Are we in a similar state politically as the Russians were in 1916?

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
Ive been reading about the Russian revolution, and its truly fascinating, but its hard not to see some similarities between how Russians felt about their government in the early 1900s and how the US people feel now.

Russia in the 1900s was struggling with a declining economy and a deteriorating sense of Nationalism. Russia had just lost its whole navy to the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War, and was getting their butts handed to them by the Germans in WW1. They also experienced an immense shortage of resources, and had massive job and food shortages as well. This created a sense of anxiety that would ultimately form extreme right and left political groups. Flash Forward to today in America, we are in a massive debt and most people are weary of the over a decade long war that has been going on in the Middle East. It seems the great amount of nationalism that was seen from 2001-2005 has turned into fatigue. We ourselves have formed far left and right groups.

Prior to the Russian revolution the Marxists and the intelligentsia tried to influence the Russian revolution decades and decades before, but were unable to stir up the working and peasant enough to take them seriously. Most of them were viewed as odd balls and crazies, just like any candidate before this election would've if they spouted off anything that Trump or Sanders would've said or proposed. But by 1916 they changed from being oddballs to being visionaries and heroes. Kinda like today. The revolution needed very vocal leaders like Lenin, Trotsky, and members of the Petrograd Soviet. Looking at our popular candidates in this year's election, I find it extremely odd that the majority of the students,workers, and less wealthy people are still flocking to the most radical candidates on both sides at this point of the game. And those were the same people who started the February Revolution of 1917.

While we can argue on if trump really believes in what he says, it is still alarming that so many people are accepting his message. Sanders is teetering on making this a socialist or communist state, but this worries only people on the right. But it seems people feel that the government either is doing way too much or way too little to the extent that they are turning to the radical voices. It feels like there is a strong anxiety on both the left and right if and when drastic change is going to happen and how much it could potentially affect their livelihood.

Im not saying we are on the verge of revolution, but I find it alarming that we are seriously debating between Trump and Sanders the week before the Iowa Caucus.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Two key considerations:
1. Russia had no tradition of democracy, representative democracy, or republicanism. Russia was and always has been ruled an authoritarian regime, because that is what Russians accept. The Kerensky government was trying to leverage a democratic tradition that did not exist in Russia.
2. What qualifies as the "extreme left" and the "extreme right" in the US would lie between the left of the right party and the right of the left parties in, say, France. We do not have extreme Left and Extreme Right parties in the US, not by global (or even western European) standards.

There was a considerable difference between a Menshevik and a Bolsheik. Sanders is a Menshevik.
 
Last edited:

Al A Bama

Hall of Fame
Jun 24, 2011
6,658
934
132
Two key considerations:
1. Russia had no tradition of democracy, representative democracy, or republicanism. Russia was and always has been ruled an authoritarian regime, because that is what Russians accept. The Kerensky government was trying to leverage a democratic tradition that did not exist in Russia.
2. What qualifies as the "extreme left" and the "extreme right" in the US would lie between the left of the right party and the right of the left parties in, say, France. We do not have extreme Left and Extreme Right parties in the US, not by global (or even western European) standards.

There was a considerable difference between a Menshevik and a Bolshevik. Sanders is a Menshevik.
Can we refer to him as that on the campaign trail or can we just refer to him as a worthless person who never received a pay check until he was 40 years of age? Wasn't that first paycheck as a worthless politician, a mayor of some town! Was he one of those people who never knew what he wanted to be and then fell into the gold mine of being a worthless politician?

All I know is that he is a socialist and that has NEVER worked anywhere. Americans are very naive when they think he's the answer to our problems. However, if it's a choice between HRC or him, I'll take the less worthless person!
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,665
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Two key considerations:
1. Russia had no tradition of democracy, representative democracy, or republicanism. Russia was and always has been ruled an authoritarian regime, because that is what Russians accept. The Kerensky government was trying to leverage a democratic tradition that did not exist in Russia.
2. What qualifies as the "extreme left" and the "extreme right" in the US would lie between the left of the right party and the right of the left parties in, say, France. We do not have extreme Left and Extreme Right parties in the US, not by global (or even western European) standards.

There was a considerable difference between a Menshevik and a Bolsheik. Sanders is a Menshevik.
I thought that "Bolshevik" meant "majority," and they named themselves that when they were far from being that. The Kerenshyites and their allies, in a twist of Russian personality, named themselves "Mensheviks," at a time when they were still probably the majority. We have yet to determine in this country which is which...
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,665
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
BTW, I agree with TW completely with the analogy to 1916 Russia. It fails. Following their tradition, they adore a strongman, and they have another, who has overwhelming approval when he talks "strongly," even when he hasn't a prayer of following up. (Trump?) Once again, it's back to the fact that Trump appeals to the authoritarian streak in some of us...
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
I thought that "Bolshevik" meant "majority," and they named themselves that when they were far from being that. The Kerenshyites and their allies, in a twist of Russian personality, named themselves "Mensheviks," at a time when they were still probably the majority. We have yet to determine in this country which is which...
I'm not sure Kerensky was a Menshevik, but one of history's ironies was that the Bolsheviks (majority party) was far for being the majority and the Mensheviks (minority party) was far from the being the minority, but were in fact the majority party. (Mensheviks), allowed themselves to be labelled the minority party and the minority party (Bolsheviks) allowed themselves to be labeled the "majority party."
The Mensheviks were Social Democrats and were willing to work within the existing system to ameliorate the conditions of the working man. Bolsheviks demanded the overthrow of the existing system as hopelessly corrupt.
Thus, I stand by the characterization of Sanders as a Menshevik, in the Bernstein model.
 
Last edited:

CullmanTide

Hall of Fame
Jan 7, 2008
6,614
885
137
Cullman, Al
With no representation it shouldn't seem odd middle class people, especially blue collar workers, are attracted to more radical candidates. People are frustrated when they don't feel they have a voice.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
I'm not sure Kerensky was a Menshevik, but one of history's ironies was that the Bolsheviks (majority party) was far for being the majority and the Mensheviks (minority party) was far from the being the majority. But the majority party (Mensheviks), allowed themselves to be labelled the minority party and the minority party (Bolsheviks) allowed themselves to be labeled the "majority party."
The Mensheviks were Social Democrats and were willing to work within the existing system to ameliorate the conditions of the working man. Bolsheviks demanded the overthrow of the existing system as hopelessly corrupt.
Thus, I stand by the characterization of Sanders as a Menshevik, in the Bernstein model.
I was under the understanding that kerensky was a Duma member that was chosen to be leader of the provisional government, but the kornilov affair put the radical Marxists in position to tear down the provisional government.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,665
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
I'm not sure Kerensky was a Menshevik, but one of history's ironies was that the Bolsheviks (majority party) was far for being the majority and the Mensheviks (minority party) was far from the being the majority. But the majority party (Mensheviks), allowed themselves to be labelled the minority party and the minority party (Bolsheviks) allowed themselves to be labeled the "majority party."
The Mensheviks were Social Democrats and were willing to work within the existing system to ameliorate the conditions of the working man. Bolsheviks demanded the overthrow of the existing system as hopelessly corrupt.
Thus, I stand by the characterization of Sanders as a Menshevik, in the Bernstein model.
To that extent, I agree... :)
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.