We're coming up to the centenary of The Russian Revolution and yet, I've heard barely a blip about it in the popular press. Even in left-leaning publications, the news is sparse.
What are your thoughts on it? What lessons are there to be learnt from what happened? To be honest, I think Lenin's theses, whilst radical are ultimately an attempt to unify a disenfranchised country under the umbrella of human solidarity.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>Alright, we want to empower the working class
>So the logical first step is to create a totalitarian "vanguard party" which isn't elected and isn't accountable to the public in any way. Anybody who complains about this will be shot.
I worry that their ideology is one that wants to do good and empower those without an; but it ultimately disincentivises those in society that would make society better...
A cause that empowers the weak and gives no incentive to those who are aspiring to do great will collapse.
When the first post is the best post.
That literally was not the first step. idiots should have pulled out of WW1
"Pulling out of the war" isn't as easy as you make it sound. Germany was demanding huge territorial concessions, and monetary reparations on top of that. The areas of Russia that Germany wanted contained literally 90% of Russian coal mines and 25% of Russia's total population. In other words, Germany wanted terms of peace that would permanently cripple Russia, and so of course the Russian government was very reluctant to accept something like that.
I never said it was easy, only it was the most logical thing to do.
With the benefit of hindsight, yes. The Tsar's abdication created so much internal confusion that Russia's ability to continue fighting was effectively nullified. Many Russian soldiers genuinely had no clue what they were fighting for now that the man they'd sworn allegiance to was no longer in power. But it is very understandable by the provisional government wanted to continue the war when the Germans were demanding such crippling terms of peace.
Maybe to you but not to me. People tend to whine about how revolutions never change anything but this is the one revolution that actually didn't change anything. Only an idiot cannot foresee that if the factors that created February Revolution is not addressed, there will be a second one.
In the library today I saw a copy of "National Review" saying "100 years of evil... and counting" with a picture of Lenin in Red Square.
Read the WSWS, comrade, and leave the pseudo-left behind. They're doing a huge retrospective series on it.
The biggest factor in the February Revolution was the (false) appearance that Germany was winning the war. I'm not sure that outright surrendering to Germany would have solved that problem.
And the biggest raison d'être for the revolution was for the war to end.
>I'm not sure that outright surrendering to Germany would have solved that problem
What problem? Surrendering would shatter the illusion that the Germany were weaker than thought?
>And the biggest raison d'être for the revolution was for the war to end.
That really depends on which revolution you're talking about. Anti-war sentiment wasn't a large factor in the February revolution, whereas it was the defining factor of the October revolution.
>Anti-war sentiment wasn't a large factor in the February revolution, whereas it was the defining factor of the October revolution.
Err yes it was for both.
That's not correct. The most popular slogans for the February are not anti-war, but rather anti-German. One such slogan was "Hang the German Woman" which was a specific reference to the Tsarina's german ethnicity and rumors that she was somehow undermining Russia in Germany's favor. In order words, the primary accusation against the Tsar at that point in time was that he and his wife weren't sufficiently pro-war. Anti-war sentiment only became a political force in Russia after Lenin arrived, which was AFTER the Tsar had already abdicated.
I suppose you could say that the Februarists did want an end to the war, but they still very clearly wanted it to end with a Russian victory given the prominence of anti-German slogans and lynchings. The Octoberists were a different beast in that they wanted to end the war, not by trying to win, but by intentionally trying to lose. Lenin even called this "Revolutionary Defeatism."
some 20 minutes a russian historian covers some events and pressures leading up to the great revolution
That does not explain the long breadlines and numerous defections in the army. And victories would not immediately change it. Maybe that was the sentiment of the middle class but that was not what the working class wanted. And they were set the both revolutions in motion
>falling for crapitalist propaganda
Good goy
This has been said many times. Tsarist regime was a complete and total shithole because Nicholas II was a dumbass along with his fellow royals. Most of the reasons for the Russian Revolution are the same as in the French Revolution.
Yeah, it was just because people were "dumb." I'm sure the massive apocalyptic war had nothing to do with it.
The war the Tsar and his close advisors got Russia into, you mean? Or the American Revolutionary War that the French under the Bourbons funded so they can get revenge on Britain rather than fixing their nation's declining economy?
Monarchists are mentally ill.
>Germany declares war on Russia
>Something this is Nicky's fault
Russia was in no state to fight a war and yet refused to demobilize, thus yes, Nicholas II and his advisors started the war on Russia's behalf.
Why would you demobilize when Germany is getting ready to invade? Failing to mobilize would have meant that Germany could just waltz into Moscow and declare victory.
All he had to do was take his troops off the border. Moscow isn't right on the border.
>Just declare neutrality, the Kaiser would never invade a neutral country.......
Yeah because Russia was in the way to France.
That's irrelevant because Germany already declared war against Russia on August 1, 1914. The example of Belgium simply proves that Germany was entirely willing to invade a neutral country if they felt it was in their interest to do so. And the entire reason why Germany activated the Schlieffen plan in the first place is because they were afraid of Russia's growing strength. It's madness to assume that they wouldn't have invaded Russia.
Nicholas was objectively not paticulary intelligent. It's a consistent comment by historians, he would have done very well as a peacetime or constitutional monarch though funnily enough
Nicky certainly made mistakes, but they weren't the sort of mistakes that only a "dumb" person would make. And the war was the overwhelming dominate factor in why the Revolutions of 1917 occurred, not Nicky's INT levels. I would challenge anybody to be in charge of a country that is at war with three separate empires (Germany, Austria-Hungarian, Ottoman) simultaneously and also being blockaded through both major trading hubs (Baltic sea, Black sea) to say that they would magically make every correct decision in that situation without the benefit of hindsight.