Khrushchev on Stalin (1956)

From the October 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Now that we have read in full what Khrushchev has said about the late Russian dictator, one important point emerges—Khrushchev blames Stalin and the excesses of Stalinism. But nowhere does Khrushchev question the system itself. “Big Brother” made mistakes, but “1984” remains! To Khrushchev the system itself is “good" and the system is—Socialism!

Although the Soviet Government allows only one political party—the Communist Party; although, even to-day, after Stalin’s death, after Beria’s death, there is still the secret police; although there is a powerful army, navy, and air force; although there are rich bureaucrats, trust directors and government bond holders, and on the other hand millions of peasants and ordinary workers living in poverty, all this—and much more—is still defended by the Khrushchevs, by the Communists in all lands, as “Socialism.”

Whether Khrushchev and his fellow Communists in Russia and elsewhere are knaves or fools we know not; whether they really think that the Russian set-up has anything in common with the ideas of Socialism is difficult to say.

*   *   *   *

Since the time of the Russian Revolution in 1917 the Socialist Party has repeatedly stressed the fact that whatever did happen there Socialism was not a practical possibility. Firstly, Socialism can only come about on a world scale. Secondly, a majority of people must understand the implications of a Socialist society and be prepared to work for such a society when it’s brought about; and thirdly. Socialism cannot be a workable alternative unless the means of production are enough to enable people to produce sufficient wealth for everyone’s needs. None of these conditions could or did exist in Russia in 1917.

*   *   *   *

At the time of the Russian Revolution, Russia was a backward semi-feudal state, ruled by an autocrat, the Czar, without any real democratic traditions. Under such conditions the emergence of another despot—Stalin—was almost inevitable. In order to force through the industrialisation of the Soviet Union at such a pace he was considered by the Communists, including the Khrushchev, as absolutely necessary. The Khrushchev and other Communist, who now condemn Stalin, were just as much a part of Stalinism as was Stalin himself.

The form of society that has emerged in Soviet Russia, despite its dictatorship—personal or collective—its slave camps, its mass murders, etc., is not so much removed from that of Britain or France or the United States. In Russia large numbers of workers are employed (by the State) for wages (paid monthly). Goods and services are not rendered just because they are needed, but, like elsewhere, for a profit. The peasants of Russia are exploited like the peasants of France or Spain. The workers of Russia are exploited just like the workers of Britain or America. The land, the factories, the means of transportation, are not the property of the people but belong, again, as elsewhere, to a few. In Britain or the States we call it capitalism: a society of wage-labour and capital. In Russia the Communists call it “Socialism.” But Socialists still call it Capitalism—State Capitalism.

*   *   *   *

Socialism would have none of the features of Stalinist or present-day Russia. Socialism will be a free society and democratic throughout. The means of living will belong |o all. Secret police, dictatorship and the horrors of a coercive State will no longer be necessary. But such a society, we feel, is beyond the ken of Khrushchev; he can only blame Stalin, the very man he previously defended for so many years.

Peter E. Newell