Bolshevik Revolution

[Rawthentic]

I want to learn more about the October Revolution, Lenin and Trotsky's roles, etc. I basically want a detailed discussion into the causes of the revolution, as well as the immediate outcomes, and how all this led to Stalin and state-capitalism. I invite anarchists and "Leninists", but please don't turn this into a sectarian battle.

Also, does anyone know any good, non-sectarian books on the Bolshevik Revolution? Thanks

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The Soviet Union wasn't "State Capitalist" under Stalin. Trotsky's role in the Bolshevik Revolution was to be in charge of the Red Army. Stalin, Lenin, Kamenev, and Zinoviev were part of the "political centre" which "directed" the revolution.

Have you tried 10 Days that Shook the World by John Reed? I haven't read it yet as I've been reading more theoretical shit lately to deepen my understanding of Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought however it is known as THE primary source and epic novel regarding the bolshevik revolution.

[bezdomni]

Ten Days That Shook the World is a fucking brillant book.

Every leftist should read it.

[RedLenin]

Stalin, Lenin, Kamenev, and Zinoviev were part of the "political centre" which "directed" the revolution.
Stalinist bullshit. The "Military Revolutionary Center" which "directed the revolution" is a myth that was used to find some grand role for Stalin. The committee you are refering to was just a sub-committee of the Military Revolutionary Council, headed by...Trotsky!


Also, does anyone know any good, non-sectarian books on the Bolshevik Revolution?
I have heard that Trotsky's The History of The Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-hrr/index.htm) is a good and relatively unbiased account of the revolution.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] March 7, 2007, 11:55 pm
The committee you are refering to was just a sub-committee of the Military Revolutionary Council, headed by...Trotsky!

As I recall, it was Trotsky who held the opinion that the Bolsheviks were not to take armed action immediately, but rather wait until the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets was convened, while Lenin argued for immediate seizure of political power. If Trotsky's strategy had been adopted, the Great October Socialist Revolution would have never materialized but would have resulted in failure due to poor timing and carelessness. Lenin discusses the "waiting" in The Crisis Has Matured (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/CHM17.html), and Meeting of the Central Committee, Oct. 10 (23) 1917 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/MCCa17.html).

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by CriticiseEverthingAlways+--> (CriticiseEverthingAlways)As I recall, it was Trotsky who held the opinion that the Bolsheviks were not to take armed action immediately, but rather wait until the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets was convened, while Lenin argued for immediate seizure of political power. If Trotsky's strategy had been adopted, the Great October Socialist Revolution would have never materialized but would have resulted in failure due to poor timing and carelessness[/b]

That is the most weakest argument provided to diminish role of Trotsky in the revolution. Only people who opposed insurrection even on the eve of the October Revolution were Zinonev and Kamenev. Before July days only Lenin and Trotsky were in total opposition to Kerensky.


Originally posted by LeftyHenry+--> (LeftyHenry)as I've been reading more theoretical shit lately to deepen my understanding of Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought however it is known as THE primary source and epic novel regarding the bolshevik revolution.[/b]

Everything else is correct except that it is not a Novel.


[email protected]

I want to learn more about the October Revolution, Lenin and Trotsky's roles, etc. I basically want a detailed discussion into the causes of the revolution, as well as the immediate outcomes,

For a material analysis of those events you have to go for the The History of Russian Revolution. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-hrr/) which is written in three volumes.Another good work is Lessons of October (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1924/1924-les.htm) which is written as early as 1924 when Trotsky was still commissar of defense and railways in Soviet Union. It is draws more or less basic analysis and should be treated as a precursor to the History of Russian Revolution. John reed's Ten days that shook the world (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/index.htm) is good but it does not provide any material analysis of events. It is more like a diary of events.

The Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm) by Rosa Luxemburg gives a reasonable analysis of Russian Revolution. sHe is both supportive of it and Criticises Bolsheviks in some of the Theoretical and tactical decisions.

Russian Tragedy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/09/11.htm) another work by Rosa Luxemburg in which she analyses Brest-Litovsk Treaty.


hastalavictoria

and how all this led to Stalin and state-capitalism.

I do not agree with state capitalism theory as it is totally vague and it proponents never give how they have analysed the Soviet Union come to that conclusion Related Thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61838&hl=state+capitalism) read the posts by Severian and Luis Henrique.

But certainly Soviet is not a workers state and it is also not a capitalist state. In Revoltion Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm) Trotsky had made an analysis with which I agree with.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] March 8, 2007, 08:39 am
That is the most weakest argument provided to diminish role of Trotsky in the revolution. Only people who opposed insurrection even on the eve of the October Revolution were Zinonev and Kamenev. Before July days only Lenin and Trotsky were in total opposition to Kerensky.

Is it really? Those two pamphlets by Lenin were compiled in October of 1917, just days before the revolution took place. And it shows that Trotsky, while not openly opposing armed action like Zinoviev and Kamenev did, in deed still advocated waiting rather than acting right at the moment revolution was needed. This is a fact neglected in the Trot account of history (or Trotskyite "school of falsification," to borrow one of their own slogans which they so diligently apply against Leninist histories despite their poor acquaintance with the facts) when they claim that their great leader was head of the military revolutionary council. Since you have decided to dismiss this concrete fact as "weak argument" in favor of dogma, you've proven you're not going to argue the matter with logic but with extreme subjectivity.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+March 08, 2007 08:32 pm--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ March 08, 2007 08:32 pm)
[email protected] March 8, 2007, 08:39 am
That is the most weakest argument provided to diminish role of Trotsky in the revolution. Only people who opposed insurrection even on the eve of the October Revolution were Zinonev and Kamenev. Before July days only Lenin and Trotsky were in total opposition to Kerensky.

Is it really? Those two pamphlets by Lenin were compiled in October of 1917, just days before the revolution took place. And it shows that Trotsky, while not openly opposing armed action like Zinoviev and Kamenev did, in deed still advocated waiting rather than acting right at the moment revolution was needed. This is a fact neglected in the Trot account of history (or Trotskyite "school of falsification," to borrow one of their own slogans which they so diligently apply against Leninist histories despite their poor acquaintance with the facts) when they claim that their great leader was head of the military revolutionary council. Since you have decided to dismiss this concrete fact as "weak argument" in favor of dogma, you've proven you're not going to argue the matter with logic but with extreme subjectivity. [/b]
Yes, that is said by a supporter of a man who supported Kerensky&#39;s government, refused to publish April theses in pravda when Lenin was still in Switzerland and banned the first hand Information of John Reed&#39;s(who was dead even before expulsion of Trotsky)work just because it told events that did not fit in to his version. <_<


Edit: Note:
Well this thread starter appealed not to turn this in to a sectarian shitfest. So this will be my last response to you &#33;

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:02 pm
Is it really? Those two pamphlets by Lenin were compiled in October of 1917, just days before the revolution took place. And it shows that Trotsky, while not openly opposing armed action like Zinoviev and Kamenev did, in deed still advocated waiting rather than acting right at the moment revolution was needed. This is a fact neglected in the Trot account of history (or Trotskyite "school of falsification," to borrow one of their own slogans which they so diligently apply against Leninist histories despite their poor acquaintance with the facts) when they claim that their great leader was head of the military revolutionary council. Since you have decided to dismiss this concrete fact as "weak argument" in favor of dogma, you&#39;ve proven you&#39;re not going to argue the matter with logic but with extreme subjectivity.
So, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Trotsky were counterrevolutionaries. And I suppose Bukharin was, too. How many other counterrevolutionaries were in the Bolshevik party CC in 1917, and how did a party controlled by counterrevolutionaries managed to lead a revolution?

Luís Henrique

[The Author]

Originally posted by g.ram+ March 8, 2007, 10:52 a.m.--> (g.ram &#064; March 8, 2007, 10:52 a.m.)Yes, that is said by a supporter of a man who supported Kerensky&#39;s government, refused to publish April theses in pravda when Lenin was still in Switzerland and banned the first hand Information of John Reed&#39;s(who was dead even before expulsion of Trotsky)work just because it told events that did not fit in to his version. [/b]

Here we go, let&#39;s use the infamous strategy of changing the subject when the facts do not suit us to another topic in the hopes of engaging in endless, tiring circle debate to scare away the "Stalinists" with "facts." Sorry, you can&#39;t dodge this concrete fact so easily.


Originally posted by Luís Henrique+ March 8, 2007, 11:01 a.m.--> (Luís Henrique &#064; March 8, 2007, 11:01 a.m.) So, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Trotsky were counterrevolutionaries. And I suppose Bukharin was, too. How many other counterrevolutionaries were in the Bolshevik party CC in 1917, and how did a party controlled by counterrevolutionaries managed to lead a revolution?[/b]

People are judged by their actions. Zinoviev and Kamenev did not want armed action, and Trotsky wanted to delay action until the Congress, something which Lenin knew full well was unacceptable due to the material conditions present and the impending situation opening the window for revolution. To wait would have cost the Party its victory. This is not about "show trials," which is where you&#39;re inevitably trying to steer this discussion.

Since you have not appeared to have read the particular information in detail by Lenin about the tactics used by the above three, allow me to enlighten you to clear away any misunderstandings you might have by quoting from those two pamphlets:


Originally posted by [email protected] the Crisis has Matured
What, then, is to be done? We must aussprechen was ist, "state the facts", admit the truth that there is a tendency, or an opinion, in our Central Committee and among the leaders of our Party which favours waiting for the Congress of Soviets, and is opposed to taking power immediately, is opposed to an immediate insurrection. That tendency, or opinion, must be overcome.[48]

Otherwise, the Bolsheviks will cover themselves with eternal shame and destroy themselves as a party.

For to miss such a moment and to "wait" for the Congress of Soviets would be utter idiocy, or sheer treachery.

It would be sheer treachery to the German workers. Surely we should not wait until their revolution begins. In that case even the Lieberdans would be in favour of "supporting" it. But it cannot begin as long as Kerensky, Kishkin and Co. are in power.

It would be sheer treachery to the peasants. To allow the peasant revolt to be suppressed when we control the Soviets

page 83

of both capitals would be to lose, and justly lose, every ounce of the peasants&#39; confidence. In the eyes of the peasants we would be putting ourselves on a level with the Lieberdans and other scoundrels.

To "wait" for the Congress of Soviets would be utter idiocy, for it would mean losing weeks at a time when weeks and even days decide everything. It would mean faint-heartedly renouncing power, for on November 1-2 it will have become impossible to take power (both politically and technically, since the Cossacks would be mobilised for the day of the insurrection so foolishly "appointed" ).

To "wait" for the Congress of Soviets is idiocy, for the Congress will give nothing, and can give nothing &#33;

"Moral" importance? Strange indeed, to talk of the "importance" of resolutions and conversations with the Lieberdans when we know that the Soviets support the peasants and that the peasant revolt is being suppressed &#33; We would be reducing the Soviets to the status of wretched debating parlours. First defeat Kerensky, then call the Congress.

The Bolsheviks are now guaranteed the success of the insurrection: (1) we can** (if we do not "wait" for the Soviet Congress) launch a surprise attack from three points -- from Petrograd, from Moscow and from the Baltic fleet; (2) we have slogans that guarantee us support -- down with the government that is suppressing the revolt of the peasants against the landowners&#33; (3) we have a majority in the country ; (4) the disorganisation among the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries is complete; (5) we are technically in a position to take power in Moscow (where the start might even be made, so as to catch the enemy unawares); (6;) we have thousands of armed workers and soldiers in Petrograd who could at once seize the Winter Palace, the General Staff building, the telephone exchange
* To "convene" the Congress of Soviets for October 20 in order to decide upon "taking power" -- how does that differ from foolishly "appointing" an insurrection? It is possible to take power now, whereas on October 20-29 you will not be given a chance to.
** What has the Party done to study the disposition of the troops, etc? What has it done to conduct the insurrection as an art? Mere talk in the Central Executive Committee, and so on&#33;

page 84

and the large printing presses. Nothing will be able to drive us out, while agitational work in the army will be such as to make it impossible to combat this government of peace, of land for the peasants, and so forth.

If we were to attack at once, suddenly, from three points, Petrograd, Moscow and the Baltic fleet, the chances are a hundred to one that we would succeed with smaller sacrifices than on July 3-5, because the troops will not advance against a government of peace. Even though Kerensky already has "loyal" cavalry, etc., in Petrograd, if we were to attack from two sides, he would be compelled to surrender since we enjoy the sympathy of the army. If with such chances as we have at present we do not take power, then all talk of transferring the power to the Soviets becomes a lie.

To refrain from taking power now, to "wait", to indulge in talk in the Central Executive Committee, to confine ourselves to "fighting for the organ" (of the Soviet), "fighting for the Congress", is to doom the revolution to failure.

In view of the fact that the Central Committee has even left unanswered the persistent demands I have been making for such a policy ever since the beginning of the Democratic Conference, in view of the fact that the Central Organ is deleting from my articles all references to such glaring errors on the part of the Bolsheviks as the shameful decision to participate in the Pre-parliament, the admission of Mensheviks to the Presidium of the Soviet, etc., etc. -- I am compelled to regard this as a "subtle" hint at the unwillingness of the Central Committee even to consider this question, a subtle hint that I should keep my mouth shut, and as a proposal for me to retire.

I am compelled to tender my resignation from the Central Committee, which I hereby do, reserving for myself freedom to campaign among the rank and file of the Party and at the Party Congress.

For it is my profound conviction that if we "wait" for the Congress of Soviets and let the present moment pass, we shall ruin the revolution.

N. Lenin


Originally posted by footnote to Lenin&#39;s The Crisis Has Matured
The reference is to the attitude of Kamenev, Zinoviev, Trotsky and their followers. Kamenev and Zinoviev opposed Lenin&#39;s plan for an armed uprising, declaring that the working class of Russia was incapable of carrying out a socialist revolution. They slid down to the Menshevik position of demanding a bourgeois republic. Trotsky insisted on a postponement of the uprising until the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets, which meant frustrating the insurrection because this gave the Provisional Government a chance to concentrate its forces on the opening day of the Congress and crush the uprising.


Meeting of the Central [email protected]
Comrade Lenin maintains that a sort of indifference to the question of insurrection has been noticeable since the beginning of September. But this is impermissible if we are issuing the slogan of the seizure of power by the Soviets in all seriousness. It is therefore high time to pay attention to the technical aspect of the question. Apparently a lot of time has already been lost.

Nevertheless the question is an urgent one, and the decisive moment is near.

The international situation is such that we must take the initiative.

What is being done to surrender territory as far as Narva, and to surrender Petrograd makes it still more imperative for us to take decisive action.

The political situation is also working impressively in this direction. Decisive action on our part on July 3, 4 and 5 would have failed because we did not have the majority behind us. Since then we have made tremendous progress.

Absenteeism and indifference on the part of the masses is due to their being tired of words and resolutions.

We now have the majority behind us. Politically, the situation is fully ripe for taking power.

page 189

The agrarian movement is also developing in that direction, for it is obvious that extreme effort would be needed to stem that movement. The slogan of the transfer of all land has become the general slogan of the peasants. The political situation, therefore, is mature. We must speak of the technical aspect. That is the crux of the matter. Nevertheless we, like the defencists, are inclined to regard the systematic preparation of an uprising as something in the nature of a political sin.

It is senseless to wait for the Constituent Assembly that will obviously not be on our side, for this will only make our task more involved.

The regional congress and the proposal from Minsk[79] must be used for the beginning of decisive action.


footnote to the Meeting of the Central Committee
The Meeting of the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. on October 10 (23), 1917, was the first one Lenin attended after his return to Petrograd from Vyborg. Sverdlov was in the chair. Lenin gave a report on the current situation. The Central Committee adopted the resolution motioned by Lenin who proposed immediate preparations for an armed uprising. Only Zinoviev and Kamenev voted against the proposal. Trotsky abstained, but he held that it had to be postponed until the Second Congress of Soviets, which in practice meant bungling the insurrection and allowing the Provisional Government to pull up its forces to crush the uprising on the day the Congress opened. The Central Committee rebuffed the capitulants. The October 10 meeting of the Central Committee is of tremendous historical importance. The resolution on the uprising adopted by 10 to 2 became the Bolshevik Party&#39;s directive in starting immediate preparations for an insurrection. To direct the insurrection, the Central Committee set up a Political Bureau headed by Lenin.

There are the facts for all to see. It is a fact that Leon Trotsky wanted to wait until the holding of the Congress, while Lenin advocated immediate action. Once again, I stand by my earlier comment that had Trotsky&#39;s strategy been put into practice, the October Revolution would have been a failure.

[Aurora]

From the material you posted CEA it seems you are correct,but to be honest i dont think its a big deal that Trotsky disagreed with Lenin.After all they disagreed on other things aswell one that comes to mind is the trade unions but im sure there are others.

Also im sure Trotsky recognised that he was wrong afterwards.

[The Grey Blur]

Trotsky&#39;s History is incredible detailed and an invaluable analysis. State Capitalism is a false theory developed and then rejected by the South African Trotskyist Ted Grant. I&#39;ll write more later.

[Herman]

I have heard that Trotsky&#39;s The History of The Russian Revolution is a good and relatively unbiased account of the revolution.

It is a good account, but saying it&#39;s unbiased... that&#39;s just overdoing it.

[The Grey Blur]

Sure Trotsky wasn&#39;t for immediate seizure of power. To say he was "opposed" to it though is just plain dumb though. The epitaph of Stalinism I suppose...


but saying it&#39;s unbiased... that&#39;s just overdoing it.

To quote the Trotman himself:

This work will not rely in any degree upon personal recollections. The circumstance that the author was a participant in the events does not free him from the obligation to base his exposition upon historically verified documents. The author speaks of himself, in so far as that is demanded by the course of events, in the third person. And that is not a mere literary form: the subjective tone, inevitable in autobiographies or memoirs, is not permissible in a work of history.

However, the fact that the author did participate in the struggle naturally makes easier his understanding, not only of the psychology of the forces in action, both individual and collective, but also of the inner connection of events. This advantage will give positive results only if one condition is observed: that he does not rely upon the testimony of his own memory either in trivial details or in important matters, either in questions of fact or questions of motive and mood. The author believes that in so far as in him lies he has fulfilled this condition.

There remains the question of the political position of the author, who stands as a historian upon the same viewpoint upon which he stood as a participant in the events. The reader, of course, is not obliged to share the political views of the author, which the latter on his side has no reason to conceal. But the reader does have the right to demand that a historical work should not be the defence of a political position, but an internally well-founded portrayal of the actual process of the revolution. A historical work only then completely fulfils the mission when events unfold upon its pages in their full natural necessity.

For this, is it necessary to have the so-called historian’s "impartiality"? Nobody has yet clearly explained what this impartiality consists of. The often quoted words of Clemenceau that it is necessary to take a revolution "en bloc," as a whole — are at the best a clever evasion. How can you take as a whole a thing whose essence consists in a split? Clemenceau’s aphorism was dictated partly by shame for his too resolute ancestors, partly by embarrassment before their shades.

One of the reactionary and therefore fashionable historians in contemporary France, L. Madelin, slandering in his drawing-room fashion the great revolution — that is, the birth of his own nation — asserts that "the historian ought to stand upon the wall of a threatened city, and behold at the same time the besiegers and the besieged": only in this way, it seems, can he achieve a "conciliatory justice.” However, the words of Madelin himself testify that if he climbs out on the wall dividing the two camps, it is only in the character of a reconnoiterer for the reaction. It is well that he is concerned only with war camps of the past: in a time of revolution standing on the wall involves great danger. Moreover, in times of alarm the priests of "conciliatory justice" are usually found sitting on the inside of four walls waiting to see which side will win.

The serious and critical reader will not want a treacherous impartiality, which offers him a cup of conciliation with a well-settled poison of reactionary hate at the bottom, but a scientific conscientiousness, which for its sympathies and antipathies — open and undisguised — seeks support in an honest study of the facts, a determination of their real connections, an exposure of the causal laws of their movement. That is the only possible historic objectivism, and moreover it is amply sufficient, for it is verified and attested not by the good intentions of the historian, for which only he himself can vouch, but the natural laws revealed by him of the historic process itself.

Hasta I recommend ordering the book or buying/getting a lend of it from a Socialist grouping rather than attempting it online...IT&#39;S FRICKIN&#39; HUGE&#33;&#33;&#33;

I&#39;m really sorry for derailing this btw, I will definitely give my own opinion and analysis in a short while, I just have a lot of work. Perhaps a study group might be a better idea?

[Rawthentic]

So, like, help me out comrades. Thats the point of this thread.

[Herman]

To quote the Trotman himself:

It&#39;s obvious that he would say that. I can also claim that my account of something that happened in the past is unbiased. Besides, when you read the book, you tend to find that there are many instances of bias. I&#39;ll post some of them later.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:15 pm
As I recall, it was Trotsky who held the opinion that the Bolsheviks were not to take armed action immediately, but rather wait until the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets was convened, while Lenin argued for immediate seizure of political power. If Trotsky&#39;s strategy had been adopted, the Great October Socialist Revolution would have never materialized but would have resulted in failure due to poor timing and carelessness.
Trotsky&#39;s policy was followed&#33; The Bolsheviks did wait for the Second Congress...only Kerensky struck shortly before the Congress, in a feeble way, by closing a Bolshevik paper. The October insurrection developed under defensive slogans of reacting to that attack.

The insurrection began on Oct. 25, the day before the Congress met.

Do you seriously not know that the insurrection was still underway when the Congress opened, and the Winter Palace still hadn&#39;t fallen?

Read 10 Days That Shook the World, or any other account of how the insurrection actually occurred&#33; For that matter, look at the resolutions adopted in the Central Committee meetings you&#39;ve been quoting. That&#39;s Trotsky&#39;s position, not Lenin&#39;s, in the resolutions.

You quoted Lenin&#39;s The Crisis Has Matured (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/20.htm) In it, he proposes a tactic that obviously is not the one which was actually followed: "The Bolsheviks are now guaranteed the success of the insurrection: (1) we can[7] (if we do not "wait" for the Soviet Congress) launch a surprise attack from three points—from Petrograd, from Moscow and from the Baltic fleet;"

There was no surprise attack, the Baltic sailors were brought in only after the insurrection was well underway.

You also quote Lenin:

The regional congress and the proposal from Minsk[79] must be used for the beginning of decisive action.

Well, the regional congress (Northern Congress of Soviets) came and went (roughly Oct 10-15, old style), and no "beginning of decisive action." Nothing came of the proposal for a Minsk insurrection either.

See also Lenin&#39;s "advice of an onlooker:"
here: (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/08.htm)
"I am writing these lines on October 8 and have little hope that they will reach Petrograd comrades by the 9th. It is possible that they will arrive too late, since the Congress of the Northern Soviets has been fixed for October 10." That&#39;s how immediately he was proposing action. Of course, it didn&#39;t happen.

"Applied to Russia and to October 1917, this means: a simultaneous offensive on Petrograd, as sudden and as rapid as possible, which must without fail be carried out from within and from without, from the working-class quarters and from Finland, from Revel and from Kronstadt, an offensive of the entire navy, the concentration of a gigantic superiority of forces over the 15,000 or 20,000 (perhaps more) of our "bourgeois guard" (the officers&#39; schools), our "Vendee troops" (part of the Cossacks), etc."

Obviously this proposes a much larger role of forces from Finland and the Baltic fleet than actually happened. He even proposes at one point to "to encircle and cut off Petrograd;".

Lenin&#39;s letter to Smilga (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/10.htm):
"We set "dates"(October 20, the Congress of Soviets—is it not ridiculous to put it off so long? Is it not ridiculous to rely on that?)." Well, it was put off longer than that, til October 25.

"Now about your role. It seems to me we can have completely at our disposal only the troops in Finland and the Baltic fleet and only they can play a serious military role. I think you must make most of your high position, shift all the petty routine work to assistants and secretaries and not waste time on "resolutions"; give all your attention to the military preparation of the troops in Finland plus the fleet for the impending overthrow of Kerensky. "

Amazing&#33; "It seems to me we can have completely at our disposal only the troops in Finland and the Baltic fleet "&#33; No, not if its the Petrograd Soviet calling the insurrection, and not just the Bolshevik Party (or maybe Lenin was thinking part of the Bolshevik Party might have to act without the Central Committee, which would explain why he was writing to Smilga to ask him to start organizing troops.)

You&#39;re so used to quoting Lenin like an infallible Bible, it never occurs to you to wonder if Lenin&#39;s proposals were actually carried out&#33; To avoid quoting people as if they were Prophets of God, it helps to place their statements in historical context...but for that you have to know some history.

To alter your statement:
If Lenin&#39;s strategy had been adopted, the Great October Socialist Revolution might still have materialized, or the earlier and less broad-based insurrection might have been crushed, but we&#39;ll never know, since it didn&#39;t happen&#33;

***

Trotsky&#39;s History of the Russian Revolution is the best and best-documented work on the subject, respected even by academic historians. If you want a shorter version, I recommend his "Lessons of October."

One good book by an academic, about an important part of the Russian Revolution, is "Red Guards and Workers Militia in the Russian Revolution" by Rex A. Wade. Very factually informative.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:33 am

To quote the Trotman himself:

It&#39;s obvious that he would say that. I can also claim that my account of something that happened in the past is unbiased.
Trotsky isn&#39;t claiming that. He says the opposite: "The serious and critical reader will not want a treacherous impartiality, which offers him a cup of conciliation with a well-settled poison of reactionary hate at the bottom, but a scientific conscientiousness, which for its sympathies and antipathies — open and undisguised — seeks support in an honest study of the facts, a determination of their real connections, an exposure of the causal laws of their movement."

Nobody is unbiased, but some people are up-front about their biases and try to honestly investigate the facts.

You&#39;re under no obligation to read the posts you&#39;re responding to, but it might help your responses make some sense.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:57 am
Also, does anyone know any good, non-sectarian books on the Bolshevik Revolution? Thanks
Ten Days is an excellent work but its really one of journalism rather than history. Its biased and factually incorrect in places but its the best way to get the feeling and atmosphere of the Revolution.

For more academic works I&#39;d recommend Sheila Fitzpatrick&#39;s The Russian Revolution and Orlando Figes&#39; A People&#39;s Tragedy. The former is very concise but gives a good overview of the Revolution, plus it covers the complete revolution into the 1930s. Figes&#39; book gives an excellent reading of both the events and the Tsarist state but falls down on placing the Bolsheviks&#39; actions within the context of their ideals.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] March 9, 2007, 05:29 am
The insurrection began on Oct. 25, the day before the Congress met.

You forgot to add that the reason why the insurrection began the day before the Congress met was because Trotsky at a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet while in his overconfident tone of boasting happened to in the process reveal the date which the Bolsheviks were planning the armed uprising to the enemy. This happened after the letters which you quoted. Hence why the insurrection was moved to a day earlier before the Congress.

I reproduce a section of a letter by Lenin to dispel any doubts about this fact from Letter to the Central Committee (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LCC17.html)


No self-respecting party can tolerate strike-breaklng and blacklegs in its midst. That is obvious. The more we reflect upon Zinoviev&#39;s and Kamenev&#39;s statement in the non-Party press, the more self-evident it becomes that their action is strike-breaking in the full sense of the term. Kamenev&#39;s evasion at the meeting of the Petrograd Soviet is something really despicable. He is, don&#39;t you see, in full agreement with Trotsky. But is it so difficult to understand that in the face of the enemy, Trotsky could not have said, he had no right to say, and should not have said more than he did? Is it so difficult to understand that it is a duty to the Party which has concealed its decision from the enemy (on the necessity for an armed uprising, on the fact that the time for it is fully ripe, on the thorough preparations to be made for it, etc.), and it is this decision that makes it obligatory in public statements to fasten not only the "blame", but also the initiative upon the adversary? Only a child could fail to understand that. Kamenev&#39;s evasion is a sheer fraud. The same must be said of Zinoviev&#39;s evasion, at least of his letter of "justification" (written, I think, to the Central Organ), which is the only document I have seen (for, as to a dissenting opinion, "an alleged dissenting opinion", which has been trumpeted in the bourgeois press, I, a member of the Central Committee, have to this very day seen nothing of it). Among Zinoviev&#39;s "arguments" there is this: Lenin, he says, sent out his letters "before any decisions were adopted", and you did not protest.


You&#39;re so used to quoting Lenin like an infallible Bible

I do not look at Lenin as an "infallible Bible," as you colorfully illustrate. I know he made mistakes and that he was human. If you had this conception that this is how I view Lenin- as some kind of infallible leader- you are quite mistaken. But I don&#39;t pay lip-service to his writings or ideas either.


Nobody is unbiased, but some people are up-front about their biases and try to honestly investigate the facts.

Trotsky is not one of them. Comparing his polemics to what others wrote and what actually took place in the U.S.S.R. shows that Trotsky did anything but "honestly investigate the facts," as you put it. No, Trotsky must be studied with a very serious critical eye and scrutinized before being taken at face-value.

[Herman]

Nobody is unbiased, but some people are up-front about their biases and try to honestly investigate the facts.

Trotsky is as biased as anyone and in his three volumes, there are many cases of bias. And I&#39;m not saying it&#39;s a bad read or that it&#39;s an awful account of the seizure of power by the soviets, but it&#39;s clear that he is biased, despite trying to be as honest as he can.


You&#39;re under no obligation to read the posts you&#39;re responding to, but it might help your responses make some sense.

Why do people try to react in such a witty and negative manner when you contradict them...

[Rawthentic]

It has been my view for a while that the Revolution was destroyed as the petty-bourgeoisie came to a more solid position in power through the establishment of "specialists" and managers and the NEP that created a layer of bureaurats and functionaries to run the show. After the Civil War, Party members were nearly paranoic of counterrevolution, and took measures to repress dissent against Pary actions. Old worker-Bolsheviks that had been with the Party since its inception were then being imprisoned and punished for questioning the leadership. To make it short, the gains of the October revolution were ended with the rise of Stalin and the establishment of the petty-bourgeoise as the ruling class. The main organs of proletarian control, the Soviets, had their voice practically destroyed. Stalin&#39;s Five Year Plans used forced collectivization and forced labor to make ends meet.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:30 pm
From the material you posted CEA it seems you are correct,but to be honest i dont think its a big deal that Trotsky disagreed with Lenin.After all they disagreed on other things aswell one that comes to mind is the trade unions but im sure there are others.

Also im sure Trotsky recognised that he was wrong afterwards.
okay then well stop down playing Stalin&#39;s role and crediting the entire revolution to the demi-god trotsky. They both had an important role.

[Aurora]

haha,i dont consider trotsky a demi-god,lol

But what was stalins role? i heard somewhere he used to rob shit for the party lol,but thats probly bullshit.
Any info appreciated

[Rawthentic]

Im starting to discover the real Lenin now, not the cowardly petty-bourgeois men that distorted his ideas like Stalin. With the rise of Stalin, suppression of dissent, the rise of petty-bourgeois elements as the main class, the counterrevolution was successful. This is not to say that the revolution could not have been successful; if the proletarian power, the soviet, was maintained as the driving force in the state and economy, the workers and peasants, with the leadership of the workers, could have administered the stage of state-capitalism and the socialist transition. I&#39;m not nostalgic. Seeing what happened hear must be taken as a lesson for future revolutions.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:40 am




haha,i dont consider trotsky a demi-god,lol

:D yeah that was a joke


But what was stalins role?

he was part of the political center for the uprising with lenin and kamenev and zinoviev. Trotsky had only joined the party in July, and wanted a revolution later, however he managed to have a pretty high up position and execute it extremely well.


Im starting to discover the real Lenin now, not the cowardly petty-bourgeois men that distorted his ideas like Stalin

Yes ACTUALLY reading Lenin before making judgements does help you understand Leninism. As for Stalin, that is a very funny comment considering Stalin was rasied in a poor, poor peasant family and was actually critiscized for following Lenin&#39;s works to the line and not creating his own unique theory like Trotsky.


With the rise of Stalin, suppression of dissent, the rise of petty-bourgeois elements as the main class

blah blah blah blah great you called Stalin petty-bourgioeus Now I&#39;ll call you petty-bourgeois, does that mean anything? No, nothing at all? So why bother?

On the question of dissent, the party followed democratic centralism and had the rule on "dissent" remained the same from early on.

Factions in the party were banned because they would tear the party apart very quickly. Democratic debate on what line to take was free however centralism was enforced. To paraphrase Lenin, the bolshevik party wouldn&#39;t have lasted nearly as long if it wasn&#39;t for its iron discipline which could have the same effect as sectarianism had in say, the Spanish Civil War where communists and anarchists worked separatly and attacked each other.


f the proletarian power, the soviet, was maintained as the driving force in the state and economy, the workers and peasants, with the leadership of the workers, could have administered the stage of state-capitalism and the socialist transition.

they were and they did.

[Vargha Poralli]

But what was stalins role?


he was part of the political center for the uprising with lenin and kamenev and zinoviev.
Yet another falsification. Zinonev and Kamenev even voted against the revolution they were called strike breakers by Lenin himself. Stalin was no where as important during that time . He was the editor of pravda at that time nothing more was is role.


Trotsky had only joined the party in July, and wanted a revolution later, however he managed to have a pretty high up position and execute it extremely well.


Mainly because he was the proponent for overthrowing Kerensky along with Lenin from the begining. And he was the chairman of Petrograd Soviet during 1905 revolution so he was elected to be the chairman of Revolutionary Military Council which was formed by the Petrograd Soviet.



As for Stalin, that is a very funny comment considering Stalin was rasied in a poor, poor peasant family

We must judge person by what they did not by where they have born. Learn something from Marx LeftyHenry. That is the point of materialism.



and was actually critiscized for following Lenin&#39;s works to the line and not creating his own unique theory like Trotsky.

Yes he didn&#39;t create his own "unique theory" like Trotsky. But he followed and implemented Menshevik&#39;s theory not Lenin&#39;s.



On the question of dissent, the party followed democratic centralism and had the rule on "dissent" remained the same from early on.

Factions in the party were banned because they would tear the party apart very quickly. Democratic debate on what line to take was free however centralism was enforced. To paraphrase Lenin, the bolshevik party wouldn&#39;t have lasted nearly as long if it wasn&#39;t for its iron discipline which could have the same effect as sectarianism had in say, the Spanish Civil War where communists and anarchists worked separatly and attacked each other.


But if members disagreed with the majority line they were allowed to express it and the decisions were often modified to receive universal acceptance.

During Lenin&#39;s time often Lenin himself had to work very hard to convince members to accept a decision.This practice was limited during the civil war as members were often in differnt fronts so discussions were very much impossible at that time.

But Stalin case was entirely different. At first he worked with Zinonev and Kamenev to isolate and marginalise Trotsky. Then he sided with Bhukarin, Rykov and Tomsky to marginalise Zinonev and Kamenev. In the end every body was executed during th Moscow trials.

[Severian]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+March 09, 2007 09:18 am--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ March 09, 2007 09:18 am) You forgot to add that the reason why the insurrection began the day before the Congress met was because Trotsky at a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet while in his overconfident tone of boasting happened to in the process reveal the date which the Bolsheviks were planning the armed uprising to the enemy. [/b]
You mean, the day the Soviet Congress opened? That was hardly a secret. Once the seizure of power was linked to the Soviets, public institutions, surprise was impossible. As you said yourself in your first post&#33; And of course I gave the reason why the insurrection started the day before the Congress.

You ignore the whole meat of my post: that Trotsky&#39;s plan was the one that was actually followed&#33; And Lenin&#39;s was not followed. There was no insurrection on the 10th, or the 15th, or the 20th. You don&#39;t deny it, you don&#39;t try to refute it, you just drop the subject.

That&#39;s incredibly dishonest. When you&#39;ve been proved wrong, you ought to have the guts to admit it, instead of weaseling away.

Then you completely reverse your earlier argument. Earlier you blamed Trotsky for trying to delay the insurrection &#39;til the Congress, now you&#39;re saying the opposite&#33; Blaming him for it being early. Guess the devil is to blame for anything that goes wrong, huh?


you quoting Lenin
in the face of the enemy, Trotsky could not have said, he had no right to say, and should not have said more than he did?

"Should not have said more than he did." Which you reverse into - should not have said what he did&#33;

And hey, did you ever consider looking up a historical account of exactly what Trotsky actually said at that session of the Petrograd Soviet? It was the Oct. 18 session, BTW. And no, official Kremlin propaganda doesn&#39;t count as history.


I do not look at Lenin as an "infallible Bible," as you colorfully illustrate. I know he made mistakes and that he was human.

Your first post shows the opposite. At no point in your first post do you try to prove Lenin&#39;s plan was better than Trotsky&#39;s. You don&#39;t even notice the obvious historical fact that Trotsky&#39;s plan was actually implemented, and worked amazingly well&#33;

(Amazingly well:Only about five revolutionaries were killed in the course of seizing power in Petrograd. How many deepgoing social revolutions take a capital city so easily, especially when it&#39;s the first thing they take?)

You just demonstrated that Lenin had one proposal and Trotsky another. It didn&#39;t occur to you that you had to try to prove anything more&#33; Your assumption or Lenin&#39;s papal infallibility is so ingrained you didn&#39;t even realize you were making it.

Of course, sometimes Lenin was right against Trotsky. IMO, one of those issues was the relationship between the bourgeois-democratic tasks of the revolution - I&#39;ve argued that Lenin&#39;s approach was more correct than Trotsky&#39;s "Permanent Revolution" concept. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40806&st=0&#entry1291942537)

But at other times Trotsky, or others, were right against Lenin, and organization of the October insurrection was one of those times. On timing, on military organization, on who would call the insurrection (the Soviet, not the party) - Trotsky&#39;s proposals were implemented, and Trotsky&#39;s proposals worked.

***
Now all of the above is - in the past.

So mostly, it matters as an example of methods of thought, of placing political ideas in their social context of place and time, of reading the Marxist classics as living human and political documents and not as unchanging Divine Scripture.

Once you have a good method you can apply it to all kinds of problems, including present-day events.

And there&#39;s no substitute for critical thought. Speak of which, doesn&#39;t "CriticizeEverythingAlways" have the most ironic username ever?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:30 am


But what was stalins role? Stalin was no where as important during that time . He was the editor of pravda at that time nothing more was is role.
Right. The insurrection, as every non-Kremlin historian writes, was organized by the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet. The so-called "political centre" never met and played no role.

As for Stalin&#39;s role as editor of Pravda, the Bolshevik Party&#39;s "Central Organ" i.e. main newspaper...well, since there&#39;s been a lot of quoting of Lenin&#39;s Oct. 1917 letters in this thread....


In view of the fact that the Central Committee has even left unanswered the persistent demands I have been making for such a policy ever since the beginning of the Democratic Conference, in view of the fact that the Central Organ is deleting from my articles all references to such glaring errors on the part of the Bolsheviks as the shameful decision to participate in the Pre-parliament, the admission of Mensheviks to the Presidium of the Soviet, etc., etc.—I am compelled to regard this as a "subtle" hint at the unwillingness of the Central Committee even to consider this question, a subtle hint that I should keep my mouth shut, and as a proposal for me to retire. from the Crisis has matured by Lenin (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/20.htm) Emphasis added.

Trotsky&#39;s "History" goes into more detail on Stalin&#39;s role as a semi-ally of Kamenev and Zinoviev in this debate. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-hrr/ch42.htm) Including Pravda&#39;s publication of their anti-insurrection articles without comment or even with sympathetic editorial comment: "We in our turn express the hope that with the declaration made by Zinoviev (and also the declaration of Kamenev in the Soviet) the question may be considered settled. The sharpness of tone of Lenin’s article does not alter the fact that in fundamentals we remain of one opinion."

Even more glaring is Stalin&#39;s role, along with Kamenev, in March 1917. They were the first members of the Central Committee to arrive in Petrograd. They briefly reversed the Petrograd Bolshevik organization&#39;s policy of opposition to the Provisional Government. Fortunately, between the revolutionary consciousness of the party ranks and the publication of Lenin&#39;s April Theses, this reformist policy didn&#39;t last long.

This should give some idea of the many conflicts within the Bolshevik Party and its Central Committee - it was far from perfect, revolutions are always messy things in all respects. It should also illustrate that no leadership is so reliably revolutionary as to need no correction by the ranks - internal democracy is essential for a revolutionary party.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] March 9, 2007, 11:53 am

Why do people try to react in such a witty and negative manner when you contradict them...

Because they hate the concept of being criticized. They hate it when the world that they think they know comes crashing down around them when they&#39;re confronted by actual facts. They resort to the comical efforts of "educating" people on Marxism as if the people did not know better and picking on their usernames when they make mistakes or have not presented enough facts- and even administrators of the message board are not immune from such puerile actions- as if they know you by heart. Despite such overconfidence, such amusing attempts to be "superior" over others, when they are confronted by facts, when someone points out the flaws of their interpretations and they come to the realization they are wrong, they fall silent.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+March 10, 2007 10:01 pm--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ March 10, 2007 10:01 pm)
[email protected] March 9, 2007, 11:53 am

Why do people try to react in such a witty and negative manner when you contradict them...

Because they hate the concept of being criticized. They hate it when the world that they think they know comes crashing down around them when they&#39;re confronted by actual facts. They resort to the comical efforts of "educating" people on Marxism as if the people did not know better and picking on their usernames when they make mistakes or have not presented enough facts- and even administrators of the message board are not immune from such puerile actions- as if they know you by heart. Despite such overconfidence, such amusing attempts to be "superior" over others, when they are confronted by facts, when someone points out the flaws of their interpretations and they come to the realization they are wrong, they fall silent. [/b]
Actually if you are so much strong and confident in your argument why don&#39;t you defend what you have said ?


Despite such overconfidence, such amusing attempts to be "superior" over others, when they are confronted by facts, when someone points out the flaws of their interpretations and they come to the realization they are wrong, they fall silent.

You are clearly dodging Severian&#39;s reply to your post. Take up your own advice and reply to it.

[Rawthentic]

On the question of dissent, the party followed democratic centralism and had the rule on "dissent" remained the same from early on.

Don&#39;t be a moron. Within the Party, there were newspapers that differed from the Bolshevik&#39;s line, as well as non-Party newspapers. The rise of Stalin ended this practice, for iron suppression of dissent. Don&#39;t deny this. Just look at how Stalin murdered his dissenters in the Party, imprisoned or sent to labor camps those workers who dared disagree. The collectivization that you so mush espouse from Stalin was forced. By this time the USSR was vibrantly state-capitalist. Its ignorant to think that the working class led the state and economy after Stalin rose.

[The Grey Blur]

state-capitalist
This is where I disagree with your analysis. To refer to the USSR as "state-capitalist" is incorrect and defeatist - the correct analysis was that it was a degenerated worker&#39;s state - it retained the basic tenets of Socialism in it&#39;s planned economy but it lacked worker&#39;s control and democracy. Like Trotsky said "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen". A worker&#39;s political revolution was neccessary to depose the bureaucrats and replace it with a true Socialist society and that is what the Left Opposition worked towards.

Have you tried any of Trotsky&#39;s history? It&#39;s very factual and well-rounded.

[Rawthentic]

Comrade, I see what you are saying here. Yet can it be denied that Russia at this point was somewhat of a market economy? On the other hand, there are those that say that Russia was socialist but with a huge bureaucratic layer. Now I&#39;m confused.

PR, can you elaborate a little more on a "degenerated worker&#39;s state" and why the state-capitalist analysis is wrong?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria
can you elaborate a little more on a "degenerated worker&#39;s state" and why the state-capitalist analysis is wrong?

I don&#39;t belive in state capitlist theory because of many inconsistencies about it . I have already given you a link in one of my previous posts.Another old link which could help you on it. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57918&hl=)

USSR was a degenerated workers state because the bourgeoisie has been politically overthrown and the economic basis of the society laid in the Nationalised property, but workers didn&#39;t have any control to that nationalised property which was copntrolled by the bureaucracy.

Trotsky warned that if the bureaucracy was not overthrown by workers with a political revolution without changing the property relations the bureaucracy will restore the capitalism when it sees no longer the current property relations are beneficiary to it. Which is what exactly happened during the 1990&#39;s.

Revolution Betrayed to understand more about the degenerated workers state. (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm)

[Rawthentic]

So you&#39;re telling me that Russia at the point where Stalin took power had no elements of capitalism or competition?

[Leo]

it retained the basic tenets of Socialism in it&#39;s planned economy

If basic tenets of socialism was planned economies, almost all of the states on earth in the twentieth century, including US, Europe, Nazi Germany, Turkey, India, Egypt etc. etc. would be "socialist".


I don&#39;t belive in state capitlist theory because of many inconsistencies about it .

You don&#39;t know about state capitalist theory except Cliff&#39;s idiotic ideas which has nothing to do with actual state capitalism.

Actual state capitalist theory, instead of only calling countries like USSR "state-capitalist" because of the theoretical weaknesses of the people who use that argument, see state-capitalism as a tendency in the whole world and as the most effective (yet not becoming less and less affordable) economical model of the decedent capitalism.


the economic basis of the society laid in the Nationalised property, but workers didn&#39;t have any control to that nationalised property which was copntrolled by the bureaucracy.

"To be sure, if the nationalization of the tobacco trade were socialistic, Napoleon and Metternich would rank among the founders of socialism." -Engels

[chimx]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+March 09, 2007 11:50 am--> (ComradeOm @ March 09, 2007 11:50 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 02:57 am
Also, does anyone know any good, non-sectarian books on the Bolshevik Revolution? Thanks
Ten Days is an excellent work but its really one of journalism rather than history. Its biased and factually incorrect in places but its the best way to get the feeling and atmosphere of the Revolution.

For more academic works I&#39;d recommend Sheila Fitzpatrick&#39;s The Russian Revolution and Orlando Figes&#39; A People&#39;s Tragedy. The former is very concise but gives a good overview of the Revolution, plus it covers the complete revolution into the 1930s. Figes&#39; book gives an excellent reading of both the events and the Tsarist state but falls down on placing the Bolsheviks&#39; actions within the context of their ideals. [/b]
I&#39;m surprised that you would suggest two authors of the "right". While I haven&#39;t read Figes, it is my understanding that he goes well with the Richard Pipes crowd. Fitzpatrick is adamantly anti-Soviet Union, but I agree that her work is one of the best for explain how the Russian Revolution of 1917 led to the growth of "Stalinism". It is also extremely concise (under 200 pages I believe). I highly recommend it as well, though one must bare in mind the authors opinion at all times.

Personally, I really enjoy Rabinowitch&#39;s handling of the Russian Revolution. He is considered a bit of a revisionist historian, in that he downplays the direct role of Lenin and emphasizes the roles of Kamenev, Trotsky, and Zinoviev--which is something that the thread start was looking for.

If you have to start anywhere, start with Fitzpatrick and Rabinowitch. While Ten Days may be a fun book, it is akin to reading Homage to Catalonia to get a history of the 1936 Spanish Civil War and *not* a history book. It is full of factual errors, which historians constantly point to.

In fact, instead of reading Ten days, I suggest you just watch the film that was inspired by it: "Reds". After that, read some real history. ;)

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 11, 2007 02:47 am

state-capitalist
This is where I disagree with your analysis. To refer to the USSR as "state-capitalist" is incorrect and defeatist - the correct analysis was that it was a degenerated worker&#39;s state - it retained the basic tenets of Socialism in it&#39;s planned economy but it lacked worker&#39;s control and democracy. Like Trotsky said "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen". A worker&#39;s political revolution was neccessary to depose the bureaucrats and replace it with a true Socialist society and that is what the Left Opposition worked towards.

Have you tried any of Trotsky&#39;s history? It&#39;s very factual and well-rounded.
Good points made there. If the USSR was state capitalist, it makes it hard to actually explain how it worked- why instead of exploiting its satelite nations it massively funded them, why it had an economy that was focused on meeting need (education, health care, subsidised rent and utilities, subsidised youth leagues, cultural clubs, etc) over extracting profit, why the workers of the former USSR and Yugoslavia have so resisted the privitisation of their economies and so on.

[Rawthentic]

After I finish reading a People&#39;s History of the United States by Howard Zinn, I&#39;m going to read a three-volume piece on the Bolshevik Revolution by an author with the last name of Carr. It seems like very in-depth. Anybody heard of this author before?

[The Grey Blur]

I sincerely suggest you get Trotsky&#39;s history instead, even from an entirely non-political outlook. It is simply a very good read. That said, I haven&#39;t heard of this Carr fellow&#39;s history...is he a Marxist?

[Rawthentic]

Do you sincerely recommend it because it is at least somewhat objective and truthful or because he is Trotsky? I want the best read possible.

[The Grey Blur]

Because it is objective. Did you read the introduction I posted? Trotsky is up-front about his political beliefs - Marxism - but he doesn&#39;t attempt to shove them down your throat.

I really do feel it is the best read on the subject, it goes into how the Menshevik stages theory was wrong, the actual events (which Trotsky actually witnessed as opposed to these other historians) of both revolutions and the political conclusions that can be drawn. It&#39;s huge though so I would recommend you prepare yourself for a long (yet enjoyable) read.

[Rawthentic]

I will read it then, thanks comrade for the help. I might have just dug myself into a biased and anti-Bolshevik read of the Revolution, but thanks to you, I&#39;ll read Trotsky.

[The Grey Blur]

No problemo. Though you should read some of Richard Pipes&#39; (Soviet historian funded by the CIA) stuff for a laugh if you want :lol:

Off to bed now, 3 in the morning here.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:01 am
Im starting to discover the real Lenin now, not the cowardly petty-bourgeois men that distorted his ideas like Stalin. With the rise of Stalin, suppression of dissent, the rise of petty-bourgeois elements as the main class, the counterrevolution was successful. This is not to say that the revolution could not have been successful; if the proletarian power, the soviet, was maintained as the driving force in the state and economy, the workers and peasants, with the leadership of the workers, could have administered the stage of state-capitalism and the socialist transition. I&#39;m not nostalgic. Seeing what happened hear must be taken as a lesson for future revolutions.
Lenin was petit-bourgeois and Stalin was a godforsaken peasant. :)

Nobody distorted his ideas, state monopoly capitalism was the inevitable effect of leninist praxis applied to russia&#39;s material conditions. The soviet bureacracy established itself starting war communism.

[Rawthentic]

And to think that I used to think like you.

I personally abhor Stalin, but you are definitely wrong about Lenin. If you have actually read any of his writings, you will see how dedicated he was to the struggle. He always rejected being a "hero" and wanted the workers and peasants to be the guiding force, as they initially were. When he was the main leader in the Bolshevik Party, the soviets were the guiding force in the state and economy. Your kind of thinking makes you a "first-world" chauvinist in that you reject that "third-world" nations can achieve socialism.

The bureaucracy was established by the NEP which added a whole new layer of petty-bourgeois functionaries and bureaucrats that were to become "managers" and "experts" to the workers, instead of having the workers manage the state and economy. From 1917- to around 1921, which is the healthiest part of worker&#39;s control, the soviets had many independent papers and unions. Had the Bolshevik Party consistently "proletarianized" the Party and allowed for separate unions to prevent bureaucracy, you wouldn&#39;t be making stupid statements as you are.

Ideological immaturity is shown when you reduce your analysis to simplicity, because "material conditions where adverse." There are much more things to consider, and you obviously haven&#39;t read Lenin or detailed on the Russian Revolution. I suggest that you do.

For help, please check this out: Lessons on the USSR Experience (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?48/#03)

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:14 am
And to think that I used to think like you.



The bureaucracy was established by the NEP which added a whole new layer of petty-bourgeois functionaries and bureaucrats that were to become "managers" and "experts" to the workers, instead of having the workers manage the state and economy. From 1917- to around 1921, which is the healthiest part of worker&#39;s control, the soviets had many independent papers and unions. Had the Bolshevik Party consistently "proletarianized" the Party and allowed for separate unions to prevent bureaucracy, you wouldn&#39;t be making stupid statements as you are.

Ideological immaturity is shown when you reduce your analysis to simplicity, because "material conditions where adverse." There are much more things to consider, and you obviously haven&#39;t read Lenin or detailed on the Russian Revolution. I suggest that you do.

For help, please check this out: Lessons on the USSR Experience (http://www.communistleague.org/page.php?48/#03)

I personally abhor Stalin, but you are definitely wrong about Lenin. If you have actually read any of his writings, you will see how dedicated he was to the struggle. He always rejected being a "hero" and wanted the workers and peasants to be the guiding force, as they initially were. When he was the main leader in the Bolshevik Party, the soviets were the guiding force in the state and economy. Your kind of thinking makes you a "first-world" chauvinist in that you reject that "third-world" nations can achieve socialism.

First and foremost, I live in mexico, so I don&#39;t think you can call me a "first world chauvinist".

I never argued that Lenin wasn&#39;t dedicated and that he truly believed in socialism. Robespierre was incorruptible, wasn&#39;t wealthy, but still I don&#39;t really like him.

Don&#39;t fucking patronize me as if I haven&#39;t read anything written by Lenin, kid.
He still was a petty-bourgeois. Whether he was a socialist or not, he was still petty-bourgeois. I am not the one using petty-bourgeois as an insult, you are.

The soviets were nothing more than ceremonial tokens after the introduction of war communism, go google war communism and see what it was about.

Finally, you are an idealist, you abhor Stalin as if everything was his fault--without understanding that history is not made by individuals themselves, but by class dynamics. This same idea that figureheads make history rather than groups of people is what manifests into our pretty personality cults.

[Rawthentic]

I never said that "figureheads" make history, Stalin&#39;s policies solidified the rise of the petty-bourgeoisie. If you didn&#39;t look carefully at what I said, I stated that the years between 1917-1921 were the healthiest in worker control. In other words, the soviets, along with the workers exercised control over the state and economy.


Finally, you are an idealist, you abhor Stalin as if everything was his fault--without understanding that history is not made by individuals themselves, but by class dynamics. This same idea that figureheads make history rather than groups of people is what manifests into our pretty personality cults.

I never stated that everything was his fault. Don&#39;t you try to patronize me. I explained what led to the rise of Stalin along with the class dynamics (the petty-bourgeois as the ruling class in Russia replaced the short lived worker power.) This is not to say that the working class could not have ruled and still be in power; there were certain events and the inability of the Bolshevik Party to keep on a revolutionary line.

And don&#39;t compare Lenin to Robespierre.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot) Lenin was petit-bourgeois and Stalin was a godforsaken peasant.[/b]

Yes Bakunin was an aristocrat and Kropotkin was a fucking prince. So why do you hold their works as a guiding force if you are going to focus on birth of person over their work and actions.



Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)Nobody distorted his ideas, state monopoly capitalism was the inevitable effect of leninist praxis applied to russia&#39;s material conditions.[/b]

What you are doing is vulgarizing the word progress and Materialism. First of all Bolsheviks pushed the revolution in Russia in hope the fervor would spread all across Europe like a domino effect. They did their best of everything to help revolutions outside especially in Germany in hope of an alliance between Industrial base of Germany and Agrarian base of Russia would greatly help the cause of workers and peasants everywhere. It is truly unfortunate their calculations had gone wrong. But certainly blaming everything on them is clearly Intellectual dishonesty.


Originally posted by Marmot
I never argued that Lenin wasn&#39;t dedicated and that he truly believed in socialism. Robespierre was incorruptible, wasn&#39;t wealthy, but still I don&#39;t really like him.

Certainly because you put person above politics.


Originally posted by Marmot
The soviets were nothing more than ceremonial tokens after the introduction of war communism, go google war communism and see what it was about.

War communism is a measure taken by Bolsheviks during the fucking civil war. That is why it is named War Communism. Regardless of its principle or any shit like that the workers and peasants of just destroyed Multi National Russian Empire stood by the Bolsheviks. So you better stop whining about it.


[email protected]

Finally, you are an idealist, you abhor Stalin as if everything was his fault--without understanding that history is not made by individuals themselves, but by class dynamics. This same idea that figureheads make history rather than groups of people is what manifests into our pretty personality cults.

No it is in opposite. It is you who are obsessed with persons which have led you to come to that conclusions. Lenin and Bolsheviks did the best they can do to workers of the world in the Material conditions they lived on. So they deserve a credentials for it. The reasons for the degeneration of the the first workers state first done by Materialistic analysis by one of the Bolshevik who took part in the revolution and paid the price for it with his life. So a serious revolutionary would take them seriously and study them. Pseudo radicals are the one&#39;s who totally ignore history and everything to make their petty politics.



hastalavictoria
And don&#39;t compare Lenin to Robespierre.

There is nothing wrong about it. The Bolsheviks themselves admired Robespierre and Jacobins and compared themselves to them.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:26 am
I never said that "figureheads" make history, Stalin&#39;s policies solidified the rise of the petty-bourgeoisie. If you didn&#39;t look carefully at what I said,

Finally, you are an idealist, you abhor Stalin as if everything was his fault--without understanding that history is not made by individuals themselves, but by class dynamics. This same idea that figureheads make history rather than groups of people is what manifests into our pretty personality cults.

I never stated that everything was his fault. Don&#39;t you try to patronize me. I explained what led to the rise of Stalin along with the class dynamics (the petty-bourgeois as the ruling class in Russia replaced the short lived worker power.) This is not to say that the working class could not have ruled and still be in power; there were certain events and the inability of the Bolshevik Party to keep on a revolutionary line.

And don&#39;t compare Lenin to Robespierre.
:)
I stated that the years between 1917-1921 were the healthiest in worker control. In other words, the soviets, along with the workers exercised control over the state and economy.


Those years were also the russian civil war years, when the bolshevik state grew in power and soviets were rendered useless. This is why there was an uprising in Kronstadt in 1921.

Unless you think the kronstadt uprising was led by pogromist-blackhundredist-whiteist-fascistic reactionaries :lol:


IYes Bakunin was an aristocrat and Kropotkin was a fucking prince. So why do you hold their works as a guiding force if you are going to focus on birth of person over their work and actions.

I am a marxist :unsure:

And I am not the one using petty bourgeois as an insult, hastalavictoria was.


What you are doing is vulgarizing the word progress and Materialism. First of all Bolsheviks pushed the revolution in Russia in hope the fervor would spread all across Europe like a domino effect. They did their best of everything to help revolutions outside especially in Germany in hope of an alliance between Industrial base of Germany and Agrarian base of Russia would greatly help the cause of workers and peasants everywhere. It is truly unfortunate their calculations had gone wrong. But certainly blaming everything on them is clearly Intellectual dishonesty.

Lol "vulgarizing", the favourite word of marxist-leninists. Look, vulgarizing means literally making something for the people, and by using that word in a derogatory manner you are basically saying that marxism should only be interpreted by the intellectual elite.

I am not blaming the counterrevolution to THEM, I am being strictly materialist and blaming the degeneration of the soviet workers&#39; state to mostly material conditions. Russia was a large agrarian state with a workers&#39; minority. Bolshevism was not acepted by the mayority at the revolution, for the mayority where for Socialist Revolutionaries.


Certainly because you put person above politics.




Don&#39;t put words in my mouth buddy.


War communism is a measure taken by Bolsheviks during the fucking civil war. That is why it is named War Communism. Regardless of its principle or any shit like that the workers and peasants of just destroyed Multi National Russian Empire stood by the Bolsheviks. So you better stop whining about it.

Seriously, just shut the fuck up. I never said war communism was unecessary or not, I was simply stating that the degeneration of the workers&#39; state started during that time. Capitalism was necessary for the creation of a proletariat, this doesn&#39;t means industiral capitalism was the nicest thing ever. Agricultural revolution was necessary for the progression of history, this doesnt means that early agriculture wasn&#39;t horrible, backbreaking, and imposed on people by invading tribes.


No it is in opposite. It is you who are obsessed with persons which have led you to come to that conclusions. Lenin and Bolsheviks did the best they can do to workers of the world in the Material conditions they lived on. So they deserve a credentials for it. The reasons for the degeneration of the the first workers state first done by Materialistic analysis by one of the Bolshevik who took part in the revolution and paid the price for it with his life. So a serious revolutionary would take them seriously and study them. Pseudo radicals are the one&#39;s who totally ignore history and everything to make their petty politics.


Look, I am not arguing the merits leninism had. I was just tickled by hastlalavictoria&#39;s remark that lenin&#39;s ideas were "corrupted" and therefore the revolution went wrong. That is an unmaterialistic analysis, the revolution didn&#39;t go wrong because his ideas were corrupted, he was simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and using the wrong methods of organization.

[Herman]

Bolshevism was not acepted by the mayority at the revolution, for the mayority where for Socialist Revolutionaries.

According to the constituent assembly, NOT according to the soviets and you yourself admitted that they were a good example of working class power... or at least you implied it.


he was simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and using the wrong methods of organization.

As opposed to the anarchists?

[Vargha Poralli]

Those years were also the russian civil war years, when the bolshevik state grew in power and soviets were rendered useless. This is why there was an uprising in Kronstadt in 1921.

That is why NEp was brought in first place to prevent more Kronstadts. But that makes Lenin " A State Monopoly Capitalist".


Unless you think the kronstadt uprising was led by pogromist-blackhundredist-whiteist-fascistic reactionarie

It was led by Petty-Bourgeoisie Radicals. It would certainly helped whites not the workers and peasants as built upon by anarchists.


Russia was a large agrarian state with a workers&#39; minority

I am yet to see a workers revolution in a highly industrialised country.


Bolshevism was not acepted by the mayority at the revolution, for the mayority where for Socialist Revolutionaries.

Yes thats why Bolsheviks were victorious in the October Revoolution without even firing a shot. Both workers and peasants stood firmly behind the Bolsheviks during the civil war. Soviet Union lasted for 80+ years even after it had been degenerated.



Capitalism was necessary for the creation of a proletariat, this doesn&#39;t means industiral capitalism was the nicest thing ever.

Which I say is vulgarisation of Marx. Lenin and Trotsky developed two sepearte theories about this I would suggest reading them regarding this.


I was just tickled by hastlalavictoria&#39;s remark that lenin&#39;s ideas were "corrupted" and therefore the revolution went wrong.


He was correct.Soviet Union during the Stalin&#39;s time followed policy of Mensheviks and Ultra-Lefts for differnt issues and it had nothing to do with Lenin&#39;s theories except for his name in Marxism-Leninism and except for Stalin and Kollontai all the old Bolsheviks were murdered for the sake of Bureaucracy.


he was simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and using the wrong methods of organization.

What he did was more worthier for workers and peasants.Which is why Soviet Union lasted for 80 years and whose fall is lamented by workers and peasants all over former Soviet Union.

[Rawthentic]

Marmot, it is very well understood that adverse material conditions were a factor in the degeneration of the worker&#39;s state. Yet had the Bolshevik Party stayed on a consistently revolutionary line, making sure that the soviets were the ruling organs of worker power in state and economy, we would be having a very different debate. Lenin, Trotsky, as well as other Bolshevik revolutionaries understood the adverse material conditions facing Russia, but, as you correctly stated, material conditions contributed to the rise of the petty-bourgeoisie as the ruling class along with several other things that I suggest you analyze.

It is too simplistic to say that material conditions were the sole reason for the demise of worker power. I&#39;m not saying that you mean this, but on the other hand, you never offered a further analysis.


I was just tickled by hastlalavictoria&#39;s remark that lenin&#39;s ideas were "corrupted" and therefore the revolution went wrong.

What is wrong with you? I never stated that this was the reason for the worker&#39;s collapse. All I said was that Lenin fought for a consistently revolutionary line and.."all power to the soviets." He didn&#39;t just say that, it was in practice for the initial years of the revolution.

[KC]

Why would the power be kept in the soviets when the majority of the soviets were infiltrated with mensheviks and bourgeois supporters and when the workers were going to the local Bolshevik party circles for political work?

[Rawthentic]

The soviets were the main organ of worker power. Of course, it was the duty of the Bolshevik Party to strengthen these soviets and purge it of reactionary elements, while pushing for a consistently revolutionary path and avoiding bureaucracy. That&#39;s my opinion. What do you think?

[chimx]

It is the duty of the soviets themselves. If workers are electing Mensheviks, then perhaps that says something about Russia&#39;s real revolutionary potential and commitment.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:20 pm
It is the duty of the soviets themselves. If workers are electing Mensheviks, then perhaps that says something about Russia&#39;s real revolutionary potential and commitment.
It would. If the soviets had been electing Mensheviks. Thankfully we know that this was not the case by October 1917.

Which in itself speaks volumes.

[KC]

It is the duty of the soviets themselves. If workers are electing Mensheviks, then perhaps that says something about Russia&#39;s real revolutionary potential and commitment.

Workers weren&#39;t electing Mensheviks. Mensheviks were participating in the soviets.

[chimx]

Elaborate on what you mean by infiltration then please. I assumed you were talking about the pre-october participation of mensheviks given their particaption drop around october.

Regardless, my point is that politically neutral bodies for worker power should be handling thing (i.e. soviets), not a political body that can potentially have alterior motives, such as self-preservation.

[sexyguy]

I want to learn more about the October Revolution, Lenin and Trotsky&#39;s roles, etc. I basically want a detailed discussion into the causes of the revolution, as well as the immediate outcomes, and how all this led to Stalin and state-capitalism. I invite anarchists and "Leninists", but please don&#39;t turn this into a sectarian battle.
Also, does anyone know any good, non-sectarian books on the Bolshevik Revolution? Thanks

Its massively encouraging to all revolutionaries that you should want to know about all this. As an ex-Trotskyist my best advice to you is to read Lenin’s ‘Collected Works‘ of the period. He was developing revolutionary theory none stop throughout the period in question by addressing himself to the events as they were happening. Which is what we should all spend more time and effort doing.

If you want to know what the real relationship was between Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, keep reading the ‘Collected Works’ and you will not only find that Trotsky was in opposition to the Bolsheviks and Lenin for most of his political life, (befor and after October)you will also find such a mass of the most brilliant revolutionary theory you will wonder how most contemporary ‘lefts‘ have the nerve to call themselves revolutionaries. You will also find the answer to that in the ‘Collected Works’.

You obviously don’t have to do it all in one go, but if you want the pre-eminent authority on how to organise communist revolution, Lenin is obviously your man. See what the capitalists say about him&#33;

[sexyguy]

I want to learn more about the October Revolution, Lenin and Trotsky&#39;s roles, etc. I basically want a detailed discussion into the causes of the revolution, as well as the immediate outcomes, and how all this led to Stalin and state-capitalism. I invite anarchists and "Leninists", but please don&#39;t turn this into a sectarian battle.
Also, does anyone know any good, non-sectarian books on the Bolshevik Revolution? Thanks

Its massively encouraging to all revolutionaries that you should want to know about all this. As an ex-Trotskyist my best advice to you is to read Lenin’s ‘Collected Works‘ of the period. He was developing revolutionary theory none stop throughout the period in question by addressing himself to the events as they were happening. Which is what we should all spend more time and effort doing.

If you want to know what the real relationship was between Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, keep reading the ‘Collected Works’ and you will not only find that Trotsky was in opposition to the Bolsheviks and Lenin for most of his political life, (befor and after October)you will also find such a mass of the most brilliant revolutionary theory you will wonder how most contemporary ‘lefts‘ have the nerve to call themselves revolutionaries. You will also find the answer to that in the ‘Collected Works’.

You obviously don’t have to do it all in one go, but if you want the pre-eminent authority on how to organise communist revolution, Lenin is obviously your man. See what the capitalists say about him&#33;

[Leo]

Why would the power be kept in the soviets when the majority of the soviets were infiltrated with mensheviks and bourgeois supporters and when the workers were going to the local Bolshevik party circles for political work?

I think you got the historical framework wrong here Zampano...

In 1917, the Bolsheviks party was the one and only revolutionary party in Russia - and militant workers, from anarchists to workers with right wing ideologies were going to the Bolshevik party circles for political work and discussions.

In 1921, it was the bourgeoisie going to the Bolshevik party circles, finding it the most suitable place for its class rule over the proletariat.

In 1917, all the forces of reaction were crying for "soviets without the Bolsheviks". In 1921, all the forces of reaction were crying for "Bolsheviks without the soviets".

Things had changed...

[Rawthentic]

I agree with your analysis here Leo. What do you propose the USSR should have done in this case, before Russia had degenerated?

[Leo]

Well, this is really a hard question...

Socialism is not possible in one country, for that matter even capitalism is not possible in one country. If a proletarian revolution can&#39;t expand, it can&#39;t survive; the existing Russian state was bureaucratized and in 1921, when they sent soldiers to shooting striking workers, it was only serving the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Degeneration happened rather easily, so did the counter-revolution following it actually - material conditions made it possible. Lenin, for example was constantly complaining about how they were unable to control the state.

What could have been done? I think not signing Brest-Litovsk would have been a good idea as it was the soldiers from the Russian front who several months later made up the Freikorps, right-wing paramilitaries whom the SPD called in order to crush the Spartacist proletarian revolution. Some, however, argue that Germany would have invaded Russia and it would not be possible to defend even Petrograd and Moscow. You can check out this thread for the discussion:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57912&hl=

The national liberation policy was a disaster. Nationalists whom Comintern considered "progressive" butchered communists and the working class whenever possible. In places like Turkey and China, it actually had serious struggles with the left wings of the communists parties there whose members advocated for proletarian revolution and wanted to struggle against existing nationalist movements whom Comintern wanted to support. You can check out this thread for details:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...entry1292139474 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54176&st=0&#entry1292139474)

And what could have been internally? Well, the "proggressive" ideology of growing the industry and economy definately helped the bourgeoisie but with the defeat of the revolutionary wave, it wasn&#39;t possible for the revolution to survive. As for trying to expel the "bourgeoisie" from party ranks, I don&#39;t think it would have helped, nor was it really possible anyway. After it was not really the individual members of the party who were coming from bourgeois backgrounds but the bourgeoisie as a class who established its class rule through most suitable existing mechanisms.

[Rawthentic]

I very much like you response. Do you think that if the proletariat had maintained state power that they could have administered the process of state-capitalism and then socialism of course? Thats what I think.

[Leo]

Do you think that if the proletariat had maintained state power that they could have administered the process of state-capitalism and then socialism of course?

I actually don&#39;t think that there would be a process of state capitalism if the proletariat had maintained its power through its independent organs. Yet again, my understanding of state capitalism is much different than most of others who are talking about it. I don&#39;t see state capitalism as something specific to Russia or other countries calling themselves "socialists" but as a tendency in the whole world which developed after World War 1.

You see, state capitalism was not simply an economical model of capitalism in the twentieth century but the most suitable model of capitalism. So it existed in US, in China, in India, in Africa, in Turkey, in South America etc. It was very successful at mobilizing for imperialist war with its focus on non productive sectors, such as the military sector or building roads, increasing bureaucratic jobs... With those, it managed to give some social security rights, some "welfare" to the working class.

The development of the productive forces can&#39;t be equated to the growth of economy, in fact it is something that is completely different. When the capitalist market became the world market, when the capitalist mode of production and capitalist markets have expanded to the whole world, this would mean that capitalism had reached its physical limits of expansion and this puts the entire system into decay as the capitalist economy was, in its "ascendant" period, depended on the expansion of the capitalist mode of production and of capitalist markets. When the capitalist market can&#39;t expand, there is a loss of value in products, there is, naturally "underconsumption", resulting in the need for the destruction of the productive forces systematically, a need fulfilled by imperialist wars, and following them reconstruction, another economical crisis and another imperialist war. This cycle repeated itself twice.

State capitalism model is an economical model wholly depended on the short-term. Keynes&#39; famous quote; "in the long run, we are all dead" is indeed quite significant for understanding this mentality. With this model, although destroying and wasting enormous amounts of productive forces, capitalism managed to survive to this day in its period of decay. However, things are changing, the capitalist system is sinking more and more into decay, humanity is more and more sinking in the barbarism and the situation is getting worse and worse for the working class, posing the question: communist world revolution or sinking into barbarism.

It is important to note that we are not going to state capitalism but we are coming from state capitalism. This road of capitalism is leading the working class only to barbarism, where the communist alternative of the working class will result in the destruction of this model.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:23 pm
After I finish reading a People&#39;s History of the United States by Howard Zinn, I&#39;m going to read a three-volume piece on the Bolshevik Revolution by an author with the last name of Carr. It seems like very in-depth. Anybody heard of this author before?
Yeah. It&#39;s a good book. Possibly the best for covering the 1917-23 period, i.e. the Bolsheviks in power.

[Rawthentic]

^ Ahh..thanks Severian, thats the period that I am most interested in.


You see, state capitalism was not simply an economical model of capitalism in the twentieth century but the most suitable model of capitalism. So it existed in US, in China, in India, in Africa, in Turkey, in South America etc. It was very successful at mobilizing for imperialist war with its focus on non productive sectors, such as the military sector or building roads, increasing bureaucratic jobs... With those, it managed to give some social security rights, some "welfare" to the working class.

Wow, I had never seen it in this light. In US History class we are "studying" WWI and how the US combined state power with the businesses to create jobs and such, but we of course don&#39;t hear of what you just said. In other words, the this was the best model for capitalism during this time because of the increasing class struggle; to stabilize the system and bourgeois power? I know for a fact that this time was of heated class hatred(actually the US has a history of intense class struggle, more than many countries in the world).

[Rawthentic]

Was the October Revolution a proletarian revolution that was led popularly by the Bolshevik Party , or was it autonomous working class action in which then the Bolsheviks took power?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:19 am
Was the October Revolution a proletarian revolution that was led popularly by the Bolshevik Party , or was it autonomous working class action in which then the Bolsheviks took power?
The former.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

Wow, I had never seen it in this light. In US History class we are "studying" WWI and how the US combined state power with the businesses to create jobs and such, but we of course don&#39;t hear of what you just said. In other words, the this was the best model for capitalism during this time because of the increasing class struggle; to stabilize the system and bourgeois power?

Yes, it definately was the best model for capitalism and it was used as a way to deal with class struggle in the short term, but the main reason why it was so suitable was


Was the October Revolution a proletarian revolution that was led popularly by the Bolshevik Party , or was it autonomous working class action in which then the Bolsheviks took power?

Initially it was the workers councils, independent working class organs, that lead the revolution, in which the Bolshevik Party was very strong of course. Whatever happened, happened afterwards.

[luxemburg89]

Robert Service&#39;s biography of Lenin is pretty good - he&#39;s probably the leading historian on Soviet History (in Britain certainly) and is pretty unbiased but appears to have a strong sympathy and care for Lenin - its quite well written as well.
Just search Robert Service on Amazon - also look for stuff by Willy Thompson he&#39;s a communist historian but tends to present a pretty balanced argument (although sometimes bias is good to read - makes you feel good).

[Rawthentic]

So the Bolshevik Party was the "guiding force" of the revolution correct? Is it correct to say that the Russian proletariat revolted, but there aims were not socialist, and this is where the Party came in, to "guide" the workers to socialism?

[gilhyle]

E.H. Carr&#39;s History of the Russian Revolution is 3 volumes of his 14 volume history of Soviet Russia. Carr was a very unusual man, a British diplomat and academic, very left wing, very sympathetic, very articulate, with a comprehensive knowledge of the soviet sources available at his time of writing. Someof it is rather boringly written and some of it has been a bit surpassed by sources that have subsequently become available. He also wrote a very good short book on the nature of history - well worth a read.

Just to throw in a quote:

"All practical work in connection with the organisation of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the President of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military-Revolutionary Committee was organised."

J. Stalin, Pravda No 241, November 6 1918



And by the way, Trotsky didnt come up with the idea of &#39;trotskyism&#39;, he didnt try to invent a separate doctrine in his own name; Stalin invented &#39;Trotskyism&#39;....just as Trotsky invented &#39;Stalinism&#39;....and the both invented &#39;Leninism&#39; in 1924 (with some help from Karl Radek, Georg Lukacs etc.)

[Rawthentic]

Thanks for the quotes. I am actually currently reading the first volume of Carr&#39;s Bolshevik Revolution, and it is incredibly informative. It is so because of the relevance that it has to today, how a working class came to power for the first time, and all.

I also did learn a few things of Lenin. Mainly that he was very single-minded and he hunted down his opponents to be the ideological authority. But Carr is well in pointing out that he is more constructive than destructive, showing how Lenin&#39;s steadfastness and revolutionary discipline allowed for the Bolsheviks to lead the revolution and not disband, as well as being practical revolutionaries rather than theoretical ones like the Mensheviks.

[Sky]

The best book on the Revolution is by the Russian scholar Isaac Mints. For an English language account, Fitzpatrick's book provides a concise overview of events. Also recommended are works by Mawdsley, Carr, and Chamberlin.


Figes's book gives an excellent reading of both the events and the Tsarist state but falls down on placing the Bolsheviks' actions within the context of their ideals.


I would advise against reading Figes's book. Figes's analysis of the October Revolution is not significantly different than the psychotic Richard Pipes. Figes with his literary writing style is more oriented towards a pop audience rather than serious scholars.


Ronald Grigor Suny
University of Chicago
The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 71, No. 1. (Mar., 1999), pp. 263-266.

Over one third of the book, more than three hundred pages, deals with the prerevolutionary crisis. Figes positions himself between the "Marxist determinists" and "leftwinghistorians in the West," who argue that the revolution was inevitable and causedby labor, and "those historians on the Right who paint a rosy image of the Tsarist Empire on the eve of the First World War" (p. 14). In his view-and this is a stance hemaintains throughout the book-both Left and Right are wrong. Neither February nor October was inevitable; labor played a far less important role than social historians haveclaimed; and the tragedy for Russia came from the deep political traditions and culturethat made the Russian people incapable of establishing a democratic government andliving without self-appointed masters. "Centuries of serfdom and subservience hadshaped a popular political character that ill prepared the Russian people for democracy"(p. 432). His is a liberal history, dedicated to and hopeful about the virtues of democracy,furious at the ineptitude, incompetence, and brutality of both tsarist and Sovietbureaucracies, and confident that with different choices the outcome tsarist rule and revolutionary government could have been far less bloody.

Figes is least convincing, however, when he attempts to reconstruct the motives and policies of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Here his judgments are closer than he seems to realize to the historians on the Right that he criticizes throughout. Like his nemesis Richard Pipes, Figes sees Lenin as a power-hungry adventurer, a coward, and a tyrant. He argues that Lenin's insistence on carrying out the insurrection before the opening of the Second Congress of Soviets was a planned provocation to divide the democratic and socialist camp (the so-called democracy) and eliminate politically his principal rivals, the Mensheviks and Right Socialist Revolutionaries. But in fact these parties were empty shells by October, discredited by their collaboration with the increasingly unpopular Provisional Government, and the Bolsheviks, along with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, dominated the urban popular forces almost without challenge. While there was much sentiment for a broad multiparty all-socialist government based on the soviets in the fall of 1917 (something Lenin resisted at this point), the moderate socialists had never agreed to such a government, and their subsequent walkout from the Second Congress, along with Iulii Martov's Menshevik-Internationalists, made such a government impossible. The real question to be asked is: even if such a government had been formed, how long could it have lasted, given the two fundamentally contradictory visions of the revolution held by the moderate and radical socialists-one inclusive of the whole population, including the bourgeoisie, and committed to a capitalist democracy,the other based on enfranchising only the working people and moving rapidly toward international revolution and socialism? Figes's monochromatic Lenin is a kind of Russian nationalist (his concessions to the non-Russians were "no more than tactical" [p. 704]), notwithstanding his stated internationalism ("a bluff for the sake of party morale and propaganda" [p. 550]), and a cynical politician who intended all along to establish a party dictatorship, despite what he wrote in his "anarchistic" pamphlet State and Revolution. "In everything he did, Lenin's ultimate purpose was the pursuit of power. Power for him was not a means-it was an end in itself" (p. 504). Here the complexities, anomalies, reversals, and inconsistencies of the revolutionary leader are reduced to a cliche.

At the end Figes rejects the arguments associated with the historiographic Left-that backwardness and isolation made socialism impossible in Russia-and instead comes close to the perspective of another analyst of The Soviet Tragedy, Martin Malia, and concludes that the "fundamental problem" of the Soviet model has "more to do with principles than contingencies." "The experiment went horribly wrong, not so much because of the malice of its leaders, most of whom had started out with the highest ideals, but because their ideals were themselves impossible" (p. 823). Though it will be difficult for some to see Bolshevism as a "very Russian thing" (p. 812) or to blame the Russian people for their fate, readers of this impressive work will come away enlightened and provoked, informed and moved. In his engaging account, Orlando Figes has not pronounced the final valedictory to the Russian Revolution; instead he forces us to suspend ultimate pronouncements and revive the debates over the Soviet past because, as he says in his last line, "the ghosts of 1917 have not been laid to rest" (p. 824).

[Random Precision]

Uh, what exactly was the point of necromancing this thread?

[Axel1917]

Uh, what exactly was the point of necromancing this thread?

Hell if I know. It seems someone is always doing this odd thing every now and then across the forums.

[Sky]

Uh, what exactly was the point of necromancing this thread?

I wanted to warn members against referring to Figes's venomous book on the Revolution.

[RedAnarchist]

Hell if I know. It seems someone is always doing this odd thing every now and then across the forums.

Sometimes old polls come up as well - it might be guests voting in old polls they are looking at or something.