There’s Something About Stalin: Why West Still Reveres the Soviet Leader

http://cdn2.img.sputniknews.com/images/103207/57/1032075728.jpg
© Sputnik
13:03 21.12.2015(updated 13:18 21.12.2015)

There is no doubt that Joseph Stalin was a world class politician, Joseph Hancock, a member of the Party of Communists USA, noted in an exclusive interview with Sputnik; although the Soviet leader was presented as a "backward peasant" by the Western press, Stalin used this to his advantage, Hancock remarked.
On December 21, 1879 Joseph Dzhugashvili, the future Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, was born in the small town of Gori in the Tiflis Governorate (modern Georgia) of the Russian Empire.

Remarkably, Stalin, who had been at the helm of the USSR from the mid-1920s to 1953, still attracts a lot of interest from his supporters and antagonists not only in Russia but also in the West.

Why do Western people, particularly Americans, either criticize Stalin or pay their respect to the prominent Soviet politician?

There are many reasons why Joseph Stalin is the subject of heated debate among Americans.

"Uncle Joe" and the Second World War

"Firstly, Americans know that he is our 'Uncle Joe,' because of his friendship with President Roosevelt and their collaboration in defeating the Nazis in WWII. The interest exists because there is a mystique about Stalin. Americans are fascinated by it. Perhaps it is his name, translated to mean, 'the man of Steel.' A super hero. Mostly the interest in Stalin comes from the quote by former General and US President Eisenhower that 'the Soviets will be destroyed in six weeks.' Of course that did not happen," Joseph Hancock, a member of Politburo and Central Committee of the Party of Communists USA, elaborated.

Josef Stalin
© Sputnik/ Shagin
Holodomor Hoax: The Anatomy of a Lie Invented by West's Propaganda Machine
However, due to the Cold War propaganda campaign and the rise of the Trotskyist movement Western media sources and US scholars even went so far as to compare Joseph Stalin to Adolf Hitler, the infamous Nazi leader, according to the American political activist."Then the question arises, 'if Stalin was such an evil man, why did all the workers and peasants fight under him to win WWII?" Joseph Hancock asked rhetorically.

"As for the 'great terror' or Yezhovshchina we understand that most of this occurred without Stalin's knowledge, and was carried out in the Moscow oblast by Nikita Khrushchev and those First Secretaries of the CPSU for their own personal reasons… It is our understanding that Stalin and [Lavrentiy] Beria were responsible for bringing the 'great terror' to an end," the American political activist noted.

The "Yezhovshchina" (dubbed after Nikolay Yezhov, the NKVD chief) was the period of the "great terror" of 1937-38 in the Soviet Union. Yezhov organized a series of severe repressions against the Soviet people. In 1939 the infamous NKVD chief was executed for atrocities and anti-government conspiracy.

http://cdn4.img.sputniknews.com/images/103207/92/1032079295.jpg
© Sputnik/ Olga Lander
US soldiers congratulating Soviet officers with the victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

Neville Chamberlain, British prime minister, center, with Reichsfuehrer Adolf Hitler, right, at the second of their three dramatic meetings to solve the European crisis at the conclusion of the three-hour midnight conference which ended in disagreement in Hitlerís hotel room in Godesberg, Germany around Sept. 23, 1938
© AP Photo
The Munich Betrayal: How Western Powers 'Sold' Czechoslovakia to Hitler
According to Hancock, one the most the most controversial political decisions and maneuvers of Stalin's was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact inked between the USSR and Nazi Germany on August 23, 1939. It should be noted that the Kremlin's decision to conclude such a deal with Germany was made after major European powers, most notably Britain and France, signed similar non-aggression agreements with Adolf Hitler."This agreement was not well understood by left wing people in the United States. They felt betrayed knowing that the agreement had been signed, but without that agreement, nothing would have been prepared when it came time for the USSR to fight against the fascist menace," he stressed.

"Signed before Soviet Union was attacked on June 22, 1941, this non-aggression agreement gave the USSR time to set up its defenses and to build necessary weaponry. One of the greatest inventions of the war was the T-34 tank. Tractor factories were turned into T-34 manufacturing assembly lines," Hancock explained.

Due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which postponed the German advance against the USSR, the designers of the famous Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik warplane got an opportunity to finalize their work and bring the aircraft into production. By the time of the German Blitzkrieg 249 Russian ground-attack aircraft had already been built. During the Second World War Soviet factories produced almost 42,330 of the Il-2 and the Il-10 military jets.

"Stalin took nothing for granted. He signed the non-aggression pact knowing full well that the Nazis would break it… This is what Stalin was best known for, but there were many other critical political decisions that he made under the most difficult of conditions," Hancock emphasized.

http://cdn5.img.sputniknews.com/images/102609/95/1026099541.jpg
© AP Photo/ German War Department
Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, seated, signs the German-Soviet non-aggression pact in Moscow, August 23, 1939, a few days before the outbreak of World War II.

A World Class Politician

"There is no doubt that Stalin was a world class politician," the American political activist continued, "But like all communist leaders, he was never seen as such by the bourgeoisie that controlled the media. [Franklin D.] Roosevelt, [Harry S.] Truman, and [Winston] Churchill are seen as sophisticated, while Stalin is presented as a backward peasant. He used this to his advantage."

Russian historians admit that the Anglo-Saxon nobility had many times dealt a severe blow to Russia's geopolitical interests. Can we say that Joseph Stalin and his team had repeatedly outmaneuvered wily Western politicians?

"There is no doubt that Joseph Stalin outmaneuvered wily Western politicians, except in one instance," Hancock told Sputnik.

"In the United Nations, the Soviet delegation walked out of the UN Security Council which allowed the United States to bring in UN Security Forces into the Korean conflict [25 June 1950 — 27 July 1953]. Had the Soviets stayed and argued a little longer, they could have prevented the UN Peace Keeping Forces from entering the conflict, and the North Korean forces could have maintained their position in Korea," he narrated.

"As things turned out, the UN Peace Keeping forces and United States under the command of General Douglas MacArthur were able to push back the North Korean offensive to the 38th parallel where Korea remains divided to this day. Had the Soviets stayed at the UN Security Council, the situation would have turned out differently, possibly resulting in a united Communist Korea," Hancock stressed.

'Stalin's Nuclear Initiative Was Very Smart'

But what about Stalin's famous nuclear project? Did this initiative escalate further tensions in the post-WW2 world? Or had it preserved the balance of power in the world for decades?"Stalin's nuclear initiative was very smart," the American political activist believes.

"He [Joseph Stalin] knew that the US was developing nuclear weapons with the help of former Nazi scientists and that the US used them two times on Japan when it was completely unnecessary. Japan was already defeated and prepared to surrender to the Red Army and Navy. So Stalin knew that he had to have parity. The Soviets always sought parity for self-defense. They never had a first strike policy," he pointed out.

"As for increased tensions, the nuclear arms race actually reduced tensions in my opinion. As long as the USSR had parity with the USA, there would be no conflict," Hancock stressed.

According to the member of the American Communist party, once the USSR was destroyed the US gained complete hegemony over the entire world and now remains an unchallenged superpower. The national liberation movement promoted by Lenin and Stalin has been thwarted.

"I only hope that Mr. Putin has enough political conviction and gumption to take on the United States and save the world from WWIII!" Hancock remarked.

"Western mainstream historians are still afraid of the return of communism and the USSR. They are still very much afraid of the return of Stalinism (read that Leninism) which is proletarian internationalism. They like things just fine the way that they are. They make millions of dollars writing what amounts to fantasies for television about the bad old Cold War," the American political activist told Sputnik.

"We don't bother to watch or read them anymore. We prefer to read the foreign press like RT that doesn't get so involved in anti-Sovietism (anti-Stalinism). Most Americans are amazingly ignorant about world affairs. Occasionally, an old timer will surface that remembers what it was really like during Stalin's time," Joseph Hancock underscored.

A lot of controversy still surrounds the Stalin era and "there are as many opinions as there are experts" as Franklin D. Roosevelt used to say.

"I am not impartial about discussions of Stalin," Joseph Hancock, a member of the Party of Communists USA, stressed in a conversation with Sputnik.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151221/1032079238/why-west-still-reveres-joseph-stalin.html#ixzz3v0vk14UP

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151221/1032079238/why-west-still-reveres-joseph-stalin.html#ixzz3v0vk14UP

How do ya downsize them pichurs?

Post WW2 World Order: US Planned to Wipe USSR Out by Massive Nuclear Strike

http://cdn3.img.sputniknews.com/images/101908/24/1019082439.jpg

Ekaterina Blinova

Was the US deterrence military doctrine aimed against the Soviet Union during the Cold War era really "defensive" and who actually started the nuclear arms race paranoia?

Just weeks after the Second World War was over and Nazi Germany defeated Soviet Russia's allies, the United States and Great Britain hastened to develop military plans aimed at dismantling the USSR and wiping out its cities with a massive nuclear strike.

Interestingly enough, then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had ordered the British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff to develop a strategy targeting the USSR months before the end of the Second World War. The first edition of the plan was prepared on May 22, 1945. In accordance with the plan the invasion of Russia-held Europe by the Allied forces was scheduled on July 1, 1945.

Winston Churchill's Operation Unthinkable

The plan, dubbed Operation Unthinkable, stated that its primary goal was "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire. Even though 'the will' of these two countries may be defined as no more than a square deal for Poland, that does not necessarily limit the military commitment."
The British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff underscored that the Allied Forces would win in the event of 1) the occupation of such metropolitan areas of Russia so that the war making capacity of the country would be reduced to a point to which further resistance would become impossible"; 2) "such a decisive defeat of the Russian forces in the field as to render it impossible for the USSR to continue the war."

British generals warned Churchill that the "total war" would be hazardous to the Allied armed forces.

However, after the United States "tested" its nuclear arsenal in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, Churchill and right-wing American policy makers started to persuade the White House to bomb the USSR. A nuclear strike against Soviet Russia, exhausted by the war with Germany, would have led to the defeat of the Kremlin at the same time allowing the Allied Forces to avoid US and British military casualties, Churchill insisted. Needless to say, the former British Prime Minister did not care about the death of tens of thousands of Russian peaceful civilians which were already hit severely by the four-year war nightmare.

"He [Churchill] pointed out that if an atomic bomb could be dropped on the Kremlin, wiping it out, it would be a very easy problem to handle the balance of Russia, which would be without direction," an unclassified note from the FBI archive read.
http://cdn4.img.sputniknews.com/images/102702/67/1027026735.jpg
© REUTERS/ US ARMY
An atomic cloud billows above Hiroshima city following the explosion of the first atomic bomb to be used in warfare in Hiroshima, in this handout photo taken by the US Army on August 6, 1945, and distributed by the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.

Following in Churchill's Footsteps: Operation Dropshot

Unthinkable as it may seem, Churchill's plan literally won the hearts and minds of US policy makers and military officials. Between 1945 and the USSR's first detonation of a nuclear device in 1949, the Pentagon developed at least nine nuclear war plans targeting Soviet Russia, according to US researchers Dr. Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod. In their book "To Win a Nuclear War: the Pentagon's Secret War Plans," based on declassified top secret documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the researchers exposed the US military's strategies to initiate a nuclear war with Russia.

"The names given to these plans graphically portray their offensive purpose: Bushwhacker, Broiler, Sizzle, Shakedown, Offtackle, Dropshot, Trojan, Pincher, and Frolic. The US military knew the offensive nature of the job President Truman had ordered them to prepare for and had named their war plans accordingly," remarked American scholar J.W. Smith ("The World's Wasted Wealth 2").

These "first-strike" plans developed by the Pentagon were aimed at destroying the USSR without any damage to the United States.

The 1949 Dropshot plan envisaged that the US would attack Soviet Russia and drop at least 300 nuclear bombs and 20,000 tons of conventional bombs on 200 targets in 100 urban areas, including Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg). In addition, the planners offered to kick off a major land campaign against the USSR to win a "complete victory" over the Soviet Union together with the European allies. According to the plan Washington would start the war on January 1, 1957.

For a long period of time the only obstacle in the way of the US' massive nuclear offensive was that the Pentagon did not possess enough atomic bombs (by 1948 Washington boasted an arsenal of 50 atomic bombs) as well as planes to carry them in. For instance, in 1948 the US Air Force had only thirty-two B-29 bombers modified to deliver nuclear bombs.
In September 1948 US president Truman approved a National Security Council paper (NSC 30) on "Policy on Atomic Warfare," which stated that the United States must be ready to "utilize promptly and effectively all appropriate means available, including atomic weapons, in the interest of national security and must therefore plan accordingly."

At this time, the US generals desperately needed information about the location of Soviet military and industrial sites. So far, the US launched thousands of photographing overflights to the Soviet territory triggering concerns about a potential Western invasion of the USSR among the Kremlin officials. While the Soviets hastened to beef up their defensive capabilities, the military and political decision makers of the West used their rival's military buildup as justification for building more weapons.

Meanwhile, in order to back its offensive plans Washington dispatched its B-29 bombers to Europe during the first Berlin crisis in 1948. In 1949 the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed, six years before the USSR and its Eastern European allies responded defensively by establishing the Warsaw Pact — the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation, and Mutual Assistance.

http://cdn5.img.sputniknews.com/images/102579/04/1025790436.jpg
© AP PHOTO/ FILE
The mushroom cloud of the first atomic explosion at Trinity Test Site, New Mexico. July 16, 1945
Soviet Nuclear Bomb Test Undermined US Plan

Just before the USSR tested its first atomic bomb, the US' nuclear arsenal had reached 250 bombs and the Pentagon came to the conclusion that a victory over the Soviet Union was now "possible." Alas, the detonation of the first nuclear bomb by the Soviet Union dealt a heavy blow to US militarists' plans.

"The Soviet atomic bomb test on August 29, 1949 shook Americans who had believed that their atomic monopoly would last much longer, but did not immediately alter the pattern of war planning. The key issue remained just what level of damage would force a Soviet surrender," Professor Donald Angus MacKenzie of the University of Edinburgh remarked in his essay "Nuclear War Planning and Strategies of Nuclear Coercion."

Although Washington's war planners knew that it would take years before the Soviet Union would obtain a significant atomic arsenal, the point was that the Soviet bomb could not be ignored.

The Scottish researcher highlighted that the US was mainly focused not on "deterrence" but on "offensive" preemptive strike. "There was unanimity in 'insider circles' that the United States ought to plan to win a nuclear war. The logic that to do so implied to strike first was inescapable," he emphasized, adding that "first strike plans" were even represented in the official nuclear policy of the US.
Remarkably, the official doctrine, first announced by then US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in 1954, assumed America's possible nuclear retaliation to "any" aggression from the USSR.

US' Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP)

Eventually, in 1960 the US' nuclear war plans were formalized in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP).

At first, the SIOP envisaged a massive simultaneous nuclear strike against the USSR's nuclear forces, military targets, cities, as well as against China and Eastern Europe. It was planned that the US' strategic forces would use almost 3,500 atomic warheads to bomb their targets. According to US generals' estimates, the attack could have resulted in the death of about 285 to 425 million people. Some of the USSR's European allies were meant to be completely "wiped out."

"We're just going to have to wipe it [Albania] out," US General Thomas Power remarked at the 1960 SIOP planning conference, as quoted by MacKenzie.

However, the Kennedy administration introduced significant changes to the plan, insisting that the US military should avoid targeting Soviet cities and had to focus on the rival's nuclear forces alone. In 1962 the SIOP was modified but still it was acknowledged that the nuclear strike could lead to the death of millions of peaceful civilians.

http://cdn3.img.sputniknews.com/images/102579/02/1025790274.jpg
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 - November 22, 1963), 35th President of the United States, serving from 1961 until his assassination in 1963
© EAST NEWS/ UNIVERSAL HISTORY ARCHIVE/UNIVERSAL IMAGES GROUP
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 - November 22, 1963), 35th President of the United States, serving from 1961 until his assassination in 1963
The dangerous competition instigated by the US prompted Soviet Russia to beef up its nuclear capabilities and dragged both countries into the vicious circle of the nuclear arms race. Unfortunately, it seems that the lessons of the past have not been learnt by the West and the question of the "nuclearization" of Europe is being raised again.



Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150815/1025789574/us-planned-to-wipe-out-ussr.html#ixzz3v3wFhlJZ

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150815/1025789574/us-planned-to-wipe-out-ussr.html

The Munich Betrayal: How Western Powers 'Sold' Czechoslovakia to Hitler © AP Photo
http://cdn5.img.sputniknews.com/images/102757/57/1027575721.jpg

Ekaterina Blinova

The Munich Agreement of September 30, 1938, concluded by Europe's major powers with Adolf Hitler, allowed the Nazis to absorb parts of Czechoslovakia and hammered the final nail in the coffin of the concept of European collective security pushed ahead by the USSR, Canadian professor of history Michael Jabara Carley told Sputnik.

On September 30, 1938 in Munich, Europe's major powers (Britain, Germany, France and Italy), excluding Moscow and Prague, negotiated an agreement permitting Nazi Germany's annexation of portions of Czechoslovakia, paving the way for Hitler's European triumphant march; the agreement marked the failure of the USSR's numerous attempts to build a European anti-Hitler coalition.

"Beginning in late 1933, the Soviet government pursued a policy of collective security in Europe. It was League of Nations jargon, but in reality it was plain old great power alliance building. The Soviet idea was to contain Nazi Germany, or to defeat it in war, should containment fail. Soviet diplomats tried to promote their policy just about everywhere in Europe and in the United States. At first the USSR made progress, but one by one, Soviet would-be allies fell away. I call it the Grand Alliance that Never Was," Professor Michael Jabara Carley of the University of Montreal told Sputnik.

The professor pointed out that in France and Britain pragmatists wanted to accept Soviet offers; on the other hand, anti-communists hoped for agreement with Nazi Germany.

'A Hidden History of Early Soviet-Western Relations'

In his book "Silent Conflict: A Hidden History of Early Soviet-Western Relations" Professor Carley scrupulously analyzes the roots of European elite's enmity toward Soviet Russia and reveals that major capitalist countries have been plotting against the USSR since 1917, when the Bolsheviks came to power.
"It was not just the European elite, but also the American elite, which from the first day sought to overthrow the Soviet government. Their reasons are not hard to identify. These elites were outraged that coffee house 'anarchists' could take power in Russia. It was turning the known world on its head," Carley told Sputnik.

The professor stressed that as for the elites, from their point of view, their alarmism was certainly justified: the Bolsheviks annulled the tsarist state debt and nationalized banks and industries; as a result foreign financiers lost billions.

"The 'Entente' [Allied Western powers] sent troops to the four corners of Russia and they armed and paid White Guard armies to overthrow Soviet authority and to get back their lost investments. If they had succeeded, the West would certainly have turned Russia into another semi-colony like China. White Russian compradors would have served the West much as liberal "oligarchs" did during the 1990s, or still do now," Carley elaborated.

In light of this, the Red Army defended not only the workers and peasants, but primarily the Russian state in its new Soviet guise against Western domination. "Just what Putin's government is doing now," the professor stressed.

After the failure of the Entente intervention at the end of 1920, Soviet-Western relations seemingly improved: each side needed the other for economic reasons, much as is the case today, but Western Sovietophobia obviously hindered the development of a Soviet-Western rapprochement, according to the professor.

"This is why I say that the Cold War started after 1917 and not after 1945," the Canadian academic emphasized.

http://cdn3.img.sputniknews.com/images/102757/85/1027578569.jpg
© SPUTNIK/ KHALIP
Soviet diplomat Maxim Litvinov

Western Elite Saw Nazi Germany as a Bulwark Against the USSR

While Western elite demonstrated undisguised aversion toward "unwashed" and "ignorant" workers and peasants, it was at the same time fascinated by the brutal manliness of Nazis.

"Many were sympathetic to Nazism and fascism as a way of controlling unruly workers and crushing communists. Many also saw Nazi Germany as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. There was frequent contact between members of the British and French elites and their counterparts in Nazi Germany," the professor narrated.

"I also think that many scions of the British and European elite were in doubt about their masculinity during the Interwar Years. I can easily imagine them as "submissives" in a dom's studio in Paris or London. They were intoxicated by the manliness of Nazi Stormtroopers and by the manly odors of fascist sweat and leather. Perhaps it was a form of envy and the desire to emulate the Nazis. I am being a little facetious, of course, but not entirely so," Professor Carley added.
The professor highlighted that from the Soviet diplomatic papers, one gains the unavoidable impression that the Conservative British government was the chief obstacle to building collective security against Nazi Germany. "Even some Western historians would agree [with that]," Carley stressed.

"The perennial question of the 1930s was 'Who is enemy no. 1, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union?' Many people in power in the West got the answer wrong. Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, never wanted a real war-fighting alliance with the USSR. As I have often said, Chamberlain feared victory with the USSR as an ally, more than he feared defeat at the hands of Nazi Germany," the Canadian academic underscored.

'Only the USSR Has… Clean Hands'

In his essay "Only the USSR Has… Clean Hands": The Soviet Perspective on the Failure of Collective Security and the Collapse of Czechoslovakia, 1934-1938," Professor Carley presents a detailed analysis of Soviet Russia's repeated efforts to form an anti-Hitler coalition and the infamous Munich Agreement, also dubbed by historians as "the Munich Betrayal."
Britain played the first fiddle in negotiations with Nazi Germany. When the infamous Nazi Fuhrer made a territorial claim for Czechoslovakia's northern and western border regions, inhabited predominantly by Germans, the British reacted swiftly. On September 28, 1938, Chamberlain proposed the Nazi leader to hold a five-powers meeting in Munich where, as he assured Hitler, Germany would get what it wanted without war and without delay.

"Basically, Chamberlain wanted an agreement with Hitler and so was not interested in making threats against Germany to protect Czechoslovakia. That would have been illogical given Chamberlain's view that Czechoslovakia was an unviable state and could not be saved," Carley told Sputnik.

Embarrassingly for London, when Hitler seized Czechoslovakia's capital Prague in 1939, the British voluntarily handed over nearly $9 million worth of gold that belonged to Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany.

"If Chamberlain had wanted to stop Hitler, or contain Nazi Germany, the best way to do it would have been in an alliance with the USSR. Unfortunately, that course of action was abhorrent to the British prime minister and his closest advisors. As I say, it was Britain not the USSR which ought to be regarded as having been the main obstacle to collective security against Nazi Germany. Western propaganda (OSCE for example) to the effect that Stalin and Hitler were jointly responsible for the Second World War is rubbish," the professor stressed.

http://cdn5.img.sputniknews.com/images/102609/95/1026099531.jpg
© AP PHOTO/ HOFFMAN
From left to right are: Reichsmarschall and President of the Reichstag Hermann Goering, Italian Foreign Minister Count Ciano and Italian Fascist Leader Benito Mussolini shaking hands with Prime Minister of Great Britain Neville Chamberlain during the Four Power Conference held in autumn 1938 in Munich, Germany. Others not identified

Some Western historians are pointing the finger at Soviet Russia for signing a non-aggression pact with Germany on August 23, 1939. However, they remain silent that earlier similar agreements were concluded between France, Britain and Hitler, at the expense of Czechoslovakia.

"I think there was a direct link between the Munich accords and the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, it was the Soviet tit-for-tat. The USSR gave collective security one last chance in 1939; that last effort failed because the British and French again dragged their feet about an anti-Nazi war fighting alliance. They were simply not serious or credible. And look at this way, for six years the USSR had promoted collective security with the West. Britain and France in particular repeatedly rejected Soviet overtures and proposals. They were not the only ones however. Poland played the role of spoiler right up to August 1939, attempting to sabotage collective security. Romania backed off seeing that France and Britain would not join a tripartite alliance with the USSR," Professor Carley told Sputnik.
"If you had been Stalin, what would you have done? This was Stalin's policy of appeasement, and that policy did not turn out any better than the Anglo-French version of it. In fact, I would argue it turned out worse. Of course hindsight is always 20/20; historians often forget that what is now in the past was once in the future," Carley remarked.

Although the Soviet Union collapsed almost 25 years ago, Western media continue to beat the cold war drums, accusing the USSR of colluding with Adolf Hitler.

"Why do the Western mainstream media accuse Stalin and Hitler of being two peas in a pod? The answer is simple: the West is using "rewritten" history as a primitive weapon of propaganda to damage the Russian Federation and its president, Vladimir Putin," the professor emphasized.

"In truth, western politicians and journalists cannot get straight whether Putin is the new Stalin or the new Hitler," he noted with a touch of irony.

"Most of them in their ignorance could not tell you the difference between fascism and Marxist communism. It goes without saying that such ideas are preposterous and very dangerous. It is part of a campaign of Russophobia to treat Putin and Russia as "the other," not like the Western "us". It's a form of orientalism or racism," Professor Carley stressed.



Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150926/1027577179.html#ixzz3v3ygXslg

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150926/1027577179.html

Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union

From Hitler to Hearst, from Conquest to Solzhenitsyn:
the history of the millions of people who allegedly were incarcerated and died in the labour camps of the Soviet Union and as a result of starvation during Stalin's time.

Speech by Mario Sousa, KPML (r) Sweden

Translated and presented to the Stalin Society by Ella Rule March 1999.

Download as a PDF pamphlet

The Ukraine as a German territory
William Hearst - Friend of Hitler

The myth concerning the famine in the Ukraine

The Hearst mass media empire in 1998

“52 years before the truth emerges

Robert Conquest at the heart of the myths

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Support for Franco's fascism

Nazis, the police and the fascists

The archives demonstrate the propaganda lies

Fraudulent methods give rise to millions of dead

Gorbachev opens the archives

What the Russian research shows

Labour camps in the penal system

How many political prisoners there were, and how many common criminals

The internal and external threat

More prisoners in the US

How many people died in the labour camps?

How many people were sentenced to death prior to 1953, especially during the purges of 1937-38?

How long was the average prison sentence?

A brief discussion as to the research reports

The kulaks and the counter-revolution

The purges of 1937

Industrial sabotage

Theft and corruption

Plans for a coup

More numerous liars

Let us learn from history

Table of data


In this world we live in, who can avoid hearing the terrible stories of suspected death and murders in the gulag labour camps of the Soviet Union? Who can avoid the stories of the millions who starved to death and the millions of oppositionists executed in the Soviet Union during Stalin's time? In the capitalist world these stories are repeated over and over again in books, newspapers, on the radio and television, and in films, and the mythical numbers of millions of victims of socialism have increased by leaps and bounds in the last 50 years.

But where in fact do these stories, and these figures, come from? Who is behind all this?

And another question: what truth is there in these stories? And what information is lying in the archives of the Soviet Union, formerly secret but opened up to historical research by Gorbachev in 1989? The authors of the myths always said that all their tales of millions having died in Stalin's Soviet Union would be confirmed the day the archives were opened up. Is that what happened? Were they confirmed in fact?

The following article shows us where these stories of millions of deaths through hunger and in labour camps in Stalin's Soviet Union originated and who is behind them.

The present author, after studying the reports of the research which has been done in the archives of the Soviet Union, is able to provide information in the form of concrete data about the real number of prisoners, the years they spent in prison and the real number of those who died and of those who were condemned to death in Stalin's Soviet Union. The truth is quite different from the myth.

There is a direct historical link running from: Hitler to Hearst, to Conquest, to Solzhenitsyn. In 1933 political changes took place in Germany that were to leave their mark on world history for decades to come. On 30 January Hitler became prime minister and a new form of government, involving violence and disregard of the law, began to take shape. In order to consolidate their grip on power the Nazis called fresh elections for the 5th of March, using all propaganda means within their grasp to secure victory. A week before the elections, on 27 February, the Nazis set fire to parliament and accused the communists of being responsible. In the elections that followed, the Nazis secured 17.3 million votes and 288 deputies, about 48% of the electorate (in November they had secured 11.7 million votes and 196 deputies). Once the Communist Party was banned, the Nazis began to persecute the Social Democrats and the trade-union movement, and the first concentration camps began to fill up with all those left-wing men and women. In the meantime, Hitler's power in parliament continued to grow, with the help of the right wing. On 24 March, Hitler caused a law to be passed by parliament which conferred on him absolute power to rule the country for 4 years without consulting parliament. From then on began the open persecution of the Jews, the first of whom began to enter the concentration camps where communists and left social-democrats were already being held. Hitler pressed ahead with his bid for absolute power, renouncing the 1918 international accords that had imposed restrictions on the arming and militarisation of Germany. Germany's re-armament took place at great speed. This was the situation in the international political arena when the myths concerning those dying in the Soviet Union began to be put together.

The Ukraine as a German territory

At Hitler's side in the German leadership was Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, the man in charge of inculcating the Nazi dream into the German people. This was a dream of a racially pure people living in a Greater Germany, a country with broad lebensraum, a wide space in which to live. One part of this lebensraum, an area to the east of Germany which was, indeed, far larger than Germany itself, had yet to be conquered and incorporated into the German nation. In 1925, in Mein Kampf, Hitler had already pointed to the Ukraine as an essential part of this German living space. The Ukraine and other regions of Eastern Europe needed to belong to the German nation so that they could be utilised in a `proper' manner. According to Nazi propaganda, the Nazi sword would liberate this territory in order to make space for the German race. With German technology and German enterprise, the Ukraine would be transformed into an area producing cereals for Germany. But first the Germans had to liberate the Ukraine of its population of `inferior beings' who, according to Nazi propaganda, would be put to work as a slave labour force in German homes, factories and fields - anywhere they were needed by the German economy.

The conquest of the Ukraine and other areas of the Soviet Union would necessitate war against the Soviet Union, and this war had to be prepared well in advance. To this end the Nazi propaganda ministry, headed by Goebbels, began a campaign around a supposed genocide committed by the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine, a dreadful period of catastrophic famine it claimed was deliberately provoked by Stalin in order to force the peasantry to accept socialist policy. The purpose of the Nazi campaign was to prepare world public opinion for the `liberation' of the Ukraine by German troops. Despite huge efforts and in spite of the fact that some of the German propaganda texts were published in the English press, the Nazi campaign around the supposed `genocide' in the Ukraine was not very successful at the world level. It was clear that Hitler and Goebbels needed help in spreading their libellous rumours about the Soviet Union. That help they found in the USA.

William Hearst - Friend of Hitler

William Randolph Hearst is the name of a multi-millionaire who sought to help the Nazis in their psychological warfare against the Soviet Union. Hearst was a well-known US newspaper proprietor known as the `father' of the so-called `yellow press', i.e., the sensationalist press. William Hearst began his career as a newspaper editor in 1885 when his father, George Hearst, a millionaire mining industrialist, Senator and newspaper proprietor himself, put him in charge of the San Francisco Daily Examiner.

This was also the start of the Hearst newspaper empire, an empire which strongly influenced the lives and thinking of North Americans. After his father died, William Hearst sold all the mining industry shares he inherited and began to invest capital in the world of journalism. His first purchase was the New York Morning Journal, a traditional newspaper which Hearst completely transformed into a sensationalist rag. He bought his stories at any price, and when there were no atrocities or crimes to report, it behoved his journalists and photographers to `arrange' matters. It is this which in fact characterises the `yellow press': lies and `arranged' atrocities served up as truth.

These lies of Hearst's made him a millionaire and a very important personage in the newspaper world. In 1935 he was one of the richest men in the world, with a fortune estimated at $200 million. After his purchase of the Morning Journal, Hearst went on to buy and establish daily and weekly newspapers throughout the US. In the 1940s, William Hearst owned 25 daily newspapers, 24 weekly newspapers, 12 radio stations, 2 world news services, one business providing news items for films, the Cosmopolitan film company, and a lot of others. In 1948 he bought one of the US's first TV stations, BWAL - TV in Baltimore. Hearst's newspapers sold 13 million copies a day and had close to 40 million readers. Almost a third of the adult population of the US were reading Hearst newspapers every day. Furthermore, many millions of people throughout the world received information from the Hearst press via his news services, films and a series of newspapers that were translated and published in large quantities all over the world. The figures quoted above demonstrate how the Hearst empire was able to influence American politics, and indeed world politics, over very many years - on issues which included opposition to the US entering the Second World War on the side of the Soviet Union and support for the McCarthyite anti-communist witch-hunts of the 1950s.

William Hearst's outlook was ultra-conservative, nationalist and anti-communist. His politics were the politics of the extreme right. In 1934 he travelled to Germany, where he was received by Hitler as a guest and friend. After this trip, Hearst's newspapers became even more reactionary, always carrying articles against socialism, against the Soviet Union and especially against Stalin. Hearst also tried to use his newspapers for overt Nazi propaganda purposes, publishing a series of articles by Goering, Hitler's right-hand man. The protests of many readers, however, forced him to stop publishing such items and to withdraw them from circulation.

After his visit to Hitler, Hearst's sensationalist newspapers were filled with `revelations' about the terrible happenings in the Soviet Union - murders, genocide, slavery, luxury for the rulers and starvation for the people, all these were the big news items almost every day. The material was provided to Hearst by the Gestapo, Nazi Germany's political police. On the front pages of the newspapers there often appeared caricatures and falsified pictures of the Soviet Union, with Stalin portrayed as a murderer holding a dagger in his hand. We should not forget that these articles were read each day by 40 million people in the US and millions of others worldwide!

The myth concerning the famine in the Ukraine

One of the first campaigns of the Hearst press against the Soviet Union revolved round the question of the millions alleged to have died as a result of the Ukraine famine. This campaign began on 18 February 1935 with a front-page headline in the Chicago American `6 million people die of hunger in the Soviet Union'. Using material supplied by Nazi Germany, William Hearst, the press baron and Nazi sympathiser, began to publish fabricated stories about a genocide which was supposed to have been deliberately perpetrated by the Bolsheviks and had caused several million to die of starvation in the Ukraine. The truth of the matter was altogether different. In fact what took place in the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1930s was a major class struggle in which poor landless peasants had risen up against the rich landowners, the kulaks, and had begun a struggle for collectivisation, a struggle to form kolkhozes.

This great class struggle, involving directly or indirectly some 120 million peasants, certainly gave rise to instability in agricultural production and food shortages in some regions. Lack of food did weaken people, which in turn led to an increase in the number falling victim to epidemic diseases. These diseases were at that time regrettably common throughout the world. Between 1918 and 1920 an epidemic of Spanish flu caused the death of 20 million people in the US and Europe, but nobody accused the governments of these countries of killing their own citizens. The fact is that there was nothing these government could do in the face of epidemics of this kind. It was only with the development of penicillin during the second world war, that it became possible for such epidemics to be effectively contained. This did not become generally available until towards the end of the 1940s.

The Hearst press articles, asserting that millions were dying of famine in the Ukraine - a famine supposedly deliberately provoked by the communists, went into graphic and lurid detail. The Hearst press used every means possible to make their lies seem like the truth, and succeeded in causing public opinion in the capitalist countries to turn sharply against the Soviet Union. This was the origin of the first giant myth manufactured alleging millions were dying in the Soviet Union. In the wave of protests against the supposedly communist-provoked famine which the Western press unleashed, nobody was interested in listening to the Soviet Union's denials and complete exposure of the Hearst press lies, a situation which prevailed from 1934 until 1987! For more than 50 years several generations of people the world over were brought up on a diet of these slanders to harbour a negative view of socialism in the Soviet Union.

The Hearst mass media empire in 1998

William Hearst died in 1951 at his house in Beverley Hills, California. Hearst left behind him a mass-media empire which to this day continues to spread his reactionary message throughout the world. The Hearst Corporation is one of the largest enterprises in the world, incorporating more than 100 companies and employing 15,000 people. The Hearst empire today comprises newspapers, magazines, books, radio, TV, cable TV, news agencies and multimedia.

52 years before the truth emerges

The Nazi disinformation campaign about the Ukraine did not die with the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War. The Nazi lies were taken over by the CIA and MI5, and were always guaranteed a prominent place in the propaganda war against the Soviet Union. The McCarthyite anti-communist witch hunts after the Second World War also thrived on the tales of the millions who died of starvation in the Ukraine. In 1953 a book on this subject was published in the US. This book was entitled `Black Deeds of the Kremlin'. Its publication was financed by Ukrainian refugees in the US, people who had collaborated with the Nazis in the Second World War and to whom the American government gave political asylum, presenting them to the world as `democrats'.

When Reagan was elected to the US Presidency and began his 1980s anti-communist crusade, propaganda about the millions who died in the Ukraine was again revived. In 1984 a Harvard professor published a book called 'Human Life in Russia' which repeated all the false information produced by the Hearst press in 1934. In 1984, then, we found Nazi lies and falsifications dating from the 1930s being revived, but this time under the `respectable' cloak of an American university. But this was not the end of it. In 1986 yet another book appeared on the subject, entitled `Harvest of Sorrow', written by a former member of the British secret service, Robert Conquest, now a professor at Stamford University in California. For his `work' on the book, Conquest received $80,000 from the Ukraine National Organisation. This same organisation also paid for a film made in 1986 called `Harvest of Despair', in which, inter alia, material from Conquest's book was used. By this time the number of people it was being alleged in the US had lost their lives in the Ukraine through starvation had been upped to 15 million!

Nevertheless the millions said to have died of starvation in the Ukraine according to the Hearst press in America, parroted in books and films, was completely false information. The Canadian journalist, Douglas Tottle, meticulously exposed the falsifications in his book `Fraud, famine and fascism - the Ukrainian genocide myth from Hitler to Harvard', published in Toronto in 1987. Among other things, Tottle proved that the photographic material used, horrifying photographs of starving children, had been taken from 1922 publications at a time when millions of people did die from hunger and war conditions because eight foreign armies had invaded the Soviet Union during the Civil War of 1918-1921. Douglas Tottle gives the facts surrounding the reporting of the famine of 1934 and exposes the assorted lies published in the Hearst press. One journalist who had over a long period of time sent reports and photographs from supposed famine areas was Thomas Walter, a man who never set foot in the Ukraine and even in Moscow had spent but a bare five days. This fact was revealed by the journalist Louis Fisher, Moscow Correspondent of The Nation, an American newspaper. Fisher also revealed that the journalist M Parrott, the real Hearst press correspondent in Moscow, had sent Hearst reports that were never published concerning the excellent harvest achieved by the Soviet Union in 1933 and on the Ukraine's advancement. Tottle proves as well that the journalist who wrote the reports on the alleged Ukrainian famine, `Thomas Walker', was really called Robert Green and was a convict who had escaped from a state prison in Colorado! This Walker, or Green, was arrested when he returned to the US and when he appeared in court, he admitted that he had never been to the Ukraine. All the lies concerning the millions of dead due to starvation in the Ukraine in the 1930s, in a famine supposedly engineered by Stalin only came to be unmasked in 1987! Hearst, the Nazi, the police agent Conquest and others had conned millions of people with their lies and fake reports. Even today the Nazi Hearst's stories are still being repeated in newly-published books written by authors in the pay of right-wing interests.

The Hearst press, having a monopolist position in many States of the US, and having news agencies all over the world, was the great megaphone of the Gestapo. In a world dominated by monopoly capital, it was possible for the Hearst press to transform Gestapo lies into `truths' emitted from dozens of newspapers, radio stations and, later on, TV channels, the world over. When the Gestapo disappeared, this dirty propaganda war against socialism in the Soviet Union carried on regardless, albeit with the CIA as its new patron. The anti-communist campaigns of the American press were not scaled down in the slightest. Business continued as usual, first at the bidding of the Gestapo and then at the bidding of the CIA.

Robert Conquest at the heart of the myths

This man, who is so widely quoted in the bourgeois press, this veritable oracle of the bourgeoisie, deserves some specific attention at this point. Robert Conquest is one of the two authors who has most written on the millions dying in the Soviet Union. He is in truth the creator of all the myths and lies concerning the Soviet Union that have been spread since the Second World War. Conquest is primarily known for his books The Great Terror (1969) and Harvest of Sorrow (1986). Conquest writes of millions dying of starvation in the Ukraine, in the gulag labour camps and during the Trials of 1936-38, using as his sources of information exiled Ukrainians living in the US and belonging to rightist parties, people who had collaborated with the Nazis in the Second World War. Many of Conquest's heroes were known to have been war criminals who led and participated in the genocide of the Ukraine's Jewish population in 1942. One of these people was Mykola Lebed, convicted as a war criminal after the Second World War. Lebed had been security chief in Lvov during the Nazi occupation and presided over the terrible persecutions of the Jews which took place in 1942. In 1949 the CIA took Lebed off to the United States where he worked as a source of disinformation.

The style of Conquest's books is one of violent and fanatical anti-communism. In his 1969 book, Conquest tells us that those who died of starvation in the Soviet Union between 1932-1933 amounted to between 5 million and 6 million people, half of them in the Ukraine. But in 1983, during Reagan's anti-communist crusade, Conquest had extended the famine into 1937 and increased the number of victims to 14 million! Such assertions turned out to be well rewarded: in 1986 he was signed up by Reagan to write material for his presidential campaign aimed at preparing the American people for a Soviet invasion, The text in question was called `What to do when the Russians come - a survivalists' handbook'! Strange words coming from a Professor of History!

The fact is that there is nothing strange in it at all, coming as it does from a man who has spent his entire life living off lies and fabrications about the Soviet Union and Stalin - first as a secret service agent and then as a writer and professor at Stamford University in California. Conquest's past was exposed by the Guardian of 27 January 1978 in an article which identified him as a former agent in the disinformation department of the British Secret Service, i.e., the Information Research Department (IRD). The IRD was a section set up in 1947 (originally called the Communist Information Bureau) whose main task was to combat communist influence throughout the world by planting stories among politicians, journalists and others in a position to influence public opinion. The activities of the IRD were very wide-ranging, as much in Britain as abroad. When the IRD had to be formally disbanded in 1977, as a result of the exposure of its involvement with the far right, it was discovered that in Britain alone more than 100 of the best-known journalists had an IRD contact who regularly supplied them with material for articles. This was routine in several major British newspapers, such as the Financial Times, The Times, Economist, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, The Express, The Guardian and others. The facts exposed by the Guardian therefore give us an indication as to how the secret services were able to manipulate the news reaching the public at large.

Robert Conquest worked for the IRD from when it was set up until 1956. Conquest's `work' there was to contribute to the so-called `black history' of the Soviet Union - fake stories put out as fact and distributed among journalists and others able to influence public opinion. After he had formally left the IRD, Conquest continued to write books suggested by the IRD, with secret service support. His book `The Great Terror', a basic right-wing text on the subject of the power struggle that took place in the Soviet Union in 1937, was in fact a recompilation of text he had written when working for the secret services. The book was finished and published with the help of the IRD. A third of the publication run was bought by the Praeger press, normally associated with the publication of literature originating from CIA sources. Conquest's book was intended for presentation to `useful fools', such as university professors and people working in the press, radio and TV, to ensure that the lies of Conquest and the extreme right continued to be spread throughout large swathes of the population. Conquest to this day remains, for right-wing historians, one of the most important sources of material on the Soviet Union.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Another person who is always associated with books and articles on the supposed millions who lost their lives or liberty in the Soviet Union is the Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn became famous throughout the capitalist world towards the end of 1960 with his book, The Gulag Archipelago. He himself had been sentenced in 1946 to 8 years in a labour camp for counter-revolutionary activity in the form of distribution of anti-Soviet propaganda. According to Solzhenitsyn, the fight against Nazi Germany in the Second World War could have been avoided if the Soviet government had reached a compromise with Hitler. Solzhenitsyn also accused the Soviet government and Stalin of being even worse than Hitler from the point of view, according to him, of the dreadful effects of the war on the people of the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn did not hide his Nazi sympathies. He was condemned as a traitor.

Solzhenitsyn began in 1962 to publish books in the Soviet Union with the consent and help of Nikita Khrushchev. The first book he published was A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, concerning the life of a prisoner. Khrushchev used Solzhenitsyn's texts to combat Stalin's socialist heritage. In 1970 Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for literature with his book The Gulag Archipelago. His books then began to be published in large quantities in capitalist countries, their author having become one of the most valuable instruments of imperialism in combating the socialism of the Soviet Union. His texts on the labour camps were added to the propaganda on the millions who were supposed to have died in the Soviet Union and were presented by the capitalist mass media as though they were true. In 1974, Solzhenitsyn renounced his Soviet citizenship and emigrated to Switzerland and then the US. At that time he was considered by the capitalist press to be the greatest fighter for freedom and democracy. His Nazi sympathies were buried so as not to interfere with the propaganda war against socialism.

In the US, Solzhenitsyn was frequently invited to speak at important meetings. He was, for example, the main speaker at the AFL-CIO union congress in 1975, and on 15 July 1975 he was invited to give a lecture on the world situation to the US Senate! His lectures amount to violent and provocative agitation, arguing and propagandising for the most reactionary positions. Among other things he agitated for Vietnam to be attacked again after its victory over the US. And more: after 40 years of fascism in Portugal, when left-wing army officers took power in the people's revolution of 1974, Solzhenitsyn began to propagandise in favour of US military intervention in Portugal which, according to him, would join the Warsaw Pact if the US did not intervene! In his lectures, Solzhenitsyn always bemoaned the liberation of Portugal's African colonies.

But it is clear that the main thrust of Solzhenitsyn's speeches was always the dirty war against socialism - from the alleged execution of several million people in the Soviet Union to the tens of thousands of Americans supposedly imprisoned and enslaved, according to Solzhenitsyn, in North Vietnam! This idea of Solzhenitsyn's of Americans being used as slave labour in North Vietnam gave rise to the Rambo films on the Vietnam war. American journalists who dared write in favour of peace between the US and the Soviet Union were accused by Solzhenitsyn in his speeches of being potential traitors. Solzhenitsyn also propagandised in favour of increasing US military capacity against the Soviet Union, which he claimed was more powerful in `tanks and aeroplanes, by five to seven times, than the US' as well as in atomic weapons which `in short' he alleged were `two, three or even five times' more powerful in the Soviet Union than those held by the US. Solzhenitsyn's lectures on the Soviet Union represented the voice of the extreme right. But he himself went even further to the right in his public support of fascism.

Support for Franco's fascism

After Franco died in 1975, the Spanish fascist regime began to lose control of the political situation and at the beginning of 1976, events in Spain captured world public opinion. There were strikes and demonstrations to demand democracy and freedom, and Franco's heir, King Juan Carlos, was obliged very cautiously to introduce some liberalisation in order to calm down the social agitation.

At this most important moment in Spanish political history, Alexander Solzhenitsyn appeared in Madrid and gave an interview to the programme Directísimo one Saturday night, the 20th of March, at peak viewing time (see the Spanish newspapers, ABC and Ya of 21 March 1976). Solzhenitsyn, who had been provided with the questions in advance, used the occasion to make all kinds of reactionary statements. His intention was not to support the King's so-called liberalisation measures. On the contrary, Solzhenitsyn warned against democratic reform. In his television interview he declared that 110 million Russians had died the victims of socialism, and he compared `the slavery to which Soviet people were subjected to the freedom enjoyed in Spain'. Solzhenitsyn also accused `progressive circles' of `Utopians' of considering Spain to be a dictatorship. By `progressive', he meant anyone in the democratic opposition - were they liberals, social-democrats or communists. ‘Last autumn,' said Solzhenitsyn, `world public opinion was worried about the fate of Spanish terrorists [i.e., Spanish anti-fascists sentenced to death by the Franco regime]. All the time progressive public opinion demands democratic political reform while supporting acts of terrorism'. `Those who seek rapid democratic reform, do they realise what will happen tomorrow or the day after? In Spain there may be democracy tomorrow, but after tomorrow will it be able to avoid falling from democracy into totalitarianism?' To cautious inquiries by the journalists as to whether such statements could not be seen as support for regimes in countries where there was no liberty, Solzhenitsyn replied: `I only know one place where there is no liberty and that is Russia.' Solzhenitsyn's statements on Spanish television were a direct support to Spanish fascism, an ideology he supports to this day.

This is one of the reasons why Solzhenitsyn began to disappear from public view in his 18 years of exile in the US, and one of the reasons he began to get less than total support from capitalist governments. For the capitalists it was a gift from Heaven to be able to use a man like Solzhenitsyn in their dirty war against socialism, but everything has its limits. In the new capitalist Russia, what determines the support of the west for political groups is purely and simply the ability of doing good business with high profits under the wing of such groups. Fascism as an alternative political regime for Russia is not considered to be good for business. For this reason Solzhenitsyn's political plans for Russia are a dead letter as far as Western support is concerned. What Solzhenitsyn wants for Russia's political future is a return to the authoritarian regime of the Tsars, hand-in-hand with the traditional Russian Orthodox Church! Even the most arrogant imperialists are not interested in supporting political stupidity of this magnitude. To find anyone who supports Solzhenitsyn in the West one has to search among the dumbheads of the extreme right.

Nazis, the police and the fascists

So these are the most worthy purveyors of the bourgeois myths concerning the millions who are supposed to have died and been imprisoned in the Soviet Union: the Nazi William Hearst, the secret agent Robert Conquest and the fascist Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Conquest played the leading role, since it was his information that was used by the capitalist mass media the world over, and was even the basis for setting up whole schools in certain universities. Conquest's work is without a doubt a first-class piece of police disinformation. In the 1970s, Conquest received a great deal of help from Solzhenitsyn and a series of secondary characters like Andrei Sakharov and Roy Medvedev. In addition there appeared here and there all over the world a number of people who dedicated themselves to speculating about the number of dead and incarcerated and were always paid in gold by the bourgeois press. But the truth was finally exposed and revealed the true face of these falsifiers of history. Gorbachev's orders to open the party's secret archives to historical investigation had consequences nobody could have foreseen.

The archives demonstrate the propaganda lies

The speculation about the millions who died in the Soviet Union is part of the dirty propaganda war against the Soviet Union and for this very reason the denials and explanations given by the Society were never taken seriously and never found any space in the capitalist press. They were, on the contrary, ignored, while the `specialists' bought by capital were given as much space as they wanted in order to spread their fictions. And what fictions they were! What the millions of dead and imprisoned claimed by Conquest and other `critics' had in common was that they were the result of false statistical approximations and evaluation methods lacking any scientific basis.

Fraudulent methods give rise to millions of dead

Conquest, Solzhenitsyn, Medvedev and others used statistics published by the Soviet Union, for instance, national population censuses, to which they added a supposed population increase without taking account of the situation in the country. In this way they reached their conclusions as to how many people there ought to have been in the country at the end of given years. The people who were missing were claimed to have died or been incarcerated because of socialism. The method is simple but also completely fraudulent. This type of `revelation' of such important political events would never have been accepted if the `revelation' in question concerned the western world. In such a case it is certain that professors and historians would have protested against such fabrications. But since it was the Soviet Union that was the object of the fabrications, they were acceptable. One of the reasons is certainly that professors and historians place their professional advancement well ahead of their professional integrity.

In numbers, what were the final conclusions of the `critics'? According to Robert Conquest (in an estimate he made in 1961) 6 million people died of starvation in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s. This number Conquest increased to 14 million in 1986. As regards what he says about the gulag labour camps, there were detained there, according to Conquest, 5 million prisoners in 1937 before the purges of the party, the army and the state apparatus began. After the start of the purges then, according to Conquest, during 1937-38, there would have been an additional 7 million prisoners, making the total 12 million prisoners in the labour camps in 1939! And these 12 million of Conquest's would only have been the political prisoners! In the labour camps there were also common criminals, who, according to Conquest, would have far outnumbered the political prisoners. This means, according to Conquest, that there would have been 25-30 million prisoners in the labour camps of the Soviet Union.

Again according to Conquest, a million political prisoners were executed between 1937 and 1939, and another 2 million died of hunger. The final tally resulting from the purges of 1937-39, then, according to Conquest, was 9 million, of whom 3 million would have died in prison. These figures were immediately subjected to `statistical adjustment' by Conquest to enable him to reach the conclusion that the Bolsheviks had killed no fewer than 12 million political prisoners between 1930 and 1953. Adding these figures to the numbers said to have died in the famine of the 1930s, Conquest arrived at the conclusion that the Bolsheviks killed 26 million people. In one of his last statistical manipulations, Conquest claimed that in 1950 there had been 12 million political prisoners in the Soviet Union.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn used more or less the same statistical methods as Conquest. But by using these pseudo-scientific methods on the basis of different premises, he arrived at even more extreme conclusions. Solzhenitsyn accepted Conquest's estimate of 6 million deaths arising from the famine of 1932-33. Nevertheless, as far as the purges of 1936-39 were concerned, he believed that at least 1 million people died each year. Solzhenitsyn sums up by telling us that from the collectivisation of agriculture to the death of Stalin in 1953, the communists killed 66 million people in the Soviet Union. On top of that he holds the Soviet government responsible for the death of the 44 million Russians he claims were killed in the Second World War. Solzhenitsyn's conclusion is that `110 million Russians fell, victims of socialism'. As far as prisoners were concerned, Solzhenitsyn tells us that the number of people in labour camps in 1953 was 25 million.

Gorbachev opens the archives

The collection of fantasy figures set out above, the product of extremely well paid fabrication, appeared in the bourgeois press in the 1960s, always presented as true facts ascertained through the application of scientific method.

Behind these fabrications lurked the western secret services, mainly the CIA and MI5. The impact of the mass media on public opinion is so great that the figures are even today believed to be true by large sections of the population of Western countries.

This shameful situation has worsened. In the Soviet Union itself, where Solzhenitsyn and other well-known `critics' such as Andrei Sakharov and Roy Medvedev could find nobody to support their many fantasies, a significant change took place in 1990. In the new `free press' opened up under Gorbachev, everything opposed to socialism was hailed as positive, with disastrous results. Unprecedented speculative inflation began to take place in the numbers of those who were alleged to have died or been imprisoned under socialism, now all mixed up into a single group of tens of millions of `victims' of the communists.

The hysteria of Gorbachev's new free press brought to the fore the lies of Conquest and Solzhenitsyn. At the same time Gorbachev opened up the archives of the Central Committee to historical research, a demand of the free press. The opening up of the archives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is really the central issue in this tangled tale, this for two reasons: partly because in the archives can be found the facts that can shed light on the truth. But even more important is the fact that those speculating wildly on the number of people killed and imprisoned in the Soviet Union had all been claiming for years that the day the archives were opened up the figures they were citing would be confirmed. Every one of these speculators on the dead and incarcerated claimed that this would be the case: Conquest, Sakharov, Medvedev, and all the rest. But when the archives were opened up and research reports based on the actual documents began to be published a very strange thing happened. Suddenly both Gorbachev's free press and the speculators on the dead and incarcerated completely lost interest in the archives.

The results of the research carried out on the archives of the Central Committee by Russian historians Zemskov, Dougin and Xlevnjuk, which began to appear in scientific journals as from 1990, went entirely unremarked. The reports containing the results of this historical research went completely against the inflationary current as regards the numbers who were being claimed by the `free press' to have died or been incarcerated. Therefore their contents remained unpublicised. The reports were published in low-circulation scientific journals practically unknown to the public at large. Reports of the results of scientific research could hardly compete with the press hysteria, so the lies of Conquest and Solzhenitsyn continued to gain the support of many sectors of the former Soviet Union's population. In the West also, the reports of the Russian researchers on the penal system under Stalin were totally ignored on the front pages of newspapers, and by TV news broadcasts. Why?

What the Russian research shows

The research on the Soviet penal system is set out in a report nearly 9,000 pages long. The authors of this report are many, but the best-known of them are the Russian historians V N Zemskov, A N Dougin and O V Xlevjnik. Their work began to be published in 1990 and by 1993 had nearly been finished and published almost in its entirety. The reports came to the knowledge of the West as a result of collaboration between researchers of different Western countries. The two works with which the present author is familiar are: the one which appeared in the French journal l'Histoire in September 1993, written by Nicholas Werth, the chief researcher of the French scientific research centre, CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), and the work published in the US journal American Historical Review by J Arch Getty, a professor of history at the University of California, Riverside, in collaboration with G T Rettersporn, a CRNS researcher, and the Russian researcher, V AN Zemskov, from the Institute of Russian History (part of the Russian Academy of Science). Today books have appeared on the matter written by the above-named researchers or by others from the same research team. Before going any further, I want to make clear, so that no confusion arises in the future, that none of the scientists involved in this research has a socialist world outlook. On the contrary their outlook is bourgeois and anti-socialist. Indeed many of them are quite reactionary. This is said so that the reader should not imagine that what is to be set out below is the product of some `communist conspiracy'. What has happened is that the above-named researchers have thoroughly exposed the lies of Conquest, Solzhenitsyn, Medvedev and others, which they have done purely by reason of the fact that they place their professional integrity in first place and will not allow themselves to be bought for propaganda purposes.

The results of the Russian research answer a very large number of questions about the Soviet penal system. For us it is the Stalin era that is of greatest interest, and it is there we find cause for debate. We will pose a number of very specific questions and we will seek out our replies in the journals l'Histoire and the American Historical Review. This will be the best way of bringing into the debate some of the most important aspects of the Soviet penal system. The questions are the following:

1.What did the Soviet penal system consist of?

2.How many prisoners were there - both political and non-political?

3.How many people died in the labour camps?

4.How many people were condemned to death in the years before 1953, especially in the purges of 1937-38?

5.How long, on average, were the prison sentences?

After answering these five questions, we will discuss the punishments imposed on the two groups which are most frequently mentioned in connection with prisoners and deaths in the Soviet Union, namely the kulaks convicted in 1930 and the counter-revolutionaries convicted in 1936-38.

1. Labour camps in the penal system

Let us start with the question of the nature of the Soviet penal system.

After 1930 the Soviet penal system included prisons, labour camps, the labour colonies of the gulag, special open zones and obligation to pay fines. Whoever was remanded into custody was generally sent to a normal prison while investigations took place to establish whether he might be innocent, and could thus be set free, or whether he should go on trial. An accused person on trial could either be found innocent (and set free) or guilty. If found guilty he could be sentenced to pay a fine, to a term of imprisonment or, more unusually, to face execution. A fine could be a given percentage of his wages for a given period of time. Those sentenced to prison terms could be put in different kinds of prison depending on the type of offence involved.

To the gulag labour camps were sent those who had committed serious offences (homicide, robbery, rape, economic crimes, etc.) as well as a large proportion of those convicted of counter-revolutionary activities. Other criminals sentenced to terms longer than 3 years could also be sent to labour camps. After spending some time in a labour camp, a prisoner might be moved to a labour colony or to a special open zone.

The labour camps were very large areas where the prisoners lived and worked under close supervision. For them to work and not to be a burden on society was obviously necessary. No healthy person got by without working. It is possible that these days people may think this was a terrible thing, but this is the way it was. The number of labour camps in existence in 1940 was 53.

There were 425 gulag labour colonies. These were much smaller units than the labour camps, with a freer regime and less supervision. To these were sent prisoners with shorter prison terms - people who had committed less serious criminal or political offences. They worked in freedom in factories or on the land and formed part of civil society. In most cases the whole of the wages earned from his labour belonged to the prisoner, who in this respect was treated the same as any other worker.

The special open zones were generally agricultural areas for those who had been exiled, such as the kulaks who had been expropriated during collectivisation. Other people found guilty of minor criminal or political offences might also serve their terms in these areas.

454,000 is not 9 million

2. The second question concerned how many political prisoners there were, and how many common criminals.

This question includes those imprisoned in labour camps, gulag colonies and the prisons (though it should be remembered that in the labour colonies there was, in the majority of cases, only partial loss of liberty). The Table in the Appendix shows the data which appeared in the American Historical Review, data which encompasses a period of 20 years beginning in 1934, when the penal system was unified under a central administration, until 1953, the year Stalin died.

From the Table, there are a series of conclusions which need to be drawn. To start with we can compare its data to those given by Robert Conquest. The latter claims that in 1939 there were 9 million political prisoners in the labour camps and that 3 million others had died in the period 1937-1939. Let the reader not forget that Conquest is here talking only about political prisoners! Apart from these, says Conquest, there were also common criminals who, according to him, were much greater in number than the political prisoners! In 1950 there were, according to Conquest, 12 million political prisoners! Armed with the true facts, we can readily see what a fraudster Conquest really is. Not one of his figures corresponds even remotely to the truth. In 1939 there was a total in all the camps, colonies and prisons of close to 2 million prisoners. Of these 454,000 had committed political crimes, not 9 million as Conquest asserts. Those who died in labour camps between 1937 and 1939 numbered about 160,000, not 3 million as Conquest asserts. In 1950 there were 578,000 political prisoners in labour camps, not 12 million. Let the reader not forget that Robert Conquest to this day remains one of the major sources for right-wing propaganda against communism. Among right-wing pseudo-intellectuals, Robert Conquest is a godlike figure. As for the figures cited by Alexander Solzhenitsyn - 60 million alleged to have died in labour camps - there is no need for comment. The absurdity of such an allegation is manifest. Only a sick mind could promote such delusions.

Let us now leave these fraudsters in order that we may ourselves concretely analyse the statistics relating to the gulag. The first question to be asked is what view we should take about the sheer quantity of people caught up in the penal system? What is the meaning of the figure of 2.5 million? Every person that is put in prison is living proof that society was still insufficiently developed to give every citizen everything he needed for a full life. From this point of view, the 2.5 million do represent a criticism of the society.

The internal and external threat

The number of people caught up in the penal system requires to be properly explained. The Soviet Union was a country which had only recently overthrown feudalism, and its social heritage in matters of human rights was often a burden on society. In an antiquated system like tsardom, workers were condemned to live in deep poverty, and human life had little value. Robbery and violent crime was punished by unrestrained violence. Revolts against the monarchy usually ended in massacres, death sentences and extremely long prison sentences. These social relations, and the habits of mind associated with them, take a long time to change, a fact which influenced the development of society in the Soviet Union as well as attitudes towards criminals.

Another factor to be taken into account is that the Soviet Union, a country which in the 1930s had close to 160-170 million inhabitants, was seriously threatened by foreign powers. As a result of the great political changes which took place in Europe in the 1930s, there was a major threat of war from the direction of Nazi German, a threat to the survival of the Slav people, and the western bloc also harbouring interventionist ambitions. This situation was summed up by Stalin in 1931 in the following words:“We are 50-100 years behind the advanced countries. We have to close that gap in 10 years. Either we do it or we will be wiped out.” Ten years later, on 22 June 1941, the Soviet Union was invaded by Nazi Germany and its allies. Soviet society was forced to make great efforts in the decade from 1930-1940, when the major part of its resources was dedicated to its defence preparations for the forthcoming war against the Nazis. Because of this, people worked hard while producing little by way of personal benefits. The introduction of the 7-hour day was withdrawn in 1937, and in 1939 practically every Sunday was a work day. In a difficult period such as this, with a great war hanging over the development of society for two decades (the 1930s and 1940s), a war which was to cost the Soviet Union 25 million deaths with half the country burnt to a cinder, crime did tend to increase as people tried to help themselves to what life could not otherwise offer them.

During this very difficult time, the Soviet Union held a maximum number of 2.5 million people in its prison system, i.e., 2.4% of the adult population. How can we evaluate this figure? Is it a lot or a little? Let us compare.

More prisoners in the US

In the United States of America, for example, a country of 252 million inhabitants (in 1996), the richest country in the world, which consumes 60% of the world resources, how many people are in prison? What is the situation in the US, a country not threatened by any war and where there are no deep social changes affecting economic stability?

In a rather small news item appearing in the newspapers of August 1997, the FLT-AP news agency reported that in the US there had never previously been so many people in the prison system as the 5.5 million held in 1996. This represents an increase of 200,0000 people since 1995 and means that the number of criminals in the US equals 2.8% of the adult population. These data are available to all those who are part of the North American department of justice. The number of convicts in the US today is 3 million higher than the maximum number ever held in the Soviet Union! In the Soviet Union there was a maximum of 2.4% of the adult population in prison for their crimes - in the US the figure is 2.8%, and rising! According to a press release put out by the US department of justice on 18 January 1998, the number of convicts in the US in 1997 rose by 96,100.

As far as the Soviet labour camps were concerned, it is true that the regime was harsh and difficult for the prisoners, but what is the situation today in the prisons of the US, which are rife with violence, drugs, prostitution, sexual slavery (290,000 rapes a year in US prisons). Nobody feels safe in US prisons! And this today, and in a society richer than ever before!

An important factor - the lack of medicines

3. Let us now respond to the third question posed. How many people died in the labour camps?

The number varied from year to year, from 5.2% in 1934 to 0.3% in 1953. Deaths in the labour camps were caused by the general shortage of resources in society as a whole, in particular the medicines necessary to fight epidemics. This problem was not confined to labour camps but was present throughout society, as well as in the great majority of countries of the world. Once antibiotics had been discovered and put into general use after the Second World War, the situation changed radically. In fact, the worst years were the war years when the Nazi barbarians imposed very harsh living conditions on all Soviet citizens. During those 4 years, more than half a million people died in the labour camps - half the total number dying throughout the 20-year period in question. Let us not forget that in the same period, the war years, 25 million people died among those who were free. In 1950, when conditions in the Soviet Union had improved and antibiotics had been introduced, the number of people dying while in prison fell to 0.3%.

4. Let us turn now to the fourth question posed. How many people were sentenced to death prior to 1953, especially during the purges of 1937-38?

We have already noted Robert Conquest's claim that the Bolsheviks killed 12 million political prisoners in the labour camps between 1930 and 1953. Of these 1 million are supposed to have been killed between 1937 and 1938. Solzhenitsyn's figures run to tens of millions who are supposed to have died in the labour camps - 3 million in 1937-38 alone. Even higher figures have been quoted in the course of the dirty propaganda war against the Soviet Union. The Russian, Olga Shatunovskaya, for example, cites a figure of 7 million dead in the purges of 1937-38.

The documents now emerging from the Soviet archives, however, tell a different story. It is necessary to mention here at the start that the number of those sentenced to death has to be gleaned from different archives and that the researchers, in order to arrive at an approximate figure, have had to gather data from these various archives in a way which gives rise to a risk of double counting and thus of producing estimates higher than the reality. According to Dimitri Volkogonov, the person appointed by Yeltsin to take charge of the old Soviet archives, there were 30,514 persons condemned to death by military tribunals between 1 October 1936 and 30 September 1938. Another piece of information comes from the KGB: according to information released to the press in February 1990, there were 786,098 people condemned to death for crimes against the revolution during the 23 years from 1930-1953. Of those condemned, according to the KGB, 681,692 were condemned between 1937 and 1938. It is not possible to double check the KGB's figures but this last piece of information is open to doubt. It would be very odd for so many people to have been sentenced to death in only two years. Is it possible that the present-day pro-capitalist KGB would give us correct information from the pro-socialist KGB? Be that as it may, it remains to be verified whether the statistics which underlie the KGB information include among those said to have been condemned to death during the 23 years in question common criminals as well as counter-revolutionaries, rather than counter-revolutionaries alone as the pro-capitalist KGB has alleged in a press release of February 1990. The archives also tend to the conclusion that the number of common criminals and the number of counter revolutionaries condemned to death was approximately equal.

The conclusion we can draw from this is that the number of those condemned to death in 1937-38 was close to 100,000, and not several million as has been claimed by Western propaganda.

It is also necessary to bear in mind that not all those sentenced to death in the Soviet Union were actually executed. A large proportion of death penalties were commuted to terms in labour camps. It is also important to distinguish between common criminals and counter revolutionaries. Many of those sentenced to death had committed violent crimes such as murder or rape. 60 years ago this type of crime was punishable by death in a large number of countries.

Question 5: How long was the average prison sentence?

The length of prison sentences has been the subject of the most scurrilous rumour-mongering in Western propaganda. The usual insinuation is that to be a convict in the Soviet Union involved endless years in prison - whoever went in never came out. This is completely untrue. The vast majority of those who went to prison in Stalin's time were in fact convicted for a term of 5 years at most.

The statistics reproduced in the American Historical Review show the actual facts. Common criminals in the Russian Federation in 1936 received the following sentences: up to 5 years: 82.4%; between 5-10 years: 17.6%. 10 years was the maximum possible prison term before 1937. Political prisoners convicted in the Soviet Union's civilian courts in 1936 received sentences as follows: up to 5 years: 44.2%; between 5-10 years 50.7%. As for those sentenced to terms in the gulag labour camps, where the longer sentences were served, the 1940 statistics show that those serving up to 5 years were 56.8% and those between 5-10 years 42.2%. Only 1% were sentenced to over 10 years.

For 1939 we have the statistics produced by Soviet courts. The distribution of prison terms is as follows: up to 5 years: 95.9%; from 5-10 years: 4%; over 10 years: 0.1%.

As we can see, the supposed eternity of prison sentences in the Soviet Union is another myth spread in the West to combat socialism.

The lies about the Soviet Union: A brief discussion as to the research reports.

The research conducted by the Russian historians shows a reality totally different to that taught in the schools and universities of the capitalist world over the last 50 years. During these 50 years of the cold war, several generations have learnt only lies about the Soviet Union, which have left a deep impression on many people. This fact is also substantiated in the reports made of the French and American research. In these reports are reproduced data, figures and tables enumerating those convicted and those who died, these figures being the subject of intense discussion. But the most important thing to note is that the crimes committed by the people who had been convicted is never a matter of any interest. Capitalist political propaganda has always presented Soviet prisoners as innocent victims and the researchers have taken up this assumption without questioning it. When the researchers go over from their columns of statistics to their commentaries on the events, their bourgeois ideology comes to fore - with sometimes macabre results. Those who were convicted under the Soviet penal system are treated as innocent victims, but the fact of the matter is that most of them were thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. Criminals of this kind would never be considered to be innocent victims by the press if their crimes were committed in Europe or the US. But since the crimes were committed in the Soviet Union, it is different. To call a murderer, or a person who has raped more than once, an innocent victim is a very dirty game. Some common sense at least needs to be shown when commenting on Soviet justice, at least in relation to criminals convicted of violent crimes, even if it cannot be managed in relation to the nature of the punishment, then at least as regards the propriety of convicting people who have committed crimes of this kind.

The kulaks and the counter-revolution

In the case of the counter-revolutionaries, it is also necessary to consider the crimes of which they were accused. Let us give two examples to show the importance of this question: the first is the kulaks sentenced at the beginning of the 1930s, and the second is the conspirators and counter-revolutionaries convicted in 1936-38.

According to the research reports insofar as they deal with the kulaks, the rich peasants, there were 381,000 families, i.e., about 1.8 million people sent into exile. A small number of these people were sentenced to serve terms in labour camps or colonies. But what gave rise to these punishments?

The rich Russian peasant, the kulak, had subjected poor peasants for hundreds of years to boundless oppression and unbridled exploitation. Of the 120 million peasants in 1927, the 10 million kulaks lived in luxury while the remaining 110 million lived in poverty. Before the revolution they had lived in the most abject poverty. The wealth of the kulaks was based on the badly-paid labour of the poor peasants. When the poor peasants began to join together in collective farms, the main source of kulak wealth disappeared. But the kulaks did not give up. They tried to restore exploitation by use of famine. Groups of armed kulaks attacked collective farms, killed poor peasants and party workers, set fire to the fields and killed working animals. By provoking starvation among poor peasants, the kulaks were trying to secure the perpetuation of poverty and their own positions of power. The events which ensued were not those expected by these murderers. This time the poor peasants had the support of the revolution and proved to be stronger than the kulaks, who were defeated, imprisoned and sent into exile or sentenced to terms in labour camps.

Of the 10 million kulaks, 1.8 million were exiled or convicted. There may have been injustices perpetrated in the course of this massive class struggle in the Soviet countryside, a struggle involving 120 million people. But can we blame the poor and the oppressed, in their struggle for a life worth living, in their struggle to ensure their children would not be starving illiterates, for not being sufficiently `civilised' or showing enough `mercy' in their courts? Can one point the finger at people who for hundreds of years had no access to the advances made by civilisation for not being civilised? And tell us, when was the kulak exploiter civilised or merciful in his dealings with poor peasants during the years and years of endless exploitation.

The purges of 1937

Our second example, that of the counter-revolutionaries convicted in the 1936-38 Trials which followed the purges of party, army and state apparatus, has its roots in the history of the revolutionary movement in Russia. Millions of people participated in the victorious struggle against the Tsar and the Russian bourgeoisie, and many of these joined the Russian Communist Party. Among all these people there were, unfortunately, some who entered the party for reasons other than fighting for the proletariat and for socialism. But the class struggle was such that often there was neither the time nor the opportunity to put new party militants to the test. Even militants from other parties who called themselves socialists and who had fought the Bolshevik party were admitted to the Communist Party. A number of these new activists were given important positions in the Bolshevik Party, the state and the armed forces, depending on their individual ability to conduct class struggle. These were very difficult times for the young Soviet state, and the great shortage of cadres - or even of people who could read - forced the party to make few demands as regards the quality of new activists and cadres. Because of these problems, there arose in time a contradiction which split the party into two camps - on the one hand those who wanted to press forward in the struggle to build a socialist society, and on the other hand those who thought that the conditions were not yet ripe for building socialism and who promoted social-democracy. The origin of these ideas lay in Trotsky, who had joined the party in July 1917. Trotsky was able over time to secure the support of some of the best known Bolsheviks. This opposition, united against the original Bolshevik plan, provided one of the policy options which were the subject of a vote on 27 December 1927. Before this vote was taken, there had been a great party debate going on over many years and the result left nobody in any doubt. Of the 725,000 votes cast, the opposition secured 6,000 - i.e., less than 1% of party activists supported the united opposition.

As a consequence of the vote, and once the opposition started working for a policy opposed to that of the party, the Central Committee of the Communist Party decided to expel from the party the principal leaders of the united opposition. The central opposition figure, Trotsky, was expelled from the Soviet Union. But the story of this opposition did not end there. Zinoviev, Kamenev and Zvdokine afterwards made self-criticisms, as did several leading Trotskyists, such as Pyatakov, Radek, Preobrazhinsky and Smirnov. All of them were once again accepted into the party as activists and took up once more their party and state posts. In time it became clear that the self-criticisms made by the opposition had not been genuine, since the oppositionist leaders were united on the side of the counter revolution every time that class struggle sharpened in the Soviet Union. The majority of the oppositionists were expelled and re-admitted another couple of times before the situation clarified itself completely in 1937-38.

Industrial sabotage

The murder in December 1934 of Kirov, the chairman of the Leningrad party and one of the most important people in the Central Committee, sparked off the investigation that was to lead to the discovery of a secret organisation engaged in preparing a conspiracy to take over the leadership of the party and the government of the country by means of violence. The opposition, having lost the political struggle in 1927, now hoped to win by means of organised violence against the state. Their main weapons were industrial sabotage, terrorism and corruption. Trotsky, the main inspiration for the opposition, directed their activities from abroad. Industrial sabotage caused terrible losses to the Soviet state, at enormous cost, for example, important machines were damaged beyond possibility of repair, and there was an enormous fall in production in mines and factories.

One of the people who in 1934 described the problem was the American engineer John Littlepage, one of the foreign specialists contracted to work in the Soviet Union. Littlepage spent 10 years working in the Soviet mining industry - from 1927-37, mainly in the gold mines. In his book, In search of Soviet gold, he writes: “I never took any interest in the subtleties of political manoeuvring in Russia so long as I could avoid them; but I had to study what was happening in Soviet industry in order to do my work. And I am firmly convinced that Stalin and his collaborators took a long time to discover that discontented revolutionary communists were his worst enemies.”

Littlepage also wrote that his personal experience confirmed the official statement to the effect that a great conspiracy directed from abroad was using major industrial sabotage as part of its plans to force the government to fall. In 1931 Littlepage had already felt obliged to take note of this, while working in the copper and bronze mines of the Urals and Kazakhstan. The mines were part of a large copper/bronze complex under the overall direction of Pyatakov, the people's Vice Commissar for heavy industry. The mines were in a catastrophic state as far as production and the well-being of their workers was concerned. Littlepage reached the conclusion that there was organised sabotage going on which came from the top management of the copper/bronze complex.

Littlepage's book also tells us from where the Trotskyite opposition obtained the money that was necessary to pay for this counter-revolutionary activity. Many members of the secret opposition used their positions to approve the purchase of machines from certain factories abroad. The products approved were of much lower quality than those the Soviet government actually paid for. The foreign producers gave Trotsky's organisation the surplus from such transactions, as a result of which Trotsky and his co-conspirators in the Soviet Union continued to order from these manufacturers.

Theft and corruption

This procedure was observed by Littlepage in Berlin in the spring of 1931 when buying industrial lifts for mines. The Soviet delegation was headed by Pyatakov, with Littlepage as the specialist in charge of verifying the quality of the lifts and of approving the purchase. Littlepage discovered a fraud involving low quality lifts, useless for Soviet purposes, but when he informed Pyatakov and the other members of the Soviet delegation of this fact, he met with a cold reception, as if they wanted to overlook these facts and insist he should approve the purchase of the lifts. Littlepage would not do so. At the time he thought that what was happening involved personal corruption and that the members of the delegation had been bribed by the lift manufacturers. But after Pyatakov, in the 1937 Trial, confessed his links with the Trotskyist opposition, Littlepage was driven to the conclusion that what he had witnessed in Berlin was much more than corruption at a personal level. The money involved was intended to pay for the activities of the secret opposition in the Soviet Union, activities which included sabotage, terrorism, bribery and propaganda.

Zinoviev, Kamenev, Pyatakov, Radek, Tomsky, Bukharin and others much loved by the Western bourgeois press used the positions entrusted to them by the Soviet people and party to steal money from the state, in order to enable enemies of socialism to use that money for the purposes of sabotage and in their fight against socialist society in the Soviet Union.

Plans for a coup

Theft, sabotage and corruption are serious crimes in themselves, but the opposition's activities went much further. A counter-revolutionary conspiracy was being prepared with the aim of taking over state power by means of a coup in which the whole Soviet leadership would be eliminated, starting with the assassination of the most important members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The military side of the coup would be carried out by a group of generals headed by Marshal Tukhachevsky.

According to Isaac Deutscher, himself a Trotskyite, who wrote several books against Stalin and the Soviet Union, the coup was to have been initiated by a military operation against the Kremlin and the most important troops in the big cities, such as Moscow and Leningrad. The conspiracy was, according to Deutscher, headed by Tukhachevsky together with Gamarnik, the head of the army political commissariat, General Yakir, the Commander of Leningrad, General Uborevich, the commander of the Moscow military academy, and General Primakov, a cavalry commander.

Marshal Tukhachevsky had been an officer in the former Tsarist army who, after the revolution, went over to the Red Army. In 1930 nearly 10% of officers (close to 4,500) were former Tsarist officers. Many of them never abandoned their bourgeois outlook and were just waiting for an opportunity to fight for it. This opportunity arose when the opposition was preparing its coup.

The Bolsheviks were strong, but the civilian and military conspirators endeavoured to muster strong friends. According to Bukharin's confession in his public trial in 1938, an agreement was reached between the Trotskyite opposition and Nazi Germany, in which large territories, including the Ukraine, would be ceded to Nazi Germany following the counter-revolutionary coup in the Soviet Union. This was the price demanded by Nazi Germany for its promise of support for the counter-revolutionaries. Bukharin had been informed about this agreement by Radek, who had received an order from Trotsky about the matter. All these conspirators who had been chosen for high positions to lead, administer and defend socialist society were in reality working to destroy socialism. Above all it is necessary to remember that all this was happening in the 1930s, when the Nazi danger was growing all the time and the Nazi armies were setting Europe alight and preparing to invade the Soviet Union.

The conspirators were sentenced to death as traitors after a public trial. Those found guilty of sabotage, terrorism, corruption, attempted murder and who had wanted to hand over part of the country to the Nazis, could expect nothing else. To call them innocent victims is completely mistaken.

More numerous liars

It is interesting to see how Western propaganda, via Robert Conquest, has lied about the purges of the Red Army. Conquest says in his book The Great Terror that in 1937 there were 70,000 officers and political commissars in the Red Army and that 50% of them (i.e., 15,000 officers and 20,000 commissars) were arrested by the political police and were either executed or imprisoned for life in labour camps. In this allegation of Conquest's, as in his whole book, there is not one word of truth. The historian Roger Reese, in his work The Red Army and the Great Purges, gives the facts which show the real significance of the 1937-38 purges for the army. The number of people in the leadership of the Red Army and air force, i.e., officers and political commissars, was 144,300 in 1937, increasing to 282,300 by 1939. During the 1937-38 purges, 34,300 officers and political commissars were expelled for political reasons. By May 1940, however, 11,596 had already been rehabilitated and restored to their posts. This meant that during the 1937-38 purges, 22,705 officers and political commissars were dismissed (close to 13,000 army officers, 4,700 air force officers and 5,000 political commissars), which amounts to 7.7% of all officers and commissars - not 50% as Conquest alleges. Of this 7.7%, some were convicted as traitors, but the great majority of them, it would appear from historical material available, simply returned to civilian life.

One last question. Were the 1937-38 Trials fair to the accused? Let us examine, for example, the trial of Bukharin, the highest party functionary to work for the secret opposition. According to the American ambassador in Moscow at the time, a well-known lawyer called Joseph Davies, who attended the whole trial, Bukharin was permitted to speak freely throughout the trial and put forward his case without impediment of any kind. Joseph Davies wrote to Washington that during the Trial it was proved that the accused were guilty of the crimes of which they were charged and that the general opinion among diplomats attending the trial was that the existence of a very serious conspiracy had been proved.

Let us learn from history

The discussion of the Soviet penal system during Stalin's time, on which thousands of lying articles and books have been written, and hundreds of films have been made conveying false impressions, leads to important lessons. The facts prove yet again that the stories published about socialism in the bourgeois press are mostly false. The right wing can, through the press, radio and TV that it dominates, cause confusion, distort the truth and cause very many people to believe lies to be the truth. This is especially true when it comes to historical questions. Any new stories from the right should be assumed to be false unless the contrary can be proved. This cautious approach is justified. The fact is that even knowing about the Russian research reports, the right is continuing to reproduce the lies taught for the last 50 years, even though they have now been completely exposed. The right continues its historical heritage: a lie repeated over and over again ends up being accepted as true. After the Russian research reports were published in the west, a number of books began to appear in different countries aimed solely at calling into question the Russian research and enabling the old lies to be brought to public attention as new truths. These are well-presented books, stuffed from cover to cover with lies about communism and socialism.

The right-wing lies are repeated in order to fight today's communists. They are repeated so that workers will find no alternative to capitalism and neo-liberalism. They are part of the dirty war against communists who alone have an alternative to offer for the future, i.e., socialist society. This is the reason for the appearance of all these new books containing old lies.

All this places an obligation on everybody with a socialist world outlook on history. We must take on the responsibility of working to turn communist newspapers into authentic newspapers of the working class to combat bourgeois lies! This is without doubt an important mission in today's class struggle, which in the near future will arise again with renewed force.





APPENDIX:

From The American Historical Review


Year Prisoners in gulag labour camps Of whom the number of counter-revolutionaries Number dying each year Number released each year Number escaped each year Prisoners held in gulag labour colonies Prisoners held in prisons Total number on January 1st each year
Number % Number %
1934 510,307 135,190 26.5 26,295 5.2 147,272 83,490 510,307
1935 725,438 118,256 16.3 28,328 3.9 211.035 67,493 240,259 965,697
1936 839,406 105,849 12.6 20,595 2.5 369,544 58,313 457,088 1,298,494
1937 820,881 104,826 12.8 25,378 3.1 364,437 58,264 375,488 1,196,369
1938 996,367 185,324 18.6 90,546 9.1 279.966 32,033 885,203 1,881,570
1939 1,317,195 454,432 34.5 50,502 3.8 223,622 12,333 355,243 350,538 2,022,976
1940 1,344,408 444,999 33.1 46,665 3.5 316,825 11,813 315,584 190,266 1,850,258
1941 1,500,524 420,293 28.7 100,997 6.7 624,275 10,592 429,205 487,739 2,417.468
1942 1,415,596 407,988 29.8 248,877 17.6 509,538 11,822 360,447 277,992 2,054,035
1943 983,974 345,397 35.6 166,967 17.0 336,135 6,242 500,208 235,313 1,719,495
1944 663,594 268,861 40.7 60,948 9.2 152,113 3,586 516,225 155,213 1,335,032
1945 715,506 283,351 41.2 43,848 8.1 336,750 2,196 745,171 279,969 1,740,646
1946 600,897 333,833 59.2 18,154 3.0 115,700 2,642 956,224 261,500 1,818,621
1947 808,839 427,653 54.3 35,668 4.4 194,886 3,779 912,794 306,163 2,027,796
1948 1,108,057 416,156 38.0 27,605 2.5 261,148 4,261 1,091,478 275,850 2,475,385
1949 1,216,361 420,696 34.9 15,739 1.3 178,449 2,583 1,140,324 2,356,685
1950 1,416,300 578,912 22.7 14,703 1.0 216,210 2,577 1,145,051 2,561,351
1951 1,533,767 475,976 31.0 15,587 1.0 254,269 2,318 994,379 2,528,146
1952 1,711,202 480,766 28.1 10,604 0.6 329,446 1,253 793,312 2,504,514
1953 1,727,970 465,256 26.9 5,825 0.3 937,352 785 740,554 2,468,524

http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html#top

See link for table to be comprehensible.

Something strange is happening in Russia: reclaiming the Soviet era
Posted by stalinsmoustache under China, marxism | Tags: reassessment, Russia, Soviet Union |
[10] Comments
Many strange things happen in Russia, but this is one of the more intriguing. Not so long ago, I was told while in Russia that one could not speak of Marxism directly in many circles. Marxism is a dirty word, I was told; indeed, there are no Marxists of any influence. The only way to undertake research on Marxism and find a job in a university was to focus on the various forms of the opposition to Lenin and Stalin.

Something has changed. It began with an invitation from Algoritm Press to write a book on Stalin that would be translated into Russian. Debate is heating up over Stalin’s legacy, with an increasing number of people calling for a reassessment. They also want foreign engagements with this debate. It has also generated works like Oleg Khlevniuk’s new biography of Stalin, which is an alarmed response to these developments.

But it really struck me this year at a couple of conferences, one celebrating 120 years since the death of Engels and the other called, innocuously, the World Cultural Forum. At the first conference, in Nanjing, a number of Russian scholars were present, with their journeys covered by the conference organisers. They spoke mostly of Chinese Marxism, although one chose to speak in Russian since it was ‘the language of Lenin’. However, one of them spoke of socialism as a cultural force, in both the Soviet Union and China, if not worldwide. Afterwards, I said to him, ‘I was told there are no Marxists in Russian any more’. He replied, ‘Well, I am one. She is one. He is one …’.

At the next conference, a few days later in Beijing, the handful of Russian scholars became scores. They had all attended an earlier conference there (which I had missed) called the ‘World Socialist Forum’ – which may be seen as the twenty-first century’s version of the Comintern. Now it became even more interesting. Some of the Russian speakers sought to draw upon and assess positively aspects of the Soviet Union. One spoke of Soviet education, another of Soviet cultural policy, another of Sino-Soviet ties. I dared to speak in front of such an audience (a little nervously) of the philosophical connections between the nationalities policy, affirmative action, anti-colonialism and the redefinition of ‘people’ and state in the Soviet Union. Quite a few came up to me afterwards with appreciative comments. One senior philosopher from the Academy of Sciences even told me that I had managed to identify some of the key philosophical developments he had been studying for 40 years.

So what is going on? I am not quite sure. Partly, it has to do with the recent development of very close ties between Russia and China, thereby negating much of the efforts of NATO and the USA. But it goes well beyond strategic and economic interests. Partly, it has to do with finding common ground between Russia and China, via the Soviet era, although an occasional Russian will assert that the Soviet Union was ‘more advanced’ than China. But I sense much more is under way, with both older scholars who spent most of their lives in the Soviet Union and younger scholars seeking to re-engage. What these developments might actually mean is still unclear to me.

http://stalinsmoustache.org/2015/12/14/something-strange-is-happening-in-russia-reclaiming-the-soviet-era/

A couple interesting comments attached to this post:


Mark Says:

15 December, 2015 at 12:43 am
Strange a “pirate” has survived so long

Radio Komintern is situated in Rossosh, Voronezh Region, Russian Federation. The transmitter has a capacity of 1000 watt and the station aims since 2013 to spread the Communist ideas. It mainly broadcast news in the Russian language and patriotic songs.

Audible now 1500 utc Sunday.

http://dxhoekje.skynetblogs.be/archive/2015/12/03/qsl-from-the-russian-pirate-station-radio-komintern-8537081.html


Andrey Says:

15 December, 2015 at 1:16 am
Don’t be deceived by a seeming willingness of the capitalist regime in Russia to allow some of the academicians their marxist discourse esp. abroad in the countries like China, Cuba etc. They are still as anti-communist and anti-soviet as in the 90-ies, the reasons for their paying lip service to the left ideology is the difficult situation the Russian imperialism got into while competeing with much sronger enemies, i.e. the West. Putin has been desperaterly trying to find any sort of allies even if they are ideologically alien to his clique.

Problems quotes on the Internet

colonelcassad
February 14, 13:10

http://alittlebit.ru/upload/iblock/33c/1ce2348e9fdd6764948e319fb10e9297.jpeg

Subject Stalin suddenly surfaced in the US presidential elections. That is to say, "I reached a damn ..." The candidate for the post of US president Ben Carson surprised the American public by quoting during the pre-election TV debate of Joseph Stalin.

However, I surprised he citizens rather that attributed to the general secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) the words he never said. "Joseph Stalin said that if you want to destroy America, it is necessary to undermine the three things - our spiritual life, patriotism and morality," - Carson said during a televised debate. However, US users of social networks have found that Stalin such statements, fortunately or unfortunately, never did. These words attributed to him in Facebook in 2011, then the phrase quickly sold on a variety of mailing lists with "wise" advice from the great men. In Twitter, too, this topic was not spared. "As Abraham Lincoln said," Do not believe anything that is written on the Internet, "- in fact, Ben Carson".



Https://russian.rt.com/article/148474 - zinc PS. And people still wonder why sometimes feykovye quotes get a long life. Fortunately or unfortunately, the chances of becoming president of the United States Carson there is little, so that Stalin his political prospects did not change.

http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2615466.html

Problems quotes on the Internet

I heard the demented zombie in the debate "quote" Stalin. I immediately told my son (who was watching with me) that Stalin never said that. The boy (he's 33 this year) jumped on the twitter and said, "It's already blowing up that Carson is an idiot and Stalin did not say that." That was just within a few minutes. It was also reported on the CBS News, this morning, that Carson is an idgit.

I heard the demented zombie in the debate "quote" Stalin. I immediately told my son (who was watching with me) that Stalin never said that. The boy (he's 33 this year) jumped on the twitter and said, "It's already blowing up that Carson is an idiot and Stalin did not say that." That was just within a few minutes. It was also reported on the CBS News, this morning, that Carson is an idgit.

Yet the demented anti-communist will insist that if he didn't then he meant to. This shit is so embedded in the 'common knowledge' that is about impossible to dispute with many, who will become raging inpatient if you try to take the time to show them. Cause they 'know' better.

I guess nothing easy is worth doing. But good on your son, wonder how many arguments that will get him?

But good on your son, wonder how many arguments that will get him?

Well, he ain't no leftist, he is one of those "progressive" anti-Republicans. So, he would never defend Uncle Joe (that's my department), but he pounces on any stupidity uttered by any Republican - he is kept pretty busy. I have tried to talk to him about the true history of the world from around 1900 onward and he is not willing to listen. He thinks I am unrealistic (but he is always asking me about economic things, so maybe there is whittle room...I don't know).

Stalin about the US
colonelcassad
February 19, 15:57

http://prometej.info/media/uploads/chto-govoril-stalin-pro-severnuju-ameriku.jpg


Good article on the recent history of the statements of US presidential candidates about Stalin dreamed destroy American values.

What can I say Stalin missile defense of North America?

Despite the difference one letter named Carlson, "who lives on the roof," from the name of Ben Carson, candidate for US president from the Republican Party, they have a lot in common. Like the hero of Astrid Lindgren, never tires of repeating that "he is the best in the world" in all respects, Ben Carson repeatedly told about his extraordinary abilities to fulfill the post of president of the country. Like a fat man with a propeller on his back, Ben Carson highly developed imagination, but because he recently declared: "Stalin argued:" If you want to destroy America, it is necessary to destroy its spiritual life, patriotism and morality. " It was soon found that this was a fictional phrase penned by the authors' quotations of great people, "posted on Facebook. The attribution of Stalin's words, which he uttered, and the actions that he did not commit, it has long become a practice.

The phrase, coined by writer Anatoly Rybakov ( "There are people - there is a problem there is no man -. No problem"), still many people, including the president of Russia, passes for the actual words of Stalin.

Many "sayings" Stalin created Khrushchev, when he wrote his report for a closed meeting of the XX Congress of the CPSU, and then, after the resignation, he slandered tape his memoirs. They Khrushchev constantly cited examples of "bad character" of Stalin. For example, Khrushchev claimed that, while in exile in Turukhansk, Stalin of hostility to the neighbor on the hut Yakov Sverdlov named his dog Yashka. (In fact, a dog named Tishka.) Building on its version of the report, Khrushchev in his memoirs claimed if in the early days of the war, Stalin, demoralized by the success of Hitler's, announced at a meeting of the Politburo: "I refuse to leadership." (Although it is known that Stalin felt keenly the defeat of the Red Army, no such meeting of the Politburo, no such declaration was not Stalin.).

After Khrushchev concocted stories about Stalin intellectuals. In his book "Staliniada", issued for the first time in 1990, Yuri Borev collected several thousand tales with fictional utterances of Stalin. In these anecdotes Borev saw the product of "urban, intellectual folklore." The book Borev unsubstantiated states: "Stalin called Hitler icebreaker revolution." These words were taken from the title of the book slanderous traitor to the motherland Rezun, which justified the attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union. The collection abounds Borev invented scenes in which Stalin looks rough, primitive, cruel and cynical. "Stalin" constantly bullied people in these bikes. It cost nothing to say to his companion that he should be hanged. When frightened to death a man asked, "What ?!", Stalin allegedly replied: "neck" Only then it became clear that Stalin was just joking. These works are still used in the preparation of television films about Stalin and the Stalin era.

His contribution to the fabrication of alleged statements have made ​​Stalin and Western leaders. In response to the neutral countries to help our prisoners in Germany, Stalin allegedly replied: "Among the soldiers of the Red Army no prisoners and traitors are in German concentration camps." Western writers have also come up with a statement of Stalin about the election, to be held after the release of a number of countries in South-Eastern Europe: "The main thing is not how to vote in the elections. Important:. Who and how to calculate the voting results " Stalin rebuffed the anti-Soviet fabrications, if they flagrantly distorted the course of historical events. For this reason, soon after the war was published certificate "falsifiers of history", which exposed the slander of Soviet foreign policy and reveals the insidious actions of the Western powers before World War II. But Stalin patiently endured hostile propaganda fabrications about his person. There is only one occasion when Stalin ridiculed the works of the American press. October 26, 1936 he wrote to the head office "Associated Press" Charles Nutter, answering his query about the serious illness of messages and even the death of Stalin:

"Sir! As far as I know from the foreign press reports, I have long since left this sinful world and moved to the light. Since one can not refer to reports in the foreign press with confidence, if you do not want to be removed from the list of civilized people, then please believe these messages and not to disturb my rest in the silence of the other world. Regards, J. Stalin. "

Unlike their ideological enemies, often use simplified templates to describe the Soviet system and personally, Stalin tried to avoid such practices. In an interview with a prominent politician Harold Stassenom April 9, 1947, Stalin called on the ruling circles of the United States to give up these propaganda clichés. He said:

"The Soviet system is called a totalitarian or dictatorial, and the Soviet people call the American system of monopoly capitalism. If both parties begin to blame each other monopolists or totalitarians, the cooperation will not work. We must proceed from the historical fact of the existence of the two systems, approved by the people. "

After 9 years the authorship of the idea of peaceful coexistence between the two systems attributed to Khrushchev. Although Stalin was well aware of the hostile attitude of the USA to our country from the first days of Soviet power, he never belittled strengths America and the American people. Moreover, he believed that some of the features of the American national character can serve as examples for others to follow in our country. In his seminal work, "The Foundations of Leninism", Stalin singled out "American efficiency" as an important feature of the Leninist style in work. Stalin wrote:

"American efficiency - this is the indomitable force which neither knows nor recognizes obstacles, which erodes their business-like perseverance every obstacle that can not fail to complete once initiated the case, if it is even a small business, and without which unthinkable serious construction work. "

True, Stalin immediately warned that:

" American efficiency has every chance of degenerating into narrow and unprincipled practicalism if it is not combined with Russian revolutionary sweep ... compound Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency - this is the essence of Leninism in party and state work. "

Such an attitude to Stalin's" American efficiency "had nothing to do with the worship of everything American. Therefore, in response to the writer Emil Ludwig's words ( "I see in the Soviet Union an exceptional respect for everything American, I would say even a worship of everything American, that is, before the dollar the country, the most consistent capitalist country.."), Stalin said:

"You exaggerating. We have no great respect for everything American. But we respect American efficiency everywhere - in industry, in technology, in literature and in life. We never forget that the USA - a capitalist country. But among the many Americans healthy spiritually and physically healthy in their approach to work, to the point. With this efficiency, this simplicity we sympathize. Despite the fact that America has a highly developed capitalist country, there are customs in the industry, skills in the production contain anything from democracy, which can not be said of the old European capitalist countries, where still lives the spirit of nobility feudal aristocracy ... Our working-business executives who have been in America immediately noticed this trait. They are not without some pleasant surprise was told that in the United States in the production process is difficult to distinguish from the outer side of the working engineer. And they like it, of course. "

Apparently, Stalin himself wanted to go to the United States and ensure the correctness of such impressions. It is also known that Stalin wanted to see Washington attracts him neoclassical architecture and monuments of prominent Americans. This was evidenced by Stalin prompted US President Harry Truman to visit the US capital. February 2, 1949, Stalin wrote:

"I am grateful for the invitation to President Truman in Washington. Arriving in Washington is a long-standing desire of mine, as I once said to President Roosevelt at Yalta, and President Truman at Potsdam. Unfortunately, at present I am unable to carry out this desire, as doctors strongly opposed to my any long trips, especially by sea or by air. "

The desire of Stalin was never carried out, and his meeting with Truman did not take place . These are the most famous sayings of Stalin about the US and Americans. However, forgers of Facebook, and behind them a contender for the highest office in the United States, tried to erase them, and instead of them composed the Stalin plan to destroy America, her spiritual life, patriotism and morality. This manifested the typical methods of anti-Soviet and anti-communism, reacted with extraordinary ease in black white.

Yuri Emelyanov

http://prometej.info/blog/prochee/chto-g ovoril-stalin-a pro-severnuju-ameriku / - Zinc

http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2623102.html

Google Translator

What does Stalin mean today? Part One

Posted on 22 February 2016 by Red Youth

Comrades from Red Youth yesterday gave a presentation to the Stalin Society, discussing what the vital lessons of the Russian revolution, Stalin’s role in building socialism, and what it means to us today.

The second presentation by comrade Corinne is reproduced below, exploring what Stalin meant for the liberation of women in the former Russian empire and across the world.

https://redyouthuk.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/sovietposter.jpg?w=640


Before I express what Stalin means to me, I would first like to discuss what Stalin meant to the peoples of Russia at a time where oppression was much more glaring in its mercilessness, and the emancipation of a nation from wage-slavery and exploitation was considered impossible.

As is always the case when the relations of production are hostile to, and inherently conflict with, the character of the productive forces, revolt inevitably occurs and spreads wildly. It was Lenin who lit the beacon that shone on Marx’s theories, and Lenin who further developed them; this strenuous task was continued forth by his disciple, Josef Stalin. For Stalin, a strong economy needed a strong country: and rightly so!

Industrialisation was key to achieving this strength, namely because, in the least dramatic manner possible, the future for socialist revolution in the Soviet Union was at stake. Stalin himself summed up the conditions of the USSR at the time when he correctly stated that “If we are backward and weak, we may be beaten and enslaved. But if we are powerful, people must beware of us. We are 50 to 100 years behind the advanced countries of the West. We must make up this gap in 10 years. Either we do this or they crush us.”

How right he was. In less than 10 years the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, and were it not for his plans of collectivisation and industrialisation, the USSR would have been dealt a vicious blow that would surely have left her severely wounded, and easy prey for the jaws of Western imperialism. Against all odds, Stalin and the Soviet peoples revolutionised a largely agrarian backwater into a powerful Socialist state, and in doing so, in accordance with the tenets of socialism, transformed the limited role of the woman to that of the highest calibre.

At the time, in 1923, Stalin pronounced “The women worker stands shoulder to shoulder with the man worker. She works with him on the common task of building our industry. She can help the common cause if she is politically conscious and politically educated. But she can ruin the common cause if she is downtrodden and backward, not, of course, as a result of her ill-will, but because of her backwardness. The peasant woman stands shoulder to shoulder with the peasant. She advances, together with him, the common cause of the development of our agriculture, its successes and its flourishing…”
Stalin continues, “Women workers and peasants are free citizens on an equal footing with men workers and peasants. The women elect our Soviets and our co-operatives and can be elected to these organs. Women workers and peasants can improve our Soviets and cooperatives, strengthen and develop them if they are politically literate.
That is why the political education of women workers and peasants is a task of primary importance, a most important task for real victory over the bourgeoisie today, when the workers and peasants have set about the building of a new life. That is why the importance of the first women workers’ and peasants’ congress, which laid the foundations for the task of politically educating working women, is really quite inestimable.”

This briefly leads me first onto the topic of the Soviet Union before the building of socialism.

Though most of the world would like to dispute this fact, we Marxist-Leninists know the truth: that without Stalin, the healthcare system as we know it, the various social reforms that have given millions of oppressed, silenced people a voice and, more importantly, the abolition of fascism would not be in existence today.

https://redyouthuk.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/1172269221_12.jpg?w=640&h=450
Poster encouraging women to exercise their right to vote and participate in politics

Tsarist Russia, as Stalin knew it before the revolution, was a nation of misery and mass corruption. To say that “these most aristocratic of aristocrats fell from glory” as the Daily Mail described the Imperial family in 2008 is an absolute insult to the life of the working class then, along with 80% of the population that made up the peasantry. Workers living under Tsarist rule would have no choice but to sell their labour for fourteen to fifteen hours every day, and no less than twelve and a half.

Insurance, much less workers’ rights in general, was non-existent. No regulation, no protection, and no regard for the working people resulted in droves of workers being killed, maimed and left seriously injured on a regular basis. Women and children were undoubtedly the main objects of exploitation. Children of astoundingly young ages were forced into unbearably long hours of labour, the same as adults, and yet, like women, received diabolically low wages. In particular, women living under tsardom could not even fathom the idea of village day nurseries, working homes for destitute mothers, consulting institutions for pregnant women, no legal and no village consulting stations: there were none. The women of smaller nationalities belonging to the eastern regions of Tsarist Russia were deprived of their most basic human rights.

Before the October revolution, it would be most usual to find as many as ten to twelve workers crowded into a small cell in barracks belonging to the factory they worked in. In concern with the living conditions of the peasantry, whom until 1861 were serfs, or in other words slaves to their landlord, they were subjugated to constant malicious exploitation over portions of land for cultivation, extortionate rent fees, fines, and excessive taxation, after excessive taxation, after excessive taxation. Further, the life of a peasant woman was just as dismal, working from dawn till dusk, entirely alienated from her labour like the worker. Further still, in the case of women living in pre-revolutionary Russia, all doors to government, civic and other political activities were barred shut. These are a few example of the predetermined conditions that were set out for working women and men.

Truly, tsardom was a quality of life nasty, brutish and short for the proletariat. From the moment they were brought into the world, until their very last breath, life for the working class and then peasantry in Tsarist Russia was nothing short of a prison sentence.

In contrast to life under the Tsar, women could now take an active part in administration, various aspects of socialist culture and in state building; also playing an important part in socialist industry, with women mastering highly skilled trades such as engineering, technician work and factory labour.

In a speech made at the first Pan-Russian conference of female communist militants, by the ‘Eastern Women’ to the Soviet women workers and peasants, the Soviet Union’s influence on women’s emancipation was expressed like so:

“We were born as slaves and used to die as slaves. That is how thousands, millions of women lived their lives, and it seemed that was to be their eternal destiny, that never a hand would be raised to break their chains. But then in October 1917 a red star appeared, that had never been seen before, and thus the working women and peasant women joined the Revolution which changed their lives. News of those events got to us late and in a confused and partial manner. For this news to reach us women of the East, it had to get through the walls, the iron bars and our parandjà.”

https://redyouthuk.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/valentina_tereshkova_03-06-2013_ria_novosti_wikipedia.jpg?w=297&h=300
Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space

Under Stalin, the Soviet Union was an unquestionable inspiration to women’s liberation movements the world over, including International Women’s Day, which though in recent years became a celebration of women’s achievements, originally had socialist roots.

So with that in consideration, why does Stalin continue to suffer from such outlandish lies that are seldom grounded in reality?

Essentially, Stalin has not been continuously vilified because he was a mass murderous dictator who exercised total control over the population, while strangely simultaneously giving full rights to all citizens, eradicating illiteracy, drastically expanding life expectancy, but because he posed a rightful threat to Western imperialism.

The Daily Mail, who I’m almost certain have hired someone whose purpose it is to plug anti-Stalin clickbait articles, couldn’t resist adding cliché, baseless accusations of engineered famines and executions of 20 million (it’s 20 million for definite this time, not 60 or 5) people even in a poll taken in Russia, in which Stalin was voted third best Russian leader, narrowly missing the top spot by 5,500 votes.

Despite the ruthless propaganda war that was propelled against Stalin and continues to the present day, a war that has, tragically, severely damaged relations with our international comrades, surprising amounts public perception of Stalin that is indoctrinated to us doesn’t correspond with what’s propagated, perhaps partly owing to Putin since approving a textbook used in schools across the country, one highlighting Stalin’s achievements. The view often held, at least by the older generation, is nostalgic. Many people regard him as a leader who leader who led the defeat of Nazi Germany.

In Georgia, they have a more traditional reason for liking Stalin: He was born there. The Carnegie poll found that 68 percent of Georgians agreed that “Stalin was a wise leader who brought the Soviet Union to might and prosperity.” According to the BBC, his birthplace of Gori features a Stalin museum and has voted to erect a huge statue of the dictator. One tour guide summed up the country’s feelings towards the man by saying “In Georgia, most of the old generation like Stalin. They think he was a great statesman, with his small mistakes. Young people don’t like Stalin, of course. Our young people are not interested in history and they don’t like Stalin.”

Across international waters, Mao Zedong and the Chinese communists held Stalin in extremely high regard, which is shown by the following words of Mao Zedong on the occasion of Stalin’s 60th birthday:

“Stalin is the leader of world revolution. This is of paramount importance. It is a great event that mankind is blessed with Stalin. Since we have him, things can go well. As you all know, Marx is dead and so are Engels and Lenin. Had there been no Stalin, who would be there to give directions? But having him – this is really a blessing. Now there exist in the world a Soviet Union, a Communist Party and also a Stalin. Thus, the affairs of the world can go well. We must hail him, we must support him, and we must learn from him. We must learn from him in two respects: his theory and his work.”

Stalin to me

To me Stalin stands as a man of diligence and determination. His life-long commitment to Marxism-Leninism, to socialism, provides inspiration to me and his achievement of implementing socialism serves as a daily affirmation that the struggle to overthrow capitalism is, though arduous, possible. Not only is it possible, Stalin reassures us that it is inevitable. And with that, I leave you with this last quote: “Either place yourself at the mercy of capital, eke out a wretched existence as of old and sink lower and lower, or adopt a new weapon-this is the alternative imperialism puts before the vast masses of the proletariat. Imperialism brings the working class to revolution.”

http://redyouth.org/2016/02/22/what-does-stalin-mean-today-part-one/

To me Stalin stands as a man of diligence and determination. His life-long commitment to Marxism-Leninism, to socialism, provides inspiration to me and his achievement of implementing socialism serves as a daily affirmation that the struggle to overthrow capitalism is, though arduous, possible. Not only is it possible, Stalin reassures us that it is inevitable. And with that, I leave you with this last quote: “Either place yourself at the mercy of capital, eke out a wretched existence as of old and sink lower and lower, or adopt a new weapon-this is the alternative imperialism puts before the vast masses of the proletariat. Imperialism brings the working class to revolution.”

This is pretty good and I agree with it completely.


“If we are backward and weak, we may be beaten and enslaved. But if we are powerful, people must beware of us. We are 50 to 100 years behind the advanced countries of the West. We must make up this gap in 10 years. Either we do this or they crush us.”

This reminds me of Anax saying, "We have to make up for a generation and we have to do it fast." Man, I miss him...

Announcement. March 5, 2016 Two carnations for Comrade Stalin - 12.
colonelcassad
1 March, 12:21

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/r_v_f/33682408/77809/77809_original.jpg

Traditionally the annual support campaign "Two carnations for Comrade Stalin."

Already a traditional action " Two carnations for Comrade Stalin ", taking place in the days of remembrance of the Leader since 2010, will be held for the twelfth time March 5, 2016! Come, invite your friends and associates!

March 5, 2016, we, ordinary citizens of Russia will organize the laying flowers to the grave IV Stalin. We believe that it is necessary not only to pay tribute to the leaders, but also to remind everyone of his great role in the history of our country. The purpose of the action - the organization of laying, as well as ensuring voluntary collection of funds from citizens for the purchase of flowers to the Memorial Day anniversary of Joseph Stalin, purchase of flowers and the laying of flowers in Moscow on Red Square near the grave of Stalin 03.05.2016 year.


Integrity and respect for history is important for any country, and the people who do not want to die and disappear in time. The history of our country - it is a lot of centuries, for were not the only high-profile victories and great achievements, there were also failures and setbacks. However, the history of the fabric of continuity, all these years and decades poured blood and sweat of our ancestors, in the autumn of tireless work on the construction and consolidation of power.

None of the historical periods can not be deleted from the memory of the whole people and discarded as harmful and unnecessary. Especially if we are talking about an unprecedented period of the rise and power of Russia - the period when it is the first time in its history for a long time was one of the two leading powers of the world -. The period of Stalin's Soviet Union, is inextricably linked with the figure of Joseph Stalin action initiated Russia ordinary citizens of different political views without the support of any political party or movement. It is designed to ensure the collection of funds from citizens, the purchase of flowers and laying them on the Red Square in Moscow on the grave of Comrade Stalin on commemorative dates (Dec. 21 and March 5) on behalf of all the participants. The campaign also provides an opportunity to participate in the laying on of citizens living far from the Moscow region, or for other reasons are unable to do so personally.



Campaign "Two carnations for Comrade Stalin," is held in the twelfth time since its inception in December 2010. During the time of all the action steps in total were collected and assigned a 43,000 scarlet carnations, acquired at the expense of participants. Photoreports of all stages of the action can be found on the shares (information page http://stalinizator.ru/ ).

A brief chronicle of shares (on the links - photos):

21.12.2010g. Start Promotion. The first laying. It was entrusted 4500 scarlet carnations.
05.03.2011g. The rally was held for the second time. Laid 3,600 scarlet carnations .
21.12.2011g. The action took place for the third time. In ozlozheno 5050 scarlet carnations.
05.03.2012g . The fourth stage. The ozlozheno 620 scarlet carnations .
21.12.2012g. The fifth stage. laid 5660 scarlet carnations.
05.03.2013g. The sixth stage. laid 4,000 scarlet carnations.
21.12.2013g. The seventh stage. laid 5660 scarlet carnations.
05.03.2014g. The eighth stage. laid in 2000 of red carnations .
21.12.2014g. The ninth stage. laid 3,500 scarlet carnations.
05.03.2015g. The tenth stage. laid more than 1000 of red carnations.
21.12.2015g. Eleventh stage. laid 3,000 scarlet carnations .

05.03.2016g. the twelfth stage. As always, everything is in our hands!

Make a donation or to become personally involved in laying flowers can all comers. Details can be found on this page, write me a message, or through the website Stalinizator . To contact us here or on the links above.

Requisites

QIWI-wallet: 963 963 99 66
Yandex-money: 4100185038285
WEB-money: R226542950293


All collected funds will be acquired in one of the studs wholesale companies in Moscow.

We continue the tradition ... Manifest shares - http://rvf.livejournal.com/519818.html Video reports from previous shares - http://rvf.livejournal.com/497067.html



Please indifferent census in the maximum number of seats.

http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2640864.html

Google Translator

STALIN AND OUR TIME - THE COMMEMORATION OF THIS GUIDE

https://deslavyangrad.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/wxehik5c.jpg?w=900
Captions: Fame Stalin, the great leader of communism!

Leonid Diodorus, retired investigator for particularly complex cases, rank colonel, active in the judicial institutions, a widely honored Prosecutor of the Republic, sent his thoughts about Stalin. The offer is to be familiarized with a very interesting position, which need not necessarily represent the views of the publisher.

STALIN AND OUR TIME - THE COMMEMORATION OF THIS GUIDE

Leonid Diodorus
translated by MATUTINSGROUP

YAKUTIA.INFO 05 March 2016 - 10:00 pm.- On March 5, 1953 mourned the peoples of the Soviet Union, including our home Yakutia over the death of the great Stalin, they brought with their freedom and independence in connection. There was great concern among the population throughout the country, which had only eight years previously defeated in a terrible war fascist Germany, which had almost enslaved by force of arms all the great Europe. The obsequies were at that time held in all towns throughout the country. I remember, though I was not yet five years that deep in the northern village Kjusjur as the Regional Centre in the county seat of Bulunskijer area district gathered almost all the inhabitants of the village to the honors the memory of the great leader in the hall of the local clubs.

https://deslavyangrad.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/cju2oown.jpg?w=900

Since that time I penetrated the smell of freshly whipped spruce branches in the consciousness. And whenever I smell something, it gets me awake remembering the deep sorrow of the people who had lost the life of him valuable people.

And nowadays, the more the documented testimonies of Joseph Vissarionovich will be published on a larger scale, the stronger the character of this man'll recognize, whose name was a whirlwind for deadly attack on the opponent, the fighter of the Red Army, and under which the workers and the collective farmers feats accomplished in their work.

In the decades after the so-called "revelations of the personality cult" of Stalin and down to our days in his name was never forgotten by the people. Many remember that despite prohibitions ordinary people in their homes and the drivers of all ages public portraits of Stalin presented at the windshields of their cars.

No reference was ever Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin in the category of predictor smaller or larger events of the future global development. But there are still a lot of products, including documented that he had certain abilities to predict the future development. This as well as other great personalities who have a high knowledge and logical thinking. As the talented chess players many trains calculated in advance, so even the sober-minded politicians can sure that is sufficiently accurate to predict the future course of history. Here you have to make a small distinction. The one thing is the prediction, the prophecy that precognition, etc. Another thing is the predictability of some events in the future. The first thing is related to the field of imagination, is an attempt, the events on the principle of "presumption" anticipate, which the painting of "miracle seeds" is customarily given. But the ability to foresee the course of history, this is even with respect to a very distant future, always based on the acquisition of very large information and the ability to draw from the logics her right conclusions. If the experience of the son's fatal error, then the providence is the child of knowledge and sober calculation. And such an ability is awarded not by birth. It is acquired by understanding enormously comprehensive information and objective analysis.

https://deslavyangrad.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/a5c9amfd.jpg?w=900

For this "processed" Joseph Vissarionovich mountains of books of preferably well-known authors, thinkers, scholars and specialists in different areas. Not the historian groundless're amazed that alone in the library near the Cottage Stalin more than 5500 books on philology, industrial economy, the policies of the countries in different historical periods, including works of prominent leaders and commanders were, where Stalin comments were purely written. Which means that they had been studied in depth by him. And how many books and various documents were also studied by him in his office in the Kremlin? Nobody took this into consideration. Probably very many. But it is important that all these information has been understood from him and put into practice.

For questions on the knowledge of Stalin never came on. And with the ability to logical thinking and complex analysis of the facts to foresee the events, everything is gone well.

Besides his fellow militants this has the prominent British statesman and politician and Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1940 to 1945, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, confirmed in his speech to the lower house of Britain in December 1959 which Stalin at the meetings at the conference of the heads of state of the anti-Hitler coalition in Yalta met 1945th Among other things he said in his memoirs about the leaders of the Soviet Union:

"Stalin left us the great impression logically thoughtful wisdom." Hence there is no related questions.

https://deslavyangrad.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/nr98mwxw.jpg?w=900
There currently are developing with full force new events in world history, to which was impossible to think more than half a century or talking about it. Only now in the XXI. Century is this. In the world unprecedented events should occur, bubbling hot passions.

But you look deep into those time back and reads in the document with the thinking through the hazy past into it, you will find that the great Stalin foresaw many events in its subsequent reality decades ago.

For example, he said in November 1939 in the Kremlin, in a conversation with a Mitkämpferin and comrade in the party's work, the first Soviet diplomat (ambassador of the USSR in Sweden), Alexandra Kollontai, among others:

"The diverse activities of our party and the people are mainly abroad, but are disfigured and spat in our country. Zionism, reaching for world domination is cruel revenge on us because of our successes and achievements. He considers Russia still as a barbaric country, as a raw material appendage. And my name is slandered, denigrated. I will be attributed to many atrocities.

https://deslavyangrad.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/g2r7o66g.jpg?w=900

The global Zionism is trying with all their might to smash our Soviet Union, so that Russia never can rise again ... With special force of nationalism will raise its head ... It will be national groups within nations and conflicts ... There are many guides appear, Pygmies , traitors within their own nations.

In general, the future development will be more complex and run in even tollkühnem pace. The turns will be very abrupt. Things go out there, that especially the East will be stirred up. It will create sharp contradictions with the West. "

I believe that it is necessary to consider these remarks by Stalin in parts:

- The perversions of the past of our country, directed against our great leader slanders and false accusations are in fact known to all. Probably only the lazy, the history of the country not spat and discharged no slander on Stalin's name after his death.

But all this has predicted Stalin. And now, after all the secret archives opened and secrets have been disclosed, we understand how right he was in terms of distorted interpretations of history, the lies and slanders.

- The term "Zionism" was referring Joseph Vissarionovich, as is clear from the undertaking given by prominent politicians Analysis ago, the nationalist ideology that represents the interests of the Jewish big business that the capital of the highly developed countries, the closely especially is connected USA. The main content of Zionism is the militant chauvinism, racism, anti-communism and anti-Sovietism (as defined in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia).

And the words of Stalin, which he said before dozens years, today reflect the world politics: the USA seeks world domination. The US and the European Union consider Russia only as a raw material appendage for their economies. And not sought the "global Zionism" about the collapse of the great Soviet country to? And now he directed all his efforts against Russia.

Unfortunately, this dismal prognosis Stalin has completely materialized.

- The Foresee of nationalism and formation of national groupings within the nations and the conflicts between them by Stalin has also met.

Who could say that the Ukrainian nationalism, whose banner is Bandera, his head did not raise "special force"? And what can be said against those precognition when before the world actually true can be spoken is not the victory, but the success of the run by Marie Le Pen nationalist party, which previously had no support in the regions of France?

And led the formation of national groupings in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia not to the disintegration of these states, which are now led by heads of state as pygmies, traitors to the existing multinational community? This is a bitter but true knowledge.

https://deslavyangrad.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/hmwo189e.jpg?w=900

- The current situation in the Middle East confirmed the foreknowledge of Joseph Vissarionovich also. We are all witnesses of the conflict between the East and the West in the face of Islamist militants and the European countries (in particular France, Belgium).

We even saw and heard how the Europeans themselves set about the people with other faiths, in words and in deeds. For example, by producing offensive publications that they looked toward the Muslim world. And now, to put it figuratively to say that about the "hornet's nest" are exciting inhabitants scarcely be and certainly not calm possible quickly, but become victims. Well to a certain extent the Muslims to "appease", dared the European Union to encourage immigration from the countries of the Middle East to the EU countries. But now the EU regrets this step.

It remains sadly left to determine that it was said of a great man almost 80 years ago, which has unfortunately true for most part.

We will continue the theme. But we will look at the already during his lifetime the older generation of Russians judge ereignenden facts.

There are the words of Joseph Vissarionovich in the speech at the XVII. Congress of the CPSU (B), which took place in Moscow from January 26 to February 10 1934th At the mention that a year is anticipated in Germany Hitler to power, prophesied Stalin: "The thing runs on a new war also ... But the war against the USSR is to defeat the attacking countries and the full destruction of the governments of these countries to lead."

And now all the world knows that more than a dozen years after this happened.

Continue. On 17 May 1948, Israel conquered practically force its place in the "promised land" on the territory of Palestine, formally proclaimed the independent state of Israel by the UN resolution no. 181 "On the formation of the state of Israel". In the vote, the five votes of the countries of the "Soviet bloc" (USSR, Ukraine, Belarus, Czechoslovakia and Poland) were decisive, as they have guaranteed the qualified 2/3 majority.

On the same day, the regular armies of the Arab states (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan) invaded reject those they think unjust fact in the territory of the new member state of the world community a. It began the first Arab-Israeli war in which Israel claimed its sovereignty. And thanks to the Soviet Union, the secret about other countries the Israelis weapons and ammunition delivered and helped them with military advisers. Added to this was that the USSR Israel provided information that had obtained the Soviet foreign intelligence service. And, many efforts were aimed at ending the aggression.

Captions: The best friend of the children, the great Stalin fame Stalin understood as a great anticipatory strategist that global development can not be stopped, but you can draw for their own benefit.

https://deslavyangrad.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/zybfjw7g.jpg?w=900

He supported then in that historic period Israel. But later, because of changes in the international situation, in contrast, the Arab countries, which he "drove a wedge" in relations between the United States and Britain, but also in relations between the US and the Arab states. And after words of Golda Meir, the first ambassador of Israel in Moscow and later prime minister of the newly established State of Israel, the main objective was "the expulsion of England from the Middle East" by undermining its credibility in the Arab world for Stalin.

Use the help of the Soviet Union to Israel in 1946-48 with weapons and professionals wrote the senior intelligence official Pawel Sudoplatow in his memoirs. In his opinion Stalin planned with the support of Israel after its formation, to break the influence of Great Britain in the Arab countries, which in fact the Arab countries betrayed the vote in the UN, which had once been a British protectorate.

And then sought the Soviet Union with the support of the Arabs then, that the influence of the open poignant for Israel Party USA, has become weakened in the Middle East. According Sudoplatow saw Stalin predicted that the Arab countries would then be placed on the side of the Soviet Union, after being disappointed by the British and the Americans because of their anti-Arab base position and its support for Israel.

And as we know, this is then done. And to say the least: Mistrust in the United States, Britain and other European countries has been preserved in the Middle East until now.

And all this was foreseen by the great Stalin. One could call more no less ambitious prophecies of this guide. But this is enough to draw the necessary conclusions.

Finally, to end the call more on the positive major key, I will continue it with a prophecy Stalin in his conversation with AI Kollontai:

"And yet, how events also developed, but with time also the looks of the new generations will judge the deeds and the victories of our socialist Homeland. Year after year, new generations will come. They will again hold high the banner of their fathers and grandfathers, and we fully back to us due recognition. Your future, they will find in our past. "

My comrades and I are convinced that this foreknowledge of Stalin will be the future reality. Because the marching feet of the columns with the red flags in the world is getting stronger.

L. Diodorus, February 2016

Source: http://yakutia.info/article/174218

http://slavyangrad.de/2016/03/05/stalin-und-unsere-zeit-zum-gedenktag-an-diesen-fuehrer/

Google Translator

"Letter to Molotov"
colonelcassad
6 March, 13:29

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/skif_tag/19770500/4473365/4473365_original.jpg


In addition to http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/264 8319.html and visual illustration.
Letter Molotov (who had joined him and a group of persons) of the Central Committee of the CPSU, 1965, where the former Soviet foreign minister warns of the consequences of the struggle with Stalin .

Note (GM) on the problem of personality cult IV Stalin and the CPSU program. (Letter of VM Molotov to the Central Committee of the CPSU (1965))
This document appears as a letter to Molotov in the CPSU Central Committee (1964). Published in the journal Questions of History №№ 1-6, 8-11 in 2011, №№ 1,3 and for the 2012 edition of the preface is written as follows:

By publishing stored in the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI, f. 82, op. 2, d. 198a) manuscript VM Molotov about the cult of Stalin's personality and other problems of the party and state life, Editorial Board " Questions of history "was guided by the desire to publicize the views of one of the closest associates of the leader. Molotov is a considerable responsibility for the crimes of the Stalinist regime.

Most of the manuscript is devoted to criticism of Khrushchev and his government, while it contains a description of many events and facts, which are treated from the standpoint of a convinced Stalinist.

The publication of the manuscript, VM Molotov, presumably, will cause readers ambiguous judgment on the assessment of how many events and individuals, as well as in relation to the position of the author. No cause, however, doubt that this material will serve as the establishment of historical truth in its entirety.

Manuscript received in RGASPI from the Archive of the President of the Russian Federation 03.11.95 and dated content.

The truth is a little later in the footnote, the editors wrote:

By this paragraph on the sidelines made ​​a remark: ".. On the dictatorship of the slave cells is not clear enough." This remark, as encountered in the explanatory notes in the quotations of authorship: "GM", and the mention of Molotov in the third person, suggest that this document does not have a signature may not belong to Molotov as RGASPI attributed the manuscript, and GM Malenkov. - Ed.

Indeed, hardly Vyacheslav would write in his letter as follows:

"Thinking over this criticism of Molotov's address, on the basis of its own findings and conclusions of the analysis of the CPSU Program, I can say only one thing - his honor and praise!" (L.279)

In fact, it's stored in the fund Molotov, but is no mention about the authorship of the Molotov. In the internal affairs of the inventory, it is called - "Note (GM) on the problem of the personality cult IV Stalin and the CPSU program (second half 1965). " Letters GM It may be interpreted as Georgy Malenkov (as many do), if not a few "buts". The author writes about himself in the first person, but writes that identify him how on participation in those or other events, it is impossible. Yes and no note or letter of the document is difficult to call. This is a very monumental work (draft) 357 sheets, with a significant portion of its annexes no. The document is divided into five sections. Introduction, the theme of the cult of Stalin, the issues of inner struggle, criticism of the CPSU program adopted by the 22 Party Congress, Khrushchev's criticism of economic activity. The document has the Molotov-tagging, and what is most interesting, notes editing character. Therefore, in our opinion, it is likely the collective creativity, and the letters GM probably stands for Malenkov Group (yes, the one who joined with anti-Party Shepilov). In favor of this version of the show phrases with contrasting positions of the anti-Party group of Malenkov, Khrushchev's policy. And write this major work for one person, very, very difficult.

Unfortunately, the breakdown into sections, in a magazine publication. Therefore, the document looks messy. So if while reading you will stumble on a topic that you are interested in little or poorly understood (like me for example), do not close the document, and roll the mouse wheel forward. I can tell by itself, this work is very impressive. And I take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude, "Questions of History" for its publication.

And for a few fragments of the seed:

All the letter is devoted, in fact, the same problem, the same issue - the issue of so-called cult of Stalin, the question of why it took several years after Stalin's death, digging up the past, and why it was done in such a harsh and ugly form of ... ( L.1)

I can not say that the mere fact of writing this letter - in my opinion - one of the concrete manifestations of the negative effects of the so-called the party struggle against the so-called Stalin's cult of personality, the result of (L.2), which existed in me, as in the vast majority of our young people and to the so-called middle generation fight with the cult of Stalin's personality, unwavering faith in the justice of the party, in the authority of its leaders - shaken and shaken by the strongest and most destructive way.

And it is this circumstance that compels me to write this letter.

That it does not allow me to be silent. Shut up when I think, may be erroneous, but nonetheless profound inner conviction based on a thorough and comprehensive study on the history of the CPSU materials and documents - a fact quite deliberately caused by the masses and is one of the most important sources of clearly revisionist clearly opportunist turn in the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism, which made them Khrushchev and his supporters with the help and support of some Western European leaders of the communist and workers' movement.

Silence is impossible.

We can not remain silent when it comes to that, to discredit the very idea of ​​proletarian dictatorship, the idea of ​​the socialist revolution ... (L.3)

We can not remain silent, when, under the guise of defending Marxism-Leninism of dogmatism and sectarianism, in the guise of Marxist dialectics, - revised and adapts under the legal existence of the Social-Democratic, and all the basic strategic principles of Marxism-Leninism. ...

It is because the "reformist attitude to capitalism ... will inevitably give rise to tomorrow imperialist slaughter of people" - can not be criminally silent when we are trying to convince that the war can be prevented agreement with the governments of the imperialist countries, some agreement on policy TN . "Peaceful coexistence." (L.4)

[...]

And the question is, how can you blame Stalin and his closest collaborators in the creation of conditions in the country to rampant arbitrariness and lawlessness, completely ignoring the actions of our Soviet and party apparatus.

How can a Communist-Leninists to represent the matter as if in a giant country like the Soviet Union, with its 21 million sq. Km (59) area, with its 170 million population of some dozens of people could for many years to create arbitrariness and lawlessness, deliberately destroying the best sons and daughters of the people?

Is the promotion of Marxist-Leninist teachings on the role of the masses and the individual in history? No, it's her denial.

The question is, where there was an army of millions of Communists, where there were tens of millions of Soviet, present the Soviet people - workers, peasants, intellectuals?

Do they not notice all this before or been crushed by the fear that they could not utter a word?

The question is, do we fail to notice that the presenting period t. Stalin's personality cult in the light in which it tried to present at the XXII Congress of the CPSU and following it during the Khrushchev and others like them - we hereby present to the world, and our Party and our people party and the people of cowards and sycophants?

With such a view can not agree. (L.60)

[...]

I believe that questioning the legitimacy of the trials 1937-1938 year, pushing the masses look to the alleged counterfeit nature of these processes, justifying the backdating of many of the main accused, explicitly denying existed before the convention officially confirmed these processes murder version of SM Kirov - XXII Congress and logically and actually takes under his protection, and men such as Zinoviev and Kamenev, Bukharin and Rykov as Pyatakov and Radek, and the like.

Coming off of the concrete historical situation of those years, fixing our attention exclusively on repression, the mistakes and excesses that took place and their application, but did not mention that these errors and excesses have occurred as a result of imperfections, lack of awareness of our level own party and government cadres, as a result of subversive activities and direct enemies of the Soviet power, and treating them as a deliberate destruction of the best shots of the party and the state, - the XXII Congress of disparaging criticism exposes our entire party as a whole, after announcing the remaining so-called the period of the personality cult of Stalin and all living any members of the party, the army, the state and economic apparatus worst personnel, surviving precisely because they - the worst.

I think that the direction that was attached to the XXII Congress of the CPSU on the so-called Stalin's personality cult - was the focus directly aimed at undermining the authority of the party among the working people of our country and the world, to discredit the policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the party represented by the XXII Congress, blind and submissive performer of the will of the tyrant - its general secretary, party represented XXII Congress, a hotbed of squabbles for power, for closeness "to the throne."

I believe that in the form given to the issues of the struggle against the cult of personality IV Stalin XXII Congress of the CPSU, the struggle logically and actually, was aimed at the revision of the Marxist-Leninist foundations of building a proletarian party, at its disorganization, its undermining and destruction.

One of the best evidence of the fact - along with a number of theoretical and practical activities Hruscheva- separation, separation party on the production principle. (L.79-80)

The document fully.

http://istmat.livejournal.com/15675.html - zinc is not difficult to notice, Molotov (and the people involved in the creation of this document) has a quarter-century before the collapse of the Soviet Union clearly diagnosed, where the wind blows and how the struggle with Stalin was directed the destruction of the party and the state-building party.

http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2649060.html#cutid1

Google Translator

Grain of salt time, but very interesting...

SECRET "cult of personality"
Employees of the State Security show

On the October Plenum of the Central Committee KPSS1952 year Joseph Stalin suggested that if the current pace of economic development around the middle of 1960 it will be possible transition of the USSR from socialism to communism. And this transition will begin with the elimination of the country's money. Officials and partocrats alerted: what to do with them at that time already a solid purse? Run for the border? So, to lose its status, awards, titles, titles. The only way out - as soon as possible to get rid of Stalin and his supporters -. First of all security officers, so to speak, "oprichnina"

Preparing the removal of Stalin and the military coup in the country, Khrushchev was based not only on the "fifth column", ie "Trotskyists", operating in the interests of the US and UK, but also in many figures of "old school" like Malenkov and Mikoyan, who had long since it was time to go on a holiday. After all, at the XIX Congress of the CPSU in October 1952, Stalin not only offered to put forward for high office in the USSR prepared young people, but also dismissed Molotov, Mikoyan, Kaganovich and Voroshilov. Since the process of frame refresh gaining momentum, the question of what to do with the leader, became party functionaries edge.
However, in criminal acts Khrushchev was another delicate moment, its hidden hatred of Stalin, because he refused to pardon the son of Nikita Khrushchev from his first marriage, who turned ... a traitor. According to a well-known researcher of the Stalin era, my friend Arsen Martirosyan, "of course, the whole truth, the more documented, the senior lieutenant Leonid Nikitich Khrushchev and nobody will ever know. And just for the simple reason that damn corncob, gaining access to the archives, held in 1953 - 1956 years of cleaning and has withdrawn from the personal file of the son of interrogation reports in German captivity, and other incriminating Leonid documents. "
In particular, Nicholas Above (Nikolai A. Dobryuha), author of the two-volume book "How to kill Stalin", asks the question: "Why is a" private affair "Khrushchev's son so brazen to tear pages about the war years, when there were questions in the fate of his Lёnki? In return, though, and in a hurry, but surely tear, from which, however, remained shreds, after 10 - 15 years after the war, suddenly there are new, dated for 60-mi years ...
"So, in this case it was something that Khrushchev extremely I feared. Some light on all the circumstances of this case shedding evidence of the Deputy Chief of the Second Main Directorate (counter-intelligence) of the KGB of the USSR, Major-General Vadim Nikolaevich Udilova, who knew my father. February 17, 1998, "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" published Vadim's article entitled "What Stalin Khrushchev avenged." On the question of the correspondent of "NG", whether it is possible to find in the archives of the KGB any documents or photos on the events about which he says, the general replied: "No, you do not find. Khrushchev came to power, immediately saw to it that no trace of the story is left. "
According to Vadim Nikolaevich, back in early 1941, Leonid Khrushchev committed a criminal offense on the basis of alcohol abuse and had to appear before a military tribunal court. However, thanks to daddy-Trotskyite escaped not only punishment but also the court. The second crime was murder of Leonid Khrushchev's co-worker at the time of drinking, after which, according to Stepan Mikoyan, who was friends with Leonid, he was tried and given eight years, allowing atone at the front. However, according to General Udilova fighter, piloted by the son of Khrushchev left towards the location of the Germans and disappeared. Later it turned out that Leonid turned the Nazis and most likely went to it voluntarily, seeing that losing him is nothing.
When Stalin learned that his son Khrushchev went to collusion with the Nazis, he put before the Military Counterintelligence "SMERSH" task to kidnap him and deliver to Moscow. Joint operation GUKR "SMERSH" and the 4th Department of NKGB USSR was successful. Together with Khrushchev in Moscow were delivered documentary evidence testifying to his treacherous activity. A military tribunal sentenced Leonid Khrushchev to capital punishment -. Death
Naturally, the capture of the traitor Khrushchev informed the elder. He immediately flew to Moscow from the front. That was further evidenced by the deputy chief of the 9th KGB Department (protection of heads of state), genral Major Hero of the Soviet Union (1945) Michael S. Dokuchaev: "Poskrebyshev reported that Comrade Khrushchev arrived and is waiting in the waiting room ... Khrushchev began to cry, and then began to weep. Like, a son is guilty, let him be severely punished, but do not shoot. Stalin said: "In the current situation, I can not help you." Khrushchev fell to his knees. Begging, he became a crawl to the feet of Stalin, who did not expect such a turn of affairs, and he lost his head. Stalin retreated, and Khrushchev was crawling after him on his knees, crying and asking for leniency for her son. Stalin, Khrushchev asked to stand up and pull himself together, but he was insane. Stalin had to call Poskrёbysheva and security ... When the security officers and doctors brought in a sense of Nikita Sergeyevich, he kept repeating: "Have mercy on his son, did not shoot ..."
The final decision on the fate of Khrushchev's son was taken at a meeting of the Politburo. Head GUKR "SMERSH" Colonel-General Viktor Abakumov presented materials of the case, the verdict of the military court and retired. The first was made ​​at the meeting and secretary of the Moscow Regional Committee of the Party Committee, who is also chief of the Red Army GlavPURa Alexander Shcherbakov, who in his speech emphasized the need to respect the principle of equality of all before the law. It is impossible, he said, to forgive the sons of famous fathers, if they have committed a crime, and at the same time severely punish others. What then will the people say? Sherbakov proposed to leave the verdict.
Then the floor was taken by Lavrentiy Beria. He recalled the previous misconduct Khrushchev's son, and that it has already twice forgiven. After that were Molotov, Kaganovich and Malenkov. The opinion of all members of the Politburo were united: leave the verdict. Stalin spoke last. He did not just make a decision - after his son Jacob was also a prisoner. His decision, he therefore signed the sentence and his own son. Vadim Udilov notes that, in conclusion, Stalin said: "Nikita Sergeyevich need to be fixed and to agree with the views of his comrades. If the same thing happens with my son, I am my father's deep bitterness take this just sentence! ".
As soon as they came to power, Khrushchev began to deal with all the vile, involved in an inglorious finale of his son-traitor. Beria was just shot at home. Abakumov was in prison until 1954, and was also shot, contrary to the laws of an hour and a quarter after the verdict. He was shot the chief of the investigation of the Interior Ministry for Special Affairs Lieutenant-General Lev Emelyanovich Vlodzimirsky, through whose hands passed all the cases against the party, military and economic leadership of the country. Son of Stalin - Basil - literally rot in jail. Lieutenant-General Pavel Sudoplatov security, whose staff participated in the abduction of Leonid Khrushchev, served for some unknown reason, "from start to finish" 15 years in the same Vladimir Central, where he sat and Vasily Stalin. There sat this outstanding security officer-scout how Naum Eitingon - Sudoplatova closest ally, the organizer of the elimination of Trotsky - which apparently was in this case, the decisive motive for the Trotskyite Khruschev. Malenkov, Molotov and Kaganovich were removed from the Politburo and sent into exile under the strict supervision of the Interior Ministry and the KGB.
According to writer Ivan Stadnyuk commission for rehabilitation - the so-called Commission Shvernik - after the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU on the instructions of Khrushchev was trying to prove that his son - committed a heroic feat of the pilot, which is in no way to blame. However, even in those days, the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court "has not found it possible to withdraw from his criminal record." Nevertheless, in the book of memoirs of Khrushchev a photograph of his son with the inscription: "Leonid Nikitich Khrushchev, the pilot, was killed in the battles for the Motherland" ...
The fact that Leonid Khrushchev died not in battle, repeatedly pronounces the third wife of Nikita Khrushchev, Nina. This is also directly talking and Molotov. But Khrushchev's relatives - and in Russia and abroad - repeatedly and constantly disavowed version of the shooting. However, unconvincing, but confident voice. And most interesting is that with the clan identify themselves Khrushchev and Western researchers - such as William Taubman. . Those most Western scholars, who represent Khrushchev Stalinism winner and one of the gravediggers of the "evil empire"
Why "Westerners" is beneficial to hide the betrayal of Khrushchev's son - is understandable. Khrushchev for them - a symbolic figure. The symbol of the struggle against Stalinism. Blur it - to rehabilitate Stalinism, and that it seems hardly possible. Meanwhile, representatives of the security services have an opposite version. Stick to it and the former Soviet Defense Minister Dmitry Yazov, and son Sergo Beria Lawrence, writer and historian Vladimir Karpov. Summarizes this version publicist Nikolai Dobryuha thus: "the incident occurred at a meeting with Stalin, Khrushchev still pops up in conversation security staff ... It is argued that this is the main cause of all Khrushchev's attack on Stalin and one of the main reasons for the exposure of the personality cult. In this case, reference is made ​​to the careless application of Khrushchev in the presence of their approximate when he said: "Lenin at the time of the royal family took revenge for his brother, and I will avenge Stalin, even dead, for his son." Khrushchev kept his word. "
In this story, there is one more unsightly moment. Even in power, Khrushchev never attempted to rehabilitate the lost son, or at least once to clarify his fate. Writer Elena Prudnikov says that immediately after the disappearance of Leonid Khrushchev in Kuibyshev arrested his wife Luba - to freedom, it was released only in 1950. According to Khrushchev's second son - Sergei, "arrested her for the cooperation with foreign intelligence - not the English, not Swedish." But Sergei Khrushchev or did not purposely, or knowingly "stipulated" - in fact the wife of Leonid Khrushchev planted not for espionage, but as a family member of a traitor to the motherland - CHSIR. Members of the families of the captives could not imprison soldiers and officers even technically - for the war in captivity were about 10 million Soviet citizens. But relatives of those arrested, who agreed to cooperate with the Germans. "After the liberation of Khrushchev quite interested in her fate, - says Prudnikov. - They met by chance somewhere in the late 1960s at some family night. Khrushchev said dryly to her: "Hello, Lyuba!" - And that was all their chat ended. " Strange, is not it? Nothing strange: According to Vyacheslav Molotov, Khrushchev - after the execution - publicly renounced his son. In an interview with the writer Felix Chuev the question: "Nikita from her son refused" - Molotov replied in the affirmative.
As for the "heroic" version of his son's death Khrushchev, had recently appeared that evidence of the pilot Zamorina relied on by the majority of those who believe that Leonid was killed in aerial combat, it may be rigged. The archive of the USSR Defense Minister Dmitry Fedorovich Ustinov's 1999 letter found Zamorina. "I chickened out and went to deal with his conscience, falsifying facts - writes Zamorin. Fake? It is not excluded. Perhaps it is because the notorious forgery inspection document has not yet been made. Why - because if it collapses authenticity slim version of the heroic death of lieutenant Leonid Khrushchev. And cast a shadow on his father, dethrone Stalinism.
With a persistence worthy of a better cause, clan, Khrushchev did not want to admit the obvious facts and trying to deny the treachery Leonid: "Rumors that my brother was killed in the line of military and patriotic duty, and allegedly He surrendered, gave military secrets to the enemy, and that after the war he "fell into our hands" and was waiting for him, "deserved punishment" - were clearly invented. For what? It becomes clear from the versions had circulated that, say, Khrushchev went to Stalin beg pardon to the offender, give life to his son. And the noble leader, allegedly spurned unworthy, saying: "I did not help his son-hero, but a coward is to get your deserts. '" These words were spoken by Sergei Khrushchev, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, the designer of missile technology that the new "homeland" - the United States - was more necessary solely as a "son of Khrushchev," and therefore from the very beginning he was earnestly contend for the posts of professor of political science at the American Brown University glorifying world imperialism and slandering the Soviet past.
Clan members Khrushchev to this day pyzhatsya prove that Leonid Khrushchev Nikitivich was not a traitor. But none of them does not work. And it does not turn. In memory of the people and the history of it will remain the same traitor of the USSR-Russia, as well as his father cursed - sneaky Nikita Khrushchev!

https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.suchan/posts/10153424656958388

Google Translator

Sympathy for Stalin among Russians still high, poll shows
March 25, 2016 | 6:12 pm
Published time: 25 Mar, 2016 12:43Edited time: 25 Mar, 2016 12:51


https://cdn.rt.com/files/2016.03/original/56f5183cc36188093d8b4593.jpg
© Evgeny Biyatov / Sputnik

Over half of Russians have described their attitude to Stalin and his methods of state management as positive in a recent public opinion poll. Researchers say this could be due to the community’s demand for a harsh but effective ruler in a time of crisis.
During the poll conducted by the independent sociological service Levada-Center in mid-March, 54 percent of respondents described their attitude to Stalin as positive, 17 percent said their attitude was negative, 32 percent said they were indifferent about the late Soviet dictator and 14 percent could not give a definitive answer to this question.

The share of those who sympathized with Stalin was slightly lower than the 40 and 39 percent registered in 2015 and 2014 respectively, but still much higher than the 28 percent of 2012, before the ongoing wave of the global financial crisis hit Russia.

At the same time, the majority of the Russian public acknowledges that Stalin’s radical policies had caused millions of casualties among innocent Soviet citizens and mass violations of human rights. Two thirds of respondents agreed that Stalin was a tyrant and about a half said that Stalinist purges were a crime. However, 26 percent of respondents said that the repressions were caused by political necessity and should be justified in historical perspective.

Still, 60 percent of the Russian public said that they would not like to live under a state leader similar to Stalin and only 23 percent said that they would not mind such turn in their lives.

https://cdn.rt.com/files/2016.03/original/56f51891c36188ae418b457e.jpg
© Vladimir Fedorenko / Sputnik
Deputy head of the Levada Center, Aleksey Grazhdankin, said in comments with Vedomosti daily that the demand for the national leader like Stalin is mostly caused by hardships caused by the ongoing economic crisis.

“In Russians’ opinion Stalin as a national leader was the best option in a time of war, in critical times that required a strong arm. This makes him a more appealing figure today, but Russians would not like to live in such times,” the researcher said.

The controversy surrounding Stalin makes him an ever-popular figure among all Russian politicians. While right-wing parties put the stress on the horrors of Stalinist purges, the left-wing, especially the Communist Party, emphasize his successes in the Soviet Union’s industrialization and in keeping corruption at extremely low levels.

In December, Communists in the central Russian city of Penza unveiled their plan to mark the 80th anniversary of the 1936 USSR Constitution by declaring 2016 the ‘Year of Stalin’ and opening a museum dedicated to the Soviet dictator.

The growing pro-Stalin sentiment has raised concern among Russian human rights activists. In March 2015, Arseny Roginsky, the head of the Memorial NGO, which specializes in the investigation of Stalinist purges, described it as a “troubling signal” and urged the authorities to take some action to counter it.

“It is a testimony not even of the citizens’ attitude to Stalin, but rather of the relations between the state and a person. Stalin is perceived as a symbol of a powerful and potent state. The fact that Stalin and his policies were inhumane becomes of secondary importance,” Roginsky told reporters.

http://houstoncommunistparty.com/sympathy-for-stalin-among-russians-still-high-poll-shows/

Che Guevara: “I came to communism because of Stalin”

https://guevarista.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/stalin-che-guevara-mottas.jpg?w=571&h=253
By Nikos Mottas.
Originally published in atexnos.gr.
Translated from Greek.

Ernesto Che Guevara is undoubtedly a historical figure of the 20th century’s communist movement who attracts the interest of people from a vast range of political ideologies. The years followed his cowardly assassination in Bolivia, Che became a revolutionary symbol for a variety of marxist-oriented, leftist and progressive parties and organisations- from Trotskyists to militant leninists and from Social Democrats to anarcho-libertarians. A significant number of those who admire the argentine revolutionary identify themselves as “anti-stalinists”, hate and curse Stalin while they often refer to the so-called “crimes” of Stalin’s era. What is a contradiction and an irony of history is the following: Che Guevara himself was an admirer of Joseph Stalin.
On the occasion of the 63 years since the death of the great Soviet leader, let us remember what Che thought about Joseph Stalin, taking into account Guevara’s own writings and letters.

In 1953, situated in Guatemala, the 25 years old then Che noted in his letter to aunt Beatriz: “Along the way, I had the opportunity to pass through the dominions of the United Fruit, convincing me once again of just how terrible these capitalist octopuses are. I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won’t rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated” (Jon Lee Anderson, Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, 1997).

Years ago after his letter from Guatemala- in the midst of the revolutionary process in Cuba- Guevara would re-affirm his position towards Stalin:

“In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don’t have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context. I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I’m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Seri of things that are very good.”

While praising Stalin’s leadership, Che was always pointing out the counter-revolutionary role of Trotsky, blaming him for “hidden motives” and “fundamental errors”. In one of his writings he was underlining: “I think that the fundamental stuff that Trotsky was based upon was erroneous and that his ulterior behaviour was wrong and his last years were even dark. The Trotskyites have not contributed anything whatsoever to the revolutionary movement; where they did most was in Peru, but they finally failed there because their methods are bad” (Comments on ‘Critical Notes on Political Economy’ by Che Guevara, Revolutionary Democracy Journal, 2007).

Ernesto Guevara, a prolific reader with a developed knowledge of marxist philosophy, was including Stalin’s writings in the classical marxist-leninist readings. That’s what he wrote in a letter to Armando Hart Dávalos, a trotskyite and prominent member of the Cuban Revolution:

“In Cuba there is nothing published, if one excludes the Soviet bricks, which bring the inconvenience that they do not let you think; the party did it for you and you should digest it. It would be necessary to publish the complete works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin [underlined by Che in the original] and other great Marxists. Here would come to the great revisionists (if you want you can add here Khrushchev), well analyzed, more profoundly than any others and also your friend Trotsky, who existed and apparently wrote something” (Contracorriente, No.9, Sept.1997).

The revisionist route that the Soviet leadership followed after the CPSU 20th Congress became a source of intense concern for Che. The policy of the so-called “De-Stalinization” and the erroneous, opportunist perceptions about the process of building socialism that the Khrushchev leadership introduced after 1956 had their own critical impact on Guevara’s view on Revolution and Socialism.

https://guevarista.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/che.jpg?w=462&h=511
One of Guevara’s biographers, the Mexican politician Jorge Castañeda wrote (adding an anti-communist flavor): “Guevara became a Stalinist at a time when thousands were becoming disillusioned with official “Communism”. He rejected Khrushchev’s speech in 1956 denouncing the crimes of Stalin as “imperialist propaganda” and defended the Russian invasion of Hungary that crushed the workers’ uprising there in the same year” (J. Castañeda, Compañero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara, 1997).


Four years after the beginning of Khrushchev’s “de-stalinization”, on November 1960, Ernesto Che Guevara was visiting Moscow as an official representative of the Cuban government. Against the advise of the then Cuban ambassador to avoid such an action, Che insisted on visiting and depositing a floral tribute at Stalin’s tomb at the Kremlin necropolis.


Che had a deep admiration for the leader Joseph Stalin and his contribution in building Socialism. And that because, as Che himself was saying, “ You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves […] in that particular historical context”. That historical context and the extremely adverse and difficult social, economic and political environment in which Stalin led the Soviet Union are muted by the votaries of antistalinism. They hush up and deliberately ignore the fact that the process of building Socialism in the Soviet Union was taking place within a frame of fierce class-struggle, with numerous – internal and external (imperialist encirclement)- threats, while the massive effort of industrialization faced reactions and extensive sabotages (the collectivisation process, for example, faced the negative stance of Kulaks).
Joseph Stalin, as a personality and leader, was the product of the action of the masses within a specific historical context. And it was Stalin who guided the Bolsheviks’ Party (AUCP-B) and the Soviet people for 30 years, based on Lenin’s solid ideological heritage. As a real communist, a true revolutionary- in theory and in practice- Ernesto Che Guevara would inevitably recognize and appreciate that historical reality.

http://houstoncommunistparty.com/che-guevara-i-came-to-communism-because-of-stalin/

Stalin in Lipetsk
colonelcassad
5 May 13:00

http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2737771.html
To illustrate, and as a complement to http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/273 5836.html

In Lipetsk, the route left the bus with Stalin's portrait

"If not for the Generalissimo and our forefathers, we would still have partisans" -. Said bus driver
on the route №352 for the second day running of the bus "Mercedes" with a portrait of Stalin on the windshield and gratitude to veterans.
As the driver of the commercial route GOROD48 , portrait hung on the agreement of all the parties - the owner of the bus, and the drivers.

http://gorod48.ru/upload/medialibrary/4f7/4f7bd061194ba6acae8258f5f82e4113.JPG

- This is thanks to the veterans, first of all, and the Generalissimo in the difficult years to unite the nation, which allowed the defeat of fascism, - says Anatoly driver. - If not for Stalin and our forefathers, we would still be partisan. The country is a large, we are unlikely to be completely conquered, so that the partisans would still ... According to the driver, for two days, the bus goes to the portrait of Stalin, there was no negative reviews of passengers. Only -. Positive Recall, on the eve of May 9 last year in Lipetsk was installed a bust of Stalin on the streets Forge. Http://gorod48.ru/news/383512/ - zinc the PS. We have way too the city has a new poster with Stalin + I can say that over the last year pictures of Stalin began to periodically fall into the shuttles have led (at the 12th en route times 3 seen), sometimes alone, sometimes in the neighborhood with images icons.

http://gorod48.ru/upload/medialibrary/981/9817057fc6570ffe4bd96c44fca135f4.JPG

http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2737771.html

Google Translator

Communists to use Stalin image in upcoming Russian parliamentary polls – report
Published time: 18 May, 2016 10:42

https://cdn.rt.com/files/2016.05/original/573c2d57c36188df3a8b456c.jpg
© Alexander Paniotov / Sputnik

Russia’s Communist Party intends to use Stalin’s image to boost its popularity among voters ahead of September’s parliamentary elections, a popular business daily reports, quoting a source in the party.

“Stalin’s image will be used in election campaigns and it is capable of attracting additional votes from people who don’t belong to the nucleus of our electorate,” the Communist Party’s secretary for information work and elections technologies, Sergey Obukhov, told Kommersant Daily newspaper. The politician added that he did not exclude the possibility that other parties, including the current parliamentary majority party United Russia and its allies, would use Stalin’s image in their campaigns.

Communist Party official Dmitry Novikov said the organization intended to look into the latest initiatives launched by its regional conferences, including the use of Joseph Stalin’s image in propaganda, installing monuments to the Soviet dictator, and making proposals to denounce the decisions of the 20th congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) – the 1956 event that condemned Stalin’s personality cult. Novikov also added that the main election program of his party contained a section on promoting the “new industrialization of Russia” using Stalin’s experience.

The proposal to question the decisions of the 20th congress of the CPSU was passed earlier this week by the Communist Party branch of the Penza Region and forwarded to the organizers of the Communist Party Convention scheduled for late July. First secretary of the regional party committee, Georgy Kamnev, explained the initiative by the fact that the 1956 report in which CPSU leader Nikita Khruschev acknowledged the numerous wrongdoings committed during Stalin’s rule “contained a lot of lies and slander, caused by the contemporary political situation.”

In December last year, Penza Communists announced a plan to mark the 80th anniversary of the 1936 USSR Constitution by declaring 2016 the “Year of Stalin” and opening a museum dedicated to the Soviet dictator. Back then, Kamnev told the press that his comrades deemed this step necessary because of the growing number of attacks on Stalin and on his period in Soviet history, and promised to actively promote historical facts about this time and about Stalin’s personality.

Stalin’s name and image is a popular tool in the Communists’ arsenal as it rarely fails to attract media attention and provoke rows with libertarian sections of Russian society. For example, in February 2015 Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov appealed to President Vladimir Putin to rename the city of Volgograd as “Stalingrad,” and also to build a monument to Stalin in Moscow and name a square after him there.
A public opinion poll conducted by the independent Levada Center in December 2015 showed that public support for Stalin’s personality and approval for his policies have increased, but that the attitude to Stalinism in society remains balanced.

According to the research, 34 percent of Russians hold that leading the Soviet people to victory in the Second World War was such a great achievement that it outweighed Stalin’s mistakes. Twenty percent of respondents said that in their opinion Stalin was a wise leader who made the Soviet Union a powerful and prosperous nation, with 12 percent of the belief that Russia needs another leader similar to Stalin, and that sooner or later such a person will appear and “restore order in the country.”

At the same time, 21 percent of Russians agreed that Stalin was “a cruel and inhumane tyrant responsible for the killings of millions of innocent people,” and 13 percent blamed Stalin for insufficient measures to prepare the USSR for Hitler’s invasion.

https://www.rt.com/politics/343410-communists-to-use-stalin-image/

The remorse of a dissident: Alexander Zinoviev on Stalin and the dissolution of the USSR

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xEnQoevSQuU/V7BQA345ufI/AAAAAAAABY8/PbN08F2mb-ox0EwEXl8YnQKn2_FKZQWWACLcB/s320/Zinoviev.jpg

Special to In Defense of Communism.

Alexander Zinoviev (1922-2006) was a Russian philosopher, sociologist, mathematician and writer. He is an extraordinary case of a dissident in the Soviet Union who later apologized for his anti-sovietism and anti-stalinism. In his youth, in 1939, he was arrested for allegedly involved in a plot to assassinate Joseph Stalin. As a head and professor of the Logic Department at Moscow State University, Zinoviev acquired a dissident reputation. In 1978 he left the Soviet Union - he lived in Western Europe until 1999.

Having the opportunity to live both the socialist system in the USSR and Western Europe's capitalism, Zinoviev made a u-turn in his thoughts after the counterrevolutionary events in the Soviet Union (1989-1991). He profoundly regreted for his previous anti-soviet stance and even asked from the Russian people to forgive him for that.

He wrote in one of his books:

"...communism was so organic for Russia and had so powerfully entered the way of life and psychology of Russians that the destruction of communism was equivalent to the destruction of Russia and of the Russian people as a historic people. […] In a word, they [Western cold warriors] aimed at communism but killed Russia". (Alexander Zinoviev, Russkaya tragediya (originally published in 2002), in AZ, Nesostoyavshiisya proekt, Moscow: Astrel’ 2009, p.409).

In an interview, in 2005, he said that his arrest in 1939 was justifiable, as long as he was member of a plot aimed at Stalin's assassination. As for Joseph Stalin- whom he hated for most of his life- he said in 1993:

“I consider him one of the greatest persons in the history of mankind. In the history of Russia he was, in my opinion, even greater than Lenin. Until Stalin's death I was anti-Stalinist, but I always regarded him as a brilliant personality.” (Знаменитости).

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qhR0VrUaN20/V7BPc5KjUeI/AAAAAAAABY4/20beuPwqNVIoN1YDSPWOP1ftIuUB12yHQCLcB/s640/Alexander%2BZinoviev%2Bon%2BStalin.jpg

***
Regarding his anti-stalinism and his arrest for plotting Stalin's assassination Alexander Zinoviev said:

"I was already a confirmed anti-Stalinist at the age of seventeen .... The idea of killing Stalin filled my thougths and feelings .... We studied the 'technical' possibillities of an attack .... We even practiced. If they had condemned me to death in 1939, their decision would have been just. I had made up a plan to kill Stalin; wasn't that a crime? When Stalin was still alive, I saw things differently, but as I look back over this century, I can state that Stalin was the greatest individual of this century, the greatest political genius. To adopt a scientific attitude about someone is quite different from one's personal attitude."

Zinoviev was not a communist or a Marxist-Leninist. However, after the overthrow of Socialism in the USSR, he became a staunch supporter of the socialist system's achievements. He recognized that, despite its problems and inefficiences, the socialist system was much more humane than capitalism barbarity.

Here are some interesting remarks from his interview in the french Figaro Magazine (1999):

Question: So the fight with communism was a conspiracy to destroy Russia?

ZINOVIEV: Precisely. I say this because once I was an unwitting accomplice of this action that I found shameful. The West wanted and programmed the Russian catastrophe. I read documents and participated in the research, which under the guise of ideological struggle worked towards the destruction of Russia. This became so unbearable for me that I could no longer stay in the camp of those who destroy my people and my country. The West is not a stranger to me, but I consider it an enemy empire.
* * *

"After the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, a massive attack on the social rights of citizens was launched in the West. Today the socialists who are in power in most European countries are pursuing policies of dismantling the social security system, destroying everything that was socialist in the capitalist countries. There is no longer a political force in the West capable of protecting ordinary citizens. The existence of political parties is a mere formality. They will differ less and less as time goes on. The war in the Balkans was anything but democratic. Nevertheless, the war was perpetrated by the socialists who historically have been against these kinds of ventures. Environmentalists, who are in power in some countries, welcomed the environmental catastrophe caused by the NATO bombings. They even dared to claim that bombs containing depleted uranium are not dangerous for the environment, even though soldiers loading them wear special protective overalls. Thus, democracy is gradually disappearing from the social structure of the West. Totalitarianism is spreading everywhere because the supranational structure imposes its laws on individual states. This undemocratic superstructure gives orders, imposes sanctions, organizes embargos, drops bombs, causes hunger. Even Clinton obeys it. Financial totalitarianism has subjugated political power. Emotions and compassion are alien to cold financial totalitarianism. Compared with financial dictatorship, political dictatorship is humane. Resistance was possible inside the most brutal dictatorships. Rebellion against banks is impossible."

* * *


"A western citizen is being brainwashed much more than a soviet citizen ever was during the era of communist propaganda. In ideology, the main thing is not the ideas, but rather the mechanisms of their distribution. The might of the Western media, for example, is incomparably greater than that of the propaganda mechanisms of the Vatican when it was at the zenith of its power. And it is not only the cinema, literature, philosophy - all the levers of influence and mechanisms used in the promulgation of culture, in its broadest sense, work in this direction. At the slightest impulse all who work in this area respond with such consistency that it is hard not to think that all orders come from a single source of power".

* * *

"In the Soviet Union 10 to 12% of the active population worked in the country‘s management and administration field. In the US this number is 16 to 20%. However the USSR was criticized for its planned economy and the burden of bureaucratic apparatus. Two thousand people worked in the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The Communist Party apparatus reached 150 thousand workers. Today in the West you will find dozens, even hundreds of enterprises in industrial and banking sectors employing more people. The bureaucratic apparatus of the Soviet Communist Party was negligibly small compared with the staff of large transnational corporations of the West".

http://communismgr.blogspot.gr/2016/08/the-remorse-of-dissident-alexander.html

Jews interested in ...
colonelcassad
August 22 at 16:18

http://b1.m24.ru/c/323364.jpg

The Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia (FJC) demanded that new Minister of Education Olga Vasilyeva clarify its relationship to the era of Stalin.

This was to "Interfax" the head of the public relations department of the FJC Boruch Gorin.
"It is important for the new minister to explain his position and leave no room for ambiguity, because it is important not only for the formation of Russia, but also in general for the country's future issue", - . he said
Gorin said that in the discussion of the appointment Vasilyeva used "some out of context quotes" that "does not add optimism" about the identity of the new minister.

"Any attempt to treat the Stalin era with more understanding, as often happens: time it was such and so on - I was very afraid, because I believe that the Stalinist period was fatal for Russia. An entire class of people was destroyed, destroyed free thought and post-revolutionary enthusiasm, which was replaced by the fear of terror " , - said the representative of the FJC.
Following the appointment of the new Minister of the media remembered her comments about Stalin. In particular, in 2013, "Kommersant" reported that Vasilyev on dedicated patriotism closed lecture to the members of the "United Russia" has declared, that Stalin, for all its shortcomings - public good, because before the war engaged in unity of the nation, revived heroes of pre-revolutionary Russia and started promotion of Russian language and literature.

https://lenta.ru/news/2016/08/22/stalin/ - zinc

PS. Pay attention to the sheer totalitarian thinking in Boruch, since he believes that "the Stalin period was the deadliest for Russia", then all the others are obliged to think so. Attempts to think not like Baruch, it's very frightening, because he has a cognitive dissonance from what he thinks one way, others think differently. Although actually it is the freedom of speech, thought and pluralism of opinions. Do you want to scold Stalin, you want to praise Stalin, you want to spit on Stalin. Stalin's farm is voluntary, especially since Stalin any court convicted, has a huge popularity among the people and occupies an important place in the public consciousness. But this is just some of the anti-Soviet and not satisfied, since such a democratic approach to the issue of the role of Stalin's personality, they profess the most totalitarian stance and terminal intolerance of dissent. inherent aggressive menshistvam. Therefore, it is funny how Boruch Gorin, reasoning about the "destruction of free thought in Stalin's" attempts to suppress it in modern Russia. However, given the real balance of the public for Stalin estimates demarche Jewish Communities federation is unlikely as that would affect the popularity of the "bloody tyrant". The PS2. And there was a great era, yes. Of course, it would be possible upominyat Stalin's role in the creation of the State of Israel and the salvation of the Jews by the Red Army from Nazi concentration camps, but it would be absolutely unsportsmanlike relative to Gorin.

http://zavtra.ru/media/articles/covers/%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD.jpg

http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2914326.html#cutid1

Google Translator

"Any attempt to treat the Stalin era with more understanding, as often happens: time it was such and so on - I was very afraid, because I believe that the Stalinist period was fatal for Russia.

Funny, because all the bosses in the West called him a "Jew".

Funny, because all the bosses in the West called him a "Jew".

Anti-socialist intellectuals in a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat shouldn't expect puppies & roses, regardless of their religious affiliation. In retrospect perhaps the Soviets should have deported the jerks after '3rd strike'.

"A western citizen is being brainwashed much more than a soviet citizen ever was during the era of communist propaganda. In ideology, the main thing is not the ideas, but rather the mechanisms of their distribution. The might of the Western media, for example, is incomparably greater than that of the propaganda mechanisms of the Vatican when it was at the zenith of its power. And it is not only the cinema, literature, philosophy - all the levers of influence and mechanisms used in the promulgation of culture, in its broadest sense, work in this direction. At the slightest impulse all who work in this area respond with such consistency that it is hard not to think that all orders come from a single source of power".

Anti-socialist intellectuals in a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat shouldn't expect puppies & roses, regardless of their religious affiliation. In retrospect perhaps the Soviets should have deported the jerks after '3rd strike'.

Hell, I'd a given "anti-socialist intellectuals" a stiffer (and shorter) sentence than that!

"A western citizen is being brainwashed much more than a soviet citizen ever was during the era of communist propaganda. In ideology, the main thing is not the ideas, but rather the mechanisms of their distribution. The might of the Western media, for example, is incomparably greater than that of the propaganda mechanisms of the Vatican when it was at the zenith of its power. And it is not only the cinema, literature, philosophy - all the levers of influence and mechanisms used in the promulgation of culture, in its broadest sense, work in this direction. At the slightest impulse all who work in this area respond with such consistency that it is hard not to think that all orders come from a single source of power".

The class warriors of bourgeois ideology move like flocks of birds on the wing or schools of fish in the sea. They appear to be undirected and moving with each member acting upon his/her own volition. Nothing could be further from the truth; they are lock-step, almost unconsciously, in the rhythm of their masters.

http://youtu.be/8IGbjPqFFvA

Very good speech. Also, you can tell he doesn't like public speaking, but he steps up. That is so Stalin.

Stalin and Ivan the Terrible against painkillers
colonelcassad
October 25 13:47

[img]http://www.e-reading.club/cover/1034/1034477.jpg[img]

Very sudden Stalin and not less sudden Ivan the Terrible.

A small note about why Russia does not and will not be available analgesia

Problem of chronic pain is very important for me, since almost 100% of the diseases faced by a spinal surgeon, manifested in the form of various pain syndromes. Since I am often asked to the entire health care system (that is honorable, but erroneously), it is necessary to answer the tough questions, such as: "Why is Russia so poorly treated pain?". Answer.

On the surface lie the answers related to the actual health and the surrounding institutions, namely: the monstrous bureaucratization release of potent drugs, severe sanctions against doctors for the formal breach of its rules, the existence of harmful and senseless mechanisms of drug control (do not worry: Federal Drug Control Service functions transfer to the Ministry of the Interior Affairs will only worsen the situation), the lack of registration of many clinically effective pain medications, only a small state orders for narcotic drugs. Add to this the low professional level of the vast number of doctors - they just do not know how and what to anesthetize. Only one in twenty patients, contact me to receive surgery, correct and reasonable scheme of pain therapy. During all the time that I was doing analgesic stimulation, only one (! A) of hundreds of patients was sent to primary care physicians - the rest were looking for help on their own. Even the most simple operations to treat pain (banal discectomy) doctors do not send - for example, because they have a vague idea. I'm not talking about staging the treatment of pain, endorsed by the WHO protocols, or about categorical and immediate relief of cancer pain, postulated by the same protocols - this does not happen anywhere else, ever. But there are things much more fundamental. The main reason for unavailability of anesthesia -. Of course, the legacy of Stalin's lack of a clear proposal on the anesthesia market, economically speaking, due to the low demand. The Russians do not want to reduce the degree of their suffering and the suffering of their loved ones for the simple reason that Stalinism taught them to see themselves as replaceable, insignificant, nothing crucial cogs, personal feelings that have no value. After talking about the pain - it is a conversation about basic human dignity, the rule of spiritual over corporal, possession of a self (those who seriously treats the pain or he her suffering, will not lie - the progression of pain not only becomes part of the individual, but also pushes the very person). Why is this advantage in a country where people do not want to admit that one half of the population over the decades shot and robbed the dignity of the other. It is this unspoken, unverbalized pain, lack of remorse (compared with Germany), more bold justification of repression - all this ultimately translates into real, physical pain, a chronic form which affects about 20% of Russians. And it's not even sadism, but simply indifference and irresponsibility as well developed, and patients and doctors. "What do you want, you have cancer, you must be sick!" - Shouts therapist on the patient's boring. "Of course, I have stiff joints, I also sixty years", - says the woman neighbor. What a relief and compassion, where all are accustomed to suffering. Therefore, jingo, was indignant poor local anesthesia in the clinic or in the Oncology Center queue for printing on a recipe, you have to understand. Either the flowers on the grave of Stalin, or morphine hydrochloride. Or a monument to Ivan the Terrible, or pregabalin available.

Https://www.facebook.com/alexey.kascheev/p OSTs / 10207863613371691 - zinc

Stalin died in 1953. But Stalin's legacy in 2016 prevents to make available painkillers. In 2016, Carl! Here, historian Boris Yulin on this topic. For some scoundrel - calling, and a doctor - a profession in the internet is gaining popularity article one healer

https://www.facebook.com/alexey.kascheev/p osts / 10207863613371691

I also decided it popiarit. Somebody Alex Kashcheev pile there seems to be quite sensible note about the current problems in the field of anesthetic. But starting with the real problems, he suddenly rushed to battle with sudden Stalin! "But there are things much more fundamental The main reason for unavailability of anesthesia -.. Of course, the legacy of Stalin's lack of a clear proposal on the anesthesia market, speaking economically, due to the low demand Russians do not. They want to reduce the extent of their suffering and the suffering of their loved ones for the simple reason that Stalinism taught them to see themselves as replaceable, insignificant, nothing crucial cogs, personal feelings that do not matter After talking about the pain -. it is a conversation about basic human dignity, the rule of mental over bodily, by the possession of a " do not know what motivated healer in his zealous anti-Soviet attacks? But he showed himself not just a villain, but also ignorant of their own professional field. You can rassazat of anesthesia in the Soviet Union was developing much faster and more successfully than in the Russian Empire. But it makes no sense to say, because there is scientific and technical progress WORLDWIDE anesthesia in the 19th century was developed worse than in the middle of the 20th century, and in the middle of the 20th - worse than it is now. And it's worse - it is not even in the times, and by orders of magnitude. It may be recalled scoundrel, that Stalin was a member of the board of our country only three decades, and his death had passed twice longer than it had to do with power. But let me remind you about something else. Here's how to treat the fight against pain in the Stalin era: "With the introduction of novocaine solution began to develop different ways of local anesthesia:. Infiltration, conduction and spinal anesthesia The most common, especially in the Soviet Union, had developed AV Vishnevsky infiltration anesthesia technique" creeping infiltration ", allows you to perform any operations until the operations on the heart and lungs, without the need for anesthesia. in June 1966, the USSR all-Union society of anesthesiologists and resuscitation, the journal" Experimental surgery published since 1956 was founded and anesthesiology "" Or here which works out in the field alone stomatlogicheskogo anesthetic: "local anesthesia (Vaisblat SN, 1947-1962; Veisbrem MM, 1948; Datsenko MF and Fetisov, NV, 1959, etc.) local potentiated (Karlenko SN, 1950; Kruglyakov IO, 1951; Bernadsky YI, 1955-1969; Bazhanov NN, 1956-1962), and the mask endotracheal (Berdyuk IV, 1954; NM Aleksandrov, 1957; Mitrofanov GG, 1956; Mukovozov IN, 1959-1965; Bizyaev AF, 1961-1967, etc..), As well as hexenal anesthesia (Skopets EV, 1956). " That's even wonder why an ardent anti-Soviet okazvaetsya either a fool or a scoundrel, or both, and other directly ? in all the fault of the USSR !!! http://sha-julin.livejournal.com/102800.h the tml - zinc . PS And when Ivan the Terrible in the XVI century boyars planted on a stake, even then cunningly thought about that in 2016 year, make inaccessible pregabalin. Peter the Great's role in the fight against pain medications unfortunately remained not disclosed.

http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3028513.html?utm_source=twsharing&utm_medium=social

Google TRanslator

On the question of Stalin. Mao Zedong

http://hss.icq.net/hss/storage/icq_greetings/eab680b7c5a1e643cb2cb49ede837031

The second article on the opening letter of the CC CPSU

The newspaper "People's Daily"
editorial board "Hongqi"
(13 September 1963)

The question of Stalin - it's a big issue, the issue of global significance. It struck a chord among all classes in all countries of the world, and it still expressed various opinions. Different classes, different political parties and groups representing these classes have different opinions. Apparently, in this century, yet it would be impossible to draw definitive conclusions on the matter. However, among the international working class and the revolutionary people, most people essentially adheres to the same opinion. They do not agree with a complete and indiscriminate denial of Stalin, moreover, they are with all the most fond memories of him. This is the case in the Soviet Union. The discussion that takes place between us and the leaders of the Communist Party - is a discussion between us and a part of the people. We hope to convince the majority of people that would be in the interest of advancing the revolution forward. Having set himself this goal, we have written this article.
Communist Party of China always believes that a full and wholesale rejection of IV Comrade Stalin Khrushchev under the pretext of "combating the personality cult" is completely erroneous and tendentious.
In a letter to the CPC Central Committee, dated June 14 specifies that the so-called "struggle against the personality cult" is contrary to the teachings of Lenin-piece on the relationship between leaders, party, class and masses and violating the principle of democratic centralism in the Party.
The Central Committee of the CPSU in its Open Letter, declined to say we have put forward arguments in principle, the Chinese Communists stuck the label of "defenders of the personality cult and peddlers of Stalin's erroneous ideas".
At the time, VI Lenin, the Mensheviks giving rebuke, saying: "Do not answer the fundamental argument of the enemy and to attribute to it only" pathos "- it means not to argue and quarrel." The Central Committee of the CPSU in its Open Letter is supplied in the same way as did the Mensheviks.
Despite the fact that the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU dispute substitutes abuse, we still will bring fundamental arguments and numerous facts to answer this letter.
Great Soviet Union is the world's first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The main leader of the party and the government of the state was beginning VI Lenin, and after his death - IV Stalin.
After Lenin's death, Stalin not only stood at the head of the party and the Soviet government, but it was generally recognized leader of the international communist movement.
The history of the world's first socialist state, which began with the October Revolution, has only 46 years old. Of these, about 30 years, the main leader of the state was Stalin. The life and work of Stalin occupies an extremely important place in the history of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in the history of the international communist movement.
The Chinese Communist Party has always believed and believes that the question of how we should understand Stalin and treat it - it's not just a question of assessment of Stalin, but also, more importantly, the question of how to generalize the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the historical experience of the international communist movement since Lenin's death.
At the XX Congress of the CPSU, Comrade Khrushchev completely and indiscriminately deny Stalin. On this fundamental issue, pertaining to the entire international communist movement, the question of Stalin, he was not previously consulted with the fraternal parties, and after the XX Congress, placing them with a fait accompli, Congress began to impose their decision. Who is at odds with the leadership of the Communist Party in Stalin's assessment of the accused not only that he is "justified the cult of personality", but that he was "interfering" in the internal affairs of the CPSU. However, no one can deny or international significance of the historical experience of the first state of proletarian dictatorship in the world, nor the historical fact that Stalin was at the head of the international communist movement, and, therefore, can not deny that the question of Stalin's assessment is an important question of principle concerning the international communist movement. So on what basis the leaders of the CPSU forbid other fraternal parties to give an objective analysis and evaluation of Stalin?
The Chinese Communist Party has always considered and considers it necessary to thoroughly, objectively and scientifically analyze the achievements and mistakes of Stalin, applying historical materialism method and based on true historical fact and should not be subjective, to deny Stalin's rude and indiscriminately, resorting to the method of historical idealism, to arbitrary distortion and falsification of history.
The Chinese Communist Party has always thought and believed that Stalin did have some errors. These errors are both epistemological and social and historical roots. It is necessary to criticize the mistakes that were really committed by Stalin, not the so-called error, which he attributed, without any reason, but this criticism must be carried out with the correct position and the right methods. We have always supported and opposed improper criticism of Stalin, which is conducted with the wrong position and incorrect methods.
When the life of Lenin, Stalin fought against the Tsarist regime, engaged in propaganda of Marxism; entered in the leadership of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, headed by Lenin, Stalin led the preparations for the revolution of 1917, and after the October Revolution, defended the gains of the proletarian revolution.
After the death of Lenin, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet people under the leadership of Stalin waged a resolute struggle against all internal and external enemies, defended and strengthened the world's first socialist state.
Under the leadership of Stalin, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet people firmly and steadily carried out in their country in the line of socialist industrialization and collectivization of agriculture, and have achieved great successes in socialist transformation and socialist construction.
Under the leadership of Stalin, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Soviet people and the Soviet Army, driving extremely heavy battle, we won a great victory in the anti-fascist war.
IV Stalin defended and developed Marxism-Leninism in the fight against the opportunists of all stripes, against the enemies of Leninism - Trotskyites, Bukharinites and other agents of the bourgeoisie.
IV Stalin for his theoretical works, which are immortal works of Marxism-Leninism, has made the immortal contribution to the international communist movement.
Generally speaking, under the leadership of Stalin, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet government pursued a foreign policy consistent proletarian internationalism, and provided great support the revolutionary struggle of the peoples of the world, including the revolutionary struggle of the Chinese people.
IV Stalin led the struggle, being at the forefront of the historical flow, he was an implacable enemy of imperialism and all reactionaries.
All the activities of Stalin is closely linked with the struggle of the great Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the great Soviet people and inseparable from the revolutionary struggle of the peoples of the world.
The life and work of Stalin - this is the life and activity of the great Marxist-Leninist, a great proletarian revolutionary.
IV Stalin, as a great Marxist-Leninist and proletarian revolutionary, has the merits of the Soviet people and the international communist movement, but at the same time, he really made some mistakes. Some of Stalin's mistakes are fundamental, others are associated with a particular job; Some errors can be avoided, and some were difficult to avoid in the absence of a precedent of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
On a number of issues in the method of thinking, Stalin deviated from dialectical materialism and fell into metaphysics and subjectivism, and therefore, it is sometimes divorced from objective reality, divorced from the masses. In the course of the struggle inside and outside the Party, Stalin sometimes some issues mixing two different species in nature contradictions - contradictions between the enemy and ourselves and contradictions among the people, mixed a variety of methods to solve these two kinds of contradictions. In the course held under the leadership of Stalin's struggle to eradicate the counter-revolution had been justly punished many counter-revolutionaries whom it was necessary to punish, but at the same time have been wrongly convicted innocent people and thus in 1937 and 1938 were admitted errors - excesses in the fight against counter-revolution. The party and state life Stalin was not fully spent or partially violated the principle of proletarian democratic centralism. He admitted some mistakes in relations with the fraternal parties and fraternal countries. In the international communist movement, he gave some incorrect advice. All of these errors have caused damage known to the Soviet Union and the international communist movement.
All the achievements and mistakes of Stalin - it objectively existing historical reality. If we compare the achievements and mistakes of Stalin, that he merits more than mistakes. Proper Stalin's activity is its main side, and his mistakes occupy a secondary place. Every honest, respecting the history of communist, summarizing the theory and practice of Stalin as a whole, see above all that its top side. Therefore, knowing the right, criticizing and overcoming mistakes of Stalin, it is necessary to protect the main side of his life and activities, to protect Marxism-Leninism which he defended and developed.
As for Stalin's errors, which occupy only a secondary place in his work, they should serve as a historical lesson and to warn the Soviet Communists and the Communists of other countries, so that they do not repeat such mistakes or allow fewer errors. And it would benefit. Both positive and negative historical experience, if he is correct, without any distortion, generalized in accordance with the historical reality, is beneficial to all Communists.
IN AND. Lenin repeatedly pointed out that the Marxists, in contrast to the II International revisionists, held a completely different approach to Bebel, Rosa Luxemburg and others, which, although they made mistakes, but still remained the great proletarian revolutionaries. Marxists did not conceal mistakes of Bebel, Rosa Luxemburg and the others and believed that they should be the mistakes of the revolutionaries, "learn to avoid them, must meet the more stringent requirements of revolutionary Marxism". In contrast, only revisionists "gloated" over the mistakes of Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg, "especially admired" these errors. Mocking revisionists, VI Lenin quoted the following lines from a Russian fable: 'Eagles happens lower than hens, but hens can never rise like eagles. " Bebel and Rosa Luxemburg - "great Communists". And they, in spite of their mistakes were and are "the eagles," and revisionists - "hens" "in the backyard of the working class movement, among the dung heaps".
The role of Bebel, Rosa Luxemburg and other history is far inferior to the role that Stalin played. Stalin was a great leader of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the case of the international communist movement over a whole historical epoch. Therefore, to estimate IV Stalin should be approached with greater caution.
Party Leaders condemn us, the Chinese Communists, because we act as "advocates" of Stalin. Yes, we protect Stalin. At a time when Khrushchev falsifies history and completely negates Stalin indiscriminately and, quite naturally, our urgent duty - to defend Stalin in the interests of the international communist movement.
In defending Stalin, the Chinese Communist Party defends the right side of its activity, protects the glorious history of the fight against the world's first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, born of the October Revolution, defends the glorious history of struggle of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, to protect the prestige of the international communist movement in the eyes of working people all over the world, in a word, It defends the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism. And so it comes not only to the Chinese Communists, and so did come all Communists devoted to Marxism-Leninism, all persistent revolutionaries, all honest people.
In defending Stalin, we are defending is not his fault. The Chinese Communists have long come to know for yourself some of Stalin's mistakes. In the history of the Communist Party of China have been mistakes - "Left" and Right opportunist line -opportunisticheskaya. Some of these errors, if we talk about their causes in an international perspective, it appeared under the influence of certain mistakes of Stalin. Back in the late 20s, in the 30s, and then in the early and mid 40-ies of the Chinese Marxist-Leninists represented by Comrade Mao Tse-tung and Comrade Liu Shao-chi resisted the influence of certain mistakes of Stalin gradually overcome " left "and Right opportunist -opportunisticheskuyu erroneous line and eventually led the Chinese revolution to victory.
However, since the error of Stalin's advice had been taken by some Chinese comrades and carried them into practice, for which responsibility had to carry ourselves, the Chinese, then our party, leading the fight against the "Left" and Right opportunism, is always limited to a criticism of the Chinese comrades who committed errors, and I never put the responsibility on Stalin. The aim of our criticism is to distinguish truth from falsehood, and the lesson of advancing the cause of the revolution. As for those comrades who have made mistakes, they are required only to correct their mistakes. If they do not correct their mistakes, then you can wait until they are on the practical experience gradually aware of them, but on condition that they would not organize secret faction and engage in covert subversion. We use the right method, the inner-criticism and self-criticism: on the basis of the desire for unity through criticism or struggle to achieve a new unity on a new basis. Because of this, we have achieved good results. We believe that this refers to the contradictions among the people, and not to the contradictions between the enemy and us, so you should use this method to resolve the issue.
And what are Comrade Stalin, Khrushchev and some other leaders of the CPSU since XX Congress of the CPSU?
Rather than give a historical, scientific and comprehensive analysis of Stalin's life and activity, they deny everything and everyone, without distinguishing truth from falsehood;
instead of having to refer to Stalin as a friend, they treat him as an enemy;
instead summarize the experience and lessons learned through criticism and self-criticism, they dump all the mistakes of Stalin or ascribe them arbitrarily fabricated the so-called "mistakes";
instead give the facts and arguments, they are engaged in demagogy and incitement, descend to personal attacks on Stalin.
Cursing Stalin, Khrushchev called him "murderer", "criminals", "bandit", "player", "despot of the type of Ivan the Terrible", "the greatest dictator in Russian history", "stupid", "idiot", etc. etc. Forced to mention here these dirty, base and evil curses, we are downright afraid to mess his paper.
Cursing Stalin, Khrushchev called him "the greatest dictator in Russian history". Is this not tantamount to saying that the Soviet people during the long 30 years he lived not under the socialist system, while the "tyranny" of "the great dictator in Russian history"? With such a calumny would never agree to the great Soviet people and the revolutionary people of the world!
Cursing Stalin, Khrushchev called him "a tyrant such as Ivan the Terrible." Is this not tantamount to saying that the experience that the great Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the great Soviet people shared with the peoples of the world for over 30 years, is not the experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the experience gained under the rule of a feudal "despot"? With such a calumny would never agree to the great Soviet people, the Soviet Communists and Marxist-Leninists of the world!
Cursing Stalin, Khrushchev called him a "bandit". Is this not tantamount to saying that the head of the world's first socialist state for a long time stood a "bandit"? With such a calumny would never agree to the great Soviet people and the revolutionary people of the world!
Cursing Stalin, Khrushchev called him "a fool." Is this not tantamount to saying that the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which for decades waged a heroic revolutionary struggle, there was some "fool"? With such a calumny would never agree to the Soviet Communists and Marxist-Leninists of the world!
Cursing Stalin, Khrushchev called him an "idiot". Is this not tantamount to saying that the Supreme Commander of the great Soviet Army, won a victory in the anti-fascist war, there was some "idiot"? With such a calumny would never accept the glorious Soviet Army soldiers and anti-fascist fighters of the world!
Cursing Stalin, Khrushchev called him a "murderer." Is this not tantamount to saying that the international communist movement for decades recognized by his teacher of a "killer"? With such a calumny would never accept the communists all over the world, including the Soviet Communists!
Cursing Stalin, Khrushchev called him "player." Is this not tantamount to saying that the revolutionary peoples of the world recognize some "players" to their standard-bearer in the struggle against imperialism and reaction? With such a calumny would never accept the revolutionary peoples of the world, including the Soviet people!
By sending curses against Stalin, Khrushchev, thereby incurring the greatest insult to the great Soviet people and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the greatest insult to the Soviet Army, the greatest insult dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist system, the greatest insult to the international communist movement and the revolutionary peoples of the world, the greatest insult to Marxism-Leninism .
On a same location puts himself Khrushchev, who in the period of Stalin's leadership was involved in the party and state leadership, and who now, beating their breasts, or banging his fist on the table, in a hoarse voice should defy Stalin? In place of an accomplice if "murderers" and "bandits" or on the place of those who like a "fool" and "idiot"?
What is the difference between a curse Khrushchev against Stalin from the curses that are sending in Stalin's address imperialists, the reactionaries of various countries and renegades of communism? Why this fierce hatred of Stalin? Why does it afflict even more vicious than enemies?
In opposing Stalin, Khrushchev actually acts with furious rage against the Soviet regime, against the Soviet state. In this respect, it does not yield malevolence language such renegades as Kautsky, Trotsky, Tito, Djilas, and even far beyond them.
It is to Khrushchev should include the following words from the Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU: "How to turn the language to say such things about the party of the great Lenin, about the motherland of socialism, about the people who first made a socialist revolution in the world, has defended its great gains in fierce battles against international imperialism and internal counterrevolution, shows miracles of heroism and self-sacrifice in the struggle for the building of communism, honestly fulfilling their internationalist duty to the working people of the whole world. "
IN AND. Lenin, in his article "On the political significance of the battle," wrote that "language in politics often covers up the utter lack of principle and helplessness, powerlessness, helplessness angry swearing." Is not his lack of principle, the angry helplessness and impotence tend to cover up the abuse against IV Stalin's Communist Party leaders, who fancies all the time that they are haunted by the specter of Stalin?
The vast majority of the Soviet people did not approve of Stalin's reproach. They're more fond memories of Stalin. Leaders of the Communist Party seriously detached from the masses. They all fancied that wanders around and chases them Stalin's ghost. In fact, it is the masses have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the complete negation of Stalin and indiscriminate. Until now, Khrushchev decided not to introduce the Soviet people and the peoples of all the countries of the socialist camp with a confidential report made to them at the XX Congress of the CPSU, in which he fully and indiscriminately deny Stalin. This is because the secret report ashamed to show people in the eye, and that the report is completely alien to the masses.
Of particular note is the fact that by sending all sorts of curses about Stalin, leaders of the CPSU at the same time "are treated with respect and trust" to the Eisenhower, Kennedy and K °! Denouncing IV Stalin and calling him a "despot type of Ivan the Terrible", "the greatest dictator in Russian history", they praise Eisenhower and Kennedy, saying that the latter allegedly have the support of "the absolute majority of the American people"!
Denouncing Stalin and calling him an "idiot", they praise Eisenhower and Kennedy for their "wisdom"! On the one hand, they strongly sling mud great Marxist-Leninist and proletarian revolutionary, leader of the international communist movement, and on the other - praise to the skies the leaders of the imperialists. Is it a coincidence, not a natural logical result of departing from Marxism-Leninism?
If Memory Khrushchev is not short, it must be remembered that it was he himself in his speech at a rally in Moscow in January 1937, right condemning those who attacked Stalin, saying, "raising his hand against Comrade Stalin, they We lifted it against all of us, against the working class against the working people! Raising his hand against Comrade Stalin, they lifted it against the teachings of Marx - Engels - Lenin! ". None other than himself, not once sang the praises of Stalin, calling him "a close friend and ally of the great Lenin", "the greatest genius, teacher and leader of mankind", "the great Marshal of the Victory", "friend of the people in its simplicity," " his own father. "
If we compare what Khrushchev said during Stalin's life, and what he says after his death, we can see that in the assessment of Stalin, he made a 180 degree turn.
If memory Khrushchev is not short, it is, of course, have to remember that it was he in the period of Stalin's leadership especially zealously supported and implemented the policy of the then struggle against counter-revolution.
June 6, 1937 at the V Party Conference of the Moscow region, Khrushchev said, "Our party has ruthlessly crushed a gang of traitors and renegades, erase from the face of the earth all the Trotskyist-Right carrion ... The guarantee of this - the unshakable leadership of our Central Committee, the unshakable leadership of our leader Comrade. Stalin. ... We will destroy the enemies without a trace - every one - and scatter their ashes to the winds. "
June 8, 1938, speaking at the IV Party Conference of Kiev region, Khrushchev said, "Yakir, Balitskaya, Lubchenco, Zatonskaya and other scum wanted to bring to Ukraine the Polish gentry, wanted to bring here the German fascists, landlords and capitalists ... We killed a lot of enemies, but not yet all. Therefore, we must look at both. We must firmly bear in mind the words of Comrade. Stalin, that as long as capitalist encirclement exists, we will send to the spies and saboteurs. "
Why Khrushchev, who in the period of Stalin's leadership was involved in the party and state leadership, and who actively supported and resolutely implement the then policy of struggle against counter-revolution, is now fully denies everything that was in the period of Stalin's leadership, dumps the responsibility for all the bugs on one of Stalin and portrays himself immaculately clean?
IV Stalin could critically treat their mistakes. For example, at the time he gave some erroneous advice about the Chinese revolution, but after the victory of the Chinese revolution, he admitted his mistakes. The report at the XVIII Congress of the CPSU (b) in 1939, Stalin also admitted that the work of cleaning the party had made mistakes. What Khrushchev enters? He did not understand what self-criticism; he only knows that dumps all the errors in the other, and all the credit himself.
Today, when modern revisionism is widespread, it is not surprising such disgusting behavior of Khrushchev. More in 1915, Lenin, denouncing waste II International revisionists from Marxism, wrote: "In our time, forgotten words, principles lost, overturned outlook, to push away the resolutions and solemn promises to be surprised this is not necessary."
Developments after the XX Congress of the CPSU, fully revealed to some serious consequences resulting in a complete and wholesale rejection of Stalin's Communist Party leadership. Full and wholesale rejection of Stalin made it into the hands of the imperialists and reactionaries of various countries of the projectile, which they were eager to get to the deployment of an anti-Soviet, anti-communist campaign. It was after the XX Congress of the CPSU imperialists, taking advantage of the secret anti-Stalinist Khrushchev report, raised around the world wide anti-Soviet, anti-communist campaign. Not losing the case, the imperialists, the reactionaries, the Tito clique and opportunists of all stripes have launched an offensive against the Soviet Union, against the socialist and communist parties, resulting in many fraternal Parties and countries were in an extremely difficult position.
Rabid campaign against Stalin, expanded the leadership of the CPSU, has caused excitement among the Trotskyists has long become a political corpse. They raised the hype around the "rehabilitation" of Trotsky. In November 1961, on the eve of the closing XXII Congress of the CPSU, the international secretariat of the so-called IV International published a "Letter XXII Congress of the CPSU and the new Central Committee of the CPSU." The letter says that Trotsky even predicted in 1937 that "will be a monument to the victims of Stalin"; "Today this prediction comes true. Your Congress has already given your first secretary of the Party promise to erect this monument. " This letter in particular requires that the name of Trotsky "was carved in golden letters on the monument to the victims of Stalin." Did not conceal his deep joy, Trotskyists believe that the leadership of the Communist Party raised a campaign against Stalin "opened the door for Trotskyism" and that "will greatly contribute to the development of Trotskyism and its organization - IV International."
Completely and indiscriminately negating Stalin, the CPSU leadership pursues the improper purpose.
IV Stalin died in 1953. Three years later, the Communist Party leadership launched at the XX Congress of the CPSU wide campaign against Stalin; and eight years later, at the XXII Congress of the CPSU, it re-launched a broad campaign against Stalin, with his body issued from the mausoleum and betrayed burned. Razvёrtyvaya one after the other such broad anti-Stalinist campaign, the leaders of the CPSU aims to negate the unfading influence of this great proletarian revolutionary to the Soviet people and the peoples of the world, to subvert Marxism-Leninism, who in his time defended Stalin developed, and open a path to a comprehensive carrying out their revisionist line. The revisionist line of the CPSU leadership dates back precisely to the XX Congress of the CPSU, and at the XXII Congress of the CPSU it was formed into a complete system. It is becoming increasingly apparent that revision of the leaders of the Communist Party Marxist-Leninist theory of imperialism, of war and peace, proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the revolution in the colonies and semi-colonies, the proletarian party, etc. - It is inextricably linked with their full and sweeping denial of Stalin.
Full and wholesale rejection of Stalin's leadership of the CPSU carried out under the guise of "combating the personality cult".
The so-called "struggle against the personality cult" Unfolded leadership of the Communist Party, had not intended to restore "the Leninist standards of Party life and principles of leadership" as they advertise it. On the contrary, this "struggle" is a departure from Lenin's teaching on the relationship between leaders, party, class and masses, a departure from the principle of democratic centralism in the Party.
Marxist-Leninists believe that the revolutionary party of the proletariat, if it wants to become a real battle headquarters of the proletariat must be properly approach the issue of the relationship between leaders, party, class and masses and must be organized on the principle of democratic centralism. Such a party must have a more or less stable leading nucleus. It is the leading core should consist of experienced leaders who can combine the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the revolution.
The leaders of the proletarian party - be they members of the Central Committee or local committees - born in the class struggle, in the revolutionary movement of the masses, they are all my heart committed to the masses and is vitally connected with them, they are able to properly focus the views of the masses and to implement them. Such leaders are genuine representatives of the proletariat and a shared recognition of the masses. The presence of such leaders in the party of the proletariat - is a sign of its political maturity of the proletariat is the hope for the triumph of their cause.
IN AND. Lenin rightly pointed out: "Not a single class in history has achieved power without producing its political leaders, its prominent representatives able to organize a movement and lead it." He also said: "The training of experienced and most influential Party leaders - a long, difficult business. And without this, the dictatorship of the proletariat, its "unity of will" remain a phrase. "
The Chinese Communist Party consistently defended the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the role of the masses and the individual in history, defends the Marxist-Leninist theory of the relationship between leaders, party, class and masses, firmly adheres to the principle of democratic centralism in the Party. We always adhere to the principle of collective leadership, but at the same time are against belittling the role of leaders. We attach great importance to the role of the leaders, but at the same time oppose excessive untrue praise the person against exaggerating the role of the individual. More in 1949 at the suggestion of Comrade Mao Tse-tung, the CPC Central Committee made a decision on banning the birthday party and banning the assignment of names cities, streets, businesses.
This is not our constant and proper position nothing to do with the so-called "struggle against the personality cult", the leadership of the Communist Party unfolded.
It is becoming increasingly clear that by deploying so-called "struggle against the personality cult", the Communist Party leadership does not seek to develop democracy, to exercise a collective leadership and to fight against the exaggeration of the role of the individual as it is itself constantly repeats, and is guided by quite different motives.
What is the purpose of actually pursuing the so-called "struggle against the personality cult", expanded the leadership of the Communist Party?
Speaking bluntly, it is to:
- Under the pretext of "combating the personality cult", to oppose the Party, the proletariat and the masses leader of the party - Stalin;
- Under the pretext of "combating the personality cult" to defame the proletarian party, the dictatorship of the proletariat to defame, discredit the socialist system;
- Under the pretext of "combating the personality cult" to elevate himself to attack the faithful to Marxism-Leninism revolutionaries, pave the way for the revisionists, scheming to seize the leadership of the party and state;
- Under the pretext of "combating the personality cult", to interfere in the internal affairs of fraternal parties and fraternal countries, to subvert at its discretion in the management of fraternal Parties and countries;
- Under the pretext of "combating the personality cult", to attack fraternal parties, upholding Marxism-Leninism and to split the international communist movement.
Raised Khrushchev's so-called "struggle against the personality cult" is a vile political intrigue. About a man can say the words of Marx. "... If it is theoretically zero, how intriguing - he is in his element"
The Open Letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU says that, "debunking the cult of personality and struggling against its consequences, the party highly of those leaders who ... are well-deserved reputation." What does it mean? This means that the leaders of the CPSU, Stalin vtaptyvaya dirt, Khrushchev praised to the skies.
They build up an "active creator of the Red Army's" Khrushchev, who in the period of the October Revolution was not yet a Communist, and during the Civil War was only a grassroots political worker.
They are entirely attributed to Khrushchev great merit in a decisive battle in the Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, said that, they say, during the Battle of Stalingrad "is often heard the voice of NS Khrushchev "and that Khrushchev was, they say," the soul of Stalingrad. "
They are completely at the expense of Khrushchev attributed the great achievements in the field of nuclear weapons and missile technology, calling him some "cosmic father". However, as we all know, the creation of the Soviet Union atomic and hydrogen bombs was a great success of science and technology workers of the Soviet Union and the Soviet people reached in the period of Stalin's leadership. Basis of rocketry were also laid during the period of Stalin's leadership. How is it possible to gloss over these important historical facts? How is it possible to attribute all of these services at the expense of Khrushchev?
They praised Khrushchev, who deals with the audit guidelines of Marxism-Leninism and considers that Leninism is outdated, and say that his speech is a "remarkable example of creative development and enrichment of Marxist-Leninist theory."
All these leaders of the CPSU are doing under the guise of the slogan of "combating the personality cult". In fact, they are the words of Lenin, "instead of the old leaders, who hold universal views on the simple things ... ... put forward new leaders, who talk supernatural nonsense and confusion."
CPSU Central Committee in an open letter distorting the position of our Party, upholding Marxism-Leninism, accusing us of being that we're trying to 'impose other parties those orders, the ideology and morals, the forms and methods of leadership that flourished in the period of the cult of personality. " These slanderous accusations once again show the absurdity and the absurdity of the so-called "struggle against the personality cult". According to the leaders of the CPSU it turns out that in the Soviet Union after the October Revolution, which put an end to capitalism in Russia, there was a so-called "period of the personality cult" that the "social system", "the ideology and morals" of that period were non-socialist, that in this period the Soviet workers experienced "heavy yoke" that prevailed there "atmosphere of fear, suspicion, uncertainty, poisoning the lives of the people", and that the development of Soviet society has encountered an obstacle.
July 19, 1963 at a meeting of the Soviet-Hungarian friendship Khrushchev talked a lot about the fact that supposedly prevailed under Stalin "terror" and that allegedly Stalin "maintained his power with an ax". Describing the situation of that time, he said that "often during that period people went to work and did not know - whether he will come home, see if his wife will see whether their children."
According to the leaders of the CPSU it turns out that the so-called "period of the personality cult" is more "disgusting", a "barbarous" than the period of feudalism and capitalism.
According to the leaders of the CPSU appears that the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist system created as a result of the October Revolution, for several decades could neither relieve workers from oppression or accelerate the development of Soviet society, and that only once at the XX Congress of the CPSU launched the so-called "struggle against the personality cult", workers got rid of the "grave oppression" and "the development of Soviet society" suddenly accelerated.
Khrushchev said: "Oh, it would be good if Stalin had died ten years earlier!". As is well known, Stalin died in 1953. If Stalin had died ten years earlier, it would have been in 1943, ie just when the Soviet Union began a counter-offensive in the Great Patriotic War. Who was thirsty at the time of Stalin's death? Hitler!
The fact that Marxism-Leninism enemies use the slogan, like the so-called "struggle against the personality cult", for the erection of slander against the leaders of the proletariat and undermine the cause of the proletariat, is not at all something new in the history of the international communist movement, it has long been unmasked sneaky technique .
During the I International schemer Bakunin used a similar slogan to fall cursing on Marx. Initially, this intriguing, to ingratiate himself to Marx, wrote to him: "I am your disciple and I am proud of it." But later, when Bakunin attempts to take in hand the leadership Internationale I collapsed, he fell, swearing to Marx, saying that "as a German and a Jew, he was up and down power" that he "dictator".
In times of II International Renegade Kautsky also I used a similar slogan to fall to cursing VI Lenin. Kautsky, Lenin called the "god of the monotheists," he said at the VI Lenin "Marxism has been reduced to the status of not only the state religion but of a medieval or oriental superstition."
In the days of III International the renegade Trotsky also used a similar slogan to fall to cursing IV Stalin. He said that Stalin was a "tyrant" and that "the bureaucrat Stalin planted vile cult of the leader, the leader of the sanctity of giving."
Tito clique modern revisionists, too, used a similar slogan, to revile, IV Stalin, calling him a "dictator" in the "system of absolute personal power."
This shows that the so-called "struggle against the personality cult" raised by the leadership of the Communist Party, it was adopted on the relay Bakunin, Kautsky, Trotsky and Tito, who used this slogan to fight against the leaders of the proletariat, to undermine the revolutionary movement of the proletariat.
In the history of the international communist movement, the opportunists have never been able to deny using innuendo of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Khrushchev also fail using innuendo to deny Stalin.
IN AND. He pointed out that the privileged position does not ensure the success of insinuation.
Khrushchev could, using his privileged position to make Stalin's body from the mausoleum, but he will never be able, using his privileged position to erase from the memory of the Soviet people and the peoples of the world the great image of Stalin.
Khrushchev could, using his privileged position, in one way or that way to revise Marxism-Leninism, but he will never be able, using his privileged position to subvert Marxism-Leninism, which defended IV Stalin and who defended and defend the Marxist-Leninists all over the world.
We appeal to fellow Khrushchev with sincere advice and wishes: be aware of their errors, return with a completely wrong path to the path of Marxism-Leninism.
Long live the great revolutionary teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

http://www.r-p-w.ru/k-voprosu-o-staline.html

Google Translator

Interesting, found this on Col Cassad, the Google translation was a nightmare, a very hard nut for a non-Russian speaker to edit. But followed his like to the source and it came out very nicely, no editing needed. How does that work?

Interesting, found this on Col Cassad, the Google translation was a nightmare, a very hard nut for a non-Russian speaker to edit. But followed his like to the source and it came out very nicely, no editing needed. How does that work?

I guess a translation of a translation - kinda like the old game "post office". You know, everybody talks down Mao - and I ain't sugar coating his flaws - but he sure could give some clear-eyed critiques and analyses. There was nothing wrong with his capacity to think straight...

I guess a translation of a translation - kinda like the old game "post office". You know, everybody talks down Mao - and I ain't sugar coating his flaws - but he sure could give some clear-eyed critiques and analyses. There was nothing wrong with his capacity to think straight...

Yeah, he nailed Khrushchev's ass to the wall there, deservedly. In retrospect the fact that most Western leftists swallowed the 'Russian line' hook, line & sinker smells of Orientalism. Hindsight is Golden.

Joseph V. Stalin- The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists (1924)

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--kjnQKQVjCU/WCHqUoWL7mI/AAAAAAAAByo/Fg8A9tAvIiUM9gcyW5if01OPoWawtzwJQCLcB/s320/Stalin%2BJoseph%2Bspeech.png

The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists.
By Joseph V. Stalin.

Source:Problems of Leninism, by J.V. Stalin,
Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 1976, p. 117.
Republished from Marxists Internet Archives.

Three circumstances of an external nature determined the comparative ease with which the proletarian revolution in Russia succeeded in breaking the chains of imperialism and thus overthrowing the rule of the bourgeoisie.

Firstly, the circumstance that the October Revolution began in a period of desperate struggle between the two principal imperialist groups, the Anglo-French and the Austro-German; at a time when, engaged in mortal struggle between themselves, these two groups had neither the time nor the means to devote serious attention to the struggle against the October Revolution. This circumstance was of tremendous importance for the October Revolution; for it enabled it to take advantage of the fierce conflicts within the imperialist world to strengthen and organize its own forces.

Secondly, the circumstance that the October Revolution began during the imperialist war, at a time when the laboring masses, exhausted by the war and thirsting for peace, were by the very logic of facts led up to the proletarian revolution as the only way out of the war. This circumstance was of extreme importance for the October Revolution; for it put into its hands the mighty weapon of peace, made it easier for it to link the Soviet revolution with the ending of the hated war, and thus created mass sympathy for it both in the West, among the workers, and in the East, among the oppressed peoples.

Thirdly, the existence of a powerful working-class movement in Europe and the fact that a revolutionary crisis was maturing in the West and in the East, brought on by the protracted imperialist war. This circumstance was of inestimable importance for the revolution in Russia; for it ensured the revolution faithful allies outside Russia in its struggle against world imperialism.

But in addition to circumstances of an external nature, there were also a number of favorable internal conditions which facilitated the victory of the October Revolution.

Of these conditions, the following must be regarded as the chief ones:

Firstly, the October Revolution enjoyed the most active support of the overwhelming majority of the working class in Russia.

Secondly, it enjoyed the undoubted support of the poor peasants and of the majority of the soldiers, who were thirsting for peace and land.

Thirdly, it had at its head, as its guiding force, such a tried and tested party as the Bolshevik Party, strong not only by reason of its experience and discipline acquired through the years, but also by reason of its vast connections with the laboring masses.
Fourthly, the October Revolution was confronted by enemies who were comparatively easy to overcome, such as the rather weak Russian bourgeoisie, a landlord class which was utterly demoralized by peasant "revolts," and the compromising parties (the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries), which had become completely bankrupt during the war.
Fifthly, it had at its disposal the vast expanses of the young state, in which it was able to maneuver freely, retreat when circumstances so required, enjoy a respite, gather strength, etc.
Sixthly, in its struggle against counter-revolution the October Revolution could count upon sufficient resources of food, fuel and raw materials within the country. The combination of these external and internal circumstances created that peculiar situation which determined the comparative ease with which the October Revolution won its victory.
This does not mean, of course, that there were no unfavorable features in the external and internal setting of the October Revolution. Think of such an unfavorable feature as, for example, the isolation, to some extent, of the October Revolution, the absence near it, or bordering on it, of a Soviet country on which it could rely for support. Undoubtedly, the future revolution, for example, in Germany, will be in a more favorable situation in this respect, for it has in close proximity a powerful Soviet country like our Soviet Union. I need not mention so unfavorable a feature of the October Revolution as the absence of a proletarian majority within the country.
But these unfavorable features only emphasize the tremendous importance of the peculiar internal and external conditions of the October Revolution of which I have spoken above.
These peculiar conditions must not be lost sight of for a single moment. They must be borne in mind particularly in analyzing the events of the autumn of 1923 in Germany. Above all, they should be borne in mind by Trotsky, who draws an unfounded analogy between the October Revolution and the revolution in Germany and lashes violently at the German Communist Party for its actual and alleged mistakes.
"It was easy for Russia," says Lenin, "in the specific, historically very special situation of 1917, to start the socialist revolution, but it will be more difficult for Russia than for the European countries to continue the revolution and carry it through to the end. I had occasion to point this out already at the beginning of 1918, and our experience of the past two years has entirely confirmed the correctness of this view. Such specific conditions, as 1) the possibility of linking up the Soviet revolution with the ending, as a consequence of this revolution, of the imperialist war, which had exhausted the workers and peasants to an incredible degree; 2) the possibility of taking advantage for a certain time of the mortal conflict between two world powerful groups of imperialist robbers, who were unable to unite against their Soviet enemy; 5) the possibility of enduring a comparatively lengthy civil war, partly owing to the enormous size of the country and to the poor means of communication; 4) the existence of such a profound bourgeois-democratic revolutionary movement among the peasantry that the party of the proletariat was able to take the revolutionary demands of the peasant party (the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, the majority of the members of which were definitely hostile to Bolshevism) and realize them at once, thanks to the conquest of political power by the proletariat — such specific conditions do not exist in Western Europe at present; and a repetition of such or similar conditions will not come so easily. That, by the way, apart from a number of other causes, is why it will be more difficult for Western Europe to start a socialist revolution than it was for us." (See "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder .)
These words of Lenin's should not be forgotten.
II. Two Specific Features of the October Revolution — or October and Trotsky's Theory of "Permanent" Revolution
There are two specific features of the October Revolution which must be understood first of all if we are to comprehend the inner meaning and the historical significance of that revolution.
What are these features?
Firstly, the fact that the dictatorship of the proletariat was born in our country as a power which came into existence on the basis of an alliance between the proletariat and the laboring masses of the peasantry, the latter being led by the proletariat. Secondly, the fact that the dictatorship of the proletariat became established in our country as a result of the victory of socialism in one country — a country in which capitalism was little developed — while capitalism was preserved in other countries where capitalism was more highly developed. This does not mean, of course, that the October Revolution has no other specific features. But it is precisely these two specific features that are important for us at the present moment, not only because they distinctly express the essence of the October Revolution, but also because they brilliantly reveal the opportunist nature of the theory of "permanent revolution."
Let us briefly examine these features.
The question of the laboring masses of the petty bourgeoisie, both urban and rural, the question of winning these masses to the side of the proletariat, is highly important for the proletarian revolution. Whom will the laboring people of town and country support in the struggle for power, the bourgeoisie or the proletariat; whose reserve will they become, the reserve of the bourgeoisie or the reserve of the proletariat — on this depend the fate of the revolution and the stability of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The revolutions in France in 1848 and 1871 came to grief chiefly because the peasant reserves proved to be on the side of the bourgeoisie. The October Revolution was victorious because it was able to deprive the bourgeoisie of its peasant reserves, because it was able to win these reserves to the side of the proletariat, and because in this revolution the proletariat proved to be the only guiding force for the vast masses of the laboring people of town and country.
He who has not understood this will never understand either the character of the October Revolution, or the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the specific characteristics of the internal policy of our proletarian power.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not simply a governmental top stratum "skillfully" "selected" by the careful hand of an "experienced strategist," and "judiciously relying" on the support of one section or another of the population. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the class alliance between the proletariat and the laboring masses of the peasantry for the purpose of overthrowing capital, for achieving the final victory of socialism, on the condition that the guiding force of this alliance is the proletariat.
Thus, it is not a question of "slightly" underestimating or "slightly" overestimating the revolutionary potentialities of the peasant movement, as certain diplomatic advocates of "permanent revolution" are now fond of expressing it. It is a question of the nature of the new proletarian state which arose as a result of the October Revolution. It is a question of the character of the proletarian power, of the foundations of the dictatorship of the proletariat itself.
"The dictatorship of the proletariat," says Lenin, "is a special form of class alliance between the proletariat, the vanguard of the working people, and the numerous non-proletarian strata of working people (the petty bourgeoisie, the small proprietors, the peasantry, the intelligentsia, etc.), or the majority of these; it is an alliance against capital, an alliance aiming at the complete overthrow of capital, at the complete suppression of the resistance of the bourgeoisie and of any attempt on its part at restoration, an alliance aiming at the final establishment and consolidation of socialism." (See Foreword to the Published Speech 'On Deceiving the People with Slogans About Liberty and Equality.)
And further on:
"The dictatorship of the proletariat, if we translate this Latin, scientific, historical-philosophical term into simpler language, means the following:
"Only a definite class, namely, the urban workers and the factory, industrial workers in general, is able to lead the whole mass of the toilers and exploited in the struggle for the overthrow of the yoke of capital, in the process of the overthrow itself, in the struggle to maintain and consolidate the victory, in the work of creating the new, socialist social system, in the whole struggle for the complete abolition of classes." (See A Great Beginning.)
Such is the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat given by Lenin.
One of the specific features of the October Revolution is the fact that this revolution represents a classic application of Lenin's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Some comrades believe that this theory is a purely "Russian" theory, applicable only to Russian conditions. That is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. In speaking of the laboring masses of the non-proletarian classes which are led by the proletariat, Lenin has in mind not only the Russian peasants, but also the laboring elements of the border regions of the Soviet Union, which until recently were colonies of Russia. Lenin constantly reiterated that without an alliance with these masses of other nationalities the proletariat of Russia could not achieve victory. In his articles on the national question and in his speeches at the congresses of the Comintern, Lenin repeatedly said that the victory of the world revolution was impossible without a revolutionary alliance, a revolutionary bloc, between the proletariat of the advanced countries and the oppressed peoples of the enslaved colonies. But what are colonies if not the oppressed laboring masses, and, primarily, the laboring masses of the peasantry? Who does not know that the question of the liberation of the colonies is essentially a question of the liberation of the laboring masses of the non-proletarian classes from the oppression and exploitation of finance capital?
But from this it follows that Lenin's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a purely "Russian" theory, but a theory which necessarily applies to all countries. Bolshevism is not only a Russian phenomenon. "Bolshevism," says Lenin, is "a model of tactics for all." (See The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.)
Such are the characteristics of the first specific feature of the October Revolution.
How do matters stand with regard to Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution" in the light of this specific feature of the October Revolution?
We shall not dwell at length on Trotsky's position in 1905, when he "simply" forgot all about the peasantry as a revolutionary force and advanced the slogan of "No tsar, but a workers' government," that is, the slogan of revolution without the peasantry. Even Radek, that diplomatic defender of "permanent revolution," is now obliged to admit that "permanent revolution" in 1905 meant a "leap into the air" away from reality. Now, apparently everyone admits that it is not worth while bothering with this "leap into the air" any more.
Nor shall we dwell at length on Trotsky's position in the period of the war, say, in 1915, when, in his article "The Struggle for Power," proceeding from the fact that "we are living in the era of imperialism," that imperialism "sets up not the bourgeois nation in opposition to the old regime, but the proletariat in opposition to the bourgeois nation," he arrived at the conclusion that the revolutionary role of the peasantry was bound to subside, that the slogan of the confiscation of the land no longer had the same importance as formerly. It is well known that at that time, Lenin, examining this article of Trotsky's, accused him of "denying" "the role of the peasantry," and said that "Trotsky is in fact helping the liberal labor politicians in Russia who understand 'denial' of the role of the peasantry to mean refusal to rouse the peasants to revolution!" (See Two Lines of the Revolution.)
Let us rather pass on to the later works of Trotsky on this subject, to the works of the period when the proletarian dictatorship had already become established and when Trotsky had had the opportunity to test his theory of "permanent revolution" in the light of actual events and to correct his errors. Let us take Trotsky's "Preface" to his book The Year 1905, written in 1922. Here is what Trotsky says in this "Preface" concerning "permanent revolution":
"It was precisely during the interval between January 9 and the October strike of 1905 that the views on the character of the revolutionary development of Russia which came to be known as the theory of 'permanent revolution' crystallized in the author's mind. This abstruse term represented the idea that the Russian revolution, whose immediate objectives were bourgeois in nature, could not, however, stop when these objectives had been achieved. The revolution would not be able to solve its immediate bourgeois problems except by placing the proletariat in power. And the latter, upon assuming power, would not be able to confine itself to the bourgeois limits of the revolution. On the contrary, precisely in order to ensure its victory, the proletarian vanguard would be forced in the very early stages of its rule to make deep inroads not only into feudal property but into bourgeois property as well. In this it would come into hostile collision not only with all the bourgeois groupings which supported the proletariat during the first stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasantry with whose assistance it came into power. The contradictions in the position of a workers' government in a backward country with an overwhelmingly peasant population could be solved only on an international scale, in the arena of the world proletarian revolution." [My italics. — J. St.]
That is what Trotsky says about his "permanent revolution."
One need only compare this quotation with the above quotations from Lenin's works on the dictatorship of the proletariat to perceive the great chasm that separates Lenin's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat from Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution."
Lenin speaks of the alliance between the proletariat and the laboring strata of the peasantry as the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Trotsky sees a "hostile collision " between "the proletarian vanguard" and "the broad masses of the peasantry."
Lenin speaks of the leadership of the toiling and exploited masses by the proletariat. Trotsky sees "contradictions in the position of a workers' government in a backward country with an overwhelmingly peasant population."
According to Lenin, the revolution draws its strength primarily from among the workers and peasants of Russia itself.
According to Trotsky, the necessary strength can be found only "in the arena of the world proletarian revolution."
But what if the world revolution is fated to arrive with some delay? Is there any ray of hope for our revolution? Trotsky offers no ray of hope; for "the contradictions in the position of a workers' government . . . could be solved only . . . in the arena of the world proletarian revolution." According to this plan, there is but one prospect left for our revolution: to vegetate in its own contradictions and rot away while waiting for the world revolution.
What is the dictatorship of the proletariat according to Lenin?
The dictatorship of the proletariat is a power which rests on an alliance between the proletariat and the laboring masses of the peasantry for "the complete overthrow of capital" and for "the final establishment and consolidation of socialism."
What is the dictatorship of the proletariat according to Trotsky?
The dictatorship of the proletariat is a power which comes "into hostile collision" with "the broad masses of the peasantry" and seeks the solution of its "contradictions" only "in the arena of the world proletarian revolution."
What difference is there between this "theory of permanent revolution" and the well-known theory of Menshevism which repudiates the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat?
Essentially, there is no difference.
There can be no doubt at all. "Permanent revolution" is not a mere underestimation of the revolutionary potentialities of the peasant movement. "Permanent revolution" is an underestimation of the peasant movement which leads to the repudiation of Lenin's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Trotsky's "permanent revolution" is a variety of Menshevism.
This is how matters stand with regard to the first specific feature of the October Revolution.
What are the characteristics of the second specific feature of the October Revolution?
In his study of imperialism, especially in the period of the war, Lenin arrived at the law of the uneven, spasmodic, economic and political development of the capitalist countries. According to this law, the development of enterprises, trusts, branches of industry and individual countries proceeds not evenly — not according to an established sequence, not in such a way that one trust, one branch of industry or one country is always in advance of the others, while other trusts or countries keep consistently one behind the other — but spasmodically, with interruptions in the development of some countries and leaps ahead in the development of others. Under these circumstances the "quite legitimate" striving of the countries that have slowed down to hold their old positions, and the equally "legitimate" striving of the countries that have leapt ahead to seize new positions, lead to a situation in which armed clashes among the imperialist countries become an inescapable necessity. Such was the case, for example, with Germany, which half a century ago was a backward country in comparison with France and Britain. The same must be said of Japan as compared with Russia. It is well known, however, that by the beginning of the twentieth century Germany and Japan had leapt so far ahead that Germany had succeeded in overtaking France and had begun to press Britain hard on the world market, while Japan was pressing Russia. As is well known, it was from these contradictions that the recent imperialist war arose.
This law proceeds from the following:
1)"Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the vast majority of the population of the world by a handful of 'advanced' countries" (see Preface to the French edition of Lenin's Imperialism.);
2) "This 'booty' is shared between two or three powerful world robbers armed to the teeth (America, Britain, Japan), who involve the whole world in their war over the sharing of their booty" (ibid.);
3) The growth of contradictions within the world system of financial oppression and the inevitability of armed clashes lead to the world front of imperialism becoming easily vulnerable to revolution, and to a breach in this front in individual countries becoming probable;
4) This breach is most likely to occur at those points, and in those countries, where the chain of the imperialist front is weakest, that is to say, where imperialism is least consolidated, and where it is easiest for a revolution to expand;
5) In view of this, the victory of socialism in one country, even if that country is less developed in the capitalist sense, while capitalism remains in other countries, even if those countries are more highly developed in the capitalist sense — is quite possible and probable.
Such, briefly, are the foundations of Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution.
What is the second specific feature of the October Revolution?
The second specific feature of the October Revolution lies in the fact that this revolution represents a model of the practical application of Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution.
He who has not understood this specific feature of the October Revolution will never understand either the international nature of this revolution, or its colossal international might, or the specific features of its foreign policy.
"Uneven economic and political development," says Lenin, "is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organized its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, raising revolts in those countries against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity coming out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states." For "the free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states." (See On the Slogan for a United States of Europe.)
The opportunists of all countries assert that the proletarian revolution can begin — if it is to begin anywhere at all, according to their theory — only in industrially developed countries, and that the more highly developed these countries are industrially the more chances there are for the victory of socialism. Moreover, according to them, the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country, and one in which capitalism is little developed at that, is excluded as something absolutely improbable. As far back as the period of the war, Lenin, taking as his basis the law of the uneven development of the imperialist states, opposed to the opportunists his theory of the proletarian revolution about the victory of socialism in one country, even if that country is one in which capitalism is less developed.
It is well known that the October Revolution fully confirmed the correctness of Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution.
How do matters stand with Trotsky's "permanent revolution" in the light of Lenin's theory of the victory of the proletarian revolution in one country?
Let us take Trotsky's pamphlet Our Revolution (1906).
Trotsky writes:
"Without direct state support from the European proletariat, the working class of Russia will not be able to maintain itself in power and to transform its temporary rule into a lasting socialist dictatorship. This we cannot doubt for an instant."
What does this quotation mean? It means that the victory of socialism in one country, in this case Russia, is impossible "without direct state support from the European proletariat," i.e., before the European proletariat has conquered power.
What is there in common between this "theory" and Lenin's thesis on the possibility of the victory of socialism "in one capitalist country taken separately"?
Clearly, there is nothing in common.
But let us assume that Trotsky's pamphlet, which was published in 1906, at a time when it was difficult to determine the character of our revolution, contains inadvertent errors and does not fully correspond to Trotsky's views at a later period. Let us examine another pamphlet written by Trotsky, his Peace Programme, which appeared before the October Revolution of 1917 and has now (1924) been republished in his book The Year 1917. In this pamphlet Trotsky criticizes Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution about the victory of socialism in one country and opposes to it the slogan of a United States of Europe. He asserts that the victory of socialism in one country is impossible, that the victory of socialism is possible only as the victory of several of the principal countries of Europe (Britain, Russia, Germany), which combine into a United States of Europe; otherwise it is not possible at all. He says quite plainly that "a victorious revolution in Russia or in Britain is inconceivable without a revolution in Germany, and vice versa."
"The only more or less concrete historical argument," says Trotsky, "advanced against the slogan of a United States of Europe was formulated in the Swiss Sotsial-Demokrat (at that time the central organ of the Bolsheviks — J. St. ) in the following sentence: 'Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism.' From this the Sotsial-Demokrat draws the conclusion that the victory of socialism is possible in one country, and that therefore there is no reason to make the dictatorship of the proletariat in each separate country contingent upon the establishment of a United States of Europe. That capitalist development in different countries is uneven is an absolutely incontrovertible argument. But this unevenness is itself extremely uneven. The capitalist level of Britain, Austria, Germany or France is not identical. But in comparison with Africa and Asia all these countries represent capitalist 'Europe,' which has grown ripe for the social revolution. That no country in its struggle must 'wait' for others, is an elementary thought which it is useful and necessary to reiterate in order that the idea of concurrent international action may not be replaced by the idea of temporizing international inaction. Without waiting for the others, we begin and continue the struggle nationally, in the full confidence that our initiative will give an impetus to the struggle in other countries; but if this should not occur, it would be hopeless to think — as historical experience and theoretical considerations testify — that, for example, a revolutionary Russia could hold out in the face of a conservative Europe, or that a socialist Germany could exist in isolation in a capitalist world."
As you see, we have before us the same theory of the simultaneous victory of socialism in the principal countries of Europe which, as a rule, excludes Lenin's theory of revolution about the victory of socialism in one country.
It goes without saying that for the complete victory of socialism, for a complete guarantee against the restoration of the old order, the united efforts of the proletarians of several countries are necessary. It goes without saying that, without the support given to our revolution by the proletariat of Europe, the proletariat of Russia could not have held out against the general onslaught, just as without the support given by the revolution in Russia to the revolutionary movement in the West the latter could not have developed at the pace at which it has begun to develop since the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship in Russia. It goes without saying that we need support. But what does support of our revolution by the West-European proletariat imply? Is not the sympathy of the European workers for our revolution, their readiness to thwart the imperialists' plans of intervention — is not all this support, real assistance? Unquestionably it is. Without such support, without such assistance, not only from the European workers but also from the colonial and dependent countries, the proletarian dictatorship in Russia would have been hard pressed. Up to now, has this sympathy and this assistance, coupled with the might of our Red Army and the readiness of the workers and peasants of Russia to defend their socialist fatherland to the last — has all this been sufficient to beat off the attacks of the imperialists and to win us the necessary conditions for the serious work of construction? Yes, it has been sufficient. Is this sympathy growing stronger, or is it waning? Unquestionably, it is growing stronger. Hence, have we favorable conditions, not only for pushing on with the organizing of socialist economy, but also, in our turn, for giving support to the West-European workers and to the oppressed peoples of the East? Yes, we have. This is eloquently proved by the seven years history of the proletarian dictatorship in Russia. Can it be denied that a mighty wave of labor enthusiasm has already risen in our country? No, it cannot be denied.
After all this, what does Trotsky's assertion that a revolutionary Russia could not hold out in the face of a conservative Europe signify?
It can signify only this: firstly, that Trotsky does not appreciate the inherent strength of our revolution; secondly, that Trotsky does not understand the inestimable importance of the moral support which is given to our revolution by the workers of the West and the peasants of the East; thirdly, that Trotsky does not perceive the internal infirmity which is consuming imperialism today.
Carried away by his criticism of Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution, Trotsky unwittingly dealt himself a smashing blow in his pamphlet Peace Programme which appeared in 1917 and was republished in 1924.
But perhaps this pamphlet, too, has become out of date and has ceased for some reason or other to correspond to Trotsky's present views? Let us take his later works, written after the victory of the proletarian revolution in one country, in Russia. Let us take, for example, Trotsky's "Postscript," written in 1922, for the new edition of his pamphlet Peace Programme. Here is what he says in this "Postscript":
"The assertion reiterated several times in the Peace Programme that a proletarian revolution cannot culminate victoriously within national bounds may perhaps seem to some readers to have been refuted by the nearly five years' experience of our Soviet Republic. But such a conclusion would be unwarranted, The fact that the workers' state has held out against the whole world in one country, and a backward country at that, testifies to the colossal might of the proletariat, which in other, more advanced, more civilized countries will be truly capable of performing miracles. But while we have held our ground as a state politically and militarily, we have not arrived, or even begun to arrive, at the creation of a socialist society. . . . As long as the bourgeoisie remains in power in the other European countries we shall be compelled, in our struggle against economic isolation, to strive for agreements with the capitalist world; at the same time it may be said with certainty that these agreements may at best help us to mitigate some of our economic ills, to take one or another step forward, but real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory [My italics. — J. St.] of the proletariat in the major European countries."
Thus speaks Trotsky, plainly sinning against reality and stubbornly trying to save his "permanent revolution" from final shipwreck.
It appears, then, that, twist and turn as you like, we not only have "not arrived," but we have "not even begun to arrive" at the creation of a socialist society. It appears that some people have been hoping for "agreements with the capitalist world," but it also appears that nothing will come of these agreements; for, twist and turn as you like, "real progress of a socialist economy" will not be possible until the proletariat has been victorious in the "major European countries."
Well, then, since there is still no victory in the West, the only "choice" that remains for the revolution in Russia is: either to rot away or to degenerate into a bourgeois state.
It is no accident that Trotsky has been talking for two years now about the "degeneration" of our Party.
It is no accident that last year Trotsky prophesied the "doom" of our country.
How can this strange "theory" be reconciled with Lenin's theory of the "victory of socialism in one country"?
How can this strange "prospect" be reconciled with Lenin's view that the New Economic Policy will enable us "to build the foundations of socialist economy"?
How can this "permanent" hopelessness be reconciled, for instance, with the following words of Lenin:
"Socialism is no longer a matter of the distant future, or an abstract picture, or an icon. We still retain our old bad opinion of icons. We have dragged socialism into everyday life, and here we must find our way. This is the task of our day, the task of our epoch. Permit me to conclude by expressing the conviction that, difficult as this task may be, new as it may be compared with our previous task, and no matter how many difficulties it may entail, we shall all — not in one day, but in the course of several years — all of us together fulfill it whatever happens so that NEP Russia will become socialist Russia." (See Speech at a Plenary Session of the Moscow Soviet.)
How can this "permanent" gloominess of Trotsky's be reconciled, for instance, with the following words of Lenin:
"As a matter of fact, state power over all large-scale means of production, state power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc. — is not this all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society from the co-operatives, from the co-operatives alone, which we formerly looked down upon as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to look down upon as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building." (See On Co-operation.)
It is plain that these two views are incompatible and cannot in any way be reconciled. Trotsky's "permanent revolution" is the repudiation of Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution; and conversely, Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution is the repudiation of the theory of "permanent revolution."
Lack of faith in the strength and capacities of our revolution, lack of faith in the strength and capacity of the Russian proletariat — that is what lies at the root of the theory of "permanent revolution."
Hitherto only one aspect of the theory of "permanent revolution" has usually been noted — lack of faith in the revolutionary potentialities of the peasant movement. Now, in fairness, this must be supplemented by another aspect — lack of faith in the strength and capacity of the proletariat in Russia.
What difference is there between Trotsky's theory and the ordinary Menshevik theory that the victory of socialism in one country, and in a backward country at that, is impossible without the preliminary victory of the proletarian revolution "in the principal countries of Western Europe"?
Essentially, there is no difference.
There can be no doubt at all. Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution" is a variety of Menshevism.
Of late rotten diplomats have appeared in our press who try to palm off the theory of "permanent revolution" as something compatible with Leninism. Of course, they say, this theory proved to be worthless in 1905; but the mistake Trotsky made was that he ran too far ahead at that time, in an attempt to apply to the situation in 1905 what could not then be applied. But later, they say, in October 1917, for example, when the revolution had had time to mature completely, Trotsky's theory proved to be quite appropriate. It is not difficult to guess that the chief of these diplomats is Radek. Here, if you please, is what he says:
"The war created a chasm between the peasantry, which was striving to win land and peace, and the petty-bourgeois parties; the war placed the peasantry under the leadership of the working class and of its vanguard the Bolshevik Party. This rendered possible, not the dictatorship of the working class and peasantry, but the dictatorship of the working class relying on the peasantry. What Rosa Luxemburg and Trotsky advanced against Lenin in 1905 (i.e., "permanent revolution" — J. St.) proved, as a matter of fact, to be the second stage of the historic development."
Here every statement is a distortion.
It is not true that the war "rendered possible, not the dictatorship of the working class and peasantry, but the dictatorship of the working class relying on the peasantry." Actually, the February Revolution of 1917 was the materialization of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, interwoven in a peculiar way with the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
It is not true that the theory of "permanent revolution," which Radek bashfully refrains from mentioning, was advanced in 1905 by Rosa Luxemburg and Trotsky. Actually, this theory was advanced by Parvus and Trotsky. Now, 10 months later, Radek corrects himself and deems it necessary to castigate Parvus for the theory of "permanent revolution." But in all fairness Radek should also castigate Parvus' partner, Trotsky.
It is not true that the theory of "permanent revolution," which was brushed aside by the Revolution of 1905, proved to be correct in the "second stage of the historic development," that is, during the October Revolution. The whole course of the October Revolution, its whole development, demonstrated and proved the utter bankruptcy of the theory of "permanent revolution" and its absolute incompatibility with the foundations of Leninism.
Honeyed speeches and rotten diplomacy cannot hide the yawning chasm which lies between the theory of "permanent revolution" and Leninism.
III. Certain Specific Features of the Tactics of the Bolsheviks During the Period of Preparation for October
In order to understand the tactics pursued by the Bolsheviks during the period of preparation for October we must get a clear idea of at least some of the particularly important features of those tactics. This is all the more necessary since in numerous pamphlets on the tactics of the Bolsheviks precisely these features are frequently overlooked.
What are these features?
First specific feature. If one were to listen to Trotsky, one would think that there were only two periods in the history of the preparation for October: the period of reconnaissance and the period of uprising, and that all else comes from the evil one. What was the April demonstration of 1917? "The April demonstration, which went more to the 'Left' than it should have, was a reconnoitering sortie for the purpose of probing the disposition of the masses and the relations between them and the majority in the Soviets." And what was the July demonstration of 1917? In Trotsky's opinion, "this, too, was in fact another, more extensive, reconnaissance at a new and higher phase of the movement." Needless to say, the June demonstration of 1917, which was organized at the demand of our Party, should, according to Trotsky's idea, all the more be termed a "reconnaissance."
This would seem to imply that as early as March 1917 the Bolsheviks had ready a political army of workers and peasants, and that if they did not bring this army into action for an uprising in April, or in June, or in July, but engaged merely in "reconnaissance," it was because, and only because, "the information obtained from the reconnaissance" at the time was unfavorable.
Needless to say, this oversimplified notion of the political tactics of our Party is nothing but a confusion of ordinary military tactics with the revolutionary tactics of the Bolsheviks.
Actually, all these demonstrations were primarily the result of the spontaneous pressure of the masses, the result of the fact that the indignation of the masses against the war had boiled over and sought an outlet in the streets.
Actually, the task of the Party at that time was to shape and to guide the spontaneously arising demonstrations of the masses along the line of the revolutionary slogans of the Bolsheviks.
Actually, the Bolsheviks had no political army ready in March 1917, nor could they have had one. The Bolsheviks built up such an army (and had finally built it up by October 1917) only in the course of the struggle and conflicts of the classes between April and October 1917, through the April demonstration, the June and July demonstrations, the elections to the district and city Dumas, the struggle against the Kornilov revolt, and the winning over of the Soviets. A political army is not like a military army. A military command begins a war with an army ready to hand, whereas the Party has to create its army in the course of the struggle itself, in the course of class conflicts, as the masses themselves become convinced through their own experience of the correctness of the Party's slogans and policy.
Of course, every such demonstration at the same time threw a certain amount of light on the hidden inter-relations of the forces involved, provided certain reconnaissance information, but this reconnaissance was not the motive for the demonstration, but its natural result.
In analyzing the events preceding the uprising in October and comparing them with the events that marked the period from April to July, Lenin says:
"The situation now is not at all what it was prior to April 20-21, June 9, July 3; for then there was spontaneous excitement which we, as a party, either failed to perceive (April 20) or tried to restrain and shape into a peaceful demonstration (June 9 and July 3). For at that time we were fully aware that the Soviets were not yet ours, that the peasants still trusted the Lieber-Dan-Chernov course and not the Bolshevik course (uprising), and that, consequently, we could not have the majority of the people behind us, and hence, an uprising was premature." (See Letter to Comrades.)
It is plain that "reconnaissance" alone does not get one very far.
Obviously, it was not a question of "reconnaissance," but of the following:
1) all through the period of preparation for October the Party invariably relied in its struggle upon the spontaneous upsurge of the mass revolutionary movement;
2) while relying on the spontaneous upsurge, it maintained its own undivided leadership of the movement;
3) this leadership of the movement helped it to form the mass political army for the October uprising;
4) this policy was bound to result in the entire preparation for October proceeding under the leadership of one party, the Bolshevik Party;
5) this preparation for October, in its turn, brought it about that as a result of the October uprising power was concentrated in the hands of one party, the Bolshevik Party.
Thus, the undivided leadership of one party, the Communist Party, as the principal factor in the preparation for October — such is the characteristic feature of the October Revolution, such is the first specific feature of the tactics of the Bolsheviks in the period of preparation for October.
It scarcely needs proof that without this feature of Bolshevik tactics the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the conditions of imperialism would have been impossible.
In this the October Revolution differs favorably from the revolution of 1871 in France, where the leadership was divided between two parties, neither of which could be called a Communist Party.
Second specific feature. The preparation for October thus proceeded under the leadership of one party, the Bolshevik Party. But how did the Party carry out this leadership, along what line did the latter proceed? This leadership proceeded along the line of isolating the compromising parties, as the most dangerous groupings in the period of the outbreak of the revolution, the line of isolating the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks.
What is the fundamental strategic rule of Leninism?
It is the recognition of the following:
1) the compromising parties are the most dangerous social support of the enemies of the revolution in the period of the approaching revolutionary outbreak;
2) it is impossible to overthrow the enemy (tsarism or the bourgeoisie) unless these parties are isolated;
3) the main weapons in the period of preparation for the revolution must therefore be directed towards isolating these parties, towards winning the broad masses of the working people away from them.
In the period of the struggle against tsarism, in the period of preparation for the bourgeois-democratic revolution (1905-16), the most dangerous social support of tsarism was the liberal-monarchist party, the Cadet Party. Why? Because it was the compromising party, the party of compromise between tsarism and the majority of the people, i.e., the peasantry as a whole. Naturally, the Party at that time directed its main blows at the Cadets, for unless the Cadets were isolated there could be no hope of a rupture between the peasantry and tsarism, and unless this rupture was ensured there could be no hope of the victory of the revolution. Many people at that time did not understand this specific feature of Bolshevik strategy and accused the Bolsheviks of excessive "Cadetophobia"; they asserted that with the Bolsheviks the struggle against the Cadets "overshadowed" the struggle against the principal enemy — tsarism. But these accusations, for which there was no justification, revealed an utter failure to understand the Bolshevik strategy, which called for the isolation of the compromising party in order to facilitate, to hasten the victory over the principal enemy.
It scarcely needs proof that without this strategy the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic revolution would have been impossible.
In the period of preparation for October the center of gravity of the conflicting forces shifted to another plane. The tsar was gone. The Cadet Party had been transformed from a compromising force into a governing force, into the ruling force of imperialism. Now the fight was no longer between tsarism and the people, but between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In this period the petty-bourgeois democratic parties, the parties of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, were the most dangerous social support of imperialism. Why? Because these parties were then the compromising parties, the parties of compromise between imperialism and the laboring masses. Naturally, the Bolsheviks at that time directed their main blows at these parties; for unless these parties were isolated there could be no hope of a rupture between the laboring masses and imperialism, and unless this rupture was ensured there could be no hope of the victory of the Soviet revolution. Many people at that time did not understand this specific feature of the Bolshevik tactics and accused the Bolsheviks of displaying "excessive hatred" towards the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, and of "forgetting" the principal goal. But the entire period of preparation for October eloquently testifies to the fact that only by pursuing these tactics could the Bolsheviks ensure the victory of the October Revolution.
The characteristic feature of this period was the further revolutionization of the laboring masses of the peasantry, their disillusionment with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, their defection from these parties, their turn towards rallying directly around the proletariat as the only consistently revolutionary force, capable of leading the country to peace. The history of this period is the history of the struggle between the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, on the one hand, and the Bolsheviks, on the other, for the laboring masses of the peasantry, for winning over these masses. The outcome of this struggle was decided by the coalition period, the Kerensky period, the refusal of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks to confiscate the landlords' land, the fight of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks to continue the war, the June offensive at the front, the introduction of capital punishment for soldiers, the Kornilov revolt. And they decided the issue of this struggle entirely in favor of the Bolshevik strategy; for had not the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks been isolated it would have been impossible to overthrow the government of the imperialists, and had this government not been overthrown it would have been impossible to break away from the war. The policy of isolating the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks proved to be the only correct policy.
Thus, isolation of the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties as the main line in directing the preparations for October — such was the second specific feature of the tactics of the Bolsheviks.
It scarcely needs proof that without this feature of the tactics of the Bolsheviks, the alliance of the working class and the laboring masses of the peasantry would have been left hanging in the air.
It is characteristic that in his The Lessons of October Trotsky says nothing, or next to nothing, about this specific feature of the Bolshevik tactics.
Third specific feature. Thus, the Party, in directing the preparations for October, pursued the line of isolating the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties, of winning the broad masses of the workers and peasants away from them. But how, concretely, was this isolation effected by the Party — in what form, under what slogan? It was effected in the form of the revolutionary mass movement for the power of the Soviets, under the slogan "All power to the Soviets!", by means of the struggle to convert the Soviets from organs for mobilizing the masses into organs of the uprising, into organs of power, into the apparatus of a new proletarian state power.
Why was it precisely the Soviets that the Bolsheviks seized upon as the principal organizational lever that could facilitate the task of isolating the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, that was capable of advancing the cause of the proletarian revolution, and that was destined to lead the millions of laboring masses to the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat?
What are the Soviets?
"The Soviets," said Lenin as early as September 1917, "are a new state apparatus, which, in the first place, provides an armed force of workers and peasants; and this force is not divorced from the people, as was the old standing army, but is most closely bound up with the people. From the military standpoint, this force is incomparably more powerful than previous forces; from the revolutionary standpoint, it cannot be replaced by anything else. Secondly, this apparatus provides a bond with the masses, with the majority of the people, so intimate, so indissoluble, so readily controllable and renewable, that there was nothing even remotely like it in the previous state apparatus. Thirdly, this apparatus, by virtue of the fact that its personnel is elected and subject to recall at the will of the people without any bureaucratic formalities, is far more democratic than any previous apparatus. Fourthly, it provides a close contact with the most diverse professions, thus facilitating the adoption of the most varied and most profound reforms without bureaucracy. Fifthly, it provides a form of organization of the vanguard, i.e., of the most politically conscious, most energetic and most progressive section of the oppressed classes, the workers and peasants, and thus constitutes an apparatus by means of which the vanguard of the oppressed classes can elevate, train, educate, and lead the entire vast mass of these classes, which has hitherto stood quite remote from political life, from history. Sixthly, it makes it possible to combine the advantages of parliamentarism with the advantages of immediate and direct democracy, i.e., to unite in the persons of the elected representatives of the people both legislative and executive functions. Compared with bourgeois parliamentarism, this represents an advance in the development of democracy which is of world-wide historic significance. . . .
"Had not the creative spirit of the revolutionary classes of the people given rise to the Soviets, the proletarian revolution in Russia would be a hopeless affair; for the proletariat undoubtedly could not retain power with the old state apparatus, and it is impossible to create a new apparatus immediately."
That is why the Bolsheviks seized upon the Soviets as the principal organizational link that could facilitate the task of organizing the October Revolution and the creation of a new, powerful apparatus of the proletarian state power.
From the point of view of its internal development, the slogan "All power to the Soviets!" passed through two stages: the first (up to the July defeat of the Bolsheviks, during the period of dual power), and the second (after the defeat of the Kornilov revolt).
During the first stage this slogan meant breaking the bloc of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries with the Cadets, the formation of a Soviet Government consisting of Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries (for at that time the Soviets were Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik), the right of free agitation for the opposition (i.e., for the Bolsheviks), and the free struggle of parties within the Soviets, in the expectation that by means of such a struggle the Bolsheviks would succeed in capturing the Soviets and changing the composition of the Soviet Government in the course of a peaceful development of the revolution. This plan, of course, did not signify the dictatorship of the proletariat. But it undoubtedly facilitated the preparation of the conditions required for ensuring the dictatorship; for, by putting the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries in power and compelling them to carry out in practice their anti-revolutionary platform, it hastened the exposure of the true nature of these parties, hastened their isolation, their divorce from the masses. The July defeat of the Bolsheviks, however, interrupted this development; for it gave preponderance to the generals' and Cadets' counter-revolution and threw the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks into the arms of that counter-revolution. This compelled the Party temporarily to withdraw the slogan "All power to the Soviets!", only to put it forward again in the conditions of a fresh revolutionary upsurge.
The defeat of the Kornilov revolt ushered in the second stage. The slogan "All power to the Soviets!" became again the immediate slogan. But now this slogan had a different meaning from that in the first stage. Its content had radically changed. Now this slogan meant a complete rupture with imperialism and the passing of power to the Bolsheviks, for the majority of the Soviets were already Bolshevik. Now this slogan meant the revolution's direct approach towards the dictatorship of the proletariat by means of an uprising. More than that, this slogan now meant the organization of the dictatorship of the proletariat and giving it a state form.
The inestimable significance of the tactics of transforming the Soviets into organs of state power lay in the fact that they caused millions of working people to break away from imperialism, exposed the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties as the tools of imperialism, and brought the masses by a direct route, as it were, to the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Thus, the policy of transforming the Soviets into organs of state power, as the most important condition for isolating the compromising parties and for the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat — such is the third specific feature of the tactics of the Bolsheviks in the period of preparation for October.
Fourth specific feature. The picture would not be complete if we did not deal with the question of how and why the Bolsheviks were able to transform their Party slogans into slogans for the vast masses, into slogans which pushed the revolution forward; how and why they succeeded in convincing not only the vanguard, and not only the majority of the working class, but also the majority of the people, of the correctness of their policy.
The point is that for the victory of the revolution, if it is really a people's revolution embracing the masses in their millions, correct Party slogans alone are not enough. For the victory of the revolution one more necessary condition is required, namely, that the masses themselves become convinced through their own experience of the correctness of these slogans. Only then do the slogans of the Party become the slogans of the masses themselves. Only then does the revolution really become a people's revolution. One of the specific features of the tactics of the Bolsheviks in the period of preparation for October was that they correctly determined the paths and turns which would naturally lead the masses to the Party's slogans — to the very threshold of the revolution, so to speak — thus helping them to feel, to test, to realize by their own experience the correctness of these slogans. In other words, one of the specific features of the tactics of the Bolsheviks is that they do not confuse leadership of the Party with leadership of the masses; that they clearly see the difference between the first sort of leadership and the second; that they, therefore, represent the science, not only of leadership of the Party, but of leadership of the vast masses of the working people.
A graphic example of the manifestation of this feature of Bolshevik tactics was provided by the experience of convening and dispersing the Constituent Assembly.
It is well known that the Bolsheviks advanced the slogan of a Republic of Soviets as early as April 1917. It is well known that the Constituent Assembly was a bourgeois parliament, fundamentally opposed to the principles of a Republic of Soviets. How could it happen that the Bolsheviks, who were advancing towards a Republic of Soviets, at the same time demanded that the Provisional Government should immediately convene the Constituent Assembly? How could it happen that the Bolsheviks not only took part in the elections, but themselves convened the Constituent Assembly? How could it happen that a month before the uprising, in the transition from the old to the new, the Bolsheviks considered a temporary combination of a Republic of Soviets with the Constituent Assembly possible?
This "happened" because:
1) the idea of a Constituent Assembly was one of the most popular ideas among the broad masses of the population;
2) the slogan of the immediate convocation of the Constituent Assembly helped to expose the counter-revolutionary nature of the Provisional Government;
3) in order to discredit the idea of a Constituent Assembly in the eyes of the masses, it was necessary to lead the masses to the walls of the Constituent Assembly with their demands for land, for peace, for the power of the Soviets, thus bringing them face to face with the actual, live Constituent Assembly;
4) only this could help the masses to become convinced through their own experience of the counter-revolutionary nature of the Constituent Assembly and of the necessity of dispersing it;
5) all this naturally presupposed the possibility of a temporary combination of the Republic of Soviets with the Constituent Assembly, as one of the means for eliminating the Constituent Assembly;
6) such a combination, if brought about under the condition that all power was transferred to the Soviets, could only signify the subordination of the Constituent Assembly to the Soviets, its conversion into an appendage of the Soviets, its painless extinction.
It scarcely needs proof that had the Bolsheviks not adopted such a policy the dispersion of the Constituent Assembly would not have taken place so smoothly, and the subsequent actions of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks under the slogan "All power to the Constituent Assembly!" would not have failed so signally.
"We took part," says Lenin, "in the elections to the Russian bourgeois parliament, the Constituent Assembly, in September-November 1917. Were our tactics correct or not? . . . Did not we, the Russian Bolsheviks, have more right in September-November 1917 than any Western Communists to consider that parliamentarism was politically obsolete in Russia? Of course we had; for the point is not whether bourgeois parliaments have existed for a long or a short time, but how far the broad masses of the working people are prepared (ideologically, politically and practically) to accept the Soviet system and to disperse the bourgeois-democratic parliament (or allow it to be dispersed). That, owing to a number of special conditions, the working class of the towns and the soldiers and peasants of Russia were in September-November 1917 exceptionally well prepared to accept the Soviet system and to disperse the most democratic of bourgeois parliaments, is an absolutely incontestable and fully established historical fact. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks did not boycott the Constituent Assembly, but took part in the elections both before the proletariat conquered political power and after." (See "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder.)
Why then did they not boycott the Constituent Assembly?
Because, says Lenin, "participation in a bourgeois-democratic parliament even a few weeks before the victory of a Soviet Republic, and even after such a victory, not only does not harm the revolutionary proletariat, but actually helps it to prove to the backward masses why such parliaments deserve to be dispersed; it helps their successful dispersal, and helps to make bourgeois parliamentarism 'politically obsolete.'" (See "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder)
It is characteristic that Trotsky does not understand this feature of Bolshevik tactics and snorts at the "theory" of combining the Constituent Assembly with the Soviets, qualifying it as Hilferdingism.
He does not understand that to permit such a combination, accompanied by the slogan of an uprising and the probable victory of the Soviets, in connection with the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, was the only revolutionary tactics, which had nothing in common with the Hilferding tactics of converting the Soviets into an appendage of the Constituent Assembly; he does not understand that the mistake committed by some comrades in this question gives him no grounds for disparaging the absolutely correct position taken by Lenin and the Party on the "combined type of state power" under certain conditions. (Cf. "Letter to Comrades")
He does not understand that if the Bolsheviks had not adopted this special policy towards the Constituent Assembly they would not have succeeded in winning over to their side the vast masses of the people; and if they had not won over these masses they could not have transformed the October uprising into a profound people's revolution.
It is interesting to note that Trotsky even snorts at the words "people," "revolutionary democracy," etc., occurring in articles by Bolsheviks, and considers them improper for a Marxist to use.
Trotsky has evidently forgotten that even in September 1917, a month before the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin, that unquestionable Marxist, wrote of "the necessity of the immediate transfer of the whole power to the revolutionary democracy headed by the revolutionary proletariat." (See Marxism and Insurrection.)
Trotsky has evidently forgotten that Lenin, that unquestionable Marxist, quoting the well-known letter of Marx to Kugelmann (April 1871) to the effect that the smashing of the bureaucratic-military state machine is the preliminary condition for every real people's revolution on the continent, writes in black and white the following lines:
"Particular attention should be paid to Marx's extremely profound remark that the destruction of the bureaucratic-military state machine is 'the preliminary condition for every real people's revolution.' This concept of a 'people's' revolution seems strange coming from Marx, and the Russian Plekhanovites and Mensheviks, those followers of Struve who wish to be regarded as Marxists, might possibly declare such an expression to be a 'slip of the pen' on Marx's part. They have reduced Marxism to such a state of wretchedly liberal distortion that nothing exists for them beyond the antithesis between bourgeois revolution and proletarian revolution — and even this antithesis they interpret in an extremely lifeless way. . . .
"In Europe, in 1871, there was not a single country on the continent in which the proletariat constituted the majority of the people. A 'people's' revolution, one that actually brought the majority into movement, could be such only if it embraced both the proletariat and the peasantry. These two classes then constituted the 'people.' These two classes are united by the fact that the 'bureaucratic-military state machine' oppresses, crushes, exploits them. To break up this machine, to smash it — this is truly in the interest of the 'people,' of the majority, of the workers and most of the peasants, this is 'the preliminary condition' for a free alliance between the poor peasants and the proletarians, whereas without such an alliance democracy is unstable and socialist transformation is impossible." (See The State and Revolution.)
These words of Lenin's should not be forgotten.
Thus, ability to convince the masses of the correctness of the Party slogans on the basis of their own experience, by bringing them to the revolutionary positions, as the most important condition for the winning over of the millions of working people to the side of the Party — such is the fourth specific feature of the tactics of the Bolsheviks in the period of preparation for October.
I think that what I have said is quite sufficient to get a clear idea of the characteristic features of these tactics.
IV. The October Revolution as the Beginning of and the Precondition for the World Revolution.
There can be no doubt that the universal theory of a simultaneous victory of the revolution in the principal countries of Europe, the theory that the victory of socialism in one country is impossible, has proved to be an artificial and untenable theory. The seven years' history of the proletarian revolution in Russia speaks not for but against this theory. This theory is unacceptable not only as a scheme of development of the world revolution, for it contradicts obvious facts. It is still less acceptable as a slogan; for it fetters, rather than releases, the initiative of individual countries which, by reason of certain historical conditions, obtain the opportunity to break through the front of capital independently; for it does not stimulate an active onslaught on capital in individual countries, but encourages passive waiting for the moment of the "universal denouement"; for it cultivates among the proletarians of the different countries not the spirit of revolutionary determination, but the mood of Hamlet-like doubt over the question, "What if the others fail to back us up?" Lenin was absolutely right in saying that the victory of the proletariat in one country is the "typical case," that "a simultaneous revolution in a number of countries" can only be a "rare exception." (See The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.)
But, as is well known, Lenin's theory of revolution is not limited only to this side of the question. It is also the theory of the development of the world revolution [See The Foundations of Leninism -J. V. Stalin]. The victory of socialism in one country is not a self-sufficient task. The revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in all countries. For the victory of the revolution in one country, in the present case Russia, is not only the product of the uneven development and progressive decay of imperialism; it is at the same time the beginning of and the precondition for the world revolution.
Undoubtedly, the paths of development of the world revolution are not as plain as it may have seemed previously, before the victory of the revolution in one country, before the appearance of developed imperialism, which is "the eve of the socialist revolution." For a new factor has arisen — the law of the uneven development of the capitalist countries, which operates under the conditions of developed imperialism, and which implies the inevitability of armed collisions, the general weakening of the world front of capital, and the possibility of the victory of socialism in individual countries. For a new factor has arisen — the vast Soviet country, lying between the West and the East, between the center of the financial exploitation of the world and the arena of colonial oppression, a country which by its very existence is revolutionizing the whole world.
All these are factors (not to mention other less important ones) which cannot be left out of account in studying the paths of development of the world revolution.
Formerly, it was commonly thought that the revolution would develop through the even "maturing" of the elements of socialism, primarily in the more developed, the "advanced," countries. Now this view must be considerably modified.
"The system of international relationships," says Lenin, "has now taken a form in which one of the states of Europe, viz., Germany, has been enslaved by the victor countries. Furthermore, a number of states, which are, moreover, the oldest states in the West, find themselves in a position, as the result of their victory, to utilize this victory to make a number of insignificant concessions to their oppressed classes — concessions which nevertheless retard the revolutionary movement in those countries and create some semblance of 'social peace.'
"At the same time, precisely as a result of the last imperialist war, a number of countries — the East, India, China, etc. — have been completely dislodged from their groove. Their development has definitely shifted to the general European capitalist lines. The general European ferment has begun to affect them, and it is now clear to the whole world that they have been drawn into a process of development that cannot but lead to a crisis in the whole of world capitalism."
In view of this fact, and in connection with it, "the West-European capitalist countries will consummate their development towards socialism . . . not as we formerly expected. They are consummating it not by the even 'maturing' of socialism in them, but by the exploitation of some countries by others, by the exploitation of the first of the countries to be vanquished in the imperialist war combined with the exploitation of the whole of the East. On the other hand, precisely as a result of the first imperialist war, the East has definitely come into the revolutionary movement, has been definitely drawn into the general maelstrom of the world revolutionary movement." (See Better Fewer, But Better.)
If we add to this the fact that not only the defeated countries and colonies are being exploited by the victorious countries, but that some of the victorious countries are falling into the orbit of financial exploitation at the hands of the most powerful of the victorious countries, America and Britain; that the contradictions among all these countries are an extremely important factor in the disintegration of world imperialism; that, in addition to these contradictions, very profound contradictions exist and are developing within each of these countries; that all these contradictions are becoming more profound and more acute because of the existence, alongside these countries, of the great Republic of Soviets — if all this is taken into consideration, then the picture of the special character of the international situation will become more or less complete.
Most probably, the world revolution will develop by the breaking away of a number of new countries from the system of the imperialist states as a result of revolution, while the proletarians of these countries will be supported by the proletariat of the imperialist states. We see that the first country to break away, the first victorious country, is already being supported by the workers and the laboring masses of other countries. Without this support it could not hold out. Undoubtedly, this support will increase and grow. But there can also be no doubt that the very development of the world revolution, the very process of the breaking away from imperialism of a number of new countries will be the more rapid and thorough, the more thoroughly socialism becomes consolidated in the first victorious country, the faster this country is transformed into a base for the further unfolding of the world revolution, into a lever for the further disintegration of imperialism.
While it is true that the final victory of socialism in the first country to emancipate itself is impossible without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several countries, it is equally true that the unfolding of the world revolution will be the more rapid and thorough, the more effective the assistance rendered by the first socialist country to the workers and laboring masses of all other countries.
In what should this assistance be expressed?
It should be expressed, firstly, in the victorious country achieving "the utmost possible in one country f o r the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries. (See The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.)
It should be expressed, secondly, in that the "victorious proletariat" of one country, "having expropriated the capitalists and organized its own socialist production, would stand up . . . against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, raising revolts in those countries against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity coming out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states." (See On the Slogan for a United States of Europe.)
The characteristic feature of the assistance given by the victorious country is not only that it hastens the victory of the proletarians of other countries, but also that, by facilitating this victory, it ensures the final victory of socialism in the first victorious country.
Most probably, in the course of development of the world revolution, side by side with the centers of imperialism in individual capitalist countries and with the system of these countries throughout the world, centers of socialism will be created in individual Soviet countries and a system of these centers throughout the world, and the struggle between these two systems will fill the history of the unfolding of the world revolution.
For, says Lenin, "the free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states." (See On the Slogan for a United States of Europe.)
The world significance of the October Revolution lies not only in the fact that it constitutes a great beginning made by one country in causing a breach in the system of imperialism and that it is the first center of socialism in the ocean of imperialist countries, but also in that it constitutes the first stage of the world revolution and a mighty base for its further development.
Therefore, not only those are wrong who forget the international character of the October Revolution and declare the victory of socialism in one country to be a purely national, and only a national, phenomenon, but also those who, although they bear in mind the international character of the October Revolution, are inclined to regard this revolution as something passive, merely destined to accept help from without. Actually, not only does the October Revolution need support from the revolution in other countries, but the revolution in those countries needs the support of the October Revolution, in order to accelerate and advance the cause of overthrowing world imperialism.

https://communismgr.blogspot.gr/2016/11/joseph-v-stalin-october-revolution-and.html

Stalin, etc.

Grover Furr

Orlando Figes. Revolutionary Russia 1891-1991. A History. Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt & Co., 2014.

Stephen Kotkin. Stalin. Volume 1. Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928. Penguin, 2014.

Timothy Snyder. Bloodlands. Europe between Hitler and Stalin. Basic Books, 2010.

William Zimmerman. Ruling Russia. Authoritarianism from the Revolution to Putin. Princeton University Press, 2014.

The search for the truth in any field of study requires objectivity. Objectivity demands that the researcher distrust his own preconceived ideas and take concrete steps to prevent them from predetermining the conclusions of the research. Failure to do this will produce not history but a recapitulation of the historian’s biases. A second prerequisite is reliance on primary source evidence.

These well-known criteria of good historiography are routinely violated in the field of Soviet history. All of the books under consideration do so. The inevitable result is not good, objective historiography representing the best interpretation of the available primary source evidence, but “propaganda with footnotes.”

The issue is especially clear given the flood of new primary sources in the field of Stalin-period Soviet history. In January 1980 Trotsky’s personal papers, housed at Harvard, were opened for researchers. In Russia after 1991 an avalanche of documents from former Soviet archives have been published. These new resources thoroughly dismantle the post-Khrushchev, Trotskyist, and Cold War versions of the Stalin period. Consequently this new evidence is ignored by the books under review here, and by many other similar works.

Indeed, most of the newer studies of the Stalin period are really attacks on Stalin, the Soviet Union, and the communist movement generally. They are morality tales dressed up as scholarship. Most rely heavily on unexamined concepts such as “democracy,” “rule by terror,” and “dictatorship.” The contestations around these terms are not acknowledged. Rather, they cited as self-evidence qualities of Western capitalist countries or of the USSR during Stalin’s time.

Zimmerman

William Zimmerman cites no primary research. His book relies entirely on works by others, some secondary sources (= studies of primary sources), many not. Zimmerman cites these indiscriminately. He has no source criticism – no attempt to assess which of his sources are reliable and which are not.

On page 114 Zimmerman states that Kleimenov, an accused prisoner, was “tortured severely,” citing an article by Asif Siddiqi. Siddiqi claims that Kleimenov was “beaten severely” and confessed to “trumped-up charges,” footnoting a Russian-language article by Anisimov and Oppokov.1 But that article states clearly: “It is not hard to presume the following version of events” – that Kleimenov and others “were subjected to physical and moral pressure.”2

That is, the Russian authors have committed the fallacy of “petitio principii,” “begging the question” (assuming that which ought to be proven). They assumed that Kleimenov was innocent, and so had to further assume that that his confession was obtained by “physical and moral pressure.” In reality, the guilt or innocence of the convicted prisoners and whether they had been subjected to “physical pressure” of any kind are precisely what must be proven, not assumed.

Another example: Zimmerman claims that Stalin “personally signed the death warrants of thousands.” (120) He gives no reference but can only mean the so-called “Stalin shooting lists” mentioned by Khrushchev and now available online. However, these lists are not “death warrants” – whatever that might be – but lists of names of persons facing trial for political crimes that were sent to the Party Secretariat “for review.” According to the lists’ anticommunist editors many of those whose names are on the lists were not in fact executed and some were freed:

For example, a selective study of the list for Kuibyshev oblast’ signed on September 29, 1938 has shown that not a single person on this list was convicted by the VK VS [Military Collegium of the Supreme Court], and a significant number of the cases were dismissed altogether.3

It was Zimmerman’s responsibility to check his sources such as Siddiqi and the “lists.” But he did not do so. His book is full of similar failings. The result is a work whose portrayal of Soviet history has no relation to reality.

Figes

Orlando Figes has constructed his book around his anticommunist and anti-Stalin bias that the Soviet period was one long disaster. Many of his fact-claims are not sourced, presumably because the evidence does not support Figes’ account.

Citing no evidence, Figes claims that 25,000 prisoners died constructing the Belomor Canal in 1931-32. The primary source 4 gives the fatalities as 3448 (1438 for 1931, 2010 for 1932), figures confirmed by Russian demographer V.M. Zemskov.5 This is less than 1/7 of Figes’ number.

Figes assumes that Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko, convicted and shot in in 1938, was innocent. Once again, this is “begging the question,” assuming that which must be proven. In 2001 Zviagintsev and Orlov, two anti-Stalin researchers, published A-O’s confession.6 An anticommunist collection of documents published in 2000 reveals that A-O told investigators he had been recruited to an opposition conspiracy by Nikolai Krylenko.7 All the evidence we possess points towards A-O’s guilt. This is not “proof positive,” but it is the only evidence of any kind we have. Figes simply ignores it.

According to Figes the charge that Zinoviev and Kamenev were part of a conspiracy to assassinate Stalin is “outlandish.” (194) This is another logical fallacy: the “argument from incredulity.”8 The fact that Figes finds the charges incredible is not a statement about the charges but about Figes himself.

We have long had much other evidence pointing towards the defendants’ guilt. We know that the “bloc of Rights and Trotskyists” alleged in all three Moscow Trials did in fact exist -- Pierre Broué discovered the evidence in the Harvard Trotsky archives in 1980.9 In 1992 the death sentence appeals of both Zinoviev and Kamenev were published. In them they reiterate their guilt in the strongest terms while pleading for clemency.10 Figes conceals all this and much more from his readers.

Snyder

Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands. Europe Between Hitler and Stalin has been translated into twenty-six languages and has won many awards. Snyder seldom uses primary sources; his main references are to Polish and Ukrainian secondary sources. None of the secondary (or, in a few cases, primary) sources Snyder cites as evidence actually support his fact-claims. I have documented this in my 580-page book Blood Lies. The Evidence that Every Accusation Against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands Is False.

Snyder had the resources of the highly motivated and ferociously anticommunist researchers of Poland and Ukraine. Yet they were unable to find genuine evidence to support allegations of crimes and atrocities by Stalin. This may be as close as we will ever come to having evidence that, in reality, Stalin committed no crimes or atrocities.

Kotkin

Stephen Kotkin has published the first volume, to the year 1928, of a planned biography of Stalin. It is the most sophisticated of the works reviewed here. Kotkin rejects many of the anti-Stalin fables that mar so many other works, like the tale that Stalin was beaten by his father, which Kotkin calls “the trope of the traumatized childhood.” He pays no attention to the old turnip, still often retold, that Stalin was recruited as an agent by the Tsarist secret police. Although he believes (without any evidence) that Stalin helped plan the Tiflis robbery of 1907, he does not moralize about it. Kotkin accepts as a fact the allegation that Stalin had two children by a young Siberian woman. This story, which originated with Ivan Serov, Khrushchev’s KGB head, has its problems.11 There’s no evidence for the first child, and Kotkin, like Serov, gets the young woman’s name wrong. But he resists the temptation to condemn Stalin for it.

Kotkin’s account of some incidents is quite objective: that Stalin was appointed General Secretary in 1922 on Lenin’s recommendation; that Stalin was not responsible for the failure of the Polish campaign of 1920. Alone among anticommunist writers Kotkin accepts Valentin Sakharov’s conclusion that the so-called “Testament” of Lenin may well have been a forgery by Lenin’s wife Krupskaia, perhaps in collusion with Trotsky.12 Kotkin is reasonably objective about Stalin’s modest responsibility for the 1927 debacle of the Chinese communist party.

But Kotkin’s objectivity is undermined by his stubborn adherence to the required premises of the anti-Stalin paradigm. He insists that collectivization caused the famine of 1932-33 – completely wrong, as the research of Mark Tauger has proven and as Davies and Wheatcroft largely agree.13

Kotkin refers to “countless fabricated trials of the 1920s and 1930s” but cites no evidence that any of them were fabricated because no such evidence exists.14 He simply omits evidence to the contrary, like the 1971 revelation of Nikolai Bukharin’s friend Jules Humbert-Droz that Bukharin and his supporters plotted to murder Stalin as early as 192815; or Pierre Broué’s discovery that the bloc of Rights and Trotskyists did exist; or Arch Getty’s discovery that Trotsky really had maintained contact with supporters in the USSR with whom he claimed to have broken ties16; or the fact that Trotsky really was plotting “terror” against the Stalin leadership, as reported by NKVD agent Mark Zborowski, who successfully infiltrated the circle around Leon Sedov, Trotsky’s son and chief co-conspirator.17

Putin

The spurt of new interest in Stalin over the past few years may be due in part to Western hostility towards Vladimir Putin, who has proven far less compliant to NATO than were his predecessors Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev. Right-wing political commentator George Will has called Russian President Vladimir Putin “Stalin’s spawn.”18 One way to express Putin’s unacceptability is to portray him as an “authoritarian” like Stalin, despite Russia’s multiparty elections. (Meanwhile Ukraine, a NATO ally, is called “democratic” despite the unconstitutional overthrow of its Russian president Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014.)

There is also an attempt to minimize the Soviet role under Stalin’s leadership in defeating Nazi Germany in World War II. Putin was not invited to the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz in January 1945, where Polish Foreign Minister Grzegorz Schetyna claimed that it was “Ukrainian” troops who had liberated the death camp (it wasn’t).19 This is part of the general denial that the Red Army “liberated” anybody, since the Poles and other Eastern European anticommunists deny that the Red Army “liberated” their countries. Jewish groups disagree, since the Red Army liberated Jews not just from the Nazis but from anti-Semitic Polish and Ukrainian nationalist killers who are now celebrated as heroes in those countries for their anticommunism.

A central purpose of Zimmerman’s book is to tie Putin to Stalin’s under the term “authoritarianism.” Figes is gentler on Putin (293-5) but he repeats hoary falsehoods such as the one about Stalin’s “loss of confidence” during the first week of the war (218). Figes alleges a crucial role for “terror and coercion” in “forcing” Red Army soldiers to fight (221), a tale refuted in Jochen Hellbeck’s recent study of Stalingrad.20 Figes claims that Stalin regarded soldiers as “cannon fodder” and that “the individual counted for nothing,” (227) again without evidence. A comparison with Allied commanders in both world wars would have been relevant here.

Why Now?

Leon Trotsky was evidently the first person to yoke the Soviet Union together with Nazi Germany by adopting the term “totalitarian.”21 The political usefulness of this connection blossomed after World War 2. It reinforced the concept of the “Free World,” which embraced all anticommunist states including the most violent and repressive, and the pro-Nazi forces of Eastern Europe, now rechristened “nationalists,” whose atrocities often exceeded even those of the Nazis themselves. It also distracted attention away from the violence and repressiveness of Western imperialism in Southeast Asia (Indochina, the Dutch East Indies), Africa (Kenya), and Latin America. Here the “Free World” refused to grant the freedom and democracy they claimed to support.

Snyder’s Bloodlands is devoted to arguing the moral equivalence of Nazi Germany and the USSR, and its greatest supporters are the apologists for Ukrainian and Polish “nationalists,” who, despite their enthusiastic participation in the Holocaust, were useful in the anticommunist cause to the extent their fascist essence could be obscured. Snyder himself has cautiously distanced himself from the Ukrainian Nazi Stepan Bandera,22 though not from the equally anti-Semitic Polish Home Army.23 Some historians of the Holocaust have called Snyder out for giving aid and comfort to the fascist nationalists in the way – after all, the Red Army did liberate the Jews.24 These historians do not criticize Snyder’s falsifications about Soviet history.25 Perhaps they are ignorant of them.

As the politics of the regimes in the formerly socialist countries of Eastern Europe move steadily to the Right, their need to equate the USSR with Nazi Germany, Stalin with Hitler, and communism with Nazism, grows ever more pressing. Poland has outlawed any display of communist symbols, even by the communist party itself. Ukraine recently outlawed the communist party altogether, while “nationalist” Ukrainian militia openly display swastikas and SS runes. Ukrainian nationalism is based upon the twin myths of the “Holodomor” and of the mass murderers of the Ukrainian anticommunist underground as “freedom fighters.”

The field of Soviet history was founded as servant to the political project of attacking and destroying the Soviet Union. After Nikita Khrushchev’s assault on Joseph Stalin in his “Secret Speech” of February 1956, Western historians eagerly accepted and repeated Khrushchev’s claims. But Khrushchev cited no evidence; in fact it was clear from the first that much of what Khrushchev said was false, e.g. that Stalin planned military campaigns “on a globe.” (It has since been shown that all of Khrushchev’s accusations against Stalin are false.26) But Khrushchev’s speech proved to be too valuable a weapon to abandon simply because it was not true. The same bias continues to poison the historiography of the Soviet Union during the Stalin period to the present day.

The anti-scientific, politicized nature of research into Soviet history is an attack on the canons of rational inquiry. If politics dominated medicine as it does the research into Soviet history, we would still be burning witches to cure murrain in cattle. It is always in the interest of capitalist states to depict the most successful socialist revolutions as negatively as possible. Meanwhile, there are no loci of influence devoted to discovering the truth. A truthful history of the Soviet Union during the period of Stalin’s leadership remains in the hands of individual historians, working without institutional support, who are committed to discovering the failures and triumphs of the first great socialist experiment.

1 Asif Siddiqi, “The Rockets' Red Glare: Technology, Conflict, and Terror in the Soviet Union.” Technology and Culture, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), 491.
2 “Proisschestvie v NII-3.” Voenno-istoricheskii zhurnal, no. 10 (1989), 83.
3 “Vvedenie” (Introduction) to “Stalinskie rasstrel’nye spiski” (Stalin Shootling Lists), at http://stalin.memo.ru/images/intro.htm (Main page: http://stalin.memo.ru/)
4 A.I. Kokurin, IU. N Morukov, eds. Stalinskie Stroiki GULAGA 1930 – 1953. Dokumenty. [Stalinist GULAG Construction] Moscow: MDF – “Materik” 2005, 33-34.
5 “Zakliuchennye v 1930-e gody: sotsial’no-demograficheskie problem.” Otechestvennaia istoria 4 (1997), Table 6 p. 61. The first number, 1438, is printed erroneously, in the wrong row.
6 A.G. Zviagintsev, IU.G. Orlov, Ot pervogo prokurora Rossii do posledneto prokurora Soiuza. M – Olma-Press, 2001, chapter on Antonov-Ovseenko, at Online at http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/144271/42/Zvyagincev,_Orlov_-_Ot_pervogo_prokurora_Rossii_do_poslednego_prokurora_Soyuza.html
7 Reabilitatsia. Kak Eto Bylo. Mart 1953 – Fevral’ 1956 g. Moscow, 2000, 217.
8 For one discussion, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination
9 Pierre Broué, “Trotsky et le bloc des oppositions de 1932.” Cahiers Léon Trotsky 5 (Jan-Mar 1980), pp. 5-37.
10 “Rasskaz o desiati rasstreliannykh” (“Story of ten who were shot”), Izvestia September 2 1992, p. 3.
11 “Pis’mo predsedatel’ia KGB pri SM SSSR I.A. Serova…” In Aleksandr V. Ostrovskii, Kto stoial za spinoi Stalina? Spb: Isdatel’skii Dom ‘Neva’; Moscow: ‘OLMA-Press’, 2003, illustrations following p. 384. Online at http://www.e-reading.club/chapter.php/1009734/183/Ostrovskiy_-_Kto_stoyal_za_spinoy_Stalina%3F.html (search for “Foto No 10”
12 V.A. Sakharov, “Politicheskoe zaveshchanie”V.I. Lenina: real’nost’ istorii i mify politiki. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo MGU [Moscow State University], 2003.
13 Full references are in Furr, Blood Lies, Chapter One.
14 For an evaluation of the evidence concerning the Trials testimony see Part One of Grover Furr. Trotsky’s “Amalgams.” Trotsky's Lies, The Moscow Trials As Evidence, The Dewey Commission. (Trotsky's Conspiracies of the 1930s, Volume One). Kettering OH: Erythros Press & Media LLC, 2015.
15 Humbert-Droz, Jules. Mémoirs de Jules Humbert-Droz. De Lénin à Staline, Dix Ans Au Service de L’ Internationale Communiste 1921-31. Neuchâtel: A la Baconnière, 1971.
16 J. Arch Getty, “Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International.” Soviet Studies 38 No. 1 (January 1986) 24-35.
17 Furr, Trotsky’s ‘Amalgams’ 292 ff.
18 “Russia and Ukraine Share a Brutal History.” Washington Post March 17, 2014.
19 This was widely reported. See Adam Easton, “Poland-Russia row sours Auschwitz commemoration.” BBC News 26 January 2015. At http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-30957027
20 See the brief discussion by Michael Sontheimer, “Revisiting Stalingrad. An Inside Look at Woorld War II’s Bloodiest Battle.” Spiegel Online 11/02.2012. At http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/frank-interviews-with-red-army-soldiers-shed-new-light-on-stalingrad-a-863229.html
21 According to Trotskyist historians IUrii Fel’shtinskii and Georgii Cherniavskii, Lev Trotskii. Vrag No.1. 1929-1940. Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, 2013, 380, 383.
22 Snyder, “A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev.” New York Review of Books February 24, 2010.
23 For a good exposure of the Home Army’s murderous antisemitism see Stefan Zgliczynski, Jak Polacy Niemcom ?]Zydów Mordowac Pomagali (“How Poles Helped Germans Murder Jews”). Warsaw: Czarna Owca, 2013. The author is the editor of the Polish edition of Le monde diplomatique. The Home Army collaborated with the Germans against the Red Army; see Bernhard Chiari, “Kriegslist oder Bündnis mit dem Feind? Deutsch-Polnische Kontakte 1943-44.” In Die Polnische Heimatarmee. Geschichte und Mythos der Armia Krajowa seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Vlg, 2003, 497-527. Snyder fails to mention this fact though he has an essay in this same collection.
24 See many articles at the site “Defending History,” for example at http://defendinghistory.com/east-european-nationalist-abuse-of-timothy-snyders-bloodlands
25 Snyder’s wholesale falsification concerning Soviet actions is the subject of my book Blood Lies.
26 Grover Furr. Khrushchev Lied: The Evidence That Every "Revelation" of Stalin's (and Beria's) Crimes in Nikita Khrushchev's Infamous "Secret Speech" to the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956, is Provably False. Kettering, OH: Erythrós Press & Media LLC, 2011.

https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/gf_marxmem2016.html

Stalin

Source: The Soviets Expected It, The Dial Press, New York, 1941, pp. 46-64
Transcription/HTML Markup: Brian Reid
Copyright: Reproduced under “Fair Use” provisions.


YEARS AGO, when I first lunched with President Roosevelt just after he had seen H. G. Wells, I found that of all the subjects in the Soviet Union the one that interested him the most was the personality of Stalin and especially the technique of “Stalin’s rule.” It is a natural interest; I think it interests most Americans. The unbroken rise of Stalin’s prestige for twenty years both within the Soviet Union and beyond its borders is really worth attention by students of politics.

Yet most of the American press brags of its ignorance of Stalin by frequently alluding to the “enigmatic ruler in the Kremlin.” Cartoons and innuendo have been used to create the legend of a crafty, bloodthirsty dictator who even strives to involve the world in war and chaos so that something called “Bolshevism” may gain. This preposterous legend will shortly die. It was based on the fact that most American editors couldn’t really afford to understand the Soviet Union, and that Stalin himself was usually inaccessible to foreign journalists. Men who had hit the high spots around the world and chatted cozily with Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Franklin D. Roosevelt and even Chiang Kai-shek were irritated when Josef Stalin wouldn’t give them time. The fact of the matter was that Stalin was busy with a job to which foreign contacts and publicity did not contribute. His job, like that of a Democratic National Chairman, was organizing the ruling party and through it the country.

Since the German-Soviet war began, Stalin has become chief of the army and government. He will see more foreigners now. He made a good beginning with Harry Hopkins and W. Averell Harriman. They seem to have been impressed! I know how they were impressed for I also met Stalin. In the light of the impressions that leading Americans and Britons are now going to have of him, the legend of the inscrutable dictator will die. We may even come to hear Stalin spoken of, as a Soviet writer once described him, as “the world’s great democrat”!

When I met Stalin, I did not find him enigmatic. I found him the easiest person to talk to I ever met. He is far and away the best committee chairman of my experience. He can bring everybody’s views out and combine them in the minimum of time. His method of running committees reminded me somewhat of Jane Addams of Hull House or Lillian D. Wald of Henry Street Settlement. They had the same kind of democratically efficient technique, but they used more high pressure than Stalin did.

If Stalin has been inaccessible to foreigners—there were exceptions even to this—that does not mean that he lived in isolation, in a sort of Kremlin ivory tower. There were close to 200,000,000 people keeping him busy. He was seeing a lot of them. Not always necessarily the party leaders. A milkmaid who had broken the milking record, a scientist who had broken the atom, an aviator who flew to America, a coal miner who invented a new labor process, a workman with a housing difficulty, an engineer balked by new conditions—any person representing either a signal achievement or a typical problem might be invited by Stalin to talk it over. That was the way he got his data and kept in touch with the movement of the country.

That, I realized afterwards, was why Stalin saw me. For nearly ten years I had liked his country and tried to succeed there, for nearly two I had organized and tried to edit a little weekly newspaper for other Americans who had come to work for the Five Year Plan. And what with censorship, red tape, and what seemed the wanton emergence of another competing weekly, I wanted to give up. My editor-in-chief was practically blackmailing me that, if I resigned, he would ruin my reputation. Exhausted and angry, I was feeling trapped. A Russian friend suggested that I complain to Stalin. I did. Three days later his office called me up and suggested that I come down and talk it over with “some responsible comrades.” It was done so casually that I almost refused, for the editor-in-chief had finally agreed to my resignation and I was “through with it all.” But I felt that after sending that letter it was only polite to go.

I expected to see some fairly high official at the party headquarters, and was rather stunned when the auto drove straight to the Kremlin and especially when I entered a large conference room and saw not only Stalin rising to greet me, but Kaganovich and Voroshilov too! It seemed overwhelmingly disproportionate. Later I realized that it was not my little problem that chiefly concerned them. I was one of several thousand Americans who had begun to worry them. We had come to the Soviet Union to work in its industries. We were reasonably honest and efficient, but we couldn’t make good. Stalin wanted to know what was the matter with us in our adjustment to Soviet industry. By investigating my troubles he would learn what made us Americans click, or more often not click, in the Soviet land. But if he learned about Americans from me, I learned from him something equally important—how the Soviet Union is put together and how Stalin works.

My first impression of him was vaguely disappointing. A stocky figure in a simple suit of khaki color, direct, unassuming, whose first concern was to know whether I understood Russian sufficiently to take part in discussion. Not very imposing for so great a man, I thought. Then we sat down rather casually, and Stalin was not even at the head of the table; Voroshilov was. Stalin took a place where he could see all our faces and started the talk by a pointed question to the man against whom I had complained. After that Stalin seemed to become a sort of background, against which other people’s comments went on. The brilliant wit of Kaganovich, the cheerful chuckle of Voroshilov, the characteristics of the lesser people called to consult, all suddenly stood out. I began to understand them all and like them; I even began to understand the editor against whom I had complained. Suddenly I myself was talking and getting my facts out faster and more clearly than I ever did in my life. People seemed to agree with me. Everything got to the point very fast and smoothly, with Stalin saying less than anyone.

Afterward in thinking it over I realized how Stalin’s genius for listening helped each of us express ourselves and understand the others. I recalled his trick of repeating a word of mine either with questioning intonation or a slight emphasis, which suddenly made me feel I had either not quite seen the point or perhaps had overstated it, and so drove me to make it plainer. I recalled how he had done this to others also. Then I understood that his listening has been a dynamic force.

This listening habit dates back to the early days of his revolutionary career. “I remember him very well from the early days of our Party,” said a veteran Bolshevik to me. “A quiet youth who sat at the edge of the committee, saying almost nothing, but listening very much. Toward the end he would make a few comments, sometimes merely as questions. Gradually we came to see that he always summed up best our joint thinking.” The description will be recognized by anyone who ever met Stalin. In any group he is usually last to express his opinion. He does not want to block the full expression of others, as he might easily do by speaking first. Besides this, he is always learning by listening.

“He listens even to the way the grass grows,” said a Soviet citizen to me.

On the data thus gathered, Stalin forms conclusions, not “alone in the night,” which Emil Ludwig said was Mussolini’s way, but in conference and discussion. Even in interviews, he seldom receives the interviewer alone; Molotov, Voroshilov, or Kaganovich are likely to be about. Probably he does not even grant an interview without discussing it first with his closest comrades. This is a habit he formed very early. In the days of the underground revolutionary movement, he grew accustomed to close teamwork with comrades who held each other’s lives in their hands. In order to survive, they must learn to agree quickly and unanimously, to feel each other’s instincts, to guess even at a distance each other’s brains. It was in such a group that he gained his Party name—it is not the one that he was born with—“the Steel One, Stalin.”

If I should explain Stalin to politicians, I should call him a superlatively good committeeman. Is this too prosaic a term for the leader of 200,000,000 people? I might call him instead a farseeing statesman; this also is true. Put more important than Stalin’s genius is the fact that it is expressed through good committee work. His talent for co-operative action is more significant for the world than the fact that he is great.

Soviet people have a way of putting it which sounds rather odd to Americans. “Stalin does not think individually,” they say. It is the exact opposite of the “rugged individualist” ideal. But they mean it as the very highest compliment. They mean that Stalin thinks not only with his own brain but in consultation with the brains of the Academy of Science, the chiefs of industry, the Congress of Trade Unions, the Party leaders. Scientists use this way of thinking; so do good trade unionists. They do not “think individually”; they do not rely on the conclusions of a single brain. It is a highly useful characteristic, for no single human brain today is big enough to decide the world’s complex problems. Only the combination of many brains thinking together, not in conflict but in co-operation, can safely handle the problems of today.

Stalin himself has said this a score of times to various interviewers. When Emil Ludwig and, later, Roy Howard sought to learn “how the great dictator made up his mind,” Stalin told them: “Single persons cannot decide. Experience has shown us that individual decisions, uncorrected by others, contain a large percentage of error.”

Soviet people never speak of “Stalin’s will” or “Stalin’s orders”; they speak of “government orders” and “the Party line,” which are decisions produced collectively. But they speak very much of “Stalin’s method” as a method that everyone should learn. It is the method of getting swift decisions out of the brains of many people, the method of good committee work. It is studied carefully in the Soviet Union by bright young men who go in for politics.

For me, the method was emphasized again in the days that immediately followed that first conference. It had seemed to me that Stalin, Voroshilov, Kaganovich, and everybody else had agreed on a certain action. Then the days went by and frothing happened, till the conference seemed almost a dream. I confided my worry to a Russian acquaintance. He laughed.

“That is our ‘terrible democracy,’” he told me. “Of course, your affair is really settled, but technically it must be approved by all the members of the Political Bureau, some of whom are in the Caucasus and some in Leningrad. It will go as routine with a lot of other decisions and none of them will bother about your question because they know nothing about it. But this is our usual safeguard for anyone of the members may wish to add or change something in some decision. That decision will then go back to committee till all are satisfied.”

Stalin brings certain important qualities to these joint decisions. People who meet him are first of all impressed by his directness and simplicity, his swift approach. Next they notice his clearness and objectivity in handling questions. He completely lacks Hitler’s emotional hysteria and Mussolini’s cocky self-assertion; he does not thrust himself into the picture. Gradually one becomes aware of his keen analysis, his colossal knowledge, his grip of world politics, his willingness to face facts, and especially his long view, which fits the problem into history, judging not only its immediate factors, but its past and future too.

Stalin’s rise to power came rather slowly. The rise of his type is slow and sure. It began far back with his study of human history and especially the history of revolutions. President Roosevelt commented to me with surprise on Stalin’s knowledge of the Cromwellian Revolution in Britain as shown in his talk with H. G. Wells. But Stalin quite naturally studied both the British and the American historical revolutions far more intimately than British and American politicians do. Tsarist Russia was due for a revolution. Stalin intended to be in it and help give it form. He made himself a thorough scientist on the process of history from the Marxian viewpoint: how the masses of people live, how their industrial technique and social forms develop, how social classes arise and struggle, how they succeed. Stalin analyzed and compared all past revolutions. He wrote many books about them. But he is not only a scientist; he also acts.

In the early days of the Revolution, Stalin’s name was hardly known outside the Party. In 1923, during Lenin’s last illness, I was told by men whose judgment I trusted that Stalin was “our coming man.” They based this on his keen knowledge of political forces and his close attention to political organization as secretary of the Communist Party. They also based it on his accurate timing of swift action and said that thus far in the Revolution he hid not once guessed wrong. They said that he was the man to whom “responsible Party men” turned for the clearest statement of what they all thought., In those days Trotsky sneered at Stalin as the “most average man” in the Party. In a sense it was true. Stalin keeps close to the “average man”; the “average man” is the material of politics. But Stalin does it with a genius that is very far from average.

“The art of leadership,” said Stalin once, “is a serious matter. One must not lag behind the movement, because to do so is to become isolated from the masses. But one must not rush ahead, for this is to lose contact with the masses.” He was telling his comrades how to become leaders; he was also expressing his own ideal, which he has very effectively practiced.

Twenty years ago in the Russian civil war, Stalin’s instinct for the feeling of the common people more than once helped the Soviet armies to victory. The best known of these moments was the dispute between Stalin and Trotsky about an advance through the North Caucasus. Trotsky wanted to take the shortest military route. Stalin pointed out that this shortcut lay across the unfriendly lands of the Cossacks and would in the end prove longer and bloodier. He chose a somewhat roundabout way through working-class cities and friendly farming regions, where the common people rose to help the Red Armies instead of opposing them. The contrast was typical; it has been illustrated since then by twenty years of history. Stalin is completely at home in the handling of social forces, as is shown by his call today for a “people’s war” in the rear of the German Armies. He knows how to arouse the terrible force of an angry people, how to organize it and release it to gain the people’s desires.

The outside world began to hear of Stalin in the discussions that preceded the first Five Year Plan. (I wrote an article some five years earlier, predicting his rise as Lenin’s successor, but the article went unnoticed; it was several years too soon.) Russian workers outside the Communist Party began to think of Stalin as their leader during the first spectacular expansion of Soviet industry. He first became a leader among the peasants in March, 1930, through his famous article, “Dizziness from Success,” in which he checked the abuses that were taking place in farm collectivization. I have described its effect on the rural districts in the preceding chapter. I remember Walter Duranty waving that article at me and saying, “At last there is a leader in this land!”

Stalin’s great moment when he first appeared as leader of the whole Soviet people was when, as Chairman of the Constitutional Commission, he presented the new Constitution of the Socialist State. A commission of thirty-one of the country’s ablest historians, economists, and political scientists had been instructed to create “the world’s most democratic constitution” with the most accurate machinery yet devised for obtaining “the will of the people.” They spent a year and a half in detailed study of every past constitution in the world, not only of governments but of trade unions and voluntary societies. The draft that they prepared was then discussed by the Soviet people for several months in more than half a million meetings attended by 36,500,000 people. The number of suggested amendments that reached the Constitutional Commission from the popular discussions was 154,000. Stalin himself is known to have read tens of thousands of the people’s letters.

Two thousand people sat in the great white hall of the Kremlin Palace when Stalin made his report to the Congress of Soviets. Below me, where I sat in the journalists’ box, was the main floor filled with the Congress deputies; around me in the loges sat the foreign diplomatic corps; behind me, in a deep gallery, were citizen-visitors. Outside the hall tens of millions of people listened over the radio, from the southern cotton fields of Central Asia to the scientific stations on the Arctic coast. It was a high point of Soviet history. But Stalin’s words were direct and simple and as informal as if he sat at a fireside talking with a few friends. He explained the significance of the Constitution, took up the suggested amendments, referred a large number of them to various lawmaking bodies and himself discussed the most important. He made it plain that everyone of those 154,000 suggestions had been classified somewhere and would influence something.

Among the dozen or more amendments which Stalin personally discussed, he approved of those that facilitated democratic expression and disapproved of those that limited democracy. Some people felt, for instance, that the different constituent republics should not be granted the right to secede from the Soviet Union; Stalin said that, while they probably would not want to secede, their right to do so should be constitutionally guaranteed as an assertion of democracy. A fairly large number of people wanted to refuse political rights to the priests lest they influence politics unduly. “The time has come to introduce universal suffrage without limitations,” said Stalin, arguing that the Soviet people were now mature enough to know their own minds.

More important for us today than constitutional forms, or even the question of how they work, was one very significant note in Stalin’s speech. He ended by a direct challenge to the growing Nazi threat in Europe. Speaking on November 25, 1936, before Hitlerism was seriously opposed by any European government, Stalin called the new Soviet Constitution “an indictment against Fascism, an indictment which says that Socialism and Democracy are invincible.”

In the years since the Constitutional Congress, Stalin’s own personality began to be more widely known. His picture and slogans became so prominent in the Soviet Union that foreigners found this “idolatry” forced and insincere. Most Soviet folk of my acquaintance really do feel tremendous devotion to Stalin as the man who has built their country and led it to success. I have even known people to make a temporary change of residence just before election day in order to have the chance to vote for Stalin directly in the district where he was running, instead of for the less exciting candidate from their own district.

No information about Stalin’s home life is ever printed in Soviet newspapers. By Russian tradition, everybody, even a political leader, is entitled to the privacy of his personal life. A very delicate line divides private life from public work. When Stalin’s wife died, the black-bordered death notices in the paper mentioned her by her own name, which was not Stalin’s, listed her work and connection with various public organizations, and the fact that she was “the friend and comrade of Stalin.” They did not mention that she was his wife. The fact that she worked with him and might influence his decisions as a comrade was a public matter; the fact that she was married to him was their own affair. Some time later, he was known to have married again, but the press never mentioned it.

Glimpses of Stalin’s personal relations come chiefly through his contacts with picturesque figures who have helped make Soviet history. Valery Chkalov, the brilliant aviator who made the first flight across the North Pole from Moscow to America, told of an afternoon that he spent at Stalin’s summer home from four o’clock till after midnight. Stalin sang many Volga songs, put on gramophone records for the younger people to dance, and generally behaved like a normal human being relaxing in the heart of his family. He said he had learned the songs in his Siberian exile when there wasn’t much to do but sing.

The three women aviators who broke all world records for women by their spectacular flight from Moscow to the Far East were later entertained at an evening party at the Kremlin in their honor. One of them, Raskova, related afterwards how Stalin had joked with them about the prehistoric days of the matriarchate when women ruled human society. He said that in the early days of human development women had created agriculture as a basis for society and progress, while men “only hunted and went to war.” After a reference to the long subsequent centuries of woman’s slavery, Stalin added, “Now these three women come to avenge the heavy centuries of woman’s suppression.”

The best tale, I think, is that about Marie Demchenko, because it shows Stalin’s idea of leaders and of how they are produced. Marie was a peasant woman who came to a farm congress in Moscow and made a personal pledge to Stalin, then sitting on the platform, that her brigade of women would produce twenty tons of beets per acre that year. It was a spectacular promise, since the average yield in the Ukraine was about five tons. Marie’s challenge started a competition among the Ukrainian sugar beet growers; it was featured by the Soviet press. The whole country followed with considerable excitement Marie’s fight against a pest of moths. The nation watched the local fire department bring twenty thousand pails of water to the field to beat the drought. They saw that gang of women weed the fields nine times and clear them eight times of insects. Marie finally got twenty-one tons per acre, while the best of her competitors got twenty-three.

That harvest was a national event. So Marie’s whole gang went to Moscow to visit Stalin at the autumn celebration. The newspapers treated them like movie stars and featured their conversation. Stalin asked Marie what she most wanted as a reward for her own good record and for stirring up all the other sugar beet growers. Marie replied that she had wanted most of all to come to Moscow and see “the leaders.”

“But now you yourselves are leaders,” said Stalin to Marie.

“Well, yes,” said Marie, “but we wanted to see you anyway.” Her final request, which was granted, was to study in an agricultural university.

When the German war was launched against the Soviet Union, many foreigners were surprised that Stalin did not make a speech to arouse the people at once. Some of our more sensational papers assumed that Stalin had fled! Soviet people knew that Stalin trusted them to do their jobs and that he would sum the situation up for them as soon as it crystallized. He did it at dawn on July 3 in a radio talk. The words with which he began were very significant.

“Comrades! Citizens!” he said, as he has said often. Then he added, “Brothers and Sisters!” It was the first time Stalin ever used in public those close family words. To everyone who heard them, those words meant that the situation was very serious, that they must now face the ultimate test together and that they must all be closer and dearer to each other than they had ever been before. It meant that Stalin wanted to put a supporting arm across their shoulders, giving them strength for the task they had to do. This task was nothing less than to accept in their own bodies the shock of the most hellish assault of history, to withstand it, to break it, and by breaking it save the world. They knew they had to do it, and Stalin knew they would.

Stalin made perfectly plain that the danger was grave, that the German armies had taken most of the Baltic states, that the struggle would be very costly, and that the issues were between “freedom or slavery, life or death to the Soviet State.” He told them: “The enemy is cruel and implacable. He is out to seize our lands, watered with our sweat . . . to convert our peoples into the slaves of German princes and barons.” He called upon the “daring initiative and intelligence that are inherent in our people,” which he himself for more than twenty years had helped to create. He outlined in some detail the bitter path they should follow, each in his own region, and said that they would find allies among the freedom-loving peoples of the world. Then he summoned them “forward—to victory.”

Erskine Caldwell, reporting that dawn from Moscow, said that tremendous crowds stood in the city squares listening to the loud speakers, “holding their breath in such profound silence that one could hear every inflection of Stalin’s voice.” Twice during the speech, even the sound of water being poured into a glass could be heard as Stalin stopped to drink. For several minutes after Stalin had finished the silence continued. Then a motherly-looking woman said, “He works so hard, I wonder when he finds time to sleep. I am worried about his health.”

That was the way that Stalin took the Soviet people into the test of war.

Anna Louise Strong

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/strong-anna-louise/1941/x01/stalin.htm

Joseph Stalin's popularity among Russians continues to increase, reaching 16-year high

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-x967RSFqdjc/WL8B1Lmt3iI/AAAAAAAACYk/IiBiZ1Y1aR4vGG0FgZqGk3CNp044C0DRQCLcB/s320/Woman%2BMoscow%2Bholding%2BStalin%2527s%2Bcadre.jpg
Sixty-four years after the death of Joseph Stalin, the popularity of the great Soviet leader in Russia continues to increase, reaching a 16-year high.

More specifically, according to a recent survey by the independent Levada Center, the percentage of Russians who have a positive perception for the communist leader has been increased. Some 46 percent of respondents viewed Stalin positively, compared with 21 percent who said that they hated or feared the former leader. Another 22 percent described themselves as merely “indifferent.”

Most Russians — 32 percent — said that they looked upon Joseph Stalin “with respect.” Ten percent said that they had “sympathetic views,” while four percent said that they looked upon the leader with “admiration.”

The positive view that the majority of Russians have for Stalin becomes even more important if we take into account the negative, anti-communist, anti-soviet propaganda of all these years. Despite the negative portrayal of the Soviet Union and Socialism by bourgeois mechanisms, both Lenin and Stalin are considered as respected figures by many Russians of all ages.


https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1a_2BhzxTCg/WL8AXmTO8XI/AAAAAAAACYc/L0C-Fzlf7fEI4EwcHYCJl5uxtnzJkUrMACLcB/s640/Stalin%2BOpinion%2BLevada%2BCenter%2B2017.jpg
The survey of the Levada Center took place between 20-23 January 2017 and was conducted
throughout all Russia in both urbal and rural settings.

On the contrary, the 'architect' of the counter-revolutionary Perestroika Mikhail Gorbachev and his successor, Boris Yeltsin, have the lowest positive views. Gorbachev and Yeltsin drew positive views from just 8 percent and 16 percent respectively. Both have notably high negative ratings as well, with more than 60 percent of Russians saying they have "distaste" or "hatred" for Gorbachev in particular.

https://communismgr.blogspot.gr/2017/03/joseph-stalins-popularity-among.html

Interview to “Pravda” Correspondent Concerning Mr. Winston Churchill’s Speech at Fulton

March, 1946

Source: J. V. Stalin on Post-War International Relations
Publisher: Soviet News, 1947
Transcription/Markup: Brian Reid for MIA, 2008
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2008). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.

TOWARDS the middle of March, 1946, a “Pravda” correspondent requested J. V. Stalin to clarify a number of questions connected with Mr. Churchill’s speech at Fulton, U.S.A. Below are J. V. Stalin’s replies to the correspondent’s questions.


Question: How do you appraise Mr. Churchill’s latest speech in the United States of America?

Answer: I appraise it as a dangerous act, calculated to sow the seeds of dissension among the Allied States and impede their collaboration.

Question: Can it be considered that Mr. Churchill’s speech is prejudicial to the cause of peace and security?

Answer: Yes, unquestionably. As a matter of fact, Mr. Churchill now takes the stand of the warmongers, and in this Mr. Churchill is not alone. He has friends not only in Britain but in the United States of America as well.

A point to be noted is that in this respect Mr. Churchill and his friends bear a striking resemblance to Hitler and his friends. Hitler began his work of unleashing war by proclaiming a race theory, declaring that only German-speaking people constituted a superior nation. Mr. Churchill sets out to unleash war with a race theory, asserting that only English-speaking nations are superior nations, who are called upon to decide the destinies of the entire world. The German race theory led Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as the only superior nation, should rule over other nations. The English race theory leads Mr. Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that the English-speaking nations, as the only superior nations, should rule over the rest of the nations of the world.

Actually, Mr. Churchill, and his friends in Britain and the United States, present to the non-English speaking nations something in the nature of an ultimatum: “Accept our rule voluntarily, and then all will be well; otherwise war is inevitable.”

But the nations shed their blood in the course of five years’ fierce war for the sake of the liberty and independence of their countries, and not in order to exchange the domination of the Hitlers for the domination of the Churchills. It is quite probable, accordingly, that the non-English-speaking nations, which constitute the vast majority of the population of the world, will not agree to submit to a new slavery.

It is Mr. Churchill’s tragedy that, inveterate Tory that he is, he does not understand this simple and obvious truth.

There can be no doubt that Mr. Churchill’s position is a war position, a call for war on the U.S.S.R. It is also clear that this position of Mr. Churchill’s is incompatible with the Treaty of Alliance existing between Britain and the U.S.S.R. True, Mr. Churchill does say, in passing, in order to confuse his readers, that the term of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance and Collaboration might quite well be extended to 50 years. But how is such a statement on Mr. Churchill’s part to be reconciled with his position of war on the U.S.S.R., with his preaching of War against the U.S.S.R.? Obviously, these things cannot be reconciled by any means whatever. And if Mr. Churchill, who calls for war on the Soviet Union, at the same time considers it possible to extend the term of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty to 50 years, that means that he regards this Treaty as a mere scrap of paper, which he only needs in order to disguise and camouflage his anti-Soviet position. For this reason, the false statements of Mr. Churchill’s friends in Britain, regarding the extension of the term of the Anglo-Soviet treaty to 50 years or more, cannot be taken seriously. Extension of the Treaty term has no point if one of the parties violates the Treaty and converts it into a mere scram of paper.

Question: How do you appraise the part of Mr. Churchill’s speech in which he attacks the democratic systems in the European States bordering upon us, and criticises the good-neighbourly relations established between these States and the Soviet Union.

Answer: This part of Mr. Churchill’s speech is compounded of elements of slander and elements of discourtesy and tactlessness. Mr. Churchill asserts that “Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia—all these famous cities and the populations around them lie within the Soviet sphere and are all subject in one form or another not only to Soviet influence, but to a very high and increasing measure of control from Moscow.” Mr. Churchill describes all this as “unlimited expansionist tendencies” on the part of the Soviet Union.

It needs no particular effort to show that in this Mr. Churchill grossly and unceremoniously slanders both Moscow, and the above-named States bordering on the U.S.S.R.

In the first place it is quite absurd to speak of exclusive control by the U.S.S.R. in Vienna and Berlin, where there are Allied Control Councils made up of the representatives of four States and where the U.S.S.R. has only one-quarter of the votes. It does happen that some people cannot help in engaging in slander. But still, there is a limit to everything.

Secondly, the following circumstance should not be forgotten. The Germans made their invasion of the U.S.S.R. through Finland, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary. The Germans were able to make their invasion through these countries because, at the time, governments hostile to the Soviet Union existed in these countries. As a result of the German invasion the Soviet Union has lost irretrievably in the fighting against the Germans, and also through the German occupation and the deportation of Soviet citizens to German servitude, a total of about seven million people. In other words, the Soviet Union’s loss of life has been several times greater than that of Britain and the United States of America put together. Possibly in some quarters an inclination is felt to forget about these colossal sacrifices of the Soviet people which secured the liberation of Europe from the Hitlerite yoke. But the Soviet Union cannot forget about them. And so what can there be surprising about the fact that the Soviet Union, anxious for its future safety, is trying to see to it that governments loyal in their attitude to the Soviet Union should exist in these countries? How can anyone, who has not taken leave of his wits, describe these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as expansionist tendencies on the part of our State?

Mr. Churchill claims further that the “Russian-dominated Polish Government has been encouraged to make enormous, wrongful inroads on Germany.”

Every word of this is a gross and insulting calumny. Outstanding men are at the helm in present democratic Poland. They have proved by their deeds that they are capable of upholding the interests and dignity of their country as their predecessors were not. What grounds has Mr. Churchill to assert that the leaders of present-day Poland can countenance in their country the domination of representatives of any foreign State whatever? Is it not because Mr. Churchill means to sow the seeds of dissension in the relations between Poland and the Soviet Union that he slanders “the Russians” here?

Mr. Churchill is displeased that Poland has faced about in her policy in the direction of friendship and alliance with the U.S.S.R. There was a time when elements of conflict and antagonism predominated in the relations between Poland and the U.S.S.R. This circumstance enabled statesmen like Mr. Churchill to play on these antagonisms, to get control over Poland on the pretext of protecting her from the Russians, to try to scare Russia with the spectre of war between her and Poland, and retain the position of arbiter for themselves. But that time is past and gone, for the enmity between Poland and Russia has given place to friendship between them, and Poland—present-day democratic Poland—does not choose to be a play-ball in foreign hands any longer. It seems to me that it is this fact that irritates Mr. Churchill and makes him indulge in discourteous, tactless sallies against Poland. Just imagine—he is not being allowed to play his game at the expense of others!

As to Mr. Churchill’s attack upon the Soviet Union in connection with the extension of Poland’s Western frontier to include Polish territories which the Germans had seized in the past—here it seems to me he is plainly cheating. As is known, the decision on the Western frontier of Poland was adopted at the Berlin Three-Power Conference on the basis of Poland’s demands. The Soviet Union has repeatedly stated that it considers Poland’s demands to be proper and just. It is quite probable that Mr. Churchill is displeased with this decision. But why does Mr. Churchill, while sparing no shots against the Russian position in this matter, conceal from his readers the fact that this decision was passed at the Berlin Conference by unanimous vote—that it was not only the Russians, but the British and Americans as well, that voted for the decision? Why did Mr. Churchill think it necessary to mislead the public?

Further, Mr. Churchill asserts that the Communist Parties, which were previously very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to prominence and power far beyond their numbers and seek everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments prevail in nearly every case, and “thus far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy.”

As is known, the Government of the State in Britain at the present time is in the hands of one party, the Labour Party, and the opposition parties are deprived of the right to participate in the Government of Britain. That Mr. Churchill calls true democracy. Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Hungary are administered by blocs of several parties—from four to six parties—and the opposition, if it is more or less loyal, is secured the right of participation in the Government. That Mr. Churchill describes as totalitarianism, tyranny and police rule. Why? On what grounds? Don’t expect a reply from Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill does not understand in what a ridiculous position he puts himself by his outcry about “totalitarianism, tyranny and police rule.”

Mr. Churchill would like Poland to be administered by Sosnkowski and Anders, Yugoslavia by Mikhailovich and Pavelich, Rumania by Prince Stirbey and Radescu, Hungary and Austria by some King of the House of Hapsburg, and so on. Mr. Churchill wants to assure us that these gentlemen from the Fascist backyard can ensure true democracy.

Such is the “democracy” of Mr. Churchill.

Mr. Churchill comes somewhere near the truth when he speaks of the increasing influence of the Communist Parties in Eastern Europe. It must be remarked, however, that he is not quite accurate. The influence of the Communist Parties has grown not only in Eastern Europe, but in nearly all the countries of Europe which were previously under Fascist rule—Italy, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania, and Finland—or which experienced German, Italian or Hungarian occupation—France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, the Soviet Union and so on.

The increased influence of the Communists cannot be considered fortuitous. It is a perfectly logical thing. The influence of the Communists has grown because, in the years of the rule of Fascism in Europe, the Communists showed themselves trusty, fearless, self-sacrificing fighters against the Fascist regime for the liberty of the peoples. Mr. Churchill in his speeches sometimes recalls the plain people from little homes, slapping them patronisingly on the back and parading as their friend. But these people are not so simple as may at first sight appear. These plain people have views of their own, a policy of their own, and they know how to stand up for themselves. It was they, the millions of these plain people, that defeated Mr. Churchill and his party in Britain by casting their votes for the Labourites. It was they, the millions of these “plain people,” who isolated the reactionaries and advocates of collaboration with Fascism in Europe, and gave their preference to the Left democratic parties. It was they, the millions of these “plain people,” who after testing the Communists in the fires of struggle and resistance to Fascism, came to the conclusion that the Communists were fully deserving of the people’s confidence. That was how the influence of the Communists grew in Europe.

Of course Mr. Churchill does not like this course of development and he sounds the alarm and appeals to force. But neither did he like the birth of the Soviet regime in Russia after the First World War. At that time, too, he sounded the alarm and organised an armed campaign of 14 States against Russia setting himself the goal of turning back the wheel of history. But history proved stronger than the Churchill intervention, and Mr. Churchill’s quixotry led to his unmitigated defeat at that time. I don’t know whether Mr. Churchill and his friends will succeed in organising a new armed campaign against Eastern Europe after the Second World War; but if they do succeed—which is not very probable because millions of plain people stand guard over the cause of peace—it may confidently be said that they will be thrashed, just as they were thrashed once before, 26 years ago.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1946/03/x01.htm

The increased influence of the Communists cannot be considered fortuitous. It is a perfectly logical thing. The influence of the Communists has grown because, in the years of the rule of Fascism in Europe, the Communists showed themselves trusty, fearless, self-sacrificing fighters against the Fascist regime for the liberty of the peoples...

It was they, the millions of these “plain people,” who isolated the reactionaries and advocates of collaboration with Fascism in Europe, and gave their preference to the Left democratic parties. It was they, the millions of these “plain people,” who after testing the Communists in the fires of struggle and resistance to Fascism, came to the conclusion that the Communists were fully deserving of the people’s confidence. That was how the influence of the Communists grew in Europe.

Uncle Joe! Always the clearest thinker in sight!

I tried to tell an America-Firster this exact thing, that all the resistance movements in occupied Europe were dominated by commies. And where the Soviets liberated a country the commies came to the fore as deserved; where the US and its thralls "liberated" a country, they killed and imprisoned commies who had done the bulk of fighting against the Nazis. He dismissed this with a wave of his hand. I haven't spoken to him since - have no plans to...

Stalin to Churchill:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaoFqhsWIAAqLBy.jpg

whadda mensch

Stalin to Churchill:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaoFqhsWIAAqLBy.jpg

whadda mensch

You can't beat Stalin - ask anyone who knew, or fought with, him!

Joseph V. Stalin- Concerning Questions of Leninism

Concerning Questions of Leninism.
By Joseph V. Stalin.
January 25, 1926.
Source: Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1954 via Marxists Internet Archive.

Dedicated to the Leningrad Organisation of the C.P.S.U (B).

I. THE DEFINITION OF LENINISM

The pamphlet The Foundations of Leninism contains a definition of Leninism which seems to have received general recognition. It runs as follows:

“Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular.”1

Is this definition correct?

I think it is correct. It is correct, firstly, because it correctly indicates the historical roots of Leninism, characterising it as Marxism of the era of imperialism, as against certain critics of Lenin who wrongly think that Leninism originated after the imperialist war. It is correct, secondly, because it correctly notes the international character of Leninism, as against Social-Democracy, which considers that Leninism is applicable only to Russian national conditions. It is correct, thirdly, because it correctly notes the organic connection between Leninism and the teachings of Marx, characterising Leninism as Marxism of the era of imperialism, as against certain critics of Leninism who consider it not a further development of Marxism, but merely the restoration of Marxism and its application to Russian conditions.

All that, one would think, needs no special comment. Nevertheless, it appears that there are people in our party who consider it necessary to define Leninism somewhat differently. Zinoviev, for example, thinks that:

“Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialist wars and of the world revolution which began directly in a country where the peasantry predominates.”

What can be the meaning of the words underlined by Zinoviev? What does introducing the backwardness of Russia, its peasant character, into the definition of Leninism mean?

It means transforming Leninism from an international proletarian doctrine into a product of specifically Russian conditions.

It means playing into the hands of Bauer and Kautsky, who deny that Leninism is suitable for other countries, for countries in which capitalism is more developed.

It goes without saying that the peasant question is of very great importance for Russia, that our country is a peasant country. But what significance can this fact have in characterising the foundations of Leninism? Was Leninism elaborated only on Russian soil, for Russia alone, and not on the soil of imperialism, and for the imperialist countries generally? Do such works of Lenin as Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,2 The State and Revolution,3 The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky,4 “Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder,5 etc., apply only to Russia, and not to all imperialist countries in general? Is not Leninism the generalisation of the experience of the revolutionary movement of all countries? Are not the fundamentals of the theory and tactics of Leninism suitable, are they not obligatory, for the proletarian parties of all countries? Was not Lenin right when he said that “Bolshevism can serve as a model of tactics for all”? (See Vol. XXIII, p. 386.)* Was not Lenin right when he spoke about the “international significance** of Soviet power and of the fundamentals of Bolshevik theory and tactics”? (See Vol. XXV, pp. 171-72.) Are not, for example, the following words of Lenin correct?

“In Russia, the dictatorship of the proletariat must inevitably differ in certain specific features from that in the advanced countries, owing to the very great backwardness and petty-bourgeois character of our country. But the basic forces—and the basic forms of social economy—are the same in Russia as in any capitalist country, so that these specific features can relate only to what is not most important”** (see Vol. XXIV, p. 508).

But if all that is true, does it not follow that Zinoviev’s definition of Leninism cannot be regarded as correct?

How can this nationally restricted definition of Leninism be reconciled with internationalism?

II. THE MAIN THING IN LENINISM.

In the pamphlet The Foundations of Leninism, it stated:

“Some think that the fundamental thing in Leninism is the peasant question, that the point of departure of Leninism is the question of the peasantry, of its role, its relative importance. This is absolutely wrong. The fundamental question of Leninism, its point of departure, is not the peasant question, but the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the conditions under which it can be achieved, of the conditions under which it can be consolidated. The peasant question, as the question of the ally of the proletariat in its struggle for power, is a derivative question.”9

Is this thesis correct?

I think it is correct. This thesis follows entirely from the definition of Leninism. Indeed, if Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution, and the basic content of the proletarian revolution is the dictatorship of the proletariat, then it is clear that the main thing in Leninism is the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the elaboration of this question, the substantiation and concretisation of this question.

Nevertheless, Zinoviev evidently does not agree with this thesis. In his article “In Memory of Lenin,” he says:

“As I have already said, the question of the role of the peasantry is the fundamental question** of Bolshevism, of Leninism.”

As you see, Zinoviev’s thesis follows entirely from his wrong definition of Leninism. It is therefore as wrong as his definition of Leninism is wrong.

Is Lenin’s thesis that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the “root content of the proletarian revolution” correct? (See Vol. XXIII, p. 337.) It is unquestionably correct. Is the thesis that Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution correct? I think it is correct. But what follows from this? From this it follows that the fundamental question of Leninism, its point of departure, its foundation, is the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Is it not true that the question of imperialism, the question of the spasmodic character of the development of imperialism, the question of the victory of socialism in one country, the question of the proletarian state, the question of the Soviet form of this state, the question of the role of the Party in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the question of the paths of building socialism—that all these questions were elaborated precisely by Lenin? Is it not true that it is precisely these questions that constitute the basis, the foundation of the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Is it not true that without the elaboration of these fundamental questions, the elaboration of the peasant question from the standpoint of the dictatorship of the proletariat would be inconceivable?

It goes without saying that Lenin was an expert on the peasant question. It goes without saying that the peasant question as the question of the ally of the proletariat is of the greatest significance for the proletariat and forms a constituent part of the fundamental question of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But is it not clear that if Leninism had not been faced with the fundamental question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the derivative question of the ally of the proletariat, the question of the peasantry, would not have arisen either? Is it not clear that if Leninism had not been faced with the practical question of the conquest of power by the proletariat, the question of an alliance with the peasantry would not have arisen either?

Lenin would not have been the great ideological leader of the proletariat that he unquestionably is—he would have been a simple “peasant philosopher,” as foreign literary philistines often depict him—had he elaborated the peasant question, not on the basis of the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but independently of this basis, apart from this basis.

One or the other:

Either the peasant question is the main thing in Leninism, and in that case Leninism is not suitable, not obligatory, for capitalistically developed countries, for those which are not peasant countries.

Or the main thing in Leninism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in that case Leninism is the international doctrine of the proletarians of all lands, suitable and obligatory for all countries without exception, including the capitalistically developed countries.

Here one must choose.

III. THE QUESTION OF “PERMANENT” REVOLUTION.

In the pamphlet The Foundations of Leninism, the “theory of permanent revolution” is appraised as a “theory” which under-estimates the role of the peasantry. There it is stated:

“Consequently, Lenin fought the adherents of ‘permanent’ revolution, not over the question of uninterruptedness, for Lenin himself maintained the point of view of uninterrupted revolution, but because they under-estimated the role of the peasantry, which is an enormous reserve of the proletariat.”7

This characterisation of the Russian “permanentists” was considered as generally accepted until recently. Nevertheless, although in general correct, it cannot be regarded as exhaustive. The discussion of 1924, on the one hand, and a careful analysis of the works of Lenin, on the other hand, have shown that the mistake of the Russian “permanentists” lay not only in their under-estimation of the role of the peasantry, but also in their under-estimation of the strength of the proletariat and its capacity to lead the peasantry, in their disbelief in the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat.

That is why, in my pamphlet The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists (December 1924), I broadened this characterisation and replaced it by another, more complete one. Here is what is stated in that pamphlet:

“Hitherto only one aspect of the theory of ‘permanent revolution’ has usually been noted—lack of faith in the revolutionary potentialities of the peasant movement. Now, in fairness, this must be supplemented by another aspect—lack of faith in the strength and capacity of the proletariat in Russia.”8

This does not mean, of course, that Leninism has been or is opposed to the idea of permanent revolution, without quotation marks, which was proclaimed by Marx in the forties of the last century.9 On the contrary, Lenin was the only Marxist who correctly understood and developed the idea of permanent revolution. What distinguishes Lenin from the “permanentists” on this question is that the “permanentists” distorted Marx’s idea of permanent revolution and transformed it into lifeless, bookish wisdom, whereas Lenin took it in its pure form and made it one of the foundations of his own theory of revolution. It should be borne in mind that the idea of the growing over of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution, propounded by Lenin as long ago as 1905, is one of the forms of the embodiment of Marx’s theory of permanent revolution. Here is what Lenin wrote about this as far back as 1905:

“From the democratic revolution we shall at once, and just to the extent of our strength, the strength of the class-conscious and organised proletariat, begin to pass to the socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted revolution.** We shall not stop halfway. . . .

“Without succumbing to adventurism or going against our scientific conscience, without striving for cheap popularity, we can and do say only one thing: we shall put every effort into assisting the entire peasantry to carry out the democratic revolution in order thereby to make it easier for us, the party of the proletariat, to pass on, as quickly as possible, to the new and higher task—the socialist revolution" (see Vol. VIII, pp. 186-87).

And here is what Lenin wrote on this subject sixteen years later, after the conquest of power by the proletariat:

“The Kautskys, Hilferdings, Martovs, Chernovs, Hillquits, Longuets, MacDonalds, Turatis, and other heroes of ‘Two-and-a-Half’ Marxism were incapable of understanding . . . the relation between the bourgeois-democratic and the proletarian-socialist revolutions. The first grows over into the second.** The second, in passing, solves the questions of the first. The second consolidates the work of the first. Struggle, and struggle alone, decides how far the second succeeds in outgrowing the first” (see Vol. XXVII, p. 26).

I draw special attention to the first of the above quotations, taken from Lenin’s article entitled “The Attitude of Social-Democracy Towards the Peasant Movement,” published on September 1, 1905. I emphasise this for the information of those who still continue to assert that Lenin arrived at the idea of the growing over of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the socialist revolution, that is to say, the idea of permanent revolution, after the imperialist war. This quotation leaves no doubt that these people are profoundly mistaken.

IV. THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION AND THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.

What are the characteristic features of the proletarian revolution as distinct from the bourgeois revolution?

The distinction between the proletarian revolution and the bourgeois revolution may be reduced to five main points.

1) The bourgeois revolution usually begins when there already exist more or less ready-made forms belonging to the capitalist order, forms which have grown and matured within the womb of feudal society prior to the open revolution, whereas the proletarian revolution begins when ready-made forms belonging to the socialist order are either absent, or almost absent.

2) The main task of the bourgeois revolution consists in seizing power and making it conform to the already existing bourgeois economy, whereas the main task of the proletarian revolution consists, after seizing power, in building a new, socialist economy.

3) The bourgeois revolution is usually consummated with the seizure of power, whereas in the proletarian revolution the seizure of power is only the beginning, and power is used as a lever for transforming the old economy and organising the new one.

4) The bourgeois revolution limits itself to replacing one group of exploiters in power by another group of exploiters, in view of which it need not smash the old state machine; whereas the proletarian revolution removes all exploiting groups from power and places in power the leader of all the toilers and exploited, the class of proletarians, in view of which it cannot manage without smashing the old state machine and substituting a now one for it.

5) The bourgeois revolution cannot rally the millions of the toiling and exploited masses around the bourgeoisie for any length of time, for the very reason that they are toilers and exploited; whereas the proletarian revolution can and must link them, precisely as toilers and exploited, in a durable alliance with the proletariat, if it wishes to carry out its main task of consolidating the power of the proletariat and building a new, socialist economy.

Here are some of Lenin’s main theses on this subject:

“One of the fundamental differences between bourgeois revolution and socialist revolution,” says Lenin, “is that for the bourgeois revolution, which arises out of feudalism, the new economic organisations are gradually created in the womb of the old order, gradually changing all the aspects of feudal society. Bourgeois revolution was confronted by only one task—to sweep away, to cast aside, to destroy all the fetters of the preceding society. By fulfilling this task every bourgeois revolution fulfils all that is required of it: it accelerates the growth of capitalism.

“The socialist revolution is in an altogether different position. The more backward the country which, owing to the zigzags of history, has proved to be the one to start the socialist revolution, the more difficult it is for it to pass from the old capitalist relations to socialist relations. To the tasks of destruction are added new tasks of unprecedented difficulty—organisational tasks” (see Vol. XXII, p. 315).

“Had not the popular creative spirit of the Russian revolution,” continues Lenin, “which had gone through the great experience of the year 1905, given rise to the Soviets as early as February 1917, they could not under any circumstances have seized power in October, because success depended entirely upon the existence of ready-made organisational forms of a movement embracing millions. These ready-made forms were the Soviets, and that is why in the political sphere there awaited us those brilliant successes, the continuous triumphant march, that we experienced; for the new form of political power was ready to hand, and all we had to do was, by passing a few decrees, to transform the power of the Soviets from the embryonic state in which it existed in the first months of the revolution into a legally recognised form which has become established in the Russian state—i.e., into the Russian Soviet Republic” (see Vol. XXII, p. 315).

“But two problems of enormous difficulty still remained,” says Lenin, “the solution of which could not possibly be the triumphant march which our revolution experienced in the first months . . . ” (ibid.).

“Firstly, there were the problems of internal organisation, which confront every socialist revolution. The difference between socialist revolution and bourgeois revolution lies precisely in the fact that the latter finds ready-made forms of capitalist relationships, while Soviet power—proletarian power—does not inherit such ready-made relationships, if we leave out of account the most developed forms of capitalism, which, strictly speaking, extended to but a small top layer of industry and hardly touched agriculture. The organisation of accounting, the control of large enterprises, the transformation of the whole of the state economic mechanism into a single huge machine, into an economic organism that works in such a way that hundreds of millions of people are guided by a single plan—such was the enormous organisational problem that rested on our shoulders. Under the present conditions of labour this problem could not possibly be solved by the ‘hurrah’ methods by which we were able to solve the problems of the Civil War” (ibid., p. 318).

“The second enormous difficulty . . . was the international question. The reason why we were able to cope so easily with Kerensky’s gangs, why we so easily established our power and without the slightest difficulty passed the decrees on the socialisation of the land and on workers’ control, the reason why we achieved all this so easily was only that a fortunate combination of circumstances protected us for a short time from international imperialism. International imperialism, with the entire might of its capital, with its highly organised military technique, which is a real force, a real fortress of international capital, could in no case, under no circumstances, live side by side with the Soviet Republic, both because of its objective position and because of the economic interests of the capitalist class which is embodied in it—it could not do so because of commercial connections, of international financial relations. In this sphere a conflict is inevitable. Therein lies the greatest difficulty of the Russian revolution, its greatest historical problem: the necessity of solving the international tasks, the necessity of calling forth an international revolution” (see Vol. XXII, p. 317).

Such is the intrinsic character and the basic meaning of the proletarian revolution.

Can such a radical transformation of the old bourgeois order be achieved without a violent revolution, without the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Obviously not. To think that such a revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of bourgeois democracy, which is adapted to the rule of the bourgeoisie, means that one has either gone out of one’s mind and lost normal human understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the proletarian revolution.

This thesis must be emphasised all the more strongly and categorically for the reason that we are dealing with the proletarian revolution which for the time being has triumphed only in one country, a country which is surrounded by hostile capitalist countries and the bourgeoisie of which cannot fail to receive the support of international capital.

That is why Lenin says that:

“The emancipation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which was created by the ruling class” (see Vol. XXI, p. 373).

“First let the majority of the population, while private property still exists, i.e., while the rule and yoke of capital still exists, express themselves in favour of the party of the proletariat, and only then can and should the party take power—so say the petty-bourgeois democrats who call themselves ‘Socialists’ but who are in reality the servitors of the bourgeoisie”** (see Vol. XXIV, p. 647).

“We say:** Let the revolutionary proletariat first overthrow the bourgeoisie, break the yoke of capital, and smash the bourgeois state apparatus, then the victorious proletariat will be able rapidly to gain the sympathy and support of the majority of the toiling non-proletarian masses by satisfying their needs at the expense of the exploiters” (ibid.).

“In order to win the majority of the population to its side,” Lenin says further, “the proletariat must, in the first place, overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize state power; secondly, it must introduce Soviet power and smash the old state apparatus to bits, whereby it immediately undermines the rule, prestige and influence of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois compromisers over the non-proletarian toiling masses. Thirdly, it must entirely destory the influence of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois compromisers over the majority of the non-proletarian toiling masses by satisfying their economic needs in a revolutionary way at the expense of the exploiters” (ibid., p. 641).

Such are the characteristic features of the proletarian revolution.

What, in this connection, are the main features of the dictatorship of the proletariat, once it is admitted that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the basic content of the proletarian revolution?

Here is the most general definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat given by Lenin:

“The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end of the class struggle, but its continuation in new forms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the class struggle of the proletariat, which has won victory and has seized political power, against the bourgeoisie, which although vanquished has not been annihilated, has not disappeared, has not ceased its resistance, has increased its resistance” (see Vol. XXIV, p. 311).

Arguing against confusing the dictatorship of the proletariat with “popular” government, “elected by all,” with “non-class” government, Lenin says:

“The class which took political power into its hands did so knowing that it took power alone.** That is a part of the concept dictatorship of the proletariat. This concept has meaning only when this one class knows that it alone is taking political power in its hands, and does not deceive itself or others with talk about ‘popular’ government, ‘elected by all, sanctified by the whole people’” (see Vol. XXVI, p. 286).

This does not mean, however, that the power of one class, the class of the proletarians, which does not and cannot share power with other classes, does not need aid from, and an alliance with, the labouring and exploited masses of other classes for the achievement of its aims. On the contrary. This power, the power of one class, can be firmly established and exercised to the full only by means of a special form of alliance between the class of proletarians and the labouring masses of the petty-bourgeois classes, primarily the labouring masses of the peasantry.

What is this special form of alliance? What does it consist in? Does not this alliance with the labouring masses of other, non-proletarian, classes wholly contradict the idea of the dictatorship of one class?

This special form of alliance consists in that the guiding force of this alliance is the proletariat. This special form of alliance consists in that the leader of the state, the leader in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat is one party, the party of the proletariat, the Party of the Communists, which does not and cannot share leadership with other parties.

As you see, the contradiction is only an apparent, a seeming one.

“The dictatorship of the proletariat,” says Lenin, “is a special form of class alliance** between the proletariat, the vanguard of the working people, and the numerous non-proletarian strata of working people (the petty bourgeoisie, the small proprietors, the peasantry, the intelligentsia, etc.), or the majority of these; it is an alliance against capital, an alliance aiming at the complete overthrow of capital, at the complete suppression of the resistance of the bourgeoisie and of any attempt on its part at restoration, an alliance aiming at the final establishment and consolidation of socialism. It is a special type of alliance, which is being built up in special circumstances, namely, in the circumstances of fierce civil war; it is an alliance of the firm supporters of socialism with the latter’s wavering allies and sometimes with ‘neutrals’ (then instead of an agreement for struggle, the alliance becomes an agreement for neutrality), an alliance between classes which differ economically, politically, socially and ideologically”** (see Vol. XXIV, p. 311).

In one of his instructional reports, Kamenev, disputing this conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat, states:

“The dictatorship is not** an alliance of one class with another.”

I believe that Kamenev here has in view, primarily, a passage in my pamphlet The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists, where it is stated:

“The dictatorship of the proletariat is not simply a governmental top stratum ‘skilfully’ ‘selected’ by the careful hand of an ‘experienced strategist,’ and ‘judiciously relying’ on the support of one section or another of the population. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the class alliance between the proletariat and the labouring masses of the peasantry for the purpose of overthrowing capital, for achieving the final victory of socialism, on the condition that the guiding force of this alliance is the proletariat.”10

I wholly endorse this formulation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for I think that it fully and entirely coincides with Lenin’s formulation, just quoted.

I assert that Kamenev’s statement that “the dictatorship is not an alliance of one class with another,” in the categorical form in which it is made, has nothing in common with Lenin’s theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I assert that such statements can be made only by people who have failed to understand the meaning of the idea of the bond, the idea of the alliance of the proletariat and peasantry, the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat within this alliance.

Such statements can be made only by people who have failed to understand Lenin’s thesis:

“Only an agreement with the peasantry** can save the socialist revolution in Russia as long as the revolution in other countries has not taken place” (see Vol. XXVI, p. 238).

Such statements can be made only by people who have failed to understand Lenin’s thesis:

“The supreme principle of the dictatorship** is the maintenance of the alliance of the proletariat and peasantry in order that the proletariat may retain its leading role and state power” (ibid., p. 460).

Pointing out one of the most important aims of the dictatorship, the aim of suppressing the exploiters, Lenin says:

“The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing more nor less than completely unrestricted power, absolutely unimpeded by laws or regulations and resting directly on the use of force” (see Vol. XXV, p. 441).

“Dictatorship means—note this once and for all, Messrs. Cadets—unrestricted power, based on force and not on law. In time of civil war any victorious power can be only a dictatorship” (see Vol. XXV, p. 436).

But of course, the dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean only the use of force, although there is no dictatorship without the use of force.

“Dictatorship,” says Lenin, “does not mean only the use of force, although it is impossible without the use of force; it also means the organisation of labour on a higher level than the previous organisation” (see Vol. XXIV, p. 305).

“The dictatorship of the proletariat . . . is not only the use of force against the exploiters, and not even mainly the use of force. The economic foundation of this revolutionary use of force, the guarantee of its effectiveness and success is the fact that the proletariat represents and creates a higher type of social organisation of labour compared with capitalism. This is the essence. This is the source of the strength and the guarantee of the inevitable complete triumph of communism” (see Vol. XXIV, pp. 335-36).

“Its quintessence (i.e., of the dictatorship—J. St.) is the organisation and discipline of the advanced detachment of the working people, of its vanguard, its sole leader, the proletariat, whose object is to build socialism, to abolish the division of society into classes, to make all members of society working people, to remove the basis for any exploitation of man by man. This object cannot be achieved at one stroke. It requires a fairly long period of transition from capitalism to socialism, because the reorganisation of production is a difficult matter, because radical changes in all spheres of life need time, and because the enormous force of habit of petty-bourgeois and bourgeois conduct of economy can be overcome only by a long and stubborn struggle. That is why Marx spoke of an entire period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the period of transition from capitalism to socialism” (ibid., p. 314).

Such are the characteristic features of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Hence the three main aspects of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

1) The utilisation of the rule of the proletariat for the suppression of the exploiters, for the defence of the country, for the consolidation of the ties with the proletarians of other lands, and for the development and victory of the revolution in all countries.

2) The utilisation of the rule of the proletariat in order to detach the labouring and exploited masses once and for all from the bourgeoisie, to consolidate the alliance of the proletariat with these masses, to draw these masses into the work of socialist construction, and to ensure the state leadership of these masses by the proletariat.

3) The utilisation of the rule of the proletariat for the organisation of socialism, for the abolition of classes, for the transition to a society without classes, to a socialist society.

The proletarian dictatorship is a combination of all these three aspects. No single one of these aspects can be advanced as the sole characteristic feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. On the other hand, in the circumstances of capitalist encirclement, the absence of even one of these features is sufficient for the dictatorship of the proletariat to cease being a dictatorship. Therefore, not one of these three aspects can be omitted without running the risk of distorting the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Only all these three aspects taken together give us the complete and finished concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat has its periods, its special forms, diverse methods of work. During the period of civil war, it is the forcible aspect of the dictatorship that is most conspicuous. But it by no means follows from this that no constructive work is carried on during the period of civil war. Without constructive work it is impossible to wage civil war. During the period of socialist construction, on the other hand, it is the peaceful, organisational and cultural work of the dictatorship, revolutionary law, etc., that are most conspicuous. But, again, it by no means follows from this that the forcible aspect of the dictatorship has ceased to exist or can cease to exist in the period of construction. The organs of suppression, the army and other organisations, are as necessary now, at the time of construction, as they were during the period of civil war. Without these organs, constructive work by the dictatorship with any degree of security would be impossible. It should not be forgotten that for the time being the revolution has been victorious in only one country. It should not be forgotten that as long as capitalist encirclement exists the danger of intervention, with all the consequences resulting from this danger, will also exist.

V. THE PARTY AND THE WORKING CLASS IN THE SYSTEM OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.

I have dealt above with the dictatorship of the proletariat from the point of view of its historical inevitability, from the point of view of its class content, from the point of view of its state nature, and, finally, from the point of view of the destructive and creative tasks which it performs throughout the entire historical period that is termed the period of transition from capitalism to socialism.

Now we must say something about the dictatorship of the proletariat from the point of view of its structure, from the point of view of its “mechanism,” from the point of view of the role and significance of the “transmission belts,” the “levers,” and the “directing force” which in their totality constitute “the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat” (Lenin), and with the help of which the daily work of the dictatorship of the proletariat is accomplished.

What are these “transmission belts” or “levers” in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat? What is this “directing force”? Why are they needed?

The levers or transmission belts are those very mass organisations of the proletariat without the aid of which the dictatorship cannot be realised.

The directing force is the advanced detachment of the proletariat, its vanguard, which is the main guiding force of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The proletariat needs these transmission belts, these levers, and this directing force, because without them, in its struggle for victory, it would be a weaponless army in face of organised and armed capital. The proletariat needs these organisations because without them it would suffer inevitable defeat in its fight for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, in its fight for the consolidation of its rule, in its fight for the building of socialism. The systematic help of these organisations and the directing force of the vanguard are needed because in the absence of these conditions it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be at all durable and firm.

What are these organisations?

Firstly, there are the workers’ trade unions, with their central and local ramifications in the shape of a whole series of organisations concerned with production, culture, education, etc. These unite the workers of all trades. They are non-Party organisations. The trade unions may be termed the all-embracing organisation of the working class, which is in power in our country. They are a school of communism. They promote the best people from their midst for the work of leadership in all branches of administration. They form the link between the advanced and the backward elements in the ranks of the working class. They connect the masses of the workers with the vanguard of the working class.

Secondly, there are the Soviets, with their numerous central and local ramifications in the shape of administrative, economic, military, cultural and other state organisations, plus the innumerable mass associations of the working people which have sprung up of their own accord and which encompass these organisations and connect them with the population. The Soviets are a mass organisation of all the working people of town and country. They are a non-Party organisation. The Soviets are the direct expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is through the Soviets that all measures for strengthening the dictatorship and for building socialism are carried out. It is through the Soviets that the state leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat is exercised. The Soviets connect the vast masses of the working people with the vanguard of the proletariat.

Thirdly, there are the co-operatives of all kinds, with all their ramifications. These are a mass organisation of the working people, a non-Party organisation, which unites the working people primarily as consumers, and also, in the course of time, as producers (agricultural co-operatives). The co-operatives acquire special significance after the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, during the period of extensive construction. They facilitate contact between the vanguard of the proletariat and the mass of the peasantry and make it possible to draw the latter into the channel of socialist construction.

Fourthly, there is the Youth League. This is a mass organisation of young workers and peasants; it is a non-Party organisation, but is linked with the Party. Its task is to help the Party to educate the young generation in the spirit of socialism. It provides young reserves for all the other mass organisations of the proletariat in all branches of administration. The Youth League has acquired special significance since the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in the period of extensive cultural and educational work carried on by the proletariat.

Lastly, there is the Party of the proletariat, its vanguard. Its strength lies in the fact that it draws into its ranks all the best elements of the proletariat from all the mass organisations of the latter. Its function is to combine the work of all the mass organisations of the proletariat without exception and to direct their activities towards a single goal, the goal of the emancipation of the proletariat. And it is absolutely necessary to combine and direct them towards a single goal, for otherwise unity in the struggle of the proletariat is impossible, for otherwise the guidance of the proletarian masses in their struggle for power, in their struggle for building socialism, is impossible. But, only the vanguard of the proletariat, its Party, is capable of combining and directing the work of the mass organisations of the proletariat. Only the Party of the proletariat, only the Communist Party, is capable of fulfilling this role of main leader in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Why?

“. . . because, in the first place, it is the rallying centre of the finest elements in the working class, who have direct connections with the non-Party organisations of the proletariat and very frequently lead them; because, secondly, the Party, as the rallying centre of the finest members of the working class, is the best school for training leaders of the working class, capable of directing every form of organisation of their class; because, thirdly, the Party, as the best school for training leaders of the working class, is, by reason of its experience and prestige, the only organisation capable of centralising the leadership of the struggle of the proletariat, thus transforming each and every non-Party organisation of the working class into an auxiliary body and transmission belt linking the Party with the class” (see The Foundations of Leninism11).

The Party is the main guiding force in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

“The Party is the highest form of class organisation of the proletariat” (Lenin).

To sum up: the trade unions, as the mass organisation of the proletariat, linking the Party with the class primarily in the sphere of production; the Soviets, as the mass organisation of the working people, linking the Party with the latter primarily in the sphere of state administration; the co-operatives, as the mass organisation mainly of the peasantry, linking the Party with the peasant masses primarily in the economic sphere, in the sphere of drawing the peasantry into the work of socialist construction; the Youth League, as the mass organisation of young workers and peasants, whose mission it is to help the vanguard of the proletariat in the socialist education of the new generation and in training young reserves; and, finally, the Party, as the main directing force in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, whose mission it is to lead all these mass organisations—such, in general, is the picture of the “mechanism” of the dictatorship, the picture of “the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Without the Party as the main guiding force, it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be at all durable and firm.

Thus, in the words of Lenin, “taken as a whole, we have a formally non-communist, flexible and relatively wide, and very powerful proletarian apparatus, by means of which the Party is closely linked with the class and with the masses, and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, the dictatorship of the class is exercised” (see Vol. XXV, p. 192).

Of course, this must not be understood in the sense that the Party can or should take the place of the trade unions, the Soviets, and the other mass organisations. The Party exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, it exercises it not directly, but with the help of the trade unions, and through the Soviets and their ramifications. Without these “transmission belts,” it would be impossible for the dictatorship to be at all firm.

“It is impossible to exercise the dictatorship,” says Lenin, “without having a number of ‘transmission belts’ from the vanguard to the mass of the advanced class, and from the latter to the mass of the working people” (see Vol. XXVI, p. 65).

“The Party, so to speak, draws into its ranks the vanguard of the proletariat, and this vanguard exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat. Without a foundation like the trade unions the dictatorship cannot be exercised, state functions cannot be fulfilled. And these functions have to be exercised through** a number of special institutions also of a new type; namely, through** the Soviet apparatus” (see Vol. XXVI, p. 64).

The highest expression of the leading role of the Party, here, in the Soviet Union, in the land of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example, is the fact that not a single important political or organisational question is decided by our Soviet and other mass organisations without guiding directives from the Party. In this sense it could be said that the dictatorship of the proletariat is, in essence, the “dictatorship” of its vanguard, the “dictatorship” of its Party, as the main guiding force of the proletariat. Here is what Lenin said on this subject at the Second Congress of the Comintern12:

“Tanner says that he stands for the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the dictatorship of the proletariat is not conceived quite in the same way as we conceive it. He says that by the dictatorship of the proletariat we mean, in essence,** the dictatorship of its organised and class-conscious minority.

“And, as a matter of fact, in the era of capitalism, when the masses of the workers are continuously subjected to exploitation and cannot develop their human potentialities, the most characteristic feature of working-class political parties is that they can embrace only a minority of their class. A political party can comprise only a minority of the class, in the same way as the really class-conscious workers in every capitalist society constitute only a minority of all the workers. That is why we must admit that only this class-conscious minority can guide the broad masses of the workers and lead them. And if Comrade Tanner says that he is opposed to parties, but at the same time is in favour of the minority consisting of the best organised and most revolutionary workers showing the way to the whole of the proletariat, then I say that there is really no difference between us” (see Vol. XXV, p. 347).

But this, however, must not be understood in the sense that a sign of equality can be put between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the leading role of the Party (the “dictatorship” of the Party), that the former can be identified with the latter, that the latter can be substituted for the former. Sorin, for example, says that “the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of our Party.” This thesis, as you see, identifies the “dictatorship of the Party” with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Can we regard this identification as correct and yet remain on the ground of Leninism? No, we cannot. And for the following reasons:

Firstly. In the passage from his speech, at the Second Congress of the Comintern quoted above, Lenin does not by any means identify the leading role of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat. He merely says that “only this class-conscious minority (i.e., the Party—J. St.) can guide the broad masses of the workers and lead them,” that it is precisely in this sense that “by the dictatorship of the proletariat we mean, in essence**, the dictatorship of its organised and class-conscious minority.”

To say “in essence” does not mean “wholly.” We often say that the national question is, in essence, a peasant question. And this is quite true. But this does not mean that the national question is covered by the peasant question, that the peasant question is equal in scope to the national question, that the peasant question and the national question are identical. There is no need to prove that the national question is wider and richer in its scope than the peasant question. The same must be said by analogy as regards the leading role of the Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Although the Party carries out the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in this sense the dictatorship of the proletariat is, in essence, the “dictatorship” of its Party, this does not mean that the “dictatorship of the Party” (its leading role) is identical with the dictatorship of the proletariat, that the former is equal in scope to the latter. There is no need to prove that the dictatorship of the proletariat is wider and richer in its scope than the leading role of the Party. The Party carries out the dictatorship of the proletariat, but it carries out the dictatorship of the proletariat, and not any other kind of dictatorship. Whoever identifies the leading role of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat substitutes “dictatorship” of the Party for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Secondly. Not a single important decision is arrived at by the mass organisations of the proletariat without guiding directives from the Party. That is perfectly true. But does that mean that the dictatorship of the proletariat consists entirely of the guiding directives given by the Party? Does that mean that, in view of this, the guiding directives of the Party can be identified with the dictatorship of the proletariat? Of course not. The dictatorship of the proletariat consists of the guiding directives of the Party plus the carrying out of these directives by the mass organisations of the proletariat, plus their fulfilment by the population. Here, as you see, we have to deal with a whole series of transitions and intermediary steps which are by no means unimportant elements of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Hence, between the guiding directives of the Party and their fulfilment lie the will and actions of those who are led, the will and actions of the class, its willingness (or unwillingness) to support such directives, its ability (or inability) to carry out these directives, its ability (or inability) to carry them out in strict accordance with the demands of the situation. It scarcely needs proof that the Party, having taken the leadership into its hands, cannot but reckon with the will, the condition, the level of political consciousness of those who are led, cannot leave out of account the will, the condition, and level of political consciousness of its class. Therefore, whoever identifies the leading role of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat substitutes the directives given by the Party for the will and actions of the class.

Thirdly. “The dictatorship of the proletariat,” says Lenin, “is the class struggle of the proletariat, which has won victory and has seized political power” (see Vol. XXIV, p. 311). How can this class struggle find expression? It may find expression in a series of armed actions by the proletariat against the sorties of the overthrown bourgeoisie, or against the intervention of the foreign bourgeoisie. It may find expression in civil war, if the power of the proletariat has not yet been consolidated. It may find expression, after power has already been consolidated, in the extensive organisational and constructive work of the proletariat, with the enlistment of the broad masses in this work. In all these cases, the acting force is the proletariat as a class. It has never happened that the Party, the Party alone, has undertaken all these actions with only its own forces, without the support of the class. Usually it only directs these actions, and it can direct them only to the extent that it has the support of the class. For the Party cannot cover, cannot replace the class. For, despite all its important leading role, the Party still remains a part of the class. Therefore, whoever identifies the leading role of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat substitutes the Party for the class.

Fourthly. The Party exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat. “The Party is the direct governing vanguard of the proletariat; it is the leader” (Lenin).13 In this sense the Party takes power, the Party governs the country. But this must not be understood in the sense that the Party exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat separately from the state power, without the state power; that the Party governs the country separately from the Soviets, not through the Soviets. This does not mean that the Party can be identified with the Soviets, with the state power. The Party is the core of this power, but it is not and cannot be identified with the state power.

“As the ruling Party,” says Lenin, “we could not but merge the Soviet ‘top leadership’ with the Party ‘top leadership’—in our country they are merged and will remain so” (see Vol. XXVI, p. 208). This is quite true. But by this Lenin by no means wants to imply that our Soviet institutions as a whole, for instance our army, our transport, our economic institutions, etc., are Party institutions, that the Party can replace the Soviets and their ramifications, that the Party can be identified with the state power. Lenin repeatedly said that “the system of Soviets is the dictatorship of the proletariat,” and that “the Soviet power is the dictatorship of the proletariat” (see Vol. XXIV, pp. 15, 14); but he never said that the Party is the state power, that the Soviets and the Party are one and the same thing. The Party, with a membership of several hundred thousand, guides the Soviets and their central and local ramifications, which embrace tens of millions of people, both Party and non-Party, but it cannot and should not supplant them. That is why Lenin says that “the dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat organised in the Soviets, the proletariat led by the Communist Party of Bolsheviks”; that “all the work of the Party is carried on through** the Soviets, which embrace the labouring masses irrespective of occupation” (see Vol. XXV, pp. 192, 193); and that the dictatorship “has to be exercised . . . through** the Soviet apparatus” (see Vol. XXV1, p. 64). Therefore, whoever identifies the leading role of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat substitutes the Party for the Soviets, i.e., for the state power.

Fifthly. The concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is a state concept. The dictatorship of the proletariat necessarily includes the concept of force. There is no dictatorship without the use of force, if dictatorship is to be understood in the strict sense of the word. Lenin defines the dictatorship of the proletariat as “power based directly on the use of force” (see Vol. XIX, p. 315). Hence, to talk about dictatorship of the Party in relation to the proletarian class, and to identify it with the dictatorship of the proletariat, is tantamount to saying that in relation to its class the Party must be not only a guide, not only a leader and teacher, but also a sort of dictator employing force against it, which, of course, is quite incorrect. Therefore, whoever identifies “dictatorship of the Party” with the dictatorship of the proletariat tacitly proceeds from the assumption that the prestige of the Party can be built up on force employed against the working class, which is absurd and quite incompatible with Leninism. The prestige of the Party is sustained by the confidence of the working class. And the confidence of the working class is gained not by force—force only kills it—but by the Party’s correct theory, by the Party’s correct policy, by the Party’s devotion to the working class, by its connection with the masses of the working class, by its readiness and ability to convince the masses of the correctness of its slogans.

What, then, follows from all this?

From this it follows that:

1) Lenin uses the word dictatorship of the Party not in the strict sense of the word (“power based on the use of force”), but in the figurative sense, in the sense of its undivided leadership.

2) Whoever identifies the leadership of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat distorts Lenin, wrongly attributing to the Party the function of employing force against the working class as a whole.

3) Whoever attributes to the Party the function, which it does not possess, of employing force against the working class as a whole, violates the elementary requirements of correct mutual relations between the vanguard and the class, between the Party and the proletariat.

Thus, we have come right up to the question of the mutual relations between the Party and the class, between Party and non-Party members of the working class.

Lenin defines these mutual relations as “mutual confidence** between the vanguard of the working class and the mass of the workers” (see Vol. XXVI, p. 235).

What does this mean?

It means, firstly, that the Party must closely heed the voice of the masses; that it must pay careful attention to the revolutionary instinct of the masses; that it must study the practice of the struggle of the masses and on this basis test the correctness of its own policy; that, consequently, it must not only teach the masses, but also learn from them. It means, secondly, that the Party must day by day win the confidence of the proletarian masses; that it must by its policy and work secure the support of the masses; that it must not command but primarily convince the masses, helping them to realise through their own experience the correctness of the policy of the Party; that, consequently, it must be the guide, the leader and teacher of its class.

To violate these conditions means to upset the correct mutual relations between the vanguard and the class, to undermine “mutual confidence,” to shatter both class and Party discipline.

“Certainly,” says Lenin, “almost everyone now realises that the Bolsheviks could not have maintained themselves in power for two-and-a-half months, let alone two-and-a-half years, without the strictest, truly iron discipline in our Party, and without the fullest and unreserved support of the latter by the whole mass of the working class,** that is, by all its thinking, honest, self-sacrificing and influential elements, capable of leading or of carrying with them the backward strata” (see Vol. XXV, p. 173).

“The dictatorship of the proletariat,” says Lenin further, “is a stubborn struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative—against the forces and traditions of the old society. The force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a most terrible force. Without an iron party tempered in the struggle, without a party enjoying the confidence of all that is honest in the given class,** without a party capable of watching and influencing the mood of the masses, it is impossible to conduct such a struggle successfully” (see Vol. XXV, p. 190).

But how does the Party acquire this confidence and support of the class? How is the iron discipline necessary for the dictatorship of the proletariat built up within the working class; on what soil does it grow up?

Here is what Lenin says on this subject:

“How is the discipline of the revolutionary party of the proletariat maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? Firstly, by the class consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its stamina, self-sacrifice and heroism. Secondly, by its ability to link itself with, to keep in close touch with, and to a certain extent, if you like, to merge with the broadest masses of the working people**—primarily with the proletarian, but also with the non-proletarian, labouring masses. Thirdly, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided that the broadest masses have been convinced through their own experience of this correctness. Without these conditions, discipline in a revolutionary party that is really capable of being the party of the advanced class, whose mission it is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and transform the whole of society, cannot be achieved. Without these conditions, attempts to establish discipline inevitably become a cipher, an empty phrase, mere affectation. On the other hand, these conditions cannot arise all at once. They are created only by prolonged effort and hard-won experience. Their creation is facilitated only by correct revolutionary theory, which, in its turn, is not a dogma, but assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement” (see Vol. XXV, p. 174).

And further:

“Victory over capitalism requires the correct correlation between the leading, Communist, Party, the revolutionary class—the proletariat—and the masses, i.e., the working people and exploited as a whole. Only the Communist Party, if it is really the vanguard of the revolutionary class, if it contains all the best representatives of that class, if it consists of fully class-conscious and devoted Communists who have been educated and steeled by the experience of stubborn revolutionary struggle, if this Party has succeeded in linking itself inseparably with the whole life of its class and, through it, with the whole mass of exploited, and if it has succeeded in inspiring the complete confidence of this class and this mass**—only such a party is capable of leading the proletariat in the most ruthless, resolute and final struggle against all the forces of capitalism. On the other hand, only under the leadership of such a party can the proletariat develop the full might of its revolutionary onslaught and nullify the inevitable apathy and, partly, resistance of the small minority of the labour aristocracy corrupted by capitalism, and of the old trade-union and cooperative leaders, etc.—only then will it be able to display its full strength, which, owing to the very economic structure of capitalist society, is immeasurably greater than the proportion of the population it Constitutes” (see Vol. XXV, p. 315).

From these quotations it follows that:

1) The prestige of the Party and the iron discipline within the working class that are necessary for the dictatorship of the proletariat are built up not on fear or on “unrestricted” rights of the Party, but on the confidence of the working class in the Party, on the support which the Party receives from the working class.

2) The confidence of the working class in the Party is not acquired at one stroke, and not by means of force against the working class, but by the Party’s prolonged work among the masses, by the correct policy of the Party, by the ability of the Party to convince the masses through their own experience of the correctness of its policy, by the ability of the Party to secure the support of the working class and to take the lead of the masses of the working class.

3) Without a correct Party policy, reinforced by the experience of the struggle of the masses, and without the confidence of the working class, there is not and cannot be real leadership by the Party.

4) The Party and its leadership, if the Party enjoys the confidence of the class, and if this leadership is real leadership, cannot be counterposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, because without the leadership of the Party (the “dictatorship” of the Party), enjoying the confidence of the working class, it is impossible for the dictatorship of the proletariat to be at all firm.

Without these conditions, the prestige of the Party and iron discipline within the working class are either empty phrases or boastfulness and adventurism.

It is impossible to counterpose the dictatorship of the proletariat to the leadership (the “dictatorship”) of the Party. It is impossible because the leadership of the Party is the principal thing in the dictatorship of the proletariat, if we have in mind a dictatorship that is at all firm and complete, and not one like the Paris Commune, for instance, which was neither a complete nor a firm dictatorship. It is impossible because the dictatorship of the proletariat and the leadership of the Party lie, as it were, on the same line of activity, operate in the same direction.

“The mere presentation of the question,” says Lenin, “‘dictatorship of the Party or dictatorship of the class? dictatorship (Party) of the leaders or dictatorship (Party) of the masses?’ testifies to the most incredible and hopeless confusion of thought. . . . Everyone knows that the masses are divided into classes. . . ; that usually, and in the majority of cases, at least in modern civilised countries, classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a general rule, are directed by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions and are called leaders. . . . To go so far . . . as to counterpose, in general, dictatorship of the masses to dictatorship of the leaders is ridiculously absurd and stupid” (see Vol. XXV, pp. 187, 188).

That is absolutely correct. But that correct statement proceeds from the premise that, correct mutual relations exist between the vanguard and the masses of the workers, between the Party and the class. It proceeds from the assumption that the mutual relations between the vanguard and the class remain, so to say, normal, remain within the bounds of “mutual confidence.”

But what if the correct mutual relations between the vanguard and the class, the relations of “mutual confidence” between the Party and the class are upset?

What if the Party itself begins, in some way or other, to counterpose itself to the class, thus upsetting the foundations of its correct mutual relations with the class, thus upsetting the foundations of “mutual confidence”? Are such cases at all possible?

Yes, they are.

They are possible:

1) if the Party begins to build its prestige among the masses, not on its work and on the confidence of the masses, but on its “unrestricted” rights;

2) if the Party’s policy is obviously wrong and the Party is unwilling to reconsider and rectify its mistake;

3) if the Party’s policy is correct on the whole but, the masses are not yet ready to make it their own, and the Party is either unwilling or unable to bide its time so as to give the masses an opportunity to become convinced through their own experience that the Party’s policy is correct, and seeks to impose it on the masses.

The history of our Party provides a number of such cases. Various groups and factions in our Party have come to grief and disappeared because they violated one of these three conditions, and sometimes all these conditions taken together.

But it follows from this that counterposing the dictatorship of the proletariat to the “dictatorship” (leadership) of the Party can be regarded as incorrect only:

1) if by dictatorship of the Party in relation to the working class we mean not a dictatorship in the proper sense of the word (“power based on the use of force”), but the leadership of the Party, which precludes the use of force against the working class as a whole, against its majority, precisely as Lenin meant it;

2) if the Party has the qualifications to be the real leader of the class, i.e., if the Party’s policy is correct, if this policy accords with the interests of the class;

3) if the class, if the majority of the class, accepts that policy, makes that policy its own, becomes convinced, as a result of the work of the Party, that that policy is correct, has confidence in the Party and supports it.

The violation of these conditions inevitably gives rise to a conflict between the Party and the class, to a split between them, to their being counterposed to each other.

Can the Party’s leadership be imposed on the class by force? No, it cannot. At all events, such a leadership cannot be at all durable. If the Party wants to remain the Party of the proletariat it must know that it is, primarily and principally, the guide, the leader, the teacher of the working class. We must not forget what Lenin said on this subject in his pamphlet The State and Revolution:

“By educating the workers’ party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat, which is capable of taking power and of leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organising the new order, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader39 of all the toilers and exploited in building up their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie” (see Vol. XXI, p. 386).

Can one consider the Party as the real leader of the class if its policy is wrong, if its policy comes into collision with the interests of the class? Of course not. In such cases the Party, if it wants to remain the leader, must reconsider its policy, must correct its policy, must acknowledge its mistake and correct it. In confirmation of this thesis one could cite, for example, such a fact from the history of our Party as the period of the abolition of the surplus-appropriation system, when the masses of workers and peasants were obviously discontented with our policy and when the Party openly and honestly decided to reconsider this policy. Here is what Lenin said at the time, at the Tenth Party Congress, on the question of abolishing the surplus-appropriation system and introducing the New Economic Policy:

“We must not try to conceal anything, but must say straightforwardly that the peasantry is not satisfied with the form of relations that has been established with it, that it does not want this form of relations and will not go on living in this way. That is indisputable. It has definitely expressed this will. This is the will of the vast mass of the labouring population. We must reckon with this; and we are sufficiently sober politicians to say straightforwardly: Let us reconsider our policy towards the peasantry”** (see Vol. XXVI, p. 238).

Can one consider that the Party should take the initiative and leadership in organising decisive actions by the masses merely on the ground that its policy is correct on the whole, if that policy does not yet meet the confidence and support of the class because, say, of the latter’s political backwardness; if the Party has not yet succeeded in convincing the class of the correctness of its policy because, say, events have not yet matured? No, one cannot. In such cases the Party, if it, wants to be a real leader, must know how to bide its time, must convince the masses that its policy is correct, must help the masses to become convinced through their own experience that this policy is correct.

“If the revolutionary party,” says Lenin, “has not a majority in the advanced detachments of the revolutionary classes and in the country, an uprising is out of the question” (see Vol. XXI, p. 282).

“Revolution is impossible without a change in the views of the majority of the working class, and this change is brought about by the political experience of the masses” (see Vol. XXV, p. 221).

“The proletarian vanguard has been won over ideologically. That is the main thing. Without this not even the first step towards victory can be made. But it is still a fairly long way from victory. Victory cannot be won with the vanguard alone. To throw the vanguard alone into the decisive battle, before the whole class, before the broad masses have taken up a position either of direct support of the vanguard, or at least of benevolent neutrality towards it, and one in which they cannot possibly support the enemy, would be not merely folly but a crime. And in order that actually the whole class, that actually the broad masses of the working people and those oppressed by capital may take up such a position, propaganda and agitation alone are not enough. For this the masses must have their own political experience” (ibid., p. 228).

We know that this is precisely how our Party acted during the period from Lenin’s April Theses to the October uprising of 1917. And it was precisely because it acted according to these directives of Lenin’s that it was successful in the uprising.

Such, basically, are the conditions for correct mutual relations between the vanguard and the class. What does leadership mean when the policy of the Party is correct and the correct relations between the vanguard and the class are not upset?

Leadership under these circumstances means the ability to convince the masses of the correctness of the Party’s policy; the ability to put forward and to carry out such slogans as bring the masses to the Party’s positions and help them to realise through their own experience the correctness of the Party’s policy; the ability to raise the masses to the Party’s level of political consciousness, and thus secure the support of the masses and their readiness for the decisive struggle.

Therefore, the method of persuasion is the principal method of the Party’s leadership of the working class.

“If we, in Russia today,” says Lenin, “after two-and-a-half years of unprecedented victories over the bourgeoisie of Russia and the Entente, were to make ‘recognition of the dictatorship’ a condition of trade-union membership, we should be committing a folly, we should be damaging our influence over the masses, we should be helping the Mensheviks. For the whole task of the Communists is to be able to convince the backward elements, to be able to work among them, and not to fence themselves off from them by artificial and childishly ‘Left’ slogans” (see Vol. XXV, p. 197).

This, of course, must not be understood in the sense that the Party must convince all the workers, down to the last man, and that only after this is it possible to proceed to action, that only after this is it possible to start operations. Not at all! It only means that before entering upon decisive political actions the Party must, by means of prolonged revolutionary work, secure for itself the support of the majority of the masses of the workers, or at least the benevolent neutrality of the majority of the class. Otherwise Lenin’s thesis, that a necessary condition for victorious revolution is that the Party should win over the majority of the working class, would be devoid of all meaning.

Well, and what is to be done with the minority, if it does not wish, if it does not agree voluntarily to submit to the will of the majority? Can the Party, must the Party, enjoying the confidence of the majority, compel the minority to submit to the will of the majority? Yes, it can and it must. Leadership is ensured by the method of persuading the masses, as the principal method by which the Party influences the masses. This, however, does not preclude, but presupposes, the use of coercion, if such coercion is based on confidence in the Party and support for it on the part of the majority of the working class, if it is applied to the minority after the Party has convinced the majority.

It would be well to recall the controversies around this subject that took place in our Party during the discussion on the trade-union question. What was the mistake of the opposition, the mistake of the Tsektran,14 at that time? Was it that the opposition then considered it possible to resort to coercion? No! It, was not that. The mistake of the opposition at that time was that, being unable to convince the majority of the correctness of its position, having lost the confidence of the majority, it nevertheless began to apply coercion, began to insist on “shaking up” those who enjoyed the confidence of the majority.

Here is what Lenin said at that time, at the Tenth Congress of the Party, in his speech on the trade unions:

“In order to establish mutual relations and mutual confidence between the vanguard of the working class and the masses of the workers, it was necessary, if the Tsektran had made a mistake . . . to correct this mistake. But when people begin to defend this mistake, it becomes a source of political danger. Had not the utmost possible been done in the way of democracy in heeding the moods expressed here by Kutuzov, we would have met with political bankruptcy. First we must convince, and then coerce. We must at all costs first convince, and then coerce.** We were not able to convince the broad masses, and we upset the correct relations between the vanguard and the masses” (see Vol. XXVI, p. 235).

Lenin says the same thing in his pamphlet On the Trade Unions15:

“We applied coercion correctly and successfully only when we were able to create beforehand a basis of conviction for it” (ibid., p. 74).

And that is quite true, for without those conditions no leadership is possible. For only in that way can we ensure unity of action in the Party, if we are speaking of the Party, or unity of action of the class, if we are speaking of the class as a whole. Without this there is splitting, confusion and demoralisation in the ranks of the working class.

Such in general are the fundamentals of correct leadership of the working class by the Party.

Any other conception of leadership is syndicalism, anarchism, bureaucracy—anything you please, but not Bolshevism, not Leninism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be counterposed to the leadership (“dictatorship”) of the Party if correct mutual relations exist between the Party and the working class, between the vanguard and the masses of the workers. But from this it follows that it is all the more impermissible to identify the Party with the working class, the leadership (“dictatorship”) of the Party with the dictatorship of the working class. On the ground that the “dictatorship” of the Party cannot be counterposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, Sorin arrived at the wrong conclusion that “the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of our Party.”

But Lenin not only speaks of the impermissibility of such counterposition, he also speaks of the impermissibility of counterposing “the dictatorship of the masses to the dictatorship of the leaders.” Would you, on this ground, have us identify the dictatorship of leaders with the dictatorship of the proletariat? If we took that line, we would have to say that “the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of our leaders.” But it is precisely to this absurdity that we are led, properly speaking, by the policy of identifying the “dictatorship” of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat. . . .

Where does Zinoviev stand on this subject?

In essence, Zinoviev shares Sorin’s point of view of identifying the “dictatorship” of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat—with the difference, however, that Sorin expresses himself more openly and clearly, whereas Zinoviev “wriggles.” One need only take, for instance, the following passage in Zinoviev’s book Leninism to be convinced of this:

“What,” says Zinoviev, “is the system existing in the U.S.S.R. from the standpoint of its class content? It is the dictatorship of the proletariat. What is the direct mainspring of power in the U.S.S.R.? Who exercises the power of the working class? The Communist Party! In this sense, we have** the dictatorship of the Party. What is the juridical form of power in the U.S.S.R.? What is the new type of state system that was created by the October Revolution? The Soviet system. The one does not in the least contradict the other.”

That the one does not contradict the other is, of course, correct if by the dictatorship of the Party in relation to the working class as a whole we mean the leadership of the Party. But, how is it possible, on this ground, to place a sign of equality between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the “dictatorship” of the Party, between the Soviet system and the “dictatorship” of the Party? Lenin identified the system of Soviets with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and he was right, for the Soviets, our Soviets, are organisations which rally the labouring masses around the proletariat under the rally of the Party. But when, where, and in which of his writings did Lenin place a sign of equality between the “dictatorship” of the Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, between the “dictatorship” of the Party and the system of Soviets, as Zinoviev does now? Neither the leadership (“dictatorship”) of the Party nor the leadership (“dictatorship”) of the leaders contradicts the dictatorship of the proletariat. Would you, on this ground, have us proclaim that our country is the country of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is to say, the country of the dictatorship of the Party, that is to say, the country of the dictatorship of the leaders? And yet the “principle” of identifying the “dictatorship” of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat, which Zinoviev enunciates surreptitiously and uncourageously, leads precisely to this absurdity.

In Lenin’s numerous works I have been able to note only five cases in which he touches, in passing, on the question of the dictatorship of the Party.

The first case is in his controversy with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, where he says:

“When we are reproached with the dictatorship of one party, and when, as you have heard, a proposal is made to establish a united socialist front, we reply: ‘Yes, the dictatorship of one party! We stand by it, and cannot depart from it, for it is that Party which, in the course of decades, has won the position of vanguard of the whole factory and industrial proletariat’” (see Vol. XXIV, p. 423).

The second case is in his “Letter to the Workers and Peasants in Connection with the Victory over Kolchak,” in which he says:

“Some people (especially the Mensheviks and the SocialistRevolutionaries—all of them, even the ‘Lefts’ among them) are trying to scare the peasants with the bogey of the ‘dictatorship of one party,’ the Party of Bolsheviks, Communists.

“The peasants have learned from the instance of Kolchak not to be afraid of this bogey.

“Either the dictatorship (i.e., iron rule) of the landlords and capitalists, or the dictatorship of the working class” (see Vol. XXIV, p. 436).

The third case is Lenin’s speech at the Second Congress of the Comintern in his controversy with Tanner. I have quoted it above.*

The fourth case is a few lines in the pamphlet “Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder. The passages in question have already been quoted above.*

And the fifth case is in his draft outline of the dictatorship of the proletariat, published in the Lenin Miscellany, Volume III, where there is a sub-heading “Dictatorship of One Party” (see Lenin Miscellany, Vol. III, p. 497).

It should be noted that in two out of the five cases, the last and the second, Lenin puts the words “dictatorship of one party” in quotation marks, thus clearly emphasising the inexact, figurative sense of this formula.

It should also be noted that in every one of these cases, by the “dictatorship of the Party” Lenin meant dictatorship (“iron rule”) over the “landlords and capitalists,” and not over the working class, contrary to the slanderous fabrications of Kautsky and Co.

It is characteristic that in none of his works, major or secondary, in which Lenin discusses or merely alludes to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the role of the Party in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is there any hint whatever that “the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of our Party.” On the contrary, every page, every line of these works cries out against such a formula (see The State and Revolution, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, “Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder, etc.).

Even more characteristic is the fact that in the theses of the Second Congress of the Comintern16 on the role of a political party, which were drawn up under the direct guidance of Lenin, and to which Lenin repeatedly referred in his speeches as a model of the correct formulation of the role and tasks of the Party, we find not one word, literally not one word, about dictatorship of the Party.

What does all this indicate?

It indicates that:

a) Lenin did not regard the formula “dictatorship of the Party” as irreproachable and exact, for which reason it is very rarely used in Lenin’s works, and is sometimes put in quotation marks;

b) on the few occasions that Lenin was obliged, in controversy with opponents, to speak of the dictatorship of the Party, he usually referred to the “dictatorship of one party,” i.e., to the fact that our Party holds power alone, that it does not share power with other parties. Moreover, he always made it clear that the dictatorship of the Party in relation to the working class meant the leadership of the Party, its leading role;

c) in all those cases in which Lenin thought it necessary to give a scientific definition of the role of the Party in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, he spoke exclusively of the leading role of the Party in relation to the working class (and there are thousands of such cases);

d) that is why it never “occurred” to Lenin to include the formula “dictatorship of the Party” in the fundamental resolution on the role of the Party—I have in mind the resolution adopted at the Second Congress of the Comintern;

e) the comrades who identify, or try to identify, the “dictatorship” of the Party and, therefore, the “dictatorship of the leaders” with the dictatorship of the proletariat are wrong from the point of view of Leninism, and are politically short-sighted, for they thereby violate the conditions for correct mutual relations between the vanguard and the class.

This is apart from the fact that the formula “dictatorship of the Party,” when taken without the above-mentioned reservations, can give rise to quite a number of dangers and political set-backs in our practical work. This formula, taken without reservations, says, as it were:

a) to the non-Party masses: don’t dare to contradict, don’t dare to argue, for the Party can do everything, for we have the dictatorship of the Party;

b) to the Party cadres: act more boldly, tighten the screw, there is no need to heed what the non-Party masses say, we have the dictatorship of the Party;

c) to the top leadership of the Party: you may indulge in the luxury of a certain amount of complacency, you may even become conceited, for we have the dictatorship of the Party, and, “consequently,” the dictatorship of the leaders.

It is opportune to call attention to these dangers precisely at the present moment, in a period when the political activity of the masses is rising, when the readiness of the Party to heed the voice of the masses is of particular value to us, when attention to the requirements of the masses is a fundamental precept of our Party, when it is incumbent upon the Party to display particular caution and particular flexibility in its policy, when the danger of becoming conceited is one of the most serious dangers confronting the Party in its task of correctly leading the masses.

One cannot but recall Lenin’s golden words at the Eleventh Congress of our Party:

“Among the mass of the people we (the Communists—J. St.) are after all but a drop in the ocean, and we can administer only when we properly express what the people are conscious of. Unless we do this the Communist Party will not lead the proletariat, the proletariat will not lead the masses, and the whole machine will collapse” (see Vol. XXVII, p. 256).

“Properly express what the people are conscious of”—this is precisely the necessary condition that ensures for the Party the honourable role of the principal guiding force in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

VI. THE QUESTION OF THE VICTORY OF SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY.

The pamphlet The Foundations of Leninism (May 1924, first edition) contains two formulations on the question of the victory of socialism in one country. The first of these says:

“Formerly, the victory of the revolution in one country was considered impossible, on the assumption that it would require the combined action of the proletarians of all or at least of a majority of the advanced countries to achieve victory over the bourgeoisie. Now this point of view no longer fits in with the facts. Now we must proceed from the possibility of such a victory, for the uneven and spasmodic character of the development of the various capitalist countries under the conditions of imperialism, the development within imperialism of catastrophic contradictions leading to inevitable wars, the growth of the revolutionary movement in all countries of the world—all this leads, not only to the possibility, but also to the necessity of the victory of the proletariat in individual countries” (see The Foundations of Leninism17).

This thesis is quite correct and needs no comment. It is directed against the theory of the Social-Democrats, who regard the seizure of power by the proletariat in one country, without the simultaneous victory of the revolution in other countries, as utopian.

But the pamphlet The Foundations of Leninism contains a second formulation, which says:

“But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. The principal task of socialism—the organisation of socialist production—has still to be fulfilled. Can this task be fulfilled, can the final victory of socialism be achieved in one country, without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several advanced countries? No, it cannot. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient; this is proved by the history of our revolution. For the final victory of socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of a peasant country like Russia, are insufficient; for that, the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are required” (see The Foundations of Leninism, first edition18).

This second formulation was directed against the assertions of the critics of Leninism, against the Trotskyists, who declared that the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, in the absence of victory in other countries, could not “hold out in the face of a conservative Europe.”

To that extent—but only to that extent—this formulation was then (May 1924) adequate, and undoubtedly it was of some service.

Subsequently, however, when the criticism of Leninism in this sphere had already been overcome in the Party, when a new question had come to the fore—the question of the possibility of building a complete socialist society by the efforts of our country, without help from abroad—the second formulation became obviously inadequate, and therefore incorrect.

What is the defect in this formulation?

Its defect is that it joins two different questions into one: it joins the question of the possibility of building socialism by the efforts of one country—which must be answered in the affirmative—with the question whether a country in which the dictatorship of the proletariat exists can consider itself fully guaranteed against intervention, and consequently against the restoration of the old order, without a victorious revolution in a number of other countries—which must be answered in the negative. This is apart from the fact that this formulation may give occasion for thinking that the organisation of a socialist society by the efforts of one country is impossible—which, of course, is incorrect.

On this ground I modified and corrected this formulation in my pamphlet The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists (December 1924); I divided the question into two—into the question of a full guarantee against the restoration of the bourgeois order, and the question of the possibility of building a complete socialist society in one country. This was effected, in the first place, by treating the “complete victory of socialism” as a “full guarantee against the restoration of the old order,” which is possible only through “the joint efforts of the proletarians of several countries”; and, secondly, by proclaiming, on the basis of Lenin’s pamphlet On Co-operation,19 the indisputable truth that we have all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society (see The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists).*

It was this new formulation of the question that formed the basis for the well-known resolution of the Fourteenth Party Conference “The Tasks of the Comintern and the R.C.P.(B.),”20 which examines the question of the victory of socialism in one country in connection with the stabilisation of capitalism (April 1925), and considers that the building of socialism by the efforts of our country is possible and necessary.

This new formulation also served as the basis for my pamphlet The Results of the Work of the Fourteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B.) published in May 1925, immediately after the Fourteenth Party Conference.

With regard to the presentation of the question of the victory of socialism in one country, this pamphlet states:

“Our country exhibits two groups of contradictions. One group consists of the internal contradictions that exist between the proletariat and the peasantry (this refers to the building of socialism in one country—J. St.). The other group consists of the external contradictions that exist between our country, as the land of socialism, and all the other countries, as lands of capitalism (this refers to the final victory of socialism—J. St.).” . . . “Anyone who confuses the first group of contradictions, which can be overcome entirely by the efforts of one country, with the second group of contradictions, the solution of which requires the efforts of the proletarians of several countries, commits a gross error against Leninism. He is either a muddle-head or an incorrigible opportunist” (see The Results of the Work of the Fourteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B.). 21)

On the question of the victory of socialism in our country, the pamphlet states:

“We can build socialism, and we will build it together with the peasantry under the leadership of the working class”. . . for “under the dictatorship of the proletariat we possess . . . all that is needed to build a complete socialist society, overcoming all internal difficulties, for we can and must overcome them by our own efforts” (ibid. 22).

On the question of the final victory of socialism, it states:

“The final victory of socialism is the full guarantee against attempts at intervention, and hence against restoration, for any serious attempt at restoration can take place only with serious support from outside, only with the support of international capital. Therefore, the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries, and still more the victory of the workers in at least several countries, is a necessary condition for fully guaranteeing the first victorious country against attempts at intervention and restoration, a necessary condition for the final victory of socialism” (ibid.23).

Clear, one would think.

It is well known that this question was treated in the same spirit in my pamphlet Questions and Answers (June 1925) and in the political report of the Central Committee to the Fourteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)24 (December 1925).

Such are the facts.

These facts, I think, are known to all the comrades, including Zinoviev.

If now, nearly two years after the ideological struggle in the Party and after the resolution that was adopted at the Fourteenth Party Conference (April 1925), Zinoviev finds it possible in his reply to the discussion at the Fourteenth Party Congress (December 1925) to dig up the old and quite inadequate formula contained in Stalin’s pamphlet written in April 1924, and to make it the basis for deciding the already decided question of the victory of socialism in one country—then this peculiar trick of his only goes to show that he has got completely muddled on this question. To drag the Party back after it has moved forward, to evade the resolution of the Fourteenth Party Conference after it has been confirmed by a Plenum of the Central Committee,25 means to become hopelessly entangled in contradictions, to have no faith in the cause of building socialism, to abandon the path of Lenin, and to acknowledge one’s own defeat.

What is meant by the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country?

It means the possibility of solving the contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry by means of the internal forces of our country, the possibility of the proletariat seizing power and using that power to build a complete socialist society in our country, with the sympathy and the support of the proletarians of other countries, but without the preliminary victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries.

Without, such a possibility, building socialism is building without prospects, building without being sure that socialism will be completely built. It is no use engaging in building socialism without being sure that we can build it completely, without being sure that the technical backwardness of our country is not an insuperable obstacle to the building of a complete socialist society. To deny such a possibility means disbelief in the cause of building socialism, departure from Leninism.

What is meant by the impossibility of the complete, final victory of socialism in one country without the victory of the revolution in other countries?

It means the impossibility of having a full guarantee against intervention, and consequently against the restoration of the bourgeois order, without the victory of the revolution in at least a number of countries. To deny this indisputable thesis means departure from internationalism, departure from Leninism.

“We are living,” says Lenin, “not merely in a state, but in a system of states, and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end. And before that end comes, a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable. That means that if the ruling class, the proletariat, wants to, and will hold sway, it must prove this by its military organisation also” (see Vol. XXIV, p. 122).

“We have before us,” says Lenin in another passage, “a certain equilibrium, which is in the highest degree unstable, but an unquestionable, an indisputable equilibrium nevertheless. Will it last long? I do not know and, I think, it is impossible to know. And therefore we must exercise very great caution. And the first precept of our policy, the first lesson to be learned from our governmental activities during the past year, the lesson which all the workers and peasants must learn, is that we must be on the alert, we must remember that we are surrounded by people, classes and governments who openly express their intense hatred for us. We must remember that we are at all times but a hair’s breadth from every manner of invasion” (see Vol. XXVII, p. 117).

Clear, one would think.

Where does Zinoviev stand as regards the question of the victory of socialism in one country?

Listen:

“By the final victory of socialism is meant, at least: 1) the abolition of classes, and therefore 2) the abolition of the dictatorship of one class, in this case the dictatorship of the proletariat.” . . . “In order to get a clearer idea of how the question stands here, in the U.S.S.R., in the year 1925,” says Zinoviev further, “we must distinguish between two things: 1) the assured possibility of engaging in building socialism—such a possibility, it stands to reason, is quite conceivable within the limits of one country; and 2) the final construction and consolidation of socialism, i.e., the achievement of a socialist system, of a socialist society.”

What can all this signify?

It signifies that by the final victory of socialism in one country Zinoviev understands, not a guarantee against intervention and restoration, but the possibility of completely building socialist society. And by the victory of socialism in one country Zinoviev understands the kind of building socialism which cannot and should not lead to completely building socialism. Building at haphazard, without prospects, building socialism although completely building a socialist society is impossible—such is Zinoviev’s position.

To engage in building socialism without the possibility of completely building it, knowing that it cannot be completely built—such are the absurdities in which Zinoviev has involved himself.

But this is a mockery of the question, not a solution of it!

Here is another extract from Zinoviev’s reply to the discussion at the Fourteenth Party Congress:

“Take a look, for instance, at what Comrade Yakovlev went so far as to say at the last Kursk Gubernia Party Conference. He asks: ‘Is it possible for us, surrounded as we are on all sides by capitalist enemies, to completely build socialism in one country under such conditions?’ And he answers: ‘On the basis of all that has been said we have the right to say not only that we are building socialism, but that in spite of the fact that for the time being we are alone, that for the time being we are the only Soviet country, the only Soviet state in the world, we shall completely build socialism’ (Kurskaya Pravda, No. 279, December 8, 1925). Is this the Leninist method of presenting the question,” Zinoviev asks, “does not this smack of national narrow-mindedness?”**

Thus, according to Zinoviev, to recognise the possibility of completely building socialism in one country means adopting the point of view of national narrow-mindedness, while to deny such a possibility means adopting the point of view of internationalism.

But if that is true, is it at all worth while fighting for victory over the capitalist elements in our economy?

Does it not follow from this that such a victory is impossible?

Capitulation to the capitalist elements in our economy—that is what the inherent logic of Zinoviev’s line of argument leads us to.

And this absurdity, which has nothing in common with Leninism, is presented to us by Zinoviev as “internationalism,” as “100 per cent Leninism”!

I assert that on this most important question of building socialism Zinoviev is deserting Leninism and slipping to the standpoint of the Menshevik Sukhanov.

Let us turn to Lenin. Here is what he said about the victory of socialism in one country even before the October Revolution, in August 1915:

“Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised socialist production,** would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, raising revolts in those countries against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity coming out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states” (see Vol. XVIII, pp. 232-33).

What is meant by Lenin’s phrase “having . . . organised socialist production” which I have stressed? It means that the proletariat of the victorious country, having seized power, can and must organise socialist production. And what does to “organise socialist production” mean? It means completely building a socialist society. It scarcely needs proof that this clear and definite statement of Lenin’s requires no further comment. Otherwise Lenin’s call for the seizure of power by the proletariat in October 1917 would be incomprehensible.

You see that this clear thesis of Lenin’s, in comparison with Zinoviev’s muddled and anti-Leninist “thesis” that we can engage in building socialism “within the limits of one country,” although it is impossible to build it completely, is as different from the latter as the heavens from the earth.

The statement quoted above was made by Lenin in 1915, before the proletariat had taken power. But perhaps he modified his views after the experience of taking power, after 1917? Let us turn to Lenin’s pamphlet On Co-operation, written in 1923.

“As a matter of fact;” says Lenin, “state power over all large-scale means of production, state power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc.—is not this all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society from the co-operatives, from the co-operatives alone, which we formerly looked down upon as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to look down upon as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society?** This is not yet the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building”** (see Vol. XXVII, p. 392).

In other words, we can and must build a complete socialist society, for we have at our disposal all that is necessary and sufficient for this building.

I think it would be difficult to express oneself more clearly.

Compare this classical thesis of Lenin’s with the anti-Leninist rebuke Zinoviev administered to Yakovlev, and you will realise that Yakovlev was only repeating Lenin’s words about the possibility of completely building socialism in one country, whereas Zinoviev, by attacking this thesis and castigating Yakovlev, deserted Lenin and adopted the point of view of the Menshevik Sukhanov, the point of view that it is impossible to build socialism completely in our country owing to its technical backwardness.

One can only wonder why we took power in October 1917 if we did not count on completely building socialism.

We should not have taken power in October 1917—this is the conclusion to which the inherent logic of Zinoviev’s line of argument leads us.

I assert further that in the highly important question of the victory of socialism Zinoviev has gone counter to the definite decisions of our Party, as registered in the well-known resolution of the Fourteenth Party Conference “The Tasks of the Comintern and the R.C.P.(B.) in Connection with the Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I.”

Let us turn to this resolution. Here is what it says about the victory of socialism in one country:

“The existence of two directly opposite social systems gives rise to the constant menace of capitalist blockade, of other forms of economic pressure, of armed intervention, of restoration. Consequently, the only guarantee of the final victory of socialism, i.e., the guarantee against restoration,** is a victorious socialist revolution in a number of countries. . . .” “Leninism teaches that the final victory of socialism, in the sense of a full guarantee against the restoration** of bourgeois relationships, is possible only on an international scale. . . . ” “But it does not follow** from this that it is impossible to build a complete socialist society** in a backward country like Russia, without the ‘state aid’ (Trotsky) of countries more developed technically and economically” (see the resolution26).

As you see, the resolution interprets the final victory of socialism as a guarantee against intervention and restoration, in complete contrast to Zinoviev’s interpretation in his book Leninism.

As you see, the resolution recognises the possibility of building a complete socialist society in a backward country like Russia without the “state aid” of countries more developed technically and economically, in complete contrast to what Zinoviev said when he rebuked Yakovlev in his reply to the discussion at the Fourteenth Party Congress.

How else can this be described if not as a struggle on Zinoviev’s part against the resolution of the Fourteenth Party Conference?

Of course, Party resolutions are sometimes not free from error. Sometimes they contain mistakes. Speaking generally, one may assume that the resolution of the Fourteenth Party Conference also contains certain errors. Perhaps Zinoviev thinks that this resolution is erroneous. But then he should say so clearly and openly, as befits a Bolshevik. For some reason or other, however, Zinoviev does not do so. He preferred to choose another path, that of attacking the resolution of the Fourteenth Party Conference from the rear, while keeping silent about this resolution and refraining from any open criticism of the resolution. Zinoviev evidently thinks that this will be the best way of achieving his purpose. And he has but one purpose, namely—to “improve” the resolution, and to amend Lenin “just a little bit.” It scarcely needs proof that Zinoviev has made a mistake in his calculations.

What is Zinoviev’s mistake due to? What is the root of this mistake?

The root of this mistake, in my opinion, lies in Zinoviev’s conviction that the technical backwardness of our country is an insuperable obstacle to the building of a complete socialist society; that the proletariat cannot completely build socialism owing to the technical backwardness of our country. Zinoviev and Kamenev once tried to raise this argument at a meeting of the Central Committee of the Party prior to the April Party Conference.27 But they received a rebuff and were compelled to retreat, and formally they submitted to the opposite point of view, the point of view of the majority of the Central Committee. But although he formally submitted to it, Zinoviev has continued to wage a struggle against it all the time. Here is what the Moscow Committee of our Party says about this “incident” in the Central Committee of the R.C.P:(B.) in its “Reply” to the letter of the Leningrad Gubernia Party Conference28:

“Recently, in the Political Bureau, Kamenev and Zinoviev advocated the point of view that we cannot cope with the internal difficulties due to our technical and economic backwardness unless an international revolution comes to our rescue. We, however, with the majority of the members of the Central Committee, think that we can build socialism, are building it, and will completely build it, notwithstanding our technical backwardness and in spite of it. We think that the work of building will proceed far more slowly, of course, than in the conditions of a world victory; nevertheless, we are making progress and will continue to do so. We also believe that the view held by Kamenev and Zinoviev expresses disbelief in the internal forces of our working class and of the peasant masses who follow its lead. We believe that it is a departure from the Leninist position” (see “Reply”).

This document appeared in the press during the first sittings of the Fourteenth Party Congress. Zinoviev, of course, had the opportunity of attacking this document at the congress. It is characteristic that Zinoviev and Kamenev found no arguments against this grave accusation directed against them by the Moscow Committee of our Party. Was this accidental? I think not. The accusation, apparently, hit the mark. Zinoviev and Kamenev “replied” to this accusation by silence, because they had no “card to beat it.”

The “New Opposition” is offended because Zinoviev is accused of disbelief in the victory of socialist construction in our country. But if after a whole year of discussion on the question of the victory of socialism in one country; after Zinoviev’s view-point has been rejected by the Political Bureau of the Central Committee (April 1925); after the Party has arrived at a definite opinion on this question, recorded in the well-known resolution of the Fourteenth Party Conference (April 1925)—if, after all this, Zinoviev ventures to oppose the point of view of the Party in his book Leninism (September 1925), if he then repeats this opposition at the Fourteenth Party Congress—how can all this, this stubbornness, this persistence in his error, be explained if not by the fact that Zinoviev is infected, hopelessly infected, with disbelief in the victory of socialist construction in our country?

It pleases Zinoviev to regard this disbelief of his as internationalism. But since when have we come to regard departure from Leninism on a cardinal question of Leninism as internationalism?

Will it not be more correct to say that it is not the Party but Zinoviev who is sinning against internationalism and the international revolution? For what is our country, the country “that is building socialism,” if not the base of the world revolution? But can it be a real base of the world revolution if it is incapable of completely building a socialist society? Can it remain the mighty centre of attraction for the workers of all countries that it undoubtedly is now, if it is incapable of achieving victory at home over the capitalist elements in our economy, the victory of socialist construction? I think not. But does it not follow from this that disbelief in the victory of socialist construction, the dissemination of such disbelief, will lead to our country being discredited as the base of the world revolution? And if our country is discredited the world revolutionary movement will be weakened. How did Messrs. the Social-Democrats try to scare the workers away from us? By preaching that “the Russians will not get anywhere.” What are we beating the Social-Democrats with now, when we are attracting a whole series of workers’ delegations to our country and thereby strengthening the position of communism all over the world? By our successes in building socialism. Is it not obvious, then, that whoever disseminates disbelief in our successes in building socialism thereby indirectly helps the Social-Democrats, reduces the sweep of the international revolutionary movement, and inevitably departs from internationalism? . . .

You see that Zinoviev is in no better position in regard to his “internationalism” than in regard to his “100 per cent Leninism” on the question of building socialism in one country.

That is why the Fourteenth Party Congress rightly defined the views of the “New Opposition” as “disbelief in the cause of socialist construction,” as “a distortion of Leninism.”29

VII. THE FIGHT FOR THE VICTORY OF SOCIALIST CONSTRUCTION.

I think that disbelief in the victory of socialist construction is the principal error of the “New Opposition.” In my opinion, it is the principal error because from it spring all the other errors of the “New Opposition.” The errors of the “New Opposition” on the questions of NEP, state capitalism, the nature of our socialist industry, the role of the co-operatives under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the methods of fighting the kulaks, the role and importance of the middle peasantry—all these errors are to be traced to the principal error of the opposition, to disbelief in the possibility of completely building a socialist society by the efforts of our country.

What is disbelief in the victory of socialist construction in our country?

It is, first of all, lack of confidence that, owing to certain conditions of development in our country, the main mass of the peasantry can be drawn into the work of socialist construction.

It is, secondly, lack of confidence that the proletariat of our country, which holds the key positions in our national economy, is capable of drawing the main mass of the peasantry into the work of socialist construction. It is from these theses that the opposition tacitly proceeds in its arguments about the paths of our development—no matter whether it does so consciously or unconsciously.

Can the main mass of the Soviet peasantry be drawn into the work of socialist construction?

In the pamphlet The Foundations of Leninism there are two main theses on this subject:

1) “The peasantry in the Soviet Union must not be confused with the peasantry in the West. A peasantry that has been schooled in three revolutions, that fought against the tsar and the power of the bourgeoisie side by side with the proletariat and under the leadership of the proletariat, a peasantry that has received land and peace at the hands of the proletarian revolution and by reason of this has become the reserve of the proletariat—such a peasantry cannot but be different from a peasantry which during the bourgeois revolution fought under the leadership of the liberal bourgeoisie, which received land at the hands of that bourgeoisie, and in view of this became the reserve of the bourgeoisie. It scarcely needs proof that the Soviet peasantry, which has learnt to appreciate its political friendship and political collaboration with the proletariat and which owes its freedom to this friendship and collaboration, cannot but represent exceptionally favourable material for economic collaboration with the proletariat.”

2) “Agriculture in Russia must not be confused with agriculture in the West. There, agriculture is developing along the ordinary lines of capitalism, under conditions of profound differentiation among the peasantry, with large landed estates and private capitalist latifundia at one extreme and pauperism, destitution and wage slavery at the other. Owing to this, disintegration and decay are quite natural there. Not so in Russia. Here agriculture cannot develop along such a path, if for no other reason than that the existence of Soviet power and the nationalisation of the principal instruments and means of production preclude such a development. In Russia the development of agriculture must proceed along a different path, along the path of organising millions of small and middle peasants in co-operatives, along the path of developing in the countryside a mass co-operative movement supported by the state by means of preferential credits. Lenin rightly pointed out in his articles on co-operation that the development of agriculture in our country must proceed along a new path, along the path of drawing the majority of the peasants into socialist construction through the co-operatives, along the path of gradually introducing into agriculture the principles of collectivism, first in the sphere of marketing and later in the sphere of production of agricultural products. . . .

“It scarcely needs proof that the vast majority of the peasantry will eagerly take this new path of development, rejecting the path of private capitalist latifundia and wage slavery, the path of destitution and ruin.”30

Are these theses correct?

I think that both theses are correct and incontrovertible for the whole of our construction period under the conditions of NEP.

They are merely the expression of Lenin’s well-known theses on the bond between the proletariat and the peasantry, on the inclusion of the peasant farms in the system of socialist development of our country; of his theses that the proletariat must march towards socialism together with the main mass of the peasantry, that the organisation of the vast masses of the peasantry in co-operatives is the high road of socialist construction in the countryside, that with the growth of our socialist industry, “for us, the more growth of co-operation is identical . . . with the growth of socialism” (see Vol. XXVII, p. 396).

Indeed, along what path can and must the development of peasant economy in our country proceed? Peasant economy is not capitalist economy. Peasant economy, if you take the overwhelming majority of the peasant farms, is small commodity economy. And what is peasant small commodity economy? It is economy standing at the cross-roads between capitalism and socialism. It may develop in the direction of capitalism, as it is now doing in capitalist countries, or in the direction of socialism, as it must do here, in our country, under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Whence this instability, this lack of independence of peasant economy? How is it to be explained?

It is to be explained by the scattered character of the peasant farms, their lack of organisation, their dependence on the towns, on industry, on the credit system, on the character of the state power in the country, and, lastly, by the well-known fact that the countryside follows, and necessarily must follow, the town both in material and in cultural matters.

The capitalist path of development of peasant economy means development through profound differentiation among the peasantry, with large latifundia at one extreme and mass impoverishment at the other. Such a path of development is inevitable in capitalist countries, because the countryside, peasant economy, is dependent on the towns, on industry, on credit concentrated in the towns, on the character of the state power—and in the towns it is the bourgeoisie, capitalist industry, the capitalist credit system and the capitalist state power that hold sway.

Is this path of development of peasant farms obligatory for our country, where the towns have quite a different aspect, where industry is in the hands of the proletariat, where transport, the credit system, the state power, etc., are concentrated in the hands of the proletariat, where the nationalisation of the land is a universal law of the country? Of course not. On the contrary. Precisely because the towns do lead the countryside, while we have in the towns the rule of the proletariat, which holds all the key positions of national economy—precisely for this reason the peasant farms in their development must proceed along a different path, the path of socialist construction.

What is this path?

It is the path of the mass organisation of millions of peasant farms into co-operatives in all spheres of co-operation, the path of uniting the scattered peasant farms around socialist industry, the path of implanting the elements of collectivism among the peasantry at first in the sphere of marketing agricultural produce and supplying the peasant farms with the products of urban industry and later in the sphere of agricultural production.

And the further we advance the more this path becomes inevitable under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, because co-operative marketing, co-operative supplying, and, finally, co-operative credit and production (agricultural co-operatives) are the only way to promote the welfare of the countryside, the only way to save the broad masses of the peasantry from poverty and ruin.

It is said that our peasantry, by its position, is not socialist, and, therefore, incapable of socialist development. It is true, of course, that the peasantry, by its position, is not socialist. But this is no argument against the development of the peasant farms along the path of socialism, once it has been proved that the countryside follows the town, and in the towns it is socialist industry that holds sway. The peasantry, by its position, was not socialist at the time of the October Revolution either, and it did not by any means want to establish socialism in our country. At that time it strove mainly for the abolition of the power of the landlords and for the ending of the war, for the establishment of peace. Nevertheless, it followed the lead of the socialist proletariat. Why? Because the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the seizure of power by the socialist proletariat was at that time the only way of getting out of the imperialist war, the only way of establishing peace. Because there was no other way at that time, nor could there be any. Because our Party was able to hit upon that degree of the combination of the specific interests of the peasantry (the overthrow of the landlords, peace) with, and their subordination to, the general interests of the country (the dictatorship of the proletariat) which proved acceptable and advantageous to the peasantry. And so the peasantry, in spite of its non-socialist character, at that time followed the lead of the socialist proletariat.

The same must be said about socialist construction in our country, about drawing the peasantry into the channel of this construction. The peasantry is non-socialist by its position. But it must, and certainly will, take the path of socialist development, for there is not, and cannot be, any other way of saving the peasantry from poverty and ruin except the bond with the proletariat, except the bond with socialist industry, except the inclusion of peasant economy in the common channel of socialist development by the mass organisation of the peasantry in co-operatives.

But why precisely by the mass organisation of the peasantry in co-operatives?

Because in the mass organisation in co-operatives “we have found that degree of the combination of private interest, private trading interest, with state supervision and control of this interest, that degree of its subordination to the general interests” (Lenin)31 which is acceptable and advantageous to the peasantry and which ensures the proletariat the possibility of drawing the main mass of the peasantry into the work of socialist construction. It is precisely because it is advantageous to the peasantry to organise the sale of its products and the purchase of machines for its farms through co-operatives, it is precisely for that reason that it should and will proceed along the path of mass organisation in co-operatives.

What does the mass organisation of peasant farms in co-operatives mean when we have the supremacy of socialist industry?

It means that peasant small commodity economy abandons the old capitalist path, which is fraught with mass ruin for the peasantry, and goes over to the new path of development, the path of socialist construction.

This is why the fight for the new path of development of peasant economy, the fight to draw the main mass of the peasantry into the work of socialist construction, is the immediate task facing our Party.

The Fourteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), therefore, was right in declaring:

“The main path of building socialism in the countryside consists in using the growing economic leadership of socialist state industry, of the state credit institutions, and of the other key positions in the hands of the proletariat to draw the main mass of the peasantry into co-operative organisation and to ensure for this organisation a socialist development, while utilising, overcoming and ousting its capitalist elements” (see Resolution of the Congress on the Report of the Central Committee32).

The profound mistake of the “New Opposition” lies in the fact that it does not believe in this new path of development of the peasantry, that it does not see, or does not understand, the absolute inevitability of this path under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And it does not understand this because it does not believe in the victory of socialist construction in our country, it does not believe in the capacity of our proletariat to lead the peasantry along the path to socialism.

Hence the failure to understand the dual character of NEP, the exaggeration of the negative aspects of NEP and the treatment of NEP as being mainly a retreat.

Hence the exaggeration of the role of the capitalist elements in our economy, and the belittling of the role of the levers of our socialist development (socialist industry, the credit system, the co-operatives, the rule of the proletariat, etc.).

Hence the failure to understand the socialist nature of our state industry, and the doubts concerning the correctness of Lenin’s co-operative plan.

Hence the inflated accounts of differentiation in the countryside, the panic in face of the kulak, the belittling of the role of the middle peasant, the attempts to thwart the Party’s policy of securing a firm alliance with the middle peasant, and, in general, the wobbling from one side to another on the question of the Party’s policy in the countryside.

Hence the failure to understand the tremendous work of the Party in drawing the vast masses of the workers and peasants into building up industry and agriculture, revitalising the co-operatives and the Soviets, administering the country, combating bureaucracy, improving and remodelling our state apparatus—work which marks a new stage of development and without which no socialist construction is conceivable.

Hence the hopelessness and consternation in face of the difficulties of our work of construction, the doubts about the possibility of industrialising our country, the pessimistic chatter about degeneration of the Party, etc.

Over there, among the bourgeoisie, all is going on fairly well, but here, among the proletarians, things are fairly bad; unless the revolution in the West takes place pretty soon, our cause is lost—such is the general tone of the “New Opposition” which, in my opinion, is a liquidationist tone, but which, for some reason or other (probably in jest), the opposition tries to pass off as “internationalism.”

NEP is capitalism, says the opposition. NEP is mainly a retreat, says Zinoviev. All this, of course, is untrue. In actual fact, NEP is the Party’s policy, permitting a struggle between the socialist and the capitalist elements and aimed at the victory of the socialist elements over the capitalist elements. In actual fact, NEP only began as a retreat, but it aimed at regrouping our forces during the retreat and launching an offensive. In actual fact, we have been on the offensive for several years now, and are attacking successfully, developing our industry, developing Soviet trade, and ousting private capital.

But what is the meaning of the thesis that NEP is capitalism, that NEP is mainly a retreat? What does this thesis proceed from?

It proceeds from the wrong assumption that what is now taking place in our country is simply the restoration of capitalism, simply a “return” to capitalism. This assumption alone can explain the doubts of the opposition regarding the socialist nature of our industry. This assumption alone can explain the panic of the opposition in face of the kulak. This assumption alone can explain the haste with which the opposition seized upon the inaccurate statistics on differentiation in the peasantry. This assumption alone can explain the opposition’s special forgetfulness of the fact that the middle peasant is the central figure in our agriculture. This assumption alone can explain the under-estimation of the importance of the middle peasant and the doubts concerning Lenin’s cooperative plan. This assumption alone can serve to “substantiate” the “New Opposition’s” disbelief in the new path of development of the countryside, the path of drawing it into the work of socialist construction.

As a matter of fact, what is taking place in our country now is not a one-sided process of restoration of capitalism, but a double process of development of capitalism and development of socialism—a contradictory process of struggle between the socialist and the capitalist elements, a process in which the socialist elements are overcoming the capitalist elements. This is equally incontestable as regards the towns, where state industry is the basis of socialism, and as regards the countryside, here the main foothold for socialist development is mass co-operation linked up with socialist industry.

The simple restoration of capitalism is impossible, if only for the reason that the proletariat is in power, that large-scale industry is in the hands of the proletariat, and that transport and credit are in the possession of the proletarian state.

Differentiation in the countryside cannot assume its former dimensions, the middle peasants still constitute the main mass of the peasantry, and the kulak cannot regain his former strength, if only for the reason that the land has been nationalised, that it has been withdrawn from circulation, while our trade, credit, tax and cooperative policy is directed towards restricting the kulaks’ exploiting proclivities, towards promoting the welfare of the broad mass of the peasantry and levelling out the extremes in the countryside. That is quite apart from the fact that the fight against the kulaks is now proceeding not only along the old line of organising the poor peasants against the kulaks, but also along the new line of strengthening the alliance of the proletariat and the poor peasants with the mass of the middle peasants against the kulaks. The fact that the opposition does not understand the meaning and significance of the fight against the kulaks along this second line once more confirms that the opposition is straying towards the old path of development in the countryside—the path of capitalist development, when the kulaks and the poor peasants constituted the main forces in the countryside, while the middle peasants were “melting away.”

Co-operation is a variety of state capitalism, says the opposition, citing in this connection Lenin’s pamphlet The Tax in Kind33; and, consequently, it does not believe it possible to utilise the co-operatives as the main foothold for socialist development. Here, too, the opposition commits a gross error. Such an interpretation of co-operation was adequate and satisfactory in 1921, when The Tax in Kind was written, when we had no developed socialist industry, when Lenin conceived of state capitalism as the possible basic form of conducting our economy, and when he considered co-operation in conjunction with state capitalism. But this interpretation has now become inadequate and has been rendered obsolete by history, for times have changed since then: our socialist industry has developed, state capitalism never took hold to the degree expected, whereas the co-operatives, which now have over ten million members, have begun to link up with socialist industry.

How else are we to explain the fact that already in 1923, two years after The Tax in Kind was written, Lenin began to regard co-operation in a different light, and considered that “co-operation, under our conditions, very often entirely coincides with socialism” (see Vol. XXVII, p. 396).

How else can this be explained except by the fact that during those two years socialist industry had grown, whereas state capitalism had failed to take hold to the required extent, in view of which Lenin began to consider co-operation, not in conjunction with state capitalism, but in conjunction with socialist industry?

The conditions of development of co-operation had changed. And so the approach to the question of co-operation had to be changed also.

Here, for instance, is a remarkable passage from Lenin’s pamphlet On Co-operation (1923), which throws light on this matter:

“Under state capitalism,** co-operative enterprises differ from state capitalist enterprises, firstly, in that they are private enterprises and, secondly, in that they are collective enterprises. Under our present system,** co-operative enterprises differ from private capitalist enterprises because they are collective enterprises, but they do not differ** from socialist enterprises if the land on which they are situated and the means of production belong to the state, i.e., the working class” (see Vol. XXVII, p. 396).

In this short passage two big questions are solved. Firstly, that “our present system” is not state capitalism. Secondly, that co-operative enterprises taken in conjunction with “our system” “do not differ” from socialist enterprises.

I think it would be difficult to express oneself more clearly.

Here is another passage from the same pamphlet of Lenin’s:

“. . . for us, the mere growth of co-operation (with the ‘slight’ exception mentioned above) is identical with the growth of socialism, and at the same time we must admit that a radical change has taken place in our whole outlook on socialism” (ibid.).

Obviously, the pamphlet On Co-operation gives a new appraisal of the co-operatives, a thing which the “New Opposition” does not want to admit, and which it is carefully hushing up, in defiance of the facts, in defiance of the obvious truth, in defiance of Leninism. Co-operation taken in conjunction with state capitalism is one thing, and co-operation taken in conjunction with socialist industry is another.

From this, however, it must not be concluded that a gulf lies between The Tax in Kind and On Co-operation. That would, of course, be wrong. It is sufficient, for instance, to refer to the following passage in The Tax in Kind to discern immediately the inseparable connection between The Tax in Kind and the pamphlet On Co-operation as regards appraisal of the co-operatives. Here it is:

“The transition from concessions to socialism is a transition from one form of large-scale production to another form of large-scale production. The transition from small-proprietor co-operatives to socialism is a transition from small production to large-scale production, i.e., it is a more complicated transition, but, if successful, is capable of embracing wider masses of the population, is capable of pulling up the deeper and more tenacious roots of the old, pre-socialist** and even pre-capitalist relations, which most stubbornly resist all ‘innovations’” (see Vol. XXVI, p. 337).

From this quotation it is evident that even during the time of The Tax in Kind, when we had as yet no developed socialist industry, Lenin was of the opinion that, if successful, co-operation could be transformed into a powerful weapon in the struggle against “pre-socialist,” and, hence, against capitalist relations. I think it was precisely this idea that subsequently served as the point of departure for his pamphlet On Co-operation.

But what follows from all this?

From all this it follows that the “New Opposition” approaches the question of co-operation, not in a Marxist way, but metaphysically. It regards co-operation not as a historical phenomenon taken in conjunction with other phenomena, in conjunction, say, with state capitalism (in 1921) or with socialist industry (in 1923), but as something constant and immutable, as a “thing in itself.”

Hence the mistakes of the opposition on the question of co-operation, hence its disbelief in the development of the countryside towards socialism through co-operation, hence its turning back to the old path, the path of capitalist development in the countryside.

Such, in general, is the position of the “New Opposition” on the practical questions of socialist construction.

There is only one conclusion: the line of the opposition, so far as it has a line, its wavering and vacillation, its disbelief in our cause and its consternation in face of difficulties, lead to capitulation to the capitalist elements of our economy.


For, if NEP is mainly a retreat, if the socialist nature of state-industry is doubted, if the kulak is almost omnipotent, if little hope can be placed in the co-operatives, if the role of the middle peasant is progressively declining, if the new path of development in the countryside is open to doubt, if the Party is almost degenerating, while the revolution in the West is not very near—then what is there left in the arsenal of the opposition, what can it count on in the struggle against the capitalist elements in our economy? You cannot go into battle armed only with “The Philosophy of the Epoch.”34

It is clear that the arsenal of the “New Opposition,” if it can be termed an arsenal at all, is an unenviable one. It is not an arsenal for battle. Still less is it one for victory.

It is clear that the Party would be doomed “in no time” if it entered the fight equipped with such an arsenal; it would simply have to capitulate to the capitalist elements in our economy.

That is why the Fourteenth Congress of the Party was absolutely right in deciding that “the fight for the victory of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. is the main task of our Party”; that one of the necessary conditions for the fulfilment of this task is “to combat disbelief in the cause of building socialism in our country and the attempts to represent our enterprises, which are of a ‘consistently socialist type’ (Lenin), as state capitalist enterprises”; that “such ideological trends, which prevent the masses from adopting a conscious attitude towards the building of socialism in general and of a socialist industry in particular, can only serve to hinder the growth of the socialist elements in our economy and to facilitate the struggle of private capital against them”; that “the congress therefore considers that wide-spread educational work must be carried on for the purpose of overcoming these distortions of Leninism” (see Resolution on the Report of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.)35).

The historical significance of the Fourteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.) lies in the fact that it was able radically to expose the mistakes of the “New Opposition,” that it rejected their disbelief and whining, that it clearly and precisely indicated the path of the further struggle for socialism, opened before the Party the prospect of victory, and thus armed the proletariat with an invincible faith in the victory of socialist construction.

January 25, 1926.

Notes

1 See J. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 6, pp. 71-196.

2 See V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 22, pp. 173-290.

3 See V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 25, pp. 353-462.

4 See V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 28, pp. 207-302.

5 See V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. 31, pp. 1-97.

* References in Roman numerals to Lenin’s works here and elsewhere are to the 3rd Russian edition of the Works.—Tr.

** My italics.—J. St.

** My italics.—J. St.

6 See J. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 6, p. 126.

** My italics.—J. St.

7 See J. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 6, p. 107.

8 See J. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 6, pp. 395-96.

9 See Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The First Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League (Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow 1951, pp. 99-108).

** My italics.—J. St.

** My italics.—J. St.

** My italics.—J. St.

** My italics.—J. St.

** My italics.—J. St.

** My italics.—J. St.

** My italics.—J. St.

** My italics.—J. St.

10 See J. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 6, pp. 379-80.
Αναρτήθηκε από In Defense of Communism

https://communismgr.blogspot.gr/2017/05/joseph-v-stalin-concerning-questions-of.html

Stalin's Final Speech 1952 [Subtitled]


http://youtu.be/3nMDjKtTigQ

Prominent figures

June 26, 10:06

https://pp.userapi.com/c837621/v837621493/488a2/ZsikVvW_HAM.jpg

Another poll on historical personalities with predictable results.

Sociologists "Levada Center," asked the Russians to name the most prominent people of all ages and nations, in the top five were: Iosif Stalin (38%), Vladimir Putin and Alexander Pushkin (34%), Vladimir Lenin (32%), Peter I ( 29%). During a similar survey in 2012. The top five ranking took the same person, but their names were placed in a different order. In the first place was also Stalin (42%), followed Lenin and Peter I (37%), Pushkin (29%), Putin (22%).

This year, the top ten included Yuri Gagarin (20%), Leo Tolstoy (12% vs. 24% in 2012), Georgy Zhukov (12%), Catherine II and Mikhail Lermontov (11%), reported "Interfax" in the "Levada-Center". In the second top ten: Mikhail Lomonosov, Alexander Suvorov, Dmitri Mendeleev (10%), Napoleon I (9%), Leonid Brezhnev (8%), Albert Einstein, Sergey Yesenin, Mikhail Kutuzov, Isaak Nyuton (7%), Mihail Gorbachev (6%). The amount of interest all the answers exceeds 100% because the respondents themselves were called names and could indicate more than one answer.
The survey was conducted April 7-10 among 1,600 people aged 18 years and older in 137 settlements of 48 regions of Russia.

http://www.interfax.ru/russia/568025 - zinc

in all, nothing new. Interviewing with Stalin had long since lost all meaning, since it is virtually all of them wins.

http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3504625.html

Google Translator

It should be kept in mind that great effort has been put into promoting Putin while the comprador regimes of Russia have demonized communism as much as they dare, Still these results...