Review of Stalin: A Political Biography by Isaac Deutscher

Stalin: A Political Biography, 2ND Edition, by Isaac Deutscher

Stalin: A Political Biography, 2nd Edition was written by Isaac Deutscher and published in the United States in 1967. Deutscher was a Polish Communist journalist living in London, England, who published the first edition of this work in 1949 while Stalin was in power and published the second edition 14 years after Stalin's death. The book focuses on Stalin's political achievements and gives a historically factual account of the Russian revolutions, the Bolsheviks, the Proletariat and the Soviet people in order to explain Stalin. Though the book seems objective in its historical accuracy, the author too easily excuses Stalin's many brutal and opportunistic actions, and gives Stalin too much credit for some Soviet advances. Nevertheless, the book is worth reading, so long as it is read with later, tougher books that give a more accurate picture of Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Body

a. The Author

Since no book is written in a vacuum but is heavily influenced by the author's life and times, studying the author's background is helpful in understanding and assessing his/her work. Isaac Deutscher was born into a Jewish middle-class family in Chrzanow, Poland on April 3, 1907. Though Jewish, he became an atheist as a teenager and joined the Polish Communist Party in 1926. Eventually, he grew to believe that the Stalinist leadership could not control the spread of Nazism and left or was expelled from the Polish Party in 1932. Deutscher moved to London in 1939 and worked as a journalist. He eventually wrote a number of books about different forms of Communism, including three books about Leon Trotsky, a book about Stalin and a book about Maoism. Deutscher followed the theories of Leon Trotsky and was a major critic of Stalinism and Maoism, claiming that they were both distorted socialism. The book that Deutscher wrote about Stalin was first written in 1949 while Stalin was still in power and was then revised and published as a second edition on January 1, 1967. That book is Stalin: A Political Biography, 2nd Edition. Deutscher died on August 19, 1967 (Zaveski n.d.).

b. Describe your experience (describe the book/summarize).

This book focused on Stalin's political achievements, so it spent little time on his youth. As a political biography, the book was interesting in some respects but was also dry. The characterizations of Stalin as brutal and as an enigma were not surprising because he is notorious for both. At the same time, the author mentioned a number of surprising specifics about Stalin's life. His early life, its poverty, cruelty and bleakness were all surprises. The fact that Stalin was born with another surname (Deutscher 1967, 1) is surprising, as are the poor circumstances of his early life: his father was a cobbler and reportedly an alcoholic (Deutscher 1967, 3). The fact that Stalin was sickly with smallpox and blood infection in early life (Deutscher 1967, 2) was also surprising and the brutal beating he supposedly took from his father were disturbing (Deutscher 1967, 3). There was nothing in his bleak early life that would lead a person to believe that Stalin would rise to world power.

Stalin as a young man was also surprising in some respects, both because of his first time away from home and his transformation. His partial education at a theological seminary as a young man was a shock (Deutscher 1967, 9). After he left the seminary, he came into contact with the a group -- the Messame Dassy - that read Communist literature, including that of Lenin, Stalin became a member of the Social Democratic Labor Party and eventually met Lenin (Deutscher 1967, 50, 57-8). The fact that Stalin was an utter outlaw as a young man was also surprising: he underwent arrests, exiles and escapes after joining the Social Democratic Labor Party (Deutscher 1967, 50, 57-8, 93). The author shows the complicated relationship of Lenin and Stalin (Deutscher 1967, 270-1). Though Stalin was drawn to Lenin, Stalin was obviously an opportunist rather than an idealist and took advantage when possible to advance his own interests. The first big power grab by Stalin was when he used his power as General Secretary -- appointed in 1922 - to make appointments of party members to individuals who owed him and he eventually undermined Lenin's power (Deutscher 1967, 228-234). By the time people realized what was happening, not even Lenin -- who was already very ill -- could take the power out of Stalin's hands.

After Lenin's death, Stalin used the power he'd already amassed, along with other maneuvers, to officially seize power. The many party members who owed their positions to Stalin proved to be a valuable asset for him (Deutscher 1967, 228-234). In addition, Stalin engaged in political maneuvering to thwart his opponents and consolidate his power. The author does give the details about the purges of the middle 1930's (Deutscher 1967, 233-4, 425), which destroyed the Old Guard. The author also speaks of wider spread mass purges:

The real mass purges were carried out without the thunder and lightning of publicity, without confession of the victims, and often without any trial whatsoever. He sent thousands to their deaths and tens of hundreds of thousands into prisons and concentration camps (Deutscher 1967, 380).

The fact that Stalin was allowed to purge "tens of hundreds of thousands" of his own people prior to WWII and still remain in power was surprising.

Though some of Stalin's behavior leading up to and during WWII is well-known, some of his other maneuvering was surprising. Stalin seemed more interested in a "caste system" and brutal, invasive police methods that hurt the Soviet "revolution" rather than helped it (Deutscher 1967, 339), primarily because those acts helped his own power. In addition, the fact that a shrewd and distrustful politician like Stalin would enter a non-aggression pact with Adolph Hitler (Deutscher 1967, 440) and believe it is very surprising. However, his eventual alliance with the Allies and willingness to sacrifice millions of his own people to win the War, along with his political maneuverings with the Allies at the end of the War, were not surprising at all.

After WWII and up to his death in 1953, Stalin's obvious opportunism could be expected but some of the chess movements he made were surprising. Stalin comes off as more of a professional revolutionary than a Communist whose rise to power was fueled by personal ambition -- and even capitalism at times - rather than love of any Communist ideals (Deutscher 1967, 84). In that respect, he was supposedly moderate and pliable toward the West (Deutscher 1967, 422) in order to gain favorable treatment from the West. However, he also created Communist "buffers" of other countries to shield him from the West, pushed for control of eastern Germany and created the Iron Curtain to protect himself inside and outside of Russia (Deutscher 1967, 559). Furthermore, he goaded Communist North Korea into the Korean War (Deutscher 1967, 600-1) yet refused to recognize the new Communist Republic of China (Deutscher 1967, 592, 597), apparently depending on whatever suited his own purposes and without regard for any Communist ideal. Stalin was an opportunist, using "socialism in one Country" (Deutscher 1967, 282. 287, 552) and international revolutionary ideals (Deutscher 1967, 290, 392), which necessarily conflict at some points but which he simultaneously pursued. Nationalism was furthered during WWII and international revolution was stressed after WWII (Deutscher 1967, 552), depending on whatever was most advantageous for Stalin. In sum, it appears that the best way to understand Stalin is as a relentless, slippery, brutal opportunist rather than as a true Communist.

c. What Did You Like About the Book?

The book was interesting in the details and readable history of the Russian revolutions occurring in 1907 and 1917, how the Bolsheviks subverted and took over power, and many significant events occurring afterward. The book is so detailed and methodical in some respects that it is nearly a reference book in a political biography. The book also basically stayed true to the fact that this was focused on Stalin, touching on basic Communist ideas about Bolshevism, the Proletariat, and the Soviets insofar as they help explain Stalin. He does also outline Stalin's crimes against humanity, if they can be called that: how he quashed democracy for the Bolsheviks (Deutscher 1967, 132); saw the Kremlin as a symbol of his own ambition no less than did Hitler (Deutscher 1967, 469) subverted worldwide Communism for Soviet (his) interests; decimated the Old Guard in the Moscow Trials (Deutscher 1967, 316); made a pact with Hitler (Deutscher 1967, 440); switched to the Allies when it was more opportunistic to do so (Deutscher 1967, 475); and was generally an opportunist throughout the war. Through his thorough and readable examination of historical events, the author managed to show a man who rode the wave of a revolution into power, gained control of it, then changed it from a nationalistic force into an international force.

d. What Did You Dislike About the Book?

Some of my dislike of the book stems from style and some from the author's reasoning, possibly because the author was a Communist intent on supporting Communism. As mentioned before, it is a somewhat dry political biography. Also, though the author explains the Moscow trials and mass murders of the Old Guard, he does not give a lot of insight into Stalin's thoughts and more intimate processes for choosing the member of the Old Guard who were destroyed. Rather, he excuses Stalin by saying, "It is not necessary to assume that he acted from sheer cruelty or lust for power. He may be given the dubious credit of the sincere conviction that what he did saved the interests of the revolution and that he alone interpreted those interests aright" (Deutscher 1967, 378). It seems that unless the author had clear-cut evidence of "evil" intent by Stalin, he excused Stalin's actions as necessary for the revolution.

It is difficult to understand how the author can claim that Stalin did not act from sheer cruelty or lust for power when the author also notes that Stalin imprisoned "tens of hundreds of thousands" and killed thousands in secrecy and without confessions or trials (Deutscher 1967, 380). The book is too easy on Stalin, giving him the benefit of the doubt about charges and testimony against him unless the truthfulness of those charges and testimony can be verified beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The book also gives Stalin too much credit in some respects. For example, the author states that Stalin's bureaucracy made the first Five-Year Plan Russia's "second revolution, which was directed solely and exclusively by Stalin" and "was even more sweeping and radical than the first" in breadth and effect on the Soviet people (Deutscher 1967, 321-2, 325-343). However, in many ways, that bureaucracy seemed to stand in the way of progress rather than cause or advance it, particularly when it starved millions of Russians. I think the author bends over backwards to give Stalin credit for Russia's industrialization but does not hold him accountable for the millions of people who were imprisoned or killed by his will and the difficulties his bureaucracy caused for the Soviet economy. As a result, a book that appears to be objective because it traces so many historical facts is, in fact, quite subjective in excusing one of the most powerful Communists who ever lived.