The Debates between Stalin, Trotsky, Bukharin and others

Beginning at the end of 1924, Stalin gradually explored and expounded on Lenin’s thought of building socialism in a single country, emphasizing that the Soviet Union had all the necessary conditions for building a “complete socialist society”. Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamanev fiercely opposed this theory and proposed that “socialism cannot be built in a single country”. Therefore, Stalin and Trotsky entered into a fierce debate about whether socialism can be built in a single country or not. The debate mainly focused on the following issues:

(1) The law of uneven and combined capitalist political and economic development in the period of imperialism. Trotsky argued that the law of uneven and combined development of capitalism constituted a major hinderance to building socialism in a single country. Stalin pointed out that the law of uneven and combined development exacerbates the contradictions within the imperialist camp, thus weakens the world capitalist front, and makes it possible for socialism to achieve victory first in a single country and later in the other countries, one after the other.

(2) On the issue of dependence to the world economy. Trotsky and others put emphasis on the trend of increasing economic ties among countries of the world which would be an absolute hinderance to the possibility of establishing an independent national economic system in the Soviet Union. Stalin refuted this idea and argued that dependence effects the both sides—capitalism and socialism— and that it would be wrong to conclude that the Soviet Union could not build a socialist economy because the Soviet national economy depended on capitalist countries to a certain extent.

(3) On the evaluation of the role of farmers. One of the important ideological roots of Trotsky’s opposition to the theory of “building socialism in a single country” was to deny the revolutionary enthusiasm of peasants for socialism, and he argued that the proletariat will have hostile antagonistic conflicts not only with the bourgeoisie, but also with the peasants. In this regard, Stalin argued that the peasant economy was a small commodity economy according to the vast majority of farmers, and it was an economy standing at the crossroads between capitalism and socialism, and can develop both in the direction of capitalism and in the direction of socialism. The industry of the Soviet Union was in the hands of the proletariat, and the transportation industry, credit system and state power were also in the hands of the proletariat, and it was entirely possible to make the majority of farmers generally cooperative by means of cooperatives, so as to guide the development of farmers’ economy along the socialist path. Since, Stalin’s theory correctly answered the major issues put forward by the times and met the people’s desire to build socialism, this debate ended with Stalin’s theory being fully accepted by the C.P.S.U. and the people.

After the Resolution on Agricultural Collectivization was adopted by 15th National Congress of the C.P.S.U. (Bolshevik) held in December 1927, there were serious disagreements within the party on how to overcome the “grain purchase crisis” and how to implement the policies of industrialization and agricultural collectivization, which led to a fierce debate between Bukharin and Stalin. Stalin argued that the decline of grain purchase was due to the intensified class struggle in the countryside and the hidden destruction of the rich peasants, as well as the slow development of collective farms. To this end, Stalin proposed that the struggle against the rich peasants should be the focus of the party’s rural work, and proposed to take “extraordinary measures” beyond the framework of the new economic policy: For the “rich peasants and speculators” who refuse to sell the surplus grain to the state at the price prescribed by the state, all their surplus grain could be confiscated according to the legal provisions. This practice was quickly popularized throughout the country, and grain collection teams were sent to major grain producing areas, and excessive behavior took place in many areas. At the same time, Stalin called for the rapid development of agricultural collectivization. On the other hand, Bukharin opposed Stalin’s views and measures, by arguing that the grain purchase crisis was caused by the mistakes of government agencies and could be overcome according to the principles of New Economic Policy. Bukharin advocated abandoning “extraordinary measures”, criticized excessive behavior, and suggested overcoming economic difficulties by increasing the purchase price of grain and developing the light industry faster. Bukharin argued that as the basic line of the party’s economic policy, the role of the New Economic Policy (NEP) was not been fully played, by saying: we should use economic means, i.e. through competition, rather than administrative means, in order to exclude or transform urban and rural capitalist elements. On how to speed up industrialization, Bukharin and Stalin also had sharp differences. Stalin proposed collecting “amplified tax” from the farmers to accumulate the necessary funds to ensure rapid industrialization. Bukharin argued that this policy would destroy the “combination of industry and agriculture” advocated by Lenin. Bukharin emphasized the need to develop agriculture while rapidly realizing industrialization, otherwise the industrialization plan will also end in failure. Bukharin’s view was not accepted by Stalin and was denounced as “right deviationist opportunism”. The debate between Stalin and Bukharin reflected their different understanding of Lenin’s New Economic Policy. Bukharin advocated a program of industrialization and agricultural collectivization remaining within the framework of New Economic Policy. Stalin, on the other hand, based his analysis on the increasingly sharpening class struggle, put forward a program to accelerate industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture which went beyond the framework of the New Economic Policy.