Why Are Only a Few Countries Required To Be Multicultural

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

The analysis in my family's circle of friends was that Russia was too politically and technologically backwards to be able to sustain a revolution. They did not have the infrastructure needed to keep Stalin in check. I agree that it's hard to go from being an uneducated serf in a monarchy to an educated worker in some sort of consensus driven society.

This is an interpretation of Russian history frequently advanced during the Cold War, but subsequent research has cast serious doubt on its validity. Obviously, there is no data on what degree of political and technological sophistication is necessary for a proletarian revolution to succeed. But if you examine Russia's economic situation from 1861 forward, you'll find that it enjoyed healthy economic growth, and frequently outpaced other European powers in growth in industrial output. Had Stolypin at Witte's reforms not been interrupted by WW I, Russia could have developed into a major world economic power. Levels of foreign investment capital were high, and the state-directed campaign of railroad building supported the strong growth of heavy industry. (And, somewhat ironically, a small but highly concentrated population of urban workers.)

The political side is harder to predict. The Duma reforms following the 1905 revolution led to the establishment of civil liberties and some level of political pluralism. There was, no doubt, political repression, but the average Russian probably enjoyed more political freedoms in 1911 than at any point in history.

It's very difficult to explain the "failure" of the Bolshevik agenda using only structural factors. If we define this failure as the rise of Stalin and his oppressive rule, I find it more plausible that the Bolsheviks were simply uncautious administrators. They allowed Stalin to accumulate an enormous amount of organizational power by shaping the bureaucracy. In doing so he created an elite powerbase to rival that of Trotsky. Stalin (with Kamenev and Zinoviev) easily outmaneuvered Trotsky.

Re: going from and uneducated serf to a revolutionary worker. There is a really excellent memoir on exactly this. It's called A Radical Worker in Tsarist Russia: The Autobiography of Semën Kanatchikov, translated by Reginald Zelnik. Fascinating reading.

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Nothing quite like reactionary counter-revolutionary skullduggery and a dash of anti-semitism (along with assassinations and imprisonment/exile) to put the kibosh on a budding society.

Before we speculate too much on the form of said budding society had Stalin not come to power, let's first consider how many of the 'revolutionary' gains were made thanks to NEP.

[Caligulette]

Let's also consider that the NEP was in no way meant as a permanent state. Consider the conditions under which the NEP were implemented- civil war in the country, outside of the country recovering (to varying degrees) from WWI, etc. NEP did not happen in a vacuum.

It's very difficult to explain the "failure" of the Bolshevik agenda using only structural factors. If we define this failure as the rise of Stalin and his oppressive rule, I find it more plausible that the Bolsheviks were simply uncautious administrators. They allowed Stalin to accumulate an enormous amount of organizational power by shaping the bureaucracy. In doing so he created an elite powerbase to rival that of Trotsky. Stalin (with Kamenev and Zinoviev) easily outmaneuvered Trotsky.

I would not say "easily", but I would otherwise agree with certain caveats ("certain Bolsheviks", rather than the more sweeping "Bolsheviks", etc). Don't forget, though, that as soon as they realised Trotsky had been correct, Stalin did away with the Zinoviev elements.

He (Stalin) also played up Trotsky's Jewish heritage (though it had been at least a generation since there was active practice in his family) by referring to him as "Bronstein", which, while his real name, was not the name he went by in either public or private life. Add to this the cartoons of the stereotypical Jew distributed by his press, and one can see how Stalin used the more racist elements of the society to build a force against Trotsky.

Qingdai does have a point about the backwardness of the Russian peasantry, to be sure. Literacy rates in general before the Oct Rev were at about 25%, and they had been living in what could be easily considered a feudal manner until very recently- certainly within living memory of most adults at the time. While 1911 might have seemed comparatively free, people were still being exiled for belonging to illegal political parties, and there were still pogroms to be had.

Considering the raw materials of the society, I still think it's amazing that the Revolution was as succesfull as it had been. Had the general populace been more literate, more knowledgable about the idea of their having rights (and responsibilities), we would have seen a very different outcome. If they'd had the experiance to recognize Stalin for being Stalin (if you will), I doubt he would have got as far as he did. Had Germany actually followed through in 1923 with their own revolution, it would have deprived Stalin of his Socialism In One Country out, and have likely been a step in the direction of a Permanent Revolution, as advocated by Trotsky.

This would have had very very different implications for China as well, as it is doubtful that Trotsky (or anyone in that vein) would have advised Mao to turn over the command of the revolution to the Kuo Min Tang, which led directly and immediately to the massacre of the cream of the revolutionary crop - meaning, the Bolshevics in China. Mao, like Stalin, was not so much interested in the dictatorship of the proletariat as they were in being dictators over the proletariat.

[Qingdai]

Honestly, the conversations about the Russian Revolution were during the cold war.

NEP, you aren't referring to " slang term for the inner city neighborhood, Northeast Portland, in Oregon" are you?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Let's also consider that the NEP was in no way meant as a permanent state. Consider the conditions under which the NEP were implemented- civil war in the country, outside of the country recovering (to varying degrees) from WWI, etc. NEP did not happen in a vacuum.

Yes, that's true, but neither was NEP envisioned as a short-term program. Lenin himself described it as a long-term policy, and the end result of sustained NEP could have looked just as different from the Bolshevik idea of socialism as Stalin's socialism-in-one-country.

I would not say "easily", but I would otherwise agree with certain caveats ("certain Bolsheviks", rather than the more sweeping "Bolsheviks", etc). Don't forget, though, that as soon as they realised Trotsky had been correct, Stalin did away with the Zinoviev elements.

That's true, I used "easily" a bit flippantly there. Stalin would have disposed of Zinoviev no matter what.

He (Stalin) also played up Trotsky's Jewish heritage (though it had been at least a generation since there was active practice in his family) by referring to him as "Bronstein", which, while his real name, was not the name he went by in either public or private life. Add to this the cartoons of the stereotypical Jew distributed by his press, and one can see how Stalin used the more racist elements of the society to build a force against Trotsky.

Yes, he did.

Qingdai does have a point about the backwardness of the Russian peasantry, to be sure. Literacy rates in general before the Oct Rev were at about 25%, and they had been living in what could be easily considered a feudal manner until very recently- certainly within living memory of most adults at the time. While 1911 might have seemed comparatively free, people were still being exiled for belonging to illegal political parties, and there were still pogroms to be had.

I never denied that the Russian peasantry remained mired in illiteracy, I just don't think it mattered that much. The Russian state, like the pre-collectivization revolution, existed primarily in the cities. My point was that if you consider Russia by prevailing standards of the day rather than anachronistic ones, it was not as terribly backwards as Cold War historians would say it was. In any case, the great mass of the Russian peasantry had fairly little say in the Tsarist state, the February Revolution, or the October Revolution. Those were primarily urban phenomena the success of failure or which existed largely independently of the political consciousness of the peasantry. The peasantry existed to feed the revolution (such as the NEP era campaign against illiteracy); revolutionary consciousness would come with education. Indeed, as far as we can tell (the data is hard to manage) public enthusiasm for the revolution was very high during the NEP period, and even into the first five year plan. At least until collectivization.

Considering the raw materials of the society, I still think it's amazing that the Revolution was as succesfull as it had been. Had the general populace been more literate, more knowledgable about the idea of their having rights (and responsibilities), we would have seen a very different outcome. If they'd had the experiance to recognize Stalin for being Stalin (if you will), I doubt he would have got as far as he did. Had Germany actually followed through in 1923 with their own revolution, it would have deprived Stalin of his Socialism In One Country out, and have likely been a step in the direction of a Permanent Revolution, as advocated by Trotsky.

This would have had very very different implications for China as well, as it is doubtful that Trotsky (or anyone in that vein) would have advised Mao to turn over the command of the revolution to the Kuo Min Tang, which led directly and immediately to the massacre of the cream of the revolutionary crop - meaning, the Bolshevics in China. Mao, like Stalin, was not so much interested in the dictatorship of the proletariat as they were in being dictators over the proletariat.

You ascribe more agency to the public than I do. I can't see how the general population could have moved against Stalin while Lenin was still alive - the vanguard of the revolution would have crushed them, or they would have crushed the vanguard. Stalin's rise to power occured in elite circles, and there was little a poorly armed public could do about it. The Communist Party was not intended to be a mass party at the outset, so there was little that the general public could do from within existing political structures either.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

Honestly, the conversations about the Russian Revolution were during the cold war.

NEP, you aren't referring to " slang term for the inner city neighborhood, Northeast Portland, in Oregon" are you?

Qingdai! That would be 'NEPO', not NEP.

So...I'm not the only one who's clueless as to this particular acronym.

Chuck...Calig...can you clue us?

[ChuckF]

New Economic Policy. Sorreh.

[Qingdai]

See this is a tangent I like, I've had no one to discuss the Russian Revolution with since the cold war.

[Caligulette]

The Bolshevik Party and the Communist Party are two different things, though.

In re"Agency of the public. Yes, I do ascribe a lot of agency to the working public, which is why education is so important.

Stalin, had Lenin lived, would very likely not have come to power. It was certainly not Lenin's intention to hand over the reins. At the time of his illness, Lenin was making quiet noise in the direction of removing his influence as much as possible. He wrote many times of Trotsky being his (Lenin's) political heir. (Not as in a dynasty type of thing, rather as in Trotsky being ideologicaly closest to him, and in some areas, he agreed that T had seen things before Lenin did. Permanent Revolution being one such area.)

[Caligulette]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

See this is a tangent I like, I've had no one to discuss the Russian Revolution with since the cold war.

Hey!

[ChuckF]

There has been some exciting new scholarship as archives have opened up and we've had the first serious re-evaluation of the revolution since the 1970s. My discussion of post-CW Western views of the revolution is, however, cautious and self-conscious. The prevailing post-war views of Russian history are still very current in American academia, and I realize that I'm probably more conditioned by them than I know.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Indeed, as far as we can tell (the data is hard to manage) public enthusiasm for the revolution was very high during the NEP period, and even into the first five year plan. At least until collectivization.

Right. I see farm collectivization, in an overwhelmingly agrarian society, to have been the downfall of the revolution.

Originally Posted by Caliguette

This would have had very very different implications for China as well, as it is doubtful that Trotsky (or anyone in that vein) would have advised Mao to turn over the command of the revolution to the Kuo Min Tang, which led directly and immediately to the massacre of the cream of the revolutionary crop - meaning, the Bolshevics in China. Mao, like Stalin, was not so much interested in the dictatorship of the proletariat as they were in being dictators over the proletariat.

Yet, as I understand it, this was done exactly because the Russian Communist Party functionaries saw the Chinese Communist Party as unable to foment an industrial workers revolution, due to a class of industrial laborers being nearly non-existant. No proletariat, in their view. Plus, what Mao was pushing wasn't Marxism in their eyes, but peasant revolt. The Russians pushing communism in China prior to the defeat of the Japanese in China was a laughable escapade...they managed to piss off everybody and their portable lunch (dog).

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

The Bolshevik Party and the Communist Party are two different things, though.

Yes, I should have used small 'c' communist party there. Force of habit.

In re"Agency of the public. Yes, I do ascribe a lot of agency to the working public, which is why education is so important.

Stalin, had Lenin lived, would very likely not have come to power. It was certainly not Lenin's intention to hand over the reins. At the time of his illness, Lenin was making quiet noise in the direction of removing his influence as much as possible. He wrote many times of Trotsky being his (Lenin's) political heir. (Not as in a dynasty type of thing, rather as in Trotsky being ideologicaly closest to him, and in some areas, he agreed that T had seen things before Lenin did. Permanent Revolution being one such area.)

Very true, in evidence in Lenin's Testament. Lenin was a scrupulous manager of unlimited energies. Trotsky was at an immediate disadvantage after Lenin died because, as Edmund Wilson said, he "[possessed] neither Lenin's gift for establishing personal relations of confidence nor the cunning political sense which has made it possible for Stalin to build up his machine and manipulate public opinion." He was an ideological thinker of astounding depth, but he was unable to translate his enthusiasm for theory into a cohesive political constituency, among the masses or the elites.

[Caligulette]

Well, I would disagree with Mr Wilson on a few points. Reading Trotsky's essays published in the immediate years after the Rev and since collected in Problems Of Everyday Life, I would counter that Trotsky had not only a solid grasp of what was entailed in rebuilding society, but that he also had a masterful grasp of the uses of humour and a wonderful way of communicating on a one-to-one level with the general populace. Also, having seen a fair bit of footage of him speaking in public and the reaction of the crowd- positive reaction, to be clear, it could not fairly be said that he was not a good communicator, nor that he was not well-liked.

As for organizational abilities: Red Army. During war time.

What Stalin had which Trotsky did not have nor want was a propensity to lie. Trotsky laid things out straight- Stalin promised things which could not be delivered. When the promises fell through, there had to be a scapegoat, so enter the Jews, enter the "Counter-Revolutionary Trotskyites". Enter the Moscow Trials. People believed the lies in the first place partialy becaise they were tired, I mean:
1905 Revolution
Failure of Revolution and re-instateent of Tsarism
World War
1917 Feb Revolution
October Revolution
Civil War and Counter Revolution
Isolation and collaboration with the counter-revolutionaries by imperialist nations
Failure of the German Revolution.
Lenin dies
more economic hardship

The people were tired. Lies sounded pretty good in comparisson to the hard work which actually lay ahead. But the lies turned to murder, and the society closed down rather quickly- rights were taken away, the forced collectivisation had been a very bad idea (and Trotsky had advised against it - Lenin, unlike Stalin, did not exactly like the disagreement, but was smart enough to at least consider it, rather than just off the disagree-er). So Stalin told them what they wanted to hear, found people to blame when it did not pan out, recruited the Church to aid in the re-assertion of what almost amounts to tsar-level power. In the meantime, he excises the very history of the Revolution, painting himself as a hero on a par with Lenin, erases or obscures accounts to the contrary, makes examples of those who remember out loud what actually happened.

[Qingdai]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Hey!

Except you and my dad.
I just remember being a wee kid with my family and their friends discussing politics in large dinner parties. I miss the days of lots of people from different backgrounds discussing things, like why Stalin came to power. I just appreciate this forum for reminding me of those times.

So thanks Caligulette, ChuckF and Godfrey.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Well, I would disagree with Mr Wilson on a few points. Reading Trotsky's essays published in the immediate years after the Rev and since collected in Problems Of Everyday Life, I would counter that Trotsky had not only a solid grasp of what was entailed in rebuilding society, but that he also had a masterful grasp of the uses of humour and a wonderful way of communicating on a one-to-one level with the general populace. Also, having seen a fair bit of footage of him speaking in public and the reaction of the crowd- positive reaction, to be clear, it could not fairly be said that he was not a good communicator, nor that he was not well-liked.

He failed in the Trade Union debate and failed to gain the support of the Politburo in the years leading up to Lenin's death. But as I will discuss below, Trotsky's rapport with the crowds could not have saved him.

As for organizational abilities: Red Army. During war time.

I can't impugn the organizational abilities of any of the Bolsheviks, much less Trotsky's during the Civil War. After the war, however, tThey could not rival Stalin's consolidation of power through careful management of the cadres.

What Stalin had which Trotsky did not have nor want was a propensity to lie. Trotsky laid things out straight- Stalin promised things which could not be delivered. When the promises fell through, there had to be a scapegoat, so enter the Jews, enter the "Counter-Revolutionary Trotskyites". Enter the Moscow Trials. People believed the lies in the first place partialy becaise they were tired, I mean:
1905 Revolution
Failure of Revolution and re-instateent of Tsarism
World War
1917 Feb Revolution
October Revolution
Civil War and Counter Revolution
Isolation and collaboration with the counter-revolutionaries by imperialist nations
Failure of the German Revolution.
Lenin dies
more economic hardship

The people were tired. Lies sounded pretty good in comparisson to the hard work which actually lay ahead. But the lies turned to murder, and the society closed down rather quickly- rights were taken away, the forced collectivisation had been a very bad idea (and Trotsky had advised against it - Lenin, unlike Stalin, did not exactly like the disagreement, but was smart enough to at least consider it, rather than just off the disagree-er). So Stalin told them what they wanted to hear, found people to blame when it did not pan out, recruited the Church to aid in the re-assertion of what almost amounts to tsar-level power. In the meantime, he excises the very history of the Revolution, painting himself as a hero on a par with Lenin, erases or obscures accounts to the contrary, makes examples of those who remember out loud what actually happened.

Yes, Stalin could lie, and that was to his great benefit during the succession struggle. I think the fudamental difference between us is again laid bare: I don't think that mass politics had anything to do with it. It didn't matter what Stalin said to the people, it mattered what he said to the established (Bolshevik) and emerging (bureaucratic) elites. That was the key to winning the fight with Trotsky. The people suffered, it's true, but the Revolution was not a mass movement as a Menshevik would want. Lenin never envisioned it as such. Stalin's rise was bureaucratic, not an appeal to any kind of public. Trotsky simply did not have access to the levers of power that Stalin did.

[ZEZOZE]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Mr Zeke, your lack of historical knowledge once again rears its ugly head.

Perhaps, but your lack of knowledge regarding human behaviour and the power of action as an example is the norm. Let me put it to you plainly, sweetheart...

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Overthrowing...

Let me tell you why revolutions fail...actually, you just told me in the above quote.

Isn't socialism all about the people? Shouldn't it be about consensus and a majority acting to bring it about, through, say, democracy? (a half-joke there)


Now about those revolutions to bring about change and force out enemies of the people. Right off the bat the oppressed becomes the aggressor and that example will come back to haunt those who live by the sword. That's why your commie crap failed. That's why revolutions always end up failing- the good intentions are blotted out by the bad examples we set through our actions to achieve them. Those in power saw what it took to get it and saw to it that the same fate would not happen to them. Some are good at making that last, some not so good.

i mays be stupids but i sees hows people acts.

(you've lost sight under all those words)

I'll catch ya at the overthrow. Twice.

[Caligulette]

The Trade Union issue is one on which I must again disagree- as we are now seeing in the massive betrayals of the workers by (for example) the UAW, trade unions tend to lean in a couple of very anti-worker directions. One item is the nationalist nature of many of them, another is that the bureaucratic element has become so distanced fromt he actual shop floors that the negotiations they claim to do on behalf of the workers would be laughable if it were not so criminal (I think in particular of the recent GM agreement which the UAW would not let the autoworkers even see before insisting that they vote in favour of it, among other thing). In short- that extra layer is an impediment to workers' control of the means of production. Make no mistake- for a time they did a great number of great things, but following the natural course of the system of organisation, they have become quite the liability. Trotsky had the forsight to know that this was a likely outcome. It was not popular with the union leaders, of course, and at the time it might have looked even anti-worker, when, ultimately, it was very much anti-bureaucracy and pro-worker. It was a stand against revisionism.

Trotsky wrote about his decisions during Stalin's rise. He saw what was happening, helped to organise the Left Opposition. However, it must be kept in mind that while Stalin was on the rise, Trotsky was actually in the battlefields, organising and leading the Red Army (the tactics of which have been favourably written about by even Harold Walter Nelson, or otherwise taking care of business. he was not given to the machinations of court life, if you will, which Stalin obviously adored.

[godfry n. glad]

Okay...I'm not versed in Russian/Soviet history. I've nothing but disconnected smatterings.

I'm interested in who the players were in the Bolshevik, which I'm perceiving as being the "politburo" during the revolutionary period. Other than Lenin at the top, can someone clarify the actors and their roles in the revolution and immediate post revolutionary period.

I also understand that the term "Bolshevik" carries the meaning of "the majority", which it patently was not, but an elitist minority intent on controlling the revolution.

I know Lenin was spirited into Russia (from Finland into St. Petersburg, IIRC) with the assistance of the Germans. But what did he find there? I'm also somewhat familiar with the Menshiviks, but these aren't restorationists who want to bring the imperial family back to power, but another socialist party? How does the White Army fit into this whole scenario? I rather perceive the White Army elements spread out across the Siberian Express rail line, clear to Vladivostok, as being restorationists, reactionary elements, and clearly in cohoots with American adventurers connected to the White House.

I also viewed Stalin as a military general type, who, if I understand the authority structure, would have been answerable to Trotsky. Did Stalin then depose his direct superior through back-channel gossip and manipulation of the perceptions of other bolsheviks?

[Caligulette]

I will answer this when I have a good chunk of time, and a chance to dig up the books so as to avoid at least some spelling mistakes. Maybe tonight, but more likely tomorrow. Good questions, and I hope to help.

[ChuckF]

I'll do my best to respond to these, but it will take more time to answer them thoroughly.

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I'm interested in who the players were in the Bolshevik, which I'm perceiving as being the "politburo" during the revolutionary period. Other than Lenin at the top, can someone clarify the actors and their roles in the revolution and immediate post revolutionary period.

This is an enormous question because there were many, many actors. I'm not even going to attempt to answer it here. There's a huge literature out there that is both enjoyable reading and very informative. Orlando Figes' A People's Tragedy is long, but very good.

I also understand that the term "Bolshevik" carries the meaning of "the majority", which it patently was not, but an elitist minority intent on controlling the revolution.

Bolshevik literally means "a member of the majority" (majority = bol'shinstvo). It came about in 1903 when the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party split into two factions over a number of issues. Lenin favored a model of the party as highly trained, disciplined corps to carry out the revolution on behalf of the masses. The leader of the Mensheviks pushed for party membership for everyone sympathetic to the party's goals. Lenin won the debate on party membership and his faction got the "Bolshevik" name. The Bolsheviks were a minority in political affairs leading up to October 1917, when Bolshevik-controlled local soviets (soviet = council, counsel, or advice) seized power from theh provisional government that replaced the Tsarist autocracy in February 1917. This is a dramatic oversimplification of the Bolshevik/Menshevik split, and explains only how the factions came to have the names that we know them by today.

I know Lenin was spirited into Russia (from Finland into St. Petersburg, IIRC) with the assistance of the Germans. But what did he find there? I'm also somewhat familiar with the Menshiviks, but these aren't restorationists who want to bring the imperial family back to power, but another socialist party? How does the White Army fit into this whole scenario? I rather perceive the White Army elements spread out across the Siberian Express rail line, clear to Vladivostok, as being restorationists, reactionary elements, and clearly in cohoots with American adventurers connected to the White House.

Lenin arrived to find the country more or less in chaos as the provisional government failed to end Russia's involvement in WW I. Its popularity was rapidly waning. Many wanted the more radical worker's councils to seize power ("All power to the Soviets!"). The Mensheviks were one of many factions competing for influence at the time, and the alliances between the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks, the Social Revolutionaries cemented and fractured rapidly. It was a very complex period.

The White Army wasn't an army in the traditional sense. Rather, it was a loosely organized coalition of forces fighting against the Bolsheviks. Some were monarchists, some perceived the Bolshevik seizure of power as a coup d'état against the provisional government (which they perceived as legitimate), and others opposed Bolshevik ideology. The White Army was so amorphous that it's hard to ascribe a single adjective to it. There was foreign intervention, but its importance tends to be overstated.

I also viewed Stalin as a military general type, who, if I understand the authority structure, would have been answerable to Trotsky. Did Stalin then depose his direct superior through back-channel gossip and manipulation of the perceptions of other bolsheviks?

Well, not really. In 1922 Stalin became General Secretary of the Bolshevik Central Committee. Lenin and Stalin didn't view this as a particularly important post, but it did allow Stalin to gain control over hiring and bureaucratic postings. As the Civil War died down the Bolsheviks had to turn to state- and party-building (despite a popular conception of the Tsarist regime as a hulking bureaucracy, many estimates show that it was in fact undergoverned, and the turmoil of the revolution only exacerbated the problem). Stalin was able to shape the party by riding the bureaucratizing current and accumulate an enormous amount of influence through patronage networks and personnel.

Stalin was also a masterful manipulator. His rise to power is, like much of the revolution, and exceedingly complex and Byzantine knot of personalities and events.

That's the index card version.

[godfry n. glad]

Thanks, Chuck.

I knew I was asking a lot when I posted it, but you handled it masterfully.

I noticed that Caligulette (I believe it was) stated that Stalin "co-opted the church" in his machinations. I'd like to know more about this, as I am clear on Stalin having gotten a good deal of his formal education in a Russian Orthodox seminary (his mum wanted him to be a priest), but am unaware of his "using" the church to his ends.

[ChuckF]

Stalin didn't really start co-opting the church until WW II ("the great fatherland war"), when it was supremely useful as a symbol of national cohesion. After his consolidation of power and the launch of the first five year plan, he effectively outlawed the church and shot a whole bunch of church officials and priests. This wasn't entirely Stalin's policy; the Bolsheviki pursued a fairly rigorous anti-religious campaign starting just after the Civil War.

The Bolsheviki refused to allow the Church to elect a new metropolitan when the old one died, and subordinated the subsequent leadership to the state. (This is not, by the way, a new phenomenon in Russia: Peter the Great did precisely the same thing when he abolished the patriarchate. The patriarch died, Peter refused to allow the Church to appoint a new one, and replaced the office with the Holy Synod, composed of clergy and lay people appointed by the tsar.)

As for Stalin's early education in an Orthodox Seminary, I don't know that much. I can refer you to Simon Montefiore's Young Stalin, which I have not read but I hear is excellent. He previously wrote The Court of the Red Tsar which drew on a lot of newly available Georgian documents.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

The Trade Union issue is one on which I must again disagree- as we are now seeing in the massive betrayals of the workers by (for example) the UAW, trade unions tend to lean in a couple of very anti-worker directions. One item is the nationalist nature of many of them, another is that the bureaucratic element has become so distanced fromt he actual shop floors that the negotiations they claim to do on behalf of the workers would be laughable if it were not so criminal (I think in particular of the recent GM agreement which the UAW would not let the autoworkers even see before insisting that they vote in favour of it, among other thing). In short- that extra layer is an impediment to workers' control of the means of production. Make no mistake- for a time they did a great number of great things, but following the natural course of the system of organisation, they have become quite the liability. Trotsky had the forsight to know that this was a likely outcome. It was not popular with the union leaders, of course, and at the time it might have looked even anti-worker, when, ultimately, it was very much anti-bureaucracy and pro-worker. It was a stand against revisionism.

Trotsky wrote about his decisions during Stalin's rise. He saw what was happening, helped to organise the Left Opposition. However, it must be kept in mind that while Stalin was on the rise, Trotsky was actually in the battlefields, organising and leading the Red Army (the tactics of which have been favourably written about by even Harold Walter Nelson, or otherwise taking care of business. he was not given to the machinations of court life, if you will, which Stalin obviously adored.

I agree with all of this, but I think we've started talking past each other a little bit. I'm not anti-Trotsky (or anti-Stalin or anti-Lenin); I have no interest in the content of the ideological struggle beyond its effects of the historical outcome. To put it another way: Less antithesis, moar synthesis! I'm not saying that Trotsky lost any ideological battle, either on merit or on rhetoric: rather, he lost the political battle because Stalin simply outmaneuvered him. With lots of tricks, some clean, many dirty.

[Caligulette]

I am not as approving of Figes, but will not discourage the reading- I would recommend a couple of other books and together you can get a better pro/con idea: Ten Days That Shook the World, by Reed; The History of the Russian Revolution, by Trotsky (which is not as biased as you might think, really); and - going back a little further, history-wise, Road to Revolution, by Yarmolinsky (which I have, if you cannot find) which goes into the pre-pre-Revolutionary situation (as in, the hundred years prior to the Rev.).

You might also like:
a scorecard of sorts:
Documents on the Russian Revolution

Bear in mind that the site is run by a rather revisionist faction (as witness their reverence of Che, among others)- however, it can be a good jumping off point, grain of salt and all.

[Caligulette]

The thanking button is not appearing, Mr F, or I would press it and thank you.