Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Could you please explain me why, long before Stalin's death, several enthusiastic western communists who went to visit Stalin's USSR came back utterly disgusted? Is it in Russia that they fell victim to American propaganda?

Yeah, they went expecting a Trotskyist USSR, but found something entirely different.

Idealism meet Mr. Reality.

[Alexander's Horse]

Anti-revisionist and post-Maoist communist interpretations of Soviet history see Stalin as a creative and logical, if in some respects flawed, heir to Lenin's legacy.

[binTravkin]

That's the problem. Stalin made a super power out of backward rural country defeated by much weaker Germans at WW1. Within a decade Russia made a huge leap from a pathetic land of uneducated peasants, which bought ploughs from Germans prior WW1, into industrial powerhouse which produced world's best tanks. Soviet industrial growth under Stalin was unprecedented.

With 14h+ workday, plenty of workforce as well as natural resources, that's not the only thing possible to achieve.

The most notable other things are creating probably the most stupid (both in general intelligence and army knowledge) army in the history and the most propaganda-brainwashed population for a couple of decades (until HollyWood&Co took off in US), which can still be felt today, as it seems from what you're defending, Serb.

It is possible that after 50 years you could convince someone that Gulag didn't exist and other stupid things, but not now, when there are still people alive who've seen all that.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor

The development of democracy in capitalist societies isn't some obvious and inevitable result of history.

quibble - but an important one - not obvious doesnt imply not inevitable. It can be (and has been) argued that the antidemocractic aspects of capitalism, were not sustainable - that the internal logic of advanced capitalism societies militated against them. This applies a fortiori to fascism.

"In the early 20th century, the capitalist world was still divided between autocratic regimes, and "democratic" ones with strong authoritarian leanings (though they were weakening). You might want to check how bitterly the western democracies fought against trade unions, "

In the UK in the 1920s the govt fought against a crippling general strike, not against the existence of trade unions. In the 1930s the US required (by the Wagner act) that private firms engage in collective bargaining with unions that had been chosen by free vote. By early 20th century you must mean sometime other than the 1920s and 1930s.

Also, in theory, the Soviet model is one of a more direct democracy, where citizens can actively participate to the decisions. It's very different from the liberal democracies of the time, where the decisions were taken by very remote officials, who weren't really representative of the wishes of the population.

I think we have different interpretations of democratic centralism and Lenins political vision. I dont see it as a direct democracy model at all. I think here we may have an issue of terminology. The "Soviet model" as the actual practice of workers soviets in 1917, vs the Bolshevik model. The "Soviet" model was NOT the Bolshevik vision - Lenin called for all power to the Soviets only because the Bolsheviks were strong in the Soviets, and weak in the Duma. OTOH for advocacy of direct democracy, that was happening in the US in the progressive movement, which hoped to use Swiss model referenda.

The USSR's theoretical model of democracy has been ruined by the civil war, by the party apparatchiki who were too happy to keep their power, by the formation of a bureaucratic class, and by Stalin's totalitarian and megalomaniac delirium. However, at the beginning, many didn't know what was going, on, and the Soviet model looked much more attractive to them than the western one. It's a big duh.

No, the "soviet" model was ruined by the Bolshevik victory, which meant they could dispense with fig leaf. ANd indeed, that points up the very weakness of the Soviet model - it was even more subject to manipulation, and to authoritarianism, than were formal representative models.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Odin
The Bolsheiviks were trying to go to socialism straight from a mostly feudal, agrarian society, a BIG nono.

Actually, the Bolsheviks launched the revolution in the hopes of sparking revolt in Western Europe. They figured that either they'd be successful or they'd be crushed.

Since theyd expected that the "capitalists" would crush them. Of course "capitalist" society proved a tad more complex than that.

They were completely unprepared for what happened, defeating the counter-revolution, but the revolution being defeated in Western Europe. They were stuck with an utterly "unmarxist" situation, workers power in a state with no workers or industry.

Qubble - russian in 1917 wasnt China in 1945. Russian industry began to "take off" in the decade before WW1. There were factory workers in the large cities, and of course the RR workers who were so important to the revolution. During the war Russian factories grew rapidly, to meet the needs of the war. Indeed it was this rapid and poorly planned growth that was a key factor in the food shortages that triggered the February revolution (see Keegan, The First World War) The attempt to give the Party all credit for Russian industrialization leads to a misunderstanding of the Russian class situation.

Whatever else we need to say about Stalin, it needs to be remembered that what he did wasn't solely about aggrandizing Stalin the man, but about securing the revolution, and trying to find a way forward in the concrete situation in which they found themselves. Due to their limitations, they went forward full-steam, but in a ham-handed and brutal way.


I hate to write it, but I think that once German fascism takes power, Stalinism was the only possible means of Soviet survival.

question of definitions. You seem to equate Stalinism with forced draft industrialization, and see everything else (including the persecution of the "old Bolsheviks") as purely incidental. Well since youre a Marxist, I let you do that - but keep in mind that for many of us the political superstructure of Stalinism is definitional.

We can only know what did happen, and despite all the brutality and murder (on an unheretofore heard of scale) they dragged the USSR from a war-torn medieval agrarian country to a space-faring country in the span of a life-time.

Again, in fact Russias economy was growing rapidly in the pre WW1 years. That, indeed, was one of the reasons the German geopolitical situation was so urgent in 1914. (see Kennedy, the Rise of the Great Powers) There is some debate as to how sustainable that growth was - since it was heavily driven by grain exports, and of course the grain market became much weaker after WW1. But it would be fairer to say that GIVEN that the USSR had withdrawn from the global economy, forced draft industrialization was necessary for rapid economic growth.

[Fake Boris]

I'll wet my toe and try to say something serious about the OP. I think it's actually possible that Stalin might have toyed with the idea of elections in a bid to reduce the influence of the party by making it vulnerable to the ballots. It could have allowed him to increase the power of the police and bureaucracy at the expense of some rivals.
There is also much evidence in the way of Stalin being a sincere ideologue afflicted with brutal methods and not only a cynical leader. Even though he didn't tolerate dissent himself, he could possibly have wanted to pave the way for some democratic reforms after his death.
In any case, if these documents are genuine they require interpretation, and just saying 'it can't be because Stalin is teh evil!' won't do much for it.

[Az]

With 14h+ workday, plenty of workforce as well as natural resources, that's not the only thing possible to achieve.

and yet so many fail. Stalin showed the effectiveness of the planned economy. The fact that he was an ******* butcher is connected the first fact in a secondary manner.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Az
Stalin showed the effectiveness of the planned economy...

... to industrialize to a level of being able to become an armoured war-capable country. Not more.

Plus tzarist Russia was industrialising faster than any European power, up until 1917. It can hardly be claimed that if tehre had been no commie takeover there would not have been a much more prosperous, liberal and democratic Russia.

[Az]

... to industrialize to a level of being able to become an armoured war-capable country. Not more.

Well, that's hardly true. The output of many consumer goods increased too, and we cannot speak of a theoretical output of an economy concentrated on industrial and consumer goods, while the geopolitical enviroment favored immidiate armament.

[Saras]

Well you never know, counterfactual liberal Russia might also have defeated the Germans (had they attacked them in the first place)

[Az]

who are "they" and "them", in your last text?

I see two possible scenarios in which fascism and nazism don't take hold in Germany - The Germans winning the war, and Germany experiencing a communist revolution. Both of which are problematic with having a liberal Russia in the parallel time.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Az

... to industrialize to a level of being able to become an armoured war-capable country. Not more.

Well, that's hardly true. The output of many consumer goods increased too, and we cannot speak of a theoretical output of an economy concentrated on industrial and consumer goods, while the geopolitical enviroment favored immidiate armament.

I think the inherent arguement Saras makes is that centralized planned economies mayhave there place when single minded outcomes are the directive. Decentralized free market economies naturally fill the breadth of consumer needs more efficiently as time to market and specific market desires are more easily managed in the less beuracratic decentralized economies given the same relative levels of infrastructure.

OTOH you'ld be amazed at what threats to life limb and family have to senses of urgency. Problem is that is sustainable in a very short term fashion with dramatic long term conseqeunces when the threats are not omnipresent.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az
who are "they" and "them", in your last text?

I see two possible scenarios in which fascism and nazism don't take hold in Germany - The Germans winning the war, and Germany experiencing a communist revolution. Both of which are problematic with having a liberal Russia in the parallel time.

Others - 1. No global depression.
2. Streseman lives

But in terms of Saras WI, I think the POD is no November revolution - consequence is A. No model (or at least no obviously successful model) for a conspiratorialist mass political party B. Less fear of radicalism on the part of the German Bourgeois, and hence less willingess to go to extremes C. A different configuration of the German left. To which I would add D - a different power political situation in eastern europe - if there is a liberal Russia, allied (more or less) to France, France is less likely to take a rigidly pro-Polish position, and there may be more pressure on Poland to compromise on the border with Germany. Which may not be fair, but may serve to diffuse extreme German nationalism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az
who are "they" and "them", in your last text?

I see two possible scenarios in which fascism and nazism don't take hold in Germany - The Germans winning the war, and Germany experiencing a communist revolution. Both of which are problematic with having a liberal Russia in the parallel time.

and even Nazism DOES take hold in Germany - will it be in position to attack Germany - a liberal Russia will be better positioned to join with the western allies to stop German expansion earlier. You dont get British appeasers looking to Germany to stop the Bolshevik hordes. (they'll still distrust Russian influence in the East, but probably not enough to distract them from the German threat)

[Az]

I think the inherent arguement Saras makes is that centralized planned economies mayhave there place when single minded outcomes are the directive. Decentralized free market economies naturally fill the breadth of consumer needs more efficiently as time to market and specific market desires are more easily managed in the less beuracratic decentralized economies given the same relative levels of infrastructure.

I disagree, since it's a simplistic view of the planning process. This is very right and well, as long as this planning is made by very small groups of people who are calling the shots. This requires insane multitasking. However, a centrally planned ( as in "the entire economy is planned by a single organization" ) organization of the economy can and will work as long as customer feedback and quality control exist.

In my honest opinion, the problem with the economy of soviet union was the lack of those, as well as the lack of proper accounting practices. All of these problems were intensified by the lack of free speech, which intensified problems which led to cynicism and the lack of will to act against issues faced.

Also, it was ironically, a lack of planning. The planning wasn't segmented enough, didn't explore enough niches of demand, and didn't prioritise them. The whole central planning mechanism was, in fact, rather slim, and inequipped to handle the gargantuan task of managing an economy of 250 million people.

Even a simple look at the main building housing the operation illustrates this.

This was the building, right, Saras?