Iron Felix

[Jacob Cliff]

I watched a (clearly biased, though not necessarily against him) documentary on Dzerzhinsky (called Felix Dzerzhinsky: Executioner's Repentance).

Supposedly, he was appalled by Lenin's orders to "execute normal workers and peasants and not a single white guard," and tried to resign on several occasions – this, however, was not permitted.
He also, apparently, never got off as an atheist – the documentary (not explicitly) states he was always a Christian and saved priests various times before the firing squad.

Now obviously a lot of this is bunk. But I'm not well-read on Dzerzhinsky, and his legacy is usually seen as that of a blood-thirsty, demented butcher. So what's true about him, and what's bullshit? The documentary actually did provide sources and letters, apparently, from Felix himself – but the overdramatization of this and the idea of Iron Felix, Chekist who helped consolidate the revolution, was a Christian, makes me skeptical.

[Emmett Till]

I watched a (clearly biased, though not necessarily against him) documentary on Dzerzhinsky (called Felix Dzerzhinsky: Executioner's Repentance).

Supposedly, he was appalled by Lenin's orders to "execute normal workers and peasants and not a single white guard," and tried to resign on several occasions – this, however, was not permitted.
He also, apparently, never got off as an atheist – the documentary (not explicitly) states he was always a Christian and saved priests various times before the firing squad.

Now obviously a lot of this is bunk. But I'm not well-read on Dzerzhinsky, and his legacy is usually seen as that of a blood-thirsty, demented butcher. So what's true about him, and what's bullshit? The documentary actually did provide sources and letters, apparently, from Felix himself – but the overdramatization of this and the idea of Iron Felix, Chekist who helped consolidate the revolution, was a Christian, makes me skeptical.

He did try to resign on several occasions, and indeed his resignation requests were denied. He did not enjoy his job, but he was very good at it.

All the rest I am sure is garbage, but the manufacturers of this "documentary" clearly understand that a lie is more effective if you can mix in some truth to back it up.

Did he ever save priests from firing squads? Probably, executing priests unless they really are major players in dangerous conspiracies or pogroms against Jews or something like that would have been a pretty bad idea, a great way to get Christian peasants riled up against the workers' regime.

Something the Spanish anarchists were not too clear on, by the way.

[The Idler]

Who wouldn't be appalled to play a key role in the Red Terror? oh wait, lots of the neo-Bolshies on here perhaps.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Dzerzhinsky was a life-long opponent of the death penalty, and while he was appointed the chief of the CheKa due to his personal integrity, by all accounts he resented the job. Although, this needs to be put into context: he did resist the attempts to substitute the CheKa with the NarKomIust. Nonetheless by all accounts he was thrilled to be included in the projected Polish communist government as something other than security chief.

The other stories I've never heard in serious works about the period, and they do have an air of emigre horror stories, like the story about Dzerzhinsky killing people when Lenin crossed out one of the noted Dz. had sent him (to signify he had read it).

[Emmett Till]

Who wouldn't be appalled to play a key role in the Red Terror? oh wait, lots of the neo-Bolshies on here perhaps.

How 'bout Marx and Engels, who around about 1848 waxed downright poetic about the Terror during the French Revolution in numerous articles, especially Engels.

[Rafiq]

Why is the most ludicrous nonsense presented in documentaries? Probably because of their pop-culture appeal.

Firstly, the notion that Dzerzhinsky had any religious reservations and was anything less than a Marxist and, subsequently an atheist is nothing more than a slanderous lie. It would have amply been impossible for Dzerzhinsky to be anything but an atheist, it would be an affront to reason itself if it were anyway otherwise. One doesn't even need any specific self-declaration of atheism on Dzerzhinsky's part, for him to have acted the way he did, spoke in the matter that he did, entailed an atheism.

Disgusting bourgeois ideologues, opportunist scoundrels want to defame and slander Dzerzhinsky as best as possible - but like their encounter with Robespierre, the virtuous nature of these men is so acutely impossible to bypass, ignore, or downplay, that different detours msut be taken. It baffles the mind of the bourgeois ideologue that an atheist, a Communist and a "fanatical" Marxist could have been as spiritually consistent, austere and virtuous as Felix Dzerzhinsky. It is an affront to their standards of reason itself: For the bourgeois ideologue, the atheist is simply a lost soul, whose atheism exists only insofar as he is spiritually lost and weak. It baffles their mind that Dzerzhinsky could be conceived in a matter that is not cynical: and why? The Communists MUST be conceived on cynical terms, whether that entails a banker/jewish conspiracy or just a plain hunger for power. It doesn't make sense to them otherwise - for Communists to be TRULY self sufficient unto themselves with no exterior motives, this is literally impossible for them to grasp. Thus, Dzerzhinsky, when he was not annihilating the reaction - was annihilating child homelessness - was a reluctant Bolshevik, a Christian who simply got caught up in a big mess. Bullshit.

Dzerzhinsky was only a Christian insofar as Himmler was a pagan. That is to say, Dzerzhinsky's earlier religious convictions were absolutely related to his conversion to Marxism, but not as a logical extension of them: Dzerzhinsky, like - say - Moses Hess (the "red rabbi"), numerous and countless former religious devotees who became socialists (from African anti-colonial leaders raised by missionaries to European Marxists of an orthodox jewish upbringing) , encountered the hypocritical, spiritually weak and above all worldly nature of their religious beliefs. Religion inspires into men and women contact with the world-historical substance of their epoch, an existential crisis, therefore, becomes a crisis of one's relation to the world totality. This is why Marx claims that from the onset, Communism begins with atheism, the disavowal of any and all superstitions. For men like Dzerzhinsky, the hypocritical, worldly and almost cynical Christian superstition was an impediment to spiritual consistency. Dzerzhinsky saw the class struggle being waged, the depravity of the world around him, and he took a side - he utterly rejected that these were inevitabilities of human existence.

Dzerzhinsky was only a Christian insofar as Lenin, and every other Bolshevik was. Communism is, after all, the culmination of the Judeo-Christian legacy, the legacy that - for all of their banal aesthetic appreciation, Fascists rabidly despise. On numerous instances, proto-Nazis like Rosenberg would compare Bolshevik leaders to Christ, numerous Fascists would claim that Christianity was a blight upon western civilization, and so on.

Do not be mistaken. Dzerzhinsky resented his job and took no pleasure in murder. But he was not ashamed of fulfilling his duty, Dzerzhinsky carried it out proudly and with utmost dedication - Dzerzhinsky might very well be the greatest, most proficient counter-intelligence officer to have ever existed. No matter how many priests he might have attempted to save: Thousands of clergymen were executed swiftly by the Cheka, and there is no reason to think Dzerzhinsky viewed this as an injustice. Dzerzhinsky could not have been a Christian because in practice he was an atheist - the matters that concerned Dzerzhinsky were solely worldly ones, without any contingencies or dependencies on Christian superstition. The spiritual substance of Dzerzhinsky was thoroughly grounded in world-historical consciousness, and therefore, atheism.

[Anatoli]

It was the least stern and the best vigilant he can be. The enemies of the state were pouncing on the Bolsheviks. Even Lenin took a bullet to the lungs.

[Jacob Cliff]

Why is the most ludicrous nonsense presented in documentaries? Probably because of their pop-culture appeal.

Firstly, the notion that Dzerzhinsky had any religious reservations and was anything less than a Marxist and, subsequently an atheist is nothing more than a slanderous lie. It would have amply been impossible for Dzerzhinsky to be anything but an atheist, it would be an affront to reason itself if it were anyway otherwise. One doesn't even need any specific self-declaration of atheism on Dzerzhinsky's part, for him to have acted the way he did, spoke in the matter that he did, entailed an atheism.

Disgusting bourgeois ideologues, opportunist scoundrels want to defame and slander Dzerzhinsky as best as possible - but like their encounter with Robespierre, the virtuous nature of these men is so acutely impossible to bypass, ignore, or downplay, that different detours msut be taken. It baffles the mind of the bourgeois ideologue that an atheist, a Communist and a "fanatical" Marxist could have been as spiritually consistent, austere and virtuous as Felix Dzerzhinsky. It is an affront to their standards of reason itself: For the bourgeois ideologue, the atheist is simply a lost soul, whose atheism exists only insofar as he is spiritually lost and weak. It baffles their mind that Dzerzhinsky could be conceived in a matter that is not cynical: and why? The Communists MUST be conceived on cynical terms, whether that entails a banker/jewish conspiracy or just a plain hunger for power. It doesn't make sense to them otherwise - for Communists to be TRULY self sufficient unto themselves with no exterior motives, this is literally impossible for them to grasp. Thus, Dzerzhinsky, when he was not annihilating the reaction - was annihilating child homelessness - was a reluctant Bolshevik, a Christian who simply got caught up in a big mess. Bullshit.

Dzerzhinsky was only a Christian insofar as Himmler was a pagan. That is to say, Dzerzhinsky's earlier religious convictions were absolutely related to his conversion to Marxism, but not as a logical extension of them: Dzerzhinsky, like - say - Moses Hess (the "red rabbi"), numerous and countless former religious devotees who became socialists (from African anti-colonial leaders raised by missionaries to European Marxists of an orthodox jewish upbringing) , encountered the hypocritical, spiritually weak and above all worldly nature of their religious beliefs. Religion inspires into men and women contact with the world-historical substance of their epoch, an existential crisis, therefore, becomes a crisis of one's relation to the world totality. This is why Marx claims that from the onset, Communism begins with atheism, the disavowal of any and all superstitions. For men like Dzerzhinsky, the hypocritical, worldly and almost cynical Christian superstition was an impediment to spiritual consistency. Dzerzhinsky saw the class struggle being waged, the depravity of the world around him, and he took a side - he utterly rejected that these were inevitabilities of human existence.

Dzerzhinsky was only a Christian insofar as Lenin, and every other Bolshevik was. Communism is, after all, the culmination of the Judeo-Christian legacy, the legacy that - for all of their banal aesthetic appreciation, Fascists rabidly despise. On numerous instances, proto-Nazis like Rosenberg would compare Bolshevik leaders to Christ, numerous Fascists would claim that Christianity was a blight upon western civilization, and so on.

Do not be mistaken. Dzerzhinsky resented his job and took no pleasure in murder. But he was not ashamed of fulfilling his duty, Dzerzhinsky carried it out proudly and with utmost dedication - Dzerzhinsky might very well be the greatest, most proficient counter-intelligence officer to have ever existed. No matter how many priests he might have attempted to save: Thousands of clergymen were executed swiftly by the Cheka, and there is no reason to think Dzerzhinsky viewed this as an injustice. Dzerzhinsky could not have been a Christian because in practice he was an atheist - the matters that concerned Dzerzhinsky were solely worldly ones, without any contingencies or dependencies on Christian superstition. The spiritual substance of Dzerzhinsky was thoroughly grounded in world-historical consciousness, and therefore, atheism.

That's what I figured. The documentary, surprising enough, actually did not condemn Dzerzhinsky insofar as it actually subtly made him out to be a depressed, good-hearted Christian who was tragically forced to stay in his job until his death.

And by the way: I send a PM asking for an elaboration of the bourgeois nature of the Soviet Union; an answer would be helpful.

[Rafiq]

And by the way: I send a PM asking for an elaboration of the bourgeois nature of the Soviet Union; an answer would be helpful.

Yes, I apologize for the delay, I should have time to respond earlier tomorrow at latest (i.e. before the afternoon). Where I live it is 8pm, if that gives you an idea.

[Jacob Cliff]

Yes, I apologize for the delay, I should have time to respond earlier tomorrow at latest (i.e. before the afternoon). Where I live it is 8pm, if that gives you an idea.
Right, sorry (I'm still adjusting to how RevLeft's messaging system even works so my bad if I seem impatient; I don't mean to be).

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

In truth, Iron Felix wasn't really all that....Iron-y, I guess?

The idea that Dzerzhinsky was cold and heartless is completely false. The deaths that Felix ordered weighed VERY heavily on his mind, all the way to his grave. Felix rarely if ever drank....and yet during his Cheka years he began to drank regularly, sometimes to excess.

As Rafiq correctly pointed out, Dzerzhinsky was not a man who found joy in killing....which is one of the reasons Lenin and co. were confident in giving him such a thankless task. Dzerzhinsky always took the tasks that no-one else wanted, and if there was a necessary evil that needed to be done, Dzerzhinsky was always convinced that all of the 'evil' should fall on him, so that others would not have to suffer the horror of digging through the proverbial muck.

Because of this, he was the one person the Bolsheviks were willing to trust with this task.

In many ways, it's all so darkly romantic.

[Antiochus]

I only skimmed basic information about the Cheka, namely from Wikipedia. In it I found claims that the Cheka routinely raped female victims and forced the wives of male prisoners to "secure" their release via rape and executed children (below 13) as well. Sounds pretty damning. Is there any evidence this was endemic, and if it was, was it tacitly sanctioned?

[Rafiq]

I only skimmed basic information about the Cheka, namely from Wikipedia. In it I found claims that the Cheka routinely raped female victims and forced the wives of male prisoners to "secure" their release via rape and executed children (below 13) as well. Sounds pretty damning. Is there any evidence this was endemic, and if it was, was it tacitly sanctioned?

There is no actual evidence to support any of these claims. The wikipedia source for the cheka's atrocities vis a vis the claims of rape and execution of small children are from the book The Cheka: Lenin's political police. This is widely known among anyone who isn't a rabid anti-communist (as it is with the "black book of communism) as total bullshit.

That is not to say that gross excesses were not committed. They probably were. But they did not occur regularly enough to characterize the Cheka - especially considering the fact that because of its harsh enforcement of discipline, it is more likely that a Chekist would be executed for the murder of children, etc. - these things were not tolerated either tacitly or officially, insofar as operatives would have gotten away with it, it was probably a result of the inability of central powers to exert authority, lack of knowledge, etc. One of the above scenarios mentioned, i.e. releasing male prisoners through rape, if this was even close to being common it would have easily led to the collapse of the Cheka as a whole.

What is important to note is that the Cheka was not some state-ordained, hierarchical organization. The Cheka was merely an attempt to direct control over what was a very spontaneous outbrust of revolutionary terror carried out by ordinary people themselves. What people say about the Cheka literally just does not add up - even American generals in the Soviet Union would note that peasants were deserting the white armies en masse towards the end of the civil war and joining the red army, even counter-revolutionaries would have to come into terms with the mass popularity of the Soviet state at this time. It would not have been possible to maintain this if such excesses were condoned - even from a cynical perspective, it makes no sense as to why such obviously pathologically fascinating (to pseudo-historians like Leggett) cruelties would have been allowed to characterize the Cheka.

[RedMaterialist]

The spiritual substance of Dzerzhinsky was thoroughly grounded in world-historical consciousness, and therefore, atheism.

Hmmm. Now I see where your photograph/icon comes from. I thought is was Ho Chi Minh.

[Anatoli]

I only skimmed basic information about the Cheka, namely from Wikipedia. In it I found claims that the Cheka routinely raped female victims and forced the wives of male prisoners to "secure" their release via rape and executed children (below 13) as well. Sounds pretty damning. Is there any evidence this was endemic, and if it was, was it tacitly sanctioned?

They are not true. There is free sex among the Bolsheviks which meant that they always get laid. Besides, sleeping with a prisoner can offer you sickness or venereal disease.

[Emmett Till]

I only skimmed basic information about the Cheka, namely from Wikipedia. In it I found claims that the Cheka routinely raped female victims and forced the wives of male prisoners to "secure" their release via rape and executed children (below 13) as well. Sounds pretty damning. Is there any evidence this was endemic, and if it was, was it tacitly sanctioned?

This is a marvelous example of the Law of Wikipedia, which everyone needs to take to heart.

The accuracy of a Wikipedia entry is inversely proportional to the inherent importance of the subject it concerns.

This law should not be used primarily for the relatively trivial task of deciding how accurate a Wikipedia entry is, as Wikipedia should never be relied on for anything serious.

Instead, its true usefulness is as the only objective measure that exists for determining the inherent importance to the human race, or at least that large fragment of the human race that uses Wikipedia, of any particular topic. The less accurate the entry is, the more inherent importance does the subject have.

Applying this law, we may conclude that Felix Dzherzhinsky is indeed a significant figure in the history of the 20th century.