Richard Pipes

[Red Future]

This is a thread to list the many false claims of anticommunist harvard professor Richard Pipes.Please post

[Red Future]

This is ridiculous Lenin held the working class in contempt -Pipes

[ComradeOm]

"Nothing in early twentieth century Russia inexorably pushed the country towards revolution, except the presence of an unusually large and fanatical body of professional revolutionaries. It is they who with their well-organised agitational campaigns in 1917 transformed a local fire, the mutiny of Petrograd’s military garrison, into a nationwide conflagration"

The last three decades of research into the Revolution can be summed up as proving the above statement to be utterly false

[milk]

His Russia Under the Old Regime is a very good primer for the general reader though. However, people need to bear in mind the intentions of such a writer if they are take his positions beyond the interests a 'general reader' might have. To be critical in other words. It's all a matter of interpreting facts and extracting useful information to be deployed in different contexts. A certain navigation is needed. The same could be said for Tibor Szamuely's (also very good) The Russian Tradition.

[x359594]

...people need to bear in mind the intentions of such a writer if they are take his positions beyond the interests a 'general reader' might have...

A general reader is certain to be misinformed by anything Pipes has to say about the Russian Revolution; he's a neoconservative ideologue.

On the other hand, someone well-versed in the history of the Revolution is in a better position to extract what facts may appear in his writings from the spin he puts on them.

[milk]

A general reader is certain to be misinformed by anything Pipes has to say about the Russian Revolution; he's a neoconservative ideologue.

On the other hand, someone well-versed in the history of the Revolution is in a better position to extract what facts may appear in his writings from the spin he puts on them.

Not really. As I said before, you need a critical mind. Simply reading something that always confirms your preconceptions will not get you that critical mind. You'll never think otherwise.

[Rousedruminations]

lol oh great i have this book !

[ComradeOm]

Not really. As I said before, you need a critical mind. Simply reading something that always confirms your preconceptions will not get you that critical mind. You'll never think otherwise.Which does not mean that you have to read trash. I'm usually an advocate for a wide reading base, but there's absolutely nothing to be gained from digesting Pipes' triumphalist nonsense. Not when there are saner alternatives available. Sometimes historians are simply wrong and not worth reading

[milk]

Which does not mean that you have to read trash. I'm usually an advocate for a wide reading base, but there's absolutely nothing to be gained from digesting Pipes' triumphalist nonsense. Not when there are saner alternatives available. Sometimes historians are simply wrong and not worth reading

It isn't trash. His Russia Under the Old Regime is very well written and well-researched. The critical reader needs to interpret the facts differently. Simply dismissing something as 'trash' because of the known political inclinations of the writer is pure pigheadedness.

[ComradeOm]

It isn't trash. His Russia Under the Old Regime is very well written and well-researched. The critical reader needs to interpret the facts differently. Simply dismissing something as 'trash' because of the known political inclinations of the writer is pure pigheadedness.I dismiss his work as trash because his theses are bullshit. That this is a product of his political orientation is a coincidence. Advising people to read Pipes when there are other authors who cover the same ground much better - ie, without resorting to a simplistic and distorting Sonderweg - is ridiculous

This is a man whose "well-researched" works on the Russian Revolution of 1917 deny that there was even a popular movement in favour of Soviet power and who asserts that the October Revolution was the product of a small cabal of intellectuals! All so he can portray a near-seamless development of a 'totalitarian' tradition. There is no reason for anyone to bother with this nonsensical version of accounts given that that countless historians since have directly contradicted it

[Invader Zim]

I dismiss his work as trash because his theses are bullshit. That this is a product of his political orientation is a coincidence. Advising people to read Pipes when there are other authors who cover the same ground much better - ie, without resorting to a simplistic and distorting Sonderweg - is ridiculous

This is a man whose "well-researched" works on the Russian Revolution of 1917 deny that there was even a popular movement in favour of Soviet power and who asserts that the October Revolution was the product of a small cabal of intellectuals! All so he can portray a near-seamless development of a 'totalitarian' tradition. There is no reason for anyone to bother with this nonsensical version of accounts given that that countless historians since have directly contradicted it

Hmm... I find myself in partial agreement and disagreement, though not with your appraisal of Pipes, whom I have avoided thus far, and thus cannot really comment. On the one hand, when it comes to professional historians who, regardless of political opinion, construct work to minimum research standards, you can usually be guaranteed to find information and source material that is both unique and interesting. This is true of even those historians I really don't like both as researchers and indeed, in some cases, as people who I have met and utterly disliked as people in addition to disliking their work. To take an example of the former, I really don't like Hugh Thomas' work and conclusions. But I don't think that his books are worthless, the problems I have are the gaps and failures to put as much emphasis on certain facts as I would do, and thus he formulates theses that I wholeheartedly disagree with. That said his books, such as the one on the slave trade, includes plenty of interesting and informative material from the archives. So, in that respect I think even the most odious rightwing historians, assuming that they aren't guilty of scholarly misconduct, can be worth reading provided you approach them critically and mine their work for facts as opposed to conclusions/analysis. I would guess, though as I said I haven't read him, the same can be said of Pipes. It certainly can be said of some other notoriously rightwing historians I have read, again the key is to ignore their alaysis and conclusions and instead to draw upon their often meticulously researched source materials, because methodologically speaking rightwing does not necessarily equate bad.

That said, in some cases I have encountered books that provide absolutely nothing worth reading or source material worth following up.

[ComradeOm]

On the one hand, when it comes to professional historians who, regardless of political opinion, construct work to minimum research standards, you can usually be guaranteed to find information and source material that is both unique and interestingExcept that the Russian Revolution occurred almost a century ago and has proven to be the single most documented event in human history. Moreover, Pipes has not been at the forefront of those archive-digging historians. If this were the 1970s then yes, I might recommend his work while advising the reader to hold their nose, but today I see no reason to do so. There are simply so many better works out there by different authors that a new reader need not suffer Pipes. Conversely, a veteran of the subject will find little new or of interest

Now, specialised monographs and the like may obviously still be of use, if only because so few other authors have covered the ground, but for general histories there is nothing to recommend about the man. Except possibly the bibliographies... although these are always selective. Indeed in his Russian Revolution it appears that an entire school of social historians has simply passed him by

I'd also note that the Russian Revolution, and events leading up to this, are notoriously difficult to write about. Hobsbawm famously questioned whether we were far enough removed to write a history of the Revolution. This is a subject as divisive as any in the field today and it does require a certain nuance or deftness of touch. It is hard to portray just how much Pipes, who is after all a professional historian, lacks these qualities. To illustrate: his Unknown Lenin is a collection of documents culled from the Moscow archives and published with the explicit intention of showing how this "thoroughgoing misanthrope" hid behind a "smokescreen of self-righteous"... opinions that Pipes had of course formed decades previously. This is simply unprofessional and displays Pipes' willingness to populate his works only with sources that fit his own interpretation

Usually I would fall within the 'keep an open mind camp' - for example, I recommend Figes to people even though the man's a tosser and his work seriously flawed - but there are times when an author simply is not good enough or not worth reading

[milk]

I dismiss his work as trash because his theses are bullshit. That this is a product of his political orientation is a coincidence. Advising people to read Pipes when there are other authors who cover the same ground much better - ie, without resorting to a simplistic and distorting Sonderweg - is ridiculous

This is a man whose "well-researched" works on the Russian Revolution of 1917 deny that there was even a popular movement in favour of Soviet power and who asserts that the October Revolution was the product of a small cabal of intellectuals! All so he can portray a near-seamless development of a 'totalitarian' tradition. There is no reason for anyone to bother with this nonsensical version of accounts given that that countless historians since have directly contradicted it

I disagree with his conclusions, but it is better to engage your brain when it comes to opposing arguments. Perhaps one of the best things to do is not avoid that which attacks your well-held views, but actually read the most devastating critique you can find of them, and then use that as a way to critically think about those views you hold, to actively seek out that which contradicts your beliefs, rather than do something easy, like just reading literature that confirms them.

[Invader Zim]

I disagree with his conclusions, but it is better to engage your brain when it comes to opposing arguments. Perhaps one of the best things to do is not avoid that which attacks your well-held views, but actually read the most devastating critique you can find of them, and then use that as a way to critically think about those views you hold, to actively seek out that which contradicts your beliefs, rather than do something easy, like just reading literature that confirms them.

I think Om is arguing that Pipes' work is a lot less than the 'most devastating critique'.

[milk]

Calling Pipe's research trash isn't a critique either.

[ComradeOm]

Calling Pipe's research trash isn't a critique either.Of course its not, its an insult or a sign of contempt. You were the one talking about critiques

That said, I'd like to think that my posts above have gone some way towards addressing my issues with the man's work. That is, that he is a bad historian (who makes selective use of facts/sources); that his work is almost entirely devoid of the social context in which the past three decades of historians have found so critical; and that his reading of Russian history is ridiculously straight-jacketed into some sort of deterministic Sonderweg that views Russia and the Russians as inherently inclined to authoritarianism, and the Soviet state as a direct descendent of 16th C Muscovy. Plus, his basic theses have been shown to be limited, at best, by the likes of Rabinowitch et al. All of which makes it bizarre to recommend Pipes to anyone with an interest in the subject

If you want some actual critiques from professional historians then I'd recommend Kenez The Prosecution of Soviet History: A Critique of Richard Pipes, Getzler Richard Pipes' 'Revisionist' History of the Russian Revolution, and Smith Richard Pipes (Social History 1992). Not a very popular man amongst his peers

(In fact I'd be delighted if anyone with JSTOR access could upload a copy of The Prosecution of Soviet History: A Critique of Richard Pipes for me. I recall that it was a particularly good/scathing review)

[milk]

The despotic nature of the Muscovite 'tradition' (no matter the political colouration) has been talked about validly regardless of Pipes. Indeed, in my opinion Communists have underestimated its convergence with the isolated revolution and then exported by way of the Third International. There is still much to be talked about with regard to this ongoing dialectic between European forest and Asian steppe.

[ComradeOm]

The despotic nature of the Muscovite 'tradition' (no matter the political colouration) has been talked about validly regardless of Pipes. Indeed, in my opinion Communists have underestimated its convergence with the isolated revolution and then exported by way of the Third International. There is still much to be talked about with regard to this ongoing dialectic between European forest and Asian steppe.Yeah... and this is why people shouldn't read Pipes or his cronies. The idea that there is some over-arching 'Russian way', or that the Russians simply yearn for the despotic hand, is bad history at best and bigoted nonsense at worst. It is not longer acceptable, or at least fashionable, to talk of the Sonderweg in a German context yet Pipes et al feel free to apply a bankrupt analysis to Russia. You will find few modern historians, particularly those with an interest in social analysis, painting such stupid generalisations

Of course this also provides him the opportunity to wheel out the old 'totalitarian' model - which relies entirely on misrepresentations and distortion - in order to triumphantly laud the US and liberal democracy

[milk]

Nope. I didn't get such ideas from Pipes.

The idea of Russia being uniquely placed to bypass the problems encountered in the west, albeit with time running out is nothing new or particularly Pipes. They may have wanted to break out as much as others with the liquidation of the Romanovs by the modernisers, but they didn't liquidate the Muscovite political culture transmitted by them for centuries, and with the isolation of the revolution, the Bolsheviks looking inward was of necessity as well as trying to justify as being 'correct' the continuation of the revolution within national boundaries. In relation to that I think someone (Plekhanov?) once warned of the arrival of a Russian approximation of the Peruvian Children of the Sun, if the two were to converge.

Have you never read anything that isn't pro-Bolshevik?

[ComradeOm]

The idea of Russia being uniquely placed to bypass the problems encountered in the west, albeit with time running out is nothing new or particularly Pipes. They may have wanted to break out as much as others with the liquidation of the Romanovs by the modernisers, but they didn't liquidate the Muscovite political culture transmitted by them for centuries, and with the isolation of the revolution, the Bolsheviks looking inward was of necessity as well as trying to justify as being 'correct' the continuation of the revolution within national boundariesChrist, you haven't even digested Pipes properly. He is not a Slavophile, although he does have something in common with Pobedonostsev, as they, liberal or conservative, viewed Russia's 'Asiatic' character as fundamentally positive and as a viable alternative to the West. In contrast, Pipes et al believe that Russian history took a radical departure from Western 'norms'*. The result was a continual development of 'totalitarian' politics and a deeply ingrained yearning for 'strong men' on the behalf of the population. Hence a good deal of their writings around the Revolution deal with 'proving' both the inevitability of its failure and the supposed 'continuation' of the totalitarian state from Tsarism to Bolshevikism

Its all bullshit. Not only is it deeply racist (treating the Russian people like a bunch of unruly schoolchildren who need the cane) it also ignores a vast swath of historical evidence (as detailed by 'revisionist' historians) that directly contradicts it. The idea that Russia is "committed to authoritarian government" or that "conservative ideology... was constantly upheld by public opinion" (to quote from Russian Conservatism and Its Critics) is simply false, and should be apparently so to anyone even passingly familiar with the aspirations of the Russian people in 1905 or 1917

Furthermore, "political culture" is not "transmitted" like a disease or a set of chromosomes. This is exactly the sort of super-historical thesis that is only sustainable (much like 'totalitarianism') by ignoring much of the actual conditions and environments that give rise to various states and ruling classes. The factors that lay behind the rise and governance of the Bolsheviks were vastly different to those that underpinned the Tsardom. They cannot - without resorting to either prejudice or sheer laziness - simply be considered part of the same tradition. Yet Pipes does exactly that and in doing so ignores all the real drivers that lay behind the Revolution

But hey, you'd know all this if you'd followed your own advice and read around a bit. Say, almost any history of the Revolution published in the past 15 years or so

*Hence the term 'triumphalism' associated with the school in the 1990s as they posited that Russia had 'rejoined' the liberal democracies. Somewhat tarnished by the emergence of a newly assertive Russia under Putin


Have you never read anything that isn't pro-Bolshevik?Many. I make a habit of it actually. Check my sig. Of course, Pipes isn't on the list because he's a terrible historian, not because he's a rabid right-winger. No, the question is whether you've read anything that isn't Pipes

[La Comédie Noire]

I think my favorite parts of Pipe's work is where he goes on lengthy digresses to personally comment on events. Like when he called Lenin a coward for trying to avoid Tsarist police repression, while hiding behind a desk at Harvard no less! :lol:

[Red Commissar]

I don't know, the one thing I never liked about Pipes is that he seems to boil everything down to "lol totalitarianism", about the vile anti-democratic nature of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany being closely related in their destruction of lofty democracy (reminding me to an extent of Karl Popper).

I guess more so then his reaching to make it seem Russia's problems with totalitarianism, private property and other things was linked to a cultural shortcoming of theirs, which just reeks of attempts to assert the superiority of WASP ideals.

[Red Future]

Talking of WASPs Pipes was an arch reaganite in the 1980s.WASPs of course being the dominant class that were in favor of such Neo liberalism.Interestingly i found this article in which Pipes talks of Putin

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59887/richard-pipes/flight-from-freedom-what-russians-think-and-want

[milk]

Christ, you haven't even digested Pipes properly. He is not a Slavophile, although he does have something in common with Pobedonostsev, as they, liberal or conservative, viewed Russia's 'Asiatic' character as fundamentally positive and as a viable alternative to the West. In contrast, Pipes et al believe that Russian history took a radical departure from Western 'norms'*. The result was a continual development of 'totalitarian' politics and a deeply ingrained yearning for 'strong men' on the behalf of the population. Hence a good deal of their writings around the Revolution deal with 'proving' both the inevitability of its failure and the supposed 'continuation' of the totalitarian state from Tsarism to Bolshevikism

Its all bullshit. Not only is it deeply racist (treating the Russian people like a bunch of unruly schoolchildren who need the cane) it also ignores a vast swath of historical evidence (as detailed by 'revisionist' historians) that directly contradicts it. The idea that Russia is "committed to authoritarian government" or that "conservative ideology... was constantly upheld by public opinion" (to quote from Russian Conservatism and Its Critics) is simply false, and should be apparently so to anyone even passingly familiar with the aspirations of the Russian people in 1905 or 1917

Furthermore, "political culture" is not "transmitted" like a disease or a set of chromosomes. This is exactly the sort of super-historical thesis that is only sustainable (much like 'totalitarianism') by ignoring much of the actual conditions and environments that give rise to various states and ruling classes. The factors that lay behind the rise and governance of the Bolsheviks were vastly different to those that underpinned the Tsardom. They cannot - without resorting to either prejudice or sheer laziness - simply be considered part of the same tradition. Yet Pipes does exactly that and in doing so ignores all the real drivers that lay behind the Revolution

But hey, you'd know all this if you'd followed your own advice and read around a bit. Say, almost any history of the Revolution published in the past 15 years or so

*Hence the term 'triumphalism' associated with the school in the 1990s as they posited that Russia had 'rejoined' the liberal democracies. Somewhat tarnished by the emergence of a newly assertive Russia under Putin

Many. I make a habit of it actually. Check my sig. Of course, Pipes isn't on the list because he's a terrible historian, not because he's a rabid right-winger. No, the question is whether you've read anything that isn't Pipes

That is Pipe's view, not mine. I think you haven't been digesting my posts properly. As I said, I didn't get that from him. And I haven't mentioned totalitarianism either... In what context could that be applied centuries before the revolution? Both the Slavophiles and the Westerners borrowed deeply from (western) European culture and intellectual traditions. And also, whether it be the Bolsheviks using Marxism but also reaching back into the Russian revolutionary tradition, particularly its Jacobin tendency (which also borrowed from the west), or today with the various strands of Neo-Eurasianism. So the Soviet Union and its state was a complete break from the past then? No traces at all of that preceding it? There's ahistorical, and then there's ahistorical.

[ComradeOm]

And I haven't mentioned totalitarianism either... In what context could that be applied centuries before the revolution?I would ask Pipes, the subject of this thread, as its his contention that Soviet 'totalitarianism' was a direct development from Tsarist absolutism. Hence his characterisation of the Tsardom as a semi-totalitarian police state crippled only by its own incompetence and a respect for private property. The USSR, for Pipes, was merely a matter of throwing off these shackles and


Both the Slavophiles and the Westerners borrowed deeply from (western) European culture and intellectual traditionsYou're telling me that the likes of Pobedonostsev were fans of European culture and traditions? :lol:


So the Soviet Union and its state was a complete break from the past then? No traces at all of that preceding it? There's ahistorical, and then there's ahistorical.And then there's not giving a damn about history at all. The Soviet Union was the product of the material conditions present in Russia at the time of its foundation. These were very different from the material conditions that gave rise to and sustained the Tsardom

But then Pipes, for all his research, cares very little about that actual factors that led to the creation of the USSR. By confining himself to political actors, and demonising half of them, he is completely unable to answer the question as to what drove and sustained the broad revolutionary movement. Instead he makes broad comparisons over centuries. This is not history. It is not historical analysis to say that X is similar to Y in this regard and that therefore X is a direct continuation of Y. This is not history, its a ridiculous generalisation that, in the case of Pipes, has been shown to be nonsense by countless other historians


Interestingly i found this article in which Pipes talks of PutinThis is typical Pipes. There are many reasons for Putin's popularity, most of which would stem from the fact that the early 1990s was, I think we can all agree, a disaster for Russia and a time of immense hardship for her people. Any real analysis of what has happened since has to start here - the material conditions that gave birth to the Putin regime

Pipes however is simply unable to take such an approach. For him the early 1990s was a triumphant period in which Russia finally joined the liberal democracies. Having invested a good deal of personal and professional capital in asserting that this was a good thing for Russia, he is incapable of - and, based on his history of the Revolution, uninterested in - any social analysis that seriously criticises the Yeltsin years or examines where the popular impetus for Putin came from. As such, his only real option is to fall back on the terrible but old argument that the Russians simply don't do democracy. They love the strong hand, they are inherently conservative, they yearn for the yoke. Its stereotypical nonsense without any basis in reality. All it illustrates is the author's own anti-Russian sentiments and smug Western sense of superiority

[milk]

And then there's not giving a damn about history at all. The Soviet Union was the product of the material conditions present in Russia at the time of its foundation. These were very different from the material conditions that gave rise to and sustained the Tsardom

:laugh:

After the revolution became isolated?

[milk]

You're telling me that the likes of Pobedonostsev were fans of European culture and traditions? :lol:

You talked of Pobedonostsev, not me. Is there only him?

[milk]

Talking of WASPs Pipes was an arch reaganite in the 1980s.WASPs of course being the dominant class that were in favor of such Neo liberalism.Interestingly i found this article in which Pipes talks of Putin

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59887/richard-pipes/flight-from-freedom-what-russians-think-and-want

The work of Cameron Ross is particularly good for seeing how centralisation of political power has been occurring during the Putin years.

[ComradeOm]

:laugh:

After the revolution became isolated?Well, yes. Obviously. The social base that the Tsardom rested upon was entirely different to that of the USSR. The conditions in which the former rose and sustained itself could similarly not be more different. Its staggering that I have to point out that the Russia of the 16th C was vastly different to that of the 20th C. Hells, the Russia of 1817 was a world away from that of 1917

Not that you'll figure any of this from Pipes and his obsession with political and intellectual figures


You talked of Pobedonostsev, not me. Is there only him?I hold him up as by far the most influential and notable of the 19th C Slavophiles. You have a problem with this?

[milk]

Well, yes. Obviously. The social base that the Tsardom rested upon was entirely different to that of the USSR. The conditions in which the former rose and sustained itself could similarly not be more different. Its staggering that I have to point out that the Russia of the 16th C was vastly different to that of the 20th C. Hells, the Russia of 1817 was a world away from that of 1917

Not that you'll figure any of this from Pipes and his obsession with political and intellectual figures

I hold him up as by far the most influential and notable of the 19th C Slavophiles. You have a problem with this?

As I've said before, my views of this haven't been formed by Pipes.

You seem to be painting with big, broad brush strokes. So what you're saying is that the state structure of the Soviet Union, when isolated and having to continue the revolution within national boundaries had no traces whatsoever of the old Tsarist Russian Empire. Nothing at all. Completely free from it.

All of Slavophilism is the personality of Pobedonostsev? I do have a problem with this.

[ComradeOm]

You seem to be painting with big, broad brush strokes. So what you're saying is that the state structure of the Soviet Union, when isolated and having to continue the revolution within national boundaries had no traces whatsoever of the old Tsarist Russian Empire. Nothing at all. Completely free from itYou are perhaps familiar with the term 'revolution'? I know its not one that Pipes favours, implying as it does a complete sweep of the old state structures and the establishment of fresh ones based on a new social base, but its pretty relevant when discussing the Russian Revolution

So while of course the odd vestige of the old order remained (most notably in the commune and the personnel) the establishment of the Soviet state was a genuine break with the past. Moreover, it was clearly perceived as such by the, supposedly docile and conservative, Russian people: witness the vast amount of literature from the revolutionary years that articulates the yearning for liberty and real social change. You seem to be labouring under the impression that just because two events occur within "national boundaries" they are automatically the same or part of the same grand historic progression. Its as if socio-economic conditions were irrelevant... so yes, I do detect more than a hint of Pipe's bullshit in your assertions


All of Slavophilism is the personality of Pobedonostsev? I do have a problem with this.Perhaps you are not familiar with the term 'example'? 'Strawman' would be another one while you have your dictionary open

[Morpheus]

IIRC, Pipes also makes Makhno out to be an anti-semitic murderous bandit. Which, ironically, is quite similar to Bolshevik propaganda. Pipes is a fraud.

[milk]

So while of course the odd vestige of the old order remained (most notably in the commune and the personnel) the establishment of the Soviet state was a genuine break with the past. Moreover, it was clearly perceived as such by the, supposedly docile and conservative, Russian people: witness the vast amount of literature from the revolutionary years that articulates the yearning for liberty and real social change. You seem to be labouring under the impression that just because two events occur within "national boundaries" they are automatically the same or part of the same grand historic progression.

I'm aware of the above, but my point is, and I get the feeling we're just not going to agree on this, is that the revolution with its yearning to break out of the old (the spark failed to ignite what was wanted elsewhere), converged with important vestiges of that preceding it. As an example, I think it can be said that Lenin's old dictum, that the nationalism of small countries is to be supported, while that of big countries (not geographical size, but power and influence) should be attacked, was reversed by Stalin. Although not a Russian himself, when it came to the other peoples of the old Empire, his was just the Great Russian chavinism seen before in Tsarist times, given new clothes, although this time, instead of it being based on the imperial and 'civilising' mission of the Orthodox Russian people, they now constituted (or its working class) a historically progressive force. I reject Pipe's view that the Russian people love the whip (which is why I used the prescient words written by Marxist Georgy Plekhanov regarding a future isolation of a socialist revolution on unfamiliar terrain), but Russia's historical development has been different to that of much of western Europe, and the continuities of the Muscovite political culture (particularly its despotism) cannot be denied. Dismissing it as Pipesesque "bullshit" is pigheaded ignorance. This view has been identified and debated fiercely among Russian people themselves, either for trying to seek ways of destroying it (the Bolsheviks), and those who wanted to strengthen it and ensure its spreading, which in my view, ironically, the Bolsheviks eventually succeeded in doing, more so than Tsarism ever could. Also, related to this, there is the idea of a European people 'of the north' with an Asian essence, if you will. Russians themselves, for years, ironically using western European thought to anchor this supposed otherness, with various camps accusing each other of emphasising one influence over the other, i.e. the original Eurasianists among the emigres to western Europe following the Russian Civil War, some of whom would reject Tsarism altogether, and see either fascism as the wave of the future, or deeply admire the global reach Soviet power would come to have.

Following such historical continuities, no matter the political colouration (we have seen this recently regarding the centralisation of political power to Moscow, and other changes within the federal structure of post-Soviet Russia under Putin), does not automatically start with Richard Pipes, or view authoritarian forms of rule ('Asiaitic' despotism) as being the only way, the only possibility for Russia, or indeed always desired or preferred by Russian people. I think Communists, however, have underestimated this aspect, and particularly with Stalinism being exported the world over via the international Communist movement. But on this theme, I reject the silly view spread by vulgar anti-Communists that attempts to establish socialism will 'naturally' always lead to unacceptably repressive regimes, or lead even, to totalitarianism. That it is, rather stupidly according to these people, the body of theory called Marxism which causes this. This is why you get such crap like "Marxist regimes," or "Marxist systems of government," when there have never been such things. More accurately, it is a body of theory used with differing degrees of accuracy by political parties who were themselves products of their time and place. With plenty among those (see my recent row with others on the Pol Pot thread) who ended up, in some cases disastrously, cutting the feet to fit the shoes.

[ComradeOm]

I'm aware of the above, but my point is, and I get the feeling we're just not going to agree on this, is that the revolution with its yearning to break out of the old (the spark failed to ignite what was wanted elsewhere), converged with important vestiges of that preceding it. As an example, I think it can be said that Lenin's old dictum, that the nationalism of small countries is to be supported, while that of big countries (not geographical size, but power and influence) should be attacked, was reversed by Stalin. Although not a Russian himself, when it came to the other peoples of the old Empire, his was just the Great Russian chavinism seen before in Tsarist times, given new clothes, although this time, instead of it being based on the imperial and 'civilising' mission of the Orthodox Russian people, they now constituted (or its working class) a historically progressive forceAnd this is nothing more than parallelism. You cannot simply pick out aspects of different regimes from different times and leave it at that or ascribe the similarities to some sort of "essence" or "political culture" that transcends the centuries and all material conditions. This is an assertion completely devoid of any real analysis or any real attempt of understanding the circumstances of either regime. It says nothing about the rise of the Tsardom and it says nothing about the conditions that led to Stalin. Anyone viewing Russian history through this prism (ie, one that values national borders over all else) will never understand either the Tsardom or the Soviets

It obviously goes without saying that this sort of 'history' is deeply un-Marxist


I reject Pipe's view that the Russian people love the whip (which is why I used the prescient words written by Marxist Georgy Plekhanov regarding a future isolation of a socialist revolution on unfamiliar terrain), but Russia's historical development has been different to that of much of western Europe, and the continuities of the Muscovite political culture (particularly its despotism) cannot be denied. Dismissing it as Pipesesque "bullshit" is pigheaded ignoranceI love how you claim to reject Pipe's thesis and then promptly go on to implicitly endorse it. If these 'aspects' are passed down through the generations on the part of the ruling class (and indeed across ruling classes) then why not affect the masses? That is, if Russia's rulers are apparently destined to be despots then surely the Russian people are destined to be subjects? Pipes is at least internally consistent in this regard

And I think I've spent most of this thread denying "the continuities of the Muscovite political culture". Just to reiterate, in case anyone else is reading, this is not the current academic consensus. Pipes has his supporters (on the right) but few modern historians, certainly none who deal in social history, would subscribe to his thesis that the Soviet Union was essentially a product of "Muscovite political culture"


Following such historical continuities, no matter the political colouration (we have seen this recently regarding the centralisation of political power to Moscow, and other changes within the federal structure of post-Soviet Russia under Putin), does not automatically start with Richard Pipes, or view authoritarian forms of rule ('Asiaitic' despotism) as being the only way, the only possibility for Russia, or indeed always desired or preferred by Russian people. I think Communists, however, have underestimated this aspect, and particularly with Stalinism being exported the world over via the international Communist movementYou're right in that this sort of nonsense did not start with Pipes - it has a long heritage that goes back, through fascism and smug German revisionism, to the reactionaries of Russia itself. The idea that the Russian people were somehow, because of their inherited 'Asiatic nature', unable to embrace democratic traditions or govern themselves is nonsense. Even suggesting that this was a factor (or something that the Communists failed to recognise) betrays both an ignorance of the events of 1917 and a deeply bigoted worldview


But on this theme, I reject the silly view spread by vulgar anti-Communists that attempts to establish socialism will 'naturally' always lead to unacceptably repressive regimes, or lead even, to totalitarianismOf course it won't - as long as it occurs in proper Western nations that aren't hindered by any Asiatic essence or an authoritarian political culture. Its only when those Easterners and Orientals start messing with ideas above their station, and that are contrary to their national mindset, that trouble starts. They're like children really

[milk]

It obviously goes without saying that this sort of 'history' is deeply un-Marxist

So were the Bolsheviks.

It's pointless discussing anything with you, it's just a repetition of what you said before. Material conditions? You know nothing about Russian history beyond the one encased in a metal box with Lenin stamped on top. See ya.

[milk]

You're right in that this sort of nonsense did not start with Pipes - it has a long heritage that goes back, through fascism and smug German revisionism, to the reactionaries of Russia itself. The idea that the Russian people were somehow, because of their inherited 'Asiatic nature', unable to embrace democratic traditions or govern themselves is nonsense. Even suggesting that this was a factor (or something that the Communists failed to recognise) betrays both an ignorance of the events of 1917 and a deeply bigoted worldview

Actually, lastly, you're wrong. It goes further back than that, to 19th century Russia and the Russians themselves. Indeed if we were to talk of historical continuity and the separateness the Russians have felt about themselves, we could go back further to the idea of Third Rome. Your talk of Orientalism is as irrelevant and straw man as anything else you've said.


this is not the current academic consensus.

According to who?

Andreas Umland? Marlene Laurelle? Peter Duncan?

[ComradeOm]

So were the BolsheviksBurn! Actually no, that's just stupid. But hey, what can you expect from someone who derives all knowledge of the Russian Revolution from US anti-communists?

But to continue with, and elaborate on, my point, I'm sure that even you can comprehend how talk of some 'political culture' that is both distinctly Russian and can be transmitted without regard to socio-economic factors is simply idealistic nonsense? Pointing out that Stalin was a Great Russian chauvinist is not history; the challenge is explaining how he and his politics came to power, and what factors shaped or allowed this. Simply saying that, "Its Russia, duh" is not very helpful and is completely lacking any thing resembling a Marxist class analysis


Actually, lastly, you're wrong. It goes further back than that, to 19th century Russia and the Russians themselves. Indeed if we were to talk of historical continuity and the separateness the Russians have felt about themselves, we could go back further to the idea of Third Rome. Your talk of Orientalism is as irrelevant and straw man as anything else you've said.I think you'll find that by "the Russians themselves" you actually mean 'a fraction of the tiny intelligentsia stratum'. I may have mentioned once or twice before that this evolution of ideas is essentially all the Pipes is interested in. He talks of conservative, liberal and radical traditions while ignoring the structures and conditions through which the vast majority of the population lived their lives. You may feel that it is 'Lenin worship' to actually examine how ordinary Russians lived, and in doing so disprove Pipes' hackneyed stereotyping, but many historians would disagree with you


According to who?According to the likes of Shelia Fitzpatrick, Kevin Murphy, Ronald Suny, Alexander Rabinowitch, James White, John Keep, Nicholas Werth, Jonathan Smele, SA Smith, Rex Wade and Moshe Lewin, to name the first few that come to mind. And these are just some of the more notable names of the so-called 'revisionist' school of social historians. Even the likes of Orlando Figes, who is deeply anti-Bolshevik, have been forced to abandon most of Pipes' now unsustainable interpretations regarding 1917

Tell me that you've heard of at least some of these authors and are familiar with their disputes with Pipes? I've already pointed out some explicit critiques of his work in an earlier post

[Edit: I mean, really. The suggestion that, "Nothing in early twentieth century Russia inexorably pushed the country towards revolution, except the presence of an unusually large and fanatical body of professional revolutionaries" is just wrong on so many levels. Its something that only be most wilfully blind historian could pen today. In terms of bankrupted theories its akin to arguing that WWII was won and lost on the Western Front]


It's pointless discussing anything with you, it's just a repetition of what you said before. Material conditions? You know nothing about Russian history beyond the one encased in a metal box with Lenin stamped on top. See ya.Frankly there's only so much that can be said in response to someone whose final analysis boils down to pointing out that its Russia. But, and its not often I do this (overtly at least), I'm fairly sure that my reading on the Russian Revolution is much deeper and broader than your's. I've already recommended that you check out my sig, which is actually pretty incomplete by now, for some works that you might find enlightening. Even if you seem to be wed to some pretty ridiculous nonsense

[milk]

Burn! Actually no, that's just stupid. But hey, what can you expect from someone who derives all knowledge of the Russian Revolution from US anti-communists?

Where have I done this?


you actually mean 'a fraction of the tiny intelligentsia stratum'.

Ah, you unintentionally include Lenin also, and the idea that revolutionary consciousness can only be brought to the masses from the outside by a radical intelligentsia. Hey, for continuities' sake we might as well throw in Pyotr Nikitch Tkachev.


Tell me that you've heard of at least some of these authors and are familiar with their disputes with Pipes? I've already pointed out some explicit critiques of his work in an earlier post

What have you read of the authors I have mentioned? For name-dropping's sake we could even mention Franco Venturi and his Roots of Revolution. Read it?


Frankly there's only so much that can be said in response to someone whose final analysis boils down to pointing out that its Russia. But, and its not often I do this (overtly at least), I'm fairly sure that my reading on the Russian Revolution is much deeper and broader than your's.

Really? (snigger) That's willy-waving if ever I saw it.

I've seen it, your sig, and the Bolshevik-by-numbers high school essay you've done.

[ComradeOm]

Ah, you unintentionally include Lenin also, and the idea that revolutionary consciousness can only be brought to the masses from the outside by a radical intelligentsia. Hey, for continuities' sake we might as well throw in Pyotr Nikitch TkachevYou can throw in whoever you want but I'd be surprised if you changed your habits and actually addressed the point at hand. That is, that an obsession with political traditions and a near-exclusive development of Russian political theory is a very poor way to approach what was fundamentally a social revolution

Really, reading through the rest of the post this is what it comes down to. You seem to believe that historical parallels and a rough knowledge of 19th C Russian political thought suffices to understand the Revolution. I argue that this is only possible through studying the grassroots movements and economic conditions that actually drove events. I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that one of these approaches is more Marxist than the other. Try to guess which one


What have you read of the authors I have mentioned?Actually I have relatively little interest in contemporary Russian nationalism. Even less in totalitarianism (which is where I know Umland from). Perhaps you can point me to some works that Umland, Laruelle and Duncan have written on the Revolution?


For name-dropping's sake we could even mention Franco Venturi and his Roots of Revolution. Read it?Another history charting the development of a radical intellectual tradition? *sigh*

Now I think I've made my point pretty clear here - that there are a large number of historians who heavily contest Pipes' history of the Revolution. This should be obvious; I've been labouring under the assumption that you aware aware of the current divisions in Russian historiography. Perhaps this is a mistake on my part...?


Really? (snigger) That's willy-waving if ever I saw itLike I said, I don't particularly like to do it but then I don't like being accused of reading nothing that hasn't been approved by the Party either. Which is just one of the many ways in which you've been wrong in this thread

But then you know of my background reading, you knew I it was not a case of knowing "nothing about Russian history beyond the one encased in a metal box with Lenin stamped on top", and you still went ahead and threw out the insult. Trolling or stupidity, I wonder?

[milk]

You can throw in whoever you want but I'd be surprised if you changed your habits and actually addressed the point at hand. That is, that an obsession with political traditions and a near-exclusive development of Russian political theory is a very poor way to approach what was fundamentally a social revolution

I haven't done this at all, and should I point you to your earlier assertion that I have only read "US anti-communist historians." I have cleary made posts on this thread which do not agree with exclusivity either. Can you point to me where I have done this? And also considering, if you recall, I rejected his "there is only one way for Russia" assertions in Russia Under the Old Regime. Perhaps it is wise to understand why the Bolsheviks failed at finding this other way, without just taking the word 'revolution' at face value.


You seem to believe that historical parallels and a rough knowledge of 19th C Russian political thought suffices to understand the Revolution. I argue that this is only possible through studying the grassroots movements and economic conditions that actually drove events. I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that one of these approaches is more Marxist than the other. Try to guess which one

Oh dear. I think you need to acquaint yourself a little better with Tkachev, Russian Jacobinism in general, and its undeniable influence on Bolshevism, whether the latter placed Marxism into some realisable politcal programme or not. If I remember correctly, Friedrich Engels, albeit only through a sharpening of quills for written correspondence, referred to Tkachev's un-Maxist views on Russian society and the nature of the Russian state as being the work of a "Simple Simon." I'm not trying to say anything about you of course. Lenin, on the other hand, while agreeing with Marx and Engels about some of Tkachev's ideas, was very much in agreement with his conviction that for Russia there should first be political then social revolution. And both saw Russia uniquely placed in Europe to carry out the world's first 'socialist' revolution. Indeed, what were pre-1917 Lenin's views on the historical development of Russia regarding the rest of, or rather, western Europe?

I consider a firm understanding as is possible, of Russian history not only in the 19th century but earlier, as important for understanding the conditions which gave an opening to the revolution, and with the failure of western revolutionary movements to ignite the rest of Europe, saw its isolation and with it socialism's inevitable nationalist distortion. To you, it would appear that the historical consensus is that Russia's different development to the rest of Europe (noted by people with markedly different positions) is inconsequential, indeed the "socio-economic" factors (as you put it in vague pseudo-Marxist terms) which brought, for example, Scandinavians to what is now Ukraine, or Batu Khan's Mongol-Tatars to the eastern Russian lands. I 'm going to be bold here and say that although you appear a bit dim, you do actually have an understanding of historical materialism, indeed empirical knowledge vis-a-vis a people's historical development, and in this case the development of Russian society and the state, the eventual dominant form of which came from an at one-time backwater principality called Muscovy? People from Giles Fletcher to the Marquis de Custine and beyond, could record such marked differences. Why can't you?


Actually I have relatively little interest in contemporary Russian nationalism. Even less in totalitarianism (which is where I know Umland from).

So you did a quick Google. And I guess you see contemporary nationlaism in Russia as having no continuity from the days of the Soviet Union. Would you also disagree with Duncan's analysis in Russian Messianism?


Now I think I've made my point pretty clear here - that there are a large number of historians who heavily contest Pipes' history of the Revolution. This should be obvious; I've been labouring under the assumption that you aware aware of the current divisions in Russian historiography. Perhaps this is a mistake on my part...?

You haven't made that point (yes, you dropped a few names, and Fitzpatrick while rejecting the 'Western-standard' totalitarian model regarding the erroneous and narrow analytical focus it offers, certainly has not rejected the historical development and it's continuities discussed here), but rather wrongly assumed that I have gotten my understanding of the revolution from Richard Pipes, and that Russia's different historical development to the rest of Europe and its consequences for an isolated socialist revolution is somehow right-wing or reactionary. It can only come from the likes of Pipes, when a diverse group of people, Russians themselves (including Communists) have been at the forefront of trying to figure out what the significance of this development is for the Russian people. Where do you think these ideas, indeed any ideas, come from? You're a Marxist after all ... You know about material conditions I presume. Actually, what were Marx's views on Russian society and its prospects for socialism?


Like I said, I don't particularly like to do it but then I don't like being accused of reading nothing that hasn't been approved by the Party either. Which is just one of the many ways in which you've been wrong in this thread

I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you, considering you made a bold assertion that you are not only more widely read than I am, but that I have only read, again, in your words "US anti-communist historians."


But then you know of my background reading, you knew I it was not a case of knowing "nothing about Russian history beyond the one encased in a metal box with Lenin stamped on top", and you still went ahead and threw out the insult. Trolling or stupidity, I wonder?

See above.

[ComradeOm]

I haven't done this at allI suggest that you read your posts again. You push authors and histories that deal almost exclusively with the development of Russian intellectual traditions, you try to drag the conversation back to Lenin and Tkachev, and you refuse to engage with any discussion on a social reading of the Russian Revolution. When you have branched out from discussing the innate differences between Russian and Western political thought its been to... well, I suppose insisting that people were talking about such differences in the 19th C

There's really little more to say on this. Every time I try to draw your attention to the idea that the material conditions in Russia at the time of the Revolution may have had some sort of an impact, you start going on about Tkachev or Lenin. Infuriating


Oh dear. I think you need to acquaint yourself a little better with Tkachev, Russian Jacobinism in general, and its undeniable influence on Bolshevism, whether the latter placed Marxism into some realisable politcal programme or notI don't care! Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Oh yeah, see above. I have very little interest in "influences on Bolshevism" because any such political programmes effectively went out the window in 1917. You, like Pipes, labour under the misconception that the Bolsheviks strolled into power in October 1917 and simply enacted policies devised decades previously. Nothing could be further from the truth. Never mind the social and economic maelstrom that they found themselves in, never mind the pressure from below, never mind the revisions and the changes and the U-turns. Repeatedly referring back to Tkachev when discussing the events of 1917 is stupidity of the higher order. It only becomes understandable in the context of a viewpoint that is exclusively concerned with the intelligentsia


To you, it would appear that the historical consensus is that Russia's different development to the rest of Europe (noted by people with markedly different positions) is inconsequential, indeed the "socio-economic" factors (as you put it in vague pseudo-Marxist terms) which brought, for example, Scandinavians to what is now Ukraine, or Batu Khan's Mongol-Tatars to the eastern Russian landsI consider the primary differences in Russia and Germany or Britain to be socio-economic in nature. Since you don't apparently know what that means, I'm referring to the likes of the continued existence of the village commune, of the nature of local government structures (what existed at least), the impact that Russia's late industrialisation had on the likes of factory sizes and workforce composition, etc, etc. That is, actual material conditions and not some idealistic stereotype of the Russian people or a concern with the minutiae of radical thought in the 1860s


Would you also disagree with Duncan's analysis in Russian Messianism?Let me guess, it provides a grand overview of messianisc thought in Russia, insists that Bolshevism was merely a continuation of prior intellectual currents, hints that the Russian people are uniquely prone to such fervour, and makes little to no reference to social history?


You haven't made that point...You took issue with my assertion that there is no academic consensus for Pipes interpretation. I provided a raft of authors who disagree with him and who, often, position themselves in opposition to his theses. I wish that were the end of it. Unfortunately we continue. You will not find the likes of Fitzpatrick suggesting that there is something unique about the Russian character or that Bolshevism was a product of Tsarism. Differences between Russia and the West are noted but through cataloguing the different social and economic conditions of the Russian peasantry or proletariat, and in the structures of the political system. Intellectual currents are noted insofar as they influenced Tsarist and Bolshevik worldviews but it is the actions and the words of the Russian masses to which attention is devoted


I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you, considering you made a bold assertion that you are not only more widely read than I am, but that I have only read, again, in your words "US anti-communist historians."I may have been wrong on the US part but, again, the views that you spew out, including a stubborn refusal to actually talk about the social revolution of 1917, are typical anti-communist tripe. That said, I think I'm leaning towards trolling as an explanation for your posts

[milk]

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Quite. Sums up your engaging with my posts accurately. Exasperating.

Round in circles we go.

You've missed out a lot more, which you and me know you can't answer.

Keep wearing those Bolshevik goggles.

(shrugs)