The Eurasian Knot

When I opened Facebook this morning, as I do every morning, I learned that Alexander Rabinowitch died at 91 years old. Rabinowitch was arguably one of the most important historians of the Russian Revolution. It's hard to state how much Rabinowitch's work influence our understanding of 1917. Before him, it was assumed that the Bolsheviks were a highly disciplined, unpopular political party that came to power through a coup. What Rabinowitch repeatedly showed in his four books on Revolution, the Bolsheviks had popular support, most importantly in factories in Petrograd and in other large cities and at the front. Lenin's slogans, particularly, "Peace, Land, Bread!" had mass support, and by October 1917, successfully rode a wave of revolution into power. And now that Alexander Rabinowitch has left us, I figured I’d dig out my old interview with him from 2017, clean it up, and re-release it to commemorate the life and work of this scholarly giant.Guest:Alexander Rabinowitch was a Professor Emeritus of History at Indiana University, where he taught from 1968 until 1999. He’s the author of four books on the Russian Revolution: Prelude to Revolution: The Petrograd Bolsheviks and the July 1917 Uprising; The Bolsheviks Come To Power: The Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd; The Bolsheviks in Power: The First Year of Soviet Rule in Petrograd; and finally his fourth and last book which was just published in April, The Bolsheviks Survive: Petrograd 1919 published by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

How Stalin personally ran the Soviet Union has rightly received much attention. Less discussed is the small group of men that served as his top lieutenants. They  carried out his orders, and after his death, were instrumental in establishing the post-Stalin order. This week, the Eurasian Knot features a discussion with Pietro Shakarian about his new book Anastas Mikoyan: An Armenian Reformer in Khrushchev's Kremlin. We mostly know Mikoyan as a statesman and political survivor who successfully navigated Stalin’s Kremlin. But who was Anastas Mikoyan beyond that? What did he believe? What was his role as Stalin’s henchman? How did he push for de-Stalinization after the leader’s death in 1953, particularly on Soviet nationality policy. Shakarian tells us that in the end, Mikoyan was more than a survivor. He was a critical player in shaping the post-Stalinist Soviet Union.   Guest:Pietro A. Shakarian is a historian of Russia and the Soviet Union and a lecturer at the American University of Armenia in Yerevan. He’s the author of Anastas Mikoyan: An Armenian Reformer in Khrushchev's Kremlin published by Indiana University Press.

It has long been assumed that there was no Holocaust memory in the Soviet Union. Official Soviet ideology lumped the 1.5 million Soviet Jews exterminated by the Nazis into the 26 million Soviet war deaths. So, the little Holocaust memory that existed was hidden away in families and communities. Recent scholarship, however, has painted a more complicated picture. Yes, official Holocaust memory was circumscribed. And, true, many privately commemorated its memory. But, as a new collection of Soviet Holocaust fiction, translated by Sasha Senderovich and Harriet Murav, shows that there was published Holocaust literature in the Soviet Union. Especially in the Yiddish language journal, Sovetish Heymland. How did Soviet authors treat the Holocaust? How did it differ from work elsewhere? And what are some of the challenges translating these works into English? To find out more, the Eurasian Knot spoke to Sasha and Harriet about their recent collection, In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union, published by Stanford University Press.Guests:Sasha Senderovich is Associate Professor of Slavic Languages & Literatures and of International Studies at the University of Washington. He is the author of How the Soviet Jew Was Made. Harriet Murav is Center for Advanced Study Professor Emerita at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Her most recent book is As the Dust of the Earth: The Literature of Abandonment in Revolutionary Russia and Ukraine.They are the translators of In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union, published by Stanford University Press.

Many studies focus on how Russia doesn’t work and why. There’s a laundry list of reasons. Corruption. Autocracy. Imperialism. Exceptionalism. But, how, then, does Russia work? Because there are people, a state, and society. What greases the wheels? Alena Ledeneva has made this question the focus of her career. For her, it’s the informal networks and practices that allow the system, with all its deficiencies, to function. Her new book, Russian Pendulum, is a synthesis of her three books on informality. But instead of focusing on post-Soviet Russia, she examines the long duree of informality through the concept of paradox. For example, the Soviet paradox, “Shops are empty, but fridges are full.” Ledeneva says that this paradox contains a hidden informal relation that ameliorates shortage. She also takes a novel approach to this subject using sculpture and music to represent the paradoxes and practices of Russian everyday life. We at the Eurasian Knot wanted to know more. So we put the question to Ledeneva–How does Russia work? And what does that say about Russia’s historical development over the last few centuries?  Russian Pendulum has a soundtrack: “The System Made Me Do It,” available on Spotify and elsewhere. Guest:Alena Ledeneva is Professor of Politics and Society at the University College London and a founder of the Global Informality Project. She’s the author of the trilogy: Russia's Economy of Favours (1998), How Russia Really Works (2006), Can Russia Modernize? (2013), Her new book is The Russian Pendulum: Paradoxes, Practices and Patterns published by UCL Press.

I went through my Kurt Vonnegut phase in my late teens. I read Player Piano, Cat’s Cradle, I think, Deadeye Dick, and of course, Slaughterhouse Five. I can’t say I remember much from those novels. Nor can I recall why Vonnegut connected with me. Perhaps now is a good time to revisit them. Little did I know that Vonnegut had a large readership in the Soviet Union. His books were translated by Rita Rait-Kovaleva and published in hundreds of thousands of copies. And in late Soviet fashion they were also passed around by hand to those who couldn’t secure copies. What did Soviet readers see in Kurt Vonnegut? How did the authorities regard this so-called “Anti-American American”? And what did Vonnegut think about his Soviet fans? Sarah Phillips wondered too after she participated in a project on Vonnegut. The result is her book, Kurt Vonnegut in the USSR. Sarah reached out to us, so we booked an interview. It turns out that Vonnegut has transcultural appeal. There’s even a revival in Ukraine. But what does Vonnegut’s popularity among Soviet youth say about really existing state socialism? Tune in to find out.Guest:Sarah Phillips is professor of anthropology at Indiana University-Bloomington. She’s the author of Women's Social Activism in the New Ukraine and Disability and Mobile Citizenship in Postsocialist Ukraine, both published by Indiana University Press. Her new book is Kurt Vonnegut in the USSR published by Bloomsbury.

The Eurasian Knot hasn’t featured many philosophers. So, when Ukrainian political philosopher, Mikhail Minakov, came to the University of Pittsburgh to give a talk, I eagerly pulled him into a studio. The result was a wide-ranging conversation on the collapse of communism, the post-Soviet human, Kantian philosophy, our current global political conjecture, and the crisis of liberalism. What is a post-Soviet human and how does s/he differ from their Soviet counterpart? What are the seeds and expressions of our political discontent? And to what extent does liberalism need a revival to meet the political creativity of the global illiberal right? Minakov has some fascinating insights. He gave me so much to chew on. I have no doubt you will too after listening to this conversation.Guest:Mikhail Minakov is a political philosopher residing in Kyiv and Milan. His primary philosophical inquiries focus on human experience, social knowledge, political systems, historical consciousness, and multiple modernities. His most recent book is The Post-Soviet Human: Philosophical Reflections on Social History after the End of Communism published by ibidem Press.