At the end of 1924 Russia was in a very awkward position, due to being the only country that was ruled by a communist government. Lenin intended to transform the Russian economy by wiping out all exploitation of man by man. Here was the problem that faced the new leader of the regime. In 1921 as a result of the chaos caused by the Decree on land and War Communism policies Lenin introduced a new policy. The basic strategy was now to restore the economy a degree of capitalism and private enterprise. Introducing his New Economic Policy (NEP), Lenin argued that the road to socialism would be longer then originally thought. Thus the peasantry were now permitted to dispose of their surplus produce on payment of tax and 91% of industrial enterprises were returned to private ownership or trusts. The early results of the NEP were disappointing, as economic recovery held up by famine in 1921-2 and a financial crisis in 1923. But by 1924, the year of Lenin’s death, considerable process had been made, and by 1926 the economy had regained the 1913 production level. In the NEP Lenin left an intermediate strategy which contained a long-term problem. Should the mixed economy be retained indefinitely, as Bhukarin argued, or should socialism be accelerated – a course urged by Trotsky. So any leader that was taking over power from Lenin would be faced with a problem. As we come to find out Stalin handled this in the right way and in the end, in my view he was the only man that could have taken the country forward
.
The fact that unlike other candidates Stalin was not Western educated, put him above Trotsky in the ordinary folks estimations, which added to his popularity during the succession debacle. “He was a very skilful politician who had a superb grasp for tactics, could predict behaviour extremely well and had an unerring eye for personal weaknesses” quoted by historian McCauley. In particular he was able to capitalise on Bhukarin’s inability to convert his plausible economic theory into a credible programme, on Kamenev’s lack of vision and on Zinoviev’s organisational weakness. Stalin, by contrast showed consistent skill in grouping around him, his own sets of allies – men like Kalinin, Kuibyshev, Molotov and Voroshilov. It is clear that like other Bolshevik leaders, Stalin’s ultimate aim was collectivisation of the land and industrialisation. He was prepared to do anything to achieve everything. Of course we cannot tell how Lenin, had he lived, or how Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev or Bhukarin, would have ruled the USSR if they had won the struggle for power. However it is very unlikely, from what we know about them, that any of theses leaders could have equalled Stalin’s success.
Before Stalin came to power after Lenin’s death in 1924 he had held numerous positions within the party such as the General Secretary of the Communist Party. The combinations of this and other posts allowed Stalin to monitor grassroots party appointments all over Soviet Russia, and thus build up an army of henchmen. This in turn, meant that he was soon able to control the election of deputies to the Supreme Soviet, the top legislative body, and to the Party Congress. This enabled him to have his ‘own’ people in place, so everything was channelled through him. This means he would have total control. This method Stalin used to establish a totalitarian dictatorship, which allowed him greater control and I doubt that had it been any other leader, would they have made such a drastic difference all the way through the chain. Stalin countered attacks on his position with his well-timed formulation of the theory of “Socialism in one country”, for which idea he had earlier condemned Trotsky. This doctrine, calling for construction of socialist society in the Soviet Union regardless of international situation, distanced Stalin from the left and won support with Bhukarin and the party’s right wing. The murder of Kirov in Dec of 1934 for allegedly plotting to replace Stalin began a period of purging and terror that lasted until 1939. It was marked by execution of virtually the entire political and military elite and the incarceration in forced labour camps of millions of Soviet citizens. Using this method with the help of the Secret Police, Stalin established his personal dictatorship over the party and the country. To summarise Stalin was a ruthless man of caution, cunning and calculation. He was cruel and heartless, murdering anyone who appeared to stand in his way or might prove a later threat, but his plans were pursued with such vigour and forcefulness, fuelled by fear, that Stalin’s Soviet Union managed, by 1940, to rise to a position of third largest industrial producer in the world, behind USA and Germany. By 1939 all industrial manufacturing was owned and controlled by the state. Stalin believed that terror was a legitimate political weapon. The difference was while Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders didn’t make the use of terror against their own colleagues so obvious, Stalin had no such reservations. Stalin believed that terror was the most effective way of making people obey and work hard. I believe had Stalin not pulled Russia together by force to become an industrial nation, they would have been far worse off in the Nazi regime, as I have no doubt had Russia not industrialised, she would have been defeated in 1941/42. So Stalin’s methods had not only saved millions of lives from war and but also saved Russia as a county, its people and the heritage. It is fair to say that it came at a cost of several million lives, but I believe no one could have got the same result with fewer casualties.
Although Stalin’s objectives were very clear, they were very reactionary to the circumstances in the country at any one time. He always appeared as one who implemented the will of the majority. This was another method of Stalin to maintain power and achieve his goal of industrialisation and developing a totalitarian communist state. He played his colleagues, the ordinary people and changed his policies in order to achieve what was necessary. Stalin and his men at the end of 1928 struck out on a set of policies designed to turn backward Russia into a modern state. With his ruthless and vigorous action he launched forced industrialisation and collectivisation. The momentous series of economic and social measures included the establishment of a series of five-year national economic plans, the deportation and execution of hundreds of thousands of better off peasants (kulaks) and the forced entrance of the rest into state-controlled collective farms, nationalising of all industry and commerce, the regulation and manipulation of all financial instruments for capital accumulation by the government regardless of the people’s impoverishment, and the centralization of all social activity. During the first two Five Year Plans (FYP’s) of 1929-39 huge hydroelectric dams were built as well as canals, mines and factories. They were built in record time, using free and prison labour. Managers, who were party members, drove the workers relentlessly because they risked prison and deportation, or even death for “sabotage” if production targets were not met. Russia and its people had never experienced these methods before as no one had introduced them, but to Stalin’s credit the results they produced were phenomenal. During the first FYP 1500 big enterprises had been constructed. These included the Dnepregres, the Magnitogorsk and Kuznetsk metallurgical complexes, the Ural machine factory, the Rostov agricultural-machinery plant, which is still operating today, tractor factories at Chelyabinsk, Stalingrad, the Kharkov, car factories in Moscow and Sormovo, the Ural chemical works and so on. In 1932, 338 million roubles worth of machine tools were imported, which represented 78% of all machine tools installed that year. I do not believe this would have been achieved had the idea of “patriotism” had not been introduced which gathered the public together in one single cause, therefore adding impetuous and a feeling of togetherness, which intern increased moral and production levels. People were continuously brainwashed by the government. Stalin officially justified forced collectivisation and industrialization by claiming that Russia was “threatened” by the Western powers, i.e. Britain and France, so it had to “catch up” with them in industrial production. During the early 1930’s Russia was starting to get recognised on the international scene on its economic strength and means of production. In 1934 she entered the League of Nations. This is a great reflection for what Stalin and his ruthless methods did for Russia. His methods to industrialize at any cost were appropriate, as at the time it was the only option as it takes much more then words and a change of regime to change people’s mentality and work ethic. The establishment of totalitarian political control was completed with retrenchment in the social and economic realm in which Stalin instituted better methods of industrial management, a system of incentives and different wages and prices, the reestablishment of traditional procedures in the armed forces, more moderate general guidelines in the arts and the sciences, and a revival of the family as the basic social unit. Hundreds of new cities and settlements were founded. By October of 1935 all the rationing of foods was abolished as both industry and agriculture was ripe. In marked contrast at the time to the capitalist West, unemployment was abolished. In fact the economic advance gave rise to shortage of labour, which was overcome by millions of peasants entering Russian industry. Whilst the rest of the world was paralysed by the worst slump in history, the USSR under Stalin was taking giant steps forward. It can be said that Stalin dragged Russia up on its own 2 feet. It was now self-efficient, as she could now rely on its own production both for agricultural and industrial materials.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Stephen J. Lee European Dictatorships 1918-1945 / London; New York: Routledge, 2000
