History bookshelf:
Next book on the shelf is The Gulag Archipelago
Solzhenitsyn was imprisoned in Stalin’s gulag – the “gulag archipelago”, from 1945 to 1953. This is his book about how the “gulag” worked, but not just the camps themselves: the whole system. He explains, painstakingly, how the interrogations worked – how it was that people confessed in droves to things they did not do – why it was seen as an honor to turn in your family and friends. There are a couple of separate chapters on all of the sensational show-trials and what each one MEANT. Because, of course, the trials were not real. They were completely orchestrated, nothing unplanned about them at all – so we can look at them as symbolic of certain things. Solzhenitsyn’s writing is extremely readable, very personable, almost like a diary.
He goes to the heart of the lunacy, and stays there. Not only does he stay there, but he explains it. He lived it. Russia denounced him for years. His international fame grew to the point that he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1970. Russia denounced the Nobel Prize. Of course. Typical. He never said what Russia wanted him to say. He still doesn’t, come to think of it. A complicated man, someone I admire very much, I think that The Gulag Archipelago is one of the most important books not only of the 20th century, but of all time. It goes a long long way towards explaining the WHYS – and he does it in a way that really resonates with me. It’s not just about political policies, or party politics, or power struggles – He talks a lot about psychology. The psychological pressure of the interrogations (which is immortalized so terrifyingly in Arthur Koestler’s novel Darkness at Noon
by Robert Conquest, and Gulag Archipelago make great strides in answering that question.
Solzhenitsyn wrote about his own imprisonment – and what it was like – in the holding cells, and then in the forced labor camps. But he also describes the lead-up, the mass arrests, the rounds of show trials through the years, the insane year of 1937 – I’ll excerpt a bit from the section on the trials.
I went into it thinking it was going to be dry and informative. I have no idea why I thought that. This book is the OPPOSITE of dry. You’ll see in the excerpt below. He has a couple of parenthetical comments, asides to us, he makes fun of what’s happening – you’ll see how he does it. It’s very very readable. All parentheticals are his. All italics are his. He even puts exclamation points in parentheses, to show how gobsmackingly audacious it all was. I love his observations on the word “Center”.
From The Gulag Archipelago Volume 1: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (P.S.)
The Case of the “Tactical Center” — August 16-20, 1920
In this case there were twenty-eight defendants present, plus additional defendants who were being tried in absentia because they weren’t around.
At the very beginning of his impassioned speech, in a voice not yet grown hoarse and in phrases illumined by class analysis, the supreme accuser informs us that in addition to the landowners and the capitalists “there existed and there continues to exist one additional social stratum, the social characteristics of which have long since been under consideration by the representatives of revolutionary socialism. [In other words: to be or not to be?] This stratum is the so-called ‘intelligentsia. In this trial, we shall be concerned with the judgment of history on the activity of the Russian intelligentsia” and with the verdict of the Revolution on it.
The narrow limits of our investigation prevent our comprehending exactly the particular manner in which the representatives of revolutionary socialism were taking under consideration the fate of the so-called intelligentsia and what specifically they were planning for it. However, we take comfort in the fact that these materials have been published, that they are accessible to everyone, and that they can be assembled in any required detail. Therefore, solely to understand the over-all atmosphere of the Republic, we shall recall the opinion of the Chairman of the Council of People’s Commisars in the years when all these tribunal sessions were going on.
In a letter to Gorky on September 15, 1919 — which we have already cited – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin replied to Gorky’s attempts to intercede in the arrests of members of the intelligentsia, among them, evidently, some of the defendants in this trial, and, commenting on the bulk of the Russian intelligentsia of those years (the “close-to-the-Cadets-intelligentsia”), he wrote: “In actual fact they are not [the nation’s] brains, but shit.” On another occasion he said to Gorky: “If we break too many pots, it will be its [the intelligentsia’s] fault.” If the intelligentsia wants justice, why doesn’t it come over to us? “I’ve gotten one bullet from the intelligentsia myself.” (In other words, from Kaplan.)
On the basis of these feelings, he expressed his mistrust and hostility toward the intelligentsia: rotten-liberal; “pious”; “the slovenliness so customary among ‘educated’ people”; he believed the intelligentsia was always shortsighted, that it had betrayed the cause of the workers. (But when had the intelligentsia ever sworn loyalty to the cause of the workers, the dictatorship of the workers?)
This mockery of the intelligentsia, this contempt for the intelligentsia, was subsequently adopted with enthusiasm by the publicists and newspapers of the twenties and was absorbed into the current of day-to-day life. And in the end, the members of the intelligentsia accepted it too, cursing their eternal thoughtlessness, their eternal duality, their eternal spinelessness, and their hopeless lagging behind the times.
And this was just! The voice of the accusing power, echoed and re-echoed beneath the vaults of the Verkhtrib, returning us to the defendants’ bench.
“This social stratum … has, during recent years, undergone the trial of universal re-evaluation.” Yes, yes, re-evaluation, as was so often said at the time. And how did that re-evaluation occur? Here’s how: “The Russian intelligentsia which entered the crucible of the Revolution with slogans of power for the people [so it had something to it after all!] emerged from it an ally of the black [not even White!] generals, and a hired [!] and obedient agent of European imperialism. The intelligentsia trampled on its own banners [as in the army, yes?] and covered them with mud.”
How, indeed, can we not cry out our hearts in repentance? How can we not lacerate our chests with our fingernails?
And the only reason why “there is no need to deal out the death blow to its individual representatives” is that “this social group has outlived its time.”
Here, at the start of the twentieth century! What power of foresight! Oh, scientific revolutionaries! (However, the intelligentsia had to be finished off anyway. Throughout the twenties they kept finishing them off and finishing them off.)
We examine with hostility the twenty-eight individual allies of the black generals, the hirelings of European imperialism. And we are especially aroused by the stench of the word Center. Now we see a Tactical Center, now a National Center, and now a Right Center. (And in our recollection of the trials of two decades, Centers keep creeping in all the time, Centers and Centers, Engineers’ Centers, Menshevik Centers, Trotskyite-Zinovievite Centers, Rightist-Bukharinite Centers, but all of them are crushed, all crushed, and that is the only reason you and I are still alive.) Wherever there is a Center, of course, the hand of imperialism can be found.
True, we feel a measure of relief when we learn that the Tactical Center on this occasion was not an organization; that it did not have (1) statutes; (2) a program; (3) membership dues. So, what did it have? Here’s what: They used to meet! (Goose-pimples up and down the back!) And when they met, they undertook to familiarize themselves with one another’s point of view! (Icy chills!)
The charges were extremely serious and were supported by the evidence. There were two (2) pieces of evidence to corroborate the charges against twenty-eight accused individuals. These were two letters from people who were not present in court because they were abroad: Myakotin and Fyodorov. They were absent, but until the October Revolution they had been members of the same committee as those who were present, a circumstance that gavde us the right to equate those who were absent with those who were present. And their letters dealt with their disagreements with Denikin on certain trivial questions: the peasant question (we are not told what these differences were, but they were evidently advising Denikin to give the land to the peasants); the Jewish question (they were evidently advising him not to return to the previous restrictions); the federated nationalities questoin (enough said: clear); the question of the structure of the government (democracy rather than dictatorship); and similar matters. And what conclusion did this evidence suggest? Very simple. It proved the fact of correspondence, and it also proved the agreement, the unanimity, of those present with Denikin! (Grrr! Grrrr!)
But there were also direct accusations against those present: that they had exchanged information with acquaintances who lived in outlying areas (Kiev, for example) which were not under the control of the central Soviet authorities! In other words, this used to be Russia, let’s say, but then in the interests of world revolution we ceded this one piece to Germany. And people continued to exchange letters. How are you doing there, Ivan Ivanich? Here’s how things are going with us. N.M. Kishkin, a member of the Central Committee of the Cadets, was so brazen as to try to justify himself right fromt he defendants’ bench. “A man doesn’t want to be blind. He tries to find out everything he can about what’s going on everywhere.”
To find out everything about what’s going on everywhere? He doesn’t want to be blind? Well, all one can say is that the accused correctly described their actions as treason, treason to Soviet power!
not too many americans will even want to read, much understand Gulag. it’s a brilliant work, an historical work, which will be forever overlooked here–in this new century.
Oh God. Your tone is so wah wah wah, everything sucks now, nobody is smart now, nobody CAAAAAARES now. In order to maintain that attitude, you kinda have to ignore enormous chunks of reality. Like: the many many people who DO care, who have historical perspective, who are interested in learning from the past, who read books, who write books, who care about acquiring knowledge … etc. Also, gotta love the generalization of “Americans” as though everybody ELSE on the planet of OTHER nationalities have read it, understood it, and can recite long passages from it. Bah.
I read it, I know many people who have read it, and it is a work which is constantly referenced in op-ed columns, other book reviews, political columns, and any conversation about totalitarian mindsets. It certainly is not overlooked.
Red,
Thanks for the post. I have to re-read it (nathanial – yep – I’ve read it twice). I posted on this this morning; the book was a very big thing for me.
mitch – It’s gripping. Awful. Essential reading – I don’t know why I thought it would be a slog – maybe because of the length – but I found I couldn’t put it down. His descriptions of each round of trials, and the growing insanity – is just … It makes me want to scream!!
The Gulag
Sheila, as part of her odyssey through her bookshelves, reviews The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitzyn: I think that The Gulag Archipelago is one of the most important books not only of the 20th century, but ever. It goes a long…
I see what you mean, Sheila – “Wherever there is a Center, of course, the hand of imperialism can be found… but all of them are crushed, all crushed, and that is the only reason you and I are still alive.”
And apparently the smackdown is catching, considering what you did to poor Kev- er, Nathaniel.
Nightfly – Who’s “kev”?
Listen, man, I run my blog the way I see fit. Nathaniel’s comment was rude, with that tiresome “oh, you stupid Americans” tone – I have no idea who Nathaniel is, and if that’s how he chooses to comment on my blog, then yeah, I’ll smack him down.
He’s not “poor”. He’s rude.
Nathaniel, most Russians dont want to read, or understand Gulag, or else youd not see stuff like this:
http://www.izvestia.ru/russia/article1037040/
which is an article in Izvestia describing three monuments to Stalin that spontaneously sprang up during the 60th anniversary of VE Day. When I was there in the late 80s, most of my Russian peers didnt want to go see the dramatization of Children of the Arbat with me that was ancient history, why re-live it? Its human nature, not just American nature, to ignore everything but what immediately impacts well-being , and it is the job of people fortunate enough to be well-educated to see that history doesnt repeat itself through ignorance.
Not everyone is into heavy reading on this stuff, and you know what thats OK. We need enough people like Sheila around to make sure this doesnt slide completely off the radar screen, but that doesnt mean that everyone in America needs to read Arkhipelag Gulag. Personally, I think that a lot more people ought to be paying attention to the Warlord Period in China, since the male / female balance is way out of whack again, and the autonomy that the provinces are grabbing from Beijing may facilitate another political fragmentation should their shaky banking system collapse. But if I think this is important, it behooves me to communicate that fact without condescending to my audience, otherwise they tune me out.
A whole lot of blogs that link to this one, including my own, had a long go-round about this not too long ago. You ought to go read Emilys Bite Me Eurosnobs post:
http://www.secondbreakfast.net/archives/002466.html
to see why this gets such a bad reception here.
Sheila, have you read Cancer Ward and The First Circle?
Laura – I’ve only read The Cancer Ward.
What’s The First Circle about? I thought Cancer Ward was amazing.
And John:
//Its human nature, not just American nature, to ignore everything but what immediately impacts well-being , and it is the job of people fortunate enough to be well-educated to see that history doesnt repeat itself through ignorance.//
Very well said.
John – this might be a stretch – but do you think some of the Russians disinterest in this topic is not only because humans, in general, aren’t interested in things that don’t affect them in the immediate sense – but also because of a sense of collective guilt? Stalin seemed to want to create a culture of collective guilt – or collective everything …
Do you think maybe it’s STILL too painful a subject to even look at, since the entire country was made complicit in Stalin’s madness? Nobody escaped. There was no innocence, no safety.
When I saw that film Russian Ark – which pointedly left Stalin out of the entire thing – that was the sense I got. That there was still something too CLOSE, too painful in that whole period to even deal with in an open way.
Those like Solzhenitsyn and others who speak the truth of what went on – revealing that it wasn’t just that the country was hijacked by a madman – but that the entire country ended up participating in the hijacking (under duress, and force, yes, but still) bring up uncomfortable truths.
What I’m saying is is that they were not just victims of Stalin. They ended up participating in their own victimization.
And there’s something kind of horrible about that, horrible to look at, and admit. I don’t BLAME them … it was a time of madness … but could that be part of their unwillingness to re-live that stuff? Or to block it out entirely?
Sheila: here’s my translation of this article:
http://www.pravda.ru/news/society/21-12-2005/71545-0
“Researchers at the Yuri Levad Atlantic Center have reported that the opinion of the activities of joseph Stalin have not significantly changed in six years.
The results of the poll show that both then and now, 32% of the respondents agreed that “whatever the mistakes and despotism of Stalin, the most important thing is that under his leadership our Nation emerged victorious in the Great patriotic War”. To the statement “Stalin was a cruel, inhuman tyrant, guilty of the deaths of millions of innocents” 32% responded yes in 1999 and 29% in 2005. A third of the respondents (30% and 35% respectively) agree that “we still don’t know the full truth about Stalin and his activities”.
Then and now, 18% of those polled agreed that “Stalin’s politics (the purges of the military, the pact with Hitler,) led directly to the fact that the nation was unprepared for war in 1941, leading to needless losses”. Along with those are people who think that “our nation will never get along without a leader such as Stalin, sooner or later he will appear to restore order” (18% and 15% respectively).”
[This is John again] – food for thought isn’t it? Especially that last line.
Hmmmm.
Stalin always said that Russians “need” a czar – and so he made himself into one. I wonder if there is some truth to that.
I had heard stories sort of similar to that one that you just posted – that there is some sort of selective nostalgia, in post-communism chaos, for a STRONG leader. Obviously, though, strength can often mean: totally bat-shit cruel and inhuman!!
It’s kind of like that whole “at least he made the trains run on time” joke about Mussolini. Things get chaotic enough and people will do anything for a sense of order, and to feel that SOMEONE is “in charge”.
Stalin always said that Russians “need” a czar – and so he made himself into one. I wonder if there is some truth to that.
Paul Johnson, in Birth of the Modern, discusses the Russian cultural history of authoritarianism and acceptance of brutality from their rulers.
There’s an interesting parallel; 400 years of slavery had a big in giving Afro-Americans a cultural memory that in some ways cripples them; imagine what Russian society is like after over a thousand years of the very-nearly-the-same?
Someone ascribed the Russian reticence to confront Stalin as “collective guilt”; I’d say it’s more like a combination of collective horror in some, and collective acceptance (not of Stalin, necessarily, but of the survival skills needed to survive against tyrant after tyrant after tyrant) in others.
The First Circle is about a special camp where prisoners with technological skills and abilities were kept to work on special projects. Like Cancer Ward it’s partly autobiographical. The reference to Dante is because conditions there were just marginally better than the other forced labor camps. Stalin comes into this because he wants an encrypted telephone system and these zeks are supposed to design one. There’s also the subplot of Innokenty (whose name is significant) who anonymously phones a former professor to warn him that he is about to be picked up – well, you’ll want to read it.
Laura – wow, I will definitely want to check that out. The book I’m reading now about Stalin talks a lot about those “nice” camps for scientists and technicians.
That’s for proving the blogger’s dictum that you can never please everyone, no matter what you write.
I’ve never doubted there’s more corruption in the US than meets the eye (much of it in fact goes through legal channels). But this post isn’t about America.
As is always the case, the people interested in distorting the message will grab only a phrase or even a single word and attack it so viciously that the majority will forget everything but the petty obfuscation.
America is looked upon as a country who will intervene because of morality and not for personal gain. (What commodities has the US gained out of Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya besides multi-billion dollar debts?) Whether Russians are rebuilding the statue of Stalin is not relevant, as the book says, there were at least 250,000 murderers whose well off progeny by now numbers in the millions and who support Putin – a KGB insider and his staged elections.
Freedom must be earned. It can not be given or awarded. It must be fought for and bled for. Thus just like Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan, Russia is not ready for freedom. Perhaps one day, in the future but not now, when its so much easier to let others do the thinking in exchange for a square meal and a roof.