
The great error: the Bolsheviks were not a party but an apocalyptic sect - lermontov
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/house-of-government-slezkine/
======
_callcc
All these anti-Bolshevik treatises of late merely profit from the decay and
ruin of Left-wing consciousness and culture that has taken place in the last
century. The old Bolsheviks I once knew would have laughed at this "thesis".
But who is around anymore to argue against it?

~~~
aaron-lebo
Weren't the Bolsheviks just a minor faction that ended up winning the civil
war? Bolshevism became the party in the USSR.

I understand your complaint were it about communism, but it's hard to defend a
group (Bolshevism) that was loaded with cowardly and narcissistic mass
murderers. There's no one to defend them because they're all dead, in many
instances killed off by each other. Their form of government collapsed. What's
there to defend? Does anyone really want to associate themselves with the
actions and mistakes of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Beria, etc. at this time?

Is this incorrect? Were there Bolshevik communities elsewhere that you may
have been part of? I thought most of the Bolsheviks were dead by the 1950s.

~~~
pandaman
>Weren't the Bolsheviks just a minor faction that ended up winning the civil
war? Bolshevism became the party in the USSR.

Nope. It was a majority faction ("bolshevik" literally means "member of
majority" as opposite to "menshevik", "member of minority") in the Russian
Social-Democratic Worker Party (РСДРП). They took power during the October
Revolution. Soon after the revolution the party was renamed into Russian
Communist Party (of Bolsheviks). A year later the Communist International
(Commintern) was created by Lenin's order and its first congress in 1919 was
attended by delegates from 21 different countries.

So, it seems to me, it was not a minor faction in a single country but a
member of the international Communist movement.

~~~
aaron-lebo
Minor is the wrong word. I was trying to get across that the Bolsheviks were
but one political entity that existed as of about 1915 and ended up winning,
and even as of 1904 they didn't exist separately within their own party (as
you say). It was a relatively small group of men that ended up dominating
Russia, partially due to how ruthless they were willing to be.

I'm still not sure how the OP knew any Bolsheviks, was anyone calling
themselves that in 1970?

~~~
pandaman
My point is that it was the mainstream Left in 20th century. The fact that
people insist on calling them "Bolsheviks" instead of "Communists" is, IMHO,
an indication that Left still hope to salvage their ideology by implying that
"it was not the _true_ Communism!". There were plenty of them in 1970 (6M or
so party members) and, even though, the CPSU was officially disbanded in 1991,
a new CPSU has been established in 1993 as its successor and still has enough
support to win seats in Duma.

~~~
aaron-lebo
I'm getting into semantics, but though I get that the Bolsheviks of 1920
transformed (officially) and eventually into the CPSU in 1952, with that
"rebranding", did anyone in the USSR still call themselves Bolsheviks or were
they communists or was there a more popular term?

It's just that I've never seen it in (historical) contexts outside of
describing the pre 1920s revolutionaries.

~~~
pandaman
>anyone in the USSR still call themselves Bolsheviks or were they communists
or was there a more popular term

They used "bolshevik" as a term of endearment especially in reference to the
old party members.

------
ocschwar
In The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James had to define
religion.

So he defined it as "the sense that there is an unseen order to things, and
that one must conform to it harmoniously."

Bolshevism obviously qualifies.

~~~
a-nikolaev
"Patriotism", "Racism", "Functional programming", and many other things will
qualify too then, at least for a non-negligible number of people.

We tend to get unreasonably attached and put our faith into stuff like that.

~~~
ocschwar
Patriotism: plenty of ethno-specific religions out there. I was born into one.

Racism: "race is our religion" \- an explicit slogan for more than one neonazi
movement.

Functional programming: when an advocate moves past "one must" to "you must",
the allusions to religion and holy wars get pretty justified.

~~~
drb91
Just a note that patriotism is typically defined around nation states, not
ethnicities, although many times they may align. But the largest nations are
often ethnic melting pots!

------
anigbrowl
A good summary of the faults of political orthodoxy. You can safely experience
the downsides first hand by hanging around with certain groups of Maoists, who
are especially fond of quoting their favorite texts in lieu of developing or
critiquing them.

On the other hand, the review (and possibly the book) are a little unfair in
ignoring the daunting scope of the task the Bolsheviks undertook - the
transformation of a feudal kingdom with only two large industrial centers into
a modern state. They were not the only party seeking to overturn that order,
but took and maintained power in October 1917 because they were willing to
follow through on their basic aims, such as taking Russia out of the Great War
- even though they had to accept significant short-term losses like abandoning
control of Ukraine.

It's absolutely true that a collectivist ethos like Bolshevism was massively
destructive to the establishment of the time and resulted in an enormous loss
of freedom - for them. But reading a review like this, it's easy to forget
that the vast majority of the population there did not enjoy anything like the
freedoms people take for granted in a developing country, but lived either in
squalid urban conditions or primitive rural ones. And yet, mere decades later,
it was the USSR that first ventured into outer space.

Communism, as outlined by Marx, is a philosophy of abundance - Marx imagined
that everyone would work a bit, maybe half-days, to maintain society, and that
the rest of the day could be given over to study and leisure. In practice,
this egalitarian utopia remained a distant aspiration as countries like russia
and China sought to both maintain their newly-seized economic and political
independence and to reap the fruits of industrial development for themselves.
As we've seen, both countries have slid back towards nationalism; Russia as an
autocracy and China as a weird sort of state capitalism - Xi has concentrated
power almost as effectively as Putin, but wields it through more conventional
institutional channels.

It may be relevant that both countries abandoned internationalism after their
Communist revolutions - Stalin to pursue 'socialism in one country' (with
himself very much in charge) and China to alter pursue 'socialism with Chinese
characteristics' under Deng. One could argue that today China practices a form
of economic imperialism while seeking to establish a peaceful counter-hegemony
opposite the United States and to a lesser extent the EU. Communism as an
international movement is moribund, and left-wing Communists (ideologically
democratic ones) would argue that the failure to prosecute an international
strategy made such an outcome inevitable.

~~~
Shivetya
TBH the USSR got into space not because of its government but because it had
captured enough expertise and manufacturing ability from the remains of Nazi
Germany. If not for the end of WW2 and all they confiscated its very likely
they would never have catapulted so far ahead of where they were so fast.

the issue with all ideal forms of each government type is that people in
charge elevate themselves above the tenets of said government.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The same can be said about the USA though; after all, Wernher von Braun wasn't
exactly born in Kansas. Still, both the US and USSR managed to provide enough
industrial and scientific base to expand on the research they captured.

------
empath75
> they were the only apocalyptic sect that had ever taken over an “existing
> heathen empire”: they ruled over the population of the former Russian
> Empire, which was overwhelmingly ignorant of or unreceptive to their
> teachings

I think the Jacobin take over of the French Revolution was similar, both in
the totalist philosophy of the revolutionaries, the apocalyptic fervor of it
and in the bloody consequences of it.

~~~
woodandsteel
According to Lichtheim's book on Marxism, Marx was inspired by the French
Revolution and wanted to succeed where it had failed.

------
pattisapu
Sheila Fitzpatrick's review of The House of Government is less gushing, or at
least it maintains a critical distance from the work:

[https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n15/sheila-fitzpatrick/good-
commun...](https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n15/sheila-fitzpatrick/good-communist-
homes)

------
qbaqbaqba
And don't forget that Lenin was a mushroom.

------
yarrel
Religions are like political parties, you say?

~~~
agarden
Politics is the opiate of the people.

------
woodandsteel
Here's another review

www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/11/23/bolshevisms-new-believers/

------
woodandsteel
To understand why the Bolsheviks failed achieve their idealistic goals, you
need to look at the larger history of Marxism.

To start, in the mid-19th century Marx believed that capitalism has inherent
contradictions that would lead to its weakening and being overthrown through
violent workers revolution and replaced by communism, a utopia in which
everyone would work together and the state would disappear. And he thought
this would happen within a few decades.

But then decades went by and capitalism instead continued to grow, and this
lead to a crisis in the Marxist movement. One faction, lead by Eduard
Bernstein, decided revolution would never occur and decided to instead promote
socialism through democratic elections and gradual reform. This group joined
up with socialist democratic parties throughout Europe.

The other group, lead by Lenin, decided to double down on revolution. They
thought the workers had been brainwashed and needed to be lead by a tight
group of disciplined revolutionaries, a doctrine known as "vanguardism"

Lenin also believed that capitalism had escaped the consequences of its
alleged internal contradictions by expanding to overseas markets through
European imperialism. But he thought that this process had reached its limit
and the result would be a world war, after which Europe would be ripe for
communist revolution.

Finally, Lenin believed, contrary to conventional Marxism, that the peasants
in agrarian, pre-industrial, pre-capitalist societies like Russia were
naturally communal, and so it would be possible to go directly from feudalism
to communism without having to pass through a capitalist phase.

Based on all these beliefs, Lenin lead the Bolsheviks in a successful takeover
of Russia. The problem was that the communist revolutions in the rest of
Europe never occurred, and so Russia found itself all alone and very
vulnerable to its Western industrialized neighbors.

There followed a debate as to whether Russia should become a liberal
capitalist and industrialize the traditional way,and eventually become
socialist or push ahead with a dictatorial form of socialist
industrialization. Stalin was initially for the first option, but after
gaining power he switched to the second, with enormous brutality.

Then followed WWII, where the Soviet Union basically rescued the world from
Fascism, and then Stalin's death, and a very dreary dictatorship that dragged
on for decades until communism finally collapsed under Gorbachev.

In the meantime, a great many pre-industrialized countries, starting with
China, were inspired by Marxism and the Soviet Union and also tried to move
directly to socialism and then communism, and also failed. Even many nations
that did not label themselves as communist, like much of the Middle East and
Africa, still were inspired to follow authoritarian, semi-socialist paths. And
all failed to achieve their goals.

Leftists say none of this matters because none of the nations were true
communism. But in dozens of cases a group of smart and apparently sincere
communists took power, and in every instance what they produced was not true
communism, so the conclusion seems to be that true communism simply is not
possible.

~~~
dragonwriter
> To start, in the mid-19th century Marx believed that capitalism has inherent
> contradictions that would lead to its weakening and being overthrown through
> violent workers revolution and replaced by communism, a utopia in which
> everyone would work together and the state would disappear.

Wrong, he thought that capitalism would be replaced by socialism, which would
itself transition over time to communism; Marx’s socialism is not a utopian
state, and Marx did not see workers revolutions replacing capitlaism directly
with utopian communism.

> Leftists say none of this matters because none of the nations were true
> communism

No, non-Leninist Leftists say none of this is relevant to non-Leninist
communism and the broader non-Leninist Left, because all these systems were
Leninist vanguardism, and non-Leninists on the Left reject vanguardism and
generally also the Leninist deviation from classical Marxism in bypassing
capitalist democracy as a necessary part of the path.

~~~
woodandsteel
>Wrong, he thought that capitalism would be replaced by socialism, which would
itself transition over time to communism.

You are correct that Marx predicted a brief transition period between
capitalism and true communism, which of course is not what ever happened.

>Marx’s socialism is not a utopian state.

But his communism is supposed to be a utopia, which is what I said.

Let me add that the vocabulary is not consistent here. Sometimes leftists
refer to communism as a form of socialism, sometimes they are spoken of as two
different systems.

>No, non-Leninist Leftists say none of this is relevant to non-Leninist
communism and the broader non-Leninist Left, because all these systems were
Leninist vanguardism, and non-Leninists on the Left reject vanguardism and
generally also the Leninist deviation from classical Marxism in bypassing
capitalist democracy as a necessary part of the path.

True, but non-Leninist communists have never come to power in a state, and as
far as I can tell there is no particular reason to think they ever will. And
even if they somehow did, there still remains the question of how good a
society they would actually produce. Leftists have attained power (ie Labour
in the UK), but have not done so well over the long term.

By the way, what are you? A non-Leninist communist or a non-Leninist socialist
or what?

Also, I am going into this because when leftists say "but that wasn't true
communism" they seem to be implying that it could have been if the leaders had
done things right. However, when you look at the circumstances in Russia/USSR,
it simply was not possible, much less for any of the other communist
countries.

More generally, I went into this whole history because I think everyone should
know it, but very few do. Do you agree?

~~~
dragonwriter
> You are correct that Marx predicted a brief transition period between
> capitalism and true communism

No, he didn't predict (at least, not in any of his public works) that the
socialism phase would be brief.

> which of course is not what ever happened.

But, then, even if that was Marx’s prediction of what would occur if his
program were adopted, Marx’s programs has never been applied, only Lenin’s
which, despite claiming ideological continuity with Marx, applied to different
starting conditions and employs different methodologies.

> But his communism is supposed to be a utopia, which is what I said.

What you said was he predicted a rapid and direct transition from the
capitalist condition to a communist utopia; both the rapid and direct parts
are false.

> Let me add that the vocabulary is not consistent here. Sometimes leftists
> refer to communism as a form of socialism, sometimes they are spoken of as
> two different systems.

There are different definitions of “communism” and “socialism” that apply in
different contexts, but they are pretty consistently used. There is the
definition of _ideologies_ , in which communism is a specific form of
socialism, and there is the definition of _politico-economic systems within
the Marxist theory_ , in which socialism and communism are different systems.

~~~
woodandsteel
>No, he didn't predict (at least, not in any of his public works) that the
socialism phase would be brief.

That's interesting. I had always read it would be brief, but I am not an
expert on Marxism, so I am going to assume you are right. So let me ask, how
is Marx defining socialism (I am guessing he meant there was still a state),
and what did he think needed to happen to move from socialism to communism?

>even if that was Marx’s prediction of what would occur if his program were
adopted

Huh? Everything I have ever read about Marxism indicates that communism was
supposed to be a utopia. What did Marx say that indicated that it might not be
one, and in what specific ways?

Also, let me ask again, what is your political philosophy? Are you a non-
Leninist communist or a non-communist socialist or what?

And do you agree that it would be good if everyone knew the history of
Marxism, and that at present very few people do?

------
junkscience2017
Much of this is easily debunked in accessible books and even YouTube videos.
The original Bolsheviks had indeed read their Marx. They knew that a
revolution needed to happen not in Russia (which everyone knew was a pre-
industrial state), but in industrialized Germany and potentially Britain.
Merely decimating Russian society was never the end goal of the Bolsheviks.

Russia was considered by Lenin to be a staging ground for the more meaningful
revolutions to follow. It wasn't until Stalin emerged as the Soviet leader
that this strategy was abandoned in favor of "socialism in one country", where
the exploitation of pre-industrial Russia was deemed good enough.

I doubt anyone would even describe Stalin's reign in religious terms (although
his upbringing was deeply religious)...but just another manifestation of
history's most reliable anti-pattern: the folly of investing total power in
one person.

~~~
aqsalose
Does the article disagree with any of that?

>Slezkine is by no means the first person to draw the analogy between the
Bolsheviks and sectarians (Lenin himself is reported to have taken an interest
in the Münster Anabaptists and Cromwell’s Puritans as he pondered Russia’s
revolutionary potential in the early twentieth century), but no one before him
has extracted such analytical mileage from it. This intellectual framework
allows him to explain the Bolsheviks’ striving to bring self and society,
individual and history, into perfect alignment; their relentless study and
exegesis of their own version of scripture (Marx and Engels, later Lenin);
their jealous guarding of their purity and integrity; and their embrace of
violence, which was a welcome sign of the apocalyptic confrontation that would
herald the “Real Day”.

Maintaining ideological purity (Lenin's policy of no collaboration with any
bourgeois or other leftist elements after the February revolution and the
program of immediate communist revolution after the bourgeois one were
considered foolish and impractical by many); the belief in the soon-to-come
apocalyptic worldwide civil war and revolution (as you said yourself); and the
embrace of violent narratives on how to go about it; all of this describes
Lenin's policies ~1917 quite well.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm not sure what you mean by 'belief in the soon-to-come apocalyptic
worldwide civil war and revolution'? As a Marxist, Lenin certainly expected
revolution to break out around the world, but World War 1's global scope and
vast destruction were incontrovertible facts which seemed like definite
evidence in support of Marx's economic predictions.

I mean, the destruction of so much life and wealth in that war was
fundamentally irrational; it was a bunch of opportunist colonial powers vying
for dominance over each other. It seems rather cheeky to label the Bolsheviks
as a quasi-religious sect for acting in accordance with an economic hypothesis
with several _years_ of evidence to back it up.

You may recall that when WW1 broke out most of the participants were (at least
publicly) optimistic about it being a short honorable affair. Trotsky, who was
an astute journalist, correctly predicted that the combination of trench
construction and industrialization would instead lead to a long war of
attrition, and was proved entirely right about this - though he did fail to
predict the innovation of tank development that would eventually break the
deadlock on the Western front. But I think you have to say the Bolsheviks had
more evidence for their political-economic thesis going into the revolutionary
year of 1917 than the 'great powers' did for their policy in 1914. Further,
the Bolsheviks succeeded in taking power not by rushing into the fray at the
first opportunity, but by sticking to their political position and waiting out
the other parties after the February revolution. After all kerensky's
government had failed to deliver on the goal of getting russia out of the war,
and it seems odd to blame the Bolsheviks for sticking to their principles on
this rather important issue.

Slezkine might well be right to draw his sectarian analogy based on subsequent
events, but it doesn't seem fair to apply this to the 1917 policies which seem
eminently rational and strategic.

------
Feniks
So just like any religion then ;)

------
Koshkin
Calling the Bolsheviks "an apocalyptic sect" is wrong, because they were full
of what we might call "the social optimism". They tried to build a "new,
happier" society on the ruins of the imperial Russia which was rotten to the
core. Too bad they chose the "Red Terror" as the means to that end.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
"Apocalypse" literally means "unveiling", but it refers to the biblical book
of Revelation. Revelation describes the total destruction of the existing
world, but ends with the creation of a new, better one.

In the same way, the Bolsheviks were about the total destruction of the
current social, economic, and political order, in order to build the new. So
"apocalyptic" is a fairly accurate term.

~~~
mamon
Yeah, it's funny that the world "apocalyptic" become more or less synonymous
to "catastrophic", when in fact the book of Revelation is a story with happy
end :)

