Most foreign observers and indeed several Soviet citizens with whom this
letter has been discussed are of the opinion that it is intended
primarily for internal consumption, with an eye as well to radical
groups abroad; that in order to counteract in the field of theory
certain “Trotskiist” charges that the Soviet Union has departed from the
original principles of Lenin,
Stalin considered it
necessary at the present time to place a theoretical weapon in the hands
of his supporters, both at home and abroad, and to dispel any confusion
which may have been existing in their minds on this point. Furthermore,
it will be noted that on the basis of the views expressed in this letter
any discrepancy between Soviet reality and socialist promise can be
attributed not to any defects in policy within the country, but to the
existence of a capitalist encirclement. The statement in regard to the
necessity of keeping the people of the Soviet Union in a state of
“mobilized preparedness” is presumably a means of justifying the
rigorous control over its own citizens maintained by the Soviet
Government. It can and presumably will be used as a justification of the
activities of the secret police, the censorship, and, in general, the
absence of civil liberties in the Soviet Union.
The Embassy is inclined to believe that the letter was primarily
motivated by questions of internal policy and that the foreign and
international implications are of secondary value. However, as indicated
in the despatch referred to above, the fact of its publication at this
time and the emphasis placed upon the fact of capitalist encirclement,
with no distinction between “friendly” and unfriendly nations, bears
witness to the growing indifference of the Kremlin to the more formal
aspects of its relations with other countries.
[Enclosure 1—Translation]
Letter of Comrade Ivanov
“Dear Comrade Stalin, I earnestly request you to explain
to me the following question: we have in these parts and even in the
oblast committee an ambiguous understanding concerning the
definitive victory of socialism in our country, that is, they are
confusing the first group of contradictions with the second. In your
works concerning the fate of socialism in the Soviet Union reference
is made to two groups of contradictions—the internal and the
external.
“Concerning the first group of contradictions it is clear that we
have solved these—socialism within the country has conquered.
“I wish to receive an answer in regard to the second group of
contradictions, that is between the country of socialism and
capitalism. You point out that the definitive victory of socialism
means the solution of the external contradictions, a full guarantee
against the restoration of capitalism. But that group of
contradictions is capable of solution only by the efforts of the
workers of all countries.
“Yes and Comrade Lenin has
taught us ‘it is possible to conquer definitively only on a world
scale, only through the joint efforts of the workers of all
countries’.
[Page 522]
“Being at a seminar of staff propagandists in the oblast committee of
the All-Union Leninist Communist League of Youth, I, on the basis of
Your works, said that the definitive victory of socialism may be on
a world scale, but oblast committee workers Urozhenko (First
Secretary of the Oblast Committee) and Kazelkov (Instructor for
Propaganda) qualified my statement as a Trotskist sally.
“I started to read them citations from Your works on this question,
but Urozhenko ordered me to close the three volume work, saying,
‘Comrade Stalin said that in
1926 but this is 1938, then we did not have definitive victory, but
now we have it and now we don’t have to think of intervention and
restoration at all! He said further, ‘We now have the definitive
victory of socialism and we have a complete guarantee against
intervention and the restoration of capitalism! And thus I was
considered an accomplice of Trotskism and removed from propaganda
work, and the question of my membership in the Komsomol has been
raised.
“I request you to explain, Comrade Stalin—do we have the definitive victory of
socialism, or do we not yet have it? …15
“I also consider to be anti-Bolshevik the declaration of Urozhenko
that the works of Comrade Stalin on this question have become somewhat
antiquated. And did the workers of the oblast committee do right in
considering me to be a Trotskist? That was for me most offensive and
insulting.
“I beg you, Comrade Stalin,
not to refuse my request and to give me an answer at the following
address: Manturovski Raion, Kurskaya Oblast, 1st Zasemski Village
Soviet, Ivanov, Ivan
Fillipovich.
[Enclosure 2—Translation]
Answer of Comrade Stalin
“You are of course right, Comrade Ivanov, and
your ideological opponents, i. e., Comrade Urozhenko and Kazelkov
are not right.
“And this is why.
“There can be no doubt that the question of the victory of socialism
in one country, in the given case, in our country—has two different
sides.
“The first side of the question of the victory of socialism in our
country embraces the problem of the mutual relations of classes
within our country. This is the domain of internal relations. Can
the working class of our country overcome the differences with our
peasantry [Page 523] and arrange an
alliance with them, cooperation? Can the working class of our
country in union with our peasantry crush the bourgeoisie of our country, take away from it land,
factories, mines, and so on, and build with its own forces a new
classless society, a full socialist society?
“Such are the problems connected with the first side of the question
of the victory of socialism in our country.
“Leninism answers to these problems positively. Lenin teaches that ‘we have all
that is necessary for the construction of a full socialist society’.
Therefore we can and should by our own forces overcome our bourgeoisie and build a socialist society.
Trotski,
Zinoviev, Kamenev, and
other gentlemen who later became spies and agents of fascism, denied
the possibility of constructing socialism in our country without the
previous victory of the socialist revolution in other countries, in
the capitalistic countries. These gentlemen in effect wanted to turn
our country backward, on to the path of bourgeois development,
hiding their retreatism by false references to the ‘victory of the
revolution’ in other countries. It was precisely on this point that
our Party’s dispute with these gentlemen took place. The further
course of the development of our country showed that the Party was
right and that Trotski and
company were not right. For meanwhile we have already succeeded in
liquidating our bourgeoisie, in arranging
brotherly cooperation with our peasantry and in constructing in the
main a socialist society, in spite of the absence of the victory of
the socialist revolution in other countries.
“Matters stand thus with the first side of the question of the
victory of socialism in our country.
“I think, Comrade Ivanov, that your dispute with
Comrades Urozhenko and Kazelkov pertains not to this side of the
question.
“The second side of the question of the victory of socialism embraces
the problem of the mutual relations of our country with other
countries, with the capitalistic countries, the problem of the
mutual relations of the working class of our country with the bourgeoisie of other countries. This is the
domain of external, international relations. Can socialism
victorious in one country, having in its environment a multitude of
strong capitalistic countries, consider itself fully guaranteed
against the danger of a military invasion (intervention) and, hence,
against attempts to restore capitalism in our country? Can our
working class and our peasantry with their own forces, without the
serious assistance of the working class of the capitalistic
countries, overcome the bourgeoisie of the
other countries, just as they have overcome their own bourgeoisie. In other words: is it possible
to consider the victory of socialism in our country to be
definitive, i. e. free from the danger of a military attack and from
attempts to restore [Page 524]
capitalism under the condition that the victory of socialism is only
in one country while the capitalistic environment continues to
exist?
“Such are the problems connected with the second side of the question
of the victory of socialism in our country.
“Leninism answers these problems negatively. Leninism teaches that
‘the definitive victory of socialism in the sense of a complete
guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations is possible
only on the international scale’ (see the well-known resolution of
the Fourteenth Conference of the All-Union Communist Party). This
means that the serious assistance of the international proletariat
is a force without which the task of the definitive victory of
socialism in one country cannot be solved. This, of course, does not
mean, that we ourselves should sit with folded hands waiting for
assistance from abroad. On the contrary assistance on the part of
the international proletariat should be united with our work of
strengthening the defence of our country, of strengthening the Red
Army, and the Red Fleet, of mobilizing the whole country to struggle
against a military attack and attempts to restore bourgeois
relations.
“This is what Lenin said
concerning this matter:
‘We live not only in a state, but in a system of states, and the existence of the Soviet
Republic alongside of imperialistic states for a prolonged
period of time is unthinkable. In the end of ends, either
the one or the other will be victorious. And while this end
approaches, a number of most terrible clashes between the
Soviet Republic and the bourgeoisie
are inevitable. This means that the ruling class, the
proletariat, if only it wants to and will rule, should prove
this in its military organization’. (Volume XXIV, p.
122)
“And further:
‘We are surrounded by people, by classes, by Governments,
which openly express hatred for us. It must be remembered
that we are always only a hair’s breadth from an onslaught’.
(Volume XXVII, p. 117)
“Sharply and strongly spoken, but honestly and truthfully, without
embellishment, as Lenin was
able to speak.
“On the basis of these premises the following was said in Stalin’s Questions of Leninism:
‘The definitive victory of socialism is the complete
guarantee from attempts at interventions, that means at
restoration also, for a somewhat serious support from
without, only with the support of international capital.
Therefore, the support of our revolution on the part of
workers of all countries, and especially the victory of
these workers if even in a few countries is a necessary
condition to the complete guarantee of the first victorious
country against attempts at intervention and restoration, a
necessary condition to the definitive victory of socialism’.
(Questions of Leninism, 1937, p.
134)
[Page 525]
“Indeed it would be ridiculous and foolish to shut our eyes to the
fact of the capitalistic environment and to think that our external
enemies, for example, the fascists would not attempt on occasion to
effect a military attack on the U. S. S. R. Only braggarts or hidden
enemies, desirous of putting the people to sleep, can think thus. It
would be no less ridiculous to deny that in the event of the least
success of military intervention, the interventionists would try to
destroy the Soviet regime in the regions occupied by them and to
re-establish the bourgeois regime. Did not Denikin16 and
Kolchak17
re-establish the bourgeois system in the regions occupied by them?
In what way are the fascists better than Denikin or Kolchak? Only blockheads or hidden enemies, desiring
to hide their hostility with boastfulness and trying to demobilize
the people can deny the danger of military intervention and of
attempts at restoration while the capitalistic environment continues
to exist. But is it possible to consider the victory of socialism in
one country to be definitive, if that country has around it a
capitalist environment and if it is not fully guaranteed against the
danger of intervention and restoration? It is clear that it is
not.
“Matters stand thus with regard to the question of the victory of
socialism in our country.
“It turns out that this question contains two different problems: a) the problem of the internal relations of
our country, i. e., the problem of overcoming our bourgeoisie and constructing full socialism, and b) the problem of the external relations of
our country, i. e., the problem of the complete protection of our
country from the dangers of military intervention and restoration.
The first problem has already been settled by us, inasmuch as our
bourgeoisie has already been liquidated
and socialism has already been constructed in the main. This is
called in our country the victory of socialism, or to be more
precise, the victory of socialist construction in one country. We
could say that this victory was definitive if our country were
located on an island and if there were not around it a multitude of
other, capitalistic countries. But since we live not on an island,
but ‘in a system of states’ a considerable portion of which regards
the land of socialism with hostility thus creating a danger of
intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly, that the
victory of socialism in our country is not definitive. But from this
it follows that the second problem has thus far not been solved and
that it is yet to be solved. Furthermore: it is impossible to settle
the second problem in the same manner that the first problem was
solved, i. e., by means of the individual efforts of our country
alone. The second problem can be solved only by uniting the [Page 526] serious efforts of the
international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of our
whole Soviet people. It is necessary to strengthen and fortify the
international proletarian connections of the working class of the U.
S. S. R. with the working class of the bourgeois countries; it is
necessary to organize the political assistance of the working class
of the bourgeois countries to the working class of our country
against the eventuality of a military attack on our country, and
equally to organize every assistance of the working class of our
country to the working class of bourgeois countries; it is necessary
in every way to strengthen and fortify our Red Army, Red Fleet, Red
Air Force, Osoaviakhim.18 It is necessary to keep our whole people in a
state of mobilized preparedness in the presence of the danger of a
military attack, so that no ‘accident’ and no tricks of our external
enemies may catch us unawares …19
“From your letter it is evident that Comrade Urozhenko holds other,
not altogether Leninist views. He, it appears, affirms that ‘we now
have the definitive victory of socialism and have complete guarantee
against intervention and the restoration of capitalism.’ There can
be no doubt that Comrade Urozhenko is basically not right. This
assertion of Comrade Urozhenko can be explained only by
incomprehension of surrounding reality and ignorance of the
elementary principles of Leninism, or by the empty boastfulness of a
conceited young bureaucrat. If we indeed ‘have a complete guarantee
against intervention and the restoration of capitalism’ do we need
then, after this, a strong Red Army, Red Fleet, Red Air Force, a
strong Osoaviakhim, a strengthening and fortification of
international proletarian ties? Would it not be better to divert the
billions which go for strengthening the Red Army to other needs and
to reduce the Red Army to a minimum or dissolve it altogether? Such
people as Comrade Urozhenko, even if they are subjectively devoted
to our cause, are objectively dangerous for our cause, for by their
boastfulness they voluntarily or involuntarily (it is all the same!)
put our people to sleep, demobilize the workers and peasants, and
help enemies of the people to catch us unawares in case of
international complications.
“As for the fact that You, Comrade Ivanov, it
appears, have been removed from propaganda work and that the
question of your further membership in the Komsomol has been raised,
you need have no fears on this point. If the people from the oblast
committee of the All-Union Leninist Communist League of Youth really
want to act like Chekhov’s
Unter-Offitser Prishibaev,20 you may be sure that they
will lose on this. In our country Prishibaevs are not liked.
[Page 527]
“Now you can judge whether or not the well-known section in the book
Questions of Leninism with regard to the
victory of socialism in one country has become antiquated. I wish
very much that it were antiquated, that there were no longer on the
earth such unpleasant things as a capitalistic environment, the
danger of a military attack, the danger of the restoration of
capitalism, and so on. But unfortunately these, unpleasant things
continue to exist.
I. Stalin
February 12,
1938.”
