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
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter


Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sergey Latyshev Offline
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) April 21 2020 13: 04
    • 3
    • 3
    Do you see the groundhog? No? But he is!
    1. Xuli (o) Tebenado April 21 2020 13: 32
      • 1
      • 3

      2. https://bestglitz.com/russia/ the-what-the-difference-between-gophers-and-marmots /
  2. Xuli (o) Tebenado April 21 2020 13: 24
    • 2
    • 2
    T.N. “postulates”, it turns out, are everywhere ridiculed: Volmar is a bit sensitive, still “petty” for 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 an instrument of bourgeois political scientists”.
    And there was only the "holy leader" on the throne in a white tunic.
  3. steelmaker Offline
    steelmaker April 21 2020 13: 28
    • 3
    • 5
    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 get started. Stalin was the first to set up a state for the people. Eliminated illiteracy and unemployment. Total medical care. It was the state that guaranteed it all. Responsibility for words and deeds. For violation and non-execution of which was followed by punishment. And now no one is responsible for anything. No wonder they say: "Stalin is not enough for you." Stalin built a state that people were proud of. He started with a pick and a shovel, and ended with nuclear weapons. Because Stalin did not spend budget money on the purchase of the dollar and did not build palaces for himself, but invested, even a penny, in the industrialization of the country. Compare where Putin is investing now? By 1940, the USSR had changed beyond recognition. More than 5000 large facilities were built, neighborhoods of new “Stalinoks”, parks and squares grew in 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. And all this is FREE for the people! And now, soon there will be more temples, churches, mosques than schools, more priests than teachers. It is cheaper to go to Turkey to relax than to Crimea. Educated are not needed for Putin - sheep are easier to manage. He needs devotees and sneaks.
    Everything that we now have was built by Stalin during the USSR. And if the EBN center was built for 7 billion rubles of budget money, then Stalin is worthy of even a monument! The people themselves will be thrown off, as in the film "28 Panfilov".
    1. Natan bruk Offline
      Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) April 22 2020 04: 38
      • 2
      • 4
      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) April 22 2020 15: 53
      • 2
      • 5
      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. Quarters of “Stalin” were a drop in the bucket, Khrushchev really changed the situation. There was an atomic bomb, but at the same time, Soviet citizens were starving and with a total deficit. Under Stalin there was definitely no paradise on earth.