Marxist-Leninist ideology preaches internationalism: the working class transcends nationality. Workers of the world have more in common with each other than with their own capitalist classes. The revolution is international; the future communist state transcends ethnic and national boundaries.
But Stalin ruled an ethnically diverse empire: Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians (his own background), Central Asians, and dozens of other groups. He could rule this empire through the universal language of Marxist ideology, or he could appeal to Russian nationalism. Radzinsky documents how Stalin increasingly did both simultaneously — advocating for Marxist universalism while pursuing Russian nationalist policies.1
This created a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Soviet state: the official ideology preached universal communism, but the actual policies favored Russian dominance and Russian nationalism. The contradiction was never fully resolved; it was managed through ideological flexibility and the elimination of anyone who pointed out the inconsistency.
The Elevation of Russian Nationalism
Early Soviet policy had attempted to promote national cultures within the framework of communism — Ukrainian culture in Ukrainian, Georgian culture in Georgian. But under Stalin, Russian became the dominant language. Russian achievements were celebrated. Russian history was rewritten to claim credit for accomplishments that had been multicultural or non-Russian.
Radzinsky documents how Stalin, despite being Georgian, became a fierce champion of Russian nationalism. Russian literature, Russian science, Russian military tradition — all were elevated as superior. Non-Russian cultures were allowed to exist only insofar as they affirmed Russian dominance.2
This was not ideologically inconsistent from Stalin's perspective: the revolution had happened in Russia, the workers' state existed in Russia, therefore Russian nationalism and communism were compatible. But this reasoning required elevating Russia and Russians above the universal principle the ideology claimed to champion.
The Suppression of Other Nationalisms
While Russian nationalism was elevated, other nationalisms were suppressed. Ukrainians were accused of "bourgeois nationalism" if they asserted Ukrainian identity. Central Asians were disciplined if they prioritized their own cultures over Soviet unity. The logic: to strengthen the Soviet state, all national identity must be subordinated to the state's identity, which was Russian.
Radzinsky documents how this suppression intensified during the purges. Intellectuals and cultural figures from non-Russian groups were arrested for "nationalist deviations." The effect was the elimination of potential centers of non-Russian nationalism that might have challenged the regime's authority.3
The Ethnic Tension in the Apparatus
The contradiction created tension within the state apparatus. Non-Russian officials had to navigate between Russian nationalism (official policy) and Marxist internationalism (official ideology). Some tried to harmonize them. Others resisted. Those who resisted were eliminated as nationalist deviationists.
Radzinsky documents how capable non-Russian officials were often purged partly because their ethnic background made them suspicious. If a Georgian was prominent in the apparatus, was he loyal to the Soviet state or to Georgia? The paranoia about nationalism created genuine insecurity for non-Russian cadres.
The "Friendship of Peoples"
The regime attempted to manage the contradiction through the concept of the "Friendship of Peoples" — the idea that all Soviet nationalities, united under communism and Russian leadership, could coexist harmoniously. This allowed the regime to claim both universalism (communism unites peoples) and particularity (Russian people lead).
But "friendship" in practice meant Russian dominance and the subordination of other nationalist aspirations. Radzinsky documents how this concept was used to justify policies that favored Russians while suppressing non-Russian nationalism.4
The Postponement of the Contradiction
Rather than resolve the contradiction, the regime postponed it. Nationalism was treated as a "bourgeois deviation" that would disappear once communism was fully achieved. Until that day, national identity had to be subordinated to the state's needs.
This postponement strategy worked partly because the regime had the power to suppress anyone who pointed out the contradiction. The ideology was not required to be logically coherent; it was required to be accepted. Those who questioned it were eliminated.
Political Theory and Empire — The Problem of Holding Diverse Empires: Political theory on empires documents the challenge of holding diverse ethnic groups under unified rule.5 Empires can use shared culture (language, religion, customs), shared law, shared economic benefit, or force. The Soviet Union attempted to use shared ideology (Marxism) as the unifying principle, but this was insufficient. Stalin resorted to Russian nationalism and force. The parallel reveals that ideologically united empires are inherently unstable unless backed by force. Without the force, the ideology's universalism threatens to dissolve particular power relationships.
Sociology and Cultural Dominance — How Dominant Groups Naturalize Their Dominance: Sociological analysis of cultural dominance documents how ruling groups make their particular interests appear universal — how Russian interests are reframed as Soviet interests, as communist interests, as universal human interests.6 Stalin's promotion of Russian nationalism within the framework of communism operated identically: Russian dominance was presented as communist necessity, as the requirement of the revolution, as universal principle rather than particular interest. The parallel reveals that ideology functions partly as cover for power: it makes particular domination appear universal and necessary.
History and Multicultural Empires — The Durability of Empires That Manage Diversity: Historical analysis of empires that have survived despite ethnic diversity documents how empires that allow some cultural autonomy while maintaining overall control tend to be more stable than empires that attempt complete assimilation or suppression.7 The Soviet Union attempted assimilation (everything Soviet, Russian-dominated) while also claiming multiculturalism (friendship of peoples). The contradiction was not sustainable long-term without force. The parallel reveals that the tension between universalism and particularity is inherent in any large, diverse political system.
Radzinsky presents the contradiction as emerging naturally from the collision between ideology and power: that any ruler of a diverse empire using a universalist ideology will eventually resort to particular power assertion, and the contradiction will emerge.8
But evidence suggests that Stalin deliberately cultivated Russian nationalism as a tool, understanding that it would be more effective than pure ideology for holding the diverse Soviet state together. The ideology of internationalism was preserved for international purposes (claiming the Soviet Union was the defender of the world's workers), while Russian nationalism was used internally to maintain cohesion.9
This tension reveals that the contradiction may not be accidental but deliberate — that rulers understand they need both universal ideology (for external legitimacy and internal coherence) and particular power (for actual control). The contradiction is managed by maintaining both simultaneously and not requiring logical coherence between them.
The Sharpest Implication
If a system can maintain a fundamental contradiction between its stated ideology (universal communism) and its actual practice (Russian nationalist domination) indefinitely, then ideology functions not as a guide to policy but as a shield against criticism. The contradiction is not resolved; it is hidden through language management and the elimination of those who point it out. The implication: the most effective ideologies are those vague enough to accommodate contradictions, and the most effective states are those that suppress criticism of the contradictions.
Generative Questions