Russian Revolution: 100 Years on

The 100th Anniversary of the Russian Revolution will be on the 7th and 8th of November. It's more commonly known as the "October Revolution" because the Julian Calendar was in use in Russia at the time (placing the date on October 25th-26th).

Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in the midst of the First World War and after years of civil war went on to establish the World First Marxist-Communist State. In 1919, the Communist International (aka, the "Comintern" or "Third International) was founded and Communism became a world movement with Communist Parties being started round the world. The next 70 plus years are "history".

It is worth noting however the sheer improbability of the sequence of events and that history could have easily taken a different course. The clip below is from the Fall of Eagles (1974) which shows Lenin's reaction to the March Revolution in Russia that overthrew the Tsar when he was in Switzerland. It is still remarkable that such a small group of people were able to take control of the world's largest state only a few months later. Personally, I think Patrick Stewart nailed Lenin's dogmatic rhetorical style...


100 years on, do you think the world is a better place for the Russian Revolution happening? Was it a historic achievement as the Soviets argued or one of history's great mistakes? Is there perhaps a silver lining to the course Communism took in the twentieth century? Or would you have preferred history had taken a different course with Lenin and the Bolsheviks not seizing power at all?

Laika said:

The 100th Anniversary of the Russian Revolution will be on the 7th and 8th of November. It's more commonly known as the "October Revolution" because the Julian Calendar was in use in Russia at the time (placing the date on October 25th-26th).

Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in the midst of the First World War and after years of civil war went on to establish the World First Marxist-Communist State. In 1919, the Communist International (aka, the "Comintern" or "Third International) was founded and Communism became a world movement with Communist Parties being started round the world. The next 70 plus years are "history".

It is worth noting however the sheer improbability of the sequence of events and that history could have easily taken a different course. The clip below is from the Fall of Eagles (1974) which shows Lenin's reaction to the March Revolution in Russia that overthrew the Tsar when he was in Switzerland. It is still remarkable that such a small group of people were able to take control of the world's largest state only a few months later. Personally, I think Patrick Stewart nailed Lenin's dogmatic rhetorical style...

100 years on, do you think the world is a better place for the Russian Revolution happening? Was it a historic achievement as the Soviets argued or one of history's great mistakes? Is there perhaps a silver lining to the course Communism took in the twentieth century? Or would you have preferred history had taken a different course with Lenin and the Bolsheviks not seizing power at all?

Click to expand...

Well, is it time to celebrate all the millions Stalin killed of his own people?
What a revolution. Only suffering has come of it. Even now, Putin is putting his agenda before the needs of his people, and of the aged in that country.

Grandliseur said:

Well, is it time to celebrate all the millions Stalin killed of his own people?

Click to expand...

No. That's why the word "celebrate" isn't in the OP. It can be "commemorated" without being celebrated the same way we commemorate the end of the First World War on November 11th in the UK. 100 years is a long time to reflect on an event and put it in perspective. This is one however that is still controversial even today because of what it produced.

Laika said:

No. That's why the word "celebrate" isn't in the OP. It can be "commemorated" without being celebrated the same way we commemorate the end of the First World War on November 11th in the UK. 100 years is a long time to reflect on an event and put it in perspective. This is one however that is still controversial even today because of what it produced.

Click to expand...

Human governments tend to produce suffering.
In the very beginning of the Christian movement, they all shared everything they had, but this was done voluntarily. If someone didn't want to share their material wealth, they were accorded this right.

The existing autocracy was not serving the well-being of the people, and it was not listening or responding to the people's suffering. Something had to be done. Unfortunately, when revolutions occur, they are rarely planned out, and they rarely result in the outcomes intended by the revolutionaries. Revolutions are reactive rather than proactive, and they result in massive social chaos that creates exactly the environment in which criminals and psychopathic bully-boys thrive. And so these are the people that tend to rise to power immediately following the end of the old regime, and that was the case in Russia. And to this day they are still being ruled by the legacy left in the wake of these criminals an psychopathic bully-boys, though they have managed, over time, to temper this legacy with an established rule of law and some significant social functionality.

What was labeled "communism" and "socialism" in Russia (and in China, for that matter) after their revolutions, was neither. It was a totalitarian dictatorship right from the start, and that has never really changed. President Putin is still an absolute and functional dictator. The only thing that has changed since the rule of the tzars in Russia is that they are no longer being chosen by genetic lineage, and they no longer label themselves, "tzars". Otherwise, Putin is as much the Tzar of Russia as any of them ever were, even if they call him "president", now. Mislabeling the truth is common practice in these post-revolution regimes. (As it has become common practice here in the U.S., which should be giving us serious cause for alarm.)

Sartre said:

Click to expand...

Answer, because they are not socialist.

Grandliseur said:

In the very beginning of the Christian movement, they all shared everything they had, but this was done voluntarily. If someone didn't want to share their material wealth, they were accorded this right.

Click to expand...

What about Ananias and Saphira in Acts of the Apostles 5?

Laika said:

The 100th Anniversary of the Russian Revolution will be on the 7th and 8th of November. It's more commonly known as the "October Revolution" because the Julian Calendar was in use in Russia at the time (placing the date on October 25th-26th).

Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in the midst of the First World War and after years of civil war went on to establish the World First Marxist-Communist State. In 1919, the Communist International (aka, the "Comintern" or "Third International) was founded and Communism became a world movement with Communist Parties being started round the world. The next 70 plus years are "history".

It is worth noting however the sheer improbability of the sequence of events and that history could have easily taken a different course. The clip below is from the Fall of Eagles (1974) which shows Lenin's reaction to the March Revolution in Russia that overthrew the Tsar when he was in Switzerland. It is still remarkable that such a small group of people were able to take control of the world's largest state only a few months later. Personally, I think Patrick Stewart nailed Lenin's dogmatic rhetorical style...

100 years on, do you think the world is a better place for the Russian Revolution happening? Was it a historic achievement as the Soviets argued or one of history's great mistakes? Is there perhaps a silver lining to the course Communism took in the twentieth century? Or would you have preferred history had taken a different course with Lenin and the Bolsheviks not seizing power at all?

Click to expand...

I think they fell into power more than anything else, at least when referring to the initial Bolshevik uprising in 1917. There were number of causes (and mistakes) which led to it, mostly on the part of the Kerensky regime and the Western Allies who refused to accept the Russian proposal of "peace without annexations or indemnities" (which was also what Woodrow Wilson wanted in his 14 Points). That was the major mistake, at least as far as Britain's and France's role was.

But there were also mistakes made within Russia by the Kerensky regime and others that opposed it. General Kornilov, a Tsarist general, attempted a seizure of power, which forced Kerensky to turn to the Bolshevik Red Guards to defend the regime. This meant that he had to give them weapons. Once the Kornilov Affair had ended and the regime was temporarily safe, Kerensky asked for the weapons back, but the Red Guards refused.

This scene from Nicholas and Alexandra sums up the results. This was the "golden moment" that Lenin referred to:

Just as a side note, one of my history professors knew Kerensky personally. He worked on a collaboration compiling the documents of the Provisional Government which was made into a three-volume set. (https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Prov...preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch)

He said that Kerensky recounted an incident in Paris sometime after the Revolution, in which someone approached and asked (in Russian) "Are you Alexander Kerensky?" Kerensky responded that he was, and the guy just spit in his face and walked away.

As far as the historical legacy goes, WW1 was probably the major mistake and the pivotal point. The Russian Revolutions were mainly a consequence of that war.

Count Witte's short speech gives a foreshadowing of what the world will become:

Count Witte: None of you will be here when this war ends. Everything we fought for will be lost, everything we've loved will be broken. The victors will be as cursed as the defeated. The world will grow old, and men will wander about, lost in the ruins, and go mad. Tradition, restraint, virtue, they all go. I'm not mourning for myself, but for the people who will come after me, they will live without hope. And all they will have will be guilt, revenge, and terror. And the world will be full of fanatics and trivial fools.

I see a lot of truth in this. Essentially, both Hitler and Stalin were created by World War I. The "tradition, restraint, virtue" of the old order also vanished in the aftermath. All the world is left with now is guilt, revenge, and terror - along with fanatics and trivial fools.

There's the long time distinction between theory and practice. There are some of the communist ideals that I can agree with but history proved that they can't be implemented now. What was implemented was a dictatorship, pure and simple with tragic results to the people. What happened was the imposition of theory over reality which proved that command economies don't work.

So I note the Russian Revolution as an experiment which failed.

sunrise123 said:

There's the long time distinction between theory and practice. There are some of the communist ideals that I can agree with but history proved that they can't be implemented now. What was implemented was a dictatorship, pure and simple with tragic results to the people. What happened was the imposition of theory over reality which proved that command economies don't work.

So I note the Russian Revolution as an experiment which failed.

Click to expand...

It was a dictatorship, but then again, that's all they had under the Tsar as well.

At least when comparing the Russian performance in WW2 versus their dismal performance in WW1, it would at least demonstrate that their economy "worked" better than it did under the Tsar. The population was fed, housed and had access to education and healthcare. They industrialized and eventually reached military parity with the United States. That, by itself, was a truly remarkable achievement, hardly indicative of an economy that "doesn't work."

Where they truly failed was in the area of luxuries and consumer goods, things that abounded in the West and that the Russian people wanted for themselves. The Soviet government put that on a lower priority and put most of their resources into military production. As a result, there was a stark contrast between the standard of living enjoyed in the West versus the standard of living in the Soviet Bloc.

Perhaps there's some truth to the idea that "man does not live by bread alone." For whatever reason, people need their luxury goods and consumer products - along with various "opiates of the masses," such as religion and popular culture. Their atheism is probably what caused them to lose hearts and minds more than anything else. Especially among working-class Americans, who would not generally be offended by the idea of workers having more rights (as demonstrated by the growth of the labor movement in America), but devoutly religious Americans could not abide the "godless communists."

Jumi said:

What about Ananias and Saphira in Acts of the Apostles 5?

Click to expand...

Someone knows something. Why don't you tell me what their problem was?!
We are told that "While it remained did it not remain to *thee" and that they wanted to make it look like they were fully altruistic by giving all to the congregation; so, they lied about giving, kept a large part of the money for private use while claiming to have given it all, to get the admiration of all.

As we read, "Thou hast not lied to men, but to God."
God doesn't mind them, us, keeping what we have, he does mind people trying to lie to him.
Their sin may even result in eternal damnation.

I am surprised someone like you who knows their names - doesn't understand the events that took place.

Grandliseur said:

I am surprised someone like you who knows their names

Click to expand...

Of course someone like I would know of them. How could someone like you, not know someone like I would know of this and how can it surprise you so deeply? Since you care so much for your own wealth, what doesn't surprise me is how you think so highly of yourself and not that much of others.

Tell me where does it say that they could have kept their wealth for themselves. You know what is said in the Apostles, why don't you tell me why you would add that in there?

Grandliseur said:

Someone knows something. Why don't you tell me what their problem was?!

Click to expand...

Since the community shared everything according to need, not sharing all their wealth with their congregation is equal to lying. They were thought to be one of the group. As such, their unwillingness to give their all to the apostles is a lie.

Jumi said:

Of course someone like I would know of them.

Click to expand...

Surprised, because you didn't seem to know the whys and whatnots concerning the case.

Jumi said:

Since the community shared everything according to need, not sharing all their wealth with their congregation is equal to lying.

Click to expand...

If you read what the apostle said, he stated clearly that they had the right to keep what was theirs. They did not have the right to keep a large sum of money for themselves and claim they gave all. This was their sin.

Grandliseur said:

Surprised, because you didn't seem to know the whys and whatnots concerning the case.

Click to expand...

The story is quite clear. Perhaps you should read it again.

Grandliseur said:

If you read what the apostle said, he stated clearly that they had the right to keep what was theirs. They did not have the right to keep a large sum of money for themselves and claim they gave all. This was their sin.

Click to expand...

Tell me where does it say that they could have kept their wealth for themselves. You know what is said in the Apostles, why don't you tell me why you would add that in there?

Jumi said:

The story is quite clear. Perhaps you should read it again.


Tell me where does it say that they could have kept their wealth for themselves. You know what is said in the Apostles, why don't you tell me why you would add that in there?

Click to expand...

I quoted it once already, unless my short term memory fails me. Here it is again. The ISV translation makes it obvious, I think:

What is clearly said, that both before it was sold, and after when they had the money from the sale, they could have kept it. The problem was that they had to go and claim that the whole amount was given to the congregation, when indeed they kept part of it for themselves, a large part.

If you cannot see that this is what it says, it is only because you don't want to be found wrong. And, that is just your problem. Scripture is quite clear here.
However, perhaps you can see that what I explain is supported by scripture, if not, it is not my problem.

The reason is stated. He kept some of the money for himself from his property that he sold and didn't give all of it to the Apostles.

Your problem in not reading the whole thing is your pride.

31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Click to expand...

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Click to expand...

https://www.religiousforums.com/bible/acts-of-the-apostles/4:35/
Accordingly when we read of the death of Ananias, it becomes clear that sharing wasn't as voluntary as you said. Ananias and Saphira didn't share all they had, so they were living a lie according to the Acts of the Apostles.

The Independent has done an article on reaction to the centenary in Russia which seems to be largely indifferent to the whole affair, even as the new series on Trotsky being played on Russian State TV. There was a really nice visual comparison of photos from 1917 and today by the Guardian that is worth sharing if people are interested.

The event will of course get a different reaction from far left groups, such as the CPGB-ML's centenary celebrations in the video below held a few days ago in London. Its pretty small with the Cuban ambassador in attendance (and possibly the North Korean ambassador as well), with Red Flags and portraits of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. I had a ticket to this event but didn't go and I think you can see my empty seat as the camera pans round. I have very missed feelings watching this cult-like attitude in action and can guess that there will be similar reactions amongst Pro-Stalin Anti-Revisionist groups around the world.