Were the early Bolsheviks genuine supporters of a one-world Communist government?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,749
SoCal
#1
What I find fascinating is the internationalism of the early Bolsheviks. With their calls for the workers of the world to unite and for world revolution, the early Bolsheviks emphasized global working-class solidarity (in words if not actually in deeds). In turn, this makes me wonder if the early Bolsheviks were genuine supporters of a one-world Communist government under their rule.

I know that the post-WWII Soviet Union refrained from formally annexing its various puppet states or trying to set up a single government for all of the Communist countries in the world, but I wonder if the early Bolsheviks would have been more willing to try creating a single government for all Communist countries if they and other Communists (such as the German Spartacists) would have had more success in the aftermath of World War I.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 
Jun 2017
2,565
Connecticut
#2
What I find fascinating is the internationalism of the early Bolsheviks. With their calls for the workers of the world to unite and for world revolution, the early Bolsheviks emphasized global working-class solidarity (in words if not actually in deeds). In turn, this makes me wonder if the early Bolsheviks were genuine supporters of a one-world Communist government under their rule.

I know that the post-WWII Soviet Union refrained from formally annexing its various puppet states or trying to set up a single government for all of the Communist countries in the world, but I wonder if the early Bolsheviks would have been more willing to try creating a single government for all Communist countries if they and other Communists (such as the German Spartacists) would have had more success in the aftermath of World War I.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Yes. Generally all Marxists(non reformist Socialists) believed in internationalism as that was part of Marxist ideology. The Socialist Parties of Europe deciding to support their governments in 1914 was very symbolic in this regard as a departure from Marxism. Stalin also abandoned this in favor of "Socialism in one country" where he basically became a non hereditary Tsar who treated Russia like a traditional country rather than a staging ground for a global revolution the way Lenin and his ilk wanted. What you are stating was Lenin's goal in accordance with Marxism, it's part of why the Bolsheviks were so willing to sign the Treaty of Brest Litovsk which would have been much harder if not impossible for a government with the traditional national interest mindset to accept. Lenin and co while still not loving the deal obviously were of the mindset that when the revolution occurred borders would be meaningless anyway.
 
Jul 2016
8,473
USA
#5
It was largely symbolic and was very different from it's original purpose.
Symbolic how? Communists from all over the world met up under the patronage of the Russian communists and agreed to help one another spread communism until the entire world was communist. That struggle essentially describes much of the conflict of the 20th century. Even to this day, despite the atrocities committed and complete failure of communist ideology in every practical attempt, pretty much every nation in the world still has an active communist party with a large member base who still want to not just take over their own country but the world.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,358
Republika Srpska
#6
Apparently Lenin supported the idea of an eventual world communist state, but Stalin deemed it impossible because nationalistic elements in other countries would rise up against incorporation into this new, world communist state. Well, we can say that Stalin was right.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jun 2017
2,565
Connecticut
#7
Symbolic how? Communists from all over the world met up under the patronage of the Russian communists and agreed to help one another spread communism until the entire world was communist. That struggle essentially describes much of the conflict of the 20th century. Even to this day, despite the atrocities committed and complete failure of communist ideology in every practical attempt, pretty much every nation in the world still has an active communist party with a large member base who still want to not just take over their own country but the world.
Well if there are separate countries or the system is set up to benefit the Soviet Union at the expense of the others(as we see in Eastern Europe) it by definition isn't Communist. It was just a Marxist version of any other empire trying to expand their sphere of influence. This is why Stalinism is a term because of these very major differences. Both this and his specific bloody methods to industrialize through collectivization are it's own unique thing. Part of the reason "Communism" was so bloody is because Stalin spread these methods. Mao for example started off his reign with a more successful policy than collectivization and Stalin and the Russians forced him to adopt their model to induce quicker industrialization. Mao murderer he might sort of killed those people by accident and Stalin really deserves the blame for almost all the deaths by collectivization anywhere because he did that, not Marx not Lenin(it's a mystery what he would have done in peacetime) not anyone else, he created the blueprint and spread it across the world. So yeah Stalinism gets the blame for most Communist attributed deaths. Doesn't mean Communism is possible, fact an industrial country has never revolted suggests strongly it isn't but Communism also hasn't been tried and shouldn't be credited or blamed for anything(except inspiring these workarounds to industrialization, okay).
 
Last edited:

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,358
Republika Srpska
#8
Well if there are separate countries or the system is set up to benefit the Soviet Union at the expense of the others(as we see in Eastern Europe) it by definition isn't Communist. It was just a Marxist version of any other empire trying to expand their sphere of influence.
And this is one of the main reasons Eastern European communist states failed, while China, Cuba, Vietnam etc. survived.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jul 2016
8,473
USA
#9
Well if there are separate countries or the system is set up to benefit the Soviet Union at the expense of the others(as we see in Eastern Europe) it by definition isn't Communist. It was just a Marxist version of any other empire trying to expand their sphere of influence. This is why Stalinism is a term because of these very major differences. Both this and his specific bloody methods to industrialize through collectivization are it's own unique thing. Part of the reason "Communism" was so bloody is because Stalin spread these methods. Mao for example started off his reign with a more successful policy than collectivization and Stalin and the Russians forced him to adopt their model to induce quicker industrialization. Mao murderer he might sort of killed those people by accident and Stalin really deserves the blame for almost all the deaths by collectivization anywhere because he did that, not Marx not Lenin(it's a mystery what he would have done in peacetime) not anyone else, he created the blueprint and spread it across the world. So yeah Stalinism gets the blame for most Communist attributed deaths. Doesn't mean Communism is possible, fact an industrial country has never revolted suggests strongly it isn't but Communism also hasn't been tried and shouldn't be credited or blamed for anything(except inspiring these workarounds to industrialization, okay).
There is no one total definition of communism, it wasn't even a term commonly used until the Bolsheviks added it to their dialectics, previously focusing on the term socialism or Marxist. Stating that because the Soviet Union recognized its own borders and culture stops making them communist is laughable. And Lenin was a violent murderer too, he just didn't have the body count Stalin did because he died too soon. The Russian Civil War was absolutely brutal, a large part thanks to Lenin. He is also the one who put Stalin in power. He was a monster, the only redeeming quality is his appointed successor was a worst monster.

At this point in history, the argument of "it wasn't real communism" or 'communism with a little "c" vs Communism with a Big "C"' argument is futile. It's a religious death cult with zero respect for the individual who professes a utopian devotion under the guise of the ends always justifying the means. They tried to take over the world, thankfully they failed, Soviet Marxist-Leninist essentially held the reigns of the global communist struggle for most of the century, while Maoist tried to exert their own influence as well.