The Great Debate On the Soviet Industrialisation PDF

Preview

Summary

The Great Debate | NEHA SHARMA The Great Debate on the Soviet Industrialisation The years 1924-28 witnessed a significant debate on the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union. Erlich writes that ‘the debate ranged far and wide from concerning the theory of value to day to day political minuti...

Description

The Great Debate | NEHA SHARMA

The Great Debate on the Soviet Industrialisation

The years 1924-28 witnessed a significant debate on the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union. Erlich writes that ‘the debate ranged far and wide from concerning the theory of value to day to day political minutiae. At its centre, loomed the problem of the appropriate speed and pattern for the prospective economic development of the country.’ Dobb, states that the debate centred on the ‘road that Russian economy was to travel once the immediate task of restoring industry and agriculture after the ravages of war had been completed.’ After Lenin’s death, his political successors who were engaged in the struggle for power wanted to prove that they were orthodox Leninist. His political successors consequently interpreted his statements in the manner that suited them in their struggle for power. Concerns of national security were also debated, the needs of national security demanded that heavy industry be given priority over light industry while the peasants wanted the light industries to flourish so that they could get consumer products in return for their surplus. Hence, the debate centred on how the entire social and economic situation was to be transformed by deliberate actions from above. The debate essentially projected two points of view- the view of the right wing represented by N.I. Bukharin while the left wing was represented by E.O. Preobrazhensky. Initially Stalin supported the right wing but later advocated the extreme path than the left wing. Both the wings agreed that political power to be entrusted to the CPSU. Both accepted industrialisation as the essential goal. Also both supported peasant cooperation and collectivisation. Alec Nove points out that ‘the difference lay in temper, methods, assessment of dangers and strategy to be followed.’ Bukharin’s starting point was that the national economy should be based in “conditions of dynamic economic equilibrium’ with various spheres of production. (Bukharin’s pamphlet- Building Socialism). According to him, peasant prosperity would accelerate industrialization as this would result in faster industry development. He contended the speeding up the growth of industry artificially as would cause imbalance in the economy and the workers would be unable to acquire basic necessities of life and would be a disaster for the entire nation. He believed in a gradual and steady expansion of light industry which will flourish and is in proportion to the amount of raw materials and food surpluses produced by prosperous peasantry. (Observation of an Economist- Bukharin) He explained that the economic difficulties of late 1920s were caused due to unavailability of proportionate raw materials and foodstuff. The main thrust of his argument was that the urban and rural sector were a single organism and prevention of their interaction would result in ‘silent factories’, ‘declining peasant economy’ and ‘general regression’. He was in favour of a ‘smychka’ which was created during NEP. Also internal along with external trade

The Great Debate | NEHA SHARMA

should be encouraged as imported machinery like tractors would increase the agricultural production and in turn increase demand for industrial products. He insisted that coercion was not to be used against the peasants as in the past citing example of war communism had proved detrimental due to shortage of grain, destruction of smychka, peasant revolts hence he insisted to develop industry ad collective farms of production at a slow pace acceptable to the peasants. His argument rested on the assumption that the peasant sector was to be transformed from ‘a natural consumer economy into a commodity producing economy.’ He believed that the success of socialism would be achieved with the interpenetration of an all-embracing system of cooperative trade, at first the middle and lower earning peasants would prosper with its help and align themselves with other classes but it had a shortcoming that the prosperous peasants would acquire political influence which might grew and become difficult to control. (Dobb) While Preobrazhensky and the left favoured high prices for the industrial goods and Bukharin demanded for a low price as it would result in increased sales and result in greater profits for the industrial sector. The policy of increased prices would cause peasant discontent and cause selling crisis similar to 1923. This would ultimately result in ‘industrial stagnation’. Bukharin on the question of acquiring funds, suggested of three sources; 1) profits, obtained by increasing sales and decreasing the costs of industrial goods, 2) revenue, imposed on progressive income tax on prosperous capitalists who flourished under NEP, 3) voluntary savings, which would be accumulated in soviet banks and credit instruments, initially the kulaks would open account but in due course of time small peasants would also come in. he along with Stalin were of the opinion that socialism could be established in soviet Russia with its own resources. While Trotsky, Preobrazhensky and others believed that it would be impossible to establish socialism without the financial aid of the west. This to Bukharin was impossible as the international as the international proletariat revolution had failed and the capitalist countries of the west hated Russia and would not provide any help. The left wing criticised Bukharin’s ideas and stated that he was ‘treading the pre-war stolypin road’ and called him ‘the Pushkin of NEP’. His programmes were described as ‘chasing a deadly chimera’. (Cohen) Dobb remarks that his thesis was more in form of replies rather than any definite policy. Preobrazhensky classified his ideas as ‘petty bourgeois daydream’. Unlike Preobrazhensky who wanted the state to play an active role in the transition to socialism, Bukharin relegated the state to the background. Preobrazhensky emphasised the importance of centralized planning and the urgency of rapid industrial development, to reduce the increasing gap between soviet Russia and capitalist west, stall dominance of kulaks and nepman, prevent scissor crisis and assist in mechanism of agriculture and collectivisation as Lenin had suggested. His conceptions were criticised by Bukharin as they aware directed against peasantry, which would alienate themselves and threaten the very existence o communist regime. Lenin writes that the socialist revolution 1917 had succeeded

The Great Debate | NEHA SHARMA

because the peasantry and proletariat both played an active role while the revolution of 1905 failed due to absence of a smychka. Bukharin describes Preobrazhensky’s policies, devoid of smychka as ‘suicidal’, like walking ‘on the razor’s edge’. His policies were called ‘adventurist’ and ‘impractical’ and would endanger financial stability. (Dobb) Bukharin reminded him that the relative increase in industrial prices had proved burdensome and resulted in ‘scissor crisis.’ His critics argue that he had failed to realize the importance of the latent sources however limited within the industries, these were use of labour that was not working to its full capacity, rationalisation of working methods of labourers and functioning of factories at more efficient level. (Dobb) At the 14th party congress, Stalin categorically supported Bukharin. But when Bukharin advocated the ‘get rich’ slogan he compelled Bukharin to withdraw this slogan. Both the right wing and left wing were in favour of industrialisation but differed on the certain aspects of the methods and strategies to be adopted to move forward. While Bukharin favoured a gradual and steady paced process and development of industries acceptable to the peasants Preobrazhensky on the other hand wanted fast paced industrialisation and burdening the non-socialist sector with the taxes for the same, Bukharin criticised this and wanted to adopt other methods that did not burden the peasants. Both the wings had their own critiques and shortcoming. At the 15th party congress, Stalin spoke of introducing collectivisation. His policies were ultimately adopted. His policy was radically different from and more ambitious and ruthless than those of Bukharin’s vision of soviet development. He ended NEP and brushed the smychka aside in order to bring about headlong industrialisation, which was the prerequisite for the establishment of socialism. Dobb argues that this change in policies were the result of the changed situation. Schlesinger maintains that he introduced collectivisation in 1929 when it was feasible, this increased industrial output in 1926-28 and these development enabled the Stalin regime to introduce speedy industrialisation. (Deutscher)

NEHA SHARMA B.A. (H) HISTORY SEMESTER III

The Great Debate | NEHA SHARMA

Bibliography 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

E.H. Carr: A History of Soviet Russia, 4 Volumes (1952) Stephen F. Cohen: Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888 – 1938 Isaac Deutscher: Stalin (1949) Moshe Levin: The Making of the Soviet System Alec Nove: An Economic History of the USSR Karuna Kaushik: History of Communist Russia 1917-1991...