The title of this book is what caught my attention. A friend of mine had recommended that I read some of the books that Dikötter wrote. As I was looking through the list of his titles this one stood out the most and I began reading.
Dikötter begins with an introduction where he provides his thesis, which includes the following: “naked power has an expiry date. Power seized through violence must be maintained by violence, although violence can be a blunt instrument. A dictator must rely on military forces, a secret police, a praetorian guard, spies, informants, interrogators, torturers. But it is best to pretend that coercion is actually consent. A dictator must instil fear in his people, but if he can compel them to acclaim him he will probably survive longer. The paradox of the modern dictator, in short, is that he must create the illusion of popular support.”
In describing the cult of personality Dikötter stated “Most of all, by compelling them to acclaim him before the others, a dictator turned everyone into a liar.” He continued: “The purpose of the cult was not to convince or persuade, but to sow confusion, to destroy common sense, to enforce obedience, to isolate individuals and crush their dignity. People had to self-censor, and in turn they monitored others, denouncing those who failed to appear sufficiently sincere in their professions of devotion to the leader.”
Dikötter further notes: “Dictators who survived often relied on two instruments of power: the cult and terror. Yet all too often the cult has been treated as a mere aberration, a repellent but marginal phenomenon. This book places the cult of personality where it belongs, at the very heart of tyranny.”
After outlining the cult of personality Dikötter goes into case studies of how various dictators implemented the cult. There are chapters on Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, but there are also chapters on figures I was less familiar with including Duvalier and Mengistu.
Dikötter writes: “Duvalier was a dictator’s dictator, a man who wielded naked power without the pretence of ideology, despite all the talk about revolution. He ruled alone, from his mahogany desk, an automatic pistol within reach, a few palace guards behind the nearest door. There was no junta, no faction, no clique, no true party except in name, only underlings vying for his attention, hoping to supplant each other by demonstrations of absolute loyalty. Duvalier, suspicious of everyone, was single-minded in exploiting their foibles, manipulating their emotions, testing their loyalty. It helped that he occasionally miscalculated, crushing friends and foes alike.“
I enjoyed reading this book and the focus that it put on the cult of personality. Overall I rate it 5 out of 5 stars.
William Wilberforce has been called an agitator for his commitment to ending the slave trade. One of his well known speeches on the subject was given on May 12, 1789.
Cardinal Richelieu has been hailed as a great statesman and as a subversive authoritarian. Depending on who you talk to he was a man needed to strengthen the monarchy in France, or he was a tyrant seeking personal power. Next week I will have a book review that may shed more light on Cardinal Richelieu.
When Lenin was working on his major writing projects he would often pace across the room formulating the ideas that he would write down by saying them out loud. Once he had the idea for what he wanted to write he would often repeat the idea to Nadezhda Krupskaya, who would provide feedback. Once this process was complete he would then write the ideas down.
Here is an AI rendering of what that might have looked like when he was drafting What is to be Done.
This month this community will focus on political subversion. What is subversion? When is it justified? What is the interplay between subversion and agitation? These are some of the topics to be discussed this month.
“You get used to the despot’s shortcomings, when they are not great vices, and the change of an autocratic ruler leads to involuntary fear.”
Sergei Trubetskoi
