In May 1998, while going through the papers of the historian Vasily Dmitrievich Mochalov (1902-1970), I discovered his own notes of two meetings with J.V. Stalin.

Manuscripts that were collecting dust in the personal archive of the scientist for more than half a century are well preserved. Some of them are short notes that the author made during conversations on December 28, 1945 and December 23, 1946, the other parts are actually readymade essays. Judging by many signs, Vasily Dmitrievich wrote them for himself and did not think about publishing them. With professional conscientiousness, he recorded what he saw and heard, both because it was necessary for his further work, and because it was the moment of the Great History that invaded his own life.

I have already noted that the phenomenon that is still called the “cult of the personality of Stalin” was not his personal creation. The “cult” was actively shaped by numerous “sculptors” from the apparatus, and very often contrary to Stalin’s wishes.

The conversations, which will be discussed in the proposed essays, in this sense is especially indicative. He introduces our contemporary into the dense layers of the ideological atmosphere of the post-war period. We are talking about, perhaps, the most sensitive nerve of the “cult” – the release of the collected works and a brief biography of Stalin himself. The reader finds himself in the holy of holies of the propaganda workshop, in its crucible and brings out a far from unambiguous opinion. Stalin, it turns out, is at war with the vulgar hallelujahs, he is fighting them frivolously, disassembling many of their tricks retroactively, clearly annoyed that they even took place.

Now that Stalin’s editorial is published in the layout of the second edition of his brief biography, one can clearly see N.S. Khrushchev’s slyness when he argued that “Stalin himself strongly encouraged and supported the exaltation of his person.” As an example, at an additional meeting of the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU on February 25, 1956,

Khrushchev cited “some characteristics of the activities of Stalin, inscribed by the hand of Stalin himself’ in his brief biography. Khrushchev cites one passage from a book that says that in the “struggle against the faithless and capitulators, Trotskyists and Zinovievites, Bukharins and Kamenevs, after Lenin’s stepping down from the party, caused the leading nucleus of our party to finally form... the nucleus that defended Lenin’s great banner, rallied the party around Lenin’s covenants and led the Soviet people on the broad road of industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. The leader of this nucleus and the leading force of the party and the state was comrade Stalin.” (J. V. Stalin, Collective Works, Vol. 16, p. 426) The listener and the reader have the natural impression that, according to Stalin, the history of the party is a kind of uninhabited space where only one hero acts – the theatre of one actor. Khrushchev achieves this by a simple trick: he omits the part of the text where the composition of the party core is listed in the person of Molotov, Kalinin, Voroshilov, Kuibyshev, Frunze, Dzerzhinsky, Kaganovich, Ordzhonikidze, Kirov, Yaroslavsky, Mikoyan, Andreev, Shvernik, Zhdanov and Shkiryatov follows. (ibid., p. 75)

Khrushchev uses the same technique, pointing to the place where it is said that Stalin “did not allow the shadow of conceit, arrogance, and self-love in his activity.” “Where and when could any figure so glorify himself? Is it worthy of a figure of the Marxist-Leninist type?” rhetorically asks “our Nikita Sergeevich” (ibid., p. 426). This really sounds spectacular if the listener and the reader do not know that the speaker cut off the quote and omitted the words: “In his interview with the German writer Emil Ludwig, where he notes the great role of the genius of Lenin in transforming our country, Stalin simply declares: “As for me, I am only a student of Lenin, and my goal is to be a worthy student of him” (ibid., pp. 75-76). Of course, Stalin does not deserve praise for his modesty, but Khrushchev’s “objectivity” falls below zero. Stalin, as always, is true to himself. He rigidly binds himself to Lenin, and this inseparability, brought him to self-denial demonstrated repeatedly in very diverse historical circumstances. This evokes more respect than criticism.

Stalin was a man who could not be called timid. It is difficult to judge his thorny life path as a whole, but after October at least three situations stand out along this path, which even for Stalin look shocking. The first is Lenin’s statement about the possibility of breaking relations with him on March 5, 1922; the second is the suicide of his wife, N.S. Alliluyeva, November 8, 1932; the third is the attack of Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. Now we know that the first situation depended not only on him personally, but also stemmed from the Kremlin intrigue which was started by G.E. Zinoviev, L.B. Kamenev and L.D. Trotsky with the connivance of N.K. Krupskaya and stubborn opposition of Lenin’s sister M.I. Ulyanova when Vladimir Ilyich Lenin fell sick. Stalin courageously and magnanimously accepted this terrible blow. He could later call Krupskaya “an old fool” in his hearts, but he did not allow himself a single attack against the teacher and leader. You can only learn the moral attitude of one’s mentor and predecessor from Stalin. How can some of the current left-patriotic leaders, who dream of reviving a unique, distinctive Russia, clutch at the name of Stalin, but following the “democrats” from the historical memory of our people, cross out the name of such a genius as Lenin?

Khrushchev lied, arguing that “Stalin showed disrespect for the memory of Lenin.” Khrushchev references the fact that “the Palace of Soviets as a monument to Vladimir Ilyich” (ibid., p. 428) was never built, and looks artificial and ridiculous. Subsequently, Khrushchev found a symbolic “solution” to the problem by placing a pit with water on the foundation of the Palace of Soviets. This, as it were, predetermined the restoration of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. A sacred place is never empty...

A serious opposition to the official ideological service can be seen in Stalin’s remarks in the published conversations. Stalin defended the author of the notes, who protested against the expansion of the first volumes of the Collected Works of Stalin by attributing to him anonymous articles from the Social Democratic press in Georgian. This was unexpected for the head of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) G.F. Aleksandrov and Director of the Institute of Marx-Engels-Lenin (IMEL) V.S. Kruzhkov. Mochalov insisted on a deep scientific examination of the texts and became uncomfortable with the director of the IMEL. At that time, such behaviour looked like impermissible insolence and sometimes entailed severe “organizational conclusions”. Mochalov “left” the IMEL to the Academy of Sciences, and Stalin quickly figured out why. Taking Mochalov’s side, he fought back the sycophants: “Here, you see, they tried to include more in the volumes, they wanted to inflate the meaning of the author. I do not need this.”. “Can you imagine,” Mochalov told this episode to his wife Konyushey, “Joseph Vissarionovich fully supported my motivations on authorship. He excluded all the works that I claimed did not belong to Stalin from the composition of the first two volumes.” But such people as Mochalov are a rarity.

According to the same Konyushey, the participants in the meeting on December 23, 1946, who are known to have discussed the issue of Lenin’s new biography and the second edition of Stalin’s short biography, met the latter with the words: “What are you doing Social Revolutionary now? The people, the party are nothing, and Stalin is everything? Stalin is old. Stalin will die soon. Do you want people to panic: if he did everything, then without him everything will end?” (ibid., pp. 233, 234)

Stalin was annoyed by the work of IMEL, especially by its nameless publications, which meant reinsurance at the expense of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. “When IMEL publishes something without a signature, without the names of the authors, it is worse than theft. Nowhere in the world is there anything like it. Why are they afraid to put the names of the authors? It is necessary that people have the freedom to write...”, these words sound like something from the “thaw” era, some “perestroika” motive of “glasnost”. How different was what was happening inside the tops from what was manifested outside!

On the one hand, Stalin clearly sees a tendency to bureaucratic formalization, the ossification of scientific and revolutionary teachings – it is not by chance that he warns of the danger of the emergence of “armchair communists”, communist tellers, and verbalists of our kind. On the other hand, he is already in captivity of the tradition of self-preservation and continuation of further existence established by the whole party-state machine. As an extraordinary creative person, Stalin tries to break out of these chains, which were forged with his direct participation, but ultimately remains a captive of those who are comfortable in their fetters, an army of officials who cannot imagine a life without internal slavery. For that matter, in the post-Stalin decades, real socialism was destroyed not so much by conscious revisionists or “Stalinists” as the “democratic” press depicts them, but by “armchair communists”, conformists and careerists of all stripes, whose interests were in natural harmony with the interests of “shadow” capital. Laziness of thought and diplomatic ignorance played an outstanding role here. This topic requires further coverage, as these factors continue to put pressure on the social and national liberation process with unrelenting force.

Let’s look back at the past. At the XVI Congress of the CPSU(b) (June-July 1930), for the first time, there was no opposition to the line of the Central Committee and a sweeping offensive of socialism on the whole front was proclaimed. There was still no praise for Stalin during it, and the overall business-like mood reigned. The XVII Congress (January-February 1934) was marked by greater emotionality and is held as a “congress of winners”. During the opening, V.M. Molotov calls Stalin “the leader and organizer of our victories” and “a loyal successor to the Leninist cause”. At the same time, a “brand new” Khrushchev appeared on the congress rostrum, who first made a proposal on the composition of the presidium, and then made a speech. It was he who was among the first to declare Stalin a “brilliant” and “great leader”, and who spoke of his “brilliant report”. (XVII Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (b). Verbatim report, 1934, pp. 6, 145, 147) In the 70s, Molotov recalled that Stalin once saw his signature under some kind of group greeting, where Stalin was called “brilliant”. He became angry and asked this word to be deleted. “How did you get here?” asked Stalin to Molotov. “Got here, as expected.” –  “Are you also lagging behind everyone?” According to Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, the praise of Stalin “could not be completely covered up (that is, stopped). This could have negative consequences at that time. Stalin didn’t always like it, but in the end he succumbed to it a little bit.” (One hundred forty conversations with Molotov: From the diary of F Chuev, 1991, p. 242)

But what about Khrushchev?

In an article dedicated to the 60th anniversary of Stalin (1939), the future overthrower of the “cult of personality” states: “Workers all over the world will write and talk about him with love and gratitude. The enemies of the working people will write and talk about him with evil foam at the mouths.” (1940, p. 93).

What a merciless thing is history! Who could then predict that those who call themselves Communists will come up with such a foam? Who would have known that the moral and political inertia of the “Leninist” anti-Stalinists would inexorably push them to the camp of anti-Leninists and anti-Marxists?

The proposed texts are valuable for their reliable socio-psychological observations. There is a lot of controversy in them. But the good news is that it was not a diagram, not a group of wax figures, but a piece of life in its sometimes paradoxical manifestations that appears in those conversations. This wakes up the thought, stimulates it, and, therefore, sparks the continuation of life in intense tension.

I prepared the essays for printing directly from the manuscript, without any edition. My intervention consisted only in combining individual fragments of the text, deciphering some phrases, restoring abbreviated words, and finally placing punctuation marks. The children of Mochalov and R.P. Konyush – Elena Vasilievna Mochalova and Vladimir Mikhailovich Kurkin – helped me with this work.

December 28, 1945. The conversation lasted about P/2 hours, from 8 hours 05 minutes in the evening to 9 hours 35 minutes.

Present: Cdes. Malenkov, Poskrebyshev, Aleksandrov, Fedoseev, Iovchuk, Kruzhkov, Sharia, Mochalov, Nadtocheev.

On December 28, 1945, at 7 p.m. I was called to the Central Committee from a meeting at the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences. They informed us by telephone that after 30 minutes it was necessary to meet with comrade Fedoseev.

We are in a hurry. There is a big queue at the pass desk. We give our last names. We ask to speed things up, since my companion already knew or suspected that calling us to the Central Committee was unusual, and perhaps even to the “boss” himself. We are offered to go through the main entrance, without a pass. This, too, begins to convince me that I am being called to comrade Stalin himself. We no longer walk but run to the main entrance. The patrol looks into a slightly ajar notebook, lying near him on the table. In the notebook I see our last names. We pass quickly. We feverishly undress. After a couple of minutes we appear in the reception room of comrade Fedoseyev. At the door we met comrades Fedoseev, Kruzhkov, and Sharia standing in coats and hats.

“Where are your coats?” they turn to us. “Get dressed and get back faster. We are waiting.”

We run downstairs and dress as hastily as we undressed.

“Quickly,” the cloakroom attendant remarks at our address.

Already all dressed, without rushing (or rather, with slick unhurriedness), we climb the stairs to the fifth floor. Near the office of comrade Malenkov (the places I already “knew” from last year’s visits here — to the Organizational Bureau) he meets us, greets everyone, and we go to a separate exit to the courtyard in a single file. Here we are caught up with Comrade Iovchuk who lagged behind. Comrade Malenkov hospitably invites everyone to sit in his roomy car.

“Otherwise, they would give you a lot of headaches with passes,” he says jokingly.

All are accommodated. We sit down tightly. Indeed, in cramped conditions, but the more the merrier!

In fact, the car quickly, almost without slowing down, enters the Spassky Gate. Patrols know comrade Malenkov well by his face (he sits next to the driver), and without delay they let his car pass. It passes the rest of the patrols through the Kremlin’s relatively small courtyards, drives up to a rather ordinary, somewhat old-fashioned, modest entrance. They check the documents for the last time. On the stairs, several steps down, there is a small dressing room. Leaving there our coats and hats, we rise on the elevator to the 3rd floor. On a narrow corridor, turning at a slight angle to the side, we find ourselves in a spacious reception room – a high room decorated with light oak. Directly opposite the entrance there is a large table with fresh Russian and foreign newspapers neatly laid out on it. In the middle of the table is a massive writing device with a stack of paper nearby, etc. To the right of the door is a round table covered with a white tablecloth with soft drinks. This is the reception desk, designed to await a call to comrade Stalin. There are all conditions for sitting down, thinking, and recovering from being called here as unexpectedly as we were. And even without this, who wouldn’t be excited waiting to meet the greatest of modern people, a man who, more than anyone else, now holds in his hands the fate of the world...

We all crowd around the big table. 15-20 minutes passed. Finally, at 8.05 p.m., comrade Aleksandrov called us to comrade Stalin. We pass through one, then the second room, in which to the right of the windows are the tables (bureaux) of his assistants. We open the door to a large office, resembling a hall of a somewhat elongated shape. This, apparently, is his office and, at the same time, the hall of the most important meetings held by comrade Stalin. To the left in the hall along the wall is a large table covered with dark blue cloth. At the end of the table is a chair with a writing instrument. In the far right corner, by the window, is a desk, apparently a permanent workplace of comrade Stalin. The door in the wall opposite the entrance is ajar. Through an open door to the next room you can see a huge globe of almost human height, and on the wall – a geographical map.

We flowed into the room. Comrade Stalin rose to meet us when we already almost surrounded him in the middle of the hall. His face, calm, concentrated, strict, and at the same time attractive, is densely covered with brownish specks – either from tanning, or from smallpox once suffered. The hair on the head is completely grey, somewhat thinned on the crown of the head (this must have happened already during the war). Stalin greeted us by the hand and invited us to sit at a large table. To my left, against the wall, is comrade Poskrebyshev, next to him, closer to comrade Stalin – comrade Malenkov. The other comrades sat down on the other side of the table. At the end of the table, opposite comrade Stalin, sat comrade Sharia.

“Well, tell me, what are your disagreements?” asked comrade Stalin. The question was completely unexpected for everyone present. It was hard to imagine that comrade Stalin knew nothing about disputes on these topics in the IMEL, although these disputes were brought forward for discussion by the Central Committee Organizing Bureau. Comrade Kruzhkov, director of IMEL, began to say that everything had been settled in this regard and so on.

One could not conceal anything from comrade Stalin, so I talked about the main doubts and objections on authorship issues that I had: 1) regarding two articles from the newspaper Brdzola (Struggle – Ed.). These articles are written in a calm tone, slightly different from the war tone characteristic of later articles; 2) three articles from the “Caucasian Worker Leaflet”. The first was compiled or edited, of course, with the participation of comrade Stalin, his authorship of the other two is doubtful; 3) the article “Armed rebellion and our tactics” was questioned in style; 4) “The local press” article from the newspaper Elva (Lightning – Ed.) contains discrepancies in the statement of the same issue with the articles “The Iskra Newspaper and the Agrarian Question” and the 1908 article “Lackey Socialists”. These were our arguments and my objections.

“Have you been kicked out of IMEL for this?” asked comrade Stalin. “Who did this?”

“This is comrade Kruzhkov’s handiwork”, I replied and explained that the reason for his dissatisfaction with me was my letter to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on the need to proceed with the publication of Collected Works of J.V. Stalin. The first volume of them, despite the fact that the translation was ready, comrade Kruzhkov didn’t even read, even after several months of his stay at IMEL. Comrade Kruzhkov repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction with my letter to the Central Committee. There were still sharp skirmishes with comrade Sharia, but more on matters of principle. I defended new translations, but he – the old ones already in use in literature, etc.

“The translation is bad,” comrade Stalin began. “They translated words, neglecting the laws of the Russian language ... In the Georgian language, there are two words meaning “life”. In one case, this word means biological life (“Sitsotsky” – V.M.), in the second case – social life (“Tskhovrebi” – V.M.). When translating the Georgian word “life” in the second sense, it is required to add the word “public”, although it is not in the Georgian text because it is not required. Or they would translate subordinate sentences into Russian without the “what” adjective. In Georgian, this word is superfluous. But in Russian, if you omit the “what” adjective, it will be illiterate.”

“Translation is harder than writing,” said comrade Stalin. “Some of the articles are translated artistically,” added comrade Stalin. “Apparently, there were different translators.”

“Something had to be fixed,” he said. “For example, the articles “Anarchism or socialism?” were intended for the newspaper. I had to write them piece by piece, write right there in the printing house, hastily, on my knee and give them to the typesetter... And I prepared well for them. They were printed intermittently, so when it was put together, they got extra resumes. They had to be excluded.”

One of those present noted that we could not do this ourselves. “Yes, that is the author’s right,” said comrade Stalin. “I did not pursue everything, I crossed out a lot. Here, you see, they tried to include more material in the volume, they wanted to inflate the meaning of the author. I don’t need this..

Someone noticed that the works of VI. Lenin include everything written by him.

“That’s Lenin, and this is me,” comrade Stalin answered.

“I was a writer in Brdzola, and so was Severin Dzhugheli... Ketskhoveli was pragmatic and an organizer. The organ was led by Ketskhoveli, but he wrote little. And it turned out that Ketskhoveli was the actual editor, but he did not know how to edit.”

“In 1900, we had a large printing house in Baku. In it we propagated Iskra and distributed it throughout Russia.”

“The first clash inside the Mesame-dasi (Georgian Social Democratic Organization of 1892-1903. – Ed.) was on the issue of illegal press. The left attached the main importance to the illegal press. The right wing extolled the legal press. The differences between the left and the right began from this disagreement. Those who were in favour of the legal press, then almost all, went to the Mensheviks... The Mesame-dasi leaders did not want to have an illegal press in Tiflis, which is why the publication of the Brdzola had to be transferred to Baku.”

“It is true that the tone of my articles in Brdzola is somewhat different, calmer. There was a calm tone... I then wanted to go to university. Ketskhoveli scolded me for this. The Batumi executions turned everything upside down inside of me. I started cursing... The tone has changed.”

“The Batumi leaflet “comrades” is mine. There was no one else to write. But I deleted it... Only the proclamation “March 9”, which has historical significance, remained in the volume.”

“Spandaryan and I wrote the “Caucasian Worker Leaflet”. It is true that the articles “Episode of the Great Russian Revolution” and “Elizabethpolsk Events” are not mine. The article “Tiflis, November 20” is mine. I remember it.”

“The articles “Anarchism or Socialism?” were not finished... The notes that I made with the intention to write further, were lost during a raid in Baku. And the need for continuation has disappeared. Anarchists soon were gone. They appeared in Tiflis as a raid... In this work there is one wrong, outdated position. Previously, revolutionary Social Democrats determined the possibility of a socialist revolution by the presence of a majority of the proletariat in the country. Then we threw out this condition. It was necessary to stipulate, which I did. The first version of “Anarchism or socialism?” was printed as an appendix. Of the two prefaces to two different editions, only one was printed.”

“Something was not found. First of all, the programmes of classes. It happened in 1898. The programme, according to which the circles were to be engaged, was screen-printed. At first, the propagandist spoke of primitive communism. Primitive communism was replaced by the era of slavery. Then capitalism. Thus, the social system was changing. In the same way, capitalism should be replaced by socialism... I have changed all this. I built the programme differently. The first topic was: “Why are we poor, although we create everything?” The second topic: “Why are we powerless?” etc. Then I gave a historical reference.

The workers really liked the new programme. Vano Sturua with another worker (comrade Stalin gave the name of the second worker, but I didn’t hear much), they multiplied the programme and distributed it to the circles. Propaganda then began to be carried out under this programme. Many copies were dispersed. It would be nice to find this programme.”

“They still can’t find my “Credo”. It happened in 1904. Then I just returned from the exile. Familiar old workers were not found in Tiflis: some were sent to exile, others were in prison. New people came to Tiflis – students from Riga, from Tomsk and other places. They were hostile to me. Although the lower workers and middle peasants knew me well. I once said: the organizational side is bad for you, propaganda is still underway, and the organization of affairs is weak. They told on me, said that I was scolding Iskra... They “soldered” me for this and demanded: let Stalin write his “Credo”. I wrote such a “Credo”. I remember there were sections on theory, practice, organization in it. Then this “Credo” was distributed in the organization.” (A few days before this conversation, it was reported that comrade Stalin allegedly remembered that he had handed over 70 copies of “Credo” to an Armenian, an employee of the Union Committee, it seems, as it was clarified with him later, to Shaverdov Dakush. – V.M.)

After some time, comrade Sharia made a speech in defence of comrade Kruzhkov. He began to dispute my statement that the translation of the first volume was already ready and so on. The defence came out declarative and unconvincing.

Either soon after comrade Sharia’s speech or before it, comrade Stalin, as if in defence of me, said, bearing in mind my ignorance of the Georgian language:

“He’s less armed.”

I again asked permission to say a few words. Comrade Stalin looked inquiringly, as if to say: is it worth it to object? I made a reservation that I am not going to object to comrade Sharia, but I want to name some unknown works. I was allowed to speak out.

“If the two articles from Brdzola that were included in the volume,” I said, “belong to comrade Stalin, then..

Here comrade Stalin threw a remark:

“These articles are mine, I remember well how I wrote them.” “...then,” I continued, “one more article should belong to him in No. 2-3 of the Brdzola – “The Workers’ Movement in the Caucasus in 18981899”.” It was a large, interesting, principled article. Then there are three letters of J. Stalin of the period 1904-1905 signed by Vano, addressed to V.I. Lenin and N.K. Krupskaya. Since only two letters from Kutais of comrade Stalin have been found so far, relating to this time, it would be desirable to see the three letters mentioned above in the volume.

Comrade Stalin became interested in these materials. I gave him No. 2-3 of the Brdzola together with the article I mentioned, and comrade Kruzhkov handed over the letters in question. Comrade Stalin looked through the Brdzola and letters for a while, and then said:

“I must take a look.”

A day later, photocopies of these letters were handed over to him. After some time, comrade Stalin returned them to IMEL with an inscription on the cover: “Do not print”.

He immediately said that in 1904-1905 there was an extended correspondence with Lenin. In the summer of 1905, upon arrival at Chiatura, comrade Stalin wrote a long letter to V.I. Lenin on the issue of democratic centralism, in connection with the decisions of the just held Third Party Congress on organizational issues. At the same time, he had to take some actions on the spot, which were not quite consistent with the decisions of the congress.

“I violated the regulations, punish me,” wrote comrade Stalin. comrade Stalin wanted to get the opinion of V.I. Lenin on this issue. Lenin did not answer his letter then. But at a meeting with V.I. Lenin at the congress of the party comrade Stalin in conversation with him returned to the subject of his letter and received full confirmation of the correctness of both his actions in the organizational-party issue in Chiatura and the correctness of his point of view.

It seems, further, comrade Stalin himself raised the question of the circulation of the first volume.

“30-40 thousand will be enough,” he said.

“The works of V.I. Lenin are printed in a circulation of 500 thousand copies”, one of those present said.

“That’s Lenin, and this is me,” answered comrade Stalin.

Everyone protested, the circulation was too small for the first volume.

“I look at the matter in essence,” said comrade Stalin. “The works that make up the first volume now have historical significance, well, and also biographical. All this I stipulate in my introduction. These works are not for guidance. (This phrase in the manuscript of V.D. Mochalov is deleted. – Ed.). What is needed for guidance should be published in a larger circulation.”

“We need to think about the reader,” they began to prove to him, “there will be queues in the libraries for the book. You cannot print different volumes in different runs.”

“With paper, we have now become better,” says comrade Aleksandrov (the last three words in the manuscript are crossed out. – Ed.).

“Well, 100 thousand is enough,” conceded Stalin. “Paper is needed for regional newspapers. And it’s a shame to pick them up – they are so thin. Is the city of Kursk bad? It’s a good city. Is the city of Oryol bad? It’s also a good city. And neither one nor the other have decent newspapers.

“We have 75 thousand libraries alone,” comrades from the Propaganda Directorate give an inquiry.

“That’s why we don’t have books on the market, because they are all distributed in libraries,” comrade Stalin answered.

When we again spoke about translations of articles supplementing the second volume, comrade Stalin said:

“Let the Georgians do it.”

Stalin said that the whole difficulty in preparing the publication was in the first and second volumes which were translated, but the subsequent volumes are reprints, and therefore would not present difficulties. (This phrase is written outside the text on the last page of the original. – Ed.)

Again the issue of circulation came up.

“Well, let it be 300 thousand, because they say that volumes cannot be printed in different print runs,” comrade Stalin firmly said, making it clear that there will be no more “concessions”.

Comrade Kruzhkov asked the opinion of comrade Stalin about the “apparatus” of the volume. The question was not immediately understood: the term “apparatus” is almost specifically IMEL-specific. Someone explained:

“That is, the notes in the volume..

“Ah, notes? I read some of them, nothing seems to fit.”

“Are they needed?”, comrade Kruzhkov continues to ask.

“Notes are needed,” says comrade Stalin. “The events referred to in the writings are often little-known, and have been happening for a long time. It is necessary to explain them to the modern reader.”

“Maybe make notes shorter? We give very little notes to the works of V.I. Lenin.” comrade Kruzhkov is stubbornly trying to “facilitate” the Institute’s task with regard to the compilation of notes. Comrade Stalin at that moment went to his desk, not answering his question.

Comrade Stalin also spoke in favour of an average of 300-360 pages in each volume. In the introduction to the publication it is not necessary to name which works are included in that, but only indicate to which period they relate.

“Which format of volumes is better?”

“I like it,” says comrade Stalin, “a small format, such as the volumes of V.I. Lenin. One you can put in your pocket.”

“What colour of the cover is better? Burgundy or grey?”

“It’s all the same,” said comrade Stalin as if dismissing an insignificant question.

The topic of conversation already seemed exhausted. “Somehow they sent me a collection of articles by K. Marx on the national question,” comrade Stalin remembered, “it cannot be published without a preface. There is an idea in it that the Polish nation is no good.”

All those present began to look at each other perplexedly: who would have compiled such a collection and sent it to comrade Stalin. Comrade Aleksandrov first suggested that the State Political Publishing House did this, and then the Association of State Book and Magazine Publishers, specifically comrade Yudin, probably.

“You like to guess,” comrade Stalin remarked a little irritatedly. “We need to find out first.”

Then, in the same connection, he threw:

“Yudin and his “friend”.” (referring to Mitin)

“Well, is that all?” he asks us. No one has any more questions. As if reluctantly, we slowly rise and, taking our leave, depart from the office of comrade Stalin. Caught in the already familiar reception room, everyone turns their heads to the clock. 9 hours 35 minutes. So, the conversation lasted an hour and a half. But the time flew by unnoticed. We are leaving in a familiar way, through the entrance, and then past the Kremlin wall again to the Spassky Gate. Last pass check, and we leave the ancient Kremlin.

Like last time, they found me at the Institute of History as early as 4 o’clock in the afternoon. P.N. Pospelov phoned on behalf of A.N. Poskrebyshev. He reported that I need to be at the pass desk at the Spasskaya Tower at 6:30 p.m., and at 6:45 p.m. at comrade Poskrebyshev’s office. I got out of the house very well in advance. I even had to walk for half an hour from the Spasskaya Tower to the Moscow River and back. When asked if I knew where I am supposed to go, I confidently replied that a year ago I was already there and I knew the way – go straight, turn left, etc., etc.

In the already familiar corridors, the guards were still often found, and finally, before entering the reception room, one of comrade Stalin’s secretaries in military uniform came out to meet me.

“I seem to have arrived before everyone else,” I said.

“Yes, you came first,” he confirmed and led me to the waiting room. Here I really ended up alone. And the receptionist was already familiar to me from the last visit. On the large table, as before, laid many illustrated foreign magazines. But only one newspaper – the latest issue of Pravda. I have not read it yet... I take the newspaper and sit down at the table with soft drinks. Fifteen minutes later, comrade Mitin appears. He sits opposite me, offers me to drink mineral water, but I don’t want to be distracted from my thoughts, and I refuse a pleasant drink. I find out from him that they called us in connection with the reprinting of the biography of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.

Entering the reception and warmly greeting us, A.N. Poskrebyshev said:

“You’ll need to wait for half an hour.”

Gradually, one after another, they appear: Major General Galaktionov, Iovchuk, Fedoseyev, Kruzhkov, Pospelov, Aleksandrov, and comrades Kuznetsov and Patolichev (secretaries of the Central Committee) pass through the reception room.

Some time passed, and we were all called into comrade Stalin’s office. He meets us, standing near a large conference table. We quickly sit around this table. We had barely managed to accommodate ourselves as comrade Stalin began to speak. The first words were drowned in the noise of us settling down, the rattling of chairs, the rustling of removable pieces of paper and notebooks, etc.

The topic of the conversation, as it was already possible to catch from the first words of comrade Stalin, was a question about the biographies of Lenin and Stalin.

“Usually the study of Lenin’s works,” comrade Stalin said, “starts with a biography. This is how the vast majority of people get acquainted with Lenin. I am talking about ordinary people, not about those who are in the offices. They cannot read 30 volumes. Therefore, we need a good biography of Lenin.”

Here, in an undertone, comrade Aleksandrov gave a cue that IMEL had published a biography of VI. Lenin.

“I already know how IMEL publishes,” comrade Stalin remarked somewhat excitedly.

After comrade Aleksandrov again wanted to add something in the spirit of his first remark, comrade Stalin reproachfully added:

“You are well tuned in relation to IMEL.”

“When IMEL,” comrade Stalin continued, “publishes something without a signature, without the names of the authors, this is worse than theft. Nowhere in the world is there anything like it. Why are they afraid to put the names of the authors? It is necessary that people have the freedom to write... The freedom to speak, so that there is someone to criticize. And when you ask, the Propaganda Office of the CC refers to the IMEL, and IMEL is hiding behind the name of the Central Committee. Behind the back of the Central Committee you all are brave people... We need freedom to speak out, and this cannot be touched. What is the relationship of the Agitprop Central Committee with IMEL?”

Here I made a remark that according to the Party Charter adopted by the 18th Party Congress, IMEL is listed under the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, and before that it was a department of the Central Committee.

“Then,” said comrade Stalin, “Agitprop Central Committee should give a thorough but rather average in size biography of VI. Lenin. This is a very big propaganda matter.”

Further comrade Stalin turned to a short biography of J.V. Stalin, whose second edition was prepared by IMEL, and a copy of which he corrected and was holding in his hands.

“A lot of mistakes. The tone is bad, sort of the Socialist-Revolutionary,” said comrade Stalin about his biography.

“I have all sorts of teachings,” continued comrade Stalin speaking from the heart and with some irony in his voice, “up to some kind of doctrine of the constant factors of war. It turns out that I have a doctrine of communism, of industrialization, of collectivization, etc.”

“Praised a lot in this biography, exaltation of the role of the individual. What should the reader do after reading this biography? Get on his knees and pray for me.”

After this comrade Stalin erupted in a number of angry characteristics of this kind of depiction of historical figures:

“You do not educate Marxism.”

“You paint the whole thing so that you kneel down and pray... about whom you write... Bloody educators...

“We do not need idolaters.”

“So you write that I have a doctrine of the constant factors of war, whereas there are writings about it in any history of wars. I, it turns out, wrote a doctrine of communism. As if Lenin spoke only about socialism and said nothing about communism. In reality, I spoke of communism as Lenin had. Further, it appears as if I have a teaching on the industrialization of the country, on the collectivization of agriculture, etc. etc. In fact, it is Lenin who has the merit of raising the question of the industrialization of our country, also regarding the issue of collectivization of agriculture.”

“We have the teachings of Marx and Lenin,” concluded comrade Stalin. “No additional teachings are required.”

“You are trying to raise slaves,” comrade Stalin stressed once again. “And when I’m gone?.. You won’t bring up love for the party ... I die, then what?”

More and more comrade Stalin spoke of the need to educate our people in the spirit of love for the CPSU (b). Love for ideas, for the ideological content (it was not possible for me to write everything down).

A richly decorated, illustrated edition of the biography of J.V. Stalin was laid on the table. Pointing at it, comrade Stalin asked:

“What is this publication for?”

Comrade Aleksandrov tried to justify the release of a small edition of the illustrated edition to say that it was needed for libraries, clubs, etc.

“We have hundreds of thousands of libraries,” comrade Stalin said to this. “Nausea gets hold of me from such a publication.”

Returning to the biography itself, comrade Stalin noted:

“The chapter on the Patriotic War is well composed.”

And then, again touching on the remaining parts of the biography, he continued:

“It is said about Baku that before my arrival the Bolsheviks had nothing there, but as soon as I appeared, everything changed immediately.”

“He made everything...Believe it or not!”

“How did it actually happen? It was necessary to create cadres. Such cadres of the Bolsheviks in Baku were formed. I listed the names of these people in the appropriate place.”

“The same applies to another period.”

“After all, people like Dzerzhinsky, Frunze, Kuibyshev lived, worked, but no one writes about them, they are absent..

“The same applies to the period of World War II.”

“It was necessary to collect capable people, temper them. Such people gathered around the main command of the Red Army.”

“Nowhere is it clear that I am a student of Lenin. I don’t remember, only somewhere it is silently mentioned.”

“In fact, I considered and continue to consider myself a student of Lenin. I clearly said this in a famous conversation with Ludwig. I am a student of Lenin. Lenin taught me, and not vice versa. No one can say that I am not a student of Lenin.’

“He paved the way, and we are walking along this beaten track,” Comrade Stalin stressed.

“As soon as the biography fell into my hands, I won’t miss such things,” he added.

In the course of further conversation, the discussion turned to an upgraded external design of the biography from the previous one (greyish cover, etc.).

“Even better, it could have been well-written in content,” comrade Stalin remarked to this.

Comrade Aleksandrov and others expressed the view that the second edition of the biography of J.V. Stalin is too short, and therefore we must now begin to prepare a more complete biography. In connection with all this comrade Stalin said:

“We must write a biography of Lenin. This is the first priority. All previous biographies of Kerzhentsev, Yaroslavsky and others are outdated as well.”

Comrade Aleksandrov again reminded that the biography of Lenin was already published by IMEL during the Patriotic War and was viewed by comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin did not remember this biography and only said that he would look at it. Aleksandrov then said regarding J.V. Stalin’s biography:

“I would like this to be published soon, in this form.”

“What is the circulation?” asked comrade Stalin.

“1 million,” they called the circulation figure.

“There is not enough paper. There’s enough only for 500 thousand.” “There is a lot of paper now,” the comrades said.

At this time, comrade Stalin, holding a book with a gilded profile of his own head, said:

“Is it possible without those cut off heads?”

Regarding the print run, at the end he said:

“Not more than a million.”

After this comrade Stalin went to his writing desk and, returning back with a book in his hands (History of West European Philosophy), said, referring to Comrade Aleksandrov (author of this publication. – Ed.):

“I would also like to say something about this book. I did not like it. Unsuccessful book it turned out. Comrade Zhdanov also read it. He didn’t like it. This was not written by a combat Marxist, but by a scribe.” “In the past there were socialists in quotation marks and socialists without quotation marks. Legal Marxists, they were not real Marxists. There were armchair socialists. They chewed on pieces of paper. They were far from true Marxism. And I am afraid that we will also have armchair communists. The author of this book looks like an armchair communist. This may be rude, but necessary for clarity. It’s annoying that such a book appeared.”

“It is not clear why so many philosophers appeared in Greece (why did philosophy get such a development there?). A trading class appeared from among the free. The Greeks were then doing great trade with the whole world. And then the world centred around a region of the Mediterranean Sea. They traded with all Mediterranean cities, everywhere along the banks they had their own colonies. They pulled along all the free. The Greeks traveled around the world and developed science.”

“Something similar happened in Europe and in the Renaissance, when the ships of Europeans – Italians, Spaniards, the Dutch went around the world, began to plough around the world.”

“It is generally accepted that Hegel was the ideologist of the German bourgeoisie. This is not true. Hegel’s philosophy reflected the reactionary aspirations of the aristocracy, the fear of the German nobility before the French Revolution.”

“A campaign for French materialism is the basis of German philosophy.”

“So you catch Fourier on contradictions, scolding him for these contradictions. What is it for? It’s good that they had contradictions.”

“All of the German philosophers were against the revolution. They were intimidated by the French Revolution.”

“Without all this, it’s completely impossible to understand why certain philosophical schools appear, what explains their appearance.” “You do not see the difference between the concepts of “reactionary” and “conservative” throughout the book; you do not distinguish between them. Reactionary means going back from what is. Conservative means striving to preserve what is. Hegel, Kant, Fichte pulled back. Anything but to follow the footsteps of the French Revolution.”

“Lewis wrote the history of philosophy. A Marxist should not write like that. It is necessary to give food for thought.”

Further comrade Stalin quotes the following passage from Comrade Aleksandrov’s book regarding the Fourier system:

“The great achievement of Fourier’s social philosophy is the doctrine of the development of mankind...”

“What is this ‘great achievement’?” asks comrade Stalin and continues to quote ironically:

“In its development, society passes, according to Fourier, four phases: 1) upward destruction, 2) upward harmony, 3) downward harmony, 4) downward destruction...”

Along the way comrade Stalin comments:

“This is folly, stupidity, and not a ‘great achievement’!”

“You are raising from the dust what is forgotten.”

“Further, you cannot publish whatever the author himself was not intending to publish. Here’s Lenin’s “Philosophical Notebooks”. Of these, it is necessary to take and quote only the principal part, and not everything that is there.”

“Where did you get some kind of “teaching about circles”? What is this teaching? Think about it? You put into circulation the “teaching about circles”. The young Marxist will seize on this and swing the confused ordinary readers.”

“There were many teachings in history. But we must distinguish between the authors of the teachings – leaders, such as Lenin, who was followed by the masses, and philosophers, who also had their own teachings, but mostly wrote for themselves.”

“Marxism is a religion of the class. If you want to deal with Marxism, be prepared to deal with classes and the masses at the same time.” “We are Leninists. What we write for ourselves is necessary for the people. This is a symbol of faith. But this book, of course, is not a textbook.”

“I, comrade Stalin, I’ll edit the book”, said comrade Aleksandrov.

“I would like you,” said comrade Stalin, “to think about it.”

“You have to object to philosophy!” with some annoyance said comrade Stalin.

“You need to socially explain the basis of German philosophy. Hegel and other German philosophers had a fear of the French Revolution. So they beat the French materialists,” comrade Stalin once again summarized one of the main thoughts of the conversation.

“By the way,” he said, “a hint of what I just talked about was made in my “Anarchism or Socialism?”.”

And comrade Stalin quoted the following passage from his work: “First of all we must know that proletarian socialism is not simply a philosophical doctrine. It is the doctrine of the proletarian masses, their banner; it is honoured and “revered” by the proletarians all over the world. Consequently, Marx and Engels are not simply the founders of a philosophical “school”—they are the living leaders of the living proletarian movement, which is growing and gaining strength every day. Whoever fights against this doctrine, whoever wants to “overthrow” it, must keep all this well in mind so as to avoid having his head cracked for nothing in an unequal struggle. Messieurs the Anarchists are well aware of this. That is why, in fighting Marx and Engels, they resort to a most unusual and, in its way, a new weapon.” (Vol. 1, p. 350)

And again comrade Stalin returned to the question with which he began the conversation:

“You “discovered” as many as six teachings from me. In fact, there is not a single one.”

At the end of the conversation comrade Stalin spoke of a letter to Prof. Beletsky that he received:

“If a person was already forced to write to me when I was on vacation, then it was already taken to extremes.”

They started talking about the fact that Beletsky was unjustly charged that he was a Jew. That, they say, his Russian father is still alive and so on. In this regard, comrade Stalin remarked:

“The one who hides the national origin is a coward, not worth a penny.”

Returning once more to Comrade Aleksandrov’s book, comrade Stalin said:

“The author is like an old peripatetic, glides on slippery skis. It is necessary to write so that each chapter has a centre of impact.”

“No need to rush. Serious books are not written so quickly,” said comrade Stalin about comrade Aleksandrov’s intention to rework his book in half a year.

“And the author has an indifferent approach and manner of writing. The book does not charge. The book loosens.”

Regarding the persecution of Prof. Beletsky comrade Stalin said: “We should not make hasty conclusions about people.”

And yet, again in connection with the conversation about Beletsky, after comrades Iovchuk and Fedoseyev gave the characteristics of Beletsky as a person who is not “positive,” not capable of constructive work, but only capable of criticizing, comrade Stalin added:

“Sloppy, but a thinking person.”

(Further, the manuscript is missing one page, page 21. – Ed.) Comrade Stalin, speaking of Beletsky’s letter, noted that Beletsky would like to discuss comrade Aleksandrov’s book.

“Will we allow such a discussion?” comrade Stalin raised the question first in front of the secretaries of the Central Committee Kuznetsov and Patolichev, and then in front of the deputy chiefs of the Propaganda Directorate, comrades Iovchuk and Fedoseev.

The secretaries answered positively to this question. The deputies reluctantly agreed to this, too.

Thus, in principle, we agreed on the discussion during the conversation.

Source:
https://prometej.info/blog/istoriya/stalin-besedy-s-ideologami/?fbclid=I-wAR0TKTgMKpq0uDlv10C8RIf7tlzf-tDuKfcVa3Bl2Ni-VlqEyXh-Fef2Qpac

Translated from the Russian by Polina Brik.

Click here to return to the April 2022 index.