Mine,
Frankly I do not understand parts of this remark.
I have not debated with you the nature of socialism
in Russia in 1917 or at any point. Indeed, I think we
both agree that (eventually) the USSR was indeed
socialist. Furthermore, whatever my political views
are is irrelevant to the accuracy or lack thereof of my
arguments (and you do not know what my political
views are anyway, despite your attempts to label).
I would agree that the Duma was established as
you said. But by December 1917 the tsar had been
overthrown. The election of December saw a victory
by the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Lenin had no good
excuse on Marxist grounds for denying them power. I
know, he claimed to be the leader of the "vanguard of the
proletariat." There is a phrase fraught with even more tragedy
than the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
BTW, the real revolution was the one in February/March.
It was the one in which people rose up in the streets and the'
soldiers turned their guns on their bosses rather than the
demonstrators. What Lenin led was a coup d'etat that called
itself a revolution. Arguably it became a revolution. But as of
November 7, 1917, it was a seizure of power in the capital
by a small and well organized clique. Most people in the rest
of the country did not even know that it had happened. Small
wonder they did not support it as their votes a month later showed.
And, Mine, I suspect I have more reasons for being interested
in what has happened and is happening right now in Russia than
you do.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, May 22, 2000 2:46 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19408] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re:
Re:Re:Re:Re:MarxandMalleability (fwd)
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
