|
|
New Republic
12/18/2000, Vol. 223 Issue 25, p35
|
|
THE
EVIL OF BANALITY
By
Richard Pipes
Stalinism As a Way of Life:
A Narrative in Documents
by Lewis Siegelbaum and Andrei Sokolov
(Yale University Press, 460 pp., $35)
When the soviet Union
dissolved toward the end of 1990, Boris Yeltsin removed the country's
archives from the control of the Communist Party and threw open the
majority of them to scholars, native as well as foreign. Several
archives containing the most sensitive documents--the so-called
Presidential Archive, along with the archives housing the papers of
the KGB and the Foreign Ministry--remain virtually closed to
outsiders. Even so, an enormous quantity of documentation, previously
secret or available only on a selective basis, is now accessible to
every historian of the Soviet period.
Foreign scholars lost
no time making use of the opportunity. They divided into two groups.
One headed for the depositories containing records of the most
sensitive decisions of the Soviet government. A highly revealing study
in this category was edited by the Russian dissident Vladimir
Bukovskii, called The Moscow Trial. In 1992, Bukovskii was given
access to the most secret documents, including minutes of the
Politburo, as an expert witness for the Russian Constitutional Court
in a trial of the Communist Party, and he managed to outsmart the
archivists who had never seen a scanner and to copy thousands of
documents relating to high-level Soviet policies. (Although it has
been translated into French and German, his extraordinary expose still
awaits an American publisher.) My own collection The Unknown Lenin,
containing selections from the secret papers of the Soviet leader in
what used to be the Central Party Archive, belongs to the same type of
research and interpretation.
The authors of such
works proceed on the assumption that in the Soviet totalitarian state
the prime mover of events was the Communist Party, and hence what
mattered were the decisions of the political leadership. But another
group of scholars chose to ignore the politicians. They turned instead
to the archives containing the seemingly most mundane materials
bearing on everyday life in the Soviet Union, such as letters written
by ordinary citizens to the authorities and newspaper editors. This
group belonged to what in the 1960s came to be known as the
"revisionist" school of Russian historians. They postulated
that all history is made "from below," that is, by the
interaction between the rulers and the ruled; and that in this
interaction the latter play the decisive role. The same rule, in their
opinion, applied also to Communist Russia. Thus Lenin did not seize
power in October 1917, he was driven to do so by the radicalized
masses. Stalin's regime, too, was not "totalitarian,"
because behind the facade of conformity there existed a complex
interplay between government and people.
Andrei Sokolov, one
of the editors of Stalinism As a Way of Life, wrote in the Russian
counterpart of this book that he viewed "the political structures
... not as self-sufficient and self-regulating but as the consequence
of social changes and shocks." This approach is really a
watered-down version of the Marx-Engels theory that all history is a
story of class struggles, with politics merely reflecting the
alignment of social and economic forces. The purpose of such research,
therefore, was to demonstrate how in an ostensibly
"self-sufficient and self-regulating" state such as the
Soviet Union, society played a determining role. It is far from clear
that this task has been accomplished.
The present volume
covers the years between 1929 and 1941, with most of the materials
dating from the middle '30s to the late '30s. The parallel Russian
volume, edited by Sokolov, published in Moscow in 1998 as Golos Naroda
(The Voice of the People), dealt with the preceding period
(1918-1932). Stalinism As a Way of Life reproduces 157 documents, many
of them letters to the authorities as well as to newspapers,
especially Krest'ianskaia Gazeta (Peasant Newspaper), along with
reports of government officials on the public mood, all accompanied by
the editor's commentaries.
The documents make
for very depressing reading. They consist of a relentless succession
of complaints, appeals, cries of despair, and denunciations, relieved
only rarely by unintended flashes of grim humor (as, for example, a
gulag official proposing to build--with forced labor, of course--a
canal from Moscow to the Pacific coast.) As the Great Terror of
1937-1938 draws near, the documents become desperate in their
incomprehension of what is happening and in their frenzied,
self-serving glorification of Stalin.
Most of the documents
are too long to cite, so a few examples must suffice. The first is an
anonymous letter sent to Pravda from Kazakhstan in 1932:
Comrade Editor,
Please give me an answer. Do the local authorities have
the right forcibly to take away the only cow of industrial
and office workers? What is more, they demand a receipt
showing that the cow was handed over voluntarily and they
threaten you by saying that if you don't do this, they will
put you in prison for failure to fulfill the meat
procurement. How can you live when the cooperative
distributes only black bread, and at the market goods have
the prices of 1919 and 1920? Lice have eaten us to death,
and soap is given only to railroad workers. From hunger and
filth we have a massive outbreak of spotted fever.
The next is a
collective letter to Mikhail Kalinin, the Soviet Union's pro forma
"Head of State," on behalf of 50,000 women exiled during
collectivization:
Our husbands are separated from us. They are off lumbering
somewhere, and we women, old people, and small children are
left behind to languish in churches. As many as two
thousand of us have been packed into each church where
plank beds have been put up three stories high so there is
always a steamy mist in the air. We have all become sick
from this air and the drafts, and children under fourteen
have dropped like flies, and there's been no medical
assistance for all these sick persons. In the course of a
month and a half as many as three thousand children have
been buried in the Vologda cemetery.... We brought a supply
of food with us, but when they moved us, the local
officials in Vologda took it away.... Now they give us
nothing except hot water.
The third letter,
dated 1936, is from a kolkhoz farmer who responds to the government's
request for comments on the draft of the Stalin
"Constitution":
A kind of constitution should be put out so that everyone
can live freely and so that the brigade leaders don't shout
at us--Hey, why don't you go to work, otherwise I will deal
with you. You can't say a word in your own defense, or they
will start to threaten: "Don't talk so much, or I will nail
you with article 58. Van'ka got ten years of pulling
wheelbarrows and it's time for you to land up there...." I
got to thinking and I started feeling ashamed, we live in a
free country, but there are so many prisoners and for what?
If your crops get diseased, it's ten years, if your horse
wears out its withers, it's ten years, if you didn't give
somebody a cigarette, it's ten years, and so on, if our
dear leader Comrade Stalin knew what is going in the
countryside, he would never forgive it.
What is surprising in
all these documents, given the weak development in Russia of civil
society, is the belief that human beings have rights and that there is
something very wrong when those rights are trampled upon.
Lewis Siegelbaum has
performed a major service by selecting and translating these materials
which depict the day-to-day conditions of life under Stalin, and do so
the more vividly for having been written by semiliterate peasants and
workers. The information that he supplies makes real, in human terms,
such abstractions as "collectivization,"
"industrialization," and "terror." His book
supplements Sheila Fitzpatrick's Everyday Stalinism (1999) which,
drawing on similar evidence, described the life of urban Russia in the
1930s.
|
Kolkhoz
members parade under the banner "We will liquidate the
kulaks as a class," early 1930s.
|
Yet Siegelbaum's
interpretation of these materials raises troubling questions. He
seems to have difficulty accepting the texts at their face value,
and feels compelled to interpret them in sociological jargon that
robs them of their force and dilutes their message. Consider
collectivization, one of the most destructive acts in Russian
history. It plundered the peasants of their land, their livestock,
and their crops, transforming them into state serfs. The resistance
to this mass expropriation was ferocious: Stalin confided to
Churchill that the collectivization campaign, which lasted some
three years, had been more "stressful" than World War II.
In 1932, a certain I. Gusev sent a letter on the desperate situation
in the North Caucasus:
We are left naked, barefoot, two hundred grams of barley
bread a day and we eat cabbage without butter. It's
terrible to see a big strong man cry, and he cries because
they deceived him with the kolkhoz, because he's left
without a farm, without bread, without clothes, and he's
lost his freedom.
This seems
straightforward enough, but Siegelbaum finds such explanations of
resistance to collectivization too simple: "Was this a case of
the defense of tradition versus a particularly brutal form of
enforced modernization?" he asks in the introduction to the
book. Apart from the fact that herding farmers into state-run
collectives hardly represented "modernization," one should
think that such pathetic cries require no scholarly exegesis.
In his discussion
of the Great Terror, Siegelbaum speaks condescendingly, with
reference to Robert Conquest's book of that title, about "the
simplicity and clarity of the classical interpretation of a paranoid
ruler who ruthlessly exterminated former colleagues and millions of
others in his unquenchable thirst of power." In fact, we now
know from other archival sources, sometimes in gory detail, that
Stalin personally supervised the massacres: thus, on a single day,
December 12, 1938, he signed death sentences for 5,000 people who
had never been tried, after which he went to his private Kremlin
movie theater to enjoy two films, one of them a comedy called Merry
Fellows. There were many such days.
Siegelbaum has no
explanation of his own to offer for the Great Terror, but he submits
a number of "potentially valuable" approaches, including
one which "emphasizes the discursive significance of
`purification' and `degeneration' and the desire of Stalinist
subjects to be among the pure." This is admirably
sophisticated, but one wonders whether the same thought ever
occurred to Stalin when in instructions to police officials assigned
to carry out his terror he summed up their task in one word:
"beat."
There is a
reluctance in Siegelbaum's discussion to concede the totalitarian
nature of the Stalinist regime, and also a related inclination,
contradicted by the documents cited, to see "social support for
the regime." True, there were groups that benefitted from the
"purges" by moving into positions vacated by their
victims. Not a few Soviet citizens denounced to the authorities as
"wreckers," "Trotskyists", and "spies"
their bosses, colleagues, and acquaintances, but this surely was an
attempt to save their own skins, not an expression of support for
the terror. One cannot but wonder what is the use of social science
when the main conclusion that Siegelbaum draws from his heartrending
evidence is that "the picture we present of how Soviet citizens
tried to navigate the 'massive social transformations' of the 1930s
is not a particularly happy one." In human terms, the evidence
that he adduces shows that it is a very, very tragic one.
The documents
collected and analyzed by Sokolov, Fitzpatrick, and now Siegelbaum
offer no support to the revisionist theory of "history from
below." On the contrary: they indicate more convincingly than
ever that Soviet citizens were the helpless victims of a
totalitarian regime driven primarily by a lust for power. They
vindicate "the simplicity and clarity of the classical
interpretation of a paranoid ruler." They thus validate the
work of the older generation of Soviet specialists, such as Leonard
Schapiro, Merle Fainsod, and Robert Conquest. Politics were indeed
the motor driving Soviet history: it was made not "from
below" but "from above."
(Copyright 2000,
The New Republic)
Richared
Pipes is a Baird Research Professor of History at Harvard. His most
recent book is Property and Freedom (Knopf).
|