Joseph V. Stalin -
Speech Delivered at a Memorial Meeting of the Kremlin Military School.
January 28, 1924.
First Published on Pravda, No. 34,
February 12, 1924.
Source: Works, Vol. 6, January-November, 1924, pp. 54-66, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1954.
Reproduced from Marxists Internet Archives.
Comrades,
I am told that you have arranged a Lenin memorial meeting here this
evening and that I have been invited as one of the speakers. I do not
think there is any need for me to deliver a set speech on Lenin’s
activities. It would be better, I think, to confine myself to a few
facts to bring out certain of Lenin’s characteristics as a man and
a leader. There may, perhaps, be no inherent connection between these
facts, but that is not of vital importance as far as gaining a
general idea of Lenin is concerned. At any rate, I am unable on this
occasion to do more than what I have just promised.
I
first became acquainted with Lenin in 1903. True, it was not a
personal acquaintance, but was by correspondence. But it made an
indelible impression upon me, one which has never left me throughout
all my work in the Party. I was in exile in Siberia at the time. My
knowledge of Lenin’s revolutionary activities since the end of the
nineties, and especially after 1901, after the appearance
of Iskra, had
convinced me that in Lenin we had a man of extraordinary calibre. At
that time I did not regard him merely as a leader of the Party, but
as its actual founder, for he alone understood the inner essence and
urgent needs of our Party. When I compared him with the other leaders
of our Party, it always seemed to me that he was head and shoulders
above his colleagues—Plekhanov, Martov, Axelrod and the others;
that, compared with them, Lenin was not just one of the leaders, but
a leader of the highest rank, a mountain eagle, who knew no fear in
the struggle, and who boldly led the Party forward along the
unexplored paths of the Russian revolutionary movement.
This
impression took such a deep hold of me that I felt impelled to write
about it to a close friend of mine who was living as a political
exile abroad, requesting him to give me his opinion. Some time later,
when I was already in exile in Siberia—this was at the end of
1903—I received an enthusiastic reply from my friend and a simple,
but profoundly expressive letter from Lenin, to whom, it turned out,
my friend had shown my letter. Lenin’s note was comparatively
short, but it contained a bold and fearless criticism of the
practical work of our Party, and a remarkably clear and concise
account of the entire plan of work of the Party in the immediate
future.
Only Lenin could write of the most intricate things so simply
and clearly, so concisely and boldly, that every sentence did not so
much speak as ring out like a rifle shot. This simple and bold letter
still further strengthened me in my opinion that Lenin was the
mountain eagle of our Party. I cannot forgive myself for having, from
the habit of an old underground worker, consigned this letter of
Lenin’s, like many other letters, to the flames.
My
acquaintance with Lenin dates from that time.
Modesty
I
first met Lenin in December 1905 at the Bolshevik conference in
Tammerfors (Finland). I was hoping to see the mountain eagle of our
Party, the great man, great not only politically, but, if you will,
physically, because in my imagination I had pictured Lenin as a
giant, stately and imposing. What, then, was my disappointment to see
a most ordinary-looking man, below average height, in no way,
literally in no way, distinguishable from ordinary mortals. . . .
It
is accepted as the usual thing for a “great man” to come late to
meetings so that the assembly may await, his appearance with bated
breath; and then, just before the “great man” enters, the warning
whisper goes up: “Hush! . . . Silence! . . . he’s coming.” This
ritual did not seem to me superfluous, because it creates an
impression, inspires respect. What, then, was my disappointment to
learn that Lenin had arrived at the conference before the delegates,
had settled himself somewhere in a corner, and was unassumingly
carrying on a conversation, a most ordinary conversation with the
most ordinary delegates at the conference. I will not conceal from
you that at that time this seemed to me to be something of a
violation of certain essential rules.
Only
later did I realise that this simplicity and modesty, this striving
to remain unobserved, or, at least, not to make himself conspicuous
and not to emphasise his high position, this feature was one of
Lenin’s strongest points as the new leader of the new masses, of
the simple and ordinary masses of the “rank and file” of
humanity.
Force
of Logic
The
two speeches Lenin delivered at this conference were remarkable: one
was on the current situation and the other on the agrarian question.
Unfortunately, they have not been preserved. They were inspired, and
they roused the whole conference to a pitch of stormy enthusiasm. The
extraordinary power of conviction, the simplicity and clarity of
argument, the brief and easily understood sentences, the absence of
affectation, of dizzying gestures and theatrical phrases aiming at
effect—all this made Lenin’s speeches a favourable contrast to
the speeches of the usual “parliamentary” orators.
But
what captivated me at the time was not this aspect of Lenin’s
speeches. I was captivated by that irresistible force of logic in
them which, although somewhat terse, gained a firm hold on his
audience, gradually electrified it, and then, as one might say,
completely overpowered it. I remember that many of the delegates
said: “The logic of Lenin’s speeches is like a mighty tentacle
which twines all round you and holds you as in a vice and from whose
grip you are powerless to tear yourself away: you must either
surrender or resign yourself to utter defeat.”
I
think that this characteristic of Lenin’s speeches was the
strongest feature of his art as an orator.
No
Whining
The
second time I met Lenin was in 1906 at the Stockholm Congress of
our Party. You know that the Bolsheviks were in the minority at this
congress and suffered defeat. This was the first time I saw Lenin in
the role of the vanquished. But he was not in the least like those
leaders who whine and lose heart after a defeat. On the contrary,
defeat transformed Lenin into a spring of compressed energy which
inspired his supporters for new battles and for future victory. I
said that Lenin was defeated. But what sort of defeat was it? You had
only to look at his opponents, the victors at the Stockholm
Congress—Plekhanov, Axelrod, Martov and the rest. They had little
of the appearance of real victors, for Lenin’s merciless criticism
of Menshevism had not left one whole bone in their body, so to speak.
I remember that we, the Bolshevik delegates, huddled together in a
group, gazing at Lenin and asking his advice. The speeches of some of
the delegates betrayed a note of weariness and dejection. I recall
that to these speeches Lenin bitingly replied through clenched teeth:
“Don’t whine, comrades, we are bound to win, for we are right.”
Hatred of the whining intellectual, faith in our own strength,
confidence in victory—that is what Lenin impressed upon us. It was
felt that the Bolsheviks’ defeat was temporary, that they were
bound to win in the very near future.
“No
whining over defeat”—this was the feature of Lenin’s activities
that helped him to rally around himself an army faithful to the end
and confident in its strength.
No
Boasting
At
the next congress, held in 1907 in London, the
Bolsheviks proved victorious. This was the first time I saw Lenin in
the role of victor. Victory turns the heads of some leaders and makes
them haughty and boastful. They begin in most cases to be triumphant,
to rest on their laurels. But Lenin did not in the least resemble
such leaders. On the contrary, it was precisely after a victory that
he became especially vigilant and cautious. I recall that Lenin
insistently impressed on the delegates: “The first thing is not to
become intoxicated by victory and not to boast; the second thing is
to consolidate the victory; the third is to give the enemy the
finishing stroke, for he has been beaten, but, by no means crushed.”
He poured withering scorn on those delegates who frivolously
asserted: “It is all over with the Mensheviks now.” He had no
difficulty in showing that the Mensheviks still had roots in the
working-class movement, that they had to be fought with skill, and
that all overestimation of one’s own strength and, especially, all
underestimation of the strength of the enemy had to be avoided.
“No
boasting in victory”—this was the feature of Lenin’s character
that helped him soberly to weigh the strength of the enemy and to
insure the Party against possible surprises.
Fidelity
to Principle
Party
leaders cannot but prize the opinion of the majority of their party.
A majority is a power with which a leader cannot but reckon. Lenin
understood this no less than any other party leader. But Lenin never
became a captive of the majority, especially when that majority had
no basis of principle. There have been times in the history of our
Party when the opinion of the majority or the momentary interests of
the Party conflicted with the fundamental interests of the
proletariat. On such occasions Lenin would never hesitate and
resolutely took his stand in support of principle as against the
majority of the Party. Moreover, he did not fear on such occasions
literally to stand alone against all, considering—as he would often
say—that “a policy based on principle is the only correct
policy.”
Particularly
characteristic in this respect are the two following facts.
First
fact.
It was in the period 1909-11, when the Party, smashed by the
counter-revolution, was in process of complete disintegration. It was
a period of disbelief in the Party, of wholesale desertion from the
Party, not only by the intellectuals, but partly even by the workers;
a period when the necessity for illegal organisation was being
denied, a period of Liquidationism and collapse. Not only the
Mensheviks, but even the Bolsheviks then consisted of a number of
factions and trends, for the most part severed from the working-class
movement. You know that it was just at that period that the idea
arose of completely liquidating the illegal organisation and
organising the workers into a legal, liberal Stolypin party. Lenin at
that time was the only one not to succumb to the widespread epidemic
and to hold high the banner of Party principle, assembling the
scattered and shattered forces of the Party with astonishing patience
and extraordinary persistence, combating each and every anti-Party
trend within the working-class movement and defending the Party
principle with unusual courage and unparalleled perseverance.
We
know that in this fight for the Party principle, Lenin later proved
the victor.
Second
fact.
It was in the period 1914-17, when the imperialist war was in full
swing, and when all, or nearly all, the Social-Democratic and
Socialist parties had succumbed to the general patriotic frenzy and
had placed themselves at the service of the imperialism of their
respective countries. It was a period when the Second International
had hauled down its colours to capitalism, when even people like
Plekhanov, Kautsky, Guesde and the rest were unable to withstand the
tide of chauvinism. Lenin at that time was the only one, or almost
the only one, to wage a determined struggle against social-chauvinism
and social-pacifism, to denounce the treachery of the Guesdes and
Kautskys, and to stigmatise the half-heartedness of the betwixt and
between “revolutionaries.” Lenin knew that he was backed by only
an insignificant minority, but to him this was not of decisive
moment, for he knew that the only correct policy with a future before
it was the policy of consistent internationalism, that a policy based
on principle is the only correct policy.
We
know that in this fight for a new International, too, Lenin proved
the victor.
“A
policy based on principle is the only correct policy”—this was
the formula by means of which Lenin took new “impregnable”
positions by assault and won over the best elements of the
proletariat to revolutionary Marxism.
Faith
in the Masses
Theoreticians
and leaders of parties, men who are acquainted with the history of
nations and who have studied the history of revolutions from
beginning to end, are sometimes afflicted by a shameful disease. This
disease is called fear of the masses, disbelief in the creative power
of the masses. This sometimes gives rise in the leaders to a kind of
aristocratic attitude towards the masses, who, although not versed in
the history of revolutions, are destined to destroy the old order and
build the new. This kind of aristocratic attitude is due to a fear
that the elements may break loose, that the masses may “destroy too
much”; it is due to a desire to play the part of a mentor who tries
to teach the masses from books, but who is averse to learning from
the masses.
Lenin
was the very antithesis of such leaders. I do not know of any other
revolutionary who had so profound a faith in the creative power of
the proletariat and in the revolutionary efficacy of its class
instinct as Lenin. I do not know of any other revolutionary who could
scourge the smug critics of the “chaos of revolution” and the
“riot of unauthorised actions of the masses” so ruthlessly as
Lenin. I recall that when in the course of a conversation one comrade
said that “the revolution should be followed by the normal order of
things,” Lenin sarcastically remarked: “It is a pity that people
who want to be revolutionaries forget that the most normal order of
things in history is the revolutionary order of things.”
Hence,
Lenin’s contempt for all who superciliously looked down on the
masses and tried to teach them from books. And hence, Lenin’s
constant precept: learn from the masses, try to comprehend their
actions, carefully study the practical experience of the struggle of
the masses.
Faith
in the creative power of the masses—this was the feature of Lenin’s
activities which enabled him to comprehend the spontaneous process
and to direct its movement into the channel of the proletarian
revolution.
The
Genius of Revolution
Lenin
was born for revolution. He was, in truth, the genius of
revolutionary outbreaks and the greatest master of the art of
revolutionary leadership. Never did he feel so free and happy as in a
time of revolutionary upheavals. I do not mean by this that Lenin
approved equally of all revolutionary upheavals, or that he was in
favour of revolutionary outbreaks at all times and under all
circumstances. Not at all. What I do mean is that never was the
genius of Lenin’s insight displayed so fully and distinctly as in a
time of revolutionary outbreaks. In times of revolution he literally
blossomed forth, became a seer, divined the movement of classes and
the probable zigzags of the revolution, seeing them as if they lay in
the palm of his hand. It was with good reason that it used to be said
in our Party circles: “Lenin swims in the tide of revolution like a
fish in water.”
Hence
the “amazing” clarity of
Lenin’s tactical slogans and the “breath-taking” boldness of
his revolutionary plans.
I
recall two facts which are particularly characteristic of this
feature of Lenin.
First
fact.
It was in the period just prior to the October Revolution, when
millions of workers, peasants and soldiers, impelled by the crisis in
the rear and at the front, were demanding peace and liberty; when the
generals and the bourgeoisie were working for a military dictatorship
for the sake of “war to a finish”; when the whole of so-called
“public opinion” and all the so-called “Socialist parties”
were hostile to the Bolsheviks and were branding them as “German
spies”; when Kerensky was trying—already with some success—to
drive the Bolshevik Party underground; and when the still powerful
and disciplined armies of the Austro-German coalition confronted our
weary, disintegrating armies, while the West-European “Socialists”
lived in blissful alliance with their governments for the sake of
“war to complete victory.”. . .
What
did starting an uprising at such a moment mean? Starting an uprising
in such a situation meant staking everything. But Lenin did not fear
the risk, for he knew, he saw with his prophetic eye, that an
uprising was inevitable, that it would win; that an uprising in
Russia would pave the way for ending the imperialist war, that it
would rouse the war-weary masses of the West, that it would transform
the imperialist war into a civil war; that the uprising would usher
in a Republic of Soviets, and that the Republic of Soviets would
serve as a bulwark for the revolutionary movement throughout the
world.
We
know that Lenin’s revolutionary foresight was subsequently
confirmed with unparalleled exactness.
Second
fact.
It was in the first days of the October Revolution, when the Council
of People’s Commissars was trying to compel General Dukhonin, the
mutinous Commander-in-Chief, to terminate hostilities and open
negotiations for an armistice with the Germans. I recall that Lenin,
Krylenko (the future Commander-in-Chief) and I went to General Staff
Headquarters in Petrograd to negotiate with Dukhonin over the direct
wire. It was a ghastly moment. Dukhonin and Field Headquarters
categorically refused to obey the order of the Council of People’s
Commissars. The army officers were completely under the sway of Field
Headquarters.
As for the soldiers, no one could tell what this army
of fourteen million would say, subordinated as it was to the
so-called army organisations, which were hostile to the Soviet power.
In Petrograd itself, as we know, a mutiny of the military cadets was
brewing. Furthermore, Kerensky was marching on Petrograd. I recall
that after a pause at the direct wire, Lenin’s face suddenly shone
with an extraordinary light. Clearly he had arrived at a decision.
“Let’s go to the wireless station,” he said, “it will stand
us in good stead. We shall issue a special order dismissing General
Dukhonin, appoint Comrade Krylenko Commander-in-Chief in his place
and appeal to the soldiers over the heads of the officers, calling
upon them to surround the generals, to cease hostilities, to
establish contact with the Austro-German soldiers and take the cause
of peace into their own hands.”
This
was “a leap in the dark.” But Lenin did not shrink from this
“leap”; on the contrary, he made it eagerly, for he knew that the
army wanted peace and would win peace, sweeping every obstacle from
its path; he knew that this method of establishing peace was bound to
have its effect on the Austro-German soldiers and would give full
rein to the yearning for peace on every front without exception.
We
know that here, too, Lenin’s revolutionary foresight was
subsequently confirmed with the utmost exactness.
The
insight of genius, the ability rapidly to grasp and divine the inner
meaning of impending events this was the quality of Lenin which
enabled him to lay down the correct strategy and a clear line of
conduct at turning points of the revolutionary movement.
