George Blake Dead

[Josquius]

 

Tyr is an idiot.

Wow. Such a well thought out reply. Fucking hick.

[DGuller]

I think perpetual motion machines are possible, it's just that so far only morons and charlatans tried to create them.

[Sheilbh]

There are strange double standards that operate in this area, at lest in the UK. In a nutshell I think a lot of lefties think that Nazism was done correctly and is therefore evil; whereas Communism was highjacked by evil bastards and was not done properly and is therefore not evil. They then move on to make excuses for the evil bastards.

One other thing that makes this difficult is when British spies (that we know of) were recruited.

So I think in the US most American spies for the KGB were recruited during the war. They were often leftists, big supporters of FDR who almost saw spying as the next way to help an ally (a bit like KGB false flags in the 70s and 80s when they'd convince very patriotic Americans by posing as BOSS or Mossad - spy for us, we're really your allies it's just Congress getting in the way of giving us this info). By the post-war period they'd gone too far and could be easily blackmailed and a few probably fell in the camp of the thinking the USSR were still a natural ally, it was just ruined by FDR dying and that idiot Truman taking over.

From my understanding the British spies were not recruited during moments of high Soviet idealism like the 20s, or the Popular Front years or the war. Most of them were recruited in the early/mid-30s during the collective farm famines or the late 40s during the Stalinisation of Eastern Europe. They may have been idealists but they had a pretty clear view of what they were being idealistic for.

[grumbler]

There are strange double standards that operate in this area, at lest in the UK. In a nutshell I think a lot of lefties think that Nazism was done correctly and is therefore evil; whereas Communism was highjacked by evil bastards and was not done properly and is therefore not evil. They then move on to make excuses for the evil bastards.

I am not sure when looking objectively at history was transformed into "strange double standards" if you compare the theory and practice of Fascism and Marxism.  Hitler and Mussolini did pretty much what fascists were supposed to do, while the Soviet Socialist states didn't do at all what Marx called for - not even what the Marxism-Leninism called for.

I think that the weird double standard at play here is the rightists insisting that the ideas of Marxism and Fascism must have been equally evil, because reasons.

[The Brain]

Thank you, Exhibit B.

[Sheilbh]

I am not sure when looking objectively at history was transformed into "strange double standards" if you compare the theory and practice of Fascism and Marxism.  Hitler and Mussolini did pretty much what fascists were supposed to do, while the Soviet Socialist states didn't do at all what Marx called for - not even what the Marxism-Leninism called for.

I'm not so sure.

Isn't part of the problem that we define what "fascists were supposed to do" by Hitler and Mussolini who were, sort of the practitioners, rather than by judging them against, say, Marinetti, d'Annunzio or Drexler? We consider fascism what it was in practice rather than what it was theorised as before it came to power. That's probably because is a more important and a better thinker than any of them. But it feels like the goalposts are in slightly different places - even if we just limit it to Marxism-Leninism.

Also I don't really agree with Trotsky's take that Stalinism was simply a perversion/bureaucratisation of Marxism-Leninism - I think one of the reasons Stalin was able to emerge and dominate the party was precisely that he was not innovative. He was always the student of Lenin, who was simply following and developing in Lenin's footsteps unlike Trotsky who was a more original (and better) thinker. He would always present his ideas by reference to the ideas in Lenin that he was following, because normally he was following those lines. There are points of deviation but a lot of Stalinism seems like the logical progression of Marxism-Leninism.

I think that the weird double standard at play here is the rightists insisting that the ideas of Marxism and Fascism must have been equally evil, because reasons.

But is it about the ideas? For me it's about the regimes that exist and that you choose to spy for or not. The Marxist-Leninist regimes and Fascist regimes are broadly similarly "evil" - even if you go for one of the more cuddly varieties like Tito's Yugoslavia or Salazar's Portugal, they were nasty regimes to support.

[grumbler]

I am not sure when looking objectively at history was transformed into "strange double standards" if you compare the theory and practice of Fascism and Marxism.  Hitler and Mussolini did pretty much what fascists were supposed to do, while the Soviet Socialist states didn't do at all what Marx called for - not even what the Marxism-Leninism called for.

I'm not so sure.

Isn't part of the problem that we define what "fascists were supposed to do" by Hitler and Mussolini who were, sort of the practitioners, rather than by judging them against, say, Marinetti, d'Annunzio or Drexler? We consider fascism what it was in practice rather than what it was theorised as before it came to power. That's probably because is a more important and a better thinker than any of them. But it feels like the goalposts are in slightly different places - even if we just limit it to Marxism-Leninism.

We could judge the fascists against Marinetti or Drexler and the Marxists against Owen and Fourier, I suppose, if we want to compare the paining to the canvas and tubes of paint.  Or, we can look at the writings of the fascists and compare them to what the fascists did when they came to power.  Which was just what they said they'd do. 

Leninism included the NEP, which Stalin famously abolished when creating a Stalinist state. 

Also I don't really agree with Trotsky's take that Stalinism was simply a perversion/bureaucratisation of Marxism-Leninism - I think one of the reasons Stalin was able to emerge and dominate the party was precisely that he was not innovative. He was always the student of Lenin, who was simply following and developing in Lenin's footsteps unlike Trotsky who was a more original (and better) thinker. He would always present his ideas by reference to the ideas in Lenin that he was following, because normally he was following those lines. There are points of deviation but a lot of Stalinism seems like the logical progression of Marxism-Leninism.

I disagree that Stalin succeeded in following Lenin because Stalin was a Leninist.  Lenin himself warned against Stalin.  I think Stalin succeeded because he had made sure that loyalists to him occupied the key party positions when Lenin died.  I disagree that Stalinism was a logical progression from Leninism.  Stalinism was a reversion to almost the War Communism system that Lenin explicitly rejected when he felt that he could.

But is it about the ideas? For me it's about the regimes that exist and that you choose to spy for or not. The Marxist-Leninist regimes and Fascist regimes are broadly similarly "evil" - even if you go for one of the more cuddly varieties like Tito's Yugoslavia or Salazar's Portugal, they were nasty regimes to support.

The Marxist-Leninist and Fascist regimes were broadly "similarly evil" because extremist political views give rise to extremist politicians who seek unlimited power, and power corrupts.  Hitler and Mussolini were slightly different from Mao, Stalin, Lenin, et al in that they could excuse their brutality on theoretical grounds rather than merely practical ones.  To a fascist, violence is a good in and of itself, as a purifying force.  Marxists were divided on whether violence was ever a good thing, or whether they should allow historical inevitability to deliver them victory (Leninism as an offshoot was distinguished by its more muscular stance on taking power).

The utopia sought by Marxists, though, was never close to what the Soviet Socialist states ever established.  The utopia of the fascists was very nearly realized by the Fascist states.

[Valmy]

I mean what Marx said we were going towards was some kind of anarchist collective with no private property after a brief transition dictatorship of the proletariat just to shut the state down. Well many types of anarchist collectives have been tried without much success. Seems like if I am going to rise up in order to carry out the Marxist program I would at least want a workable end goal.

The Soviet Union was a murderous bridge to nowhere and say what you want about Cuba or China neither really seems interested, inevitably or otherwise, in transitioning into an anarchist collective.

So the obvious conclusion is that trying to carry out Marx's ideas creates dictatorships and little else. People will be beaten by the people's stick. Murdering and oppressing people to try to carry out failed ideas seems like an evil thing to me.

[Sheilbh]

We could judge the fascists against Marinetti or Drexler and the Marxists against Owen and Fourier, I suppose, if we want to compare the paining to the canvas and tubes of paint.  Or, we can look at the writings of the fascists and compare them to what the fascists did when they came to power.  Which was just what they said they'd do.

But why would you then compare Communist regims against the intellectual theory of Marxism (which never held power)? Isn't the point that the exercise of power in the name of an ideological theory changes and defines the nature of that ideology? I think there's value in a "that's all very well in practice, but what about the theory" approach of understanding politics - of looking at the actual implementation and then extracting the theory from that.

Leninism included the NEP, which Stalin famously abolished when creating a Stalinist state. 

But Lenin characterised the NEP as a retreat from socialism. It was a form of capitalism in his view but a necessary tactical step rather than a shift in strategy. It's also, I think, one of the only two times that Stalin disagreed with Lenin at the time (the other was on nationalities policy). Stalin came on board after criticising but then, in power, adopted Trotsky's far more radical line.

I disagree that Stalin succeeded in following Lenin because Stalin was a Leninist.  Lenin himself warned against Stalin.  I think Stalin succeeded because he had made sure that loyalists to him occupied the key party positions when Lenin died.  I disagree that Stalinism was a logical progression from Leninism.  Stalinism was a reversion to almost the War Communism system that Lenin explicitly rejected when he felt that he could.

I believe that there are historians who query Lenin's testament and whether it actually came form Lenin or whether it came from Krupskaya who was not close to Stalin (and had had run-ins with him especially over the way he controlled access to Lenin after the stroke). Even if it is true Lenin sort of warns against everyone - he warns against issues with Stalin (and the rest of the troika) and with Trotsky and with Bulganin. I think it's something that we assign more meaning to than it deserves because of what happened afterwards if that makes sense?

The Marxist-Leninist and Fascist regimes were broadly "similarly evil" because extremist political views give rise to extremist politicians who seek unlimited power, and power corrupts.  Hitler and Mussolini were slightly different from Mao, Stalin, Lenin, et al in that they could excuse their brutality on theoretical grounds rather than merely practical ones.  To a fascist, violence is a good in and of itself, as a purifying force.  Marxists were divided on whether violence was ever a good thing, or whether they should allow historical inevitability to deliver them victory (Leninism as an offshoot was distinguished by its more muscular stance on taking power).

The utopia sought by Marxists, though, was never close to what the Soviet Socialist states ever established.  The utopia of the fascists was very nearly realized by the Fascist states.

Maybe but even on that stance I think your point about Leninism is key - and I'm not arguing about Marxism but Marxism-Leninism which is for most Communist regimes the founding doctrine (and Blake's belief system). I think for Marxism-Leninism violence is key and there is actually something of its violence that is quite similar to Marinetti's thought - it is modern and romantic and transformative. Trotsky as War Comissar on his train (like early Fascism the early Bolsheviks have a sort of propaganda language of modernity and motion and action) - revolution as "just war" because class war is the only just war there has ever or will ever be.

So I think the utopia sought by Marxist-Leninists necessitates a lot of what the Soviet Socialist states did. I think they are the consequences of Marxism (transformed by Lenin) rather than an aberration. I still find Marxism is really interesting and really valuable especially as a tool for understanding the world - but my view of it is inflected by herbiverous Eurocommunists in the 20th century, rather than the effect Lenin has on it.

As an aside I've always quite liked Robert Caro's line that power doesn't corrupt; power reveals and I think it's true of systems of thought as well as individuals.

[grumbler]

But why would you then compare Communist regims against the intellectual theory of Marxism (which never held power)? Isn't the point that the exercise of power in the name of an ideological theory changes and defines the nature of that ideology? I think there's value in a "that's all very well in practice, but what about the theory" approach of understanding politics - of looking at the actual implementation and then extracting the theory from that.

There may be utility in inventing theories to explain what politicians did, but I have no idea how that applies to the question under consideration (whether  fascist and Soviet states were equally true to their ideological goals).  I think it much easier to explain Hitler in terms of fascism than Stalin in terms of Marxism.

But Lenin characterised the NEP as a retreat from socialism. It was a form of capitalism in his view but a necessary tactical step rather than a shift in strategy. It's also, I think, one of the only two times that Stalin disagreed with Lenin at the time (the other was on nationalities policy). Stalin came on board after criticising but then, in power, adopted Trotsky's far more radical line.

The NEP was Lenin's solution to the impossibility of creating a successful command economy, as recent experience (War Communism) had shown.

I believe that there are historians who query Lenin's testament and whether it actually came form Lenin or whether it came from Krupskaya who was not close to Stalin (and had had run-ins with him especially over the way he controlled access to Lenin after the stroke). Even if it is true Lenin sort of warns against everyone - he warns against issues with Stalin (and the rest of the troika) and with Trotsky and with Bulganin. I think it's something that we assign more meaning to than it deserves because of what happened afterwards if that makes sense?

There are, indeed, historians who doubt the authenticity of the testament, but no one at the time did, which I think is the more compelling evidence.  And Lenin's complaints against people other than Stalin are far from damning.

Now, there's no question that Lenin valued Stalin's work ethic and bureaucratic sense, and that Stalin wouldn't have gotten the position of Secretary-General in 1922 without Lenin's consent.  But Lenin never engaged Stalin in any intellectual discussions the way he did the others (especially Trotsky).  Stalin seems to have been seen as just a good apparatchik, until he got real power as the SG and apparently offended people with his arrogance.

Maybe but even on that stance I think your point about Leninism is key - and I'm not arguing about Marxism but Marxism-Leninism which is for most Communist regimes the founding doctrine (and Blake's belief system). I think for Marxism-Leninism violence is key and there is actually something of its violence that is quite similar to Marinetti's thought - it is modern and romantic and transformative. Trotsky as War Comissar on his train (like early Fascism the early Bolsheviks have a sort of propaganda language of modernity and motion and action) - revolution as "just war" because class war is the only just war there has ever or will ever be.

I think that you are seeing romanticism in the Leninist movement because you see romanticism everywhere! 

Lenin used violence, and advocated using violence.  But he advocated violence as necessary for revolutionary success, not because he had some romantic view of violence as being this "cleansing act" that would rejuvenate the populace and  unite them.  He personally did, I think, become enamored with the idea of using violence to solve problems even as his advisors tried to get him to consider the unintended consequences, and he wrote about his shame concerning this late in his life.  Power corrupts.

So I think the utopia sought by Marxist-Leninists necessitates a lot of what the Soviet Socialist states did. I think they are the consequences of Marxism (transformed by Lenin) rather than an aberration. I still find Marxism is really interesting and really valuable especially as a tool for understanding the world - but my view of it is inflected by herbiverous Eurocommunists in the 20th century, rather than the effect Lenin has on it.

I guess I can only counter your argument by assertion with my counter-argument-by-assertion, that nothing in Lenin's writings before the revolution required the Red Terror, nor the Great Terror, nor the starvation of the peasants leading to the deaths of tens of millions, nor the utter destruction of the environment.  Those resulted from conscious choices to ignore the Marxist-Leninist principals of equality and justice, in pursuit of naked power.  Lenin himself admitted as much, in terms of the acts he carried out.  I'd also note that Lenin was careful to allow dissent and didn't execute, exile, imprison, or slander those in the party who disagreed with him.  He didn't use violence for its own sake, as Stalin did.

Stalin was no Leninist.

As an aside I've always quite liked Robert Caro's line that power doesn't corrupt; power reveals and I think it's true of systems of thought as well as individuals.

I think that that's one of those great lines whose only fault is that it's manifestly untrue.

[grumbler]

I mean what Marx said we were going towards was some kind of anarchist collective with no private property after a brief transition dictatorship of the proletariat just to shut the state down. Well many types of anarchist collectives have been tried without much success. Seems like if I am going to rise up in order to carry out the Marxist program I would at least want a workable end goal.

The Soviet Union was a murderous bridge to nowhere and say what you want about Cuba or China neither really seems interested, inevitably or otherwise, in transitioning into an anarchist collective.

So the obvious conclusion is that trying to carry out Marx's ideas creates dictatorships and little else. People will be beaten by the people's stick. Murdering and oppressing people to try to carry out failed ideas seems like an evil thing to me.

As I have told my students many time, the reason communist nations are not communist but fascists states are fascist is that fascist states have an ideology geared to human nature. 

"Communist" state leaders have to ignore human nature or ignore communism.   100% of them choose the latter, because they are all human.

[Berkut]

Is it really so beyond the pale to suggest that an ardent fascist might look at Germany in, say, 1941 at the height of their power and say "Yep! That is exactly what a fascist state should look like!" while recognizing that there would be no point in the history of the USSR were an ardent communist would say "Yep, that is what a communist state should look like!".

They might say that is what a communist state ON THE WAY to the ideal communist state should look like (or would look like), but I don't think any of them would say that is what it OUGHT to look like as an end goal.

But I think one could in fact say that Nazi Germany in 1940 or 1941 was exactly how a fascist state ought to look.

Why is suggesting that there might be a difference seen as evidence of some kind of character flaw?

[DGuller]

As an aside I've always quite liked Robert Caro's line that power doesn't corrupt; power reveals and I think it's true of systems of thought as well as individuals.

I think that that's one of those great lines whose only fault is that it's manifestly untrue.

I think it's partially untrue, I think power both reveals and corrupts.  Some people are latent authoritarians who activate when they get in power, and some people are changed for the worse by the deferential treatment power buys you.

[Berkut]

As an aside I've always quite liked Robert Caro's line that power doesn't corrupt; power reveals and I think it's true of systems of thought as well as individuals.

I think that that's one of those great lines whose only fault is that it's manifestly untrue.

I think it's partially untrue, I think power both reveals and corrupts.  Some people are latent authoritarians who activate when they get in power, and some people are changed for the worse by the deferential treatment power buys you.

I think the people who power reveals to be corrupt are also corrupted by power. So I think the statement is rather pithy and sounds great, but is in fact actually untrue.

I think it is the kind of thing we want to be true because it lets us judge others in a satisfying way. "The power did not corrupt them, they were corrupt all along! THE BASTARDS!"

[Josquius]

Is it really so beyond the pale to suggest that an ardent fascist might look at Germany in, say, 1941 at the height of their power and say "Yep! That is exactly what a fascist state should look like!" while recognizing that there would be no point in the history of the USSR were an ardent communist would say "Yep, that is what a communist state should look like!".

They might say that is what a communist state ON THE WAY to the ideal communist state should look like (or would look like), but I don't think any of them would say that is what it OUGHT to look like as an end goal.

But I think one could in fact say that Nazi Germany in 1940 or 1941 was exactly how a fascist state ought to look.

Why is suggesting that there might be a difference seen as evidence of some kind of character flaw?

Yes.
Nazi Germany was moving in the 'right direction'. It was following the plan to the letter. Carving out an empire- check,  wiping out undesirables- check, militaristic nationalist cult of personality- check.
The Soviet Union....well even they themselves never claimed to be communist, merely on the path to it... which could have been debatably claimed to be so in the USSR's later years but under Stalin definitely not. A lot of what was done went completely counter to aiding the masses.

There are strange double standards that operate in this area, at lest in the UK. In a nutshell I think a lot of lefties think that Nazism was done correctly and is therefore evil; whereas Communism was highjacked by evil bastards and was not done properly and is therefore not evil. They then move on to make excuses for the evil bastards.

One other thing that makes this difficult is when British spies (that we know of) were recruited.

So I think in the US most American spies for the KGB were recruited during the war. They were often leftists, big supporters of FDR who almost saw spying as the next way to help an ally (a bit like KGB false flags in the 70s and 80s when they'd convince very patriotic Americans by posing as BOSS or Mossad - spy for us, we're really your allies it's just Congress getting in the way of giving us this info). By the post-war period they'd gone too far and could be easily blackmailed and a few probably fell in the camp of the thinking the USSR were still a natural ally, it was just ruined by FDR dying and that idiot Truman taking over.

From my understanding the British spies were not recruited during moments of high Soviet idealism like the 20s, or the Popular Front years or the war. Most of them were recruited in the early/mid-30s during the collective farm famines or the late 40s during the Stalinisation of Eastern Europe. They may have been idealists but they had a pretty clear view of what they were being idealistic for.

Beware of hindsight in this one.
Today we know full well what went on in Ukraine, with the Stalinist purges, etc.... in the 30s however information from the USSR (or indeed anywhere) was far thinner on the ground.
It wasn't really until the late 30s that information on the truth of Stalinism really began to get around. Animal Farm was pretty influential with casual lefists at the time and not simply repeating something that was widely accepted.
Pre-Attlee in particular there was far less of a split between western socialists and the USSR. Lansbury was very communist friendly and its not without reason the Zinoviev letter was such a success.
I think with the early 30s people you can give a lot of leeway around all this.
With the late 40s people of course its far stranger. I can only guess they were idealistically stupid and make excuses that without the fascist threat Stalin would be good now- also worth noting the government sharing with the soviets at the time.