The Soviet Union: a Socialist, Communist or Totalitarian State - Essay Example

? Should the Soviet Union Be Regarded As a Socialist, Communist or Totalitarian Should the Soviet Union be regarded as a Socialist, Communist or Totalitarian State? Introduction The question as to whether the Soviet Union should be regarded as a socialist, communist or a totalitarian state is something debatable. It has become a point of contention with different views being expressed by historians and politicians around the world. It is therefore very important to gain a better understanding of the three aspects of governance before relating the concepts to the Soviet State. This paper will discuss whether the Soviet Union should be regarded as a socialist, communist or a totalitarian state. Socialist State A socialist state is a state that practices economics under which productive properties such as corporations are wholly owned by the state. It is the state that determines everything that takes place in these companies. In this regard, in a socialist state, the economic systems consist of well organized production which directly satisfies the economic requirements and needs of the people so that the products and services would then be produced for consumption instead of for individual profit. In a socialist state, the political system is composed of many arrays of political philosophies. These include revolutionary socialism and reformism (Gonner 2010). Communist state A communist state is one in which the government is in charge of the overall economy of the state. Under this system of government, a single party dominates the political system. It differs from the socialist state in that with the communist state, people in common have control over property. The communist state is based on a system that everybody irrespective of place, class or country has the power to own factories, tools and farms used in the production of goods and services. Therefore, there is no private ownership of property in the communist state. The philosophy of the communist state is focused on giving workers the power to take control of businesses and companies and manage the overall economy democratically. With regard to the political system in the communist state, the communist party has real control of political affairs and power of the country. This is evident in counties like France, Italy and India (Pipes 1997). Totalitarian State A totalitarian state is that system of government under which the government recognizes no limit to its jurisdictions, and tends to dictate every aspect of private and public life. Totalitarian states maintain political control through propaganda campaigns which in most cases spread through the state controlled media (Adler and Pouwels 2011 p.576). It is a single party rule marked by control over the economy, political repression and personality cultism. This system of government restricts freedom of expression, practices mass surveillance, and usually unleashes terror to intimidate those who are opposed to the powers that be. This system has been seen in Italy, and Nazi German. Adler and Pouwels (2011 p.575) note that the ideology in totalitarian states is distinctive, mobilizing, and monolithic in nature. Another feature prominent in this kind of system is state control of the overall economy done through preponderance of government ownership of the means of production. The Form of Government in the Soviet Union Harding, Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, and the Communist Politics Group (1984 p.63) note that in the Soviet Union, institutional rivalry was prevalent. In this case, state institutions and some political parties had common interests which, sometimes, differing from those of other parties and state institutions. Localism and departmentalism existed within the governance structure (Harding, Political studies association of the United Kingdom and the Communist Politics Group 1984 p.63). Convert competition for political office done on the basis of cabinet politics was also prominent in the system. Harding, Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom and the Communist Politics Group (1984 p.63) assert that the federation is charged with the responsibility of providing and institutionalizing the basis for some degree of ethnic diversity and support of national interest for the ethnic groups which usually enjoyed union republican status (Churchward 1975 p54-156). With regard to policy making within the Soviet Union Harding, Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom and the Communist Politics Group (1984 p.63) note that there were special organized groups within the party and within the society at large. Economic production in the Soviet Union is mainly controlled by the state and farms in the Soviet Union are collectively owned by civilians who maintain control over property. The Soviet Union had only one legal political party; the Communist Party. Harding, Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom and the Communist Politics Group (1984 p.63) noted that ministries developed policies guided by the political party. The party had the ability to impose its desires upon the whole government network. This was greatly increased by the power of the party watchdog which was stationed in the Central Committee building. Generally, there was separation of powers between the central committee and the ministries. This characteristic makes the Soviet Union a communist state. This is due to the fact that the see system of governance is not totalitarian. Otherwise, it could have been based on a monolithic, distinctive, and mobilizing ideology. Instead, the communist ideology is apparent since workers and the general public had the authority over the use of property, factories and the overall economy in a democratic manner (Adler and Pouwels 2011 p.575). Although the political system was mainly dominated by one party, other political parties were given a chance to express their opinion that may have differed from those of the Communist Party (Pipes 1997). If the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state, a single party could have monopolized the political system of the state and would only be under leadership of a single party that dictates everything. Rutland (1993 p.9) notes that the Soviet Union moved a way from the terroristic approach to the use of police force especially after the dismantling of the NKVD Empire in 1953. The Union hence moved toward a democracy respecting communist system in which citizens had effective legal recourse in case of oppression. Thus people had a voice as in the communist state. Rutland (1993 p.9) argues that the Soviet Union retreated from terror after the post-Stelin era. He noted that this meant that unnecessary mass terror on citizens was no longer an instrument used by the state. In the Soviet Union there was free competition for a political office which would not be easy under the socialist and totalitarian systems. There is no political propaganda that would make it a totalitarian state. From the above facts, it may have been stated with a high level of confidence that the Soviet Union was a communist state. Considering the economic situation of the Soviet Union, Rutland (1993 p.10) notes that the state at first had totalitarian control system of the economic affairs of the state. In this case, the economic command represented a distinctive form of economic organization which could be distinguished from a free market economy. Under the Stalist Phase, Rutland (1993) notes that the Soviet State squeezed autonomous economic activities to a minimum by doing away with the private sectors such as industries and farms. The state also gave the police the power to allocate labor, force project constructions, distribute food products and control housing in line with state regulation. Rutland (1993 p.9), however, notes that after 1953, many of the totalitarian systems of economic control were abolished in which extreme forms of centralized system of management were dismantled to give room for a communist system. This is evident due to the fact that the state maintained ownership and central planning. Collective ownership of farms also remained, characteristic of communist states. Soviet Union, Harding, Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom and the Communist Politics Group (1984) note that with the socialist states, one would expect to find many different arrays of political philosophies. This would be composed of socialist and reformist ideals. These aspects were not common with the Soviet Union. Rutland (1993 p.4) also suggests that if the Soviet Union were to be a totalitarian state, then its political system would have only a single party having total control of the political arena headed by a single leader. The party would also use coercive means to intimidate other politicians so as to remain relevant (Sunny and Saul 1995). However this was not the case with the Soviet Union as there were a number of parties that participated in shaping the political environment of the country. There was no coercion and intimidation as is often the case with the totalitarian rule. This is because, people had the power to participate in elections which were usually contested by many politicians (Thompson 2008 p. 66-129). Rutland (1984 p.4) notes that there is no freedom of speech in respect of totalitarian rule. The government regulates all state media and determines what is to be aired to the people. Thus, the state monopolizes the means of communication. However, in the Soviet Union, all citizens had a say and the state did not monopolize communication channels as noted by Harding, Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom and the Communist Politics Group (1984). The authors noted that the state made tremendous achievements in advocating for the right to free speech (Pipes 1997). From the above facts, the state showed signs of being communist considering that the socialist state highly regulates freedom of communication and speech. In conclusion, the Soviet Union seems to have developed through three systems of governance which include socialism, communism and totalitarianism. However, following the disadvantages that socialism and totalitarian governments had on the state, the Union opted for a communist system of government. This is evident from the political philosophies adopted by the Union, economic control, and the governance structure. Reference Adler P.J., Pouwels, R.L. (2011). World Civilization: Since 1500. New York: New York: Cengage Learning. Churchward L.G. (1975). Contemporary Soviet Government. London: Taylor & Francis. Gonner, E.C.K. (2010). The Socialist State: Its Nature, Aims, and Conditions. New Jersey: BiblioBazaar. Harding, N., Political Studies association of the United Kingdom & Communist Political Group (1984). The State in Socialist Society. New York: SUNY Press Pipes, R. (1997). The Formation of the Soviet Union: Communism and Nationalism, 1917-1923. New York: Harvard University Press. Rutland, P. (1993). The Politics of Economic Stagnation in the Soviet Union: The Role of Local Party organs in economic Management. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sunny, R.G., & Saul, E. (1995). The revenge of the past: Nationalism, revolution, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Vol. 23, Issue 4, 13 July. Thompson, J.M. (2008). Russia and the Soviet Union: An Historical Introduction form the Kievan State to the Present. Philadelphia: Westview Press. Read More