← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · John Graziano
Thread ID: 20933 | Posts: 3 | Started: 2005-11-07
2005-11-07 21:11 | User Profile
[B][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3][B][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=6]The 'Progress' of the End of Tsarism[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3][B][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3][B][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by [EMAIL="jornbalt@pvv.org"][COLOR=#0000ff]Jørn K. Baltzersen[/COLOR][/EMAIL][/FONT][/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/SIZE][/FONT] [INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Once in our lives we wanted to make the people happy and this is something for which we will never forgive ourselves.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][RIGHT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]~ an old Russian leftist to Nadejda Mandelstam, [URL="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895265370/lewrockwell"][I][COLOR=#0000ff]Leftism Revisited[/COLOR][/I][/URL][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3][URL="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0974230308/lewrockwell"][COLOR=#0000ff][IMG]http://www.lewrockwell.com/baltzersen/third-rome.jpg[/IMG][/COLOR][/URL]This year we mark the centenary of the revolution that gave birth to the Russian Duma Monarchy. Today is the 88th anniversary of the dreadful event that goes by the name of the Russian Revolution, in which the Kerenski provisional government was overthrown.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]A book from 2003 is on this occasion very relevant indeed. [URL="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0974230308/lewrockwell"][I][COLOR=#0000ff]The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy[/COLOR][/I][/URL] is a book by Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson and published by the Foundation for Economic Liberty. An excerpt is available [URL="http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/third_rome_m_johnson.htm"][COLOR=#0000ff]online[/COLOR][/URL].[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]The book starts out in the preface with what one could call a sort of Hoppean challenge of the Whig theory of history:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]The purpose of [I]The Third Rome[/I] is to alter the political universe of those who read it. In other words, it was to challenge the assumptions that underlie the liberal/conservative consensus in western countries. Such assumptions include the superstitious belief in progress, the linear (i.e. evolutionary) development of history and, importantly, the continued dominance of the idea that western democracies are morally superior to not merely the rest of the globe, but also superior to all systems of rule that have ever existed.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Further down in the preface Dr. Johnson goes on:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]For the [I]exoteria[/I] of western politics, one is routinely treated to myths about the linear development of European history from the "darkness" of the middle ages to the "light" of the Enlightenment, science and its progeny, postmodernism. The "tyranny" of medieval and early modern kings is contrasted to the benevolence of modern republics. The evils of feudalism are contrasted to the capital/state alliance. This makes up every introduction to political science in universities, and it is at the very nature of "civic discourse" as it is contrived in the west. The only difficulty is that it is nonsense.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]At no time in global history have ruling classes amassed such centralized power: surveillance techniques, media power, armies, advanced weapons, computers and a disciplined bureaucracy that can track each and every citizen with pinpoint accuracy throughout his life form the vulnerable underbelly of the tripe concerning "democracy" and "republicanism" in the west. Tyranny previous to modernity was largely impossible: the technological apparatus needed to create "totalitarianism" simply did not exist. Only modernity can create tyranny.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Johnson is right on the money when he tells us:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3][T]he day to day functioning of royal government, is not contrasted with the actual functioning of republican systems, but rather with idealistic theory of republicanism.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]The book is not only a defense of the Russian monarchy. It is also a defense of the Orthodox branch of Christianity. Johnson is an Orthodox Christian. In his book he puts himself in conflict with the Catholic Church. The third Rome is Moscow, the second Byzantium, and, of course, the first is Rome. An important part of the book is the theme that the Orthodox Church, Russian culture, and the Russian monarchy are tightly linked.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]I cannot say I agree with everything Dr. Johnson says. Nor have I double-checked all the facts. Most LRC readers will probably react negatively to Johnsonââ¬â¢s anti-globalization and anti-capitalist rhetoric.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]We know so very well how many Western intellectuals have wanted to see the Russian Revolution and the more than 7 decades of Communist rule through rose-colored glasses. We should probably read Johnsonââ¬â¢s book with critical eyes, but the history we have been taught by said Western intellectuals should probably viewed at least as critically ââ¬â if not more. Johnson is probably not very far from the truth when he claims:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3][T]he English language historical literature on Russia merely rehashes 90-year-old Bolshevik propaganda and calls it history.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]We are taught that what gave the West its success is small political units, as opposed to China and Russia. However, what works for the West does not necessarily work for Russia. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn told us in his [I]Leftism Revisited[/I]:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3][T]he brilliant, scintillating, amiable [I]intelligentsiya[/I] were the guiltiest of all. For generations they had undermined the fabric of Holy Mother Russia, either by siding with the Social Revolutionaries, the [I]Narodnaya Volya[/I], the Social Democrats, or by being "open-minded," by deriding the national heritage, by spreading polite doubt, by stupidly imitating Western patterns, ideas, and institutions that would never do for Russia.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]One can disagree with Raphael Johnsonââ¬â¢s anti-Western rhetoric, but he undoubtedly has a point in that Russian culture is quite different from Western culture. Besides, given all the anti-Russian rhetoric that has been in circulation, anti-Western rhetoric the other way is perhaps the least one could expect.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Johnson echoes Bertrand de Jouvenel when he tells us that absolutism in the Russian monarchy was absolutism in the political sphere only. Today the political sphere includes everything, and the modern man hardly understands how limited royal "absolutism" actually was. Johnson tells us that the monarchy was invisible to roughly 90 % of the Russian population until the revolution. Johnson describes a decentralized system:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]The peasant commune controlled the social life of the peasant, and was completely independent of the tsar.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Dr. Johnson attacks the modern regime in which the workers stand alone in an environment where the employers have no responsibility for the workersââ¬â¢ well-being. Johnsonââ¬â¢s attack on the "Robber Barons" would probably find many disagreements among many of the readers of LRC. However, Johnson does have a point when making us aware of the responsibility masters of old had for the well-being of those who worked for them. In a sense he echoes Bertrand de Jouvenelââ¬â¢s reflections on the same issue in his [URL="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865971137/lewrockwell/"][I][COLOR=#0000ff]On Power[/COLOR][/I][/URL]. One can easily ââ¬â to some extent at least ââ¬â agree that one of the major problems of our times is freedom from responsibility.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Johnson describes a high level of social legislation, especially legislation protecting workers from poor working conditions. Now, it is [I]at least[/I] questionable that such legislation is desirable. However, the legislation at the time was probably nothing compared to what we have nowadays. There is little doubt that if such legislation were in place in pre-1917 Russia, the claims that old Russia was a "reactionary" system exploiting the lower classes do not have very much basis.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Johnson also seems sympathetic to the idea that the modern centralized state, which more or less has crushed the institutions that would protect the individual from power, does not give any real individualism:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]An "individual," isolated from his commune or region, would, as in all "democracies," be a meaningless legal fiction, easily exploited. This is the [I]esoteria[/I] of "individualism" in political theory; it is easier for the oligarchy to dominate isolated individuals than to deal with larger and more powerful communal and municipal structures.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]On Nicholas I Johnson tells us:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]In liberal democracies, those who have the most ambition to rule are those who run for office. Nicholas showed the opposite that, even when the crown was handed to him, he rejected it in favor of the (formal) heir apparent. Only under pressure did he accept the crown. In democratic thinking, only the ambitious and obnoxious are capable of doing what is necessary to get elected. American politicians are whores. They are forced to alter their views depending on the group with which the politician is meeting with or speaking. He is constantly asking for money with far less grace than a common prostitute.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]On taxes [I]The Third Rome[/I] tells us the Russians were the least taxed in all of Europe at the time:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]St. Nicholas II was brought to the throne in 1894. He found a Russia far from being "backward," but, in a few years ââ¬â by the start of World War I ââ¬â was the envy of the world. She had the lowest taxes in all Europe. Direct taxation per capita amounted to 3.1 rubles per year, versus 13 for Germany, 10 for Austria, 12 in France and 27 in progressive, democratic and capitalist Britain. Indirect taxation was also the lowest in Europe, amounting to 6 rubles per capita for Russia, but 10 for Germany, 11 for Austria, 16 for France and 14 for Britain.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]This level of taxation should absolutely give cause to consider the old Russian order in a favorable light. Moreover, the old Russian regimeââ¬â¢s attitude towards central banking is quite interesting indeed:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Russia was just beginning her economic expansion into world markets. There can be no question that the refusal of the Romanovs to set up a central bank under the rule of the global financial elite marked them for extinction. Imperial Russia was the only major European power who refused to set up a Central Bank, though the Bolsheviks, as always, willingly obliged.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]It seems here that Johnson has nothing against world trade and making money. So what is the anti-capitalist rhetoric for? Is it merely an attack on the alliance between state and capital? Or is it an attack on a lack of worker protection? Both concepts are attacked by Johnson. I am not in this essay defending Johnson's pro-welfare perspective. By no means. The pro-welfare perspective is very little relevant to the book's key point, namely that the emperor was far more a friend of liberty than the brutal barbarism that was soon to come.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]When reading [I]Leftism Revisited[/I], we are told:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3][Serfdom] did exist until 1861, but it was no more and no less characteristic of Russia than slavery was of the United States. It was, moreover, incomparably milder than slavery and did not exist at all in the majority of the empire. Some serfs were rich ââ¬â with fortunes amounting to from 30 to 60 million dollars (present purchasing power) ââ¬â and they paid only a microscopic head tax.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3][I]The Third Rome[/I] tells us of serfdom that:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]It is, regardless, far from clear that the liberation of the serfs was an unmitigated gain for the peasantry. Nevertheless, in 1861, what took the American republic years and hundreds of thousands of American lives to accomplish (in the case of slavery), the Russian Tsar accomplished in one fell swoop, the elimination of serfdom and the liberation of the peasant.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]One of the things I recall having been taught in school about Russia is something like that 10 % of the Russian population owned 90 % of the land. Raphael Johnson counters such teachings in Western schools when saying, e.g.:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]By 1917, the peasantry controlled the overwhelming majority of farmland ââ¬â more than three times what was controlled by the nobility.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Another thing we are generally taught is that Russia was a police state and the most absolute state in all of Europe. Such teachings are again countered by Johnson:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]De Goulevitch claims there were 3,500 members of the St. Petersburg police force. However, Kochan and Keep (1997) claim that there were 5,000 full time policemen in the entire empire of 180 million souls, which would make Russia one very poor example of a police state. In fact, the total number of government workers, including the [I]zemstvo[/I] employees, policemen and employees at all levels never exceeded 330,000. By contrast, much smaller France, in 1906, had budgeted for 500,000 employees.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Moreover, Johnson tells us that the royal government did not dare step into the domain of the peasant communes, and that:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]The peasant rebellions of the Russian countryside were on the scale of large civil wars.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Moreover, in one of his many well-placed rants against democracy, Dr. Johnson tells us:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]"Free elections" are the easiest way for an oligarchy to enslave a population without them knowing it.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Johnson covers many topics such as the question whether Ivan the Terrible is a correct translation from Russian and whether he was a butcher. Johnson believes Ivan the Awesome is a more correct translation. Johnson claims to be clearing up some misunderstandings, and he should be credited for this. However, his antipathy ââ¬â when describing the fight over power between the Tsar and the aristocracy ââ¬â against the aristocracy, which serves as a check on power, I do not have much sympathy for.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]The fact that Russia had to fight the Mongols has probably had more influence on the development of the geographically largest nation on this planet than we generally think of. Johnson also gives us a bit of his thoughts on this.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Johnson claims that Peter I was an un-Russian emperor, in the sense that he was bringing about "enlightened absolutism." This is according to Johnson a European concept and not a Russian one. Johnson has consequently little sympathy for Peter the Great. According to what we are taught in Western schools Russia is [I]the[/I] example of absolutism in Europe. Again, Raphael Johnson offers here a perspective which is well worth looking into. Among the checks on the Emperorââ¬â¢s power were ââ¬â according to Johnson ââ¬â the Orthodox Church and the peasant commune.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Johnson gives us a pretty good overview of Russian history until 1917. He has left post-1917 out because he believes this is not particularly Russian. He does quite well in explaining a system prior to democratic absolutism and the totalitarianism and atrocities of the 20th century. This was by no means a perfect system, but it seemed to work quite well for Russia, and it was unfortunately brutally brought to an end.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]It is commonly believed that the first revolution in 1917 was progress, whilst the October revolution was the great tragedy. This is similar to the conception that the end of Habsburg and Hohenzollern rule was progress, whilst the rise of the Hitlerite monster was the great tragedy. Of course, it is true that the rises of Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were great tragedies. However, to think that the end of Romanov, Habsburg, and Hohenzollern rule was progress is a grave error. As for Russia, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn sums it all up in one brilliant sentence in [I]Leftism Revisited[/I]:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]In Russia, the fall of the monarchy in March 1917 destroyed the center and object of all loyalty.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]As ââ¬â amongst others ââ¬â Bertrand de Jouvenel has noted, revolutions never bring about better leaders in the end. This is also true for Russia, and one of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihnââ¬â¢s 1188 notes in [I]Leftism Revisited[/I] tells us no different when describing Alexander Kerenski:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]I met the man twice in the United States. He was "nice" but, listening to his views, I could only pity him. George Katkov was absolutely right when he said that the Russian "liberals" who destroyed the old regime had no idea of the crime perpetrated, nor the least capacity to steer the ship of state on an even keel.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Although I am generally satisfied with Dr. Johnsonââ¬â¢s communicating the end of Tsarism as decline, and with his attempt to refute survived propaganda about Tsarism, I feel that the myth about the two independent steps of revolution in 1917 is not sufficiently countered. The Kerenski error should have been countered more thoroughly.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Johnson has an extensive bibliography to be used for further studies. However, there seems to be something missing in this bibliography. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote in [I]Leftism Revisited[/I]:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]The misconceptions, moreover, about the Russian class structure that prevail in the Western world are so manifold and so deeply rooted that they seem ineradicable. The three brilliant volumes by Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu on late nineteenth-century Russia, [I]L'Empire des tsars et les Russes[/I], give a glimpse of a totally mixed society based neither on birth nor on money. Needless to say, the same impression is conveyed by the great Russian novelists of that period. Actually, before Red October Russia was Europe's "Eastern America," a country where social mobility was greater than elsewhere, where titles had none of the nimbus they had in the West, where fortunes could be made overnight by intelligent and thrifty people regardless of their social background. Skilled European workers and specialists in many fields emigrated to Russia rather than to the United States. And, even before 1905, knowing how to speak and to write gave total liberty.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Anatole Leroy-Beaulieuââ¬â¢s work is available in English as [URL="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0404039901/lewrockwell"][I][COLOR=#0000ff]Empire of the Tsars and the Russians[/COLOR][/I][/URL]. Considering this tribute in [I]Leftism Revisited[/I] and considering that anyone seriously involved with disputing the transition from monarchy to democracy being progress should be familiar with [I]Leftism Revisited[/I], I find it peculiar that one cannot find any reference to Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu in Johnsonââ¬â¢s book. Specifically, anyone involved in disputing the development from monarchy as progress paradigm when it comes to Russia should be familiar with the 10 pages ââ¬â and the associated notes ââ¬â in [I]Leftism Revisited[/I] on Russia, i.e., the chapter by the name of [I]From Socialism to Communism[/I]. Again, why Leroy-Beaulieu is not referred to is puzzling. Moreover, the above quote from Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu gives a perspective which is not clearly communicated ââ¬â or perhaps even lacking ââ¬â in Johnsonââ¬â¢s book.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3][I]The Third Rome[/I] is highly recommended. Many LRC readers will find the rhetoric disagreeable. The book should ââ¬â despite its shortcomings and disagreeable rhetoric ââ¬â be read by anyone seriously interested in the transition from monarchy to democracy. It is high time we start viewing the Russian Revolution as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn did:[/SIZE][/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Imagine a very popular, intelligent, conscientious, good-looking and responsible young man, obviously destined for a highly successful life. One day, having had a few drinks too many, he runs his car into a tree and ends up a paraplegic. Accidents happen not only in the lives of persons, but also in the lives of nations.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/INDENT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]There is no meaning behind the course of history.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]Ignore an anti-modernist book on the geographically largest nation on this planet if you so wish, but that would probably be for the good of your own ignorance.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[LEFT][RIGHT][I][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]November 7, 2005[/SIZE][/FONT][/I]
[I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]**********[/SIZE][/FONT][/I] [I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]A though-provoking read, though I could have done without the noisome though obligatory invocation of Hitler as the supreme incarnation of Evil. [/SIZE][/FONT][/I] [/RIGHT] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT]
[/LEFT]
[/RIGHT]
2005-11-07 21:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=John Graziano]It is high time we start viewing the Russian Revolution as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn did:[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=3]
Imagine a very popular, intelligent, conscientious, good-looking and responsible young man, obviously destined for a highly successful life. One day, having had a few drinks too many, he runs his car into a tree and ends up a paraplegic. Accidents happen not only in the lives of persons, but also in the lives of nations.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
WORTH REPEATING.
(Even better comparison would have been that this drunken young man had been keeping company to a person of ill repute (JEWS) who was actually the one that crashed the car...)
Petr
2005-11-07 21:42 | User Profile
Well the notion that the Bolshevik takeover was somehow inevitable is thorougjly refuted by Richard Pipes in his books.