism, or even socialism for that matter, proven only a few years later with the NEP. The economy was going bad, and people were just as pissed off with the government quotas and confinscations. Too bad for most who were actually interested in property rights rather than state control, that they didn't completely recognize this in 1918 at the start of the civil war.

The issue is, however, not what did happen, but what actually should of happened. Lenin was supposed to be a Marxist, he should have known better than to try and skip a step -- but he did anyway. This is why Bolshevism is wrong, and this is why one should support it all they want, but it was not NEEDED, quite the contrary, what was needed is what would of happened if Bolshevism never existed. Even if it was not wanted by the peasants or the soldiers because Lenin had nifty slogans like "Bread, Peace, and Land!," it was most certainly needed.


The state Russia was in turmiol i highly doubt they would ahve been able to recover and become a super power as they did with capitalism.

I'm assuming you meant communism on the end there. Although it should be noted that the USSR was never actually communist, as no nation really can be by definition. However, I think you're far underestimating the productive force of capitalism and the speed at which it increases means of production -- it may have very well made the 5 year plans look like molasses.

As far as recovering, what little recovery was made in an economic sense was made by effectively admitting capitalism was necessary. See: Lenin's NEP. Had the NEP never been instituted, you would have been lucky if there was a single working class person left alive in the USSR by the end.

[NovelGentry]

this is in reply to this ,Russia was a superpower only under communism.under the title of the USSR.Capitalism has done nothing but increase unemployment and turn Russia into a country run by gangsters and oligarchies raping the country's resources for personal benefit in the imperialist fashion.
Bolshevism may not agree with everyone but it was a step in the right direction, so how could it have been bad.It brought a sense of dicipline to the state that was ruined through imperialist intrigues and false propaganda!

I think he actually meant communism. But again, as I said in my previous post... the USSR never saw communism.

[iffiness]

Well NEP did help the economy and the bsais of the NEP was capitalism but many econmist belive that the growth that the NEP experienced was due to post war boom that happened to most countrys after world war 1 (before the depression). BUt also when Stalin implemented the change in 1928 i think the first 5 year plan, NEP was slowing up and Bukarin admitted that under the NEP their would be a slow growth and the Russian economy at the time needed investment. Now under the continued form of capitalism that they had in place Russia(USSR) would have grown much slower. And to be honest Lenin had little choice but to try and make communism in Russia, the belief their was that even if Russian communism failed other revolutions would arise. Now we all know how this ended but Lenin adapted Marxism to Russia and it didnt fit, so he adapted the thoery to work in the circumstances that he ahd been placed in. Any leader of the time no matter how brilliant would have had to skip that step if they were in Russia at that time. It is true that Peasents were tricked to an extent but in all honesty, i truely belive their was no better option for the people of Russia:
Imagine your options:

Keep the provisional government: A govt that is still unsure of where it stands, unable to implement policy due to almost no power. In a war and unwilling to take Russia out of the war. Unsure as to whether to give peasents land, under pressure from land owners

Bolsheviks: New, willing to implement change, peace bread land slogan, brillaint leaders trotsky Lenin.

Or back tot he old ways of the Tsar.

I know what i would have choosen. The peasents, proletriats options were limited and the Bolsheviks gave them hope.

[Cokane]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:00 AM
the Bolskeviks suppressed the Molshoveks in their mentality that "we are always right everyone else is wrong" could never work. It didn't work in the USSR and bolshevism won't work today.
Of course the Bolsheviks would believe they are right and everyone else was wrong, but the Mensheviks were devout Marxists, waiting on a bourgeois revolution that would have taken decades to come about. The Bolsheviks did the right thing by seizing power, whilst the Mensheviks waited about doing nothing. Remember the Bolsheviks saved Russia from a right-wing military dictatorship when they undermined Kornilov, they had no other choice to suppress anyone who disagreed with them. And Bolshevism might not have been perfect, but to say it didn't work is being far too negative seeing as it was the foundation of the U.S.S.R which lasted for over 70 years.

[Redmau5]

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were 100% right to sieze power. The petty bourgeois in the Mensheviks were dillusional about the prospect of capitalist revolution, as the Russian middle-class was far too weak to become the new ruling class. Bolshevism may have become distorted under Stalin, but the original foundation of the movement was truly the right thing for the Russian people.