How many days from a second national lock down – if only a ‘circuit breaker’?

Posted on by
Reply

More on covid pandemic 2020-2?

How many days from a second national lock down – if only a ‘circuit breaker’?

It’s now just under seven months since measures were taken in the United Kingdom in an effort to control the covid-19 pandemic – the ‘first lock down’. From the beginning it was obvious the British Government didn’t have a strategy in how they were going to deal with this (not totally unexpected) catastrophic event. Now approaching winter there still isn’t one.

Restrictions that are due to come into force in the next couple of days in Scotland will almost certainly be emulated – although possibly in a watered down manner – in the rest of the four ‘nations’ that make up the UK.

The problem with these new restrictions is that once they are imposed how do you then relax them or remove then all together? The logic of the case made by some scientists and some politicians (although there is starting to be an element of criticism of the actual tactics from both the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ in Britain) is that such restrictions will have to remain in place until a vaccine (if an effective one is ever produced) can curb the worse excesses of the disease.

Numbers of infections fluctuate – sometimes understandably (as with the return of schools, colleges and universities) sometimes for no apparent reason. Statistics of infections, hospitalisations and deaths are used to justify particular actions and it is only some time after the change in policies that they can be analysed and the ‘truth’ of the situation fully understood.

The economy is in free fall and even though this is a characteristic of capitalism this one is different in that the capitalist representatives in government (not only in the UK but throughout most of the world) are actually causing the crisis by their sheer inability to come up with imaginative and effective solutions to the problem because they lack any strategy at all.

At present in Britain the so-called ‘hospitality sector’ (pubs, restaurants, hotels and leisure activities) is in the sights of those about to pull the trigger. Whether it will have any effect is debatable but as has been the case since the very beginning, it gives the impression (no more) that the Government is ‘doing something’.

To continue to follow the same sort of policies that were used in epidemics and pandemics centuries ago has patently shown itself not ‘fit for purpose’ in the 21st century world. Those who oppose the lock down tactic (it’s a misuse of the word to call it a strategy) merely hope and pray, with all fingers crossed, that the virus will just get fed up killing people and go away.

Those who call for a more proactive approach to both save lives and reduce the huge, still hidden, impact of closing down a modern society at least have a strategy.

Preparedness for the pandemic

I’m sure that, for years, we in the UK were told that the country had made preparations in the event of a global pandemic. The buying and storing of Personal Protective Equipment was, presumably part of that. However, I have been unable to come across anything that indicates there was a strategy to deal with such an event.

Everything that has happened in Britain since news of the outbreak in China first became common knowledge has been a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to the situation as it was perceived at the time or the political pressures under which the Government might have been – always hiding behind ‘the scientific evidence’.

However, nothing approaching anything that could be classified as a strategy – or if it does exist I haven’t been able to find any proof of it.

Last year, the Global Health Security Index (from the World Economic Forum) considered the United Kingdom second in the world for pandemic readiness, in first place was the United States. Events since the beginning of the year have proven the saying that the first shall be last.

What went wrong. It has been argued that in Britain it was because the Buffoon sabotaged the system.

However, another report (from April this year) stated that the British Government KNEW it wasn’t prepared for a pandemic – even before covid-19 outbreak. Briefings recommended preventative measures – but these were, seemingly, just ignored.

The Great Barrington Declaration

Most countries in the world have followed the ‘easiest’ way to deal with the pandemic by closing society down and hoping it will all go away – basically putting their heads in the sand. China was probably the guilty one here. They had no imagination and locked society down as they had no imagination (or preparation and/or strategy) to deal with such a pandemic – and then the rest of the world (equally lacking in preparation, imagination or strategy) did likewise (that is, apart from Sweden).

However, from the start there have been many who have argued for a different approach and as knowledge of who covid-19 effects the most their voices have gotten louder. Let the majority of the population get on with their lives (with certain minor changes to habits), protect the most vulnerable in society and deal with covid-19 as the world has been dealing with such diseases for centuries.

On 7th October a group arguing for this approach published what is strangely called ‘The Great Barrington Declaration’. It was signed by a thousands of people from the scientific community as well as members of the general public. You can add your name by going here.

One of the signatories, Sunetra Gupta, explained their thinking on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme on the 7th October.

The ‘so-called’ Swedish Experiment

‘So-called’ because the majority of the establishment, both political and scientific (and their toadies in the media) who are the ostriches which are dominant in the argument at the moment, try to denigrate anything which differs from their orthodoxy. Although slanted to the present method adopted by the Buffoon in the UK a BBC Radio 4 programme, The Briefing Room, on the 24th September, had a look at what had happened and was happening in Sweden.

Infections in England

A look at the statistics towards the end of September asks if there is a North-South divide in England when it came to infections.

One of the problems of local lock downs is that there is no strategy established how to get out of the situation of increased restrictions. Added to that infections tend to increase rather than fall. This has been put down to the continuing confusion that reigns throughout the nation.

Fragility of the NHS

NHS staff took more than 500,000 sick days due to mental health issues in May – and the situation would probably get worse as time goes on as the pressures of dealing with the pandemic increase.

Covid impact on NHS capacity in England to last ‘several years’.

Breast cancer missed for thousands of women because of covid related screening delays. Up to a million might have missed out on scans.

There are doubts of the resilience of the NHS in the coming winter, some predicting a ‘triple whammy’.

Covid could cause a ‘tsunami of cancelled NHS operations’.

Women’s health is bearing the brunt of the covid pandemic.

Patients face being sent to back of NHS queue as waiting lists reviewed.

Lies damn lies and statistics

Statistics tell us a lot – and then they don’t. Most people have probably encountered statistics in the last seven months in a way they have never before in their lives. That’s a good thing as they can help us to understand what is happening – but the problem with statistics is that they can be (and often are) manipulated for various causes.

A ‘reassessment’ of figures from the early part of the year (the study upon which the Buffoon used to justify his ‘500,000 dead’ speech) is now suggesting that going down the ‘herd immunity’ route – as opposed to the total local down that was followed – could have been the way to save lives. (N.B. This is from an article in the Daily Telegraph which is starting to bang this particular drum quite noisily at the moment.)

The difficulties caused by the ‘asymptomatic’ character of covid-19 has been highlighted in a study which looked at how infections were manifested between April and June of this year.

Coronavirus Act

The act brought in to ‘deal with the pandemic’ contains quite draconian powers. This was pointed out when the act came in on 25th March. It has to be ‘reviewed’ every six months (as was the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973). The Irish related law first had a proper discussion in the early days but eventually just went through on the nod. It will be interesting to follow the fate of this latest law – once laws are introduced governments are very reluctant to see them abolished, especially when it gives them carte blanche to impose local restrictions under whatever pretext.

On the 29th September the extension was backed by 330 for to 24 against and was discussed for 85 minutes. It will be an indicator of the way British society is heading if the debate is shorter in six months time.

Postmortem of how the ‘first wave’ was handled

Did the NHS 111 Covid helpline fail hundreds of families?

Anyone want an unused ventilator? The Government acquired 14 times more ventilators than were needed for the pandemic. However the National Audit Office considers it was best to be safe than sorry. After all, in the present spending spree £569 million is nothing – and we should never miss an opportunity to pass fortunes from the public purse to the private sector. A little bit of pre-planning and preparation for such a pandemic might have mitigated this mad rush to buy what is now looking like useless hardware.

Vulnerabilities to the virus

Some people might have been born with less resistance to the covid-19 virus.

Vulnerabilities to the covid infection are a mixture of nature and nurture. A new one to be added to the nature list is our connection to our very earliest ancestors. If your ancestors had intimate contact with Neanderthals, and thus share genes, then this also makes you more vulnerable. However, it’s not certain what that means as a report released at the beginning of this year came to the conclusion that all modern humans have Neanderthal genes

As knowledge of the virus increases it has been reported that loss of smell may be clearer sign than a cough.

Scientists study whether immune response wards off or worsens covid.

Testing

A new global test will give results ‘in minutes’. However, as pointed out in the last post, it’s the richer countries that are hoovering up all these cheap and quick test kits – and for themselves and not the poorer countries of the world.

Airport testing to be launched within weeks. This test would cost £150 but would, in theory, cut quarantine time in half. So still slightly self selecting in that many people will be excluded due to the cost.

16,000 coronavirus cases missed in daily figures after IT error. This was blamed on Microsoft (for not making Excel accept more than a million lines), Public Health England (this from Matt Hancock who put the responsibility for the failure on the ‘legacy system’) or Uncle Tom Cobley and All. In fact anyone but the Buffoon and his Government.

NHS tests threatened by Roche supply chain failing. This is a crazy one. Why is such a major capitalist enterprise totally unable to get the logistics right when making a location change? Supposedly the move was in preparation for the UK leaving the European Union. Why didn’t they foresee the problems? Was it all due to cost cutting – which is often the case for such failings? And why did they carry out the transition in such a cavalier manner in the middle of a pandemic when their testing equipment was vital to the process of dealing with covid-19? They’re making a fortune out of the suffering of the British people but they are still incapable of providing an efficient service. And, no doubt, they will suffer no sanction for their incompetence.

First there was going to be testing at airports – then there wasn’t. If, when is still in doubt. Welcome to the land of the ‘world beating’ testing regime. Why does anyone even want to come to the UK?

A Tory’s ‘re-writing of history’

Jeremy Hunt, at one time in Matt Hancock’s position as Health Minister, sought to re-write history when discussing the failings in the testing regime on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme on the 5th October.

Some points from this cretin’s few minutes on the radio;

the argument for localism was put from the beginning – but there was the issue of lack of finance

he tries to give the impression he is speaking in reaction to the recent failure (16,000 tests not being recorded and no contact tracing of their contacts) when it was the Government who went for the centralised system from the start

the 100,000 tests per day was just a publicity stunt brought out when criticism of the Buffoon was getting more intense

it was never stated that dealing with large numbers of tests needed large centralised laboratories

a centralised system meant that public money could be shovelled into the bulging bank accounts of private companies – going local would mean giving money to local authorities

there has not just been one ‘glitch’ – the system has been a disaster from the start

going local now will allow the Buffoon and his lackeys to blame others if things go wrong in the future

from the beginning (if they had anything approximating to a strategy) the Government should have identified all the places with capabilities for testing and should then have told them what to do, requisitioning their spaces and personnel if necessary, at no cost to the public purse, as private companies have been given billions of pounds of public money already

criticism of the present failings is not ‘the benefit of hindsight’

he just reiterates the arguments that local tracing is more efficient – but these arguments were not accepted by the Government months ago

The Buffoon’s policies of the past – and the future?

The 10pm curfew for pubs came under a lot of scrutiny as there didn’t seem to be any scientific proof for it (other than other countries had done it so it must be right) and was full of contradictions.

Asking over-65s to shield is ‘age-based apartheid’.

Leak reveals possible harsher three-tier England covid plan.

NHS Track and Trace app

How does the NHS app work? A short introduction from Radio 4’s World at One on the day of the launch of the app in England and Wales, 24th September.

Difficulties started to show themselves the day after the app was launched.

Problems also arose on Day 3 – with users unable to share the results of any tests via the app.

NHS tracing app problem that left tens of thousands of tests unlogged – but it was supposed to have been fixed quite quickly.

‘I spoke to one person in four months‘.

Police told not to download NHS covid-19 app

Covid fatalities

At the end of September it was estimated that about one million people have died in the last ten months due to the covid-19 pandemic.

Now that’s a lot of people – but this has to be placed in context.

Let’s have a look at some of the other causes of death worldwide.

Water and sanitation

829,000 – 2016

Tuberculosis

Over a million every year. It’s the world’s deadliest infectious disease.

AIDS

Estimated 770,000 in 2018. This figure has gone down substantially since the peak in 2004.

Hunger and hunger-related diseases

Around 9 million every year. NINE MILLION! In a world where in some countries obesity is becoming one of the most serious problems and the amount of food waste is almost unimaginable.

Malaria

About 435,000 in 2017.

Influenza

Around 646,000 people each year.

Hepatitis C

Around 400,000 each year.

Most of all these above statistics relate to those who are the poorest in the world. Note that these cases of ‘common’ diseases of the poor are every year. They have been dying in the past, the present and there’s no indication that these numbers will reduce significantly in the future – not with all the effort being placed on developing a vaccine for the rich – whether that be relative or absolute.

If covid-19 had stayed where it should have, i.e., in the East and the southern hemisphere, there’s no shadow of a doubt that all the resources that have been devoted to finding a vaccine would not have been brought into play.

Although the number of cases in the UK has been growing it is still far from the dire consequences predicted a couple of weeks ago. Even with an increased number of cases the growth is actually slowing down – apart from blips that occur when the testing system breaks down.

One law for us and one law for them

It was only for a few days but all the bars in the so-called ‘Mother of Parliaments’ didn’t have the same restrictions placed on them as all such places in the rest of the country. In itself it’s only a small issue but it’s a clear indication (even though these ‘us and them’ have been regular occurrences in the last six months) that the rich and ‘powerful’ don’t think that they should be included in any restrictions imposed on the majority of the population.

And even the Buffoon’s father can’t be convinced to ‘play the game’.

Return of University students

It shouldn’t have been a surprise that cases of infections would increase once students went or returned to university. Student accommodation is probably where you find the highest concentration of people in such a small space anywhere in the UK – apart from gangsters who run slave operations. In some ways this may not necessarily be a bad thing and here this blog doesn’t disagree with the Buffoon’s Government on this matter.

Although testing positive the symptoms in the vast majority of cases are minor – if not non-existent. And an element of ‘herd immunity’ in a University context may not be a negative consequence.

However, PC Plod doesn’t accept the anger of students being locked into their halls of residence after they were told that going to university would be ‘safe’.

Paranoid – or are they actually watching you?

Monitoring of workplace computers has existed for many years. Now, using the pandemic as an excuse, companies are extending this to those who work at home.

Flu vaccine

Elderly facing winter flu vaccine shortage. This is unbelievable and just demonstrates, yet again, the lack of strategy and general ‘joined-up thinking’ of the Buffoon and his Government. Ever since the drop in infections in August there was talk about how a serious flu outbreak this coming winter would exacerbate the covid pandemic. Instead of planning for this, organising the vaccine procedure and getting on top of things from the beginning the neo-liberal fundamentalists just left it to the ‘market’ to decide priorities.

Care Homes

After the high percentage of deaths in the ‘first wave’ occurring in the care home environment you would have expected there to have been major efforts to ensure this is not repeated in any potential ‘second wave’ or even natural increase in infections due to the arrival of winter. But this is Britain and that’s not the case. Instead of creating a steel wall around these most vulnerable they are being left at risk due to the poor testing regimes still in place.

A report by Amnesty International states that the treatment of residents and staff in care homes over the last six months has been a ‘violation of human rights’. However this criminal neglect of the most vulnerable doesn’t seem to be changing any time soon.

Elderly care at home

BBC Radio 4’s You and Yours looked at how this situation was still fraught with problems on the 29th September.

And a strategy?

The word is being used more now – but there’s no substance behind it.

More on covid pandemic 2020-2?

J.V. Stalin: The Discussion with Sergei Eisenstein on the Film ‘Ivan the Terrible’

Posted on by
Reply
Ivan the Terrible - in the film

Ivan the Terrible – in the film

More on the USSR – including other writings of JV Stalin

J.V. Stalin: The Discussion with Sergei Eisenstein on the Film ‘Ivan the Terrible’

Introduction

So far on this blog, when it comes to Socialist Realism, the emphasis has been on how it manifested itself in the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania. This has through an analysis of the distinctive (and often very impressive) Albanian lapidars but there have also been articles addressing paintings, art in general as well as looking at architectural representations such as mosaics and bas relief on and in buildings.

There have also been posts about how Socialist Realism was seen in the People’s Republic of China during its socialist period (which tragically ended very soon after the death of Chairman Mao in 1976).

A beginning (small at the moment) has also been made on the country which was the first to develop the Socialist Realist theory and practice, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). So far this has been quite limited to a start on a look at the magnificent decorations of the metro stations – in reality the biggest art galleries in the world (especially in Moscow and Leningrad).

An equally small contribution has also been started in the public art of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

All these projects related to the above countries are ongoing.

However, so far, there has been little presented on the most important technological development in the field of arts of the 20th century – cinema.

VI Lenin, the first leader of the first Socialist State, realised from the very beginning the importance of literature and art in the development of the dictatorship of the proletariat, without which a workers state wouldn’t be able to exist. He also understood the importance of the moving image in this task.

As did JV Stalin and the article below shows that he took a very active interest in how the Soviet Cinema industry was developing – what messages and values it was trying to transmit in the socialist education of the Soviet working class and peasants.

Anti-Communists constantly distort events to twist them to fit into their anti-working class agenda. Not surprising as capitalism and imperialism will do and say anything which they think will strengthen their hold on the majority of the people of the world and to undermine anyone who seeks to challenge their political and economic control.

Many people might have heard/read about Stalin’s intervention regarding Shostakovich’s opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District in 1934. This criticism was accepted by the composer – and even today the work isn’t considered to be one of Shostakovich’s best. What probably isn’t widely known is that Stalin’s criticism came from a very deep understanding of Russian folk culture and he considered it important for Soviet artists (in all fields) to create artistic works to which the majority of the Soviet population could relate.

His intervention with Eisenstein about the two films of Ivan the Terrible primarily concerned historical accuracy – to which Eisenstein was playing fast and loose. In a socialist society artists have obligations to the people which do not exist in a capitalist society. After all, Eisenstein’s ability to have the luxury of following his artistic ideas was paid for by the working people. Stalin in this interview was reminding the film maker (and by implication all other artists) about his obligations.

Ivan the Terrible - sketch by Eisenstein

Ivan the Terrible – sketch by Eisenstein

Introduction by Revolutionary Democracy

One of the consequence of the anti-Stalin campaign initiated by the CPSU in 1953 has been that a number of facets of Stalin’s interventions on cultural questions are virtually unknown in the Communist movement. It is a telling commentary on this state of affairs that Paresh Dhar in his review of Asok Chattopadhyaya’s book Martiya Chirayat Bhabana – Silpa Sahitya Prasanga (in Bengali) can write that ‘what is most striking is that by a special research work, Asok has unveiled Stalin’s numerous involvements with art and literature of which we never heard before’, (Frontier, May 24th, 1997).

This discussion took place between Stalin, Zhdanov and Molotov from the political leadership of the CPSU(b), and S.M. Eisenstein and N. Cherkasov at the end of February, 1947. It was an integral part of the attempt by the Bolshevik party in the post-war period to raise the artistic level of Soviet culture and to eliminate weaknesses in ideological and political content.(1) Prior to the discussion the Central Committee of the CPSU(B) had, on September 4th, 1946 taken a decision on the film Glowing Life. Parts of the decision which bear on Ivan the Terrible are cited here:

‘The fact of the matter is that many of our leading cinema workers – producers, directors and screen writers – are taking a light-hearted and irresponsible attitude to their duties and are not working conscientiously on the films they produce. The chief defect in their work is failure to study subject matter… Producer Eisenstein betrayed ignorance of historical facts in the second series of Ivan Grozny, depicting Ivan Grozny’s progressive army, the oprichniki, as a gang of degenerates reminiscent of the American Ku Klux Klan. Ivan Grozny, a man of strong will and character, is shown as a spineless weakling, as a Hamlet type… ‘

‘One of the fundamental reasons for the production of worthless films is the lack of knowledge of subject matter and the light-hearted attitude of screen writers and producers to their work.’

‘The Central Committee finds that the Ministry of Cinematography, and primarily its head, Comrade Bolshakov, exercises inadequate supervision over film studios, producers and screen writers, is doing too little to improve the quality of films and is spending large sums of money to no useful purpose. Leading officials of the Ministry of Cinematography take an irresponsible attitude to the work entrusted to them and are indifferent to the ideological and political content and artistic merits of the films being produced.’

‘The Central Committee is of the opinion that the work of the Ministry’s Art Council is incorrectly organized. The council does not ensure impartial and business-like criticism of films for production. It often takes an apolitical attitude in its judgement of film and pays little attention to their idea-content. Many of its members display lack of principle in their assessment of films, their judgement being based on personal, friendly relations with the producers. The absence of criticism in the cinema and the prevalent narrow-circle atmosphere are among the chief reasons for the production of poor films.’

‘Art workers must realise that those who continue to take an irresponsible, light-hearted attitude to their work, may well find themselves superfluous and outside the ranks of progressive Soviet art, for the cultural requirements and demands of the Soviet theatregoer have developed and the Party and Government will continue to cultivate among the people good taste and encourage exacting demands on works of art.’ (Decisions of the Central Committee, C.P.S.U.(B) On Literature and Art (1946-1948), Moscow, 1951, pp. 26-28.)

1. An earlier criticism of the films of Eisenstein (Strike, The Battleship Potemkin, October, and The General Line) was published in 1931: I. Anissimov, ‘The Films of Eisenstein’. This has been reprinted in Bulletin International, 64-67, April-July 1983, pp. 74-91. (In French).

J.V. Stalin: The Discussion with Sergei Eisenstein on the Film ‘Ivan the Terrible’

We were summoned to the Kremlin at about 11 o’clock [In the evening – Ed.]. At 10.50 we reached the reception. Exactly at 11 o’clock Poskrebyshev came out to escort us to the cabinet.

At the back of the room were Stalin, Molotov and Zhdanov.

We entered, exchanged greetings and sat around the table.

Stalin. You wrote a letter. The answer got delayed a little. We are meeting late. I first thought of giving a written answer but then I decided that talking will be better. As I am very busy and have no time I decided to meet you here after a long interval. I received your letter in November.

Zhdanov. You received it while still in Sochi.

Stalin. Yes, yes. In Sochi. What have you decided to do with the film?

Eisenstein. We are saying that we have divided the second part of the film into two sections, because of which the Livonsky March has not been included. As a result there is a disproportion between the different parts of the film. So it is necessary to correct the film by editing the existing material and to shoot mainly the Livonsky March.

Stalin. Have you studied History?

Eisenstein. More or less.

Stalin. More or less? I am also a little familiar with history. You have shown the oprichnina incorrectly. The oprichnina was the army of the king. It was different from the feudal army which could remove its banner and leave the battleground at any moment – the regular army, the progressive army was formed. You have shown this oprichnina to be like the Ku-Klux-Klan.

Eisenstein said that they wear white cowls but we have black ones.

Molotov. This does not make a major difference.

Stalin. Your tsar has come out as being indecisive, he resembles Hamlet. Everybody prompts him as to what is to be done, and he himself does not take any decision… Tsar Ivan was a great and a wise ruler, and if he is compared with Ludwig XI (you have read about Ludwig XI who prepared absolutism for Ludwig XIV), then Ivan the Terrible is in the tenth heaven. The wisdom of Ivan the Terrible is reflected by the following: he looked at things from the national point of view and did not allow foreigners into his country, he barricaded the country from the entry of foreign influence. By showing Ivan the Terrible in this manner you have committed a deviation and a mistake. Peter 1st was also a great ruler, but he was extremely liberal towards foreigners, he opened the gate wide to them and allowed foreign influence into the country and permitted the Germanisation of Russia. Catherine allowed it even more. And further. Was the court of Alexander I really a Russian court? Was the Court of Nicolaus I a Russian court? No, they were German courts.

The most outstanding contribution of Ivan the Terrible was that he was the first to introduce the government monopoly of external trade. Ivan the Terrible was the first and Lenin was the second.

Zhdanov. The Ivan the Terrible of Eisenstein came out as a neurotic.

Molotov. In general, emphasis was given to psychologism, excessive stress was laid on internal psychological contradictions and personal emotions.

Stalin. It is necessary to show the historical figure in correct style. For example it was not correct that in the first series Ivan the Terrible kissed his wife so long. At that period it was not permitted.

Zhdanov. The film is made in the Byzantine style but there also it was not done.

Molotov. The second series is very restricted in domes and vaults, there is no fresh air, no wider Moscow, it does not show the people. One may show conversations, repressions but not this.

Stalin. Ivan the Terrible was extremely cruel. It is possible to show why he had to be cruel.

One of the mistakes of Ivan the Terrible was that he did not completely finish off the five big feudal families. If he had destroyed these five families then there would not have been the Time of Troubles. If Ivan the Terrible executed someone then he repented and prayed for a long time. God disturbed him on these matters… It was necessary to be decisive.

Molotov. It is necessary to show historical incidents in a comprehensive way. For example the incident with the drama of Demyan Bedny Bogatyp. Demyan Bedny mocked the baptism of Russia, but in reality acceptance of Christianity was a progressive event for its historical development.

Stalin. Of course, we are not good Christians but to deny the progressive role of Christianity at that particular stage is impossible. This incident had a very great importance because this turned the Russian state to contacts with the West, and not to an orientation towards the East.

About relations with the East, Stalin said that after the recent liberation from the Tatar yoke, Ivan the Terrible united Russia in a hurried way so as to have a stronghold to face a fresh Tatar attack. Astrakhan was already conquered and they could have attacked Moscow at any moment, The Crimean Tatars also could have done this.

Stalin. Demyan Bedny did not have the correct historical perspective. When we shifted the statue of Minin and Podzharsky closer to the church of Vasily Blazhenova then Demyan Bedny protested and wrote that the statue must be thrown away and that Minin and Podzharsky must be forgotten. In answer to this letter, I called him ‘Ivan, do not forget your own family’. We cannot throw away history…’

Next Stalin made a series of remarks regarding the interpretation of Ivan the Terrible and said that Malyuta Skuratov was a great army general and died a hero’s death in the war with Livonia.

Cherkasov in reply said that criticism always helped and that after criticism Pudovkin made a good film Admiral Nakhimov. ‘We are sure that we will not do worse. I am working on the character of Ivan the Terrible not only the film, but also in the theatre. I fell in love with this character and think that our alteration of the scenes will be correct and truthful’.

In response to this Stalin replied (addressing Molotov and Zhdanov) – ‘Let’s try?’

Cherkasov I am sure that the alteration will be successful.

Stalin. May god help you, – every day a new year. (Laughs.)

Eisenstein. We are saying that in the first part a number of moments were successful and this gives us the confidence for making the second series.

Stalin. We are not talking about what you have achieved, but now we are talking about the shortcomings.

Eisenstein asked whether there were some more instructions regarding the film.

Stalin. I am not giving you instructions but expressing the viewer’s opinion. It is necessary that historical characters are reflected correctly. What did Glinka show us? What is this Glinka? This is Maksim and not Glinka. [They were talking about the film Composer Glinka made by L. Arnshtam. The main role was played by B. Chirkov.] Artist Chirkov could not express himself and for an artist the greatest quality is the capability to transform himself. (Addressing Cherkasov) – you are capable of transforming yourself.

In answer to this Zhdanov said that Cherkasov was unlucky with Ivan the Terrible. There was still panic with regard to Spring and he started to act as a janitor – in the film In the Name of Life he plays a janitor.

Cherkasov said that he had acted the maximum number of tsars and he had even acted as Peter 1st and Aleksei.

Zhdanov. According to the hereditary line. He proceeded according to the hereditary line.

Stalin. It is necessary to show historical figures correctly and strongly. (To Eisenstein). You directed Alexander Nevsky. It came out very well. The most important thing is to maintain the style of the historical period. The director may deviate from history; it is not correct if he simply copies from the historical materials, he must work on his ideas but within the boundary of style. The director may vary within the style of that historical period.

Zhdanov said that Eisenstein is fascinated by the shadows (which distracts viewers from the action), and the beard of Ivan the Terrible and that Ivan the Terrible raises his head too often, so that his beard can be seen.

Eisenstein promised to shorten the beard of Ivan the Terrible in future.

Stalin. (Recalling different actors from the first part of the film Ivan the Terrible) Kurbsky – is magnificent. Staritsky is very good (Artist Kadochnikov). He catches the flies excellently. Also: the future tsar, he is catching flies with his hands! These type of details are necessary. They reveal the essence of man.

…The conversation then switched to the situation in Czechoslovakia in connection with Cherkasov’s participation in the Soviet film festival. Cherkasov narrated the popularity of the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia.

The discussion then touched upon the destruction of the Czechoslovakian cities by the Americans.

Stalin. Our job was to enter Prague before the Americans. The Americans were in a great hurry, but owing to Koniev’s attack we were able to outdistance the Americans and strike Prague just before its fall. The Americans bombed Czechoslovakian industry. They maintained this policy throughout Europe, for them it was important to destroy those industries which were in competition with them. They bombed with taste.

Cherkasov spoke about the album of photographs of Franco and Goebbels which was with Ambassador Zorin at his villa.

Stalin. It is good that we finished these pigs. It is horrifying to think what would have happened if these scoundrels had won.

Cherkasov mentioned the graduation ceremony of the Soviet colony in Prague. He spoke of the children of emigrants who were studying there. It was very sad for these children who think of Russia as their motherland, as their home, when they were born there and had never been to Russia.

Stalin. It is unfortunate for these children. They are not at fault.

Molotov. Now we are giving a big opportunity to the children to return to Russia.

Stalin pointed to Cherkasov that he had the capacity for incarnation and that we have still the capacity to incarnate the artist Khmelev.

Cherkasov said that he had learnt a lot while working as an extra in the Marine Theatre in Leningrad. At that time the great master of incarnation Shaliapin acted and appeared on stage.

Stalin. He was a great actor.

Zhdanov asked: how is the shooting of the film Spring going on?

Cherkasov. We will finish it soon. Towards spring we are going to release Spring.

Zhdanov said that he liked the content of Spring a lot. The artist Orlova played very well.

Cherkasov. The artist Plyatt acted very well.

Zhdanov. And how did Ranevskaya act! (Waves his hand.)

Cherkasov. For the first time in my life I appeared in a film without a beard, without a moustache, without a cloak, without make-up. Playing the role of a director, I am a bit ashamed of my appearance and I feel like hiding behind my characters. This role is a lot of responsibility because I must represent a Soviet director and all our directors are worried: How will a Soviet director be shown?

Molotov. And here Cherkasov is settling scores with all the directors! When the film Spring was called into question, Cherkasov read an editorial in the newspaper Soviet Art regarding Spring and decided the film was already banned.

And then Zhdanov said: Cherkasov saw that all the preparations for Spring had perished so he took on the role of a janitor. Then Zhdanov spoke disapproving of the critical storm which had come up around Spring.

Stalin was interested to know how the actress Orlova had acted. He approved of her as an actress.

Cherkasov said that this actress had a great capability of working and an immense talent.

Zhdanov. Orlova acted extremely well. And everybody remembered Volga-Volga and the role of the postman Orlova had played.

Cherkasov. Have you watched In the Name of Life?

Stalin. No, I have not watched it, but we have a good report from Kliment Efremovich. Voroshilov liked the film.

Then that means that all the questions are solved. What do you think Comrades (addresses Molotov and Zhdanov), should we give Comrades Cherkasov and Eisenstein the opportunity to complete the film? – and added – please convey all this to Comrade Bolshakov.

Cherkasov asked about some details in the film and about the outward appearance of Ivan the Terrible.

Stalin. His appearance is right, there is no need to change it. The outward appearance of Ivan the Terrible is fine.

Cherkasov. Can the scene about the murder of Staritskova be retained in the scenario?

Stalin. You may retain it. The murder did take place.

Cherkasov. We have a scene in which Malyuta Skuratov strangles the Metropolit Philip.

Zhdanov. It was in the Tver Otroch-Monastery?

Cherkasov. Yes, is it necessary to keep this scene?

Stalin said that it was necessary to retain this scene as it was historically correct.

Molotov said it was necessary to show repression but at the same time one must show the purposes for which it was done. For this it was necessary to show state activities on a wider canvas and not to immerse oneself only with the scenes in the basements and enclosed areas. One must show wide state activity.

Cherkasov expressed his ideas regarding the future of the altered scenes and the second series.

Stalin. How does the film end? How better to do this, to make another two films – that is second and third series. How are we planning to this?

Eisenstein said that it was better to combine the already shot material of the second series with what was left of the scenario – and produce one big film.

Everyone agreed to this.

Stalin. How is your film going to end?

Cherkasov said that the film would end with the defeat of Livonia, the tragic death of Malyuta Skuratov, the march towards the sea where Ivan the Terrible is standing, surrounded by the army, and says, ‘We are standing on the sea and will be standing!’

Stalin. This is how it turned out and a bit more than this.

Cherkasov asked whether it would be necessary to show the outline of the film for confirmation by the Politburo.

Stalin. It is not necessary to present the scenario, decide it by yourselves. It is generally difficult to judge from the scenario, it is easier to talk about a ready product. (To Molotov.) You must be wanting to read the scenario?

Molotov. No, I work in other fields. Let Bolshakov read it.

Eisenstein said that it was better not to hurry with the production of this film.

This comment drew an active reaction from everybody.

Stalin. It is absolutely necessary not to hurry, and in general to hasten the film would lead to its being shut down rather than its being released. Repin worked on the Zaporozhye Cossacks Writing Their Reply to the Turkish Sultan for 11 years.

Molotov. 13 years.

Stalin. (with insistence) 11 years.

Everybody came to the conclusion that only a long spell of work may in reality produce a good film.

Regarding the film Ivan the Terrible Stalin said – That if necessary take one and a half, two even three years to produce this film. But the film should be good, it should be ‘sculptured’. We must raise quality. Let there be fewer films, but with greater quality. The viewer has grown up and we must show him good productions.

It was discussed that Tselikovskaya acted well in other characters, she acts well but she is a ballerina.

We answered that it was impossible to summon another actress to Alma-Ata.

Stalin said that the directors should be adamant and demand whatever they need. But our directors too easily yield on their own demands. It sometimes happens that a great actor is necessary but it is played by someone who does not suit the role. This is because the actor demands and receives the role while the director agrees.

Eisenstein. The actress Gosheva could not be released from the Arts Theatre in Alma-Ata for the shooting. We searched two years for an Anastasia.

Stalin. Artist Zharov incorrectly looked upon his character without any seriousness in the film Ivan the Terrible. He is not a serious Army-General.

Zhdanov. This is not Malyuta Skuratov but an opera-hat.

Stalin. Ivan the Terrible was a more nationalist tsar, more foresighted, he did not allow foreign influence in Russia. Peter 1st opened the gate to Europe and allowed in too many foreigners.

Cherkasov said that it was unfortunate and a personal shame that he had not seen the second part of the film Ivan the Terrible. When the film was edited and shown he had been at that time in Leningrad.

Eisenstein also added that he had not seen the complete version of the film because he had fallen ill after completing it.

This caused great surprise and animation.

The discussion ended with Stalin wishing them success and saying ‘May god help them!’

They shook hands and left. At 00.10 minutes the conversation ended.

An addition was made to this report by Eisenstein and Cherkasov:

‘Zhdanov also said: ‘In the film there is too much over-indulgence of religious rituals.’

Translated from the Russian by Sumana Jha.

Courtesy: G. Maryamov: Kremlevskii Tsenzor, Moscow, 1992, pp. 84-91.

This text is taken from one of the pages on the Revolutionary Democracy website, specifically J.V. Stalin: The Discussion with Sergei Eisenstein on the Film ‘Ivan the Terrible’

We thank those comrades for permission to reproduce the interview here.

More on the USSR – including other writings of JV Stalin

Increased restrictions in September – too few or too many?

Posted on by
Reply

More on covid pandemic 2020-2?

Increased restrictions in September – too few or too many?

On 24th September new restrictions came into force in England (the other three ‘nations’ in the UK following similar but not exactly the same guidelines – only making the confused situation even more so.)

It’s difficult to understand which scientific advice the Buffoon is following. The ‘lock everything down and try to suppress the virus’ brigade, who seemed to have been in the ascendant up till now, don’t think he has gone far enough. The ‘let’s get used to having to live with the virus’ brigade, on the ‘back foot’ in recent times are happy that the restrictions aren’t as severe as they could have been.

Whatever side of the argument there is an expectation that infections will rise and with the return of Universities in England, happening as I write, that’s almost a certainty. One side will argue this is a reason for more restrictions, the other side will say that’s OK, let’s adapt and protect the most vulnerable in society as the majority of those infections will be among the younger, and more resilient portion of the population.

The problem is that as the Buffoon doesn’t have a strategy (or if he does he’s keeping it a State Secret) any future response will be more dependent on the competing forces rather than ‘following the science’.

For any lay person who wants to understand the situation we are hampered by the lack of complete and comprehensive data on these infection rate. We shouldn’t be too surprised at that. Local Councils who have been arguing for a more local based track and trace system have been complaining about lack of information for months now – and I don’t get the impression the situation even now is what they would like.

A big figure of infections will be thrown around but it doesn’t tell us much if the vast majority of those just stay at home and let the disease take its course – as they would with a mild case of the flu or a common cold. What is important to know is: the number of hospitalisations; the age and gender of those infected; where they work or study; their possible health vulnerabilities; and the number of deaths attributed to covid.

And a lot of what should determine the way forward is still not in place. Tests results take too long; some people are asked to travel so far it is impractical so they don’t test and are a potential threat to others; the track and trace system is a farce; communication of what should be done in the event of being told to self-isolate is poor and a support system for those who might live alone is still no where in place. Recent cases of infections in a couple of Scottish universities where students have been told to self-isolate come with support in terms of deliveries of food and other necessities. That’s ‘doable’ in the context of a student accommodation block – not so much countrywide.

One disturbing comment (almost throw away) that the Buffoon made on the 22nd September that should be closely monitored was his mention of the use of the Armed Forces to support the police in the monitoring and control of the population. Some dismissed this as just referring to ‘back room’ operations but if that was all it implies why was there a necessity to mention it as a raft of measures to police the restrictions on peoples’ movements and activity?

Although a Buffoon he’s too – or at least those behind him pulling the strings are – smart to mention something if it didn’t have meaning.

The lack of real response from the Labour Party also shouldn’t be a surprise. From the very beginning they’ve just followed behind what the Tories have proposed, any criticism being limited to the oft repeated phrase ‘too little, too late’. They criticise the Government for not having a strategy but I haven’t seen any sign of a strategy from them.

One issue that is also worrying, in the sense that there’s a move to make it more the norm than the exception, is the increased locations and times people will be obligated to wear a mask or face covering. This is an issue which is very likely to be considered a norm once this present pandemic has passed over (if it doesn’t kill us all in the process).

At one time the Government campaign against flu was the simple, uncomplicated request to take a responsible approach with the slogan ‘Coughs and sneezes spread diseases – trap them in your handkerchief’. Simple and if not adopted by all was something that people were aware of and could act appropriately.

The obligation to wear a mask doesn’t take into account that people; don’t wash them regularly; don’t dispose of the one-use masks responsibly; re-use one-use masks multiple times; don’t wash their hands when they take them off – which is impossible once away from home as in public places all such wash room facilities have disappeared in the last 20 years; wear them around their necks when not on the face; build up the virus in the mask in between uses; touch their faces and masks before touching other hard surfaces where it could be spread to others; and generally don’t use them in a way that would possibly make the use effective.

But what do we know. The millionaire politicians and scientists know better than us.

How good is the science for the September 2020 restrictions?

The figure of 50,000 infections per days was mentioned to frighten people but how likely is it when we compare the UK situation to that which has already developed in France and Spain?

The two sides of the scientific argument – do we suppress or live with the virus?

For an understanding of the statistics the Radio 4 programme, More or Less, looked at the ‘doubling’ of infections on 23rd September, first on hospitalisations and deaths and secondly, the issue of ‘false positives’. (An interesting point in the section on hospitalisations and deaths was the fact that there are delays up to 28 days for the reporting of deaths. If these numbers are important during a pandemic – as they could have an impact upon policy decisions) shouldn’t the Government make it mandatory that these reports are sent as soon as possible?)

Living with the virus or attempting to defeat it?

This subject will probably take on more significance as time goes on and the attempts (perhaps) to suppress the virus don’t have much success. If one tactic proves to be failing then it is time to change direction. Some, including myself, think we are at that place now – the Buffoon, his Government and a sizeable section of the scientific community think not. Time will tell.

How do we live with the virus? We have to plan what to do when there are ‘circuit breaks’ or local lock downs/increased restrictions. David Nabarro, from the World Health Organisation (WHO) gave his view of what should happen in an interview on Radio 4’s World at One on 18th September.

Local ‘lock downs’ – what prompted that in the North east of England?

An item on Radio 4’s World at One on 17th September considered the background to the decision by the Buffoonette to declare the North East of England a special case.

What does ‘follow the science’ really mean?

Six months (at least in the UK) into the pandemic and divsions in the scientific community are becoming more polarised. On Monday 21st September, in expectation of something changing within days two ‘open letters’ were sent to the Chief Medical Officers of the four ‘nations’ of the United Kingdom.

One was written by Professor Sunetra Gupta and Professor Carl Heneghan of Oxford University, the University of Buckingham’s Professor Karol Sikora and Sam Williams, director of the consultancy firm Economic Insight – also being signed by a total of 31 prominent scientists in the field of epidemiology. This letter suggested a different strategy should be followed rather than just shutting the doors and hoping the virus would go away.

The other letter (from the Government’s toadies) can be read by following the link from an article in the online British Medical Journal.

Both these letters came to light on the same day as an ‘unprecedented’ press conference from No 10 Downing Street (the office of the British Prime Minister) by the two most senior scientists who have been ‘advising’ the Government since the very beginning.

In a country that constantly harps on about the media being ‘objective’ it was interesting to see, in two concrete circumstances, where impartiality was certainly lacking. That doesn’t surprise me, even less so bother me, it’s the crass hypocrisy that is most annoying.

The Radio 4 programme, the World at One, at 13.00 on Monday 21st September was almost totally devoted (it’s a 45 minute programme) to presenting the issue as presented by the Government’s scientific commentators earlier that day. But to show ‘impartiality’ the programme had an ‘interview’ with Karol Sikora (one of the authors of the anti-Government policy open letter mentioned above). He was asked 2 questions and the whole ‘interview’ lasted less that 2 minutes 20 seconds.

The British Medical Journal also followed the Government line by having a direct link from the article to a copy of the pro-Government open letter but only a link to a tweet for those arguing for a change in strategy. Here there was a difference in the emphasis that demonstrates the hypocrisy.

The messages from the Government

Some of the adverts produced by the Buffoon’s Government since the end of March are becoming incredibly annoying. The latest, ‘Hands – Face – Space’ doesn’t even get the most important message right, according to some scientists. It should be the other way around with social distancing being the most effective tactic for people to adopt.

Testing

How is the ‘world beating’ testing system operating in Britain during September – before an increase in restrictions. This is a constantly changing situation.

Government to prioritise NHS and care homes for testing.

Matt Hancock – we will ration tests.

Cases are rising rapidly and the UK’s testing infrastructure is straining at the seams.

Hancock says Covid testing crisis may last weeks.

Coronavirus testing chaos ‘puts children at back of queue‘.

Not only are potential vaccines being hovered up by the richer countries, the most simple tests (which would be most effective in countries with less access to laboratory facilities and with poor transport infrastructures) are also being taken selfishly for the ‘rich’.

Problem: private companies have been making a pig’s ear of the test and trace system. Solution: give more work to private companies. This time Amazon are in the frame.

Schools, colleges and universities re-start in September at the same time as many people would return to work following the summer holidays. This has been the situation for decades yet those at the head of the Test, track and trace programme didn’t foresee a huge upsurge in requests for tests. If you made it up it would have been considered fantastical.

Chaos, confusion and anger – welcome to a new Covid test centre.

The failures in the testing centres is starting to put pressure on hospital Accident and Emergency (A&E) Departments.

More and more areas of the UK are undergoing their own local lock down caused by the higher than the average number of infections. However, even in these areas the test and trace regime is not up to the job.

But in all crises there are those who benefit – here it’s ‘consultants’.

The head of the Government’s test and trace system didn’t fare so well as an internet provider – she brings the same level of expertise to dealing with the pandemic.

Technology doesn’t always work – so beware putting too much faith in it.

Scientists hit back when accused by the head of the test and trace system, Dido Harding, that she wasn’t given adequate information about the surge in demand for tests in September.

The long-awaited NHS tracing app is due to be launched on 24th September – however (as is normally the case) there’s not a lot of information about some of the crucial aspects of this technology which will determine its success. On 23rd September there was an interview with Lilian Edwards (an expert of technology law) about the known – and unknown – details of this new app, on Radio 4’s World at One.

More or Less, on Radio 4, on 20th September, looked at the numbers on both covid testing capacity in laboratories and also whether the Buffoon’s ‘Operation Moonshot’ makes any statistical sense.

Vaccine

The rise in ‘vaccine nationalism’ continues despite warnings that more will die unless there is equal access to a vaccine globally.

Food Banks, food policy and a lack of a strategy

A recent report by the Trussell Trust (one of the biggest providers of food banks in the UK) demonstrates how the pandemic has made the situation worse for those already using them and is forcing others to go to food banks for the first time.

As with so many other issues surrounding poverty in the 6th richest nation on the planet the fact that so many people struggle to feed themselves with wholesome and healthy food has been highlighted due to the pandemic. Not because the pandemic itself has caused this poverty (although that is part of the problem) but in the present climate of openness and people talking about their problems the rest of the population is being forced to hear about, if not necessarily do anything to prevent, the matters that effect millions in the British population.

On 23rd September Radio 4’s You and Yours consumer programme had an interview with Professor Tim Laing who has long been arguing (and so far not successfully) for the need for a comprehensive and well thought out food strategy to ensure that food poverty is eliminated.

Universities and the student return

If the university experience for young people isn’t bad enough they are now being threatened with the end of their university careers with automatic suspensions if they break any of the ‘oft times not very well thought out’ regulations.

The anti-lock down movement

Protest songs against war, unemployment, climate emergency and now against the imposed lock down on people in the UK.

Care Homes

Life in care homes isn’t getting any better – even though they were the locations of the majority of deaths in the first six months of the pandemic. There are doubts whether they are fully prepared in the event of another general outbreak and some family visits are being curtailed by those providers who are ‘over cautious’.

You can’t change the culture that has developed in care homes in the last decade (poor wages, low staff levels, lack of training, no career path, minimum wage/zero hour contract agency working, etc.) overnight. Glib statements made by the Tories about improving the situation in care homes are merely empty words when confronted with the reality within British society. The current situation was outlined in a  section of Radio 4’s You and Yours programme on 17th September.

The ‘Nationalists’

The Scottish Nationalists don’t only want to determine what happens in the area ‘north of the border’ they also want to determine what happens in the rest of the UK. After spending the last six months constantly wanting to demonstrate their ‘independence’ from England (although they are quite happy to have matters decided for them in the European Union) and arguing that the border between Scotland and England means they can make their own decisions they now interfering in the affairs of another country.

Flu jabs

For some time now there has been talk about increasing the number of people who have been (for a number of years) considered vulnerable to the regular influenza outbreaks – those over 65, pregnant women and those with certain respiratory diseases – to include those over 50. However, if the talk is there it’s not entirely clear that the infrastructure exists to cope with the increased demand. Instead of expecting people to ask for the injection why weren’t they contacted so that the programme could be followed in an orderly and structured manner, ensuring that the most vulnerable were not left out. The situation that seems to be developing is similar to the panic buying that follows the announcement of any new restrictions on movement due to the pandemic.

Even the scientists are millionaires

The forelock-tuggers of Britain have been happy enough for the rich politicians to tell them what to do for the last six months, they must be over the moon now to know that even one of the scientists who are passing on advice to the government are also millionaires. And will be even more wealthy if the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) vaccine proves to be effective.

(One of the interesting developments in the last six months, since the pandemic started to close down British society, is that it’s what are considered the ‘right-wing’, pro-Tory, pro-wealth newspapers (such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph) are more likely to publish scoops about the abuses of wealth by the very politicians they used to support.)

‘Herd immunity’

Even though they (the government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, and the chief medical officer for England, Professor Chris Whitty) painted a ‘doomsday’ scenario in their presentation on the 21st September – softening up the public for whatever the Buffoon would announce in the next couple of days – it wasn’t enough to save them from being criticised for one time arguing for the ‘herd immunity’ approach in dealing with the virus.

Prospects for employment in the coming months

A recent report by the Resolution Foundation suggests that unemployment levels, in the coming months, will reach those in the 1980s (the ‘Golden Thatcherite Years’).

Poor Housing

Those living in badly maintained and decaying private rented accommodation will be at increased risk this coming winter due to the added threat of covid-19. The report, produced by the Centre for Ageing Better, has repercussions for others than the old, there being people of all ages who are already suffering from ailments caused by their living conditions.

Government strategy

What’s a strategy?

More on covid pandemic 2020-2?