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.
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.