5 thoughts on “Seminar Three – A Red Spectre is Haunting Europe”
Hi,
I would agree the reading of the first article was more complex than the latter as I also had little knowledge of the Russian Empire prior to reading both articles. The first reading attributes the success of the Bolsheviks to their support for the peasants, their non-participation with the government and land reform, a point Bethany has made, but also a point in which I must agree with based on the readings. The second article highlights 1919 as a year of extreme importance due to the revolts and protests which took place across a broad expanse of Europe. This contributed to the idea of a worldwide revolution. The author argues that the war contributed to advanced national ideologies and the mobilisation of society due to the wars impact, which again is a point made by the author which I support.
Both sources touch upon the problems associated with dual-authority, predominantly source 1, whilst also discussing how unrest and uprisings were handled across Europe, whilst avoiding an advanced revolution.
Rhys
Thanks, Bethany, for this good overview of both readings and also to Rhys for starting the discussion. I appreciate that book chapters can be more difficult to get into as they lack the introductory aspects we see in journal articles and tend to dive deeper into the material. I thought that Eley provided a decent crash-course overview of Russia that would be useful.
It seems that what both of you are taking away from the readings is an emphasis on contingency and the situated created by the war in providing the conditions for revolution (which is of course a long way from the scientific Marxism that much of the left claimed to follow). I wonder what we think the relationship between revolution and war is is in this period. The importance of authority is also interesting. From a Spanish perspective, what is often crucial to explaining regime change is the position of the military to authority: regime change/collapse depends on the support of the military for either side. I wonder if this can help us understand this period as well.
What did the rest of you think of these readings?
Hi,
I think the thing that struck me most from the readings was Eley’s chapter on the Russian Revolution, having never studied it before. It was interesting to read the extent to which the revolution was about infighting and differing ideology within the socialist movement, with moderate socialists and Menshiviks being swamped by the Bolsheviks ability to channel popular radicalisation. As Bethany points out, the two sources contrast the successful revolution in Russia with the more chaotic and eventually failed attempts in more advanced European territories after World War One.
I was previously aware of the fear of the ‘Red Terror’ across Europe at the time but did not realise how essential sympathetic revolution was to Lenin’s aims. It seems that the moderate socialists assertion that revolution cannot be borne from scarcity was proved correct.
Hello
I think one key factor I took from the reading was how prominent nationalism appeared to be within the revolutions throughout Europe. I wonder if it was the First World War and fighting for their country that enabled Lenin and his communist ideas to take such a hold within Russia which then turned into a class struggle rather than a nationalist one, I may be wrong. Also, in the 1919 article it suggests that in other parts of Europe strikes broke out as a result of communist ideas coming from Russia which resulted in government reform or policy reforms rather than a revolution which seemed to be due to the strong capitalist government along with support from the military – both of which were absent in Russia. Fayet also gives the example of Friedrick Ebert who signed an agreement with the army, trade unions and employers to guarantee the “continuity of the old social structure” and the military hierarchy. To answer Matt’s question, it seems to me support from the military and their compliance with the government is key to halt any revolutionary objectives.
Siobhan
It’s important to remember, of course, that Eley’s is only one interpretation. I think we could argue that he places too much emphasis on the importance of the Menshevik and Bolshevik split. Indeed, the Social Revolutionaries are often neglected despite their importance in this period. There is perhaps too much discussion of parties anyway, given his emphasis on social polarisation.
The relationship between nationalism and Communism is a thorny one. In theory, Communism sought to overcome national differences, yet it also fuelled anti colonial nationalism and some of these episodes, e.g. in Hungary, also had strong nationalistic aspects to them. (As a side note, C20 Communism was often quite effective at managing nationalism, like in Yugoslavia under Tito or in the USSR). I do think we have to be careful when discussing the strength of capitalism and governance in this period. Germany goes through several phases, from a mini-boom in spring 1919 to rampant inflation later.
Hi,
I would agree the reading of the first article was more complex than the latter as I also had little knowledge of the Russian Empire prior to reading both articles. The first reading attributes the success of the Bolsheviks to their support for the peasants, their non-participation with the government and land reform, a point Bethany has made, but also a point in which I must agree with based on the readings. The second article highlights 1919 as a year of extreme importance due to the revolts and protests which took place across a broad expanse of Europe. This contributed to the idea of a worldwide revolution. The author argues that the war contributed to advanced national ideologies and the mobilisation of society due to the wars impact, which again is a point made by the author which I support.
Both sources touch upon the problems associated with dual-authority, predominantly source 1, whilst also discussing how unrest and uprisings were handled across Europe, whilst avoiding an advanced revolution.
Rhys
Thanks, Bethany, for this good overview of both readings and also to Rhys for starting the discussion. I appreciate that book chapters can be more difficult to get into as they lack the introductory aspects we see in journal articles and tend to dive deeper into the material. I thought that Eley provided a decent crash-course overview of Russia that would be useful.
It seems that what both of you are taking away from the readings is an emphasis on contingency and the situated created by the war in providing the conditions for revolution (which is of course a long way from the scientific Marxism that much of the left claimed to follow). I wonder what we think the relationship between revolution and war is is in this period. The importance of authority is also interesting. From a Spanish perspective, what is often crucial to explaining regime change is the position of the military to authority: regime change/collapse depends on the support of the military for either side. I wonder if this can help us understand this period as well.
What did the rest of you think of these readings?
Hi,
I think the thing that struck me most from the readings was Eley’s chapter on the Russian Revolution, having never studied it before. It was interesting to read the extent to which the revolution was about infighting and differing ideology within the socialist movement, with moderate socialists and Menshiviks being swamped by the Bolsheviks ability to channel popular radicalisation. As Bethany points out, the two sources contrast the successful revolution in Russia with the more chaotic and eventually failed attempts in more advanced European territories after World War One.
I was previously aware of the fear of the ‘Red Terror’ across Europe at the time but did not realise how essential sympathetic revolution was to Lenin’s aims. It seems that the moderate socialists assertion that revolution cannot be borne from scarcity was proved correct.
Hello
I think one key factor I took from the reading was how prominent nationalism appeared to be within the revolutions throughout Europe. I wonder if it was the First World War and fighting for their country that enabled Lenin and his communist ideas to take such a hold within Russia which then turned into a class struggle rather than a nationalist one, I may be wrong. Also, in the 1919 article it suggests that in other parts of Europe strikes broke out as a result of communist ideas coming from Russia which resulted in government reform or policy reforms rather than a revolution which seemed to be due to the strong capitalist government along with support from the military – both of which were absent in Russia. Fayet also gives the example of Friedrick Ebert who signed an agreement with the army, trade unions and employers to guarantee the “continuity of the old social structure” and the military hierarchy. To answer Matt’s question, it seems to me support from the military and their compliance with the government is key to halt any revolutionary objectives.
Siobhan
It’s important to remember, of course, that Eley’s is only one interpretation. I think we could argue that he places too much emphasis on the importance of the Menshevik and Bolshevik split. Indeed, the Social Revolutionaries are often neglected despite their importance in this period. There is perhaps too much discussion of parties anyway, given his emphasis on social polarisation.
The relationship between nationalism and Communism is a thorny one. In theory, Communism sought to overcome national differences, yet it also fuelled anti colonial nationalism and some of these episodes, e.g. in Hungary, also had strong nationalistic aspects to them. (As a side note, C20 Communism was often quite effective at managing nationalism, like in Yugoslavia under Tito or in the USSR). I do think we have to be careful when discussing the strength of capitalism and governance in this period. Germany goes through several phases, from a mini-boom in spring 1919 to rampant inflation later.