1 This article is an up-to-date version of a paper read before the convention of the American Political Science Association on September n, 1953.

2 Luxemburg, Rosa, Leninism or Marxism (1918), English edition (Glasgow, 1935).Google Scholar

3 Stalin, J. V., Concerning Marxism in Linguistics (London, 1950), p. 22.Google Scholar

4 Tjutčev, Fëdor, Russia and Revolution (1848).

5 The most forceful statement to date relativizing Marx and Engels and asserting the revisability of Marxist theory was made in Stalin's letter to Kholopov, July 28, 1950. See Pravda for that date, or Stalin, J. V., Concerning Marxism in Linguistics, Soviet News Booklet (London, 1950), pp. 35–37.Google Scholar

6 Stalin, , “Concerning Marxism in Linguistics,” Pravda, June 20, 1950.Google Scholar Italics J. T. Thereafter statements like the following multiplied in the periodical press: “The gradual transition from socialism to communism … contains a whole series of leaps in different spheres of social life, in the development of production, technology, science and the cultural advancement of the working people. All these leaps … take place gradually because they are put through from above by the socialist government, by the Soviet power.” B. Kedrov in Bol'ševik, No. 15 (August, 1951), pp. 8-20.

7 Marx's famous dictum (1859) that the economic structure of society was “the real basis on which rise legal and political structures” and that “the mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political and spiritual processes of life,” was criticized for many years as one-sided. In the 1890's Engels sought to refute this criticism in a number of letters and stated that neither he nor Marx asserted more than that “according to the materialist conception of history the determining element in history was ultimately the production and reproduction in real life.” ( Marx, and Engels, , Correspondence 1846-1895 [New York, 1934), p. 475.Google Scholar See also pp. 477, 480-84, 516-19.) Bernstein concluded (1899) that these letters marked a change of view assigning greater influence to non-economic factors than Marx and Engels had originally done ( Bernstein, Edward, Evolutionary Socialism [New York, 1909], pp. II ff., 17–18 Google Scholar). For this he was severely taken to task by George Plekhanov in 1908 (See Plekhanov, G., Fundamental Problems of Marxism [New York, 1929], pp. 52–58 Google Scholar), who maintained that Marx and Engels fully recognized the influence of politics and ideology, the mutual interaction between superstructure and base, insisting merely on the primacy of economic relations as ultimately decisive. In the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1938), whose authorship was ascribed to Stalin, the primacy of the material factor as “the determining force of social development“ was also asserted. But at the same time a high significance was attached to new ideas and political institutions arising after new productive forces have matured.

8 Pravda, June 20, 1950. Compare Mao Tse-Tung statement in his On Contradiction (New York, International Publishers, 1953), p. 40.Google Scholar

9 See Towster, Julian, “The Internal Political Structure of Soviet Communism,“ The World Influence of Communism (Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Institute of the Norman Wait Harris Memorial Foundation, Chicago, 1952), pp. 29–31.Google Scholar

10 See Hazard, John N., “A Political Testament for Stalin's Heirs,” International Journal, spring 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Stalin, Joseph, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. (New York, International Publishers, 1952), pp. 7–12.Google Scholar

12 Ibid., pp. 31-34.

13 Ibid., pp. 51-53, 65-71. See also Saburov's report at the 19th Party Congress, with its directives for percentage increases in production, national income, wages, secondary education, productivity etc., under the Fifth Five Year Plan. Pravda, Oct. 12, 1952.

14 See Dorošev, I., “The Basic Economic Law of Socialism,” Kommunist, No. 1 (1953), pp. 14–34;Google Scholar Suslov, M., “Concerning the Articles by P. Fedosejev in Izvestija, December 12 and 21,” Pravda, Dec. 24, 1952.Google Scholar

15 Sobolev, A., “Completely Overcome Subjectivistic Errors in Economics,“ Pravda, Jan. 12, 1953.Google Scholar

16 Judin, P., “J. V. Stalin's Work ‘The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR'—Basis for Further Development of the Soviet Society,” Kommunist, No. 3 (1953), pp. 44–45.Google Scholar

17 An example of what the communist leaders mean by such social “laws” and “norms,” which they create and employ as expediency dictates, is offered by Malenkov's definition of typicalness in art: “In the Marxist-Leninist conception of the term, typical does not mean the statistical average. Typicalness corresponds to the essence of the given social-historical phenomenon and is not simply what is most widespread, often met with, the ordinary. A deliberately magnified image, brought out in salient relief, does not exclude typicalness, it reveals the typical more fully and emphasizes it. Typicalness is the main sphere of the manifestation of partisanship in realistic art. The problem of typicalness is always a political problem.” Malenkov, G., Report to the Nineteenth Party Congress on the Work of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. (B) (Moscow, 1952), p. 98 Google Scholar, cited hereafter as Malenkov Report.

18 Stepanjan, C., “Dialectical Materialism is Scientific Basis for Building Communism,“ Pravda, Dec. 7, 1953;Google Scholar Pospelov, P. N., speech on 30th anniversary of Lenin's death, Pravda, Jan. 22, 1954;Google Scholar Khrushchev, N. S., Report of Party Central Committee Plenary Session, Feb. 23, 1954, Pravda, March 21, 1954.Google Scholar

19 One recent investigation has arrived at a “corrected class analysis of the deputies” yielding the following percentages for the Supreme Soviet (both chambers) in 1950: workers—9.1 percent, peasants—2.6 percent, intelligentsia— 88.5 percent. See Rigby, Thomas H., “Changing Composition of the Supreme Soviet,” The Political Quarterly, July-September 1953, p. 314.Google Scholar

20 See Towster, Julian, “Soviet Policy on Nationalities,” Antioch Review, Dec. 1951, pp. 437-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Both of these features are strikingly exhibited in the new Central Committee elected in October 1952. Nearly 60 percent of the 236 members and candidates represent All-Union Party and Soviet organizations. The remaining members and candidates showed approximately the following representation: from Union Republic governments—20, local Soviets—5; from Party Central Committees of Union Republics—19, Party organizations of regions—44, territories—5, autonomous republics—7, cities—3, a total of 103 members and candidates of whom 65 stemmed from the Russian Republic. Only 44 out of the 167 regional Party organizations were represented in the Central Committee, and of these 44 a total of 40— mostly Russians—derived from the RSFSR. The Russian ethnic group predominates in the total membership of the Central Committee, which comprises the most interested part of Party and Soviet officialdom—the All-Union bureaucracy.

22 See Bagirov, M. D., “Elder Bother in Family of Soviet Peoples,” Kommunist, No. 3 (Feb. 1953), pp. 64–88.Google Scholar

23 See Nefedov, K. and Tjurin, M., “Friendship of Peoples of USSR—Source of Strength of the Soviet State,” Izvestija, June 19, 1953.Google Scholar

24 In fact the emphasis on duties and discipline for Party members, the institution of agents of the Party Control Committee in the localities, and other arrangements added to centralist practice. And nothing perhaps illustrates better the concentration of power in the same few hands than the fact that by 1952 the only Central Committee members who were survivors from the 1934 Central Committee were the members of the Politbureau. A comparison of the memberships of the Central Committee elected by the 17th (1934), 18th (1939) and 19th (1952) Party Congresses shows that 82 percent of the total members dropped out between 1934 and 1939, while 70 percent of the 1939 membership was eliminated between 1939 and 1952. Only 13 persons of the 1934 Central Committee were still in that body in 1952, and all were members of the top Party directorate.

25 See Towster, Julian, “Presidium Replaces Politburo,” Current History, Jan. 1953.Google Scholar

26 At present the Presidium of the Council of Ministers consists of Chairman Malenkov, First Vice-Chairmen Molotov, Bulganin, and Kaganovich, and Vice- Chairmen Mikoyan, Saburov, Pervukhin, Tevosyan, Malyshev, and Kosygin.

27 The changes in First Secretaries from 1952 to 1954 occurred in the Ukraine (1952 Melnikov, 1954 Kirichenko), Georgia (Mgeladze, Mzhavandze respectively), Azerbaijan (Bagirov, Mustafayev respectively), Kazakhstan (Shayakhmetov, Ponomarenko respectively), Moldavia (Brezhnev, Serdyuk respectively), Armenia (Ariutinov, Tovmasyan respectively), Moscow Region (Khrushchev, Kapitonov respectively), Leningrad Region (Andrianov, Kozlov respectively). AH First Party Secretaries are members of the Council of the Union of the Supreme Soviet. In most cases Second and Third Secretaries are members of the Council of Nationalities.

28 Over the years the Army has been forged into an obedient instrument of the Party leadership, with the aid of a vast indoctrination system which now comprises 135 so-called “universities of Marxism-Leninism” and hundreds of Party schools and circles. Over 74 percent of the graduates of such universities in 1951-52 were commanders, and in October 1952 Marshal Vasilevsky reported that 86.4 percent of the generals and officers were Party or Komsomol members. He also reported recent measures increasing the authority of commanders. Conceivably the role of the MVD sections in the army may be reduced, and there will in all likelihood be manifested greater public recognition for members of the high command. Such measures would strengthen the loyalty of the officer corps. It is not without significance that in the July 15 discussions of the Party aktiv in the Ministry of Defense, not only Bulganin but Marshals Zhukov, Sokolovsky, Govorov, Peresypkin, and Admiral Kuznetsov took part and pledged full support to the Central Committee.

29 On December 30, 1926 Stalin wrote to Ksenofontov: “I am against your calling yourself ‘a pupil of Lenin and Stalin’. I have no pupils… . You have no grounds for calling yourself a pupil of the pupil of Lenin. This is untrue. This is superfluous.” (Stalin, Sočinenija, IX, p. 152.) Later, however, he found no difficulty in tolerating endless tributes, such as the following: “Stalin is the brilliant leader and teacher of the party, the great strategist of the Socialist Revolution, military commander, and guide of the Soviet state.” (Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute, Stalin, Joseph, A Political Biography [1949], pp. 122-23.Google Scholar) “His name is uttered with glowing affection by working people in all countries of the world… . Comrade Stalin's life and work are so majestic, so many-sided that years of study will be required for their proper illumination… . The entire activities of our Party and the Soviet state were directed by Comrade Stalin. His genius and foresight … his inconquerable will … all these brought our state to victory over the enemy… . Our leader's genius goes hand in hand with simplicity and modesty, with rare personal charm … with delicate tact and fatherly solicitude for our people.” ( Beria, L., The Great Inspirer and Organizer of Victories of Communism [Moscow, 1950], pp. 3–4, 20-23.Google Scholar) “He, Stalin's soldier, will enfold his leader in a rough masculine embrace… . And bending over and pressing his lips in filial respect to the great father's shoulder, the soldier will exclaim in a voice trembling and husky with emotion: ‘Father! Our glory, our honor, our hope and joy, long may you live.’” ( Sholokhov, Mikhail, Dec. 20, 1949. See Soviet Literature, I [1950], pp. 7–8.Google Scholar)

30 Malenkov was referred to 43-8-10-2 times respectively in March, April, May and June; Beria 19-3-4-1 times, and Molotov 18-6-4-2 times respectively during the same months in the same source.

31 “The Party is the great mobilizing, organizing and transforming force of society. Without the Communist Party and its Marxist theory, the workers movement would be doomed to drift, to wander in the dark and to suffer incalculable losses.” Konstantinov, F., “The People—Makers of History,” Pravda, June 28, 1953.Google Scholar

32 See Slepov, L., “Collectivity is the Highest Principle of Party Leadership,“ Pravda, April 16, 1953; and editorials in Pravda Ukrainy, June 2, Izvestija, June 7, and Pravda, July 4, 1953.Google Scholar

33 See Kommari, M. D. in Marxism-Leninism and the Role of the Individual in History (1952), cited in review in Voprosy istorii, No. 2 (Feb. 1953).Google Scholar V. Nikolaev, “Indestructible Unity of Party and People,” Izvestija, June 28, 1953.

34 “Lenin called the Party Central Committee a collective of leaders, the custodian and interpreter of Party principles.… Correct leadership of the Party and the country is ensured by the collective experience and the collective wisdom of the Central Committee, which is based on scientific Marxist-Leninist theory. … The cult of the individual is alien to Marxism and clearly at variance with the principle of collective leadership.” Pospelov in a Lenin anniversary speech, Pravda, Jan. 22, 1954.

35 Stalin, J., Political Report of the Central Committee to the Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U. (B) (Moscow, 1950), pp. 85–86.Google Scholar

36 Zhdanov, A., Essays on Literature, Philosophy and Music (New York, 1950).Google Scholar

37 See Ilyičev's speech at the Congress, Pravda, Oct. 15, 1952.

38 See Inkeles, Alex and Geiger, Kent, “Critical Letters to the Editors of the Soviet Press,” American Sociological Review, Dec. 1952, Feb. 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Pravda, Oct. 13, 1952.

40 See especially Justice Minister Gorshemin's statement in Pravda, April 17, 1953, entitled “Socialist Law on Guard over the People's Interests,” and editorial “Socialist Legality Defending the Interests of the People,” Kommunist, No. 6, 1953. Following Beria's arrest local MVD officials were condemned by some Party units for assuming an autonomous position in regard to local Party.organizations. See Bakinskij rabočij, July 21, 22, 1953.

41 See Izvestija, March 28, 1953, and compare Poskrebyshev's demands upon Soviet legal science at the Party Congress (Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, No. 10 [Oct. 1952], pp. 7-19). See also the statements on law enforcement and individual rights by Prosecutor General Rudenko and his assistant Boldyrev in Pravda, Jan. 5, 1954 and Izvestija, April 8, 1954.