Reviews for The Murder of Charles the Good

The average rating for The Murder of Charles the Good based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2017-06-05 00:00:00 Gregory Bounds A must read for anyone interested in understanding the broader context of the Russian Revolution of 1917. Especially now, on the brink of one century since it happened. Similarly to the first two volumes of the series, Murray Bookchin tries to go back in history and identify the turning points that have led away from a true proletarian revolution: "If anything resembling socialism could have been devised to suit Russia in 1917-21, it was the program advanced by the Left SRs, not that of Lenin or Trotsky, let alone that of the ideological free-for-all outlook known as anarchism that plagued Petrograd and Moscow." (x PREFACE) The reader can expect a broad introduction to the century old context that led'or deeply informed'the revolutionary struggle. Murray Bookchin identifies a deep libertarian, humanistic tradition latent in various regions of the vast expanse of the Russian Empire, e.g.: the veche of Novgorod [1], and the peasant ideal of volya [2]. The author goes from the Razin and Pugachev peasant uprisings, to the 1905 anti-tsarist movement, culminating in the events from October 1917, meticulously tracing the events up until 1921 at the end of the Civil War that is to transform the revolutionary movement into bloody repression. Whatever potential for a true proletarian revolution there had been left after the Bolshevik seisuze of power can be found here, including a chapter on the Makhnovtschina. The reader can expect to gain a good understanding of what had pushed the revolution in the direction it took. Lenin is the primary focus of this volume, both his rise as the single one person who brought on the October Revolution in 1917, and its ultimate gravedigger in 1921. A deeply troubling, and outright depressing history. One that has scarred, and forever maimed revolutionary movements for centuries to come, if not forever. It is with the Russian Revolution that socialists lost any moral highgroud that they have had against the bourgeoisie. "The defeat of the third revolution in Russia scarred the revolutionary tradition iself, contributing to the myth that revolution as such is inherently destructive and that what exist is always far preferable to ideals of what could be." (p. 330) [1] The veche was the institution through which the urban populace expressed im will and took parr in public affairs [...] (p. 5) [2] "The peasant ideal of volya, reinforced by the chernyi peredel, turned land 'ownership' into a form of public usufruct based on need rather than individual property." (p. 9)

Review # 2 was written on 2021-02-17 00:00:00 Richard Krauss Müthiş , aslında bolşevik devriminin en başından beri asya despotizminden çatır çatır döküleceği ortadaymış. Buna birde stalinizmin otaritaryenizmi eklenince ortaya 74 yıllık deneyim çıkmış. Hakkını vermek gerekir ki aslında asya despotizmine batmadan rusya halkı sd'lilerin izinden gitse yahut sd'liler bolşevikler gibi çok daha aktif örgütlü ve öncü liderler çıkartabilse bu iş pek de öyle bir boyut alamayabilirdi. Ve yine aynı şekilde rus halkının (özellikle köylülerde) benliğinde bir kollektivizm mevcutken ille proleter devrimi ille kentlileleşen bir işçi yığını deyip marxizmin geleneksel yorumunda tutulup kalmış ( daha doğrusu lenin ve troçkinin pragmatizmi demek daha doğru olur. Sonuçta marxın plekhanova mektuplaştığı rus köylü komünizmi üzerindeki son çıkarımı lenini de ikna etmişti) uzun lafın kısası kronştadlı denizciler , sol sd'liler , anarko ( sendikalist, komünalist ), yeşiller belki de daha iyi bir pratiği ortaya koyabilirdi. Neyse sağlık olsun dor dora me