Communism East Europe Essay, Research Paper
Communism is like Prohibition – it?s a good idea but it won?t work?
(Will Rogers, 1927) (1)
This essay will give a brief introduction to communism. It will then
discuss the various factors which combined to bring about the collapse of
Communism in Eastern Europe. It will examine each of these factors and
evaluate the effect of each. Finally it will attempt to assertain whether
Rogers? opinion (see above quotation) on Communism is true, that is,
whether communism was truly doomed to fail from the start, or whether its
collapse was a result of external influences.
Communism is based on the ideas and teachings of Karl Marx as modified by
Lenin. At its most basic, the ideal of communism is a system in which
everyone is seen as equal and wealth is distributed equally among the
people. There is no private ownership. The state owns and controls all
enterprises and property. The state is run by one leading elite. The Soviet
model of communism was based on these ideals. All opposition parties were
banned although parties who were sympathetic to communism and who shared
the communist ideals were allowed. All power was concentrated into the
hands of the Communist party. Free press and civil liberties were
suppressed. Censorship and propaganda were widely used. There was state
ownership of the economy. No private enterprise was allowed. There was a
collectivisation of agriculture. The Communist Party invaded and controlled
every aspect of political, social, cultural and economic life. It was a
totalitarian state with complete Communist control over all facets of life.
In the early years, and up until Gorbachev?s ?new regime?, the use of force
and terror as a means of maintaining control was widespread.
The first factor which contributed to the failure and eventual collapse of
communism was the fact that the Communist party?s domination was
illegitimate from the beginning. Lenin came to power after a bloody Civil
War between those who supported Lenin and those who opposed the Soviet
regime. To Lenin, defeat was unthinkable and he was prepared to make any
and every sacrifice to win the war and save ?the revolution?. The forcible
requisitioning of food and supplies was approved by Lenin. This could only
be achieved by enforcing strict and absolute discipline at every level of
society. Terror was to become the chief instrument of power and Lenin was
to assume the role of dictator. This was a phenomenon which was to become a
symbol of communist regimes throughout their lifetime.
This trend was followed when Stalin came to power as leader of the
Communist party and the Russian government in 1929. (2) He had achieved
this through plotting and trickery and by shifting alliances. This had
begun in 1924 when Stalin systematically began to remove all opposition to
his claim to power. His main rival was Trotsky and he used a number of
underhand measures to discredit him. For example Stalin lied to Trotsky
about the date of Lenin?s funeral, thus ensuring that Trotsky could not
attend and thereby blackening his name in the public eye. This Stalin
versus Trotsky conflict led to Trotsky being eventually exiled from Russia
and, ten years later in 1940, being assassinated by one of Stalin?s agents.
(3)
Under Stalin any opposition was swiftly and brutally crushed. In no Eastern
European country did the revolution have the support of more than a
minority of people, yet this minority retained absolute control. The
communist take-over and subsequent regime was achieved by undemocratic
methods, that is, rigged elections, terror, totalitarian state, harassment
and threats. In 1932 a two-hundred page document by a fellow member of the
Politburo condemning the Stalinist regime and calling for change was
published. (4) In response to this Stalin wreaked a terrible revenge. In
1936 Stalin began what became known as the ?purges? whose function it was
to try members of the communist party who had acted treasonously. (5) The
result of these was that five thousand party members were arrested and
stripped of their membership. The sixteen defendants in the three
Showtrials of 1936, 1937 and 1938 were found guilty and executed. In 1939
those who had conducted the purges were also executed. By 1939 the only
member of Lenin?s original Politburo who remained, was Stalin himself. (6)
In relation to foreign policy, Stalin exerted his influence to ensure that
all Eastern European countries (except Yugoslavia) had Soviet-imposed
puppet regimes. Stalin?s domination was now total. After the war Stalin
succeeded in establishing a communist buffer zone between Russia and
Western Europe. Any resistance he met in establishing communist states was
quickly suppressed by intimidation and terror. For example Stalin
engineered a communist coup in May 1948 in Czechoslovakia in which a
government minister Masaryk was killed and the president was forced to
resign. (7) This served a warning to other countries against resisting the
communist regime.
Therefore it can clearly be seen that from the establishment of the state
that communism never had popular public support. It cannot be denied that
there was a significant minority who supported communism, but these were a
minority. Can an ideal and a leadership really be built on such a shallow
and flimsy basis? This essay would argue that the answer to this question
is no. For a leadership to lead, it must have strong support and
confidence. It must be seen to work for the good of the people and not
merely a vociferous minority. This, therefore, can be argued to be one of
the contributing factors in the downfall of communism.
A second related factor, which had a hand in bringing about the end of
communism in Eastern Europe was the fact that communism never really had
the support of the people. There was constant societal opposition to
communist rule in Eastern Europe. Although this was mainly in the form of a
passive rumbling dissent, there were occasional violent and active shows of
opposition to communist rule. The states of Eastern Europe in the post-war
period had been forced to adhere to the Moscow line. After 1956 however,
with Khrushchev?s new approach to Socialism and his denunciation of Stalin,
there were increasing calls for independence among the communist bloc
countries who had never been truly supportive of the communist regime.
In East Germany in 1953 there were a series of strikes and protests. (8)
The Russians, under Stalin, used their armed forces to put down the revolt
and to protect East Germany?s communist government. This shows the
importance of Soviet military force in maintaining communism?s tenuous grip
on power. It also shows how weak communist rule in East Germany really was.
It was this event that sealed East Germany?s fate as the USSR realised that
in a united Germany, the Communists would lose control. Events eventually
culminated with the building of the Berlin Wall which was the ultimate
expression of Soviet and communist force and coercion in maintaining the
communist regime.
Under Khrushchev, who had succeeded Stalin after his death in 1953, Poland
was the first to revolt against the communist regime. Polish workers rioted
and went on strike in 1956 and the Polish communist party also revolted by
refusing to accept the Russian general Rokossovsky as the Polish Minister
for Defence. (9) The situation was diffused by a compromise which was made
on both sides, with Poland agreeing to remain in the communist Eastern bloc
if the nationalist communist leader Gomulka, who had been imprisoned by
Stalin, was reinstated. The fact that Khrushchev was willing to compromise
illustrates again the precarious position of communist rule.
The Hungarian revolution of 1956 was borne out of the relative success of
the Poles in achieving concessions for the Moscow leadership. (10) The
Hungarians decided to overthrow the Stalinist regime in their country. The
situation quickly deteriorated and on the 23rd of October the Hungarian
troops, who had been dispatched to end the riots, joined the civilians in
revolution. Soviet troops were called in and the Hungarian communist party
lost the little support which they had. Again Khrushchev tried to diffuse
the situation by offering a compromise, that is, the reinstatement of the
moderate communist leader Nagy. When it became clear, however, that Nagy
had every intention of pulling out of the Soviet communist bloc, Khrushchev
resorted to force and violence to maintain the communist grip on Hungary.
He ordered the return of Soviet tanks and troops to Budapest on November
4th 1956. (11) Thousands were killed in a bloody street battle until the
Soviets had re-established their control. Nagy was arrested and was
executed two years later. A Soviet imposed communist regime under Janos
Kadar was set up. (12) The tenuous communist grip on control is again
illustrated here. Khrushchev was willing to barter, and eventually use
force, to maintain Soviet control. Without this force and coercion,
however, Hungary would have established its own brand of communist rule.
Khrushchev could not risk the domino effect that this action would have had
on the Eastern bloc. This societal opposition can, therefore, be taken to
be another contributing factor in the downfall of communist rule in the
Eastern bloc. If those in the alliance cannot cooperate and work together,
the alliance and the ideal cannot hope to survive.
Another important factor which this essay will discuss is that of the
influence of the West on the Eastern bloc. The Eastern bloc was already
aware of Western capitalist success as they were allies during the war.
Many of the Eastern countries, for example Hungary under Nagy or
Czechoslovakia under Dubcek, were in favour of a communist system with some
elements of capitalism, that is, a mixed economy or market socialism and
more elements of democracy. There had been a breakdown in relations between
the East and West due to tensions after WWII. After the war Russia wanted
to create a sphere of influence in the East over which the West would have
no say or control. This was not acceptable to the West who wanted to see
democracy installed in the East and who wanted to have a continued input
into the doings of the East. This conflict eventually led to the Cold War.
Until Khrushchev became leader of the Soviet bloc, there had been no
significant contact between the two blocs. Those inside of the Soviet bloc
were completely cut off from the Western ideals. When Khrushchev came to
power, however, there as renewed hope in the West that there might be a
?thaw? in relations between the two blocs. Relations between the two blocs
did improve with Khrushchev attending a number of conferences and meetings.
For example a twelve-day visit to the US in 1959, a UN General Assembly,
also in 1959 and a later UN General Assembly meeting in 1960 in the US.
(13) Although then relations began to break down again due to the building
of the Berlin Wall in 1961 and the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and the
Eastern bloc became cut off once more, western ideas had already managed to
penetrate the East. (14) The information that the capitalist West was
thriving while the Communist Eastern bloc was stagnating and
underdeveloped, made communism and Soviet control even more unpopular.
In 1963 there again was an easing of tensions between the two blocs when
Russia and the US signed a test ban treaty which allowed the West?s
influence to again creep into the East. (15) In 1964 Khrushchev was ousted
from power and Brezhnev with Kosygin took over from him. (16) In 1966 the
US and USSR agreed to a direct air service between Moscow and New York. In
1967 they, along with 60 other countries, signed the first international
treaty providing for the peaceful exploration of outer space. (17) In the
1970?s a period of D?tente began. In 1970 West Germany and Poland signed a
treaty rejecting the use of force. West Germany and Russia ratified a
similar treaty in 1972. (18) In 1972 Nixon and Brezhnev signed the SALT I
treaty which was to limit the production of US and Russian nuclear
weapons. In 1973 East and West Germany joined the UN. (19) Throughout
this period the West had more and more access to the Eastern bloc and the
people of the communist countries were influenced by these ideas. This was
a further blow to communist rule and another factor in the downfall of
communism.
The next contributing factor to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe
was that of its economic failure. During the years of war communism from
1918-1921, Soviet labourers worked for pittance wages. At the same time the
Bolshevik confiscated virtually all harvests. This brought the country to
the brink of economic collapse. The net result of war communism under Lenin
was that from 1914 the countryside was neglected and destroyed and in 1920
there was a severe drought. (20) In 1921 the New Economic Policy (NEP) was
introduced. This was in effect a limited capitalism. Peasants were allowed
to keep their surpluses after taxes were paid. Bonuses, extra rations and
better housing were offered as incentives. Still there was widespread
opposition to the communist policy with the beginnings of a ?peasant war?
against Stalin?s? proposed collectivisation policy in 1928. (21) Although
agricultural production increased, the standard of living was lowered and
hardship was widespread. Forcible collectivisation was pursued until 1935.
This again shows the people?s general opposition to communist policies.
Collectivisation failed to meet agricultural requirements during WWII. The
human cost of the policy was staggering. If the people are suffering under
a particular regime they will not support it, how then can this regime hope
to survive?
When Khrushchev came to power, he too failed to salvage the economy.
Although some of the policies which he introduced in the 1950?s had an
initial success, they soon collapsed with disastrous effects. Figures for
meat in 1958 were artificially high but collapsed soon after. In 1962 there
were sharp increases in the prices of butter and meat. (22) Food riots were
forcibly quelled by the shooting of seventy unarmed demonstrators in 1962.
(23) Industry was not faring any better and by 1963 production levels had
declined sharply in every branch of industry. As Khrushchev himself said of
communism in 1958:-
?If, after forty years of communism, a person cannot have a glass of milk
and a pair of shoes, he will not believe that communism is a good
thing? (24)
Under Brezhnev the economic state of the USSR continued to decline. Support
for communism was falling and due to improved relations with the West, the
people could see how disadvantaged they were. Under Andropov who succeeded
Brezhnev in 1982 the situation did not improve. Change began only when
Gorbachev came to power in 1985. (25) The major problems in the economy
which Gorbachev had to deal with were, the wasteful use of resources, the
lack of innovation, a poor division of labour, too many costly products
being produced, ineffective use of resources and low productivity. There
was a resistance to technological innovation due to a lack of incentives.
Wages were low and the mechanisms involved in introducing a new idea or
practice were time-consuming and complicated. There was a general
inflexibility in the enterprise network which also stifled innovation.
There was also a lack of investment in new ideas and industry. Gorbachev?s
solution to these problems was a ?Perestroika? of the economy.
The challenge of Perestroika was to move to more intensive methods of
production and more effective use of inputs. His economic polices began
with the promise of a revival of some of the practices of NEP. His aim was
to cause output to double by the year 2000 and for production and
productivity to rise substantially. It was not until 1987, however, that
these ideas were put into a concrete plan. (26) A vigorous anti-alcohol
campaign was initiated. Vineyards were destroyed and beer production was
cut-back. By 1988, however, they had to admit that this policy was a
complete failure and it was abandoned in 1990. (27) By 1985 the USSR had a
budget deficit of R37 billion. (28) Due to miscalculations in relation to
the extent of the budget deficit, Gorbachev authorised spending in social
and investment sectors while maintaining the spending in the military