The Fate of the October Revolution Under Stalin - Professor Bob Service
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2018
- When Lenin died in 1924, he had effected a temporary stabilisation of the Soviet order. But many political, economic, social and international trends grew more worrisome to Bolsheviks who still wished to preserve the gains of October. The solution that the Politburo adopted at Stalins suggestion was a comprehensive revolutionary offensive. It increased the powers of the state over society, but this was never wholly acceptable in the communist central leadership, and tensions contributed to Stalins Great Terror.
The USSR became a great European power and helped defeat Nazi Germany but had October been saved or its foundations been destroyed?
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
A very fine historian on the Revolution and Soviet history.
totally lacking in sensationalism. actually worth watching
Thank you for your service, sir.
Brilliant!!
what a brilliant talk; clear, erudite. wish i could have been there
For the lecture or the October revolution? 😂
Brilliant ,interesting
Is this the Professor that wrote the biographies of Lenin, Stalin, etc??
Yes. Service wrote biographies of Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky.
Gen. Mattis does a great British lecturer impersonation
lol
Yes, it seems like these movements start out with such lofty ideals, but end up betraying them. It makes me wander whether people are capable of managing themselves. Philosophies, religions and ideologies seem to utterly fail when an attempt is made to implement them.
Consumer capitalism, too, is guilty of such lofty ideals, which ultimately betray.
@@darylfernandez2153 Which economic system out of the 2 has raised the most people around the world out of poverty? or should I say which one of the 50 failed socialist states was the one which ever came close to lifting as many people out of poverty as capitalism has done?
That's why democracy is the best way.
Regardless of what people can do together we know the capitalist rule has failed
@@ironfelix2963 put your money where your big mouth is China Has Lifted more out of poverty now so that would be communism
Grover Furr would have a few objections here. Parenti, Martens and Losurdo as well. Not to mention the slew of Russian historians guarding the Moscow library as I write these words.
Wow!!! You are so smart. Keep repeating what others say in an attempt to appear intelligent.
@@bbmtgelol cope
Furr and Parenti are not historians their political hacks.
" Now you are mine , you pretty little bird , I won't let you go for all of the world " ~ Joseph stalin
What the hell is that thing around the dudes neck?
A communist scarf, say the wrong thing it strangles you.
@@rosesprog1722 oh.. I should get one of those I guess
@@fuuz642 Ideal for all your enemies, and some of your friends, one size kills all.
lol i like it its quaint
A narrow cravat? I'd imagine it wouldn't have looked out of place in the "Old West" - certainly has a late 19th Century look. Somewhere between Baudelaire and Gary Cooper in High Noon.
In the USSR, you didn't protest Stalin, Stalin protested you.
This reads like newzealands labour partys dream come true
Anyone here for hw
Good, insightful, though he does not mention the external forces that bore upon things. Which make me a little suspicious of his politics. For example the older imperial powers were doing all they could to kill off the Russian revolution; arming, training and supporting the White Army that fought the Bolscheviks for power. Why did he leave all that completely unconsidered? Hmmm!
Well, considering that the aim of early Bolshevism was to spread revolution to those countries you can hardly blame them. I mean, imagine that Russia was trying to upend our government today, destroying it from the inside...wouldn't that make you see them as a threat?
@@skeeterhoney Didn't say I blamed them. Just that leaving out such huge historical factors makes any analysis incomplete and / or biased. Suggests a listener might want to consider other histories too. Think on.
@@skeeterhoney Eugene Debs said he was a Bolshevik from his head to his toe. WW1 was a bosses Imperialist war no matter what side or country was involved. Debs opposed the war and the rotten Democratic Imperialist Wilson sent him to prison for it. He ran on the Socialist Party ticket and got over a million votes while sitting in a prison cell. .
Well said. But is is also dubious, not mentioning the following embargoes imposed against free international trade. Why not to mention that after loosing 30 million people, end up with 2/3 of orphan kids and abandoned old folks whose families just disappeared and having more than 50% of the heavy industry moved to the other side of the Urals, the country was able to transform itself into a power able to compete with the USA in only 10 years, without the Marshal Plan.
Most if the times it is important not what somebody says, but what he does not say and, what is not being said, is the core of the lye. It is exactly what is pretending not to discuss.
The grotesque portrait of the USSR is more evident when there are facts, not opinion, easy to corroborate at simple sight. When such thing are brought to the table, the answers are vague or self referencing, but never discuss deeply.
Why we are just talking about supposed human rights abuses but ignoring health, education, full employment, women's rights, equality race treatment at the times there were still segregation and lunching in USA?. Isn't it a fact to mention in context.
I like this lecture but I think that calling Stalinist policies during 30ies as "grand strategies" is simply wrong. Collectivization and industrialization were something that Stalin was against when Zinoviev and Kamenev were pushing for it. It isn't that Stalin and Bolshevik party were happy with concessions and "retreat" of 20ies but restructuring entire society was viewed as colossal task and for that they didn't have enough educated people nor resources. The chicken and egg problem, they needed chicken to get egg but first they needed egg to get to chicken in the first place. And for a time being system seemed to work. But then in 1928 it faltered. Bolsheviks supported Stalin because he seemed to do everything to get that broken clock of country ticking while Zinoviev and Trocki advocated for policies that were unfeasible. Then in 1928 there was a crisis of consumer goods, food wasn't delivered to towns because there was nothing for trade it for, there was a severe food crisis already in 1928 and famine was averted by state giving away little resource it has. In that conditions, Bolsheviks changed the story and fully supported collectivization and industrialization. Rightist opposition remained on same position as before saying that Stalin is building "today's house with tomorrow's bricks". Same with Great Terror. It wasn't really a strategy for Stalin to get full power but effectively suicide of a Bolsheviks due to how their ideology, formative experience of Civil War, dysfunctional nepotism and corruption of all party levels and institutions, systematic lying to those in charge on all levels, unrealistic targets of economic plans, over-exploitation of proletariat and peasants and constant lying to those above you to make appearance that those are achieved. Stalin was somewhat aware of those issues in 1933, even in 1932 perhaps. Plan was somewhat reduced and hundreds of thousands were amnestied. Further steps were taken to prevent unlawful arrests and extrajudicial sentences by local NKVD and party. Even party went through reorganization but that reorganization, check and purges were led by same corrupt officials that organized Party in first place meaning there was no real change. Then Kirov was murdered and first NKVD got reconstructed under Jezhov. Jezhov got to this position by stating and seemingly finding evidence that NKVD wasn't doing it's job and that they remained blind to huge anti-Soviet conspiracy. Removal of NKVD officers from old post meant that all miss deeds and lies of NKVD, First Secretaries (little Stalins in towns, regions and republic), corruption and failures will eventually get to Stalin. And more people they arrested and beat, more were they convinced that their failures, industrial accidents, tragic state of the army and corruption were by deliberate design. Not just that but Stalin and Zhdanov introduced "terrible" new idea that local Party organization will be held uncountable in secret elections as another way to check quality of Party work (previous all failed). Those are same people that they persecuted and made them work more for less. Party became opsessed with reporting of disaffection and enemies, even furthering idea there is a huge conspiracy. Stalin and Jezhov were at first reluctant to allow Party and NKVD to abandon legal procedure to deal with those because of chaos that this will cause. But they gave in. In time number of enemies and categories of enemies increased drastically and soon NKVD got to see what were Party members that started this mess to deal with opposition to themselves were doing. Ad to that what they said at some time against Stalin and his plans, some relation with oppositionists, some property or accidents they couldn't really explain and bingo. Overall, while not planned, policies of 30-ies were seen as necessities by large majority of Party It was conclusion based of bad premises and those were huge blunders that killed millions of people needlessly. Win in WW2 however convinced surviving Bolsheviks that they were right entire time.
Better to listen and learn than write paragraphs based on other people's writings so that you appear intelligent.
Poor grammar always makes reading someone's thoughts difficult.
The *"invention of the One - Party State* and [Stalin as Secretary General of it after Lenins death] as government" is the key to understanding the development of the URSS (and maoist China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, etc).
Moreover, the Party _"as the representative of the proletarian class as their intellectual vanguard..._ ".
Interestingly, the "one - Party State" is very alive and kicking in countries like China and Cuba.
I’ve got news for you. The one party state is also alive and well in the USA! We have a duopoly that consists of two parties that are really one party - the party of billionaires and Wall Street banks and multinational corporations. You think the USA is a democracy! Ha! No. It’s an imperial oligarchy and a totalitarian state. It’s not a republic.
@@stevenyourke7901 The USA isn't a totalitarian state. The duopoly etc, I don't dispute.
@@hazelwray4184 It’s not “totalitarian” like Stalin’s Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany but it resembles totalitarian regimes in the way official propaganda and thought control permeates every aspect of the society so that freedom of speech and thought and dissent is severely impaired. The duopoly is, essentially, a one-party state, the Wall Street Party. Policy is set by the unelected Deep Stare of banks and multinational corporations and the intelligence agencies. The Bill of Rights is practically a dead letter now. Especially the Fourth Amendment. The elected officials are all paid agents of the billionaires. The TV brainwashes the people with constant lies. Julian Assange languishes in a maximum security prison for publishing material that exposes US war crimes. So how does this differ from classic totalitarian states? Only because in classic totalitarianism, the state is all powerful while in the US Empire, the faceless corporate Deep State controls the state. We still have the outward form of a republic but it’s been hollowed out, it’s just a mask now.
And attempting to move in that direction in the US.
open history
Now ? 🕵️🤔
The only communist regime that I am aware of is Mondragon in the Basque region of Spain.
Kotkin all over
I give up
Lenin went exemple of oportunism and laybout a spay in job for govern germany.Not begin the. Russian Revolution by opposion he not belive on reality of revolution whe not begin.
Learn to write intelligible English.
I believe I have come up with the first all correct critique of Marx. Not to jump the gun...
Karl Marx and Stalin aren’t the same person
I am not at all surprised that you believe that. Have you ever heard of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome?
That was me that farted at 30:28 🍑 💨 😷 🙋🏻♂️
Interesting but hardly revolutionary.
Stalin is he best for mother russia
Yes he went a best for mother russia ,but lenin also went a best for your people and for country.Trostky also went a best for mother russi ,like mao zedong went best for mother china the list is list is lot great.
To best to stifle their enourmous potential. No doubt about that. Without Stalin, the USSR would have been the dominant economical force in Europe by 1930 to 1935, and would have easily repelled the German attacks, which Stalin was warned about, but which he ignored. And millions of Soviets would not have starved and at least hundreds of thousands would not have been killed by his terror regime.
I have what I consider to be a fairly basic understanding of the history of the October Revolution & the years prior, and even I can spot a number of fairly basic and obvious errors, half-truths, lie-by-omission, and straight up falsehoods. I doubt it’s intentional, most Western historiography of the Soviet Union is plagued by bias & decades of misinformation and propaganda spread during the Cold War that leads to a lot of false and misinformed basic assumptions about the USSR that form the foundation of Western histories, making them incredibly unreliable & without merit.
1. The Bolsheviks intended to take Russia out of the war since day 1, it was a foundational plank of their platform
2. They didn’t lose their popular support base, nor did they “turn on them”. Here is where the lie-by-omission comes in: the speaker doesn’t contextualise the conflict between the Bolshevik govt and the peasants. First he doesn’t explain the vital fact that the peasantry was not a monolithic group, it was made up of different sub-classes, the lowest being the average peasant and the higher being the Kulaks. The Bolsheviks had quite strong support from the peasantry, tho it definitely fluctuated, it was the peasantry who led the collectivisation efforts. The conflict was mainly with the kulaks and reactionary peasant elements who didn’t want to sell their grain to the central government at the (very fair) fixed price offered - grain that was essential to avert famine & feed the war-weary Soviet Union. There wasn’t a lack of grain due to communism, it was a result of a country coming out of war & suffering bad harvests & attack from every direction. The Kulaks wanted to hoard their grain so they could either sell it on the back market and make a lot of profit for themselves at the expense of the starvation of the rest of their fellow countrymen, as well as force the central government to increase the fixed price they were offering for grain to again make profit for themselves. The government didn’t have that money, they’d just inherited a ruined country that had come out of a brutal world war. So that is the basis of the Bolshevik conflict with the Kulaks. Fairly justified in my view.
3. Actually I can’t go through all of the errors right now, it’s far too much. If you take anything from this comment, let it be that this speaker is not a reliable source and is making basic errors and is absolutely absorbed with bias. He’s starting from the conclusion “Bolshevism bad” and revising history to fit that narrative. It’s very unethical and bad history.
Thank you for telling the truth.
This analysis is utter hogwash.
There are several videos on UA-cam by, shall we say, people to the left of Prof Service who spend most of their time criticising the man, rather than offering alternative analyses. I'm not necessarily including you in that. This essentially boils down to differing opinions of a huge, and hugely complex, historical figure: a leftist critique would perforce be more sympathetic to Lenin than that of a centrist, neutral or right of centre historian. Yes there are inaccuracies in Service's book, which he acknowledges, as there are in practically all histories and biographies. Are they significant enough to totally undermine his conclusions about Lenin? I don't think so. On your broader point, about Western histories of the USSR, it seems to me there is every reason to conclude that Soviet histories of the USSR would be equally, if not more, misleading, propagandist and biased.
Nonsense.
Dozens of millions of deaths are the proof of your nonsense.
Read Solzhenitsyn. You'll learn quite a lot. And a little psychology would do you no arm as well.
Oh by the way, the Bolshevik where against the great War and yet they ended up driving all the soldiers straight into a war which was far more deadly than the former.
Too much nonsense...
About turn! March!
Away with a talk-show.
Silence, you speakers!
Comrade Mauser,
you
have the floor.
Down with the law which for us
Adam and Eve have left.
We'll ruin the jade of the past.
Left!
Left!
Left!
Professor Service, what causes the tyranny, totalitarianism and economic disasters that accompany Communism? If you are honest (I am sure you are), you do not know.
Explain then smarty pants???
@@thecrow4840 Communism is not primarily an economic theory but a philosophical one, rooted in a view as to the nature of reality. For Marx this was historical materialism, later on described as "dialectical materialism", a term coined by Josef Dietzgen and adopted by Plekhanov. In fact, Marxism is dialectical materialism. On its truth all of Marxist theory depends. To be continued?...
@@thecrow4840 No one appears to question materialism; perhaps do not know how; or if they do, are not listened to. There isn't enough room here to go into all the detail.
@@richardlaversuch9460 Oh, well, if there's not room here to go into detail, that must mean you're very clever. That would also explain the weirdly archaic and pompous tone.
Do you think that tyranny, totalitarianism and economic disasters are unique to the state socialist dictatorships of the 20th Century?
Can you name me a period in Russia's history when it wasn't ruled by despotic autocrats?
@@andrewharing2637 Russia wasnt ruled by despotic autocrats from around 1917 to 1953.
Good thing Stalin went to power.
Pish & you write absolute pish!
About turn! March!
Away with a talk-show.
Silence, you speakers!
Comrade Mauser,
you
have the floor.
Down with the law which for us
Adam and Eve have left.
We'll ruin the jade of the past.
Left!
Left!
Left!