Olentzero and Guinastasia on the Russian Revolution

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
Look, the point I’m trying to make is that extremes-whether all the way to the right, or all the way to the left-are NOT good. If there is one thing I am against, it’s extremists. What Lenin did was create a new oligarchy of the proletariats-did I spell that one right?

In a situation of social crisis, and Russia during the First World War was in such a situation, extremes are going to come to the fore. To try to straddle the gap between them and maintain a conciliatory course becomes impossible. I just finished reading a chapter from a book called Lenin and the Revolutionary Party by a man named Paul Leblanc, and this paragraph is indeed a fine explanation:

[Diane Koenker] finds it natural that the Bolsheviks would enjoy only minority support within the working class in the first few months of the revolution (after February - O.) when the prevailing sentiment was for national unity and thus ran counter to the Bolsheviks’ class-focused perspective. But gradually this situation changed: “Capitalists began to behave as Marx said they would: no concessions to the workers, no compromise on the rights of factory owners. (Emphasis mine. -O.) Mensheviks and SRs tried to straddle both sides of the class split; this appeal can be seen in the mixed social composition of their supporters. The Bolsheviks, however, had offered the most consistent class interpretation of the revolution, and by late summer their interpretation appeared more and more to correspond to reality.”

Society reached an impasse. It cannot be expected that both sides will give; if one is intransigent the other one must be as well in order to defend itself.

Let me point out that both Nicholai and Lenin meant well. Nikolai especially WAS a good man, but not equipped to rule such a country as Russia-the very system was hopelessly antiquated.

So what made his predecessors any more suited to rule? If the system itself was antiquated, then perhaps it has nothing to do with how well suited for governing the head of state happens to be.

**His main problems were his insecurity, and his prejudices-given to him by his tutor, Pobedonostev, a true bigot, a narrow-minded bastard, if ever there was one. **

I would be highly surprised if Pobedonostsev were the only person in close personal contact with Nikolai that held such narrow-minded views. Would Aleksandr III have allowed his son to be tutored by Pobedonostsev if he were of liberal mind himself?

However, there are a few things that MIGHT have made things better- IF Nikolai had not abdicated in favor of his brother, but instead for his son, Alexei. The Duma was fully prepared for this, and most would have welcomed this change.

The war devastated Russia - remember Nikolai was forced into abdication as a result of upheaval that started with riots over the price of bread. A kinder, gentler Romanov would not have had the power to prevent such social crises.

Yes, Alexei DID have hemophilia. BUT, his uncle, Mikhail Alexandrovich, would have been Regent-and Mikhail was much more progressive and liberal minded than his brother. Mikhail would also have had the support of the army, as he was a war hero and a general at the front.

And the army was much like Russian society at the time - the minority of officers enjoying privileges and demanding obedience on a level most modern armies would barely tolerate. Also, support for a war hero doesn’t last long if the army constantly finds itself getting ground up in pointless battles.

He did not trust the nobility-THAT much I can tell you as fact. If he hated the peasants, he would not have relied so much on Rasputin-as damaging at that was, he saw Rasputin as one of the TRUE Russians. The petty nobility and upper classes disgusted him and his wife. One of his problems was, ironically, the man was too soft, too gentle and meek. He didn’t want to hurt feelings, or cause distress, and so often he would appear sneaky-because no one realized after a meeting that they had been dismissed. He was stern enough to be an absolute autocrat. BUT, he had been brought up to believe that to not do so would be practically a sin-against Russia and against God. I’m not defending or agreeing with that, but stating fact.

I know next to nothing about Nikolai as a person save from some diary entries I read once in some history or another - the man certainly seemed disconnected from much of what went on around him. That doesn’t excuse him from anything; he was not a figurehead monarch at the apex of a constitutional and democratic government. He ruled directly through his ministers over a repressive autocracy and bears full responsibility for the results.

As well as my belief that we cannot judge people by today’s standards and then criticize them for failing to meet our standards-we have to look on them as the mood was when they lived.

True. Even by those standards Nikolai failed miserably.

The Russian Revolution-whose fault was it? In my true belief, it was the fault of no one and everyone. No one can solely be blamed for such a huge complicated system and series of events.

You cannot say that social catastrophe is anyone’s ‘fault’. The world is full of material contradictions, and sooner or later those contradictions inevitably erupt into crisis and conflict regardless of people’s efforts. In these crises there will be people who try to pull things backward and there will be people who try to push things forward. The big mistake is to try to mediate between the two; if that kind of balance were still possible there wouldn’t be any crisis in the first place.

Nor can Lenin be ENTIRELY blamed for being ruthless-since a certain kind of hardness is needed when dealing with such a situation.

Of course. But what lay at the base of this “ruthlessness”? A tiny minority determined to push its vision on an unwilling populace or the broad support of Russia’s population?

HOWEVER, a tyranny or control of an entire nation by one class-whether it be peasants, nobility, workers, etc etc, is not going to be a very liberal and free society.

Obviously. In any society where there classes exist, it is axiomatic that one class must dominate the other (or the rest). So we have to ask - what is the goal of this class’ domination? To continue class rule or to eliminate it?

** And it is ironic, that for all the Bolshevik hatred of the bourgeosie (again-spelling?), Lenin was as bourgeosie as they come. He was a nobleman from Simbirsk, his parents were hereditary noblemen, etc etc. He was not a proletariat-he was The Man. Make of that what you will.**

Yeah, it’s ironic that I’m a white Anglo-Saxon (ex-)Protestant and I’ve demonstrated against Nazis, white supremacists and the Klan when they’ve come to town. How does not being from among the oppressed nullify your politics regarding them? Here I think you’re judging Lenin by modern standards. Identity politics, i.e. “you can’t fight against oppression if you’re not one of the people oppressed by it” stems from the 1960s at the earliest.

Lenin’s father, BTW, was the first of his family to earn a title of nobility for his work as a mathematician - his paternal grandfather apparently was a poor tailor from central Asia. I know his maternal grandfather was a well-to-do doctor by the name of Blank, but I have no idea whether he was a nobleman of any sort.

[QuickSilver]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
Biased does not necessarily mean unreliable. As I noted before, I think it likely that the people you knew were so fed up with the official Stalinist line of how Lenin was almost godlike and infallible that the natural reaction was to go to the other extreme and try to prove how politically and personally useless Lenin was.

This is in fact your presumption and a wide generalization.

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
This does not exclude them from laying their hands on correct information; on the other hand it does not mean they will draw correct conclusions either.

And what assurance do we have that your conclusions (based on the evidence you’ve gathered) are indeed the correct ones?

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
Stalinism deserves to be challenged and discredited, but the assumption that Lenin led to Stalin is faulty. Therefore attempts to discredit Lenin because of Stalin are mistaken.

I don’t believe I’ve made that assertion. Though I will now ponder and try to research if any possible connection exists between the two.

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
On the contrary, he had the correct solution. You’re mis-stating the problem. The whole point of the revolution was to deal a blow to the system of capitalism and profits and put the wealth of the world directly into the hands of the people that produced it. Lenin understood very clearly how capitalism worked - both from reading books like Marx’ Capital and from practical experience in dealing with the Russian working class. His idea was to get rid of it, not change it.

I might say the same about Lenin’s and Marx’ understanding of capitalism. Their view was limited by their prejudices as well as their exposure to a particularly exploitive type of capitalism that existed in their era and under Nikolai’s rule. They did not think to correct the capitalism to a more equitable form, nor did they expect capitalism to evolve (as it indeed has). I think it was Lenin (and Marx) who mis-stated the problem. But this is not a debate on the evils/merits of capitalism or socialism. So I don’t want to critique either system any further. They both have their problems to a lesser or greater degree.

I will dig through my archives at home and try to come up with some documented evidence that Lenin was indeed more of an opportunist than a idealistic leader. Of course, one does not necessarily preclude the other.

[Captain_Amazing]

Originally posted by Guinastasia *
** And it is ironic, that for all the Bolshevik hatred of the bourgeosie (again-spelling?), Lenin was as bourgeosie as they come. He was a nobleman from Simbirsk, his parents were hereditary noblemen, etc etc. He was not a proletariat-he was The Man. Make of that what you will.*

In addition to what Olentzero said, I wanted to point out that the Bolsheviks didn’t hate the bourgeosie, or the nobles. (some individuals might have, but…) The Bolsheviks, and in fact all of the socialist parties, were opposed to the system that produced nobility and peasants, factory owners and factory workers. It’s not that nobility=bad and peasant=good, it’s just that in a society based on the exploitation of peasant by nobility, most of the nobility will, out of their own self interest, seek to maintain that. Lenin didn’t.

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by Quicksilver

Originally posted by Olentzero I think it likely that the people you knew were so fed up with the official Stalinist line of how Lenin was almost godlike and infallible that the natural reaction was to go to the other extreme and try to prove how politically and personally useless Lenin was.

This is in fact your presumption and a wide generalization.

Then you should explain to me why your father and his circle of friends wish to assert that Lenin was nothing more than a petty thug.

**And what assurance do we have that your conclusions (based on the evidence you’ve gathered) are indeed the correct ones? **

We don’t. That’s what this debate is for.

I might say the same about Lenin’s and Marx’ understanding of capitalism. Their view was limited by their prejudices as well as their exposure to a particularly exploitive type of capitalism that existed in their era and under Nikolai’s rule.

That view resonated among the majority of the working class during a crisis of capitalism, which Lenin had argued for years beforehand was inherent in the system. I would like to know what Lenin’s prejudices were that limited his view of understanding capitalism.

They did not think to correct the capitalism to a more equitable form, nor did they expect capitalism to evolve (as it indeed has).

Lenin argued that a class-based system, prone to crisis in the first place, could not sustain any sort of equitability for an extended period of time. Eventually conflicts would erupt again. Thus the system didn’t need to be repaired or refurbished, it needed to be replaced.

Captain Amazing, spot on!

[Guinastasia]

Holy SHIT! Did you just say Paul LeBlanc? I had him last semester for British history-he’s a professor at my college! He also taught Russian History-taking over for Dr. Jourin for a semester. Nice guy, although his class was EXTREMELY boring! Okay, enough hijacking-I have research to do.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
Holy SHIT! Did you just say Paul LeBlanc? I had him last semester for British history-he’s a professor at my college! He also taught Russian History-taking over for Dr. Jourin for a semester. Nice guy, although his class was EXTREMELY boring!

His book wasn’t! If you see him again, tell him he’s got a bunch of Reds in Washington DC turned on to his work by the chapter I just quoted. I’m planning on ordering it sometime in the near future.

[Guinastasia]

Hehehe…you want me to see if I can’t get you an autographed copy? I’ll probably run into him sometime next semester. I thought that in the British class we spent too much time on economics-not history. Now, economics are important, but not to the extent where you ignore major cultural, political and social aspects. It was very dry, in my opinion-and the rest of the class except for one guy. We didn’t even discuss the Crimean War, or the problems with Ireland-VERY relevent, I believe! Never really talked about Nelson, or much about the causes of the War or personalities, or anything like that. ANd his quizes were the worst. However, as I haven’t read the book, I can’t really say anything. But he personally is a rather friendly sort-I think he even looks like Lenin!

Hehehee…his colleague, Dr. Brett is my advisor, and I’m more of Dr. Brett’s kind of leftist-a liberal, more about human rights, and such. His emphasis is more on Central America-he and his wife wrote Murdered in Central America-Dr. Edward T. and Donna Brett. He’s more concerned about the rich getting richer and equality, rather than uprising of workers. (not that I’m saying LeBlanc doesn’t care about oppression and stuff…)

Okay, enough…I don’t want to hijack this anymore!

[Lemur866]

Good grief. We actually have people defending the memory of fawking LENIN? The man who instituted a vicious totalitarian dictatorship? The man who had millions rounded up and killed?* The man who abolished freedom of the press?

How can you argue that Leninism didn’t pave the way for Stalinism? Lenin established an absolute totalitarian dictatorship. Exactly how is that not paving the way for Stalin?

And this:

Obviously. In any society where there classes exist, it is axiomatic that one class must dominate the other (or the rest). So we have to ask - what is the goal of this class’ domination? To continue class rule or to eliminate it?

Ah, THAT’S what the bolsheviks were doing! Eliminating class domination! I see. So no matter how many people were tortured and murdered it was all right with you, because they were acting out of good impulses! All for the greater good, for the building of socialism. Disgusting. And the claim that torture and murder weren’t the policies of the Bolsheviks? Pathetic.

Lenin was an evil evil man, right up there with Hitler, Stalin, Al Capone, Mao, Pol Pot, John Wayne Gacy, and Vlad Tepes. He destroyed Russia while pretending to save it. He is responsible for the crushing of Russian civil society that still plagues Russia. He was the first communist dictator and he created the system of communist dictatorships to follow him. Good intentions my ass.

*“Lenin has killed his millions and Stalin his tens of millions”

[John_Corrado]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
Look, the point I’m trying to make is that extremes-whether all the way to the right, or all the way to the left-are NOT good. If there is one thing I am against, it’s extremists. What Lenin did was create a new oligarchy of the proletariats-did I spell that one right?

Yes, he did- which Stalin later degenerated to the oligarchy of the bureaucracy- but in doing so, Lenin gave the average Russian citizen a great deal more say in their own affairs than had ever been present under Nicholas.

Nikolai especially WAS a good man, but not equipped to rule such a country as Russia-the very system was hopelessly antiquated.

Which means what to what? Carter was a good man, but he royally sucked as a President. Franklin Roosevelt was not a particularly good man (infidelity, a penchant for flattery, subterfuge, and out-and-out dishonesty) yet he was a great President. The argument Olentzero is making is, “The system put in place by Lenin was better than the system it replaced”, to which you seem to be replying, “Yeah, but Tsar Nicholas was a good man!” I’m not sure I follow.

He didn’t want to hurt feelings, or cause distress, and so often he would appear sneaky-because no one realized after a meeting that they had been dismissed.

Again- are we here to discuss motives or results? Motives, and we’re just discussing philosophy and there’s nothing more to say- you believe that the enlightened monarch can rule well, and Olentzero feels that Communism can work, and never the twain shall meet. But if we are talking results, then it does not matter how Nicholas felt or what he wanted to do; all that matters is what happened. And for the average Russian citizen, what happened was generally bad, especially when compared to their lives post-war in NEP period. Again, once we talk Stalin, yes, the average peasant’s life got worse (or ended). But we’re talking time of the Revolution, here.

HOWEVER, a tyranny or control of an entire nation by one class-whether it be peasants, nobility, workers, etc etc, is not going to be a very liberal and free society. And it is ironic, that for all the Bolshevik hatred of the bourgeosie (again-spelling?), Lenin was as bourgeosie as they come. He was a nobleman from Simbirsk, his parents were hereditary noblemen, etc etc. He was not a proletariat-he was The Man. Make of that what you will.

? I make nothing of it. Lenin hated the concept of the borguoise (I can’t spell it, either); the fact that his family was borguoise is irrelevant. If he were to advocate freedom for the peasants and communist revolution while running a factory under cruel conditions, then maybe you’d have a point, there.

As for tyranny- the fact is, the promise of the Bolshevik revolution was to destroy the old class structure, and give all power to the proletariat by making everyone a proletariat. Decrying that as ‘tyranny’ is akin to decrying the United States as a tyranny because you can’t vote if you’re not a citizen.

[Olentzero]

John, I was more or less with you up to that last point. The proletariat is a product of class society; the Russian revolution wasn’t intended to make everyone a proletarian but to free everyone from the potential of having to be one.

[John_Corrado]

Olent- I phrased it poorly; my point was, the Communist ideal was to destroy the idea of a class in society. “All power to the proletariat” was less “let the workers subjugate the non-workers” than it was “All power to all the people”.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
And the claim that torture and murder weren’t the policies of the Bolsheviks? Pathetic.

And your evidence to the contrary would be?

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
Hehehe…you want me to see if I can’t get you an autographed copy?

Couldja? I’d have to pay you back 'cos we’re broker 'n shinola right now but it would be pretty cool.

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
*Good grief. We actually have people defending the memory of fawking LENIN? The man who instituted a vicious totalitarian dictatorship? The man who had millions rounded up and killed? The man who abolished freedom of the press?

How can you argue that Leninism didn’t pave the way for Stalinism? Lenin established an absolute totalitarian dictatorship. Exactly how is that not paving the way for Stalin?

**

And of course, the tsars had created and maintained a society of total freedom and democracy, where everyone was allowed to speak and write freely, and no one was imprisoned or killed for his ideas? :rolleyes:

[Guinastasia]

I’ll see what I can do…maybe I could find a copy at a half price store or something…

BTW, if you DO want to get to know more about Nicholas and his family, I suggest the excellent A Lifelong Passion: Nihcolas and Alexandra, Their Own Story edited by Andrei Maylunas and Sergei Mironenko. It is a collection of diaries, letters, memoirs, documents from not only the Tsar and his family and friends but many of their contemporaries.

True, and I concede the man was not a good Tsar. I still say that had he been able to, Kerensky would have better for the people as a whole. They still had no say in their government-I believe Lenin dismissed the elected officials when they weren’t “left” enough for his tastes, or what have you.

However, one thing you have to remember about WHY Kerensky stayed in the war-Russia was hurting and getting help from outside countries-the Allies, who made it perfectly clear that no war, no help. Nothing. Rock and a hard place.

I am not defending the Tsarist system as it was. I’m not an autocrat. But I’d rather have a democratic society that isn’t about censorship and terrorism.

[Guinastasia]

Also, my point is, if Lenin was to criticize the bourgeoisie, and condemning their lives, he was also being something of a hypocrite, was he not? Not TOO much, but right up there.

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**Also, my point is, if Lenin was to criticize the bourgeoisie, and condemning their lives, he was also being something of a hypocrite, was he not? Not TOO much, but right up there. **

No. Lenin couldn’t help the family he was born in. None of us can. Lenin did choose, though, to reject the class role society expected him to play, and chose to work to destroy that system, both in Russia and around the world, so that people wouldn’t have to conform to those invented social roles. I haven’t found any evidence that Lenin thought he was superior because of his birth. So, I don’t see what makes him a hypocrite. Could you explain?

[Lemur866]

*Originally posted by Captain Amazing *
**
And of course, the tsars had created and maintained a society of total freedom and democracy, where everyone was allowed to speak and write freely, and no one was imprisoned or killed for his ideas? :rolleyes: **

(Looks back over post)

Nope, I can’t see a single sentence that implied that the Tsars were anything less than your typical autocratic absolute monarchs. Sure, the Tsars were bastards. That doesn’t mean that the Bolsheviks weren’t 10 times worse. I believe that we can put these things on a rough scale. So, I think Hitler was worse than Mussolini and Franco and Pinochet. Does that mean I think non-genocidal dictators are great? Rolleyes yourself.

Of course Lenin did not overthrow a liberal democratic state. He overthrew an absolute monarchy. We can see the progression from Tsar to Lenin to Stalin…bad to worse to worst. Very easy to understand.

[MEBuckner]

Actually, Lenin overthrew a moderate socialist provisional government (which had inherited and was attempting to carry on waging a deeply unpopular war), which had taken over after the overthrow of the absolute monarchy.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
We can see the progression from Tsar to Lenin to Stalin…bad to worse to worst. Very easy to understand.

Also completely wrong. Stalin was a complete and total reversal of everything Lenin stood for and worked for. A few examples:

The Soviets. Not even an invention of the Bolsheviks (or even uniquely Russian!) - they originally appeared in the Revolution of 1905, disappeared under the ensuing reaction and repression, then resurfaced in 1917 after Nikolai abdicated. Originally they were a true democratic mass organization, giving a voice, and real control over their own lives, to hundreds of thousands of workers. Immediately after February the soviets gave unconditional support to the SRs and the Provisional government (see my quote from LeBlanc above); the Bolsheviks enjoyed little if any support among them. The Bolsheviks understood that in order to successfully stage a revolution they had to win the support of the soviets, which they accomplished through patient explanation and argument, not thuggery and violence. Stalin, on the other hand, made the soviets into nothing more than a rubber-stamp for the CPSU. In short, Lenin worked to make the party responsive to the masses and their representative organs; Stalin made the mass organs bow to the will of the Party.

Women’s rights. Women in Russia were given the right to vote and full access to abortions in 1917. an immediate and direct result of the revolution. Those rights were taken away under Stalin. Lenin argued for the creation and expansion of communal kitchens, nurseries, and kindergartens in order to relieve working women of some of the larger burdens of housework. Stalin, on the other hand, pushed the total burden back onto individual women and glorified the role of the housewife.

Finally, let’s take the example of Zinoviev and Kamenev. In September and October 1917 they were strongly against planning for the uprising (and they were the only two high-ranking members to do so); they even went so far as to leak some of the information to the general press. Lenin argued they should be expelled from the Party for endangering everything, but even this didn’t happen. OTOH, Stalin had Zinoviev at least (I don’t remember the fate of Kamenev at this point) rounded up and shot on a bunch of trumped-up charges.

Lenin did not lead to Stalin. Lenin headed up a revolution that sought to bring democracy on an unheard of scale to the workers of Russia, and by extension the world. Stalin forcibly ripped every shred of democracy out of the workers’ hands and murdered the revolution in its cradle.

Originally posted by Guinastasia
However, one thing you have to remember about WHY Kerensky stayed in the war-Russia was hurting and getting help from outside countries-the Allies, who made it perfectly clear that no war, no help. Nothing. Rock and a hard place.

In other words, Kerensky was much more concerned about the needs and opinions of foreign heads of state than he was about the needs and opinions of the workers of his “beloved Russia”.