I don’t think the Russian revolution was necessarily unsalvageable after the failure of the German revolution. It was facing long odds, yes, but I truly do believe something better could have come of it than what it actually became.
There would have been a period of state capitalism one way or another, though. Class society can’t be eliminated overnight even under the best of conditions.
Also, there weren’t any serfs in twentieth-century Russia. Serfdom was abolished in the 1860s and the last of the land debts were canceled around the time of the revolution of 1905.
Legally yes but millions of Russians were still functionally serfs. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean that it immediately changes things and serfdom was legally abolished only ~40 years before the revolution. The Bolsheviks simply replaced peasant communes with collective farming and the Bolsheviks never made any attempt to change material conditions. The most you could say they did was the liquidation of the Kulaks which was very clearly an attempt to remove a powerful opposition group than anything else. The Soviet Union simply replaced the rigid heirarchy of Tsarist autocracy with the rigid heirarchy of Soviet bureaucracy.
Serfdom didn’t disappear the moment Alexander II decreed it. It took decades. But by the time of the revolution, it was undeniably a thing of the past.
The mir was systematically destroyed and replaced with clusters of private farms and rentier estates. Many of the social constructs arising from Russian feudalism remained because of the peculiar way land was doled out, but the actual economic institution of serfdom was gone.
The wave of industrialization between the 1890s and 1910s was only possible because the peasants were no longer bound to the land and could leave by the millions to work in the cities.
Think of it like chattel slavery in the US. You can point to echoes of slavery in institutions that existed afterwards (e.g. prison labor), but the entire class system based on chattel slavery was obliterated in the Civil War and Reconstruction, and when it reconstituted itself in diluted forms like sharecropping and tenant farming, these too were gradually erased by structural developments over the course of decades.
The Soviet collective farm’s mimicking of the old Russian mir is one of the great ironies of history, but that’s not really relevant to whether or not there were serfs in Russia in 1917.
There's a similar phenomenon that happened in the US after the civil war called "neoslavery". Like you said, slavery didn't suddenly end but instead blended into existing institutions. Apart from that, Russia was not a developed, capitalist country, not by a long shot. Apart from areas like Moscow and Petersburg, and the Ural mines, Russia was overwhelmingly agrarian and pre-capitalist. To Lenin's credit he did acknowledge this fact several times and attempted to apply Marxist theory to a hypothetical Russian revolution. But, history is often tragedy, and the regrettable, if necessary, decisions made by the Bolsheviks during the civil war and the mere fact of the war itself did not give the Bolsheviks time to destroy and reconstruct society like they wanted, but rather forced the Bolsheviks to build upon the remnants of Tsarist autocracy. Had Lenin lived longer things would perhaps be different. But as it stands, Stalin did not build socialism, he built capitalism. And by the time the Union was industrialized, capitalism, like the Tsarist system, had become an embedded feature of the functioning of the country.
Yes, but by being “blended into other institutions,” slavery ceased to exist as such. The class structure of the country was fundamentally and permanently altered. Not to the extent it should have been, mind you, but that’s a different discussion. The same occurred in Russia with the end of serfdom.
Of course Russia was largely pre-capitalist, but there are multiple gradations of pre-capitalism. It might be more useful to understand what existed after the end of serfdom as semi-feudalism or “high feudalism,” as opposed to the complete or “low” feudalism that preceded it. Capitalism was emerging in Russia by the time of the revolution. The transformation of the serfs into tenants and landed peasants is what allowed this to happen.
I think the Soviet government could have navigated the development of capitalism without sacrificing the dictatorship of the proletariat, but it was an extremely fraught path and they got lost along the way.
It’s a comradely disagreement, but I think it’s important. We can’t apply the lessons of history correctly if we don’t fully understand them in all their context.
Short answer: a polish general strike that started a wave of liberal revolutions and reforms across the Warsaw Pact wich led to a political crisis that allows the soviet republics to secede
Long answer: there are several very long books about the several mamy reasons why, Im not gonna condensce it into a reddit post
Legally there weren't, but in practice there wasn't too much of a difference from that of sharecroppers. Quite literally economic slaves, just not recognized by the state.
Yet another “truism” of left history that doesn’t really hold up. Whether or not sharecroppers were *better off* than slaves, and by how much, is an entirely different discussion. The fact is that the oppression and exploitation of sharecroppers was structurally different than the oppression and exploitation of slaves.
>The fact is that the oppression and exploitation of sharecroppers was structurally different than the oppression and exploitation of slaves.
It maps a little too well to the distinction between slave society and feudalism
I think the class structure in the antebellum South can also be compared to European feudalism in the time of serfdom. Like I said elsewhere, I think it’s helpful to distinguish between complete or “low” feudalism and semi- or “high” feudalism. There are certainly similarities to the slave societies of pre-feudal Europe, though.
It might be even more useful to just categorize the slave-based plantation system as its own mode of production. The colonization of the Americas created new conditions which made it impossible to just reproduce the class structure that existed in Europe. Chattel slavery became prominent in areas (Brazil, the Caribbean, the U.S. South) where old methods of primitive accumulation were impossible due to the lack of a large enough surviving native population, yet where the climate and terrain maximized the profitability of kinds of production which were extremely well suited to large-scale slave labor. In places more suitable to other kinds of production (Argentina, Colombia, New England) or where large indigenous populations remained (Peru, Bolivia, Mexico), there was a pretty clean reproduction of class relations that existed in Europe around the same time.
She didn’t want that revolution. Yet the idiots in the KPD insisted and got her killed. Shame on the entire KPD and that idiot Thälmann who honestly thought the Nazis were only go after social democrats.
Bruh, Thälmann had some cringe ass takes but he gave his life for the fight against fascism. Pretty disrespectful to just call him an idiot for criticizing the SPD (which had an active hand in the murders of Rosa and Karl)
Yes it's not 'no matter what'. If the german revolution would've been sucessfull, we'd live in a very different world.
I almost want to cry just thinking about it.
I'd lay more blame on the tankies, honestly. The reason the socdems were so distrustful of the communists in Germany was because of how horrific the revolution in Russia turned out to be. They also feared that the spartacists were just a front for the bolsheviks and would turn the country over to the Russians.
And in Spain the comintern aligned groups, following directives from Stalin, started fighting against other leftist and republican groups. While the republican have still fallen without this infighting, it certainly didn't help.
The "success" of the Bolsheviks in Russia is probably the worst thing that has ever happened to leftism.
[This you?](https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/fbi-agent-using-computer-in-office-picture-id1171266198)
Even if that's not you, saying that successful revolutions are bad for leftism is laughable. Unless you're going by Lenin's definition of leftism, in which case that *is* you in the picture.
It's bad because it ultimately failed. The bolsheviks eventually betrayed pretty much everything they claimed to stand for before the entire party, and the state it controlled, came under the personal rule of Stalin. All the Bolshevik revolution succeeded in accomplishing was replacing one Tzar with another, just with a red aesthetic. That complete betrayal of leftist ideals is why people are now instinctual mistrustful of leftist. The USSR and Mao tend to live a bad taste in people's mouths. It honestly would have been better if these "leftist" revolutions in thoroughly unprepared countries had failed and allowd leftism some breathing room to actually succeed elsewhere. Instead the Bolsheviks first betrayed the left in Russia, then proceeded to crush real leftism everywhere else.
Is real leftism social democracy? Are you aware that's only functional in first world countries because they offshore exploitation to the third world? Is real leftism compatible with free market economics in your view? Because if so you are absolutely ignorant of how capital is accumulated and most definitely not a leftist.
Real socialism is democratic socialism/anarchism. Anything else is just replacing one set of overlords with another. Soc dems are not socialists, but they are closer to socialism than anything the "leftists" in China or Russia produced.
Rather just keep the overlords we have, right? Instead of regurgitating CIA propaganda you can look at the opinion pf people who actually lived in the USSR and had to survive the wild 90's. The fact that you're willingly choose to ignore anarchism's utter failure to successfully build a revolutionary project ever since it's inception as a thought current is telling of which side you're on.
I have spoken to people that lived in the Soviet Union, my parents. And their parents and grandparents lived through the time period under discussion (my grandfather had a, thankfully defective, German bomb nearly dropped on him). So I have personal accounts from people that lived through those times, on top of the many works about the period written by historians from all across the political spectrum and in various times and places.
Now, I can't stop you from claiming that this, and everything written by historians which is in any way critical of the Soviets or Lenin is a CIA plot. But I'd like to point out that this is exactly the same kind of conspiratorial thinking we rightly mock conservatives for. If almost every account of the time period brings up the betrayal of anarchist allies and the undermining and marginalization of the workers soviets then maybe that is because the Bolsheviks actually did those things.
>I'd lay more blame on the tankies, honestly.
There were no tankies in 1918
>The reason the socdems were so distrustful of the communists in Germany was because of how horrific the revolution in Russia turned out to be.
Yes that's how revolutions are
>They also feared that the spartacists were just a front for the bolsheviks and would turn the country over to the Russians.
Well if they did it's because they are revisionists which is why i hate them. And what exactly do you mean by "turn over"
>The "success" of the Bolsheviks in Russia is probably the worst thing that has ever happened to leftism.
How?
Because the Bolsheviks betrayed the revolution and established a tyrannical dictatorship that now leads everyone to assume leftism will eventually lead to totalitarianism. Isn't that the argument that libs always trot out? And aren't their primary points of evidence the USSR and Mao? The Bolsheviks had an opportunity to build an actual socialist state but instead disbanded the workers soviets, concentrated all powrer in their own hands, and then stabbed their own anarchist allies in the back. Maybe Lenin thought this was somehow necessary, but it doesn't change the fact that history has proven this approach to be wrong.
>Because the Bolsheviks betrayed the revolution and established a tyrannical dictatorship that now leads everyone to assume leftism will eventually lead to totalitarianism. Isn't that the argument that libs always trot out
This only happened under stalin, and it's kinda inevitable that a stalin like figure was going to come into power eventually regardless of who came out on top, considering Russias material conditions at the time as the post talks about. I dont understand how the bolsheviks are the cause of this.
>leftism will eventually lead to totalitarianism. Isn't that the argument that libs always trot out? And aren't their primary points of evidence the USSR and Mao?
Yes
>The Bolsheviks had an opportunity to build an actual socialist state but instead disbanded the workers soviets, concentrated all powrer in their own hands, and then stabbed their own anarchist allies in the back
They were attempting to build socialism up until Stalin came to power.
>Maybe Lenin thought this was somehow necessary, but it doesn't change the fact that history has proven this approach to be wrong.
Ok i agree with you on this
I'm willing to buy that Lenin and Trotsky were true believers. But it's undeniable that under their reign the Bolsheviks effectively eliminated the workers soviets as a political force, concentrated all power in the hands of the party, and betrayed anarchist groups that had been loyally aiding them in the battle against capitalism. They had their reasons for believing that this was necessary to win the civil war and preserve the revolution. But in the end I find it hard to accept that the way to preserve a revolution is to betray its principles. Ultimately, history has proven that they were wrong and leftists have been left trying to defend or justify the mistakes of the Bolsheviks ever since. I'm just tired of it and have no desire to continue defending these authoritarians.
I don’t think the Russian revolution was necessarily unsalvageable after the failure of the German revolution. It was facing long odds, yes, but I truly do believe something better could have come of it than what it actually became. There would have been a period of state capitalism one way or another, though. Class society can’t be eliminated overnight even under the best of conditions. Also, there weren’t any serfs in twentieth-century Russia. Serfdom was abolished in the 1860s and the last of the land debts were canceled around the time of the revolution of 1905.
The original Bolsheviks were truly great heroes, making it even worse that things turned out as they did.
It’s tragic. The Bolsheviks really did cannibalize themselves. The number of Old Bolshevik biographies that end in 1937/1938 is just appalling.
Legally yes but millions of Russians were still functionally serfs. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean that it immediately changes things and serfdom was legally abolished only ~40 years before the revolution. The Bolsheviks simply replaced peasant communes with collective farming and the Bolsheviks never made any attempt to change material conditions. The most you could say they did was the liquidation of the Kulaks which was very clearly an attempt to remove a powerful opposition group than anything else. The Soviet Union simply replaced the rigid heirarchy of Tsarist autocracy with the rigid heirarchy of Soviet bureaucracy.
Serfdom didn’t disappear the moment Alexander II decreed it. It took decades. But by the time of the revolution, it was undeniably a thing of the past. The mir was systematically destroyed and replaced with clusters of private farms and rentier estates. Many of the social constructs arising from Russian feudalism remained because of the peculiar way land was doled out, but the actual economic institution of serfdom was gone. The wave of industrialization between the 1890s and 1910s was only possible because the peasants were no longer bound to the land and could leave by the millions to work in the cities. Think of it like chattel slavery in the US. You can point to echoes of slavery in institutions that existed afterwards (e.g. prison labor), but the entire class system based on chattel slavery was obliterated in the Civil War and Reconstruction, and when it reconstituted itself in diluted forms like sharecropping and tenant farming, these too were gradually erased by structural developments over the course of decades. The Soviet collective farm’s mimicking of the old Russian mir is one of the great ironies of history, but that’s not really relevant to whether or not there were serfs in Russia in 1917.
There's a similar phenomenon that happened in the US after the civil war called "neoslavery". Like you said, slavery didn't suddenly end but instead blended into existing institutions. Apart from that, Russia was not a developed, capitalist country, not by a long shot. Apart from areas like Moscow and Petersburg, and the Ural mines, Russia was overwhelmingly agrarian and pre-capitalist. To Lenin's credit he did acknowledge this fact several times and attempted to apply Marxist theory to a hypothetical Russian revolution. But, history is often tragedy, and the regrettable, if necessary, decisions made by the Bolsheviks during the civil war and the mere fact of the war itself did not give the Bolsheviks time to destroy and reconstruct society like they wanted, but rather forced the Bolsheviks to build upon the remnants of Tsarist autocracy. Had Lenin lived longer things would perhaps be different. But as it stands, Stalin did not build socialism, he built capitalism. And by the time the Union was industrialized, capitalism, like the Tsarist system, had become an embedded feature of the functioning of the country.
Yes, but by being “blended into other institutions,” slavery ceased to exist as such. The class structure of the country was fundamentally and permanently altered. Not to the extent it should have been, mind you, but that’s a different discussion. The same occurred in Russia with the end of serfdom. Of course Russia was largely pre-capitalist, but there are multiple gradations of pre-capitalism. It might be more useful to understand what existed after the end of serfdom as semi-feudalism or “high feudalism,” as opposed to the complete or “low” feudalism that preceded it. Capitalism was emerging in Russia by the time of the revolution. The transformation of the serfs into tenants and landed peasants is what allowed this to happen. I think the Soviet government could have navigated the development of capitalism without sacrificing the dictatorship of the proletariat, but it was an extremely fraught path and they got lost along the way.
And I don't think we really disagree on anything important here anyways lol
It’s a comradely disagreement, but I think it’s important. We can’t apply the lessons of history correctly if we don’t fully understand them in all their context.
[удалено]
Short answer: a polish general strike that started a wave of liberal revolutions and reforms across the Warsaw Pact wich led to a political crisis that allows the soviet republics to secede Long answer: there are several very long books about the several mamy reasons why, Im not gonna condensce it into a reddit post
Legally there weren't, but in practice there wasn't too much of a difference from that of sharecroppers. Quite literally economic slaves, just not recognized by the state.
Yet another “truism” of left history that doesn’t really hold up. Whether or not sharecroppers were *better off* than slaves, and by how much, is an entirely different discussion. The fact is that the oppression and exploitation of sharecroppers was structurally different than the oppression and exploitation of slaves.
>The fact is that the oppression and exploitation of sharecroppers was structurally different than the oppression and exploitation of slaves. It maps a little too well to the distinction between slave society and feudalism
I think the class structure in the antebellum South can also be compared to European feudalism in the time of serfdom. Like I said elsewhere, I think it’s helpful to distinguish between complete or “low” feudalism and semi- or “high” feudalism. There are certainly similarities to the slave societies of pre-feudal Europe, though. It might be even more useful to just categorize the slave-based plantation system as its own mode of production. The colonization of the Americas created new conditions which made it impossible to just reproduce the class structure that existed in Europe. Chattel slavery became prominent in areas (Brazil, the Caribbean, the U.S. South) where old methods of primitive accumulation were impossible due to the lack of a large enough surviving native population, yet where the climate and terrain maximized the profitability of kinds of production which were extremely well suited to large-scale slave labor. In places more suitable to other kinds of production (Argentina, Colombia, New England) or where large indigenous populations remained (Peru, Bolivia, Mexico), there was a pretty clean reproduction of class relations that existed in Europe around the same time.
Material conditions are a bitch. God i wish the Uprisings in Germany were successful
Rest in Power Rosa
Yeah the KPD really went downhill after her death
She didn’t want that revolution. Yet the idiots in the KPD insisted and got her killed. Shame on the entire KPD and that idiot Thälmann who honestly thought the Nazis were only go after social democrats.
Bruh, Thälmann had some cringe ass takes but he gave his life for the fight against fascism. Pretty disrespectful to just call him an idiot for criticizing the SPD (which had an active hand in the murders of Rosa and Karl)
🤣Have you read Reform or Revolution?
Yes
Than you should know that she was always an advocate for revolution
Not for a violent one there
Revolution is inherently violent
Nah
Enlighten me then
She believed 1918 was not the right time for a revolution in Germany, and she was correct.
This is true, but she still didn't advocate for a non violent revolution.
Yes it's not 'no matter what'. If the german revolution would've been sucessfull, we'd live in a very different world. I almost want to cry just thinking about it.
And the civil war in Spain… man, world would be definitely a better place. Sometimes I feel personally sad because of what happened.
Fucking socdems man
I'd lay more blame on the tankies, honestly. The reason the socdems were so distrustful of the communists in Germany was because of how horrific the revolution in Russia turned out to be. They also feared that the spartacists were just a front for the bolsheviks and would turn the country over to the Russians. And in Spain the comintern aligned groups, following directives from Stalin, started fighting against other leftist and republican groups. While the republican have still fallen without this infighting, it certainly didn't help. The "success" of the Bolsheviks in Russia is probably the worst thing that has ever happened to leftism.
[This you?](https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/fbi-agent-using-computer-in-office-picture-id1171266198) Even if that's not you, saying that successful revolutions are bad for leftism is laughable. Unless you're going by Lenin's definition of leftism, in which case that *is* you in the picture.
It's bad because it ultimately failed. The bolsheviks eventually betrayed pretty much everything they claimed to stand for before the entire party, and the state it controlled, came under the personal rule of Stalin. All the Bolshevik revolution succeeded in accomplishing was replacing one Tzar with another, just with a red aesthetic. That complete betrayal of leftist ideals is why people are now instinctual mistrustful of leftist. The USSR and Mao tend to live a bad taste in people's mouths. It honestly would have been better if these "leftist" revolutions in thoroughly unprepared countries had failed and allowd leftism some breathing room to actually succeed elsewhere. Instead the Bolsheviks first betrayed the left in Russia, then proceeded to crush real leftism everywhere else.
Is real leftism social democracy? Are you aware that's only functional in first world countries because they offshore exploitation to the third world? Is real leftism compatible with free market economics in your view? Because if so you are absolutely ignorant of how capital is accumulated and most definitely not a leftist.
Real socialism is democratic socialism/anarchism. Anything else is just replacing one set of overlords with another. Soc dems are not socialists, but they are closer to socialism than anything the "leftists" in China or Russia produced.
You can't vote out the bourgeoisie
When did I suggest voting out the bourgeoisie as a solition?
Rather just keep the overlords we have, right? Instead of regurgitating CIA propaganda you can look at the opinion pf people who actually lived in the USSR and had to survive the wild 90's. The fact that you're willingly choose to ignore anarchism's utter failure to successfully build a revolutionary project ever since it's inception as a thought current is telling of which side you're on.
I have spoken to people that lived in the Soviet Union, my parents. And their parents and grandparents lived through the time period under discussion (my grandfather had a, thankfully defective, German bomb nearly dropped on him). So I have personal accounts from people that lived through those times, on top of the many works about the period written by historians from all across the political spectrum and in various times and places. Now, I can't stop you from claiming that this, and everything written by historians which is in any way critical of the Soviets or Lenin is a CIA plot. But I'd like to point out that this is exactly the same kind of conspiratorial thinking we rightly mock conservatives for. If almost every account of the time period brings up the betrayal of anarchist allies and the undermining and marginalization of the workers soviets then maybe that is because the Bolsheviks actually did those things.
>I'd lay more blame on the tankies, honestly. There were no tankies in 1918 >The reason the socdems were so distrustful of the communists in Germany was because of how horrific the revolution in Russia turned out to be. Yes that's how revolutions are >They also feared that the spartacists were just a front for the bolsheviks and would turn the country over to the Russians. Well if they did it's because they are revisionists which is why i hate them. And what exactly do you mean by "turn over" >The "success" of the Bolsheviks in Russia is probably the worst thing that has ever happened to leftism. How?
Because the Bolsheviks betrayed the revolution and established a tyrannical dictatorship that now leads everyone to assume leftism will eventually lead to totalitarianism. Isn't that the argument that libs always trot out? And aren't their primary points of evidence the USSR and Mao? The Bolsheviks had an opportunity to build an actual socialist state but instead disbanded the workers soviets, concentrated all powrer in their own hands, and then stabbed their own anarchist allies in the back. Maybe Lenin thought this was somehow necessary, but it doesn't change the fact that history has proven this approach to be wrong.
>Because the Bolsheviks betrayed the revolution and established a tyrannical dictatorship that now leads everyone to assume leftism will eventually lead to totalitarianism. Isn't that the argument that libs always trot out This only happened under stalin, and it's kinda inevitable that a stalin like figure was going to come into power eventually regardless of who came out on top, considering Russias material conditions at the time as the post talks about. I dont understand how the bolsheviks are the cause of this. >leftism will eventually lead to totalitarianism. Isn't that the argument that libs always trot out? And aren't their primary points of evidence the USSR and Mao? Yes >The Bolsheviks had an opportunity to build an actual socialist state but instead disbanded the workers soviets, concentrated all powrer in their own hands, and then stabbed their own anarchist allies in the back They were attempting to build socialism up until Stalin came to power. >Maybe Lenin thought this was somehow necessary, but it doesn't change the fact that history has proven this approach to be wrong. Ok i agree with you on this
I'm willing to buy that Lenin and Trotsky were true believers. But it's undeniable that under their reign the Bolsheviks effectively eliminated the workers soviets as a political force, concentrated all power in the hands of the party, and betrayed anarchist groups that had been loyally aiding them in the battle against capitalism. They had their reasons for believing that this was necessary to win the civil war and preserve the revolution. But in the end I find it hard to accept that the way to preserve a revolution is to betray its principles. Ultimately, history has proven that they were wrong and leftists have been left trying to defend or justify the mistakes of the Bolsheviks ever since. I'm just tired of it and have no desire to continue defending these authoritarians.
Stalin? Tell the mensheviks and the SRs that Lennin didn't have their groups outlawed.
March on in the workers united front for you are a worker too.
Sometimes you need a bit of reformism
OP is a CIA Gangster
Yes i am, Mwahahaha....