Stalin's opinion on "Stalin worship"

When Stalin was alive, the worship of Stalin's leaders was a Soviet nationaldrama. Whether you want it or not, everyone must play a popular role in itto love him. The protagonist of the play is of course Stalin, but he isalso an actor in the play. The actor Stalin is not the same person as thefilm's main character, Stalin. They are separate from each other and mayeven be inconsistent or contradictory. Once, Stalin's son Vasily said tohim, "I am also Stalin." Stalin shouted to him, "No, youare not. You are not Stalin, nor am I Stalin. Stalin is the Soviet power.Stalin is a person in newspapers and portraits, not you, not evenme". Stalin himself knew very well that he was not the same person asStalin admired by the official media.

Ignoring the difference between the two Stalins, many researchers will useStalin in the script to guess the actor Stalin, and regard Stalin as acompletely different chief designer, agitator and promoter. He deliberatelyworships himself personally. To highlight his revolutionary contributions,he modified history. He inspired and allowed films and literature tobeautify his image, exaggerated birthday celebrations to please him, andflatter him with words of "genius" and "father of thepeople." As Robert Charles Tucker, a professor of history atPrinceton University, said in his book, The Power of Stalin, there is a lot ofevidence that Stalin needs worship to support his strength and spirit (soul),and he longs for the one that Lenin hates This kind of hero worship.

Stalin's

British historian Sarah Davis found in the decrypted Soviet archives thatStalin's personal attitude to personal worship was much more vague and complexthan people usually think. The results of the research on contradictory Sovietsentiments are consistent. Under autocracy, no one is black and white, andno one can maintain a true self, even the highest dictator. Davis was moreinterested in the actor Stalin and his reaction to personal worship than Stalin,the main character in the play. She made a detailed analysis of this inthe article "Stalin in Power" (hereinafter referred to as"Stalin and Leader Worship Production in the 1930s").

1. Stalin pushed and pushed

Davis did not rely on the testimony of a close friend of Stalin. Forexample, Stalin's son-in-law Yuri Zhidanov (son of Politburo member Zdanov)recalled that Stalin was a "modest man." Once, Stalin had a Handof Adoration in praise of him, throwing a roll into the bushes. Molotovalso recalled that personal worship "was not accepted at first, but fellin love later." Davis believes that it is impossible to verify whatthese materials say, "It is also impossible for us to know exactly whatStalin's" real attitude "to personal worship is. However, we can reconstructStalin's publicity of personal worship from existing literature. Respond."(01030130) Most of the materials she uses are from the Stalin archives ofthe Russian State Social Political History Archive (RGASPI). Thesematerials do not represent truth, but they are indispensable for thereconstruction of truth.

Judging from the existing historical archives, Stalin was not completely keenon his personal worship, but he did not refuse. Instead, he adopted animmature attitude, allowing it to develop naturally, while remaining alert toits impure motivations and adverse consequences. On this issue, he notonly cared about Marxist-Leninist principles, but also considered his ownpolitical interests. He is always cautious and shrewd when managing his goodimage. This can be seen in three aspects: first, he clearly knows thatpersonal worship is not in line with Marxism-Leninism, so he has always beencautious; second, he is also very clear that some people are using thispersonal worship to achieve their own A personal goal, and this worship willhave the opposite effect of a high-level black effect. Third, personal worshipcan be used to mobilize ignorant people, and his own unwilling attitude canalso be used to test the loyalty of his subordinates.

First, Stalin acknowledged that personal worship was not in line with theorthodox Marxist-Leninist views. The orthodox Marxist Plekhanov has longstated clearly that great individuals have become important because theyreflect great social power. Stalin understood this view. This basicprinciple led Stalin to condemn "personal worship" and not tobeautify the leader, instead of emphasizing that he is only a representative ofa cause. Stalin undoubtedly knew the political benefits of worship, but he didnot mention it. He was calling for "behind "The masses only mentionedit indirectly. (Pravda 30)

Plekhanov

Stalin could use Marxism-Leninism to subtly re-explain the role of theindividual's revolutionary leadership, so that outstanding individuals not onlydo not violate it, but also conform to the principles ofMarxism-Leninism. He explained from the perspective of hero worship,"Marxism does not deny the role of outstanding figures at all, nor does itdeny that history was created by the people. Of course, the way people createhistory does not happen on a whim. Every generation lives in a specificenvironment. Medium. The value of great men is that they can correctlyunderstand this special environment and know how to change it. Marxism hasnever denied the role of heroes. On the contrary, Marxism believes that heroesplay an important role, but have reservations. "

20th Century In the 1930s, Stalin repeatedly downplayed the role of individualleaders in his speech, emphasizing greater social power. In February 1933,he said at the first collective farm labor model conference that the era ofleading comrades as creators of history has passed, and history was created byworking people. In May 1935, he expressed a similar point in a speech toRed Army graduates. At the Model Labor Conference in October 1937, manytoasted the leaders. Stalin said: "Of course not bad, but there aresmall and medium-sized cadres in addition to large cadres." He went on tosay that only when cadres have the trust of the masses can they "come andgo, the masses are always there" 30-31)

Of course Stalin would not deny the role of great men. Lenin is an examplehe often uses to prove the historical role of great men. Emile Ludwig is aGerman-Swiss writer known for writing biographies of great men. In aconversation with Stalin in 1931, he compared Stalin to Peter the Great, andStalin opposed this. He said he couldn't compare with Peter the Great, butLenin could. Lenin is the sea, and Peter the Great is just a drop in thesea. According to Ludwig, such a great man's point of view is not in linewith materialist understanding of history. Stalin countered that Marx didnot deny the role of the individual, only that the individual must work underspecific environmental conditions. Great people are people who know andcan change a particular environment. (Making Adoration) 31

Stalin was very concerned about using Marxism to explain and emphasize the roleof great individuals. He also used Marxism to explain why he could change froma not great person to a great person. In 1937, to celebrate the 20thanniversary of the October Revolution, members of the Politburo held a meetingwith Dimitrov, the leader of the Communist International. Dimitrov praisedLenin for his greatness, saying that Lenin was lucky to have Stalin as hissuccessor and immediately toasted Stalin. Stalin said he also hadopponents within the party. Opponents fail because they fail to follow thewill of the masses. Contrary to the historian's point of view at the time,Stalin said that he was not a figure comparable to Trotsky, Bukhalin, andZinoyev at the time of Lenin's death. He admits that he has poor languageskills compared to them. He can defeat them because he represents theinterests of the people and they betray the people. (0103011031-32) Stalinnot only emphasized his great role in Marxist discourse, but also proved therationality and legitimacy of his attack on political opponents. This isvery politically wise.

Lenin (left) and Stalin are

second. Stalin is very clear that some people are keen on his personal worship,which is for unspeakable motives, at least for other purposes. On May 1,1939, the slogan of the Communist International was "Long live Stalin,Stalin is peace, Stalin is communism, and Stalin is victory". Stalinwas very upset because he suspected that the secretary of the CommunistInternational, Manuilski, was a suspect of Trotsky, unreliable, and was a"horse fare" who publicly praised and secretly hurt him. In1940, Stalin challenged Yaroslavsky, accusing him of flattering his leader"too much and disgusting." The reason was that his editedmagazine "History-Market" published an article "Cult ofProduction" (January 1940). The article praised Stalin and Voroshilovfor their leadership roles at the time. Later, a letter was written to thePolitburo of the Soviet Communist Party, exposing that the article wasseriously false. Stalin issued instructions on April 29, criticizing thearticle, saying that his and Voroshilov's contributions were obvious and thatno such article was needed to subsidize them.

Stalin wrote, "Obviously, those writers and journalists who want to bepromoted. Try to elevate themselves with the abominable flattery of party andgovernment leaders. Do we have the right to cultivate such slavery and flatteryamong the people? Obviously not. We have an obligation to eradicate thisshameless slavery among our people. Flattery is totally against the history ofscience. " ("Cult of Adoration" 34-35) He is clear thatsuch false articles can only help and become senior blacks.

2. Worship Provides "Innocent Happiness"

In 1937, Stalin spoke with the famous German writer LeonFichtewanger. Stalin told his guests that he tolerates personal worshipbecause it allows participants to enjoy an "innocenthappiness". He criticized certain ways of personal worship as"inappropriate." For example, in a Rembrandt exhibition,Stalin's portrait was also suspended. Stalin believes that this is done bymalicious people, and "expressing love with excessive enthusiasm" isactually helpful. This is how much flattery and flattery turns into lowred and high black.

Leong Feuchtwanger

Stalin also criticized a prominent phenomenon in Soviet personal worship thathe always won long applause when speaking at conferences. Stalincriticized applause as more important than listening to his speech. In1932, he asked at a conference, "Why do you applaud? You should beashamed." In June 1934, after the host introduced Stalin to thestadium, there was a burst of warm applause and cheers. Stalin said:"Some people want to turn serious things into jokes, so they applauddesperately. We always do that now." He went on to say, "You are goodto the leaders, but you hurt them with welcome applause, we Surrounded bycapitalism and enemies, but they are more civilized and educated than us."He also said that this flattery of leadership is not conducive toeducating the young cadres of the party and the country. This will onlymake them develop bad habits of flattery and bossy bosses, and becomehypocritical people who are good at disguise. (34-35)

Of course, Stalin did not want to admit that it was not applause and cheersthat cultivated despicable people, but an authoritarian system headed byhim. Applause is a politically correct public statement and a means ofcontrolling people's solidarity and enthusiastic support in public. FormerSoviet writer Solzhenitsyn said in Making Adoration that a political conferencewas held in a small town near Moscow, and all locals were asked to attend theconference. Plainclothes police penetrated the crowd in the lobby asusual. After many speeches, people entered the party to praise the climaxof the great Russian leader Stalin. Singing is over. Everyone stoodup and applauded warmly. The applause lasted for three or four minuteswithout stopping. Everyone knew that the secret police were watching whostopped applauding first, so the applause lasted for six minutes, eightminutes. The old man's heart was beating fiercely. Nine minutes, ten minuteslater, everyone was scared, and no one knew how the situation ended. Atthis time, a paper mill director sat up on the podium to gather courage,stopped applauding, and sat down. As if miraculously, peace came down thehall: now we can stop clapping and everyone wakes up from a nightmare. Aweek later, the owner of the paper mill was arrested for negligence andsentenced to 10 years in prison. At the end of the trial, the judge walkedpast him and said to him, "The next time Stalin is involved, you should becareful not to stop applauding first." In such a performative politicalritual, people applaud their leadership of The absolute loyalty of

Solzhenitsyn

totalitarians needs despicable people to show their love and obedience toautocracy. Dictators sometimes despise contemptible people, but they neverleave or abandon them because they despise them. Instead, he needed such adespicable person, and he didn't even care about the master'scontempt. The more mean people are, the easier it is for power to drivedogs, eagles, and minions.