To what extent is it accurate to describe the Soviet Union as a totalitarian empire - Essay Example

Topic:  To what extent is it accurate to describe the Soviet Union as a totalitarian empire? Answer with references to the revisionist/totalitarian debate Introduction The extent to which it is accurate to describe the Soviet Union as a totalitarian empire is the subject of much debate between revisionist and totalitarian theorists. Totalitarian theorists argue that totalitarian is characterized by a state that dominates the population by virtue of an ideology and state agency control mechanisms. This method of control qualifies the Soviet Union as a totalitarian state (Lovell, 2009). Revisionist theorists take the position that the Soviet Union was not a deliberate and conscious totalitarian empire and that much of its political ideology and practices were in large part a result of the Cold War which froze Soviet society in a manner that was both “defensive” and “repressive” (Smith, 2005, p. 530). For the most part revisionists argue that the characterization of the Soviet Union as a totalitarian empire was a mere matter of the West and particularly the US labeling its post-war enemy (Alder & Paterson, 1970). It is submitted that there are certainly periods in Soviet history in which intermittent and often protracted reigns of terror accurately present the Soviet Union as a totalitarian empire. The Bolshevik reign of terror from 1918 -1922 under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin’s authoritarian rule from 1922-1953 were inescapably totalitarian in nature. However, to carry over Bolshevism and Stalinism over to Communism is unfair and does not accurately depict the true nature of the Soviet Union as an empire as a whole (Borejsza & Ziemer, 2006). In other words, under Bolshevism and Stalinism, it is accurate to describe the Soviet Union as a totalitarian empire. However, in the post-Stalin era and up to the Cold War, it is largely incorrect to characterize the Soviet Union as a totalitarian empire and any such label may be largely self-serving. This paper demonstrates this conclusion by analyzing the totalitarian and revisionist debates on the issues. Totalitarian Theorists The theory of totalitarianism first emerged during the 1930s and the 1940s and encapsulated a Western ideology of “the total state” and was largely used to characterize the dictatorships of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin (Tucker, 1965, p. 555). From the Western perspective, Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Communist Soviet Union epitomized the totalitarian state (Tucker, 1965). Fortifying Communist Soviet Union as a totalitarian empire is the assertion that conflicts in society were subdued and denied expression (Schapiro & Lewis, 1969). Even so, there is a basic assumption by totalitarian theorists that Communist and Fascist dictatorships are essentially similar in that they are both forms of totalitarianism (Schapiro & Lewis, 1969). The left-wing totalitarian theorists are entirely anti-totalitarian and describe the totalitarian state as a process of social and political change which culminates into the “complete unification of society” (Jones, 1992, p. 460). However, the unification of society would be artificial as it would be a “hierarchal order under the authority of a state controlled by a new elite”(Jones, 1992, p. 460). Under Bolshevism in the Soviet Union, one individual was the official voice of policy and ideology and represented the “paternal symbol of authority” (Jones, 1992, p. 461). According to the left-wing totalitarian theory of totalitarianism, Bolshevism and Stalinism represent an “institutionalized terror and party monopolization of economic and political power” (Jones, 1992, p. 463). Totalitarian theorists however, take the theory of totalitarianism further by arguing that the institutionalization of terror and the monopoly on economic and political power as manifested by Bolshevism and Stalinism are significant characteristics of Communism. Moreover, the manipulation and monopolization of power practiced by the Soviet Union was no different from the political authoritarianism of the Fascist state. Thus both forms of government were properly described as totalitarian. These comparisons persisted throughout much of the Cold War Era and were particularly pronounced in the early years following the Second World War (Jones, 1992). Totalitarian theorists argue that political agendas in the Soviet Union were established in a manner consistent with the totalitarian empire. Goals and policies are set by: a relatively autonomous supreme leadership in control of hierarchically structured sub-systems (Tarschys, 1977, p. 287). Thus according to totalitarian theories of totalitarianism, the authority for establishing and implementing political goals and policies resides with an elite or supreme leader. Totalitarian theory for the most part argues that the classic Soviet Union political system was described as an “extreme concentration of power” (Lukin, 2007, p. 97). It is this extreme centralization of power and its corresponding hierarchal construct that gives way to the characterization of the Soviet Union as a totalitarian empire. As Lukin (2007) explains: The essence of Soviet totalitarianism was that all persons and institutions were co-opted by the party structure. Every artist, writer, and actor, theoretically, was under a higher authority: a union of artists, writers, or actors. Those unions in turn had ministries above them, and the ministries had corresponding departments of the CPSU Central Committee. The structure went up to the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, which, in theory, had unlimited authority over everything (p. 98). According to totalitarian theorists, it was immaterial that in practice the Politburo did not personally employ and fire staff. Nor is it of any significance that in practice the Politburo did not tell authors what they could write, painters what they could paint, or actors what material they could perform. What is important was the fact that the Politburo had the authority to dictate what could be written, performed or painted. At the end of the day, there was no independence and all decisions had to be submitted to the ruling Communist party for approval (Lukin, 2007). In the early aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the remnants of totalitarianism manifested itself. Ruslan Khasbulatov’s job was to supervise the Supreme Soviet and the Congress of People’s Deputies, say himself as the head of the whole Soviet system. Khasbulatov also say himself as the ultimate leader of the executive branch and “standing above all branches of power” (Lukin, 2007, p. 99). President Boris Yeltsin who was elected to power saw that feat as validating his absolute power (Lukin, 2007, p. 99). Soviet dissidents and those advocating for reform during Gorbachev’s Soviet Union, the final head of state of the Soviet Union, chose to describe the Soviet Union as a totalitarian state. The main criticism was that from Stalin forward, there was a conscious effort to stifle political diversity and to fortify the power of the Communist power and its ideology (Bergman, 1988). The totalitarian state is perceived as a state that has a sole leader and one party. In this regard, the government has unlimited authority and does not guarantee individual liberties. The individual’s liberties are “subordinated to the collective will of the masses” and is “organized and determined for them by the leader” (Duiker & Spielvogel, 2010, p. 732). Totalitarian theory argues that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian empire because it has manifested the total state control characteristics of totalitarian throughout much of its history. During Stalin’s rule, his reign of total control was so oppressive that it was referred to as the “Great Purge” during the middle of the 1930s (Kort, 1997, p. 21). Stalin, single-handedly took control of the press and all institutions, the economy, churches, schools and the lives of all citizens generally (Kort, 1997). Stalin like his predecessors exercised “firm” and absolute control over the state and all of its citizens (Kort, 1997, p. 21). During the Cold War era, Western perceptions of the Soviet empire as a totalitarian state pursuant to totalitarian theories were stated as emphatically true. The general perception was that the Soviet Union was expanding and was in fact an “aggressive totalitarian state” under the leadership of a “ruthless and unscrupulous dictator” that was “actively pursuing the objective of world domination” (Johnson, 1996, p. 244). Communist states in Eastern Europe together with the Iron Curtain were cited as evidence of the Soviet totalitarian empire. Western democracies were thus justified in foreign policy aspirations that alienated the Soviet Union. Truncating the spread of Communism was perceived as a necessary first step toward national and global security (Johnson, 1996). Totalitarian theorists analyze the bare facts and conclude from the bare facts how a state should be characterized. The bare facts reveal that the Soviet Union has been led by a single, strong leader with absolute power. This absolute power denied citizens the right to participate in the government. Thus, totalitarian theorists present an image of an oppressed population, who may or may not agree with the totalitarian state, but are powerless to challenge it and to promote change. Revisionist theorists however, take account of environmental, social and economic factors and analyze how these factors influence state power. In other words, from the revisionists’ perspective, totalitarian states are not properly defined as such by reference to the bare facts. Revisionist Theories Revisionist theories agree with totalitarian theories that in the 1930s, the Soviet Union transformed from Bolshevism and that transformation was necessary. Revisionist theories however disagree with totalitarian theories that the systematic change emerged as a perpetuation and strengthening of totalitarianism. From the revisionists’ perspective what emerged in the Soviet political system was a socialist state (Fitzpatrick, 1986). Revisionist theorists point out that Stalin did in fact take the political changes too far and characterize Stalinism as a temporary manifestation of excessive power. After Stalin’s death there were efforts to rectify the mistakes made by Stalin and to implement a legitimate socialist state. There were also efforts within the Soviet Union to distance Soviet political ideology from the temporary excesses exhibited by Stalin. The idea was to legitimize the Russian Revolution (Fitzpatrick, 1986). An extension of the revisionist theory of totalitarianism and in particular the totalitarianism associated with Stalinism maintains that Stalinism is “the defining era of socialism” (Hedin, 2004, p. 166). Stalinism thus materialized as a “specific anti-capitalist and illiberal modernity” that cultivated “international legitimacy” (Hedin, 2004, p. 166). Thus Stalinism, according to the latest Revisionist theory was a “rival civilization” (Hedin, 2004, p. 166). While it may be true that Stalinism ushered in a new Soviet System that was socialist in nature and that the new socialist system was accompanied by international legitimacy, there is no evidence of national legitimacy. With total state control of all social and political institutions and the suppression of individual freedoms, it is impossible to know whether or not Soviet citizens freely indorsed the new Soviet system. It can be argued however, that as the defining era of socialism, Stalinism did in fact represent a rival to Western powers. If nothing else, the Cold War era is demonstrative of this assumption as it was indeed a conflict of ideologies. The Cold War was defined by conflicts between Communism and democracy. Both the Soviet Union and the US attempted to define their “identify in terms of its ideology” (Huntington, 1993, p. 23). Even so, totalitarian theorists likened the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany and maintained that the Soviet Union was responsible for the Cold War. This was because the Cold War was perceived as a necessary means of containing the expansion of Communism and the totalitarian Soviet empire (Leigh, 1974). Like Nazi German, totalitarian theorists claimed that the Soviet Union was using its military power to assert its influence on neighbouring states. It was this line of thinking that was essentially challenged by revisionists which emerged during the 1960s (Leigh, 1974). Revisionists argued that the totalitarian theory was flawed in that it did not logically reflect the reality of the tensions and dynamics of the Cold War. The Soviet Union’s policies and practices were “reactive” rather than “aggressive” (Johnson, 1996, p. 244). It was the aggressive and hostile anti-communist stance taken by Western powers that compelled the Soviet Union to adopt a defence-based position that involved “clamping down in Eastern Europe” (Johnson, 1996, p. 244). Revisionists argued that the Soviet Union was not nearly as bad as totalitarian theorists portrayed it to be. In fact there were great differences between Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union, apart from Stalinism which was marked by excessive exploitation of autocratic power (Suny, 2007). In general, Communism can be distinguished from Nazism. Nazism is said to be an outcome of indoctrinated hate while Communism is largely described as a “doctrine of liberation” (de Benoist, 1977, p. 181). Moreover, Communism cultivates a “love of humanity” while Nazism rejects the “idea of humanity” (de Benoist, 1977, p. 181). Revisionists argue that it is certainly true that both Nazism and Communism subscribe to some form of socialism there are significant ideological and practical distinctions. Communism establishes policies that are designed to create and perpetuate a communal society. Certainly, there were violent acts under Stalinism, but this violence was aimed at political and economic policies and ideologies. The violence unleashed by Nazi Germany was for the sake of wielding power over the citizenry (Gvosdev, 2008). Essentially, revisionists challenge the idea that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian empire. Revisionists point out that much of the Soviet Union’s attempt to influence and gain the support of its neighbours during the Cold War Era was a byproduct of the US’s own perceived acts of imperialism. From the perspective of the Soviet Union, the US was expanding and attempting to place its own military power too close to the Soviet Union’s borders. These actions by the US were calculated to achieve its aggressive containment policies toward the Soviet Union (Fleron et al, 1991). Confronted with the US’s hostile approach to the Soviet Union, the latter sought only to protect its borders from US intrusion. Thus any claim that the Soviet Union was committed to perpetuating a totalitarian empire, must take into account the fact that the Soviet Union was forced to defend its borders and this essentially translated into a need to forge relations with its neighbours (Fleron et al, 1991). Fleron et al (1991) points out that the Soviet Union missed or passed up a number of opportunities to expand and fortify its empire’s power. For instance, there were several opportunities for the Soviet Union to infiltrate and influence political constructs in the Middle East. The fact that the Soviet Union refused to take advantage of this opportunity is a manifestation of the authenticity of Revisionist theories of the totalitarian empire. The reality is, the Soviet Union did demonstrate a “major commitment to defense and rather marginal sacrifices for expansion (Fleron et al, 1991, p. 197). Revisionist theorist, Sheila Fitzpatrick (2007) argued that totalitarianism even under Stalin was not possible. Although totalitarianism theory represented a “mirror image of Soviet self-representation”, it was flawed in its representation of the Soviet Union as a state that asserted absolute control over its society by virtue of the use of terror (p. 80). Society was in fact objectified by the Russian state so that pluralism was non-existent so that autonomy was inoperable (Fitzpatrick, 2007). Fitzpatrick (2007) also argues that throughout the Soviet Union’s history, its government’s success always depended on the support of the masses. Therefore, the reality of the situation is that Soviet Union cannot accurately be defined as a totalitarian state. At its heart, totalitarianism exists without reference to the support of the masses. What existed throughout the Soviet Union was the deliberate and voluntary acceptance of the State’s policies and practices and its ideological representations. Thus from the perspective of the revisionist theories, the Soviet Union’s political constructs must be examined by reference to its functions rather than its form. When this approach is taken, it becomes obvious, that the Soviet Union functioned as a representation of the mass’s feelings and desires, and not by reference to the individual leader’s own intentions and desires. Obviously, the individual leaders of the Soviet Union expressed its own desires and goals, those goals and desires were gleaned from public support and public acceptance. It therefore follows that the Soviet Union, at least according to the Revisionist’s perspective, was acting on behalf of the will of the Soviet people and not the will of the individual leader. Thus, it is inaccurate to assume that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian empire. Conclusion A review of the literature reveals that there are two opposing interpretations of the accuracy of the assumption that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian empire. The two opposing interpretations are totalitarian theory and revisionist theory. Totalitarian theory typically aligns the political and policy agendas and actions of Communist Soviet with the political and policy agendas of Nazi Germany. Special attention is given to Stalin’s reign of terror which is purportedly not unlike Germany’s Nazism. Nazism and Communism in this regard is said to be implemented from the top-down trajectory. In other words, totalitarian theory emphasizes the bare facts and takes them at face value. Stalin’s merciless rule validates the totalitarian characterization of the Soviet Union. Revisionist theories take a more guided approach to interpreting the facts surrounding the Soviet Union. From the perspective of the revisionist theory of totalitarianism, the Soviet Union operated at all times from the bottom-up. In other words, power and the exercise of power depended on public support and acceptance. In order for a state to be characterized as totalitarian, the leader’s own will is aggressively forced upon the public. Moreover, revisionist maintains that the Soviet Union did not systematically expand for the purpose of gaining power and world dominance, but rather for national security. In the final analysis, when all the facts and circumstances are analyzed, it appears that the revisionist theory of the totalitarian state is more accurate. However, given the terror asserted by Stalin during his reign, it is difficult to unequivocally state that the masses voluntarily accepted and supported Stalinism. Thus it is doubtful that the Stalin era can be described as anything other than a totalitarian empire. However, at all other times, it is more accurate to maintain that the Soviet Union was indeed a totalitarian empire. It is therefore concluded that for the most part, except for the Stalin era, the Soviet Union was not a totalitarian state. Bibliography Adler, L. K. and Paterson, T.G. April 1970. “Red Fascism: The Merger of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the American Image of Totalitarianism, 1930’s- 1950’s”. The American Historical Review, Vol. 75(4): 1046-1064. Bergman, J. 1988. “Was the Soviet Union Totalitarian? The View of Soviet Dissidents and the Reformers of the Gorbachev Era.” Studies in East European Thought, Vol. 50(4): 247-281. Borejsza, J. W. and Ziemer, K. 2006. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes in Europe: Legacies and Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Warsaw, Poland: Berghahn Books in Association with the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw and the German Historical Institute. De Benoist, A. 1977. “Nazism and Communism: Evil Twins?” cited in Courtois, S. (Ed.). Le Livre Noir du Communisme. Paris, France, Laffont. Duiker, W. J. and Spielvogel, J. J. 2010. World History. 6th Edition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Fleron, F.; Hoffman, E. and Laird, R. 1991. Classic Issues in Soviet Foreign Policy: from Lenin to Brezhnez. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Fitzpatrick, S. October 1986. “New Perspectives on Stalinism.” Russian Review, Vol. 45(4): 357-373. Fitxpatrick, S. 2007. “Revisionism in Soviet History.” History and Theory, Vol. 46: 77-91. Gvosdeve, N. K. 2008. The Strange Death of Soviet Communism: A Postscript. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Hedin, A. April 2004. “Stalinism as a Civilization: New Perspectives on Communist Regimes”. Political Studies Review, Vol. 2(2): 166-184. Huntington, S. P. Summer 1993. “The Clash of Civilization?” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, 22-49. Johnson, L. 1996. Central Europe: Enemies, Neighbors, Friends. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Jones, W.D. July – September, 1992. “Toward a Theory of Totalitarianism: Franz Borkenau’s Pareto.” Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 53(3): 455-466. Kort, M.E. 1997. The Handbook of the Former Soviet Union. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook Press, Inc. Leigh, M. March 1974. “Is There a Revisionist Thesis on the Origins of the Cold War?” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 89(1): 101-116. Lovell, S. 2009. The Soviet Union: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lukin, A. 2007. “Electoral Democracy of Electoral Clanism? Russian Democratization and Theories of Transition.” Demokratizatsiya, 93-110. Schapiro, L. and Lewis, J. W. Oct.-Dec.1969. “The Roles of the Monolithic Party Under the Totalitarian Leader”. The China Quarterly, Vol. 40: 39-64. Smith, B.L. R. 2005/ “What is the State of Democracy in the Post-Communist Countries?” Demokratizatsiya, 529-535. Suny, R. G. March 2007. “Russian Terror/ism and Revisionist Historiography.” Australian Journal of Politics & History, Vol. 53(1): 5-19. Tarschys, D. September 1977. “The Soviet Political System: Three Models”. European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 4(3): 287-320. Tucker, R. C. July 1965. “The Dictator and Totalitarianism.” World Politics, Vol. 17(4): 555-583. Read More