When were the soviets closed?

[ComradeOm]

The term 'Soviet' merely means workers council. Yes they were organised on a geographic basis, but were also organised on other basis too. For example there were Soldiers soviets. I don't know the details about the one at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, but I have no reason to doubt that it could be a soviet

And the "soldiers' soviets" are typically referred to as "soldiers' committees" exactly for this reason - to distinguish them from the 'official' 'Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets' and the 'Peasants' Soviets'. That is, to emphasise the difference between a simple council of workers/soldiers/peasants and those associated with the revolutionary Soviet movement. I've already provided the example of the factory committees - technically 'soviets' (ie, 'councils') but nonetheless different from what we refer to as 'soviets'

Nor do I think that closing down factory committees would be any more justifiable

A good thing that its a moot point then given that factory committees were overwhelming concentrated in industrial enterprises and its ludicrous to imagine civil servants forming one mere days after the October Revolution. Certainly I'm not aware of any such committee being affiliated with the Petrograd CCFC. So I was being extremely generous with my "best case" scenario

It is the PTT (minus the last T as they weren't invented then). I hardly think that the average postman was a white guard officer

To quote Brinton himself: "The concept of workers' control had spread even to the Civil Service". He then later refers to the Admiralty in the same paragraph/context. Do you also believe that the latter was a conflict with sailors?

Nor do I think Brinton's work is a 'hack job'. I disagree with his politics, but the documentation is impressive

The problem being that his politics directly influences the documentation. Brinton is not a historian and this entire pamphlet (let's not pretend that it is a serious academic work) is nothing but an example of historical assassination. His trawling of the archives is impressive but the resultant work is a carefully chosen selection of out-of-context quotes and dates. He is little better than those on this site (one or two have already appeared in this thread) who are more than capable of producing a Lenin quote culled from MIA but lack even the most basic grasp of the events of 1917 and beyond. Its a politically motivated hatchet job that is fatally undermined by its intent. I'd actually rate the likes of Pipes above Brinton

To give a single example, according to Brinton the establishment of Vesenkha was intended to "silence still further the voice of the Factory Committees" but he ignores the fact that the Petrograd CCFC themselves had been amongst the first to advocate the creation of a national economic body following October! This is the sort of deliberate omission that typifies his work as he attempts to construct a false dichotomy in which the evil Bolsheviks are placed in conflict with the anarcho-syndicalist Factory Committees. In this narrative every move to centralise the economy is seen as some sort of Bolshevik plot foisted on the brave Committees while the popularity of the Bolsheviks is explained by their duplicitous nature*. In short, its nothing short of nonsense that uses politically motivated lies to construct a more pleasing anarchist narrative

You, and everyone else with an interest in this topic, should do yourself a favour and read Smith's Red Petrograd for a real and comprehensive academic work on the Petrograd labour movement from 1917-1918. It blows away many of the romantic myths that have grown up around the Bolsheviks and workers' control

* Apparently Bolshevik policy in the unions and FCs differed because, "they were not averse to a considerable amount of double talk in the pursuit of [a] double objective". Evil Bolsheviks. It couldn't be that the Bolsheviks in these various organisations (who incidentally almost invariably comprised the most militant and revolutionary workers) were receiving little direction from the party centre? Here Brinton ignores all research on the Bolsheviks (Rabinowitch was publishing long before this pamphlet was written) to insist that they were actually a monolithic organisation following a uniform party line and to gloss over the very real differences in policy amongst the fractions. There were, for example, major differences between Bolshevik dominated unions (the insistence of the woodturners' union to remain independent springs to mind) and ironically Smith concludes that, "as far as the Bolshevik leadership was concerned, the trade unions were less reliable allies than the factory committees"

[Devrim]

It is the PTT (minus the last T as they weren't invented then). I hardly think that the average postman was a white guard officer

To quote Brinton himself: "The concept of workers' control had spread even to the Civil Service". He then later refers to the Admiralty in the same paragraph/context. Do you also believe that the latter was a conflict with sailors?

No, I don't think that the Admiralty is a place run by sailors. Postmen are in many countries considered to be civil servants. When I was a postman in London , they were and I was even required to sign the Official Secrets Act to walk round the streets delivering letters.

And the "soldiers' soviets" are typically referred to as "soldiers' committees" exactly for this reason - to distinguish them from the 'official' 'Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets' and the 'Peasants' Soviets'. That is, to emphasise the difference between a simple council of workers/soldiers/peasants and those associated with the revolutionary Soviet movement. I've already provided the example of the factory committees - technically 'soviets' (ie, 'councils') but nonetheless different from what we refer to as 'soviets'

I am not at all interested in a semantic argument as to what qualifies as an 'official Soviet'.

The problem being that his politics directly influences the documentation. Brinton is not a historian and this entire pamphlet (let's not pretend that it is a serious academic work) is nothing but an example of historical assassination.

You seem to have a touching faith in academia. as seen on the other thread:

As an aside, I very much agree with which doctor. This is a particular pitfall when you study an event like the Russian Revolution and its exactly why I prefer professional historians. Personally I don't read works that have been explicitly motivated by political ends (I was recently discussing Brinton's hack job in another thread) because they're undermined by the sort of political assumptions that have no place in serious works of history

I don't share this faith. I also realise that professional historians have as much of a political axe to grind as political militants. Look at Eric Hobsbawn, or Niall Ferguson, both well respected British historians for obvious examples.

It couldn't be that the Bolsheviks in these various organisations (who incidentally almost invariably comprised the most militant and revolutionary workers) were receiving little direction from the party centre? Here Brinton ignores all research on the Bolsheviks (Rabinowitch was publishing long before this pamphlet was written) to insist that they were actually a monolithic organisation following a uniform party line and to gloss over the very real differences in policy amongst the fractions.

Just on a factual point Rabinowitch had published one book before two years before this pamphlet was published (not written). Most of his work came much latter.

In this narrative every move to centralise the economy is seen as some sort of Bolshevik plot foisted on the brave Committees while the popularity of the Bolsheviks is explained by their duplicitous nature*. In short, its nothing short of nonsense that uses politically motivated lies to construct a more pleasing anarchist narrative

Here, I didn't claim to agree with the political conclusions, buy said that 'the documentation was impressive'. However, Brinton wasn't an anarchist, and it is not in fact an 'anarchist narrative' as you claim, which sort of reflects your understanding of what he was arguing. Have you actually read it?

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

No, I don't think that the Admiralty is a place run by sailors. Postmen are in many countries considered to be civil servants. When I was a postman in London , they were and I was even required to sign the Official Secrets Act to walk round the streets delivering letters

And you assume that the same was the case in 1917 Petrograd? Please, Posts and Telegraphs was a government department like any other. The context of Brinton's writing definitely suggests, to me at least, that he was talking about the "Civil Service" (note capitals). If you can prove otherwise of course....

[Edit: That is, if you can show that this so-called "soviet" was in any way affiliated with the Petrograd CCFC or Workers' and Soldiers' Soviet]

Incidentally, John Reed notes (Chpt 6, Ten Days that Shook the World) that in the days following the transfer of power to the Soviets, "telegraphers refused to transmit [Bolshevik] despatches, the postmen would not handle their mail". All hail the revolutionary postmen of Petrograd

I am not at all interested in a semantic argument as to what qualifies as an 'official Soviet'

Of course you're not. Like Brinton you are content to apply the label of "soviet" to anything and everything that reflects poorly on the Bolsheviks regardless of the actual differences or realities. Its nothing short of intellectual dishonesty

And no, I'm not going to let you run to the refuge of "semantics". I'll ask again: do you believe that there were real and practical differences between the Factory Committees and the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets? If so, do you think it is acceptable for a historian to simply ignore these differences and refer to them all as "soviets"?

You seem to have a touching faith in academia

Its true that I do feel that the best people to write authoritative accounts of history are professional historians. Are they always shorn of bias? Of course not, that would be an impossibility. Nonetheless, in this regard all but the worst accounts of the Russian Revolution (such as Pipes) compare favourably to Brinton's

Just on a factual point Rabinowitch had published one book before two years before this pamphlet was published (not written). Most of his work came much latter

Prelude to Revolution was published in 1968 and decisively tackled the issue of supposed Bolshevik unity. It was at the time one of only a handful of works by a Western academic that dealt exclusively with the revolutionary period of 1917 (I think Pipes beat him by a year or two). There's no excuse for historians to miss such landmarks of research... unless of course you disavow the role of historians to begin with. This is what happens when amateurs try and write history

Here, I didn't claim to agree with the political conclusions, buy said that 'the documentation was impressive'

And I've said that that is worthless praise. In such a politically motivated work (Brinton's "political conclusions" shaped the pamphlet and not the other way round) the degree of "documentation" is irrelevant because this documentation has been selectively sampled from

However, Brinton wasn't an anarchist, and it is not in fact an 'anarchist narrative' as you claim, which sort of reflects your understanding of what he was arguing

I was referring to the wider case that the factory committees comprised some sort of syndicalist alternative to the Bolsheviks. Whatever about Brinton himself, this is very much an anarchist argument and has been forwarded by the likes of Avrich, not to mention countless drones here on RevLeft. Frankly I couldn't give a damn about Brinton's political position aside from the fact that his opposition to the Bolsheviks drips from almost every paragraph. In this regard he's no better than Pipes and substantially worse than Figes

[Devrim]

Incidentally, John Reed notes (Chpt 6, Ten Days that Shook the World) that...

Hang on a minute, he was a political militant not a historian, and he was certainly partizan. Is it OK to use histories that aren't written by professional historians that you agree with?

The context of Brinton's writing definitely suggests, to me at least, that he was talking about the "Civil Service" (note capitals). If you can prove otherwise of course....

Incidentally, John Reed notes (Chpt 6, Ten Days that Shook the World) that in the days following the transfer of power to the Soviets, "telegraphers refused to transmit [Bolshevik] despatches, the postmen would not handle their mail". All hail the revolutionary postmen of Petrograd

Well the quote from 'Ten Days...' would certainly suggest that there was reason to suppress any talk of workers control in the Post Office.

I didn't claim that the postmen were revolutionaries, but that their 'soviet' was suppressed. Nor did I make any comment on whether the Bolsheviks were correct to suppress it. I do think though that one must attempt to win workers to revolutionary positions by argument not by decree from above.

Of course you're not. Like Brinton you are content to apply the label of "soviet" to anything and everything that reflects poorly on the Bolsheviks regardless of the actual differences or realities. Its nothing short of intellectual dishonesty

And no, I'm not going to let you run to the refuge of "semantics". I'll ask again: do you believe that there were real and practical differences between the Factory Committees and the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets? If so, do you think it is acceptable for a historian to simply ignore these differences and refer to them all as "soviets"?

The period of the revolution was one of intense confusion as revolutionary periods tend to be. I find it quite likely that there were organisations calling themselves soviets that don't fit with what some western academics would refer to as a soviet today. That does not mean that there were no differences between soviets and factory committees. Indeed in the summer, the Bolsheviks were looking to the factory committees rather than the soviets.

Prelude to Revolution was published in 1968 and decisively tackled the issue of supposed Bolshevik unity. It was at the time one of only a handful of works by a Western academic that dealt exclusively with the revolutionary period of 1917 (I think Pipes beat him by a year or two). There's no excuse for historians to miss such landmarks of research... unless of course you disavow the role of historians to begin with. This is what happens when amateurs try and write history

Which agrees with what I said. Brinton's pamphlet was published in 1970.

And I've said that that is worthless praise. In such a politically motivated work (Brinton's "political conclusions" shaped the pamphlet and not the other way round) the degree of "documentation" is irrelevant because this documentation has been selectively sampled from

All historians selectively sample data, whether professional or not, to prove their own thesis. That does not mean that this data is irrelevant as you put it.

I was referring to the wider case that the factory committees comprised some sort of syndicalist alternative to the Bolsheviks. Whatever about Brinton himself, this is very much an anarchist argument and has been forwarded by the likes of Avrich, not to mention countless drones here on RevLeft. Frankly I couldn't give a damn about Brinton's political position aside from the fact that his opposition to the Bolsheviks drips from almost every paragraph.

This sounds like the same sort of sampeling and bias to me.

I ask again:

Have you actually read it?

Devrim

[chegitz guevara]

No amount of Trotskyist analysis can change the fact that Kronstadt rebellion was after 1919.

Luís Henrique

I am in awe at how many people Bots trolled so easily.

[ComradeOm]

Hang on a minute, he was a political militant not a historian, and he was certainly partizan. Is it OK to use histories that aren't written by professional historians that you agree with?

Its a primary source, not a work of history

I didn't claim that the postmen were revolutionaries, but that their 'soviet' was suppressed. Nor did I make any comment on whether the Bolsheviks were correct to suppress it. I do think though that one must attempt to win workers to revolutionary positions by argument not by decree from above

And I've rubbished the idea that the thoroughly reactionary Tsarist Civil Service (in which even lowly postmen were allocated a place in the Table of Ranks) ever organised 'soviets' in any revolutionary sense. There may well have been a 'council' established to resist the transfer of power to the soviets but it is farcical to today refer to these in the same sense as the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets or the factory committees

When you strip the phrase to its bare translation (ie, include any and all councils/committees), as you and Brinton have done, then it becomes absolutely meaningless and, I repeat, nothing short of dishonest. Do you also accept that the All-Russian Committee for the Salvation of the Homeland and the Revolution was similarly a "soviet"? What about the Black Hundreds and other reactionary cliques? Do you think that the OP meant either of these when he spoke of bodies that gave "a voice to the average worker"?

[Edit: Not to mention the Sovnarkom - Совет народных коммиссаров. You accept that this was also a soviet?]

The so-called soviet of the Posts & Telegraphs, never mind the Admiralty, appears to be nothing more than a counter-revolutionary body of civil servants that was unaffiliated with either the Congress of Soviets or the Petrograd CCFC and actively opposed the transfer of power to the Soviet. Yet you and Brinton accept the most banal and broadest definition of "soviet" in order to portray this reactionary assembly on par with the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets and thus damn the Bolsheviks for insisting that there could be no alternative to the latter

Yet you accuse me of semantics!

The period of the revolution was one of intense confusion as revolutionary periods tend to be. I find it quite likely that there were organisations calling themselves soviets that don't fit with what some western academics would refer to as a soviet today. That does not mean that there were no differences between soviets and factory committees

Yet, and correct me if I'm wrong here, Brinton was not a early 20th C Russian worker. He was a (pseudo-)historian looking back from over half a century after the event and at a time when the terminology was quite well established. There is no just reason whatsoever for his failure to distinguish between a 'soviet' and simple council/committee. Indeed IIRC he consistently does so when differentiating between soviets and factory committees

I repeat once again that what we have here is nothing short of a disgraceful example of double standards, the sole purpose of which is to further Brinton's 'character assassination' of the Bolsheviks

Although perhaps you seriously contend that a reactionary body that called itself a soviet (as you said, meaning 'council') should be treated in the same manner as a factory committee or a 'proper' soviet?

Indeed in the summer, the Bolsheviks were looking to the factory committees rather than the soviets

Hmmm? No, that was Lenin's position (rather briefly) following the July Days. It was never accepted by the rest of the party leadership who continued to advocate action through the soviets

I'm sorry, "...who continued to advocate action through the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets"

All historians selectively sample data, whether professional or not, to prove their own thesis. That does not mean that this data is irrelevant as you put it

There are very few professional historians (even around a field as charged as the Russian Revolution) who write from such a blatant political viewpoint. Let's not forget that we are not discussing an academic work but a pamphlet published by an anti-Bolshevik council communist (roughly) organisation. We have just discussed above a perfect example of how Brinton 'massaged' the facts and terminology to suit his thesis! I know of no other historian (even Pipes) who would make such a blatant mischaracterisation. This is a political work and can only be treated as such

I've also provided other examples in an above post as to how Brinton, and others, have constructed a historical narrative that bears little relation to reality by deliberately omitting or selectively including facts

This sounds like the same sort of sampeling and bias to me

Then you have no idea what either term means. Although I am flattered that you consider me to be on par with a professional historian

Have you actually read it?

Yes

[Devrim]

This is a political work and can only be treated as such

All histories are political works.

And I've rubbished the idea that the thoroughly reactionary Tsarist Civil Service (in which even lowly postmen were allocated a place in the Table of Ranks) ever organised 'soviets' in any revolutionary sense. There may well have been a 'council' established to resist the transfer of power to the soviets but it is farcical to today refer to these in the same sense as the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets or the factory committees

When you strip the phrase to its bare translation (ie, include any and all councils/committees), as you and Brinton have done, then it becomes absolutely meaningless and, I repeat, nothing short of dishonest. Do you also accept that the All-Russian Committee for the Salvation of the Homeland and the Revolution was similarly a "soviet"? What about the Black Hundreds and other reactionary cliques? Do you think that the OP meant either of these when he spoke of bodies that gave "a voice to the average worker"?

The so-called soviet of the Posts & Telegraphs, never mind the Admiralty, appears to be nothing more than a counter-revolutionary body of civil servants that was unaffiliated with either the Congress of Soviets or the Petrograd CCFC and actively opposed the transfer of power to the Soviet. Yet you and Brinton accept the most banal and broadest definition of "soviet" in order to portray this reactionary assembly on par with the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets and thus damn the Bolsheviks for insisting that there could be no alternative to the latter

Yet you accuse me of semantics!

I have actually made no comment on this thread about my opinions of the Bolshevik party. Nor have I claimed that this group of workers was in any way revolutionary. It is quite clear though that you are using a semantic definition of the word Soviet to justify the action taken.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

I have actually made no comment on this thread about my opinions of the Bolshevik party. Nor have I claimed that this group of workers was in any way revolutionary. It is quite clear though that you are using a semantic definition of the word Soviet to justify the action taken

I think it is quite clear from the above that it is Brinton, and by extension yourself, that is engaging in semantic wordplay

The OP asked "when were the soviets closed?" and you respond by stating that on 9 November 1917 a council of some indeterminate shape or form was abolished by a People's Commissar. This is nothing short of dishonest and misleading; it is a case of deliberately mixing the terminology to further your case. And then you have the gall to openly challenge people to explain why "the Bolshevik party started to close down soviets"!

To restate, the reality is that the "soviet" of the Posts & Telegraphs was certainly not a 'soviet' in the sense of being an workers council officially affiliated with the Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets. Given the behaviour of the Tsarist civil service in general, and the post office in particular (ref Reed), it was probably not a revolutionary organ in any way shape or form. This is not even touching on the Admiralty, in which Brinton also charges that a 'soviet' existed. It is ludicrous to suggest that these bastions of reaction somehow gave rise to revolutionary organs of workers' control

Yet you have no problem standing up and proclaiming that the Bolsheviks "closed down" soviets mere days after the transfer of power to the soviets. Now I have been using the definition of 'soviet' (ie, Workers' and Soldiers' Soviets) uniformly accepted by both common parlance and historians. Yet when I challenged you on this point it is you who retreated into semantics by using an extremely literal definition; one that, as noted above, would include the Sovnarkom and a host of openly reactionary White bodies!

Yet you have no qualms in using such a ridiculously broad definition to answer an honest question from the OP and then to accuse me of wordplay

[Die Neue Zeit]

When you strip the phrase to its bare translation (ie, include any and all councils/committees), as you and Brinton have done, then it becomes absolutely meaningless and, I repeat, nothing short of dishonest. Do you also accept that the All-Russian Committee for the Salvation of the Homeland and the Revolution was similarly a "soviet"? What about the Black Hundreds and other reactionary cliques? Do you think that the OP meant either of these when he spoke of bodies that gave "a voice to the average worker"?

[Edit: Not to mention the Sovnarkom- Совет народных коммиссаров. You accept that this was also a soviet?]

Did you read Macnair's critique of "all power to the soviets"? Only this bourgeois cabinet equivalent could have coordinated the civil war effort, among other government functions, because it expressed the rule of political parties.