Breaking with the Russian Revolution

[Traitorfish]

It appears to me that almost every poster here, assuming that we don't have any closet Tsarists kicking around, would likely affirm the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the regimes which emerged from it up up to a certain point- after all, despite later developments, it began as a constitutionalist, democratic government on a Western model, which is a base-line that I can't imagine many here would reject. So I thought that it might be interesting to see how people's attitudes to the revolution shift as it progressed, and when posters here would "break" with it, in the sense of regarding it as a no-longer legitimate movement, for whatever reasons that may be, and which I hope that you'll give your reasons for.

A little elaboration on the options (the dates are Gregorian), just so were all on the same page, and in case anyone has anything to say about the options:

12th Feb., 1917 - Declaration of the establishment of the Provisional Government
The declaration of a provisional democratic government during the February Revolution under the First Coalition headed by the liberal Georgy Lvov.

15th March, 1917 - Resignation of the Tsar
The resignation of Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias during the February Revolution. Establishment of de facto republic, Michael Alexandrovich being neither recognised by the government nor opting to pursue his claim without nomination.

July, 1917 - Formalisation of dual-power
The attempt at reconciliation between the Provisional Government and the soviets by the Second Coalition under Kerensky, in which the Provisional Government, although remaining the ultimate political power, would recognised and cooperate with the soviets, at this dominated by the Mensheviks and Right-Socialist Revolutionaries (moderate agrarian socialists).

15th September, 1917 - Establishment of Directory and Republic
The establishment of a five-man Directory by Kerensky, which proceeded to declare Russia a republic, contrary to the understanding that the Provisional Government would remain merely provisional, and that any major constitutional issues would be decided by the Constituent Assembly.

6-7th November, 1917 - October Revolution
The overthrow of the Provisional Government by the Petrograd Soviet, now headed up by the Bolsheviks and with the support of the Left-Socialist Revolutionaries (radical agrarian socialists) and anarchists, and the establishment of "soviet power", the exclusive government of the mass assemblies of workers, soldiers and peasants.

19th January, 1918 - Dissolution of the Constituent Assembly
The Russian Constituent Assembly is forcibly dissolved by the Bolshevik government, with the support of the Left-SRs and anarchists, once it becomes clear that they will reject soviet power. (This in part due to the over-representation of the Right-SRs, who form a majority, due to the gap between the election and the formation of the assembly which does not take into account the formal split of the Left and Right SRs.)

3rd March, 1918 - Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
End of Russian involvement in the war. Secession of Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states.

July, 1918 - Execution of the Romanovs
Former Tsar Nicholas and his immediate family are executed by the Bolshevik government of the Yekaterinburg soviet on the 17th of July. Members of the extended are executed the following day.

March, 1921 - Kronstadt rebellion, suppression of the Workers' Opposition
During the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party, an armed uprising is staged by the sailors and soldiers of the Kronstadt fortress near St. Petersburg. Following the uprising, the Workers' Opposition, a left-wing faction within the Bolshevik Party, were suppressed by the Central Committee.

21st March, 1921 - Introduction of the New Economic Policy
The "strategic retreat" towards a partial market economy, involving the reintroduction of private property and commerce.

1925-1929 - Suppression of the Left and Right Oppositions
Stalin's marginalisation and suppression of Trotsky's Left Opposition and Bukharin's Right Opposition. Ends with all major opponents of Stalin either exiled or brought to heel.

Later/not at all
For those would opt for some later date, or would support (perhaps critically) the Soviet Union right up until 1991.

I suspect that most responses will be at the October Revolution or earlier, but I'm leaving it open in case anybody feels like popular support would demand acceptance of the government even if you yourself would not support it (if popular support is what you perceive to have existed at any given time; it's obviously something that is both debatable and varies over time).

 

[Dachs]

/me disagrees with the gross mischaracterization of komuch as a 'left-sr uprising...nominally with the intention of restarting the war with germany' especially after the denunciation of the kerenskyite directory on constitutional grounds

Anyway, my opposition to the Revolution starts when Russia ceased to be an American ally. All other considerations are effectively irrelevant.

 

[Traitorfish]

/me disagrees with the gross mischaracterization of komuch as a 'left-sr uprising...nominally with the intention of restarting the war with germany' especially after the denunciation of the kerenskyite directory on constitutional grounds

Well, I deleted that because I realised that I'd missed out the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, and I wanted to keep the options limited, so that's no longer an issue.

(Edit: Wait, I dashed that off just as I was leaving for the night, so I wasn't paying full attention- I didn't actually mean the Komuch, but the uprising conducted by the Left-SRs in the areas which had been ceded to Germany and the associated assassination attempts against Bolshevik and German officials (General von Eichorn, von Mirchbach, etc.). I figured that would be more significant in regards to this question because it related specifically to the development of the Soviet government, although I suppose that's debatable in itself.)

Anyway, my opposition to the Revolution starts when Russia ceased to be an American ally. All other considerations are effectively irrelevant.

Would that be the October Revolution or Brest-Litovsk, or some point in between? I'm not as well read on the diplomacy of the period as I should be.

 

[Dachs]

Well, I deleted that because I realised that I'd missed out the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, and I wanted to keep the options limited, so that's no longer an issue.

hooray

Would that be the October Revolution or Brest-Litovsk, or some point in between? I'm not as well read on the diplomacy of the period as I should be.

ehhh, I suppose you could characterize the period in between november/december 1917 and march 1918 as cobelligerence which is 'good enough'

so brest-litovsk it is

 

[LightSpectra]

The communists jumped the shark when they executed the Tsar's family. They also discredited themselves with the New Economic Policy and Kronstadt rebellion. Though I'm not a fan of the whites or royalists, either.

 

[Quackers]

I broke with the Russian revolution at 6-7th October traitorfish.
The Kerensky provisional government may have led Russia to parliamentary democracy and into the arms of the West. Instead it got replaced by a group which led to a brutal dictatorship years later. Thats my analysis. Quackers nowawaits the gallows

 

[Dachs]

The Kerensky provisional government may have led Russia to parliamentary democracy and into the arms of the West. Instead it got replaced by a group which led to a brutal dictatorship years later. Thats my analysis. Quackers nowawaits the gallows

kerensky himself was kinda dictatorial, and a lot of the opposition to him arose because of his failure to abide by promises to transition power to a genuine constitutional government

now, to be fair, there were such avenues to social democracy and such in the offing e.g. komuch but it's unclear how viable they would've been or whether they'd have continued the policies that they espoused early on

 

[Virote_Considon]

From the point of view of the Russians, I'd break with it with the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, if not sooner. Many of the "Whites" were fighting primarily because they believed the new Russian government should be chosen first and foremost by the people - even figures such as the brutal Admiral Kolchak. The dissolution was the final death-knell to such a possibility on behalf of the Bolsheviks.

Before the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, I would say that it wasn't so clean-cut; both the Provisional Government and the Soviets did have a reasonable amount of support. But the Constituent Assembly elections proved that the Bolsheviks did not command such support.

From the point of view that revolution itself is inherently a good thing in the world*, whether or not it is a good thing for the direct participants, Russia/the SU ceased being a revolutionary entity in all but name following Khrushchev's 1956 De-Stalinization speech.

I can't think of anyone who would say the NEP was when the revolution lost legitimacy. It was a pragmatic necessity caused by factors which the Bolsheviks had not foreseen.

*Although there are only a handful of people who I know I'd say would believe that it is.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

1929. Not because of forced collectivization, which is something I disagree with, but because that was when Stalin became powerful enough to force Trotsky to resign and subsequently become exiled from the USSR. Not that Trotsky was uniquely required, but his departure signaled a fundamental unbalancing of Soviet politics which allowed one person (Stalin) to consolidate power, purge the party and then the country of people who were not personally loyal to him. It was the beginning of nomenklatura, which is more destructive to socialism than anything, even dictatorship.

 

[Lord Baal]

/me disagrees with the gross mischaracterization of komuch as a 'left-sr uprising...nominally with the intention of restarting the war with germany' especially after the denunciation of the kerenskyite directory on constitutional grounds

I'd kind of disagree with the mischaracterisation of the Revolution as a single entity, myself, as there were actually several different 'revolutions' and 'civil wars' in the period, without even including the independence uprisings in several former-Russian states, such as Finland. Certainly the Bolsheviks weren't a continuation of the Revolution so much as starting their own, though you could certainly say the Petrograd Soviet had never really stopped revolting.

Anyway, my opposition to the Revolution starts when Russia ceased to be an American ally. All other considerations are effectively irrelevant.

Why is that? Following it from a purely geopolitical point of view, so that as long as they're acting in America's interests they're acceptable? Or some other reason?

As for myself; it's difficult to say. I agree with Cheezy that by 1929 there really wasn't any reason whatsoever to continue supporting the Revolution - with the exception of not getting yourself sent to a gulag, of course - but I think I'd likely break with the Revolution from an ideological standpoint with the establishment of the Directory, which clearly wasn't democratic. Not that I'd be dumb enough to advertise this were I actually in Russia at the time, but still.

 

[Dachs]

I'd kind of disagree with the mischaracterisation of the Revolution as a single entity, myself, as there were actually several different 'revolutions' and 'civil wars' in the period, without even including the independence uprisings in several former-Russian states, such as Finland. Certainly the Bolsheviks weren't a continuation of the Revolution so much as starting their own, though you could certainly say the Petrograd Soviet had never really stopped revolting.

Irrelevant. If you want to amend the thread's question to "when did you stop agreeing with the general course revolutionary processes were taking in Russia" it has the same overall effect. And don't whine about the use of the word "processes" as unduly deterministic since that's totally not what it means at all.

Whereas my thing about KOMUCH is kind of a pet peeve of mine since the group itself is probably one of my favorite little-known groups of Whites. And the things Traitorfish had to say about it made no sense from his point of view - tacit approval of the Bolsheviks over the constitutionalist Samara council is just weird for somebody who is ostensibly opposed to authoritarianism (and brought up that very point re:Kerensky earlier on in the same post).

Why is that? Following it from a purely geopolitical point of view, so that as long as they're acting in America's interests they're acceptable?

Yes. I am perfectly willing to approve of Bolshevik 'revolutionary excesses' so long as they're being committed by friends and allies of the United States.

 

[Tee Kay]

January 19, 1918. It was clear then that the Bolsheviks tolerated no political organisation but themselves.

 

[Antilogic]

...

I suspect that most responses will be at the October Revolution or earlier, but I'm leaving it open in case anybody feels like popular support would demand acceptance of the government even if you yourself would not support it (if popular support is what you perceive to have existed at any given time; it's obviously something that is both debatable and varies over time).

You are almost correct, at least on my attitudes. Given my lack of familiarity with the details of this period (it's on the reading list! I swear!), I am debating between the October Revolution and Dissolution in January. Had I been a Russian in this period, I would have agreed with the signing of Brest-Litovsk Treaty, though.

I would have lost hope and parted with the revolution(s) when the possibility of a democratic government disappeared. At that point, you have traded one dictator for another.

Yes. I am perfectly willing to approve of Bolshevik 'revolutionary excesses' so long as they're being committed by friends and allies of the United States.

Gah, when you pick a position, you really pick a position. And stick with it.

 

[Lord Baal]

Irrelevant. If you want to amend the thread's question to "when did you stop agreeing with the general course revolutionary processes were taking in Russia" it has the same overall effect. And don't whine about the use of the word "processes" as unduly deterministic since that's totally not what it means at all.

Whereas my thing about KOMUCH is kind of a pet peeve of mine since the group itself is probably one of my favorite little-known groups of Whites. And the things Traitorfish had to say about it made no sense from his point of view - tacit approval of the Bolsheviks over the constitutionalist Samara council is just weird for somebody who is ostensibly opposed to authoritarianism (and brought up that very point re:Kerensky earlier on in the same post).

Yes. I am perfectly willing to approve of Bolshevik 'revolutionary excesses' so long as they're being committed by friends and allies of the United States.

You don't have to be so damn aggressive. I was merely pointing out the pet peeve of referring to the Russian Revolution as one single uprising, when it wasn't, in much the same way I don't like the term "French Revolution" being used to encompass the entire period from the storming of the Bastille until Napoleon's coronation.

I'm also not in any way arguing against your position. I was merely asking why you were taking that position. Damn.

Nor did I have any intention of arguing with the use of the word "processes." For several reasons, the main one being that I agree with you that it's NOT deterministic. Calm the hell down.

 

[Dachs]

"Aggressive"? Huh? Should I have added smileys into various sections to demonstrate the humor and semiseriousness?

 

[Lord Baal]

"Aggressive"? Huh? Should I have added smileys into various sections to demonstrate the humor and semiseriousness?

That is what they're for.

 

[Traitorfish]

Before the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, I would say that it wasn't so clean-cut; both the Provisional Government and the Soviets did have a reasonable amount of support. But the Constituent Assembly elections proved that the Bolsheviks did not command such support.

Well, as I said, the distribution of seats in the Constituent Assembly was out-dated by the time that it was convened, so it can't really be taken as a referendum on soviet power. The argument would have to be that they should have convened new elections, and that the All-Russian Congress of Soviets were insufficient in that regard.

I can't think of anyone who would say the NEP was when the revolution lost legitimacy. It was a pragmatic necessity caused by factors which the Bolsheviks had not foreseen.

True, but it seemed enough of a landmark to include. I know that certain anarchists and leftcoms, then and since, have been very critical of it- although most of the anarchists would already have broken with the Bolsheviks by then, and the leftcoms tend to hang on until a bit later.

IWhereas my thing about KOMUCH is kind of a pet peeve of mine since the group itself is probably one of my favorite little-known groups of Whites. And the things Traitorfish had to say about it made no sense from his point of view - tacit approval of the Bolsheviks over the constitutionalist Samara council is just weird for somebody who is ostensibly opposed to authoritarianism (and brought up that very point re:Kerensky earlier on in the same post).

Well, as I mention in the edit above, I was getting myself muddled there, but for the record, I'm not sure that anti-authoritarianism means support for the "constitutional" Whites. The Left-SRs, anarchists and leftcoms generally supported the Dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, after all, and their later splits with the Bolsheviks were specifically over the issue of party authoritarianism; their position could be criticised, of course, but the point is that the anti-authoritarian = pro-constitutionalist conclusion is not self-evident.

January 19, 1918. It was clear then that the Bolsheviks tolerated no political organisation but themselves.

Well, as I mention above, the dissolution of the Assembly had widespread support among the revolutionary bloc, i.e. from the Left-SRs and anarchists and amongst the internal factions of the Bolsheviks, and was generally understood as an attack on behalf of the soviets and the revolutionary bloc, rather than a particular faction or party. The hegemony of the Bolshevik centre-faction, although already developing, was very far from established at this point. That's not to say that this can't still be opposed on democratic grounds, of course, simply that it's more complex than Lenin pouncing on the chance for dictatorship.

I was merely pointing out the pet peeve of referring to the Russian Revolution as one single uprising, when it wasn't, in much the same way I don't like the term "French Revolution" being used to encompass the entire period from the storming of the Bastille until Napoleon's coronation.

Fair enough, but that's more about how the revolutionary is conceived than any obvious question of accuracy. Some interpretations hold there to have been multiple revolutions, some see it as a single revolutionary period in which different factions gained, lost and made grabs at power; it's really a debate in itself. (Much like the question of the French Revolution, which is by no means universally agreed upon as ending on 2nd December, 1804! )

(Also, as Thread Starter Guy, I'm trying to avoid appearing particularly partisan here, so please call me out if you think I'm failing in that.)

 

[Virote_Considon]

Well, as I said, the distribution of seats in the Constituent Assembly was out-dated by the time that it was convened, so it can't really be taken as a referendum on soviet power. The argument would have to be that they should have convened new elections, and that the All-Russian Congress of Soviets were insufficient in that regard.

Aye, but the reason they (the Bolshevik-led revolutionary factions) allowed the elections to the Constituent Assembly in the first place is that they expected to romp it. That they a) held the elections and then b) closed the Assembly down seems to rather straightforwardly suggest that sometime between those two points they figured that they would not garner as much popular support as they thought they would have thought before a), and thus it would not be in their own self-interest convening new elections.

 

[r16]

haven't read the thread yet but ı suppose "closet Tsarist" will be among the things said against my effort when and if ever ı write this history thing . Though Commies as our allies /enemies were not that much worse then our-their enemies / allies .

 

[Antilogic]

haven't read the thread yet but ı suppose "closet Tsarist" will be among the things said against my effort when and if ever ı write this history thing . Though Commies as our allies /enemies were not that much worse then our-their enemies / allies .

So you break with it in February 1917?