source: Roland Boer's Blog:
Marxism, Religion, Politics, Bible, whatever …
article entitled: "The Bible and Soviet Constitution: Stalin’s Reinterpretation of 2 Thessalonians and Acts 4", 25 March, 2015
Marxism, Religion, Politics, Bible, whatever …
article entitled: "The Bible and Soviet Constitution: Stalin’s Reinterpretation of 2 Thessalonians and Acts 4", 25 March, 2015
The 1936
Constitution of the USSR contains two biblical verses:
He who does not work, neither
shall he eat.
From each according to his
ability, to each according to his work.
The first
is clear enough, being drawn from 2 Thessalonians 3:10. But the second is a
little more obscure, although it comes originally from Acts 4:35. Clearly, the
appearance of such texts in the Constitution is not by chance. So how did they
end up there?
A hint
may be found in the slight obscurity of the origins of the second text, for it
is not exactly the same as that of Acts 4:35. That hint suggests a unique
exegetical path that winds its way from the Bible, through Lenin and the
slogans of the early Bolshevik government in the USSR, to none other than Joseph
Stalin. Let me trace that path.
I begin
with the text from 2 Thessalonians: ‘He who does not work, neither shall he
eat’. Among the Bolsheviks, Lenin was the first to use it. It was 1918, during
the famine brought about by the shortage of grain through the disruption to
rail transport by the First World War and the White Armies of the Civil War.
With the grain shortage came massive speculation by the profiteers – kulaks in
the countryside and business owners in the cities. In that context, Lenin addressed
a group of workers in Petrograd:
‘He who
does not work, neither shall he eat’. ‘He who does not work, neither shall he
eat’ – every toiler understands that. Every worker, every poor and even middle
peasant, everybody who has suffered need in his lifetime, everybody who has
ever lived by his own labour, is in agreement with this. Nine-tenths of the
population of Russia are in agreement with this truth. In this simple,
elementary and perfectly obvious truth lies the basis of socialism, the
indefeasible source of its strength, the indestructible pledge of its final
victory (Collected Works, volume 27, pp. 391-2).
As the
Civil War raged on and shortages continued, the text from 2 Thessalonians
became a major feature of Agitprop. It featured on posters plastered throughout
town and country. And it led to the Metropolitan of Moscow, Aleksandr
Vvedensky, to observe:
When you say you are for the
principle of work, I remind you of the slogan, ‘he who does not work shall not
eat.’ I have seen this in a number of different cities on revolutionary
posters. I am just upset that there was no reference to the Apostle Paul in his
Epistle to the Thessalonians, from where the slogan is taken (Vvedensky in
Lunacharsky, Religia i prosveshchenie,
1985, p. 193).
So it
should be no surprise that Stalin should make much use of this text – with
Lenin’s blessing – and that it should appear in the Soviet Constitution of
1936.
What
about the second text from the Constitution: ‘From each according to his
ability, to each according to his work’.
I suggest
that it is a reinterpretation of Acts 4:35 in light of 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
This reinterpretation was undertaken by the erstwhile theological scholar and
avid student of the Bible, Joseph Stalin. Let us begin with Acts itself:
They laid it at the apostles’
feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
The
context is the brief account of early Christian communism, in which everything
was held in common and no-one had private possessions (see also Acts 2).
Everyone would put whatever wealth they had into the common property and then
it was distributed according to need. I do not wish to go into the long history
of the various interpretations of this passage, save to point out that Acts 4:35
eventually became a socialist slogan, ‘from each according to ability, to each
according to need’. The influence of Engels’s argument for revolutionary
Christianity had an influence here, as did Marx’s use of the slogan.
Yet, the
Soviet Constitution of 1936 does not use this version of the slogan. Instead,
it has ‘to each according to his work’. The exegetical work of Stalin is
responsible. In texts leading up to the constitution (a revision of the one
from 1924), Stalin interprets the text in light of what was by then a
well-established distinction between socialism and communism. Socialism became
the first stage of communism, which would eventually – albeit without a
specified time frame – become fully fledged communism. Indeed, after the
frenetic and profoundly disrupting drives for industrialisation,
collectivisation and socialisation of economic and social life in the late
1920s and 1930s, the government announced that socialism had been achieved in
the Soviet Union. But communism was still to come.
So Stalin distinguished between two slogans, one
appropriate for socialism and the other for communism. Under socialism, the appropriate slogan was ‘From
each according to his ability, to each according to his work’. Under
communism, it would be ‘From each according to his ability, to each according
to his need’. The first slogan was clearly a combination of the texts
from 2 Thessalonians and Acts
4. Not only does one need to work in order to
live (targeted at capitalists and the idle rich), but one also works according
to ability and is recompensed in light of the work done.
But what
does this mean in practice? It means people will be paid according to the
labour they have provided. It means different pay scales (within reason) in
terms of skills, type of labour, and contribution to the overall good of the
socialist project. It also means that one should take responsibility for one’s
labour and stay in the same job for a while. This is far from the idea of
‘equalitarianism’, under which ‘everybody would get the same pay, an equal
quantity of meat and an equal quantity of bread, would wear the same clothes
and receive the same goods in the same quantities—such a socialism is unknown
to Marxism’ (Stalin, Works, volume 13, p. 120).
Is
communism different? In one respect it is, for this is the time when ‘labour
has been transformed from a means of subsistence into the prime want of man,
into voluntary labour for society’ (p. 121). Yet, communism is like socialism
in that it does not fall into the trap of individualist equalitarianism in
relation to labour. One provides labour according to ability and is given what
one needs. Obviously, the abilities differ, as do the needs – depending on one
stage in life, whether one has children or not, whether one is sick or healthy.
Until
then, the socialist version of the two biblical texts remained in force:
From each according to his
ability, to each according to his work.