Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Socialism in One Country: A Study of Pragmatism and Ideology in the Soviet 1920s

Michael Bensley

Table of Contents: 
Introduction: p.3
 I. War Communism: p.10 
II. Lenin's Final Years: p.23 
III. Interregnum: p.38
 IV. Socialism in One Country as Theory: p.61
 V. Socialism in One Country in Context: p.74
 Conclusion: p.96 
Bibliography: p.104

INTRODUCTION (EXCERPT)

Bolshevik policy, upon seizure of power, had associated itself with the concept of internationalism.
The principle was that the revolution should only begin in Russia and that the western nations would,
in consequence, revolt as well. The economic aid that western Europe was expected to donate to
their Russian partners was crucial. This was especially true for Trotsky who, in his original capacity,
could not imagine any other course of action other than his 'permanent revolution,' as first set out in
Results and Prospects (1906).5
 In the years which followed the First World War, the western nations
mainly stabilised. In consequence, the regime had to abandon expectations of further insurrection
the question of whether a country could attempt to reach socialism alone. The Russian situation,
primarily the backwardness of her industrial development, was another pertinent issue to be
considered. Leon Trotsky, in an article in Pravda of May 1922 compared the Soviet Union to a 'besieged fortress,' stating that during such a time of political and economic isolation from the rest of the world, it was necessary for the state to ensure unity at any cost.7
 The political structures which developed had ensured the dominance of the Bolsheviks as the only legitimate party. A level of naivety existed intheir actions, as well as authoritarian tendencies. Early policies such as 'War Communism' had been carried out in a callous manner, with scant regard for the human cost. 'The descent into chaos' which ensued, the excesses and trespasses into human life, had introduced a framework which could be described as a 'Partocracy'.8
In 1921 the New Economic Policy was introduced. Whether this was a retreat on the same lines as
the Brest-Livotsk treaty of 1918, (which withdrew the Bolsheviks from the war against the Central
Powers), or more a pragmatic manoeuvre, is a question which shall be explored. However, in Lenin's
last years of control, the party would go on to solidify its monopoly of power. With such events as
the Social Revolutionary trials of 1922, the state had completed its path towards authoritarianism. It
has been argued that the manner in which events which brought this on. The idea being that Lenin had to operate in a difficult climate and had to enforce the one-party state as a temporary measure to ensure the survival of the regime. This would ultimately lead us to the conclusion that such concepts as 'Workers' Democracy' reflected his original intentions, if the situation had not dictated otherwise.9
 Of course, historians who take ideology as a primary factor in the way that the early Soviet Republic developed, have commented on the economic 'retreat' of introducing NEP being countered with political tightening.10
 This would explain why Lenin had dealt with his political opponents in this time in such a brutal fashion.
With Lenin's departure from leadership, due to a series of strokes, the disunity of the leadership had
begun to unravel. As will be discussed in the course of this dissertation, Stalin had been able to
secure a large number of positions in the state apparatus. His domination of the bureaucracy
became a crucial factor. Through such organs as the Secretariat he had been able to manipulate the
Party Congresses, so that the overwhelming majority of voting delegates came in line with the
leadership, regardless of where the party cells placed their allegiance. This had been of enormous
importance in the conflict with Trotsky's opposition.11
When Trotsky introduced the 'New Course' (1923), a criticism of the inflated bureaucracy and the
excesses which had formed as a result of this, a debate began which would see Stalin enter the field
of theory himself, with such works as The Foundations of Leninism (1924). With Lenin's death, Stalin
was able to interpret freely many of the former master's ideas and twist them in such a way that he
could use them to back up any attack. In the fight against 'Trotskyism', the idea of 'socialism in one
country' came about. Initially, the idea of economic development within isolated circumstances was
conceptualised by Nikolai Bukharin, but it would later be mentioned in a pamphlet by Stalin, The
October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists (1924).12
To ascertain how it was that Stalin was able to take a few lines of Lenin's previous works and
transform them in such a way as to develop his own body of ideas is crucial in understanding the
discourse of events in the 1920s. The course of this work will therefore examine both the context in
which 'socialism of one country' was conceived, and its relative value in practice. It is easy to
espouse the view that his theory was 'a mere smoke-screen for a clash of personal ambitions.'13 As
Isaac Deutscher, in his political biography Stalin reminds us, 'No doubt the personal rivalries were a
strong element in it. But the historian who reduced the whole matter to that would commit a
blatant mistake.'14 Indeed, as much as it could be argued that the whole matter was simply to attack
Trotsky's 'permanent revolution' as a counter-thesis of sorts, it had other properties.
Of course, Bukharin's view of building socialism in Russia alone was far more geared towards slow
and considered development. By utilising NEP, the state could take a path towards socialism which
would not have the disastrous outcomes which had become associated with 'War Communism'.15 It
will strike the reader that, for all the caution that Stalin would decree in the mid-1920s, he ultimately
embarked on the 'revolution from above' and the 'great break.' The main reasons why this had
occurred is the topic for the last chapter of this dissertation. Suffice it is to say, the impact of varying
political and socio-economic crises, which occurred from 1926 onwards, had a fundamental effect on
the regime and upon those who ruled it.

No comments:

Post a Comment