More handpicked essays just for you.
Influence of media communication in politics
Stalin's propaganda
Influence of media communication in politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
When most people hear the name Joseph Stalin, they usually associate the name with a man who was part of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. He was willingly to do anything to improve the power of the Soviet Union’s economy and military, even if it meant executing tens of millions of innocent people (Frankforter, A. Daniel., and W. M. Spellman 655). In chapter three of Sheila Fitzpatrick’s book, Everyday Stalinism, she argues that since citizens believed the propaganda of “a radiant future” (67), they were able to be manipulated by the Party in the transformation of the Soviet Union. This allowed the Soviet government to expand its power, which ultimately was very disastrous for the people. The Soviet citizens during the 1930s, particularly the younger ones, believed “they were participants in a history process of transformation, their enthusiasm for what was called ‘the building of socialism’” (68). The Soviets built hotels, palaces, and had blueprints displayed all throughout “that was supposed to set a pattern for urban planning throughout the country and provide a model of the socialist capital for foreigners” (69). To further transform the Soviet Union, state officials encouraged citizens to help improve the literacy rate and recognize the many heroes of the socialist state. These heroes, including Joseph Stalin, “received huge amounts of fan mail and were lionized on appearances throughout the country” (72). They also encouraged the remaking of individuals, particularly through work. Before the transformation, many did not enjoy working, but “under socialism, it was the thing that filled life with meaning” (75). Numerous interviews an author had with “transformed” felons, illustrated that even criminals could be transformed into good citizens through work (76). However, Sheila Fitzpatrick argues that these interviews were “clearly a propaganda project.” The transformation of individuals also included citizens’ desire to become more cultured. Many Soviet citizens characterized peasants, those who were not yet part of the transformation, as “economical[ly] and cultural[y] backwards” (70); thus, the people wanted to be more cultured to distinguish themselves from the lower-class. Such things as brushing teeth, table manners, and public behavior allowed them to be distinguished (80). Fitzpatrick says on page 80, “Newspapers and journals carried regular accounts of successes in mastering the first level of culture, […] these should not always be taken literally.” Fitzpatrick again emphasizes that much of the reports during this period were propaganda.
This was, of course, only a humorous exaggeration, a case of political satire. Yet beneath the humor, there lies a very profound testament to the belief that Russia's political culture has been inherited from its czarist days and manifested throughout its subsequent development. The traditions from the pre-Revolution and pre-1921 Russia, it seems, had left its brand on the 70-years of Communist rule. The Soviet communism system was at once a foreign import from Germany and a Russian creation: "on the one hand it is international and a world phenomenon; on the other hand it is national and Russian…it was Russian history which determined its limits and shaped its character." (Berdyaev, "Origin")
In order to establish whether Lenin did, indeed lay the foundation for Stalinism, two questions need to be answered; what were Lenin’s plans for the future of Russia and what exactly gave rise to Stalinism? Official Soviet historians of the time at which Stalin was in power would have argued that each one answers the other. Similarly, Western historians saw Lenin as an important figure in the establishment of Stalin’s socialist state. This can be partly attributed to the prevailing current of pro-Stalin anti-Hitler sentiments amongst westerners until the outbreak of the cold war.
"Stalin, Joseph." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. William A. Darity, Jr. 2nd ed. Vol. 8. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. 86-87. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.
The impact Stalin has had on the world is immense and at some periods in history devastating. Contrasting, Unknown Stalin by Zhores Medvedev and Stalin:Breaker of Nations by Robert Conquest, to gain different historical perspectives of Stalin. Medvedev does not go into much detail into Stalin’s rise to power in the beginning of the book but starts with his death. He takes an approach giving a historical portrayal of Stalin that focuses not only on how callus and brutal he could be, but how all of his success was made possible by his patience and intelligence . In contrast, Conquest’s book he begins with Stalin’s birth, like many biographies, and his rise in the ranks in the Bolshevik party, but his book is more intimate as it explains his emotional states. Conquest argues that Stalin's main goal was the preservation of his vision of Maxist-Leninism and the removal people he deemed as enemies of that vision. These books take different paths to understanding Stalin as a person and as the Head of State of the Soviet Union. Is Stalin's portrayal as a megalomaniac with an insatiable lust for control, fear and power accurate and how must we use his other social positions, husband, father, friend, and fellow revolutionary, to answer this question. Looking through these two books we can find the sides ignored by many and the sides that were rightly feared of Stalin.
For many people, the 1917 revolution heralded a new age, much as the French revolution had. But instead of bringing on an age of secular republics, and liberalism, it brought on an age of oppressive states based on the Soviet Union’s model of government. To the untrained 20th century eye, the 1917 revolution’s model of state organization was something truly new, bizarre and intriguing. Yet, a brief synopsis of Russian history would quickly reveal that there were more similarities between the Soviet and Tsarist governments than Stalin or any other Soviet official would have cared to admit; the revolution was not as revolutionary as it seemed. This paper will use Hannah Arendt’s definition of revolution to demonstrate that the 1917 Bolshevik
Part II of this chapter mainly focuses on how the Bolsheviks moved forward, obtained and revolutionised the way in which the world was in the times of revolution. For some the times of revolution was a time of grave concern, however the Bolsheviks had not this issue. As proven by Hobsbawm, stating that the Bolsheviks ‘grew from a small troop of a few thousand in March 1917 to a quarter of a million members by the early summer of that year’ (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 61). The way they thrived in such a time was that they were not only efficient at recognising what the people wanted, but they were convincing in how they would give it to them, this is a main reason tha...
Emphasized throughout Soviet Russia, ‘vertical collectivism,’ occurs when hierarchy defines one’s rank, and submission to authority comes at the cost of self-sacrifice. “Hundreds. Thousands. Millions. Millions of what? Stomachs, and heads, and legs, and tongues, and souls. And it doesn’t even matter whether they fit together. Just millions. Just flesh. Human flesh” (Rand 403). In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that cost of ‘self-sacrifice’ was one’s individuality—the defining factors that allowed one human to be unique, different from the rest. “There are things in men,” Andrei Taganov argues in the face of his Party, “in the best of us, which are above...
Son of a poverty-stricken shoemaker, raised in a backward province, Joseph Stalin had only a minimum of education. However, he had a burning faith in the destiny of social revolution and an iron determination to play a prominent role in it. His rise to power was bloody and bold, yet under his leadership, in an unexplainable twenty-nine years, Russia because a highly industrialized nation. Stalin was a despotic ruler who more than any other individual molded the features that characterized the Soviet regime and shaped the direction of Europe after World War II ended in 1945. From a young revolutionist to an absolute master of Soviet Russia, Joseph Stalin cast his shadow over the entire globe through his provocative affair in Domestic and Foreign policy.
During the late 1920’s up until World War II, the United States went through a period of severe economic depression, also called the “Great Depression”. Multitudes of Americans everywhere were inadequately clothed, nourished, and sheltered. As hunger and unemployment reached never before seen levels, despair reigned. During these times Labor Union enrollment dramatically increased and Americans were searching for a panacea to their social and economic problems. It was at this time that groups of citizens, jobless and hungry, looked upon Communism favorably. These individuals longed for what seemed to be a utopian society, which they viewed in the USSR, where everyone was employed and cared for. Communist political parties sprung up everywhere, literature and newspapers in support of Communism proliferated. More and more, seeing the success and the promises, the enrollment in Communist parties increased. Members of the American Communist party idealized the leaders of the USSR, Lenin and Stalin.
In order to conclude the extent to which the Great Terror strengthened or weakened the USSR, the question is essentially whether totalitarianism strengthened or weakened the Soviet Union? Perhaps under the circumstances of the 1930s in the approach to war a dictatorship may have benefited the country in some way through strong leadership, the unifying effect of reintroducing Russian nationalism and increased party obedience. The effects of the purges on the political structure and community of the USSR can be described (as Peter Kenez asserts) as an overall change from a party led dictatorship to the dictatorship of a single individual; Stalin. Overall power was centred on Stalin, under whom an increasingly bureaucratic hierarchy of party officials worked. During the purges Stalin's personal power can be seen to increase at the cost of the party.
...eeded in putting communism on the political map of the world. Governments across Europe and Latin America emulated Stalin and instituted their own brands of communism within their respective countries. Yet, what was to be the permanent revolution, has infected and affected the world for almost an entire century. Every year since 1917 has seen people in revolt. Economics, austerity, and political corruption have been the common causes of popular uprisings across the world, and whether the revolutions have been peaceful or violent, the result has nearly always been a change in the political structure and the redrawing of boundary lines. The continued presence of Russian-backed revolutions combined with the cries of the European people for independence and security reflect the ongoing influence of the Russian Revolution on the whole of Europe and, possibly, the world.
One of the worst nations to suffer from Stalin’s great purges in the Soviet Union was not the Russians. Fascist sought to rejuvenate their nation based on commitment to the national community as an organic entity which individuals are bound together by ancestry, culture, and blood which are all super personal connections. However, even though Stalin did enforce Russia of the Soviet Union the main enemies of his were the political opponents and their followers. His most ferocious acts of terror “The Great Purges” took place between 1934 and 1939.
The Great Terror, an outbreak of organised bloodshed that infected the Communist Party and Soviet society in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), took place in the years 1934 to 1940. The Terror was created by the hegemonic figure, Joseph Stalin, one of the most powerful and lethal dictators in history. His paranoia and yearning to be a complete autocrat was enforced by the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD), the communist police. Stalin’s ambition saw his determination to eliminate rivals such as followers of Leon Trotsky, a political enemy. The overall concept and practices of the Terror impacted on the communist party, government officials and the peasants. The NKVD, Stalin’s instrument for carrying out the Terror, the show trials and the purges, particularly affected the intelligentsia.
Throughout the reign of Lenin and then Stalin the change from a patriarchal society to a more equal society has certainly been a positive outcome. The seemingly dictatorial and coercive government, however, was not a favorable outcome. It is clear that there is much room for improvement in Russian society at the end of Stalin’s reign.
Similarly, Stalin used propaganda and extreme nationalism to brainwash the peoples of Russia. He channeled their beliefs into a passion for Soviet ideals and a love of Stalin. In both cases, love for anything but the Party is the biggest threat to the regime. The stability of the Party and Stalin’s regime directly depended upon loyalty to the government above all else. By drawing upon the close relationships between the two Orwellian societies, we can examine just how dangerous love is to the Party.