Russia may have been a military superpower under Stalin and Communism it was still a third-world economy, which meant the people suffered greatly. The Five Year Plans that Stalin saw as a success from his point of view left the workers disillusioned, because the concentration of the Five Year Plans was on Capital goods, this left no room for commercial goods, like clothes and shoes. This meant during the Five Year Plan shoes usually ran out. The results of this was that the workers felt alienated from the system and they subsequently their productivity was low and unproductive. If the Five Year Plans had included basic consumer goods then the productivity of the workers may have not dropped their productivity, but this from the point of view of Russia the Five Year Plans had been a failure in that their standard of living went down.
The Collectivisation of the peasants meant that the Kulaks were treated with brutality and many peasants died of famine (1933) as their food was taken to feed the workers leaving to starve. The peasants to, like the workers felt alienated from the system and became unproductive. This is another point that suggests Stalin was not a success as he did not treat his people well, lowering their standards of living and letting them starve to death – this is not from the point of view of Russia, something that a successful leader would do. The Great Terror (1936-38) may have given total control to Stalin, but in the process of achieving this millions of Russians lived in complete terror, this may have been a success for what Stalin had set out to do, but is was not in that the amount of people who suffered because of the ruthlessness of Stalin. His personality to the Russian people was not a success as a leader to his people as he killed thousands of them needlessly.
Stalin also nearly lost the war to Hitler as he signed the Nazi – Soviet Non – Aggression 1939, meant that Stalin now trusted Hitler and was caught completely by surprise in 1941 when Hitler suddenly invaded the Soviet union. The credit for victory over the Nazis to the Russian people, not Stalin as the Russians were motivated by a wave of Patriotism with them fighting for survival against an enemy who wanted to wipe them out. Finally Stalin can be blamed for the Cold War, which started of the arm’s race, which had an enormous economic cost to Russia as they concentrated purely on keeping up with the USA. The Cold War cost the Soviet Union a third of its economic production. This meat the standard of living in Russia slipped further down making the problem of alienation and low productivity amongst the workers drop even more so. Russia’s low productivity and low standard of living was caused by the constant development in the arm’s race. Yet in America they had a high standard of living and high productivity and could also keep up with the Soviet Union in the arm’s race. If Stalin had not got the Soviet Union involved the Cold War, then the third of all economic production that was lost to the arm’s race then the standard of living would not have dropped, but they did and this is what does not make Stalin look to successful in the terms of the Russian people.
The legacy of Stalin gave Russia a system of economic plans, collectivization and police state, but what he left behind was economic destruction and a standard of living that was seriously sub-standard. He had left Russia in near destruction. This really does not suggest that he was a success. What he left behind could not be fixed by Khrushchev (1956-1964) who tried to reform the system, yet this made no difference, other communist leaders right up to the end of the Soviet Union tried to reform the system, but eventually the Stalinist system collapsed. This really in the terms of Russia that Stalin had led the country to eventual ruin as he was interested in personal success rather than working on success for the country.
Being a success or not, Stalin said that he was a communist and therefore should have worked to the ideals of Karl Marx and Lenin. Marx’s idea and theory was that the human race would one day reach the last stage of history, which he called ‘Communism’ which meant equality in the nation. Men would work for the common good and not individual gain and finally that men would live in freedom. This was obviously not true of the ‘Communist’ Russia, which Stalin led. Equality within the Soviet Union was not excitant with workers and peasants alienated from the system, with Stalin in a new higher class above the workers with him as the sole dictator over Russia. Men did not work for the common good; Stalin was out for individual success with Russia and men worked through fear and produced more because of that fear created as a result of the Great Terror. Obviously men did not have freedom in Russia as a Totalitarian State was imposed upon them, through fear of being blamed of conspiring against Russia and communism. If Stalin’s success is to be measured against the ideals of Karl Marx then he is not successful because he a communist leader has failed on all three aims of communism by creating virtually another class system with the workers and then him on top. In the terms of communism Stalin was not a success, simply because he did not live up to the ideals of Karl Marx who as the inventor of Communism, Stalin should have followed his ideals.
To conclude, Stalin being a success or not depends entirely on whose slant you are looking at it from. If you take it from his point of view, you are going to say he was a success because he achieved so much, he had defeated Hitler and the Nazis, he had successfully won the struggle for power and gained complete power in 1938 after the Great Terror. If these points were the only evidence shown to you on whether Stalin was a success, you would say that he was – without doubt. Yet in terms of Russia, what had Stalin done successfully for the country and its people? He had alienated the workers and peasants (this going against the idea of equality form Karl Marx), he had nearly lost the war and looked very foolish by trusting Hitler in the Nazi – Soviet Non - Aggression Pact. He had started the Cold War, which led Russia to economic destruction leaving a legacy of a clapped out economy and unmotivated workers. From this viewpoint it seems that Stalin was not a success at all he had just led Russia to destruction.
Finally he had not kept true to the ideals of Karl Marx, he had drifted away and created inequality in Russia with the workers and peasants alienated from the system, he had created a Totalitarian State, which was enforced through fear, this meant freedom for all men was not true.
Stalin’s success really relies on what point of view you take when looking at it, from his he was undoubtedly success, yet from Russia’s and the term’s of Communism he was not a success. You could say because he went against the ideals of Communism, with him being a communist leader he was not a success because it went against everything he was supposed to be leading. Stalin succeeded politically, with his control over Russia, but he was not a success in giving equality to Russia or freedom to every man. Stalin’s malevolence and the collapse of the Stalinist system in 1991 has wrecked any belief of a Communist or even a Marxist one. He succeeded in his own terms, but failed Russia and the values he was support to stand for. Between becoming a communist and getting into power he must have lost the Marxist values as he was only looking out for his own personal gain, so overall he was a failure.
