About the essence of stalinism

Some think that stalinism was not sosialism at all. They think it was statecapitalism, and that the true socialism is still viable option for changing the society. This view has its points, but one can not exclude Stalin from the annals of socialism. It was really the only excisting form of socialism, and to denie it had at least something to do with socialism is not fruitfull if one wants to change world according to the ideas of socialism.

Of course it is not right to call stalinism as the socialism. There were and are many other forms of socialism: anarchism, revisionism, trotskism, market socialism etc. It is a shame that the stalinist socialism was so strong that we have witnessed only two major sort of socialism: stalinism and reviosionism. The licudation of alternative revolutionary ideologies was the goal of stalinism. This was the reason for the concentration camps full of communists who did not understand how a party wich they supported in totaly honest and altruistic way could treat them like this. Unity of thought was the idea of Lenin who fought against other socialist currents during the Russian civil war and it was also the idea of Karl Marx who fought against anarchists and other socialist currents in the name of the unity of working class. This all had of course lot to do with the circumstances in wich the working class movement was born and one may think it is anachronist to wonder why stalinism was so strong in the history of working class movement: the stalinists are right in lot when they say that their way was the only possible way. The excistence and succes of revisionism and the social democratic movement is conforting even if you do not share their ideology becose it shows that stalinism was not the only way which the working class movement could take.

The stalinism was a centrist force in the fight for the right ideological line after the death of Lenin. Trotski had supported the industrialization line which later became the trade mark of stalinism. He also was in favor of revolutionary terror. On the right there were people who supported the NEP-line of freedom for civil society. This line was the creation of Lenin but as he himself made clear it was only a step backward so you could take step forward towards socialism. So what Stalin had to say was already said by other bolshevik leaders. The unity of the right political line was already seen in the way how the workers opposition, a "syndicalist" sect of bolsheviks was pulled down. So we can say that the way towards stalinism was already made clear by Lenin, if it was not even the only possible line towards which marxism could evolve in its bolshevik form.

The terror of Stalins time had many purpoces. First Stalin had to get rid of rivalries. These were the real enemies of Stalin in the bolshevik party, like Trotsky and his followers. Second it was only trhough terror that Stalin could make true of his dreams about socialism developing in the backward country which Soviet Union was. There were even special places for skilled scientists and technicians were they could work for Stalin under total fear. There were big industrial projects which were made possible by the slave labour force of prisoner camps. Stalin also had to get rid of other then bolshevik political forces. This was done already under Lenin so it was nothing new. The final purpose of terror was to create feare. All of Stalins followers were in the possition where they could not know who was going to be the next victim of terror. Stalin needed always fresh servants, and had to get rid of the old ones. Stalin used fear to make true of the industrialization. It was also used before the second world war and alse after it when the people had, or Stalin at least thought they had gourage to not to fear Stalin. It was made to make what anarchists call authority. In this way the fears of Bakunin and other anarchists about the nature of marxist society was made true.

Stalin continued the line of Lenin in industrialization of society. It is quite certain that this was what Lenin had in mind when he talked about socialism. This industrialization was made in brutish way. There was a doctrine that the countryside was inferior to cities, and this made possible a brutal exploitation of countryside during the industrialization, and led to famine and starvation. On the other hand it was this industrialization program which later made socialism in its bolshevik form very atractive to third world countryes which wanted to break the subordination to developed west and break free from underdevelopment and colonialism. It was this "progres" as it was called which inspired the socialist goverments world wide and not so much the ideals of socialism.

The idea of stalinist economy was total state socialism. State and party would plane everything. This did away the freedom of NEP era. When it was a question of big industrial complexec this worked. One has to remember that the state had a central role in the western economies also during 1930's and 1940's. The centrally planed economy had also predecessor during the first world war namely the German state planned capitalism. Lenin had admirerd this system. For him and Stalin (and Trotsky) this all was logical development. Imperialism and state capitalism would be the last phase before socialism. Before Stalin there was also prevailing idea of world revolution which seemed to be near in the late 1910's and early 1920's. There were revolts for example in Hungary, Germany and Italy. There would be a transformation from state monopoly capitalism and imperialism to world socialism. When it became apparent that there would be no world revolution, Stalin started to talk about socialism in one country. This did not mean that Stalin was abondoning the idea of world socialism. No, this was just another step backward so that later socialism could triumph in the world. One has to remember that Stalin had a plan to attack against Germany during the second world war before Germany would attack, but as we know this plan was never realized. So Stalin had to be content with eastern Europe after the second world war. And later it would undoudebtly be also the western Europe under revolution.

The workers right were abolished allready by Lenin. Workers had at the begining of the revolution formed workers soviets which had the power over the working conditions and management. This was abolished and the became power of the party instead of the power of workers. There was introduced scientific management (known as Taylorism) of work. This together with the state capitalist form of ownership makes together what stalinism meant for workers. It was Lenin not Stalin who supressed workers in the workers state. On the other hand one has to think what would be alternative for this stalinist organization. Would it be that the workers would not have organised at all without the strict organization of stalinism. The example of western marxism in its social democratic form makes clear that not. So stalinism was not a historically necessary form of organization for the working class.

The popular front tactics was the invention of stalinist communist partyes to attack the right wing forces in Eastern Europe. It must be said that many leftitst forces, like anarchists thought this was betrayal of revolutionary ideals for the sake of Russian intrests. At the same time Stalin destroyd all opposition to his line in international communist movement. All the leaders of the communist partyes of different countryes were puppets of Stalin. So it is quite suprising that there emerged different lines which opposed stalinism and its successors, like Tito in Yugoslavia, who had a wery different conseption of socialism then the soviet model, with the workers self management line. Later after Stalins death there were different lines of socialism like the policy known as the spring of Prague with its conception of socialism with human face. One has to still remember that this was crushed like the hungarian revolt of 1956 by soviet tanks. Still there emerged later "eurocommunist" line of thought in western Europe, so socialism was not totaly monolitich structure although Stalin and his succesors tryed to destroy all the opposition to soviet model socialism.

Milovan Djilas spoke about the new class among the bolsheviks. He had predessor, namely Bakunin, who talked about the red burocracy, which would be the worst of all despotic goverments. Djilas, a yugoslavian communist, and later dissent, talked also about the nature of utopias. Bolshevism, and stalinism was undoudebtly an utopia, in spite of the condemption of utopias by the "scientific socialists". Utopia is a perfect society, and in this way contradicts with unperfectionism of reality. And becose Stalin had in his use the apparatus of the party and state, this contradiction had terrible consecuensis. The peasents of Ukraine were those who most suffered about the dream of building industrial socialism and then communism in the backward country which soviet union was. This harvest of sorrow is one of the worst crimes against humanity in our time.

Lenin and Stalin were revolutionaries. They seeked the destruction of old form of society. This destroyed the economy based on free market, in that amount it had developed in the feudal Russia. Later the state managed economy was introduced in countryes which were not as backward as Russia had been, for example in East Germany and Checkoslovakia. That it did work for some time shows us that the followers of Marx had some sort of understanding of the development of society. The stalinist system started to collapse at the same time as the keynesian economical theory, which was also based on industrialization and state intervention, came to end and had to give place for neoliberalism. So it might be so that Marx was right for a long period (over a century) which makes him very intresting theorician even today, and worth reading. After all the succes of revolutionary communism was based on economical development and its destruction on economical decline.

The official internationalism of communist movement meat just the hegemony of Moscow and that all the communist partyes in world were to service the russian intrests. Or it was not russian, but something called "homo sovieticus", which was the ideal of soviet national policy. These people occupied the other soviet republics, for example the Baltic states after the second world war. These were the seedes planted of which later crew nationalism of different soviet states and which later led to the distruction of societ empire. The position of the communist partyes around the world was not admirable during Stalins reing. Communist partyes all over the world suffered from cleansing, which virtually destroyd many communist partyes, as their leadership was replaced with Moscows puppets. Only the most ruthles and loyal followers of Stalin could save their position and in many cases theyr life.

The leninist party was formed on the basic of democratic cerntralism. This meant that there were to be discussions about the policy of the party at lover levels, which could guide the higer levels and even elect them. This was the democratic side of leninist party conception. Centralism on the other hand meant that the minority had obey the majority and the lower levels of power had to obey the decicions of the higher levels. Stalin destroyd the democratic part of this conception and all power was cantralyzed at the hands of the party leadership. This was done by brutal use of force and terror.

The stalinism was condemned by Khrutchev in 1956 when he declared that the opression of stalisnist times was the fault of Stalin personally. This shocked the world and was the beginng of erosion of the bolshevik monolith. The period of Khruchev was followed by stalinist era when there was Brezhnev at leadership of the party. At this time there was no terror in that magnitude as during Stalins time but political opinions were checcked and all recistance was smashed. Only the period of Gorbachev did finaly mean the destruction of stalinism. He was for revitalization of soviet union in democratic and decentralized nut still socialist direction. This was false hope, becose only open capitalism and liberal demoracy could satisfy the political dissents who finally got theyr voice heard. So now it might be so that the destruction stalinsim means also the destruction of socialism. At least for a quite a long period.

Back to Samppa Sirno's left wing page