Stalin is Back!

Went to the Socialist Realism exhibition in Bratislava last week. The 14 foot bronze of Stalin once stood in SNP Square, and was most impressive to behold.

I grant that, if you were unlucky enough to live in a communist police state, you might have a certain prejudice against the official arts of that state. As an outsider, I can find much socialist realism both technically sophisticated and even beautiful. The Nazis had their moments – see the 1936 Olympic opening ceremony – but generally fell short of this level of accomplishment.

Our own descent into totalitarianism, of course, has no compensating high achievement in the arts.


  1. There was a little discussion-ette a few threads down regarding how puritanical Judaic-descended sects tend to despise beauty in the arts. Ancient Judaism itself of course prohibited representational art, as does Islam. Likewise the Reformation Protestant extremists (who manifested here as the Puritans) and of course the Byzantine iconoclasts.

    Hence, modern art- art which is not, in fact, art at all, but is instead just a load of old Pollocks.

  2. Yes Ian – bad artistic ideas (i.e. hostility to art – particularly to art that ordinary people find beautiful) are often a sign of someone having lots of other bad ideas.

    However, Sean Gabb is right – someone can have dreadful political beliefs and still produce great art (although I have not seen the statute).

  3. The Soviet Union also did incredible scientific and technological things under Stalin and later communism, but did so in spite of, rather than because of, the system. Marxism can destroy or suppress potential, but not create it where it doesn’t already exist. Compare North Korea with South Korea and you’ll see what Marxism does to potential. But NK has still managed to produce an atom bomb. Marxist Zimbabwe, on the other hand, has the starvation without the science. I would provide a non-Marxist comparison for Zimbabwe that is very close-by in space, if not in time, but this is Brave New Britain and the Thought Police may well be watching.

    Incredible to think that people belonging to the race of John Milton, John Stuart Mill, and George Orwell are now frightened to express their opinions.

  4. Well, to be fair, no political or social system can create potential. Libertarianism can’t either. What a political system can do is get out of the way so that individuals can realise their potential, which is what Libertarianism argues for. Politicians can’t make a nation of shopkeepers, or engineers, or artists. But it can suppress the activities of shopkeepers, engineers and artists and thus cause ruin, both economic and cultural.

  5. Part 1:

    Well, to be fair, no political or social system can create potential.

    No, you’re behind the times when you say that. But there are powerful forces trying to keep you in ignorance. If the catastrophe that lies ahead isn’t even worse than I fear, this book will sooner or later be seen as one of the most important ever published:

    A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World, Greg Clark, (2007), Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.

    Thus the modern English are descended primarily from well-to-do farmers. In contrast, nobles tended to kill each other off—from 1330 to 1479, 26 percent of male aristocrats died violently—and townsmen often died of diseases. So the English are mostly the offspring of what Clark calls “the strivers” of generations past: the people who farmed hard and effectively and saved their money to buy more land. From this, Clark deduces an explanation for the rise and spread of the Industrial Revolution that has surprised the economics profession.


    It’s not case proven for that particular theory, but the eugenic, and dysgenic, effects of various political and social systems are going to become increasingly undeniable. See this for a good introduction to the topic:

    “An HBD [= Human Bio-Diversity] Summary of the Foundations of Modern Civilization”


  6. Part 2:

    Remember the acronym, invented by Steve Sailer. Assuming we aren’t now heading towards complete economic collapse or into a fully efficient police-state, HBD is going to be a very important influence on the near future. Or rather, our increasingly explicit scientific understanding of HBD is going to be. These, in roughly descending order of ease-of-understanding, are also good sites:





    The ideas will continue to meet huge resistance from politicians, sociologists, historians, journalists, “cultural commentators”, and some libertarians, but that’s because people who play word-games don’t like science, which has a nasty habit of appealing to objective reality and by-passing word-games altogether. But my rhetorical summary of HBD is this:

    Everything the Guardian and BBC tell you about race and “gender” is a lie, including the commas and pauses for breath.

    The problem is that liars and doubters aren’t complacent in the way those-who-see can be. If you know you’re lying, you work very hard to suppress opposition, and if you’re doubtful, you ease your own mind by punishing those who express your own secret doubts. And, of course, you recruit allies: the Marxist policy since WW2 has been to get a very big Trojan horse through the gates of the West. The horse is now fully inside the walls. We’ve even had our own Cassandra in the form of Enoch Powell.

    Libertarianism can’t either. What a political system can do is get out of the way so that individuals can realise their potential, which is what Libertarianism argues for.

    Libertarianism covers a multitude of sins, tho’ generally seems to belong to the “Reason/Rhetoric Rules the World” school of politics. There are interesting biological patterns already visible in its history and among its adherents, but I won’t elaborate. This is, as I’ve said, Brave New Britain and our Marxist and crypto-Marxist rulers have planted mines all over certain topics.

    Here’s Leon Trotsky foretelling the fruits of communism, by the way:

    Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.


    Trotsky thought Reason Ruled the World, though by “Reason” he or his subconscious actually meant “Rhetoric”. I think mathematics rules the world, and in more ways than one.

Leave a Reply