The document within the url has the following title:

• Institutionalization of the Historical Memory of I.V. Stalin and the Structural Transformation of Party Discourse: The Case of the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation

By Li Zhuoru, Cheng Enfu, Wang Jingxuan

• OG: Институционализация исторической памяти о И.В. Сталине и структурная трансформация партийного дискурса: кейс ХІХ съезда КПРФ

Brief teaser of the first page of the study

The article provides a comparative analysis of the political reports of the 18th (2021) and 19th (2025) congresses of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the related resolutions using institutional analysis and critical discourse analysis. The study focuses on the institutionalization of historical memory (“memory of I.V. Stalin”) as a mechanism for the conversion of symbolic resources through the link “schematic narrative template, organizational regulations, everyday practices”, which influences organizational identity and mobilization capacity. The following is shown: (1) a shift in the core of the narrative from the national-experiential register to the macrosociological framework of the global structural crisis; (2) a reorientation of the agenda from the economy and welfare to the problematic of institutional boundaries and response to external pressures; (3) the institutional reconfiguration of memory increases intra-party cohesion and expands the boundaries of potential intergroup alliances. A hypothesis about the “reintegration effect” is formulated, which requires subsequent empirical verification.

In recent years, the political discourse of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has demonstrated a clear dynamic of transformation. Under the influence of geopolitical factors such as the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and sanctions pressure, available data has documented adjustments to discourse structures, political agendas, and ideological attitudes. However, the academic literature still lacks a systematic analysis of the mechanisms for maintaining a balance between ideological continuity and current strategic needs in the context of these shifts.

Based on a comparative analysis of the political reports of the 16th-2nd (2021) and 19th (2025) congresses of the CPRF and the associated resolutions, specific changes in the discursive architecture, agenda priorities, and modes of ideological representation are documented. The leading role of the institutional reconfiguration of the memory of I.V. Stalin in the mechanics of discursive transformation and in the internal logic of the party’s strategic adaptation is substantiated. A Marxist theoretical foundation is necessary to conceptualize the “memory-state-mobilization” link. As V.I. Lenin noted: “According to Marx, the state is an organ of class domination, an organ for the oppression of one class by another” [17, p. 7]. Based on this, the institutionalization of Stalin’s memory fits into the functional structure of the party and the state as a resource of legitimation and organizational capacity. A heuristically formulated hypothesis is that the formalized inclusion of Stalin’s memory ensures a fine-tuning between continuity and current political demands, as a result of which party identity and the foundations of political legitimacy are strengthened.

Theoretically, the mechanisms of converting Stalin’s historical narrative into an organizational resource are primarily analyzed through the prism of the institutionalization of collective memory and the concept of symbolic capital. Furthermore, through the use of critical discourse analysis, the way in which the CPRF’s ideological corrections respond to the crisis of global capitalism and domestic political competition is examined. Methodologically, the study relies on an in-depth comparative analysis of the aforementioned texts and accompanying resolutions, which allows the characteristics and regularities of discursive transformation to be discerned. To avoid conceptual biases in the triad of “historical memory, organizational mechanisms, and mobilization effectiveness,” it is advisable to introduce the operationalized level of a “schematic narrative template” into the analysis. As O. Feldberg rightly notes, the “schematic narrative template” functions as a unified analytical unit of memory politics [5, pp. 44-58]. Based on this, “the memory of I.V. Stalin” is interpreted as a template-organized construction of narratives, which explains institutionalization in the link between education, commemoration, media, and its interinstitutional transmission. At the same time, to avoid reducing the triad “historical memory, organizational mechanisms, mobilization effectiveness” to linear causality, the variable of public negotiations should be introduced.