.Compare the Characters and beliefs of Lenin and Stalin. Lenin and Stalin had many characteristics in common, but many marked differences. Lenin's character had many key

Authors Avatar

 Compare the Characters and beliefs of Lenin and Stalin.                                               

Q1.Compare the Characters and beliefs of Lenin and Stalin.

Lenin and Stalin had many characteristics in common, but many marked differences. Lenin’s character had many key strengths. One of his major strengths was that he was a great intellectual. Indeed Lenin was one of the leading Russian writers and thinkers of the period publishing many works. Lenin was unquestionably brilliant and a great organiser. He was also exceptionally hard working and one hundred percent dedicated to his cause. He had this natural ability to “seize the moment”. History illustrates so many times this was vital to the Bolshevik success. For example because of continuing war and famine, and break down of law and order, were not being dealt with by the Provisional Government, he knew they were a “weak target”. He seized the moment by ordering revolution. His leadership transformed the Bolshevik party from a small/minority party to take and hold power. Stalin’s character had many strengths but also weaknesses. In contrast to Lenin, Stalin was comparatively dull. He could not in any way match the intellectual ability of Lenin. However like Lenin, Stalin was a good organizer, and hard working and absolutely dedicated.

Another positive aspect of Lenin’s character was that he was not vain, and an important strength was that he trusted his close colleagues and allies. For example Trotsky created the Red Army and Lenin showed his complete trust in Trotsky by giving him a free hand in military matters. These attributes contrast markedly with those of Stalin. Unlike Lenin, Stalin was rude and ambitious. He was very vain and excessively neurotic. For example, although he was the undisputed leader of Russia by 1930, he became terrified/neurotic that others wanted to overthrow him. He frequently got rid of rivals even if they were of no threat to him. Unlike Lenin, Stalin trusted no one and ran everything.

One of the other great strengths of Lenin, was that he commanded great respect and personal loyalty. This loyalty allowed him to change policies even when they were unpopular within the Bolshevik Party. An example is the struggle over NEP (New Economic Policy). The arguments concerning the NEP were so divisive that the Party may well have split over it, had it not been for Lenin’s great moral authority and his ability to “command personal loyalty”. Lenin always had a realistic approach to his problems. Lenin’s realism demanded that political theory take second place to economic necessity. Lenin was pragmatic and was able to change his policies. A good example was his adoption of war communism to win the civil war, and then to introduce the NEP afterwards to help the economy recover. Lenin knew the NEP was a retreat from the principle of “State Control” of the economy. His pragmatic character comes out in the statement in 1921 to the party concerning NEP: “let the peasants have their little bit of capitalism as long as we keep power”. Stalin by contrast did not command such personal loyalty. People were in the main ‘loyal’ to Stalin through fear. I believe that Stalin was also quite pragmatic, but only when it suited his own ambitions and interests. For example Stalin helped the Republicans during the Spanish Civil war by supplying them with weapons whereas the Fascists were helped by Hitler. However, Stalin did make a Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939 and agreed for the division of Poland between the USSR and Germany. Stalin wanted to defer war, as the USSR was not ready. He was similarly pragmatic in signing a neutrality pact with Japan in April 1941, hoping this would allow the USSR time to build up its industrial strength.

 

Both Lenin and Stalin could be brutal and merciless. However they differed in their motives and scale of brutality. Lenin certainly could be ruthless when the situation required him to be so. An example is implementing “War Communism” which caused great suffering but which he considered to be a great necessity of the time. Other examples are setting up CHEKA and Labour Camps and putting down rebellions such as the Krondstadt Naval Base mutiny of 1921. This was despite the fact they had supported the communists in1917. However in my opinion Lenin did not remotely approach Stalin when it came to the barbarous, callous, and merciless treatment metered out to the people. Indeed few people in history can compare with Stalin in terms of shear ruthlessness and evil. Stalin’s ruthlessness was for the benefit of Stalin. His ruthless character is shown throughout his reign of terror in destroying Leftists and Rightists in the 1920’s and the 1930’s. For example by 1939 approximately 3 million people were dead and 9 million were political prisoners through his orders. He masterminded the “Gulag” where millions would die in labour camps for trivial offences. His ruthlessness continued throughout the Second World War up until his death. Lenin was ruthless for a cause, but was not psychotic. Lady Astor once asked Stalin how long he would go on killing people for. He replied “ as long as necessary”. This shows his evil character. “Death solves all problems. No man, no problem”. This again illustrates murder poses no problem for Stalin.

Join now!

In terms of their beliefs both believed in Marxism. Marx saw Capitalism as wrong and history as a process of change. They therefore both believed in violent revolution by the workers after which the means of production would be for every ones benefit and shared (Communism). Lenin believed passionately in the ideals of communism even though he would ‘dilute’ these if conditions dictated he do so (e.g. advocating NEP).  Stalin by contrast ran everything. His policies were often completely different from Communist ideas. People loyal to Stalin (e.g. Party apparatchiks) received privileges, holidays, houses etc. Lenin believed he was ...

This is a preview of the whole essay