Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Flamboy's avatar

A good read for our host on Soviet Central planning, is the book "Red Plenty" by Spufford. A extract which discusses the evolution of officials over time:

Baggy two-piece suits are not the obvious costume for philosopher kings: but that, in theory, was what the apparatchiks who rule the Soviet Union in the 1960s were supposed to be. Lenin’s state made the same bet that Plato had twenty-five centuries earlier, when he proposed that enlightened intelligence gives absolute powers would serve the public good better than the grubby politicking of republics.

But the Soviet experiment had run into exactly the difficulty that Plato’s admirers encountered, back in the fifth century BC, when they attempted to mould philosophical monarchies for Syracuse and Macedonia. The recipe called for rule by heavily-armed virtue—or in the Leninist case, not exactly virtue, but a sort of intentionally post-ethical counterpart to it, self-righteously brutal. Wisdom was to be set where it could be ruthless. Once such a system existed, though, the qualities required to rise in it had much more to do with ruthlessness than wisdom. Lenin’s core of Bolsheviks, and the socialists like Trotsky who joined them, were many of them highly educated people, literate in multiple European languages, learned in the scholastic traditions of Marxism; and they preserved these attributes even as they murdered and lied and tortured and terrorized. They were social scientists who thought principle required them to behave like gangsters. But their successors – the vydvizhentsy who refilled the Central Committee in the thirties – were not the most selfless people in Soviet society, or the most principled, or the most scrupulous. They were the most ambitious, the most domineering, the most manipulative, the most greedy, the most sycophantic: people whose adherence to Bolshevik ideas was inseparable from the power that came with them. Gradually their loyalty to the ideas became more and more instrumental, more and more a matter of what the ideas would let them grip in their two hands…

Stalin had been a gangster who really believed he was a social scientist. Khruschev was a gangster who hoped he was a social scientist. But the moment was drawing irresistibly closer when the idealism would rot away by one more degree, and the Soviet Union would be governed by gangsters who were only pretending to be social scientists.

Expand full comment
Gordon Tremeshko's avatar

Interesting. I started reading Paradoxes of Power a couple years ago and got up to the point where Lenin dies and Stalin takes over, but then I thought the narrative bogged down in details of Stalin appointing various party apparatchiks to committees, councils, ministries, and whatnot, and I got bored and never finished it.

Anywho, fun fact: in David Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon, he describes how Napoleon seemed to honestly believe, based on his personal correspondence and private conversations, that he had been chosen by God to spread the ideals of the French Revolution across Europe, from Portugal to Moscow. And yet, he crowns himself Emperor of France, makes his generals into a brand new class of nobles, installs his relatives and friends as puppet rulers of conquered territories, and turns those territories into vassal states to feed further conquests with conscripts and cash. Not much liberty, fraternity or equality goin' on in say, Spain under Joey Bonaparte. Seems like a clear parallel with Stalin putting an ideological window-dressing on his own self interest.

Expand full comment
31 more comments...

No posts