Monthly Archives: April 2014

Catechism of the Revolutionary

Posted on by

“Live to destroy” as the goal of a revolutionary turns Sergei Nechaev’s catechism into a program of broad -scale terrorist activity. He aims to infiltrate society with the purpose of “passionate, total, universal, and total destruction.” A scary idea, even thinking about Russian nineteenth-century society, where, according to the Program of the Narodnaia Volia, “economically and politically” Russian people lived “in a state of absolute slavery.” They were deprived of any citizens’ rights and worked to “support the parasitic classes,” – the Russian elite. The Catechism of the Revolutionary is so extreme and terror-oriented, that it is hard to try understanding the good intentions behind it. Saving the Russian people from oppression by eliminating all traditions and orders of Russian life is an impossible thing to do – Russian character relies upon tradition and long history, so total destruction as a way to change the order of life is a dead end in Russian society, or any other society for that matter.

The Program of the Narodnaia Volia also sets the task to improve the miserable lives of the Russian people. The members of Narodnaia Volia protested against the state oppressing the Russian people and worked to achieve freedom, equality and prosperity of the people through the revolution. Inspired by the slogan “power to the people,” they put duty to the country above human feelings and were ready for self-sacrifice to fulfill their aim at any cost. At the same time, Narodnaya Volia saw terror as the last resort and blamed the fact that they had to use terror on the Russian monarchy, cruelly vanquishing any attempts of social unrest. It waged “partisan warfare” within society, that was undermining the foundation of the Russian state and winning the sympathies of broad social circles.

It seems strange and unfortunate that the activity of Narodnaia Volia were so passionately directed against the tsar Aleksander II, known as the Liberator, who put an end to serfdom in Russia and supported many reforms in Russian society. Even after assassinating Aleksander II, Narodnaia Volia, let alone the revolutionary organizations more terrorist in nature, like those described in Nechaev’s Catechism of the Revolutionary, could never achieve their goals. This brings me to the conclusion that extremist ideologies like Nechaev’s or, to some extent, that of Narodnaia Volia, are not effective methods to bring about positive change into society. The principle “the purpose justifies the way” often causes destruction without creating a successful alternative for the future.

 

What Makes a Revolutionary?

Posted on by

For Friday’s class, we’re reading “The Catechism of the Revolutionary (1868)” and the “Demands of the Narodnaia Volia.” The “Catechism,” written by Bakunin and Nechaev, describes a Russian Revolutionary: how he should act; what he should value; how she should treat others, etc. This document defines a “Comrade” as someone who is irrevocably committed to the cause. He has no external connections or motives other than causing a complete destruction of the current social political order, and he full-on recognizes that he will probably die in this process. The “Demands of the Narodnaia Volia,” written by the organization who assassinated Tsar Alexander II in 1881, explains the group’s reasons for the assassination. The “Demands” delineate the current social order as oppressive and seek to radically reform it. Their biggest demand is an “Organizing Assembly.” The Assembly will be instituted through a general election by the people, will take the place of the existing government, and then will use their power to construct a new, fairer government that the Russian people need.

Paragraph 13 of the “Catechism” states, “He is not a revolutionary if he feels compassion for something in this world.” I found this rhetoric (and others like it) to be interesting because it implies that a true comrade should have no family: no wife, no children, etc. On one hand, this lack of connection correlates with the Catechism’s message that comrades will be killed. But on the other hand, it leaves how the whole idea of who the comrades are fighting for. Not only is not allowing comrades to have families harsh and unrealistic, it also seems counterproductive. Wouldn’t it be a stronger case to enforce to the comrades that they were bringing about total destruction so that their children can have a better world?

These documents also made me wonder why the Narodnaia Volia put a tsar back on the throne after they had killed his father. If they were so intent on total reform, than why place another hereditary monarch back in power? Why not try to institute a whole new government? (I know that this is coming in the next 40 years, but why didn’t it happen in 1881?)

Ethnic Diversity of the Russian Empire

Posted on by

While reading Kappeller’s article regarding what he called the “Multi-Ethnic Empire”, I began to realize how culturally and ethnically diverse Russia actually is compared to many other countries. Being so large, Russia encompasses many different regions and through the course of history has been invaded and controlled by several different cultures, adding to the already rich diversity in the country. By the 1800’s this led to Russia being populated by not only Russians, but also Poles, Tatars, Jews, Fins, Latvians, etc.

In Kappeller’s article we see evidence of a significant level of separation of the different ethnic groups in Russia; in a geographic sense, as well as a political and economical sense. Kappeller shows that for the most part, we see ethnic Russians holding positions of high class, power, and wealth where as many of the other groups were primarily lower class peasants and merchants. As I read all of this I was wondering how a country as large and diverse as Russia was able to govern itself effectively with all of these different cultures and how these different cultures affected the development of the country as a whole.

Clearly the answer to this question is far to complex to be answered in a few paragraphs, or even in an article like Kappeller’s, but I think that we can begin to see the answer just by looking back through some of the historical events that we have studied in class. Many of the ideas that changed Russia’s development were ideas that were adopted from the new cultures that were entering Russia, either by invasion, immigration, or cultural borrowing. For instance, one of the most powerful institutions in Russia would be the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, much of the churches power began during the rule of the Golden Horde, who granted the church enormous power in controlling the state, something that allowed Orthodoxy to become a defining aspect of Russian culture long after the Mongols were gone. Many more examples could be added yet the basic point remains the same: Russia’s development and progression could easily be argued as a result of the vast diversity that the country had from its beginning stages.

The Late Tsarist Multi-ethnic Empire Between Modernization and Tradition

Posted on by

Focusing on the 1897 General Census, Kappeller goes deep into the ethnic background of Russia. Having known very little about the ethnic composition of Russia during the 19th century before reading this chapter, I came away with a better understanding of the makeup of the country, as well with a significant amount of questions, specifically with regard to the Jewish population of the country. Kappeller points out that minority populations are better represented in urban areas, something that alludes to the inadvertent ethnic ghetto-creation seen frequently in other European and American cities during this time period, something that, perhaps, looking forward 20 years, helped contribute to the overthrow of the Tsar in 1917. When large groups of like minded individuals are forced together because of economic status or ethnic background, dissent often forms among the collective, and as seen in France during the late 18th century, a large population of people with a common disdain for the government can be extremely dangerous. Hopefully in the coming weeks we will expand on the causes of the impending revolution; I know very little about the rise of the Reds/Whites; but I would not be surprised if they were divided by both socioeconomic and ethnic lines.

демография

Posted on by

As forewarned, this was a pretty dry reading on the whole, but riddled with demographic trends. For some reason I really enjoy studying demography, so although the reading was dry I managed to maintain some focus, but I digress. Reading this article, at least for me, was the first time I was really able to see the differing ethnicities that comprise(d) Russia. the demographic knowledge at the author’s disposal, Kappeller manages to differentiate between these ethnic groups with this demographic knowledge because it is what the author had to work with to explore these differences. For example, Kappeller writes about how many different ethnic groups, after years of mobilization, began to urbanize. Kappeller writes, “In the case of ethnic groups which for a long time had performed the function of mobilized diaspora groups within the Russian Empire, the degree of urbanization was considerably higher than the 13.4 per cent average… this was true of the Germans (23.4 per cent), the Armenians (23.3 per cent), the Greeks (18 per cent) and, to a lesser extent, of the Tatars…” (287). Russians surprisingly only ranked eleventh on this list of diasporas, although it is important to note that many of the ethnicities mentioned in Kappeller’s work that were part of the Russian Empire during the period examined weren’t always part of the Russian Empire and aren’t today, or aren’t in nearly as great a force (i.e. Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Tadzhiks, Lithuanians, Latvians [Kappeller mentions Riga in the reading, which is the present day capital of Latvia]. If Kappeller were to survey present-day Russia in the same fashion, what demographic results would he come up with? Kappeller even admits to the difficulties of this endeavor, mentioning present day Belarus (Belorussia-Lithuania) and Ukraine as contributing to his difficulties.             I feel like it’s very important to point out that Kappeller points his focus towards urban areas because, although not Kievan Rus’, I imagine it would still be much more difficult to come across demographic documentation regarding rural areas than in urban areas, because urban areas are where most of the knowledge and politics of the land spawned from. If Kappeller pointed his focus more towards predominately rural areas, again, I wonder, what results he would find? I’m guessing he’d have a lot of trouble.

Another point that Kappeller inexplicitly makes that I think we often overlook in class is how huge Russia really is, and how the time period we’re examining didn’t have the technological luxuries. What I’m referring to is Kappeller’s examination of Siberian communities that were seemingly weren’t phased by the urban developments that defined western and South-Western Russia. These communities went unphased because they were so monumentally far away from western Russia that it would be impossible for the Siberian communities to have the same development as those in Western Russia.

The Russian People

Posted on by

I understand that Russia in 1897 was below half Russian, WIth so many other lands a part of the country that makes a lot of sense. However I find it very interesting just how much Russian people where viewed as a block, it is the largest country in the world by land and spans two continents. People from the far eastern parts of Russia would not look like those on the western side. While they are all part of the same country you would think they would have more differences. I think it is a testament to the power of the Orthodox Church and the power of the Tsars. The Church exerted a large amount of powers over people even the non Russians. Over the centuries this power homogenized the people. The differences where those of old believers and all but they all still practiced the same religion. Even though geography separated all the people Religion brought together the disparate people.

General Cencus of the Russian Empire

Posted on by

Kappeller’s chapter, entitled The Late Tsarist Multi-ethnic Empire Between Modernization and Tradition, focusses on a comparison between two times during the Russian Empire, the late nineteenth century Russian Empire and the pre-modern multi-ethnic empire. Specifically Kappeller discusses how  when compared to each other, the changes and constants made to the Russian Empire during the end of the nineteenth century become significantly more apparent. Furthermore Kappeller uses the 1897 General Census document of the Russian Empire in order to accurately explain his argument.

Over the course of this chapter, I found one comparison in which Kappeller made of particular significance. Kappeller, in the chapter, had stated numerous significant differences between the various Russian groups within Russia, such as the Jews, Germans, Greeks and Armenians, had also become apparent within his original comparison. More precisely, during this discussion Kappeller stated how during the end of the nineteenth century in the Russian Empire, particular non-Russian groups were being better represented among the urban population than the actual Russian groups during the Russian Empire in the end of the nineteenth century. Because of this I came to ask the question of how and why did particular non-Russian groups become better represented within the Russian Empire during the end of the nineteenth century as opposed to during the empires pre-modern mulit-ethnic period?

Stalin’s Reply to Churchill

Posted on by

3 Observations

1. Churchill had a similar view to Hitler, believing that one racial group should control all the power.  Instead of believing the Aryans had all the power Churchill believed that English-speaking nations should rule over the world.

2. The world must notice that the Soviet Union has lost more men in German invasions then both the United States and the United Kingdom.

3. The common people are being controlled by Churchill and his party and need to think for themselves.

2 Questions

1. What was the international response to comparing Churchill and Hitler?

2. What was the reaction in England to Stalin’s comments about the “common people”?

1 Thought:

It is interesting to see Stalin alienate both sides of the war.  He goes after Hitler, briefly calling him out for the Nazi racial theory and attacks Churchill.  He has basically left himself with no one to lean on in war.  However Stalin does not come across as worried.  He says that the Soviet Union has lost the most men in the war and yet does not say they will give up.  He gives strength to the Soviet Union in his speech while also taking away both possible allies.

 

Joseph Stalin: Reply to Churchill, 1946

Posted on by

Main Points:

1. The Soviet Union suffered casualties from the German invasion several times greater than the US and UK put together. These caualties included men lost during the invasion, in battle, and then in the slave labor camps. Stalin feels this expense of the Soviet people that was essential to the eradication of Hitler’s regime, and the subsequent freedom thereby returned to Europe, has been overlooked.

2. Communism is growing as a natural result of the negative effects of fascism and the dependability that communism offered. Communists proved themselves as “fighters against fascist regimes” and concerned with the freedom of the people.

3. Accuses Churchill of believing the “common people” are easily manipulated and therefore takes a condescending stance towards them. Stalin states that the opposite is true and that the common people have opinions and views on politics of their own, that they are able to “stand up for themselves”. He points out that this ability was demonstrated when they (the “common people”) voted Churchill and his party out and voted for the Labor party instead. They preferred “Left democratic parties” to conforming with fascism and the extremists who cooperated with it.

Questions:

1. How does this document expose the enduring strain between the wartime Allies and cultivate tensions leading to the Cold War?

2. How come the Allies did not see it imperative to maintain good relations with the Soviet Union after the severe costs of WW2?

Observation:

I found Stalin’s tone in this document significant. He talks in a condescending, reticent, and provoking manner. It seems as if he is attempting to incite the other European nations to initiate war against Russia. He compares Churchill’s words to Hitler’s in terms of “racial theory”, saying that Churchill only speaks to English-speaking nations. This accusation separates the English speaking nations from the non-English speaking nations, but holds Churchill responsible.

Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech

Posted on by

Three Points

1) Churchill identifies the US as being at the pinnacle of its world power. With this power comes a sense of duty and responsibility for the future of the world.

2) Churchill sees Russia as posing a threat to the relative peace of the world that follows World War II. He believes that Russia doesn’t necessarily want a war, but they desire expansion of their power and the “fruits of war”. He sees Russia as having the potential to repeat events similar to those that Germany sought in World War II.

3) Furthermore, Churchill thinks that European nations must unite. Also, the English-speaking world has the ability to ensure a sense of worldwide security and peace.

Two Questions:

1) Is this the speech that started the Cold War?

2) Is Churchill correct in thinking that the US was at the height of its power? Has the US ever been stronger than it was at this time?

Observation:

The passive-aggressive approach which Churchill takes may have not been the best choice. As we can see from Stalin’s response, Russia took great offense. Stalin lashed back by comparing Churchill to Hitler, making the case that Churchill believed that English speaking races were superior. The manner in which Churchill addressed the US only served as to aggravate tensions that were present before, during, and after World War II.