The International Socialists and the Russian Revolution

You can join this discussion on The Cedar Lounge Revolution

• By: Bryan the Trot Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:53:44

  A polemic against the “original sin” thing is: Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky. Or In Defense of Marxism by Leon Trotsky.

  Many take offense to us calling all one-party ruled states with bureaucratically planned economies “Stalinism.” I think using the term too widely can cause emotion rather than political clarity to dominate debates.

  However, Stalin was the first to codify one-party permanent rule, and he aggressively put forward “socialism in one country.” Many may not find the term useful, but “one-party ruled states with bureaucratically planned economies” sure is a mouthful every time you wanna say “Stalinist.”

  Reply on the CLR

• By: Ken MacLeod Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:15:16

  Irish Mark P # 18: people who realise that Stalinism meant barbarism but who ultimately fall back on some version of the old omelette and eggs analogy to justify it anyway.

  I doubt that such people exist.

  I do know that in Czechoslovakia in 1977 I didn’t feel that I was in the presence of barbarism, and I do know that Jan Kavan, who owned the van I was in and had supplied the literature smuggled in that van, was an agent of some Western intelligence service. I also know that I was there on an IMG assignment.

  So when I read in the above pamphlet the sentence ‘Bukharin, at his trial, describes the state of mind of the opposition as a divided mind’, it kind of hit home, if you know what I mean.

  Reply on the CLR

• By: WorldbyStorm Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:29:34

  Bryan, I know where you’re coming from, but these debates seem to me to still be far too reductionist. Is it seriously possible to argue, as I enquired earlier, that the USSR in the 1930s and 1940s was essentially the same as in the 1980s or indeed 1920s? That seems to be a profound simplification, whether we use the term Stalinist or degenerated workers’ state. And I dislike simplification. To then map motivations onto people in 2009 as if those are precisely, or even very, similar to those of the actual Stalinist period seems equally reductionist. It’s not that there aren’t Stalinists in the actual sense of the term about, i.e. apologists for Stalin and the crimes that he committed, but these are a tiny tiny strain and to ascribe the term to broader parties or people on the left in this period doesn’t stand up for me. Or take the one party point. As previously noted many non-Marxist or even Marxist leftists would have every right to laugh hollowly at the idea that pre-Stalin the USSR wasn’t a one party state and they suffered for it too. As regards socialism in one country, to see that as a touchstone either way (and in fairness to your argument there are those who take opposing views to it who seem equally wedded to the idea that – as MarkP notes – ‘pragmatism’ is its own justification, particularly when expressed in its most ruthless variant) seems odd since one could easily argue either way.

  Reply on the CLR

• By: ejh Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:38:44

  Ken – I didn’t know you were in Czechoslovakia in 1977.

  I don’t want to come over too much “tell us what you did in the Cold War” and you may not think it’s anybody’s business or you may not think it’s worth the retelling, but should it be otherwise, this would be an interesting thing to hear more about on another occasion.

  Reply on the CLR

• By: NollaigO Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:32:25

  and I do know that Jan Kavan, who owned the van I was in and had supplied the literature smuggled in that van, was an agent of some Western intelligence service. I also know that I was there on an IMG assignment. ,

  Ken,
  How do you know that Jan Kavan was an agent of some (!) Western intelligence service ?

  The network definitely existed in the 1970s – a former girlfriend of mine from the early 1970s and my (present) brother-in-law went on one such trip. They used to smuggle marxist literature into Czechoslovakia (which many may regard as bizarre) and bring documents out.
  I met Jan Kevan on a number of occasions. While I have had no contact with the IMG since 1978, I never heard that Kevan was accused of being an agent of “some Western intelligence service” – again a very serious unsubstantiated charge appearing on CLR.
  He was accused of being an agent of the secret police of the Czech Communist government. IIRC, this happened in the 1990s after the collapse of the regime but he won a court case in Czechoslovakia to clear his name.

  http://www.radio.cz/en/article/66588
  http://www.radio.cz/en/article/66336

  Reply on the CLR

• By: Ken MacLeod Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:35:25

  NollaigO, one reason Jan Kavan won his court case was that Robin Cook testified on his behalf, in camera. All that is known in public is that Cook is reported to have said that Kavan was ‘a friend of Britain’. A well-respected left intellectual has told me that the IMG member (another well-respected left intellectual) centrally responsible for the IMG’s work with Kavan believed at the time that Kavan was working for a British intelligence service.

  Stronger evidence, quite uncontested, of Kavan’s intelligence service connections was given in the BBC programme The Spying Game, which I recount along with my own involvement here.

  Note that I don’t say Kavan was an operative (i.e. an employee) of any service. An agent is (if I’ve got the parlance right) someone who acts on behalf of a service. I don’t know what the formal term is for someone who conveys tons (literally) of books and thousands of dollars from CIA front organizations.

  And I can assure you that it was not just, or even mainly, ‘marxist literature’ that got smuggled in the van I was in.

  The conservative columnist Mark Almond was also part of the network, and became somewhat disillusioned with its results.

  Reply on the CLR

• By: PJ Callan Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:49:39

  At http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.document&identifier=5034F0A7-96B6-175C-94DC93E55F32C3B1&sort=Collection&item=Czechoslovakia%20in%20the%20Cold%20War

  TODOR ZHIVKOV says in part of a report on the events in the CSSR in ’68

  “At the Dresden meeting we were informed that the counterrevolutionaries had prepared a manifesto to the people and would make it public at the right time. Western intelligence services are operating there. There is no need for us to use the Stalinist methods of the past but we are obligated to take measures to introduce order in Czechoslovakia as well as in Romania”

  Zhivkov was saying this at a Bulgarian Communist Party Plenum.

  His use of the phrase “Stalinist methods” clearly indicates that they had taken on board the whole analysis of Khrushchev at the 20th Congress of the CPSU.
  That congress set in motion the revisionist policies and processes that encouraged counter-revolution in Czechoslovakia and ultimately led to Gorbachev coming to power in the USSR.

  PS – Last year Gorbachev admitted his big influence wasn’t so much Lenin but –

  “St Francis is, for me, the alter Christus, the other Christ,” said Mr Gorbachev. “His story fascinates me and has played a fundamental role in my life,” he added.

  Reply on the CLR