Those communists in Voronezh really, really like Stalin. Last month, the Voronezh KPRF put up billboards of Stalin to promote the dictator’s great achievements. The local government demanded that the billboards be removed citing laws on advertising.
But the KPRF is undeterred. Spurred on by the OSCE’s recent resolution equating Stalin with Hitler and the local ban of their Stalin billboards, the regional KPRF office has decided to create pocket Stalin calendars to protest “against the discrimination of their party.” So far 20,000 copies have been printed with plans to produce a total run of 100,000. The calendars won’t be sold, only distributed through Party cells. However, local KPRFers don’t discount a few ending up in local kiosks.
The protest against Stalin haters worldwide doesn’t stop with pocket calendars. In the coming months, Voronezh communists plan on staging an motorcade rally to support the vozhd‘s positive image. As for any possible repercussions, Andrei Poerantsev, a KPRF representative in the Voronezh city council, seems unconcerned. “It’s possible that the protest will alienate some voters who have been convinced by TV propaganda and think Iosif Stalin as first and foremost as an initiator of repression,” he told Kommersant. “But we remember him first and foremost as a powerful leader who has no rival in modern Russian history.”
The calendar’s contents will repeat the general look of the billboards. Inside, the calendar will honor only one holiday: December 21, “the birthday of the People’s Father” with the date embossed in a red star. As Komsomolskaya pravda notes, “Apparently, holidays like New Year’s Day, March 8 (International Women’s Day), and even May 9 (Victory Day) don’t have any real meaning to the calendars authors . . .”
Nope. It’s Comrade Stalin unfettered and undisturbed. Day after glorious day.
Photos: KP and Rossiia Voronezh.
As a Russian proverb sais, everybody is free to become mad in one’s own way.
I believe, it’s good that Communists have a right to express their viewpoint, even if it contradicts the modern paradigma.
Unfortunately, it’s not just Voronezh communists who are crazy about Stalin. This is a bookshelf in one of numerous book stores in Moscow, I took the photo today: http://twitpic.com/bohrp
The books’ names are (left to right): “Why Did They Kill Stalin? Crime of the Century,” “Stand Up! Stalin Is Coming!,” “Stalin Against the Great Depression,” “Stalin Judged by Pigmies,” “Name of Russia: Stalin,” “Hysterical Protesters of Holodomor,” “«Stalin’s Repression.» The Great Lie of 20th Century,” “Beria. The Best Manager of 20th Century.”
You can find such books in almost every book shop, so they are in demand, I suppose.
Oleg Kozlovsky:
Recently in a major bookshop in Moscow, when I asked a shop assistant to advise me any decent book of the modern Russian mainstream, she pointed me on Prilepin’s “Sankya”, a novel about youths from the radical opposition.
She told me, that book is in demand.
Oleg Kozlovsky:
The other day, I bought in that major bookshop a good Russian history course. But I _did not_ see there a book “Why did they kill Stalin?”
Evgeny, I’m not saying that these are the only history/politics books on the shelves. But the very fact that there are plenty of such books (BTW, they are published by one of the Russia’s biggest publisher Eksmo) means that stalinophelia is a widespread disease. Actually, it may be harder to find an honest book about him than this rubbish.
Oleg, that is usually the case for most history books regardless of their level of controversy. The picture you took is part of the history pulp industry popular among people who like history but can’t stomach the dryness of academic prose and research or are apt to slurp up all kinds of historical mythology.
It’s no surprise to me that there is a genre of stalinophelia (I like that word!) on most bookstore shelves. In the 1990s, the exact opposite was in vogue. And I’m sure the reason why Eksmo publishes this stuff is because there’s money in it. Here in America, the popular historical pulp on Russia tend to be the opposite, call it, if you will, stalino-necrophilia.
And this is the problem as I see it with Stalin. He is either total evil or total good. Everything from the period is reduced to one man which works quite for each side. The Stalin lovers don’t have to deal with the horrors of the past, and the Stalin haters don’t have to ask how all of Russian society was implicated in Stalinism. Most people would rather think about the past in standard tropes of good and evil, victims and perpetrators, and heroes and villains. Even Spider-man comics are more nuanced that most books on Stalin.
It’s a sad state, which unfortunately no amount of serious historical studies will ever reverse or even soften. And believe me, I’ve tried. No matter how many times I try to get students to think about the complexities of Stalin and Stalinism, they still hold on to their mythologies. I’ve found that thinking beyond unequivocal absolutes just makes many people uncomfortable.
What Oleg is talking about is so-called “patriotic literature”. There’s usually a bookshelf or two devoted to it in Russian bookshops.
Though their level of historical objectivity is usually very low, they are a useful antidote to the propaganda of the other extreme, the liberasts.
It will after a few centuries, no doubt.
Sean, I suppose trying to make younger people understand that they all have the potential for great good or evil, and that achieving great evil is much, much easier, is hard for them to understand. Kids just don’t realize how easy it is to be evil. All you have to do is be a bit tribalistic and conformist, be willing to subscribe to the cult of personality, and then all you need is a megalomaniac to come along, and presto, instant brownshirt. Anybody who says it can’t happen to them is in denial. This is why one should be weary of voting for someone they admire. It is sometimes easy to believe that some politician is making a sacrifice by being in government, and is only there because they want to do good. However, I don’t know that it is possible to devote your life to the acquisition of power and fame and still be a good person, all done and said. I mean that takes a certain amount of narcissism to want fame and certain amount of authoritarian tendencies to want power.
I suppose what I said is all very convoluted or sophomoric. I expect Dr. Doom will be by shortly to make a snarky comment on my behalf. I shall be disappointed if he doesn’t.
Actually, Doom (thank you for remembering the title) largely agrees with Jason on this issue.
However, Doom disagrees with his rival Oblivion that any amount of time will rectify the historical picture of the Stalin period. It has been almost 2000 years, and people still think Suetonius’ depiction of the Caesars is accurate.
Doom is of the opinion that the problem with the professional anti-Stalinists (or stalinoedy, as the admittedly not unbiased Kaganovich called them) is not that they don’t want to “have to ask how all of Russian society was implicated in Stalinism,” as Sean puts it. Doom’s experience is that many (not all) of them have no problem with that, because they come from a highly elitist background (ex-wannabe nomenklatura) that thinks the masses are all pigs anyway.
Their problem is that they do not want to acknowledge that the stalinophiles are to some extent right. Beria was a good manager. Stalin did, in fact, greatly strengthen the economy and USSR in general. Most people did, in fact, experience Stalin’s leadership as positive at the time. It’s this that they can’t stand.
It’s really quite funny, because the popular Western biographies of Stalin that Doom has read (Service, Montefiore) have no problem with this.
Doom would also like to point out that the stalinophiles (I have Emelyanov’s book, both volumes) do not deny the facts of the repressions, etc.
They just don’t like the spin.
Jason, I pretty much agree with your comment. And I also think that it’s a must for everyone to be skeptical about the person one votes for. My feeling, though, is that most voters are indeed a rather skeptical bunch (at least that seems to be the case in western democracies.) I mean, many voters can be caught up in the enthusiasm of a particular race (just like many of us get caught up by the World Cup or the World Series), but, even so, in terms of percentages those who are blind followers that go gaga over a candidate are relatively few.