"Gulag: A History"?

[The Intransigent Faction]

So...my head is spinning. I, as a "Stalinist", got that book as a "gift" a while back and glanced through it once or twice. Only now have I forced myself to start reading it.

Long story short, having just finished exams and thus having some time on my hands, and for a couple of other reasons, I thought "Hey, maybe I should force myself to take a look at this book."

I've gotten through the introduction so far and glanced through some photos in the middle of the book.

Anyone else seen this book? What do you (Anarchists, Maoists, Trotskyists, etc...) think of it? It makes me a little...unsettled in that it's tearing apart everything I honestly convinced myself to be right. I thought I could credit every otherwise objectionable act to the constant presence or threat of military conflict faced by the USSR, but mass arrests, forced resettlement to "exile villages", torture...there comes a point where one can't, in good conscience, make excuses if such things did happen.

I'm alarmed by what seems, so far, to be an uncritical citing of Solzhenitsyn and Robert Conquest, who had known fascist sympathies. I also can't stand Anne Applebaum, a supporter of the war in Iraq and of Georgia's aggression toward South Ossetia, and defender of pedophile Roman Polanski, among other things...but I can't shake the thought that, objectionable as their views may be, that alone isn't grounds to dismiss several witness accounts and archive documents. That, and the book seems otherwise balanced, as there is a criticism, in passing, of McCarthyism and some details on the origins of the labour camps from Czarist Russia.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on this, especially if they could help clear things up one way or the other.

Note:

Before this becomes a Stalin vs. Trotsky thread, I should mention for those who haven't read it at all that this book is more than another attack on Stalinism. It blames Lenin, as well, for similar mass arrests and exiles of opponents of Bolshevism at the time of the October Revolution.

[Sir Comradical]

I found this website, it's set up by the CPGB-ML and it has in-depth info on Stalin's Gulags. Have a look at the table at the bottom for accurate figures on Gulag numbers etc.

http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html

Having said that, please remember that this site is run by hardcore Stalin defenders who rarely criticize Stalin's regime.

[Ismail]

As a note, a good bourgeois work on the GULAG system comes from anti-communists: http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/6619837.html

It notes how the GULAG system was not economical, how it was not done for profit, etc.

As for the deportations of certain ethnic groups (which was in no way a racist measure, as Russians who had worked on the Manchurian railroad and such were also seen as suspect), see: http://web.archive.org/web/20020917111927/www22.brinkster.com/harikumar/AllianceIssues/All42-Settlements.html

[The Intransigent Faction]

I found this website, it's set up by the CPGB-ML and it has in-depth info on Stalin's Gulags. Have a look at the table at the bottom for accurate figures on Gulag numbers etc.

http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html

Having said that, please remember that this site is run by hardcore Stalin defenders who rarely criticize Stalin's regime.

Yeah, I'm already very familiar with them/that web site.

[Chimurenga.]

I'm alarmed by what seems, so far, to be an uncritical citing of Solzhenitsyn and Robert Conquest, who had known fascist sympathies.

This alone should tell you not to take what you read as fact.

[bailey_187]

You cant judge the whole Soviet Union on a book focusing on its prisons. I mean, after watching Oz most people dont decide capitalism is bad. Its rediculous.

This is worth noting though that there was a 3% annuall death rate under the Tsar in 1913 (Wheatcroft - Soviet Studies 42 (1990) pg: 355-367) and a 1.6% death rate under Yeltsin in the 90s (Murphy – The Triumph of Evil). Compare this to the death rates in the GULAG. By the 1940s the death rates in the GULAG remained lower than in Tsarist Russia and by 1949 were lower than the Yelstin years; after 1949 less people were dying in the terrible GULAGs than in the streets of Russia in the 1990s!

Most of the deaths in the GULAGs were during the early 1940s when millions of free Soviet citiziens were starving due to the Nazis.

[The Intransigent Faction]

You cant judge the whole Soviet Union on a book focusing on its prisons. I mean, after watching Oz most people dont decide capitalism is bad. Its rediculous.

Yes, this was my first thought. You hardly get the full story of a society that way.
However, if evidence shows that there were quite a few innocent people arbitrarily put in said prisons and furthermore people were tortured, that does show something relevant about how Soviet society functioned and the level of concern, or lack thereof, for human rights in the justice system (a lack of habeas corpus was unjustified in the 1930s as it is unjustified for alleged "unlawful combatants" held by the U.S. now at Guantanamo Bay).


This is worth noting though that there was a 3% annuall death rate under the Tsar in 1913 (Wheatcroft - Soviet Studies 42 (1990) pg: 355-367) and a 1.6% death rate under Yeltsin in the 90s (Murphy – The Triumph of Evil). Compare this to the death rates in the GULAG. By the 1940s the death rates in the GULAG remained lower than in Tsarist Russia and by 1949 were lower than the Yelstin years; after 1949 less people were dying in the terrible GULAGs than in the streets of Russia in the 1990s!

Most of the deaths in the GULAGs were during the early 1940s when millions of free Soviet citiziens were starving due to the Nazis.

Yeah, I've also heard that in terms of % of population, the Gulags had less prisoners at their peak than the modern U.S. system does. Of course the real question isn't about numbers of prisoners, it's about the procedure for imprisonment, who gets put in prisons or labour camps, and why they're put there. Also, terrible as Czarism and Russian capitalism are, the question is whether or not the Soviet leadership abused its power. The Gulag numbers also don't include those who were simply sent to "exile villages".

[bailey_187]

Yes, this was my first thought. You hardly get the full story of a society that way.
However, if evidence shows that there were quite a few innocent people arbitrarily put in said prisons and furthermore people were tortured, that does show something relevant about how Soviet society functioned and the level of concern, or lack thereof, for human rights in the justice system (a lack of habeas corpus was unjustified in the 1930s as it is unjustified for alleged "unlawful combatants" held by the U.S. now at Guantanamo Bay).


No one is denying that fucked up shit happend in the USSR.

[The Intransigent Faction]

No one is denying that fucked up shit happend in the USSR.

Just checking, because yeah, some people are.

[bailey_187]

Its like, fucked up shit happened in the French Revolution. But no one deny that to overthrow of feudalism to capitalism was bad because a few thousand inncoent people were guillotined. Also, a book on the "history of the guillotine in the french revolution" wouldnt give a very good way to understand the french revolution or the rise of the bourgeosie. The GULAGs are sensationalised because its one area that Communism can be easily attacked. They dont like to talk about the experience of the majority of Soviet people, just the poor soles wrongly sent to the GULAGs.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

he level of concern, or lack thereof, for human rights in the justice system

Concern for something abstract and nonsensical is irrelevant.


The Gulag numbers also don't include those who were simply sent to "exile villages"

Though, internal exile was getting away pretty lightly. Those were not always "villages" at any rate, frequently larger cities were also the destination for internal exile, particularly if they were closed cities.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Concern for something abstract and nonsensical is irrelevant.

Great, so if police show up at your door some day with fabricated charges, drag you off to a cell and torture a false confession out of you, don't complain. After all, the right to be free from that kind of abuse of power is abstract and nonsensical.


Though, internal exile was getting away pretty lightly. Those were not always "villages" at any rate, frequently larger cities were also the destination for internal exile, particularly if they were closed cities.

Okay, larger cities too. The point was that Gulag numbers alone aren't the whole story. There were also mass deportations.

[Sir Comradical]

You cant judge the whole Soviet Union on a book focusing on its prisons. I mean, after watching Oz most people dont decide capitalism is bad. Its rediculous.

This is worth noting though that there was a 3% annuall death rate under the Tsar in 1913 (Wheatcroft - Soviet Studies 42 (1990) pg: 355-367) and a 1.6% death rate under Yeltsin in the 90s (Murphy – The Triumph of Evil). Compare this to the death rates in the GULAG. By the 1940s the death rates in the GULAG remained lower than in Tsarist Russia and by 1949 were lower than the Yelstin years; after 1949 less people were dying in the terrible GULAGs than in the streets of Russia in the 1990s!

Most of the deaths in the GULAGs were during the early 1940s when millions of free Soviet citiziens were starving due to the Nazis.



According to the source I posted before, the death rate in the Gulags appears to be definitely over 3%.

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/2499/stalingulag.png

Where's your evidence that the death rate in Gulags were less than 3%?
http://img341.imageshack.us/i/stalingulag.png/

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Great, so if police show up at your door some day with fabricated charges, drag you off to a cell and torture a false confession out of you, don't complain. After all, the right to be free from that kind of abuse of power is abstract and nonsensical.


Personalisations, great. It's not the issue of whether innocents should be judged, I think all will agree that people should not be judged or treated in some way for things they did not do, but the argument from the existence of some "universal human rights" is what is nonsensical and abstract. It is simply a question of a standard of decency that should be provided, not a question of being concerned with some absurd Helsinki Accords or whatever. No mercy on the counter-revolutionaries, fascists and bourgeois. The liberal-democratic notion of "human rights" play right into the hands of the capitalist order.


According to the source I posted before, the death rate in the Gulags appears to be definitely over 3%.



Where's your evidence that the death rate in Gulags were less than 3%?


It's right there in your post. 1948-1953 show 2.5-0.3% death rate in labour colony system?

[Kléber]

Its like, fucked up shit happened in the French Revolution. But no one deny that to overthrow of feudalism to capitalism was bad because a few thousand inncoent people were guillotined.
There is a big difference between defending the revolution and apologizing for Thermidor.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Personalisations, great. It's not the issue of whether innocents should be judged, I think all will agree that people should not be judged or treated in some way for things they did not do, but the argument from the existence of some "universal human rights" is what is nonsensical and abstract. It is simply a question of a standard of decency that should be provided, not a question of being concerned with some absurd Helsinki Accords or whatever. No mercy on the counter-revolutionaries, fascists and bourgeois. The liberal-democratic notion of "human rights" play right into the hands of the capitalist order.

Fair enough. Maybe "standard of decency" is a better term, but that is the issue I was getting at.

[Sir Comradical]

It's right there in your post. 1948-1953 show 2.5-0.3% death rate in labour colony system?

Ohh wait no. I read what he wrote again. My mistake.

[Das war einmal]

Well, you have to agree that there was a lack of a decent judgement system, back in the 1920's/1930's. It's save to say there was no central planned deportation system, it didn't have a sophisticated bureaucracy keeping notes and figures, like for instance, the german concentration camps.

The situation was more like the wild-west. If you read through 'another view on Stalin' its even said that the collectivization in the main land was more anarchist (in its decentralization) like than anything else. Kind of like the cultural revolution.

[Ismail]

Ironically enough it was Vyshinsky (the judge who presided over the Moscow Trials) who condemned the shoddy state of Soviet justice in the early 1930's and stood for reform. "Vyshinskii stood for... due process, careful judgments on the basis of evidence, a strong role for defense lawyers in all cases, firm legal codes that applied equally to the entire population, and a strengthening of law....

In February 1936 Vyshinskii wrote to Viacheslav Molotov... to call for a reduction of the NKVD's administrative powers." (Robert W. Thurston, Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, pp. 6-7.)

It was Vyshinsky who winded up presiding over the two more organized trials in that time period (the three trials (http://www.shunpiking.com/books/GC/GC-AK-MS-chapter13.htm) and the Moscow Trials), whereas the vast majority (especially during the Great Purges, obviously) were conducted with very little professionalism, which was widely noted after Yezhov fell from grace and Beria came to prominence.


Well, you have to agree that there was a lack of a decent judgement system, back in the 1920's/1930's. It's save to say there was no central planned deportation system, it didn't have a sophisticated bureaucracy keeping notes and figures, like for instance, the german concentration camps.

The situation was more like the wild-west. If you read through 'another view on Stalin' its even said that the collectivization in the main land was more anarchist (in its decentralization) like than anything else. Kind of like the cultural revolution.This is correct. Thurston's book is a good read on this subject, as is J. Arch Getty's Origins of the Great Purges.

[bailey_187]

There is a big difference between defending the revolution and apologizing for Thermidor.

You love bringing up this shit anaology of Stalin being the Thermidor. I think Trotsky, Bukharin etc were Dantonites, Robespierre was Stalin. Not really but can we can we stop with the stupid french revolution analogies.

[The Vegan Marxist]

During those times, I think how we imprisoned the "enemy" was quite similar to how everyone else imprisoned theirs as well. For instance, Russia had the Gulag Camps, Germany had the Concentration Camps, China had the Re-Education Camps, & America had the Japanese Internment Camps. So we were all pretty fucked up, & we shouldn't just judge a country of its entirety based on how their imprisonment took form. Given at how similar it was to others as well. If one judges your prison system, judge theirs back.

[ZeroNowhere]

You love bringing up this shit anaology of Stalin being the Thermidor. I think Trotsky, Bukharin etc were Dantonites, Robespierre was Stalin. Not really but can we can we stop with the stupid french revolution analogies.
I'm fairly sure that they were responding to a French Revolution analogy, so it would make sense to talk about the French Revolution.

[The Intransigent Faction]

During those times, I think how we imprisoned the "enemy" was quite similar to how everyone else imprisoned theirs as well. For instance, Russia had the Gulag Camps, Germany had the Concentration Camps, China had the Re-Education Camps, & America had the Japanese Internment Camps. So we were all pretty fucked up, & we shouldn't just judge a country of its entirety based on how their imprisonment took form. Given at how similar it was to others as well. If one judges your prison system, judge theirs back.

Of course, that's using one set of atrocities to excuse another. When I borught that up the usual response was "Well yeah, the Nazis were terrible and I don't support the Japanese internments/whatever else the Americans did of a similar nature, but that doesn't justify the Gulags."

The more I read about it, the more I have to admit, it doesn't.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Of course, that's using one set of atrocities to excuse another. When I borught that up the usual response was "Well yeah, the Nazis were terrible and I don't support the Japanese internments/whatever else the Americans did of a similar nature, but that doesn't justify the Gulags."

The more I read about it, the more I have to admit, it doesn't.

The Nazis had camps that served to intentionally kill the internees, this is quite different. The Japanese and Germans sent to internment camps in the U.S. where so sent simply by virtue of them being German or Japanese, not because they were suspected of any crimes or had any other ties or cause of general suspicion.

There is nothing wrong with labour colonies.

The issue is whether innocent people were sent to such, and yes, that happened, but to be honest it is quite hard to know to what extent innocent people were sentenced (quite often people were guilty of what they were accused of, it was just that they did not think handing out pro-Nazi propaganda was a bad thing to do).

Should thus, innocent people be sent to labour colonies? No, efforts must be taken to prevent such abuses, but it's unlikely they can be entirely eliminated. Was the Soviets sometimes a bit rushed in sending people to prison or the labour colonies? Probably.

But there is nothing wrong with having places to send incurable criminals where they can contribute something to society without them being exposed to civil society itself.

[The Intransigent Faction]

The Nazis had camps that served to intentionally kill the internees, this is quite different.

Not denying this.


The Japanese and Germans sent to internment camps in the U.S. where so sent simply by virtue of them being German or Japanese, not because they were suspected of any crimes or had any other ties or cause of general suspicion.

This is true. Unfortunately, a similar thing happened to Volga Germans and Crimeans, for example, of the respective former "Autonomous Republics". They were targetted because of who they were, not what they did.


There is nothing wrong with labour colonies.

See above.


The issue is whether innocent people were sent to such, and yes, that happened, but to be honest it is quite hard to know to what extent innocent people were sentenced (quite often people were guilty of what they were accused of, it was just that they did not think handing out pro-Nazi propaganda was a bad thing to do).

Should thus, innocent people be sent to labour colonies? No, efforts must be taken to prevent such abuses, but it's unlikely they can be entirely eliminated. Was the Soviets sometimes a bit rushed in sending people to prison or the labour colonies? Probably.

But there is nothing wrong with having places to send incurable criminals where they can contribute something to society without them being exposed to civil society itself.

Well innocence is one issue, but another is the degree of punishment or whether such punishment is merited. Some were "guilty" of and thus sent to a labour camp for petty crimes like telling political jokes or being late for work a couple of times. I don't deny that many were sent to Gulags for more serious crimes (i.e. rape) and even that these made up the majority of the Gulag population. Regardless, that does not justify that kind of repression.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Not denying this.

Well innocence is one issue, but another is the degree of punishment or whether such punishment is merited. Some were "guilty" of and thus sent to a labour camp for petty crimes like telling political jokes or being late for work a couple of times. I don't deny that many were sent to Gulags for more serious crimes (i.e. rape) and even that these made up the majority of the Gulag population. Regardless, that does not justify that kind of repression.

Sounds like bourgeoisie propaganda to me. I once picked up a book, the book store had just got a new batch of anti-Stalin titles, slanderous bunch of poorly written sob-stories. It was full of the political jokes in a personal letter leading to being sent to the mines in Vorkuta, being late for work and off to Siberia, Stalin raping young girls, this and that. Right next to it, some thirty copies of The GULAG Archipelago stacked, new print, just by the entrance. Another book store, the same set up.

However, what do you mean "that kind of repression", once the terrible conditions during the years of tedious struggle in the 1930's and the strife of the war, the conditions in those camps were no longer all that bad as compared to other parts of the penal system. There wasn't really much more "repression" in the labour colonies than in the prisons, and as in those, quite a lot of the, rather, "oppression" were done by other inmates.

[bailey_187]

I'm fairly sure that they were responding to a French Revolution analogy, so it would make sense to talk about the French Revolution.

lol shit i look dumb.

what i meant was the constant labbeling of characters from the russian revolution with those of the french revolution.

[Barry Lyndon]

I fail to see how entire ethnic minorities(Volga Germans, Kazakhs, Chechens, etc), Red Army soldiers who were taken prisoner by the Germans, Polish POWs, homosexuals, and loyal Communists who happened to disagree with Stalin were 'criminals'. And given that many didn't even receive the most farcical trials, there is no reliable way to determine whether these prisoners were 'criminal' or 'political' to begin with. I can see it now, one of the Stalinists here is going to jump up and down and call me 'bourgeois'. Go ahead. Watch me not care.

I would like Stalin apologists to explain why Stalin's political repression was so much bloodier and so much more massive then Lenin's, even though the latter was operating in a period of all-out civil war, and Stalin was not. And don't give World War II as an excuse, the height of the terror under Stalin was in the late 1930's, before the war.

[manic expression]

I fail to see how entire ethnic minorities(Volga Germans, Kazakhs, Chechens, etc), Red Army soldiers who were taken prisoner by the Germans, Polish POWs, and loyal Communists who happened to disagree with Stalin were 'criminals'.
A hell of a lot of them weren't. It's that simple. Lots of those imprisoned were criminals, definitely, but a whole lot weren't. Those days were some of the most overwhelming in human history, though, error was almost unavoidable, although many of the mistakes were. We have the benefit of hindsight, though.

I recall a story told by a female Soviet fighter pilot captured after being shot down. She was being interrogated by the NKVD after the liberation, and they were grilling her on what information she gave up. She was so defiant that she ran out of the room, and although the NKVD officer threatened to shoot, they let her go. I think, and this is just me here, that the NKVD officer knew she was innocent and that it was completely unnecessary to put her through that after all the sacrifices she made; because of that, I think he made up in his mind that there was no way he was pulling that trigger. My point is that the protocol went way too far IMO, but that the practice of it was a lot more varied from what I've seen. Such is the nature of policy, let's try to learn what we can.


I would like Stalin apologists to explain why Stalin's political repression was so much bloodier and so much more massive then Lenin's, even though the latter was operating in a period of all-out civil war, and Stalin was not. And don't give World War II as an excuse, the height of the terror under Stalin was in the late 1930's, before the war.All-out civil war solidifies the lines of conflict. Most active Whites went to White-controlled areas and joined or aided the White armies. You don't have that dynamic if there's no open war. On WWII, the Soviet people were very aware of the developments in Germany and Italy and Spain and Japan, and it did not look good. Who can blame them for being nervous about the future with such enemies and no allies (the western powers insulted Stalin when he pleaded for an anti-Nazi alliance).

But still, that doesn't justify the grave mistakes of the purges (pre-war or post-war). It simply puts them in context, so we can learn from them and explain them better.