This HL class looks at Stalin’s biography and political
personality; history often ignores the psychological makeup of the people to
focus less on trivia than on simple dates. Stalin’s rise to power, his place in
the party apparatus, and changes in membership are dealt with. To fully
understand Stalin’s success, the class will see a Powerpoint that considers
discontent with the policies of NEP.
Outline
Joseph Stalin was born Iosif
Dzhugashvili (officially and this is no longer believed) December 21 1879- the
same day as my son! Everyone who knew Stalin as a boy spoke of traits that have
been described as that of an angry “rebel personality.” He tended to rebel
against every manifestation of authority over him, notably at the seminary
where he studied. Here he showed political defiance: He joined an underground
Social Democratic Party circle (for which he was expelled from the seminary).
Complicating this, he was
known to be insecure and defensive. He was Georgian, small, and severely pockmarked
from smallpox. One arm was shorter than the other and he had apparently
webbed-feet.
BUT the
seminary may have encouraged certain features of his personal political
culture. He seems to have imbibed
a taste for dogma and for the sacredness of principles. The seminary may also
have encouraged his Manichean vision of the world. It also influenced the way
he spoke.
Another noticeable trait in
Stalin’s youth was an obsession with heroes and heroism. Throughout his life,
he had special heroes—and did everything he could to emulate them. When still
in elementary school, he took the nickname Koba after a Robin Hood-like hero in
a favourite book; later, he changed to the revolutionary underground name
Stalin (“Man of Steel”).
Stalin’s political biography
reflected many of these traits and self-ideals. At a time when most Georgian
socialists were Mensheviks, Stalin chose the Bolsheviks. He was impressed by
Lenin’s heroic idea of the vanguard party of professional revolutionaries. He
was attracted by the Bolshevik reputation for toughness and greater militancy.
For Stalin, all these traits were embodied in the ideas and personality of the
Bolshevik leader, Lenin, whom Stalin liked to call the “mountain eagle” of the
party.
In the great debates over
policy in the 1920s, which
were also struggles over power, Stalin generally supported the dominant pro-NEP
view, but in speeches and writings, he indicated that this was not his basic
philosophical approach. He placed great stress on the importance and power of human
will, on the “subjective” in history. LIKE HITLER. He argued that Leninism was
a style of leadership entailing the combination of “Russian revolutionary sweep”
with “American practicality.” When Stalin criticised Trotsky in the 1920s, he
accused him of lacking sufficient optimism and faith. Similarly, in 1928–1929,
Stalin and his supporters criticized the pro-NEP arguments of Bukharin and others
of the “Right deviation” for their “pessimism.” There was also what some have
called a religious spirit to Stalin’s ideas—a preoccupation with faith and the
dogmatic sacrality of certain ideas.
How Stalin acquired so much influence and power in the 1920s.
Perhaps the most important
factor was the changing structure of the party and Stalin’s place in this apparatus.
During the Civil War, the whole structure of the party was reorganised. Until
then, the party was governed by a small Central Committee dominated by Lenin.
In 1919, a more complex structure was created, including a Political Bureau
(Politburo), an Organizational Bureau (Orgburo), and a Secretariat. The role of
the Secretariat, which Stalin headed after
1922, grew increasingly important,
having control of party membership, appointments, and assignments. In Stalin’s
hands, these powers proved to be tools for strengthening his own influence. He
could fill the party bureaucracy with supporters and loyalists. He could appoint the powerful party
secretaries. Through the
secretaries, he could also influence selection of delegates to the Party
Congress, which was the supreme power in the party.
There were a number of
reasons why the rank and file of the party was not more assertive of their
formal rights to elect officials and delegates, but the most important may have
been the changing composition of the party. During the Civil War there was an
enormous increase in party membership, especially as Communist victory became
more likely. This had a major impact on political attitudes and behavior. Above
all, these new Communists, now a majority, were less independent-minded and
more obedient to the party organization. This was intensified in 1924, at the
time of Lenin’s death, with the massive “Lenin enrollment” promoted by Stalin. As
General Secretary, Stalin could make use of these conditions. He built networks
of supporters in both party and state. This administrative power played a
critical role in Stalin’s defeat of the party oppositions in the 1920s.
Once Stalin succeeded in
becoming the dominant leader in the party at the very end of the 1920s, he made
his heroic and willful political-cultural style central to the spirit of the
times. Given his personality and style, it is not surprising that he felt
uncomfortable with Bukharin’s moderate arguments about economic and social
development. But Stalin also spoke to the dissatisfactions and desires of many.
There were troubling economic problems with NEP. Internationally, there was a
growing fear of a coming war against the USSR, for which the country was not
prepared. Most important, there was considerable hostility to NEP.
The main policy expression of
Stalin’s approach was a massive program of industrial and social
transformation, embodied in the First Five-Year Plan. A good expression of the
spirit motivating this drive to transform Russia was the statement in 1927 by Stalin’s
chief economist Strumilin: “There are no fortresses that Bolsheviks cannot
storm.” In many ways, this phrase captured the essence of the emerging
Stalinist political culture.
Questions to Consider:
1. How would you characterise Stalin’s political
outlook in comparison to Trotsky’s and Bukharin’s?
2. In
what way was Stalin’s party nickname, which meant “Man of Steel,” revealing
about his political personality and values?
Stalin’s Revolution
This class deals with the radical industrialisation and social
transformation of the First Five-Year Plan (1928–1932) and why Stalin led the
country on this sudden change of course in abandonment of NEP. Forced
collectivisation of the peasantry is examined - the course of the campaign,
peasant responses, and its effects.
Outline
In 1928, Stalin distanced
himself from his ally Bukharin and the market-based ideas of NEP. Bukharin offered the most cynical
interpretation of this shift: Stalin is an “unprincipled intriguer” who changes
his theories according to whom he wishes to get rid of. Another view is that Stalin
had always favoured a more aggressive industrialization strategy than Bukharin
but had kept these views in the background in order to defeat Trotsky and the
Left. It is also possible, however, that Stalin’s thinking gradually evolved in
response to economic, social, and political pressures in the late 1920s.
Stalin’s policy began to
resemble a new revolution, or a new civil war which was apparent, for example,
in the announced drafts of the First Five-Year Plan for 1928–1932. Whilst this plan was being drafted, there were
strong political pressures to be more ambitious. The final draft set almost
mythical targets. Nevertheless, from the point of view of enthusiasts of this
industrial revolution from above, including Stalin, this plan was not ambitious
enough.
One may argue that the First
Five-Year Plan was less an economic plan than a political manifesto meant to
inspire. The whole atmosphere of the First Five-Year Plan reflected this politicization,
which meant militarisation, of economics. The press described industry as a
battlefield. To achieve or overfulfil goals, “shock troops” of workers were
rushed to production sites. Young people volunteered to work on such grandiose
projects as the Magnitogorsk metallurgical factories in the Urals. Those who
urged that more rational policies be adopted, or who failed in their tasks,
were treated like traitors in wartime.
These efforts produced mixed
and unbalanced economic results. Heavy industry developed at the expense of
consumer goods. Even heavy industry suffered from an imbalance of growth. But
production did increase considerably. These efforts also helped lay a
foundation for more moderate but sustained growth during the following
Five-Year Plans.
Changes in agriculture were
even greater. Agrarian development was also treated as a political, even
military, campaign. From 1927 to 1930, the attack on the peasantry gradually
intensified. In the winter of 1927–1928, grain requisitioning was reinstated.
Peasants responded by sowing less land.
In response, the campaign was
intensified; kulaks (richer peasants) were to be “liquidated as a
class,” and collectivisation of all agriculture was decreed in 1930.
The result of these decrees
was intense and violent. Hundreds of thousands of kulaks were evicted
from their homes and their property was confiscated. More than half of all
remaining peasants were forced into collective farms. Almost all property was
collectivised.
Peasants resisted these
measures in different ways. Some peasants resisted actively. Most peasants,
though, engaged in more passive resistance: abandoning the countryside or, if remaining,
slaughtering vast numbers of their animals.
The Grain procurements had
increased and peasants were now under the political control of the state. But
agriculture suffered as sullen peasants refused to exert themselves. The most
serious consequence of collectivization was its toll in human lives.
When recounting these years,
it can be difficult to recall that this was also a time of heroic idealism. One
sign of this was the widespread idea that the First Five-Year Plan was also a
“cultural revolution.”
One aspect of this revolution
was “social purging.” Beginning in 1928, “bourgeois experts” (especially
engineers) were publicly tried. Communists were encouraged to challenge the
role of non-proletarian experts throughout Soviet society in almost every
profession and every institution. Although initiated and manipulated from
above, this cultural revolution had great public appeal and spontaneity.
Elements of class and generational conflict were clearly visible in these struggles.
This cultural revolution was also about ideas, especially about how to
transform everyday life.
Centralised control,
tyrannical state power, brutality, even murderous violence were commonplace.
Yet idealism, enthusiasm, dreams of a new world, and often fantastic optimism
were also present. No wonder, then, that historians have fiercely debated the
meaning of these years.
Questions to Consider:
1. In interpreting the era of the First Five-Year
Plan, how would you balance the mixture of brutality and idealism and explain
their interrelationship?
2. Why
were peasants forced into collective farms in 1930? For economic reasons? For
political reasons?
Stalin quotes
-Stalin after Nazi-Soviet pact: “We got peace for our country for 18 months, which let us make military preparations.”
-"Great Britain provided time; the United States provided money and Soviet Russia provided blood."
-Stalin after 1936 constitution: “Never
before - no, really never - has the world ever seen elections so
completely free, and so truly democratic! History has recorded no
other example of the kind."
-“Do
you want our Socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose it is
independence? We are fifty to a hundred years behind the advanced
countries. We must make good this lag in ten years. Either we do
it or they crush us.”
-“USSR should overtake and outstrip the capitalist countries.”
-“Socialism in one country”
-“I believe in one thing only, the power of the human will”
-“Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem.”
-After Fulton Speech Stalin in Pravda 13 March 1946: “Mr. Churchill has called for a war on the USSR.”
-Stalin before his death: “the imperialistic powers will wring your necks like chickens.”
-We
think that a powerful and vigorous movement is impossible without
differences — "true conformity" is possible only in the cemetery.
-If
any foreign minister begins to defend to the death a "peace
conference," you can be sure his government has already placed its
orders for new battleships and aeroplanes.
-A sincere diplomat is like dry water or wooden iron.
-The press must grow day in and day out — it is our Party's sharpest and most powerful weapon.
-We
disagreed with Zinoviev and Kamenev because we knew that the
policy of amputation was fraught with great dangers for the Party,
that the method of amputation, the method of blood-letting — and
they demanded blood — was dangerous, infectious: today you amputate
one limb, tomorrow another, the day after tomorrow a third — what
will we have left in the Party?
-What
would happen if capital succeeded in smashing the Republic of
Soviets? There would set in an era of the blackest reaction in all
the capitalist and colonial countries, the working class and the
oppressed peoples would be seized by the throat, the positions of
international communism would be lost.
-If the opposition disarms, all is well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.
-We do not want a single foot of foreign territory; but of our territory we shall not surrender a single inch to anyone.
-Anti-Semitism,
as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige
of cannibalism. Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the toilers, for it
is a false track which diverts them from the proper road and leads
them into the jungle. Hence, Communists, as consistent
internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable and bitter enemies
of anti-Semitism. In the U.S.S.R., anti-Semitism is strictly
prosecuted as a phenomenon hostile to the Soviet system. According
to the laws of the U.S.S.R. active anti-Semites are punished with
death.
-We
are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We
must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they
will crush us. (Speech "The Tasks of Economic Executives" (4
February 1931) at the beginning of the rapid industrialisation
campaign. Ten years later, Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union.)
-I
want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and
indifferent about the quality of food they eat. (Stalin describing his
aim to create a powerful,
subservient army of ape-men of 'immense strength, but with an
underdeveloped brain' to meet the needs of his five year plans.)
-Life has improved, comrades. Life has become more joyous.
-Mankind
is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited;
and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division, and from
the antagonism between poor and rich, means abstracting oneself
from fundamental facts.
-Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.
-History shows that there are no invincible armies and that there never have been.
-Ours is a just cause; victory will be ours!
-Hitlers
come and go, but Germany and the German people remain. ("The Order #55
of the National Commissar for the Defence" (23 February 1942) when
the enemy had reached the gate of Moscow during World War II. He
called on the people not to identify all Germans with the Nazis.)
-This
leads to the conclusion, it is time to finish retreating. Not one
step back! Such should now be our main slogan. ... Henceforth the
solid law of discipline for each commander, Red Army soldier, and
commissar should be the requirement — not a single step back without
order from higher command. ("The Order of the National Commissar
for the Defence of the Soviet Union" (28 July 1942) Moscow)
-The writer is the engineer of the human soul.
-Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.
-Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs.
-God's
not unjust, he doesn't actually exist. We've been deceived. If God
existed, he'd have made the world more just... I'll lend you a book
and you'll see.
-Before
your eyes rises the hero of Gogol's story who, in a fit of
aberration, imagined that he was the King of Spain. Such is the fate
of all megalomaniacs.
-This
creature softened my heart of stone. She died and with her died my last
warm feelings for humanity. (At the funeral of his first wife, Kato
Svanidze, on 25 November 1907)
-One
of Ivan the Terrible's mistakes was to overlook the five great
feudal families. If he had annihilated those five families, there
would definitely have been no Time of Troubles. But Ivan the Terrible
would execute someone and then spend a long time repenting and
praying. God got in his way in this matter. He ought to have been
still more decisive!
-If,
against all expectation, Germany finds itself in a difficult
situation then she can be sure that the Soviet people will come to
Germany's aid and will not allow Germany to be strangled. The Soviet
Union wants to see a strong Germany and we will not allow Germany to
be thrown to the ground.
-This
war is not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also
imposes on it his own social system. Everyone imposes his own system
as far as his army can reach. It cannot be otherwise. If now there
is not a communist government in Paris, this is only because
Russia has no an army which can reach Paris in 1945.
-I
consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or
how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count
the votes, and how. [Variant (loose) translation: The people who
cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes
decide everything.]
-The
Pope! How many divisions has he got? [Said sarcastically to Pierre
Laval in 1935, in response to being asked whether he could do
anything with Russian Catholics to help Laval win favour with the
Pope, to counter the increasing threat of Nazism; as quoted in The
Second World War (1948) by Winston Churchill]
-So
the bastard's dead? Too bad we didn't capture him alive! [Said in April
1945 — On hearing of Hitler's suicide, as quoted in The Memoirs of
Georgy Zhukov]
-Does
Djilas, who is himself a writer, not know what human suffering and
the human heart are? Can't he understand it if a soldier who has
crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has
fun with a woman or takes some trifle? [In response to complaints
about the rapes and looting committed by the Red Army during the Second
World War
In the Soviet Army, it takes more courage to retreat than advance.]
-Tsar
Alexander reached Paris. [Said to an American diplomat who remarked how
grateful it must be to see Russian troops in Berlin.]
-I
know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my
grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away
without mercy. [Said to Molotov in 1943]
-God
is on your side? Is He a Conservative? The Devil's on my side, he's a
good Communist. [Said to Winston Churchill in Tehran, November 1943, as
quoted in Fallen Eagle: The Last Days of the Third Reich (1995) by
Robin Cross, p. 21]
-Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
-There are no fortresses that Bolsheviks cannot storm.
-Quantity has a quality all of its own.
-I'm finished. I trust no one, not even myself.
Stalin Historiography
The Liberal thinks that persons play a major part in history. Stalin as a person is interesting in
understanding the events, he took advantage of other persons weaknesses etc to build his personal
power.
The Structuralist believes that it is structures in society that will determine the actions of history. The
French revolution is caused by society, not by persons storming the Bastille.
The Determinist believes that there are actual “laws” determining the historical way that events will
take. If there are a number of factors present, then these factors will lead to that certain event. Their
approach is similar to a natural scientist’s, if you heat water it will boil, if you have population starving
in the cities you will have a revolution etc.
The Intentionalists examines the willing and desires of different persons or factors in society had.
Did Stalin intend for the Purges to take place or not? Are there any evidences for this. If one is an
intentionalist you are most likely to have an liberal perspective too.
The Revisionist is an historian who has revised the history out of any reason, it doesn’t necessarily
mean that they belong to a whole new school, it only means that they have a different opinion than
most other active historians coming from having revised the facts.
The Normative approach, means that we should use history as a warning example, there are dos
and dont's in history.
SAMPLE ESSAYS
Evaluate the results of Stalin's first 5 Year Plan
Ambitiously,
Stalin started the 5 year plan and until 1941, it had a big impact in
Russia economically, politically and socially. It was a big success
economically, however there were negative effects socially.
Politically, Stalin was able to strengthen his power. Economic and
Social effects will be examined in detail.
Stalin emphasized on heavy industries. As a result, there was a huge
achievement on the economy. Stalin thought, to make the USSR strong
enough to protect itself, emphasizing heavy industries which could make
the USSR develop faster, was needed in order to catch up other
industrialized countries such as Germany, Japan, the US, the UK etc. He
successfully increased coal and steel production by six-fold and
four-fold respectively. In addition, new industrial centres such as
Magnitogorsk and Gorki were set up. Especially, Magnitogorsk, in south
east Siberia, which was based on the metal industries like iron and
steel, experienced enormous growth; in 1929 there were only 25 people
living there but three years later the number had increased to 250,000.
Those achievements, which were seen as the major successes of the 5
year plans, made it possible to recover the USSR's economy which had
been disrupted during the WWΙ. In addition, since the Soviet Union
takeover in 1917, trade with the rest of the world had been severely
reduced but by increase in heavy industries' productions, the USSR
could rely in its own resources.
However, there were some social problems ; human rights were attacked.
Workers couldn't get any respect from the USSR government. They had to
work in extremely poor and dangerous conditions and for big
engineering projects (dangerous) such as dams or canals, slave labour
(such as political opponents, kulaks or Jews) were used. In fact, when
Stalin ordered to build the Belomor canal, 100,000 workers (slave
labours) died between 1931 to 1933. In addition, those who made
mistakes were sent to the labour camps which were called 'gulag', This
showed how ruthless was Stalin; everyone had to work under the fear and
to fulfil increasingly unrealistic targets, a wide range of
enterprising methods like ambushing resources, offering a bribe were
used; corruption increased. Another point which showed Stalin didn't
care about their his people was that he only dealt with what were called
"capital' industries. Thus, consumer industries were neglected. There
was a shortage of consumer goods and thus people suffered from the
increased price.
Politically, Stalin seized power by removing those who opposed to the
plan or those who might be an obstacle to the progress. For example,
Stalin attacked the Muslim faith because he thought it was holding back
industrialization. 7 million Kulaks who opposed to his plan were also
eliminated. Capitalist classes such as Nepmen and 'bourgeois experts'
removed. Therefore, his position was strengthened and this became the
basis of his strong policy in the future.
In conclusion, as a result of the five year plan, great success was
achieved economically. However, socially, people in the USSR suffered
terribly because of Stalin's ruthless policy. Politically, by removing
all obstacles, he strengthened his position.
Problems with Industrialisation during the first 5 year plan
In
1928, Russia had decided to launch its first 5 year plan to rapidly
industrialise and catch up to the rest of Western Europe in terms of
economic, and technological strengths. With this rapid
industrialisation came many problems ranging from social, political,
and economical factors, where one problem ties into another problem
from another factor.
Social problems arose from industrialisation in many ways, such as,
horrible living conditions that came from too much concentration of
building factories and mines by the government. This was a problem
because it was contributing to workers discontent to work. This led to
more absenteeism which was not only a social problem, but was slowing
production and had brought up economic problems as well. Another
problem was workers having to work in horrible unsafe conditions,
because of the pressures of meeting marked targets of production,
leading them to ignore safety.There was also close to no pay or
incentive to work, any money workers did make, was nearly useless,
since the government's lack of attention to textile and home product
productions, gave workers nothing to buy. This could be an extension of
another social problem, such as the back breaking hours workers went
through in the form of the " uninterrupted week" where factories would
be open 7 days a week, only having 1 day off, which would in all
likelihood have been different from one's spouse. Working constantly,
barely being able to see family, a horrible home and worthless money
will all led up to huge social problems and unrest.
Political problems arose from industrialisation in many ways as well,
but one of the main effecting problems, that also brings up social and
economic problems is the removal of capitalist classes such as Nepmen
and "bourgeois experts". Though this may seem to be a victory for
communism, by having a class-less society, the removal of these Nepmen
and "bourgeuis experts" in reality was an act of "dumbing-down" the
country. Most of those people were the people who knew how to run
factories and work machinery to it's full potential, and would be able
to meet government production targets more effectively. But with this
lowering of expertise, all that the country was left with was
inexperienced peasant workers who will only slow down production, and
cause more problems such as accidents, worsening working conditions.
The example just mentioned can also connect with social and economic
problems, since taking the population a step back by ridding it of
educated and experienced people, will slow down production and decrease
output and profit needed to support the country.
Economic problems arose from industrialisation with many connections
to political and social problems. Such as the emphasis on heavy
industry and not concentrating enough on things like housing, textile
and consumer industries bringing problems of absenteeism, and no
content to work with no incentive and rewards. Another example of an
economic problem is the increased corruption caused by impossible
production targets that lead factory workers and managers to give false
data reports, in fear of being punished or losing there life for not
reaching targets. For example, the official figure given for the
increased industrial production was 852%, compared to the Western
estimates that the actual increase in output of industry was 260%.
These exaggerated numbers are linked to the corrupted factory managers,
but can also be linked to social problems like the lack of skill of
many of the workers from political issues such as, elimination of
Nepmen and "bourgeois experts" and linking back to other economical
problems like the poor pay and conditions causing workers to shift from
job to job, keeping them inconsistent and inexperienced in their new
fields of work.
Give the Advantages and Disadvantages for Workers Under Stalin’s System
Soviet Russia, the “Worker’s Paradise”, a nation founded on the
principles of a ruling proletariat, the theory of idyllic conditions for
labourers with the common goal of toiling towards a great modern state.
The Five-Year Plans from 1927 to 1937, encouraging the ardent concept
of laboremus pro patria, radically changed common
life and brought workers advantages as well as disadvantages. To what
extent did Stalin succeed in recreating the Marxist vision of
implementing excellent working conditions for all?
The work schedule under the Communist dictatorship was drastically
changed, with the introduction of novel shift patterns. Factories ran
seven days per week, with labourers working in long shifts and resting
on a rotating free day[1].
Not only did this mean a substantial need for energy to run the
factories and increased maintenance on machinery due to its overuse, it
also had a great impact on workers’ personal lives. As both men and
women were able to work, their rest days were not coordinated and thus
changed the nature of traditional family life. The already limited time
for private family life was further inhibited by the fact that mothers
and fathers could not spend much time with their families together;
domestic life seemed neglected under Stalin’s Five-Year Plans. However,
as a young woman, I find this shift in family life to be a very
auspicious development in the social structure, as it led to the
emancipation of women and their liberation from domestic duties[2].
Women had the opportunity to work in fields typically assigned to men.
In numerous propaganda posters of the time, women were depicted as
labourers, working in traditionally masculine disciplines as equals to
their male counterparts[3].
This was not only encouraged by the Soviet government through
propaganda, but also actively made feasible through the establishment of
crèches and kindergartens, where children were taken care of while
mothers worked. Although I am aware that Stalin did not have a specific
feminist aim in mind, his system can be considered an unconscious
avant-garde liberation of women, far ahead of any movement in other
parts of the world at the time, where the vast majority of women
continued wearing the shackles of housewifely obligations for many
decades to come. Even nowadays as Laird Keir of Glencairn argues, women
still find it inconvenient to prevail over the yawning gap between
family and career due to the insufficiency of child care centres.
Therefore, from a woman’s perspective, the working conditions in Soviet
Russia during the 1930s were in some ways more advanced than the western
world in the 21st century.
This system of rotating rest days also impeded workers’ religious
traditions. As Sunday was no longer a fixed rest day, workers who had
shifts on that day found it difficult to go to church and fulfil their
orthodox duties. They were forced to breach the holy commandment of
resting on dies dominicus. However, while nowadays it is easy to
criticize and label this a violation of basic human rights and the
liberty to thoroughly practice one’s religion, it is important to
understand that the Soviet government did not encourage religion; on the
contrary, being an atheist organisation, it was in its interest to
discard the religious traditions from Russian society. Therefore,
although it may have been difficult for the first generation of orthodox
Christian workers under Stalin to conform to the rest-day system, later
generations found it less inconvenient, since religious duties were
gradually drained out of Soviet society anyway.
Workers during Stalin’s regime were under a certain amount of pressure.
As the industry had fixed output requirements decreed by the state, it
was essential to meet production targets. The Five-Year Plans were often
unrealistic. Steel for instance was required to almost triple between
1932 and 1937, a feat that was seemingly impossible, yet to fail to
achieve it was virtually a crime. Due to this pressure, many workers of
factories that did not reach the goals were accused of sabotage and
show-trials were held to intimidate others. Additionally, conditions
became stricter; they included punishments in order to implement
rigorous discipline. For example, in 1938, workers could be fired for
tardiness exceeding 20 minutes without an adequate reason. Therefore, it
is easy to assume that the overreaching nature of Stalin’s Five-Year
Plans made conditions for workers more difficult. However, it is vital
to acknowledge that the ones who bore the most strain were the leaders
of the factories, the ones in charge of achieving the goals set by the
government, as they were the ones facing the more severe consequences if
they failed. Despite the recorded stories of sabotage accusations and
show-trials, those in charge of the factories had to treat the labourers
fairly in order to encourage them to work well in the first place; the
power of strikes was eminent ever since Tsarist times. Workers who did
well were rewarded with prizes such as better housing, entertainment and
extra food rations. This developed into prominent movements of
enthusiastic workers such as the Stakhanovites, who were exceptionally
zealous and productive and thus earned recognition. Although many of
their accomplishments were myths that sparked violent envy in their
comrades, they show that workers in Soviet Russia had the opportunity to
achieve distinction and that there were men and women who ardently
believed in Stalin’s objective of rapid industrialisation.
Workers in the USSR faced dangerous conditions. The construction of
formidable new cities such as Magnitogorsk cost many lives due to
insufficient safety regulations and harsh seasons. However, high death
rates were nothing new among workers around the world. For instance,
during the 1920s, the death rate of workers at the Tanganyika railway
construction was more than 50%. The League of Nations decreased it to a
“more acceptable” 4%. While workers around the world suffered (and still
do) it is unreasonable to solely denounce the Soviet Union for the
stipulations that its labourers faced, dreadful as they may have been.
Nowadays, we still witness child labour and sweat shops.
One must study the working conditions in the Soviet Russia in its
context. While we find it easy to criticize severe punishment, strict
regulations and rigorous schedules when examining them from a western,
capitalist, democratic perspective where working regulations are
comparatively relaxed, the global situation in the Stalinist era was
quite different. October 1929 saw the infamous Wall-Street Crash,
causing 15 million Americans to lose their jobs by 1933. The Russian
population remained unscathed. While we may condemn the fact that
Russian workers had to live off food rations, we must not forget the
queues of unemployed individuals waiting for food in the USA during the
Great Depression, suffering from the instability of the market. At least
every worker in the USSR had a job.
What were the Advantages and Disadvantages for workers under Stalin 1929- 1939?
The
time period of 1929-1939 was one greatly influenced by the five year
plans. In the Soviet Union, it were these years which marked the
incredible industrial growth and complete change in work culture.
However, while there were many changes for workers due to communism, it
is debatable which were advantages and which disadvantages. The problem
is that when we look back at this time period, we compare the working
and living conditions of then to today. However, to be able to fairly
assess the advantages and disadvantages for workers under Stalin, one
must first know what came before the time period of 1929-1939. It is not
possible to accurately and fairly assess anything, without comparing it
to the past. Therefore, I will compare the conditions of the five year
plans to the conditions for workers under the Tsar.
The
most important change for workers during this time period was the
working conditions. During the time of the Tsar, a working day was
eleven and a half hours long, but with overtime the working day could be
extended further. Furthermore, factories themselves were poorly lit and
badly ventilated; combined with the working hours and the low payment
these factories remind of modern day sweatshops. Working conditions
between 1929 to 1939 were different. With the introduction of
electricity into the factories, and new machines being installed at the
start of the first five year plan, working conditions became less harsh
and more endurable. The main reason for this was that at least in the
factories, a worker’s job took less physical strength than what it would
have taken in the early 20th century. Nevertheless, for
workers in the Belomor Canal the conditions definitely got worse. Large
scale slave labor was used to construct this utterly useless canal and
with around 100000 deaths during its constructions it was most like the
project which caused the most casualties. Overall, one cannot describe
working conditions under Stalin an improvement. While the
industrialization of Russia allowed certain tasks to be taken over by
machines, the tremendous human cost of simply the Belomor Canal shows
that the individual no longer counted. With the government focusing
purely on the collective, the individual was forgotten about, and with
them the conditions in their work places. Therefore, Stalin’s early
years were definitely not an advantage for the average worker.
Living
conditions however steadily improved for hard working workers. If a
worker produced above average, he could become a so called
“Stakhanovite” which could earn up to 4 times as much as a regular
worker and was eligible to better housing. However, even regular workers
gained advantages. Before 1914, most Russian workers had shared a room
with up to 10 fellow workers, and had been mostly ignored by the
government due to them being the minority amongst a country of peasants.
While not much is known about how this aspect of living conditions
changed, workers were at least given the dream of a greater Russia with
better housing. This can best be seen in the plans for Magnitogorsk,
where housing was carefully planned to suit the workers and fulfill all
their needs with doctors, schools and shops integrated in each house
block. Nevertheless, one cannot speak of an advantage in the living
conditions either. While many historians such as John D Clare state that
there was poor housing, none actually give examples of what housing was
like during the 5 year plans. There seems to be a tendency to focus on
the economic output in terms of facts and judge the human cost purely
from an emotional standpoint. This makes judging the Living conditions
very difficult and therefore I cannot reasonably say whether Stalin
provided advantages or disadvantages for workers in this category.
Lastly
the educational and health care systems were greatly improved compared
to any other time period in Russian history. Free health care and
compulsory education turned an illiterate population with a life
expectancy of 40 years into a literate population in which 2 million
people where in secondary education. Mainly two things were achieved
here. Firstly, education was introduced in Russia which, when looking at
its size, is an enormous achievement. Secondly, education was not only
introduced, but it was introduced for free which makes this definitely
an advantage for any worker.
In
conclusion, the time of the five year plans saw many changes for
Russian workers, some were advantages others disadvantages. However, the
overall lack of information on the specifics shows how little
communists cared about the people, as long as the overall goal was
achieved. This is exactly where in my opinion the main disadvantage for
workers under Stalin lies; while the government was supposed to
represent the workers, it hardly cared about their interests.
How did the conditions of workers change under Stalin?
In
the 1930s there was numerous changes made to the communist regime, and
one of them was the conditions of workers and their support towards
changes in policies. Some benefited from the changes and rose in
society, while others underwent suffering and need for food. Russians
workers are divided in three categories, because of the way they worked
and their opinions of the circumstances they were working in, these are
the women, the Stakhanovites and the other workers, mainly average age
men, who were complaining about all the work. Women found it easier and
better for them to work under Stalin as they had more opportunities,
Stakhanovites thought that by working hard you would get more and the
other workers did not like the new working conditions.
The
role of women changed dramatically in the Soviet Union when under
Stalin, because they became much more equal to men. Women probably liked
it better working under Stalin or Lenin than working under the Tsar,
where they did not even have the chance to work. After the 1917
Revolution, women who fought with men for Communism gained more equality
in the workforce as they were promised. They could get any job they
wanted in all fields and therefore in the 1930s there was a massive
entry of women in the labour force. In Leningrad, for example the number
of working women increased from 44% to 50% from 1935 to 1937.
Women were mostly demanded to work in crèches and kindergartens to take
care of their children after giving birth. Also an advantage for women
who had six to more children would receive 2000 roubles per year,
which was more than the average sum of money for working families.
Furthermore after men had to mobilize into the army, the percentage
increased further, because women had to take the men’s places in the
factories and businesses. However there was still some discrimination
among the people, where women still had the lower positions in the
workplace and the women were usually more illiterate than men. In
Leningrad there were at least 50 to 60% of female doctors, but only 4
women were chief doctors. This was the same in factories where there
would be 318 male factory directors, but only 20 female factory
directors.
Thus women could have liked the new opportunities they were getting
under Stalin or not, whether they were in a higher or lower position.
There
was a group of young workers who liked working under Stalin and they
were called the Stakhanovites. The Stakhanovites were named after a coal
miner by the name of Alexei Stakhanov in the Donbas region. He was
supposed to have cut 102 tonnes of coal on his own in a single shift, while the normal amount was of 7 tonnes therefore 14 times the usual amount a man would produce.
Afterwards many others, younger workers especially, would follow Alexei
Stakhanov footsteps and produce even more than he did and their
achievements would be reported in the newspapers. It seems as if the
conditions of workers have changed, because most Stakhanovites were
given new flats, given medals and made ‘Heroes of Socialist Labour’.
Therefore some of the Stakhanovites’ lives improved as quoted in a
Magnitogorsk newspaper by Sheila Fitzpatrick, ‘Aleksei Tischenko…By 1936
the couple owned furniture, including a couch and a wardrobe, as well
as dress clothes, including two overcoats, some women’s dresses, men’s
suits, shoes…’
During that time, common Russians did not even have proper housing and
having furniture and clothing was a luxury. For other Stakhanovites,
life was not the same. They were not popular among the workforce, as
they pushed the production norm, on which wages were calculated. There
were badly treated and some were even murdered. Few had new flats and
holidays, most had to be satisfied with much less than in the quote
above. For Stalin, ‘everyone works according to his abilities and
receives not according to his needs, but according to what he produces’, therefore nobody gets anything until they produced something.
The
people who hated the new work practices and who usually complained were
average age men. In 1929 the government introduced a new policy called
the ‘uninterrupted week’;
it obliged the workers to work all seven days of the week and having a
rest day off on any day. The problem with this new rule was that couples
complained that they did not have time for each other anymore and
Christians could not go to Church on Sundays as often as they wanted.
Also absenteeism was introduced to prevent workers from missing work or
arriving late. It was to punish the workers who skipped a day’s work
without consent and reason and they will evict from their job if done
so. In 1938, this policy was changed to being late more than twenty
minutes without good explanation.
This made workers work in a factory a few days and then go to another
city or town to start over, therefore internal passports were invented.
These unable workers to leave the town they lived in and could not move
without the police’s consent. A proportion of the workers were also
forced labour, where they had to work under compulsion, fear of physical
punishment or being denied food. This therefore increased the suicides
rates and conditions were not very good. But however there was still
some optimism from these workers in building the first Communist
society, to build that paradise on earth that Marx prophesied. And
workers believed that it was enough to have survived one day of it and
they will just have to live to see another day.
Under
Stalin and Communism many things changed and one of those things was
the conditions of workers. The conditions usually changed depending on a
group of people. For women working was a new opportunity that had to be
taken at any cost. For young people who still were idealistic, working
was to prove that Communism and the USSR were strong. For other workers,
the conditions were considered dangerous and they were complaining
about the new work practices. The problem of working under Stalin was
that if you did not work hard enough or more then you were supposed to
then you would be killed or sent to labour camps. Therefore the
conditions of workers did change but not necessarily in a good way.
Joseph Stalin’s rule, particularly between 1945 to 1953, marked an
influential period in Soviet history. Economic and political policies,
from the Second Five-Year Plan to the era of High Stalinism,
fundamentally reshaped Soviet society. These policies drastically
affected the Soviet economy, politics, and the daily lives of its
citizens, and their impacts remain a topic of scholarly debate. Robert
Service notes the profound economic transformation while Sheila
Fitzpatrick emphasises the social mobility as a side effect. Conversely,
Sarah Davies and James Harris stress the atmosphere of fear and
repression resulting from these policies. In assessing the impact of
Stalin's policies, it's important to acknowledge these differing
perspectives and consider their broader implications.
One of the
major areas of focus under Stalin's rule was the economic transformation
of the Soviet Union. Stalin aimed to rapidly industrialise the largely
agrarian economy to match and surpass the capitalist West. His economic
policies, particularly the Five-Year Plans, were crucial to this
process. Following the devastation of World War II, the Fourth Five-Year
Plan (1946-1950) aimed to reconstruct the economy and restore
industrial and agricultural production. It focused on heavy industries
like steel and coal, which were essential for the reconstruction effort
and military power. Service argues that these plans, despite their many
shortcomings and costs, significantly modernised the Soviet Union.
Indeed, steel production increased from 12 million tons in 1940 to 71
million tons in 1955, reflecting a remarkable transformation. However,
Service also acknowledges the tremendous human cost of such rapid
industrialisation, including famine, forced labour, and population
displacement.
Simultaneously, Stalin's political policies also
played a pivotal role in shaping the Soviet Union's socio-political
landscape. After the war, High Stalinism continued the political
repression and authoritarian governance. The consolidation of a
personality cult around Stalin further solidified his control, with
Stalin portrayed as the father of nations and a genius of humanity.
Davies and Harris highlight the atmosphere of fear created by the Great
Purges and mass repressions. They argue that Stalin's policies bred an
environment of terror where dissent was ruthlessly crushed, and loyalty
to the party was the only means of survival. This period saw widespread
purges, show trials, and executions, with the NKVD (precursor to the
KGB) playing a pivotal role in enforcing Stalin's will. However,
Fitzpatrick presents an alternate view, positing that Stalin's rule also
created opportunities for social mobility. With the state's control
over education and jobs, people from humble backgrounds could ascend the
social ladder, particularly if they displayed ideological commitment.
Despite the underlying fear and repression, the possibility of upward
mobility was a distinct side effect of Stalin's policies.
Evaluating
the societal impacts of Stalin’s policies offers another lens through
which to measure their effects. The 'Cultural Revolution' aimed to
create a new Soviet person - ideologically committed, disciplined, and
cultured. The policies targeted illiteracy, with significant results; by
1950, over 90% of people aged 9-49 could read and write.
Simultaneously, however, these initiatives led to the homogenisation of
cultures, suppression of minority languages, and the promotion of
Russian as the language of interethnic communication. Service suggests
that the drive to create a 'Soviet identity' significantly transformed
society, with the mass literacy campaign being a notable success.
Fitzpatrick, on the other hand, acknowledges this but highlights the
suppression of individuality and ethnic diversity. Therefore, while the
societal policies of Stalin were transformative, they had both positive
and negative repercussions.
In conclusion, the impact of Stalin's
economic and political policies between 1945 and 1953 was profound and
multifaceted. They effectively transformed the Soviet Union from a
predominantly agrarian society to an industrial superpower, as
highlighted by Service. However, this rapid progress came with enormous
human costs, including famines and forced labour. The political climate
was marked by fear and repression, as underscored by Davies and Harris,
yet it also opened avenues for social mobility, as argued by
Fitzpatrick. Stalin's societal policies, aimed at creating a new Soviet
man, significantly altered societal structures but also suppressed
individuality and cultural diversity. The breadth and depth of these
transformations elucidate the complexity of Stalin's rule and its
enduring impact on the Soviet Union.