russian civil war (osterns)

[Ramidel]

No idea where he got that one.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Michele

The red army lost the war?

Looking at the context he may mean the white army - who were better organised and better trained in most cases but were out manned and out produced pretty much everywhere.

[smurf]

The red army lost the war?

Looking at the context he may mean the white army - who were better organised and better trained in most cases but were out manned and out produced pretty much everywhere.

No, I mean lost.

The red army won many battles and defeated all those before it, but to win the battles and to remain contained within Russian borders they lost the war.

The best fighters we killed, the working class was decimated, what was a screwed economy in 1918 (much less than it was in 1913) the 'civil war' took another toll on it. The economy was shattered, those leading the revolution had died or dispersed. Counter revolutionaries set about in turning back the October gains. There was a massive amount of gains in 1917 and by the time Stalin arrives ie the period of 1924 the rise to power by 1928 the revolution was killed off. It existed only in name, a deferred cult of celebrity.

The red army of empowerment (not saying they were perfect) became the army of repression.

The right opposition of Bukharin lead the idea of socialism in one country, the left opposition challenged it, ie Trotsky and co. But by 1926 Stalin made it policy this also influenced the 1927 Chinese revolution and destined it to failure (with a whole host of disasterous stratergies from United Fronts being replaced by Popular Fronts).

Basically the red army was first filled with volunteers to fight, they were ideological. Strain set in and conscription set in. This is double sided.
Some low ranking officers kept their positions for their expertise, often they would dessert and hence the 'comissar' was introduced to ensure the officer was not leading the men astray.

Eventually the toll of war meant that the army lost it's ideological thought.

Therefore, does anyone in the red army uniform make him a red army soldier. No.

Seriously the subject stems back to the early 20th century (circa 1901) and ends with failure circa 1930 (albeit the final last 5 years are simply laying the death nails on the coffin lid of revolution being hammered down). It's a massive subject and has many sides, similar to:

Dutch Revolt 1599
English Revolution 1642-60
American Revolution 1776-1783
French Revolution 1789-99 and the war afterwards was its continuation
Belgium Revolution 1830
2nd American Revolution 1861-65
Meiji Restoration 1862-69
German Unification 1871
Italian Unification 1871
Paris Commue 1871
Russian Revolutions 1905, and 2 in 1917

This is not counting all the failed ones 1848 and 1910 etc etc

The list is quite long, I really could go on naming revolts here there and everywhere.

[Ramidel]

Honestly, if you're going to say that, then you're pretty much saying that the Red Army set itself up to lose in the long run -from its first conception-. This is, by the way, inherent in any movement that actually takes the Communist Manifesto seriously.

Remember,

"Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production."

Or in other words, Stalinism is an inherent and necessary part of any Marxist revolution. The Red Army fought for Stalinism, the good and the bad parts of it, and Stalin was the truest exemplar of Marxism in the Bolshevik leadership. (It was Lenin and Trotsky who respectively tried to slow the juggernaut.)

The actual failure mode of the Revolution came about as a result of the reaction to Stalinism, mainly in the rise of the apparatchiks. In short, the goal the Army was fighting for was itself the seed of its own subversion.

Oh, and as for socialism-in-one-country, that was actually more a result of World War I than the Russian Civil War. Russia's back had been broken by then, and America was far too strong for Russia to defeat if it had come to war. So don't blame the Red Army for the failure of the revolutions in Western Europe, or elsewhere.

Nice reading, but remember to check the source material before you pass judgement on whether the Red Army got what it wanted.

*Official Soviet terminology, not Marxist-movement terminology.

[Xenarthral]

Originally Posted by Ramidel

So don't blame the Red Army for the failure of the revolutions in Western Europe, or elsewhere.

I thought it was more a "the revolution eats its young"/"the ones who
benefit in the end are not those who fought or their lofty ideals"-thing
rather than "failure to spread the revolution beyond Russia/the soon-to-be
Soviet Union means the reds lost".

Note the list of other examples.
(The second American revolution?)

[Ramidel]

He was referring to the Civil War. (Which was significantly dissimilar to the socialist-inspired revolutions; it was a -reactionary- rebellion.)

'nyway: "failure to spread the revolution outside of Russia" is, according to most Marxists, incontrovertible evidence of the revolution's failure; it's a tenet of classical Marxism that the only successful revolution is a global one.

The revolution eating its own, as I pointed out, wasn't a failure of the revolution by any means, but a part of the attainment of the Revolution's goals. After all, when the revolution's young realized that what they had wasn't what they'd wanted, of course they would prove to have reactionary tendencies and need to be forcibly expunged.

[Xenarthral]

Originally Posted by Ramidel

He was referring to the Civil War.

I know, it's just that it's the first time I've seen it called that.
And that it stands out even among the rest. (Mainly because of the
alternative name.)

The Meiji restoration or the German unification are hardly examples of
socialist-inspired revolutions BUT I guess they work as examples of "victories
that carry the seed to their own destruction" or something like that.
It certainly doesn't look like a list of "revolutions that failed because they
failed to spread revolution outside their borders".

The revolution eating its own, as I pointed out, wasn't a failure of the revolution by any means, but a part of the attainment of the Revolution's goals. After all, when the revolution's young realized that what they had wasn't what they'd wanted, of course they would prove to have reactionary tendencies and need to be forcibly expunged.

Except that, if I remember correctly, the statement originally referred to the
French revolution, more specifically, I believe, when they started
denouncing and executing each other as enemies of the revolution.
Nothing specifically Marxist/Socialist/Communist about it.

Although, I expect that Smurf will further clarify eventually.

[smurf]

That's a lot of work, and I don't like treatising on message boards.

Or in other words, Stalinism is an inherent and necessary part of any Marxist revolution. The Red Army fought for Stalinism, the good and the bad parts of it, and Stalin was the truest exemplar of Marxism in the Bolshevik leadership. (It was Lenin and Trotsky who respectively tried to slow the juggernaut.)

Here I disagree, this is the revisionist camp. Basically you can sum up the views in four ways with 1917

Revo. Good - USSR Good - Fourth International and Stalinist view
Revo. Bad - USSR Bad - Liberal/conservative view
Revo. Good - USSR Bad - Cliffite view, or International Socialist Tendency (there were others)
Revo. Bad - USSR Good - Fabian view, rather strange but they did up hold it at one stage.

As I said the subject is really too big for these boards.

[smurf]

I thought it was more a "the revolution eats its young"/"the ones who
benefit in the end are not those who fought or their lofty ideals"-thing
rather than "failure to spread the revolution beyond Russia/the soon-to-be
Soviet Union means the reds lost".

Note the list of other examples.
(The second American revolution?)

The red army is not to blame for the failure of other revolutions.

And the other two points I would agree with.

[smurf]

He was referring to the Civil War. (Which was significantly dissimilar to the socialist-inspired revolutions; it was a -reactionary- rebellion.)

'nyway: "failure to spread the revolution outside of Russia" is, according to most Marxists, incontrovertible evidence of the revolution's failure; it's a tenet of classical Marxism that the only successful revolution is a global one.

The revolution eating its own, as I pointed out, wasn't a failure of the revolution by any means, but a part of the attainment of the Revolution's goals. After all, when the revolution's young realized that what they had wasn't what they'd wanted, of course they would prove to have reactionary tendencies and need to be forcibly expunged.

The Civil war was about stemming the tide of revolution. The White armies hadn't a chance without outside help.

I agree with the second paragraph.

I would sumarise the third paragraph like this:

The material conditions for the socialist revolution were destroyed and in doing so desparate attempts to recreate those conditions were implemented. The civil war, although not beating the red army, strangled the revolution at birth.

Stalin's industrialistation was like the British Industrial revolution. Instead of 150 years it was done in 10 years IMO. The motive was profit, the goal was productivity and people were not a concern.