Cult of personality.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Why did almost all of Marxist-Leninist leaders had cult of personalities?Were the people that uneducated?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It was just a coincidence. If people think you're cool, they generally will create a cult around you. I speak from personal experience.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Well I get what you mean but they dont parade with big portraits of you do they?:laugh:

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm just kidding, the cult of personality serves no other purpose than to increase control over the society for the sake of the party. One common ML explanation for the practice is that is arises spontaneously from 'the masses', and so the figurehead or the party cannot really be blamed for the excesses that result from it. This would be a little more believable if it had only happened in isolated instances, but looking back at history it was clearly an intentional part of the program in any country where an ML party successfully took power.

[Sea]

Well I get what you mean but they dont parade with big portraits of you do they?:laugh:Jay Stalin was just one hell of a grooooovy dude.
I'm just kidding, the cult of personality serves no other purpose than to increase control over the society for the sake of the party. One common ML explanation for the practice is that is arises spontaneously from 'the masses', and so the figurehead or the party cannot really be blamed for the excesses that result from it. This would be a little more believable if it had only happened in isolated instances, but looking back at history it was clearly an intentional part of the program in any country where an ML party successfully took power.Saying the cult is part of the program of a dictatorship where the evil all-powerful dictator frowns upon said cult is rather dubious.

[G4b3n]

It is a propaganda campaign to make all-knowing-leader-of-the-people X synonymous with the interests of the working class. The flow of ideas in class society is from the top down, and post-revolutionary class society is no different.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I hear Warren Buffett frowns on the way the financial market operates in the US, but it doesn't seem to have had much influence on his portfolio.

[MarxEngelsLeninStalinMao]

Different "Marxist-Leninist" leaders had cult of personalities for different reasons.

[Taters]

It is a propaganda campaign to make all-knowing-leader-of-the-people X synonymous with the interests of the working class.

Actually, I'd say the objective of the propaganda is to promote the leader as the humble, wise servant of the people (as opposed to an all-seeing god). Granted, this may not be true for the DPRK but I think its own cult has taken on on a new form in the past few decades.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Thank you for your replies.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'm just kidding, the cult of personality serves no other purpose than to increase control over the society for the sake of the party. One common ML explanation for the practice is that is arises spontaneously from 'the masses', and so the figurehead or the party cannot really be blamed for the excesses that result from it. This would be a little more believable if it had only happened in isolated instances, but looking back at history it was clearly an intentional part of the program in any country where an ML party successfully took power.

I think it's inevitable that some kind of cult forms around the leader of whatever faction is seen as the "liberator" - the problem emerges when the new so-called "worker's state" sees this and appropriates it in the interest of preserving the ruling party. This works to separate the party from the working class while maintaining loyalty from that same class.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There are "personalities" that organically emerge with a certain amount of cred or celebrity from any movement. Some of this might be from efforts of that personality and their supporters, it might be due to the outside media which wants an easy way to sell stories about complex and nebulous social forces and conflicts (and more conspiratorially, maybe opponents want to create figureheads who can be discredited or taken down easier), but some of it can just be totally organic due to what the figure represents or a less identifiable quality like charm or charisma. Even in leaderless occupy camps there were local celebrity activist figures that emerged on a small scale... All the while them and their supporters saying that they didn't represent the movement (not saying they were disingenuous... Just that this can happen organically and unintentionally).

But that kind of celebrity is different from deliberate cults of personality like what Stalin did with making a fetish of Lenin and Marx, or what other figures have cultivated for themselves intentionally.

Rip, for example is pretty explicit and seem open about their desire to make a akin a kind if symbol or avatar for rebellion along the lines of el Che or Mao. I think they see it as a way to connect with larger layers of people... Maybe they see all the Che shirts and anarchy shirts and see creating their own meme as a way to make their politics reach a wider audience. I think it's pretty alienating, but their lit talks about making avakian-as-symbol this sort of cultural phenomena which can rally people.

[Comrade Jacob]

The only M-L that didn't try and install a cult was Fidel Castro even though over time the people ended up putting it up themselves and with Che. (All of their achievements it's hard not to).
Most of the cults were built to keep the nation together during a war. (e.i Stalin during WW2 and continuing through the early cold war). Or through Mass revolutions like in China.
But most of the time it is too keep the leader in power if or if not they have the reasons mentioned.

[reb]

They were actively encourage by the party and state apparatus. I'm not sure of how many people actually believed in these things and how many were cynics.

[BITW434]

To be fair, didn't Stalin ban the renaming of places after him in the 30s? He was such a modest man :laugh:

[Jimmie Higgins]

To be fair, didn't Stalin ban the renaming of places after him in the 30s? He was such a modest man :laugh:i'm not 100% sure about this! but my impression was that During the Stalin years it was more Lenin and Marx who were made into idols, not Stalin particularly. It seems more the case that stalin's administration was more interested in associating itself more with the revolution and legitimizing itself than creating a real cult around Stalin in of himself. I think it probably also has the effect of historically isolating the revolution: a completed act of liberation thanks to Marx the thinker, Lenin the uniquely prophetic organizer, and continued and upheld by stalin's rule.

For example, after the revolution, historians came up with ways to teach history in terms of class struggle. This was later thrown out under Stalin and replaced with a heroic history emphasizing Russian great-men as the shapers of history, even tsars.

How could anyone look at those giant statues of Lenin and think... Yeah, collective struggle of regular people is the most important thing. No, it's figuratively saying, this is all due to giants among us.

[reb]

i'm not 100% sure about this! but my impression was that During the Stalin years it was more Lenin and Marx who were made into idols, not Stalin particularly. It seems more the case that stalin's administration was more interested in associating itself more with the revolution and legitimizing itself than creating a real cult around Stalin in of himself. I think it probably also has the effect of historically isolating the revolution: a completed act of liberation thanks to Marx the thinker, Lenin the uniquely prophetic organizer, and continued and upheld by stalin's rule.

Maybe to begin with, but gradually it shifted to just Stalin. You just need to have a look at the propaganda being produced, the text books mentioning Glorious Comrade Stalin, etc.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Actually have you seen posters about Stalin and little kids?Its hiliarious

[reb]

You should watch the films being produced. You can actually see a progression from Stalin being Lenin's faithful student to the student teaching the master. Then it just goes to WW2 and Stalin is like a god where all of his advice always works. I'm pretty certain that it wasn't common people writing all of these books and producing this films, making these posters and so on. Some people try to absolve Stalin from this, but if he can prevent books from being published because they are historically inaccurate, then he could have certainly had films that have him in Berlin stopped from being released. As an aside, I wonder what the five year plan annual quota for giant Statues was.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Yes I have seen the film.It ignores all the sacrifices of the russian people(20 mill + dead from ww2)and says that Stalin and he is incredible mind did everything.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Why did almost all of Marxist-Leninist leaders had cult of personalities?Were the people that uneducated?

Yes, turns out, Russia has always been known historically for breeding idiots.

[Rafiq]

It's not so simple. Stalin recognized that the name "Stalin" had become something infinitely more powerful than him as an individual. To them, Stalin was a symbol of the state. I think it's important to distinguish the cult of personality you'd find with Stalin, and those you'd get with figures a la idi amin or Saddam Hussein, both of which were degenerate despots, in their case it clearly wasn't as complicated as it was in the soviet union. Stalin could have very well been a modest man who did not seek to aggrandize himself. Point being, Stalin had little control over the cult of personality that developed, it's more complicated of an ideological phenomena than a party seeking more power over the people. What I think can be agreed upon, though, is that after the second world war the cult of personality in Russia became something of a circus, and divulged into the ridiculous, it's clear what madness had befallen the ideological state.

The cult of personality was exclusively a phenomena which pervaded in backward, feudal countries where the peasantry had revered their leaders in such a grand manner before Communism.

[Sixiang]

Saying the cult is part of the program of a dictatorship where the evil all-powerful dictator frowns upon said cult is rather dubious.
Agreed.

To the OP: I think your question is assuming too much that all Marxist-Leninist leaders were the same. I would agree with some of the other posters in this discussion that you need to look at the question case-by-case. I too am very interested in this topic of cults of personality, and I have found that each case has quite a specific contextual historical background. We should not assume that all M-L leaders are a single unified monolith/are all the same. So I think you need to narrow your question down more to specific cases. And on another note, your question "Were the people that uneducated?" is treading dangerously close to the sentiment that the masses are all stupid and thus easily misled in all of their thinking by genius leaders. There is a constant contradiction between the people and the state, and it isn't just a matter of the state constantly beating down ideas to the masses with no creative effort on the part of the toilers.

[Five Year Plan]

This doesn't look spontaneous to me:

2DW-U6rXVO0

[Skyhilist]

This doesn't look spontaneous to me:

2DW-U6rXVO0

Such a lack of enthusiasm! They should be on their prayer mats praying to the almighty Hoxha 5 times a day! (Just so long as they worship Hoxha uncritically, not Muhammad or Jesus, or anything)

[goalkeeper]

This doesn't look spontaneous to me:

2DW-U6rXVO0

What you don't realise comrade is that in actual fact poor little hoxha didnt like all this fuss and i can find maybe some obscure quote of him saying he don't like having a big personality cult but the masses were just too enthusiastic about praising him and over powered his ability to stop them ruining his birthdays multiple times with all this fuss, really he just wanted a quiet night in with stalin portraits (oh by the way, stalin didnt like personality cults either but the people just loved him too much as well, even poor little hoxha indulged in this cult)

[ArisVelouxiotis]

I think Ismail would know about Hoxha.As for the argument that Stalin had now influence over his personality cult is a bit too naive.
P.S I know goalkeeper was kidding I was talking about rafiq's comment

[Bala Perdida]

The only M-L that didn't try and install a cult was Fidel Castro even though over time the people ended up putting it up themselves and with Che. (All of their achievements it's hard not to).

Funny you mention that. Remember that kid from the 90's that started a custody battle between the USA and Cuba. He came out as an atheist during that youth anti-imperialist thing in Ecuador, but he said if he believed in a god his god would be Fidel Castro! Funny how these things turn out!

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Anyone want to comment on the personality cult that was started by Kim il Sung? He's not an ML, but he certainly got his ideas directly from Stalinism.

[reb]

It's pretty hilarious that one the one hand, stalinists try to shift the blame of this personality cult to backwards peasants but on the other like to claim that education was free and literacy skyrocketed.


Anyone want to comment on the personality cult that was started by Kim il Sung? He's not an ML, but he certainly got his ideas directly from Stalinism.

He didn't get his ideas from stalinism. The cult of personality and propaganda department worked differently in North Korea. On the one hand, you have the patriarchal Stalin, man who knows everything, the light always on in the Kremlin, and on the Korean side, you have a more pseudo matriarchal spin, where the Kims are the mothers of the nation, the Korean people are the most innocent in the world with a deep anti-intellectualism. There's a book you should read called The Cleanest Race. You could probably find a copy online somewhere, scribd or some other ebook place.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

It's pretty hilarious that one the one hand, stalinists try to shift the blame of this personality cult to backwards peasants but on the other like to claim that education was free and literacy skyrocketed.



He didn't get his ideas from stalinism. The cult of personality and propaganda department worked differently in North Korea. On the one hand, you have the patriarchal Stalin, man who knows everything, the light always on in the Kremlin, and on the Korean side, you have a more pseudo matriarchal spin, where the Kims are the mothers of the nation, the Korean people are the most innocent in the world with a deep anti-intellectualism. There's a book you should read called The Cleanest Race. You could probably find a copy online somewhere, scribd or some other ebook place.

That is a good point, and I have heard of that book. Is that the book that makes the connection between Juche and Japanese fascism? I may be thinking of something else, but I am aware of the racist ideology which the Soviets lacked. I guess Stalinism is too specific of a word to say that was Kim's inspiration. However, I would say he was directly influenced by Stalin, which is where he got the idea for his personality cult.

[Ismail]

What you don't realise comrade is that in actual fact poor little hoxha didnt like all this fuss and i can find maybe some obscure quote of him saying he don't like having a big personality cult but the masses were just too enthusiastic about praising him and over powered his ability to stop them ruining his birthdays multiple times with all this fuss, really he just wanted a quiet night in with stalin portraits (oh by the way, stalin didnt like personality cults either but the people just loved him too much as well, even poor little hoxha indulged in this cult)
"We have condemned the cult of the individual and condemn it to this day about anybody at all. On this question we follow the view of Marx, and for this reason amongst us, in our leadership, there is Marxist-Leninist unity, affection, sincerity, Marxist-Leninist respect towards comrades on the basis of the work which each does and his loyalty to the principles of the Party. Amongst us there is no idolâtrie. Above all we speak about the Party, while we speak about Enver only as much as the interests of the Party and country require, and when from the base and the masses there has been some excess in this direction, the Central Committee, the leadership of the Party and I personally, as much as I can and to the extent that they have listened to me about it, have always taken and always will take measures to proceed on the right course." (Reflections on China Vol. II, pp. 419-420.) Various commentators noted that the cult built around Hoxha did stem from a genuine popularity he had among the people.

The cult that developed around him was qualitatively different from the likes of Mao, Kim, Castro and others who cultivated their cults, infused them with militarism and other reactionary ideologies, and portrayed themselves as pursuing "national roads to socialism."

And on the subject of the cult built around Stalin it is also worth pointing out Hoxha's words to Khrushchev, "The cult of the individual should have been overcome without fail, but was it necessary and was it right to go to such lengths as to point the finger immediately at anyone who mentioned Stalin's name, to look askance at anyone who used a quotation from Stalin? With speed and zeal, certain persons smashed the statues of Stalin and changed the names of cities that had been named after him." (Selected Works Vol. III, pp. 158-159.) Rather than appreciate the fact that the cult around Stalin did relatively little damage, the Soviet revisionists completely negated Stalin and under the banner of "returning to Leninist norms" created personality cults around Khrushchev and Brezhnev.

Anyway, it's not too hard for "communists" to form artificial personality cults around persons by proclaiming them outstanding theorists or heroic working-class militants. Even someone as boring as Todor Zhivkov had 40+ volumes of writings by virtue of being at the head of the Bulgarian revisionists. It has nothing to do with "Stalinism" in particular, since there have been plenty of Trotskyist cults (of varying intensity, as with "Stalinists") around James P. Cannon, Ted Grant, Lyndon LaRouche, Gerry Healy, Tony Cliff, etc.


As an aside, I wonder what the five year plan annual quota for giant Statues was.In Ramiz Alia's report to the 9th Congress of the PLA in 1986 (Hoxha died a year earlier), he did mention the construction of the Enver Hoxha Museum (http://www.enverhoxha.ru/enver_hoxha_photogallery_30.htm) (obviously more than just a statue) being a part of the five-year plan under discussion, as part of investments in culture. In a 1937 conversation Stalin associated the act of placing statues with the desire of small-time bureaucrats trying to impress the center, which suggests they were paid out of local budgets.


It's pretty hilarious that one the one hand, stalinists try to shift the blame of this personality cult to backwards peasants but on the other like to claim that education was free and literacy skyrocketed.You're a really strange "Marxist" if you think literacy and the ability to learn how to operate tractors and other practical lessons somehow puts an end to centuries of the backward peasant mentality in the space of a generation. It's especially strange that in another thread you belittled the Albanians as "social-democrats with bayonets" for actively combating religion and other superstitious beliefs among the populace, a struggle which, although obtaining results, obviously was not complete by the time 1991 came around.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Thank you Ismail for your clarifications on Hoxha.

[Sixiang]

Anyone want to comment on the personality cult that was started by Kim il Sung? He's not an ML, but he certainly got his ideas directly from Stalinism.


That is a good point, and I have heard of that book. Is that the book that makes the connection between Juche and Japanese fascism? I may be thinking of something else, but I am aware of the racist ideology which the Soviets lacked. I guess Stalinism is too specific of a word to say that was Kim's inspiration. However, I would say he was directly influenced by Stalin, which is where he got the idea for his personality cult.

I think that the Kim family cult has much deeper Korean cultural-intellectual roots than a simple conclusion that Kim Il-sung got the idea from Stalin. Actually the reverence placed towards the Kim family has much more in common with the reverence given in a Neo-Confucian state towards the emperor as a father figure of the entire kingdom. It makes much more sense to me that Kim, growing up in a Korea with heavy Neo-Confucian values expressed in all intellectual works and society, would have been fully aware of such a reverence for the leader of the country from his own Korean roots than from just taking it from Stalin. Perhaps when he went to the Soviet Union he saw Leninism as a modern method that he could use in Korea, but I don't think it all just came from Stalin.

The religious coloration given to all of the Kim's personal biographies is quite reminiscent of traditional Neo-Confucian hagiography of emperors and sage-kings.

[reb]

"
You're a really strange "Marxist" if you think literacy and the ability to learn how to operate tractors and other practical lessons somehow puts an end to centuries of the backward peasant mentality in the space of a generation. It's especially strange that in another thread you belittled the Albanians as "social-democrats with bayonets" for actively combating religion and other superstitious beliefs among the populace, a struggle which, although obtaining results, obviously was not complete by the time 1991 came around.

You're a pretty strange marxist for thinking that Albania was socialist. It's stupid to think that the cult of personality was not built up by the party yet constantly and consistently, stalinoids go out their way to attribute this feature to backwards elements. In your dishonest mind, you would tell us that it was these backward peasants who were writing articles in newspapers, writing the history books, producing the films and building the statues. I belittle the stalinists for being social-democrats because they were social-democrats. Everyone knew this at the time. It was not huge secret.

[Ismail]

It's stupid to think that the cult of personality was not built up by the party yet constantly and consistently, stalinoids go out their way to attribute this feature to backwards elements. In your dishonest mind, you would tell us that it was these backward peasants who were writing articles in newspapers, writing the history books, producing the films and building the statues.I don't think anyone denies that the cult was built up by the party; after all, Khrushchev was one of its foremost promoters at the time. It should be reasonably obvious, however, that this was possible because there existed a basis for it among the populace. The fact is that both Stalin and Hoxha did not take their cults seriously and did oppose them. I know you'll just say "oh well they were supreme dictators and could control everything so why didn't they just say no?" but archival sources make clear the facts at hand.

"When Feuchtwanger told Stalin how he found some manifestations of the cult tasteless and excessive, Stalin agreed, but said that he only answered one or two of the hundreds of greetings he received and did not allow most to be printed, especially the most excessive. He claimed that he did not seek to justify the practice, but to explain it: evidently the workers and peasant masses were simply delighted to be freed from exploitation, and they attributed this to one individual: 'of course that’s wrong, what can one person do – they see in me a unifying concept, and create foolish raptures around me.'

Feuchtwanger then asked a very legitimate question: why could he not stop the most excessive forms of rapture? Stalin responded that he had tried several times but that it was pointless as people assumed he was just doing so out of false modesty. For example, he had been criticised for preventing celebrations of his 55th birthday. According to Stalin, the veneration of the leader was the result of cultural backwardness and would pass with time. It was difficult to prevent people expressing their joy, and to take strict measures against workers and peasants. Feuchtwanger responded that what concerned him was not so much the feelings of workers and peasants, but the erection of busts and so on. Echoing some of his comments (above) about the abuse of the cult, Stalin answered that bureaucrats were afraid that if they did not put up a bust of Stalin, they would be criticised by their superiors. Putting up a bust was a form of careerism 'a specific form of the 'self-defence' of bureaucrats: so that they are left alone, they put up a bust'....

His interventions often reveal a concern to tone down, or to be seen to be toning down, some of the excesses of the cult... There are many examples of this. While a draft report for Pravda described a reception of a delegation of kolkhozniki of Odessa province in November 1933 as a reception by Stalin, Stalin himself added the names of Kalinin, Molotov and Kaganovich. He also criticised the writer A. Afinogenov for highlighting the 'vozhd' [leader] rather than the collective leadership of the Central Committee in his play Lozh'. When the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute (IMEL) produced a history of 30 years of the party in 1933, he removed some references to himself....

Stalin continued to pay close attention to the editing of reports of Kremlin receptions for publication in Pravda. He would sometimes (but not always) cut out or tone down the references to the endless clapping which accompanied these quintessentially cultic occasions. He also tried to reduce the language of adulation, or to distribute it more equally with other colleagues....

While some members of the Politburo approved the renaming [of a electromechanical factory after Stalin in 1936], others proposed a discussion of the issue. However Stalin declared emphatically that he was not in favour, writing 'I am against. I advise that it should take the name of Kalinin, Molotov, Voroshilov, Kosior, Postyshev or another of the leading comrades.' Nevertheless, despite Stalin's objections, on 25 March the Politburo went on to approve the attaching of Stalin’s name to the factory."
(Balázs Apor, Jan C. Behrends, Polly Jones & E.A. Rees (eds). The Leader Cult in Communist Dictatorships: Stalin and the Eastern Bloc. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. pp. 37-39.)

In editing the Short Course and in discussions on his very own biography (the latter taking place after WWII, i.e. when the cult was particularly notable) he likewise toned down stuff he considered excessive, and in the latter case berated the authors for their excesses.

Also peasants did, in fact, send letters to Stalin (by sending them to newspaper editors), asking him to personally intercede in local disputes. During discussions on the draft constitution in 1936 a number of peasants flat-out recommended he proclaim himself Tsar. In Albania there are peasant families that continue to uphold a personality cult around Hoxha, two decades after the counter-revolution.


I belittle the stalinists for being social-democrats because they were social-democrats. Everyone knew this at the time. It was not huge secret.Really? Perhaps you'd like to direct me to documents by the social-democratic parties in the 20s-40s claiming that the communists were really just social-democrats in disguise? Perhaps you'd like to explain why the social-democratic parties in the West carried out slanderous campaigns against the USSR under Lenin and Stalin, calling it anti-socialist, advocated armed intervention and counter-revolution, etc.?

It was the Soviet revisionists who opened the door to social-democratic degeneration.

"The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Meeting of Representatives of the Communist and Workers' Parties of the Socialist Countries held in Moscow in 1957 had a significant impact on the ideological activity of the Social-Democrats. At first, the right-wing forces succeeded in enhancing anti-communist propaganda and fostering anti-communist prejudices in social-democratic parties by referring to the criticism of Stalin's personality cult and its consequences. However, the anti-communist fog gradually cleared and by the late 1950s and early 1960s, many Social-Democrats had become more sober-minded in assessing new ideas and approaches to the class struggle which were formulated by the Communists."
(Sibilev, Nikolai. The Socialist International. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1984. p. 50.)

And as Hoxha wrote (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/revisionists.htm) in 1964: "revisionism and social-democracy of today are two manifestations of the same ideology—bourgeois ideology. Social-democracy is the manifestation of bourgeois ideology in the workers movement, while revisionism is the manifestation of bourgeois ideology in the communist movement. This is the common ideological basis that draws the revisionists closer to and united with the social-democrats and creates the premises for their complete fusion not only ideologically and politically but also organizationally. Therefore it is altogether natural and logical that the attempts of the revisionists to cause the degeneration of the communist parties they direct, into social democratic parties, that their tendency to fuse in with the social-democracy, is being made so very clear nowadays." The Titoites and Eurocommunists likewise promoted social-democratic degeneration at accelerated speeds, all the while virulently denouncing Stalin.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

I struggle to understand how people can justify Stalin's personality cult, and personality cults in general. Sure, the leaders may not have built the cults intentionally, but that doesn't vindicate them for their inaction. Stalin should have gone out on a balcony and said "cut this out, I'm not a god, and I'm not a liberator, the proletariat liberates itself."

Of course, Stalin, being Stalin, didn't do this.

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=WFRtr-pFiKNWHM%3A&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glogster.com%2Ftrok%2Fs talin%2Fg-6ntuep07gbcl2l0h833b0bt&docid=d6dVn6xvX5XQwM&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2F84d1f3.medialib.glogster.com%2 Fmedia%2F67%2F6729913e9222f7c7efd05c4beda82aa74c8a 8f549cc3db152d38b9ad5a0243e0%2Fpropoganda2.jpg&w=410&h=273&ei=czrSUtyXE7HisAS-6oD4Cw&zoom=1&iact=rc&page=2&start=17&ndsp=26&ved=0CIsBEK0DMBY


http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=WFRtr-pFiKNWHM%3A&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glogster.com%2Ftrok%2Fs talin%2Fg-6ntuep07gbcl2l0h833b0bt&docid=d6dVn6xvX5XQwM&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2F84d1f3.medialib.glogster.com%2 Fmedia%2F67%2F6729913e9222f7c7efd05c4beda82aa74c8a 8f549cc3db152d38b9ad5a0243e0%2Fpropoganda2.jpg&w=410&h=273&ei=czrSUtyXE7HisAS-6oD4Cw&zoom=1&iact=rc&page=2&start=17&ndsp=26&ved=0CIsBEK0DMBY

[Ismail]

Stalin should have gone out on a balcony and said "cut this out, I'm not a god, and I'm not a liberator, the proletariat liberates itself."I gave Stalin's reply to such a request in the post above you.

There are various examples of him saying such things to others. Case in point: "You speak of your 'devotion' to me.... I would advise you to discard the 'principle' of devotion to persons. It is not the Bolshevik way. Be devoted to the working class, its Party, its state. That is a fine and useful thing. But do not confuse it with devotion to persons, this vain and useless bauble of weak-minded intellectuals." This was published in Volume 13 of his Works.

More examples, as well as accounts by others who witnessed Stalin's attitude towards the cult, can be found here: http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm

In addition:

"Stalin was, in fact, not a vain, self-obsessed man who had to be surrounded by fawning and flattery. He detested this mass adulation of his position, and throughout his life he went to great lengths to avoid demonstrations in his honor. Indeed, he was to be seen in public only at party congresses and at ceremonial occasions on Red Square, when he was a remote figure standing on Lenin's mausoleum....

Stalin had not changed greatly. He had power and position, but showed no interest in possessions and luxuries. His tastes were simple and he lived austerely. In summer he wore a plain military tunic of linen and in winter a similar tunic of wool, and an overcoat that was some fifteen years old. He also had a short fur coat with squirrel on the inside and reindeer skin on the outside, which he started wearing soon after the Revolution and continued to wear with an old fur hat until his death. The presents, many of them valuable and even priceless works of craftsmanship, sent to him from all parts of the country and, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, from all over the world, embarrassed him. He felt that it would be wrong to make any personal use of such gifts. His daughter noted: 'He could not imagine why people would want to send him all these things.'"
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1979. pp. 234-35.)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I gave Stalin's reply to such a request in the post above you.

There are various examples of him saying such things to others. Case in point: "You speak of your 'devotion' to me.... I would advise you to discard the 'principle' of devotion to persons. It is not the Bolshevik way. Be devoted to the working class, its Party, its state. That is a fine and useful thing. But do not confuse it with devotion to persons, this vain and useless bauble of weak-minded intellectuals." This was published in Volume 13 of his Works.

But who was the head of the party? And who was the de facto head of state? Even if he individually was embarassed by the cult of personality, by his very position of political power he was actively encouraging such a cult to develop.



"Stalin was, in fact, not a vain, self-obsessed man who had to be surrounded by fawning and flattery. He detested this mass adulation of his position, and throughout his life he went to great lengths to avoid demonstrations in his honor. Indeed, he was to be seen in public only at party congresses and at ceremonial occasions on Red Square, when he was a remote figure standing on Lenin's mausoleum....

I'm not sure the two follow. Being seen in public is not really a pre-requisite to establishing a cult of personality. In fact, one might suggest that, looking at the dearth of information the world has on the Kim dynasty, that it is actually the upkeep of mystery and intrigue. that best serves a personality cult.


Stalin had not changed greatly. He had power and position, but showed no interest in possessions and luxuries. His tastes were simple and he lived austerely. In summer he wore a plain military tunic of linen and in winter a similar tunic of wool, and an overcoat that was some fifteen years old. He also had a short fur coat with squirrel on the inside and reindeer skin on the outside, which he started wearing soon after the Revolution and continued to wear with an old fur hat until his death. The presents, many of them valuable and even priceless works of craftsmanship, sent to him from all parts of the country and, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, from all over the world, embarrassed him. He felt that it would be wrong to make any personal use of such gifts. His daughter noted: 'He could not imagine why people would want to send him all these things.'"
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1979. pp. 234-35.)

By quoting a 1979 source on a man who ruled in the 1930s, you are in danger of encouraging us to have an anachronistic view of history. I am not saying either way whether Stalin was a materialist (in the shallow, fashion sense) or not, but you are encouraging us to judge his material assets, wealth and wants based on the possessions he held in the 1930s. Of course, to us today, the description encourages us to view Stalin as an austere man, but you'd have to bet that, relative to the ordinary person in Russia in the 1930s, Stalin had it good, in material terms. Even if you weren't to make such a bet, this source tells us little about:

a) Stalin's material wants;
b) the extent to which his actions forged a cult of personality (as opposed to his personal preference for any admiration of him as a person, the important thing is to focus on his actions)

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

I gave Stalin's reply to such a request in the post above you.

There are various examples of him saying such things to others.

More examples, as well as accounts by others who witnessed Stalin's attitude towards the cult, can be found here: http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm

Stalin did not appear to enjoy his personality cult, I'll give you that. He made it illegal to rename places after him. He denounced the cult in private, and also made a couple public speeches against it.

What I was trying to say--and wasn't expressing well--is that he didn't do enough. He was being portrayed as a god, as an omniscient, all-knowing father figure. That kind of propaganda makes people loyal to people, not principles, and that's very dangerous. He should have vehemently denounced it, over and over and over again, until the state media stopped portraying him in that way.

[Ismail]

But who was the head of the party? And who was the de facto head of state? Even if he individually was embarassed by the cult of personality, by his very position of political power he was actively encouraging such a cult to develop."By his very position," yes. I don't see what that has to do with the fact that the whole party apparatus was obviously stronger than a single human being. I gave an example of Stalin's opinion on the naming of a factory being overturned by other Politburo members. In the 70s Molotov recalled that Stalin originally rejected the proposal he be proclaimed "Generalissimo" of the Soviet Army after WWII despite requests by the military establishment, but eventually gave in to a second round of requests, regretting it afterwards.


I'm not sure the two follow. Being seen in public is not really a pre-requisite to establishing a cult of personality. In fact, one might suggest that, looking at the dearth of information the world has on the Kim dynasty, that it is actually the upkeep of mystery and intrigue. that best serves a personality cult.The Kims are constantly seen going all over the DPRK on "inspection tours," giving "on the spot guidance" to workers, army officials, sports figures, etc. Their private lives obviously aren't publicized but it's pretty obvious that the cult in the DPRK is qualitatively different from that in the USSR, as has been noted in this thread. Stalin seems almost reclusive compared to the Kims.

The only leader who employed "mystery and intrigue" in contrast to a public persona was Pol Pot, who pretty much had no cult.


By quoting a 1979 source on a man who ruled in the 1930s, you are in danger of encouraging us to have an anachronistic view of history. I am not saying either way whether Stalin was a materialist (in the shallow, fashion sense) or not, but you are encouraging us to judge his material assets, wealth and wants based on the possessions he held in the 1930s. Of course, to us today, the description encourages us to view Stalin as an austere man, but you'd have to bet that, relative to the ordinary person in Russia in the 1930s, Stalin had it good, in material terms. Even if you weren't to make such a bet, this source tells us little about:

a) Stalin's material wants;
b) the extent to which his actions forged a cult of personality (as opposed to his personal preference for any admiration of him as a person, the important thing is to focus on his actions)No doubt Stalin lived good for those days, but he obviously could have reveled in Tsarist-like splendor. The point is to demonstrate, alongside other sources which I've provided, that Stalin disliked the cult and was pretty modest as a person. Of course Grey was writing before 1991, yet the archives do not show that Stalin supported his cult.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

"By his very position," yes. I don't see what that has to do with the fact that the whole party apparatus was obviously stronger than a single human being. I gave an example of Stalin's opinion on the naming of a factory being overturned by other Politburo members. In the 70s Molotov recalled that Stalin originally rejected the proposal he be proclaimed "Generalissimo" of the Soviet Army after WWII despite requests by the military establishment, but eventually gave in to a second round of requests, regretting it afterwards.

The Kims are constantly seen going all over the DPRK on "inspection tours," giving "on the spot guidance" to workers, army officials, sports figures, etc. Their private lives obviously aren't publicized but it's pretty obvious that the cult in the DPRK is qualitatively different from that in the USSR, as has been noted in this thread. Stalin seems almost reclusive compared to the Kims.

The only leader who employed "mystery and intrigue" in contrast to a public persona was Pol Pot, who pretty much had no cult.

No doubt Stalin lived good for those days, but he obviously could have reveled in Tsarist-like splendor. The point is to demonstrate, alongside other sources which I've provided, that Stalin disliked the cult and was pretty modest as a person. Of course Grey was writing before 1991, yet the archives do not show that Stalin supported his cult.

What about Stalingrad.Who named it?It's not sarcasm or anything i genuinely dont know

[Ismail]

What about Stalingrad.Who named it?It's not sarcasm or anything i genuinely dont knowIt was originally called Tsaritsyn and was renamed Stalingrad in 1925 in recognition of Stalin's role in defending it during the civil war. During the 1923-25 period other places were renamed to Zinovievsk, Trotsk, Sverdlovsk, Uritsky, Frunze, Molotov, and so on. Trotsky was the one who proposed the practice of renaming places after prominent figures. Yezhov did, however, propose renaming Moscow to Stalinodar (meaning "Stalin's Gift") in 1938, citing letters from residents, but Stalin called the idea dumb. There was another attempt in 1945, this time simply calling it Stalin, but he again said no.

[blake 3:17]

I think there's confusion here that cults of personalities or charismatic leaders or celebrated iconic political leaders or heads of state only come from a particular political orientation.

In modern US politics Presidents Kennedy and Reagan have held far more sway than they merited, at the time and since, primarily because of their media performance.

[RedWaves]

You could accuse every memorable leader in history of having a cult of personality.


What about the "founding fathers" of America? Or the British Royals?

Why is it that Communist leaders always get singled out for it, but the four faces on Mount Rushmore get a break?

[Wonton Carter]

You could accuse every memorable leader in history of having a cult of personality.


What about the "founding fathers" of America? Or the British Royals?

Why is it that Communist leaders always get singled out for it, but the four faces on Mount Rushmore get a break?

This is honestly something I've been thinking about lately. We have 4 faces on the side of a mountain: Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln. All 4 of these former presidents have a bit of a personality cult around them. These people are almost worshipped sometimes for basically being president. The right-wing loves Washington and Jefferson because the right-wing leaders lie about their lives and views and make their entire listenerbase worship them. Why do these folks get a pass? Oh, right, they were American. America can do no wrong. American media is unbiased from the start. Those darn commies can't even eat a dinner right!

This mindset annoys me more than anything, what with being an Indiana resident. I'm surrounded by people who honestly think this way. It's depressing and annoying. For God's sake, my father still believes Obama's a communist.

[RedWaves]

This is honestly something I've been thinking about lately. We have 4 faces on the side of a mountain: Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln. All 4 of these former presidents have a bit of a personality cult around them. These people are almost worshipped sometimes for basically being president. The right-wing loves Washington and Jefferson because the right-wing leaders lie about their lives and views and make their entire listenerbase worship them. Why do these folks get a pass? Oh, right, they were American. America can do no wrong. American media is unbiased from the start. Those darn commies can't even eat a dinner right!

This mindset annoys me more than anything, what with being an Indiana resident. I'm surrounded by people who honestly think this way. It's depressing and annoying. For God's sake, my father still believes Obama's a communist.


The right wing in general has a huge cult of personality. Look at how they down right worship Ronald Reagan (and Thatcher to a degree), other than that yes; the founding fathers are made out to be above and beyond like God as if they were perfect men.


The founding father fetish is very common in America. Yes they are basically worshiped just for being presidents, and they act like these men were Godlike and never did anything wrong, cause of course slaughtering the Natives happened a long time ago, and no one wants to talk about slavery anymore even though they believed in it.


The Reagan worship totally confuses me, cause Reagan was a piece of shit. Arguably the worst president ever. I don't get why poor white people think of him as high as they do, cause as much as they whine about Obama and accuse him of being everything in the book cause he's black, they don't even see that Reagan pushed class warfare into overdrive. Reagan made it patriotic to shit on the poor and treat them worse than garbage.


There is no such thing as "left" in America. The idiots that blame Obama for "being a communist" don't even realize that we don't have any type of socialism in America. They blame everything on the socialists even though we have a very tiny drop of it in the country.


There is only right wing and ultra right in America and I will give you two good examples: The Republicans idolize Ronald Reagan. I don't really have to go into Reagan, you already know just how bad he was and the 80's in general with the "let's all become sociopaths and become filthy rich" mentality that followed.
The Democrats on the other hand idolize Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln wasn't even a Democrat, nor was he really that great of a saint that he's made out to be. Lincoln was an opportunist. He didn't believe in what he was doing, and even said it. (Most politicians today are opportunists). It blows my mind how in America they will compare him to MLK and act like he was so nice to black people when he even said he didn't want to free the slaves.

but the worst part of all the Lincoln worship from the Democrats is the fact that there is actual Democratic presidents that did a goo job that they could use as their idol for worship: One being FDR.


There is no left wing in America. There is either right (Democrats) or ultra right (Republicans) and they prove that with the two presidents they idly worship.



The cult of personality is all over America. That's why it is stupid to just single out communist countries for it. Look at how the Republicans are proud of their "Reaganomics" term they came up. Look at how the founding fathers are made out to be spitting images of perfect men just for being presidents.

What you can't say though about the cult of personality in Communism is that the men tried to be perfect. No they did not. They were not perfect, and most of them knew they had their flaws. Lenin don't get George Washington treatment. He had his flaws and it's talked about to prove that he was human and just a man. George Washington, and even Lincoln get this god treatment that they could never do anything wrong even though when you break down their history and actually go through it without the red, white, and blue glasses, you see they really were not as great as they are made out to be, and yet again the Communist leaders are much better.

If anyone has a cult of personality it is easily the American presidents. Not just the founding fathers, but Ronald Reagan too. The right wing acts like he was some kind of God.

[Sixiang]

This quote came to my mind when I was reading through some of the previous few posts in the thread:
"It is human to exaggerate the merits of the dead."
-Mark Twain


The right wing in general has a huge cult of personality. Look at how they down right worship Ronald Reagan (and Thatcher to a degree), other than that yes; the founding fathers are made out to be above and beyond like God as if they were perfect men.


The founding father fetish is very common in America. Yes they are basically worshiped just for being presidents, and they act like these men were Godlike and never did anything wrong, cause of course slaughtering the Natives happened a long time ago, and no one wants to talk about slavery anymore even though they believed in it.
Yes whenever someone talks about how sacrosanct the words of these racist old white men were, I point out that their ideas of freedom, democracy, and liberty did not extend to anyone who wasn't a land-owning Anglo-Saxon male. Whenever I say that to someone who worships these men, they usually get defensive and say "well it was a different time then." Right, and so, because it is a different time now, we probably shouldn't be trying to adopt the economic model of 18th century small-scale pre-industrial capitalism.


The Reagan worship totally confuses me, cause Reagan was a piece of shit. Arguably the worst president ever. I don't get why poor white people think of him as high as they do, cause as much as they whine about Obama and accuse him of being everything in the book cause he's black, they don't even see that Reagan pushed class warfare into overdrive. Reagan made it patriotic to shit on the poor and treat them worse than garbage.
What's ironic is that Reagan presided over the second largest deficit in the entire history of the U.S. government (after the most recent government budget crisis in the past two years or so) and yet the probably the first thing that Republicans praise Reagan for is "Well, the economy was good when he was president." But when a similar budgetary crisis happens under a Democrat (let alone a black one), the right wingers foam at the mouth and snarl that Obama has single-handedly caused and continues to perpetuate the recession because he's a communist Muslim ('cause that makes sense...). And I've read more than once that actually Reagan was often a figurehead/spokesman for the real decision makers in the Neo-Liberal backlash of the 1980s: his financial and economic advisers who usually came from banking and investing backgrounds. So Reagan even gets more credit than he deserves in that regard.


There is no such thing as "left" in America. The idiots that blame Obama for "being a communist" don't even realize that we don't have any type of socialism in America. They blame everything on the socialists even though we have a very tiny drop of it in the country.
Yep. I have spoken to Germans and Japanese people visiting the U.S. and they have literally burst out laughing when they hear that people call Obama a socialist here. Compared to every other Western country that I am aware of, American politics is very extremely far to the right of anything that exists in Canada or Western Europe.


The Democrats on the other hand idolize Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln wasn't even a Democrat, nor was he really that great of a saint that he's made out to be. Lincoln was an opportunist. He didn't believe in what he was doing, and even said it. (Most politicians today are opportunists). It blows my mind how in America they will compare him to MLK and act like he was so nice to black people when he even said he didn't want to free the slaves.
The right has also claimed Lincoln for their own. Just see Bill O'Reilly's work. Lincoln is easily co-opted into the Republican framework because he was an entrepreneur and small businessman.


but the worst part of all the Lincoln worship from the Democrats is the fact that there is actual Democratic presidents that did a goo job that they could use as their idol for worship: One being FDR.
I believe that there is a cult of personality around FDR in this country. I have seen it with my own eyes. I have even heard many Republicans quip "FDR calmed many Americans in a time of trouble" or that "Something had to be done during the Depression." I personally know many Democrats and Republicans who think FDR was a great president. As far as I know, FDR was probably the president with the biggest cult of personality while in office. I'm not aware of any other president garnering as many avid listeners to his addresses or as many people hanging his portrait in their homes. I have seen many old photographs from the 1930s and '40s of very poor people in their homes with framed portraits of FDR hanging in the family room. His voice and charisma garnered massive national enthusiasm and that's why he had 4 terms.

[Ismail]

Lincoln wasn't even a Democrat, nor was he really that great of a saint that he's made out to be. Lincoln was an opportunist. He didn't believe in what he was doing, and even said it. (Most politicians today are opportunists). It blows my mind how in America they will compare him to MLK and act like he was so nice to black people when he even said he didn't want to free the slaves.This isn't really accurate. Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, it's just that the Civil War was not initially fought by the Union to free the slaves, but to reincorporate the Confederate states. As the war went on Marx and Engels noted that it would have to become a revolutionary war (i.e. aim at the abolition of slavery) if the Union was to actually achieve its objective, and so it did. Lincoln was the last progressive bourgeois President in USA. Marx helped organize the English working-class in campaigns to support the Union Army and a number of German communists Marx knew joined the Union war effort.

On Marx and Engels on the Civil War see:
* http://mccaine.org/2010/03/26/marx-engels-and-the-american-civil-war-i/
* http://mccaine.org/2010/03/27/marx-engels-and-the-american-civil-war-ii/


but the worst part of all the Lincoln worship from the Democrats is the fact that there is actual Democratic presidents that did a goo job that they could use as their idol for worship: One being FDR.FDR praised Mussolini, came to the defense of American businesses selling materials to the Francoist rebels during the Spanish Civil War, and his social programs were in direct response to working-class militancy. As time went on he did realize the danger of Fascism to the interests of US imperialism, but he was not progressive in any significant sense.

[Dodo]

It also has something to do, IMO, with the mystification within Marxism. There is an aura around Marxism that makes people feel like "we can not understand it is very complex". When this comes down especially to the uneducated masses, it can easily contribute to godification of the "true interpreter" of Marxism.

[RedWaves]

This quote came to my mind when I was reading through some of the previous few posts in the thread:
"It is human to exaggerate the merits of the dead."
-Mark Twain


Yes whenever someone talks about how sacrosanct the words of these racist old white men were, I point out that their ideas of freedom, democracy, and liberty did not extend to anyone who wasn't a land-owning Anglo-Saxon male. Whenever I say that to someone who worships these men, they usually get defensive and say "well it was a different time then." Right, and so, because it is a different time now, we probably shouldn't be trying to adopt the economic model of 18th century small-scale pre-industrial capitalism.


What's ironic is that Reagan presided over the second largest deficit in the entire history of the U.S. government (after the most recent government budget crisis in the past two years or so) and yet the probably the first thing that Republicans praise Reagan for is "Well, the economy was good when he was president." But when a similar budgetary crisis happens under a Democrat (let alone a black one), the right wingers foam at the mouth and snarl that Obama has single-handedly caused and continues to perpetuate the recession because he's a communist Muslim ('cause that makes sense...). And I've read more than once that actually Reagan was often a figurehead/spokesman for the real decision makers in the Neo-Liberal backlash of the 1980s: his financial and economic advisers who usually came from banking and investing backgrounds. So Reagan even gets more credit than he deserves in that regard.


Yep. I have spoken to Germans and Japanese people visiting the U.S. and they have literally burst out laughing when they hear that people call Obama a socialist here. Compared to every other Western country that I am aware of, American politics is very extremely far to the right of anything that exists in Canada or Western Europe.


The right has also claimed Lincoln for their own. Just see Bill O'Reilly's work. Lincoln is easily co-opted into the Republican framework because he was an entrepreneur and small businessman.


I believe that there is a cult of personality around FDR in this country. I have seen it with my own eyes. I have even heard many Republicans quip "FDR calmed many Americans in a time of trouble" or that "Something had to be done during the Depression." I personally know many Democrats and Republicans who think FDR was a great president. As far as I know, FDR was probably the president with the biggest cult of personality while in office. I'm not aware of any other president garnering as many avid listeners to his addresses or as many people hanging his portrait in their homes. I have seen many old photographs from the 1930s and '40s of very poor people in their homes with framed portraits of FDR hanging in the family room. His voice and charisma garnered massive national enthusiasm and that's why he had 4 terms.


I don't really see the cult of personality around FDR, but I am not denying it. He at least was a better president than some of the other ones they worship.
The Democratic party props up Lincoln as their image of who they want to be like, and I have to say FDR is a better choice than Lincoln.


I don't believe no other man in American history exceeds the cult of personality than Reagan. Look at him, he's treated like God, and you are right. He did a lot of really dumb things. What Reagan did was criminal. He should have been put to jail for high treason with the things he was doing.


I think Reagan was the worst president ever. He came in and started the corporate revolution and kicked class warfare into overdrive. He sent the debt overboard (something they blame on Obama), and that's not even the tip of the iceberg.
"Reaganomics" really fucked things up big time, he pushed the Bush family into the center stage, he brought in Ollie North, and the Imperialist Brothers (Rumsfeld and Cheney)


And in return he's worshiped for it.

This is the reason I'm a communist. I see past all the bullshit. No one sold capitalism worse than Ronald Reagan and his entire era in the 1980's of "Let's all get rich and become sociopaths". I remember when he died, I was thinking maybe people would remember what kind of scumbag he was, no instead they were crying and mourning him. Mourning the guy that sent them to hell, while in the UK people still had some kind of sense left in them after Thatcher's reign of pain to the point they were celebrating when she died. I expect America to react the same way when the Bush's finally kick the bucket. There will be a lot of crying and so forth, while no one remembers how bad they were.


When Reagan died the GOP went nuts and wanted to name every landmark after him.


Just look at how crazy they went with the worship of him

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/president-reagan-landmarks/


I would even go as far to say that only the likes of Hitler and Stalin's cult of personality exceeds Ronald Reagan. They've been trying to put him on the penny, and on a dollar bill for years now. If they could, they would put his face on fucking everything, cause the GOP worships him, and he's treated like God. Actually he is God. Had Obama actually had balls and said something about how terrible he was, you know they would have went even more nuts about that than all the bullshit they make up about Obamacare.

[Illegalitarian]

It's not so simple. Stalin recognized that the name "Stalin" had become something infinitely more powerful than him as an individual. To them, Stalin was a symbol of the state. I think it's important to distinguish the cult of personality you'd find with Stalin, and those you'd get with figures a la idi amin or Saddam Hussein, both of which were degenerate despots, in their case it clearly wasn't as complicated as it was in the soviet union. Stalin could have very well been a modest man who did not seek to aggrandize himself. Point being, Stalin had little control over the cult of personality that developed, it's more complicated of an ideological phenomena than a party seeking more power over the people. What I think can be agreed upon, though, is that after the second world war the cult of personality in Russia became something of a circus, and divulged into the ridiculous, it's clear what madness had befallen the ideological state.

The cult of personality was exclusively a phenomena which pervaded in backward, feudal countries where the peasantry had revered their leaders in such a grand manner before Communism.


This is a good post and really all that needs to be said.



Of course, there were despots like Ceausescu and KI-S who intentionally held themselves up as huge badasses worthy of praise and near-worship, but I think in the case of Stalin and Hoxha it's probably a bit more complicated.

Hoxha regularly condemned the cults around Mao and everyone else, even the small cult around himself. He didn't exactly outlaw it ala Sankara (how great was Sankara. What a guy), but I don't think he really advocated it.

[cyu]

When election time rolls around in the US, you see the same kind of cult-of-personality developing - but instead of a cult around one person, it's around two people: the democratic flavor of the month and the republican flavor of the month. Everyone believes either one or the other will save the world.

This kind of cult of personality is much more insidious because it is much more effective. People no longer think in terms of I like Stalin or I don't like Stalin, instead they think in terms of a false-dichotomy: I like Obama or I like Romney. They are actually made to believe that capitalist #1 or capitalist #2 will save them, and they become much more rabid in their support - always to be disappointed a few years down the line, but come the next election cycle, the same cults of personality are groomed again, with people again believing one or the other false idol will save them.

[Five Year Plan]

When election time rolls around in the US, you see the same kind of cult-of-personality developing - but instead of a cult around one person, it's around two people: the democratic flavor of the month and the republican flavor of the month. Everyone believes either one or the other will save the world.

This kind of cult of personality is much more insidious because it is much more effective. People no longer think in terms of I like Stalin or I don't like Stalin, instead they think in terms of a false-dichotomy: I like Obama or I like Romney. They are actually made to believe that capitalist #1 or capitalist #2 will save them, and they become much more rabid in their support - always to be disappointed a few years down the line, but come the next election cycle, the same cults of personality are groomed again, with people again believing one or the other false idol will save them.

I'm not sure that you understand what a cult of personality is. It's not just a system that focuses inordinate attention on a person or group of people, and says good things about them. It's the projection of unrealistically heroic, almost supernatural qualities onto a person whose supremacy is to command absolute and (publicly, at least) unquestioned obedience.

[Ismail]

Hoxha regularly condemned the cults around Mao and everyone else, even the small cult around himself. He didn't exactly outlaw it ala Sankara (how great was Sankara. What a guy), but I don't think he really advocated it."'Those people who write to me about this or that question saying, «I want to discuss it only with you,» or «the water runs pure from above but becomes muddy below,» make me sick, [Enver] said with evident displeasure when he came across such expressions in the letters of citizens or in their requests to meet him...

Any journalistic nonsense also annoyed him and upset him enormously, as occurred in the case when, in a report following a speech of his, a correspondent wrote more or less that «Enver Hoxha's Albania stands like a granite rock facing the external blockade,» and Enver wrote an angry note on the margin of the article:

«No one has bequeathed Albania to me, it belongs to the people, to all Albanians.» ...

One of the daily meetings of the secretaries of the Central Committee, in the middle 1970s, at which, while speaking about the preparation of various documents of the Party, he dwelt at length on the criteria for the use of quotations, is a significant illustration of this. He raised the question in «principle» but, in fact, his aim was to eliminate the inappropriate use of quotations from his Works, a thing which did happen sometimes, especially in the press, in lectures and publications.

At this meeting: 'It may seem to some that the use of many quotations show the high level of the author of the article, for it «proves» that the writer or reporter bases himself on theory. If we have a look at what we have written in the past, we shall see that at first we, too, put in many quotations.'

'Yes, that is so,' I agreed. 'It came about especially because we felt the need to prove we were right. Instead of using arguments from life, from science, we used some quotation to «put the seal» on our opinion. In this way we felt more sure of ourselves.'

'Lack of experience compelled us to make use of quotations,' Comrade Enver continued. 'In time our horizon broadened and we began to use quotations more correctly. But look at the press,' he put his finger on the «sore spot». 'There are people who fill their articles with quotations, using sayings of mine several times in one article. This won't do. They should refer to the wisdom of the Party, which, being collective wisdom, is unerring.'"
(Alia, Ramiz. Our Enver. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1988. pp. 431-433.)