Putin's Neo-Stalinism in Historical Perspective
Andres Laiapea
February 26, 2007
More than fifty years have passed since Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev denounced the cult of personality that surrounded his predecessor, Joseph Stalin, and condemned crimes committed in the Soviet Union during the so-called Great Purge. The leaders of today's Russia were born around the time of Stalin's death. In theory, they should not have any affection at all towards him. Unfortunately, this is not even close to being true.
Why is neo-Stalinism on the rise again? What can we do about it? To answer these questions, let's start with a short historical overview.
Nikita Khrushchev's confidential speech at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in February 1956 was meant to be a watershed moment in Soviet history. "So as not to repeat the errors of the past," he said, "the Central Committee has declared itself resolutely against the cult of the individual. We consider that Stalin was extolled to excess."
The problem, of course, was that Khrushchev retained the basic totalitarian features of the Soviet regime. By implicating Stalin in all of the crimes committed during his rule, Khrushchev remained a loyal Marxist-Leninist, trying to save the Communist Party from any responsibility whatsoever - it was largely a tactical ploy designed to give a gentler, more liberal and caring image for the post-Stalin Soviet regime.
The truth of the matter emerged only eight months later when Soviet forces mercilessly crushed the true democratic aspirations of the Hungarian people, killing thousands of civilians and forcing at least 200000 Hungarians to flee their homeland for asylum in the free West.
In October 1964, Khrushchev was replaced by Leonid Brezhnev, who remained in office until his death in November 1982. In January 1966, Pravda published a directive article denouncing the term "period of the personality cult" as "mistaken" and "un-Marxist". The truth about Stalinism was suppressed, especially after the 1968 Prague Spring, leading to the exile of many dissidents, most notably Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
The rehabilitation of Stalin went hand in hand with the establishment of a personality cult around Brezhnev.
Why did the Soviet leadership change its attitude towards Stalin? It was essentially due to the failure of Khrushchev's reforms that had led to nothing but trouble for the Communists. Stalin was seen again as a great leader, despite - or because of - his murderous deeds. Stalin was the man who built the Soviet Block and, in order to keep it from disintegrating, he was worshipped.
Brezhnev was succeeded by two short-lived successors, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko. Mikhail Gorbachev took over in March 1985. He introduced the policy of glasnost (openness) in public discussions - in order to liberalize the Soviet system, a history repeating. The full scale of Stalinist repressions was soon revealed, and the Soviet Union fell apart.
That was just the logical course of events, not Gorbachev's intention. A totalitarian system built on terror cannot continue without the use of violence, and Gorbachev was unwilling to use that much violence.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was God's blessing to mankind. But for Vladimir Putin, the current president of the Russian Federation, it was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. Under his rule, textbooks are once again filled with the neo-Stalinist version of history as the rehabilitation of Stalin is taking place. The reason for all this is quite obvious: it is an attempt to regain influence over the former Soviet Block.
So, what to do about it? When Ronald Reagan became the 40th president of the United States in January 1981, he knew what to do about it. It is the same old enemy with only a slightly modified face. The enemy is the same, and his tactics are the same, so the cure should also be the same.
Why is neo-Stalinism on the rise again? What can we do about it? To answer these questions, let's start with a short historical overview.
Nikita Khrushchev's confidential speech at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in February 1956 was meant to be a watershed moment in Soviet history. "So as not to repeat the errors of the past," he said, "the Central Committee has declared itself resolutely against the cult of the individual. We consider that Stalin was extolled to excess."
The problem, of course, was that Khrushchev retained the basic totalitarian features of the Soviet regime. By implicating Stalin in all of the crimes committed during his rule, Khrushchev remained a loyal Marxist-Leninist, trying to save the Communist Party from any responsibility whatsoever - it was largely a tactical ploy designed to give a gentler, more liberal and caring image for the post-Stalin Soviet regime.
The truth of the matter emerged only eight months later when Soviet forces mercilessly crushed the true democratic aspirations of the Hungarian people, killing thousands of civilians and forcing at least 200000 Hungarians to flee their homeland for asylum in the free West.
In October 1964, Khrushchev was replaced by Leonid Brezhnev, who remained in office until his death in November 1982. In January 1966, Pravda published a directive article denouncing the term "period of the personality cult" as "mistaken" and "un-Marxist". The truth about Stalinism was suppressed, especially after the 1968 Prague Spring, leading to the exile of many dissidents, most notably Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
The rehabilitation of Stalin went hand in hand with the establishment of a personality cult around Brezhnev.
Why did the Soviet leadership change its attitude towards Stalin? It was essentially due to the failure of Khrushchev's reforms that had led to nothing but trouble for the Communists. Stalin was seen again as a great leader, despite - or because of - his murderous deeds. Stalin was the man who built the Soviet Block and, in order to keep it from disintegrating, he was worshipped.
Brezhnev was succeeded by two short-lived successors, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko. Mikhail Gorbachev took over in March 1985. He introduced the policy of glasnost (openness) in public discussions - in order to liberalize the Soviet system, a history repeating. The full scale of Stalinist repressions was soon revealed, and the Soviet Union fell apart.
That was just the logical course of events, not Gorbachev's intention. A totalitarian system built on terror cannot continue without the use of violence, and Gorbachev was unwilling to use that much violence.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was God's blessing to mankind. But for Vladimir Putin, the current president of the Russian Federation, it was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. Under his rule, textbooks are once again filled with the neo-Stalinist version of history as the rehabilitation of Stalin is taking place. The reason for all this is quite obvious: it is an attempt to regain influence over the former Soviet Block.
So, what to do about it? When Ronald Reagan became the 40th president of the United States in January 1981, he knew what to do about it. It is the same old enemy with only a slightly modified face. The enemy is the same, and his tactics are the same, so the cure should also be the same.
Print
Email
