The 'Cult of Personality' Accusation: A Weapon of Bourgeois Ideological Warfare

The 'Cult of Personality' Accusation: A Weapon of Bourgeois Ideological Warfare

This article is part of a series exposing bourgeois ideological warfare. Previous articles in this series have examined the confusion between socialism and communism, and the weaponization of bourgeois terminology against socialist states. Here we examine how the 'cult of personality' accusation serves the same function: attacking the dictatorship of the proletariat through psychological labels.

Question of “cult of personality” in socialist systems- as capitalist propaganda- embraced by the left.

This article argues that the 'cult of personality' accusation is a weapon of bourgeois ideological warfare used to attack the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is not a critique—it is an attack on the unity of will, discipline, and authoritative leadership that socialism requires. To start with, the term "cult of personality" is not a Marxist-Leninist concept. It has no basis in dialectical materialism. It is a bourgeois psychological category projected onto socialist systems. Marxism-Leninism analyzes society through classes, productive forces, and relations of production, not through individual psychology. The term "cult" belongs to religious or psychological discourse,  not to scientific socialism. Its use in political analysis is a category error: it applies a non-class framework to a class-based analysis.  The bourgeoisie uses the term because they cannot analyze socialism on its own terms. They lack the dialectical method. So they reduce socialism to individual behavior, psychology, and "power hunger." The bourgeoisie cannot refute socialism scientifically, so they attack it with psychological labels.

Our argument is that the "cult of personality" accusation is a weapon of ideological warfare used to attack the dictatorship of the proletariat. Because the dictatorship of the proletariat requires unity of will, discipline, and authoritative leadership. This is not a deviation — it is the essence of proletarian power. Leaders are not "cultivated" but earned through decades of struggle. That’s why the accusation is a projection of the chief accuser, Trotsky, who  fits the definition of "cult of personality well." The accusation serves imperialism. The correct response is to expose it as a weapon — not debate it defensively.

Part One: Thesis — The Accusation as Ideological Warfare

The accusation is not a relic of the Cold War. It is actively used today to discredit socialist states, create confusion among leftists, and provide cover for capitalist propaganda. Understanding the function of this accusation is essential for defending socialism.

Section 1: The Accusation and Its Function

The use of the term "cult of personality" is not a critique but a weapon.

Socialist systems are constantly accused of cultivating "personality cults". The application of "Personality cult" to socialist systems is nothing but cheap propaganda by capitalists as part of "ideological warfare". Leaders become leaders due to their leadership quality, knowledge, and expertise gained through decades of struggle in the service of the people. Unlike capitalist political democracy theater every 4, 5 years, in socialist systems leadership is a lifetime responsibility because such leaders don't come about very often.

The accusation is directed primarily at Stalin, but indirectly at all socialist leaders. Ideological struggle makes up the core of the struggle for socialism; integrated democratic and socialist struggle on the way to socialism. Under the conditions of bourgeois dominance, in the era of ideological warfare, the approach to the “concepts” with a bourgeois or bourgeois influenced perspective is an inevitable outcome for most. It is not a coincidence that Stalin, whose multiple resignation attempts were denied and, in this sense, literally forced to continue his duty as the party leader. Yet, all the demagoguery and discussions of the “personality cult” are directed to him primarily, but to all the other socialist leaders indirectly. The bourgeoisie has a century of experience, expertise, and skills in creating confusion, distracting attention from the core subjects, and having the left itself disseminate its insidious argument. They throw the bait, and the naïve fish bites it.  

The bourgeoisie projects its own values onto socialism with the use of non-Marxist bourgeois terminology.

One cannot look at a socialist Party and leadership questions with a capitalist perspective. Marxist-Leninists struggle for the establishment of a dictatorship. It is an oxymoron to be against (what the capitalists call) "dictator" in socialist countries because it is not a "capital-implanted "leader" but a "party-elected" and people-approved leader. It is a lifetime position as long as he/she has the best qualities to lead, serves the cause best, and is elected by the party each time. Leadership counts. You don't see the corporations changing their leaders every 4-5 years. In socialist democracy leadership, previous/historical service, (theoretical and practical) knowledge, experience, and expertise, together with the trust of the Party and the masses, counts more than anything else.

The target for the arguments of “personality cult” is first and foremost the “dictatorship of the proletariat” - or better to say, “workers and peasants democracy” and its leaders.

From a bourgeois perspective, every man is “power” greedy and out for himself and for bettering himself and creating a “popularity”, a “cult of personality,”  because it is “human nature”. Every man wants to be rich and powerful, has a tendency to “own” more and more, and an instinct to abuse his position for his own personal gains.  With that perspective, they deny the possibility of the existence of “professional revolutionaries”, the ever-possible possibility of individuals who are idealists and have the interests of people in mind without having any personal interests isolated from the interests of the people.  With this bourgeois outlook, concealed anti-Leninists deny the concept of professional revolutionaries and the communist Party organized by them.

Lenin was clear on the necessity of professional revolutionaries:

 "without a dozen talented (and talents are not born in hundreds), tested, professionally trained and long-term school trained leaders, who perfectly seasoned through working with each other, a steadfast struggle of not a single class is possible in modern society" . Lenin, What Is To Be Done?

To understand why this accusation is a weapon, we must understand what it attacks: the dictatorship of the proletariat itself.

Part Two: Antithesis — The Scientific Clarification

Section 2: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Marxism-Leninism explains leadership through the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat—not individual psychology. The target of the arguments of 'personality cult' is first and foremost the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and its leaders.

A- Party and Leadership as dictatorship

 The posts and articles on the subject usually state without any reference that: "Lenin’s writings consistently opposed personal glorification, reinforcing the principle that the Party, not individuals, embodies proletarian power." Although the context is correct, the fact is the Party is not an abstract organization; it is made up of individuals -professional revolutionaries and leaders.   Lenin's approach to the Party,  the Central Committee, and the General Secretary was not a "bourgeois Liberal" perspective but a "dictatorial" nature of structure and action, since it was a "dictatorship of the proletariat".  Lenin states that  

"the will of a class is sometimes carried out by a dictator who alone sometimes does more and is often more necessary" (Lenin, "Left-Wing" Childishness). 

And continues in the same article:

"The will of tens and hundreds of thousands can be expressed in one person. This complex will be worked out in a Soviet way.

We need more discipline, more unity, and more dictatorship. Without this, one cannot even dream of a great victory...” (Lenin, "Left-Wing" Childishness).

Marxist Leninists are not after a "bourgeois democracy" but a "dictatorship of the proletariat". That's why the concept of "dictator" and "dictatorship" is not alien to them. The bourgeoisie, with their experience and skills, use the term "Cult of personality" in equal meaning as "dictator", by means of which attacks the "dictatorship". 

On this subject Lenin wrote:

“Recently ... The question arose of how the sole administrative power (power that could be called dictatorial power) is compatible with democratic organizations in general, with a collegial principle in management - in particular, and - with the Soviet socialist principle of organization - in particular. "Undoubtedly, the opinion is very widespread that the sole dictatorial power is incompatible neither with democracy, nor with the Soviet type of state, nor with collegial management. There is nothing more erroneous than this opinion. “

"... I leave aside the question whether the Prosecutor General enjoys sole power or shares this power with the Supreme Tribunal and the Collegium of the People's Commissariat for Justice, because this question is completely secondary and can be decided one way or another depending on whether the party trusts one person with a huge power or distributes this power between the indicated three instances " (Lenin, vol. 33, pp. 328 -329).

B- Personal Dictatorship and Soviets

As Molotov puts it and quotes Lenin: “With bourgeois democracy is undoubtedly combined the dictatorship of individuals. But on this point the bourgeois detractors of Soviet power and their echoes always show sleight of hand... and say: personal dictatorship is absolutely incompatible with your Bolshevik (that is, not bourgeois, but socialist) Soviet democracy.

“The reasoning is bad. If we are not anarchists, we must recognize the necessity of the state, that is, coercion for the transition from capitalism to socialism; the form of coercion is determined by the degree of development of a given revolutionary class, then by such special circumstances as, for example, the legacy of a long and reactionary war, then by the forms of resistance of the bourgeoisie.. Therefore, there is absolutely no fundamental contradiction between Soviet (that is, socialist) democracy and the exercise of dictatorial power by individuals. The difference between the proletarian dictatorship and the bourgeois dictatorship is that the former directs its blows ... in the interests of ... the majority, and then that the latter is carried out - and through individuals - not only by the masses of the working and exploited, but also by organizations built so that it is precisely such masses to wake up.

The source and foundation of socialism - requires an unconditional and strict unity of will that directs the joint work of hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of people. Technically, economically, and historically, this necessity is obvious; everyone who thought about socialism has always recognized it as its condition. But how can the strictest unity of will be ensured? - Submission of the will of thousands to the will of one.

This submission can, with the ideal consciousness and discipline of the participants in the common work, resemble more the soft leadership of the conductor. It can take sharp forms of dictatorship if there is no ideal discipline and consciousness ... This transition from one political task to another, which in appearance is completely different from it, is the whole originality of the moment experienced. The revolution has just shattered the oldest, strongest, heaviest fetters to which the masses obeyed under duress. It was yesterday. And today the same revolution, and precisely in the interests of its development and strengthening, precisely in the interests of socialism, demands the unquestioning obedience of the masses to the unified will of the leaders.”

Lenin was very clear on the subject:

"Collegiality is the school of government. You can't sit in the preparatory class of the school all the time" there is absolutely no fundamental contradiction between Soviet (that is, socialist) democracy and the exercise of dictatorial power by individuals.

“Collegiality at best results in an enormous waste of energy and does not satisfy the speed and clarity of work...” (Lenin, Report on Council of People's Commissars).

On another article: 

 “At the moment we are living through, when Soviet power and dictatorship have sufficiently strengthened, when the preparation of the masses by the functioning of Soviet institutions for independent participation in all public life has been sufficiently carried out, the task of strictest separation of discussions and meetings from the unquestioning fulfillment of all the instructions of the leader is put forward. (Lenin, vol. 27, p. 430).

C- Molotov debunks the counterarguments

There are people who object and say that Lenin, advocating unity of command, for "dictatorship", for the unquestioning subordination of the will of tens of thousands to the will of one person, meant only production relations, only relations between leaders and subordinates in the labor process at manufacturing enterprises, only in economic matters.

Is it so? Did the leader of our party really have in mind only relations of production, or did he also have in mind the party as "the direct ruling vanguard of the proletariat," as the leader of all, including the economic activities of the proletarian state?

Let's try to find the answer to this very important and interesting question from Vladimir Ilyich himself, 

“In the theses of comrades Osinsky, Maksimovsky and Sapronov ... everything is a complete theoretical distortion. They write that collegiality in one form or another constitutes the necessary basis of democracy. I affirm that in the 15 years of pre-revolutionary social democracy you will not find anything similar. Democratic centralism only means that representatives from the localities gather and choose a responsible body that should govern. But how?

It depends on how many good people there are, on how many good "administrators" there are. Democratic centralism lies in the fact that the congress checks the Central Committee, dismisses it, and elects a new one" (Lenin, Speech at Trade Union Congress).

According to the direct meaning of Lenin's words, to link the issue of collegiality, collectivity with the principle of democratic centralism - the basic principle of the organizational structure of the proletarian party - is "a complete theoretical distortion", "a monstrous fundamental absurdity."

In a letter to E. M. Alexandrova, Lenin said:

"You are striving, if I am not mistaken, for autocracy (single center of power)  and a 'firm hand'. It is a good thing, and you are a thousand times right, right that this is exactly what we need" (Lenin, Letter to E. M. Alexandrova).

D- Individual personality and Party work

It turns out that Lenin also extended the individual personality to party work.

The party elects a congress - a meeting of delegates from the field. The congress, guided by considerations of a political and business nature, elects a Central Committee consisting of several dozen of the most authoritative and respected members of the party - the highest executive and administrative body of the party in the inter-congress period. The Central Committee, according to the Rules, meets at least once every six months for its plenary sessions - plenums of the Central Committee.

"The Central Committee elects: to manage the work of the Central Committee between its Plenums - the Presidium (Politburo); to manage the current work, mainly in the selection of personnel and organization of verification of performance - the Secretariat" (Charter of the CPSU).

Molotov asks the question and responds: Is it by chance that V.I. Lenin, speaking of the general secretary of our party, pointed to him as a person who "concentrated immense power in his hands"?

No, not by chance. This statement by Lenin only once again confirms his idea, based on real life, that “we need autocracy and a firm hand, that the will of a class must sometimes be carried out by a dictator who will do more and is more needed."

Lenin did not have any illusions about the fact that the General Secretary of our Party must necessarily be and will be an ideal communist and ideal person, that he will be completely insured against certain mistakes and mistakes in his work, that he will be absolutely free from feelings of personal hostility, distrust of one or another workmate, etc., etc.

"The task of strictest separation... from the unquestioning fulfillment of all the instructions of the leader." (Lenin, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government)

This dictatorship is not exercised by an abstraction. It is exercised by leaders who have earned their authority through decades of struggle.

Section 3: Leadership and Authority in Socialism

Marxism-Leninism recognizes the role of outstanding individuals in history—not because they are "supermen," but because they have the capacity to organize and lead the masses in revolutionary struggle. Lenin emphasized with all his might the role of revolutionary leaders as organizers of the masses: "Outstanding personalities... can play a serious role in society as organizers, leaders of the masses, who understand events more deeply and see further than others." Leadership in socialism is structured through democratic centralism—elected leadership that unifies the will of the Party. "Democratic centralism lies in the fact that the congress checks the Central Committee, dismisses it, and elects a new one." (Lenin)

The term 'cult of personality' is a bourgeois import into socialist analysis. It cannot be found in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Stalin. Why? Because the term has no scientific basis. It reduces class phenomena to individual psychology. It treats leadership as a matter of personal vanity rather than historical necessity. It denies the possibility of professional revolutionaries who serve the people selflessly.

The bourgeoisie cannot refute socialism on its own terms. It cannot deny the success of socialist construction, the defeat of fascism, or the liberation of oppressed peoples. So it attacks socialism with psychological labels—'cult of personality,' 'authoritarianism,' 'dictatorship.' These are not critiques. They are weapons.

Some left, biting the bait of the bourgeoisie,  shout: “Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not Personality cult!.”  It depends on what one understands from the concept of “personality cult”; is it a manufactured, created, manipulated one like in the capitalist countries,  or an earned one without having an intention to have, and constantly going against praises of him, even blocking the publishing of such books. Does the “cult of personality” mean, is being used to define a “dictator”?  Then it is, within context and in practice, wrong because proletarian dictatorship means dictatorship of the Central Committee and of the General Secretary (elected by the Congress). It is not a bourgeois democracy; it is a centralized governing body.

The  socialist leaders are not "cultivated" but earned that position through their service to the Party, revolution, and socialism. They  become leaders due to their leadership quality, knowledge, and expertise gained through decades of struggle in the service of the people."

Let’s start with Lenin’s statement about bourgeois revolutionaries (in his article about the Kautskyites and Trotskyites who are the “mastermind " behind the question we will be discussing). He states:

"One cannot be a Marxist without feeling the deepest respect for the great bourgeois revolutionaries who had an historic right to speak for their respective bourgeois 'fatherlands', and, in the struggle against feudalism, led tens of millions of people in the new nations towards a civilised life.” The Collapse of the Second International

Now let’s apply this to the Communist leaders who led the antifascist, anti-imperialist, anti-colonial wars, socialist revolutions and played an important role in defeating the enemy and carried their people to victory. Can there be any doubt that anyone who does not feel such respect and admiration for those leaders could be considered a Marxist-Leninist?  Can anyone who does not have any respect for Lenin, Stalin, Enver Hoxha, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Che Guevara, Sankara and all others be a Marxist-Leninist?

The point is that all the socialist and revolutionary leaders earned the respect and trust of the people with their theory and practice. That is not “cult of personality,” which means promoting oneself to create an idealized, heroic, public image of a leader; they have earned it whether they wanted it or not. They have not gained those with their capital using the mass media, propaganda, and other means: they have earned it.

Marxism does not deny the role of outstanding people in history, the role of the leaders of the working people in leading the revolutionary liberation movement, in building a new society. Lenin emphasized with all his might the role of revolutionary leaders as organizers of the masses. The materialist understanding of history developed by the classics of Marxism-Leninism recognizes that the working masses, the people, are the creators of a new society, making it possible to correctly understand and evaluate the role of leaders, organizers, initiators, and heroes who are created and put forward by the people themselves. Outstanding personalities, thanks to their characteristics, which make them most capable of serving the public interests, can play a serious role in society as organizers, leaders of the masses, who understand events more deeply and see further than others. Leaders gain authority through real successes in raising the living standards of the people. People trust leaders because they have proven themselves.

Exposing the petty-bourgeois, reformist, anarchistic radical intellectuals who opposed the organizing role and authority of the party, Lenin said:

“We need the authority of the theoreticians of world social democracy in order to clarify the program and tactics. But this authority, of course, has nothing in common with the official authority of bourgeois science and police policy.”

Lenin stressed the fact  that "the revolution will put forward a collective organizational talent, without which millions of proletarian armies cannot achieve their victory."

Unlike the "bourgeois propaganda influenced" perspective that the "leader" is not important,  Lenin, in contrast, points out that :

...people..put forward numerous layers of proletarians, from the working peasants who will give that practical knowledge, the one, if not sole, then collective organizational talent,, without which the million army of proletarians cannot come to their victory ”(Lenin, vol. 22,p. 73 - 75.)

Lenin himself, in the article about “Borba Group”, wasn't warning against his own glorification (cult of personality) ; he was ironically mocking his opponents for utilizing what he viewed as a pompous, dramatic, and non-Marxist phrase to complain about leadership dynamics. He stated;

"They have now published a printed 'declaration,' complaining of our 'undemocratic' attitude and campaigning even... against a ' personality cult '! As a man of experience, you will grasp what is at the bottom of it all from this one unparalleled and peerless word."

Similarly, looking at the Archived documents and history of the Soviets, we can say that Stalin was aware of a similar setup against him to be used when the time was ripe (and that is what exactly happened).

Let’s briefly look at the history;
On Lenin’s motion, the Plenum of the Central Committee, on April 3, 1922, Stalin was elected as the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU at the 11th Congress of the Party.

Stalin’s first attempt at resignation from the post of General Secretary was at a meeting of the Central Committee after the 13th Congress, held in May 1924. His resignation was rejected unanimously by all the delegations, including Trotsky.  It is important to present here a quote from Stalin’s speech 3 years later at a CC meeting :

"It is said that in that “will” Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin’s “rudeness” it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin’s place as General Secretary. That is quite true.

Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand (not good at being mild -liberal or gentle-opportunist) at that.

At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress, I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post.

What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.

A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post. What else could I do?”

On 27 December 1926, he wrote to Sovnarkom Chairman Alexei Rykov saying: ‘I ask you to release me from the post of Central Committee General Secretary. I affirm that I can no longer work at this post, that I’m in no condition to work any longer at this post.’  It was rejected.

He made a similar attempt at resignation on 19 December 1927. It was rejected.

The last attempt to resign was in 1952, about five months before Stalin’s death, during a meeting of the Central Committee where he urged the Central Committee to relieve him of his duties. This too was rejected.

For any objective observer, who, never mind the dialectics of Marxism, using bourgeois logic, can claim that a person who is after a “personality cult” would attempt to resign 4 times in his life? The answer is no, because the attack on Stalin under the “pretext of a non-Marxist, bourgeois term “personality cult”, the main target of the accusers is the proletarian dictatorship-socialism.

We can defend Stalin not in a subjective defensive way, but by the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Communist  Party, and the authoritative role of the CC and the GS in the dictatorship. Stalin earned the trust, love, and respect of the people not only in Russia but all over the world.

As always, the bourgeois liberals and the Trotskyites may come up with a spin that Stalin's resignation attempts could have been tactical—a performance to demonstrate loyalty.  Four resignation attempts over 28 years, including in 1952 when he was dying, is not a tactic. It is evidence of a man who sought to serve the Party, not to accumulate power."

In Socialism, the leader is not a separate identity from the Party. The leader embodies the Party's will. An attack on the leader is an attack on the Party itself. An attack on the Party is an attack on the system, which is the main target in the “ideological warfare”.

Section 4: The Unity of Party and Leader

Socialism requires unity of will in the service of the people. "The source and foundation of socialism requires an unconditional and strict unity of will that directs the joint work of hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of people."

Marxism-Leninism understands the leader not as a separate "personality" but as the embodiment of the Party's will. The authority of socialist leaders among the people acquired over the years is the same authority of the Party among the people.

Stalin himself, in his speech at the 16th Congress, stated:

'I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.' Stalin, Speech at the 16th Congress

This is not the language of a man seeking power. It is the language of a revolutionary serving the Party.

Enver Hoxha, another target of the 'personality cult' accusation, stated:

 “The Party is not an abstraction. It is composed of individuals who have proven themselves in struggle. An attack on the Party's leaders is an attack on the Party itself." Enver Hoxha, various speeches

Kim Il Sung is another frequent target of the accusation:

"The leader is the heart of the Party. The Party is the heart of the people. The people are the heart of the leader. This is not a cult—it is the organic unity of the revolutionary movement." Kim Il Sung, various speeches

Party and its leaders form an inseparable unity. Its Leadership is the expression of the Party. The leader embodies the Party's unity of will. The authority of our leaders among the people acquired over the years is the same authority of the Party among the people. This is not "cult"; it is discipline, reiterating Mayakovsky: "The Party and Lenin are twin brothers". In this sense, an attack on party leaders invested with its confidence is in fact an attack on the Party itself. That is why the bourgeoisie attacks party leaders to attack the Party. This is the mechanism of ideological warfare in dialectical connection end up in attacking the proletarian dictatorship- democracy of and for the laboring people.

Now we must expose the hypocrisy of the accusers — starting with the chief accuser himself.

Part Three: Synthesis — The Weapon Exposed

Section 5: The Hypocrisy of the Accusers

The chief accuser of 'personality cult' was himself seeking attention and popularity. Leon Trotsky's background reveals a man who fits the definition of a 'personality cult' far better than Stalin ever did.

Unlike the common view of common people (of course that of bourgeois liberals and Trotskyites), as Lenin explained, the dictatorship of individuals in the history of revolutionary movements has very often been the spokesman, bearer, and conductor of the dictatorship of the revolutionary classes is evidenced by the indisputable experience of history.

Looking at history and publicly available documents, the chief accuser of "personality cult" was himself seeking attention and popularity. One has to study Trotsky in relation to this subject; he was captured on April 3, 1917, in Halifax, with $10,000 (some arresting official records claim $20,000)  in his pocket. He was released on April 29, 1917; he arrived in Russia on May 7, 1917. That is around $260,000 now. Considering that the average annual income of a Russian worker then was $ 45 to $ 90, Trotsky had with him 111 to 222 workers’ annual salaries in his pocket. There is still no information in the latest declassified documents on how he spent that money. It is argued that it was Kerensky who vouched for him, and the British released him (very little documentation is available on that)

Kerensky government issued arrest warrants for Lenin, Zinoviev, and Lev Kamenev, but not for Trotsky.  Ironically, Trotsky wrote a public letter to Kerensky, demanding to be arrested and claiming that he was as dangerous as they were. A quote from the letter:

“Citizen Ministers! I am informed that the arrest warrants... extend to comrades Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, but not to me. Accordingly, I consider it necessary to bring to your attention... I share the principled position of Lenin, Zinoviev and Kamenev..."

Contrary to the fallacy that Trotsky was a Bolshevik, he became a member of the Party when he was in prison via the small organization, “Interdistrict,” most members of which became members of the Bolshevik Party.

Now, if we look at the definition of “personality cult,” these, and the entire life of Trotsky, fit in the search for one.

"The hypocrisy of the accusers reveals the function of the accusation. It is not a critique — it is a weapon."

Section 6: The Weapon's Function

A- The accusation serves imperialism because it attacks the dictatorship of the proletariat. It creates confusion among naive leftists; it provides cover for capitalist propaganda. "The target for the arguments of 'personality cult' is first and foremost the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and its leaders."

The approach to and constant repetition of the question of "the cult of personality" in reference to a socialist country is nothing but a by-product of the "ideological warfare" between capitalism and socialism. That's why the repetition does not clarify the question but serves the interests of the bourgeois liberals and Trotskyites. It is a defensive act rather than the correct approach, which is to expose the fallacy of the claim. 

B- The correct defense: We can defend Stalin not in a subjective defensive way, but by the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Communist  Party, and the authoritative role of the CC and the GS in the dictatorship. Stalin earned the trust, love, and respect of the people not only in Russia but all over the world.

The bourgeoisie, with their experience and skills, use the term 'Cult of personality' in equal meaning as 'dictator', by means of which attacks the 'dictatorship'. Unfortunately, the approach of most left to the subject of "personality cult" in the Communist Party is a typical one with the lens and influence of bourgeois propaganda.

C- The Philistine Objection Refuted:  In addition to the naïve leftists, the philistines and sophists base their arguments on Marx’s comment that "The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself..." and supposedly from Engels: socialism must be “a movement of the working class itself” and not dependent on “individual saviors.” According to these philistines, cherry-picked without its context, Marx and Engels said that the political consciousness of the working class will develop spontaneously and will carry out the revolution without the need for a party, professional revolutionaries, and leaders.

The preceding quotes from Lenin respond to this consciously repeated misconception.  Let's take Marx-Engels' statement in context and translate it into a Marxist-Leninist perspective: movement of the masses by itself is a "spontaneous movement" and bound to fail.  This is precisely what the bourgeoisie wants.

The subject is not a debate about personality. It is a debate about class power.

Section 7: Conclusion

The "cult of personality" accusation is a weapon of ideological warfare. It is a weapon of attacking the dictatorship of the proletariat,  denying the possibility of professional revolutionaries whose only will is to serve the laboring people. In reality, the argument exposes the bourgeois psychology of self-interest and the cultivation of “personal cults”  in capitalist countries with the use of capital and the means of mind management.

It goes without saying that leaders are not born, that the authority and influence of leaders on the masses are not acquired and manifested immediately - they are developed over a long period of time, developed as a result of people's gradual inner conviction that this particular person "understands events deeper and sees them further than others" that it is pursuing a policy that is in their common interest.

The faith of the masses in the leader acquired over the years, their trust in the leader is an important and necessary element in the historical development of society. Without the trust of the masses in their leaders - and this trust is not a constant value acquired once and for all - there can be neither the "leader" as such, nor the firm policy of the party as a mass public organization, in the Marxist-Leninist sense of these concepts.

As Molotov stated, until the end of his days, Stalin enjoyed great authority and trust of the people only because this authority and this trust were based on the only possible, solid foundation - on the basis of real, tangible successes of the party policy by every Soviet person in raising the living and cultural level of our socialist society. But, nevertheless, it could not be otherwise; our people never opposed Stalin to the Politburo, the Politburo to the Central Committee, and so on. etc. Paying tribute to Stalin, stormily welcoming him, we met with the same sincere feeling as all other prominent figures of the party and state - Molotov, Voroshilov, Kirov, Ordzhonikidze, Kaganovich, Mikoyan, Khrushchev, Kalinin, and others. Lenin, the leader and founder of the party, unshakably believed in the strength and revolutionary spirit of the working people, the proletariat, in the mind, honor, and conscience of our era - in the proletarian communist party.

The great Marxist, even for a moment, could not imagine such a situation in the proletarian party, when one or several tens, or even thousands of people, could turn the party around like a toy for their own personal and selfish purposes, could carry out a policy in their leading and administrative work, going against the aspirations of a million-strong party.

It is hard to believe, and, from the point of view of the truth of life, it is impossible to believe that for two decades a million-strong revolutionary party was led and ruled by tyrants and despots who, by some miracle, managed to fool the party around their finger like a blind kitten. It is difficult, impossible to believe that in the million-strong Party of Communists there was not a single honest Communist-Leninist (if one does not include members of the Trotskyist-Zinoviev-Bukharin terrorist groups) who did not find the courage to remove such a person from our path.

Lenin taught that: "... The masses decide, who, if a small number of people do not approach them, ... do not treat this small number too politely". Lenin, Left-Wing Communism — An Infantile Disorder

Party led by its leader Lenin understood this very well and, precisely proceeding from the principles of democratic centralism, from the Marxist doctrine of the party and its leaders, party was not afraid of one-man and "dictatorship", knowing that it could always, at the next party congress or the Plenum of the Central Committee, give a proper assessment actions of this or that person, draw appropriate conclusions from this assessment and approve or stop the activity of this person if he makes major mistakes or embarks on the path of abuse of his power.

Leninist Party has always well understood that the education of the leaders of the revolution, the leaders of the working class, is a matter of many years and hard work.

The Party has always understood that the authority of our leaders among the people acquired over the years is the same authority of the Party among the people.

The respect acquired over the years for the deeds and names of the leaders, their influence on the masses, is at the same time the influence of the Party on the masses. One from the other - the party and its leaders - are inseparable. In reality, Mayakovsky summarized the entire subject in a Socialist Country with his words;

"The Party and Lenin are twin brothers, - who is more valuable than mother history?  We say - Lenin, we mean - the party, // we say - the party, we mean - Lenin."

What is the meaning of these lines? It is unlikely that anyone would argue that they are propaganda of the cult of personality.

The Party has always perfectly understood that an attack on the leaders invested with its confidence is an attack on the Party itself.

The Party has always understood that attacks by opposition elements on the leaders of the majority are attacks on the majority as a whole, that these attacks are directed not personally at this or that politician, but are directed at the policy pursued by this figure in the interests and with the consent of the majority.

The term 'cult of personality' is not a Marxist-Leninist category. It is a bourgeois weapon. By using it, even leftists concede to bourgeois terminology—they accept the terms of the debate rather than exposing its false foundations. The correct response is not to debate the accusation defensively but to expose the weapon for what it is: a non-Marxist, bourgeois label designed to discredit the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The 'cult of personality' accusation is part of the same ideological warfare we have examined in previous articles—the confusion between socialism and communism, and the weaponization of bourgeois terminology against socialist states. The defense of socialist leadership is the defense of socialism itself.

That is not “personality cult”, that is the factual reality of great leadership serving the interests of the proletarian dictatorship.

We call on all Marxists-Leninists to expose the 'cult of personality' accusation for what it is: a weapon of bourgeois ideological warfare. Defend the leaders of socialist countries. Recognize the unity of Party and leader. Expose the hypocrisy of the accusers."

Erdogan A

September 7, 2026

(I acknowledge the use of DeepSeek for the dialectical structuring and evaluation of the dialectical flow of the structured sections, checking for redundancy, playing "devil's advocate" to find out what the counterarguments would be, validation of the correctness of the referenced quotes from Lenin, Hoxha, Marx-Engels, a final grammar check, and evaluation of the article.)