EconTalk host Russ Roberts continues to share his Solzhenitsyn journey with us in this episode, welcoming Princeton University historian Stephen Kotkin to talk about his recent essay in the Times Literary Supplement. Kotkin, known as a biographer of Stalin, examines the influence of individuals in history versus larger, impersonal forces. That is, how would Soviet history be different had Solzhenitsyn’s work not reached the audiences it did?
The conversation ends with a moving exchange about the complexities of such larger than life historical figures- some of them our heroes. Kotkin’s reflections on “being in Stalin’s head” and Russ’s willingness to accept Solzhenitsyn’s apparent personal flaws both gave me pause to reflect. I hope they will for you, too.
1- Why did The Gulag Archipeligo have a greater worldwide influence than the novels for which Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel, according to Kotkin? (Have you read Solzhenitsyn? Which work(s)? Which had the greatest impact on you?)
2- Kotkin describes Solzhenitsyn’s interactions with the Soviet regime, and Roberts asks, “Why didn’t they kill him?” How does Kotkin respond? In retrospect, do you think Stalin and his peers regretted that decision? Why?
3- Why does Kotkin believe there has been a renewal of interest in Solzhenitsyn? Kotkin and Roberts note that what Solzhenitsyn seemed to want for post-Soviet Russia made many Westerners uncomfortable. How do you think this might be related to Solzhenitsyn’s resurgence today?
4- Roberts ask Kotkin about the extent to which Stalin’s reputation is on the rise today, particularly in Russia. Is Stalin having a “comeback,” and if so, to what extent should we find this concerning?
Bonus question for those who have read In the First Circle and seen The Death of Stalin… How does Solzhenitsyn’s portrait of Stalin in the novel compare to that of the film? To what extent are you bothered by these portrayals, and why? To what extent do you find them humorous?
READER COMMENTS
Arde
Jan 23 2019 at 5:03am
Bonus question.I have read In the First Circle, but I haven’t seen the movie. I did not find the portrait of Stalin humorous in the novel and I don’t think I would find the movie portrait humorous because the topic is just too horrible to be amusing.
What interests me is what kind of persons are those who are capable of such large-scale monstrous crimes. Was Stalin a psychopath? Did he have some kind of deficiency in his brain making him physically incapable of feeling empathy and remorse? Did he ever regret what he did? I am surprised that Stalin was very fond of literature. Normally those who read fiction are emotional people, they are able to put themselves in the shoes of others and are interested in the life of others. What did Stalin find attractive in literature and how did he feel when he read about human suffering? What kind of cruel person was he (in reference to Paul Bloom’s Econtalk episode)? Was he cruel because he dehumanized people and saw them merely as tools or obstacles in his way? Or, was he cruel precisely because he saw humans in other people and enjoyed destroying their humanity? Was he sadist, did he get pleasure out of it? Did he hate the people he killed? What was his goal, what did he want out of life? Was he capable of loving? How did he feel about dying? Is there something very special about Stalin’s personality or there are thousands of stalins (or hitlers, or maos…) walking among us and only our institutions and social norms put a restraint on the worst of their urges?
I will never know the definite answers to these questions, but Solzhenitsyn has provided one version of Stalin’s psychology. I find it plausible, consistent and well written. I would be interested also to read once Mr. Kotkin’s books on Stalin.
Amy Willis
Jan 23 2019 at 8:42am
Arde, When I wrote the question, I had not seen The Death of Stalin; I watched it over the weekend. Interestingly, it starts demonstrating his love for classical music (with disastrous consequences for many). I found the portrayal of Stalin NOT to be humorous in the film, yet the portrayal of all those in the circle around him (especially Khrushchev) were supposed to be humorous- bumbling, as I think Russ called them in the episode. I admit I was glad Stalin wasn’t funny (to me, at least). Of course he dies at the beginning of the film (not a spoiler!) so you see his body more than you see him alive.
Arde
Jan 25 2019 at 11:11am
This is a common plot used in comedies – there is a dominant figure surrounded by people eager to get favours by lying, making intrigues, pleasing and pretending. When something happens to the dominant guy, then there is a chaos, mishaps and unexpected situations. I see the humour in plots like this. If the dominant figure would be a despotic CEO or eccentric movie director, I could enjoy and laugh about it. Just when it is about mass murderer, it does not seem funny.
By the way, the movie is banned in Russia. This brings me to the reply to the Question 4. Yes, I think there is a comeback of Stalin in Russia because this is what I read in newspapers. Sometimes newspapers are writing biased accounts of the reality, they misrepresent and sometimes even lie. We can never check all the facts that newspapers write and we can never be 100% sure, so the key is to find the media we trust more. In principle, I do not trust any media from a country where there is dictatorship and repression of journalists. Therefore all official media from Russia has zero credibility in my eyes. I also do not trust media, which has a history of blatant misrepresentations and fake news. I also check the story itself even if from trusted media, if it has serious errors in logic or the conclusions do not follow from the evidence then I do not trust it. I also try to read media from different countries and different political spectrum. This is how I try to approach the truth. Based on my reading of the articles (available upon request) from major American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal), European (The Guardian, Le Monde, Spiegel, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Figaro, die Zeit, + other smaller ones) and independent Russian media (the articles in English on https://meduza.io/en) it seems very likely that there is a comeback of Stalin in Russia. I do not say that I trust any of these media completely, some of them have had serious problems with credibility, the latest example being the German newspaper Der Spiegel with a series of completely invented stories about the USA (meanwhile, Der Spiegel has apologized, and the reporter was fired). Nevertheless, the fact that so many newspapers from many free countries and different political leanings write about renaissance of Stalin, it suggests that very likely this is true. They write about opinion polls showing increasingly positive image of Stalin, about building statues for Stalin, museums, renaming of the streets in his name…
Should we find it concerning? Yes. If people don’t learn from history it can repeat again.
Amy Willis
Jan 25 2019 at 11:36am
Very interesting! I did not know that the film was banned in Russia… That says a lot, doesn’t it?
Arde
Jan 26 2019 at 4:30am
Yes, indeed, it says a lot. Here is the link to one article about the ban. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/movies/moscow-raid-on-movie-theater-closes-the-death-of-stalin.html
Amy Willis
Jan 28 2019 at 7:30am
Thanks!
Daniel Kern
Mar 12 2019 at 7:13am
This was a fabulous interview and podcast. One of the best, imo.
The discussion about researching and writing about Stalin was very interesting. How does one spend so much time studying evil? The answers were enlightening.
The professor answered questions so clearly and slowly, without being overbearing or arrogant in any way. It was a pleasure listening to “how” he answered, almost as much as to the actual content of the answer.
I never understood the mixed feelings towards the evil Stalin by some Russians and others. The explanation about WW2 and the Russian victory makes sense.
Comments are closed.