The October Revolution & The Soviet Union: What went wrong?

[Le Socialiste]

I contend that the material conditions shape our choices, direct our society, but that human action can influence the shape, however constrained by said material conditons, of society nonetheless. In other words, objective conditions shape, broadly, our society, and subjective conditions that stem from the objective influence its details.

Don't know if any of this was directed at me, but in any event I agree with you on this point. Material conditions certainly don't predetermine the shape and content of society, though they play an integral role.

[Let's Get Free]

This runs on the assumption that the Russian Revolution's goal was to create socialism in one country. They were internationalists and had the world revolution as their only goal. The point isn't whether or not the conditions were viable in Russia, but were they viable on a global scale. After all Lenin himself stated that he would sacrifice October for a revolution in Germany. Also can you point me to a source that you've used to formulate the opinion that the majority of the Russian proletariat were not socialists? I've seen you make this claim a few times now and wonder where you're getting your information.

A worldwide socialist workers revolution was simply not a possibility for one simple reason- there was not a mass mandate for socialism anywhere in the world, especially not in Europe, the proletariat of which had just got finished patriotically butchering each other. The militant Russian workers were concerned about wages, food and fuel prices, not so much with creating a classless, stateless commonwealth. The Bolsheviks garnered support not for creating such a society, but for their reform program- peace land and bread and all that- which are all noble sounding intentions but by themselves have got nothing to do with communism.

[Captain Ahab]

A worldwide socialist workers revolution was simply not a possibility for one simple reason- there was not a mass mandate for socialism anywhere in the world, especially not in Europe,

What about Germany?

[Let's Get Free]

What about Germany?

Nope. The Spartakus uprising was pretty much doomed from the beginning.

[Art Vandelay]

Can you provide a link for that statistic you keep posting in any thread on this topic (that a majority of the Russian proletariat was not class conscious), or are you simply regurgitating the same line you always hear robbo use?

[Let's Get Free]

Can you provide a link for that statistic you keep posting in any thread on this topic (that a majority of the Russian proletariat was not class conscious), or are you simply regurgitating the same line you always hear robbo use?

i'm not saying the Russian proletariat wasn't class conscious, they were. However, being class conscious is still a long way away from being socialist conscious, which the Russian proletariat or the proletariat in any other nation clearly were not. lenin himself acknowledged this to be the case.

"Is this huge mass of people, numbering about 160 million and spread over eight and a half million of square miles, ready for Socialism? Are the hunters of the north, the struggling peasant proprietors of the south, the agricultural wage slaves of the Central Provinces and the wage slaves of the towns convinced of the necessity for, and equipped with the knowledge requisite for the establishment of the social ownership of the means of life? Unless a mental revolution such as the world has never seen before has taken place or an economic change immensely more rapidly than history has ever recorded, the answer is 'NO!'"(August 1918).

[Red Enemy]

Can you provide a link for that statistic you keep posting in any thread on this topic (that a majority of the Russian proletariat was not class conscious), or are you simply regurgitating the same line you always hear robbo use?

Of course he can't. He can't even explain how the majority of workers are supposed to achieve socialist consciousness (which, I don't know if this means a general agreement to revolutionary anti-capitalists socialism and the tactics and programme of the party OR if it means the workers have to be fully read in the Hegelian dialectic, capital, and everything else)

[Blake's Baby]

I'm afraid 9mm has hit the nail on the head, and coup d'etat is acting (consciously? unconsciously?) as an anarchist cover for the SPGB-derived line here. The distinction between 'class consciousness' and 'socialist consciousness' is one that many of those that have a past with the SPGB come out with. Rather than seeing consciousness as being born from struggle (consciousness ultimately being a product of conditions) it's seen as a thing to be acquired (consciousness as specialised knowledge). It goes back to Kautsky and beyond, seeing socialism as a pedagogic project not a living movement.

[Let's Get Free]

I'm afraid 9mm has hit the nail on the head, and coup d'etat is acting (consciously? unconsciously?) as an anarchist cover for the SPGB-derived line here. The distinction between 'class consciousness' and 'socialist consciousness' is one that many of those that have a past with the SPGB come out with. Rather than seeing consciousness as being born from struggle (consciousness ultimately being a product of conditions) it's seen as a thing to be acquired (consciousness as specialised knowledge). It goes back to Kautsky and beyond, seeing socialism as a pedagogic project not a living movement.

It is the process of interacting directly or indirectly with others, exchanging ideas with them that we come to a socialist view of the world by. Class struggle without any clear understanding of where you are going is simply committing oneself to a never-ending treadmill. It is an absolute necessity that the majority workers have some rudimentary grasp of socialism (a stateless, wageless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production) and desire such an arrangement. Without this, the workers will have simply carried out a revolution on the behalf of capital.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

It is the process of interacting directly or indirectly with others, exchanging ideas with them that we come to a socialist view of the world by. Class struggle without any clear understanding of where you are going is simply committing oneself to a never-ending treadmill. It is an absolute necessity that the majority workers have some rudimentary grasp of socialism (a stateless, wageless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production) and desire such an arrangement. Without this, the workers will have simply carried out a revolution on the behalf of capital.

Well, no -- the concept of a revolution in an advanced industrialized nation in the interest of capital is a non-starter. But I agree that there is a dialectic between consciousness and workers struggle. But your idea of the "impossibility" of proletarian revolution in Europe following WWI is simply misguided hindsight. In Germany in particular, the conditions were ripe. The Spartakist uprising was premature, yes. Had Luxembourg and Leibncht had not been murdered with the help of the SDs, 1921 or 1923 might well have seen a workers revolution in Germany. For a detailed view of this kind of misguided historical determinism see Trotsky's The Lessons of October.

[Art Vandelay]

It is the process of interacting directly or indirectly with others, exchanging ideas with them that we come to a socialist view of the world by. Class struggle without any clear understanding of where you are going is simply committing oneself to a never-ending treadmill. It is an absolute necessity that the majority workers have some rudimentary grasp of socialism (a stateless, wageless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production) and desire such an arrangement. Without this, the workers will have simply carried out a revolution on the behalf of capital.

And when the workers are in the streets, you and those with your political convictions will be on the sidelines, waving some Marxist or anarchist text, talking about how the people need to go back home until they've reached the level of theoretical understanding that you've deemed necessary for revolution; you'll be left in the dustbin of history, where you belong.

[Thirsty Crow]

And when the workers are in the streets, you and those with your political convictions will be on the sidelines, waving some Marxist or anarchist text, talking about how the people need to go back home until they've reached the level of theoretical understanding that you've deemed necessary for revolution; you'll be left in the dustbin of history, where you belong.

I don't think you're being fair in portraying coup's views:

Class struggle without any clear understanding of where you are going is simply committing oneself to a never-ending treadmill.

It is an absolute necessity that the majority workers have some rudimentary grasp of socialism (a stateless, wageless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production) and desire such an arrangement.

This isn't some advopcacy of obscure theory being drilled into workers' heads as a precondition for social revolution.

[Let's Get Free]

And when the workers are in the streets, you and those with your political convictions will be on the sidelines, waving some Marxist or anarchist text, talking about how the people need to go back home until they've reached the level of theoretical understanding that you've deemed necessary for revolution; you'll be left in the dustbin of history, where you belong.

And how do you deduce that this is what I'd be doing from what i've said? No,That's not what I'd be doing at all. What i want to do is to point out the dangers that face a revolutionary or insurrectionary proletariat – to expose those ideas and practices that will lead back to subordination. If we want to have the capability to do this when and if the time comes, then we had better start training ourselves now. Too often in the past, as at Kronstadt, the stand against the recuperation of a new oppressive ruling class was made too late.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

And how do you deduce that this is what I'd be doing from what i've said? No,That's not what I'd be doing at all. What i want to do is to point out the dangers that face a revolutionary or insurrectionary proletariat – to expose those ideas and practices that will lead back to subordination. If we want to have the capability to do this when and if the time comes, then we had better start training ourselves now. Too often in the past, as at Kronstadt, the stand against the recuperation of a new oppressive ruling class was made too late.

You are right that there must be preparation and education but the "education" received during a revolutionary upsurge is rather profound. The proletariat in Russia frequently moved past all but the most revolutionary of party leaders in 1917. And I doubt that any degree of education on the part of the Russian Proletariat would have prevented the Thermidor. You seem to not have gotten the newsflash that the Russian proletariat was almost liquidated as a class by the end of the Civil War. Not quite, of course, but the ranks of the proletariat were decimated.

The stuff about Kronstadt and a "new ruling class," are, IMO, nonsense. The Soviet Bureaucracy was not a new class, as shown by their disappearance after the counterrevolution in 1991. This would make them, the most ephemeral class to ever emerge in all human history. To show that they were a class, in an historical and material sense, would be impossible.

There have been many threads about Kronstadt on the RL boards. Those that rail about it are just wrongheaded. The idea that the rebellion would have led to anything other than counterrevolution, putting the Whites in power, is pure fantasy.

[Let's Get Free]

You are right that there must be preparation and education but the "education" received during a revolutionary upsurge is rather profound. The proletariat in Russia frequently moved past all but the most revolutionary of party leaders in 1917. And I doubt that any degree of education on the part of the Russian Proletariat would have prevented the Thermidor. You seem to not have gotten the newsflash that the Russian proletariat was almost liquidated as a class by the end of the Civil War. Not quite, of course, but the ranks of the proletariat were decimated.

The stuff about Kronstadt and a "new ruling class," are, IMO, nonsense. The Soviet Bureaucracy was not a new class, as shown by their disappearance after the counterrevolution in 1991. This would make them, the most ephemeral class to ever emerge in all human history. To show that they were a class, in an historical and material sense, would be impossible.

There have been many threads about Kronstadt on the RL boards. Those that rail about it are just wrongheaded. The idea that the rebellion would have led to anything other than counterrevolution, putting the Whites in power, is pure fantasy.

The Bolsheviks weren't a new ruling class? Don't make me laugh. The Bolsheviks had to take on the administration of capitalism and, in the course of doing so, those who controlled the state became the new de facto capitalist ruling class with complete control over the disposal of the economic surplus which is precisely what constitutes a capitalist class in Marxian terms. As for Kronstadt simply being a White plot, that is a common Trotskyist slander which is completely false.

[Captain Ahab]

I don't see the bureaucracy disappearing after 1991 but rather changed into full fledged bourgeoisie under a different name.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The Bolsheviks weren't a new ruling class? Don't make me laugh. The Bolsheviks had to take on the administration of capitalism and, in the course of doing so, those who controlled the state became the new de facto capitalist ruling class with complete control over the disposal of the economic surplus which is precisely what constitutes a capitalist class in Marxian terms. As for Kronstadt simply being a White plot, that is a common Trotskyist slander which is completely false.

Yeah. It was just capitalism, comrade. That's why it drew vicious hostility from all the extant capitalist countries. That's why there was no significant private industry (yup, capitalism, in Marxian terms, has a bit to do with private ownership of the means of production).

I did not say Kronstadt was simply a White plot. That the Whites were involved seems clear. The Kronstadt Rebellion "succeeding" would have led to the victory of the Whites, or perhaps simply a resurrected Autocracy supported by imperialist powers. There is no vaguely plausible scenario where it would have led to anything better in the USSR.

[Let's Get Free]

Yeah. It was just capitalism, comrade. That's why it drew vicious hostility from all the extant capitalist countries.

So what? Capitalists are not some rock solid homogeneous group who meet in some secret boardroom to conspire to squash any flicker of rebellion. Believe it or not, capitalists are in bitter competition with each other. Capitalist nations are constantly hostile to one another. Or what, do capitalist nations not go to war with each other?

That's why there was no significant private industry (yup, capitalism, in Marxian terms, has a bit to do with private ownership of the means of production).

Your definition of what constitutes capitalism contains all the superficiality of a bourgeois commentator. As I've said many times before the existence of a capitalist class does not depend on the owners having some legally enshrined right to their property. People who call themselves Marxists should not hold such a superficial notion on what capitalism is. They should look at what actually holds on the ground. The relationship of the ruling state capitalist class to the means of production was totally different to that of the ordinary Russian worker. You would have to be absolutely delusional to deny this. This class had absolute control over the disposal of economic surplus unlike the ordinary Russian workers. The overwhelming control that it exerted over the means of production by virtue of its absolute control over the state amounted to de facto ownership of those means by this class. Not as individual capitalists but as a collective capitalist class. This is not a new development. The upper echelons of the catholic church during feudal times owned large swathes of property, not as individuals, but collectively.

I did not say Kronstadt was simply a White plot. That the Whites were involved seems clear. The Kronstadt Rebellion "succeeding" would have led to the victory of the Whites, or perhaps simply a resurrected Autocracy supported by imperialist powers. There is no vaguely plausible scenario where it would have led to anything better in the USSR.

The Whites at this point were in no position to take advantage of the rebellion or even support it. You accusations are groundless.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

So what? Capitalists are not some rock solid homogeneous group who meet in some secret boardroom to conspire to squash any flicker of rebellion. Believe it or not, capitalists are in bitter competition with each other. Capitalist nations are constantly hostile to one another. Or what, do capitalist nations not go to war with each other?


Your definition of what constitutes capitalism contains all the superficiality of a bourgeois commentator. As I've said many times before the existence of a capitalist class does not depend on the owners having some legally enshrined right to their property. People who call themselves Marxists should not hold such a superficial notion on what capitalism is. They should look at what actually holds on the ground. The relationship of the ruling state capitalist class to the means of production was totally different to that of the ordinary Russian worker. You would have to be absolutely delusional to deny this. This class had absolute control over the disposal of economic surplus unlike the ordinary Russian workers. The overwhelming control that it exerted over the means of production by virtue of its absolute control over the state amounted to de facto ownership of those means by this class. Not as individual capitalists but as a collective capitalist class. This is not a new development. The upper echelons of the catholic church during feudal times owned large swathes of property, not as individuals, but collectively.



The Whites at this point were in no position to take advantage of the rebellion or even support it. You accusations are groundless.

The relationship of a union bureaucrat to the means of production is rather different than that of a regular worker. Does that make the bureaucrat a capitalist? "Collective capitalist class," is an oxymoron. So, the Catholic Chruch was not capitalist in the Middle Ages -- I agree.

Your creative use of the notion of class is outside the bounds of Marxism. As a Trotskyist, I have no love for the Stalinist bureaucracy, but as L.D. himself said, "we must begin by calling things by their correct names."

[Thirsty Crow]

The relationship of a union bureaucrat to the means of production is rather different than that of a regular worker. Does that make the bureaucrat a capitalist?

It certainly makes him an appropriator of and commander over surplus labour.

"Collective capitalist class," is an oxymoron. So, the Catholic Chruch was not capitalist in the Middle Ages -- I agree.

You should pay more attention to the idea that never could have been developed by Marx, the idea of the abolition of private property on the very basis of capitalism itself.

Your creative use of the notion of class is outside the bounds of Marxism.

If you conceed that the bureaucracy was positioned in relation to the means of production and conditions of labour in a fundamentally differen way than workers, then yes we're talking about full blown social class here, and not a "caste" (really, how did this clumsy transposition from "feudal" Indian society to a workers' state ever happen?).

As a Trotskyist, I have no love for the Stalinist bureaucracy, but as L.D. himself said, "we must begin by calling things by their correct names."

Then you might go back and examine the Marxist notion of social class without embarassing attempts at dodging the issue.