There have been many explanations put forward for the Stalinist dictatorship, not least of which is that Stalinism was the logical extension of Leninism. Due to the large number of similarities between the two regimes this stance was often taken by anti-Communist historians during the Cold War. Richard Pipes argued that ‘the despotic powers that Stalin exercised were put in place by Lenin’ which is true in some respects, such as Lenin’s liberal use of terror in attacking the bourgeoisie, creating the Cheka (the forefather of the NKVD) and erecting forced labour camps for opponents. Lenin was also the father of the one-party state, using his ban on factions to weed out opponents, including instigating small scale purges which Stalin, according to this argument, simply expanded on. Dictatorship was ensured once the Bolsheviks decided they alone could lead the people and Lenin created the centralised, authoritarian state which Stalin extended the power of. Another similarity between the regimes is the mass mobilisation of workers to carry out their policies – Lenin did this throughout the Civil War and Stalin used the workers to carry through rapid industrialisation and collectivisation in the early 1930s.
There are some historians, however, who disagree with this argument, pointing out the clear breaks between the two leaders. To begin with, Lenin always saw himself as Marxist – Stalin developed the cult of Leninism and used it as an ideological orthodoxy to justify his actions. Service said ‘he [Lenin] would be appalled at the use made of his doctrines by Stalin’. Another huge difference is their individual employment of purges – Lenin’s were non-violent whereas Stalin’s included the extermination of leading Bolsheviks, something Lenin had never condoned. Stalin’s use of terror was significantly different to Lenin’s; Stalin set mass terror in motion in the 1930s, just one example of his brutal streak, whereas Lenin used terror as a means to an end – to achieve his vision of a non-violent utopian state.
It could be said that the Russia after the death of Lenin was solely down to Stalin’s personality, which was known to be brutal and paranoid. These traits heavily influenced the system; the purges alone are proof of this. His ambition to become dictator and turn the USSR into a totalitarian state meant he was willing to go to any length to achieve his goals, including mass murder. Service argues that ‘The Great Terror would not have taken place but for Stalin’s personality and ideas’ and it would be easy to attribute the nature of the state purely to Stalin’s personality, however there were other factors to consider. Towards the end of the 1920s, Soviet Russia, Nove believes, was in an ‘economic impasse’. There is a lot of evidence to support this; the country was still backward and reliant on peasantry unwilling to support the state’s industrialisation, and the anticipated world revolution had failed to materialise meaning Russia did not have the support of other countries to develop its industry. Stalin felt the only way out of this situation was to launch the rapid industrialisation and collectivisation programme. Naturally this bought the country into conflict with the people as their living standards declined, therefore Stalin was forced to implement a strong police force and use copious amounts of propaganda and ultimately terror in order to maintain control and modernise Russia. Other arguments that endeavour to explain the Stalinist dictatorship are the nature of the central planning committee and Russia’s history of Tsars. Fitzpatrick argues that ‘The Bolshevik tradition of centralized organization led the new Soviet regime towards repressive authoritarianism and laid the foundations for Stalin’s dictatorship.’ Stalin also mimics Russian history, since state control over the people was normal and they were used to the idea of a strong leader Stalin used this tradition to build the ‘cult of personality’ and become a god-like figure for the public to follow. This argument suggests that even without Stalin a figurehead would have developed as Russia had no tradition of democratic political institutions.
One key influence on Russia during Stalin’s rule was war – beginning with World War One. The Civil War had a profound impact on the Bolsheviks, enforcing strict military discipline and obedience, particularly to the leader. Fitzpatrick argues ‘Civil War paved the way for Stalinism’. It also led to the mentality that made them see enemies and conspiracies everywhere, due to the precarious grounds they had seized power on. This mentality continued well into Stalin’s rule and meant that to combat the insecurity the Bolsheviks resorted to violence and terror – a key feature of Stalinist Russia. Stalin saw spies everywhere; he was convinced the surrounding countries were attempting to bring down Communism, especially as the prospect of war grew as Hitler (decidedly anti-communist) became Chancellor of Germany and his policy of ‘living space’ suggested he would fight to expand. The purges were one of Stalin’s responses to the threat of war in the 1930s, incentivising people to work even harder to industrialise, but there were other reasons for the purges also. Stalin used the purges to keep control of an unstable society, using insecurity to maintain power, and also to remove any opposition to his policies. They were a way of deflecting the blame for the economic difficulties; they strengthened the NKVD and provided slave labour from the gulags. Although these were partly down to Stalin’s personality and he was very much responsible for the terror, Getty says ‘We can now see his [Stalin’s] fingermarks all over the archives [of terror]’; there were other factors which influenced the decision to employ that level of violence.
Individuals, especially during the consolidation of Bolshevik power and Stalin’s rule, were obviously very important in changing the face of Russia. Had Lenin not returned to Russia the Bolsheviks may not have attained power at all, and had Stalin not replaced Stalin as leader the USSR may not have become the totalitarian dictatorship it was. There were many factors affecting the decisions made by these individuals which meant but ultimately the power to sculpt Russia fell into their hands.
Bibliography
C. Read, From Tsar to Soviets
R. Pipes, Communism
R. Service, A History of Modern Russia
R. Service, ‘Lenin: Individual and Politics in the October Revolution’, Modern History Review, 1990
R. Service, A History of Twentieth Century Russia, 1997
A. Nove, Was Stalin Really Necessary? 1964
S. Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution
J. Arch Getty and O. V. Naumov, The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-39, 1999
C. Read, From Tsar to Soviets
R. Service, A History of Modern Russia
R. Service, ‘Lenin: Individual and Politics in the October Revolution’, Modern History Review, 1990
R. Service, A History of Twentieth Century Russia, 1997
A. Nove, Was Stalin Really Necessary?, 1964
S. Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution
S. Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution
J. Arch Getty and O. V. Naumov, The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-39, 1999
by
jessiiee (student)
