How Did Marxism as Applied in Russia Result in Stalinism?

Zach Foster

JUNE 2013 PLS 101

CSU Pomona

Introduction

Popular history often views the Soviet Union in contradictory ways. While historians tend to

study with excited enthusiasm the Russian Revolution and the Soviet experience in World War II, the

post-war period is met with colder reception. The Russian Revolution and early years of the Bolshevik

regime are treated as heroic while Stalin’s assumption to power and the Cold War period are seen as

tragedies. Some Russia historians and Marxist philosophers view the rise of Lenin as progress in

practical application of Marxist theory, but the rise of Stalin is treated as a tragic betrayal of the Russian

Revolution and the humanistic principles of Marxism. However, was the totalitarian Soviet state under

Stalin truly a betrayal of Marxism?

One argues in favor of such a notion. Zoltan Barany takes great pains to differentiate between

Karl Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the dictatorships of various Marxist revolutionary

vanguards around the world. However, while in general agreement with Barany’s purist defense of

Marx’s theory, many would argue against him when it comes to practical application of revolutionary

Marxist ideas, most notably the dictatorship of the proletariat. Robert Mayer makes the case for the

violent nature of the Bolshevik revolution is firmly founded in Marxist revolutionary theory, the latter

inspired in part by the Jacobins in the French Revolution. E. Van Ree analyzed Stalin’s private library

and, from pouring over Stalin’s notes and books, comes to the conclusion that Stalin was a dedicated

Marxist ‘til the very end. Ree also paints Stalin as a Marxist philosopher, adding his own contributions to

Marxism through expanding Marx’s own theories of dialectical and historical materialism. A thorough

analysis of these four scholarly journal articles, coupled with contributing points from other books and

articles on Marxist theory and Soviet history, lead to the idea that Stalinism is the logical conclusion to

the practical application of Marxist theory.

Definition of key concepts

Let Marxism be defined in this study as the worldview of history, political economy, and society

based on the writings and observations by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Such writings and

observations include, but are not limited to, The Communist Manifesto, The Civil War in France, and the

various editorials published in Marx’s Neue Rheinische Zeitung (New People’s Paper). Let Stalinism be

defined as an evolved form of Marxism as shaped by Lenin—Marxist-Leninism—and influenced by

Joseph Stalin, including both Stalin’s Marxist-Leninist theory and the policies of his regime, including

industrialization, collectivization of agriculture, and state institutionalization of terror. A “logical

conclusion” is an end that results from a series of events that follow each other logically. Hence, this

paper demonstrates how Karl Marx’s writings were followed by various linear attempts to practically

apply his theories, and that chain of events in which one event resulted in another logically ended with

Stalin’s ideas and totalitarian regime.

The Communist Manifesto already defines the “proletariat” as the majority of the world’s citizens

who are of the working class and exploited by the minority “bourgeoisie,” or the owners of the means of

production—industry—and private property, as well as their hired management that closely watches over

the proletarians as they are exploited both in and out of the work place (Marx & Engels 1848).

“Dialectical materialism” is Marx’s interpretation of the German philosopher Hegel’s theory of

dialectics. Marx’s take on Hegel’s dialectics stresses that economic orders (such as feudalism, capitalism,

etc.) evolve to a plateau of maximum efficiency, during which they further develop internal contradictions

and flaws that contribute to their systematic decay, creating opportunities for the rise of a new economic

order (Kautsky 1887). “Historical materialism” is Marx’s other interpretation of Hegel, supplementary to

dialectical materialism. Historical materialism stresses that world history is the history of class struggle,

and only epic struggle between diametrically opposed classes of people can move history from one stage

to the next.

According to Marx, the first stage of human history is the age of primitive communism, where

early peoples lived a tribal lifestyle and held property in common (Marx & Engels 1848). Next came the

age of slavery, of the empires that grew because they achieved high productivity from exploiting vast

reserves of slave labor. This era includes the various Greek states, the Roman Empire, and other great

societies. Following the slow decline and dissolution of the Roman Empire came the age of feudalism as

practiced in Europe and Asia during the Middle Ages. Feudalism was followed by the age of capitalism,

whose peak Marx was convinced he was witnessing. Following capitalism would come the age of

socialism, during which true democracy would be the norm as states would serve the interests of the

proletariat rather than those of the bourgeoisie as during the capitalist stage. Finally the state and uses of

money would wither away into the communist stage of history.

The “dictatorship of the proletariat” is defined in this paper as the unique economic and social

order that would arise during the socialist stage of history. The proletariat would rule in all major

spheres: the state, economic affairs, and the social order. Let “class consciousness” be defined as an

individual’s or a group’s awareness of their class membership—either proletarian or bourgeois—as well

as their understanding of dialectical and historical materialism, and their fulfillment of the laws of history

in taking an active role in the proletarian revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

For purposes of historical clarity, the Jacobins were the leading revolutionary party in the French

Revolution which carried out their deeds in the name of the common people—the Third Estate—and

ultimately waged a campaign of brutal terror and executed thousands of people (Mayer 1999). The

Bolsheviks were the Marxist party in Russia, led by Vladimir Lenin, which spearheaded the October

Revolution in 1917. The Bolshevik Party in later decades formally adopted the name “Communist Party

of the Soviet Union.” The term “Mensheviks” refers to the Social Democratic Party, instrumental in the

Russian Revolution, whose right wing opposed the Bolshevik regime by the full-scale outbreak of the

Russian Civil War in 1918. The use of the word “soviet” in the lower case refers to a council of workers

charged with the power to make decisions of their spheres of work or local government. The word

“Soviet” in capitalized form refers to a person or entity in the Soviet Union.

Literature Review

Zoltan Barany analyzes Marx’s concept of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” in its various

interpretations, from Marx’s original conceptualizations down to Stalin’s institutionalization of terror.

Barany takes Marx’s dictatorship theory at face value in the context of its first appearance in the brief

1852 statement “Class Struggle and Mode of Production,” following up with analysis of Marx’

commentary in later writings. The picture he paints is that Marx never referred to a dictatorship of

absolute authority, but rather rule-at-large by the working class who make their own decisions—local

democracy—in contrast to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which is a key feature of the capitalist stage

of history (Barany 1997). Barany also takes into account Vladimir Lenin’s application of the proletarian

dictatorship and interprets it as authoritarian rule by the Bolshevik Party, as other revolutionary parties in

Russia were deemed unfit to rule by the Bolsheviks due to their lack of class consciousness. Joseph

Stalin’s idea of the dictatorship began with the absolute authority of the dominant faction of the

Bolshevik Party—the Party had become greatly disunited after Lenin’s death—and later the absolute

authority of Stalin himself.

The role the French Jacobins played in contributing to Marxist theory is truly fascinating. Robert

Mayer mentions how Marx rarely discussed the Jacobins in his writings, but takes into account Marx’s

various mentions of them in order to paint an overall image of the way Marx viewed them. Essentially,

Marx saw the Jacobins as revolutionaries, but not proletarian, therefore it was not a good idea for the

proletariat to imitate the Jacobins in the imminent proletarian revolution, lest the proletariat make the

same mistakes the Jacobins made which ultimately led to their downfall and the great counter-revolution

in France (Mayer 1999). Despite Marx’s apparent disdain for the Jacobins (more will be discussed on this

topic later), Lenin developed an admiration for them—influenced by the writings of his rival and Marxist

philosopher Georgi Plekhanov—and saw the Jacobins as tragic heroes who may have had the best

interests of the working classes at heart, but were not themselves working class, nor was the world ready

for a proletarian revolution (Mayer 1999).

Two other articles penned by scholar E. Van Ree challenge popular misconceptions by Marxist

and Soviet apologists that Stalin was not a Marxist, but simply a despot who conveniently used the

rhetoric of Marxism to betray the Bolshevik revolution and advance his own agenda. While Stalin

certainly advanced his agenda, Ree demonstrates that Stalin had a firm understanding of Marxism, saw

himself as a Marxist, and even made original contributions to Marxist theory. “Stalin and Marxism”

discusses hundreds of books in Stalin’s personal library which bear the markings of being often read, as

well as extensive notes Stalin wrote by hand in the margins. “Among the 390 titles with Stalin’s notes,

there are 69 by Lenin and twelve by Marx. Other important Marxists are represented as follows: Trotskii

(8), Kautsky (7), Bogdanov (5), Bukharin and Engels (4), and one each by Kamenev, [Rosa] Luxemburg,

Plekhanov, Radek, and Zinov’ev” (Ree 1997). One interesting note Ree makes that is worthy of mention

is how Stalin paid much attention to Marx’s “Critique of the Gotha Program” in which Stalin underlined

the phrase “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” as well as underlining all the references Marx

makes to the collectivization of agriculture—the latter which inspired Lenin’s plan for collectivization

which Stalin carried out. Also worthy of mention is how Ree writes that, while Stalin joined Lenin in

deviating from the idea of a state run entirely by the workers (due to its failure in the early years of the

Bolshevik regime), to Stalin’s dying day he believed that the state would indeed wither away according to

Marx’s historical materialist theory.

“Stalin as a Marxist Philosopher” demonstrates Stalin’s supplementary development of Marx’s

historical materialist concept. Ree argues that while contemporary Marxists were finding answers in

biology and sociology to explain trends and movements in history, Stalin argued that ideas themselves are

forces which influence history. Stalin also made Marxism more scientific by stressing that the laws of

history cannot become a “fetish” to which historians and social scientists become slaves, but rather should

keep an open mind in interpreting the history of class struggle and consider alternate explanations that

may limit the sphere of influence of such “laws of history” (Ree 1997). To put it plainly, let it not be said

that Stalin was not a Marxist. Clearly he was, regardless of how bitterly modern-day Marxists and Soviet

apologists disagree with his ideas and policies.

Additional sources will be used to counter-balance the theses, observations, and conclusions

presented in the journal articles. Supplementary to the additional sources used will be various writings by

Karl Marx, the father of Marxist socialist theory. Though the Marxist texts analyzed will primarily

consist of works by Karl Marx, several of Friedrich Engels’ writings will be used as well, since Engels

co-wrote the Communist Manifesto and is widely considered to have equal authority as Marx in the

foundation and development of Marxist theory.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Whether one fundamentally believes in Marxist theory or not, Marxism presents a wide variety of

problems when it comes to bridging the gap between abstract theory and practical application in real life.

First and foremost are contradictions within Marx’s writings, which present opportunities for the slightest

disagreement in the interpretation of ideas—both political and economic—by different factions to

produce radically different sets of doctrine. For example, in Capital Volume I Marx adds to the concept

of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat by calling for the expropriation of businessmen and managers via

complete democratization of industry. In effect, each workplace would be run by workers’ councils

consisting of members elected by their co-workers and immediately recallable (Marx 1867). In direct

contradiction, Volume III allows the concession of admitting to the importance of management in the

workplace, albeit clarifying that managers would be special workers rather than members of the petty

bourgeoisie (Marx 1894). Regardless of classifying managers as co-workers equal to the laborers they

oversee, preserving management is implicit of keeping the authority to make decisions in the hands of

management rather than the workers. Both of these styles of workplace organization were adopted—tried

out—by the Bolshevik Party during Vladimir Lenin’s tenure as leader of Soviet Russia. Nationalization

of industry and direct-democratization of the workplace were adopted by the Party as public policy in

1918, and this course of action failed to yield the desired economic output (Pipes 1995). To remedy the

economic situation, the Party adopted a New Economic Policy which reinstated managers running

workplaces in a mixed economy (McCauley), and the workers lost all say in the workplace, being now

required by law to obey managers who operated on behalf of the state. Such an instance as the one just

explained demonstrate how contradictions in Marx’s writings turn out to be the difference between direct

democracy and authoritarianism.

Barany accurately portrays Marx’s vision of the dictatorship of the proletariat as local democracy

for the working class in politics, governmental affairs, and the workplace. All spheres of life would be

run by the proletariat. Unfortunately, Marx undermines his vision of such a dictatorship by providing

little or no guidance on how it will look when it occurs or how it will even be implemented. This hole in

Marx’s theory creates the need to look for answers elsewhere in Marx’s writings. In the third section of

the Communist Manifesto, Marx writes about the contrasts between various socialist movements in

Europe and his own Communist League, a precursor to the First International. While he does point out

some of the qualities of these various schools of socialist thought which correspond to the doctrine and

aims of the Communist League, Marx bitterly denounces them as reactionary. “Petty bourgeois

socialism” in France in England is classified as “both reactionary and Utopian”; the socialist movement in

Germany is said to “belong to the domain of [the] foul and enervating”; conservative socialism is accused

of serving only the interests of the bourgeoisie; and the critical-utopian socialists and communists

“violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class” (Marx & Engels 1848).

Marx follows up on these bitter criticisms in the fourth section of the Communist Manifesto in

which he represents the Communists—the parties and organizations aligned with the Communist

League—as the true revolutionary party that faithfully and correctly fight to attain both the immediate and

future aims and interests of the international working class. This relatively brief section does not imply,

but rather openly states that his brand of socialists is in the right whereas all others are wrong. What this

does imply is that the Communists are operating according to the laws of history and that history is on

their side, whereas the other working class movements and socialist schools of thought—despite their

good intentions—are reactionary groups that ultimately serve the interests of the bourgeoisie and

therefore are counter-revolutionary. This overt chauvinism expressed by Marx on behalf of the

Communist League provides an ideological basis for Lenin’s dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in

1918, only months into the new regime’s tenure. Historian Richard Pipes sheds light on the short

existence of the Constituent Assembly, formed by the Bolsheviks as Lenin operated under the assumption

that the Bolsheviks would have a majority in this multi-party legislative body, thus appropriating the

revolutionary coalition government as a mere shell to pretend Soviet Russia wasn’t really the Bolshevik’s

party-state. Much to Lenin’s dismay, the Socialist Revolutionary Party won a majority of seats in the

Constituent Assembly while the Bolsheviks barely won a quarter, so Lenin dissolved the Assembly (Pipes

1995). After all, the Bolsheviks as Marxists viewed themselves as the revolutionary party of the working

class whereas the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries were at best quasi-socialists who ultimately

served the interests of the bourgeoisie. Lenin’s actions reflected the Bolsheviks’ chauvinist attitude

which fell directly in line with the position Marx expresses in sections three and four of the Manifesto.

This Marxist partisan chauvinism also provided the ideological basis for Lenin’s commonplace exclusion

of the other revolutionary parties from the government (Pipes 1995). That same chauvinism furthermore

provided a logical basis for Stalin’s regime outlawing all other political parties, thereby formalizing the

Soviet Union as a one-party state. In this sense, Barany is partially correct about Lenin and Stalin

misinterpreting the dictatorship, but also incorrect in his assertion that the Russian dictators were

operating outside of Marxist doctrine in their highly undemocratic policies.

The Jacobin tradition in Marxism

Robert Mayer’s commentary on Lenin’s identification with the Jacobins presents another

problematic flaw in Marxist theory. The problem is in the question of how the workers will rise up, seize

control of industry and the state, and abolish the existing social order—namely the oppressive class

system and capitalist system. While the underlying theme of Marx’s writings throughout his career is that

the proletariat will rise up and class struggle will move the wheels of history, Marx provides no details or

guidance for the working class on how they will actually accomplish the revolution. Mayer correctly

portrays Marx’s attitude toward the Jacobins through his limited coverage of them, and is very astute in

his observations and conclusions on Lenin identifying with the Jacobins through influences within the

Marxist school of thought. However, Mayer errs in attributing the favorable view of the Jacobins chiefly

to the influence of the German socialist Karl Kautsky and the Russian Marxist Georgi Plekhanov, when

the approval for Jacobin-style tactics lays in Marx’s own words.

Marx often covered revolutions and uprisings around the world, from the Indian Mutiny to the

American Civil War. Two episodes in particular stand out among his writings. The first uprising was the

wave of revolutions that swept Europe in 1848. The second was the Paris uprising in 1871 at the end of

the Franco-Prussian War. Though Marx covered the other 1848 revolutions in Austria, France, Germany,

and Eastern Europe, he paid special attention to the events in Paris. While Marx labeled the February

Revolution which overthrew Louis-Philippe as a bourgeois revolution, his coverage of the June Days

Uprising shows his enthusiastic support for the armed uprising of the Parisian workers—in his eyes, the

proletariat (Marx, Jun. 1848). At the end he makes it clear that he feels no sympathy for the soldiers,

militiamen, and police who have died fighting the armed Parisian workers, and that the workers are the

real victims of years of violence and abuse by the French bourgeoisie. In the same newspaper, Marx’s

partner Engels wrote less than a week earlier about the workers’ uprising in Paris, calling it a “bloody

clash” and the insurrection “decidedly proletarian” (Engels 1848). Days earlier, Marx called the armed

uprising by the Parisian workers and the ensuing combat an “insurrection growing into the greatest

revolution that has ever taken place, into a revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie” (Marx,

Jun. 1848). Marx and Engels’ extensive newspaper coverage of the Paris uprising and the language used

to praise the workers and demonize the various elements of the “bourgeois counter-revolutionaries” offer

a powerful testimony that Marx fully supported the uprising, and that violence was an acceptable means

for the working class to set up a workers’ government. The idea that armed conflict is an acceptable

means of founding a new government is very Jacobin in its nature. This pro-insurgent view falls in line

with Marx’s theory of historical materialism, as the Parisian proletarians in the era of the Industrial

Revolution were rising up to make the historical transition from capitalism to socialism.

Marx gave even more extensive coverage to the next workers’ uprising in Paris in 1871.

Following the defeat of most of the 1848 revolutions in Europe, Marx realized that the workers of the

world wouldn’t rise up on their own accord fast enough to make revolutions successful. The workers of

the world needed to be organized, and such an organization came as the International Workingmen’s

Association, hereon referred to as the First International. By the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War and

the defeat of the French Army, the London-based First International—headed by Marx—boasted several

hundred members in France, especially workers from Paris (March 1896). It’s reasonable to speculate

that the First International and its plans for world revolution were influential in the organized uprising of

Parisians which became known as the Paris Commune. In his coverage of the Commune in The Civil

War in France, Marx again displays an open bias towards the armed proletarian insurrection, which he

refers to as the “glorious working men’s Revolution of March 18 [which] took sway of Paris” (Marx

1871). Marx, in line with the Jacobin tradition, condones the violence perpetrated against state actors by

the proletarian insurgents and by National Guard troops who defected to the Commune. He furthermore

denies that the Communards were executing bourgeois civilians (Marx, Jun. 1848), a claim he isn’t

qualified to make as he was in London at the time, drawing his information about the conflict in Paris

from newspaper clippings (Kunina & Yeremeyeva 1986). Furthermore, Harun Yahya in Communism in

Ambush undermines Marx’s claim against execution of civilians with photographic evidence of the

Communards executing clergy members. Though the insurrection was neutralized through a joint effort

by the French and Prussian armies, Marx expresses his view of the Commune as the launchpoint for the

next stage of history.

After… 1871… there can be neither peace nor truce possible between the working men

of France and the appropriators of their produce. The iron hand of a mercenary soldiery

may keep for a time both classes tied down in common oppression. But the battle must

break out again and again in ever-growing dimensions… And the French working class

is only the advanced guard of the modern proletariat… Working men’s Paris, with its

Commune, will be forever celebrated as the glorious harbinger of a new society (Marx

1871).

The above selection from the final chapter of The Civil War in France is ideologically significant

for three reasons. First, the language used is essentially a declaration of war against the bourgeoisie on

behalf of the proletariat. Second, Marx indicates that the era of socialism is soon upon the world. Third,

Marx’s praise of the conduct of the Communards and their proletarian uprising is concluded in the above

passage, calling the French working class the “advanced guard” of the proletariat. The approval of

violent tactics and the indication that the proletariat has an “advanced guard” provide the doctrine upon

which Lenin could base his concept of the “vanguard of the proletariat” and subsequently use the

vanguard party—the Bolsheviks—to seize control of Russia. Once again, though Robert Mayer correctly

attributed the influence of Kautsky and Plekhanov to Lenin’s sympathy towards the French Jacobins,

Kautsky and Plekhanov were not the sole influences, as an ideological basis for Jacobinism within

Marxism lay in Marx’s own writings. There is one final attribute to the legacy of the French Jacobins that

merits mention, and such is the Reign of Terror of 1793-94. The Reign of Terror and its influence in

Marxist theory will be discussed at length further along in this paper.

One final area of interest in the Jacobin tradition within Marxism lies within the rivalry between

Stalin and Trotsky. Richard Pipes makes a strong case for Lenin admiring Stalin’s talents as an effective

administrator who could accomplish challenging tasks—something Trotsky was not (Pipes 1995). Sheila

Fitzpatrick attributes part of this closeness to Stalin’s loyalty to Lenin during a factional struggle within

the Party in 1920-21. However, a different observation sheds more light on Stalin’s succession. After all,

regardless of what Lenin’s last will and testament stated, renewal of Stalin’s seat in the party Politburo

and position as General Secretary still had to be voted on. It turns out that many high-ranking party

members were students of Jacobin admirers Kautsky and Plekhanov, and also heeded their warnings

against Bonapartism—the emergence of a revolutionary war hero as a dictator. In essence, many Russian

Communists were aware of the possibility that a military hero from the Revolution and Civil War could

emerge, charm all the important people, and become dictator of the Soviet Union. To his misfortune,

Trotsky fit this description, given that he had joined the Bolshevik Party late in 1917 and had

distinguished himself as leader of the Red Army during the Civil War. In contrast, Stalin was seen as a

capable, yet anonymous administrator who could be trusted with power (Fitzpatrick 2008).

Stalin as a dedicated Marxist

Though both of Ree’s articles cover different subtopics, they share a common theme: Stalin and

Marxist philosophy. The above “Literature Review” section mentioned Ree’s coverage of Stalin carefully

studying Marx’s “Critique of the Gotha Program,” as well as the importance Stalin placed on Marx’s

concept of the “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” The above section covering the Dictatorship

of the Proletariat demonstrates how Stalin—and Lenin before him—drew directly from Marx’s writings

in shaping their vision of how the dictatorship ought to be implemented.

“Stalin as a Marxist Philosopher” sheds insight into Stalin’s development of historical

materialism. The main consensus in the Marxist camp in the early Soviet Union was that the laws of

history were set in stone, and class struggle occurs naturally. Despite prevailing interpretations of

historical materialism, Lenin writes in One Step Forward, Two Steps Back about the need to transform the

authority of ideas into the authority of power (Ree 1997). “Stalin and Marxism” reveals that Stalin had

read this book many times, and though Ree never draws the connection, Lenin’s statement on ideas and

power could very well have served as the basis for Stalin to argue that ideas themselves are forces that

move history forward. This is not to suggest that the movement of time depends on the existence of

abstractions called “ideas,” but rather ideas have the power—when implemented through action—to

cause world events which move history from one age to the next. Ree also comments throughout “Stalin

and Marxism” how Stalin—based on his book studies and reading notes—disagreed in some areas with

Engels, but rarely disagreed with Lenin and never contradicted Marx. In light of this observations and

earlier observations shared in above sections, let it not be said that Stalin was not a dedicated Marxist.

Ree makes the case not only of Stalin’s dedication to Marxist theory, but also of Stalin’s own belief that

his own Marxist-Leninist ideas were in line with orthodox Marxism.

While the preceding section on the Jacobin tradition argues for the theory that Jacobinism in

Marxism predates Kautsky and Plekhanov, it should be noted how complementary Ree’s work is in

discussing the way Stalin heavily studied Lenin’s writings. One such passage that Stalin underlined was

in One Step Forward, where Lenin writes “The Jacobin, closely linked with the organization of the

proletariat, which is aware of its class interest—that’s precisely the revolutionary Social-Democrat1” (Ree

1997). The passage Stalin underlined from One Step Forward shows a logical connection between the

adoption of Jacobin tactics—use of violence and execution of opponents—in the Lenin regime and later

the Stalin regime.

Does Karl Marx justify war and genocide?

The journal articles reviewed in this paper do well to show a logical connection between Marxist

theory and the excesses of the Soviet state, but none of them tackle the mass killings under the Stalin

regime. The main difference historians draw between Lenin and Stalin is the amount of killing. Sheila

Fitzpatrick’s almost-neutral narrative of the Russian Revolution—which she dates back to the 1905

Revolution and concludes with the first Five Year Plan—places the executions ordered by Lenin in the

thousands (Fitzpatrick 2008) whereas the deaths caused by Stalin number in the tens of millions. Amidst

the mass arrests, deportations, and executions that riddled Stalin’s tenure as leader of the Soviet Union,

three distinct campaigns stand out: the famine in Ukraine, 1932-33; the Great Purge, 1936-39; and World

War II, 1939-452.

The famine in the Soviet republics of Ukraine and Moldavia is discussed at length in the

documentary film The Soviet Story. Citing the 7.5 million starvation deaths from the man-made famine,

the question that arises is “Why?” Both the film and McCauley’s book Stalin and Stalinism point to the

rising trend of nationalism in the Ukraine in the years following the Russian Civil War—Ukraine was

made a Soviet republic during the war. The Ukrainians’ demand for independence greatly undermined

the Communist Party’s economic agenda under the Five Year Plans and also undermined the Soviet

Union’s territorial integrity (McCauley 1995). The response was to punish the Ukraine through

confiscating grain—part of the plan for the collectivization of agriculture—deliberately without 1 One Steps Forward, Two Steps Back was written in 1904, when the Marxists were still a faction of the Russian Social-Democratic Party, three years before formally separating and becoming the Bolshevik Party. 2 McCauley and Pipes set the dates for the “Great Patriotic War” from 1941-45. However, for the sake of continuity, this paper includes the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland and 1939-40 Winter War with Finland as part of World War II.

redistributing any back to the Ukrainians (Snore 2008). This answers the question of Stalin’s motivation,

but where is there a sanction for genocide in Marx’s writings?

The answer to the genocide question indeed lays in Marx and Engels. In The Soviet Story, British

literary historian George Watson points to two articles—one written by Marx and the other by Engels—

which call for large amounts of people to die in the revolution. Watson offers the viewer a close up of

Engels’ essay “The Magyar Struggle” in which he claims that “racial trash always become fanatical

standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation… just as their whole

existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution” (Engels 1849). The Marxists

Internet Archive has re-translated the term for racial trash as “residual fragments of peoples” but the rest

of the passage remains unchanged. Suppose for a moment that Engels really meant residual fragments of

peoples, that the term refers to remnants of old civilizations and not people viewed as racially inferior.

Even in consideration of this view, three things can be derived from the passage. First, there are certain

peoples who are counter-revolutionary. Watson attributes them to being behind in world ages; having not

yet reached capitalism, they’re incapable of making the transition to socialism (Snore 2008). Second, that

the very existence of these peoples is a violation of the laws of history. Third, that these peoples will be

counter-revolutionaries until their extinction. There is no question that Engels is writing about the

destruction of human beings who are seen as incompatible with the success of the proletarian revolution.

Marx writes in an 1853 issue of The Peoples Paper, “The classes and races, too weak to master

the new conditions of life, must give way… They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust” (Snore

2008). Subsequent editions of that article have been re-published with the reference to revolutionary

holocaust omitted. This use of the word “holocaust” doesn’t necessarily refer to the systematic genocide

like the Germans waged on European Jews. It uses the word in its original context of a great and

destructive fire (Dictionary). Though not in reference to organized ethnic cleansing, it does refer to mass

killing, since it calls for the classes and races too weak to adapt to revolutionary to be destroyed in the

revolution.

The well-known approval for violent uprisings—like the 1848 and 1871 revolutions—and the

lesser-known calls for counter-revolutionary peoples to perish, expressed by Marx and Engels in their

writings, provided fertile ideological ground for killing in the name of socialism and inevitable

communism. From these collections of writings Lenin was able to justify the mass arrest and execution

of class enemies during his tenure, and Stalin was able to justify the deaths of the Ukrainians as a

necessary part of the revolutionary holocaust. One area where Lenin differed from Stalin is the way

Lenin was content to expel people from the Bolshevik Party, whereas Stalin simply had people executed

(Pipes 1995). Though there were purges throughout Stalin’s tenure, the Great Purge saw at least 681,692

soviet citizens executed by the NKVD—the forerunners of the KGB (McCauley 1995). It is highly

doubtful that Marx would have called for the killing of his followers by fellow Marxists, but the logical

stepping stones leading to this course of action lie in Marx’ own writings and publications.

World War II also was instrumental in Stalin fulfilling Marx’s predictions about world

revolutions. In Marx’s own time, he enthusiastically witnessed the proletarian uprisings of 1848 and

1871, and was bitterly disappointed when they were subdued. Nonetheless, recall his declaration of war

against the bourgeoisie at the end of The Civil War in France. Following the failure of the 1848

revolutions to usher in the age of socialism, Marx saw how the workers of the world needed to be

organized, leading to the establishment of the First International. Lenin was a member of the Second

International from 1905 and, like Marx, had experience with revolutionary dress rehearsals. The

revolutions in which Lenin played a key role were Russia’s 1905 Revolution and the Russian Revolution

during World War I (Fitzpatrick 2008). The Bolshevik seizure of the Russian state was unprecedented in

history, but it posed a problem: Russia was a largely agrarian country, not industrialized like Western

Europe where Marx was convinced the successful proletarian revolution would occur first. The

Bolsheviks therefore had to industrialize Russia—a task accomplished by the first Five Year Plan—and

export the revolution to Western Europe. For this reason, the Third International—best known as the

Comintern—was established in Moscow in 1919, and would be the Soviet tool by which socialist

revolutions abroad would be organized (Pipes 1995).

The Civil War gave the Bolshevik regime the opportunity to Georgia, the Ukraine, and other

Baltic nations into Soviet republics. However, two events took Lenin by surprise. First, the socialist

uprising in post-war Germany, led by Otto Bauer and Rosa Luxembourg, was defeated by the German

army. Second, Kremlin archival documents reveal that Lenin’s plans to invade Poland were stifled when

the Poles invaded Soviet Ukraine on behalf of the White armies, and the Poles routed the Red Army’s

counterattack into Warsaw (Pipes 1922). Lenin passed away two years after the civil war ended, but

Stalin held true to Lenin’s territorial ambitions and was determined to bring the proletarian revolution to

Western Europe. He got his chance in World War II. The non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany

and the Soviet Union included a plan for the two countries’ armies to divide Poland. Therefore, when the

Germans invaded from the West, the Red Army invaded from the east, and the two armies jointly

occupied Warsaw (Snore 2008). Months later, the Red Army invaded Finland and established a socialist

regime there as it had in Poland (McCauley 1995). Despite the devastation the Germans inflicted on the

people of the Soviet Union, the Red Army was ultimately victorious, exporting the revolution to the west

“on the backs of Soviet tanks” where socialist republics were established from Poland to eastern Germany

(Pipes 1995). This wasn’t quite what Marx had in mind when he envisioned Germany becoming

socialist, but Stalin accomplished more feats in the name of Marxism than Marx himself.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to explain how Marxism as applied in Russia resulted in Stalinism.

This phenomenon was explained as the logical conclusion to a chain of logic connecting policies of Lenin

and Stalin directly to Marxist theory. Zoltan Barany argued that Dictatorship of the Proletariat called for

local direct-democracy for the working class, though additional writings by Marx provide an ideological

justification for the authoritarianism of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Robert Mayer

attributes Lenin’s sympathetic view of the French Jacobins to Kautsky and Plekhanov, but misses the

approval Marx writes of Jacobin-style tactics in France. Ree demonstrates how Stalin was a dedicated

Marxist well-read in the leading Marxist thinkers, and even made contributions to Marxist philosophy.

Additional sources show the ideological basis in Marxism for the genocide, institutionalization of terror,

and militarism that characterized Stalin’s regime. Marx’s repeated approval of violence in the name of

the proletarian revolution to usher in the age of socialism logically concluded with Stalinism.

Works Cited Barany, Zoltan. (Mar. 1997). The ‘Volatile’ Marxiuan Concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Studies in East European Thought. 49 (1): 1-21. Engels, Friedrich. Marx, Karl. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. Pocket Books. New York, NY. Re-

published 1964. Engels, Friedrich. (1848, June 25). The 23rd of June. Neue Rheinische Zeitung, p. 1. Retrieved from

<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/06/26b.htm> Engels, Friedrich. (1849, Jan. 8). The Magyar Struggle. Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Page unknown.

Retrieved from <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm> Fitzpatrick, Sheila. (2008). The Russian Revolution. Oxford University Press. Oxford, United Kingdom. holocaust. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved June 05, 2013, from:

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holocaust> Kautsky, Karl. (1887). Frederick Engels: His Life, His Work and His Writings. Austrian Labor

Almanac. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from <http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1887/xx/engels.htm>

Lenin, Vladimir. (1904). One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: The Crisis in Our Party. Collected Works,

Volume 7. Progress Publishers. Moscow, Soviet Union. Re-published 1964. Retrieved from <http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/onestep/>

Marx, Karl. Aveling, E. (translator). Moore, S. (translator). (1867). Capital: A Critique of Political

Economy. Progress Publishers. Moscow, Russia. Re-published 1995. Retrieved from <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm>

Marx, Karl. (1871). The Civil War in France. International Workingmen’s Association. London,

England. Retrieved from < http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm>

Marx, Karl. (1894). Capital, Volume III. International Publishers. New York, NY. Re-published 1959.

Retrieved from <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/index.htm> Marx, Karl. (1848, June 29). The June Revolution. Neue Rheinische Zeitung, p. 1. Retrieved from

<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/06/29a.htm> Marx, Karl. (1848, June 23). News from Paris. Neue Rheinische Zeitung, page unknown. Retrieved from

<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/06/27.htm> Mayer, Robert. (June 1999). Lenin and the Jacobin Identity in Russia. Studies in East European

Thought. 51 (2): 127-154. Pipes, Richard. (1995). Three “Whys” of the Russian Revolution. Vintage Books; Random House. New

York, NY.

Valdnieks, Kristaps (Producer). Snore, Edvins (Director). (2010). The Soviet Story [Documentary Film]. Latvia: SIA Labvakar.

Van Ree, E. (Mar. 1997). Stalin and Marxism: A Research Note. Studies in East European Thought. 49

(1): 23-33. Van Ree, E. (Dec. 2000). Stalin as a Marxist Philosopher. Studies in East European Thought. 52 (4):

259-308. Yahya, Harun. Evans, R. (Translator). (2003). Communism in Ambush. Global Publishing. Istanbul,

Turkey.

Bibliography Barany, Zoltan. (Mar. 1997). The ‘Volatile’ Marxiuan Concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Studies in East European Thought. 49 (1): 1-21. Barany analyzes and redefines Marx’s concept of the Ductatorship of the Proletariat, concluding that Marx meant to imply local direct-democracy for the working class.

Engels, Friedrich. Marx, Karl. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. Pocket Books. New York, NY. Re-

published 1964. Marx and Engels explain history as the story of class struggle, discuss the current situation of the proletariat in its struggle against the bourgeoisie, and call for the workers of the world to unite and rise up in revolution.

Engels, Friedrich (1848, June 25). The 23rd of June. Neue Rheinische Zeitung, p. 1. Retrieved from

<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/06/26b.htm>. A news report on the situation in Paris.

Engels, Friedrich (1849, Jan. 8). The Magyar Struggle. Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Page unknown.

Retrieved from <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm> Fitzpatrick, Sheila (2008). The Russian Revolution. Oxford University Press. Oxford, United Kingdom.

Fitzpatrick provides a history and commentary of the Russian Revolution, beginning with nthe failed 1905 Revolution, moving on to extensive coverage of the Russian Revolution and Civil War, and concluding with the reign of Stalin. Fitzpatrick makes the case that Stalin betrayed the Bolshevik revolution by becoming a dictator.

holocaust. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved June 05, 2013, from:

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holocaust> Kautsky, Karl (1887). Frederick Engels: His Life, His Work and His Writings. Austrian Labor Almanac.

Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from <http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1887/xx/engels.htm>. A brief biography extolling Friedrich Engels and his accomplishments in organizing revolutionary actions and actors.

Kunina, Valeriya. Yeremeyeva, Tatyana (Eds.) (1985). Karl Marx—Friedrich Engels: Collected Works,

Volume 22. International Publishers. New York, NY. Re-published 1964. Lenin, Vladimir. (1904). One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: The Crisis in Our Party. Collected Works

(7). Progress Publishers. Moscow, Soviet Union. Retrieved from <http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/onestep/>

March, Thomas (1896). The History of the Paris Commune of 1871. Macmillan & Co. New York, NY.

A short historical narrative of the events of the Paris Commune uprising, from the French defeat by the Prussians to the eventual subduing of the Commune.

Marx, Karl; Aveling, E. (translator); Moore, S. (translator) (1867). Capital: A Critique of Political

Economy. Progress Publishers. Moscow, Russia. Re-published 1995. Retrieved from <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm>

Marx, Karl (1871). The Civil War in France. International Workingmen’s Association. London,

England. Retrieved from < http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm>. In this book which was originally a serialized publication by the First

International, Marx weaves a history of the 1871 Paris Commune uprising through the worldview of class struggle.

Marx, Karl (1894). Capital, Volume III. International Publishers. New York, NY. Re-published 1959.

Retrieved from <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/index.htm> Marx, Karl (1853, Apr. 16). Forced Emigration. The People’s Paper. Page unknown. Retrieved from

<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/04.htm> Marx, Karl (1848, June 29). The June Revolution. Neue Rheinische Zeitung, p. 1. Retrieved from

<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/06/29a.htm>. A news report on the situation in Paris.

Marx, Karl (1848, June 23). News from Paris. Neue Rheinische Zeitung, page unknown. Retrieved from

<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/06/27.htm>. A news report on the situation in Paris.

Mayer, Robert. (June 1999). Lenin and the Jacobin Identity in Russia. Studies in East European

Thought. 51 (2): 127-154. Robert Mayer identified elements of Jacobin methods in Lenin’s Bolshevik policies and identified their roots in Marxist philosophers Karl Kautsky and Georgi Plekhanov.

McCauley, Martin (1995). Stalin and Stalinism. 2nd Edition. Longman Publishing. New York, NY.

McCauley presents a scholarly narrative of the reign of Stalin as leader of the Soviet Union. McCauley’s narrative is unbiased, preferring to let the reader draw his/her own conclusions based on quantitative evidence (of job growth, inflation, people executed, etc.).

Pipes, Richard (1995). Three “Whys” of the Russian Revolution. Vintage Books; Random House. New

York, NY. Richard Pipes uses archival documents from the Kremlin to explain why the fall of Tsarism was NOT a foregone conclusion, why the Bolshevik’s triumphed following the October Revolution, and why Stalin was chosen to succeed Lenin.

Valdnieks, Kristaps (Producer). Snore, Edvins (Director). (2010). The Soviet Story [Documentary Film].

Latvia: SIA Labvakar. This documentary uses old footage, archival documents, and survivor testimony to demonstrate how Stalin and the Soviet Union contributed to the growth of National Socialism in Germany.

Van Ree, E. (Mar. 1997). Stalin and Marxism: A Research Note. Studies in East European Thought. 49

(1): 23-33. Ree analyzes Stalin’s private library, taking into account the books Stalin studied most and concluding that Stalin was a dedicated Marxist, and that his policies and theories were grounded in Marxist theory.

Van Ree, E. (Dec. 2000). Stalin as a Marxist Philosopher. Studies in East European Thought. 52 (4):

259-308. Ree analyzes Stalin’s writings and discusses the contributions Stalin made to Marx’s materialist theory.

Yahya, Harun; Evans, R. (Translator) (2003). Communism in Ambush. Global Publishing. Istanbul,

Turkey. This history focuses on the birth of Marxism, its application in the Soviet Union and China, and the atrocities committed against civilians.

*Cover photo: Stalin Portrait at Stalin Museum in Batumi, Georgia by Ephraim Stillberg. CC BY-SA 3.0 license.