The Significance of Stalinism
Vu Tran-Nguyen [Section B03, Zach Silveira] Final Paper: [MMW 6 - Spring 2004] [26 May 2004] The Significance of Stalinism After the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917, the world saw a rise of the Soviet Union in Russia; a state that is driven by Marxist ideologies, which claim that "land and capital should be held in common, and their produce distributed...equally" (Russell 9). The Communist party describes the U.S.S.R. as a country led by a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (Russell 26). Once in power, the Communist party of the Soviet Union began to appeal to grand hopes of creating an egalitarian society in which the social power of the proletariat was established. The party imagined in the Soviet Union the destruction of class society, public ownership of property, the abolishment of the capitalist system of exploitation and oppression, higher standard of living among the Russian citizens, and the end to social and racial inequality (Brower 8,18). In 1928 Stalin began the vigorous policy of the Five-Year Plan. This period is also known as Stalinism. According to Stalin, the Five-Year Plan was "a five-year plan of building a socialist society" (Stalin 64). This plan included tremendous increase in heavy industrialization, the process of collective-farm and state-farm movement, and, consequently, the destruction of capitalist ownership (Stalin 63-64). Stalin
The death of Stalin and Stalinism.
The death of Stalin brought a massive change in the eastern European communist blocs, the cult of personality began to crumble, and the enforced Stalinist doctrine was unable to remain dominant throughout the Soviet union, and subsequently through the satellite states of eastern Europe, causing major disillusionment with the contemporary leadership within the states. However, the events in Poland and Hungary through a series of revolutionary activity culminated in two very different formative processes of de-Stalinisation. Poland, under the auspices of Wladyslaw Gomulka achieved a series of successive reforms in order to deconstruct the Stalinist model, in a bid for reform and as a pacifier for the population. Whereas in Hungary, the pro-active social and political achievements were responded to by the soviet with a repressive arsenal of Soviet Military intervention resulting in a bloody put down of the population and a return to Stalinist form of communism. Stalinism imported total control on several states who had only very recently come under the yoke of the Soviet union. Throughout Stalin's later years, he ruled with tyranny, even dissolving all independent organisations, like for example, the Catholic youth Movement was banned, being replaced by centralised singular group called ZMP. It has been stated, "IF Hungary hadn't been put down, Poland would have been"
How far was Stalinism the outcome of Leninist political practice?
How far was Stalinism the outcome of Leninist political practice? How far was Stalinism the outcome of Leninist political practice? The political system which existed in the Soviet Union under Stalin was a system of terror. The purges of the 1930s sent millions of Russians to their deaths or to the Gulags, the population was scared of the secret police, the NKVD, the forced collectivization of agriculture had wiped out a part of Russian society, the Kulaks. The show trials of the thirties had firmly established Stalin as the leader of the Soviet Union. What requires investigation is how far was this regime of terror a new entity in the Soviet Union or how far it was a continuation the state set up by Lenin after the Russian revolution in 1917. The regime set up by Lenin did have a secret police, the Cheka and it was authoritarian, especially in the the years after the revolution and the civil war. There was forced grain requisitioning during the period of War Communism and political enemies were exiled. That is by no means in question. The difference is that during the Leninist years there was not the wholesale slaughter of millions of Soviet citizens as there was under Stalin in the 1930s. It can be argued therefore, that Stalinism was partly the outcome of Leninist political practice because there were many similarities between the two regimes. However, the Stalinist
Explain how Stalinism and Totalitarianism affected the Soviet Union between 1928-1945.
Explain how Stalinism as Totalitarianism affected the Soviet Union between 1928-1945 During the 1920s, the Communist Party was not highly centralized nor disciplined in their organisation as a consequence of inadequate communication systems, inefficient record keeping, and regional party leaders who openly ignored orders from Moscow. A poor rail, road, radio, phone and mail network existed in the USSR made for inadequate links between regions, making quick decision-making processes virtually impossible and controls looser in practice. As such, totalitarianism in its strictest sense was near impossible in the USSR. However, despite technological, organizational and geographic limitations, Stalin's regime came remarkable close to fulfilling the criteria of the totalitarian model. Stalin's totalitarian regime was essentially governed by an elaborate ideology applicable to all members of Soviet society. Stalinism was impressed upon Soviet life through intensified control and manipulation, with the ultimate objective of manufacturing statewide unity, conformity and social cohesion. This movement was facilitated by a sole political party whose membership was restricted to a minority of the population (only 2 million of Russia's 30 million strong population), under the control of Stalin. This small, tight-knit ruling elite was infallibly loyal to Stalin's regime. Another
Outline ways in which Stalinism deviated from the principles of Leninism
Outline ways in which Stalinism deviated from the principles of Leninism Soviet communism was shaped by the decisive personal contribution of the two Bolshevik leaders, Lenin and Stalin. Lenin was both a revolutionist and an Orthodox, where he remained faithful to the idea of revolution. He believed that parliamentary politics were just a Bourgeois pretence, seeking out to deceive the proletariat into believing that political power could be exercised through the ballot box. Lenin echoed Marx's call for transitional dictatorship of the proletariat to overthrow capitalism and achieve 'full communism'. However unlike Marx, Lenin believed there needed to be a new kind of political party, a revolutionary party or vanguard party to develop a revolutionary class-consciousness for the proletariat as he thought the working class were all deluded by the ideas and beliefs of the Bourgeois. Suggesting that the 'Revolutionary party' could lead the working class from 'trade union consciousness' to 'revolutionary class-consciousness'. Deviating away from the idea of a revolutionary party working to develop the interests of the working class and continuing what Lenin was trying to imply with an existence of a monopolistic party, Stalin on the contrary felt he was a personification of the proletariat and communism dictatorship. Stalin acted as a form of totalitarian dictatorship operating
To what extent can Lenin be considered the begetter of Stalinism? Frank Carson - 4002/10512
To what extent can Lenin be considered the begetter of Stalinism? Frank Carson - 4002/10512 2 836 words In order to establish whether Lenin did, indeed beget Stalinism, two questions need to be answered; what were Lenin's plans for the future of Russia and what exactly gave rise to Stalinism? Official Soviet historians of the time at which Stalin was in power would have argued that each one answers the other. Similarly, Western historians saw Lenin as an important figure in the establishment of Stalin's socialist state. This can be partly attributed to the prevailing current of pro-Stalin anti-Hitler sentiments amongst westerners until the outbreak of the cold war. As relations changed between Russia and the rest of the world, so did the main historical schools of thought. Following Stalins death, hostilities between the capitalist powers and the USSR, along with an increased awareness of the atrocities that were previously hidden and ignored, led to a split in the opinions of Soviet and Western Liberal historians. In Russia, he was seen, as Trotsky had always maintained, as a betrayer of the revolution, therefore as much distance as possible was placed between himself and Lenin in the schoolbooks of the 50s and early 60s in the USSR. These historians point to Stalin's killing of fellow communists as a marked difference between himself and his predecessor. Trotsky himself
Book review - Fitzpatrick, Sheila. Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s.
Casey Elgin Fitzpatrick, Sheila. Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. The book I chose to read showcases the daily life and challenges to those living in large cities after Stalin's rise to power. The main point of this book was to explain life for the point of view of the poor urbanities of the 1930s. Describing the economic crisis, overcrowding, and general fear experienced by lower class during this time, this book does an excellent job of showing how policy works at the common level. An interesting point shown by this book was that while many feared the system many were corrupted by the party and its politics, supporting and in turn benefiting from, the party. Instead of a Stalin bashing historical piece, as is typical, this work focuses less on big politics and more on the intrigues of the party elites and the effect that their disagreements and underhanded maneuvers had on the classes below them. The advancement in culture and literacy is outlined quite well in this book. I chose this particular book because it seemed interesting to learn about something other than simply the politics of a time period. The research is very well done; the author is clear and concise in her writing. There isn't a lot of repetition or bias. The author tends to stay neutral throughout this book, which is
Stalinism and the transformation of Russia.
Stalin was the dominant figure of authority in the Soviet Union during the 1920s-40s with his singleminded detrmination to ensure the survival of the Bolshevik Revoilution and establish “socialism in one country”. Stalin set about establishing industrialisation and collectivisation at a rapid rate to ensure that a transformed USSR could meet the challenges of its enemies which threatened the revolution and to rovide a solution to the on-going problem of food supply for the masses. Portrayed by propaganda as the "supreme genius of humanity", Stalin dominated Soviet Russia in this period through campaigns of terror which ensured his unquestion status as leader. Even before launching his economic program in 1929, Stalin used the industrialisation debate of the 1920s to gain ascendancy over his rivals. Initially, he sided with Bukharin in supporting NEP as the path to industrialisation. However, once Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev had been removed, he accused Bukharin of supporting capitalism, and recommended Russia implement a system of command socialism. In 1929, NEP was abolished, and replaced with a system of state-run agriculture and industry, organised via Five Year Plans. This system gave Stalin effective control over the entire economy, and thereby the Soviet people. The most effective means of increasing Stalin’s power was collectivisation. This involved the
European Integration in a Historical Perspective.
European Integration in a Historical Perspective "The emergence of a command economy in the Soviet Union during the Stalin era was the result of diplomatic isolation rather than the consequence of ideological precepts: economic planning appeared to guarantee a higher rate of growth and self-sufficiency." Discuss. Milan Samani I will begin the discussion of the above quote by defining a command economy. I will then place this definition within a geographical and historical context, thereby analysing it in the Soviet Union and during the Stalin era. I will then explain the reasons for its emergence and place the roles of both ideology and the Soviet Union's diplomatic isolation, and how they are inter-linked. I will define the Stalin era as the period between Lenin's death in January 19241 and Stalin's death in March 1952. An economic definition of a command economy is one where 'a state planning office decides what will be produced, how it will be produced, and for whom it will be produced. Detailed instructions are then issued to households, workers and firms'2. This definition is an economic archetype, and no complete command economy, where all allocation decisions are undertaken in this way, exists. However, the Soviet economy under Stalin was very close, in that political penetration of the economy was, at one point almost total. Before discussion of the command
In what sense did the policies of collectivization and industrialization constitute a second revolution in the Soviet Russia?
In what sense did the policies of collectivization and industrialization constitute a second revolution n the Soviet Russia? Content Plan of investigation............................................................2 Summery of evidence.............................................................2 Evaluation of sources ..........................................................4 Analysis..........................................................................5 Conclusion.......................................................................6 Appendix 1.......................................................................7 Appendix 2.......................................................................8 Bibliography.....................................................................9 In what sense did the policies of collectivization and industrialization constitute a second revolution in the Soviet Union? A. Plan of Investigation The change in economic policy and the turn to the five year plans in 1928, which is often referred to as 'the great turn', is seen by many as a turning point for Stalin's Russia. According to some historians, this symbolizes the moment when Russia started its descent from the socialist revolutionary way. With regards to the peasantry and industry, the five year plan had great effects- often conflicting. This investigation aims to