[pikachu]

a) Bolshevism was not democratic.

I'd say Bolshevism was rather democratic, using the broad definition of the term, since people honestly believed in it. Hell, even today, 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, despite all the anti-Bolshevik propaganda, people still rank Brezhnev as the second most democratic leader of Russia (after Putin).

[peter_co]

1) The candidate lists were outdated. It did not take account the split in the Socialist-Revolutionary party, which had one the majority of the votes.
2) Less than 60% of the population voted in it.
3) The Soviets, at that time period, were a higher form of democracy and the legal government after the fall of the provisional government. They allowed the elections for the Constituent Assembly so long as it recognized the power of the Soviets. It did not, so the Soviets authorized for it to be shut down.

You're quoting Lenin's theses, as though these were anything more than a thin cover for the blatant power grab of the Bolsheviks. But these arguments were pretty thin anyway:

1)The fact that the SR's split after the vote is no reason to invalidate the whole vote. Besides, members of both the left and mainstream wings were on the party lists, so this whole argument doesn't go too far. And besides, the difference between the two wings was about supporting the PG. Neither favored an undemocratic coup. That's why when the Bolsheviks dropped the sham of legitimacy and simply grabbed all power, most SR's of both wings revolted against them.

2)Actually more than 60% of the population voted. Which is a pretty high number, and astronomically higher than the percent who voted in the election of the Soviets.

3)This of course was the most patently absurd point that Lenin made and of course nobody, not even him could possibly take it seriously. The whole point of a Constituent Assembly was to establish the framework within which the future political process of the country would operate. That this assembly elected by a free and democratic process should recognize (by which was meant to accept the authority over them) of the Soviets, a set of scattered groupings organized by Bolshevik agitators and under their exclusive control would have been a hilarious joke if it wouldn't have been so tragic. And actually it wasn't even all Bolsheviks who favored this clearly illegitimate course of action. Among the Bolshevik representatives to the CA, moderates were in the majority, who wished to see change effected through that channel. Unfortunately Lenin was too strong and forced his point and most other Bolsheviks toed the party line.

[FallenRaptor]

That's all nice excuses, but the fact remains, they took control over it through force.

The Soviets already had power, so why would they want to take control of it? They could have just postpone it indefinitely just as the provisional government was.

Notice that it does not matter, what you imagine the day after the revolution was.

First I was propagating Stalinist lies, now I'm imagining things.

most systems we use today have been imposed by above(oligarchs) and so on

Here I would argue about how many of those systems truly represent the will of their people, but that I will leave for another topic.

And besides, the difference between the two wings was about supporting the PG. Neither favored an undemocratic coup. That's why when the Bolsheviks dropped the sham of legitimacy and simply grabbed all power, most SR's of both wings revolted against them.

False. The split was between those who supported the October Revolution(Left-SRs) and those who didn't(Right-SRs). The Left-SRs had formed a coalition with the Bolsheviks in the the Soviets after the revolution and were just as much in favor of the dissolution of the CA. The reason they revolted later was over the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

This of course was the most patently absurd point that Lenin made and of course nobody, not even him could possibly take it seriously. The whole point of a Constituent Assembly was to establish the framework within which the future political process of the country would operate.

That's exactly why they made a decree to dissolve it if the Soviets were not recognized about 2 weeks before it happened.

[peter_co]

False. The split was between those who supported the October Revolution(Left-SRs) and those who didn't(Right-SRs). The Left-SRs had formed a coalition with the Bolsheviks in the the Soviets after the revolution and were just as much in favor of the dissolution of the CA. The reason they revolted later was over the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

It's not false. The left SR's did not recognize the legitimacy of the PG and accepted the government formed as a result of the October Revolution. O the other hand, the mainstream SR's accepted the PG and were against the October Rev. As for why the lefts ended their honeymoon with the Bolsheviks it wasn't just Brest Litovsk. Another problem was that the SR's naively thought that they had a chance in the Soviets. However as soon as the CA was dissolved, they discovered that the Bolshevik government developed a nasty habit of not recognizing elections were they did not get a majority. When they realized that the Bolsheviks had no real intention of permitting any possibility of political pluralism, they saw the error of their ways and tried to remove the Bolsheviks. But by then Pandora's box was already open and wouldn't be closed for 70 bloody years.

That's exactly why they made a decree to dissolve it if the Soviets were not recognized about 2 weeks before it happened.

I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say here. I am not denying that the Bolsheviks wanted power to be focused in the Soviets they controlled, I am only saying that this requirement was absurd. It was no more than political blackmail that would have ended in the subordination of the democratically elected and truly representative assembly to what essentially amounted to Bolshevik Party organs.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Fact is the Februaray revolution saw the establishment of a provisional government. All the rest are not facts, they are products of the historical make-believe of stalinism.

I'm sorry that you think Stalin infiltrated Wikipedia and went back in time to change around what the Provisional Government promised at the time of its appointment.

I'm also sorry that you feel that Stalin personally so edited our perspective on history that it is no longer a fact that the Provisional Government wasn't elected, that it did not bring an end to the war, that it promised to bring elections but so delayed its promise that it utterly failed on this point, that its membership were a bunch of the old landed aristocracy (ie. not representative), and that its policies were such that Russia saw a good deal of industrial and military unrest during 1917.

Really though, if you're going to suggest that we cannot argue the facts - because 'Stalinism' apparently messed up history - then there's nothing left to debate. Because, unlike you, I'm not willing to argue on the basis of rhetoric alone.

From my perspective, since neither the actions nor the makeup of the PG were democratic, it's rather silly trying to argue that the PG as a whole was democratic.

[noemon]

I'm sorry that you think Stalin infiltrated Wikipedia and went back in time to change around what the Provisional Government promised at the time of its appointment.

I'm also sorry that you feel that Stalin personally so edited our perspective on history that it is no longer a fact that the Provisional Government wasn't elected, that it did not bring an end to the war, that it promised to bring elections but so delayed its promise that it utterly failed on this point, that its membership were a bunch of the old landed aristocracy (ie. not representative), and that its policies were such that Russia saw a good deal of industrial and military unrest during 1917.

Am very sorry indeed, that you do not read my posts in their totality and force me to repeat myself:

Noone, i replied to your arguments way before i mentioned the stalinist cherry, and as i said my arguemntation is not at all dependent on the stalinist historical presentation, it is merely a cherry on the top.

Really though, if you're going to suggest that we cannot argue the facts - because 'Stalinism' apparently messed up history - then there's nothing left to debate. Because, unlike you, I'm not willing to argue on the basis of rhetoric alone.

You are only willing to argue based on rhetoric and ignore the facts and my arguments as if they are not there:

As i said:

a) Bolshevism was not democratic.
b) That which would be the outcome of the provisional government is unknown.
c) Impossible to put the unknown in a cartesian axis.
d) Impossible to dare claim that which was certainly non-democratic and in fact was minority, was more democratic than the unknown.
e) Impossible to dare use the historical presentation of Stalinism as a referee.

Do not try to create straw-men.

From my perspective, since neither the actions nor the makeup of the PG were democratic, it's rather silly trying to argue that the PG as a whole was democratic.

Your perspective for the millionth time is problematic, and based on rhetoric and propaganda because the government was provisional. And nobody argues that the pg was democratic, because the pg is a transitional stage, am i talking to the wall here?

To rewrite what i wrote above:

We draw conclusions by using a cartesian axis, and for the 100th time, not only in the cartesian axis of democracy(provisional government being the O, the reset, neither cold nor warm, nothing, provisional exactly at the reset button), positively democratic being the right side and negatively democratic being the left, the product of your counter-revolution has been lost out of sight at the left side of the axis, and your comparison with X unknown(what would be, without the counter-revolution) cannot take place. And if it could, an intelligent human cannot even fathom that it would be where Bolshevism is, right at the wall, of the negatively democratic.

You inability to comprehend this and you obvious selectivity on ignoring it, goes hand in hand with your rhetoric.

[Maxim Litvinov]

You might want to try to 'save' the provisional government from any analysis through the poor excuse that it was only around for 9 months, but the fact is - as I've shown - that the government can be judged by its makeup and its actions and in both cases it wasn't democratic.

This is actually precisely one of the reasons it only lasted 9 months - because, with or without Bolshevism, the PG was so out of touch with the people's will that its time in office was marked by mass civil unrest.

[noemon]

You might want to try to 'save' the provisional government from any analysis through the poor excuse that it was only around for 9 months, but the fact is - as I've shown - that the government can be judged by its makeup and its actions and in both cases it wasn't democratic.

I am not trying to save anybody. Solon's system was imposed in Athen's by Solon, an oligarch, an aristocrat. Provisional governments are not democratic by definition nor do they claim to be, they are the reset buttons of a politeia. And the reset button is pressed by the owner, not by the thief of the computer.

This is actually precisely one of the reasons it only lasted 9 months - because, with or without Bolshevism, the PG was so out of touch with the people's will that its time in office was marked by mass civil unrest.

Provisional governments take as much as they need to take to hold proper elections, and in an environment like the Russian of the time, she certainly needed time a) due to the vastness of Russia, b)due to the chaos of Russia, and c) due to the propaganda of the Bolshevics sustaining the chaos despite the promises made to the PG and your reason is not the reason that it lasted so little, but the counter-revolution(armed insurrection) of a minority party was the reason, the propaganda of chaos was the reason, the order 1 of the Bolshevics was the reason.

This is apparent and evident. Now, precisely because, the product of the revolution was so ridiculous and factually non-democratic, communist-minded people to save their alleged integrity will try to argue against the pg, when a)they cannot by definition, and b) when factually the product of the counter-revolution is at the bottom of the bottom of democracy and at the top of the top of authoritarianism.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Provisional governments are not democratic by definition nor do they claim to be

If all you're saying now is that the provisional government wasn't democratic, then we agree, don't we? I've been pointing out all along that the PG didn't govern on behalf of the people, so delayed any elections that it never held them and wasn't at all representative of the Russian people... hence it wasn't at all democratic.

I should add that the idea the PG would have survived and prospered without the Bolsheviks is a rather bizarre one though - in the July Days, for instance, when the PG was censoring and cracking down on political expression (ie. acting undemocratically again), it was actually the Bolsheviks urging workers' organisations not to strike and revolt - there was in fact a huge amount of industrial unrest even without Bolshevik involvement (not to mention the arming of a revolting populace through the response to the Kornilov affair).

[noemon]

If all you're saying now is that the provisional government wasn't democratic, then we agree, don't we? I've been pointing out all along that the PG didn't govern on behalf of the people, so delayed any elections that it never held them and wasn't at all representative of the Russian people... hence it wasn't at all democratic

No, we do not at all agree, not even remotely.

"The PG was not democratic" is an mundane statement, the same as saying "he is a male" inside a feminist congress. It does not serve any purpose in this discussion, except for propaganda under an arbitrary definition of democracy, in an imagined cartesian axis against the Bolshevics.

There is no "hence", and "hence" DOES NOT APPLY, because there is ERROR. The pg was the reset button of the Russian politeia. The reset button by definition is not democratic. But it does not follow that the product of the pg would not be democratic, because the reset button is by definition not democratic. This is ERROR. And your choice of "democratic" is against something else, the Bolshevics.

Your fallacious logic,

that the pg was the reset button-> the reset button is not democratic->its product would not have been democratic->the Bolshevic counter-revolution was more democratic

Is FALSE, and is pure and definite PROPAGANDA.

[Maxim Litvinov]

We've looked at what the PG did and how it was constituted and discovered it not to be democratic. You've said it wasn't democratic and so have I. So I think we can leave it there.

I should point out though that I haven't actually been addressing the democracy or non-democracy of the Bolsheviks (note spelling, please) anyway, so I'm not quite sure what you're going on about.

[noemon]

We've looked at what the PG did and how it was constituted and discovered it not to be democratic. You've said it wasn't democratic and so have I. So I think we can leave it there.

No, we cannot and we will not leave it at that.

You have used "democratic" as in against the Bolshevics. You have applied democratic to both, and you have reached to the conclusion under an imagined cartesian axis that the latter was higher than the former. This is comparative syncretism.

I have not applied "democratic" to the PG at all, since it is not applicable, due to the provisional. The statement the "pg was not democratic" does not obey or source from the same principle as the statement the "Bolshevics were not democratic". "Democratic" in both statements is used in different context, not the same context. Applying different contexts in a term, in order to equate 2 statements by using a common denominator such as this case "democratic" is the very and exact definition of propaganda and rhetoric.

But I have applied "democratic" to the Bolshevics, and the statement: They were not democratic is a true statement, not a mundane one.

Since, i do not wish to spoil your thread, you may call yourself "Dr", when you manage to comprehend this very simple thing.

[Maxim Litvinov]

You have used "democratic" as in against the Bolshevics [sic]

Sorry? I haven't called the Bolsheviks democratic or undemocratic here. This discussion is not about Bolshevik democracy or non-democracy - rather, the democracy or otherwise of the Provisional Government is perfectly able to be understood in isolation from what happened from the October Revolution onwards.

I have not applied "democratic" to the PG at all, since it is not applicable, due to the provisional.

And again I'd point to the absurdity of this position. The idea that you can't assess how democratic an institution is if it labels itself 'provisional' just has no logic to it. The fact is, an institution can be said to be democratic if it adheres to democratic principles - either by being the result of a democratic process or by encouraging the democratic process or even by being indicative of the potential results of a democratic process. The Provisional Government, as an institution, simply lives up to none of these three democratic positions, which is why it was not democratic.

[noemon]

Sorry? I haven't called the Bolsheviks democratic or undemocratic here. This discussion is not about Bolshevik democracy or non-democracy - rather, the democracy or otherwise of the Provisional Government is perfectly able to be understood in isolation from what happened from the October Revolution onwards.

You have stated that they were more democratic than the pg.

And again I'd point to the absurdity of this position. The idea that you can't assess how democratic an institution is if it labels itself 'provisional' just has no logic to it. The fact is, an institution can be said to be democratic if it adheres to democratic principles - either by being the result of a democratic process or by encouraging the democratic process or even by being indicative of the potential results of a democratic process. The Provisional Government, as an institution, simply lives up to none of these three democratic positions, which is why it was not democratic

This is the absurdity that you fail to understand. While the Bolshevics do not adhere to any democratic principles in practise and were a government.

The pg was simply not a government, and because she was not a government, the comparison cannot take place. It can take place with what would have been.

The pg was not democratic because by definition a pg is not democratic, context 1.

The Bolshevics were not democratic, because they were a government that simply did not adhere to any democratic principles and processes. Context 2.

Context 1 does not equate to context 2.
Context 1 is an ephemerism, context 2 is a true statement.

I do not see how many times, will this have to be repeated, and especially to a Dr.

[Maxim Litvinov]

You have stated that they were more democratic than the pg.

Where?

The pg was simply not a government

Wow. I've heard of trying to 'win' an argument by defining your opponent out of it, but this is just ridiculous.

So, the Provisional Government called itself a government, made government decisions, governed, was considered the government by foreign states, carried out the functions of a government but... well, we're not allowed to consider whether it was democratic or not by you, because you are claiming that by definition that simply 'isn't allowed'.

Perhaps you should just announce that this is not a thread, we are not having an argument and I do not exist, noemon. At least that way you might be able to convince yourself (if not others) that your position is valid.

[noemon]

Where?

So now, you will even deny the obvious like the giraffe? Because the explicit statement is lacking? That is truly unprecedent, and very humiliating, indeed.

Wow. I've heard of trying to 'win' an argument by defining your opponent out of it, but this is just ridiculous.

So, the Provisional Government called itself a government, made government decisions, governed, was considered the government by foreign states, carried out the functions of a government but... well, we're not allowed to consider whether it was democratic or not by you, because you are claiming that by definition that simply 'isn't allowed'.

LOL on the nth, you still have not checked not even comprehended the definition of provisional. It is precisely you that is trying to win the argument by hiding the fact that she was provisional. By marginalizing it so that you can put her in your cartesian axis, and claim higher democracy for the Bolshevics, but wait a minute, you have not stated it explicitly, and therefore, you will pretend that you "win", even if what you argue is obviously and apparently false.

[Maxim Litvinov]

That is tru;ly unprecedent, and very humiliating.

Humiliating for you, yes, because you claimed I said something and now can't come up with the quote... because I simply didn't say it.

I will accept a simply apology though.


I must say, it is quite infuriating that we are the only people in this thread though, because it's annoying having no-one with which to share the joke that is your position. First, you refuse to consider whether the PG was democratic on the grounds of some absurd definition and then you decide that the PG wasn't even a government in the first place :/

[noemon]

Humiliating for you, yes, because you claimed I said something and now can't come up with the quote... because I simply didn't say it.

I will accept a simply apology though

If you repeat it enough times, you might actually believe it.

So your position Maxim, is not that the pg was less democratic than the Bolshevics?

Answer this, and try to hide it, as best as you can now that this precise argument has failed.

But wait a minute it was you who stated this:

What you've got to realise is the whole historical revisionism about Russia being well on the path to democracy without the Bolsheviks is simply untrue.

Do go on and change your position, into mine, but do it smoothly, so that the children here will not realize the absurdity.

must say, it is quite infuriating that we are the only people in this thread though, because it's annoying having no-one with which to share the joke that is your position. First, you refuse to consider whether the PG was democratic on the grounds of some absurd definition and then you decide that the PG wasn't even a government in the first place :/

Do not put words in my mouth, and do not isolate my sentences, you are humiliating yourself even further. A provisional government is not a government where the arbitrary definition of democratic is applicable.

Intended, used, or present for a limited time: impermanent, interim, short-range, short-term, temporary. See continue/stop/pause.
Temporarily assuming the duties of another: acting, ad interim, interim, pro tem, temporary. See continue/stop/pause, substitute.
Depending on or containing a condition or conditions: conditional, provisory, tentative. See limited/unlimited.

[Maxim Litvinov]

So your position Maxim, is not that the pg was less democratic than the Bolshevics? [sic]

That is basically my position, although I haven't brought it up in this thread, because I'm simply not interested in a comparative study of the PG and Bolsheviks. Such a study brings in other issues/problems (like the debate over what democracy can be) which would be best left to another thread. What we've simply been talking about (or at least, I've been talking about and you've been trying desperately hard to AVOID considering) is the non-democracy of the PG.

As I've been saying, you don't need to know anything about the Bolsheviks (which is fortunate for you) to see whether the PG was democratic or not. And, as we've already seen, the PG was neither democratic by makeup or action.

Do go on and change your position

Huh? Do I have to explain English to you now? As I stated, the historical revisionism that Russia was well on the path to democracy without the Bolsheviks is simply untrue - that is, to paraphrase for those that can't read properly - the historical revisionism that, if it weren't for the Bolsheviks, Russia would have become democratic is simply untrue. This says nothing about whether Russia was democratic under the Bolsheviks (although, if anything, implies it wasn't). Happy with my English lesson?

Why you want to talk about Cartesian axes when you can't even understand basic sentences is beyond me. Presumably you think that somehow overcomplicating the issue is the only way you can fail to see the bleeding obvious - ie. that a government that isn't democratically constituted, that makes anti-democratic decisions and stops democratic elections behind held is... surprise, surprise... NOT DEMOCRATIC.

[noemon]

That is basically my position, although I haven't brought it up in this thread, because I'm simply not interested in a comparative study of the PG and Bolsheviks. Such a study brings in other issues/problems (like the debate over what democracy can be) which would be best left to another thread. What we've simply been talking about (or at least, I've been talking about and you've been trying desperately hard to AVOID considering) is the non-democracy of the PG.

I am not trying to avoid the non-democracy of the PG, because democracy does not apply to it.

Generally we use democracy in three senses:

a) Athenian direct democracy(which applies to nobody)
b) Represenational democracy(which applies to many)
c) "Democracy" as in a country is more democratic than the other, or a government is more democratic than the other, and in the "democratic", we sum up a vague idea, of how the processes function in our subjective idealistic worlds, and we can genrally agree that less or more democratic applies in this vague sense, when there is freedom of speech, when there is freedom to vote and so on, and the Bolshevics and their cheka, get 0 marks, or better -(minus) marks.

a), b) and neither c) apply to a provisional government, because it is neither elected, nor if elections take place is she able to be elected, because she is not a party. Hence your statement that it was not democratic is simply mundane, it serves no purpose other than to compare them with the Bolshevics, who were a party.

In contrast a), b) and c) apply to the Bolshevics who were a political party.

Huh? Do I have to explain English to you now? As I stated, the historical revisionism that Russia was well on the path to democracy without the Bolsheviks is simply untrue - that is, to paraphrase for those that can't read properly - the historical revisionism that, if it weren't for the Bolsheviks, Russia would have become democratic is simply untrue. This says nothing about whether Russia was democratic under the Bolsheviks (although, if anything, implies it wasn't). Happy with my English lesson?

The statement is very true, and not untrue. And to understand why this is true, you need to study deeply Aristotles cycles.

This is a very hard question and requires a lot of analysis, which frankly am not up for analysing.

But we can establish a few generally true axioms:

A politeia goes through certain stages, cycles, democracy degenarates into tyrrany, and oligarchy degenerates into monarcy. Monarchy generates oligarchy, which generates timocracy which generates democracy, which in turn degenerates into tyrrany. In between these stages there is always a provisional government acting as the torch intermediary, which does not fall under any vague ideas of democracy. The next stage that will rule falls under scrutiny not the the torch intermediary. And in fact only Bolshevic apologists would in fact dare to argue such illogical clap-trap.

To go from a mixed monarchy/oligarchy as Russia did into democracy is simply impossible if you first do not go into timocracy(value based democracy), the Bolshevics simply stopped this process, and reverted back to monarchy/tyranny, and the worst kind of authoritarian tyrrany, when they finally left(?), Russia evolved into a timocracy, a vague democracy where people vote oligarchs, which this should have happened 100 years ago.

So, one can say that, the Bolshevics are responsible directly for the degenaration of the Russian politik evolution, which in an ideal world after X time of years eventually makes it into democracy, or in a degenarated form of it, like the timocratic representational one, which by all means is better(read: more "democratic") than Stalinism, or autocracy.

Why you want to talk about Cartesian axes when you can't even understand basic sentences is beyond me. Presumably you think that somehow overcomplicating the issue is the only way you can fail to see the bleeding obvious - ie. that a government that isn't democratically constituted, that makes anti-democratic decisions and stops democratic elections behind held is... surprise, surprise... NOT DEMOCRATIC.

The only person in here who does not understand simple english, is yourself, and because your argument is based on loyalty instead of logic, whatever you say as already illustrated to argue such illogical clap-trap shall be false, because in the end logic overcomes loyalty. Now, our discussion has already taken 4 pages, i have explained it to you very simply, and you still stick to your guns, when in fact you fail to see that the only reason you mention this argument is in order to put the pg in an imagined cartesian axis with the Bolshevics, which for all the reasons mentioned is simply impossible, it is error in logic, for loyalty propaganda purposes alone because you do not compare a political party with another, you compare a political party, with a provisional government, which is fallacious as illustrated and explained in very proper english. You claim that you do not want to compare, you only want to analyze the "democracy" of the pg, and i repeat, the analysis of the "democracy" of the pg is mundane because it was PROVISIONAL, your insistence serves one purpose alone, to become able to put it in analysis and hence on the same footing as the Bolshevics for imagined comparative analysis in pop appearances.

If sincerely you want to analyze something, analyze the "democracy"(=that is the aggregate freedoms enjoyed by the average Russian, after you define these freedoms first, which should be relatively applicable to the system) of the Czars, and the "democracy"(same as above) of the Bolshevics, in an aggregate domain, as in the totality and overall "democracy" of the Czarist governments against the totality of the Bolshevic government. In other words you are unable to eclect one periodic Czarist governmental stage and eclect another periodic Bolshevic stage, and compare what you eclect.But the totality of the periods together in average terms for the average Russian.