Russian Revolution: Grice's Intentions vs Probable Influence/Causation (PI)

Revolutions seem like an excellent opportunity to historically study Intentions of Grice and Probable Influence/Causation (PI or P(A-->B)). I will briefly examine in simple language what both views say about the Russian Revolution, although I will undoubtedly be seriously corrected about Grice's views by the other readers.

In my Game Theory blog, I pointed out that "Tracking" optimizes PI, wherein the Cause or Causal Agent "Tracks" or tries to become almost identical with the Effect or Caused/Result Agent. I gave examples there of spies, teachers, missiles tracking targets, philosophers seeking to influence politicians, and so on. I will abbreviate this as "Tracking".

Tracking seems to me to indicate that Revolutions really do tend to reflect the Majority view in a nation, and that the people who most actively create a Revolution are closest to the Majority view or in other words most closely "Track" the Majority view.

This would agree with Grice's "Intentions" if we specify that the Intentions of the Revolutionaries must be close to the Intentions of the Majority of the population at least during the time of the Revolution.

Why, then, did the Russian Revolution go "sour" if it did (I will assume that it did for the sake of argument, and I suspect that it really did to at least a considerable degree)? The usual theories seem to be:

1. The Revolution was taken over by a Secret Group having an Agenda different from that of the Public. Supposedly, this was the Bolsheviks, although according to the above analysis, this is very unlikely because Tracking and Intentions should have agreed with the Majority more or less.

2. The Group that most directly administered the Revolution or was most active in the Revolution was taken over by an Individual who had an unusual and unexpected reaction to being "in power", even though up to then he was "ordinary" in the Group.

Since 1 is wrong or arguably wrong, I will argue that 2 is correct, and that the explanation of 2 is somewhat surprising but common to almost all Revolutions: the man or men who "spoiled" the Russian Revolution had an extremely deeply buried Agenda almost or exactly at the level of Hypnosis - and the only people to whom that applies are SPIES FOR THE OTHER SIDE or "Double Agents." Compulsive-Obsessive people make especially good Spies in my opinion, because their outward obsessions and compulsions disguise their immediate emotional reactions or superimpose on them an "orderliness" that is misunderstood by most people. That includes a high proportion of Academic people (including Himmler!).

But we don't know whether Stalin or Lenin or even Marx from the previous century were spies.

We do know, however, of a remarkable similarity between the USSR and Nazi Germany which even led them to be temporary Allies near the beginning of WWII, namely Stalin's and Hitler's Nonaggression Pact. And Hitler was a Corporal in German Army Military Intelligence. In other words, he was a Spy or approximately a Spy. This would suggest that Stalin found it possible to make a Nonaggression Pact with Hitler because Stalin was also or had also been a Spy at least during the Russian Revolution, and presumably also his partner Lenin.

This would have the advantage of explaining why Lenin was able to transfer so easily to Russia from Germany and the U.K. We are talking German-Russian Spies (possibly with a U.K. connection, but this is less clear). It also explains the Paranoia that seems to have beset Stalin, especially later in his career - not uncommon for Spies late in their careers, to my understanding.

Hitler's Army Intelligence position enabled him to network with top German Industrial Corporations - which, by the way, hints that he was not merely a Corporal, although it is somewhat doubtful that he was a General because of his Strategic Incompetence demonstrated later in the War especially. We may assume that similar "doors" opened for Lenin and Stalin if we follow the thread of this argument.

To slightly run ahead of myself, some the leaders of the Irish Revolution and the American Revolution may also have been Spies who somehow had surprising reactions to having power or potential power. The Irish Revolution DID GO SOUR! The American Revolution had extremely strange results, one of which surprisingly enough was almost a complete reversal of the Intents of the Founding Fathers by 200 or more years later. The Intentions were violated by somebody or some small group of Leaders!

Osher Doctorow