More handpicked essays just for you.
Lenins contribution to Marxism
Role of lenin in bolshevik revolution
Communism in Russia 1900-1940 about stalin
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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
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).
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.
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).
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.
Trotsky, Leon. Stalin, An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence. Wolfe Publications Ltd.: London, 1970
A. Soviet History. Marxists.org. 2010. Web. The Web. The Web.
The continuation of the violent anti-Jewish riots that had plagued the Russian Empire in post-Revolutionary Russia forced the response of prominent communist party leaders. Both Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Bolshevik party and head of the Soviet state, and Leon Trotsky, leader of the Bolshevik army, formulated responses that attempted to promote the ideas of communism through condemnation of the attacks. However, the content of these responses varies in a way that reflects both their differing backgrounds with communism, and reveals their distinct purposes in responding to anti-Jewish violence. A comparison of Lenin’s speech “On Anti-Jewish Pogroms” and Trotsky’s “A Word to the Ukrainian
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.
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.
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.
Karl Marx never saw his ideals and beliefs, as the founding father of communist thought, implemented in the world and society because he died in 1883.1 The communist ideology did not rise to power until the beginning of the 20th century. Then it would be implemented and put into practice in the largest country in the world producing a concept that would control half of the world’s population in less than 50 years. The Manifesto of the Communist Party, written by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, searched for a perfect society living in equality and united in freedom. According to Marx this could only be accomplished in an anti-capitalist society.2 When their ideals where implemented in the 20th century, their message became warped and disfigured by the leadership of the worlds’ communist powers. Communism became in some ways more and in others less than Marx had first envisioned so many years before in 1848. Marx’s sought a social “Utopia,” while modern communist thought became a view of world domination.3 Many of the centralized governments of modern communism have fallen apart toward the end of the 20th century, confronted with concepts of self-government and revolution. Therefore, it is vital to document the rise and fall of modern communism throughout the world, and review the modern communist thought as it contrasted with that of Marx and Engels over 150 years ago.
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.
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.