Stalin - A Brief History of Industrialization and The Reign of Terror

Last week, it was reported that Moscow officials were considering erecting a statue to honor Joseph Stalin after seeing his imaged banned in public for forty-years. Due to outcry, Moscow officials backed off and it looks like Stalin will remain underground for the time being.

However, statue or no statue, I think it is important to revist what a monster this man really was. Below is a historical essay that looks into Stalin's reign of terror from the beginning to the end of his rule. My bibilography for this essay is entirely in print:

• Surviving the Storms: Memory of Stalin's Tyranny; by Helen Dmitriew
• Journey into the Whirlwind (Helen and Kurt Wolff Books); by Eugenia Ginzburg
• The Stalinist Terror in the Thirties: Documentation from the Soviet press (Hoover Institution publications); by Borys Lewytzkyj
• Behind the Urals: An American Worker in Russia's City of Steel (A Midland Book, Mb536); by John Scott, Stephen Kotkin
• A Vision Unfulfilled: Russia & the Soviet Union in the Twentieth Century; by John M. Thompson

Beginning in 1928, Joseph Stalin masterminded the first of three, five-year plans that would lead to the collectivization and mass industrialization of the Soviet Union. The developments made under these plans prepared the Soviet Union for the eventual war against Nazi Germany. However, Soviet citizens would pay for these five-year plans in blood; millions were purged and terrorized by a leader sought on obtaining absolute power by creating the perfect Soviet man—a man absolutely loyal to the State.

By 1929-1930, the Communist Party had almost completely shut down private trade with state stores replacing merchants. At this point, the government had already banned private ownership of land, but, due to peasant opposition, were cautious in turning farms over to the state. Instead of a direct confrontation, Stalin sought a compromise and decided on a plan of cooperative agriculture called the collective farm. Under the collective farm, farmers would voluntarily collectivize their farms with the state effectively controlling all procurement and production. If the state could gain this control, they would be able to transfer food and other farm goods to the cities at the lowest possible cost. However, Stalin’s biggest obstacle to collectivization was a richer peasant class called the Kulaks, who fiercely resisted any attempts at collectivization. Stalin initiated a propaganda effort to smear the name of the Kulaks. Being labeled “a Kulak” was akin to being called un-Soviet—a greedy person who doesn’t care for the state, only for themselves.

The peasants, as majority, resisted state attempts at collectivization and their defiance caused severe grain shortages. People in the cities, who worked in state-owned factories, weren’t being fed. John Scott, in his book, Behind the Urals describes this shortage from the perspective of the city:

“During the entire winter of 1932-33, however, the riggers got no meat, no butter, and almost no sugar or milk. They received only bread and a little cereal grain…in the beginning of 1933 in Dining-Room No. 30 it was necessary to eat two or even three dinners to get a really adequate mean for a man working high at fifty below zero (pg. 76, Scott)."

Stalin was falling behind in his efforts to industrialize and, fearing a revolt, knew he had to do something about getting workers in the city fed. The Communist Party, under Stalin’s orders, began to force peasants into collectivization and feverishly pushed production into a wartime like pace. Some peasants resisted this change by killing livestock and burning or hiding grain. The government immediately retaliated by labeling these rebel peasants as ‘kulaks.” Then they either forced them into labor camps or shot them. Between 1928 and 1931, the number of Gulag inmates increased from 28,000 to 2 million. Helen Dmitriew, a political prisoner, recalled meeting an older man in a labor camp who was the only one left alive in his family because of his resistance to collectivization (pg. 102, Dmitriew). He later died from overwork and malnutrition.

However, after forcing collectivization, production and procurement steadily increased. John Scott visited his wife Masha’s parents who were members of a local collectivized farm. He said:

“…(her father) spoke slowly and simply to me of what the collective farm had done in the village. Everyone had bread. The flax crop was larger than ever before, and there was more livestock. To be sure, there was some resistance…but they would learn.”

His father-in-law also saw and improvement in working conditions:

“…before the revolution they had worked twelve to fourteen hours a day, now they put in eight hours. What was gained by collective effort was spent in decreased working hours. Production was about the same as it had been twenty years before (pg. 125-126, Scott).”

Eventually this increase in farming production was felt in the cities. Scott explained,

“By 1936 the food question was solved. That is to say, there was enough food for everybody…from 1935 to 1937 Magnitogorsk boasted five model ‘Gastronom’ that were as well-stocked as any American city, though Magnitogorsk prices were a little higher (pg. 242, Scott).”

Stalin’s plan of collectivizing farms to feed cities for crash industrialization worked, but many Soviet peasants and their families paid dearly for it. One of the most tragic results of forced collectivization was found in the Ukraine during 1931 and 1932. It is estimated that 3 to 5 million Ukrainians died from deprivation and starvation. Conditions were abominimal:

“The peasants ate dogs, horses, rotten potatoes, the bark of trees, grass—anything that they could find. Incidents of cannibalism were not uncommon (Thompson, pg. 266).”

The massive industrial transformation was gaining steam within the Soviet Union, and collectivization provided its base. The state eventually gained control of all heavy industry and Stalin was ready to implement his First Five-Year Plan in 1929. In the next ten years, the Soviet Union would experience a tremendous leap in industrialization, but this also would come at the expense of human life. The First Five-Year Plan focused on heavy industry such as coal, steel, iron, plastics, chemicals, automobiles and machine tools. The Second Five-Year Plan focused on consumer goods, along with further development of heavy industry, and the Third Five-Year Plan focused on militarization. Cities emerged and formed out of nowhere (such as Magnitogorsk, where the majority of John Scott’s story takes place). Beginning in 1930, half a billion cubic feet of excavation work was completed, forty-two million cubic feet of reinforced concrete poured, five million cubic feet of fire bricks laid and a quarter of a million tons of structural steel erected. The feats were amazing and gigantic. Many peasants, who fled their farms due to the appalling conditions resulting from collectivization, were put to work building these cities. Though many of these peasants were untrained and had no technical skills, they worked hard in groups, and became largely responsible for the labor that built the first dam on the Ural River in April 1931 (pg. 70, Scott). On the other hand, the Communist Party set many unrealistic goals within the Five Year Plans, which lead to inefficiency, waste and more loss of human life. According to Scott, many workers were inadequately trained and pushed too hard, causing them to make costly mistakes. He stated that:

“all too frequently, however, the new aggregates failed to work normally. Semi-trained workers were unable to operate the complicated machines, which had been erected. Equipment was ruined, men were crushed, gassed, and poisoned, and money was spent in astronomical quantities. The men were replaced by new ones from the villages, the money was made good by the State in government subsidies, and the materials and supplies were somehow found (pg. 136, Scott).”

The push for higher production was increased even further through the Stakhonovite movement. Stakhana, a coal miner, had attained an enormous feat for coal extraction and the Party exploited this accomplishment by making him a national hero with the hopes of motivating others to work harder. From a statistical standpoint, output and production did increase, but it also strongly embittered many workers. Scott recounted,

“This created a restlessness among workers who had received the impression that all improvements in production would reflect themselves in direct wage increases, and that norms would never be changed (pg. 163, Scott).”

Many times, a “Stakhanovite” risked being harmed or killed by the majority of workers who weren’t capable of producing at the same level.

The Communist Party motivated the Soviet people through the “social realism” movement. Production news dominated the press; other pieces of propaganda depicted the “Soviet Socialist Utopia” where everyone’s sacrifices today would result in a better and brighter tomorrow. Writers and artists were paid by the government not to portray life as it was, but life as it ought to be. Scott observed,

“They (Soviet people) had never been softened by easy living. The papers told them every day that they were the luckiest people in world, and they believed it. They had work and bread. (pg. 265, Scott).”

The duality within in the lives of the Soviet people was characterized in the social realism movement.

The results of industrialization were largely successful. The bright side was that by the eve of World War II, the Soviet Union was 2nd in world production behind only the United States. The combined success of farming production and industrial capacity would eventually play a major role in defeating Hitler. However, ecological conditions deteriorated severely due to mass industrialization. Yet, the negative side effects to the earth would be nothing compared to the losses incurred during the purges and reign of terror.

THE REIGN OF TERROR

In the summer of 1933, forced collectivization succeeded and the threat of a peasant rebellion had subsided. Soon, there were members of the Communist party favoring efforts to rebuild bridges back to them. Stalin, with other hardliners, stood in firm opposition by arguing that any “kulaks” should be given the death penalty.

Stalin drew opposition within the government from a party secretary named of Mikhail Riutin. In what later was named the “Riutun Affair,” Riutin, who was strongly opposed the extreme punishments towards farmers, submitted an appeal to the Central Committee denouncing Stalin’s methods of collectivization as reckless and coercive. When a few other politburo members signed the appeal, Stalin became furious and retaliated by arresting Riutin along with the other signatories (they would eventually be executed in the later days of the Reign of Terror). Even though Stalin showed great anger in dealing with Riutin, he still wasn’t strong enough politically to initiate greater purges. However, he would gain that power after January, 1934 at the 17th Congress of the Communist Party.

Sergei Kirov was a charismatic orator within the Communist party that heavily favored moderation. His strong personality naturally attracted others looking for leadership against Stalin’s extremist ideas. The growing support for Kirov manifested itself at the 17th Congress where Kirov was given a louder and livelier ovation than Stalin. To add insult to injury, Kirov received more votes than Stalin did in an inner election to the party’s Central Committee. Stalin, who was losing his grip on power, immediately transferred Kirov to Moscow, where a gunman, who was supposedly working alone, assassinated him. There isn’t any concrete evidence directly linking Stalin to any involvement in this assassination, but the elimination of Stalin’s biggest opponent was a rather dubious coincidence.

The government’s reasoning for the purges was to protect the country from “counter-revolutionaries” and “enemies of the people.” These purges, amazingly, mostly affected the members within the Bolshevik wing of communist party loyal to Stalin. The official regulation as stated in Article 58-1, 58-7 and 58-12 of the R.S.F.S.R. follows:

Any action is counter-revolutionary, which is directed toward the overthrow, undermining, or weakening of the power of the workers and peasants…or directed toward the weakening of the external security of the Soviet Union, or the administrative, or national gains of the proletarian revolution….

Undermining of state industry, transport, commerce, monetary circulation, or credit system, as well as of the cooperative systems, committed for counter-revolutionary purposes by counter revolutionary use of state institutions or factories…or interference with their normal activity, as well as use of state institutions and factories in the interests of their former owner…involves…supreme measure of social protection – shooting….

Failure to report definite knowledge of preparation or commitment of a counter-revolutionary crime, involves…deprivation of freedom for not less than six months.

Eugina Ginzburg, reveals in her book, Journey into the Whirlwind, just how loosely the last article above was used in terrorizing the Soviet people. She was a writer for the Pravada, a communist newspaper circulated in Kazan and worked with a man named Professor Elvov., who wrote a four volume History of the All-Union Communist Party. Stalin loyalists took exception with his accounting of events in 1905, and the book was labeled as “having errors in its treatment of permanent revolution.” The whole book, and Elvov’s article in particular, was condemned by Stalin in his famous letter to the editor of the Proletarian Revolution. After the appearance of the letter, the errors were defined more specifically as smuggled-in ‘Troskyist ideas’(pg.7-8, Ginzburg).” Elvov was later arrested and purged from the Communist party charges of counter-revolution.

Ginzburg was later confronted and accused what she had not done in dealing with Elvov according to Article 58-12. She stated:

“I had not denounced Elvov as a purveyor of Troskyist contraband. I had not written a crushing review of the source book on Tartar history he had edited—I had even contributed to it…I had not even once, attacked him publicly at a meeting…My attempts to appeal to common sense were summarily dismissed (pg. 9, Ginzburg).”

Stalin’s reign of terror wasn’t intended to appeal to common sense. It was designed to instill fear into the minds of the Soviet people that any opposition to Stalin would be punished. Even so much as a joke about Stalin would be grounds for arrest or execution. Eventually, Ginzberg was accused of association to counter-revolution and sent to prison.

In jail, Ginzberg then underwent a purge trial where she was interrogated under extreme duress in harsh conditions. One of the methods of torture used to gain a confession was called the “conveyor belt.” This procedure consisted of putting her into a room that was so small she couldn’t sit in for days, and then they deprived her of sleep and food, while verbally threatening harm to her and her family.

When these attempts at her confession failed, the authorities extended their reign of terror to other who worked with her. One day she was summoned to the office of her interrogator and found co-worker, and friend, Volodya Dyakonov sitting in the room. He was asked to sign a document of verification stating that Ginzburg was organizer of a counter-revolutionary group. When responding to Ginzburg’s plea, Volodya responded by saying, “Forgive me Genia. We’ve just had a daughter. I need to stay alive (pg. 92, Ginzburg).” Terror had won another victim.

All of these phony trials were set up so that the Soviet people would realize that there was a real threat and that it needed to be purged out. Stalin would first purge his Party, then the military and eventually even the political police hired to run the purge trials. James Scott concluded in the end:

“the purges had a devastating effect on the lives of millions of Soviet citizens, who were arrested and exiled. Most of these people were innocent, but some were guilty…Stalin considered the investment a good one (pg. 206, Scott).”

The effects of the purges had long lasting effects on the Soviet system and people. Many government leaders were purged, leaving a very inefficient and frightened governing body in its wake. The Bolsheviks were the hardest hit group out of all the political groups. Over 80% of the delegates to the 17th Party Congress were either executed or in prison. The military was completely cleansed of the “enemies of Stalin.” This cleansing of the Red Army would have would disastrously affect their ability to fight. In the Winter War against Finland, the Soviets fought poorly, and this miserable performance led Hitler to believe that the Soviet Union was vulnerable to attack. When Hitler eventually attacked the Soviet Union, most of the Soviet Air Force was destroyed on the ground because the pilots feared what would happen to them if they had acted without permission from Stalin.

So, why did Stalin resort to such utter horror? Nikita Khrushchev believed that it was because Stalin was just paranoid and mad. Even though this may be true, Boris Levytsky showed in his book, The Stalinist Terror in the Thirties, that there was more to it.

“In trying to establish himself as the ‘new Lenin,’ Stalin suddenly felt himself surrounded by doubters and dissidents…determined to silence these doubters, Stalin initiated a relentless pursuit of ‘enemies of the people’ while encouraging endless praise and adulation of himself (pg. 230, Levytsky).”

Stalin’s hope was to establish absolute and unlimited power for himself by molding a “totally obedient” party member who was completely loyal and obedient to the “great god”, Stalin.

Stalin succeeded, through collectivization and mass industrialization, in modernizing the Soviet Union in the 20’s and 30’s. This modernization would prove pivotal in their victory over Germany in World War II, yet there was a natural reluctance on the part of many Soviet people and Stalin felt betrayed and dishonored when many people doubted his forceful and coercive methods. Stalin did not see this as a mere difference of opinion and was dedicated to ridding himself of these “enemies.” Millions of lives were lost between modernization, the purges and World War II. The Soviet people, who endured through this firestorm, had hopes of a greater future when the Soviet Union emerged as a nuclear superpower after the war. Fifty years later, this formally muscular superpower would splinter and be reduced to a core nation run mostly by kleptocrats. Unfortunately for these people, their course of history was set when communism became the mechanism through which the Soviets chose to lead. This ideology caused their leaders to build their country’s muscle with steroids versus the solid foundation in the West; where free people determine their own fate through hard work--ultimately benefiting the common good. Our contrasting standing in today’s world testifies that freedom is not only the inalienable right of man, but it is the fabric with which a lasting society is built upon.

Posted by 10 fingers 6 strings at January 22, 2005 05:20 PM | TrackBack