Because You Never Asked

 

     (This is the 3^rd in a series starting with “The Russian Revolution”, “October, 1917”, and ending with “The Revolution and Capitalism”).

     In trying to assess the legacy of 1917, one must never lose sight of one overriding factor: the social class that took the reins of power was totally inexperienced as socio-political leaders. In light of this, that the Bolsheviks managed to consolidate power, organize a new society, and develop what had been an archaic, pre-modern dinosaur into a dynamic new force that eventually was the first to put a man in orbit around the planet, is a remarkable achievement pregnant with vitality and good intentions. But it wasn’t long before its lack of sophistication began eating away at the positive aspects of the great social enterprise. Not surprisingly, the Russian Revolution’s version of Robespierre soon appeared in the person of Joseph Stalin.

     Trying to mitigate the thick-skulled brutality of this peasant from the remote regions of the Caucasus Mountains is something like arguing the Titanic is unsinkable. His way of dealing with his country’s problems and the solutions he considered acceptable cannot be tolerated under any civilized standard. And yet, if one might find any whiff of empathy for the man’s actions, it lies in juxtaposition to the 20^th century’s other “official” villain, Adolph Hitler.

     It has become increasingly fashionable to speak of both men in the same breath, as equal examples of the delinquence of extremism on either side of the political spectrum. Although the two figures can be equated for their ferocious indifference for human life, the comparisons become overrated after that. Whereas Hitler was a lunatic who justified his mega-homicide on a totally absurd notion of racial superiority, Stalin was simply acting to protect his social class in the only way he knew how. Stalin’s paranoia and brutality were the results of generations of ignorance inducing bondage. Once this bondage had been broken, it is easy to imagine one protecting such gain with the stubborn savagery of a big cat standing over its kill.

     Hitler did away with people because he saw them as inferior to him, as if they were cockroaches or worms. Stalin did so because he saw them as threats. He was not a pompous showoff. He was not all that interested in a Mercedes or an Imelda closet of shoes and clothing (like Boris Yeltsin and today’s “nouveau” Russians seem to be). He never betrayed his social class or revolution for personal reasons. What a shame his intellect could not accommodate a more reasonable approach to the problems he perceived. It could have saved us all so many problems.

     There is one thing that should be factored into this Russia-Stalin-Bolshevik thing if we are to be objective in analyzing it. It must never be forgotten that the Russian people, in just the short span of 20 years, were subjected to the full brunt of the two most colossal armed conflicts the world has ever known. Try, for a moment, to comprehend forty million (40,000,000) dead people. I’m not qualified to minutely analyze the effects of such a horrendous cataclysm, but I can make some educated guesses. Could such

an apocalypse jade one’s outlook towards death and suffering? Might such destruction numb a person’s sense of right, wrong, honor, justice, love, purpose, dismay, happiness, sadness, compassion --- Might it not heighten one’s sense of paranoia?

     Perhaps. Might we never have to deal with such barbaric, savage destruction again.

     Amen. That brings me to the last in this series, “The Revolution and Capitalism”, which, unlike the previous 3 essays in this series, appears in the The Basic Post Consumer Man section of the Table of Contents.

     (Post Script, 2008 - As I post this essay on my website more than a decade later, I find its core to be solid enough to do just that, but --- having further educated myself as to the infamous dictator’s life, some modification seems appropriate. Although it is not a lie to say that Stalin did not betray his social class (and that is a big deal for a Communist), it is also incorrect to say that this was his primary motivation. I would now chalk that up to an iron willed desire to maintain personal power. This is a condition he shares with political leaders of all stripes, and further denigrates a man the world could easily have done without).