Why did the Russian Revolution lead to an oppressive dictatorship under Josef Stalin?
Download this video for playback on your computer or iPod
Right-click (Ctrl-click for Mac users) the above link and select "Save Link As...". Take this lecture to go!
Why did the Russian Revolution lead to an oppressive dictatorship under Josef Stalin?
The debate about the Russian Revolution took place under a heavy shadow, the shadow of the Cold War. The position that historians took on the unfolding of the Russian Revolution often depended upon the obligation that some people felt to condemn the obvious horror of what had happened under Stalin.
Many historians were not content to blame Stalin himself for the tremendous crimes that took place in the 1930's after he took power: the collectivization of agriculture, which led to a terrible famine; the great purges; the construction of the Gulag, etc. Many people felt that this violence was necessarily a part of the revolution right from the beginning, not an accident, that this violent outcome was present right from the start when the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917.
Other historians, many of whom were on the left, wanted to in some way preserve a sense of what was of value in the emancipatory project that socialism seemed to promise in 1917. We have to remember, of course, that this was attractive to many, many people. Communist parties were founded all over Europe after 1917 because people were inspired by this revolution. And so a different group of historians tries to explain Stalin as some kind of aberration, an anomaly, a divergence from a path that could have led somewhere else.
There are strong arguments here on either side. In the first place, we have to remember that the Bolshevik Revolution takes place in 1917, in the midst of a total war that was followed by a civil war in Russia. The Bolshevik leadership was militarized during this time and the habits of violent coercion that they learned then and were, in fact, necessary for the victory, became a normal part of the day-to-day operation of the regime later in the 1930's.
On the other hand, we should also remember that the Russian Revolution was not merely a conspiracy foisted upon Russians by a small group of convinced militants. This revolution did have popular support, especially among soldiers and militant workers in the cities. And understanding the appeal and the engagement and the aspirations of those groups is still a necessary part of coming to grips with this history.
What was fascism?
Download this video for playback on your computer or iPod
Right-click (Ctrl-click for Mac users) the above link and select "Save Link As...". Take this lecture to go!
What was fascism?
Finding fascism is tricky. Fascism is an extreme version of nationalism and nationalisms by definition are different from one another so it's very difficult to make generalizations. There's also the fact that there are really only two fascist regimes that were in power for any length of time and they kept their power under different kinds of circumstances, so it's hard to arrive at a blanket definition.
Nevertheless, we can talk about some common themes. I think that a good way to start is to say that fascism is a form of political behavior in which a charismatic leader with a determined group of loyal followers attempts to mobilize some form of vast nationalist movement by exploiting themes of victimization and the threats that exist from a set of internal and external enemies.
We can take a look at Mussolini in the early 1920's. Italians felt that they had not gotten what they wanted out of the First World War and there was great fear amongst the middle classes and the propertied of the strength of the Russian Revolution and the Italian labor movement and fears of a socialist revolution. Mussolini was able to very effectively mobilize a large amount of support by exploiting these fears. Hitler famously identified the Jews as his main target, both within Germany and as a force within world history as a whole.
The problem with coming up with generalizations about fascism is of course that neither of these regimes really had coherent programs. Unlike liberalism or conservatism, fascism is not a coherent philosophy with a set of polices that one can promise will be enacted. Instead, fascism is a set of aggressive postures, a promise to act decisively, a promise even to use violence unconstrained by normal moral considerations in order to attack these enemies of the nation.
Now, movements such as these existed in many parts of Europe. Most of them didn't get very big and none of them, even Mussolini and Hitler, were able to take power without receiving some kind of help from traditional elites. It's important to remember that neither Mussolini nor Hitler seized power, although that became part of their mythology afterwards. They came to power legally through the democratic process.
Once fascist regimes are in power, they are free to realize the radical implications of their program, to target those enemies decisively. Here again, we have major differences between these two regimes. Anti-Semitism becomes a major organizing theme for the Nazis after they take power in 1933. Mussolini is relatively uninterested in persecuting Italian Jews and, although Italian Jews eventually face deportation in the Second World War, this is largely the Italians acquiescing to their German ally's wishes.
This kind of definition of fascist regimes is a kind of general one and you can see that there are still places in the world today where charismatic leaders are attempting to mobilize these very same kinds of fears. Should we call them fascists? Well, until they seize power, we won't really know what their intentions are. However, I think it is fair to say that the model remains attractive for nationalists in many parts of the world.