Stalin’s abandonment of the New Economic Policy in 1929 is another way in which he gained control over the USSR. He did not consider the NEP as being Communist as it allowed the peasants to “have their little bit of capitalism” (Lenin). The policy allowed peasants to sell extra surplus in free markets and legalized small businesses. Only industry, transport and banking remained under State control. This was not acceptable to Stalin who saw the NEP as unpopular and believed that the Party should oppose private property and profit. Collectivisation, started in 1928, was seen to be the solution to this problem as it gave the State, and therefore Stalin, complete control of the countryside. It saw that grain was taken by force from peasants, who were made to join collective farms; introducing State control to ensure maximum efficiency. The justification for this was the fact that grain seizure would help industry and also the accusations that the kulaks were hoarding grain, therefore government control was needed to deal with unreliable peasants. The effect which grain seizure had on industry in the long term was not significant enough to use it as a reason for implementing Collectivisation, in fact it had the effect of crippling Soviet agriculture. It is therefore justifiable to state that Collectivisation was merely a means by which Stalin could gain more control over the USSR with benefits which were purely political as opposed to social or economic.
Stalin’s Five Year Plans, designed to build socialism against capitalist enemies, urged workers to achieve increasingly difficult tasks. Propaganda such as posters, factory meetings, radio broadcasts and theatre groups were used to encourage them. This however did not provide enough workers to fulfil Stalin’s plans. Forced labour was conducted in order to provide the millions of workers needed to achieve the aims of the Five Year Plans. This forced labour not only comprised of kulaks but also of so called ‘enemies of the State’ such as former members of the bourgeoisie and members of religious groups. Death was not uncommon among the forced workers, forced labour therefore, was not only a way of bringing about industrialisation in the USSR as fast as possible, it was also a calculated attempt to eliminate threats to the government. Industrial trials of managers and previous members of the bourgeoisie, such as the 1928 Shakhty Trial in which they were accused of collaborating with foreign powers to hold back production is an example of how the Five Year Plans gave the State control over possible threats to its power and used fear to encourage workers not to disobey orders. In this way, Stalin became even more confident in his leadership and took another step in asserting his personal authority over the USSR.
The main way in which Stalin asserted his authority was, however, the use of terror in the form of purges. Seen by some as a well thought out programme implemented by Stalin to establish a personal dictatorship over the USSR, the purges took many forms. One form is the expulsion of undesirable members of the party. 1928 saw a change in the policy of the government which began to attack kulaks and nepmen, sharpening the class war. It was perhaps then inevitable that this change in policy should be accompanied by a purge of party members. During 1928-1930, 11 per cent of members were removed from the party, and then from 1933-1935 another 20 percent were ejected. A further 9 percent of party members were expelled in 1936 by not being issued new membership cards. Whether this was a way of ridding the party of lazy members and drunks or whether Stalin was trying to rid himself of critics and potential rivals is debatable. However, the reasons given for expulsion such as being spies or linked to spies, being Zinovievites and being former White Guards or Kulaks, suggest that it was a fear of opposition within the party that incited these purges as opposed to a desire for more respectable party members. Whether this was due to Stalin’s insecurity or not, this way of controlling party membership was certainly a key factor in the assertion of Stalin’s authority in the USSR.
On 1 December 1934, Politburo member and Leningrad party leader Kirov was assassinated. A young party member, Nikolaev, was accused and shot without trial for the murder. The NKVD announced that he had been part of a Trotskyite centre in Leningrad which all party members were then ordered to guard against. This incident led to an emergency decree to deal with ‘terrorist organisations and terrorist attacks’. The decree announced that investigations should be completed in ten days, military tribunals would be held to try suspects, no defence or prosecution lawyers would be allowed, no appeals were permitted and executions were to be carried out immediately. Using the NKVD, Stalin could now eradicate anyone considered to be even the slightest threat to his authority, this reinforced the extent of his power over the USSR and greatly discouraged open opposition to his rule.
The assassination of Kirov, although blamed on Nikolaev, has also been looked at as an attempt by Stalin to provide an excuse for yet more purges to emphasize his power. Historian Robert Conquest suggests that “Stalin’s decision was that Kirov had to be killed”, showing that he was involved in the planning of the murder. The events which followed the assassination certainly provide evidence for this view. The show trials began in August 1936 when Zinoviev, Kamenev and 14 others were put on trial for complicity with Trotsky and in plots to kill Stalin. Most of those put on trial confessed as they were promised that their lives would be spared if they were helpful, all the accused were found guilty and shot. Further trials were held in January 1937 and March 1938 in which Radek was imprisoned and Bukharin, Yagoda and Rykov were shot. All potential rivals of Stalin, it is highly likely that Stalin himself was deeply involved in the trials which appear to have been simply another way of dealing with opposition and therefore strengthening Stalin’s rule over the USSR, from this point on he had little serious opposition within the party, and it is debateable as to whether such opposition existed in the first place. The show trials of 1936 to 1938 eradicated those seen by Stalin as threats to his personal authority, and put him in a position of great power over the USSR.
The ‘Great Purge’ or Ezhovschina came between the second and third show trials. During this period there was a large rise in numbers of those being arrested, imprisoned and shot as suspected oppositionists. This episode came about as a result of a meeting of the Central Committee in February 1937 in which Ezhov and Molotov urged for a more aggressive policy towards opposition to the party. The meeting set up a committee of five Politburo members to investigate opposition within the party and resulted in the NKVD arresting army generals, devastating the Soviet armed forces. Although this did help to further assert Stalin’s power over the USSR, it does seem, due to the USSR’s international situating regarding Germany, that there was a genuine scare of plots against the Communist regime as this could be the only explanation for a country to attack its own army in such times. This aspect of the ‘Great Purge’ therefore, may not have been purely a scheme of Stalin’s to gain authority in the USSR. However, it is necessary to look at the origin of the idea that there was a threat against Communism, and it can be found that the idea in fact originated from Stalin and his loyal associates themselves to provide justification for purges to this extent.
During the ‘Great Purge’, in August 1937, the Politburo legalised torture after receiving a report from Ezhov proposing to arrest over 250, 000 by the end of the year. This led to targets being set for each district of the USSR which stated that 28 per cent were to be shot and the rest incarcerated. The Politburo made sure that the focus of these arrests and executions were kulaks and political prisoners who were allegedly inciting sabotage and anti-Soviet crimes. To this list, Ezhov then added former members of political parties, nationalists and former Whites. This purge resulted in only 16 out of 71 members of the 1934 Central Committee remaining alive in 1939. Although Stephen Cohen, in a documentary about Stalin, suggests that these arrests were arbitrary, those targeted by the purge would seem to be only people with the possibility of posing even the slightest threat to Stalin’s authority. The ‘Great Purge’ therefore, appears to have been a direct attempt to obliterate opposition to the Communist rule, and Stalin’s authority over it and the USSR in particular.
So much evidence exists proving that Stalin was involved in the show trials and the purges that it is impossible to say that he was completely innocent in the events. Interrogators reported to Stalin on the progress they were making with their investigations, Stalin is even reported to have said to and NKDV official “Don’t come to report to me until you have in this briefcase the confession of Kamenev”. However, out of the vast numbers shot by the NKVD, it is unlikely that more than a few were personally known to Stalin, and it was not he alone who selected the victims, even though he did authorize mass killings. These factors suggest that the ‘Great Purge’ and the show trials were not Stalin personally eradicating opposition, but were high ranking members of the Communist Party, loyal to Stalin trying to protect him from the so called threat of resistance in order to stay in his favour. However, whether Stalin was personally in control of these events or not, they still played a major part in the assertion of his authority over the USSR.
Therefore by 1939, Stalin had succeeded by various means in gaining unquestionable authority over the Communist Party and the USSR. Aided by Lenin’s system of a one party government, Stalin managed to remove all those seen as major or even minor threats to his position, both within and outside of the Communist Party. This resulted in what can be seen as a personal dictatorship over the USSR which was kept in place by the use of terror rather than due to mass support.