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