No I SAID Duma was a monarchial liberal institution to begin with (1905
February revolution). so why should such an autocratic institution be
maintained under socialism? A new regime requires new institutions and
political restructuring. Duma was a transitory stage on the way to
socialim, once it completed its historical mission, it came to an end.
(that is why Lenin sees bourgeois democratic reforms as "strategic" but
not as ends in themselves. Use them and shoot them philosophy!)
I don't also see your reasoning Barkley. You are not a socialist, so why
do you struggle with me that Russia was not a socialist regime at that
time?
>Mine,
> The monarchy had already been overthrown by
>December 1917. The Duma Lenin shut down was
>not "under the patronage of the monarchy." The
>electoral winners, were socialists and revolutionary
ones. Just a different brand than Lenin's Bolsheviks.
>Marx praised the direct election of the leaders
>of the Paris Commune. The post-revolutionary election
>of December 1917 cannot be called "bourgeois
>constitutionalism." This fit Marx's prescription. But
>Lenin wanted power and he took it.
true, but what is the point?.I think we are moving away from the subject
matter of the discussion. The original topic was whether Russian
revolution was a REVOLUTION or not. I argued it WAS, but you seem to be
saying that it was an elite attempt to seize power. I *DO NOT* SEE
HISTORICAL STRUGGLES THROUGH THE LENSES OF ELITES. Such a way of
looking is conservative as it freezes history and comprimises conflicts,
which is why, for example, I did not like Jim's glorification of Weber
and Hobbes.. History and political economic circumstanes of Russia proves
my point about the pre-revolutionary circumstances (international (war)+
agrarian social structures+ peasent insurrections+ urban St.Petersburg
strikes, etcc). so what is your evidence for insisting otherwise?
merci,
Mine
