Ideological Utopia in Totalitarianism: The Stalinist Political Religion

Transcription

1 Ideological Utopia in Totalitarianism: The Stalinist Political Religion Emanuel - Marius Grec Utopian and Political Literature Winter Term, Department of History, CEU Any social Utopia which purports to offer a technical blueprint for the perfect society now strikes me as pregnant with the most terrible dangers. I am not saying that the idea of human fraternity is ignoble, naive, or futile; and I don t think that it would be desirable to discard it as belonging to an age of innocence. But to go to the lengths of imagining that we can design some plan for the whole society whereby harmony, justice and plenty are attained for human engineering is an invitation for despotism. I would, then, retain Utopia as an imaginative incentive...and confine it to that. The point where despotism differs from totalitarianism is the destruction of civil society. But civil society cannot be destroyed until and unless private property, including the private ownership of all the means of production, is abolished. Leszek Kolakowski 1 I. Introduction The relationship between ideology and utopia has developed in the 20th century as the implementation of its fusion by the political power. Consequently, this symbiosis is born out of a specificity in the past century. Most Marxist revisionists and scholars of the Cold War have come to regard primacy of ideology as the main instrument of social engineering performed with the exacerbation of idealistic tendencies in sub-developed societies. Therefore, the role of Marxism in 1 Leszek Kolakowski as quoted in George Urban, Stalinism: its impact on Russia and the world (London: Wildwood House, 1985). 1

2 the construction of regime politics in the Soviet Union has gained significant attention from scholars. 2 While classical Marxism entails the construction of a new society, with regard to details that will be later discussed in this paper, the propensity towards the manipulation of ideology cannot be understood without taking into account the roots of the theory (i.e. Marxism) itself. Thus, this paper is a short but close examination of the main representations of the relationship between ideology, utopia, and power. The arguments follow the line of subordination in the form of ideology - utopia - power, all three aspects being somehow dependent on one another. In this sense, the analysis focuses on the construction of the Stalin regime in a totalitarian perspective, by emphasizing the role ideological constructions had at fusing utopian goals with the bureaucratic machinery represented by state power. The goal of this paper is not to create a political history of the Soviet Union under Stalin, nor is it to recreate the context of historical representations of the regime. Rather, it is a short dissemination of the main processes that involved ideology in Stalin's regime, by using the totalitarian model as a framework for analysis of the main utopian elements as represented in the period, drawing on different interpretations of culture and political variations. Conversely, I also introduce in the framework of analysis the social and political dimensional distinction between utopia and dystopia, as discussed by scholars, insofar as it sheds light over the allegories of power within political regimes. II. A Totalitarian Political Religion The discussion on the organization and politics of totalitarian regimes has been developed in the 20th century as it was linked to either to Cold War politics or to the dissemination of internal power politics. One of the most comprehensive frameworks of analysis for the Stalinist state, albeit 2 For more information on Marxist revisionism and Cold War literature on the issues see Agnes Heller and Ferenc Fehér, The Grandeur and Twilight of Radical Universalism (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1991), Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism: Its Origins, Growth, and Dissolution (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005), Melvin J. Lasky, Utopia and Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), Raymond Aron, The Dawn of Universal History: Selected Essays from a Witness to the Twentieth Century (New York: Basic Books, 2002). 2

3 not the only one, has been provided by Hannah Arendt. In her book, the German scholar uses the comparative framework between Stalinism and Nazism in order to reconstruct the political realities that have shaped the 20th century until the 1950s. 3 In accordance with the desires of this paper, the insistence is not on the political and social similarities between the two regimes as presented by Arendt, but rather on the elements that represent, in theoretical appliances, the regime of Stalin, starting with the end of the 1920s. Making use of Arendt's framework, an array of scholars, historians and political scientists alike, have made claims of bringing her theory to new heights, either by expanding it or by contradicting its main paradigms. In this sense, the role of ideology must be examined within the conditions of both its historical existence and role within the exercise of power in the Stalinist state. There is an entire discussion over the nature of Marxism in the tenets of mature Stalinism. While Sheila Fitzpatrick insists on contradicting the inner concepts of totalitarianism as an existent reliable framework, she ignores the ideological tendencies of a regime that has been rooted in ideology. For the revisionist historian, the exercise of power has been present inasmuch as it was an expression of political will, granting proper outcomes such as social mobility and population movements as a result of political societies, not based on ideological factors of its regime. 4 The problem with this approach is the preclusion that natural tendencies in Stalin's state have been developed as ones that prioritize social outcomes; or, how many other discussed here have proven, Stalin's regime was not fairly preoccupied with the upheaval of social life, but rather with the constant development of power and, overall, the imposition of ideology. Consolidating the power structure of the Stalinist regime was the main scope of a regime that did not focus on ordinary political control. Thus, in the light of Arendt's theory, the totalitarian state is preoccupied not with just controlling society and state structures, but with exerting control 3 See Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Publishing, 1973). For specificities regarding the exercise of power in totalitarian regimes, see the chapter twelve of the book, "Totalitarianism in Power", Sheila Fitzpatrick, Education and Social Mobility in the Soviet Union, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). 3

4 over every element of human life, striving to change human nature itself in order to please some form of ideology. 5 In this sense, the differentiation from mainstream politics transforms Stalinism into a political religion dominated by an esoteric will reshape the role of humans insofar as they become simply pieces in a machine, under the spell of an ideology that transforms them into amorphous beings, incapable of independent thought and with no individual will. Furthermore, like Vladimir Tismăneanu has written, the refurbishment of Marxist ideology under Stalin was a continuation of the Marxist theory developed under Lenin. 6 Consequently, the scholar writes: "The fate of Marxism in Soviet-type societies was determined by the institutionalisation of ideology following its proclamation as a state doctrine. After that transfiguration, ideological heresy amounted to sedition." 7 The previous quote opens a discussion about the role and transfiguration of Marxism under Stalinist rule. There are three paths of interpretation that can be drawn from it. First, the movement of ideology towards a state institution refers to the relation between it and its role within the state. In this instance, the scope of Marxist its transposed from theory to practical enforcement. Thus, it is not seen as a quixotic expression of will, but rather as a social and political standard that does not accept contradiction in interpretation, not even by the Marxists scholars that adhere to it. As the Romanian-American Tismăneanu points out, the expression of this will in Eastern Europe has been tantamount to the political persecution that had taken place in the name of ideological utopia. 8 The second interpretation draws on the historical and political contexts that such an expression has relied upon. Extrapolating the discussion about the "Soviet-type societies" brings not only about the role of Stalin in the ideological expression of its hubris, but also about the role of Lenin. Basically, the latter transformed the Marxist ideology from a simply theoretical illusion into the political expression of an ambitious elite i.e. The Bolsheviks. This, however, does not mean that 5 Arend, Origins, For further details, see Vladimir Tismăneanu, The Crisis of Marxist Ideology in Eastern Europe. The Poverty of Utopia (London and New York: Routledge, 1988). 7 Ibid, Vladimir Tismăneanu, The Devil in History: Communism, Fascism, and Some Lessons of the Twentieth Century (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2012), X. 4

5 Marx's role was non-existent as without the intrinsic violence and level of utopia that characterized his theory Lenin's interpretation could not have been possible. Consequently, Tismăneanu makes two claims: first, Lenin's version of Marxist was the only one applicable in political practice, as he was the precursor of Stalin, the latter simply continuing the political work and unidimensional fusion between theory and practice of the former; second, as the scholar rightly points out in the pages of his work, without Lenin, Marx would represent just another footnote in history. 9 The first and last interpretation of the quote brings probably the most important aspect of Marxist applied standards. The role of ideological heresy was not only to frighten possible nonbelievers, but also to expand the utopian character of the Marxist theory. Utopia is inherent to Marxist eschatology, as the latter presents itself as an esoteric expression of historical will. Furthermore, the determinism of the theory is taken to new heights by Lenin's insurrection into the historical truths of Marxism, which brings it from a mild form of theoretical utopia to a radical form of it which fuses practice and theory in a self-determined sublime form of religious-style expression. Thus, the theory of Marx is no longer a product of the historical context that produced it, but rather a masterfully skilled ideological standard of utopian character that moves through history without even the remote possibility of contradicting its interpretation. It is by this standard that theory becomes utopia, in the understanding of the the "well place" i.e. good place. The differentiation, however, is that in its political expression, Marxist transcends the role of classic utopia and brings about its enforcement by an elite that claims the knowledge of universal truth by means of historical determinism. III. Utopia, Dystopia, and the reshaping of culture under totalitarianism When discussing about utopia in Stalinism there is an extrapolated meaning that is related to the interpretation of truth, or its presentation as a relative norm of class self-awareness. Leszek Kolakowski points out that the objectivity of truth is modified through its denial in the name of 9 Tismăneanu, The Crisis,

6 Lenin's idea of partisanship. 10 This idea follows in line of interpretation to the author's linkage of Lenin's ideas to that of Stalin's practice, denying any ontological and political separation between the two figures of the USSR. Furthermore, Vladimir Tismăneanu expands on this topic emphasizing that even revisionist Marxists have not been able to distance themselves from the esoteric entrapment represented by historicism and the dogma of the proletariat. Moreover, the scholar sees the project involving ideology as intrinsically utopian because it was rooted in idealistic expectations and unfulfilled desires. 11 This paradigm is a reminder of the role of revisionism in modern Marxist thought, a stream which while denying the historical legacy and practices of Stalinism, it was nonetheless utopian in its approach towards the role of the proletariat in Soviettype societies. 12 While discussing the concept of utopia and its role in the transformation of ideology (or rather as an inherent part of it), recent work on the subject has developed a critical response to these theories through proposing a shift in paradigm, by introducing the concept of dystopia as an overarching phenomenon that includes the anti-utopian character inasmuch as it is the expression of a modern sense of ideological bearing. The concept of dystopianism is intrinsically related to utopianism in the prepositions it supposes to take for granted. Gregory Claeys discusses the idea of dystopia by shaping it in three variants: firstly, he sees it as an expression of the search for the new secular millennium, as a tragedy of modernity; secondly, he seeks to contradict the association of totalitarianism with utopianism, reserving the role of utopia for further positive applications; thirdly, Claeys insists on dystopia as a negative human tendency in general, bringing about Apocalyptic variations. 13 This kind of approach as the one proposed by Gregory Claeys bears discussion, especially 10 Kolakowski, Main Currents, Tismăneanu, The Crisis, For understanding the contrasting views on the role of the proletariat, of revolution, and critical Marxist approaches, see Rosa Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution, in Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, ed. Mary- Alice Waters (New York and London: Pathfinder, 1997). 13 Fatima Vieira (ed.), Dystopia(n) Matters: On the Page, on Screen, on Stage (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013),

7 when relating it to the usage of ideological utopia in Stalinism. The scholar's denial of the association between utopia and the totalitarian projects that revered it is problematic at best for two reasons: on one hand, the declaration of utopia as a probably positive interpretation of some future application ignores historical context insofar as for Lenin the utopian character of the Marxist ideology was intrinsically positive. For the Soviet leader and Stalin alike, the practical version of Marxist-Leninism was not a side stream to exercising power, it was the core expression of an ideological orthodoxy. Thus, by claiming to reserve utopia as a future positive mechanism, Claeys falls into a pit of historical determinism that does not take into account the fact that ideological hubris was fused with utopianism in the view of Soviet leaders especially for the creation of what they viewed as positive outcomes. Utopia has already been considered in the past as a positive application. The role of Marxism in the Stalinist state was creating a revolutionary ideology that was intrinsically utopian, and the practice of freedom has failed the utopian project. On the other hand, by creating the disassociation between totalitarianism and utopianism, the scholar seeks on reducing the concept of the totalitarian state to the mere exercise of power. In its mature version, Stalinism was dominated by ideology, not by power control. One of the main aspects that differentiates totalitarianism from authoritarianism is the primacy of ideology. The esoteric hubris that is associated with it is unique to the application of 20th century politics. The claim that there is no direct correlation between totalitarianism and utopia does not stand inasmuch as the totalitarian projects, both in Stalinism and Nazism, have been utopian in scope and character. Utopia was not the reflection and political expression of Stalin's regime, but rather the core of its ideology. 14 As Fatima Vieira points out, discussing utopianism as contrasted to dystopianism brings question about the nature of them as opposites, as an example that "utopianism brings about 14 For further reading on the tenets of utopianism in totalitarianism, see Tismăneanu, The Devil in History; Jacob L. Talmon, Myth of the Nation and Vision of Revolution: Ideological Polarizations in the Twentieth Century (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1991); George Lichtheim, The Concept of Ideology and Other Essays (New York: Random House, 1967); Ivars Ijabs, Politics of Authenticity and/or Civil Society, in In Marx s Shadow: Knowledge, Power, and Intellectuals in Eastern Europe and Russia, ed. Costica Bradatan and Serguei Alex (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2010). 7

8 freedom, while dystopianism about unfreedom". 15 This interpretation can be constructed as a historical fallacy since the 20th century exemplifies that the utopian construction towards freedom has failed, and when being associated with revolutionary ideology has created a situation that has abolished freedom even more than before. Thus, in its political interpretation the lines between utopia and dystopia are blurred since the Stalinist project did not entail a practical differentiation between the two. Furthermore, as Kolakowski points out, revolutions that are utopian in character bring about more despotism than the regime they plan on overthrowing, since their radical ideology is not applicable in the social and political spheres. While trying to change social norms that fit their ideological standards, all revolutions (emphasizing mostly the Russian one, which had brought the Bolsheviks into power), says the Polish historian, transform into expressions of despotic character, being senseless actions which only trigger more unfreedom. 16 Moving towards practical expressions of ideological utopia, the role of culture has been seen as a constant feature in the Stalinist regime. Actually, in all regimes that have dealt with some form of revolutionary utopia there has been an assault on culture for the purpose of transforming it to fit Party and ideological standards. Going beyond the borders of the USSR, Romania's assault on culture began in 1971 with the July Thesis, which meant a reshaping of Romanian culture to better fit the ideological marking of a regime that exhibited a developed form of neo-stalinism. 17 Similarly, the 1966 modification of Mao's cultural standards to serve Party ideology has been detrimental to cultural evolution in Communist China. The Soviet Union's case goes back to the Russian Revolution, where culture has been censored, modified, and constantly "developed" in order to please some form of ground-breaking theoretical framework. The description of culture as present in this paper is that comprising cultural expressions, literature, art, and the press. Dennis McQuail proposes a model of analysing the reshaping of 15 Fatima Vieira, Dystopia(n), Kolakowski, Main Currents, See details on the assault on culture on Romania in Vladimir Tismăneanu, Stalinism for All Seasons: A Political History of Romanian Communism (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003). 8

9 communist culture, especially regarding the press and other cultural-related aspects, by claiming that in Soviet societies the role of militant agent is specific for all state actors. Furthermore, the scholar emphasizes the role of the masses as the bearers of ideological propaganda inasmuch as they represent both subject and actor. 18 In this sense, utopia is linked to ideology in the proliferation of normative aspects of political and social life. All of the elements that have been under political control, including but not limited to culture and the arts, have been part of an utopian plan to make all areas of society the equivalents of ideological representations. IV. Short conclusion This paper has positioned itself in between the analysis of utopia and ideology. The fusion of the two in the light of power politics has been constructed to show the utopian nature and role of ideology in Stalinist regime. The technique employed in this paper is not a descriptive one as it does not historically remake the steps of Stalin's political regime. The scope in this analysis is to identify the elements within the Marxist ideology that have been used, deformed, and expressed in the Soviet totalitarian project in order to advance the power of the regime. Similarity, I argue that although the management of power has been part of the regime's plan, the usage of power, as all other aspects in the Soviet totalitarian state, have come under the primacy of ideology. Finally, the argument is that ideology is the embodiment of utopianism inasmuch as the latter was the political expression of the first. The reverse is also true, as the two elements are inseparable because totalitarianism in Stalinism is not equal to the definitions of dystopia, but rather to that of ideological utopian hubris. 18 Denis McQuail, Mass Communication Theory (London: Sage Publishing, 2010),

10 Bibliography Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Publishing, Aron, Raymond. The Dawn of Universal History: Selected Essays from a Witness to the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books, Bradatan, Costica and Serguei Alex (ed.). In Marx s Shadow: Knowledge, Power, and Intellectuals in Eastern Europe and Russia. Lanham: Lexington Books, Fitzpatrick, Sheila. Education and Social Mobility in the Soviet Union, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Heller, Agnes and Ferenc Fehér, The Grandeur and Twilight of Radical Universalism. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, Kolakowski, Leszkek. Main Currents of Marxism: Its Origins, Growth, and Dissolution. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Lasky, J. Melvin. Utopia and Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Lichtheim, George. The Concept of Ideology and Other Essays. New York: Random House, McQuail, Denis. Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage Publishing, Talmon, L. Jacob. Myth of the Nation and Vision of Revolution: Ideological Polarizations in the Twentieth Century. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, Tismăneanu, Vladimir. Stalinism for All Seasons: A Political History of Romanian Communism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, Tismăneanu, Vladimir. The Crisis of Marxist Ideology in Eastern Europe. The Poverty of Utopia. London and New York: Routledge,

11 Tismăneanu, Vladimir. The Devil in History: Communism, Fascism, and Some Lessons of the Twentieth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, Urban,George. Stalinism: its impact on Russia and the world. London: Wildwood House, Vieira, Fatima (ed.), Dystopia(n) Matters: On the Page, on Screen, on Stage. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Waters, Mary-Alice. Rosa Luxemburg Speaks. New York and London: Pathfinder,