In the cold, calculated corridors of power where Joseph Stalin once roamed, a seemingly simple question echoed, shaping the very fabric of political and social life: “Who/Whom?” This query, though straightforward, encapsulated a worldview where the essence of governance and control boiled down to dominance—specifically, who dominates whom. It wasn’t merely rhetorical; it was the bedrock of Stalin’s realpolitik, a brutal reminder that power dynamics, not ideals or moralities, often dictate the course of human affairs. Under Stalin’s regime, this concept justified a myriad of atrocities, all under the guise of establishing supremacy and maintaining control, illuminating the stark reality that in the struggle for power, ends often justify means, no matter how ruthless.

Fast forward to the present day, and the shadows of “Who/Whom?” loom large, not over bleak Soviet landscapes, but within the very institutions that shape our daily lives. This essay posits that contemporary institutions—be they governmental, educational, or corporate—unwittingly mirror the dynamics of Stalin’s query in their operations. Far removed from the overt tyranny of Stalinist Russia, these modern entities nonetheless engage in a subtler, yet equally pernicious, form of dominance: the evasion of responsibility, an unyielding adherence to ideology contrary to observable reality, and a pervasive incompetence. Together, these characteristics contribute to a systemic malaise, leading to a qualitative decline in the very structures meant to uphold society.

The parallels between Stalin’s “Who/Whom?” and today’s institutional behaviors reveal a disturbing continuity in the nature of power and control. Just as Stalin’s regime was characterized by a relentless pursuit of dominance at any cost, modern institutions, driven by similar dynamics of power preservation, find themselves entangled in a web of self-serving decisions and policies. These actions, often justified by high-minded rhetoric or ideological purity, result in a disconnect between the institutions’ stated purposes and their actual impacts on society. The consequences are far-reaching, manifesting as systemic inefficiencies, eroded public trust, and a general decline in the quality of life and social cohesion.

At the heart of Joseph Stalin’s iron-fisted rule over the Soviet Union was a philosophy reduced to its most elemental form: “Who/Whom?” This deceptively simple question, transcending mere rhetoric, became the linchpin of Stalin’s political strategy, embodying the stark realpolitik that characterized his governance. The origins of this notion are deeply entwined with the Bolshevik Revolution’s aftermath, a period marked by tumultuous power struggles and the relentless pursuit of absolute control. For Stalin, “Who/Whom?” was not just a theoretical inquiry but a practical guide to navigating the treacherous waters of Soviet politics. It implied a zero-sum game of dominance where power dynamics dictated every relationship, every decision boiling down to who would dominate whom.

This perspective fundamentally altered the Soviet approach to governance and power relations. It eschewed conventional notions of justice, ethics, or mutual benefit in favor of a blunt assessment of power utility. Every interaction, be it between the state and its citizens or among the ruling elite, was viewed through the lens of dominance and control. This led to a governance model where fear, mistrust, and the centralization of power were not byproducts but intentional constructs, designed to maintain the status quo of power distribution.

The application of “Who/Whom?” engendered a culture of fear and mistrust within Soviet society. Political purges, surveillance, and the suppression of dissent became standard tools of statecraft, as the regime sought to eliminate any perceived threats to its dominance. This environment stifled free thought and innovation, as individuals and groups were compelled to navigate a landscape where allegiance to the state was paramount, and deviation could mean obliteration. The centralization of power, a direct consequence of this philosophy, ensured that all decisions and directions flowed from the top, with little regard for the nuances of local needs or the potential for grassroots innovation.

The long-term effects of this governance approach on Soviet society were profound. It created a rigid, top-down structure that was resistant to change and slow to respond to emerging challenges. The suppression of dissent and the emphasis on uniformity at the expense of diversity led to a stagnation that ultimately contributed to the Soviet Union’s decline. The legacy of “Who/Whom?” left an indelible mark on the political and social fabric of the country, a cautionary tale of the dangers inherent in reducing complex human dynamics to simple power equations.

In contemporary politics, echoes of Stalin’s “Who/Whom?” can be discerned in the unilateral nature of many governmental decisions, where public opinion and the potential consequences of policies are often sidelined in favor of ideological adherence or political expediency. The question of whom the cost of unsustainable policies must be placed upon reveals a similar disregard for the broader societal impact, focusing instead on maintaining or expanding the power of the governing elite. This modern application of “Who/Whom?”—though less overtly tyrannical in external appearance—continues to influence governance and power relations, leading to policies that prioritize the interests of the rulers over the needs of the ruled.

In the contemporary landscape, the spirit of “Who/Whom?” endures, not through the overt machinations of a totalitarian regime but within the more insidious realms of modern institutions. Whether governmental, educational, or corporate, these entities have mastered the art of evading responsibility, often exacerbating societal issues through a combination of actions and inactions. The mechanisms of evasion are myriad, ranging from bureaucratic obfuscation to the exploitation of legal loopholes and the orchestration of public relations strategies designed to deflect accountability.

Case Studies of Institutional Failure

• Governmental: The Flint water crisis serves as a stark example of governmental evasion of responsibility. In Flint, Michigan, decisions made by state officials to switch the city’s water source led to widespread lead contamination, endangering public health. The aftermath was characterized by a reluctance to accept responsibility, with officials engaging in a blame game while the community suffered.
• Educational: In the realm of higher education, institutions have been criticized for their handling of campus sexual assault cases by hiding them just as cities reduce their crime statistics by often choosing to not register legal offenses. Colleges and universities, in some instances, have prioritized their reputations over the well-being of students, failing to adequately address allegations or support victims, thereby exacerbating the trauma experienced by those affected.
• Corporate: The opioid epidemic, SSRIs, statins, and other failed pharmaceutical solutions in the United States highlights corporate evasion of responsibility. Pharmaceutical companies, accused of aggressively marketing opioids and downplaying their addictive potential, have been implicated in a public health crisis of staggering proportions. Despite mounting lawsuits, the industry has often sought to deflect blame, using legal defenses and settlement agreements to avoid full accountability.

Mechanisms of Evasion

• Bureaucratic Obfuscation: Institutions frequently employ complex bureaucratic procedures to avoid accountability, making it difficult for outsiders to navigate their systems or pinpoint responsibility. This obfuscation serves as a shield, protecting the institution from scrutiny and allowing problems to persist unaddressed.
• Legal Loopholes: The exploitation of legal loopholes is another common strategy. By adhering to the letter of the law—while ignoring its spirit—institutions can engage in questionable practices without facing legal repercussions. This legalistic approach prioritizes technical compliance over ethical considerations.
• Public Relations Strategies: In the age of information, public perception is paramount. Institutions invest heavily in public relations campaigns designed to manage their image in the wake of controversy. Through strategic communication, they aim to shape public opinion, often by minimizing their culpability or redirecting blame onto external factors or individuals.

These case studies and mechanisms of evasion reflect a broader trend among modern institutions: the abdication of responsibility in favor of self-preservation. This trend, rooted in the “Who/Whom?” dynamic, underscores a pervasive unwillingness to confront and rectify the systemic issues within these entities. The consequences of this evasion are not merely institutional but societal, contributing to a qualitative decline in trust, accountability, and social cohesion. As we witness the unfolding of these dynamics, it becomes increasingly clear that the legacy of “Who/Whom?”—the reduction of complex societal interactions to a struggle for dominance—continues to shape our world in profound and often troubling ways.

In the tapestry of modern institutional failures, a striking thread emerges: the prioritization of ideology over pragmatism. This phenomenon, reminiscent of Stalin’s “Who/Whom?” in its simplification of complex realities into binary struggles, has led to a range of policy failures and systemic inefficiencies. The insistence on adhering to ideological doctrines, often at the expense of practical and effective solutions, illuminates a profound disconnection from reality from institutions prioritizing ideological purity over the tangible needs and welfare of the populace.

Ideology vs. Pragmatism

• Environmental Policies: Consider the push for rapid, large-scale implementation of green energy solutions without adequately addressing technological limitations or economic impacts. While the ideological commitment to environmental sustainability is aspirational, a pragmatic approach would necessitate a more gradual transition, considering current technological capacities and the economic wellbeing of communities dependent on traditional industries.
• Educational Reforms: Educational institutions have increasingly embraced doctrines of equity and inclusion that, while sounding noble in intent, are unrealistic and undermine basic meritocratic principles and educational rigor. For instance, the movement to dismantle standardized testing on ideological grounds ignores the practical utility of these assessments in identifying areas for improvement and in making informed admissions decisions, not to mention most student aren’t capable of completing a rigorous education.

Consequences of Ignoring Reality
The fallout from such ideological adherence is multifaceted, impacting not only the institutions themselves but the very fabric of society they aim to serve.

• Disconnection from the Populace: Institutions mired in ideology become disconnected from the realities and needs of the people. This disconnection manifests in policies that, while ideologically driven, fail to address the nuanced challenges faced by individuals and communities. For example, urban housing policies aimed at inclusivity can inadvertently lead to gentrification, displacing the very communities they intend to protect.
• Erosion of Trust: The persistent failure to align institutional actions with observable reality erodes public trust. As people witness the gap between ideological promises and practical outcomes, their faith in these institutions wanes. This is problematic when people remember higher quality results from past practices and institutional capabilities. The disillusionment is particularly palpable in the realm of politics, where partisan adherence often trumps pragmatic governance, leaving citizens skeptical of political leaders’ ability to address real-world issues.
• Systemic Inefficiencies: When ideology dictates policy, systemic inefficiencies proliferate. These inefficiencies are not merely bureaucratic but are emblematic of a deeper malaise: the refusal to adapt to reality, stop producing larger problems, or incorporate empirical evidence into decision-making processes. The rigid adherence to untested paradigms that lack results, despite evidence of their ineffectiveness, exemplifies how ideological commitment can stifle basic institutional functionality.

In the shadow of Stalin’s “Who/Whom?”, the modern institutional landscape reveals a similar dynamic: a struggle not between individuals for dominance but between ideology and reality for supremacy. The consequences of this struggle—disconnection from the populace, erosion of trust, and systemic inefficiencies—underscore the urgent need for a reevaluation of institutional priorities.

Amidst the ideological battlegrounds that modern institutions navigate, a more insidious threat to societal well-being lurks: the specter of general incompetence. This phenomenon, manifesting through poor planning, design, and decision-making, not only undercuts the efficacy of institutional actions but also precipitates a broader qualitative decline in societal structures. The intersection of incompetence with the “Who/Whom?” dynamics of power reveals a troubling trend: institutions increasingly unable to fulfill their fundamental roles, resulting in deteriorating services, infrastructure, and overall quality of life. The implications of such failures unmask the true cost of institutional incompetence.

Poor Design and Implementation

• Urban Development: Consider the urban sprawl phenomenon, where shortsighted planning for keeping cities a viable living space have driven normal people away from previous cultural centers. The incompetence in these instances isn’t just a failure of vision but a squandering of wealth that cedes valuable space to unwelcome decline and decay.
• Public Health Systems: The recent global health crisis underscored the inadequacy of public health systems and the poor general health of the population. The lack of coherent strategies, coupled with bureaucratic inertia, toleration of low grade food, avoidance of exercise, demonstrated how poorly the system could deal with a disease not much stronger than the common cold, illustrating how incompetence at critical decision-making junctures can have dire outcomes.

Impact on Quality of Life
The repercussions of such widespread institutional incompetence are not limited to isolated sectors but ripple across the fabric of society, eroding the quality of life in profound ways.

• Deterioration of Public Services: As institutions falter in their responsibilities, the first casualties are often the public services that form the backbone of society. Inadequate education systems to handle the challenges posed by the new population with 80-85 IQ migrants, inefficient bureaucracies, and crumbling infrastructure are but symptoms of a deeper malaise rooted in the inability to execute competent governance.
• Decline in Social Cohesion: The qualitative decline extends beyond physical structures to the very cohesion of society. As people see institutions fail to be effective, they lose faith in institutions’ ability to serve their interests and a sense of alienation and disenfranchisement grows. This erosion of social trust undermines the communal bonds necessary for a healthy, functioning society.

The narrative of general incompetence and qualitative decline paints a bleak picture of modern institutions trapped in a cycle reminiscent of Stalin’s “Who/Whom?”—a cycle where the quest for power and ideological purity overshadows the basic competence required to govern effectively. This failure is not merely a matter of flawed individuals or policies but indicative of systemic issues that demand a reevaluation of institutional priorities and processes.

Stalin’s governance, fundamentally rooted in the “Who/Whom?” dynamic, was a brutal exercise in power consolidation, where control was maintained through fear, suppression, and the relentless pursuit of dominance. Today, modern institutions, though operating within the bounds of ostensibly democratic and bureaucratic frameworks, engage in a similar manipulation of narratives and responsibilities. This manipulation, designed to preserve influence and authority, often involves shaping public perception through media, policy, and the selective presentation of information. The essence of “Who/Whom?”—the determination of dominance—persists in these practices, as institutions seek to maintain their status and control over public discourse and decision-making.

• Narrative Control: Just as Stalin controlled the narrative through propaganda and censorship, modern institutions manage information flow, using public relations campaigns and media partnerships to influence public opinion, censor alternative ideas, attack opponents, and obscure accountability. On the positive side, ugly murders have been replaced by lawfare, abuse of power, and conspiring to attack and silence ideological opponents.
• Shifting Responsibilities: The evasion of responsibility seen under Stalin, where failures were often blamed on external enemies or internal traitors, finds its echo in the modern institutional tendency to deflect blame, whether through legal maneuvering, bureaucratic obfuscation, or the scapegoating of convenient others. Functionaries can spend an entire career with only failures on their record, yet be promoted for their regime loyalty.

Cycle of Decline: A Reflection of Past and Present
The cycle of decline under Stalin, characterized by ideological rigidity, evasion of responsibility, and systemic incompetence, bears a striking resemblance to the trajectory of many modern institutions. This cycle, driven by a similar adherence to power over practicality, results in a qualitative decline across various sectors of society.

• Ideological Rigidity: Just as Stalin’s dogmatic adherence to Marxist-Leninist principles often led to policy failures and human suffering, modern institutions’ commitment to ideological doctrines at the expense of pragmatic solutions leads to inefficiencies and systemic failures.
• Evasion of Responsibility: The Soviet regime’s tendency to shift blame and avoid accountability is mirrored in the contemporary institutional landscape, where accountability is often diluted across layers of bureaucracy or deflected through legal and rhetorical strategies, preventing meaningful change or reform. Bureaucrats take advantage of this inaccountability to push through policies they want, but are not in the public interest or desired by the public.
• Incompetence and Decline: The qualitative decline seen under Stalin, marked by economic stagnation, societal distrust, and the erosion of public welfare, is paralleled in the decline of services, infrastructure, and societal well-being today, driven by institutional incompetence and a failure to address the needs of the populace. The top functioning individuals are driven away or driven to despair rather than permitted to help contribute to the vanguard of progress.

The comparison between Stalin’s “Who/Whom?” and the dynamics of modern institutions reveals a disturbing continuity in the mechanisms of power and control. While the overt tyranny of Stalin’s regime may be better replicated in democratic societies through the optics of native replacement rather than overt murder, the underlying dynamics of dominance, the evasion of responsibility, and the prioritization of ideology over reality persist, leading to a similar cycle of decline. Recognizing this parallel is crucial, not only as an exercise in historical reflection but as a call to action, urging a reevaluation of institutional practices and priorities to avert the perpetuation of this cycle and foster a healthier society.

The shadows cast by history are long and, somewhat distressingly, reflective of our current condition. Our institutions, ensnared in the web of power preservation, have descended into a morass of incompetence, shrouded in the guise of responsibility evasion and an obstinate adherence to ideological dogmas at odds with the tangible realities of the human condition. This stark reflection serves not as a historical curiosity but as a dire warning—the specter of decline looms large, borne out of the refusal to confront the inherent complexities and challenges of governance with honesty, integrity, and pragmatism.

Systemic reform is fraught with complexities, yet the alternative—a continued slide into qualitative decline—is untenable. The reform we envisage is multifaceted, targeting not only the symptoms of institutional dysfunction but its root causes. It calls for a realignment of incentives, such that institutions are rewarded for serving the public good rather than narrow interests. It necessitates a revaluation of ideological adherence, placing practical outcomes and empirical evidence above doctrinal purity. And it demands a commitment to competence, elevating merit and expertise over political expediency or loyalty.

In light of this somber realization, the call for awareness and action transcends the usual platitudes and feel-good fantasies that pervade contemporary discourse. The allure of simplistic solutions, such as unbridled inclusivity or the utopian vision of universal thriving, is revealed for what it truly is—a mirage, a seductive lie that obfuscates the need for genuine, albeit uncomfortable, reforms. We should eschew these fantasy feel-good lies, recognizing them as the opiate of the masses, peddled by those who would rather placate than confront the arduous truths of existence.

The imperative for systemic reform, then, is not rooted in the naïve aspiration for an idyllic societal harmony but in the gritty realism of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws that beset our institutions. This entails a ruthless examination of the “Who/Whom?” dynamics at play, stripping away the veneer of bureaucratic obfuscation and ideological fervor to reveal the core mechanisms of dysfunction. It demands a reclamation of responsibility, a resurgence of competence, and, most crucially, a recalibration of our collective goals towards sustainable, achievable outcomes that prioritize a restoration of long-term health and stability of our societal structures over transient victories or ideological purity.