Darkness At Noon presents an intellectual confrontation between two generations of revolutionists, and offers a detailed examination of the differences existing between these two groups. Rubashov and Ivanov are representatives of the older generation of revolutionary philosophers and activists, who believed in the Marxist doctrine to the very end. They can be compared to such historical figures, as Lew Trotsky, Nikolai Bukharin, Christian Rakovsky, or “some other relatively civilized figure among the Old Bolsheviks.” (Orwell n.pag.) Both characters contrast sharply in comparison with the second interrogator, Gletkin, who is the true child of the revolution, a mindless creature of the Party, and an embodiment of the G.P.U.’s of the Stalinist …show more content…
Despite serving No 1 now, compassion and understanding did not disappear completely in Ivanov. He refrains from using physical violence against Rubashov; instead, through the twisted and complex logic of the Party, he tries to “recall him to his former acceptance of party discipline”, and persuade him, that he has erred. However, in the eyes of No 1, Ivanov has treated Rubashov too kindly, and he himself is later …show more content…
He is “the typical ‘good party man’, completely without scruples or curiosity, a thinking gramophone” (Orwell n.pag.) Having the Revolution as his starting point in life, his mind was a blank sheet of paper when the Communist Party got hold of it. Even after Rubashov’s acceptance to confess, Gletkin serves him a “prolonged agony of subtle torture,” both mental and physical. Devoid of any humane feelings, his only mission is to bring an end to the old Bolsheviks, who are no longer useful to the Party, thus proving himself to be a “vital link in the hierarchy” (Calder 132) of the new totalitarian order, similarly to Joseph Stalin’s loyal subordinates, who carried out numerous interrogations and executions during the Great Purge. Additionally, it is commonly agreed upon among scholars, that the mysterious character of No 1, with his absolute power, and his fondness for totalitarian methods, is a direct reflection of
Tucker, Robert C. "Stalinism as Revolution from Above". Stalinism. Edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York: American Council of Learned Societies, 1999.
As relations changed between Russia and the rest of the world, so did the main historical schools of thought. Following Stalins death, hostilities between the capitalist powers and the USSR, along with an increased awareness of the atrocities that were previously hidden and ignored, led to a split in the opinions of Soviet and Western Liberal historians. In Russia, he was seen, as Trotsky had always maintained, as a betrayer of the revolution, therefore as much distance as possible was placed between himself and Lenin in the schoolbooks of the 50s and early 60s in the USSR. These historians point to Stalin’s killing of fellow communists as a marked difference between himself and his predecessor. Trotsky himself remarked that ‘The present purge draws between Bolshevism and Stalinism… a whole river of blood’[1].
There are many definitions of the term "freedom." Some will say that to be free one must be allowed to do as one pleases in terms of one's physical body, while others will say that one must only be able to think to be truly free. Yet another group will argue that both aspects must be present for true freedom to exist.
The famine in Russia alone led the peasants to become angry and fed up with the Russian government, suggesting a future revolution. Because of the peasants’ unrest, they began to break the law by as stealing food for their families and shouting in the streets. Russia had attempted revolution before, and a fear of an uprising was feared again. Their everyday routi...
	The first instance of this was on page 45 where he asked if it is necessary to pay for deeds that were necessary and right. This was brought on by Rubashov’s attempt and his witnessing of his neighbor’s attempt on his behalf. More is said about this during Rubashov’s first journal entry on page 80. Here he attempts to explain the logic behind the party’s eradication of thought that goes against party doctrine. That the party is in fact more interested in wiping out these ideas which can act as seeds taking root in future generations. Then it is in punishing people. During this entry Rubashov makes no attempt but rather feels that everything shall be sorted out by history. But for him the most painful of all of his sacrifices, was his surrendering of in his secretary and lover, Arlova. Rubashov suffered much as he antagonized over weather this was in fact the correct choice to be made. The pain felt by Rubashov over this decision was amplified by his witnessing his old friend being taken much the same way as Avolora.
This played well with the workers and soldiers and made it difficult to criticise the new government. As a result, Lenin’s introduction of the Cheka (1917) and the emergence of the Red Terror (1918) ensured his rule was absolute not only within the party but across the Soviet Union. It is the accumulation of these factors that highlighted Lenin’s leadership and practicality following the seizing of power as well as changes to society with War Communism and the NEP and the use of terror which were all vital to consolidating Bolshevik power.
In the late 1930’s while the United States was going through The Great Depression the Soviet Union was going through its own turbulent times. This would be known as the Moscow Show Trials, which took place under the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. The book Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler takes place during this time period. The main character Nicholas Rubashov has been imprisoned even though he always has been loyal to the goals of the party (Koestler). This showed a shift that was happening in the country and an attempt by Stalin to eliminate any possible opposition even if they were heroes in the revolution. In the text two different concepts come to light vivisection morality where the party comes before the individual and anti-vivisection morality where the individual is sacred. Rubashov in the beginning does not embrace individualism however throughout the novel he begins to adopt individualism that he refers to as grammatical fiction. Vivisection morality is never a justifiable political system. Suppressing the rights of human beings is not only inhumane but also counter productive in creating an effective and wealthy society.
Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590
"As you quite rightly remarked, we were accustomed always to use the plural ‘we’ and to avoid as far as possible the first person singular. I have rather lost the habit of this form of speech; you stick to it. But who is this ‘we’ in whose name you speak to-day? It needs re-defining. That is the point."Apart from the Party, Rubashov no longer functions as part of the Communist unit, but rather as an individual.
In George Orwell’s 1984, the strategies used by Oceania’s Political Party to achieve total control over the population are similar to the ones employed by Joseph Stalin during his reign. Indeed, the tactics used by Oceania’s Party truly depicts the brutal totalitarian society of Stalin’s Russia. In making a connection between Stalin’s Russia and Big Brothers’ Oceania, each Political Party implements a psychological and physical manipulation over society by controlling the information and the language with the help of technology.
Turgenov’s Fathers and Sons has several characters who hold strong views of the world. Pavel believes that Russia needs structure from such things as institution, religion, and class hierarchy. Madame Odintsov views the world as simple so long as she keeps it systematic and free from interference. This essay will focus on perhaps the most interesting and complex character in Fathers and Sons: Bazarov. Vladimir Nabakov writes that "Turgenov takes his creature [B] out of a self-imposed pattern and places him in the the normal world of chance." By examining Bazarov this essay will make this statement more clear to the reader. Using nihilism as a starting point we shall look at Bazarov’s views and interpretations of science, government and institution. Next we will turn to the issue relationships. Finally we examine Bazarov’s death and the stunning truths it reveals. These issues combined with the theme of nihilism will prove that chance, or fate is a strong force which cannot easily be negated. Nihilism as a concept is used throughout Fathers and Sons. To gain a better understanding of the ideas behind this term let’s look at what Bazarov says on the subject. "We base our conduct on what we recognize as useful... the most useful thing we can do is to repudiate – and so we repudiate" (123). The base concept of nihilism is to deny or negate, and as we learn later in the same paragraph, to negate everything. With this ‘destruction’ of everything from science to art there is no building for nihilists, as Bazarov says "That is not our affair" (126). Nihilists view the current structure of society as concerned with such trivialties as ‘art’ and ‘parliamentism’ while ignoring real life issues such as food, freedom, and equally. Nihilists are aware of these social woes and hence mentally deny to recognize any of the present authority or institutions which only serve to perpetuate a myth. Bazarov agrees with the statement that nihilism "confine[s] [oneself] to abuse" (126). "... I don’t believe in anything: and what is science—science in the abstract? There are sciences as there are trades and professions, but abstract science just doesn’t exist" (98). For Bazarov anything that is not tangible and concrete doesn’t exist. Psychology, quantum mechanics, neurochemistry would be scoffed at by Bazarov. It seems peculiar that Bazarov would say, "... nowadays we laugh at medicine in general, and worship no one," (197) while at the same time he pursues a career as a doctor.
"Plekhanov and the Origins of Russian Marxism." Readings in Russian History. Ed. Sidney Harcave. Vol. 2. New York: Crowell, 1962. 80-90. Print.
In the novel, Darkness at Noon, by Koestler, Rubashov learns about himself, and makes an effort to cross the hazy lines between his conscience and his beliefs. Rubashov's realization of the individual aspect of morality is a gradual process, satisfying his internal arguments and questions of guilt. His confession to Gletkin reflects the logic that Rubashov had used (both by himself and his political regime), as well as his internal conflicts. He questioned the inferior value of the human, in respect to the priceless value of humanity. Rubashov's ideas on communism, he found, were blurred by his dedication to the Soviet revolutionaries, and ordeal that compromised his life to solve. In many ways, Rubashov was an antagonist to himself. One way Rubashov defeated his goal was by giving in to suit others. "The Party denied the free will of the individual - and at the same time it exacted his willing self-sacrifice… There was somewhere an error in the calculation; the equation did not work out."(204) Rubashov's confession implies a submission of his personal ego to a larger purpose, and he questions himself as to whether it is worth it. His ideals were not his own, but rather the ideals that the communist revolutionaries forced him to have. Rubashov was a man who thinks extremely logical in every situation; he follows every idea "…down to its final consequence."(80) He is an elite intellectual, but even as Ivanov and Gletkin question his line of thinking, Rubashov constantly asks himself the same questions. He justifies his rational by reminding himself that he is working for a more perfect society, no matter what the cost. As stated in the first partition of his confession, he heard only ...
...nfess his crimes in front of everyone. By admitting to his crimes, God would forgive his sins. Sonya is an important individual in Raskolinkov’s life because she gives him strength to confess and redeem himself.. As they both found in love at the ending, Raskolinkov starts following the theory of the ordinary men. He has a relationship with another ordinary person who helps him understand morals.
Arthur Koestler is the author of Darkness at Noon, a novel in which the main character Rubashov is imprisoned for his alleged crimes against the communist party. Rubashov is an active member in communist activities and was shown to have great value to the party’s advancement. As Rubashov is imprisoned his mind crosses between the ‘I’ and ‘We’ mindset consistently. His logic sways between dying in silence and confessing to the crimes that he has been accused of. For Rubashov to die in silence would mean he elects to stay with his individualistic mindset on how the communist party should pursue its ultimate goal, he would not be helping No. 1 further consolidate power. There are two sides to the communist party. There is the side to which Rubashov belongs, that believes that the communist party should attempt to