[KurtFF8]

This is from John Reed's 10 Days that Shook the World. I haven't actually read it yet, but I will in the near future. I personally think that the following paragraph explains Marxian revolution in a good context.

But the 'honeymoon' was short. The propertied classes wanted merely a political revolution, which would take the power from the Tsar and give it to them. They wanted Russia to be a constitutional republic, like France or the United States; or a constitutional monarchy, like England. On the other hand, the masses of the people wanted real industrial and agrarian democracy.

(And as a side note, 10 Days that Shook the World is on the Marxist internet archive:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/19 ... /index.htm

[Einherjar]

Invoking the masses, as a self-conscious group wanting this and that, is a bit simplistic and explains nothing at all. The democratic February revolution failed for two main reasons:

- it kept Russia in the war, straining the domestic economy without any military successes.
- revolutionary soviets persisted and they were dangerous because of their stabbing-in-the-back defeatism.

So, the Liberal provisional government had to contend with two fronts. The Bolsheviks learned this very well and the first thing they did upon taking power was signing a crushing armistice with Germany.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Calling the February Revolution 'democratic' is a bit much. The provisional government was hardly democratic. Also, calling the armistice 'crushing' is a bit weird - no government wants to cede territory to an invading army, but what would have been more crushing is continuing to throw workers and peasants at the machine guns of capitalist Germany.

[Einherjar]

Calling the February Revolution 'democratic' is a bit much. The provisional government was hardly democratic.

Straw man. Irrespective of its undemocratic conduct in wartime, it officially strove for liberal democracy.

Also, calling the armistice 'crushing' is a bit weird - no government wants to cede territory to an invading army, but what would have been more crushing is continuing to throw workers and peasants at the machine guns of capitalist Germany.

From a geopolitical perspective, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was obviously crushing, to the point that Trotsky initially refused the terms and withdrew from negotations, despite knowing that the war was lost and that the machine guns of capitalist Germany could further advance into Russia at their own discretion, which is what they did.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Straw man.

'Straw man' has obviously changed its meaning in the last couple of years.

The provisional government was a government formed by tsarist decree from the ruling classes that had made up the unelected earlier Duma. It was never elected, postponed elections, was not representative of the Russian people in its composition and indeed did not represent their interests (the prosecution of the war was a pretty big indication of this as was its unpopularity).

From a geopolitical perspective, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was obviously crushing, to the point that Trotsky initially refused the terms and withdrew from negotations, despite knowing that the war was lost and that the machine guns of capitalist Germany could further advance into Russia at their own discretion, which is what they did.

Again, it depends where your sympathies lie. You seem to want to imply that Brest-Litovsk was somehow a foolish and reckless decision entered into lightly. In fact, it was a decision reached after very considerable debate (and division, as you allude to) in order to pull out of what was already a very dire situation that previous administrations had allowed to fester. The Bolsheviks had a mandate to provide 'peace' rather than allow the workers of Germany and Russia to continue killing each other for the sake of their lords and masters.

[Einherjar]

The provisional government was a government formed by tsarist decree from the ruling classes that had made up the unelected earlier Duma. It was never elected, postponed elections, was not representative of the Russian people in its composition and indeed did not represent their interests (the prosecution of the war was a pretty big indication of this as was its unpopularity).

I don't get it. Have you been expecting an elected revolution? Most of the democratic governments we have today were all monarchist concessions and before any democracy can be practiced, the respective groundworks have to be established.

Again, it depends where your sympathies lie. You seem to want to imply that Brest-Litovsk was somehow a foolish and reckless decision entered into lightly. In fact, it was a decision reached after very considerable debate (and division, as you allude to) in order to pull out of what was already a very dire situation that previous administrations had allowed to fester. The Bolsheviks had a mandate to provide 'peace' rather than allow the workers of Germany and Russia to continue killing each other for the sake of their lords and masters.

I do not think I am implying anything. I believe I said explicity that the Bolshevik revolution succeeded precisely because it withdrew from the war and was therefore able to fully concentrate on consolidating its own power domestically. Unlike the Februarists. Nor can I say I have any sympathies.

[Maxim Litvinov]

...the respective groundworks have to be established.

By definition, the time preceding a democracy can be called 'pre-democracy', but there's nothing particularly democratic about having a government that isn't democratically elected, postpones the opportunity for democratic elections, isn't representative of the population and doesn't even attempt to do what the population want. It's dangerous to get nostalgic for a provisional government which was not only unrepresentative, but showed itself to be fairly incompetent.

I do not think I am implying anything.

Well, the word 'crushing' certainly required taking the move from a certain perspective. But provided it's understood that the peace with Germany had some very strong things going for it as well, I have no problems.

[noemon]

Calling the February Revolution 'democratic' is a bit much.

Actually implying the abstract sense of "democratic", while at the same time quantifying it, is a lot of "too much".

The February revolution aimed to establish a democracy, and hence its aims were democratic. The provisional government was established by the rulers, and the ballots would decide the future. A provisional government cannot and should not in any sensible way be established by non-rulers. And that is why it is provisional, because its terms have not been agreed upon yet, and the one who run things until everything is agreed upon is the one who runs things already, otherwise chaos ensues.

Straw man on the nth.

And it was in that chaos due to all the plights of Russia at the time, that the Bolshevics illegally and undemocratically seized control, without being voted into place. The provisional government cooperated with all the parties succesfully. It was the Bolshevics that issued the authoritarian decrees(Order 1), mutinized in the consensus reached to limit anarchy, and consolidated their power in and through the chaos that they had helped stir up, consciously and actively, despite the fact that they were at the same time "cooperating" with the provisional government to re-instate order. It is funny though, that you would imply that the provisional government was "less democratic"(ie calling the provisinal government democratic is bit "too much"), and since we both know that less and more are in juxtaposition to something and that something being Bolshevism, despite the fact that you did not come out and say it either, it certainly is due to where your "sympathies lie".

Ofc for marxists the above mentioned facts ought to eclipse in the footnotes of irrelevant history as Trotsky put it:

"You are pitiful isolated individuals; you are bankrupts; your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on — into the dustbin of history!"

Right.."democracy". What a pretty word, innit, Maxim?

(And as a side note, 10 Days that Shook the World is on the Marxist internet archive: http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/19 ... /index.htm

Ofc it is, how could it not be? This is complimentary to the imaginative marxist class narrative. This is how the marxists excuse without any proof their undemocratic seize of power in Russia, in their solely imaginative world of wonderland.

It was not the classes that seized government buildings, it was Bolshevic militia. It is one thing for discontent people from every side of society protesting for their plight, and requesting a democratic system, and another for a particular party seizing control during chaos through a coup, without asking the ballot opinion.

In simple terms, this marxist crap would function only if, they had indeed the ballot opinion, which they did not. Therefore any attempt of revisionism to justify the Bolshevic coup, goes to the "historical dustbin".

[KurtFF8]

And it was in that chaos due to all the plights of Russia at the time, that the Bolshevics illegally and undemocratically seized control, without being voted into place. The provisional government cooperated with all the parties succesfully.

Didn't the Bolsheviks have a majority in the Soviets again by 1917? (I believe the answer is yes).

The reason there was a second revolution in October is the failure of simply political democracy to affectively solve the problems of the people (e.g. end the war for Russia).

Ofc it is, how could it not be? This is complimentary to the imaginative marxist class narrative.

It was just for reference and for anyone who didn't know.

[noemon]

Didn't the Bolsheviks have a majority in the Soviets again by 1917? (I believe the answer is yes).

The reason there was a second revolution in October is the failure of simply political democracy to affectively solve the problems of the people (e.g. end the war for Russia).

That is a good joke to tell, and make-believe in marxist wonderland. I believe that your choice of the term "believe" is rather accurate.

A second revolution in october?, a majority? in what election?, a failure of democracy? in what election?

Are you living in the wizard of Oz?

Mate, you have got everything wrong. There was no majority. The second revolution was the Bolshevic coup that transfered power(without ballots) from the provisional governemnt to the Soviet congress run by the Bolshevics, the first revolution was the actual peoples' protest requesting a democracy -consequently establishing the provisional government for that purpose- that was never delivered, because of the second revolution, and because the Bolshevics issued the aforementioned decrees(Order 1), radicalized the people to keep on the chaos, contrary to the promises made that all parties will work together to re-instate order in order for elections to be held, in an appropriate manner, which the Bolshevics did not do, but did exactly the opposite, radicalized even further everybody through propaganda so that chaos ensues and they seize control, without ballots, which is exactly what they did.

It is precisely because there was no such thing, that the make-believe quoted in the OP is invented so that the coup is excused, precisely because there were no ballots to excuse it.

Basically, the whole of marxism, not just this particular case, but the whole lot, is based on simplified make-believe.

Democracy?, majority? Seriously, i support make-believe, in fact i love it, but only when it has to do with mythical objects for our entertainment, mate, not when it comes in the way of tangible political and historical matters.

[KurtFF8]

Mate, you have got everything wrong. There was no majority. The second revolution was the Bolshevic coup that transfered power(without ballots) from the provisional governemnt to the Soviet congress run by the Bolshevics, the first revolution was the actual peoples' protest requesting a democracy that was never delivered, because of the second revolution, and because the Bolshevics issued the aforementioned decrees(Order 1), radicalized the people to keep on the chaos, contrary to the promises made that all parties will work together to re-instate order in order for elections to be held, in an appropriate manner, which the Bolshevics did not do, but did exactly the opposite, radicalized even further everybody through propaganda so that chaos ensues and they seize control, without ballots, which is exactly what they did. Democracy?, majority?

Now this is historical revisionism. During the provisional government the working class ans peasants were still quite unhappy and quite aware that their exploitation was continuing. One of the main factors that lead to the second revolution was the continuation of the war by the provisional government.

Also, The Bolsheviks did indeed achieve majorities in the Soviets prior to the second revolution I believe.

[noemon]

Now this is historical revisionism. During the provisional government the working class ans peasants were still quite unhappy and quite aware that their exploitation was continuing. One of the main factors that lead to the second revolution was the continuation of the war by the provisional government.

Also, The Bolsheviks did indeed achieve majorities in the Soviets prior to the second revolution I believe.

Listen mate, and get it through your head, to know what the people wanted is impossible precisely because there were no ballots. You can invent whatever make-believe you like, fact will remain, that it only is make-believe.

The Soviet congress was a socialist establishment that at the best case marxist scenario represented no more than 20 million people(calculate the percent, and then talk about democracy), and which was consisted as marxism.com has it:

The congress consisted for the most part of people who had registered as socialists in March but got tired of the revolution by June.

Please, some respect to logic, just a little bit.

And no the Bolshevics did not have majority in the First congress, but whats to discuss, the participating parties alltogether did not represent more than 20 million people, and were all of the same socialist extract.

[KurtFF8]

Listen mate, and get it through your head, to know what the people wanted is impossible precisely because there were no ballots. You can invent whatever make-believe you like, fact will remain, that it only is make-believe.

So you're claiming that the Soviets were undemocratic and that they were undemocratic because they lacked ballots?

Strange that the people viewed the Soviets as more legitimate representatives of the people than the Provisional Government then.

And no the Bolshevics did not have majority in the First congress, but whats to discuss, the participating parties alltogether did not represent more than 20 million people, and were all of the same socialist extract.

And there were many socialists in the Provisional Government too, the socialist movement was quite popular in the country at the time. But they did get a majority in the Soviets prior to the Bolshevik revolution.

[noemon]

So you're claiming that the Soviets were undemocratic and that they were undemocratic because they lacked ballots?

Strange that the people viewed the Soviets as more legitimate representatives of the people than the Provisional Government then.

Am lets see, without ballots there is no indicator on what the people wanted. Without ballots the very term democracy is inapplicable.

Please, just a little bit of logic, not much, just a little, the basic one.

And there were many socialists in the Provisional Government too, the socialist movement was quite popular in the country at the time. But they did get a majority in the Soviets prior to the Bolshevik revolution.

Kurt, would you like to tell me how old are you?

The provisional government having socialists(which even if true, which am not to say...), is irrelevant, on the alleged(by you) "democratic process" of the Soviet congress.

And No, the Bolshevics did not get a majority before the second revolution in the First Congress. But even that is irrelevant because the First congress, was composed only of socialists, and represented no more than 20 million people.

Do you know how many inhabitants Russia had? 160 million. That is one eighth of the population, and this is the best case scenario presented by marxism.com, in fact those present on the congress represented much fewer people. But it certainly wasnt more than 20 mil(according to marxism.com), and certainly this is not enough to claim that it was the "people" in any real sense that empowered communistan, because that is hardly one-eighth of the people, and that is hardly an argument.

And hence the make-believe that feed you with these little quotes from here and there.

[Einherjar]

The Bolsheviks succeeded because they were able to defeat the quantitatively-inferior Counter-Revolutionaries not because they were 'more democratic' or because 'the people desired communism' (as a rule, the political will of the people should never be considered because it is hardly definite nor it can ever be specified and the notion of 'the people' as one homogenous group with same interests and desires is already controversial to begin with). This should be fairly obvious. Some logic and regard for realpolitik is all one needs.

The success of the Bolsheviks rested upon a 3 million strong Red Army, not on the 160 million Russian people (and their allegedly single political will).

[FallenRaptor]

And no the Bolshevics did not have majority in the First congress

The Bolsheviks had the majority of the Soviets in October(The Second Congress). Out of the 650 delegates, 390 of them were Bolsheviks, and 100 were Left Social-Revolutionaries who were sympathetic towards the Bolsheviks.

And it was in that chaos due to all the plights of Russia at the time, that the Bolshevics illegally and undemocratically seized control, without being voted into place.

Since when are revolutions "democratic" or legal? Were the American and French Revolutions legal and democratic?

The Provisional Government was put in place by the czar and was never elected by any section of the people. It continued to participate in in the unpopular war, it did not meet the demands of the masses for land and breed, and was not able to make decisive policy decisions. I would hardly call it democratic.

[noemon]

The Bolsheviks had the majority of the Soviets in October(The Second Congress). Out of the 650 delegates, 390 of them were Bolsheviks, and 100 were Left Social-Revolutionaries who were sympathetic towards the Bolsheviks.

And no the Bolshevics did not have majority in the First congress

It is funny when people try to correct something that needs no correction; second, the congress(first or second) was not representing the people of Russia, since it represented at best 20 mil out of 160, therefore, what?

Since when are revolutions "democratic" or legal? Were the American and French Revolutions legal and democratic?

The Provisional Government was put in place by the czar and was never elected by any section of the people. It continued to participate in in the unpopular war, it did not meet the demands of the masses for land and breed, and was not able to make decisive policy decisions.

I have already written enough both on the provisional government and the Soviet congress. Do not invoke the masses, because the congress did not represent the masses.

And the provisional government is required by default to continue runing things exactly as she took them until a democratically elected gov. decides to change the course of the country. A provisional government is not there to make policy, but to sustain order just so elections can be held.

Read again what i have already written. The provisional government was created in order to organize elections due to the actual first revolution, a task that she never managed to do, becasue of the Bolshevic coup. A provisional government has this purpose to bring democracy, it is not democracy by itself, and none has claimed that. It is this "masses" crap that you make-believe that claim that the coup and the congress were democratic in any sense.

[Einherjar]

Since when are revolutions "democratic" or legal? Were the American and French Revolutions legal and democratic?

This should actually be addressed to the pro-Bolsheviks in here who've been arguing that the Liberal February revolution was not democratic in the expectation that it should have been.

[FallenRaptor]

It is this "masses" crap that you make-believe that claim that the coup and the congress were democratic in any sense.

When did I ever that the October revolution was democratic? I was trying to point out that it's asinine to speak of revolutions as legal or democratic. Even if the Soviets did not represent the majority of the people at that time, the Provisional Government was highly unpopular and the Soviets were able to meet the demands of the majority of the people right after the revolution(who were later allowed to vote in the Soviets). Maybe if the provisional government were more concerned with setting up elections as opposed to continue a war that most did not want, they wouldn't have been overthrown.

[Maxim Litvinov]

who've been arguing that the Liberal February revolution was not democratic in the expectation that it should have been.

You called the revolution "democratic", Einherjar. So, you not only *expected* that it was, but posted that is was. That's why I entered discussion in the first place. If you're now saying it wasn't, that's fine.

And please may our anti-Communist friends here have a bit of balance to their arguments - the Provisional Government cannot be seen as some wonderful prelude to democracy that was meanly thwarted by the Bolsheviks for several reasons.
[1] Institutionally, it was just composed of the same members of the ruling class that had ruled before.
[2] Politically, it showed itself incapable of making decisions in the popular interest.
[3] Electorally, it was never elected and although the *thought* of having an election at some point was on the cards, the body actually postponed this process.
[4] Demographically, it was a bunch of upper-class male landowners and not at all representative.
[5] Popularly, it managed to be so unsuccessful that the situation in Russia with or without the Bolsheviks was revolutionary, rebellious, extremely dire militarily, resulting in famine agriculturally and with huge numbers of strikes economically.
[6] When the Constituent Assembly elections were eventually held and a minority of Russian citizens voted, they voted in the majority for *revolutionary* and not liberal democratic parties.

None of the points above relate to the morality of the Bolsheviks - *that* is a strawman. What you've got to realise is the whole historical revisionism about Russia being well on the path to democracy without the Bolsheviks is simply untrue. There was far more reason to conclude that Russia post-1991 was going to become a democracy than Russia pre-1917, and even that hasn't turned out to be true.