The (Human)Sacrificial Aspect to Soviet Communism’s Mass Killings.

[No Bull Savage]

It’s often been asked why communism killed so many people if the goal
was to liberate mankind. In a way, this question answers itself. Any
war, crusade, or revolution seeking to change the world is an act of
violence. Consider the fact that America was on the ‘good guy’ side of
the Good War–WWII–yet killed millions of civilians through aerial
bombings and other methods. US even dropped two big ones on Japan.
It’s not out of the ordinary to do ‘bad things’ for ‘noble’ ends.
There was an element of communism that was indeed war-like. What is a
revolution but war waged on Old History to create New History? People
were bound to get killed. This has been the case all throughout
history. All nations were unified through violence; the ‘higher good’
was achieved through much bloodshed. For example, the rise and spread
of Christianity and Islam necessitated war and suppression of peoples,
cultures, ideas, and values out of sync or opposed to the New
Spiritual Order. In this sense, one may indeed wonder if communism was
any worse than other historical movements.


Communism was a totalitarian ideology and movement, and therein lied
its danger and power. It was a unified system that purported to have
connected all the dots of history, science, arts, spirituality,
economics, culture, politics, philosophy, morality, and etc.
Communism was a total way of life, a totalistic way of understanding
the world–its past, present, and future. It was archaeology, it was
sociology, it was prophecy. As such, communists tended to be more
fanatical, blind, ruthless, and cocksure in their beliefs and
assumptions. They were convinced 200% of their correctness.
Though the Far Left is often associated with Liberalism–not least
because both had been allies during the era of the Popular Front–,
communism has always been proudly anti-liberal. Marx, Lenin, Stalin,
and Mao all saw liberalism as a promise of false freedom, a fiction of
freedom procured and projected by bourgeois liberals for the purpose
of fooling themselves and the masses that the capitalist order was
essentially decent and just. Communists spoke of True Freedom, True
Liberation, True Equality, True Truth. Marx–the man, the methodology,
and the myth–was so awesome to his adherents that many leftists just
took it on faith that he must have been right. Most communists never
read Das Kapital and even those who did understood little of it. Most
communists were only familiar with communism through the Communist
Manifesto, slogans, speeches, marches, posters, and lots of singing.
It was a religions movement. Just as illiterate people all over the
world were crazy about God and Jesus(or Muhammad), communists were
crazy about Marx. Indeed, the very difficulty of works like Das
Kapital made Marx’s star rise higher. It was as though the man was so
great, wise, and brilliant that most people simply couldn’t understand
his divine genius. You just had to take him on faith. Most people
understood the ideas in “Communist Manifesto”, but that alone could
not have created the religion of Marx. No, it required Das Kapital,
the magnum opus that was purported to have demonstrated beyond any
doubt that every assertion made in “The Communist Manifesto” was
totally true. Just gazing at the thickness of Das Kapital(in three
volumes) and being overwhelmed by its dense writing were enough to
convince many people that this was godly wisdom.


So, it’s not hard to understand why so many people fell under the
spell of communism and why it came to be so dangerous. Communism, like
Christianity, had two aspects to it. On the one hand, its core ideas
and central tenets were simple enough for a child or an idiot to
understand. Even an illiterate could understand slogans such as ‘land,
bread, justice, equality, death to oppressors’. That was the populist
side of Marxism.
But, there was also an intellectual side as Marx had been a thinker
and writer all his life. One could be a scholar in a university and
study Marxism and use it as a methodology for economics, literary
studies, history, or etc. for the rest of your life.
This dual aspect of Marxism filled its adherents with spiritual
meaning in their lives. Ignoramuses felt they’d gained a degree of
‘intellectual’ seriousness by embracing Marxism. Many working class or
lower-class people felt more serious, more knowledgeable, and smarter
by claiming to be communists. Being a communist meant that one wasn’t
just another working class slob but a humble thinker who understood
how society really worked. As for the privileged and educated who had
no direct connection to The People, Marxist studies meant that they
were ideo-spiritually connected to the ‘oppressed’ masses. Marxism
also made leftist intellectuals feel that they were leaders of the
masses, at least in their own delusional minds. Marxist intellectuals
persuaded themselves that a crass and exploitative capitalist
structure stood in the way between the people and themselves–the
rightful savior-leaders of the masses.
So, Marxism’s appeal was both to the slobs and the snobs. It was an
ideology that claimed to resolve the natural tensions and divisions
that existed between the two camps. In this sense, Marxism had much in
common with Christianity and Islam. Both religions had mass appeal.
Anyone could convert instantaneously by accepting Jesus as one’s
savior or Muhammad as one’s prophet. Even the dumbest person could
learn and understand the core beliefs and values of either religion in
a single day. But, both religions also have complex, profound, and
extensive texts that could be studied, pondered, and debated by
scholars forever. Christianity would have been just a cult if not for
the intellectual contents in the New Testament. Though Christianity
spread among the impoverished and illiterate masses, it is doubtful
that it could have eventually attracted the Roman elite(that came to
adopt it as official religion) had it not been for the fact that Jesus
and his followers were actually intellectually formidable men who left
behind an impressive body of texts. There were many philosophical and
spiritual ideas as profound or as deep as Christianity through
history, but as they couldn’t be easily understood by the masses, they
failed to develop into Great Movements or Schools of Thought. And,
there were many cults with great mass appeal, but they faded away
because they failed to produce sacred texts that could engage the
spiritual and philosophical fascination of the intellectual class.


Other than the appeal of righteous victimhood on the part for the
masses and cutting-edge intellectualism for the elite, Marxism had
another appeal: that of the dedicated warrior. As Marx said, a
philosopher’s duty was not only to understand reality but to change
it, or to understand history for the purpose of changing it. A Marxist
warrior could be a soldier, a spy, a subversive, or a secret agent.
This added an element of excitement, adventure, thrill, and romance to
the calling. A Marxist intellectual or academic, as opposed to most
kinds of intellectuals, could take pride in being part of Active
History. The idea of a philosopher understanding history in order to
change it is like the concept of the fusion of mind and body, of the
pen and the sword. (One of great appeals of Jesus as a revolutionary
spiritual leader is the fact that he united body and soul in his
search for higher truth. Buddha is another great spiritual figure but
has been less appealing because he was all mind and not much body; he
was more like a draft dodger from the troubles from the world. Jesus,
on the other hand, didn’t merely seek inner or spiritual peace but put
the pedal to the metal in the real world. He was a warrior in that
sense and exciting for that reason. As extreme as Mel Gibson’s
“Passion of the Christ” is, its version of Christ’s journey has a
certain legitimacy. The mythic aura of Jesus derived not merely from
his moral vision but his physical courage. He took the beatings not
because he was weak or a coward but because he was the toughest guy in
the world. And, the appeal of Che Guevara has been similar.
Considering that most communists have been either paper shuffling
bureaucrats, bookish intellectuals, or brutal executioners/soldiers,
it was remarkable to many leftists that Che seemed to embody both the
mental and physical aspects of Marxism. He wasn’t just a man of ideas
but a man of action. He also looked good, which cannot be said of most
communists.)
Intellectuals throughout history felt lacking in masculinity. They
were ‘geeky’. Marxism offered the intellectual the promise or at least
the conceit of being a Real Man. Through Marxism, even a geeky
leftwing Jew could flatter himself that he was a tough warrior. It’s
no wonder that so many Jews admired Leon Trotsky, who lived most of
his life as a writer/thinker/political activist but also played a key
role in building up the formidable Red Army during the Russian Civil
War. For many leftist intellectuals–especially Jews–, Trotsky was
proof that one could be an intellectual AND a badass. And, many Jewish
communists were ruthless in their roles as executioners as if to prove
that they were not only big thinkers but tough guys.


The element of The Warrior was appealing to the masses as well.
Christianity too had a militant/military wing. It had its Warriors for
Christ, the Crusades, the Teutonic Knights, and etc. Even so,
Christianity aimed its arrows at the enemies of Christendom or against
other denominations. But, WITHIN the Christian order, the people were
told to submit to and accept the social hierarchy as natural, just,
and divinely ordained. In other words, even as Christianity was for
The People, they were told to obey the kings and nobles. The people
had to be humble and meek. For salvation they were told to look to the
Next Life. Christianity was appealing because people were told that
Jesus loved them so. But, Marxism had an added appeal. It too was for
The People, but it promised happiness and fulfilment in this world. It
also promised power in the hands of The People. Marxism didn’t oppose
the ethos of Christianity but rejected its spiritual assumptions and
its uses by the powers-that-be in exploiting the ignorance of the
masses. Marxism told urban workers and landless peasants that they can
fight for and attain Justice. During the Russian Civil War, even
peasants who knew nothing of communism gravitated toward the Reds
because “land and bread” sounded better than God and Tsar. Because of
the militant aspect of Marxism the masses of adherents found great
excitement in the movement.
For most of human history, the warrior caste or class had been limited
to relatively a few people, the nobility. Most of the people had to
bow down before the kings, nobles, or emperors. The French Revolution
fundamentally changed this notion, especially with its People’s Army
made up of millions of ordinary people. Marxism went even further
because it challenged the very concept of class altogether. Many
ordinary people gravitated toward communism for it gave them arms,
uniforms, and warrior pride. Of course, even prior to communism
ordinary people had served in the military in all nation-states,
especially following the French Revolution. Even as the Revolution and
Napoleon were eventually defeated, the Western world was fast
changing. Nation-states became the new norm, and masses of people were
drafted into huge national armies; and even people of humble
background could rise up the ranks to become colonels and generals,
especially in the US. Even so, prior to the Marxist concept of
Revolution, people fought for the nation, for the king, for their
officers, etc. It was Marxism which gave people the notion of fighting
for The People or The People’s Future. Outside Marxism, one could be
a warrior only IN the military. Within the Marxist sphere, one always
felt like a warrior because The Revolution was constantly at war with
Old History.


Anyway, let us consider the reason why communism came to kill so many
people. There was the radical faith in New Future. There was the
arrogance of possessing the highest and truest from of scientific
rationalism. There was the warrior cult which said one must not only
be a thinker but a soldier willing to shed blood ruthlessly to create
a Better World. Also, the nature of communism was monopolistic, which
is to say that the state came to own and rule everything. It
controlled government, the economy, education, media, and all else.
So, there were no checks on government power. Communist ideology
justified total control since (1) the government was supposed to be a
dictatorship of the proletariat ruled by and for the people and (2)
private property was associated with the exploitative bourgeoisie. In
the name of the freedom of The People, the freedom of individuals was
forbidden or seriously proscribed(lest some individuals grow rich and
‘exploit’ fellow man).


But, that alone doesn’t quite explain the scale of killings by
communist nations. Here, we must consider the concept and practice of
human sacrifice, especially like the ones carried by the Aztecs and
ancient pagan civilizations. This may sound ridiculous since human
sacrifice was spiritual and elitist in essence whereas communist
killings were carried out in the name of rationalism and
egalitarianism. But, observed closely, both human sacrifices and
communist killings have something eerily in common. Both sought to
placate some higher force, greater truth, grander concept.
Communists didn’t believe in God but they worshiped their
conceptualization of History and had total faith in The Future. On
the one hand, they CONFIDENTLY believed History was on their side, but
on the other, they ANXIOUSLY worried that History might deviate from
Marx’s prophecy. (Communists were never sure whether to regard Marx’s
vision of the future as a prophecy or blueprint. During the Great
Depression of the inter-war years, Marxism seemed prophetic, but in
the post-WWII era when communism underperformed vis-a-vis the Free
World, it became more a blueprint. In other words, it no longer seemed
that History would naturally or inevitably ensure the triumph of
Marx’s vision; rather, the future had to be COERCED into the Marxist
model. Proletarian-ism turned into Procrustean-ism.) Communism was an
ideology and movement of both iron conviction and extreme anxiety.
Paradoxically, the two went together. Since communists believed that
Marx(and Lenin) were so absolutely correct, they were convinced that
History must validate their Great Truths. Communism didn’t just
produce belief but inspired faith. Communism wasn’t merely a
prediction but a Grand Prophecy. Their whole lives, beliefs, and
values were linked with how History turned out. So, they were willing
to do anything for the sake of History. They were willing to do
everything and then some to show that History-as-God was on their
side. In this sense, communist killings were carried out in the name
of and to serve the God of History, of which Marx was seen as Moses.
Of course, communists didn’t consciously think this way. They told
themselves that they were killing class enemies, kulaks, the evil
rich, spies and saboteurs, and other lowlifes. But, on a subconscious
level there was something strikingly religious and spiritual about the
entire communist enterprise. It was carried out by a men of great
conviction and great anxiety. Greater the conviction and confidence,
greater the anxiety. Conversely, greater the anxiety, greater the
conviction. This was the paradox of the communist mentality.
Imagine a boxer who convinces himself–and is egged on by his fans–that
he is the greatest and the most invincible fighter on the planet. This
fills him with conviction and confidence. But, because his very worth
and essence are now linked to being Champion of the World, he becomes
more anxious about his fights since a loss would destroy the mythic
grandeur of his greatness. Those who step into giant shoes realize
the smallness of their feet. Confidence and anxiety go together.
Titanic wasn’t just another ship, and its sinking wasn’t just another
disaster. It was Tragic because the Titanic was regarded as the Ship
of Human Ingenuity, Power, Mastery, and Invincibility that could not
be sunk. Marxism was supposed to be the Great Locomotive of History.
It was supposed to travel the fastest and sweep everything aside. Its
hype was such that it didn’t care how many people it mangled or sliced
under its wheels. Yet, this confidence also filled it with anxiety and
desperation. The communist faith was so total that communists were
terribly afraid that the ideology on which they staked everything
might prove to be false. To convince of themselves of the Absolute
Correctness of communism, they were willing to go to extreme lengths.
(We can also see this is the passions of extreme Japanese nationalists
in WWII. They were so convinced of the invincibility of the Yamato
spirit that they thought they could triumph over the US. But, despite
the blind faith and bluster, there was also great fear and anxiety
buried in their souls. When it seemed as though Japan may indeed lose
the war to the mighty US, many Japanese wished to commit national
suicide along with their Emperor than own up to the fact that their
gods were on the wrong side of History or non-existent. They were
willing to sacrifice the entire nation than admit that their gods had
failed.)
If iron conviction inevitably leads to anxiety–since reality never
lives up to one’s fantasies or expectations–, anxiety calls upon
conviction for renewed confidence and morale.
This is a proto-spiritual trait at the core of man. When early man was
faced with grim reality, he often had nothing to rely on but blind
faith. So, when communism didn’t work out as it was supposed to in
early communist Russia, Bolsheviks hardened their hearts and
convictions even further. As they couldn’t find evidence of success in
reality, they had to find meaning to carry on within their iron
hearts. The nature of radicalism being what it is, most communists
were simply not willing to admit that they may have been wrong or
accept the fact that History cannot be remade overnight based on set
of intellectual theories. Communists had spent their entire lives with
the Iron Conviction. Faced with the anxiety of reality, communists
only hardened their convictions(though there were interludes such as
the New Economic Policy). They couldn’t let their God of History fail,
and they were convinced that the God of History would sustain,
justify, and ultimately validate them. To serve this God of History
and in order to receive its blessings, communists were willing to
sacrifice as many people as possible to bring forth the Great Shining
Future.
There is a parallel of this in Aztec human sacrifice. The Aztecs
needed the regularity of seasons for bountiful harvests. They were
also a fiercely warrior-like people and believed that their victories
in battle required the blessings or approval of the gods. They were a
people of great ruthless conviction and great neurotic anxiety. The
combination of conviction and anxiety led to the psychotic practice of
mass human sacrifice. The Aztecs dared leave nothing to chance. They
wanted to be 100% certain that the gods were on their side; they
wanted to make sure that gods were pleased with the utter devotion of
Aztecs elites and warriors who were willing to sacrifice any number of
people.
In this sense, one could argue there was an element of Human Sacrifice
to the whole communist enterprise. And, it may also explain why so
many communists were willing to let themselves be sacrificed as well.
Though they were proud to be communist-warriors, the God of History
was what really mattered most. If individuals–including yourself–had
to be sacrificed for the God of History, so be it. It didn’t matter if
individuals were personally guilty or innocent–anymore than it
mattered if those offered to the Aztec gods were ‘good’ or ‘bad’ Even
communists who knew that they’d been falsely accused and sentenced to
death made peace with their own fates since they believed their God of
History would triumph with or without them. In a war, you may be
accidentally, wrongfully, or negligently killed by ‘friendly fire’,
but you can find comfort in believing that your side may win the war.
The WAR is bigger than you, a mere soldier, a cog in the machine; as a
soldier, your very essence is to bear any amount of sacrifice in order
to win the war; soldiers are, by nature, expendable. Communism was not
only the God of History but God of Justice and God of War. However
bitter the falsely accused communists may have felt about their fates,
many found comfort in the conviction that their comrades and children
would eventually see the Revolution to its just and great conclusion.
Besides, unlike capitalism which is premised on the idea of
individualist self-interest, communism was founded on the notion of
collective sacrifice.


Another reason why communism led to so many deaths is due to another
paradox. Communism was based on total trust and on total subversion.
Communists believed in using whatever subversive means to attain their
goals. So, communists believed that the enemy must be weakened from
both within and without before the fatal blow could be dealt. There
are two ways to weaken your opponent in a fight. You can slip drugs or
toxins into his food and drink, whereby he will feel dizzy or sick
during the fight. And, if he’s too tough to KO in the early rounds,
you weaken him by body blows whereupon his legs grow weary. Once his
legs are immobile, you can prepare for the KO blow. The communist
strategy was along those lines. Communists knew that it was near
impossible to bring on the revolution overnight. So, they had to look
for ways to weaken the bourgeois-capitalist-imperialist-feudalist or
whatever kind of order. Communists believe in lying, cheating, spying,
fooling, and all that stuff. Undercover activity, espionage, and
subversion were nothing new in history, but communists took it further
than ever before. They felt such contempt for their enemies that all
‘bourgeois’ notions of fair play or honor went out the window.
Christians had also been into subversion, but Christianity also said,
‘love thy enemy’. Communism said the enemy must be totally
exterminated. Also, communists rejected traditional morality, notions
of honor and respect, and all that crusty ‘bourgeois’ stuff. As far as
communists were concerned, there was only Justice and Power. Those who
were for Justice deserved to have all the Power. So, communists felt
no pangs of guilt whatsoever in lying with a straight face, betraying
non-communists who sympathized with them, and even in destroying
fellow communists who happened to follow the wrong line. Communism’s
strategy for gaining power was right out of the Machiavellian-Mafia
handbook. It was essentially subversive, whether the concept was
‘cultural hegemony’ ala Antonio Gramsci or employing tools of
capitalism to serve the interests of communist revolution ala Armand
Hammer. This even developed into a kind of nihilistic and cold
romanticism, an iron-grey knife-in-the-back fetishism. In some cases,
there was even an erotic element(though communism itself was
puritanical and repressed/repressive) for the duty of the radical
subversive was often to SEDUCE the well-meaning, naive, or foolish
western bourgeoisie with flattery and sophistication. FDR fell for
communists big time! We can see communism’s seductive power in the
opening scenes of East/West, the French film about travails of duped
French leftists in Stalinist Russia.


But, there was another element to communism. It was also based on
profound Trust. Indeed, without trust the whole enterprise was
hopeless. Communists needed to trust one another and have total trust
in the justness of The Cause and Revolution. Communism couldn’t become
a social, national, let alone an world movement without the trust and
camaraderie among themselves. The rule of communism said, ‘be totally
trusting and supportive of fellow brethren’ and ‘be totally subversive
and deceitful to your class enemies.’ This radical paradox in
communism was bound to lead to paranoia and bloodshed in almost every
case.
Though communism was about creating a New World of Trust, it could
only be achieved through deceit and subversion. (We even have
variations of it in American Democracy, with Obama having used Rules
for Radicals by Saul Alinsky to become president.) In this sense,
every communist activist had to be an expert liar, cheater, and
subversive. Though subversion was only supposed to serve as a means to
gain power against enemies, the subversive mindset remained intact in
the communist order. It’s like those who spend their entire lives
lying for the higher good end up habitual liars with no real sense of
true or false. Communists sought to make history out of subversion,
but subversion made liars out of communists. So, communists couldn’t
really trust one another.
Especially as communism is a radical ideology with a clear-cut and
unambiguous notion of Truth, there couldn’t be many forms of
communism. Deviations or heresies weren’t tolerated–not for long
anyway. Everyone eventually had to unite under a single tent, a single
interpretation of ideology, and a single strategy. But, the fact is
many communists had different ideas as to ‘what must be done’. It was
only natural that many communists were tempted to use the very
subversive means that brought them to power against rival communists.
In the USSR, no one was a bigger master of this than Stalin. The
bookish and intellectually vain Trotsky was no match for the Man of
Steel whose inner core had been forged through a long personal history
of violence, terrorism, and murder. Trotsky was just as ruthless if
not more so, but he thought the weight of his ideas and intellect
would carry the day. He was very wrong.


Anyway, the Ideal of Total Trust paradoxically led to mass paranoia in
the Soviet Union(and other communist countries). Under communism the
contradictions among men were supposed to fade away. All men were
supposed to be comrades under the Sun. But, distrust remained and even
intensified. Communists had come to power through ruthless and
deceitful means. Stalin well understood the true nature of communists.
For all their highfalutin words about unity and trust, most communists
wanted power and to do things their way.
In a perfectionist system, even a blemish can seem like a terrible
stain. Communism believed in Perfect Trust among men. Yet, it was led
by men of deceit, subversion, power-lust, ruthlessness, and total self-
righteousness. Stalin and others couldn’t help but feel that there
were other would-be Stalins, would-be Trotskies, would-be Lenins. Each
would-be Stalin, Trotsky, or Lenin surely sought power and were
willing to use most the devious and ruthless means to attain it.
Though much of this paranoia was psychotic, it wasn’t totally
unjustified as Stalin was the living proof of the conspiratorial
nature of communism. Would Lenin have been paranoid had he purged and
executed Stalin and all his associates in the early 20s? Historians
today might say Lenin acted out of paranoia, but we know that Stalin
was indeed a ruthless radical who’d wanted total power. So, it was
natural that Stalin feared other Stalins-in-the-making. More one loves
oneself, more one fears others like oneself. (Stalin was always
looking the mirror asking, ‘mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the
greatest communist of them all?’) In one way, Stalin was killing his
enemies and rivals. In another way, Stalin was killing himself in the
form of fellow communists who might have wanted to take his place.
Stalin had to be the bright Sun that extinguished all the other stars
from the sky. He could only tolerate planets revolving around him, not
other suns that might challenge his singular authority.


As to the question WHY SO MANY WERE KILLED UNDER COMMUNISM, it must be
remembered that the communist order, fearsome and fearful, produced a
world of great secrecy. In a democracy, you can easily tell who’s the
enemy, who’s the friend. Opponents are not afraid to protest, make
trouble, speak out, and give the middle finger. Under a totalitarian
system, everyone is fearful. So, even the enemies, rivals, and
heretics remain utterly silent and act as though they are with the
program. Though communism sought to wipe out all the enemies, its
ruthless radicalism paradoxically blurred the line between friend and
foe. Well aware of the ruthless and murderous nature of communism,
the ‘enemies’ and critics of the state and the rivals within the Party
learned the fine art of silence and going along. As a result, Stalin
and his cohorts couldn’t really tell who was ‘good’ and who was ‘bad’,
who was ‘trustworthy’ and who was ‘untrustworthy’. Everyone was afraid
to come right out and say what they believed or felt.
So, there was only one way to make sure that everyone got the message
loud and clear that THE STATE IS NOT SOMETHING TO MESS WITH(or
something to even think of messing with).
An all-out campaign of Terror which would arbitrarily target entire
populations or establish quotas for class enemies to be arrested and
shot became the Law of the Land. In the early stages of the
Revolution, it was easy to tell who could be trusted and who couldn’t.
The Tsar and people around him were bad. The capitalists were bad. The
big landowners were bad. The Whites were bad. The Tsarist military was
bad. But, when the Revolution triumphed and once the communists won
the Civil War through the most ruthless means, Russia became a State
of Total Fear. The remaining ‘enemies of the revolution’ all hushed up
or joined the system. Stalin could never truly trust these people; in
many cases, he didn’t even who ‘they’ were, where they were hiding, or
whether they were in the government, military, or other institution.
Were ‘they’ truly convinced of the rightness of communism or were
‘they’ cunning opportunists in the new order? Worse, were ‘they’
closet-reactionaries patiently plotting a coup to destroy the
Revolution–just like the revolutionaries had destroyed the Old Order–
or were they ‘heretical’ communists biding their time to overthrow
Stalin?
This explains why Stalin had so many military officers killed in the
1930s. Though they joined the Red Army, Stalin wasn’t sure where their
loyalties really were. After all, they were men who’d sworn eternal
allegiance to the Tsar yet switched sides to the communists. How could
they be trusted?


Stalin was also aware of the fact that he’d only gradually come to
consolidate power in the 1920s and early 1930s. It could be argued
that Stalin didn’t achieve ABSOLUTE power until 1935 though he was the
most powerful man in the Soviet Union by 1929. Though the Communist
Party came to regard Stalin as the Supreme Leader, Stalin knew that
many in the party had backed Trotsky. He knew that Kirov was more
popular than he prior to the assassination.
Think of the American political primaries in 2008. Though the entire
Party eventually consolidated around Obama, we know that many Hillary
supporters were bitter about what had been done to their candidate. On
the GOP side, though McCain eventually won and the Party united around
him, we know that many conservatives loathed McCain. Similarly,
though the Communist Party united behind Stalin by 1935, he understood
quite well that he had not been the preferred leader for many
communists. Many had backed Trotsky or others. As powerful as he was,
Stalin couldn’t read what was really in the hearts of men, and as the
Soviet Union was a state of fear, no one dared to speak out against
Stalin once he gained total power. Communism promoted the ideology of
Total Trust but ruled by Absolute Fear. Fear among the underlings and
populace reflected the fear of the supreme leader who always suspected
he didn’t really have the Real Trust of the people. So, he had to rely
on Fear–his own and that instilled into the hearts of everyone.
In the mid 50s, Mao would smoke out his ‘enemies’ and critics through
the Hundred Flowers Campaign which encouraged the people to speak out
against the Communist Party. But, Stalin wasn’t willing to take any
such risks. His strategy was to use pervasive, widespread, and
random fear among the populace to send a bone-chilling message that
YOU COULD BE NEXT. Since anyone could be accused of being the enemy of
the state–even the most loyal and ardent among his supporters–anyone
who had the slightest doubt about Stalin’s power or wisdom was careful
to suppress it completely and pledge total allegiance.
There are surely other reasons for the massive bloodshed that took
place in the Soviet Union and other communist states, but those are
for another day.