Remembering Stalin

The 50^th anniversary of Comrade Stalin’s demise falls on 5^th March of this year. With millions of communists and progressive people all over the world, our party remembers Stalin with boundless love and esteem. Stalin’s achievements are too many. I shall confine this discussion around his most remarkable ones only. Stalin occupies a position in world history which is impossible for his worst enemies even to deny altogether. And its proof is the relentless but fruitless smear campaign to erase Stalin from public memory. Undermining Stalin’s authority had for long been the keynote of anti-communist canard. But in its present vulgar form it dates from the 20^th Congress of the CPSU of 1956 where, raising the bogey of fighting the cult of individual the Khruschovite revisionist CPSU leadership actually undermined Stalin. In the 22^nd CPSU Congress of 1961, they officially adopted de-Stalinisation measures and mounted open anti-Stalin attack, denigrating this great man as ‘egotist’, ‘power-hungry’, ‘despotic’, ‘indulgent to his own cult’ etc. It fuelled anti-communist propaganda to the extreme. Anti-Stalin imperialist campaign soared high thus with revisionist support. For the common people, uninformed, it was impossible to separate the truth from the lies. But even the communist parties were not unanimous in their assessment of Stalin’s contributions. This confusion, differences and division among communists themselves proved a blessing to world imperialism. For, failure to take into due account the advance of humanity as also the role of the leader guiding it, at every historical period, always retards subsequent progress and helps reaction. This has happened, and we are paying its price. The clarity of idea and unity of action of the communist movement have been undermined. The socialist camp has collapsed due to revisionist deviation from within. Imperialism has gripped the world in its stranglehold of globalisation and war. The Stalin question therefore concerns not only the communists. It concerns all anti-imperialist, anti-war and progressive individuals and the toiling masses of the world.

Observing the 50^th anniversary of Stalin’s demise demands that we communists set right the widespread false perception about Stalin – by getting rid of these ourselves, first of all. We believe that the exposure of the revisionist stand of the CPSU leadership at the 20^th and 22^nd Congresses, made by Comrade Shibdas Ghosh, the founder and most beloved leader and teacher of our party, will be of great value in this endeavour.

There is no denying that the history of development of past one century and half in the social, political, cultural, philosophical and aesthetic domains and not excluding the economic and scientific ones also, has been, essentially, a history of struggle between the two main classes of modern society – the bourgeoisie and the proletariat led by its communist party. So, one’s attitude towards the communist ideology should better be formed in this historical perspective rather than by personal likes or dislikes, just as should be one’s attitude with regard to Stalin also. Stalin had a great communist character. Few people are aware that a good deal of the progressive and revolutionary traditions, fervour and moral that inspire present day anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggles are in fact Stalin’s heritage. After Lenin’s demise in 1924, his great responsibility fell on Stalin. From 1924 Stalin organised the countrywide drive for organising voluntary collective farm movement, state farms, and industrial expansion, thereby consolidating the socialist economic base. In 1928, the first Five-year Plan was taken up by the entire party and the Soviet people and, stunning the entire imperialist world and media, it was achieved one year ahead in 1932. The ground was laid for complete socialist economic construction and consequently, for the elimination of the capitalist producers, and kulaks as the last exploiting classes. The Soviet Union became the only country in the world which was free from economic crisis, industrial stagnation, unemployment, beggary and prostitution. Prices were reducing, real wages were increasing, transport and certain basic food items were gradually distributed free. Soviet scientific research and inventions flourished. A new Soviet literature in not only Russian but various other Soviet languages appeared. The material and cultural development of the Soviet people in such a rapid pace amazed the world.

The future of Socialism-Communism cannot be separated from the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin!

No less amazing was Stalin’s success in unifying the different Soviet nationalities having different cultures, speaking different tongues and with different national psychologies into one single socialist nation, step by step, but in a period of only about 20 years, following Marxist-Leninist approach to the nationality problem. No capitalist country with a multi-nationality population has solved this problem even to this day. Dominant nationality oppression and nationality strife and riots, encouraged by the ruling classes, is their common feature. Before revolution, it was the same thing in Russia also. Because many small border regions and even large Ukraine were annexed by the tsarist autocracy. While the Great Russians were culturally and economically relatively better off, these others subjugated nationality people lived in tsarist Russia a wretched life of slaves. They were the reserve of the autocracy earlier. After the revolution, they were used by the Whiteguards. The Soviet government alone gave them the right of self-determination up to even that of secession from the then Soviet Federation – RSFSR. Painstakingly and systematically the proletarian state developed agriculture, set up industries, spread education and took special care to nurture and develop the culture and especially the mother tongue of all these nationalities. Even scripts were invented by Soviet linguists for several languages which were no more than dialects. Thus, the age-old suspicion, apprehension and hostility slowly gave way to mutual understanding, trust and finally to a single socialist national identity – the RSFSR became the USSR. The proof of this amazing success of Stalin is the rising, in the socialist construction, the Great Patriotic War and the rebuilding of the country after the ravages of the war of the whole Soviet people, like one family and one man.

In 1939, the Second World War started. Within a few years fascism overran Europe. But when it invaded Russia in 1941, this marked the turn of history. The Soviet Red Army led by Stalin resisted and destroyed the Nazi aggressors. Their heroism played the decisive role in bringing the War to a close. Humanity was saved. Victorious Red Army drove away Nazi occupation forces from the countries of East Europe. These people who resisted fascism, now brought down the puppet governments and established People’s Democracy. The War had exhausted the imperialist powers, except America, and made them lose a large part of Europe which now became People’s Democratic, afterwards Socialist. The battle of the Soviet people encouraged working class struggles in Europe. The most brilliant examples of it are the French and Italian resistance struggles. The workers played a glorious role in them. This fast changing situation unprecedentedly accelerated the national liberation struggles in Asia and Africa also. The imperialists had to finally take leave of their colonial empire, transferring power to the bourgeoisie of these countries. India became independent in this way. The Soviet victory was due to several factors. The most fundamental was that it was the victory of a higher order of civilization.

The French bourgeois journal Le Temps admitted in 1932 that ‘‘In the contest with us the Bolsheviks have proved the victors’’ after Soviet Russia changed from a peasant economy to an industrial giant without foreign aid and in only 10 years. This highly modernised socialist Soviet industry kept up an uninterrupted military supply surpassing older industrial countries France, England and even Germany and turned out 490,000 artillery pieces and 137,000 warplanes in 4 years! Secondly, the victory would have been impossible without the role of the communist party led by Stalin. Communists organised the masses, took the difficult most responsibilities, participated in the most daring campaigns and died valiantly in scores of thousands. Thirdly, the party roused the entire people in such an unparalleled manner as the world never saw. From 12 year-olds to people of all ages and strata formed the inexhaustible and invisible rear of the battle line. Twenty to twenty-five million Soviet people perished in the War! Fourthly, the superior military might and strategic skill of the Red Army guided by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Stalin was a decisive factor. Another decisive factor was Stalin’s political sagacity. Since 1935, he had been urging England and France to join into a ‘system of collective security’ against fascist Germany, without response. Instead, with a view to placate and prod Hitler against Russia, England and France concluded the Munich agreement with Germany in 1936, the Anglo-German pact in 1939 and remained mute spectators as Hitler occupied Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland by 1939 – arriving at the border of Russia. America also had been a spectator to it all. However, choosing to deal first with England and France before finally turning upon Russia, Hitler offered Soviet Union a non-aggression pact and most sagaciously Stalin took hold of the opportunity. England and France were caught in their own trap! France was quickly taken. England suffered and fought. In 1941, Hitler faced a Soviet people and army which Stalin had already prepared for the decisive fight. Over and above all these, however, counted the tremendous confidence of the entire Soviet people in Stalin who embodied their aspiration, hope and morale. In this sense, Stalin settled the fate of the war and by it the shape of the post-war world also. Already he had successfully engaged sworn anti-Soviet England, France and America as ‘allies’ in the fight against German fascism. Churchill admitted grudgingly that ‘‘Stalin made us whom he called imperialists fight against one another"! Coming from a man more than whom "no one had been a more persistent opponent of communism", as Churchill boasted, what better tribute can there be to Stalin’s outstanding ability and wisdom?

The post-war world was no longer solely dominated by imperialism. Beside the imperialist war camp, the world socialist peace camp arose. A host of significant international development resulted. The former colonies and semi-colonies, become free but weak capitalist countries, desiring a free global market were no longer inclined to withstand imperialist domination and they preferred economic assistance from the socialist camp. And yet, afraid of working class movement at home, they also wanted to retain a distance from it, just as from the imperialist camp. Hence, the rise of the Non-Aligned Movement. But, despite this ambivalence, they undoubtedly played an anti-imperialist, anti-war and pro-peace role for a considerable period of time.

At the same time, liberation struggles in Asia, Africa, French Indochina became fierce and many of these become victorious soon, like that of Vietnam. In the West, working class struggles, strike movements were spreading like wildfire. Western capitalism tried to hide its face behind the theory of ‘welfare state’, adopted welfare measures and tried to introduce planned economy aping the Soviet Plan. It was the period of the most rapid and widespread growth of communist ideology and of communist parties worldwide, without parallel in the annals of communist movement. However, this too sudden explosion carried within it the possibility also of the diminishing of its ideological clarity. All the same, it is the communists who led all other sections of the people and gave expression to their powerful desire for peace and democracy against imperialist war. Socialism and Stalin became the two most respectfully uttered words. Great minds like Romain Rolland and George Bernard Shaw revered Stalin as the greatest man of their time! Stalin guided the Comintern, established by Lenin for coordinating and guiding communist parties in distant corners of the world. In France, the seizure of power by the communist party appeared almost certain. In Greece, the revolutionary upheaval was suppressed by British troops. Stalin knew well the situation in the East also. He spoke as far back as in 1925 about the division of the Indian national bourgeoisie into "a revolutionary part (the petty bourgeoisie) and a compromising part (the big bourgeoisie), of which the first is continuing the revolutionary struggle, whereas the second is entering into a bloc with imperialism". (CW, Vol. 7, p147) Our party’s analysis of the Indian independence struggle being led by the "reformist oppositional" compromising bourgeois section of Gandhiji, and the powerful but secondary force of the uncompromising "petty bourgeois revolutionary" current of Subhas Chandra accords with Stalin’s. In 1949, the Chinese revolution shook not the entire East only but the entire world. Soon afterwards, the Korean revolution broke out. Stalin’s guidance and Soviet material and moral support was a great source of strength to all these movements. Even before the Chinese revolution saw victory, Mao Tse-tung said: ‘‘Stalin is the true friend of the cause of liberation of the Chinese people.’’ The imperialist camp was frightened. USA, leader of the post-war imperialist camp, aggressed Korea. This provoked a worldwide condemnation and a militant peace movement, alarming the imperialist capitals. This, together with the beating which they received from the Korean army and the volunteers of the Chinese PLA, made the USA hastily beat retreat.

Development of several historical phenomena, during and after the war, fully corresponding to the Marxist conception of the laws of historical progress, which were wisely handled by Stalin through his guidance of the Soviet state, the CPSU and the Comintern, brought about this situation. In the midst of such a favourable situation for world revolution, what an ideological confusion gripped the communists of the whole world that only three years after Stalin’s demise in 1953, the anti-Stalin bogey of the cult of individual raised by the 20^th Congress of CPSU of 1956, so completely carried them away! The manner in which nearly all the communist parties shifted their allegiance from Stalin to the Khrushchovite leadership raised grave questions. It indicated a mechanical process of thinking and a blind sense of allegiance to leadership, operating since long in them. These presupposed a low standard of ideological consciousness. Any genuine communist will understand that all these were pointer to the absence of dialectical process of thinking and of democratic centralism, which should always exist in a genuine communist party. It thus pointed finger to serious ideological shortcomings in the organisationally powerful communist movement of the post-war period. Khrushchovite revisionist tendency could grow, in the heyday of post-war communist movement even, due to these shortcomings. It reaffirmed the observation of a decade ago of Comrade Shibdas Ghosh.

As far back as in 1948, in the year our party was founded, Comrade Shibdas Ghosh had observed in his work ‘Self-Criticism of the Communist Camp’ that, ‘‘While acknowledging with just pride and deference the very many achievements … of the world communist movement, we have not failed, even for a moment, to point out the serious shortcomings in it. … These serious shortcomings and defects are largely due to the fact that the present leadership of the world communist camp is, to a very large extent, influenced by mechanical process of thinking.’’ (Shibdas Ghosh, CW, Vol. I, p. 2) Immediately following the 20^th Congress of the CPSU our party came out, in May 1956, with a thorough exposure of the pretentious fight of the Khrushchovite leadership against the cult of individual which was published in our organs of the period. This battle against the Khrushchovite leadership was subsequently taken up by the Party of Labour of Albania and in 1958 by the CPC. But no communist party explained and analysed the ideological root cause of appearance of this non-Marxist cult within the communist movement. It was all the more important because, although the anti-Stalin tirade of the CPSU leadership was condemned quite correctly, but that did not explain the growth of the cult around Stalin in the last part of his life which was an acknowledged fact. This analysis was provided by Comrade Shibdas Ghosh in a speech on 20 May 1956. In this speech, published under the title ‘On the 20^th Congress of the CPSU’, he said that, "Long back, we warned against the mechanical process of thinking and mechanical process of organization in the international communist movement." (SW. Vol. I. p. 11) ‘‘So, when the slogan against the cult of individual has been raised at the 20^th Congress, … we hailed this move. But … we are constrained to say at the same time that we are unable to appreciate the very method that has been adopted … In the name of fighting out the cult of individual, we are afraid, they are in reality directing their fight against an individual and not the cult itself.’’ (Ibid., p. 15) ‘‘It has been alleged that collective leadership ceased to operate in the later part of Stalin’s life, but in our opinion this only reflects the operational aspect of the thing. Karl Marx wrote The Capital. It was in a sense the product of the thinking of an individual. Does it follow then that the Capital was the product of Marx’s thinking in a subjective way? Or did it not reflect the personification of social consciousness through an individual which in reality means collective leadership? … Social thinking in the form of collective knowledge of all the members of the party, when personified through an individual, is also collective leadership. What should be looked for is whether struggle or interaction of ideas operates inside the party.’’(Ibid., p. 16) ‘‘So, collective knowledge can grow and develop only when on the basis of this higher level of consciousness, there is conflict or interaction of ideas between the leaders and the workers in a party.’’ (Ibid., p. 17) ‘‘So, it appears that in the name of fighting the cult of individual, they are fighting a person who has departed.’’(Ibid., p. 19) As almost all communist parties were blindly accepting the Khrushchovite revisionist explanation of the Stalin-cult and were holding Stalin personally responsible for it, Comrade Shibdas Ghosh presented the clear Marxist understanding that, ‘‘The activities of a body, or a committee even can give birth to this phenomenon of the cult of individual if instead of removing the blind and mechanical allegiance of the workers and the people to it, these are indulged in and encouraged by this committee or body. So, we must remember that by fighting out simply an individual we can not fight out the cult of individual.’’ (Ibid., p. 15) In this article Comrade Shibdas Ghosh elaborated on many other related subjects also which I am not entering into.

It is true that the cult of individual grew centring round Stalin during his last years. But despite his extreme dislike and trenchant criticism of this tendency, Stalin could not contain this phenomenon. It could not be done without containing the process which gave birth to this practice. What was this process? It was the confusion of the Marxist-Leninist sense of authority with authoritarianism, or blind sense of authority. Comrade Shibdas Ghosh showed that, ‘‘For example, there is no denying the fact that in Russia the gigantic socialist construction was made, projecting Stalin before the masses … The personality of Stalin and his leadership imbued the whole of the Russian people greatly. But again, following this very course, came the backwardness in the ideological standard. The mechanization that is inherent in this method of imbuing the people by projecting a leader before them could not be fought out ultimately because the low level of the ideological-cultural standard among the communists and the masses continued to persist. That is why Stalin’s Russia today is treading the revisionist path. Both these aspects are equally valid." (Ibid., p. 212-13) Stalin was not unaware of this low level of ideological consciousness and mechanical thought process within the party and the country. That is why he made attempts to continuously raise the ideological standard of the party, the appeal for which by Stalin can be found in his Reports to all the Party Congresses. He arranged the systematic and continuous training of cadres even as their number touched 2,500,000 by 1932. During this period Stalin produced theoretical works not only on organisational problems facing the party but also upon the fundamental ideological questions. With the aim of educating the growing ranks of the party he wrote ‘Foundations of Leninism’, ‘Problems of Leninism’ and ‘Concerning Questions of Leninism’ within a few years of Lenin’s death. He also wrote the ‘History of the CPSU(B)’ and many other important articles subsequently. They had a salutary effect in raising the theoretical level of the rank and file. This cannot be doubted. However, the lowering of the general standard of ideological consciousness of the communists and the masses of Russia could not be remedied by this alone, not to speak of raising it to still higher levels. Lenin had told long ago that the forces of habit of millions is a tremendous force. This gives an indication of the immense tasks necessary for revolutionising the outlook, attitudes and even forces of habit of the entire people in a socialist society by raising their ideological and cultural level beside their theoretical knowledge. Besides, it should be also understood that those very ideas and values which once drew the Bolsheviks in the vortex of revolutionary struggle lost their initial force and fervour, naturally so, after the realisation and stabilisation of socialist society. Therefore, in order to continuously raise the standard of ideological consciousness of the communists and the masses, it was necessary, while pushing forward socialist construction, to conduct an all-embracing and deep-going cultural revolution by actively involving the party and the people in it and in this way completely remoulding them culturally, morally and ethically. That is why, although the countrywide socialist spirit was generated and continuously intensified under Stalin’s leadership and it acted as a powerful inspiration behind the success of the socialist economic construction, the Great Patriotic War and the socialist reconstruction of war-devastated Russia – yet Stalin himself pointed out the serious shortcomings which remained in the ideological sphere in the party. Even at the same time that fervour for the socialist construction was at its peak throughout the country, he pointed out in the 17^th Party Congress in 1934 that there existed "… lack of clarity, confusion and even direct departure from Leninism in certain strata of the party." Without considering this concrete situation with its complexities, the lowering of ideological standard can in no way be attributed solely to Stalin therefore. Nor can its reasons be understood correctly thus. But how did this serious ideological inadequacy go along with the spectacular organisational development for long? It became the general feature also of the entire communist movement of the period. Comrade Shibdas Ghosh said, pointing it out that, "it is true that in the post-Lenin period the communist movements in colonies, semi-colonies and capitalist countries had tremendously developed organizationally. But this development by itself does not prove that the level of ideological consciousness of the communists had also risen at a rate commensurate with the organizational development of the communist movement. In fact, it did not rise.’’ (Ibid., p. 77-8)

‘‘Firstly, the philosophical development of Marxism-Leninism which ought to have been made in the face of multiplicity of newer problems of life and class struggles and in keeping with the spectacular progress of natural sciences that marked the post-Lenin period was not made. There might be so many reasons for this deficiency but, it is, no doubt, a fact…’’ (Ibid., p. 78)

‘‘Secondly, like the proverbial one-eyed deer, the communist leaders in general, to a very large extent, neglected the important task of conducting ideological struggles inside the party to raise the ideological standard of thousands and thousands of young communists … and kept themselves busy mostly in organizational activities.’’ (Ibid., p. 78) The result of this, in the long run, has been general lowering of the ideological standard, mechanical thought process, mechanical relationship between the leadership and the rank and file and blind allegiance to leadership – facilitating revisionist deviation. Even as late as in 1961, Comrade Shibdas Ghosh said: ‘‘The call of the hour, therefore, is to relentlessly wage thorough ideological struggles covering all problems of life, thought and organization. … But it can be only on the basis of a correct understanding of the fundamentals of Leninism and appreciation of the services and contributions of Stalin to it and to the communist movement without which there is every possibility of sinking into revisionism. We are constrained to say, that the tendency which is being revealed … by the present leaders of the CPSU, … in the measures adopted by them with regard to Stalin which tantamount to de-Stalinization, is fraught with the danger of sinking into revisionism.’’ (Ibid., p. 79-80) When communists all over the world were deluded by the liberal mask of revisionism, Comrade Shibdas Ghosh made this profound analysis. Comrade Ghosh thus defended Stalin and safeguarded Leninism.

It is not at all difficult to understand that the logical culmination of Khrushchovite modern revisionism was the undermining and demolition of the authority of Stalin. The weapon of it was the so-called fight against the cult of individual. Just as Marx and Engels are the founders of the communist movement and Lenin is the leader of world’s first successful proletarian revolution as well as the founder of world’s first proletarian state, so also Stalin is the Leninist architect of world’s first socialist society. Refusal to acknowledge Stalin’s role amounts to mutilating the history of the communist movement and blunting of the communist consciousness. The attack upon Stalin’s authority did exactly this. It lowered the prestige of the communist cause in the public eye. Ideological clarity of the communists has not yet been restored from the revisionist, Trotskyite and left adventurist influences which gained ground in the aftermath of the 20^th Congress and de-Stalinization. On the other hand, later day revisionists like Deng Xiao-ping and Gorbachov made their appearance and confused the vast majority of communists and left-minded and progressive intellectuals. It shows that grave confusions are still swaying the communists and they are still groping under revisionist ideological influence. A sad but bitter reality! It was foreseen clearly by Comrade Shibdas Ghosh in his work ‘On Steps taken against Stalin’: ‘‘In fact, the present understanding of Leninism, as distinct from Social-Democracy and Trotskyism, is due to Stalin.’’ ‘‘Stalin’s understanding of Leninism is the correct understanding of Marxism-Leninism. This understanding has brought the communist movement to its present stature. It will, of course, be further enriched in the light of experience of newer problems and developments; but nevertheless, the basic understanding of Marxism-Leninism as established by Stalin will remain and guide the communists in the course of its further development and progress. Indeed, like his precursors Marx, Engels and Lenin, Stalin also is an authority on Marxism-Leninism. To black out Stalin would have the inevitable result of disowning his authority and consequently of rejecting his interpretation of Leninism… It would mean invitation to all sorts of counterrevolutionary ideas to pass off as Marxism-Leninism and the ideological foundation of the communist movement would suffer a setback. In short, it would objectively uncrown Lenin himself.’’ (Ibid., p. 85-86) This apprehension became true immediately and in most extreme forms. All social-democrats lined up with revisionists in blackening Stalin. Even communist parties which combated revisionism and defended Stalin in the main, revised their study of Stalin and his theoretical contributions following the 20^th Congress. In our country, the CPI, which grew as a social democratic and not a genuine communist party, removed in hot haste Stalin’s portrait, works and everything associated with his memory after the 20^th Congress. The CPI(M) leaders ‘rediscovered’ Stalin eight years after in 1964 – only when they split from the parent CPI! This newfound ‘loyalty’ to Stalin concealed from their own rank-and-file and the people that from 1956 to 1964, when they were in the CPI, they were also slandering Stalin and lauding Khrushchov! Why does the Indian capitalist media yet call the CPI(M) ‘Stalinist’? They do it for posing arch-revisionist CPI(M) as ‘Stalinist’ and thereby confusing the people and maligning communism! De-Stalinization served the revisionists, from Khrushchov to Deng Xiao-ping to Gorbachov to bring about gradual weakening and the final dismantling of the socialist camp. But it is sheer propaganda that the socialist camp collapsed "like a house of cards"! That is another trick to demoralise the people! On the contrary, it took revisionism full 36 years of counterrevolutionary intrigues, with Glasnost and Perestroika as the final "blue print of capitalist restoration" to demolish, at last, completely and comprehensively, the solid socialist edifice which Stalin had laid. This is the truth. It is easy to see why Stalin is still being abused so filthily. Stalin is identified with socialism and communism. But hard facts of life are teaching the people the truth anew and they are holding aloft the portraits of Stalin, not in Russia alone but in different parts of the world, and taking to the street.

Now the question is that how could revisionism find a way into the party of Lenin and Stalin. Revisionism is not a new malady. Revisionism is nothing but bourgeois liberal or social-democratic vulgarization of Marxism. While talking in abstract and vague terms about class struggle and revolution, revisionism distorts the most revolutionary concept of Marxism – the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is why, all communist authorities fought against the revisionists more fiercely than they fought against the open advocates of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels combated Proudhon, Lassalle and Dühring. Lenin exposed Bernstein, Axelrod, Kautsky and the Mensheviks. Only thus could he draw the Russian proletariat to the side of Bolshevism, and ideologically steel the Bolsheviks. Our comrades need to make a real study of the history of the struggle of revolutionary Marxism against revisionism for grasping more concretely the contributions made by Comrade Shibdas Ghosh in this regard. Stalin continued this struggle against the Trotskyites, Bukharinites and Titoites. But Khrushchovite revisionism appeared after Stalin’s demise and Deng Xiao-ping’s revisionist line triumphed in China after the demise of Mao Zedong. So, where lies the strength of revisionism which rises over and over again, destroys mighty parties like the CPSU and the CPC and even socialist societies? It is a profound truth, the most important fact that the soil for revisionist deviation exists in the economic base and especially in the ideological superstructure of capitalist and also socialist society! Socialist society is not classless society. It is a society in transition from capitalist society to classless communist society. Socialism does away with exploitation of man by man, no doubt, and thereby ensures continuous material and cultural development of all. But yet, elements of capitalist economic relation and remnants of bourgeois class-thinking and culture continue to exist tenaciously, as an alloy, so to say, in the framework of socialist society. Even when exploitation of man by man disappears, and the economic differentiation almost disappears between different social strata, so that antagonistic classes may be said to have disappeared in the ‘economic’ sense of the term, the antagonistic class-thinking and culture etc. do not disappear automatically with it. And the danger of revisionism remains precisely there. So, the class struggle in a socialist society is to be fought out with greater intensity in the domain of ideas. This struggle is much more fierce, subtle and tenacious than was the struggle for capture of power. Because, firstly, the enemy cannot be seen but exists in the old culture and mental make-up still existing in people and even in the communists! Stalin spoke of capitalism remaining in the ‘‘private property mentality’’ and ‘‘private property habits’’ of people in Soviet society. Secondly, complacency born of the economic well being resulting from the success of socialism tends to dull the consciousness of the communists themselves. So, ideological battle should be conducted ceaselessly for eradicating the remnants of bourgeois ideological influence by raising the level of proletarian consciousness and culture not only in society at large, but all the more so within the proletarian party. If this vigilant struggle slackens for whichever reason, remnants of bourgeois ideology gather strength and revisionist degeneration becomes unavoidable. Explaining this point – the role of conscious ideological leadership, – in the context of revisionist deviation of the Soviet Union, Comrade Shibdas Ghosh said: ‘‘Just take the example of Russia – what happened there did not surely take place overnight. As the ideological and cultural standard of the party and the people could not be continuously uplifted to keep pace with the growing progress of socialist economy, the ideological-cultural standard remained miserably low and inadequate, thus gradually providing, in the main, the breeding ground of revisionism within the society. But you see, the harmful effect of such a low level of consciousness … could not make its presence felt because of the impact of the powerful personality, ideological guidance, iron discipline and firm handling of a man like Stalin. … But today in absence of only such a great personality, how easily the whole party and the people have fallen victim to all sorts of rotten thinking and ideas.’’ (Ibid., p. 197-98) So, the point is not only that revisionism appeared in the party of Lenin and Stalin, and that it finally usurped the leadership of the party. But the most significant point of all is that it did so without confronting any serious resistance at all from within the party or society. How could it happen? It happened due to serious weakening of the socialist ideological influence in society. After the revolution also, Lenin had to fiercely combat the left deviation of Trotsky and the right deviation of Bukharin in 1920, when both were prominent Central Committee members of the party. ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ deviations are nothing but the two poles of one and the same bourgeois liberal distortion of Marxism. Bourgeois liberalism had strong influence on the Russian working class movement since its very beginning and the Economists, Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries were its representatives in Russian politics. Trotskyism was another variant of it. Bolshevism grew only by freeing the Russian proletariat from this influence. But remnants of this tendency existed both inside the socialist society and the party. This was the source of Trotskyite and Bukarinite deviations which became more acute during Stalin’s leadership. But due to the ideological struggle conducted by Stalin, this reformist tendency could not influence the party as a whole – until after Stalin’s demise. Even the Report of the 19^th Congress of 1952 echoed his timely warning that "Ideological work is a prime duty of the party…. We must always remember that if the influence of socialist ideology is weakened the effect is to strengthen the influence of the bourgeois ideology." But he died in the next year. The absence of Stalin’s powerful personality coupled with the insufficient ideological consciousness and the tendency of mechanically following the party and the leadership – alien to communist ethics which yet grew in the CPSU – helped the revisionists to usurp party leadership with least hindrance and deceive most communist parties with anti-Stalin liberal demagogy. The same mechanical thought process and blind allegiance to leadership which earlier prompted most communist parties to extol Stalin to the skies now prejudiced their attitude regarding him. Deep wisdom and inexhaustible courage, without illusions Slander over the past five decades has much obscured the true image of this great man.

But a few facts will reveal what a great character Stalin had. Renowned bourgeois intellectual H.G. Wells admits in his Experiment in Autobiography: "I have never met a man more candid, fair and honest, and to these qualities it is, and to nothing occult and sinister, that he owes his tremendous undisputed ascendancy in Russia. I had thought before I saw him that he might be where he was because men were afraid of him, what I realise was that he owed his position to the fact that no one is afraid of him and everybody trusts him."

Even Churchill said: "He is a man of inexhaustible courage and will-power, a man of direct and even blunt speech. Above all, he is a man with a saving sense of humour which is of high importance to all men and to all nations. Premier Stalin left upon me an impression of deep, cool wisdom and a complete absence of illusions of any kind." (‘Stalin’ by J.T. Murphy)

Marshall Zhukov recollects that, "Stalin produced a strong impression on whoever spoke with him. Free of affectations and mannerism, he won people’s hearts by his simple ways. His uninhibited way of speaking, the ability to express himself clearly, his inborn analytical mind, his extensive knowledge and phenomenal memory, made even old hands and eminent people brace themselves and gather their wits when talking to him." (Reminiscences and Reflections)

Commenting on Stalin’s stupendous achievement of building socialist Russia, Isaac Deutscher, the celebrated anti-communist author said: "Even if all allowance is made for the different scales of human affairs in different ages, the greatest reformers in Russian history like Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great, and the great reformers of other nations too, seem to be dwarfed by the giant form of the General Secretary". (Stalin: A Political Biography)

However, Stalin himself felt, as he said in a Railway Workers’ meeting in Tiflis in 1926, in reply to the enthusiastic ovation of the workers: "I must say in all conscience, comrades, that I do not deserve a good half of the flattering things that have been said here about me." Stalin’s modesty can be seen particularly clearly in his esteem for Lenin. He wrote to a comrade: "I object to your calling yourself ‘a disciple of Lenin and Stalin’. I have no disciple. Call yourself a disciple of Lenin … But you have no ground for calling yourself a disciple of a disciple of Lenin’s. It is not true. It is out of place." (CW, Vol.9, p. 156) In a letter dated 16.2.1938 to the Children’s Publishing House Stalin said: "I am strongly opposed to the publication of ‘Stories About Stalin’s Childhood’. The book is filled with a mass of factual distortions, untruths, exaggerations and undeserved encomia. The author has been misled by lovers of fairy tales – by liars (perhaps "honest liars") and timeservers. A pity for the author, but facts remain facts. But that is not the main thing. The main thing is that the book has the tendency to inculcate in the Soviet people (and people in general) the cult of the personality of chiefs and infallible heroes. That is dangerous and harmful. … My advice is to burn the book." (CW. Vol.2 p. 34-35) This is how Stalin patronised his own ‘cult’! A letter dated February 4, 1935 was sent at Stalin’s instance by the Bolshevik Party Central Committee to K. F. Starostin, which read: ‘‘Information has reached the Central Committee that the Metro Authority Collective has decided to name the Metro (underground railway of Moscow) after Comrade Stalin, to which Comrade Stalin is firmly opposed since the construction work of the Metro has been directly and exclusively supervised by Comrade L. Kaganovich, the Metro Authority being therefore requested by the Central Committee to name the Metro after Comrade Kaganovich irrespective of his objections.’’ (Stalin, Selected Works, Russ. Ed. Vol. 14) Such incidents are galore. A most interesting incident will be found in Zhukov’s ‘Reminiscences and Reflections’. After the war, the Soviet government decided to observe the Victory Parade at the Red Square in Moscow and, like all Soviet people, Zhukov also thought that Stalin, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, would take the salute. But Stalin asked Zhukov to do it, telling him that he had become ‘‘too old’’ for it!

"I know that after my death, piles of dirt will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of history without fail will blow it away and the truth will come out!"

This article will be continued in the September issue of NSC.

Click here to return to the July/August 2005 index.