Stalin’s Biblical Hermeneutics: From 2 Thessalonians 3 to Acts 4

1 Introduction

The Soviet Constitution of 1936 contains a biblical verse and a gloss on a biblical verse.

In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honour for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat [kto ne rabotaet, tot ne est]”.

The principle applied in the USSR is that of socialism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work [ot kazhdogo po ego sposobnosti, kazhdomu – po ego trudu].” ^[1]

The man credited with framing the constitution is none other than Ioseb Besarionis Dze Jugashvili, more commonly known as Joseph Stalin. Given that Stalin was the only world communist leader to have undertaken substantial theological training (1895–1899), with a focus on biblical interpretation, it should come as no surprise that he would be responsible for some intriguing biblical hermeneutics. My task in this study is to examine how 2Thess 3:10 and a gloss on Acts 4:32 and 35 were reinterpreted in a way that they could appear in the “Stalin constitution” of 1936.

2 He Who Does Not Work, Neither Shall He Eat

I begin with 2 Thessalonians, which may be described as one of the texts that attempts to deal with the delay of the Parousia. In contrast with the first letter’s imminent eschatology, ^[2] it seeks to explain the delay, offering a number of conditions that have to be met before Christ’s return. ^[3] In the key section of the second letter, the author directly addresses the claim that the day had come (2Thess 2:1–2). ^[4] Not so, argues the author, for prior conditions must be met in what becomes an eschatological timetable: apostasy and rebellion; appearance of the “man of lawlessness” (anti-Christ); appearance of the “one who restrains” and then his removal. Only then will Christ come and inaugurate the end by slaying the lawless one. Throughout, the letter emphasizes the length of time between the present and the end, couching eschatological doctrines in mythological language, as much a mystery to present readers as it perhaps was to its initial recipients. This was also a crucial text in Eastern Orthodoxy (important for Stalin), which developed a keen sense of the trials and tribulations before the end time. The Antichrist – the man of lawlessness – is the key, for he will generate apostasy, resistance to God and try to pass himself off as God. ^[5] Indeed, Eastern Orthodox thinkers took the main point of 2 Thessalonians – these events have not happened yet, so the end is not on its way ^[6] – a step further: the text indicates that the work of the Antichrist had begun already with Christ’s appearance and would be defeated only in the final struggle.

What happens in the meantime? The interim increasingly becomes the norm, in which tradition (2Thess 2:15), perseverance in tribulation (2Thess 1:4–12), steadfastness and hard work are the order of the day (2Thess 3:6–15). How the interim is interpreted is crucial, for it reveals at another level what I have elsewhere called the political ambivalence that runs throughout Christianity. ^[7] Let me focus on 2Thess 3:10, which brings into relief this tension, now in terms of the class dynamics of interpretation: “anyone unwilling to work should not eat” [hoti ei tis ou thelei ergazesthai mēde esthietō]. This slogan, presented as an instruction or command from “Paul” when he was with the Thessalonians, is situated in the midst of admonitions to avoid disorder [ataktōs], to undertake appropriate labor so as not to burden others (2Thess 3:6–15). ^[8] Although the range of suggested interpretations may seem significant, ^[9] I am interested in the class dynamics of such interpretation in relation to work specifically. ^[10] Many commentators would see a criticism of laborers and artisans shirking work in 2Thess 3:10. For example, they may be characterized as “idle beggars” (as seen by outsiders) who take advantage of Christian “brotherly love,” as boisterous and rabble-rousing poor who remained dependent on their rich patrons, or as greedy, lazy and undisciplined [ataktōs] unemployed manual laborers who were unwilling to work and looked to wealthy Christians to supply their wants as though the latter were new patrons, or even a congregation that was largely made up of manual laborers, some of whom shirked their responsibilities to the others in terms of working for the “welfare syndrome’ of the common meal in light of “transformative love-patriarchalism.” ^[11] Class assumptions are very apparent here. Perhaps Nicholl expresses such assumptions best: “It is not difficult to imagine that some from the manual laboring class would have exploited the opportunity to be indolent rather than return to a life of hard manual work,” being all too ready to engage in “leeching” and “sponging.” ^[12] More generally, 2 Thessalonians 3:10 and the epistle as a whole advocate accommodation with the world as it is, to become respected citizens in existing society. ^[13] Theorists and defenders of capitalism have often taken up the verse with a similar agenda: those who do not work are the idle unemployed, the poor who are so due to their own laziness. ^[14] By contrast, a good citizen of the world has a job, pays taxes and is not to a burden on society. This conservative reading would help usher in Christianity as the religion of empire under Constantine. Many other texts could be marshalled to show how easily Christian hierarchs can slip into seats of power, sharing the space with petty despots and aspiring tyrants. ^[15]

A very different interpretation is also possible: those who shirk honest labor are in fact the rich, members of the ruling classes who undertake no productive work. Instead, they rely on the labor of others in order to live in the way to which they have become accustomed. It is to hard find this interpretation in early commentaries or indeed by recent critics, and this may be read as an unwitting signal of class assumptions. ^[16] Perhaps the Bohemian reformer, John Hus (1371–1415), offers the first hint in this direction. In his On Simony of 1413, he attacks the medieval church practice of having many holdings so as to generate more income with no labor. Not only is this “trafficking in holy things” contrary to Scripture, but it also destroys the church: “Woe to the canons […] bishops […] and prelates who eat, gorge themselves, guzzle, and feast abundantly, but in spiritual matters amount to nothing.” ^[17] This hint would finally be taken up by none other than the Bolsheviks, especially Stalin. ^[18] Those who do not work are of course the capitalists, landlords and kulaks, whose relative wealth is extracted from others. To his (and Lenin’s initial) interpretation I now turn.

3 Lenin’s Interpretation

Lenin was the first to use 2 Thessalonians in such a fashion. In his exegesis of Marx’s comments in “Critique of the Gotha Programme,” Lenin observes that in the stage of socialism “bourgeois law” ^[19] (Marx’s phrase) persists in terms of regulation of the allocation of labor and products. In this context, the “socialist principle, ‘He who does not work must not eat’ [Kto ne rabotaet, tot ne dolzhen est’], is already realised”. ^[20] As Bartlett points out, ^[21] Lenin removes the important dimension of willingness [thelei] to work from 2 Thessalonians 3:10, and he adds the obligatory dolzhen, must not or ought not (eat). Another socialist principle is closely related: “An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labour.” ^[22] Shortly after, Lenin quotes this biblical text once again when addressing a crowd of workers in Petrograd. The context was the grain shortage of 1918, brought about by the destruction of the transport network by the First World War and the White Armies in the ‘civil’ war. Lenin accuses the bourgeoisie of disrupting the fixed prices, profiteering and resorting to bribery and corruption in order to undermine the power of the workers. By contrast, the “prime, basic and root principle of socialism” is:

“He who does not work, neither shall he eat [kto ne rabotaet, tot da ne est]”. “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. ^[23]

This slogan – without the obligatory dolzhen – was plastered throughout cities, towns, and villages during the dire situation of the ‘civil’ war and its food shortages. Interpreted in the immediate situation, it meant state control of grain supplies and an absolute ban on private hoarding and trading; strict registration of grain and efficient transport to deliver to places in need, and a “just and proper distribution of bread” among all citizens, which did not favor the rich. ^[24] The last point in particular reinforces the point that the ones not working were the old capitalists and the bourgeoisie, as they did not engage in productive labor, and it was high time they did so. ^[25] As I pointed out earlier, this distinctive interpretation has a potential perhaps in Jan Hus but is otherwise original to Lenin. Let me pick up Lenin’s comment that this biblical text embodies the “prime, basic and root principle of socialism” [pervoe, osnovnoe, korennoe nachalo sotsializma]. This is a rather stunning observation, basing the stage of socialism on a biblical principle. At the same time, Lenin is quite clear concerning the nature of socialism: “But this is not yet communism.” ^[26]

4 Stalin’s Interpretation

Stalin would make much greater use of 2 Thessalonians 3:10 for defining socialism. ^[27] Already in 1920 he connects the text with voting. Only working people should have the right to elect other workers to the Soviets, since they are, after all, Soviets of the working people: “We in Russia believe that he who does not work, neither shall he eat;” moreover, “[y]ou must declare that he who does not work, neither shall he vote.” ^[28] Yet, the 1930s saw the greatest use of the text, especially in preparation for the Stalin Constitution of 1936. It arose in the context of the socialist offensive, with its massive industrialization and collectivism drives, the realization of the ‘affirmative action’ program in relation to nationalities ^[29] and the emerging Red Terror – all necessarily connected. ^[30] It was also the time when the claim was made repeatedly that socialism had been achieved in the Soviet Union. ^[31]

Article 12 of the constitution reads: “In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honour for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: ‘He who does not work, neither shall he eat’” [kto ne rabotaet, tot ne est]. ^[32] The text is a direct quotation from Lenin’s version of the saying from 1918, rather than his earlier and more forceful version of 1917. ^[33] The text is accompanied by scant interpretation in the constitution itself, except for the fact that the constitutions were designed as a statement that the workers of peasants were now in control. In order to see how Stalin interpreted the biblical slogan, I need to consider some writings published around the time of the constitution.

A significant step appears a few years earlier, in 1933 and as part of the lead-up to the constitution. Here, Stalin seeks to answer the question: If we are living under socialism, why do we have to toil [trudit’sia]? In the catechetical style that he developed, he replies that such talk is fundamentally wrong. It is the “philosophy of loafers and not of honest working people.” ^[34] But what does he mean by “loafers” [lodyreĭ]? The word evokes connotations of idlers, slackers and bums, with distinct echoes of ataktōs and ataktoi, living in a disorderly and idle fashion from 2Thess 3:6–11. ^[35] They are – and he credits Lenin for such an interpretation – both the former exploiters and those who do not enthusiastically support the new socialist project. The former we have met, in terms of those who do not work for themselves but compel others to work for them. A little later, in the Short Course, Stalin would point out that this group had now been compelled to work, or at least those who become – willingly or otherwise – part of the socialist project. ^[36] The latter, however, form a new category: they too “loaf and want to live at the expense of others.” They are the ones who drag their feet, who passively and actively resist the socialist offensive. They do not want to work conscientiously [trudilis’ chestno], “for themselves, for the community.” These slackers are no better than the former exploiters and the biblical slogan also applies to them: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat” [kto ne truditsia, tot ne est]. ^[37] This new category was in many respects created by the intensity of the socialist offensive of the 1930s, which turned the Soviet Union into a modern economic superpower in a breathtakingly short period of time. Many enthusiastically threw themselves into the new project, but many were those who did not, finding themselves left behind and opposing (passively or actively) the project itself. These are the ones Stalin has in mind with his second category of the ones who do not work.

Two further points are worth noting concerning this text by Stalin. First, his use of truditsia (trudit’sia) may seem innocuous here, for it has largely the same meaning as Lenin’s use of rabotaet (rabotat’). The semantic fields are close: the former means to toil over, labor and work, while the latter means to work, function, be open and operate. However, Stalin’s text is closer to the official Synodal version of the Bible from 1876, which he would have been familiar with from his theological studies. It reads, “esli kto ne khochet trudit’sia, tot i ne esh’.” ^[38] While both trudit’sia and rabotat’, along with their respective nouns and adjectives, were used in the party literature and government announcements, rabotat’ was the favored term, along with rabotnik [worker]. Stalin’s slight shift here may well indicate a more biblical tenor to his use of the slogan, especially in light of the fact that he uses trudit’sia heavily in the lead-up to his quotation of the biblical verse (as I have indicated) and indeed favors it in his later citations of the verse.

Second, the use of this text may be seen as a crucial signal of what can be called the delay of communism. When it became apparent that communism would not arrive any time soon, the Bolsheviks introduced the distinction between socialism and communism, building on Marx’s brief comments on the two phases of communism from “Critique of the Gotha Programme.” ^[39] Stalin too would eventually adopt the distinction, especially in reply to a question from the first American Labour Delegation. ^[40] Asked about the nature of communist society, Stalin replies with the classic definition: collective ownership of the means of production; free associations of workers rather than the state and classes; a planned high-technology economy; the end of antitheses between town and country and between agriculture and industry; the ability-needs slogan; the flowering of art and science; and true individual freedom. But – Stalin points out – all this is still in the future, so what is needed now is that workers should “march towards socialism, and still more to communism.” ^[41] Indeed, socialism would become an “entire historical era” [tseluiu istoricheskuiu ėpoхu] distinct from communism, albeit full of struggle and conflict. ^[42] However, by the mid-1930s he began to claim that the new era of socialism had been achieved after the socialist offensive of the 1930s. These claims appear in the constitution of 1936, in his reflections on the constitution and in the infamous Short Course that appeared a couple of years later. ^[43] In these cases, 2Thess 3:10 becomes the hallmark of achieved socialism. It features in a list of the principles or pillars of socialism, which now include some features of communism: common ownership of the instruments and means of production; abolition of exploiting classes and of the gap between rich and poor; full employment; the right to education, rest and leisure; and work as both an obligation and honorable duty: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat [kto ne rabotaet, tot ne est].” ^[44]

The interim state, socialism, had become the norm and in this norm 2Thess 3:10 was now in effect. In doing so, Stalin and the Bolsheviks drew upon a slogan from a key biblical text concerning the delay of the Parousia. The connection is far from coincidental, not merely because of Stalin’s extensive theological training, but also because 2 Thessalonians has been a key text in Russian Orthodox exegesis. Here we find a powerful connection: the delay of the Parousia is translatable with the delay of communism. The interim created by the delay, the time in between, was to be for those who put in an honest day’s work.

5 From Each According to his Ability, to Each According to his Work

I now turn to the other biblical verse, or rather its gloss in the 1936 constitution: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work” [ot kazhdogo po ego sposobnosti, kazhdomu – po ego trudu]. ^[45] I suggest that this principle is a reinterpretation of Acts 4:32 and 35 in light of 2Thess 3:10. How so? The texts of Acts reads: “Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common […] They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.” The biblical context contains a brief account of early Christian communism, in which everything was held in common and no-one had private possessions (see also Acts 2:44–45). ^[46] 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 4:32 and 35 eventually became a socialist slogan, “from each according to ability, to each according to need” – found in the writings of Marx, Engels, and frequently in Lenin and Stalin. ^[47]

Yet, the Soviet Constitution of 1936 does not use this version of the slogan. Instead, it has “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work [trudu].” The new version is crucial, for it marks the stage of socialism in contrast to communism, of recompense based on work in contrast to need. Stalin makes the distinction quite clear on a number of occasions from the 1930s onwards: in a discussion with Emil Ludwig; an address to the first conference of Stakhanovites; in his report to the seventeenth congress of 1934; in an interview with Roy Howard from Scripps-Howard newspapers in the US; and in his extensive reflections on the constitution. They all make basically the same point: in both socialism and communism one was to contribute according to ability, but under socialism one would receive articles for consumption “not according to his needs, but according to the work he performs for society [obshchestvabe].” The reason is that the cultural and technical level of workers is not yet high enough and production is not yet sufficient for open distribution according to need. Moreover, certain inequalities continue under socialism, not in terms of unemployment, exploitation and oppression of minorities, but in terms of what one receives in return for the quality and quantity of one’s labor. By contrast, when these factors have developed sufficiently and when wage differentiation has been overcome under communism, one receives items for consumption “not according to the work he performs, but according to his needs as a culturally developed individual.” ^[48] However, note the two crucial qualifications: it is not to be any type of work but work for society or the community [obshchestvabe]; and one’s needs are defined in terms of being the cultural needs for human development that one may have [potrebnostiam kul’turno razvitogo cheloveka, kotorye u nego imeiutsia].

For these reasons, the 1936 constitution was based on the socialist principle of work rather than need, for communism had not yet been achieved. ^[49] Now we can see how the socialist principle of “to each according to work” arose: it was the result of the conjunction of the biblical texts from 2 Thessalonians and Acts 4. The latter may speak of distribution according to need, but the former speaks of eating in recompense for work. So this text from 2Thess 3:10 – “anyone unwilling to work shall not eat” – becomes the interpretive frame through which Acts 4 is read. This connection was made explicit in the Short Course from 1938. Stalin invokes the biblical slogan from 2Thess 3:10 as the principle of socialism in which the “goods produced are distributed according to labor performed.” ^[50] This is clearly an echo of the slogan, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Not only does one need to work in order to eat, but one also works according to ability and is recompensed in light of the work done. It is for good reason that the gloss on Acts 4:32 and 25 and text from 2 Thessalonians 3:10 appear side by side in the constitution of 1936.

The conjunction and creative reinterpretation of both biblical texts became key features in the effort to define the new stage of socialism, in contrast to a delayed communism. Stalin would take this definition much further: in terms of the dialectical diversity and unity of languages and cultures; the intensification of class conflict even in the context of achieved socialism; the doctrine of socialism in one country as never being entirely secure in light of capitalist encirclement; the strengthening of the state as the basis for the state’s withering away; and even what may be called proleptic communism, in which the communism to come acts creatively on the present under socialism. All these are worthy topics for future analyses concerning the Stalin’s potential theoretical contribution to the dialectical space that opens up with the era of socialism.