H. G. Wells’ interview with Stalin (1934)

Actually, it is, but I get your point. To quote Wikepedia: As a result of the public backlash it received from the United States for naming the Khomeini as Man of the Year in 1979, Time has shied away from using figures that are controversial in the United States due to commercial reasons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year

The class war part of the interview is interesting because it really highlights the main part where Stalin (and most Leninists) diverged from marxism. You see it clearly in Stalins later statement:

"You, Mr Wells, evidently start out with the assumption that all men are good. I, however, do not forget that there are many wicked men. I do not believe in the goodness of the bourgeoisie."

Where Marx saw capitalists (and workers) as forced by circumstance into playing an inevitable role in society - neither inherently good or bad -, Stalin saw capitalists as "wicked men".

In general, a lot of the worst flaws of the Bolsheviks boils down to the near unwavering belief that they were on the side of good in a battle between good and evil, and an idea of a "working class" that they fetishised as near super-human.

While Marx would agitate against specific people, he would not categorise groups of people in moral terms. He attacked ideas and behaviour, and expected people would change with circumstance: The capitalist behaves like a capitalist because that is what he needs to do to protect his own interests, and if he don't act as a capitalist, he won't remain one - he will eventually face financial ruin and become part of the working class, where he will act as a worker.

In fact, in part I of the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote:

"Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress."

This treatment of a persons class as a matter of circumstance was essential to Marx: Large parts of Marxist theory was based on the foundation that politics in the large is defined by people acting broadly in their self-interest, moderated by their understanding of that interest (e.g. the extent to which a class "buys" the justifications the ruling class gives; consider for example Marx' Critique of the Gotha program, where he points out that the proposed program is meaningless when it writes about "fairness" in part because the current system of distribution is "fair" according to bourgeois standards - without being explicit, the word says nothing)

But the world becomes so much easier to deal with when one can write off ones opponents as "wicked men".

That's putting it too strong. He reigned in some of their worst excesses, which were detrimental to the capitalist class as a whole just as much as it was detrimental to everyone else. "The capitalists" are not a single force - it's a mess of conflicting interests, just as the working class. And many of them have interests that are part aligned by parts of the working class. It's not black and white.

Stalin was a leader, Marx was a philosopher.

> Where Marx saw capitalists (and workers) as forced by circumstance into playing an inevitable role in society - neither inherently good or bad -, Stalin saw capitalists as "wicked men".

Because politicians work for a reality change. It's not so obvious to make effective, concrete, viable change in a country, so you have to take shortcuts. Leading a country for change is like sailing a boat into space, it's dark territory and you know there are huge political and economical risks. The first effective thing Stalin could do was to neutralize self interest, because that's the one smallest thing you can do when you listen about Marx.

It's harder to sensitize everyone about the flaws of capitalism and expect real change. Maybe he could have organized country wide conferences and seminars to talk about the work of Marx instead, but you know that that's not how politics happen and work.

The difference between Marx and Stalin ? One's a philosopher and the other a politician. Even today politics cower at the ideas of Marx because of the story of the soviet union. Nobody can really implements efficient policies that 100% prevent the accidents of capitalism.

Stalin, Marx and Russia is just another example of incoherences between theory and practice.

Marx was a politician first, philosopher second.

Most of Marx' most influential works were political agitation written as part of his work on organising the first and second Internationals, and actively meddling in the affairs of various socialist parties.

He was under regular threat of deportation and arrest for his political work. (edit: and moved countries several times because of these threats)

We only see Marx' as predominantly a philosopher today because his political work was overshadowed by later developments.

> The first effective thing Stalin could do was to neutralize self interest, because that's the one smallest thing you can do when you listen about Marx.

On the contrary - self interest is essential to Marxism. The very core of Marx political agitation was aimed at getting the members of the working classes to understand that their self interests were separate from those of the bourgeoisie.

If you eliminate self-interest, Marxist socialism becomes impossible.