1) the idea that 1917 was simply a 'transfer of management' does not begin to explain the scale of events or the effects of that so-called 'transfer of management' for many following decades. and what role did the working class play in all this 'transfer' in 1917? - were they simply onlookers to the events? it may give a few ultras the excuse to distance themselves from harsh realities of a revolutionary wave led by a minority of the population in an economically and socially backward country which became isolated by the failure of the spread of that revolutionary overthrow. it does not explain how the working class came to control the state apparatus for a period. There is plenty to critisise and learn from - but the position of the 'critics' you list is simply to condemn. As you know it would take an entire bulletin board of its own to go through each and every argument for and against of each of these self-appointed guardians of workers self-emancipation.
2) You ignore Knotted pertinant point - what was the nature of the post 1917 soviet state?
3) while the 'principle' may be to mouth the language of the revolution being 'led by the people' it does not explain the HOW in practice. And of course we all agree on the central role of the working class in their own emancipation if we are going to move towards our agreed goal of a classless society - so what - HOW? - by refusing to get our hands dirty unless all is on our terms?
4) It reminds me of the type of 'revolutionary' who stands on the sidelines condemning the imperfections of say a 'racist' strike rather than getting their hands dirty. (Because we both agree on the obvious recent example - I hope you can see the similarity I am pointing to here?) Of course a bulletin board post cannot begin to adequately take up all of the matters you have raised in your usual listing but, a quick summary on the comments on Kronstadt; the 'popular defense of the revolution' and the 'nature of the society after the revolution (how surplus was extracted)' - which I think are largely simply attempts to legitimise the main pre-conception - that the 'bolsheviks' were opposed to working class control (therefore: that they wanted power for themselves, that stalinism is a direct heir of leninism, that they were all bastards really and nothing to do with us mate, honest etc etc etc) .
5) Firstly - the move against the Kronstadt uprising was presicly because of an awareness of the wider movement. Secondly the very 'enemies' of that movement point this out again and again. So your point about the 'left' is factually incorrect (as well as ignoring completely the endless arguments for and against ever since). Trotsky and Lenin explained the reasons for that movement and the dangers - rather than cheering the third revolution from the sidelines and in long retrospect.
6) Secondly - the 'defense of the revolution' - while the popular support waxed and wained - for obvious concrete reasons. But - if everybody hated the bolsheviks by 1918 - how do you explain the incredible success of the movement in defense of the revolution against 21 foreign and white armies? And by a people for whom one of the mains aims of their original revolution was peace (alongside bread and land) - against the imperial slaughter of WW1? Can you explain that away entirely by coercion? or the need of the bureaucracy to cloak itself in the language of socialism from the beginning?
7) Thirdly - the attempt to prove 'nothing had changed beyond the management' through a simplistic 'how surplus was extracted' trick - well, how true or not that is and the nature of the resulting regime - is what we have all been bumbling around to discover for the rest of this thread. You want some simple overnight transformation from the 'horrors of czarism' to 'perfect society' - sadly, reality proved much more complicated.
8) A revolution in an advanced capitalist country such as ours, nowadays, would take place in entirely different conditions - with the experience of the failures of stalinism, with a movement of people who are literate, have many more direct means of rapid communication and have the hindsight of history on their side alongside a technologically and economically greatly advanced society to begin from. Most importantly they would be the vast majority of the population.
9) You can sit around condemning cobwebs in retrospect if you like. But don't blame the 'lefts' for not taking you seriously by putting words into their mouths which were not there in the first place. I would imagine that some of those who have read and agree with the list of 'untainted' authors you list will be among those who are the best defense of worker's democracy after some revolutionary overthrow of the capitalists in the UK but I hope also that they would have learnt from the experience of applying ideas in practice through actual events rather than just theory. It will be a damn site easier for hem this time around.
cheers dennis .. lots of good points there ..
1) did you read the Smith book yet? it really is brilliant as using original research he looks at how the w/c DID take part in a revolution, in Petrograd ( which really was the core area) .. it burst a lot of ballons .. ultra left , @ and also Leninist .. imho it is the most importnat book at how the revolution actually happenned in Russia though sadly it does not extend to 1921 which we all agree was a critical date
so ok i ( and plenty of writers there then and here now ) do not believe there was a successful working class revolution in Russia in 1917 .. i believe that the Bolsheviks were a middle class party ( on the basis of the managerial politics and that their target was a semi feudal undemocratic country ) who in the midst of a collapsing old regime carried out a coup essentially carrying on the bourgois revolution .. there was not a expropriation of power by the w/c on mass ( in a few cases there was ) but the massive sate and semi state factories were in the absence of their owners simply taken over by the new state, keeping not just the technocrats but bureaucrats in place
why did it last? as it was widely popular .. not because it was a revolution from below .. and because this new state ( with its surplus
) was able to pay for its defence .. the Red Army was NOT unpaid
btw many of those i qouted were active supporters of the revolution for many years and were NOT just on the side lines ( btw have you read any of those .. it always saddens me that @s never read the lefts books and vice versa .. one i did not mention, Serge causes the ultra left and @ critique a problem ( as they like him ) as he takes the line that the repression of the Third Revolution it was tragic but neccessary
2) i thought i had ...
3) fair play .. but the Bolsheviks were only one party of many .. yes they palyed a critical role .. why? well some say as they had the best politics .. history teaches us that just because you become the biggest tendancy does not automatically mean your politics are correct or the best ..
4) fair play i see what you mean but again this is simply not true .. the ultra left and @s did NOT stand on the sidelines ( again the Smith book is great in this area) .. they played for many years, even past 1921, active roles in industry and the Soviets .. until they were either driven out of the country or were gulaged or shot
and it is also important to remember that the @s and ultra left had critiqued the Bolsheviks for many many years and argued that what did happen would happen , on the basis of the managerial and what they saw as undemocratic politics in their platform and Lenins speeches
5) but the defenders of Trotsky and Lenin argue the wider movement was the whites .. what has emerged more and more since is the depth of the strength of the Third Revolution .. but this Third Revolution was specifically critical of the Bolsheviks .. their opposition to it was based on that NOT just the danger to 'the revolution' ..
6) the revolution was popular .. but that does not mean that those who ran it were .. initially yes as those who are in the van get the praise but that praise soon turned to opposition when people realised this was not what they had thought .. if in 1984 the state had sent troops into Liverpool do you think Liverpool @s would have stood on the sideline?
7) ok but i have given a whole series of indicators which you ignored .. imho those indicators DO give a reading of what the system was .. and yes i accept things do not go perfectly .. but we have the privalige of hindsight so we can here and now sift out what appears wrong and right .. and of course it is all hypothetical .. the point is always there was a mass workers demand for a renewal of the revolution in 1921 which was crushed by the Bolsheviks ..
8) lets hope so .. but the reason we still have this arguement is we still disagree on what makes a revolution success
9) i am not sure of your point here .. i was not aware i had put words into peoples mouths .. and we all look at things in retrospect to see if they were right or wrong, so i am not sure what is so wrong with that .. and i sense a dig against me? which seems odd as you know my track record was is nothing like waht you talk of there ?? so not sure of your point
cheers for now
- very true
