Dissent of the Day: The Many Sides of Stalinism
From ElSe on my post about Bill Maher’s Sugar Stalinism:
I’m not sure that you’ve got right the idea of Stalinism, David. When one reads Solzhenitsyn’s memoires (or any memoires of the Stalin’s survivors, in that matter) one clearly sees that Stalin’s meat-grinder wasn’t meant to reshape the society or have had any particular targets , it meant to serve the psychotic monster with his appetite for power, servants and personal greatness. And the best way to do so was to manufacture killing, forced labor and fear among millions. No one had 100% chance to survive this “ideology” because ideology was just a screen for paranoid narcissist. Few people actually believed to the crap Stalin fed them (and some of those few sang a different tune after they found themselves in the concentration camps), most of the Stalin’s choir mumbled his propaganda out of fear for they life, plain and simple ( “clapping for our father Stalin” episode in the “GULAG archipelago, part 1” is a classic example of this mood).
People like Moher, with their moronic “ends justify the means” fit perfectly to the Lenin’s ideology rather than Stalinism, when they still honestly believed that they have the right prescription for changing society for better at any price.
My two cents…
There are many aspects of Stalinism. (Just as there are with all political philosophies.) I don’t think the angle of the term which I articulate in my post and in ElSe’s comment are mutually exclusive.