Did Stalin betray the Russian Revolution?

Authors Avatar
Did Stalin betray the Russian Revolution?

By the time of Josef Stalin's death in 1953, the face and structure of Russia had changed forever. Two leaders had interpreted Marxism in different and apparently opposite ways and the country still bore the scars. There is an almost romantic stereotype which dominates traditional history of the Soviet Union, which is perhaps best exemplified in George Orwell's 'Animal Farm'; that the revolution was wholly good-natured, led by the disciple of Marx, Lenin. Stalin is seen as the egotistical tyrant who betrayed his father figures. Trotsky is Orwell's 'Snowball', a blameless defender of the revolution who would have been far more preferable as a leader to the man who sent him into exile. These are merely ideals, and fall apart under scrutiny.

Vladimir Lenin was responsible for establishing and legitimating almost every facet of Stalin's dictatorship. This is a viable defence for Stalin; that he was only following in his predecessor's footsteps. Indeed, the implications of this are so massive that the historian Volkogonov - albeit a known anti-Leninist - wrote that "all of the evil in the soviet system in its 74-year existence stemmed from Lenin". As just one example, the 'lubyanka' in Moscow, which was taken over by Lenin's Bolsheviks in 1918 and is still the home of Russian intelligence in the present day, became a symbol of oppression when it was used as a base for Lenin's 'Cheka' secret police. After the attempted assassination of Lenin by the Socialist Revolutionaries, who were Lenin's last remaining political allies in 1918, the 'red terror' was launched by the Cheka; this turned what its leader, Latsis, called "a seeing eye and a heavy hand"2 into an "indiscriminate killing machine"5. Another feature identified with Stalin's 'rule by fear' was the gulag penal system, established by Lenin and used for political opponents. The central pillar of the dictatorship was the one party state; rival parties were banned such as the liberal Cadets, before the Bolsheviks became the only legal party. 'Democracy' as such in Russia lasted exactly one day, January 6, 1918 before the Constituent Assembly was shut down by force. The embarrassment of the Bolshevik party, self-proclaimed saviours of the masses, only winning a quarter of the masses' votes was clearly too great for Lenin.

Lenin was not the faultless figure his supporters make him out to be. He did not just 'ditch common decency'2, he was a cruel man who would not tolerate dissent; his attack on 'factionalism' to stop animosity in the party was hypocritical considering that he was responsible for the Russian SDP's split into Bolshevik and Menshevik factions to begin with, in 1905. The response to the Krondstadt civil rebellion highlights Lenin's dictatorial tendencies; it was a protest against the harshness of Bolshevik rule, and it was put down by force. Other examples of Lenin's less than perfect record are his control of the media introduction of limited capitalism to the country in the form of the New Economic Policy, discredited by Ball as the "New Exploitation of the Proletariat". It was a U-turn on both Marxism and Lenin's previous policy of 'war communism' and angered the left of the party. The NEP improved living conditions for the peasantry, and Lenin established a 'smychka'2 or alliance with them, but he was also responsible for identifying the 'kulak' class which Stalin would later 'liquidate'. It must not be forgotten that Lenin 'liquidated' the Cossacks in what appeared to be a prototype of 'de-kulakisation'. Lenin appeared to want to be in conflict with the majority of his people; it is clear he did not listen to their wishes. With the removal of the 'Dumas' from the political sphere there appeared to be less free speech than ever before.
Join now!


Josef Stalin was not the favoured successor to Lenin, and many historians have suggested that Leon Trotsky would have been a far better leader. However, both men were criticised in Lenin's testament. Trotsky was not without fault - he was a harsh man, the commander of the Red Army who advocated the use of chemical weapons to suppress the Krondstadt rebellion. According to Mark Kramer he saw repression by the state as a pragmatic necessity, and there was no question of what Trotsky called "so-called morality"2.

Nationalism was not a Marxist feature. Nor was it particularly one ...

This is a preview of the whole essay