Author Topic: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?  (Read 17905 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RichC

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2009, 05:50:52 PM »
It's interesting though that in Russia, Stalin insisted that upper level apparatchicks personally do the slaughtering rather than people drawn from the populace at large. 

So, are we in agreement at least that World War I had little to do with the genocides of the 20th century?

The Milgram studies are world famous.  In some cases, the mere fact that the "leader" was wearing a lab coat was enough to establish his authority.  I wonder what that says about the "dress down" society we live in today, where a person's status in a given hierarchy is much harder to glean from looking at them.  For example, I think Milgram was also involved in other studies on how people react to others based on how they are dressed. 
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 05:56:26 PM by RichC »

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2009, 06:09:36 PM »
It's interesting though that in Russia, Stalin insisted that upper level apparatchicks personally do the slaughtering rather than people drawn from the populace at large. 

So, are we in agreement at least that World War I had little to do with the genocides of the 20th century?

The Milgram studies are world famous.  In some cases, the mere fact that the "leader" was wearing a lab coat was enough to establish his authority.  I wonder what that says about the "dress down" society we live in today, where a person's status in a given hierarchy is much harder to glean from looking at them.  For example, I think Milgram was also involved in other studies on how people react to others based on how they are dressed. 

I disagree with your two first points, Rich. I saw one of Stalin's mass executioners on Soviet television back in 1991, just before the collapse of the entire system, and he was not by any definition an "upper level apparatchik." No, Stalin got people at every level of the system to do his dirty (or shall we even say, "wet") work for him. That's precisely why Russia today is such a mess. Virtually everyone is linked not only to a victim of Stalin, but to one of his collaborators or perpetrators as well.

And I still believe that World War I helped along the genocides of the 20th century, as did the brutal Soviet subjugation of Ukraine and the Baltic states. For example, I don't think there would have been nearly so many "willing" executioners under the Nazis as there were in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, if it had not been for the Red Terror inflicted on these conquered peoples in the aftermath of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. And let us recall for a moment the case of Ukraine, which had already been subjugated to the USSR and endured the worst of the terror famine a decade before, at the cost of millions of lives. Try to imagine the level of bitterness and hatred - and overall brutalization - engendered by the forced starvation and the needless suffering and deaths of one's loved ones.

I also don't buy the notion that a person in jeans and a T-shirt is necessarily less "authoritative" or for that matter, threatening to your job, as a person in a three-piece suit. Power is power is power. Academics like to think they're less threatening to their staff because they "dress down" but it's all the same underneath the new costumes. Everything still revolves around who has the power to fire and who doesn't.


... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2009, 09:17:54 PM »
Dress down may not make the person less authoritative, but it can make them harder to recognize in the environment in which we find them.  Therefore we may not make the connection before we make mistakes.

Perhaps in another generation which has not been conditioned to see those in authority in a three piece suit, you may be right, but while we are still pretty much conditioned by our past association with those in authority who dress the part "the clothes make the man" we will still identify the "leader" by the way he/she is dressed.

I find myself uncomfortable with the dressing down of the banking employees.  I don't like to be sold life insurance by a woman in khakis and a polo shirt even if it does have the bank logo on the pocket.  To me she looks like she is ready for a bank picnic not a session over which is better whole life or term.

But I worked in banking for almost 25 years and I was always told to "dress for success".  Even while I was working in income tax for the last 15 years, we had a dress code.

I still like to see those who dress like a professional not like they just stopped into the office on the way to a soft ball game.

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2009, 10:33:10 PM »
So could genocide have happened in imperial Russia? Perhaps. But it would have taken a very fanatically anti-Semitic tsar with intact autocratic powers (which doesn't exactly fit the description of Nicholas II after 1905).

I agree.  But wasn't Germany led by a fanatically anti-Semitic leader with intact autocratic powers at the time of the Holocaust?

I believe the raw material for genocide was present in both Germany and Russia before World War I.  What was lacking in both prior to World War I and present in both afterward was the match of psychopathic leadership to ignite it.

You could argue that World War I was what gave both countries psychopathic leadership in the 1930's.  I think that is certainly the case in Germany.  But I'm not so sure about Russia.  Bolshevism was the creation of western European economic theory and political philosophy combined with Russian political conditions and was a small but discernible phenomenon prior to World War I.  Naziism distorted and then borrowed from certain philosophies, but it had no real grounding of its own in political philosophy or economic theory.  It was more purely the creature of Post World War I conditions.  Hitler was an art student before World War I.  Stalin was a bank robber raising money for the Party.

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2009, 06:35:40 AM »
So could genocide have happened in imperial Russia? Perhaps. But it would have taken a very fanatically anti-Semitic tsar with intact autocratic powers (which doesn't exactly fit the description of Nicholas II after 1905).

I agree.  But wasn't Germany led by a fanatically anti-Semitic leader with intact autocratic powers at the time of the Holocaust?

I believe the raw material for genocide was present in both Germany and Russia before World War I.  What was lacking in both prior to World War I and present in both afterward was the match of psychopathic leadership to ignite it.

You could argue that World War I was what gave both countries psychopathic leadership in the 1930's.  I think that is certainly the case in Germany.  But I'm not so sure about Russia.  Bolshevism was the creation of western European economic theory and political philosophy combined with Russian political conditions and was a small but discernible phenomenon prior to World War I.  Naziism distorted and then borrowed from certain philosophies, but it had no real grounding of its own in political philosophy or economic theory.  It was more purely the creature of Post World War I conditions.  Hitler was an art student before World War I.  Stalin was a bank robber raising money for the Party.

I'm not sure I'm talking about "psychopathic leadership," Tsarfan, as being the only necessary component for creating conditions in which genocide can be carried out. I had more in mind entire populations utterly brutalized by the unprecedented violence of World War I, not only ordinary soldiers who had been in battle and witnessed the mass death of their comrades, men who had suffered unimaginable wounds to the both the body and the psyche, but also their relatives, entire peoples who were forced to evacuate their homes before the Germans even arrived. The refugee problem was horrendous in the Russian empire during World War I. And when you have this amount of social dislocation, chaos, and suffering, I don't think you're establishing much socio-political stability for the future. Add to that the mass trauma of the revolution, the civil war, and forced collectivization, not to mention the violence of the Soviet invasion of the Baltic states at the beginning of World War II, and what you get in my opinion is, if not a virtual guarantee of genocide, all the necessary preconditions for it to be carried out.

If very brutalized local populations were already seething with hatred against what they perceived to be internal "enemies" (identified as Jews, Communists, Gypsies, etc.) and the government gave them carte blanche to massacre these people, then it's not surprising that many of them would do so, to the very best of their ability. I'm just reminding everybody here that we shouldn't limit the scope of our inquiry into genocide to political leadership (not that you, Tsarfan, are doing this). Ordinary people participated in these murders, or encouraged them, or stood by and let them occur. By comparison the stories of rescue are few and far between. Why was that so? But it was so even under collectivization. Few Soviet peasants who wrote their memoirs recall anyone coming to their aid when they were evicted from their homes, deported from their villages, and watched other so-called kulaks get shot for protesting. On the contrary, their fellow villagers were often the first to denounce them. Is this human nature, or the result of decades of unparalleled hardship, or a combination of both? I think both. 

My point is, - I'll finally get to it - in my opinion, neither Germany nor Russia before World War I were probably hotbeds of genocidal tendencies amongst their peoples. Of course evils and murders and ethnic conflict were more or less common, but the necessary degree of psychological and social brutalization had not yet occurred. I suspect that before the horrors of World War I, a political party espousing genocide, whether this program was openly stated or only implied, would not have got very far in either tsarist Russia or imperial Germany. Because these were at the time relatively pluralistic societies with growing civil societies and a general common interest in remaining civil, even towards neighbors who might be regarded as somewhat suspect in the religious, ethnic, or even class sense.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 06:49:48 AM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline RichC

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2009, 09:32:10 AM »


I disagree with your two first points, Rich. I saw one of Stalin's mass executioners on Soviet television back in 1991, just before the collapse of the entire system, and he was not by any definition an "upper level apparatchik." No, Stalin got people at every level of the system to do his dirty (or shall we even say, "wet") work for him. That's precisely why Russia today is such a mess. Virtually everyone is linked not only to a victim of Stalin, but to one of his collaborators or perpetrators as well.

I was going by what I read in Lenin's Brain, which provides details on how the executions during the Great Terror had to be carried out by NKVD career officers in each of the 65 regions of the USSR.  Apparently the archives detail complaints from heads of the various Troikas who said they could not possibly kill so many people in so little time without help.  One officer complained that he could not kill more than three people a day, because of all the paperwork involved.  Further investigation showed he finally managed to kill up to 25 per day.  From what I can gather, the reason for this was Stalin's insistence on secrecy -- he wanted to minimize the chances of word getting out about the scale of the killing.  But he also wanted very broad "buy-in" from those who had a stake in the system.

Didn't Peter the Great also insist that his ministers personally participate in executions?  I thought he forced them to chop the heads off of convicts at the imperial estate outside Moscow.  He basically held classes on the best methods...


Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2009, 05:52:47 AM »


I disagree with your two first points, Rich. I saw one of Stalin's mass executioners on Soviet television back in 1991, just before the collapse of the entire system, and he was not by any definition an "upper level apparatchik." No, Stalin got people at every level of the system to do his dirty (or shall we even say, "wet") work for him. That's precisely why Russia today is such a mess. Virtually everyone is linked not only to a victim of Stalin, but to one of his collaborators or perpetrators as well.

I was going by what I read in Lenin's Brain, which provides details on how the executions during the Great Terror had to be carried out by NKVD career officers in each of the 65 regions of the USSR.  Apparently the archives detail complaints from heads of the various Troikas who said they could not possibly kill so many people in so little time without help.  One officer complained that he could not kill more than three people a day, because of all the paperwork involved.  Further investigation showed he finally managed to kill up to 25 per day.  From what I can gather, the reason for this was Stalin's insistence on secrecy -- he wanted to minimize the chances of word getting out about the scale of the killing.  But he also wanted very broad "buy-in" from those who had a stake in the system.

Didn't Peter the Great also insist that his ministers personally participate in executions?  I thought he forced them to chop the heads off of convicts at the imperial estate outside Moscow.  He basically held classes on the best methods...

As far as I know you are correct, RichC, about Peter the Great. He delegated many of the executions of the Streltsy to others and also participated in these executions himself. He was a bloody tyrant, by any definition of the term.

I am sure you are also correct about Stalin's Great Terror, and that apparatchiks at various levels of the system were instructed by their "Great Leader" to participate in mass executions of civilians. However, I'm also of the belief that rank and file career criminals and psychopaths were probably recruited as well (as they were in the Nazi death camps). Of course, it's possible that the man I saw on television who admitted to shooting personally hundreds if not thousands of innocent Soviet civilians was originally a "normal" career officer in the NKVD. But in the interview, taken in the early 1990s, he looked completely insane - I have never seen such mad, empty, dead eyes on anyone except in shows about psychopathic killers. Quite possibly, however, this was the result of the "jobs" he was required to perform under the rule of Stalin.

All this does make you wonder about the mental health of Soviet citizens, not to mention their leadership, during the Stalin period and in its immediate aftermath... As far as I know, someone as high-ranking as Nikita Khrushchev was never actually required to participate on a personal level in the murders of Ukrainian civilians... and yet he was, according to the historical record, instrumental, indeed decisive, in carrying out the incredibly vicious and sweeping Stalinist purges in the Soviet Ukraine. Hard to believe that this was the very same man who, decades later, criticized Stalin's personality cult at a party congress, freed tens of thousands of political prisoners from concentration camps, and enabled "The Thaw" in Soviet culture to come about... Hence the famous monument over Khrushchev's tomb - a bust of the Soviet leader that shows one half of the face white and the other half black, relegated to utter darkness. If you ask me, the sculptor got it right.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2009, 05:56:25 AM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2009, 09:33:18 AM »
Found this in "Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar" by Simon Montefiore 2004, Ch. 20 "Blood Bath By Numbers"
"The aim (in July 1937) was 'to finish off once and for all' all Enemies and those impossible to educate in socialism, so as to accelerate the erasing of class barriers and therefore bringing of paradise for the masses.  This final solution was a slaughter that made sense in terms of the faith and idealism of Bolshevism which was a religion based on the systematic destruction of classes.  The principle of ordering murder like industrial quotas in the Five Year Plan was therefore natural.  The details did not matter: if Hitler's destruction of the Jews was genocide, then this was democide, the class struggle spinning into cannibalism.  On July 30, Yezhov and his deputy Mikhail Frinovsky proposed Order No. 00447 to the Politburo; that between 5 and 15 August, the regions where to receive quotas for two categories: Category One - to be shot.  Category Two - to be deported.  They suggested that 72,950 should be shot and 259,450 arrested, though they missed some regions.  The regions could submit further such lists.  The families of these people should be deported too.  The Politburo confirmed this order the next day.

Soon this 'meat grinder' achieved such a momentum, as the witch hunt, approached its peak and the local jealousies and ambitions spurred it on,t that more and more were fed into the machine.  The quotas were soon filled by the regions who therefore asked for bigger numbers, so between 28 August and 15 December the Politburo agreed to the shooting of another 22,500 and then another 48,000.  In this the Terror differed most from Hilter's crimes which systematically destroyed a limited target: Jews and Gypsies.  Here, on the contrary, death was sometimes random; the long forgotten comment, the flirtation with an opposition, envy of another man's job, wife or house, vengeance or just plain coincidence brought the death and torture of entire families.  This did not matter: "Better too far than not far enough" Yezhov told his men as the original arrest quota ballooned to 767,397 arrests and 386,798 executions, families destroyed, children orphaned, under Order No. 00447.

Simultaneously, Yezhov attacked "national contingents" - this was murder by nationality against Poles and ethnic Germans among others.  On 11 August, Yezhov signed Order No. 00485 to liquidate "Polish diversionists and espionage groups" which was to consume most of the Polish Communist Party, most Poles within Bolshevik leadership, anyone with social or "consular contacts" - and of course their wives and children.  Atotal of 350,000 (144,000 of them Poles) were arrested in the operation, with 247,157 shot (110,000 Poles) - a mini Genocide.   Altogether, the latest estimates, combining the quotas and national contingents, are that 1.5 million were arrested in these operations and about 700,000 shot. 

***
Stalin was surprisingly open with his circle about the aim to "finish off" all their Enemies.  He would tell his cronies this quite openly at Voroshilov's May Day party, as reported to Budyonny.  He seems to have constantly compared his Terror to Ivan the Terrible's massacre of the boyars. "Who's going to remember all this riffraff in ten or twenty years time? No one.  Who remembers the names now of the boyars Ivan the Terrible got rid of? No one..."
« Last Edit: May 23, 2009, 09:39:22 AM by Forum Admin »

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2009, 04:05:14 PM »
Simon Sebag Montefiore's Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar is in fact one of my favorite history books about Stalin's regime. It has come under heavy criticism from some academics, for its supposed lack of full citations, but if you ask me, most of this criticism is the result of professional envy. The same sort of criticism - for so-called (un)scholarly sloppiness and sensationalism - was levelled against the American historian Barbara Tuchman, whose books like The Proud Tower became New York Times bestsellers. (Much as Montefiore's works have been bestsellers if not in the US - I frankly don't know - but in the UK). That said, The Proud Tower is now regarded as standard introductory material for undergraduate study of the history of World War I. I suspect a similar fate awaits Montefiore's Court of the Red Tsar in history courses about Stalinism because it is not only an exciting historical narrative but it is also chock-full of historical detail, detail which could only have been gleaned from the close study of Soviet archives now closed to public perusal.

Stalin did indeed emulate the example of Ivan IV, the Terrible: as I have noted repeatedly in this forum, Stalin wrote "uchitel'" (Russian for "teacher") all over Eisenstein's screenplay for the famous film about the murderous 16th-century Russian tsar. His only complaint about Ivan the Terrible was that "God interfered with him" - that is, Ivan retained a moral conscience and from time to time prayed for his victims and sought divine forgiveness for killing them. Obviously Stalin himself had no such scruples.

I don't think Lenin had any scruples, either. Which is why I regard Stalin's reign as the natural, if, granted, extreme continuation of Lenin's own policies of divide and destroy purely on the basis of social class. For this reason I consider the term "democide," as problematic as it is, far more appropriate than the term "genocide." The Soviet government's actions (or in some cases inaction, outright negligence) were far more politically (and as a result, paradoxically, arbitrarily) motivated than is usually the case with genocide (which generally presupposes a specific, predetermined goal - the complete physical annihilation or at the very least cultural extirpation of the hated and dreaded racial or ethnic Other). Since the fall of the Soviet Union, mass graves have been discovered in the former western European territories, which fully attest to the fact that a large number of the Soviet state's murders were carried out on a purely arbitrary basis - solely for the sake of filling some government quota for annihilation of counterrevolutionaries, spies, and other enemies against the state. In many cases, the victims were men, women, and children who were clearly dragged off the streets of major cities at random and shot in the back of the neck. As they were discovered after the fall of Communism, these corpses of Stalin's victims were dressed in ordinary, everyday clothing (not prison clothing), and they had many of their private possessions still with them (such as tickets to the theater). In other words, they never went through any prison processing - they were seized as they were only in order to be shot out of hand and buried in mass graves, all for the sake of Stalin's regional "quotas."



 
« Last Edit: May 24, 2009, 04:12:29 PM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline Zvezda

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 146
    • View Profile
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2009, 06:30:55 PM »
Montefiore's account on Stalin is characterized by factual errors, unsubstantiated gossip, and reams of invented dialogue. It is not serious scholarship, but is aimed at a pop audience.

Quote
And let us recall for a moment the case of Ukraine, which had already been subjugated to the USSR and endured the worst of the terror famine a decade before, at the cost of millions of lives. Try to imagine the level of bitterness and hatred - and overall brutalization - engendered by the forced starvation and the needless suffering and deaths of one's loved ones.
Leaving aside the fact that the famine in Ukraine and in parts of Russia was no "terror-famine", your theory does not provide an explanation for why no less than 5 million Ukrainians honorably served in the Red Army and operated in partisan units in the German rear. Concerning the Lithuanian and the Baltic provinces, there is not an explanation as to why tens of thousands of people from these areas fought in the Red Army and partisan units. With such generalizations about these nationalities' collaboration with the enemy, you are stopping short of slandering these nations.

Quote
I don't think Lenin had any scruples, either. Which is why I regard Stalin's reign as the natural, if, granted, extreme continuation of Lenin's own policies of divide and destroy purely on the basis of social class.

The fact that the Communist Party represented workers, farmers, intellectuals exposes this claim of "class genocide" to be groundless. There were also large numbers of petit-bourgeois in Soviet Russia such as independent farmers. My own grandfather was a cobbler with his own shop. Talk of "class genocide" is groundless and in fact pertains to capitalism. For example, it was capitalism that destroyed the aristocracy and is currently in the process of eliminating the industrial proletariat by outsourcing and other methods.


Quote
Bolshevism was the creation of western European economic theory and political philosophy combined with Russian political conditions and was a small but discernible phenomenon prior to World War I. 
The western influence is rather overstated. Predecessors to the Bolsheviks include Chernyshevsky, Herzen, Narodniki, People's Will, and other revolutionary and progressive forces.
Quote
At any rate, it's an established fact that Mussolini was a revolutionary Marxist in the 1910s.
Mussolini was a member of the Socialist Party. He was expelled from the Party because of his chauvinist stance toward the war. His previous membership in the Socialist Party really does not have any relevance to the characteristics of his Fascist regime.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 06:48:45 PM by Zvezda »

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2009, 09:42:57 AM »
For example, it was capitalism that destroyed the aristocracy and is currently in the process of eliminating the industrial proletariat by outsourcing and other methods.

----------------------------------------

I don't know if capitalism destroyed the aristocracy, but I do believe that even in the US today, "it is destroying the industrial proletariat by outsourcing and other methods".

We are currently losing our "working middle class" as our companies outsource everything to make a bigger profit.  Just yesterday, I heard that GM was going to have its new car, the Spark, made in China, but under pressure from the unions is now going to have it made here in the US.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2009, 10:03:57 AM »
Montefiore's account on Stalin is characterized by factual errors, unsubstantiated gossip, and reams of invented dialogue. It is not serious scholarship, but is aimed at a pop audience.


I'm not going to let you off so easy as to dismiss my quote by claiming the entire BOOK is not "serious". Please stick to topic and address exactly what factual errors or unsubstantiated gossip exist in the specific paragraphs I cited.  Then, when you're done, I'll gladly give you the citation notes for them from the book...

Offline Mimì

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
    • Website for children dedicated to St.Gabriel
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #27 on: September 11, 2009, 02:11:31 AM »
Actually the genocides did not come forth outh of nothing. The political reasons may explain those of Jews and Armenians but not those of ill people or Gypsies. Already at the end of XIX century the Positivism had brought to the theory of evolution: nothing bad if it remained on the field of scientific paleontology, but at a certain point spread also the idea of "social evolutionism", that is, to let only the strongest elements of the society survive to various difficulties (poverty etc...) and let the others disappear. At the beginning of the centuries for this reason also in America some of the poorest or carriers of genetical diseases were sterilized against their will (a document has been found recently in which president Teddy Roosevelt was in favour of abortion only if it was after a rape or if the man and woman were of two different races: just to say that eugenetics was the mentality of the political class at that time, not just of nazis). In Russia this didn't happen because the imperial family was itself hit by a similar pain. And it didn't disappear. Just a few years ago the WHO commanded sterilization massive plains in the Third world.
"Senti'mi presso quasi un mover d'ala,
 e ventarmi sul viso e dir: Beati
pacifici, che son sanz'ira mala."
(Dante)

Offline Ludwik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2009, 09:47:34 PM »
For example, it was capitalism that destroyed the aristocracy and is currently in the process of eliminating the industrial proletariat by outsourcing and other methods.

----------------------------------------

I don't know if capitalism destroyed the aristocracy, but I do believe that even in the US today, "it is destroying the industrial proletariat by outsourcing and other methods".

We are currently losing our "working middle class" as our companies outsource everything to make a bigger profit.  Just yesterday, I heard that GM was going to have its new car, the Spark, made in China, but under pressure from the unions is now going to have it made here in the US.

Offline klava1985

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Why Lenin? Why Stalin? Why Hitler?
« Reply #29 on: November 22, 2009, 06:21:10 PM »
I didn't understand Elisabeth's question to be about genocide but about something larger. So I think democide is a better term. In all of these cases we are talking about a reorganization of the population to support a structure of power, with an ideology that may justify in this in some way but really it's about controlling the means of production or raw materials. For Germany, Hitler wanted absolute power and also control over a larger geography. It was necessary to raise capital, deflect the attention of the populace to a goal that kept them from looking too hard at the organization of power (ie, he had to offer people a deal, just as capitalism offers people walmart to get them to chill), and to remove people from the land he wanted. The Jews were the start. He was after all the slavs as well. He probably really believed his own delusions, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a drive to power and a need for a new economy and arrangement of resources to support it.

Stalin too was a sociopath, less delusional, and less stupid. I personally don't think he bought into the ideology as much, just manipulated it. He was a *mobster*. Think about it that way, if only as an intellectual experiment. A godfather. How would you reorganize a country like Russia, if you were a godfather, if you wanted you and your gang to control everything, from the land to the grain to the factories? And add in, so messed up in terms of attachment that you couldn't even form a healthy relationship with your own gang...? I think Stalin is unique. Probably not the only individual ever to have his psychological profile, but the only one ever to get into this position.

I think Bullock's book is really insightful and valuable in terms of looking at the parallels and the backgrounds of the two men and realizing that they really were psychopaths. But I think that Hitler's aims were expansive--he wanted more land. He wanted the assets of the Jews and the removal of other populations that might stand in his way. Stalin may have gotten there if he'd lived forever, but when you start with Russia you have enough on your hands. So his aims were more about reorganization and restructuring. He wanted *everyone's* assets. The previous system was too inefficient with all those middlemen--the landowners and merchants, etc, each with their cuts. Plus, wankers like Stalin and Lenin could never rise to the top in a system like that. You had to be a *born* wanker.

But why not ask a broader question. Is Europe unique? Is the 20th century unique qualitatively or only quantitatively? Why Mao? Why Pol Pot? Why this or that Inca (they moved populations around exactly as China is now doing with Tibet)? Why Moctezuma? Why [pick your African dictator]? I think you could find a lot of examples of democide performed in the interest of reorganizing power and economic structure so that wealth flows to the top in a different way. 

Re Montefiore, I think the biggest issue with him is not the content but the style. He's so florid... When you have chapter titles like "The Bolshevik Temptress" in a history novel, you just have a hard time taking the guy seriously. You think, go write a novel. Which is exactly what he's done. I highly recommend Sashenka, which follows a young revolutionary from 1917 through to her execution as an Old Bolshevik. It's not the GREATEST writing, but it's full of great detail, from customing to archival trial records. He is much better suited to this type of writing, and you can pretty well trust in the general accuracy of the setting, situation, etc, even if the character herself is fictionalized.