In Stalin’s drive for collectivization, we see the difference between “intent” and “reality”. Stalin put too much faith in workers, the proletariat, to successfully carry out collectivization. Although Stalin at first labeled collectivization as a political necessity that must be brought about gradually, the actual process was anything but gradual. What was meant to be a revolution built from the ground up incurred little more than destruction, and was wholly brought about from the top to the bottom, which is the exact opposite of Marxist ideology. There were no clear guidelines for the campaign and too much faith was put into the workers to bring about “consciousness” and change gradually into the countryside. There was no moderation in collectivization. Stalin’s response as read in “Dizzy with Success” blamed problems on local authorities, removing himself and his central government from blame for policy violations while, at the same time, providing no actual guide for how to proceed. The masses were not prepared for collectivization and the 25000ers were not prepared to bring it about.
Monthly Archives: February 2015
Mazzini and Nationalism
Author: Giuseppe Mazzini, 1805-1872. Founder of Young Italy (1831), Mazzini was an Italian activist and politician and one of the most significant figures in the push of nationalism and democracy.
Context: Published in 1852, in a time when revolutions such as the French (1848) and others were happening with comparable frequency, the ideas of nationalism and unification were picking up steam.
Language: Mazzini wrote in a very “matter of fact” tone. It read optimistically in the sense that if everything he stated was followed, Italy would be in a great position. This piece exuded a great deal of confidence and grabs the intended audience’s attention.
Audience: The European people.
Intent: Inspire Europeans to come together and unite as one, increasing pride in their respective countries.
Message: He states, “They speak the same language, they bear about them the impress of consanguinity, they kneel beside the same tombs, they glory in the same tradition.” Having said this, he questions why these people with so much in common do not unite as one and reap the benefits from such behavior. He alludes to the fact that not many European countries have such unity and how advantageous it would be.
Why: To respond to the uprisings and revolutions of the prior few years. He determined that one of the main issues in Europe was a lack of unity and explained how he felt they could improve their situation.
Bismarck’s Ideas
Author: Otto von Bismarck was a Prussian political figure. He had a large influence in German and European affairs from the 1860s until 1890. He helped unite Germany in to what it is today.
Context: He wrote this during his rise to power. He describes the events that took place while Austria was attempting to negotiate terms of surrender. The majority of the council wanted to continue with military action but Bismarck advised against it and wanted peace.
Language: Informative and clear. He is recalling memories and writing them exactly has he remembers in order to let people know the events that occurred.
Audience: Writing for the people of Germany and Prussia. He feared that if military action continued there would be a desire for revenge by Austria.
Intent: Inform the people of the events that took place and why he thought it was necessary to stand for peace instead of further military action.
Message: He is attempting to conclude the best way for Germany to rise to power while not creating unnecessary enemies. War is inevitable but in time, Austria would be a better ally than adversary.
Why?: Bismarck wants to let the people know that he was the one that wanted peace with Austria in order to prevent any future tensions.
Bismarck’s Memoirs
Author- Otto von Bismark was the first Chancellor of Germany, he created this post for himself after he started three short wars against France, Denmark, and Austria from his seat as Minister President of Prussia. By provoking these three wars he aligned and united the multitudinous German states behind himself and Prussia. Von Bismarck earned himself the nickname “The Iron Chancellor” for his notoriety to rule with a decisively and powerfully.
Context- Bismarck wrote his memoirs after the events which he describes, as it is with most memoirs. He is recalling the end of the war against Austria, a war which the Prussians had decisively won and were being offered terms of surrender. In this memoirs Bismarck describes a situation in which his colleagues were pushing to deny the Austrians the terms of their surrender and to push the war onward.
Language- Bismarck is writing about these events in a memoir, the language does not stir rebellion or motivate individuals to join a cause but it is calm and very informative. He writes to recount information as completely as possible for the reader. The language is not complex, it is not designed for any certain class to be able to read as opposed to others.
Audience- Memoirs are meant to be enjoyed by everyone seeking the information which they contain. Bismarck recounts these events for anyone who wants to take the time to read them.
Intent- The intent of this piece appears to be very informative for the reader. The only other intent which the reader can detect is maybe some boastful tones, Bismarck writes of a time which he stood alone for what was the best for his country and his people; it was a time which it would make sense he may want people to know about.
Message- Bismarck does not have a strong message in this piece, it is not a call to arms or action or a piece criticizing a way of life, it simply recounts an event in his life. The most important message that can be detected is the fact that he was standing alone in a decision that benefitted the people of Germany, Prussia, and even Austria. He successfully advocated for the Prussians to accept Austria’s defeat and not destroy it to a point which future Austrians would seek revenge. As Bismarck puts it “we were not there to administer retributive justice, but to pursue a policy; that I wished to avoid in the German federation of the future the sight of mutilated territories” (Bismarck). By avoiding destroying Austria any further Bismarck helped ensure safety in the future.
Why- Bismarck wrote his memoirs to document the events that happened in his life for future people to enjoy. The purpose of the argument that Bismarck recounts is to save Germany and Prussia any conflict with a vengeful Austria in the future.
Is Collectivization Possible?
Collectivization was initially meant to be a revolution that would modernize and stabilize agriculture while simultaneously result in the destruction of the old order. However, these grand goals were never quite achieved, but why? Was the plan for collectivization just pushed onto an unprepared population to fast and to soon? Stalin laid out a persuasive argument as to why collectivization was a political necessity. Between the growing danger of the kulaks, the need for a stable grain procurement to avoid breakdown in the relations of the working class, and the need to maintain high industrialization the message of immediacy for this change toward collectivization was sent throughout the country. However, it was this same urge for immediate results from all levels of government that led to the downfall of the whole collectivization process.
In the frenzied drive toward collectivization in winter of 1930 any idea of individual autonomy or free will for peasants vanished. The race for quantity rather than quality had begun in earnest and soon spiraled out of control. This lead to the district organs using force to promote collectivization and enforce impossible timelines to transition to full communes rather than agriculture artels. This created two very different Soviet Union’s the one of paper that was exceeding expectation and the harsh reality of the shattered collective farm cadres who had to fix themselves. The 25,000ers’ were a great resource to the center on the ground. Although they were not powerful enough to enact change on a big scale, or as Viola says were just, “a drop in the ocean”, they were able to report back to the center and act as a barometer. This crazed drive toward collectivization helped create a new tough minded pragmatist mentality that would reign over 30’s.
The question remains however would collectivization have worked if it was approached gradually? If a better understanding for the requirement of the voluntary principle and local peasant initiative was used without the race for percentages on paper would have it been the agricultural revolution they were looking for?
Otto von Bismarck
Author: Otto von Bismarck, who ruled between 1862 and 1890, helped to unify Germany. He helped to unite the German states with Prussian leadership by initiating wars with Denmark, Austria, and France. [1]
Context: He wrote this during the time when he was establishing power with Prussia. He began a series of wars in order to establish this Prussian power. He created tension between France and Prussia by editing a telegram to make these countries angry at each other. The French declared war on the Prussians, but the Prussians ended up defeating the French. [2]
Language: The language that he uses is not highly complex; rather, it is very to the point because he wants others to be able to easily understand him.
Audience: He is writing to the general people of Germany because he wants them to understand what is currently happening. He also addresses the leaders because he wants to stress the importance of having a unified Germany.
Intent: To stress the need of a unified Germany and to explain how he felt that war was inevitable.
Message: He explained how in order for Germany to be very powerful, it was important for Austria and Prussia to be allied.
Why: He wanted the people of Prussia to see what he what he had done for them. Also, he wanted the German states to be unified to create a national identity and to fight against other European states.
Do you think that Otto von Bismarck was effective in attempting to relay his message?
Nationality
AUTHOR: Giuseppe Mazzini was an Italian politician and journalist and played a vital role in the eventual unification of Italy. In 1831, he traveled to Marseille and started a up a secret society, Young Italy, which promoted Italy’s unification. Mazzini pursued his thoughts regarding unification by creating similar groups to Young Italy, such as Young Germany, Young Poland and Young Switzerland. After Italy was successfully unified, he became a strong advocate of the European unification ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Mazzini#Legacy)) .
CONTEXT: This was published in 1852; two years after Mazzini had been hiding from the Swiss police. Leading up to 1852, Mazzini had been traveling around Europe promoting European unification as well as Italian unification. Revolutions had been prominent all around Europe, such as the French Revolution of 1848 and the October Revolution in Vienna in 1848 ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Mazzini#Legacy)) .
LANGUAGE: Mazzini wrote with a very confident tone, adamant about what was best for Italy. He states what must be done gives specific instructions to the readers regarding Italy’s nationality and unification. His tone is also very prominent when discussing the lack of nationality Europe’s counties have, and how he believes the nations should go about fixing this.
AUDIENCE: Mazzini is directing this piece towards everyone in Europe, specifically those who live in nations undergoing turmoil. He wished to persuade the people to unify their nations for the betterment of Europe as a whole.
INTENT: Mazzini’s intent in writing this was to evoke the people of Europe to make more of an effort to unify their nations. He was trying to show them how big of an issue it was that these nations and Europe itself was not unified.
MESSAGE: Mazzini’s message was to inform the people they would receive much more benefits by living in a unified nation and continent.
WHY? This was written in response to many of the revolutions Mazzini had noticed occur around Europe. He realized that multiple nations were struggling with unification and nationalism, and he encouraged them to find a way to become one.
Collectivization as a Revolution at what Costs?
A few things of note that stand out in this article on the collectivization of farms following the revolution are the thinking of the central committee and Stalin that they lost control of the process. In the rural country side the obvious discord or disconnect showed in thinking and actions of the rural cadres and even those sent from the city to help in the collectivization of farms who made up the group known as 25,000ers. The brutal treatment of rural peasant by the cadres and the 25,000ers created a class system within itself. Stalin realized the danger in these practices and impressed the need to stop using such tactics in fear of possible civil war. He stated, “Collective farms must not be established by force. That would be foolish and reactionary. The collective-farm must rest on the active support of the main mass of the peasantry” ((Stalin, J. V., Dizzy With Success) Pravda no. 60, 1930, p. 485))). He acknowledged that while artel production is socialized, that small plots for vegetables, dwelling houses, small livestock and poultry and even some dairy cow are not socialized ” ((Stalin, J. V., Dizzy With Success) Pravda no. 60, 1930, p. 488))). The very ideals socialism is to correct is what is happening in these rural areas, with new class distinctions appearing.
Another point that is of interests is that during this collectivization movement taking place, “wholesale closing of churches and the desecration of religious object” took place as well. ((Daniels, Robert V., ed. The Stalin Revolution: Foundations of the Totalitarian Era.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997, p. 112))) The closing of markets happened at this same period also. Perhaps the reason behind this action is to limit the place where people could congregate and discuss the current events taking place. It also directed people to the only source of support—the state. Even Stalin commented on this “I say nothing of those “revolutionaries”—save the mark!—who begin the work of organizing artels by removing the bells from the churches. Just imagine, removing the church bells—how r-r-revolutionary!” ((Stalin, J. V., Dizzy With Success) Pravda no. 60, 1930, p. 490))). However, of note, is that a lack of places of worship did not stop the people from using religion as a tool against the state. Old women trying to prevent ones from joining the collective farm used such teachings as tying the collective farm to the anti-Christ. Did this have any effect with the efforts of the socialist? “Based on an apocalyptic mind-set and on reasoning unchanged from the days of the schism, the rumors confounded the activities of the 25,000ers at every step”. ((Daniels, Robert V., ed. The Stalin Revolution: Foundations of the Totalitarian Era.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997, p. 119)))
How far the revolution deviated from Marx thinking on socialism based on the actions during this time. Individuals forced to accept socialism. Should not have they simply drawn to it as far better than their current situation? Obvious class distinctions among even the peasants and those sent to begin the collectivization of farms goes completely against Marxism. Actively stamping out religion, something that would just eventually go away on its own according to Marx due to the fact socialism is the solution to what religion fulfills in the masses.
The Realities of Collectivization
In 1928, Joseph Stalin addressed the need for collectivization of grain farms and the procurement of grain from villages throughout the Soviet countryside. His speech, “Grain Procurements and Prospects for Development of Agriculture,” attacks villages throughout Siberia who refused to relinquish their surplus grain to the State. He cites the grain shortage occurring throughout the country, and states, “The effect will be that our towns and industrial centres, as well as our Red Army, will be in grave difficulties; they will be poorly supplied and will be threatened with hunger. Obviously, we cannot allow that.”[1] This statement highlights the fragility of the Soviet Union at the beginning of Stalin’s time in office. It also demonstrates his fears of an unnecessary war that the Soviet Union could not withstand, as Lynne Viola mentions in her chapter on collectivization.[2] In an attempt to motivate the local masses, Stalin accuses the local Party organizations and kulak, or local gentry, of hoarding the surplus grain, and implores the peasants to force the kulak to give the grain to the State. However, as his subsequent speeches and the legislation of the Central Committee in the following years indicates, this call to action led the collectivization efforts to spin out of control and away from the State’s expectations.
Viola notes in her chapter the violence that resulted from Stalin’s collectivization plans and his anti-kulak statements. The cadres placed in the countryside, wishing to prove themselves to the State, forced peasants and workers to collectivize in order to reach their quotas. They also attacked the kulak in order to force them to give up their capitalistic system of grain management. Such actions led to Stalin’s “Dizzy with Success” speech in March of 1930 and the Central Committee’s On Forced Collectivization of Livestock legislation in March of 1932. After mentioning the success of completely socializing the countryside, Stalin attempts to reprimand the country peasants and quell the attacks on the kulak. He states, “They [successful people] show a tendency to overrate their own strength and to underrate the strength of the enemy.”[3] The success of collectivization is and should be the voluntary nature of collective-farm movement, he reminds the populous.
Similarly, the Central Committee calls the forced collectivization of the countryside a “flagrant violation of repeatedly issued directives.”[4] However, this resolution remained ineffective given the soft language used when telling the party how to address the problem on the ground. “The TsK of the VKP (b) proposes to all party, Soviet and kolkhoz organizations…”[5] The word “proposes” is not nearly as definitive or intimidating enough to force the party officials along the countryside to adhere to the Committee’s suggestions, when they gained popularity and success administering collectivization their own ways through pressure and fear.
As Viola demonstrates in her chapter, due to Stalin’s insufficient intervention and the Committee’s ineffective, unenforceable legislation, party officials throughout the countryside developed their own system of collectivization that nearly destroyed the government’s mission as well as the country.
[1] J.V. Stalin, Grain Procurements and the Prospects for the Development of Agriculture, http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/GPPDA28.html.
[2] Lynne Viola, “Collectivization as a Revolution,” in Robert V. Daniels (ed.) The Stalin Revolution: Foundations of the Totalitarian Era. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994: 108-126.
[3] J.V. Stalin,
[4] TsK VKP (b), On Forced Collectivization of Livestock, http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/e2livest.html.
[5] Ibid.
Bismarck and Prussia
Author: Otto Von Bismarck was a Prussian leader known as the “Iron Chancellor” ((www.history.com/topics/otto-von-bismarck)). He ruled over Prussia and Germany. He united the independent German states which led to Germny becoming a world power.
Context: He was writing as he came into his power in Prussia. He watched as Prussia fought with Austria and gained power over Germany. He watched from a military point of view.
Language: He wrote from memory so everything is simple and to the point so he wouldn’t forget what he wanted to write.
Audience: He is writing to the people of Prussia and Germany to show what the king thought of doing with the power he had. He wanted to show everyday people what could have happened to their countries if it hadn’t been for him.
Intent: To inform people Bout what he had done for their countries before he was even in power.
Message: This is what the king wanted to do and this is how I prevented it. It is because of me that Prussia and Germany are here today.
Why: Bismarck wanted to prove he was the leader Germany wanted. He wrote about all the good things he did for Prussia to help them fight against Austria. He wanted people to see how great he was and keep him in power.