Was the Bolshevik Revolution the purest change of all?

Nov 2017
61
San Diego
#1
I am asking from a standpoint of real change. Many revolutionary leaders once in charge respected the concept of not trying to change everything at once. Few like Lenin threw caution to the wind and completely broke down the existing structure.

If not the Bolsheviks, which revolution introduced the most pronounced change?

The changes in Russia(or at least emanating from Petrograd and Moscow) between November 1917 and April 1918 still awe me. An almost complete transfer of wealth, power and a social structure turned on its head. One night a noble man fell asleep in his estate and the next morning he had to toil the fields alongside the peasants. Not to mention the nationalization of banks, industry and separating church from state.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,443
Las Vegas, NV USA
#2
Did Lenin ever toil in the fields with the peasants?

I'd choose the first phase of the French Revolution (1789-1792). Not even the Bolsheviks changed the calendar and common weights and measures.
 
Jun 2017
2,909
Connecticut
#3
Lenin had the dilemma that most "Communist leaders" who believed in Marxism had, he had a non developed country that according to his own ideology wasn't ready for State Socialism and needed industrialization(think Communism is faulty for other reasons) but he also had an opportunity and anger necessary to seize power.

How many leaders do you think are going to not try and seize power because of the former concern? Most Communist ideologies of leaders who seized power in agrarian societies(all of them there hasn't been a successful industrial communist revolution) were ways to work around there own contradiction. Lenin was the first of these.

Think the issue with Communism is that all industrial societies aren't going to be mad enough for a Communist revolution and all agrarian societies can get mad but won't be economically ready.

That being said, Lenin deserves some credit as the early days of the Soviet Union were quite good for the peasants and most of the bloodshed can be attributed to the onslaught of wars the country was in at the time. He died before we could figure out what Lenin's USSR would really look like.We do know that Stalin's method of trying to artificially go through industrialization without capitalism through collectivization was a nightmare. In Mao's defense also in college I learned that early on Mao had similar success to Lenin(just distributed land to peasants but allowed private ownership in most cases)but was convinced by the Soviets to undergo their policy of collectivization and state planning which was quite predictably a disaster.
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
4,038
Slovenia, EU
#4
It was a mass slaughter and nothing pure in it. Bunch of socio and psychopaths took over, made a crazy cult and worsened life of many.

About good for peasants: it is enough to read about Tambov rebellion and Ukraine massacres. Bolsheviks were only good for nothing. All naive people who took literary their postulates got only killed. Ideology was only means to get to power and more power to the level that they wanted to control people's thoughts.

Bolsheviks were the greatest evil of all humanity. Nazis and Ghenghis come after them. Problem is that their successors still roam in our societies and do what they are good in: lying and stealing.
 
Last edited:

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
4,038
Slovenia, EU
#5
I am asking from a standpoint of real change. Many revolutionary leaders once in charge respected the concept of not trying to change everything at once. Few like Lenin threw caution to the wind and completely broke down the existing structure.

If not the Bolsheviks, which revolution introduced the most pronounced change?

The changes in Russia(or at least emanating from Petrograd and Moscow) between November 1917 and April 1918 still awe me. An almost complete transfer of wealth, power and a social structure turned on its head. One night a noble man fell asleep in his estate and the next morning he had to toil the fields alongside the peasants. Not to mention the nationalization of banks, industry and separating church from state.
Problem with someone becoming a farm worker from an owner over the night was that he was not a social parasite but an organiser of a production process. Every illiterate peasant who was angry and was knowing Marxist bs by hard was not able to step into former owner's shoes because he was not educated and trained to step into organiser's role. So commies compensated their lack of capability by mass expropriation of wealth and with literary slave manual work. Instead of pay people were allowed and required to pray Marxist prayers.

Whole Marxism is based on a wrong assumption that because workers and peasants were exploited, they were able to run society's processes (production and economy as most important). It is a non sequitur. Workers and peasants were never an avantgarde in industrial capitalism, they were clueless. So bolsheviks invented a term of a progressive intelligence (a small part of educated who joined them on their will) to have at least someone capable.

French revolution was right that bourgeoisie can replace clergy and aristocracy on the society's top because burgeoisie was already running France's economy. Aristocracy was getting big apanages for nothing and church was stuck in middle ages. Communists were wrong but they compensated it with terror and degradation of whole society.
 
Nov 2017
61
San Diego
#6
I am afraid I did not get my question across properly. I am not asking if communism was good or not. I am asking if it came about from a true revolution. I ask this question from the assumption that some if not many revolutions did not invoke actual change for the people, just a change in leadership.

So far the first phase of the French Revolution has been given.
 
Jun 2017
2,909
Connecticut
#7
I am afraid I did not get my question across properly. I am not asking if communism was good or not. I am asking if it came about from a true revolution. I ask this question from the assumption that some if not many revolutions did not invoke actual change for the people, just a change in leadership.

So far the first phase of the French Revolution has been given.
Lenin's revolution did have tangible positive changes for the peasantry. That's not saying much seeing how terrible things had been before but it's something. An important parrallel to draw between the French and Russian Revolution's is that for several years after the aftermath of both, the country's stable new leadership was at war with so many outside forces(French had a longer go of it though WWII IMO more than evens things out). During Lenin's brief reign you had the end of WWI, the war with the Poles, the civil war with the white Russians, western invasion all within several years of one another.

In terms of whether the revolution was due to the will of the people, I'll say A revolution came about due to the will of the people. The February Revolution was the one that toppled the Tsar and put a Provisional Government in place. However the people's demands had more to do with Lenin's eventual promise of "land, peace and bread" than not having an autocratic government and accordingly when the new government refused to end the war there was another revolution.

It is also important to note that the October Revolution put a group of leftist parties in power of which the Bolshevik's were the most extreme and not the most popular.(there were elections and the Social Revolutionaries won 40% to 24% over the Bolsheviks). The October revolution didn't directly start the USSR. In most countries, the minority Marxist wing of the Socialist Party was defeated by the "Socialist"(what we would call Social Democrats)and became a fringe movement. In Russia the opposite happened. So the people didn't choose the Bolshevik's per say as much as they rejected the Tsar and later the provisional government. About a quarter of the (voting) Russian public wanted the Bolsheviks. That being said the Bolsheviks did put an end to WWI which was the main demand the population at large had.