Tag Archives: Revolution

Battleship Potemkin and The Dark Continent

Posted on by

Both the book Dark Continent and the film Battleship Potemkin offer unique interpretations of the causes and results of the Russian Revolution.  Battleship Potemkin depicts the Russian Revolution on a smaller scale, as the sailors on the battleship Potemkin mutiny against their Tsarist officers. In Dark Continent, Mazower describes the Russian Revolution as “all the parties involved in the overthrow of the old autocracy…committed to preserving their gains from the monarchy’s return” (Mazower 10). The film depicts this mentality very well, as the lower classes come together to defeat the Tsarists after Valkulinchuk, the soldier who instigated the rebellion on the Potemkin is killed.
Similarly to Skylar, the role of religion in relation of the communist ideals of the film intrigued me.  Just about all depictions of religion in the film are negative.  In an early scene, a sailor is shown smashing a plate with the Christian mantra “give us this day our daily bread” inscribed on it.  A God-like figure is also shown during some of the mutiny scenes, telling the rebelling sailors to remember him.  The sailors however, ignore him for the sake of continuing the mutiny, at one point even pushing him out of the way.  I saw this scene as symbolic of the rejection of religion in the communist USSR.  In both of these scenes, Christianity is portrayed as being closely connected to the Tsarist regime with which the sailors are trying to do away through their mutiny.

Another scene that shows the relationship between religion and communism is one in which a man in the crowd states “Kill the Jews.”  For this comment, he is attacked by the mob.  Mazower describes in Dark Continent how the new communist state had unrestricted citizenship in theory, even enfranchising women and some foreigners.  This creates an image of a far more tolerant society than that of others of the time, such as Nazi Germany.  Religious intolerance would create a disruption to this ideal communist society, resulting in the rejection of religion as a whole.

This film does an excellent job portraying the positives of a communist society.

 

Comparison of Chapter One from “Dark Continent” and the Film “October” [Revised]

Posted on by

 

‘Dark Continent” was written by Mark Mazower in 1998, about interwar Europe. “October: 10 Days that Shook the World” is a 1928 Russian movie commemorating the October 1917 Revolution in Russia. After giving a brief introduction about Russia in World War One, the February Revolution, and the provisional government that ensued, it goes on to show the conditions under the new government, the heroism of the Bolsheviks and finally the popular victory of Lenin, communism and the proletariat. However, while watching the movie, one must remember that it was a piece of propaganda designed to promote the communist government, and hence is biased towards the communist ‘victors’.

In an initial scene, the movie depicts the early enthusiasm that greeted the fall of the monarchy and the rise of the provisional government, which promised the people a greater say in the political running of the country. However, this enthusiasm soon fades as the War continues and people are seen to be starving as the rationing of bread drops from a pound a person to a quarter pound in a matter of seconds on-screen. This disillusionment with forms of post-war democracy is reflected in the writings of Mazower, who says that early liberal [i.e. pro-democracy] policy makers in Europe did not seem to realize that the people primarily needed security of life and land, rather than the immediate ability to determine their long-term political fate (p.11). In comparison, the right and left wing politicians promoted the idea of ‘bread, land and peace’, which can clearly be seen in several scenes in the movie, notably when Lenin returns to Russia.

However, the scene when the peaceful proletarian rioters are attacked by the upper class aristocrats, who were enjoying ‘leisurely’ activities at the time, stinks of propaganda and the advocacy of the working-class communist government, who are coincidently in power in 1928. Mazower confirms that this attack by democrats on the normal people is absurd when he says that they mostly lost power because they lost touch with the people (p.27), not because they attacked them in the street.

Another, slightly subtler, form of propaganda arrives in the scene when the Bolsheviks are deciding whether to stage a revolution or not. Trotsky initially states they should wait, which is followed by an impassioned speech by Lenin stating that to wait is tantamount to giving up any chance at a revolution. At the end of the scene the Bolsheviks take a vote (subtly hinting again that everything in the state is done to the peoples’ wishes) and completely decide on supporting Lenin. This scene was most probably worked in to gain support for Stalin’s eventual decision to exile Trotsky, and to confirm his rightful position of head of the Soviet Union. Another subtle put down is when the movie refuses to acknowledge that Trotsky was in charge of the Red Guard and was largely responsible for the successful capture of Petrograd (p.11).

While “October” may have certain historical discrepancies, it is a useful movie to understand both the timeline of 1917 Russia and the evolution of mass propaganda in an interwar European dictatorship during the early age of film.

Religion in Battleship Potemkin

Posted on by

Traditionally, when people are in unsatisfactory situations, or are unhappy with their lives, they turn to religion. The Communist Party flips the notion of religion as a solace on its head, and preaches that religion is what keeps the lower classes appeased and prevents them from taking down those that oppress them. In Battleship Potemkin, directed by Sergei M. Eisenstein, this Communist ideal and its merits are displayed.

The film takes place during the 1905 Revolution, in which the lower classes rallied together to fight the Czar. The most interesting thing, to me, was the portrayal/the importance of religion in the film. Before the mutiny on the ship takes place, a sailor breaks a plate that has “give us this day our daily bread” in-scripted on it. During the mutiny, a priest stands in the way of the sailors, siding with the captain and the officers. In this way, religion is shown as a proponent of the Czar and his authority. Distain for religion is  a large part of Communism, which, at the time that the film was made, was the political ideology of the Russian government. The film was ostentatiously about the 1905 Revolution, but it was really a way to enforce the views of the Communist party, and reiterate the reasons why Russia turned to Communism in the first place.

Because they both morphed into authoritarian states, German Fascism and Russian Communism are often look at as similar forms of government; they are not. The film shows this when a Russian aristocrat says “Kill the Jews”, and all of the lower class people attack him for this comment. In Russia, everyone was supposed to be equal, and religion and ethnicity were things to be forgotten with the rise of Communism. In Russia, it was the rich and privileged who were hated, regardless of ethnicity and/or religion. In Germany, it was quit the opposite; the Germans wanted to racially cleanse their country. As Mazower explains in Dark Continent, “the law no longer protected the rights of jews and gypsies, as well as “degenerate” classes of Aryans” in Nazi Germany (Mazower 33).

This film illustrates why Communism was appealing to the Russian people. The brutal actions of the Czar’s regime are connected to religion, and both the regime and the church must lose their power for the people to gain theirs. Battleship Potemkin reminds the Russian people of the camaraderie they share under the rule of the Communist government.

 

American and French Revolutionary Documents

Posted on by

The late eighteenth century was a transitional era: a time when feudal dominance was coming to an end in Europe and when thirteen North American colonies began to feel the oppressive hand of imperialist Great Britain. History was made in 1776 when the thirteen colonies united in defiance of their mother country and penned the Declaration of Independence. Only a few short years later the French masses revolted in a similar fashion under the Declaration of the Rights of man. Both documents were inspired by living under an oppressive rule, but the methods each used to inspire a following we’re different. Because of their geographic locations, the Declaration of Independence is an aggressive list of complaints meant to unify the colonies, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man contains more possible solutions meant to incite action.

The colonists of North America felt that the country was theirs for the taking. They had become tired with subscribing to law that came from an entire Ocean away without their representation in government. They believed that this separation between ruler and ruled violated their unalienable right to liberty. Following the French philosophers Rousseau and Montesquieu, writers such as John Locke and Thomas Pain began to emphasize the grievances that the British were forcing on the colonies. When Thomas Jefferson then wrote the Declaration of Independence, his words focused on the wrongdoings of the king and on creating a unified colonial mindset. The colonists knew that there was a revolution coming, but because of the geographic distance between the two nations, the most pressing issue to revolutionaries was creating a unified American front for when conflict ensued. There is no urgency in this declaration because of the distance between ruler and ruled so instead the focus is primarily on promoting patriotism and on forcing the colonists to think of themselves as a unified nation.
Similarly, the Declaration of the Rights of Man hopes to inspire the third estate of France to rebel against the first and second. Using the principles of those from the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man  defines what the third estate believes to be their undeniable rights. In Contrast to the American writing however, the French propose a solution; a whole new legislative government. In this way they learned from their American predecessors and created a plan of action instead of a list of complaints. This was because of the greater sense of urgency in their proximity to those thy we’re rebellin against.
Both documents are a symbol of freedom and liberty, uniting oppressed groups under tyrannical regimes. Their writings differed however because ogeographic location and urgency.

French and American Revolutions

Posted on by

The American Revolution and the French Revolution may have been at separate times, but the societies of both influenced the genesis of their respective revolutions. The relations of the revolutions to each other can be described as symbiotic. French philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Montesquieu and English thinkers that influenced American revolutionary thought such as John Locke all drew from each other to spur revolution. Because of the different situations of oppressive rule in their respective countries, however, their declarations are notably different. While the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man were different documents in terms of structure and language, the reason for writing was the same: namely to remedy the violation of the rights the writers believed were inalienable. The differences in these natural rights between the two declarations are a foreshadowing of the future success of these revolutions.

The revolutionaries in the American colonies did not need to worry about immediate retaliation from their King; he was overseas. In addition, the concerns of the people were mostly political and not social. Over all, the Declaration emphasized the violation of certain natural rights and the need to regain these rights: “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (Blaisdell 64). The Declaration also mentions the importance of prudence in the upheaval of government. These rights are concerned with stability and the overall happiness of the country as a whole; it is clear that the American revolutionary thinkers proposed the Declaration of Independence with the intention to eventually create a stable, functioning, and independent country that attempts to address the concerns of its citizens to a reasonable degree.

The Third Estate of the French, or the entire population of France save the clergy and nobility, faced a different dilemma: they lived in close proximity to their ruling class. However, the discontent of their audience from the wrongdoings of the ruling class was much more widespread than in the colonies. As a result, revolution was possible at the cost of social upheaval with no insurance of stability. Natural rights are also addressed first and foremost in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. However, these rights differ from the Declaration of Independence because of the writers’ contrasting priorities. By emphasizing “Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance of Oppression,” it becomes obvious that the French are more concerned with social upheaval through the elimination of the First and Second Estates than with political change (Blaisdell 80).

These differences in priority can be thought of as a foreshadowing of the success of these revolutions. In focusing on outright social upheaval without thinking about the political consequences, the French failed to create a stable basis for government the first time. On the other hand, the American, future-oriented approach to revolution created a secure starting point to create a new government.

 

The Power Of a Unified Nation

Posted on by

The revolutionary texts of both France and the United States focus on the injustices of the people have faced, and both appeal to the natural rights of man. One crucial difference between the two country’s texts, though, foreshadowed the ultimate success or failure of their respective revolutions: who the texts targeted as the barrier to the health of the nation. While the United States looked to the foreign, English King as the enemy of the people, France looked at members of its own citizenry as enemies of the country—a difference that proved destructive to France after its Revolution.

The Declaration of Independence paints the King as the source of all of the colonies’ problems. It is he who has refused to pass laws for the good of the people, and he who has prevented the people from receiving their proper representation. It is, in fact, one long catalogue of every way the King has wronged the American people. By targeting one single person as not only separate from, but an enemy to, the people, the Declaration of Independence was able to unite the people around a shared anger and identity; by clearly identifying the King as their common enemy, they were better able to band together as a unified nation. Indeed, the Declaration repeatedly refers to the collective “us”; it was “our most valuable Laws” that the King abolished, and the King has forced troops among “us” (p. 65). Thus, it creates a unified mass of people, banding together against the King.

France, by contrast, points its finger at its own people as the enemy. As Sieyès rallies the Third Estate together, he declares that “nineteen-twentieths” of France is burdened with the jobs that the privileged “refuse to perform” (p. 72). Thus, he creates a sharp division between 96% of the country, and the seemingly lazy remainder of the population. The First and Second Estates, he makes clear, are the enemies of the Third. Even in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, there is a division among the people; the Declaration only supplies for rights that would help the Third Estate. For instance, it provides for the freedom and equality of all men at birth, something that the First and Second Estates had no need for. Thus, even the Declaration of the Rights of Man, a document meant to protect the whole citizen body, really only belonged to the Third Estate, and was forced upon the First and Second. A document that truly belonged to the whole populace would have included provisions for not just the Third, but the First and Second Estates as well. Unlike the United States, which were able to unify around a common enemy, France was only able to have its Third Estate come together against its First and Second.

As the revolutions in both the United States and France went underway, it became clear what the consequences of this difference in enemies were. The United States was able to unite all thirteen colonies against the King, and, after winning the War, was able to unify under one confederation. France, by contrast, had a revolution where the people were unable to find an outsider against which the whole populace could unify; the people had no common cause, and so turned against each other even after the monarchy had been overthrown. Indeed, the Reign of Terror that followed the Revolution was largely caused by government officials’ own paranoia that their own people were turning against them. Thus, the inability of the country to unite in revolution caused instability and danger for years afterwards.

And so, even though both France and the United States had similar goals—to better the government’s representation of the people and to structure the government to best protect Man’s natural rights—it was not the systematic change that ultimately made the difference in the success of their governments; it was whether or not their people had ever been able to join together as one, single nation.

Comparing Revolutionary Documents

Posted on by

The difference between the Declaration of Independence and “What is the Third Estate?” is the inflammatory nature of the latter. The Declaration of Independence was written by the Americans in order to outline the grievances they had against the crown. They had no reason to expect any immediate retaliation by the king because the main body of the king’s forces was all the way across the Atlantic Ocean. Not only that but the king would not even hear about the document for months because of that distance. “What is the Third Estate?” was written under a different set of circumstances. The piece was written in France within easy reach of the French government and military. There was much more danger associated with a revolution on French soil because of the potential immediate response times.
The Declaration of Independence was written in a tone that inspired patriotism in the readers. This was because many of the citizens were still loyalists and wanted to remain a British colony. There was no need to incite the citizens themselves to rise up and fight the British because they were so far removed from the King. There was no need for the average citizen to take up arms against British soldiers. The same was not true of “What is the Third Estate?” Abbe Sieyes was well aware of the clear and present danger that accompanied the proliferation of this document, both to the author and to the citizenry as a whole. He knew that it would take much more forceful language in order to incite every citizen to take up arms, especially with the proximity of so much raw power nearby.
The difference between the two documents is mainly because of the context in which they were written. If the colonists of America had an entire army breathing down their necks they would have been less easy to rile up. An army is usually a pretty good deterrent. The fiery speech of Abbe Sieyes was necessary, however, because of the great danger that the French were up against.

Differences Between American and French Revolutionary Documents

Posted on by

By the late eighteenth century, America and France had developed a politically and socially symbiotic relationship.  It was the tail end of the enlightenment, and France’s famous Encyclopédie had been published and read by thousands European and American citizens.  This massive set of books contained subtextual political jabs and criticisms hidden in works from many famous philosophers.  Their revolutionary ideas, such as Voltaire’s separation of church and state and Montesquieu’s separation of powers had heavy influences on their own country, as well as on the American colonists, who were becoming increasingly unwilling to cooperate with their mother country, Britain.  Although each country’s revolutionary documents (America’s Declaration of Independence and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen) were written in retaliation against oppressive governments, they were written to achieve different goals.  The former was written to highlight mankind’s right to institute a new government when its current one is corrupt, whereas the latter was written to highlight and stress the importance of inalienable and universal human rights.

Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence to unify the colonies and persuade Britain to renounce its sovereignty over America.  The piece declares that it is the sole job of a government to protect the basic rights of man—including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness— and if it fails, it is the people’s right to institute a new government.  It then lists the most prominent ways in which the British King is governing his colonies tyrannically, and urges the people of the thirteen American states to unify and forcefully emancipate themselves from Great Britain completely, thus beginning the American Revolution.

France’s National Assembly wrote its Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in a similar context: a time in which over ninety percent of French citizens were being underrepresented and mistreated by their government.  Also a precursor to a revolution, this document stressed the basic rights of every man, which should be unanimously recognized and respected.  It lists seventeen human rights, such as liberty, security, and resistance of oppression.

Although they have more similarities than differences, each document was written to inspire social and political change.  Each group felt that its rights were being infringed upon, and the respective declarations of France and America illustrate their ideas of what they, as nations and as people, deserve.

Revolutionary Documents Comparison

Posted on by

Sam Wittmer

The French and American revolutions developed from each other’s ideas and actions concerning oppressors.  The American Revolution took inspiration from ideas that were circulating around France, inspiring the Declaration of Independence. Six years after the States became officially independent from Britain, the National Assembly of France released The Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which shows influence from the Declaration of Independence.  These documents aim to highlight the natural rights of man, all stemming from the right of men to opportunity—authorized by the nation’s people and God.

There are different forms of the right to opportunity.  Prominent is the complaint against economic hindrance, both personal and in terms of the group for which the document speaks.  For the Declaration of Independence, two of the grievances are Britain’s “cutting off Trade with all parts of the world,” and “imposing Taxes without our consent.”[1]  The National assembly of France, creating the Declaration of the rights of man, twice highlights Man’s right to property. In the second Right, it is part of the “imprescriptible” rights of man; “Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance of Oppression.”[2] Then, in the seventeenth Right, as property being “inviolable and sacred” and that “no one ought to be deprived of it.”[3] The natural economic rights are featured in both documents because the livelihood of the people depended on their physical property. Most opportunity relied on what a person could do with their assets—and therefore have a right to prosper in this respect.

The documents also demand rights to making their own decisions.  In the colonies, independent assemblies were restricted, soldiers were quartered in civilians’ houses, and migration to the colonies was restricted.  The grievance is that external forces were regulating the opportunity for the colonies to better themselves.  In France, the nobility and clergy consumed the products of the bourgeoisie, while they produced nothing themselves.  While doing this, they also had a bar that the “lower” class could reach but never pass.  Sieyes says that the words of the nobility are, “ ‘No matter how useful you are…you can go so far and no further.”[4]  With this system there is no opportunity to advance, therefore, the Assembly requires that honors be available to all people.

The documents derive the support for these natural rights from different sources, though they share similar elements.  The natural rights of the Declaration of Independence come from divine power: God being mentioned three times.  But there are tones that it is the voice of the people who accredit these rights as well.  In the French documents, the people of the third estate are responsible for these rights.  They are the majority who produce and could function as a separate state, and therefore accredit the natural rights.  But God is mentioned as the Assembly asks for the Supreme Being’s blessing before stating the rights of man.

 

[1] Representatives of the United States, “The Declaration of Independence,” in The Communist Manifesto and other Revolutionary Writings, ed. Bob Blaisdell (Mineola: Dover Publications, 2003), 65.

[2] National Assembly of France, “Declaration of the Rights of Man,” in The Communist Manifesto and other Revolutionary Writings, ed. Bob Blaisdell (Mineola: Dover Publications, 2003), 80.

 

[3] National Assembly of France, “Declaration of the Rights of Man,” 81.

[4] Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes, “What is the Third Estate?,” in The Communist Manifesto and other Revolutionary Writings, ed. Bob Blaisdell (Mineola: Dover Publications, 2003), 72.