Kent Academic Repository Full text document (pdf) Citation for published version Bensley, Michael (2014) Socialism in One Country: A Study of Pragmatism and Ideology in the Soviet 1920s. Master of Arts by Research (MARes) thesis, University of Kent,. DOI Link to record in KAR https://kar.kent.ac.uk/47659/ Document Version UNSPECIFIED Copyright & reuse Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of research The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. Enquiries For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: [email protected] If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html Socialism in One Country: A Study of Pragmatism and Ideology in the Soviet 1920s. Michael Bensley Masters by Research Thesis [email protected] Student Number: 13901920 Date of Submission: 19/09/2014 Supervisor: Dr Philip Boobbyer Word Count of Text: 37, 220. 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 2 Michael Bensley Introduction 'The History of all Hitherto Existing Society is the History of Class Struggles.'1 - Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848. The period which existed between the establishment of the Bolshevik-led Republic in 1917 and Stalin's assumption of complete power in the late 1920s has been a focus of historical interest for decades. In this time the Soviet narrative began and what was once the Bolshevik dream would become twisted by events, bureaucracy, and personalities. The task of applying Marxian socialism to the Russia of 1917 would involve a colossal undertaking. Russia was a vast nation which contained a largely peasant population and, by contrast, a small and underdeveloped working class. The belief that Russia could be the first to try to build socialism, a path more befitting the industrialised west, inexorably led to a great many difficulties. The ferment of revolutionary feeling prior to the Bolshevik takeover can be attributed to a general disenchantment with the Tsarist Imperial administration, and the weak Provisional Government which came to replace it, which had shared its power alongside the Workers' Soviets. Furthermore, the First World War, a conflict on a scale which had never been experienced quite so profoundly by all sectors of society, had brought such a sense of anguish to the masses that the Bolsheviks were able to capitalise on their unique opportunity. However, the processes of industrialisation had not expanded to a position where a socialist revolution was ripe; the means of production had not developed enough by this stage. Despite this, it has nevertheless been said that there was something admirable about the sheer daring of the venture. Indeed, writing from her prison cell in 1918 Germany, Rosa Luxemburg had stated in her piece The Russian Revolution that 'Lenin and 1 K. Marx and F. Engels, The Communist Manifesto (London, Pluto Press, 2008 , originally published in 1848) P.33 3 Michael Bensley Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones H I '2 Robert V. Daniels has written that 'the successful proletarian revolution in Russia proved Marx wrong by showing that socialism could win without previous industrial capitalism. But if Marx's predictions cannot be relied upon, with what assurance can the revolution be described as "proletarian?"'3 Clearly, this was a Bolshevik revolution rather than an orthodox socialist one. The ideology of the state would undergo enormous shifts in the coming years as a result of certain events. How Marxist theory could be applied would shift according to the needs of those in power. Even from the premise no 'workers' state' truly existed. It was, nevertheless, necessary for propaganda purposes to proclaim that that it did.4 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 t T T 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. Another line from Rosa Luxemburg's The Russian Revolution aptly summarised the 2R. Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution, and Leninism or Marxism? (Ann Arbor, Michigan University Press, 1961, The Russian Revolution was originally published in 1918), p.80 - Ulrich von Hutten was a German knight and reformist in the 16th Century. He supported the Lutheran reformation, and had attempted to enforce it by a popular crusade. 3 R.V. Daniels (ed.), A Documentary History of Communism Volume 1 Communism in Russia (London, I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd, 1985), p.xxvii. 4 Ibid., p.xxvii. 5 See L. Trotsky, The Permanent Revolution and Results and Prospects (New York, Pathfinder, 1969, Results and Prospects was originally published in 1906) 4 Michael Bensley situation, at least from an outside perspective: 'In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia.'6 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 in their 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 whic B 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 6 Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution, and Leninism or Marxism? p.80. 7 I. Deutscher, The Prophet Unarmed Trotsky: 1921-1929 (London, Oxford University Press, 1959), p.29. 8 M. Malia, The Soviet Tragedy: A History of the Soviet Union 1917-1991 (New York, The Free Press, 1995), p.111. & pp.137-138. 9 See M. Lewin, L L S (London, Pluto Press, 1973) 5 Michael Bensley 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.