Stalinism As Humdrum Politics

Among historians, unlike Marxists, the title is an honored and coveted one. So much so, indeed, that many historians, no doubt unconsciously, exaggerate the errors and consistency of the view and draw an unnecessarily sharp line between their positions and those of their predecessors. The orthodox position, however conceived, can always be challenged from many points of view. Since the revisionists are likely to disagree among themselves, it is usually hard to put them into easily definable groups. In this instance, however, Sheila Fitzpatrick is correct in identifying a new and self-consciously revisionist group of historians of the era of Stalin. As I understand it, this group consists of Roberta Manning, Gabor Ritterspom, Lynne Viola, William Chase, and above all, J. Arch Getty, the only one among these scholars who has published a book, The Origins of the Great Purges (1985), fully developing his point of view. These historians, with one exception Americans, have presented a picture of Stalinism that is radically different from the conventional one. Clearly, something noteworthy is happening in rewriting the history of Stalinism, and it is necessary to take account of the changes. In responding to Fitzpatrick's article, I find that my impression of the new literature is somewhat different from hers. She presents the revisionist point of view with sympathy, mitigating their combative tone and smoothing out some of the rough edges. If the revisionists were as reasonable as she, I would have fewer disagreements with them. What are the defining characteristics of this group of historians? It cannot simply be a rejection of the totalitarian for that model, as an analytical tool, has been rejected, rightly or wrongly, by the majority of historians of the Soviet Union. To mention only one prominent example, Stephen Cohen has argued against this model, and yet his views are as far removed from the revisionists as they are from those of Ulam and Fainsod. According to Fitzpatrick, the new element in the revisionist historiography of Stalinism is the rejection of earlier preoccupations with ideology and politics in favor of a new emphasis on social history. Here, I think her assessment of the group's work is mistaken. If by social history she means an analysis of social relations and social mobility, then it is she alone among the revisionists who has made a lasting contribution with her studies of social mobility. If by social history she has in mind an examination of how simple people actually lived, then

Political science · Politics · Law · Soviet and Russian History

• Debates historiográficos sobre el estalinismo en lengua inglesa

  Open Access•Ana María Sánchez Resalt•Ayer Revista de Historia…•2018

  Add to list

• The Soviet Union

  Vladimir Shlapentokh•Journal of Communist Studies•1999

  Add to list

• Local Nomenklatura in Communist Poland

  Maciej Tymiński•Europe Asia Studies•2017

  Add to list