Pages

Monday, 15 June 2020

Recruits



I’ve taken a break from the wooden mendacity of Karl Marx to read Red Famine by Anne Applebaum, a history of the Holodomor, the deliberately created Ukraine famine between 1931 and 1934. Extremely grim reading but another reminder of how appalling the Soviet regime was. A reminder of how appalling its apologists were and still are too, but that’s another issue.

At the height of the crisis, organized teams of policemen and party activists, motivated by hunger, fear and a decade of hateful and conspiratorial rhetoric, entered peasant households and took everything edible: potatoes, beets, squash, beans, peas, anything in the oven and anything in the cupboard, farm animals and pets…

The result was a catastrophe: At least 5 million people perished of hunger between 1931 and 1934 all across the Soviet Union. Among them were more than 3.9 million Ukrainians. In acknowledgement of its scale, the famine of 1932–3 was described in émigré publications at the time and later as the Holodomor, a term derived from the Ukrainian words for hunger – holod – and extermination – mor.

Much later, a few former communist activists admitted that they had used propaganda mantras to suppress the reality of mass starvation and the merciless way they enforced it. They refused to see what was in plain sight, the propaganda being so forceful and persuasive that they were able to use it as a veil between perceptions and actions.

Many urban activists were entirely unfamiliar with the reality of peasant farming. It was not the vicious nest of counter-revolutionary landowners they had been led to expect. Yet they had been persuaded to see the peasants as ‘former people’ to be justifiably swept away by a brave new communist world they were trying to block for base and selfish reasons.

What the activists found wasn’t what they had expected of course, but still with unimaginable cruelty many did everything they could to enforce the impossible demands of Moscow.

It is a reminder of how easily activists, informers and a secret police force may be recruited to even the most disgusting regimes. Students and young professional people seem particularly liable to discard all civilised values in favour of the most ignoble actions and implausible causes. It is still chilling to consider how willing they were trample on and destroy what ordinary Russians had built and what they valued.

To an important degree vicious political activism seems to be a weakness of large populations. If only 0.1% of a population are disposed to become political fanatics that is 1000 people in every million. Give those people the resources to recruit a further 1% who can be persuaded into the ranks and the job is done.

Rather like pyramid selling, the benefits go to early recruits and they are generally the ones who knew the score to begin with - or were willing to gamble on it. Build the narrative, promote it in the right way to the right people and you attract first the 0.1% then the next generation of fascist recruits. Identify the enemy, hammer home the call to action and that’s it – catastrophe here we come.

7 comments:

Graeme said...

Although much attention has been paid to the Ukraine famine, it is arguable that the situation in Soviet Kazakhstan was even worse. This has led to some people concluding that it wasn't deliberate policy but just "normal" incompetence. The various famine disasters in Maoist China also make you wonder whether it was deliberate or stupid. However, they did have Party apparatus in place to ensure the disasters were as bad as they could be. They just kept seeing dead bodies and carrying on as normal. Quite scary, when you stop to think

Graeme said...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333?wprov=sfla1

Sam Vega said...

We have no way of knowing the numbers, of course, and even operationalising them is full of difficulties. But on the tiny guestimate that you offer, that's about 8,000 fanatical nutcases in London alone.

Equally importantly, there is probably a sliding scale in effect. For every activist who is prepared to make a huge nuisance of themselves under all circumstances, there is probably a larger number prepared to act if the situation becomes more fluid and open to possibilities. For example, there are few prepared to launch a full-frontal assault on the police, but a far larger number who will join in if they think things are more favourable, and the numbers of allies or chances of conviction are weighted in their favour.

This seems to be what is happening now, and it will continue to escalate unless the police and courts are more robust. The disproportionately harsh sentence dished out to some drunk who pissed near a memorial plaque might be the start of this. It will be interesting to see what the courts hand down to the BLM activists.

Interesting times.

Anonymous said...

Tammly

In 1976, when I pointed out to a fellow undergraduate who professed support for Russian Communism that millions had died during the Communist Party Collectivization of Farming, his limp reply was "they probably deserved to die."

Things havn't changed that much in all these years, despite all the education.

A K Haart said...

Graeme - the book mentions how bad Kazakhstan was but only in passing. The main theme is to outline what happened in Ukraine and why it was almost certainly a deliberate attempt to destroy Ukrainian nationalism, get rid of the kulaks and force through collective farming. There was incompetence, but Stalin staked his reputation on collective farms and in that he seems to have succeeded.

Sam - interesting times indeed. Yes the courts need to hand down serious sentences to the worst BLM activists, although to my mind there should also be some moves to at least suggest that BLM is not a cause untainted by its own racism in the sense that all lives matter.

Anon - seventies undergraduates could be amazingly callous in that way. As you say it doesn't appear to have changed much. I didn't really understand it then and don't understand it now - maybe it is some kind of perverted warrior instinct.

Edward Spalton said...

Robert Conquest was, I think, the first historian to give a reasonably accurate estimate of the death toll of Stalin’s terror -
Greatly upsetting the left wing intelligentsia. He summarised his findings in a Limerick.

There was an old Marxist called Lenin,
Who did two or three million men in.
That’s a lot to have done in,
But where he did one in,
That old Marxist Stalin did ten in.

Incidentally, for years the Foreign Office prevented the erection of a memorial in London to the murdered Polish officers of Katyn..
They wanted to avoid upsetting the Communist Polish government.

A K Haart said...

Edward - Ms Applebaum mentions Robert Conquest in her book and says it is still worth reading even though he had far fewer resources available. It's a miserable FO record, appeasing communist governments.