Most Absurd Statement Ever Made?
By Robert Higgs • Saturday December 27, 2008 11:55 AM PDT • 19 Comments
In the spirit of Christmas, I have been striving to regain my faith in humanity. I want to believe again, as I did in my childhood, that people are better than cockroaches or staphylococci. For a while I was making progress. On Sunday, I enjoyed a magnificent performance of Handel’s Messiah at Carnegie Hall (featuring my stepdaughter Virginia Warnken as the mezzo-soprano soloist). That helped. But, for the most part, my quest has proved to be tough sledding.
Today, my charitable yearning has been crushed like a bug under a jackboot, and I am once again inclined to view the human race as, by and large, an evolutionary blunder. As Exhibit A, I offer the statement of Sergei Malinkovich, leader of the St. Petersburg Communist Party:
In all opinion polls [Stalin] comes out on top as the most popular figure. Nobody else comes close. So for his service to this country we can forgive his mistakes. [emphasis mine]
Strange to say, Comrade Malinkovich also carries an icon of Stalin and wants to see Russia’s most monstrous mass-murderer made a saint.
If Malinkovich were a lone nut, one might dismiss his views as a deeply regrettable aberration, but according to recent reports, including the BBC News article from which I extracted his statement, millions of Russians still venerate Stalin and consider him the greatest Russian of all time.
I am no Russophobe. Indeed, I hold certain Russians in the highest regard. The country has produced composers, writers, mathematicians, scientists, and performing artists of the highest caliber, and their works adorn civilization wherever it dares to show its head. So, one can only wonder that having Mendeleev, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, Kolmogorov, and Shostakovich, among many others, to choose from, millions of Russians identify Stalin as the greatest man their nation has produced.
As against people who hold such views, I will embrace the cockroaches with relative gladness.
We are a gullible species, that is for sure. Here in the U.S., we certainly glorify some questionable figures, as Dr. Higgs has well documented. I am told that many in China hold Mao in high regard as well. Perhaps it is only those tyrants who have lost major wars who are in the end discredited as they should be.
D. Saul Weiner | Dec 27, 2008 | Reply
The other day I was reading about the Depression Era Supreme court case involving the Schechter Brothers and their persecution by the NRA. The case brought the NRA to a close as it was found to be unconsitutional. The interesting part though was that the brothers voted for FDR in all four elections. All through those years they were voting for and supporting their own persecutors. Enough said.
RickC | Dec 28, 2008 | Reply
The list does not stop there. As long as collectvism which is the negation of individual rights remains the most shared human trait, its corolaries are going to do some devastating damages.Could you believe that Jean Bertrand Aristide the former dictator of Haiti known for his human rights violations because of his mesianic appeal is still revered by some despite his pathological tendencies.Human stupidity does not have any limit. Only reason can tame “mesianisme” a by-product of collectivism. The worst is yet to come.
Mike gerard | Dec 29, 2008 | Reply
Stalin was not Russian, nor was he produced by Russia. He was a Georgian, who was produced by the Soviet Union.
Mykola Kozak | Dec 30, 2008 | Reply
Yes, Stalin was born in Georgia and lived there as a child and during much of his early adult life. But Georgia was at that time part of the Russian Empire, and later part of the USSR. For the greater part of his life, Stalin lived in Russia, among Russians, for the most part. In the poll that I linked in my post, the Russian respondents treat Stalin as a Russian.
National identity is a tricky matter. More is at stake than one’s birthplace. When one’s birthplace lies within an imperial territory, the matter is confused further. If the Georgians want to claim Stalin as one of their own, I can only shake my head in sad wonder, as indeed I do when consider the views of many Russians as indicated in my post.
Robert Higgs | Dec 30, 2008 | Reply
That seems strange to me as a Russian, especially because Russia produced the people of great talent you mention. But I understand the rationale behind such a choice. The USSR was based on principles of social fairness, and older Russians remember that well. The mass murders and, say, the ineffective economy were not inherent traits of socialism, but the consequence of Stalin’s maniacal power obsession. Had the USSR better leaders, it would be very different. But the preceding history of Russian people, i.e. the tsarism and the late abolishment of slavery in 19th century, determined the failure of USSR and many of the modern problems in Russia. So, when people vote for Stalin, I believe what they have in mind is the social fairness and stability.
Now I think that may sound as another nonsense for most Westerners – social fairness? in USSR? The truth is that if you know about USSR from your mass media in broad sense, including the Hollywood and statements of your politicians (that you get via the mass media channels), then your image of Russia is too far from truth. That image is created deliberately by your authorities. They use, for example, the doctrine of free markets to support economic slavery in the world and inside the US, and they use democracy to wage wars and mass-kill millions around the world. This is analogous to what Stalin did. If one day the US collapses, as the USSR did, Americans would praise their leaders from the older days, although they would be the culprit of such a hypothetical collapse.
Ruslan | Jan 1, 2009 | Reply
Poor “Ruslan” is obviously psychotic. He actually seems to believe his claim that the USSR was “based on principles of social fairness.” Yes, if only we’d had better leaders in the USSR, like Mao or Kim Il-Jong or Castro or Ulbricht or Ceaucescu or (insert name of African socialist leader).
CJF | Jan 5, 2009 | Reply
“As long as collectvism which is the negation of individual rights remains the most shared human trait, its corolaries are going to do some devastating damages.” Well said. I prefer my individual rights and all that come with them. After all I am a individual, there is no such thing as collective rights, just lack of indivudual rights. It always leads down the same “road to serfdom”. As we begin down that yellow brick road in search of OZ.
RateroReporter | Jan 5, 2009 | Reply
How we love to love someone, even the absurd!
The ‘world’ always wants someone to adore. We will always re-write history to suit ourselves.
African socialist Desmond Tutu’s character was exposed live on South African TV. I watched it.
During a studio interview, the then Archbishop of CapeTown was asked what he thought of ‘necklacing’. His response was …… “If the end justifies the means”. He stunned the interviewer, he stunned me and he stunned the viewing public.
NECKLACING: The method of the African National Congress (ANC) to intimidate black Africans to vote for Nelson Mandela in the elections that were proposed.
Method: A black person who had voiced opposition to Nelson Mandela or the ANC had his hands tied behind his back and a car tyre placed round his neck (like a necklace). Petrol was put into the tyre and lit. The sufferer was prodded to stay on his feet until he succumbed to the flames up his nostrils and into his lungs. The local black community was forced to watch one of their own die.
Some men see Desmond as a gift to humanity. I’ll embrace cockroaches instead.
Tom Coates | Jan 6, 2009 | Reply
CJF, I get it you don’t have any facts to object me. I don’t “believe”, I lived in USSR. I was too young at that time, but I started to understand things better as I grew older, got my own family, had business in the West for a few years, and last few years have worked in two top Western investment banks (not those that have just collapsed). I don’t want to prove or explain anything to someone brain-washed, but just in case someone really wants to understand the subject better...
I repeat, USSR was based on fairer principles than the West. It had a doctrine of social fairness, that didn’t work. The Western doctrine is based on self-interest and “invisible market hand”, which obviously works very well; many Soviets, like me, were charmed by this doctrine. But we never could fully accept it, as in the core it’s based on selfishness and egoism. We don’t believe that works in the long run.
USA now reminds me USSR in its last years. Our authorities betrayed the principles of freedom which made our state strong. They believed USSR was too strong to fail. They kept lying to people. The economics was weak. But our perception was too distorted to realize the problems. That’s how we got to the outcome.
Ruslan | Jan 6, 2009 | Reply
RateroReporter – collective rights? That’s invented by your mass media, I never heard of such a thing. There was “collective ownership”. This is when your factory belongs to the workers. Not to the capitalist, who does nothing, gets most of the income, and is bailed out at everybody’s expense if anything bad happens :) The collective ownership didn’t work though, as it didn’t create incentives. But this was a technical problem, rather than conceptual. Had the leadership addressed it, it could have been solved. But we were not given a chance: two world wars, the Cold War, maniacal or just stupid leaders, purges of intelligent people.
Ruslan | Jan 6, 2009 | Reply
As long as we humans continue to look out side our selves for hope,
peace and meaning, we will continue to idealize those leaders
who we believe can give us those things we are desperately needing in
our lives,while over looking their character.
wjw | Jan 6, 2009 | Reply
History is fullof “leaders” or tyrants about whos’ tenure could be said ” If only they had better ideas”. Unfortunately the primary method of “controlling people is to murder the dissenters.
Recognize that the “tyrant” as a person did little or none of those evil deeds. It took thousands or millions of “followers ” who had something to gain for themselves by supporting the ” leader” in mass.
What might China, Russia, Germany, Spain, United States, etc. have achieved if they had gone in a less destructive way. What might our world achievements and advancements have taken us.
R Fisher | Jan 6, 2009 | Reply
For another informative report on the Russian government’s efforts — some of them, not surprisingly, quite heavy-handed — to rehabilitate Stalin, see this recent article in the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-russia-stalin_rodriguezdec17,0,2772612.story
HT: Elizabeth Higgs
Robert Higgs | Jan 6, 2009 | Reply
FWIW, much of the generation in China that praises Mao is now dying out, and being replaced by the younger generation that sees Mao’s so-called great reforms as great mistakes.
alzurzin | Jan 20, 2009 | Reply
Mr Higgs, although distorting history is terrible, you should take into account that NGOs in Russia like the one mentioned in the report have sometimes / often been a hostile instrument of foreign / US intelligence services. (Would I surprise anybody by saying that?) The way the Russian authorities are dealing with them reflects the compromise between knowing the historical truth and pragmatic considerations / social security. Not that hiding truth would improve the latter; but such NGOs may have little to do with unbiased historical research.
A prominent illustration of the bias of such “researchers” is honoring this “journalist” http://newsblaze.com/story/20081211052031tsop.nb/topstory.html. Any sensible man who heard her radio shows and understands what she is talking about will tell you she’s not only extremely biased, but utterly stupid. This honoring is clearly the payment for her anti-Russian activity. Fortunately for the US taxpayers, she’s selling herself quite cheap, it seems.
Not that I am a fan of the Russian authorities; I suffered enough from their impotence and corruption.
Ruslan | Feb 22, 2009 | Reply
A stressed population will always seek leaders to make them feel safe—even at the cost of liberty or “good sense”. People say the U.S. is headed this way, but slowly.
Still it will be quite some time before they are flying the U.S.S.R. Flag over the White House.
Johnny | Oct 26, 2010 | Reply
“The collective ownership didn’t work though, as it didn’t create incentives. But this was a technical problem, rather than conceptual. Had the leadership addressed it, it could have been solved.”
No, it cant be solved, without private property of the means of production no rational economic calculation can be achieved.
You need to read Ludwig von Mises.
Felipe | Feb 22, 2011 | Reply
“The collective ownership didn’t work though, as it didn’t create incentives. But this was a technical problem, rather than conceptual.”
Without private property of the means of production no economic calculation can be achieved.
Felipe | Feb 22, 2011 | Reply