The Bolsheviks came to power because all non-Bolshevik leftwing parties sucked major ass, not due to any theoretical reason.
I mean, I’d argue that the Mensheviks were considerably better (if still not fantastic), and the SRs were put in an immensely shitty position. The Bolsheviks ultimately came to power as an extreme minority, even with this.
The Bolsheviks came to power because they were well-organized - in part because of their insistence on the party line - and well-positioned, especially with regards to being able to seize the centers of power. We can do without the ‘party line’ nonsense, but learning the power of organization and positioning is something we should certainly focus on as leftists.
I mean, I’d argue that the Mensheviks were considerably better (if still not fantastic), and the SRs were put in an immensely shitty position.
They would’ve probably (though not certainly) been better for Russia in hindsight, but their party lines made them socialists in name only. There’s an at least understandable argument for reformism if the bourgeoisie are firmly in power and able to suppress a worker’s revolution, but in Russia the workers’ revolution had already succeeded; the SRs and Mensheviks wanted to give powers from the workers to the bourgeoisie in order to follow Marx’s doctrine of two revolutions, which is like what? Then you had nonsense like sticking by the increasingly unpopular provisional government, supporting the war and delaying constituent assembly elections and any socialist with half a brain was going to back the Bolsheviks or get into anarchism. When your response to “all power to the soviets” is “no” you’ve frankly already failed as a socialist. Meanwhile the Bolsheviks were calling for immensely popular stuff like giving power to the soviets, ending the war, land reform, etc. The Bolsheviks organizational strengthes are secondary to the fundamental fact that they were the only party not running on glorified bourgeoisie collaborationism. The SRs (edit: or Mensheviks, though that was a much less believable prospect) getting into power would’ve been an unmitigated disaster, and the only reason this is even a contest is because the Bolsheviks getting into power was an unmitigated disaster.
TLDR: Bolsheviks were for revolution now, everyone else was for revolution when it’s sunny outside, Saturn is in retrograde and the bourgeoisie are firmly in power.
The Bolsheviks ultimately came to power as an extreme minority, even with this.
That’s because they had little presence in rural areas and so weren’t in a position to recruit from the vast majority of the population of Russia. The Mensheviks would be an apples to apples comparison, and predictably the Bolsheviks pushed the Mensheviks to near-irrelevancy by the end of 1917. There’s no “even with this;” the Bolsheviks swept Russian cities.
They would’ve probably (though not certainly) been better for Russia in hindsight, but their party lines made them socialists in name only. There’s an at least understandable argument for reformism if the bourgeoisie are firmly in power and able to suppress a worker’s revolution, but in Russia the workers’ revolution had already succeeded; the SRs and Mensheviks wanted to give powers from the workers to the bourgeoisie in order to follow Marx’s doctrine of two revolutions, which is like what?
Even the Right-SRs were not trying to revert the gains of the February Revolution. How were the SRs, who were in favor of radical land redistribution from the start, practicing reformism, or, for that matter, trying to give power from the workers to the bourgeoisie? The SR program was overwhelmingly about taking step towards a greater empowerment of the workers.
Furthermore, as Lenin’s NEP and Stalin’s Five Year Plans both showed, Russia had not completed a bourgeois revolution or a workers’ revolution. That’s the whole point of historical materialism (which has its weaknesses, but remains very useful in analysis). Without changing the material conditions of Russia first, in a sustainable way, Russia simply reverted to a form of despotic feudalism with a coat of red paint.
When your response to “all power to the soviets” is “no” you’ve frankly already failed as a socialist.
“Failing as a socialist” is “wanting to hold national elections”?
Meanwhile the Bolsheviks were calling for immensely unpopular stuff like giving power to the soviets, ending the war, land reform, etc. The Bolsheviks organizational strengthes are secondary to the fundamental fact that they were the only party not running on glorified bourgeoisie collaborationism.
The Bolsheviks were literally opposed to land reform of the kind the SRs espoused up until they were in power, at which point they generously permitted ‘temporary equal use’ of the land on the terms of the peasantry. I suppose the fact that the SRs had and continued to run on land reform makes them “glorified bourgeoisie collaborationists”?
Furthermore, are their organizational advantages really secondary if their support was still far numerically inferior to the ‘glorified bourgeoisie collaborators’?
The SRs getting into power would’ve been an unmitigated disaster, and the only reason this is even a contest is because the Bolsheviks getting into power was an unmitigated disaster.
What policies of the SRs, other than continuing the war, are, in your opinion, so disastrous?
That’s because they had little presence in rural areas and so weren’t in a position to recruit from the vast majority of the population of Russia.
Or perhaps the Bolsheviks openly espousing a line that was deeply unpopular with the vast majority of the peasantry harmed them?
The Mensheviks would be an apples to apples comparison, and predictably the Bolsheviks pushed the Mensheviks to near-irrelevancy by the end of 1917. There’s no “even with this;” the Bolsheviks swept Russian cities.
“Swept” is a funny word for “Achieved a thin majority in most, but far from all, Russian cities”
Hell, even in Moscow, a Bolshevik stronghold, they didn’t achieve an outright majority of the vote.
The Bolsheviks seized power as a minority with ~25% of the popular vote, and did so by force. Arguing that this distinct minority is proof of their popularity over the SRs is bizarre.
The SR program was overwhelmingly about taking step towards a greater empowerment of the workers.
They effectively (through the Petrograd/All-Russian Soviet) had power for eight months and did fuck-all to make good on their program. In practice, they unconditionally backed the bourgeoi provisional government despite the latter never doing anything even remotely socialist. That was handing power from the workers to the bourgeoisie. In short, their stagism doomed the revolution in Russia. “Later” tends to be a synonym for “never.”
Furthermore, as Lenin’s NEP and Stalin’s Five Year Plans both showed, Russia had not completed a bourgeois revolution or a workers’ revolution.
How is the workers taking political power not a workers’ revolution? What the Bolsheviks did was counterrevolution; it doesn’t negate the fact that a revolution took place.
Without changing the material conditions of Russia first, in a sustainable way, Russia simply reverted to a form of despotic feudalism with a coat of red paint.
And the SRs did not, in fact, change the material conditions of Russia; if anything they made them worse by sitting on their asses and backing the provisional government and the disastrous war effort.
“Failing as a socialist” is “wanting to hold national elections”?
“All power to the soviets” was about deposing the provisional government, not canceling elections. Not even the Bolsheviks would be calling for canceling elections until they actually did it.
The Bolsheviks were literally opposed to land reform of the kind the SRs espoused up until they were in power,
The Bolsheviks were opposed to most of the things they ran on, but they cynically adopted a platform that would help them expand their ranks.
I suppose the fact that the SRs had and continued to run on land reform makes them “glorified bourgeoisie collaborationists”?
No, not actually implementing the damn land reform, among a host of other mistakes, made them glorified bourgeoi collaborationists.
Furthermore, are their organizational advantages really secondary if their support was still far numerically inferior to the ‘glorified bourgeoisie collaborators’?
Yes? Again, the Bolsheviks had no real presence in most of rural/non-ethnic Russian Russia, but in the centers of political power they had pluralities and majorities. That’s more than enough to explain their seizure of power.
Or perhaps the Bolsheviks openly espousing a line that was deeply unpopular with the vast majority of the peasantry harmed them?
Uh… no?
The agrarian programmes of the SR and Bolshevik parties were largely similar, but the peasantry were more familiar with the SRs. The Bolsheviks lacked an organizational presence in many rural areas. In areas where the Bolshevik electoral campaign had been active (for example, near to towns or garrisons) the peasant vote was somewhat evenly divided between SRs and Bolsheviks.
What policies of the SRs, other than continuing the war, are, in your opinion, so disastrous?
It’s more of a philosophy than a policy, but stagism. The results of this philosophy were, well, everything they did and didn’t do from February to November 1917. Now they weren’t acting maliciously, but sufficient stupidity is indistinguishable from malice and the SRs (specifically the Right SRs) easily cleared the bar. It was SR and Menshevik stupidity that got the Bolsheviks from a fringe minority party to the dominant socialist force in urban Russia, and absent Bolshevism it would’ve taken Russia from social democracy to fascism like the SDP did in Germany. A bourgeoi democracy of the kind the SRs were trying to build was only ever going to self-destruct, and while Bolshevism was bad it was not the worst thing that could’ve come from such a collapse.
Arguing that this distinct minority is proof of their popularity over the SRs is bizarre.
I didn’t, though; I only said that they were popular in places where they had an organizational presence, so their total number of votes doesn’t necessarily reflect the unpopularity of their platform (half of which was a bunch of lies, but that’s neither here nor there).
They effectively (through the Petrograd/All-Russian Soviet) had power for eight months and did fuck-all to make good on their program. In practice, they unconditionally backed the bourgeoi provisional government despite the latter never doing anything even remotely socialist. That was handing power from the workers to the bourgeoisie. In short, their stagism doomed the revolution in Russia. “Later” tends to be a synonym for “never.”
The core issue of the SR ‘stagism’ was that they wanted to hold elections for the provisional government before executing their program. You can argue that that was a strategic mistake, but I regard the argument that that was ‘stagism’ or ‘bourgois collaborationism’ to be absurd.
How is the workers taking political power not a workers’ revolution? What the Bolsheviks did was counterrevolution; it doesn’t negate the fact that a revolution took place.
When did the workers take political power? When did the workers actually hold political power?
And the SRs did not, in fact, change the material conditions of Russia; if anything they made them worse by sitting on their asses and backing the provisional government and the disastrous war effort.
You questioned the wisdom of arguing for a completion of a bourgeois revolution before moving on to a workers’ revolution; I pointed out that a workers’ revolution without the material conditions of a bourgeois revolution is ultimately in an unsustainable position.
Furthermore, in what fucking reality is under a year wherein the main reason for ‘stalling’ is the organization of elections a reasonable amount of time to effect one’s program?
“All power to the soviets” was about deposing the provisional government, not canceling elections. Not even the Bolsheviks would be calling for canceling elections until they actually did it.
You said that failing to hand power over to the Soviets was proof that the SRs had ‘failed as socialists’; I pointed out that the reason the SRs didn’t hand over power to the Soviets was that the SRs were attempting to hold national elections, which hardly strikes me as a failure of socialism.
The Bolsheviks were opposed to most of the things they ran on, but they cynically adopted a platform that would help them expand their ranks.
Except the issue I’m specifically pointing is that they didn’t change their position on land reform until after they had seized power.
Yes? Again, the Bolsheviks had no real presence in most of rural/non-ethnic Russian Russia,
So they were a minority.
but in the centers of political power they had pluralities and majorities. That’s more than enough to explain their seizure of power.
… so their success was explained by… organization and positioning.
Like I originally said.
It’s more of a philosophy than a policy, but stagism. The results of this philosophy were, well, everything they did and didn’t do from February to November 1917. Now they weren’t acting maliciously, but sufficient stupidity is indistinguishable from malice and the SRs (specifically the Right SRs) easily cleared the bar. It was SR and Menshevik stupidity that got the Bolsheviks from a fringe minority party to the dominant socialist force in urban Russia,
Here, there’s no fundamental disagreement, though I could quibble over details.
absent Bolshevism it would’ve taken Russia from social democracy to fascism like the SDP did in Germany. A bourgeoi democracy of the kind the SRs were trying to build was only ever going to self-destruct, and while Bolshevism was bad it was not the worst thing that could’ve come from such a collapse.
… but here, I don’t even know where to fucking begin. The idea that bourgeois democracies inherently self-destruct into fascist states is not much more itself than an endorsement of the ML position of absolute opposition to bourgeois democracies, and reflects an utter lack of understanding of Marx.
I didn’t, though;
This you?
The Bolsheviks ultimately came to power as an extreme minority, even with this.
That’s because they had little presence in rural areas and so weren’t in a position to recruit from the vast majority of the population of Russia. The Mensheviks would be an apples to apples comparison, and predictably the Bolsheviks pushed the Mensheviks to near-irrelevancy by the end of 1917. There’s no “even with this;” the Bolsheviks swept Russian cities.
I only said that they were popular in places where they had an organizational presence, so their total number of votes doesn’t necessarily reflect the unpopularity of their platform (half of which was a bunch of lies, but that’s neither here nor there).
Your own cited wiki source says, in the literal next line of the one that you quoted earlier in your comment, that SRs lacked organizational presence amongst the peasants as well, so that’s really insufficient as an explanation.
You can argue that that was a strategic mistake, but I regard the argument that that was ‘stagism’ or ‘bourgois collaborationism’ to be absurd.
Okay I actually can’t find anything on the SRs’ motivations for not immediately implementing their program, but I’m going to take an “if it quacks like a duck” approach to this. From their attitude towards the provisional government (which they didn’t even participate in at first), they were clearly opposed to worker political control.
When did the workers actually hold political power?
What do you think the Soviets were?
I pointed out that a workers’ revolution without the material conditions of a bourgeois revolution is ultimately in an unsustainable position.
Being a grossly underdeveloped nation is an unsustainable situation regardless of who is in charge; giving power to rich pricks doesn’t change that. If anything, the bourgeoisie’s track record when it comes to industrialization outside the imperial core is horrible.
Furthermore, in what fucking reality is under a year wherein the main reason for ‘stalling’ is the organization of elections a reasonable amount of time to effect one’s program?
Russian peasants were perfectly willing to seize and redistribute land themselves; they just needed a government that wouldn’t stop them from doing so. “No socialism until I say it’s okay” isn’t how I expect a socialist party to act; they could’ve just done the damn thing while also organizing elections. One of the first things the Bolsheviks did upon taking power was announcing the Decree on Land, so clearly it wasn’t that hard.
Except the issue I’m specifically pointing is that they didn’t change their position on land reform until after they had seized power.
Except they did.
The agrarian programmes of the SR and Bolshevik parties were largely similar,
So they were a minority.
Yes, my point is: They weren’t a minority because their (espoused) ideas were unpopular, but because they lacked organizational presence in most of the country. Them being a minority can’t be used to evaluate the strength of their program. This is like modern liberal parties attributing the electoral success of leftists to messaging rather than the popularity of leftwing politics.
The idea that bourgeois democracies inherently self-destruct into fascist states is not much more itself than an endorsement of the ML position of absolute opposition to bourgeois democracies, and reflects an utter lack of understanding of Marx.
I thought I was clear, but I’m talking about underdeveloped bourgeois (I can’t believe I kept misspelling that) democracies lacking a strong proletariat that can advocate for its interests, which, yes, those do tend to self-destruct into authoritarian states. Now this doesn’t have to be fascism, but given the historical context if it wasn’t Bolshevik-style socialism it was going to be the next-strongest idea in Russia: fascism. I mean, it’s no coincidence that the Russian Civil War was fought between communists and fascists; absent strong libertarian socialist leadership it was going to be one or the other. For another example of this in action, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_1952#Kingdom_of_Egypt. It’s the capitalism in crisis dynamic, except the crisis is created by the bourgeoisie’s refusal to remedy the grotesque wealth inequality that propelled them into power. Again, this doesn’t mean bourgeois democracy will collapse into fascism period, but the social and economic conditions underlying the Russian Revolution and similar revolutions need extensive wealth redistribution that the liberal bourgeoisie wouldn’t let happen over their dead bodies.
This you?
Yes?
Your own cited wiki source says, in the literal next line of the one that you quoted earlier in your comment, that SRs lacked organizational presence amongst the peasants as well, so that’s really insufficient as an explanation.
In the next sentence, though, it says
The party was highly dependent on peasant union, zemstvos, cooperatives and soviets.
The SRs lacked a direct organizational presence and were dependent on local organizations, but that’s not the same as Bolsheviks not even having local organizations to back their campaigns. Again, in places where the Bolsheviks actually campaigned, they got as much support as the SRs; it’s just that in most places they couldn’t campaign period.
Here, there’s no fundamental disagreement, though I could quibble over details.
Great, now the question becomes: Was that stupidity going to suddenly disappear, or were the Mensheviks and SRs going to remain incompetent and feckless until they were overthrown by whatever brand of authoritarianism happened to be in style? I believe the latter was much more likely, given that even much more robust democracies were swept away by fascism.
I thought I was clear, but I’m talking about underdeveloped bourgeois (I can’t believe I kept misspelling that) democracies lacking a strong proletariat that can advocate for its interests, which, yes, those do tend to self-destruct into authoritarian states. Now this doesn’t have to be fascism, but given the historical context if it wasn’t Bolshevik-style socialism it was going to be the next-strongest idea in Russia: fascism.
I disagree with that being the reduction of the potential possibilities, but I apologize for misunderstanding your position, in that case.
As for the rest of this, I’m done with this argument, but I do appreciate having it with you.
EDIT: On re-reading, “I’m done with this argument” sounds a bit dismissive, so more precisely, I would say that I still disagree with your conclusions, but I find them generally established on solid grounds and appreciate the exposure to your outlook and your willingness to argue it ardently but in good faith.
I mean, I’d argue that the Mensheviks were considerably better (if still not fantastic), and the SRs were put in an immensely shitty position. The Bolsheviks ultimately came to power as an extreme minority, even with this.
The Bolsheviks came to power because they were well-organized - in part because of their insistence on the party line - and well-positioned, especially with regards to being able to seize the centers of power. We can do without the ‘party line’ nonsense, but learning the power of organization and positioning is something we should certainly focus on as leftists.
They would’ve probably (though not certainly) been better for Russia in hindsight, but their party lines made them socialists in name only. There’s an at least understandable argument for reformism if the bourgeoisie are firmly in power and able to suppress a worker’s revolution, but in Russia the workers’ revolution had already succeeded; the SRs and Mensheviks wanted to give powers from the workers to the bourgeoisie in order to follow Marx’s doctrine of two revolutions, which is like what? Then you had nonsense like sticking by the increasingly unpopular provisional government, supporting the war and delaying constituent assembly elections and any socialist with half a brain was going to back the Bolsheviks or get into anarchism. When your response to “all power to the soviets” is “no” you’ve frankly already failed as a socialist. Meanwhile the Bolsheviks were calling for immensely popular stuff like giving power to the soviets, ending the war, land reform, etc. The Bolsheviks organizational strengthes are secondary to the fundamental fact that they were the only party not running on glorified bourgeoisie collaborationism. The SRs (edit: or Mensheviks, though that was a much less believable prospect) getting into power would’ve been an unmitigated disaster, and the only reason this is even a contest is because the Bolsheviks getting into power was an unmitigated disaster.
TLDR: Bolsheviks were for revolution now, everyone else was for revolution when it’s sunny outside, Saturn is in retrograde and the bourgeoisie are firmly in power.
That’s because they had little presence in rural areas and so weren’t in a position to recruit from the vast majority of the population of Russia. The Mensheviks would be an apples to apples comparison, and predictably the Bolsheviks pushed the Mensheviks to near-irrelevancy by the end of 1917. There’s no “even with this;” the Bolsheviks swept Russian cities.
Even the Right-SRs were not trying to revert the gains of the February Revolution. How were the SRs, who were in favor of radical land redistribution from the start, practicing reformism, or, for that matter, trying to give power from the workers to the bourgeoisie? The SR program was overwhelmingly about taking step towards a greater empowerment of the workers.
Furthermore, as Lenin’s NEP and Stalin’s Five Year Plans both showed, Russia had not completed a bourgeois revolution or a workers’ revolution. That’s the whole point of historical materialism (which has its weaknesses, but remains very useful in analysis). Without changing the material conditions of Russia first, in a sustainable way, Russia simply reverted to a form of despotic feudalism with a coat of red paint.
“Failing as a socialist” is “wanting to hold national elections”?
The Bolsheviks were literally opposed to land reform of the kind the SRs espoused up until they were in power, at which point they generously permitted ‘temporary equal use’ of the land on the terms of the peasantry. I suppose the fact that the SRs had and continued to run on land reform makes them “glorified bourgeoisie collaborationists”?
Furthermore, are their organizational advantages really secondary if their support was still far numerically inferior to the ‘glorified bourgeoisie collaborators’?
What policies of the SRs, other than continuing the war, are, in your opinion, so disastrous?
Or perhaps the Bolsheviks openly espousing a line that was deeply unpopular with the vast majority of the peasantry harmed them?
“Swept” is a funny word for “Achieved a thin majority in most, but far from all, Russian cities”
Hell, even in Moscow, a Bolshevik stronghold, they didn’t achieve an outright majority of the vote.
The Bolsheviks seized power as a minority with ~25% of the popular vote, and did so by force. Arguing that this distinct minority is proof of their popularity over the SRs is bizarre.
Inhales.
They effectively (through the Petrograd/All-Russian Soviet) had power for eight months and did fuck-all to make good on their program. In practice, they unconditionally backed the bourgeoi provisional government despite the latter never doing anything even remotely socialist. That was handing power from the workers to the bourgeoisie. In short, their stagism doomed the revolution in Russia. “Later” tends to be a synonym for “never.”
How is the workers taking political power not a workers’ revolution? What the Bolsheviks did was counterrevolution; it doesn’t negate the fact that a revolution took place.
And the SRs did not, in fact, change the material conditions of Russia; if anything they made them worse by sitting on their asses and backing the provisional government and the disastrous war effort.
“All power to the soviets” was about deposing the provisional government, not canceling elections. Not even the Bolsheviks would be calling for canceling elections until they actually did it.
The Bolsheviks were opposed to most of the things they ran on, but they cynically adopted a platform that would help them expand their ranks.
No, not actually implementing the damn land reform, among a host of other mistakes, made them glorified bourgeoi collaborationists.
Yes? Again, the Bolsheviks had no real presence in most of rural/non-ethnic Russian Russia, but in the centers of political power they had pluralities and majorities. That’s more than enough to explain their seizure of power.
Uh… no?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election
It’s more of a philosophy than a policy, but stagism. The results of this philosophy were, well, everything they did and didn’t do from February to November 1917. Now they weren’t acting maliciously, but sufficient stupidity is indistinguishable from malice and the SRs (specifically the Right SRs) easily cleared the bar. It was SR and Menshevik stupidity that got the Bolsheviks from a fringe minority party to the dominant socialist force in urban Russia, and absent Bolshevism it would’ve taken Russia from social democracy to fascism like the SDP did in Germany. A bourgeoi democracy of the kind the SRs were trying to build was only ever going to self-destruct, and while Bolshevism was bad it was not the worst thing that could’ve come from such a collapse.
I didn’t, though; I only said that they were popular in places where they had an organizational presence, so their total number of votes doesn’t necessarily reflect the unpopularity of their platform (half of which was a bunch of lies, but that’s neither here nor there).
The core issue of the SR ‘stagism’ was that they wanted to hold elections for the provisional government before executing their program. You can argue that that was a strategic mistake, but I regard the argument that that was ‘stagism’ or ‘bourgois collaborationism’ to be absurd.
When did the workers take political power? When did the workers actually hold political power?
You questioned the wisdom of arguing for a completion of a bourgeois revolution before moving on to a workers’ revolution; I pointed out that a workers’ revolution without the material conditions of a bourgeois revolution is ultimately in an unsustainable position.
Furthermore, in what fucking reality is under a year wherein the main reason for ‘stalling’ is the organization of elections a reasonable amount of time to effect one’s program?
You said that failing to hand power over to the Soviets was proof that the SRs had ‘failed as socialists’; I pointed out that the reason the SRs didn’t hand over power to the Soviets was that the SRs were attempting to hold national elections, which hardly strikes me as a failure of socialism.
Except the issue I’m specifically pointing is that they didn’t change their position on land reform until after they had seized power.
So they were a minority.
… so their success was explained by… organization and positioning.
Like I originally said.
Here, there’s no fundamental disagreement, though I could quibble over details.
… but here, I don’t even know where to fucking begin. The idea that bourgeois democracies inherently self-destruct into fascist states is not much more itself than an endorsement of the ML position of absolute opposition to bourgeois democracies, and reflects an utter lack of understanding of Marx.
This you?
Your own cited wiki source says, in the literal next line of the one that you quoted earlier in your comment, that SRs lacked organizational presence amongst the peasants as well, so that’s really insufficient as an explanation.
Okay I actually can’t find anything on the SRs’ motivations for not immediately implementing their program, but I’m going to take an “if it quacks like a duck” approach to this. From their attitude towards the provisional government (which they didn’t even participate in at first), they were clearly opposed to worker political control.
What do you think the Soviets were?
Being a grossly underdeveloped nation is an unsustainable situation regardless of who is in charge; giving power to rich pricks doesn’t change that. If anything, the bourgeoisie’s track record when it comes to industrialization outside the imperial core is horrible.
Russian peasants were perfectly willing to seize and redistribute land themselves; they just needed a government that wouldn’t stop them from doing so. “No socialism until I say it’s okay” isn’t how I expect a socialist party to act; they could’ve just done the damn thing while also organizing elections. One of the first things the Bolsheviks did upon taking power was announcing the Decree on Land, so clearly it wasn’t that hard.
Except they did.
Yes, my point is: They weren’t a minority because their (espoused) ideas were unpopular, but because they lacked organizational presence in most of the country. Them being a minority can’t be used to evaluate the strength of their program. This is like modern liberal parties attributing the electoral success of leftists to messaging rather than the popularity of leftwing politics.
I thought I was clear, but I’m talking about underdeveloped bourgeois (I can’t believe I kept misspelling that) democracies lacking a strong proletariat that can advocate for its interests, which, yes, those do tend to self-destruct into authoritarian states. Now this doesn’t have to be fascism, but given the historical context if it wasn’t Bolshevik-style socialism it was going to be the next-strongest idea in Russia: fascism. I mean, it’s no coincidence that the Russian Civil War was fought between communists and fascists; absent strong libertarian socialist leadership it was going to be one or the other. For another example of this in action, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_1952#Kingdom_of_Egypt. It’s the capitalism in crisis dynamic, except the crisis is created by the bourgeoisie’s refusal to remedy the grotesque wealth inequality that propelled them into power. Again, this doesn’t mean bourgeois democracy will collapse into fascism period, but the social and economic conditions underlying the Russian Revolution and similar revolutions need extensive wealth redistribution that the liberal bourgeoisie wouldn’t let happen over their dead bodies.
Yes?
In the next sentence, though, it says
The SRs lacked a direct organizational presence and were dependent on local organizations, but that’s not the same as Bolsheviks not even having local organizations to back their campaigns. Again, in places where the Bolsheviks actually campaigned, they got as much support as the SRs; it’s just that in most places they couldn’t campaign period.
Great, now the question becomes: Was that stupidity going to suddenly disappear, or were the Mensheviks and SRs going to remain incompetent and feckless until they were overthrown by whatever brand of authoritarianism happened to be in style? I believe the latter was much more likely, given that even much more robust democracies were swept away by fascism.
I disagree with that being the reduction of the potential possibilities, but I apologize for misunderstanding your position, in that case.
As for the rest of this, I’m done with this argument, but I do appreciate having it with you.
EDIT: On re-reading, “I’m done with this argument” sounds a bit dismissive, so more precisely, I would say that I still disagree with your conclusions, but I find them generally established on solid grounds and appreciate the exposure to your outlook and your willingness to argue it ardently but in good faith.