Микола Дорошко. Номенклатура: Керівна верхівка радянської України (1917–1938 рр.). Киів: “Ніка-Центр”, 2008. 365 с. ISBN: 978-966-521-484-7; Геннадій Ефіменко. Взаємовідносини Кремля та радянської України: Економічний аспект (1917–1919 pp.). Киів: НАНУ, 2 | Ab Imperio
Микола Дорошко. Номенклатура: Керівна верхівка радянської України (1917–1938 рр.). Киів: “Ніка-Центр”, 2008. 365 с. ISBN: 978-966-521-484-7; Геннадій Ефіменко. Взаємовідносини Кремля та радянської України: Економічний аспект (1917–1919 pp.). Киів: НАНУ, 2
Стэфен Велыченко
2/2009
Микола Дорошко. Номенклатура: Керівна верхівка радянської України (1917–1938 рр.). Киів: “Ніка-Центр”, 2008. 365 с. ISBN: 978-966-521-484-7; Геннадій Ефіменко. Взаємовідносини Кремля та радянської України: Економічний аспект (1917–1919 pp.). Киів: НАНУ, 2008. 229 с. ISBN: 978-966-024-918-9.
Рецензия публикуется по-английски (на английской части сайта).
Примечания
[1]In the context of English-language scholarship, his book complements the basic books on the subject that mention but do not elaborate upon economic issues before 1921: A. Adams. Bolsheviks in the Ukraine: Second Campaign, 1918–1919. New Haven, 1963; J. Borys. The Sovietization of Ukraine, 1917–1923: The Communist Doctrine and Practice of National Self-determination. Edmonton, 1980; and J. Mace. Communism and the Dilemmas of National Liberation: National Communism in Soviet Ukraine, 1918–1933. Cambridge, MA, 1983.
[2]Bolsheviks representing 95 of Ukraine’s 300 soviets took power in Kharkiv on December 12 (25) with approximately 4,500 troops and Red Guards – of whom approximately 2,100 had arrived from Moscow the previous week. The Bolsheviks held 19 of the 40 seats in the city’s Soviet Executive in early December when they got it to drop its earlier support for Kyiv and align with Moscow. As of October 1917, Ukraine had 15,000 Red Guards. Moscow and Petrograd sent 31,000 Russian Red Guards into Ukraine on December 13 and 14 – before the Bolsheviks declared war on the Rada. Arms and munitions were shipped to the major Ukrainian cities on December 11. Istoriia mista Kharkova / Red. O. Iarmysh. Kharkiv, 2004. P. 161; R. Wade. Red Guards and Workers’ Militias in the Russian Revolution. Stanford, 1984. P. 270; V. Hrynevych et al. Istoriia Ukrains’kogo viis’ka 1917–1995. Kyiv, 1996. P. 49; M. Frenkin. Zakhvat vlasti Bol’shevikami v Rossii i rol’ tylovykh garnizonov armii: Podgotovka i provedenie oktiabr’skogo miatezha, 1917–1918 gg. Jerusalem, 1982. P. 339.
[3]Historians now distinguish between theories of imperialism, that focus on who benefited from foreign rule and its costs, and on centers rather than peripheries, and theories of empire that dwell on how empires work and the interaction between center and periphery. M. Mann. The Sources of Social Power. Cambridge, 1986–1993; M. Doyle. Empires. Ithaca, 1984. On how Ukrainians understood their relationship to Russia: S. Velychenko. The Issue of Russian Colonialism in Ukrainian Thought // Ab Imperio. 2002. No. 1. Pp. 332-366. For the most recent nonstructuralist approaches toward the phenomenon of empire see: I. Gerasimov, J. Kusber and A. Semyonov (Eds.). Empire Speaks Out: Languages of Rationalization and Self-Description in the Russian Empire. Leiden, 2009.
In the introduction to the 1917 edition of Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), he explained that because of censorship he could not deal with Russia and instead referred to Japan and Korea. «The careful reader will easily substitute [in the relevant passages] Russia for Japan, and Finland, Poland, Courland, Ukraine ... or other regions peopled by non-Great Russians, for Korea.» V. I. Lenin. Polnoe sobranie sochinennii. Moscow, 1962. Vol. 27. Pp. 302, 420.
[5]Two important pronouncements by Lenin on Ukrainian issues remain unpublished and presumed lost. The first a speech given in Zurich in 1914 and the second, a speech at the 8th Party Conference in December 1919. At the 12th Congress in 1923, Iakovlev claimed someone destroyed the latter text because it was a condemnation of Russian communist chauvinism. I. Dzuiba. Internatsionalizm chy Russyfikatsiia? Kyiv, 2005. P. 67.
[7]I. V. Stalin. Sochineniia. Moscow, 1954. Vol. 4. Pp. 351-353. He saw no third alternative. A year earlier (P. 285) he had called Russia (Rossiia), that is the entire former Russian empire, a «colony.» Lenin never called Russia a «colony» as he realized a «colony» could hardly lead the world socialist revolution. A. Zdorov dates the transformation of the Bolsheviks «objectively» into a Russian national bourgeois government to the Brest Treaty of March 1918 and their split with the left SRs. A. Zdorov. Gosudarstvennyi kapitalizm i modernizatsiia Sovetskogo Soiuza: Marksistskii analiz sovetskogo obshchestva. Moscow, 2006. Pp. 41-54.
[8]The book is a bibliographical rarity since published in an English translation but not yet republished in Ukraine: S. Mazlakh, V. Shakhrai. On the Current Situation in the Ukraine / Introd. by M. Luther. Ann Arbor, 1970.
[9]Efimenko cites from the original proceedings. The full speech is reproduced in: P. Khrystiuk. Zamitky i materialy do istorii Ukrains’koi revoliutsii. Vienna, 1921. Vol. IV. Pp. 186-189. In March 1918, defending the Brest Treaty, Lenin claimed Russia proper had sufficient resources to supply each and all «with adequate means of life.» Lenin. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Vol. 36. P. 80. Although he mixes the terms «Rus» and «Rossiia,» based on the context, he is referring to the Russian borders established by the Brest Treaty.
[10]It is unknown whether there was a link between this group and the Russian industrialists Aleksander Konovalov and Pavel Riabushinskii, key figures in the Progressist Party who published the journal Problemy Velikoi Rossii (1916).
[11]Kievskaia mysl’. 1917. 12 (25) December; Iuzhnaia gazeta. 1918. 4 January; Iuznaia kopeika. 1918. 16 January. The Kaluga Union was apparently part of the broader initiative organized by Moscow Kadets and right Mensheviks. One important supporter was the Russian co-op leader E. Kuskova. Utro Rossii. 1917. 28 December; Russkie vedomosti. 1918. 19 February.
[12]This Russian national tendency reemerged in the early twenties when Russian officials began complaining about the lack of Russian republican institutions. T. Martin. The Russification of the RSFSR // Cahiers du Monde russe. 1998. No. 1-2. P. 102.
[13]Roman Rozdolsky. Engels and the «Nonhistoric» Peoples: The National Question in the Revolution of 1848 / Ed. and trans. by J.-P. Himka. Glasgow, 1986. Pp. 184, 189.
[14]They seem have been in his own secretariat. In his draft of the Resolution on Soviet Ukraine of November 1919, he directed party members to oppose «linguistic Russification» there. This was replaced in the final published version with a call to oppose «artificial methods» that relegated Ukrainian into the background. Vos’moi s»ezd RKP(b). Protokoly. Moscow, 1959. P. 106. Draft: V. I. Lenin. Sochineniia. Moscow, 1950. Vol. 30. P. 142. Final version: Idem. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Vol. 39. P. 335.
[15]Well known is the quip variously attributed to Kamenev, Kalinin, and later Radek, about Bolshevism being founded on Jewish brains, Latvian bayonets, and Russian idiots – or fists according to another version. An analogous British saying had it that the Irish conquered the empire, the Scots administered it, the Welsh did the banking, and the English spent the profits.
[16]The Ukrainian association of Bolshevism with Russian imperialism was confirmed at the 8th party conference in December 1919 where speakers stated that Bolshevik policy toward Ukraine must not reinforce the perception that Soviet power there was Muscovite-Russian power. Vos’maia konferentsiia RKP(b). Protokoly. Moscow, 1961. P. 87. Manuilsky wanted his comments (P. 108), quoted at the beginning of this essay, included in the «Resolution on Soviet Ukraine.» Passed at the conference, it instructed all party members to desist from behavior and practices that could be construed as anti-Ukrainian.
[17]F. Silnitskii. Natsional’naia politika KPSS v period s 1917 po 1922 god. Munich, 1978. Pp. 225-226. The document is from the Moscow Party Archives. There is some evidence that rank-and-file Black Hundred party members joined the Bolsheviks during and after 1917. Before he joined the party in Kyiv, Iurii Piatakov was supposedly the leader of the local Black Hundred students group. M. Agursky. The Third Rome: National Bolshevism in the USSR. Boulder, CO, 1987. Pp. 151-155. There is no study of relationships between anti-Ukrainian Russians in Ukraine, Stalin, and Nikolai Ustrialov’s «Smenovekhovtsy» – Russians who supported the Bolsheviks as restorers of Imperial Russian power; about this group of thinkers, see: H. Hardeman. Coming to Terms with the Soviet Regime: The «Changing Signposts» Movement among Russian Émigrés in the Early 1920s. DeKalb, 1994.
[18]TsDAVO. F. 21. Op. 174. D. 2; TsDAHO. F. 43. Op. 1. D. 65. L. 13.
[19]TsDAVO. F. 1113. Op. 2. D. 200. L. 4. The prisoner claimed that the words in the latter phrase were Rakovsky’s own.
[20]Vos’moi s»ezd. Pp. 106, 378. The question of Russians or the Bolshevik government using Esperanto did not appear in the debates. There is a curious slip in one of Lenin’s directives from April 1919. That month the chief of staff complained the army was weakened because Russia had been divided into two parts and in the western part Latvians and Ukrainians and their Soviet republics were setting up their own formations and governments. These were the various national communists that Lenin was forced to tolerate to hold on to the territories they controlled. Lenin replied: «draw-up a directive from the CC on military union to all the ethnics [natsionaly].» Leninskii sbornik. Moscow, 1942. Pp. 118-119. Two days later he condemned Ukrainian Bolsheviks privately in a letter as «little shits [merzotniki]» (Efimenko, P. 120).
[21]Cited in: M. Frolov. Kompartiino-radians’ka elita v URSR. Kyiv, 2003. P. 72. In 1920 there were 15 declared Ukrainians in the Cheka’s counterintelligence unit and they comprised less than 1 percent of its total complement. Throughout the 1920s there were none within its higher ranks and it was dominated by Russians. O. V. Budnitskii. Evrei i russkaia revoliutsiia. Moscow, 1999. Pp. 330-337.
[22]P. Zakharchenko et al. U pokhodi za voliu (1919). Kyiv, 2000. P. 56; M. Frolov. P. 319. Only 20 percent of all Ukraine’s peasant households during those years were classified as «poor.»
[23]F. Silnitskii. P. 227. Ukrainian Communist Party stationery letterhead was in two languages, Ukrainian and Esperanto. TsDAVO. F. 43. Op. 1. D. 65 passim. A UNR minister in exile, Isaak Mazepa, used them in a booklet justifying Ukrainian independence: Bol’shevism i okupatsiia Ukrainy. L’viv, 1922.
[24]Lenin. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Vol. 37. Pp. 216-220.
[25]Terry Martin. Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923–1939. Ithaca, 2001.
[26]Secular Jews were in all left-wing parties, but Bolshevik Jews were visible because their party controlled territory where they had government jobs. To counteract the hostility this visibility in local institutions provoked the Central Committee in May 1919 decided to replace as many as they could in Belarus and Ukraine with Russians. Nothing appears to have changed after 12 months. S. Pavliuchenkov. The Jewish Question in the Russian Revolution, or Concerning the Reasons for the Bolshevik’s Defeat in Ukraine in 1919 // Revolutionary Russia. 1997. No. 2. Pp. 26-36.
[27]Faced with the threat of losing Ukraine in late 1919, Lenin began giving government positions to former Ukrainian left SRs, left SDs, and the «federalist» faction within the Ukrainian branch of his party, rather than to imported Russians and members of its «right» faction. Russian members parties like the Mensheviks also got appointments. Lenin allotted to Ukraine internal affairs, agriculture, justice, food supply, and education, all of which it had under the Provisional Government. It also formally got health and welfare departments. It included nine, instead of only five tsarist provinces, as under the Provisional Government in 1917, and Ukrainian was to be the language of administration. Ukraine’s Bolshevik government as of 1920 did not control finance, economy, or labor, and was subject to a single centralized party based outside its territory. As of January 1920, Kharkiv could appoint in reality only three commissars – justice, education, and agriculture.
[28]At the end of that year, Moscow’s Communist Party of Ukraine had 11,000 members of whom almost none could speak Ukrainian. The national communist Ukrainian Communist Party, overwhelmingly Ukrainian and composed of former Left-Ukrainian SR and Ukrainian SD party members had 15,000 members. M. Frolov. P. 31.
[29]V. M. Danylenko et al. «Ukrainizatsiia» 1920-30kh rokiv: Peredumovy, zdobutky, uroky. Kyiv, 2003. Pp. 64-80. This valuable monograph, perhaps the best written on the subject, was published in 120 copies in a binding that falls apart as it is read.
[30]V. M. Nikolskyi. Represyvna diialnist’ organiv derzhavnoi bezpeky SRSR v Ukraini: Istoryko-statystychne doslidzhennia. Dontesk, 2003. Pp. 94-98.The percentage breakdown by categories did not reflect reality as much as what GPU-NKVD 8th Directorate planners thought it should be. Officials planned and calculated the total number of arrests before they were done and thereafter, all along the hierarchy, individuals «requested» that their «limit» be increased.
[31]J. Vansina. Paths in the Rainforests. London, 1990.
[32]D. K. Das, A. Verma. The Armed Police in the British Colonial Tradition // Policing. 1998. No. 2. Pp. 354-367. A comparative study of these issues might be done from the perspective suggested by E. D. Weitz. «From the Vienna to the Paris System: International Politics and the Entangled Histories of Human Rights, Forced Deportations, and Civilizing Missions // American Historical Review. 2008. Vol. 113. No. 5. Pp. 1313-1343.
[33]Despite themselves, Ukraine’s Soviet-period Russian-speaking creole elite, who identify themselves with the former colonial power, ended up ruling an independent Ukraine in 1991 by default. Thus, whether post-1991 Ukraine is postcolonial or decolonized is problematic. While this group, now centered on the Party of Regions, lost the control it once exercised over Ukraine’s scholarship and education to national democrats, it still controls the bureaucracy, media, and economy either directly or as managers for Russian corporations – often via the Virgin Isles and Cyprus. This makes post-1991 Ukraine more similar to Latin America than to South Asia. J. Klor de Alva. Colonialism and Postcolonialism as (Latin) American Mirages // Colonial Latin American Review. 1992. No. 1-2. Pp. 3-23.
[34]Whether or not linguistic Russification in two–three generations results in cultural Russification and assimilation depends on institutional and personal factors. Scots and Americans did not become English despite linguistic Anglicization because they had laws and institutions different from those of the English. By the nineteenth century, Ukrainian laws and institutions had long ago been abolished, which meant that adopting the Russian language was likely to bring with it adaptation of Russian identity. Yet individuals also choose identities. Mykola Khvylovy and Georgii Lapchynskii, strong defenders of Ukrainian national interests, were both native-born Russians.
[35]In 1831, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Native Americans «domestic dependent nations.» Thus, they were not citizens. In 1885 they were reclassified as «local dependent communities.» The fate of indigenous Hawaiians today on their own island, where they are no more than 20 percent of the population, and where Asian settlers claim to be «native,» is also instructive. C. Fujikane, J. Okamura (Eds.). Asian Settler Colonialism: From Local Governance to the Habits of Everyday Life in Hawaii. Honolulu, 2008.
[36]J. Osterhammel. Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. Princeton, 1997. Pp. 10-11, gives a definition that can include Ukraine although he does not mention the country. R.J.C. Young. Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Oxford, 2001. P. 124, classifies the Soviet Union as «at once colonial and anti-colonialist.» He recognizes the significance of James Connolly, Sultan-Galiev, Tan Malaka and M. N. Roy as Marxist national communists, but makes no mention of Shakhrai and Mazlakh or Ukrainian national communism. See also: J. Clearly. Outrageous Fortune: Capital and Culture in Modern Ireland. Dublin, 2006. Pp. 11-37; T. McDonough (Ed.). Was Ireland a Colony? Dublin, 2005; N. MacQueen. Colonialism. London, 2007 is still restricted to the «overseas colonialism of Europe.» For some innovative theoretical insights, see also: A. Stoler. Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense. Princeton, 2008; A. Stoler, C. McGranahan, P. Perdue (Eds.). Imperial Formations. Santa Fe, NM, 2007.
[37]R. N. Baiguzin. Gosudarstvennaia bezopasnost’ Rossii: Istoriia i sovremennost’. Moscow, 2004. Pp. 375-76; P. S. Lykho. Sovetskaia vlast’ na mestakh: Robota Kommunistychnoi partii Chornuskogo raionu na Poltavshchyni (1921– 1941) // Ukrainskyi zbirnyk. 1957. Vol. 8. Pp. 138-139. S. Pidhainy. Ukrains’ka intelligentsiia na Solovkakh. New Ulm, 1947. P. 23. In 1928, 38,500 people in Ukraine were under surveillance. Of the 25,888 «politicals» at least 40 percent were associated with Ukrainian issues. See: V. Nikolskyi. Represyvna diialnist’. Pp. 48-53. Nikolskyi classified the arrested by nationality and as a percentage of total arrested. He did not indicate what percentage they represented of each nationality. His figures suggest that most declared Russians were arrested for economic and normal crimes, whereas most Ukrainians were arrested on political issues. The issue needs further study.
[38]M. Volobuev. Do problemy ukrains’koi ekonomiky // I. Maistrenko (Ed.). Dokumenty ukrains’kogo kommunizmu. New York, 1962. The article was written against the backdrop of discussions about the First Five-Year Plan. It argued that the term «colony» could not be limited to overseas countries that received capital exports. If the Plan did not treat Ukraine as a single economic unit and deprived it of investments in favor of the Central Russian industrial region, then Ukraine would again become the colony it had been rather than the equal socialist republic it was supposed to be, and it would not be prepared for future incorporation into the world socialist economy.
[39]J. Osterhammel. Pp. 10-12; D. K. Fieldhouse. The Colonial Empires: A Comparative Survey from the Eighteenth century. London, 1965. Pp. 7-13; G. Fredrickson. The Arrogance of Race. Middleton, 1985. Pp. 216-235.