Stalinism

From Free net encyclopedia

(Redirected from Stalinist)

Template:Communism Stalinism is a brand of political theory, and the political and economic system named after Joseph Stalin, who implemented it in the Soviet Union.

The term "Stalinism" was first used by Trotskyists opposed to the regime in the Soviet Union, particularly in an attempt to separate the policies of the Soviet government from those they regarded as more true to Marxism. It was soon adopted by anarchists and anti-communists.

Like many other "-isms" it is also used as a pejorative term when referring to nation-states, political parties, or the ideological stance(s) of individuals.

1 Stalinism as political theory
2 Stalinist economic policy
3 Points of view on Stalinism
4 Stalinism's relationship to Leninism
- 4.1 Continuity theory
- 4.2 Discontinuity theory
5 References
6 See also
7 External links

[edit]

Stalinism as political theory

"Stalinism", strictly speaking, refers to an interpretation of a style of government, rather than an ideology per se.

The term "Stalinism" is sometimes used to denote the brand of communist theory that dominated the Soviet Union and the countries within the Soviet sphere of influence during and after the leadership of Joseph Stalin by anti-communists and trotskyists. The term used in the Soviet Union and by most who uphold its legacy, however, is "Marxism-Leninism", reflecting that Stalin himself was not a theoretician, but a communicator who wrote several books in language easily understood, and, in contrast to Marx and Lenin, made few new theoretical contributions. Rather, Stalinism is more in the order of an interpretation of their ideas, and a certain political system claiming to apply those ideas in ways fitting the changing needs of society, as with the transition from "socialism at a snail's pace" in the mid-twenties to the forced industrialization of the Five-Year Plans. Sometimes, although rarely, the compound terms Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism (used by the Brazilian MR-8), or teachings of Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin, are used to show the alleged heritage and succession. Simultaneously, however, many people professing Marxism or Leninism view Stalinism as a perversion of their ideas; Trotskyists, in particular, are virulently anti-Stalinist, considering Stalinism a counter-revolutionary policy using Marxism to achieve power.

From 1917 to 1924, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin often appeared united, but, in fact, their ideological differences never disappeared. In his dispute with Trotsky, Stalin de-emphasized the role of workers in advanced capitalist countries (for example, he postulated theses considering the U.S. working class as bourgeoisified labor aristocracy). Also, Stalin polemicized against Trotsky on the role of peasants, as in China, where Trotsky wanted urban insurrection and not peasant-based guerrilla warfare.

The main contributions of Stalin to communist theory were:

Socialism in One Country,
The theory of aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism, a theoretical base supporting the repression of political opponents as necessary.

Stalinism has been described as being synonymous with totalitarianism, or a tyrannical regime. The term has been used to describe regimes that fight political dissent through violence, imprisonment, and killings.

[edit]

Stalinist economic policy

At the end of the 1920's Stalin launched a wave of radical economic policies, which completely overhauled the industrial and agricultural face of the Soviet Union. This came to be known as the 'Great Turn' as Russia turned away from the near-capitalist New Economic Policy. The NEP had been implemented by Lenin in order to ensure the survival of the Communist state following seven years of war (1914-1921, WW1 from 1914 to 1917, and the subsequent Civil War) and had rebuilt Soviet production to its 1913 levels. However, Russia still lagged far behind the West, and the NEP was felt by Stalin and the majority of the Communist party, not only to be compromising Communist ideals, but also not delivering sufficient economic performance, as well as not creating the envisaged Socialist society. It was therefore necessary to force the pace of industrialisation in order to catch up with the West.

Rapid industrialisation was necessary for a number of reasons, both practical and ideological, the overriding aim of which was to make Russia a force to be reckoned with on the world stage.

1. To increase military strength: Due to the fact that Russia was essentially still based upon a backward agrarian economy, whilst her Western capitalist rivals were fully industrialised, rendered Russia vulnerable to attack. The lack of any natural boundaries (other than the great distances involved) as well as the extremely long border, essentially meant that in the event of invasion, any attacking force could rapidly converge upon the comparatively small industrial centre focused around Moscow. It was therefore necessary to establish an eastern industrial base, beyond the Urals, that could continue the Soviet war effort in event of Moscow's capture. However, even before this could take place, it would be necessary to establish industry capable of producing armaments of sufficient quantity and quality to fight a modern war.

2. To achieve self-sufficiency: Russia's backward economy also meant that she was reliant on expensive imports for industrially manufactured goods, especially the heavy industrial plant required for industrial production. The USSR required its own industrial base to produce goods for its own people. However, this also necessitated an increase in grain production, as surplus grain would be required for export in order to provide foreign currency with which to buy the basis of an idustrialised economy, as well as the initial raw materials needed to fuel it. The problem was that, once again, the nature of the economy meant that industrialisation was in the hands of the peasants. If there was a poor harvest, industrialisation could not go ahead, as whilst the peasants required grain for themselves, they also had to support the burgeoning urban population, as well as provide aforementioned surplus grain for export. Stalin was eventually to wage war on the peasants with the use of Collectivisation which whilst funding the industrial drive, at the same time resulted in the deaths of millions through starvation.

3. The Move towards a Socialist society: According to Marxist theory, socialism could only exist in a highly industrialised state, where the overwhelming majority of the population were workers. However, in 1928 approximately 20% of the population were workers. Also, Stalin wanted to prove the Socialist system to be at least the equal of the capitalism, nor just in terms of industrial output, but also in terms of living standards. The overriding aim of this would be to present Communism as a viable alternative to any capitalist form of government.

4. Personal Motivation: During the struggle over power that ensued following Lenin's death, Stalin had to prove himself as Lenin's equal and successor. Economic policy was central to this, as an economic transformation of the USSR would establish him as a leader of great importance.

A series of three five-year plans massively expanded the Soviet economy. Large increases occurred in many sectors, especially in coal, pig iron and steel production. However, Society made great strides towards catching up from decades-long backwardness to the West within thirty years in key industrial areas, according to some statistical measurements. Some economic historians now believe it to be the fastest economic growth rate ever achieved, although the accompanying social costs and long term economic results are highly debatable. Because of the perceived prestige and influence of the successful Russian revolution, many countries throughout the 20th century saw the politico-economic model developed in the USSR as an attractive alternative to the existing systems in place, often perceived as "market economy" systems, and took steps to follow the USSR's example. This included both revolutionary regimes and post-colonial states in the developing world.

[edit]

Points of view on Stalinism

After Stalin's death in 1953, his successor Nikita Khrushchev repudiated his policies, condemned Stalin's cult of personality in his Secret Speech to the Twentieth Party Congress in 1956, and instituted destalinization and liberalisation (within the same political framework). Consequently, most of the world's Communist parties, who previously adhered to Stalinism, abandoned it and, to a greater or lesser degree, adopted the moderately reformist positions of Khruschchev.

The notable exception was the People's Republic of China, which under Mao Zedong grew antagonistic towards the new Soviet leadership's "revisionism", resulting in the Sino-Soviet Split in 1960. Subsequently China independently pursued the ideology of Maoism, which still largely supported the legacy of Stalin and his policies. Albania took the Chinese party's side in the Sino-Soviet Split and remained committed, at least theoretically, to its brand of Stalinism for decades thereafter, under the leadership of Enver Hoxha.

Some historians draw parallels between Stalinism and the economic policy of Tsar Peter the Great. Both men desperately wanted Russia to catch up to the western European states. Both succeeded to an extent, turning Russia temporarily into Europe's leading power. Others compare Stalin with Ivan IV of Russia, with his policies of oprichnina and restriction of the liberties of common people.

Trotskyists argue that the "Stalinist USSR" was not socialist (and certainly not communist), but a bureaucratized degenerated workers' state—that is, a non-capitalist state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class. Stalinism could not have existed without the overturning of Russia's prior regime by the October Revolution, but it is notable that Joseph Stalin himself played a minor role in the October Revolution.

[edit]

Stalinism's relationship to Leninism

The relationship between Stalinism and Leninism is disputed. "Continuity theorists" believe that Stalinism was the logical conclusion of Leninism, and that there are more similarities than differences between the two. Others argue that Stalinism marked a fundamental break with the legacy of Lenin and Marxism-Leninism as practised up to that point.

[edit]

Continuity theory

Supporters of the view that Stalinism emerged from Leninism point to a number of areas of alleged continuity. For example, Lenin put a ban on factions within the Communist Party and introduced the one-party state in 1921 - a move that enabled Stalin to get rid of his rivals easily after Lenin's death. Moreover, Lenin used to purge his party of “unfaithful” Communists, a method used extensively by Stalin during the 1930s.

Under Lenin’s rule terror was used to suppress opposition. For that function the Cheka was set up in December 1917. Felix Dzerzhinsky, its leader, exclaimed with some enthusiasm: “We stand for organized terror – this should be frankly stated”. Western authorities estimate that by 1924 the Cheka had executed more than 250,000 people. The number of labour camps increased from 80 in 1919 to 315 by 1923.

Another important step of Lenin was to appoint Stalin to the key position of general secretary. The power of that post enabled him to appoint, dismiss or promote party members on all levels and thus provided his later power base.

The radical methods of Stalin’s modernisation programme were also not entirely his invention, they were mainly the further development of Lenin’s war communism. This policy was characterised by extensive nationalisation, the forceful grain collection from the countryside and harsh direction of labour. Labour discipline was draconian and lateness and absenteeism were punished severely. All workers were subjected to army style control. All those features can also be found in Stalin’s economic policy.

On the whole Lenin’s policies developed a totalitarian regime, which was later on radicalised by Stalin. Thus both ideologies can be seen as a continuous development.

[edit]

Discontinuity theory

The historians who support Discontinuity theory claim that Leninism and Stalinism were two opposing ideologies. They point out that Leninism was a much more flexible style of politics, whereas Stalin introduced a totally “orthodox” regime. According to them Lenin was head of a revolutionary proletariat dictatorship and Stalin imposed his own totalitarian one. Lenin wanted to keep state influence low and called for the “withering away” of the worker’s state as soon as possible after the revolution. But Stalin enlarged the power of the state until it was dominating every aspect of Soviet life.

In addition, Lenin always wanted to keep a revolutionary form of democracy. His party originated from a multi-party state and contained many different groups and factions under his rule. It was Stalin who made it a monolithic block that only carried out his directives. Lenin saw the ban on factions and opposition parties only as a preliminary measure and a distortion of the ideology, on the other hand, Stalin misused it to attack his political enemies.

Those historians also emphasise that Lenin’s terror differed both in quantity and quality from Stalin’s terror. Lenin let defeated opponents go to exile and never attempted to kill his party comrades. The number of affected people never reached the massive scale it did under Stalin. Furthermore, Lenin ended the Red terror and restricted the Cheka’s powers after the civil war.

Another very important shift of Lenin was the introduction of the NEP in place of the old war communism. Thus he steered a very moderate course in economic policies, which was totally different from Stalin’s brutal super-industrialisation programme.

Besides the appointment of Stalin to general secretary did not mean too much, because that post was unimportant at that time and no other party leader wanted it then. Later on Lenin even wanted to remove Stalin from that post when he realised the danger of a totalitarian dictatorship. He formulated his fears in his political testament:

“Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary has immeasurable power concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient control” (29 December 1922)

“Stalin is too rude, and this fault, entirely acceptable in relations between communists, becomes completely unacceptable in the office of General Secretary. Therefore I propose to the comrades that a way be found to remove Stalin from that post and replace him with someone else who differs from Stalin in all respects, someone more patient, more loyal, more polite, more considerate.” (postscript of 4 January 1923)

Between December 1922 and January 1923 Lenin looked for the support of Trotsky against Stalin and his associates. He opposed Stalin’s views on the state monopoly of foreign trade and especially his nationality policies in Georgia. Further Lenin wanted to reduce bureaucracy and restore inner party democracy.

Apart from that clear wish to dismiss Stalin from his post of general secretary Lenin envisaged an oligarchic rule of the party under the leadership of Trotsky after his death. He was definitely opposed to the prospect of a dictatorship of one person. In fact it was much more likely that Bukharin or especially Trotsky would become the new leaders of the party. Stalin just came to power because of failures of his rivals, well-planned intrigues and because of luck. Thus Stalinism was by far not the logical conclusion of Leninsm for the discontinuity theorists.

[edit]

References

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, Goldmann
Isaak Deutscher, Stalin: A Political Biography, Dietz, 1990
Philip Ingram, Russia and the USSR 1905 – 1991, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997
Boris Souvarine, Stalin: A Critical Survey of Bolshevism, Octagon Books, 1972
Allan Todd, The European Dictatorships: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003
John Traynor, Challenging History: Europe 1890 – 1990, Nelson Thornes Ltd, Cheltenham, 2002

[edit]