Stalin, Khrushchev, and Althusser

Dear Sirs and Madams,

With school out for the summer, I now have time to recognize how rewarding it was to write my term paper for Russian History. My interests have always been in Czarist Russia, but this essay forced me to examine the very individual that lies at the heart of our conception of the Soviet Union, the Big Brother himself, Stalin.

Essential in my paper were the observations on power and the state by the French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser. The depiction of Stalin as simply deranged and insane is a popular one, but also an intellectually lazy one. I much prefer the assessment by Hiroaki Kuromiya, a very recent biogrpaher of Stalin, that Stalin’s flaw was not his irrationality, but rather his “subsumption of everything human under politics”. This in conjunction with Althusser's theory on the repressive state apparatus creates an interesting insight upon Soviet politics. The conclusion I have made goes against the popular musing of many apologists who assume that communism would have succeeded in the USSR had it not been for Stalin.

Khrushchev's Secret Speech against Stalin is most telling. Stalin's successor makes the conventional argument that Stalin was an insane individual who did not follow his own ideological convictions. Yet by continuing to condemn the opponents of Stalin (Kamenev, Bukharin, Trotsky, Zinoviev), Khrushchev makes a clear distinction between Stalin the person and Stalin the ideology. The deification of Lenin under a false narrative of Soviet economic history, praise for collectivization, and complete disregard for the famines betray Khrushchev's political motive in his portrayal of Stalin.

According to Althusser, in order for a state (or a class... perhaps the proletariat dictatorship) to constitute individuals as social subjects and maintain control, it has to maintain ideological legitimacy. The recreation and re-imposition of the unquestionable authority of the communist party in the post-Stalinist period required the repressive state apparatus (military, secret police, criminal justice, etc.) to be legitimate in the eyes of the people who had suffered tremendously. Stalin's initiatives and ideology could not be disestablished from the party line because Khrushchev, by being Stalin’s successor, was subject to the same framework of ideology and power. Khrushchev must have realized that to survive politically he could not undermine Stalin in his entirety.

Khrushchev bolstered the state apparatus by invoking Lenin’s rule which he depicted as a heroic one, consistent with ideological objectives (when in fact Lenin initiated the New Economic Policy, bringing capitalism back). He does not criticize the repressive state institutions of the Cheka or the NKVD because he required the repressive state apparatus to maintain the power centered around dogmatic centralism and unanimity of the party.

In short, Stalin’s temperament of eliminating political opposition was facilitated by the party doctrine and when unexpected resistance did rise, coercive and violent means were utilized at Stalin’s will. What made Stalin become portrayed as a monster is his calculation of everything in terms of power and body politics, but it was the Soviet system that allowed the gross human catastrophe to get so out of hand. I believe it is safe to say that the faceless system of power and the amoral state apparatus is as culpable as any one individual.

Voters, accountability is not just for the Russians.

Best,
Yong Kwon

Power, Democracy and Survival: The post-Soviet experience

Dear Sirs and Madams,

Adam Smith noted that greater damage is incurred when governments go out of their way to remedy the dearth of goods. But what should be done when the people’s representatives choose to continue government intervention in the market? Should those that “know better” overturn the democratic principles and pursue what they know to be in the best interest of the people? This question has sparked many passionate debates amongst my friends and colleagues. I wish to present to you why I believe that no matter what the situation the democratic system must be upheld and sustained

The great liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin noted that those promoting liberty must never come to believe it to be an absolute idea, for such dogmatism makes the actors vulnerable to violence and coercion. I am in concert with Sir Berlin. The end should never justify the means. Even if the state does not go as far as outright killing people, the devaluation of individuals and their thoughts will have ghastly consequences. Russia provides a perfect example of this case.

While forwarding major reforms to liberalize the market, Boris Yeltsin faced opposition from the parliament. After a tussle over authority, Yeltsin opted to use the military to silence the popularly elected parliament in 1993. The repression allowed the liberal market policies to be further implemented in Russia. Vladimir Putin inherited this blatant disregard for the democratic system of governance and further concentrated power around the executive while diminishing the voice of the people.

One of the many consequences from the Yeltsin/Putin years (Yeltsin and Putin’s joint legacy… I argued in my last article that they are really two peas in a pod) is the intensification of the demographic crisis. The people, suffering from disease and pollution, cannot elect into office someone who would bring them the necessary services to battle diseases like AIDS. State regulated television, with limits to the amount of “negative news” it can air, further impedes vital news and information regarding disease prevention. The money that should be going to enhancing the public’s health has been drained into the military to wage another unnecessary cold war with the west. The policy of “government-knows-best” has turned into a direct roadblock to the survivability of the Russian people.

Both Yeltsin and Putin may have achieved short term successes in pushing forth reforms and establishing some façade of law and order. Nonetheless, whatever good they achieved cannot outweigh the crisis that these two leaders have allowed to amplify.

By ignoring the democratic system, the Russian government has created an unintended consequence. A consequence that Adam Smith had long talked about.

I hope I made my case clear.

Best,
Yong Kwon


p.s. The New Yorker had an article that intensively discussed the demographic crisis.

When Spring comes, how does the grass look under the snow?

Dear Sirs and Madams,

Vladimir Putin derives his popularity from the widespread perception among the Russian people that he single handedly reversed the lawlessness that prevailed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moscow is now the city with the highest concentration of billionaires. Furthermore, Russia seems to be a world power again, seemingly confirmed by the strong antagonism between it and NATO. Yet in all honesty, is Russia truly better off than it had been? Let us look at Russia from a political, economic, and social standpoints and evaluate its true state.

Boris Yeltsin eventually decided to rule by decree, consolidating his authority after shelling the Russian parliament in the 1993 Constitution Crisis. Not much has changed since then. It’s very likely that Putin and the FSB (Federal Security Service) masterminded the apartment bombings in 1999 to spread fear of terrorism and bolster Putin’s authority. The vertical rule of Vladimir Putin is just as, if not more, authoritative than that of Yeltsin. Election fraud have become more extensive than they had been in the 1990s, permeating into even the municipal elections.

There exists a perception that Putin has utilized his authority to establish law and order. However, what had once been at least internationally recognized as racketeering and other criminal activities continue on today on a grander scale, sanctioned by the government with former thugs holding government positions. A great example is Sergei Veremeyenko, a billionaire and former contender for the president of Bashkortostan (A candidate supported by Vladimir Putin won). He now develops land, utilizing the state anti-terrorist paramilitaries to rid himself of citizens who’s properties are in the way of his business. The state has clearly lined up behind the rich, the powerful, and the obedient. The few wealthy oligarchs that dare attempt to compete politically are ruthlessly discarded by Putin, Mikhail Khodorkovsky being the key example.

What we have seen under Putin is the increasing radicalization of racism, xenophobia, and coercive means of problem solving. The deteriorating situation is no where more evident than in the decreasing population of Russia. By 2050, Russia is expected to lose 50% of its population.

The oil wealth has proved effective in buffering the deteriorating condition by putting up a façade of wealth. Moscow may be filled with wealth, but the plight of the common people continues. In fact the lack of funding that has gone into health education, environmental protection, disease prevention has allowed the demographic crisis of Russia to snowball. AIDS, hepatitis, liver failure, etc. are now extremely prevalent and with the oil revenues decreasing, there is not much Putin can do to launch an effective health campaign to reverse the situation. A dying nation will be Putin’s greatest legacy. A great power is naught without the wealth and its human resources. With both drying up quickly where does Putin seek to take Russia?

It is important to remember that it is in the world’s best interest that Russia becomes a healthy and wealthy trading partner. It has much to offer economically, politically, socially, and culturally. Furthermore, its collapse will result in the greater proliferation of arms and loss of invaluable human resources.

The solution is in two folds. Russians need to be more open to foreign help in battling the demographic crisis. Russia simply does not have the resources. At the same time, the United States and the rest of the world needs to disband NATO and discontinue policies that create unnecessary antagonisms with Russia.

If world peace is an objective that we strive for, we must not only remember the size and firepower contained within Russia, but also Russia’s long history and traditions. It, like any other nation of the world, would probably appreciate a little bit of respect.

Best,
Yong Kwon