What do you think?
Rate this book
ექსპერიმენტი 1918-1921
ერიკ ლის „ექსპერიმენტი, მივიწყებული ქართული რევოლუცია“ (Eric Lee, The Experiment, Georgia’s Forgotten Revolution) საქართველოს განიხილავს, როგორც პირველ ქვეყანას მსოფლიოში, სადაც სოციალ-დემოკრატიული პარტია არჩევნების გზით მოვიდა ხელისუფლებაში. წიგნი მიზნად ისახავს მკითხველს დაანახოს, თუ როგორი შეიძლებოდა ყოფილიყო სოციალ-დემოკრატიული სახელმწიფო, ბოლშევიკებს რომ არ გაენადგურებინათ.წიგნში განხილულია 1905 წლის გურიის რესპუბლიკაც, როგორც 1918 წელს შექმნილი სახელმწიფოს წინამორბედი...
332 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2018
6 people are currently reading
216 people want to read
About the author
Eric Lee
10 books38 followersEric Lee is a London-based author, historian and political activist. He has written three books on the 20th century history of Georgia plus others on World War II, the Vietnam War, and the labour movement and the Internet. He is the founding editor of LabourStart - the news and campaigning website of the international trade union movement, which he founded in 1998. He's a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (UK) and a member of the Historical Writers Association and the Society of Authors.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
Read
January 20, 2021Not totally convinced by the argument he's making. The anti-communism is a bit much and he downplays the extent to which Georgia was allied with the Entente. Overall, I think it would be good to see more scholarship on Menshevik Georgia (not least of all for us socialists), but perhaps not written *by* a Menshevik wrestling for a savior for 20th century socialism. It doesn't lend credence to the work he's doing. He also left the DSA because he's a Zionist. Not a great look.
January 11, 2023
An enjoyable read for those fascinated by the history of the Russian Revolution and its consequences across the former Tsarist Empire, particularly in the Caucasus.
What makes it fascinating reading is that the Georgian Social Democratic Party was completely dominated by the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks were and always remained a small minority in the country and its socialist movement. The Mensheviks were the leading party in the entire country and recieved the vast majority of votes via universal suffrage once that became a possibility.
It serves as a good comparison to what the Bolsheviks were doing in Russia, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of Menshevik rule. The author strongly sympathises with the Menshevik government and has a great distaste for Trotsky in particular, from a more politically moderate point of view.
The experiment ended when the Red Army marched in and toppled the government in 1921; an action which the lead up to, responsibility for, and consequences of could itself fill a whole book.
In terms of measures the Menshevik government carried out, this included land reform and distribution of the land to the peasants. There was some nationalisation of the land - though not as extensively as in the Soviet Republic. There was a dramatic growth of cooperatives, encouraged by the state. 52% of workers were state employed, 19% in the private sector (with trade unions) and 18% were in co-ops and municipal enterprises. The aspirations was that the co-ops would become the main sector and be the only regulator of market prices - as it was, they combated speculation.
New institutions like the Board of Wages ensured that essential goods could be bought at lower than market prices.
On the less revolutionary side, there wasn't the kind of workers' control or factory committees overseeing or managing production which had played a major role outside of Georgia. Most of the co-ops were consumer co-ops; all well and good, but not self-managed producer co-ops.
It was much more of a multi-party representative parliamentary democracy than a multi-party multi-tendency democratic soviet regime in the sense of workers' councils as was the case to begin with in the Soviet Republic. The Soviets in Georgia were almost wholly led by the Mensheviks and their authority was subordinated to the parliament.
On the negative side there was a degree of oppression faced by certain ethnic minorities (Abkhazians and Ossetians especially) and armed clashes with peasants disappointed the land reform hadn't gone far enough, alongside considerable repression of local Bolsheviks involved in peasant unrest. The scope of action by the government was also limited by the existence of German, and once WW1 was over, British soldiers on Georgian soil.
The presence of German and later British military missions in Georgia - while the former were in conflict with the Soviet Republic and the latter actively supporting the reactionary anti-Bolshevik White armies - generated understandable resentment on their part; also the fact that the Georgian Mensheviks had favoured unity with Russia during the Kerensky regime, but went in for secession and full independence once the October Revolution placed a radical Bolshevik-Left SR coalition government (with anarchist support) in power.
It you imagine a left social democratic government with a mass base and substantial popularity, navigating the shoals of international politics and implementing social reforms in a post-World War I context - but unwilling to break with capitalism and reacting with hostility to the young Soviet Republic, leading them into more or less willing cooperation with very insalubrious forces like the German and British Empires - justified in terms of maintaining Georgia’s independence - you get a picture of what the Georgian Menshevik government was like.
Eric Lee, to his credit, is very upfront about Georgian Menshevik political ambitions, noting (with approval) that ‘neither Georgia nor Russia were ripe in 1917 for anything other than what Marxists called a “bourgeois revolution” - starting with the establishment of a democratic republic. If the Georgian Social Democrats were forced by circumstances to take political power, they had no intention of using it to prematurely create socialism. Instead, they accepted the Communist Manifesto’s assertion that “the first step of the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.”’
Interesting asides in the book include a visit by a delegation of the Second International to Georgia in 1920, which included British Labour politician (and future Prime Minister) Ramsay McDonald and Karl Kautsky.
The latter had engaged in back and forth polemics with Lenin and Trotsky following the October Revolution and the politics and policies it pursued.
Largely impressed with what he saw, Kautsky wrote a book, published in 1921, detailing his impressions and experiences in the Georgian Republic, entitled ‘Georgia: A Social-Democratic Peasant Republic – Impressions And Observations.’ Excerpts from it are quoted in this book.
Whatever one’s political opinions on the subject at hand and the opinions it proffers, Eric Lee’s book is a smooth and easy read, and his open, admitted biases don’t do injustice to the general narrative which is fairly balanced overall.
What makes it fascinating reading is that the Georgian Social Democratic Party was completely dominated by the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks were and always remained a small minority in the country and its socialist movement. The Mensheviks were the leading party in the entire country and recieved the vast majority of votes via universal suffrage once that became a possibility.
It serves as a good comparison to what the Bolsheviks were doing in Russia, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of Menshevik rule. The author strongly sympathises with the Menshevik government and has a great distaste for Trotsky in particular, from a more politically moderate point of view.
The experiment ended when the Red Army marched in and toppled the government in 1921; an action which the lead up to, responsibility for, and consequences of could itself fill a whole book.
In terms of measures the Menshevik government carried out, this included land reform and distribution of the land to the peasants. There was some nationalisation of the land - though not as extensively as in the Soviet Republic. There was a dramatic growth of cooperatives, encouraged by the state. 52% of workers were state employed, 19% in the private sector (with trade unions) and 18% were in co-ops and municipal enterprises. The aspirations was that the co-ops would become the main sector and be the only regulator of market prices - as it was, they combated speculation.
New institutions like the Board of Wages ensured that essential goods could be bought at lower than market prices.
On the less revolutionary side, there wasn't the kind of workers' control or factory committees overseeing or managing production which had played a major role outside of Georgia. Most of the co-ops were consumer co-ops; all well and good, but not self-managed producer co-ops.
It was much more of a multi-party representative parliamentary democracy than a multi-party multi-tendency democratic soviet regime in the sense of workers' councils as was the case to begin with in the Soviet Republic. The Soviets in Georgia were almost wholly led by the Mensheviks and their authority was subordinated to the parliament.
On the negative side there was a degree of oppression faced by certain ethnic minorities (Abkhazians and Ossetians especially) and armed clashes with peasants disappointed the land reform hadn't gone far enough, alongside considerable repression of local Bolsheviks involved in peasant unrest. The scope of action by the government was also limited by the existence of German, and once WW1 was over, British soldiers on Georgian soil.
The presence of German and later British military missions in Georgia - while the former were in conflict with the Soviet Republic and the latter actively supporting the reactionary anti-Bolshevik White armies - generated understandable resentment on their part; also the fact that the Georgian Mensheviks had favoured unity with Russia during the Kerensky regime, but went in for secession and full independence once the October Revolution placed a radical Bolshevik-Left SR coalition government (with anarchist support) in power.
It you imagine a left social democratic government with a mass base and substantial popularity, navigating the shoals of international politics and implementing social reforms in a post-World War I context - but unwilling to break with capitalism and reacting with hostility to the young Soviet Republic, leading them into more or less willing cooperation with very insalubrious forces like the German and British Empires - justified in terms of maintaining Georgia’s independence - you get a picture of what the Georgian Menshevik government was like.
Eric Lee, to his credit, is very upfront about Georgian Menshevik political ambitions, noting (with approval) that ‘neither Georgia nor Russia were ripe in 1917 for anything other than what Marxists called a “bourgeois revolution” - starting with the establishment of a democratic republic. If the Georgian Social Democrats were forced by circumstances to take political power, they had no intention of using it to prematurely create socialism. Instead, they accepted the Communist Manifesto’s assertion that “the first step of the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.”’
Interesting asides in the book include a visit by a delegation of the Second International to Georgia in 1920, which included British Labour politician (and future Prime Minister) Ramsay McDonald and Karl Kautsky.
The latter had engaged in back and forth polemics with Lenin and Trotsky following the October Revolution and the politics and policies it pursued.
Largely impressed with what he saw, Kautsky wrote a book, published in 1921, detailing his impressions and experiences in the Georgian Republic, entitled ‘Georgia: A Social-Democratic Peasant Republic – Impressions And Observations.’ Excerpts from it are quoted in this book.
Whatever one’s political opinions on the subject at hand and the opinions it proffers, Eric Lee’s book is a smooth and easy read, and his open, admitted biases don’t do injustice to the general narrative which is fairly balanced overall.
March 27, 2021
ამ არცთუ ვრცელ წიგნში (თემატიკის გათვალისწინებით) საქართველოს დემოკრატიული რესპუბლიკის თითქმის ყველა მნიშვნელოვან ასპექტზეა ყურადღება გამახვილებული. ავტორს მართალია მოკლედ, თუმცა მაინც მკაფიოდ აქვს მიმოხილული ქართული სოციალ-დემოკრატიული მოძრაობის ჩასახვისა და აღმოცენების პროცესი. წიგნის სტრუქტურა, შინაარსი, მოვლენათა თანიმიმდევრული აღწერა და მათი მიზეზ-შედეგობრივი კავშირების გარჩევა, 1918-1921 წლის საქართველოს ფართო და მეტ-ნაკლებად ზუსტ სურათს გვიხატავს.
განსაკუთრებით საინტერესოა ისიც, რომ ერიკ ლი მემარცხენე ჟურნალისტი და ისტორიკოსია და სწორედ ამ პერსპექტივიდან გვიჩვენებს იმ განსხვავებებს, რომლებიც საუკუნის წინ სოციალ-დემოკრატებისა და ბოლშევიკების მიერ მარქსიზმის ინტერპრეტაციასა და მათ ღირებულებით პრიორიტეტებს შორის არსებობდა.
საბოლოო ჯამში, აშკარაა, რომ ავტორის მიზანი უკვე არსებული ცოდნისა და ინფორმაციის თავმოყრა და პოპულარული ენით მოთხრობაა, რასაც ისიც მომწობს, რომ წიგნის ბიბლიოგრაფიის დიდ ნაწილს არა პირველადი წყაროები, არამედ უკვე ცნობილ მკვლევართა (რეიფილდი, ჯონსი, სუნი, ქაზემზადე) ნაშრომები შეადგენს. ამის გათვალისწინებით, არა მგონია, ისტორიკოსებმა და დარგის სპეციალისტებმა მასში რაიმე განსაკუთრებული აღმოაჩინონ (თხრობის მოხდენილ სტილს თუ არ ჩავთვლით), თუმცა როგორც სამეცნიერო-პოპულარული ტიპის ნაშრომების ანოტაციები გვაუწყებენ ხოლმე, ეს წიგნი „მკითხველთა ფართო წრისათვის“ ნამდვილად საინტერესო იქნება.
განსაკუთრებით საინტერესოა ისიც, რომ ერიკ ლი მემარცხენე ჟურნალისტი და ისტორიკოსია და სწორედ ამ პერსპექტივიდან გვიჩვენებს იმ განსხვავებებს, რომლებიც საუკუნის წინ სოციალ-დემოკრატებისა და ბოლშევიკების მიერ მარქსიზმის ინტერპრეტაციასა და მათ ღირებულებით პრიორიტეტებს შორის არსებობდა.
საბოლოო ჯამში, აშკარაა, რომ ავტორის მიზანი უკვე არსებული ცოდნისა და ინფორმაციის თავმოყრა და პოპულარული ენით მოთხრობაა, რასაც ისიც მომწობს, რომ წიგნის ბიბლიოგრაფიის დიდ ნაწილს არა პირველადი წყაროები, არამედ უკვე ცნობილ მკვლევართა (რეიფილდი, ჯონსი, სუნი, ქაზემზადე) ნაშრომები შეადგენს. ამის გათვალისწინებით, არა მგონია, ისტორიკოსებმა და დარგის სპეციალისტებმა მასში რაიმე განსაკუთრებული აღმოაჩინონ (თხრობის მოხდენილ სტილს თუ არ ჩავთვლით), თუმცა როგორც სამეცნიერო-პოპულარული ტიპის ნაშრომების ანოტაციები გვაუწყებენ ხოლმე, ეს წიგნი „მკითხველთა ფართო წრისათვის“ ნამდვილად საინტერესო იქნება.
November 28, 2017
I have a long-standing interest in Georgia, and was very happy when I came about this book on the short-lived republic of 1918-21, a topic I wanted to learn more about. Hence, the content came as a bitter disappointment, as the author has virtually no directly knowledge of Georgia. Lee is American socialist who got some sort of union job in the UK, and this book is actually a bunch of marxist infighting. The author is a believer in "social democracy" instead of the Bolshevik interpretation of marxism, and the book is basically et another attempt at the tired "Yeah, the USSR wasn't real communism, and if you let us have another go at it, we'll get Marx right this time" shtick. Georgia (or at least the ideas written into its constitution and laws by Mensheviks) are a stand-in for the "right" kind of marxism ("social democracy"). This book is more about antiquated arguments about marxist theory than about Georgia itself.
A bit of background. Marx basically had the idea of a teleological develop of human history, with ancient slavery giving way to medieval feudalism giving way to early modern capitalism giving way ultimately to the glorious future of socialism. Marxists therefore held that capitalism, while nasty in itself, served a useful function in setting up the necessary pre-requisites for the take-over of society by the urban proletariat. Thus, it was expected that socialism would first arise in economically advanced societies, like Germany. This was a bit much for marxists in comparatively backwards places like Russia. Some Russian marxists, led especially by Lenin, thought they could "kick start" the glorious future by jumping from a backwards agrarian society directly to the socialist future by using the power of the state to drag the benighted peasants and everybody directly into the future, skipping the intermediate bourgeois stage. They were a minority of Russian marxists, with most holding to the standard "orthodox" view that you'd have to let bourgeois democracy take root in Russia first before the workers could fulfill their historical destiny by taking over. In a bold move characteristic of his lying nature, Lenin took advantage of a minor point over which his side won to call his supporters the "majority" (Bolshevik) faction, while it is characteristic of the fecklessness of the more moderate marxists that they let him get away with labeling them the "minority" (Menshevik) faction. The Bolsheviks had little support in Georgia, where in the last decades of the Tsarist regime, the Mensheviks were the major political part representing Georgian nationalism (though of course that leading figure of the Bolshevik rule of Russia, Stalin, was a native Georgian).
So, to get back to the book, the author's main point is to claim that the Menshevik rule in Georgia shows how there could have been a more "humane" version of Marxism in place of the violence and mass murder so characteristic of the Bolshevik regime in Russia. The book is very much taken up with this out-of-date argument. The author has very little direct knowledge of Georgia, which basically comes from the few pages on the Georgian Republic that turn up in Lang's A History of Modern Georgia, Suny's The Making of Modern Georgia, and Rayfield's Edge of Empires. Beyond that, there is a lot of engaging with contemporary (i.e., from the 192o's) socialist arguments about what was going on there, with lots of citations of Karl Kautsky (an "orthodox" marxist of the post-Engels period, who wrote polemics against the Bolsheviks after their seizure of power in Russia) and Trotsky of all people. As if the likes of Trotsky would be a reasonable source for Georgian history (rather than outdated marxist squabbling)! Oh, and the author also throws in valuable quotations from the New York Times and The Times of London, as if the inaccuracies of old journalism that the author has come across have any validity for historical analysis). There is no separate bibliography (just citations in end notes), which is just as well, since these three sets of information (general histories in English, some quite out of date, and contemporary newspaper articles and socialism polemics are, embarrassingly, all the author knows. For instance, he periodically mentions what Lenin and Stalin thought they were up to, and he oblivious has taken not the least trouble to do any research into the massive amount of modern treatment of both those two figures themselves and the topic of the establishment of the Soviet state.
As one would expect, there is actually little direct treatment of Georgia itself. Two of the areas in which the Georgian Republic is supposed to be a paragon for an alternative to the Bolshevik terror are its policies on agrarian reform and worker collectives. Yet, the two chapters on those topics actually have very little to say about what the Mensheviks actually did and instead are mostly taken up with tiresome quotations of contemporary marxist blather on the issue.
The book has some strange ways of looking at things. The author clearly has a hostility towards Russia, and there are a number of instances when he talks of the Soviet regime as "Russia" as if there was no difference between Lenin's regime and Nicholas II's. You'd hardly think that the former was a socialist! The author also doesn't like the very negative view of the peasantry that characterizes Bolshevik thought. After all, the Bolsheviks were happy to wade through the blood of millions of peasants to lead the way to workers' paradise. Since this won't do in a social democratic alternative, the author peculiarly refers to the peasants as "workers" and the way to show that the hostility to the peasantry as a "reactionary" element in society is to claim that Marx only used the expression "the idiocy of rural life" a few times. Well, now there's a friend of the rustic life for sure! The author also has a go at another way of showing that the Bolsheviks weren't "real" marxists. Apparently, even Marx himself had to admit that his happy trajectory from feudalism to socialism couldn't be made to fit the historical reality outside of Europe, so he came up with the concept of "oriental despotism" to describe the way non-Europeans behaved, and some socialists seized on this as a way of denigrating what Lenin and the Bolsheviks were up to. Amusingly, the author apparently is happy enough to grab on to this euro-centric lifeline. I'm pretty sure this concept wouldn't pass the sniff test with most leftists nowadays. The author had better check his White Privilege! Oh, and his marxist ways lead him to describe the disputes between one of the ethnic minorities in Georgia and the Menshevik government as starting as a "class" struggle that only subsequently turned into an ethnic one. He presents not the least evidence for this inherently implausible construct, which presumably is just a marxist preconception designed to exculpate the Mensheviks for doing things that cut against the author's prejudices.
Now, whether the Menshevik regime in Georgia would in fact have shown the way to a "new" path is unknowable and certainly open to question. Despite the self-serving praise of some visiting Western European socialists, who had no knowledge of Georgian and their own reasons for praising its supposed progress, the fact remains that the things the authors prizes so much in the Mensheviks — cooperatives, land reform and democracy — were pretty much only pretty words on meaningless paper. The Georgian Republic only lasted a few years and never in substance achieved any lasting settlement of the relevant issues. One is hard pressed to understand the actual intent of much of things, since the book is one of modern-day advocacy rather than a knowledgeable historical treatment of the topic.
So, if you're keen on reading up on old-fashioned socialist disputes and you like the stinging bite of Trotsky's analysis, this is the book for you. If, on the other hand, you want to have an even-handed explanation of what the Menshevik regime in Georgia was up to, there is still no proper treatment in English.
A bit of background. Marx basically had the idea of a teleological develop of human history, with ancient slavery giving way to medieval feudalism giving way to early modern capitalism giving way ultimately to the glorious future of socialism. Marxists therefore held that capitalism, while nasty in itself, served a useful function in setting up the necessary pre-requisites for the take-over of society by the urban proletariat. Thus, it was expected that socialism would first arise in economically advanced societies, like Germany. This was a bit much for marxists in comparatively backwards places like Russia. Some Russian marxists, led especially by Lenin, thought they could "kick start" the glorious future by jumping from a backwards agrarian society directly to the socialist future by using the power of the state to drag the benighted peasants and everybody directly into the future, skipping the intermediate bourgeois stage. They were a minority of Russian marxists, with most holding to the standard "orthodox" view that you'd have to let bourgeois democracy take root in Russia first before the workers could fulfill their historical destiny by taking over. In a bold move characteristic of his lying nature, Lenin took advantage of a minor point over which his side won to call his supporters the "majority" (Bolshevik) faction, while it is characteristic of the fecklessness of the more moderate marxists that they let him get away with labeling them the "minority" (Menshevik) faction. The Bolsheviks had little support in Georgia, where in the last decades of the Tsarist regime, the Mensheviks were the major political part representing Georgian nationalism (though of course that leading figure of the Bolshevik rule of Russia, Stalin, was a native Georgian).
So, to get back to the book, the author's main point is to claim that the Menshevik rule in Georgia shows how there could have been a more "humane" version of Marxism in place of the violence and mass murder so characteristic of the Bolshevik regime in Russia. The book is very much taken up with this out-of-date argument. The author has very little direct knowledge of Georgia, which basically comes from the few pages on the Georgian Republic that turn up in Lang's A History of Modern Georgia, Suny's The Making of Modern Georgia, and Rayfield's Edge of Empires. Beyond that, there is a lot of engaging with contemporary (i.e., from the 192o's) socialist arguments about what was going on there, with lots of citations of Karl Kautsky (an "orthodox" marxist of the post-Engels period, who wrote polemics against the Bolsheviks after their seizure of power in Russia) and Trotsky of all people. As if the likes of Trotsky would be a reasonable source for Georgian history (rather than outdated marxist squabbling)! Oh, and the author also throws in valuable quotations from the New York Times and The Times of London, as if the inaccuracies of old journalism that the author has come across have any validity for historical analysis). There is no separate bibliography (just citations in end notes), which is just as well, since these three sets of information (general histories in English, some quite out of date, and contemporary newspaper articles and socialism polemics are, embarrassingly, all the author knows. For instance, he periodically mentions what Lenin and Stalin thought they were up to, and he oblivious has taken not the least trouble to do any research into the massive amount of modern treatment of both those two figures themselves and the topic of the establishment of the Soviet state.
As one would expect, there is actually little direct treatment of Georgia itself. Two of the areas in which the Georgian Republic is supposed to be a paragon for an alternative to the Bolshevik terror are its policies on agrarian reform and worker collectives. Yet, the two chapters on those topics actually have very little to say about what the Mensheviks actually did and instead are mostly taken up with tiresome quotations of contemporary marxist blather on the issue.
The book has some strange ways of looking at things. The author clearly has a hostility towards Russia, and there are a number of instances when he talks of the Soviet regime as "Russia" as if there was no difference between Lenin's regime and Nicholas II's. You'd hardly think that the former was a socialist! The author also doesn't like the very negative view of the peasantry that characterizes Bolshevik thought. After all, the Bolsheviks were happy to wade through the blood of millions of peasants to lead the way to workers' paradise. Since this won't do in a social democratic alternative, the author peculiarly refers to the peasants as "workers" and the way to show that the hostility to the peasantry as a "reactionary" element in society is to claim that Marx only used the expression "the idiocy of rural life" a few times. Well, now there's a friend of the rustic life for sure! The author also has a go at another way of showing that the Bolsheviks weren't "real" marxists. Apparently, even Marx himself had to admit that his happy trajectory from feudalism to socialism couldn't be made to fit the historical reality outside of Europe, so he came up with the concept of "oriental despotism" to describe the way non-Europeans behaved, and some socialists seized on this as a way of denigrating what Lenin and the Bolsheviks were up to. Amusingly, the author apparently is happy enough to grab on to this euro-centric lifeline. I'm pretty sure this concept wouldn't pass the sniff test with most leftists nowadays. The author had better check his White Privilege! Oh, and his marxist ways lead him to describe the disputes between one of the ethnic minorities in Georgia and the Menshevik government as starting as a "class" struggle that only subsequently turned into an ethnic one. He presents not the least evidence for this inherently implausible construct, which presumably is just a marxist preconception designed to exculpate the Mensheviks for doing things that cut against the author's prejudices.
Now, whether the Menshevik regime in Georgia would in fact have shown the way to a "new" path is unknowable and certainly open to question. Despite the self-serving praise of some visiting Western European socialists, who had no knowledge of Georgian and their own reasons for praising its supposed progress, the fact remains that the things the authors prizes so much in the Mensheviks — cooperatives, land reform and democracy — were pretty much only pretty words on meaningless paper. The Georgian Republic only lasted a few years and never in substance achieved any lasting settlement of the relevant issues. One is hard pressed to understand the actual intent of much of things, since the book is one of modern-day advocacy rather than a knowledgeable historical treatment of the topic.
So, if you're keen on reading up on old-fashioned socialist disputes and you like the stinging bite of Trotsky's analysis, this is the book for you. If, on the other hand, you want to have an even-handed explanation of what the Menshevik regime in Georgia was up to, there is still no proper treatment in English.
August 14, 2018
Very insightful book, about a forgotten socialist and democratic "experiment" in newly independent Georgia between 1918 and 1921, only to be violently crushed by a military invasion of totalitarian communists, the Soviets, in winter 1921.
Clearly thoroughly researched. Yes, from someone colored by a preference of red politics, but some of the critic in one of the reviews seems quite harsh to me in this regard.
The dynamics, between socialist ranks at the time, the tumultuous times internationally, and domestically in newly independent Georgia installing a truly free and plural democracy yet at the same time fighting of foreign enemies from all 4 sides seems accurately described in a very lively and readable way.
Clearly thoroughly researched. Yes, from someone colored by a preference of red politics, but some of the critic in one of the reviews seems quite harsh to me in this regard.
The dynamics, between socialist ranks at the time, the tumultuous times internationally, and domestically in newly independent Georgia installing a truly free and plural democracy yet at the same time fighting of foreign enemies from all 4 sides seems accurately described in a very lively and readable way.
May 14, 2021
ძალიან საინტერესო წიგნი იყო ჩემთვის, იმდენად, რამდენადაც 1918-1921 წლების შესახებ საკმაოდ მწირი ინფორმაცია მაქვს, უფრო მეტად სამართლებრივი კუთხით ვიცნობ, ამ ნაშრომში კი აღნიშნული პერიოდის მნიშვნელოვანი მოვლენები საინტერესოდ და მრავალფეროვანი წყაროების მითითებით არის გადმოცემული, რაც მე მიქმნის იმის შთაბეჭდილებას რომ ავტორი ცდილობს ყველა შესაძლო კუთხიდან დაგვანახვოს ამ წლების ისტორია, ეს კი საბოლოო ჯამში მკითხველს ვითარების კარგად გააზრების შესაძლებლობას აძლევს; მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ თავად ავტორი კონკრეტული მხარის პოზიციიდან წერს. კიდევ მივუბრუნდები ამ წიგნს აუცილებლად.
June 13, 2025
ერიკ ლი 3 რამეში სდებს მენშევიკურ მთავრობას ბრალს:
-აფხაზებთან და ოსებთან ძალის გადამეტებაში
-არაორგანიზებულ სამხედრო მართველობაში
-სუსტ ეკონომიკურ პოლიტიკაში
დანარჩენი, თითოეული აბზაცი დითირამბია.😁
-აფხაზებთან და ოსებთან ძალის გადამეტებაში
-არაორგანიზებულ სამხედრო მართველობაში
-სუსტ ეკონომიკურ პოლიტიკაში
დანარჩენი, თითოეული აბზაცი დითირამბია.😁
September 29, 2022
Another Goodreads reviewer (Christopher), captured a lot of my problems with this book. It feels like a very superficial collection of the (relatively uncommon) English-language material about the first Georgian republic. Eric Lee sort of summarizes what he sees as the main events and virtue of the brief Menshevik regime in Georgia during the Russian Civil War without doing a lot of analysis.
In fact, despite the author's claims that he had worked on this book for 30 years, it's hard to see the results between the covers. There are very few citations throughout the book, and almost none to primary sources or non-English sources. He has relied extensively on the few secondary sources produced about this era of Georgian history and often outdated sources (such as a biography of Stalin from the 1960s!). I'm not trying to say that "older books are bad," just that there has been a lot published since the fall of the Soviet Union that provides such substantially greater insight into Soviet history thanks to access to Soviet archives that ignoring those texts seems irresponsible.
The largest issues I have, though, are that Lee does not make the case for his conclusions. In his final chapters, describing the fall of the regime and some continued unrest in Soviet Georgia, he says (without citation) that the Georgian people rose up against the Bolsheviks in part because of their loyalty to the Social Democrats and their fondness for the reforms of that government. But he hasn't shown that those reforms actually impacted the people of Georgia. There is brief, inconsistent, mostly-theoretical discussion of trade unions and communes in Georgia, but no analysis of whether or how these were implemented or the impacts they had.
The chapter on the invasion of Georgia by the Red Army is extremely disjointed. Lee could have been trying to capture the sense of confusion and chaos that accompanied the takeover, but he doesn't make that claim. More likely, the disorder of the chapter reflects the disorder of the sources he relied on. Most of the citations there are from the New York Times and the Times of London, with the context that they were out of the loop. Another example is the dispute between claims by Leon Trotsky and Noe Jordania about the number of Bolsheviks executed by the Menshevik regime. Trotsky claims 30, Jordania claims 0. Why not go digging around in the archives to find out? Jordania mentions courts martial to a British liaison and so Lee speculates that the traitors in question must have been soldiers. Why speculate? Why not go look for the answer?
Ultimately, this book feels like a somewhat rudimentary compilation of the English-language secondary sources about Georgia, rather than an actually new look at its first republic. Color me disappointed.
In fact, despite the author's claims that he had worked on this book for 30 years, it's hard to see the results between the covers. There are very few citations throughout the book, and almost none to primary sources or non-English sources. He has relied extensively on the few secondary sources produced about this era of Georgian history and often outdated sources (such as a biography of Stalin from the 1960s!). I'm not trying to say that "older books are bad," just that there has been a lot published since the fall of the Soviet Union that provides such substantially greater insight into Soviet history thanks to access to Soviet archives that ignoring those texts seems irresponsible.
The largest issues I have, though, are that Lee does not make the case for his conclusions. In his final chapters, describing the fall of the regime and some continued unrest in Soviet Georgia, he says (without citation) that the Georgian people rose up against the Bolsheviks in part because of their loyalty to the Social Democrats and their fondness for the reforms of that government. But he hasn't shown that those reforms actually impacted the people of Georgia. There is brief, inconsistent, mostly-theoretical discussion of trade unions and communes in Georgia, but no analysis of whether or how these were implemented or the impacts they had.
The chapter on the invasion of Georgia by the Red Army is extremely disjointed. Lee could have been trying to capture the sense of confusion and chaos that accompanied the takeover, but he doesn't make that claim. More likely, the disorder of the chapter reflects the disorder of the sources he relied on. Most of the citations there are from the New York Times and the Times of London, with the context that they were out of the loop. Another example is the dispute between claims by Leon Trotsky and Noe Jordania about the number of Bolsheviks executed by the Menshevik regime. Trotsky claims 30, Jordania claims 0. Why not go digging around in the archives to find out? Jordania mentions courts martial to a British liaison and so Lee speculates that the traitors in question must have been soldiers. Why speculate? Why not go look for the answer?
Ultimately, this book feels like a somewhat rudimentary compilation of the English-language secondary sources about Georgia, rather than an actually new look at its first republic. Color me disappointed.
November 11, 2021
ნაკლით დავიწყებ: მომენტებში ცდილობს ნაკლოვანებების ჩვენებასაც, მაგრამ მაინც ნამეტანი ქრაში აქვს ჩვენს მენშევიკებზე და ეტყობა :დდ თუმცა რადგან ეს სამეცნიერო ნაშრომი კი არა უფრო პოპულარული ნონფიკია, ეპატიება.
ღირსებები ბევრი აქვს ამ წიგნს - თუნდაც ის რომ ყურადღება მიაპყრო კიდევ ერთხელ მაგ პერიოდს.
ზოგადი შთაბეჭდილება: გულისტკივილი 😢 დაგვცლოდა რა რამდენიმე წელიც თუნდაც...
ასევე - ყველა კახპა აღმოჩნდა მაგრამ საფრანგეთმა რომ გვიჯიგრა ქაინდა არ ვიცოდი 😀
სტალინის კარგები და კეთილები მოვიკითხოთ კიდევ ერთხელ 👌
ღირსებები ბევრი აქვს ამ წიგნს - თუნდაც ის რომ ყურადღება მიაპყრო კიდევ ერთხელ მაგ პერიოდს.
ზოგადი შთაბეჭდილება: გულისტკივილი 😢 დაგვცლოდა რა რამდენიმე წელიც თუნდაც...
ასევე - ყველა კახპა აღმოჩნდა მაგრამ საფრანგეთმა რომ გვიჯიგრა ქაინდა არ ვიცოდი 😀
სტალინის კარგები და კეთილები მოვიკითხოთ კიდევ ერთხელ 👌
March 2, 2018
A Road not Taken: Russia was more than Red and White. easy to read. Takes a vast story (revolution in formally Tsarist Russia) and centers it on what went on in Georgia. I have a much better understanding not only of the choices people made in Georgia but why different areas reacted differently.
February 28, 2019
See my full review here: https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/revi...
February 13, 2023
Georgia's "forgotten revolution" is a worthwhile subject, and Lee does a good (if lengthy) job throughout much of this treatment, let down by two key failures.
Firstly, Lee has a tendency to lapse into a sort of historical lawyering, giving a nominally-dispassionate narrative of events (Georgia's repression of Bolsheviks, for example) and then making an assessment of right and wrong and appealing to the reader to agree with his view. This is astonishingly poor historical practice: responsible history books are not to build persuasive arguments, that's politics.
Secondly, while Lee is clearly deeply conversant with his particular subject his treatment at times betrays a lack of breadth and depth or, uncharitably, a historical illiteracy in his understanding of the wider context. To take a single example, Lee pronounces that in 1920 the Armenian Dashnaks "unwisely" embroiled their country in a war they could not win against "Turkey", a historical misrepresentation similar to non-historian William MacAskill's impoverished assessment of the history and contingency of abolition. This, unfortunately, is damning. History is context; and a history sans context is worse than useless: it's politics masquerading as history, perhaps the most dangerous kind.
All of this is, perhaps, unsurprising. Eric Lee is not a historian, he's an activist and writer, energetically participating in the international labour movement—for which the Georgian Republic represents an important element of the mythological past. The Experiment is an admirable book in a number of ways, but it's not very good history.
Firstly, Lee has a tendency to lapse into a sort of historical lawyering, giving a nominally-dispassionate narrative of events (Georgia's repression of Bolsheviks, for example) and then making an assessment of right and wrong and appealing to the reader to agree with his view. This is astonishingly poor historical practice: responsible history books are not to build persuasive arguments, that's politics.
Secondly, while Lee is clearly deeply conversant with his particular subject his treatment at times betrays a lack of breadth and depth or, uncharitably, a historical illiteracy in his understanding of the wider context. To take a single example, Lee pronounces that in 1920 the Armenian Dashnaks "unwisely" embroiled their country in a war they could not win against "Turkey", a historical misrepresentation similar to non-historian William MacAskill's impoverished assessment of the history and contingency of abolition. This, unfortunately, is damning. History is context; and a history sans context is worse than useless: it's politics masquerading as history, perhaps the most dangerous kind.
All of this is, perhaps, unsurprising. Eric Lee is not a historian, he's an activist and writer, energetically participating in the international labour movement—for which the Georgian Republic represents an important element of the mythological past. The Experiment is an admirable book in a number of ways, but it's not very good history.
October 10, 2025
ძალიან "სწრაფი" წიგნია და ხშირად იჩენს თავს ავტორის პირადი შეფასებები, თუმცა ჩვენთვის, პირველი რესპუბლიკის ისტორიით დაინტერესებულთათვის ახალი ინფორმაცია თუ ვერ, ერთი მთავარი ემოცია კი მოაქვს - გულისწყვეტა. დიახ, მტკივნეულია იმის განცდა, რომ ცეცხლში გახვეული აღმოსავლეთ ევროპის პატარა ქვეყანამ შეძლო არა მხოლოდ დამოუკიდებლობის მოპოვება (რომელსაც არავინ ელოდა და შესაბამისად არც მზაობა არსებობდა), არამედ გაუგონარი ექსპერიმენტის - დემოკრატიული რესპუბლიკის შენების დაწყება. სად აღმოვჩნდებოდით ახლა, რომ დასცლოდათ? ასე არ გამრავლდებოდა მათი მცირე შეცდომები და ასე არ განიავდებოდა მათი იმ დროისთვის შესანიშნავი მიღწევები. დღეს ჩვენც ვიქნებოდით მოწინავეთა შორის.
May 27, 2020
The author clearly has a 'side', which I find a bit annoying in a history, but it wasn't too heavy handed, just a case of some of the statements have to be read with a pinch of salt. There was also two printing/grammer errors that I noticed and that really irritated. Overall though it was an interesting read, with a smattering of drama and pretty well written.
December 26, 2019
Fascinating read on a subject of which I knew nothing.
Read
October 14, 2023Good read, relies too much on short newspaper reportage. Difficult to say if it's a legitimate presentation of the time period due to not being well versed on Georgia.
June 28, 2024
A very bad book that misleads, lies, oversimplifies, manipulates, and exaggerates. Lee’s only firm principle is anti-Bolshevism; everything else is bent to fit.
August 9, 2024
Good book on the history of the independent Socialist Republic of Georgia, that maintained multiparty democracy while pursuing Marxist ideas, despite being in a very precarious position.
June 7, 2019
There is not a lot of material written about the Democratic Republic of Georgia, especially in English. Lee's book tries to solve that, though it doesn't quite fulfill such a duty. While Lee writes from a socialist perspective, and is quite explicit, that is not the issue with the book, though a more neutral approach would have been nice. However Lee's failing is that he is not a historian, and far from an expert on Georgia. The book is thus mainly based off secondary literature, and nothing from Georgian-language publications. Though it does cover the various issues relating to the DRG, it fails to properly put them into their historic context, and does not get into the type of detail one would hope from a book that deals with such an interesting topic. While most of the material is easily available in other histories of modern Georgia, it is good still that it has all been collected into one volume, though a proper academic treatment of the DRG is still waiting.
July 26, 2018
All that could have been ...
August 23, 2024
Mid წიგნია და თავად მწერალი კი ზიონისტი ყოფილა
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews