It is easy now to forget just how terrifying the Cold War seemed. Across the Western world, many doubted Communism could be defeated without unleashing nuclear Armageddon.What is more, many Western intellectuals — from Marxists such as Communist historian Eric Hobsbawm and his friend Ralph Miliband (father of Ed and David, a political theorist at the London School of Economics, a devout follower of Marx and an unswerving believer in revolutionary socialism) to woolly, well-meaning Lefties in universities across the country — were quick to defend the regime whenever it was criticised.Lenin and Stalin, these ‘useful idiots’ claimed, had been much misunderstood.It was Conquest, more than any other writer of his generation, who did most to expose this deceitful drivel.At a time when intellectual fashion was on the Left, he had the guts to lay out, in devastating detail, the truth about the blood-soaked Soviet experiment....
It was Conquest’s close attention to detail that made his expose of Communism so devastating. The Great Terror was based on hundreds of accounts by Soviet dissidents and work camp inmates. He showed that life under Stalin’s regime had been even worse than outsiders suspected....
Even today, The Great Terror is a chilling read and an unforgettable record of the bloody consequences of ideological utopianism. It is hard to read about the starving children in Ukraine or about the ordinary men and women frozen and tortured in the Siberian camps without a shudder of horror.
Vladimir Tismaneanu posts his tribute at frontpagemag:
Robert Conquest (1917-2015) was a great intellectual, historian, and moral conscience. For the denizens of what used to be the Soviet Bloc, Robert Conquest’s name is truly legendary. I remember my own first experience with Conquest’s masterpiece The Great Terror....Political Violence is much more than the traditional anthology of solemn, frequently hackneyed paeans to a great scholar. It is in fact an excellent collection of penetrating studies on the very concepts that did underlie Conquest’s lifelong endeavor: the centrality of violence in the Marxist revolutionary eschatology; the links between utopia, violence, ideology, and terror; the limits and relevance of comparisons between the Nazi and the Soviet totalitarian experiments. As Conquest put it himself in a seminal essay on history as a battleground:
“The huge catastrophes of our era have been inflicted by human beings driven by certain thoughts. And so history’s essential questions must be: How do we account for what has been called the ‘ideological frenzy’ of the twentieth century? How did these mental aberrations gain a purchase? What was the sort and condition of people affected? Who were the Typhoid Marys who spread the infection?” (Reflections on a Ravaged Century , New York: Norton, 2000, p. 3)...From Lenin to Mao and Guevara, the apostles of utopian collectivism were possessed by revolutionary hubris. Leszek Kolakowski is therefore right: communist nihilism is related to Dostoyevski’s demons’ contempt for individual rights and their reckless exaltation of the cathartic virtues of violence. In his writings on the ravaged 20th century, Conquest highlighted precisely this enduring attraction of rebellious intellectuals to a closed universe of empirically non-demonstrable yet compellingly contagious certainties. Let me say that at a time when many were ready to close their eyes and endorse, implicitly or explicitly, the self-serving Leninist narratives about the ultimate goal somehow justifying the appalling methods used to attain it (the proverbial need to break eggs in order to make the revolutionary omelet), Robert Conquest defended the honor of Sovietology. For him, there was no doubt that millions, not only “hundred of thousands” perished in the vortex of the terrorist universe. He never doubted the uniqueness of the Holocaust as the ultimate horror of a horrific age, but insisted on the monstrously murderous features of Bolshevism in its various incarnations.
For Conquest, evil is not a category scholars should avoid if they wish to fathom the age of ideologically-generated cataclysms. May he rest in peace, he deserves all our gratitude and admiration.
There are some other tributes here and here. I remember reading several works of Mr. Conquest. They made quite an impression. It is amazing how many intellectuals wanted to be deceived. Some still can't come to terms with the reality of the matter, but what do you expect.
There is also a post which includes a video from a dinner in honor of Mr. Conquest from 1992.
Aaron Wildavsky (~32:00-50:00) importance of telling truth, our greatest possession - liberty
John O'Sullivan (~50:00-1:02)
John O'Sullivan (~50:00-1:02)
Robert Conquest (~1:22-1:46) struggle against oppression and lies, bad ideas: scientism, all is struggle, new human beings; education on these matters - overcoming impatience and laziness
Of particular interest are the remarks of Milosz, Wildavsky and Conquest.
29 comments:
It would be nice if the consumers of commie porn would show as much horror at capitalist savagery, but they don't. Not only do they not, but they actively deny it ever happens.
Skipper, for example, on the subject of the original modern genocide (it wasn't anywhere near a Marxist).
Harry, define capitalist savagery and give examples -- you needn't include southern slavery -- that's already been corrected at great cost.
If you'd read RtO you'd know, and you'd have seen Skipper's desperate defense of it. There are numerous examples: Potosi, the Irish famine, but I was particularly thinking of the Congo, which was bigger, bloodier, crueler and earlier than the Ukraine famine that we are told so often that we have never heard about.
I must have read exposes of the Ukraine famine a thousand times but -- funny thing -- never once have any of those moralists mentioned Congo. You'd almost think that anything capitalism does is automatically forgiven.
It would be nice if the consumers of commie porn would show as much horror at capitalist savagery, but they don't. Not only do they not, but they actively deny it ever happens.
So says a master of "the smug."
The geniuses of the time couldn't come to terms...the point remains.
What point? It is a myth that leftists denied the Ukrainian famine, though a few did. Hobsbawm is hardly a household name, even in England, but Taylor was, and he was as forthright about it as Conquest.
Bet you cannot name even one rightwinger who ever condemned the Irish or Congo genocides.
... bet you can't name one rightwinger.
Neither the Irish Famine nor the Congo wars were caused by capitalism.
[Harry:] If you'd read RtO you'd know, and you'd have seen Skipper's desperate defense of it.
Harry, would it kill you to provide a link so the rest of us don't have to figure out what the heck you are talking about?
Really, it isn't that hard.
[Harry:] Hobsbawm is hardly a household name, even in England ...
I'm betting you never lived in England. I did, for seven years. So I knew right off that bat that you are, once again, blowing it out your hat.
If you can get even the simple facts right ...
Until the fifties and sixties, leftists were generally unabashed in proclaiming the superiority of communism, but as the horrors of the Soviet Union and subsequently China were revealed and became impossible to defend, the default position became one of moral equivalency. Point your finger at some government-orchestrated horror in the communist world and, like Harry, the faithful would immediately point to one on the other side of the world and proclaim it a consequence of capitalism, as if mass-murders cancelled one another out morally. In order to make this work, in addition to repeated historical revisionism with things like the Ukrainian famine, every theocracy, kleptocracy, dictatorship, tribal oppression, etc. that was not specifically communist was proclaimed to be capitalist, as if their horrors and dysfunctions were the result of the top-down imposition of 19th century economic theories by government bureaucrats, which of course was actually the case in the communist world. It was a dodge many conservatives fell for time and time again, proving themselves as capable of misunderstanding what capitalism is and isn't as their adversaries. Hobsbawm was a master of this approach.
Harry has reduced it all to parody. The Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Cuba and assorted wannabes in the Middle East and Africa. All economic basket cases, all political hells and all guilty of government-induced killings somewhere between the tens of thousands and the tens of millions. Against these, Harry throws out that epicentre of capitalist thought and practice, the Congo. You've come a long way from Selma, haven't you, big guy?
BTW, you might want to look into the influence of Darwin and Malthus on the British officials responsible for relief during the Irish famine. Capitalism indeed.
Dealing as I have with lefty intellectual hypocrites in the academy who've benefited mightily professionally and financially by pretending to be believers (one actually told me he always votes for Republicans locally because he doesn't want any unwashed in his neighborhood -- good luck with that now that a federal mandate for integrated neighborhoods is in place.
Chatting with Harry has been a revelation to me. It’s astonishing that foot soldiers like Harry, in the face of the preponderance of evidence to the contrary and who are unlikely to have benefited personally, except in self-regard as taking the high ground (in Harry's case literally as well as figuratively), are still believers.
Irish famine 1845, 15 years before publication of 'Origin of Species.' So I posit that the influence of Darwin was zero.
While Congo may not be a world center of capitalism, the murders were organized from Belgium which sort of is the home of modern capitalism.
A while back, I was challenged to define capitalism, and I said it was the method of economic organization that valued capital above every other factor. I was ridiculed for that. But -- I bet you do not know this -- while hundreds of thousands of women and children were starving to death in the fields and lanes of Ireland, the colony was exporting vast quantities of beef, bacon, cheese, butter, wheat and barley to England. When the rentiers who were expecting the payments from the markets in Spitalfields and elsewhere were asked to, for a season, forgo their rents, they firmly refused.
So whatever the actions and motives of 'officials' may have been, the action of private capitalists who had the means to halt the deaths with a stroke of the pen but refused confirm my view.
While Congo may not be a world center of capitalism, the murders were organized from Belgium which sort of is the home of modern capitalism.
Bollocks. I can think of a number of places that would deserve that honor, most of them named Scotland. Belgium, though? You are proving exactly the point Peter made: what to everyone else is a particularly brutal example of colonialism, you somehow manage -- in the complete absence of evidence -- to attribute to capitalism that which was solely despotism.
A while back, I was challenged to define capitalism, and I said it was the method of economic organization that valued capital above every other factor.
A foolish definition that describes nothing in the real world remotely like capitalism. However, if that is what is stuck in your head, then that explains quite a lot.
But -- I bet you do not know this -- while hundreds of thousands of women and children were starving to death in the fields and lanes of Ireland, the colony was exporting vast quantities of beef, bacon, cheese, butter, wheat and barley to England.
You mean in the same way you had absolutely no idea that Hobsbawm was famous in England?
No, I'm not that ignorant.
Wikipedia has a lengthy and detailed description the Irish Famine. You know what is prominent in that article? Proof that capitalism was to blame. Ha Ha, I am such a kidder. The opposite of that: the word you are looking for is serfdom.
So whatever the actions and motives of 'officials' may have been, the action of private capitalists who had the means to halt the deaths with a stroke of the pen but refused confirm my view.
Since your view is incapable of distinguishing capitalism from serfdom, you might want to rethink your infinite faith in your own opinions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
(Oops, forgot to embed the Wikipedia link, sorry.)
Irish famine 1845, 15 years before publication of 'Origin of Species.' So I posit that the influence of Darwin was zero.
Hold on there! The idea of evolution minus the selection mechanism had been around since 1794 when it appeared in a book by Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles. He was a member of several scientific groups. Robert Darwin, father of Charles, was a member of the Royal Society of London, the high temple of scientific societies at the time. These ideas made the rounds. I could connect the rest of the dots, but I don't want to be around when Harry goes splodey-head.
What Howard said, which Harry knows full well.
Honestly, Harry, I'm standing by waiting for you to describe Ancient Egypt or Charlemagne as capitalist. Leaving aside your bizarre assertion that Belgium was "the home of modern capitalism", the king owned the Congo as a personal fiefdom, complete with exclusive trading rights and absolute power. In 1908 he transferred it to the Belgian government. Capitalism? Hey, why not?
I think your thesis boils down to a generic complaint that wealthy people don't generally spend all their wealth trying to cure or stop the world's horrors and that therefore their wealth should be confiscated so that leftist governments can do the job. Which they don't. They stop at confiscation.
Oh, you meant Erasmus Darwin? That explains everything then. If you had said Malthus and Ricardo, I'd have agreed with you.
But then Ricardo wasn't a leftie, was he?
Is Antwerp still in Belgium? I think so. Was Antwerp one of the seedbeds of modern capitalism? Every economic historian I know of thinks so.
And now, by god, while shrinking the definition of capitalism you're asking me to expand the definition of serfdom to include Irish peasants?
'the king owned the Congo as a personal fiefdom'
Actually, he organized it as a corporation, with shareholders and all. Indistinguishable from Carnegie Steel except that Leopold had a much bigger private army.
I often wonder where rightwingers get their ideas. This one, for example:
'most of them named Scotland'
I have read a lot of economic history without ever finding that Scotland occupied a notable place. Here, for example, is Braudel:
https://books.google.com/books?id=xMZI2QEer9QC&pg=PA370&lpg=PA370&dq=braudel+%2B+scotland&source=bl&ots=is3277PN13&sig=qmnmlhiwlOHUEHxOLTClNjYYUk4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMI4saX_dauxwIVz5uICh0eLgs5#v=onepage&q=braudel%20%2B%20scotland&f=false
[Harry:] I have read a lot of economic history without ever finding that Scotland occupied a notable place. Here, for example, is Braudel:
(BTW, my point, in case it wasn't obvious enough, was that both Adam Smith and Ricardo were Scottish. But never mind, I think it safe to say that free market economics — which is what everyone but you insists is intrinsic to capitalism — largely came about in the UK.)
Does it still come as a surprise to you that citing a historian does not constitute an argument?
Nor have you justified your definition of capitalism, and haven't bothered to consider whether actually employing your definition yields meaningful results. How about trying that before trotting out a historian whose book, near as I can tell from the reviews, is irrelevant to the point you are trying to make, whatever it might be.
And while the influence of Darwin might be debatable wrt the Irish famine, Malthus certainly was not (which I can't help but notice you completely avoided mentioning.)
[Harry:] And now, by god, while shrinking the definition of capitalism you're asking me to expand the definition of serfdom to include Irish peasants?
Get ahold of yourself there, Marx boy. I provided you with the accepted definition of capitalism which you have shrunk to worthlessness.
Oh, and how about comparing and contrasting serfdom with life for the Irish peasants. I think you would quickly establish a distinction without a difference.
Sigh.Serfdom is not a description of condition. It (or was) a legal system, with rules and obligations.
I don't know why I am expected to say anything about Malthus, but I will: He was wrong.
As for his influence on the capitalist response to the Irish famine, that response was based on the ideas that had led to the poor Laws (in summary, the poor are eating the rich, which is an idea you should recognize). Where is your evodence tat Malthuswas involved?
[Harry:] Sigh.Serfdom is not a description of condition. It (or was) a legal system, with rules and obligations.
Sigh. Perhaps you should read, and learn, history which would, among other things show you that serfdom is, indeed, a describable condition, and that the distinction between serfs and Irish peasants in the mid-1800s was scarcely without difference.
Of course, you could prove me wrong by showing in what ways Irish peasantry can be significantly disginguished from serfdom.
But my tingly-blogger sense says you will shift the goal posts, instead.
I don't know why I am expected to say anything about Malthus, but I will: He was wrong.
Surely, you must understand the difference between now and then. Malthus is wrong because we have exploited energy in ways and amounts Malthus could never have imagined. But perhaps you can imagine this: tomorrow, fossil fuels stop working. Malthus, right or wrong?
And from the first link, which I am sure you won't read, comes this:
The Great Famine has frequently been analyzed as a case study in Malthusian population theory. But that still misses, as do you, the point entirely: what was believed at the time is what matters.
He, Malthus, was wrong because he wasn't able to predict scientific discoveries made centuries later which improved our lives in ways not dreamt of at the time, so he was obviously an early capitalist who wanted to exploit the poor eating the rich. Harry, I must confess to being so far out of pop culture, I had never even heard that expression before.
Your cohort is now in throes of trying to reverse those advances by lobbying to allow children to grow up un-vaccinated, not only endangering their own lives, but those around them and throwing monkey wrenches into scientific agriculture and animal husbandry.
It’s so easy to know what is true and false in the modern world. Whatever the issue, the pros and cons are immaterial -- advancing the narrative is the goal, therefore whatever the blather about genetically altered products, since I distain the source as being questionable, I highly doubt the hysteria being generated has any basis in fact.
'what was believed at the time is what matters'
That's what I said. Darwin had nothing to do with it.
As for serfs, it was a deal with obligations flowing in both directions. Feel free to describe the fulfillment of any obligations to the workers by the landowners during the famine.
Harry, the conditions the Irish were subject to were practically indistinguishable from serfdom. That you haven't offered any distinctions at all is instructive.
Perhaps Darwin had nothing to do with it; no matter. Malthus was very much a going concern. You should read some history, it is really quite a fascinating subject.
TRIGGER WARNING: it might do no small amount of violence to your preconceived conclusions.
Nah, Skipper. Harry's preconceived conclusions won't be violated. Lefties can quite easily hold opposite and opposing opinions simultaneously.
I keep offering a distinction -- reciprocal obligations.
That is an important distinction from an agricultural proletariat, who are what we would call today employees at will, whose employers owe them nothing beyond a pay envelope once a week.
The Irish were an agricultural proletariat, and as always happens in capitalist economies, were discarded when no longer needed. (You may be familiar with the argument; southern slaveholders made the distinction to the detriment of northern urban workers, back in the day.)
I know you dislike books but Marc Bloch is my source and he is considered the cat's pajamas on the subject. There is a big literature on it and while I have not read all of it, I have read a lot.
I keep offering a distinction -- reciprocal obligations.
Bollocks, Harry. (Google search ["harry eagar" "reciprocal obligations"]. No results.)
So I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, since you have never talked about it, and name dropping some historians name, no matter how well respected, is absolutely no substitute for an argument.
It isn't books I dislike Harry, it is your empty appeals to them that rankles.
Me: 'Sigh.Serfdom is not a description of condition. It (or was) a legal system, with rules and obligations'
Sigh.
Me, exasperated: In what significant respect was serfdom different than what the the condition of the Irish peasants?
That it "was a legal system, with rules and obligations" is an utterly vacuous response.
And given how completely at sea you were with respect to such an easily ascertainable fact as Hobsbawm's fame in Britain, I am sure you can understand my skepticism.
Post a Comment