What is "Stalinism" and why it does not exist

The word "Stalinism" is negative and is often used by opponents of communism as a kind of label or stigma. However, despite the fact that this concept appears in various discussions, everyone understands it in their own way.

For the first time this term was used by a journalist from the New York Times, W. Duranti, implying the party dictatorship and tyranny of I.V. Stalin. Then the expression “Stalinism” began to be used in his demagogy by L. D. Trotsky. In the late 30s, the “catchword” was picked up by liberals, revisionists, anarchists and other opponents of communism.

Most contemporaries of Joseph Stalin understood the concept of “Stalinism” as a kind of theory, with its fundamental features:

- Socialism in one country;
- Commodity production and the law of value under socialism;
- The aggravation of the class struggle and the strengthening of the state as socialist construction;
- The need for the state under socialism.

However, the idea of ​​the first postulate belongs to the German Social Democrat G. Volmar, who outlined it in 1879 in the article “Isolated Socialist State”. The necessity of the state under socialism in his writings was written by V.I. Lenin. Under socialism, the idea of ​​commodity production and the law of value is completely “given” to Marx and Engels. Although, it is worth noting that Stalin made some adjustments here.

Perhaps the only thing that the theoreticians of “Stalinism” can personally attribute to Joseph Vissarionovich is the words about the aggravation of the class struggle and the strengthening of the state as the socialist construction began, which the leader said in 1926 in response to the arguments of N. Bukharin and L. Kamenev about growing his fist into socialism, about the attenuation of the struggle.

Thus, all the above postulates fit into the theory of Marxism-Leninism and cannot claim a separate trend.

Some researchers and theorists speak of “Stalinism” as a special practice, attributing to it such characteristic differences as:

- Personal dictatorship and cult of the leader;
- Totalitarianism and police;
- Command and administrative system and bureaucracy.

However, this is nothing more than fiction. The very “cult of the leader” came mainly from below and was sharply criticized by Stalin himself. Totalitarianism is a fiction at all, whose roots go back to the first fascist theorist Benito Mussolini. As for the command and administrative system, this is nothing but the profanity of the bourgeois sociologist and demagogue G. Kh. Popov.

As you see, “Stalinism” is a fiction that is skillfully used as an anti-Soviet tool by bourgeois ideologists. Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin continued the work of Marx-Lenin, always remaining in line with the theory of Marxism-Leninism.

  • Photos used: RIA Novosti archive / Shagin / CC-BY-SA 3.0
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) April 21 2020 13: 04
    Do you see the groundhog? No? But he is!
    1. Xuli (o) Tebenado April 21 2020 13: 32

      2. https://bestglitz.com/russia/ the-what-the-difference-between-gophers-and-marmots /
  2. Xuli (o) Tebenado April 21 2020 13: 24
    T.N. The "postulates", it turns out, are ponderous from everywhere: a bit in Vollmar's case, in a small way in the "classics", although he "made some adjustments."
    All the rest are clearly enemies: the demagogue Trotsky, the bourgeois sociologist Popov, Bukharin and Kamenev with their fists.
    And the rest is "fiction", "fiction", "fiction as a tool of bourgeois political scientists."
    And only the "holy leader" remained on the throne in a white jacket.
  3. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker April 21 2020 13: 28
    The article and the film are too abstruse. Those who have not studied Marx and Lenin will not understand anything, and the enemies of Stalin and the USSR are an occasion for mockery. Therefore, I will express what I mean by Stalinism. They have already talked about this and I will soon repeat myself, but for some it is like a bone in the throat.
    Let's start. Stalin was the first to establish a state for the people. Eliminated illiteracy and unemployment. Total medical care. It was the state that guaranteed everything. Responsibility for words and deeds. For violation and non-execution of which the punishment followed. And now no one is responsible for anything. No wonder they say: "Stalin is not enough for you." Stalin was building a state that people were proud of. He started with a pick and a shovel and ended up with a nuclear weapon. Because Stalin did not spend budget money to buy dollars and did not build palaces for himself, but invested, every penny, in the industrialization of the country. Compare where is Putin investing now? By 1940, the USSR had changed beyond recognition. More than 5000 large objects were built, quarters of new "stalinkas", parks, squares grew in the cities, hundreds of thousands of tractors and combines worked in the fields. Pioneer camps, rest houses and sanatoriums appeared, the number of schools, technical schools and universities increased by an order of magnitude. And it's all FREE for the people! And now, soon there will be more temples, churches, mosques than schools, more priests than teachers. It's cheaper to go to Turkey to have a rest than to Crimea. Putin doesn't need educated people - it's easier to manage rams. He needs devotees and sycophants.
    Everything that we have now was built by Stalin during the Soviet era. And if the EBN center was built for 7 billion rubles of budget money, then Stalin at least deserves a monument! The people themselves will fold, like on the film "Panfilov's 28".
    1. Natan bruk Offline Natan bruk
      Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) April 22 2020 04: 38
      Yes, the “quarters of new stalinkas”, only the vast majority lived in communal apartments, barracks and private ruins, and in large numbers they began to receive separate apartments only with the damned “corn-mill”.
    2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) April 22 2020 15: 53
      For industrialization, Stalin took money from the village through its total robbery. This led to the largest non-military disaster in Russian history. And the biggest military disaster fell on his reign. Higher education was paid. The Stalinist quarters were just a drop in the ocean, Khrushchev actually changed the situation. There was an atomic bomb, but at the same time the citizens of the USSR lived from hand to mouth and with a total deficit. Under Stalin, there was definitely no heaven on earth.