Revolution or Coup D'etat in Russia

[Pythagoras]

The second revolution during 1917, in which Lenin and his vanguard party seized power for the proletariat, believing that they were not capable of such an act, caused historians abroad to analyze this very scenario. This has open some debate for whether or not the taking of the power that laid in the streets was truly a revolution or if it was the seizure of power in the night for a new order and not that of the proletariat. This context is merely a setup for my next couple of questions, as per usual.

1. Do you believe that Lenin's Revolution was true or more so a Coup D'etat for his new "Vanguard" order?
2. Can a Vanguard Party truly take hold of power in any regime and hand it off to the people? How would it do that?
3. Is it possible for something other than a Vanguard party to seize power, and could that have changed the outcome?
4. Could a Vanguard party ever work?

 

[Decus]

The second revolution during 1917, in which Lenin and his vanguard party seized power for the proletariat, believing that they were not capable of such an act, caused historians abroad to analyze this very scenario. This has open some debate for whether or not the taking of the power that laid in the streets was truly a revolution or if it was the seizure of power in the night for a new order and not that of the proletariat. This context is merely a setup for my next couple of questions, as per usual.

1. Do you believe that Lenin's Revolution was true or more so a Coup D'etat for his new "Vanguard" order?
2. Can a Vanguard Party truly take hold of power in any regime and hand it off to the people? How would it do that?
3. Is it possible for something other than a Vanguard party to seize power, and could that have changed the outcome?
4. Could a Vanguard party ever work?

The proletariat never had power in Russia so the idea that Lenin "seized power for the proletariat", as you say, is beautiful propaganda and little else.

It was simply a regime change replacing one dictatorship for another.

.

 

[rupol2000]

1 no
2 this was due to the general policy of Eastern Europe, the capture of Austria Hungary by the Prussians. Nicholas 2 was a traitor, he changed the flag of the Austro-Hungarian palette and untied the hands of the red terrorists
3 no, this can only be done with the help of politics and capital, the main thing is to subdue the army.
4 There was no "Vanguard ", it was the revival of slavery of the 18th century

 

[rupol2000]

And here you also need to understand that the Bolsheviks seized power only in St. Petersburg and Moscow, and not in the entire Empire. After that there was a long war and bloody terror.

 

[rupol2000]

There were 2 main factors.

1) The Bolsheviks controlled a massive army of commoners through soldiers' committees. Whoever controls the army has de facto power.
2) They enjoyed the support of the Moscow peasantry, which claimed the fertile lands of the military aristocracy, the Cossacks, in the Don and Volga valleys

 

[Litwin]

The proletariat never had power in Russia so the idea that Lenin "seized power for the proletariat", as you say, is beautiful propaganda and little else.

It was simply a regime change replacing one dictatorship for another.

.

good point , do you know % of proletariat in Muscovy ? Polish , Finnish , Belarusian, Ukrainian, Estonian, Georgian, etc. proletariat had nothing to do with Muscovy in 1917

 

[Litwin]

There were 2 main factors.

1) The Bolsheviks controlled a massive army of commoners through soldiers' committees. Whoever controls the army has de facto power.
2) They enjoyed the support of the Moscow peasantry, which claimed the fertile lands of the military aristocracy, the Cossacks, in the Don and Volga valleys

"They enjoyed the support of the Moscow peasantry" any link ?

War communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[rupol2000]

"They enjoyed the support of the Moscow peasantry" any link ?

what a f'g link it actualy was peasant army, there was about 90% peasantry
it was called worker-peasant, but there were very few workers at that time
Almost all professional military personnel were on the other side.

 

[Litwin]

what a f'g link it actualy was peasant army, there was about 90% peasantry
it was called worker-peasant, but there were very few workers at that time
Almost all professional military personnel were on the other side.

I NEED a link, i dont think so , do we speak about 1917? the peasantry (bad organized ) resisted Bolshevik gang

 

[Pythagoras]

The proletariat never had power in Russia so the idea that Lenin "seized power for the proletariat", as you say, is beautiful propaganda and little else.

It was simply a regime change replacing one dictatorship for another.

.

Interesting, I am not stating any definitive opinion but probing to see how people view it, Thank you for the statement. It is, as always with my posts, very much appreciated!

 

[Pythagoras]

There were 2 main factors.

1) The Bolsheviks controlled a massive army of commoners through soldiers' committees. Whoever controls the army has de facto power.
2) They enjoyed the support of the Moscow peasantry, which claimed the fertile lands of the military aristocracy, the Cossacks, in the Don and Volga valleys

Do you believe that if Russia had been further along in their social progression, out of the feudal state and into industrialization, that things would've turned out differently or the same? Do you believe that Trotsky formed the red army to fight the white troops that led to his power, or was it inherently under Lenin?

 

[rupol2000]

Do you believe that if Russia had been further along in their social progression, out of the feudal state and into industrialization, that things would've turned out differently or the same?

Of course, differently.
The 19th century throughout Europe was a century of freedom, the rise of science, industry, great hopes and romance, and Russia was no exception, it was the golden age of Europe.

Do you believe that Trotsky formed the red army to fight the white troops that led to his power, or was it inherently under Lenin?

Under Lenin at 1917, there was already control over the mass army, there were soldiers' committees that controlled it. This was enough for a coup, but for the Bolsheviks' campaign on the Cossack lands, this was not enough, and they began to raise the peasantry. It doesn't matter who exactly, Trotsky was with Lenin