feelings and sentiment, single-minded, and power-hungry. All of these descriptions can find sustenance in different aspects of Stalin’s biography. Where the balance lies remains a matter of debate. What is clear is that when he believed it was required, he could be ruthless in the actions he took against both enemies and supposed friends. In this sense, he was a man of action. He was not an intellectual, despite the claims of the cult. His literary output was moderate in size and generally both turgid in prose and mechanical in its arguments, but it did gain the status of orthodoxy within the USSR, a function of his political dominance rather than the intrinsic merit of his work.
Stalin’s life remains the subject of debate. Many aspects are still highly controversial, with scholars disagreeing widely on them. The following are among the most important of these.
Why was Stalin victorious? This question has often been posed in a broader form: Why did the Stalinist system emerge in the Soviet Union, the first attempt to create a socialist society on a national scale? Debate on this question has been vigorous precisely because of the implications its answer was seen to have for socialist aspirations more generally. Many, particularly on the right of the political spectrum, argued that such a system was a logical, even inevitable, result of revolution and the sort of system that Lenin set in place. Others argued that, while the Leninist system may have made a highly coercive, undemocratic system more likely, this was neither the necessary nor inevitable outcome of either the revolution or Leninism. Many argued the primacy of organizational factors, especially the power Stalin was able to gain and exercise within the party apparatus. Others emphasized the importance of Stalin’s personality, skills, and talents, especially in contrast to those of
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY
his opponents. Another strand of argument focused upon the regime’s desire to bring about substantial socioeconomic change in an economically and politically backward society, a situation requiring a high level of centralization and coercion. Others noted the role of the party’s isolation in Soviet society and the nature of the recruits flowing into its ranks. This question remains unresolved, but an answer, most now agree, involves elements of all of the arguments noted above.
Was Stalin responsible for Kirov’s assassination? Those supporting the view that Stalin was responsible argue that Kirov was seen as a possible challenge to or replacement for Stalin, and accordingly Stalin had him assassinated. Other suggestions have been that Kirov’s killer was indeed working for a bloc of oppositionists as Stalin and his supporters claimed, that he was working alone, or that it was the security apparatus who had planned a failed assassination attempt to boost their institutional stocks but that this went wrong. Despite research in the archives, no definitive answer has been forthcoming, and all cases remain circumstantial.
There is now no doubt about Stalin’s responsibility for the terror. This was not a normal party purge that went off the rails. Given Stalin’s position in the party organization and the position occupied by his supporters, this could not have gone ahead without his permission. He probably did not have an exact idea of how many people suffered during the terror, but he must have had an idea of the general dimensions, and he certainly knew of some of the individuals who perished, because he signed lists of victims submitted to him. Ultimately Stalin was responsible, even if the primary role in the direction of it lay with his henchmen.
Was Stalin planning another major purge when he died? Those who argue in favor of this point to the buildup of pressure through the Leningrad affair, the Mingrelian case, and the Doctors’ Plot, and the enlargement of the party Presidium at the nineteenth congress of the party in October 1952. This was seen as preparatory to purging some of the older established leaders and bringing newer ones forward. Many of those who accept this logic also accept that Stalin was poisoned. There is no firm evidence about Stalin’s intentions either way, and unless compelling evidence comes from the archives, this will remain a moot point.
Finally there is the question of the costs and benefits of Stalin and his regime. Under his rule,
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY
the Soviet Union moved from being a backward, predominantly agricultural country to one of the two superpowers on the globe. The living standards of many of its people rose significantly, as did literacy and education levels. Urbanization transformed the landscape. And the Soviet Union won the war against Hitler, something that would have been highly unlikely without high-level industrialization. But critics point to the costs: millions killed as a result of famine, terror, and collectivization; the massive wastage of resources; the establishment of an economic system that ultimately could not sustain itself; the development of a society which crushed individual initiative and free thinking. This was an ambiguous legacy, and one that therefore was difficult for the regime to handle. Under Khrushchev, destalinization was a limited policy that refused to come to grips with the reality of the Stalin regime. When discussion was again permitted, under Mikhail Gorbachev, the political circumstances of the time prevented a balanced evaluation from emerging. Russia still must broach this question, but it is likely that this will only happen in a satisfactory way when the Stalin issue is not seen to have contemporary political relevance. That may be some time off. See also: COLD WAR; COLLECTIVIZATION OF AGRICULTURE; CULT OF PERSONALITY; DE- STALINIZATION; ECONOMIC GROWTH, SOVIET; INDUSTRIALIZATION, SOVIET; KIROV, SERGEI MIRONOVICH; NAZI-SOVIET PACT OF 1939; PURGES, THE GREAT; SHOW TRIALS; STATE SECURITY, ORGANS OF; WORLD WAR II
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gill, Graeme. (1990). The Origins of the Stalinist Political System. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hingley, Ronald. (1974). Joseph Stalin: Man and Legend. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tucker, Robert C. (1973). Stalin as Revolutionary 1879-1929: A Study in History and Personality. London: Chatto amp; Windus. Tucker, Robert C. (1990). Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1928-41. New York: Norton. Ulam, Adam B. (1989). Stalin: The Man and His Era. Boston: Beacon. Volkogonov, Dmitri. (1991): Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. New York: Grove.
STALIN REVOLUTION See INDUSTRIALIZATION, SOVIET.
1459
(1863-1938), actor, director, acting teacher.
The first creator of a comprehensive guide to actor training, Stanislavsky emerged as one of the most influential theater personalities of the twentieth century. His work continues to shape theatrical discourse into the twenty-first century.
Born Konstantin Sergeyevich Alexeyev to the wealthy Alexeyevs, he first performed in a fully equipped home theater outside Moscow. Because of his social class, he limited his theatrical ambitions to the amateur sphere. In 1888 he founded The Society of Art and Literature, a critically acclaimed theater club, where he established himself as an outstanding actor and emerging director. As his talents became known, he adopted “Stanislavsky” (1884) to protect his family name. In 1897 Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko, playwright and head of the only acting school in Moscow, invited Stanislavsky to cofound The Moscow Art Theater (MAT) as a professional venture. The two agreed to produce plays of contemporary import, bring European stage realism to Russia, and ensure that the work of directors, designers, and actors would embrace unified dramatic visions. The theater opened with an historically researched production of Alexei Tolstoy’s Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich (1898). Anton Chekhov’s The Seagull (1898) secured the company’s fame. Stanislavsky directed and acted in productions such as premieres of Chekhov’s plays (1898-1904), Henrick Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People (1902), and Maxim Gorky’s The Lower Depths (1902).
In 1906 Stanislavsky lost inspiration as an actor and retreated to Finland in despair. The crisis induced his passionate desire to systematize acting. He devoted the rest of his life to collecting, developing, and teaching ways to control inspiration. His “System” went through continuous evolution incorporating the experience of great actors, be-haviorist psychology, yoga, and other sources that illuminate the creative process. Stanislavsky’s experimental stance caused friction, which ignited in 1909 when he applied his ideas to Ivan Turgenev’s A Month in the Country. Nemirovich’s hostility prompted Stanislavsky to transfer his experiments into a series of studios, adjunct to the main company, even as he continued to act and direct at MAT. The First Studio, founded in 1911, became his most famous laboratory, because it laid the System’s foundation.
1460
