Citation: Cohen, Stephen F. (1999) ‘Bolshevism and Stalinism’ in Robert C. Tucker (ed.) Stalinism: Essays in Historical Interpretation, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, pp. 3-29.
Time Period Covered:
Theory, Research Question, Hypothesis:
Relationship to Other Research/Ideas Contested/Noted Gaps:
Concepts and Definitions:
Method:
Primary/Original Data:
Argument/Conclusion:
Limitations/Flaws:
Abstract:
Notes:
Cohen (1999): Scholarship from late 1940s-to 1960s saw no meaningful difference between Bolshevism and Stalinism. Stalin was the logical continuation and realisation of the Bolshevik ideal. Argues instead that the Civil War fostered bureaucratization and militarization.
Cohen (1999): Cardinal Bolshevik ideals: internationalism, proletarian democracy.
Cohen (1999:19): Sees traditional interpretation of War Communism as being extreme nationalisation, grain requisitioning, monopolistic state intervention – a “crash program of socialism.” An attempt to realise ideological goals that proved premature. Led to major popular opposition.
Cohen (1999:20-21): Disagrees with this interpretation of War Communism, arguing “the Bolsheviks had no well-defined economic policies upon coming to office in October 1917. There were generally held Bolshevik goals and tenets — socialism, workers’ control, nationalization, large-scale farming, planning, and the like — but these were vague and subject to the most varying interpretations inside the party.” They had no practical policies. Also argues that War Communism combined concessions to existing capitalist structures. “None of this is to say that War Communism had no ideological component. As the Civil War deepened into a great social conflict, official measures grew more extreme, and the meaning and the ‘defense of the revolution’ became inseparable, Bolsheviks naturally infused these improvised policies with high theoretical and programmatic significance beyond military victory.”