Was The Russian Revolution Justified (the 1917 One)?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Poll question: Was The Russian Revolution Justified (the 1917 One)?

I say yes but being the garden variety liberal that I am I would have supported the Kerensky government...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. I'm Suprised By The No Votes

I don't think Russia needed a Czarist government in the twentieth century...

[IndianaGreen]

17. Ignorance of history

is as much an American trait as motherhood and apple pie.

How many Americans believe to this day that Saddam was involved in 9/11?

On edit:

I will point out that under the Tsars, women were mere property of their husbands, and could not vote, hold property, or have an abortion.

The Bolsheviks gave women equality, the right to fully participate in all aspects of the political process, and the unrestricted right to abortion.

American women in 2003 have yet to achieve what our Soviet counterparts had in 1917-1919.

[FatbackSlim]

20. And yet...

...throughout most of Soviet history, those same women would have gladly traded their lives with those of American women.

The revolution was justified, but was ultimately a failure. We rarely appreciate just how lucky we were in ours.

[David Zephyr]

2. The Workers Revolution Was Justified.

Equally as the American Revolution was justified.

[FlashHarry]

3. I dunno, the 50 million victims of Stalin might disagree.

At the time, probably. In hindsight, probably not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. There Were Actually Three Revolutions

A failed one in 1905


The one that overtthrew the Czar in 1917


And then one later that year that overthrew the Kerensky government.... that's the one that propelled Lenin to power and made Stalinism possible upon his death...


The first two were justified IMHO

[FlashHarry]

7. As I said, they were--at the time.

But, in hindsight, it's pretty tough to say.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Inevitible

The serfs were thoroughly abused. I don't blame them, though the results sucked.

[FloridaJudy]

31. More than three

Let's not forget the doomed Decembrists, and Stenka Razin's peasant revolt.

My mother's family fled Russia in 1917, just ahead of the white army. Since they were liberal socialists, they're lucky they didn't stick around for the purges. Tales of what life was like under the Tsar would curl your hair. I can't believe the Russian Orthodox church is actually considering making him a saint.

Those folks must have short memories. Sheesh.

[David Zephyr]

6. That Was Stalin. Not the Revolution.

By your standard, the Holocaust against tens of millions of African slaves and the near extinction of the Native "Americans" would therefore made the American Revolution unjustified, wouldn't it?

[FatbackSlim]

11. No....

Slavery was here in what became the U.S. well before the American Revolution.

[David Zephyr]

13. Yes, And The American "Revolutionary Government" Sanctioned It.

Slavery was a BIG part of the new United States of America. Blessed and sanctioned and enforced for decades. Ever hear of the "Runaway Slave Act"?

[FatbackSlim]

16. Sure...

But slavery was not a consequence of the American Revolution, whereas Communist mass murder *was* a consequence of the Russian Revolution. The two situations are not comparable.

[David Zephyr]

22. WTF?

I'll just let your last statement stand here in cyberspace forever.

[FatbackSlim]

25. Ok....

Fine by me, since it makes perfect sense. Feel free to elucidate.

[FlashHarry]

18. Yep. I'm all for rejoining the Mother Country!

[JanMichael]

15. How many people in this Capitalist's Paridisio have died of hunger...

...in that same period? How many from violent crimes?

How many from having no, or worthless, health insurance?

How many in the Mills, Factories, etc?

Why put numbers on only one human experiment?

They're as worthless as condeming the entire Russian Revolution because of one man, Stalin, which was by almost any other estimation justified.

<sarc>Go Czar!</sarc>

[IndianaGreen]

27. Stalin never killed 50 million, or even 20 million

That was a propaganda scheme, a made-up story, by publisher William Randolp Hearst. He made that number up, totally fictitious. At the time, the Hearst newspapers were at the forefront in the fight against unions and socialism. It is no coincidence that Hearst was also an admirer of Adolf Hitler, as many American industrialists.

This is one of the many lies, like bedtime stories about the Jersey devil, told to American children at bedtime so they behaved.

[durutti]

40. You Beat Me to It

All that said, Stalin was a tyrant. He did kill a lot of people, too many even by his own admission.

But he also modernized and industrialized the Soviet Union. His policies were responsible for dramatically raising the standard of living for most Russians, increasing life expectancy and decreasing the mortality rate and infant mortality rate.

[durutti]

42. Lenin Didn't Want Stalin to Succeed Him

It wasn't exactly clear who he did want to head the party after his death, but he definitely didn't want Stalin.

It's also worth noting that some socialists see Stalin's rise to power constituted a state-capitalist counter-revolution.

[Patriot_Spear]

5. Lenin was initially financed by the German Foreign Office...

Predecessor to the Abwher- talk about blowback, whew.

Read "The Moscow Train".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Two Great Reads Are

To The Finland Station

and

Ten Days That Shook The World


but it's been a couple of decades since I read them...


I liked Kerensky... He was a Sun Yat Sen like figure who got buried in the avalanche of history...

[David Zephyr]

10. Ten Days That Shook the World.

I have the First Edition in pretty good shape.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I Lost It

Every once in awhile I look for a book I used to own and it's gone....

From Rousseau's Social Contract to Robert Heilbroner's Marxism For And Against; gone....

[Keithpotkin]

23. to the finland station

quality. :thumbsup:

[On the Road]

9. Yes, the Revolution Was Justified

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Yes, the people of Russia had an absolute right to overthrow the Czar and choose their government. But they would have been much better off if the Kerensky government had had more time. Revolution is like Russian roulette.

[Dirk39]

14. It was justified...

but it was wrong from the start. Lenins theory of an avantgarde that has to lead the working class and think for them, was wrong from the start and has nothing to do with marxism. And the Soviet Union wasn't in the condition, to allow a socialist system. According to Marx, you need a developped capitalism and a developped kind of civil society, before any socialist revolution makes sense, and I hardly doubt that the majoritiy of the russion people, as angry they might have been against the zarist regime, have supported the Bolshevikis. Looking back it might have been the biggest failure in history. I'm not a prophet and it's far to easy to judge about things that never happened, but I think, if a socialist revolution would have succeded in Germany or Great Britain of France after WW1, we might live in a better world today. On the other side, although I never supported the existing socialist states, although I had much more sympathies for Russia than for their satelite states (been there), I regret that the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore and that they've lost the cold war. Me, I didn't believe in their system, but it was a real thread to the economic elites in the west, and now they feel free to turn the whole world in a social-darwinistic jungle and to go on letting millions and millions of people die every year. The life-expectancy rate in the former Soviet-Union is 5 years less than during the socialist times. And this means, if you consider the class-factor, a lot of the working class and the unemployed in the former Soviet-Union have lost 1/3 of their lives. It might sound absurd, but the world we live in is absurd.
Dirk

[MasonJar]

19. Tsars and Revolution

The Revolution was not a good thing for Russia as George Orwell has well-documented. It just took a monarchy and replaced it with a dictatorship. Also there was the vicious murder of the royal family, including the children, completely premedicated and brutal, foreshadowing the future of the regime.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. George Orwell Was A Democratic Socialist

who hated totalarianism...



And I know he wasn't a czarist...

[Euphen]

24. The Tsar's Execution

Do you consider the executions of Charles I and Louis XVI to be "vicious murder?" The Bolsheviks executed the royal family because they feared that they would be taken by the advancing White Armies and become a symbol for the counterrevolution. Had the Whites united around the royal family it's possible they could have won the Civil War.

[Keithpotkin]

26. the revolution freed people

all of Russia basically resorted to anarchism after the revolution (the good kind of revolution...the kind they fought for)...but was quickly squashed by the bolshevicks....

what do they have to do with the revolution, though?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Not To Be A Drone But Things Fell Apart

when Kerensky was deposed....

[Keithpotkin]

37. but even after

it took months before all the self sufficient communes had been crushed by the bolshs.

[Nikia]

28. Yes

The monarchy was a type of dictatorship and most Russians were horribly poor. The country was at least a century behind the rest of Europe developmentally. Perhaps the Kerensky government would have been better than Bolsheviks but we'll never know. Many Russians were richer and freerer than they had been under the czar, and Bolshevism allowed Russia to modernize. Lenin never wanted Stalin to replace him. Now Russians are trying to adjust to a more democratic and capitalistic society with very little success but we must remember that they had neither historically.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I don't Think Putin Is Any Great Shakes....

He's not a liberal democrat in my book....

[ElkHunter]

29. There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind...

...that had I been alive during that era I would have been a member of the left wing of the Socialist Party of America. As such, I would have indeed supported the October revolution and the Bolsheviks. But like Debs I hope that I would have pulled back with the rise of stalinism.

[MrPrax]

33. So Far No One Has Said The Obvious

...Lenin was very popular!! and even more so after removing Russia from the very unpopular First World War.
Kerensky's government failed on this crutial issue.

Lenin came to power and almost immediately the 'imperialists' attacked the country...ergo the war communism phase.
Then came the NEP experiments and then Stalin and collectivization...and the socialism in one country...
I always imagine that if the west simply accepted the USSR and traded freely with it, Stalin might not have been able to consolidate power so ruthlessly...
I mean his justifications for doing so was largely because the Revolution was unpopular with the 'ca-piddle-ist' tried for more than 80 years to undermine the USSR...
Doubtful any other major power in the world would have put up with such overt and covert attacks without striking out...

Just a thought...

As far as dictators killing lots of people...that is what dictators do...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. The New Economic Policy Was A Humane Program

It left the small farmers alone...

Things deteriorated upon Lenin's death...

[ElkHunter]

36. And lets not forget...

...The brutal civil war, the assassination attempt on Lenin, the embargo, invasion, and attempted couterrevolution and by 26 capitalist nations, etc. Lenin was indeed popular. He died in 1924 and was in ill health for a good deal of the time for at least two years prior to his death. It was certainly possible that the Russian revolution could have turned out differently if these great obstacles weren't placed in it's path - or if the Germans had been successful in making their revolution. Or if Trotsky had won over Stalin...

[JanMichael]

38. Excellant post.

I especially liked this statement:

"Doubtful any other major power in the world would have put up with such overt and covert attacks without striking out..."

No shit. I'm still amazed that with the never ending economic and military (fomenting rebellian) assault by the staunch Oligarchic nations that the USSR didn't say "Fuck off, forever.". That presure also empowered Stalin in his personal objectives.

Responsibility? Never on the Oligarchs.

[Shanty Oilish]

35. If you mean the end of czarism, yes...but

if you mean the Bolsheviks, no, nothing could justify that.

[Alex88]

39. Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution

I was unable to post this cartoon in the post. The link will do.

A 1911 cartoon from the St. Louis Post Dispatch by Robert Minor showed Karl Marx welcomed to Wall Street by John D. Ryan (National City Bank), and John D. Rockefeller (Chase Bank and Standard Oil), as well as J.P. Morgan and his partner George W. Perkins (Guaranty Trust Co. and Equitable Life). Andrew Carnegie and Teddy Roosevelt were also featured.


http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/item200/item229.html

[HereSince1628]

43. The overthrow of monarchy is ALWAYS justified.

And the "great" families of the plutocracy do well to remember that.

[David__77]

44. Kerensky's weakness...

Kerensky refused to withdraw Russia from the ruinous war. This is not a question of Stalin or what became known as the Soviet Union. Many non-Bolshevik groups participated in the October Revolution because they opposed the war that was destroying the sons of the people and the land and nation's wealth. Lenin in fact stepped into a historical opportunity peculiar to the situation.