 |
|
|
|
|
Could this industrial and military success have been accomplished any other way than the use of brutal, violent, and death-dealing Stalinist methods?
Analysts are divided on this topic, which is most often phrased by scholars as "Was Stalin 'Necessary'"? (see Alec Nove, Was Stalin Really Necessary?, Routledge, 1964).
To examine this thorny issue, one must question the question. "Necessary for what?" could be asked. Most scholars deal first with the economic aspects. Here, we can draw up a list of economic accomplishments of Stalin and Stalinism, which include for example the fact that he:
- ended capitalism in the Soviet Union (whether good or bad depends on other kinds of judgments)
- built the world's first and largest collectivized farming system
- made the Soviet Union a great industrial power, bringing the country from "backward" status to the top-ranked of world industrial nations
- built the world's first state socialist system, with benefits such as no unemployment, social services for all citizens, and elimination of mass illiteracy
- led the country to victory in World War II
- built an Eastern European Empire
- held the "encircling capitalist countries" at bay
When the world-renowned playwright (and Fabian socialist) George Bernard Shaw visited the Soviet Union in the mid-thirties, he observed "splendidly illustrated magazines, crowds of brightly dressed people, well-fed happy looking workers...; no one seeing these people will ever believe tales of a half-starved population dwelling under the lash of a ruthless tyrant in labor camps."
On the other hand, what was the "price" for all this? Here we get into the socio-political and cultural areas of the discussion. One is also reminded that Stalin:
- created a "cult of personality" and ruled as a dictator, eliminating all independent thought and institutional initiative
- was responsible for the deaths of millions during collective campaigns, through the forced labor camps, via blunders in World War II, and through personal vengeance before and after the war
- isolated the Soviet Union from most of the world, sealing its people inside, and keeping foreigners out
- defined for the world socialism in a narrow, Russian sense, splitting Russia off from Western Socialist traditions
- created an entire system based upon a fear that penetrated the hearts and souls of every living citizen
- created a new "privileged class" that exploited nine-tenths of the rest of the population
When confronted with some of these negative features, Soviets and many non-Soviet sympathizers (scholars, too, even after Stalin's death), reminded the world that the USSR was going through an "industrial revolution." They pointed out that England, America, and all industrial nations had themselves gone through very painful times during the early and middle parts of their industrial revolutions, in which thousands died of machine injuries, brutal capitalist exploitation, and harsh living conditions; only the West's travails lasted many decades. Factually speaking, this cannot be denied.
So, how does one judge all this? Clearly, it is a very complex and thorny issue, requiring soul-searching as well as fact-finding.
- Dr. Howard Holter
