{"id":459,"date":"2017-10-31T19:58:20","date_gmt":"2017-10-31T19:58:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/?p=459"},"modified":"2022-04-13T17:25:10","modified_gmt":"2022-04-13T16:25:10","slug":"at-last-it-has-happened-bevan-the-russian-revolution-and-the-soviet-union","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/at-last-it-has-happened-bevan-the-russian-revolution-and-the-soviet-union\/","title":{"rendered":"‘At last it has happened’: Bevan, the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cI remember so well what happened when the Russian revolution occurred. I remember the miners, when they heard that the Czarist tyranny had been overthrown, rushing to meet each other in the streets with tears streaming down their cheeks, shaking hands and saying: \u2018At last it has happened.\u2019 Let us remember in 1951 that the revolution of 1917 came to the working class of Great Britain, not as social disaster, but as one of the most emancipating events in the history of mankind. Let us also remember that the Soviet revolution would not have been so distorted, would not have ended in a tyranny, would not have resulted in a dictatorship, would not now be threatening the peace of mankind, had it not been for the behaviour of Churchill, and the Tories at that time\u201d[1]<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Bevan, speaking in 1951 (rather dewy-eyed and romantically), remembered the feeling that overcame him and the miners when news reached them of the Russian Revolution. The impact of the revolutions of February and October 1917 were felt far and wide. In Wales, it inspired hopes in some of socialist upheaval and had a profound impact on the political outlook of people like Aneurin Bevan.<\/p>\n

To commemorate the 100 year anniversary of the Russian Revolution and as part of my research into the political thought of Aneurin Bevan, I wanted to explore the impact of the revolution on his thinking and his attitudes towards the Soviet Union throughout his life. An analysis of these attitudes will assist in elucidating important aspects of Bevan\u2019s thought.<\/p>\n

It will be argued here that while Bevan was a harsh critic of many of the practices of the Soviet Union, his critique of capitalism and his conception of power led him to hold out hope that the Soviet Union would develop into a country of democracy, liberty and freedom.<\/p>\n

He believed state power could be used as an instrument for the working class therefore continually stressed the positive aspects of economic and technical development in the Soviet Union but he did not like what he viewed as the repressive apparatus of the Soviet state. Militarily, Bevan did not see Russian aggression in the same terms as western powers did, but acknowledged the overreach of the Soviet Union. Most importantly, Bevan wanted expansion of liberty in Soviet Russia, stressing his ideology of Democratic Socialism. He believed that as productive forces developed amidst high levels of industrialisation, there would be an expansion of liberty in Russian society.<\/p>\n

This post will provide an analysis of the economic, political, military and ideological aspects of his outlook on the Soviet Union.<\/p>\n

Revolution to evolution<\/u><\/p>\n

Bevan\u2019s attitude towards the Soviet Union was favourable in relation to its economic development. During a debate in 1932 on shortening the working day, he praised the state-led drive towards industrialisation and economic development, arguing that in terms of \u201cthe total use of productive forces, Russia stands at the head of the nations of the world\u201d. When questioned by Captain William Strickland, Conservative MP for Coventry, on whether he was arguing for Britain to reverse to \u201cthe Russia type\u201d, Bevan answered \u201cIf the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me whether I am in favour of adopting in this country the methods of planned economy that exist in Russia, the answer is most certainly “Yes.”\u201d[2]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bevan thought that the revolution could not lead to a full development of economic and industrial forces due to the agrarian nature of Russian society. He argued that the \u201cphilosophy applied to Russia after the 1914-18 war was a product of the Industrial Revolution\u201d.\u00a0 He believed that the leaders of the revolution had to \u201cadopt practices that brought about a progressive distortion of their original principles\u201d due to the agrarian nature of Russian society. He maintained that \u201cThe history of the last thirty years would have been different if the advanced industrial techniques of the West could have been joined to the agrarian hinterland of Russia. But it was not to be, and in the meantime the original impetus of the Russian Revolution has been polluted and maimed beyond recognition\u201d[3]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Despite this view, Bevan was impressed by the rapid economic development that had taken place in the years following the revolution. Even writing over 40 years after the Revolution, Bevan perceived the weight of the argument between capitalism and communism beginning to go towards communism. After the Russians successfully orbited a rocket around the sun, Bevan thought people would begin to see the merits of the communist system more clearly than capitalism.<\/p>\n

“The old Marxist argument that the relations of private property and the social stratifications that come within them tend to stultify and even inhibit technical progress and maximum production of wealth, is receiving fresh reinforcement”[4]<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This technological development, Bevan argued, was not confined to the space race, but was evident in many areas of society. However, it did not necessarily lead to improvements in society \u2013 \u201cSpeaking for myself, I think the weight of the argument still lies with the defenders of Western Democracy\u201d \u2013 but the Soviet Union had demonstrated what state-led economic development could achieve.<\/p>\n

State and political power<\/u><\/p>\n

This brings us to a fundamental aspect of Bevan\u2019s political thought \u2013 his conception of state power. Bevan conceptualised the state as an instrument that could be wielded by\/on behalf of the working class in order to change society. He advocated nationalisation and state control over the \u2018commanding heights of the economy\u2019, the element of the Soviet Union which Bevan praised.<\/p>\n

Although Bevan’s conception of state power led him to see the state-led economic planning of the Soviet system as something to be applauded, he was very critical of what he saw as a repressive state apparatus. In 1957, he referred to the Soviet Union as a \u201cnew kind of dictatorship\u201d where there was \u201cno recognized way of passing on power. Property, class, dynasty, and political democracy did not exist\u201d[5]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

He did not see this as a reason to shun Russia \u2013 in fact he urged western democracies to help countries that were going through revolutions. If social revolutions were left to themselves \u201cto produce from their own surpluses sufficient to build the capital equipment of a modem industrial community\u201d then they would \u201cattempt it under the ruthless repressive instrument of Police States\u201d[6]<\/a>. Bevan insisted that this was the way in which Russia had gone. Open hostility towards the Russian revolution from external forces should have been substituted for assistance and aid.<\/p>\n

An aggressive Russia?<\/u><\/p>\n

Those who saw the Soviet system as a repressive state apparatus also held the view that it was bent on world domination and the spreading of communism through aggressive means. The Cold War was driven by anti-communist hysteria as much as a rational analysis of Soviet intentions.<\/p>\n

A central theme of Bevan\u2019s analysis of the Soviet Union is that it was wrong to think that Russia had aggressive intentions. He argued that there was \u201cno evidence to show that the Soviet Union wants a trial of strength\u201d[7]<\/a>. He was critical of previous Soviet expansion \u2013 commenting on Russian influence in Czechoslovakia Bevan wrote that \u201cin coming so far to the West she [Russia] overran her sociological frontiers. She could occupy but she has not been able to digest\u201d[8]<\/a> \u2013 but felt a hostile reaction to the Soviet Union was unwarranted and unhelpful in striving for world peace.<\/p>\n

This analysis at times led him to be weary of criticising Russia too much, and he was certainly not willing to let criticism overshadow the advantages of associating the Labour Party with the Soviet Union. When Russia entered World War Two Bevan and his colleagues at Tribune <\/em>dedicated an entire issue to the Soviet Union. It was alleged that in 1945, Bevan was concerned about the publication of Animal Farm<\/em>, worrying that it would be too critical of the Soviet Union: he wanted the Labour Party to take advantage of the good feeling towards Russia after their heroics during the war. It is alleged that Bevan even asked Orwell to stop writing in Tribune <\/em>until the election was finished[9]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bevan\u2019s solution to tensions between the great superpowers was for Britain to act as a \u2018third force\u2019 between the USA and the Soviet Union. Britain needed to perform the role of counter to the hostility between the USA and Russia, but it needed to have its own foreign policy and not base its foreign policy on what the US demanded.<\/p>\n

Power of ideas<\/u><\/p>\n

Bill Jones writing in The Russia Complex: The British Labour Party and the Soviet Union<\/em> noted the contradiction present in the third force idea: the internationalist notions of the third force advocates were against balance-of-power politics yet, as Jones observed, \u201cthe Third Force idea was regional and advocated a third focus of power as a counter to the two super-powers\u201d. However, in the third force strategy there was an emphasis on the power of ideas rather than military strength[10]<\/a> (although it must be said that Bevan\u2019s denunciation of unilateral disarmament as an \u201cemotional spasm\u201d did not do much for perceptions of his foreign policy outlook from those on the left).<\/p>\n

The centrality of the power of ideas was an essential element to Bevan\u2019s own outlook towards the Soviet Union. In relations with Russia, Bevan wanted the emphasis to be on spreading his idea of Democratic Socialism and the need to develop \u2018liberty\u2019.<\/p>\n

The development of liberty is where Bevan saw hope for Russian society. Throughout his life, he saw signs that this was taking place. There was no need to act aggressively towards Russia \u2013 Russian people did not need to be saved or liberated. Bevan maintained that only \u201ca small section of the Russian people felt suppressed; young people, teachers, scientists, and technicians believed they had already been liberated \u2013 liberated from illiteracy\u201d[11]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In In Place of Fear <\/em>Bevan wrote that in the Soviet Union \u201cit must be accepted that the vast mass of workers are conscious of emancipation and not of slavery\u201d. He continued that a workers\u2019 support of the Soviet regime \u201crests on his knowledge that all around him the framework of a modern industrial community is being built, that he is helping to build it, and that in the meantime his life is substantially, if slowly, improving\u201d.<\/p>\n

Bevan stressed that this was not an apology for repressive aspects of the Soviet regime. However, he believed that industrialisation would eventually lead to an ever greater level of political and economic enfranchisement. His belief that this would happen was due to it having happened in Britain. It came down to his analysis of the development of political liberty throughout world history:<\/p>\n

\u201cMankind is not born with an insatiable appetite for political liberty. This is the coping stone on the structure of progress, not its base. If political liberty and the institutions which enshrine it were the spontaneous imperatives of the human spirit, our task would be much easier. But they are earth-bound and time bound. The pulse of progress beats differently for different parts of the world, and if we are to understand what is happening around us and act intelligently about it, we must recognise that fact and realise that once we stood where they now stand\u201d[12]<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Towards liberty?<\/u><\/p>\n

This overview of Bevan\u2019s outlook on the Soviet Union has displayed Bevan\u2019s hopes towards the development of a Russia which fits with his image of Democratic Socialism. His view of the revolution was that of an agrarian nation being propelled forward at a rapid rate of industrial and technological change due to the central economic planning undertaken. Bevan was impressed with the rapid rate of economic development that Russia had achieved, but was highly critical of what he saw as the repressive apparatus inherent in the Soviet state. This criticism extended to Russian foreign policy, but he always cautioned against an hysterical attitude and an overreaction towards Soviet intentions.<\/p>\n

This brief exploration of Bevan and the Soviet Union has revealed some key components of his political thought, specifically his emphasis on political liberty, empowerment and his belief in the efficacy of state planning.<\/p>\n

Despite frustration with the development of the Soviet Union post-revolution, Bevan\u2019s initial view of the revolution itself as \u201cone of the most emancipating events in the history of mankind\u201d did not change. The revolution was a significant moment in history \u2013 and a significant moment in the development of Bevan\u2019s political consciousness also.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Bevan, Aneurin. 1951. Labour Party Annual Conference Report<\/em>, p. 121 cited in Vickers, Rhiannon. 2003. The Labour Party and the world Vol.1: The evolution of Labour\u2019s foreign policy, 1900-51<\/em>. Manchester: Manchester University Press, p. 64.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Hansard. 09 December 1932. HC Deb, vol. 272, col. 1969.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Bevan, Aneurin. 1952. In Place of Fear<\/em>. William Heinemann: London, p. 134.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Bevan, Aneurin. 9th<\/sup> January 1959. Private enterprise v. public ownership: The moon and the \u00a3. Tribune<\/em>, p. 5.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> The Times. 13th<\/sup> December 1957. \u201cDetachment\u201d for Germany<\/em>, p. 9.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Bevan, Aneurin. 1952 p. 40.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> ibid p. 127.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Bevan, Aneurin. 17th<\/sup> July 1953. In Place of the Cold War. Tribune<\/em>, p. 4.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Jones, Bill. 1977. The Russia Complex: The British Labour Party and the Soviet Union<\/em>. Manchester: Manchester University Press, p. 104.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> ibid p. 168.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Bevan, Aneurin. 1953 p. 4.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Bevan, Aneurin. 1952 pp. 138-140.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\u201cI remember so well what happened when the Russian revolution occurred. I remember the miners, when they heard that the Czarist tyranny had been overthrown, rushing to meet each other […]","protected":false},"author":1043,"featured_media":460,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[65],"tags":[67,17,99],"class_list":["post-459","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-history","tag-aneurin-bevan","tag-labour-party","tag-russia"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8iFWs-7p","meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/509\/2017\/10\/combine_images.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/459","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1043"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=459"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/459\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":562,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/459\/revisions\/562"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/460"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=459"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=459"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/thinking-wales\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}