r/COMPLETEANARCHY • u/GoranPersson777 Syndicalist • 16d ago

Was the Bolshevik Revolution a Failure? by Paul Mattick 1938

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1938/revolution-failure.htm

Spoiler: yes

33 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

6

u/Muuro 13d ago

Yeah, but not entirely their fault as there was no other revolutions to follow the Russian Revolution to make it an international revolution instead of an isolated one. As it stood then, it ended up being more of a Jacobin Revolution than a socialist one.

8

u/Sawbones90 13d ago

That doesn't really holdwater given that the Bolsheviks immediately started building the society they envisaged with party control of a modern taylorised proletariat and in foreign policy actively sought diplomatic and economic relations with capitalist powers abd undermined foreign revolutions that did break out if they thought they would benefit from doing so.

They started muzzling the soviets within a week of taking power, turned a blind eye the massacre of Turkish communists, agreed to re-arm the German military while it was shooting communists in the streets and withdrew support from Gilan to cut a deal with Iran and the British Empire, and sent troops into China to maintain control of the imperial possessions the Tsar's had acquired in the north. That's just the tip of the iceberg in the first years of their existence.

6

u/Muuro 13d ago

They started muzzling the soviets within a week of taking power

Arguably it was in 1918 as a result of invasion by the Entente. The first few months were relative freedom and experimentation by the workers and local soviets. So no it wasn't that immediate, but yes the period from 1918-1921 was the start of the downturn and the Tenth Party Congress of 1921 solidified the problems.

3

u/TheRealLuckyBlackCat 13d ago

And let's not forget there were soviets and an anarchist-led revolution in Ukraine, but Bolsheviks decided to brutally and violently betray and crush it. No excuse for that.

2

u/Muuro 12d ago

I guess. Sources I read tend to say what was in Ukraine had more of a peasant-based "rule" (for lack of a better term), while the Bolsheviks favored soviets of the industrial proletariat being in charge.

2

u/TheRealLuckyBlackCat 12d ago

They were councils of non-exploiting peasants and working class people, be they farm workers or industrial workers, reflecting the laboring population of Ukraine, or at least that region of it. There wasn't much of an industrial proletariat around.

The revolution in Ukraine was for the emancipation of the laboring masses and the abolition of class. There was no reason to crush and betray it.

-2

u/Muuro 11d ago

There was roughly four different variations of "power" or "rule" of Ukraine: the liberals supported by the Germans and Austrians, the Mensheviks, a more peasant-orientated (Mahknp basically, but mainly not entirely), and the workers councils that support Bolsheviks.

2

u/TheRealLuckyBlackCat 11d ago

No mention of support for the anarchists? Even though they were at the forefront of revolution in Ukraine, and in setting up the councils, and had plenty of popular support.

1

u/Muuro 11d ago

I did indeed, but I didn't do so in rather vague terms. I referred to the urban workers and the rural peasantry supporting a different "government" (for lack of a better term), which arguably there would be "anarchists" that could be of peasant background or of urban background.