The Russian Revolution
In her book, The Russian Revolution, Sheila Fitzpatrick attempts to study how the events following the 1917 revolution came about and how these events would have a long-term effect on how the Soviet Union would be run until its demise in 1991, particularly at the time when Stalin came to power following the death of Lenin. From this point, it would appear that the direction the USSR would take deviated from the goals set by Lenin in creating a dictatorship by the proletariat in the spirit of Marxist thought. As a result, instead of the supposed dictatorship by the proletariat, what came about was the creation of a new bourgeoisie, the very same entity the Bolsheviks (ironically) wanted to eliminate. This new set of elites was now composed this time of leading Bolshevik figures that were at the forefront of the Russian Revolution and later on came to power along with Lenin.
In trying to explain what went wrong with the Russian Revolution, Fitzpatrick makes use of a framework used by another scholar Crane Brinton in his book, Anatomy of a Revolution. Using the French Revolution as his model, Brinton states that revolutions tend to follow a life cycle of its own beginning with the fomenting of unrest, the progression of revolutionary zeal and the drive for radical transformation until it reaches its climactic state (qtd. in (Fitzpatrick 2). What would follow is what Brinton would call a Thermidorian phase where the revolutionary zeal would wane, there would be disillusionment towards the revolutionary ideals that used to be enthusiastically exercised and later on, the desire to restore semblance of normalcy in society (qtd. in Fitzpatrick 2).
One indicator of this deviation from Marxist-Leninist ideas under Stalins rule was the implementation of the first Five-Year Plan. During Lenins leadership, War Communism nearly destroyed Russias economy, and in a bid to bring stability, Lenin implemented the New Economic Policy which called for liberalization, something considered anathema to communist ideals. Lenin justified it as an interim phase as the Soviet Union was still going through the motions of instability. Upon Lenins death, Stalin took over but not after dislodging other rivals for the highest position not only in the Kremlin, but in the communist party as well. He would launch what was considered a revolution from above. The (first) Five-Year Plan was part of this grand design. It called for the rapid industrialization of the USSRs economy in order for it not to lag behind the highly industrialized western powers which Stalin feared would take advantage of Russias economic weakness. Therefore, there was an effort to jumpstart Russian industries. Corollary to this industrialization program was the collectivization of the farms where famers were grouped into larger collective farms. While the industrialization process was making inroads, it was the collectivization program that was the bane of the Five-Year Plan. Collectivization had adverse consequences in the agricultural sector as farmers were became resentful of its policies, one of which was being compelled to sell their produce at very low prices they found unreasonable. As a result of this, they slaughtered their livestock which also had another effect as famine struck Russia and the meager food supply caused led to many deaths. At the same time, it also resulted in deaths of kulaks regarded as bourgeois by Stalins regime and killing them off was the way of eliminating classes in the agricultural sector, not to mention, they were seen as a threat to the new regime therefore the need to eliminate them. Stalin wanted to use these collectives, called kolkhoz as his centerpiece to show that the Soviet Union is a socialist paradise but in the eyes of those who lived through it, it was a far cry from what Stalin envisioned. Instead of a modern, self-sufficient, tightly-knit and efficient community, people living in the kolkhoz lived in very primitive and substandard conditions and this also contributed to deaths of a larger scale during the famine (Fitzpatrick 154).
Another indicator would be the cultural revolution under Stalin. This cultural revolution would be akin to the Cultural Revolution that would subsequently occur in China under the rule of Mao Zedong in the 1960s. Like Mao, Stalin felt there were still enemies of the Revolution abound, especially those from the political Right whom Stalin regarded as coddlers of the old intelligentsia who were said to still harbor bourgeois ideas and were regarded counter-productive and posed a threat to the communist state because of their reliance on non-party experts who might corrupt them with capitalist ideas and thereby subvert society. In 1928, Stalin launched a cultural revolution that was intended to sweep away the old ways of thinking and reinvent Russian society by replacing it with a new culture consistent with proletarian ideals. For his vanguard, Stalin employed the Komsomol the Communist Party Youth Organization, along with several other militant organizations. At closer glance, they were similar to Maos Red Guards more than 30 years later.
Institutions affected were mainly governmental and educational institutions that were suspected of harboring counter-revolutionaries and revisionists, such as those who subscribed to the theories of Leon Trotsky and Mikhail Bukharin as well as those associated with the rival Mensheviks. Cultural centers were not spared as well as bourgeois-themed arts were eradicated and efforts were made to create a new Soviet culture that extols the proletariat. Yet, despite these purges, Stalin once remarked he was a man of culture which appeared to have rubbed off on his followers who did not want to appear very crude or coarse and had to refine their manners without compromising communist teachings (Fitzpatrick 159).
The educational system underwent an overhaul, particularly the teaching and studying of history. This subject was abolished after the Revolution but made a comeback under Stalin as part of projecting the image that he was a man of culture by including and strongly emphasizing Russias heroes such as Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great. On the social front, abortion and divorce as well as recognizing womens right to work as part of doing away with old values that were considered anachronistic (Fitzpatrick 160).
While Stalins cultural revolution had some beneficial results such as reforms in education and empowering women, it cannot be avoided to also point out that this also spawned widespread persecution of those considered counter-revolutionary or revisionist even before the Great Purges took place. The Komsomol and other militant leaders at the forefront of this continuing revolution were the biggest beneficiaries. These movers and shakers benefited from the Five-Year Plan by going to these reopened colleges and upon graduation they became Red Experts. These new experts would later on occupy key positions in the Soviet government already cleansed of its unwanted elements. They were regarded as more politically reliable since they were heavily indoctrinated in Marxist-Leninist teachings and considered pure enough to be entrusted with political power and stewardship of key Soviet infrastructures. There was also upward mobility among the working class as those that showed leadership potential and devotion to Marxist-Leninist ideals were promoted to become leaders and managers of their companies also cleansed of bourgeois vermin.
However, in looking at this upward mobility, the direction of the Soviet Union was not heading for the goal Marx envisioned where the state will eventually wither away as Fitzpatrick saw it. The state would remain in place and continue to dominate the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991. If there would be one good explanation on why it happened, it turned out that the Bolshevik leaders were not immune to the Thermidorian effect. Stalin and his successors, as well as their protgs, became the new elite or bourgeoisie of the Soviet Union. This came at the time when the new Soviet government was trying to consolidate itself. It ended up inheriting the institutions of power in the Kremlin. Although they had eliminated the people who occupied these halls of power, they took their place (Fitzpatrick 5).
Furthermore, Stalins revolution from above fell short of achieving its goals of trying to keep revolutionary fervor alive. It had adverse effects on its society, causing poverty and resulted in wholesale slaughter of people whether through famine or persecution. Despite its promises of equality and creation of a workers paradise, another reason for the Soviet Unions collapse, as well as its satellite states was the flaws of Marxism which espoused equality in poverty. This would hardly qualify communist states as genuine utopias as Marx envisioned. As a result, it was communism that faded away. While the Russian Revolution was hailed as the end of an old era, it failed to sustain its momentum as its leaders fell prey to the trappings of power.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment