Whitewashing Stalin
Yesterday I came across an interesting article on the BBC News website. The article looks at why it is acceptable to display portraits of Stalin or Lenin or Mao while images of Hitler would be utterly out of the question.
As it turns out, much of this strange difference in attitudes has to do with history. In World War II, the US and Britain knew they needed the USSR on their side to defeat Hitler. They were well aware of many of Stalin's atrocities (the 1930s had been the height of Stalin's terror) but consciously whitewashed Stalin's image and painted the USSR as a happy place.
The Allies for instance suppressed information about the Katyn massacre and George Orwell had problems publishing his Animal Farm because it was too obviously about the bolsheviks.
Some even believe that Polish exile PM (Gen Wladyslaw Sikorski), who was demanding a thorough investigation of the Katyn massacre, was murdered in order to preserve good relations between the USSR and Britain.
I can understand why the US and Britain decided that the Nazis posed a more immediate threat and temporarily allied with Communists, even though the Communists were no less aggressive and dangerous.What I don't understand is why, now that the full extent of communist atrocities is known, it is still acceptable or even hip to display communist symbols or images of communist leaders, while it is (understandably) gauche to show any similar respect to Nazism and its head honchos.
As it turns out, much of this strange difference in attitudes has to do with history. In World War II, the US and Britain knew they needed the USSR on their side to defeat Hitler. They were well aware of many of Stalin's atrocities (the 1930s had been the height of Stalin's terror) but consciously whitewashed Stalin's image and painted the USSR as a happy place.
The Allies for instance suppressed information about the Katyn massacre and George Orwell had problems publishing his Animal Farm because it was too obviously about the bolsheviks.
Some even believe that Polish exile PM (Gen Wladyslaw Sikorski), who was demanding a thorough investigation of the Katyn massacre, was murdered in order to preserve good relations between the USSR and Britain.
I can understand why the US and Britain decided that the Nazis posed a more immediate threat and temporarily allied with Communists, even though the Communists were no less aggressive and dangerous.What I don't understand is why, now that the full extent of communist atrocities is known, it is still acceptable or even hip to display communist symbols or images of communist leaders, while it is (understandably) gauche to show any similar respect to Nazism and its head honchos.
Advertisement
I've heard somewhere that the winners write the history.
November 11, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that make communists the winners?
November 11, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Communists claimed moral provenance: If you were against this singularly counterintuitive ideology, you were evil. Just that simple. It was a pseudo-religion more than a template for government and economics (as which it was a failure), and it remains so today. And as such, it summons all the persuasive passion of faith in that unseen. It was packaged as the movement of the future, as "cool", as... scientific. But really, it relied on tapping the same emotional reserves as high priests and snake handlers. As a review of Francois Furet's The Passing of an Illlusion put it:
November 11, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pseudo religion. I agree with that. I wonder if the neocons will come to be viewed that way one day.
November 12, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I could make one or two points to broaden the discussion. To tar Lenin with the same brush as Stalin is to represent an ideological rather than a historical argument and does your post little justice. On the question of communism, because the West called the former USSR communist doesn't make it so. Perhaps the name socialist republic may give you a clue. Perhaps a reading of Trotsky's critique of the revolution may increase your understanding. If you find that to long perhaps "Ten Days That Shook The World" would be a better starting point.
In reply to San Fernando Curt, how many Bolsheviks remained after Lenin's death? Who did Stalin purge from Soviet society in order to create his dictatorship. I think history shows he purged the Bolsheviks before all others.
November 11, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is disingenuous to claim Stalin was the sole agent establishing the Soviet Union's system of violent oppression. The "Red Terror" was launched on Lenin's watch, and to consolidate a revolution the Bolsheviks co-opted from what had been a valid, spontaneous insurrection in 1917. The Bolsheviks had the organization to do so - and they had the money.
Felix Dzerzhinsky was head of the Cheka, the Bolsheviks security police, and he admitted in 1918:
"We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession."
That is another side to Communism's "religious" quality - it instills in believers absolute faith in their own righteousness. Anyone or any group presupposing unique moral dominion is capable of the darkest of atrocities; as proof, we have the 20th Century.
And, yes, this blinkered delusion is as much a part of the ideological Right as it is the Left...
November 12, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to leave the impression of sounding overly flippant. I think in one sense, the Soviets were the 'winners', alongside the other Allies in the death-struggle against Hitler. We cut them a little slack because of the enormous, decisive contribution they made to that struggle (what, 20-30 million killed?). I think a 2nd area where they compared favorably to Hitler was their generally INTERNAL focus prior to WW2: Whatever terrible deeds were certainly being done were generally confined within the parameters of the Soviet Union. Hitler represented a clear, overt threat to all civilization on earth.
November 11, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
San Fernando Curt,
I don't think I claimed Stalin to be the sole agent of Soviet oppression I merely stated Lenin could not and should not be associated with the terrors of Stalin's autocratic grab for power. Neither do I justify Lenin's use of excessive force to suppress both socialist opponents to Bolshevism and that of the white revolutionary force who used as much terror as the reds.
One could argue however that if body count and terror are a measurement of why a system or proponents of a system should not be "hip" as the original article claims then all symbols of liberal democracy and its proponents should be cast aside. The deaths, murders, and starvation of untold millions(far outweighing the death toll of both Stalinism and Fascism)needs to be considered when writing such an ideological piece.
November 12, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No... I agree, I don't think "hip" is a suitable measurement for the merits of any system. As for Communism's ideological victims, we have to include all of them, including the millions starved to death amid the flaws of Mao's periodic, disastrous development plans. The criteria must be how well a system produces a liveable environment for its citizens - not whether it conquers the world or upholds foolishly unattainable standards of morality or political evolution.
The biggest flaw of Communism is Marx's vision itself. Its historic disasters derived not merely from execution, but in the design itself. In fact, the failed installations of "socialist" nirvanas anywhere in the world are moot, since the ideology simply is an insufficient template for government and economics. Marxism was, and is, touted as an alternative to capitalism. It is not. A suitable alternative to capitalism would have to be practical - and have to provide a stable economic framework for its citizens. As problematic as Russia may be today, few yearn for the days of blocks-long lines for stale potatoes and week-old meat, and without its integrated capitalism, China would still languish as the world premiere backwater state.
One can argue that "pure" Communism has never been tried, has never been given the chance to prove its merits. But if the system is that difficult to achieve in practice, how valuable can it truly be? In the real world?
November 12, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
O.K, to clear a few issues. I am not a "communist" but then Marx wasn't a Marxist. Marx is relevant because of his critique of the capitalist mode of production. No one, not even neo-cons, liberal democrats and the like would argue against Marx's analysis of capitalism. The present financial malaise is a clear vindication of "Das Kapital"
On the issue of judging the successes of capitalism one has to look at the "who benefits, who loses" question don't you think? One could argue that American capitalism has benefited American society but it has done so on the exploitation of other nations. Based on your consumption of raw materials to your production of those materials I think it's clear. The same can be argued for European capitalism as well.
To your final point, one could argue that "pure" capitalism failed as miserably as the attempts at "pure" communism. What you are describing as capitalism is really Socialism for the wealthy.
November 12, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no better, more pertinent and insightful critique of capitalism than "Das Kapital". You are right: It is Marx's masterpiece, and should be required reading for every business major capable of understanding words as well as numbers. The disasters were visited upon the last century when committed, compassionate, conscientious nitwits mistook "The Communist Manifesto" as the ultimate blueprint for human social and political intercourse. It was as fruitless - and undoubtedly a bigger waste of time and lives - as trying to institute governments and societies based on Plato's "The Republic".
November 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've stumbled upon this web site while trying to gauge the global response to this economic crisis. I think it's slightly disingenuous of me to post comments without actually putting my own writing up for criticism and debate but I've enjoyed much of what I've read and the free exchange of ideas I've witnessed. If I have breached any protocol I hope to remedy that with some of my own muses in the not to distant future.
To the issue at hand, one can always see history from two opposing positions and the attempted implementation of "Marxist" theory is no different. Many on the Left would argue that Stalinism was a counter-revolution and thus a distorted version of Marxist theory, if Marxist at all . It can also be argued that Mao came to power because of Stalin's betrayal of the Chinese workers party and the massacre that ensued and thus is also a distortion of Marxist theory.
Personally, the very notion of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" opens up Marxism to the very creation of a Stalin or a Mao but that is another issue which leads to much chest beating down the pub.
On the question of "disasters visited upon the last century" I would argue that Liberal Democratic capitalism has as much if not more blood on it's hands than "Communism". WW1, Vietnam,Korea, the starvation of an entire continent, Chile, El Salvador, Iraq etc. etc. etc.
History also shows that capitalism only became a viable system due to imperialism. American capitalism grew out of the slaughter of native Americans and African slavery, not to mention the brutalisation of it's own workers. It also prevailed because it had defeated its only foe, Feudalism. "Communism" had to deal with the very real threat of Capitalist agitation and sabre rattling which is why the former USSR spent over 40% of it's GDP on arms rather than spending it on it's peoples.
From an economic standpoint, the industrialisation of the Soviet Union was unparalleled. If one was to use comparative analysis between Brasil(Capitalist)and the USSR then the State system was far more beneficial in economic terms than capitalism. I use this comparison due to similar starting points as it would be unfair to compare the former USSR with the US or Europe. I think the present and the future may show centralised control of an economy may actually win the day in economic terms but we will have to wait and see.
November 13, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that were true, then the West should have collapsed after its Imperial Age. It did not; in fact, it flourished. Capitalism and imperialism are not the same things, despite what dogma may tell you.
Empires, and the mechanics of imperialism, are expensive and inefficient. These systems collapse from their own weight, and from their innate inability to establish markets to coincide with their extraction of foreign wealth. This is comparable to the chief flaw of slave systems: If unpaid labor produces your goods, who will buy those goods?
You forget the overnight industrialization of the Soviet Union was accomplished through the establishment of a vast slave state. There is no other way to describe it: Once a Soviet citizen was declared an enemy of the people, he or she could count on being worked to death (if not shot outright). And the Soviet Union discovered the same hard lesson as the American South, and every other economy based on slave labor - that everything produced must be imported to viable markets that nurture flush consumers who can buy those goods.
Capitalism boomed here and abroad not because of the slaughter of native peoples, or slaves' toil in the hot sun, but because of the technological advances of the Industial Revolution. In fact, the development of industry coincided with the development of investment communities; the two could not exist without the other. And no, I'm not singing its praises: The process of industrialization was not a pretty picture, and there were and are atrocities as our technological surge chugs along. Those imperfections are written into it, because our instruments are reflections of our own, imperfect selves.
Marx's "communism" contemplated the economic and political shortcomings of a specific time, the mid-19th century. It is not a "second historical position", as its adherents so fervently believe. His ideas simply aren't good enough. That's why his movement's political diagnoses and proposed remedies are out of date, still poring over "imperialism" and other phantom outrages long faded.
And as far as who is responsible for which wars, the most shattering conflict of the 20th century was provoked by the two nations fronting their own, very different visions of socialism: Germany and the Soviet Union. Within a comparatively few decades of existence, communist states stacked up bodies at a rate very competitive with that of Western democracies.
November 14, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I neither defend nor condone the political system of the USSR I just attempt to show that capitalism can neither be defended or condoned for the same reasons as you critique Marxism. The ideological dogma of capitalism is as entrenched and as problematic as Marxism.
To highlight what I mean I'll refute a few of your points: You point out that The West would have collapsed after it's imperial age(Is not Iraq an imperial war?) but that instead it flourished. You then gone on to argue that capitalism boomed not because of the slaughter of Native Americans or the Slave culture but because of technological advances and the development of investment communities that enabled those advances. Where did the capital come from to invest in those technologies? Did it not come from the resources stolen from Native Americans, did it not materialise from the extraction of slave labour? Just because it stopped killing and enslaving people out of economic necessity(your point not mine) it still extracted vast sums of capital which enabled it to flourish.
I'm no Marxist but then the left has been around since the end of communal communism, long before Marxism. Without the left there would be no universal voting rights, no minimum wage, no worker rights and all the other hard fought rights of people. That didn't begin as a result of Marx or Marxism and it will continue in spite of Marxist dogma. These rights were never won by the kindness of Capitalism but because of direct action by people unwilling to submit to an elitist idea of Meritocracy.
To claim that America is not an empire shows, in my opinion, that you suffer from the same illness of blinded ideological dogma you disparage in Marxists.
November 14, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq can hardly be defined as an imperialist war in the classic, Marxist sense of the term, since it lacks the crucial commercial component. There is no ecomomic advantage for the aggressor - namely, us. We are throwing away blood and treasure, not accumulating booty. Iraq is a political imperium to establish security in a strategic - and, yes, oil-rich - part of the world, but the disaster that has unfolded since 2003 has fouled any long-term designs of commerce by conquest by big oil producers; despite a few sweetheart deals for Iraqi concessions, the balance of the oil industry simply makes more money if bullets aren't flying. More and more, the overarching reason for the Iraq War appears to be an entrenched Beltway commitment to neutralize Israel's rivals for Mideastern hegmony.
Although you describe yourself an not a Marxist, you share with them the one aspect that has so blinkered their political worldview: Mistaking the particular for the universal. Because this country stole the land of native Americans (not their "resources", they weren't exploiting those) and practiced slavery, that capitalist development cannot exist without theft and oppression. That's absurd: There is absolutely no evidence that I cannot build something, and sell it for profit, without burning tepees and whipping other human beings. Other than occasionally being occupied and shot up by others, Denmark has been a properous, relatively free republic for hundreds of years; no empire, no slaves. The U.S. became a world power, an economic powerhouse arguably the richest and most powerful in the world, because we built things, not because we tore them down. Our ugly demolitions favored no one, not even ourselves.
November 14, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
O.K. There are many issues to address here and I'm enjoying this, one because it's rational and two it enables me to construct ideas. I'll forgo the Danish example because I know little other than to say most Scandinavian countries are Socialist in the Bevin tradition. However, the extraction of profit as defined by "Das Kapital" is still exploitative at some level and thus capitalism is by it's very nature exploitative. One only needs to look at the disparity of wealth in Western, liberal democratic, capitalist societies to recognise that fact. In reality the gap is greater than during Feudal times. The aristocracy could only dream of possessing as much concentrated wealth as the top 1% of capitalists in the US.
On the Iraq war issue I think you're confusing the interests of American capital with the interests of American society. American capitalists, at least those who matter, have only a limited interest in America. The war profiteering in Iraq is unprecedented, hence this can truly be called the first privitised war. $2 trillion in tax payers money and counting, most of which has been contracted out to private capital. Also, moving US manufacturing to countries with cheaper labour does no favours to American society but it sure makes profit for American corporations.Both points, from my perspective, support rather than refute a classic Marxist perspective of imperialism. There is nothing wrong in a Marxist critique what matters is whether you implement Marxist ideology to change it.
On the general issue of imperialism, when do you think it ended? African nations only gained independence in the 60's and central and south America are still fighting for political and economic independence. My own country is still divided by an imperialist nation, Britain. Look at Chavez for instance. Elected(democratically) by an overwhelming majority of the people(greater than any US President in living memory) and the US tried in vain to overthrow him. This is documented in an excellent documentary by RTE1(Irish state broadcasting)called "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised." you can view it if you google it. Isn't that an act of an imperial power? If it isn't then please tell me what it is.
From an economic standpoint, true profit(not speculative) has stagnated and dropped since the early 1940's.(around the time global independence began to take shape). If you check a study by the French academics Dumenil and Levy, the profit rate in 1997 was still only half of it's value of 1948. Again, irrefutable evidence of the capitalist critique by Marx's Das Kapital. Our present economic malaise, the debt society, is again evidence of Marx's critique. Which ever way you look at it, capitalism benefits the few at the expense of the many and can only be sustained by force or coercion.
On the American Indian issue. Did they not use land? Buffalo etc. If American capital wasn't murdering 13 million of them for resources were you doing it for fun? Have you read Dee Brown's "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee?" If you trace American imperialism, once American capital had finished Manifest Destiny it then took it oversees. The Spanish-American War being the start and Iraq being the end(so far). America either did it by "burning tepees and whipping other human beings" or put in place regimes who would do it for them in order either to exploit workers and resources or to open markets for their products.
"Our ugly demolitions favored no one, not even ourselves." I disagree, again I think you confuse American capitalist interests with the interests of the American people/society. If it didn't benefit anyones interests why do it?
In most respects, the capitalist system of innovation is to be commended but it's allocation of profit is the cause of much human suffering. By restricting and controlling that profit for the benefit of the many instead of the few is not Marxist ideology it is common sense, from an economic point, a democratic point and from a sustainability of the planet point don't you think?
November 14, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all sure what you mean by "true profit" has dropped since 1940, since you distinguish this profit as "non-speculative". Capitalism - with all its components - is, by its nature, speculative. Are you trying to break off and define a unique brand of capital-free "profit"?
While imperialism may work in the short-run, historical evidence proves it a disaster over the long haul. Nothing you cite contradicts this. Yes, most African countries have been free since the '50s and '60s; but that's about a half-century ago. How long will it take?
The problem with emerging countries may not be capitalist exploitation as much as flaws in their own social and economic structure. Before China implemented a capitalist market, even in its limited state, it languished as an economic and strategic backwater. But the overall lesson is clear: Wealth cannot be built, in the long-run, by simply stealing someone else's.
You tend to mush all American history together, categorizing all its conflicts and wars as "imperialist". There are other factors involved in any country's action besides building a Marx-model empire. Economic advantage is a key geopolitical motivation - obviously. But political and military strategy have just as much weight; we may want to check another nation's aggression simply because it directly threatens our own with violent, militant action. The Spanish-American War was pure imperialism in the "classic", acquisitive sense of the term; Vietnam, on the other hand, was a disastrous chess game between the United States and the Soviet Union. That Vietnam was prized for its "rich" commercial resources is ludicrous: It has none.
Wars have been profitable for profiteers since the beginning of humankind - and the Iraq War is no different. Yes, it has been an immense boon for the military industry - at the expense of American taxpayers. But outside the borders of this country it is predomintately a strategic project, not an imperial one - not, at least, as Marxism defines imperial.
We can filter everything that happens in the world and in human history through whatever crackpot theory or pseudo-religion we want. It renders us blinkered, inflexible and dogmatic - fatal in today's world.
Oh... I cited Denmark since it's foremost among postwar Western "socialist" countries in which cracks have begun to show - evidenced by a growing center-right domination of the government since 2001.
I'm enjoying this, too...
November 17, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry... I forgot a point. Your interesting comment, here:
"By restricting and controlling that profit for the benefit of the many instead of the few is not Marxist ideology it is common sense, from an economic point, a democratic point and from a sustainability of the planet point don't you think?"
And who will we hand the keys to that particular kingdom? Whoever "restricts and controls" profits derived from the engines of industry will be very popular, magnificently powerful... and breathtakingly corrupt.
...No matter what feel-good gibberish they spout.
November 17, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
San Fernando Cert,
Well, you raise many interesting points. Firstly, you are correct. I should have used the term “surplus value” rather than “true profit”, you know, the extraction of capital from labour during the production process. You intimated the problem I was trying to argue when you yourself said “we use to make things.” So I stand corrected on that issue.
Regards Vietnam, the record, in de-classified Pentagon papers and NSC documents, clearly shows the motivation behind the Vietnam war, funnily enough those same documents, re-American foreign policy- also give a clear indication of why controlling the supply of Middle Eastern oil(Iraq War)is vital to US imperial interests, perhaps you should read them. Look,you can spin it anyway you want but as I've said the motivation of US foreign policy is clearly documented. If you want to view a similar debate to ours then I suggest you listen to, or read the transcript of, the Chomsky-Pearle debate, goggle it.
On the African issue, I agree with you. Imperialist exploitation cannot be a “totality” when defining the continents problems. You ask, “How long will it take?” Well, to understand that you have to live in a country that has been occupied by an imperialist power rather than living in one that has gained from it. My own country, The Republic of Ireland, gained independence in 1916 but we have only become a “viable” nation state in the last 15-20 years. Why? Most would agree that the injection of EU cash, not in the form of loans like in Africa, is the only reason we've become viable. Imperialism is more nuanced than the simple extraction of resources. In the case of Ireland it has led to mass immigration thus the loss of labour capital which leads to a lack of Govt. Revenue from taxes which leads to a lack of internal infrastructure condusive to trade which, in turn, leads to more immigration, thus the problems become cyclic even when the imperial power has gone. In order for this cycle to stop, someone, perhaps the imperialist nations who gained for 200 years, should pay reparations to Africa, rather than giving them loans that lead to an export market(the quickest way to pay them back), rigged for the benefit of industrialised nations who can afford to subsidise the production of raw materials. Better still, rather than giving money to despots perhaps they could build the infrastructure and tool it with African labour.
I had to laugh when you cited Denmark as evidence of a crack in post war "socialist" countries. A crack maybe but then what is an economic meltdown in "Capitalist" countries if not an earthquake?
On this issue----"And who will we hand the keys to that particular kingdom? Whoever "restricts and controls" profits derived from the engines of industry will be very popular, magnificently powerful... and breathtakingly corrupt."..... hasn't it already happened? Look at your wealth distribution for evidence.
In this regard I couldn't agree with you more,it is scary to give people that monopolistic power so perhaps, instead of pigeonholing each other which renders us blinkered, inflexible and dogmatic maybe it's time we made our positions clear. I am not a marxist for the very reason that I believe in a free-market, capital economy. So, I'll ask you a question, should a Capitalist be able to own anything they want if they have the assets to buy them and do you define capital in it's broad sense as assets. i.e that is things subject to ownership and capable of increase.
Secondly, perhaps I should define the term capital from my perspective. I would define capital in the classical economist sense: Capital is wealth used to produce more wealth, or wealth in the course of exchange. That is, material things, produced by human labour that satisfy human desires and have exchange value.
I look forward to a reply and again I'm enjoying this.
November 19, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink