6 ms·

How would you describe the support for Lysenko's disastrous agricultural policies, or the persecution of the Kulaks, if not as ideological?

anigbrowl 9y ago
Strategic. Stalin preferred to have absolute power within a smaller, weaker economy (but one with vast territorial and material resources available for the future) than to be part of a distributed power structure in a larger economy. This is a very common pattern among dictators, and this is where I cite Bueno de Mesquita and Smith's Logic of Political Survival or dictator's handbook, depending on whether you want the theoretical or narrative exposition of the same basic idea. Better yet, read both.
- sbmassey 9y ago
  I can well imagine that Machiavellian strategies of that type go on in most politically powerful peoples heads, but as far as I know Stalin never stated anywhere that his aim was to reduce the size of the economy, and the beliefs of everyone under Stalin carrying out the massacres seem to have been true ideological fervour for communist doctrine, so I would chalk it up to ideology personally.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    I don't think he wanted to reduce the size of the economy as such, but he certainly seemed to want to reduce the number of people who could effectively oppose him and was willing to tolerate short-term economic setbacks to that end.
- nickik 9y ago
  I totally disagree with you and I don't think de Mesquita would agree with you either. Many of the things Stalin did can not be explained by that theory. Stalin already was in complete control, more so then almost any other dictator even. Yet he risked when he collectivised agrocultre that for essentially idiological. We know that Stalin saw himself as an intellectual, he read a lot and not just marxism. His last great work was a book about the economy, he spent years working on it. Everything we know about him, and how he grow up shows his intense interest in marxim. Read his letters when he was in exile, all he does is ask for books.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    OK, but just so we're clear I'm not the person arguing that Stalin wasn't an intellectual, and have never held that view. I mention de Mesquita because I think his collectivization policy was very much in line with reducing the size of the selectorate and strengthening his control. That said it's hard to assess that theory in terms of collectivization and industrialization in only a couple of sentences, so I apologize if that seems hand-wavey.
    - nickik 9y ago
      I think it is an interesting argument. My problem is just that while the farmers had power as a collective, they could really not threaten the political survival of the dictatorship. History suggest to me that Stalin had reached absolute power and then he finally could dedicate himself to what he actually wanted to do. The reason collectivization does not make sense as a strategy for political survival is that it massively endangered his position. He had major opposition to these polices because of how extremely damaging they would be.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        I feel like I'm missing something; you're saying the farmers (I presume you mean the kulaks, the landowning peasantry - please correct me if I'm wrong)couldn't really threaten Stalin, but at the same time say that implementing his policy massively threatened his position. It can't be both at once, and while collectivization turned out to have a heavy economic cost in the medium term, Stalin was able to blame the farmers for trying to hoard grain and eliminate their leaders. And as we can't see the future, it wasn't obvious beforehand how bad of an idea collectivization would turn out to be, so I presume he felt it was a gamble worth taking.
        nickik 9y ago
        Yes it can both be true. Farmers when left alone don't unify build an army and attack you. The simply can not do that for essentially logistical reasons. However, when you try to completely change a whole society, destroying a very large quantity of its economic assets, while also doing massive internal reforms, both in the state and the party, you put yourself in a dangerous situation. Not primary because of the farmers but rather that the very political system you build your power on starts to collapse. > Stalin was able to blame the farmers for trying to hoard grain and eliminate their leaders Not sure what you mean by 'he was able to blame', of course he was, he controlled virtually ever channel of information. Most of the population, and certainty the farmers did not 'buy' this propaganda. > And as we can't see the future, it wasn't obvious beforehand how bad of an idea collectivization would turn out to be, so I presume he felt it was a gamble worth taking. Literally every single expert, including communist from his own party knew it was a horrible idea. Its not like this was the first time they tried to get the farmers to do things they did not want to do. During the initial (1917-1921) attempted to claim the farmers property they learned that it was not at all an easy thing to do. The hole regime almost collapsed in 1921 and they had to bring back markets even when they hated the concept. He had to replace lots of people and use every political tool in the book to actually manage it. Its a true testimony of Stalin political control that he was able to pull this off.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Strategic. Stalin preferred to have absolute power within a smaller, weaker economy (but one with vast territorial and material resources available for the future) than to be part of a distributed power structure in a larger economy. This is a very common pattern among dictators, and this is where I cite Bueno de Mesquita and Smith's Logic of Political Survival or dictator's handbook, depending on whether you want the theoretical or narrative exposition of the same basic idea. Better yet, read both.

sbmassey 9y ago
I can well imagine that Machiavellian strategies of that type go on in most politically powerful peoples heads, but as far as I know Stalin never stated anywhere that his aim was to reduce the size of the economy, and the beliefs of everyone under Stalin carrying out the massacres seem to have been true ideological fervour for communist doctrine, so I would chalk it up to ideology personally.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  I don't think he wanted to reduce the size of the economy as such, but he certainly seemed to want to reduce the number of people who could effectively oppose him and was willing to tolerate short-term economic setbacks to that end.
nickik 9y ago
I totally disagree with you and I don't think de Mesquita would agree with you either. Many of the things Stalin did can not be explained by that theory. Stalin already was in complete control, more so then almost any other dictator even. Yet he risked when he collectivised agrocultre that for essentially idiological. We know that Stalin saw himself as an intellectual, he read a lot and not just marxism. His last great work was a book about the economy, he spent years working on it. Everything we know about him, and how he grow up shows his intense interest in marxim. Read his letters when he was in exile, all he does is ask for books.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  OK, but just so we're clear I'm not the person arguing that Stalin wasn't an intellectual, and have never held that view. I mention de Mesquita because I think his collectivization policy was very much in line with reducing the size of the selectorate and strengthening his control. That said it's hard to assess that theory in terms of collectivization and industrialization in only a couple of sentences, so I apologize if that seems hand-wavey.
  - nickik 9y ago
    I think it is an interesting argument. My problem is just that while the farmers had power as a collective, they could really not threaten the political survival of the dictatorship. History suggest to me that Stalin had reached absolute power and then he finally could dedicate himself to what he actually wanted to do. The reason collectivization does not make sense as a strategy for political survival is that it massively endangered his position. He had major opposition to these polices because of how extremely damaging they would be.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      I feel like I'm missing something; you're saying the farmers (I presume you mean the kulaks, the landowning peasantry - please correct me if I'm wrong)couldn't really threaten Stalin, but at the same time say that implementing his policy massively threatened his position. It can't be both at once, and while collectivization turned out to have a heavy economic cost in the medium term, Stalin was able to blame the farmers for trying to hoard grain and eliminate their leaders. And as we can't see the future, it wasn't obvious beforehand how bad of an idea collectivization would turn out to be, so I presume he felt it was a gamble worth taking.
      - nickik 9y ago
        Yes it can both be true. Farmers when left alone don't unify build an army and attack you. The simply can not do that for essentially logistical reasons. However, when you try to completely change a whole society, destroying a very large quantity of its economic assets, while also doing massive internal reforms, both in the state and the party, you put yourself in a dangerous situation. Not primary because of the farmers but rather that the very political system you build your power on starts to collapse. > Stalin was able to blame the farmers for trying to hoard grain and eliminate their leaders Not sure what you mean by 'he was able to blame', of course he was, he controlled virtually ever channel of information. Most of the population, and certainty the farmers did not 'buy' this propaganda. > And as we can't see the future, it wasn't obvious beforehand how bad of an idea collectivization would turn out to be, so I presume he felt it was a gamble worth taking. Literally every single expert, including communist from his own party knew it was a horrible idea. Its not like this was the first time they tried to get the farmers to do things they did not want to do. During the initial (1917-1921) attempted to claim the farmers property they learned that it was not at all an easy thing to do. The hole regime almost collapsed in 1921 and they had to bring back markets even when they hated the concept. He had to replace lots of people and use every political tool in the book to actually manage it. Its a true testimony of Stalin political control that he was able to pull this off.