The Effects of Stalin's Economic and Social Policies One of Russia's most prominent political leaders of all time, was a man named Joseph Dzhugashvili. A man, who at one time was being trained to become a priest, and would one day become a major revolutionary in the history of the USSR. The name that Stalin went by was not his given name, but one meaning "man of steel," that he made up. Stalin's rule is one of history's more controversial topics and still, even years after his rampant rule in the USSR between 1927 and 1940, certain policies and events must be evaluated, in order to come to a conclusion about whether there is justification in what he did to achieve his goals. During his time in power he dictated many new policies and several of the policies created by Lenin, were thrown out. He was ruthless and cold-heartedly showed no one mercy during his reign, but because of him and some of the cruel policies that he enforced, Russia became a super power. Some of Stalin's economic policies that he so barbarously enforced were good for the economy of the USSR, but took a devastating toll on the people who had to carry it out. One of these policies was The Five Year Plans. There were three Five Year Policies in total, implemented from 1928 to 1941, which did the economy of the USSR a long awaited boost. Although the USSR's economy soared, the people suffered immensely. With each 5 Year Plan, the industries were given a target, as were the smaller factories. Most of the targets were extremely unrealistic, but the punishment for failure was brutal and there were no exceptions. The first 5 Year Plan brought all industry under state ... ... middle of paper ... ...s being a good leader. A good leader would have been able to achieve the things that he wanted, without having to kill or imprison anyone who made him feel threatened. Stalin was in a horrible state of depression, and the whole country of Russia was affected by his anxiety. He may have put the USSR up at the top of the industrial world at the time, but the ways that helped him get there, were not right. His promise of communism turned into more of a dictatorship than anything and his overbearing fears, made him a weak leader. The only policies that were good, that seemed to have no negative effect on the people of Russia, were free education and free medical care. So, my evaluation is that two out of many policies is not a good enough success rate for me to be able to honestly say that I think Stalin was a good leader.
Vladimir Lenin can be viewed as a very good leader. In Document 1, it states that “Factory workers in many countries stopped work for five minutes in homage”. This shows that many people were impacted by his death and that he affected the economy in various ways. Lenin used Karl Marx’s capitalistic views with communism to create collective farming, which was supposed to help increase the overall economy of the country after war and famine
The Development of Totalitarianism Under Stalin By 1928, Stalin had become the undisputed successor to Lenin, and leader of the CPSU. Stalin’s power of appointment had filled the aisles of the Party Congress and Politburo with Stalinist supporters. Political discussion slowly faded away from the Party, and this led to the development of the totalitarian state of the USSR. Stalin, through.
As Warren Bennis, a scholar on the subject of leadership, once said, “Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.” This statement certainly holds true no matter what type of leader you look at. From cruel dictators such as Joseph Stalin, who fought and killed to stay in power, to peaceful leaders like Mohandas Gandhi, who used nonviolent tactics to emancipate India from the United Kingdom, to Jesus Christ, who started a religion and spread his message of love and forgiveness far across the globe, they all had a vision of how they wanted to change the world, for the better, or for the worse.
Once Gorbachev released and implemented his reforms, the economy of the Soviet Union was destroyed (Danks 5). For example, the alcohol ban, which was a law created to prevent the sales and production of liquors, caused profits to drop for many companies, causing unemployment and inflation (Danks 5). The ban had been created so the workforce would be more efficient and could help the economy grow, but it had the opposite effect by decreasing the number of jobs available and c...
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.
Stalin continued even once he was successful in accomplishing those goals, as he did not stop hurting people, but if anything it gave him more power to hurt people even more. But, at the end of the day, although Lenin ruled for only a very short time, he did raise the standard of living, though there maintained a large amount of hardship. Stalin, however, transformed the USSR from a peasantry to an industrialized nation in less than a decade, he did it on the backs of his millions of victims, who died because of his harsh policies and many purges. Lenin made a series of policies throughout the beginning of the Revolution and through his short time in public office that came to be collectively known as ‘Leninism’. There were many things that influenced Leninism, such as Karl Marx.
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 in 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's. It could be argued that this increasing power for the single leader drawn from his party was due to the need for fast, decisive and unquestioned leadership of the type needed in battle. After all Russia was portrayed by the Soviet propaganda machine as being at war with its own industrial backwardness as workers were urged to industrial `fronts'. If the period of the 1930s is considered, it was a time of crisis. The building tension due to the rise of Nazi Germany making European foreign politics a risky place to navigate, the economic onslaught at home in Russia and the economic depression in the rest of the world making the times harsh. This change then could be argued as being beneficial to the USSR as only a single individual can provide the strong leadership needed, amongst a large group of individuals disputes would hinder the decision making process. However, the idea of the...
A leader is defined as a guiding or directing head. Stalin was the leader of the party that was in charge of the Soviet Union. He created a totalitarian regime which brought great suffering to the Russian people. The individual Russian played two distinct roles under Stalin. One role would be that of a person who under Stalin’s system was no different than the person who is standing next to them. Everyone was treated equal in all facets. The other role the individual Russian played was that of a victim. We are able to see by many different accounts that an individual had different roles to play and under Stalin, each role came with a price that sometimes lead to death. The role of the individual Russian played a huge role in Stalin’s aim at creating a stronghold on a nation that ended up imprisoning and killing millions of its own people
Around the early 1920’s, Stalin took power and became leader of Russia. As a result Russians either became fond of Stalin’s policies or absolutely despised them. Stalin’s five-year plans lured many into focusing on the thriving economy rather than the fact that the five year plan hurt the military. The experience of many lives lost, forced labor camps, little supply of food, influenced the Russians negative opinion about Stalin. Having different classes in society, many Russians had different points of views. For the Peasants, times were rough mainly because of the famine, so they were not in favor of Stalin and his policies; where as the upper classes had a more optimistic view of everything that was occurring. Stalin’s policies affected the Russian people and the Soviet Union positively and also had a negative affect causing famine for the Russian people.
He would always try to stay one step ahead of other countries and try to begin new projects which seemed to fail. Joseph Stalin had many people suffering and killed when he was
When Stalin became leader of the USSR the quality of life and standard of living dropped considerably. For instance the people had no personal freedom. Meaning that they had to worship Stalin as all other religions had been abolished and most churches had been demolished. The people who went into those churches that were left standing were arrested or punished otherwise. Soon there were food shortages. Somewhere between 1932 and 1933 over 6 million people died of starvation. This was the greatest man made famine in history. The famine came as a result of Stalin’s unrealistic goals . Also, people had poor family lives. Abortions came a dime a dozen as did divorces. Wedding rings were banned. There was insufficient housing, as some people had to live in tents. This may be because of workers not working hard enough. Maybe if the workers worked harder they could have received better housing.
...change of industrial leadership crippled Russia's mechanization efforts and it is still argued today if the effects are still felt. By removing these people from the Soviet society both the biologist theories of Nature verses Nurture were challenged at best and destroyed at worst. For the argument of nature being the greatest influence on learning ability most of the intellectuals and brightest leaders were removed from the gene pool. In contrast to Nurture these people could not influence society any longer. Through these changes in society Stalin has forever made his mark. His pollicies effected every area in Russian culture.
Joseph Stalin was a realist dictator of the early 20th century in Russia. Before he rose to power and became the leader of Soviet Union, he joined the Bolsheviks and was part of many illegal activities that got him convicted and he was sent to Siberia (Wood, 5, 10). In the late 1920s, Stalin was determined to take over the Soviet Union (Wiener & Arnold 199). The main aspects of his worldview was “socialism
Stalin’s policies were both a success and a failure whether as a result of his direct orders or as a result of his policies. Nethertheless, the success they achieved came at a huge price with nearly 20 million death’s during his reign; It was seen as a small price to pay as Stalin achevied what he set out to do, turning an undeveloped nation into an industrial super power, it was due to his policy’s that Russia became one of the most powerful nations in the world.
A characteristic of a person who tends to help facilitate people to achieve a certain task describes leadership. By motivating and directing individuals, a leader tends to have a major affect on a group of individuals. Leaders can be harsh and commanding, but they also can be accepting and encouraging. However, both styles of leadership have a major affect on the group of individuals and the nations they rule either positive or negative. For instance, an authoritarian leadership style is when one person rules an entire nation alone and decides what is good or bad for the country without any input from other executives. Authoritarian rulers tend to be harsh and commanding to the people because they are ruling an entire nation but there is only