In the End, Socialism Breeds Barbarians
April 7, 2008
I mentioned I often find good reading in old Wall Street Journals. In one of my “reading binges” to clear out the backlog in my office, I came across a book review about a topic so powerful that it has stayed with me since I read it more than a month ago. The review also convinced me I will never buy the book.
The article is “Witness to Horror,” by Omer Bartov. Published on January 22, 2008, it is a review of “The Unknown Black Book,” a compilation of eyewitness and survivor accounts of the Nazi genocide of the Jews in occupied portions of the Soviet Union. According to the article, “‘The Unknown Black Book’ is the first publications of materials excluded for political reasons from ‘The Black Book” a collection of survivors’ testimony that ran afoul of the Stalinist regime.” The Soviets suppressed the book because it revealed that in many cases Soviet citizens were enthusiastic and willing accomplices in the Nazis’ systematic extermination of the Jews.
Even the few excerpts briefly recounted in the article are hard to read.
“When the Germans began murdering Jews with gas vans, as extra entertainment ‘young women had their hair tied to the axles of the vehicles in such a way that they were dragged alive through the city’ while ‘the killing by gas of those who were inside the mobile vans was being carried out.’”
“Toward the end of the month, all the male Jews, numbering some 5,000, were first subjected to prolonged torture and humiliation and then murdered. ‘The earth on top of the pits was heaving the entire time, since many had been buried alive. For an entire week after this, blood burst from the pits like a fountain.’”
The review includes several other excerpts, equally as graphic. As Bartov says, the “few examples provide an inkling of the nature of the material.” For me, an inkling was enough.
“”The Unknown Black Book” records that while many Soviet citizens, and even German soldiers, were appalled by these atrocities, a substantial segment of the Soviet population participated side-by-side with their Nazi invaders, raping, killing and looting with gusto. Yet surprisingly, one group of Russians is recalled with almost uniform respect: the peasants. The poorest members of Stalin’s communist society were the ones most likely to offer sanctuary for hunted Jews.
Maybe it’s because I’m older (I have children and grandchildren), but even the brief descriptions of barbarity horrified me. I was almost physically ill by the time I finished the article. The cruelty and savagery were incomprehensible.
As I shook my head in disbelief, two questions came to mind:
1. How could human beings act this way toward other human beings, particularly non-combatants, and innocent women and children?
2. What can be done to keep history from repeating itself?
I think the first question is relatively easy to answer. There is evil in the world. And unrestrained, there is almost no limit to the depravity and cruelty of evil men. As Proverbs 25:26 says: “A righteous one who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.” Absent the influence of righteous men and women, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were two regimes of unrestrained evil, and neither party recognized any moral authority other than the power of an almighty state. And their evil polluted entire generations.
The areas overrun by the Nazi in 1941 had already been brutalized by Stalin in the 1920s and 1930s. As a result, anyone with courage and a moral conscience – members of the clergy, party idealists, or private citizens – had been either purged or pummeled into servile obedience. The rest of the masses could see the price of resistance. Seeking to survive, they pragmatically chose to align with their oppressors. Thus, by the time the invading Germans arrived, the Soviet citizenry didn’t see them as true enemies, just new dictators. In this type of amoral environment, evil becomes commonplace, even exalted.
So how does one stop the spread of such evil? That’s a tougher question to answer.
There is an obvious need for moral instruction, teaching that argues right and wrong from an ethical perspective instead of a power perspective. Even for people who don’t want a “religion” forced upon them, the tenets of the Ten Commandments (especially the last five) are ones that most of us intuitively agree with. We know it’s wrong to steal, lie, cheat, murder and covet.
If the prevailing cultural norm defended its citizens from theft, murder, adultery, false witness and coveting – and the government provided enforcement – I’m pretty sure most citizens would refrain from evil. But beyond instilling a solid moral ethic in society (and hoping that some people become “true believers” instead of simply avoiding prosecution), I think there’s another element that must be present in order to keep evil from proliferating. I think it’s necessary to allow citizens personal and economic liberty.
Granting personal and economic liberty provides strong incentives for cooperative and peaceful behavior. The observance and execution of a strong moral code provides restraints and punishments for evil behavior, but personal and economic liberty offers rewards for productive “good” behaviors. When it is possible for individuals to lawfully become what they want, earn what they want, and live the way they want, they are less likely to resort to evil means.
History generally supports this observation. Dictators start wars and seize the resources of others. Free societies form economic and political alliances, and exchange resources in open trade. Oppressive governments literally imprison their citizens; not only do they restrict their travel, but many actively prevent them from leaving (think of the Berlin Wall). In contrast, free countries allow citizens great latitude in where they live, inside or outside their country of origin. Personal and economic liberty is a powerful agent for cultural stability and good behavior.
This is not to say that a strong moral code and individual liberty eradicates evil. Even in free societies there are plenty of incidences of evil. There are senseless acts of cruelty and violence. But in almost every instance, there are also individuals, groups or governing bodies that step in and say “stop it! You’ve gone too far, and you must be reined in or removed.” In both Germany and Russia, no one dared to say “stop it.”
In light of this idea that a strong moral code and individual liberty prevent the spread of maximum evil, it’s sobering to consider how the United States government has systematically restricted personal and economic freedom over the past century. Today’s US citizens enjoy far fewer liberties than an American at the beginning of the twentieth century. We are more taxed, more regulated, more compelled to be politically correct – supposedly for our own good.
In response to this diminished personal freedom, more and more citizens seek to use government as their “power tool” to get what they want; special legislation, favored status, tax breaks, grants, etc. Instead of cooperation, there is legislation.
And as our society becomes progressively less free, the power of the government assumes the mantle of the moral code as well. The determiner of right and wrong is what the government allows or disallows. As a result, there are already instances in our society when what most people would consider atrocities (such as partial-birth abortions) have become “legal,” and accepted. The United States may be freer than many societies and mightier than any, but the path we are traveling is still very much the “Road to Serfdom” articulated by Frederich Hayek 60 years ago.
When I look down the road, I don’t want my children and grandchildren to be either the victims or participants in genocide. Individually, I cannot change my government or my culture. But I can articulate the solution. All concerned individuals should constantly argue, vote and contend for strong individual and cultural morality, as well as personal and economic freedom. These are the only proven antidotes to evil.
