communist morality

K

kowalskil

Guest
Browsing the Internet I found a website with a one-year-old thread entitled “Ethical Stalinism.” The person who started the thread wrote:

Marx predicted a future revolution in which the working class would own the means of production. Lenin realized it would take too long and advocated a militant vanguard that would expedite the revolution and operate the means of production owned by the workers.

www.newyouth.com/archives/marxisttheory.asp

Stalin promoted a rapid and pugnacious transfer to a communist economy regardless of the collateral damage. Setting aside Stalin's paranoia, personal failings, unconscious motives and ruthless behavior, I want to focus on the ethics of his program of rapid rural collectivization and urban industrialization. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism

Is it ever ethical to harm a few in order to benefit a majority in the future? For example, is it ever ethical to allow a few to starve to death in order to divert food so a larger number will remain alive even at a subsistent level? Is it ever ethical to sacrifice the living in order to benefit a larger unborn future generation? Is it ever ethical to abolish resisters in the road to achieving your goal of a œUtopian? society in the future? Is it ever ethical to usurp the slow progress of democracy if it results in a better society in a shorter timespan?

One person responded: “I would say violence is most necessary for a revolution, and insofar as it for this cause, its ok.”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Responding to the above I wrote: “You asked if it is ethical to sacrifice the living in order to benefit a larger unborn future generation? Please answer the following four questions:

a) Who benefitted from killing Bukharin, Trotsky and a large number of other old bolsheviks?

How did killing of Tukchachevsky, and a large number of generals (in late 1930s) help the country to defend itself in 1941?

c) How did forced collectivization (and liquidation of New Economic Policy established by Lenin) help the country to feed itself?

d) How did the deportation of all Chechens (and other national minorities from Georgia, after WWII) to Kazakhstan helped the USSR to consolidate its brotherhood of nations? “

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

My questions were not unanswered. Any comments? BY THE WAY,

The book "Hell on Earth: Brutality and Violence Under the Stalinist Regime," at

Autobiography of a Former Communist. Ludwik Kowalski, Ludwik, diary

describes horrors with which most of you are probably familiar. But Section 3.7, entitled "Communist Morality," is probably worth reading and discussing on this forum (and possible on History forum). Two more things worth reading are Chapter 7 and Section 4.5

Chapter 7 is a discussion of Stalinism (by professors at Montclair State University). Section 4.5 provides numerical data on how little American students (also at Montclair State University) know about Stalin. This short and easy-to-read book was written for students like them. Please share the link with history teachers you know; perhaps some of them will assign this FREE ON-LINE book to students. It can also be a base for discussing idea of proletarian dictatorship, which unites all Marxists.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University
My autobiography --> http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html
 
Stripping of individual rights with a more-than-religious fervor.

Ain't nothing like forced conversions at swordpoint/gunpoint. :mad:
 
OK, but look...if you want radical change people have to die. Look at what Gandhi's death did. Look at what MLK's death did. Look at what the Kent State deaths did. Look at what photo journalism of the Vietnam war did. Look at what happened in the aftermath of Columbine, of Matthew Shepherd. People have to be transfixed with horror to get their asses up off the couch. Turn this around and you understand how terrorism works. And then take a fresh look at the Bolshevik revolution and Mao's cultural revolution. All part of the the same set of processes.

Chris
 
Marxism was a great idea considering the terrible conditions of workers in the time Marx lived. He did not advocate killing anyone as far as I know. His was a political philosophy.

Leninism/Stalinist Communism was a religion. It had a complex dogma that is enforced by consequences of execution, torture, threats to family, or imprisonment. The USSR Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion. It officially pushed a form of Atheism by decree rather than Atheism by rational thinking. Note that the US Constitution is also secular guaranteeing freedom of religion, but in reality religious minorities have an inferior status to Christians. America is a de facto Theocracy.

Despite lacking a god, Communism had all of the components of religions like Christianity and Islam. It had a creed. It behaved like Christianity from 400 CE to 1776 or 1784 CE. Like Monarchical Christianity, Communism executed heretics. Communism had the equivalent of witch trials. Communism tortured suspected dissenters. Communism had its priesthood of Soviet members, Commissars (Bishops), and a Pope (Lenin or Stalin.) The Soviet state like the Christian Monarchy had spies report to the NKVD/KGB or Inquisition on any subjects talking heresy or freethinking.

Like Christian Morality, Communist morality was not intuitive morality. It was moulded on the retention of power and intimidation of the people by fear. Power was dependent on the people's fear of God/Stalin, the Inquisition/KGB, and local bishops/political commissars.

Kasavubu
 
a) Who benefitted from killing Bukharin, Trotsky and a large number of other old bolsheviks?

No benefit.Trotsky and some of the old Bolsheviks were critical in the revolution. They might have been influential in fighting some of Stalin's irrational moves.

b) How did killing of Tukchachevsky, and a large number of generals (in late 1930s) help the country to defend itself in 1941?

It produced a huge Soviet army that was so incompetent that only massive numbers of unmotivated troops could defeat the outnumbered but more motivated Finns.

It also deprived Russia of the experienced real generals who would have kicked out the political appointees. Their experience would have led them to anticipate the German invasion, by not massing chaotically on the Polish border but the more rational defence in depth. They would have constructed more powerful defensive lines deeper in Belarus with a large mobile army in reserve to crush any breakthroughs. Given the relative size, numbers of troops, numbers of tanks, and planes, the Russians should have crushed the German forces in the western regions of Russia. Germans would have never gotten near Moscow or Stalingrad. The war might have lasted one or two years but Germany would have lost. Remember that Zhukov's Siberian army defeated the Japanese twice. The Japanese were too scared to attack the Russians again.

c
c) How did forced collectivization (and liquidation of New Economic Policy established by Lenin) help the country to feed itself?

I don't know if agricultural production declined or not. Certainly the violence of the collectivisation would not have promoted enthusiasm among the farmers. I think that it did decline for a number of years.

d) How did the deportation of all Chechens (and other national minorities from Georgia, after WWII) to Kazakhstan helped the USSR to consolidate its brotherhood of nations? “

I never knew that. Georgia was an important borderland defending Russia against the Mustapha Kemal's Fascist Turks. Muslims in Georgia might have been thought to have divided loyalties fighting for the Communist or Orthodox Christian Georgians and Russians against their fellow Muslim Turks. As it turns out, Turkey decided on the last minute to not join the Axis powers. The Turks had previously forced millions of Christian Armenians away from eastern Turkish Armenia because of a similar reason of Orthodox Russians getting help from Orthodox Georgians. It may have been wrong but it may have been military strategy.

Kasavubu
 
Back
Top