I am only a disciple of Lenin and it is my whole ambition to be a faithful disciple.—STALIN
JOSEPH STALIN, then, was attracted to Marxism without even knowing of the existence of Lenin. It was in 1898, while he was still in the Theological College of Tiflis, and of course already an active member of the illegal group of revolutionaries, that an article written by Lenin in a paper published by the St. Petersburg League for the Emancipation of the Working-Class arrested his attention. Whatever else he had learned in his college days he had acquired a preciseness of utterance and an analytical method of thinking which made him an outstanding figure among his fellow-students. When he saw the article by this hitherto, to him, unknown writer, it was these qualities in it which at once appealed to him.
It was entitled Who are the Friends of the People and how they fight Against the Social Democrats. The “Friends of the People” were the Narodniks. The article contained an analysis of the economic development of Russia. It also declared that Marxism was not a dogma but a scientific theory. It had this virtue—it squared with the facts. The article concluded:
It is on the industrial working-class that the Social Democrats centre their attention and their activity. When the advanced members of that class shall have assimilated the ideas of Scientific Socialism and the idea of the rôle of the Russian workman in history, when their ideas are widespread and the workmen have created stable organisations that will transform the disconnected economic war of to-day into a conscious class struggle—then will the Russian Workman, rising at the head of all democratic elements, overthrow absolutism and lead the Russian Proletariat (by the side of the proletariat of all countries) along the straight way of open political struggle towards a Victorious Communist Revolution.
It appeared to the young Stalin that here was a leader who understood Russia and the workers, who knew what he wanted and how to get it. From the moment of reading this article he watched for every word from the new writer. Soon this unfamiliar figure on his horizon became his hero of heroes. Without Lenin knowing it, he had won a disciple who was absorbing his teaching and enthusiastically expounding it every day. One of his fellow-students recalls how, one morning in 1898, he found Stalin in the college square with a group of students around him trenchantly criticising the views of Jordania, a Georgian leader of the Social Democratic Group. Stalin had just read an article by Lenin which was the key to his criticism. He passed it to his friend Kapanadze, saying: “I must meet him at all costs.”
He first got to know him by correspondence five years later. Of his view of Lenin at that time Stalin himself said long afterwards, “I saw in him then, not a simple leader of the Party, but its actual founder. For he alone understood the inner being and immediate needs of our Party. When I compared him with his brothers-in-arms, Plekhanov, Martov, Axelrod and the others, they were a head lower than Lenin. Beside them he was not just one of the leaders, but a leader of a higher type, a mountain eagle, who did not know fear in the struggle and who boldly led the Party forward over the unexplored paths of the Russian revolutionary movement.”
It was not until 1905, at a Party conference in Tammerfors, Finland, that he met his hero face to face. Then he got a shock. He says:
I was hoping to see the mountain eagle [how this phrase recurs!] of our Party, the great man, great not only politically, but, if you will, physically, because in my imagination I pictured Lenin as a giant, stately and imposing. What, then, was my disappointment to see a most ordinary-looking man, below average height, in no way, literally no way, distinguishable from ordinary mortals . . .
It is accepted as the usual thing for a “great man” to come late to meetings so that the assembly may await his appearance with bated breath; and then, just before the great man enters, the warning goes up: “Hush! . . . Silence! . . . He’s coming.” This rite did not seem to me superfluous, because it creates an impression, inspires respect. What, then, was my disappointment to learn that Lenin had arrived at the conference before the delegates, had settled himself somewhere in a corner and was unassumingly carrying on a conversation, a most ordinary conversation with the most ordinary delegates at the Conference. I will not conceal from you that at that time this seemed to me to be rather a violation of certain essential rules.
That Stalin promptly made a revaluation of the qualities and bearing necessary to leaders goes without saying, for of all men to-day none carries himself with less affectation. Other qualities of his hero impressed him greatly. Of Lenin’s speeches he said:
I was captivated by that irresistible force of logic in them, which, although somewhat terse, thoroughly overpowered his audience, gradually electrified it and then, as the saying goes, captivated it completely. I remember that one of the delegates said: “The logic of Lenin’s speeches is like a mighty tentacle which seizes you on all sides as in a vice and from whose grip you are powerless to tear yourself away: you must either surrender or make up your mind to utter defeat.”
When Lenin met Plekhanov, Axelrod, and others, one and all agreed that here was a leader out of the ordinary. Plekhanov is said to have described him as a future Robespierre, and Axelrod, meeting him in Geneva, was convinced that he was in the presence of the future leader of the Russian Revolution. In what consists the greatness of Lenin, that he should create such a powerful impression on the minds of the young revolutionaries and even on the elders among Russian Marxists? I think it can be summed up thus: Lenin was the living embodiment of all that is contained in the epigram of Marx—“Hitherto philosophers have explained the world in various ways. Our task is to change it.” Lenin did not reject the task of explaining the world, but he explained it in order to change it. Having found from Marx the laws governing the evolution of society, he proceeded to apply them to his own age and generation, creating a technique that was essential for the harnessing and development of the forces which were to change the world according to his will.
He studied the laws of social development as taught by Marx and Engels, applied them to the development of society and enlarged the theories behind them. His analysis of the Russian economic and political situation convinced him, not that it would automatically and inevitably become Socialist, but that it would present in the course of the next decades an opportunity to avoid to a large extent a whole epoch which had marked the history of other countries—always provided the Russian working-class could be developed by a revolutionary Socialist leadership in time to seize the opportunity when it arrived.
Plekhanov and others saw this too. It was not in this that Lenin the Marxist differed from the elder Marxists or from Marx himself. He differed in his conception of the means of developing the working-class into a revolutionary Socialist class. Plekhanov, Axelrod and many more were the propagandists and the exponents of the written word. Lenin applied the principles of Marxism to life. What Marx and Engels had written he treasured, and possibly knew better than any man every book and every document ever penned by them; but to him documents were documents and remained documents. Life is ever-changing. He digested the ideas in the books as means to the understanding of changing phenomena. He read history deeply, not for the sake of erudition but to learn from the experience of man in order to make history anew.
It never entered his head to think that Marx and Engels were infallibles who had said the final word on philosophy, science and history, and that all he had to do was to throw three volumes of Marx’s Capital at every working-man’s head in order to make him a revolutionary Socialist. On the contrary, he grasped what Marx and Engels had done, and making their principles his own proceeded to develop and apply them. This great distinction between Lenin and his colleagues was noticable in the days following his arrival in St. Petersburg and was soon seen to be of fundamental importance. It was agreed by all that there should be a Social Democratic Labour Party. But what kind of party was it to be? Of whom should it be composed? What principles should govern its conduct? What were its tasks?
Lenin was convinced and determined that it should be a party such as had never yet seen the light of day—a party of determined revolutionaries equipped with scientific Socialism, who were deeply rooted in the industrial working-class, who were daring and courageous in their conduct. They must be without illusions about the meaning of revolution and what it entailed, refuse to reflect the backwardness of the workers but be ready to lead them into civil war and the insurrectionary struggle for power.
It will be appreciated that here was an entirely new approach to the problem of forming a political party. Every party hitherto formed had been limited to the defence of particular interests, the propagation of a programme to be secured within the existing structure of society, of the conspiracy of a group to seize power on its own account. A conservative party arises to hold society to its yesterdays, a liberal party to liberalise it, a labour party to reform it by words and gentle persuasion, a fascist party to save it by convulsions, a socialist revolutionary party to terrorise it into making peasant reforms. But here was a proposition to organise a new kind of party, with new methods and a new outlook on life itself. It would be composed of members who would scientifically analyse the structure of society and the relationship of the contending class forces within it. It would place greater value on the quality of its members than on their number. It would carry no passengers. It would integrate itself with the rising class and develop a strategy and tactics governed by one dominating purpose—the insurrectionary conquest of political power by the working-class as the essential prerequisite for social revolution.
Marx had not conceived such a party. The nearest approximation to it, but only in a programmatic sense, was the Social Democratic Party of Germany, which accepted Marxism as its philosophy in general, and contained in its programme “the dictatorship of the Proletariat” and the recognition of the necessity of the conquest of power through civil war. But these features had faded into the background as the party grew and became more and more parliamentary. Indeed, so concerned were Marx and Engels about its rapid degeneration from their principles that on more than one occasion they were on the point of dissociating themselves from this party they had done so much to develop. Lenin saw from the outset that it was not sufficient to have subscribers to a programme. The Party of his conception must also have regard for the quality of its members and the criterion of quality must be the activity of the members.
To Lenin revolution was an art as well as a science. He saw Russia as a country already in a process of revolution. Every social class except the most backward of serf-owners and nobility were against the antiquated despotism that ruled the land—capitalists, peasants, the working-class, the oppressed nationalities, the intelligentsia. Not one of these could make a revolution on its own. None of the oppressed nations of the Russian Empire could secure its own liberation. The peasants could revolt, but never lead a Socialist revolution. The capitalists wanted a revolution which would bring them to power, but were afraid of any attempt to lead one on the French model of 1789 lest the Jacobins of Russia should carry the revolution beyond them. Nor had the capitalists become strong enough yet to be decisive in the political struggle. Moreover the demand for political democracy was growing as the new industrial working-class began to develop mass struggles against the conditions governing their daily lives. As Lenin saw the situation unfolding it would be a race between the working-class and the capitalist class.
Therefore the working-class had to be provided with a general staff of trained Socialist leaders, and must be united in its convictions. The leaders must be trained in revolutionary warfare, and the best of the workers trained with them, so that they could transform an unarmed working-class into an armed working-class ready and willing to use its arms. Furthermore they must infect the forces of the crown with their ideas. Lenin summed up the situation thus:
History has placed before us a task which is more revolutionary than the immediate tasks of the proletariat of any other country. The completion of this task, the destruction of the strongest bulwark of European, and we may say Asiatic, reaction would make of the Russian proletariat the vanguard of the international proletarian revolution. And we have the right to believe that we will earn this title of honour—deserved already by our, predecessors, the revolutionaries of the Seventies—if we are able to inspire our movement—a thousand times more extensive and profound than theirs—with the same unconditioned audacity and energy.[1]
The creation of such a party could not be achieved by merely publishing a programme and calling for supporters; and here again Lenin stands out from other leaders in that he saw clearly how the party must germinate amid strife, grow amid strife, and produce in its striving all the qualities demanded of it by the revolution it was designed to lead. Lenin started on his great work as the master revolutionary by plunging into a fierce ideological battle with the revolutionary intelligentsia and carrying the battle direct to the workers of St. Petersburg. From the outset it was a new kind of political fighting, for he would not permit the battle to be merely a theoretical discussion. Every issue discussed had to have its practical application. Theory had to be tested by practice. How he waged this fight and watched every step in its development, is to be clearly seen at an early stage in a remarkable publication (published 1902) called What is to be Done? wherein he says:
The history of Russian Social Democracy can be divided into three distinct periods: The first period covers about ten years, approximately the years 1884 to 1894. This was the period when the theory and programme of Social Democracy germinated and took root. The number of adherents to the new tendency in Russia could be counted in units. Social Democracy existed without a labour movement; it was, as it were, in its period of gestation.
The second period covers three or four years—1894 to 1898. In this period Social Democracy appeared in the world as a social movement, as the rising of the masses of the people, as a political party. This is the period of its infancy and adolescence. Social Democratic ideas spread among the intelligentsia like an epidemic and they became entirely absorbed in the fight against Populism (the Narodniks) in going among the workers, and the latter, in their turn were entirely absorbed in fomenting strikes. The movement made enormous strides. . . .
The third period, as we have seen, began in 1897 and definitely replaced the second period in 1898 —. This was the period of confusion, disintegration and vacillation. In the period of adolescence the youth’s voice breaks. The voice of Russian Social Democracy in this period began to break, began to strike a false note. . . . But it was only the leaders who wandered from the path; the movement itself continued to grow and advanced by enormous strides. . . . The fourth period will see the consolidation of militant Marxism. . . . We will have a genuine vanguard of the most revolutionary class. . . .
So he proceeded step by step, examining each stage, looking both back and ahead with scientific eyes, always coming down with sureness upon the next thing to be done. He answers his own question fully and completely. The book was the first of its kind, for hitherto there had been no theoretical treatment of the question of how to organize a revolutionary social democratic party. For the first time Marxism is applied to its own weapon. Lenin himself never refers to any of his contributions as “Leninism”: that was left for his successors. But herein is his first distinctive contribution to the theory and practice of Marxism in Russia.
I say “in Russia” advisedly, for of all men he would deride the idea of automatically transferring the Russian party organisation elsewhere. He would insist that its principles were meet for application anywhere, but they must be adapted to circumstances or the results would not give satisfaction. What is to be Done? examines every trend of opinion in the Russian working-class movement, analyses it, and having analysed states the conclusions with a precision which leaves no room for misunderstanding. These were Lenin’s conclusions:
I assert: (1) That no movement can be durable without a stable organisation of leaders to maintain continuity; (2) that the more widely the masses are drawn into the struggle and form the basis of the movement, the more necessary is it to have such an organisation and the more stable must it be (for it will be less easy then for demagogues to side-track the more backward sections of the masses); (3) that the organisation must consist chiefly of persons engaged in revolution as a profession; (4) that in a country with a despotic government, the more we restrict the membership of this organisation to persons who are engaged in revolution as a profession and who have been professionally trained in the art of combating the political police, the more difficult will it be to catch the organisation; and (5) the wider will be the circle of men and women of the working-class or of other classes in society able to join the movement and perform active work in it.
He follows these five proposals with another—the establishment of an all-Russian newspaper of an entirely new type—a paper which would be at once agitator, propagandist, and organiser. It was to be the means of centralising leadership and developing the activity and thinking of the masses—in short, to give a lead to the revolution everywhere.
I have dwelt upon this work of Lenin because it is fundamental to the understanding of the man and his life-work and to comprehending Joseph Stalin, his successor. The party was the instrument without which he could not function in the task of changing the world. But because it was a living, vital, human instrument, attracting to itself all the other instruments of revolution which were growing as part of a tremendous social movement, the intensity of the ideological struggle within it far exceeded that within other institutions. Every problem had to be thrashed out theoretically, yet always Lenin made the theoretical conflict into a practical political fight.
What is to be Done? did not put the proposals he had outlined as an ideal scheme which one could accept or reject without affecting the work in hand. First the ground must be cleared by a fight against those who wished the workers to concentrate on economic questions, those who wanted them to follow trade union politics—which were concerned only with the “improvement of the conditions of the workers,” those who talked of “spontaneous revolution,” and those who relied on local activity and opposed centralisation. These varying trends were all in the movement, and had to be eradicated before there could be unity.
His eminent practicality did not deny Lenin his dreams. He dreamed of the electrification of all Russia, and began to make it come true in the midst of the famine and desolation of the years of civil war. He dreamed of the day when Sir William Ramsay’s scheme for the gasification of coal in the earth would become a reality and it would no longer be necessary for hundreds of thousands of miners to burrow into the bowels of the earth as a means of life. He dreamed of the new social man who would deem it a crime to exploit his fellow man; of men and women who had become comrades in a rich and abundant life, of a day when the most advanced would strike off the political and mental fetters of the most backward. But he never let his dreams run away with him. First things with him had to come first, and these consisted of creating the conditions in which the dreams could materialise.
The influence of this man on the young Marxist movement of Russia when Joseph Stalin began his apprenticeship to revolution was universally acknowledged. That Stalin turned to him as his teacher and leader can hardly be a matter for surprise, nor is it surprising that this circumstance played a decisive part in the moulding of the Georgian student into the professional revolutionary who was to become Lenin’s successor.
1. Lenin’s collected works, vol. V, p. 138.
Next: IV. The Revolutionary Apprentice