Stalin: A Biography

Georgia as a nation made its appearance only in the second half of the nineteenth century when the collapse of feudal law and the rise of the country’s economic life, the development of the means of communication and the birth of capitalism established a division of labour among Georgia’s regions, finally shattered the economic isolation of the principalities and bound them together as a single whole.

This is crude materialist history, but it has a cogency within the analytical frame constructed by Stalin for the examination of nationhood. In order to be considered a nation the Georgians had to share not only their ‘psychic’ background and territory but also their economic life.

This was not an original point among Georgian Marxists. Zhordania, too, had always stressed that sharp contrasts separated the many regions of tiny Georgia.¹⁵ There was a difference in emphasis, however, between Zhordania and Stalin. Whereas Zhordania wanted most inhabitants of Georgia to assimilate themselves to a Georgian identity, Stalin continued to acknowledge that Georgianisation was nowhere near fulfilment. Both Zhordania and Stalin were socialist internationalists. Yet Stalin was not off the mark when highlighting the nationalist ingredients in the outlook — however unconsciously held — of his Menshevik adversaries. Stalin questioned in particular whether the Mingrelians and Adzharians, who lived in western Georgia, should be regarded as Georgians.¹⁶ What are we to make of this? The first lesson is surely that Stalin was a more sensitive analyst of his native Georgia and the surrounding region than is usually thought. (Not that we should feel too sorry for him: in later years he turned into the most brutal ruler the Caucasus had known since Tamurlane — and this of course is why his earlier sophistication has been overlooked.) In any case he rejected Menshevik policy as offering simplistic solutions based on inaccurate demographic data.

Stalin stressed that nationhood was a contingent phenomenon. It could come with capitalism. But under changing conditions it could also fade. Some national groups might assimilate to a more powerful nation, others might not. Stalin was firm on the point:¹⁷

There can be no disputing that ‘national character’ is not some permanent given fact but changes according to the conditions of life… And so it is readily understandable that the nation like any historical phenomenon has its own history, its beginning and its end.

It would consequently be senseless for Marxists of any nation to identify themselves permanently with that particular nation. History was on the march. The future lay with socialism, with multinational states and eventually with a global human community.

In writing about Marxists, Stalin was saying much about himself and his developing opinions. The young poet who had called on fellow Georgians to ‘make renowned our Motherland by study’ had vanished.¹⁸ In his place there was an internationalist struggling for the cause of the proletariat of all nations. The Stalin of Marxism and the National Question did not regard the Russians as a problem. Describing contemporary Georgia, he asserted:¹⁹