'Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar' - Quote

[theyounghistorian77]

Not sure if this would be better placed in the Literature section or here, It's a quote from a book im reading at the moment, and i thought it may interest you all

"'A revolution without firing squads,' Lenin is meant to haave said, 'is meaningless.' He spent his career praising the terror of the french revolution because his bolshevism was a unique creed, 'a social system based on blood-letting'. The bolsheviks were atheists but they were hardly secular politicians in the conventional sense: they stooped to kill from the smugness of the highest moral eminence. Bolshevism may not have been a religion, but it was close enough. Stalin told Beria the bolsheviks were a 'sort of military-religious order'. When Dzerzhinsky, Founder of the Cheka died, Stalin called him 'a devout knight of the proletariat'. Stalin's 'order of sword-bearers' resembled ... the theocracy of the Iranian Ayatollahs, more than any traditional secular movement. They would die and kill for their faith in the inevitable progress towards human betterment, making sacrifices of their own families with a fervour only seen in the religious slaughters and martyrdoms of the Middle Ages - and the Middle East.

They regarded themselves as special 'noble-blooded' people. When Stalin asked General Zhukov if the capital might fall in 1941, he said 'Can we hold Moscow, Tell me as a bolshevik?' as an 18th century Englishman might say, 'Tell me as a Gentleman!'

The 'Sword-bearers' had to believe with messianic faith, to act with the correct ruthlessness, and to convince others that they were right to do so. Stalin's 'Quasi-islamic' fanaticism was typical of the Bolshevik magnates: Mikoyan's son called his father 'a Bolshevik Fanatic'. Most came from devoutly religious Backgrounds. They hated Judeo-Christianity - but the orthodoxy of their parents was replaced by something even more rigid, a systematic amorality: 'This religion - or science, as it was modestly called by it's adepts - invests man with a godlike authority ... in the 20's, a good many people drew a parallel to the victory of christianity and thought this new religion would last a thousand years,' wrote Nadezhda Mandelstam. 'All were agreed on the superiority of the new creed that promised heaven on earth instead of other worldly rewards.'

The party justified it's 'dictatorship' through purity of faith. Their Scriptures were the teachings of Marxism-Lenninism, regarded as a 'scientific' Truth. Since ideology was so important, every leader had to be - or seem to be - an expert on Marxism-Lenninism, so that these ruffians spent their weary nights studying, to improve their esoteric credentials, dreary articles on dialectical materialism. It was so important that Molotov and Polina even discussed Marxism in their love letters: 'Polichka my darling ... reading Marxist Classics is very necessary ... You must read some more of Lenin's Works coming out soon and then a number of Stalin's ... I so want to see you.'

'Partymindedness' was 'an almost mystical concept' explained Kopelev. 'The indispensable prequisites were iron discipline and faithful observance of all the rituals of Party Life.' As one veteran Communist put it, a Bolshevik was not someone who believed merely in marxism but 'someone who had absolute faith in his party no matter what ... A person with the ability to adapt his morality and conscience in such a way that he can unreservedly accept the dogma that the party is never wrong - even though it's wrong all the time.' Stalin did not exaggerate when he boasted: 'We Bolsheviks are people of a special cut.'"

 

[PAB]

:roll: hmmm,

Some of the crazyness I can believe. But it seems extreme. Im swimming around alot of literature on the soviet union and am trying to avoid texts by historians who distort to the evil communist and those who are also modern communists trotskyists etc . i opted for the work of Trotsky and Lenin rather than interpretations.

What does your historian instincts say about this information ??

 

[SpaceCDT]

:roll: hmmm,

Some of the crazyness I can believe. But it seems extreme. Im swimming around alot of literature on the soviet union and am trying to avoid texts by historians who distort to the evil communist and those who are also modern communists trotskyists etc . i opted for the work of Trotsky and Lenin rather than interpretations.

What does your historian instincts say about this information ??

distort to the evil communist?

Right because the nice fellows who shot 20,000 POWs in the back of the head and buried their bodies in Byelorus forest in 1940 were not evil at all!

 

[PAB]

Of course there was alot of evil, the list his huge, the distortion is communist = evil.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

It seems to me that Communism is very much like a religion in that it is, or claims to be, a total solution. That is to say that Communism presents itself as the lens through which all things come into focus, not only politically and economically, but historically, socially, (even scientifically), etc.

Communism thus tends to run afoul of the same abuses as religion, and for the same reason. Once only one goal or idea matters, then all things become justified in obtaining that objective, and all other ideas or motivations be come at best irrelevant - pointless indulgences - and at worst.... well, the OP



I think that Communism can only be a boon to humanity on any level if and when it is realized that Communist policies do not have the capacity to fix all problems. In other words, it must be non-dogmatic. And you do find people who think this way. Most of them, however, tend not to call themselves Communists; at least in my experience. Thus I am always wary when I come across people who invoke the moniker.

Thus, in response to PAB, I view Trotskyists in roughly the same way as I view Unitarians or the United Church of Christ:
Well-meaning groups, very apologetic for, and upset about, the abuses of their peers, but fundamentally ignorant as to the root cause of these abuses, which they unwittingly perpetuate.

 

[PAB]

The comparison of communism with religion is only relevant in that they are both ideologies. This doesn't make communism like a religion. Belief in communism can however lead to dogmatism, to be a communist is to be dogmatic of the ideology of communism. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, justifying mass murder torture or any abusive criminal behaviour in the name of any belief is a bad thing though.

(plus we should be careful to separate Marxism from communism, as they are often confused and distorted)

Communism offers no such single united goal, it isn't a final solution. This is where Marx is important, as communism is only significant in relation to the present economic and political system. To be a communist means that you are born in a certain political economic system (capitalism or possibly some form of feudalism) in which you believe the system can be altered and changed towards giving the economic -political power to the people. A communist would have to realise that giving more democratic freedom and power to the people is limited in capitalism by its very structure.

Religions are based on mysticism and supernaturalism, Communism is based on the equality of humankind as humankind in human society, -the science (social science) which is often talked about such as 'scientific socialism' as a mode of transition out of capitalism - the scientific outlook spawns from Marx in his criticism of utopian socialism and the need to understand the current mode of economy hence Das Kapital. Communism isn't however exclusively scientific nor atheistic - Christian Communism , quite dominant in Latin America I believe.

Communism , is just a great idea. (Religion claims supernatural mystical knowledge)

I call my self a communist . why?. I quote Samuel Beckett from Worstward Ho:

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."

 

[Anachronous Rex]

For the record, I did not say that Communism was a religion, but rather that it was like a religion in one very specific way:
That it is a total (note: not 'final') solution.

I am well aware of the fact that Communism makes no metaphysical claims, nor invokes the supernatural; it is not a religion (or at least, not intrinsically.) Communist thinkers do, however, present the totality of human existence as distilled down to class struggle, and from that basis feel able and qualified to comment upon all subjects and fields, excluding none; whether or not it is Marx's intent, this has been the trend historically. History, Sociology, Anthropology, Economics, Politics, Theology, and Philosophy, are just some of the subjects by which Marx's theories are deemed applicable, to say nothing of the (often quite laughable) attempts to branch off Communist genres of Art, Music, Chemistry, Biology, and even Mathematics.

This is not a criticism of Marx. I, for instance, find his ideas invaluable when discussing deviant behavior in Sociology, and history as described through class struggle really is a fascinating subject with wide application and a lot of great literature.

Still, this widespread applicability does tend to render Marx's ideas vulnerable to abuse. It is very easy to understand the temptation by Communist intellectuals to say that they really do apply to everything, and that other methods of, for instance, historical interpretation are naive or irrelevant, if not wrong outright. Eventually, it seems, almost all of them fall victim to this sort of thing. This, combined with a mandate to be proactive in establishment of human equity, makes the whole enterprise a very easy candidate for dogmatism.

This is why I tend to dislike total solutions. Well, actually not the solutions themselves so much (usually they're at least somewhat interesting), but their proponents. People who define themselves by the idea.

Which is why I say again: There is good to be gleaned from Communism (/Marxism/whatever), but it tends not to come from self-styled Communists; at least in my experience.

 

[PAB]

"to say nothing of the (often quite laughable) attempts to branch off Communist genres of Art, Music, Chemistry, Biology, and even Mathematics."

what exactly do you mean by this?
.....Art something i know a little about is rooted historically in western class society (class distinction) , in which the origin of the term 'Fine Art' once known as the 'polite Arts' comes from social -class power. ......or is this me being dogmatic , (this is based on art history by a non-Marxist however)

Who exactly presents "the totality of human existence as distilled down to class struggle" and where ?
im surprised if this is the case, since there is the understanding of human existence pre class societies with primitive communism and 'savagery' with some of Engels work. In historical context today you cant separate human existence from class struggle, as that is part of our environment, we are born into it.
There is this reductive method used in (my interpretation) of Marx for example he reduces the complexities of the economic processes to pick at the underlying causes for that behaviour processes before then trying to build it back up again (not an easy read). Whether this is valid logically , the dialectic method , is another topic but valid.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

"to say nothing of the (often quite laughable) attempts to branch off Communist genres of Art, Music, Chemistry, Biology, and even Mathematics."

what exactly do you mean by this?
.....Art something i know a little about is rooted historically in western class society (class distinction) , in which the origin of the term 'Fine Art' once known as the 'polite Arts' comes from social -class power. ......or is this me being dogmatic , (this is based on art history by a non-Marxist however)

Heh, you're over complicating things. I simply refer to Soviet attempts to branch off their own approaches to these subjects. Some of these, such as art, they were moderately successful at (even if they tended to steal a lot.) Others, like biology, are so clearly unrelated to workings of the proletariat that you just have to be somewhat in awe that this was ever attempted. Clearly there can be no 'Communist Biology,' biology is the same regardless of who is studding it. All the same, this happened; and I say it happened because, for some reason, that is the sort of beast Communism is. Like the core teachings of Siddhārtha Gautama, it just seems to find its way into everything. Oh, and just to be clear this is again not to say that Communism is a religion, it's just an apt comparison.

Who exactly presents "the totality of human existence as distilled down to class struggle" and where ?
im surprised if this is the case, since there is the understanding of human existence pre class societies with primitive communism and 'savagery' with some of Engels work. In historical context today you cant separate human existence from class struggle, as that is part of our environment, we are born into it.
There is this reductive method used in (my interpretation) of Marx for example he reduces the complexities of the economic processes to pick at the underlying causes for that behaviour processes before then trying to build it back up again (not an easy read). Whether this is valid logically , the dialectic method , is another topic but valid.

I think to a certain extent the second part of this answers the first. The problem with generalizations is that they're never true. Still, I think a fair case can be made that self-proclaimed Communists tend to view class struggle as, if not the only element of human existence, at least the only important one. Now, I can somewhat see how they have to do this in order to argue for their cause. It would be silly, if you're arguing for a major departure from the status quo, not to present that change as essential.

The problem arises when people take this too seriously. There are people (I have had the misfortune of speaking to some of them) who seriously believe that Communism is the answer to all human problems; even problems that seem unrelated would somehow more easily be sorted out if we just adopted classless economics. That's what I refer to as a "Total Solution." It's easy to see how, from that perspective, things like the OP become inevitable.


Also, I'm just curious, are we arguing now? Because all you have to do if you want to defeat me is to say that my experience of Communists is not representative of the Communists that you know; that is to say, my definition does not remark upon reality, and I would be forced to concede that this may be the case.