Bolshevism and the Russian Civil War

Hello, I’m reading up on some of the earlier events of the 20th century, particularly the origins and outbreak of the Cold war. Now, it seems to me that the origin of the Cold war had its ideological roots in the Russian Civil War. The Allied powers (the British Empire, the United States, France, etc) entered the Russian war in 1918. It seems that one reason because of this was that the Bolsheviks socialist ideas were threatening the Western governments. This is something I really can’t fully understand.
How and why did the Bolsheviks threaten the Allies? Why was the Bolshevik’s socialist ideas such a big deal? Did they simply fear that if the Bolsheviks seized power they would ally themselves with Germany? Was it impossible to try to cooperate with Lenin’s gang against Germany?


[edit on 19-8-2010 by Mahasamadhi]

reply to post by Mahasamadhi

I think there was a very real fear that Bolshevism would be imitated in other European countries.
Hungary was temporarily under the control of a government which looked similar.
There was outright fighting in Germany between communists and right-wingers.
The British government was very nervous of their own working-class, and this is suggested as the reason why they would not offer refuge to the Russian Royal family.
I'm just glancing at the biography of Churchill, and I see that he was also afraid of a Russian advance on British India if the Bolshevik "tide" swept eastwards.
It was like the French Revolution had been; nobody knew where it would stop.








[edit on 19-8-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by Mahasamadhi


Mahasamadhi - your question ties in with my recent studying of the history of socialism and I suggest that you read The Historical and International Foundations of the Socialist Equality Party for a good overview. It's available in HTML or PDF download. You don't have to agree with the party itself or even the document but I think it's a good place to start from.

I'm currently reading Trotsky's Results and Prospects (1906) which backs up the previous document and shows how the problems we face today are the same as those a century and more ago. Only the names and the quality of weapons have changed.

To my understanding, Socialism and Capitalism are like matter/anti-matter - they cannot coexist, at least not for long, as was proven by the USSR's demise. Trotsky and others maintained that the success of Socialism was dependent on permanent revolution, the complete overthrow of capitalism world-wide (or at least in Europe for starters.)

Already revolutionary movements were taking shape in major industrial nations around the world including the USA and Germany and the ruling class of these nations were well aware of the success of the Russian revolution. Socialism was a direct threat to their power and wealth and had to be stopped or at least defused before the workers parties reached sufficient strength.

As it turned out, Stalin came to the rescue of the Capitalists. After taking control of the USSR, he instigated his policy of Socialism in One Country turning the Soviet Union into a nation controlled by an elite bureaucracy instead of the proletariat. As a worldwide socialist revolution would threaten his regime, he actively undermined the socialist movements of Germany and many other nations killing off what was probably the biggest chance replacing capitalism with a system where the resource of the world would be used to the betterment of everyone, not just those with the wealth.

If you do read the sources, please let me know your thoughts on them.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Interesting points!
Do you mean that bolshevism was feared to cause another major "French revolution", far worse than any of the other preceding revolutions?

reply to post by JohnJasper

Fascinating! did not know Stalin undermined socialism!

I will surely read the sources and post my thoughts!

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Mahasamadhi]

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Mahasamadhi]

Russian empire was part of allies in WW1 so they were obliged to help it since Bolsheviks were funded by Germany. The sad thing is that those "invasions" were only for show, to put a nice little "done" mark. Allies did not want to risk inner problems by being involved in another bloody war, and as the result they got a new force that was one of a causes for WW2.

Originally posted by Mahasamadhi
Do you mean that bolshevism was feared to cause another major "French revolution", far worse than any of the other preceding revolutions?

Certainly. This was a time when even socialist parties had been given few opportunities to take part in democratic government, so the gap between the working-classes and the establishment could feel very wide.
And this was a time, you will have noticed, when four major empires were being defeated and/or falling apart- Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey- so there was political instability over a wide area of Europe.

reply to post by Mahasamadhi


Well the idea of a single Bolshevik state was something that Marx always wrote against an an absurdity because it would lead to the state being isloated and possibly crushed.

The other thing to note was that the conditions for revolution was always a possibility where there was an advanced working class as seen in the west. Countries with an advanced working class had strong and effective trade unions. Marx always was honestly puzzled that britain did not have a communist revolution.

The freedom loving west was very scared of communist revolution.

reply to post by Mahasamadhi


Firstly what happened in France? king the power head, later on, beheaded. People started to 'resist'. Like Marx said the working class will revolt but it was stopped. If the powers that be let that happened like it did back in France, Russia, it would have a domino effect but ingeniously the old world (absolute geniuses these guys) brought in voting. Think, who could vote back then in the 1900's only a few men but now women can vote, immigrants, any citizen who reaches the age of 18 or 20 or 21 etc can now vote. If you can vote you think you have some sort of say but in reality (only small population figured this out) all leaders from presidents, prime ministers, popes etc to the least official are CHOSEN for you. If you wish to enslave man make him think he is free. Then you have welfare programs(if France's kings and Russia's czars had a welfare state no revolution would take place) keep the population happy, just like Rome, panem et circenses (free bread and entertainment) these days, sports and cheap food(supermarkets).

Regards, Naeem

[edit on 3/9/2010 by naeem11111]

Great thread ...

Just put this up for discussion on next weeks ATS UK&Euro show - listen in or join in I think you opened up a great conversation.

S&F