How to be a communist in the USSR...

[B0LSHEVIK]

I was reading a book when a reference to Soviet pilots during world war II was made. It claims that Soviet pilots that were party members, and whom were shot down behind enemy lines, made no haste in tearing up their party card and papers. This was because Germans shot partisans on identification as such. Apparently, not all pilots were communist party members however. Im sure that would apply to most of the populace. So, how is it that in a communist country, not all were communists? Was being a party member open to everybody? Or was it restricted? I know for example that in Cuba, one must be recommended by a current member. Is this a remnant of the Soviet system?

All summed up, how did one become an official communist party member in the Soviet Union?

[B0LSHEVIK]

Anyone????

[Born in the USSR]

So, how is it that in a communist country, not all were communists?Well,there was 19 millions of the CPSU members in 1980s.And if I not misstake,there were less than a million before the WW2.


Was being a party member open to everybodyNo, it was easy for workers,but difficult for intelligentsia,there were a certain quota for them.


I know for example that in Cuba, one must be recommended by a current member. Is this a remnant of the Soviet system?
I think,yes.Only you must be recommended by two current members in the USSR and have a year of a test period.

[mykittyhasaboner]

No, it was easy for workers,but difficult for intelligentsia,there were a certain quota for them.
...and yet there were almost always as many 'intelligentsia' in the party as there were workers. Do you have any sourced information for this quota you refer to?

[B0LSHEVIK]

Well,there was 19 millions of the CPSU members in 1980s.And if I not misstake,there were less than a million before the WW2.

No, it was easy for workers,but difficult for intelligentsia,there were a certain quota for them.

I think,yes.Only you must be recommended by two current members in the USSR and have a year of a test period.

If workers could join, and it was easy, why then didnt more workers join? It only makes sense for the vasty majority of people to want to join. Right?

[ComradeOm]

...and yet there were almost always as many 'intelligentsia' in the party as there were workers. Do you have any sourced information for this quota you refer to?Somewhat excused in the 1930s under the assumption that the intelligentsia was now almost entirely comprised of 'proletarian intellectuals'. This is the point at which the former 'bourgeois specialists' were formerly welcomed back into the fold. Until then, ie during the 1920s, an intellectual occupation was not a good thing to have on an application form and the majority of the Party's membership was not intellectuals


If workers could join, and it was easy, why then didnt more workers join?A cynic might suggest that the Party was simply not that popular. This reached its nadir during the early 1920s and Civil War years when the Party actually prevented people from leaving so as to maintain its numbers

More to the point though, by the late 1920s membership of the CPSU brought definite advantages but also obligations. Not only did you have to pay dues (a financial burden that was particularly unwanted during the lean times) but you were expected to also donate time to Party affairs. Which was an added hassle that was, again, not particularly welcome. By the 1930s the Party was unquestionably the fast track to success but, as a result, it tended to attract those most interested in a career in the bureaucracy or management. For manual workers there was limited appeal to its activities

And we are of course talking about workers here. For the early decades of the USSR's existence this was a decidedly limited constituency. Peasants and other elements could join but were usually the first to be expelled during one of the regular purges of the membership (which only became violent in the 1930s)

[B0LSHEVIK]

Somewhat excused in the 1930s under the assumption that the intelligentsia was now almost entirely comprised of 'proletarian intellectuals'. This is the point at which the former 'bourgeois specialists' were formerly welcomed back into the fold. Until then, ie during the 1920s, an intellectual occupation was not a good thing to have on an application form and the majority of the Party's membership was not intellectuals

A cynic might suggest that the Party was simply not that popular. This reached its nadir during the early 1920s and Civil War years when the Party actually prevented people from leaving so as to maintain its numbers

More to the point though, by the late 1920s membership of the CPSU brought definite advantages but also obligations. Not only did you have to pay dues (a financial burden that was particularly unwanted during the lean times) but you were expected to also donate time to Party affairs. Which was an added hassle that was, again, not particularly welcome. By the 1930s the Party was unquestionably the fast track to success but, as a result, it tended to attract those most interested in a career in the bureaucracy or management. For manual workers there was limited appeal to its activities

And we are of course talking about workers here. For the early decades of the USSR's existence this was a decidedly limited constituency. Peasants and other elements could join but were usually the first to be expelled during one of the regular purges of the membership (which only became violent in the 1930s)

Hey comrade, could you recommend any books for this period in Soviet affairs?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It wasn't a 'communist country', first of all. It was a country, but it wasn't communist, and for sure, no country could ever be termed communist, in parallel existence as a country.

Now that i've gotten over my pedantry, i'd say that not everyone needs be a Communist. That is natural. You cannot force people to become Communists. This is perhaps where the USSR fell down from the very beginning, from Lenin onwards, really.
Better that there is an organic growth in class consciousness, than that false proclamations of pro-Socialism are forced out through repression, centralisation and so on.

[Born in the USSR]

If workers could join, and it was easy, why then didnt more workers join? It only makes sense for the vasty majority of people to want to join. Right?


Becouse the working class is not uniform,not all workerts are progressive,becouse the communist party is a party of a vanguard of a worker class.
60% of the CPSU were workers - is it too little?

[sanpal]

60% of the CPSU were workers - is it too little?

Hm, where did you find such figure? I think it was vice versa

[Die Neue Zeit]

More to the point though, by the late 1920s membership of the CPSU brought definite advantages but also obligations. Not only did you have to pay dues (a financial burden that was particularly unwanted during the lean times) but you were expected to also donate time to Party affairs. Which was an added hassle that was, again, not particularly welcome. By the 1930s the Party was unquestionably the fast track to success but, as a result, it tended to attract those most interested in a career in the bureaucracy or management. For manual workers there was limited appeal to its activities

And we are of course talking about workers here. For the early decades of the USSR's existence this was a decidedly limited constituency. Peasants and other elements could join but were usually the first to be expelled during one of the regular purges of the membership (which only became violent in the 1930s)

So why was there no commitment later on to be a "mass party" after Stalin?

[ComradeOm]

Hey comrade, could you recommend any books for this period in Soviet affairs?Which period? The Stalin years? The history of the USSR is pretty epic in scope. I might put together a quick bibliography someday but most of my interest is in the early revolutionary years, through the NEP, to the Stalin reforms

Moshe Lewin's A Soviet Century is a decent introduction to the USSR that you may want to start with. Shelia Fitzpatrick's The Russian Revolution is a great introduction to 1917 but also has the benefit of extending the timeframe out to the 1930s; its a good, and very concise, introductory work


So why was there no commitment later on to be a "mass party" after Stalin?If I had to sum it up in one reason (boo!) then I'd say that it was because there was simply no need for it. Having fulfilled its role (largely one of mobilisation and control of a weak state apparatus) during the 1930s and '40s, the Party as an independent entity had effectively destroyed its raison d'etre. Hence the emergence of what Lewin calls the 'no-party dictatorship' during the latter Stalin years as, from the factory level upwards, the strengthening bureaucracy rendered the need for any external controlling body unnecessary

Khrushchev did try to revitalise to the Party, to re-ignite its ideological fires, but by this stage, to continue the metaphor, it would have been trying to light damp logs. The need for any sort of mass party (beyond as an entry level stepping stone for the elite) had passed

Which is one, simplistic, take on it

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thanks for bringing up again Lewin's book (I'm well aware of his argument in my own advocacy of a genuine one-party system). The growth to 19-20 million members should have occurred sooner than the early 1980s. Or maybe it's my Red Alert hangover for Stalin in that game requiring every citizen to be a party member. :D

[ComradeOm]

The growth to 19-20 million members should have occurred sooner than the early 1980s*Shrugs* Wouldn't have made a difference unless its role had been different. In the early decades there was so much attention paid to the numbers and composition of the Party's membership because it actually mattered. It was the single most powerful institution in the USSR and its members were held (however hypocritically) to higher standards. The explosion in numbers in the last decade or two was only possible because this was no longer the case; the Party had become little more than an opportunity to network while working your way up the social ladder

[Born in the USSR]

Hm, where did you find such figure? I think it was vice versa


In 1981 there were 43,4% of workers,12,8% of collective farmers ( agricultural workers in fact ),43,8% of intelligenzia and militaries in the CPSU. (from Materials of 26th Congress of the CPSU).

[sanpal]

In 1981 there were 43,4% of workers,12,8% of collective farmers ( agricultural workers in fact ),43,8% of intelligenzia and militaries in the CPSU. (from Materials of 26th Congress of the CPSU).

Thanks for factual material. Of course I could have an idea about it only from my experience of living in the USSR and intuition but not from historic documents. My grand-mother became a member of Party in early 20s and my father became a communist in the period of WWII. I think there were two waves when the high rate of workers came to CPSU. Originally it was enthusiasm of builders of new socialist society just after revolution. Everyone can see how enthusiasm of people in that period became apparent even in the names which young parents gave theirs babies: it was not traditional russian names as Ivan, Maria, Dmitriy, Vladimir, etc., among my relatives there were names Alpha, Omega, Progress, one of my mother's class-mates had name Dasdraperma (combination from the words "ДА ЗДРАвравствует ПЕРвое МАя!" i.e. "Long Live 1 of May!"). In my opinion during the WWII the rising of patriotism was a reason for coming of new members.
Paragraphs of regulation of member of CPSU for all honest and active persons were really good. But in the USSR the Party control of economic activity (fulfilment of economic plan, selection of executive personnel, especially on the key posts etc.) led to inosculation of Party and governing in one Party-State apparatus. CPSU became a tool for careerism. The workers had no special reason to go to Party of communists: enthusiasm came to the end. The Party quickly was becoming the Party of officials. To correct the situation there was a limit for non-worker new candidates (for example 5 or 10 workers and one intelligentcia). But future careerists have found the exit. I got an evening education in the technical institute i.e. working in the day and studying in the evening. Less than a half of students (and me too)learned subjects for themselves. The other students learned subjects very badly but became communists without limit as they were workers during studying and, after finishing of studying, they became officials for their careers.

[ComradeOm]

Thanks for factual material. Of course I could have an idea about it only from my experience of living in the USSR and intuition but not from historic documents. My grand-mother became a member of Party in early 20s and my father became a communist in the period of WWII. I think there were two waves when the high rate of workers came to CPSU. Originally it was enthusiasm of builders of new socialist society just after revolution. Everyone can see how enthusiasm of people in that period became apparent even in the names which young parents gave theirs babies: it was not traditional russian names as Ivan, Maria, Dmitriy, Vladimir, etc., among my relatives there were names Alpha, Omega, Progress, one of my mother's class-mates had name Dasdraperma (combination from the words "ДА ЗДРАвравствует ПЕРвое МАя!" i.e. "Long Live 1 of May!"). In my opinion during the WWII the rising of patriotism was a reason for coming of new membersYeah, it tended to come in waves. During the 1920s the Party leadership was pretty conflicted - on the one hand they wanted more members, and on the other they didn't want to introduce many non-worker elements. So you had the likes of large recruitment drives, like the so-called Lenin Enrolment of 1923 onwards, followed shortly by bloodless purges of the membership. This pattern continued into the 1930s, then the purges became very bloody indeed

That said, the 1930s did see an increase as the state promoted more and more party members to bureaucratic positions. Turnover was incredibly high - by 1932 over half of the party secretaries in Moscow had joined the Party within the previous four years. All of which only added to the chaos in the state institutions

Interesting point on WWII. I don't have any figures but you're probably right in that the war would have both given the Party a new image and brought a lot of soldiers into it