Identified within this study is the argument that whilst many of
Lenin’s theories and practices were continued under Stalin, many were
in fact developed and extended to new levels, possibly reflecting
different motives: what Pipes refers to as Stalin’s ‘personality of
excesses’. Although for many years, numerous historians including both
members of the Western school of thought (such as Pipes), along with
the official Soviet historians of the time believed that Stalin was
the natural heir of Lenin, opinions have changed with time. As more
evidence came out of Stalin’s mass atrocities, the Soviet historians
soon began to see Stalin as the betrayer of the revolution as Trotsky
had always maintained, and in an attempt to save Lenin’s reputation,
they were also keen to point out how Lenin himself was unsure about
Stalin, stating in his famous testament that ‘I am not sure whether he
(Stalin) will always be capable of using authority with sufficient
caution’. The wealth of information released since the dissolution of
the communist regime, and also Gorbachev’s policy of Glasnost In
recent years, has lead to the revisionist school of thought coming
about (and with it such historians as Sheila Fitzpatrick). Acting
almost as mediator between the now opposing views of Soviet and right
wing Western historians, revisionists identify both changes and lines
of similarity. In order to assess the extent of continuity it was
necessary to look first at the ideology and principles of Leninism,
and secondly the way these were put in to practice. In particular, it
was crucial to consider whether key policies such as the one-party
state, use of terror, p...
... middle of paper ...
...trick, The Russian Revolution, 2nd edition (1994) p98
[2] Stephen J. Lee, Lenin and Revolutionary Russia (2003) p98
[3] Lenin quoted in ‘The Unknown Lenin’ (1996) Document 24, p.50
[4] R.Pipes, Three Whys of the Russian Revolution (1988) p.83
[5]C. P. S. U. - History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
(1939) p229
[6] R.Medvedev, ‘The Political Biography of Stalin’ in R.C. Tucker
(ed.) Stalinism, Essays in Historical Interpretation (1977)
[7] Geoffrey Swain – Lenin: Tyrant or Saviour (Modern History Review)
p.4
[8]
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm
[9] Stalin, quoted in ‘From Lenin to Stalin’, Victor Serge, (1937)
[10] I.Deutscher, The Prophet Unarmed: Trotsky 1921-1929 (1959) –
p.465
[11] R.Pipes, Three Whys of the Russian Revolution (1988) p.83
Tucker, Robert C. "Stalinism as Revolution from Above". Stalinism. Edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York: American Council of Learned Societies, 1999.
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].
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.
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.
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.
In 1902, Lenin wrote a pamphlet entitled What is to be Done? In it he
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. Lenin had read Karl Marx and his...
This played well with the workers and soldiers and made it difficult to criticise the new government. As a result, Lenin’s introduction of the Cheka (1917) and the emergence of the Red Terror (1918) ensured his rule was absolute not only within the party but across the Soviet Union. It is the accumulation of these factors that highlighted Lenin’s leadership and practicality following the seizing of power as well as changes to society with War Communism and the NEP and the use of terror which were all vital to consolidating Bolshevik power.
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.
This essay will concentrate on the comparison and analysis of two communist figures: Mao Zedong, leader of the Communist Party in China, and Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union. The main focus of this paper will be to explore each figure’s world view in depth and then compare and contrast by showing their differences and similarities. Joseph Stalin was a realist dictator of the early 20th century in Russia. Before he rose to power and became the leader of the 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, 1999).
A. Soviet History. Marxists.org. 2010. Web. The Web. The Web.
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. Lenin’s reforms were necessary to carry out a socialist revolution in Russia, and the contributions he made drastically changed the course of history. It can be assumed that, the Soviet Union would not have been as powerful if it was not for Lenin’s initial advocacy of violence and tight organization.
time up to 1917 he was not even in Russia, he did what he could and
Marxism-Leninism ideology and its connection to Soviet cultural policies is a topic of frequent exploration, however this paper will take that common investigation a step further by considering the role of Soviet propaganda and its relationship to the shifting ideologies of the Soviet Union and its official cultural policies. The research will be carried out by identifying the nature of Soviet ideology as well as what it entails. Furthermore, Stalin-era Soviet cultural policy will be explored as it pertains to the aforementioned ideology as well as the contrary characteristics of socialist realism. After defining propaganda, the themes and characteristics of Soviet propaganda will then be analyzed in regards to Soviet ideology and cultural policy, as well as an interpretation of the political tool’s role will be made paying considerable attention to the unfixed notions of Soviet ideology. While the Soviet practice of propaganda may not coincide entirely with the notions of their ideology and the cultural policy, in practice, the propaganda was more relevant than the ideology and policy it served due to the fact that it clearly represented the ambitions and state-of-mind of the ruling Soviet Communist Party and can furthermore claim that the policies and ideology in fact operated for the propaganda apparatus. This paper will argue that Soviet propaganda apparatus became more important than the Soviet ideology itself.
Lenin's Economic Policies in 1924 When the Bolsheviks seized power in October 1917 they inherited many of the problems faced by the old Tsarist regime as well as those of the Provisional Government after the Tsars abdication. Lenin, as leader of the Bolsheviks took many measures to try and solve these problems, each with varying degrees of success. This essay will, therefore, go on to look at and discuss the various measures that Lenin and the Bolshevik party took, and, whether these measures created more problems for Russia in the end or in fact made significant progress towards the communist society that Lenin had prophesised for Russia. In the early days of Bolshevik rule, there were many problems facing Lenin.