The structures of the Soviet State were created by Lenin and abused by Stalin. Discuss.

Other Centre-Left to Socialist historians judge Lenin less harshly and believe Stalin’s policies as discontinuing those of Lenin’s. Stephen F. Cohen, when talking about Leninist Bolshevism and Stalinism said:

“they were two radically different phenomena”.

        

        Stalin’s use of fear-mongering

(“the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end”)

was by far the greatest way achieving the results he wanted. His ingenious use of the Cheka and the other names it underwent was what had the Russia population petrified of him. The secret-police, while certainly the most popular instrument of Stalin’s terror, was created by Lenin during the Russia Civil war as things were clearly getting out of hand, or so he believed. When discussing whether the structures of the Soviet State were created and abused by Lenin, one has to realise that the creation of a secret-police was surely no good. How is it possible to accuse Stalin of abusing the structure when he used it the way it was supposed to be used? (albeit more extravagantly than Lenin chose to);

“It was Lenin who laid the police state foundations which made Stalin’s monstrous feats technically possible”.

Stalin wanted what had never been achieved in Britain before; total control over people’s lives. It was this which led him into wanting to make the government more centralised and internal. Stalin’s use of fear and the Cheka was what ultimately allowed him to create a party of loyal Russians who adhered to his policies, rather than a Bolshevik party where many of those below him had conflicting beliefs:

“In 1936-39 over one million members were removed – and the old Bolshevik Party was eliminated.”

Whereas Lenin was sparser with his use of terror, allowing defeated Menshevik leaders to emigrate; refraining from killing his own men; and having the excuse of a Civil War threatening the Russian regime, Stalin had no qualms about killing old Bolsheviks, his own men and sending troops abroad to kill Trotsky. Under Stalin, his reign of terror was known as the “Great Purge” or the “Great terror”.

        The economic policies of Stalin and Lenin differed greatly as no Bolshevik foresaw the dramatic economic policies of Stalin from 1929. Lenin’s New Economic Policy followed the catastrophic period of ‘War Communism’ which threw Russia into a terrible period of poverty. This new policy was seen by historians such as Grigory Zinoviev as being a “tactical retreat” as it went against the fundamental beliefs of Communism. The New Economic Policy had Russia reverting back to Capitalism as a way of saving it – it allowed small business to reopen for private profit while the state continued to control banks, foreign trade, and large industries; peasants were permitted to sell their produce for a profit, however a tax of 10% was also introduced; working hours were shortened and Trade Unions were given limited freedom to operate. Many saw Lenin’s New Economic Policy as a

“major transformation that was occurring politically, economically, culturally and spiritually”

and that, by 1928,

“agricultural and industrial production had been restored to the 1913 (pre-WWI) level”.

While this was great for Russia, it was abandoned by Stalin in favour of his new Five-Year Plan. Referring back to Stalin’s belief that Russia was so far behind the other countries in Europe, it was his hope that the introduction of the five-year plan would mean that the USSR's industrial base would reach the level of capitalist countries' in the West, to prevent them being beaten in another possible war.  Though many of the Bolsheviks were against the New Economic Policy as it was seen as a

“betrayal of communist principles”,

Stalin’s change of heart after the ‘war scare’ and his reasons behind the five-year plan helped to convince many of them that it was a great idea. Stalin’s aim for the plan was for it to be

“the transformation of the country from an agrarian into and industrial one, capable by its own means of producing the necessary equipment”.

Stalin had specific targets of output which workers were expected to achieve and because of Stalin’s government backing and force, punishments would be doled out should any targets not be met. The results of the plan cannot be taken at face value as it is most likely that Stalin had manufactured the numbers to make himself look better and to make the country seem as if it were gaining momentum. It is also due to Stalin’s use of fear that the numbers could be considered highly inaccurate. If a target number was not met, punishments would follow – it is therefore likely that many workers exaggerated their numbers of output for fear of being tortured and/or punished. The targets produced were clearly lower than what Stalin wanted, but were within what could actually be produced so the manufactured numbers from the workers would’ve been manufactured again by Stalin to gain him Russian support. It is for this reason that the figures showing the results of the Five-Year Plan are probably very inaccurate. While the New Economic Policy was ‘discontinued’ as it was abandoned by Stalin, the Five-Year Plan wasn’t at all unlike it. The aims were similar as both used capitalism as a way of better grasping Communism; as Lenin summarises, "We are taking one step backward to later take two steps forward", suggesting that the New Economic Policy would slowly turn into something else as soon as the Russian economy was prepared.

        As stated previously, Lenin ensured that his government would have complete power and that his would be the only party. Pipes argues that the Democratic centralism among the Bolsheviks created a

“party that resembled more a secret order than a party in the normally accepted sense".

 While single-party rule ensures that debate outside of the party is futile, it doesn’t prevent anything from occurring internally:

“Lenin’s democratic centralism was characterised by internal debate”

 Again referring to Lenin’s sparser use of fear in comparison to Stalin’s, Stalin ensured that this ‘internal debate’ would remain no longer. Stalin’s use of fear, force and the Cheka ensured that any his party was completely loyal to his cause and this is why: “In 1936-39 over one million members were removed – and the old Bolshevik Party was eliminated”. Historians can hardly argue that Stalin’s use of the single-party structure of Russia was an abuse of what Lenin created as Lenin created it for that very same purpose. The one-party government Lenin had set up provided few restraints against Stalin’s dictatorship and Stalin cannot be blamed for this as everything was there for him to use however he pleased. However the fact that much of the disloyal members of the Bolshevik party were removed by Stalin due to disagreement with his ideals, rather than the ideals of the communist revolution is what makes this an abuse of Lenin’s creation.

“A Dictatorship of the Proletariat was turned into a personal dictatorship of Stalin”.

The view, emphasised by Trotsky and his supporters, is that Stalin abused the power he had, not the actually system created by Lenin. If Lenin had the ambition Stalin had, he’d have used the methods Stalin did to achieve results.

        Stalin’s system was seen by historian Moshe Lewin as being a “hybrid of Marxism and Tsarism”. Lewin believed that Stalinism was reinforces by the social stresses imposed on the people. There was a "contamination effect" - the new regime was contaminated by the old; the faster the change occurred, the more stress created and the more the people yearned for the old familiar order. Therefore Stalinism in the late 1930s, at the peak of social stress in what Lewin calls "the quicksand society", reverted most clearly to Tsarist methods. This shows that Stalinism was not the result of Lenin’s vision, or even of Stalin’s own plans, but a desperate response to the social disaster Stalin’s regime created after 1929.

        In conclusion, there were certainly links between Leninism and Stalinism, but that doesn’t mean to say Leninism caused Stalinism. Lenin’s authoritarian side - the elite role of the party, strict discipline, War Communism and stifling of dissent - points towards Stalin’s rule, and some may even argue that it was bound to

“contain seeds of Stalinism”

since it preceded Stalinism and Stalin naturally built upon this, however Lenin also had a gentler approach to his economic reforms and overall aims. Lenin had a fundamental belief in eventual demise of the state and, however much Stalin presented himself as being Lenin’s most loyal follower, in reality he destroyed much of Lenin’s achievements.

---