This is a thought provoking article from the net. It is reproduced here for readers who are interested in history and left politics and for general readers who are interested to read an objective analysis on JV Stalin

Remembering Stalin

NIHAR MUKHERJEE

[ The article 'Remembering Stalin' by Comrade Nihar Mukherjee, General Secretary of our party SUCI, was first published on the occasion of the 50th death anniversary of Stalin in the March 1, 2003 issue of the party's English organ, Proletarian Era.We hope it will answer many questions and set right many doubts and misconceptions regarding Stalin and thereby serve its purpose. May 1, 2003]

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

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

Stalin's place in history

There is no denying that the history of development of past one century and half in the social, political, cultural, philosophical and aesthetic domains and not excluding the economic and scientific ones also, has been, essentially, a history of struggle between the two main classes of modern society - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat led by its communist party. So, one's attitude towards the communist ideology should better be formed in this historical perspective rather than by personal likes or dislikes, just as should be one's attitude with regard to Stalin also. Stalin had a great communist character. Few people are aware that a good deal of the progressive and revolutionary traditions, fervour and moral that inspire present day anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggles are in fact Stalin's heritage. After Lenin's demise in 1924, his great responsibility fell on Stalin. From 1924 Stalin organised the countrywide drive for organising voluntary collective farm movement, state farms, and industrial expansion, thereby consolidating the socialist economic base. In 1928, the first Five-year Plan was taken up by the entire party and the Soviet people and, stunning the entire imperialist world and media, it was achieved one year ahead in 1932. The ground was laid for complete socialist economic construction and consequently, for the elimination of the capitalist producers, and kulaks as the last exploiting classes. The Soviet Union became the only country in the world which was free from economic crisis, industrial stagnation, unemployment, beggary and prostitution. Prices were reducing, real wages were increasing, transport and certain basic food items were gradually distributed free. Soviet scientific research and inventions flourished. A new Soviet literature in not only Russian but various other Soviet languages appeared. The material and cultural development of the Soviet people in such a rapid pace amazed the world.
No less amazing was Stalin's success in unifying the different Soviet nationalities having different cultures, speaking different tongues and with different national psychologies into one single socialist nation, step by step, but in a period of only about 20 years, following Marxist-Leninist approach to the nationality problem. No capitalist country with a multi-nationality population has solved this problem even to this day. Dominant nationality oppression and nationality strife and riots, encouraged by the ruling classes, is their common feature. Before revolution, it was the same thing in Russia also. Because, many small border regions and even large Ukrain were annexed by the tsarist autocracy. While the Great Russians were culturally and economically relatively better off, these others subjugated nationality people lived in tsarist Russia a wretched life of slaves. They were the reserve of the autocracy earlier. After the revolution, they were used by the Whiteguards. The Soviet government alone gave them the right of self-determination up to even that of secession from the then Soviet Federation - RSFSR. Painstakingly and systematically the proletarian state developed agriculture, set up industries, spread education and took special care to nurture and develop the culture and especially the mother tongue of all these nationalities. Even scripts were invented by Soviet linguists for several languages which were no more than dialects. Thus, the age-old suspicion, apprehension and hostility slowly gave way to mutual understanding, trust and finally to a single socialist national identity - the RSFSR became the USSR. The proof of this amazing success of Stalin is the rising, in the socialist construction, the Great Patriotic War and the rebuilding of the country after the ravages of the war of the whole Soviet people, like one family and one man.
In 1939, the Second World War started. Within a few years fascism overran Europe. But when it invaded Russia in 1941, this marked the turn of history. The Soviet Red Army led by Stalin resisted and destroyed the Nazi aggressors. Their heroism played the decisive role in bringing the War to a close. Humanity was saved. Victorious Red Army drove away Nazi occupation forces from the countries of East Europe. These people who resisted fascism, now brought down the puppet governments and established People's Democracy. The War had exhausted the imperialist powers, except America, and made them lose a large part of Europe which now became People's Democratic, afterwards Socialist. The battle of the Soviet people encouraged working class struggles in Europe. The most brilliant examples of it are the French and Italian resistance struggles. The workers played a glorious role in them. This fast changing situation unprecedentedly accelerated the national liberation struggles in Asia and Africa also. The imperialists had to finally take leave of their colonial empire, transferring power to the bourgeoisie of these countries. India became independent in this way. The Soviet victory was due to several factors. The most fundamental was that it was the victory of a higher order of civilization.
The French bourgeois journal Le Temps admitted in 1932 that ''In the contest with us the Bolsheviks have proved the victors'' after Soviet Russia changed from a peasant economy to an industrial giant without foreign aid and in only 10 years. This highly modernised socialist Soviet industry kept up an uninterrupted military supply surpassing older industrial countries France, England and even Germany and turned out 490,000 artillery pieces and 137,000 warplanes in 4 years ! Secondly, the victory would have been impossible without the role of the communist party led by Stalin. Communists organised the masses, took the difficultmost responsibilities, participated in the most daring campaigns and died valiantly in scores of thousands. Thirdly, the party roused the entire people in such an unparalleled manner as the world never saw. From 12 year-olds to people of all ages and strata formed the inexhaustible and invisible rear of the battle line. Twenty to twenty-five million Soviet people perished in the War ! Fourthly, the superior military might and strategic skill of the Red Army guided by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Stalin was a decisive factor. Another decisive factor was Stalin's political sagacity. Since 1935, he had been urging England and France to join into a 'system of collective security' against fascist Germany, without response. Instead, with a view to placate and prod Hitler against Russia, England and France concluded the Munich agreement with Germany in 1936, the Anglo-German pact in 1939 and remained mute spectators as Hitler occupied Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland by 1939 - arriving at the border of Russia. America also had been a spectator to it all. However, choosing to deal first with England and France before finally turning upon Russia, Hitler offered Soviet Union a non-aggression pact and most sagaciously Stalin took hold of the opportunity. England and France were caught in their own trap ! France was quickly taken. England suffered and fought. In 1941, Hitler faced a Soviet people and army which Stalin had already prepared for the decisive fight. Over and above all these, however, counted the tremendous confidence of the entire Soviet people in Stalin who embodied their aspiration, hope and morale. In this sense, Stalin settled the fate of the war and by it the shape of the post-war world also. Already he had successfully engaged sworn anti-Soviet England, France and America as 'allies' in the fight against German fascism. Churchill admitted grudgingly that ''Stalin made us whom he called imperialists fight against one another" ! Coming from a man more than whom "no one had been a more persistent opponent of communism", as Churchill boasted, what better tribute can there be to Stalin's outstanding ability and wisdom ?

Post-war Situation excellent for world revolution

The post-war world was no longer solely dominated by imperialism. Beside the imperialist war camp, the world socialist peace camp arose. A host of significant international development resulted. The former colonies and semi-colonies, become free but weak capitalist countries, desiring a free global market were no longer inclined to withstand imperialist domination and they preferred economic assistance from the socialist camp. And yet, afraid of working class movement at home, they also wanted to retain a distance from it, just as from the imperialist camp. Hence, the rise of the Non-Aligned Movement. But, despite this ambivalence, they undoubtedly played an anti-imperialist, anti-war and pro-peace role for a considerable period of time.
At the same time, liberation struggles in Asia, Africa, French Indochina became fierce and many of these become victorious soon, like that of Vietnam. In the West, working class struggles, strike movements were spreading like wildfire. Western capitalism tried to hide its face behind the theory of 'welfare state', adopted welfare measures and tried to introduce planned economy aping the Soviet Plan. It was the period of the most rapid and widespread growth of communist ideology and of communist parties worldwide, without parallel in the annals of communist movement. However, this too sudden explosion carried within it the possibility also of the diminishing of its ideological clarity. All the same, it is the communists who led all other sections of the people and gave expression to their powerful desire for peace and democracy against imperialist war. Socialism and Stalin became the two most respectfully uttered words. Great minds like Romain Rolland and George Bernard Shaw revered Stalin as the greatest man of their time! Stalin guided the Comintern, established by Lenin for coordinating and guiding communist parties in distant corners of the world. In France, the seizure of power by the communist party appeared almost certain. In Greece, the revolutionary upheaval was suppressed by British troops. Stalin knew well the situation in the East also. He spoke as far back as in 1925 about the division of the Indian national bourgeoisie into "a revolutionary part (the petty bourgeoisie) and a compromising part (the big bourgeoisie), of which the first is continuing the revolutionary struggle, whereas the second is entering into a bloc with imperialism". (CW, Vol. 7, p147) Our party's analysis of the Indian independence struggle being led by the "reformist oppositional" compromising bourgeois section of Gandhiji, and the powerful but secondary force of the uncompromising "petty bourgeois revolutionary" current of Subhas Chandra accords with Stalin's. In 1949, the Chinese revolution shook not the entire East only but the entire world. Soon afterwards, the Korean revolution broke out. Stalin's guidance and Soviet material and moral support was a great source of strength to all these movements. Even before the Chinese revolution saw victory, Mao Tse-tung said : ''Stalin is the true friend of the cause of liberation of the Chinese people.'' The imperialist camp was frightened. USA, leader of the post-war imperialist camp, aggressed Korea. This provoked a worldwide condemnation and a militant peace movement, alarming the imperialist capitals. This, together with the beating which they received from the Korean army and the volunteers of the Chinese PLA, made the USA hastily beat retreat.
Development of several historical phenomena, during and after the war, fully corresponding to the Marxist conception of the laws of historical progress, which were wisely handled by Stalin through his guidance of the Soviet state, the CPSU and the Comintern, brought about this situation. In the midst of such a favourable situation for world revolution, what an ideological confusion gripped the communists of the whole world that only three years after Stalin's demise in 1953, the anti-Stalin bogey of the cult of individual raised by the 20th Congress of CPSU of 1956, so completely carried them away ! The manner in which nearly all the communist parties shifted their allegiance from Stalin to the Khrushchovite leadership raised grave questions. It indicated a mechanical process of thinking and a blind sense of allegiance to leadership, operating since long in them. These presupposed a low standard of ideological consciousness. Any genuine communist will understand that all these were pointer to the absence of dialectical process of thinking and of democratic centralism, which should always exist in a genuine communist party. It thus pointed finger to serious ideological shortcomings in the organisationally powerful communist movement of the post-war period. Khrushchovite revisionist tendency could grow, in the heyday of post-war communist movement even, due to these shortcomings. It reaffirmed the observation of a decade ago of Comrade Shibdas Ghosh.

Comrade Shibdas Ghosh on so-called fight against the cult of individual

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

Comrade Shibdas Ghosh on revisionist deviation of the CPSU

It is true that the cult of individual grew centring round Stalin during his last years. But despite his extreme dislike and trenchant criticism of this tendency, Stalin could not contain this phenomenon. It could not be done without containing the process which gave birth to this practice. What was this process? It was the confusion of the Marxist-Leninist sense of authority with authoritarianism, or blind sense of authority. Comrade Shibdas Ghosh showed that, '' For example, there is no denying the fact that in Russia the gigantic socialist construction was made, projecting Stalin before the masses ... The personality of Stalin and his leadership imbued the whole of the Russian people greatly. But again, following this very course, came the backwardness in the ideological standard. The mechanization that is inherent in this method of imbuing the people by projecting a leader before them could not be fought out ultimately because the low level of the ideological-cultural standard among the communists and the masses continued to persist. That is why, Stalin's Russia today is treading the revisionist path. Both these aspects are equally valid." (Ibid, p.212-13) Stalin was not unaware of this low level of ideological consciousness and mechanical thought process within the party and the country. That is why he made attempts to continuously raise the ideological standard of the party, the appeal for which by Stalin can be found in his Reports to all the Party Congresses. He arranged the systematic and continuous training of cadres even as their number touched 2,500,000 by 1932. During this period Stalin produced theoretical works not only on organisational problems facing the party but also upon the fundamental ideological questions. With the aim of educating the growing ranks of the party he wrote 'Foundations of Leninism', 'Problems of Leninism' and 'Concerning Questions of Leninism' within a few years of Lenin's death. He also wrote the 'History of the CPSU(B)' and many other important articles subsequently. They had a salutary effect in raising the theoretical level of the rank and file. This cannot be doubted. However, the lowering of the general standard of ideological consciousness of the communists and the masses of Russia could not be remedied by this alone, not to speak of raising it to still higher levels. Lenin had told long ago that the forces of habit of millions is a tremendous force. This gives an indication of the immense tasks necessary for revolutionising the outlook, attitudes and even forces of habit of the entire people in a socialist society by raising their ideological and cultural level beside their theoretical knowledge. Besides, it should be also understood that those very ideas and values which once drew the Bolsheviks in the vortex of revolutionary struggle lost their initial force and fervour, naturally so, after the realisation and stabilisation of socialist society. Therefore, in order to continuously raise the standard of ideological consciousness of the communists and the masses, it was necessary, while pushing forward socialist construction, to conduct an all-embracing and deep-going cultural revolution by actively involving the party and the people in it and in this way completely remoulding them culturally, morally and ethically. That is why, although the countrywide socialist spirit was generated and continuously intensified under Stalin's leadership and it acted as a powerful inspiration behind the success of the socialist economic construction, the Great Patriotic War and the socialist reconstruction of war-devastated Russia - yet Stalin himself pointed out the serious shortcomings which remained in the ideological sphere in the party. Even at the same time that fervour for the socialist construction was at its peak throughout the country, he pointed out in the 17th Party Congress in 1934 that there existed "... lack of clarity, confusion and even direct departure from Leninism in certain strata of the party." Without considering this concrete situation with its complexities, the lowering of ideological standard can in no way be attributed solely to Stalin therefore. Nor can its reasons be understood correctly thus. But how did this serious ideological inadequacy go along with the spectacular organisational development for long ? It became the general feature also of the entire communist movement of the period. Comrade Shibdas Ghosh said, pointing it out that, "it is true that in the post-Lenin period the communist movements in colonies, semi-colonies and capitalist countries had tremendously developed organizationally. But this development by itself does not prove that the level of ideological consciousness of the communists had also risen at a rate commensurate with the organizational development of the communist movement. In fact, it did not rise.'' (Ibid,p-77-8)
''Firstly, the philosophical development of Marxism-Leninism which ought to have been made in the face of multiplicity of newer problems of life and class struggles and in keeping with the spectacular progress of natural sciences that marked the post-Lenin period was not made. There might be so many reasons for this deficiency but, it is, no doubt, a fact...''(Ibid, p-78)
''Secondly, like the proverbial one-eyed deer, the communist leaders in general, to a very large extent, neglected the important task of conducting ideological struggles inside the party to raise the ideological standard of thousands and thousands of young communists ... and kept themselves busy mostly in organizational activities.'' (Ibid, p-78) The result of this, in the long run, has been general lowering of the ideological standard, mechanical thought process, mechanical relationship between the leadership and the rank and file and blind allegiance to leadership - facilitating revisionist deviation. Even as late as in 1961, Comrade Shibdas Ghosh said : ''The call of the hour, therefore, is to relentlessly wage thorough ideological struggles covering all problems of life, thought and organization. ... But it can be only on the basis of a correct understanding of the fundamentals of Leninism and appreciation of the services and contributions of Stalin to it and to the communist movement without which there is every possibility of sinking into revisionism. We are constrained to say, that the tendency which is being revealed ... by the present leaders of the CPSU, ... in the measures adopted by them with regard to Stalin which tantamount to de-Stalinization, is fraught with the danger of sinking into revisionism.'' (Ibid, p.79-80) When communists all over the world were deluded by the liberal mask of revisionism, Comrade Shibdas Ghosh made this profound analysis. Comrade Ghosh thus defended Stalin and safeguarded Leninism.

Stalin was identified with socialism

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

Why revisionist deviation

Now the question is that how could revisionism find a way into the party of Lenin and Stalin. Revisionism is not a new malady. Revisionism is nothing but bourgeois liberal or social-democratic vulgarization of Marxism. While talking in abstract and vague terms about class struggle and revolution, revisionism distorts the most revolutionary concept of Marxism - the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is why, all communist authorities fought against the revisionists more fiercely than they fought against the open advocates of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels combated Proudhon, Lassalle and Duhring. Lenin exposed Bernstein, Axelrod, Kautsky and the Mensheviks. Only thus could he draw the Russian proletariat to the side of Bolshevism, and ideologically steel the Bolsheviks. Our comrades need to make a real study of the history of the struggle of revolutionary Marxism against revisionism for grasping more concretely the contributions made by Comrade Shibdas Ghosh in this regard. Stalin continued this struggle against the Trotskyites, Bukharinites and Titoites. But Khrushchovite revisionism appeared after Stalin's demise and Deng Xiao-ping's revisionist line triumphed in China after the demise of Mao Zedong. So, where lies the strength of revisionism which rises over and over again, destroys mighty parties like the CPSU and the CPC and even socialist societies ? It is a profound truth, the most important fact that the soil for revisionist deviation exists in the economic base and especially in the ideological superstructure of capitalist and also socialist society ! Socialist society is not classless society. It is a society in transition from capitalist society to classless communist society. Socialism does away with exploitation of man by man, no doubt, and thereby ensures continuous material and cultural development of all. But yet, elements of capitalist economic relation and remnants of bourgeois class-thinking and culture continue to exist tenaciously, as an alloy, so to say, in the framework of socialist society. Even when exploitation of man by man disappears, and the economic differentiation almost disappears between different social strata, so that antagonistic classes may be said to have disappeared in the 'economic' sense of the term, the antagonistic class-thinking and culture etc. do not disappear automatically with it. And the danger of revisionism remains precisely there. So, the class struggle in a socialist society is to be fought out with greater intensity in the domain of ideas. This struggle is much more fierce, subtle and tenacious than was the struggle for capture of power. Because, firstly, the enemy cannot be seen but exists in the old culture and mental make-up still existing in people and even in the communists! Stalin spoke of capitalism remaining in the ''private property mentality'' and ''private property habits'' of people in Soviet society. Secondly, complacency born of the economic well being resulting from the success of socialism tends to dull the consciousness of the communists themselves. So, ideological battle should be conducted ceaselessly for eradicating the remnants of bourgeois ideological influence by raising the level of proletarian consciousness and culture not only in society at large, but all the more so within the proletarian party. If this vigilant struggle slackens for whichever reason, remnants of bourgeois ideology gather strength and revisionist degeneration becomes unavoidable. Explaining this point - the role of conscious ideological leadership, - in the context of revisionist deviation of the Soviet Union, Comrade Shibdas Ghosh said : ''Just take the example of Russia - what happened there did not surely take place overnight. As the ideological and cultural standard of the party and the people could not be continuously uplifted to keep pace with the growing progress of socialist economy, the ideological-cultural standard remained miserably low and inadequate, thus gradually providing, in the main, the breeding ground of revisionism within the society. But you see, the harmful effect of such a low level of consciousness ... could not make its presence felt because of the impact of the powerful personality, ideological guidance, iron discipline and firm handling of a man like Stalin. ... But today in absence of only such a great personality, how easily the whole party and the people have fallen victim to all sorts of rotten thinking and ideas.'' (Ibid, p.197-98) So, the point is not only that revisionism appeared in the party of Lenin and Stalin, and that it finally usurped the leadership of the party. But the most significant point of all is that it did so without confronting any serious resistance at all from within the party or society. How could it happen? It happened due to serious weakening of the socialist ideological influence in society. After the revolution also, Lenin had to fiercely combat the left deviation of Trotsky and the right deviation of Bukharin in 1920, when both were prominent Central Committee members of the party. 'Left' and 'Right' deviations are nothing but the two poles of one and the same bourgeois liberal distortion of Marxism. Bourgeois liberalism had strong influence on the Russian working class movement since its very beginning and the Economists, Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries were its representatives in Russian politics. Trotskyism was another variant of it. Bolshevism grew only by freeing the Russian proletariat from this influence. But remnants of this tendency existed both inside the socialist society and the party. This was the source of Trotskyite and Bukarinite deviations which became more acute during Stalin's leadership. But due to the ideological struggle conducted by Stalin, this reformist tendency could not influence the party as a whole - until after Stalin's demise. Even the Report of the 19th Congress of 1952 echoed his timely warning that "Ideological work is a prime duty of the party.... We must always remember that if the influence of socialist ideology is weakened the effect is to strengthen the influence of the bourgeois ideology." But he died in the next year. The absence of Stalin's powerful personality coupled with the insufficient ideological consciousness and the tendency of mechanically following the party and the leadership - alien to communist ethics which yet grew in the CPSU - helped the revisionists to usurp party leadership with least hindrance and deceive most communist parties with anti-Stalin liberal demagogy. The same mechanical thought process and blind allegiance to leadership which earlier prompted most communist parties to extol Stalin to the skies now prejudiced their attitude regarding him. Deep wisdom and inexhaustible courage, without illusions Slander over the past five decades has much obscured the true image of this great man.
But a few facts will reveal what a great character Stalin had. Renowned bourgeois intellectual H.G. Wells admits in his Experiment in Autobiography : "I have never met a man more candid, fair and honest, and to these qualities it is, and to nothing occult and sinister, that he owes his tremendous undisputed ascendancy in Russia. I had thought before I saw him that he might be where he was because men were afraid of him, what I realise was that he owed his position to the fact that no one is afraid of him and everybody trusts him."
Even Churchill said : "He is a man of inexhaustible courage and will-power, a man of direct and even blunt speech. Above all, he is a man with a saving sense of humour which is of high importance to all men and to all nations. Premier Stalin left upon me an impression of deep, cool wisdom and a complete absence of illusions of any kind." ('Stalin' by J.T. Murphy)
Marshall Zhukov recollects that, "Stalin produced a strong impression on whoever spoke with him. Free of affectations and mannerism, he won people's hearts by his simple ways. His uninhibited way of speaking, the ability to express himself clearly, his inborn analytical mind, his extensive knowledge and phenomenal memory, made even old hands and eminent people brace themselves and gather their wits when talking to him." (Reminiscences and Reflections)
Commenting on Stalin's stupendous achievement of building socialist Russia, Isaac Deutscher , the celebrated anti-communist author said : "Even if all allowance is made for the different scales of human affairs in different ages, the greatest reformers in Russian history like Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great, and the great reformers of other nations too, seem to be dwarfed by the giant form of the General Secretary". (Stalin : A Political Biography)
However, Stalin himself felt, as he said in a Railway Workers' meeting in Tiflis in 1926, in reply to the enthusiastic ovation of the workers : "I must say in all conscience, comrades, that I do not deserve a good half of the flattering things that have been said here about me." Stalin's modesty can be seen particularly clearly in his esteem for Lenin. He wrote to a comrade : "I object to your calling yourself 'a disciple of Lenin and Stalin'. I have no disciple. Call yourself a disciple of Lenin... But you have no ground for calling yourself a disciple of a disciple of Lenin's. It is not true. It is out of place." (CW, Vol.9, p.156) In a letter dated 16.2.1938 to the Children's Publishing House Stalin said: "I am strongly opposed to the publication of 'Stories About Stalin's Childhood'. The book is filled with a mass of factual distortions, untruths, exaggerations and undeserved encomia. The author has been misled by lovers of fairy tales - by liars (perhaps "honest liars") and timeservers. A pity for the author, but facts remain facts. But that is not the main thing. The main thing is that the book has the tendency to inculcate in the Soviet people (and people in general) the cult of the personality of chiefs and infallible heroes. That is dangerous and harmful. ... My advice is to burn the book." (CW. Vol.2 p-34-35) This is how Stalin patronised his own 'cult' ! A letter dated February 4, 1935 was sent at Stalin's instance by the Bolshevik Party Central Committee to K. F. Starostin, which read : ''Information has reached the Central Committee that the Metro Authority Collective has decided to name the Metro (underground railway of Moscow) after Comrade Stalin, to which Comrade Stalin is firmly opposed since the construction work of the Metro has been directly and exclusively supervised by Comrade L. Kaganovich, the Metro Authority being therefore requested by the Central Committee to name the Metro after Comrade Kaganovich irrespective of his objections.'' (Stalin, Selected Works, Russ. Edtn. Vol. 14) Such incidents are galore. A most interesting incident will be found in Zhukov's 'Reminiscences and Reflections'. After the war, the Soviet government decided to observe the Victory Parade at the Red Square in Moscow and, like all Soviet people, Zhukov also thought that Stalin, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, would take the salute. But Stalin asked Zhukov to do it, telling him that he had become ''too old'' for it ! Stalin's "terror" As a farsighted man, he sized up people quickly and saw their problems clearly and sympathetically. But he was also firm and demanding. This last aspect of his character has often caused misunderstanding as well as been willfully distorted by enemies of socialism. It cannot be forgotten that Stalin had undertaken the building of world's first socialist society without precedent in history, in a country without a developed industry and agriculture, a country ravaged by famines, inhabited in most part by illiterate poor peasants and encircled by Western imperialist powers inciting a Civil War against the Soviet government from 1918 to 1920. Under the circumstances, revolution could not be saved without the most energetic, audacious and extreme measures. The unavoidable and firm measures taken by Stalin to safeguard revolution are called Stalin's ''terrors'' ! These tales influenced even many Left intellectuals. And it made them uncertain in their attitude towards socialism and communism. This is how reactionary influence in liberal mask worms its way into progressive minds ! But the judgement of one's actions requires the examination of one's concrete condition as also the purpose behind his or her actions. The revolutionary martyrs of the Indian freedom struggle like Kshudiram Bose, Bhagat Singh and Asfaqullah also were "terrorists" in the eyes of the British imperialist rulers. Are they terrorists or martyrs ? War is an act of terror. But the foundation of the American nation was laid in the War of Independence and the American Civil War. In the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln led one group of American states against another and united the nation through much bloodshed. But who would blame Lincoln for this ''terror'' save rank fools or archenemies of democracy ! In class-divided societies, the paramount social issues touching upon basic class interests are always decided in the end by force. Marx said long ago that ''Force is the midwife of history.'' However, while imperialists and capitalists organise genocides, riots and predatory wars against whole populations the use of revolutionary force is always directed, in also the bourgeois revolutions, against a reactionary minority. But devilish imperialist propaganda would make people believe that communists use force against the masses ! The picture of the Stalin period in the imperialist media is full of horrible descriptions of Stalin's "terror"! Claims are made of as many as 20 million dead in Stalin's torture ! But only the 1921 famine and the 1941 German invasion took such tolls ! Even Trotsky with his network of informers could not put it above thousands. The western embassies also, all being sworn anti-communists though, did not make such claim ! The greatest outcries can be heard, of course, over the trials of 1934, 1936 and 1938. Noises are made that these were "fake" ! Most bourgeois diplomats and journalists of the period, who sat watching those open trials, were compelled to admit that they were fair, the evidences were bona fide and the sentences were impartial. 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 1,70,000 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 18th 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)

Collective style of work

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 !

The revolutionary life

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)

Lenin's worthy disciple

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 20th 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 20th 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.

A giant communist leader

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, p85-86) 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 combatting 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 combatting 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, Vo.ll, 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 15th 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).
Socialism in Russia became a reality under Stalin's correct leadership 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 10th 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 13th 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 15th 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 !

Revolution demands supreme loyalty

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). The epitome of communist morality 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)

Path Ahead

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 20th 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 ! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]