Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler - Research Paper Example

Student’s Name Your Instructor’s name The Course Date Darkness at Noon Introduction Arthur Koestler wrote a number of books in relation to the issues of Stalinist Russia. In the ‘Darkness at Noon’, Koestler has used certain characters to depict these issues, especially regarding the concepts of antivivisection and vivisection morality. This paper intends to describe antivivisection morality; justify its incompatibility with Stalinist Russian; and to rationalize the fact that vivisection morality ideology is vital for political systems. What does Koestler mean by the concept 'anti-vivisection morality’? Describe the concept In his book, Koestler (160) has used the concept, anti-vivisection morality to explain a humane and Christian concept that declares a person as sacrosanct, and argues that arithmetic rules are inapplicable to human beings. The concept is contrary to the vivisection, which asserts that a collective intention justifies the means, and allows as well as demands that a person should be sacrificed and subordinated to the community, which might take it as a sacrificial lamb or experimentation rabbit. This concept has a lot of respect and value for a person his rights, interests, feelings, and opinion in the society. Why was 'anti-vivisection morality' incompatible with Stalinist Russia? Antivivisection morality was unsuited for the Stalinist Russia because of the difference in policies and values. First, Stalinist Russia emphasized on the vivisection morality ideology that entailed sacrificing a section of the society or an individual to achieve a common good. The Stalinist society never highly regarded an individual, but tended to subordinate a person to the community. On contrast, the antivivisection ideology focused on an individual as a sacred being that should be treated in a humane manner. This ideology further argued that not always does arithmetic rules apply to the human elements. For instance, Rubashov answers Ivanov that “…that twice two are not four when the mathematical units are human beings ….” (Koestler 160) Moreover, antivivisection morality conception was unfit for the Stalinist Russia because the latter valued collectivism, while the former values an individual as a sacred being. One of the intentions of the political system was to achieve rapid industrialization to be on the same level or even beat the West. To accomplish this, it utilized forced labor, loyalty, and even sacrificed many individuals in the society. This implies that many peasants were employed in farm activities while the rich people worked as managers or administrators. This way, the Stalinist Russia did neither valued individuals as sacred nor treated humanely as they deserved (Barnett 457). Additionally, antivivisectionist morality was unsuitable for the Stalinist Russia as it the latter advocated for collectivism. Here, farms were owned jointly, and that firm activities and produce was owned centrally. Besides, peasants could be forced to work in the farms and the yields were shared among other classes of people that never worked for them. This way, the system ignored individual importance, but saw it as a sacrificial lamb used to cater for the whole society (Koestler 160). In fact, people who tried objecting this kind of arrangement of the society was eliminated in the society in order to avoid influencing the whole society. For example, in Koestler’s book, Ivanov tells Rubashov that to consider what humanitarian fog-philosophy would cause the government if the antivivisection morality concept was to be applied literally. Ivanov claims that if they were to regard individuals as sacred and avoid treating human lives as per the arithmetic rules, it would lead to ineffective leadership. He even compares that to a battalion commander failing to sacrifice a patrol party in protecting the division. Ivanov justifies Bogrov’s sacrifice as a way of protecting the coastal towns from invaders (Koestler 160). What is more, Stalinist Russia opted for vivisection morality rather than antivivisection morality because that was the only way the political system could develop a centralized authoritarian country. The fact that it advocated for social inequality also made antivivisection morality ideology unsuitable for Stalinist Russia (Lee 23). Is vivisection morality a justifiable option for political systems? Why? Vivisection morality concept has its historical context in the Stalinist Russia where socialism, capitalism, collectivism were the main policies. The concept is unique to the Stalinist era as people believed in and upheld the aforementioned policies. The Vivisection morality is a justifiable alternative for political systems that strive to achieve power and influence people’s loyalty to their ideologies and policies. Such political systems as Stalinist Russia benefited from the vivisection morality concept in establishing socialism, collectivism, and capitalism. For Stalin, the concept was essential in perpetuating dictatorship and centralized governance, where people were not entitled to give their opinions. This is because these political systems valued the fact that the shared end justified the means. This implies the way of achieving a common goal does not matter, as long as goals were achieved. In Stalinist Russia, dictatorship was one way of achieving the collective goal, alongside sacrificing or getting rid of certain opponents to its ideologies. For instance, Stalin explicitly reprimanded certain individuals for opposing his ideas, which implies that there was no democracy but high level of dictatorship (Barnett 457). The concept is also crucial for a political system that endeavors to initiate major economic policies that will fully transform both the country’s agricultural and industrial sectors. To achieve this, the system must use a certain group of class of people, such as, peasants to do collective farming, and others to work in the industries, while other groups administrate. For instance, in the Stalinist Russia, certain group of people worked in the farms and industries to cater for higher classes in the society. Stalin’s desire for rapid industrialization made him sacrifice some people and even eliminated others who acted as hindrances to his goal. Several people who tried to go against his ideas were tried, convicted, and even eradicated to pave way for the achievement of the collective goals. Moreover, vivisection morality concept was imperative in such political systems because it enabled Stalin to move the country from peasantry to industrialization. The Stalinist Russia applied the concept in creating new and cheap labor and forced collectivism in Russia. These incidences are evident in Koestler’s book where Ivanov explains to Rubashov that vivisection morality is appropriate achieving collective objectives (Barnett 463). Stalin believed in conducting public trials against the conspirators, enemies, or traitors of his policies and ideologies in the Soviet state and his party. He had the members of the Soviet and the party openly informed of their crimes than doing them secretly. He never used Mafia-like techniques, as the Soviet revisionist leaders did. In fact, these Soviet revisionists used and up to date apply these techniques against their enemies as they fight for power, just like the capitalists do. For instance, Khrushchev grabbed power using a putsch, and Brezhnev overthrew him from power by a putsch. Moreover, Brezhnev and his company eradicated Khrushchev in order to safeguard revisionist ideology and policy from the exposure and discredit from his inappropriate actions and behavior and upsetting buffoonery. This does not imply that he hated his ideas, decisions and reports on which Khrushchevism was founded. Brezhnev depicted himself as unappreciative to Khrushchev even though he initially praised him (Lee 23). Some people argue that Stalin was not what the communist enemies accused him of, but a just and principled man. He could help and fight wrong doers; could aid, motivate and recognize certain merits of some people serving the Marxism-Leninism with loyalty as he required. For instance, instead of casting Zhukov and Rokossovsky for their mistakes, Stalin only allowed them to be condemned and ejected from their positions. Instead, Stalin warmly helped to correct their mistakes. Once they had reformed, Stalin promoted them to high positions of marshals during the Great Patriotic War in which they had vital duties against Hitlerite enemies. Stalin served as a leader with an explicit Marxist-Leninist concept and used to evaluate people’s work in relations to strengths and weaknesses (Lee 23). The vivisection morality is appropriate for a successful political system as it helps to create a moral society. To support this, it is essential to highlight Stalin’s position on such issues as gambling, stealing, and sexual immorality. In his time, Stalin could not condone sexual immorality in his territory. Whenever he saw literature on sexual immorality he dismissed the author’s claims because he never believed that people in his country could be acting immorally. Besides, whenever there was a real case of sexual immorality of harassment, he could openly condemn the act by punishing the offender to serve as an example to others. For instance, Dekanozov was convicted for seducing a daughter of a top official after war. Instead of protecting him, Stalin allowed him to be reprimanded and sucked from his position. Stalin also condemned the Zhukov’s act of stealing jewelry in Berlin (Barnett 460). Furthermore, Lee (25) says that the concept worked well in Stalinism as Stalin hated immorality like womanizing. He was dedicated to his party with an intention of improving humankind using Marxist-Leninism. He tended to condemn immorality in order to protect his society. For example, he reprimanded a certain editor for publishing pornographic material. Therefore, vivisection morality ideology is a justifiable method in political systems like the Stalinist Russia, as that is the only effective way of gaining people’s attention, loyalty, and cooperation in implementation of its ideas and policies. This is because if people are allowed to air their views and object the systems ideas, a country will not move forward due controversies and criticisms. Therefore, vivisection morality concept is suitable for effective political systems. Conclusion Without doubt, Koestler is so familiar with Stalinist Russian ideologies and policies that he uses certain characters to depict them in his book. Explicitly, antivivisection morality is a concept that values individuals as sacred and advocates that they should be treated humanely. On contrast, vivisection morality concept values the society more than an individual and asserts that individuals should be sacrificed to meet community goals. Notably, vivisection morality was more suitable for the Stalinist Russia as compared to the antivivisection Russia because it held the same ideas and policies of collectivism, social inequality, and rapid centralization. Therefore, political systems should employ vivisection morality concept in order to effective. Works Cited: Barnett, Vincent. “Understanding Stalinism: The 'Orwellian Discrepancy' and the 'Rational Choice Dictator.” Europe-Asia Studies, 58.3 (2006): 457-466. Koestler, Arthur. Darkness at Noon. New York: Scribner, 2006. Pp. 150-160. Lee, Stephen, J. European dictatorships, 1918-1945. London, New York: Routledge, 2000. Pp. 23-80. Read More