Russian Revolution paid by German Imperial State

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 20 2007 13:49

sounds interesting, thanks!

Black Flag
Offline
Joined: 26-04-06
Dec 20 2007 13:58

Wierd isn't it ,that Hitler was so anti-communist/marxist but the people he admired and respected so much (the german aristocracy) sent Lenin into Russia.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 20 2007 14:20

The sealed train stuff is well known - anything else I've only really seen on conspiracy-ish sites - would be nice to see a translation of this at some point (or it might get republished in English later I guess anyway). Would be interested to know if Der Spiegel goes into any detail about Brest Litovsk.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Dec 23 2007 23:02

actually it is no secret Kurasje... If you check the life of Helphand Parvus you will see the reality. A former socialist selling himself to state... trying to convince lenin to his plans etc..

But it is also known that Lenin did not agree with Parvus's plans and remained loyal to internationalism...

There is a turkish book which is translated from german that I can recommend. It is titled as "Freibeuter Der Revolution" by Winfried B Scharlau - Zbynek A. Zeman.

It is a serious historical work and there are lots of detailed documented information about german state's relation with parvus and his attempts to buy Lenin -also every socialist he think he can-

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 24 2007 00:38

Mikail, as you imply this one is as old as the revolution and what a surprise it has surfaced at the time of the anniversary of 1917. The international ruling class will never tire of trying to drag the Russian working class' (i.e., they were all stupid ignorant saps of the wicked Bolsheviks) and the rest of the working classes great historical effort to overthrow there bloody system through the mud: what else can they do? Say yes the working class shook our rule and showed they were not the mindless mass that we tried to make them look like!
Trotsky deals with the efforts of the German state to use the Bolsheviks to their own ends in the History of the Russian Revolution. Throughout 1917 and after the Russian bourgeoisie accused the Bolsheviks of being in the pay of the Germans. If I remember correctly after the defeat of the July Days, a pogrom atmosphere was whipped up around this question and some Bolsheviks were lynched and leading members of the Party had to go into hiding.
Ah well if only the Russian proletariat had trusted their exploiters and not got any dammed stupid and fancy ideas about getting rid of capitalism, stopping the war etc, everything would have been fine and dandy.
And if it is not the Germans behind the Bolsheviks it is the 'international jewish conspiracy'!

Feighnt
Offline
Joined: 20-07-06
Dec 25 2007 01:08
ernie wrote:
Ah well if only the Russian proletariat had trusted their exploiters and not got any dammed stupid and fancy ideas about getting rid of capitalism, stopping the war etc, everything would have been fine and dandy.

could be that if they hadnt been supported so nicely by germany the people might've looked towards... *ahem* other revolutionary paths. neutral

afterall, the people supported the bolsheviks partly because they said what they wanted (which was also what the Anarchists said) and because they were able to get things done... wonder if that money from germany had anything to do with that?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 28 2007 21:32
Quote:
And if it is not the Germans behind the Bolsheviks it is the 'international jewish conspiracy'!

Don't forget the Illuminati.... oh wait they're the same as the international bankers/jews...

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 29 2007 00:22
ernie wrote:
Mikail, as you imply this one is as old as the revolution and what a surprise it has surfaced at the time of the anniversary of 1917. The international ruling class will never tire of trying to drag the Russian working class' (i.e., they were all stupid ignorant saps of the wicked Bolsheviks) and the rest of the working classes great historical effort to overthrow there bloody system through the mud: what else can they do? Say yes the working class shook our rule and showed they were not the mindless mass that we tried to make them look like!
Trotsky deals with the efforts of the German state to use the Bolsheviks to their own ends in the History of the Russian Revolution.

This is the same Trotsky that signed away the Baltic states, Finland etc. to German imperialism at Brest Litovsk right?

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Dec 29 2007 01:08
Mike Harman wrote:
This is the same Trotsky that signed away the Baltic states, Finland etc. to German imperialism at Brest Litovsk right?

"The revolution will not be lost simply because we will be giving the Germans Finland, Latvia and Estonia" - Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, pp. 522, 523.
http://libcom.org/library/proletaria-democratic-revolution-finland-victor-serge
http://libcom.org/library/nationalities-question-in-the-russian-revolution-luxemburg

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Dec 29 2007 01:31

This trotsky also struggled as a militant for socialism in whole his life. I do not agree him in most basic positions however I know that behind his efforts as a militant there is nothing but the belief for socialism.

If you read John Reed "10 days that shook the world" you can learn more about his position in the revolution.

About Brest Litovsk; I also think that it was a turning point opening the way for defeat by giving away a very important part of "russia" to the german imperialism. However that does not mean that trotsky was an agent of germany. On the contrary if you just check Isac Deutscher biography on Trotsky you can see that Trotsky position was trying to delay the signing of the agreement. Lenin was in favour of and Left wing (bukhrain, radek etc) was against.

However the situation was so serious that Trotsky somehow forced to sign. There were no real standing army in the western front of russia and the red army has not yet been built. Moreover whites were gathering together their armies and a civil war was not very far... This was the conditions when the brest was signed.

If you ask my personal opinion I think bukharin's left wing was the most coherent since he argued that a red army could only be built in actual struugle. But lenin had also a point saying that soviets needs a breathing time.

anyway signing of brest litovsk does not prove that trotsky or lenin were agents of germany. Actually in order that to happen whole bolsheviks had to be agents since the party organs were the last decision takers on each position of the party. In most cases -for instance on brest litovsk- lenins position was for a long time minority and trotsky hesitated long to take his decision. What I meant to say is that it was soviets, workers and soldiers who wanted and needed peace and the decision was not simply lenin's or trotsky's

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Dec 29 2007 02:06

Also it should be thought about discussing on this that, whole discussion on Brest-litovsk inside the party was happened with an expectation of revolution in Germany. Probably that was one of the reaseons why Trotsky wanted to delay as long as possible the signing of Brest-litovsk.

He also took up the rights of nations self determination as a basis of discussion with german state... This position was a failure and the case ukraine taken up against the soviets in the discussion period in Brest-Litovsk contiously.

severin
Offline
Joined: 9-10-07
Dec 29 2007 02:12

in this day and age the idea of anyone apologizing for or qualifying the actions of trotsky or lenin is farcical and absurd.

if you ask me that icepick came way too late. motherfuck the both of them with a pointed stick.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Dec 29 2007 02:35

what is farcical is your conception of history severin. Trotsky or Lenin were neithers angels nor devils. The movement carry them to a position since they best expressed something for their class. I do not deny that Trotsky and Lenin were betraying the revolution for instnance in Kronstadt. However degeneration of a revolution is beyond the individual decisions. It was world revolution only that could save the fate of russian revolution. In the absence of a eorld revolution the limitedness of bolsheviks turned into a tragedy...

severin
Offline
Joined: 9-10-07
Dec 29 2007 02:40

the rot started long before Kronstadt, bro.

there is no argument here, i'll let it go.

dave c
Offline
Joined: 4-09-07
Dec 29 2007 02:52

This thread was one of the better ones with regard to Lenin/Trotsky: http://libcom.org/forums/history/russian-revolution-october-1917-19092007

severin
Offline
Joined: 9-10-07
Dec 29 2007 02:56

the Solidarity pamphlet "Bolsheviks and Workers Control" pretty much covers it, very well researched

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 29 2007 07:09
severin wrote:
the rot started long before Kronstadt, bro.
...the Solidarity pamphlet "Bolsheviks and Workers Control" pretty much covers it, very well researched

If you have read it then, you will know that the political tendency of which Mikail is a part were warning about the dangers of state capitalism in 1918.

severin wrote:
in this day and age the idea of anyone apologizing for or qualifying the actions of trotsky or lenin is farcical and absurd.

if you ask me that icepick came way too late. motherfuck the both of them with a pointed stick.

Applauding the actions of state assassins is pretty shocking.

Devrim

severin
Offline
Joined: 9-10-07
Dec 29 2007 07:17
Quote:
Applauding the actions of state assassins is pretty shocking.

What goes around, comes around.

And the 'warnings' of 'political tendencies' are not action. Just talk.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 29 2007 09:00
severin wrote:
Quote:
Applauding the actions of state assassins is pretty shocking.

What goes around, comes around.

It is still a pretty horrific attitude. At the moment, I am not weeping many tears for the death of Bhutto. There is a difference between that and applauding the actions of her assassins. Basically, you are applauding the actions of the same state killers who murdered militant workers in Spain.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 29 2007 09:01
severin wrote:
And the 'warnings' of 'political tendencies' are not action. Just talk.

Yes, of course it was just talk, but to put it in context, it was part of a huge argument that was going on within the working class, and within its organisations. It was that sort of 'just talk'.

Devrim

severin
Offline
Joined: 9-10-07
Dec 29 2007 09:21
Quote:
Basically, you are applauding the actions of the same state killers who murdered militant workers in Spain.

I don't think there is any comparison. At all. In fact I will say flatly that that is a ludicrous assertion.

Trotsky bought his death a thousand times over. The Kronsdadt? The disciplinary decimation of the Red Army? The betrayal of the Makhnovitschi and subsequent rape of the Ukraine?

Just once, a scheming opportunistic politician who can sit back and sign off on the deaths of untold scores of workers without having the balls to pull a single trigger himself gets it...it was a divine thing, a beautiful thing. Regardless of where it came from. The 'chickens coming home to roost' as we say...

And you don't 'argue' and bandy about politics with a dictatorial pseudo-revolutionary party that is crushing the autonomy of working class organs and promoting counter-revolution...you get to the fucking barricades, talk is cheap. You have to make that example. I'm not saying that to sound 'tough'..it is exactly where I would have stood.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 29 2007 10:25
mikail firtinaci wrote:
About Brest Litovsk; I also think that it was a turning point opening the way for defeat by giving away a very important part of "russia" to the german imperialism. However that does not mean that trotsky was an agent of germany. On the contrary if you just check Isac Deutscher biography on Trotsky you can see that Trotsky position was trying to delay the signing of the agreement. Lenin was in favour of and Left wing (bukhrain, radek etc) was against.

Yes, I don't think much of Lenin either.

mikail firtinaci wrote:
However the situation was so serious that Trotsky somehow forced to sign. There were no real standing army in the western front of russia and the red army has not yet been built. Moreover whites were gathering together their armies and a civil war was not very far... This was the conditions when the brest was signed.

I think the basic question here is why was anyone negotiating terms with the German ruling class at all?

Quote:
But lenin had also a point saying that soviets needs a breathing time.

I think you need to read that sentence again.

Quote:
What I meant to say is that it was soviets, workers and soldiers who wanted and needed peace and the decision was not simply lenin's or trotsky's

Including the workers in Finland, Latvia and elsewhere? Oh sorry I forgot. They were just excercising their right to national self-determination...

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 29 2007 10:41
mikail firtinaci wrote:
what is farcical is your conception of history severin. Trotsky or Lenin were neithers angels nor devils. The movement carry them to a position since they best expressed something for their class. I do not deny that Trotsky and Lenin were betraying the revolution for instnance in Kronstadt. However degeneration of a revolution is beyond the individual decisions. It was world revolution only that could save the fate of russian revolution. In the absence of a eorld revolution the limitedness of bolsheviks turned into a tragedy...

I don't argue that they were devils, however I do argue that their politics and decisions were complete shite - never making a break from Social Democracy in any meaningful sense. There's a difference between not putting the entire failure of the Russian Revolution down to two people, and excusing their actions on the basis that "it would've gone wrong anyway". Not to mention the specific way in which it went wrong created one of the greater barriers to revolution for some time afterwards - and that lands entirely on Lenin and Trotksy for conflating State Capitalism and socialism so enthusiastically both before and after the revolution.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 29 2007 10:56
severin wrote:
Quote:
Basically, you are applauding the actions of the same state killers who murdered militant workers in Spain.

I don't think there is any comparison. At all. In fact I will say flatly that that is a ludicrous assertion.

The GPU killed Trotsky. They were also responsible for killing militant workers in Spain. Trotsky was killed by the same organisation as militants in Spain. That is not 'a ludicrous accusation'. It is a fact.

severin wrote:
Trotsky bought his death a thousand times over. The Kronsdadt? The disciplinary decimation of the Red Army? The betrayal of the Makhnovitschi and subsequent rape of the Ukraine?

Just once, a scheming opportunistic politician who can sit back and sign off on the deaths of untold scores of workers without having the balls to pull a single trigger himself gets it...it was a divine thing, a beautiful thing. Regardless of where it came from. The 'chickens coming home to roost' as we say...

Read my post again. There is no defence of Trotsky. Clearly Trotsky was on the wrong side of the class line at Krondstadt. Yet that doesn't mean that we applaud the actions of state terrorists.

severin wrote:
And you don't 'argue' and bandy about politics with a dictatorial pseudo-revolutionary party that is crushing the autonomy of working class organs and promoting counter-revolution...you get to the fucking barricades, talk is cheap. You have to make that example. I'm not saying that to sound 'tough'..it is exactly where I would have stood.

So what you are suggesting is that the left communists shouldn't have argued for their politics in the Soviets. Do you think that the should have organised a coup instead like the left SRs? The Workers Group of the RCP(B) for example were involved in workers' struggles against capital, and the state, and most of them ended up dying in the camps. Was their talk cheap too.

Devrim

severin
Offline
Joined: 9-10-07
Dec 29 2007 11:22

Trotsky's murder: pure karma. Do I applaud it? No, i think it is fucking hysterical. Wickedly funny.

Execution of Spanish militants: awful.

Same agency, separate acts. I do not applaud the latter. So the assertion is still incorrect. "Amalgam technique".

I really don't give a shit for Trotsky, who from or why he got it. You'll get no nuanced argument from me, I think it is purely sublime.

I think that if the working class is being repressed with force, then that repression must be met with force in kind. Period. Not talk. There is no grey line, you don't argue about such things. That's all I am saying.

I do not pretend to know as much of the history as you but I am motivated to learn now. Odds are i will retain the same opinion.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 29 2007 11:47
Devrim wrote:
severin wrote:
Quote:
Basically, you are applauding the actions of the same state killers who murdered militant workers in Spain.

I don't think there is any comparison. At all. In fact I will say flatly that that is a ludicrous assertion.

The GPU killed Trotsky. They were also responsible for killing militant workers in Spain. Trotsky was killed by the same organisation as militants in Spain. That is not 'a ludicrous accusation'. It is a fact.

It's also a fact that Trotsky used the Cheka (later OGPU, then GPU) against deserters while head of the Red Army, then later at Kronstadt. I'm not aware of the role of Spanish wrkers in the formation of the Cheka during December 1917 however.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Dec 29 2007 14:04
Quote:
Including the workers in Finland, Latvia and elsewhere? Oh sorry I forgot. They were just excercising their right to national self-determination...

no I agree with you. As the articles shows rights of the nations for self determination as a principle was counter-revolutionlary. So I do not say that this was ok.

What I just try to say that Lenin's and Trotsky's weaknesses were only the expressions of the weaknesses of the russian bolsheviks. Onyl an international revolution could save these turning into a defeat.

Quote:
I think the basic question here is why was anyone negotiating terms with the German ruling class at all?

I understand your point. Yes I also think that revolutionaries can not sit on a table to negotiate with imperialism. I can not say anything against it. However sometimes the issue might not be choosing to do it. The history of Brest-litovsk agreement is really like a farce. Radek (he was a member of the russian delegation) when they arrived to germany distributed openly propaganda leaflets to german soldiers in every train station just in front of their generals... What trotsky probably expected was to turn the brest-litovsk into propaganda ground. At least Deutcher's claim is this. Deutcher argues that all trotsky's speeches shows that kind of an intention.

I still argue that Lenin's and Trotsky's weaknesses and counter revolutionary actions can not explain the defeat by themselves. Because if otherwise that means to say that individual's positions can determine history! Which is a burgeoisie approach.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 29 2007 18:29
Mike Harman wrote:
It's also a fact that Trotsky used the Cheka (later OGPU, then GPU) against deserters while head of the Red Army, then later at Kronstadt. I'm not aware of the role of Spanish wrkers in the formation of the Cheka during December 1917 however.

I don't think that this is really relevant. My point is that we don't cheer on state assassins. If Islamicists assassinated Blair tomorrow, would we be romantacising about he beauty of their 'hit'?

Devrim

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Dec 29 2007 20:51
Devrim wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
It's also a fact that Trotsky used the Cheka (later OGPU, then GPU) against deserters while head of the Red Army, then later at Kronstadt. I'm not aware of the role of Spanish wrkers in the formation of the Cheka during December 1917 however.

I don't think that this is really relevant.

Well I think Trotsky getting assassinated by an agent of the secret police service which he was instrumental in creating (and made good use of at a far more critical time in history than the time of his assassination) is relevant to the subject of his assassination to be honest - given the romanticisation of him by Trotskyists the world over.

Quote:
My point is that we don't cheer on state assassins.

This I agree with.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 30 2007 14:03

Interesting thread Anarchist supporting the actions of the Stalinist and bourgeois appartus of terror.! As Dervim and Mikail have argued this is what it amounts to. None of those celebrating this act of state repession, have asked why Stalin wanted to kill Trotsky? Was it simply personal hatred? or was it because for many workers and revolutinaries Trotsky was the embodiment of the world revolution and as such the position he took on the coming war would have had an important impact. Those who hate Trotsky may not want to admit it but this was the case. Thus, those supporting the murder of Trotsky are supporting the bourgeoisie's efforts to silence a potenital internationalist voice against the international imperialist slaughter that was unfolding at the time and thus the ability of the ruling class to mobilse the working class for the war.

Trotsky's position of the defense of the USSR was clearly not an internationalist position but the indications are that he was questioning this position, but it was more for what he stood for in the eyes of many workers and revolutionaries rather than his actual position that the bourgeoisie killed him for.

The Italian Left drew the lesson from the experience of the red terror and Kronstadt that it is vital to reject all use of violence within the working class.

It should also not be forgotten that the Cheka was under the control of the Soviets (at least initially) and in St Peterbourg up until at least 1919 there was a vigorous public discussion in the press about the role of the Cheka. There was also plently of opposition from within the Bolsheviks to the use of the Cheka against the class.

As for the use of terror against the class, the Anarchist did not show much hesitation in using this either: for example the blowing up of the headquaters of the Communist Party in 1919.

In relation to the Brest treaty this was voted on by the Soviets, not simply by the Bolshevik party. If I remember rightly the Urals soviet was still maintaining a vote against the treaty into the early 1920's.

To get back to the initial idea of this thread: that the bolsheviks were in the pay of German imperialism. Mikail has already dealt with the historical evidence for this. The arguement of those who support this idea has 'forgotten' one very important historical fact: the Bolsheviks were internationalists and did all they could to help promote revolution in Germany and to support the German Revolution when it broke out. The foundation of Lenin's push for the insurrection in November 1917 was that the revolution was about to break out in Germany and else where: strange behaviour for someone in the pay of German imperialism.