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. As relations changed between Russia and the rest of the world, so did the main historical schools of thought. Following Stalins death, hostilities between the capitalist powers and the USSR, along with an increased awareness of the atrocities that were previously hidden and ignored, led to a split in the opinions of Soviet and Western Liberal historians. In Russia, he was seen, as Trotsky had always maintained, as a betrayer of the revolution, therefore as much distance as possible was placed between himself and Lenin in the schoolbooks of the 50s and early 60s in the USSR. These historians point to Stalin’s killing of fellow communists as a marked difference between himself and his predecessor. Trotsky himself remarked that ‘The present purge draws between Bolshevism and Stalinism… a whole river of blood’[1]. Liberal Western historians such as Richard Pipes, who himself was an advisor to President Reagan, drew lines of direct continuity between the two leaders, emphasising Lenin’s use of terror and bans on factionalism which allowed Stalin to come to power.... ... middle of paper ... ...--------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Trotsky, quoted in Stephen F. Cohen – Rethinking the Soviet Experience pp41 [2] Stephen F. Cohen, ‘Bolshevism and Stalinism’ in Tucker, ed., ‘Essays in historical interpretation’ pp12-13 [3] Maxim Gorky, quoted in M. McCauley, ‘Stalin and Stalinism’ pp86 [4] Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution, 2nd edition (1994) pp98 [5] M.N Ryutin, quoted in M. McCauley, ‘Stalin and Stalinism’ pp46 [6] http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ch02.htm#02_A [7] http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm [8] Stalin, quoted in ‘From Lenin to Stalin’, Victor Serge, 1937 [9] Richard Pipes, Russia under the Bolshevik regime pp98 [10] Richard Pipes, Russia under the Bolshevik regime pp112
Tucker, Robert C. "Stalinism as Revolution from Above". Stalinism. Edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York: American Council of Learned Societies, 1999.
Joseph Stalin said, “Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don 't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?”. Stalin was a dictator of the USSR from 1929 to 1953. Under his dictatorship, the Soviet Union began to transform from a poor economy to an industrial and military based one. While still a teen, Stalin secretly read Karl Marx 's book the “Communist Manifesto”, and became more interested in his teachings. When Stalin gained power, he ruled his nations using terror and fear, eliminating those who did not comply with his governance.
“The Sources of Soviet Conduct” Foreign Affairs, 1947, explains the difficulty of summarizing Soviet ideology. For more than 50 years, the Soviet concept held the Russian nations hypnotized, discontented, unhappy, and despondent confined to a very limited Czarist political order. Hence, the rebel support of a bloody Revolution, as a means to “social betterment” (Kennan, 567). Bolshevism was conceptualized as “ideological and moral, not geopolitical or strategic”. Hoover declares that… “five or six great social philosophies were struggling for ascendancy” (Leffler, The Specter of Communism, 20).
Stalin’s hunger for power and paranoia impacted the Soviet society severely, having devastating effects on the Communist Party, leaving it weak and shattering the framework of the party, the people of Russia, by stunting the growth of technology and progress through the purges of many educated civilians, as well as affecting The Red Army, a powerful military depleted of it’s force. The impact of the purges, ‘show trials’ and the Terror on Soviet society were rigorously negative. By purging all his challengers and opponents, Stalin created a blanket of fear over the whole society, and therefore, was able to stay in power, creating an empire that he could find more dependable.
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
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.
The question of whether or not Stalinism was a logical continuation of Leninism is a difficult one. Stalinism did take significantly more drastic measures than Leninism did. There were differences in policy. But in spite of these, Stalinism still found its basis in Leninism. Even Trotsky, a friend of Lenin and a staunch opponent of Stalin, grudgingly admits that "Stalinism did issue from Bolshevism" (Trotsky). Stalin's policy of socialism in one country, his use of terror to eliminate opposition, and his suppression of democracy and the soviets were all characteristics of Lenin well before they were characteristic of Stalin. Although some of Stalin's policies were different from those of Lenin, what difference Stalinism did show from Leninism were either policies which Lenin had called for but never put into action, or logical continuations of Lenin's original principles, but modified to suit the demands of the time.
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.
A power struggle for control of the Bolshevik party began after Vladimir Lenin's death in 1924. Among the several contenders, two of the most important names in this struggle were Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin. Ultimately, Stalin was able to secure power and vote out Trotsky. In the following essay I will discuss the reasons why Stalin rather than Trotsky emerged as the leader of the USSR in 1929.
The next few years saw Lenin moving around Europe frantically. He hid out in Finland disguised as a farmer and popped back up in Geneva in 1908. At this time the tsarist began to exact revenge on the revolutions through “execution and exile” labeled the “black reaction.” Workers organizations were dissolved although Lenin vehemently continued to skillfully promote illegal and legal tactics within his Bolshevian congresses and the Duma. He desperately wanted to avoid compromise with the petty-bourgoise amd maintained the Bolshevik ideal of “workers, masses, proletariat, vanguard, and army.” Lenin continued to read radical literature and publish works promoting his vision. Figas comments that “in its fight for the party, for its ideological purist and genuine Marxist philosophy Lenin was impeccable.” Lenin believed that 1905 was only a precursor to bigger things and thanks to his tireless work and “24 hour devotion” to the revolution the Bolsheviks maintained their course, rallied the working class, and took on a fight against the autocracy.
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.
In conclusion, many soviets citizens appeared to believe that Stalin’s positive contributions to the U.S.S.R. far outweigh his monstrous acts. These crimes have been down played by many of Stalin’s successors as they stress his achievements as collectivizer, industrializer, and war leader. Among those citizens who harbor feelings of nostalgia, Stalin’s strength, authority , and achievement contrast sharply with the pain and suffering of post-revolutionary Russia.
Isaac Murrin Mr. J. Pharion Freshman English 20 February 2013 The Similarities and Differences between Lenin and Stalin Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin were similar in what they claimed to be, but in actuality they were very different people. Although Stalin claimed that he followed Leninism, the philosophy that Lenin developed from Marxism, he often distorted it to follow what he wanted to do. While Lenin wanted to make a unified society without classes, with production in the hands of the people, while Stalin wanted to make Russia into a modern industrial powerhouse by using the government to control production. Lenin accomplished his goals through violence, because he thought achieving the Communist revolution was worth using violence, with a ‘The ends justify the means’ mentality. Stalin also used violence to accomplish his goals, however Stalin used much more violence than was often necessary to accomplish his goals.
Stalin was determined to go ahead with this radicalism through economic and social change. His totalitarian leadership however was far from perfect, it was in fact a political system that was defectively flawed. The main issue was the lack of control the administration and party h...
Marxism and Leninism According to most historians, “history is told by the victors”, which would explain why most people equate communism with Vladimir Lenin. He was the backbone of Russia’s communist revolution, and the first leader of history’s largest communist government. It is not known, or discussed by most, that Lenin made many reforms to the original ideals possessed by many communists during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He revised Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles’ theories to fit the so-called ‘backwardness’ of the Russian Empire.