After Stalin: Totalitarian or Authoritarian?

The answer is simple Bev, it doesn't make any difference. Call it what you like, people were murdered, people suffered and were imprisoned and no, it doesn't matter what you call it...those mental exerciese are left to scholars I guess. It means nothing the those who have suffered or last family members because of the brutality of a government.
Ghandi was right.

agreed, and then some


Tatiana+

The answer is simple Bev, it doesn't make any difference. Call it what you like, people were murdered, people suffered and were imprisoned and no, it doesn't matter what you call it...those mental exerciese are left to scholars I guess. It means nothing the those who have suffered or last family members because of the brutality of a government.
Ghandi was right.

If the standard for assessing governments is the perception of their victims, then all governments become the same:  the tsars for the pogroms they countenanced; the Nazis for their concentration camps; the soviets for their purges; the Americans for eliminating the native occupants of their new lands; the British for their South African concentration camps; the Bourbons for massacring their Huegenots; Ferdinand and Isabella for establishing the Inquisition; ad nauseum.

Consider this.  Jews were killed in tsarist pogroms and in Nazi concentration camps.  If the standard is the perception of the victim who is killed arbitrarily, then the tsarist government is the moral or political equivalent of the Nazi government.

But does anyone really believe that?

Tsarfan,
My point is that, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter what it is called. You still have humans killing, tortuting etc each other. I am trying to say that because I don't think until we all realize that, regardless of what we call our government, the outcome is the same and one is just as brutal as the other, there will be no end to it. You use the Native Americans as an example, so I will use that for the purpose of discussion. Do you think the Native Americans reaped any of the benefits as democracy? How is what happened to them any different than what happend to the Jews in Germany? It's not. Most governments have a history of purging or eliminating groups of people. It is my humble opinion that until we understand this in a very human way, it will not stop. I hope I am making sense. I am just on my first cup of coffee.

I don't think we actually disagree here, Lexi.  The answer depends on the perspective.  Every government -- and every form of government -- has had victims.  From the perspective of those victims who died, there would be little use in debating whether the government that is killing them is totalitarian or authoritarian or anything else.

But governments exert vast influence over the lives of the much greater masses of their citizens who are not killed.  And the nature of their governments makes a great deal of difference to them.

Understanding the nature of governments -- and what early political behaviors signal that a government is moving toward a particularly destructive form -- is very much worth study and debate.

If the masses of Russians in 1917 had really grasped the difference between autocracy, democracy, and totalitarianism -- and recognized the political behaviors that typify each -- might not the Bolsheviks have had a more difficult row to hoe?

I see your point Tsarfan and no, we don't disagree.

You said: If the masses of Russians in 1917 had really grasped the difference between autocracy, democracy, and totalitarianism -- and recognized the political behaviors that typify each -- might not the Bolsheviks have had a more difficult row to hoe?

That is the 64 million dollar question. ( I say million instead of thousand to allow for inflation.  )
Would it have made a difference in how the early American settlers handled the Native Americans? They certainly new that our government was a democracy? Yet it didn't stop the brutal murders of a Sovereign Nation and that knowledge didn't seem to make it more difficult to nearly wipe out an entire populationn. Did it stop the forced exile of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans? Did it give anyone pause before The Trail of Tears? I don't think so. Despite being a government "by the people, of the people and for the people" and founded on tennants of liberty for all, we justified the slaughter of people cliaming it our "manifest destiny."
As long as there are leaders who believe it is their god-given right to rule, there will be slaughter. 

Yes, it is worthy of study and debate. However, there are so many people in all nations that do not have that opportunity or desire. It seems the struggle for existance takes its toll on the masses and whoever seems to be offering the best deal get the support.

I am sure that there were many in Russia who really believed that Lenin offered a better life. It seems that whoever offerst the better life in terms or creating the illusion of a better life, often wins.

Just some thoughts...
Lexi

Would it have made a difference in how the early American settlers handled the Native Americans? They certainly new that our government was a democracy? Yet it didn't stop the brutal murders of a Sovereign Nation and that knowledge didn't seem to make it more difficult to nearly wipe out an entire populationn. Did it stop the forced exile of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans? Did it give anyone pause before The Trail of Tears? I don't think so. Despite being a government "by the people, of the people and for the people" and founded on tennants of liberty for all, we justified the slaughter of people cliaming it our "manifest destiny."
As long as there are leaders who believe it is their god-given right to rule, there will be slaughter. 

Of course you are right, Lexi, there will perhaps always be some slaughter, although there is always the hope in open societies that a free and unhindered media will report the truth and the problem will be corrected by the accumulated force of a well-informed and morally outraged public. Granted, back in the nineteenth century there wasn't much morally outraged public opinion over the American government's treatment of the Native Americans. But, please note, there was some, and these people didn't end up in concentration camps for expressing their opinions on the subject, as they would have done if they had been, say, Soviet citizens expressing outrage over the deportation of the Crimean Tartars, the Volga Germans or the Chechens back in the 1940s. Again, as I've said before, it's the scope of the totalitarian government and its aim to control and terrorize the entire population (not just isolated minorities, like Native Americans and African Americans) that differentiates it from other systems of government. Americans in the late nineteenth century could read about the Trail of Tears in their newspapers, could discuss amongst themselves the lynching of African-Americans in the South. Such options, that is, to read about and discuss crimes against humanity perpetrated by their own government, were not open to the citizens of the Soviet Union under Stalin, or indeed, under any of his successors until Gorbachev. In order to engage in these activities Soviet citizens had to resort to the illegal, underground press, or samizdat, thereby committing an official crime against the state for which they could end up either in prison or a concentration camp, depending on how "anti-Soviet" the Soviet government ultimately determined them to be.

That is true Elisabeth. You will get no disagreement from me on those points.
However, I do not consider African Americans or Native Americans isolated minorities. The Native Americans were a Sovereign Nation. And I agree, a free press can lead to and outraged society. But sometimes it takes years for that to happen and then it is too late. The fact that people could read about the Trail of Tears in the newspaper, didn't stop it from happening. We somehow justified it and that is no different the Lenin or Hitler justifying slaugher. Do you see what I am saying here?
And another point, there were victim among those who stood up against injustice. No, they were not thrown into Gulags, but Martin Luther Kind and Medgar Evers are just as dead. They were killed by hate. They were killed because they stood up against oppression and because they stood for equal rights in a country where that issue should not even have been questioned. It is what is in the hearts of men that must also be considered and there is nothing that government can do about that.

However, I do not consider African Americans or Native Americans isolated minorities. The Native Americans were a Sovereign Nation.

I meant only that these two groups were isolated in the sense that numerically they were outnumbered by the surrounding white population, and did not have powerful lobbying groups in the Congress to protect and promote their best interests. A situation which is the reverse of today, I might add, in so far as lobbying groups go.

And I agree, a free press can lead to and outraged society. But sometimes it takes years for that to happen and then it is too late. The fact that people could read about the Trail of Tears in the newspaper, didn't stop it from happening. We somehow justified it and that is no different the Lenin or Hitler justifying slaugher. Do you see what I am saying here?

Well, that is the great tragedy of it all. Even ostensibly democratic governments cannot prevent great injustices from occurring. Sometimes, as in this case, the government itself is guilty of the injustice. But that is why Winston Churchill described democracy as the lesser of two evils. Note, he did not describe it as a positive good, but as an evil, albeit a lesser evil than Communism.

I do believe that what differentiates totalitarian from democratic governments is that there is inherent in the very democratic process a corresponding corrective process, because even if a horrible crime against humanity is perpetrated one day, the next day or even decades later the criminals can still be called to account - if not in the courts then at least in the court of public opinion - thanks precisely to the nature of the free press and freedom of speech in a democracy. But here, again, it is up to the citizenry to act. If the citizenry remains indifferent, nothing will change.
 

And another point, there were victim among those who stood up against injustice. No, they were not thrown into Gulags, but Martin Luther Kind and Medgar Evers are just as dead. They were killed by hate. They were killed because they stood up against oppression and because they stood for equal rights in a country where that issue should not even have been questioned. It is what is in the hearts of men that must also be considered and there is nothing that government can do about that.

But Lexi, the criminals who murdered these American heroes were prosecuted by the government for their crimes. And please note: we now have an official Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. None of these positive developments would have been possible in a closed, totalitarian society like the Soviet Union. In fact King and Evers, if they had been Soviet dissidents, would not have even been murdered publicly by disturbed individuals, but murdered instead by the state itself, in the secrecy of a prison or a concentration camp or by means of some surreptitiously delivered poison (as in the famous case of the Bulgarian dissident Dmitrov). You can bet on it. And the truth would only have come out under Gorbachev's glasnost', when many of the secret governmental archives were finally opened to public scrutiny.

However, I do not consider African Americans or Native Americans isolated minorities. The Native Americans were a Sovereign Nation.

I meant only that these two groups were isolated in the sense that numerically they were outnumbered by the surrounding white population, and did not have powerful lobbying groups in the Congress  to promote their best interests. A situation which is the reverse of today, I might add, in so far as lobbying groups go.

Ah! Ok I see.  I was thinking of it in the early stages of American history when the Native Americans did outnmber the white settlers. There was no lobbying Congress then. 
 

And I agree, a free press can lead to and outraged society. But sometimes it takes years for that to happen and then it is too late. The fact that people could read about the Trail of Tears in the newspaper, didn't stop it from happening. We somehow justified it and that is no different the Lenin or Hitler justifying slaugher. Do you see what I am saying here?

Well, that is the great tragedy of it all. Even ostensibly democratic governments cannot prevent great injustices from occurring. Sometimes, as in this case, the government itself is guilty of the injustice. But that is why Winston Churchill described democracy as the lesser of two evils. Note, he did not describe it as a positive good, but as an evil, albeit a lesser evil than Communism.

I have to admit, old Winston had a point. 

I do believe that what differentiates totalitarian from democratic governments is that there is inherent in the very democratic process a corresponding corrective process, because even if a horrible crime against humanity is perpetrated one day, the next day or even decades later the criminals can still be called to account - if not in the courts then at least in the court of public opinion - thanks precisely to the nature of the free press and freedom of speech in a democracy. But here, again, it is up to the citizenry to act. If the citizenry remains indifferent, nothing will change.

I would agree with that as well but it will all be for naught if the citizenry grows complacent and allows the erosion of civil libterties.
 

And another point, there were victim among those who stood up against injustice. No, they were not thrown into Gulags, but Martin Luther Kind and Medgar Evers are just as dead. They were killed by hate. They were killed because they stood up against oppression and because they stood for equal rights in a country where that issue should not even have been questioned. It is what is in the hearts of men that must also be considered and there is nothing that government can do about that.

But Lexi, the criminals who murdered these American heroes were prosecuted by the government for their crimes. And please note: we now have an official Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. None of these positive developments would have been possible in a closed, totalitarian society like the Soviet Union. In fact King and Evers, if they had been Soviet dissidents, would not have even been murdered publicly by disturbed individuals, but murdered instead by the state itself, in the secrecy of a prison or a concentration camp or by means of some surreptitiously delivered poison (as in the famous case of the Bulgarian dissident Dmitrov). You can bet on it. And the truth would only have come out under Gorbachev's glasnost', when many of the secret governmental archives were finally opened to public scrutiny.

Somehow, I think the family of King would gladly sacrifice the holiday for their father's life. I don't disagree with you that none of that would have happened in the Soviet Union. However, King and Evers are just as dead either way.
I agree about Gorbachev and glasnost, unfortunately much of that seems to be going by the wayside with Putin and there seems to be no public outcry for the freedom enjoyed under Gorbachev. In fact, I read recently that Putin's approval rating is something like 77 percent. There is no more free press, etc. Which begs the question, do the Russian people prefer a more totolatarian type of government than a democratic type? I don't know the answer here, and am looking for feedback.
My main point remains, it is what is in men's hearts that drives them and that cannot be legislated.

Somehow, I think the family of King would gladly sacrifice the holiday for their father's life. I don't disagree with you that none of that would have happened in the Soviet Union. However, King and Evers are just as dead either way.
I agree about Gorbachev and glasnost, unfortunately much of that seems to be going by the wayside with Putin and there seems to be no public outcry for the freedom enjoyed under Gorbachev. In fact, I read recently that Putin's approval rating is something like 77 percent. There is no more free press, etc. Which begs the question, do the Russian people prefer a more totolatarian type of government than a democratic type? I don't know the answer here, and am looking for feedback.
My main point remains, it is what is in men's hearts that drives them and that cannot be legislated.

Putin's government is actually highly unstable, no matter what his personal approval ratings are reported to be - and since he has all but completely muzzled the press, how reliable can such polls be, anyway? My husband always talks to taxi drivers when he's in Russia because they're the most opinionated Russians you can find and are the true weathervanes of public opinion. The last time he was there, what were they saying? Well, interestingly enough, they were all expressing their hatred of Putin... The main point, however, is that the Russian economy is very fragile, propped up by artificially high oil prices. If the price of oil were to decline precipitously tomorrow we'd probably see mass protests and possibly even rioting in the streets. Meanwhile the neo-fascist skinhead movement is growing in strength (even if they got beat up by the police during their rally on the Day of National Unity, November 4).

I have various theories as to why Russians seem to prefer an authoritarian or even a totalitarian government over a democratic one. I think first and foremost perhaps it's because such a government gives them a false sense of security and importance in the world. After all, they're a declining power, but they still retain illusions of grandeur and want to be thought of as the same superpower they were in the days of the Soviets. A lot of national pride is on the line. Also, as Tsarfan has suggested, the entire nation might be suffering from some sort of mass, chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which causes them to glorify and make excuses for the abuser (i.e., the omnipotent ruler). This is another theory I've ascribed to myself for a long time.   

I agree that it is necessary for distinctions to be made so that people can understand the consequences of their choice in government.  What I don't agree with is Eliz's nihilistic view that because actions won't have any effect, that they are therefore useless.  If you don't have ideals, if you don't stand up for them, then you're tacitly supporting the bad government.  Every citizen can make the choice to defy bad government.  You may not like the consequences, one of which might be death, but you cannot convince me that living a craven, cowardly life without idealism and clarity of vision is living.  It's surviving - it's making the choice that quantity of life is better than quality of life.  I don't see any point to that.  It has nothing to do with the hope of an afterlife or the reward of heaven, it has to do with human fulfillment, of becoming the person you always hoped you could be.  A meaningless existence is a waste of human spirit. 

If the prisoners in the gulag were spiritually defiant and the guards laughed at them, that doesn't reflect badly on the prisoners, it doesn't make their sacrifice meaningless, what is does is magnify their spirituality and make the guards' actions meaningless.  The guards then are only exercising physical control, they're not winning anymore.

Somehow, I think the family of King would gladly sacrifice the holiday for their father's life. I don't disagree with you that none of that would have happened in the Soviet Union. However, King and Evers are just as dead either way.
I agree about Gorbachev and glasnost, unfortunately much of that seems to be going by the wayside with Putin and there seems to be no public outcry for the freedom enjoyed under Gorbachev. In fact, I read recently that Putin's approval rating is something like 77 percent. There is no more free press, etc. Which begs the question, do the Russian people prefer a more totolatarian type of government than a democratic type? I don't know the answer here, and am looking for feedback.
My main point remains, it is what is in men's hearts that drives them and that cannot be legislated.

Putin's government is actually highly unstable, no matter what his personal approval ratings are reported to be - and since he has all but completely muzzled the press, how reliable can such polls be, anyway? My husband always talks to taxi drivers when he's in Russia because they're the most opinionated Russians you can find and are the true weathervanes of public opinion. The last time he was there, what were they saying? Well, interestingly enough, they were all expressing their hatred of Putin... The main point, however, is that the Russian economy is very fragile, propped up by artificially high oil prices. If the price of oil were to decline precipitously tomorrow we'd probably see mass protests and possibly even rioting in the streets. Meanwhile the neo-fascist skinhead movement is growing in strength (even if they got beat up by the police during their rally on the Day of National Unity, November 4).

I have various theories as to why Russians seem to prefer an authoritarian or even a totalitarian government over a democratic one. I think first and foremost perhaps it's because such a government gives them a false sense of security and importance in the world. After all, they're a declining power, but they still retain illusions of grandeur and want to be thought of as the same superpower they were in the days of the Soviets. A lot of national pride is on the line. Also, as Tsarfan has suggested, the entire nation might be suffering from some sort of mass, chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which causes them to glorify and make excuses for the abuser (i.e., the omnipotent ruler). This is another theory I've ascribed to myself for a long time.   

Elisabeth,
Thank you very much for sharing the information. It appears Putin has been unsuccessful in abridging freedom of speech.
Your theory on post traumatic stress disorder is very interesting. And you could well be right. Here is one of my theories, tell my what you think.
I think that a lot of the Russian people are very poor and that they believe they were better off under Communism because at least the state did provide, although it wasn't much. The Russians do not have the industry, etc. to employ the millions of people who live there. Is that a correct asssessment? So even a little is better than nothing at all.
I will look forward to your response,
Lexi

I agree that it is necessary for distinctions to be made so that people can understand the consequences of their choice in government.  What I don't agree with is Eliz's nihilistic view that because actions won't have any effect, that they are therefore useless.  If you don't have ideals, if you don't stand up for them, then you're tacitly supporting the bad government.  Every citizen can make the choice to defy bad government.  You may not like the consequences, one of which might be death, but you cannot convince me that living a craven, cowardly life without idealism and clarity of vision is living.  It's surviving - it's making the choice that quantity of life is better than quality of life.  I don't see any point to that.  It has nothing to do with the hope of an afterlife or the reward of heaven, it has to do with human fulfillment, of becoming the person you always hoped you could be.  A meaningless existence is a waste of human spirit.

If the prisoners in the gulag were spiritually defiant and the guards laughed at them, that doesn't reflect badly on the prisoners, it doesn't make their sacrifice meaningless, what is does is magnify their spirituality and make the guards' actions meaningless.  The guards then are only exercising physical control, they're not winning anymore.

I agree with that last statement Bev. What I have been trying to say all along is that it doesn't matter what distinctions you draw, bad government is bad government. That is putting in a langauge that anyone can understand. I doubt seriously that the Russian people spend much time discussing which type of government they prefer. What they can tell, hopefully, is what is bad and what isn't. And maybe many don't really know that, be it Russia or Somlia. Pick a country. Until the basics are provided, or the means by which to obtain the basics, all people really care about is whether they are going to eat and be able to provide for their families. Consequently, be it an autocrat or a democrat, who ever offers some form a stability will be the one who is able to muster support from people.
And yes, spirituality is a big part of all of this. That is what I meant by saying all that stuff about what is in man's heart.
Lexi

I agree that it is necessary for distinctions to be made so that people can understand the consequences of their choice in government.  What I don't agree with is Eliz's nihilistic view that because actions won't have any effect, that they are therefore useless.  If you don't have ideals, if you don't stand up for them, then you're tacitly supporting the bad government.  Every citizen can make the choice to defy bad government.  You may not like the consequences, one of which might be death, but you cannot convince me that living a craven, cowardly life without idealism and clarity of vision is living.  It's surviving - it's making the choice that quantity of life is better than quality of life.  I don't see any point to that.  It has nothing to do with the hope of an afterlife or the reward of heaven, it has to do with human fulfillment, of becoming the person you always hoped you could be.  A meaningless existence is a waste of human spirit.

Bev, where did I say that people should be cowardly and craven under tyrannical regimes? Just because I think that murder stamps out a person's individuality doesn't mean that his actions while he still exists on the face of this earth are meaningless. Certainly, your actions (or inaction) impact everyone around you and can still have a lingering impact long after you are dead. I said that I greatly admire idealists like Solzhenitsyn and that people like this, who live by the principles they believe in, are the true heroes of this age and all ages. How is that endorsing cowardice?

Need I point out, too, that the heroes we are discussing, namely Gandhi and Solzhenitsyn, are chiefly characterized by an unshakeable belief in God and the eternal nature of the human soul. Just because I personally am not a believer doesn't mean I can't admire these men for their idealism.

Yet at the same time we have to understand that very few people are mentally and emotionally strong enough to defy totalitarian regimes. You have to be utterly willing to face the likelihood of your own death, and perhaps not only your own death, but that of your loved ones, too, for both the Nazis and the Soviets arrested family members of "criminals against the state." (And needless to say, in confronting violent death, it is very helpful to believe in God and an afterlife.) And I would argue that very few people, even religious people, are capable of such courage. It doesn't necessarily mean they are bad people, just because they are behaving in a "cowardly" way.  It's easy enough for us to say, cozily ensconced in front of our computers in the warmth and security of our own homes, that we ourselves would behave differently under similar circumstances, but how does one actually know such a thing until one is confronted with the reality of such a terrifying situation? From reading dozens of memoirs of survivors, it's clear that people behaved in completely unexpected ways under the extreme conditions of the Soviet and Nazi concentration camps. Previously honorable people became dishonorable, former weaklings suddenly showed unexpected strength of character. All I can say is, I hope none of us are ever tested in this way.

If the prisoners in the gulag were spiritually defiant and the guards laughed at them, that doesn't reflect badly on the prisoners, it doesn't make their sacrifice meaningless, what is does is magnify their spirituality and make the guards' actions meaningless.  The guards then are only exercising physical control, they're not winning anymore.

Again, you misunderstand me. I was using the prisoners' hunger strikes in the early days of the Gulag as an example of how passive nonresistance to evil, of the kind advocated by Tolstoy and Gandhi, IMHO simply does not work in a closed, totalitarian society of the type exemplified by Lenin and Stalin's Soviet Union. And later prisoners in the Gulag recognized this cold, hard fact and when they started to rebel in the 1950s resorted to violence, as indeed this was their only chance of getting any sort of recognition from the camp authorities.