Donate to Links
Click on Links masthead to clear previous query from search box
Recent comments
- I have heard of Mansoor
2 weeks 1 day ago - Mansoor Hekmat, an Iranian Marxist
3 weeks 1 day ago - A victory of the far right in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania
3 weeks 2 days ago - Re;Cooperative miners behind violent protests that ended in the
4 weeks 4 days ago - This article by Solon seems
4 weeks 5 days ago - Was waiting for these articles
7 weeks 8 hours ago - Tom Twiss on Soviet Bureaucracy
7 weeks 22 hours ago - link is fixed
7 weeks 1 day ago - Link is broken
7 weeks 2 days ago - Thomas Twiss' Excellent Book
7 weeks 4 days ago
Our history: John Reed’s `Ten days that shook the world’
By
John Reed
Penguin
Books 351 pages
Paperback
Review by
Alex Miller
John
Reed’s classic account of the Russian Revolution of November 1917 isn’t an
attempt at large-scale dispassionate historical analysis, but an eyewitness
account of the Bolsheviks’ rise to power penned on the spot or shortly
afterwards by a sympathetic
Reed
was a founder member of the Communist Party of the
The
book certainly captures the spirit of the days leading up to and following the
revolution of November 7: it is based largely on notes that Reed personally
took at the time, on hundreds of Russian newspapers that he collected, and is
interspersed with quotes from proclamations, decrees and announcements
recovered from the walls of
Sometimes
the story has a dreamlike quality, with figures such as Lenin, Trotsky,
Zinoviev and Kamenev fleeting past Reed in the middle of the night in the
corridors of the Smolny Institute, the chaotic headquarters of the revolution.
Reed’s accounts of the many meetings and debates featuring the various
political groupings prominent at the time have an immediacy and vividness that
is hard to describe. Despite the fact that Reed was firmly on the side of the
Bolsheviks, though, this is no hagiography or fake history such as those later
put out by Stalin and his followers: Reed never stifles the voices of the
opponents of the Bolsheviks, and there are plenty of quotes from publications
and speeches from the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries. Although Reed
doesn’t hide his sympathies, readers are left to make up their own minds about
the rights and wrongs of the case.
A number of things are notable in Reed’s account of the early days of the revolution. First, Stalin’s name appears only twice in the course of the book, once in a list of People’s Commissars and once on a proclamation, and the man himself never appears in person.
* * * *
Finding this article thought-provoking and useful?
Please subscribe free at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373
Help Links stay afloat. Donate what you can by clicking here.
* * * *
Second,
the vast tasks faced by the new government. A passage from Reed’s notes on
November 8 gives a flavour: ``Smolny was tenser than ever, if that were possible. The same running men
in the dark corridors, squads of workers with rifles, leaders with bulging
portfolios arguing, explaining, giving orders as they hurried anxiously along,
surrounded by friends and lieutenants. Men literally out of themselves, living
prodigies of sleeplessness and work—men unshaven, filthy, with burning eyes,
who drove upon their fixed purpose full speed on engines of exaltation. So much
they had to do, so much! Take over the Government, organise the City, keep the
garrison loyal, fight the Duma and the Committee for Salvation, keep out the
Germans, prepare to do battle with Kerensky, inform the provinces what had
happened, propagandise from Archangel to Vladivostok … Government and Municipal
employees refusing to obey their Commissars, post and telegraph refusing them
communication, railroads stonily ignoring their appeals for trains, Kerensky
coming, the garrison not altogether to be trusted, the Cossacks waiting to come
out … Against them not only the organised bourgeoisie, but all the other
Socialist parties except the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, a few Mensheviki
Internationalists and the Social Democrat Internationalists, and even they
undecided whether to stand by or not. With them, it is true, the workers and
the soldier-masses—the peasants an unknown quantity …”
Third,
that Lenin and Trotsky – both the undisputed leaders of the revolution in
Reed’s narrative – had no dreams of constructing a totalitarian state or ``socialism
in one country’’, but were fully aware of the fact that the revolution was a
gamble whose success depended on the proletariat of
Despite
recognising the immeasurable odds against the success of the Revolution, Reed’s
book ends on an optimistic note on November 29, 1917, with the union of the
Congress of Peasants and the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. As
socialists worldwide prepare to mark the 91st anniversary of the Bolshevik
Revolution and as revolution stirs in
[Reed’s
book is available free and in full at: www.marxists.org]
Comments
Socialism in one country
I can understand that both Lenin and Trotsky and possibly even Stalin expected fully a revolution developing in Western Europe, particularly Germany. Perhaps, Lenin did not have the oppurtunity to live long enough to anticipate failure of the Western european working classes to deliver a revolution. However, both Trotsky and Stalin experienced the defeat of the revolution in Europe. In that event, Socialism in one country was not just a preferred approach to revolution or change but the only option left for the Soviet Union to proceed.
I think this religious approach to socialism in one country of the trotskyist tradition amounts to denying any possibility for change. Together with this the trotskyist approach that only the advanced working class in advanced industrial countries can bring about a revolution is akin to denying any possibility for change as I do not see any revolution brewing in the West as the working classes in these countries do not feel much need for change. Whereas the oppressed peoples in the East are fighting on a daily basis to bring about a change from Afghanistan to Somalia and even Latin America. Thanks