Hi Pete and everybody--
Pete asked me about Bolsheviks' colonization and brutalities before 1924.
Before creating a list I just want to remind words of great Russian writer
Boris Pasternak in his famous novel "Doctor Zhivago" who said that in
brutality "whites" (i.e., anti-Bolshevik coalitions) and "reds" (Bolsheviks)
competed with each other.
OK, now is the list (for info read Solzhenizin's "Archipelago GULAG") of the
most brutal things:
1. Red Terror -- deliberately indiscriminate killing women and children (not
counting men, of course) of targeted classes on a mass scale. My wife's
grandfather who served in Red army (in Budennyy's cavalry) told about
corpses hanging on each pole after reds took every city. He personally saved
his future wife and father-in-law from firing squad in his home town. The
Red Terror was declared an official Bolshevik policy as response to failed
attempt to kill Lenin in 1918 (Lenin was wounded, although).
2. According to Trotsky's personal order (who was the Commissar of War in
the Civil War), first concentration camps, in their modern sense, were
developed (not in Nazi Germany as many think). The concentration camps were
supposed to make Red Terror more efficient. Trotsky developed a theory of
concentration camps as place of mass killing and "re-education." No court,
no guilt was necessary to get there. The idea of forced camp labor was
introduced. Trotsky saw concentration camps as experiments in social
engineering.
3. All states of independence granted by the Temporary Russian government to
some colonies (like Finland, Poland, and some Asian republics) before the
Bolshevik coup were annulated. When local national government emerged on
national peripheries of the former Russian Empire, Bolsheviks tried to crush
their independence. They lunched wars against all (without exception) newly
independent states even despite the fact that some of them were neutral in
the Civil War (or even sympathetic to reds). Reds only failed in their wars
with Poland, Finland, and three Baltic states -- the only former Russian
colonies that became independent after 1922 (all others were crushed by Red
Army).
4. During and after Civil War Bolsheviks robbed villages from any supplies
they had. That was more than a way of getting supplies for army (like in the
case of "whites") but a long-term policy of so-called "War Communism" as a
way of jumping into communism (similar to Chinese "cultural revolution" and
"big jumps"). Famine was a result of this policies. It is well documented
now that money that Bolsheviks used from selling art and humanitarian help
that they received form the West was used not for buying food to relieve the
organized famine but for militarization and industrialization. The policy of
War Communism was stopped by Lenin (temporarily in his own words) in
response to rising wave of peasant and military uprisings in 1922.
5. There was never freedom of speech or any other human rights granted by
Bolsheviks. It was true although that land was redistributed among peasants
between 1922 and 1924 but from the beginning it was viewed as temporary
measure of the New Policy of minor reviving capitalism. Many rights that
were granted by the Temporary government in 1917 were slowly by surely taken
away like protection prisoners, and so on.
On the other hand, it is true that Bolsheviks had very progressive plans of
free mass education, free mass health system, free mass housing, liberation
of women (as much as they, mainly men, understood it at that time),
liberation from religion, and so on. But how...
Let me tell a relevant story. As a result of Krutshov's liberal politics in
1960s there was a movie made in the Soviet Union called "Aibolit 66." It was
a famous fairytale about good and kind doctor Aibolit who treats animals and
children and evil and awful Barmaley, the captain of all pirates. Aibolit
is good and kind even to his enemies, so after many adventures, Barmaley
realized how meaningless his live was and decided to become good and kind
Barmaley. He promised to Aibolit and himself that from now on he would be
good. He would make people happy, "I make everyone happy! I force everyone
to be happy!" Aibolit asked, "But what about those who do not want to be
happy?" "I'll kill them!" Bolsheviks of early 1920s remind me good Barmaley.
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Farruggio [mailto:pfarr@uclink4.berkeley.edu]
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 3:10 AM
> To: ematusov@UDel.Edu
> Subject: RE: middle class/intellectual labor
>
>
> Eugene,
>
> I support the liberation accomplished by the Bolsheviks before the
> formation of the stalinist bureaucracy, even if it was sometimes
> accompanied by an element of force (or the threat of such), and I don't
> consider such acts as allowing women to attend school or public
> humilitation of wife-beaters as acts of colonization. Do you know of
> widespread acts of colonization or brutality committed before 1924 by Red
> Guards or bolsheviks?
>
> By the way, let's not forget that during much of this time the new Soviet
> Republic was fighting for its life against 4 or 5 imperialist armies as
> well as the well financed White Russian counterrevolutionaries
They were not so well-financed as people think according to new documents.
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> At 06:41 PM 1/30/00 , you wrote:
> >Hi Peter and everybody--
> >
> >Not it does not. I even appreciate what German Nazi done in the area of
> >promotion health among German population. I mean their well
> known campaign
> >for hygiene, against smoking, and so on. So what?
> >
> >As to the issue of positive aspects of colonization that you
> listed -- they
> >are positive aspects. Can they justify colonization? I doubt.
> >
> >You wrote,
> > > Does this mean you reject all the work of soviet progressivism
> > > done by the
> > > bolsheviks before Stalin's rise to power , like the
> liberation of women
> > > from the veil and other forms of oppression in the islamic
> > > regions?
> >
> >Stalin "liberated" people from Islam (i.e., banned the religion) not only
> >from veils. The consequences of this act are complex and multifaceted.
> >However, it is clear for me that it was very bloody and
> oppressive process.
> >It can be fair to say that some types of oppression was replaced with new
> >types of oppression. The "math" is complicated and depends on
> who is doing
> >the calculations... Many voices are silenced forever...
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >Eugene
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter Farruggio [mailto:pfarr@uclink4.berkeley.edu]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 11:24 PM
> > > To: ematusov@UDel.Edu; xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > Subject: RE: middle class/intellectual labor
> > >
> > >
> > > Eugene,
> > >
> > > Does this mean you reject all the work of soviet progressivism
> > > done by the
> > > bolsheviks before Stalin's rise to power , like the
> liberation of women
> > > from the veil and other forms of oppression in the islamic
> > > regions? If so,
> > > where does one draw the relativist line? For example, what about
> > > the West
> > > African practice of female genital mutilation (clitorectomy)?
> Should we
> > > defend it as a legitimate part of those particular local
> cultures? What
> > > about the Taliban? Aren't they a more legitimate expression of local
> > > culture and history than the progressivist Afghani regime
> that invited in
> > > the Red Army to defend the right for women and girls to
> attend schools?
> > >
> > > Pete Farruggio
> > >
> > >
> > > At 04:46 PM 1/26/00 , Eugene Matusov wrote:
> > > >Hi Phil and everybody--
> > > >
> > > >Phil wrote,
> > > > > what Leigh Star has indicated keeps methods of oppression
> > > normalized -
> > > > > routinized - from, as Eugene has pointed out, boarding
> schools for
> > > > > native americans, to, as Ogbu has pointed out, normal schools
> > > of public
> > > > > education, including schools of education within universities.
> > > >
> > > >I'm thinking how else describe the process besides normalization and
> > > >routinization. In the mood of creation of new English words,
> I 'd add one
> > > >more "tion" to describe another aspect of sneaky oppression. It is
> > > >"functionalization" of oppressive practices. By
> > > functionalization I refer to
> > > >functional usefulness for oppressed people to be involved in
> their own
> > > >oppression. For example, for Uzbeki young person in the Soviet
> > > Union to be
> > > >aspired to go to college or read books of his/her interest
> or to become a
> > > >doctor meant to learn Russian and to stop using Farsi. A
> generation of my
> > > >Jewish grandparents in the Soviet Union were happy to rush to
> > > integrate with
> > > >Russian and assimilate among Russian population after the Bolshevik
> > > >revolution to forget their "backward" Jewish culture, religion
> > > and language.
> > > >Functionalization is often done via destroying indigenous
> practices and
> > > >channels of communication and offering alternative, oppressive
> > > ones that can
> > > >serve the same function that whose that were destroyed. Finally, the
> > > >"highest" from functionalization is when oppressed become an
> oppressor
> > > >him/herself through socialization in oppressive practices (not
> > > >"internalization", sorry Nate :-). Developing people who are
> > > oppressed and
> > > >oppressors at the same time is what functionalization can
> achieve. For
> > > >example, many oppressive policies in the Soviet Union were done
> > > by natives
> > > >in the national republics. These natives were specially
> trained in the
> > > >mainstream institution of Russian-Soviet party apparatus.
> > > Interestingly that
> > > >during the perestroika and collapse of the Soviet Union these natives
> > > >quickly switched to become nationalists.
> > > >
> > > >What do you think?
> > > >
> > > >Eugene
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Phillip White [mailto:Phillip_White@ceo.cudenver.edu]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 1:43 PM
> > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > Cc: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > Subject: Re: middle class/intellectual labor
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > >Paul H. Dillon
> > > > > writes:
> > > > > > However, as we've also seen, intellectual workers tend convert
> > > > > >their specific relation to the productive process into the
> > > basis for new
> > > > > >kinds of domination (bureaucratic domination).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > yeah! i think Pete F. has pointed this out several times
> > > > > - and it's
> > > > > what Leigh Star has indicated keeps methods of oppression
> > > normalized -
> > > > > routinized - from, as Eugene has pointed out, boarding
> schools for
> > > > > native americans, to, as Ogbu has pointed out, normal schools
> > > of public
> > > > > education, including schools of education within universities.
> > > > >
> > > > > and i think too of the few prison guards who gave Vaclav
> > > > > Havel paper,
> > > > > food, bits and pieces of respite from the normalizing routine
> > > of prison -
> > > > > in fact, Havel's description of the format norms imposed on
> > > him by the
> > > > > prison director on the structure of letters were
> remarkably similar to
> > > > > what i experienced in high school. yes, forty years ago, but
> > > i notice now
> > > > > that high school teachers use the formatting capabilities of word
> > > > > processing to set the present normings of what a paper should
> > > _look_ like.
> > > > >
> > > > > phillip
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:03:43 PST