Let me begin by clearly spelling out that I hate most of what is considered the “moderate” Left: the “NPR liberals” or the “Huffington Post progressives” who seem to be utterly oblivious to the self evident fact that Capitalism is based on growth and that infinite growth in a finite environment, something which inevitably leads to death (if you don’t understand that, please ask any oncologist to explain it to you). In other words – Capitalism is evil, deadly, self-defeating and there is no such thing as a form of sustainable Capitalism.
Just to make one thing clear: Capitalism is not the only economic system in which there can be private ownership, a relatively free market or even corporations. Real Capitalism is a system in which private capital is not under the supreme control of the people. Real capitalism is, therefore, always non-democratic. The opposite of Capitalism is not necessarily Communism, but any economic system in which the economy is regulated; in other words, a planned economy, an economy in which the democratic majority rules always trumps private interest (by the way, these are all my own, working, definitions, not anything academic or official).
Having made this clear, I would like to share with you my love-hate relationship with Marxists. Folks like Michael Parenti or Paul Le Blanc. I love to listen to them and I deeply admire their sharp analytical minds. Yet, they also regularly make me howl in frustration. Here is why:
First, here is what I love in Marxists:
Their uncompromising stance on Capitalism:
The folks who best understand the evil of Capitalism are, I think, the various Marxist schools of thought. Not only do they oppose Capitalism, they have produced the best and most comprehensive analytical corpus of all the contradictions of the Capitalist system and ideology.
Their focus on revolutionary change:
The second quality which I love in Marxists is that, unlike the “liberals” or “progressives” I referred to above, Marxists do not believe that the system can be reformed – they want a ‘revolution’. If we understand ‘revolution’ not only in the sense of violent uprising but in a wider sense of a ‘turn around’ or a ‘regime change’ (as opposed to government change), then I fully agree with them. Something which is inherently evil cannot be reformed and Capitalism is, in its very essence, evil. Marxists were the first ones to understand that.
Their understanding of class struggle:
Lastly, I think that mankind owe a big debt to Marxists for having thoroughly analyzed the topic of class interest and class struggle. Living the the modern USA in which the top 1% is richer than the bottom 95% gives the Marxist analysis of class war a totally new dimension, does it not? And who are the allies of this top 1% of US plutocrats in the rest of the world? Why – the millionaire and billionaire “class comrades” in Colombia, in Russia, in Nigeria, in Japan or Iran! There is an undeniable class consciousness and class solidarity among the rich of the world who did a much better job uniting than the “proletarians of all countries” ever could.
And yet, the Marxists also drive me crazy with frustration. Here is how:
Their futile attempts at explaining, justifying or even denying the crimes of Marxist mass-murderers:
The other day, I was listening to a podcast of Paul Le Blanc on Socialism and democracy on Seeing Red Radio. Le Blanc is a brilliant speaker and his lecture is most informative. And then, suddenly, Le Blanc embarks upon what I can only call a mind-boggling lunacy: he states that Lenin and Trotsky were, of all things, real democrats. And he is not the only Marxist parroting that kind of nonsense. Somehow, the Marxists seems to believe that a brilliant mind (as both Lenin and Trotsky most definitely had) necessarily implies a pure heart. This reminds me of the slogan by the founder of the Soviet terror police (the ChK or ЧК) that a real “Chekist” must have a “cool head, burning heart and clean hands”. Clean hands?! That coming from the folks who butchered entire classes of people in Russia and whose hands where so soaked in the blood of millions innocent people that no amount of propaganda could ever clean them again. Yes, Lenin and Trotsky were brilliant people. But they were also ghoulish mass murderers who founded the secret police only one month after the Bolshevik revolution and who personally approved of hostage taking, summary executions, mass murder, tortures and who created the infamous Soviet Gulags. Lenin personally send out telegrams urging “mass terror” and while Trotsky even authored a very interesting book entitled “Terrorism and Communism” which I recommend to anyone who has any doubts about where Trotsky stood on this issue. Yet, Le Blanc and other Marxists speak of a “bureaucratic” terror in Russia, and they systematically point their finger at Stalin as The Sole Evil Culprit (all in caps) for all the horrors of Bolshevik rule in Russia. I have already written about the Jewish myth about “Stalinism” elsewhere and I will not repeat it all here other than say that there never was such a thing as “Stalinism” and that the ONLY difference between Lenin and Trotsky on one hand and Stalin on the other is that Stalin also directed his terror at the Party apparatchiks who themselves had terrorized Russia under Lenin and Trotsky. Think of it as something not unlike the mass elimination of the SA by the SS under Hitler. Hardly a reason to sob in sympathy for the poor SA brownshirts killed by the SS.
Their narrow-minded hostility towards religions:
Marxism was born in Europe, the continent which produced the Papacy with its endless list of crimes against humanity, its collaboration with the ruling classes, its justification of every conceivable abomination ad majorem Dei gloriam. So I understand that any European revolutionary faced with the oppression and exploitation of the feudal or bourgeois order in Europe would end up fighting “the Church”. But, come on! The religious phenomenon in history can hardly be reduced to the crimes of the Papacy, now can it?! Look at the history of Orthodox Christianity, of Islam , or even Hinduism. Do you find the same systematic use of terror as in the Papacy? Sure, Ivan the Terrible did commit mass murder against the Muslims of Kazan, and the Ottomans did forcibly convert many Bosnians to Islam, and even today Hindu fanatics massacre Muslims with vicious glee. But if you take a closer looks at these events, you will realize that these are the actions of *ruling elites* who a) hide behind religious motives and b) who act in direct contradiction with the religious imperatives and ethos of the religion they claim to struggle for.
Furthermore, I would argue than in history organized religions were most often engines for progress and civilization and that tyrants and plutocrats saw them as enemies and not “opium for the people” which they could use to exploit the poor. Lastly, considering the millions of people killed word-wide by various Marxists, who are they to blame organized religions? According to the best estimate in just the 20th century Communist government have killed about 110’000’000 people. That’s one hundred and ten million people. With a tally like that, no amount of whitewash and denial will do. Marxists need to accept history for what it was, not for what they wish it had been.
The Marxists are still unable to understand the role of religion today:
In that sin, they are not the only ones, of course. Most Western “progressives” are equally guilty of this one. Still, I have heard pro-Hezbollah Arabs declaring that the Shia ethos and piety have really very little to do with Hezbollah’s stunning success and that when Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah praises Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, its only out of “political necessity”. Many Marxists simply fail to understand something which Hassan Nasrallah repeats over and over and over again in every single one of his speeches: the power of Hezbollah comes from its faith which is the existential core of the entire Hezbollah phenomenon. And we are not talking about just some vague amorphous “I believe” a la Hollywood movies. Hezbollah are the spiritual followers of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei whom they chose as their spiritual leader over the recently deceased Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah (who never was the “spiritual leader of Hezbollah” as the corporate media claims). So what is at the core of Hezbollah is not just Islam, but Shia Islam, and not just any Shia Islam, but the Shia Islam personified by the guidance of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And it is precisely this expression of Shia Islam which achieved that which all the progressive, Marxist and socialist Lebanese political parties could not: free Lebanon and beat back the Zionists. Is that a coincidence? I don’t believe so and, more importantly, neither does Hassan Nasrallah.
Many Marxists have also supported the “Gucci Revolution” in Iran only because they perceived the power of “the mullahs” (as they would put it) as being “reactionary” and “theocratic” (hence – very bad). Such Marxists have never read Ayatollah Khomenei, they know nothing of the progressive reforms introduced by the Islamic Revolution in Iran and they are oblivious to the fact that the leaders of the “Gucci Revolution” were representing the reactionary multi-millionaire and bourgeois classes of Tehran. For some mysterious reason, most Marxists when looking at Iran completely forgot about class interest and class warfare. That is what ideological blindness does to them. If religion is reactionary, then the mullahs are bad, and any movement which attempts to overthrow the Islamic Republic (which is what he “Gucci Revolution” was all about, of course) is worthy of support, even if it is CIA sponsored.
In all fairness, I have to admit that the new generation of Marxists is changing, at least in Latin America where leaders like Chavez or even Castro have considerably toned down their opposition to religion. I have some very real hope that the new “Bolivarian Socialism” or “Bolivarianism” will resolutely turn away from the deep errors of 20th century “classical” Marxism and, in the words of Hugo Chavez, “a new type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans and not machines or the state ahead of everything“. Hopefully, this new type of socialism will, unlike Leninism and Trotskysm, value each individual life and never use terror. And hopefully this new type of socialism will accept and embrace the diversity of human spirituality and not designate any religion as the class enemy. Such a new socialism will be able to fully integrate the Marxist, Leninist and Trotskyst analysis and critique of the Capitalist system and ideology, but will reject their methods and prescriptions. After all, a “progressive” must – by definition – learn from past mistakes and yearn for a new, better, way.
The Saker
Very good article, Saker. I can say I agree with you almost completely. The crimes of the revolutionaires inspired by Marxism comes from the lack of ethics in Marx’s system (one of the very few, if not only one, philosophical system with no ehtics whatsoever) and its extreme stress on Revolution (understood as a violent overthrown of the current system).
Did you read Berdyaev’s “The Russian Revolution”? He made a criticism on Marxism that is close to yours. He also sees good points in it, but many bad ones, and the anti-religious stance is one of the most important for Berdayev. I highly recommend this book, which was quite profetical in many ways.
On the other hand, and not too much related with your article, I’ve noticed your very critical stance on Catholicism (or Papacy, as you call it). I am not Catholics, but being 100% Latin (Brazilian with Italian descent) makes me quite sympathetic towards this church. I recognize many faults and crimes on the Roman church, but I could write a quite long list of good things, also. Your phrase “But if you take a closer looks at these events, you will realize that these are the actions of *ruling elites* who a) hide behind religious motives and b) who act in direct contradiction with the religious imperatives and ethos of the religion they claim to struggle for.” can perfectly be applied to Roman Catholicism, also. Religion, unfortunately, has been used everywhere as a tool and justification for the rich and powerful to keep their privileges, and Catholicism is not alone in this.
This might interest you. Religion and socialism in the imaginery socialist country of Bergonia dreamt up as an example of what twentieth century socialism might have achieved if it had avoided some of the communist errors.
http://www.bergonia.org/Gov/socialism&religion.htm
robert
Going back to Marxism and religion: Marxism, being a scientific doctrine (at least it pretended to be), is not sympathetic, but there seems to be no hate towards religion, either. It is Bolshevism, i.e., the Russian variant of Marxism, which hates and fiercely persecutes religion, as Berdyaev noted, because Bolshevism itself is a religion (an idolatry, to be more exact). And it seems Berdyaev was right, because in other part of the world there wasn’t such a persecution against religion as there was in the Soviet Union. Even in Soviet satellites, like Poland or Cuba, there was a bigger tolerance towards religion than in the USRR itself.
Robert, that is an interesting article. And it also supports what I wrote: “The denial of religion itself was also unnecessary. The core concepts of socialism are in no way contradicted or otherwise implicated by religious faith.”
One thing that Christians embrace that makes be feel they have special place in the set of political, social, and philosophical choices for mankind– that is something from St. Thomas Aquinas. The end does not justify the means. This simple construction invents/posits the existence of evil that may not be rationalized by some end. Socialists and state-ists in general consider some favorite construction of their own mind- the welfare and destiny of some institution (religion or state or family or constitution… does not matter). They believe to preserve from destruction or even harm, defeat or even some reversal of perceived fortune, there is nothing forbidden. Intentional murder of innocents is an example of “malum in se” is evil in its own right, not flowing from some law or circumstance, and it is forbidden no matter what the end.
The country itself is a finite institution in time, as is all or our lives, and the lives of our families as well. To cause ourselves or our country or our religious institutions to draw the maximum number of breaths on earth, is not an end allowing us to murder for example with strategic air power, on purpose. I am not talking about collateral damage- deliberate murder of innocents to cause an enemy to yield. I believe the Church itself will exist not because people did evil to make this so, but because Christ promised the disciples he would be with them until the end of the earth. As a person, or an a Country, we need to do our best to not disgrace ourselves as seen in the rear view mirror by God as a historically completed entity.
One thing that Christians embrace that makes be feel they have special place in the set of political, social, and philosophical choices for mankind– that is something from St. Thomas Aquinas. The end does not justify the means. This simple construction invents/posits the existence of evil that may not be rationalized by some end. Socialists and state-ists in general consider some favorite construction of their own mind- the welfare and destiny of some institution (religion or state or family or constitution… does not matter). They believe to preserve from destruction or even harm, defeat or even some reversal of perceived fortune, there is nothing forbidden. Intentional murder of innocents is an example of “malum in se” is evil in its own right, not flowing from some law or circumstance, and it is forbidden no matter what the end.
The country itself is a finite institution in time, as is all or our lives, and the lives of our families as well. To cause ourselves or our country or our religious institutions to draw the maximum number of breaths on earth, is not an end allowing us to murder for example with strategic air power, on purpose. I am not talking about collateral damage- deliberate murder of innocents to cause an enemy to yield. I believe the Church itself will exist not because people did evil to make this so, but because Christ promised the disciples he would be with them until the end of the earth. As a person, or an a Country, we need to do our best to not disgrace ourselves as seen in the rear view mirror by God as a historically completed entity.
@Carlo: The crimes of the revolutionaires inspired by Marxism comes from the lack of ethics in Marx’s system
Absolutely. In fact, this is a problem for any non-religious ideology. As Dostoevski put it: “if there is no God all is permissibe”. And yes, I read Berdaev whom I appreciate a lot.
I’ve noticed your very critical stance on Catholicism (or Papacy, as you call it)
Guilty as charged. First, a comment on words. I speak of the Papacy because the word “Catholic” really means both “universal” or “all-inclusive”. So to speak of *Roman* Catholicism is already a contradiction. Second, I trace the roots of European totalitarian thought the the Franks and their takeover of the Western Roman Empire. The first thing that the Franks imposed upon Western Christianity is precisely a break with the previous “Catholic” tradition by making the claim that the Pope was not just the first among equal bishops and Patriarchs, but that he was of a different, unique, sacerdotal essence: a direct representative and plenipotentiary deputy of Saint Peter on earth. Right there, one thousand years ago, you have the roots of all the subsequent European totalitarian ideologies, of Europe’s very consistent racism towards all others, of such ideas as “manifest destiny”, “communisn”, a “1000 year Reich” or the “End of history”. That massive sin of pride, which is the same sin which made Satan fall from the Heavens, is what is at the core of all of European civilization. It is preporsterous to claim that Western Europe has its roots in ancient Greece. Nor does it have its roots in Rome. No – Western Europe has its historical, cultural, psychological and social roots in the FRANKISH EMPIRE whose most revered leader could not even sign his name, and who is still called “The Great” in the West.
Now, I have seen myself the reality of faith in Latin America. From the crowds at the Virgen de Lujan, to the resistance to the US Empire’s terrorism by people like Dom Hélder Câmara and I have only the deepest of respect for that, shall we say, “non-curial” Christianity.
@Oldman: One thing that Christians embrace that makes be feel they have special place in the set of political, social, and philosophical choices for mankind– that is something from St. Thomas Aquinas. The end does not justify the means.
And yet Thomism, with its concept of philisophy being the servant of theology resulted in a scholastic approach to faith which totally severed the Papacy from its 1000 years long mystical theology and Patristic tradition. Thomas Aquinas basically replaced the tradtional Christian criterion of thruth, the consensus patrum, with a scholastic, almost rationalistic, system of thought (as opposed to mystical experience). Many, if not all, of the sins of the Papacy have their roots in this rupture with the original reality of the early Church.
@EVERYBODY: some of you wrote to me to let me know that my references to the Franks and their role in the history of Christianity is rather unclear. For those of you interested in this topic, I would like to recommend the following readings (ideally in the following order):
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.16.en.romanity_romania_roumeli.01.htm
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.02.htm
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.03.htm
These would give you a good primer on this much overlook aspect of history.
HTH
The Saker
@EVERYBODY:
A very good discussion of the Frank vs Roman vs Greek topic through a review of Fr. John Romanides’ book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SjbC3wvuqY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGq36fu8Cwc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU2ln0UBYHM
(thanks to F. for the pointers towards these videos!!)
I don’t like Communism at all and see it for exactly what it was a front geo-political weapon to overthrow the Tsarist government supported by Europe and the US emanating from the conflict in the Pale of Settlement and a focal point to overthrow and replace the ethnic Russian elite with hostile alien minority groups lead by Jews. Just like today they use Islam and the engineered conflict they started in Chechnya which even the US own 98 DEA report admits there objective is to genocide Russians and use that as a base for international jihadists.
And the 110,000,000 figure is largely based on famines that were natural which is claimed to be 65 million in China which is just an estimate not based on any evidence as Chinese state archives have not been open and wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan (covert funding 6 months prior) that was launched by the US as well as the US support Khmer Rouge during the Vietnam war.
Stalin was a counter to the attempted international mass murder system of Communism with the nationalist system and centralise power to decrease human rights abuses and the myth of Stalin killed millions of people is totally debunked by the facts and not supported by a shred of evidence which is mostly based on Trotskyite propaganda and promoted by the CIA/MI6 after WW2.
What exactly is your take on the Jewish issue in regards to Communism?
In Russia and internationally apart from Asian countries Jews dominated the Communist movement and the Neocons are predominantly former Trotskyite Communists.
@John I don’t like Communism at all and see it for exactly what it was a front geo-political weapon to overthrow the Tsarist government supported by Europe and the US emanating from the conflict in the Pale of Settlement and a focal point to overthrow and replace the ethnic Russian elite with hostile alien minority groups lead by Jews
I agree.
Just like today they use Islam and the engineered conflict they started in Chechnya which even the US own 98 DEA report admits there objective is to genocide Russians and use that as a base for international jihadists.
I agree again
And the 110,000,000 figure is largely based on famines that were natural which is claimed to be 65 million in China which is just an estimate not based on any evidence
Here I am not so sure. The best figure Solzhenitsyn and the people who helped him do the research for his book The Gulag Archipelago is that the Communists killed about 80’000’000 people just in Russia. But once we enter these kind of magnitudes, the exact figure is not only impossible to establish, but also largely irrelevant. What cannot be denied is that Communists engaged in the worst mass murder of the history of mankind. I suspect that the mass murder caused by putatively “Christian” Western civilization (including Capitalism, Imperialism, Colonialism, etc.) is a close 2nd.
What exactly is your take on the Jewish issue in regards to Communism?
May I point you to this:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2008/04/acting-as-one-which-of-course-they-are.html
And ask you if you have a more precise follow-up question?
Kind regards,
The Saker
VS, speaking of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, your readers might be interested to know that an English language translation of Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years together is forthcoming. Chapters 18 & 20 are available here.
Kevin MacDonald has published an outstanding discussion of these chapters and of Jewish power in Soviet Russia here:
Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “The 1920s.” Chapter 18 of 200 Years Together
Also worth reading, is Kevin MacDonald’s review of Yuri Slezkine’s book ‘The Jewish Century’. MacDonald provides a good overview of the advancement of Jewish interests and ideology which masqueraded as class struggle and internationalism. This article is a bit lengthy but its well worth reading:
Kevin MacDonald reviews Yuri Slezine’s book,’The Jewish Century’
@John:
I agree with you that Bolshevism was an instrument for enforcing Jewish hegemony on the peoples of Russia and Eastern Europe. The ethno religious/racial dimension of Jewish Bolshevism is essential to understanding the mass murder of the Kulaks and the Holodomor.
The advancement of Jewish ethnic interests is also the key factor driving the push toward multiculturalism and the demographic displacement and dispossession of European peoples in the nations they founded. Deep-rooted hostility to the values, traditions, and peoples who have comprised the ethno religious majority in Western Christendom is an integral part of almost any subversive political or cultural movement of the 20th century.
This unfinished documentary film by the late Byron Yost tracks Jewish ethnic interests in the cultural movements of 20th Century America:
Minority Rule: 20th Century Cultural Insurrections & The Rise of Political Correctness [Parts 1- 6]
I strongly recommend parts 2 & 4:
Part 2: Boasian Anthropology, Margaret Mead, Freud & Psychoanalysis
Part 4: Frankfurt School & The Authoritarian Personality
@Oldman: One thing that Christians embrace that makes be feel they have special place in the set of political, social, and philosophical choices for mankind– that is something from St. Thomas Aquinas. The end does not justify the means.
from vin:
And yet Thomism, with its concept of philisophy being the servant of theology resulted in a scholastic approach to faith which totally severed the Papacy from its 1000 years long mystical theology and Patristic tradition. Thomas Aquinas basically replaced the tradtional Christian criterion of thruth, the consensus patrum, with a scholastic, almost rationalistic, system of thought (as opposed to mystical experience). Many, if not all, of the sins of the Papacy have their roots in this rupture with the original reality of the early Church.
JULY 14, 2010 4:52 PM
Yet the trust of an informed personal conscience to parse the knowledge of good an evil is the big problem. These things belong to God I believe, and if a possibly corrupt personal conscience gives the green light to an action, with the assumption that the blessing of the hand of God is present because you think so, all mater of evil is released into the world. The advantage of a structured clear statement about the balance of good and evil and the limits of personal freedom is nothing short of brilliant and a gift to mankind.
I absolutely HATE communists. This is purely based on what I saw/see in India and probably has nothing to do with “communism” anywhere.
The Commies supported the British during hte Quit India movement. And they supported China during the 1962 war. I mean who in their sane mind would support the then enemy. I don’t know.
They have been ruling a state “West Bengal” since 30+ years now and turned it into one big Union.
They have killed soooooo many citizens, most of them poor, over so many years that I hate them. I have seen about 80 burnt people in one compartement due to commies. I have seen them blow bridges, trains and anything. How this translates to “helping the poor” i have no freaking idea.
“I have seen them blow bridges, trains and anything. How this translates to “helping the poor” i have no freaking idea.”
Communism, like any Revolutionary ideology, has a feeling that “the worse, the better”. Most people, even the poorest and most opressed ones, don’t want revolutions or big changes, and are ready to compromise. The most secure way to force a revolution is to make life of a big portion of people absolutely unbearable. I’ve read somewhere a letter of Lenin in which he complains of Stolypin, prime-minister of Russia in the early 20th century, because he was having success in improving the life of many peasants, and this meant that a revolution was less likely to occur.
There is a very interesting article in RIA Novosti today about exactly this:
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100715/159726237.html
@VINEYARDSAKER:
Solzhenitsyn’s research and numbers have already been debunked by serious independent researchers who have studied the archives and his numbers are laughable.
Even in his book as one commentator pointed out (which I will confess I have not read) his fellow inmates were 2 soldiers who tried to rape German women in Prussia and a POW who offered to collaborate with Germans behind the USSR for his release hardly the model citizen. And his own arrest was far more dramatic than it actually was Soviet police knocked on his door and with the gun still holstered let his packed his suitcase full of clothes before being taken away (can’t remember if he was handcuffed or not) which is more civil than you see in shows like Cops.
Use basic logic here hostile allied countries of not just Fascist Germany and Japan but Poland as well as France and Britain wanted to break up the USSR as well as Trotskyite factions inside the Soviet government seeing to overthrow the Stalinist government making various concessions to Nazi advancement Eastwards and Polish even setting up a special division to annex and support separatist regions/states in Ukraine, Caucasus and Volga region. They even created an organisation called Prometey based Paris for this task.
So defying any logic or reason they just decide to start interning and killing people on mass to weaken their own position and eliminating its own workforce that it needs for it industrialisation and infrastructure projects as well as the increase in army to defend the Motherland.
Who would work in the factories if millions were being killed?
Wouldn’t factory production output dramatically decrease not increase?
Wheres the bodies at? It wouldn’t be hard to find millions of alleged dead bodies.
Stalin era research in Russia is conducted by the CIA through NED funded Memorial who categories any one that died during the 30’s as a victim of Stalin’s purges.
And no Stalin did not start the Cold War it was Churchill that did with Britain and the US towards the end of WW2 recruiting and training Nazis and there affiliated nationalist groups to launch attacks against the USSR with the Marshall Plan of 47 being the last straw creating East and West zones. In fact Stalin’s objective was to create a buffer zone so the USSR would not be attacked again and wanted to keep the alliance after WW2.
@John: Solzhenitsyn’s research and numbers have already been debunked by serious independent researchers who have studied the archives and his numbers are laughable
since, in my opinion, Alexander Solzhenitsyn has more credibility than the combined world population of “sovietologists” and “serious researchers”, I don’t see the point in arguing with you other than saying a) you should read the Gulag Archipelago for yourself and b) you got his bio wrong c) ad hominem criticisms are irrelevant.
hostile allied countries of not just Fascist Germany and Japan but Poland as well as France and Britain wanted to break up the USSR as well as Trotskyite factions inside the Soviet government seeing to overthrow the Stalinist government making various concessions to Nazi advancement Eastwards and Polish even setting up a special division to annex and support separatist regions/states in Ukraine, Caucasus and Volga region
I agree
So defying any logic or reason they just decide to start interning and killing people on mass to weaken their own position and eliminating its own workforce that it needs for it industrialisation and infrastructure projects as well as the increase in army to defend the Motherland.
Who would work in the factories if millions were being killed?
I agree again. Yet they did it. Though I would note that as soon as WWII began, lots of people were freed to contribute to the war effort.
Wheres the bodies at? It wouldn’t be hard to find millions of alleged dead bodies
All over Russia. Bones and bodies are being found pretty much everywhere.
Stalin era research in Russia is conducted by the CIA through NED funded Memorial who categories any one that died during the 30’s as a victim of Stalin’s purges.
Again, I fully agree.
And no Stalin did not start the Cold War it was Churchill that did with Britain and the US towards the end of WW2 recruiting and training Nazis and there affiliated nationalist groups to launch attacks against the USSR with the Marshall Plan of 47 being the last straw creating East and West zones. In fact Stalin’s objective was to create a buffer zone so the USSR would not be attacked again and wanted to keep the alliance after WW2.
And, yet again, I agree.
Looks like we agree on most things, except for the figures of people killed by Communists. Ok, let’s just say “a lot” and leave it at that.
Cheers,
The Saker
@VINEYARDSAKER
“since, in my opinion, Alexander Solzhenitsyn has more credibility than the combined world population of “sovietologists” and “serious researchers”, I don’t see the point in arguing with you other than saying a) you should read the Gulag Archipelago for yourself and b) you got his bio wrong c) ad hominem criticisms are irrelevant.”
He provides no evidence to support his numbers and his research is based on researchers with an obvious bias.
Real impartial historians and researchers who have studied the Soviet archives and Soviet data have debunked the common myths of tens of millions dead and imprisoned.
I tried to remember the comment from memory so the exact quotation which I have since found will post after this comment.
“I agree again. Yet they did it. Though I would note that as soon as WWII began, lots of people were freed to contribute to the war effort.”
No they didn’t
How could there have been any prisoners if they were nearly all killed?
Production would have to have started before WW2 and it was not until after WW2 prison inmates were released which Stalin advocated anyway those wrongfully arrested during the “purges” as a panic reaction to Trotskyite plan to overthrow and sabotage the Soviet government prior to WW2 but wanted a series of legal trials to determine those who were innocent and those who were really guilty of crimes rather than Khrushchev blanket release.
“All over Russia. Bones and bodies are being found pretty much everywhere.”
Where? The only evidence I heard of “purge” victims was in Nazi held region of Belarus conducted by Memorial. And if they did find bodies do they prove it was not a result of famines, civil war and WW2. Memorial does not make this distinction.
Heres the comment on Gulag Archipelago.
“Kevinwalsh (15 March 2009) said:
Over the years, some rightist acquaintances of mine have tried to interest me in reading Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago” to try to convince me that the Stalin administration was horrible. I had not taken the time or trouble, as I was given the impression that it was a purely subjective memoir, anecdotal evidence, rather than a scholarly work of real data. Still, curiosity got the better of me, and as I was in the vicinity, I stopped by the Phoenix main library to have a look at it.
I don’t ordinarily review a book until I’ve read the whole thing, but there are times when even a small sample of a book is so stupid that it is obvious that there is no point continuing further. This was the case with this book. I read the glossary, the preface, and the first Chapter, “Arrest.” After that I was convinced that proceeding further was a waste of time, and I reshelved the book, not even bothering to check it out of the library.
The author nearly waxed poetic in his dramatic presentation of the horror of being arrested and the fear of being arrested, but what he actually described seemed quite mild.
None of the arrests he described were nearly as violent and harsh as mine or even other arrests I’ve seen on American reality television shows. Solzhenitsyn wrote of GPU agents knocking on the door in the middle of the night, rather than breaking down the door in the middle of the night, as American police and FBI agents often do. He wrote of GPU agents trying to hurry those arrested to pack their suitcases quickly. Allowing an arrestee to pack a suitcase is unheard of in American arrests. Indeed, even wearing one’s own street clothes in jail is forbidden here, much less keeping any personal property while in jail.
Solzhenitsyn wrote of GPU agents arresting people with their sidearms holstered, rather than drawn and pointed as is usually done in American arrests. If he was trying to convince people that the GPU agents were mean people, he didn’t succeed with me. They seem to have been much nicer than our American police.”
“Solzhenitsyn wrote of people being like sheep, knowing they were likely to be arrested but doing nothing to resist. He pondered that he didn’t understand why ordinary Russians didn’t organize to use whatever improvised weapons were at their disposal (fireplace pokers, shovels, bottles) to crack heads of GPU agents or wreck their cars. Of course one obvious answer is that perhaps most Russians did not fear the GPU or arrest and supported and trusted the GPU and that only antisocial elements like him with guilty consciences feared they would be found out and arrested, but this is heresy to those presenting him as some kind of hero.
Solzhenitsyn was quite evasive about the reasons behind his arrest in the first chapter. In all fairness, perhaps he went into greater detail later, but this is irrelevant given the sort of people for whom he expressed sympathy. He was a captain in the Red Army operating an artillery battery in east Prussia in February 1945, when he was arrested. He wrote that the arrest had something to do with correspondance with another soldier on the Ukrainian front, but in the first chapter, he didn’t go into further detail. He did describe his first three cellmates, and his description is quite telling. Solzhenitsyn called them “honest soldiers,” and stated that they frankly admitted why they had been arrested. Two frankly admitted that they had broken into a bathhouse and tried to rape two German women. The other admitted that he had agreed to spy for the Germans in order to be released from a POW camp and escorted through the line of battle back to the Soviet side.
The author tried to excuse the admitted rapists by claiming that rape of German women was tolerated and that they only got into trouble for going after a woman who was the concubine of a senior Soviet officer. Even if this unlikely excuse was true, that would not make those two soldiers “innocent.” The author’s expressions of sympathy for admitted rapists and spies convinced me that there was no need to read beyond the first chapter. If Solzhenitsyn was trying to convince people that most of the people in the Gulag system were innocent, he was off to a very bad start. What puzzles me is that thinking people take this author or his works seriously at all, much less revere him as a hero of the Russian people.”
@John & Jack: What puzzles me is that thinking people take this author or his works seriously at all, much less revere him as a hero of the Russian people.”
Read his books and you might see why.
@VINEYARDSAKER:
If his books are based on info we know to be false apart from his own personal experience in the GULAG then they are not much worth reading.
This is a good article by John Laughland that sums up the post WW2 relationship of Trotskyite western international Communism in regards to CIA were they became allies.
http://www.idc-europe.org/showerInformation.asp?Identificateur=29
P.S
When I usually post comments on blogger I use the name john or jack but I mistakenly
@John: If his books are based on info we know to be false apart from his own personal experience in the GULAG then they are not much worth reading.
Your choice, of course. But as they say in Russia – эх Моська знать она сильна коль лает на слона…
Cheers!