Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Володимир Шабля

Quote by Володимир Шабля

“Our guest—Comrade Stebletsov—is not merely speaking about rooting out class enemies from Soviet society; he is doing so in practice!” the homeroom teacher declared grandly. “He is a member of a grain requisition squad and therefore a true executor of the Bolshevik Party’s line to eliminate the kulaks as a class! And today, the best among you, children, are given the opportunity to prove your loyalty to the cause of Lenin and Stalin. Peter! Marusya! Stand up!” The children rose from their desks in confusion. “As top students and Young Pioneers, you are entrusted by our school collective with participation in an important state mission!” The teacher’s chest seemed to swell with pride as her chin lifted higher. “You will represent our school as public members of the grain requisition squad. Together with your senior comrades, you are assigned to uncover grain hidden by kulaks and saboteurs. Our class enemy does not sleep—he seeks to sabotage the industrialization of the USSR. He hides grain from the Soviet state, condemning the proletariat to suffering. But we will not allow the vile accomplices of the rich to rob our people! We entrust you with a responsible mission: as part of the requisition squad, you will locate and pour into the granaries of the Motherland the grain illegally concealed by the kulaks!” — Volodymyr Shablia, Stone. Book Three Context note: Set during the Holodomor of 1933, this scene illustrates how Soviet schools became instruments of communist propaganda. Children were mobilized as Young Pioneers and encouraged to participate in grain confiscation campaigns against peasants branded by the regime as “kulaks.” The language of class struggle and industrialization masked the immense human cost of forced collectivization and the state-imposed famine in Ukraine and across the USSR.”

Quote by Володимир Шабля

Work

Author

Володимир Шабля

Browse famous quotes and profile details for Володимир Шабля. more

You May Also Like

“Of course freedom for Hyde proves another form of bondage for Jekyll, just as in Hogg's book Wringham's 'Election' results not in liberation, as he imagines, but slavery to Gil-martin. For Jekyll as for Wringham there is a continual development and deterioration, so that in the end he finds himself going to sleep as Jekyll and waking as Hyde, with no control over events. He is mortally afraid that 'the balance of my nature might be permanently overthrown, the power of voluntary change be forfeited, and the character of Edward Hyde become irrevocably mine.”

“It is already apparent that the word 'Fascist' will be one of the hardest-worked words in the Presidential campaign. Henry Wallace called some people Fascists the other day in a speech and next day up jumped Harrison Spangler, the Republican, to remark that if there were any Fascists in this country you would find them in the New Deal's palace guard. It is getting so a Fascist is a man who votes the other way. Persons who vote your way, of course, continue to be 'right-minded people.' We are sorry to see this misuse of the word 'Fascist.' If we recall matters, a Fascist is a member of the Fascist party or a believer in Fascist ideals. These are: a nation founded on bloodlines, political expansion by surprise and war, murder or detention of unbelievers, transcendence of state over individual, obedience to one leader, contempt for parliamentary forms, plus some miscellaneous gymnastics for the young and a general feeling of elation. It seems to us that there are many New Deal Democrats who do not subscribe to such a program, also many aspiring Republicans. Other millions of Americans are nonsubscribers. It's too bad to emasculate the word 'Fascist' by using it on persons whose only offense is that they vote the wrong ticket. The word should be saved for use in cases where it applies, as it does to members of our Ku Klux Klan, for instance, whose beliefs and practices are identical with Fascism. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), there is a certain quality in Fascism which is quite close to a certain quality in nationalism. Fascism is openly against people-in-general, in favor of people-in-particular. Nationalism, although in theory not dedicated to such an idea, actually works against people-in-general because of its preoccupation with people-in-particular. It reminds one of Fascism, also, in its determination to stabilize its own position by whatever haphazard means present themselves--by treaties, policies, balances, agreements, pacts, and the jockeying for position which is summed up in the term 'diplomacy.' This doesn't make an America Firster a Fascist. It simply makes him, in our opinion, a man who hasn't grown into his pants yet. The persons who have written most persuasively against nationalism are the young soldiers who have got far enough from our shores to see the amazing implications of a planet. Once you see it, you never forget it.”

“[E]ven on the issues that are put up to democratic vote, we are saddled with a two-party system in which the liberal democratic party might be one of the most criminal orginizations in modern history. If you think I am exaggerating, consider that it's the democrats who: Fought the civil war on the side of slavery, created Jim Crow segregation after they lost that war, dropped the only nuclear weapons on a civilian population in history, stole a third of Mexico's land, and forced the Cherokee and other tribes on the infamous Trail of Tears, killed millions in the wars of Korea and South East Asia, doubled the country's prison population under Bill Clinton, deported over 2 million immigrants under Barrack, you get the picture. The point is not that there's anything better about Republicans: Many of whom probably look at the list above and sigh with envy, but that both major US parties are completely devoted to the priorities of the tiny class that runs this country. Each party may be paid to look out for a particular industry, republicans get lots of oil money, while democrats are preferred by the tech industry. But sometimes they propose different strategies to achieve the same ends: such as whether the United States should destroy Middle-Eastern countries with or without the approval of the United Nations. More often, their differences are even less substantial and are almost entirely about how to get a different voting block to support the same policies.”

“The Republicans appear gutless because few have dared complain even while their party is taken over by people who despise them; the Democrats seem unaware that something similar might happen to them. The vital center, which in the past has saved the country from divisions over a host of contentious issues, has become a lonely place—historically an augury of more extreme problems in the offing. What the country needs is a plainspoken commitment by responsible leaders from both parties to address national needs together, accompanied by a general plan of action for doing so. Instead, Republicans are guarding their right flank and Democrats their left, leaving a gaping hole in the only place in the ideological spectrum where lasting agreements on behalf of the common good can be forged.”