Parimal Dasgupta
(In a letter written to the General
Secretary of the undivided Communist Party of India dated 15.04.1956)
Dear Comrade,
Almost
three years after the death of Com. Stalin whatever the present leadership of
the Communist Party of Soviet Union has brought up as individual attacks and
criticism, has been more or less supported by our party’s Central Committee in
its proposal (as published in recent newspapers) and this letter is a strong
protest against the aforesaid proposal, which I feel, is my primary
responsibility as a member of our party. Com. Bhupesh Gupta, member of the
Central Committee, has explained CC’s position to us in Calcutta. Though you
have tried to give a sugary coat to the bitter attack on Com Stalin as launched
by the current Soviet leadership, it does not counter the criticism in any way.
This is like patting one on his back while simultaneously kicking him in his
back.
No
sense of blind love or emotional attachment towards an individual has made me
make this protest. The attack on Com. Stalin is an attack on an epoch of
revolutionary Marxism, specially its time tested theories and practices. I,
thus, as a Marxist cadre consider it to be my key responsibility to put forth
my protest. But yes, I am concerned and worried as I think there has been a
severe attack at the roots of the Marxist ideals and thoughts which inspired me
to join this party.
I state
my views briefly:
1. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union at present is in the
leadership role of the world socialist camp and the international proletariat.
Thus any decision of the Soviet Party has worldwide significance. Naturally
thus the working class parties of all other countries must seriously reflect on
the Soviet Party’s decision. It also means that Communist Parties of other
countries have a responsibility towards decisions taken by the Soviet party. Therefore
the decisions of the Soviet Party cannot be kept aside as merely internal
matters of the Soviet Union; rather the yardstick of measuring any such
decision is its leadership of the interest of the international proletarian
struggle. The challenge of providing this leadership lies with the Soviet
Party. Nothing other than this point of view should be the way of analysing the
decisions of the Soviet Party; blind emotional attachment is not at all
pertinent to a position. The central issue is: the safeguarding and leadership of
the International Proletariat.
2. In a particular historical epoch, by being in the leadership role of
the Soviet Communist Party, Com Stalin developed many theories and principles
of Marxism and also, by successfully practicing them, transformed himself from
an individual to a theoretical ideological entity. Thus Stalinism is a chapter
of Marxism. Leninism, which in the age of imperialism, showed how to counter
social-democracy and was the Marxism in the epoch of the establishment of the
first proletarian state in the world, Stalinism is the Marxism in the age of
the establishment, growth and protection of Socialism, of countering Fascism,
of the struggles against Trotskyism, a Marxism in the age of successful new
democratic revolutions, a new phase in the anti-colonial struggles and the age
of decline of capitalism.
Thus
it needs to be seen, after Stalin’s death, if the 20*^ Congress of the Soviet
Party, based on the principles of Stalinism and adapting to the demands to the
current condition, is providing strong leadership and guidance to the onward
march of the proletarian class and enriching Marxism in the process. But what
is evident is that the primary objective of the 20th Party Congress
is to identify Com. Stalin as an individual and push his principles, theories
and practices into oblivion. The Trotskyists had also adopted a similar
strategy against Com. Lenin. They had criticised Com. Lenin by describing him
as the “professional exploiter of every kind of backwardness of the Russian
working class movement”. Later they divided his work into two stages: Pre and
Post October Revolution, completely disowned his pre-October work, while giving
mere formal recognition to the post-October work. Most importantly they adopted
this approach of showing his thoughts, works and practices as isolated events
and as fragments – thus not accepting to show his work as part of a whole and
integral part of a larger body of thought. Com. Stalin had fought against this
strategy of the Trotskyists and had established that Leninism is an integral
part of Marxism. In a changed situation in history, we again see an effort to
identify Com. Stalin as an individual and attack him as a person; to split his
work to pre 1917 Party Congress and post; to decimate the post 1917 period of
his work, and not to accept or dissociate his work, thoughts, practice,
principles as fragments, not contributing integrally to a larger body of
thought and work – such a concerted effort has clearly begun. These tactics are
just a changed form of the Trotskyist strategy.
Later
on, the Trotskyites picked up the flag of Leninism to begin their attack on
Com. Stalin. When Com. Lenin’s theories could not be disputed anymore, then they
started attacking the very person – Com. Stalin – who was upholding Leninism,
in the name of defending Leninism. Similarly it is to be noticed that Com.
Lenin is again being pulled up to build the attack against Com. Stalin. What
needs to be deliberated upon is whether this is strengthening Leninism or
attacking and weakening it. Stalinism is an integral part of Leninism. This
attack will be proven, in days to come, to be actually an attack on Leninism
itself.
3. The Marxist analysis is from ideology and principles to the
individual; not the other way round. But the attack on Com. Stalin is a brutal
personal attack on him, as an individual, in no consonance with the Marxist
analytical framework. Actually by spreading the ideas of a ‘horrible’,
‘despicable’, ‘power-hungry’, ‘dictatorial’, ‘oppressor’, ‘one-manship’ against
him, a negative feeling is sought to be generated against his work, principles,
theories. The Trotskyites had similarly called Lenin, ‘an idiot’,
‘factionalist’, 'believer in coteries of power’. The current attack against Com.
Stalin bears the imprint of these un-Marxist Trotskyist strategies. If one were
to attack Com. Stalin in a truly Marxist way it would have been necessary to
firstly prove his theories and principles wrong and then discard them. But none
of his critics have had the guts to do this. Sometimes some critics have made
some indirect, disdainful negative comments on some of his theories or
positions. Sometimes wrong things are being said about him. This is not really
a truth-seeking approach of breaking the basis of a thought. Not facing up to
the realities in the name of inner party struggle, what is going on is actually
slandering from the dead man’s grave – somewhere from where the person is in no
position to defend himself. This would even put the bourgeois moral-ethical
sensibility to shame.
After
the unprincipled attacks began against Com. Stalin, the critics have had
difficulty in arriving at a common date as to from when Com. Stalin became
‘bad’; some say 1934, some say after the 17th Party Congress, some
say in the last phase of his life, some say at the extreme last phase of his
life, etc. Numerous such confusing statements are doing their rounds. But in
between these very time frames, the Soviet Union under Stalin leadership
progressed substantially; Fascism was dealt a death blow and defeated, many new
democratic states were born, the Chinese revolution was victorious drawing its
understanding from Stalin’s theory of anti-colonial revolutionary struggles.
How was it possible for a ‘degraded’ Stalin to have given leadership to such
epochal tasks?
4.
Actually the main attack against Stalinism has begun with the 20th
Party Congress of the CPSU (b). Thus, intellectuals, people at large, the
working class and the communist activist/ worker/ cadre in particular – these
who are influenced by Marxism – are enraged, worried, dismayed and agitated by
this attack. Because in their minds, Stalin is not just an individual but an
upholder and practitioner of principles. An important chapter in revolutionary
Marxism – Stalinism – is being attempted to be buried under criticism ranging
from ‘Criticism of Stalin’s Faults’, ‘Critique of the cult of the individual', and the
happiest lot are the Trotskyites, social- democrats, bourgeoisie, reactionaries
and they are the ones who are patting the back of the (current) communist
leaders.
5. It
was by taking forward the learning and principles of Leninism that Stalinism
enriched itself. Com Stalin, by correctly identifying the correct drivers of
social progress, and its successful implementation, has ensured his place in
history. This has not happened through intrigue, spreading lies, improper
tactics, and neither can it happen this way. It is being said that Stalin has
distorted history. Actually he has created history and that is why he is in the
hearts of the international working class. Such an acceptance cannot be
achieved by mere presence in the dry pages of books. If it were so, then the
history of human civilisation would have been the story of plotters, of sheer
animalistic power holders, of robbers. This is a distorted view of history.
History cannot be arranged as per the whim and fancies of individuals. And
neither is history created by writing it as someone would want it. And just
inscribing one’s name does not make him the creator of history. Actually the
essence of Stalinism is its theories, principles and ideology and this is not
the property of any individual or group, but an asset of world humanity. Thus
just a few Communist Parties and their leaders cannot become the judge of Com.
Stalin, and it is neither a matter of some secret group meeting; his true judge
is the international working class and world civilisation.
Having
failed to dislodge Stalin’s contribution to this huge historical task and thus
his position in history, you are putting forward only token and nominal appreciation
for the same but at the same time singing along with the tunes of personal
attack, mud-slinging to sideline him and his contribution in the annals of
history. This strategy is really abominable. It is being said that Stalin has
been praised a lot earlier, it is time now for some criticism – one cannot but
lament at such an approach by a Communist Party.
6.
Bereft of principles, attacking a person is against the very principles of
internal struggle within a Communist Party. The Communist Party has shown a new
method of internal struggle: “Praise the leader while alive, abuse him after
death.” If after the death of an individual, individual attack on him forms the
basis of a Communist Party’s principles, then the Party has to discard all
ethical standards and standards of decency it stood up for. We can definitely
discuss about the ideology of the dead person. But for that is required a
scientific analysis of mistakes and new learning’s and appropriate
theorisations. Nothing of this nature was attempted in the case of Com Stalin;
it began with the individual.
7.
Marxism teaches us that to successfully bring about a social transformation it
needs to be based on adoption of correct theory, practice and ideology and
confidence and cooperation of the class (the working class). If Com Stalin was
creating terror within the Party and the country and was acting merely on his
whims and fancies – then how was it possible for him to have achieved the
historical social transformation – there is no Marxist analysis provided by any
of his critics. Without this kind of analysis it is pointless to get into
subjective attacks against the cult of the individual. Such attacks actually dilute
and sidetrack the real issues. Subjective struggles against the cult of the individual
is not Marxism but metaphysics. And if it is not the cult of the individual when we
refer to ‘Lenin’s Central Committee’, then why would be it individual worship
to acknowledge Stalin as a new personality in Marxism after Lenin? In the same
logic then any Marxist like Com. Mao Tse Tung or other like him should not find
any mention in history. Collective leadership does not mean transforming from
an individual to the leader of a small group; it is about accepting the
qualities and abilities of an individual and honing them into large/collective
skills for leading social transformation.
While
giving examples of the cult of the individual Com. Bhupesh Gupta gave us the example of
the people of the Soviet Union who individually felt leaderless at the death of
Com. Stalin. Why just the Soviet Union? Recall the day we heard of his death.
The working people all over the world and Communist cadres the world over felt
leaderless that day and were overwhelmed by grief. From this we know where lies
Com Stalin’s position, his stature. Those who are creators of history are
remembered so, revered so when they are physically no more. The same had
happened on Com. Lenin’s passing away. But Com Stalin did not become the leader
by belittling Com. Lenin. He grew to be a leader by protecting Leninism.
8. At this historical juncture,
Communist leadership is full of mistakes and self-contradiction. They praise
India’s bourgeois leader Mahatma Gandhi. But they have teamed up like never
before to berate, belittle the time tested accepted leader of the world proletariat
– Com. Stalin, as cheerleaders of the false campaign unleashed by the
imperialists and the bourgeoisie. The prestige of socialism is being tarnished
by this.
9. Thus revolutionary Marxism is in
a turbulent phase. Many of its core principles are under attack. Where is its
source is something we should find out. On the face of it, observing many
trends and incidents at present, it seems that the old social democratic
principles and thoughts are back again wearing new clothes and in
organisational procedures and methods one can see imprints of some Trotskyist
tactics. And this is happening at a time of socialist advancement, crisis of
capitalism, and acute crisis of imperialism, in a present world situation which
is latent with unprecedented opportunities for Marxism and whose flag and
leadership is held aloft by Stalinism and which has been enriched and
established by Stalinism – there is an attack on this leadership of
revolutionary Marxism. Thus there is crisis of revolutionary Marxism.
10. It is to be noted that the
‘secret meeting’ of the Soviet Party in which issues relating to Com. Stalin
were discussed, fraternal organisational representatives were not allowed to be
present and some Soviet leaders (including all of you) have labelled Com.
Stalin’s issue as an internal matter of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Party.
Thus Com. Stalin is being shown as a ‘national’ person. But his criticism is
being made worldwide against the worldwide applicability of Com Stalin’s
theorisation and ideology; and without spreading a personal smear campaign
against him internationally there is no way to destroy the international base
of his ideology.
11. Thus one needs to have a
comprehensive awareness of the centre of attack. If the core issue is clear
other issues would also become clear. Today, for the sake of revolutionary
Marxism, it is a pious and paramount responsibility of every Marxist, to
immediately put a stop to this smear campaign and attack on Comrade Stalin.
Those, from among the current leadership of the Soviet Party who have, after
the death of Com Stalin, attacked him personally, their commitment to the
Bolshevik principles of internal struggle, its fearless approach and those of
you who now claim who had, during earlier visits to the Soviet Union, started locating
some errors of Com. Stalin, I do not want to raise the weight of this letter by
questioning their genuineness.
My
main objective is to request all of you to re-assess as to where we are going
and where heading to with all this criticism and attack on Com. Stalin – what
is the direction we are taking? On other questions of principles and ideology,
I have decided to write to the party. At the moment, I request all of you, in
this moment of storm over the sky of revolutionary Marxism, to stop the current
dangerous methods and tactics and trends by showing the required Bolshevik
mindset, courage and determination, to save the communist party from severe
defeat. In this regard two steps need to be taken immediately: (a) a forum of
discussion across Communist Parties of all countries should be immediately
established and correct strategies and tactics should be adopted for the
present conditions and (b) request the Soviet Party to immediately put a stop
to all criticism against Com. Stalin.
I hope
that at the next Party Congress you will take effective steps (to stop this
unwarranted dangerous criticism of Com. Stalin) and pass a resolution with a
call to continue the struggle to defend Stalinism.
Through
you I am presenting my views to the Central Committee and the Party Congress. I
hope that you will present this to the CC and circulate it among the delegates
to the Party Congress.
I
place my demand to the Central Committee that a “party newsletter” should be
published which will give opportunity to party members and cadres to be made
aware of Com. Stalin and his contributions.
I
fully believe that this temporary obfuscation of revolutionary Marxism will not
be able to survive long; it will be defeated one day and Stalinism will
continue to shine in its own light.
Translated from the Bengali by Avijit Wasi
Click here to return to the October 2019 index.