Nikolai Bukharin: Alternative Or Interregnum?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NIKOLAI BUKHARIN: ALTERNATIVE OR INTERREGNUM? by Anthony Stephen Novosel Bachelor of Arts, University of Pittsburgh, 1989 Master of Arts, University of Pittsburgh, 1991 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2005 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Anthony Stephen Novosel It was defended on September 16, 2005 and approved by Dr. Jonathan Harris, Associate Professor, Political Science Dr. Orysia Karapinka, Associate Professor, History Dr. Joseph White, Associate Professor, History Dr. William Chase, Professor, History Dissertation Director ii NIKOLAI BUKHARIN: ALTERNATIVE OR INTERREGNUM? Anthony Stephen Novosel, Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh, 2005 This dissertation examines the claims that Nikolai Bukharin was an inconsistent Marxist theoretician, at times “un-Marxist” in his thinking who radically altered his political philosophy to justify his support for such different policies as War Communism and the New Economic Policy. It also investigates the validity of the accepted wisdom that Bukharin represented a “liberal” alternative to Stalin and Stalinism within Bolshevism and that, by 1925, he had moved to the Right of the Party. This study begins by examining the conflicting visions of the state and the evolutionary and revolutionary strains within Marxism. It then studies the works of those Marxist thinkers, of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, whose work on the state, revolution and the transition to socialism significantly influenced Bukharin’s work. Finally, it subjects Bukharin’s major theoretical works on imperialism, revolution and the role of the state in the transition to socialism, between 1915-1925, to an in-depth analysis to determine the validity of the claims made about Bukharin and his works. While one can still argue that Bukharin may have acted differently from Stalin once in power, this dissertation demonstrates that Bukharin was consistent in his theoretical work on the revolution and the transition to socialism. This study also conclusively demonstrates that iii Bukharin was located within the heart of both Marxism and Bolshevism and did not move to the Right during the NEP. It clearly shows that Bukharin’s support for War Communism and the NEP flowed directly from his original synthesis of the revolutionary and evolutionary strains within Marxism, and the need for a powerful, proletarian state, “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” that would manage the socialization of antagonistic petit-bourgeois elements into socialism, build socialism economically, and do whatever was necessary to protect the Revolution from its internal and external enemies. Thus, in reality, Bukharin, the “liberal alternative,” provided the philosophical foundation and justification for the use of unlimited state power, which in the hands of Stalin led to the “Revolution from Above” and from this perspective one can locate Bukharin as the philosophical interregnum between Lenin and Stalin. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE..................................................................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 1. THE STATE IN MARXIST THEORY................................................................................ 19 1.1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 19 1.2. Which Marx? Which Marxism?.................................................................................... 20 2. RETHINKING THE ROAD TO SOCIALISM.................................................................... 32 2.1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 32 2.1.1. Eduard Bernstein and Evolutionary Socialism ..................................................... 36 2.1.2. Rudolf Hilferding and Finance Capital................................................................. 44 3. BUKHARIN AND THE IMPERIALIST STATE: 1914-1917 ........................................... 51 3.1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 51 3.2. Early Writings............................................................................................................... 53 3.2.1. Economic Theory of the Leisure Class................................................................. 54 3.3. Bukharin and State Capitalism...................................................................................... 57 3.4. The Great War, State Capitalism and Imperialism ....................................................... 59 3.4.1. Imperialism and the World Economy................................................................... 62 3.4.2. “Toward a Theory of the Imperialist State”.......................................................... 75 4. THE REVOLUTIONARY ROAD TO SOCIALISM .......................................................... 84 4.1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 84 v 4.2. Bukharin and Revolutionary Road to Socialism........................................................... 85 4.2.1. The ABC of Communism..................................................................................... 90 4.2.2. The Politics and Economics of the Transition Period........................................... 99 4.2.3. Historical Materialism ........................................................................................ 108 5. NEP: THE EVOLUTIONARY ROAD TO SOCIALISM ................................................ 119 5.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 119 5.2. “The New Course in Economic Policy” ..................................................................... 121 5.3. The Road to Socialism and the Worker-Peasant Alliance.......................................... 129 6. BUKHARINISM: REVOLUTIONARY AND EVOLUTIONARY MARXISM............. 137 6.1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 137 6.2. “Lenin as a Marxist”................................................................................................... 138 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................... 146 BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................... 152 vi PREFACE No one can write a dissertation alone and this dissertation is clear evidence of that. Many, many people are responsible for this finished work and this is my humble attempt to thank them all. I would first and foremost, like to express my gratitude to my committee. They have been absolutely marvelous and a great help to me since my undergraduate years. I can never repay Dr. William Chase’s kindness, friendship, support, help and guidance from my undergraduate years through this dissertation. Without him as my Chair, mentor, and friend, this dissertation would simply not exist. Many was the time I was ready to give up but he was always there to encourage me, provide me with help, ideas, suggestions and most importantly his and his family’s support and friendship. He went beyond the duties of a Chair and I am forever indebted to him. Dr. Orysia Karapinka’s great humor and wonderful friendship, her excellent recommendations in books, her probing questions and her faith in me as a teacher and scholar kept me going over the years. The improvement in my writing, which enabled me to complete this dissertation, is directly attributable to her persistence and hard work. I can never properly thank Dr. Jonathan Harris for his friendship and all he has done for me. Many is the time he sat down with me on his own time to discuss not just the dissertation, but many other topics. By his very tough questions, his eye for detail, his recommendations on readings and his ability to make me think through my positions, he made me discipline myself, intellectually, so that I understood exactly what I was reading, thinking and writing. Without that intellectual discipline, and his support no one would be reading this dissertation now. Dr. Joseph White provided me with friendship and his valuable time to use him as a sounding board where I could bounce various ideas off him and take advantage of his great knowledge of Marx and Marxism. I particularly appreciate all the times he just stopped by my table and carried on spontaneous conversations that helped me think through my ideas. Those times and conversations provided me with ideas and insights that enabled me to finish this dissertation. I cannot leave out the Advising Center and all the Advisors there who supported me through the years. In particular, I have to thank Barbara Mellix, the director of the Advising Center. Without her support and her understanding of this process, I would never have had the opportunity to restart this dissertation, let alone finish it. I can never repay her for this support and can never thank her enough. Mary