The cult of Stalin

The cult of Stalin was one of the most striking and consequential political phenomena of the twentieth century. It was both a method of governance and an ideological construction, built to legitimise Joseph Stalin’s absolute authority within the Soviet Union. Rooted in traditions of Tsarist autocracy, revolutionary fervour and the needs of a bureaucratic state, the cult transformed Stalin into an infallible leader whose person was equated with the fate of socialism and the destiny of the Soviet people. Understanding this cult is essential for explaining how Stalin maintained his grip on power, how Soviet society was shaped during his rule, and why his legacy remains contested.

At its core, the Stalin cult was a political instrument designed to reinforce obedience. Stalin emerged after Lenin’s death in 1924 as a relatively cautious figure, often underestimated by his rivals. To consolidate his position, he encouraged the portrayal of himself as Lenin’s natural heir and guardian of Marxism-Leninism. This carefully cultivated image gradually expanded into something far more dramatic: Stalin was cast as the “Vozhd” (the Leader), the father of the nation and the architect of socialism. By the late 1930s, state propaganda promoted him not just as a political leader but as a near-messianic figure whose wisdom, foresight and benevolence were beyond question.

The mechanisms for building the cult were manifold. Art, literature and film were pressed into service to glorify Stalin. Painters depicted him as a towering figure, often alongside children or workers, radiating paternal warmth. Poets wrote verses celebrating his genius. Filmmakers such as Sergei Eisenstein adapted their craft to convey Stalin’s heroic leadership, particularly in historical epics that drew parallels between him and past Russian rulers. Even science and education were subordinated to this cult: discoveries were attributed to Stalin’s guidance, and school textbooks depicted him as the author of every Soviet success. Portraits of Stalin became ubiquitous, adorning factories, schools, homes and even remote villages, ensuring that his face and name were inseparable from daily life.

Central to the cult was the rewriting of history. Rivals such as Trotsky, Zinoviev and Bukharin were erased from official accounts, while Stalin’s own role in the Revolution and Civil War was exaggerated. Events that had in reality been collective undertakings were presented as the fruits of Stalin’s individual genius. This distortion was not merely symbolic but a means of legitimising the terror campaigns of the 1930s. As the “enemy within” was hunted and eliminated, Stalin was depicted as the vigilant protector of socialism. His cult justified purges by presenting them as necessary to defend the people from traitors.

The Second World War further entrenched the cult. Stalin was portrayed as the supreme commander whose leadership saved the nation from Nazi conquest. While the Soviet people endured immense suffering and bore the greatest share of the Allied war effort, propaganda presented victory as Stalin’s triumph. This association between his person and survival in the most existential of struggles reinforced loyalty and silenced doubts about his rule.

Psychologically, the cult of Stalin created a paradox. On the one hand it bred fear, because dissent could be construed as treason against the leader. On the other hand, it fostered genuine devotion amongst many Soviet citizens. People wrote letters of thanks to Stalin, appealed to him as a benevolent arbiter, and expressed loyalty in public rituals. Some of this was coerced or ritualistic, but not all: the hardships of rapid industrialisation and war, combined with the promise of a socialist future, meant that many truly believed in the mythology surrounding Stalin.

The cult’s legacy was double-edged. After Stalin’s death in 1953, Nikita Khrushchev famously denounced the excesses of the cult in his “Secret Speech” of 1956, ushering in a period of de-Stalinisation. Yet even as the excesses were condemned, the system of personalistic power he created lingered. Later Soviet leaders avoided the extremes of Stalin’s personality cult, but the structures of centralised rule, censorship and control persisted. Beyond the Soviet Union, the Stalin cult influenced other communist regimes, from Maoist China to North Korea, which emulated its rituals of leader-worship.

In the final analysis, the cult of Stalin was more than a grotesque exaggeration of one man’s qualities. It was an essential tool of Soviet governance, binding together a vast and diverse empire through myth, fear and devotion. It transformed politics into theatre, history into propaganda, and loyalty into ritual. To study it is to understand how power can be sustained not just through coercion, but through the construction of symbols that fuse leader, ideology and nation into one indivisible entity. Understanding modern Russia requires the study of the cult of Stalin, because it is being recreated today.