The Soviet Model and Under-Developed Countries

Abstract

I SUPPOSE that everyone will agree that the Soviet form of Communist dictatorship has, among other things, been a means of industrializing a relatively backward country. Some critics would lay great stress on the inter-relationship of backwardness and industrialization on the one hand and the nature of the Soviet system on the other. Others, represented for instance by Mr Leonard Schapiro, would give greater emphasis to the power-organization of the system, viewing the methods used in pushing through industrialization as an aspect of the activities of the Communist leadership in maintaining or increasing its power. Another widespread view would give primary emphasis to ideology; true, Marxism in its original form envisaged 'socialism' in countries already industrialized, but in its Leninist variant it certainly provided an ideological framework within which industrialization was regarded as of the highest priority to backward countries, and in which it was the duty of a Communist party in power to press on with creating industry and a numerous proletariat, on which the legitimacy of a 'proletarian dictatorship' was supposed to rest. As the significance of Soviet experience to under-developed countries depends to some extent on a proper assessment of the relationship between Soviet Communism and Soviet industrialization, it is desirable to examine this problem in a little more detail. My own view is that there is a close interrelationship between all the factors referred to above, and that to see any of them in isolation, as 'causes' in themselves, leads to distorted conclusions. Thus obviously the Leninist variant of Marxism was itself in part a response to the fact that Lenin was a citizen of a backward country in need of modernization. It is true that the pursuit of power explains a great deal of Soviet history, but it is also true that both the organization and the severities of the regime were intimately connected with the process of industrialization and the attack on the peasantry which accompanied it. A desire for power is in any case a common disease with politicians, and surely the historic context, and the policies pursued, must be considered if one is to account for the difference between, say, Stalin and an average South American dictator. The opportunity to exercise power was itself rendered possible by the collapse of the Tsarist regime, brought on by the war but partially caused by its inability to cope with the strains which industrialization was imposing on Russian society. 29