PDA

View Full Version : Russian History Lesson (1917)


FireWall
July 9th, 2003, 09:44 PM
The Russian Revolution of October, 1917 was one of the greatest events in history. Unfortunately, there are those who are hostile to it, and spare no effort in slandering the events that took place. I decided to create this thread after having a discussion with an individual who was vomiting underdeveloped, flagrant, vulgar interpretations of specific occurrences, and presenting them as factual developments.

Unless you have a relatively decent understanding of this topic, you may not be able to completely appreciate this discussion. I will try to elaborate my points thoroughly, but I won't dwell on basic concepts. I doubt that this thread will receive significant attention, but that is OK. I'm in the mood to write, and write I shall.

In February of 1917, Tsarist Russia ceased to exist. Tsar Nicholas the Bloody was removed from power in a revolutionary movement, and a Provisional Government was established. Russia had been seething with activity since January. Mass strikes were the norm. The workers demanded that their basic needs be met, and wanted the Tsar to be exiled or executed for his crimes. On February 25, Petrograd was experiencing an enormous general strike. The Tsar ordered that the disorder in the capital end the following day without fail, and on February 26 the shooting began. The soldiers and police were ordered to fire on the demonstrators, but the soldiers fired into the air. Only the police opened fire on the people. Clearly, a large portion of the soldiers were not on the same side as the police, and the soldiers of the Pavlovsk regiment opened fire on them. On paper, the regime had ample forces at its disposal. But in the moment of truth, these forces just melted away.

However, even though Tsarism had been overthrown by the workers' of Petrograd, they were not sufficiently organized to establish a government to replace it. Hastily, a Provisional Government was improvised by a weak class of capitalists, which I will hereafter refer to as the bourgeoisie. This class was weak because Russia was underdeveloped, and tied hand and foot to foreign capital. It was a barbaric land of the wooden plough, composed primarily of peasants, and completely subordinate to imperialism. Unlike those nations, Russia had never gone through a bourgeois revolution. The bourgeoisie was degenerate and underdeveloped; it was reactionary and incapable of carrying out its historical duties.

But even though the new government was under the control of the bourgeoisie, the February revolution was not a bourgeois revolution. The bourgeoisie was only able to establish a Provisional Government because the workers' were not prepared to. However, the workers' were organizing themselves, and created apparatuses called Soviets in order to control the operation of their places of work. The February Revolution was a desperate movement of the working class, which I will hereafter refer to as the proletariat, stricken by hunger, war, and impoverishment. Alan Woods, in Bolshevism: The Road to Revolution describes the process that took place:

"Beneath the surface, the mood of the masses had been slowly changing. Trotsky described this process as the “molecular process of revolution”. It is a process that proceeds so gradually that it is frequently imperceptible, even to revolutionaries, who sometimes draw the wrong conclusions from the appearance of apathy and the absence of surface manifestations of the accumulated frustration, rage and bitterness. It is very similar to the gradual building up of pressure beneath the earth’s surface prior to an earthquake. This process is also invisible to the superficial observer who looks no further than the surface, without taking into account the seething processes that are unfolding in the bowels of the earth. When the eruption takes place, it produces general astonishment."

At this point in my discussion, I could proceed to trace the developments of Russia and the Provisional Government all the way to October, but that would be extremely time consuming, and I will not do so. Basically, the Provisional Government was incapable of satisfying the needs of the people. As I explained above, it was under the control of a very weak class, and in October, the Provisional Government was dissolved and replaced by a government that based itself on the Soviets, which as I explained above were the spontaneous inventions of the people. This is where events begin to be distorted, and I will proceed to identify and respond to these distortions.

The October Revolution was NOT a coup d'etat, and the same author quoted above explains this thoroughly:

"The revolution took place over nine months, during which the Bolshevik Party, using the most democratic means, won over the decisive majority of the workers and poor peasants. The fact that they succeeded so easily in overcoming the resistance of the Kerensky forces can only be explained by this fact. Moreover, as we shall see, there is no way that the Bolsheviks could have held onto power, without the support of the overwhelming majority of society. At every stage, the decisive role was played by the active intervention of the masses. This is what set its stamp on the whole process. The ruling class and its political and military representatives could only grind their teeth, but were powerless to prevent power from slipping from their hands. True, they were involved in constant conspiracies against the Revolution, including the armed uprising of General Kornilov, which aimed at overthrowing Kerensky and instituting a military dictatorship, but all of this foundered on the movement of the masses."

Opponents of Bolshevism also like to raise the question of the Constituent Assembly, which I will take the time to respond to now. They claim that the Bolsheviks dissolved the Constituent Assembly because they were a minority, and proceeded to establish a dictatorship. This is false to the core, and overlooks a number of fundamental points.

The Constituent Assembly was a democratic parliament that was called by the Provisional Government to be held to determine exactly what would replace it. There was a situation of dual power. On one side were the Soviets, and on the other, the Constituent Assembly. It was simply a question of who would completely consolidate power. After the October insurrection when the Provisional Government was dissolved, the Constituent Assembly was not called off immediately, but soon afterward, the Bolsheviks, who lead the insurrection, realized that the Constituent Assembly could only serve as a rallying point for the counter-revolution. It was dissolved by the Bolsheviks because it threatened to undermine the Soviets, which as I explained, were the spontaneous inventions of the people, and far more democratic than any Constituent Assembly could be.

On that note, I will conclude my post, and hopefully someone will raise a question or two for me to respond to. Unfortunately, I expect that no one will. I realize that my history lesson was quite sketchy, but I didn't want to spend more than an hour on it. If I made any errors, please point them out to me. For those that actually took the time to read this, thank you.

LuTze
July 10th, 2003, 02:05 AM
I would just like to know what your point is? That the bolshevik uprising was supported by the mojority of the people? I don't think you will find much opposition there,

othell
July 10th, 2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by FireWall
[B]Unless you have a relatively decent understanding of this topic, you may not be able to completely appreciate this discussion.[B]

So because Russian history is not really my strong poing I will not be able to appareciate this discussion (what discussion anyways?) ?

larcain
July 10th, 2003, 01:36 PM
Wow...I'm surprised Julius and Ethel Rosenburg or Alger Hiss or Harry Dexter White haven't posted to tell us what a great move it was for Russia. Lenon, Stalin (ahhh good ol' Uncle Joe).

Look The Czars weren't great for Russia either, but what happened afterward was much, much worse. Ask the Ukranies who were eating their own shoes because Stalin systematically starved them to death. Gulags, show trials...ahhh the grandeur that was the Soviet union.

FireWall
July 10th, 2003, 06:14 PM
LuTze, you would be surprised. Many individuals claim that the Bolsheviks acted against society, as the minority forcing its will against the people, and such a claim is not correct.

Larcain, no one can deny the horrors of Soviet society under Stalin, but it's important to separate those events from the glorious events of 1917. Stalin was only able to consolidate power and strangle the revolution because the revolution did not succeed in other countries, and was isolated to Russia in conditions of severe backwardness.

AxioN
July 11th, 2003, 04:09 AM
nice post, history is my favorite thing .. only reason i havent dropped out sadly. I always have a hard time appreciating the revolution, since im such a anti-marxist/communist/leninist etc etc etc.

saut
July 11th, 2003, 06:52 PM
The revolution itself was a good thing, but perhaps only a small step in the right direction. If it had gone farther, perhaps we would live in a much different world...

Schizef
July 11th, 2003, 07:13 PM
Well, that's an interesting take on it I suppose, I think it is a little ridiculous how you constantly claim certain things are outright lies, but whatever.

I've never read Alan Woods, but from what I know of the revolution, it's not that the Bolsheviks were really liked that much, or even had that much popular support, it's that they decided to act when they did. The Mensheviks had the most support going into April (the February Revolution, it's that whole different calendar thing) but they split down the middle, and were really divided. Besides that everyone else's support was too divided among the Anarchists, the Cadets, the Socialist Revolutionaries, and the Mensheviks. So that come December, no one had really made a move against the interm government, which no one really liked. It's just that no one group had enough support or initiative to take that first step. So you're left with a void in which the Bolsheviks stepped up, and having a large amount of support in the army, they were able to seize control. The assembly was dissolved as the Cadets had a strong backing in there, and the town Dumas were dissolved as well as they had I think a Socialist or Menshevik presence (Hazy on this one).

So really I don't contribute the Bolsheviks taking power to their having a huge support of the people. Primo Facto however, I think they did have a very large support group growing, as they moved very quickly to stifle anyone looking to speak out against them, a sort of common thread throughout a lot of their history.

Finally I'm just going to say, that the Bolsheviks weren't really marxists, per se. They are of course a derivation of that way of thinking, but the Mensheviks were the true Marxists. The largest difference is that the Bolsheviks just didn't believe in control by the proletariot, they wanted an aristocratic group of leaders, like Lenin and Trotsky, to take control. Furthermore they actually did something to make it happen, which is against the strain of Marxist thinking as well (A reason why the Mensheviks didn't seize power is that Marx dictates that the revolution will come naturally, without the need to do anything, and that indeed they need to reach capitalism first, which hadn't happened yet.) That's about it, good post man, I enjoyed reading it and trying to remember my Russian History classes.

larcain
July 13th, 2003, 01:09 AM
I can understand you thinking that their utopian idea would be a good thing. The problem is: there has never been a "peoples revolution" that actually worked out for the people.