Stalin: A Biography

The libel case was the overreaction of a hypersensitive man. If Stalin had not made a fuss, hardly anyone would have noticed what Martov had written. Stalin’s resentment did not end with the conclusion of the trial. When in 1922 Lenin asked him to transfer funds to Berlin for the medical care of the dying Martov, Stalin refused point-blank: ‘What, start wasting money on an enemy of the working class? Find yourself another secretary for that!’²¹

This was not the only aspect of his inner life revealed in these months. Debating nations and administrative structures in the Constitution commission, he forcefully declared: ‘The Jews are not a nation!’ Stalin contended that a nation could not exist without a definable territory where its people composed the majority of inhabitants. This had always been his opinion,²² and it ruled out the possibility of granting the Jews an ‘autonomous regional republic’ such as he was proposing for others.²³ Was this evidence of a hatred of Jews for being Jews? Stalin differed from Lenin inasmuch as he never — not even once — commented on the need to avoid anti-semitic impulses. Yet his People’s Commissariat for Nationalities’ Affairs had its own Jewish section and funded Yiddish newspapers, clubs and folk-singing ensembles. Many Jews belonged to his entourage over the next two decades. To a considerable extent he was just sticking to a dogmatic version of Marxism. But there was probably more to it than that. Nothing can be proved, but probably he felt uneasy in dealing with Jews because they were unamenable to administrative control on a simple territorial basis — and he also had a growing rivalry with several leaders of Jewish origin in his party: Trotski, Kamenev and Zinoviev.

At any rate the commission’s records scarcely refer to Lenin. Matters were debated on their merits within the frame of Bolshevik and Left Socialist-Revolutionary ideas. Stalin was his own man. Indeed it was the Left Socialist-Revolutionary M. A. Reisner who brought up Lenin’s name. His objection was that Stalin’s project reflected the ‘anarchic’ tendencies embodied in Lenin’s recently published The State and Revolution. Stalin’s response was a distinctly sniffy one:²⁴ ‘Here there’s been mention of comrade Lenin. I’ve decided to permit myself to note that Lenin as far as I know — and I know very well — said that [Reisner’s own] project is no good!’ The rest of the commission agreed and accepted Stalin’s draft with its advocacy of national-territorial administrative units.²⁵ His colleague Sverdlov’s phrasings were pushed back in favour of those proposed by Stalin.²⁶ Sverdlov had been the individual most responsible for embedding the general structures of administration in the Soviet republic after the October Revolution. This was yet another sign of Stalin’s ever-rising importance among the Bolsheviks, and his expertise on the national question gave him a ladder to climb higher and higher.

If he was a rare Bolshevik moderate on the national question, though, he was constantly extreme in his advocacy of state violence and dictatorship. Stalin was convinced that severe measures should be applied against the enemies of Sovnarkom. He was in apocalyptic mood: ‘We definitely must give the Kadets a thorough beating right now or else they’ll give us a thorough beating since it’s they who have opened fire on us.’²⁷ Violence, dictatorship and centralism slept lightly in the Russian political mind — and many conservatives, liberals and social-democrats were already beginning to think that they had been wrong to stick after the February Revolution to principles of universal civil rights, gradualism and democracy. Bolshevism had never carried such an inhibiting legacy. Those Bolsheviks who had yearned for a gentle revolution could usually be persuaded to accept the case for authoritarianism. There was no need to persuade Stalin.