There are more than a few problems I have with your portrayal of events and class composition. I respect your sticking to your principles, but I have some heavy departures, both theoretically and historically.
First, I am well aware that the composition of Bolsheviks became very mixed in a tumultuous wartime environment. This cannot really be denied, nor would I want to. What I want to push back on, however, is the notion that this resulted in a bourgeois character. The industrial base was destroyed, correct, and so it was rebuilt, first focusing on agrarian production, and next on industrial production. Soviets became the basis of the Soviet Union, and by 1936 the Soviet Union had established an industrial and agricultural base that far exceeded pre-war levels.
What happened was that soviet democracy was implemented, and the party became integrated and was composed of the working classes and the newly rejuvenated workers and peasants. Stalin was not some bourgeois figure, nor was the party in opposition to socialism. The bourgeois character did not appear until Khrushchev’s era, growing under Gorbachev and then succeeding in counter-revolution.
Second, the banning of factionalism was necessary and correct. Undermining democratic centralism and establishing wedges by which to break apart the unity of the socialist system would have been catastrophic, and the fifth column elements that existed within the Soviet Union represented a very clear demonstration of such a danger.
The actual class character of the CPSU was proletarian. The bourgeois elements of society, including kulaks, had been liquidated as a firm class by 1936 or so. The devastation of World War II severely weakened the Soviet Union, however, and these cracks grew into weaknesses exploited by the bourgeoisie that had risen again under Khrushchev, resulting in counterrevolution.
For recommended reading, I have 2 good, wildly different options. The first is This Soviet World, written in 1936 by a Statesian journalist named Anna Louise Strong. The earlier chapters are enormously beneficial for understanding the class composition of society and the party, how it integrated with the masses, their relationship, and more, though the whole book is great (mind the dated language surrounding ethnicity, though). The second recommendation is Losurdo’s Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend. Written after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Losurdo gives a very compelling analysis of the legend of Stalin, moreso than a history of the figure himself. Through this framework, it becomes much easier to see a retrospective on the entire Stalin era of the USSR. Both taken together give a multi-sided view.
OK I’m really not invested in relitigating the USSR, I don’t believe that differences in interpretations, often sourced totally differently, add up to a fundamental theoretical and political difference between mls and left socialists. The tasks before us are clear. I can’t fairly condemn bad behavior by any ML sect any more than I can condone bad behavior by any Trotskyist sect. The people who are committed to the work of socialism, building disciplined cadre, formation of a workers party, opposing colonialism and imperialism, building coalitions or entering authentic worker movements are being taken up by both our tendencies, as well as principled anarchist comrades.
But the industrialization of Russia leading up to 1936 was not a mass movement, it was a forced march. Perhaps necessary, mistakes were inevitable and being in a position to make these drastic but necessary changes is unenviable. But I just can not buy the idea that the Soviets of the late 1930s are proletarian in nature. 1936-1938 was the height of mass purges! How the fuck is the working class supposed to develop an independent working class movement with a literal gun to our head?
The only acceptable explanation is the shocking buy in for the purges across such a huge swath of Russian society. So, if it wasnt brutal dictatorship, then it was mass hysteria. In neither case is this a more progressive and rational society.
Granted, we are in the prewar period, with the greatest existential threat to progress festering practically next door. I’m not saying there aren’t reasons. I’m saying that as far as a proletarian character to the state, it just isn’t in Russia in this period. There’s concrete structural and historical reasons it isn’t there, I’m not really passing judgement so much as stating what I see as fact. International proletarian class hegemony was being strangled, and the imperialist fascist powers finished us off. The international industrial proletariat was the only thing that lent prole legitimacy to the Russian project, but even it had become deeply compromised by the extremely pro-Stalin loyalist Comintern. The third world and international socialism was all but abandoned.
In my estimation you can either say 1. The purges didn’t happen (they did) or 2. they were necessary. And maybe they were. But where I break left with my Trotskyist comrades is at Kronstadt. I think we can make arguments that these atrocities were necessary, that without them something much worse would have occurred, which I think bears out historically. But I just can not be convinced that there is a dominant proletarian character in a society carrying out mass murder/mass purges. The working class does not desire war and death, that is what the capitalists want for us. And I don’t believe that a state carrying out purges and mass executions is doing so in the interests of the international working class. And I think our movements are actually worse off because of them.
But thank you as always for the considerate and well informed response!
There are more than a few problems I have with your portrayal of events and class composition. I respect your sticking to your principles, but I have some heavy departures, both theoretically and historically.
First, I am well aware that the composition of Bolsheviks became very mixed in a tumultuous wartime environment. This cannot really be denied, nor would I want to. What I want to push back on, however, is the notion that this resulted in a bourgeois character. The industrial base was destroyed, correct, and so it was rebuilt, first focusing on agrarian production, and next on industrial production. Soviets became the basis of the Soviet Union, and by 1936 the Soviet Union had established an industrial and agricultural base that far exceeded pre-war levels.
What happened was that soviet democracy was implemented, and the party became integrated and was composed of the working classes and the newly rejuvenated workers and peasants. Stalin was not some bourgeois figure, nor was the party in opposition to socialism. The bourgeois character did not appear until Khrushchev’s era, growing under Gorbachev and then succeeding in counter-revolution.
Second, the banning of factionalism was necessary and correct. Undermining democratic centralism and establishing wedges by which to break apart the unity of the socialist system would have been catastrophic, and the fifth column elements that existed within the Soviet Union represented a very clear demonstration of such a danger.
The actual class character of the CPSU was proletarian. The bourgeois elements of society, including kulaks, had been liquidated as a firm class by 1936 or so. The devastation of World War II severely weakened the Soviet Union, however, and these cracks grew into weaknesses exploited by the bourgeoisie that had risen again under Khrushchev, resulting in counterrevolution.
For recommended reading, I have 2 good, wildly different options. The first is This Soviet World, written in 1936 by a Statesian journalist named Anna Louise Strong. The earlier chapters are enormously beneficial for understanding the class composition of society and the party, how it integrated with the masses, their relationship, and more, though the whole book is great (mind the dated language surrounding ethnicity, though). The second recommendation is Losurdo’s Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend. Written after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Losurdo gives a very compelling analysis of the legend of Stalin, moreso than a history of the figure himself. Through this framework, it becomes much easier to see a retrospective on the entire Stalin era of the USSR. Both taken together give a multi-sided view.
OK I’m really not invested in relitigating the USSR, I don’t believe that differences in interpretations, often sourced totally differently, add up to a fundamental theoretical and political difference between mls and left socialists. The tasks before us are clear. I can’t fairly condemn bad behavior by any ML sect any more than I can condone bad behavior by any Trotskyist sect. The people who are committed to the work of socialism, building disciplined cadre, formation of a workers party, opposing colonialism and imperialism, building coalitions or entering authentic worker movements are being taken up by both our tendencies, as well as principled anarchist comrades.
But the industrialization of Russia leading up to 1936 was not a mass movement, it was a forced march. Perhaps necessary, mistakes were inevitable and being in a position to make these drastic but necessary changes is unenviable. But I just can not buy the idea that the Soviets of the late 1930s are proletarian in nature. 1936-1938 was the height of mass purges! How the fuck is the working class supposed to develop an independent working class movement with a literal gun to our head?
The only acceptable explanation is the shocking buy in for the purges across such a huge swath of Russian society. So, if it wasnt brutal dictatorship, then it was mass hysteria. In neither case is this a more progressive and rational society.
Granted, we are in the prewar period, with the greatest existential threat to progress festering practically next door. I’m not saying there aren’t reasons. I’m saying that as far as a proletarian character to the state, it just isn’t in Russia in this period. There’s concrete structural and historical reasons it isn’t there, I’m not really passing judgement so much as stating what I see as fact. International proletarian class hegemony was being strangled, and the imperialist fascist powers finished us off. The international industrial proletariat was the only thing that lent prole legitimacy to the Russian project, but even it had become deeply compromised by the extremely pro-Stalin loyalist Comintern. The third world and international socialism was all but abandoned.
In my estimation you can either say 1. The purges didn’t happen (they did) or 2. they were necessary. And maybe they were. But where I break left with my Trotskyist comrades is at Kronstadt. I think we can make arguments that these atrocities were necessary, that without them something much worse would have occurred, which I think bears out historically. But I just can not be convinced that there is a dominant proletarian character in a society carrying out mass murder/mass purges. The working class does not desire war and death, that is what the capitalists want for us. And I don’t believe that a state carrying out purges and mass executions is doing so in the interests of the international working class. And I think our movements are actually worse off because of them.
But thank you as always for the considerate and well informed response!