Nationalism in Soviet Russia Repeated in the 21st Century: Learning From History
What we can learn from Russia’s history might stave off nationalistic mistakes in the future
‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’
This famous quote from George Santayana has seen many forms throughout the years, but the fundamental truth is the same: If we don’t look back at history and learn from the mistakes made therein, we are doomed to repeat those same mistakes ourselves. Humanity has repeatedly found itself repeating history’s mistakes and, given events over the recent few years, it would seem we are once again on the verge of falling victim to this dictum.
The rise of nationalism and populism has spread around the world over the last decade, appearing at first to be a malignant minority, before eventually transforming into, or revealing itself as, a rising tide of anger and hatred. We need not only look at the recent election of Donald Trump as US President, Britain’s exit from the European Union, Australia’s recent elections, and the rise of Marine Le Pen, leader of the French political party National Front. You can also add China, Turkey, and of course, Russia, to the list of countries swinging to nationalistic policies and thinking.
The proliferation (or unearthing) of nationalism has surprised many, even though the evidence has been lying there, beneath the surface, for some time. Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign is a perfect example of the current trend of ‘my country first’- and ‘me first’-politics that has swept the world. Much of the world’s legitimate media missed the signs that Donald Trump and his team apparently picked up on — that people are angry with globalisation policies. The United Kingdom embraced this sort of thinking and voted in its referendum to leave the European Union, despite warnings from experts in numerous fields warning of the potential danger to the economy. The response of the populous?
“I’m glad these organisations aren’t on my side,” said Michael Gove. “I think people in this country have had enough of experts.”
The US election, which many thought would simply be handed to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, was won not by clear and concise policy promises, but by rhetoric pandering to the fears and concerns of those who are sick and tired of immigration, globalisation, and “the elite”. The 2017 French Presidential election will similarly see such rhetoric front and centre, as Marine Le Pen is likely to be one of the two running for the Presidency. Le Pen has praised Donald Trump’s victory, stating she was “very happy” with the result.
“I think that the elites have lived too long among themselves. We are in a world where globalization, which is an ideology, has forgotten, and put aside the people, the people’s interests, aspirations, and dreams,” she said.
“They have acted like carnivores, who used the world to enrich only themselves, and whether it’s the election of Donald Trump, or Brexit, the elites have realized that the people have stopped listening to them, that the people want to determine their futures and in a perfectly democratic framework, regain control of their destiny.”
The rising tide of nationalism and populism is threatening decades of globalisation and liberalism which became so important as we exited World War II, itself the catastrophic climax of several decades of totalitarian nationalism. Germany was under the thrall of this ‘ethnic nationalism’ during the lead up to and the duration of WWII, which saw the prominence of the Arian-race and culmination of centuries’ worth of anti-Semitism. “From the dying days of the second world war onwards, Western policy was dedicated to making sure that the problems that had produced authoritarianism, both left and right, could not occur again.”[1] But Trump is no Hitler, not yet, nor is Putin, Farage, or Le Pen. Rather, we should look further north for a frightening comparison with the events taking the world by storm at the moment — at Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, and those who would follow in his footsteps, such as Leonid Brezhnev.
A Second Stalin
It is all too easy these days for someone to decry someone they don’t like as “the next Hitler!” Mike Godwin coined a phrase from this behaviour, Godwin’s law, that states “as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches.” However, we don’t appear to have reached that point with Donald Trump. Rather, if we look more closely at one of Hitler’s contemporaries, Joseph Stalin, we might understand a bit more about Donald Trump.
Let me clarify, however, that we should not expect Donald Trump to begin “draining the swamp” by rounding up his political opponents and executing them against the Lincoln Memorial. We legitimately live in a different time and place, and the old horrors have been replaced by more humane evils such as deportation and immigration camps, politicised racism and religious profiling.
Nevertheless, Donald Trump has evidenced many of the same traits and biases that Joseph Stalin wielded when in power, combined with the moustache-twirling cult-of-personality that came with it. In his book, The Invention of Russia, Russian-born British journalist Arkady Ostrovsky writes about “the dangers of Russia’s own home-grown fascism emerging from the alliance between nationalists and Stalinists.”[2] The totalitarian rule Stalin created for himself over Russia was solidly based in his belief that giving any leeway or sign of hope to the populace would undermine his grip on power. Ostrovsky continues:
“Stalin, who had swapped the ideas of internationalism, proclaimed by the Bolsheviks, for the resurrection of the empire, exploited nationalism and the Orthodox Church during the Second World War, invoking the spirit of its warrior saints…”
Stalin himself, at a Kremlin victory party held for the nation’s generals in 1945, raised a toast to the Russians (as distinct from the other nations and ethnicities that made up the Soviet Union), saying:
“I should like to propose a toast to the health of our Soviet people, and in the first place, the Russian people. I drink in the first place to the health of the Russian people because it is the most outstanding nation of all the nations forming the Soviet Union. I propose a toast to the health of the Russian people because it has won in this war universal recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the peoples of our country. I propose a toast to the health of the Russian people not only because it is the leading people, but also because it possesses a clear mind, a staunch character, and patience.”
It was not long after this speech, says Ostrovsky, that “Stalin launched his campaign against all things foreign and against ‘rootless Cosmopolitans’’ — one of Stalin’s euphemisms for Jews. In Vasily Grossman’s Life and Fate, a German SS officer is speaking to an Old Bolshevik:
“When we look one another in the face, we’re neither of us just looking at a face we hate — no, we are gazing into a mirror. That’s the tragedy of our age … Today you’re appalled by our hatred of the Jews. Tomorrow you may make use of our experience yourselves … You know, as well as we do, that nationalism is the greatest force of our century. Nationalism is the soul of the epoch. Nationalism is the soul of the era.”[3]
Life and Fate is renowned for drawing parallels between Stalin and fascism, and what better way to encourage nationalism amongst your people than by creating an enemy from within. As Ostrovsky explains:
“Anti-Semitism, which was rife among the White Army emigrants, was reimported into the Soviet Union from Germany after the Second World War and served as a common ground between Stalinists and nationalists: both saw Jews as agents of Western influence and enemies of the traditional Russian faith and the Russian state.”[4]
Distressingly, this rings all too true of the current fear of Muslims. From Australia’s decade-long mission to “stop the boats” to Europe’s reactionary fear of refugees out of Syria, to the bigoted rhetoric of the United States Republican Party, and Donald Trump in particular, throughout the election campaign. Society has its new “Jews” — a new race of people it can hate because they threaten their traditional religion, or traditional race, or traditional ways of life.
Russia Under Leonid Brezhnev
After the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, the Soviet communist leaders scrambled to take power. He was eventually succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev, who attempted to initiate a series of reforms while publicly rolling-back the days of Stalin by claiming Stalinism was a perversion of true communism, Leninism. Khrushchev’s days were numbered, and he fell to a coup — though thankfully, due to his own reforms, the coup wasn’t as life-threatening as it may have been a decade earlier. Into his shoes stepped Leonid Brezhnev, a “grey and dull” leader who would see his reign over the Soviet Union last for 18 years[5]. Arkady Ostrovsky says that Brezhnev “did not seem like a master of evil”, and that the man had come through the war “as a political commissar. He was no reformer, but nor was he a bloodthirsty Stalinist or nationalist like [Alexander Shelepin].” Nevertheless, Brezhnev’s tenure led to two decades of stagnation for the Soviet Union. “Brezhnev set about undoing Khrushchev’s reforms, returning the country to the wary conservatism of the past and setting in train a process of decay that would eventually bring the Soviet Union to its knees.”[6] “A man of little education, he was generally good-natured and not afraid to admit his own ignorance”[7].
Leonid Brezhnev and Donald Trump are not all that alike — in fact, I stand by my opinion that Donald Trump evidences the traits that made Joseph Stalin so powerful and dangerous. Similarly the UK’s Independence Party (UKIP) under the leadership of Nigel Farage, Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan all bear some of the trademarks of Stalin. Unlike Brezhnev, both Stalin and Trump (and Trump’s contemporaries) were staunch nationalists — or at least pretended to be to ensure they gained and retained power. They used whatever means to rile up nationalist tensions to increase their power, at the expense of many along the way. As an idea of what we can expect to see over the next four years of Donald Trump’s first (and only?) term as President, and the potential future policies of the other countries treading down the nationalist pathway, I think it quite legitimate to look at the policies and machinations of Joseph Stalin.
However, Leonid Brezhnev represents two aspects of today’s politics that bear attention — the current apathy to nationalistic tendencies amongst the greater populace, and the potential future apathy of the world’s politicians. Brezhnev was renowned for ushering in and fostering two decades of stagnation in his country, turning the clock back to Stalinist principles and politics — though with a much smaller body-count. He believed in Stalin’s leadership, and in much of what he set out to achieve. He saw the country as benefiting from the overbearing and unrealistic expectations of Stalin’s version of communism, and ensured that they were re-introduced, damn the consequences. The period before which the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia was seen as something that must be avoided again at all costs:
“The 40 years before the Russian revolution were years of liberal triumphalism. Free trade (led by the British) brought the world together. Liberal democracy triumphed in Britain and America and looked like the coming thing elsewhere.”[8]
For those in power in the Soviet Union, crushing any liberal policies, cultural freedom, or democratic and capitalistic policies was the order of the day. What resulted was an economical and cultural wasteland which required many years of difficult living to escape. The end of communism didn’t bring it, for there had been too many years of poor economic policy for there to be anything left of the country on the other side. Harsh measures were required for the country to begin clawing its way out of deprivation. A belief in Stalin’s legacy cost the Russian people, and their satellite states and various people groups, decades of prosperity.
The World Under Nationalism
What then, does the United States have to look forward to? How closely will Donald Trump’s Presidency align with the leadership of Joseph Stalin — and how will the growth of nationalism in Great Britain, Turkey, and elsewhere, begin to repeat the errors of Russia in the 20th Century? How many people will suffer — economically, culturally, religiously, racially? Have the decades of globalisation run their course?
Further, what will the repercussions be for the world beyond Donald Trump’s Presidency, Brexit, and global nationalism? Will nationalism continue as the new dominant force once Donald Trump’s Presidency has folded, Brexit mania has cooled, and the global fears of Islam recede?
The parallels between Joseph Stalin and today’s leaders are worryingly similar to my eyes, as is the growing “cult of personality” around many of these leaders, which sweeps away many people’s rational better-angels. Base instincts have become the new political tool, and people like Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, and Marine Le Pen are using this new (or old?) political tool with uncanny precision. The implications are too great to dismiss these concerns, but as with Russia throughout its time as the Soviet Union, the damage might already be done.
[1] Bolshiness is back, Adrian Wooldridge, accessed 30/11/2016
[2] The Invention of Russia, Arkady Ostrovsky, p. 46
[3] Life and Fate, Vasily Grossman, p. 379
[4] The Invention of Russia, Arkady Ostrovsky, p. 46
[5] Russia: A 1,000-year Chronicle of the Wild East, Martin Sixsmith, p. 429
[6] ibid, p. 429–30
[7] The Invention of Russia, p. 34–5
[8] Bolshiness is back, Adrian Wooldridge
