|
"Comrade Lenin Cleanses the Earth of Filth" by Viktor Deni. November 1930 source |
Written by Douglas Smith,
Former People: The Destruction of the Russian Aristocracy is not a cheery read. It is a very well written and
horribly compelling history of the Bolshevik Revolution. “Former people” is a term applied to the tsarist ruling
class, the class enemies of the revolution. Their story is told primarily through
the grim fate of two noble families, the Sheremetovs and the Golitsyns. As
Smith says -
History, we are told,
is written by the victors. What is less often stated, though no less important,
is that history is usually written about the victors; winners get more
attention in the history books than losers.
The Sheremetovs and the Golitsyns certainly lost, although
many nobles saw, however dimly, the inevitability of a Russian catastrophe. They
knew Tsar Nicholas II was hopeless and they also knew things had to change
and would change sooner or later. What they did not foresee was how ruthless,
how astonishingly rapid and catastrophically devastating that change would
be.
As the historian Evan
Mawdsley commented, “The Civil War unleashed by Lenin’s revolution was the
greatest national catastrophe Europe had yet seen.” Russia descended into
savage anarchy beyond imagination. “War and strife, famine and pestilence—the
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,” Mawdsley wrote, “devastated the largest
country in Europe.”
However, there are also a few touches of grim irony to remind
us that human nature is not changed by even the most severe political turmoil.
The famine gripping
Russia in those years spared no one, except for the new elite; the Sheremetevs’
remaining chef left them around this time to cook for Lenin and his comrades in
the Kremlin.
Inevitably the hypocrisy took many forms.
Bunin reveled in
pointing out the hypocrisy of Red leaders who preached “war on the palaces” and
then moved into them as soon as the owners had been evicted. He was revolted by
this “new aristocracy”: “Sailors with huge revolvers on their belts,
pickpockets, criminal villains, and shaved dandies in service jackets,
depraved-looking riding britches, and dandy-like shoes with the inevitable
spurs. All have gold teeth and big, dark, cocaine-like eyes.”
With equal inevitability, some journalists had allegiances
they were happy enough to share with their readers.
The British reporter
Walter Duranty arrived in Moscow in 1921. Among his earliest impressions of the
Soviet capital was the dreadful condition of the old aristocracy.
To another Western
reporter, Edwin Hullinger, the same scene testified to the revolution’s great
achievement. Having stripped away the institutional foundations upon which
class and caste had been built, the revolution had exposed people’s true
essence:
As proof, Hullinger
quoted the words of a former countess. “Yes, many of us can see that the
Revolution was for the best,” she told him. “It made us into living, real
people. Many were only existing before. We have gained confidence in ourselves
because we know we can do things. I like it better. I would not go back to the
old. And there are many young people of our class who think as I do. But we
paid a terrible price. I presume it was necessary, however.”
As a single example of that terrible price, here is the
story of one life briefly told.
Consider the case of
Professor Nikolai Nekrasov, the last governor-general of Finland before the
revolution and a former minister in the Provisional Government. An excellent
engineer, he had been arrested several times, most recently in 1930, when he
was sentenced to ten years. He was brought to Dmitlag as an inmate specialist,
yet was given his own newly constructed house in the “the free sector” along
with a car and driver. He was released in 1935 but chose to stay on and worked
at Dmitlag until the project was finished. In 1940, he was arrested for a final
time and then shot.
The Former People story is well told and well worth reading,
but to my mind the most lasting lesson of Smith’s book is a forceful reminder of
something we already know. Former People sets before us an important political
lesson to be drawn from the Bolshevik Revolution – the eternal role of political
enemies.
Political parties, factions and movements all need enemies.
Even the effete parties of our floundering democracies need them. There is an absolute
political necessity to have or to invent the Outsider, the one who is
responsible for present woes, the one who must be destroyed in order to set
things right, who must be hated in order to relieve the faithful from any possibility of doubt.
Life, comrades,”
Stalin announced in 1935, “has become better, life has become more cheerful.”
His words became the defining slogan for the mid-1930s, the brief three years
from 1934 to 1937 between the end of the First Five-Year Plan and the Great
Terror.
The same year Stalin
made his famous remark, the newspaper Komsomolskaia Pravda ran a series of
articles on “Teaching Hatred” by such luminaries as Maxim Gorky and Ilya
Ehrenburg. Hatred, it turns out, was not to be condemned but instilled,
encouraged, and celebrated, for persons “who cannot hate with passion are
unlikely to be able to love with passion.”
One is left with the impression that even our politically
correct laws against hate speech may not be what they seem. By inventing haters
we have surely invented yet another enemy. The person or social group accused
of hating may in turn be hated with impunity. People who used to speak their
mind on subjects now closed for debate perhaps. Former People we might almost say.