Lenin and Stalin. His posture was notnunlike that of John Foster Dulles, whonused to boast of keeping a copy ofnStalin’s Problems of Leninism on hisndesk, as though that were a key to whatnwas happening in Moscow. I mustnconfess that I have never read Problemsnof Leninism and never expectnto.nIf Salisbury had bothered to readPra&lemsnof Leninism, he would have foundnthat it contains 28 articles and speechesnwritten and delivered by Stalin betweenn1924 and 1939. Some of these materialsnare absolutely essential as a “key to whatnwas happening in Moscow.” For example,nStalin reported to the Seventeenth PartynCongress that during the agriculturaln”reorganization” period between 1929nand 1933 (i.e., the collectivization warnagainst the peasantry), the number ofnhorses declined from 34.0 million ton16.6 million head, “large catde” fromn68.1 million to 38.6 million, sheep andngoats from 147.2 million to 50.6 million,nand pigs from 20.9 million to 12.2 million.nAnyone reading those figures, and realizingnthat the cause of the decline wasnwholesale livestock slaughter by desperatenpeasants (“intense kulak agitationnfor the slaughter of livestock”), couldnnot possibly have detiied the existencenof the femine that swept the Soviet Unionnin the early 1930’s (as Salisbury’s predecessor,nDuranty, and other foreign observersndid). Many of the materials innProblems of Leninism were not just an”key” to what was happening in Moscow,nbut were important events in thefr ownnright. In his December 1929 speechn”Concerning Questions of Agrarian Policynin the U.S.S.R.,” for example, Stalin announced:n”We have passed from the policynof restricting the exploiting tendenciesnof the kulaks to the policy oi eliminatingnthe kulaks as a class.” GeUer andnNekrich, in their history of the SovietnUnion, describe the cataclysmic humannconsequences as follows:nThe following sixty-five days shooknthe country to a fer greater degreenthan the ten days in October, 1917nwhich ‘shook the world’ In nine weeksnthe foundations of existence for morenthan 130 million Soviet peasants werendevastated, the character of the state’sneconomy was altered—utterly demolished—^andnthe character of thenstate itself was changed (M. GeUer &nA. Nekrich, Utopia u Vlasti [Utopianin Power], London: 1982, Vol I, p.n247)nProblems of Leninism not only reeksnwith the ghasdy qualities of Stalinism (anPntfunditiesnThe opinion Ihal Norman Mailer h;Lsnmade il In irlui- ol’liis o\ n luihris (I’huizpah?)nwould Mvni a iiiii-slionable assertionnlo tho-si- who have not been nourisliednon the New ^’ork .schlock th.it isnpri-si-ntiil to the rest ol’.Xmeiica as “iileraturi'”nanil “criticism.” n inspiring examplenof how that sstem works wa.s pro-nidil rtventh tI’tinuh: an org;in ol’ivipnliberalism lor llu- lowbnm. In thai leature.ncotKi-iveil as an inler iew( sort ol>).n.Ir. .Mailer matches his giant intellectnagainst that of Clint Eastwood, a lankynHollywood archetype of the posi-CarynCooper .merican:nr LiBLRAl. Cl’l.TI’Ri:nn.M.MI.I’IK: Ihtvs l/.ici/iwslinn “/ mimil re-n.i»isihilily irdtih mi ynii.-‘n|-..Nl\()t)l):llDirdiipiii nicimrn.1.ll.i:i<: lV)/( (•(//( htirv iiraiimciilsniihclhcr Hilly lliirry rc/hrms mmvniiiiiiiiitils Ihiin Ix’slimiiliiU’s.nJ:.S|VI()()I): / m-ivr fivl iiiiy iiiimi/nImihlriiit irilh Ihcsv /liilnivs. I I’ellnIIK-Y re I’iinlii.w-n.M.|].i:i{-. ijiiin- nil. In siiilikii lm|i;iiinI W; llu.slinuul’s liilvsl iiiiiiic. Ilinvniiii’ii iiivs/iiil ill l/irj^itiiii hy n iiiniuiii.ntl’s/iiissibic Hull .•Hiiiif iiuiii or iiiiinniinmil Iliac irhii iivicr tlimi^hl if ihiiiijinHull iH’I’mv. nitiy iimi:nIn a noveli.stic pa.stiche from the earlyniy”()’s, .Norman Mailer is assassinated byna giiiishot in the rectum. An image of beingndoiii’ in in such an iinsaory way appearsnlo be haunting him even alter allnthese ear.s. That obsession seems to ob-n.scure the above is.sue. on which both ilis-nnncharacteristic also of History of thenC.P.S.U. (B) Short Course), but also embodiesnthe abiding characteristics ofnBolshevik rhetoric. A loyal Soviet citizenneven today, if reproached about the lacknof opposition political parties in thenU.S.S.R, would undoubtedly say the samenthing that Stalin did in his speech “Onnthe Draft Constitution”:nAs to freedom for various political parties,nwe adhere to somewhat differentnciissants.spout trivia. Portrayingviolenienin the arts can be prai.seil as condi-mnation.ncondemned as stimulation, and disnnii.ssed as “tiintasy.” I low ever. lli< i.se identiiicationsnof the problem are trite. Whatnabout the eonnection between moralitynand a sense orshocki” Vi hi-ri- is the pointnat which naturalism in the arts makes thenworsl cniellv commonplace, omnipri-smtnin culture, wearing down the very notionnr)f thrill anil reducing it as a com|Toneiit ofn.social i-thics? Where iloes crime connectnwith the buildup of human senslliviliesn—the gi.st of civili/Jtion? Smieliow. .Messrs.nMailer aiid l’!a.stvvooil have remarkably littlento sav on that subject. ini21nFebruary 1984n
Leave a Reply