By Nihar Mukherjee
(General Secretary of the
Socialist Unity Centre of India)

The then US Ambassador, Joseph Davies, reported to the US President that, "I arrived at the reluctant conclusion that the state had established its case" (Mission to Moscow). Viewed in the context of Nazi war preparations in Europe and espionage inside Russia – as exposed in course of the investigations over the murder of Kirov in 1934 – the trials do not look like a "terror". They were a necessity. This becomes evident from this entry of May 8, 1943 by Goebbels in his diary: "The Fuhrer explained the case of Tukachevsky and said that in believing that Stalin would bring ruin to the Red Army, we were absolutely mistaken. The truth is just its opposite. Stalin has rid himself of all the opposition groups in the Red Army…" Tukachevsky, a top army general, was sentenced in 1934 by the military court and shot along with a number of military leaders for conspiring against the Soviet Union. Davies wrote in 1941, on hindsight: "There were no Fifth Columnist (in Russia) in 1941 – they had shot them". "Stalin’s bloody trial" was a revisionist invention fanned by imperialist propaganda. So far about the trials.

Two other things rouse the wildest passion of the bourgeois media against Stalin’s ‘‘cruelty’’! They are, the mass purges of that period and the execution of many innocent lives in it. What are the facts? Kirov was murdered within his own office, by his own bodyguard who was an old party member. Investigations revealed a network of opposition groups, not in the army and the government alone but even in the highest levels of the party. To save the socialist state, the party had to be saved first from malcontents, conspirators, careerist elements and spies. The mass purge of the party was thus indispensable. Churchill too admitted that the purges "were merciless but perhaps not needless". In a party with above 3,000,000 members it was a most difficult and complex task and even though any mistake was inadmissible here, yet they could not be fully avoided in the end. But the socialist state and the communist party was saved. As a result, fascism could be crushed finally. Notably, Lenin himself undertook a mass purge in 1921 in which nearly 170,000 people, about 25% of the membership, were expelled. The "cruelty" of Lenin! But the revisionists keep mum about it lest their ‘humane face’ gets bared and their anti-Stalin slander comes under light! So much about the purges. True, many innocent people were wrongly punished. Even many innocent lives were lost. The administrative lapses responsible for it can not be excused and Stalin too, as the head of state, can not be absolved of his part. But a lapse, however serious, is not a crime even when it leads to loss of life. Stalin was instrumental, not culpable. Above all, it must not be forgotten that at such critical and complex situation, such tragedies are not uncommon. Blaming it on Stalin’s ‘‘terror’’ is a lie. And the tale that these were ‘unknown’ until Khrushchov revealed them is a blatant lie. Stalin himself openly admitted these ‘‘grave mistakes’’ in the 18^th Congress. All these lies were needed to support the story of "terror". But even after this experience, throughout the war and till 1953 the Soviet people were advancing under Stalin’s leadership. Can this also be challenged? Why terror would be required to deal with those masses who willingly followed Stalin is therefore a question! But force had to be applied of course – against the enemies of socialism. And Stalin fought these enemies implacably. He was a ‘terror’ – only to these enemies of revolution. Voroshilov says: ‘‘In the period from 1918 to 1920 Comrade Stalin was probably the only person whom the Central Committee shifted about from front to front, selecting the most vulnerable spots, the places where the threat to the revolution was most imminent. Stalin was never to be found where things were comparatively quiet and going smoothly … During endless nights, foregoing sleep, he organized things, took the leadership into his own firm hands, relentlessly broke down all obstruction – and the tide of affairs would turn, an improvement would set in.’’ (Voroshilov: Stalin and the Red Army)

Stalin always combined individual responsibilities with collective functioning. Anna Louise Strong, the celebrated authoress, recounts how in a meeting in which she had wished to tender her resignation from The Moscow News, Stalin, speaking the least of all, steered the talk so deftly that she not only gave up any idea of resigning but enthusiastically started on new projects for the journal. Enver Hoxha relates in his book ‘‘With Stalin’’ how representatives of the PLA and the Communist Party of Greece were invited by Stalin to a bilateral meeting over certain grave differences of opinion and bitterness following them. Stalin, presiding over the meeting, conducted it to the happy restoration of fraternal understanding by carefully listening to their problems and making apt and farsighted queries and remarks. Asked by him, delegation of both the parties embraced each other in the end after all misunderstandings had been resolved. Even in the war years when the exigency and urgency of the moment often called for one-man command, Stalin acted collectively on all or almost all-decisive questions. All renowned Soviet military leaders of the period like Rokossovsky, Vassilievsky, Voroshilov, Zhukov, Timoshenko confirm it. Zhukov says in his ‘‘Reminiscences and Reflections’’ a number of times how, when directives were to be issued to the front, Stalin would summon the Politbureau together with the Military High Command, where everyone would state his opinion, arguments would follow and only then the decision would be finally made, taking all factors into consideration. Another veteran Soviet General, Stemenko, said, "Stalin didn’t decide alone and didn’t like to decide alone the important questions of the war … he recognized the merit of the people who were experts in one sphere or another and took note of their opinion." The talk of his being a despot does not stand in the face of these facts. Stalin was meticulous and exacting and at once flexible and reasonable. And both these sides of his character can be seen in Zhukov’s objective description, interestingly, despite his serving Khrushchov for long as Defence Minister. "Stalin wanted daily reports on the situations at the fronts. And one had to have the facts at one’s fingertips to report to the Supreme Commander. One could not go to him with maps that had "white spots" on them, or report approximate, much less exaggerated, information. … He saw them instantly and severely reprimanded the culprit." (Zhukov: Reminiscences & Reflections, Vol. I, p. 364-65). At the same time, admits the same Zhukov, "I realized during the war that Stalin was not the kind of man who objected to sharp questions or to anyone arguing with him. If someone says the reverse, he is a liar." (Ibid., p. 364) Such a giant is being sullied by dwarfs!

Stalin’s revolutionary life began in 1898, at the age of nineteen. He had not yet heard of Lenin, but joined the Messame Dassy, one of the many petty bourgeois socialist groups active in Russia then. His father was a shoemaker and mother a washerwoman who wanted her son to become a priest and so sent him to a church school. His result was exceptionally brilliant and this got him to the Theological Seminary of Tiflis, Georgia, run by Jesuit monks. His attitude regarding the oppressive atmosphere of the Seminary and its priesthood was rebellions. But, he started studying Darwinian biology and Economic history already, books forbidden in the seminary, and became member of the Messame Dassy. He was expelled from the Seminary in 1889. For a time, he took a job in the Tiflis Observatory. It was in fact his secret shelter. From what little is known of this period, it appears that socialists in Georgia, including members of the Messame Dassy, were divided on almost similar lines as the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks – and that young Stalin was nearer to the Bolshevik line, without knowing it. In 1900, he and his colleagues organized the first May Day demonstration in Tiflis. Before the May Day in 1901, the tsarist police discovered and raided Stalin’s ‘‘secret office’’ at the observatory and arrested others. But Stalin escaped and addressed the May Day rally in the centre of Tiflis. He was soon elected to the Social Democratic Committee of Tiflis and it sent him to organize the workers in Batum, where he took the name of Koba. Within just four months, as the tsarist police record says, ‘‘As a result of Djugashvili’s activities, Social Democratic organizations began to spring up in all the factories of Batum …’’ After spending 18 months in tsarist prison, he was exiled to Siberia but escaped and arrived in Tiflis again in 1904. He ‘‘travelled from one prison or place or exile to another’’, in his own words, including Siberia, for several years between 1901 and 1917.

With the approach of 1905, the year of the ‘‘dress rehearsal’’ of the November Revolution, Stalin started to emerge from the Caucasian upon the Russian national political stage. He played a distinct role in the 1905 revolution as a Bolshevik and helped organize the first All Russian Union of Oilfield Workers in Baku in 1907. Already he took part in the Bolshevik Party conference in Tammerfors, Finland, in 1905, then in the Stockholm Congress in 1906 and in the London Congress in 1907. In 1912, he was inducted at Lenin’s behest in the 12-member Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party and was entrusted with organizing the underground party in Russia and publishing the first legal paper of the party, Pravda. Lenin’s regard for him can be seen in his letter to Maxim Gorky where he mentions ‘‘the marvellous Georgian’’ preparing a book – ‘The National Question and Social Democracy’. He was arrested soon upon his return to Russia and sent to Siberia and was freed only by the 1917 February revolution. Hurrying to the centre of revolution, Petrograd, he took up the reins of the party and established a friendly influence in the Petrograd Soviet while more well known leaders like Zinoviev, Bukharin and Lenin were still abroad. By the time Lenin arrived in Petrograd, Stalin had trebled the party membership, increased the circulation of Pravda and secured party’s leadership over the Petrograd Soviet. Trotsky, much focussed by the capitalist press even then as ‘the flamboyant’ communist leader, but who was an anti-Bolshevik since 1903, had not yet joined the party which he did only in August 1917. And even then he remained a factionalist and an individualist. Preparing for the final battle for the November Revolution, for which Trotsky had propped up a committee of his hand picked men, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party appointed a 5-member revolutionary military committee including Stalin, but not Trotsky, in it. The Civil War immediately followed, from 1918 to 1920. And although the Commissar of the Red Army was then Trotsky, Lenin and the Central Committee put their trust in Stalin. Stalin became deputy Chairman of the all-powerful Council of Defence, with Lenin as the Chairman. Stalin headed also the two most important Commissariats – that of Nationalities and of Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection. When Trotskyites like Preobrazhensky, protested and complained to Lenin, Lenin countered that he didn’t think that even Preobrazhensky ‘‘could suggest any better candidate than Comrade Stalin.’’ On Lenin’s motion, Stalin was elected Secretary-General at a Central Committee Plenum in 1922. In 1924, Lenin passed away and his great responsibilities now became Stalin’s. Till the end of his life, Stalin carried them out faithfully. He told to Emil Ludwig that, "The task to which I have devoted my life is the elevation of a different class – the working class. That task is not the consolidation of some "national" state, but of a socialist state and that means an international state; and everything that strengthens that state helps to strengthen the entire international working class. If every step I take in my endeavour to elevate the working class and strengthen the socialist state of this class were not directed towards strengthening and improving the position of the working class, I should consider my life purposeless." (CW, Vol. l3)

Even Stalin’s worst enemies and malicious opponents could not point to a single incident in his long life, even incidents in which they condemned Stalin’s role most vociferously, in which Stalin’s action was influenced by personal motives or personal considerations of any sort. Indeed, Stalin has rather often been shown as having no feelings and emotion at all! Many anti-communist or non-committal bourgeois authors also had to admit the fact, which appeared to them enigmatic, that Stalin seemed to have no personal life except his political life. Even arch-revisionists felt compelled to admit it. Khrushchov himself was obliged to admit in his secret speech at the 20^th Congress, in a crafty manner for sure, that, "The question is complicated by the fact that all this which we have just discussed was done during Stalin’s life under his leadership and with his concurrence; here Stalin was convinced that this was necessary for the defence of the interest of the working classes against the plotting of enemies… he saw this from the position of the interest of the working class…’’ (Source: The Stalin Question – Banbehari Chakraborty) It was the power of truth which forced Khrushchov play so innocent. He was also obliged to say in a public meeting at Tiflis: "One of the most prominent leaders of the revolutionary Social Democrats in Georgia and the rest of Transcaucasia was J. V. Stalin, who later became an outstanding leader of our party." (Ibid.) And this not before, but about five years after the 20^th Congress, on May 12, 1961! So, not a single representative of the many shades of reactionaries from arch imperialists, sworn anti-communists, liberal bourgeois to downright revisionists, could assail the moral superiority and force of character of Stalin. Stalin emerges as a noble-hearted revolutionary and a worthy disciple of Lenin.

In the conduction of their life struggle as leaders of the party, for making their personal interest secondary to that of revolution and the party, not only Trotsky, but also many other prominent Central Committee members like Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin fell far behind Stalin. In this respect, Comrade Shibdas Ghosh said that, since present day world capitalist system has become moribund, and so the old bourgeois humanist moral values that grew on this basis have become fully exhausted, the old values and old standard of communist character and culture of surrendering one’s personal interest to the interest of the party is no longer sufficient. So, he said that the aim of the life-struggle of communists today, at least of the leading communists, should be complete identification of their personal interest with that of the party. Stalin’s life and activity proves beyond doubt that he had not only surrendered his personal interest to the interest of revolution and the party but had succeeded in completely identifying his personal interest with the interest of the party also. Naturally, in the matter of acquiring the communist culture and safeguarding party interest, Stalin came most nearer to Lenin. As history has shown, Stalin alone succeeded in correctly understanding and interpreting Leninism and in uniting and consolidating the party. Those leaders like Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev etc. who failed to assimilate Marxism-Leninism in all aspects of their life and culture and fell victim to individualism, ego and factionalism, constituted the anti-Leninist "Opposition" within the party. Stalin’s interpretation of Lenin’s teachings ideologically unarmed and fully exposed them. Stalin realised the tremendous necessity of educating the ranks of the party as also communists abroad on the correct appraisal of Leninism as against all social-democratic deviations and particularly those of the "Opposition" on questions concerning party, socialist economic construction, attitude to the peasantry and to the bourgeoisie, the nationality question, etc. Out of this historic necessity Stalin wrote, immediately after Lenin’s death, his great works ‘Fundamentals of Leninism’ and ‘Problems of Leninism’. The term Leninism, as it is understood today by Marxists, was also Stalin’s contribution. It was Stalin who first defined Leninism correctly as ‘‘Marxism in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution’’. Comrade Shibdas Ghosh upheld that ‘‘In fact, the present understanding of Leninism, as distinct from Social-Democracy and Trotskyism, is due to Stalin". (SW., Vol. 1, p. 85-86) Stalin’s contribution to Marxist-Leninist political economy made in ‘Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR’, his contribution to the Leninist understanding of the nationality problem contained in his writings, his analysis of the problems of Linguistics and his elaboration of Leninism in his battle against Social Democracy and Trotskyism are invaluable enrichments of Marxism-Leninism. Stalin’s gift as an organizer can never be even hinted at in one discussion, let alone discussed exhaustively. How great must be the capacity of one who inspired and organized a whole nation in three successive historical upheavals. The first time for socialist construction. The second time in the anti-fascist Great War. And again, a third time, to reconstruct the war-devastated socialist land. And every time, it was a rising of not only the communists and the proletariat, though they were the vanguard, but a rising of an entire people from adolescents to greybeards. Never, in no other land than in this land of socialism, and under Stalin’s inspiring leadership, has it happened. So because, such genuine rising of the masses cannot be ‘ordered’ by any bureaucratic apparatus. The old and rotten lie against Stalin of resorting to ‘forced labour’ or accusations of ‘command-administrative method’ do not square with this reality. In fact, this novel mass enthusiasm and mass initiative in the building, defense and advancement of the country – a preserve of the bureaucratic state in capitalist ‘democracies’ – only show the power of the proletarian socialist democracy. Stalin nurtured it carefully. He did it by inspiring the masses not only in construction but also in the playing of their role in all social affairs. Proletarian democracy in party and society Stalin, naturally, encouraged criticism and self-criticism in party life also, not excepting criticism also of the leaders at the top. But Stalin is frequently accused of violating inner party democracy! It is not true. ‘‘If Bukharin and Tomsky’’ said Stalin, ‘‘violate a Central Committee decision by stubbornly refusing to work in the posts entrusted to them, then all the more the party members have the right to criticize them for such conduct. If this is what they call "being put through the mill", then let them explain what they understand by the slogan of self-criticism, inner party democracy, and so on…" (Ibid., p. 333-40) But his purpose was not to intimidate, as is slandered, but the contrary: "I am absolutely against a policy of expelling all dissident comrades. I am against such a policy not because I feel sorry for dissidents but because such a policy generates in the party a regime of intimidation, a regime of fright, a regime that kills the spirit of self-criticism and initiative. It is not good if the party chiefs are feared but not respected". (CW., Vol. 2 p. 34-35) Encouraging initiative while combating bureaucracy, Stalin did never hide the truth and mince words that, "Bureaucracy is one of the worst enemies of our progress. It exists in all of our organizations … the trouble is that it is not a matter of the old bureaucrats. It is a matter of the new bureaucrats, bureaucrats who sympathize with the Soviet Government, and finally, communist bureaucrats. The communist bureaucrat is the most dangerous type of bureaucrat. Why? Because he masks his bureaucracy with the title of party member. I think that there is not and cannot be any other way of combating this evil than by organizing control from below by the party masses, by implementing inner-party democracy. What objection can there be to rousing the fury of the mass of the party membership against these corrupt elements…?" (CW., Vol. 11, p. 75) Stalin’s supreme ability as organiser and leader of the great socialist construction, ensuring all-out participation of the entire people, lay in his ability as the organiser of proletarian democracy in the society. "If the workers criticize shortcomings in our work frankly and bluntly, to improve and advance our work, what does that mean? It means," Stalin concluded, "that the workers are becoming active participants in the work of directing the country, economy, industry". (Ibid., p. 41) How open Stalin was to criticism, and how careful to protect the critical spirit of people, is clear here. "Critics are sometimes abused … because their criticism is not always 100 percent correct. The demand is often made that criticism should be correct on every point … It is a dangerous misconception. Only try to put forward such a demand, and you will gag hundreds and thousands of workers … We would get not self-criticism, but the silence of the tomb … That is why I think that if criticism is even only 5 or 10 percent true, such criticism … should be listened to attentively, and the sound core in it taken into account. Otherwise, I repeat, you would be gagging all those … who are devoted to the cause of the Soviets, who are not yet skilled enough in the art of criticism, but through whose lips speaks truth itself." (CW. Vol.11 p. 33-34) The most notable fact is that the party intensified this self-criticism after the 15^th Congress, when the "Opposition" was defeated and construction was advancing. When everything was smooth sailing, in other words! But Stalin wrote To Maxim Gorky: "We cannot do without self-criticism. We simply cannot, Alexei Maximovich. Without it, stagnation, corruption of the apparatus, growth of bureaucracy, sapping of the creative initiative of the working class, is inevitable". (CW., Vol. 12, p. 179). In this overall perspective must one grasp his sharp and significant criticism that: "I know there are people in the ranks of the party who have no fondness for criticism in general, and for self-criticism in particular. Those people, whom I might call "skin-deep" communists… shrug their shoulders at self-criticism, as much as to say: … again this raking out of our shortcomings – can’t we be allowed to live in peace"! (Ibid. p. 31).

Without this inner-party struggle, the leadership of the party directing the alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry and the active operation of proletarian democracy among the masses – Russia could not build a ‘complete’ socialist economy despite having a proletarian state. Inevitably, it would crumple economically, or militarily before imperialist intervention. That was the firm belief of Trotsky. That was also the hope of world imperialism. Stalin despaired the imperialists as well as the Trotskyite and Bukharinite "Opposition" by successfully building a ‘complete’ socialist economy without any outside help. Russia had already become the political citadel of working class struggle in 1917. It now became so in a much larger sense. The struggle of Stalin with the Trotskyite-Bukharinite "Opposition" has many lessons. But fundamentally, it shows the way the forces of capitalist restoration always work from within and degenerate the party and the proletarian state. Without crushing them, socialism cannot be built, or preserved. Trotsky had not understood the peculiarities of the socialist revolution in the imperialist epoch, above all in a peasant country. Naturally, in such a country, the alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry will be far more determinant for the fate of the revolution and the socialist state than in an industrialised country. Leninism fully accords that. But, Trotsky contended that such an alliance would not at all be possible. This was departure from Leninism, and Menshevism. Trotsky’s disbelief in the role of the peasantry in the revolution followed a dogmatic understanding that the peasant, being a "small proprietor", was a private owner and so, opposed to revolution. This was not Leninism. Trotsky’s muddle did not prevent the peasantry to participate in the 1905 and the 1917 February revolution! But Trotsky insisted: "The contradictions in the position of a workers’ government in a backward country with an overwhelmingly peasant population can be solved only on an international scale, in the arena of the world proletarian revolution.’’ (Preface, The year 1905) Clearly, denying the role of the peasantry in carrying through the Russian revolution, Trotsky offers its ‘only’ solution ‘‘in the arena of the world proletarian revolution’’! It was Marx’s and Engels’ proposition of the possibility of proletarian revolution ‘‘severally’’ in at least the advanced European countries. But it was valid only in the pre-monopoly capitalist period. In the imperialist epoch revolution would occur ‘‘first in several or even in one capitalist country’’ as Lenin established in 1915. To talk of solving the problems of revolution in a single country ‘‘only on an international scale" means to rely on the revolution in another country, or countries, without relying on one’s own revolution. This is Trotsky’s theory of ‘permanent revolution’. According to his muddled theory, victory of socialist revolution in a single country is hopeless without outbreak of revolution ‘‘on an international scale’’. Naturally, Trotsky did not have faith in the future of socialist construction in Russia also. He cultivated his faction. His factional activities, and also Bukharin’s, was condemned at the 10^th Congress, in 1920. Bukharin’s misunderstanding of the significance of the New Economic Policy, introduced in 1921, came to the focus around this time. It indicated his rightist deviation on the question of socialist construction from that time itself. The NEP was a special policy of giving "temporary concession" to the capitalists for putting the socialist economy on its feet. But the Bukharinites wanted it to stay. But the goal was, as Stalin said, "to emerge from NEP" after fully utilising it. The more the party, under Stalin, consolidated the socialist sector, organised collective farming on a countrywide scale, gradually expanded industry and regulated private trade – Trotskyite and Bukharinite "Opposition" followed their logic all the way and even started disrupting the economy. Discussions in the Central Committee did not prevent sabotage. Trotsky had often preached his ‘permanent revolution’ that "Without direct state support from the European proletariat, the working class of Russia will not be able to maintain itself in power…" (Our Revolution) But the Russian proletariat had not heeded him. Without revolution in Europe – or European proletariat’s ‘‘state support’’ – they maintained themselves in power! As socialist construction was speeding up, he was now theorising that, ‘‘Real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries.’’(Ibid.) How well Trotsky was serving socialism! Stalin showed, ‘‘Trotsky has so far never said – neither in his pamphlet ‘Towards Socialism or Capitalism?’ Nor in his subsequent writings – that we can completely build socialism. Neither Zinoviev nor Kamenev deny, or ever have denied, that we can begin to build socialism in our country, for it would be sheer idiocy to deny the obvious fact that socialism is being built in our country… But they emphatically repudiate the thesis that we can completely build socialism. On this point Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Smilga and the rest are united.’’ (CW, Vol. 8, p. 217-18) Which class-interest was the "Opposition" leaders serving then? Stalin had clarified these years ago. In 1924, three years earlier, Stalin had said crystally clearly at the 13^th Congress: "The alignment of forces internationally is such that every attempt to weaken the authority of the party and the stability of the dictatorship in our country … will inevitably be seized upon by the enemies of revolution as a definite gain for them… Whoever fails to understand this, fails to grasp the logic of factional struggle within our party, fails to realise that the outcome of this struggle depends not on personalities and desires, but on the results … of the struggle between the Soviet and anti-Soviet elements.’’ (CW, Vol. 6) The "Opposition" was completely exposed and isolated ideologically at the 15^th Congress, 1927. Trotsky did not abide by the party decision and was expelled in 1927. The whole party, united as never before behind Stalin, plunged in construction. In 1928, the First Five Year Plan was declared, and was achieved in four years. Gibson Jarvie, British capitalist and the President of the United Dominion Trust, said in October, 1932: "Now I want it clearly understood that I am neither communist nor Bolshevist, I am definitely a capitalist and an individualist … Jokes have been made about the five year Plan, and its failure have been predicted. You can take it as beyond question, that under the five year Plan much more had been accomplished than was ever really anticipated … In all these industrial towns which I visited, a new city is growing up, a city on a definite plan. With wide streets in the process of being beautified by trees and grass plots, houses of the most modern types, schools, hospitals, workers’ clubs and the inevitable crèche or nursery, where the children of working mothers are cared for … Russia today is a country with a soul and an ideal, Russia is a country with amazing activity … and perhaps most important of all, all these youngsters and these workers in Russia have one thing which is too sadly lacking in the capitalist countries today, and that is – hope!" (Ibid., p. 168-9). Grudging admissions! But admissions nevertheless!

But this epoch-making victory could not have been won, nor could it have been protected with all care without the wisdom of Stalin. Stalin’s whole being and faculties were riveted on this goal. And how has this been misrepresented! Even as the countrywide activity around the first Plan was at its peak in 1934, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev and other "Opposition" leaders were facing trial on charge of treason against the Soviet socialist state. They had reached the logical end of their factional and conspiratorial path which they took going against Stalin and Leninism. They were found guilty and executed. These self-confessed Quislings were exhonerated in 1995 by Gorbachov! And Stalin is accused of ‘‘vendetta’’! Yet Zinoviev confessed in the trial that, "the party saw where we were going and warned us … Stalin, Voroshilov, Orjonikidze, Dzerzhinsky and Mikoyan did all they could to persuade us, to save us. Scores of times they said to us: "You may do enormous harm to the party and the Soviet Government, and you yourselves will perish in doing so". But we did not heed these warnings … My defective Bolshevism became transformed into anti-Bolshevism and through Trotskyism I arrived at fascism." (Report of Court Proceedings quoted in The Stalin Question: Banbehari Chakrabarti).

Few things reveal Stalin’s complete identification with the interest of revolution more than this incident. To a bourgeois liberal, the only explanation will surely be that Stalin was too magnanimous even to opponents. But the real reason is not that. Comrade Shibdas Ghosh repeatedly taught us that everyone has his positive as well as negative sides and only by encouraging one’s qualities and positive sides it is possible to make one free from his negative sides and shortcomings. Stalin gave the opposition leaders repeated opportunities for self-rectification as well as criticized them unsparingly but sincerely wanted them to become worthy communists. What greater communist revolutionary moral can be found in any other leader of his time? But, once their conspiracy was established doubtlessly, he had to save the revolution from their conspiracy at all costs. By permitting the execution of them, he did just that. The bourgeois world is horrified at this! And the common masses, and even many communists are touched! This is liberal sentiment alone. But correctly evaluating Stalin for whom helping a deviating colleague to rectify himself and awarding him supreme penalty after he turns renegade flow from the same sense of revolutionary morality, requires a far greater understanding of morality. It can be understood from the tribute paid to Stalin by Comrade Shibdas Ghosh: "To a revolutionary, revolutionary necessity stands supreme; all other things like love, affection, personal relationship, friendship, etc., which to a humanist are so important and precious and make life worth living are subordinated to it." Stalin was the epitome of communist morality in his time. But revisionism has eclipsed all trace of that noble revolutionary fervour and conceptions. Capitalism and imperialism have completely debased society and it signifies that the bourgeois humanist moral values have also been completely exhausted. Can one evaluate a man like Stalin on the yardstick of these obsolescent moral values? Stalin has been misunderstood so much basically on this count. Comrade Shibdas Ghosh explained that, "In the annals of human society, humanism is not the last word. It is undoubtedly the most lively air that the oppressive bourgeois thinking is capable of producing. But the march of progress of society does not stop there and hence, the sense of moral values does not find its zenith in humanism. Communism begins where humanism ends. … Only with proper understanding of communist ethics can many of the traits of Stalin’s character be correctly appreciated, which, judged by the yardstick of humanist moral values, would appear as negative qualities of character." (SW. Vol. I, p. 84-90)

Stalin has left behind a rich heritage for all communists of the world. However, while Stalin emerged as the foremost Marxist-Leninist of his time, the communist movement of his time failed to rise to the necessary height. But it is wrong to presume that the role of the leader alone determines the development of the led. Those who follow must also creatively conduct the struggles in their own spheres. Has the communist movement and its parties done this always? It was greatly influenced by the immense prestige and authority of the CPSU and of Stalin, learning and benefiting much thereby, but learning blindly and mechanically. In the post-war situation, when the communist parties grew unprecedentedly, the tiresome work of ideologically exposing and eradicating all bourgeois liberal and humanist influences, in different countries, was not adequately cared after for this reason. On the contrary, as Comrade Shibdas Ghosh had clearly shown, ‘‘humanistic appeal of the anti-imperialist struggles’’ and ‘‘liberal sentiment against capitalist exploitation’’ considerably contributed to its growth. The ideological foundation of the communist movement became weak and vulnerable. It is precisely for this reason that the communists of the world, with their unquestionable but blind sense of loyalty to Stalin, failed to properly appreciate his values and defend him in the face of revisionist ideological onslaught when it came. The time has come to identify the mistake and accord the uppermost importance to raising the level of ideological consciousness of the communists. So long as the communists cannot exhaust the influence of bourgeois humanism ideologically, culturally and morally, proletarian democracy cannot fully function, the process of democratic centralism cannot grow and develop and collective leadership cannot take concrete shape inside the party. The party cannot grow as the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat, makes the proletariat conscious and organized to fulfil its historic mission, let alone influence the other strata of society. The disorganisation among the communist parties following the collapse of the Socialist Camp – the process of which began from the 20^th Congress of the CPSU – is its surest proof. All this urges upon the communists of the world to weigh the present situation and determine their tasks. Unmitigable crisis in the imperialist ‘globalized’ economy and irrepressible outbursts of the discontent of the toilers of the world call upon the communists to unite and advance with giants strides.

Red Salute to Comrade Stalin, Great Leader of the World Proletariat!
Long Live Proletarian Internationalism!
Long Live Revolution!