Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Real Communism
Tsar Nicholas II and his family.
Yesterday was the 100th anniversary of the massacre of the Tsar and his family. A sad day, but as Lenin once said: you can’t make an omelette without shooting terrified little girls, then stabbing them repeatedly before shooting them again in the head, to make sure. For the sake of The People.
We’re always told that the Soviet Union wasn’t really Communism, that it was corrupted by Stalin. Communism is a pure thing, idealistic, with only the best interests of everyone at heart. Well, the murder of the Royal Family seems to have occurred before the “corruption” set in, and I doubt you’d find Communists more pure of heart than the Ural Regional Soviet of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government.
But we can’t disparage Communism, lest the wonderful idea of the enlightened collective –– gently directed, at first, until the wisdom of the people achieves its own consciousness — cease to be a shining goal. So here’s quartz.com‘s description of the event:
Russia’s last tsar, his wife, and their five children were murdered amid the tumult of the Bolshevik revolution 100 years ago today (July 17).
Amid the tumult.
One of those things that just … happened in the chaos of the times. When you have a lot of tumult, well, stuff happens. Somehow.
It would be inconvenient to note that Communism is born in killing, thrives in killing, exceeds at killing, and depends on killing. But that wasn’t real Communism! Really? In 1919, newborn and pure, not even that was Communism?
By all means, make the argument: tell me that a system of human and economic relations cooked up by some hairy unemployed guy with goat-strength BO scribbling in the public library got it right, and everyone who saw in his words the means to power got it wrong.
Published in General
Masterly, James.
Some would say you were a bit rude. Well. there is time for dispassionately weighing the acts of the USSR in full historical detail, and a there is a time for being very, very rude.
Now is such a time.
Good work.
No, of course not, because humans were involved and communism only works with angels.
Brilliant Post, James.
Funny how no one wants to airbrush Nazism, as some do Communism. I guess Egalitarianism (real or imagined) trumps everything.
The hammer and sycle should go the way of the swastika.
Is anyone pulling down statues of Marx, Lenin, Engles, etc, here in the US. We know they’re out there. Why are they still standing?
Oh, look. Here’s one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin,_Seattle
Thanks. I was unfamiliar with this statue. But it is not surprising in Seattle.
If I may, I think there are basically two reasons for this type of idiocy: Either the person who would do such a thing is totally unfamiliar with went on, or (and this is the worst one) it as is I said before: egalitarian rhetoric trumps everything, and such talk sounds good to those who don’t think beyond the superficial.
German Labor Day pin, 1934. Remember it was the National Socialist Party.
Great link.
I love that the neighborhood decorates it for gay pride, hangs Xmas lights, paints the hands bloody.
What to do with it? I say leave it there, but cut off the head.
Man, that Lenin feller had a way with words.
And even some of them rebelled.
Why would anyone mourn the loss of the Romanovs?
I don’t think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has read much Lenin.
I don’t think Alexandria has read much.
The alternative was 60 million corpses. The Romanovs were Mr Rodgers compared to the communists, thats why.
“amid the tumult.” Perfectly inane! Thanks, Mr. L!
What are you talking about? There were lots of alternatives. The Bolsheviks just were slightly less politically incompetent.
“Amid the tumult” = “If Only Lenin Knew”, and would be the post-facto precursor to the “If Only Stalin Knew” line that actually was used during Uncle Joe’s time. The line is a way to let Vladimir and the others in charge of the revolution off the hook, as if some rogue actors (who obviously couldn’t have been real Communists) did the dirty deed.
Socialism tends to be violent because it is necessarily a reaction to something else, namely capitalism (which isn’t a reaction to anything), and can only be only implemented as a form of government (which capitalism isn’t) which replaces whatever preceded it.
This is the aspect worth debating. Most people on the Left would say they reject communism but approve of socialism. So it is necessary to understand how they are related.
Socialism is the goal. Communism is the means. That is, socialism requires powerful centralized authority. Communism is applied socialism without the democratic facade.
Oh . OK . Ill just ignore the 70 years of actual history.
In 1977 the house located near Yekaterinburg that served as a prison for the Romanovs was ordered destroyed by a little known regional party chief, Boris Yeltsin. The bodies were found in 1979, and promptly reburied, and the discovery was not made public. Their bodies were publicly exhumed in 1991.
The Tsar his family and their servants were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in 1981.
The Moscow Patriarchate canonized them in 2000.
James,
What kind of coward needs to murder the Tsar, the Tsarina, the Tsar’s children, the Tsar’s children’s nurses. Only pure hate could engender this kind of madness. So let’s add to the inconvenient list and mention that Communism is born of hate, thrives on hate, exceeds in hate, and depends on hate.
Regards,
Jim
The Romanovs have become politically useful in Russia once again.
Amid is a good journalistic word. Very handy when you want to imply a causal connection when you don’t have evidence, or when you want to misdirect a connection when you do.
I sometimes wonder what would happen to print journalism if the style guides prohibited its use.
BTW, I’m annoyed that Ricochet didn’t notify me of this post even though I follow Mr. Lileks. I saw it only because it appeared in the “Most Popular” list, which I look at every once in a while.
The Tsar was an absolute dictator. That is immoral. His obligation was to protect his children by abdicating and leaving the country. He didn’t. There is never a time when a hereditary monarch has legitimacy. I do not feel bad for him or his fate. He brought it on himself and his family. It’s sad that his children suffered because he lacked the morality to end the regime.
Yes, some of you will tut tut and say, “oh, but he didn’t create this monarchy, it was dumped on him.” Or some will say, “Oh, but if he left too quickly he would have left a power vacuum and there would have been chaos.” Both claims are pathetic. Morally, no matter how he was given the throne as Tsar, he had an obligation to refuse it and end it. He could have helped guide a replacement government, but he didn’t. He tried some modest reforms, but none reduced his power. As to the second objection, how could the result have been worse than the rise of Lenin?
By keeping the monarchy in place, he put his children in terrible danger. I’m not excusing the Bolsheviks for killing little children, but he kept in place a system whereby if they weren’t killed then they were an existential threat to his adversaries. The Tsar was not a nice man.
Again, I’m not excusing the communists. Much of my life has been spent in the very conscious effort to fight communism through the force of arms. But if you dangle your children over a lion cage, you should not only blame the lion when your child is eaten.
The death of the Tsar’s children is one of the worst arguments I’ve ever seen against the evils of communism.
I believe the original version was, “If only the Czar knew!”