Is History Repeating Itself?

 Over the past few weeks I have been reading a very interesting (and very long ) book on Josef Stalin - The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore.  It describes in detail the rise of Josef Stalin and how he came to be among one of the worst dictators in modern history.   And yet it all began, supposedly, with seemingly good intentions.  

Via letters, national archival documents, autobiographies and personal accounts of friends and family we learn at close quarters how this fascist regime led by a - a charming monster - who came to prominence on the world stage, supported by a group of like minded brutal individuals.

I found the book interesting because it attempted to chart the rise of a man who became a dictator through ambition, determination and a feel for the game of domination, particularly of those who would not bend to his will.  These he simply disposed of.  It is the horrendous treatment to the point of banality of their detractors/rivals/perceived enemies which  is a bedrock of autocratic individuals whose ego/id/I of self interest has no off switch, no tolerance of their will being thwarted, and no sense or feel for others, which astounds.  Even more amazing is how many such individuals exist to mutually support each other to make it work,  and even more so, how a population of a country can be persuaded that such an enterprise is 'a good thing'.   

The book also reveals how a dictatorship evolves - sometimes from a plausible idea, even an acceptable  cause.  We can see from Stalin's unfolding life story and personality how his philosophy, nurtured by those around  him - either too loyal or too afraid to object - gained traction in a wider society which was under stress and keen for change.

The long and painstaking preparations and strategies of Stalin and his close associates created an environment where a new system would thrive; where the incredible would become believable and then doable; where truth became transmogrified into lies; where the checks and balances to keep society on track were either removed or subverted and bent to evil ends.  Whatever it took was done.  Ethics and morality became either subverted or surplus to requirements. 

All this was made possible, when a small group of people began to live and work together in close proximity, creating a tight friendship group which became a  bubble, where group think became the norm,  Whatever the leader decided went, and this was rarely questioned  or scrutinised unless it directly impacted on the enterprise.

The group came to establish itself as a hierarchy, granting itself powers and privileges, which served to strengthen their position.  This hierarchy became exclusive gatekeepers, with little happening without their say so.  Loyalty was rewarded in cash or kind, the latter usually by promotion up the political ladder.

And so, simply put, the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia, was borne out of a particular type of culture and mindset.  It was initially branded as socialism.  Socialism was intended to make society more inclusive and more equal - would the downtrodden argue against this - even when it was rebranded as communism to eventually become fascism after another less than quantum shift?  It is said that  absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Although this is not always true  Stalinism as it came to be known, provided the right socio-economic climate where this could occur, and did. 

Part of this process of change was fuelled by Stalin's delight in writing plays/scripts which would be 'acted'  out by members of his government, making his ideologies a reality.  Each significant player was given a specific and scripted part to play, from which they were tasked not to deviate. Today this is recognised as dictatorship supported by propaganda and spin which promoted the cult of personality, censorship, and effected historical revisionism.     

It might be surprising, then, that politicians of all persuasions  have been dipping into and revisiting the ways and means of the infamous dictators of the 20th Century, including Stalin (one of the worst) for ideas and inspiration. We can also be forgiven  for thinking that the political regimes  since the World Wars have dipped into and cherry picked from the German Third Reich, from Italian fascism and even South African apartheid.  But then it was Britain who reinvented concentration camps during the Boer War.  These were later resurrected in a more extreme form by Germany's Third Reich.    The idea of sending immigrants to Rwanda might be a rehash of the 18th Century notion and practice of sending criminals to Australia.  Other repositories for dissidents were the Russian Gulags.  All of this demonstrates not only  a distinct lack of imagination, but also a laziness in trying to think of anything new.  And not least working out how to deal with those who hold alternative views.    

Hopefully reading about the errors of the past might help to prevent them being repeated now and in the future.  Although fat chance if we keep going round in circles and look to the dark past for inspiration.     We do indeed, live in interesting times, but then, perhaps we always have.   

A blog reader commented:    A good read! And we certainly live in " interesting" times. But have we ever really learned from history? Perhaps Mr Trump knows the answer.

We might soon know the answer to that question!