The Purging of the Old Bolsheviks - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13323987
I know that there are a fair number of Stalinists here, so I thought I'd raise this matter. Often non-communists and anti-Stalinist communists denounce the purging of the Old Bolsheviks and Stalin's show trials. While I oppose the show trials as being dishonest, having read a bit (just a bit) about the Old Bolsheviks it seems like Stalin's actions were intelligent. If you think about it, what sort of a person becomes a revolutionary? Generally a deranged lunatic, often of a marginalized ethnic group, who is unhappy with his own life and decides to blame others, including society, for his own shortcomings. Why would you want people like that around after the revolution?

To get into specifics, it seems like most of the victims of the Moscow trials were left communists. Left communism as I recall was called an infantile disorder by Lenin, and left communism's descendants today seem to be people like KurtFF8 and Parvus, concerned more with social oppression and the "rights" of degenerates and foreigners more than actual socialism. Further, many seem to have not been ethnic Russians. Unless I'm missing something, a majority were Jews as well (Radek, Sokolnikov, Bukharin, Rykov, Yagoda, and Krestinsky were all Jewish for instance), whom Stalin later would rightly describe as rootless cosmopolitans.

So basically, it seems like the Old Bolsheviks were a series of nutjobs and untrustworthy aliens whom were carefully used by Lenin for a specific purpose, but ultimately outlived their usefulness and became a danger to the USSR. Stalin recognized this and eliminated them, consolidating his power and increasing the stability of the USSR in one fell swoop. Would the Stalinists here agree with this assessment, and what do the anti-Stalinists think?
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#13324003
I'm not sure you're really even saying anything in this post. The idea that they were "just a bunch of nut jobs" isn't even a claim as to why. Perhaps you want to go into a little more detail of your own understanding of why they were purged and be a little clearer.

And I wouldn't call myself a Left Communist (you should see me when I'm discussing issues with Anarchists ;) )

There are a host of reasons why things like the purges happened in the USSR that have a lot to do with the historical development of the USSR itself more so than just Stalin's personal choices (although many anti-Communists will of course disagree). Of course many here will likely dispute this analysis: but the more the bureaucracy of the USSR grew, the role of the party in society began to change as well. Defending the revolution turned more and more into a conservative venture, and even overtly social conservatism became the ruling strategy under Stalin (something that Vera will not see as a bad thing of course). There are of course many reasons that this happened, so to look at them as just "having outlived their purpose" to me seems to assume that the path of the USSR was "going on as intended" which I would argue that even a "Stalinist" should distance themselves with accepting that conclusion. The Russian Revolution was not meant to be isolated, and "Socialism in One Country" was a response to the changing circumstances that the USSR found itself.

I'm also not clear as to what those revolutionaries you mentioned being Jewish has to do with anything, could you be more clear about that as well?
User avatar
By Dave
#13324017
Kurt, I am not at all well-versed in the ideas and actions of Old Bolsheviks. This thread is the result of a very basic inquiry from which I developed a hunch. From what I can see, the left opposition was adamantly opposed to nationalism and desired aggressive, revolutionary war against capitalist powers. For this reason they opposed national self-determination as well as the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. From this I conclude that they were cosmopolitans with a poor grasp of strategy, and given their influence and power this made them not just dreamers but dangerous. I would call such ideas crazy--hence nut jobs (especially in tandem with knowledge of the kind of people who often become revolutionaries).

I'm quite aware that socialism in one country was not a master plan of Stalin, but rather an adroit recognition of current strategic realities. This marks Stalin as a perceptive, clever, and cautious man. From my study of Soviet military and naval developments (Stalin's big fleet plan for instance) it seems like Stalin was receptive to the idea of aggressive, revolutionary war to spread socialism--but only at an appropriate time when the USSR was ready. The left opposition comes off as insane to me, as fomenting revolutionary war against capitalist powers in the 1920s would've resulted in a full-scale invasion of the USSR, probably including a rearmed Germany (speculative).

[Anti-Semitism cut. Red Card.] Cosmopolitanism and cultural liberalism, as I know VP will agree, are extremely destructive to any societies they taint. Thus when I review the roll of the Old Bolsheviks purge and see so many Jews it automatically raises such a point to me. Now, I frankly don't know if these Jewish Old Bolsheviks did support such things, it's speculation that stems from my knowledge of Jewry and my very limited knowledge of the left opposition.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Last edited by Siberian Fox on 18 Feb 2010 21:10, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Red Card.
User avatar
By MB.
#13324306
Dave wrote:Soviet military and naval developments (Stalin's big fleet plan for instance) it seems like Stalin was receptive to the idea of aggressive, revolutionary war to spread socialism


Interesting theory, but WRT Stalin's fleet expansion plan the project was entirely defensive in nature. One can make a fairly convincing argument that Stalin was essentially reimplementing the Czarist coastal defense policy that had been followed essentially since Peter the Great.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#13324411
Dave wrote:Left communism as I recall was called an infantile disorder by Lenin


There's a difference between "Left Communism" and "Left Bolshevisim." Left Communism was, indeed, called an infantile disorder by Lenin - but this was a very different breed of communist than anyone amongst the Bolsheviks. Generally it was utopian in some regard and discouraged the use of a revolutionary party, instead relying on people to spontaneously rise up when the time was correct.

The Left Bolsheviks - or more properly, the Joint Opposition - wanted a number of different things ranging from collectivization (which was later implemented in a different manner than they had wanted, but implemented nonetheless), industrialization (same), and a repeal of measures that were put in to place for the sake of the civil war, now over.

There were, of course, ideological differences that led to the distinction. Though there were several strains of the Opposition, Trotsky is generally remembered now as the most important. His summation was largely that the revolution was still burning and revolutionaries needed to be supported in revolutions everywhere they could - China, Spain, and Germany being notable examples.

Stalin's conception was that of the Third Period, which relied much more heavily in reinforcing the Comintern. So while Trotskyists were in the streets of Berlin fighting the fascists, the Stalinists were trying to consolidate their power and bring matters to a head - going so far as to electorally support the fascists in the Prussian Red Referendum as being less fascist than the "social-fascists" who were reds not associated with the Comintern. In China, the Trotskyists encouraged the Chinese to overthrow Kang Chi Shek and begin the revolution; Stalin encouraged the communists to stay under the control of the Kuomintang and their questionable revolutionary credentials. In Spain, the Trotskyists weren't much of a power but generally supported the POUM, Basque workers, and others that had broken down the bourgeois systems of power and spread revolution, the Stalinists called in the POUM from the front lines had had them punished.

The ideas being important in that the Trotskyists saw the world in revolution analogous to the Russian revolution. Fascism was an extension of liberal power in collapse - destroy capitalism - destroy fascism. The Stalinists were more concerned with consolidation of their power in thinking that the final big push was going to come up.

I realize that these are simplifications - but they're here for what its worth anyway.
By Lensky1917
#13325085
If you think about it, what sort of a person becomes a revolutionary? Generally a deranged lunatic, often of a marginalized ethnic group, who is unhappy with his own life and decides to blame others, including society, for his own shortcomings. Why would you want people like that around after the revolution?


So you decide to put a deranged lunatic in charge to kill all the "deranged lunatics"?

:eh:
User avatar
By Donna
#13325475
Dave wrote:If you think about it, what sort of a person becomes a revolutionary? Generally a deranged lunatic, often of a marginalized ethnic group, who is unhappy with his own life and decides to blame others, including society, for his own shortcomings. Why would you want people like that around after the revolution?


Revolutionaries are often educated, sometimes coming from professional/middle class backgrounds. Many are generally intelligent and spent an extensive amount of time studying Marxism, philosophy, economics, etc. So I would say that revolutionaries are born out of their knowledge of capitalism more than anything else. The revolutionary not only commits his body to the struggle, but his mind.
#15143745
I do find it curious how Stalin is characterized by realpolitik in a brutal fashion in desperate times where it seems unclear whether the party was making things worse in it's conservative and fearful approach.
In fact, the killing off of the revolutionaries themselves sounds quite counter revolutionary to destroy the most spirited.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/11/stalin.htm
It is not the present bureaucracy which ensured the victory of the October Revolution, but the working and peasant masses under Bolshevik leadership. The bureaucracy began to grow only after the definitive victory, swelling its ranks not only with revolutionary workers but also with representatives of other classes (former czarist functionaries, officers, bourgeois intellectuals, etc.). The present bureaucracy, in its overwhelming majority, was, at the time of the October Revolution, in the bourgeois camp (take as examples merely the Soviet ambassadors Potemkin, Maisky, Troyanovsky, Surits, Khinchuk, etc.). Those of the present bureaucracy who in the October days were in the Bolshevik camp in the great majority of cases played no role even slightly important in either the preparation or the conduct of the revolution, or in the first years following it. This applies above all to Stalin himself. As for the present young bureaucrats, they are chosen and educated by the older ones, most often from among their own children. And it is Stalin who has become the “chief” of this new caste which has grown up after the revolution.

...It emerges from the movement of the masses in the first period, the heroic period. But having risen above the masses, and then having resolved its own “social question” (an assured existence, influence, respect, etc.), the bureaucracy tends increasingly to keep the masses immobile. Why take risks? It has something to lose. The supreme expansion of the influence and well-being of the reformist bureaucracy takes place in an epoch of capitalist progress and of relative passivity of the working masses. But when this passivity is broken, on the right or on the left, the magnificence of the bureaucracy comes to an end. Its intelligence and skill are transformed into stupidity and impotence. The nature of the “leadership” corresponds to the nature of the class (or of the caste) it leads and to the objective situation through which this class (or caste) is passing.

...The genuine revolutionary proletarians in the USSR drew their strength not from the apparatus but from the activity of the revolutionary masses. In particular, the Red Army was created not by “men of the apparatus” (in the most critical years the apparatus was still very weak), but by the cadres of heroic workers who, under Bolshevik leadership, gathered around them the young peasants and led them into battle. The decline of the revolutionary movement, the weariness, the defeats in Europe and in Asia, the disappointment of the working masses, were inevitably and directly to weaken the positions of the internationalist-revolutionaries and, on the other hand, were to strengthen the positions of the national and conservative bureaucracy. A new chapter opens in the revolution. The leaders of the preceding period go into opposition while the conservative politicians of the apparatus, who had played a secondary role in the revolution, emerge with the triumphant bureaucracy, in the forefront.


I am naive but while I try to keep an open mind beyond what would be accepted in the west, I'm not yet persuaded of the intelligence and necessity of certain policy decisions as incredibly sound in every circumstance. At the same time I don't think of Stalin as an anticommunist but he doesn't seem significant in the revolutionary part of Russian history and it seems there is a lot of opportunism during the purge motivating peoples shit talking and accusations. It seems a very peculiar time that a simple explanation for many things do not exist.
I worry that there is a heuristic if such brutality as rational and necessary in the desperate times but I currently have a heuristic of my being the Thermidorian reaction which reinstated much which previously existed.

To which there seems a question of how much change one believes can actually come of a revolution once it moves from dreams to actuality. As much of the return to explicitly old ways under the Tsardom seems to be to undo a lot of the revolution itself and loses the very spirit which inspires a revolution, suppresses it and keeps things back in line.
#15150533
Dave wrote: Unless I'm missing something, a majority were Jews as well (Radek, Sokolnikov, Bukharin, Rykov, Yagoda, and Krestinsky were all Jewish for instance), whom Stalin later would rightly describe as rootless cosmopolitans.

For what it's worth , not all of the Old Bolsheviks you mentioned were even of Jewish descent . Bukharin wasn't , although his wife , Anna Larina had been adopted by a Jew , Yuri Larin . Alexei Rykov was descended from Russian peasant stock . And finally , Nikolay Krestinsky's origins have been disputed .

I dont know if you recall, but la loca MTG at one[…]

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]