Start The Week 9 October: Centenary of the Russian Revolution

**Bryn** · 09-10-17, 17:17

The reference to Stalin's relative popularity compared to that of Lenin was in respect of Russian public opinion today, not 100 years ago. That's how I heard it anyway.

**DracoM** · 09-10-17, 19:29

BUT interestingly, it was the RUSSIAN guests who pointed to Lenin being ancient history and Stalin being the real character to take Russia forward.
I thought Tom Sutcliffe was brilliant at drawing out the threads, and making it clear for contributors to say what they felt, but then having said speakers skirt round where we are now in every more wily ways.

The bit he read out about the 1917 feeling about the gaps between the fabulously rich disporting themselves round Europe while a monarchy ruled at home was uncannily similar to how the inner echelons of the Russian elite are behaving today. AND did you notice the edgy froideur as speakers manoeuvred themselves away from actually engaging with that parallel?

**Pianorak** · 09-10-17, 20:17

Originally posted by DracoM View Post

BUT interestingly, it was the RUSSIAN guests who pointed to Lenin being ancient history and Stalin being the real character to take Russia forward. . . .

Indeed, here's what Mikhail Zygar said: << . . . Lenin had a problem. Almost no one cares about Lenin. Lenin is completely ignored. He is dead. The key figure that is alive is Stalin - and Stalin and his - historically - who is alive is more [of a] threat . No one cares about the Bolshevik revolution - Bolshevik empire or imaginary empire that is symbolised by Stalin is much more [of a] threat to today's Russia. I would think much more about Stalin's legacy than Lenin's. >>

**Lat-Literal** · 09-10-17, 23:12

Is Scruton now an employee of the BBC?

He is on there more frequently than John Humphrys.

On topic, surely Stalin is more significant today because he is synonymous with the defeat of fascism, notwithstanding the various pacts that occurred before invasion. It would be a terrible slur on Churchill to say that he is the parallel but he is so to the extent that he is shorthand for the defeat of fascism by the west which many think would not have happened without him. Deep down most recognize that he had flaws, mild, while most Russians probably recognize deep down the very significant and horrific problems with Stalin. Such things are not expressed. It would feel like caving in to the Nazis, especially at a time when AfD is on the rise and even Mrs Merkel has no qualms in describing Putin as in her opinion "mad".

Also, Stalinism hardly represents a universal levelling. As has been mentioned, there are some parallels with the structure of Russia today with its elite tiers although that point can be very overstated. Here one might look at why modern inequity via a developing and heavily managed/skewed capitalism there might be more acceptable to some Russians than it has become to some in the west. It is more recent for them than 1979, let alone 1951, and consequently it implies that it can deliver considerable amounts to the masses. In contrast, it is only at this time that, say, Britain thinks it might prefer the immediate post war economic model, not that people are quite seeing it in those terms, rightly, or that it is deliverable.

Plus long term memories fade - arguably the Russians had their far more extreme version of 1945-1979 before the war under Lenin. That is to say, 1945-1979 represents the points at which we in Britain were at our most left wing, especially in the first six years of the period, and what has made it seem not entirely inaccessible theoretically is the economic crash. Beforehand, it was seen by many as a dinosaur even though it wasn't as if it represented really "ancient" times before WW2. Every aspect is quite complicated. Given that Attlee was intended to be the antithesis of Churchill by those who voted him in, he is in some respects seen as an extension of Churchill's war effort in the rebuilding. That point is probably additionally underpinned by the fact that Churchill was re-elected after him to pursue something of continuity. So Stalin in that sense for the Russians is Attlee as well as Churchill as he occupied the same time frame. Lenin just isn't in it - for all the centenary hoo-ha it is WW2 that matters most - and nostalgia. Few in adoration of anyone care about fact/detail.

Anyhow, that may all be about to change. Personally, I feel quite blase. I have been expecting it since the end of 2010. Since the Saturday before last I have been unable to walk although these things may change. I tend to be a reflection of what we all experience from the world and have flagged up that point regularly on forums for the past seven years:

World War 3: Russia orders US to ABANDON North Korea fight as major conflict looms - http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...in-Kim-Jong-un

**Lat-Literal** · 10-10-17, 06:16

I would just add one thing.

We in Britain have been cleverer than any country in avoiding fascism - and leftism - and that continues. The modern news media kindly analyses everything over and over again except what is in front of its nose. In recent weeks, one political party of some note was faced with a choice for new leader. 1. A lesbian with the sort of far right outlook to be found at the extreme edges of AfD. Her policy would have appealed to some members and appalled many others. She might not have lost on policy alone. It was her sexual identity which really did for her given that party's composition, some of it homophobic. 2. An unknown fellow who had been in the armed forces before joining the Lib Dems and only very recently radically switching his political allegiance. His professional background is such that he was able to sufficiently appeal and win the contest. However, his liberal background is sufficient to ensure that the party in question will have minimal electoral support the more his role is scrutinized and the party then portrayed as having switched roles with the party currently in Government. To the extent that Mr Ashdown was any sort of establishment stooge to disempower left wing forces in the Labour Party until that party was steered towards re-invention, is it that there is now another establishment "stooge" designed to support standard conservatism against far right and far left forces? If so, so be it, for better or worse.

Of course, we benefit from significant differences both with Russia and with Germany. An island or islands; smaller; and where territory that was lost was in other parts of the globe rather than being chunks of the mainland. The latter is at least as significant as the other factors in that the moral sensibility relating to such things is that it is right that they should not be reclaimed. In Simon Reeve's recent programme, there was some emphasis on the sheer scale of the parades even in small towns across Russia in commemoration of victory in WW2, a phenomenon that has grown considerably with Putin's full encouragement and presented with just the slightest hint that it should be feared. Britain, Germany and other countries currently in the EU should seek to find a common sentiment there rather than viewing it in the light of militarism and limited democracy. Rather than being revolutionary, the spirit is ostensibly conservative with a small "c" while very western looking pizza parlours thrive alongside. As for authoritarianism, well yes, size does matter. Our old Empire suggests that vast territories involving diverse populations are not so easy to manage with an Electoral Commission and Professor John Curtice discussing the minutiae of every election result.

Start The Week 9 October: Centenary of the Russian Revolution

Start The Week 9 October: Centenary of the Russian Revolution

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment