Gordon Brown, the UK’s self styled “Iron Chancellor”, has been accused of acting with a "Stalinist ruthlessness" as well as going awol whenever a hard decision has to be made, or one of his policies hits the fan. E.g. His Pension raids have brought a personal pension disaster to the UK but he refuses to talk about it. Also it has just been announced that Mr Brown won't need an election to become the next Prime Minister, if no one challenges him for leadership of the New Labour party, something Stalin would surely have approved of :-)
Mr Brown is allegedly not really put out by this comparison, and in fact Charlie Whelan, his old spin doctor, thought it could be taken as a form of praise for a “strong .. ruthless .. and determined" leader. Interestingly the US Ambassador to the USSR in 1941 described Germany and the USSR with the terms “Both are strong and ruthless in their methods” (Joseph Davies - Journal entry, July 7, 1941).
This got me thinking as to why being likened to a Communist mass murderer was OK, but being labelled a “Fascist” wasn’t.
So why is being likened to "Stalin", OK, and not considered pejorative? I mean, Stalin murdered more people than Hitler, and ruined large sections of his countries economy and environment. Margaret Thatcher was often called a ‘fascist’ by socialists in the 80’s, and that was an insult. Gordon Brown is likened to Stalin and is able to joke about it. From a historical perspective, the genocide of ethnic groups inside Russia is not much different in end result, to the genocide of groups under the Nazi's, so the insult should be the same.
All very strange, and a distinctly UK phenomenon of political insult and praise.
Oddly, when I knew people on the left splinter groups in the 1980’s, they reserved the term “Maoists” as an insult for all their opponents on the left, I never could fathom the arcane mystery of why a Maoist was an insult, I have come to think that anyone not following the mainstream Marxism was a "Splitter", as they would have called them in the "Life of Brian".
Before anyone thinks I am not aware of the difference between National Socialism and Communism, I realise that Hitler advocated open genocide against certain groups, from the Jews, Handicapped, and Slavs, to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Ostensibly Communism said that all men were of equal worth, irrespective of colour or previous creed. The key is the word ‘previous’, they weren’t keen on any creed except communism after they got into power.
In practise, the policies used in order to achieve either National Socialism, or Communism, were identical. Genocides, forced movements of all suspected groups to resettlement areas, Slave labour camps and arbitrary executions without the rule of law.
Incidentally, whether being likened to a Stalinist, or a Maoist, it should still be a term of insult for anyone, because using almost any scholarly tabulations (and even official Communist pronouncements), the governments of the USSR and China murdered more non-combatants than any other in the 20th-century.
Out of the top *ten most murderous regimes in the last century, five were Communist, according to the ranking provided by R.J. Rummel in his Death By Government (Communist regimes indicated in bold):
*Some have taken issue with some of Rummel's calculations, but not with his basic conclusions. For a reproduction of Rummel's tabulations, go to Freedom's Nest).
** It’s often forgotten that both the fascists and communists, considered themselves to be “Socialists” e.g. Until 1914, Benito Mussolini was the leader of the Socialist Party of Italy and Hitler said “There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it”, he allowed converts from Communist parties to join the Nazi party because they could do so with little mental effort.
Oddly, like my left wing friends of the 1980’s, they reserved their worst vitriol and hatred for those who were closest to them …. An important factor, that many overlook when considering the 2nd World War, and the political relationship between Nazi Germany, and Communist Russia. This is something the Left prefers not to discuss much, for obvious reasons.
Mr Brown is allegedly not really put out by this comparison, and in fact Charlie Whelan, his old spin doctor, thought it could be taken as a form of praise for a “strong .. ruthless .. and determined" leader. Interestingly the US Ambassador to the USSR in 1941 described Germany and the USSR with the terms “Both are strong and ruthless in their methods” (Joseph Davies - Journal entry, July 7, 1941).
This got me thinking as to why being likened to a Communist mass murderer was OK, but being labelled a “Fascist” wasn’t.
So why is being likened to "Stalin", OK, and not considered pejorative? I mean, Stalin murdered more people than Hitler, and ruined large sections of his countries economy and environment. Margaret Thatcher was often called a ‘fascist’ by socialists in the 80’s, and that was an insult. Gordon Brown is likened to Stalin and is able to joke about it. From a historical perspective, the genocide of ethnic groups inside Russia is not much different in end result, to the genocide of groups under the Nazi's, so the insult should be the same.
All very strange, and a distinctly UK phenomenon of political insult and praise.
Oddly, when I knew people on the left splinter groups in the 1980’s, they reserved the term “Maoists” as an insult for all their opponents on the left, I never could fathom the arcane mystery of why a Maoist was an insult, I have come to think that anyone not following the mainstream Marxism was a "Splitter", as they would have called them in the "Life of Brian".
Before anyone thinks I am not aware of the difference between National Socialism and Communism, I realise that Hitler advocated open genocide against certain groups, from the Jews, Handicapped, and Slavs, to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Ostensibly Communism said that all men were of equal worth, irrespective of colour or previous creed. The key is the word ‘previous’, they weren’t keen on any creed except communism after they got into power.
In practise, the policies used in order to achieve either National Socialism, or Communism, were identical. Genocides, forced movements of all suspected groups to resettlement areas, Slave labour camps and arbitrary executions without the rule of law.
Incidentally, whether being likened to a Stalinist, or a Maoist, it should still be a term of insult for anyone, because using almost any scholarly tabulations (and even official Communist pronouncements), the governments of the USSR and China murdered more non-combatants than any other in the 20th-century.
Out of the top *ten most murderous regimes in the last century, five were Communist, according to the ranking provided by R.J. Rummel in his Death By Government (Communist regimes indicated in bold):
- Soviet Union
- Communist China
- Nazi Germany (**National Socialist)
- Nationalist China
- Imperial Japan
- Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
- Turkey under the Young Turks
- Communist Vietnam
- Communist Poland
- Pakistan under Yahya Khan
*Some have taken issue with some of Rummel's calculations, but not with his basic conclusions. For a reproduction of Rummel's tabulations, go to Freedom's Nest).
** It’s often forgotten that both the fascists and communists, considered themselves to be “Socialists” e.g. Until 1914, Benito Mussolini was the leader of the Socialist Party of Italy and Hitler said “There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it”, he allowed converts from Communist parties to join the Nazi party because they could do so with little mental effort.
Oddly, like my left wing friends of the 1980’s, they reserved their worst vitriol and hatred for those who were closest to them …. An important factor, that many overlook when considering the 2nd World War, and the political relationship between Nazi Germany, and Communist Russia. This is something the Left prefers not to discuss much, for obvious reasons.
I don't think the left thinks of themselves as socialists. They just need another idea and the tenets of socialism sounds good to some. "No one lacks anything and all that."
ReplyDeleteHistory means nothing to these people, and maybe that's understandable. Maybe history wasn't taught then, just as it isn't taught today.
Elitist Socialism has familiar bedfellows (each other, no one else). Get in office, line your pockets, move on, let someone else worry about it.
This is a great post. Thanks for it.
Maggie
Maggie's Notebook
I totally missed this comment ... deep apologies to Maggie. By some weird twist of fate the UK is now facing the distinct possibility of a hardcore Marxist getting into power by bribing teenagers with false promises.
DeleteSorry I missed this comment.