tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (11/20/85)
In article <28200260@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >Though hypotheses in "alternative history" are unverifiable, >it is quite likely that, without Communism, the Russian empire >would have fallen apart. All the others did (count: >Austro-Hungary, Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, >Spain...). This one survived, and spread, and keeps spreading. If the "Russian empire" had fallen apart and not industrialized rapidly, Nazism and not communism would rule Eastern Europe today. German developments did not depend on the Russian empire. The power of the USSR is in its huge land size, population, and natural resources, combined with a level of economic development which has let its size advantages make a difference. Britain and the other empires Jan lists ruled at a time of history when size was not convertable into political and economic influence. Their demise was inevitable. Russia's was not. Lenin said communism equaled electrification -- and that's what communism did for the USSR. It industrialized the USSR to the point where it could become a world power. It did so at high costs to the political system, which has only advanced slowly since. And it left gaps in industrial development, especially in consumer goods. But that's still a big accomplishment. It defeated Nazi Germany. >Communism provided it (1) with an incomparable machinery >of power and (2) with a supranational, internationalist >ideology, acceptable to the ruling class of subject lands. >It also (3) made economic gain secondary to power gain, so >the empire needn't be cost effective to exist. > > Jan Wasilewsky What incomparable machinery of power? Military force isn't anything new. What does communism have to do with it? And how is communist internationalist ideology acceptable to the ruling class of subject lands, any more so than another colonialist ideology imposed on a subject land? As far as economic gain goes, only the historically nearsighted would call Communism a failure. As an economic system, its flaws only began to stick out in the late 1960s-1980s. They may not persist. If Chinese development succeeds, it will be another success for Communism as a means for nations with large domestic economies to industrialize. I think Jan is just confusing the impact of WWII and the Cold War with the impact of Communism. Does he think the USSR would have invaded Eastern Europe if not for WWII? There's no evidence I know of for that. Would he prefer that Eastern Europe be under the Nazis or the Tsars? Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (11/24/85)
One point I would like to make is that the collapse of the Russian empire was a consequence of World War 1, as was the collapse of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. The world wars played a major role in weakening the British empire. Japan and Italy lost their empires as a consequence of WW2. There is too much emphasis on some kind of historical necessity leading to the collapse of these empires. They might very well still exist had their political leaders had the intelligence not to fight wars they did not have a high probability of winning. Anyway communism took hold in Russia only because the empire had already collapsed and a partial power vacuum existed, and they were ready and able to pick up the pieces. It seems absurd to me to think that the communists could have overturned the Tsarist regime without some external factor like a major war playing a role.
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/26/85)
>>Communism provided it (1) with an incomparable machinery of power > What incomparable machinery of power? Echoes of Don Black ... well, perhaps it is a temporary aberration. Recommended reading: Solzhenitsin, The Gulag Archipelago; Voslensky, Nomenklatura; Avtorkhanov , Technology of Power; Orwell, 1984
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/26/85)
[Tony Wuersch tonyw@ubvax] >If the "Russian empire" had fallen apart and not industrialized >rapidly, Nazism and not communism would rule Eastern Europe today. >German developments did not depend on the Russian empire. Two errors here. (1) Russia would, by all historical trends, have industrialized. Russia *was* industrializing, at a breath-taking pace, before the communist revolution. There was every reason for this to continue and accelerate. Empire had nothing to do with it, in fact, as with other empires, it distorted development. Communism preserved the empire and squandered the resources of development. What remained made Russia the third-ranking economic power today. It was a natural candidate for #1 - even without its colonies. In fact that was what the original article argued - the one Gabor and I rebutted. *That* part was never rebutted. (2) German developments did, as it happens, depend on the Russian developments. Without USSR, German Communism would be just a shade in Social-Democratic spectrum. And without fear of Commun- ism and polarization of German politics, Hitler would never have come to power. There were certainly other factors; but Nazis made it by a small margin, at the time when their influence was dec- lining. Without *this* factor they certainly wouldn't. Also, at a critical moment German Communists were ordered by Moscow to support Hitler. So he benefited both from Communism and anti- Communism. It was 1917 that made 1933 possible. >The power of the USSR is in its huge land size, population, and >natural resources, combined with a level of economic development >which has let its size advantages make a difference. Britain >and the other empires Jan lists ruled at a time of history when >size was not convertable into political and economic influence. >Their demise was inevitable. Russia's was not. British and the other empires - except Austro-Hungary - existed at *the same* time in history as USSR. >Lenin said communism equaled electrification -- and that's what >communism did for the USSR. It industrialized the USSR to the >point where it could become a world power. It did so at high >costs to the political system, which has only advanced slowly >since. And it left gaps in industrial development, especially >in consumer goods. Answered above; quite wrong; and even misinterprets Lenin's words. He meant that electrification was a *precondition* of a communist society, not that communist ideology would create electricity. He certainly was *for* electrification. So were the businessmen who fled the country, the engineers who were tortured and imprisoned, the economists who were shot for realistic estimates, and the farmers who were starved and who otherwise would have paid for it. Human bones are not the most efficient foundation for modern industry. The sixty million corpses were in vain; the development was retarded, not enhanced. Jan Wasilewsky
gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) (11/26/85)
In article <11069@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Tom Tedrick writes: > It seems absurd to me to think that the communists could have > overturned the Tsarist regime without some external factor > like a major war playing a role. It is embarrassing to have to point out such a well-known historical fact but: the Bolsheviks DID NOT overturn the Tsar. He was overthrown in an unplanned and uncontrolled series of bread riots, strikes and mutinies known as the February Revolution. Lenin found out about the Tsar's fall from the Swiss newspapers. It is more correct to say that the Bolsheviks hijacked the revolution that toppled the Tsar, somewhat like the mullahs' trick in Iran. ----- Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/26/85)
[tedrick@ucbvax] >Anyway communism took hold in Russia only because the empire >had already collapsed and a partial power vacuum existed, and >they were ready and able to pick up the pieces. So far, quite true. Even more : for "partial" read almost complete. Kerensky was considered indispensable by his colleagues, though he was weak and hysterical, for the reason that he had the rare ability to talk a stray band of armed people in the street into enforcing an order. >It seems absurd to me to think that the communists could have >overturned the Tsarist regime without some external factor like a >major war playing a role. *Communists* couldn't, with or without war. As it was, Bolsheviks took *no* part in toppling the Tzar. Not one of them. Lenin learned of it in Switzerland from a newspaper and *didn't believe* at first. No one knows how the Petrograd riots happened that brought the monarchy down. It was the slightest and most random push possible - and the thing came down crashing because it was completely rotten. *No* one came to its support. No class, party, group or military unit. Which shows that, though the war was a proximate cause, the collapse - of one kind or another - was inevitable. As for preserving the unity of the parts - possible but only just possible. Centrifugal forces were great - don't forget that Poland and Finland were parts of the Empire, as well as the Ukraine, the Baltic areas and the Caucasus. All of them were boiling with unrest. Perhaps, if all was very liberal and democratic, some kind of confederation, a Russian Commonwealth of Nations, could have been created. Some trade and customs union would be to everyone's interest. But that's not an empire. Jan Wasilewsky
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (11/29/85)
In article <554@qantel.UUCP> gabor@qantel.UUCP writes: >In article <11069@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Tom Tedrick writes: > >> It seems absurd to me to think that the communists could have >> overturned the Tsarist regime without some external factor >> like a major war playing a role. > >It is embarrassing to have to point out such a well-known historical fact but: >the Bolsheviks DID NOT overturn the Tsar. He was overthrown in an unplanned >and uncontrolled series of bread riots, strikes and mutinies known as the >February Revolution. Lenin found out about the Tsar's fall from the Swiss >newspapers. It is more correct to say that the Bolsheviks hijacked the >revolution that toppled the Tsar, somewhat like the mullahs' trick in Iran. > >----- >Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor What you say is basically true but does not have much to do with my point. I didn't say that the Bolsheviks overturned the Tsar. I said it seems absurd to think that they *COULD HAVE* overturned the Tsar ... It is really frustrating to post articles on the net when even intelligent people like you misread what I say.
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (11/29/85)
In article <28200340@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[tedrick@ucbvax] > >>It seems absurd to me to think that the communists could have >>overturned the Tsarist regime without some external factor like a >>major war playing a role. > >*Communists* couldn't, with or without war. As it was, Bolsheviks >took *no* part in toppling the Tzar. Not one of them. I don't understand why Jan, whom I regard as one of the most intelligent people on the net, seems to misunderstand what I said. I never said the communists *DID* overthrow the Tsar. My point was that without a war the odds were heavily in favor of the existing power group being able to retain power. The Tsar was able to mobilize enormous armies and it took several years of enormous slaughter (millions of Russian troops killed) before morale collapsed. Maybe a revolution would have taken place anyway, but my bet would be that the Tsarist regime would have been able to stay in power if no war had taken place. So if you are going to flame at me, flame at me for claiming that communism would never have been victorious in Russia without some kind of war playing a role. I hope I have made my self clearer this time. >Which shows that, though the war was a proximate cause, the >collapse - of one kind or another - was inevitable. OK, I disagree with that statement. I claim that without the destabilizing influence of war, revolutions are much less likely to suceed, especially if the government in power knows what it is doing.
janw@inmet.UUCP (12/01/85)
>>[tedrick@ucbvax] >>>It seems absurd to me to think that the communists could have >>>overturned the Tsarist regime without some external factor like a >>>major war playing a role. >> >>*Communists* couldn't, with or without war. As it was, Bolsheviks >>took *no* part in toppling the Tzar. Not one of them. > >I don't understand why Jan ... seems to misunderstand what I >said. I never said the communists *DID* overthrow the Tsar. You are right, you didn't, and I should have stated that before saying what I said. It still needed saying, for two reasons: the historical delusion that the Communists abolished Tsarism is widely spread; and comparisons on the net of the two systems as if natural alternatives help to keep this alive. Of course, this is not your fault. I *half*-misunderstood you: i.e., I wasn't sure what you meant . So I sat between two chairs in my reply, which is always a mistake. Jan Wasilewsky
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (12/02/85)
> >OK, I disagree with that statement. I claim that without >the destabilizing influence of war, revolutions are much >less likely to suceed, especially if the government in >power knows what it is doing. This depends on how long you are willing to wait. If you are not adamant about having change in your life time, then you don't need a war. If no civil war had happened in Russia, and the industrial revolution had just proceeded along its way, the whole structure of Russian society would have changed. Once it is possible to make wealth rather than simply inherit it, you get a new influx of wealthy and powerful people, with middle-class ideas and middle-class expectations. The nobility tends to dry up, and either become middle class, or be supported by the middle class who for some reason or other wants to have a few royality around. This sort of thing is happens again and again whenever a middle class develops. But as far as I know, except for England, I don't know a single place where a decrease in relative power of the ruling class was not also accompanied by a civil war. But in every case I can think of, the decrease in power was FOLLOWED by a civil war; the civil war only being an indication that the days of absolute power by the ruling class were over. -- Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
janw@inmet.UUCP (12/02/85)
>>So I sat between two chairs in my reply, which is always a mistake. Oops, wrong idiom. Two stools is what I meant, but I was sitting between two languages... [Tom Tedrick] >The Tsar was able to mobilize enormous armies and it took several >years of enormous slaughter (millions of Russian troops killed) >before morale collapsed. Maybe a revolution would have taken >place anyway, but my bet would be that the Tsarist regime would >have been able to stay in power if no war had taken place. True about the armies and the slaughter. But the regime was almost completely alienated from the educated classes. After the 1905-07 revolution they were demoralized, but recuperated by 1912, and the cauldron was slowly but steadily heating. The regime proved incapable to do anything to prevent the end, except create a kind of proto-fascist (Black Hundred) movement. But it couldn't rely on them, either. It was an incred- ible kleptocracy; the palace clique was out-of touch with *all* classes; it would make Marie Antoinette's little circle look like sage and benevolent statesmen. The war caused a surge of patriotism; society decided to postpone its quarrel with the regime and cooperate. But gradually, what with the incompetence of the leadership and military setbacks, and one rifle per several soldiers, and spy rumors, and the Em- press being German, and Rasputin, and cabinet positions sold to dozens of adventurers, sometimes for a month or so, and advice of the most moderate or even rightwing parliamentarians arrogantly spurned - it took a lot of these and other things, but finally *no one* wanted the regime to survive. It was far worse than with the late Shah. >So if you are going to flame at me, flame at me for claiming that >communism would never have been victorious in Russia without some >kind of war playing a role. I hope I have made my self clearer >this time. You have, and I *agree* ! Sorry about misunderstanding you. Lenin got his one and only chance between March and November 1917, and *only* because of the war. It took that *and* Lenin's political genius to use this chance. I believe no once else then on the scene could have done that. So my bet is that - without the war - the Empire would have fallen, but the Bolsheviks wouldn't have come to power. They were a tiny group by March 1917. My bet in the center would be on the Socialist-Revolutionaries, on the periphery - various nationalist groups mostly with some Socialist flavor: the way it happened in Poland. I don't think pure liberal democracy would be very likely (except in Finland and the Baltic states). But it did have a chance, because of the brief (since 1905) parliamentarian and a longer (since the eighteen-sixties) local self-government experience. Jan Wasilewsky
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (12/02/85)
In article <554@qantel.UUCP> gabor@qantel.UUCP writes: >In article <11069@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Tom Tedrick writes: > >> It seems absurd to me to think that the communists could have >> overturned the Tsarist regime without some external factor >> like a major war playing a role. > >It is embarrassing to have to point out such a well-known historical fact but: >the Bolsheviks DID NOT overturn the Tsar. He was overthrown in an unplanned >and uncontrolled series of bread riots, strikes and mutinies known as the >February Revolution. Lenin found out about the Tsar's fall from the Swiss >newspapers. It is more correct to say that the Bolsheviks hijacked the >revolution that toppled the Tsar, somewhat like the mullahs' trick in Iran. > >----- >Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor I think Gabor was misreading Tom's intent in that last sentence of his article. Tom's article, in the sentence before the one Gabor quotes, said the empire collapsed before the Bolsheviks "picked up the pieces". That was right. Tom was probably using this last sentence of his article as a "summary" which unfortunately misstated what he said the sentence previous. As far as "hijacked the revolution", what is Gabor talking about? If one looks at the history and decides that the revolution was made for and by the St. Petersberg working class, than the October Revolution seems just a continuation, since the Bolsheviks were overwhelmingly the favorites of the working class by October. The Bolsheviks developed slogans for the peasantry which got their support against the Whites in the Civil War. So the Bolsheviks got the support of the working class and the peasantry. Where's the hijack? See Trotsky's History for more, or Sheila Fitzpatrick's book on the Russian Revolution, for a more recent historical sumup. And the mullahs were acknowledged as leaders of the revolution by the groups that toppled the Shah. What does "hijacked the revolution" mean in Iran? Maybe Gabor means that Kerensky and BaniSadr deserved to inherit revolutions they had no part in making, just because they were parliamentary democrats. Is that it? Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw "I should look at a mountain and see it as it is instead of as a comment on my life" -- David Ignatow
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (12/02/85)
In article <554@qantel.UUCP> gabor@qantel.UUCP writes: >In article <11069@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Tom Tedrick writes: > >> It seems absurd to me to think that the communists could have >> overturned the Tsarist regime without some external factor >> like a major war playing a role. > >It is embarrassing to have to point out such a well-known historical fact but: >the Bolsheviks DID NOT overturn the Tsar. He was overthrown in an unplanned >and uncontrolled series of bread riots, strikes and mutinies known as the >February Revolution. Lenin found out about the Tsar's fall from the Swiss >newspapers. It is more correct to say that the Bolsheviks hijacked the >revolution that toppled the Tsar, somewhat like the mullahs' trick in Iran. > >----- >Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor I think Gabor was misreading Tom's intent in that last sentence of his article. Tom's article, in the sentence before the one Gabor quotes, said the empire collapsed before the Bolsheviks "picked up the pieces". That was right. Tom was probably using this last sentence of his article as a "summary" which unfortunately misstated what he said the sentence previous. As far as "hijacked the revolution", what is Gabor talking about? If one looks at the history and decides that the revolution was made for and by the St. Petersberg working class, than the October Revolution seems just a continuation, since the Bolsheviks were overwhelmingly the favorites of the working class by October. The Bolsheviks developed slogans for the peasantry which got their support against the Whites in the Civil War. So the Bolsheviks got the support of the working class and the peasantry. Where's the hijack? See Trotsky's History for more, or Sheila Fitzpatrick's book on the Russian Revolution, for a more recent historical sumup. And the mullahs were acknowledged as leaders of the revolution by the groups that toppled the Shah. What does "hijacked the revolution" mean in Iran? Maybe Gabor means that Kerensky and BaniSadr deserved to inherit revolutions they had no part in making, just because they were parliamentary democrats. Is that it? Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw "I should see a mountain as it is not as a comment on my life" -- David Ignatow
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (12/03/85)
>In article <11069@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Tom Tedrick writes: > >> It seems absurd to me to think that the communists could have >> overturned the Tsarist regime without some external factor >> like a major war playing a role. > >It is embarrassing to have to point out such a well-known historical fact but: >the Bolsheviks DID NOT overturn the Tsar. He was overthrown in an unplanned >and uncontrolled series of bread riots, strikes and mutinies known as the >February Revolution. Lenin found out about the Tsar's fall from the Swiss >newspapers. It is more correct to say that the Bolsheviks hijacked the >revolution that toppled the Tsar, somewhat like the mullahs' trick in Iran. > >----- >Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor I think Gabor was misreading Tom's intent in that last sentence of his article. Tom's article, in the sentence before the one Gabor quotes, said the empire collapsed before the Bolsheviks "picked up the pieces". That was right. Tom was probably using this last sentence of his article as a "summary" which unfortunately misstated what he said the sentence previous. As far as "hijacked the revolution", what is Gabor talking about? If one looks at the history and decides that the revolution was made for and by the St. Petersberg working class, than the October Revolution seems just a continuation, since the Bolsheviks were overwhelmingly the favorites of the working class by October. The Bolsheviks developed slogans for the peasantry which got their support against the Whites in the Civil War. So the Bolsheviks got the support of the working class and the peasantry. Where's the hijack? See Trotsky's History for more, or Sheila Fitzpatrick's book on the Russian Revolution, for a more recent historical sumup. And the mullahs were acknowledged as leaders of the revolution by the groups that toppled the Shah. What does "hijacked the revolution" mean in Iran? Maybe Gabor means that Kerensky and BaniSadr deserved to inherit revolutions they had no part in making, just because they were parliamentary democrats. Is that it? Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw "I should see a mountain as it is not as a comment on my life" -- David Ignatow
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (12/03/85)
In article <28200338@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[Tony Wuersch tonyw@ubvax] >>If the "Russian empire" had fallen apart and not industrialized >>rapidly, Nazism and not communism would rule Eastern Europe today. >>German developments did not depend on the Russian empire. > >Two errors here. >(1) Russia would, by all historical trends, have industrialized. >Russia *was* industrializing, at a breath-taking pace, before the >communist revolution. There was every reason for this to continue >and accelerate. Empire had nothing to do with it, in fact, as >with other empires, it distorted development. Communism preserved >the empire and squandered the resources of development. What >remained made Russia the third-ranking economic power today. When did empires distort development? Not in the capitalist era, for Britain, the US, France, or Germany. Why so for the USSR? Even given the speed of development pre-Revolution, it still doesn't come close to what happened in the Thirties, or to the postwar recovery. And Tsarist development was heavily dependent on foreign investment, which wouldn't have lasted forever. No guarantee it would have incorporated peasant labor as a factor in development, as the Communists did (too much so, we know today). >It was a natural candidate for #1 - even without its colonies. >In fact that was what the original article argued - the one >Gabor and I rebutted. *That* part was never rebutted. See the above. >(2) German developments did, as it happens, depend on the Russian >developments. Without USSR, German Communism would be just a >shade in Social-Democratic spectrum. And without fear of Commun- >ism and polarization of German politics The fear was never the Communists, but rather the Socialists, the SPD. Communists were never more than scapegoats. Do you want to blame the USSR for creating scapegoats? >but Nazis made >it by a small margin, at the time when their influence was dec- >lining. Without *this* factor they certainly wouldn't. Also, at >a critical moment German Communists were ordered by Moscow to >support Hitler. So he benefited both from Communism and anti- >Communism. It was 1917 that made 1933 possible. The myth of Communist strength is just that, a myth. It was liquidated when Luxembourg and Liebknecht were liquidated. >>Lenin said communism equaled electrification -- and that's what >>communism did for the USSR. It industrialized the USSR to the >>point where it could become a world power. It did so at high >>costs to the political system, which has only advanced slowly >>since. And it left gaps in industrial development, especially >>in consumer goods. > >Answered above; quite wrong; and even misinterprets >Lenin's words. He meant that electrification was a *precondition* >of a communist society, not that communist ideology would create >electricity. He certainly was *for* electrification. So were the >businessmen who fled the country, the engineers who were tortured >and imprisoned, the economists who were shot for realistic >estimates, and the farmers who were starved and who otherwise >would have paid for it. > > Jan Wasilewsky But were the Tsars for electrification? I doubt it. It would have weakened their political control too much. If the Tsars weren't for it, nothing would move anyhow. Tony Wuersch
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/05/85)
>would have changed. Once it is possible to make wealth rather than >simply inherit it, you get a new influx of wealthy and powerful people, >with middle-class ideas and middle-class expectations. The nobility tends >to dry up, and either become middle class, or be supported by the middle >class who for some reason or other wants to have a few royality around. > >This sort of thing is happens again and again whenever a middle class >develops. But as far as I know, except for England, I don't know a >single place where a decrease in relative power of the ruling class was not >also accompanied by a civil war. But in every case I can think of, the >decrease in power was FOLLOWED by a civil war; the civil war only being >an indication that the days of absolute power by the ruling class were >over. >-- >Laura Creighton I don't know whether you are right or not, but your point can be strengthened if you note that England DID have its Civil War, but before the Industrial Revolution. The memory of that war, and particularly of the horrors of the republican regime that followed it, is STILL enculcated in schoolchildren. I imagine that the memory must have been much stronger in the 1840s, only 200 years after the Civil War, than it was in the 1940's when I went to school. Also, remember that Britain had two more civil wars and a kind of minor one in the century after the big one. If you go back through the history of England, much of the time before 1600 was taken up with some kind of dynastic civil war. The so-called "Civil War" that ended in 1642(?) was the counterpart of the French Revolution, and it successfully deposed the monarchy and the aristocracy. Only the result was very bad (rather like the result in Black Africa in the 20-40 years after the removal of the Colonial administrators), so that the people more or less revolted again to bring back King Charles II (of happy memory). The next three civil wars were again dynastic, but I'm sure that people must have been pretty fed up with war, and very wary of removing the aristocracy again, by the time the true industrial middle class arose. (If you compare Great Britain in the 1650's with, say, Zimbabwe now, you will find many parallels -- one-party democracy, local informers against those who disagreed with party policy (or theology), hero-cult of the leader, etc. etc. The fact that Britain became one of the sources for democratic government, including that of the USA, suggests that Black Africa can have a bright future if allowed to do so.) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (12/12/85)
Jan's last article was a very knowing and good description of the Tsarist disaster. Since I'm writing this response informally, please understand if a little black humor comes out. Russian history tends to bring out the black humorist in me. In article <28200354@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >So my bet is that - without the war >- the Empire would have fallen, but the Bolsheviks wouldn't have >come to power. They were a tiny group by March 1917. >My bet in the center would be on the Socialist-Revolutionaries, >on the periphery - various nationalist groups mostly with some >Socialist flavor: the way it happened in Poland. Bad bet, I think. I usually think that the problem of Russia was first, Tsarism, but second, the lack of an indigenous bourgeoisie, pointed up by the substitution of foreign for domestic investment in industrial development. But I think Tsarism could have held on by its fingernails for a long time without the war. After all, Rasputin might be a little wacko, but the Okhrana was solid. Eventually, the more industrial development without a corresponding bourgeoisie, the more leverage workers would have in a revolutionary situation. Hence in the long run a workers party like the Bolsheviks or Mensheviks would have succeeded, and it would have had similar problems to the Bolsheviks as it tried to extend its control beyond the cities. So my point is a paradox: the only chance the Social Revolutionaries had was in 1917, because of the war! The war made revolution come too early for its success to be more than an iffy prospect for the working class parties. For them, the later, the better. The peasants could never be the force of the revolution, so their party, the Social-Revolutionaries (which never even existed anyhow before the February revolution, unlike both the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks), could never have ended up taming it. Where I do think the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks differed was in the greater centralist orientation of the Bolsheviks, which was reinforced by the success of the genius Lenin into a centralist myth. But then you can't separate the Bolsheviks from Lenin anyways; it's not as if were he never born the Bolsheviks would ever have been more than another exile group. Lenin started and built *Iskra* (now Pravda). What the Mensheviks would have done is hard to say. I doubt they could have held the country. There would still have been a civil war, whenever the inevitable revolution came. Maybe the Whites would have won. But Social-Revolutionaries????????? I can't believe it. Maybe my historical imagination needs a little more oil. Can you provide a plausible scenario for the rise of Social Revolutionaries in the face of worker resistance, Jan? By October, the workers were perfectly happy that a putsch had taken place. So maybe the Bolsheviks wouldn't have done it. Somebody would have. Maybe they'd have to let the parliament run a few more months to develop more incentive. As long as soviets were alive, parliament couldn't succeed. And in a revolutionary situation, Social Revolutionaries would have no Okhrana to call on any more. >I don't think pure liberal democracy would be very likely (except >in Finland and the Baltic states). But it did have a chance, >because of the brief (since 1905) parliamentarian and a longer >(since the eighteen-sixties) local self-government experience. > > Jan Wasilewsky Aha! There we disagree. The success of soviets in 1905 spelled the death of liberal democracy in 1917, to me. Democracy could only have started if the Tsar had murdered the soviets, like the French did to Paris after the Commune. Even then it would have been iffy still. Try the Kadets next time. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/16/85)
In article <384@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: [Discussing the Russian revolution in the context of Russian industrial development:] >Eventually, the more industrial development without a corresponding >bourgeoisie, the more leverage workers would have in a revolutionary >situation. Hence in the long run a workers party like the Bolsheviks >or Mensheviks would have succeeded, and it would have had similar >problems to the Bolsheviks as it tried to extend its control beyond >the cities. I don't think this is a possible development. Industrial development, after the early stages, always generates a middle class. The first steps are different -- you have owners and workers. But more sophisticated operations require managers, and technical sophistication requires technicians. These two groups have to be middle class -- they have too much responsibility to be left out, yet must be too numerous to be upper class. So there is every reason to believe that the Russia would have produced a middle class under the Tsars, as it did under the Communists. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108