Monthly Archives: February 2016

Power of the Masses: How Regional Government Organs Shaped Collectivization in the USSR

Posted on by

Though at first Stalin and the Central Committee argued that it was necessary to collectivize and mobilized the 25,000ers in order to promote controlled collectivization in the countryside, collectivization in rural areas often became controlled by local government organs. The 25,000ers themselves were not influential in these regions because these “rural offices” outnumbered them. ((Lynne Viola, “Collectivization as a Revolution,” in The Stalin Revolution: Foundation of the Totalitarian Era, ed. Robert V. Daniels (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,1997), 126.)) Further, when members of the 25,000 attempted to provide feedback to the Central Committee’s Department of Agitation and Mass Campaigns regarding unclear government policies on the gathering of seeds for sowing , they were often rejected from the party. The Central Committee’s inability to accept all feedback from the 25,000ers made the task of controlling collectivization from the top down more difficult.

Despite Stalin’s initial argument that “it was necessary to begin gradually to organize agriculture on the basis of large-scale collective farming,” regional organizations took initiative and began to collectivize at a rapid rate between the years of 1929 and 1930. ((Lynne Viola, “Collectivization as a Revolution,” in The Stalin Revolution: Foundation of the Totalitarian Era, ed. Robert V. Daniels (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,1997), 110-112.)) As a result, Stalin and the central government found themselves attempting to control collectivization in response to this rapid growth. In January of 1930, the Central Committee released the decree “On the Tempos of Collectivization and Measures of State Aid to Collective Farm Construction” in order to discourage the forming of rural parties who took it upon themselves to control their region’s collectivization process. Further, the decree encouraged the elimination of the Russian kulaks “as a race.” ((Lynne Viola, “Collectivization as a Revolution,” in The Stalin Revolution: Foundation of the Totalitarian Era, ed. Robert V. Daniels (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,1997), 114.)) This decree was an empty threat to rural communities because the members of the 25,000ers who were in each region were not only outnumbered, but considered as outsiders. Though some 25,000ers went against policy and resorted to violence to control these communities, the majority had little authority over the communities and the local government organs. ((Lynne Viola, “Collectivization as a Revolution,” in The Stalin Revolution: Foundation of the Totalitarian Era, ed. Robert V. Daniels (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,1997), 122.)) In addition, the encouragement of the elimination of the kulak “race” led to uncontrollable violence in the countryside. In the government’s attempt to regain central control, its policies perpetuated more instability in the rural regions of the USSR.

The 25,000ers did not allow this lack of control to go unnoticed, they frequently reported back to the central government. Members of the 25,000 noted the threat that the kulaks presented, lack of “support offered by villagers,” and the problem of collecting seeds for sowing. ((Lynne Viola, “Collectivization as a Revolution,” in The Stalin Revolution: Foundation of the Totalitarian Era, ed. Robert V. Daniels (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,1997), 118-120.)) Regarding the later concern, workers who complained about the government’s lack of specific instructions on the collection of seeds were “transferred, fired, or expelled from the party.” ((Lynne Viola, “Collectivization as a Revolution,” in The Stalin Revolution: Foundation of the Totalitarian Era, ed. Robert V. Daniels (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,1997), 119.)) Though these members were trying to point out to the government its own inefficiency and ambiguity, the government rejected this constructive criticism. These reports were clear indicators of many issues present in the countryside, and the government often chose to ignore these critiques. As collectivization continued to increase, the government found itself having difficulty keeping up with this rapid, uncontrollable growth because of its inability to make full use of its reach through the 25,000ers.

Redrawing the Map of Europe

Posted on by

Europe witnessed a dramatic rise in nationalist fervor in the middle of the nineteenth century, leading to the unification of Italy and the German states. Giuseppe Mazzini’s On Nationality highlighted the trend towards uprisings under the banner of liberty rather than uprisings for the sake of power or wealth. ((Giuseppe Mazzini, On Nationality, 1852)) With cries for liberty came cries countries to be united based on nationality. Mazzini campaigned for Italy to be a country comprised of “a human group called by its geographical position, its traditions, and its language,” which he believed would result in a peaceful nation of common peoples. ((Mazzini, On Nationality)) Mazzini, a politician and the driving force behind the movement for Italian unification, wrote to convince his contemporaries of a necessary redrawing of the map of Europe, with nationality rather than conquest being the basis for borders. Concurrently, the multitude of German states had become an object of war between Prussia and Austria.

Italian-Unification-Cavour-Mazzini-Garibaldi-300x234

Giuseppe Mazzini, Count Camillo di Cavour, and Giuseppe Garibaldi, “Fathers of the Fatherland”

In 1849, National Assembly in Frankfurt offered the German crown to the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm IV. ((Johann Gustav Droysen, Speech to the Frankfurt Assembly,1848)) In an earlier speech, Johann Gustav Droysen, a member of the assembly, argued for the superiority of Prussia over Austria because Prussia’s monarchy was “wholly German.” A Prussian Imperial Proclamation accepting the German crown in 1871 reiterated this nationalist connection. Wilhelm acquired power over Germany as a “duty to [their] common fatherland,” and asserted responsible for protecting the rights of all those in the German Empire. ((The Imperial Proclamation, 1871)) The simultaneous unifications of both nations were symptoms of nationalist zeal and a desire to live amongst, and be ruled by kinsmen. While considering the role nationalism played in shaping our understanding of nations and borders, I want to ask what influences (i.e. the French Revolution) may have spurred on the fervor in the nineteenth century, and what examples of nationalism exist today.

Italian Nationalism and Unification

Posted on by

Giuseppe Mazzini was an Italian nationalist who played a large role in the nationalist movement in Italy. In 1852, Mazzini published some of his work that focused on nationalism and the need for a unified democratic state of Italy. Mazzini mentioned in his writing that the people from the revolution in Vienna were fighting for something more than just material possessions; they were fighting for their nation.[i] The revolution in Vienna was in context with Mazzini trying to propose a unified state. He was looking to unify the people of Italy to rid their beloved nation of those who occupied it, the Austrians, and create a democratic state for Italy to be run. By ridding the state of Italy of the Austrians, Italy could be free to run themselves and prosper on their own.

In the documents of Italian unification, the Program of Count Cavour 1846 provides a point towards Mazzini’s thinking that opposes it even though it was before him. It states that “Nationalism has become general; it grows daily; and it has already grown strong enough to keep all parts of Italy united despite the differences that distinguish them”. [ii] If nationalism is growing every day then would it be easier for Mazzini to achieve his goal of a unified democratic state of Italy? If this concept grows then it will reach numerous people every day which will contribute to the nationalist movement started by Mazzini.

[i] Giuseppe Mazzin: On Nationality, 1852

[ii] Documents of Italian Unification, 1846-61

The slow grind of collectivization under a tractors tire.

Posted on by

Famine is a dire problem to every state of the world, no matter its size or power. All nations must take pause when they are confronted with the starvation of their people. Soviet Russia in the early 1930s was no different. Josef Stalin saw the problem of producing enough food to feed the massive country as one that the state could solve through collectivization and industrialization of farms. Like the revolutionaries before him Stalin found the way forward would be grounded in scientific knowledge and statistics.

Stalin took issue with the amount of grain that was being collected under the control of peasant farms. Currently the amount of grain being collected was only half as much as previous times.[1] This coupled with the growth of the population and number of workers working in the city’s industrial departments, caused  massive food shortages. Stalin found the fault in the system to be the large farm owning class called the “kulaks.” To Stalin this was unacceptable. These kulaks were simply the first step back into landlord farming.[2] He turned to the scientist thinking of past revolutionaries as the solution. He would move the peasants to state run socialized collective farms where “equipped with machinery, armed with scientific knowledge and capable of producing a maximum of grain for the market” they would be able create enough grain to feed the population.”[3] Stalin’s focus on heavy industry and industrialization is emphasized on the importance of the tractor in his new agricultural system.

The tractor would become another tool that the collectivization of peasants would be given to increase production on there farms. The plans for the spread of tractors were massive, with a goal that a net of tractors would encompass an area of fields over one million hectares.[4] Tractors are a much more effective means of plowing and doing field work than livestock and Stalin’s insistence that such heavy machinery must be used to its full potential would soften some of the blow the food supply would take from the forced collectivization. However, his distain for the kulaks and refusal to believe that bad supplies of grain would drive him to stop supporting many of the farms that produced vital food. His focus on industrialization brought industry to the agricultural department, but still did not find enough improvement to feed all his people. By the end of the famine over 5 million of the population had starved to death.[5]

[1] I. V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishers, 1934), pp. 248-249, 251-59.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] J. Meisel and E. S. Kozera, eds., Materials for the Study of the Soviet System (Ann Arbor: G. Wahr Pub. Co., 1953), pp. 183-185.

[5] I. V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishers, 1934), pp. 248-249, 251-59.

Purging for the Good of the State

Posted on by

Stalin had a clear agenda for what he wanted to get done in the Soviet economy. The base of the society rests on if they can get food, so naturally agriculture is very important to the success of an economy. Due to the poor results he was getting from the agricultural sector, he sought to find new ways to inspire production from the Soviet people.

Interestingly, the dominant force within Soviet argriculture were the kulaks, the peasants who controlled the majority of production or were doing well for themselves. While the term represented a large spectrum of wealth, they were an oddball in a socialist country. Stalin saw these people to be enemies of the state and began to discredit them through party agitators and eventually began to purge them. (( http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1929-2/collectivization/ )) Stalin realized that these kulaks did hold a tremendous amount of power on a local level, which matters more to the everyday lives of the Soviet citizen. In his essay regarding the grain crisis, he reiterates that those who seek to return to kulak farming are similar to that of the great serf estates of the tsarist regime. (( http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1929-2/collectivization/collectivization-texts/stalin-on-the-grain-crisis/ )) He also mentions that the kulak is the antithesis of communism, and for that reason alone, it should not be allowed. Stalin mentions how the kulaks have lost a large amount of power in the years leading up to his writing, and now they can finally bring the power of the kulaks into the realm of the state so that it can produce for everyone. (( http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1929-2/collectivization/collectivization-texts/stalin-on-the-liquidation-of-the-kulak/ ))

A year after his essay on the liquidation of the kulaks, Stalin writes in the party newspaper, Pravda, that the successes of liquidating an entire class of people has been phenomenal for the state as a whole. The success was “dizzying” and this sets a very dangerous precedent for the rest of Stalin’s reign. He is justifying the murder of his own people for the good of the state and the party. He sees success in the rural community through his destruction of the kulaks, writing, “It shows that the radical turn of the rural districts towards Socialism may already be regarded as guaranteed.” (( http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1929-2/collectivization/collectivization-texts/dizzy-with-success/ )) By defending murder for the good of the state, Stalin is tightening his grip on the Soviet Union more and more.

The rural parts of the Soviet Union were always going to be the hardest to adjust to socialism, and Stalin believed that drastic steps were needed to impose it upon them. By removing their local “lords” and replacing them with the state, Stalin is taking the steps towards having socialism entirely in one country.

 

German Unification

Posted on by

Otto von Bismarck was a Prussian Statesman and a close adviser to the King of Prussia, Wilhelm I.  Upon further research, I discovered that he was born in a part of Germany under Prussian rule and would later attend the University of Berlin.  At the time this was written in , Prussia had just one a major battle over Austria in the war between the two countries.  In Bismarck’s Memoirs, he uses language that identifies with the emotions of panic and dread.  He writes certain phrases such as, “A painful illness from which I was suffering…”, and how he, “…begged the king…” ((Memoirs, Otto von Bismarck)) .  His audience for this piece would be for the king of Prussia, as well as the Prussian council deciding if Prussia should continue the war against Austria.  Bismarck’s intent of his memoir was to convince the King to stop his acquisition of new territory from Prussia, and to unify the German states under Prussian rule.  He suggests that Prussia cease fighting and create a peace treaty with Austria.  Bismarck adds that there is no value in acquiring land that would have a rebellious nature towards Prussian rule.  On the topic of the German states they had acquired,  Bismarck tells the King to not mutilate these newly gained territories but instead unite them as one country.  Under Prussian rule, Bismarck theorized that a unified Germany would be less inclined to rebel and would benefit both sides.  Under this policy, it seems that Prussian rule would become more popular in the former Austrian controlled German states.

How does Bismarck’s background affect his advice to the King of Prussia?

Would it have been more beneficial for Prussia to have strict control over the German states, or do you agree with Bismarck’s philosophy of having control over a more autonomous Germany?

Doomed to a Cycle or Constantly Improving?

Posted on by

The Marquis de Condorcet’s believed one day humankind would reach a future where the individual could be free to reason for himself and there would be no more positions of power such as tyrants or priests. ((Condorcet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, 1795)) He wrote that this future would have equality between nations, equality between individuals, and where decisions are made based on science and rationalization. ((Condorcet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, 1795)) His view directly opposes Marx’s idea we heard in class the other day, that there must be oppressors and oppressed in society until the oppressed overthrow the oppressors in a revolution. He based his argument off general world history, starting with slave owners and slaves, lords and serfs, and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
In order to believe in Condorcet’s idea that there is an end all society in the future we must see that there have been large steps forward in equality. Is our world more equal and more based on rational thought than it was one hundred years ago? How about two hundred years ago? It’s very difficult to answer this question in a global setting, so I ask that we focus domestically, on the United States. From Marx’s view, is there an oppressed people in the U.S?  It is difficult for many people to see any citizen of the U.S as oppressed, due to our status as a world power, and they are right. Compared to most places in the world we could not be viewed as oppressed. But solely within our country, when looking back, there has never been such a gap in income inequality. In history, the people with power have that power due to their wealth. For the slave owners and lords they owned people and land. The Bourgeoisie owned private property. The majority of the money in the U.S is in the top five percent. When looking at income inequality from this perspective, is it fair to say that there is an oppressor and oppressed in the U.S? Furthermore, do they hold a power over us that we are unaware of?

A Nation Divided

Posted on by

The early nineteen twenties were a challenging time for the leaders of the new Soviet Union. Not only were they trying to learn how to lead a country while already being in control, they were also trying to find balance between all their internal contradicting ideas. The six main leaders were Lenin, Stalin, Bukharian, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev. Because of their different backgrounds and skill sets their ideas regarding the future of Soviet Union were very diverse. The two most powerful were Lenin and Stalin. One of Lenin’s last main writings detailed his feelings regarding his fellow associates strengths and weaknesses, specifically Stalin. Lenin feared Stalin would cause issues for the Soviet Union because he would abuse power.

Stalin and Lenin had contrasting ideas of how to create their new nation. This was especially true in their ideas regarding national policy.

In Stalin’s Concerning the Presentation of the National Question Stalin looks at the smaller nations that made up the Soviet Union and explored the idea of the National Question. Stalin believed that a nation was a group of people who had similar idea, a common language and way of life. Thus he believed that the smaller nations that made up the Soviet Union should have these things in common and more specifically that they should be like the big Russia.

In contrast Lenin’s On the Question of the Nationalities or of Autonomization in December of 1922. Lenin believed that big nations historically oppressed small nations and thus as a large nation Russia should create equal footing with its smaller counterparts by giving them more power. He thought they should let them control themselves to a certain extent. He thought Stalin was incorrect and that he should be publically punished.

At the Crossroads of Lenin and Stalin

Posted on by
Map of the USSR portraying 1922-1928

Map of the USSR portraying 1922-1928

(( Soviet Union 1922-1928 : Socialist republics – National powers. Digital image. Hisatlas – Map of Soviet Union 1922-1928. Accessed February 21, 2016. http://www.euratlas.net/history/hisatlas/ussr/192822URSS.html. ))

 

During the Russian Civil War, nationalist uprisings and criticisms left Bolshevik leadership with some important questions and decisions to make. They had to determine whether to grant different ethnicities and nationalities sovereignty, how to cope with those that did not receive as such, and how to make the union of soviet socialist republics stronger and well-connected. Both Lenin and Stalin, in the form of personal writing, shared their thoughts on these issues.

 

Lenin seemed to take an approach not too dissimilar to the ancient Romans: when ruling over another group of people, keep their systems and leadership intact, so long as they provided troops and worked within the greater economic system.[1] Lenin understood that to oppress a minority population led to resentment and an unwillingness to work with the system in place. Furthermore, he claimed to see beyond nationalities in a sense, declaring being a proletariat the superior identifying characteristic. Moreover, if groups worked together long enough, their origins will cease to matter.

 

Stalin argued in a similar manner, but used Western and pseudo-socialist nations to juxtapose where his Communist ideology was superior.[2] He criticized the others for being hypocritical in its views towards imperialism: while they were willing to allow for “self-determination” of their colonies, they refused to acknowledge the similar poor treatment minorities received in the home countries. Furthermore, Stalin criticized the other countries’ warping of “self-determination” to the point where a minority ethnicity or nationality could receive their cultural freedom, but still essentially had to maintain political and economic submission to the mother country. Stalin also asserted the fusion of nationalist revolution against colonialism and imperialism with proletariat revolution against capitalism.

 

However, what Stalin failed to acknowledge were the minority groups under control of Russia at the time.[3] He avoided discussing the people of Georgia, Armenia, and the like. Perhaps because Stalin himself was Georgian and had managed to become a higher up in the Bolshevik Party, he saw no reason for Georgians not to be a part of Russia. In any case, it is at this point where Stalin differed from Lenin, leading to a course of action in which Lenin eventually condemns Stalin in his writing. Lenin acknowledged the nationality differences within the future USSR, and seemed to prepare to figure out how to solve the problem.

 

That being said:

  1. Lenin dictated that being a proletariat in a communist mindset superseded all other forms of identification. In a capitalist system, what gets valued more – economic class or nationality? Does it depend on the class?
  2. Lenin and Stalin wrote these points during the Russian Civil War. Do you think their points would have changed had they been written afterwards?
  3. How did Stalin’s attacks on imperialism fit into the global context at the time (1921)?

[1] Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. “Lenin on Nationality Policy.” Seventeen Moments in Soviet History. 2015. Accessed February 21, 2016. http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1921-2/transcaucasia/transcaucasia-texts/lenin-on-nationality-policy/.

[2] Stalin, Joseph. “The Presentation of the National Question.” The Presentation of the National Question. Accessed February 21, 2016. http://marx2mao.phpwebhosting.com/Stalin/CPNQ21.html.

[3] Stalin wrote in 1921, meaning that it was still Russia at the time.

Does the “Tyranny of the Majority” Exist Today?

Posted on by

Marquis de Condorcet and John Stuart Mill write about equality, perfection, and liberty in late 18th-early 19th century Europe. Condorcet, who wrote Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind while in hiding, presents his hopes for the future well-being of society. These hopes consists of the elimination of inequality between nations, equality progression within each respective nation, and the true perfection of mankind. ((Marquis de Condorcet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind)) Condorcet’s hopefulness arises from his confidence of the Enlightenment period. He predicts that “the time will therefore come when the sun will shine only on free man who knows no other master but their own.” ((Mill, On Liberty)) Determined that the Enlightenment will bring about the best in individuals and society, Condorcet believes that absolutism and tyranny are gone and will not repeat themselves. While Mill also believes that government as a result of the Enlightenment will become significantly less repressive, he still thinks that complete liberty is impossible. Mill writes about society’s restriction on individual power, and how individuals have the power to express their ideals and beliefs—but still limited in some regard. He believes that the majority’s power over the minority in terms of public opinion, the “tyranny of the majority” can lead to the potential exclusion of the minority, and this infringes on the individual’s sense of being in society. Towards the end of his piece, he states that liberty, which all individuals should have, consists of having a conscience, having the ability to pursue goals, and working with others for greater good. ((Mill, On Liberty)) He implies that nonconformity should not be shunned, but unfortunately it sometimes is in society. Therefore, restrictions on liberty exist, according to Mill.

Freedom of speech and expression can be dangerous sometimes, as can lack of freedom of speech and expression. I believe that the potential effects of “tyranny of the majority” are not present in today’s society as much as they had been years ago. Because of the expanding mediums for free speech through public forums on social media, individuals are becoming less concerned with what they say. Furthermore, the plethora of issues in the world today contribute to proposed solutions and opinions, which inevitably lead to vastly different opinions of how to address the issues. Therefore, the “tyranny of the majority” has dwindled in today’s social media era, as increasing world issues have led to an increase in diversity of beliefs and opinions. People have more freedom to say what they wish, but not complete freedom. Even if a majority opinion exists, individuals are not shunned for not conforming to that certain opinion because society today is becoming more progressive and thus more accepting of other beliefs.

In an ideal society, should freedom of speech be limited? Do you think the “tyranny of the majority” exists today? And do you think true perfection, as Condorcet says, is attainable?