The Soviet Theory of “People's Democracy”

1949 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Amende Rosa

The concept of “people's democracy” has posed a real ideological dilemma for the U.S.S.R. Prior to the spring of 1948 Soviet theory was confronted with the fact that—partly because of Soviet policy itself—eastern Europe was not developing toward socialism by exactly the same pattern of violent revolutionary change which the U.S.S.R. had experienced, but in a manner more closely approximating gradual “reform.” To a very considerable extent it was in the interest of the Soviet Union to emphasize the differences between its own development and that of the “new democracies” in order to quiet national and non-Communist fears in those countries. At the same time, the U.S.S.R. apparently felt obliged to establish its own position of ideological “leadership” in eastern Europe and, simultaneously, to fit the concept of “people's democracy” into the body of orthodox Marxist-Leninist doctrine.

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-46
Author(s):  
Peter A. Blitstein

Soviet nationality policy was one of several political responses to cultural diversity in the interwar period. The author situates that policy in its comparative context, contrasting the Soviet Union to its eastern European neighbors and to British and French rule in Africa. Contrary to the nationalizing policies of the new states of eastern Europe, which sought national unity at the expense of ethnic minorities, Soviet nationality policy was initially based on practices of diff erentiation. Contrary to the colonial policies of Britain and France, which were based on ethnic and racial diff erentiation, Soviet policy sought to integrate all peoples into one state. In the mid-to-late 1930s, however, Soviet policy took a nationalizing turn similar to its neighbors in eastern Europe, without completely abandoning policies of ethnic diff erentiation. We should thus understand the Soviet approach as a unique hybrid of contradictory practices of nationalization and diff erentiation.


Slavic Review ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Blitstein

Soviet nationality policy was one of several political responses to cultural diversity in the interwar period. Peter A. Blitstein situates that policy in its comparative context, contrasting the Soviet Union to its eastern European neighbors and to British and French rule in Africa. Contrary to the nationalizing policies of the new states of eastern Europe, which sought national unity at the expense of ethnic minorities, Soviet nationality policy was initially based on practices of differentiation. Contrary to the colonial policies of Britain and France, which were based on ethnic and racial differentiation, Soviet policy sought to integrate all peoples into one state. In the mid-to-late 1930s, however, Soviet policy took a nationalizing turn similar to its neighbors in eastern Europe, without completely abandoning policies of ethnic differentiation. We should thus understand the Soviet approach as a unique hybrid of contradictory practices of nationalization and differentiation


Author(s):  
Howard Frost

The extent and dynamics of Moscow's control over its East Europeanneighbors have always been of considerable interest to Western analysts. The nature of this influence has become particularly important as the Soviet Union has, within certain parameters, condoned a modicum of East European flexibility in domestic and foreign policy since the mid-1960s. One of the most intriguing areas in the study of Soviet policy toward Eastern Europe is Soviet-East European crisis management, and particularly the extent to which the Soviets can affect the outcome of crises their allies face.


1990 ◽  
Vol 263 (3) ◽  
pp. 120-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
William U. Chandler ◽  
Alexei A. Makarov ◽  
Zhou Dadi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document