Stalinism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of a series on Communism |
 |
| Ideologies |
| Marxism |
| Leninism |
| Left communism |
| Council communism |
| Anarchist communism |
| Stalinism |
| Trotskyism |
| Titoism |
| Maoism |
| Juche |
| Eurocommunism |
| Basic concepts |
| Class struggle |
| Communist party |
| Historical materialism |
| Marxist philosophy |
| Proletarian internationalism |
| Socialist economics |
| Communist internationals |
| Communist League |
| First International |
| Comintern |
| Fourth International |
| Prominent communists |
| Karl Marx |
| Friedrich Engels |
| Rosa Luxemburg |
| Vladimir Lenin |
| Joseph Stalin |
| Leon Trotsky |
| Mao Zedong |
| Related subjects |
| Anarchism |
| Anti-capitalism |
| Anti-communism |
| Criticisms of communism |
| Democratic centralism |
| Dictatorship of the proletariat |
| History of communism |
| Left-wing politics |
| New Class |
| New Left |
| Post-Communism |
| Primitive communism |
| Socialism |
| Communism Portal
|
Stalinism is the political and economic system named after Joseph Stalin, who implemented it in the Soviet Union. It includes an extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator, as well as extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission.
The term "Stalinism" was coined by Lazar Kaganovich and was never used by Joseph Stalin who described himself as a Marxist-Leninist and a "pupil of Lenin" although he tolerated the use of the term by associates.[citation needed]
Like many other "-isms" it can be used as a pejorative term when referring to nation-states, political parties, or the ideological stance(s) of individuals, particularly "Anti-Revisionists". It is also used as a pejorative to describe politicians and political groups, Communist or non-Communist, who are perceived as particularly authoritarian or hard-line.
Contents |
[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 used by anti-communists, communists (left communists, Trotskyists, Luxemburgists, council communists), and even pro-Stalin Marxist-Leninists themselves to denote the brand of communist theory that dominated the Soviet Union, and the countries within the Soviet sphere of influence, during the leadership of Joseph Stalin. 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, in contrast to Marx and Lenin, and prided himself on maintaining the legacy of Lenin as a founding father for the Soviet Union and the future Socialist world. Stalinism is of 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 rapid 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, whereas 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 increase 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: The fact that Russia was essentially still based upon a backward agrarian economy, whilst her Western capitalist rivals were fully industrialized, 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 center 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 industrialized 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 industrialization was in the hands of the peasants. If there was a poor harvest, industrialization 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 made use of the Collectivization of agriculture in order to effectively finance the industrial drive. The process of Collectivization was not a peaceful one. Resistance was met by the soviet authorities, specially coming from the wealthy rural farmers ("Kulaks"), with which Stalin dealt harshly.
3. The Move towards a Socialist society: According to Marxist theory, socialism could only exist in a highly industrialized 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, not 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. 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 exceptions were North Korea under Kim Il-sung and the People's Republic of China, under Mao Zedong. Kim simply purged the North Korean Communist party of de-Stalinization advocates, either executing them or forcing them into exile or labor camps.[1] Under Mao, the People's Republic 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. The ouster of Khruschev in 1964 by his former party-state allies has been described as a Stalinist restoration, epitomized by the Brezhnev Doctrine and the apparatchik/nomenklatura "stability of cadres," lasting until the hyper-revisionist Gorbachev period of glasnost and perestroika in the late 1980s and the fall of Soviet communism itself.
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, although not owning the means of production and not constituting a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class. Left communists like CLR James and the Italian autonomists, as well as unorthodox Trotskyists like Tony Cliff have described Stalinism as state capitalism, a form of capitalism where the state takes the role of capital. Milovan Đilas argues that a New Class arose under Stalinism, a theory also put forward by various liberal theorists. Some in the Third Camp use bureaucratic collectivism as a theory to critique Stalinist forms of government.
[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.[citation needed]
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 program 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.
Finally, proponents of this view argue that the top-down, dictatorial government established by Lenin lacked essential checks and balances, and that this left the system open to abuse by ruthless politicians such as Stalin. In this view, Lenin's death left a power vacuum which allowed the most brutal of his successors to successfully gain power through manipulation and intrigue.
On the whole, according to this theory, 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, proponents of the discontinuity theory state that 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. Discontinuity theory proponents feel that it was Stalin who made it a monolithic block that only carried out his directives. In their view, Lenin saw the ban on factions and opposition parties only as a preliminary measure and a distortion of the Communist ideology, on the other hand, Stalin misused it to attack his personal and political enemies. However, in his authoritative biography of Lenin, Robert Service argues against the portrayal of the Bolshevik/communist party under Lenin as having been extremely democratic.
Proponents of the discontinuity approach 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” (24 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[citation needed]. 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 is by far not the logical conclusion of Leninism for the discontinuity theorists.
[edit] Hybrid Theory
Some theorists[citation needed] argue that the continuity and discontinuity theories are not mutually exclusive. They argue that while Lenin laid the groundwork for a totalitarian system of government, citing forced labor camps, secret police, and a one-party state, he never intended for these institutions to be used as they were by Stalin, who broke with the principles of Leninism.
Despite this, advocates of the hybrid theory feel that with the groundwork in place for gross abuses of power in the Soviet Union come 1924, at Lenin's death, it was unrealistic for this structure of government to remain in place without it being abused for the benefit of an individual. Thereby, it is argued that Stalinism is both the logical conclusion of Leninism, although it is indeed a fundamental break with the principles of Marxism-Leninism.
[edit] References
- Vincent Barnett, "Understanding Stalinism: The 'Orwellian Discrepancy' and the 'Rational Choice Dictator'," Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 58, no. 3, May 2006 (online abstract).
- 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
- Lankov, Andrei N., Crisis in North Korea: The Failure of De-Stalinization, 1956. Honolulu:Hawaii University Press (2004)
- Boris Souvarine, Stalin: A Critical Survey of Bolshevism, Alliance Book, 1939
- Robert Service, Lenin: A Biography, Belknap Press, 2002 ISBN 0-330-49139-3
- Robert Service. Stalin: A Biography, Belknap Press, 2005 ISBN 0-674-01697-1
- 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] See also
- Joseph Stalin
- Stalin Society
- History of the Soviet Union
- Cult of personality
- List of Stalinists
- Anti-Revisionism
- Maoism
- Anti-Stalinist left
[edit] External links
- Stalin, Joseph V. Stalin Reference Archive at Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved May 11, 2005.
- Brooks, Andy "a tribute to the life of Joseph Stalin
- Blunden, Andy Stalinism: Its Origins & Future.
- Strong, Anna L. The Stalin Era.
- List of Stalinist Parties/Groups
- Bill Bland on 'Stalinism'
- Ludo Martens Another View of Stalin
- Martin Thomas Stalinism and state capitalism
Forms of Government and Methods of Rule: Autocratic and Authoritarian
|
