Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Mikhail Gorbachev has died

I'm not saying that all the people are or were dumb and unenlightened. Some would have been, exposed as they were to constant propaganda. Others would have been too cowed by abusive hierarchical power. I would argue that the non-Russian half of the population were generally unconvinced by the USSR and Stalin, to put it mildly. So there was some genuine support for Stalin, some enthusiasm, a lot of acquiescence. Outside of the Great Russian heartlands the enthusiasm was vanishingly small.

Millions hated Stalin, sure. Millions also loved him. It can't be adequately explained by simplified psychologising with Stockholm Syndrome. On that score, the non-Russian minorities and peripheral populations had a complex relationship with Stalinism and the implementation of its nationalities policy. Its locally promoted agents were as enthusiastic in the development of Soviet society as their Russian counterparts and the opportunities opened up by it.
 
I'm not saying that all the people are or were dumb and unenlightened. Some would have been, exposed as they were to constant propaganda. Others would have been too cowed by abusive hierarchical power. I would argue that the non-Russian half of the population were generally unconvinced by the USSR and Stalin, to put it mildly. So there was some genuine support for Stalin, some enthusiasm, a lot of acquiescence. Outside of the Great Russian heartlands the enthusiasm was vanishingly small.

For many, especially rural Russians, life essentially went from medieval to modern in a couple of decades, I think that explains a lot of the love of Stalin. Of course it was 'socialism' but his cult of personality was strong so he got personal credit for proper roads, electricity, sanitation, reliable food and water etc. There was a basis to it for millions of people, Stalin was the face of an alternative to grinding peasant poverty.
 
For many, especially rural Russians, life essentially went from medieval to modern in a couple of decades, I think that explains a lot of the love of Stalin. Of course it was 'socialism' but his cult of personality was strong so he got personal credit for proper roads, electricity, sanitation, reliable food and water etc. There was a basis to it for millions of people, Stalin was the face of an alternative to grinding peasant poverty.

One of the largest internal human migrations in history (dwarfed by China's development since the 1970s) occurred in late 1920s and early 30s Russia, as dispossessed peasants voted with their feet and escaped the violent collectivisation of agricultural land, control over relative social freedoms and then famine, journeying to the towns and cities in search of work and a roof over their heads.

The urban areas could not cope with the vast numbers from peasant in-migration (towns capable of sustaining a population of approx 10 thousand very quickly having three or four times that to deal with. The beginnings of Stalin's industrialisation drive to build a socialist society (as they understood it) involved industrial enterprises surrounded by sprawling, filthy and unsanitary shanty town-like settlements built by the peasant migrants themselves. Moshe Lewin vividly described the upheaval at this time as not just proletarianisation of the peasantry but peasantisation of the proletariat. These former bumpkins would build the needed infrastructure but sanitation, reliable food and even electricity was not a given.

Stalinism was coercive but also participatory. Out of the chaos and lower living standards Stalinism deemed temporarily necessary were invitations to actively join it for those able to. Yes, times are hard now, we know, but bear up and help build a brighter future for you and your children. You work in a factory now so your sons and daughters can be engineers.
 
One of the largest internal human migrations in history (dwarfed by China's development since the 1970s) occurred in late 1920s and early 30s Russia, as dispossessed peasants voted with their feet and escaped the violent collectivisation of agricultural land, control over relative social freedoms and then famine, journeying to the towns and cities in search of work and a roof over their heads.

The urban areas could not cope with the vast numbers from peasant in-migration (towns capable of sustaining a population of approx 10 thousand very quickly having three or four times that to deal with. The beginnings of Stalin's industrialisation drive to build a socialist society (as they understood it) involved industrial enterprises surrounded by sprawling, filthy and unsanitary shanty town-like settlements built by the peasant migrants themselves. Moshe Lewin vividly described the upheaval at this time as not just proletarianisation of the peasantry but peasantisation of the proletariat. These former bumpkins would build the needed infrastructure but sanitation, reliable food and even electricity was not a given.

Stalinism was coercive but also participatory. Out of the chaos and lower living standards Stalinism deemed temporarily necessary were invitations to actively join it for those able to. Yes, times are hard now, we know, but bear up and help build a brighter future for you and your children. You work in a factory now so your sons and daughters can be engineers.
Thank you, this is a far more nuanced version than I could do. The point remains though doesn't it, Stalin was in many ways for many people, the face of a Better Life (especially a better life than granny and grandad had). It can't be understated.
 
Stalin was a mass-murdering tyrant of astonishing proportions. His government was responsible for countless atrocities. Acknowledging that It's also undeniable his projected image, an avatar of a kind of modernisation people not only were forced to be a part of but enthusiastically did so of their own volition for personal social, vocational and educational advancement (even if it had to be deferred) doesn't make you an apologist for the former.
 
Stalin was a mass-murdering tyrant of astonishing proportions. His government was responsible for countless atrocities. Acknowledging that It's also undeniable his projected image, an avatar of a kind of modernisation people not only were forced to be a part of but enthusiastically did so of their own volition for personal social, vocational and educational advancement (even if it had to be deferred) doesn't make you an apologist for the former.
And the awful reality is. . . what was the alternative? Any Russian regime, revolutionary or otherwise, would have had to grasp the nettle of rapid forced modernisation. At best it would have been something like Turkey under Ataturk. At worst, it would have been something like Imperial Japan.
 
And the awful reality is. . . what was the alternative? Any Russian regime, revolutionary or otherwise, would have had to grasp the nettle of rapid forced modernisation. At best it would have been something like Turkey under Ataturk. At worst, it would have been something like Imperial Japan.
There's always zillions of alternatives. At every step of the way. As has been pointed out elsewhere, at the same time as forced collectivisation in the USSR the Stalinists in Spain were engaged in destroying much of the voluntary collectivisation in Aragon and elsewhere. Neither option was desirable, inevitable or necessary.
Arbitrary decisions made essentially by one paranoid egomaniac dictator are the least likely method of attaining worthwhile progress in any sphere of life.
 
There's always zillions of alternatives. At every step of the way. As has been pointed out elsewhere, at the same time as forced collectivisation in the USSR the Stalinists in Spain were engaged in destroying much of the voluntary collectivisation in Aragon and elsewhere. Neither option was desirable, inevitable or necessary.
Arbitrary decisions made essentially by one paranoid egomaniac dictator are the least likely method of attaining worthwhile progress in any sphere of life.
Yes, but. . . some alternatives are more likely to make it than others.
 
Thank you, this is a far more nuanced version than I could do. The point remains though doesn't it, Stalin was in many ways for many people, the face of a Better Life (especially a better life than granny and grandad had). It can't be understated.

The Stakhanovite movement during industrialisation, for example, is often mocked with the view of it being about droves of dumb proles, their empty heads filled with Stalinist propaganda, actively and willingly opening themselves up to superexploitation by the government.

The cult of Stakhanov and its attraction to a certain sector of the working population was due in part to Stalinist appropriation of the language of class war and revolution, yes, but Stakhanovites were working class youth, late teens and early 20s, the children of recently proletarianised peasants, who were blocked by the hierarchical structure and shopfloor cultures in industries where more established workers and their offspring guarded access to the best paid and more skilled and satisfying, higher status work. Here was a way for the Stalinists to break what was left of an independent and protective working class culture created by the then neutered trade unions, yes, but also a way for deliberately excluded youth to advance themselves. To barge past those barriers, prove themselves in production by attaining skills, move through levels of party membership, attend rabfak ('worker faculty' fast-tracking prepatory courses for higher education) for a brighter future.
 
303655110_10159247965550863_8123255210292087038_n.jpg
 
From today's Popbitch mailout:

Mikhail Gorbachev's cat once got into a fight with Dmitry Medvedev's cat, Dorofei. Dorofei got so utterly pasted that it had to be put on antibiotics for a month and was neutered to stop it picking any more fights.
 
Back
Top Bottom