Stalin by Oleg V. Khlevniuk Page A

influence within the party. After some wavering, he made a firm decision to align himself with strength.
    Was Stalin merely advancing his own career, or did he actually understand and accept what Lenin stood for? Identifying the source of Stalin’s initial inclination toward “moderate” Bolshevism is of fundamental importance for anyone seeking to understand the workings of his mind. Clearly, the flexibility he exhibited in March–April 1917 does not fit the image of an uncompromising, power-hungry radical. Was his apparent moderation due to Kamenev’s influence? Or was he swayed by the other socialists in the Petrograd soviet, where many of the Mensheviks were fellow Georgians? Perhaps he had not yet developed the confidence to act as an independent political figure and felt he needed someone to follow. In that case, why did he not immediately fall in line behind Lenin after receiving his letter from Switzerland? Perhaps Stalin was genuinely “moderate” in early 1917 but, like many others, changed under the force of circumstances. Historical sources offer no clear-cut answers to these questions. What we do know is that Stalin was not always a radical Bolshevik. His “moderation” and “rightism” would emerge again after Lenin’s death, when the party leaders were choosing the path toward socialism, down which they would lead their vast and isolated country.
     STALIN IN LENIN’S REVOLUTION
    The escalation of Russia’s February Revolution followed a typical pattern. The moderate revolutionaries who found themselves in power after the tsar’s overthrow sought mainly to avoid civil war. But while these moderates vacillated, stumbled, and missed opportunities to consolidate their position, the increasingly impatient masses began looking to those who promised radical and immediate change. In this environment, Bolshevik propaganda found fertile ground. Calls for immediate withdrawal from the war, immediate expropriation of large estates and the turning over of land to the peasants, and immediate worker control of industry had broad appeal. As often happens in times of revolution, few demanded that the Bolsheviks spell out just how their program would be put into practice. The masses were inspired by a new faith. Among the Bolshevik rank and file, fewer and fewer were asking their leader the difficult question: What would come next? Lenin led the party with amazing energy, promising that socialism would somehow solve all problems. The banners of the Leninist party—“Most important—engage the enemy”; “We’ll see what happens”; and “Things couldn’t be any worse”—sum up the folk wisdom that guided millions to put their faith in Bolshevik promises.
    Stalin was among the Bolshevik leaders who supported Lenin without demanding detailed explanations. Having cast off doubts about the suitability of socialism for a predominantly agrarian country, Stalin now proclaimed that “It is entirely possible that Russia will prove to be the country that paves the way toward socialism.… We must reject the obsolete notion that only Europe can show us the way. There is dogmatic Marxism and creative Marxism. I stand on the ground of the latter.” 10 The ground of “creative Marxism” proved so accommodating to Stalin’s political needs that he settled there permanently. In 1917, having cast aside the apprehensions of “rightist” Bolshevism, Stalin set out on Lenin’s radical course toward the seizure of power and the introduction of socialism. He never wavered in this decision. The occasional inconsistencies that scholars have noted between Lenin’s and Stalin’s pronouncements are quite superficial and probably show only that Stalin had trouble keeping up with Lenin’s frequent tactical twists and turns. Lenin himself had trouble keeping up with them.
    Having set his sights on seizing power, Lenin faced a changeable and complicated situation that made it hard to choose the right moment to strike. The