Two Stalinisms?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I've come across a few historian works recently in regards to the functioning of the Soviet state under Stalin as opposed to under his successors. Were there two separate bureaucracies altogether (excluding the trade-union bureaucracy that was outmaneuvered in the 1920s)? In the 1930s, as the purges rolled along, it seems that Stalin wanted greater emphasis on the state bureaucracy, with the party playing second fiddle (hence the purges within the party). Even the "Partyocrat" Khrushchev alluded to this in his "Secret Speech," with the "quintets, sextets, septets, and novenaries" replacing the politburo, not to mention the mass purge of the 17th congress.

In the late 40s, this continued, since "General Secretary" Stalin (having effectively abolished that served-its-rise-to-power-purpose post in 1934 for the rest of his life) signed documents only as chairman of Sovmin, leaving Malenkov to sign those same documents as a representative of the party. The politburo still wasn't functioning as it should have nominally, since Beria, Malenkov, Molotov, Bulganin, etc. were all making decisions as part of a higher body within Sovmin.

Then came along Stalin's death and all this "Glory to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" stuff (yes, that was a Soviet poster slogan during the Brezhnev era). The state positions (Sovmin chairman) became very secondary to party positions, Malenkov's attempt to preserve the paramountcy of the state bureaucracy failed, and the "Partyocracy" emerged (and Lenin's old state position ultimately became a middle-tiered position within Politburo affairs, playing second fiddle to additional "Partyocrats" besides the First/General Secretary).

Comments?



[Personally, I am of the opinion that, just as Stalin's realpolitik betrayed the Russian revolution, his successors' realpolitik betrayed both that and "orthodox Stalinism," particularly on the issues of "peaceful coexistence" and "party of the whole people" - hence some validity to the "revisionism" analysis that the proper Stalinists and the Maoists have on post-Stalin Soviet society.]

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There was certainly variation in the power structure of the Soviet Union over time, but I'm generally very skeptical of people who seem to believe that every little change in policy or government structure was a complete revolution or counter-revolution that changed the entire nature and class basis of the USSR.

It doesn't work that way. There is plenty of variation in the way the bourgeoisie runs its various states, but I don't think anyone here would disagree that a bourgeois state is still a bourgeois state regardless of whether it's a presidential republic, a parliamentary monarchy, or some form of dictatorship.

Sure there were differences between the USSR under Stalin and the USSR after Stalin, but I don't see them as being greater than the differences between, say, present-day Iceland and Chile under Pinochet. If there is variety among bourgeois states, then we should expect similar variety among - well, whatever you think the USSR was.

And, of course, it is useful to remember that a ruling class is not necessarily a single, monolithic power bloc. There may be separate rival factions fighting for supremacy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What about Zdhanov? He was up against Beria and Molotov because he was concerned that "Communist ideology" was playing second fiddle to technocracy. [I think the code-words here are "The Party has played second fiddle to the State apparatus for far too long." Not only were his supporters outmaneuvered after his death, but he himself fell out of favour with Stalin because of his positions.]

Ironically, Khrushchev became Zdhanov's best student.

[Labor Shall Rule]

A bureaucracy has corresponding interests, which is it's self-preservation, but that doesn't mean that there aren't sections of it that are beneficiaries when the 'ball is in their court'.

The trade-union bureaucracy would of been enriched if they were given control over the economic superstructure, but their attempt failed. I am sure that the factory and plant managers of the arm industry were delighted by their control over the party. The power structure was based in the centralized economy, which was centered on the production of use-values for their own domestic markets, and the world market was directly interested in the rifles, tanks, artillery, and machine guns built within the confines of the Soviet Union. So, they had the most control of the state bureaucracy.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Hammer
In the 1930s, as the purges rolled along, it seems that Stalin wanted greater emphasis on the state bureaucracy, with the party playing second fiddle (hence the purges within the party).
Diminishing the role of the party was one of Stalin's largest failings. It goes back to paranoia (it always does with Stalin). Stalin was already outmaneuvering the rest of the Party during Lenin's last years. I think that the stement 'two Stalinisms' still applies, however.