Response#4: Speaking Bolshevik by Stephen Kotkin

Part 1: Stephen Kotkin argues that workers were neither mindless, brain washed drones nor fearful, cowardly peasants. Rather the workers were active players in the new Soviet order often containing mixed emotions of the regime. The new emphasis on work in the factory as a literal center of life and methods to increase production via material incentive, highlight the socialist values of the new “Soviet citizen.” Yet it is difficult to tell how much workers believe in the socialist system because many adapted to “speaking Bolshevik.” Speaking the “language of the state” was critical to workers’ lives considering the strong emphasis of material benefits and political pressure.

Part 2: Kotkin is attempting to walk a fine line here by saying that the workers can be understood through their self identifications of class and their conceptualization of their own lives. By choosing this stance he avoids the strong polarized theories of disgruntled workers against the regime or contented workers for the regime (Speaking Bolshevik, 199). However, he places himself at the mercy of ambiguity since the workers are understood using the information gathered by the regime. Thus, the question that always arises is whether the workers were genuine in their responses to the party line. Kotkin responds by saying that the workers learn to express the party line of Bolshevism regardless of whether or not they believed in it for survival.

The murky idea of what people genuinely believe in is difficult to decipher. Psychologists have been trying for years to determine how the human mind works. Military officials and governments have been trying for decades to determine how to measure the truth of oral statements. Until there is a revolution in psychology where devices become capable of capturing human thoughts, people will have to be judged based on their actions. Yet this brings up the next question. How do we tell the motivation behind people actions? The problem has come full circle. Previously we were trying to find out what people really believe in so we turned towards looking at their actions. Now we are trying to find out why people committed such acts. Most historians often will point to the most logical explanation. John Doe reorganized his desk placing the pen cup closer to him. Logical explanation: now he can reach his pens easier when he wants to write out memos and notes. Emotional explanation: the new position of the circular pen cup away from the edges appeals to his aesthetic senses of a neat desk. The emphasis is more often than not placed on the logical explanation. However, human beings are not perfect. Sometimes humans do not choose the most logical decision.

History is full of examples of people choosing illogical choices. Thus, there are often massive debates over what a leader of a country intended. A few well-known examples that continue to baffle historians are Ivan IV killing his son, Stalin’s purges, Hitler’s thoughts during the WWII and questions related to that. These mysteries go in conjunction with “what if” questions and are left to speculative theories proposed by historians. The mysteries are likely to remain unsolved as the years of the future erode the past. Yet the controversy and argument over these issues will continue for years to come.