10 ms·

Weren't the Bolsheviks just a minor faction that ended up winning the civil war? Bolshevism became the party in the USSR. I understand your complaint were it a

Weren't the Bolsheviks just a minor faction that ended up winning the civil war? Bolshevism became the party in the USSR. I understand your complaint were it about communism, but it's hard to defend a group (Bolshevism) that was loaded with cowardly and narcissistic mass murderers. There's no one to defend them because they're all dead, in many instances killed off by each other. Their form of government collapsed. What's there to defend? Does anyone really want to associate themselves with the actions and mistakes of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Beria, etc. at this time? Is this incorrect? Were there Bolshevik communities elsewhere that you may have been part of? I thought most of the Bolsheviks were dead by the 1950s.

testestx 9y ago
There are many people today that want to associate themselves with Trotsky. They are called trotskyists.
icebraining 9y ago
Marxism-Leninism is certainly not dead, although the fall of the USSR was a harsh blow. In my Western European country, the Communist Party still gets almost 10% of the votes, and while they no longer openly defend Stalin's legacy, Leninism is still very much at the core of their identity.
pandaman 9y ago
>Weren't the Bolsheviks just a minor faction that ended up winning the civil war? Bolshevism became the party in the USSR. Nope. It was a majority faction ("bolshevik" literally means "member of majority" as opposite to "menshevik", "member of minority") in the Russian Social-Democratic Worker Party (РСДРП). They took power during the October Revolution. Soon after the revolution the party was renamed into Russian Communist Party (of Bolsheviks). A year later the Communist International (Commintern) was created by Lenin's order and its first congress in 1919 was attended by delegates from 21 different countries. So, it seems to me, it was not a minor faction in a single country but a member of the international Communist movement.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Minor is the wrong word. I was trying to get across that the Bolsheviks were but one political entity that existed as of about 1915 and ended up winning, and even as of 1904 they didn't exist separately within their own party (as you say). It was a relatively small group of men that ended up dominating Russia, partially due to how ruthless they were willing to be. I'm still not sure how the OP knew any Bolsheviks, was anyone calling themselves that in 1970?
  - pandaman 9y ago
    My point is that it was the mainstream Left in 20th century. The fact that people insist on calling them "Bolsheviks" instead of "Communists" is, IMHO, an indication that Left still hope to salvage their ideology by implying that "it was not the true Communism!". There were plenty of them in 1970 (6M or so party members) and, even though, the CPSU was officially disbanded in 1991, a new CPSU has been established in 1993 as its successor and still has enough support to win seats in Duma.
    - LoSboccacc 9y ago
      > that Left still hope to salvage their ideology by implying that "it was not the true Communism!" don't worry most of the left repackaged the old communism into moral relativism and is no longer trying to win that unwinnable battle to keep communism as an ideology detached from all communist implementations. it's mostly the older guards that still try that line.
    - kmonsen 9y ago
      I don't think Leninism, Bolsheviks or Communism are anything to do with what I understand leftism (or socialism) to be. The former were all about a minority controlling the majority, while the latter is about the majority being in control (although that does not work out all that well always either). Note that the it is almost impossible to discuss this due to overloaded terms like liberalism which means the opposite depending on who you ask. I define leftism like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
geofft 9y ago
> Does anyone really want to associate themselves with the actions and mistakes of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Beria, etc. at this time? For Lenin at least, yes, absolutely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Democratic_Front_(Kerala) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Democratic_Front_(Kerala)
- lostlogin 9y ago
  Alarmingly, Putin has praised Stalin’s management of the USSR and has spoken out about how Stalin is perceived. He seems disturbingly fond of the guy. Interesting connection - Putins father was a cook for both Lenin and Stalin.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Weren't the Bolsheviks just a minor faction that ended up winning the civil war? Bolshevism became the party in the USSR. No. They were the largest left faction, and the word bolshevik translates to 'majority', while menshevik means 'minority' - so named because the Bolsheviks pursued a majority-rule policy while the Mensheviks wanted a more parliamentarian system that preserved the rights of minority parties. There were two communist revolutions in 1917; the first, in February, toppled the Tsar but the provisional government led by Kerensky didn't deliver on its promise of pulling Russia out of the war and made so many compromises with the conservative and militarist interests that eventually it lost the confidence of the working class, and the Bolsheviks were able to take power in an almost bloodless second revolution in October. Lenin was in hiding at the time, having been accused of sedition (I think, I forget the exact charge) against the provisional government, and Trotsky's execution of the takeover went so smoothly that when Lenin turned up at the Bolsheviks' HQ a couple of days alter he demanded of Trotsky to know why they weren't fighting and was astonished to learn that they had already won. Having seized power, the Bolshevik's first task was to get Russia out of the war, and they sent Trotsky off to negotiate the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This didn't go as well as they hoped, and to get Russia out of the war they had to make huge compromises, but they succeeded in signing a peace treaty thereby fulfilling their primary objective. The Russian civil war began after the exit from WW1, but the Bolsheviks were legitimately in power before it began and remained in power the whole time. Civil wars in any country are bitter and destructive, partly because many of the issues are personal and partly because both sides know the territory well and are able to wage war more intimately and effectively than a foreign invader, who is more constrained by logistical and infrastructural considerations. I think the Bolsheviks and the left revolutionaries in general were quite justified in seizing power; Tsarism was dreadful and World War 1 was a horrific waste of life and treasure which the Bolsheviks were quite right to oppose (and which many socialist parties around europe cynically sold out the working class to promote). Having achieved victory and pulled russia out of the war, I don't know why you'd expect them not to defend the government they'd just established against its White Army challengers.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  They may have been right to seize power, but the Bolsheviks have never struck me as anything but murdering gangsters with ideology attached. There's just very little good that came out of the Soviet Union from 1920 to 1940. Repeated missteps in government policy, mass starvations, purges, secret police led by a rapist, etc. It was a completely immoral system that above all else was about a small group obtaining power. The Tsarists weren't much better, sure. Much of that history is covered here: https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Revolution-New-History/dp/0465039901 https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Revolution-New-History/dp/046... Unfortunately, Putin is back to praising Stalinism. A free, democratic Russia would be really interesting.

testestx 9y ago

There are many people today that want to associate themselves with Trotsky. They are called trotskyists.

icebraining 9y ago

Marxism-Leninism is certainly not dead, although the fall of the USSR was a harsh blow. In my Western European country, the Communist Party still gets almost 10% of the votes, and while they no longer openly defend Stalin's legacy, Leninism is still very much at the core of their identity.

pandaman 9y ago

>Weren't the Bolsheviks just a minor faction that ended up winning the civil war? Bolshevism became the party in the USSR. Nope. It was a majority faction ("bolshevik" literally means "member of majority" as opposite to "menshevik", "member of minority") in the Russian Social-Democratic Worker Party (РСДРП). They took power during the October Revolution. Soon after the revolution the party was renamed into Russian Communist Party (of Bolsheviks). A year later the Communist International (Commintern) was created by Lenin's order and its first congress in 1919 was attended by delegates from 21 different countries. So, it seems to me, it was not a minor faction in a single country but a member of the international Communist movement.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Minor is the wrong word. I was trying to get across that the Bolsheviks were but one political entity that existed as of about 1915 and ended up winning, and even as of 1904 they didn't exist separately within their own party (as you say). It was a relatively small group of men that ended up dominating Russia, partially due to how ruthless they were willing to be. I'm still not sure how the OP knew any Bolsheviks, was anyone calling themselves that in 1970?
- pandaman 9y ago
  My point is that it was the mainstream Left in 20th century. The fact that people insist on calling them "Bolsheviks" instead of "Communists" is, IMHO, an indication that Left still hope to salvage their ideology by implying that "it was not the true Communism!". There were plenty of them in 1970 (6M or so party members) and, even though, the CPSU was officially disbanded in 1991, a new CPSU has been established in 1993 as its successor and still has enough support to win seats in Duma.
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    > that Left still hope to salvage their ideology by implying that "it was not the true Communism!" don't worry most of the left repackaged the old communism into moral relativism and is no longer trying to win that unwinnable battle to keep communism as an ideology detached from all communist implementations. it's mostly the older guards that still try that line.
  - kmonsen 9y ago
    I don't think Leninism, Bolsheviks or Communism are anything to do with what I understand leftism (or socialism) to be. The former were all about a minority controlling the majority, while the latter is about the majority being in control (although that does not work out all that well always either). Note that the it is almost impossible to discuss this due to overloaded terms like liberalism which means the opposite depending on who you ask. I define leftism like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

geofft 9y ago

> Does anyone really want to associate themselves with the actions and mistakes of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Beria, etc. at this time? For Lenin at least, yes, absolutely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Democratic_Front_(Kerala) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Democratic_Front_(Kerala)

lostlogin 9y ago
Alarmingly, Putin has praised Stalin’s management of the USSR and has spoken out about how Stalin is perceived. He seems disturbingly fond of the guy. Interesting connection - Putins father was a cook for both Lenin and Stalin.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Weren't the Bolsheviks just a minor faction that ended up winning the civil war? Bolshevism became the party in the USSR. No. They were the largest left faction, and the word bolshevik translates to 'majority', while menshevik means 'minority' - so named because the Bolsheviks pursued a majority-rule policy while the Mensheviks wanted a more parliamentarian system that preserved the rights of minority parties. There were two communist revolutions in 1917; the first, in February, toppled the Tsar but the provisional government led by Kerensky didn't deliver on its promise of pulling Russia out of the war and made so many compromises with the conservative and militarist interests that eventually it lost the confidence of the working class, and the Bolsheviks were able to take power in an almost bloodless second revolution in October. Lenin was in hiding at the time, having been accused of sedition (I think, I forget the exact charge) against the provisional government, and Trotsky's execution of the takeover went so smoothly that when Lenin turned up at the Bolsheviks' HQ a couple of days alter he demanded of Trotsky to know why they weren't fighting and was astonished to learn that they had already won. Having seized power, the Bolshevik's first task was to get Russia out of the war, and they sent Trotsky off to negotiate the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This didn't go as well as they hoped, and to get Russia out of the war they had to make huge compromises, but they succeeded in signing a peace treaty thereby fulfilling their primary objective. The Russian civil war began after the exit from WW1, but the Bolsheviks were legitimately in power before it began and remained in power the whole time. Civil wars in any country are bitter and destructive, partly because many of the issues are personal and partly because both sides know the territory well and are able to wage war more intimately and effectively than a foreign invader, who is more constrained by logistical and infrastructural considerations. I think the Bolsheviks and the left revolutionaries in general were quite justified in seizing power; Tsarism was dreadful and World War 1 was a horrific waste of life and treasure which the Bolsheviks were quite right to oppose (and which many socialist parties around europe cynically sold out the working class to promote). Having achieved victory and pulled russia out of the war, I don't know why you'd expect them not to defend the government they'd just established against its White Army challengers.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
They may have been right to seize power, but the Bolsheviks have never struck me as anything but murdering gangsters with ideology attached. There's just very little good that came out of the Soviet Union from 1920 to 1940. Repeated missteps in government policy, mass starvations, purges, secret police led by a rapist, etc. It was a completely immoral system that above all else was about a small group obtaining power. The Tsarists weren't much better, sure. Much of that history is covered here: https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Revolution-New-History/dp/0465039901 https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Revolution-New-History/dp/046... Unfortunately, Putin is back to praising Stalinism. A free, democratic Russia would be really interesting.