Stalin, Paradoxes of power (book notes)

 So I finished this book called 'Stalin, Paradoxes of power' by Stephen Kotkin. It is the first Volume of a trilogy planned. The second Volume 'waiting for Hitler' has also been published.


It is a huge book, running some 1300 odd pages. The last quarter is just citations that's how thorough the book is supposed to be. People have called it the most comprehensive of Stalin's biographies.


The book could have been a half of its size had Kotkin taken away details like, the birth year, profession, family details and eventual fate of almost every person in Stalin's vicinity.


Secondly Stephen Kotkin makes sure that we know we are reading about a Paranoid Dictator, about an impractial idealogy, and about a October coup, not revolution. He keeps repeating the same words again and again to the point of irritation.


Though Kotkin sets this tone, there is little to no evidence in the book backing the claim that Stalin was an evil, cunning, whatever adjective he uses to paint him, dictator. There's only one line, everyone in RSFSR and the USSR was scared of Stalin and Stalin got his way. 


But let's see a couple things the book says.


Lenin makes Stalin the general secretary of the party, which makes him the centre of power in Lenins absence. Stalin stands by Lenin's policies including the NEP, for as long as the state could stand. All actions against Trotsky, Kamanev and Zinoviev are taken in the politburo and the central committee, Bhukarin leading the attack. The collective then votes them out for anti-party activity. Bhukarin himself falls out of favor for writing against collectivisation. Stalin makes a couple people, party secretaries, then all of a sudden all of the Politburo is filled with minions of Stalin. Stalin resigns at least 6 times from the post of General secretary, which Kotkin calls self-pity, all of them were rejected by the central committee that included Trotsky. Trotsky's resignation is also rejected by Stalin more than once.


For a book that the author says is a biography built on evidences it uses a lot of 'Perhaps's and 'may be's to describe important numbers.


That's just a few points, but it doesnt stop Kotkin from grundgingly admitting these


1. There was no one as committed to Leninism as Stalin. No one read as much as he did not even Bhukarin.

2. There was no leader who commanded the respect in the party like Stalin did.

3. Trotsky, Kamanev, Zinoviev, Bhukarin were all misfits to run a country about 1/6 of the land mass of the world.


The book could have done away with much of Stephen Kotkin's own agenda, idealogy and judgements. But Stalin wins because, this book fair I went and bought as many Stalin's books that I could get hold of.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

சீனாவின் தீவிர வறுமை ஒழிப்புச் சாதனை.

 கடந்த 2021 பிப்ரவரி மாதம் 25 ஆம் நாள் சீன அதிபர் ஜீ ஜின்பிங் சீனாவில் தீவிர வறுமை முழுமையாக ஒழிக்கப் பட்டுவிட்டதாக அறிவித்தார்.  ஐ.நாவின் நிலையான வளர்ச்சி இலக்குகள் (SDG) திட்டத்தில் உலகில் தீவிர வறுமையை ஒழிக்க, 2030 ஆம் ஆண்டை இலக்காக வைத்துள்ளது. வேறு எந்த நாடும் அதை அடையும் நிலையில் இல்லாத காலத்தில், கொரோனா தொற்றின் இடையிலும் இது எப்படி சாத்தியமானது? 1981 முதல் நடந்தேறிய இந்த பணிகளில் உலகில் நடந்த வறுமை ஒழிப்பில் 75 சதவிகிதம் சீனாவில் மட்டுமே நடந்துள்ளது, இந்த அசாத்திய சாதனை எப்படி அரங்கேறியது? அக்டோபர் 1, 1949 ஆம் ஆண்டு மாவோ சீனாவின் விடுதலையை உலகிற்கு அறிவித்தார். அன்று சீனா உலகின் பதினோராவது ஏழ்மையான நாடாக இருந்தது. உற்பத்தி சக்திகளின் பொதுவுடைமை, மற்றும் நில சீர்திருத்தம் மூலம் அடுத்த இருபது வருடங்களில் சராசரி ஆயுட்காலம், படிப்பறிவு, சுகாதாரம், உணவு உற்பத்தி போன்றவற்றில் அசாத்திய முன்னேற்றங்களை கண்டது சீனா. ஆனாலும் பெருமளவு மக்கள் வறுமைக் கோட்டிற்கு கீழே இருந்தனர்.  மாவோவின் மறைவுக்கு பின் அதிபரான டெங்க் ஜியாபிங், சோஷியலிசம் வறுமையை பங்கு போட்டுக் கொள்வது அல்ல என்ற...
Read more

India and communism (book notes)

 First of all this book is not Dr BR Ambedkar's book it was an unfinished draft of a book, that he had created a template for, but did not complete. Most of the book is an introduction by Anand Telumbde. Anand Telumbde does not mince any words in blaming both communists and Ambedkarites for creating and artificial rift between the two movements. Particularly he identifies the pioneering communists for having a sort of essentialist understanding of Marxism. Or to put it in Marxist jargon, the understanding of base structure and super structure and the belief that once the base structure is changed, everything else changes automatically. He uses post Soviet reading of Marx especially Louis Althusser's reading of Marxism and his concept of over determination to explain further. Over determination a Freudian concept, applied in understanding Marxism would mean that apart from the economics which is the last instance or the most important part, idealogical and political conditions a...
Read more