Leaning Lexicons
Dictionaries call Castro a "leader" and Stalin a "statesman."

by SIDNEY GOLDBERG
Friday, July 5, 2002 12:01 A.M. EDT

It seems like only yesterday that Fidel Castro was denouncing the running dogs of capitalism. In fact, it was only yesterday. This time, though, the object of his scorn was . . . Russia!

In a speech published last week in the Cuban (communist) newspaper, Castro declared that Russia had "betrayed Cuba" by ending its trade agreements a few years ago--those cushy deals that helped keep the island afloat. Russia's betrayal, moreover, "was the fruit of its errors and the painful way in which it lost the ideological battle against the western capitalist and imperialist bourgeoisie, under the standard of the United States."

Castro is clearly not squeamish about using rhetoric straight out of the Marxist-Leninist handbook, or ruling Cuba the same way. And yet the imperialist bourgeoisie seems to be squeamish about labeling Castro for what he is. The latest edition of Webster's New World College Dictionary calls him merely: "Cuban revolutionary leader, prime minister and president." Sounds rather impressive--you can almost see it on the résumé for a MacArthur genius award. But is Castro a dictator? Apparently not enough of one to define him as such.

This is not the only instance of labeling-hesitation in Webster's New World--at least when the "leader" in question belongs to the "revolutionary" left. The dictionary can call Hitler the "Nazi dictator of Germany" but Stalin merely the "Soviet premier, general secretary of the Communist party of the U.S.S.R." Mussolini is an "Italian dictator," but Tito is "Yugoslav Communist Party leader, prime minister and president of Yugoslavia." Franco is "dictator of Spain" and Salazar "prime minister and dictator of Portugal," but Mao Tse-tung is "Chinese Communist leader, chairman of the People's Republic of China and of its Communist Party."

And Lenin? "Russian leader of the Communist revolution of 1917, premier of the U.S.S.R." This seems especially unfair, since Lenin's writings openly urged the deadly ruthlessness with which he ruled. Still, a good bourgeois dictionary must not go too far.

For the American Heritage, Hitler is rightly an "absolute dictator," but Stalin is a "Soviet politician who was general secretary of the Communist Party and premier of the U.S.S.R." Never mind the purge trials, the assassinations, the mass murder--all in a day's work for a "politician." Speaking of mass murder, how does the American Heritage define Pol Pot? "Cambodian political leader whose Khmer Rouge movement overthrew the Cambodian government in 1975." One has to wonder whether "political leader" captures the full character of Pol Pot's governing style.

The same pattern appears in other reference works. The Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary calls Batista "Cuban military leader: dictator of Cuba; president" and Castro only "Cuban revolutionary and political leader: prime minister and president." Hitler is the "Nazi dictator of Germany," of course, but Stalin is a "Soviet political leader." The Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide does not have entries for famous people, but it does define Hitler (in the sense of "He's a Hitler") as "a person who embodies the authoritarian characteristics of Adolf Hitler, Ger. dictator." And how about "Stalinism"? It is an ideological outlook derived from "J.V. Stalin (Dzugashvili), Soviet statesman." Statesman!

But let's leave names aside for the moment and look at the broader themes behind them. The American Heritage alludes to "Hitler's fascist philosophy." Here is its definition of fascism: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

Fair enough, especially if the Nazi variation is being described. Communism, on the other hand, is captured this way: "A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people." No mention of terror and censorship, and no dictator.

How else to explain these definitions in the Webster's II New College Dictionary, published last year. Right: "A political group, as a faction or party, whose policies are conservative or reactionary." (OK.) Left: "Those who advocate the adoption of sometimes extreme measures to achieve the equality, freedom, and well-being of the citizens of a state." Sounds warm and fuzzy. Isn't it possible that even the right cares about the well-being of the citizens of the state?

In Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (2001 edition) the right, among other things, opposes "change in the established order" and favors "traditional attitudes and practices." Fine. The left, meanwhile, advocates "change in the name of freedom or well-being of the common man." Again, noble motives are assigned to one side and not the other.

Is this clumsy one-sidedness something to worry about? Yes and no. Reference works carry with them, inherently, an air of authority, as if their contents are handed down from the heights of scholarship and learned precision. No one can feel right about error and tendentiousness slipping into the culture under such a guise.

Still, most of us will not get our sense of politics and history from a brief line in a dictionary, and if we do we are probably young enough to have years of schooling ahead of us, with plenty of time for the longer definitions of books. For future lexicographers, "The Black Book of Communism"--the recent summing up, by several scholars, of a century of "revolutionary" regimes--is perhaps a good place to start. Stalin appears there, murderously. And Castro too.

Mr. Goldberg is a media consultant in New York.