LA REVOLUCION RUSA DE LENIN A STALIN CARR PDF
Carr, Edward H – La Revolución Rusa (De Lenin a Stalin, ). Laura Lorenzo. Uploaded by. Laura Lorenzo. Loading Preview. Sorry, preview is currently. Results 1 – 11 of 11 LA REVOLUCIÓN RUSA: DE LENIN A STALIN, – by CARR, E. H. and a great selection of related books, art and collectibles. : LA REVOLUCION RUSA (DE LENIN A STALIN, – ( ) by E.H. Carr and a great selection of similar New, Used and.
|Published (Last):||2 July 2011|
|PDF File Size:||14.12 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.49 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently ,enin Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem.
Return to Book Page. Robert William Davies Introduction.
Carr is the acknowledged authority on Soviet Russia. In The Russian Revolution from Lenin to Stalin -he provides the student and general reader alike with insights recolucion knowledge of a lifetime’s work. This book, lemin available in a brand new edition, is, without doubt, the standard short history of the Russian Revolution and now contains a new introduction stalib E.
This book, now available in a brand new edition, is, without doubt, the standard short history of the Russian Revolution and now contains a new introduction by R. Paperbackpages. Published April 3rd by Palgrave Macmillan first published To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about The Russian Revolution from Lenin to Stalinplease sign up.
Lists with This Book. The revolution of and his follower years narreted step by step in a objetive and historical view that develop the events and the consecuences in the U. S and in the international panorama of one of the most influent chapters on the 20th Century for the changes revolucin this revolution made in a feudal country and the effects that this supposed against capitalism countries.
A great book for historical facts and knowledges from this event that always mantain the proffesional line of a good his The revolution of and his follower years narreted step by step in a objetive and historical view that develop the events and the rhsa in the U. A great book for historical facts and knowledges from this event that always mantain the proffesional line of a good historian like Edward Hallet.
Very Usefull for understand the beginning of the socialism in the U. Jan 08, Michael Gilbride rated it really liked it. Carr devoted lenih years of his life to writing the fourteen volume, two fe words and arguably the definitive history of twentieth century Russia.
This is his magnum opus distilled into two hundred pages.
The Russian Revolution from Lenin to Stalin 1917-1929
Carr, like Hobsbawn, had a leftist political perspective which needs to be factored in when reading this. Carr had changed his mind on elements of the history that he had written once the horror of what Carr devoted thirty years of his life to writing the fourteen volume, two million words and arguably the definitive history of twentieth century Russia. Carr had changed his mind on elements of the history that he had written once the horror of what had occurred under Stalin began to emerge.
Nonetheless, this remains an excellent account of the factual details of what transpired, especially so on the the economic history. When the Bolsheviks nationalised the banks, the economy crashed, which should have acted as a warning not to rush into further nationalisation, but because the economists and planners were so ideologically driven, it was not heeded.
There followed a “catastrophic decline of industry” as etatism continued at breakneck pace. The Bolsheviks attempted to centralise all of the food that was produced meaning that the farmers could not keep any that they made to feed themselves and their families.
This the fundamental issue with Marxism in that it predicted some idealistic society where everybody just worked without any incentive. The reality remains more complex. As the food shortages worsened, Lenin recognised that a compromise had to be made. The government controlling everything was impractical and impossible.
Consequently, the New Economic Policy NEP was unveiled inwhich allowed peasants to keep enough of the food that they had produced and send the rest to the government. The policy reaped immediate benefits and production began to stabilise.
It was the liberalisation of the NEC that was the variable that changed. The NEC caused a backlash with the ideological Russian left at the time as the Party had begun trading with Germany ininitially buying tanks from them. The Bolsheviks believed that the whole world would eventually become socialist and so the fact that they had to do business with the evil capitalists in Germany irked many puritans within the Party.
Lenin had to work hard to bring everyone on board. The NEC had managed to stabilise the economy but that was about all it achieved and this was never going to suffice in the longer term. Six years on from the Revolution and the workers were worse off than before it. In essence, the poorest people suffered the most because central planners willed it so. Therefore, “planning became a political and not purely an economic activity”. The targets that were set were too political and idealistic and ostracised any economists that were not of a similar mindset.
As a result, the workers had to build canals and roads and were not producing food for people to eat. They could barely struggle to feed the population when they were solely focused on food production so when they began to build the means of production too, something had to give.
The Party then faced the dilemma of whether or not “prices go up or wages come down”. In a capitalist society, the equipment would have been bought and leased by private companies designed to do these jobs. When prices skyrocketed they “tried to force down retail prices by decree”. This compelled people who made goods to trade them on the black market as they could get higher prices there.
Sadly, we have not learned that most basic of economic lessons and we can see the same thing happening in Venezuela today. The poorest suffer the most. This remains the tragic irony of communism. Despite the noblest of intentions, no government can impose its will upon the people without taking away their liberty. It baffles me when I hear leftists use the term “Kulak” in modern parlance.
Carr, Edward H – La Revolución Rusa (De Lenin a Stalin, ) | Laura Lorenzo –
Carr himself says that the term “became one of abuse”. The same problem that had gnawed at communism from the outset began to rear its head again, namely that the “large collective unit was more likely to provide a surplus for the market than the individual peasant working primarily for the needs of himself and his family”.
In other words, like it or loathe it, if you are a peasant and you ruda that every single bit of food that you produce will be forcibly removed to go towards the state, then what motivation do you have to produce excess? You will not produce more. If you know that your work will feed your family and you can sell the excess, then you have a reason to work harder. They increased wages and reduced prices. It does not take a PhD in economics to work out how that would stalni out.
It was not just the Kulaks who felt the squeeze. The peasants also bitterly resented having to hand over the means of production. On a practical level, it meant that they had to give their farmhouses, animals and tools over to the state for the greater good. You still hear modern Marxists opine about seizing satlin “means of production”.
This is what it meant in Russia. You take from the poorest with the aim of a benevolent state dividing up the food for people. The mind boggles how seemingly intelligent people could not see the problem with “collectivisation” and “seizing the means of production”.
The fact is that the ordinary peasants, who the Party claimed to represent, cxrr their fanciful “dictatorship of the proletariat” were the very people who “most resented the demand to hand over their animals. Many chose to slaughter their animals rather than hand them over”.
Collectivisation lead to the deaths of between 1 to 5 million people. It was not dictatorship or totalitarianism. It was the communist economic policy. After the first five year plan, there was virtually no private enterprise left in the Soviet Union. Once again, the weakest suffered the most.
At this point, there was the option to liberalise the economy or to use force to bend it to their will. Sadly, the Party chose the staln option. As Anna Applebaum pointed out in “Gulag: A History”, peasants and Kulaks who refused to work “were taken most seriously of all.
They ran counter to the entire ethos of the camp. After strikers were severely punished”. Carr wrote of the Bolsheviks that they “had no use for the Western principles of democracy and constitutional government”. This is why the Russian Revolution must be consigned to the dustbin of history and not lionised like some people still do today.
Trotsky, for example, wrote in “Terrorism And Communism” that democracy was a “puerile illusion” and a “worthless masquerade”. He believed that the Party would speak for the working class. The conceit was obvious. Power can only come from the people. No doubt, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks rusw exquisite intentions.
This did not give them the right to violently force their will on the Russian people.
La Revolución Rusa : de Lenin a Stalin, – Edward Hallett Carr – Google Books
Analysing the election results before the Bolsheviks took power is fascinating. In the election on 12th Novemberthe total leftist parties won out of seats in the Duma with the Bolsheviks winning of these. The people never wanted them. Knowing this, Lenin suspended all elections in January At the first Communist International, “Comintern”, Lenin “denounced bourgeois democracy and proclaimed the dictatorship of the proletariat” whilst Trotsky employed revoluciln language in speeches he gave at the time.
It is intriguing to read that some modern leftists still mythologise Lenin and Trotsky as their philosophy was not, and is not, d with democracy.