Did Stalin’s merits outweigh his faults or his faults outweigh his merits?

According to the official statement of the former Soviet Union, Soviet leader Stalin died on March 5, 1953. As the 50th anniversary of Stalin's death approaches, people in his hometown of Georgia still miss this controversial leader.

The pride of the residents of Goli Town

In Goli Town, the birthplace of Stalin, the locals praised Stalin and considered him their pride. When people drank and toasted in the evening, A glass of wine was usually offered to Stalin. Most people in the town of Gori believe that Stalin was a hero and a great man. It was the short time Stalin spent here that made Georgia famous around the world. If it hadn't been for Stalin, Gori would have always been a little-known town.

Stalin’s original name was Joseph Djugashvili, and he was born in a hut in the town of Gori in 1879. Joseph Djugashvili changed his name to Stalin (meaning "Steel Man") only after participating in revolutionary activities. Nowadays, the cabin is well preserved and the furniture remains as it was back then. It has become a place of pilgrimage. When Stalin was still alive, the government built a museum to celebrate the "Man of Steel" next to the hut where Stalin was born. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were suggestions that the museum should be demolished, but it ultimately remained.

The museum exhibition hall is filled with Stalin’s personal belongings and memorabilia, including his early report cards, ashtrays, pipes and wooden tables, as well as a large number of photos documenting Stalin’s rise from a Bolshevik base to The whole process from cadre to becoming the supreme leader of the Soviet Union. A bronze mask from the time of Stalin's death is also on display in the museum hall. This mask was made six days after Stalin's death. Parked outside the museum is a bright green special train carriage. Stalin took this carriage to Germany to attend the Potsdam Conference in 1945. It was at that meeting that the United States, the Soviet Union and Britain adopted the German partition plan. When introducing Stalin's life, the museum made no mention of the purges and famine in the Soviet Union. A professor of history at the University of Gori named Ramadez believes that there is nothing inappropriate in this arrangement of the museum: "I tell my students that Stalin was a Marxist and a defender of working people. He was not a tyrant as described by the Western media. "Is Stalin at fault for modernizing Russia and defeating fascism, thus saving the entire human race?" Ramadez said. The professor said confidently: "Absolutely not!"

Opinion polls show that more than half of Russians view Stalin as a positive figure

Like millions of people across the former Soviet Union, today The 67-year-old Stalin grandson Djugashvili admires his grandfather very much. "He is a genius," said Djugashvili, a former Soviet colonel and officer known among Georgians as "the son of Stalin's son." His home is located in a dilapidated apartment building on the edge of Tbilisi, with portraits of Stalin posted everywhere. "My grandfather did everything he could to protect the empire left over from the tsarist period," Dzyugashvili said. Dzyugashvili insisted that without Stalin’s wise leadership, the Soviet Union would have fallen apart long ago. He said with emotion: “He industrialized the country and enhanced its strength, and when he passed away, he brought Carrying only a shirt and two coats, he looked a bit like a Jesus Christ figure compared to those in power today who have secret accounts in Swiss banks.”

Not long ago, a public opinion poll conducted in Russia showed that more than half of the people surveyed had ambivalent views on Stalin or viewed him as a positive figure, while only a quarter said that Stalin's merits outweighed his faults. Russian Communist politicians publicly praised Stalin. They point out that the number of mass arrests and executions during Stalin's rule has been exaggerated.

According to Western historians’ estimates, the number of people who were persecuted to death during Stalin’s rule ranged from 10 million to 20 million, many of whom died tragically in forced labor camps and during the Ukrainian Massacre from 1932 to 1933. During the famine, others claimed that the death toll was even higher.

“All this is a lie,” Stalin’s other grandson Yevgeny said without flinching. “Until the late 1930s, my grandfather was surrounded by Trotskyist Jews who cleverly They were the ones who drove people to the gulags, an act that was stopped only after Stalin had them executed."

In Georgia. , it is not easy to find someone to refute the above statement. Of course, not everyone in Stalin's hometown viewed Stalin this way. Near the town of Ligori, a priest whose father died in a Siberian penal colony denounced Stalin's executions of Georgian intellectuals and religious leaders. The priest named Serafim said: "We should not forget that he was a dictator."

Stalin's 30-year-old great-grandson Yakov has a more ambivalent view of Stalin. Yakov is a lovely young man who speaks fluent English. In the 1990s, Yakov spent three years studying painting at the Glasgow School of Art in the UK. While studying in Scotland, Yaakov became a typical Western university student, an ardent fan of Celtic Football Club and a frequent nightclub visitor. Yaakov called himself Jacob (a name in the Bible).

In the past, Yakov avoided talking about his life experience because his blood relationship with Stalin brought him more pain. Yakov recalled that he had been living in the shadow of Stalin's merits and demerits. The worst part was a few years before the collapse of the Soviet Union, when historical data about Stalin's mass murders began to come to light. "Especially after the beginning of the Gorbachev perestroika era in the mid-1980s, I felt very uncomfortable when I read the newspapers. . Newspapers at that time often said that Stalin was the executioner. "The most difficult thing for me was that de-Stalinization reached its peak when I grew up." Even so, Yakov still defended himself. Proud of his life experience: "These days, I feel at ease with who I am. I am a Djugashvili, it flows in my blood."

Stalin has become an idealist

As he grows older, Yakov has learned more about the merits and demerits of his great-grandfather Stalin. He now still has hope for the descendants of the Djugashvili family, "Our descendants There won't be as much pressure as I or my father did during the Khrushchev era, but I don't think my children will have a lot of pressure because of Stalin. Lai has become an idealist incarnation, and history has washed away everything."

Keeping the family name has become a fascination for Stalin for his descendants. When Stalin's descendants gather together on March 5 this year to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Stalin's death, one of the youngest Stalin family members will attract people's attention. According to Georgian tradition, a child's middle name is taken from his father. Yevgeny named his eldest son Vessarion, and he named his seven-year-old grandson Joseph Djugashvili. The name Stalin once used, Yevgeny hugged little Joseph and said emotionally: "I have spent almost all my life in Russia. I hope to bring the name Stalin back to his motherland, so that he will be there Live forever.

Evaluating Stalin

Yu Sui

March 5 this year marks the 50th anniversary of Stalin’s death. The tragic news of Stalin’s death caused grief and shock at the time. , the author’s memory is still fresh. The Stalin issue has been controversial for half a century, which shows Stalin’s important historical status and far-reaching influence on the world. This article combines the trends in commenting on the Stalin issue at home and abroad (the slander of Stalin is not included in this article) and puts forward some inductive conclusions.

1. The debate surrounding the Stalin issue has had two climaxes in half a century. The first was in the 1960s. The Stalin issue was once one of the main topics in the debate on the international communist movement. 1. The other time is that since the 1980s, as various socialist countries have launched waves of reform, especially the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, the Stalin issue has once again become a hot topic of discussion.

In order to strengthen the research on the deep-seated reasons for the drastic changes in the Soviet Union, the current domestic discussion is more focused on the Stalinist socialist model. When people analyzed the reasons for the failure of the Soviet model, they traced it back to Stalin, and their criticism of Stalin became more severe. Under this situation, it is particularly important to keep a cool head, follow historical materialism, and as Mao Zedong warned, "seek truth from facts and not try to please others", and evaluate Stalin objectively and comprehensively.

2. Evaluating the Stalin issue mainly involves four major aspects. First, Stalin’s historical status and role, that is, Stalin’s 30 years of leading the Soviet Union and his main merits and demerits. Second, the Soviet socialist political and economic system formed during the Stalin period, also known as the Stalin model, has promoted social development in a certain historical period and has increasingly exposed serious shortcomings. Third, Stalin’s theory, including philosophy, political theory and political economics, involves the theory and practice of party building and intra-party struggle, especially the elaboration of socialist theory, its correctness and error, and its relationship with Marxism-Leninism. Fourth, Stalin’s analysis and judgment of the international situation and international issues, as well as the international strategies and policies he implemented, including theories and policies on the international communist movement, military theories and strategies and his success in the anti-fascist war and mistakes, etc. If we only draw conclusions about the merits and demerits of Stalin's life from one of the above aspects, it will inevitably be biased.

3. The evaluation of Stalin at home and abroad has formed certain political consciousness. Roughly speaking: first, Stalin is an important historical figure, and his evaluation is not only a matter of his own country, but also a matter of the world. Second, Stalin had both merits and demerits. His contributions were huge and his mistakes were serious. In the words of some scholars, "his merits were outstanding and his mistakes were extremely serious." There is disagreement as to whether the merit outweighs the fault or the fault outweighs the merit. Third, Stalin’s main achievements: 1. After Lenin, he led the Soviet party and people to withstand the pressure of capitalist encirclement, establish socialism in the Soviet Union, and provided an example and example for the victory of socialism in other countries. Support; 2. In just a few years, they led the Soviet people to achieve national industrialization, establish a social security system, gradually improve people's lives, quickly recover the economy after the war, and achieve an unprecedented increase in comprehensive national strength and international status, demonstrating the socialist system vitality and superiority; 3. Defeated German fascism, achieved great victory in the Patriotic War, and promoted the development of world peace and progress. Fourth, Stalin’s main mistakes: 1. Accepting and encouraging personal superstition, implementing personal dictatorship, and abusing dictatorial methods in intra-party struggles, resulting in serious damage to the legal system and the suppression of a large number of innocent cadres; 2. Under the specific historical conditions of the 1930s The Soviet socialist model formed, as well as some theories closely related to it, have become dogmatic, absolute, and increasingly rigid; 3. Relying on the status of a major power and party, establishing self-centeredness, issuing orders to the outside world, and promoting great powerism, the essence is Seek hegemony. These mistakes are caused by historical conditions, management systems, and personal qualities.

4. Khrushchev also talked about Stalin's merits and demerits. Because he was based on "condemnation", he often used harsh words, giving the impression that he completely negated Stalin. In his secret report to the Twentieth Congress of the Soviet Union in 1956, Khrushchev said that this report did not want to fully evaluate Stalin’s life story because his achievements had been sufficiently studied, saying that “Stalin was preparing for and realizing the socialist revolution. , and the role it played in our country’s struggle to build socialism is well known.” The report focused on turning Stalin into some kind of superior figure, thinking that he had extraordinary qualities like a god. He seemed to know everything, see everything, be able to think for everyone, and be able to do everything. There was no trace of his behavior. It's wrong." In his report to the Twenty-Second Congress of the Soviet Union in 1961, Khrushchev only emphasized the need to publicly condemn the "mistakes and distortions committed during the period of superstition of Stalin's personality" and "abandon the kind of confrontation that has become an obstacle to progress." The leadership methods of the party and the state."

From these words and phrases, we cannot draw the conclusion that Stalin is "totally negated". During the great debate, the "Second Commentary" "On the Stalin Question" quoted Khrushchev's harsh words against Stalin, which reflected that Khrushchev hated Stalin in his heart.

5. From Brezhnev to Gorbachev, the Soviet Union rarely commented on Stalin in various subsequent periods. Out of pragmatism, it criticized and affirmed Stalin when talking about it. Every anniversary of the Victory in the Patriotic War, Stalin cannot be avoided, and Stalin's achievements must be mentioned more or less. It is usually said that during the war years, Stalin's great political will, purpose and determination, as well as his ability to organize people and make them observe discipline, played their own role in achieving victory; Stalin's role in the Patriotic War cannot be compared The effect is wiped out, etc.

6. Soviet military leaders’ comments on Stalin’s merits and demerits are generally quite pertinent. The representative book is "Victory and Tragedy (Political Portrait of Stalin)" written in 1988 by Dmitry Antonovich Volkogonov, director of the General Political Department of the Soviet Army and Navy. It points out: 1. Stalin’s history reflects the complex dialectics of his era. To face history and the truth honestly, we cannot but acknowledge Stalin’s irrefutable contribution to the fight for and safeguard socialism, nor our political mistakes and crimes of persecuting thousands of innocent people without any basis. 2. Stalin has unlimited power, is not subject to democratic supervision, is supreme, and can do whatever he wants. But he was lonely inside. He worked his whole life to turn this weakness into a sign of strength. The "ferocious" characteristics of Stalin pointed out by Lenin played a very bad role in politicians. 3. From the death of Lenin until the early 1930s, Stalin was perhaps the only revolutionary leader who most thoroughly and resolutely defended the Party's policy of establishing and strengthening the world's first socialist country. He did not have the talent to replace Lenin, but neither did anyone else. He was intellectually and morally inferior to many others; but in the moment of the struggle for the survival of the new system, clarity of purpose and the political will of the leader were of paramount importance. Except for Lenin, no one could surpass Stalin on this issue.

7. Our party adopted a "two-point theory" in its early public evaluation of Stalin, proposing that "the merits outweigh the faults." "On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and "Re-discussing the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" (referred to as the "two theses"), published on April 5 and December 29, 1956, not only affirmed the views put forward by Soviet Union The importance of opposing the issue of personality worship made a calm, objective and comprehensive evaluation of Stalin's merits and demerits under the conditions at the time, and based on the historical experience of the proletarian dictatorship, the development laws of human society, leaders and the people The social and historical roots of Stalin’s mistakes were theoretically analyzed from the perspectives of the status of the masses in history and the contradictions in socialist society. He also emphasized that: “We should look at Stalin from a historical perspective and understand what he did right and what he did wrong. Make a comprehensive and appropriate analysis so as to draw useful lessons. Whether it is right or wrong, it is a phenomenon of the international communist movement and has the characteristics of the times. "At that time, it had a strong positive response internationally, especially in the Soviet Union. Generally speaking, the basic viewpoints of the "Two Theory" and the methodology proposed to evaluate Stalin are still tenable to this day. Among them, the statement that "Stalin's mistakes only took second place compared with his achievements", although it becomes increasingly difficult to be widely recognized as time goes by, is still relatively reasonable. As for Mao Zedong's statement that Stalin's merits and demerits were "equal to 30%" and that his merits outweighed his faults, he was just using a traditional Chinese metaphor and there is no need to go into detail. However, based on the historical conditions at that time, the general statement in the "Two Theories" that Stalin was a "great Marxist-Leninist" and "creatively applied and developed Marxism-Leninism" seems a bit high now. However, the "Second Commentary" "On the Stalin Question" written in September 1963 during the Great Debate was a bit oversimplified and downplayed Stalin's wrong side due to the political needs of fighting Khrushchev at that time.

8. The evaluation of Stalin by Chinese academic and theoretical circles has changed.

Generally speaking, for a long period of time, the evaluation of Stalin by my country's academic and theoretical circles did not go beyond the basic framework of the "Two Theories." After Gorbachev promoted "glasnost" and exposed a large number of Stalin's crimes, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which marked the bankruptcy of the Soviet model, domestic negative comments on Stalin increased. As the study of the lessons of Stalin’s model deepened, Stalin’s statement that “his faults outweighed his merits” began to appear. Here are two representative examples.

First example. In August 1992, an academic seminar on "The Stalin Issue" was held in Changchun City. After the meeting, the Social Sciences Literature Press published a collection of essays "Re-Understanding the Stalin Issue". This is a meeting with relatively complete experts, high level and strong representativeness. The evaluation of Stalin is generally along the lines of "great achievements and serious mistakes" and focuses on analyzing the latter. The "preface" of the book summarizes the research results of the conference and points out that the study of Stalin issues must adopt a pragmatic and scientific attitude, with special emphasis on Stalin's merits and demerits, right and wrong, which are often entangled, and even two sides of the same issue. The article cites a series of convincing examples to illustrate that if these mistakes and shortcomings are avoided, success will not be achieved, or at least it will be difficult to achieve, and the existence and development of these mistakes and shortcomings will give birth to greater failures in the future. .

Second example. In January 2002, the People's Publishing House published the book "The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union". The "Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies" magazine of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences published a book review in the first issue of 2003, saying that the "Introduction" of the book clearly pointed out that in the Stalin model On this point, Stalin "completely made more mistakes than he did." Book reviews praised the new conclusion as "the latest and greatest breakthrough." Then, based on the content of the book, the commentator summarized a number of "sufficient grounds" from an institutional perspective to prove that Stalin's faults outweighed his merits. ——Whether we should draw conclusions about the merits and demerits of his life based on the "model" created by Stalin is quite debatable.

9. Some understanding and methodological issues in evaluating Stalin

The author believes that although it is very difficult to evaluate Stalin, as long as we always act in a calm, objective and realistic spirit and avoid emotions ization and preventing any personal factors from being mixed in, you can still gradually find answers that are close to the truth.

First, when evaluating Stalin, we should adopt an attitude of summarizing lessons rather than implementing liquidation. After all, the Stalin issue is an issue within the party and the people. No matter how different the specific evaluation of his merits and demerits is, it is still a good man who makes mistakes. It is necessary and necessary to learn lessons from Stalin, and it is also necessary to understand the deep-seated social and historical reasons and international background of his mistakes. As said in "One Theory": "Whether he is right or wrong, it is a phenomenon of the international communist movement, with the characteristics of the times." If we blindly adopt the post-Qiu period If the method of settling accounts is used, the conclusions and effects will be completely different, or even counterproductive. Some imperial scholars in Western countries, in order to deny the Soviet Union and socialism, have always put Stalin on the hostile side to attack and criticize him. This must not be imitated. People often say that if you focus on a person's shortcomings and mistakes, focus on the key points, and attack one point, but not as good as the rest, you can defeat him a hundred times. To use an analogy (the analogy is never so accurate), if we only evaluate Mao Zedong’s life based on the “Cultural Revolution”, what conclusion should we draw? We clearly remember what Deng Xiaoping did to maintain the historical status of Mao Zedong and Mao Zedong Thought. A huge effort. It can be seen that different positions and different methods lead to different conclusions.

Second, the study of the Stalin issue should not be separated from the historical conditions at that time. Looking at problems historically and keeping pace with the times are two concepts that go hand in hand. When studying any issue, including the Stalin issue, we must adhere to the principle of keeping pace with the times, but keeping pace with the times cannot be used to negate the historical perspective of looking at issues. If we only use modern conditions to measure history, and euphemistically call it "advancing with the times," then it will be too easy for future generations to make irresponsible remarks about their predecessors. For example, if we use the technological development level of today's information network era to measure the scientific inventions and creations of ancient mankind, we may think that the achievements at that time were so naive and ridiculous.

When talking about the Soviet model, I would like to ask, in the early days of the founding of the Soviet Union, faced with the harsh international situation surrounded by imperialism, would it be okay not to centralize power? During the Patriotic War, in the face of the powerful and vicious German fascist armed aggression, it was not possible to centralize power. Is centralization possible? The answer is obvious. Of course, centralization of power does not mean personal dictatorship and high-pressure. The problem is that after the national power is stabilized, leaders should consciously take measures to continuously improve and optimize the management system, enrich the country's democratic life, and promote democratization to the greatest extent possible. Stalin's mistake was that he misunderstood the laws of class struggle in the new era of socialism and emphasized "increasing sharpness" in order to prevent the path to democratization. Stalin did do a lot of stupid things, and so did the leaders of China and other socialist countries. What should we think of this? Lenin once emphasized that the Communists "will never turn back to fight to correct our failures and mistakes". At the same time, he pointed out, "If our enemies accuse us and say: Look, Lenin I admit that the Bolsheviks did a lot of stupid things; so I would like to answer them this way: Yes, but do you know that our stupidities are of a completely different nature than yours?" (Reposted. Quoted from "Two Theories")

Third, we cannot draw conclusions about the merits and demerits of Stalin's life based solely on institutional issues. Although it is very important to study the Stalin issue from the key aspect of the system, it is not the whole story. It is actually inappropriate to attribute the mistakes of the Stalin period and subsequent Soviet periods entirely to institutional reasons. In addition to the system, there is also a development strategy issue, a basic line and the formulation and operation of specific policies. In the "Foreword" of the aforementioned book "Re-Understanding the Stalin Problem", there is a passage worth referring to: "Due to inappropriate estimation of the stage of socialist development, excessively fast and hasty requirements, and extensive management that purely pursues output value, The imbalance between agriculture, light industry and heavy industry, over-emphasis on heavy industry, especially military industry, at the expense of agriculture, light industry and the improvement of people's lives, etc., are related to the system, but they are not all systemic problems. The system determines the implementation of this development strategy. There is no basis to attribute the mistakes in the development strategy entirely to the system. In a sense, the mistakes in the development strategy caused serious consequences for the Soviet Union's subsequent economic development. The consequences are more direct reasons.” At this point, the author would like to extend one point. If only systemic reasons are used to explain why the Soviet Union disintegrated, and all the blame lies with Stalin, doesn’t it mean that Gorbachev, as the culprit, does not have to bear any responsibility for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Soviet Union? If we study it this way Aren’t the deeper causes of the Soviet Union’s disintegration becoming more and more biased? In the domestic research community, we can also see that some people not only want to find the “deep causes” of the Soviet Union’s disintegration from Stalin, but even trace the roots all the way to Lenin. . Such an approach not only falls into a complete misunderstanding, but also puts the cart before the horse in socialist history, leading to historical nihilism.

Furthermore, the Soviet model should also be evaluated comprehensively. There is a reason why the Soviet model has survived for so long. The Soviet model was a model that was gradually explored in the complex struggle environment inside and outside the party without any existing experience to draw from. It has played a positive role in history and produced brilliant achievements. In the early days of its formation, it adapted to the situation of economic backwardness, simple structure and the primary goal of economic development was to enhance national defense capabilities; during the war years, it showed the advantages of strong mobilization and strong ability to withstand difficulties. It took the Soviet Union 15 years to complete industrialization, laying a strong material foundation for victory in the anti-fascist war. After World War II, the economy recovered rapidly and became another superpower whose comprehensive national strength was enough to compete with the United States. The problem is that as the theme of the times turns to "peace and development," faced with the rapid development of science and technology and the severe challenges of capitalism showing some vitality, the shortcomings of the increasingly rigid Soviet model have not been able to be eradicated in a timely and effective manner. It is unfair to blame Stalin for the huge debts he incurred in the following decades. It is tantamount to exonerating Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and others from responsibility.

Moreover, we should not conclude that the Soviet model would collapse if it changed. Otherwise, it would be difficult to understand why Deng Xiaoping was able to achieve substantial progress in reform and form socialism with Chinese characteristics in China, a country that once copied the Soviet model.

Fourth, there should be an overall statement on Stalin’s evaluation. History has proven that the theory of "merits but no merit", which regards Stalin as an enemy, or, like Andreeva and others, portrays Stalin as a "perfect man" with "merits but no faults", is untenable. . The theory of "merits outweighing faults" is difficult to explain certain major historical facts and is not easy to be widely recognized. The theory of “merits outweighing merit” is obviously one-sided. It seems that when studying the problem, there is no need to argue endlessly about the proportion of Stalin's merits and demerits. Instead, we should focus on specific issues and specific issues on the basis of affirming the basic premise that he fought for the cause of communism all his life and led Soviet socialism for 30 years. Analyze and summarize experiences and lessons. Of course, there should also be an overall evaluation of Stalin. The author believes that Stalin was a man of great historical merit, a man of extraordinary leadership, a man of serious mistakes and sins, and a man of fatal character flaws. Therefore, he was a man of great merit. A man who has had both success and failure, and who inevitably causes long-term controversy.