The Russian revolution

[Comrade Gabriel]

I really have this doubt for a long time; the question is based on revolution. I reallyfeel that Lenin should not have called for a revolution on 1917, because I feel that,
capitalism did not reach its peak during that period and also, the Russian proletarian’s
were not in a position to dictate the socialist government. So, the state has gained more
power that means, it’s just the opposite of socialism. So, what I feel is, comrade Lenin
should have waited for some more time(may be another 125 years) just like Trotsky said. I
am not saying that, there should be no revolution, I am well aware of the fact that class
transition is not possible without a socialist revolution but I really feel that the
timing was seriously wrong. I think that the Bolsheviks should have participated in the
Duma and they should have tried to reform the system.
When I say ‘reform the system’ another problem arises, unlike present India there was no
capitalist rule there and so, was it not possible to reform a czarist government without a
revolution? Or was the 1917 revolution a capitalist revolution? Because it has resulted in
capitalism now. I am eager to here your comments comrades!

[ComradeOm]

The difference between yourself and Lenin is that he was a communist. You on the other hand are a reformist.

[ern]

Hi

Comrade Gabriel, the questions you ask are posed by many people. I will try to answer your main points
-
I really feel that Lenin should not have called for a revolution on 1917, because I feel that,
capitalism did not reach its peak during that period and also, the Russian proletarian’s
were not in a position to dictate the socialist government
The whole call for the October insurrection was based on an understanding that the First World War had opened up a new period for capitalism, one of its decadence or as the Communist International put it a couple of year later a period of chaos and civil wars. Within this context, whilst Russia may not have been as developed as the main Western Countries it was the 5th biggest economy, the potential revolution would have a dramatic impact and would act as a catalyst to the already developing revolutionary situation that was developing throughout Western and Eastern Europe strikes were taking place in all the main countries, there was growing discontent in all the armies. Within Russia the Proletariat, especially in the main centres were ready to overthrow the capitalist government and the proletariat had organised itself into the soviets which united the whole class and would enable the proletariat to carry out its dictatorship over the whole of society. From the very beginning Lenin made it clear that the future of the revolution was dependent upon the development of the revolution in Western Europe

-
was it not possible to reform a czarist government without a
revolution? Or was the 1917 revolution a capitalist revolution? Because it has resulted in
capitalism now
The czarist government had been overthrown in Feb 17 and replaced by the Kerensky government which continued the war and sort to maintain the dictatorship of capital. The question of reform of czarism is thus not relevant. Whether the Bolsheviks, as the Mensheviks did, should have had as their aim the development of a bourgeois democratic government because the Russian proletariat was not ready for revolution is another and important question. In the context of the above international situation and its ability to organise itself through the soviets it was clear that the proletariat was more than ready for the revolution. The only way to stop the slaughter of the war and to try and open up an international revolutionary period was to overthrow capitalism. The fact that the proletariat took the decision to carry out the October revolution despite all of the dangers, in order to lead the way to the international revolution was one of the greatest moments in human history. At no other time in history had a class consciously decided to try and change the course of history.
As for the fact that the revolution ended up defeated and under the iron heel of the national capital personified by Stalinism does not mean that the revolution was capitalist. The revolution was a proletarian revolution, but it was defeated because the revolution did not spread.
Hopefully this answers some of your questions.

[gilhyle]

I think this is a very powerful question and really needs to be taken seriously by everyone. Its the question that separates the Marxists from the ultralefists who will go blindly into any revolt and the refomists who will blindly reject any revolt.

The question is this - was there a material base for the Russian Revolution. Lenin's answer was no, but there was a political basis for it: capitalism will break at its weakest link, not at its strongest point.

This is a dangerous argument because it seems to reverse the marxist insight that it is necessary to build the labour movement until such time as capitalism is so developed that it is appropriate to seize power.

Yet I thik it was probably corect.

The fact is that capitalism was uniquely weak at the time and going through a world wide crisis. It was possible that a revolution in Germany would have li a flame which would have spread across eastern europe and into France and Spain.

Also the menshevik alternative was a lie. They were not going to leave the war (couldnt really), theywere intent on starving the people, minimising land reform and continuing to send millions to be slaughtered.

Thus Lenin could argue 1. If we dont seize power, we must engage in a lie to the people, we cannot do that and 2. If we do seize power we might just pull it off.

The funadmental problem with this is the underlying assumption that IF power was seized across Europe that a bolshevik led govenment in all those countries could manage economies that still needed to be market based for many years to come to develop the means of production. THis was an unknown.....but events suggest that bolshevik governments maybe could not organise the kind of economic development that was then required.

There is one further aspect to the matter. In the end the Russian Revolution has meant the slaughter of the best generation ever of talented revolutionaries and it meant the discrediting of Marxism in the eyes of the working class. IN RETROSPECT, the price was too high. But at the time it was the right decision, on balance.

Of course the nub of the issue is what it teaches us about the world today. Is there really a material or political basis for revolutionary programmes today....or is it the case that we need to go back to building the labor movement ?

For ultralefists commitment to a revolutionary programme is the sine qua non of being a revolutionary. You cant question it. But ultraleftists always hated Marx. Marx originally taught the socialist movement that that was not true. Revolutionaries did not have to adopt a revolutionary programme. The Third International initially suggested that the emergence of Imperialism put an end tothe justifcation of this - but a very simple view of Imperialism as a period of world wide crisis and wars lay behind that and that view of imperialism is disproven byevents.

There are times and places where revolutionaries decide not to support revolutionary programmes and Idont just mean here the kind of rotten alliances to support democratic reform/revolution that the Stalinist tradition has always fallen into. Asking about the justification for the RR is a great way to ask when revolutionaries should walk away from the option of revolution.

[Vargha Poralli]

Hi Comrade Gabriel ..

I can't answers all of your questions and arguments as i myself is just a learner still learning but i have some points....


I think that the Bolsheviks should have participated in the
Duma and they should have tried to reform the system.
1) Reformism has failed in Russia at that time solely because of Czar Nikolas autocratic rule and probably would have never worked even after his abdication. both Lenin and Trotsky came to this conclusion that is the reason they called for the October Revolution.


So, what I feel is, comrade Lenin
should have waited for some more time(may be another 125 years) just like Trotsky said
2) Trotsky never believed in Two stage theory of revolution and never spoke for it. He was the one first to come to conclusion that the Russian bourgeoisie is too weak and cowardly to carry out the task . The two stage theory was immediately propagandized after the February revolution by Mensheviks,right SR's and the Bolsheviks till Lenin's arrival from Switzerland.


When I say ‘reform the system’ another problem arises, unlike present India there was no
capitalist rule there and so, was it not possible to reform a czarist government without a
revolution? Or was the 1917 revolution a capitalist revolution? Because it has resulted in
capitalism now. I am eager to here your comments comrades!

I dont think there is any reformism is goping on in India AFAIK. Here any "reform" is just purely a big golden lie told to the people by all Political Parties(including Communist Parties) to keep them sleeping and feeding thier own pockets with Hordes of money. In India in all cities if you check out the really rich people 1/3 will be politicians. Unfortunately Indian proletariat and peasantry lack good leadership and since there is too much illiteracy among those section they all easily manipulated by those politicians. If Any country deserves revolution right now it would be India.

[Comrade_Scott]

To have the revolution at that point was very much necessary as capitalism was at a world wide low... the revolution was a calculated risk 1. we hold this revolution and other nations join and capitalism falls like a house of bricks or 2. hold the revolution no other nation joins toobusy fighting ww1 or licking wounds and russia remains isolated but stands out as the beacon of socialist hope/change... with those options on the table then i think it was a good move

[apathy maybe]

There is a lot of information about the Russian Revolution from an anarchist perspective at An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append4.html)

Personally I think the point by the first poster about capitalism not being in a "high enough mode" is valid, and is one of the key critiques of Leninist thought.

The thing about the Russian Revolution, is that even though capitalism was not developed to the state that it had in the west, class antagonisms had surfaced because of the war and the effects of the war. This means that it was a great opportunity to actually bring about a better society, anarchists joined the Bolsheviks in attacking the state that had formed after the February revolution. But they were not prepared for a new state, one worse then the old (the old being after the February revolution, not the old Tzarist state).


ComradeOm: you are pathetic. You can be both a communist and a reformer. In fact you can be a Marxist and a reformer (in the situation where capitalism was not advanced enough for a true proletariat revolution for instance, such as Russia 1917). Get over your self.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 18, 2006 10:35 pm
ComradeOm: you are pathetic.
Let's do an LSD and dissect your statement line by line shall we? I'll leave the "pathetic" as flavouring... unless you really want me to comment on that?


You can be both a communist and a reformer.Oh I can't wait to hear the reasoning behind this one. Tell me just how can one be both a revolutionary and a reformer at the same time?


In fact you can be a Marxist and a reformerIndeed. Its called reformism or, if you like, democratic socialism. The two are not mutually exclusive. But then you know that so good one skippy.


(in the situation where capitalism was not advanced enough for a true proletariat revolution for instance, such as Russia 1917)In which case you are a reformer. Well done Captain Obvious.


Get over your self.Yourself.

Now that we've dealt with that let's go back to my original statement.

You see there are plenty of in depth arguments that you could go into to describe why Lenin should, or shouldn't, have ticked the "revolution" box. Really though they ignore the principle point here - it was the Russian proletariat, and not Lenin, that decided that the time was ripe for revolution. When this became obvious the Bolsheviks could either try futilely to apply the brakes or simply ride the wave. As it happens the Bolsheviks exploited the situation for all it was worth.

The Tsar was always going to fall, indeed it never ceases to amaze that the institution survived to 1917, that much is obvious. The fate of the Provisional Government was never as clear cut but, despite the best efforts of the Mensheviks, once it failed at land reform it could never survive. Kerensky ran the ship so badly that revolution was always going to grace Russia in 1917.

So now we have a tricky scenario that divides the Marxist camp in Russia by two. On the one hand you have the Mensheviks who have thrown their support in with the bourgeoisie, and are trying to build a modern capitalist state, and then you have the Bolsheviks who remain firmly in opposition to collaboration with the capitalist classes. Now I've always believed that we are judged by our actions and the actions of the Mensheviks can only be described as liberal.

In the end it didn't matter how either Martov or Lenin justified their positions. The PG was on the way out as the old state simply rotted away. To take up a defence of this state, and propose that the workers and peasants should go back home for another 125 years, is simply, and unarguably, reformist.

[forza_che]

Not a theoretical point here but a historical matter thats been bugging me reading this thread.

Kerensky's government faced two serious challenges during it's short reign, the first the disastrous 'July Days' attempt by Lenin to take control and the other when a right wing general marched towards Moscow appearing to want to take control. Can someone tell me the name of this general please as it's bugging the hell out of me!

[Louis Pio]

His name was Kornilov

[chimx]

kornilov wasn't really a serious challenge, but kerensky's government thought he was a serious challenge. it was an example of lots of talk, but little support. in fact, if kerensky hadn't been such a ***** about the whole situation, public opinion probably wouldn't have swung to the bolshevik left-menshevik camp.

[gilhyle]

Trotsky's history of the Russian Revolution is excellant (and unlike most other histories) in getting at the various ways in which the old regime rotted from the inside out - but be clear, it would not have fallen if it had not have been vigorously an decisively pushed.

I dont recall that Lenin initiated the July Days ?

The question is, as it is put so crudely, can you be a revolutionary and a refomrist ... or maybe to put it slightly better can you be a revolutionary who does not support taking everyt half-baked opportunity to seize the State... question seems to answer itself if reformulated as 'Do revolutionaries have to be stupid ?'

[Comrade Gabriel]

Thank you very much comrades for all your replies, most of the posts were very useful indeed. Sorry I was not able to reply you immediately. Now I see that the topic is slowly diverting but still, it’s a very good sign.

At present I will try to share my ideas regarding some of the topics and will come back with more material later.


The question is, as it is put so crudely, can you be a revolutionary and a refomrist ... or maybe to put it slightly better can you be a revolutionary who does not support taking everyt half-baked opportunity to seize the State... question seems to answer itself if reformulated as 'Do revolutionaries have to be stupid ?'



No, it is not possible to be both a revolutionary and a reformist, just like it is not possible to be both a materialist and a reformist. Most of us want to be a materialist and a revolutionary but at times we without our knowledge tend to behave like an idealist or reformist. We should learn to differentiate revolution from reformism. But it is our duty to lead people in a revolutionary path.

As for you comradeOm I could have sounded like a reformist to you but it is really not my intention to do that. I don’t support the Mensheviks and I definitely believe them to be reformists. Now tell me why you feel that I am a reformist? I am always ready to accept criticisms and I am more than willing to change my wrong ideas.

[apathy maybe]

ComradeOm: Being a communist is wanting communism. It does not say the method to get to communism that you want. So you can be a communist and a reformist (if you think that reformism is the way to get to communism).

See you can have a communist who is not a revolutionary and vice versa.


Comrade Gabriel: It is perfectly possible to be a materialist and not be a revolutionary, and vice versa. Being a materialist is believing in the physical world alone, and dismissing the existence of non-physical/non-material substance. It does not affect your politics, necessarily.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 18, 2006 11:15 am
I really have this doubt for a long time; the question is based on revolution. I reallyfeel that Lenin should not have called for a revolution on 1917, because I feel that,
capitalism did not reach its peak during that period and also, the Russian proletarian’s
were not in a position to dictate the socialist government. So, the state has gained more
power that means, it’s just the opposite of socialism. So, what I feel is, comrade Lenin
should have waited for some more time(may be another 125 years) just like Trotsky said. I
am not saying that, there should be no revolution, I am well aware of the fact that class
transition is not possible without a socialist revolution but I really feel that the
timing was seriously wrong. I think that the Bolsheviks should have participated in the
Duma and they should have tried to reform the system.
When I say ‘reform the system’ another problem arises, unlike present India there was no
capitalist rule there and so, was it not possible to reform a czarist government without a
revolution? Or was the 1917 revolution a capitalist revolution? Because it has resulted in
capitalism now. I am eager to here your comments comrades!
Odd that you have Trotsky as an avatar then, who was won over to the Bolshevik cause and planned the revolution.

I think Lenin was able to call for the revolution when he did because of his political genius; he could deal with any problematic situation that arose afterwards, and would maybe have pushed for rapid industrialisation and collectivisation after a few years of the NEP.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 27, 2006 11:23 am
ComradeOm: Being a communist is wanting communism. It does not say the method to get to communism that you want. So you can be a communist and a reformist (if you think that reformism is the way to get to communism).

See you can have a communist who is not a revolutionary and vice versa.
No. If you wish to reach a communist society through peaceful means then you are a democratic socialist. If you are a revolutionary Marxist then you are a communist. The two are mutually exclusive.

[gilhyle]

I think you are not making an important distinction - that between tactics and strategy. It is not the case that anyone who thinks revolution is unwise at a particular moment is not a revolutionary. To be a reformist you have to believe that there is an option of peaceful transition and, indeed, that socialists can and should constrain themselves to retreat in the face of reactionary violence until they can find a way to achieve socialism peacefully.

the bolshevik party in early 1917 was generally a revolutionary party and also generally one that did not believe that they should try to seize power. It was only after a nuanced analysis that revolution was seen to be justified.

What then happened (VERY roughly) is that the Third Internatinal generalised this experience to argue that revolutions should be attempted everywhere to generalise the Russian Revolution - and underlying this was the analysis that the transistion to imperialism justified this change of approach. Even then, the Third International (even before Stalin) still acknowledged that there were times and places when the seizure of power should not be on the agenda even if militarily practical. In other words the Third International never abandoned its rejection of putchism.

What has happened since is that imperialism has proven more long lived and more complex than it appeared to the authors of the ABC of Communism.

Thus it is unavoidable that the question arise again when it is right to accept the opportunity to seize power and when it is better to allow the opportunity to pass ?

[Lamanov]

There's a problem with your opinion:

Lenin didn't "call for" a revolution, he simply picked up on it. So if you want to accuse someone of "prematurity" you should talk to Russian workers who organized themselves into factory committees and soviets, who would, thus, not share your opinion.

[gilhyle]

I dont see the two as mutually exclusive. In a situation is which significant layers of workers are tempted to seze state power, the Party can act as a break on that by exercising its discipline to restrain the infuential militants within its ranks or the Party can push the process forward by 'calling for'/organising for the seizure of power.

So if you think Im wrong, you might elaborate a bit to illuminate the problem.

[Inviction]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 18, 2006 11:15 am
I really have this doubt for a long time; the question is based on revolution. I reallyfeel that Lenin should not have called for a revolution on 1917, because I feel that,
capitalism did not reach its peak during that period and also, the Russian proletarian’s
were not in a position to dictate the socialist government. So, the state has gained more
power that means, it’s just the opposite of socialism. So, what I feel is, comrade Lenin
should have waited for some more time(may be another 125 years) just like Trotsky said. I
am not saying that, there should be no revolution, I am well aware of the fact that class
transition is not possible without a socialist revolution but I really feel that the
timing was seriously wrong. I think that the Bolsheviks should have participated in the
Duma and they should have tried to reform the system.
When I say ‘reform the system’ another problem arises, unlike present India there was no
capitalist rule there and so, was it not possible to reform a czarist government without a
revolution? Or was the 1917 revolution a capitalist revolution? Because it has resulted in
capitalism now. I am eager to here your comments comrades!
You would be correct if Lenin were a pure Marxist and not a Marxist-Leninist. However, Lenin made several modifications to Communist theory, including the adaptation of Marxism to the age of imperialism. The Great October Revolution of 1917 was as much about as emancipating the Russian proletariat from the bourgeoisie as emancipating the Russian proletariat from the capitalist war machine. In other words, there would've been no revolution at that time if imperialism did not cause World War I.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 07:02 pm
I dont see the two as mutually exclusive. In a situation is which significant layers of workers are tempted to seze state power, the Party can act as a break on that by exercising its discipline to restrain the infuential militants within its ranks or the Party can push the process forward by 'calling for'/organising for the seizure of power.

Seizure of power was the October coup. Revolution itself started nine months earlier with factory committees and soviet elections. Those are two different things, regardless of their connection.

My point: party can call for a group of sailors to take the govermnet building, but it can't call for a revolution itself.

And what do you mean by "layers of workers"?