To those calling him a fraud, please can you point it out? I'm currently an A Level history student and I find his books are very useful, detailed and aligned with what I'm currently learning, I fail to see how he's a fraud.
Not a fraud, but IMO shallow. One with no judgement about what evidence is significant and what isn't. In his book on Lenin, he details a minor incident on the famous sealed train, where some travelers wanted to smoke cigars, and about half didn't smoke and disliked the smell. Lenin designated the toilet at the space for smoking, and persuaded everyone to accept it. Service (1) seems to think this is worth relating at length, and (2) seems to think it shows Lenin's rule of Russia in miniature. Service's books are full of gossip, presented as psychological analysis.
Service is very good and interesting but the host... I mean, you don't get a scholar like Service on your show to ask him how tall Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were.
Many people are ripping Service for being a 'hack' and a 'fraud' but are not defending their attack or recommending a superior historian. You might be right but at least back-up your statement with something constructive.
Two things to remmember about the RoofI... Ireland is not a 'normal' demmoc.; it answers too 'faith', not 'reason'. SECONDNLY, Ire s best understood, not as a constiit set up, but as a single party state...No matter what the issue or those who vote, the RCC invariably wins.
They didn't mention that the social-revolutionary Fanny Kaplan shot Lenin in August 1918, after Lenin had crushed this rival leftist party, hitting him in the shoulder and the neck. That wounds might have been one of the reasons that he later suffered from several strokes.
Ha! May I translate? "Academics should show integrity and honesty, otherwise they are likely to be ignored". So what? You need to base an argument on evidence. I assume you were trying to make an argument, but you may have simply posted a stream of conciousness signifying nothing.
Some of these questions are really bad, like the exact details of LT's death or people's heights. He should have asked Service what surprised him in each biography.
You want an example? Service refers to Trotsky having "spoke out against ‘individual terror’ in 1909 when the Socialist-Revolutionaries murdered the police informer Evno Azev, who had penetrated their Central Committee.” In fact Azef (the correct transliteration) was not murdered in 1909, or murdered at all -- he survived his exposure and died of natural causes in 1918. There are many, many more.
Me? An academic who happens to believe that integrity and honesty are an essential part of the academic enterprise. A work which fails to display these architectural fundamentals should not only be dismissed, but its author's other opus should be distrusted without independent verification. It is an article of jurisprudence that if testimony contains one demonstrated deliberate dishonesty, one can reasonably doubt the veracity of the rest.
I dunno...with the exception of Trotsky's ferociously vicious leadership during the Civil War, I'm always largely underwhelmed by his persona and literary output. In the 20s, Trotsky practically sleptwalked himself into exile. It's like he was so full of himself that he couldn't even be bothered to put up a fight against first Zinoviev and Kamanev double crossing him, then Bukharin's attacks from the right as well. No match at all against Stalin. Trotsky was no political leader, while the so-called Fourth International and all hindsight second guessing while in impotent exile? Simply rediculous!
@TheGeorgedillon, it was a radical reaction against the autocratic rule of the Tsars. 1917 was simply an attempt to give wealth back to the peasants. All Europe had to go through that process at some point. Russia was just more immediate and aggressive in their approach. You wouldn't want a king to have all the wealth of a nation and be toiling in the fields as he spends it!
I made my last comment only 4 minutes in. I retract it. These questions are not only poor but absolutely banal. School children would do better. I'm angry listening.
Obviously Russian Marxism had absolutely nothing to do with Marx`s concept. It was a power grab plain and simple. Robert Service said, "Leninism is the idea that if you want a revolution, you have to use violence. There has to be an insurrection; you have to have a dictatorship. You absolutely have to have state terror, to initiate the movement to something gentler in the future." But that begs the question which is “ WHY HAVE A REVOLUTION AND WHAT REPLACES THE SYSTEM” against which you are fighting. It was in fact something like the Workers` Cooperatives which have been running in Spain for the last 60 years and elsewhere in the world where the workers ran the productive facilities democratically and shared the profits equitably. However, Lenin and Stalin used Marx’s ideas to persuade the simple and often ignorant, unsophisticated people of Russia to institute state capitalism. So when Americans point to the USSR as a model of Socialism, ignore such rubbish. Cuba also is run on those principles. Marx himself said that Russia was not the country in which he thought that the revolutions would take place. It should have been an industrialized country like his own, Germany.
Fact is, Marx simply failed to do anything but write. He relied on others to make his Communist state a reality. The very fact that he did this discredits the argument that the USSR was not "real Marxism", which is something you hear Marxists say over and over. Perhaps there is something to this, however, any past or future Communist state must rely on men's interpretations of Marx and Engels. You can't claim any more of a "pure" Marxist theory than Lenin,Trotsky, or Stalin. Marx did not and could not have foreseen every possible obstacle in the way of a Socialist state. This makes interpretations of his work absolutely necessary and will always give Communists the easy out of saying "that's not real Marxism". This is lazy intellectualism and it shows.
@@thomas1162 Correct. Marx was a philosopher. Lenin used the socialist concept to sell state capitalism to the masses and later THEY used it to sell Russian "Marxism" to the world. Similarly, some Eastern Europeans sell"English Fish & Chips" to sell their hideous concoctions. It is neither lazy nor intellectual to state a fact.
@@donaldedward4951 In what way was Marxist-Leninism State Capitalism? Do you say this because of the NEP? Be specific. Also, yes Marx was a philosopher, that was my point and you ignored everything I said and purposefully misunderstood the point I made about him "only writing".
@@thomas1162 If a person possesses capital he/she is a capitalist. Name just ONE capitalist in the USSR. People were not permitted to run any kind of business. The means of production and distribution were owned by the state. I am totally surprised that anybody does not know that. The USSR was not even socialist (the second S stood for Socialist and that was a lie). They used the word to fool people. Socialism is derived from the word "Social". There was nothing social about Stalin`s labor camps in the Archipelago. His so-called Socialism was exported to, for example East Germany. Read about what happened behind the wall. Why do you think that the USSR imploded? State Capitalism is inefficient; it does not allocate resources efficiently.
@@thomas1162 Please see The USSR WAS NOT A SOCIALIST STATE. below. I am truly shocked hat you did not know all that. On the other hand I have no idea what NEP stands for so it is possible that it is your turn to be shocked. I shall research it.
It is not a matter of "interpretation." Service lies. Patenaude's review stated that after two dozen errors, he stopped counting. The lies are sometimes breathtaking in their audacity and mendaciousness. No one has accused North of the same dishonest hack-work approach. One may disagree with his conclusions, but the facts are correct. Which work is "biased"?
Read North's "In Defense of Leon Trotsky." And before you dismiss it, read the _American Historical Review_ piece by Bertrand Patenaude which agrees with North that Service's work is a "piece of hackwork." More: "In his eagerness to cut Trotsky down, Service commits numerous distortions of the historical record and outright errors of fact to the point that the intellectual integrity of the whole enterprise is open to question.”
"Communism has nothing to do smoking pot..." - thanks a lot, very revealing! This quy is a very bad historian. Apart from the Russian revolution being a tragedy, it is really a tragedy that such people teach at Oxford.
his analogies about Soviet leaders his views as if they are untouchable and flawless is flawed, He’s not very articulated he’s slow and very much narrow visioned.
Service is a ridiculous "historian". Recently read his book and its surprising that any serious university wants to publish it. He adds nothing new WHATSOEVER to the extensive triology work that Isaac Deutscher did on Trotsky in 60s.
To those calling him a fraud, please can you point it out? I'm currently an A Level history student and I find his books are very useful, detailed and aligned with what I'm currently learning, I fail to see how he's a fraud.
Not a fraud, but IMO shallow. One with no judgement about what evidence is significant and what isn't.
In his book on Lenin, he details a minor incident on the famous sealed train, where some travelers wanted to smoke cigars, and about half didn't smoke and disliked the smell. Lenin designated the toilet at the space for smoking, and persuaded everyone to accept it. Service (1) seems to think this is worth relating at length, and (2) seems to think it shows Lenin's rule of Russia in miniature.
Service's books are full of gossip, presented as psychological analysis.
@@StefanTravis (1) It is. (2) that was a theory, not to be taken too seriously.
There are some gossip. I wonder how he thought, including it.
Just ignore people who say Service is a fraud. (It's likely they are socialist ideologues and can't cope with criticism of Lenin & Trotsky
One of the best biographers of soviet dictators I've ever read
Excellent interview.
Remarkable command of the evidence.
As always CSPAN puts out some very interesting stuff.
Excellent interview,very
informative!
Service is very good and interesting but the host... I mean, you don't get a scholar like Service on your show to ask him how tall Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were.
Happy he stopped with just the height! Think of the plight; disservice to Service
What was their favourite ice cream?
Many people are ripping Service for being a 'hack' and a 'fraud' but are not defending their attack or recommending a superior historian. You might be right but at least back-up your statement with something constructive.
Michael Parenti is a superior historian.
Trotskyist Hitchens debated Service on the Peter Robinson program, and Service definitely prevailed.
Two things to remmember about the RoofI... Ireland is not a 'normal' demmoc.; it answers too 'faith', not 'reason'. SECONDNLY, Ire s best understood, not as a constiit set up, but as a single party state...No matter what the issue or those who vote, the RCC invariably wins.
Replacing repression with repression and tyranny with tyranny is apparently just human nature and is all the rage these days.
They didn't mention that the social-revolutionary Fanny Kaplan shot Lenin in August 1918, after Lenin had crushed this rival leftist party, hitting him in the shoulder and the neck. That wounds might have been one of the reasons that he later suffered from several strokes.
@wachoohoo, he had a lot more to say than just that! He's a respected authority on Russian history. Who are you to judge him?
but he's a very articulate historian.
Pls give a good explanation to why his books are bad, instead of attacking the author.
Watch the video again, and you will find an answer.
he is a great man, pay no attention to the putinist trolls who will pop up here.
Interesting point of substituting religion.
Ha! May I translate? "Academics should show integrity and honesty, otherwise they are likely to be ignored". So what? You need to base an argument on evidence. I assume you were trying to make an argument, but you may have simply posted a stream of conciousness signifying nothing.
If you want to convince me of Service being a fraud, ill need to see a chart.
If its not on the chart, it never happened.
48:37
Astonishing and depressing
Some of these questions are really bad, like the exact details of LT's death or people's heights. He should have asked Service what surprised him in each biography.
You want an example? Service refers to Trotsky having "spoke out against ‘individual terror’ in 1909 when the Socialist-Revolutionaries murdered the police informer Evno Azev, who had penetrated their Central Committee.” In fact Azef (the correct transliteration) was not murdered in 1909, or murdered at all -- he survived his exposure and died of natural causes in 1918.
There are many, many more.
Lamb thinks the Affordable Care Act is Marxist Leninism
These questions were poor. I think this interview was a wasted opportunity.
CSPAN is usually terrific, but these questions were what I'd expect from a 13-year old.
Me? An academic who happens to believe that integrity and honesty are an essential part of the academic enterprise. A work which fails to display these architectural fundamentals should not only be dismissed, but its author's other opus should be distrusted without independent verification. It is an article of jurisprudence that if testimony contains one demonstrated deliberate dishonesty, one can reasonably doubt the veracity of the rest.
These questions do seem unnecessary don't they!
I dunno...with the exception of Trotsky's ferociously vicious leadership during the Civil War, I'm always largely underwhelmed by his persona and literary output.
In the 20s, Trotsky practically sleptwalked himself into exile. It's like he was so full of himself that he couldn't even be bothered to put up a fight against first Zinoviev and Kamanev double crossing him, then Bukharin's attacks from the right as well. No match at all against Stalin. Trotsky was no political leader, while the so-called Fourth International and all hindsight second guessing while in impotent exile? Simply rediculous!
Pedantic line of questioning suitable for a junior high school audience. Shameless waste of CSPAN air time and Sir Roberts time.
@TheGeorgedillon, it was a radical reaction against the autocratic rule of the Tsars. 1917 was simply an attempt to give wealth back to the peasants. All Europe had to go through that process at some point. Russia was just more immediate and aggressive in their approach. You wouldn't want a king to have all the wealth of a nation and be toiling in the fields as he spends it!
Edward Whelan Yeah, that what the February revoliution was for
I made my last comment only 4 minutes in. I retract it. These questions are not only poor but absolutely banal. School children would do better. I'm angry listening.
Sandal wearing, jazz cabbage smoking longhairs. With a lot of cash.
Easyrider, but much, much worse.
Obviously Russian Marxism had absolutely nothing to do with
Marx`s concept. It was a power grab plain and simple. Robert Service said,
"Leninism is the idea that if you want a revolution, you have to use
violence. There has to be an insurrection; you have to have a dictatorship. You
absolutely have to have state terror, to initiate the movement to something
gentler in the future." But that begs the question which is “ WHY HAVE A
REVOLUTION AND WHAT REPLACES THE SYSTEM” against which you are fighting. It was
in fact something like the Workers` Cooperatives which have been running in
Spain for the last 60 years and elsewhere in the world where the workers ran
the productive facilities democratically and shared the profits equitably. However,
Lenin and Stalin used Marx’s ideas to persuade the simple and often ignorant,
unsophisticated people of Russia to institute state capitalism. So when
Americans point to the USSR as a model of Socialism, ignore such rubbish. Cuba
also is run on those principles. Marx himself said that Russia was not the
country in which he thought that the revolutions would take place. It should have
been an industrialized country like his own, Germany.
Fact is, Marx simply failed to do anything but write. He relied on others to make his Communist state a reality. The very fact that he did this discredits the argument that the USSR was not "real Marxism", which is something you hear Marxists say over and over. Perhaps there is something to this, however, any past or future Communist state must rely on men's interpretations of Marx and Engels. You can't claim any more of a "pure" Marxist theory than Lenin,Trotsky, or Stalin. Marx did not and could not have foreseen every possible obstacle in the way of a Socialist state. This makes interpretations of his work absolutely necessary and will always give Communists the easy out of saying "that's not real Marxism". This is lazy intellectualism and it shows.
@@thomas1162 Correct. Marx was a philosopher. Lenin used the socialist concept
to sell state capitalism to the masses and later THEY used it to sell Russian
"Marxism" to the world. Similarly, some Eastern Europeans sell"English Fish
& Chips" to sell their hideous concoctions. It is neither lazy nor intellectual
to state a fact.
@@donaldedward4951 In what way was Marxist-Leninism State Capitalism? Do you say this because of the NEP? Be specific. Also, yes Marx was a philosopher, that was my point and you ignored everything I said and purposefully misunderstood the point I made about him "only writing".
@@thomas1162 If a person possesses capital he/she is a capitalist. Name just ONE capitalist in the USSR. People were not permitted to run any kind of business. The means of production and distribution were owned by the state. I am totally surprised that anybody does not know that. The USSR was not even socialist (the second S stood for Socialist and that was a lie). They used the word to fool people. Socialism is derived from the word "Social". There was nothing social about Stalin`s labor camps in the Archipelago. His so-called Socialism was exported to, for example East Germany. Read about what happened behind the wall. Why do you think that the USSR imploded? State Capitalism is inefficient; it does not allocate resources efficiently.
@@thomas1162 Please see The USSR WAS NOT A SOCIALIST STATE. below. I am truly shocked hat you did not know all that. On the other hand I have no idea what NEP stands for so it is possible that it is your turn to be shocked. I shall research it.
It is not a matter of "interpretation." Service lies. Patenaude's review stated that after two dozen errors, he stopped counting. The lies are sometimes breathtaking in their audacity and mendaciousness. No one has accused North of the same dishonest hack-work approach. One may disagree with his conclusions, but the facts are correct. Which work is "biased"?
I dont agree with Service's assessment of Trotsky or Lenin
Read North's "In Defense of Leon Trotsky." And before you dismiss it, read the _American Historical Review_ piece by Bertrand Patenaude which agrees with North that Service's work is a "piece of hackwork." More: "In his eagerness to cut Trotsky down, Service commits numerous distortions of the historical record and outright errors of fact to the point that the intellectual integrity of the whole enterprise is open to question.”
Then, hear Hitchens' take.
@livoyo he's an academic because he made friend with some politicians I guess. Read what Patenaude, in no way a Trotskyst, had to say about this book.
@robharris38
Service is hopeless.
"Communism has nothing to do smoking pot..." - thanks a lot, very revealing! This quy is a very bad historian. Apart from the Russian revolution being a tragedy, it is really a tragedy that such people teach at Oxford.
his analogies about Soviet leaders his views as if they are untouchable and flawless is flawed, He’s not very articulated he’s slow and very much narrow visioned.
Service doesn't know what he's talking about, Stalin was not incenerated!
Service is a ridiculous "historian". Recently read his book and its surprising that any serious university wants to publish it. He adds nothing new WHATSOEVER to the extensive triology work that Isaac Deutscher did on Trotsky in 60s.
He was a professional liar never have I read so much bullshit in one book he is no doubt on the payroll of MI6
Back up your assertions, otherwise you sound ignorant. What books support your point of view?
@@kimominton8351 They'll say Issac Deutcher, a communist who wrote glowingly about Trotsky because he was a Trotskyist. Disregard them