Stalinization of Russia
A short-term illness or a case of malignant degeneration?
Russia’s most respected sociological service Levada Center conducted a representative survey of public opinion on March 20-23, 2015 to determine the population’s attitude to Joseph Stalin, their assessment of his grave crimes (or, according to quite a few Russians, his great achievements) and his political legacy as a whole.
We offer this poll’s results to our readers. They may well come as a surprise to some people or even shock someone, others may find them totally as expected, and some again may just indifferently shrug them away, saying it is a Russian issue having nothing to do with Ukraine. The latter reaction would be short-sighted and wrong. It has everything to do with Ukraine. We can assert firmly that it is precisely because 39 percent (!) of Russian citizens have positive assessment of Stalin’s policies, and a third of them do not care about it (which is an extremely alarming figure: the Kremlin relies on just such people), that Russians of today either openly approve of their country’s aggression against Ukraine, or “know nothing” about it, or are scared silent. All these phenomena are consequences of the Stalinization of Russia, which Vladimir Putin is systematically carrying out now in an overt and minutely thought-out manner, unlike the creeping Stalinization of 2000-04.
We see several aspects of the Levada Center poll as highly important. Firstly, it has recorded not just alarming, but already dangerous dynamic of changes in the Russians’ attitudes to Stalin and Stalinism over the past decade (even as a large part of them stay characteristically indifferent). Secondly, it has revealed a clear correlation between the respondent’s opinions and their education attainment, place of residence and place in society (the poor’s support for the dictator is an order of magnitude higher). Finally, our third point is that of course, the majority of respondents neither remember Stalin’s reign nor know it from personal experience (due to obvious reasons). Thus, the crucial role is played by family experience as expressed via family members’ memories, as well as “weapons of mass destruction,” we mean modern Russia’s electronic and print media which produce poisonous myths.
So, is the Stalinization of Russia a short-term illness or a case of malignant degeneration? How will the Russian mass consciousness develop? We posed these questions to The Day’s experts.
Yevhen HOLOVAKHA, head of the department of sociology history, theory, and methodology, deputy director of the Institute of Sociology at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine:
“The results of this survey can be explained by the atmosphere in society. In Russia a mobilization society is being created which is resisting an abstract enemy, as it views the West and Ukraine, supported by the world community.
“But if an authoritarian power and mobilization society are created, tough and authoritarian people become idols. Stalin has become a symbolic personality for Russians. When he was creating his totalitarian system, he chose Lenin as an idol. This is only natural, but this is a bad sign which proves that the society gets oriented at a policy of aggression.
“Russian mass consciousness is united around the authoritarian leader. In the early 1990s my wife Natalia Panina and I wrote that an orientation at a harsh authoritarian regime is awaiting Russia. Everything is happening like this under various ideological flags. Now it is not only Stalin I am speaking about. Nicholas I and Alexander III were tough idol-rulers, who created imperial ideology and structures, became popular because the imperial strategy is dominating in Russia.
“For how long this is going to last depends on what the power will be and how it will be directing the propaganda. If it creates a mobilization component, the Stalinization will be reinforced. If the power changes and the propaganda won’t be speaking about the enemies that surround Russia, there will be less demand for personalities like Stalin.”
Roman DOBROKHOTOV, chairman, civic movement “We”:
“The personality of Stalin is unambiguous. Its role in history is comparable to that of Hitler. But I would not attach any serious importance to any opinion polls in a non-free country, for sociological data are twisted in authoritarian countries.
“In this poll, respondents stubbornly believe that Stalin is a very popular figure now. It is an alarming result because it means that the concept of a totalitarian state and mass repressions causes no strong rejection among the people. When repressions are resorted to, nobody ever asks people whether or not they support this. This is the very idea of mass repressions – to crush any resistance. The question is whether or not a totalitarian state will be finally formed in Russia. But this in no way depends on sociological surveys.
“The people who speak positively of Stalin do not think about mass repressions. They think that Stain personifies the ‘order’ that will beat all corruptionists. Even one who supports mass repressions hope that they will be those who ‘snitch’ or shoot. People do not think that they may turn out to be those who bang into prison. But if mass repressions do occur, it is they who will be ‘put inside.’
“Meanwhile, Germany has a state-supported program aimed at reconsidering the experience of Nazi Germany. This topic has been ‘digested’ in families and art as much as possible. Russia has never had the experience of fighting against a totalitarian regime – neither when the USSR battled against Nazi Germany nor when Russia was breaking free of the Soviet Union. As we can see, the Russian propaganda is now making active use of fascist ideology – its instruments and even slogans.
“Year 1991 saw not so much a victory over a totalitarian regime as the Gorbachev-gifted perestroika and glasnost which the populace gladly picked up. The bulk of the people remain as conformist as they were in the Soviet era. Nothing has changed in the mentality of Russians. In particular, old myths imposed by propaganda continue to hold sway.
“Russian society needs a new informational environment. The media and educational institutions should focus more on historical errors and problems. Emphasis should be shifted from a positive interpretation of history and an imperial-style proud perception of the native country to a sober, pragmatic, and values-oriented approach, in which the human being is the basic value. If history is to be seen through this prism, the attitude to such figures as Stalin will also change. But this cannot emerge immediately. There should be a new generation in a new informational environment. This generation must acquire immunity to xenophobia and the ideas of totalitarianism, so that a person who has said something positive about Stalin ends up as an outcast in society.”
