[Marxism] National liberation and Bolshevism reexamined: A view from the borderlands,

Dayne Goodwin daynegoodwin at gmail.com
Wed May 21 13:22:09 MDT 2014


didn't this article Louis shared in his May 5 message "the unknown
revolution: ukraine 1917-21 | the commune" -

the unknown revolution: ukraine 1917-21 by Chris Ford
<http://thecommune.co.uk/2010/02/23/the-unknown-revolution-ukraine-1917-21>

- explicitly tell the story of how the Bolsheviks opposed and split
the indigenous Ukraine revolutionary socialists over loyalty to the
centralized authority of the Bolshevik party in Moscow?  (i don't have
time to re-read it now)


On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Pollack <acpollack2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's as may be. But then why did none of these other parties in the
> borderlands, which Eric says were so advanced politically on both class and
> nation, and so big, why did none of them lead a revolution in their own
> nation?
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:27 AM, DW <dwaltersmia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric's is actually arguing the opposite of what Andy says. Eric argued
> > that the Bolsheviks were key to leading socialist revolutions, but that
> > their weakness on the national question and in the borderlands
> > prevented them from doing so in the non-Russian areas.
> >
> > You need to think about this. The Red Army brought victory for the
> > USSR by 1921...but the Bolsheviks didn't "lead" any such
> > revolution...it was militarily imposed on the border lands of the now,
> > USSR. The Bolsheviks *failed* to lead a revolution there because they
> > were ethnically divided and ghettoized from the masses of peasants and
> > others who were not Russian. This is not a 'what if' scenario but an
> > assessment of the *failure* of the Bolsheviks national policies.



More information about the Marxism mailing list