Before Stalinism: The Rise and Fall of Soviet Democracy

by Samuel Farber

Before Stalinism is a historical study of democratic life and institutions and their decline in the early years of the Russian Revolution. While attempting to synthesize a wealth of available historical material, the author assesses the extent to which the disappearance of Soviet democracy was due to objective circumstances, for example the impact of the Civil War, and the extent to which it was the result of Bolshevik politics and ideology. The author shows how there were, contrary to later Stalinist and Cold War mythologies, significant disputes within the pre-Stalinist Bolshevik camp about the preservation of the substantial democratic elements of the October upheaval.

Genres: History, Soviet Union, Nonfiction, Politics, Russia

304 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1990

Reviews

[A · Rating 5 out of 5]

Giving this five stars because it answered all my questions going into it.

How did Bolsheviks turn hostile to democracy?
Were they ever committed?
Whatever really happened to 'all power to soviets?
How did Stalin's Totalitarianism come about and was it the logical conclusion of the revolution?

This book also gave me a lot of clarity on what my stands should be from a leftists perspective. I did list them down and tbh most of them were contradictory so lets see where it goes!

PS: reading about with what principles soviet legal system begun with was really cool.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anyone with the slightest understanding of political issues will know that ideas are one thing - implementing them is another. If the objective conditions or the social base giving rise to such ideas are undeveloped or destroyed, all the good intentions in the world will prove fruitless.

So far, this book is providing an excellent source for anyone looking to chart the gradual erosion of soviet democracy after 1917. It will also provide a nasty surprise for simplistic pro-capitalist theorists that the Bolshevik party was not made up of cackling evil madmen, but that the process of degeneration affected soviet society as a whole, as opposed to stemming from the political machinations of a few "evil" men.

[Differengenera · Rating 2 out of 5]

polemic against Leninism of the ortho-Trotskyite variety. found it rehashes information I was familiar with from broader studies but fine insofar as it goes

[S · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredibly useful and in depth study on the creation, development, and eventual betrayal and crushing of working class power by the Bolshevik party.

[Ravi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I regret I waited nearly 25 years to read this book. An extremely important if controversial analysis of Leninist Russia. While I may not agree with every single argument or nuance, Farber comprehensively and convincingly documents the serious problems with Russia under Lenin. Many orthodox Marxists will not enjoy it but it seems that Farber's analysis, written in the 1980s, is only stronger today as the command economies everywhere fail. His commitment to democracy from below retains its power when evaluating current political conflicts as Venezuela, Cuba and other command economy states. It is also very easy to understand for someone who is not a specialist (like me) on Russia.

A small quibble or two: I would have preferred more coverage and scholarly critique of the ideas and politial program of the anarchists operating in Russia. As a legal scholar, I would have preferred a deeper discussion of socialist legality. Some of the dismissals of liberal legal theory seem a bit hasty. But overall this is an impressive book that everyone interested in Russia, social justice and the left should read. Thirty years after it was originally published, it stands up well and that is a huge tribute to the author's lucid political insights.

[Jon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I must admit I'm not really a fan of the "in hindsight it's clear, this is is what they shoulda done," sort of analysis. I wouldn't say this book is largely guilty of my perceived fault, but I think Farber often comes to conclusions that can be described this way:

In particular, such a conciliatory measure might have very possibly convinced these groups to give up arms and/or the use of terror and play the role of a revolutionary loyal opposition. Such a process would have of course facilitated the reorganization and growth of groups and parties that had supported the October Revolution and yet were more sympathetic and responsive to the peasantry than all of the wings of the Bolshevik party. These groups and parties, due to their undeniable weaknesses, could not have possibly offered an alternative to the Bolsheviks as a party of government. Yet they could have played a major role in peacefully integrating the bulk of the peasantry into the post-October revolutionary process.

Here is another example which starts off very good, but soon runs into the same sort of commentary:

While the overall objective reality may have indeed completely precluded the development of a Russian socialist democracy in the 1920s, there could have also been a stronger vector or component of resistance from below. For example, this could have happened if Trotsky had not failed to appeal for mass self-organization, both inside and outside party ranks, in support of the relatively democratic opening outlined in his proposed 'New Course' policy of December 1923. This might have also in turn helped to preclude the eventual rise of Stalinist totalitarianism. Again, as I suggested in the Introduction, it was not a matter of indifference which one of the various possible kinds of non-democratic society might have come to prevail in Soviet Russia.

Shell Siverstein comes to mind:

All the Woulda-Coulda-Shouldsas
Layin' in the sun
Talkin' 'bout the things
They woulda-coulda-shoulda done
But those Woulda-Coulda-Shouldsas
All ran away and hid
From the one little did.

History is invaluable, it has a lot of lessons to give. But focusing on how the last battle could've been won perhaps does not let you prepare enough for winning the next one.

But this book nonetheless has much explanatory power in its interpretive position of the history immediately after the revolution. When not exclaiming what would've been a better track for history to take, Farber's analysis can be very insightful:

Yet an elementary sense of proportion and perspective demands that we distinguish between Lenin's flawed conception of democracy, which he by and large upheld until at least the Spring of 1918, and the clearly anti-democratic perspective that, with his associates, he began to adopt shortly before and especially during the course of the Civil War. As we have seen, these anti-democratic views and practices fully crystallized in the period 1921-3, even as Lenin reacted in genuine horror against the practical outcomes of those very views and actions. It was particularly during and after the Civil War that many undemocratic practices that may have indeed been justified as necessary came to be seen and defended by Lenin and the other mainstream party leaders as intrinsically virtuous. The existence of this attitude is also demonstrated, as I mentioned earlier, by the virtual absence of statements by Lenin attesting to the temporary or conjunctural nature of his repressive and anti-democratic measures, except in a few isolated instances, e.g. when the 1921 ban on party factions was originally declared to be temporary. This is one reason I think Sirianni, Miliband, and other intelligent critics of Lenin's political theory are in a sense missing the key issue. That is, in the last analysis the main problem was not the theoretical inadequacies of State and Revolution. Rather, the problem was Lenin's willingness to forget about it as a guideline for government policy, even if that meant merely to go on record indicating why he had to depart from it given the circumstances facing Soviet Russia. Consequently, the political vision of State and Revolution became in fact social poetry rather than an actual guideline for social policy.

I think calling Lenin's thoughts about democracy "flawed" is wrong headed, particularly without explanation, and also because Farber has nothing to say about his own overheated rhetoric on the subject. Also, the "social poetry" quip is frankly over the top. But otherwise I find Farber's text quite perceptive, here as elsewhere.

Overall I found this book to be very inadequate from several angles, but nonetheless insightful about the post-revolutuionary, pre-Stalin political situation in Russia.

[Liu · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a really excellent history that shows the deterioration of democracy between the October Revolution and Lenin's death. Dispelling the notion that Lenin's authoritarianism was only a result of the objective constraints of the Civil War, Farber demonstrates that Russia's inter- and intraparty democracy already began degrading long before the Civil War and authoritarian measures were continued long after. Despite the much heralded slogan, "All power to the soviets!", Lenin immediately moved to disempower the soviets and their working class members in order to subordinate them to the Bolshevik party. After the Civil War, the Bolshevik party's Red Terror and repressive measures were dictatorial attempts to consolidate power because they had a social base in neither the working class, nor the peasantry. As the party's popularity waned, Lenin's and other Bolshevik leaders' weak commitment to democracy transformed into a full on hostility to it. While Farber acknowledges that Lenin's anti-democratic tendencies were a far cry from Stalinism, he convincingly shows that authoritarianism crept in long before Stalin took power. An important book on Soviet history that also contains many lessons on the importance of internal democracy for leftists organizing today.