Russian Revolution(no communism)?

[Aetius]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum
I beg to differ. Lenin wasn't much of a twister of Marx's ideas. Actually, he was pretty much orthodox and not terribly original in his approach to Marxism.

Marxism assumes that you have reached the last stages of capitalism, Lenin would have to build a successful capitalist society based on industry before a communist society became possible. Russia was a mostly a pre-industrial society so it had to reach the industrial stage. His new economic plan might be construed to be an effort of this kind but I doubt that it was the intent.
His concept of a vanguard group, i.e. the communist party, leading a society into communism was rather different from what Marx had in mind, I think.

 

[unmerged(9272)]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum
But Leon, what toppled the PG was precisely that they kept "tottering along" with the war, and the masses were sick and tired of it.

Errrrrr.

The PG, although in totally dire straits didn't just collapse. There was a coup by the bolsheviks, at a time when no other major political group (save for Kornilov et al, although their 'opposition' is questionable) was seriously challenging them....

Please don't say you've been taken in by that nonsense that the October revolution was a populist uprising, because, I'm afraid to tell you, it wasn't. It was a coup by a minority group. Plain and simple. This is how it differs from The February revolution.

So, if we take the bolsheviks out of the equation, what was going to replace the PG? The fairies?

Originally posted by Aetius
Marxism assumes that you have reached the last stages of capitalism, Lenin would have to build a successful capitalist society based on industry before a communist society became possible. Russia was a mostly a pre-industrial society so it had to reach the industrial stage. His new economic plan might be construed to be an effort of this kind but I doubt that it was the intent.

So called 'state captialism' that was instituted before War Communism was an attempt at claiming that Russia had gone through it's capitalist phase. Totally laughable, of course.

Lenin bended Marxism to laughable degrees all the time, of course - it was a political necessity.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

True, that's why Lenin would have gladly exchanged the Russian revolution for a German one. That's how revolutionary he was.

Lenin repeatedly said that Russia had undergone a revolution because it was the "weakest link" (hence the TV show) in the chain of imperialist powers. Yet he hoped that the RR would usher a period of European revolutions that would end with capitalism on a global scale. And for a while, it looked like it might come to pass, in Germany, Italy, Hungary, and elsewhere...

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by Leon Trotsky


Errrrrr.

The PG, although in totally dire straits didn't just collapse. There was a coup by the bolsheviks, at a time when no other major political group (save for Kornilov et al, although their 'opposition' is questionable) was seriously challenging them....

Please don't say you've been taken in by that nonsense that the October revolution was a populist uprising, because, I'm afraid to tell you, it wasn't. It was a coup by a minority group. Plain and simple. This is how it differs from The February revolution.

Please don't simplify the events of October to the storming of the Winter Palace. That's so simplistic as to be laughable. Keep in mind that the Bolsheviks had achieved a majority in the Petrograd Soviet, in Moscow, in Baku, and elswhere. They had surpassed the SR, and the Mensheviks in importance, even numerically. Yes, the MRC ordered the taking of critical places in the city, but was overwhelmingly supported by the Soviet when it convened the following morning. That's as much of a fact, as the "coup" of the previous night.

Originally posted by Leon Trotsky

So, if we take the bolsheviks out of the equation, what was going to replace the PG? The fairies?

What about "left SR" or the Anarchists?

 

[unmerged(9272)]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum
That's as much of a fact, as the "coup" of the previous night.

In light of this mass populairty of the bolsheviks, then, you would explain the results of the elections to the constituent assembly by...?

My point still stands. It was not a popular uprising.

Originally posted by Pirate Scum
What about "left SR" or the Anarchists?

Pffftt. they were about as credible as The German revolutionaries.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by Leon Trotsky


In light of this mass populairty of the bolsheviks, then, you would explain the results of the elections to the constituent assembly by...?

My point still stands. It was not a popular uprising.

So, you're trying to argue that because the Bolsheviks did not get the majority of the vote, they were not popular? That would be tantamount to saying that because Bush got less than 25% of the electorate he shouldn't be president. The Bolsheviks had mass support throughout Russia. They dominated in the large cities, to the extent that they got more than 25% of the vote. The largest party was the SR, which was totally split after the candidate lists were drawn, therefore many of their "representatives" were not representative at all. The problem with revolutions is that the historic clock accelerates so much that things change literally by the minute.

What qualifies in your view for a "popular uprising"? That 50% plus one of the electorate takes to the streets? That's an extremely narrow view of things.

Originally posted by Leon Trotsky
Pffftt. they were about as credible as The German revolutionaries.

Yet they managed to outvote the Bolsheviks!!!

 

[unmerged(9272)]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum
What qualifies in your view for a "popular uprising"? That 50% plus one of the electorate takes to the streets? That's an extremely narrow view of things.

I think we're drifting away from the point here, which was that the bolsheviks, despite their large support, took power of their own volition. There was no popular toppling of the PG, and despite their support, they were still very much in the minority. All of which, of course, led to civil war.

Those cirumstances don't invite me to call it a 'popular uprising'.

There was no huge thirst for another uprising - if the people had wanted one, they certainly didn't need the bolsheviks to initiate it, considering the state the PG was in.

Since when did we assume that all those people who voted for the bolsheviks neccesarily wanted a coup, anyway? (Not that we can actually find out )

Originally posted by Pirate Scum
Yet they managed to outvote the Bolsheviks!!!

I thought you were just going on about how split, badly organised and generally politically crap they were?

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by Leon Trotsky


I think we're drifting away from the point here, which was that the bolsheviks, despite their large support, took power of their own volition. There was no popular toppling of the PG, and despite their support, they were still very much in the minority. All of which, of course, led to civil war.

Those cirumstances don't invite me to call it a 'popular uprising'.

There was no huge thirst for another uprising - if the people had wanted one, they certainly didn't need the bolsheviks to initiate it, considering the state the PG was in.

Since when did we assume that all those people who voted for the bolsheviks neccesarily wanted a coup, anyway? (Not that we can actually find out )

What I'm saying is that what happened in Russia at the time was similar to what happened in France during the French Revolution: a wide chasm opened between the cities and the countryside. Do you think that a majority of French wanted the French Revolution? No, and neither a majority of Russians wanted the Russian Revolution. Go to the works of your namesake who clearly explains how revolutions are always carried out by minorities, usually with the sympathy, or at least the friendly neutrality of large segments of the population.

Again, the fact remains that the Bolsheviks were able to mobilize the Red Guard to take control of the city and that that was received with delirious approval by the Petrograd Soviet. Call it what you will, but that fait accompli was the beginning of the October Revolution.

I don't know how you can be so sure that people in Petrograd didn't want another uprising. They certainly felt that the Kadets, Mensheviks, SRs, etc. did not represent them.

Originally posted by Leon Trotsky

I thought you were just going on about how split, badly organised and generally politically crap they were?

No, I wasn't. We are supposedly trying to think of alternative outcomes, aren't we?

 

[unmerged(345)]

fellow comrades,
i do recommend you to read Orlando Figes' "A people's Tragedy". IMHO the best book on the Russian Revolution ever.
BTWyou should try to get it at the library, cause the English version is outrageouly expensive.