Complementary notes: https://www.classwithmason.com/2025/01/chapter-ii-terroristic-nature-of.html
All right. So buckle up, everyone, because we're about to take a deep dive into some seriously heavy history.
Yeah, this is going to be a wild one.
We're cracking open chapter two of Guillotine at Work by Gregory Maximoff.
Oh, Maximoff.
This chapter, man, it it really delves into those early days of the Bolshevik state in Russia.
How it all began, how it was established.
You know, what's fascinating is how Maximoff pulls back the curtain. On Lenin's actions.
Yeah. And compares them to like the writings of Marx and Engels.
And you might be surprised by what he reveals.
A lot of people are. Yeah.
So, you know, right off the bat, Maximoff kind of throws us into this.
He throws you right in.
Yeah. He highlights this contradiction with Lenin.
Like Lenin's this champion of the people, right?
Yeah.
Praising those democratic ideals of the Paris commune.
But then you see what he's actually aiming for. Yeah. Something far more centralized.
Like almost authoritarian.
Yeah.
And what Maximoff does so well is use quotes.
Direct quotes.
From Marx himself, like way back in 1850. When he was addressing the union of communists.
And he drops this bomb on us. The workers should strive not only for a single and undivided German republic, but the most vigorous centralization of power in the hands of the state.
It's like, whoa, hold on a sec.
That doesn't sound very power to the people.
Not quite.
So Marx is actually advocating for a super strong centralized state.
Well, this quote really reveals a major tension brewing within socialist thought at the time.
Oh, I bet.
You had groups like the Communards who were all about that like grassroots democracy, that decentralized vision.
Yeah, keeping it local.
But Marx and Engels and later Lenin, they believed that a powerful centralized state.
It was the only way.
The only way to like truly achieve revolution.
So Lenin's not pulling this out of thin air.
Nope.
He's building on ideas that were already there.
Oh, yeah. It was a foundation laid by Marx himself.
Which brings us to that phrase that always sends chills down my spine.
I know what you're going to say.
The dictatorship of the proletariat.
Oh, man, it's a doozy.
And Maximoff just hits us with this direct quote from Lenin describing it as a power unbound by laws.
Not ominous at all, right?
Not at all.
But what's so chilling is how this phrase, straight from Marx and Engels, it became the bedrock for the Bolsheviks' increasingly harsh actions.
So it was like a blank check.
Yeah, to silence anyone they considered an enemy of the revolution. And remember, this is the time.
Everyone remembers the czarist autocracy.
Oh, yeah.
So to hear Lenin.
The supposed champion of the people.
Echoing those same tones.
Must have been jarring.
Yeah, jarring is a good word.
To say the least.
And Max Moff, he really drives home this point that Lenin didn't just target, you know, those usual suspects.
Oh, no.
The capitalists, the Lando.
No, he cast a much wider net.
Anyone who disagreed with him.
even other socialist and anarchist groups.
It's crazy.
So this is where Maximoff's distinction between enemies and adversaries becomes so important.
I was just going to ask you about that.
You're on a roll today.
So enemies we get.
Yeah, the classic class enemy.
But adversaries is broader.
Much broader.
Like anyone who dared to question.
Yeah, even if they were kind of fighting for similar goals.
It's like this family feud.
Turned deadly.
And Maximoff gives us these truly terrifying examples. Doesn't hold back. He talked about April 1918.
When the Bolsheviks straight up attacked anarchist organizations.
They trashed headquarters, shut down newspapers.
Even assassinated leaders.
And it didn't stop there, right?
Nope. A couple of months later, they kicked the social revolutionists and social democrats out of the Soviets.
Those are rival socialist parties.
You're either with us or against us.
And if you were against them, well, things could get really bad, really fast.
Yeah, no kidding.
So this wasn't just, you know, theoretical debates.
No, real world consequences.
They were silencing dissent with violence.
Maximoff makes that connection to the French Revolution.
Oh, yeah. He's saying Lenin saw the guillotine as a blueprint.
Not just admired the Jacobins, but saw terror as a necessary tool for revolutionary success.
It's like that saying, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, but on a way bigger and more terrifying scale.
Yeah. Maximoff reveals Lenin's plan went beyond just executions.
Hold on. He advocated for what he called terror by starvation.
Using the state's control over food?
To crush any form of resistance.
It's where things get especially dark.
That's messed up.
One of the areas where Maximoff's analysis really stands out.
So for Lenin, the guillotine was just one tool.
Among many, he believed he had discovered an even more potent weapon. Control over the basic necessities of life.
Instead of cutting off people's heads.
He was trying to control their stomachs.
And everyone's got to eat. Right.
Makes terror by starvation so chilling.
So if you were hungry.
And complaining.
You were an enemy of the state.
Could be.
That's insane. How could anyone think that was a good idea?
Well, Maximoff quotes Lenin extensively on this. And it's in these quotes where we see the truly terrifying logic.
So the gray monopoly, bread cards, forced labor.
More powerful tools of control than any law or execution.
You're kidding. He's basically saying that starving people into submission is more effective than the guillotine. That's the logic. This is blowing my mind.
And remember, this was a time of massive food shortages, skyrocketing inflation.
People were desperate.
Lenin's terror by starvation wasn't about literally starving everyone to death.
OK.
It was about using the state's control over food distribution to reward loyalty and punish dissent.
So it was a way to create a system where people were so dependent on the state.
They wouldn't dare challenge it.
That's a level of control that's hard to wrap your head around.
It was about transforming the very act of eating into a political act.
Hold on. I need a minute to process all this.
It's a lot to take in.
We've gone from praising the Paris Commune to terror by starvation in what feels like 10 minutes.
Maximoff takes us on quite a journey.
It's like looking into the abyss of history and seeing how this idealistic vision for a better society can twist into something monstrous.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Oh, no, there's more.
Maximoff goes on to show how this system of control, this terror by starvation, had devastating consequences for the Russian people and laid the groundwork for even greater horrors. But we'll save that for the next part of our deep dive. Buckle up, because it's about to get even more intense.
I don't know if I'm ready for this.
Oh, you will be. So we left off talking about this terror by starvation and how it created this system of control.
Yeah, pretty messed up stuff.
It really was. And you know what's wild is it wasn't just about punishing active resistance. Maximoff, he digs into this idea of passive resistance that Lenin was obsessed with.
Passive resistance. So like not being revolutionary enough.
Basically, yeah, Lenin claims that the most harmful and dangerous kind of resistance.
So not actively rebelling, but like.
Just not being fully on board with the program.
Not being productive enough.
Yeah. Not meeting those quotas.
That's what sent Lenin into a frenzy.
Oh, yeah. That's some serious thought control, right?
It really is. Like you could get in trouble just for not being sufficiently enthusiastic about the revolution.
I mean, it sounds crazy, but that's what Maximoff is showing us.
So this wasn't just some abstract concept. Bro, not at all. Maximoff gives some concrete examples of how this terror by starvation actually played out.
Oh, absolutely. And this is where Maximoff's attention to historical detail really shines.
He was living through this stuff.
Exactly. He wasn't just theorizing from some ivory tower.
He talked about how Lenin specifically targeted the peasantry.
Especially those who refused to sell their grain at the state's fixed prices.
But those prices were often way below market value.
Terrible deal for the farmers.
So the peasants were getting squeezed from both sides.
Pretty much.
Forced to sell their grain at a loss. And if they resisted, they were labeled as enemies of the people.
You got it, Liz Liu's situation.
And Lenin didn't hold back.
No, he went all in on the rhetoric.
Called those resisting peasants enemies of the people, friends of the capitalists.
He was demonizing them.
Painting a target on their backs.
Literally.
But weren't the peasants supposed to be like the backbone of the revolution?
You would think so, right?
The proletariat that Lenin claimed to be fighting for?
Well, that's the glaring contradiction that Maximoff highlights.
The state claiming to be acting in the name of the proletariat.
But then alienating and antagonizing vast segments of the population.
Even the workers they claim to represent.
Yeah, it's kind of mind-boggling when you think about it.
My head is spinning.
It's a lot to process.
To go after your own base of support.
Seems incredibly short-sighted.
It really does.
And it gets worse. Maximoff describes how Lenin unleashes these committees of poor peasants.
The Combides, right?
Yep, those guys.
To enforce these policies.
They were given free reign to confiscate grain and crush any resistance.
Wait, so he was pitting the poor peasants against the more successful ones.
You know it, classic divide and conquer.
Talk about a recipe for disaster.
It was a recipe for chaos. The Combides, they often used incredibly brutal tactics.
Which only provoked more peasant revolts.
The whole thing backfired spectacularly. The government eventually had to disband them.
But the damage was already done.
Oh, yeah. The seeds of distrust and resentment had been sown.
It's starting to feel like a horror movie where the monster is not some external threat, but the revolution itself.
And that's precisely the chilling point Maximoff is driving at.
It's like this inherent tendency toward authoritarianism.
This urge to control and punish.
Daked into the very DNA of the Marxist state as Lenin envisioned it.
He saw it as the only way to achieve true revolution.
But hold on a sec. Didn't the Bolsheviks actually abolish the death penalty initially?
They did. Yeah. Maximoff even mentions that in the chapter.
So how do we square that with this whole idea of them being obsessed with violence and terror?
Well, that's one of the things that makes Maximoff's argument so compelling.
He doesn't shy away from these seemingly contradictory details.
In fact, he uses them to strengthen his case.
Okay, I'm intrigued. So how does he explain that whole death penalty thing?
Well, Maximoff suggests that Lenin was a very shrewd politician.
He was a master strategist.
He knew that openly advocating for terror would have been a really bad look.
Especially after the czar had been overthrown.
People were yearning for peace and justice.
Not more bloodshed.
Right. So Maximoff is arguing that it was all part of a deliberate strategy.
So it was a calculated move to gain power by appealing to these democratic ideals.
But with the intention of ditching those ideals once in control.
Wow. Talk about playing the long game.
And to back this up, Maximoff points to the gradual escalation of repression and violence that followed the Bolshevik takeover.
It's like they were intentionally acclimating the population to increasing levels of brutality.
That's a chilling thought.
It really is. But was there any pushback from within the Bolshevik ranks?
Oh, there were definitely internal debates and disagreements.
So not everyone was on board with this descent into authoritarianism.
Not at all. Maximoff even quotes Lenin lashing out at fellow Bolsheviks who questioned his methods.
What did he say?
Called them soft, sentimental.
So much for comradely debate.
No tolerance for dissent.
Even from his own comrades.
And Maximoff argues that this intolerance, this inability to brook any opposition, was a key factor in the Bolshevik state's rapid slide into tyranny.
He uses that slaveholder democracy analogy to drive this point home, right?
Yeah, that one's a real head scratcher.
It's such a powerful image. What exactly did he mean by that?
Well, Maximoff is arguing that just as ancient slaveholders could practice a form of democracy amongst themselves.
While brutally exploiting an entire class of people.
Exactly. So, too, could the Bolsheviks claim to be establishing a proletarian democracy.
While simultaneously crushing any form of dissent or opposition from the masses.
Basically saying that this dictatorship of the proletariat was really just a dictatorship in disguise.
The proletariat was more enslaved than liberated.
That's the heart of Maximoff's argument. And he supports it by showing how this system inevitably turned almost everyone into an adversary.
So even the workers, the people this whole revolution was supposedly for.
They ended up being victims of the system.
It's like the revolution devoured its own children.
A tragic irony.
But wait, if this dictatorship of the proletariat was such a sham.
Why did Lenin cling to it so fiercely?
Right. Why not just come out and say, look, we're in charge now. Do things our way or else.
Maximoff doesn't really delve into the psychology of Lenin.
Fair enough.
But he does suggest that this rhetoric of proletarian dictatorship served a crucial ideological function.
So it allowed them to maintain this veneer of legitimacy.
To claim that they were acting on behalf of the working class.
Even as they were actively suppressing any expression of working class dissent.
It's a brilliant strategy in a way, but also incredibly cynical.
And devastatingly effective.
By wrapping themselves in the language of revolution and liberation.
They were able to consolidate their power and crush their opponents.
With a ruthlessness that shocked even some of their own supporters.
It's like they were masters of propaganda.
Using language to manipulate and control people just as effectively as they used the terror by starvation.
This is getting seriously dark. But I can't help but be fascinated by how Maximoff weaves this complex narrative together.
He's a masterful storyteller.
It's making me rethink everything I thought I knew about the Russian Revolution.
That's the power of good history.
And Maximoff doesn't stop there. He goes even further.
He suggests that this tendency towards authoritarianism wasn't just a product of Lenin's personality.
Or the specific circumstances of the Russian Revolution.
He sees it as a fundamental flaw in the very ideology of Marxism itself.
So is he saying that Marx and Engels were proto-tyrants?
I don't think he'd go that far.
That their ideas inevitably lead to dictatorship.
That's a debate for another time.
Okay, fair enough.
But Maximoff certainly raises some provocative questions.
About the inherent dangers of utopian thinking.
And the seductive allure of absolute power.
Even when wielded in the name of the people.
Right, that's the key point.
This is getting really heavy. I need a moment to process all of this.
We've covered a lot of ground.
From the guillotine to terror by starvation to slaveholder democracy to the very nature of Marxist thought.
Our brains have definitely gotten a workout today.
But we're not done yet.
Well, no, there's more to come.
Maximoff's analysis is just so rich and thought-provoking.
It really is.
So are you ready to delve into the final part of our deep dive?
Absolutely. Let's do it.
We'll explore the long term consequences of Lenin's vision.
And the chilling legacy he left behind.
All right. So we're back and I'm still processing all that stuff about terror by starvation.
Yeah, it's heavy stuff.
Maximoff really lays it out. You know, those connections between ideology and action.
Like how those theories of Marx and Engels.
Actually played out in the real world.
The brutal reality of that early Bolshevik state.
But I feel like we've only just scratched the surface.
Oh, we've got more to uncover.
Because Maximoff takes us beyond just those immediate consequences.
Right. He wants us to see the bigger picture.
That this wasn't just some like phase or, you know, necessary evil on the road to utopia.
Exactly. He's arguing that this descent into authoritarianism.
It was baked into the case.
From the very beginning.
So he's saying this wasn't just a case of good intentions gone wrong.
It was a flaw in the system itself.
That's a bold claim.
It is. But he backs it up by looking at the long term consequences.
Of Lenin's approach.
That obsession with centralized control.
Always needing to find and eliminate adversaries.
Created a culture of fear and suspicion that poisoned Soviet society for decades.
So like that terror by starvation mentality just seeped into everything.
Absolutely. Maximoff gives all these historical examples.
Of how this system.
Created a climate where anyone could be accused of being an enemy of the state.
It's the slightest thing.
It was a system that rewarded informers and encouraged people to turn on each other.
So you couldn't trust anyone.
Not even your own family.
That's terrifying.
That's the whole point Maximoff is trying to get across.
This system, the dictatorship of the proletariat.
It ended up devouring not only its enemies.
But its own children too.
A truly tragic outcome.
I'm still grappling with this idea that Maximoff sees this authoritarianism as inherent to the Marxist state itself.
It's a provocative argument for sure.
So is he saying that any attempt to build a socialist society is doomed to fail?
Well, Maximoff doesn't explicitly state that. But he does raise some serious questions.
About absolute power.
Even when it's pursued in the name of noble goals.
Like it makes you wonder if there's any other way to achieve those goals.
Those ideals of equality and justice.
Without resorting to these brutal tactics.
It's a riddle.
A philosophical one with really high stakes.
What Maximoff does so brilliantly is make us confront these questions.
Grapple with the complexities of history.
And the potential for even the most well-intentioned ideologies to be twisted into instruments of oppression.
I'm starting to see why this chapter really had an impact on you.
It's not just about the Russian Revolution. It's about understanding the dynamics of power.
And the dangers of utopian thinking.
It's about recognizing the warning signs.
The red flag.
That can indicate when a revolution is veering off course.
So are you saying we should be wary of all revolutions?
I wouldn't go that far.
That any attempt to overthrow the existing order is bound to end in tyranny?
Not necessarily.
Okay.
But Maximoff does make us think twice about revelationary violence.
In sacrificing individual liberty in the pursuit of some abstract collective good.
He makes us really consider the costs.
It's like he's saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Even revolutionary-wise.
That's a warning we should all heed.
No matter our political beliefs.
This deep dive, man, it's been a roller coaster.
It's definitely been a journey.
I started out excited to learn more about the Russian Revolution.
That's how it usually starts.
And now I'm kind of terrified.
It can be a bit unsettling.
But also strangely inspired.
It's like Maximoff gives us this new lens to view history through. And maybe even the world around us.
So as we wrap things up here, I think we've covered a lot. What's the one thing you hope our listener takes away from all of this?
From Maximoff's analysis.
What's the most important lesson we can learn from this journey into the Bolshevik state?
I think the most important lesson is never take freedom for granted.
It's easy to do.
It really is.
But we can't just assume that those in power, even those who claim to be acting on behalf of the people, have our best interests at heart. Right. We have to stay vigilant.
Always be skeptical. Always be questioning.
And always be willing to stand up for what we believe in.
Even when it's difficult. Even when it's dangerous.
Because as Maximoff shows us, the price of silence... Can be much higher than we ever imagined. Wow. That's powerful. And on that note, I think it's time to wrap up this deep dive.
It's been a wild ride.
full of twists and turns and unsettling revelations.
But it ultimately, I think it's left us with more hope than despair.
I agree.
Because knowledge is power. And the more we understand about the past, the better equipped we are to avoid repeating those mistakes.
In the future.
Exactly. So keep exploring.
Keep questioning.
Never stop seeking the truth. That's the best way to honor the legacy of those who fought for a better world.
Even if their dreams sometimes turned into nightmares.
It's a reminder that we all have a responsibility to shape the future.
And to learn from the past.
So that we can create a world that is truly just and free.
Thanks for joining us on this deep dive.
It's been a pleasure.