40 Pages of Mao quotes on Stalin

[jacobin1949]

I don't know if anyone has brought this site up yet. But singlepspark has a basically correct line on Stalin. That criticizes his errors but recognizes him as the man who basically singlehandedly saved the world from hitler.

http://www.singlespark.org/?id=StalinMaoEval

In China portraits of Stalin still hang and there are still monuments honoring him! It is good to know that even in 2007 there are still some governments that give Stalin his due.

Stalin's Place in History
April 5, 1956

[Extracted from the People's Daily editorial of 5th April, 1956.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Lenin's death Stalin as the chief leader of the Party and the state creatively applied and developed Marxism-Leninism. In the struggle to defend the legacy of Leninism against its enemies - the Trotskyites, Zinovievities and other bourgeois agents - Stalin expressed the will and wishes of the people and proved himself to be an outstanding Marxist-Leninist fighter. The reason Stalin won the support of the Soviet people and played an important role in history was primarily that he, together with the other leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, brought about the triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union and created the conditions for the victory of the Soviet Union in the war against Hitler; these victories of the Soviet people conformed to the interests of the working class of the world and all progressive mankind. It was therefore quite natural for the name of Stalin to be greatly honoured throughout the world. But having won such high honour among the people both at home and abroad by his correct application of the Leninist line, Stalin erroneously exaggerated his own role and counterposed his individual authority to the collective leadership, and as a result certain of his actions were opposed to certain fundamental Marxist-Leninist concepts he himself had propagated....
Marxist-Leninists hold that leaders play a big role in history. The people and their parties need forerunners who are able to represent the interests and will of the people, stand in the forefront of their historic struggles, and serve as their leaders. But when any leader of the Party or the state places himself over and above the Party and the masses, instead of in their midst, when he alienates himself from the masses, he ceases to have all-round, penetrating insight into the affairs of the state. As long as this was the case, even so outstanding a personality as Stalin could not avoid making unrealistic and erroneous decisions on certain important matters... During the later part of his life, Stalin took more and more pleasure in this cult of the individual and violated the Party's system of democratic centralism and the principle of combining collective leadership with individual responsibility. As a result, he made some serious mistakes: for example, he broadened the scope of the suppression of counter- revolution; he lacked the necessary vigilance on the eve of the anti- fascist war; he failed to pay proper attention to the further development of agriculture and the material welfare of peasantry; he gave certain wrong advice on the international communist movement, and, in particular, made a wrong decision on the question of Yugoslavia. On these issues, Stalin full victim to subjectivism and one-sidedness and divorced himself from objective reality and from the masses.

The cult of the individual is a rotten carry-over from the long history of mankind. The cult of the individual is rooted not only in the exploiting classes but also in the small producers. As is well known, patriarchism is a product of small-producer economy...

The struggle against the cult of the individual, which was launched by the Twentieth Congress, is a great and courageous fight by the communists and the people of the Soviet Union to clear away the ideological obstacles blocking their advance...

It must be pointed out that Stalin's works should, as before, still be seriously studied and that we should accept all that is of value in them, as an important historical legacy, especially those many works in which he defended Leninism and correctly summarized the experience of building up the Soviet Union. But there are two ways of studying them - the Marxist way and the doctrinaire way. Some people treat Stalin's writings in a doctrinaire manner and therefore cannot analyse and see what is correct and what is not and everything that is correct they consider a panacea and apply indiscriminately, and thus inevitably they make mistakes. For instance, Stalin put forward a formula that in different revolutionary periods the main blow should be so directed as to isolate the middle-of-the-road social and political forces of the time. This formula of Stalin's should be treated according to circumstances and from a critical, Marxist point of view. In certain circumstances it may be correct to isolate the middle forces, but it is not correct to isolate them under all circumstances. Our experience teaches us that the main blow of the revolution should be directed at the chief enemy and to isolate him, whereas with the middle forces, a policy of both uniting with them and struggling against them should be adopted, so that they are at least neutralized; and'as circumstances permit, efforts should be made to shift them from their position of neutrality to one of alliance with us in order to facilitate the development of the revolution. But there was a time - the ten years of civil war from 1927 to 1936 - when some of our comrades crudely applied this formula of Stalin's to China's revolution by turning their main attack on the middle forces, singling them out as the most dangerous enemy; the result was that, instead of isolating the real enemy, we isolated ourselves and suffered losses to the advantage of the real enemy. In the light of this doctrinaire error, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China during the period of the anti-Japanese war formulated a policy of developing the progressive forces, winning over the middle-of-the roaders, and isolating the diehards for the purpose of defeating the Japanese aggressors...

Some people consider that Stalin was wrong in everything. This is a grave misconception. Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist, yet at the same time a Marxist-Leninist who committed several gross errors without realizing that they were errors. We should view Stalin from a historical standpoint, make a proper and all round analysis to see where he was right and where he was wrong and draw useful lessons therefrom. Both the things he did right and the things he did wrong were phenomena of the international communist movement and bore the imprint of the times. Taken as a whole the international communist movement is only a little over hundred years old and it is only thirty-nine years since the victory of the October Revolution; experience in many fields of revolutionary work is still inadequate. Great achievements have been made, but there are still shortcomings and mistakes....

Reactionary forces the world over are pouring ridicule on this event: they jeer at the fact that we are overcoming mistakes in our camp. But what will come of all this ridicule? There is not the slightest doubt that these scoffers will find themselves facing a still more powerful, forever invincible, great camp of peace and socialism, headed by the Soviet Union, while the murderous, bloodsucking enterprises of these scoffers will be in a pretty fix.

[jacobin1949]

Part II: A Summary of Mao’s Criticisms of Stalin by Topic

The task now is to sum up Mao’s criticisms of Stalin in all the above comments. It should first be recognized that there are clearly some important changes of viewpoint over time, and even some outright inconsistencies if the changes of views over time are not allowed for.

Moreover, a few early statements by Mao sound almost religious in their devotion, such as that “Stalin is the savior of all the oppressed” and “Comrade Stalin is the leader of the world revolution. This is an extremely important circumstance. Among the whole human race, this man, Stalin, has appeared, and this is a very great event. Because he is there, it is easer to get things done. As you know, Marx is dead, and Engels and Lenin too are dead. If there were no Stalin, who would give the orders?” [Both quotes are from Mao’s “Speech at a Meeting of All Circles in Yan’an to Commemorate Stalin’s Sixtieth Birthday” (Dec. 21, 1939)] Was this sort of grossly excessive praise and obeisance toward Stalin necessary in the international communist movement at that time? If so, this is in itself a very strong implicit criticism of Stalin. At any rate, by 1957 Mao was saying that Stalin’s “personality cult was metaphysics; no one was permitted to criticize him.” [“Speech at the Congress of Communist Parties and Workers’ Parties in Socialist Countries” (Nov. 18, 1957)] That’s quite a different point of view!

Nevertheless, despite some changes in views over the years—mostly, it seems, in a considerably more critical direction—there is still a more or less unified general critical evaluation of Stalin that Mao presents in most of these collected comments. These, we feel, are the main themes:

* While Stalin kept to a materialist stance in philosophy, his understanding and application of dialectics was much more uneven. He failed to recognize the centrality of the concept of contradiction in dialectics, and often failed to recognize the existence of important social and class contradictions.
* Specifically, Stalin failed to understand that even after the collectivization of agriculture class contradictions still existed in the countryside, and class struggle would continue there.
* And more generally, Stalin failed to recognize that even after the basic construction of socialism in the USSR, class struggle still continued, and the contradiction between the socialist and capitalist roads still continued—not only in society generally, but also within the Communist Party.
* Because of this lack of appreciation of the continuation of class struggle in socialist society, Stalin tended to reduce the threat of capitalist restoration within the USSR to just the possibility of armed attack by foreign imperialism (though that was indeed a legitimate and serious worry).
* Within the USSR, Stalin had a “paternalistic” approach toward the masses, and sought to change and run society for them, instead of using the mass line method of mobilizing the masses to change and run society for themselves. Stalin did not use the mass line either in politics or in economic work.
* Specific examples: Stalin failed to rely on the masses in suppressing counter-revolutionaries and enemy agents, instead relying almost entirely on the security agencies to do this. Similarly, Stalin failed to rely on the masses to ward off the danger of a general capitalist restoration. Even in economic work he tended in later years to rely more on cadres and technology than on the masses.
* Stalin confused contradictions among the people with the contradictions between the people and the enemy. Specifically, he unjustly imprisoned or executed a great many people.
* Within the Soviet Union, the CPSU and the International Communist Movement, Stalin insisted on complete obedience from everyone, and would brook no criticisms from anyone. He was suspicious and mistrustful of those whose complete obedience and total agreement he questioned.
* In his relations with other countries, including China, Stalin often acted as a “great nation chauvinist”, and even at times like an imperialist might act.
* Stalin promoted the construction of an inappropriate and metaphysical personality cult around himself as an individual. [This criticism is unfortunately somewhat ironic, given that Mao later did this as well!]
* In economics, Stalin seriously neglected agriculture and light industry, and put lopsided emphasis on heavy industry.
* Similarly, Stalin gave insufficient attention to raising the living standards of the masses (especially the peasants).
* Stalin seemed to be at a loss as to how to transform cooperative production in agriculture into state production, and how to transform the peasantry into agricultural workers.
* More generally, after the early transformations of industry and agriculture, Stalin seemed to resign himself to the continuation of the existing relations of production and did not try to further transform them in the direction of communism.
* Stalin did not show sufficient vigilance in the period before the German attack on the Soviet Union, and grossly miscalculated as to when that attack might occur. Nevertheless he did successfully lead the Soviet Union and the world in defeating Hitler.
* On the other hand, Stalin tended to be too frightened of the imperialist powers, way too cautious, and even attempted to prevent revolutions in other countries because he feared they might lead to the involvement of the USSR in a war. At several key points, he even tried to prevent the Chinese Revolution from proceeding.
* Stalin did not do a good job in training and preparing his successors. (This, alas, also turned out to be true of Mao.)

If Mao had all these (and more) serious criticisms of Stalin, then why did he regularly repeat his “70% good, 30% bad” overall evaluation of the man? There seems to be two reasons: First, Stalin really did have some important positive aspects and really had led the Soviet Union to a number of important advances and victories. Among these were the massive and extremely rapid industrialization of the country; the completion of the socialization of industry; the collectivization of agriculture (though this was done in a very brutal way); and the victory over the horrendous attack by Nazi Germany (despite his lack of vigilance ahead of the German attack).

Secondly, Mao felt that while Stalin should in fact be criticized for his errors, that it was wrong to “knock him off in one blow”. What exactly was he getting at here? Mao evidently felt that after such a long period of undiluted praise and glorification of Stalin and the Soviet Union while he was in charge, the sudden total denunciation of him and the exposure all at once of the many major problems, mistakes and even crimes during the Stalin period, would all lead to tremendous disorientation on the part of many communists and their supporters around the world. And this is in fact what happened. Many western parties, as Mao later noted, lost huge numbers of members and much of their influence in the aftermath of Khrushchev’s not-really-so-secret total denunciation of Stalin.

Mao tended to emphasize praise and support for Stalin in his public statements, though he did openly acknowledge that Stalin had made some serious errors. This may have been so that people would have time to reorient themselves about the Stalin era and not lose heart because of Khrushchev's revelations. It was probably also due in part to the growing need to reaffirm Marxist principles and traditions in opposition to Khrushchev's ever-more-evident revisionism. On the other hand, at meetings with leading Party cadres, Mao's remarks tended to focus more on a variety of specific criticisms of Stalin, in philosophy, in political economy, with regard to Stalin's political leadership and his leadership of the international communist movement, and with regard to his attitude and behavior toward the Chinese revolution. While Mao still often repeated that Stalin should be upheld in the main, in these more private meetings most of his comments about Stalin were quite critical, and seem to have become more critical as time went on, partly in light of the unfolding experience of the Chinese revolution.

Sources

[jacobin1949]

Has everyone here read "The Patriotic War" it ranks with Thucydides as one of the great works of wartime speeches. The rhetoric is in league with Demothones, Cicero, Pericles, Lincoln and Bryan. All socalists should study it both as military history and for oratory.

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/GPW46.html

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:15 pm
I don't know if anyone has brought this site up yet. But singlepspark has a basically correct line on Stalin. That criticizes his errors but recognizes him as the man who basically singlehandedly saved the world from hitler.
He did it all by himself, eh? I don't suppose it was in any part due to Trotsky, the man who created the Red Army, or Tukachevsky and his fellow generals who maintained it as a fighting force until they were purged for being in league with Hitler, to be replaced by Budyonny and friends who thought that WWII would be fought with cavalry. :lol: And forget all about the millions of corageous workers and peasants on the ground who fought fascism tooth and nail whilst every possible mistake and betrayal was made by the Stalinist leadership. :rolleyes:

[Dros]

I tend to disagree. I think Stalin killed socialism in the USSR and allowed for (and/or started) revisionist leadership/state capitalism.

Further, I think it very extreme to contribute the fall of the Third Reich to Stalin. The Generals of the Red Army had more to do with it. I think Stalin's economic policy and radical reorginization (purge) or the Red Army made it almost impossible for the USSR to succeed in that war.

[jacobin1949]

As someone who supports Deng Xiaoping I would normally hold that NEP policies would have been the best way to industrialized and modernize Russia over th long run.

However faced with a United Nazi Europe, Stalin's 5 year plan managed to surpass industry in both the UK and Germany so that victory was possible. Frankly Stalin's military mistakes have been exaggerated. But even if we grant Stalin's military incompetence the 5 year plan is what gave the USSR the industry to win over the long run.

Compare 1914 to 1945 if you want to see Stalin's achievement.

[Dimentio]

Is not marxism vehemently against the idealistic idea that leaders could bring about social change?

What is your opinion on modern China?

[Invader Zim]

That criticizes his errors but recognizes him as the man who basically singlehandedly saved the world from hitler.

The idea of 'great man' history is fundermentally and diametrically opposed to the leftist perspective which dictates that structural and functional causes easily out weigh intentionalism and the impact of individuals. 'Great man' history is also fundermentally flawed for quite obvious reasons.

EDIT: Serpent just beat me to it.

[jacobin1949]

IF Stalin had never been born, would his place simply been taken by someone else and history turned out the same?

This is the test to a man's impact on history. It does not necessarily make a man good or evil For example MLK probably would have been replaced while not Hitler. Marx certainly makes this point in the Brumaire of Napoleon III though he criticizes Victor Hugo for going to far.

[Invader Zim]

IF Stalin had never been born, would his place simply been taken by someone else and history turned out the same?

Who knows? But what we do know is that the Germans lost in Russia not a result of any single inviduals actions but because of the collective actions of millions and millions of individuals across the globe, poor weather, a shifting economic climate, technological advances, etc.

To suggest that any one man 'won the war' is utterly ridiculous.

[Rawthentic]

I disagree with the article for the same reason that Serpent and Zim do.

The general Marxist-Leninist line is that after the capitalist roaders stole power from the communist leadership, their policies and outlook were ones that led back to capitalism and astray from the socialist path (and we see China today.)

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:47 pm
The 5 year plan is what gave the USSR the industry to win over the long run.

Right. The only good thing Stalin did was to implement TROTSKY's plan for industrialization. And even this he did poorly.


Is not marxism vehemently against the idealistic idea that leaders could bring about social change?

Yes. But when the dictatorship of the proletariat degenerates into just a dictatorship, then the person in power has considerable influence. In these influences history can be shaped by one individual because that individual has absolute power. For instance I think the example of Hitler is good. The holocauset would not have happened without Hitler. Same with Pol Pot. And I think the same can be said of Stalin. I agree that it is absurd to say that Stalin won the war but I don't think it is fair to say that he personally did not influence history.

[Axel1917]

Stalin's purges did immense harm to the Red Army. In fact, his opposition to forming a united front against Fascism in Germany was largely responsible for Hitler coming to power in the first place!

And can we seriously consider someone that toasted to Hitler's health and made an alliance with him (there was simply no way this was necessary, given that the Red Army was far more powerful, but Stalin's policies are what caused it to be so weak at first.) a Marxist? Can we really consider someone that was guided by the narrow interests of the bureaucracy he represented a Marxist in any way, shape, or form?

[Invader Zim]

For instance I think the example of Hitler is good. The holocauset would not have happened without Hitler.

While not to diminish Hitlers influence upon Nazi Germany, here you are simply taking the rightwing line on history.

The holocaust was as much to do with structural influences as it was to do with any individual. The entire Nazi ideology was based upon multiple individuals demands and desires, which were incorporated into one ever mutating ideology. This in its self is why Nazism is so inherently contradictory. As such the Nazis demanded foreign policy successes and expansion (Lebensraum), yet at the same time demanded that the Reich be free of 'undesirables'. Thus as the Reich expanded the 'Jewish problem' among others became more and more accute. You will note that following the fall of France in 1940 Hitler was willing to embrace the Madagascar plan, when Barbarrosa was an apparent success Hitler was ready to demand that European nations simply evict their Jews. In the early periods of the war and before it, the Nazi's actively encouraged Jews to leave and the Nazi's took the measure of dumping Jewish families on the borders of Germany and Austria. So as you can see Nazi racism became increasingly extreme as a result of structural developments. When the 'final solution' eventually did come, it was when the Third Reich had expanded as far as it could and was actually starting to lose ground.

It also must be noted that Hitlers actual infuence on the holocaust is very hard to guage as Hitler actually only ever signed the 'euthanasia' document. Typical positions on the subject state that Hitler was undoubtedly well aware of the holocaust and probably indicated to Himmler that he wanted the Jews, and various other irradicated; however at that point the holocaust came under the remit of Hitler's lieutenants.

Thus it is of course inane to propose that Hitler had nothing to do with the holocaust, but it is still more inane to think that without dozens of other factors the holocaust would have occured.

Some further reading for anyone interested: -

Browning, C., The origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy 1939-1942, (London, 2005).

Kershaw, I., The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, (King’s Lynn, 1993).

Mommsen, H., From Weimar to Aushwitz: Essays in German History, (Princeton, 1991).