The Revolution 100 years later — de-romancing Communism

Yes, it's a bit late — the centennial of Nov. 7, 1917 is today, but I might have wanted to do an advance, or at least pull my thoughts together more.

That said, start here. Jacobin has a good timeline of the actual day. (All months, etc., in my piece will be by the Gregorian calendar.)

Still wanted to offer a few thoughts. Won't have links for everything, as this is stuff I've seen online over several days and didn't bookmark.

And I primarily want to tackle this "romancing."

Here's a long piece, but quite illustrative of the problem.

It and other pieces make several factual errors. Not every piece has all the errors, but most have most of them.

First, Lenin was not a democrat. The November Revolution (to use the Gregorian calendar months) was a coup against the Socialist government of Kerensky.  It was a suaver cup than Lenin's original September call from Finland for insurrection. but, still a coup. That said, it was ultimately a coup by the Bolsheviks, not by Lenin. And that may be why it succeeded. That spirit was one that eventually rejected any compromise.

One can call Kerensky's government, the final outpost of the March Revolution, itself the result of a coup. However, what really happened in March was an imploding government got a final push; strikes followed by mutiny essentially left no government in place, so to speak.

Anyway, back to Lenin. The Bolsheviks held one fairly free national election after consolidating power. The independent left wing of the Social-Revolutionaries, the old Russian peasant party, won a plurality over Lenin's thugs. And, that was the last for Soviet democracy. The left S-Rs were forced to amalgamate with the Bolshis or face the price.

This happened after World War II in Eastern Europe, too. Stalin forced "peasant" parties to merge with "worker" parties. In places like Poland, they even had the name "workers and peasants party" or similar for years after.

Second, Stalin was not sui generis. Yes, Lenin modified economic ideas, and let up somewhat on terror, during "New Communism." However, had he lived longer, that probably would have been permanent. Contra some apologists — whether for Lenin or Stalin, I'm not sure — I take Lenin's will as legit. But, he refused to accept his own part in Stalin becoming (more of) a monster. Unfortunately, the generally excellent Existential Comics repeats the "let's blame it all on Stalin" idea.

Stalin's anti-Semitism is the one — and only — major way he did fall far from the tree. Surely he ranks second only to Hitler and his gang as a murderer of Jews in the 20th century, but a far distant second, even as the issue of his degree of anti-Semitism remains complex.

Existential Comics leads me to a broader point. That's the "no true Scotsman," which defenders of communism and defenders of capitalism promote with equal vigor.

Speaking of, Marxism was not scientific. Marx was not a professional, early-day sociologist. And, dialectic materialism is based on the discredited philosophical dungheap of Hegelian dialectical idealism. (And Existential Comics knows all of this.)

And that is a large part of why, if communism means any political philosophy ultimately derived from "The Communist Manifesto," I'm not a communist.

I am some sort of socialist. At least, more of one than Bernie Sanders. But, a communist? No. A communalist? Possibly, if I find the right commune. Not a communist. Have no plans on being one. Have no plans on romancing communism, nor giving a pass to others who do.

Give me a better version of the welfare state, combined with state ownership of a few key industries. But communism in any of its modern forms? No.

Beyond this, Lenin was a pedant and a prig as well as a dictatorial revolutionary.

Third, some notes on the run-up to November 1917. As for the assassination of Rasputin in late 1916, which failed to stave off the March Revolution? He warned Nicholas AGAINST war in 1914; however, once it started, he wanted a cut of the action. His "cut" seems to have been more about power — via providing access to the Tsarina for others — than money. Beyond that, much of his early life is unknown and much of what people think they know about  his later life is actually legend.

The March Revolution? It went through many shifts even before getting to Alexander Kerensky. That said, how Kerensky was the last man at the top shows how flabby it was. It probably could have morphed into something else without Lenin.

Related?

Two myths related to World War I.

First, in reality, Lenin's "Land, peace and bread" slogan didn't catch on as quickly as claimed. The "land" part did with peasants, but the S-Rs were already there. The "bread" caught on with the proletariat, but risked being at the expense of peasants.

The "peace" is the biggie, though. Even if not until after the Kornilov revolt, if Kerensky had adopted it, he probably could have stayed in power. Had he done so before Kornilov? Lenin probably would have been a footnote to history. Co-opting SRs who were more to the right, along with selected Mensheviks, he could have put his stamp on power. If Whites still launched a civil war, Kerensky would have gotten other non-Bolshis to rally to the flag.

Second, no, Tsarist apologizers, Russia couldn't have won WWI had it stayed in. Germany would maybe have lost a week earlier, that's all, while it continued to occupy the Baltics, Belarus and much of Ukraine.

Finally, even with some saying they want it back, Communism did have decades of effects gutting Russia. The Beeb has a piece with reaction to it today in major Russian cities.

One other myth, often hoisted by Gnu Atheists, needs to be refuted. The fact that Stalin went to a seminary doesn't make him a Christian. Nor does the fact that, for regime PR purposes, he reopened some churches during the Great Patriotic War, WWII.

==

The bottom line?

Unfortunately, late-1917 wound up with a choice between an ever-more-vacuous Kerensky and an ever-more-brutal Lenin. Kerensky had no new intellectual ideas, no great suite of political skills, and refused to call for an end to the war. Unfortunately, even though the November Revolution owed more to Bolsheviks on the ground than Lenin, he usurped it and glorified his power. Also unfortunately, he didn't see Stalin's potential for doing exactly the same until too late.

A couple of alternative history points arise — besides ones of July 1914 and the Russian ambassador to Serbia, Hartwig, not egging on the Serbian government.

First, even if half of what we know about Rasputin post-1905 or whatever is legend, still, removing him from the scene, oh, a full year or more earlier might have made a difference. Alexandra might have gone less far down the road of mystical neo-absolutism, and that would have restrained Nicholas.

Second, the "March Revolution" happening the previous November might have made a difference or three. Probably would have been harder for Germany to immediately smuggle Lenin into Russia. Might also have made a difference on whether or not Germany sent the Zimmerman Telegram. It might still have restarted submarine warfare.

Third, give Kerensky an infusion of brains and backbone. Or else let the Social Democrats or even right-wing Mensheviks find a better non-Bolshie alternative.

No USSR? Would it have meant no WWII? Hard to say. Certainly possible, though.