Joseph Stalin and Religious Freedom
By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD
‘The contemporary ideology of the “common man” doubtless has traditional roots in Christianity and in other revolutionary movements of the past. But it owes its revival and current popularity largely to the impact of Marxism and of the Soviet Union.’
EH Carr: The Soviet Impact on the Western World, MacMillan, (1946), Page 99
Author’s Note: Joseph Stalin had the closest position to religion out of Marx, Engels and Lenin! As a man who had trained for at least three years in the Seminary to be a Russian Orthodox priest, he encountered Marxism and Leninism in this very same Seminary and it changed his life. Stalin was not religious, but he was a great humanitarian whose reputation as an equally great working-class leader has been accounted with the most disgusting lies emanating from the capitalist West. He was tolerant and thoughtful, and a prime example of what happens when the ‘inverted’ mindset of religion is rectified through Marxist education. However, the many millions of people who still follow religion are not like Joseph Stalin and do not possess the dialectical power transition from one mode of psychological functioning to another. The reality is that Joseph Stalin was considerate to those who followed religion, and took an interest in Buddhist philosophy. He could not deny that even within the highly conservative world of the Christian Seminary, Marxist ideology might still manifest and take hold of the hearts and minds destined for the priesthood. As he followed Marxist-Leninism to the letter, there is not much that can be quoted that is original from Stalin regarding religion. Everything Marx, Engels and Lenin said – he agreed with and put into action. Joseph Stalin’s position in history was to apply Marxist-Leninism to rapidly changing conditions in the world. Marxism is not ‘anti-religion’ - if it were – there would be no point granting people religious rights! If Marxism were ‘anti-religion’, then why not just ‘ban’ religion from the very beginning? Although it may well be that religion would eventually (and naturally) die-out after many decades of peaceful Socialist existence, it is also true that these vast religious populations must be properly cared for and looked after when living within a Socialist society!
ACW (7.9.2020)
‘As industrial capitalism developed, the working-class movement grew. In the nineties revolutionary activities in Transcaucasia were carried on by Russian Marxists who had been exiled to that region. Soon began the propaganda of Marxism. The Tiflis Orthodox Seminary at that time was a centre from which libertarian ideas of every brand spread among the youth – from nationalist Narodism to internationalist Marxism. It was honeycombed with secret societies. The jesuitical regime that reigned in the seminary aroused in Stalin a burning sense of protest and strengthened his revolutionary sentiments. At the age of fifteen Stalin became a revolutionary.’
Joseph Stalin: A Short Biography, Foreign Language Publishing house, Moscow, (1947), Page 7 – Compiled by GF Alexandrov, MR Galaktionov, VS Kruzhkov, MB Mitin, VD Mochalov and PN Pospeov
A point encountered continuously throughout the reliable English, Chinese, Russian-language literature, is that the man known to history by the pseudonym ‘Joseph Stalin’ (real name ‘Vissarionovich Djugashvili), was the only leading Bolshevik to have emerged from a poverty-stricken peasant background. Stalin never hid the fact that he trained in his youth to be a Russian Orthodox priest, or that he encountered Marxism not in a secret or conspiratorial meeting, but rather in a Christian Seminary. Those who malign the memory of Stalin, or who try to appropriate his life-story for their own nefarious ends, often brush-over this fact as it is viewed as an inconvenience on both sides! The reality is that the environment generated by a progressive theological school was conducive to the spread of Marxism and resulted in the conversion of a number of young men who would have otherwise disappeared down the rabbit-hole of priesthood possibly never to have re-emerged again! The image of Joseph Stalin fabricated by the US Cold War ideologues after 1945, is, of course, entirely ‘false’. It is ‘false’ because there is no objective evidence for any of its accusations ever happening, outside of the US texts that convey the disinformation. The distortion of the history of Joseph Stalin is carried-out by capitalists, Trotskyites and fascists, and a discerning reader will perceive the underlying ideology that unites all three of these interconnected ideologies. The reality of the life of Joseph Stalin is usually the exact opposite to that asserted. As one of the most effective leaders of the working-class, it is only natural to suspect that the enemies of the working-class will marshal their forces and focus their attacks against him! The point of this offensive is to turn the working-class Stalin successfully led, against the memory and actuality of Joseph Stalin the man and successful leader. The working-class must be ‘converted’ to voluntarily participate in the habitual misrepresentation of Joseph Stalin to the extent that ‘Stalin’ elicits the same negative response as the name ‘Hitler’. It is ironic to think that Stalin, in reality, and without recourse to religious faith, saved the world from Hitler’s fascism (the latter of which was firmly allied with the Christian Church). Needless to say, Stalin’s Revolutionary activities were soon brought to the attention of the Seminary Authorities and following three-years of ‘secret’ agitation against the system (amongst the priesthood and further afield), Stalin was finally expelled on May 29th, 1899.
Joseph Stalin was a very caring individual despite the hardships of imprisonment, poverty and warfare that he personally faced and endured as an individual. Writing during November, 1920, Stalin discussed his concern for the welfare of the proletariat in the West, and how he wanted reserves of foodstuffs built-up in the West. Stalin advised:
‘The fact is that the western states (Germany, Italy, etc) are completely dependent on America which supplies Europe with grain. The victory of revolution in these countries would face the proletariat with a food crisis on the morrow of the revolution if bourgeois America refused to supply them with grain, which is quite likely. (Sochineniya, iv, 380)’
EH Carr: The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923, Vol. 3, Penguin Books, (1966) - Page 107 (Footnote 2)
A point often over-looked when assessing the Revolutionary output of Joseph Stalin is how he used to sometimes employed religious metaphors in his speeches, although this habit declined over the years. When the Revolution was ‘new’, Lenin entrusted Stalin to represent the Bolsheviks when dealing with the Buddhist and Islamic peoples living to the East. In 1920 – speaking on the third anniversary of the October Revolution in Baku - Stalin stated:
‘Paraphrasing the famous words of Luther, Russia might say: “Here I stand on the border-line between the old capitalist and the new socialist world; on this line, I unite the efforts of the proletariat of the west with the efforts of the peasantry of the east in order to demolish the old world. May the God of history help me.”’
EH Carr: The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923, Vol. 3, Penguin Books, (1966) - Page 271
Stalin, due to his place in history, followed the ideology of Marx, Engels and Lenin more or less to the letter, adopting and adapting where necessary to meeting changing circumstances. It is important to remember that Joseph Stalin was continuously ‘voted’ (and re-voted) into his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (and was popular with the voters). Even when he was older and tried to resign due to ill-health, his resignation was refused by the Central Committee (the membership of which was also voted into office). (For a profound and in-depth study of the reality of life in the USSR, please access the work of Grover Furr and any number of reliable Russian language texts hosted on the Russian language search-engine ‘Yandex’). Occasionally, Joseph Stalin used religious imagery in his speeches and writings, but at other times a certain compassion for the well-being of others is clearly discernible. This is the ‘real’ Joseph Stalin that US disinformation does not want the general public to be aware of. In October, 1920 Stalin wrote:
‘One of the most serious obstacles to the realisation of Soviet autonomy is the acute shortage of intellectual forces of local origin in the border regions, the shortage of instructors in every branch of Soviet and party work without exception. This shortage cannot but hamper both educational and revolutionary constructive work in the border lands. But for this very reason it would be unwise and harmful to alienate the all too small groups of native intellectuals, who perhaps would like to serve the masses of the people but are unable to do so, perhaps because, not being communists, they believe themselves to be surrounded by an atmosphere of mistrust and are afraid of possible measures of repression. The policy of drawing such groups into Soviet work, the policy of recruiting them for economic, agrarian, food-administrative and similar posts, with the purpose of their gradual sovietisation, may be successfully applied...’ (Sochineniya, iv, 360-361)’
EH Carr: The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923, Vol. 1, MacMillan, (1950) - Page 375
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics occurred in December, 1922, when it was clear that the Western capitalist forces that had invaded Revolutionary Russia in early 1918 had all been thoroughly defeated and expelled from Russian soil! At this time Lenin was lying ill after experiencing a stroke and suffering from a debilitating neurological disorder, and Joseph Stalin – who had travelled far and wide throughout Revolutionary Russia in the name of Lenin to persuade religious groupings to support the Revolution – had slowly taken over the dreaded responsibility of building an entirely ‘new’ type of Socialist society in the world! As Russia was extremely culturally backward and primitive, this prospect was no easy task. Stalin remained undaunted as he was officially voted into office to take Lenin’s place after his death in 1924. If it were not for the extraordinary energy and abilities of Joseph Stalin between 1917-1924 as Lenin’s right-hand man, I doubt the Revolution would have survived the invasion of the capitalist West, or Trotsky’s treacherous turn-coating. Of course, Stalin was assisted by a number of able Bolsheviks (including MI Kalinin), but nevertheless, if Stalin had not manifested something of a wondrous ability to dialogue with the illiterate leaders of volatile (and remote) communities, tribes and other groupings, the Bolsheviks may well have ended-up having to fight a full-fledged religious uprising as well as Western capitalists! However, as matters transpired, Stalin persuaded Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and Christians to support the Socialist Revolution throughout Russia, and to provide young men for the newly formed Red Army. When these men returned on leave from their units, their communities were enthralled to learn how well they had been treated, and to learn of the rapid improvements developing throughout the country! Stalin also initiated change for young women by arranging local religious authorities to allow women in their communities to ‘work’ for part of the day in return for State-sponsored repairs of temples, Churches, and synagogues, etc. Stalin participated in many of these types of negotiations whilst Lenin was alive and the Revolution was still ‘young’.
Around 1920, Stalin assessed the Red Army's ability to win victories during the Russian Civil War (1918-1921), which saw the capitalist West thoroughly defeated and routed from the Russian territory it had invaded. Stalin knew that in the many remote and outlying peripheral areas of Revolutionary Russia, reform had been slow to materialise. These people were generally poverty stricken, primitive in culture and religious in attitude. These many millions of people were targeted by the invading capitalist forces as representing a possible reactionary and anti-Soviet population of people willing to assist the ‘Whites’ in their struggle to rescue the Czar and reinstate him to power. The reality, however, was quite different as these Buddhists, Muslims and minority Christians tended to ‘refuse’ to openly assist the ‘Whites’, despite having no support from the Bolsheviks! This passive resistance had a positive effect which Stalin admitted:
‘Do not forget that, if in the rear of Kolchak, Deniken, Wrangel and Yudenich we had not had the so-called “aliens”, if we had not had the former oppressed peoples who undermines the rear of these generals by their silent sympathy with the Russian proletariat – and this, comrades, in a special factor in our growth, this silent sympathy; nobody sees it or hears it, but it decides everything – if it had not been for this sympathy, we should not have beaten one of these generals. While we were marching against, them, the collapse began in their rear. Why? Because these generals relied on the “colonizing” element among the Cossacks, they offered to the oppressed peoples a prospect of further oppression, and the oppressed peoples were obliged to come forward and embrace us, seeing that we unfurled the banner of liberation of these oppressed peoples.’ (Sochineniya, v, 246)
EH Carr: The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923, Vol. 1, MacMillan, (1950) - Page 257
Before the death of Lenin in 1924, Joseph Stalin held the post of People’s Commissar for Nationalities. This demonstrates the extent to which Lenin entrusted Stalin to carry-out the required Revolutionary function of freeing all religious minorities from Czarist persecution and the discrimination arising from the Russian Orthodox Church! Lenin’s approach was to guarantee ALL religious practice as a ‘personal matter’ supported by law, once the major religions had been stripped of ALL political power (and direct participation in governance), and no longer retained any influence in schools, colleges or universities, etc. In-short, Soviet policy involved religion being removed from the public sphere and firmly relocated in the private sphere (as directed by Marx and Engels). Lenin believed that as Socialist society advanced and developed, life would become so good in the physical world that the ‘inner’ escapism associated with the religious path would slowly but surely lose its relevance and attraction. Marx had taught that humanity had often ‘turned within’ to escape the suffering associated with existence in the outer world, and generated an imagined oasis of ‘theological’ safety premised upon all kinds of ‘inverted’ (but sentimentally ‘comforting’) nonsense! This ‘inversion’, or so Marx taught, existed within the bourgeoisie as a psychological sustainer of that class, and in the religion that the bourgeoisie favoured and therefore ‘empowered’ with their patronage. Essentially, an ‘inverted’ mindset exists when a theistic construct is ‘imagined’ in the mind, (i.e. is nothing but a ‘thought construct’), which is then mistakenly believed to independently exist in the outer world. Theology, as an ‘inverted’ ideology, develops this mistaken conception a step further, and assumes that this ‘imagined’ theological construct has the ability to effect change in the world as if through the agency of an ‘invisible hand’. As no objective evidence exists to confirm the existence of this ‘imagined’ theistic construct, the ideology of theology demands that ‘blind faith’ is used as a means to maintain this ‘inversion’ of reality. Whilst at Seminary College, Joseph Stalin would have simultaneously experienced false consciousness of ‘inverted’ theology, and the ‘true consciousness’ of Marxist-Leninism, and consequently experience an all-round education relevant to the functionality of the external world! Although Joseph Stalin fully understood how religionists thought, he chose Marxist-Leninism over theology, and was then able to assist the Revolution to a far greater degree!
Stalin had encountered the works of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and VI Lenin at the Christian Seminary. Trainee priests acquired and passed-around this Marxist literature under the gaze of the Religious Authorities, and probably got away with it for as long as they did because a number of their priestly teachers were directly involved. Stalin was from a very poor background, and many parents such as his, often sent their sons to become priests in the Russian Orthodox Church. If the training was successful, then the son in question would escape the poverty of his parents and embark upon a career of supporting the Czar and the feudal system he held sway over. Stalin encountered two-sides to religion – the highly ‘conservative’ and ‘reactionary’ on one-side, and the ‘progressive’ and ‘Revolutionary’ on the other. For around three-years (1896-1899) Stalin gained a sound education not only in theology, but also in Marxist-Leninist ideology, and he achieved this whilst living in the heart of a Christian Seminary! He must have passed the theological examinations to the satisfaction of the Religious Authorities to have been allowed to remain in the establishment as long as he did. We may correctly assume from these observations that Stalin also understood the machinations of Christian theology to a reasonable degree of sophistication. What is remarkable, is how Stalin managed to ‘balance’ his studies and excel in both! Stalin effectively learned the idealism of theology and the historical materialism of Marxist-Leninism simultaneously! This feat demonstrates that he was an extraordinary human-being. Stalin may well have encountered the respect that Marx and Engels had for use of dialectics within Early Buddhism:
‘In 1927, he published his masterpiece ‘The Conception of Buddhist Nirvana’ which revolutionised the manner through which Mahayana Buddhism was understood in the West. In the same year, FI Shcherbatskoy worked upon a comprehensive ‘Buddhist Encyclopaedia’ for use in the Soviet education system, whilst in 1928 (under Stalin) he was appointed to head a new academic facility dedicated exclusively for the study of Buddhism within the USSR entitled ‘Institute for the Scientific Study of Buddhist Culture’ (ISBC). The remit of the ISBC was to establish a scientific dialectical history of the development of Buddhism in ancient India, how the teaching spread throughout Asia, how Buddhist culture integrated into previously existing cultures, and how contemporary Buddhism functioned in the modern world.’
Adrian Chan-Wyles: USSR: FI SHCHERBATSKOY (1866-1942) – EXPERT IN BUDDHISM (Blog Article)
In July 23rd, 1934, the famous SciFi writer – HG Wells – met with Joseph Stalin in Moscow and published this short interview as ‘Marxism Vs Liberalism’. During this time-period, the revisionist US ideologues claim that the USSR was falling apart and that bodies littered the streets, etc, the problem is that everyone visiting during this time saw none of this. What they did see was a clean and tidy country and a happy and content population. Furthermore, freedom of religion was taken for granted. The content of this discussion of HG Wells shows Joseph Stalin to be a level-headed, calm and intelligent servant of the people:
Wells : I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Stalin, for agreeing to see me. I was in the United States recently. I had a long conversation with President Roosevelt and tried to ascertain what his leading ideas were. Now I have come to ask you what you are doing to change the world. . .
Stalin : Not so very much.
Wells : I wander around the world as a common man and, as a common man, observe what is going on around me.
Stalin : Important public men like yourself are not "common men". Of course, history alone can show how important this or that public man has been; at all events, you do not look at the world as a "common man."
Wells : I am not pretending humility. What I mean is that I try to see the world through the eyes of the common man, and not as a party politician or a responsible administrator. My visit to the United States excited my mind. The old financial world is collapsing; the economic life of the country is being reorganized on new lines. Lenin said : "We must learn to do business, learn this from the capitalists."
Today the capitalists have to learn from you, to grasp the spirit of socialism. It seems to me that what is taking place in the United States is a profound reorganisation, the creation of planned, that is, socialist, economy. You and Roosevelt begin from two different starting points. But is there not a relation in ideas, a kinship of ideas, between Moscow and Washington? In Washington I was struck by the same thing I see going on here; they are building offices, they are creating a number of state regulation bodies, they are organising a long-needed Civil Service. Their need, like yours, is directive ability.
Stalin : The United States is pursuing a different aim from that which we are pursuing in the U.S.S.R.
The aim which the Americans are pursuing, arose out of the economic troubles, out of the economic crisis. The Americans want to rid themselves of the crisis on the basis of private capitalist activity, without changing the economic basis. They are trying to reduce to a minimum the ruin, the losses caused by the existing economic system. Here, however, as you know, in place of the old, destroyed economic basis, an entirely different, a new economic basis has been created. Even if the Americans you mention partly achieve their aim, i.e., reduce these losses to a minimum, they will not destroy the roots of the anarchy which is inherent in the existing capitalist system. They are preserving the economic system which must inevitably lead, and cannot but lead, to anarchy in production. Thus, at best, it will be a matter, not of the reorganisation of society, not of abolishing the old social system which gives rise to anarchy and crises, but of restricting certain of its excesses. Subjectively, perhaps, these Americans think they are reorganising society; objectively, however, they are preserving the present basis of society.
That is why, objectively, there will be no reorganisation of society.
Nor will there be planned economy. What is planned economy? What are some of its attributes? Planned economy tries to abolish unemployment. Let us suppose it is possible, while preserving the capitalist system, to reduce unemployment to a certain minimum.
But surely, no capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labour market, to ensure a supply of cheap labour. Here you have one of the rents in the "planned economy" of bourgeois society. Furthermore, planned economy presupposes increased output in those branches of industry which produce goods that the masses of the people need particularly. But you know that the expansion of production under capitalism takes place for entirely different motives, that capital flows into those branches of economy in which the rate of profit is highest. You will never compel a capitalist to incur loss to himself and agree to a lower rate of profit for the sake of satisfying the needs of the people. Without getting rid of the capitalists, without abolishing the principle of private property in the means of production, it is impossible to create planned economy.
Wells : I agree with much of what you have said.
But I would like to stress the point that if a country as a whole adopts the principle of planned economy, if the government, gradually, step by step, begins consistently to apply this principle, the financial oligarchy will at last be abolished and socialism, in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, will be brought about. The effect of the ideas of Roosevelt's "New Deal" is most powerful, and in my opinion they are socialist ideas. It seems to me that instead of stressing the antagonism between the two worlds, we should, in the present circumstances, strive to establish a common tongue for all the constructive forces.
Stalin : In speaking of the impossibility of realising the principles of planned economy while preserving the economic basis of capitalism, I do not in the least desire to belittle the outstanding personal qualities of Roosevelt, his initiative, courage and determination. Undoubtedly, Roosevelt stands out as one of the strongest figures among all the captains of the contemporary capitalist world. That is why I would like, once again, to emphasize the point that my conviction that planned economy is impossible under the conditions of capitalism, does not mean that I have any doubts about the personal abilities, talent and courage of President Roosevelt. But if the circumstances are unfavourable, the most talented captain cannot reach the goal you refer to.
Theoretically, of course, the possibility of marching gradually, step by step, under the conditions of capitalism, towards the goal which you call socialism in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, is not precluded.
But what will this "socialism" be? At best, bridling to some extent, the most unbridled of individual representatives of capitalist profit, some increase in the application of the principle of regulation in national economy. That is all very well. But as soon as Roosevelt, or any other captain in the contemporary bourgeois world, proceeds to undertake something serious against the foundation of capitalism, he will inevitably suffer utter defeat. The banks, the industries, the large enterprises, the large farms are not in Roosevelt's hands. All these are private property. The railroads, the mercantile fleet, all these belong to private owners. And, finally, the army of skilled workers, the engineers, the technicians, these too are not at Roosevelt's command, they are at the command of the private owners; they all work for the private owners. We must not forget the functions of the State in the bourgeois world.
The State is an institution that organises the defence of the country, organises the maintenance of "order"; it is an apparatus for collecting taxes. The capitalist State does not deal much with economy in the strict sense of the word; the latter is not in the hands of the State. On the contrary, the State is in the hands of capitalist economy. That is why I fear that in spite of all his energies and abilities, Roosevelt will not achieve the goal you mention, if indeed that is his goal. Perhaps, in the course of several generations it will be possible to approach this goal somewhat; but I personally think that even this is not very probable.
Wells : Perhaps, I believe more strongly in the economic interpretation of politics than you do. Huge forces driving towards better organisation, for the better functioning of the community, that is, for socialism, have been brought into action by invention and modern science. Organisation, and the regulation of individual action, have become mechanical necessities, irrespective of social theories. If we begin with the State control of the banks and then follow with the control of transport, of the heavy industries of industry in general, of commerce, etc., such an all-embracing control will be equivalent to the State ownership of all branches of national economy. This will be the process of socialisation. Socialism and individualism are not opposites like black and white.
There are many intermediate stages between them. .
There is individualism that borders on brigandage, and there is discipline and organisation that are the equivalent of socialism. The introduction of planned economy depends, to a large degree, upon the organisers of economy, upon the skilled technical intelligentsia, who, step by step, can be converted to the socialist principles of organisation. And this is the most important thing. Because organisation comes before socialism. It is the more important fact. .
Without organisation the socialist idea is a mere idea. .
Stalin : There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective. There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable contrast between "individualism" and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class?
On the one hand we have the propertied class which owns the banks, the factories, the mines, transport, the plantations in colonies. These people see nothing but their own interests, their striving after profits.
They do not submit to the will of the collective; they strive to subordinate every collective to their will. On the other hand we have the class of the poor, the exploited class, which owns neither factories nor works, nor banks, which is compelled to live by selling its labour power to the capitalists which lacks the opportunity to satisfy its most elementary requirements. How can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled? As far as I know, Roosevelt has not succeeded in finding the path of conciliation between these interests. And it is impossible, as experience has shown. Incidentally, you know the situation in the United States better than I do as I have never been there and I watch American affairs mainly from literature. But I have some experience in fighting for socialism, and this experience tells me that if Roosevelt makes a real attempt to satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the capitalist class, the latter will put another president in his place. The capitalists will say : Presidents come and presidents go, but we go on forever; if this or that president does not protect our interests, we shall find another. What can the president oppose to the will of the capitalist class?
Wells : I object to this simplified classification of mankind into poor and rich. Of course there is a category of people which strive only for profit. But are not these people regarded as nuisances in the West just as much as here? Are there not plenty of people in the West for whom profit is not an end, who own a certain amount of wealth, who want to invest and obtain a profit from this investment, but who do not regard this as the main object? They regard investment as an inconvenient necessity. Are there not plenty of capable and devoted engineers, organisers of economy, whose activities are stimulated by something other than profit? In my opinion there is a numerous class of capable people who admit that the present system is unsatisfactory and who are destined to play a great role in future socialist society. During the past few years I have been much engaged in and have thought of the need for conducting propaganda in favour of socialism and cosmopolitanism among wide circles of engineers, airmen, military technical people, etc. It is useless to approach these circles with two-track class war propaganda. These people understand the condition of the world. They understand that it is a bloody muddle, but they regard your simple class-war antagonism as nonsense.
Stalin : You object to the simplified classification of mankind into rich and poor. Of course there is a middle stratum, there is the technical intelligentsia that you have mentioned and among which there are very good and very honest people. Among them there are also dishonest and wicked people, there are all sorts of people among them, But first of all mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from the fundamental fact. I do not deny the existence of intermediate middle strata, which either take the side of one or the other of these two conflicting classes, or else take up a neutral or semi-neutral position in this struggle. But, I repeat, to abstract oneself from this fundamental division in society and from the fundamental struggle between the two main classes means ignoring facts. The struggle is going on and will continue. The outcome will be determined by the proletarian class, the working class.
Wells : But are there not many people who are not poor, but who work and work productively?
Stalin : Of course, there are small landowners, artisans, small traders, but it is not these people who decide the fate of a country, but the toiling masses, who produce all the things society requires.
Wells : But there are very different kinds of capitalists. There are capitalists who only think about profit, about getting rich; but there are also those who are prepared to make sacrifices. Take old Morgan for example. He only thought about profit; he was a parasite on society, simply, he merely accumulated wealth. But take Rockefeller. He is a brilliant organiser; he has set an example of how to organise the delivery of oil that is worthy of emulation. Or take Ford. Of course Ford is selfish. But is he not a passionate organiser of rationalised production from whom you take lessons? I would like to emphasise the fact that recently an important change in opinion towards the U.S.S.R. has taken place in English speaking countries. The reason for this, first of all, is the position of Japan and the events in Germany. But there are other reasons besides those arising from international politics. There is a more profound reason namely, the recognition by many people of the fact that the system based on private profit is breaking down. Under these circumstances, it seems to me, we must not bring to the forefront the antagonism between the two worlds, but should strive to combine all the constructive movements, all the constructive forces in one line as much as possible. It seems to me that I am more to the Left than you, Mr. Stalin; I think the old system is nearer to its end than you think.
Stalin : In speaking of the capitalists who strive only for profit, only to get rich, I do not want to say that these are the most worthless people, capable of nothing else. Many of them undoubtedly possess great organising talent, which I do not dream of denying. We Soviet people learn a great deal from the capitalists. And Morgan, whom you characterise so unfavourably, was undoubtedly a good, capable organiser. But if you mean people who are prepared to reconstruct the world, of course, you will not be able to find them in the ranks of those who faithfully serve the cause of profit. We and they stand at opposite poles. You mentioned Ford. Of course, he is a capable organiser of production. But don't you know his attitude to the working class?
Don't you know how many workers he throws on the street? The capitalist is riveted to profit; and no power on earth can tear him away from it. Capitalism will be abolished, not by "organisers" of production not by the technical intelligentsia, but by the working class, because the aforementioned strata do not play an independent role. The engineer, the organiser of production does not work as he would like to, but as he is ordered, in such a way as to serve the interests of his employers. There are exceptions of course; there are people in this stratum who have awakened from the intoxication of capitalism. The technical intelligentsia can, under certain conditions, perform miracles and greatly benefit mankind. But it can also cause great harm. We Soviet people have not a little experience of the technical intelligentsia.
After the October Revolution, a certain section of the technical intelligentsia refused to take part in the work of constructing the new society; they opposed this work of construction and sabotaged it.
We did all we possibly could to bring the technical intelligentsia into this work of construction; we tried this way and that. Not a little time passed before our technical intelligentsia agreed actively to assist the new system. Today the best section of this technical intelligentsia are in the front rank of the builders of socialist society. Having this experience we are far from underestimating the good and the bad sides of the technical intelligentsia and we know that on the one hand it can do harm, and on the other hand, it can perform "miracles." Of course, things would be different if it were possible, at one stroke, spiritually to tear the technical intelligentsia away from the capitalist world. But that is utopia.
Are there many of the technical intelligentsia who would dare break away from the bourgeois world and set to work reconstructing society? Do you think there are many people of this kind, say, in England or in France? No, there are few who would be willing to break away from their employers and begin reconstructing the world.
Besides, can we lose sight of the fact that in order to transform the world it is necessary to have political power? It seems to me, Mr. Wells, that you greatly underestimate the question of political power, that it entirely drops out of your conception.
What can those, even with the best intentions in the world, do if they are unable to raise the question of seizing power, and do not possess power? At best they can help the class which takes power, but they cannot change the world themselves. This can only be done by a great class which will take the place of the capitalist class and become the sovereign master as the latter was before. This class is the working class. Of course, the assistance of the technical intelligentsia must be accepted; and the latter in turn, must be assisted. But it must not be thought that the technical intelligentsia can play an independent historical role. The transformation of the world is a great, complicated and painful process. For this task a great class is required. Big ships go on long voyages.
Wells : Yes, but for long voyages a captain and navigator are required.
Stalin : That is true; but what is first required for a long voyage is a big ship. What is a navigator without a ship? An idle man, Wells : The big ship is humanity, not a class.
Stalin : You, Mr. Wells, evidently start out with the assumption that all men are good. I, however, do not forget that there are many wicked men. I do not believe in the goodness of the bourgeoisie.
Wells : I remember the situation with regard to the technical intelligentsia several decades ago. At that time the technical intelligentsia was numerically small, but there was much to do and every engineer, technician and intellectual found his opportunity. That is why the technical intelligentsia was the least revolutionary class. Now, however, there is a superabundance of technical intellectuals, and their mentality has changed very sharply. The skilled man, who would formerly never listen to revolutionary talk, is now greatly interested in it. Recently I was dining with the Royal Society, our great English scientific society. The President's speech was a speech for social planning and scientific control. Thirty years ago, they would not have listened to what I say to them now. Today, the man at the head of the Royal Society holds revolutionary views and insists on the scientific reorganisation of human society. Mentality changes. Your class-war propaganda has not kept pace with these facts.
Stalin : Yes, I know this, and this is to be explained by the fact that capitalist society is now in a cul-de sac. The capitalists are seeking, but cannot find a way out of this cul-de-sac that would be compatible with the dignity of this class, compatible with the interests of this class. They could, to some extent, crawl out of the crisis on their hands and knees, but they cannot find an exit that would enable them to walk out of it with head raised high, a way out that would not fundamentally disturb the interests of capitalism. This, of course, is realised by wide circles of the technical intelligentsia. A large section of it is beginning to realise the community of its interests with those of the class which is capable of pointing the way out of the cul-de-sac.
Wells : You of all people know something about revolutions, Mr. Stalin, from the practical side. Do the masses ever rise? Is it not an established truth that all revolutions are made by a minority?
Stalin : To bring about a revolution a leading revolutionary minority is required; but the most talented, devoted and energetic minority would be helpless if it did not rely upon the at least passive support of millions.
Wells : At least passive? Perhaps sub-conscious?
Stalin : Partly also the semi-instinctive and semiconscious, but without the support of millions, the best minority is impotent.
Wells : I watch communist propaganda in the West and it seems to me that in modern conditions this propaganda sounds very old-fashioned, because it is insurrectionary propaganda. Propaganda in favour of the violent overthrow of the social system was all very well when it was directed against tyranny. But under modern conditions, when the system is collapsing anyhow, stress should be laid on efficiency, on competence, on productiveness, and not on insurrection.
It seems to me that the insurrectionary note is obsolete. The communist propaganda in the West is a nuisance to constructive-minded people.
Stalin : Of course the old system is breaking down and decaying. That is true. But it is also true that new efforts are being made by other methods, by every means, to protect, to save this dying system.
You draw a wrong conclusion from a correct postulate.
You rightly state that the old world is breaking down.
But you are wrong in thinking that it is breaking down of its own accord. No, the substitution of one social system for another is a complicated and long revolutionary process. It is not simply a spontaneous process, but a struggle, it is a process connected with the clash of classes. Capitalism is decaying, but it must not be compared simply with a tree which has decayed to such an extent that it must fall to the ground of its own accord. No, revolution, the substitution of one social system for another, has always been a struggle, a painful and a cruel struggle, a life and death struggle. And every time the people of the new world came into power they had to defend themselves against the attempts of the old world to restore the old power by force; these people of the new world always had to be on the alert, always had to be ready to repel the attacks of the old world upon the new system.
Yes, you are right when you say that the old social system is breaking down; but it is not breaking down of its own accord. Take Fascism for example.
Fascism is a reactionary force which is trying to preserve the old system by means of violence. What will you do with the fascists? Argue with them? Try to convince them? But this will have no effect upon them at all. Communists do not in the least idealise the methods of violence. But they, the Communists, do not want to be taken by surprise, they cannot count on the old world voluntarily departing from the stage, they see that the old system is violently defending itself, and that is why the Communists say to the working class : Answer violence with violence; do all you can to prevent the old dying order from crushing you, do not permit it to put manacles on your hands, on the hands with which you will overthrow the old system. As you see, the Communists regard the substitution of one social system for another, not simply as a spontaneous and peaceful process, but as a complicated, long and violent process. Communists cannot ignore facts.
Wells : But look at what is now going on in the capitalist world. The collapse is not a simple one; it is the outbreak of reactionary violence which is degenerating to gangsterism. And it seems to me that when it comes to a conflict with reactionary and unintelligent violence, socialists can appeal to the law, and instead of regarding the police as the enemy they should support them in the fight against the reactionaries. I think that it is useless operating with the methods of the old insurrectionary socialism.
Stalin : The Communists base themselves on rich historical experience which teaches that obsolete classes do not voluntarily abandon the stage of history.
Recall the history of England in the seventeenth century. Did not many say that the old social system had decayed? But did it not, nevertheless, require a Cromwell to crush it by force?
Wells : Cromwell acted on the basis of the constitution and in the name of constitutional order.
Stalin : In the name of the constitution he resorted to violence, beheaded the king, dispersed Parliament, arrested some and beheaded others!
Or take an example from our history. Was it not clear for a long time that the tsarist system was decaying, was breaking down? But how much blood had to be shed in order to overthrow it?
And what about the October Revolution? Were there not plenty of people who knew that we alone, the Bolsheviks, were indicating the only correct way out?
Was it not clear that Russian capitalism had decayed?
But you know how great was the resistance, how much blood had to be shed in order to defend the October Revolution from all its enemies, internal and external.
Or take France at the end of the eighteenth century.
Long before 1789 it was clear to many how rotten the royal power, the feudal system was. But a popular insurrection, a clash of classes was not, could not be avoided. Why? Because the classes which must abandon the stage of history are the last to become convinced that their role is ended. It is impossible to convince them of this. They think that the fissures in the decaying edifice of the old order can be repaired and saved. That is why dying classes take to arms and resort to every means to save their existence as a ruling class.
Wells : But there were not a few lawyers at the head of the Great French Revolution.
Stalin : Do you deny the role of the intelligentsia in revolutionary movements? Was the Great French Revolution a lawyers' revolution and not a popular revolution, which achieved victory by rousing vast masses of the people against feudalism and championed the interests of the Third Estate? And did the lawyers among the leaders of the Great French Revolution act in accordance with the laws of the old order? Did they not introduce new, bourgeois revolutionary laws?
The rich experience of history teaches that up to now not a single class has voluntarily made way for another class. There is no such precedent in world history. The Communists have learned this lesson of history. Communists would welcome the voluntary departure of the bourgeoisie. But such a turn of affairs is improbable; that is what experience teaches. That is why the Communists want to be prepared for the worst and call upon the working class to be vigilant, to be prepared for battle. Who wants a captain who lulls the vigilance of his army, a captain who does not understand that the enemy will not surrender, that he must be crushed? To be such a captain means deceiving, betraying the working class. That is why I think that what seems to you to be old-fashioned is in fact a measure of revolutionary expediency for the working class.
Wells : I do not deny that force has to be used, but I think the forms of the struggle should fit as closely as possible to the opportunities presented by the existing laws, which must be defended against reactionary attacks. There is no need to disorganise the old system because it is disorganising itself enough as it is. That is why it seems to me insurrection against the old order, against the law, is obsolete; old-fashioned. Incidentally, I deliberately exaggerate in order to bring the truth out more clearly. I can formulate my point of view in the following way :
first, I am for order; second, I attack the present system in so far as it cannot assure order; third, I think that class war propaganda may detach from socialism just those educated people whom socialism needs.
Stalin : In order to achieve a great object, an important social object, there must be a main force, a bulwark, a revolutionary class. Next it is necessary to organise the assistance of an auxiliary force for this main force; in this case this auxiliary force is the Party, to which the best forces of the intelligentsia belong. Just now you spoke about "educated people." But what educated people did you have in mind? Were there not plenty of educated people on the side of the old order in England in the seventeenth century, in France at the end of the eighteenth century, and in Russia in the epoch of the October Revolution? The old order had in its service many highly educated people who defended the old order, who opposed the new order. Education is a weapon the effect of which is determined by the hands which wield it, by who is to be struck down.
Of course, the proletariat, socialism, needs highly educated people. Clearly, simpletons cannot help the proletariat to fight for socialism, to build a new society. I do not underestimate the role of the intelligentsia; on the contrary, I emphasize it. The question is, however, which intelligentsia are we discussing?
Because there are different kinds of intelligentsia.
Wells : There can be no revolution without a radical change in the educational system. It is sufficient to quote two examples: The example of the German Republic, which did not touch the old educational system, and therefore never became a republic; and the example of the British Labour Party, which lacks the determination to insist on a radical change in the educational system.
Stalin : That is a correct observation.
Permit me now to reply to your three points.
First, the main thing for the revolution is the existence of a social bulwark. This bulwark of the revolution is the working class.
Second, an auxiliary force is required, that which the Communists call a Party. To the Party belong the intelligent workers and those elements of the technical intelligentsia which are closely connected with the working class. The intelligentsia can be strong only if it combines with the working class.
If it opposes the working class it becomes a cipher.
Third, political power is required as a lever for change. The new political power creates the new laws, the new order, which is revolutionary order.
I do not stand for any kind of order. I stand for order that corresponds to the interests of the working class. If, however, any of the laws of the old order can be utilised in the interests of the struggle for the new order, the old laws should be utilised.
I cannot object to your postulate that the present system should be attacked in so far as it does not ensure the necessary order for the people.
And, finally, you are wrong if you think that the Communists are enamoured of violence. They would be very pleased to drop violent methods if the ruling class agreed to give way to the working class. But the experience of history speaks against such an assumption.
Wells : There was a case in the history of England, however, of a class voluntarily handing over power to another class. In the period between 1830 and 1870, the aristocracy, whose influence was still very considerable at the end of the eighteenth century, voluntarily, without a severe struggle, surrendered power to the bourgeoisie, which serves as a sentimental support of the monarchy. Subsequently, this transference of power led to the establishment of the rule of the financial oligarchy.
Stalin : But you have imperceptibly passed from questions of revolution to questions of reform. This is not the same thing. Don't you think that the Chartist movement played a great role in the Reforms in England in the nineteenth century?
Wells : The Chartists did little and disappeared without leaving a trace.
Stalin : I do not agree with you. The Chartists, and the strike movement which they organised, played a great role; they compelled the ruling class to make a number of concessions in regard to the franchise, in regard to abolishing the so-called "rotten boroughs," and in regard to some of the points of the "Charter."
Chartism played a not unimportant historical role and compelled a section of the ruling classes to make certain concessions, reforms, in order to avert great shocks. Generally speaking, it must be said that of all the ruling classes, the ruling classes of England, both the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, proved to be the cleverest, most flexible from the point of view of their class interests, from the point of view of maintaining their power. Take as an example, say, from modern history, the general strike in England in 1926. The first thing any other bourgeoisie would have done in the face of such an event, when the General Council of Trade Unions called for a strike, would have been to arrest the trade union leaders.
The British bourgeoisie did not do that, and it acted cleverly from the point of view of its own interests.
I cannot conceive of such a flexible strategy being employed by the bourgeoisie in the United States, Germany or France. In order to maintain their rule, the ruling classes of Great Britain have never foresworn small concessions, reforms. But it would be a mistake to think that these reforms were revolutionary.
Wells : You have a higher opinion of the ruling classes of my country than I have. But is there a great difference between a small revolution and a great reform? Is not a reform a small revolution?
Stalin : Owing to pressure from below, the pressure of the masses, the bourgeoisie may sometimes concede certain partial reforms while remaining on the basis of the existing social-economic system.
Acting in this way, it calculates that these concessions are necessary in order to preserve its class rule. This is the essence of reform. Revolution, however, means the transference of power from one class to another. That is why it is impossible to describe any reform as revolution. That is why we cannot count on the change of social systems taking place as an imperceptible transition from one system to another by means of reforms, by the ruling class making concessions.
Wells : I am very grateful to you for this talk which has meant a great deal to me. In explaining things to me you probably called to mind how you had to explain the fundamentals of socialism in the illegal circles before the revolution. At the present time there are only two persons to whose opinion, to whose every word, millions are listening: you, and Roosevelt. Others may preach as much as they like; what they say will never be printed or heeded.
I cannot yet appreciate what has been done in your country; I only arrived yesterday. But I have already seen the happy faces of healthy men and women and I know that something very considerable is being done here. The contrast with 1920 is astounding.
Stalin : Much more could have been done had we Bolsheviks been cleverer.
Wells : No, if human beings were cleverer. It would be a good thing to invent a five-year plan for the reconstruction of the human brain which obviously lacks many things needed for a perfect social order.
(Laughter.)
Stalin : Don't you intend to stay for the Congress of the Soviet Writers' Union?
Wells : Unfortunately, I have various engagements to fulfil and I can stay in the USSR only for a week.
I came to see you and I am very satisfied by our talk. But I intend to discuss with such Soviet writers as I can meet the possibility of their affiliating to the PEN club. This is an international organisation of writers founded by Galsworthy; after his death I became president. The organisation is still weak, but it has branches in many countries, and what is more important, the speeches of the members are widely reported in the press. It insists upon this free expression of opinion - even of opposition opinion.
I hope to discuss this point with Gorky. I do not know if you are prepared yet for that much freedom here.
Stalin : We Bolsheviks call it "self-criticism." It is widely used in the USSR. If there is anything I can do to help you I shall be glad to do so.
Wells : (Expresses thanks.)
Stalin : (Expresses thanks for the visit.)
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/07/23.htm
The 1936 Soviet Constitution was the culmination of nearly two-decades of fighting the reactionary forces of capitalism and imperialism, consolidating gains and the building of Socialism in the USSR! As Lenin had died in 1924, Joseph Stalin extensively assisted, directed and guided the 1936 Constitution and was pleased with the ‘equal rights’ element regarding the holding of religious and/or atheistic viewpoints:
Article 52: Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.
Constitution: (Fundamental Law) - of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Novosti Press Agency, Publishing House (Moscow), (1985) - Page 34 – Adapted at the Seventh (Special) Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Ninth Convocation on October 7, 1977
Between 1917 and 1936, local and national law in the USSR was premised upon what was considered to be ‘Socialist’ in spirit. The Russian Orthodox Church was very popular amongst the peasantry, but the Soviet State often allowed crude types of propaganda as part of the nationwide instigation of literacy campaigns and comprehensive education. As science was the premise of the Soviet Union, the theology of religion was viewed as a ‘fog’ in the mind that quite logically led to a general trend of attempting to turn the masses of peasants ‘away’ from religion. However, this policy was ineffective even where large sections of the peasantry became literate and individuals did develop an interest in science (usually with regard to modern forms of technologically advanced agriculture and animal husbandry). As the 1936 Constitution came into effect, however, virtually all forms of direct attacks upon religion came to an end in the USSR. As the Church was now separate from the State and the classroom, religion as a ‘private matter’ was no longer perceived as a threat to the Revolution.
‘From the time of his famous broadcast of 3rd July 1941, twelve days after the German attack on Russia, right up to the end of the war, Stalin exalted the greatness of the Soviet, and particularly the Russian people, appealed to their national pride and national sentiment, recalled on almost every occasion the “great ancestors” - Alexander Nevsky, who routed the Tartars in 1380, Suvorov, who fought Napoleon; and Kutuzov, who routed the Grande Armee in 1812. Lenin was mentioned much less frequently than these military heroes of a distant pre-Revolutionary past. Absolute national unity was aimed at; Stalin did all he could to enlist the wholehearted cooperation of the Church, which was all the more important, since a large proportion of the rank-and-file soldiers in the army came from the countryside, where religious traditions were still strong.’
Alexander Werth: Russia – The Post-War Years, Taplinger, (1971), Page 97
With the highly destructive invasion of the USSR by Nazi Germany in mid-1941, the Soviet State understood full-well that Russian religion possessed the power to pull people together in ‘national’ resistance to the Hitlerites. As Stalin had trained as a priest and had witnessed first-hand the hegemonic power of the Church, he cleverly harnessed this ecclesiastical power to the advantage of the USSR during its greatest time of national need.
As a consequence, two weeks after the Nazi German invasion of the USSR during June, 1941, the publication of Emelian Yaroslavsky’s popular ‘Anti-God Weekly” (Bezhozhnik) ceased publication. This coincided with the official embracing of St Alexander Nevsky (the Patron Saint of Leningrad) as a means to ‘unite’ the peasantry behind the Soviet State and in opposition to the Nazi German invasion. The Soviet Communist Party sought to establish as quickly as possible a United Front throughout the USSR against the Hitlerites. This is why this conflict was officially referred to as the ‘Great Patriotic War’. However, in the early days of the war, all did not go according to plan:
‘Some of the Orthodox clergy in the occupied areas certainly collaborated with the Germans, or pretended to – particularly during the early stages of the war – whilst some members of the Ukrainian church hierarchy were wholly subservient to Berlin to the end. In 1941 and 1942 there were many instances of the Germans posing as liberators of the Christian faith in the occupied areas. General Guderian mentions, for example, the town of Glukov, near Briansk, where “the population asked our permission to use their church as a place of worship once again. We willingly handed it over to them.” In their radio propaganda the Germans made much of this “revival” of religion in the areas they had occupied, and the fact that some priests were said to have joined the partisans was insufficient to cancel out these German claims entirely. Moscow was particularly sensitive, in 1942, to hostile propaganda, especially in the United States, on the ground that there was no “freedom of religion” in Russia.’
Alexander Werth: Russia at War, Barrie and Rockliff, (1964), Page 430
To combat this Hitlerite anti-Soviet propaganda concerning religion, the Soviet government in 1942 produced the book entitled ‘The Truth About Religion in Russian’. This book had input from serving priests of high status and denied these Nazi German (and US claims). There were 50,000 copies produced with many intended for export. It clarified that the separation of Church from State had ‘purified’ the Church and cleared the way for the truly devotional to make use of the Church for genuine worship. This process gave the Church back its ‘Apostolic’ character and its authentic spiritual function. Although there were no priests attached to the Red Army, the Church Authorities demanded that there should be 24-hour prayers continuously being held in Churches and private homes calling upon god to bless the Red Army and to bring it ‘victory’ against the Nazi Germans! When the Hitlerites caught such patriotic priests, they were immediately executed without trial and their bodies hanged from Church-doors, etc. This brutal Nazi German treatment of priests loyal to the Soviet System, however, although known in the US was nevertheless ‘not reported’ in the popular press. Where there were Churches in areas of strong anti-German resistance, the Hitlerites would murder all the people, kill (or steal the animals), and burn-down down all houses and Churches, as well as any landmarks or other important places. Women and girls were raped tortured and killed, as were young boys. The Church organised an elaborate (and ‘hidden’) network of bolt-holes and escape routes, which saved untold numbers of lives. Christian priests sometimes locked themselves in their Churches armed with a rifle or a pistol, etc, and fought until the last round to keep the Hitlerites out! Many Russian Orthodox priests captured alive were arrested and sent to Concentration Camps. This injustice did not prevent the Russian Orthodox priests from encouraging the youth of the USSR to join the Red Army or volunteer to help the war-effort in some other manner. Indeed, this experience of warfare and national assistance established the Russian Orthodox Church as a sound and trustworthy establishment within the USSR. The transformation of the Russian Orthodox Church was believed to be a product of Joseph Stalin’s direct control and guidance of this facet of the war, primarily due to his experience in the Seminary when young.
Alexander Werth was a British journalist originally born in Russia but brought-up in the UK. As a consequence, as well as being an English gentleman, Alexander Werth could read, write and speak Russian. This ability earned him the right to accompany the Red Army and witness the war between the USSR and Nazi Germany first-hand (1941-1945). His activity in Russia earned him an interview with Joseph Stalin on September 24th, 1946:
Replies to Questions put by Mr. Alexander Werth, Moscow, Correspondent of the “Sunday Times”
The following answers were given by J. V. Stalin to questions put by the Moscow correspondent of the “Sunday Times,” Mr. Alexander Werth, in a note addressed to Stalin on September 17, 1946.
Question: Do you believe in a real danger of a “new war” concerning which there is so much irresponsible talk throughout the world today? What steps should be taken to prevent war if such a danger exists?
Answer: I do not believe in a real danger of a “new war.”
Those who are now clamouring about a “new war” are chiefly military-political scouts and their few followers from among the civilian ranks. They need this clamour if only:
(a) to scare certain naive politicians from among their counter-agents with the spectre of war, and thus help their own Governments to wring as many concessions as possible from such counter-agents;
(b) to obstruct for some time the reduction of war budgets in their own countries;
(c) to put a brake on the demobilisation of troops, and thus prevent a rapid growth of unemployment in their own countries.
One must strictly differentiate between the hue and cry about a “new war” which is now taking place, and a real danger of a “new war” which does not exist at present.
Question: Do you believe that Great Britain and the United States of America are consciously placing the Soviet Union in a state of “capitalist encirclement”?
Answer: I do not think that the ruling circles of Great Britain and of the United States of America could create a “capitalist encirclement” of the Soviet Union even if they so desired, which, however, I do not assert.
Question: To quote Mr. Wallace’s recent speech, may Britain, Western Europe and the United States be certain that Soviet policy in Germany will not become an instrument of Russian designs against Western Europe?
Answer: I exclude the use of Germany by the Soviet Union against Western Europe and the United States of America. I consider this out of the question, not only because the Soviet Union is bound with Great Britain and France by the Treaty of Mutual Assistance against German aggression, and with the United States of America by the decisions of the Potsdam Conference of the three Great Powers, but also because a policy of making use of Germany against Western Europe and the United States of America would mean the departure of the Soviet Union from its fundamental national interests.
In short, the policy of the Soviet Union in relation to the German problem reduces itself to the demilitarisation and democratisation of Germany. I believe that the demilitarisation and democratisation of Germany form one of the most important guarantees of the establishment of a stable and lasting peace.
Question: What is your view of the charges that Communist Parties of Western Europe are having their policy “dictated by Moscow”?
Answer: I consider these charges absurd and borrowed from the bankrupt arsenal of Hitler and Goebbels.
Question: Do you believe in the possibility of friendly and lasting co-operation between the Soviet Union and the Western democracies despite the existence of ideological differences, and in the “friendly competition” between the two systems to which Mr. Wallace referred?
Answer: I believe in it absolutely.
Question: During the recent sojourn here of the Labour Party delegation you, as far as I understand, expressed certainty of the possibility of friendly relations between the Soviet Union and Great Britain. What could help in establishing these relations so profoundly desired by the broad masses of the British people?
Answer: I am indeed convinced of the possibility of friendly relations between the Soviet Union and Great Britain. The strengthening of political, commercial and cultural bonds between these countries would considerably contribute to the establishment of such relations.
Question: Do you believe the earliest withdrawal of all American forces in China to be vital for future peace?
Answer: Yes, I do.
Question: Do you believe that virtual monopoly by the U.S.A. of the atom bomb one of the main dangers to peace?
Answer: I do not believe the atom bomb to be as serious a force as certain politicians are inclined to think. Atomic bombs are intended for intimidating the weak-nerved, but they cannot decide the outcome of war, since atom bombs are by no means sufficient for this purpose. Certainly, monopolistic possession of the secret of the atom bomb does create a threat, but at least two remedies exist against it:
(a) Monopolist possession of the atom bomb cannot last long;
(b) Use of the atom bomb will be prohibited.
Question: Do you believe that with the further progress of the Soviet Union towards Communism the possibilities of peaceful co-operation with the outside world will not decrease as far as the Soviet Union is concerned? Is “Communism in one country” possible?
Answer: I do not doubt that the possibilities of peaceful co-operation, far from decreasing, may even grow. “Communism in one country” is perfectly possible, especially in a country like the Soviet Union.
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2020.