Intimate Enemies: Demonizing the Bolshevik Opposition, 1918-1928. Pitt Series in Russian and East European Studies by Igal Halfin (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 569 historicalscholarship(spuriousfootnotes, references, equivocations,etc.) to pass fantasy offas factand have providedinspiration fortheriseofthe extreme-right in Russia. Sincethisbookwaswritten theremains ofthetwomissing children appear to have been unearthed (thestory was carriedon thefront page ofIzvestiia, 24August 2007).The condition ofthebonesandtheir locationserveas further vindication forSlater'sversion ofevents. Nevertheless, itis doubtful thatany of thiswillsatisfy believersin hiddenconnections and supernatural forces. Conspiracytheorists need not despair:the Russian OrthodoxChurchhas rejectedtheDNA evidence,alternative histories continueto flourish on the Internet, and itshouldnotbe forgotten thattheremainsoftheroyalspaniel haveyetto be found. Department ofHistory Iain Laughlan University ofStirling Halfin, Igal. Intimate Enemies: Demonizing the Bolshevik Opposition, igi8-ig28. Pitt Seriesin Russianand East European Studies.University of Pittsburgh Press,Pittsburgh, PA, 2007.416 pp. Illustrations. Tables. Notes.Index. $27.95(paperback). What could Roman Malinovskii, a notorious Bolshevik who spied forthe tsarist secret police,and Leon Trotskii, one ofthemostprominent Bolshevik leaders, haveincommon? As IgalHalfinshowsinhisnewbook,Malinovskii's trialin 1918and Trotskii's persecution in the 1920sbear remarkable resemblances ,and demonstrate how the Bolsheviks were dealingwithtreason associatedwith internalopposition.Studyingthe first post-Revolutionary decade,Halfinanalyseshow theopposition was demonizedand persecuted. He interprets this process primarily as a result ofa changing political discourse rather thanas personalstruggles within theBolshevik leadership. Remarkably, bytheend ofthedecade theterm'oppositionist' gradually evolvedfroman 'erringcomrade'who could be persuaded,to a 'wrecker'who shouldbe isolatedand purged.Thus, Halfinprovidesa new interpretation of the intra-Party struggles thatpreparedthegroundfortheGreatPurge. Halfinthoroughly explains theorigins oftheBolsheviks' harshtreatment of theopposition. He showsthattreason within theParty was regarded as most dangerous becausethosefamiliar withrevolutionary theory andpractice could lead theworking class astraymore easilythanall imperialists, fascists and White émigréscombined.Also, analysingthe Bolshevikattitudetowards oppositionists, Halfinfindsmany similarities withthe Christiantradition, wherenotthecrime, butthesoulofthedelinquent wasthefocusofattention, and evil intentions were punishedmore severely than inadvertent crimes. Allthiscreateda particular ruthlessness in theattacks againstnotonlyopen oppositionists butalso theirsympathizers. In thebook'ssixchapters Halfinchronologically tracesthedebateson the Workers' Opposition, theNew CourseDiscussionduringthelastmonths of 570 SEER, 87, 3, JULY 2OO9 Lenin's life,the emergenceof trotskyist and zinovievist 'deviations'from thePartymajority's political linein 1924to 1925,and finally, thediscussions on the UnitedOppositionin the late 1920s.He underscores thatwhereas oppositionist viewswereinitially tolerated as an acceptableexpression ofopinion ,bythelate 1920stheybecameregardedas a breachofPartydiscipline or outright 'counterrevolution'. Mostinterestingly, Halfinexamines indetailhowintra-Party struggles were interpreted at grassrootslevel.He analyses discussions on theopposition and treatment of the oppositionists' sympathizers in the PetrogradCommunist University and TomskTechnological Institute. He showsthattheposition of thecentralPartyleadership prevailedtherebecause oftheauthority ofthe CentralCommittee and the PartyCongresses, but also because the centre effectively intervened whenever theuniversity deviated politically. In theend, followers of the oppositionwere purgedfromthe institutions of higher learning, and from theParty. Carefully readingboththeleadership's resolutions and grass-roots discussionson the opposition, Halfinmakesseveralimportant pointsabout the intra-Party struggle ofthe1920s.First, he arguesthatopposition couldhardly be seenas a conceptual alternative toStalinism, butrather was 'theotherside oftheStalinist coin'(p.327).BoththeCentralCommittee and theopposition, and theirsupporters at grass-roots level,werearguing within thesame discourseand had thesameunderstanding ofthepolitical process.The oppositionists evendid notopposethepurgesin theParty, butonlystressed their unfairness. Second,he makesclearthatthecontrolof Bolshevik language, no lessthanthecontrol ofthePartyapparatus, determined thewinner. The ability oftheCentralCommittee's majority toturn publicdiscourse toitsown advantagewas decisivein stripping theopposition ofitsgrass-root support. Taken together, Halfin'sinterpretation ofthestruggle withtheintra-Party oppositionis provocative and interesting. It willnot be, however,entirely novelforthosefamiliar withhis earlierbooks,From Darkness toLight: Class, Consciousness, and Salvationin Revolutionary Russia (Pittsburgh,PA, 2000) and Terror inMy Soul:Communist Autobiographies onTrial(Cambridge, MA, 2003) that already contain manyofhisinsights as wellas someofthefactual information on thetreatment oftheoppositionists in thePartyand,in particular, institutionsofhigher learning. Also,Halfin'sdiscussion ofthedramaticchangeof attitude towards opposition in themid-and late 1920sis nottotally compelling .It isquitepossiblethatbecauseoftheperceived 'corruptive' influence of theNEP as wellas theexpectedideologicalmaturation oftherankand file theBolsheviks, as Halfinargues,came to rejecttheveryidea ofjustifiable internal opposition and toviewpositively theunanimity ofparty opinion.But it wouldbe interesting to knowwhythistransformation happenedexactly whenit did. Possibly, thediscursive changecannotexplainit all, and real historical agentswiththeirconcrete interests and passionsshouldnotbe left out oftheanalysis? Unfortunately, thebook underreviewis notfreefrom someirritating inaccuracies and misprints. For example,thehead of GPU, Feliks EdmundovichDzerzhinskiiis mistakenly called Jan Dzerzhiskii REVIEWS 571 (p. 109),and the'bourgeois phase' oftherevolutionary processis rendered as 'bourgeois face'(p. 181). These criticisms aside, Halfin'sbook is a valuable contribution to the history ofthepoliticalstruggles ofthe1920sthatcan be readwithbenefit by all scholars oftheperiod. Department ofForeign Languages andAreaStudies L. G. Novikova MoscowStateUniversity Baron, Nick. TheKingofKarelia:ColP. J. Woodsandthe British Intervention inNorth Russia igi8-igig: A History and Memoir.Francis Boutle, London, 2007. 345 PP- Maps. Illustrations. Chronology.Appendices.Notes. Index.£14.99(paperback). In...