tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post824438491603946286..comments2024-03-29T09:14:53.583+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Debating the Russian RevolutionPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-40450997044429113602007-11-14T12:07:00.000+00:002007-11-14T12:07:00.000+00:00you say there were other alternatives in Russia - ...you say there were other alternatives in Russia - but what were they?<BR/><BR/>you didn't read the link did you ?<BR/><BR/>Ratner assserts that <BR/><BR/>"Firstly, that Lenin’s April Theses that set the Bolshevik party on the road to the October insurrection had been rejected by the party. Let us recall that up till Lenin’s arrival in Petrograd, the Bolshevik leadership was pursuing a policy of critical support for the Provisional government. They felt this was consistent with the view that since the Russian bourgeoisie was incapable of bringing about a bourgeois revolution, this task would have to be carried out by the proletariat supported by the peasantry, but that the revolution could not go immediately beyond the stage of establishing a bourgeois republic. In February, the Petrograd proletariat had carried out this "bourgeois revolution" with the support of the peasant soldiers. Now that the bourgeois republic was in place, the next stage was not the immediate struggle for working-class power, but a relatively prolonged period of bourgeois democracy. Lenin now abandoned this view which he had himself defended under the slogan of "the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry", and argued for no support for the Provisional Government, and for agitation for power to the Soviets. He swung the Bolshevik party to this policy. But it was not inevitable that he should have done. The Bolshevik party might have continued its policy of critical support for and pressure on the February regime.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, even after his steering the party on its new course, Lenin had to fight again in October to commit the party to insurrection against the opposition of Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc. It is not inconceivable that Zinoviev and Kamenev might have carried the day. Then there would have been no October.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, even after October there was, as I have pointed out, a very real possibility of a coalition Bolshevik-Menshevik-SR government, based either on the Soviets or a combination of the Constituent Assembly and the Soviets as organs of local power and administration. This possibility foundered against the mutual intransigence of the Bolshevik hardliners on one side and the Menshevik and SR right-wing on the other. But in both camps there were conciliatory wings, the Menshevik Internationalists and some Left SRs and the Bolshevik "moderates" – Kamenev, Rykov, Nogin, etc."<BR/><BR/>You say <BR/><BR/>"You would place democratic demands on the bourgeois state, such as the convening of a constituent assembly, while recognising the organisation of soviets were a far higher, more democratic mode of government which actually empowered those who participated in them."<BR/><BR/>Yet <BR/><BR/>Four days after seizing power, the Bolshevik Council of People's Commissars (CPC or Sovnarkom) "unilaterally arrogated to itself legislative power simply by promulgating a decree to this effect. This was, effectively, a Bolshevik coup d'etat that made clear the government's (and party's) pre-eminence over the soviets and their executive organ. Increasingly, the Bolsheviks relied upon the appointment from above of commissars with plenipotentiary powers, and they split up and reconstituted fractious Soviets and intimidated political opponents." [Neil Harding, Leninism, p. 253] <BR/><BR/>you say "It remains to the SPGB's eternal shame that you failed to support, even critically, the concrete struggle for democratic rights in Russia in 1917"<BR/><BR/>We said "...it will remain on record that when members of the working class took control of affairs in Russia, they conducted themselves with vastly greater humanity,managed social and economic matters with greater ability and success and with largely reduced pain and suffering, than any section of the cunning, cowardly, ignorant capitalist class were able to do, with all the numerous advantages they possessed.<BR/><BR/>http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/archive/revolution%281918%29.pdf<BR/><BR/> you say :- "The Russian Revolution can only be regarded as premature in hindsight."<BR/><BR/>then say " you had the situation of the bourgeois provisional government backed up by ostensibly socialist organisations in the Soviets who, like yourselves, believed a move over to workers power was premature." <BR/><BR/>No hindsight from them then . <BR/>Martov ridiculed the Bolsheviks for their belief that revolutions were ready to break out everywhere, for their belief that workers and peasants, by embracing Soviets could establish Socialism. He held the Marxian view that no political form can enable Socialism to be won, unless the material conditions are ripe for such a change, unless capitalism has reached a high degree of development.<BR/><BR/>And a view that Lenin himself accepted . It is a matter of the proof of the pudding is in the eating . Which analysis has proved the more accurate by the subsequent events that unfurled after the the Russian Revolution . <BR/><BR/>Your parting final shot should be redirected to the Bolshevik-Trotskyists who insist that only the intellegensia of the vanguard party are capable of socialist consciousness , mere workers can only achieve trade union consciousness .<BR/><BR/>As for being divorced from class politics as a party of less than 400 , we do not have the arrogance to offer ourselves as leaders , nor do we have the dishonesty of practicing entryism and infiltration of workers movements . <BR/><BR/> .ajohnstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09874891810770297962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-29848526479388159212007-11-14T10:07:00.000+00:002007-11-14T10:07:00.000+00:00@AJohnstone, The Russian Revolution can only be re...@AJohnstone, The Russian Revolution can only be regarded as premature in hindsight. The one point you don't engage with, and neither did Pat on the night, was the belief among the Bolsheviks that the October revolution would herald the beginning of a generalised *European* revolution. This hope unfortunately wasn't borne out.<BR/><BR/>On your other point, you say there were other alternatives in Russia - but what were they? With the establishment of dual power in February, you had the situation of the bourgeois provisional government backed up by ostensibly socialist organisations in the Soviets who, like yourselves, believed a move over to workers power was premature. After the return of Lenin from exile, the one party who followed your advice of fighting for "the acquisition of democratic political rights by the working class" were the Bolsheviks!<BR/><BR/>Now, in conditions of dual power, how would you go about this fight? You would place democratic demands on the bourgeois state, such as the convening of a constituent assembly, while recognising the organisation of soviets were a far higher, more democratic mode of government which actually empowered those who participated in them. As the bourgeois government proved incapable of instituting democratic demands, and covertly encouraged counterrevolutionary forces, it would fall to socialists to stand with soviet power and encourage it to assume greater powers.<BR/><BR/>Now, this might not have unfolded according to the preconditions set down by the SPGB, but history does have a habit of being rather messy. Standing for democratic rights of the Russian working class in 1917 meant defending and extending soviet power. Once power was taken by the soviets and the Bolshevik-Left SR coalition installed, they had a duty to preserve soviet power from the forces of counterrevolution, which is exactly what happened. It is a tragedy the tumult of counterrevolution and civil war destroyed this power, but under siege the spread of soviet power was never given the chance to peacefully unfold. <BR/><BR/>It remains to the SPGB's eternal shame that you failed to support, even critically, the concrete struggle for democratic rights in Russia in 1917, just as your party stands condemned today for collectively divorcing the fight for a socialist society from the actual processes of class struggle.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-86646759162280760882007-11-13T03:56:00.000+00:002007-11-13T03:56:00.000+00:00Nope , not political abstentia because the SPGB po...Nope , not political abstentia because the SPGB position is support for the acquisition of democratic political rights by the working class as a pre-condition for socialism and therefore support for the February Revolution ( just as we expressed support for the Russian workers in 1905 ) , but not the Bolshevik coup d'etat of October which denied the working class its power , replacing it by Party Power.<BR/><BR/>There is an interesting take on the Russian Revolution by a Trotskyist Harry Ratner - premature and diseased from infancy - not too different from the SPGB analysis .<BR/> http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Ratner/Prematur.html<BR/><BR/>There were alternatives to the Bolshevik Takeover which "...infected the working-class movement internationally, and proved an obstacle on the road to socialism."ajohnstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09874891810770297962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-36965277697395054882007-11-12T21:03:00.000+00:002007-11-12T21:03:00.000+00:00I think it was a Chinese communist (may have Mao h...I think it was a Chinese communist (may have Mao himself) who asked about the french revolution said: "Its too soon to tell."<BR/><BR/>Could the same be true for the Russian Revolution too?Seánhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02062840073086386286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-54058451788980507492007-11-12T04:37:00.000+00:002007-11-12T04:37:00.000+00:00"need the Russian workers have bothered? The SPGB ...<I>"need the Russian workers have bothered? The SPGB answered no. What this amounts to in practice is revolutionary abstention from struggles that don't meet its strict criteria..."</I><BR/><BR/>We could also ask:need the Cubans or Venezuelans have bothered? Some say-- not with a Castro or a Chavez at the helm .<I> What this amounts to in practice is revolutionary abstention from struggles that don't meet their strict criteria...</I>Dave Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05319742357589026156noreply@blogger.com