Revolution!!!

[Boris Godunov]

I agree with Doc S. The French Revolution is horribly overrated.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


We did mention it, had several posts about it.

Yeah, realised when I posted...

[orange]

Uh, since when does a revolution have to have caused 'Good' change to be most important? The thread isn't about 'which threads helped civilization the most' it's about which were most important...the French revolution affected the entire world in some way, in Europe most obviously, but in the new world (war of 1812, purchase of Louisiana territory, revolt in Haiti, final axe in Spain's power both in the new and old world (which so rapidly declined afterwards) it affected British and French colonies the world over, it affected the Dutch, it affected the Russians, it affected Egypt and the Ottomans, and led to so MANY crucial events in European history between 1800 and 1945.

[Sava]

Yeah, but without America, the Allies would not have won WWII...

[Sava]

BTW, I would not be opposed to a socialist revolution in America.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by orange
Uh, since when does a revolution have to have caused 'Good' change to be most important? The thread isn't about 'which threads helped civilization the most' it's about which were most important...the French revolution affected the entire world in some way, in Europe most obviously, but in the new world (war of 1812, purchase of Louisiana territory, revolt in Haiti, final axe in Spain's power both in the new and old world (which so rapidly declined afterwards) it affected British and French colonies the world over, it affected the Dutch, it affected the Russians, it affected Egypt and the Ottomans, and led to so MANY crucial events in European history between 1800 and 1945.

In reply to your assertions:
(1) We would have taken Louisiana anyway. It's on the way to Texas.
(2) All those colonies were just itching for a fight anyway.
(3) All those people were afflicted anyway. They couldn't help it. It wasn't their fault. Can't you just forgive and forget?
(4) Nothing important happened in Europe between 1800 and 1945. The Civil War was fought in the southern part of the USA.

[notyoueither]

Agricultural Revolution. 6 billion and growing.

Oh, violent. OK. Well... the chickens prolly think it's pretty violent.

[orange]

(4) Nothing important happened in Europe between 1800 and 1945.

Er, I'll assume you either misread or are drunk.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by red_jon
Actually I'd have said the Mensheviks were more on track than the Bolsheviks.

The guys who wanted to hand power over to an unelected government, yeah, right.

Anyway, if the Mensheviks had managed to remain in the majority and construct a viable government, the Russian Revolution would have been a minor event. The Menshevik's having won been handed power by the working masses wanted to turn around hand had that power to the bourgeoisie. What? You're socialists! Later, in 1918, the Mensheviks said that the Bolsheviks had been right to make the October Revolution. They remained loyal to the new government, even though they disagreed with the Communist policies. Eventually, however, they voted to join the Communist Party.

[monkspider]

True, the Mensheviks took power very unexpectedly and the provisional government they set up was very unstable (either the right or the left was eventually going to seize power due to the nature of the coalition government they had to set up in such an impromptu manner). But I still give Mensheviks credit for generally meaning well. Trotksy was actually a Menshevik for the longest time (even if a rather rogue one).

[TheStinger]

None of the revolutions happened in isolation. the french support for america in the US revolution influenced those seeking political change in France.

Both these revolutions helped Britain speed up the pace of reform to its system and avoid a revolution.

All through Europe, countires had to reform as they ferared that that they may end up like the French.

Russia was arguably the slowest and therefore ended up having the most radical revolution of all.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The guys who wanted to hand power over to an unelected government, yeah, right.

The Bolsheviks didn't have any elections. At least the provisional government was only a temporary measure.

Anyway, if the Mensheviks had managed to remain in the majority and construct a viable government, the Russian Revolution would have been a minor event. The Menshevik's having won been handed power by the working masses wanted to turn around hand had that power to the bourgeoisie. What? You're socialists! Later, in 1918, the Mensheviks said that the Bolsheviks had been right to make the October Revolution. They remained loyal to the new government, even though they disagreed with the Communist policies. Eventually, however, they voted to join the Communist Party.

The Bolshevik policy of 'democratic centralism' was severely flawed (and his brutal use of the secret police did pave the way for Stalin), as was Lenin's view that he could overule Marx and skip a stage in the development of true communism.

Personally I believe that for a simultanious worldwide collapse of Capitalism globalisation needs to have happened first. If corporations run out of new markets they will collapse.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by red_jon
The Bolsheviks didn't have any elections. At least the provisional government was only a temporary measure.

That is completely false. The Bolsheviks won the elections in the Soviets in September 1917, giving them a massive majority. They continued winning the elections until the Soviets themselves voted to shut down so that the members could go off to fight the Civil War that the Whites had started.

The Bolshevik policy of 'democratic centralism' was severely flawed (and his brutal use of the secret police did pave the way for Stalin), as was Lenin's view that he could overule Marx and skip a stage in the development of true communism.

Do you even know what democratic centralism is? It's very simply, it's the concept that the party should be bound by the decisesions of the minority and not have veto power over the rest of the party. They can disagree and lobby within the organization to change the decision, but if they wish to continue to voluntarily associate with the organization, they must agree to be bound by democracy.

Nor did Lenin disagree with Marx and think he could skip a stage of development. Capitalism was already the most important economic force in Russia by the time of the revolution. Only a mere 5% of the population were engaged in capitalist activities, and yet it made up almost 25% of Russia's economy. There was no skipping of capitalism

Lenin did often say that capitalism wasn't developed in Russia, and that alone, the revolution was doomed to fail (which is exactly what happened). He said often that the purpose of the Revolution in Russia was to light the fire of revolution in Germany. Revolutions have a tendency to spread, and spread it did. Unfortunately, all of the ones outside Russia collapsed very quickly owing to the inexperience of the comrades leading them.

It is true that the emergency measures adopted to combat the proto-fascist White forces helped Stalin consolidate his power, but by no means was this a sure thing. Even up to the late 1920s, the bureuacracy did not hold uncontested power, and had Bukharin's faction allied with Trotsky rather than Stalin or had Trotsky used his influence in the military to overthrow Stalin (which I think he should have done, but he did not yet understand the danger of Stalin and the bureaucracy), then world history would be very different.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by monkspider
True, the Mensheviks took power very unexpectedly and the provisional government they set up was very unstable (either the right or the left was eventually going to seize power due to the nature of the coalition government they had to set up in such an impromptu manner). But I still give Mensheviks credit for generally meaning well. Trotksy was actually a Menshevik for the longest time (even if a rather rogue one).

Actually, they didn't set of the Provisional Government, other parties did. The Mensheviks at first were voted into power in the Soviets. Having been handed power by the workers, peasants, and soliders of Russia, the Mensheviks then turned around and let the Provisional government tell them what to do, rather than using the government they had in their hands, the Soviets, to build a new Russia.

There were two governments in Russia, the Provisional government which was created by the old government, which appointed some ministers from various liberal and socialist parties (neither the Mensheviks nor Bolsheviks were invited, but Lenin's old school master, Kerenesky who was a socialist did eventually become Prime Minister).

Even the Bolsheviks at first were loyal to the Provisional Government. Lenin and Trotsky immediately recognized the dual government in Russia and immediately proclaimed for All Power to the Soviets! Lenin was outvoted by his own party, and he had to argue and explain and fight for his view point to win over the rest of his organization. Trotsky recognized that Lenin was correct and joined his organization (which was independent of both the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, he stopped being a Menshevik after 1905) with the Bolsheviks. In the meantime, Lenin abided by the decision of the majority in his party, until events proved him correct and the Bolsheviks came around.

The Revolution in Russia wasn't an overthrow of the government, but simply doing away with one of the two governments.

[loinburger]

had Bukharin's faction allied with Trotsky rather than Stalin

That would have been ideal, but such an alliance would have become unworkable in short order--Trotsky was the permanent revolutionary, while Bukharin was practically a capitalist. Rather than producing totalitarianism, they'd have produced anarchy. IMO, the revolution was doomed as soon as Lenin called out the secret police.