Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
I have no idea about the russian revolution
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Randomizing (U2062983) on Sunday, 1st January 2006
Can some1 just briefly tell me wot its all about because everything i read etc doesnt make any sence to me what so ever!!!!!!
plz help me!!!!!!!Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 2
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Sunday, 1st January 2006
In 1917 the Russian peasents got fed up with the Tsar's (russian rulers) and shot them, they then went after the rich and the bolsheviks (communists) come to power.
I think. Can some1 just briefly tell me wot its all about because everything i read etc doesnt make any sence to me what so ever!!!!!!
plz help me!!!!!!!ΒLink to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 3
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Sunday, 1st January 2006
Goodness me, what a huge question. Far too big for a concise answer, but I'll do my best.
* The l9th C was a time of mass industrialisation across Europe, with the steam engine revolutionising factory production. However, industrialisation transformed a largely peasant lower class into an urban working class right across Europe, wherever industrialisation spread (started in the UK, then spread out through France, Germany and eventually reaching Russia in the second half of the l9thC).
* The large, urban working class - classically the factory workers - suffered appalling social conditions initially, with no restriction on how long they had to work, or in dangerous factories (injuries and deaths were common), housing was in diseased slums etc.
* This lead to the emergence of a politicised urban working class, agitating through strikes and political action for laws to improve their lot (eg, restriction on working hours, the right to strike, banning children from working in factories etc etc).
* The second half of the l9th C saw the rise of socialism as a theory of political and economic organisation. The fundamental tenet of socialism was that capitalism was unfair, because it created a very small class of rich factory owners, who relied on the very cheap labour of those who actually did the work. Instead, said socialists, 'workers should own the means of production' ie, own the factories, and share out all the profits equably.
* Karl Marx, together with Friedrich Engels, between c l860-l880, developed the theory of socialism into the full blown theory of communism, whereby the 'state' owned everything, the workers ran everything, and everything was shared out 'from each according to his means, to each according to their needs'.
It was, given the appalling poverty in which so many of the urban working class lived in Europe, a very appealing theory!
* Socialism/Communism/Marxism developed apace towards l900, with political parties forming - eg, the British Labour Party, and in Germany, the Social Democrats etc etc, all over the place, each with varying degrees of committment to socialism.
* One BIG divide was how to achieve the transformation into a socialist society and economy. Should this be done gradually, through piecemeal social reform and legislation, as was happening slowly in the UK, France and Germany, with increasingly legislation passed by liberal governments to protect and enrich workers, or should it be done dramatically, in a sweeping revolution that overturned the ruling classes, destroyed the capitalist class, and let the workers take over the government directly.
* Now, if such a revolution were to happen, the most likely candidates were highly industrialised countries like Germany and the UK, where there was a lot of industrialisation (factories etc) and not very many peasants left (ie, workers working the land, not in factories) Both the UK and Germany were now importing food from abroad, to feed its urban populatons.
* BUT, to everyone's surprise, the place where a socialist/communist/Marxist revolution did take place was in Russia - where industralisation was still pretty new, and most of the poor were still peasants working on the huge estates of the aristocrats who ruled Russia. Even so, there were socialist/communists/Marxists agitating for socialism to take over the government.
* Russia at that time, l900, was an autocracy - the Tsar (Nicholas II) ruled without the aid of an elected Parliament (by then, the UK had a Parliament in which all male citizens over 21 could vote for MPs, France too had a pretty wide franchise, and so did Germany - though in Germany, the Reichstag - German Parliament - had almost no power to force laws through, even though it was elected on a wide franchise - ie, you could vote for an MP, but the MP's didn't have much power!)
* However, in Russia, there was increasing pressure to have a parliament, and in l905 there was a 'first revolution', a fairly minor affair, bu which led to the creation of the first Russian parliament, called the Duma. Again, the problem was, how much power did the Duman have compared with the Tsar?
* Russia might very well have followed in the footsteps of western Europe, gradually becoming more industrialised, more liberal, with the Duma getting more power to pass 'welfare' laws (eg, limiting how long workers had to work each day), and the Tsar ceding power to it.
* BUT, and this is the big, big But, then the First World War happened, in l914. Russia, like all the main European powers, was dragged into a war on a 'chain reaction' (Austria declared war on tiny Serbia, Russia was Serbia's Slav ally, so was anti-Austria, but Germany was pro-Austria, and so wanted to attack Russia, but Russia had a western ally in France, so Germany attacked France first, but France had an ally in the UK, so the UK went to war as well....see what I mean about chain reaction).
* The war was a disaster for Russia - Germany beat it mostly, and the Russian army suffered huge losses. There was civil breakdown in the cities - food shotages and riots - and eventually, in l917, there was a revolution, whereby the Tsar was deposed (I think, or his powers very limited) and a liberal government took over under a man called Karinsky. BUT, Karinsky's government tried to continue the war against Germany, which was very unpopular.
* So, the Communisits, called Bolshoviks in Russia, led by Lenin, who'd been exiled to Switzerland for political activity, returned to Russia and led a communist/bolshevik revolution in October l917.
As well as wanting communism, this revolution also ended the war with Germany, even though at the price of handing over a lot of territory to Germany in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk.
* The Bolsheviks formed a government under Lenin, communism was imposed (or adopted)(or both!), the Tsar and his family were murdered, and so were many aristocrats, many of whom fled West. There was a civil war with the royalist forces, and a terrible mess for several years, until the Bolsheviks finally controlled all of Russia. Then Lenin died in l922, and his deputy, Stalin, took over, having disposed of his arch rival for succession to Lenin, Trotsky.
* Stalin then continued to spread communism, as he called it - though whether it was or wasn't the kind of government communists had thought would haappen is disputed! - across Russia, with huge political, economic and social fall out for Russians.
* Other European governments were terrified of the Russian revolution, and thought similar revolutions would happen. But although there was much civil unrest, especially after the war finally ended in l918, it never happened. The Russian Revolution remained a one-off until the Chinese went communist in l948.
So, in summary:
l9th C - huge industrialisation in Europe.
Factory workers attracted to socialism/communism/Marxism because it promises them a fairer society.
Russia less industrialised than western Europe, but still has communist supporters.
Because Parliament was a very late invention in Russia (l905), it wasn't strong enoguh to counter revolutionaires.
The l914 war caused huge loss of life and poverty for Russia, the Tsar was deposed in l917 (I think February?).
A second, more drastic revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, took place in October l918 on the promise of complete communisms (not Parliamentary liberalism, as we have today in Europe), plus, crucially, peace with Germany.
The Tsar was murdered, the royalist troops fought the Bolsheviks in a bloody civil war, but lost, and Lenin stayed in power.
Lenin dies, and Stalin takes over, exiling his rival Trotsky.
Stalin imposes ruthless communism - not 'true' communism, say his critics - and millions and millions and millions of Russian people die of starvation, execution, imprisonment etc, over the next thirty years.
This is a REAL trot-through a very very complicated and important time in our history. DO hope I've shed a little light!
Good luck - Eliza.Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 4
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
Goodness me, what a huge question. Far too big for a concise answer, but I'll do my best.
* The l9th C was a time of mass industrialisation across Europe, with the steam engine revolutionising factory production. However, industrialisation transformed a largely peasant lower class into an urban working class right across Europe, wherever industrialisation spread (started in the UK, then spread out through France, Germany and eventually reaching Russia in the second half of the l9thC).
* The large, urban working class - classically the factory workers - suffered appalling social conditions initially, with no restriction on how long they had to work, or in dangerous factories (injuries and deaths were common), housing was in diseased slums etc.
* This lead to the emergence of a politicised urban working class, agitating through strikes and political action for laws to improve their lot (eg, restriction on working hours, the right to strike, banning children from working in factories etc etc).
* The second half of the l9th C saw the rise of socialism as a theory of political and economic organisation. The fundamental tenet of socialism was that capitalism was unfair, because it created a very small class of rich factory owners, who relied on the very cheap labour of those who actually did the work. Instead, said socialists, 'workers should own the means of production' ie, own the factories, and share out all the profits equably.
* Karl Marx, together with Friedrich Engels, between c l860-l880, developed the theory of socialism into the full blown theory of communism, whereby the 'state' owned everything, the workers ran everything, and everything was shared out 'from each according to his means, to each according to their needs'.
It was, given the appalling poverty in which so many of the urban working class lived in Europe, a very appealing theory!
* Socialism/Communism/Marxism developed apace towards l900, with political parties forming - eg, the British Labour Party, and in Germany, the Social Democrats etc etc, all over the place, each with varying degrees of committment to socialism.
* One BIG divide was how to achieve the transformation into a socialist society and economy. Should this be done gradually, through piecemeal social reform and legislation, as was happening slowly in the UK, France and Germany, with increasingly legislation passed by liberal governments to protect and enrich workers, or should it be done dramatically, in a sweeping revolution that overturned the ruling classes, destroyed the capitalist class, and let the workers take over the government directly.
* Now, if such a revolution were to happen, the most likely candidates were highly industrialised countries like Germany and the UK, where there was a lot of industrialisation (factories etc) and not very many peasants left (ie, workers working the land, not in factories) Both the UK and Germany were now importing food from abroad, to feed its urban populatons.
* BUT, to everyone's surprise, the place where a socialist/communist/Marxist revolution did take place was in Russia - where industralisation was still pretty new, and most of the poor were still peasants working on the huge estates of the aristocrats who ruled Russia. Even so, there were socialist/communists/Marxists agitating for socialism to take over the government.
* Russia at that time, l900, was an autocracy - the Tsar (Nicholas II) ruled without the aid of an elected Parliament (by then, the UK had a Parliament in which all male citizens over 21 could vote for MPs, France too had a pretty wide franchise, and so did Germany - though in Germany, the Reichstag - German Parliament - had almost no power to force laws through, even though it was elected on a wide franchise - ie, you could vote for an MP, but the MP's didn't have much power!)
* However, in Russia, there was increasing pressure to have a parliament, and in l905 there was a 'first revolution', a fairly minor affair, bu which led to the creation of the first Russian parliament, called the Duma. Again, the problem was, how much power did the Duman have compared with the Tsar?
* Russia might very well have followed in the footsteps of western Europe, gradually becoming more industrialised, more liberal, with the Duma getting more power to pass 'welfare' laws (eg, limiting how long workers had to work each day), and the Tsar ceding power to it.
* BUT, and this is the big, big But, then the First World War happened, in l914. Russia, like all the main European powers, was dragged into a war on a 'chain reaction' (Austria declared war on tiny Serbia, Russia was Serbia's Slav ally, so was anti-Austria, but Germany was pro-Austria, and so wanted to attack Russia, but Russia had a western ally in France, so Germany attacked France first, but France had an ally in the UK, so the UK went to war as well....see what I mean about chain reaction).
* The war was a disaster for Russia - Germany beat it mostly, and the Russian army suffered huge losses. There was civil breakdown in the cities - food shotages and riots - and eventually, in l917, there was a revolution, whereby the Tsar was deposed (I think, or his powers very limited) and a liberal government took over under a man called Karinsky. BUT, Karinsky's government tried to continue the war against Germany, which was very unpopular.
* So, the Communisits, called Bolshoviks in Russia, led by Lenin, who'd been exiled to Switzerland for political activity, returned to Russia and led a communist/bolshevik revolution in October l917.
As well as wanting communism, this revolution also ended the war with Germany, even though at the price of handing over a lot of territory to Germany in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk.
* The Bolsheviks formed a government under Lenin, communism was imposed (or adopted)(or both!), the Tsar and his family were murdered, and so were many aristocrats, many of whom fled West. There was a civil war with the royalist forces, and a terrible mess for several years, until the Bolsheviks finally controlled all of Russia. Then Lenin died in l922, and his deputy, Stalin, took over, having disposed of his arch rival for succession to Lenin, Trotsky.
* Stalin then continued to spread communism, as he called it - though whether it was or wasn't the kind of government communists had thought would haappen is disputed! - across Russia, with huge political, economic and social fall out for Russians.
* Other European governments were terrified of the Russian revolution, and thought similar revolutions would happen. But although there was much civil unrest, especially after the war finally ended in l918, it never happened. The Russian Revolution remained a one-off until the Chinese went communist in l948.
So, in summary:
l9th C - huge industrialisation in Europe.
Factory workers attracted to socialism/communism/Marxism because it promises them a fairer society.
Russia less industrialised than western Europe, but still has communist supporters.
Because Parliament was a very late invention in Russia (l905), it wasn't strong enoguh to counter revolutionaires.
The l914 war caused huge loss of life and poverty for Russia, the Tsar was deposed in l917 (I think February?).
A second, more drastic revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, took place in October l918 on the promise of complete communisms (not Parliamentary liberalism, as we have today in Europe), plus, crucially, peace with Germany.
The Tsar was murdered, the royalist troops fought the Bolsheviks in a bloody civil war, but lost, and Lenin stayed in power.
Lenin dies, and Stalin takes over, exiling his rival Trotsky.
Stalin imposes ruthless communism - not 'true' communism, say his critics - and millions and millions and millions of Russian people die of starvation, execution, imprisonment etc, over the next thirty years.
This is a REAL trot-through a very very complicated and important time in our history. DO hope I've shed a little light!
Good luck - Eliza.Β
A little!
Thanks for the knowledge.Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 5
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
Hope it wasn't overkill! Hope also it was accurate - Lenin may have died in l924, I can't quite remember, but it was so soon after the revolution and the civil war that he never really got a good chance to do communism his way. It's one of those huge ifs of history, if he'd lived longer, would he have made a kinder, gentler communism. I often wonder whether he realised Stalin was a psycho (but I guess that begs whether he was himself!)(I'd like to think he wasn't, I'd like to think the real 'Bad Guy' was just Stalin, but maybe I'm being as irresponsibly naive about the realities of the Russian Revolution as so many hopeful political idealists outside and inside Russia were.)
One terrible question to ask now is, of course, with the End of History as the dominant economic/political thesis, was communism just a total waste of time for humanity (as well as a tragedy for those it chewed to pieces).
Eliza.Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 6
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Tuesday, 3rd January 2006
Another important factor in the revolution was the assistance that Germany gave to Lenin, providing him with finance and safe passage back to Russia. It was obviously in Germany's interests to destabilise Imperial Russia so as to end the costly conflict on the Eastern Front, so they could concentrate on the Western Front in France and Belgium.
Very quickly after the revolution, Russia made an armistice with Germany. This provided the spare men and resources for Germany's last great attempt to win the war in the West in the offensive of March 1918. In the event, despite huge gains, the German offensive eventually ran out of steam, and the allied counter-offensive led to the Armistice of November 1918.Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 7
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Tuesday, 3rd January 2006
Yes, very shrewd point. Rather ironic (or just tragic) that, twenty years later, Germans were being slaughtered by the very communists they helped put in power.
Another big 'if' - but really needs a thread of its own and probably has if I look - is what might have happened in WWII if Hitler hadn't been insanely stupid enough to invade Russia. (First rule of Warfare- NEVER INVADE RUSSIA)(You WILL be sorry....everyone is.)
Eliza.Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 8
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
'The fundamental tenet of socialism was that capitalism was unfair...'...hmm,Lady,but Russians have never been experienced that stuff-the Western way of 'capitalism',neither in XIXth century nor even in the first years of XXI...
It is hardly for me to choose the right word to call the thing they've got ...
It was(is) being mostly the society of peasantry ,the peasants inhabited three-quaters of a million rural settlements scattered across one-six of the world surface.They rarely came across anything beyond the narrow confines of their own village and its fields,the parish church,the squire's manor and the local market.The situation mentions that one which to be existed by now when there are several big cities been surrounded by the sea of poor villages which are cut off from the modern Western world...
Such sort of villages are hotbed of intrigue,vendettas,greed,dishonesty,meaness,acts of of violence by one peasant neibour against other;it isn't the heaven of communal garmony that intellectuals from the city imagine it to be.
Although capitalism was certainly developing in Russia as a whole...But the slogan remained the same for peasants-'OUR GRANDFATHERS DID IT THIS WAY,AND SO SHALL WE'.....
Jack Goody's many works have shown,there are ways in which an oral culture may produce an informal dynamism,since none knew for sure WHAT THEIR GRANDFATHERS DID...But on the whole the peasants had an inbred mistrust of any ideas from the world outside their own experience.The 'old way of life' was always deemed to be better than the new-the way of smell of the animals,the black fumes of the kerosene lamps,and the pungent odour of the home-cured tobacco,which the peasants smoked rolled up in newspaper,combined to create a unique,noxious atmosphere-like that one when Putin claims that the Ukraine is stealing the gas which KGBers from 'GazProm' are smuggling to Europe through Ukraine without the contract with her...for free...and for Ukrainian account.
Well,it doesn't matter,Lady ,either that was 1918 or 1917 when their 'revolution' took place...'cause there was no any 'revolution' at all.The popular myth of the Bolshevik insurrection as a bloody struggle by the tens of thousands with several thousand fallen heroes ,owes more to 'October'-Eisenstein's brilliant but fictional propaganda film to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the event-than a historical fact.The Great October Revolution ,as it came to be called in commies' mythology,was in reality such a small -scale event ,being in effect no more than a military coup,that it passed unnoticed by the vast majority of the inhabitans of Petrograd.The legendary 'storming ' of the Winter Palace,where Kerensky's cabinet held its final session,was more like a routine house arrest,since most of the forces defending the palace had already left for home,hungry ,before the assault began.But when the Bolsheviks took control of the Winter Palace,they discovered one of the largest wine cellars ever known.During the following days tens of thousands of antique bottles dissapeared from the vaults.The Bolsheviks were helping themselves to the Chateau d'Yquem 1847,the last Tzar's favourite vintage,and selling the vodka to the crowds outside.The drunken mobs went on the rampage.The Winter Palace was badly vandalized.Shops and liquor stores were looted.Sailors and soldiers went around the well-to-do districts robbing apartments and killing people for sport.
Everyone can see to what things a 'petty localism' into the minds of people is able to drive itself...
As for Uljanov(Lenin) until his death in 1924,during ten months in 1923,he could only utter single syllables:'vot-vot'('here-here') and 's'ezd-s'ezd'('congress-congress').Getting out of the way was just what Dzugashvili(Stalin) needed...Trotsky lacked the stomach to fight.Faced with the propect of defeat,Trotsky preffered not to compete.
Lenin died on 21 January 1924.At 4p.m. he had a massive stroke,fell into deep coma and died shortly before 7 p.m. Apart from his family and attendant docs,the only witness to his death was Bukharin.In 1937,pleading for his own life,he claimed that Lenin had 'died in my arms'.Lenin died but his cause(always acting out of Laws) is still being living,such things.Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 9
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
'NEVER INVADE RUSSIA',surely so,Lady.
But THERE IS THE NEEDNESS FOR WEST TO FORCE THE RUSSIA TO GO WITHIN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS!
WITHOUT WESTERN CASH(FOR GOD'S PROPERTY-GAS&OIL)
KGBERS WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE AT WHEEL IN RUSSIA EVEN A COUPLE OF MONTHS!Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 10
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
'In 1917 the Russian peasents got fed up with the Tsar's (russian rulers) and shot them, they then went after the rich and the bolsheviks (communists) come to power.'
DesertFox(a great nick,really),these peasants in 1917 spat on Tzars and Bolsheviks-the only one thing they wanted - was to gain the peace and the land
at all cost.Who was going to fulfil their dreams -Mensheviks,Bolsheviks or Tzar with Whites,what was the difference?Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 11
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
Yes, revolutions are not pleasant things to go through....(This is British understatement, you understand!)
But yes, the whole idea of Russia being the place for a socialist/communist/Marxist revolution in l917 was, as I'd said, highly 'inappropriate' given what most socialists/communists/marxists thought the most likely place to achieve revolution. Definitely not a 'peasant society' like in Russia, as you point out.
Sorry for getting Lenin's date of death wrong - I did post earlier that it might have been l924 but I hadn't checked.
As for never invading Russia -well, it might be a good idea, but not from a military point of view! It's 'uninvadable' - PLUS, it's very well defended by its two perpetual best generals: General January and General February.
Invading armies are always sorry they did.
Eliza.Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 12
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 4th January 2006
'General January and General February' the both always to stay out of battle when the Laws are speaking...
Let's they bite some things and remember who is the real BOSS,weaklings....Ukrainians have won their gas' war on the point of $95 today,but not $250 -the sum of which KGBers dreamt this morning,Lady.
Jack.Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 13
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Thursday, 5th January 2006
'The Tsar was murdered',well
-interesting though it may be but the first Bolsheviks thought was- to put the Tzar on trial in Moscow.Why did the Bolsheviks change their mind and go ahead with the muder,reversing their earlier decision?
The military considerations? Well,they were real enough,contrary to what many historians have said.Hmm,but it is doubtful that Whites would have wanted to make such a sad outdated figure as Nicholas their 'live banner'.It is clear that a martyred Tzar was more useful to 'em than a live one who was politically dead.Although both leaders of Whites- Denikin and Kolchak were intelligent enough to realize that a monarchist restoration was out of question after 1917.Were Bolsheviks victims of their own propaganda that the Whites were monarchist to a man,who knows exactly? Well,about a trial...
Not that there was any real prospect of finding the ex-Tzar innocent.Trotsky was master of the political trial and he would no doubt show with 'brilliant logic',he was a famous demagogue and liar- kind of these KGBEers from 'GazProm'or Mr. Putin-the 'fighter' against terrorism, how Nicholas was himself to blame for the crimes of his regime.
I suspect that commies by this stage having second thought about wisdom of a trial.
It was rather the more fundamental problem that putting the deposed monarch in the dock at all was to presuppose the POSSIBILITY of his innocence.
Hmm,but in that case the moral legitimacy of the revolution would itself be open to question. To put Nicholas on trial would also be to put the Bolsheviks on trial,right?The recognition of this was THE POINT where they passed from the realm of LAW into the realm of TERROR!In the end it wasn't a question of proving the ex-Tzar's guilt,but a question of eliminating him as a rival sourse of their own 'legitimacy'.
NICHOLAS HAD TO DIE SO THAT COMMIES COULD LIVE!
Why has the murder of the Romanovs assumed such significance in the history of the 'revolution'?
'Cause it was a declaration of the TERROR&LIES!
It was a statement that from now on individuals would count for nothing in future!(Civil war,Holodomor,WWII,Chechnja and so on).
'WE MUST PUT AN END ONCE AND FOR ALL TO THE PAPIST-QUAKER BABBLE ABOUT THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE'(L.Bronstein-'Trotsky')
And that is what the Cheka(VCHK,NKVD,KGB) DID!
+their LIES to cover all they did.
N.B.
The commies murdered other Romanovs after the execution of the former Tzar and the members of his own family.Six members of the old dynasty were murdered on the following night at Alapaevsk in the northern Urals.But in a sense
their deaths were now just one small part of TERROR...and 'NO ONE HERE GETS OUT ALIVE'Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 14
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Friday, 6th January 2006
i see what you mean but i ecpect the bolsheviks were going around whipping up propaganda amd stuff about how life would be better if only they did this and killed these and so on and so on. Thanks for the compliment on my name. 'In 1917 the Russian peasents got fed up with the Tsar's (russian rulers) and shot them, they then went after the rich and the bolsheviks (communists) come to power.'
DesertFox(a great nick,really),these peasants in 1917 spat on Tzars and Bolsheviks-the only one thing they wanted - was to gain the peace and the land
at all cost.Who was going to fulfil their dreams -Mensheviks,Bolsheviks or Tzar with Whites,what was the difference?ΒLink to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 15
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Sunday, 8th January 2006
DesertFox,
Lenin was inspired by the writings of Sergei Nechaev and his programme book -Revolutionary Cathechism which Nechaev wrote in the late 1860th.
He was the first modern TERRORIST and an instructor on the cause of terror against all of society ,all these gentlefolk,rich and poor,concervative,liberal and radical.He was in short a Bolshevik before the Bolsheviks,DesertFox.Its 26 articles from his book might have served as the Bolshevik oath.The morals of the party owed as much to Nechaev as they did to Marx.Rejecting all morality ,the revolutionary must be ready to destroy everyone who stands in his way,kind of B.Laden.Interesting to know,has B.L. ever read the Nechaev's books?
Just listen-
'All the soft and tender feelings of the family(!!!!!!) ,friendship(!!!!!!) and love(!!!!!),even all gratitude and honour,must be stiffed,and in their there must be the cold and single-minded passion for the work of revolution'.
Therefore the revolutionary was to relate to members of society in accordance with their designated purpose in the revolution.So,for example,the ruling elite were to be 'executed without delay',the rich wasted for the benefit of the cause.Even the lower-ranking party comrades were to thought of as 'portions of a common fund of revolutionary capital' which each leader was to expend 'as he thinks fit'.And these weren't to be just the words -one buddy who proved to be expendable was Ivan Ivanov.Together with three of his pals Nechaev murdered him after he refused to carry out Nechaev's dictorial orders as the 'Leader Of The Gang'so to speak.Dostoevsky used the brutality of the killing in his book The Possessed as the basis for Shatov's murder scene,although Dostoevsky had himself belonged to the Petrashevsky revolutionary circle in the 1850s and in such way attacked the mentality of the revolutionaries....
I state that the Russia is the cradle of the modern Terrorism...and some things of that sort have yet to come from there.
Other 'writer' from whom Lenin owed many of 'ideas' was Tkachev who claimed that propaganda couldn't bring about a revolution 'cause peasants would always aupport the regime and the only one way of seizure of power was putsch,which should take place as soon as possible.To carry through this 'coup d'etat'Tkachev made it clear that there had to be an elitist and conspiratorial party ,which,like an army was highly disciplined and centralized.Here too Lenin was to echo him.
+many of Lenin's own emotions were rooted in his noble past-his intolerance of any form of criticism from subordinates and his tendency to look upon the people as no more than the human material needed for his own plans and these characteristics were already visible at very early stage.Witness,for example,his attidude to the suffering of the peasants during the famine in Russia of 1891-his idea that aid should be denied to 'em to hasten the revolutionary crisis.
And it was these things that made for the features of his 'Leninist' approach of Marx.All the main points of Lenin's doctrine-the stress on the need for a disciplined revolutionary vangard,the belief that action(the 'subjective factor') could alter the objective course of historyand in particular that seizure of the state apparatus('vertical of power') could bring about a revolution ,his defence of Jacobin methods of dictatorship,his contempt for liberals and democrats (and indeed for all socialists who compromised with 'em)- all these stemmed not so much from Marx as from the Russian revolutionary tradition.He injected a distinctly Russian heavy drug stuff into a Marxist dialectic...
Jack.Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 16
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Monday, 9th January 2006
I just learned a great deal--and I thought I knew a bit about the revolution. Guess I didn't.
An aside which relates to Stalin. Saddaam Hussein, who was not a Communist, idealized Stalin and followed Stalin's example in keeping Iraq under control. I was surprised when I read that.Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
-
Message 17
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Tuesday, 10th January 2006
Jberie,
The R.rev. launched a vast experiment in social engineering-the grandest in the history of mankind.The experiment went horribly wrong and yet since the Russian model has so often led to the same disastrous ends-despite having been applied in different local forms,and it is better not to rail against USA for her actions in Iraq,but support her by all means which we have in our disposal-that's is the lesson we have to learn and try to keep our eye on things in Russia...Even in such diverse places as China,south-east Asia,eastern Europe,sub-Saharan Africa and Cuba-one can only conclude that its fundamental problem is more to do with principles than contingencias.It is very important point.The state,however big,cannot make people equal or better human being .All it can do is to treat its citizens equally and strive to ensure that their free activities are directed towards the general good.As we entered the XXI century we must try to strenngthen the cause of demorcacy throughout the world,as a real sourse of freedom and of social justice.Link to this forum: I have no idea about the russian revolution
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.