This article is dedicated to the honorable memory of Mirsaid Sultangaliyev
Whilst researching the ideology of Eurasianism, I realized that the issue was actually even deeper and more nuanced than I had imagined. This is not merely a critique of Russia’s past. Rather, it involves a process of selection aimed at reconstructing the past. This process of selection is underpinned by an argument that accepts an idea which Soviet communists denied to the very end: namely, that Stalin was not actually a communist but a kind of Russian nationalist, and that with the adoption of Stalin’s interpretation as the official party line, the mistake of ‘imposing’ Western Marxist ideology on Russia in the same way as it had been done elsewhere was rectified.
To view Stalin solely through the prism of his opposition to Trotsky, and to restore his reputation by constructing a basis of legitimacy for him in the face of the postmodernist ideology of today’s neoconservatives, is, in my view, a wholly unnecessary endeavour. Personally, opposition to Stalin has never been a defining theme for someone like me, who has a Marxist ideological foundation. To frame the issue in terms of oppositions is to fail to understand it, and this holds true for all political issues. Stalin was a product of the conditions of his era. He viewed the Soviet Union not as a communist political regime, but primarily as a kind of nation-state operating under wartime conditions. As a result, it can be said that he succeeded against his rivals by concentrating power around his own programme.
But is the aim simply to ‘succeed against our competitors’? Is it about producing more steel, manufacturing more nuclear warheads, or working overtime at the end of every month just to meet certain targets?
As far as I can tell from what I’ve been following today, the Russian thinkers themselves are saying that this is not the case. They say that we have tried to judge ourselves by different standards, and in doing so we have worn our people down and destroyed their faith in their country. At least, that is what I have read.
The political thesis that socialism ‘achieved victory’ and that this was possible in a single country-a view defended in the letter below-is, as history has shown, incorrect. This became apparent following the collapse of the Soviet Union and is indirectly corroborated today by Russia’s semi-official ideologues through their argument that Stalin was essentially a kind of Eurasianist.
I wanted to briefly recap this discussion. Below, I leave you to read a letter from Stalin.
I do not pass judgement on historical and political events by labelling them ‘good’ or ‘bad’. I identify the facts, present the evidence, and set out the situation as it is.
Today, I see a misguided tendency to either shut oneself off entirely from the influence of opposing cultures and schools of thought, or to condemn them outright—from science to technology, and from culture to art. In my view, this will only lead to a repetition of the same mistake. No system of thought, culture or ideological approach is entirely evil, diabolical, accursed, or sacred, first-rate, or beyond question. These are, after all, merely windows onto reality. They are the tools we use to understand life; they are not reality itself.
No system of thought can provide a complete and absolute picture of social reality. But some come very close to doing so. There are thousands of systems of thought in the world, and if we treat them as substitutes for reality, we will turn against one another.
Hostility knows no end. We lived through those days.
People were at each other’s throats... Indeed, there are still those who cannot shake off the mindset of those days, people who harbor a blind hostility towards one another. It is a different way of thinking.
REPLY TO COMRADE IVANOV IVAN FILIPOVICH ON THE FINAL VICTORY OF SOCIALISM IN THE USSR, 12 February 1938, J.V. STALIN, Collected Works, Volume 14, , February 1934–April 1945, Turkish Edition, Inter Publications, December 1993, pp. 185–192
“Dear Comrade Stalin!
I would urgently ask you to clarify the following question: Here, and indeed within the Komsomol Regional Committee, there are two distinct interpretations regarding the ultimate victory of socialism in our country; in other words, the first set of contradictions is being conflated with the second. In the works you have written on the fate of socialism in the Soviet Union, you speak of two groups of contradictions – internal contradictions and external contradictions.
It is clear that we have resolved the contradictions in the first group –socialism has triumphed within the country.
I would like a response regarding the second set of contradictions-namely, those between socialism and capitalism. You point out that the ultimate victory of socialism implies the resolution of external contradictions, and thus offers a full guarantee against intervention and, consequently, against the restoration of capitalism. However, this set of contradictions can be resolved through the efforts of the working people of all countries.
Comrade Lenin also teaches us this: “Ultimate victory on a global scale can only be achieved through the joint efforts of the workers of all countries.”
At the seminar for propagandists of the SBLKGB Regional Committee, I stated, drawing on your works, that the final victory of socialism is only possible on a global scale. However, the staff of the Regional Committee, Uroşenko (First Secretary of the Komsomol Regional Committee) and Kaselkov (propaganda inspector), have characterized my remarks as Trotskyist.
I began reading them sections from your works relating to this issue, but Uroşenko suggested I put down the three-volume collection and said: ‘Comrade Stalin said this in 1926, but now it is 1938. At that time we had not yet achieved final victory, whereas now we have achieved final victory. It is no longer fitting for us to consider intervention or restoration.” He went on to say: “We have now attained the final victory of socialism and full assurance against intervention and the restoration of capitalism.” Consequently, I was accused of aiding Trotskyism, my propaganda work was blocked, and my continued membership of the Komsomol is now under discussion.
Comrade Stalin, I would ask you to clarify the following question: Have we achieved the final victory of socialism, or have we not yet achieved it? Perhaps I have been unable to find any supplementary up-to-date material relating to the changes of today.
In my view, Uroşenko’s statement that Comrade Stalin’s writings on this issue are now outdated is an anti-Bolshevik statement. And were the staff of the Regional Committee right to label me a Trotskyist? This has been very hurtful and offensive to me. I would ask you not to refuse my request and to send your reply to the following address
-Manturovsk District, Kursk Region, First Sasems Village Soviet, Ivanov Ivan Filipovich.
18 January 1938
I. Ivanov
“Ivan Filipovich, SBLKGB Propagandist, Manturovsk District, Kursk Region.”
Of course you are right, Comrade Ivanov; your ideological opponents-that is, Comrades Uroşenko and Kaselkov-are in the wrong.
For the following reason:
There is no doubt that, in a country-in this case, our own-there are two distinct aspects to the question of the ultimate victory of socialism.
The first aspect of the question of the final victory of socialism in our country concerns the mutual relations between the classes in our country. This is the sphere of internal relations. Can our country’s working class overcome its contradictions with the peasantry, form an alliance with it, and cooperate with it? Can our country’s working class, in alliance with the peasantry, defeat our country’s bourgeoisie, take the land, factories, mines, etc. from them, and build a new, classless society-a fully socialist society-through its own strength?
These are the issues linked to the first aspect of the question concerning the victory of socialism in our country.
Leninism answers these questions in the affirmative. Lenin teaches that ‘we possess everything necessary to establish a fully socialist society’. This means that we must overcome the bourgeoisie and build a socialist society with our own strength; we can do this. Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and other gentlemen, who later became spies and agents of fascism, however, denied the possibility of building socialism in our country without the victory of the socialist revolution in other countries, in capitalist countries. These gentlemen, concealing their retreat behind the false pretext of the ‘victory of the revolution’ in other countries, sought, in essence, to drag our country back onto the path of bourgeois development. This was the reason for our Party’s conflict with these gentlemen. The subsequent course of our country’s development has shown that our Party was entirely correct, whilst Trotsky and his cohorts were in the wrong. For during this period, we eliminated the bourgeoisie, established fraternal cooperation with the peasantry, and, irrespective of the absence of a victorious socialist revolution in other countries, established a socialist society in its broad outlines.
This is the situation regarding the first aspect of the question of the victory of socialism in our country. Our discussion with Comrade Ivanov, Comrade Uroşenko and Comrade Kaselkov does not, I believe, concern this aspect of the question. The second aspect of the question of the victory of socialism in our country concerns the issue of the mutual relations between our country and other countries, particularly capitalist countries, and the issue of the mutual relations between our country’s working class and the bourgeoisie of other countries. This is the sphere of external, international relations. Can the victorious socialism of a country surrounded by a number of powerful capitalist nations consider itself secure against the danger of a military attack (intervention) and, consequently, against attempts to re-establish capitalism in our country? Can our working class and peasantry overthrow the bourgeoisie of other countries with their own strength, just as they overthrew their own bourgeoisie, without the serious assistance of the working classes of capitalist countries? To put it another way: Can it be said that, under the conditions where the victory of socialism in our country is final-that is, where socialism has triumphed in a single country whilst capitalist encirclement persists-socialism in that single country is entirely free from military attacks and attempts to re-establish capitalism?
These are the issues linked to the second aspect of the question of the victory of socialism in our country.
Leninism answers these questions in the negative. Leninism states that “the final victory of socialism, in the sense of a guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale” (see the well-known resolution of the 14th Congress of the CPSU(B)). This means that the task of achieving the final victory of socialism in a single country cannot be resolved without the serious assistance of the international proletariat. This, of course, does not mean that we should sit idly by, with our hands tied, waiting for help from abroad. On the contrary, the assistance of the international proletariat must be combined with efforts to strengthen our country’s defence capabilities, to reinforce the Red Army and the Red Navy, and to mobilise the entire country to fight against military aggression and attempts to restore bourgeois relations.
Lenin says the following on the subject:
We live not merely within a single state, but within a system of states, and it is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic could coexist alongside imperialist states for any length of time. Ultimately, one or the other will emerge victorious. Until that end, a series of terrible conflicts between the Soviet Union and these bourgeois states is inevitable. This means that the ruling class, the proletariat, if it wishes to maintain its rule, must prove this through its military organisations as well.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. VIII, German edition, pp. 35, 36).
“We are besieged by people, classes and governments who openly express their hatred towards us. We must not forget that there is always a hair’s breadth between us and an attack. (Volume XXVII, p. 117, in Russian).”
The final victory of socialism is a complete safeguard against attempts at intervention and, consequently, against restoration; for any attempt at restoration that is to be taken seriously can only be realised with external support, with the backing of international capital. Therefore, the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries, and furthermore, the victory of these workers—at least in some countries-is a necessary condition for the final victory of socialism, ensuring that the first victorious country is fully safeguarded against intervention and restoration attempts.” (Problems of Leninism, 1932 First Series, German Edition, p. 347).
These words, as was always Lenin’s way, are unvarnished, harsh and bitter, yet honest and true to the facts.
On the basis of these conditions, Stalin’s essay ‘Problems of Leninism’ states as follows:
Indeed, it is ridiculous and foolish to turn a blind eye to the reality of capitalist encirclement and to believe that our external enemies-such as the fascists-would not launch a military attack on the USSR when the opportunity arose. Only blind demagogues, or secret enemies of the people seeking to lull the masses into complacency, could entertain such a notion. To believe that, should the intervention achieve even the slightest success, the interventionists would not dismantle the Soviet system in the regions they have seized and re-establish the bourgeois system in its place is no less ridiculous. Did Denikin and Kolchak not re-establish the bourgeois system in the regions they occupied? Are the fascists any better than Denikin and Kolchak? As long as the capitalist encirclement persists, only fools or secret enemies-who seek to conceal their hostility by putting on a show and aim to demobilise the people-can deny the danger of military intervention and restoration attempts. If a country is under capitalist encirclement and is not entirely secure against the danger of intervention and restoration, can the victory of socialism in that country be regarded as definitive? It is clear that this cannot be done. This is the state of affairs regarding the question of the victory of socialism in a single country.
It turns out that this issue comprises two distinct questions: a) the question of our country’s internal affairs-namely, the defeat of our bourgeoisie and the full establishment of socialism-and b) the question of our country’s external relations-namely, ensuring our country’s complete security against the threat of military intervention and restoration. We have resolved the first issue; the bourgeoisie has been eliminated in our country and socialism has, in essence, been established. This is referred to in our country as the victory of socialism, or, to put it more accurately, the victory of socialist construction in a single country.
If our country were situated on an island rather than being surrounded by a ring of capitalist nations, we could say that this victory is a final one. However, since we do not live on an island but within a ‘system of states’-a significant portion of which maintains hostile attitudes towards the country of socialism and poses a threat of intervention and restoration-we state clearly and honestly that the victory of socialism in our country is not final. From this, it follows that the second problem has not yet been resolved and must still be resolved. Moreover: The second problem cannot be resolved in the same way as the first, that is, solely through our country’s own efforts. Resolving the second problem will only be possible through the serious efforts of the international proletariat, combined with the even more serious efforts of the entire Soviet people. The international proletarian relations between the working class of the USSR and the working classes of bourgeois countries must be strengthened and consolidated. In the event of any military attack against our country, the political assistance that the working classes of bourgeois countries will provide to our working class must be organised separately from the assistance of every kind that our working class will provide to the working classes of bourgeois countries; on all fronts, the Red Army, the Red Navy, the Red Air Force and the Ossoaviahim must be strengthened and consolidated. To ensure that any ‘accident’ or ‘trick’ from our external enemies does not catch us off guard, the entire population must be kept in a state of mobilisation in the face of the threat of military attack...
It is clear from your letter that Comrade Uroşenko holds views that are not particularly Leninist. Apparently, this comrade claims that ‘we have today achieved the final victory of socialism and are completely safe from intervention and the restoration of capitalism’. There is no doubt that Comrade Uroşenko is fundamentally wrong. Such a claim by Comrade Uroşenko can only be explained by a failure to grasp the reality around us and to understand the most basic principles of Leninism, or by the empty posturing of a young bureaucrat with a big head. If we truly possess “complete security against intervention and capitalist restoration”, why would we need a powerful Red Army, a Red Navy, a Red Air Force, a powerful Ossoviahim, and the strengthening and consolidation of international proletarian relations?
Wouldn’t it be better to use the billions of roubles spent on strengthening the Red Army for other needs, and to keep the Red Army at a minimum level, or even disband it? People like Comrade Uroşenko, even if they are subjectively committed to our cause, objectively pose a danger to it, because through their posturing, whether willingly or unwillingly (it makes no difference), they are lulling our people to sleep, demobilising the workers and peasants, and aiding the enemy so that they may catch us off guard in the event of any international turmoil.
As far as I understand, Comrade Ivanov, as regards ‘your removal from propaganda work and the discussion of whether you should remain in the Komsomol’, there is no need for you to feel afraid. If those at the SBLKGB Regional Committee really wish to resemble Chekhov’s Corporal Prishibeyev, let no one doubt that they will lose this game. In our country, Prishibeyevs are not at all popular.
Now, you can decide for yourselves whether the section in the book *Problems of Leninism* concerning the victory of socialism in a single country has become outdated or not. Personally, I would very much like these issues to be outdated, and for there to be no such tiresome things as capitalist encirclement, the threat of military aggression, the danger of capitalist restoration, and so on. Unfortunately, however, these tiresome things continue to persist.
No comments:
Post a Comment