Propaganda and Ten Days

Ten Days That Shook the World is fascinating in a variety of ways, but one of the most interesting in analyzing the political slant to the text. This is particularly interesting due to John Reeds clear political association and a lack of time to reflect on the consequences of Bolshevik governance. In the author's introduction he explains, "In the struggle my sympathies were not neutral. But in telling the story of those great days I have tried to see the events with the eye of a conscientious reporter, interested in setting down the truth (Reed liii). While it would seem obvious where a socialist would stand during the Russian Revolution, in fact socialist factions in Russia could not have been more split.

It is easy to understand why Lenin would have approved of Reed's book since in many ways it seems to prove the Bolsheviks right. For example, he states, "That the Bolsheviki would remain in power longer than three days never occurred to anybody--except perhaps to Lenin, Trotsky, the Petrograd workers and the simpler soldiers..." (Reed 162). In relation to whether or not the Bolsheviks would take power, Ten Days That Shook the World seems to show a remarkable amount of foresight by Lenin and Trotsky in deciding when to take power. However, this is an accurate portrayal of the Bolshevik strategy (as they were anticipating the inability of building strong resistance) and does not represent a justification of the Bolshevik cause.

In many instances Reed relies on primary documents in order to explain history, which adds a great amount to the validity of his merit. For example, it contains many proclamations from various groups. For example, it includes a Bolshevik pronouncement exclaiming that, Either--the power will remain in the hands of the bourgeois-landlord...repression for the workers, soldiers and peasants...inevitable hunger and death. Or--the power will be transferred to the hands of the revolutionary workers, soldiers and peasants; and in that case it will mean a complete abolition of landlord tyranny, immediate check of the capitalists...then land is assured to the peasants..." (qtd Reed 112). This quotation is not surrounded by any sort of commentary from Reed, and instead he continues his historical narrative. This style allows the reader to view the text from an existing viewpoint; the reader can either be impressed or disgusted by the Bolshevik world view and in most instances Reed does not insert commentary. Either way, the idea that a Bolshevik would say such a thing is not even slightly contentious.

In other instances the absolute hypocrisy of the Bolsheviks is explained in clear deal and not followed by justification. For example, in nearly the same breath Bolsheviks abolished capital punishment in the army while, "All pillage, disorder and speculation were forbidden under pain of death" (Reed 137). While the absurdity of these conflicting values is obvious: Bolsheviks would continue to praise themselves for abolishing capital punishment while issuing death threats to anyone opposing revolution.

Ten Days That Shook the World is an amazing primary document in 20th Century history. It both presents documents produced by competing groups and tells the narrative of an American in Russia during tumultuous times. John Reed left the revolution with a reinvigorated sense of wealth redistribution. The reader, knowing what Bolshevism brought about, is likely to leave with a different opinion.

Reed, John. Ten Days that Shook the World. 1960. Ed Wolfe, Bertram. Vintage Books. New York.


P.S. This edition of the text does not use Oxford commas. I have no idea why I maintained faith to this in quotations despite the fact that it drives me insane and I'm convinced it's quite simply wrong despite what some British people believe.