A LEFTIST PLEA FOR POLITENESS

Politeness, Woodward, G. M. (George Moutard), approximately 1760-1809

What continues to surprise me in the last years of Lenin’s activity is the unexpected focus on politeness and civility – a strange thing coming from a hardened Bolshevik. Two things deeply upset Lenin: in a political debate, the Moscow representative in Georgia, Ordhonikidze, physically struck a member of the Georgian CC; and Stalin himself verbally abused Lenin’s wife with threats and rude words (Stalin acted in panic, after learning that she had transcribed and transmitted to Trotsky Lenin’s letter in which he proposed a pact against Stalin). Lenin broke all personal relations with Stalin and naively stated: “If matters have come to such a pass … we can imagine what a mess we have got ourselves into.”[1] This incident prompted Lenin to write down his famous appeal to remove Stalin:

“Stalin is too rude, and this defect, though quite tolerable in our midst and in dealings among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a General Secretary. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way to remove Stalin from that post and appoint in his place another man who in all respects differs from Comrade Stalin in his superiority, that is, who is more tolerant, more loyal, more courteous and more considerate of the comrades, less capricious, etc.”[2]

Note that the reasons Lenin wants to remove Stalin are not any of his political deviations but just his lack of politeness... These proposals in no way indicate a liberal softening on Lenin’s part – in a letter to Kamenev from this same period, he clearly states: “It is a great mistake to think that NEP [the New Economic Policy] put an end to terror; we shall again have recourse to terror and to economic terror.”[3] However, this terror (which was meant to survive the planned reduction of the state apparatus and secret police) was to be more of a threat than an actual program: “a means must be found whereby all those who would now [in NEP] like to go beyond the limits assigned to businessmen by the state could be reminded ‘tactfully and politely’ of the existence of this ultimate weapon.”[4] Note how even here the motif of politeness reappears!