Comrade Marcel
16th June 2003, 09:13
This was posted orginally on the CPC's message board, and was written by a member of Young Left.
"Stalinism"...
This seems to be a favourite term people like throwing around. Generally I have found it to be used in place of critical analysis of the actual problems confronting socialist construction. A method of sort of dismissing what is not perfect. A perjorative. The problem is the term is imprecise and people seldom feel the need to clarify what they mean by it. It is often left as a self-referential phrase appealing to deeply rooted misinformation and prejudices. The problem here isn't that Stalin or the USSR were perfect, but rather that this dismissiveness prevents a real critical analysis. Marxism is quickly replaced with a religious black and white view of "good leader"/"bad leader".
I have some really big criticisms of Stalin and more generally Soviet leadership in the international communist movement. But I don't think everything they did was wrong either, and I find it quite impossible to analyse this critically when the moment I say anything positive about Stalin-era USSR or Stalin's theory/leadership I am immediately branded a "Stalinist" and dismissed as harbouring a milleau of secret anti-democratic desires (speaking of anti-intellectualism the crusade against "Stalinism" has had its fair share of this tendency).
Is there nothing positive from the Stalin legacy? How about it's contributions to the fight against fascism? the struggle against poverty both in the USSR and internationally in the depression and the construction of the labour movement? The fight against racism and colonialism? I don't mean to say that in each of these areas every decision, strategy or action were the best, but to engage with reality is to make mistakes. And Stalin-inspired communists engaged on an unprecedented scale of energy and sacrifice.
I personally believe that what Stalin did early on in the late 20's beginning into the 30's was to some degree or another necessary to move ahead with socialism in the USSR in that particular era. This is where I think people start to get confused. It was NECESSARY BUT NOT DESIREABLE. The problem here is some people elevated necessity to virtue and conversly others who don't really understand the context and are idealists not scientific socialists seem to think there was a multitude of availible paths Russian socialism could have "chosen" from and would have if either Trotsky had succeeded Lenin or Lenin had lived longer. Some say we have to make sure we don't repeat the same mistakes - so we must be dismissive of "Stalinism". My response to this is to appeal for everyone to use a little common sense. Since the situation facing socialist construction in Canada would be so vastly different - we couldn't even reproduce Stalin-era USSR if we wanted to. It was a product of a specific context that can't just be selected off the shelf at the magical grocery store of options for socialist systems. Certainly the options and set of circumstances confronting the Soviets at that time were not desireable nor were they conducive to the healthiest most democratic path to socialist construction. But I've yet to see what a feasible alternative might have been. There were two sides to this path of development - both of which are inseparable in this context - unprecedented social progress and human cost. Neither can be denied.
On the issue of of the positive side because of the sacrifices and perserverence of Stalin-era socialism in the USSR the door was opened for formal decolonization, and a multitude of other revolutions from Vietnam to Cuba to China etc. etc. I know many people are quite fond (and rightly so) of the tremendous (and one might even suggest superior) revolutionary humanism and principles displayed by the Cuban revolution. But Cuba had the luxury of finding a more humane path to socialist construction because of the foundations and options opened up by Stalin-era socialist construction. Cuba was able to leisurely send off professionals to be trained in the USSR and to receive economic assistance and an alternative market which allowed them to survive and to develop at a different pace (and granted under a different starting point of economic conditions which were also more favourable because of a different agrarian situation). And any Cuban marxist I have spoken to knows that, and does give credit to the Stalin era sacrifice for making this possible. In particular the contributions of Stalin-era USSR and the theoretical contributions of Lenin and Stalin to anti-racism and anti-imperialism are astounding (the USSR recognizing Israel is a BIG blot on this record though). Read Nicolas Guillen, W.E.B. Dubois or any myriad of remarkable revolutionaries, artists and activists of African, Carribbean and Asian origin and the impact of Stalin and Lenin is immense in the devlopment of consciousness and an anti-racist assertion of humanity in the face of imperialism (the only notable exception to this that I am aware of is C.L.R. James). It is really truely incredible. But the impact of Stalin (and later Mao) on the consciousness, inspiration and aspirations of so much of progressive humanity in the Third world (whose voices are often muted on the western "white" left by a tandem of Western racist imperialism which removes them from history - and a self-righteous revisionism/trotskyism which censors and filters these writers, theorists, artists and rebels through a selective lens).
Also speaking as a history student if that wave of socialist revolution had succeeded in Western Europe and North America (which i can't quite see having happened Stalin or no Stalin) we would all view Stalin as some brilliant founding fore-father and kids would go to elementary schools named after him and read silly little picture books showing how Stalin lead the way to crush the Nazis. But our system wouldn't resemble 1930's Russia anymore than does USA 2003 resemble the America of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln (who burned towns to the ground among other things in the pursuit of victory and is hailed as a progressive democratic figure in most histories). But it didn't succeed. So here is where the ability to critically analyse is necessary. But might I suggest that there is more to the setbacks of that wave of socialist revolution than simply "Stalinism" alienating people from the idea of socialism or corrupting its "purity". Newsflash: Most of humanity lives in deplorable third world conditions of capitalist exploitation and Stalin-era socialism would be an infinitely more humane option and provided a viable basis for an alternative. So why didn't it come to fruition?
Anyways I think I've written plenty, including enough controversial statements to kick start a discussion. So let's see some thoughts on this.
"Stalinism"...
This seems to be a favourite term people like throwing around. Generally I have found it to be used in place of critical analysis of the actual problems confronting socialist construction. A method of sort of dismissing what is not perfect. A perjorative. The problem is the term is imprecise and people seldom feel the need to clarify what they mean by it. It is often left as a self-referential phrase appealing to deeply rooted misinformation and prejudices. The problem here isn't that Stalin or the USSR were perfect, but rather that this dismissiveness prevents a real critical analysis. Marxism is quickly replaced with a religious black and white view of "good leader"/"bad leader".
I have some really big criticisms of Stalin and more generally Soviet leadership in the international communist movement. But I don't think everything they did was wrong either, and I find it quite impossible to analyse this critically when the moment I say anything positive about Stalin-era USSR or Stalin's theory/leadership I am immediately branded a "Stalinist" and dismissed as harbouring a milleau of secret anti-democratic desires (speaking of anti-intellectualism the crusade against "Stalinism" has had its fair share of this tendency).
Is there nothing positive from the Stalin legacy? How about it's contributions to the fight against fascism? the struggle against poverty both in the USSR and internationally in the depression and the construction of the labour movement? The fight against racism and colonialism? I don't mean to say that in each of these areas every decision, strategy or action were the best, but to engage with reality is to make mistakes. And Stalin-inspired communists engaged on an unprecedented scale of energy and sacrifice.
I personally believe that what Stalin did early on in the late 20's beginning into the 30's was to some degree or another necessary to move ahead with socialism in the USSR in that particular era. This is where I think people start to get confused. It was NECESSARY BUT NOT DESIREABLE. The problem here is some people elevated necessity to virtue and conversly others who don't really understand the context and are idealists not scientific socialists seem to think there was a multitude of availible paths Russian socialism could have "chosen" from and would have if either Trotsky had succeeded Lenin or Lenin had lived longer. Some say we have to make sure we don't repeat the same mistakes - so we must be dismissive of "Stalinism". My response to this is to appeal for everyone to use a little common sense. Since the situation facing socialist construction in Canada would be so vastly different - we couldn't even reproduce Stalin-era USSR if we wanted to. It was a product of a specific context that can't just be selected off the shelf at the magical grocery store of options for socialist systems. Certainly the options and set of circumstances confronting the Soviets at that time were not desireable nor were they conducive to the healthiest most democratic path to socialist construction. But I've yet to see what a feasible alternative might have been. There were two sides to this path of development - both of which are inseparable in this context - unprecedented social progress and human cost. Neither can be denied.
On the issue of of the positive side because of the sacrifices and perserverence of Stalin-era socialism in the USSR the door was opened for formal decolonization, and a multitude of other revolutions from Vietnam to Cuba to China etc. etc. I know many people are quite fond (and rightly so) of the tremendous (and one might even suggest superior) revolutionary humanism and principles displayed by the Cuban revolution. But Cuba had the luxury of finding a more humane path to socialist construction because of the foundations and options opened up by Stalin-era socialist construction. Cuba was able to leisurely send off professionals to be trained in the USSR and to receive economic assistance and an alternative market which allowed them to survive and to develop at a different pace (and granted under a different starting point of economic conditions which were also more favourable because of a different agrarian situation). And any Cuban marxist I have spoken to knows that, and does give credit to the Stalin era sacrifice for making this possible. In particular the contributions of Stalin-era USSR and the theoretical contributions of Lenin and Stalin to anti-racism and anti-imperialism are astounding (the USSR recognizing Israel is a BIG blot on this record though). Read Nicolas Guillen, W.E.B. Dubois or any myriad of remarkable revolutionaries, artists and activists of African, Carribbean and Asian origin and the impact of Stalin and Lenin is immense in the devlopment of consciousness and an anti-racist assertion of humanity in the face of imperialism (the only notable exception to this that I am aware of is C.L.R. James). It is really truely incredible. But the impact of Stalin (and later Mao) on the consciousness, inspiration and aspirations of so much of progressive humanity in the Third world (whose voices are often muted on the western "white" left by a tandem of Western racist imperialism which removes them from history - and a self-righteous revisionism/trotskyism which censors and filters these writers, theorists, artists and rebels through a selective lens).
Also speaking as a history student if that wave of socialist revolution had succeeded in Western Europe and North America (which i can't quite see having happened Stalin or no Stalin) we would all view Stalin as some brilliant founding fore-father and kids would go to elementary schools named after him and read silly little picture books showing how Stalin lead the way to crush the Nazis. But our system wouldn't resemble 1930's Russia anymore than does USA 2003 resemble the America of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln (who burned towns to the ground among other things in the pursuit of victory and is hailed as a progressive democratic figure in most histories). But it didn't succeed. So here is where the ability to critically analyse is necessary. But might I suggest that there is more to the setbacks of that wave of socialist revolution than simply "Stalinism" alienating people from the idea of socialism or corrupting its "purity". Newsflash: Most of humanity lives in deplorable third world conditions of capitalist exploitation and Stalin-era socialism would be an infinitely more humane option and provided a viable basis for an alternative. So why didn't it come to fruition?
Anyways I think I've written plenty, including enough controversial statements to kick start a discussion. So let's see some thoughts on this.