The German Revolution of 1918

[goalkeeper]

Now, i assumed all Marxists viewed this revolution as essentially a failed socialist revolution. Workers councils formed, took control in some areas of Germany etc, but the revolution ultimately was defeated.

However I was reading on the East German historiography of the era, and according to the GDR it in fact was not a socialist revolution but a "bourgeois democratic revolution" but fought with proletarian methods. The revolutions essential task was creating the groundwork for the forming of the KPD, as without such a party there could be no revolution.

Now this all sounds like complete hogwash and a deeply politicised historiographical view; the GDR state could not allow for the idea revolutionary activity independent of and not under the command of The Party.

Would anyone care to defend this view from the official GDR history? It seems ridiculous to state that Germany in 1918 could undergo a "bourgeois-democratic" revolution

[Brutus]

It's typical of Stalinists to denounce revolutions that aren't theirs as bourgeois-democratic. Due to it being the workers leading the revolution, not the KPD, it was bourgeois-democratic.

[Conscript]

Wow, and I thought the idea of progressive, 'anti imperialist' bourgeois nationalism in china and other less developed was stalinism's signature revision.

But really, a bourgeois democratic revolution in germany? A state that practiced a kind of capitalism Lenin thought would suit russia's immediate needs, which were derived from the fact russia didn't have a bourgeois democratic revolution.

This is why communists shouldn't be too attached to revolutionary states. It morphs marxism as the communists desperately try to find a place for them in marxism's analysis without concluding its capitalist. Too bad if you do otherwise those fools accuse you of sectarianism and 'third campism'.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Now, i assumed all Marxists viewed this revolution as essentially a failed socialist revolution.
Failed? I would prefer the word "sabotaged".

[Thirsty Crow]

But really, a bourgeois democratic revolution in germany? A state that practiced a kind of capitalism Lenin thought would suit russia's immediate needs, which were derived from the fact russia didn't have a bourgeois democratic revolution.

To sum it up very briefly: at the time, the section of the workers' movement rallied behind the idea that the junker, Prussian state, a remnant of feudalism, is the first obstacle for the development of socialism. So the Hohenzollerns had to go and leave room for a liberal-democratic state and universal suffrage. This is the root of the notion of a bourgeois democratic revolution in Germany.

[Delenda Carthago]

It's typical of Stalinists to denounce revolutions that aren't theirs as bourgeois-democratic. Due to it being the workers leading the revolution, not the KPD, it was bourgeois-democratic.
Its typical idiots to label "stalinist" anything they dont like on the Left.

[Delenda Carthago]

Now, i assumed all Marxists viewed this revolution as essentially a failed socialist revolution. Workers councils formed, took control in some areas of Germany etc, but the revolution ultimately was defeated.

However I was reading on the East German historiography of the era, and according to the GDR it in fact was not a socialist revolution but a "bourgeois democratic revolution" but fought with proletarian methods. The revolutions essential task was creating the groundwork for the forming of the KPD, as without such a party there could be no revolution.

Now this all sounds like complete hogwash and a deeply politicised historiographical view; the GDR state could not allow for the idea revolutionary activity independent of and not under the command of The Party.

Would anyone care to defend this view from the official GDR history? It seems ridiculous to state that Germany in 1918 could undergo a "bourgeois-democratic" revolution
Care to bring anything more substencial than your own word on what you read?

[Conscript]

To sum it up very briefly: at the time, the section of the workers' movement rallied behind the idea that the junker, Prussian state, a remnant of feudalism, is the first obstacle for the development of socialism. So the Hohenzollerns had to go and leave room for a liberal-democratic state and universal suffrage. This is the root of the notion of a bourgeois democratic revolution in Germany.

Does this mean the bourgeoisie was subdued by the aristocracy as it was in russia, india, china etc?

Also, it's one thing to recognize feudal leftovers, another to say a liberal democracy must follow. Wasn't this the point of october 1917, that the workers and peasants don't need to wait for a bourgeois democratic revolution, that it can and must be tied to the international socialist revolution?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Its typical idiots to label "stalinist" anything they dont like on the Left.

In other words: Its typical of TheRedAnarchist23 to label "stalinist" anything they don't like on the Left.
As far as I know I am the only one who does it here.

[Thirsty Crow]

Does this mean the bourgeoisie was subdued by the aristocracy as it was in russia, india, china etc?
No, I don't think this follows.

Most of the argument focuses on the political rights and possibilities arising from a specific state structure.


Also, it's one thing to recognize feudal leftovers, another to say a liberal democracy must follow. Wasn't this the point of october 1917, that the workers and peasants don't need to wait for a bourgeois democratic revolution, that it can and must be tied to the international socialist revolution?
Indeed. If you wondered, the position was taken up by socialdemocracy, which is indicative.

[Delenda Carthago]

In other words: Its typical of TheRedAnarchist23 to label "stalinist" anything they don't like on the Left.
As far as I know I am the only one who does it here.
Nah, no worries. Its a world-wide phenomenon. For example: Stalin himself was against the general idea of dividing Germany and turning it socialist. And that was an idea shared by Molotov and Beria(who got murdered over it). The germans did it despite that. And the Wall of Berlin was builded 9 years after his death.

What does Volkov have to say about all these? "Stalinizm". Ok.:rolleyes:

[Conscript]

No, I don't think this follows.

Most of the argument focuses on the political rights and possibilities arising from a specific state structure.

Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining.



Indeed. If you wondered, the position was taken up by socialdemocracy, which is indicative.

I thought you said the workers' movement and mentioned the development of socialism? But if it's not marxists calling for that stuff, I'm relieved. :D

[Geiseric]

The 1918 revolution was put down by the Freikorps. However there was the lack of a nationwide, organized party ready to take state power which really did it, and was the main difference between the Russian and German experiance.

[Thirsty Crow]

I thought you said the workers' movement and mentioned the development of socialism? But if it's not marxists calling for that stuff, I'm relieved. :D
Well, the fact is that a great number of workers organized in social democratic trade unions and in the party did rally behind such ideas and behind the counter-revolution, carried almost exclusively by said socialdemocracy. Any explanation of the revolution and its ultimate destruction in Germany has to account for that, and not fall into the trap of demonizing them strong counter-revolutionary leaders without any coherent foundation for their analysis, except for outrage at the supposed betrayal.

[goalkeeper]

Care to bring anything more substencial than your own word on what you read?

Sure,

Andreas Dorplan- German History in Marxist Perspective: The East German Approach
Pierre Broue- The German Revolution, 1917-1923

[Ostrinski]

Well said!This is what the Thanks! button is for, so we don't have posts like these. Try to remember that next time.

[Ostrinski]

The revolution in Germany in 1918, which cannot be isolated from the broader revolutionary effervescence of the working class in Europe, the Americas, China, and other places around the world, was one of the most advanced expressions of the world revolutionary movement of the working class of the decade or two preceding it.

Considering that Germany was one of the most advanced and industrially developed capitalist economies in the world at this point, and also considering that a constitution was drawn up the October before the revolution that introduced a parliamentary system, these claims of the revolution being a bourgeois democratic seem to either be completely false or render the term completely useless to us. How a revolution that takes place in one of the most industrially advanced nations in the world that both is led by communists and has its foundations on soviets and councils of workers, soldiers, and sailors in which the assemblies were dominated by a communist political character can be a bourgeois revolution is certainly beyond me.

I suppose the Stalinists would also have us believe that the revolutionary movement at the turn of the century which climaxed in the october 1917 revolution was a strictly Russian phenomenon - completely unaffected by world events and the communist and social democratic movement in western Europe. Or it is perhaps that the October revolution was also a bourgeois-democratic revolution. After all, it too was a revolution with its foundations on councils and soviets of workers, soldiers, and sailors and led by communists - which, apparently is the standard that we're looking for and is indeed what defines what a bourgeois revolution is, for our Stalinistfolk anyway (LOL that awkward moment when you have a bourgeois-democratic revolution that leads to the creation of a glorious socialist state in one country led by Stalin our leader with faith in the people!).

No. The German Revolution was a part of the worldwide communist movement that took place in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To say that it was a bourgeois revolution is slanderous to the workers and communists that made it happen.

[Blake's Baby]

No, the February Revolution was 'bourgeois-democratic' in that it instituted a 'liberal' government.

Germany had never had a bourgeois revolution either, it's one of the arguments one can use against 'stagism' and criticism of the Bolsheviks that Russia wasn't 'developed' enough, that no-one considered that Germany needed a bourgeois revolution. Until the East Germans had to invent one.

A better argument would be that the revolution failed because of the lack of the revolutionary party. Personally, I'd find it much harder to deal with that one.

[Sasha]

if you can read german or get your hands on a translation this youth-fiction book gives a really nice account of what happened and how the revolution impacted the lives of the ordinary Berliner;
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_roten_Matrosen

its part of the "Trilogie der Wendepunkte" all centered on the same family of avowed spartacist communists, part one "die roten matrosen" is about the 1918 revolution, part 2 ("Mit dem Rücken zur Wand") is about the rise of hitler and the defeat of the KPD, part 3 ("Der erste Frühling") is about the end of the war and the at times difficult relationship between the surviving german communists and the red army soldiers (mostly related to the mass rapes)
these books where a huge impact on my early political development when i was 12 or so.
if anything a good tip for if any of you ever need to read german fiction books for high-school or something.

[Thirsty Crow]

When we're handing reading suggestions...

http://libcom.org/history/all-power-councils-documentary-history-german-revolution-1918%E2%80%931919

This is a compilation of texts written by direct participants, along some well known Spartacist texts. The account provided by Icarus, on the Willhemshaven uprising, is especially harrowing.

People have already mentioned Broue and his German Revolution. The problem with this book is that it is almost exclusively a political history, concentrating on the developments in the established institutions of the workers' movement, and consequently does not trace the movement "from below". But it worthy to read it.

And a shorter study by Peter Rachieff:

http://libcom.org/history/working-class-activity-councils-germany-1918%E2%80%911923-peter-rachleff

[Edelweiss]

Now, i assumed all Marxists viewed this revolution as essentially a failed socialist revolution. Workers councils formed, took control in some areas of Germany etc, but the revolution ultimately was defeated.

However I was reading on the East German historiography of the era, and according to the GDR it in fact was not a socialist revolution but a "bourgeois democratic revolution" but fought with proletarian methods. The revolutions essential task was creating the groundwork for the forming of the KPD, as without such a party there could be no revolution.

Now this all sounds like complete hogwash and a deeply politicised historiographical view; the GDR state could not allow for the idea revolutionary activity independent of and not under the command of The Party.

Would anyone care to defend this view from the official GDR history? It seems ridiculous to state that Germany in 1918 could undergo a "bourgeois-democratic" revolution

Maybe you have misunderstood the historiography? I think what was seen as the successful "bourgeois democratic revolution" was the fall of the German monarchy with the "Weimar republic" as the result, without question a bourgeois-democratic state, proclaimed by the Social Democrats, but only possible in it's consistency because of the pressure of the Communist workers uprisings on the streets.

[Ostrinski]

No, the February Revolution was 'bourgeois-democratic' in that it instituted a 'liberal' government.Yes, indeed it was. Which is why I made a point of singling out the October Revolution. The point was that if by Stalinist standards (specifically the standards of the GDR's position, I have no idea what contemporary Stalinists think on the matter) the German Revolution was a bourgeois-democratic revolution, then so to was the October Revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

'German Revolution = bourgeois-democratic because not led by revolutionary party: February Revolution = bourgeois-democratic because not led by revolutionary party;
October Revolution = proletarian because led by revolutionary party'

Am I missing something here?

[Ostrinski]

Ah, I see now. I just went back and reread it.

An incredibly silly standard, though. There were soviets and councils of workers led by a communist directive and with communist political leadership in the form of the Spartacus League, which may not have been a party per se but it was still the fledgling of the KPD.