The Rise of Stalin's Personality Cult
Author(s): Robert C. Tucker
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 84, No. 2 (Apr., 1979), pp. 347-366
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the American Historical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1855137 .
Accessed: 27/10/2011 14:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The University of Chicago Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.
http://www.jstor.org
The Rise of Stalin's PersonalityCult
ROBERT C. TUCKER
THE CULT OF LENIN, which Lenin himselfopposed and managed to keep in
checkuntilincapacitatedby a strokein March 1923, subsequentlybecame a
pervasivepartofSovietpubliclife.No singlecause explainsitsrise.Undoubtedly,the Bolsheviksgenuinelyveneratedtheirvozhd'as the man whosepersonal leadershiphad been criticallyimportantforthe movementfromits
originto itsassumptionofpowerand forthecreationand consolidationofthe
Sovietregimein the ensuingyears.But it is also truethatafterLenin'sdeath
that regimehad a pragmaticneed fora prestigiousunifyingsymbol.The
Lenin cult, whose obvious religiousovertoneswere at variance with the
CommunistParty'sprofessedsecularism,is likewisean exampleofhowSoviet
culturecame to incorporatecertainelementsoftheRussian past,in thiscase
therulercult. For centuriesthe Russianpeople,overwhelmingly
composedof
peasants,had been monarchistin outlook.The Revolutionhad opened the
door formany peasant sons to have careersin the new society.Industrializationand collectivization
ofmillionsofpeopleof
resultedin therecruitment
peasant stock into the workingclass. They broughtwiththem,along with
theirSoviet schoolingand experience,residuesof the traditionalpeasant
mentality,
includingrespectforpersonalauthority,
whetherit emanatedfrom
the immediateboss or fromthe head of the partyand state. The social
conditionof Russia at the timeof the "great turn" (1929-33) was, therefore,
receptiveto the cultof a deceased leader-or a livingone.
Lenin refusedto toleratepublicadulation-save, withextremereluctance,
on his fiftieth
birthdayin 1920-and eventhenhe showeddrydisapprovalof
the eulogizingto which his comrades subjected him. Thus, as the public
adulationof a livingleader,the Stalin cult deviatedfrompreviousBolshevik
practice.How and why,then,did the Stalin cult arise?
Realpolitik
FUSED WITH PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS. Politically,
a Stalin cultalongside ofand integratedintothe Lenin cultpromisedto make Stalin'sposition
A preliminary
versionof this articlewas presentedat a conferenceof the AmericanAssociationforthe
Advancementof Slavic Studies, held in Washington,D.C. in October 1977.I wish to thankthe commentator,Vera Dunham, and all otherswho took part in the.discussionfortheircommentsand questionsand AlexanderNekrichforhis subsequentwrittencommunication
about Stalin and Deborin. And
I would liketo thanktheNationalEndowmentfortheHumanitiesforsupportingsomeoftheresearchin a
FellowshipforIndependentStudyduring1975-76.
347
348
Robert
C. Tucker
moreimpregnablethanit was at thestartofthe 1930s. Althoughhe had won
cbnsiderablesupportand evenpopularityinsidepartycirclesduringtheearly
comparableto
post-Leninyears,Stalinneverenjoyeda prestigeevenremotely
Lenin's. His popularity,moreover,
plummetedin theearlyI930S as a resultof
forcedcollectivizationand the concomitantfamineof 1932-33. No evidence
still,his powerwas
suggeststhathe was thenin dangerofbeingoverthrown;
traditionlived on (at least in
not yet absolute, the argumentative-critical
higherparty circles), and he had no guarantee against the rise of new
oppositionin responseto new tribulation.So Stalin was undoubtedlyconcerned to forestallfuturetroubleby makinghis politicalsupremacymore
unassailable.He was shrewdenoughto realizethathis elevationto a Leninlikeeminencein the regime'spublicitywouldbe usefulforthispurpose.But,
eximportantas it was, the politicalmotivedoes not providea sufficient
planation.Not onlydid thecultcontinueto growafterStalin'spowerbecame
increasingly
absolutelaterin the 1930s,but bothdirectand indirectevidence
indicatesthatitwas a propforhispsycheas wellas forhispower.Boundlessly
ambitious,yet inwardlyinsecure,he had an imperativeneed forthe hero
worshipthat Lenin foundrepugnant.
That the name "Stalin" symbolizeda loftyidealized selfto its seemingly
Stalin's
earthybearerwas notwidelyknownin Russia. In part,thisreflected
to emulatein public Lenin's exampleofmodestlyunassuming
studiedeffort
In private,moreover,Stalinrepeatedlyaffecteddisdainforadudeportment.
lation. For example, he concluded a letterto an Old Bolshevik,Ia. M.
in August1930 by saying,"You speakofyour'devotion'to me.
Shatunovskii,
Perhaps that phrase slipped out accidentally.Perhaps. But if it isn't an
accidentalphrase,I'd advise you to thrustaside the'principle'ofdevotionto
persons.It isn't the Bolshevikway. Have devotionto the workingclass, its
party,its state. That's needed and good. But don't mix it withdevotionto
persons,thatemptyand needlessbauble of intellectuals."1
But the man behind the mask ofmodestywas hungryforthedevotionhe
professedto scorn.He showedit by his own actionsand by thoseoffunctionhim-and byhis acceptanceoftheofficially
ariesrepresenting
inspiredadulationas it rosein intensity
duringthe 1930s. Indeed,in theverymonthinwhich
he wrotetheletterto Shatunovskii,
Stalin,also in private,gavelie to thatsame
advice. In June-JulyI930 the SixteenthParty Congresswitnessedan outpouringofpublic tributesto him. Louis Fischer,who coveredthateventfor
TheNation,concludedhis post-Congressdispatchby saying,
A goodfriend
mightalso adviseStalinto puta stoptotheorgyofpersonalglorificaof
tosweepthecountry....Daily,hundreds
tionofStalinwhichhas beenpermitted
"Thou
overwithOrientalsuper-compliments:
telegrams
pourin on himbrimming
leader. .. ,the mostdevoteddiscipleofLenin,"andthelike.Three
artthegreatest
havebeen
and institutions
schools,factories,
villages,
collectives,
cities,innumerable
theTurksib
tochristen
a movement
has started
namedafterhim,andnowsomebody
' I. V. Stalin,Sochineniia,
13 vols. (Moscow, 1946-52), 13: 19. The letterwas firstpublishedin Stalin's
collectedworksafterthe Second WorldWar.
TheRiseofStalin'sPersonality
Cult
349
from1919to I922: Lenin
the"StalinRailway."I havegonebackoverthenewspapers
neverpermitted
suchanticsandhewasmorepopularthanStalincaneverhopetobe.
Itexposesa weaksideofStalin'scharacter
whoarenumerous,
whichhisenemies,
are
sureto exploit,forit is as un-Bolshevik
as it is politically
unwise.If Stalinis not
forthisperformance
he at leasttolerates
it.He couldstopitbypressing
responsible
a
button.2
A presssectionofficer
oftheForeignCommissariat,whosedutiesincludedthe
briefingof Stalinon foreignpresscoverageofSovietaffairs,laterconfidedto
Fischerthat,when he translatedthe passage just quoted, Stalin responded
withan expletive:"the bastard!" (svoloch'!).3Evidently,he was stungby the
truthof Fischer's observationthat he himselfbore responsibility
for the
emergingStalin cult.
PRECISELY WHEN THIS CULT tookon a lifeand momentum
ofitsownis noteasy
to pinpoint.If the officialcelebrationof Stalin's fiftieth
birthdayin 1929 iS
takenas the openingepisode,thereis no immediatesequel. The markingof
Lenin's fiftieth
birthdayhad been a one-timeaffair,and many in high
positionsmayhave assumedthatStalin'sfiftieth
wouldbe similarlyobserved.
Six monthslatercame the acclaim at the SixteenthCongress.But again the
wave subsided. Althoughhis name appeared oftenin the Sovietpress, no
steadystreamofStalinidolatryappeared in Sovietpublicityin I930 and most
of I93I. Shortlyafterwards,
however,thecultbegan to grow.And Stalinhimselftookcertainstepsto make it happen.
One such step was in philosophy,one of the numerousfieldsin which
different
schoolsofthoughtcontendedforprimacyin therelatively
pluralistic
atmosphereof the period of the New Economic Policy (NEP). In the midI920S the so-called mechanisticmaterialistslost theirpreviouslyinfluential
position,and a school of devotees of Hegelian dialectics,led by A. M.
Deborin,won dominance.Theirswas a positiveresponseto Lenin'sinvitation
to Sovietphilosophersin I922 to constitute
themselves
a societyof"materialist
friendsof Hegelian dialectics."
AlthoughLenin had some philosophicalwritingsto his credit,it was not
uncommonin the I 920S to place him below GeorgiiPlekhanovas a Marxist
philosoper.Deborin's disciples,moreover,tended to rate Deborin as the
Engels of his own time in the fieldof philosophy.4
Stalin,by contrast,was
save forhis theoretiwidelyregardedin CommunistPartycirclesas a praktik,
cal workon thenationalitiesproblemand his codification
ofLeninistdoctrine
in The Foundations
ofLeninism;
thus,his standingin Marxistphilosophywas
virtuallynil. Interestingevidenceon this pointexists in the formof a list,
publishedin 1929, ofwritingswithwhichstudentsenteringgraduateworkin
the CommunistAcademy's Instituteof Philosophywere supposed to be
TheNation,August 13, 1930,p. 176.
' Louis Fischergave me thisinformation
in a personalconversationin 1965.
' DavidJoravsky,
Soviet
Marxism
andNatural
Science,
I9I7-1932
(NewYork,1961),170.
2
350
Robert
C. Tucker
workswere listed under dialectical and
familiarin advance. Thirty-three
historicalmaterialism-thatis, philosophy.Six worksby Marx and Engels
came first,followedby six worksby Lenin,thenfourby Plekhanov,and then
ofLeninism,
sevenby Deborin. Then came entrynumber23, Stalin's Problems
whicheven at that low rankingwas veryprobablyincludedfordiplomatic
to note) with
reasons.The listended (Westernphilosopherswillbe interested
Descartes,Hobbes, Hume, and Berkeley.'
For both politicaland personalreasons,Stalin could not be contentwith
thissituation.As theparty'svozhd'insuccessionto Lenin,he was duty-bound,
in termsofBolshevikculture,to be a creativeMarxisttheoreticalmindofthe
firstrank-in the political if not in the technicalphilosophicalsense. But
'-role,Stalin had a
beyondthosepoliticalexpectationsimposedby the vozdh
NikolaiBukharin,who
personalcravingforrenownas a Marxisttheoretician.
knew himwell,saw thisand stressedit in his clandestineconversationwith
Lev Kamenev in I928. For many years Stalin had harboredpretensionsin
of
Marxist philosophy.He had set forthwhat he saw as the fundamentals
or Socialism?In
dialectical materialismin his treatiseof Igo6-07, Anarchism
correspondencein I908 that vexed Lenin, Stalin had characterizedLenin's
philosophicalpolemicswiththeBogdanovgroupoverMachismas a "tempest
in a teacup" and commendedA. A. Bogdanovforpointingout some "individual faultsof Ilyich."6
Stalin quietlycontinued,in the midstof intensepoliticalactivitiesof later
years,to tryto enhance his commandof Marxismas philosophy.He called
upon Jan Sten,a leadingphilosopherofthe Deborinschool,to guidehimin
the studyofHegelian dialectics.Sten'steachingmethod,theone thenused in
involvedthe parallel studyof Marx's Capital
the Instituteof Red Professors,
and Hegel's The Phenomenology
oftheMind. Stalin continuedto have twiceweeklysessionswithStenfrom1925 untilsometimein 1928, afterwhichStalin
Stalin had in
called a halt. Sten reportedlywas depressedby the difficulty
masteringHegelian dialectics.7
noteof the futureStalin schoolwhenhe
Stalin sounded the characteristic
told a conferenceof agrarianMarxistson December 27, 1929 that Marxist
theoryalways needed to keep in step withcurrentpractice.Not long afterphilosophersfromtheInstitute
wards,twoyoung,clever,opportunist-minded
ofRed Professors,
PavelF. ludin and Mark B. Mitin,tookup thesame theme.
V. Ral'tsevich,theypublishedin PravdaonJune
Alongwitha thirdprofessor,
7, 1930 a long articlethat championedthe notionthat philosophyshould
apply itselfin a new way to the theoreticalproblemsof practicein building
socialism.They lauded Stalin forshowingan exampleof "deepened under6 Vestnik
kommunisticheskoi
akademii,1929, Kn. 35-36, p. 390. For note of this list, see Joravsky,Soviet
MarxismandNaturalScience,
227.
6 I. Dubinskii-Mukhadze,
(Moscow, 1963),93. For Bukharin'scomment,see theBukharinOrdzhonikidze
Cambridge,Mass., TrotskyArchives,T
KamenevConversationsofJulyI 1-12, 1928, HarvardUniversity,
1897.
(New York,I974),433.The information
7 Roy A. Medvedev,K suduistorii:
Stalinizma
Genezisi posledstviia
on the Stalin-Stensessionscame to Roy MedvedevfromSten's friend,E. P. Frolov.
TheRiseofStalin'sPersonality
Cult
351
ofthe
dialectics"in his theoreticalformulation
standingof Marxist-Leninist
idea of a struggleon two fronts-thatis, againstdeviationsofboth Leftand
Right-and called fora corresponding
philosophicalstruggleon two fronts.
Althoughtheauthorsdid notopenlyattackDeborin,thearticlepointedto his
school as the enemyon the philosophicalsecond front.The authorscame
in effect,
forward,
as thenucleusofa new,Stalinschoolin Sovietphilosophy.
in theunusual
Stalin'sapprobation-ifnotinspirationas well-was reflected
note,publishedalong withthe article,thatclaimedthat"the editorsassociate[d] themselveswiththe main propositionsof thepresentarticle."
on thephilosophicalfront.On December
Soon Stalinpersonallyintervened
witha groupof
9, 1930 he spokeout on philosophicalmattersin an interview
Mitinlaterquoted himas
philosophersfromthe InstituteofRed Professors.
sayingthat it was necessaryto "rake and dig up all of the manurethathas
accumulatedin questionsofphilosophyand naturalscience." In particular,it
was necessaryto "rake up everything
writtenby the Deborinitegroup-all
thatis erroneouson thephilosophicalsector."Deborin'sschoolwas a philothataccordingto Stalin,whohad a specialtalent
sophicalformofrevisionism
forcoiningcaustic neologisms,could be called "Menshevizingidealism." It
was necessary,he continued,to expose a numberoferroneousphilosophical
positionsofPlekhanov,who had alwayslookeddownupon Lenin.Stalinkept
emphasizingin theinterview
thatLeninhad raiseddialecticalmaterialismto
a new plane. BeforeLenin,he said, materialismhad been atomistic.On the
basis of new scientificadvances, Lenin produceda Marxistanalysisof the
electronictheoryofmatter.But,althoughhe createdmuchthatwas newin all
spheresofMarxism,Lenin was verymodestand did notliketo talkabout his
contributions.It was incumbentupon his disciples,however,to clarifyall
aspectsof his innovativerole.8
Stalin was assumingthe role of the premierlivingMarxistphilosopher.
Albeit coarsely,he spoke as one philosopher,and the authoritative
one, to
otherphilosophers.He was clearingthe way forself-elevation
by mobilizing
the subservient,
young,would-bedisciplesto dethroneDeborin and Plekhanov fromtheirpositionsofeminencein the mindsofSovietMarxistphilosoidealism"now became polemphers."Deborinism"alongwith"Menshevizing
ical by-wordsforphilosophicalheresyin the philosophicaljournal, Underthe
BannerofMarxism,
and otherpublications.Futurelistsofmandatoryadvance
readingforgraduatestudentsin philosophyno longerput Stalin in twentythirdplace, and Deborin's learnedtreatisesdid notfigurein themat all.
In the interviewStalin did not directlyreferto his own philosophical
But he emcredentials,althoughhe impliedthemby his pronouncements.
ployedan indirectstrategy
ofcult-building
by theway in whichhe dealtwith
Lenin. Since he did notactuallyharbormuchenthusiasmforLenin's philosophical merits,why did he studiouslypraise Lenin as a philosopherand
I Mark B. Mitin,Boevye
dialektiki
(Moscow, 1936),43-44,and "Nekotoryeitogii
voprosy
materialisticheskoi
zadachi raboty na filosofskom
fronte,"Pod znamenem
Marksizma,1 (1936): 25-26. For the date of the
13: 401.The fulltextofhis remarksto thephilosophers
interview,
see the chronologyin Stalin,Sochineniia,
remainsunpublished.
352
C. Tucker
Robert
warn theaudience not to be put offby Lenin's modestforbearanceto speak
about his contributionsin this field? For one thing,therewas the subtle
Aesopian message,whichcould nothave escaped themindsofthealertludin
shouldnotbe putoffby Stalin'sownmodestyon thesame
and Mitin,thatthey
count. But, more importantly,Stalin was promotingLenin's primacyin
philosophyas a vehicleforhis own claim to similarprimacy.The party's
chiefwas presentedas itsphilosophicalchiefas
erstwhilepolitico-ideological
well-in place of Plekhanov,the acknowledgedfatherof Russian Marxism,
who had laterbecome a Menshevik.By thusputtingsupremephilosophical
Stalinhelpedthephilosophersto graspthis
authorityintoLenin's vozhd'-role,
broadenedconceptionof thatroleas applicable to Lenin's successor.
They were quick to do so. In I93I the organ of the Central Committee,
carrieda bittercriticismof"Menshevizingidealism"as foundin the
Bolshevik,
articleon Hegel was the first
Deborin's Encyclopedia
GreatSovietEncyclopedia.
objectofattack.In castigatingDeborin and othersofhis schoolas carriersof
author stated,"Materialist dialectics
Menshevizingidealism,the Bolshevik
reallymustbe elaborated.But thiselaborationmustbe carriedout on the
basis of the worksofMarx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. . . . "' Here appeared
the holy quartet-Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin-who togetherbecame the
symboliccenterpieceof Stalinistthoughtand culture,repletewiththe four
huge, equal-sized portraitson the facade of Moscow's Bolshoi Theater for
May Day, November7, and otherspecial occasions.
The cultofStalinas Communism'sfirstphilosopherin successionto Marx,
Engels,and Lenin had now been founded.But thiswas notall. Embryonicin
this developmentwas the monolithismthatbecame a hallmarkof Stalinist
intellectualculturein all fieldsand thatdistinguishedit frompre-Stalinist
muchless
Bolshevism.To treat,forexample,Lenin's philosophicalwritings,
Stalin's, as sacrosanctdogma had neverbeforebeen mandatory.'0Stalin
figurein
himselfbecame not onlythe firstphilosopherbut also the authority
Vyshinskii,
some otherfields,and in stillothersa Stalin-surrogate-Andrei
as theauthorforexample,injurisprudence-was,so to speak,subenthroned
was to glorifyStalin's
ity figure.Part of the role of such Stalin-surrogates
thoughtin the processofhuntingforheresyand establishingStalinisttruth
fortheirown disciplines.Consequently,those chosen as Stalin-surrogates
were scholarswho combinedintellectualacumen, in mostcases, withabsoAnyonewithany independenceof mind,no matter
lutelyreliableservility.
how zealous a servitorof Communism,was unacceptable.
If Marxist philosophywas the firstarea Stalin selectedforbuildingthe
statelyedificeofthe Stalincult,partyhistorywas thesecond.Here he moved
forthe annals of the Bolshevikpast
intoa fieldof greatpoliticalsensitivity,
were the movement'sinnersanctum.But he also trodon groundof intense
" P. Cheremnykh,
no. 17,September15,
idealizmv rabotakhBSE," Bol'shevik,
"Men'shevistvuiushchii
p. 85.
SovieteconomistofthisaspectofStalinismand theuse of"monolithism"
10For a discussionbya former
Trendsin SovietEconomicsin thePost-StalinEra,"
"Conflicting
to describeit,see AronKatsenelinboigen,
October 1976,pp. 374-76.
RussianReview,
1931,
Cult
TheRiseofStalin'sPersonality
353
personalconcern,namelyhis own revolutionary
biography.Nothingwas of
more importanceto a man who feltdrivento view himselfas Bolshevism's
second Lenin, in the past as well as the present.He made his move in the
familiarmannerthat so many have chosenin theireffortto set the record
straight:he wrotea letterto the editors.
AT THE OUTSET OF THE 1930s,researchon thehistory
oftheMarxistmovement
was still pursuedwitha certainfreedom,contentiousissues were seriously
debated,and workofgenuinescholarlycharacterwas stillproducedin Soviet
Russia. One setofquestions,thoseconcerning
theGermanSocial Democratic
Party(SPD) and the pre-1914Second International,
was deemedofsufficient
interestthat in I929 the CommunistAcademy's Instituteof Historyestablished a special group to studythem;the group's academic secretarywas
A. G. Slutskii.Variousarticlesby membersofthegroupwerepublished,one
ofwhichappeared in thejournal Proletarian
in 1930. Slutskii'smain
Revolution
topic was Lenin's positionin connectionwiththe internaldivisionsin the
wingof thatparty,led by Eduard Bernstein,
pre-1914 SPD. The revisionist
was opposed bya dominantcentristgroup,whoseleaderswereKarl Kautsky
and August Bebel and whose viewpointwas taken by many-Lenin included-to be genuinerevolutionary
Marxism.On the extremeLeftwas a
groupof radicals led by Rosa Luxemburg.Slutskiiclaimedthatas earlyas
I9I I she had graspedand openlydiscussedthebasically"opportunist"nature
ofKautskyancentrism,
whereasLenin,thoughhe had showna certaincritical
cautiontowardthe Kautsky-Bebelleadershipeversince 1907, had continued
to base his hopeson it. Leninhimselfadmittedin a letterofOctober19I4 that
"Rosa Luxemburgwas right";he had not seen throughKautsky'spseudorevolutionism
as earlyas had theGermanleftradicals.Slutskiiconcludedthat
Lenin had displayed"a certainunderestimation
ofthecentristdangerin the
Germanpartybeforethe war.""
The publicationofthisarticledemonstrates
that,althougha SovietLenin
cultexistedin theearly1930s, itwas stillpossibleto publishan articlethatdid
not treat Lenin as an icon-infallible,preternaturally
foresightful,
beyond
humanlimitations.
True, theeditorsofProletarian
Revolution-the
Old Bolsheviks M. Saveliev, V. V. Adoratskii,M. S. Ol'minskii,D. Baevskii,and
P. Gorin-seemed to sense the potentialdanger,forthey insertedan introductory
footnotedisclaimingany agreementwithSlutskii'sinterpretation
ofLeninand announcingtheprinting
ofhisessay"forpurposesofdiscussion"
only. But theyclearlywere unpreparedforthe thunderbolt
thatits appearance provokedfromon high.Stalinwas infuriated.
He wrotea letterofarticle
length,entitled"On Some Questions of the Historyof Bolshevism,"which
was simultaneously
printedin Proletarian
Revolution
and Bolshevik
at theend of
October193I.
" A. Slutskii,"Bol'shevikio germanskois.-d. v
periodee predvoennogo
krizisa,"Proletarskaia
revoliutsiia,
6 (1930): 37-72.
354
Robert
C. Tucker
contendingthat
First,StalinmauledSlutskii'spositionbeyondrecognition,
the dangerof"veiled opportunism"was
to accuse Lenin ofunderestimating
to accuse him of not having been a "real Bolshevik"before1914: a real
It was
thedangerofveiledopportunism.
Bolshevikcould neverunderestimate
simply axiomatic that Bolshevismarose and grew strongin its ruthless
struggleagainstall shades of centrism.Thus, the editorsshouldneverhave
even as a piece
accepted Slutskii's"balderdash" and "crookedpettifogging"
fordiscussion;the genuinenessof Lenin's Bolshevismwas not discussable.
Second, Stalin protestedSlutskii'sfavorabletreatmentof Rosa Luxemburg
irkedbythevery
and theleftradicalsin thepre-19I4SPD. He was profoundly
idea that Lenin mighthave had somethingto learnfromthesepeople.
tingeofStalin'sBolshevismwas also evident
The strongRussian-nationalist
in his letter.He presenteda Russocentricviewofthe historyoftheEuropean
Marxist movement:"Russian Bolsheviks"had a rightto treat theirown
validityofthoseofleftSocial
positionsas thetestoftheMarxistrevolutionary
Democratsabroad. Lenin's forecastof I902 in WhatIs To Be Done?-thatthe
Russian proletariatmightyet become "the vanguardof the international
proletariat"-had been brilliantlyconfirmedby subsequent
revolutionary
events."But does it notfollowfromthisthattheRussianRevolutionwas (and
thatthe fundamentalquesremains)the keypointof the worldrevolution,
tionsofthe Russian Revolutionwereat the same time (as theyare now) the
fundamentalquestionsof the world revolution?Is it not clear thatonlyon
oftheleftSocial
thesebasic questionscould one reallytestthe revolutionism
Democrats in the West?" Neitherbeforenor afterthe war were Western
Marxiststo givelessonsto theirRussian brethren,but vice versa.
To say or implyotherwise,as Slutskiidid, was "Trotskyistcontraband."
To giveweightto thisuglycharge,StalinassertedthatSlutskii's thesisabout
of centrismwas a cunningway ofsuggestLenin's pre-1I94underestimation
ing to the "unsophisticatedreader" that Lenin had only become a real
revolutionary
afterthewar startedand afterhe had "re-armed"himselfwith
revolutions
growinto
the helpofTrotsky'stheorythatbourgeois-democratic
socialist ones (the theoryof permanentrevolution);Lenin himself,Stalin
revolution"and
recalled,had writtenin 1905 that"we standforuninterrupted
"we will not stop half way." But "contrabandists"like Slutskiiwere not
fromLenin's writings.Slutskii,
in such facts,whichwereverifiable
interested
Stalin notedelsewherein theletter,had spokenin hisarticleofthe unavailabilityof some Lenin documentspertainingto the period in question."But
who excepthopelessbureaucratscan relyon paper documentsalone? Who
but archiveratsfailto realizethatpartiesand leadersmustbe testedbytheir
deedsprimarilyand not simplyby theirdeclarations?"
Toward the end ofthe letter,Stalin'slanguageshiftedfromtherudeto the
sinister.In givingSlutskiia forumforhis contraband,theeditorswereguilty
of that "rottenliberalism"toward Trotskyisttendenciesthat was current
had
amonga segmentofBolshevikswho failedto understandthatTrotskyism
longsinceceased to be a factionofCommunismbuthad turnedintoa forward
TheRiseofStalin'sPersonality
Cult
355
detachmentofthecounterrevolutionary
bourgeoisie,makingwar on Communism,theSovietregime,and the buildingofsocialismin theUSSR. Such, for
example, was the purpose of the Trotskyisttheseson the impossibility
of
buildingsocialismin Russia and the inevitability
of Bolshevism'sdegeneration.
Here Stalin repeated in public the argumentof a memorandumhe had
writtenin 1929.12 Its purporthad been to transferTrotskyistaffiliation
or
sympathiesfromthe categoryof politicalerrorto thatof crimeagainstthe
Sovietstateand, hence,tojustifyrepressiveactionagainstpersonsaccused of
As Stalin now spelledout the conclusionto his argument,
being Trotskyist.
"LiberalismtowardTrotskyism,
eventhoughdefeatedand masked,is thusa
formofbunglingthatborderson crime,treasonto theworkingclass." Hence,
the editors'task, Stalin continued(mixinghis metaphors),was "to put the
studyof partyhistoryonto scientific
Bolshevikrailsand to sharpenvigilance
and all otherfalsifiers
of the historyofour party,systemagainstTrotskyist
aticallyrippingofftheirmasks." This taskwas all themorenecessaryin that
certaingenuinelyBolshevikpartyhistorianswerethemselvesguiltyoferrors
thatpouredwateron the millsof the Slutskiis.Unfortunately,
said Stalin at
the end, one such personwas Comrade Emelian Iaroslavskii(the dean of
Bolshevikparty historiansas well as the secretaryof the Central Party
ControlCommission),whosebookson partyhistory,in spiteoftheirmerits,
containeda numberof errorsin principleand of historicalcharacter.'3
Consideringwhat Stalin had said earlierabout centrism,it is easy to see
whyhe was outragedby Slutskii'sargumentthatLenin had underestimated
the centristdangerin the GermanSocial DemocraticParty.To fightagainst
deviationsoftheLeftand Rightwas notto be a centrist,
Stalinhad contended
in 1928, any more than it had been centristof Lenin to combatboth Menshevismon the Rightand the sectarianismcondemnedin LeftWingCommunismon the Left. Centrismmeant "adaptation" and on that account was
"alien and repulsiveto Leninism."14 How then-no matterwhat documents
the archiveratsmightturnup-could a real revolutionary
(thatis, a Bolshevik),ever,even briefly,
underestimate
thecentristdanger?To a mindthatso
reasoned,people likeSlutskiifullydeservedthemercilessbawlingoutthatthe
lettergave themand severepunishmentas well. Slutskiiwas arrestedin the
laterStalin terrorand spentmanyyearsin a concentration
camp.15
But Stalin's letter,in additionto expressinghis rage,pursueda tripartite
purpose in cult-building.Though it did not mentionhis own name (how
could it?), thelettersoliciteda Stalincultin partyhistory
just because Stalin
wroteit and by the tone and content.First,in writingit (or, conceivably,
havingitwrittento hisspecifications
and issuedin his name),he arrogatedto
12 Stalin, "Dokatilis'," in Sochineniia,
I1: 313-17. This documenthas the appearance of an internal
Politburomemorandum.
l Stalin,Sochineniia,
13: 84-102.
14
Stalin,Sochineniia,
1l: 281-82,284.
1 I am indebtedto Roy A. Medvedevand StephenF. Cohen fortheinformation
on Slutskii'ssubsequent
arrestand imprisonment.
356
C. Tucker
Robert
himselfthe positionof premierpartyhistorianand arbiterof contentious
issuesin thatsensitivearea. For thistheletterdid nothaveto mentionStalin's
name, but only to be the thoroughly
dogmaticdocumentthatit was and to
bear hissignature.MerelybypublishingtheletterStalinassertedhisplace as
on theverysubjectthatformedthecoreofthepersonthesupremeauthority
alitycultas it mushroomedin the 1930s: Bolshevism'spast and thepartsthat
he and othershad played in it.'6
Second, in the letterjust as in the earlierinterviewwiththe Mitin-ludin
group of philosophers,Stalin followedthe strategyof cult-buildingvia the
assertionof Lenin's infallibility.
By makingthe party'spreviousvozhd'an
iconographicfigure,beyondlimitationand beyondcriticism,Stalin's letter
implicitlynominatedthe successor-vozhd'
forsimilartreatment.Since Stalin
was theman whomthepartyhad salutedin 1929 as itsacknowledgedchiefin
successionto Lenin, it behoovedpartyhistoriansto be as carefulnot to find
lapses or blemishesin his politicalpast as the letterin effect
orderedscholars
to be whereLenin's past was concerned.People as experiencedin reading
delphicutterancesas were Bolshevikpartyintellectualswerebound to draw
thisinference
as theyponderedor discussedwithone anothertheimplications
of the letter.Stalin evengave thema broad hintwitha phraseused twicein
the letter:"Lenin (the Bolsheviks)."Lenin, by Stalin's fiat,stood fortrue
as distinctfromanyand all falsevarieties-left,right,
Bolshevikrevolutionism
or center.The words in parenthesespluralizedhis revolutionary
rectitude;
they made it more inclusivewithoutgivingnames. But anyone with intelligenceenough to be a partyhistoriancould guess whose name oughtto
comenexton thelistof"Bolsheviks"in Stalin'snormative
senseoftheterm.
Third, the letterdemanded quite explicitlythat the partypasts of real
be evaluatednot on the basis ofdocumentsthatarchiverats
revolutionaries
mightturnup or failto uncoverbut on the basis oftheir"deeds." Naturally,
such deeds would have to be documentedinsofaras possible. Stalin was to
ratoftheSovietUnionor,moreprecisely,theleader
becomethe arch-archive
ofa whole pack, althoughhe oftenhungeredas much forthe destructionor
concealmentof documentsas fortheirdiscoveryor publication.To those
capable ofdiscerninghis letter'simplications,
theywerethata partyhistorian
should not be guided,as had Slutskii,by what he could document,but by
what he knewa priorimustbe true-that Lenin, being a "real Bolshevik,"
centrismor thatStalin,also a "real Bolshecould neverhave underestimated
vik,"could neverhave takenan un-Bolshevikpositionat anyjuncture.The
functionof documentarymaterials,or of theirconcealment,was to help
establishsuch highertruths.To use themotherwisewas to slanderand to
16
On the effectof the letter'srude styleand tone,see, forexample,V. A. Dunaevskii,"Bol'shevikii
stateipamiati
vremia:Sbornik
germanskielevye na mezhdunarodnoiarene," in Evropav novoei noveishee
Dunaevskiihas claimedthat"the form
N. M. Lukina(Moscow, 1966).A modernSoviethistorian,
Akademika
ofStalin's pronouncement-sharpexpressionsagainsttheauthorshe mentionedand politicallycharacterofcreative
and thelike-led to theimpossibility
izingthemas 'rottenliberals,"Trotskyistcontrabandists,'
discussionson mattersof principleand subsequentlyto repressionsagainst individualswhom he had
subjectedto criticism";ibid.,508.
Cult
TheRiseofStalin'sPersonality
357
falsify.
was that
Consequently,themessageofStalin'stiradeagainstfalsifiers
scholars had to be ready to falsify(in the normal meaningof the word)
whenevera prioriparty-historical
truth-as revealedby wordfromStalin or
his spokesmen-shouldso dictate.
The cult-building
purportofStalin's lettermaybe shownfurther
by reference to one work-namely thatof laroslavskii-thatit criticized.Stalin did
not clearlyspecifythe natureof the errorsto which he was alluding,and
Iaroslavskiihimselfseems to have been somewhatbaffled.He wroteStalin
severallettersrequestingclarificationbut receivedno answer.'7In various
partydiscussionspriorto the appearance of Stalin's letter,Iaroslavskiihad
defendedeveryLeninist'srightto voicehis viewon "any controversial
question" withoutfearof being brandeda "revisionist."'8From Stalin's standpoint,such a positionwas certainly"rottenliberalism"and, hence,an error
in principle.As forhistoricalerrors,a quickglancethroughvolumefourofthe
partyhistory,coveringthe period 1917 to 192I and publishedunder Jaroslavskii'seditorship,could have indicatedto Iaroslavskiiat least one area of
while poisonouslyanti-Trotskyin its account, for instance,of
difficulty:
Trotsky'spositionin the Soviet trade-unioncontroversy
of 1920, the book
treatedTrotskyism
as the (wrongheaded)factionofCommunismthatStalin
now said it had "long since" ceased to be; thebookdid notshowTrotskyism
to be, even incipiently,
the forwarddetachmentof the counterrevolutionary
bourgeoisiethat Stalin declared it had become. Even the reprintedphotographs seemed ill chosen in some cases. Here, forexample,was Lenin's
originalfifteen-man
CouncilofPeople's Commissars;Trotskyappearedto the
leftof Lenin (and Alexei Rykov,appropriately,
flankedLenin on the right),
whileStalinappeared in thebottomrow,nextto theKremlinwall. And here,
too, on anotherpage, was an old photographofthe Sovietdelegationto the
Bresttalks,withTrotsky,itsleader,lookinghandsomeand impressivein the
top row.'9What Iaroslavskiimayhave been a littleslow in graspingwas that
affirmation
ofStalinnecessitatedtheretrospective
denigration
ofmanyothers
who had played moreprominentrolesin the Revolutionthan had Stalin.
Further,thisvolumeofthe partyhistorymade briefreference
to the wellknownfact,acknowledgedbyStalinhimself
in a speechin 1924, thatin March
I 917, priorto Lenin'sreturnto Russia and theissuanceofhis"AprilTheses,"
Stalin had shared withKamenev and M. K. Muranov"an erroneousposition" on policytowardthe ProvisionalGovernment
(theyhad advocatedthat
thepartymerelyputpressureon thegovernment
to leavethewar). This easily
documentabletruthof partyhistoryas writtenbefore1929 was one of the
Iaroslavskii"mistakes"to whichStalin's letteralluded. It became an "un17
o merakh
soveshchanie
ulschsheniia
podgotovki
kadrov
nauchno-pedagogicheskikh
po istoricheskim
Vsesoiuznoe
naukam.18-2i dekabria
i962g. (Moscow, 1964), 363.
18
Paul H. Aron, "M. N. Pokrovskiiand the Impact of the First Five-YearPlan," in John Shelton
in HonorofGeroid
andSovietHistory
Curtiss,ed., Essaysin Ruissian
Tanquary
Robinson
(New York, 1962), 301.
9 E. M. Iaroslavskii,gen. ed., IstoriiaVKP(b), 4 (Moscow-Leningrad,1929): Pt. 1, 230, Pt. 2, 291.
Iaroslavskiiexplained in his editorialforewordthat the volumehad been in preparationforthe tenth
anniversary
ofthe Revolution(1927) "but fora wholeseriesofreasonswas delayedfora year." He did not
explainwhat thosereasonswere.
358
C. Tucker
Robert
in the 1930Sby Iaroslavskiiand others.The
fact"in partyhistoryas rewritten
censorshipby or forStalinof
extendedto retrospective
systemoffalsification
his own earlierwritings-thedeletion,forexample,fromlaterprintingsof
of Stalin's referencein 1924 to the positionhe took in
ofLeninism
Problems
March I9I7. Subservientwritersfalsifiedactual partyhistoryin conformity
withan idealized image ofthe "real Bolshevik"forwhomstrayingfromthe
rectitudewas clearlyimpossible-an image representpath of revolutionary
ofthissystemoffalsification
The logicalgroundwork
ingStalin'sself-concept.
Revolution.20
was laid in Stalin's letterto Proletarian
and theoryfrontsas soon as Stalin's
BROKE LOOSE on the partyhistory
hastilycalled meetings
letterappeared.The CommunistAcademy'sinstitutes
for
work.
Many editorsand
their
the
document's
implications
to discuss
scholarsweredismissedfromtheirjobs and expelledfromtheparty.Proletarafterputtingout the issue containingthe letter,suspended
ian Revolution,
publicationin 1932. On reappearingin early 1933, it had a whollynew
editorialboard,one ofwhosememberswas Ivan Tovstukha,Stalin'sone-time
personalsecretary.
Soviet archival sources reveal that all of the Soviet historicaljournals
to printthe textofStalin's letterand to carryapproprireceivedinstructions
letter
ate editorialson itsmeaningfortheirrespectiveareas. In a confidential
of November26, 193I to the editorialboard of one suchjournal, The Class
Stalin's erstwhilepersonal assistant by then secretaryof Pravda's
Struggle,
editorialboard-L. Z. Mekhlissaid thatmaterialsin preparationshouldbe
writtenthroughthe prismof Stalin's propositions.The CommunistAcadresponsesto the
emy'spresidiummeton November3I to reviewits affiliates'
Stalin letter.K. G. Lur'e, academic secretaryof the Society of Marxist
Historians,reportedthatall of the society'ssectionshad been instructedto
reviewthe whole literatureon the party'shistorycriticallyin the lightof
contrabandhad alreadybeen broughtto light
Stalin's "article.""2Trotskyist
forexample,had failedto showtheearlier
in numerousworks.Many writers,
leading role of the Russian Bolshevikson the internationalMarxistarena.
withcriticismofthree
And Lur'e combinedtheunmaskingofcontrabandists
well-knownpartyfigures-Iaroslavskii,Karl Radek, and I. I. Mints.
Proceedingsand reportsfromotheracademic groupsshow that not only
historiansand theirhistoriesbut all membersand sectorsofthe theoretical
authoritativeinterfrontwere being broughtinto line with higher-level,
ofliterary
criticismdenouncedthe
pretationofStalin'sletter.A representative
HELL
20 For a different
ofthe keypurposeofStalin'sletter,see JohnBarber,"Stalin's Letterto
interpretation
28 (1976): 21-41. Ignoringthecult question,Barber
SovietStudies,
Revolyutsiya,"
the EditorsofProletarskaya
has suggestedthat the letterwas chieflyoccasioned by the "fallingquality of partyrecruits"and an
to engagein toomuchcontroversy
insecureregime's"concernoverthetendencyofitsMarxistintellectuals
and speculation,"and he has questionedwhetherthe letterwas intendedto have theeffectit did or was
conceivedas the vitalturningpointit provedto be. To me Barber'spositionis unpersuasive.
21 Vsesoizunoe
19, 362, 457' 75. Also see Dunaevskii,"Bol'shevikii germanskielevye na
soveshchanie,
mezhdunarodnoiarene," 5o8-og.
Cult
TheRiseofStalin'sPersonality
359
view" ofMaxim Gorky'swritings,
withoutindicating
"Menshevik-Trotskyist
what thatviewwas, and said thatStalin's letternecessitatedcriticismofthe
literarypolicy-also not identified-ofthe Second International.A writer
named Butaev reportedthatthe Instituteof Economicshad set up a special
brigadeto re-examineeconomictheoryin lightofStalin'sletterand to "bring
contrabandin the literatureon economics."Examples of
to lightTrotskyist
such contraband were the still-prevalent
and Trotskyist
petty-bourgeois
ideas thatequated socialismwithequal remuneration
and theview,voicedin
a bookpublishedin 193I, thatHenryFord's factoriesand assemblylineswere
a modelforSovietrationalizationoflabor processes.The legal theoristE. B.
Pashukanis,speakingforthe InstituteofSovietConstruction
and Law, criticized a textbookby two authors (one of them Butaev) that containedno
account of what Stalin had said in 1927 about the proletarianstate. K. V.
an economist,objectedto thehitherto-accepted
Ostrovitianov,
notionthatthe
writingsofLenin and Stalinbelongedto "politics"as distinctfrom"economics," whereasin facttheypresentedthe basic laws ofsocialism'sconstruction
and Sovieteconomiclife.Not surprisingly,
Ostrovitianovin later yearsbecame the Stalin-surrogate
foreconomics.22
A speakerfromthe Instituteof Technologyassailed the "narrowtechnicism" that he said was characteristic
of Trotskyism,
condemnedthe "tech" and assertedthata reviewof "literallythe
nologicalpolicyofsocial-fascism,
entiretechnologicalliterature"was now needed. A representative
of the
InstituteofPhilosophy,in additionto discussingitsnewtasks,remarkedthat
the Instituteof Technologyshouldproducein shortorder"a worksystematizingall of the basic thesesof Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on technology." The representative
ofthe AssociationofNaturalScience wondered
whythe basic methodologicalpostulatesabout physicsprovidedby Lenin in
Materialism
andEmpirio-Criticism
werenotbeingtakenas a guide in an attempt
"to createa conceptionofphysics,to produceour Marxist-Leninist
concep"23 Nadezhda Mandelstam,thenworking
tionofthestructure
ofmatter.
in the
editorialoffices
ofthejournal Fora Communist
Education,
recalledlaterhow"all
ofthe manuscriptswererecheckedin greatpanic and we wentthroughhuge
piles ofthem,cuttingmercilessly.
This was called 'reorganization
in thelight
ofComrade Stalin's remarks."'24
The pell-mellrush to ferretout "Trotskyistcontraband" and "rotten
liberalism"was deeplytroublingto many in responsibleposts, in part, no
doubt-but only in part-because of the pressureand embarrassment
they
themselveswerein some cases experiencing.Stalin was not yetan absolute
dictator;some in high places failedto realize that he was on the way to
22 Acording to Katsenelinboigen,
"In the forties,K. V. Ostrovitianov
was appointedas thecuratorof
economics.All he did was providecommentariesforStalin's work;he had no opinionsof his own, and
made no practicalrecommendations."
"ConflictingTrends in SovietEconomicsin the Post-StalinEra,"
37523 Vestnik
kommunisticheskoi
akademii,
nos.i-2 (1932): 4o-66.
24 Nadezhda Mandelstam,HopeagainstHope: A Memoir,
trans.Max Hayward (New York, 1970),259.
Althoughshe spoke ofit as a letterof 1930 in Bolshevik,
it is clear fromthecontextthatMandelstamwas
referring
to the 1931letterto Proletarian
Revolution,
also printedin Bolshevik.
360
Robert
C. Tucker
becomingone or to understandwhatwas drivinghimto it.Severalprominent
Old Bolsheviks-includingOl'minskii,Iaroslavskii,V. Knorin,and N. Lukin-sought to restrainthose "glorifiers"(as Iaroslavskiicalled themin a
notefounddecades laterin the partyarchives)who weretaking
handwritten
Stalin's letteras a new gospel. Knorinsuggestedto a meetingof the party
group of the Societyof Marxist Historianson NovemberII, I931 that the
of some basic Leninisttenets.
lettershould simplybe seen as a restatement
Lur'e, on the otherhand, said thatpartyhistoryhad lackedall methodology
beforeStalin's letterappeared and thathistoriansdid not graspthe relation
betweentheoryand practice.I. I. Mints, who was presentat the meeting,
wrotea letterto Iaroslavskii,who was out oftown,sayingthatLur'e, in her
"nastyand unsound" speech,had put thingslesscharitably:"BeforeStalin's
letterthere was nothing,and only now does she understandthe relation
betweentheoryand practice." Yet threeweeks later Lur'e reportedto the
CommunistAcademy'spresidiumon the situationin the SocietyofMarxist
Historians. At about the same time, Iaroslavskiiwarned against certain
unprincipledpeople who wanted "to make capital on thisquestion" ofthe
note recalling
Stalin letter.But this statement,along withhis handwritten
'workedme over' in 1931," did not see publicationuntil
"how the glorifiers
I 966.25
One monthafterStalin's letterappeared, his headquartersbegan to take
actionagainstthosewho pleaded forrestraint.Lazar Kaganovichgave a long
on Decemberi, 193i-the occasionof
speechat theInstituteofRed Professors
its tenthanniversary.When the textappeared in Pravdasome days later,it
became clear that the address was meant to reach the whole Soviet intelligentsia.But "address" is a misnomer.The documentis bestdescribedas
commandbydrillsergeantKaganovich
a several-thousand-word,
peremptory
orderingthe armyof the intelligentsiato snap to attentionin the lightof
GeneralStalin's letter.
Kaganovichintroducedhis discussionof the letterby stressingthe great
at a time when individuals
importanceof Marxist-Leninistindoctrination
who had onlybeen membersofthepartyforthreeto fiveyearscomprisedone
and a halfto twomillionoutofa totaloftwoand a halfmillionpartymembers
and when the Komsomolnumberedfiveand a halfmillionYoung Communists.No one in thepartywould havedisputedthestatisticsand theirgeneral
butKaganovichquicklymade itclearthatwhatwas at issuewas
implications,
The millionsof new members
the specificcontentof partyindoctrination.
mustlearnthat,ifthe countryonce thoughtthemostbackwardin theworld
was now the land ofsocialism,"We owe thisto theselflessstrugglewaged for
decades by the best people, headed by Lenin, against the narodniki,
legal
Marxists,economists,Mensheviks,Trotskyists,rightists,and conciliatory
elementsin the party." Clearly,Stalin was the best of "the best people."
likeSlutskii.
Kaganovichthenspokeofthe"criminality"ofslanderer-falsifiers
25 Dunaevskii,"Bol'shevikii germanskielevyena mezhdunarodnoi
arene," 509-12.The Russian word
heretranslatedas "glorifiers"is alliluishchiki.
Cult
TheRiseofStalin'sPersonality
36I
Radek, Kaganovichcontinued,had acknowledgedhis ownerrorsto theparty
groupof the Societyof MarxistHistorians:he had recognized,furthermore,
thatRosa Luxemburgdid not alwaystake "a correctBolshevikposition"but
had argued that Rosa was a "bridge" to Bolshevismforthe best Social
Democraticworkers.In fact,Kaganovichcharged,Radek himselfhad been a
bridgebetweenRosa Luxemburgand Trotsky.
The importanceofStalin's letter,Kaganovichsaid, did notlie in itsattack
on the insignificant
ex-MenshevikSlutskii,whom Stalin had pulverizedin
passing,but in exposingtherottenliberalismshownbytheeditorsofProletarian Revolution
toward deviationsfromBolshevismand distortionsof party
history.And thisjournal was not the onlyweak spot.A stillweakerone was
history,criticismof the errorsof which
Comrade Iaroslavskii'sfour-volume
" Amonghis illustrations
ofthehistory's
would "undoubtedlydevelopfurther.
graveerrors,Kaganovichmentionedits "erroneousand harmfulassessment
oftheroleofthe Bolsheviksin thefirstperiodof 1917, [its]foulslanderofthe
Bolsheviks."Kaganovich deliveredthis veiledrebuketo Iaroslavskiiforhis
referenceto Stalin's "erroneous position" in March 1917. Then came a
partyhistorywas the
methodologicalpointer:the key to a comprehensive
of Lenin's tactics,"not passages in whichLenin said, in so many
"flexibility
words,"Kautsky is a bastard." What, in short,a "real Bolshevik"said or
failedto say at a particulartimewas not the touchstoneofparty-historical
accordingto thecanonsoftherealtruth;the documentsmustbe interpreted
school.
Bolshevik-revolutionary-can-do-no-wrong
an
call
for
an intensification
oftheongoing
Kaganovichendedwith implicit
wererife,thefightwas notover,theclass struggle
huntforheresy.Difficulties
was continuing."Opportunismis nowtryingto creepintoourranks,covering
itselfup, embellishingitself,crawlingon its belly,tryingto penetrateinto
of
in particular,to crawlthroughthegatesofthehistory
crannies,and trying,
our party."In his recentspeechRadek was wrongto describetheComintern
as a channelthroughwhichmanydifferent
currentsand brookletsflowedinto
the Bolshevikparty.The partywas no meetingplace ofturbidbrookletsbuta
"monolithicstream" capable of smashing all obstacles in its path. The
meaning was as clear as the metaphorwas mixed: fall in line or be destroyed.26
The pleaders forrestraint-and others-fell into line. Withinthe twelve
days followingKaganovich'sspeechof December i, Pravdacarriedlettersof
recantationfromRadek, Iaroslavskii,and the partyhistorianKonstantin
Popov. Radek pleaded guiltyto all of Kaganovich'schargesand joined the
attackon "Luxemburgianism."Iaroslavskiiacknowledgeda whole seriesof
"the grossestmistakes"in the four-volume
history,including"an objective,
essentiallyTrotskyisttreatmentof the Bolsheviks'positionin the Februarypresumably,because
March period of the Revolutionof 1917" (Trotskyist,
26 Pravda,
December 12, 1931. Dunaevskiihas observedthat"Kaganovich's speech,filledwithshouted
threats,was designedto pin the label of Trotskyist
on all fromnow on who would dare to deviatefrom
Stalin's propositions";"Bol'shevikii germanskielevyena mezhdunarodnoiarene," 511.
362
Robert
C. Tucker
Trotskywas one of thosewho had called attentionto the generallyknown
facts about Stalin's position at that time). He also disavowed the view,
expressedby Mintsin a recentspeech,thattheauthorsofthefourreportedly
and thatwhat was now being
volumehistoryhad erredin theirobjectivity
asked of partyhistorianswas "not so much objectivityas politicalexpediency." No, lied Iaroslavskii,the partyhad not and could not demand that
theproblemwas thattheauthorsofthe
historianssurrendertheirobjectivity;
Resigninghimselfto the
workhad sinnedagainst objectivity.27
four-volume
biographyofStalin that
situation,Iaroslavskiistartedworkon the glorifying
was publishedin I939.
Plainly,to confessto heresywas not enough; the heretichad to join the
inquisition.Only by enteringtheranksoftheaccuserscould he expectto have
his recantationtaken seriously.To denounceTrotskyistcontrabandon the
part of othersdemonstratedthe genuinenessof one's own "real" Bolshevism-that is, Stalinism.Recantationfollowedby denunciationwas becoming a ritualof Sovietpoliticalculture.Iaroslavskii'spublic disavowalof his
friendMints was but one ofmanyexamples.
Still,Stalindid notyetwieldabsolutepower.Those higherin thehierarchy
ofpowerthan Iaroslavskiicould suggestthe need forrestraint.Amongthem
was P. P. Postyshev,thena fullmemberof the partyCentralCommittee,a
memberofitsOrgburo,and one offourCentralCommitteesecretariesserving
was in chargeofthe
Postyshev
underGeneralSecretaryStalin.As a secretary,
and
its
DepartmentofAgiCentralCommittee'sOrganizationalDepartment
ofthepress.In a
includedoversight
tationand Propaganda,whosefunctions
in Moscow, he stressedthegreatsignifispeechat a districtpartyconference
cance ofStalin'sletterand thentookvariouspartycellsto taskfortheirfailure
to distinguishbetweenan individual'sparticularmistakesand a "systemof
in theparty'sranks,who
views." Of course,therewereconcealedTrotskyists
mustbe exposedand expelled.But therewerealso comradeswho had simply
and kickingthemoutofthe
erred.Insteadofdenouncingthemas deviationists
party-as did some who had been asleep but now wanted to "show themselves" (and thengo back to sleep)-errant comradesshouldbe criticizedin a
comradelyway. Postyshev'sfateaftertryingto curbtheexcessesoftheheresy
arrestedin 1938,he was killedin 1940 in one ofStalin's
huntwas instructive:
concentration
camps.28
ofthe Stalincultwas thecult-objecthimself.But many
The master-builder
others,rangingfrommen in Stalin's entouragelikeKaganovichand Mekhlis
to obscure ideologicalworkerslike Lur'e, assisted.Who, we may now ask,
Some,withoutdoubt,werepersonsdevotedto Stalinor to
weretheglorifiers?
theman theyidealisticallyperceivedhimto be; othersweresimplycareerists
who may have lacked strongqualificationin intellectualworkbut who were
shrewdor, perhaps, cynicalenough to grasp the opportunitiesforself-ad27 Iaroslavskii'sletterappeared in Pravdaon December io, 1932;Radek's on December 12; Popov's on
December8.
(Moscow, x965),299-300.The speech in questionwas reportedin Pravdaon
28 T. Mariagin,Poslyshev
JanuaryX , 1932.
TheRiseofStalin'sPersonality
Cult
363
vancementinherentin the Stalin-glorifying
enterprise.One climberwho
made his way to the top by thisroutewas the head of the Georgiansecret
police, LavrentiiBeria, who withStalin's backingbecame partychiefofthe
Transcaucasus in I932. The one indispensablequalityshared by all of the
glorifiers,
highand low, was pliability.In verymanyways the aggrandizeofhistorical
mentofStalin requiredthetwistingoftruthand thefalsification
had to be "unprincifact.As Iaroslavskiihimselfexpressedit, the glorifiers
pled," pliable enough to ignoretheirscruples and still theirconsciences
insofaras the cult-building
enterpriserequired.
Revolution
was a turningpointin thecult'sevolution.
TO Proletarian
From the timeof its appearance forward,idolatryof Stalin became one of
Russia's major growthindustries.No fieldof Sovietculturewas exempted
fromfindinginspirationforits activitiesin Stalin's letter.The journal For
Proletarian
Music,forexample,devotedits editorialin January1932 to "Our
Tasks on the Musical Eront" in lightof the letter,and the corresponding
bore the title,
editorialin the February1932 issue ofFora SocialistAccounting
"For BolshevikVigilanceon the Book-KeepingTheoryFront." But revolutionaryhistoryand Stalin'splace in it remainedthecentralconcern.A small
example,typical of many,was an articlepublished in Pravdashortlyafter
Stalin's letterappeared. It denounceda book on Cominternhistoryon the
groundsthat Stalin's name was only mentionedtwiceand said, "Without
showingComradeStalin'sleadingrolein the historyoftheComintern,there
can be no Bolsheviktextbookon the historyof the Comintern."29
Havingassertedhimselfas premierpartyhistorian,Stalindeliveredanother
lecturein replyto two partymembers,Olekhnovichand Aristov,who had
writtenseparatelyto him in responseto the letter;and his answers,dated
January 15 and 25, 1932, were published in Bolshevik
(and then in other
publications)the followingAugust. Olekhnovich,apparently,had triedto
showhimselfmoreStalinistthanStalinand suggestedthat"Trotskyism
never
wasa factionofCommunism"but "was all thetimea factionofMenshevism,"
althoughfora certain period of time the CommunistPartyhad wrongly
regarded
Trotskyand the Trotskyistsas real Bolsheviks.In knockingthis
constructiondown, Stalin showed the hair-splitting
quality of his mind.
Undeniably,he said, Trotskyismwas once a factionof Communismbut
oscillatedcontinuallybetweenBolshevismand Menshevism;even whenthe
did belongto theBoshevikparty,they"were notrealBolsheviks."
Trotskyists
Thus, "in actual fact,Trotskyismwas a factionof Menshevismbeforethe
Trotskyists
joined our party,temporarily
became a factionof Communism
afterthe Trotskyists
enteredour party,and again became a factionofMenshevismafterthe Trotskyists
were banishedfromour party.'The dog went
THE LETTER
backto itspuke.'"30
29Pravda,December29, 1931.
"0Stalin, Sochineniia,
13: 126-30.
364
Robert
C. Tucker
only confirmedto professionalsthat they
These furtherpronouncements
should look to Stalin's writingsand sayingsas scripture.As ifto meettheir
need, partypublicationsin I932 startedprintingearly Staliniana,such as
exile
Stalin's virtuallyunknownletterof I9I0 to Lenin fromSol'vychegodsk
"Lettersfromthe Caucasus" ofthatsame year. Meanand his little-known
historyin accordance withStalin's
set about rewriting
while,the glorifiers
canons and in a mannercalculatedto accentuatehis role and meritsin the
party's revolutionarypast, while discreditingthose of his enemies. The
skewedStalinistversionofBolshevism'sbiographybegan to emerge.Grosser
stilllay ahead.
falsification
The riseofthe Stalincultdid notbringtheeclipseoftheLenincult,onlyits
thereemerged
Insteadoftwocultsinjuxtaposition,
modification.
far-reaching
a hyphenatecult of an infallibleLenin-Stalin.In some respects,Lenin now
''grew" in stature:he became the original"real Bolshevik"who could not
have erred. But by being tied like a Siamese twinto his successor,he was
inescapablydiminishedin certainways.Onlythosefacetsofhis lifeand work
thatcould be connectedwithStalin'swereavailableforfull-scaleidealization,
and whateverdid not in some way include Stalin had to be kept in the
somepartsofLenin'slifehad to be de-emphasizedand
background.In effect,
othersrearranged,modified,or touched up to put Stalin in the idealized
picture.
Thus, Stalinwas nowportrayedas sharingin Lenin'sexploits,was declared
man,on whomtheleaderleaned
to be froman earlytimeLenin's right-hand
in
the
developmentof the Revolution
at
key
points
and
support
forcounsel
ofPravda's
anniversary
and after.The markingon May 5, 1932ofthetwentieth
foundingmay be taken as an illustration.At the beginning,said Pravda's
editorial,Lenin "wrotearticlesforthe paper nearlyeverydayanniversary
with the closestparticipationand guidanceof Comrade Stalin,particularly
whenLenin was hidingunderground."So in the dual culttheyoungerfigure
was
emergedas Lenin'salterego,who naturallytookoverwhenLeninhimself
the articlewas
away fromthe immediatescene of action. Symptomatically,
accompaniedby a large portraitnot of Lenin but ofStalin and containeda
ofI922 on thepaper's earlydays.
lengthyquotationfromStalin'srecollection
By now Iaroslavskiihad not simplyfallen in line but had joined the
Invitedto contributean articlein commemoration
vanguardofthe glorifiers.
of the twentiethanniversaryof the Prague ConferenceofJanuary 1912, he
Stalininretrospect
practicallyas a founder
founda shrewdwayofenthroning
Bolshevismhad existedas a
of the Bolshevikparty.As Lenin had testified,
schismoccurredat
politicalcurrentfrom1903, whentheBolshevik-Menshevik
But
the
BolshevikParty's
the Russian Marxist party's Second Congress.
PragueConferenceof I9I 2,
formalexistencedatedonlyfromtheall-Bolshevik
at which Lenin convertedwhat had been a factionintoa separatepartyno
ofthePrague
tiedto theMensheviks.In theaftermath
longerorganizationally
for
thefirsttime
not
elevated
was
election)
Stalin
Conference
(by cooptation,
the
obscured
to membershipin the party'sCentralCommittee.Iaroslavskii
Cult
TheRiseofStalin'sPersonality
365
embarrassingfact of Stalin's co-optationby saying,"At the conferencea
BolshevikCentral Committeewas elected in the personsof Lenin, Stalin,
Zinoviev, Ordzhonikidze,Belostotskii,Shvartsman,Goloshchekin,Spandarian,and Ia. M. Sverdlov(some ofthesecomradeswereco-optedintothe
CentralCommitteesubsequently)."And by writingwithheavyemphasis"The PragueConferencewas a turning
oftheBolshevik
Party"pointinthehistory
he contrivedto portrayStalin by indirectionas havingbeen presentat the
party'screation.31
Even cleverpartytheoristswere in some cases slow in comprehending
the
transformed
personalitycult and in applyingits special canons. One person
who was
who illustratesthe earlyconfusionwas S. E. Sef,a zealous glorifier,
He gave the provisional
managingsecretaryof thejournal MarxistHistorian.
title "Marx, Engels, Stalin" to the lead articleof a planned special issue
in March I933, of the
the upcomingfiftieth
commemorating
anniversary,
death of Marx. His omissionof Lenin was correctedbeforethe issue appeared.32Sef had failedto grasp that Lenin qua co-leaderremaineda cultobject.In thedual cult,however,thefigureofthesuccessorin somewaysnow
beganto toweroverthatofthepredecessor.For example,a foreign
correspondent's count of "political icons" (portraitsand busts of leaders) in display
windowsalong severalblocksofMoscow's GorkyStreeton November7, 1933
showedStalin leading Lenin by 103 to 58.33
Stalin was now being sung, especiallyby poets fromthe Orient,where
versified
of rulersis a centuries-old
flattery
art. "To the Vozhd',to Comrade
Stalin" was thetitleofa longpoem by A. A. Lakhuti,translatedfromPersian
intoRussian. A typicalstanza reads,
Wisemaster,
Marxistgardener!
Thouarttending
thevineofcommunism.
Thouartcultivating
itto perfection.
AfterLenin,vozhd'
ofLeninists.34
Meanwhile,scholarsin Orientalstudieswereenjoinedto applythe worksof
Stalinas well as thoseofLeninto problemsofthenational-colonial
revolution
in theEast. A pamphleton thehistoryoftheGeorgianCommunistPartywas
attackedfortreatingthe period from19I7 to 1927 in a spiritof "national
deviationism"(thatis, Georgiannationalism)contrary
to Stalin'sorientation;
and among those who were later reportedfromTbilisi to have condemned
the offensivepamphlet was LavrentiiBeria.35Stalin's early revolutionary
yearsin Transcaucasia now began to attractreverentattention.A pamphlet
publishedin Georgiaportrayedthe youngStalin as a heroicleaderdirecting
undergroundrevolutionary
activitiesin Batum in 1901-02.36
31 Pravda,
January22, 1932.
32
Dunaevskii,"Bol'shevikii germanskielevyena mezhdunarodnoiarene," 511-12.
Eugene Lyons,MoscowCarrousel
(New York, 1935),140-41.
34 Pravda,
November29, 1932. Iranian by origin,Lakhutihad emigratedto the USSR and become a
Sovietcitizen.
3 Pravda,March 21 and 25, 1932.
36 Stalini Khashim
(I9O1-I902
gody):Nekotorye
epizody
iz batumskogo
podpol'ia(Sukhum,1934).
33
366
C. Tucker
Robert
The cult keptgrowingin officialpublicityduringI933. Pravdamarkedthe
ofMarx's deathon March I4 by laudingStalin'stheoretififtieth
anniversary
cal contributionsto materialistdialectics and concluded, "Stalin's name
ranks with the great names of the theoreticiansand leaders of the world
proletariat-Marx, Engels, and Lenin." The phrase "classical works of
Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin" was now commonplace.Partizdat,the
partypublishinghouse, was savagelycriticizedforits failureto eliminatea
series of minormisprintsin the latestprintingof the fastestsellingof the
classics,Stalin'sProblems
ofLeninism.
"As if'minor'misprints
are allowablein
a book by Comrade Stalin!" the criticparenthetically
exclaimed.37Overall
figuresreleased in early 1934 show thatthe classics had been publishedin
I932-33 in the following
numbers:sevenmillioncopies ofthe worksofMarx
millionofthoseofLenin,and sixteenand a halfmillion
and Engels,fourteen
ofthoseofStalin,includingtwo millioncopies ofProblems
ofLeninism.38
That
collectionofStalin's articlesand speecheswas bythenwell on thewayto becomingprobablytheworld'sbestsellerofthesecondquarterofthetwentieth
3
century.
From that time forward,to the end of Stalin's life,his aggrandizement
throughthe personalitycult continuedincessantly.
Pravda,February22, 1933.
otchet
kommunisticheskoi
partii(b) 26 janvaria-iofevralia1934 g. Stenograficheskii
XVII s "ezd vsesoiuznoi
(Moscow, 1934),620.
39 By 1949almost seventeenmillioncopies in fifty-two
no. 23,
languageswere in print.See Bol'shevik,
December 1949,p. 48.
8
38