What is Orlando's conclusion for what we should do now? He told the whole room they should forget their idealised version of history and seemed to imply they should just give up their utopian dreams. Are workers condemned to slave away for the bosses the rest of eternity? Do we simply stand back and watch the environment get plundered by corporations? When the austerity cuts shatter our lives, do we write an indignant letter to our politicians or march in the streets? Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not the cause of the uprising, they simply provided the best direction at the time.
Umm if you mean by "best directors" you mean terrorists, which by any modern standard they would be in that in that radical left wing militant populism nɐˈrodnəjə ˈvolʲə, trash pool of pseudo-intellectual barbarianism. and if you mean "best direction." Oh yea where to?! Oh that's right lets see, on the train we have the first stop mass killings, the repression, then famine then more killings then terror Street, and then on to Grand central Gulag, with a Final stop in Starvacia, on that radiant future brought to you by those merit based messiahs those academy award winners up for "best direction," Lenin, a man whose favorite word was "merciless" and whose first order was the hanging of five individuals in every town so as to make fear and obedience the order of the day, and a midget who would have strangled his own mother if she countenanced a questionable look, and shot ten puppies to show the last who was the master. Ruthless for socialism, and Ruthless for sport, Its nice to meet one of their cheerleaders. Playing for the wrong team sir. Good day to you.
The world is currently ruled by corporate and capitalists now, but that will end as one of the prominent Arabic sociologist and historian in his theory of the cycle of governments and society, It is inevitable that as powerful as an ideology or a power prevail over man it will eventually collapse and people will seek another alternative to substitute a new ideology. Capitalism by far is overshadowing the world and even it rules over political affairs but as the hate grow slowly or rapidly within the masses then there would be another "October revolution" but I doubt that it will be a Marxist based ideology revolution.
He did. He suggested that the group look to The Mensheviks to model themselves after, as they were more true to Marxism. They wanted socialist democracy, where the Bolsheviks were one man rule.
@@JamesFlemingIreland No. The February revolution wasnt wrong. The Bolshevik "revolution" (really a state coup) was wrong. He talks about this when he explains why he calls it "a tragedy".
Woods seems like a real relic to me. A real labor leader like we need today more than ever. And at the same time he heroically represents a completely unpretentious Bolshevism that knows how important political leadership is without taking the person of the leader too seriously.
It's so bizarre to me that Orlando just lays out his "this is what would happen if they did it my way" as if such a thing could be known in advance. Only a university professor who gets paid to dream up counterfactuals without any basis in reality could think this way
He actually went to the archives in Russia for all of his research. I don’t know if you can hand wave what he said without heavily researching the topic.
So you don't nod off during Alan Woods' rambling sloganeering. I'm more on his side politically but jesus... I mean we need better debaters who are more well versed in the minutiae of Russian history to counter Figes' points, instead of just knowing theory.
Alan 2013: "no one asks why Abraham Lincoln killed so many people (in the second American revolution). Donald Trump 2017: "The civil war should have been avoided" Also, will Files please stop screaming. I hope he learned something about how to talk to, instead of yell at, students from Alan. Anyone that hasn't read Alan's book "Bolshevism" should buy a copy today
This Orlando guy really is unable to debate like an adult. While Alan put forward some really good points, with evidence on paper, Orlando began with slanders and insults which to me, and many viewers I'd assume, show the lack of points he had to make. Maybe he agreed to this debate with the idea of talking to some utopian idiots, turns out marxists actually study stuff. Sad to see that a "scholar" can be such an obtuse person, maybe these turbolent times have changed him, who knows.
His anger is totally justified in my opinion. Imagine being a Russian historian, who lives half his life in Russia, speaks Russian and reads all Slavonic languages (allowing him the ability to consult archival sources in their original - which he has done) and who has taught Russian history for the better part of 30 years at a distinguished University, and being told that everything you've ever studied and taught was a lie based on the word of a guy who - seemingly - can only quote Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution, as if that book is the final word on the subject. That would be like being a distinguished Roman historian and being criticized by someone who has basically only ever read Gibbon's Decline and Fall. Both books, by the way, are great historical works, and I'd encourage people to read them but it's been 100 years since October and the Soviet archives have been open, and there's far too much evidence in favor of Orlando's case - that February 1917 is the revolution that should be celebrated and not October - than there is for the defenders of Lenin, for whom deification of the great man seems to be almost axiomatic among the cohort.
@@yonisgure7348 Absolutely agree with you. The Marxist left to this day has a romanticized vision of the October Revolution, even though historical facts indicate that it was a total failure and was in no way a “worker’s state” as Woods thinks. The October Revolution was anti-Marxist since the material conditions necessary for socialism were absent in Russia, and it was essentially forced from the top. The majority of the Bolsheviks, unlike the Mensheviks, were not able to understand this crucial point. Even then, there were Zinnoviev and Kamenev who opposed the coup.
@@yonisgure7348 His entire life was spent in the halls of universities, which are essentially extensions of the state. Do you sincerely believe that an honest and accurate telling of revolutionary history can come from within the state, from within a university?
@@fenceyhen4249 it's certainly closer to accuracy than what Woods was saying. I've read Figes book 'a people's tragedy' and it's a masterpiece of historical writing. I can understand Figes anger also. Leftists who refuse to learn the history of the Russian revolution are the true enemies of socialism. if you want to make the world a better place then learn why previous attempts to do so ended in tragedy, Woods' basically asserts that Abraham Lincoln does not get popularly criticised for the violence of the U.S civil war and therefore we shouldn't criticise the Bolsheviks so much. That is the sort of argument a teenager would spout. it was quite embarrassing. As regard to spending his life in the halls of universities; you have to remember he's spent time in the halls of universities all over the world, including Russia, where the soviet archives have been opened to the public since the '90's and the old socialist idea that 'all the nasty stuff only really began when Stalin came to power' is now totally discredited.
I really dislike Orlando's unnecessary ad hominem against Woods, does he attempt to undermine him by accusing him as a typical product of a brainwashed professor? wouldn't that be considered as unintelligent?
When I think of the revolution in the USSR I think it missed the point of Marxism. Employee ownership of the workplace is vital to bringing democracy to the masses.
Some points critiquing Orlando Figes' arguments(which Alan Woods didn't mention) 1 Bolsheviks indeed had a narrow majority(50.5 percent) in the soviets by the second congress of soviets. (Source: Lenin by Jean-Jacques Marie) 2 Bolshevik Left SR coalition was a genuine coalition with both parties having a say. (Source: Inside Lenin's Government by Lara Douds) 3 The Mensheviks and Right SRs first attempted to disarm Bolsheviks in face of Kornilov's attack led by Pyotr Krasnov's Cossacks and then encourage a junker mutiny against them. (Source: 1917 Russia by Dave Sharry) 4 Multiple disagreements in the Bolshevik party even before 1917 (on the national question). Main reason for split b/w Mensheviks and Bolsheviks because Bolsheviks only wanted committed cadres as members and not sympathisers/fellow travellers as members unlike Mensheviks. (Source: Lenin by Jean-Jacques Marie) 5 The main part of the leadership of the leadership of the Kronstadt rebellion collaborated with imperialists and the rebellion and had a peasant character influenced by left-individualism. (See Stalin's Terror of 1937-38 by Vadim Rogovin and Jean-Jacques Marie's interview on Kronstadt to revolutionpermanente.fr )
And I always thought the theatrical way villains talk in films was a bit far fetched. I seriously thought this guy was joking at first. I was wondering why no one was giggling with him...
I think it is reasonable to be aggressive when your opponent is a calm child. Alan Woods' only arguments were that if something happened, it must have been right. If the Bolsheviks didn't lose power, they must have earned it. He brings no other proof or stats. You might as well say that if Germany had won WWII, they must have been Aryan supermen - infantile. Could anybody point me to a modern Leninist with proof and stats of their ideas and support of Lenin?
I bought Orlando figes book called Revolutionary Russia a while back and I could not sit through it. Clear bias against actual fact and clear product of his privilege. He inserts his own opinions and makes them seem like facts.
What's the relevance of the Russian Revolution for what must be done today? If I want to help bring about socialism here in America, what can I learn from a revolution in the vastly different society in Czarist Russia? It can't happen the same way here (or in any wealthy capitalist country) as it happened in Russia.
No, but seeing ideology in action and observing *how* the Bolsheviks concluded that they needed to use their methods, and *how* they came to implement them how they did, rather than necessarily the specific manner in which they did, can still be very useful in developing an understanding of how to tackle problems facing people in all different situations.
No it can't be exact but there's plenty of useful historical parallels. The opportunism of someone like Kautsky is very similar to what you see on a lot of the social democratic or "progressive" left in the United States nowadays. And Lenin's response to that is something we can learn from as well.
I thought Figes was a much better debater than Woods. Besides, his arguments are backed by sound analysis and solid evidence. But his attitude is something I do not agree with. Aggressive and rude.
For Figes the millions of humans slaughtered by imperialism and capitalism do not count why? Hes made his 'career' on attacking, discrediting the USSR, unbalanced, sounding like a CIA backed lunatic half the time. What a career he has had! A true parasite, building his life on the discrediting of socialist peoples movements. Figes got cornered here by Woods outright working class overview - it was very well spelt out and very powerful. Figes had to come in and undercut him with his 'real truth', his shouting and brash tone, and almost 'real socialism' (how it 'should have been done better') which of course is a historical nonsense and he either sounds like a child or a typical opportunist. Or a bit like some anti-communist 'socialists' you hear and meet around Britain, the finest imperialist oppressor internationally.
War is a game played by the state, not markets. There isn't a single mass killing in the last several hundred years you could attribute to voluntary markets, to do so would be a contradiction in the first place, as capitalism requires non-agression for mutual exchange. Attributing the actions of a government with capitalism shows you don't understand what capitalism is.
+Maxim I would not attribute the crimes of government to socialism per say, after all, the Soviet Union was not an example of true socialism correct? Just as today's capitalism could only be described as a remnant of the free market barely able to breath, except perhaps Hong Kong and Singapore. However, I think the claim - of blaming the mass-killings on socialism - is a much stronger case because the officials who claim to be fighting for socialism are the same ones ordering the killing. I suppose the jury would be out on this until I have a better understanding of what any particular socialist is calling for. For example, if you advocate expropriating the entire population in some revolution instead of offering communal membership on a consensual basis, then ya I would attribute socialism to be responsible for the violence that ensues. In the USSR's case, basically a gang of thugs took advantage of socialism for the purpose of their own power, but I would highlight to you, this is exactly what has happened in every purportedly socialist endeavor I can think of, from Cuba (who killed more people per capita than the USSR), to modern day Venezuela, to North Korea, so there seems to be a problem involved with centralizing so much power and decision making responsibility. As for your last two sentences, that is your opinion, not a truism. My studies actually specialize in private provision of so-called public goods, in addition to libertarian legal theory. There is nothing socially necessary - that civil society actually needs in order to function and minimize conflict - that can't be provided by the market, indeed, provided far more effectively. On that front I'd be happy to respond to any questions you may have, or, if your absolutely crazy lol, you could read "Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case for a Stateless Society", "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman, and "Chaos Theory" by Robert Murphy.
+Maxim Just as I don't claim to know your positions better than you do, I would ask for the same on your part as I reply to your first point (obviously if I am intellectually incompetent you may wish to amend that arrangement lol), as well as my response to "and yes, historical capitalism is inextricable from state violence and imperialism", which you've mostly already received. Firstly, if you or I are to separate capitalism from free market capitalism than we're really just caught up in semantics, I would express to you the belief that free markets exist everywhere and in every society to some degree or another, that doesn't mean the society as a whole is largely free enterprise. For example in the USSR there were lots of black markets and individuals engaging in trade unsanctioned by the state, so here we have capitalist markets existing even within the Soviet Union, does this make it a capitalist country? Of course not. I don' think we've had a 500 year history of capitalism, 500 years ago you couldn't even decide what profession to pursue, maybe 300 year history. This isn't a central point to our discussion though. The claim was that Castro's Cuba killed more people per capita than Stalin, not in absolute numbers, the Soviet Union was the third most populous country in the world. The numbers I've heard are a bit higher than 5,000 btw, more like 35,000 if my memory serves me right. And that was from someone who defected from Cuba and nearly lost his father to execution btw, they escaped but many were not so fortunate. Yes I would be interested in seeing areas where dialogue between libertarians and socialists on economic theory has occured, in general I am trying to learn more about communism/socialism, hence my reason for being in this comment section in the first place. The economic calculation debate, originally raised by Mises, is indeed a very good example of when socialists made major adjustments because of the insights Mises provided.
Stalinism has created characters like Orlando Figes who flee from Marxism thinking that what the Soviet Union experienced was the only possibility offered by socialism. But the reality is that both Stalinists and capitalists lie and misrepresent history. As Alan says so well, how can it be possible that Stalin murdered half of the central committee of 1917 and can be said to be a product of Lenin? It also seems to me of academic baseness to blame the Bolsheviks for what happened in kronstadt. Wasn't there at the same time 21 armies invading the Soviet Union? Were the Bolsheviks going to give up an entire revolution because sailors were being used by the enemy for their dark goals? This academic does not understand anything about history and its dynamics, he is too empiricist and opportunistic. By the way, it is terrible that he does not understand the popularity and authority that the Soviets had in the Russian revolution, it is laughable. Sorry if there are errors in my writing, I am Spanish and I have used a translator.
Espetacular debate!!!!!! Que nos enche tanto de ânimo, principalmente pelo elevado nível teórico do professor Figes, mas também de tristeza, por sabermos que neste país, o Brasil, tais discussões não podem acontecer porque muitos cursos superiores em humanidades se tornaram fanáticas igrejas marxistas, onde o contraditório está momentaneamente excluído.
If those are "good points", his hostile manner is understandable and a sign of justified moral outrage (wonder, how one would react if to be invited into the debate of Darwin society to find out, that the opponent is praising Ernst Rüdin). I found this conversation and argumentation of Figes to be outsandingly crucial. The catastrophy of Soviet Union is THE traumatic event for working class movements and marxism. It is not going to "go away" by repeating these thousand times heard ideological defences, served here by Woods.
Of course, catastrophy of Soviet Union did traumatize the worker's movement. Living in Russia, I can say Russian working class is still in a knock-down. But it did not traumatize Marx's and Lenin's doctrine - it proved its truth. Marx and Lenin stated that there can not be communism without dictatorship of proletariat. In Soviet Union the idea of dictatorship of working class was abandoned, with transformations of soviets. Soviets were not mere strike comitees, as Woods stated - Soviets were means of administration of will of working class. Marx stated, that the basis of any society is industry - and Soviets were as close to industry as it possible. But sadly, history of Soviets was not very long, their ceasing-to-be began in 1936 when new constitution formalized new method of election to Soviets - they become more of a bourgeouis parliament, and ended with a bourgeois counter-revolution when in 1961 the Supreme Soviet of USSR changed the programm of communist party, throwing away the parts on leading role of working class and the goals of socialist industry.
at 6:14 he is saying we should give them merit for starting the task, even though "ultimately it failed, but they do not lose merit for that". huh??????
I think his point is that the Bolsheviks / masses are often discredited for the failure of the revolution (suggesting that therefore it must have been pointless / nonsensical), but should also be given credit for beginning it
I think Orlando's point is that the Russian Revolution came on the heels of a despotic government. Therefore the hope of a succeeding government to be a democracy or a worker's state with any degree of consent from the people was a fairly slim one. Kerensky had to battle against Tsar Nicholas the second ,who cancelled out the democratising influence of the Zhemstuos . Against this background any hope of fair state emerging were pretty slim.
@@bentrinker1937nooo stop I always think thissss like they were so forcefully thrust from an autocracy that they were content with little from the start I find that so sad like they never experienced true democracy or anything they wanted
Thanks for the upload. Both men right and wrong. Alan Woods more rational and totally right about Stalinism but Orlando Figes right about Lenin's actions and veering from true Marxism. I believe the revolution was not a tragedy but Figes got it right that only a socialist coalition of all leftist parties would have been the true course to a Marxist or semi Marxist future. I don't believe Bolshevism was destined to become Stalinism, however. The tragedy of the revolution was that the Bolsheviks had both Lenin and Stalin, two stubborn, cunning zealots/sociopaths that ruled absolutely and were blind to rationalism. Marxism is rational but the people implementing it can be irrational and that is what took place in 1917 and afterwards. Lenin at least had men of equal intelligence and reason around him yet bullied and disarmed them letting fellow sociopaths (Stalin) rise to the top. But Figes's emotionalism and parroting of rightists' claims (millions! exterminated) is hard to sit through. Woods is a gentle (but too romantic) defender of the Revolution. Enjoyed the debate.
@@derantiobskurantthat's actually debatable it could be the other way round... maybe Woods argument lacks substance to the point lil bro here raged because of its silliness? I don't know
Marx was correct. A socialist revolution, if it is ever to be successful must pass through a bourgeois democratic and liberal rights and institutions, phase FIRST and MUST enshrine them in any regime it creates. Maybe the revolution will never actually happen as a result, but there is no other way. Any impatience to dispense with basic abstract rights in the interests of the end-goal of justice cannot succeed in bringing about justice. This is NOT to say that globally speaking Capitalism does not commit even worse crimes (Imperialism, Climate Change), or that the Whites had they won would have been any better (they would not and were precursors to the Nazis in many respects, including the worst pogroms committed in Europe before WW2), but that on balance Communism WITHOUT bourgeois guarantees cannot work. Poor Woods is stuck in a dream of a few months when perhaps the Bolsheviks operated like everyone else and negotiation and compromise were still on the table. But once they took power things changed drastically. This occurs almost across the board with revolutionary movements from Iran to Cambodia. They are fighting for justice but as soon as they take power they begin to erode basic rights and use war as a catalyst. I'm afraid Hamas would fall under the same analysis. And the Right Wing profits from this to crush legitimate resistance. Stalinism is not antithetical to Leninism. that is the Marxist tragedy. And you cannot cite Soviet advances in industry and Welfare as a justification because it is quite likely that had Russia been moving towards Constitutional Monarchy after the war would have made similar advances but without out imposed mass famine and gulags. Lenin was right to want to end the war as soon as possible and the refusal of the Russian liberals to agree with this goal was a colossal blunder that well expresses the criminal pursuit of war carried out by bourgeois regimes across Europe, no better than their autocratic counterparts. Indeed the effects of British Imperialism in Palestine, favoring a Jewish minority over an Arab majority, are still with us today. Nevertheless, as China is showing today, Communism has ended up, when in power, with worse outcomes than bourgeois regimes for the homeland populations it governs IF human freedom and not simply output figures is your measure.
! Marxism is pure DEMOCIDE evil. 100+++ million unalived by Forcd labor, starvation and disease. In peacetime. UN alived by fellow Socialist citizens in PEACETIME
I think the whole point of Orlando's anger and frustration was based on Alan Wood's childish understanding of history. Wood was a pitiful speaker whose notes and evidence was shockingly poor. To try and avoid explaining exactly what happened in 1917 in Russia Wood tried to change the direction of the debate and his pathetic use of all I can saw is 'Hollywood History' was terrible. At one point he even tried to pass of Dalton Trumbo's Spartacus script as real history. Spartacus was killed in battle, his armies defeated the Romans and they reached freedom. It was only Spartacus' hatred of Rome and his, in the end, mistaken belief that he could defeat every Roman army sent against him that led him to invade the Italian peninsula after escaping that led to his downfall. For once the 'Hollywood legend' actually was underscored because as Marx clearly knew Spartacus was easily the most important figure in Roman history. If Wood's reading of Russian history is as bad and I see no reason to suggest it is not then why on earth was he put against such a polished historian as Figes who is an expert in his field?
Figes' critique of Lenin and the Bolsheviks in his presentation here and his brilliant book, The Tragedy of the Russian Revolution' reveals the so-called 'Marxist' version as quite silly and certainly ahistorical. One interesting thing about it all, it that a Lenin was not a real Marxist; he was much more interested in the act of seizure of power than fulfilling the historical mission of revolution against the capitalist state. Alan Woods, who seems a nice enough guy, really has no hope of moulding Lenin's ideology and his actions in 1917 and afterward into some genuine Marxist or democratic framework. Nevertheless, thanks to those Marxists who organised the debate and posted it on TH-cam.
Fully behind Figes on this (even though he should have been more gracious in his manner of debating..) Quoting Nabokov from his authobiography about a Cambridge don who revelled in socialist ideals from the comfort of his own privileged existence: 'He never realized that had he and other foreign idealists been Russians in Russia, he and they would have been destroyed by Lenin's regime as naturally as rabbits are by ferrets and farmers.' No further comment on Alan Woods' privileged vantage point...
Part of the issue here is that a professional historian is debating a Marxist theoretician/ideologist. Alan Woods just doesn't have the history background Figes does. It should have been Figes versus a left-wing historian, which there are a LOT of to choose from, so it would be historian vs historian. There is another side to the story but it's not being well represented here at all.
@@LARPANET_3087 Figes did his research in the Russian archives at the Kremlin and has been teaching Russian history for years. If they do have disagreements it would be over much finer points.
People here act as if the only true Marxists were Lenin and Trotsky, which I have an issue with calling Lenin a true Marxist, but whatever. Lenin was not a peasant, nor a worker. He considered himself a noble. There is evidence he even marked himself as noble in official documents of the Russian Empire. He was a Russian (Big Russian) noble. Which leads me to question his personal attitude toward workers and peasants. Just analyze the great famine in Ukraine and the experiences of Ukrainians (Little Russians). Do we really think Lenin would had been so different than Stalin in his actions? Closing down the borders of Ukraine, sending party members in search of food because obviously there could not have been a famine, it was just the counter revolutionaries kulaks hording out the food to affect the Soviet Union (sarcasm). Party members went and took the little food peasants were not selling to feed themselves. Do we really think Lenin would had stopped exports? Affecting the finances of the state, and showing the world communism could not even produce same yields of food than Imperial Russia. Do we really think Lenin would had done anything different? What about collectivization of the countryside? Do we really think Lenin would had been entirely different than Stalin toward kulaks? What is a kulak? A peasant with two cows compare to a peasant with a single cow? What about the Great Patriotic War? Would Lenin fought differently compare to Stalin? Just look at the body count of the civil war. Come on folks, aside from the Great Purges, which okay, is a big thing, do we really think Lenin was that different than Stalin in policy? Please stop saying Stalinism is much different than what Leninism could had been.
The point of communism is the abolition of class, it’s like saying Engels isn’t a communist. Also looking at the actions and lives of Trostky to Stalin it was pretty obvious how different they were
@@MikeSpike117 how can bolsheviks preach about class, if since day one they were two types of Russians, bolsheviks and non bolsheviks. They were equal right, but party members, including the rank and file, were always "more equal". Stop it with the Trotsky idealism. The red terror happened under Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin and Trotsky did nothing when you had middle and upper class young men being chopped from their arms and legs, before being thrown into furnaces in steel mills. Most importantly, how could Trotsky avoided the great famine which kill millions after collectivizing the peasants. Trotsky used terror the same way Stalin did, the only difference Trotsky liked cleaning his hands to get rid of all the blood spilled due to his decisions.
I live in Russia, interested in Russia and history and russians view of their history and the results of that history in today's Russia. This looks and feels like a gathering of people with mental issues and im surprised Orlando Figes agreed to join this mental circus.
This org has come a long way, from a spray painted bed sheet strung up with electrical tape to actual banners
What is Orlando's conclusion for what we should do now? He told the whole room they should forget their idealised version of history and seemed to imply they should just give up their utopian dreams. Are workers condemned to slave away for the bosses the rest of eternity? Do we simply stand back and watch the environment get plundered by corporations? When the austerity cuts shatter our lives, do we write an indignant letter to our politicians or march in the streets? Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not the cause of the uprising, they simply provided the best direction at the time.
Umm if you mean by "best directors" you mean terrorists, which by any modern standard they would be in that in that radical left wing militant populism nɐˈrodnəjə ˈvolʲə, trash pool of pseudo-intellectual barbarianism.
and if you mean "best direction." Oh yea where to?! Oh that's right lets see, on the train we have the first stop mass killings, the repression, then famine then more killings then terror Street, and then on to Grand central Gulag, with a Final stop in Starvacia, on that radiant future brought to you by those merit based messiahs those academy award winners up for "best direction," Lenin, a man whose favorite word was "merciless" and whose first order was the hanging of five individuals in every town so as to make fear and obedience the order of the day, and a midget who would have strangled his own mother if she countenanced a questionable look, and shot ten puppies to show the last who was the master. Ruthless for socialism, and Ruthless for sport, Its nice to meet one of their cheerleaders. Playing for the wrong team sir. Good day to you.
The world is currently ruled by corporate and capitalists now, but that will end as one of the prominent Arabic sociologist and historian in his theory of the cycle of governments and society, It is inevitable that as powerful as an ideology or a power prevail over man it will eventually collapse and people will seek another alternative to substitute a new ideology. Capitalism by far is overshadowing the world and even it rules over political affairs but as the hate grow slowly or rapidly within the masses then there would be another "October revolution" but I doubt that it will be a Marxist based ideology revolution.
He did. He suggested that the group look to The Mensheviks to model themselves after, as they were more true to
Marxism. They wanted socialist democracy, where the Bolsheviks were one man rule.
Exactly my thoughts too. "Russian REVOLUTION WAS WRONG!!" - Well then, what is the solution?
@@JamesFlemingIreland No. The February revolution wasnt wrong. The Bolshevik "revolution" (really a state coup) was wrong. He talks about this when he explains why he calls it "a tragedy".
Woods seems like a real relic to me. A real labor leader like we need today more than ever. And at the same time he heroically represents a completely unpretentious Bolshevism that knows how important political leadership is without taking the person of the leader too seriously.
I can’t help but note there were a lot of ppl coughing in public back in 2013! 😷 🧼
Alans final speech was such a banger
It's so bizarre to me that Orlando just lays out his "this is what would happen if they did it my way" as if such a thing could be known in advance. Only a university professor who gets paid to dream up counterfactuals without any basis in reality could think this way
Because he is
Do these inhabitants of ivory towers actually already belong to the petty bourgeoisie or still to the working aristocracy?
He actually went to the archives in Russia for all of his research. I don’t know if you can hand wave what he said without heavily researching the topic.
We can learn from the failure of soviet union,the question of bureaucracy and question of division of labour,that is class
I wish these people would arrive on time and sit down. Bloody students!
Such rebelliousness. Also they cough so loudly through the whole presentation. 😂
@@piggyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy I was worse as a student. I would probably have been in the pub.
What the hell was up with the camera man? It seems like parts of the debate are missing. Why the constant cuts?
So you don't nod off during Alan Woods' rambling sloganeering. I'm more on his side politically but jesus... I mean we need better debaters who are more well versed in the minutiae of Russian history to counter Figes' points, instead of just knowing theory.
Orlando should look closely at the history of any revolution
Alan 2013: "no one asks why Abraham Lincoln killed so many people (in the second American revolution).
Donald Trump 2017: "The civil war should have been avoided"
Also, will Files please stop screaming. I hope he learned something about how to talk to, instead of yell at, students from Alan.
Anyone that hasn't read Alan's book "Bolshevism" should buy a copy today
What a bizarre event.
This Orlando guy really is unable to debate like an adult.
While Alan put forward some really good points, with evidence on paper, Orlando began with slanders and insults which to me, and many viewers I'd assume, show the lack of points he had to make.
Maybe he agreed to this debate with the idea of talking to some utopian idiots, turns out marxists actually study stuff.
Sad to see that a "scholar" can be such an obtuse person, maybe these turbolent times have changed him, who knows.
what a childish tantrum by Mr Figes, disgraceful.
Figes raises some good points, but his hostile manner from the outset made for a sub-par debate.
His anger is totally justified in my opinion. Imagine being a Russian historian, who lives half his life in Russia, speaks Russian and reads all Slavonic languages (allowing him the ability to consult archival sources in their original - which he has done) and who has taught Russian history for the better part of 30 years at a distinguished University, and being told that everything you've ever studied and taught was a lie based on the word of a guy who - seemingly - can only quote Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution, as if that book is the final word on the subject. That would be like being a distinguished Roman historian and being criticized by someone who has basically only ever read Gibbon's Decline and Fall. Both books, by the way, are great historical works, and I'd encourage people to read them but it's been 100 years since October and the Soviet archives have been open, and there's far too much evidence in favor of Orlando's case - that February 1917 is the revolution that should be celebrated and not October - than there is for the defenders of Lenin, for whom deification of the great man seems to be almost axiomatic among the cohort.
@@yonisgure7348 Absolutely agree with you. The Marxist left to this day has a romanticized vision of the October Revolution, even though historical facts indicate that it was a total failure and was in no way a “worker’s state” as Woods thinks. The October Revolution was anti-Marxist since the material conditions necessary for socialism were absent in Russia, and it was essentially forced from the top. The majority of the Bolsheviks, unlike the Mensheviks, were not able to understand this crucial point. Even then, there were Zinnoviev and Kamenev who opposed the coup.
There are real counter-arguments, but the IMT shoulda brought an actual historian.
@@yonisgure7348 His entire life was spent in the halls of universities, which are essentially extensions of the state. Do you sincerely believe that an honest and accurate telling of revolutionary history can come from within the state, from within a university?
@@fenceyhen4249 it's certainly closer to accuracy than what Woods was saying. I've read Figes book 'a people's tragedy' and it's a masterpiece of historical writing. I can understand Figes anger also. Leftists who refuse to learn the history of the Russian revolution are the true enemies of socialism. if you want to make the world a better place then learn why previous attempts to do so ended in tragedy, Woods' basically asserts that Abraham Lincoln does not get popularly criticised for the violence of the U.S civil war and therefore we shouldn't criticise the Bolsheviks so much. That is the sort of argument a teenager would spout. it was quite embarrassing. As regard to spending his life in the halls of universities; you have to remember he's spent time in the halls of universities all over the world, including Russia, where the soviet archives have been opened to the public since the '90's and the old socialist idea that 'all the nasty stuff only really began when Stalin came to power' is now totally discredited.
I didn’t realize this was actually a debate until the second speaker started talking. 🤯
He talk like a Karen complaining to some random workers/waiters 🤣
I really dislike Orlando's unnecessary ad hominem against Woods, does he attempt to undermine him by accusing him as a typical product of a brainwashed professor? wouldn't that be considered as unintelligent?
When I think of the revolution in the USSR I think it missed the point of Marxism. Employee ownership of the workplace is vital to bringing democracy to the masses.
I feel like I've been transported back to the 1984 Miners Strike.
Some points critiquing Orlando Figes' arguments(which Alan Woods didn't mention)
1 Bolsheviks indeed had a narrow majority(50.5 percent) in the soviets by the second congress of soviets. (Source: Lenin by Jean-Jacques Marie)
2 Bolshevik Left SR coalition was a genuine coalition with both parties having a say. (Source: Inside Lenin's Government by Lara Douds)
3 The Mensheviks and Right SRs first attempted to disarm Bolsheviks in face of Kornilov's attack led by Pyotr Krasnov's Cossacks and then encourage a junker mutiny against them. (Source: 1917 Russia by Dave Sharry)
4 Multiple disagreements in the Bolshevik party even before 1917 (on the national question). Main reason for split b/w Mensheviks and Bolsheviks because Bolsheviks only wanted committed cadres as members and not sympathisers/fellow travellers as members unlike Mensheviks. (Source: Lenin by Jean-Jacques Marie)
5 The main part of the leadership of the leadership of the Kronstadt rebellion collaborated with imperialists and the rebellion and had a peasant character influenced by left-individualism. (See Stalin's Terror of 1937-38 by Vadim Rogovin and Jean-Jacques Marie's interview on Kronstadt to revolutionpermanente.fr )
And I always thought the theatrical way villains talk in films was a bit far fetched.
I seriously thought this guy was joking at first. I was wondering why no one was giggling with him...
while orlando made some good points he was rude aggressive and childish
I think it is reasonable to be aggressive when your opponent is a calm child. Alan Woods' only arguments were that if something happened, it must have been right. If the Bolsheviks didn't lose power, they must have earned it. He brings no other proof or stats. You might as well say that if Germany had won WWII, they must have been Aryan supermen - infantile.
Could anybody point me to a modern Leninist with proof and stats of their ideas and support of Lenin?
Orlando is a thousand times more literate than Alan Woods... I just read some Orlando's books and he is really amazing indeed!
Professor Figes's book on The Russian Revolution a People's Tragedy is a must read by all.
Omg my ears are bleeding hearing this Orlando
I bought Orlando figes book called Revolutionary Russia a while back and I could not sit through it. Clear bias against actual fact and clear product of his privilege. He inserts his own opinions and makes them seem like facts.
Bias in what way? I'm genuinely interested I'm reading his book aswell
Alan Wood 120 of 150 million were peasants. So, all power to the soviets is a dead giveaway.
The peasants could not be the ones to lead the revolution because of their physical separation from each other. Only the working class could do it
What's the relevance of the Russian Revolution for what must be done today? If I want to help bring about socialism here in America, what can I learn from a revolution in the vastly different society in Czarist Russia? It can't happen the same way here (or in any wealthy capitalist country) as it happened in Russia.
No, but seeing ideology in action and observing *how* the Bolsheviks concluded that they needed to use their methods, and *how* they came to implement them how they did, rather than necessarily the specific manner in which they did, can still be very useful in developing an understanding of how to tackle problems facing people in all different situations.
No it can't be exact but there's plenty of useful historical parallels. The opportunism of someone like Kautsky is very similar to what you see on a lot of the social democratic or "progressive" left in the United States nowadays. And Lenin's response to that is something we can learn from as well.
I thought Figes was a much better debater than Woods. Besides, his arguments are backed by sound analysis and solid evidence. But his attitude is something I do not agree with. Aggressive and rude.
For Figes the millions of humans slaughtered by imperialism and capitalism do not count why? Hes made his 'career' on attacking, discrediting the USSR, unbalanced, sounding like a CIA backed lunatic half the time. What a career he has had! A true parasite, building his life on the discrediting of socialist peoples movements.
Figes got cornered here by Woods outright working class overview - it was very well spelt out and very powerful. Figes had to come in and undercut him with his 'real truth', his shouting and brash tone, and almost 'real socialism' (how it 'should have been done better') which of course is a historical nonsense and he either sounds like a child or a typical opportunist. Or a bit like some anti-communist 'socialists' you hear and meet around Britain, the finest imperialist oppressor internationally.
War is a game played by the state, not markets. There isn't a single mass killing in the last several hundred years you could attribute to voluntary markets, to do so would be a contradiction in the first place, as capitalism requires non-agression for mutual exchange. Attributing the actions of a government with capitalism shows you don't understand what capitalism is.
+Maxim I would not attribute the crimes of government to socialism per say, after all, the Soviet Union was not an example of true socialism correct? Just as today's capitalism could only be described as a remnant of the free market barely able to breath, except perhaps Hong Kong and Singapore. However, I think the claim - of blaming the mass-killings on socialism - is a much stronger case because the officials who claim to be fighting for socialism are the same ones ordering the killing. I suppose the jury would be out on this until I have a better understanding of what any particular socialist is calling for. For example, if you advocate expropriating the entire population in some revolution instead of offering communal membership on a consensual basis, then ya I would attribute socialism to be responsible for the violence that ensues. In the USSR's case, basically a gang of thugs took advantage of socialism for the purpose of their own power, but I would highlight to you, this is exactly what has happened in every purportedly socialist endeavor I can think of, from Cuba (who killed more people per capita than the USSR), to modern day Venezuela, to North Korea, so there seems to be a problem involved with centralizing so much power and decision making responsibility. As for your last two sentences, that is your opinion, not a truism. My studies actually specialize in private provision of so-called public goods, in addition to libertarian legal theory. There is nothing socially necessary - that civil society actually needs in order to function and minimize conflict - that can't be provided by the market, indeed, provided far more effectively. On that front I'd be happy to respond to any questions you may have, or, if your absolutely crazy lol, you could read "Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case for a Stateless Society", "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman, and "Chaos Theory" by Robert Murphy.
+Maxim Just as I don't claim to know your positions better than you do, I would ask for the same on your part as I reply to your first point (obviously if I am intellectually incompetent you may wish to amend that arrangement lol), as well as my response to "and yes, historical capitalism is inextricable from state violence and imperialism", which you've mostly already received. Firstly, if you or I are to separate capitalism from free market capitalism than we're really just caught up in semantics, I would express to you the belief that free markets exist everywhere and in every society to some degree or another, that doesn't mean the society as a whole is largely free enterprise. For example in the USSR there were lots of black markets and individuals engaging in trade unsanctioned by the state, so here we have capitalist markets existing even within the Soviet Union, does this make it a capitalist country? Of course not.
I don' think we've had a 500 year history of capitalism, 500 years ago you couldn't even decide what profession to pursue, maybe 300 year history. This isn't a central point to our discussion though.
The claim was that Castro's Cuba killed more people per capita than Stalin, not in absolute numbers, the Soviet Union was the third most populous country in the world. The numbers I've heard are a bit higher than 5,000 btw, more like 35,000 if my memory serves me right. And that was from someone who defected from Cuba and nearly lost his father to execution btw, they escaped but many were not so fortunate.
Yes I would be interested in seeing areas where dialogue between libertarians and socialists on economic theory has occured, in general I am trying to learn more about communism/socialism, hence my reason for being in this comment section in the first place. The economic calculation debate, originally raised by Mises, is indeed a very good example of when socialists made major adjustments because of the insights Mises provided.
Stalinism has created characters like Orlando Figes who flee from Marxism thinking that what the Soviet Union experienced was the only possibility offered by socialism. But the reality is that both Stalinists and capitalists lie and misrepresent history. As Alan says so well, how can it be possible that Stalin murdered half of the central committee of 1917 and can be said to be a product of Lenin? It also seems to me of academic baseness to blame the Bolsheviks for what happened in kronstadt. Wasn't there at the same time 21 armies invading the Soviet Union? Were the Bolsheviks going to give up an entire revolution because sailors were being used by the enemy for their dark goals? This academic does not understand anything about history and its dynamics, he is too empiricist and opportunistic. By the way, it is terrible that he does not understand the popularity and authority that the Soviets had in the Russian revolution, it is laughable. Sorry if there are errors in my writing, I am Spanish and I have used a translator.
Figes starts at 28:50
Allen Wood did not defend adequately, because his honesty!
Espetacular debate!!!!!! Que nos enche tanto de ânimo, principalmente pelo elevado nível teórico do professor Figes, mas também de tristeza, por sabermos que neste país, o Brasil, tais discussões não podem acontecer porque muitos cursos superiores em humanidades se tornaram fanáticas igrejas marxistas, onde o contraditório está momentaneamente excluído.
What nonsense is this? Brazil is known for being rather right wing and conservative with a large right wing Christian voting bloc.
I would not allow Orlando's speech. It is a dishonest attempt to include the Stalin's era, part of the Leninist era.
If those are "good points", his hostile manner is understandable and a sign of justified moral outrage (wonder, how one would react if to be invited into the debate of Darwin society to find out, that the opponent is praising Ernst Rüdin). I found this conversation and argumentation of Figes to be outsandingly crucial. The catastrophy of Soviet Union is THE traumatic event for working class movements and marxism. It is not going to "go away" by repeating these thousand times heard ideological defences, served here by Woods.
Of course, catastrophy of Soviet Union did traumatize the worker's movement. Living in Russia, I can say Russian working class is still in a knock-down. But it did not traumatize Marx's and Lenin's doctrine - it proved its truth. Marx and Lenin stated that there can not be communism without dictatorship of proletariat. In Soviet Union the idea of dictatorship of working class was abandoned, with transformations of soviets. Soviets were not mere strike comitees, as Woods stated - Soviets were means of administration of will of working class. Marx stated, that the basis of any society is industry - and Soviets were as close to industry as it possible. But sadly, history of Soviets was not very long, their ceasing-to-be began in 1936 when new constitution formalized new method of election to Soviets - they become more of a bourgeouis parliament, and ended with a bourgeois counter-revolution when in 1961 the Supreme Soviet of USSR changed the programm of communist party, throwing away the parts on leading role of working class and the goals of socialist industry.
at 6:14 he is saying we should give them merit for starting the task, even though "ultimately it failed, but they do not lose merit for that". huh??????
I think his point is that the Bolsheviks / masses are often discredited for the failure of the revolution (suggesting that therefore it must have been pointless / nonsensical), but should also be given credit for beginning it
@@alexhickey8883 hmm youre right. i forgot i even made that comment but now it seems really clear to me that i was being purposefully dismissive
why is this so editted
This is the way the world ends,
Not with a bang,
But a smattering of applause.
Quite a one-sided Debate. Figes brought nothing but petit-bourgeois clichés...
I think Orlando's point is that the Russian Revolution came on the heels of a despotic government. Therefore the hope of a succeeding government to be a democracy or a worker's state with any degree of consent from the people was a fairly slim one. Kerensky had to battle against Tsar Nicholas the second ,who cancelled out the democratising influence of the Zhemstuos . Against this background any hope of fair state emerging were pretty slim.
Correct
It’s unfortunate the Russian ppl never really had a chance :(
@@bentrinker1937nooo stop I always think thissss like they were so forcefully thrust from an autocracy that they were content with little from the start I find that so sad like they never experienced true democracy or anything they wanted
good for Woods
Thanks for the upload. Both men right and wrong. Alan Woods more rational and totally right about Stalinism but Orlando Figes right about Lenin's actions and veering from true Marxism. I believe the revolution was not a tragedy but Figes got it right that only a socialist coalition of all leftist parties would have been the true course to a Marxist or semi Marxist future. I don't believe Bolshevism was destined to become Stalinism, however. The tragedy of the revolution was that the Bolsheviks had both Lenin and Stalin, two stubborn, cunning zealots/sociopaths that ruled absolutely and were blind to rationalism. Marxism is rational but the people implementing it can be irrational and that is what took place in 1917 and afterwards. Lenin at least had men of equal intelligence and reason around him yet bullied and disarmed them letting fellow sociopaths (Stalin) rise to the top. But Figes's emotionalism and parroting of rightists' claims (millions! exterminated) is hard to sit through. Woods is a gentle (but too romantic) defender of the Revolution. Enjoyed the debate.
He's mixing up fairy stories and lullaby's.
Orlando Figes is a propagandist
I bet the far-right have more fun at their debates, jeez!
▶️🔍⌨️🎞️📑📚📕🗂️
THE SOVIET STORY (EDVĪNS SNORE, 2008)
Thanks the Lord for Orlando Figes.
In this lecture...
Wood's words must carry some weight if the reaction is already starting to invoke forces from the fantasy literature to come to aid.
@@derantiobskurantthat's actually debatable it could be the other way round... maybe Woods argument lacks substance to the point lil bro here raged because of its silliness? I don't know
Marx was correct. A socialist revolution, if it is ever to be successful must pass through a bourgeois democratic and liberal rights and institutions, phase FIRST and MUST enshrine them in any regime it creates. Maybe the revolution will never actually happen as a result, but there is no other way. Any impatience to dispense with basic abstract rights in the interests of the end-goal of justice cannot succeed in bringing about justice. This is NOT to say that globally speaking Capitalism does not commit even worse crimes (Imperialism, Climate Change), or that the Whites had they won would have been any better (they would not and were precursors to the Nazis in many respects, including the worst pogroms committed in Europe before WW2), but that on balance Communism WITHOUT bourgeois guarantees cannot work. Poor Woods is stuck in a dream of a few months when perhaps the Bolsheviks operated like everyone else and negotiation and compromise were still on the table. But once they took power things changed drastically. This occurs almost across the board with revolutionary movements from Iran to Cambodia. They are fighting for justice but as soon as they take power they begin to erode basic rights and use war as a catalyst. I'm afraid Hamas would fall under the same analysis. And the Right Wing profits from this to crush legitimate resistance. Stalinism is not antithetical to Leninism. that is the Marxist tragedy.
And you cannot cite Soviet advances in industry and Welfare as a justification because it is quite likely that had Russia been moving towards Constitutional Monarchy after the war would have made similar advances but without out imposed mass famine and gulags.
Lenin was right to want to end the war as soon as possible and the refusal of the Russian liberals to agree with this goal was a colossal blunder that well expresses the criminal pursuit of war carried out by bourgeois regimes across Europe, no better than their autocratic counterparts. Indeed the effects of British Imperialism in Palestine, favoring a Jewish minority over an Arab majority, are still with us today. Nevertheless, as China is showing today, Communism has ended up, when in power, with worse outcomes than bourgeois regimes for the homeland populations it governs IF human freedom and not simply output figures is your measure.
!
Marxism is pure DEMOCIDE evil.
100+++ million unalived by
Forcd labor, starvation and disease.
In peacetime. UN alived by fellow Socialist citizens in PEACETIME
I think the whole point of Orlando's anger and frustration was based on Alan Wood's childish understanding of history. Wood was a pitiful speaker whose notes and evidence was shockingly poor. To try and avoid explaining exactly what happened in 1917 in Russia Wood tried to change the direction of the debate and his pathetic use of all I can saw is 'Hollywood History' was terrible. At one point he even tried to pass of Dalton Trumbo's Spartacus script as real history. Spartacus was killed in battle, his armies defeated the Romans and they reached freedom. It was only Spartacus' hatred of Rome and his, in the end, mistaken belief that he could defeat every Roman army sent against him that led him to invade the Italian peninsula after escaping that led to his downfall. For once the 'Hollywood legend' actually was underscored because as Marx clearly knew Spartacus was easily the most important figure in Roman history.
If Wood's reading of Russian history is as bad and I see no reason to suggest it is not then why on earth was he put against such a polished historian as Figes who is an expert in his field?
What nonsense! Are you saying that the slaves were not crucified along the appian way?
Great job, Figes
To what? The ruminating of petit bourgeois clichés?
sound's like Orlando wants to see a perfectly what He should see , MR WOODS sees what it is
Orlando's Attitude is more real than left winger's want to admit!!!
Figes' critique of Lenin and the Bolsheviks in his presentation here and his brilliant book, The Tragedy of the Russian Revolution' reveals the so-called 'Marxist' version as quite silly and certainly ahistorical. One interesting thing about it all, it that a Lenin was not a real Marxist; he was much more interested in the act of seizure of power than fulfilling the historical mission of revolution against the capitalist state. Alan Woods, who seems a nice enough guy, really has no hope of moulding Lenin's ideology and his actions in 1917 and afterward into some genuine Marxist or democratic framework. Nevertheless, thanks to those Marxists who organised the debate and posted it on TH-cam.
Goliath
I was looking for Alan Woods on flat earth.
Alan Wood ‘s voice and pace of speech makes me fall asleep.
A mental institution !
Why is Figes so angry ?
Sure , Woods is a fantasist , but Figes would have been more effective if his tone wasn’t so aggressive.
Guess he could not take this fantasists much more.
Imagine how he would speak if this was the CPGB-ML who are really way way out.
Fully behind Figes on this (even though he should have been more gracious in his manner of debating..) Quoting Nabokov from his authobiography about a Cambridge don who revelled in socialist ideals from the comfort of his own privileged existence: 'He never realized that had he and other foreign idealists been Russians in Russia, he and they would have been destroyed by Lenin's regime as naturally as rabbits are by ferrets and farmers.' No further comment on Alan Woods' privileged vantage point...
Part of the issue here is that a professional historian is debating a Marxist theoretician/ideologist. Alan Woods just doesn't have the history background Figes does. It should have been Figes versus a left-wing historian, which there are a LOT of to choose from, so it would be historian vs historian. There is another side to the story but it's not being well represented here at all.
@@LARPANET_3087 Figes did his research in the Russian archives at the Kremlin and has been teaching Russian history for years. If they do have disagreements it would be over much finer points.
A very bourgeois anti-bourgeois org.
People here act as if the only true Marxists were Lenin and Trotsky, which I have an issue with calling Lenin a true Marxist, but whatever.
Lenin was not a peasant, nor a worker. He considered himself a noble. There is evidence he even marked himself as noble in official documents of the Russian Empire. He was a Russian (Big Russian) noble. Which leads me to question his personal attitude toward workers and peasants. Just analyze the great famine in Ukraine and the experiences of Ukrainians (Little Russians). Do we really think Lenin would had been so different than Stalin in his actions? Closing down the borders of Ukraine, sending party members in search of food because obviously there could not have been a famine, it was just the counter revolutionaries kulaks hording out the food to affect the Soviet Union (sarcasm). Party members went and took the little food peasants were not selling to feed themselves. Do we really think Lenin would had stopped exports? Affecting the finances of the state, and showing the world communism could not even produce same yields of food than Imperial Russia. Do we really think Lenin would had done anything different? What about collectivization of the countryside? Do we really think Lenin would had been entirely different than Stalin toward kulaks? What is a kulak? A peasant with two cows compare to a peasant with a single cow? What about the Great Patriotic War? Would Lenin fought differently compare to Stalin? Just look at the body count of the civil war.
Come on folks, aside from the Great Purges, which okay, is a big thing, do we really think Lenin was that different than Stalin in policy? Please stop saying Stalinism is much different than what Leninism could had been.
The point of communism is the abolition of class, it’s like saying Engels isn’t a communist. Also looking at the actions and lives of Trostky to Stalin it was pretty obvious how different they were
@@MikeSpike117 how can bolsheviks preach about class, if since day one they were two types of Russians, bolsheviks and non bolsheviks. They were equal right, but party members, including the rank and file, were always "more equal". Stop it with the Trotsky idealism. The red terror happened under Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin and Trotsky did nothing when you had middle and upper class young men being chopped from their arms and legs, before being thrown into furnaces in steel mills. Most importantly, how could Trotsky avoided the great famine which kill millions after collectivizing the peasants. Trotsky used terror the same way Stalin did, the only difference Trotsky liked cleaning his hands to get rid of all the blood spilled due to his decisions.
I live in Russia, interested in Russia and history and russians view of their history and the results of that history in today's Russia. This looks and feels like a gathering of people with mental issues and im surprised Orlando Figes agreed to join this mental circus.
Woods was mostly incoherent rubbish, but his ending was strong.
STAND WITH UKRAINE!!!
time to enlist yourself mate LOL - don't just "stand"