STALIN & ECONOMICS.   Term Paper ID:26984 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Examines Soviet dictator's application of Marxist theory to economic planning, development, industrialization, politics.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 2 sources, 8 Citations, MLA Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Examines Soviet dictator's application of Marxist theory to economic planning, development, industrialization, politics. Paper Introduction: Joseph Stalin was not a theorist. But he was a consummate politician and in the 1920s Marxist-Leninist theoretical grounding was a primary mode of legitimation for those who aspired to leadership of the Russian Communist Party. Stalin was, therefore, always able to elucidate an appropriate theoretical pedigree for whatever he believed was the best course for the new nation or, not incidentally, for his own political ends. Stalin's first Five Year Plan -- adopted, modified, and approved between September 1928 and April 1929 -- was just such a course of action. Having achieved power Stalin's choice of the Five Year Plan was a radical departure from his previously stated intentions. But, like his other politically adroit changes of direction on economic policy, the Plan received in its turn the sanction of Marxist-Leninist thinking as interpreted or applied Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Preobrazhensky, on the other hand,held that the NEP conditions meant that, in allowing the kulaks and othersectors of the economy to flourish, the Russian economy was still a matterof class war in which socialist and capitalist sectors fought each other.He cited Lenin's remark that the enemies within were "anarchic capitalismand anarchic product exchange" (quoted in Tucker 376). One part of Lenin's wishes that wasadhered to was the New Economic Policy (NEP). But, like his otherpolitically adroit changes of direction on economic policy, the Planreceived in its turn the sanction of Marxist-Leninist thinking asinterpreted or applied by Stalin. Stalin himself remained largely outside the industrialization debatebut seized instead on the notion, raised by Bukharin but not fullyexploited, that socialism in one country was indeed possible. Stalin's final acceptance of superindustrialization and the forcedcollectivization of agricultural derived directly from his originalunderstanding of Marxism-Leninism as a call to develop Russian socialism bypursuing class warfare and militantly ensuring the success of the processof building Russian socialism. He adopted the first Five Year Plan in September 1928and one month later he denounced the Bukharinists, with their fear ofextreme emergency measures such as forced agricultural collectivism, asworking against the interests of Soviet socialism. In classical Marxist theory proletarian revolution would take placein industrialized, urbanized societies and the transitional phase in whichthe revolutionary proletarian dictatorship would rule, which became knownas socialism, would last, at most, a couple of years before full communism-- the liberation of the modern productive capacity fostered originally bycapitalism -- came into being. proletarian revolution inthe principal industrialized nations of Europe. Herepeatedly ascribed this notion to Lenin and, abandoning the interpretationof Lenin he had previously made (when he had agreed that Lenin held thatcomplete socialist victory required proletarian revolution in severalnations) he "casuistically re-interpreted" Lenin's remarks about "completevictory" as meaning not the complete building of socialism in Russia but"the safety of Soviet socialism from external danger" (379-8 ). Joseph Stalin was not a theorist. As Tucker notes, Stalin's reputation as a pragmatist with littleknowledge of theory is usually exaggerated -- in part because Stalinpromoted a picture of himself as a young Social Democratic "practicalworker" while others ignored the fact that, if not a theorist, Stalin wasat least well versed in much of the theory (116). His claims regarding Lenin's view of the"safety" of Russian socialism may have been casuistic, his use of forcewhen the class war continued may have exceeded anything Marx envisioned,his adherence to Lenin's notion of "building" socialism may have divergedfrom Lenin's notion of NEP gradualism, and his advocacy of socialism-in-one-country may have been justified only by judicious quotation from thetheorists. Stalin saw, quitepractically, that the government's difficulties with grain procurementwould only worsen as the kulaks (and the middle peasants), being relativelyfree under the NEP to pursue their own advantage, would withhold suppliesuntil they could secure better prices. As onecontemporary recalled of Stalin at Baku prison in 19 8, "Marxism was hiselement, there he was invincible . The Bolsheviks held that two conditions wouldhave to precede this new socialist revolution: "support for it in good timeby socialist revolution in one or several advanced countries, and agreementbetween the proletariat and the majority of the peasant population" (37 ). But the Five Year Plan would, he held, accomplish theparticular goals that he had developed through his study of Marx and Leninand the ends would justify the means. As the factions emerged inthe struggle for succession to the leadership Stalin was, once again, onthe hard right, opposed by Leon Trotsky, Lev Kamenev, and Grigory Zinovievwho had joined forces to defeat him. Stalin allied himself with Bukharin and the right in the powerstruggle against Trotsky and his allies and was, therefore, an advocate ofNEP gradualism so long as this served his purposes. Bukharin advocated what he called "agrarian-cooperative socialism" in which, very gradually, industrialization would beencouraged by increasing demand for goods among the peasantry (more than 22million households) which would increase agricultural productivity,yielding a surplus from which the government would derive additional taxesneeded for industrial investment (372). Inthis debate the principal voices in opposition were those of NikolaiBukharin and Evgeni Preobrazhensky -- both of whom claimed to draw theirpositions directly from Lenin. In hisearly political incarnation Stalin sided with the so-called "hards" whowere opposed to the moderation of the left. But he was a consummate politicianand in the 192 s Marxist-Leninist theoretical grounding was a primary modeof legitimation for those who aspired to leadership of the RussianCommunist Party. and he could find an appropriateMarx formula for every phenomenon" (Simeon Vereschak, quoted in Tucker117). Stalin as Revolutionary: 1879-1929. Soviet and Post-Soviet Economic Structure and Performance. But once Trotsky andhis allies had been expelled from the Party -- in significant part becausetheir adherence to Lenin's belief in the need for world revolution as anessential factor preceding Russian socialism seemed disloyal to the RussianRevolution in contrast with Stalin's faith in one-nation socialism --Stalin turned on Bukharin and his associates. Industrialization was, therefore, key to the whole newly mintednotion of 'building' socialism advocated by Lenin and his followers. Such subversive profit-mongeringwould, therefore, hold the progress of Soviet industrialization ransom andNEP gradualism would produce mere economic stagnation. He became a leading proponentof Lenin's militant interpretation of Marx and, as a leading advocate ofBolshevism, Stalin "found himself in his spiritual element" (121). Stuart. Following Lenin's death Stalin's astute politics kept him in the postof general secretary of the Central Committee despite Lenin's posthumouslyrevealed wish that he be removed and the increasing number who weresimilarly disturbed by Stalin's growing power. There was a seriousimbalance in demand -- which had risen once peasants, on becomingfreeholders, had no more rents and taxes were slashed -- and industrialcapacity, which remained extremely limited. But Leninist Marxism, specificallyapplicable to underdeveloped Russia interposed "a whole historical epochbetween the proletarian revolution and the advent of socialism"--a culturalrevolution that readied the backward nation for a society of educatedpeople in a technologically advanced economy who were capable of building asocialist society (369). Despite his constant maneuvering,however, Stalin's decision to adopt the superindustrialization andagricultural collectivization of the Five Year Plan was a continuation ofthe way he saw Marxism-Leninism, as, in brief, a call for the militantpursuit of a socialist government and, eventually, a communist state inRussia and any other nation that could launch a successful revolution. As a propaganda workerthe young Stalin was necessarily thoroughly immersed in Marxism. Socialismflowed inevitably, logically from Marx's systematic thought and justifiedthe revolutionary extremism that had a special appeal for Stalin. Stalin's first Five Year Plan -- adopted, modified, and approved betweenSeptember 1928 and April 1929 -- was just such a course of action. Although it was widelyagreed that the NEP was to be "the framework within which socialism wouldbe built in Russia," there was little agreement as to exactly how thiswould be done (368). Thus in the bitter power struggles that followed Lenin's death(January 1924) Stalin -- despite being pitted against some of the majorCommunist theorists -- was better prepared than his legend might suggest.He was well grounded in Marxism and, especially in his experience ofLeninism, he was fully aware of how variations on theoretical themes wereconstructed. Work CitedGregory, Paul R., and Robert C. The gradual development ofindustry favored by Bukharin and the NEP would merely increase that gap andthe rising demand would tend to put the new nation at risk from theinfluence of the industrialized nations who could meet the demand.Preobrazhensky, therefore, held that a major, enforced push towardindustrialization was the only answer. Stalin was, therefore, always able to elucidate anappropriate theoretical pedigree for whatever he believed was the bestcourse for the new nation or, not incidentally, for his own political ends. From his earliest study of Marxist theory Stalin was attracted todialectical materialism as a world view that provided "a coherent overallphilosophical image of the world" and conceived of society past and present"as a great battleground whereon two hostile forces -- bourgeoisie andproletariat -- are locked in mortal combat" (Tucker 118, 119). . . The principal theoretical question of the day --which had major implications for the choice of economic policy -- waswhether socialism could be established in one country (especially if thatcountry was backward, agricultural Russia) or if Russian socialism had towait, as Marx said, for world revolution, i.e. New York: Norton, 1974. Havingachieved power Stalin's choice of the Five Year Plan was a radicaldeparture from his previously stated intentions. TheRussian people would build their own socialist state, but only withproletarian revolutions elsewhere was the safety of that state ensuredbecause the threat of armed invasion by capitalist nations would then beaverted. New York: HarperCollins, 1994.Tucker, Robert C. Once again Stalin'soriginal attraction to the notion of class war in Marx's theory and themilitancy of Leninism exerted their pull as he pragmatically sought thebest means to avoid allowing the internal bourgeoisie to flourish (therebyperpetuating capitalism within the USSR) and to encourage necessaryindustrialization. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.