Celebrating the Russian revolution: from the ox-drawn plough to nuclear power and Sputnik



I was six years of age when ‘Sputnik’ became the first artificial earth satellite. It was sent into orbit by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957. I have a vague memory of my parents taking me into the street that night and, with curious neighbours, peering into the dark star-lit skies over West Brunswick, Melbourne. I’m fairly sure someone said they could see it, and maybe I saw it, or something, among the stars too.

I also recall my father, Loreto, remarking on how the success of Sputnik highlighted ‘the superiority of socialism’. Of course, I didn’t understand what that meant. What was socialism? And what was it meant to be superior to? He was a Labor voter, but very much to the left, and it wasn’t uncommon for Labor men and women to talk favourably about socialism in those days.

About a decade later, when I was 16, my dad and I would sometimes take the number 19 tram from Brunswick to the City on Saturday mornings and visit the International Bookshop in Excelsior House, 17 Elizabeth Street. An antiquated rickety old lift would take us up to the second floor where we’d be greeted by the Communist Party shopkeeper, Jack Morrison.

Sometimes a couple of dad’s young workmates from the factory where he worked would meet us there. We’d browse through copies of glossy propaganda magazines like ‘Soviet Pictorial’ and ‘China Pictorial’, marvelling at the photographic evidence of bumper harvests and advanced technology. I was a reader of science fiction and the images of gigantic tractors and huge pumpkins enthused and fascinated me.

By this stage of my life I had an understanding of socialism and identified with it in a gut kind of way. It was about progress, about eradication of poverty, about imagining a better future based on scientific discovery and technological innovation – and about the working class who produced society’s wealth taking control of the means of producing it.

At a time when censorship laws in Australia and the west were ridiculous, it was also about greater freedom. The International Bookshop flaunted censorship laws by stocking some of the books that had been banned by the government for political or sexual content. (D H Lawrence’s ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ was in the latter category).

An example of political censorship was a ban on a pamphlet that exposed US war crimes in Vietnam. I forget its title now but remember obtaining copies from the Eureka Youth League in 1968 and distributing them, surreptitiously, at my high school. The pamphlet was banned under the Obscene Publications Act, from memory.

* * * *

My father had served in the Second World War, volunteering in 1940 for the Royal Air Force in his homeland, Malta, when the Italian Fascists started bombarding the main island of the Mediterranean archipelago. He remembered the priests opposing British imperialism from the pulpit in the lead up to the War and assuring their congregations that Malta’s future was best served by accepting Mussolini’s Italia Irredenta.

By any measure, British imperialism’s crimes at that time were far worse than those of Italian imperialism, but on the other hand, British bourgeois democracy was much preferable to Italian/German fascism.

During the War, my father served in Africa, the Middle East, Palestine, and France, before being stationed in London after the War.

The War changed his world, everyone’s world, and in mixing with other RAF men, his eyes were opened to new ways of seeing and thinking. He remembered Jewish and Scottish airmen telling him about Stalin, the Soviet Union (“where the workers ruled”) and communism. (Note, they are called ‘airmen’ but they served on the ground, in regiments, and never flew).

The troops knew that Stalin’s Red Army were routing the Nazis in Europe and my dad’s comrades told him the story about the early British appeasement of Hitler and the west’s refusal to heed Stalin’s calls for collective security against fascism as early as 1933.

After the War, in London, still in uniform, my father thrived in the cosmopolitan environment of one of the world’s biggest cities. Servicemen in uniform were given free tickets to the West End theatres and to lectures given by the likes of George Bernard Shaw and Hewlett Johnson, the ‘Red Dean of Canterbury’. My dad took advantage of such opportunities.

He started buying the ‘Daily Worker’ regularly, the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain, and found that while there were strong pockets of anti-communism, in general Londoners were tolerant of it and there was sympathy for Stalin and the Red Army.

My dad told me about an occasion when he went to work at his job in the Air Ministry in London after the War, having purchased the Daily Worker that morning. Walking through the main office, one of the heads of the ministry – a ‘Lord’ no less – noticed him and asked, ‘What’s that paper you’re carrying?’ My dad saluted and replied, ‘Sir! It’s the Daily Worker, the newspaper of the Communist Party’. Lord-so-and-so responded: ‘Oh, I thought it was. May I borrow it after you’ve finished with it? I forgot to buy mine this morning’.

It’s easy to forget that communism was popular after the War and that the Cold War arose in part because of communism’s popularity in Europe, west and east. If it’s true that reactionaries tremble at the mere rustle of leaves, then you can imagine how they responded to elections in places like France and Italy where between a quarter and third of the people voted Communist.

* * * *

I want to celebrate the centenary of the Russian revolution because it was an attempt to build socialism after the old feudal order had been overthrown by the people, led by the communist Bolsheviks. That it was led by communists was a rather flukish situation. The overthrow of the feudal order required a bourgeois democratic revolution that would develop capitalism. As David McMullen says in Rescuing the Message of the Communist Manifesto:

‘There is a thoroughly entrenched view that the experience of revolutions during the 20th century shows that communism has failed. It is true. There was a failure. However, it was not of communism, but rather of an attempt to sustain a path towards it when its preconditions were absent. Russia in 1917 and virtually all the “communist” regimes established mid-century were essentially backward pre-capitalist societies. Most people were peasants rather than proletarians, and they were more interested in land for the tiller than social ownership. There was little modern industry and thinking was more medieval than modern. They had not passed through the capitalist stage, which is necessary for a successful communist revolution’.

The Russian revolution also shows how the old order never just gives in. Civil war followed the revolutionary overthrow of the ruling class, with the old order backed by military forces of more than a dozen foreign governments.

Then there came the rise of fascism in Europe and the active pro-fascist fifth columns in various countries, especially the Soviet Union. Hitler hated communism, which he called Judeo-Bolshevism. In the Soviet Union, the fifth columnists engaged in sabotage and collaboration – as they did in some western countries too. In the west, the fascist sympathisers promoted isolationism in foreign policy. It’s “over there”, not our problem, we’ll only make things worse, blah blah blah. Such is the mentality that thinks in terms of ethnic identity and nationality rather than humanity.

As if things couldn’t become more difficult, there came the Second World War which, initially, the Soviet Union tried to keep out of; though Stalin had sought collective security agreements with Britain and other powers in the early 1930s when Hitler’s Nazis took power. Britain declined and instead entered into the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in 1934. Poland agreed to a non-aggression pact with Hitler, rather than collective security to thwart him, also in 1934.

The Nazi German invasion of the Soviet Union, and Soviet resistance, resulted in 25 million mainly Russian deaths. The Soviet Union instigated the greatest military action in world history known as Operation Bagration, codename for the 1944 Soviet Belorussian Strategic Offensive Operation, which secured the defeat of the Nazis. Women were mobilised along with men and the Red Army’s women’s sniper force became legendary in the Soviet Union. Lyudmila Pavlichenko shot 309 Nazi soldiers as a Ukrainian Red Army Soviet sniper during the war. (Woody Guthrie wrote a song for her in 1942).

It was understood at that time that the Soviet Union, despite what it had been through – a revolution followed by a civil war caused by the military intervention of forces backed by a dozen foreign governments, the subversive activities and sabotage of a pro-fascist fifth column, and an invasion by the German Nazis and their Finnish and Romanian allies that killed 25 million Soviet citizens – had achieved plenty through its socialist system.

Industrialisation, massive dam construction and electrification of the countryside had lifted millions from the acute poverty experienced under Tsardom. Stalin wanted to create “a second America” in terms of industrial progress. For the first time, the socialist republics of the USSR developed their own motor, aircraft, tank, tractor, machine tool, electrical and chemical industries – with the assistance of European and American experts.

The dam built on the Dnieper River from 1927 was the biggest hydro-electric station in Europe and was consistent with Lenin’s slogan: ‘Communism is soviet power plus electrification’.

lenin electrification soviet

New cities were built, most notably Magnitogorsk, which was based on iron ore mining and steel production. Hundreds of experts were brought in as advisers, including Americans, as the city was to be based on US steel-cities, Gary (Indiana) and Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania).

Roads, railways, canals also helped move Russia and the Soviet Union further from the feudal era of the ox-drawn plough. The Volga-Don Canal and the White Sea-Baltic Sea Canal were achievements of a system in which need and progress motivate planning and production. And, in 1954, the Soviet Union became the first country in the world to harness nuclear power for peaceful use, with the operation of the APS-1 nuclear power plant at Obninsk, the ‘Science City’.

This material progress, the application of human ingenuity in the creative-destructive transformation of Nature through labour, is a key reason as to why so many working class people in the west were attracted to socialism.

If the unleashing of the productive forces in a backward economy like Russia in the early C20th could produce such results via social ownership, then what could be achieved under socialism in the advanced industrial west where progress was held back by concentrated private ownership of the means of production and the pursuit of maximum profit for those private owners as the goal of production?

Despite the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s, these questions remain. They just need to be put back on the agenda of public discourse. Instead, we can expect the same old ritualistic denunciations based on the false premise that ‘the History is settled’.

7 thoughts on “Celebrating the Russian revolution: from the ox-drawn plough to nuclear power and Sputnik

  1. Yes we never hear about how the Soviet Union saved the world from fascism. The people of the Soviet Union, especially the personnel of the Red Army, under the leadership of the Great Stalin crushed the Nazis. The same Nazis much of the global ruling class wanted to have crush the socialist Soviet Union. We no longer learn how the then PM of Australia Robert Menzies was a big fan of Adolf Hitler.

    The Space Race. The well known image of the old Russia was a peasant yoked to an oxen, however under the CPSU the Soviet Union became the world leaders in space exploration/journey. The accomplishments of socialism must be remembered, celebrated, to allow us to think about our history as we seek to build a new world.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It can’t be doubted that the Soviet Union defeated the fascists in their attempt at global domination but I can acknowledge this piece of history without buying the whole box and dice. The revolution of 1917 ushered in a period of free speech and artistic creativity. However after years of war and starvation these advances were reversed. By 1921 nothing could be published that was not authorized by the government and even groups within the party were banned in a desperate attempt to maintain unity and stop the country falling back into civil war. Gone was embrace of the avaunt guard and replaced by stultifying socialist realism. I can only imagine what it is to live in a society where only the official line is tolerated.


  3. Steve,
    I think there’s a place for celebration of the good stuff but, yes, my posts did not address the negatives. I wanted to explain why so many working class people around the world sympathised with, and/or supported, the socialist Soviet Union in the 1920s-1940s. It wasn’t just about anti-fascist struggle, though that was a big factor.

    It was also about material progress and great improvements in the way of life compared to the old order, and even in some respects in comparison to what workers had in the advanced industrial capitalist countries.

    This is pertinent today, when a green ethos has resulted in excessive caution about, and sometimes direct opposition to, such progress. It is also pertinent today because the overwhelmingly dominant view is that socialism doesn’t work, is impracticable. In the space of a few decades, and under the most disadvantageous circumstances (civil war, natural disaster, fifth column sabotage and then fascist invasion), the Soviet came close to what Britain had taken more than a century to attain.


  4. Hi Barry, Yes lots of people in the 20s and 30s wanted to believe that the Soviet Union was on track hell I want to believe that it was on track but the essence of understanding is to go beyond what we wish for and attempt to get as close as we can to objective reality. Yes living standards under Stalin rose but so did living standards under Hitler and the living standard under Saddam was higher than it is now. Who wants to say a nice word about those 2 not me and certainly not you.
    The real question is did the Soviet Union follow a correct political line or was it in error. The major question of the 20th C was the rise of fascism. When fascism was on the rise in Germany the Soviet Union argued that fascism was no worse than social democracy. Once this was shown to be BS the Soviet Union lurched to a position of uniting with anyone to defeat fascism and that went terribly wrong in the Spanish civil war as concessions to the right robbed the left of undercutting fascism by opposing Spanish imperialism. There’s Franco marching into Madrid with Moroccan troops when if Morocco had even been promised independence Franco would have marched alone. Then the soviet union signs a border and friendship treaty with Hitler and supplies the Nazi war machine with essential war materials.
    For the Soviet Union to do the right thing Hitler had to attack them and I am 100% behind the victory of the Soviet Union over the Nazi scum although if we were to discuss the fighting of the war in detail I would raise a number of concerns about how the war was fought but that is a quibble The Soviet Union won the second world war and Im very glad they did.


  5. Barry are you familiar with the 1931 Red Referendum? It was held in Prussia, it was a Nazi initiative and the Communist Party and the Nazis supported it. It’s worth reading up on for anyone who is unaware of Nazi, KPD collaboration.


  6. Barry I know that we share an interest in Russian History Recently Ive come across the work of David Glantz probably your well acquainted but just in case Ill leave a link


  7. The high Soviet casualty rate in WW2 ie losing twice as many soldiers is a point of interest. I think that the high rate can partly be explained due to the eastern front being a war of extermination which it wasnt on the western front but this doesnt explain why the axis soviet casualties were 1:2, losing sides generally suffer more casualties not less. I was looking at some visualisations of the campaign and think that the answer may lie not in the inflexible no retreat orders as often cited but in the nature of the campaign where encirclement was quite common. The only encirclement I can think of in the west was at Bastogne which ended with the 101 airborne being relieved. In the east there were multiple encirclements which often ended badly or as in Stalingrad ended well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxaY7zCVrZc


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s