The Communist government in Moscow through the period of their reign had returned practically all the territories of the former Russian Empire except for Alaskan, Polish and Manchzhurian districts. Take it or leave it, under their ruling the territorial integrity of the country was not only preserved but carefully guarded. That integrity survived even the WWII. Tell it to Yeltzin who unilaterally and against the will of the people dissolved the territory of his country and then danced his drunken dance accompanied by Clinton. Imagine now maybe Confederates should have just organized a good drinking party instead of attacking Fort Sumter?
After the WWII the country, half of the territory of which has been destroyed and with about 27 million casualties in the population without any foreign help restored itself in about 10 years.
Russia took over and for a long period of time retained the leading role in science, preventive medicine, special technologies and overall level of public education. The educational system K-10 was so impeccable that it was adopted in many other countries, particularly in Asia. In Europe such system works perfectly in France. Now, that is exactly that national system which we here so vehemently oppose, destroyed any idea of it in the US and now with rage and vehemence try to destroy it in Russia too. BTW that system taught me a lot about USA and the names of the Founding Fathers of the US Revolution were highly regarded in our classrooms up to the portraits on the walls. How about portraits of Lenin in the US classrooms?
The Communist government declared Russian language as a state language while officially promoting national languages whenever possible. When they did that our ‘conservativoliberals’ here howled about the oppression of minorities in Russia. But now they push for English as a state language here although they know very well that US is not Russia and that in the US there is no such thing as a titular nation.
5. What kind of people were they
Same as us. They had families, children. Most of them demonstrated courage and integrity under stressful circumstances. Lenin was hit by two bullets in the assassination attempt but still refused special guards. Compare that to Dubya. 300 delegates of the Party Congress in 1921 lead the storming troops at the Kronshtadt fortress. Young communists demonstrated extraordinary courage and dedication in Civil War and WWII. Under the most horrible conditions of torture and violent death during the Stalin’s terror there were many people both from the first communists and from the young ones who still fought the odds and behaved bravely, Most of them did not survive. The best never survive. I could list names and names but it does not matter. We cannot judge; we can only mourn. They were honest, not hypocritical and never avoided responsibility. Whoever they were and whatever they did they were complete personalities and their dedication is admirable.
So, after I wrote all that, what am I up to? By no means I am trying to glorify the communist system. I am only trying to remind that the history of the Humanity judges by only one criteria- the level of honest, passionate effort. That's what counts. That is why we here, in the US honor Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee. That is why in France they honor Robespierre, Marat, Danton, Napoleon I and Cardinal Richelieu, Louis the XIVth, Voltaire, Louis- Philippe and Napoleon III. That’s why English honor Richard III, Elizabeth I, Mary, Queen of Scots, Nelson and Cromwell. The passion of those people became a passion of the nation; their powerful spirit lives among the people of their countries forever, right or wrong. Dubya and his cronies are nothing like that. They are small, shallow goons put to power by others. They are imitators, monkeys who pretend to be something. They jump a around a banana jar and make noises. They are a pathetic scum. They stink.
So here and now I would ask the people who write about that scum to abandon the ‘busheviks’ definition because it does Dubya too much of a favor. There are plenty of other nicknames. PNACis comes to mind. Pretzel-In- Chief rocks from my standpoint. Leave the Bolsheviks alone, please.They deserve that much.
A writer is a rogue goose. All other gees fly in a flock formation; every goose knows his place and time for honking. The rogue goose is undisciplined. He leaves the formation indiscriminately to have a look at it from aside. He roams back and forth, takes a peep at the leader, honks a little bit from behind, distracts everyone and writes on what he sees. Time passes and as he wants to return back to his place he discovers someone else there. Thus he either has to wait until they land for rest or join another flock in emigration. Those other birds could be cranes, storks or even crows. If he makes it he will become a rogue again. Whenever he goes and whatever he writes he never reaches a destination or enjoys a landing. There's only Kipling's God of Fair Beginnings and skies above and beyond. And the only way for a writer to make peace with the Deity is through the language of Poetry
I agree with you about much of what you write. But I disagre taht there are no similarities. I rather imagine that some fo the neocons have studied bolshevik tactics.
While I do agree with you about the degree of commitment of an ideal among almost all the Bosheviks, there is also a degree of machiavellian manipulation that put the ends over the means in ways that were disastrous. This is the huge similarity I see between the bush admin and Bolsheviks. Both are revolutionaries and believe that their cause can justify almost any moral breach. Lenin authorized bank robberies and (stalin being the most effective) had no compunction about lying about just about anything in order to gain and maintain power.
This I think was Lenin's genius and curse. He was able to actually oversee a genuine political economic and to some degree social revolution, when his group was in fact a very small, though influential political player. And while many of the communists were moral, they were fighting an extraordinary battle against acapitalis system that was overwhelmingly more powerful. They felt justifed and to a certain degree they were. However the political maneuvering that was used to justify their power grab was immoral in many ways. They promised democracy and freedom and building a humanistic society that would liberate the world from the horrible oppression of Capitalism and feudalism. Because they believed their analysis and solutions were superior to the other revolutionary and reformist groups, they did everything they could to gain control without regard to the principles of freedom that they represented. The dictatorship of the proletariat was considered essential. So they could undermine or exterminate their opponents with a clear conscience.
the Kronstadt battle you mention had communist veterans from the revolution murdering their own soldiers fro refusing to attack a n uprising against the brutality of the new state. Thousands were killed , and the legitimacy of the communists was lost form this and other actions.
In many ways Bush and Co are not as bad as the Bolsheviks and the comparison is unfair. In other ways they are worse because their allegiance is to corporate interests and their morality is at base largely nonexistent. the bolsheviks were fighting a real enemy incomprehensively more powerful than they were, whereas Bush invents enemies in order to justify horrific war and the dismantling of our system of government.
So i think the comparison is valid in certain respects and invalid in other
by
Tony Duncan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments)
on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 9:25:18 AM
But as I said, you have to compare the scope of passion and personalities. And my conclusion stays; Bush and his cronies are scum. They do not deserve a historical place. Lenin does. I do not condone his actions. I compare and I show the difference in purposes, personalities and people.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 234 diaries, 3343 comments)
on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 9:35:39 AM
The battle of Kronshdadt though brutal was inevitable. After several pleads to stop the rebeliion ( prominent Communists came and talked) the Govt crushed it. You would have done the same. Lincoln did the same, so did Grant. I would have done the same. There were horrible casualties. But it was absolutely inevitable. And BTW, the legitimacy of the govt in Moscow was absolutely fortified after it. No, I do not say it was a good govt. But it was the govt of the nation at that time. Same as the Union in 1861.
On the contrary, the bloody carnage in Moscow in 1993 was not only provoked by Yeltzin and his allies but it was directed at the civilians and only civilians. There was no threat to the Sovereignity. Yeltzin did it from fear and to please Clinton.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 234 diaries, 3343 comments)
on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 9:46:48 AM
I think this can be a valuable conversation, but it might get very long. Obviously both of us have a pretty good historical understanding f this period. i am excited to read someone discussing these issues, and I imagine that we will disagree on important sepcifics, but I want to say up front that I very much support your general position.
So I will take exception to your assessment that Kronstadt was necesary. The rebellion was NOT an attempt to overthrow the government. The kronstadt Garrison was thoroughly revolutionary, and had proven itself throughout the revolution and civil war. as i recall this was after the majority fo the civil war was over, and the economic situation of the people in Russia was horrendous. There was widespread famine and there were non white rebellions accurring with increasing frequency.
The Kronstadt rebellion specifically wanted to institute the ideals of the revolution. and guarantee some freedom and democracy. There was no call to overthrow the state at first. this was in no way comparable to the civil war, and I certainly would not have crushed them. Real negotiation not only was possible but might have totally changed the history of Russia and possibly prevented the rise of Stalin. The rebellion arose from completely legitimate concerns about desperate issues and insisted on a soviet future that would institute limits to governmental abuse.
In my view if Trotsky had been in charge he might have realized this. This was a defining instance in allowing The Soviet Union to terrorize it's citizenry. Trotsky's great failing in my view is that he submitted to party discipline when he should have known it was totally destructive. The rebellion was thrilled when they learned Trotsky was going to come, because all revolutionaries trusted his commitment to communist ideals. Instead he supported Tuchachevsky's assault. I believe the only danger to the government was the possibility of losing their iron grip. One could argue that any degree of brutality is justified because the government wouldn't have survived, but that is the justification used by every brutal dictatorship.
And Kronstadt was probably a major factor in Lenin instituting the new Economic policy. If this had been part of a deal with various political factions before crushing Kronstadt, it might have made ahuge difference. I believe that that The central committee believed it had to crush all dissent no matter how valid and make the power of the party invioble. This is not a position I would ever take in a situation where the external enemies of the country had just been defeated.
Trotsky's other great failing was in allowing the Red Army attack on Poland
by
Tony Duncan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments)
on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 10:26:30 AM
In the excellent book 'Captain Dikstein' Michael Kuraev explicitly states that there were at least three attempts of negotiations from the govt, including Kalinin and Kuzmin. I assume we could discuss for a long time. But to make it short: Robespier did a lot of atrocities but France keeps him as a great statesman. Russia had its Revolution. The founders of it were who they were. They did not have to ask for forgiveness. They are historical figures. Bush is not. He is a historical monkey. That is all in it.
And as a matter of fact, I am a peaceful man but I would have crushed that rebellion,sorry. We need to understand that we are not better than those. Just luckier.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 234 diaries, 3343 comments)
on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 10:39:52 AM
I saw the 'momuments' to communist rule in Russia in St Petersburg last year. I saw row after row of old, falling down, crowded, drab state built apartment complexes that were testaments to government planning. I smelled the rotting garbage piled high and the foul waste backing up in the sewage treatment plants. I saw the fish dying in polluted rivers and the gray skies. The unpainted buildings and the rotting sidewalks and bridges. The old, smoke-belching buses, full of sad-looking people going to low paying jobs. Depressing.
The communists ran the country with an iron fist and squeezed every drop of humanity out of a vibrant people. A government for the people? Hardly. A government against the people ruled by cruel and calculating bunch of hardened elitists. To me Russia, what I saw in St Petersburg, is a textbook example of what happens when overbearing government becomes the driving force in a society. Everything, especially responsibility and initiative, gets plowed under and dies in the name of equality for all. The Russians sold their soul to communism and got 100 years of misery in return.
To smell garbage you do not have to go very far. You can just visit New York. Or New Orleans. Or Appalachia. As for 100 years of misery- well, how about what misery they had BEFORE 1917? You better not try to imagine. And again, about drab buldings. The beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I live near Hartford, CT. You really do not want to know what kind of architecture it is.. sorry.
BTW, the Russian infrastructure arrhitecture was one of the best. They never had a chance to use it as USA did for mass transportation.
Sold their soul? How about yours? Whom did you sell your soul to?
There is only one way to assess other people- from the position of total equality as if you are one of them. Try it. It helps the soul.
And BTW, I lived in St. Peterburg in 1980. It is the most beautiful place in the world.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 234 diaries, 3343 comments)
on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 10:34:31 AM
I have always found Stalin to be a strangely enigmatic, historical figure: a man created more by the times in which he found himself than by personality defects.
If one reads Soviet political theorists as early as the 1920's, based upon Marxist analysis they began predicting the rise of fascism in Germany and the ultimate attack on the Soviet Union by some alliance of Western nations supporting Germany. Stalin, faced with this knowledge, had but a brief period to turn a feudal society into a modern industrial society capable of defending itself against possible attack by all of the Western democracies. Such a feat required more than gentle persuasion, especially regarding the large land owners who had held power over the feudal society. The Nazi/Soviet Pact regarding Poland was, of course, a delaying tactic, and when the war finally broke out Germany positioned approximately 90% of her troops on the Eastern front. In America, the isolationist movement was strongly pro-nazi, and many American businesses continued to aid Germany in its fight against the Soviets, particularly being of note the father of George H.W. Bush, Prescott Bush, (the subject of numerous investigations under the Trading with the Enemy Act) and the Rockefeller family. The American elite hoped that Hitler would eradicate communism from the earth, and then a weakened Hitler could be conquered by the Allies. Unfortunately, FDR had other ideas, and his break with the American ruling class was so despised that the elder Bush planned a military takeover of the United States. But the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Russian victory at Stalingrad, forced the United States to first enter the war and then begin serious consideration of invading the European mainland before the Soviets could roll all of the way across Europe.
In short, Stalin took an immense, feudalistic nation, and based upon the political theorists of his party forcibly communalized agricultural production to support modern industrial production in preparation for modern warfare against the entire modern world, and succeeded in defeating that foe. Had he not, every Soviet citizen would have become a slave to Hitler, and history as we know it would not exist. In fact, the Germans probably would have developed the atomic bomb before the United States did, and Nazism would have ruled the world.
So, how does one measure Stalin? Does the end ever justify the means?
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 265 comments)
on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 3:11:51 PM
I t was not my intention to glorify Stalin in any way. Moreover, he contributed immensely to the rise of Hitler to power. He nearly destroyed the culture of the Russia as a nation. Morover, the only way to judge him is to imagine yourself to be one of those millions of victims. No, Stalin was a monster and the Nation had to endure him but even monsters are to behave accordingly in the ancient and powerful culture. There is only one way to properly understand the role of Stalin - it is through the love of that ' feudalistic' Russia we here so unfortunately despise. IT transformed even him or rather his role. In fact, only through love and respect we can at least try to understand any culture. Stalin did not do any good- it is despite him the culture survived.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 234 diaries, 3343 comments)
on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 3:32:54 PM
I do not mean to glorify Stalin--hence, my last question: do the ends justify the means. And it may well be that a better man could have accomplished that which Stalin accomplished with far less internal bloodshed than Stalin did. But nevertheless, he, like all historical players, must be placed in proper historical context. And Russia was not an industrial nation, but a nation whose political structure was based upon a power elite who held agricultural interests that were tenant farmed by poor peasants. In order to mass produce enough food to support industrialization, nationalization of those agricultural interests, and their subdivisions ruled by kulaks, was probably a necessary precondition. Whether or not this could have been accomplished without the mass murders and party purges is another question.
I find it hard to argue with results. Stalin defeated a Germany aided by the industrialists from the United States and many of the other industrialized democracies. Only after that defeat did the British and American elite make a true commitment to the war in Europe. So great was the fear of the Americans, that rather than blockade Japan to force its surrender, they demonstrated their willingness to use atomic weapons on civilians for the benefit of containing Stalin. If Stalin is to be condemned to the rubbish of history, then so must be those American "heros" who ordered and dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
While this is not an analysis you are likely to read in a history book published in a capitalist or communist country, or one written by a person that subjectively experienced these events, it is one well-grounded in the written works that exist: hopefully, a clinical analysis without prejudice toward any of the parties involved. When dealing with events on such a scale as WWII, where tens of millions of people lost their lives, I try not to indulge myself in emotional attachment to political figures or nations. I merely judge whether a particular action created or prevented a greater harm to come. Under this rule, while Japan could have been blockaded with less harm, the bombing still prevented greater harm than it caused, notwithstanding that there might have been another method. I view Stalin the same way. He won. As a result, the Nazis lost. As a result, I am not a Nazi, nor are you. And the world is still full of some of the best people in it: the Jews.
Wars and the threat of wars do not bring out the finer nature of men.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 265 comments)
on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 8:30:16 PM
are paramount in learning about other cultures and those make you a good citizen too. Those three make it possible for a person to suffer together with the suffering of the victims or enjoy together with the victors. These feeling make you avoid generalizations and Russia is no more ' feudalistic' and USA is no more 'Paradise for handmaidens'. Those feelings we all need to appreciate the best and hate the worst in all nations, all people, all histories and all countries. Those feelings are the key. Have them- and education does you good. Do not have them-and you better stay uneducated.
Just a thought. FYI
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 234 diaries, 3343 comments)
on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 5:25:11 PM
Science, or objective analysis of observable phenomena, provides knowledge. Empathy skews science, but provides wisdom. Knowledge without wisdom is like a child with a loaded shotgun. Wisdom without knowledge is like an unloaded gun. Hence, we must have both.
As a human with wisdom, I see and feel the weight and grief of the Holocaust on the Jews, and value the tremendous vitality of their culture, their humor, their emphasis on education, and the collective contributions they have made to the human race. As a social scientist, I wonder why in a war in which over 30,000,000 were killed, including probably 20 to 25 million Russians, millions of Poles, and millions of other gypsies, gays, etc., have we so singularly anointed the six million for special treatment. After all, those ovens also held the Poles, the Communists, the Resistance, the Gays, and the Gypsies, but we do not have Holocaust memorials to them. When we take credit for winning WWII, do we not dishonor the noble sacrifice of the millions of Russian dead? Is "Saving Private Ryan" not just merely a bad postscript to "Enemy at the Gates"?
You see, my love of the Jews, (and I note my paternal grandmother was Jewish) must be informed by the knowledge of how successfully the holocaust has been manipulated to the benefit of some Jews in complete disregard for the suffering of the overwhelming millions who shared in their fate. It is the knowledge of the scientist and the wisdom of the empath combined that makes for a complete understanding of the event.
You seem to think that my take on Stalin in his historical context lacks empathy, and you are correct. I specifically noted I was not judging Stalin's tactics--there may have been better ways to achieve the same result. I merely judged the situation he faced, the facts as he knew them, and the result he obtained. To second guess Stalin now would be like second guessing Truman's decision to drop the bomb. Stalin won. Truman won. Truman stopped Stalin in mid-Germany. It is an exercise in mental masturbation to second guess these tremendous historical figures at this point. Had either of them not done what they did, the world would not be what it is. None of us would probably exist.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 265 comments)
on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 12:23:26 AM
In my ' Slimy Love' series both in articles and in diaries I express similar feelings and approach about Jews and Holocaust ( hate the word BTW), also in my article ' Israel- the haunted land'. You are welcome to have a look. As for Stalin... I had a privilege to read such Russain sources as Roy Medvedev and Grossman and they kind off looked at the situation from the same dilemma point as you did- ways and means, results, win-lose. They found out that... without feelings there cannot be proper analysis, meaning the ' objective analysis' is the myth. In sorts, paradoxical as it sounds RELIGION and RELIGIOUS Spiritulaity can be a tool here. And RELIGION, say Russian Orthodox explicitly states that AntiChrist can build a state for himself on the bones but it will be a state with no happiness. In my article ' On cleavage, booty and boredom' I touch basis (humorously) about it. Stalin killed happiness, joy, gladness. He built an Egyptian Pyramide which was.. a tomb.
of course, as one said we are dealing with Shakespearian character here. But I prefer Jean Jouris ,'We take from history not ashes but fire.' We need to learn from the previous mistakes. It is the only way to honor those who died innocent if we want them to hear us when the Final Judgment comes. And if it comes only three groups will be the judges:children, geniuses and INNOCENT VICTIMS.
Thanks, we have a great thread here.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 234 diaries, 3343 comments)
on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 6:16:48 AM
As I have specified in the article History has only one criteria and it has nothing to do with fairness. It is the LEVEL OF HONEST EFFORT. Basic dishonesty of Bush and his cronies, their lying nature is the primary criteria on why their efforts are dishonest also. But History is not us. We are people and we MUST involve our feelings in the study. As such, we must consider ourselves lucky that we did not have to make those horrible choices, have to mourn the Innocent and MAKE SURE as much as we can that such things do not happen again. That is accomplished through learning on the mistakes of others WITH PASSION AND PREJUDICE, funny as it sounds. But those feelings make it possible to find alternative ways. Joy makes us closer but only sadness connects hearts.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 234 diaries, 3343 comments)
on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 7:01:37 AM
Agreed. While I try to analyze history dispassionately in order to gain the most possible knowledge from that analysis, I hope to help add wisdom and a passion for human rights to the development of a progressive ideology in the United States. I find the absence of a coherent, fully integrated, progressive ideology in America to be the single most likely reason the nation will ultimately turn completely fascist. No one is willing to work on an alternative ideology, which I think must take the best from socialism and libertarianism. If OEN ever gets serious about being more than just a current news forum, and provides a way to actually create long running threads where ideas can be completely worked out to final conclusions, I will write an article about how this might actually be done. But this may not be something that OEN sees as its role in the progressive cause.
In any event, always it is a pleasure to read and write with you.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 265 comments)
on Sunday, May 4, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM
I am unaware of any negotiation with the leaders of the Kronstadt rebellion that addressed any of their legitimate concerns. The fact that respected battle hardened revolutionaries were openly defying the government was a serious threat to their control. The rebellion occurred because of the brutal suppression of the strike in St Petersburg and the conditions of the working class and ordinary people there. There was widespread disillusionment with the government throughout the country. As far a
