"Stalinism" doesn't exist...
The term "Stalinism" is often used in Marxist discourse, but from a dialectical materialist perspective, it’s critical to understand that this label is primarily a construct imposed by bourgeois academics and anti-communist forces. Rather than representing a distinct ideology, what is called "Stalinism" is simply a continuation and application of Marxism-Leninism in specific historical conditions. The use of the term serves ideological purposes for those who seek to distort or discredit the socialist project. In reality, Stalin’s policies and leadership reflected the material needs of defending and advancing the revolution, not a deviation from Marxism-Leninism.
To cut down on length, I'll refrain from further elaboration here, but this framing resists the bourgeois narrative that tries to divide revolutionary theory from its practical developments and unity.
Historical and Theoretical Context
Dialectical materialism, as the core philosophical foundation of Marxism, views history as a dynamic process shaped by material conditions and class struggle, where economic structures fundamentally determine the course of social development. Marxism-Leninism, though not originally formulated as a distinct doctrine by Lenin himself—who identified as a Marxist—emerged as a necessary theoretical and practical advancement of Marxism, particularly in response to the changing conditions of global capitalism and imperialism. This development took form through the concrete struggle of the working class, with Joseph Stalin systematizing the theory as the political framework for the Soviet Union in the context of building socialism.
Marxism-Leninism was defined and solidified during the intense period of socialist construction in the Soviet Union, beginning with Lenin's leadership and continuing under Stalin. Stalin's theoretical contributions, most notably in his work "The Foundations of Leninism," were not seen as innovations separate from Marxist thought but as necessary advancements in the context of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. Stalin argued that Leninism advanced Marxism under the new conditions of imperialism, refining its application to the specific stage of capitalism where the proletarian revolution became an immediate historical possibility.
As Stalin explains:
“The whole truth about Leninism is that Leninism not only restored Marxism, but also took a step forward, developing Marxism further under the new conditions of capitalism and of the class struggle of the proletariat. What, then, in the last analysis, is Leninism? Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular. Marx and Engels pursued their activities in the pre-revolutionary period (we have the proletarian revolution in mind), when developed imperialism did not yet exist, in the period of the proletarians’ preparation for revolution, in the period when the proletarian revolution was not yet an immediate practical inevitability. But Lenin, the disciple of Marx and Engels, pursued his activities in the period of developed imperialism, in the period of the unfolding proletarian revolution, when the proletarian revolution had already triumphed in one country, had smashed bourgeois democracy and had ushered in the era of proletarian democracy, the era of the Soviets. That is why Leninism is the further development of Marxism.”
In this framework, Stalin’s role in the Soviet Union cannot be understood outside the material conditions of his time. Stalinism, as a concept often deployed by Western critics and mostly Trotskyists, is not a distinct ideology but a distortion aimed at undermining the broader socialist project. By individualizing and isolating Stalin’s actions and policies, the ruling capitalist class seeks to obscure the material conditions and class struggles that shaped the decisions made in the Soviet Union. This ideological attack is part of a broader strategy by bourgeois ideologues to delegitimize socialism as a viable alternative to capitalism. In doing so, they attempt to fragment the unity of Marxist thought, turning attention away from the structural forces that necessitated revolutionary policies, and focusing instead on individuals.
Stalin’s actions must be situated within the broader socio-economic and historical conditions of his time. His leadership was not an isolated manifestation of individual will or ambition, but rather an application of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete contradictions faced by the Soviet Union in its historical context: the challenge of building socialism in a single country amidst an overwhelmingly hostile capitalist world. To reduce these developments to the label of "Stalinism" is to fall into an idealist error, focusing on the individual rather than the material conditions and class struggles that shaped the period. Such a reduction obscures the structural forces driving the Soviet project and misrepresents the nature of Stalin’s role as a function of the collective, dialectical process of socialist construction.
Thus, from a dialectical materialist perspective, the actions of leaders like Stalin cannot be abstracted from the broader historical forces in which they were immersed. Rather than being a product of any one person’s will, Stalin’s leadership should be understood as an application of Marxism-Leninism to the specific challenges posed by building socialism in one country amidst a hostile international environment. To reduce these developments to "Stalinism" is to obscure the material contradictions that Marxism-Leninism sought to address, focusing instead on personality as a means to delegitimize socialist achievements, a personality by which Stalin himself criticised and ridiculed this ‘cult’ on numerous occasions.
Stalin himself consistently rejected the notion of a personality cult, understanding it as a deviation from Marxist-Leninist principles. In his 1938 Letter on Publications for Children Directed to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Youth, he criticized the glorification of his own childhood, noting that it promoted an anti-Bolshevik view of history:
I am absolutely against the publication of "Stories of the childhood of Stalin."
The book abounds with a mass of inexactitudes of fact, of alterations, of exaggerations and of unmerited praise. Some amateur writers, scribblers, (perhaps honest scribblers) and some adulators have led the author astray. It is a shame for the author, but a fact remains a fact.
But this is not the important thing. The important thing resides in the fact that the book has a tendency to engrave on the minds of Soviet children (and people in general) the personality cult of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and detrimental. The theory of "heroes" and the "crowd" is not a Bolshevik, but a Social-Revolutionary theory. The heroes make the people, transform them from a crowd into people, thus say the Social-Revolutionaries. The people make the heroes, thus reply the Bolsheviks to the Social-Revolutionaries. The book carries water to the windmill of the Social-Revolutionaries. No matter which book it is that brings the water to the windmill of the Social-Revolutionaries, this book is going to drown in our common, Bolshevik cause.
I suggest we burn this book.
J. Stalin
Stalin rejected the bourgeois theory of "heroes" as the drivers of history, countering with the Marxist position that it is the masses, not individuals, who shape historical progress. He condemned the book for advancing a Social-Revolutionary narrative that placed leaders above the people, insisting instead that Bolshevism rooted its understanding of history in class struggle and the collective actions of the working class.
Stalin’s criticism of the personality cult reflects his awareness of the contradictions within the Soviet project. Despite his denouncements, the cult of personality persisted, suggesting that it was not merely a matter of individual hypocrisy but rather an expression of deeper contradictions within Soviet society. The origin of this cult can be traced to figures like Karl Radek, who played a key role in its development before being convicted of treason in 1937. Roy Medvedev, a Soviet revisionist historian points out that:
“The first issue of ‘Pravda;’ for 1934 carried a huge two-page article by Radek, heaping orgiastic praise on Stalin. The former Trotskyite, who had led the opposition to Stalin for many years, now called him ‘Lenin’s best pupil, the model of the Leninist Party, bone of its bone, blood of its blood’. . . . He ‘is as far-sighted as Lenin’, and so on and on. This seems to have been the first large article in the press specifically devoted to the adulation of Stalin, and it was quickly reissued as a pamphlet in 225,000 copies, an enormous figure for the time.”
(R. A. Medvedev: ‘Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism’; London; 1972; p. 148).
This was part of a broader ideological battle within the Soviet Union, where elements of the old bourgeois world, including the fetishization of leadership, continued to reassert themselves in distorted forms. Nikita Khrushchev’s denunciation of the personality cult in 1956 further illustrates the complex dialectical relationship between leaders and the masses. Khrushchev, who had once been a fervent supporter of the cult expressing:
“Miserable pygmies! They lifted their hands against the greatest of all men. . . . our wise ‘vozhd’, Comrade Stalin! Thou, Comrade Stalin, hast raised the great banner of Marxism-Leninism high over the entire world and carried it forward. We assure thee, Comrade Stalin, that the Moscow Bolshevik organisation — the faithful supporter of the Stalinist Central Committee — will increase Stalinist vigilance still more, will extirpate the Trotskyite-Zinovievite remnants, and close the ranks of the Party and non-Party Bolsheviks even more around the Stalinist Central Committee and the great Stalin.”
‘Pravda’, 23 August 1936, cited in: L. Pistrak: ‘The Grand Tactician: Khrushchev’s Rise to Power’; London; 1961; p. 162
He later framed it as a manifestation of Stalin’s personal vanity and desire for power. It was Khrushchev too who introduced the term “vozhd” for Stalin — a term meaning ‘leader’ and equivalent to the Nazi term ‘Fuehrer’. Yet this critique itself ignores the material basis for the phenomenon: the personality cult was not simply the product of Stalin’s ego, but a reflection of the contradictions of Soviet society at the time, where the pressures of war, external threats, and internal development created fertile ground for such distortions.
In this light, Stalin’s leadership and the cult that surrounded him must be understood as part of the historical dialectic of the Soviet Union, shaped by the interplay of class forces, international pressures, and the contradictions inherent in the process of socialist construction. To focus solely on the individual is to obscure the material conditions and forces that drove this period of Soviet history, reducing a complex, collective process to a simplistic narrative of personal power.
The Role of Stalin in Marxism-Leninism
Joseph Stalin's role within Marxism-Leninism is often reduced to negative characterizations by those who use the term "Stalinism." However, from a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint, Stalin's contributions were grounded in the practical application of Marxist-Leninist theory to real-world challenges. Stalin presided over the collectivization of agriculture, the industrialization of the Soviet Union, and the defence of the socialist state during World War II. These policies were not deviations from Marxist-Leninist principles, but rather, the application of those principles to the material conditions of the time.
For example, collectivization was seen as a necessary step toward the abolition of private property in the countryside and the establishment of a socialist economy. The industrialization drive was viewed as essential to building the productive forces necessary for socialism, particularly in a country that was economically backward compared to Western capitalist nations. While these policies had harsh consequences, particularly during the early stages, they were understood within the Marxist-Leninist framework as part of the dialectical process of overcoming the contradictions of capitalism and building socialism.
Stalin's emphasis on building socialism in one country, as opposed to relying on immediate international revolution, was also rooted in the practical realities facing the Soviet Union after the failure of revolutions in Europe. Far from representing a departure from Marxism-Leninism, this strategy was a logical adaptation to material conditions, consistent with Lenin's analysis of imperialism and the uneven development of capitalism on a global scale.
The Ideological Function of "Stalinism"
The term "Stalinism" serves an ideological function in capitalist discourse. By isolating Stalin's era as uniquely authoritarian or brutal, bourgeois academics and anti-communist forces seek to delegitimize the successes of socialism. The narrative of "Stalinism" is employed to portray Marxism-Leninism as inherently violent and repressive, focusing on individual actions rather than the broader class struggle. This narrative ignores the context in which Stalin operated: a country emerging from a civil war, surrounded by hostile capitalist powers, and facing internal and external threats to its survival.
From a dialectical materialist standpoint, the focus on "Stalinism" is a manifestation of idealism. It reduces complex historical processes to the actions of a single individual, ignoring the material conditions and class forces that shaped those actions. In contrast, dialectical materialism teaches that history is driven by the contradictions between classes and the development of the productive forces, not by the will or personality of individual leaders. Stalin, like Lenin before him, was a product of the historical conditions of his time, and his policies must be understood in that context.
Marxism-Leninism as a Unified Doctrine
Marxism-Leninism is not a static doctrine but a scientific method of understanding and transforming society, rooted in the analysis of material conditions. As society and the modes of production change, the theory itself must adapt to address new contradictions that emerge. Stalin’s and Mao Zedong’s contributions, far from being distinct ideologies, represent the dialectical development of Marxism-Leninism in response to the material conditions of their respective times. The use of terms like “Stalinism” and “Maoism” serves to obscure the inherent unity of this scientific approach, artificially separating leaders from the broader historical process of socialist development.
Mao’s application of Marxism-Leninism to the particularities of semi-feudal, semi-colonial China is an example of dialectical materialism at work. His strategy of mobilizing the peasantry for revolutionary struggle and socialist construction in the Third World was not a deviation from Marxist theory but an adaptation to the specific conditions in which the Chinese proletariat and peasantry existed. Like Stalin, Mao never sought to create a new ideology but instead to extend and apply the principles of Marx and Lenin to new historical conditions. This is why, in China, their contributions are referred to as “Thoughts” (e.g., Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Thought, or Xi Jinping Thought, etc), which emphasize that these ideas are not separate from Marxism-Leninism but are its elevation to a higher level of understanding through the dialectical method.
In essence, these contributions do not replace Marxism-Leninism with the personality cult of any individual leader. Rather, they represent the further development of theory as it confronts and resolves new contradictions, reaffirming the centrality of material conditions and class struggle in shaping the course of history. Thus, dialectical materialism provides the basis for understanding these developments, demonstrating that revolutionary leaders like Stalin and Mao extended Marxist-Leninist theory through their engagement with the concrete realities of their time.
Conclusion
In conclusion, from a dialectical materialist perspective, the term "Stalinism" is a misnomer that distorts the material conditions and class struggles that shaped the Soviet Union’s development under Joseph Stalin's leadership. Rather than representing a distinct or aberrant ideology, what is often labelled as "Stalinism" is, in fact, an extension and concrete application of Marxism-Leninism to the historical and material realities of building socialism in one country. Stalin's policies and actions, such as collectivization and industrialization, were rooted in the Marxist-Leninist understanding of the contradictions inherent in capitalism and the necessity of developing socialism under conditions of imperialist encirclement.
The ideological function of the term "Stalinism," especially as deployed by bourgeois critics and Trotskyists, serves to undermine the broader socialist project by isolating Stalin’s leadership from the context of class struggle and historical necessity. By focusing on individual actions and reducing complex historical developments to questions of personality, capitalist discourse seeks to delegitimize the successes of socialism and to divert attention from the structural forces driving revolutionary change.
From a dialectical materialist viewpoint, history is not shaped by the will of individual leaders but by the contradictions between classes and the development of productive forces. Stalin’s role within Marxism-Leninism should therefore be understood as a necessary continuation of the revolutionary process initiated by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, shaped by the specific material conditions of his time. His contributions, like those of other revolutionary leaders, represent the further development of Marxist-Leninist theory, affirming the adaptability and scientific nature of the doctrine in the face of new challenges and contradictions.
In sum, the rejection of "Stalinism" as a distinct ideology reaffirms the unity of Marxism-Leninism as a method for understanding and transforming society, emphasizing the centrality of material conditions and class struggle in the course of history. Stalin’s leadership, far from being an aberration, exemplifies the dialectical process of revolutionary development under concrete historical conditions.