Identified within this study is the argument that whilst many of Lenin's theories and practices were continued under Stalin, many were in fact developed and extended to new levels, possibly reflecting different motives: what Pipes refers to as Stalin's...

Authors Avatar

Identified within this study is the argument that whilst many of Lenin’s theories and practices were continued under Stalin, many were in fact developed and extended to new levels, possibly reflecting different motives: what Pipes refers to as Stalin’s ‘personality of excesses’. Although for many years, numerous historians including both members of the Western school of thought (such as Pipes), along with the official Soviet historians of the time believed that Stalin was the natural heir of Lenin, opinions have changed with time. As more evidence came out of Stalin’s mass atrocities, the Soviet historians soon began to see Stalin as the betrayer of the revolution as Trotsky had always maintained, and in an attempt to save Lenin’s reputation, they were also keen to point out how Lenin himself was unsure about Stalin, stating in his famous testament that ‘I am not sure whether he (Stalin) will always be capable of using authority with sufficient caution’. The wealth of information released since the dissolution of the communist regime, and also Gorbachev’s policy of Glasnost In recent years, has lead to the revisionist school of thought coming about (and with it such historians as Sheila Fitzpatrick).  Acting almost as mediator between the now opposing views of Soviet and right wing Western historians, revisionists identify both changes and lines of similarity. In order to assess the extent of continuity it was necessary to look first at the ideology and principles of Leninism, and secondly the way these were put in to practice.  In particular, it was crucial to consider whether key policies such as the one-party state, use of terror, party control, purges, central economic planning and mass mobilisation were a stepping stone on the way to institutionalised tyranny, or whether they were simply a pragmatic and temporary response to circumstances beyond Lenin’s control.  According to this view, had Lenin lived, these policies would probably have been reversed as political and economic stability was restored, and certainly would not have given rise to the mass extermination of millions of   peasants and party members, which prevailed under Stalin in the 1930s. In scrutinising the actions of Stalin, I have examined especially how they differed from those of Lenin, and in what ways the motives for similar actions changed.

        One aspect of continuity is reflected in the control and influence that both Lenin and Stalin had over their parties.  In 1921, Lenin effectively destroyed democracy in the party through his ban of factionalism. Although this was used to end the problem of splits (during the crisis of the same year), many see it as a key factor in allowing Stalin to rise to power. Stalin often accused people of factionalism (e.g. Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev) as a response to any challenges to his authority. It also created a situation that allowed the party leadership to do what it wanted and dismiss any opposition. Pipes argues that as a result of this, the Bolsheviks were carefully coerced into always following Lenin’s will, and that his policy of ‘democratic centralism’ was merely a façade like many of the other promises he made. Pipes also often emphasises the idea that both Lenin and Stalin were harsh dictatorial leaders, concentrating power at the top of their parties and eagerly enforcing their own will onto as many people as possible. However, we must remember that Pipes was a member of Ronald Reagan’s flagrantly anti-Soviet government and many are of the opinion that he is of a view that misses out a whole twenty years of history. A different outlook to that of Pipes’ comes from Sheila Fitzpatrick, a revisionist historian in no way connected to Cold War politics. Having had access to many previously unavailable documents she states that democratic socialism was by no means a sham and in fact ‘party members could freely debate issues before a policy decision was reached’ and then accepted decisions once votes had been made. Clearly Lenin was an authoritarian leader, but his personal rule pales in insignificance when compared to that of Stalin, who had over a million party members removed from office or killed between 1936 and 1939 alone.

Join now!

One example of continuity between Lenin and Stalin is their use of terror. Right wing western historians put major emphasis onto this fact, pointing to the similarity between Stalin’s purges in the 1930’s and Lenin’s periodic cleansing of the party that occurred in the early 1920’s, when every single member of the party was scrutinised and forced to justify themselves before a purge commission, as well as responding to any criticisms. The roots of Stalin’s purges can also be recognised in Lenin’s banning of factionalism at the tenth party congress in 1921. Both Lenin and Stalin were ruthless with ...

This is a preview of the whole essay