Russian Revolution

[Brother No. 1]

Comrades as we remember one of the best revolutions of all time the Russian Revolution in this thread tell me what in your oppnion the greatest part of the Revolution. Mine was the Ledendary Decrelation of the Soviet Union by Vladimir Llyich Lenin.

[revolution inaction]

i preferred the bit where the workers took over there work places and began to make decisions for them selfs :) you know the actual revolution

[Dóchas]

i preferred the bit where the workers took over there work places and began to make decisions for them selfs :) you know the actual revolution

ye i have to agree with you there it was pretty much hijacked by stalin after lenin did all the work

[Brother No. 1]

If only trosky had the power then the CCCP would be right but you have great answers comrades better then mine even

[Vendetta]

ye i have to agree with you there it was pretty much hijacked by stalin after lenin did all the work

After lenin did all the work doing what? :confused:

[Dóchas]

After lenin did all the work doing what? :confused:

after he set up the bolshevik party and started it?

[Brother No. 1]

and rallying the people twards the cause also

[Black Sheep]

Pfft... lenin did that, trotsky did that,stalin did that, all the great leaders, figures, beacons of light on the blind dumbed down mass?:cursing:

Great things happen in favor of the proletariat, because the proletariat itself does them, or a large part of it.We do not need superheroes to punch the cappies' teeth down their throats.And never did it happen.

[Dóchas]

Pfft... lenin did that, trotsky did that,stalin did that, all the great leaders, figures, beacons of light on the blind dumbed down mass?:cursing:

Great things happen in favor of the proletariat, because the proletariat itself does them, or a large part of it.We do not need superheroes to punch the cappies' teeth down their throats.And never did it happen.

they sure helped though

[jaffe]

question rise as one.

are you actually an anarcho-communist?

[ZeroNowhere]

The Kronstadt rebellion.


ye i have to agree with you there it was pretty much hijacked by stalin after lenin did all the work
No, it was hijacked by the bourgeoisie after the workers, to wit, did all the work.

[Woland]

The Kronstadt rebellion.


No, it was hijacked by the bourgeoisie after the workers, to wit, did all the work.

You need to look up the definition of ''bourgeoisie'' before posting such crap.

[Dóchas]

The Kronstadt rebellion.


No, it was hijacked by the bourgeoisie after the workers, to wit, did all the work.

when i last looked it was stalin in power and then the bougeoisie had whatever was left

[Vendetta]

question rise as one.

are you actually an anarcho-communist?

I gotta ask the same thing.

[Dóchas]

yes i am but i was just trying to back up polish soviet he seemed to be on his own there. i know its wrong that i was defending the soviet union but i dont think its wrong to defend a fellow comrade

[Brother No. 1]

thank you and I only support the um pre Soviet with lenin after stalin well it was not good from there like when they invaded Cezholvakia that was wrong of them

[ComradeOm]

Pfft... lenin did that, trotsky did that,stalin did that, all the great leaders, figures, beacons of light on the blind dumbed down mass?:cursing:

Great things happen in favor of the proletariat, because the proletariat itself does them, or a large part of it.We do not need superheroes to punch the cappies' teeth down their throats.And never did it happen.You ever hear the expression "Men make their own history"? To argue that the likes of Lenin played no role of significance in the Russian Revolution (or that it would have proceeded as it did historically in their absence) is vulgar Marxism of the worst order

What would the Russian Revolution have looked like without Lenin and without the Bolshevik party that he worked so hard to build and organise? I suggest you look to the German Revolution for your answer. Frankly anyone who argues that the quality of leadership and organisation has no bearing on the outcome of a revolution (much like those who argue that this is all that is necessary) simply does not know their history

[revolution inaction]

thank you and I only support the um pre Soviet with lenin after stalin well it was not good from there like when they invaded Cezholvakia that was wrong of them

Some you support the killing of the revolutionaries at kronstadt (http://libcom.org/library/truth-about-kronstadt) and in the ukraine (http://libcom.org/history/1917-1921-the-ukrainian-makhnovist-movement)? You are in favor of the bolshevik crushing of workers control (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group)?

[Brother No. 1]

no not that only the crushing of the tsarist and the creathing of the Soviet union

[Vendetta]

So you're going to ignore parts of history because they inconvenience you?

[Brother No. 1]

no I'm not ignore them but I really dont like to learn about them but I'm a history lover I just dont like some things lenin and trosky did but everyone makes mistakes it makes us human does it not comrades

[Guerrilla22]

thank you and I only support the um pre Soviet with lenin after stalin well it was not good from there like when they invaded Cezholvakia that was wrong of them

No comrade, the CCCP had to prevent Dubcek from leading the country towards an abandonment of socialism. The invasion of Hungry was also necessary.

[Brother No. 1]

oh I did not know that comrade that you for telling me

[Absolut]

You ever hear the expression "Men make their own history"? To argue that the likes of Lenin played no role of significance in the Russian Revolution (or that it would have proceeded as it did historically in their absence) is vulgar Marxism of the worst order

What would the Russian Revolution have looked like without Lenin and without the Bolshevik party that he worked so hard to build and organise? I suggest you look to the German Revolution for your answer. Frankly anyone who argues that the quality of leadership and organisation has no bearing on the outcome of a revolution (much like those who argue that this is all that is necessary) simply does not know their history

Firstly, just out of curiousity, are you the same ComradeOm as the one on Pdox? :p

Either way, Im inclined to agree with the previous poster to some extent, and with you, to a greater extent. Lenins ideas greatly influenced the proletariat, and the revolution would have looked very different wouldnt Lenin and the bolsheviks have organised the proletariat the way they did. At the same time, it was the proletariat that actually took over the workplaces and means of production, it wasnt Lenin or Trotsky. Without the proletariat, Lenins ideas wouldnt have been worth anything, and without Lenins ideas, the proletariat would probably not have been able (at least in the same extent) to do what they did. So, the workers did the work, on the foundation that Lenin and other revolutionaries set up.

If Im not mistaken, thats one of the basics of dialectic materialism (society ->ideas -> society and so on and so on). Im not really trying to argue against you, I realise that I pretty much agree with you, Im just giving you my two cents.

Oh, and while were at it, you wouldnt happen to know any good books on the German revolution?

[ComradeOm]

Firstly, just out of curiousity, are you the same ComradeOm as the one on Pdox? :pShhh, you'll ruin my 'street cred' :D


Either way, Im inclined to agree with the previous poster to some extent, and with you, to a greater extent. Lenins ideas greatly influenced the proletariat, and the revolution would have looked very different wouldnt Lenin and the bolsheviks have organised the proletariat the way they did. At the same time, it was the proletariat that actually took over the workplaces and means of production, it wasnt Lenin or Trotsky. Without the proletariat, Lenins ideas wouldnt have been worth anything, and without Lenins ideas, the proletariat would probably not have been able (at least in the same extent) to do what they did. So, the workers did the work, on the foundation that Lenin and other revolutionaries set upThat's pretty much my position as well, though I'd lay more emphasis on the social causes of the revolution with political factors (such as Lenin et al) merely directing this current at certain times. But, as you point out, its not a simple cause/effect relationship

To my mind one major problem is that there is instinctive, if not surprising, disdain for terms such as "direction" or "leadership" amongst many on the left. I don't know how many times I've heard on this forum, granted not the best sample, inane statements such as "The revolution don't need no leaders" or "The workers are able to lead themselves". Throwing in some vulgar Marxist determinism doesn't help either. Like I said, this is ignorance of history speaking - its hard to ignore the simple fact that organisation and leadership are crucial factors in any revolution; while obviously not being enough on their own

While I was doing my own reading of the German Revolution, really the textbook example of a revolution undone by poor organisation, I was continually asking myself just how different history would have been if there had been a German Lenin or Bolshevik party. Really the amazingly poor leadership of the Spartacist and KPD makes you appreciate how important it was to have these factors in place in Russia. People take it for granted, but having someone there to make the right call during the July Days or the organisation to coordinate across an entire nation (as examples) is of extreme importance


Oh, and while were at it, you wouldnt happen to know any good books on the German revolution?Obviously this revolution has been studied less than its Russian equivalent and I get the impression that the vast majority of the useful works on the subject are in German. Still, I found Broue's The German Revolution (published in French in 1971 and English in 2006) to be an excellent resource. Especially as its written with a particularly emphasis on the left. It is a dense work that's tough to read but it is extremely thorough in covering the course of the revolution and detailing nearly every minor event and personality from 1917-'23

[Woland]

Lenins ideas greatly influenced the proletariat, and the revolution would have looked very different wouldnt Lenin and the bolsheviks have organised the proletariat the way they did. At the same time, it was the proletariat that actually took over the workplaces and means of production, it wasnt Lenin or Trotsky. Without the proletariat, Lenins ideas wouldnt have been worth anything, and without Lenins ideas, the proletariat would probably not have been able (at least in the same extent) to do what they did. So, the workers did the work, on the foundation that Lenin and other revolutionaries set up.

The thing which Lenin's ideas greatly influenced and changed was the Bolshevik party. Before Lenin's return from exile, the Bolsheviks were a small, moderate bunch who wanted to work together with the Mensheviks and also wanted to continue the war. At first, the Bolsheviks rejected Lenin, but then he convinced them and soon the Bolshevik policy of ending the war, giving all power to the soviets and immediate land reform made them very popular because they reflected, as Lenin knew, the wants and needs of the masses. The one party with decisive politics in such turbulent times won them the country. So it can be said that Lenin shaped the Bolshevik party to follow the proletariat, to be influenced by them, to take decisive action, but only because the proletariat influenced him that way, not the other way around. Lenin was a perfect Marxist- in this condition, this time in Russia, he knew what had to be done, what the people wanted, and hence he was succesful in the revolution. The workers did the work, but Lenin won them the political power which was needed. If it wasnt for him, the numerous Russian political parties at the time might have succeeded in bringing the revolution down and establishing a different political order.

[Absolut]

Shhh, you'll ruin my 'street cred' :D

What happened to you on that board? I used to enjoy reading your post, you were one of the few somewhat sane persons there.


To my mind one major problem is that there is instinctive, if not surprising, disdain for terms such as "direction" or "leadership" amongst many on the left. I don't know how many times I've heard on this forum, granted not the best sample, inane statements such as "The revolution don't need no leaders" or "The workers are able to lead themselves". Throwing in some vulgar Marxist determinism doesn't help either. Like I said, this is ignorance of history speaking - its hard to ignore the simple fact that organisation and leadership are crucial factors in any revolution; while obviously not being enough on their own

I wouldnt say leadership per se is one of the crucial factors of the revolution, Id prefer coordination and organisation, neither of which leadership is a prerequisite for. On the other hand, it all depends on the situation in which the revolution is. As much as I would like to disagree with you, I cant overlook the fact that even the most libertarian revolutions had some kind of leadership.


Obviously this revolution has been studied less than its Russian equivalent and I get the impression that the vast majority of the useful works on the subject are in German. Still, I found Broue's The German Revolution (published in French in 1971 and English in 2006) to be an excellent resource. Especially as its written with a particularly emphasis on the left. It is a dense work that's tough to read but it is extremely thorough in covering the course of the revolution and detailing nearly every minor event and personality from 1917-'23

Alright, thanks a lot, Ill check it out.


The thing which Lenin's ideas greatly influenced and changed was the Bolshevik party. Before Lenin's return from exile, the Bolsheviks were a small, moderate bunch who wanted to work together with the Mensheviks and also wanted to continue the war. At first, the Bolsheviks rejected Lenin, but then he convinced them and soon the Bolshevik policy of ending the war, giving all power to the soviets and immediate land reform made them very popular because they reflected, as Lenin knew, the wants and needs of the masses. The one party with decisive politics in such turbulent times won them the country. So it can be said that Lenin shaped the Bolshevik party to follow the proletariat, to be influenced by them, to take decisive action, but only because the proletariat influenced him that way, not the other way around. Lenin was a perfect Marxist- in this condition, this time in Russia, he knew what had to be done, what the people wanted, and hence he was succesful in the revolution. The workers did the work, but Lenin won them the political power which was needed. If it wasnt for him, the numerous Russian political parties at the time might have succeeded in bringing the revolution down and establishing a different political order.

If he influenced the Bolshevik party to follow the currents in the Russian proletariat and convinced the proletariat to support the bolsheviks, he mustve influenced the proletariat as well. Or was the bolsheviks a separate entity, separated from the proletariat?

[ComradeOm]

What happened to you on that board? I used to enjoy reading your post, you were one of the few somewhat sane persons thereI got banned from OT after accusing Stonewall of being a Nazi sympathiser (definitely worth it :D) but I'm still lurking around the history forums. Much like here really


As much as I would like to disagree with you, I cant overlook the fact that even the most libertarian revolutions had some kind of leadershipFrankly there's never been a political movement of any colour in history that hasn't had leaders in some shape or form. That's just reality and its not going to change any time soon

[Pogue]

No comrade, the CCCP had to prevent Dubcek from leading the country towards an abandonment of socialism. The invasion of Hungry was also necessary.

Bullshit. Abandon socialism? They didn't have socialism, the USSR didn't have socialism. Dubcek wanted socialism, thats why the USSR didn't like him. He wanted genuine, real socialism. The USSR wanted the USSR to continue to exist. I hate these post-hoc tankie bullshit arguments.

[Absolut]

I got banned from OT after accusing Stonewall of being a Nazi sympathiser (definitely worth it :D) but I'm still lurking around the history forums. Much like here really

So you didnt get banned completely? Wasnt so lucky myself. But I guess its all good, hours and hours of pointless lurking was put in to that forum.


Frankly there's never been a political movement of any colour in history that hasn't had leaders in some shape or form. That's just reality and its not going to change any time soon

Agreed. However, one of the most important aspects of organization is to make leaders as superflous as possible.

[not_of_this_world]

And now we are all prisoners of the rich, the elite that own the police, the military, the jails and wage the wars with our lives. Where is there hope in this fucked up world?