Ukraine War Day #515: Chief Crazy-Talk (Redux) vs Not A Mister Greasy Fingers

Dear Readers:

Still on the topic of Igor Strelkov… I have some additional thoughts and musings about this issue, after watching Alexander Mercouris’ podcast from yesterday. Alexander’s discussion of the Strelkov affair starts at around the 30 minute point. He points out Strelkov’s weak points as a human being: mainly the fact that the guy is simply unable to get along with anybody. (We all know people like that.) Also very interesting (and I knew this before, but just didn’t muse on it that much) that, ideologically speaking, Strelkov was not really the right man to lead the Donbass militias. Despite his obvious talents as a military tactician, this man was never going to get other men to follow him as a leader. The Donbass militia types are mostly hard-core Communists, pro-Soviet in their mentality; whereas Strelkov is, in his political views, a right-wing Russian Nationalist, anti-Communist and Monarchist.

A defiant Strelkov sits in the slammer.

Strelkov, in other words, would like to see a Tsar back on the throne, ruling Russia again. It’s just that he doesn’t like Putin in the role of Tsar. (Once again, can’t get along with anybody…) In fact the real reason that Strelkov was arrested, apparently, is because he called Putin some nasty names. Something like swine or low-life. (I didn’t read his blog, so I don’t know what he said in the original Russian.) Fact is, that kind of speech is not legal in Russia any more. Russia now operates under a sort of wartime censorship which curbs free speech to a certain degree. Putin as a man, one can probably say whatever one likes, and I am sure that Putin himself doesn’t give a fig; but Putin as the Commander-in-Chief, that’s a different matter. You can’t call him names in public, or in the press. It’s that subtle distinction between the Man and the Role. As they say in the army, “You don’t salute me. You salute my rank.”

Whether one agrees with such censorship of speech or not (I personally don’t), it’s the law, and is actually quite typical for countries at war. Mercouris, for his part, hinted that he may be forced to speak out at some point if he sees the likes of Strelkov actually being forced to serve hard time for such shenanigans. From a purely Human Rights point of view. Not that International Law even exists any more. Nor need Russia listen to the hypocritical protests of its enemies. But when criticism comes from a friend, such as Mercouris, well, maybe they should listen, just a little bit. Mercouris is about as pro-Putin as a person can be; but he is also a kind and decent man, he is not the type who is going to bay for blood. On the contrary, a man like Mercouris will run with the foxes rather than the hounds. Therefore, a man like Strelkov should not have to serve hard time just because he called Putin a swine. If that’s all the issue actually is.

Recircling back to the issue of Viktor Alksnis, a hardline Communist/Stalinist who supports the Monarchist Strelkov’s right to criticize the army and its Commander-in-Chief. We saw that Alksnis was willing to offer himself as a ritual sacrifice in solidarity with his class enemy, on the broader issue of freedom of speech. But in truth, I think Alksnis is going to be okay. As far as I know, he has criticized Putin’s conduct of the war, but has refrained from personal attacks on Putin himself. He never, for example, called him Mr. Greasy Fingers*

Explaining The Reference

*Here, in the way of a footnote, and for the benefit of Russian Literature Majors, who may or may not be familiar with the case of Osip Mandelshtam, a renowned Soviet poet of the 1920’s and 1930’s. Mandelshtam’s fate teaches us what it actually means to disparage a Great Man, and one possessing of much more vanity than our modern-day Vladimir Vladimirovich. Who is, by all accounts, a non-vain, even sort of modest man, very slow to anger; a Mister Softie, in fact.

Because anybody who thinks that Putin is anything like Stalin, simply doesn’t know what an actual personality cult looks like. For starters, what kind of man would name cities after himself while still alive? Is there a Putingrad anywhere in Russia? Not that I know of.

Osip Emilevich Mandelshtam was born into a Polish-Jewish family in 1891, in Warsaw, then a subject of the Russian Empire. Studied in St. Petersburg, became well-known in poetry circles and had many friends among the Russian literary elite. During the Revolution and Civil War, Osip and his wife had an opportunity to emigrate, but decided to remain in the Soviet Union and cast their lot with the new civilization. By the early 1930’s this talented poet had worked his way into the Soviet cultural elite, was widely published, read and appreciated. He had it all.

A famous and celebrated young poet who never committed an actual crime…
treated like a common criminal…

And then he threw it all away.

Here is how fellow literary giant Boris Pasternak tells the story of Mandelshtam’s downfall: One day in November of 1933, the poet had gathered together a group of around 15-20 friends, and led them on a stroll through some Moscow back streets. Once they had reached a private place, Mandelshtam recited to them his latest masterpiece, a poem that he knew he could never publish. It was an expression of his feeling of being stifled, of not being able to breathe in an environment of the burgeoning Personality Cult; a country in which nobody existed except for Stalin; and everybody was forced to sing Stalin’s praises 24/7.

After his recital of this powerful poem, Mandelshtam awaited the reaction. I don’t know what he was expecting. Certainly not applause. Pasternak exclaimed to him: “That which you have read to us, has nothing to do with literature or poetry. This is not a literary artifact. This is an act of suicide. I cannot condone this, and I want no part of this. You did not read anything today. I heard nothing. I urge you never to read this again, to anybody.”

Next thing you know, one of the writers present at that informal poetry slam, rushed off to the NKVD and ratted out Mandelshtam. In May of 1934 the poet was arrested on the orders of Yagoda himself, Stalin’s main henchperson at the time. He was exiled to Voronezh [yalensis: same place of exile as my own ancestor, before he was finally arrested and shot in 1938, but I don’t know if he and Mandelshtam ever met, wouldn’t that be something for the family chronicles…]

In 1937 Mandelshtam finished his term of exile and returned to Moscow. Only to be arrested again, this time by Stalin’s newer henchperson Yezhov (aka “The Poisonous Hedgehog”). The poet was sentenced to internment in a hard-labor camp in the Far East, but died during the trip, on 27 December 1938.

So, what is the infamous poem that sealed his fate? In anapestic rhythm, rhyming in paired lines, it goes something like this:

Мы живём, под собою не чуя страны,
Наши речи за десять шагов не слышны,
А где хватит на полразговорца,
Там припомнят кремлёвского горца.
Его толстые пальцы, как черви, жирны,
И слова, как пудовые гири, верны,
Тараканьи смеются усища
И сияют его голенища.

А вокруг него сброд тонкошеих вождей,
Он играет услугами полулюдей.
Кто свистит, кто мяучит, кто хнычет,
Он один лишь бабачит и тычет,
Как подкову, дарит за указом указ:
Кому в пах, кому в лоб, кому в бровь, кому в глаз.
Что ни казнь у него — то малина,
И широкая грудь осетина.

TRANSLATION (more or less, not attempting to reproduce rhyme or meter):

We exist, without feeling the country beneath us,
Our words are not heard more than ten steps away,
And where there's enough for half a conversation,
They will mention the Kremlin Mountain Man.
His thick fingers, like worms, are greasy,
And his words, like weighing scales, are true,
His cockroach-like moustaches laugh,
And his boots shine like glass.

He's surrounded by a rabble of pencil-neck bosses,
He toys with the services of semi-humans.
One whistles, one meows, one whimpers,
He alone, of them all, roars and pokes,
Like a horseshoe, he tosses decree on decree:
This to the groin, this to the forehead, this one the eyebrow, this one the eye.
Whatever the punishment, it's a raspberry to him
With his broad Ossetian chest.
This entry was posted in Cat Fighting, Celebrity Gossip, Military and War and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Ukraine War Day #515: Chief Crazy-Talk (Redux) vs Not A Mister Greasy Fingers

  1. Marshall says:

    In “Life and Fate,” (Жизнь и судьба) Vasily Grossman writes about late night telephone calls of J. Stalin to ordinary citizens – in the story one such call saves the career, and maybe the life, of Soviet physicist Viktor Shtrum, who is of course a major character in the novel. Apparently such calls did happen.

    Grossman also mentions Stalin calling an artist and asking about a poet who had been arrested, and then telling the artist, when he stammered and didn’t say much, that he didn’t know how to stand up for a friend. In the notes, the translator writes that that refers an actual call of Stalin to Boris Pasternak; Stalin asked him about Osip Mandelshtam after his arrest.

    I have to wonder about the details of this call and whether Stalin was referring to the poem you quote. Do you know anything about this?

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      Hi, Marshall, I think this is all true. Stalin indeed delved into the lives of the artistic elites, to quite a degree. I think in part he was star-struck and liked to schmooze with celebrities. But he needed them to know who was boss. There were indeed cases where he intervened to help somebody who was in trouble (with his own security forces!).
      One can interpret these incidents in different ways. As in “Stalin the magnanimous, pardons and shows clemency…” Not unlike Caesar Titus the Clement.
      Personally, I have a cynical view of such incidents, I think Stalin just enjoyed toying with people. The man never slept. He had his fingers into everything, he knew every detail, especially when somebody was trouble; but liked to have some fun playing the Good Cop once in a while.

      In regard to Mandelshtam, I had skipped over that part of the biography, just due to lack of time when writing my post. But here is what happened, according to the Russian wiki:

      On 17 May 1934, Mandelshtam was arrested on the order of Yagoda, following a denunciation made against him by an underground KGB plant within the literary circle. A couple of weeks later Mandelshtam was sentenced to exile to the Perm region.

      In the beginning of June, Bukharin writes a letter to Stalin, seemingly to intervene on Mandelshtam’s behalf, after receiving despairing letters from the poet’s wife. Bukharin informs Stalin that the writer Pasternak is extremely depressed about Mandelshtam’s situation.
      [By the way, this is typical of Bukharin, he worked very hard at times trying to mitigate Stalin’s wickedness by standing up for people in trouble. Bukharin had tried to save my ancestor as well. The latter was tortured in 1938 by the NKVD, trying to get him to denounce Bukharin as a Japanese/Nazi spy. It is not known if he was able to stand up against the torture. Bukharin was toast by then, regardless.]

      Returning to wiki:
      Stalin writes back to Bukharin: “Who gave them the order to arrest Mandelshtam? This is unacceptable!”
      On 13 June (1934) Stalin has a telephone conversation with Pasternak. Stalin reassures the writer that everything will be fine. And then reproaches him: Why didn’t you come to me in the first place? Or complain to the Writers Union? Stalin: “If it were me, if I were a poet and my friend fell into such a misfortune, then I would be climbing up the walls, trying to help him.”

      Pasternak retorted: The Writers Union does not concern itself with such affairs, and has not, ever since 1927. If I hadn’t told you about this situation, then you would have known nothing about it. Osip is my friend…

      Stalin interrupts: “But he is a master of his trade, right? A master poet!”
      Pasternak: “Yes, but that’s not the point.”
      Stalin hangs up the phone.

      Not long after this conversation, Mandelshtam was taken to see the regional Commandant. He was told he had to pick out his place of exile immediately, and was given several choices. He chose Voronezh.

      Like

      • yalensis says:

        P.S. – I should have answered your main question. Yes, obviously, all of this has to do with the “Greasy Fingers” poem.

        Like

        • Marshall says:

          Thanks!

          Those who go to see the recently released movie “Oppenheimer” should remember that Soviet physicists were watching. As Grossman puts it (translation by Robert Chandler)

          “Victor was aware of the strange tension that was beginning to surround this area of research. He could sense the tension between the lines of articles by English and American physicists; he could sense it in the odd hiatuses that sometimes interrupted their chains of reasoning. He had noticed that the names of certain frequently published researchers had disappeared from the pages of the physics journals. Everyone studying the fission of heavy nuclei seemed to have vanished into thin air; no one even cited their work any more.”

          In real life, of course, it was the physicist G. N. Flyorov who wrote a letter to Stalin in the middle of World War II pointing this out…

          Like

    • Cooee! (Aussie shout-out) to a fellow “Life And Fate” reader, Marshall. You probably got through more of it than I have so far. I just passed page 750 in a paperback version that runs to 855 pages. (Minus the 20 or so pages of intro/explainer and the 10 pages of who’s who amongst the characters — including Mr Greasy Fingers himself. Who should need no explanation!) It’s physically hard to read a book that thick and squatty (that was Stalin’s stature, right?). I get finger strain from trying to gently bend the pages so I can see the words on the inner edges without breaking the spine. It’s a library book and I don’t want to damage it. I’ve checked the book out three times because it’s such slow going. I hack through about 250 pages on each loan. Grossman is still popular Down Here. I couldn’t extend my borrowing because other people put reserves on the book, so I had to return it on time and rejoin the queue to re-check it out. This time, I’ll smash on through!

      So many times I’ve reassessed my opinion of ol’ cockroach-moustache Joe. As a military brat, I was fascinated with reading about World War II, and my young self saw him as a harsh but heroic guy who helped whip Hitler. It was obvious to my high school self that Big Brother in “1984” was the Man of Steel. Then in uni, I started reading Solzhenitsyn. You know what an impression HE leaves about the Great Gulagger. As I recall, he didn’t come off entirely awful in “Quiet Flows The Don.” I read all three books of that epic series. Why do Russians write such stem-winders? Because they’re stuck inside all winter, of course. Even amongst the people I’m reading now, there’s a “6-10 split” (a bowling term) on the Gruzian bank robber. Yalensis scorns him; Big Serge and a few others in the Russosphere semi-revere his wartime leadership.

      All I can say is, I’m glad I gave his era a miss. I get in enough trouble with my mouthitude in supposedly free-speech nations. I woulda been hauling frozen goo-logs in the boreal wastes if I lived in 1930s-50s Sovokia. But they wouldn’t have shot me! Because 1.) I don’t write poetry and 2.) nobody in a bureaucommieocracy would have given me a position with enough power to do myself any damage. I am so obviously not a Reliable Element.

      Like

      • Marshall says:

        @Bukko Boomeranger – I took advantage of my Covid lockdown to do some deep reading, including For a Just Cause (Stalingrad) and Life and Fate, which IMO should be read in sequence. The lockdown didn’t last long enough to for me to attempt Everything Flows, but I did read “A Writer at War,” which is very good.

        I’m glad the Aussie libraries carry these works.

        I am even more glad I did not live under Stalin reign.

        Like

        • yalensis says:

          Kudos to you guys for your reading prowess! Two of my greatest achievements in that arena (of big books) were War and Peace, and Les Misérables (in the original French! which is why it took me almost forever to get through, flipping back to the dictionary every third sentence…)

          As for Stalin, I agree I totally would not have been able to survive that era. Being an anti-authoritarian asshole and Rebel Without A Clue. There is no way I could have kept my big mouth shut, and thus some sneaky neighbor or co-worker would have turned me into the GPU.

          Heck, I couldn’t even get along with any of my bosses in the workplace. Some of them were bullies, to be sure, but at least none of them demanded that I publicly worship their asses and writes odes to their greatness.

          For the record, I don’t completely “scorn” Stalin. I mean, I scorn him up until 1941, and then I support him against Hitler and watch as he slowly redeems himself by winning the Great Victory. (with a little help from his generals, the ones he didn’t get around to shooting prior to the war…)

          Like

          • Marshall says:

            I think it was Max Hastings who said that, as the war went on Stalin trusted his generals more and more, and they rewarded that trust, while Hitler trusted his generals less and less, and so presided over an increasing succession of defeats.

            Like

  2. The Thick Red Duke says:

    I’m not so sure that he was indicted for insulting Putin. The only real info I’ve come across is the following from pravda.ru:

    “A criminal case was initiated against [Strelkov] under Part 2 of Art. 280 of the Criminal Code (public calls for extremism using the Internet). Strelkov faces a sentence of up to five years in prison under this article.

    The case was opened on July 18, the judge said. The prosecutor noted that Strelkov had served in an operational unit of special services where he acquired conspiracy skills.

    Strelkov’s lawyer Alexander Molokhov said in court that the former minister of the DPR acknowledged the publication of two posts on his Telegram channel where he expressed his opinion on:

    issues related to Crimea;
    issues related to payments to servicemen.”

    I remember seeing those posts and just thought that the old hero had lost it once again. If what he has written is really against Russian law and he is not selectively picked out for retribution then fine, put him in jail if that’s the law. However, I trust Russian prosecutors as much as I trust Western ones, that is: not at all. And I suspect Strelkov is an egg that goes into the proverbial omelette. He will be crushed with a flick of the hand.

    Today, Putin and Lukashenko visit Kronstadt in the Gulf of Finland. So it may be a good time to recall the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921. The local heroes of the Bolshevik revolution led by the anarcho-syndicalist Stepan Petrichenko rebelled against the central government. They demanded among other things that anarchists and socialists should be allowed into the worker councils. Trotsky wiped them out and Petrichenko died in a labor camp in Siberia. Any kind of disagreement with the government during an internal or external war marks you for deletion.

    I think the last 10 years of Donbass’ history might have turned out very differently if it hadn’t been for Strelkov. But it doesn’t matter. His time is up and the state’s steam roller will relentlessly move forward. For good or bad.

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      Great comment. I don’t suppose you have links to those 2 Telegram posts that got Strelkov the tap on the shoulder? I’d be curious to parse them for criminal intent! Mercouris thought it was about him calling Putin a swine, but maybe something more weighty than that is going on. We are used to seeing Strelkov as a bit of a clown, so we tend to forget that he has Intel experience.

      Regarding Kronshtadt, yes indeed. Lenin called it the greatest crisis the Bolshevik government had ever faced, worse even than the 1918 uprising of the Left SR’s, or all of the White armies combined. This was a very interesting battle from many different angles. For example, the storming of the fortress was one of Tukhachevsky’s major successes, in which he employed artillery bombardments and a 6-column infantry attack.

      And yes, Trotsky was merciless, as always. He was like the Marat of the Russian Revolution. Bukharin was much softer, and always trying to mitigate the bloodshed. Lenin stood somewhere in between.

      One important take-away: Communism and Anarchism are 2 incompatible things.

      Like

      • The Thick Red Duke says:

        Unfortunately I cannot find them. Some excerpts I recognized were posted on some Russian TG channel but even they couldn’t find the full posts. I guess they’ll show up some day though.

        Like

  3. peter moritz says:

    “Whether one agrees with such censorship of speech or not”
    In Germany to insult anybody in public (or publications)is an offence. There are many other countries where it is an offence to insult a public servant:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult_of_officials_and_the_state

    Like

    • S Brennan says:

      Didn’t they just imprison a man for protesting Germany’s support of Kiev’s Nazi Regime?

      Which brings up another interesting point. It’s illegal to wear Nazi paraphernalia in Germany but, it’s okay for the German government to support Nazis actively exterminating ethnic groups outside the country…I mean, WTF?

      Like

  4. S Brennan says:

    Most of this conversation [5th & 6th columnist et al…and other humorless speculation regarding the number of angels that can dance upon a pins head] is outside my area of knowledge/interests but…that’s never stopped me before! So to the one part of the elephant of which I am familiar.

    “Not that International Law even exists any more….[why] listen to the hypocritical protests”

    Especially considering that Julian Assange is imprisoned for life without trial…after our rulers in DC/London had considered the Pros & Cons of murdering him in cold-blood*. His Crime? Violating the “code of silence” imposed on all of “western-media” in regard to state-sponsored crimes! As such, any statement by “western-media” types should be accorded the same respect one does “former CIA officials” in regard to Hunter Biden’s laptop being Russian disinformation. None.

    One last tidbit…in this “over my head” conversation; in the USA, a Retired [ie Pension Receiving] Military Officer is limited from making statements that undermine the authority of the military command structure; a reminder, the US President is the head of the of the military command structure. Technically, there are penalties, the loss of pension being the main coercive tool. Isn’t Strelkov a former officer? If so, I suspect that aforementioned mechanism is at the root of the charge?

    *Stalin would be pleased

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      But does that apply to commentators like Scott Ritter or Douglas Macgregor? Or Ray McGovern? All these men used to work for the U.S. government, and now they are critics and do podcasts, wherein they criticize people like Biden and the U.S. army and especially NATO. Well, maybe there is a certain limit to what they can say?

      Like

      • S Brennan says:

        Good Question, Macgregor, whom I like very much, has crossed that line but, I believe, justifiably. I think prosecutions would be highly political and after some of the scandals ACTIVE flag officers have created while in uniform and yet allowed to retire rank/pension intact a very difficult prosecution…fraught with blow back.

        Then again, unlike Russia, the US is not faced with an existential war.

        BTW, did you see the vid showing Gen [fmr] McCrystal bragging about how the US’s war in Ukraine has brought untold riches to the US gas industry while dismissing the cost to the US and the lives of 350,000 soldiers? Yeah, pretty hard vid to watch, the he was smiling/chuckling the whole time.

        Like

        • yalensis says:

          Yeah, good points. I reckon if the U.S. were to declare war against Russia and it was really on, then people like Macgregor would have to either voluntarily clam themselves up, or be clammed up. Especially being veterans of the armed forces.

          As it is, I am glad they are speaking out and getting away with it, because they are telling the truth, as they see it.

          Like

  5. But Stalin never named any city for himself. It wasn’t Stalin who named Stalingrad, the citizens of Tsaritsyn named it after him over his own objections, for his victory over Denikin in the Civil War.

    Like

    • S Brennan says:

      I feel pretty certain he didn’t object that strenuously…he was Stalin, not the “aw shucks” boy next door!

      Like

      • All sorts of cities were being named after people in that period: Leningrad, Voroshilovgrad, Frunze, Kaliningrad, Artëmovsk….

        Like

        • yalensis says:

          Leningrad was only named that after Lenin’s death (26 January 1924). Prior to that it was Petrograd. While he was still alive, Lenin would have never permitted anyone to name a city after him. He was very modest about stuff like that.

          Frunze – now Bishkek, also several other cities named after Frunze, they were all renamed after Frunze’s death. Frunze died in 1925, several cities were renamed after him, in his honor. Frunze died a very suspicious death, during surgery for an ulcer; he was given an excessively large dose of chloroform, to which he was allergic. Stalin and Mikoyan supervised his medical care and insisted that he undergo the surgery. All of this is conspiracy theory of course, but Stalin was not too keen on Frunze, as the latter did not support Stalin against the Opposition faction; and so had every reason to want Frunze dead. As also, Kirov, a few years later.

          Comrade Artyom (Fyodor Sergeev) died in 1921. Artyomovsk was named in his honor in 1924.

          Kalinin died in 1946, and Königsberg was renamed in his honor that same year.

          Vorshilovgrad – yeah, this guy actually allowed people to name a city after him while he was still alive (1935). Speaks to a level of ego.
          Or maybe insecurity.

          Voroshilov was extremely jealous of much better military commanders who had earned their glory the old-fashioned way: on the field of battle. Well, if you can’t earn respect, I reckon you can still force respect, if you have that kind of power; even if your power is a derivative and secondary to somebody else, who also happens to have a colossal ego.

          Like

    • yalensis says:

      CASSIUS Who offered him the crown?
      CASCA Why, Antony.
      BRUTUS
      Tell us the manner of it, gentle Casca.
      CASCA I can as well be hanged as tell the manner of it.
      It was mere foolery; I did not mark it. I saw Mark
      Antony offer him a crown (yet ’twas not a crown
      neither; ’twas one of these coronets), and, as I told
      you, he put it by once; but for all that, to my
      thinking, he would fain have had it. Then he offered
      it to him again; then he put it by again; but to my
      thinking, he was very loath to lay his fingers off it.
      And then he offered it the third time. He put it the
      third time by, and still as he refused it the rabblement
      hooted and clapped their chopped hands and
      threw up their sweaty nightcaps and uttered such a
      deal of stinking breath because Caesar refused the
      crown that it had almost choked Caesar, for he
      swooned and fell down at it. And for mine own part,
      I durst not laugh for fear of opening my lips and
      receiving the bad air.

      Like

  6. peter moritz says:

    “One important take-away: Communism and Anarchism are 2 incompatible things.”

    Not to a Marxist, as I understood Marxism’s end goal the abolition of any power
    structure, but the free association of free producers, which includes mo private ownership of the means of production.

    One can think of several ways to achieve this goal, but Marx definitely was not averse to the idea, but as a philosopher and economist advocating dialectics was of course unwilling to supply a recipe of how a revolution and the subsequent development of society should progress.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/rubel/1973/marx-anarchism.htm

    “Marxism as the ideology of a master class has succeeded in emptying the concepts of socialism and communism, as Marx and his forerunners understood them, of their original meaning and has replaced it with the picture of a reality which is its complete negation. Although closely linked to the other two, a third concept – anarchism – seems however to have escaped this fate of becoming a mystification. But while people know that Marx had very little sympathy for certain anarchists, it is not so generally known that despite this he still shared the anarchist ideal and objectives: the disappearance of the State. It is therefore pertinent to recall that in embracing the cause of working class emancipation, Marx started off in the anarchist tradition rather than in that of socialism or communism; and that, when finally he chose to call himself a “communist,” for him this term did not refer to one of the communist currents which then existed, but rather to a movement of thought and mode of action which had yet to be founded by gathering together all the revolutionary elements which had been inherited from existing doctrines and from the experience of past struggles.”

    The communism as practiced in Russia was far from any socialist idea of direct participation and control by the working class. It was, like the so called democracies in the west, a representative “socialism”, where the power of the workers was represented by the usual fallible and corruptible power hungry politicians.

    It is actually worse in the west, as here politician no longer even pretend to represent the population that elected them, but the national and supranational oligarchs.

    I am for once a believer that anarchism is the only proper way for humanity to co-exist, ans am aware that some steps to achieve that goal might utilize a worker controlled government to exercise power and control the means of production for the proletariat, but it is a dangerous step that could lead to the permanency of this stage and we see where this lead to after the establishment of the soviets was reversed by Lenin demanding and establishing a centralized governing structure by disempowering the soviets he helped to create.

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      Well, I mean, you are right, of course, but it all depends on the definition of anarchism. A stateless society is the ultimate goal, but people still need some form of government. I mean, you still need somebody to lay the water lines and take out the trash!

      Like

      • peter moritz says:

        “I mean, you still need somebody to lay the water lines and take out the trash!”

        Of course, it is all a matter how to organize a society from the local level to whatever the higher levels maybe.

        And I really take issue with the idiots who claim that socialism is about everyone getting a free lunch, and nobody is working, when socialism in essence is based on the productivity of the workforce, unfettered by private ownership, so everyone can engage in productive activities to their level of capability and has access to the common ownership of those means.

        “From everyone according to his capabilities, to everyone according to his needs” does not sound like the model of “social welfare” socialism that the idiot conservatives(and not only those) portray as being the actual idea.

        I have seen those models in action in the Alsace region in France, when I studied international agriculture, as well at the time in some industries in Germany, and lately in a wholesale/retail company for industrial supplies in Canada, that was employee owned.

        Like

  7. the pair says:

    so odd that yesterday i was reading about the chinese author ding ling who was basically a sino version of mandelshtam. she was a successful author, moved to the US and then returned after the revolution only to end up exiled when she and other creative types started feeling stifled by mao’s cult of personality and its insistence on trying to frame every work of art with the lifeless materialism of marxist theory.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding_Ling

    love the “run with the foxes” phrase. but then i’m fond of foxes in general. as a “free speech absolutist” i agree that even a dumb guy like this shouldn’t be jailed for said dumbness. again: material repression of ideas is anti-thought and a sign of weakness. that said, i do kinda “get it” when countries in the crosshairs get nervous about propaganda as it tends to be the first salvo fired by the sociopaths in the west. twitter and granbook are just modern iterations of dropping leaflets from a plane. also, if any pro-western (neo-)liberal types object to it, then show how “superior” your culture is by condemning israel. go ahead. i dare you.

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      pair, I thought you were kidding at first. An actual Chinese writer named Ding Ling?! That’s sort of funny.

      As to “lifeless materialism of marxist theory”, I object to that somewhat. I mean, taste in art is very personal, but I think genuine socialist realism works of arts were quite good and quite promising, right up until the time when Stalin acquired his super-powers, and everything had to be about the all-knowing wonderfulness of Big Brother. The 1920’s in Russia, especially when Lenin was still alive, can be considered the “Silver Age” of Russian art and literature, you had futuristic art, great works of literature and paintings, not to mention the best cinematic masterpieces in the world. And a lot of this based on the socialist-realist ideal of portraying actual things and actual ideas, as opposed to the modernistic and abstract degeneracy of Western art. Well, we can debate about that, like I said, art is a personal thing and taste is in the eye of the beholder.

      Regarding “foxes and hounds”, I borrowed that metaphor from Samuel Butler’s novel “The Way of all flesh”. In which he delves into the splits that occur within families, as each sibling chooses his or her place in the power structure. As Butler notes, “Some will run with the foxes, some will run with the hounds.”

      By the latter, obviously, he means the suck-ups who always try to curry favor with whoever is in power. Even when it means baying for the blood of his fellow man.

      Like

  8. TomA says:

    If you would, please help me understand the poetic art in the quoted poem by Mandelshtam. It’s obviously a lament about censorship and he clearly holds a very low opinion of Stalin, whom he holds accountable. But how does insulting the man (ad hominem) make the point that censorship is a bad thing? Is his purpose to educate and elevate the audience, or is it just an emotional rant? What am I missing here?

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      Hi, Tom. I am not a Mandelshtam scholar, my literary expertise is more like Pushkin and the 19th-century stuff. So I cannot speak as a critical expert on the works of this particular 20th-century poet.

      For what it’s worth, I think this particular work (which is actually quite a good poem, just based on its technical merit) is mostly an emotional rant. I wouldn’t even say the topic is about censorship per se. It expresses the poet’s sense of suffocation that he has to live under the rule of this suffocating Freudian “father-figure” with appalling hygiene, who dominates every aspect of the nation’s waking life. It’s basically an anti-authoritarian cri du coeur.

      Well, that’s my analysis, for what it’s worth, but I certainly wouldn’t expect to get my PhD thesis just based on that one insight.

      You sort of have to be Russian to get it, I think….

      Like

Leave a comment