Stalinism and de-Stalinisation were for few years’ hotly-talked topics and students of Marxism and post-Marxist thought took interest in this issue. But it is surprising to note that none of these two terms had an official seal. De-Stalinisation started its journey from the Twentieth Party Congress of CPSU in February 1956.
Though the historians view in this line none officially uttered the words. Denunciation of Stalinist methods and tactics is treated as de-Stalinisation. Just this much. The bombshell of Khruschev’s speech is generally regarded as the basis of de-Stalinisation. But the speech cannot be treated as the real foundation of de-Stalinisation because it did not contain any new information about the mischiefs that were supposed to have been done by Stalin.
All his misdeeds, errors and mischiefs were known to everyone. But no one had the courage to protest. The death of Stalin in 1953 opened the flood-gates of protest and de-Stalinisation got maximum publicity. So we can say that both the contents and other aspects of de-Stalinisation are quite feeble and unworthy in nature.
The torture and atrocity by Stalin is beyond all sorts of condemnation. But at the same time it is required to be remembered that the political chaos and uncertainty created by the death of Lenin could not be put into check without the methods adopted by Stalin. From the standpoint of stability, unity in the party and peace in society the unethical activities of Stalin had certain amount of utility, but from a neutral point of view it is definitely condemnable.
The relation between politics and morality or ethics is still an issue of controversy. But this does not rule out the scope of criticism. That is, the activities of Stalin are not above criticism. Here again we hold the view that Stalin committed certain inhuman activities.
The concentration camp was undoubtedly the most heinous creation of the Stalinist era and the most remarkable achievement of Khrushchev was the abolition of these camps. In our post-mortem analysis we can say that numerous changes were introduced in Russia to remove the black spots of the Stalin-era, but no remarkable success was achieved.
The excessive emphasis on heavy industries of the Stalinist era continued. There was no substantial improvement in agriculture sector. After Stalin’s death several attempts were made to decentralise and minor success was achieved. But all these could not bring about an air of openness and ensure complete decentralisation. The foundation of communist despotism remained unimpaired.
Kolakowski writes, “The abandonment of mass terror was important for human security, but it did not affect the state’s absolute power over the individual, it did not confer on citizen’s any institutional rights on infringe the state and party monopoly. The principle of totalitarian government was upheld, whereby human beings are the property of the state”.
So we hold the view that the condemnation of Stalinism as an embodiment of torture and autocracy was not worthy. It should be maintained that the rise of Stalinism or de-Stalinisation is chiefly due to the fact that some people could not tolerate Stalin and his method of administration and policy.
“The only communist regimes in the world are the Leninist-Stalinist pattern on Stalin’s death the Soviet system changed from a personal tyranny to that of an oligarchy”.