100th Anniversary of the Russian Revolution – Leicester discussion meeting
- This topic has 26 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Here's the details of this month's Libertarian Socialist Discussion Meeting organised by the Leicester Group of the Anarchist Federation. Hope to see some of you there!
As February 2017 marks one hundred years since the start of the Russian revolution, we ask what we can learn from it and what its effect has been on revolutionary ideas and action and the wider workers’ movement from 1917 to the present.
Wednesday 22nd February
7pm at the Regent Sports & Social Club
102 Regent Road
Leicester LE1 7DANB: the venue is a short walk from Leicester train station
Because at the time Russia was using an old calender which was 13 days behind the one used (and still used) in the West, the Tsar was overthrow in March not February 1917 of course and the Bolshevik coup took place in November not October. So the "Great October Revolution" is a myth even on this level — it took place in November.
This is what happened when Britain changed to the current calendar in 1752:http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Give-us-our-eleven-days/
Report back on the meetingThough attendance was a little smaller than last month due to an unfortunate clash with a Leicester Social Forum event at the same time, the meeting nevertheless went well. The discussion was led off by a left communist friend of the local AF, who gave a solid background to the 1917 events in Russia. Key points in the ensuing discussion were:1917 was a seminal moment in world revolutionary proletarian historyit is perhaps mistaken to think of it as the "Russian revolution" as it was a catalyst for uprisings, mutinies and revolutions in many other places (e.g. Germany, Hungary, Italian factory councils, etc.)its failure, and the subsequent failure of revolutionary movements elsewhere were ultimately a failure of "socialism in one country" (or more accurately, state capitalism in one geographical location)the workers councils (soviets) were a major contribution to revolutionary movements (although to be fair, the councils go back to 1905)the taming of the soviets by the bolsheviks, the repression of Kronstadt and the makhnovschina were all mentionedThe massive influence of the Russian revolution on the years between 1917 and now are unquestionable. It led to:the bolshevisation or leninisation of the more revolutionary wing of the international workers' movementthis bolshevisation/leninisation included revolutionary groups and movements of various tendencies (including anarchists)the dominance of the Comintern and Stalinist tyranny, etc, led to the deformation of revolutionary politics and has left concepts such as socialism or communism as tainted, damagedpro-revolutionary ideas, groups and movements are still recovering from thisthe apparent death of class consciousness, the general lack of collective working class awareness and the dwindling of revolutionary groups and ideas is a probable repercussion of the failure of 1917 and afterthe dire state of the world we see today is ultimately evidence of the failure of 1917
Thanks. Sounds an interesting meeting.
irwellian wrote:1917 was a seminal moment in world revolutionary proletarian historyNot sure about that. It was obviously an important event that had repercussions throughout the last century, but from a geopolitical rather than proletarian point of view. In fact it sidetracked the "proletarian" movement and nostalgia for it still does.
Quote:its failure, and the subsequent failure of revolutionary movements elsewhere were ultimately a failure of "socialism in one country" (or more accurately, state capitalism in one geographical location)Good point.
Quote:the workers councils (soviets) were a major contribution to revolutionary movements (although to be fair, the councils go back to 1905)Not sure about that either. What is the need to create representatives councils where these already exist? They are a sign of political backwards not the future.
Quote:The massive influence of the Russian revolution on the years between 1917 and now are unquestionable. It led to:the bolshevisation or leninisation of the more revolutionary wing of the international workers' movementthis bolshevisation/leninisation included revolutionary groups and movements of various tendencies (including anarchists)the dominance of the Comintern and Stalinist tyranny, etc, led to the deformation of revolutionary politics and has left concepts such as socialism or communism as tainted, damagedpro-revolutionary ideas, groups and movements are still recovering from thisAll good points. In other words, the outcome of the Russian Revolution has been a disaster for the movement for socialism.
Quote:the apparent death of class consciousness, the general lack of collective working class awareness and the dwindling of revolutionary groups and ideas is a probable repercussion of the failure of 1917 and afterI would have thought that this would only be a minor reason, if one at all, for this. It will have had more to do with, for instance, the decline in work in heavy industry and the mistake of considering industrial workers only as "working class".
Quote:the dire state of the world we see today is ultimately evidence of the failure of 1917Well over the top too.
Thanks for your comments."It was obviously an important event that had repercussions throughout the last century, but from a geopolitical rather than proletarian point of view. In fact it sidetracked the "proletarian" movement and nostalgia for it still does." I wouldn't disagree about it sidetracking the proletarian movement in an ultimately catastrophic way.Disagreements on the importance of workers' councils…Isn't this basically the difference between the SPGB approach (using the system which exists – i.e. parliamentary elections) and the view of many anarcho-, council- and left-communists?Me: "the apparent death of class consciousness, the general lack of collective working class awareness and the dwindling of revolutionary groups and ideas is a probable repercussion of the failure of 1917 and after"You: "I would have thought that this would only be a minor reason, if one at all, for this. It will have had more to do with, for instance, the decline in work in heavy industry and the mistake of considering industrial workers only as "working class".Yes, there are many reasons, however, I stand by the importance of the failure of 1917 and the subsequent toxic effect of leninism, stalinism, trotskyism, maoism and assorted advocates of variations of state capitalism on the wider workers' movement.Me: "the dire state of the world we see today is ultimately evidence of the failure of 1917"You: "Well over the top too." Possibly. As with the above point, the reasons are many and looking at "what if?" scenarios is ultimately futile. But given the effect of bolshevism on people's everyday understanding of what "socialism" is (one-party dictatorship, secret police, workers' barracks, gulags, bread queues, etc), and given that if 1917 had actually led to world revolution (and clearly, world revolution did not take place and we do not live in a socialist world), then its influence on today is collossal.
I think a distinction should be made between the soviets and factory committees.The 1917 soviets unlike the ones in 1905 were party creations, hence not a single representative from factories were at the inaugral meeting of the St Peterburg soviet. The 1905 soviets were genuine workers' not tools of the political in-fightingThe factory committees seemed to be more representative of actual control over the factories that the bosses deserted and left the work-force to deal with by themselves, and were much more independent of the political parties, hence they were subject to dissolution by the Bolsheviks and the imposition of one-man management.
There's nothing wrong with workers forming makeshift representative bodies in politically backward countries like Russia was in 1917 where formal, elected, representative bodies don't exist. But where they do there's no need to re-invent the wheel.Of course if there really had been a world socialist revolution after WWI the history of the world would have been quite different and the "failure" of this to take place has resulted in two world wars, continuous lesser wars, famines, massacres, etc, etc. In theory there could have been one because the objective, material conditions for socialism did exist on the world scale. Unfortunately, the second condition — a desire on the part of the world's workers to establish socialism — did not, and it was an illusion of Lenin and the Bolsheviks that it did, as this article from 1922 had to point out:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1920s/1922/no-220-december-1922/book-review-will-bolsheviks-maintain-power
I agree about the importance of the factory committees but when you say
alanjjohnstone wrote:not a single representative from factories were at the inaugral meeting of the St Peterburg soviet.have you got a source for that claim as I've never heard it before?
Quote:between 23 and 27 February 1917, the politicians of the Duma Committee and the members of the Workers' Group sitting on the Central Committee for the War Industries (an employers' and State organization), attempted to organize elections in Petrograd for a Central Soviet. The impetus for this came from the latter group, which installed itself in the Tauride Palace on 27 February and set up a provisional executive committee of the council of workers' delegates, to which committee several socialist leaders and members of parliament attached themselves. It was this committee which called upon workers and soldiers to elect their representatives. This explains why, when the first Provisional Soviet met that very evening, it still contained no factory delegates!https://libcom.org/library/radical-tradition-oneThis is based on Oskar Anweiler book on the soviets.https://libcom.org/files/The%20Soviets-%20The%20Russian%20Workers,%20Peasants,%20and%20Soldiers%20Councils%201905-1921.pdf
Quote:The decisive step in forming the Petrograd soviet was taken by members of the central workers group who were released from prison on February 27. Led by Gvozdev and accompanied by soldiers and the masses, they moved into the Tauride Palace, the seat of the duma. There they formed with several socialist duma members, among them the Menshevik Nikolai Chkheidze, and participants in the earlier secret conferences,31 a "Provisional Executive Committee of the Soviet of Workers Deputies" on the aftemoon of February 27 (March 12), 1917. The commÎttee immediately appealed for the election of deputies, one for each 1,000 workers and one for each army company, and caIled the first session for 7 :00 p.M.32 When the meeting was called to order at 9:00 P.M., only 40 to 50 people were present; probably this number did not even include the delegates earlier elected in the factories, since they were stiII ignorant of the soviet's establishment.Lenin became a popular and famous figure because of the so-called Russian revolution, otherwise, he would have been like any bourgeoisie politician.The left continues departing their analysis from the Bolshevik, whoever depart from the experience of the Soviets will always end in wrong conclusions.They also continue calling revolution to a coup given by a minority of individuals against the government of Kerensky
It wasn't just the Bolsheviks who were for the overthrow of the Kerensky government. Some Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries were as well. Their criticism was that it was replaced by a Bolshevik government and not by a government of all the leftwing anti-Tsarist revolutionaries, i.e a genuine Soviet government. What they objected to was the Bolsheviks monopolising power. As we know the Bolsheviks just used the soviets as a cover for their coup. At an earlier point Lenin had wanted the Bolsheviks to seize power directly but Trotsky persuaded him to adopt this subterfuge instead.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.