[FallenRaptor]

These are footnotes, that divert the essence. The essence being that the pg cooperated with the parties in an environment that was chaotic. All the blame in any case can be thrown to the chaotic environment.

The will of party leaders does not necessarily mean the will of the people, now does it? You are also ignoring the cause of the chaotic environment, unless you wish to dismiss that as just a "footnote" as well.

Whatever the pg would bring, it would be through elections, Bolshevism had a coup, at any rate there is a big substantial and essential difference.

What kind of elections? If anything the PG were to bring were to be brought by election, was the continuation of the war decided by election? Many dictorial and corrupt regimes hold elections, but what good are they? Do you believe the old oligarchs really bring about a free and fair election that would represent the will of the people despite this would be going against their own interests?

Lenin didn't just bring about a one man dictatorship after the revolution either. The Soviet government extended representation to the majority of the peasantry, and was a higher form of democracy than anything the PG would've brought.

[peter_co]

The Soviet government extended representation to the majority of the peasantry, and was a higher form of democracy than anything the PG would've brought.

I assume this is some sort of a joke. Soviet Democracy? How about the very first election organized by the Bolshevkis. The election of the Constituent Assembly where 60% of eligible voters participated, and whose results even the Bolsheviks accepted. This was probably the only free vote in the USSR until 1989. And what happened, when only 25% of the people supported the Bolsheviks, they simply disbanded the assembly and then banned all opposition parties. You say this is a higher standard than anything the PG could have done? Frankly I can't even imagine a lower standard than this!

[Frank_Carbonni]

Shhhh!

Commies can do no wrong. You don't understand that every lie, murder, and fraud is all working towards this grand utopia. At least that is what this greasy, ne'er-do-weller and his bourgeois friend claimed...

[FallenRaptor]

I assume this is some sort of a joke. Soviet Democracy?

I'm very serious.

The framework of the Russian constitution is the following: Beginning: He who does not work, does not eat. End: suppression of exploitation of man by man. Middle: during the proletariat’s decisive struggle against its exploiters power must belong exclusively to the working masses.

The cell of the Soviet regime is the urban and rural soviet, or council. These urban and rural soviets are grouped first in a volost congress, then in district congresses, then in the regional congresses, and lastly in the pan-Russian congress of soviets, made up of urban soviets’ delegates (one for every 25,000 inhabitants) and of provincial congress delegates (one for every 125,000 inhabitants). The pan-Russian congress meets twice a year. It appoints an executive central committee which is the supreme authority in the intervals between congresses. From within itself, the Executive Central Committee names the people’s commissars who, in turn, make up a college or soviet. There are eighteen people’s commissars.

The term of each delegate is three months. However, all delegates can be recalled at any time. All the workers, without distinction of gender, nationality, religion, etc., are the electors.

There is no democratic dualism the soviet system. The soviets are, at once, executive and legislative organs. The council of people’s commissars is but a leadership committee, a general staff, for the soviet assembly. Parliament, due to aging, is often out of step with the latest currents. The soviet is in constant renovation, in constant change. All the undulations of public opinion are reflected in the soviet. The soviet is the typical organ of the proletarian regime, just as parliament is the typical organ of the democratic system. It is a system of professional representation and of class representation.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, therefore, is not a party dictatorship, but a class dictatorship, a dictatorship of the working class. When the soviet regime was inaugurated, the Bolsheviks did not predominate except in the urban soviets, in the industrial centers. In the peasants’ soviets the Social Revolutionary Party, which more closely corresponded to the little-evolutionist and petty-bourgeois mentality of the peasants, predominated. But the Bolsheviks attracted the collaboration of these peasant masses by carrying out their program of peace and land distribution.

http://marx.org/archive/mariateg/works/ ... /hwc14.htm

At first there was multiple parties, so even bolsheviks could've been recalled and replaced with someone from another party. Eventually other parties were banned during the civil war, but there was still some democracy within the party until Lenin placed a temporary ban on factions in 1921. I don't think that ban was ever really lifted though, but I could be wrong.

How about the very first election organized by the Bolshevkis. The election of the Constituent Assembly where 60% of eligible voters participated, and whose results even the Bolsheviks accepted. This was probably the only free vote in the USSR until 1989. And what happened, when only 25% of the people supported the Bolsheviks, they simply disbanded the assembly and then banned all opposition parties. You say this is a higher standard than anything the PG could have done? Frankly I can't even imagine a lower standard than this!

The candidates lists were outdated. It didn't take into account the split in the Social-Revolutionary party, which had won the majority of the votes. The Soviets agreed to have the constituent assembly elections as long as it recognized the Soviets. It didn't so the soviets dissolved it. And as I said, the Soviets were a higher form of democracy, and the Bolsheviks had been calling for "all power to the soviets" since April 1917.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Bad logic is equating "revolution", with the "pg".

A 'revolution' has to have something to do with its outcome. As it was, the February 'Revolution' was just replacing a single member of the ruling class as titular head with the pre-existing ruling elite as as a newly empowered oligarchy. But if you want to claim the February Revolution was 'democratic' but just brought about a change in leadership from one unelected elite to another, then that's a pretty weird argument.

you hace [sic] no prerogative [sic] on judging the pg, towards issues that by definition had no control over, such as policy [sic]

Haha. So you're saying that I'm not allowed to judge the PG, and therefore I can't point out that it was undemocratic and didn't abide by its *own promise* to bring about elections, and therefore we just have to accept your argument?

Well, that's one way to try winning an argument - telling people that they are not allowed to dispute what you say and that you're not going to abide any evidence that refutes your position. My general policy on arguments though is to actually debate people on the basis of evidence though. And in terms of its makeup and its actions, the provisional government was not democratic.

FAIL: the pg was not a governemnt [sic], it was provisional,

Actually, I think you'll find it was a provisional government

[noemon]

A 'revolution' has to have something to do with its outcome. As it was, the February 'Revolution' was just replacing a single member of the ruling class as titular head with the pre-existing ruling elite as as a newly empowered oligarchy. But if you want to claim the February Revolution was 'democratic' but just brought about a change in leadership from one unelected elite to another, then that's a pretty weird argument.

Yes it does, and that is that it managed to form a provisional government, that is its aims were established, who the provisional government was composed of is irrelevant because the provisional government does not govern, it is a transitional stage. The first revolution achieved its objective, the second revolution through a coup countered it and defaulted back to authoritarianism.

Haha. So you're saying that I'm not allowed to judge the PG, and therefore I can't point out that it was undemocratic and didn't abide by its *own promise* to bring about elections, and therefore we just have to accept your argument?

Yes dear, you cannot use bad soviet history that reached that far to Stalinism to judge a provisional government who is by definition provisional. You cannot compare a government of Leninism or stalinism with a provisional government, based on the propaganda of the former, who btw staged a coup, who btw promoted anarchy, who btw became a cult, who btw, created the cheka, who btw re-wrote the events, who btw was a marginal party and by force took control..and so on and forth.

Well, that's one way to try winning an argument - telling people that they are not allowed to dispute what you say and that you're not going to abide any evidence that refutes your position. My general policy on arguments though is to actually debate people on the basis of evidence though. And in terms of its makeup and its actions, the provisional government was not democratic

Leave the blah blah, and appeal to apearances out, they are worthless.

The "end of", goes to the fact that you support the argument that a coup(an armed inssurection of a minority party) as somehow more democratic than the provisional government who is a transitional stage to democracy and is not a government. Your error is that large that a person of your intellect cannot in any sense keep on supporting, it diminishes you.

Actually, I think you'll find it was a provisional government

Look up the definition of provisional and you shall see your error of using arguments based on policy when by definition a provisional government has no such prerogatives, and therefore is immune to popular appearances of re-written history.

[Maxim Litvinov]

You manage a long post to say very little.

Once again, the argument is about whether the February Revolution and the Provisional Government it spawned were democratic.

To judge this, all we need to know are the characteristic composition of democratic governments and the characteristic actions of democratic states.

Democratic governments are representative of the people by their composition. The Provisional Government was not, but was just a bunch of the tsarist ruling class.

Democratic governments tend to implement the will of the people. The Provisional Government did not - it did not even respond to the most basic desire from the people for the war to end. It *did* have policies, it *did* govern, but it manifestly failed to govern on the people's behalf which is why it was so unpopular (as evidenced by the severe industrial and social unrest in Russia during 1917).

Democratic governments are elected by the people. The Provisional Government was not.

Demogratic governments provide for an opportunity for them to lose in elections voted by the people. The Provisional Government did not, delayed holding elections and consequently never held elections.

The PG was simply not democratic. It was not only not democratically constituted, but it had the opportunity to govern according to the people's will or hold elections for a body that might and failed on both counts.

[noemon]

You manage a long post to say very little.

Maxim, certainly. You not only manage long posts to say little but you manage long posts to say nothing(literally) except to appeal to appearances through arbitrarisms, you completely ignore basic facts and basic logic, and give arbitrary definitions to whatever suits you to claim the impossible. To put it in a sentence:

The argument that a coup(an armed inssurection of a minority party) as somehow more democratic than the provisional government who is a transitional stage to democracy and is not a government is FALLACY/ERROR. Because there can be no cartesian foundation.

Democratic governments are representative of the people by their composition. The Provisional Government was not, but was just a bunch of the tsarist ruling class.

Democratic governments tend to implement the will of the people. The Provisional Government did not - it did not even respond to the most basic desire from the people for the war to end. It *did* have policies, it *did* govern, but it manifestly failed to govern on the people's behalf which is why it was so unpopular (as evidenced by the severe industrial and social unrest in Russia during 1917).

Utter fail, look up the definition of provisional and democratic.

You antithesis has no cartesian foundation. No rocket science.

And you still insist on using the "people and the will of the people" when the one you support as more democratic completely ignored the will of the people, factually, the one you antithesize it with, does not by definition represent the will of the people, it is not that it should and it did not(failed), it is that it does not have to by definition, and whether it did or not, cannot be ascertained by Stalinistic make-believe. At any rate, you have no cartesian foundation to draw the line, the only thing you can do is appeal to appearances, and am actually very surprised that you still insist, by pretending not to understand this very simple argument.

FACTS, ABSOLUTE:

a) Bolshevism was not democratic.
b) That which would be the outcome of the provisional government is unknown.
c) Impossible to put the unknown in a cartesian axis.
d) Impossible to dare claim that which was certainly non-democratic and in fact was minority, was more democratic than the unknown.
e) Impossible to dare use the historical presentation of Stalinism as a referee.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I'm not sure why you're bothering talking about Bolshevism and Stalinism when all we're considering here is the February Revolution and the Provisional Government.

Fact is, the February Revolution just saw the establishment of a government formed from the same nobility that was already running the country. Fact is, the body was not democratically constituted. Fact is, the body was not representative of the people. Fact is, the body didn't carry out the people's will in even the simplest of ways. Fact is, that the body reneged on their promise to hold any democratic elections.

You've got an unelected, unrepresentative body that doesn't do what the people want and fails on its promise to call elections. You must have a pretty low threshold for what's 'democratic' to even consider the Provisional Government as being so.

[noemon]

I'm not sure why you're bothering talking about Bolshevism and Stalinism when all we're considering here is the February Revolution and the Provisional Government.

Because Bolshevism is one of our points of reference, and Stalinism the historical background arbitrer.

Fact is, the February Revolution just saw the establishment of a government formed from the same nobility that was already running the country. Fact is, the body was not democratically constituted. Fact is, the body was not representative of the people. Fact is, the body didn't carry out the people's will in even the simplest of ways. Fact is, that the body reneged on their promise to hold any democratic elections.

Fact is the Februaray revolution saw the establishment of a provisional government. All the rest are not facts, they are products of the historical make-believe of stalinism.

You've got an unelected, unrepresentative body that doesn't do what the people want and fails on its promise to call elections. You must have a pretty low threshold for what's 'democratic' to even consider the Provisional Government as being so.

Yet you still neglect the basic fact. the pg does not claim that it was, it was not, and neither did it have to be.

These are the only facts in this discussion, if you can refute, please go on:

a) Bolshevism was not democratic.
b) That which would be the outcome of the provisional government is unknown.
c) Impossible to put the unknown in a cartesian axis.
d) Impossible to dare claim that which was certainly non-democratic and in fact was minority, was more democratic than the unknown.
e) Impossible to dare use the historical presentation of Stalinism as a referee.

[FallenRaptor]

Because Bolshevism is one of our points of reference, and Stalinism the historical background arbitrer.

What does Stalin have to do with anything? Not everyone who is supports the Bolsheviks is a Stalinist, and Stalin didn't play that big of a role in October Revolution.

Fact is the Februaray revolution saw the establishment of a provisional government. All the rest are not facts, they are products of the historical make-believe of stalinism.

In other words, any facts you disagree with are Stalinist propaganda.

a) Bolshevism was not democratic.

I already covered this before.

b) That which would be the outcome of the provisional government is unknown.

If it's unknown, why have you been claiming that it would've brought democracy? And it's possible to make assumptions that it's outcome wouldn't have been democratic judging from it's composition and it's actions.

e) Impossible to dare use the historical presentation of Stalinism as a referee.

Who's using Stalinism as a referee?

[noemon]

What does Stalin have to do with anything? Not everyone who is supports the Bolsheviks is a Stalinist, and Stalin didn't play that big of a role in October Revolution.

Stalinism wrote the history you are utilizing. It is irrelevant on who supports Bolshevism or Stalin or whatever. Bolshevism is the mothe r of Stalinism practically, factually and absolutely, bolshevism establsihed itself non-democratically, and Stalinism kept the motor of Bolshevism going through the most disgusting methods in human history, including the active revision of history, including the history of its establishment. One has got to be extremely naive to by-pass that, and appeal to naive people equally. Appeal to apearances in other words. Propaganda.

In other words, any facts you disagree with are Stalinist propaganda.

There are no facts because Bolshevism established itself violently and kept power violently, the facts have been distorted.

I already covered this before.

Yes, and you have agreed with that it was not democratic, while it is you the marxists, who try to put the 2, 1 the unknown, and 2 the known factually non-democratic, and claim that the non-democratic was more "democratic" than the unknown. It is marxist(like the op, maxim, you) who make the claim, not me. I merely point out the obvious fallacy of error.

If it's unknown, why have you been claiming that it would've brought democracy? And it's possible to make assumptions that it's outcome wouldn't have been democratic judging from it's composition and it's actions.

Simple, because the product of Bolshevism, Stalinism was less democratic that Czarism. FACTUALLY. In fact nothing can surpass Stalinism, anything else would be better.

Who's using Stalinism as a referee?

It is only through stalinism that you can draw material regarding those days. And everything got revised in the stalinist era, even the definition of schizophrenia in soviet academic journals. Look it up.

[FallenRaptor]

Stalinism wrote the history you are utilizing.

It is only through stalinism that you can draw material regarding those days.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/19 ... /index.htm

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/index.htm

So Stalin wrote these?

There's plenty of other different accounts and sources about the Russian Revolution, so it would be a fallacy to say that you could only get a pro-Bolshevik account from Stalin.

There are no facts because Bolshevism established itself violently and kept power violently

The United States established itself violently and uses violence to keep power. Same with almost all existing states.

If it's unknown, why have you been claiming that it would've brought democracy? And it's possible to make assumptions that it's outcome wouldn't have been democratic judging from it's composition and it's actions.

Simple, because the product of Bolshevism, Stalinism was less democratic that Czarism. FACTUALLY. In fact nothing can surpass Stalinism, anything else would be better.

That doesn't answer my question. Whatever the product of Bolshevism was is irrelevant to whether or not the PG would've really brought democracy.

[noemon]

So Stalin wrote these?

There's plenty of other different accounts and sources about the Russian Revolution, so it would be a fallacy to say that you could only get a pro-Bolshevik account from Stalin.

All the primary material coming from the Soviets have been filtered during Stalinism. All of them. Even the definition of schizophrenia.

And the material you brought forward do not magically support your argument, nor should you claim so.

My argument is not based on thehistorical presentation of stalinism, this is merely the cherry on the top, my argument is based on these facts alltogether, and stalinism is last and least important:

a) Bolshevism was not democratic.
b) That which would be the outcome of the provisional government is unknown.
c) Impossible to put the unknown in a cartesian axis.
d) Impossible to dare claim that which was certainly non-democratic and in fact was minority, was more democratic than the unknown.
e) Impossible to dare use the historical presentation of Stalinism as a referee.

Do not try to create straw-men.

The United States established itself violently and uses violence to keep power. Same with almost all existing states.

LOL, comparing the American Congress or whoever else with Boslhevism or Stalinism, is highly ridiculous.

That doesn't answer my question. Whatever the product of Bolshevism was is irrelevant to whether or not the PG would've really brought democracy.

It is extremely funny when people do not have the most basic understanding of simply mathematics, even the most basic mathematics.

Stalinism the first-class product of Bolshevism was the extreme of the extreme, more extreme than the CZAR. To even think that whatever this was; was in fact more democratic(at any arbitrary meaning of the term) than X unknown is mere buffoonery. And its very relevant of the revolution because that is what the Bolshevic COUNTER revolution produced.

[FallenRaptor]

All the primary material coming from the Soviets have been filtered during Stalinism. All of them. Even the definition of schizophrenia.

Who said Maxim or I were using any of the "primary sources" that were filtered by Stalin?

It is extremely funny when people do not have the most basic understanding of simply mathematics, even the most basic mathematics.

What the hell are you talking about and what does it have to do with the discussion?

[noemon]

Who said Maxim or I were using any of the "primary sources" that were filtered by Stalin?

Noone, i replied to your arguments way before i mentioned the stalinist cherry, and as i said my arguemntation is not at all dependent on the stalinist historical presentation, it is merely a cherry on the top.

What the hell are you talking about and what does it have to do with the discussion?

It has everything to do, because we draw conclusion by using a cartesian(axiomatic) axis, and for the 100th time, not only in the cartesian axis of democracy(democracy being the O), positively democratic being the right side and negatively democratic being the left, the product of your counter-revolution has been lost out of sight at the left side of the axis, and your comparison with X unknown(what would be, without the counter-revolution) cannot take place. And if it could, an intelligent human cannot even fathom that it would be where Bolshevism is, right at the wall, of the negatively democratic.

[FallenRaptor]

Noone, i replied to your arguments way before i mentioned the stalinist cherry, and as i said my arguemntation is not at all dependent on the stalinist historical presentation, it is merely a cherry on the top.

You were the one that mentioned Stalinism in the first place. You were also the one that said that pro-Bolshevik arguements only arose from Stalinism.

It has everything to do, because we draw conclusion by using a cartesian(axiomatic) axis, and for the 100th time, not only in the cartesian axis of democracy(democracy being the O), positively democratic being the right side and negatively democratic being the left, the product of your counter-revolution has been lost out of sight at the left side of the axis, and your comparison with X unknown(what would be, without the counter-revolution) cannot take place. And if it could, an intelligent human cannot even fathom that it would be where Bolshevism is, right at the wall, of the negatively democratic.

Stalinism the first-class product of Bolshevism was the extreme of the extreme, more extreme than the CZAR. To even think that whatever this was; was in fact more democratic(at any arbitrary meaning of the term) than X unknown is mere buffoonery.

Even if the provisional government would have set up fair elections(which seems unlikely) the new government would've been a form of representative liberal democracy. The Bolsheviks gave all power to the Soviets, which were controlled by a form of direct democracy. That is why I said before that right after the revolution the Soviet government was a higher form of democracy than anything the PG would've brought. It was not until later in the civil war that other parties were banned, but that's not relevant to the discussion or my question about the provisional government & it's downfall.

And its very relevant of the revolution because that is what the Bolshevic COUNTER revolution produced.

How did the Bolsheviks create a counter-revolution? They overthrew the same aristocrats that had been running the country before the february revolution.

[noemon]

How did the Bolsheviks create a counter-revolution? They overthrew the same aristocrats that had been running the country before the february revolution.

They surrounded the building and declared the result of the election, non-applicable. The "epitome of democracy", right there, the audacity and insistness are unfathomable.

The Bolsheviks gave all power to the Soviets, which were controlled by a form of direct democracy. That is why I said before that right after the revolution the Soviet government was a higher form of democracy than anything the PG would've brought

Which gave all power to the secretray and created a form of authoritarian autocracy aka Stalinism. Direct democracy?

It was not until later in the civil war that other parties were banned, but that's not relevant to the discussion or my question about the provisional government & it's downfall.

This is relevant:

They surrounded the building and declared the election, non-applicable. This disqualifies your Bolshevics as the epitome of non-democracy and anything otherwise is intellectual perversity.

[FallenRaptor]

They surrounded the building and declared the election, non-applicable. This disqualifies your Bolshevics as the epitome of non-democracy and anything otherwise is intellectual perversity.

I'm guessing you are talking about the constituent assembly.

1) The candidate lists were outdated. It did not take account the split in the Socialist-Revolutionary party, which had one the majority of the votes.
2) Less than 60% of the population voted in it.
3) The Soviets, at that time period, were a higher form of democracy and the legal government after the fall of the provisional government. They allowed the elections for the Constituent Assembly so long as it recognized the power of the Soviets. It did not, so the Soviets authorized for it to be shut down.

Which gave all power to the secretray and created a form of authoritarian autocracy aka Stalinism. Direct democracy?

Notice that I said it was direct democracy right after the revolution, but I never said it was during the height of the civil war or after the civil war.

This is relevant

No it isn't.

Now for something that is relevant: the question I have been asking that you have been ignoring this whole time.

Do you believe the old oligarchs would really bring about a free and fair election that would represent the will of the people despite this would be going against their own interests?

[noemon]

It did not, so the Soviets authorized for it to be shut down.

That's all nice excuses, but the fact remains, they took control over it through force.

Notice that I said it was direct democracy right after the revolution, but I never said it was during the height of the civil war or after the civil war.

Notice that it does not matter, what you imagine the day after the revolution was. Fact is what it became, and that has nothing to do with democracy, but was authoritarian autocracy.

Do you believe the old oligarchs would really bring about a free and fair election that would represent the will of the people despite this would be going against their own interests?

All/most systems we use today have been imposed by above(oligarchs) and so on, all of our systems surpass Stalinism at any abstract sense of democracy. All of them.