28. RGASPI, f. 558, op. 4, d. 647, pp. 432–3.
29.
30.
31. The contents of the booklet are discussed below, pp. 96–100.
32. F. Samoilov, ‘O Lenine i Staline’: RGASPI, f. 558, op. 4, d. 659, p. 1.
33.
34. I. V. Stalin,
9. Koba and Bolshevism
1. Bogdanov developed ideas which, if he had become more widely known, would have given pause to thinkers since the 1960s who have become known as post-modernists. Although he insisted that ‘culture’ is never simply a reflection of economic production relations, he stipulated too that collective insights, indeed insights which reflect the interests of particular social groups, inform and condition what both is and can be thought in society. Bogdanov did not have all the answers. Yet his turn-of-the-century
2. See below, pp. 357–8.
3. J. Davrichewy,
4.
5. Even Davrishevi admitted this:
6. See also below, p. 300.
7. See above, pp. 62–3.
8. See above, p. 63.
9. S. Shaumyan,
10. I. M. Dubinskii-Mukhadze,
11. F. D. Kretov,
12. I. M. Dubinskii-Mukhadze,
13. ‘Sotsial-demokratiya i natsional’nyi vopros’ in I. V. Stalin,
14.
15. See above, p. 53. I am grateful to Stephen Jones for his help with formulating this paragraph. See also chapter 8 of his forthcoming history of Georgian Marxism before the October Revolution.
16. ‘Sotsial-demokratiya i natsional’nyi vopros’,
17. I. V. Stalin,
18. See above, p. 38.
19. I. V. Stalin,
20.
21.
22.
23.
24. An [N. Zhordaniya], ‘Natsional’nyi vopros’,
25.
26. Sotsial-demokratiya i natsional’nyi vopros’,
27.
28.
29. ‘K natsional’nomu voprosu: evreiskaya burzhuznaya i bundovskaya kul’turno-natsional’naya avtonomiya’,
30.
31. See R. Service,
10. Osip of Siberia
1. B. I. Ivanov,
2. N. L. Meshcheryakov,
3. A. V. Baikalov, ‘Turukhanskii “bunt” politicheskikh ssyl’nykh’, p. 56;
4.
5.
6. A. V. Baikalov, ‘Turukhanskii “bunt” politicheskikh ssyl’nykh’, pp. 51–2.
7. See the account of G. Kennan,
8.
9. N. L. Meshcheryakov,
10. A. V. Baikalov, ‘Turukhanskii “bunt” politicheskikh ssyl’nykh’, pp. 53 and 57.
11. A. V. Baikalov, ‘Turukhanskii “bunt” politicheskikh ssyl’nykh’, p. 53.
12. Report of 27 April 1914 in ‘K 20-letiyu smerti Ya. M. Sverdlova’,
13.
14.
15. See A. Ostrovskii,
16.
17. Ya. M. Sverdlov,
18. This was made clear, if only implicitly, in S. Spandar’yan (Timofei),
19. Yu. Trifonov,
20. Ya. M. Sverdlov,
21.
22.
23.
24.
25. Ya. M. Sverdlov,
26.
27.