The Bolsheviks and Proletarian leadership [Archive]

Edelweiss

26th April 2006, 17:26

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Apr 26 2006, 04:53 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Apr 26 2006, 04:53 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 02:34 AM
well, depends on how you define "proletariat". Note that peasants in Russia, a nation which economy mainly was based on agriculture, had no own land at all in tzarist Russia, and where just slaves of the aristocracy and the great land owners, and therfore of the ruling class. Also, an industrial proletariat was hardly existing in Russia, as the figures are showing, 23.5% is hardy "support of the masses".
Why should any Marxist party give a flying fuck about the peasants? The Bolsheviks were the party of the proletariat - the only class worth bothering about. By October they had the overwhelming support of the Russian workers and were, by any standards, a workers party. [/b]
Well, a Marxist party has to care about the peasants when they are by fat the majority of the poplulation, and you still are convinced that they can be the base of revolutionary struggle like Mao did, and also to a lesser extent Lenin.

Again, industrial workers have been a very small minority in tzarist Russia, and their support alone for the Bolsheviks, althout it weakened later, never could be a legitmation for a Bolshevik government.

chimx

26th April 2006, 17:41

It should be noted that at the All Russian congres of Soviets which opened at around 10PM on October 25th, the Bolsheviks did not have a working majority, but simply a plurality. Yes it is true that dissolution of the February System was a result of social polarization in russia which swung workers into the Bolshevik camp, but this is hardly true for all labor.

The Consituent Assembly, whose delegates were voted upon in November 1917, and met in early January, were dominated by SRs as was mentioned. Russian economy was dominated by the rural sector, roughly 80%. Hardly the material conditions necessary to stage a proletarian revolution along orthdox marxist lines--but of course Lenin was anything but such.

ComradeOm

26th April 2006, 17:42

Originally posted by Nachie+Apr 26 2006, 04:22 PM--> (Nachie @ Apr 26 2006, 04:22 PM)Right, because you can feed people on industrial machinery[/b]
Are you seriously contending that the peasants are in any way necessary for communism? That's not just stupid, that's Maoist stupid. WTF do you think that the dictatorship of the proletariat is?

Malte
Well, a Marxist party has to care abpit the peasants when they are by fat the majority of the poplulation, and you still are convinced that they can be the base of revolutionary struggle like Mao did, and also to a lesser extent Lenin.
Care about, yes. Let them dictate policies, no. Let's face it - the peasants are amongst the most reactionary of classes. They play no role in achieving communism. Peasants have a different relationship with the means of production and its clear in Russia that, after achieving their land reforms and dividing up the great estates, the Russian peasantry could not be said to be revolutionary.

And Lenin advocated an alliance with the peasants against the Tsar. There was never any suggestion that they were either the "base of revolution" or the future of Russia. The bolshevik party itself was almost entirely worker based and counted the industrial heartlands as their strongholds.

Again, industrial workers have been a very small minority in tzarist Russia, and their support alone for the Bolsheviks, althout it weakened later, never could be a legitmation for a Bolshevik government.
As I said above, while the support of the peasantry was needed the Bolsheviks never pretended to either be a peasants party or represent the peasants. I believe that Lenin was criticised by Bukharin for referring to the early Soviet Union as a "workers and peasants state".

chimx

26th April 2006, 17:48

while the support of the peasantry was needed the Bolsheviks never pretended to either be a peasants party or represent the peasants. I believe that Lenin was criticised by Bukharin for referring to the early Soviet Union as a "workers and peasants state".

contradiction.

Nachie

26th April 2006, 17:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:57 PM
Are you seriously contending that the peasants are in any way necessary for communism?
I'm contending that people like to eat food. Russia found this out the hard way.

chimx

26th April 2006, 17:55

http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Stalin/stalin_main.jpg

"puh-leease nachie, what in lenin's name are you talking about? i know i ate fine."

Care about, yes. Let them dictate policies, no. Let's face it - the peasants are amongst the most reactionary of classes. They play no role in achieving communism. Peasants have a different relationship with the means of production and its clear in Russia that, after achieving their land reforms and dividing up the great estates, the Russian peasantry could not be said to be revolutionary.

http://www.vestnik.com/issues/98/0707/images/makhno.jpg

"say whaaat?"

Fistful of Steel

26th April 2006, 18:45

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Apr 26 2006, 04:57 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Apr 26 2006, 04:57 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:22 PM
Right, because you can feed people on industrial machinery
Are you seriously contending that the peasants are in any way necessary for communism? That's not just stupid, that's Maoist stupid. WTF do you think that the dictatorship of the proletariat is?

Malte
Well, a Marxist party has to care abpit the peasants when they are by fat the majority of the poplulation, and you still are convinced that they can be the base of revolutionary struggle like Mao did, and also to a lesser extent Lenin.
Care about, yes. Let them dictate policies, no. Let's face it - the peasants are amongst the most reactionary of classes. They play no role in achieving communism. Peasants have a different relationship with the means of production and its clear in Russia that, after achieving their land reforms and dividing up the great estates, the Russian peasantry could not be said to be revolutionary.

And Lenin advocated an alliance with the peasants against the Tsar. There was never any suggestion that they were either the "base of revolution" or the future of Russia. The bolshevik party itself was almost entirely worker based and counted the industrial heartlands as their strongholds.

Again, industrial workers have been a very small minority in tzarist Russia, and their support alone for the Bolsheviks, althout it weakened later, never could be a legitmation for a Bolshevik government.
As I said above, while the support of the peasantry was needed the Bolsheviks never pretended to either be a peasants party or represent the peasants. I believe that Lenin was criticised by Bukharin for referring to the early Soviet Union as a "workers and peasants state". [/b]
Alright, according to your posts it's the urban proleteriat who should have the most rights, especially in comparison to peasants because they're stereotypically reactionary and stupid. Maybe if they were paid more attention to they'd've been less anti-Lenin. :rolleyes:

chimx

26th April 2006, 19:36

the proletariat chose its party to lead them

The October Rising was essentially a Bolshevik coup. The PVRK, formed on October 9th and under control of the Bolsheviks, seized power before the opening of the All Russian Congress of Soviets. At 10AM, the PVRK declared "that the Provisional Government is overthrown, and we are taking power". The Congress didn't open until 10PM, making the PVRK's declaration illegal. This was the cause of the Menshevik and SR bloc leaving the congress, when in turn rid the Bolshevik's of their plurality in that body. This is the reason for Marc Ferro to think that "proclamation of the PVRK before the soviets had taken power was, given the views taken in the Bolshevik central committee, the Petrograd Soviet and the various other revolutionary bodies, a true coup d’état.” (1)

The counter argument is of course that the PVRK obtained power not in the name of the Bolshevik party, but in the name of the congress--albeit illegally. Sheila Fitzpatrick points out the absurdity of such a claim: "Some historians have suggested that the Bolsheviks’ one-party rule emerged as the result of historical accident rather than intention—that is, that the Bolsheviks did not mean to take power for themselves alone. But if the intention in question is Lenin’s, the argument seems dubious; and Lenin overrode the objections of other leading members of the party. In September and October, Lenin seems clearly to have wanted the Bolsheviks to take power, not the multi-party soviets. He did not even want to use the soviets as camouflage, but would apparently have preferred to stage an unambiguous Bolshevik coup."(2)

It was in fact Trotsky's strategy to use the Soviet as a mask for a Bolshevik conquest of power, and not Lenin's. (3) Lenin had always detested the "revolutionary legalism" of Kamenev, who felt that the Bolshevik's should work to obtain a legal majority within the soviet. Lenin wanted "violence . . . against the representative majority" insomuch as the body ceased to operate as the people's will (or what Lenin felt the people's will was/should be). (4)

One has to reflect on Marx's 1872 Speech following the Hague Conference in Amsterdam and wonder why the dismissal of consituent assembly in 1918 was necessary.(5) Clearly the the "institutions" which Marx refers to were present for Russia to articulate her needs and obtain her goals. The fact of the matter is that the material conditions of Russia were not proper for a proper Marxist revolution. Lenin knew this, but that little political opportunist fuckhead staged a political coup regardless and basically fucked Russia, not to mention communism in general in the 20th century.

basically: fuck lenin's coup.

(1) see Marc Ferro's: "The Bolshevik Revolution: A Social History"
(2) see Sheila Fitzpatrick: "The Russian Revolution"
(3) see Leon Trotsky: "The History of the Russian Revolution"
(4) again, see Ferro
(5) available online here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm

ComradeOm

26th April 2006, 19:51

Originally posted by Nachie+Apr 26 2006, 05:07 PM--> (Nachie @ Apr 26 2006, 05:07 PM)I'm contending that people like to eat food. Russia found this out the hard way.[/b]
Then please pray tell who produces the food in Western nations? Cause it sure ain't the peasants, a class that no longer exists in advanced capitalist nations. Why? Because they are obsolete.

chimx - Stalin and Makhno, two peasants, two brutal fucks. Surely you can do better than parade a failed and flawed Ukrainian nationalist as a symbol of revolutionary peasantry? If I wanted a "peasant come good" I could simply use Mao :rolleyes: That the peasants may revolt, if given the right conditions, is not in doubt, whether they have any role to play in socialism is very much so.

Originally posted by Fistful of [email protected]
Alright, according to your posts it's the urban proleteriat who should have the most rights, especially in comparison to peasants because they're stereotypically reactionary and stupid. Maybe if they were paid more attention to they'd've been less anti-Lenin
It has nothing to do with the stupidity of the peasants (note though that as a class they are amongst the most religious) but their place within the relations of production. Like the petit bourgeoisie, the peasantry do not own capital and yet are not beholden to it. Their enemy is not the bourgeoisie but rather the feudal structures that enslaves them. Once those are abolished the peasantry are perfectly happy to exist within capitalism where they can sell their produce. If I may quote Lenin "The peasant movement ... is not a struggle against the foundations of capitalism but a struggle to cleanse them of all survivals of serfdom."

If we argue otherwise, and claim that the peasantry is indeed a socialist class, then logically socialist revolution has been possible at any time within the past thousand years!. Obviously this is bullshit. A brief glance through history shows that in the numerous occasions where peasants have revolted in the face of oppression they have proved to be incapable of forming a new ruling class.

chimex
The counter argument is of course that the PVRK obtained power not in the name of the Bolshevik party, but in the name of the congress--albeit illegally. Sheila Fitzpatrick points out the absurdity of such a claim: "Some historians have suggested that the Bolsheviks’ one-party rule emerged as the result of historical accident rather than intention—that is, that the Bolsheviks did not mean to take power for themselves alone. But if the intention in question is Lenin’s, the argument seems dubious; and Lenin overrode the objections of other leading members of the party. In September and October, Lenin seems clearly to have wanted the Bolsheviks to take power, not the multi-party soviets. He did not even want to use the soviets as camouflage, but would apparently have preferred to stage an unambiguous Bolshevik coup."(2)
Of course that was the case. Why would the Bolsheviks, who lest we forget represented the proletariat, want to share power with liberals and peasants? Now while this might appal liberal democrats it makes perfect sense when you acknowledge that the proletariat are the only socialist class.

BTW I've read Fitzpatrick's book and, though short, it does an excellent job of imploding the notion that the Bolsheviks were anything but a mass party.

chimx

26th April 2006, 20:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:06 PM
Of course that was the case. Why would the Bolsheviks, who lest we forget represented the proletariat, want to share power with liberals and peasants? Now while this might appal liberal democrats it makes perfect sense when you acknowledge that the proletariat are the only socialist class.

I don't understand why you are quick to assert material conditions when talking about peasant life, but ignore it here. Russia's oldest urban class was 3 generations deep at best, most were recent immigrants from mirs. even still, if 80% of the country was dominated by a class still engulfed by feudal economics, as you said--though i don't necessarily agree with, why does it make sense for the Bolsheviks to stage a coup against other proletarian parties as well as peasant parties at this point in time when they constituted such an extreme minority?

BTW I've read Fitzpatrick's book and, though short, it does an excellent job of imploding the notion that the Bolsheviks were anything but a mass party.

What allows Fitzpatrick's work hold weight is the fact that she looks at February up until Stalin's purges of the late 1930s as one historical epoch, not to mention the 15 years between 1902 when lenin wrote what is to be done? and the february revolution. Because of this, the comparatively brief time period between February and October stands out as an anomaly to bolshevik organization.

However, the Bolsheviks in 1917 were hardly an inflexibly rigid "professional" party as outlined by lenin in 1902. You should also read Alexander Rabinowitch's book The Bolsheviks Come to Power, whom Marc Ferro agrees with completely. In particular, the fact that the central committee was eager to ignore lenin's calls for insurrection in september, the ideological split between Kamenev and Lenin which spilt onto the public press in october, and the fact that while Lenin briefly retracted the slogan "all power to the soviets" in late summer, the bolshevik rank-and-file never ceased using it, all go to support that the Bolsheviks were a mass party.

This is because the Bolsheviks were unprepared for February and the consequences of moving from an underground "professional" revolutionary party to a legal soviet party over night. Membership soared, especially by august of 1917, and democratic centralism was incapable of playing a significant role in the face of all these new recruits. Bolshevism was thrown into confusion at this time.

:ph34r:

IronColumn

26th April 2006, 22:55

There's that interesting anecdote where Makhno went to Moscow to speak with Lenin in early 1918 and Lenin asked him what he thought the slogan "All Power to the Soviets" meant. Makhno, like most people, expressed his belief in the revolutionary truth of the slogan: namely, federated democratic councils should govern the country. Lenin calls allowing the people to choose and run the soviets anarchistic petty bourgeois thinking not grounded in realities or some such.

Here's a reality: Makhno's portion of the Ukraine was democratic when not occupied by Reds or Whites, and Makhno's army was democratic. Lenin's Russia was not, nor was his army. I know which of those two alternatives is worth fighting for, and I'll give you a hint: it's not the police state.

ComradeOm

27th April 2006, 16:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 08:04 PM
I don't understand why you are quick to assert material conditions when talking about peasant life, but ignore it here. Russia's oldest urban class was 3 generations deep at best, most were recent immigrants from mirs. even still, if 80% of the country was dominated by a class still engulfed by feudal economics, as you said--though i don't necessarily agree with,
Even less than that I'd imagine. The average Russian worker still very much had one foot in the fields so to speak. Its a perfect illustration of the Marxist class analysis that the peasants' outlooks could change so dramatically once they arrived in the cities. The difference between the peasants in the countryside (who were opposed to almost all change) and those new and combative proles could not be more marked. When your relations of production change then your viewpoint invariably changes with it.

…why does it make sense for the Bolsheviks to stage a coup against other proletarian parties as well as peasant parties at this point in time when they constituted such an extreme minority?
What proletarian parties? The only other parties with any real popularity amongst the proletariat were the Mensheviks (reformist liberals) and SRs (reformist peasants). Like it or not the Bolsheviks were the only major revolutionary Marxist party in Russia.

This is because the Bolsheviks were unprepared for February and the consequences of moving from an underground "professional" revolutionary party to a legal soviet party over night. Membership soared, especially by august of 1917, and democratic centralism was incapable of playing a significant role in the face of all these new recruits. Bolshevism was thrown into confusion at this time.
One reason why I’ve never clung to the notion of the vanguard. Prior to February, even later really, the Bolsheviks were insignificant in Russian politics. But its clear that in 1917 the Bolsheviks were, contrary to both their critics and themselves, a mass worker party.

chimx

27th April 2006, 18:15

Its a perfect illustration of the Marxist class analysis that the peasants' outlooks could change so dramatically once they arrived in the cities. The difference between the peasants in the countryside (who were opposed to almost all change) and those new and combative proles could not be more marked. When your relations of production change then your viewpoint invariably changes with it.

but was there dramatic change? some historians argue that the fresh peasant recruits as urban labor began the labor revolution in 1917 by trying to mimic mir organization. The explosion of factory committee's was the result of peasant thinking applied to an urban setting. I can't remember if it was Rex Wade or Ferro that makes this point.

as far as peasants opposed to change, bite your tongue! 1917 saw a significant and autonomous peasant revolt that coincided with political change. Though Tsar Alexander abolished serfdom in, what, like the 1860s or so(?), peasants were still essentially tied to the land out of debt following this. It was them that aided in the radicalization of the 1917 revolution by essentially telling the february government to 'fuck off' and started land seizures on their own in the name of communal farm land, refusing to wait for a constituent assembly. one of the largest failures of the kerensky/soviet dual power was its inability to deal with the massive peasant revolution in 1917.

What proletarian parties? The only other parties with any real popularity amongst the proletariat were the Mensheviks (reformist liberals) and SRs (reformist peasants). Like it or not the Bolsheviks were the only major revolutionary Marxist party in Russia.

Mensheviks were NOT reformist liberals. they were moderate socialists indebted to marxist ideology. Even calling them moderate is an overstatement, as they were a politically stratified party, resulting in a left menshevik split that alligned itself to with bolshevism by october. SRs were also self-identified socialists, but much more moderate. again, these parties felt that a middle class revolution was necessary before a peasant/proletarian revolution could be possible. unlike lenin, this is why they refused to take power.

One reason why I’ve never clung to the notion of the vanguard. Prior to February, even later really, the Bolsheviks were insignificant in Russian politics. But its clear that in 1917 the Bolsheviks were, contrary to both their critics and themselves, a mass worker party.

i agree. although like you said, the fitzpatrick book makes a compelling arguement against it, by looking at exclusively between february and october, it is difficult to think of it as anything but a mass worker party. though still not as massive as the SRs. :P

ComradeOm

27th April 2006, 19:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 05:30 PM
but was there dramatic change? some historians argue that the fresh peasant recruits as urban labor began the labor revolution in 1917 by trying to mimic mir organization. The explosion of factory committee's was the result of peasant thinking applied to an urban setting. I can't remember if it was Rex Wade or Ferro that makes this point.
Its certainly possible that the organisation of the obshchinas influenced the collective nature of the Russian proletariat. Both what I would note is that those workers who continued to associate with those from the old village tended to be much more combative towards the authority of the capitalists than they had been towards the estate owners. Unlike with the peasantry, there was no great subsiding in revolutionary activity following the conclusion of the 1905 crisis – indeed strikes continued to be commonplace right up until 1917. In comparison it took years of mismanagement and the complete inefficiency of both the Tsar and Provisional Government to rile the peasants into taking matters into their own hands.

This represents a shift in the perspective of the new workers. This was inevitable considering that they had completely changed their mode of production. The old feudal lords had been replaced by new masters and their reliance on the land by wage slavery. That many of the proletariat still had “mud on their soles” is irrelevant in a Marxist analysis. They were now wage slaves and reacted as such. An obvious sign of this is that despite the token SR representation in the major cities, the industrial centres would later support the Bolsheviks by large majorities. The workers were thinking, and voting, like workers.

as far as peasants opposed to change, bite your tongue! 1917 saw a significant and autonomous peasant revolt that coincided with political change. Though Tsar Alexander abolished serfdom in, what, like the 1860s or so(?), peasants were still essentially tied to the land out of debt following this. It was them that aided in the radicalization of the 1917 revolution by essentially telling the february government to 'fuck off' and started land seizures on their own in the name of communal farm land, refusing to wait for a constituent assembly. one of the largest failures of the kerensky/soviet dual power was its inability to deal with the massive peasant revolution in 1917.
As I said the peasants revolted against the feudal structures that had oppressed them. That is probably the only thing that could have mobilised them to such a degree. Had Kerensky enacted the long overdue reforms then he would have received the peasants’ support. Apart from their land the peasants couldn’t have given a flying fuck about communism.

Its also worth noting that in the vast majority of the land seizures the new land was simply divided out amongst the mir as it had been for decades. While the cities went through tremendous and far reaching social upheavals, the countryside and structure of the mir remained largely unchanged until Stalin set out to nail them.

Mensheviks were NOT reformist liberals. they were moderate socialists indebted to marxist ideology. Even calling them moderate is an overstatement, as they were a politically stratified party, resulting in a left menshevik split that alligned itself to with bolshevism by october. SRs were also self-identified socialists, but much more moderate. again, these parties felt that a middle class revolution was necessary before a peasant/proletarian revolution could be possible. unlike lenin, this is why they refused to take power.
First off the Mensheviks were always a party of liberal protest. That’s not to say that they didn’t contain Marxists, I’ve always had a soft spot for Martov, but it was thoroughly infested with liberals. Look at those who would sit in a Provisional Government alongside the Kadets and Octobrists – could you describe them as socialist or Marxist? Some of them even went on to join the Whites! Within the Mensheviks the Internationalists were always in a minority and would become completely marginalised.

There was a similar division within the SR between reformists and radicals. The Left SRs problem was that they were all revolution and no theory. This was back in the days when terrorism was still seen as a viable route to revolution. Something that was in turn a legacy of that People’s Will nonsense.

Entrails Konfetti

27th April 2006, 19:57

Didn't the Social-Revolutionaries develop from the Narodniks?

chimx

27th April 2006, 22:48

As I said the peasants revolted against the feudal structures that had oppressed them. That is probably the only thing that could have mobilised them to such a degree. Had Kerensky enacted the long overdue reforms then he would have received the peasants’ support. Apart from their land the peasants couldn’t have given a flying fuck about communism.

Its also worth noting that in the vast majority of the land seizures the new land was simply divided out amongst the mir as it had been for decades. While the cities went through tremendous and far reaching social upheavals, the countryside and structure of the mir remained largely unchanged until Stalin set out to nail them.

they revolted against feudal structure, or at least the remnants of it, yes, but to what end? remember, that the stolypin reforms under nicholas tried to bring privitization to the agrarian sector, but the communal mir's attacked stolypin peasants as much as land holders! russia has a long history of communal land ownership that has remained largely entact up to today. to say that the mir was exclussively a feudal product overlooks basic russian culture, imo. they may not have been what the bolsheviks wanted for the countryside, but the revolts were hardly feudal or capitalistic.

First off the Mensheviks were always a party of liberal protest. That’s not to say that they didn’t contain Marxists, I’ve always had a soft spot for Martov, but it was thoroughly infested with liberals. Look at those who would sit in a Provisional Government alongside the Kadets and Octobrists – could you describe them as socialist or Marxist? Some of them even went on to join the Whites! Within the Mensheviks the Internationalists were always in a minority and would become completely marginalised.

There was a similar division within the SR between reformists and radicals. The Left SRs problem was that they were all revolution and no theory. This was back in the days when terrorism was still seen as a viable route to revolution. Something that was in turn a legacy of that People’s Will nonsense.

they were all marxists. irakli tserteli led right and convinced the mensheviks to cooperate with the provisional government to a degree, but look at the historical context: russia was getting fucked by the war. tserteli argued that collaboration was necessary "to save the revolution", and whether or not that is true is up for debate, i see no reason to question his sincerity. of course, Martov led the left wing of the Mensheviks against this, as was mentioned. However, Tserteli had been an O.G. leader of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party--a marxist party. To say that he was just a liberal is historically unjust, imo, though we may disagree with his tactics.

As far as the SRs go, it isn't surprising they broke up. The party started as a hodgepodge of different socialist group and this resulted in an illdefined party ideology. Still, because of their diversity you can't simply write them all off as liberals (though some like kerensky you certainly could). Plus, they were the most popular party in Russia. If 60% of the population is supporting the "feudalist" party in 1918, how can you justify bolshevik revolution along materialist lines?

ComradeOm

28th April 2006, 21:31

Originally posted by chimx
they revolted against feudal structure, or at least the remnants of it, yes, but to what end? remember, that the stolypin reforms under nicholas tried to bring privitization to the agrarian sector, but the communal mir's attacked stolypin peasants as much as land holders! russia has a long history of communal land ownership that has remained largely entact up to today. to say that the mir was exclussively a feudal product overlooks basic russian culture, imo. they may not have been what the bolsheviks wanted for the countryside, but the revolts were hardly feudal or capitalistic.
Peasantry and serfdom are feudal classes. Serfs, peasants and nobles – that’s what feudalism is. Much like the proletariat, the peasantry have an instinctive interest in overthrowing their masters. The difference being that their masters were the nobility. Had the liberals been able to throw off the influence of the nobility and enact the correct reforms then there would have been no problems. There is nothing about the peasantry that makes their aims diametrically opposed to that of the capitalists.

Do you really think that the peasants gave a damn about who owned the factories?

they were all marxists. irakli tserteli led right and convinced the mensheviks to cooperate with the provisional government to a degree, but look at the historical context: russia was getting fucked by the war. tserteli argued that collaboration was necessary "to save the revolution", and whether or not that is true is up for debate, i see no reason to question his sincerity. of course, Martov led the left wing of the Mensheviks against this, as was mentioned. However, Tserteli had been an O.G. leader of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party--a marxist party. To say that he was just a liberal is historically unjust, imo, though we may disagree with his tactics.
Oh the Mensheviks claimed to be Marxist alright but then so did the early democratic socialists. Even as they gunned down the Spartacists the SPD was technically a Marxist party. The Mensheviks actively supported, and came to dominate, the liberal regime following February. Hells even Stalin claimed to be a Marxist. Where do you draw the line between what somebody says they are and what they actually do?

Plus, they were the most popular party in Russia. If 60% of the population is supporting the "feudalist" party in 1918, how can you justify bolshevik revolution along materialist lines?
Well that’s the problem of course. How can you have a socialist revolution in a country where 80% of the population is peasant? Which is an entirely different discussion. What I think we have established here is that the Bolsheviks represented the workers of Russia in 1917. Plus the peasants not being a socialist class of course.

chimx

28th April 2006, 22:36

Do you really think that the peasants gave a damn about who owned the factories?

russian peasants were pretty radicalized, demanding that land and property should be owned by the people using it. the peasants that moved into the cities were usually pretty radicalized as well. so yes, i think it is perfectly possible. of course russia was in a massive economic recession due to the war at the time. peasants weren't quick to hand over grain to the government because all urban products were going to the war effort and they felt kinda used.

Where do you draw the line between what somebody says they are and what they actually do?

i think you could easily argue that menshies were just as inline with marxist thought as the bolshies. also, kadets dominated the provisional government after february i believe. menshies didn't want to be part of the provisional government until russia started to get fucked harder by the war in the summer.

"Organise the city proletariat in the name of revolutionary socialism . . . unite it into one preparatory organisation together with the peasants. An uprising by the proletariat alone would not be enough . . . Only a wide-sweeping revolution embracing both the city workers and peasants would be sufficiently strong to overthrow the State, backed as it is by all the resources of the possessing classes." -bakunin

"Anyone who is well acquainted with the Russian people knows for a certainty that the peasants rarely deceive each other. Among themselves almost unqualified trust reigns and they know nothing about written contracts or conditions. Questions concerning the drawing of land boundaries are necessarily very complex because of the infinite divisions of land on the basis of tax. But nevertheless business is handled without complaints and legal suits. Landowners and the state thirst for ways to interfere but they cannot find them. Petty disagreements are brought to the judgment of the elders or the commune and their decisions are accepted without question.

"It is the same in the labor cooperatives. Cooperatives frequently comprise hundreds of workers, associated for a definite period, for example, a year. After a year the workers share the profits among themselves on the basis of the labor of each and by common agreement. The police never have the satisfaction of interfering in the accounting.

. . .

"The commune saved the Russian people from Mongol barbarism and from imperial civilization, from the europeanized landowners and from the germanized bureaucrats. The communal organization, even though it has been greatly shaken, has resisted the interference of the authorities. It has happily survived until socialism has emerged in Europe. The people and the state have nothing in common; in the very least outburst from the people the government sees signs of the fearsome appearance of revolution. The only goal of tsarism remains tsarism. It rules in order to rule. Enormous energy is spent on suppression and on the preservation of an artificial order.

"It is very fortunate for Russia that the peasant commune has not perished, that personal property has not replaced common property. It is very fortunate for the Russia people that it has remained outside all political movements and outside European civilization which, without doubt, would have destroyed the commune. " -Herzen

Marx was always kind of a biased cocksucker when it came to agrarian issues.

Janus

28th April 2006, 22:55

The Bolsheviks did have the support of the proletariat as well as the peasantry but the leadership was separate and ended up exploiting them. After all, Lenin stripped the soviets of power from which the strength of the workers were based off of. He had always envisioned his own party being in control and therefore, the workers never had true power in the USSR.

ComradeOm

29th April 2006, 13:17

Originally posted by chimex+--> (chimex)russian peasants were pretty radicalized, demanding that land and property should be owned by the people using it [/b]
The peasants had radical land demands (ie they wanted more) but that’s where their interest in revolution ended. Their radicalisation was inevitable considering that Nicholas had done sweet fuck all to address the concerns of 1905. Unlike the proletariat, which had evolved considerably in the intervening decade, the peasant demands of 1917 were the same – land. As a class the peasants are tied to the land which takes on extreme importance for them. That was, and today still is, the only issue that can radicalise them.

i think you could easily argue that menshies were just as inline with marxist thought as the bolshies. also, kadets dominated the provisional government after february i believe. menshies didn't want to be part of the provisional government until russia started to get fucked harder by the war in the summer.
Nope, that won’t wash I’m afraid. Do you think that there is any possibility whatsoever of Marx supporting a liberal regime against the workers? Technically the Mensheviks were guilty of too strict a reading of Marx, something that is still common today, but they took it to the extreme – insisting that liberalism must be both established and exhausted before socialist revolution. Thus all their efforts were devoted not to socialist but liberal revolution.

Correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t have any reference material onhand, but wasn’t there Menshevik and SR representation in the Provisional Government from the start as representatives of the Petrograd Soviet praesidium? Kerensky was the SR but I can’t remember if it was Tsereteli or Dan that represented the Mensheviks in Lvov’ government.

Marx was always kind of a biased cocksucker when it came to agrarian issues.
Remember that Marx lived in a time when the European peasantry was activatly dying away. He, rightfully, saw no future in it.

Janus
He had always envisioned his own party being in control and therefore, the workers never had true power in the USSR.
You have to understand the mentality of the times. As far as people were concerned since the Bolsheviks represented the workers, their assumption of power could be equated to the workers taking power. We now know otherwise of course but in Russia they did not have the benefit of hindsight.

Raul

29th April 2006, 18:58

Like them or not, without the Bolsheviks, all leftist idead would of been dead by now. They gave it a push and made it into a world wide phenomenon.

chimx

29th April 2006, 19:10

we are going to have to agree to disagree on the peasant issue. we're just arguing in circles. but..

Nope, that won’t wash I’m afraid. Do you think that there is any possibility whatsoever of Marx supporting a liberal regime against the workers? Technically the Mensheviks were guilty of too strict a reading of Marx, something that is still common today, but they took it to the extreme – insisting that liberalism must be both established and exhausted before socialist revolution. Thus all their efforts were devoted not to socialist but liberal revolution.

Certainly i agree the Mensheviks were guilty of taking too conservative a view of marxism, that was their downfall--that political participation was minimized because they wanted the liberals to dominate government while they sat back in the soviets. it is because of this that peasants got pisses, soldiers got pissed, and labor got pissed. but equally so, the Bolsehviks were guilty of taking too liberal a view of marxism, at least before october. the population, though made certain demands, was still a relatively apolitical body, supporting groups not along ideological lines, but with those that coincided with their loose demands.

plus the whole material condition thang, but we already discussed that.

Correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t have any reference material onhand, but wasn’t there Menshevik and SR representation in the Provisional Government from the start as representatives of the Petrograd Soviet praesidium? Kerensky was the SR but I can’t remember if it was Tsereteli or Dan that represented the Mensheviks in Lvov’ government.

i'm 99% positive that Kerensky was the sole socialist directly after february and there were no menshies on board. Kerensky even caught a lot of shit from the SR party for working with the provisional government, as most SRs took a stance similar to the menshies that this was a liberal capitalist revolution that they should not be part of. moderate socialist parties got onboard with them out of (what they felt was) necessity because of wartime issues.

does anybody have a website that lists the evolution of the provisional government and its members? that would be keen. i've tried wiki, and it is lacking in that department.

apathy maybe

30th April 2006, 07:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 04:13 AM
Like them or not, without the Bolsheviks, all leftist idead would of been dead by now. They gave it a push and made it into a world wide phenomenon.
Nope. There were quite a few organised anarchist groups around Europe and other parts of the world.

After the Bolsheviks took power in Russia, people thought that maybe they had a better way to go, and people joined the newly formed Communist Parties, and followed the line from Moscow.

It is conceivable that without the Bolshevik Coup, that anarchists might have taken power in parts of Spain and France with in 20 years, and held them, and they would have had that widespread support that was given to Moscow.

And unlike the Communists in Russia, I doubt there would have been an organised centralised Comintern to dictate policy.

VermontLeft

30th April 2006, 08:54

Like them or not, without the Bolsheviks, all leftist idead would of been dead by now.

yeah, cause the lenininists did such a great job! :rolleyes:

without the lenininists who knows what would have happened, but its hard to imagine that it could really havre been much worse. all that the USSR did was make communism equal dictatorship and misery for most people.

if it had been the anarchists or the left-communists who had controlled the movement instead of the lenininists it coud have actually lead to a real revolution in the west instead of fucking peasant dicatorships in the third world who happened to call themselves "red". :rolleyes: :angry:

ComradeOm

30th April 2006, 13:42

Originally posted by chimx+Apr 29 2006, 06:25 PM--> (chimx @ Apr 29 2006, 06:25 PM)does anybody have a website that lists the evolution of the provisional government and its members? that would be keen. i've tried wiki, and it is lacking in that department.[/b]
A quick look at Marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/p/r.htm#provisional-government) has more details than the wiki, including a list of ministers in the Lvov government. There's a Menshevik listed as holding a post in this government - Tsereteli (Posts and Telegraphs).

VermontLeft
if it had been the anarchists or the left-communists who had controlled the movement instead of the lenininists it coud have actually lead to a real revolution in the west instead of fucking peasant dicatorships in the third world who happened to call themselves "red".
How the fuck would a council communist, or even anarchist, revolution in Russia have led to revolution in the West?

VermontLeft

30th April 2006, 13:59

it wouldnt have and I wasnt talking about Russia, I was talking about the international communist movement in general.

The lenininists didnt just lead in the USSR, because of their "victory" there the rest of the world, including the west, turned to leninnism as the main form of communism. and since lenininism doesnt work in the west and because first world workers got turned off by the whole dictator thing (:rolleyes:), the west never developed as it could have.

im not saying its a guarnteed thing or whatever ,but having lenininism as the leading political theory definitely hurt!

ComradeOm

30th April 2006, 14:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:14 PM
The lenininists didnt just lead in the USSR, because of their "victory" there the rest of the world, including the west, turned to leninnism as the main form of communism. and since lenininism doesnt work in the west and because first world workers got turned off by the whole dictator thing (:rolleyes:), the west never developed as it could have.
The failure of communist parties in the West have nothing to do with Stalinist Russia and everything to do with the material conditions of those nations.

The Grey Blur

30th April 2006, 15:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:36 PM
The failure of communist parties in the West have nothing to do with Stalinist Russia and everything to do with the material conditions of those nations.
Don't be willfully ignorant, Stalin's spectre hung over Communism in the West and is still an obstacle to working-class support today

and everything to do with the material conditions of those nations.
How so? Educate me

VermontLeft

30th April 2006, 16:41

The failure of communist parties in the West have nothing to do with Stalinist Russia

No?

you don't think that the "legacy" of the USSR hung over every communist party across the world? you don't think that when people were thinking about communism all that they thought of was gulags and stalinism?

where have you been living? :lol:

no, Stalin isnt the only one to blame (and i didnt just say stalin ;) i said lenininism) but the ussr sure did set a standard that then china and east europe and cuba etc...

if there hadnt been a lenininist party that did it first, who knoes what would have happened in other countries? there might not have been communism, no, but there would be a morte positive attitufde to communism now!

like is siad, its not just about the past its also about now. communism is gonna be mcuh harder to confince people of now that they associate it with lenin and stalin and trot etc...

better if they just remembered MARX! (and maybe the spanish anarchists ;) :lol:)

вор в законе

30th April 2006, 16:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:09 AM

without the lenininists who knows what would have happened

Without ''Leninism'' and Soviet Union, Communism would be just another forgotten ideology just like ''scepticism'' or the Epicurean philosophy. The social-democrats like Kautsky and Bernstein would have convinced and the entire world that communism can not be realised because of the materialist changes that have taken place in the world and the rest of their silly reformist opinions.

There would be no Che Guevara, a marxist-leninist, or Che-Lives to speak off and you wouldn't be here right now to whine about ''leninism''

While the struggle of the classes can exist without the communists, communism exists as long as communists exist and as long as the communists propagate their ideas, the Materialist Conception of History.

Why ?

Because the Communists are practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country. (Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2) Karl Marx, Frederick Engels)

if it had been the anarchists or the left-communists who had controlled the movement

Ah but you see this is the thing. They can't, even though they will try and their efforts are praiseworthy. And there is a reason why they can't and they never made it.

Just as there is a reason why the ''leninists'', although unlike the anarchists and the libertarian communists actually can make a revolution, they screw it up in the end because of the one party rule.

Don't be willfully ignorant, Stalin's spectre hung over Communism in the West and is still an obstacle to working-class support today

The bourgeois would have vilified and distorted the ''ideals'' of Communism with or without Stalin.

chimx

30th April 2006, 17:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:57 PM
A quick look at Marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/p/r.htm#provisional-government) has more details than the wiki, including a list of ministers in the Lvov government. There's a Menshevik listed as holding a post in this government - Tsereteli (Posts and Telegraphs).
yeah, but tserteli didn't join the Lvov government until May. Keresnky was the only participant directly after february.

VermontLeft

30th April 2006, 17:40

Without ''Leninism'' and Soviet Union, Communism would be just another forgotten ideology just like ''scepticism'' or the Epicurean philosophy.

Bullshit.

Bad ideas die like that, but communism would have easily survived. it did, after all, last for something like 70 years between when marx wrote and when lenin ruled.

why dont you tyhink it could have lasted for another 70? ...or more?

The social-democrats like Kautsky and Bernstein would have convinced and the entire world that communism can not be realised because of the materialist changes that have taken place in the world and the rest of their silly reformist opinions.

:rolleyes:

people can try and convince other people of whatever but just like lenin didnt manage to convince everyone that his crazy take-over-the-government/rule-over-everyone/bow-down-before-my-enormous-brain system was real communism, the socialdemocrats wouldnt have been able to convince everyeon

and hell socialdemocrats are better than leninists! at least in social democracy you dont get randomgly arrested by crazy pipe-smoking psychopaths and at least social democracy can (probably ;) leadto communism.

all the lenininism has lead to is capitalism and a lot of very poor people.

...oh and lots of stalin statues! :lol:

There would be no Che Guevara, a marxist-leninist, or Che-Lives to speak off and you wouldn't be here right now to whine about ''leninism''

why not?

if marxist-leninism wasnt around, che would have probly found a different branch of communism. i mean he only chose leninininism cause it was what was big at the tiem.

and even if he didnt and stayed a rich doctor in argentina or whatever, someone would have fought for communism and who knoes maybe even done a better job! :o

if che had been fighting for real communism, who knows what he might of accomplished!

While the struggle of the classes can exist without the communists, communism exists as long as communists exist and as long as the communists propagate their ideas, the Materialist Conception of History.

right!

which is why we dont and didnt need lenininism to keep communism alive.

ComradeOm

30th April 2006, 17:54

Originally posted by Rage Against The Machine+Apr 30 2006, 02:27 PM--> (Rage Against The Machine @ Apr 30 2006, 02:27 PM)Don't be willfully ignorant, Stalin's spectre hung over Communism in the West and is still an obstacle to working-class support today[/b]
And yet you forget that for two-three decades Stalin was revered as the man who had beated Hitler. It looked like the USSR was working! So why wasn't there a great growth of communist parties and organisations? The flipside of course being that the bourgeoisie have been shooting communists long before Stalin ever took power :rolleyes:

Stalin may have served the role of the big bad bogeyman... just as Saddam, Milosevic and Bin Laden have done since the fall of the Iron Curtain.

How so? Educate me
Revolutions occur when the proletariat is radical enough and the bourgeoisie no longer progressive. They do not take place in fucking welfare states! Do you honestly think that had Stalin or Lenin never lived there would have been a revolution in the West by now? That the only thing stopping such a revolution was fear of the big bad red? It is frankly stupid to suggest that.

Originally posted by [email protected]
you don't think that the "legacy" of the USSR hung over every communist party across the world? you don't think that when people were thinking about communism all that they thought of was gulags and stalinism?
That situation - the "death" of communism - has only been true for the past two decades. People simply didn't know about the gulags prior to the eighties.

As I say above its stupidity to suggest that people were "put off" revolution because of Stalin. There were no revolutions in the West because the bourgeoisie was still progressive enough and the people still doped up enough.

Bad ideas die like that, but communism would have easily survived. it did, after all, last for something like 70 years between when marx wrote and when lenin ruled.
It survived as Social Democracy before Lenin rescued it from reformism.

chimx
yeah, but tserteli didn't join the Lvov government until May. Keresnky was the only participant directly after february.
I'll take your word for it.

VermontLeft

30th April 2006, 18:18

And yet you forget that for two-three decades Stalin was revered as the man who had beated Hitler.

By who?

the west hated him pretty much the second the war was done and trotsky had been out against him for a long time by that time.

sure inthe third world a lot of would-be "communist leaders" like his "style" (mao, etc...) but we know where all that shit lead.

if ussr had never happened, workers movement wouldntr have been clamped down on in the 40s and 50s. communism wouldnt be the so easilyt scapegoated and it weouldnt have seemd "unamerican' to anyone.

it could have been sold as "liberty" instead of fucking gulags and groups like the IWW etc... could have actually gone smewhere.

Revolutions occur when the proletariat is radical enough and the bourgeoisie no longer progressive. They do not take place in fucking welfare states! Do you honestly think that had Stalin or Lenin never lived there would have been a revolution in the West by now?

no.

but i think that the communist movement would be much stronger.

i tyhink that in France 1968 there wouldnt have been lenininists damping down on revolution. i think tha tthere weould have been a more organized and supported international.

i think that to workers everywhere communism wouldnt have meant obeying moscow and when spain revolted it that instead of electing leninnists, countries like portugal and italy would have done something.

there isnt just "one moment" for communism. and there were lots of points over the last 50 years where the bourgeoisie was oppressive and the proletariat radical. but the "communism' of the time told the workers to "channel" their radicalness through the vanguard party ...and it ended up going nowhere.

That situation - the "death" of communism - has only been true for the past two decades.

:( actually communism had been dead for a lot longer than that. sure in the third world a bunch of peopke calling thesmelves "communists" took over some governments, but in the first world, where communism can actually happen all that lenininism did was make communism the "enemy".

As I say above its stupidity to suggest that people were "put off" revolution because of Stalin.

not just stalin, but the whole ussr/mao/pol-pot/DICTATORS thing.

people dont like the idea of givine the government superpowers and thats what communism lookd likie to everyone. :(

It survived as Social Democracy before Lenin rescued it from reformism.

bullshit.

lenin didnt "rescue" anything. he perverted Marxism and made a dictatorship in a backwards peasant country.

therw ould have been revolutions in germany and spain and other places with or without lenin. dont give fucking dictator too much fucking credit!! :angry:

вор в законе

30th April 2006, 19:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 04:55 PM
at least social democracy can (probably lead to communism.

That is when I stopped reading your post.

You are still young and you much yet to learn.

Regards

VermontLeft

30th April 2006, 20:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 04:55 PM
at least social democracy can (probably lead to communism.

That is when I stopped reading your post.

:rolleyes:

I dont mean that social democracy will lead to communism itself. i mean that in a social democracy, there is a chance for the workers to rise up. they are still exploited, yes, but unlike in lenininism they can still organize,

no lenininist state can have a communist revolution cause the govrnment is too damn strong. plus with all the fake "communisM' around, none of the workers would take it seriouslyt.

in countries like the west now trhough (france or whatever) there is stil a chacne (especially if lenininists hadnt fucked it all up :angry:) for communism to be popular and serious and real.

plus, the quote you "stoped reading at" was like halfway through the post. there was really nothing else to respond before it? ;)

(i hate that "i stopped reading at" conceit. it sutch an arrogant asshole move. <_<)

chimx

30th April 2006, 20:20

Without ''Leninism'' and Soviet Union, Communism would be just another forgotten ideology just like ''scepticism'' or the Epicurean philosophy.

marxism hold significance outside of the realm of political ideologies. it wouldn't have died.

if anything, the collapse of the soviet union, leninism, etc. is going to allow for a greater proliferation of marxist ideals now that it can escape the spectre of the russian experience. i'm looking forward to the 21st century.

вор в законе

30th April 2006, 20:41

(i hate that "i stopped reading at" conceit. it sutch an arrogant asshole move.

meow :P

marxism hold significance outside of the realm of political ideologies. it wouldn't have died.

I'm not sure about this. We can not really know, we can just guess. But honestly I wouldn't take the risk.

The situation is not that bad for the revolutionary left right now, after an awful period of crisis in the mid 90's we are rising back again thanks to the Imperialists.

I agree with your understatement. It is time to move on.

anomaly

30th April 2006, 20:51

Originally posted by apathy maybe+--> (apathy maybe)It is conceivable that without the Bolshevik Coup, that anarchists might have taken power in parts of Spain and France with in 20 years, and held them, and they would have had that widespread support that was given to Moscow.[/b]
It would have been very interesting, certainly, without the Bolshevik coup.

One way or another, Russia was going to get where it has gotten today. I just wish they could have done it without all the red flags and the so-called 'Marxism'.

Originally posted by Red [email protected]
You are still young and you much yet to learn.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Ok, it's just regular arrogance. ;)

chimx
if anything, the collapse of the soviet union, leninism, etc. is going to allow for a greater proliferation of marxist ideals now that it can escape the spectre of the russian experience. i'm looking forward to the 21st century.
Unfortunately, Marxism is yet to escape Vladimir's shadow. :(

But the 21st century certainly will be better. It is true that the collapse of the USSR and the fall of many other 'Communist' states certainly can only help our cause. :)

вор в законе

30th April 2006, 21:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:06 PM

Leninist arrogance at its best!

I'm not a ''leninist'' so you are moaning to the wrong tree.

ComradeOm

30th April 2006, 22:14

Originally posted by VermontLeft
the west hated him pretty much the second the war was done and trotsky had been out against him for a long time by that time.
The Western governments hated the Bolsheviks from 1917. The Soviet Union though experienced a surge in popularity amongst the European workers following the war.

if ussr had never happened, workers movement wouldntr have been clamped down on in the 40s and 50s. communism wouldnt be the so easilyt scapegoated and it weouldnt have seemd "unamerican' to anyone.
Read some history. Anti-communist propaganda had been pervasive for almost a century prior to the cold war. So Stalin made an easy target? Big fucking deal.

it could have been sold as "liberty" instead of fucking gulags and groups like the IWW etc... could have actually gone smewhere.
Idealistic tripe. Really. The presence of the Russian bogeyman has nothing to do with the material conditions for revolution or communist agitation in the West.

Is it so hard to believe that capitalism has simply proven to be progressive in these nations rather than try and drum up unnecessary excuse after excuse as to why communism has failed in the West?

i tyhink that in France 1968 there wouldnt have been lenininists damping down on revolution. i think tha tthere weould have been a more organized and supported international.
Oh this is too good. You dismiss the Bolsheviks but suggest that the French protesters needed “more organisation” :lol:

bullshit.

lenin didnt "rescue" anything. he perverted Marxism and made a dictatorship in a backwards peasant country.
Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? You’d rather that we continued with the old social democracy practiced by Kautsky et al before Lenin came along? But, reading from your above posts, I see that you’d approve of that. Well that does explain a lot. Reformists always disagrees with actual revolution :lol:

herw ould have been revolutions in germany and spain and other places with or without lenin. dont give fucking dictator too much fucking credit!!
That’s the whole fucking point. There would have been revolution in Germany or Spain, no “other places” though, with or without Lenin. They depended entirely on the conditions in those countries. And yet you continue to insist that the opposite is true – that the native conditions are irrelevant because Stalin was a bad man :o

Either the events in Russia had an impact abroad or they didn’t. Make up your mind :rolleyes:

VermontLeft

30th April 2006, 22:48

The Western governments hated the Bolsheviks from 1917. The Soviet Union though experienced a surge in popularity amongst the European workers following the war.

yeah,and that was the problem.

european leftist saw the ussr as the "only option" and that made them intimately linked with lenininism from then on.

sure a lot of workers liked papa stalin after hekicked Hitlers ass back to berlin, but one they realized that he wasnt much better they changed ther minds and changed there minds about the system he represented.

communism tied to stalin, stalin tied to dictator, dictator tied back to hitler.

after wwii no dictator was gonna sell well and stalin was nothing but! :o

Read some history. Anti-communist propaganda had been pervasive for almost a century prior to the cold war.

yeah, obviously, but witohut the crims of stalin and the imperialism of the USSR, that propaganda wouldnt have sold as well with the workers.

its one thing for the bourgeoisie to make all sorts of theoretical and economic arguments againt communism, but when they actually have the gulags and the political cults of personality to point to its a whole different thing.

Idealistic tripe. Really. The presence of the Russian bogeyman has nothing to do with the material conditions for revolution or communist agitation in the West.

it has nothing to do with "conditions for revolution" but it had a lot to do with "communist agitation", namely why there wasn't more of it.

revolution isnt just about economic conditions, its also about the conscioueness and politics of the working class.

when communism was so thoroughly discredited by the lenininist atrocities, none of the workers took it seriously as an option and so they turned back to bourgeois elefctions and reform.

Oh this is too good. You dismiss the Bolsheviks but suggest that the French protesters needed “more organisation”

yes!! :angry:

they needed proletarian organization, not fucking lkenininist "communist" parties that stabbed them in the back for their own petty bourgeois eclectioneering needs.

Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? You’d rather that we continued with the old social democracy practiced by Kautsky et al before Lenin came along?

no id rather that real communism hadbeen developed by someone who actually knew what they were doing and didnt have aspirations of demi-godhood.

a real communist movement would have emerged, the ideas were too imortant to be devoured by social democracy.

Either the events in Russia had an impact abroad or they didn’t. Make up your mind

of course they "had an impact", im saying that it was for the worse.

there would have been revolutions in many countries, no matter what lenin did, but my point is that without lenin, alot of them could a been communist instead of lenininist.

lenin didnt invent revolution, that goes back to marx. he just came up with his own little perversion of it(dictator, "iron" party rule, etc...) and that screwed it all up.

ComradeOm

1st May 2006, 13:44

Originally posted by VermontLeft
eah,and that was the problem.

european leftist saw the ussr as the "only option" and that made them intimately linked with lenininism from then on.
Because it looked like the Soviet Union was working. The progress made in Russia was highly impressive and looked like communism in motion. Why is it surprising that people would consider the Soviet Union to be the future?

sure a lot of workers liked papa stalin after hekicked Hitlers ass back to berlin, but one they realized that he wasnt much better they changed ther minds and changed there minds about the system he represented.
The idea that Stalin was a dictator itself took decades to catch on. Are you implying that there was a great groundswell of support for communism that suddenly ended when people realised that Stalin wasn’t a nice guy?

Or is it more likely that the poor communist showing in the West was due to domestic circumstances, such as the foundation of the welfare state and rise of the labour aristocracy, and that Stalin, like Lenin and Marx before him, was a useful bogeyman for the bourgeois powers?

yeah, obviously, but witohut the crims of stalin and the imperialism of the USSR, that propaganda wouldnt have sold as well with the workers.
Yes because an ideology with no practical success is easy to sell. The Russian Revolution remains the best example of proletarian revolution. Period.

revolution isnt just about economic conditions, its also about the conscioueness and politics of the working class.
Read some Marx. Politics and economics are inextricably linked

You’re demonstrating the gross idealism that Redstar loves accusing Leninists of – If only we did things slightly differently then things would work out fine. Bullshit. There has been no revolution in the West because the Western workers do not want one and that has fuck all to do with Russia and everything to do with the nature of Western capitalism.

yes!!

they needed proletarian organization, not fucking lkenininist "communist" parties that stabbed them in the back for their own petty bourgeois eclectioneering needs.
These being the very same parties that propose iron discipline and the need for high levels of organisation? :lol:

no id rather that real communism hadbeen developed by someone who actually knew what they were doing and didnt have aspirations of demi-godhood.
Real communism? You mean something that appeals to you. Geee maybe the Petrograd workers should have consulted with you before staging a revolution.

a real communist movement would have emerged, the ideas were too imortant to be devoured by social democracy.
And you base this assertion on what? Without a real revolution you’d probably be talking about how the European welfare state was a triumph for Marxism!

there would have been revolutions in many countries, no matter what lenin did, but my point is that without lenin, alot of them could a been communist instead of lenininist.
So without Lenin all those revolutions in the Third World would have produced communist societies? :lol:

lenin didnt invent revolution, that goes back to marx. he just came up with his own little perversion of it(dictator, "iron" party rule, etc...) and that screwed it all up.
Marx “invented” revolution? :lol:

You can disagree with Lenin all you want, that’s your prerogative, but you’ve yet to give a decent reason as to why the Bolshevik revolution could have prevented revolution in the West. Saying that Lenin was a “dictator” (itself wrong) doesn’t cut it.

VermontLeft

1st May 2006, 18:36

Because it looked like the Soviet Union was working. The progress made in Russia was highly impressive and looked like communism in motion. Why is it surprising that people would consider the Soviet Union to be the future?

i didnt say that it was "surprising", it said that it was bad.

of course i know why people turned to lenin and lenininism and the ussr. what i m saying is that its unfortuntate tha tthey did that because of what it did to the international copmmunist movement.

like i said historical materialism is about more than just economic development its also about social phenomna. christianity as its manifested might be strongly influenced by technology, but you cant deny that it still had an influence all its own.

for example its pretty much the only reason that gays are hated so much now.

the same for lenininiss. it wasnt solely responsible for the failure of communis,tm but it bears a lot of blame! :o

The idea that Stalin was a dictator itself took decades to catch on.

:rolleyes:

trotsky had been babling about what a dictator stalin was since the fucking 20s and after the hitler/stalin pact everyone was talking about how they were the "two dictators".

definitely after the war everyone in the west (unles they were in the third international ;)) saw stalin as a dictator.

Are you implying that there was a great groundswell of support for communism that suddenly ended when people realised that Stalin wasn’t a nice guy?

no im saying that that groundswell didnt happen because of what the ussr represented.

it wasnt just stalin it was the whole leninnist thing. it made communism a fascist-like ideology and after wwii no one was interested in going back to fasicm.

Yes because an ideology with no practical success is easy to sell.

i didnt say it was easy to sell, it just said that it is easier to sell than an ideology with practical failures!

These being the very same parties that propose iron discipline and the need for high levels of organisation?

yeah those ones.

the ones that betrayed the working class and had no real proletarian spirit. they may have promoted organiztoin, but it wasnt class organizatoin it was party "iron" discipline and that is not the kind of organization i am talking about!

Real communism? You mean something that appeals to you.

no i mean something that appeals to marx. in other words a proletarian society, not a fucking brutal personality-cultish dictatorship.

Without a real revolution you’d probably be talking about how the European welfare state was a triumph for Marxism!

bullshit :angry:

communism survived for 70 years before lenin, it would have kept surviving.

besides, if you accept historical materialism than you cant think that lenin was the "only one" who could have "saved" marxism. so it would have been better if it had been someone else to rescue it from the "evil" social democrats.

that way they might have actually kept the democratic parts!

So without Lenin all those revolutions in the Third World would have produced communist societies?

No, without lenin there wouldnt have been "communist" revolutions in the third world. no one would even think of having a "communist" third world cxountry cause without lenins theory on "imperialism" communism was understood to require an advanced eceonomy.

sure third world countries would have fought against imperialism and had local bourgeois nationalist revolutions,. but they wouldnt have done it with red flags. :angry:

so those countries would have developed and still not given communism the bad name it has today.

besides, The revolutions that im saying would have happened were the ones in the west. spain, germany, etc... in those countries the conditions were there for revolution (cause it happened ;)) but because of human factors they didnt succeed.

in other countries liek eastern european ones, it juist fizzled into lenininism.

Marx “invented” revolution?

he sure invented communist revolution! :)

the idea of proletarian revolution goes straight back to marx, engles, and the manifesto. it didnt need lenin to "invent" it and it didn't need lenin to "save" it.

VermontLeft

1st May 2006, 18:52

By the way, heres an example of what im talking about

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292062285 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49325&view=findpost&p=1292062285)

"communism is good in theory" "good but not practical", etc... most people (not the ultra-right libertarian whackos) like communism there just all convinced that it cant work because of lenininism and its history.

if that had never happeend and communism was still just theory these people wouldnt dismiss the theory like they do.

:angry:

redstar2000

2nd May 2006, 02:36

Originally posted by ComradeOm replying to VermontLeft
Real communism? You mean something that appeals to you.

This is an interesting point that should not be overlooked.

In the Leninist paradigm, certain things "must be done" as a matter of "historical necessity". The desires of the masses are irrelevant; if those "necessary" things are "not done", then everything will "turn to shit".

Knowing what those things are, it's possible even now for people to conclude that "that ain't what I want!"

Is that a legitimate conclusion? Do the desires of the masses have "a role to play" in deciding "what is to be done?"

Leninists, as a matter of principle, reject that idea entirely. They believe that only themselves "understand historical necessity" well enough to "do the correct things" even if people "don't like some or all of those things".

It's "for their own good". :lol:

In this century, I think revolutionaries are returning to Marx's understanding of "historical necessity"...that it is what the masses want that "changes the world".

Not the doctrinaire "plans" of self-appointed elites who imagine they can "make history" the way a chef makes a pizza.

This is not to suggest that the masses "are always right" or "can't make mistakes" or anything of that sort.

It's just to point out where the real motor-force of conscious history-making comes from.

When VermontLeft or anybody says what they want, it is millions and millions of such decisions that determine what happens.

We can use historical materialism to explain why the masses have certain desires at a particular point in history and even "predict" (in a limited sense) what the "next" desires will be.

But no elite of "great leaders" is going to change any of that to any significant degree. Sometimes, they can delay matters for a little while...and then they die and things start moving again.

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

ComradeOm

2nd May 2006, 14:46

Originally posted by VermontLeft+--> (VermontLeft)like i said historical materialism is about more than just economic development its also about social phenomna. christianity as its manifested might be strongly influenced by technology, but you cant deny that it still had an influence all its own.[/b]
But religions, like anti-communist crusades, were built and depend on the material conditions of the day. These ideals then reinforce the economic status quo that gave birth to them. Christianity is a product of feudal times – and the Church became one of the staunchest defenders of feudal society. By the same token the bourgeois propaganda that swirled around the Soviet Union, that had much more effect than the actual conditions in the country, were propagated by the bourgeois to help maintain their position.

There was no motion in the US towards domestic revolution. None. To ascribe this, even in part, to events thousands of miles away is nonsense.

trotsky had been babling about what a dictator stalin was since the fucking 20s and after the hitler/stalin pact everyone was talking about how they were the "two dictators".
Everyone? I’m assuming that by everyone you mean the Western media :roll:

no im saying that that groundswell didnt happen because of what the ussr represented.
Even though I pointed out that following, and indeed prior to, the war the USSR was seen as benign by the Western workers?

The fall off in support for communist parties was entirely due to the maturing and evolution of capitalism in the West. Dental plans, minimum wages, stock options… the tools of appeasement that the bourgeois make use of.

no i mean something that appeals to marx. in other words a proletarian society, not
To go back to the original purpose of this thread, the Russian proletariat but the Bolsheviks in power. Now I’m sorry if you don’t like it but that’s the way it happened.

communism survived for 70 years before lenin, it would have kept surviving.
Communism was dead in 1917 and Kautsky et al were dancing on its corpse in the name of social democracy.

that way they might have actually kept the democratic parts!
I’ve got news for you – Marxism is not some liberal democratic bullshit ideology. If you’re so concerned with the niceties of democracy than join some bourgeois party. Democracy in communism is derived directly from the masses.

sure third world countries would have fought against imperialism and had local bourgeois nationalist revolutions,. but they wouldnt have done it with red flags.
Bourgeois revolutions? When was the last time the bourgeoisie revolted? That class is no longer revolutionary. The latest situation in Nepal illustrates that point well enough.

besides, The revolutions that im saying would have happened were the ones in the west. spain, germany, etc... in those countries the conditions were there for revolution (cause it happened ) but because of human factors they didnt succeed.
In both Spain and Germany, the only Western nations to have come even close to revolution, the communists were brutally put down by counter-revolutionary elements. I fail to see how Russia has anything to do with that. Both revolutions (if you can call Spain that) were the result of the great weakness of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie – a similar occurance to that of Russia 1917.

"communism is good in theory" "good but not practical", etc... most people (not the ultra-right libertarian whackos) like communism there just all convinced that it cant work because of lenininism and its history.
CapitalistLawyer is now the average worker? :lol:

If it wasn’t for the Bolsheviks people would be either saying:

-What’s communism?
Or
-Communism has brought about many wonders in Europe. All hail the welfare state.

Redstar
In the Leninist paradigm, certain things "must be done" as a matter of "historical necessity". The desires of the masses are irrelevant; if those "necessary" things are "not done", then everything will "turn to shit".
Well there’s the fundamental problem – those matters that are of “historical necessity”, such as revolution or constructing the socialist state, can only be carried out by the proletariat. It is simply impossible for anyone else, such as a small group of intellectuals, to carry out these actions.

My point to VermonLeft was that while we can look back and say that “that’s not for us” or “that’s not real communism”, ultimately the only people who can decide that are the proletariat of the time. What you desire is irrelevant when compared to what the proletariat as a whole decide upon.

VermontLeft

5th May 2006, 11:17

Christianity is a product of feudal times – and the Church became one of the staunchest defenders of feudal society.

and then?

once feudalism collapsed, did the church go away or did it survive did its influence outlkast the conditions that created it?

its the same with leninism. we agree that lenin was a product of his times, but what he did had a lasting influence and changed the underlying material conditions of other areas.

like i said, conditions for revolution arent just about technolgoy or economics or whatever, its also about mass conscioueness whch is influenced by more than fucking GDP and per capita income!

just like christianity made homophobia a part of capitalist repressoin so did lenin make commmunism unappealing.

There was no motion in the US towards domestic revolution. None. To ascribe this, even in part, to events thousands of miles away is nonsense.

who the fuck is talking about the US?

im saying that anywhere communism became linked with the USSR. if you asked anyone in like 1960 or whatever to free associate with the word "communist", the first thing that theyd come up with would be USSR or Soviet.

thats the indluence that lenin had and thats how he hurd communism.

he wasn the only one and i dont hink that it was a fatal blow, but it sure did hurt :(

Everyone? I’m assuming that by everyone you mean the Western media

no i mean everyone.

Even though I pointed out that following, and indeed prior to, the war the USSR was seen as benign by the Western workers?

you "pointed that out"?

strange, cause the way i rememebr it you just asserted it with absolutely no evidence. :rolleyes:

To go back to the original purpose of this thread, the Russian proletariat but the Bolsheviks in power. Now I’m sorry if you don’t like it but that’s the way it happened.

bullshit.

the "proletariat" overthrew the czar in february, the bolsheviks engineered a coup in october.

i know that lenininists like to pretend that that was the same revolution, but the first one was a real insurrection, the second one was just a fascist overthrow. :angry:

I’ve got news for you – Marxism is not some liberal democratic bullshit ideology. If you’re so concerned with the niceties of democracy than join some bourgeois party. Democracy in communism is derived directly from the masses.

yeah, cause the fucking bolshies were so good at "mass democracy"... :rolleyes:

In both Spain and Germany, the only Western nations to have come even close to revolution, the communists were brutally put down by counter-revolutionary elements. I fail to see how Russia has anything to do with that.

and why didnt they try again? why didnt more of the workers support them? why were the only "communist" partiews controlled by fucking moscow and anti-worker in their practical line?

Moscow wasn't "half-way aroudn the world", it was right in the fucking middle of every communisty party meeting everywhere. stalin didnt just have "influence' he had material control and defined the circumstances of communism existance.

he corrupted and perverted communism do that it became inseperable for fascism and so no one was interested anymore.

without him and lenin, do i know what would have happened? no,. but it couldn't have been worse!

[CapitalistLawyer is now the average worker?

i dont know what capitalistlawyer is, but what he said is what all sorts of average people say about communism.

when ever somone today is asked about communism, the first thing that theyll say is that it "doesnt work". very few people dont like the theory i men its so obviously practical that only the realy really far-rightists dont like the ideas.

but instead of people thinking about the issues under it or how it could work, all that they think about is the fucking SOviet Union.

ComradeOm

5th May 2006, 14:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:38 AM
once feudalism collapsed, did the church go away or did it survive did its influence outlkast the conditions that created it?
The Church occupies a significantly different role in capitalism than it did in feudalism. I’m not for one minute suggesting that it disappeared after the Industrial Revolution but its influence on the relations of production was effectively ended.

who the fuck is talking about the US?

im saying that anywhere communism became linked with the USSR. if you asked anyone in like 1960 or whatever to free associate with the word "communist", the first thing that theyd come up with would be USSR or Soviet.
I assumed you were from the US. But fine… let’s talk about Europe. How many revolutions were thwarted because the Soviet Union existed? None The European welfare states have proven to be quite capable at appeasing the proletariat. With or without the USSR.

the "proletariat" overthrew the czar in february, the bolsheviks engineered a coup in october.

i know that lenininists like to pretend that that was the same revolution, but the first one was a real insurrection, the second one was just a fascist overthrow.
First of all, anyone who refers to the Bolsheviks are fascists has no understanding of what either term means.

Secondly, have you read any of this thread at all? More importantly, have you read any Russian history at all? The above statement shows that you haven’t. On the very first page of this topic Malte presented this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election,_1917) that states that

Various academic studies have given alternative results but all clearly indicate that whilst the Bolsheviks were clear winners in Russia's urban centres, as well as taking around two-thirds of the votes of soldiers on the "Western Front", it was the SRs who topped the polls having won the massive support of the country's rural peasantry.

In other words – accept fucking reality. The Bolsheviks were the party of Russia’s proletariat in 1917 whether you like it or not. So enough of this “coup” bullshit.

and why didnt they try again? why didnt more of the workers support them? why were the only "communist" partiews controlled by fucking moscow and anti-worker in their practical line?
Again you parade your ignorance of the situation. The German revolution took place in 1918 and was led by Rosa Luxembourg and the Spartacists. In Spain the Republicans were defeated in Civil War by Franco and the Nationalists. How you can blame either on Lenin is beyond me.

i dont know what capitalistlawyer is, but what he said is what all sorts of average people say about communism.
What he said was what the bourgeois have always said about communism. What do you expect from a reactionary like CapitalistLawyer?

VermontLeft

6th May 2006, 07:11

The Church occupies a significantly different role in capitalism than it did in feudalism.

:rolleyes:

youre complete avoiding the point!

yeah of course the church changed, but its political impact survived its conditional change! material conditions can sometimes outlas their material exitgance and thats what happened wit hth e church and the ussr/leninininism.

material conditions created lenin, iut wasnt't "him", it was the third world reinterpretation of communism that was the problem. if it hadent been "lenin", it would have been someone else,

But fine… let’s talk about Europe. How many revolutions were thwarted because the Soviet Union existed? None

like i said, neither of us can predict what "might have been" but id say that several possible revoltions were "thwarted" or preverted because of the uSSR and the political dominance of lenininist theories.

and you know, even a lot of tortkysits lenininists agree with me on this. of course they blame Stalin and say that tortsky would have "done things different" :rolleyes:, but the points the same.

stalin (and the lenininism that created him) prevented a real working class movement from emerging becauyse by corrupting the communist movements across europe and even as far as chine, he made communism fascism instead of democracy.

china in 27, spain in 36, france in 68, there are lots of times that workers were organized and angr.y but because there was no real working class political tendency to mobilize them, they didnt make anything with it.

fucking tragic. :(

In other words – accept fucking reality. The Bolsheviks were the party of Russia’s proletariat in 1917 whether you like it or not.

...maybe

but if so its cause they were the only ones who seemd in a position to do somkething really revolutionary.

in other words, id say that they scammed the russian workers. they promised a real commmunist revolution and delivered lenininist dicatatorship. if in 1917 the workers didnt know that yet, its jusat cause they couldnt see in the future.

three years later, when they lost control of the factories and had to report to state bureuacrats like they used to report to bosses... youd better believe they wished they could go back in time and change their votes! :lol:

So enough of this “coup” bullshit.

the quote that you posted says that the bolsheviks were not supported by the majority ...so how did they end up in complete control again? :lol:

What he said was what the bourgeois have always said about communism. What do you expect from a reactionary like CapitalistLawyer?

again its not about him, but about the shit hesa saying, cause its not just bouergeoisers, its alos regular workrs.

trust me, i work with them every day, whenever i bring up comunism the first thing people say is "nice in theory".

again no one (except the rich) dislike the ideas of communism ,but because of the failures of the 20th centuyr, no one thinks its possible to actually do

Fistful of Steel

6th May 2006, 13:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:52 PM
I assumed you were from the US. But fine… let’s talk about Europe. How many revolutions were thwarted because the Soviet Union existed? None The European welfare states have proven to be quite capable at appeasing the proletariat. With or without the USSR.
The Spanish Revolution, the Hungarian Uprising of 1956, the Prague Spring (not exactly a revolution but stil a change that was crushed), May 1968 et cetera.

ComradeOm

7th May 2006, 15:39

Originally posted by VermontLeft+May 6 2006, 06:32 AM--> (VermontLeft @ May 6 2006, 06:32 AM)youre complete avoiding the point![/b]
The point is that the Church ceased setting or affecting the relations of production following the fall of feudalism. It lingers on but is essentially irrelevant

like i said, neither of us can predict what "might have been" but id say that several possible revoltions were "thwarted" or preverted because of the uSSR and the political dominance of lenininist theories.
Several? You’ve given two – France and Spain. The latter was a civil war while France was no where near a revolutionary situation. Face it – capitalism has worked in Europe and that has nothing to do with the USSR.

in other words, id say that they scammed the russian workers. they promised a real commmunist revolution and delivered lenininist dicatatorship. if in 1917 the workers didnt know that yet, its jusat cause they couldnt see in the future.
Ouch, that’s an overdose of idealism. A handful of petit-bourgeois intellectuals scammed the entirety of the Russian proletariat? Do you think the entire population was comprised of fucking idiots?

he quote that you posted says that the bolsheviks were not supported by the majority ...so how did they end up in complete control again?
Read this thread. Note where I say that proletarian parties should not give a damn about reactionary peasants. The Bolsheviks were clear winners amongst the workers and soldiers. That's all any Marxist should care about.

As for a coup… well let’s look into that. A coup d'état is the transfer of state power through violence, as opposed to democratic means, correct? Now nobody who has the faintest idea of the history of the Russian Revolution could use that term. Russia saw the complete destruction of the old state and transformation of the entire nation.

again its not about him, but about the shit hesa saying, cause its not just bouergeoisers, its alos regular workrs.
Then quote a “regular worker” as opposed to a bourgeois lawyer ;)

No one doubts that the USSR has given communism a bad rep, what I dispute is that this is any way significant when compared to the material conditions that have existed within the West for the past century. If the conditions for revolution were actually present then people wouldn't have given a flying fuck about the USSR - they'd be too busy worrying about their own oppressors.

Fistful of Steel
The Spanish Revolution, the Hungarian Uprising of 1956, the Prague Spring (not exactly a revolution but stil a change that was crushed), May 1968 et cetera.
Actually both the Hungarian Uprising and Prague Spring are incidents that would certainly not have taken place without the USSR. Its the same way the Russian Revolution would not have taken place without the Tsar :lol:

As I've mentioned already Spain was not a revolution, certainly not in the conventional sense. Paris '68 was only a revolution if you consider revolutions to be standing around for a month before returning to work. Now let's hear the et cetera

Fistful of Steel

7th May 2006, 15:51

Originally posted by ComradeOm+May 7 2006, 03:00 PM--> (ComradeOm @ May 7 2006, 03:00 PM)
Fistful of Steel
The Spanish Revolution, the Hungarian Uprising of 1956, the Prague Spring (not exactly a revolution but stil a change that was crushed), May 1968 et cetera.
Actually both the Hungarian Uprising and Prague Spring are incidents that would certainly not have taken place without the USSR. Its the same way the Russian Revolution would not have taken place without the Tsar :lol:

As I've mentioned already Spain was not a revolution, certainly not in the conventional sense. Paris '68 was only a revolution if you consider revolutions to be standing around for a month before returning to work. Now let's hear the et cetera [/b]
They wouldn't have happened sure, but that doesn't change the fact that they were thwarted by the U.S.S.R.

And the takeover of Catalonia and other parts of the Spanish countryside during the Spanish Civil War is historically referred to as the Spanish Revolution. And one of the reasons why May 1968 never reached a sufficient climax was because revolution was discouraged by the Stalinists in France.

ComradeOm

8th May 2006, 00:00

Originally posted by Fistful of [email protected] 7 2006, 03:12 PM
They wouldn't have happened sure, but that doesn't change the fact that they were thwarted by the U.S.S.R.
Revolutions have occurred throughout history. What we are questioning is whether communist revolutions would have occurred. Or do you really give a damn whether the USSR supressed bourgeois revolutions?

And the takeover of Catalonia and other parts of the Spanish countryside during the Spanish Civil War is historically referred to as the Spanish Revolution.

Amazing. There I was thinking that the primary goal of revolution was overthrowing the state :rolleyes:

And one of the reasons why May 1968 never reached a sufficient climax was because revolution was discouraged by the Stalinists in France.
I should really put together a set of stock answers to repeating points of discussion. Here’s what I’ve assembled from prior posts on the subject.

The French May did not pose a serious threat to the bourgeois state and it did not have any lasting effects. This “spontaneous revolution” consisted of people milling around and coming up with inventive graffiti slogans. No preparation was made for revolution, there was no intent to overthrow the state. In the long term it is completely and utterly irrelevant – a flash in the pan.

Had the proletariat in France ’68 been truly revolutionary then they would have ignored the media, the government and the Marxist-Leninists. Certainly they would have done more than protest for a month before going home and voting De Gaulle. If they could be so easily swayed then they had clearly not developed anything approaching the required degree of class consciousness for revolution. The workers decided that they did not want this socialism business, just a tweak to capitalism.

Because anyone who believes otherwise – that the French workers might have actually revolted and overthrown the government had the Leninists given the word – is delusional

Did you ever consider that perhaps the Moscow backed parties were right? That perhaps the material conditions in France at the time weren’t conductive for revolution? Perhaps they had actually analysed the situation and decided, correctly as it turned out, that revolution was not on the cards.

VermontLeft

8th May 2006, 01:06

The point is that the Church ceased setting or affecting the relations of production following the fall of feudalism.

tell that to women and gay people. :angry:

ideas are "idealist", but the impact of ideas are material!

lenin didnt "magicall make" communism not work and his "ideas" werent speciallyt "powerful", its just that the material consequences of his ideas had material effects on the popular comception of communism.

it meant that even when revolutionary conditions could be there, people turned to alternate options like fascism, racism, etc...

Several? You’ve given two

what, thats not enough? :rolleyes:

even one stopped revolution would be bad, but heres two and thats not evne including the ones that never took off or the ones that are still to come.

A handful of petit-bourgeois intellectuals scammed the entirety of the Russian proletariat?

well, played them might be a better word.

the workers really did want revolution and they did want freedom. their class position was absolutely in line, and thje lenininists put themselves at the head ot that class position.

cuase of the technology and resources and whatever at that time, the workers coudnt really take over themsleves and they trusted that lenin etc. would be honest and loyal tyo them

they were wrong. :(

As for a coup… well let’s look into that. A coup d'état is the transfer of state power through violence, as opposed to democratic means, correct? Now nobody who has the faintest idea of the history of the Russian Revolution could use that term.

oh yea? lets see:

tsarist russia was a brutal authoritarian government with no civil rights, a powerful secret police and a rulling elite with a life of privalege.

Soviet russia was a brutal authoritarian government with no civil rights, a powerful secret police and a rulling elite with a life of privalege.

it doesn't matter if they repainted the country red, it was the same oppressive state. sure they fired a bunch of people and hired some new ones, but the underlying system was pretty much unchanged

Then quote a “regular worker” as opposed to a bourgeois lawyer

i would, but you wouldn't know any of my co-workers ;)

but comeone you really saying that youve never heard comments like that? that that isn't most people's first reaction to "communism"?

No one doubts that the USSR has given communism a bad rep

then what are we arguing about? :lol:

even if your claiming that the uSSRs "rep" only had a "small" influence (:rolleyes:), isn't that bad enough?

even if we forget all about history (in the history forum :o), think about all the work we have to do now to tell peoiple that communism isnt ussr!

isn't that bad enough???? :blink:

ComradeOm

12th May 2006, 14:23

it meant that even when revolutionary conditions could be there, people turned to alternate options like fascism, racism, etc...
Wrong. Fascism is a petit-bourgeois ideology that people turn to when they wish the state to be saved. Its not revolutionary. In Russia 1917 the proletariat decided that the state should go; in Germany 1933 they decided that Hitler should save it.

it doesn't matter if they repainted the country red, it was the same oppressive state. sure they fired a bunch of people and hired some new ones, but the underlying system was pretty much unchanged
Are you honestly saying that you cannot see the difference between the Tsars and the Politburo? The vast changes across the country? The significant alteration of the relations of production? The rise and fall of differing classes? You don’t acknowledge any of this? You may as well claim that the French ancien regime was the same as the First Republic :o

The Soviet Union was completely different from previous Russian societies and that’s by any standard of measurement. Barring of course that held by anarchists – both were “statist” after all :rolleyes:

then what are we arguing about?
We’re arguing over your assertion that the existence of the USSR significantly lowered the pro-communist sentiment within the West. I once again state that it was the material conditions in these rich countries, far more so than the existence of the Big Bad Red, that resulted in such reduced Western communist movements.

even if we forget all about history (in the history forum ), think about all the work we have to do now to tell peoiple that communism isnt ussr!
So now its up to us to “spread the word” about communism? I have the feeling that you’re approaching this the wrong way – that if we can come up with an argument that is convincing enough then people will start to listen. Hence the importance of the USSR in that it weakened the argument for communism.

The reality is the opposite of course. People will start to listen to us, regardless of our positions or points, only when they have nothing left to lose. Right now capitalism is working, however imperfectly, and it is benefiting the majority of the Western proletariat. When that ceases and when people start to question the system again… well then we’ll see change.