Tag Archives: communism

Mr. Norris and Communism

Posted on by

Christopher Isherwood’s The Berlin Stories consists of two novellas set in Berlin right before and during the rise of the Nazi party in the 1930s, the first of which is The Last of Mr. Norris.  This stories chronicles the friendship between William Bradshaw and Arthur Norris.  Mr. Norris proves to be a mysterious and interesting character, as he is a communist during a time which it is dangerous to be so in Germany.

While Norris holds onto his communist beliefs despite the political dangers they cause him, there are some aspects of his personality that do not completely fit with the communist ideology.  Norris holds a few somewhat aristocratic tendencies as a result of his upbringing, despite his poverty at the time which the novel is set.  Bradshaw states that Norris’ “…spirits always sufficiently indicated the state of his finances,” and when he is better off financially, he is more cheerful (41-42).  He also believes that he is at his best when he is surrounded by the material objects which he desires and revels.  Even though Norris holds aristocratic values to more importance than his communist comrades, he is shown to believe steadfastly that the wealthy should use their resources to help the poor.  This characterization portrays Norris as more of a moderate who resonates with more and joins a radical group than a pure communist.

The Berlin Stories: Mr. Norris Changes Trains

Posted on by

The Berlin Stories by Christoper Isherwood are two stories set in Berlin in the 1930s. The first story, entitled Mr. Norris Changes Trains, is based on the relationship between William Bradshaw, the protagonist, and Arthur Norris, the mysterious stranger he meets on the train. The story follows their relationship and the gradual development of Norris’ character. Norris is soon revealed to be a communist and ex-convict. His past and his present tend to create financial and political troubles for Norris, especially in the changing climate of the newly Nazi state of Germany.

In one scene Norris is shown to be giving a speech at an underground communist party meeting. His speech is about British Imperialism in Asia, following the general theme of Chinese social problems at the time (53-56). This scene is fascinating as it provides an interesting insight into the communist party in Germany. Despite the increasingly hostile environment for communism under the Nazi government, the leading members are organizing conferences on international problems rather than finding domestic solutions. This provides an insight into their naivety and the relative importance they place on theoretical Marxism, rather than their ability or desire to adapt communism to the German situation. Additionally, this may also provide an example of the inability for the different sections of socialism to work within a domestic framework, forcing them to find a common ground in vague demands for World Revolution. If this is true, it may explain their inability to fully capitalize on their popular support before the Great Depression.

Shhhh…It’s a Secret Speech

Posted on by

Khrushchev’s secret speech, given to party officials but not published for the general public, showed his desire for de-Stalinization.  Basically, Khrushchev has the same criticisms about Stalin that the rest of the world had: he was paranoid, rude, and killed too many people. Khrushchev believed that Stalin had given the world a bad example of socialism.  He also stated that many innocent lives had been lost.

When Khrushchev is speaking, he is careful to maintain the language of the party.  He emphasizes the point that Lenin didn’t like Stalin.  If Lenin, who cannot be wrong, disliked Stalin, than logically this must mean that Stalin was a bad person. Since Lenin expressly stated he did not want Stalin to be the next leader of the USSR, then Stalin’s reign could be viewed as a mistake and a break away from communism.  Khrushchev makes it seem as though a communist must choose between Lenin and Stalin.  And a good communist will always choose Lenin.

My questions after reading the speech were these: Did Khrushchev dislike Stalin because Lenin disliked him? Or was this speech, as I suspect, a cleverly designed mask for deeper feelings? Did Khrushchev dislike Stalin for the obvious, ethical reasons? Or personal reasons? Whatever the reason, conditions in the Soviet Union began to improve under de-Stalinization.

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

Posted on by

Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s novella One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich describes the working and living conditions of a Russian labor camp by examining the lives of its prisoners.  All of these men ended up in the camp by being deemed enemies of the state, and the purpose of the camp is to reteach them how to be productive members of the Communist party.  However, some of the values that are prominent in the camp ironically go against those of Communism.  The prisoners are viewed as below so-called “comrades” in the outside world to the point that they are dehumanized.  There is also a distinct hierarchical structure within the camp, which is emphasized when Solzhenitsyn describes how Shukhov refuses to take certain jobs because “there were others lower than him” (15).  The niceties that are enjoyed by the prison staff come at the expense of the labor of the convicts, who are not allowed to use the facilities which they have built (38).   Bribery through gifts of extra rations is also a common method of getting out of having to undertaking work projects with poorer conditions.  Overall, the idea of all citizens being equal is not enforced within the camp, and the only value it shares with the idealistic view of Communism is the importance of hard work.  Does the hypocrisy of the camp accurately portray the hypocrisy of the Soviet government at the time in which the novella takes place?

European Dictators: The Worse of Two Evils?

Posted on by

While viewing pictures of the gulags on gulaghistory.org, I was reminded of the pictures of Auschwicz  I had seen in high school during our holocaust unit. The starvation, disease, and forced labor I read about on the site, as well as in the book A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich seemed reminiscent of the Nazi concentration camps.

These facts made me wonder why in American culture Joseph Stalin’s crimes often seem to be minimized. (Not that I believe Hitler’s crimes are exaggerated at all.)  According to the Jewish Virtual Library, 11 million people were killed in the Holocaust. According to the International Business Times, Stalin’s kill count is estimated to be 20 million. *Both counts vary according to different sources.

I will not try to determine “who is worse.”  I am merely examining why Hitler seems so much more evil to Americans than Stalin does, while, at first glance, they committed similar crimes.

I think the reason America remembers Hitler more than Stalin is because 1) Hitler was concerned with the extermination of certain races 2) Hitler killed using more sadistic methods 3) Stalin’s crimes were internalized to his country and 4) Stalin had been an American ally.

While Hitler was probably “more racist” as his entire philosophy was based around race, Stalin wasn’t exactly Martin Luther King. He sent various nationalities to the gulags because he perceived them as a threat.  These nationalities included Ukrainians, Germans, and yes, Jews.  So Stalin was also anti-Semitic.  Though he was arguably less so than Hitler, (he didn’t want to actually exterminate them), does it really matter who is more or less anti-Semitic?  Both of them killed people simply for being Jewish.  Which we can all agree is incredibly wrong.

Yes, Hitler was definitely more sadistic than Stalin. While Stalin killed people who he felt threatened by, Hitler almost seemed to take joy in the pure act of sadistic killing. My guess is that this is what truly sets the two apart in the minds of most Americans. Stalin joins the ranks of Genghis Khan and the ancient Roman emperors- killing because they believed they had to in order to remain in power. Hitler’s more of a Jeffrey Dahmer figure with unlimited power.

Hitler also attempted to take over Europe: Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, the Netherlands, France and an alliance with Italy, and an attempt on Russia. When he would take over a country, he would send the local Jewish, Romani, handicapped, etc. populations to concentration camps (except in the case of Poland, where he basically sent anyone he could).  Stalin stuck to the Soviet Union. While it was the largest country in the world at the time, it was Stalin’s, so he could more or less do as he pleased.

Finally, during World War II, the United States sided with the Soviet Union, and Stalin. First of all, Soviet troops fought valiantly against Hitler, following the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” rule.  Also, as we did ally ourselves with Stalin, we may have trouble admitting we sided with someone who was basically as evil as the one we were fighting against.

Stalin is perceived as less racist and less sadistic than Hitler. He stuck to his own territory and was even an American ally for a little while. Whether deserved or not, these reasons make Stalin the “lesser of two evils” for many Americans.

 

Bread and Wine and Italy’s Past

Posted on by

Ignazio Silone’s novel Bread and Wine, is an honest work about the totalitarian regime’s in Italy. It follows the character of Pietro Spina, a communist party leader who has returned from hiding to revolutionize the peasant population. In the pages, Silone writes a fascinating story about several different populations in both North and South Italy and how the are reacting to the Fascist regime and living their lives.

A major theme of the Fascist movement is the rebirth of Italy’s greatness. Mussolini desired to bring Italy back to it’s glory days of the Roman empire. The Fascist Manifesto by Mussolini himself states that expansion and war are the most fundamental and important ways to progress. Silone does a great job of portraying this in Bread and Wine. On page 195 in Zabaglione’s speech, he addressed the people: “descendants of eternal Rome…..who carried civilization to the Mediterranean and to Africa.” Here, it is understood the fascism glorifies the past as a means to the future. The people are perhaps mobilized with the promise of greatness. There also seems to be strong themes of nationalism, especially in regards to their imperialist claims.

Why did the Fascists want to return back to the greatness of ancient Rome, instead of forging their own path to greatness?

 

Bread and Wine

Posted on by

Pietro Spina going incognito as a priest named San Paolo is most likely directly reflective of how Ignazio Silone felt as an anti-fascist socialist living in fascist Italy in the 1930s. In order to further his revolutionary socialist agenda, Spina sneaks back into Italy after fifteen years of being in exile, and refuses to return abroad, despite the access of ideological freedom which accompanies him there. An atheist himself, Spina becomes frustrated with the strong catholic sentiments and superstitious thinking which are the roots of the though processes of the peasants which he is trying to influence. During his journey, San Paolo falls madly in love with a girl named Christiana. “Dan Paolo took no notice of what Bianchina was saying because he was enchanted by Christina. A girl like this at Pietrasecca? He could not believe his eyes”. (80) This puts Don Paolo in a pickle, being that he is supposed to be a spiritual leader and Christina is most likely refraining herself from allowing to have feelings for him, although they may be present.

 

A part of the book which I found interesting was when Don Paolo goes to visit his friend Uliva, who’s morale is so low, and is so apathetic, he carelessly spits on the floor of his house as he wastes away. Uliva, a former cell mate and Don Paolo discuss their current thoughts about politics and life. Uliva is more interested in condescendingly criticizing Don Paolo’s optimism about the revolution than anything else, claiming his hopes are out of blind naivety. “I’ve seen you engaged in a kind of chivalrous contest with lie or, if you prefer it, with the creator…it requires a naivete that I lack. (172) I think it shows a lot about Don Paolo’s drive to stay optimistic about what he believes in as a communist trying to help the revolutionary cause, especially when he sees his former friend who used to share the same thoughts in such a state of disrepair.

How did the citizens of Italy view fascism in the 1930’s? Was the majority behind Mussolini? If the publics thoughts on him shifted dramatically, when did it and what was the event or events that caused it?

 

“Bread and Wine” by Ignazio Silone

Posted on by

Bread and Wine is a novel written by Italian author Ignazio Silone in 1935. It primarily deals with the betrayal of the Catholic Church in it’s agreement with Fascism, and the underground communist revolutionary movement in Italy at the time. The first half of the book follows the life of a recently returned socialist opponent of the regime, named Pietro Spina, but disguised as Don Paolo Spada. Spada is a priest and is sent to live in a small rural village, in order to regain his health. While in the village, he faces an internal battle between his adolescent religious feelings which return, and his current socialist revolutionary stance.

An interesting theme that runs throughout the text is the depiction of the Church’s persecution of those holy men who do not follow the party line. These men, most specifically portrayed by Don Benedetto, Spina’s childhood teacher and mentor, are shown to be dishonored by the official church but accepted by the peasants. In the scene where Spada is talking to Don Pasquale Colamartini, richest man in the small village, Colamartini states that Benedetto advised his daughter to not join the church, advice that was contradictory to the local pastor’s. While Colamartini does not wish to force his daughter to choose a path, he implies his agreement with Benedetto, who is not in favor with the Church, when he states that “there is no doubt that there have been very few saints [such as Benedetto] who have not been suspected and persecuted by the Church” (p.99).

This statement raises the interesting question on the beliefs of the Church on a rural level. While the Vatican’s deal with Fascism may have been criticized at the highest level, it is questionable whether rural societies, especially in Southern Italy, had developed to the extent that they would consider questions of faith. Rural societies in Europe have traditionally been depicted to have believe the words of the local pastor to be the truth of the gospel, especially since Catholic mass was usually conducted in Latin, which was not a common language. While this image had drastically changed by the early part of the 20th century, it must be remembered that Southern Italy was, and still is, one of the least developed regions in Western Europe. In conclusion, my query is regarding not only the ability of South Italian peasants ability to question and understand the Church’s compromise, but also their desire to question such a development in relation to their own lives. The latter is especially confusing as it must be acknowledged that Silone himself grew up in rural conditions, but he was also a dedicated communist and might have written with certain biases.

Mussolini’s View on Fascism

Posted on by

Benito Mussolini, the “founder” of the modern fascist idea, gives us in this article “What is Fascism” his definition of this form of government. Mussolini views Fascism in comparison to Marxism as ideologies that are on the complete opposite of the political spectrum. In Mussolini’s view the state holds complete control over the rights and ideas of the individual. In contrast to Marxism, which has the goal of creating a workers paradise, run by the workers. In a Fascist state each individual is considered “relative” to greater need of the state. The idea that man serves the state, not the other way around was vital in Mussolini’s view to the growth of a strong healthy nation.

Mussolini directly contrasts Fascism and the Marxist idea in the article. He feels that his political idea “now and always, believes in holiness and heroism…in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.” This view conflicts with the economic view of history that Marxism relies on to explain conflict through history. Mussolini does not believe in the Marxist idea of class warfare dictating the course of history. To Mussolini the idea of a class system is pointless. Fascism does not take into account the will of the majority. Mussolini’s ideal Fascist state is one where a hierarchical society exists. He postulates that in this world there is a “fruitful inequality of mankind.” He believes that fascism with its innate hierarchical form is the only way to properly direct civilization.

Although Mussolini’s idea of a hierarchical society is somewhat drastic, is it really that much different then the “democracies” that existed in the inter war period?

Fascism by Benito Mussolini

Posted on by

Frequently and unfittingly placed side by side with communism, Mussolini’s fascism is characteristically both opposed to pacifism and communism. Rather than taking large strides to aim for a classless utopia, Mussolini’s fascism embraces and war, life’s everyday struggles, and rejects the notion that class conflicts are a dominant force in the metamorphosis of society, which is consistent with his notion that political equality is a myth. Judging from this document, Mussolini would argue that you need war and adversity to produce the worlds great men. Mussolini believes that fascism has already been the ideology of his era, given his observations on the human sacrifice people put forth for the state.

Mussolini’s anthropomorphizes the state–describing it with human characteristic such as a conscience, will, and personality. “…The Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the “ethic” State….”. I believe the term “ethic” here is referring to the efforts of the individual for the state, and the sacrifices one must make and willpower one must have to persevere through life’s adversities to become greater.

How do fascism, naziism, socialism, and liberalism compare and contrast to one another? What events in Mussolini’s life, or the history of Italy, combined to form this political concept?