Letters from Tomis

Book Review

Ted Grant. Wellred Publications, updated reissue 2018. 454 pp. ISBN 9781900007726.

Summary

Ted Grant’s Russia: From Revolution to Counter-Revolution is a sweeping historical and theoretical account of the Russian (Soviet) Revolution of 1917, the rise of Stalinism, and what Grant terms the political counter-revolution that followed. Originally published in 1997 and subsequently updated, this edition situates the Soviet experience in light of later developments, particularly the collapse of the USSR and the re-establishment of capitalism in Russia. Grant frames his analysis firmly in the tradition of Leon Trotsky, drawing especially on The Revolution Betrayed, to interpret the degeneration of the Soviet state.  

His basic thesis is that while the October Revolution accomplished a social revolution—abolishing private ownership of the commanding heights of the economy, expropriating landlords, instituting nationalization, etc.—the political superstructure was gradually captured by a bureaucracy under Stalin. This bureaucracy, according to Grant, constituted a counter-revolution in its political form, even while preserving many social and economic gains of the early revolutionary state.  

Grant explores several key periods: the immediate post-revolutionary years, the consolidation of Bolshevik power, the rise of Stalin’s bureaucratic apparatus, the Cold War, and finally the demise of the Soviet project. Along the way, he emphasizes political arguments over purely economic or cultural ones: his interest is in class power, party dynamics, policy debates, and the struggle over whether the gains of October could be defended or extended, or whether they would be undermined by bureaucratic distortion.  

Strengths

Theoretical clarity and Trotskyist framework

Grant’s commitment to a Trotskyist perspective gives the book strong internal consistency. Concepts like “degeneration” or “deformation” of workers’ states, bureaucratic control, political revolution vs. social revolution are carefully developed and articulated. For students of Marxist theory and revolutionary thought, Grant provides a coherent interpretive lens. This is particularly useful given the many competing interpretations of Stalinism—some seeing it as totalitarian distortion, others emphasizing structural problems beyond individual agency.  

Historical breadth and updates

By tracing events over the whole span from 1917 up to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the book helps one see long-term continuities and ruptures. The updates (in the 2018 edition) allow Grant to reflect on later events—e.g., capitalist restoration—that many earlier analyses missed. This historical sweep helps to test the durability of his framework.  

Critical defense of revolutionary gains

One of Grant’s virtues is his refusal to dismiss out of hand the importance of the Russian Revolution’s gains: land reform, nationalization, industrialization, literacy, etc. Even as he critiques Stalinism hard, he argues that many of those social transformations were real and had lasting impact. This balance—of critique without wholesale rejection—is valuable in a field often polarized between celebratory and dismissive accounts.  

Polemic energy and relevance

Grant writes with conviction, and for those sympathetic to socialist or Marxist perspectives, his arguments are energizing. The re-publication (in centenary contexts) helps to renew debates about the nature of Soviet legacy, about bureaucratic power, about the possible paths for socialism under adverse conditions. For students interested in questions of class, state, revolution, this is more than just history—it’s a resource for political theory.  

Weaknesses / Critiques

Interpretive bias and selective use of sources

In common with many ideological/historical works, Grant’s Trotskyist orientation leads him to privilege particular archives, memories, interpretations, and critiques. Some episodes (e.g. intra-party debates, popular social resistance to Stalinism, regional variations) may be glossed or under-emphasized in favour of illustrative examples that fit his framework. For scholars seeking a more pluralistic or multi-causal history, this may feel partial.

Relative paucity of social, cultural, and non-political dimensions

Because the book focuses on political contention and class struggle, less attention is paid to cultural, gender, ethnic, and everyday social life under both Bolshevism and Stalinism. For example, the ways in which Soviet popular culture, religion, gender relations, or local identities intersected with or resisted the bureaucratic state are not central to the narrative. These are now areas of rich scholarly inquiry, and the absence or light treatment of them limits the book’s appeal to those interested in micro-history or social history beyond class/state dynamics.

Limited treatment of the post-Soviet legacies

Although the updated edition incorporates reflection on capitalist restoration, its coverage of the post-1991 transition (political, economic, social) is less detailed than its treatment of earlier decades. In particular, the intricate processes of privatization, regional divergence, civil society, and the persistence of bureaucratic legacies could have been more deeply explored.

Originality and Contribution

Grant’s book is not merely another narrative of Soviet history—it is a sustained attempt to apply a revolutionary Marxist framework to the long arc of Soviet experience, including its downfall. The originality lies in persistence: many works treat Stalinism as an aberration; Grant insists on theorizing the dialectic between revolution and counter-revolution, between gains and degeneration. For scholars of socialist theory, of revolutions, and of the USSR, Russia: From Revolution to Counter-Revolution remains one of the more coherent and forceful statements of the Trotskyist critique. It lubricates dialogue between theory and history rather than simply chronicling events.

Audience

This book is best suited for graduate students or researchers in Soviet history, Marxist theory, political science of revolutions, and critical theory. It works well as a theoretical companion to archival histories; to understand debates over class-nature of the USSR, bureaucratic deviation, and the possibilities of revolutionary method. It is less well suited for someone whose primary interest is social history “from below,” cultural history, or a non-ideological overview.