Soviet Life - What Was Gained From the Russian Revolution?

[Dashkova]

JM, you forgot to throw in the "I 'heart' (fill in the blank with beloved Romanov) faction.

It is these that nauseate me most.

HerrK:  With regard to museums, well, it's a start, anyway, especially to a rather large group of people who still live and thrive in their true native land yet remain either invisible or discriminated against.
Personally, I support the AIM movement

[HerrKaiser]

Dashova (this is off the main topic but.....) I thought AIM was good to support as well; decades ago when it meant something, but they took the road of wallowing in their own misery and seeking "pay back" rather than crafting constructive programs to move forward. Same victimization rhetoric that benefits no one except those who lead the duping process and get rich doing so.
We were not hidden on reservations; we did choose this. Been to a casino lately? Once everyone gets past the victim status and joins the community of working capitalists--from all socio economic levels-- conditions overwhelmingly improve.

[rskkiya]

Sorry, I just believe that most people can't help but realize the truth -- eventually. I've only seen like three hardcore "Imperialists" on this site. It all really seems to balance out in the end though. We've got the red club, the white club and the clear club. Woohoo.
.

Well JM
   If I were not interested in "Russian" History -- I would not  waste any time here. Period.
   Olga, Dashkova, Mr. Hall and myself have NEVER claimed to be "members" of any RED Club -- it simply appears that our similar views - and the criticisms of other posters - have put us there. Well in my poor opinion its fine company to be in!  
   Would you feel any happier to know that I spend time in other topic threads and don't just "wave my flag?" OK?
    I thought that you once posted about your "faith"? Lets all be polite and charitable and then you can act as a good example to us ...OK?

Rskkiya

[Jmentanko]

 

  If I were not interested in "Russian" History -- I would not  waste any time here. Period.

That's really. . . nice. :-/  
   

Olga, Dashkova, Mr. Hall and myself have NEVER claimed to be "members" of any RED Club -- it simply appears that our similar views - and the criticisms of other posters - have put us there. Well in my poor opinion its fine company to be in!

 
I never "claimed" that the above members belonged to the red club.
   

Would you feel any happier to know that I spend time in other topic threads and don't just "wave my flag?" OK?

That doesn't really make me feel "happier." It just makes me feel very neutral.
   

I thought that you once posted about your "faith"? Lets all be polite and charitable and then you can act as a good example to us ...OK?

Hmm, I could say how you always post about "staying on topic" and yet you're not staying on topic. But that wouldn't be on topic. . .

[rskkiya]

JM
I am very happy that you feel "neutral..." Thats a good state to cultivate.

"What was gained out of the Russian Revolution?"
     Well, its a mixed bag... some liberty and some oppression/some rights and some despots/ some advances and some regressions. We can all choose that which we approve/disaprove of  out the Great Russian History Bag and parade it about as proof  that we are right...but it won't change much.
     A great experiment in Economics and Politics was attempted --sadly it failed. Millions died - but not to put to fine a point on it - millions died before and millions will die after - this sadly is an aspect of Russian History that ugly as it seems may not be ignored.  

    I do believe that the Revolution was a good thing.
Rskkiya

[HerrKaiser]

I must disagree with the notion that 'millions died before and millions with die afterward' as a sort of expected doom for humanity. Nonsense.
Revolutions ought to (and have done so successfully) go from the frying pan to the counter top. Not the frying pan to the fire, at least not for the long term. The insanity that fuels a revolution is supposed to stop, not be continued in the same or worse fashion. To accept such as 'the way it works' is shocking to me.
Had the Russian revolution yielded a more humanist, caring, and responsible government, regardless of its political philosophies, few could argue that the revolution was not a good thing. However, the results of the revolution were worse for the largest percent of common people in Russia (and beyond), so in that basic measurement, the revolution in 1918 was not a good thing.
Which of course is not to say the czar and his regime ought to have been kept or even kept alive. The nation would have been far better off had the revolutionaries taken the road as did those in Germany and decades earlier in France. I see no value, in human terms, to the Russian revolution and its effects as we know them to be.

[Robert_Hall]

Despite the failure of the Soviet experiment and it's extremely cost, I too feel it was not only good, but necessary. Idealist calm replacement of the old regime was already a dismal failure before it even got started. Unfortunately, only total, aboslute power could end the chaos and the war. With that in mind, progress as planed could begin in ernest. Sadly, things did not exactly end up that way. Although Stalin's ego was indeed a detriment to human rights, his forced progress and defense of the country in the face of the Facists ultimately benefittes the people.
Again the cost was extreme.
Non-violent revolutions are the exception, not the rule. Even those that are [pacific] tend to leave the deposed with much of their ill-gotten gain, flown to comfortable exile by former allies. Where lies the revenge/justice for the abused people in that ?
And the future is today. Violence plagues almost every ex-officio political change that comes our way, costing vastly more lives because of modern weapons and tecniques.
As revolutions go, I do think it was a needed catalyst for the early 20th century.  More awareness was brokered world-wide, for better as well as worse.
Cheers,
Robert

[Robert_Hall]

Somehow, I screwed up a sentance in that, but I cannot figure out how to modify or change it.
Should have read ...total, absolute power...

[HerrKaiser]

Interesting thoughts, Robert, and I see where your edit fits in.  
I was not suggesting that idealistic calm following a violent revolution is the only outcome that ought be hoped for or expected. I pointed out earlier that revolutions by definition ARE violent. So be it. Short term there is usually a level of chaos.
But, history and research is a function of having the luxury of looking at the full picture, so to speak. Long term (5-10+ years), if the violent overthrow in 1918 was successful and good people were in place, then calm and positive forward movement would necessarily have been the state of affairs, or the revolution must be questioned...especially if the larger population is less well off than before the overthrow. Iraq?
The problem with the Russian revolution and its short AND long term result is that the bolsheviks (who won the revolution) were not good peple interested in anything other than usurping czarist powers for themselves. Had Kerensky prevailed, all bets are off for the Russia of 1918 and beyond. Likely, it would have been a western-like democracy or semi-democracy.
Stalin a "detriment to human rights"? The man a murderous devil! About the biggest detriment known in human history.
A non-Stalinist post revolution Russia would likely have reduced the fascist threat to a wimper. Recall the Nazis main reason for taking on their own revolutionary stance in the early 20s was anti-bolshevism tied to anti-Semitism. Communists and we Jews were equal opportunity targets of such hate. Hence, Stalin's "defense" against the fascists was necessitated in large part by himself; if he looks good in this vain, it is because he helped cause a problem that he had to solve.
I have to stick to the notion that change for change sake without improving  the lives of the masses creates unforeseen problems that, obviously, get out of control.
The revolution was needed and the IF had to go, but in terms of Monday morning quarterbacking, which is the discussion I guess, it seems the revolution, at that time and with the results we know, was an unfortunate event. Had a different set of people and schedule been in place, it's objectives could have been achieved saving millions of lives and having far more human rights in place for the last 80+ years.
Lastly, as a catalyst, what did it precipitate? Fear, mass murder, decades of poverty and strife, anti Semitism, etc. is what I saw in 20th century Russia. The revolution could have furthered the causes of labor, rights, education, etc, but did not at all do this.
Cheers indeed!

[olga]

For example, the term "Native American" is really contradictory. They crossed the barring straight themselves, in various groups I might add over thousands of years, and gradually replaced the people that were probably here before them that were human, but not homo-sabian.

I disagree. When the colonists came over from the Old World, both groups were already fully evolved human beings. The white Americans displayed a disgusting show of imperialism and genocide.

Does that make sense?

[Elisabeth]

Jeremy, of course we're responsible for our own history! If we weren't, we'd all still be living in caves using stone tools. If we're not responsible for ourselves and for other people, then who is? God, the Weltgeist?

Or perhaps you think that leaders are responsible for every historical event, every step forward and every step back. But such a view makes it impossible to explain the phenomenon of popular revolution - such as the March Revolution, which began quite spontaneously among ordinary women who simply got tired of standing in line for bread!

If we individual "peasants" are not responsible for our own actions, then we're little better than children waiting for our parents to tell us what to do. And this is precisely how Russian tyrants, tsars and commissars alike, have traditionally viewed the Russian people, with disastrous results. Over the centuries Russians themselves have absorbed some of this brainwashing, to the extent that (in my opinion) it has become part of their national myth. Hence the recurring longing for a "strong" leader, even if it means sacrificing a democratic form of government.

Finally, if you take your argument to its logical conclusion, then most of the defendants at the Nuremburg trials were innocent, because they were just loyal men and women (children) following the orders of their leader (patriarch).

[rskkiya]

Virtually all these comments seem quite insiteful, thoughtful and well put!

   In my initial remarks about the "death of Millions" I was in NO way attempying to suggest that the Russians were in any way powerless regarding their history. The very suggestion seems ludicrous!
   However  I do feel that most revolutions tend to be violent, peaceful ones are happy-- but they are certainly not the norm!

Rskkiya

[HerrKaiser]

Thanks Rskkiya for that acknowledgement; I knew it must be!
I'm not sure about the points Jeremy makes. If peoples are not responsible for their histories, then how Jeremy can they capitalize on their miseries?
Elizabeth is right, I think. Even under totalitarian regimes, the masses of good people are usually not only expected to take responsibility, it is often the case. Surely, Germany has never been given a pass on WWII. Not only has the world demanded they take responsibility, the Germans themselves have done so with 65 years of exemplory democracy and human rights. The same has not occured immediately after the Russian revolution or during the subsequent 8 decades.
Good points on voting day!

[Richard_Cullen]

Hi,

This is a first class debate, but one has to put things into a perspective, in many violent revolutions it is often the case that very few people are involved in the violence and the actual revolution.  The problem is that if the military and police defect or are at the corps of the coup then there are few who can resist, or rather wish to resist.

The Russian revolution, the French revolution and the Castro's revolt in Cuba have in real terms involved few active agitators and in the early stages few 'revolutionaries'.  This is where Le Bon's work on the psychology of the mob becomes important.  I have a model of this that I developed some years ago that ties in Le Bon's work and other 'crowd' theorists.

Many revolutions are relatively swift and do not progress to civil war - they did in France, in Great britain in the Civil War and in Russia.  It is the conflict of two ideologies that leads to the civil war element.

I suppose technically that Russians, Germans etc are responsible for their history, but could you, would you have been brave enough to stand up against the revolutionaries on the streets of Petrograd.  Wouldyou have been prepared to take on the forces of Hitler if you had lived in nazi Germany before World II?  The answer is, as history shows that few do, and they usually pay the ultimate sacrifice.

The danger with history is denying that it happened, it did for better or worse.  It would have been possible in the early days/years of the Russian Revolution for the Marxist theories to take a grip across western Europe.  remember the Germans had to put down a Marxist attempted revolution.  I believe the balance was very fine during the years 1917 - 1920ish.

The fact is other than the millions who died during the dictatorships of Lenin and Stalin few would stand against the revolutionary ideas and be called a counter revolutionary.  And did it bother the vast majority of peasants - they had replaced one hereditary Tsar with a self appointed one (two).

Richard

[Elisabeth]

We now know that there were innumerable peasant revolts against collectivization that were brutally crushed on the orders of Stalin. The point is, there were always people willing to fight the system, and in order to give them their proper credit (for people this brave were real heroes), then we must also be willing to acknowledge that other Russians supported this totalitarian regime, even collaborating with it in the denunciation of their neighbors, colleagues, and family members. Nelson Mandela and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn are absolutely right that in order for a nation to cleanse itself of its crimes against humanity, in order for the nation itself to heal from these terrible wounds, the crimes themselves must first be publicly acknowledged and our complicity in them - passive or active - confessed to. And this is a process Russia simply has not had the opportunity to go through, for a whole host of reasons. Perhaps a much younger generation, in no way complicit or blameworthy, will someday be able to accept and assimilate this part of Russia's history (this is what ultimately happened in Germany: "But daddy, what did you do in the war?").

I am not arguing that leaders are not responsible to a large extent for how historical events like revolutions turn out. But you cannot absolve the people themselves of all responsibility. Dictatorships don't come about in a void. Ordinary Russians helped to make the cult of personality, just as ordinary Russians later helped to demolish it.