Month: September 2022

In Hollander’s Intellectuals, the chapter begins with countless numbers of praises towards Stalin. Yet, given our current understanding of him and the Soviet Union under his rule, Stalin was a person “foreign to the very experience of love, without pity or mercy” and had an insatiable thirst for power. The praises all come from intellectuals, both western and within the Soviet Union, during Stalin’s time. 

Hollander claims that the two general reasoning behind western intellectuals’ worshiping of Stalin and other dictators are: 

1. Western intellectuals tend to have a “profound ignorance of the personalities, policies, and intentions” of them (p.120).
2. Western intellectuals had both the tendency and capacity to project qualities that they themselves value to others that they “were disposed to admire” (p.120).

While Hollander claims that these intellectuals admired cruel dictators like Stalin because of their ignorance of the dictator’s actual personality, I feel that there could be another huge reason behind this, giving the intellectuals the benefit of the doubt on their intellectual abilities. A possible explanation is that the dictators were able to control the flow of information out of the country. In an age without the internet, the only way that these western intellectuals could know about the reality under the ruling of the dictator was through other people’s reports or visiting the dictator’s nation. In both scenarios, they could be presented with false information, but they would have no way of verifying this information. Even when one visited the USSR, he or she would not ever see the whole reality. From my understanding, this really shows how powerful it is to have control over the media. Even in the modern day, with fact checks, we see so many people believing “fake news.” But, ultimately, philosophically speaking, how does one really know if what he knows is true? This again gets to an idea that came up during my conversation with Prof. Riley – under the Marxist view, the concept of truth is seen as a tool that the ruling class use to suppress and exploit the proletariats. Then, maybe psychologically, since one can never be sure of the truth, or a truth, one is inclined to believe in what one wishes to be the truth. This reasoning is present in Hollander’s chapter, and also we can see this is today’s social media – echo chambers, as some call them.

As for Duranty, I feel that he is quite hypocritical: he seemed to really “believed in the cause,” but he personally lived in Russia as a privileged individual. This is quite ironic to see that so many – the vast majority of people – are still being ripped off by the ruling class, under the name “socialism”; the goal to fully achieve socialism was to free every man so that we can all live under better conditions, yet in these actual implementations of socialism in USSR, femine and aristocracy showed that the Soviet socialism is no better than capitalism.

In reflection to the intellectuals praises of Stalin, I feel it is probably very hard to really know what really prompted these intellectuals to, whether intentionally or not, ignore the reality that they may or may not have seen. In Gustave Le Bon’s The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, one conclusion is that people behave quite differently while in crowds. The moment one defines them as part of a popular group, they could act very differently than when they are alone. I suspect that this is also part of human nature: a revolutionary feature that might benefit the survival of humans as a species by enabling us to have this special “group” mindset. And, thus, when people are really in situations similar to that of the USSR under Stalin, they might be doing things they don’t expect themselves to do.

Furthermore, the admiration of Stalin by western intellectuals may also be influenced by their own political beliefs and ideologies. Many of these intellectuals were likely sympathetic to the Marxist ideology, and thus saw Stalin as a leader who was implementing their ideals on a national level. This may have led them to overlook or dismiss reports of human rights abuses and other atrocities committed by Stalin’s regime, and to view Stalin as a hero and leader of the Marxist cause.

Additionally, it is worth considering the role of propaganda and manipulation in shaping the perceptions of western intellectuals towards Stalin. Stalin’s regime was highly skilled at using propaganda and censorship to control the flow of information within the country and to the outside world. This allowed the regime to present a highly sanitized and idealized version of life in the Soviet Union, and to suppress any information that did not align with this narrative. As a result, western intellectuals who visited the Soviet Union or relied on reports from the regime were likely to be presented with a distorted view of reality.

In conclusion, the admiration of Stalin by western intellectuals may be driven by a combination of factors, including ignorance of his true nature, idealization of communist ideology, and the effects of propaganda and manipulation. These factors may have led these intellectuals to overlook or dismiss reports of human rights abuses and other atrocities committed by Stalin’s regime, and to view him as a hero and leader of the Marxist cause. But among these factors, the most important one might be that these intellectuals themselves are willing to believe that Communism will succeed.

Last night’s class session deepened my understanding of the piece by Judt and Hollander. During our discussion I got clarification on the intellectuals’ self-abnegation with the working class. The intellectuals wanted to align themselves with the working class, as then they could be less critical. The intellectuals idealizing the working class comes from a basic understanding of human relationships. As human beings we like to find individuals or groups that we can associate ourselves with because they have all the right values and good qualities. This can be likened to hero worship which is seen in athletes, entertainers, and for this course politics. 

When we mentioned hero worship for athletes, this caught my attention. Oftentimes we put athletes on this pedestal and want to be them and expect them to perform at the highest level at all times, and fail to recognize that they are also human. Recently, athletes have been advocating for their mental health and some have taken a step back from competing. These athletes are then criticized by the media, and sometimes portrayed as a failure. I think that with hero worship of athletes, we forget that they can struggle and cannot be perfect all the time. 

In the piece that I introduced last night by Hollander, a reason as to why intellectuals were fascinated with Stalin was because of hero worship although slightly different context from professional athletes’ “flaws”. They refused to recognize the human suffering or the planned famines. By ignoring Stalin’s mistreatment of citizens, these intellectuals were able to view Stalin as a leader who ignited social and political change as well as industrialized an underdeveloped country. 

Although some intellectuals thought Stalin provided a power revolution, others believed that they were barriers to the working class overthrowing the bourgeoisie. I thought that this was interesting that intellectuals wanted to align with the working class, yet could by definition be considered elite. These individuals were getting paid by the wealthy to have a profession of discovering the “truth” in their respective field. I find this situation to be ironic, much like Communism being considered a quasi-religion.

At the end of class we started to discuss how Communism could be considered to be a quasi-religion. A reason that many of the intellectuals idealized Stalin and Communism was because they felt empty in their own class. This is similar to how many religious individuals turn to God because they are able to believe in power higher than them and the religious community brings them fulfilling relations. These intellectuals who idealized Communism always had a response to any criticisms. There was always a justification to support the idea. I thought that this was an interesting perspective of Communism. I believe that not many other courses at Bucknell that talk about Communism would refer to it in this way. I think this is part of my appeal to this course because intellectuals and other topics of the class are discussed in a new manner that changes my perspective. 

The Stalin, Rakosi, Soviet Communism, and Intellectuals chapter by Paul Hollander explains the reasons as to why Western intellectuals had a fascination with communist dictators. Two possible reasons he gave was that the intellects ignored the personalities, policies, and intentions of the dictators. Another explanation is that these intellects placed these individuals on a pedestal by believing that they possessed qualities that are highly valued. Within the Soviet Union itself it is not hard to believe that the public was trapped into his ways. Throughout the country images of Stalin were spread as well as propaganda and education of the regime. The admiration of Stalin by the Western intellectuals was due to the fact that “Stalin was a living presence for decades and in charge of major social-political transformations that thrilled these intellectuals” (p 121). 

A largely held misconception about Stalin was that he had no interest in power. He recognized that he held a great deal of power, but did not pride himself in it. Stalin thought of himself as one of the other members of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. 

The first intellect that is discussed in this chapter is Walter Duranty. He was a news correspondent and an admirer of Stalin. Duranty thought of Stalin as successful as he was able to rapidly industrialize in an underdeveloped country. Additionally, Duranty thought that the Soviet Union was beneficial as it was for the community and not just for the individual. He thought that it was “the only form of complete national collectivism which the world has known since the Inca civilization” (p 126). Duranty was different from the other intellectuals who admired Stalin as he spent time living in the Soviet Union. He was not ignorant nor highly valued Stalin, he thought that Stalin’s ends justified the means. 

The next intellectual that Hollander talked about was Joseph E. Davies. Although he lived in the Soviet Union for an extended period of time, he remained rather uniformed about the system and Stalin. Davies believed that Stalin was a democrat and called for universal suffrage in the new constitution. This misinformation about the Soviet Union continued after WWII. Lilian Hellman was a part of a group that supported the Soviet system as well as accepted and justified the Moscow show trials. She was attracted to the Soviet system because of its commitment to social justice and opposition to the defects of American society. She was there in search of the truth, however, creating her own fantasy of the reality around her. 

Henry Barbusse was the next individual discussed. Barbusse idealized the Soviet system as he rejected capitalism, like many of the Western intellectuals. He thought that the Soviet Union provided order and progress. Another French writer mentioned in this chapter is Romain Rolland. Rolland was treated with much respect when he visited Stalin. He refused to be critical of the political realities in public even though well informed. Although educated he conflated reality. He truly believed that the USSR was a society of socailist humanist principles. 

The next intellect discussed was Emil Ludwig. Ludwig was able to have conversations with Stalin. In these meetings Stalin was able to deceive in order to make the appropriate impression. Similar comments were made from Theodore Von Laue in modern times. Von Laue questioned others who did not live in the Soviet Union how they could make judgements about it. Von Laue thought that the people that both Stalin and Lenin ruled over were “benighted, backward, ignorant, helpless, and unaware of their true interests” (p 141). 

The next idealist is Noel Field. He was not ignorant of the communist states as he was imprisoned and interrogated by them. Despite these experiences Field remained a true believer. Similarly to Duranty, Field believed that the questionable means served lofty ends. 

The next intellect discussed was Georg Lukacs, who was from Eastern Europe. Lukacs was alienated from his family at an early age. He did not believe in their wealth and what is represented. He felt that only the communist had the solution for the situation to change the world. Much like the Western intellectuals he was able to overlook the actual events of human suffering. Overall, he believed that it was better to live under the worst of socialism than under the best of capitalism. He thought that socialism was a superior system. Part of his admiration with Stalin stemmed from the fact that in communist countries public support helped to get published, gaining access to influential positions in academica, publishing houses, journals or cultural organizations that are associated with the party. 

Overall, the admiration of Stalin partly came from the fact that he rarely addressed crowds. Although the misconceptions and idealization were from prior thoughts and ignorance, Stalin was easily able to deceive those he met with. These intellectuals, despite their experiences never questioned or challenged Stalin with their knowledge of social and political realities. If they did that would cause them to realign their beliefs. 

Discussion Questions:

1. How does religion play a part in idealists’ admiration for Stalin?
2. Are there any current situations happening in which intellects are blindy persuaded to support something due to their predispositions or ignorance? 

Historically speaking, I found our discussion of fellow travelers and Soviet Russia to be very fascinating. We described fellow travelers as Americans that were interested in Soviet Russia. Soviet Russians enticed American intellectuals by having them visit the Soviet Union and in return the communists desired propaganda in the West. These state sponsored  tours were deceitful and extremely limited.  In their efforts to court them as allies they don’t let them see any of the unfortunate things associated with communism. The Western intellectuals were never left alone for a second and were always with a party official. They did not want the Americans to see any evidence of protest. We talked about one of the main reasons why intellectuals are dissatisfied and disgruntled is because they feel like they have been isolated. I think that Soviet Russians exploited fellow travelers and used their sense of isolation to their advantage. The Soviet Russians manipulated the Western intellectuals to feel a sense of inclusion as they wanted to recruit them as allies. It surprises me that these fellow travelers were taken advantage of and manipulated, as these are intellectual members of society. Therefore, I would have expected them to realize the true agenda of the Soviet Russians. It makes sense to me though that the Soviet Russians recruited these intellectuals during a vulnerable position when they felt underappreciated and alienated from society. I think there is also a part of these intellectuals that wanted to seek power through forming an alliance with the Russians. If they felt dissatisfied in the States, perhaps they thought they could seek power with Russia.

Something that I was wondering about from this week’s reading is why intellectuals are so intrigued with seeking utopia. The reason I am curious about this because it seems like it is common sense to a non-intellectual that it is basically impossible for all of society to be perfect. However, after asking professor Riley about this after class I learned that since intellectuals dedicate their life to trying to find ways to make utopia a possibility, they overlook the rationality of it and believe that it is possible because of all of the ideas that they have come up with. It is almost like they feel that they can solve any and everything that they put their mind to. This is a great mentality to have but when it comes to utopia it is misleading. I also think about the fact that intellectuals have been seeking utopia for a very long time and still have not been able to come up with a solution but they still have not given up and channeled all of that time and energy into something else. At what point will these intellectuals realize that utopia is unattainable? We talk about how intellectuals consider highly respected individuals in communities sacred, if those sacred individuals were not able to figure this out you would think that might make them realize how difficult it is. On the other hand, it could be a dynamic where they have so much time on their hands that trying to seek utopia can’t hurt so even if they can’t find the solution it does not hurt to keep trying.

In Paul Hollander’s themes, he argues that there are several reasons why many western intellectuals appear to have some sort of double standards, where they are very critical of their own society yet they embrace communist societies while being tolerant of the flaws in communist societies.

The first reason is that these western intellectuals are being alienated from their own society.

Imagining how good the “other” society is with the goal of criticizing the flaws of their own society. Even when these intellectuals are aware of the flaws of the “other” society – like Jean Paul Sartre, who defended the USSR’s Gulag. Sartre selectively ignored it as a flaw, intentionally lied to the public, and defended the USSR so that it can be seen as the model society. Then, he could compare and contrast his own society to this model society, focusing all on the flaws of his society and the good of the model society, so that he has a ground to criticize his own society and potentially gain more societal influence.

There was little access to information on the actual life in these “police states.” Unlike the world we live in today – where pictures and videos can be sent even from Iran after their government had shut down the internet, it was a lot easier to control what information that people can see, if a government wished to control that.

Another reason for the double standards of western intellectuals is that they are often idealistic and romanticize the idea of communist societies. They may see communism as a way to create a more egalitarian and just society, and thus are willing to overlook its flaws and human rights abuses. This idealization of communism is often based on a lack of understanding of the realities of life in communist societies, and a willingness to believe in the propaganda put forth by those regimes.

Additionally, western intellectuals may also be motivated by a desire to be seen as progressive and enlightened. By expressing support for communist regimes, they may be able to position themselves as being on the cutting edge of political thought and more enlightened than their peers who criticize those regimes. This can give them a sense of superiority and self-righteousness, and can also help them gain influence and respect within intellectual circles.

Overall, the double standards of western intellectuals towards communist regimes are driven by a combination of alienation from their own society, idealization of communism, and a desire for personal and societal influence. These factors can lead them to overlook the flaws and human rights abuses of those regimes, and to express support for them despite their shortcomings.

When I was reading Past Imperfect by Judt I was surprised at how critical this piece was about the United States. I found it interesting as I am reading it in 2022 and with an ethnocentric perspective. Many of the criticisms the French intellectuals had about the United States came from industrialization, especially post-war. However, these anti-American feelings were about the failings of imperialism and racism. Americans were becoming a world power by helping to rebuild Europe and then also industrializing within. Some of these feelings that the French intellectuals held about the United States also could have stemmed from the outcome of the war being more in favor of the United States rather than France. The United States ruling seemed similar to intellectuals ruling in which we had talked about in previous classes. However, Americans failed to recognize the internal racism happening within. This could be compared to intellectuals thinking too much, in a way that would flaw their ability to rule. 

Judt stated that Americans became the heir to the Nazis. I think that sometimes the Japanese internment camps and the racist behavior that continued post-war, is sometimes brushed over in American history. The statement that Judt made was extreme and highlights his sentiments about Americans and their actions post-war. What Americans do is quite different from what the Communists do according to Aron. The Communists build upon each development in the course of history. Although, this applies to history as a philosophy of nature. 

Furthermore, in the Aron piece, I found it interesting when the worker-priests came to assimilate. The priests changed their perspective on the situation when they became immersed in the working class conditions. They then came to the conclusion that “one’s way of thinking, they suggest, depends essentially on the class one belongs to.” I think that too often we fail to remember the perspective of what others are going through when criticizing how other classes want things or how they want to revolutionize. I think going through what others experience is the only way to truly understand the other party. Once the priests became the working class, they expressed similar feelings and now believed their angst. 

As the Aron piece progressed, it got on the topic as to how Marxism could be considered a quasi-religion. The Christians and the Communist Party share the same struggles. However, the Communist Party has removed the religious aspect from their sacrifice to overcome the resistance. This is ironic that Marxism could be considered a quasi-religion as it is so often held as an economic system. Marxism and Communism is regarded as how to order workers and the economy. Religious values and sentiments are not mentioned when describing an economic system. I had never thought of the similarities between religion and Marxism before. I was always taught that it was about a class struggle and overthrowing the bourgeoisie class. I think that Marx would have a difficult time believing that Communism could potentially be a quasi-religion. Communism is more often considered a political and economic movement, rather than a type of religion that people follow. 

Personally I liked the Hollander Themes reading because it talked about a concept that I was somewhat aware of but had not really put much thought into. Specifically why some countries: China, North Vietnam, Cuba and the SOviet Union did not have a lot of widely available information regarding the negative aspects of their societies unlike the United States. Something that stood out to me in this reading was a small section right in the beginning which mentions that how intellectuals traveling to those different countries tended to compare their own societies to the ones they were visiting. And this idea reminded me of a similar concept or basically another variation of this process that anthropologists did when doing studies on other cultures. They tended to compare their own culture to the ones that they were attempting to learn about. This connection brought me to the conclusion that biases commonly become a part of what someone is researching unless they can learn to separate their own cultures/societies from the one that they are writing about. Or similarly placing their societies or cultures above those that they are studying. 

Also in this reading I saw connections between the other readings that we had done previously, especially the one on Molnar and the concept of the “fellow- traveler” which I felt was explored in a bunch of different ways in Hollander’s chapter. 

To answer one of the questions that Riley gave us, I believe that many intellectuals aligned themselves with the soviet union because as Hollander’s reading says, those intellectuals are shown a carefully selected set of events meaning that they see only what those countries, in this case the Soviet Union, want them to see. I believe Hollander calls it a “technique of hospitality.”(6) Therefore these types of societies would be more appealing to them since they are not seeing any negative aspects of them. In the Aron reading, communism is placed in the “hope that the future will bring the advent of the classless society” so I guess that would that theres also only one way to get there and thats what they teach the soviet union. 

I also had a question about the nonpolitical vs political tourist comparison in the Hollander chapter which is: Can there be a combination of the two tourists? (page 19)

Between the Hollander and Judt chapters there was a shared idea of the dislike of America. Although Hollander is talking about comparing America and the Soviet Union, he says that by quoting barzan that “we, the united states, are so extensively unpopular. (page 16). 

America being unpopular is talked about in Judt, the word america came to be known as a collective term describing all the negative, undesirable, and disturbing things about Western life (190)