Stalin (1878-1953)

What explains Joe Stalin? And what about those who gave him power, and those who saw him as a hero, or still see him as a hero?

Stalin, it seems to me, really believed in building socialism in the Soviet Union. He believed in Lenin's Marxist revolution insofar as it had taken power -- or freedom one might say -- from capitalists. He believed in building up the Soviet Union economically, and, obviously, he believed in defending the Communist revolution and the soviet state militarily. He was, moreover, highly intelligent. But he had intellectual limitations that did not suit the amount of power that he accumulated. He was another of those in history whose character made him unsuitable for power.

He displayed some of his intelligence in a work entitled "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics." In this work he was answering questions put to him by a "group of younger comrades." He had the sense to begin by saying that he was not a linguistic expert and could not therefore "fully satisfy the request of the comrades." Then he shot down questions that suggested simplistic ideological nonsense. QUESTION: Is it true that language is a superstructure on the base? ANSWER: "No, it is not true" (followed by a page or so of explanation). QUESTION: Is it true that language always was and is class language, that there is no such thing as language which is the single and common language of a society, a non-class language common to the whole people. ANSWER: "No, it is not true." QUESTION: What are the characteristic features of language? ANSWER: "Language ...arises and develops with the rise and development of a society... Apart from society there is no language.... Language is a medium, an instrument with the help of which people communicate with one another, exchange thoughts and understand each other." Simple stuff, but at least not pompous and ideologically turgid.

In the early 1920s as one of the members of the Communist Party's politiburo, Stalin established himself intellectually with his party comrades with his "Socialism in One Country." He held that the Soviet Union should focus on building socialism at home and for the time being forget about trying to create revolutions abroad. The communist revolution, he believed, was not about to engulf the world and that it was better that the Soviet Union for the time being build friendly relations with foreign powers rather than to offend these powers by pushing local Party members into a hopeless effort to overthrow them.

Stalin demonstrated his intellectual weakness in his collectivization program in the late twenties and early thirties. On this issue his friend and fellow Bolshevik, Bukharin, was brighter. As I see it, Stalin and the Bolsheviks in general were oversimplistic in their ideological fixation on class struggle -- a vulgar Marxism some might call it. Stalin and the Bolsheviks were crude in treating the middle class as they did, including categorizing them as class enemies. Lenin had the brains to go a little lighter than some on this issue, Lenin putting a stop to blue collar workers converting engineers into cleaners of latrines.

Stalin's intellect being what it was led him down on the wrong side of the democracy issue raised by Trotsky. And Stalin's ego-centricity led him to put self-promotion and hypocrisy ahead of the interests of Soviet society as a whole -- what building socialism was supposed to be about.

Stalin was a liar. He was a murderer. It looks to me as though he was responsible for the death of Kirov. During the Soviet Union's war against Hitler's armies he was inclined to blame others for his own mistakes and ready again to ruin people who were rivals. He developed an exaggerated enemy-think and became another Ivan the Terrible or worse at the end of World War II. He could not take criticism from Yugoslavia's Milovan Djilas about Soviet soldiers raping, and he held to an ideological simplicity that told him that capitalism was going to self-destruct sometime around the 1960s. His policy toward the Poles was criminal.

As Lenin and his wife Krupskaya had come to suspect, Stalin was not suited for power. He was crude. Crude men are likely to rule crudely. At any rate, Stalin was not supposed to rule. The revolution was supposed to transfer power to the working class masses, and leadership was supposed to be collective. That it was not is part of what made Stalin what he was.

Stalin was a part of what became a corruption of conformity. He surrounded himself with people who were short in stature like himself, and yes men -- producing the faulty rule of men with weak egos and weak intellects.

Those around Stalin put their positions above all else -- as Molotov did in agreeing to have his wife sent to Siberia. They rationalized, and each felt that their status was dependent upon Stalin's favor. Collectively they had made it so. And Stalin did not have the character to resist what they gave him.