18. Stages of development of the world socialist system

Chapter 18. Stages of development of the world socialist system

18.1. The formation of the world socialist system

A significant historical event of the postwar period was the people's democratic revolutions in a number of European countries: Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Asia: Vietnam, China, Korea and a little earlier - the revolution in Mongolia. To a large extent, the political orientation in these countries was determined under the influence of the stay in the territory of most of them of the Soviet troops that were fulfilling the mission of liberation during the Second World War. This also largely contributed to the fact that in most countries radical changes began in the political, socio-economic and other spheres in accordance with the Stalinist model, which was characterized by the highest degree of centralization of the national economy and the dominance of the party-state bureaucracy.

The emergence of the socialist model beyond the framework of one country and its spread to South-Eastern Europe and Asia laid the foundations for the emergence of a community of countries called the “world socialist system” (MSS). In 1959, Cuba, and in 1975, Laos entered the orbit of a new system that existed for more than 40 years.

In the late 80s. The world socialist system consisted of 15 states that occupied 26.2% of the world’s territory and accounted for 32.3% of the world’s population.

Taking even these quantitative indicators into account, one can speak of the world socialist system as an essential factor of post-war international life, requiring more in-depth consideration.

Eastern European countries. As noted, an important prerequisite for the formation of the MSS was the liberation mission of the Soviet Army in the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe. Today there are quite heated discussions on this issue. A significant part of researchers is inclined to believe that in 1944-1947. there were no people's democratic revolutions in the countries of this region, and the Soviet Union imposed on the liberated peoples the Stalinist model of social development. From this point of view, we can only agree in part, since, in our opinion, it should be borne in mind that in 1945-1946. In these countries, extensive democratic reforms were carried out, bourgeois-democratic forms of statehood were often restored. This is evidenced, in particular, by the bourgeois orientation of agrarian reforms in the absence of nationalization of the land, the preservation of the private sector in the small and medium industry, retail trade and the service sector, and finally the presence of a multiparty system, including the highest level of power. If in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia immediately after liberation a course was adopted towards socialist transformations, in the rest of the countries of Southeastern Europe a new course began to be pursued since the establishment of the essentially undivided power of the national communist parties, as it was in Czechoslovakia (February 1948) Romania (December 1947), Hungary (autumn 1947), Albania (February 1946), East Germany (October 1949), Poland (January 1947). Thus, in a number of countries in the course of a year and a half or two post-war years, the possibility of an alternative, non-socialist path remained.

1949 can be considered a kind of pause, which drew a line under the prehistory of the MSS, and the 50s can be distinguished into a relatively independent stage of the forced creation of a “new” society, following the “universal model” of the USSR, whose components are well known. This is a comprehensive nationalization of the industrial sectors of the economy, compulsory co-operation, and essentially nationalization of the agricultural sector, ousting private capital from finance, trade, establishing total control of the state, the highest bodies of the ruling party over public life, in the field of spiritual culture, etc.

Assessing the results of the course of building the foundations of socialism in the countries of Southeastern Europe, it is necessary to state in general the rather negative effect of these transformations. Thus, the forced creation of heavy industry led to the emergence of national economic imbalances, which affected the pace of liquidation of the consequences of post-war devastation and could not but affect the growth of the living standards of countries in comparison with countries that were not in the orbit of socialist construction. Similar results were obtained in the course of forced cooperation of the village, as well as the crowding out of private initiative from the sphere of handicrafts, trade and services. As an argument confirming such conclusions, powerful socio-political crises can be considered in Poland, Hungary, the GDR and Czechoslovakia of 1953-1956, on the one hand, and a sharp increase in the state’s repressive policy towards any dissent, on the other. A common enough until recently explanation of the reasons for such difficulties of building socialism in the countries we considered was the blind copying by their leadership of the experience of the USSR without taking into account national specifics under the influence of Stalin’s harsh dictatorship regarding the communist leadership of these countries.

Self-government socialism in Yugoslavia. However, there was another model of socialist construction that was carried out in those years in Yugoslavia - a model of self-governing socialism. She assumed in general terms the following: the economic freedom of labor collectives within enterprises, their activity on the basis of economic calculation with an indicative type of state planning; the rejection of forced cooperation in agriculture, the fairly widespread use of commodity-money relations, etc., but under the condition that the monopoly of the Communist Party is preserved in certain spheres of political and public life. The departure of the Yugoslav leadership from the "universal" Stalinist construction scheme was the reason for its practical isolation for a number of years from the USSR and its allies. Only after the condemnation of Stalinism at the XX Congress of the CPSU, only in 1955, the relations of the socialist countries with Yugoslavia began to gradually normalize. Some positive economic and social effect obtained from the introduction of a more balanced economic model in Yugoslavia, it would seem, is a confirmation of the argument of supporters of the above point of view on the causes of the crises of the 50s.

Education CMEA. The creation of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) in January 1949 can be considered an important milestone in the history of the formation of the world socialist system. Economic and scientific-technical cooperation of the originally European socialist countries was carried out through the CMEA. Military-political cooperation was carried out within the framework of the Warsaw Pact created in May 1955 .

It should be noted that the socialist countries of Europe remained a relatively dynamically developing part of the MLS. At the other pole of it were Mongolia, China, North Korea, and Vietnam. These countries most consistently used the Stalinist model of building socialism, namely: within the framework of a rigid one-party system, they decisively eradicated elements of market, private property relations.

Mongolia. The first to take this path was Mongolia. After the coup of 1921, the power of the people's government was proclaimed in the capital of Mongolia (the city of Urga), and in 1924 the People's Republic. The country began a transformation under the strong influence of the northern neighbor of the USSR. By the end of the 40s. in Mongolia, there was a process of moving away from primitive-nomadic life through the construction of mainly large enterprises in the field of the mining industry, the spread of agricultural farms. Since 1948, the country began the forced construction of the foundations of socialism along the lines of the USSR, copying its experience and repeating mistakes. The ruling party set the task of turning Mongolia into an agrarian-industrial country, disregarding its features, essentially a civilizational base different from the USSR, religious traditions, etc.

China. China remains the largest socialist country in Asia to this day. After the victory of the revolution, the defeat of the army of Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975), on October 1, 1949, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was proclaimed. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and with the great assistance of the USSR, the country began to rebuild the national economy. At the same time, China most consistently used the Stalinist model of transformation. And after the XX Congress of the CPSU, which condemned some of the vices of Stalinism, China opposed itself to the new course of the “older brother”, becoming the arena of an experiment of unprecedented scale called the “big leap”. The concept of accelerated construction of socialism by Mao Zedong (1893-1976) was in its essence a repetition of the Stalinist experiment, but in an even more rigid form. The most important task was to catch up and overtake the USSR by sharply breaking social relations, using the labor enthusiasm of the population, the barracks forms of labor and life, military discipline at all levels of social relations, etc. As a result, in the late 50s the population began to experience hunger. This caused a ferment in society and among the leadership of the party. The “cultural revolution” was the response of Mao and his supporters. So was called the “great helmsman” a large-scale campaign of repression against dissidents, stretching until Mao's death. Up to this point, the PRC, being considered a socialist country, nevertheless was, as it were, beyond the borders of the IUS, which can be evidenced, in particular, by even its armed clashes with the USSR in the late 60s.

Vietnam. The most authoritative force leading the struggle for the independence of Vietnam was the Communist Party. Its leader, Ho Chi Minh (1890–1969), headed in September 1945 the provisional government of the proclaimed Democratic Republic of Vietnam. These circumstances determined the Marxist-socialist orientation of the subsequent course of the state. It was carried out in the conditions of the anti-colonial war, first with France (1946-1954), and then with the USA (1965-1973) and the struggle for reunification with the south of the country until 1975. Thus, the construction of the foundations of socialism proceeded for a long time in military conditions that had a considerable influence on the features of the reforms, which increasingly acquired the Stalinist-Maoist tint.

North Korea. Cuba. A similar picture was observed in Korea, which gained independence from Japan in 1945 and was divided in 1948 into two parts. North Korea was in the zone of influence of the USSR, and South Korea - the United States. The dictatorial regime of Kim Il Sung (1912-1994) was established in North Korea (DPRK), which carried out the construction of a barracks society, closed to the outside world, based on the most severe dictates of one person, the total nationalization of property, life, etc. However, the DPRK was able to reach in the 50s. certain positive results in economic construction due to the development of the fundamentals of the industry laid down by the Japanese conquerors and the high work culture combined with the most severe industrial discipline.

At the end of the period in question, the anti-colonial revolution in Cuba occurred in the history of the MLS (January 1959). The hostile policy of the United States towards the young republic and its resolute support by the Soviet Union determined the socialist orientation of the Cuban leadership.