Ten Days That Shook the World

Rating:
Summary: A Communist agent lionizes the murderers.
Review: I took Sheila Fitzpatrick's "History of the Soviet Union" at the University of Texas the same semester "Reds" came out, so it was only logical that I would read John Reed's book on the side. One had a hard time believing that he could be so calm and cool about the thuggish agenda proclaimed by Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, _et al._ Then, when the Berlin Wall came down and Gorbachev called an end to the Soviet Union, we obtained access to Soviet state archives. What do you know! John Reed received payments of over $1,000,000.00 from the CPSU in the 1910s and 1920s! Who else ever got _more_ money, in current dollars, than this Communist agent? Maybe I.F. Stone.

It's stunning that American publishers, etc., still give this fellow attention even after we know that, as Solzhenitsyn says, over 65,000,000 people were murdered by the Soviet Communists (and that's not counting the cost of their alliance with Hitler). Amazing moral obtuseness at the heart of American culture.

It's a boring book, too.

Rating:
Summary: Great Primary source
Review: John reed was there. He witnessed the Russian revolution firdt hand . A great book for a student of history esp. of Russian History. Reed brings to life the emotional and sweeping moment in History that was to shape the 20th century

Rating:
Summary: A useful exposition of the October Revolution
Review: John Reed's book, "Ten Days That Shook The World", presents a challenge to well-meaning scholars of the October Revolution everywhere. The continuing debate over comrade Reed's accounts of the events of the socialist triumph over the bourgeois Kerenskyite oligarchs has been overshadowed by the present-day temporary setback experienced by the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its struggle to resume its true and rightful place as the vanguard of the international proletariat. As Engels wrote in his classic work, "Materialism and the Apostasis of the 18th Brumaire" (Progress Press, Moscow, 1957), the inevitability of achieving a worker's state is far from a seamless upward trail, and will, from time to time encounter momentary challenges and obstacles thrown in the path of progess by counter-revolutionary and capitalist elements.

How does the proper historian view Reed's work? Clearly, as comrade V. I. Lenin wrote his original introduction to "Ten Days", Reed was at his best in reporting on the empirical reality of the proletarian movements inside Petrograd. As comrade Lenin and others later commented, Reed could be excused as a "revolutionary journalist" (a bourgeois conceit, of course) for failing to correctly observe the deviationism underlying the Plenkhavites and so-called moderate Socialist Revolutionaries, not to mention crypto-anarchists and other undisciplined romantic individualists. Reed erred in not uncovering the Menshevik centrist trend in the Russian Social Democratic movement, lead by Trotsky and Bukharin, arch-conspirators and chauvinists who were rightfully expelled from the Party in 1927. Indeed, it was with comradely restraint and generosity that comrade Lenin granted a state memorial to comrade Reed's memory....

Regrettably, truly objective scholarship has all but disappeared since the unfortunate events of the past decade. Perhaps the best critical analysis of the contradictions in Reed's works is found in comrade S.I. Klepov's monumental and enthralling six volume work, "Annals of the Sixth Comintern's Sub-Committee On Far Eastern Labor Relations in the Baikal-Irkutsk Regions (Progress Press, Moscow, 1937 (sadly, now out of print)), in which at page 708, he writes, "The American J. Reed fails to dialectically confront the errors of so-called moderates but in reality bourgeois roaders such as Zinoviev. He can be excused many of these faults due to his education in the infantile American labor movement and its inability to grasp such fundamental necessities as party discipline... As we know, "facts" are not the same as "truth." Shorn of the necessary empiro-criticism guided by the steady hand of the Party, Reed's "account" of the November revolution are but an empty shadow of the genuine proletariat victory." Truly such words were written on pages of gold!

Surely we cannot improve on comrade Klepov's correct analysis. Comrade Reed's work, while flawed, can be forgiven as a good and indulgent father excuses an errant but well-meaning child.

Rating:
Summary: Wow
Review: More characters than a Tolstoy novel!

This book has changed the way I read history -- it is more rewarding to read history than to read about history.

John Reed's first person account of the Bolshevik Revolution has allowed me to formulate my own theories on how a political and social theory can reach critical mass and change the world and transform a nation.

The revolution seems to have been like a wildfire or mania fueled by an unceasing supply of newspapers, propaganda and reports. The Russians would read anything and out of all of the varying ideas it was Lenin's that held sway. An amazing occurrence of political Darwinism.

It is a stirring read in these ambivalent times and I do not think that Reed's intent was subversive, merely journalistic. This alone must have scared the pants off of the western capitalist class of the time.

In light of what Russia is experiencing right now it holds the fascination of watching a car accident.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent examination of the Revolution
Review: Mr. Reed's depiction of the events in Petrograd leading up to the October Revolution was gripping, well-balanced and thoughtful. The book was not marred in the least by the fact that he was a well-known Communist. Those who percived that are probably either ultra-anti-Communist or perhaps misinterpreted Mr. Reed's work. All in all, an excellent book.

Rating:
Summary: NICE NOVEL
Review: Previous reviewers have said that this book at times "reads like a novel," but that it is "too laden with historical details." Well, folks, it reads like a novel because it IS
a novel. It could be found in the fiction section last time I visited a chain bookstore. Needless to say, I disagree therefore with the complaint that it is too laden with historical details. I do agree, however, with the comment that
it has "lessons for democracy" - better think twice about a
political movement that believes it can dispense with Christianity at a funeral because it is building heaven on earth. Yes, it is well written, but in its South German chatty way so was Mein Kampf. Any reviewer think that a assessment of THAT book should dwell lovingly on its style?

Rating:
Summary: Fantastic eyewitness account of an amazing revolution
Review: Reed gives you the true details of the events leading up to the first workers' revolution in history. A must read!

Rating:
Summary: It Sure Shook the World
Review: Reed's exciting and excited eyewitness account of the Russian Revolution of 1917 is a valuable historical contibution to understanding that momentous event. Reed was "into" the revolution more than any foreign journalist at the time. As an active sympathizers, he was full of nervous energy that comes from the expectation of something wonderful and inevitable. The Messianic hope of Marx was to be realized. Communism was supposed to triumph and usher in a totally new era of human relations.

Reed does get bogged down in details at times. For example, when he describes the multitiude of Russian political parties that operated in 1917 in a fragmented society that was coming apart at the seams. Reed would later die of typhus in Russia. His ashes were interned in the Kremlin wall, an honor reserved for the select few friends of the government or those who contributed towards its establishment or strength.

Reed succeeded in conveying the atmosphere of anarchy, ferment, excitement, and struggle. I think that the ideological promise of the Revolution--classless society and workers' paradise--was a hollow hope. Yet it did accomplish an important historical transition: old political structures (monarchy, tradiditional aristocracy) were wiped out, and after the civil war, the new industrial society was born. The Russian Revolution was a transition to the modern world, which is full of struggle and tragedy, and not a portal to Earthly paradise as Reed and communists had hoped.

Rating:
Summary: Great in its own right, but read Bryant's work as well
Review: Reed's work definitely evokes the heady atmosphere of the Bolshevik Revolution, when it actually seemed as if the working class might rise up as one and seize the reins of power and therefore of its destiny. It is the classic account of Red October as told from the viewpoint of an "outsider" who identified with the Revolution as a member of the universal working class. However, it should not be forgotten that Louise Bryant was not only present as well but also wrote an account of her experiences. Six Red Months in Russia is the indispensable companion to Reed's work; the two should be read in tandem. As of the date of this posting (05.23.03) it is in print from Powell's Press. Get it while you can. It is a neglected gem of reporting from the Revolutionary frontlines which should command an equal amount of respect as does Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World.

Rating:
Summary: A most exquisite work!
Review: Reed's work is most exquisite; it acts as a very effective summary of the revolutionary events. As far as such goes, it is singularly unique in its singlety of focus. Further, it acts as a most helpful resource as regards obtaining an understanding of the underlying dynamics of the revolution; recorded by an American witness (and the only American to be entombed in the Kremlin), it is an original and wholly constructive study--a must-read for any student of revolutionary thought or conflict dynamics.