I thought Liz raised an especially interesting point in saying that kulaks were treated as a mass of people while intellectuals were targeted individually. I agree with this statement and furthermore would like to suggest that the manner in which they were dealt spoke of Stalin's view of them. Specifically, I shall quote from the reading "Problems of Agrarian Policy in the USSR: Soviet Collectivization."
There is another question which seems no less ridiculous: whether the kulak should be permitted to join the collective farms. Of course not, for he is a sworn enemy of the collective-farm movement. Clear, one would think.
The last four words are positively dripping with condescension. In class I laughed, but this feeling is now reduced to something between amusement and horror. In my understanding, you could absolutely, under no conditions, be a kulak under Stalin–there was simply no place for them in his vision for Russia. Hence, the decimation of them as a class, without regard for them as individuals. Intellectuals, I believe, were not doomed from the start. As long as the intellectual were weak enough that he posed no threat (at all, no seriously) to Stalin (paranoid much?) and supported (or at least appeared to, convincingly) Stalin without reservation, execution need not be in the cards.
(But, upon re-reading my last point, I have to admit that no one was really safe under Stalin, including his "allies." Perhaps this is why he was, and still is, so terrifying.)
No comments:
Post a Comment