Olentzero and Guinastasia on the Russian Revolution

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
When confronted with it, Olentzero just starts talking about context, that catch-all concept that allows you to excuse any behaviour.

As I have already stated:

I do not excuse the actions of the Bolsheviks through the claim that their ultimate goal was the achievement of an egalitarian and stateless society.

Revolutions are excess. Fundamentally changing society is a drastic step that doesn’t allow for halfway measures. The American Revolution displaced Loyalist families, forcing them to flee to Canada. The French Revolution was a literal bloodbath for its first few years, as has been pointed out - whether it was in this thread or in your Pit thread I don’t remember offhand. It certainly would be nice if everybody could just get along nice and happy and move forward to peace and harmony without anyone getting so much as a paper cut, but the fact is that class societies inevitably throw opposing classes into social, economic, and ultimately political conflict. Changing society is a fight, and sometimes those fights get vicious.

When Olentzero challenged my claim that Lenin ordered the executions of thousands of members of the clergy, I provided several corroborating sources. He did not have an answer.

Gee, sorry, I actually took some time to be with my family las tweekend and then took some time to read your sources. :rolleyes:

Out of the two sources that actually deal with the persecution of the clergy, nowhere does it state that 8,000 members of the clergy were executed. Of course there is one sentence in which it is stated that 12,000 were “allegedly” shot - but there’s that troublesome term ‘allegedly’. Usually it means “I’ve seen that number in another source but he doesn’t substantiate it at all or, at least, to my satisfaction.” In fact, your first source can only account for 56 or 57 members of the clergy executed at the hands of the Bolsheviks. (Not that I agree with them burying that bishop alive, if indeed that happened.)

The main question remains: Under what conditions does mass murder become acceptable?

Mass murder is never acceptable. But in a situation of war plenty of “moral imperatives” get pushed to the side. (“Thou shalt not kill” being one of them.) Was the measure of hanging the hundred kulaks and rich something we should take unabashed pleasure in? Of course not. Was it something necessary to make a point to those who opposed the revolution and had a real stake in its overturn? I believe so. I also note that Lenin specified “kulaks and rich” in his letter as opposed to “the first hundred people you can lay your hands on”. And again, this was to make a point to the active counter-revolutionaries and the people who sided with them, not the Russian population as a whole.

As for forcibly starving the peasantry, the best I can find in your sources to back up that claim is one assertion from a colonel heading up a relief effort that “all Russian ports and rail lines were crammed with food and supplies, awaiting Soviet transportation into Russia.” Where? How much? When? Those questions aren’t answered. It’s not sufficent evidence for me - although I will definitely see what I can find in the references I have access to.

“What about the famine?” you ask. The bulk of that argument is merely your assertion that the Bolsheviks came to power first, then the famine happened. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. After this, therefore because of this. Again, not good enough. I do not dispute your figures regarding industrial output in 1920, but again remember that personal income in 1913 was incredibly low to begin with, and both income and output were obliterated by the war effort. The economic causes of the famine had sunk roots years before the revolution.

Originally posted by QuickSilver
This has a remarkably striking similarity to many of the fundamentalist witnessing posts we get here on a regular basis. In fact it’s verbatim if you simply replace “Commie Bastard” with “Born again Christian”. (FriendOfGod being the most recent that comes to mind.)

I suppose there is a real strength of conviction behind my arguments, but I resent the implication that I consider everyone I’m arguing with as utterly ignorant and blind fools.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but isn’t what you are doing simply add up to witnessing to us about the merrits of socialism and it’s idols? D’ya think?

That’s a good question. What, to you, is the difference between expounding a point of view and “witnessing”? As far as I’m concerned, I started this thread to lay out the debate on the Russian Revolution and to try to answer arguments about it from a socialist perspective. But I may have an agenda I keep hidden even from myself; if you can point it out I’d be obliged.

Also, the fact that you refuse to accept our sources of information as biased, and then admit that your sources are equally biased does not contribute to the debate in the least. It just adds up to a huge pissing contest about who can pile up more sources without the slimmest chance of the opposing side accepting them.

OK, let’s clarify. I have so far not rejected anything actually written by Lenin, have I? Only whatever sources have been written about Lenin, and that, at least as far as I remember, not without answering with sources of my own. I’m trying not to say “You’re wrong because you’re on the opposite side of the argument”, but to say “I believe your conclusions are wrong, and here are some arguments from other sources that I think adequately explain why.”

**The rest of us look at the data and say:

1)Lenin and the Bolsheviks murdered thousands of innocent people to accomplish their fundamentally flawd goals.
2)Lenin’s political system paved the way for Stalin and his attocities.
3)Replacing the cruel monarchy of Nikolai with the cruel tyrrany of communism was not the lesser of the two evils.**

And the fundamental incorrectness of all three conclusions is why I started this thread in the first place. The third one especially sticks in my craw because I’ve never justified, or explained my support of, the Russian Revolution by saying “Well, if we have to have someone oppress us and make our lives miserable, it might as well be the Bolsheviks.”

[QuickSilver]

Look Olentz -

I appreciate the level of passion you are devoting to your beliefs - misguided though they are. I even commend you for your academic treatment of the subject - though you only approach it from a pro-socialist angle.

But can we agree at least on this one simple and basic thing?..

If Lenin had been successful in his political phylosophies and if socialism/communism lent itself well to human nature, then we would no be having this discussion. We would all be sitting around a communal table in a state owned pub drinking prolitariat vodka and toasting the great forefathers’ wisdom. But one fact remains true to this day and that is - no real attempt at large scale socialism has ever worked and every such attempt quickly descended into tyrrany.

Now yes, the loyalists ran off to Canada but few people today villify the US for revolting against the British. Why? Because the system that the American forefathers established allowed maximum freedom to the individual under the given circumstances. Not right away, not to everyone at once and not very quickly - certainly not a perfect solution. But one that is ultimately working and has succeeded in catching on in many parts of the world because it lends itself well to prevailing human nature.

So humanity, due to it’s inherent wisdom (or ignorance depending on how you choose to look at it) has overwhelimingly declared one socio-political system more workable than the other. To support this claim we must only look at attrocities commited in the name of socialism and communism. They were commited by tyrranical leaders who were as much a product of this Marxist-Engles ideal as the millions upon millions of deaths which resulted in these despots trying to maintain this ideal.

Now you may deny that “real” communism ever existed. You may deny that “real” communist leaders would not resort to this kind of genocide. You may deny lots of things to protect your precious phylosophy. But what you cannot deny is that human society is not something you can experiment with in isolation and under ideal conditions. Marxism expects an organism to function according to very strict and globally beneficial rules. But the human organism is not built to function that way. The human organism did not evolve to function that way on a global scale. It can just barely function that way in the context of the smallest village/tribe. Thus communism is a counter social structure which does not lend itself well to human nature.

Now if there is anyone we should be trying to dig up and line up against the wall to be shot it’s Marx and Engles. Those bastards caused more grief in the world…

[Guinastasia]

I can say firmly and without reservation: the history of Europe knows no dictatorship more reactionary, more absolute, more disastrous for the people and the country than the dictatorship of the bolsheviks.

• Alexander Feodorovich Kerensky, The Crucifixion of Liberty, pg 17, 1934.

So to him [Lenin] Marx became preeminently the preacher of relentless civil war between classes and the demolisher of bourgeois morality-in other words, of all morality-because it was a precept which he accepted as a guiding principle throughout his revolutionary career that ‘only that is moral to a revolutionary which helps the revolution; all that hinders it is immoral and criminal.’

-Kerensky, pg 52.

In other words, let’s take an EXTREME view that the only thing that is moral is what BENEFITS my cause-all else is immoral-sounds a lot like something Ayn Rand might say.

Kerensky goes on to state that Lenin would look on with contempt at the humanitarian movement of the intelligentsia to help the people-to aide the oppressed and disadvantaged. Kerensky quotes Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov, that “all the social harmony of the future cannot justify ‘a tear shed by one single tormented baby.’”

Lenin, however, was very little disturbed by children’s tears. On the contrary. For the sake of victory in the “class war,” for the sake of the revolutionary triumph, he not only thought a flood of children’s tears permissible, but even found it useful. …Witness the year 1891… There was a failure of crops in the Volga region; lack of foresight and criminal neglect on the part of the government led to famine. (pg 53)
…As it happened, a young lawyer, Vladimir Ulianov…was in Samara in 1891. He stood up alone at relief meetings and conferences in opposition to the “social” “charity” proposals: a famine was good, he maintained, because it incensed the peasants against the government, and, therefore, advanced their political education, bringing the Revolution nearer.

-Kerensky, pg 54

In other words-Lenin did not want a revolution to make things better-he wanted Revolution for Revolution’s sake. Any attempt to MAKE life better, or more free was met with hostility, because then the people wouldn’t support him. A very telling thing, to me. You would think that someone who is truly working to make a better society would welcome any and all efforts to make things better-but not Lenin. He only wanted things his way-and if it happened that people were miserable, so much the better-that would make them support his cause.

Sounds pretty Machiavellian to me.

[Olentzero]

QuickSilver - I refer you to my original post:

** People are welcome to join the discussion; my only request is that we keep on the subject of the October Revolution itself and not on the philosophical strengths or shortcomings of socialism and communism in general.**

Kindly keep to the subject.

Originally posted by Guinastasia
In other words, let’s take an EXTREME view that the only thing that is moral is what BENEFITS my cause-all else is immoral

How is that extreme? People have always defined what is beneficial to their cause as moral. The matter lies in finding out what is actually beneficial to the cause, and what is not.

As it happened, a young lawyer, Vladimir Ulianov…was in Samara in 1891. He stood up alone at relief meetings and conferences in opposition to the “social” “charity” proposals: a famine was good, he maintained, because it incensed the peasants against the government, and, therefore, advanced their political education, bringing the Revolution nearer.

Lenin in 1891 was far different than Lenin in 1917. Years of political experience taught him that suffering should not be hoped for in order to further the cause of the revolution, nor would it really teach the working class and the peasants to fight back. Kerensky looks at Lenin at the very beginning of his political career and thinks that nothing whatsoever changed in the intervening 30 years. He’s wrong.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by QuickSilver *
I even commend you for your academic treatment of the subject - though you only approach it from a pro-socialist angle.

Patronization aside, does my approach therefore invalidate my arguments?

[Guinastasia]

But, while something may benefit me, does that make it moral?

For example-slavery certainly benefited the economy in the South, but that did not make it moral.

[Guinastasia]

Not to mention that, yes, Lenin may have changed-however, he still seemed to view things like famine, war and misery to be favorable to his plans.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
But, while something may benefit me, does that make it moral?

If the whole point of your existence, in your opinion, is that you need to gain whatever benefit you can for yourself, then whatever you can do to benefit yourself is indeed moral. Thus the Southern plantation owners, looking to turn a tidy profit from the planting and selling of cotton, saw nothing immoral in slavery since it accomplished just that - at minimal cost to themselves.

Morals are not absolute - they come from the material conditions of humanity. What makes something moral in a person’s eyes is whether or not it accomplishes the end or goal they have set for themselves. Those goals, furthermore, become means to another goal, and so on.

The execution of clergy cannot and should not be justified simply by the ultimate goal of a stateless society founded on universal equality. But it can be justified by the argument that this backwards, reactionary force should be fought against so as to break its grip on the minds of the people, freeing them to approach the world in a more rational and critical manner - therefore enabling them to understand and thus better control the world around them.
If they had not declared themselves openly hostile to cooperation with the Bolsheviks in famine relief, it is doubtful things would have gone to that extreme.

Not to mention that, yes, Lenin may have changed-however, he still seemed to view things like famine, war and misery to be favorable to his plans.

Not in general. Disasters in and of themselves at best did not spur people to fight back, and at worst thrust them deeper into despair. The only way to spur the populace on was through action - especially action that showed them they themselves had the ability to fight.

Yes, Lenin did use the famine as an opportunity to strike a blow against a reactionary religion that still exercised a grip over the minds of people, but he did not think that the famine or other disaster was the only proper situation in which to do so.

[Guinastasia]

He didn’t think it was the only proper thing to do-but he WELCOMED such things. Why would anyone welcome a famine? Well, if it turned people to his side, more the better.

[Olentzero]

Do you have cites for that?

I’d really love to see something that says Lenin welcomed the famine in 1921.

[QuickSilver]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
How is that extreme? People have always defined what is beneficial to their cause as moral. The matter lies in finding out what is actually beneficial to the cause, and what is not.

I agree, it is not extreme. But quite often the real judge of what is moral and what is not is historic evidence and ultimate results of such actions. It is generally agreed (at least by most participants in this thread) that Lenin’s policies lead to disasterous consequences for Soviet society. Why must we continue to try to view this from an obviously single minded frame of reference (meaning Lenin’s)?

As a simple mental exercise I can certainly place myself in Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Pol Pot’s or Iddi Amin Dada’s frame of reference, but why? To what end? To try to understand and justify why they did what they did? How is that fruitful in any academic sense? Sure, each one was acting out of self interest. So what? Why must we attempt to justify Lenin’s action’s as necessary evils? - Because he had such lofty goals and ideals?

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
He’s wrong.

How is he wrong? Lenin did not issue orders of executions of kulaks and clergy for purposes of “making an example” until the time of the revolution. Or are we still trying to frame these orders into some kind of revolutionary context?

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by QuickSilver *
I agree, it is not extreme. But quite often the real judge of what is moral and what is not is historic evidence and ultimate results of such actions.

But that historic evidence isn’t ‘just there’; it needs to be analyzed and understood as well.

It is generally agreed (at least by most participants in this thread) that Lenin’s policies lead to disasterous consequences for Soviet society. Why must we continue to try to view this from an obviously single minded frame of reference (meaning Lenin’s)?

Because I don’t agree, and I believe I have, or can find, sufficient evidence and argument to defend the point.

Why must we attempt to justify Lenin’s action’s as necessary evils? - Because he had such lofty goals and ideals?

Let’s play a little game, shall we? I call it “Attribute the Quote”. I’m going to give you a list of quotes from this thread, and I want you to tell me who said them. OK?

I do not excuse the actions of the Bolsheviks through the claim that their ultimate goal was the achievement of an egalitarian and stateless society.

The execution of clergy (and other measures under discussion) cannot and should not be justified simply by the ultimate goal of a stateless society founded on universal equality.

Once you’ve done that, think about the question you just asked.

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
He’s wrong.

How is he wrong? Lenin did not issue orders of executions of kulaks and clergy for purposes of “making an example” until the time of the revolution. Or are we still trying to frame these orders into some kind of revolutionary context? **
[/QUOTE]

If Kerensky was right, Lenin should have been arguing for mass executions of the clergy right from the time he started becoming politically active. It should have been a consistent thread throughout his political life. Instead, he undertook this measure at a specific time when famine relief was urgently needed and the Russian Orthodox Church (and, if my understanding of Sam’s source is correct, the Roman Catholic Church in Russia) had openly declared themselves hostile to the Soviet government and their efforts at coordinating famine relief.

While this action falls under the broader program of combating religion, it was not something that is an essential component of that program and would not have happened were the situation different, e.g no famine at all or the clergy agreed to sell of some of their valuables in order to raise money for the relief efforts.

[Sam_Stone]

Man, that’s some kind of newspeak you’ve got going there, Olentzero. The church was opposing “The effort to coordinate famine relief”?

I guess if you consider kicking in doors of churches and looting them of sacred relics that had been in their posession for hundreds of years, while shooting the priest who protested, “coordinating famine relief”, yeah, then I guess the church resisted it.

And as I’ve already pointed out, the two main flaws with this theory are that, A)The famine was largely the making of Lenin’s government, and specifically targeted at the peasants (with a broad helping of incompetance to help starve other people), and B)Lenin started killing the clergy before the famine.

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
Lenin in 1891 was far different than Lenin in 1917. Years of political experience taught him that suffering should not be hoped for in order to further the cause of the revolution, nor would it really teach the working class and the peasants to fight back. Kerensky looks at Lenin at the very beginning of his political career and thinks that nothing whatsoever changed in the intervening 30 years. He’s wrong.

No doubt people change. HOWEVER, it would seem from his very actions, that Lenin did indeed-perhaps not ‘welcome’, but view the famine as an advantage.

How did Lenin change? Specifically, when did he say, “I don’t wish for suffering?”

I think the fact that he was glad when the war came in 1914-there is much evidence of this-because it might create an ideal situation for him-speaks volumes.

By extreme, I mean, you start thinking that morals are totally changable-in that anything goes, and there is nothing that is true anymore. Nothing you can depend on-such as stealing is wrong, or you shouldn’t hit your mother, etc etc.

It creates a situation for hypocrisy.

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Man, that’s some kind of newspeak you’ve got going there, Olentzero. The church was opposing “The effort to coordinate famine relief”?

Your own source (britannica.com) confirms this, Sam:

Tikhon, the recently elected patriarch, issued a pastoral letter on i February 1918, anathematizing the Bolsheviks and directing the “faithful children of the Orthodox Church not to enter into any kind of association with these monsters of the human race …”

“Not to enter into any kind of association”. In other words, don’t work with them under any circumstances. Which would mean they weren’t going to work with the Soviet government in coordinating famine relief.

I guess if you consider kicking in doors of churches and looting them of sacred relics that had been in their posession for hundreds of years, while shooting the priest who protested, “coordinating famine relief”, yeah, then I guess the church resisted it.

Your other source goes into some serious detail about the actual process:

1. The management of all ecclesiastical property would be transferred to the local Soviets of Workmen-Peasants Deputies.

2. Representatives of the religious creed, who managed the church and other property, were required to submit, in triplicate, a list of all property intended for use in religious services to the local Soviet of Workmen-Peasants Deputies.

3. The deputies would take over the property and give it to the inhabitants of the same religious creed, who wanted to use the property. This group would be composed of at least 20 citizens, who must sign the agreement. The agreement provided that these 20 citizens were to maintain the “National Property” and to use it solely for satisfying religious needs. Further, they must prohibit in these buildings political meetings hostile to the Soviet government, the spreading or selling of literature hostile to the Soviet government, and sermons hostile to the Soviet Government. Maintenance of the Church required that the 20 citizens must see to the payment of taxes, insurance, repairs, etc. Additionally, they could not refuse any citizen, who was a co-religionist, the right to sign the agreement after the date of the agreement. Moreover, they must allow all citizens to be buried in church cemeteries. If all conditions were not fulfilled, the 20 citizens would be held criminally liable.

4. If the persons who managed the ecclesiastical property refused to do the above, the local Soviet of Workmen-Peasants Deputies would compile a list of the property in front of witnesses and turn it over to the group of 20 citizens of the religious creed; churches of historic, artistic and archaeological value would be transferred to the Museum Section of the Commissariat of Education; local citizens of the religious creed could sign the agreement, after the transfer, to participate in the administration of the ritual property.

5. If there were no local applicants to take over the building, the Comissariat of Education would determine the purpose for the use of the building; so called sacred items, not utilized in religious services, would be turned over to citizens responsible for religious items.

6. All other property of churches and religious associations, and abolished departments, such as schools and charitable institutions, would be immediately confiscated. This included all landed property, funds and profit-making investments.

7. Failure to turn over monies by the holder would result in a charge of civil and criminal embezzlement, and the illicit use of the property of the Republic would be a criminal offense.

8. The buildings of spiritual, educational and training establishments of any creed, as well as the building of the parish church schools should, as national property, be turned over to the local Soviets of Workmen-Peasants Deputies.

9. This decree prohibits the instruction in any creed in state, public and private educational institutions.

There was a specific process for the surrender of religious property to the state and its administration, not the outright looting and shooting you described. If it’s not so, why do your sources not discredit what they have printed?

Now for your two assertions:

** A)The famine was largely the making of Lenin’s government, and specifically targeted at the peasants (with a broad helping of incompetance to help starve other people)**

Back it up. Find sources that spell out what policies these were and why they were specifically detrimental to the Russian economy, as opposed to the wholesale destruction wreaked by the First World War, the civil war, and the intervention of fourteen armies.

B)Lenin started killing the clergy before the famine.

Your first source states that the Roman Catholic archbishop Ropp was arrested on 9 Apr 1919, and eventually sent into exile (although no date is specified). It then goes on to say:

Following the exile of the archbishop, there were many reports of other arrests of priests, executions and seizures of church property in other parts of the Russian State.

Your article makes no claim of arrests or executions of clergy before April 1919. On the other hand, as I have stated:

as early as July 1918 Lenin was putting out the call for the city workers to head out to the countryside to find food - there was no sense in staying at the factories and starving.

The famine was already making itself felt almost a year earlier. By April 1919 the famine was in full swing, not just beginning.

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
No doubt people change. HOWEVER, it would seem from his very actions, that Lenin did indeed-perhaps not ‘welcome’, but view the famine as an advantage.

I will have to look into this further. My gut instinct is, however, that Lenin didn’t see famine or disaster as a more advantageous background for political struggle. Such drastic actions as he did direct during these times were responses to the situation, rather than things he’d kept in the back of his mind waiting for the right opportunity to do.

I think the fact that he was glad when the war came in 1914-there is much evidence of this-because it might create an ideal situation for him-speaks volumes.

As evidence to the contrary, I’d like to point out the fact that he initially believed the newspaper that published the German socialists’ voting for war credits in 1914 to be a forgery. If he welcomed the war effort, why would he have been so aghast at other socialists supporting the war? Furthermore he kept up the anti-war agitation throughout the war and stood firm on the platform of getting Russia out of it as soon as possible.

[Olentzero]

I meant to add this to my latest reply - hit ‘Submit’ by accident.

**By extreme, I mean, you start thinking that morals are totally changable-in that anything goes, and there is nothing that is true anymore. Nothing you can depend on-such as stealing is wrong, or you shouldn’t hit your mother, etc etc.

It creates a situation for hypocrisy.**

I went too far with my argument on morals; in no way did I mean to assert that morals are a completely individual phenomenon, totally cut off from anything but the self.

On the other hand, they’re not something completely fixed and entirely outside us, either.

Morals are a construct of human society, and reflect the values of whatever class is dominant at the time. They therefore have a class character. Slavery was moral for the slaveholders because it benefited them as a class. Private ownership of property is moral - and theft thereof is immoral - because private property benefits the capitalists as a class. (I mean the means of production here, not personal possessions like books or clothes or food.)

So, then, what of a revolutionary situation? A successful revolution depends on a class that is organized, militant, and convinced of its fitness to rule. Therefore, anything that promotes such organization, militancy, and confidence is moral, and anything that suppresses or works to destroy such things is immoral.

[Guinastasia]

According to Kerensky, and Robert K. Massie’s Nicholas and Alexandra, Lenin is quoted as saying:

A war with Austria would be a splendid little thing for the revolution; but the chances are small that Franz Joseph and Nikolasha will give us such a treat.

-Kerensky, pg 192, Massie, pg 236. Massie’s source of said quote is Bertram Wolfe’s Three Who Made a Revolution..

Sounds to me like he was hoping for a war. I don’t know how else you interpret that.

[Olentzero]

I’ll have to see if I can dig up a copy of Wolfe and see where he got it from, then. If the quote is attributed to Lenin, there must be someplace he got it from, no?

[Guinastasia]

Well, it’s in two different books, no?

And I’ll look in some of my other books as well…