|
I was not sure which forum to choose, this one or political philosophy. It is an excerpt (Section 3.7) from my FREE ON-LINE book:
"Hell on Earth: Brutality and Violence Under the Stalinist regime."
h*ttp://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/father2/introduction.html (but no *)
Some have said that the book is "imperialist propaganda" and "a cold war relic." I was not commissioned to write them. Writing was a moral obligation.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
3.7 Moral or Immoral.
3.7.1 Morality Is A Weapon In Class Struggle
Cleverness was not enough to become a supreme ruler of a large country. To succeed, Stalin also needed loyal secret police with practically unlimited resources and access to all branches of government, including the military. In addition, a new kind of morality was needed to inhibit traditional defences against evil. According to Lenin and Stalin, morality should be subordinated to the ideology of proletarian revolution. Denying the validity of religion-based morality, they wrote: what is useful to us is moral, what is harmful to us is immoral. Morality is a weapon in class struggle. Party and Komsomol members were drilled to accept that position, and to act accordingly.
The justi cation was simple. The world is full of injustice and immorality. We want to replace it by a much better 'scienti fically designed' social structure--communism. That is why what we do is right, by de nition. Here is a good illustration. An act of torture committed by our enemy should be exposed as unspeakable barbarism. We do this to gain sympathy and support of naive people believing in 'bourgeois morality.' But an act of torture committed by us to punish an enemy of revolution is not immoral. It is a historical necessity. Likewise, Auschwitz elimination was considered immoral while Kolyma elimination was considered moral.
What distinguishes these two cases? It is not the methodology of killing, gas versus cold; it is the ideology which is being served. Comrade Dzerzhinsky, the first director of punitive Soviet organs, was referred to as a highly moral communist. This honor was a reward for extremely brutal handling of declared class enemies, as ordered by the party of Lenin and Stalin. Other bolsheviks, including those who were later eliminated by Stalin, were also extremely brutal; they were leaders of Red Terror, Civil War, War Communism and Collectivization campaigns. Immorality is probably older than civilizations but Hitler and Stalin elevated it to new heights (29). How long will it take to repair social structures a ected by twelve years of open brutality and cynicism in Germany, and by at least fty years in the Soviet Union? Who should be in charge of organized e orts `of caging and taming monsters inside us'? Some of the monsters, as enumerated in (30), are:
a) Pure, amoral self-interest.
b) Sadism and the thrill of the battle eld.
c) Tribalism, which elevates the group above the individual and turns personal enmity into feuding, war and genocide.
d) Ideology, which can convince people that a struggle between groups -- races for the Nazis, classes for the Marxists - is inevitable and necessary for progress.
3.7.2 We Are Not Like Other People
References to old books (in Russian) dedicated to communist morality can be found in (31). One of them (32) was dedicated to that "paragon of Bolshevik morality, Felix Dzierzhinsky." Another (33) was co-authored by a major party leader, Nikolai Bukharin. It would be interesting to compare contents of these books with what Russian communists write about revolutionary morality today. I suspect the party ideology has not changed; they would probably use terror again after gaining control of the government. Closely related to morality is the issue of convictions. To a true Bolshevik convictions are determined by the will of the party. Here is how this was explained to a friend in 1932 by an old Bolshevik, Juri Pyatakov (31):
"Since you do not believe that people's convictions can change in a short period of time, you conclude that our statements.... are insincere, that they are lies.... I agree that people who are not Bolsheviks, the category of ordinary people in general, cannot make an instant change, a turn, amputating their own convictions. ... We are not like other people. We are a party who make the impossible possible. ... And if the party demands it, if it is necessary or important for the party, we will be able by an act of will to expel from our brains in twenty-four hours ideas we have held for years.... Yes, I will see black where I thought I saw white, or may still see it, because for me there is no life outside the party or apart from agreement with it."
It is ironic that in 1937 Pyatakov was accused of antiparty activities and executed at once. The same happened to Bukharin in 1938. In big show trials both men confessed. Were they tortured or were they persuaded to willingly serve the party for the last time? According to (6) Bukharin begged Stalin, in a letter from prison \to allow him to either work at some cultural task in Siberia or to emigrate to America, where he would be a faithful Soviet citizen and would 'beat Trotsky and company in the snout.' If it was necessary to die, Bukharin pleaded, let it be from an overdose of morphine, not by shooting.
Was this last wish of the comrade in arms respected? Probably not. The killing machine was set up to operate with bullets, not with chemicals. I suspect that, considering the size of operations, bullets were recycled to lower the costs. A good example of communist convictions is Molotov, the second man in Stalin's inner circle. The next reflection shows how easily Molotov, another top party man, accepted that his own wife was an enemy of people.
Comments will be appreciated. I am sure that most readers of this post are familiar with historical facts in my book. Let me mention two things which are not known, except for my university colleagues. One is Section 4.5, the results of a survey of American students’ knowledge about Stalin, and another is Chapter 7, showing how Stalinism has been discussed by professors at Montclair State University.
Why am I digging in this old stuff? Because I believe that people who are not familiar with Soviet history are likely to become victims of another Stalin. I am an old man who wants to share what he knows and thinks about communism. Russians would probably be much better off today if their February-1917 revolution was not followed by Lenin's revolution, about 11 months later. Do you agree?
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
