Talk:Russian Revolution of 1917

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Russian Revolution of 1917 is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Russian Revolution of 1917 is part of WikiProject Soviet Union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Soviet Union. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Peer review This article was externally reviewed on February 12, 2006 by The Independent. "reads like the work of a second-rate undergraduate student... It is a simplistic account"
Wikipedia CD Selection Russian Revolution of 1917 is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Old talk

Well Bloody Sunday is marked as the 9th of October in the Julian calencer, when the change to the Gregorian occurs, Bloody Sunday is infact on the 22nd of October. Its confusing and quite abstract but I wouldnt let it worry you, the important facts remain in what happens unless it is in relation to a series of events that requires a chronological review i.e: "on the ..... XYZ happended.... followed by the ..... on the dd/mm/yy..." I really believe it is frivolous to worry about certain dates, I would be more worried about what information, and from whom? There are certain key timelines to look at but to examine the revolution in such a confined manner as chronology it takes the punch out of your point! - Rory

Which calendar is used here ? Gregorian or Julian ?

I sugest double dates plus a note about calendar problems. --Taw

Good idea -- both should be used, and a link to an explanation of the difference should be put in also. People can wonder why the October Revolution took place in November. -- Blain

The invention of the assmebly line is the most important event in the 20th century. Of course, rather than argue about this we could simply try stick to NPOV ;)

A serious question (well, I am serious about the Assembly Line) -- why Bolshevik and not Russian revolution? I know that the revolution affected a lot of non-Russians, but it also involved many non-Bolsheviks. What is at stake here? SR

The February revolution, in (of course) March. It was non-Bolshevik (although they took part): perhaps there should be links to "February Revolution" and "Bolshevik Revolution" or "October Revolution".

Tens of millions of non-Russians were of course affected by the Revolution(s), Civil War and subsequent Sovietisation, but until March 1917 the whole country was called the Russian Empire (excluding Finland and, I think, Poland), hence "Russian Revolution".

Inclkuding. Mikkalai 17:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS. I prefer new-style dates only, with a note to deduct 13 days in the 20th century (12 in the 19th) for OS (1917 Nov. 7 - 13 = Oct. 25).

The the role of the provisional government and the duma also deserve some attention. After all, there was at least a chance for a russian democracy to develop. Anybody care to write some mor about this?

Comment on October Revolution: I see the outline is done. Where's the article? Ortolan88 19:32 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following item:

Does anybody know what's this about in relation to Russia? Mikkalai 20:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is back, and links to a stub article about the French Revolution. I do not know what it refers to here. Molinari 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I cut the phrase: seized power from the Provisional Government that had been put in place by the liberals

Imprecise/undefined cliche "liberal" removed: e.g., Kerensky himself was eser (i.e., revolutionary), not liberal. The statement had its merits: in a sense it tried to say that the ProGov were neither monarchists nor radicals like bolsheviks, but it better be elaborated in the Russian Provisional Government, 1917 itself first. Mikkalai 00:45, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

"Many leftists claim that Stalin's model of socialism (also known as Stalinism) was closer to state capitalism than actual Marxist socialism."

A bit biased, are we?

[edit] Abdication

This sentence was inserted by an anon editor at the end of the article, after the bibliography: Nikolai signed a letter stating less than abdication. Can anyone confirmed that and, if yes, explain it in more detail? Andris 15:27, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)


I think that had the Provisional Government been able to maintain stability and hold power, it may have put Russia on the faster track toward Western-style democracy.

However, even if the October Revolution would have reversed and the Provisional Government returned to power, there would still be a lot of variables. Democracy, after all, entails "what do the people want?" and if the Bolsheviks would have managed to get more people riled up with propaganda and perhaps some intimidation, then the elections to a Constituent Assembly might well have turned out in favor of the Bolsheviks rather than the less radical parties, and this Assembly would have probably made the revolution within the government and transformed it into what the Soviet Union became.

On the other hand, if the Russian elections to the Assembly would still have been in favor of the moderate-left parties, then it would have potentially put Bolsheviks out of a position to gain power altogether.

[edit] 1912 strike

Removed as incorrect.

The foundation of the revolution was the 1912 Siberian goldfield strike, which led to over 500 women and children either killed or injured. Nicholas did not care whatsoever. Strikers wanted an 8-hour work day, more pay, and education for their children. No demands were met.

While this strike, put down by a massacre, deserves a separate article and an entry in the article about Russian revolutionary movement (is this the one?), it can hardly be the "foundation" of 1917 revolution. Mikkalai 17:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] St.Petersburg

"This second revolution was especially widesweeping, affected both urban areas and the countryside. While many notable historical events occurred in Moscow and St. Petersburg, there was also a broadbased movement in the rural areas as peasants seized and redistributed land." shouldn't it be Petrograd Dudtz 7/30/05 5:28 PM EST

[edit] User:Rickyrab's deletion of "non-English nonsense"

I noticed that the following non-English nonsense was deleted: "el == de las observaciones finales del == la revoluci�n rusa fue pensado para separarse a trav�s del mundo. [ [ Lenin ] ] y [ [ Trotsky ] ] dijo que la meta de [ [ socialismo ] ] en Rusia no ser�a observada sin el �xito del proletariado del mundo en otros pa�ses, e.g. fuera [ [ revoluci�n alemana ] ]. Sin embargo, hasta este d�a, esta edici�n est� conforme a opini�nes que est�n en conflicto sobre la historia comunista al lado de los varios grupos y partidos marxistas. Un cierto estado que era [ [ Stalin ] ] qui�n era el primer para rechazar m�s adelante esta idea, indicando eso [ [ socialismo en un pa�s|el socialismo era posible en un pa�s ] ]. Otros indican que esto era simplemente una excusa para que Stalin y sus seguidores empujen detr�s los aumentos democr�ticos ganados durante la revoluci�n y consoliden su dictadu"

The language appears to be Spanish, or some strain of that languauge. I think it means, to the best of my knowledge: "The == of the final observations of == the Russian revolution was pensado for (to?) seperate and traverse (?) the world. Lenin and Trotsky said that the meta of socialism in Russia was not observed without the exito of the global proletariat in other countries, e.g. as was the German revolution (the one in 1848, perhaps?). Without embargo, meeting that day, that edition conforms to opinions that are in conflict with all the Communist history with the lado of the various Marxist groups and parties. One cierto state that was Stalin when he was the first for rechazar most adelante this idea, indicating this socialism was possible in a country. Others indicate that simply an excuse for which Stalin and his secessors (?) employed(?) detros the winning democratic aumentos during the revolution and consolidated his dictatorship." 209.92.89.26 22:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC) How on target am I?

Seems like the passage I restored sounds a lot like that "non-English nonsense". Here it goes: "The Russian revolution was intended to spread across the world. Lenin and Trotsky said that the goal of socialism in Russia would not be realized without the success of the world proletariat in other countries, e.g. without German Revolution. However, till this day, this issue is subject to conflicting views on the communist history by various marxist groups and parties.

Some state that it was Stalin who was the first to later reject this idea, stating that socialism was possible in one country.

Others state that this was simply an excuse for Stalin and his followers to push back democratic gains won during the revolution and consolidate his bureaucratic dictatorship."

The confusion regarding Stalin's position on the issue stems from the fact that he, after Lenin's death in 1924, successfully used this argument of Lenin's to defeat his competitors within the party by accussing them of betraying Lenin and, therefore, the ideals of the October Revolution. He also had many of them executed during the great purge." Hmmmm.209.92.89.26 22:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Few comments

First off, I see both 'Tsar' and 'Czar' in this article, and I think we should try to decide on just one title. I know the proper transliteration of the Russian title is Tsar, but it's generally known in North Amercia (at least in my experience) as Czar.

Also, the beginning of the article seems a little anti-Tsarist to me. I'm not sure if the repeated use of the word dictatorship in relation to the Empire is necessary, but maybe that's just me =p

EDIT I forgot to sign this then, so Tev 07:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Go ahead. Be bold and try to fix it.  :) Wikibofh 14:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if noone has any problem with it, I'll endeavour to change them all to Tsar, and see if I can make it a little more neutral =p Tev 03:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The titles that are different are fine to me. Some of us need to learn the different ways. Keep them different to the benefit of these people. Thanks.--Mac Simms 17:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Causes

I can't really say this article is riddled with factual errors, but it is missing a LOT of important details. It doesn't appear to have any sourcing at all, so it's almost like someone's just assumed all the details in.

For instance, the first mention of the Duma says "State Duma (lower class of Russian parliament comprised of landowners, townspeople, industrial workers, and peasants)". 1) The Duma was not a lower house of parliament in anything but political theory, it was Russia's first experiment with a parliament. 2) Peasants and industrial workers were not even eligible to be elected to the Duma. It was comprised almost exlclusively of landowners and industrialists.

The second mention is even worse: "A new Provisional Government was formed, also called the Duma". The Provisional Government was not called the Duma. It was called, literally, "The Provisional Government", and it wasn't formed - it was several Duma members, led by Prince Lvov, who refused the move to dissolve. They were subsequently ratified as a provisional power when the Tsar abdicated.

This is some detailed criticism I started, but now I realise I'm just going to have to go to the effort of finding sources myself and rewriting things:

Under Economic, "Over fifteen million men joined the army, which left an insufficient number of workers in the factories and on the farms. The result was widespread shortages of food and materials."

1) Russia had always had more than enough peasants available for agriculture, (est. around 90-95 million in 1914) the problem was outdated, essentially medieval, agricultural methods. 2) Russia's conscription (why does the article imply soldiers 'joined' the army? there wasn't enough patriotism in the average peasant to care about distant wars) was very arbitrary, resulting in the conscription of skilled workers - like railroad and factory workers - which then deprived itself of the ability to transport food to cities.

The famine originates in bureacratic and economic failure, not military causes.

Under Social, "As a result, the government drafted new terms that gave the peasants set amounts of land to cultivate. However, the amount of land they were given was insufficient, thus mass riots broke out."

This is patently incorrect: the peasant riots ('unrest' or 'disturbances' are frequent descriptors) were over the issue of land ownership; that they still had to pay dues to what were usually noble landowners. The peasants weren't bothered about overcrowding - only economists who realised that overcrowding stunted agricultural output would have cared about that.

Under Social, "In addition, because more factory workers were needed, peasants moved out of the country and into the cities, which soon became overpopulated, and living conditions rapidly grew worse."

Populations in St Petersburg and Moscow actually dropped over the war. (Result of workers abandoning their jobs, plus conscription.) Overpopulation was a socal issue prior to the war; lack of food in the cities was the problem during the war.

Under Social, "By 1917, famine threatened many of the larger cities."

Famine didn't 'threaten', it was in full swing. The bread ration in St Petersburg at the end of 1917 was around 50 grams a day.

The Political section fails to mention entirely the revolutionary parties and the problems with the State Duma, and the disillusionment this would have caused about democracy. It also only skims over Bloody Sunday, which directly influenced the October Manifesto, which created the above expectations that democracy would be achieved.

TheShadowDawn 01:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those details in. I needed them for a report. Keep up the good work!--Mac Simms 17:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody Sunday?

I have changed Bloody Sunday to Bloody Friday on the article. According to my text book, the killings of the peasents occured on a Friday, not Sunday. Thanks for noticing.--Mac Simms 18:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This is because they were not on the Julian Calendar. By the Gregorian Calendar: it was a Sunday. In disputes like these, historians go with the Calendar used by the country at the time the event occurred. Included with the date is usually some sort of mark that indicates what system of time the event occurred. I think in this case the mark would be "O.S." for "old style".
Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this.
--150.135.181.12 19:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right; and it will always be known as Bloody Sunday, as is is indeed in this article in spite of the above, White Guard 01:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Review

Source. The review is not that friendly towards this article. I'll copy the relevant part below and hopefully we can address the problems.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"The entry on the Russian Revolution reads like the work of a second-rate undergraduate student. It raises an issue because Wikipedia is used by a lot of people as a basic source of information, but this is bland, simplistic and misleading. To say the Russian Revolution was "a political movement" is an odd statement; it was a series of movements and chaotic social disturbances. Wikipedia states "Widespread inflation and famine" contributed to the famine, which is misleading. Russia was a fast-growing but new industrial power. There was no widespread famine between 1914 and 1917 in Russia; the food supply problems were not because of food production. Russia was exporting vast amounts of food. To say "peasants still resented paying redemption payments to noble landowners" is inaccurate, they made the payments to the state. Their goal was not to secure "ownership of the land" but the desire for communal tender of the land. Peasants had freedom of movement, whereas this piece suggests that Russia was stagnant and feudal. It is a simplistic account." - Orlando Figes, professor of history at Birkbeck College, University of London
I've corrected the more concrete factual points that he disputes. Babajobu 04:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Corrected more of the flaws in the economic section of the artilce. 146.115.71.14 07:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism.

I realised that there were people who labelled the Russian Revolution as a "revolution for gays", and WWI as a "war of gays". I have since reverted the article, but is there any way to find out who is the culprit?

Amy 10:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you click on the "history" tab, you can compare different versions and see who added what. This can be useful to make sure that you have removed all the vandalism a user has put in. For more on vandal fighting, see the Recent changes patrol. Mak (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The term Russian Revolution is incorrect

The Bolshievik Revolution is correct. As many of you know it is refered to as the Russian Revolution, but the term is not really non-academic in origins. 69.196.164.190


[edit] R.E The term Russian Revolution is incorrect

I beileve the official term for the 2 revolutions IS the Russian Revolution. The first revolution has always been known as the "February Revolution", and the second has always been known as the "October Revolution". The term Bolshevik revolution is probably a later term used for the events. Leon Trotsky and Lenin after the revolution referred to the "February" and "October" revolutions. The 2nd revolution indeed was carried out by the Bolsheviks but the historical term for it is the "October Revolution".

R.Taylor - August 6th 2006 11:20pm

[edit] question

May I know, who led the February Revolution?

It was spontanous... there was no one leading it. That's why it makes it so fascinating.

-G

[edit] Merge to/from Timeline of The Russian Revolution

It has been suggested that Timeline of The Russian Revolution be merged into this article. It seems to me that the idea of having one historical topic entry, and another separate timeline of the same topic, is a good clear division. Therefore I propose merging the other way around — merging anything useful from the small timeline in this article into Timeline of The Russian Revolution. If there aren't any objections, I shall get to work.

Jameshfisher 19:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical and Political Bias

I am deeply concerned by some of the assertions and interpretations in this article, which I consider to be politically biased. The suggestion that Nicholas was responsible for Bloody Sunday is ludicrous: he wasn't even in St. Petersburg at the time, and those who believe the Bolshevik coup to be 'near bloodless' might care to look beyond the capital to events elsewhere; to Moscow, in particular. Let us be absolutely clear about one thing: there were two major political events in Russia in 1917-the Revolution in February and the Bolshevik coup in October. Bolshevism was a conspiracy against democracy by a minority of determined activists. The true extent of Russian feeling was made known in the elections for the Constituent Assembly, dismissed almost as soon as it had gathered. Bolshevism was dictatorship from the outset; and to try to blame Stalin for the perversion of 'Soviet democracy' is ludicrous; he was simply building on Lenin's legacy. White Guard 00:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lenin, Stalin, and 'the distortion'

I would suggest that if people wish to interject POV in the article such as "Lenin's distortion of Marx" into the article, they do so with citations and not independent research and or popular opinion.

In response to the obviously billgergant post above, I would like to add that throwing around ideological termenology does not constitute good arguements. What exactly constitutes a "perversion" in your subjective little world Mr.White Guard, and I ask the same question of the article? Is it based on what you -feel- Marxism should be, or what infact you have read?

Clearly a Marxist understanding of 1917 will be a lot different than a liberal revisionist distortion. With that in mind, I have made edits in an attempt to keep in non-POV. 66.227.111.238 19:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Fun_ender

Just to elaborate my comments, the following is the passage from the article: The October Revolution was led by Vladimir Lenin and was based upon Lenin's writing on the ideas of Karl Marx, a politcal ideology often known as Marxism-Leninism. This sentence seems fine. It is factual that Marxism-Leninism in identified with the writing of Lenin. It marked the beginning of the spread of communism in the twentieth century. Correct, but -what- did? The writing? Lenin? The ComIntern? It was far less sporadic than the revolution of February and came about as the result of deliberate planning and coordinated activity to that end. I think that the notion that that the February Revolution was a 'sporadic' (i.e. liberal key-word for 'free' and 'democractic') is a bit off. The Social Revolutions and Menshiviks played a strong agitational role. Though Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik Party, it has been argued that, seeing as Lenin wasn't present during the actual take over of the Winter Palace, it was really Trotsky's organisation and direction that led the revolution, spurred by the motivation Lenin instigated within his party. Not sure what this is saying. A) Trotsky was the Chair of the Central Committee of the Petrograd Soviets, and was also a outspoken member of the Bolshevik Party (after he joined in Sept, i think it is, after he left the Mensheviks). B) What was Lenin's -post-, it wasn't "leader". The financial and logistical assistance of German intelligence via their key agent, Alexander Parvus was a key component as well. Of what? Citation? Who was Alexander Parvus? I think including here that the Bosheviks called for all power to the soviets, in opposistion to the provisional govenments move to liquidate them is important. Also, that the Bolsheviks, once a minority in the soviets, were a immense majority by Nov.

On November 7, 1917, Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin led his leftist revolutionaries in a revolt against the ineffective Provisional Government (Russia was still using the Julian Calendar at the time, so period references show an October 25 date). Ok, first 'leftist' is way too subjective to include in the article without a point of refence. Also, calling the provisional government 'ineffective' is really ambiguous - why were they ineffective? ineffective against -what-? The October Revolution ended the phase of the revolution instigated in February, replacing Russia's short-lived provisional government with a Soviet one. Although many Bolsheviks supported a soviet democracy, the 'reform from above' model gained definitive power when Lenin died and Stalin gained control of the USSR. Trotsky and his supporters, as well as a number of other democratically-minded communists, were persecuted and eventually imprisoned or killed. I think this last part mostly works, though it could be largely expanded. Trotsky was exhiled and then assasinated, not imprisioned and killed. 'reform from above' is not really a term that is widely used, I would suggest replacing it with: But a bureacracy quickly rose as matieral scarcity gripped the Soviet State following the 2.5 million deaths in WW1, the Civil War lead by the White Tsarist Armies, the failure of Socialist Revolution in Germany, and a 19 country blockade. To the justify the bureacracy, it's representative, Stalin, eventually turned against the international prespective of the Bolshevik party of Lenin and Trotsky, and argued for 'socialism in one country'.

After October 1917, many SR's (members of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party) and Russian Anarchists opposed the Bolsheviks through the soviets. When this failed, they revolted in a series of events calling for "a third revolution." The most notable instances were the Tambov rebellion, 1919 - 1921, and the Kronstadt rebellion in March 1921. These movements, which made a wide range of demands and lacked effective coordination, were eventually crushed during the Civil War. I think it would be better to stress in this section that the SRs and Anarchists were unable to oppose the Bolsheviks in the -soviet democracy- and thus turned to sabtoage, terrorism, and counter-revolutionary alliances with the exhiled White Army. 66.227.111.238 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Fun_ender


Response to the above

My remarks in the section headed Historical and Political Bias were meant to highlight just that, not to throw around 'ideological termenology' (sic). Good argument is based on a proper understanding of the historical facts, which should always be viewed with objectivity and detachment; your own 'arguement'(sic) is clearly of the Marxist variety, and I cannot think of any school of thought more guaranteed to distort the truth than that. I will tell you what in my view what constitutes a 'perversion'-the concept of 'Soviet democracy', little more than a contradiction in terms. I would not willingly commend any Marxist, but I have to say that by far the best analysis of the real trends behind Leninism was written by Trotsky not long after the break of 1903. In his view it was a process of ever decreasing circles-the party substituted for the people; the central committee substituted for the party; a small inner politbureau subsitituted for the central committee; and the rule of one man substituted for the politbureau. All power to the Soviets in pratice meant all power to the Bolshevik Party, which meant all power to the Council of Peoples Commissars, which meant all power to Lenin and, in the end, all power to Stalin.

I am sorry if you do not like my 'billgergant' (sic) and 'subjective' view, but I am afraid that you will just have to tolerate it. That is the price of true democracy. White Guard 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Response to the above

While I will agree your remarks were meant to highlight the bias in the article, yours comments were made in an attempt to -further- rewrite historical fact.

First you claim that history should be "viewed with objectivity and detachment", yet you advance an interpretation of history which clearly has a political agenda: to make a feeble attempt to paint revolutionary politics - i.e. communism - as some 'evil' corrupting distortion of some anachronistic 'mild-mannered Marx', and at the same time to make an apologia for the ruthless capitalist class and their political parties of racism and war.

Next you state that 'Soviet democracy' is a 'perversion' of Marxism? How so? The Soviets, being the political organs of the working-class, -elected- Bolsheviks! How do you explain in your concept of a 'coup' that the Bolshevik party in the democratically organized Soviets, which were organically formed out of the wake of 1905 and Feb. 1917, constituted a -majority-? How do you explain in your 'coup' that the military did not entirely split until -after- Kornilov was defeated by armed workers and peasants? What is so unbearable, as is the case for most liberals and their arguments about 'democracy', is the fact that the Soviet Union was the dictatorship of the proletariat. If you are not familiar with the term, I suggest you read up on what Marx and Engels said about it: 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Civil War in France, Socialism Utopian and Scientific -- all are good reads.

Actually, all power to the soviets meant all power to the working class and their political party: the Bolsheviks.

You keep using the term democracy like there is some pure platonic 'form' of it. The origins of 'democracy' are as bloody and oppressive as any other political form of capitalism. Oh, and here is a great place to get a price check (read: reality check) on your 'true' democracy.

66.227.111.238 16:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Fun_ender

Re: All the above stuff
I believe there to be some excellent points here in this discourse, and that perhaps some serious edits are in order for this article. Fun_ender has brought up some points which I do believe to be symptomatic of a lot of the articles on “revolutionary politics”. Namely that they slander the concepts and history and portray it as “viewed with objectivity and detachment”, when its simply is not true.
I believe that there may be some use for a “criticisms” section on some of these articles where the biased language could be moved if it saves us the headache of an edit war. Also, citations uber alles.
I say Fun_ender go cautious ahead with his purposed edits. Especially the language describing the outcome and demise of Trotsky, as that is just blatantly misleading and incorrect; and the section concerning the rise of Stalin and “reform from above”, as his explanation obviously coveys more pertinent information on the circumstances of the time/event and is historically accurate to my knowledge. Or if White Guard has specific objections id be curious to hear them.
And please, people... although political beliefs may differ amongst us, in this medium specifically, we should attempt to remain focused on the importance of the project, and respect each other where due (cordial at the least). Please remember to conduct arguments logically and not resort to ridiculousness . ._-zro 19:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distortion and Misinformation-continution of the above.

Thank you Zro for taking an interest in this debate. Since I raised the question of bias in the first place I think I have to make my position a little clearer, prior to making a further response to the additional points raised by Fun_ender.

The first thing I would say about this article-aside from the question of bias-is that it is horribly written; parts of it read like a bad translation from a foreign language. Setting that aside, here are the specific issues which I challenge;

1. The Russian Revolution did not establish 'Soviet power.' I am surprised that nobody has picked up on this obvious Communist bias. The Soviets may originally have represented organised labour, but they were soon dominated, and undermined, by Marxist agitators, few of whom had any working-clss credentials (think of Trotsky). After the Bolshevik coup in October the Soviets became little more than a rubber stamp for the actions of the Council of Commissars. The true future of the 'Soviet' state was made plain in January 1918, when the Bolsheviks dismissed the Constituent Assembly, simply because they were in the minority. This is the beginning of the dicatatorship of the Communist party-not the 'proletariat'-and the eventual dictatorship of a single individual, first the loathsome Lenin and then the even more loathsome Stalin. (Oops, sorry; POV-it just slipped in).

2. "The people of Russia resented the autocracy of Nicholas II". Oh, yes; and on what authority is this contention based? In fact the Tsar and his predecesors were widely popular with the ordinary people of Russia, particularly the peasantry, so much so that when the first professional revolutionaries appeared in the Russian countryside in the 1870s and 80s they were chased away; and some were even murdered. In 1914 the government of Tsar Nicholas was as popular as ever; it took the war to destroy it.

3. Look at the section on the Economic causes of the Revolution: they make no sense. How can Russian agriculture be both backward and exporting a surplus to other parts of the world? Working conditions in Russian factories were generally no worse than elsewhere in Europe, so why did they become a cause of revolution?

4. What evidence is there that recruits to the Russian army in 1914 went unwillingly? Initially the Great War was greated with the same mass enthusiasm as elsewhere in Europe. Again what evidence is there of widespread dissatisfaction with the autocracy? It is nonsense to say that this "culminated in Bloody Sunday." The people on Gapon's march to the Winter Palce came to lay their grievances before the Tsar in age-old fashion. He wasn't there and the local commanders responded to the crowds in a panicked over-reaction. There is, nevertheless, no connection between the events of 1905 and 1917. The upheavals of the latter year were caused specifically by failure in war and severe domestic shortages.

5. To say that Nicholas went to war to 'distract the people' from their personal problems is, quite frankly, rubbish. By 1914 most of the difficulties arising from 1905 had been successfully overcome.

6. The section on the October Revolution is, by far, the worst part of the whole page, biased and inaccurate. Again I return to the point I made above: the October coup established a Bolshevik dicatatorship; the dictatorship, that is, of professional political subversives, mostly middle-class in origin, like Lenin himself (who was, incidentally, present in Petrograd at the time). What is Soviet democracy? Having raised a question Stalin style, so to speak, let me answer in the same style: it was the exclusion from representative politics of all who took a contrary view to the Bolsheviks, sometimes by sending them to concentration camps, and sometimes by murder. Amongst other measures, Lenin authorised the execution of children. The SRs and the Anarchists did not fail in their opposition to the Bolsheviks in the Soviets by any legitimate democratic process; they went the same way as all other opponents of Lenin. Stalin was not an aberration of Bolshevism; he was the quintessance of Leninism as it had developed since 1903, in all its murderous intolerance.

These are the main points of fact with which I take issue; now for the political accusations made aginst me. Fun-ender is a Marxist, that much is obvious. I am not. More to the point, I despise all forms of Communism as a monsterous perversion of the human spirit; yes, evil, if you prefer. I am therefore completly baffled by the allegation that I see Communism as a "corrupting distortion" of "some anachronistic mild-mannered Marx." Leninism is bastard Marxism, just as Marxism is bastard Hegelianism. All are forms of historicism, and all equally malevolent. I say nothing about capitalism in my critique of this article; so again, I have no idea where this is coming from.

I do not say that 'Soviet democracy' is a perversion of Marxism; I do say that it is a perversion of democracy. Whatever democracy there was in the Soviets-and these by no means represented the Russian people as a whole-was undermined by the Bolsheviks, who used the ideological nonsense of the 'dicatatorship of the proletariat' to establish their own bloody dictatorship, proped up by the Cheka and its ghasly successors. I can assure you I am very familar with both the theory and practice of Communism in all its murderous forms. The Bolsheviks were the party of the working class? Says who? Why, the Bolsheviks, of course.

Finally, I thank God for my own 'bloody and oppressive' forms of democracy, and that I have never had to experience the Soviet kind in any of its forms, from Lenin to Pol Pot. White Guard 01:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Continued remarks on the above:

”Lenin authorized the execution of children. The SRs and the Anarchists did not fail in their opposition to the Bolsheviks in the Soviets by any legitimate democratic process; they went the same way as all other opponents of Lenin. Stalin was not an aberration of Bolshevism; he was the quintessance of Leninism as it had developed since 1903, in all its murderous intolerance.”

Where is your source that "Lenin authorized the execution of children"? This is outrageous slander.

You keep on feebly reiterating that Stalin is not an aberration of Bolshevism, yet you have demonstrated not one causal relationship. Contrary to this, I have repeatedly stated that Stalin's program of "Socialism in one country" and heavy handed bureaucratic rule were contrary to Lenin, who openly called for international revolution and made constant appeals to the working class to take power into its own hands. Trotsky further went on to criticize the Stalinist bureaucracy, but also continued to defend the gains of the October Revolution (least of all a collectivized property and a planned economy). My statements are not bias. They are reasonable generalizations from the writings of Lenin and Trotsky as well as their actions as leaders of the revolution. (see: Revolution Betrayed)

“These are the main points of fact with which I take issue; now for the political accusations made aginst me. Fun-ender is a Marxist, that much is obvious. I am not. More to the point, I despise all forms of Communism as a monsterous perversion of the human spirit; yes, evil, if you prefer. I am therefore completly baffled by the allegation that I see Communism as a "corrupting distortion" of "some anachronistic mild-mannered Marx." Leninism is bastard Marxism, just as Marxism is bastard Hegelianism. All are forms of historicism, and all equally malevolent. I say nothing about capitalism in my critique of this article; so again, I have no idea where this is coming from.”

I think we can all see clearly where White Guard argues from. Contrary to his/her position, I do not cling to childish metaphysics of 'good' and 'bad' nor do I believe that such terms have any place in history. I encourage White Guard to expound upon his views on the 'human soul' in a blog, but this comments section is to be used for discussing the historical -facts- of the Russian Revolution of 1917. These facts must necessarily come from a -concrete- understanding. Perhaps I can offer an example: What if, in the Encyclopedia Britannica one were to look up Marxism and it stated: "Noun. Evil, soul-crushing, against the human spirit (see: Christianity), the work of the devil." Clearly this is inadequate.

By White Guard’s generous conception of the development of Marxism as a serious of 'bastardization' or ‘monsterous [sic] perversion’, it would seem, following his logic, we are left in a situation where any critique, any expansion, any development of theory is merely a 'bastardization'. Explain White Guard: what is the difference between a distortion/bastardization/monstrous perversion of a theory, and one that you simply –morally- oppose?

66.227.111.238 16:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Fun_ender

[edit] Edit Lock Needed

This article is excessively POV, controversial, and kind of badly formatted. Looking over the above debate, it looks like absolutely no one knowledgable on the issue is willing to take a neutural, non-POV point of view. White Guard, especially, is taking a amazingly reactionary, opinionated, knee-jerk approach to the whole thing. These kinds of articles are really disgraceful to wikipedia as a whole. A mod should really edit-lock this.

EDIT: Ha, the Independent hit the nail right on the head, but maybe wasn't hard enough. If I ever turned in anything so reactionary and propagandistic to a history prof, it would be a garenteed failure. This article, and some of the comments on the talk page, look like the rantings of a mentally unbalanced shut in. One thing that seriously needs to be addressed is how many of the issues discussed probably would be important to modern Europeans (ie views towards political representation and democracy) but certainly weren't considered god-given before the second half of the century. It really strikes me as a modernizing rewrite. - Kyle543 05:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally have added nothing to this page, nor have I taken anything away, merely flagged up my objections to the obvious and profound historical bias. My recent actions have been confined to reversing puerile vandalism, on which the record is clear. I personally welcome any debate on a point by point basis, and can assure both of the above that I have a more detailed knowledge of the course of twentieth century Russian history than can be conceived of by their rather limited intellects, despite my "reactionary, opinionated, knee-jerk approach", and my "mentally unbalanced" rantings. Wonderful! This could have been lifted straight out of Pravda circa 1937! I have always known that those incapable of serious debate are invariably reduced to meaningless insults, and are almost always unmaned by their spluttering rage. Thank you for providing due confirmation. Please be assured that I am immune to all insults and personal attacks of this nature. 'Shoot the mad dogs!' White Guard 07:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that White Guard has seemingly become increasingly reactionary, biased, POV, and arrogant about all this, and probably shouldn't be in charge of any mass reformatting/reworking of this article. (no offense, but obviously if you think something is 'evil' you probably can't be very NPOV about it.) I do not, however see how Fun-ender is a 'bias Marxist'. His information and complaints seem both reasonable, and historically factual as far as my research/understanding. If perhaps a few more people could weight in on this I think it may hasten the much over due reworking. ._-zro 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


White Guard, I love debate, but this is an encyclopedia article. This just isn't the place. Frankly, when I use Wikipedia, nine times out of ten, I'm just double-checking dates. The other times I'm looking for broad, general outlines of certain issues presented in a unbias way, mainly so I can get a feel for the topic.
Now, this article reeks of bad. I assume you contributed to that because you've dominated the talk page with lengthy and enraged essays. I suppose I should have checked the editing history; my mistake. Nevertheless, the talk page should be restricted to discussions about the actual make up of the article, not lengthy debates on one's own opinions, which is nothing more than spam.
This is not Hyde Park, or your pulpit. You have the whole rest of the internet for debates, no need to crowd out the discussion page of an article seriously in need of help.
But I do find it funny that you would accuse me of being a commie. - Kyle543 15:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I would benefit from someone doing this... maybe someone else would too

I dont know much about the russian revolution... i am trying to learn about it but i am far too busy to read the whole article. would someone please try to make a small summary of this for me?

[edit] More vandalism

Some subtle vandalism in the "World War I" section seems to have gone unnoticed for some time, and should probably be reverted back to its original state. I'm not sure how to do this (without reverting the whole article),so I'm just putting that out there for anyone more ambitious/knowledgeable.

Thank you for flagging this up. I've now made the corrections. White Guard 22:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/s/Talk%7ERussian_Revolution_of_1917_a1e6.html"