Explanation: The February Revolution overthrew the Tsarist government, and implemented, in its place, a socialist-leaning provisional government which scheduled elections for later that year.
The Bolsheviks, wholesome lot that they are, overthrew the socialist Provisional Government in the October/November Revolution, and dissolved the subsequently returned democratically elected legislature, kicking off a ~4 year civil war.
Don’t worry, they paraded themselves as the TRUE anti-Tsarists to future generations, though! 😊
So the tankies have always been at war with the democratic socialists
*kosmonaut points gun at another*
Communists - the leading cause of deaths for communists, anarchists, and socialists alike.
Communists only in name.
We don’t refer to the German National Socialist Workers Party as socialists, they’re Nazis. Or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as democratic, they’re a dictatorship. So why should we refer to the Bolsheviks, or Communist Party of the Soviet Union, as communist when they neither achieved or even attempted to implement communism?
We need to get over this combination of self named propaganda and western cold war propaganda and separate the term communist from the USSR.
Does calling them Soviets solve this? I’ve never liked the anti-communist implications of trashing the corrupt and flawed Soviet system.
Bolsheviks.
Lenin et co actually stripped power from the Soviets (Workers’ Councils), ‘funny’ enough, once the Bolsheviks had overthrown the legislature.
they neither achieved or even attempted to implement communism?
They did try to implement it, though. Or rather they started a transformation (i.e. collectivization, de-kulakization, etc) of society that they thought was necessary for communism. Say what you want about Lenin, Stalin and co. (and there’s a lot to be said), they were true believers in the stuff they were selling. It’s absolutely fair to call them communist.
They did try to implement it, though. Or rather they started a transformation (i.e. collectivization, de-kulakization, etc) of society that they thought was necessary for communism.
… yet it’s “generous” to describe the provisional government which was dominated by socialist parties as socialist leaning?
Say what you want about Lenin, Stalin and co. (and there’s a lot to be said), they were true believers in the stuff they were selling. It’s absolutely fair to call them communist.
Stalin’s position as a true believer is dubious at best.
Stalin’s position as a true believer is bonkers!
Lenin there could be an argument for, although I think he was just a very clever manipulator that used the guise of being on the side of the people to gain power. But there’s at least a debate to be had there.
But Stalin?! Aye, that’s bollocks.
I talked about Stalin in my reply to Pug so I’ll stick to Lenin here: Your framing is only possible in hindsight. Remember that Lenin was a Bolshevik back when it was the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party, a full 20 years before the revolution. He was expelled from university for getting into radical student politics before Nicholas II even took the throne. Same as Stalin—but even more so due to being from a wealthy and prestigious family with lots of opportunity for social advancement—if he wasn’t a true believer he could’ve done literally anything with his life. Painting evil mass murderers as fakes is appealing, but in this case it doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny; both had already been committed radicals for way too long by the time of the revolution.
Your framing is only possible in hindsight.
No, plenty of people at the time condemned Lenin as a hypocrite without any real principles and a tyrant-in-waiting.
if he wasn’t a true believer he could’ve done literally anything with his life. Painting evil mass murderers as fakes is appealing, but in this case it doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny; both had already been committed radicals for way too long by the time of the revolution.
Are there any major mass murderers who came to power, rather than inheriting it (literally or effectively) who weren’t true believers by your criteria?
Stalin’s position as a true believer is dubious at best.
I mean he certainly didn’t believe in democracy, but the way the economy of the USSR was run was the most communist thing the world had ever seen by that point (that lasted longer than three years). The communism s mixed with Stalin’s authoritarianism, bigotry and paranoia, but there’s no way collectivization and the five year plans were anything but (preparation for) communism. Besides, Stalin was a Bolshevik from when they were robbing banks to fund their activities, so it’s not like he joined for the upward mobility. If he wasn’t a true believer he could’ve been doing literally anything else with his life.
I mean he certainly didn’t believe in democracy, but the way the economy of the USSR was run was the most communist thing the world had ever seen by that point (that lasted longer than three years).
What the ever-loving fuck.
This… this is the same ‘communist’ economy which openly declared that one-man direction in the workplace was the founding principle of socialism?
The communism s mixed with Stalin’s authoritarianism, bigotry and paranoia, but there’s no way collectivization and the five year plans were anything but (preparation for) communism.
Because they… reduced peasants and proletariat into the position of effective serfdom under a bureaucratic despotism not dissimilar to pre-modern regimes like Confucian China…?
That’s… that’s what preparation for communism looks like to you?
“It’s not capitalist so it must be on the way to communism” is not a very good lens with which to view economics.
Besides, Stalin was a Bolshevik from when they were robbing banks to fund their activities, so it’s not like he joined for the upward mobility. If he wasn’t a true believer he could’ve been doing literally anything else with his life.
This can’t be fucking serious.
This… this is the same ‘communist’ economy which openly declared that one-man direction in the workplace was the founding principle of socialism?
Yep, exactly those guys. Again he was authoritarian as fuck, but it’s not like the USSR Communists invented authoritarian socialism; that was already a thing by that point. One can be a socialist without believing in democracy.
Because they… reduced peasants and proletariat into the position of effective serfdom under a bureaucratic despotism not dissimilar to pre-modern regimes like Confucian China…?
Premodern China had private property, though, which is the crux of the thing here. Political systems and economic systems influence each other, but in terms of categorization they’re more or less orthogonal.
That’s… that’s what preparation for communism looks like to you?
I mean it’s not my idea of preparation for communism, but it’s an idea of preparation for communism. Industrialization and modernization as prerequisites wouldn’t have been particularly controversial. From there the only logical leap needed is “you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs” and “if we don’t hurry they’ll fucking kill us” (which is basically what happened). Again I don’t agree with the logic, but it does exist and doesn’t outwardly contradict socialist ideas if you’re willing to take a far-more-than-healthy dose of “the ends justify the means.”
This can’t be fucking serious.
…why?
We need to get over this combination of self named propaganda and western cold war propaganda and separate the term communist from the USSR.
That’s like saying you want to start using the swastika as a symbol of the sun. It speaks of extreme ignorance at best.
a socialist-leaning provisional government
That’s… very generous phrasing.
In what way is it generous?
The provisional government was full of socialists who didn’t want to govern and politicians who didn’t want to be socialist, and these two groups only agreed on feeding more Russian (not yet Soviet) bodies into the war machine. I mean socialists only even participated in the provisional government after it became literally impossible to let liberals run the show, which was clearly what they actually wanted. In the end, there was very little socialism to be had in the decisions made by the provisional government, hence my remark. A “socialist” government that refuses to do socialism is indistinguishable from a liberal government, so the provisional government can only be socialist if socialism is a label one puts on things rather than real policies that improve the lives of the working class. And of course one can’t forget that the leader of the government for half of its “socialist” lifetime was… Alexander Kerensky.
The provisional government was full of socialists who didn’t want to govern and politicians who didn’t want to be socialist, and these two groups only agreed on feeding more Russian (not yet Soviet) bodies into the war machine.
… the whole point of the provisional government was to organize elections so that decisions could be made on a democratic basis. I’m sorry you feel that democracy is just an obstacle to a ‘truly’ socialist regime?
The main reason why the war continued was that the Entente threatened to revoke aid to Russia if it pulled out of the war, which would have led to a worsening economic situation in a period when economic hardship was literally what toppled the Tsarist regime.
I mean socialists only even participated in the provisional government after it became literally impossible to let liberals run the show, which was clearly what they actually wanted.
Wow, I didn’t know that socialists being involved since the very beginning of the Provisional Government in fucking March was a sign that they didn’t participate in it. That’s amazing.
In the end, there was very little socialism to be had in the decisions made by the provisional government, hence my remark.
Again, because the provisional government’s purpose was to organize elections. Though I’m sure if they had boldly set forward, the accusations of the Bolsheviks and their defenders would have been precisely that they were acting without a democratic mandate from the workers, in the same way that the Bolsheviks hypocritically banged numerous other drums in 1917, and whose echoes are still heard in the mouths of useful idiots today.
A “socialist” government that refuses to do socialism is indistinguishable from a liberal government so the provisional government can only be socialist if socialism is a label one puts on things rather than real policies that improve the lives of the working class.
… yet a ‘communist’ government which does nothing but create bureaucratized oligarchy and is indistinguishable from a fascist government is ‘absolutely fair’ to call communist?
And of course one can’t forget that the leader of the government for half of its “socialist” lifetime was… Alexander Kerensky.
… the long-time SR politician who is despised and slandered to this day by tankie bootlickers?
I guess his involvement long before socialism was victorious in the Russian Empire doesn’t qualify him as a true believer, unlike the Great Genius Stalin?
… the whole point of the provisional government was to organize elections so that decisions could be made on a democratic basis.
Except for the war, which they evidently never intended to put to a democratic vote (since they intended to only hold them after the war was won).
I’m sorry you feel that democracy is just an obstacle to a ‘truly’ socialist regime?
The existence of a democratic mandate for land reform and ending the war was never in doubt, so the appeal to democracy here rings hollow. However, since we’re already talking about this, let me just quote Engels here:
A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.
- https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
A revolution whose program ends with a constitution and an elected assembly isn’t a socialist revolution; it’s a bourgeois revolution, which is fundamentally flawed for the same reason all bourgeois revolutions are fundamentally flawed. To somewhat repeat myself, the existence of a democratic mandate for bread (or rice depending on where you live), land and liberty is never seriously in doubt, so a revolutionary government doesn’t need a bunch of men in a room to tell it to provide these things in the same way it doesn’t need one to tell it to collect taxes and police cities. I could say a lot more about this, but let’s not.
The main reason why the war continued was that the Entente threatened to revoke aid to Russia if it pulled out of the war, which would have led to a worsening economic situation in a period when economic hardship was literally what toppled the Tsarist regime.
I almost wrote a rebuttal of this argument, but it’s frankly irrelevant to the wider point. No matter the reason, the Provisional Government kept Russians (and other peoples comprising the Russian Empire) in the war against their will. In the end it took a coup by the Bolsheviks to get the things the working class was revolting for.
Again, because the provisional government’s purpose was to organize elections.
And win the war, don’t forget that one. That’s the whole reason the elections took as long as they did.
the accusations of the Bolsheviks and their defenders would have been precisely that they were acting without a democratic mandate from the workers,
I mean, I’m not convinced but sure? Nobody would’ve needed to consider the Bolsheviks’ opinions if the clowns running the provisional government had been running a tighter ship.
… yet a ‘communist’ government which does nothing but create bureaucratized oligarchy and is indistinguishable from a fascist government is ‘absolutely fair’ to call communist?
No offense, but yeah no you have to be kidding here. Soviet rule under Lenin and Stalin was what turned Russia into a developed country. Virtually every indicator of a modern (for the time period) quality of life exploded. The idea that they did “nothing but create bureaucratized oligarchy” is simply not a serious historical position, and if you seriously believe that you should get back to studying. This is a position not worth debating.
… the long-time SR politician who is despised and slandered to this day by tankie bootlickers?
See above. Kerensky was and remains despised by a lot more than tankie bootlickers for being an incompetent, self-important twat—in fact I’m surprised there’s anyone who doesn’t despise him. Either way he kept Russia in the war for four crucial months, so he deserves to be despised for that alone. Bolsheviks don’t take power without a great idiot like Kerensky at the helm.
I guess his involvement long before socialism was victorious in the Russian Empire doesn’t qualify him as a true believer, unlike the Great Genius Stalin?
I never said he wasn’t a true believer. I don’t know if he was, and frankly don’t care too much. Whatever principles he might’ve had only excuse his conduct as much as Stalin’s do his—which is to say not at all.
Except for the war, which they evidently never intended to put to a democratic vote (since they intended to only hold them after the war was won).
What the ever-loving fuck are you talking about?
The elections were held in 1917. The elections were being held as the Bolsheviks committed their coup.
In the end it took a coup by the Bolsheviks to get the things the working class was revolting for.
Civil war, the destruction of both ‘bourgeois’ democracy and the workers’ Soviets, and mass starvation???
To somewhat repeat myself, the existence of a democratic mandate for bread (or rice depending on where you live), land and liberty is never seriously in doubt, so a revolutionary government doesn’t need a bunch of men in a room to tell it to provide these things in the same way it doesn’t need one to tell it to collect taxes and police cities. I could say a lot more about this, but let’s not.
Are you fucking stupid?
This is the most idiotic, juvenile conception of governance I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a lot of really bad fucking takes on here. “Just do it, how hard could it be?” Yes, people want bread and peace, but how you deliver both matters (as seen by Brest-Litovsk immediately igniting a fucking civil war), and that’s exactly fucking why governance is so fucking difficult; not only that, but delivering either is not guaranteed equally by every course of action, and god fucking help you if you waste resources autocratically deciding on a course of action that doesn’t end up panning out. Government doesn’t just say “We are now making 100 bread for the people, starvation will now end”, this isn’t a fucking video game.
Not only that, but it is immensely fascist in its conception of the will of the people able to expressed by Very Attuned Individuals who work without any input other than the notion of ‘common sense’ of doing ‘what the people want’.
You might as well fucking quote the Doctrine of Fascism. Jesus fucking Christ, man.
And win the war, don’t forget that one. That’s the whole reason the elections took as long as they did.
“There’s no way that a brand new government making an electoral system that radically departs from the previous one across the largest country on earth at the time with 1917 technology could have decided that implementing polling stations would have taken a whole seven months!”
Jesus fucking Christ.
No offense, but yeah no you have to be kidding here. Soviet rule under Lenin and Stalin was what turned Russia into a developed country. Virtually every indicator of a modern (for the time period) quality of life exploded.
Would you like to compare the ‘explosion’ of those indicators to other countries of the period of like low developmental status? Go ahead.
I never said he wasn’t a true believer. I don’t know if he was, and frankly don’t care too much. Whatever principles he might’ve had only excuse his conduct as much as Stalin’s do his—which is to say not at all.
You literally fucking said that it wasn’t fair to say Stalin wasn’t a communist, because he was a true believer, despite all the fascist fucking shit he got up to, but simultaneously say Kerensky doesn’t deserve to be called even socialist-leaning, regardless of whether he was a true believer.
The idea that they did “nothing but create bureaucratized oligarchy” is simply not a serious historical position, and if you seriously believe that you should get back to studying. This is a position not worth debating.
So “It’s okay if it’s a fascist government which implements bureaucratized oligarchy if the economy improves”?
Are you fucking serious?
Would you like to raise your right arm for a “Heil Hitler” next? Or say Mussolini made the trains run on time? Jesus fucking Christ.
This is an absolutely horrific and outright fascist position you’re taking. I did not expect this even when this started with a defense of Stalin as a true believer.
Due to its use of live rounds, it is thought more people were shot making Eisenstein’s frenetic 1928 film recreation than the actual revolution, which observers described as “bloodless” in St Petersberg with no gunshots heard by several international observers.
