• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11

To what extent can Lenin be considered the begetter of Stalinism? Frank Carson - 4002/10512

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

To what extent can Lenin be considered the begetter of Stalinism? Frank Carson - 4002/10512 2 836 words In order to establish whether Lenin did, indeed beget 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. ...read more.

Middle

Lenin, who is described by Edward Acton as the first soviet historian, was himself the creator of democratic centralism. He saw it as a genuine opportunity for party members to have their views heard and according to his followers, it was his charisma, persuasiveness and strength of opinion that resulted in his prominence. If Lenin was an authoritarian leader, his personal rule over the party paled in insignificance when compared with Stalin's destruction effective of party rule. Between the years 1936-1939, he had more than 1 million party members removed from office or killed. A clear difference in Lenin and Stalin's approaches to foreign policy is visible, as Stalin adopted a policy of 'Socialism in one country', whilst Lenin hoped for and indeed expected international revolution. Marx argued that proletarian revolution would occur first in countries that had experienced industrial revolution, creating a bourgeois class and reaching an advanced stage of capitalism. Lenin adapted this theory and attempted to apply it to backwards Russia, thinking that Revolution in Russia would trigger international revolution. This would leave socialist Russia surrounded by other communist friendly nations who would then come to Russia's aid and bring her alongside more advanced countries. This idea manifested itself in 1919, when he sent Bolshevik armies to 'liberate' the people of Poland. The fact that this was met with little enthusiasm, if not open hostility, shed new light on Lenin's theory. The fact that post-war revolutions in other countries either were crushed or did not occur at all raise the question as to whether Stalin's foreign policy was merely a response to the international system that had been created or an expression of his own will, as Western Liberals would argue. ...read more.

Conclusion

Another question is raised, however, as to the importance to each leader, of the ideology that ostensibly drove both down the paths of leadership that they took. Whilst Liberal Right Wing historians place overwhelming emphasis on Lenin's hunger for power, using the empty promises made leading up to the October Revolution as evidence, his writings reveal an undying commitment to the Revolution. In Stalin's case, it can be said that many of his policies were based on Lenin's blueprint, Pipes remarks that Stalin's 'education, ideology and modus operandi were all Lenin's'9. He also writes 'I believe that Stalin sincerely regarded himself as a disciple of Lenin, a man designed to carry out his agenda to a successful conclusion'10. Stalin did this particularly overtly, promoting the 'cult of Lenin' following his death. In doing so however, he directly contradicted Lenin's wishes for such an idea not to be perpetuated. This seems indicative of Stalin's whole career as the despotic leader of the USSR. Whilst he presented his own rule as the unwavering continuation of his predecessor's, constantly justifying his actions against Lenin's principles, he allowed himself to be driven by his own personal views and impulses, leading him to stray from the successful conclusion of Lenin's agenda. 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 1/11 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution.

    The same would of course have been true for the Mezhraionsty. The situation would have been similar with regard to financing. The Mezhraionsty lacked funds, but so too did the Bolsheviks much of the time. Even Lenin's famous "German money" came to the Bolsheviks solely because their defeatist policy coincided with that of the German High Command.

  2. To what extent can Hitler be considered to be "weak"?

    German General Heinz Guderian made an observation of Hitler (July 1944), it shows his views on Hitler's personality and contributes in the historian's debate. "After the July 20th attempt, Hitler was a sick man. Even before the assassination attempt, he had been very nervous, and not in complete possession of his faculties.

  1. How far can the October revolution be considered a popular revolution?

    it was the government itself that provoked the people to react against them (and also against the Petrograd Soviet, which was cooperating with the government and seemed not to push for the addressing of these demands) and essentially drove themselves into a dead end.

  2. .Compare the Characters and beliefs of Lenin and Stalin. Lenin and Stalin had many ...

    Asses the impact that Lenin had on Russia, and the Russian people. Before the Russian Revolution, Russia was ruled by the Tsar. The Tsar was an all-powerful autocratic ruler. He ruled without parliament, and most of the countries wealth and land was owned by a small noble class.

  1. The Impact of Stalins Leadership in the USSR, 1924 1941. Extensive notes

    Stalin put forward policies with which most party members agreed. Interpretations of Stalin?s rise to power: 1. Some historians focus on the role of individuals like Stalin himself ? analysing his decisions and seeing those and their interaction as the most important factors in major developments.

  2. Why did Stalin emerge as leader of Soviet Russia?

    Stalin?s tactical manoeuvring were what finally and ultimately allowed him to take the title after much deliberation amongst the Party. Stalin was talented in the way that he knew when the perfect time was to retreat. It was once Bukharin won a victory against him at the Central Committee meeting

  1. Why was Stalin able to establish his dictatorship in Russia?

    He was able to control party membership and allocation of roles, meaning that supporters of his rivals were frequently assigned remote posts or denied membership. A new generation of ?Stalinist? politicians dominated the Politburo and Central Committee, and later on allowed him to conduct great purges to ?cleanse? the party of any remaining opposition.

  2. Compare the characters and beliefs of Lenin and Stalin.

    them saw this as a motivation, and all carried out their taks efficiently and obediently. Without this Law workers would have had to suffer much more than some of them did,before this Law was introduced workers had a lot of economic problems and many workers and their respectives families died because they had no money to pay for food.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work