Paul Le Blanc: The Russian Revolutions of 1917

Paul Le Blanc writes about The Russian Revolutions of 1917.

Lenin proved utterly unsuccessful in his efforts, during the last years of his life, to push back bureaucratic developments and to end the influence of Joseph Stalin, the most authoritarian of the Communist leaders. Similar efforts by other Communist leaders throughout the 1920s, most notably by Leon Trotsky and his Left Opposition, were defeated. Stalin became the USSR’s unquestioned dictator. Even his onetime ally, Nikolay Bukharin, proved unable to curb the tyrant’s increasingly brutal excesses. Millions, including many Communists, suffered and died after Stalin and his supporters consolidated their dictatorship in the early 1930s.

As the USSR was experiencing significant economic development and becoming a major world power, the bureaucratic and authoritarian nature of the Stalin regime gave Communism the profoundly undemocratic connotation that it has for many people today. For many, socialism came to mean not economic democracy but merely state ownership and control of the economy. Even the word soviet became associated simply with the USSR’s dictatorial regime. Stalin’s successors in subsequent Communist governments of that country later denounced his crimes, but they were never successful in overcoming the dictatorial legacy. That legacy ultimately undermined the country’s future development, contributing in significant ways to the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

Many analysts argue that such a dictatorship was inherent in the nature of Lenin’s ideas, Marxism, socialism, and even revolution as such. Others explain its development by pointing to different factors: deep-rooted aspects of Russian culture from tsarist times, the failure of working-class revolutions in more industrialized countries, and the impact of hostile foreign pressures. Some continue to see the Russian revolutions of 1917 as a positive example for workers and oppressed groups.

Emphasis Mine

I think the immature development of the Russian proletariat is the main cause of the trajectory of Soviet Communism. The Russian proletariat were a minority in 1917 and concentrated in two (2) cities: Moscow and Petrograd. Russian industrialisation was still in the early stages of development, and was driven through the nobility using foreign capital (mainly French). This meant the working class was very isolated in a sea of peasantry.

The concentration of workers in the two (2) capitals of the Russian Empire, Moscow and Petrograd, meant that they were easier to organise and had easier access to power. These cities were more open to the rest of the world thereby allowing ideas and news to reach people more readily. And as these cities were the main ones, they had universities which incubated radicalism. The closeness of radicalism and workers proved to be a potent mix for the development of socialism in the Russian empire.

This concentration of workers came about because the nobility wanted to modernise the Russian economy. The lack of indigenous capital meant that foreign investment was critical for industrialisation. The French became major investors because Russia could prevent the eastward expansion of German Capital and influence. Foreign investment prefers large projects and this concentrates the workers. Because the investment was foreign, Capitalists were unable to hide behind nationalism in defending their interests. This made the distinction between the Bourgeiose and the Proletariat easier to see.

However, the concentration of workers and the lack of indigenous capital isolated the workers from the peasants. But the newness of industrialisation had not completely severed the family ties of the workers to the peasants. The experiences of the workers and the peasants were different: a peasant can survive in isolation; a worker needs a functioning economy to survive. This difference made political alliances difficult. The peasant had the option of withdrawing from society. The worker does not.

The immaturity of the Russian proletariat came about from its isolation and concentration. The development of Socialism needed to force peasants to become workers. This external conversion inhibited the growth of workers' consciousness that was needed for a successful implementation of Socialism.

Read more!

Dan Little: Europe after World War II

Daniel Little writes about Europe after World War II.

Perhaps more than in most histories, Judt's narrative makes it clear that there are large moral realities interwoven with the facts and events he conveys. Individuals commit actions that are deplorable or admirable. But more profoundly, whole nations were confronted with choices and actions in these decades that were formative for generations to come. This is nowhere more apparent than in the ways different European countries dealt with their own responsibility for the extermination of the Jews during the Holocaust. Judt deals with this issue in the epilogue to the book, and it is an important piece of historical writing all by itself. (A version was published in the New York Review of Books (link).) He demonstrates that almost none of the involved nations — especially the Netherlands, Poland, Italy, France — lived up to the duty of confronting honestly the behavior of its citizens and officials during the Shoah. France's mendacity in particular on the subject of its willing deportation of 65,000 Jews created a permanent stain on French culture — and it laid the basis for the continuation of denial of French responsibility by the FN up to the present day.

Emphasis Mine

Here we encounter the interplay between subjective and objective realities. An individual's subjective reality of denying the Holocaust is bolstered by the objective reality of no offical acknowledgement of the State's historical role in the Holocaust. And the objective reality cannot be changed without overcoming the fierce resistance of these individuals.

Read more!

Ted Rall: Laptop Fundraiser

Ted Rall is having a Laptop Fundraiser.

Back in 2011, you were generous enough to come through when I needed a new laptop computer. It was an amazing machine, but six and a half years is a long time for any portable computer to last — especially when you travel as much as I do. I’ve scanned and colored thousands of cartoons, written hundreds of columns, worked on my blog and done endless research.

Emphasis Mine

Rall needs our support. Please donate.

Read more!

Juan Cole: Wind powered all of Scotland in October & other Renewable Success Stories

Juan Cole writes that Wind powered all of Scotland in October & other Renewable Success Stories.

Wind turbines in Scotland during the month of October , driven by unusually strong gales, generated enough electricity to supply 99% of the country’s power needs, taking into account residential, industrial and business sectors! And if we just looked at the residential market, the wind turbines could have powered 4.5 million homes! One catch: Scotland only has about 2.45 million households!

99%!

Still, the average Swede emits over 4 tons of carbon dioxide a year. That is better than Europe’s average 6 tons and ‘way better than the US average of 16 tons per year per person (!!!). But 4 tons a person is still huge, given that CO2 is like setting off atomic bombs in the atmosphere. The new Markbygden ETT wind farm will be an important step toward carbon-free Swedish electricity. Of course, that has to be combined with switching to electric vehicles and adopting low-carbon agricultural and building techniques if we are to move to a net carbon zero civilization.

Emphasis Mine

Energy storage reliability is the next hurdle we have to overcome. The pumped-water storage system cannot be deployed everywhere. Future water shortages will make existing ones vulnerable as water is diverted to more critical uses.

Read more!

Peter Robson: Capitalism's last wild ride - Noys' book dissects accelerationism

Peter Robson reviews Capitalism's last wild ride - Noys' book dissects accelerationism.

Accelerationism — although now largely a right-wing movement — has some origins in leftist thought about capitalism. The idea that the processes of capitalism and its productive forces would themselves drive it to its next stage — or whatever lies beyond — led some to conclude the best thing to do is push capitalism as hard as it can to go as fast as it can.

This, in a nutshell, describes accelerationism. Whether it is the forcing of labour processes to be more efficient, the combination of humanity and machines, or the destruction of borders and identities — it is all viewed as ways to create the higher velocity society of the future.

…

Against these visions, Noys explores the counterpoint that revolution would not be a liberation of productive forces, unleashing a higher velocity existence. Rather, it could be a handbrake on a runaway train, slowing us before destruction.

But he rejects this in favour of more nuanced approach, an approach that is more fundamentally political. And this, ultimately, is the real problem with accelerationism — it surrenders politics to the realm of technological progress and thereby to those who control that progress.

This explains why so many of its supporters are the “not remotely human rich” (to paraphrase sci-fi writer William Gibson), but also why it attracts some who are demoralised with political struggle.

Surrendering to blind material progress absolves one from having to build movements or relate to social forces. Building powerful movements of ordinary people requires the all-too-human quality of empathy — an anathema to the prophets of accelerationism.

Emphasis Mine

In order to build Socialism, we need to rediscover our humanity through connecting to the humanity of others.

Read more!

Movie Review: Star Wars: The Last Jedi

I review Star Wars: The Last Jedi movie.

I was intrigued by Keith Knight's theory about how the First Order was able to track the Resistance through hyperspace. But this was a risky strategy given that the Resistance fighter pilots have a high attrition rate (close to 100% by the end of the movie).

The main tension in the movie is between direct action (Poe Dameron and Finn) and survival (Leia Organa and Vice Admiral Holdo). This is the quandary that affects all guerrilla groups. Direct action attracts new members and supporters while harming the oppressors. This entails retaliation which threatens the survival of the group. The movie closes on the importance of political action over military action.

Direct military action had been successful for the Resistance and Rebel Alliance in the past. Then they were strong enough to tackle the enemy in open battle to either prevail, or to retreat in good order. Now, the losses in personnel and materiel has become critical and harder to replace. The First Order can easily win any battle of attrition. This is demonstrated in the movie as the First Order is able to recover from the losses of two (2) of the largest ships and several Star Destroyers, and force the resistance to escape on a single ship.

This materiel and personnel advantage of the First Order discourages forces in the Outer Rim from coming to the aid of Leia's group on Crait. There is the known cruelty of the reprisals by the First Order. People would make the rational decision to keep their heads down, and bend with the prevailing wind. DJ exemplifies this by striking a deal with the First Order and escaping to live another day.

Yet the movie closes on a very important point: political education. Three (3) children are re-enacting the heroic stand by Luke Skywalker on Crait. It is through their mythologising that the Resistance grows. Trotsky once wrote that the success of the October Revolution came about through the dedication of single Party workers scattered throughout the Russian Army, factories, villages, etc. They did not attack the State, but rather they patiently educated their fellows on Socialism and Capitalism.

The Resistance will not grow until it grasps the necessity of political action over military action. And it must grow if it is defeat the First Order in open combat.

Read more!

Barry Healy: 80 years on, Steinbeck's classic still packs a punch

Barry Healy writes that 80 years on, Steinbeck's classic still packs a punch.

Healey says Of Mice and Men,

Thus all the oppressed keep themselves divided, one against the other, trying to gain some scrap of self-worth by putting each other down. Yet George and Lennie have a secret that cuts through this fog of alienation and with just a few words inspire the spirit of the workers.

Their dream is to buy their own farm and, through sharing the labour, create a decent life for themselves. As Lennie naively blurts it out, the individual workers' initial scepticism falls away as they dare to imagine themselves as part of it.

George and Lenny's dream is a synonym for socialism and its power is subversive in the farm.

Emphasis Mine

Our primary identity is that of workers. To fully realise that identity, we need to have the vision of Socialism.

Read more!