From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Robert Conquest's _The Great Terror_
Date: 25 Jan 93 00:43:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan24.194335.19755
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <kosinov.727641619@ceg.uiuc.edu> 
kosinov@ceg.uiuc.edu (Greg Kosinovsky) writes:

>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

GK:
>>>First, let me put an end to the discussion envolving revolutionary terror
>>>with the following quote from Mr. Zeleny:

MZ:
>>>>I certainly do not deny the existence of Red Terror prior to 1921.  If
>>>>we disagree, perhaps it is because I DO NOT SHARE YOUR IMPLICIT CONVICTION
>>>>THAT POLITICAL TERROR, UNLIKE DECEIT, NECESSARILY ABROGATES
>>>>HUMAN WRITES.

GK:
>>>              My italics, and I rest my case!!!

MZ:
>>Mr Kosinovsky, although I respect your "human write" to do unspeakable
>>violence to the poor, defenseless English language, I request that you
>>abstain from gratuitously attributing your orthographical misdeeds to
>>me, by placing them under my name.

GK:
> What a powerful dictum over a spelling mistake! Mr.Zeleny, you are a king
>of the irrelevant.

Mr Kosinovsky, I hereby grant you the license to commit as many
egregious mistakes as you like, provided that you abstain from
attributing them to anyone else.

MZ:
>>Now that I got it clear, exactly what case do you propose to rest?

GK:
> My point , obvious to any intellegent person, is that there is no reason
>to argue about horrors of War Communism with someone who doesn't believe
>that political terror "necessarily abrogates human RIGHTS".

Mr Kosinovsky, I have no idea as to what might have led you to conclude
that I had any interest whatsoever to argue about the horrors of War
Communism.  My point had to do *solely* with the fact that the 1921
suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion represented a turning point in
the Bolshevik politics, insofar as it amounted to a betrayal of their
own self-professed credo of "all power to the soviets", in a way that
neither the regicide nor the earlier instances of political terror did
so.  Please grind your axes in a more appropriate venue.

GK:
>>>  Now, regarding the philosophy of contemporary conservatives:

>>>In <1993Jan17.205437.19471@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

GK:
>>>>> Mr. Zeleny, if you read the writings of contemporary Conservative
>>>>>Western intellectuals on both sides of the ocean (Johnson, Aaron,
>>>>>Revel, Kirkpatrik, Bennet ,etc.), you would know that WE accept this
>>>>>notion (that the blame for French Revolution as well as for most
>>>>>20th century atrocities lies almost squarely on the intellectuals) so
>>>>>universally, that it's almost a truism.

MZ:
>>>>Mr Kosinovski, your dumb dogma is showing.  A consensus of fools
>>>>convinces no one but another fool.  From Jean Kirkpatrick, with her
>>>>remarkably specious and stupid Reagan-era distinction between
>>>>"authoritarian" and "totalitarian" regimes

GK:
>>> Mrs. Kirkpatrick's distinction was basically two-fold:
>>>1) Authoritarian dictators are mostly interested in robbing their population
>>>while robbing's good. Totalitarian dictators do that PLUS institute a total
>>>mind control apparatus which intrudes into everyones daily lives and activiti-
>>>es. To most thinking people that makes a difference.

MZ:
>>Mr Kosinovsky, I humbly suggest that you spend some time inquiring
>>into the benevolent activities of the "death squads" in the allegedly
>>non-totalitarian El Salvador, especially as pertains to their frequent
>>intrusion into "everyones daily lives and activitities".  To most
>>thinking people, that would count as incontrovertible evidence that
>>both you and Mrs Kirkpatrick are full of shit.

GK:
> The government of General Romero in El Salvador was overthrown by reform-minded
>officers in 1980, in full accordance with Kirkpatrick's thesis that authoritarian
>regimes tend to fall. Following that coup, El Salvador, one of Latin America's
>basket cases of economics and human rights, underwent remarkable reformation,
>with the US help, despite the bloody Civil War lead by Communists.
> Romero was succeded by a provisional government lead by one of his most famous
>victims, Jose Napoleon Duarte. Three democratic elections within six years were
>held starting in 1982, each resulting in the victory of opposition followed by
>orderly transfer of power.
>
> Now, with the Civil War basically at an end, El Salvador's future is promissing.
>Mark this one for Kirkpatrick, and, especially, Reagan.

The regime of Nikita Khruschev fell in October of 1964.  Before that,
the regime of Stalin and his heirs fell in June of 1957.  I refer you
to the text by Carl A. Linden, _Khruschev and the Soviet Leadership_,
should these dates fall too far outside of the circle of your
historical expertise.  Now, what was that idiocy about authoritarian
regimes being distinguished from the totalitarian ones by their
tendency to fall?

GK:
>>>2) While authoritarian dictators fall from power regularly, giving their
>>>people, at least, a fighting chance at establishing a law-abiding government,
>>>communist dictators, supported by Moscow, become fixtures of the Communist
>>>monolith. This thesis is supported by the fact that no major Soviet puppet
>>>had fallen from power until the center itself started to collapse.

MZ:
>>Mr Kosinovsky, until and unless you can make a systematic distinction
>>of "the center itself" starting to collapse, from the *mere* collapse
>>of the periphery, such as presumably precipitates the fall of an
>>authoritarian government, your "thesis" will remain bereft of any
>>cognitive value.  Not that I really expect you to be able to tell the
>>difference.

GK:
> I can make that distinction very easily. An average tenure of an authoritarian
>dictator is less than ten years (though everyone is aware of notable exceptions,
>such as Samosa, Stroessner and Pinochet). On the other hand, the "center" in
>question lasted 70 years, and if the west wasn't resolute enough in opposing
>its "historic" outward march (or, alturnatively, had its own leaders not lost
>nerve) it could still be around for a long time, along with most of its "perifery".

Your exceptions give the lie to your alleged nomological distinction,
just as my example of instability of communist regimes undermines it
from the other side.

A couple of observations are in order.  Ms Kirkpatrick, who, like
William Bennett, Jean-Fran\c{c}ois Revel, and Paul Johnson, -- and quite
unlike Raymond Aron, and, to a lesser extent, Richard Pipes, -- is *not*
regarded as a reputable scholar, blithely asserted in her famous
_Commentary_ essay, that the right-wing "authoritarian" regimes allied
with the West, were distinct from, and to be preferred to, left-wing
"totalitarian" regimes, mainly because of their alleged propensity for
incremental democratization.  Not surprisingly, the main piece of
evidence adduced in favor of this disposition, was the (definitionally
true) enmity of the former to (definitionally "totalitarian") communist
influence of the latter.  (Can you say _petitio principii_?)  

Upon becoming a prominent mouthpiece for the unlamented Reagan
administration, Ms Kirkpatrick, along with her colleagues, and in
accordance with her 1979 credo, resolutely abandoned the use of the term
`totalitarian' to characterize the tyrannical political allies of the
U.S. (which unsurprisingly tended to belong to the rightist variety of
totalitarianism, as defined by Karl Popper and Hannah Arendt), and at
the same time extended it to cover the "communist totalitarian state" of
Nicaragua.

The specious point of this instance of Newspeak consists in the fact
that the term `totalitarianism' has gained meaning and respectability as
the expression of a bridge concept, meant to cover both the rightist and
the leftist forms of modern centralist authoritarianist state.  In the
language of Ms Kirkpatrick and her political allies, this meaning has
been deliberately subverted, in favor of purely ideological use as a
non-specific term of opprobrium, meant as a content-free description of
communism.  Not surprisingly, Ms Kirkpatrick's use is avoided by all
respectable political scientists.

MZ:
>>>>...safely ignoring Dan
>>>>Quayle's alleged favorite author, Paul Johnson, whose "intellectual"
>>>>credentials have received a sufficient trashing in this forum, I find
>>>>you in a cozy company indeed.

GK:
>>> Oh my! The famous Zeleny logic again -- Dan Quayle read Paul Johnson's
>>>book, therefore, Paul Johnson is a fool. But wait, another piece of evidence!
>>>Zeleny had already posted a flame on Johnson before. Well, that clinches
>>>it -- Paul Johnson is a fool!

MZ:
>>Alas, Mr Kosinovsky, you got it all wrong.  As is evidenced by my
>>modest effort to converse with you, contrasted with my deliberate
>>choice to ignore Mr Johnson, between the two of you, I only consider
>>yourself to be a fool.  Your hero has evolved beyond mere fatuity, to
>>enmire himself in a _sui generis_ morass of his own making.  The utter
>>inconsequentiality of his ideas places them far beneath the threshhold
>>of my concern.  By contrast, you still continue to amuse me.

GK:
> I, obviously, couldn't care less about your opinion of me personally. Howhever,
>I was certainly correct in pointing out that the arguments you used (and are still
>using) in putting putting down Paul Johnson are not worthy of an imbecile.

Mr Kosinovsry, obviously the arguments I used, and am using, "in putting
putting down Paul Johnson" ought to be worthy of an exemplary imbecile,
considering that I would have to address them to you.  Indeed, only an
imbecile would fail to note that I am not offering any arguments against
your, and Mr Quayle's, favorite author.  Unlike Mr Pipes, Paul Johnson
is simply not deserving of my critical attention.  End of this
discourse.

MZ:
>>>>... To be sure, your mention of Raymond
>>>>Aron appears rather incongruous in this squalid and venal confederacy
>>>>of brain-dead dufuses; but then it could be conjecturally discounted
>>>>on the basis of your misspelling of his name, and plausibly attributed
>>>>to your pillaging of the "intellectual" authority list of some
>>>>outdated GOP "cultural elite" denunciation, complete with the
>>>>incongruous token Jew, included to anticipate the well-justified
>>>>charges of code-worded antisemitism.

GK:
>>> The reason I misspelled Aron's name, is that it's been quite a while since
>>>I read In Defence of The Decadent Europe. However, you must not have 
>>>read it at all, for this book is a ringing indictment of socialist (and even
>>>liberal) intellectuals.

MZ:
>>Mr Kosinovsky, I hereby direct your attention to the trivial fact of
>>intellectual communication, that one may hold the ideas of his
>>interlocutor in high esteem, whilst disagreeing with every single one
>>of his conclusions.

GK:
>  This is beautiful!!! You say that you hold in high esteem a person who you
>ADMIT has ideas very similar to the ones for which you derided Pipes, and 
>accused him of all evils, including antisemitism.
> Mr.Zeleny, you have consistency of Chekhov's Chameleon.

The salient difference, which I certainly do not expect you to
appreciate or even understand, consists in the fact that Mr Pipes'
hidden and unargued agenda is articulated and defended by Raymond Aron.

GK:
>>> As for "the charges of antisemitism", I challenge
>>>you to come up with even one (documented) charge of antisemitism levied 
>>>against any of the people I sighted by even a single respected public figure.
>>>The only charge ever levied against those people was that of "Zionism". If
>>>anything, Aron is the least "pro-Semitic" of the lot.

MZ:
>>Mr Kosinovsky, a reader unencumbered by your bizarre interpretive
>>disability, would hardly need further elucidation in order to
>>understand that my charge of antisemitism was specifically levied
>>against the GOP promoters of "family values" and denouncers of the
>>"cultural elite".  Substantiation of these charges is left as a
>>trivial exercise for the reader.

GK:
> Mr.Zeleny, you originally clamed that I used a "Jewish name" of Aron
>in order to diffuse "deserved charges of antisemitism" for sighting
>a group that, in addition to Aron, included Johnson, Revel, Bennet, and
>Kirkpatrick. I understand that it was an idiotic statement, but the proper
>thing to do was to refrain from making it in the first place, not to deny it now.

Mr Kosinovsky, I originally claimed that your GOP masterminds, such as
they may be, were probably responsible for your little roster, insofar
as you obviously are far too too stupid to be capable of any subterfuge,
just as you are evidently unable to appreciate irony.  If you feel that
I am misrepresenting my words, feel free to offer quotations.

GK:
> Now that that's clear, can you make any rational argument for your new charge
>that promotion of "family values" and denounciation of "cultural elite" are acts
>of anticemitism? (For that matter, are you capable of rational arguments?)

I direct you to Lewis Lapham's editorial, dedicated to the above
questions, in last year's _Harper's_ magazine.  The quotation from
official GOP press releases, contained therein, should suffice to
substantiate my charges.

GK:
>>> It is so amusing for me to find out that I and Pipes support Jim Baker,
>>>whom Zeleny anonymously quoted above. I hate the man, both ideologically and
>>>personally, and I happen to know that so does Pipes.

MZ:
>>And yet, Mr Pipes does, and you appear to support the Grand Old Party
>>of the selfsame Mr Baker.  How poignantly, predictably odd.

GK:
> The Grand Old Party represents millions of Americans, and people like Pipes
>(and miself) are now trying to purge it of temporary heavy infiltration by
>the likes of Baker and Bush. This however, is only a side point. What's more
>important, is yet another example of Zeleny's logic, according to which an 
>anti-jewish statement by Jim Baker tarnishes even his OPPONENTS within the party.
>By the same logic, everyone who voted for Democrat Clinton is an anti-Semite,
>because Jesse Jackson is a Democrat.

Unlike Mr Baker, Jesse Jackson has no official position in his party.
This, however, is only a side point. What's more important, is yet
another example of your Stalinist logic, evidenced in your trenchant
allusion to the attempted GOP purge.  More moral ammunition for Hannah
Arendt et Cie.

MZ:
>>>>>>See Stephen Cohen's essay collection for *that* piece of American
>>>>>>history.

GK:
>>>>> Incidentally, Pipes correctly predicted, in the early 80's that USSR
>>>>>was running out of steam. At that time, Cohen & Co. were still talking
>>>>>about the great strides Sovoks were making internally, and were
>>>>>predicting eventual conversion of Capitalism and Socialism in the
>>>>>world.

MZ:
>>>>On the chance that you mean "eventual convergence", so did Sakharov.
>>>>You certainly make no secret of where you stand in choosing between
>>>>him and Shafarevich.

GK:
>>>The idiotic remark about "choosing" between Sakharov and Shafarevich
>>>aside, Let me point out that this is a question not of ideology but of fact.
>>>The recent history shows that in predicting the course of Communism, Pipes
>>>was very close to the mark, and Cohen and most other liberal "Sovietologists"
>>>were way off. Sighting Sakharov is not very convincing -- he wasn't a
>>>historian, and he didn't have much access to information (Gorky's public
>>>library wasn't as well stocked as Harvard Library).
>>>However, as far as understanding the nature of Communism, Sakharov wrote that
>>>true peece wasn't possible, as long as a totalitarian, expansive USSR existed.
>>>Pipes understood and wrote the same things. Cohen called that kind of talk
>>>"Cold War-mongering).

MZ:
>>Mr Kosinovsky, I have made my point excruciatingly clear to all
>>thinking readers.  If at this point you should get an inkling that I
>>am not at all interested in convincing *you* of anything whatsoever,
>>you may prudently opt to save the wear and tear on your terminal, or
>>petulantly generate yet another frenzied, semi-literate screed, as you
>>wish.

GK:
> Mr.Zeleny, I have no idea of how this vituperation relates to my paragraph you
>sighted above it, but let me assure you, that my continuous response to your
>posts does not mean that I have even a slightest respect for you (that is 
>certainly not the case).

I stand assured of your true motives, more by your continued manner of a
tendentious, logorrheic graphomaniac, than by any disclaimer you might
issue.

GK:
> I simply enjoy making fun of a pompous fool who deems himself to be an 
>intellegent man

For once, I agree with you, Mr Kosinovsky, -- no one could possibly hope
to equal you in the task of lampooning your pompous and fatuous person.

> Greg K.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."