Posted on 10/16/2017 4:10:10 PM PDT by SJackson
In the new normal of 2017, in which far-right and far-left militants clash openly in Americas public square, a contentious 20th century debate is newly relevant: is the extreme left as dangerous and repugnant as the extreme right? Should the hammer and sickle be as offensive as the swastika? Was Communism as evil as Nazism a question sure to generate plenty of heat as we approach the 100th anniversary of the Russian revolution?
Conservatives have long complained of a double standard for Nazi and Communist crimes. To manyon theleft, on the other hand, equating Communism and Nazism is an obscenity bordering on Nazi apologism. Some whose lifes work is focused on the Holocaust, such as the Simon Wiesenthal Centers Ephraim Zuroff, also object to what they see as a pernicious false symmetry.
It is a question of particular personal relevance to me, as a Jew born in Soviet Russia, where I lived until coming the United States as a teenager in 1980. There were victims of both Communist and Nazis barbarism in my own family. My paternal grandparents were survivors of Stalins gulag, imprisoned for trying to escape to Israel and thankfully released early because of Stalins death. My fathers uncle was killed in one of Hitlers death camps.
In the closet-dissident, mostly Jewish milieu where I grew up, the belief that Stalin was as bad as Hitler and that Communism was Nazisms equally odious twin was entirely commonplace. More than that: there was a not-uncommon view that Communism in its Stalinist incarnation was worse. To a large extent, this reflected the influence of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, whose works (especially The Gulag Archipelago) were clandestinely and reverently read, and who was quoted as an authority on Communisms higher body count and greater cruelty.
Later, in the United States, I had the jarring experience of seeing American liberals use anti-Soviet and anti-Communist as pejoratives, and frustrating conversations with people who thought Ronald Reagans description of the Soviet Union as an evil empire was crude warmongering.
But I also encountered the fact that the crimes of Communism were sometimes used to minimize the Holocaust or suggest that the mass murder of Jews was getting too much attention. At worst, those parallels were given an overtly anti-Semitic twist by people who blamed Communist mass murder on Jewish Bolsheviks, suggesting a moral equivalence not just between Communists and Nazis but between Jews and their persecutors. (Such arguments now flourish on the alt right, with references to the Jewish Holodomor the Ukrainian terror-famine of 1932-33 as a counterpart to the Holocaust; never mind that by 1932, the twelve-person Soviet Politburo bolsheviks had precisely one Jewish member.)
Today, I agree with Elie Wiesels judgment, in his 1975 essay Why Solzhenitsyn Troubles Me (published in the 1978 collection, A Jew Today) that there is something troubling about Solzhenitsyns tendency to treat the Holocaust as a lesser crime than Stalins butchery. However, Wiesels point was not to dismiss Communisms crimes as lesser, but to argue that there is a limit in evil beyond which comparisons are no longer relevant. And in a 2004 interview, he observed that Communism was similar to Nazism in its conviction that the end justifies murderous means.
For many, its the ends that make a key difference. As British historian Orlando Figes wrote in his 1997 book, A Peoples Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924, Communism is viewed as an expression of humanitys historic striving for social justice and comradeship, a noble dream turned to horrific nightmare. Nazism, on the other hand, stood for racial supremacy and brutal oppression of lower races. Thus, Figes argues, the Communist experiment inspires some sympathy or at least respectful understanding, while the Nazi project can only fill us with revulsion.
But how meaningful is this distinction? Figes himself shows that from the first days of the Revolution, terror was an essential part of Bolshevik creed, enthusiastically embraced by Vladimir Lenin and his comrades-in-arms. Mass murder of the class enemy was openly and explicitly advocated, not only as revolutionary strategy but as a tool of social transformation.
We must win over to our side 90 million of the 100 that populate Soviet Russia. There is no talking to the rest they must be eliminated, declared Grigory Zinoviev, Bolshevik leader and close Lenin associate, at the September 1918 Petrograd conference of the Russian Communist Party. Two years later, fellow revolutionary (and in less than two decades, fellow victim of Stalins terror machine) Nikolai Bukharinwrote, Proletarian coercion in all its forms, from executions by shooting to compulsory labor, is, paradoxical though it may sound, a method of molding Communist humanity out of the human material of the capitalist era.
Whats more, the Soviet ideal of a brotherhood beyond ethnic and racial lines often turned, in practice, to systematic persecution of populations seen as more loyal to their own kind than to the Communist fraternity be it Ukrainians in the early 1930s or Jews in the late 1940s and early 1950s. (Had Stalin lived a little longer, Soviet Jews might well have faced mass deportation to Siberia, a de facto death sentence for many.)
Conversely, Nazi racial supremacism was often masked with proclamations of freedom, brotherhood and justice for (German) workers. Its no accident that one of the most popular songs of the Russian revolution Bravely, O Comrades, march onward was adopted as a hymn by the Nazis with barely changed lyrics, except for a line extolling Hitler and a reference to corruption by Jewish gold. Likewise, a look at Soviet and Nazis posters shows a strikingly similar esthetic.
The Holocaust was a unique evil in its diabolical attempt at the total annihilation of a people. Nazism created death camps, while the camps of the gulag were not specifically intended to kill though in at least some of them, quickly working people to death seems to have been a deliberate policy.
Stalinism had its own distinct evils, including random terror that struck down even those most loyal to the regime. An ordinary German who either supported the Nazi regime or took no interest in politics generally had no reason to fear arrest. In the Soviet Union under Stalin, as British writer Martin Amis wrote in his eccentric but fascinating 2002 study, Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million, Everyone was terrorized, all the way up: Everyone except Stalin. (Koba was Stalins nickname in his revolutionary days; twenty million is a low-end estimate of Soviet Communisms human toll.)
You could be arrested and sent to the gulag because someone denounced you for an absurd reason: the aunt of a family friend of ours in Moscow was imprisoned because someone reported that she played a funeral march on the piano the day Bukharin was shot. Or a scapegoat could be needed for production problems at the factory where you worked. My maternal grandfather, a Party member and an aviation engineer, sometimes said to my grandma, If they arrest me, please dont believe that Im an enemy of the people.
In Koba the Dread, Amis struggles with the difference between attitudes toward Communism and Nazism and concludes that, on a visceral level, the species shame at the human capacity for monstrous deeds is deeper in the case of Germany. He attributes this partly to the Nazis biomedical approach to extermination.
And yet Amis also notes ways in which Communism was the worse poison: for instance, it destroyed civil societysocial bonds and institutions independent of the statein a way Nazism did not, which made recovery from Nazism easier. Moreover, Nazism could not be duplicated (other fascist states did not even come close); on the other hand, Bolshevism was exportable, and produced near-identical results elsewhere. Indeed, the Communist experiments in China and Cambodia were far more barbaric than in the Soviet Union, both in terms of total state control over everyday life and in terms of mass slaughter.
Still, sympathy for the noble dream persists; even outright Communist apologetics can still be found on the progressive left. Three years ago, Salon.com ran a piece by activist Jesse Myerson titled Why youre wrong about communism, supposedly a debunking of Americans huge misconceptions on the subject (but actually a hodgepodge of excuses and red herrings).
In 1999, a group of historians published The Black Book of Communism, a monumental examination of the crimes of Communist regimes. Left-wing journalist Daniel Singer took them to task in The Nation for a one-sided approach that left out the good things: There was also enthusiasm, construction, the spread of education and social advancement for millions. Singer was particularly dismayed because he felt that the authors were using Communisms record to discourage belief in collective action and the possibility of radical transformation and promote resignation to the way things are.
But liberal democracy, for all its (currently glaring) flaws, already allows for collective action and social change. And Communisms record should indeed be a warning against the pursuit of radical transformation, especially by violent means as much as Nazism should be a warning against the dangers of militant nationalism rooted in ethnic or racial identity.
The goals of communism, and left-wing radicalism in general, may not be as blatantly repugnant as the goals of Nazism, fascism, and right-wing radicalism. But that makes left-wing radicalism more seductive to men and women of good will and in that sense, perhaps, most dangerous.
I don’t know. What we see today, though, is Nazi symbols in the hands of the far right. It’s unfortunate. They often have the confederate battle flag, too. What does that mean?
Competing brands of the same product.
The old European right wasn't in love with freedom and individualism, any more than the old European left was pacifist and omni-tolerant of all manner of ethnicities and lifestyles.
Communists and Nazis/Fascists were fighting in the streets. Millions joined one side or the other, and that's what defined right and left for that generation.
Define the principles of “far right”.
That’s interesting. I’ll be thinking about it for a while.
Potato, potahto. “National Socialist Worker’s Party” sounds indistinguishable from communism to me.
“I think Jews would disagree.”
Jews aren’t the final arbiter about whether communists or Nazis were more evil. Communists and Nazis were the ultimate Marxist competitors.
Read about the Stalinist Holodomor in the Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Many of the SA were former Communist street brawlers who were recruited by the Nazis. They offered better beer.
Wilson certainly was. He and Mussolini were a mutual admiration society.
I don't see Communism as striving for Social Justice. It subjects the populace with the promise of a utopia that never comes. But the animals at the top of Animal Farm sure live well.
What of Mao's cultural revolution was a "noble dream"? Destroying the artifacts of ancient Chinese nobility? Students killing and eating their teachers???
And Japanese Imperial Shintoism also pushed racial supremacy and brutal oppression of "lower" races. Medical experiments on prisoners, rape farms. But they weren't white so it gets a pass and is forgotten.
Exactly, these arguments about Communism/Fascism/left/right really shouldn't exist in a European context relative to America. Left and right, when defined within a system based on individual freedom and individual rights take on a very different meaning than in the European context of governmental supremacy. We're arguing apples and oranges, though I acknowledge the European leftist vision has taken hold on the American left.
Further, I would argue that anyone marching under the swastika today is anything but right wing’
Are there anti-Semites among the so-called “anti-fascist” protesters?
Ever ask them about “God”?
Ever ask them about Israel?
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Until there is a definition of what constitutes
‘right-wing,’ discussion will be splintered.
Nazism advocates national socialism, whereas communism advocates international socialism. They are both totalitarian abominations.
No. Do you?
Actually, the correct wording should be “had have won.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.