Revolution betrayed

[ComradeOm]

Thats not what I said, I'm saying its the neccessary out come of Lenninist policies. I did'nt blame it on a person

I'll rephrase: 'Leninists did it'

This does not change the fundamental flaws in your argument. In the first place you are assuming that there is a set of "basic Leninist principles" that all 'Leninists' adhere to. This is based on a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of both reality and theory; I'll deal with this below

The second point, and this is where claims of "materialist analysis" become laughable, is in treating these "basic Leninist principles" as some sort of material force. When Leninist ideals are applied, you get "totalitarianism"; when more democratic ideals are applied, you get democracy. There's a logic there, of sorts, but its a world away from any materialist analysis. You ignore class analysis, you ignore historical analysis and you ignore materialist analysis (rather central to any materialist conception of history) in favour of a profoundly idealist analysis. According to you a study of the material conditions in Russia or whatever is unnecessary when we can simply condemn the political ideals at the top

Now you can agree with this if you want, but it is a profoundly un-materialist (and, if I can, un-Marxist) reading of history

Your right, they were all different, but they had one thing in common, they followed the basic Leninist policies, which led to totalitarianism

Read this sentence again. The material conditions in all these countries were different but the governing ideals were the same. Now talk to me again about 'materialist analysis'...

Although its not particularly surprising to see you also mouthing off about "totalitarianism". This is a theory naturally inclined to accrediting the state with supernatural powers and divorcing it from the rest of society. This conception - of a state isolated from class forces and possessing near-untrammelled powers over an atomised and passive population - is both very wrong and very idealist in nature. I've devoted significant time on this site to showing how its all basically bullshit. Latest thread can be found here

The BASIC Leninist policy, of democratic centrism, of a singular vanguard party are what lead to totalitarianism.

Whether its done on a carribian island, Russia, or South east Asia

And if I told you that this is simply bullshit? We've dealt with the theory side above so now let's get into the nitty gritty of the history. I suppose you can name a tightly organised and well discipled party of 'vanguardists' that partook in the Russian Revolution?

If you said the Bolsheviks then you'd be wrong. In 1917 the Bolsheviks were a mass democratic party in which the centre exerted only minimal control. The 'vanguardist model' doesn't hold true there. Unless of course you actually take 'vanguard' to mean "the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive section of the oppressed classes". But there I go again bringing class into it

Nor is the above replicated elsewhere in the other examples you gave. So I put to you that, outside of your imagination, there is no single set of "basic Leninist principles". Sorry, hate to ruin a bogeyman

[RGacky3]

I'll rephrase: 'Leninists did it'

Let me ask you, if you go out there and say THe problems in Capitalism are a direct result of Capitalist policy and the capitalist system.

Is that the same as saying "Capitalists did it."

No ... Its not.

You ignore class analysis, you ignore historical analysis and you ignore materialist analysis (rather central to any materialist conception of history) in favour of a profoundly idealist analysis. According to you a study of the material conditions in Russia or whatever is unnecessary when we can simply condemn the political ideals at the top

I don't ignore class analysis, nor any of the others. We can talk about the material conditions in Russia, however for them to be Valid you need to make a DIRECT CONNECTION a CASUAL CONEECTION between those conditions and the totalitarian state that came out of it.

Although its not particularly surprising to see you also mouthing off about "totalitarianism". This is a theory naturally inclined to accrediting the state with supernatural powers and divorcing it from the rest of society. This conception - of a state isolated from class forces and possessing near-untrammelled powers over an atomised and passive population - is both very wrong and very idealist in nature. I've devoted significant time on this site to showing how its all basically bullshit. Latest thread can be found here

I'm not blaiming the state with all the problems that happened in Russia, not by a long shot, I'm blaiming the state for the policies that they enacted and the direct outcome of those policies.

For example, political dissidents being rounded up and inprisoned, systematically, that was the direct out come of specific policies, the undemocratic nature of the state, was a direct outcome of specific policies.

THere are other factors as well, but if you want to tie them in you have to show how the problems people talk about were directly tied to them.

If you said the Bolsheviks then you'd be wrong. In 1917 the Bolsheviks were a mass democratic party in which the centre exerted only minimal control. The 'vanguardist model' doesn't hold true there. Unless of course you actually take 'vanguard' to mean "the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive section of the oppressed classes". But there I go again bringing class into it

Yes they were, in the begining they were a mass democratic party, however once in power the power was centralized (you've got war communism in the begining which essencially shut down democracy), and then you had them essencailly strong arming all the soviets into submission, and ultimately, creating a 1 party autocratic state.

As far as the vanguardist model, you juts wrote a definition, most of hte leadership were not proletarians, and once in the position of power they were not the working class, they were the administrators, they essencially set up a differeny type of class system.

Look I"m all for class analysis, but when it comes to the USSR, you have to use a different type of class analysis, you have the administrators of the state, the party leadership, and then the workers, the peasants and so on.

But by all means, tell me why the gulads, the murder of dissedents, and so on were not the result of policy, and instead just the result of some mysterious "material conditions."

[ComradeOm]

Let me ask you, if you go out there and say THe problems in Capitalism are a direct result of Capitalist policy and the capitalist system.

Is that the same as saying "Capitalists did it."

Except that you've snuck in an additional clause there - "the capitalist system"

Regardless, I understand that capitalism is not the result of a set of ideals or principles pursued by a particular government; it is an economic system that has evolved over centuries. Marx did a bit of work on that, you might want to check him out. What you might find is that capitalism is much more than simply "a direct result of capitalist policy"

I don't ignore class analysis, nor any of the others. We can talk about the material conditions in Russia, however for them to be Valid you need to make a DIRECT CONNECTION a CASUAL CONEECTION between those conditions and the totalitarian state that came out of it

No, asserting that the "totalitarian state" that emerged was a direct product of "Leninist principles" is ignoring class analysis. Unless of course you can do more than pay lip service to the term, such as by pointing out where classes actually factor into your 'big bag Leninist' spiel

Secondly, there are a bewildering number of opinions and analyses out there that specifically study the impact that changing class factors had on the evolution of the early Soviet state. Here is an exceptionally brief summary of my own opinion on the matter

I'm not blaiming the state with all the problems that happened in Russia, not by a long shot, I'm blaiming the state for the policies that they enacted and the direct outcome of those policies

You miss my point: you are assuming that the state is an omnipotent entity acting in isolation of the rest of society. That is, that it is free to impose its will and policies with impunity and without regard to material factors. Contrast this with the Marxian approach which holds that the state is fundamentally a product of class antagonisms and is rooted in class society. It is not an alien construct from which decrees are developed and delivered as if from space

Yes they were, in the begining they were a mass democratic party, however once in power the power was centralized (you've got war communism in the begining which essencially shut down democracy), and then you had them essencailly strong arming all the soviets into submission, and ultimately, creating a 1 party autocratic state

So the Bolsheviks were a "mass democratic party"? Did they not know that "basic Leninist principles" call for a tightly-knit group of professional revolutionaries? Did they not know that Bolshevism is inherently anti-democratic?

Class analysis can explain why how the Bolsheviks devolved into dictatorship. Assuming that they were fundamentally despotic from the beginning (through abiding by their basic principles) cannot

As far as the vanguardist model, you juts wrote a definition, most of hte leadership were not proletarians, and once in the position of power they were not the working class, they were the administrators, they essencially set up a differeny type of class system.

Actually, most of the Bolshevik leadership were of proletarian or peasant background. More to the point, they were constrained by their internal party practices - that pesky democracy again. The whole point of inner-party democracy is that the leadership can't simply do as they choose but are responsible to the party base

But by all means, tell me why the gulads, the murder of dissedents, and so on were not the result of policy, and instead just the result of some mysterious "material conditions."

Oh, I doubt that you'd be interested in the role that material conditions (why the inverted commas? Do you not accept this fairly basic Marxist term?) play in shaping policy. Its fairly clear that your (idealist) conception of the state and policy is exclusively a top-down one. Besides, if you were to actually accept that Bolshevik policy was in any way influenced by the actual conditions of Russia 1917 then it would raise serious questions about how policy was formed in the very different circumstances of China, Cuba, etc

[RGacky3]

Except that you've snuck in an additional clause there - "the capitalist system"

Regardless, I understand that capitalism is not the result of a set of ideals or principles pursued by a particular government; it is an economic system that has evolved over centuries. Marx did a bit of work on that, you might want to check him out. What you might find is that capitalism is much more than simply "a direct result of capitalist policy"

Capitalism as a system is a system of policies, Capitalist property is a state policy, as is capital markets, and so on.

The BASICS of Capitalism are private capitalist property, the market system, and the profit motive, those are the basic aspects which directly effect the outcome of Capitalism.

No, asserting that the "totalitarian state" that emerged was a direct product of "Leninist principles" is ignoring class analysis. Unless of course you can do more than pay lip service to the term, such as by pointing out where classes actually factor into your 'big bag Leninist' spiel

Again, if you can make a direct link between class dynamics and the "totalitarian state" (thanks for not arguing semantics about the term I use), then we can have a discussion about it.

THe link you sent gave no actual causual connections, between that class analysis and the state terror of the USSR.

You miss my point: you are assuming that the state is an omnipotent entity acting in isolation of the rest of society. That is, that it is free to impose its will and policies with impunity and without regard to material factors. Contrast this with the Marxian approach which holds that the state is fundamentally a product of class antagonisms and is rooted in class society. It is not an alien construct from which decrees are developed and delivered as if from space

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm assuming that the state, once controlled by the Bolsheviks, was not a state that was directly accountable to the workers, and that it is responsible for the out come of its policies. I'm not arguing its an omnipotent entity acting in isolation.

But if you want to put the blaim on other parts of society show me the connection.

So the Bolsheviks were a "mass democratic party"? Did they not know that "basic Leninist principles" call for a tightly-knit group of professional revolutionaries? Did they not know that Bolshevism is inherently anti-democratic?

Class analysis can explain why how the Bolsheviks devolved into dictatorship. Assuming that they were fundamentally despotic from the beginning (through abiding by their basic principles) cannot

IN the begining the Bolsheviks were not in power for one, also they were not setting forward a state program, they were taking part in a revolution, its very different circumstances, and even within the party before it was someone centralized, but it did'nt effect the majority of the workers and revolutionaries because they were not putting forward state programs.

Class analysis can help explain it, but any explination has to have a direct connection. For example you'd have to explain why Class dynamics actually CAUSED lenin to order the shooting of political dissidents, or why Stalin rounded up people to send to the Gulags. Thats the connection that needs to be made.

I can make the connection between that and Leninist theory, if you want to debate that, then you make a connection.

It also has to apply to all the other countries that had similar outcomes.

The whole point of inner-party democracy is that the leadership can't simply do as they choose but are responsible to the party base

Except democratic centrism severely limits democracy when it can be enforced.

Oh, I doubt that you'd be interested in the role that material conditions (why the inverted commas? Do you not accept this fairly basic Marxist term?) play in shaping policy. Its fairly clear that your (idealist) conception of the state and policy is exclusively a top-down one. Besides, if you were to actually accept that Bolshevik policy was in any way influenced by the actual conditions of Russia 1917 then it would raise serious questions about how policy was formed in the very different circumstances of China, Cuba, etc

Myt conception of the state is top down, IF its a top down system, (obviously those at the tops decision are influenced by whats going on down, duh, but its still THEM making the decisions).

I'm not saying Bolshevik policy was not influenced byt hte conditions, I'm absolutely sure it was, what I am saying is that the system that the BOlsheviks created, ended up concentrating power and ended up creating a totalitarian state, EVERY governments system si infuenced by material condidtions, EVERY SYSTEM is influenced by material conditions, but many times they have different outcomes, so you can't just cop out by blaiming the material conditions.

In an undemocratic and tyrannical system your gonna get undemocratic and tyrannical outcomes.

For example I can blaim the financial crisis of today on material conditions, as many right wingers try to do, but the fact is, that ultimately, it was the capitalist system that caused it.

[ComradeOm]

Again, if you can make a direct link between class dynamics and the "totalitarian state" (thanks for not arguing semantics about the term I use), then we can have a discussion about it

I've made it quite clear that I consider the term "totalitarian state" to be completely devoid of class content. This is far more than semantics when discussing class analysis

THe link you sent gave no actual causual connections, between that class analysis and the state terror of the USSR.

No? It doesn't mention any links between the weakening of the proletariat and the degeneration of the revolution? Do I have to spell everything out for you? Fine. In simple steps:

1) The economic crisis of 1917 onwards, coupled with the Civil War, severely sapped the strength of the Russian working class
2) The organs of working class rule (ie, the soviets) correspondingly suffered and began to decay
3) The central government attempted to respond to these crises but, increasing removed from its original support base and subject by the same forces battering the proletariat, it became increasingly isolated from the proletariat
4) Despite everything this did not lead to a simple dictatorship, never mind some sort of "totalitarian state". Instead this was a gradual and complex process of state building but one in which the workers retained a significant say in until the late 1920s

Now this is a very truncated summary of a complex process. Even it is however infinitely more useful an analysis than 'Dur, the evil Leninists somehow got into power and somehow waved their magic wand and somehow their preconceived pre-revolution ideas changed everything'

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm assuming that the state, once controlled by the Bolsheviks, was not a state that was directly accountable to the workers, and that it is responsible for the out come of its policies. I'm not arguing its an omnipotent entity acting in isolation.

No, that's exactly what you're saying, its just that your thinking is too confused to even comprehend it. Your conception of the state is one in which the Bolsheviks capture power and then simply impose their own set of 'basic policies' on the subject masses. You make no allowance for the role of events in shaping these policies, you have no understanding of the structural evolution of the Soviet state and you don't know the meaning of 'class analysis'

Except democratic centrism severely limits democracy when it can be enforced

Wow, it almost makes you think that the Bolshevik party of 1917, in which the leadership was very much beholden to the wider membership, might not have practised "democratic centrism" as you understand it. This is where understanding how the Bolshevik party actually functioned, as opposed to mouthing off slogans and buzzwords, is of great benefit. But hey, who am I to argue that a materialist reading of history is superior to a study of intellectual ideas? Oh yeah, a Marxist

Myt conception of the state is top down, IF its a top down system, (obviously those at the tops decision are influenced by whats going on down, duh, but its still THEM making the decisions).

Whereas my conception of the state is that it is the apparatus of the ruling class. Now your's is just dandy but please don't pretend that its Marxist or materialist at all

For example I can blaim the financial crisis of today on material conditions, as many right wingers try to do, but the fact is, that ultimately, it was the capitalist system that caused it.

This is a staggeringly stupid statement but I realise my mistake now - you don't know what materialism and idealism actually mean. Unfortunately you've used up all my reserves of charity and I'll have to leave it to you to figure out yourself

[RGacky3]

I've made it quite clear that I consider the term "totalitarian state" to be completely devoid of class content. This is far more than semantics when discussing class analysis

If your implying that it was some how a worker controlled state, or some class controlled it outside of the administrators of hte state then show me.

1) The economic crisis of 1917 onwards, coupled with the Civil War, severely sapped the strength of the Russian working class
2) The organs of working class rule (ie, the soviets) correspondingly suffered and began to decay
3) The central government attempted to respond to these crises but, increasing removed from its original support base and subject by the same forces battering the proletariat, it became increasingly isolated from the proletariat

So your saying that because of the civil war the central government no longer could be accountable to the people? Why not?

Also why did the working class have to be "strong" for there to be a democratic process?

Now this is a very truncated summary of a complex process. Even it is however infinitely more useful an analysis than 'Dur, the evil Leninists somehow got into power and somehow waved their magic wand and somehow their preconceived pre-revolution ideas changed everything'

I'm saying that the process of democratic centrism ultimately centralizes power, and the concept of a single important vanguard party further centralizes it, and that these to concepts along with the civil war and subsequent War COMmunism (i.e. further centralizing power), ultimately and inevitable destroyed a chance of democracy in the USSR.

You make no allowance for the role of events in shaping these policies, you have no understanding of the structural evolution of the Soviet state and you don't know the meaning of 'class analysis'

Of coarse I make those allowances, and if the policies when presented with such things, such as war, or so on, end up in the destruction of democracy then those are bad policies, and if due to these events, bad policies come out, then the policy making structure was a bad one.

Theres no 2 ways about it, the Leninist model was a failure.

Wow, it almost makes you think that the Bolshevik party of 1917, in which the leadership was very much beholden to the wider membership, might not have practised "democratic centrism" as you understand it.

As I said, over time, as they got more power, it became more centralized, once Lenin and others gained state power they essencially held it themselves, obviously there was a degree of worker participation, but the last word was for the higher ups.

Whereas my conception of the state is that it is the apparatus of the ruling class. Now your's is just dandy but please don't pretend that its Marxist or materialist at all

Now then expalin to me how in the USSR it was really the workers who were ruling? Who were the ruling class? And not the administrators of the state and the party leadership?

This is a staggeringly stupid statement but I realise my mistake now - you don't know what materialism and idealism actually mean. Unfortunately you've used up all my reserves of charity and I'll have to leave it to you to figure out yourself

Why was my statement about the financial crisis wrong? Why could not that be blaimed on material conditions rather than Capitalism? Where did I go wrong?

And don't just say "class analysis" or "materialism" or something, actually make an explination rather that using buzz words.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]

Even if that was exactly what he was saying, it's not as if a significant number of colonies were swayed towards socialism, at least not enough to measure if he was "right" or "wrong". Colonies winning independence from European masters who did not go socialist are not a good example, since imperialism still very much keeps them in the sway of Europe economically.

Its certainly true that newly independent kept close contact ect. with the relevent previous colonial rulers. Its not particularly surprising. Where else would they turn for goods and services?

Lenin thought the colonies were a boon. After independence, it was generally revealed they were a drain on the mother countries. They were stronger without the colonies than with them.

Better than taking the past as absolute gospel on how things will happen in the future, as if (as I said earlier, which is yet another thing you don't seem to understand) the left is not an endlessly self-critical and self-improving entity seeking to learn from mistakes. Whereas you just seem to want to take these failures as some sort of mystical law of nature and avoid any real understanding of what happened and how things can happen differently.

The difference here is that you are explaining the failures as a result of errors of individuals in their efforts. I would argue the common thread was an adherence to socialism, of some stripe or the other.

Oh, I see, it failed once, so lets stop thinking critically and succumb to total despair because it's the will of the almighty.

No.

This doesn't answer what I was saying, namely that socialist countries attempting different models can and should cooperate economically and diplomatically.

Sure.

(I know you think analysis amounts to repeating simple historical facts like "X revolution failed" and claiming that that itself constitutes some self-evident fact that it's impossible, but you're wrong buddy).

It would seem that your analysis consists of saying earlier socialists just didn't do the right thing.

My whole point was, you don't have to agree on everything, all that you have to do is recognize that the various nations on the planet working under the same general framework, a banner if you will, require mutual support and political solidarity in order to collectively resist imperialism. Cooperation =/= absolute homogeneity.

Absolutely ie. the USSR and its efforts world-wide.

But proposing a less 'homogenous' effort is fraught with its own problems.

[Agent Ducky]

Referring back to Marxism, none of those societies were fully industrial/capitalist at the times of their revolutions like they were kinda supposed to be. This created the need for something like Leninism, and I think having the whole vanguard thing happening is what started causing problems.

[Baseball]

Referring back to Marxism, none of those societies were fully industrial/capitalist at the times of their revolutions like they were kinda supposed to be. This created the need for something like Leninism, and I think having the whole vanguard thing happening is what started causing problems.

But why would a fully industrial society have any less of a need of a vanguard?
Both a fully and not so fully industrial community face the same problem-- building a socialist community.

[Agent Ducky]

I'm not quite sure where I was going with that. Lol.

[TrotskyTheGreat]

My friend, revolution is like a apple. It takes the right amount of time and effort to make it fall. But it will rot. And regrow into a apple tree and repeat it's self.


In other words: Revolution is pointless. If you really have a problem with something. Don't give-a-shit about it because if you try and even if you succeed, it will return to the old régime.

[tradeunionsupporter]

The Book the Revolution Betrayed is a good Book.

[trivas7]

It would seem then that the proper context is that the socialist revolution occurs in such weak countries. There are no other facts to draw a different conclusion. It doesn't do much good to complain that people ignored the theory to the contrary. Maybe the theory is wrong.

The truth is that there is no theory of how revolution comes about and historically revolutions are always followed by greater repression. This doesn't make a material analysis of society wrong, merely tragically incomplete.

[Pretty Flaco]

Workers need to SEIZE control. Workers SEIZED control in Russia, but look who betrayed them.

[Pretty Flaco]

My friend, revolution is like a apple. It takes the right amount of time and effort to make it fall. But it will rot. And regrow into a apple tree and repeat it's self.


In other words: Revolution is pointless. If you really have a problem with something. Don't give-a-shit about it because if you try and even if you succeed, it will return to the old régime.

Also, it seems kind of dumb to say that. Revolutions have been successful in changing types of governments all throughout history. Sure there have been plenty where the outcome isn't much better than what existed previously, but how is it pointless?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is the Revolution Betrayed a good read ?

[Os Cangaceiros]

we just need to do the exact same thing over and over and over again, guys. one of these days it's bound to work.

[Rafiq]

Russia was not subject to imperialism, nor was it an extremely weak country.

The fact is all of these material conditions have no connection to the actual totalitarianism of the regiem, the connection has never been made, the common denominator is Leninism, and THAT connection CAN and HAS been made.

Except Russia was invaded by over 17 countries from 1918-1922, plus Nazi Germany, the most powerful nation on Earth.

Fail.

And look at your bullshit Idealist analysis, the material conditions had everything to do with the nature of the regimes. There was no totalitarianism, you fool.

The common denominator is not Leninism, it is not Authoritarianism, and for Stalinists, it is NOT revisionism.

It was trying to contain the revolution. You think the party were assholes for no reason? You think it's easy to contain a revolution in one country?

The German revolution failed in 1919 and the revolution did not spread to the west. That is why the USSR fucked up.

[tradeunionsupporter]

When was this Book written ?

[Bronco]

When was this Book written ?

1936 I believe