Darkness at Noon: Authur Koestler 1941

 Darkness at Noon (Time Reading Program) by Arthur Koestler | Goodreads

A Review

The introduction and forward presents this book as the response to the trials, exiles and executions of the Leaders of the Communist Revolution, Stalin’s purges and trials of 1936-1938. In the West it was unknown how men like Trotsky and other historic figures could confess to the charges of betraying the party, the nation and the masses through espionage and plots of assassination and then accept their sentence. Darkness at Noon is a fictionalized portrayal of the process of coercion and terror along with cold logic and reasoned argument that brought these men came to publicly confess the fictionalized crimes they’d been accused of.

 

The biography of Msgr. Koestler seems to match some of the story. Born a Czech, he was a communist activist then Zionist then communist again after the rise of Hitler. He was persecuted by various authoritarian governments at various stages and had to escape to England as a reforming communist. He wrote this novel during this period and by 1941 he had arrived in England as a refugee and saw the publication from prison. A very compelling personal story.

 

Rubashov is a former high ranking Party official arrested for crimes against the State, the Party, and the Revolution. The book is a record of his interrogations and confession to the crimes he is charged with. There are also the recollections of the events surrounding the charges. It is a fictionalized account of how the Communist Revolution evolved into the horror Joseph Stalin created. I have only recently started to understand those interwar years. Europe was already on fire. WWI had bankrupted everyone both financially and physically. So much bloodshed for naught. So much prosecution and persecution applied to reestablish order. So many traumatized populations searching for ideas and philosophies that just allowed things to work. And things just didn't. Joseph Stalin was a thug, a gangster, barely human. He was surrounded by weaker versions of himself. All of whom seemed to agree that violence would resolve it.

 

The story describes the Communist Party as monolithic in its dogma. There is only the Party, and it was dictated from No. 1. Any deviation in the execution of the directives was seen as counter revolutionary. Traitors are executed. The character of Rubashov is a Committee Member tasked with coordinating the efforts of the Workers Organizations in various foreign nations. As Stalin cements his power on the Party, he cuts off his international efforts at revolution and concentrates back home. He abandoned these agents, organizers and provocateurs to the wolves. Simultaneously he began his purges.

I am reminded how monolithic the Communists were. They used extensive spy and intelligence networks right from the beginning. It was an ideological movement that called for the violent overthrow of the existing order then rebuild from scratch. The ideology was what recruited the spies. The individual making the difference for the greater good. Leveling the playing field but also honing an edge that can finally set humanity free. Then of course there is reality. Ideology doesn't feed a nation, nor does it defend its borders. That transition from ideology to practice on the scale attempted was beyond the capability of the theorists that led the Revolution. The answer was Joseph Stalin.  

 I'm not really confused as to the message here. A first reaction from a westerner is that it's another tale of the horrors of the Soviet police state and the fate of a political prisoner being coerced into a confession of crimes against the state. Placing it in history makes me pause. The author was a Czech communist coming of age as the Communist Revolution was still happening. The Great Depression was everywhere, but in Europe there was a wave of political instability that seemed to be sloshing back and forth across the various governments. In reading this, I need to fence off the history that followed the writing of this book. I need to place myself in that space before the horrors of WWII were unleashed on the world.

What is becoming clear is that the Bolsheviks and then the Communists that existed were real revolutionaries. The central theme is that there needs to be worldwide violence. The violence was central to the movement. The collective whole was supreme, and the individual life is sacrificed. The narrative is Rubashov's disillusionment with the Party and its methods. Too many lives. Too many broken promises. Rubashov’s and more specifically, his legacy is to be sacrificed for greater good. For the Party and the Revolution. There is an earned guilt carried by Rubashov. Throughout his career Rubashov made decisions and statements that resulted in the sacrifice of colleagues, friends and lovers to shield himself. It was necessary so he might continue his very important work in the Revolution.

The story is very readable. It's seems almost apologetic. It gives an explanation to the logic of the show trials and purges of Stalin Russia. Having completed the read I'm interested in how the author's personal story shaped the narrative. Msgr. Koestler, I believe, has woven a tale that feels a little autobiographical in nature. Too young to have participated in the Revolution, Msgr. Koestler grew up in the glow of its aftermath. Then everything started to go wrong. He describes two sides emerging from the Revolution; those that wished to aggressively spread the Revolution across the globe and those who wished to cement the gains that were made. Stalin was in the camp of cementing gains. In the book it is described as the decision to sacrifice millions to establish the infrastructure needed to create the worker's paradise. There is an exchange between Rubashov and his interrogator, Gletkin. After Rubashov signs the last confession, Gletkin asks when Rubashov got his first watch. About eight years old, he replies. Gletkin said that he was sixteen before he knew what a clock did. A former peasant himself, he was of the opinion that turning the peasant into the factory worker required the stick. All the ideology of the old guard wouldn't create a worker's paradise from the peasant surfs that existed. Time was short. All stick. No carrots. I pause at that and see Stalin and all those that supported him tired of the debate. What occurred was a simple solution executed by simple people given enormous power over vast undeveloped resources in a world scrambling to control everything. The incompetence of the Bolsheviks was only ended by the greater incompetence of the fascists.

What kind of conclusions do I draw? Lessons in coercive confession, I guess. I mean, this was written and published as WWII was getting started. Msgr. Koestler appears to have survived the war and in interviews is humble about the prescience of his book. It was an interesting window into the collapse of ideology in the face of reality. The novel didn’t present many empathetic main characters. Rubashov thought he would find a means to survive this and it’s only at the end he accepts his fate. The author describes his death as something heroic but for me it wasn’t. I’m left with another line from a royalist sympathizer cellmate on Rubashov’s political prisoner status, “serves you right”. Throughout, it's not a choice between ideology or violence, it's just the violence of the ideology. Means and ends.