Evaluate the successes and failures of one ruler of a single-party state

        The subsequent years that followed this policy saw Stalin’s installation of internal policies like the five-year plans and collectivization. Without the need to focus resources and his energies to supporting a proletarian revolution outside of the USSR, Stalin could have argued to have been his most ‘productive’ in the period following the adoption of socialism in one country. A very prominent example of this ‘productivity’ can be seen to be the relative success of the five-year plans, which had eventually resulted in the Soviet Union’s emergence as a superpower, as opposed to a regional power who had been defeated by Germany in WWI, Japan in the Russo-Jap War, and even the Poles in the Polish-Soviet War. The switch to a policy contradicting the original that had been put forth by Trotsky also helped in Stalin’s discrediting of Trotsky, in conjunction with various other forms of propaganda. On the other hand, the same could be said for negative externalities that resulted from Stalin’s ‘productivity’, the argument being that with Stalin focussing on development internally, this eventually allowed for him to carry out the Great Purge/The Red Terror, the imprisonment and execution of ex-tsarists, kulaks, members of former opposition political parties as well as other leaders within the communist party itself. Stalin’s removal of intelligentsia, perceived dissidents and traitors to the Soviet state within the army and the communist party, as well as other “anti-soviet” elements, in addition to the mass number of deaths (ranging from 700000 to 1800000 from direct executions alone), has often been attributed to the large number of casualties sustained by the Russians in WWII as the removal of experienced officers from the army. This had led to a void that was unable to be filled by the less experienced Stalin loyalists, resulting in tactical and military blunders that had seen the Soviet Union incurring heavy casualties in the war. Hence Stalin’s policy of socialism in one country could be seen to have long reaching effects, and be argued to have paved the way for the five-year plans, which in the long run benefitted the USSR in it’s establishment as a superpower, though on the flipside, this could also be argued to have facilitated the carrying out of the purges, which led to the widespread loss of human life. However, it should be noted that had Russia (without industrialization) succumbed to Hitler in WWII, Germany might not have lost the war, ergo, resulting in the conclusion that socialism in one country was in fact a success, for it strengthened the USSR, steeling it against the Nazi threat, and for many years after Stalin’s death, ensured that it remained a communist country.

        The five-year plans were first launched in 1928, in a bid by Stalin to bring about rapid industrialization to the then largely agrarian Soviet Union. The previous New Economic Policy that had been put in place by Lenin had shown the USSR’s weakness; the underdevelopment of Russia’s industry had led to the increase of prices of consumer goods as its agriculture developed. This had led to the peasants, in attempt to increase the amount they got from their crops, withholding stocks and instead selling them off to NEPmen, who sold the crops on a black market for profit. This exploited the weakness in the NEP, and led to the realization that Russia’s industry was too backward, especially when compared to capitalist countries. In conjunction with Stalin’s policy of socialism in one country where communism was to be developed in the USSR, the USSR, as a communist nation had to be shown to be the equal, if not better than it’s capitalist counterparts, and thus started the undertaking of the five-year plans. A quote from Stalin that represents this mindset is “We are 100 years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this lag in ten years. Either we do it, or they crush us!”. It shows Stalin’s desire to catch up with the industrialized West, as well as his fear of being attacked by the West. The Western powers had shown to oppose communism, from their supporting the Whites in the Russian Civil War, to their appeasement of Hitler, which Stalin had perceived as an attempt to gang-up on Russia, and thus depict the premise of which the five-year plans were based on.

        In the course of the first five-year plan, oil production nearly doubled, from 11.7 million tons to 21.4 million tons, even surpassing the target of 19 million tons! While other industries had failed to meet their targets, they also made tremendously leaps in production, nearly all of the doubling production in a short span of five-years. By 1932, the USSR had surpassed the world manufacturing output share of both Germany and the UK, second only to the US. This was achieved through harsh policies aimed at keeping discipline and very regimented lifestyles, so while there was virtually no unemployment, the quality of life was dismal. Workers also died in the midst of major projects stemming from appalling conditions and safety accidents. The five-year plans and the seemingly miraculous achievements they had made were hence shown to have mastodonic human cost behind them, though all that being said, the modernization that had been brought about by Stalin had saved it from defeat at the hands of Hitler when Hitler invaded in 1941 during the 1941. It also precipitated for Russia’s emergence as a superpower post-WWII, and can hence be seen to be another of Stalin’s great successes.

        Another of Stalin’s success was his usage of propaganda. Through it, he was able to culture a cult of personality around himself,  revolved around his portrayal as a hero and as a great leader. It also postured him as being close to Lenin, who was hailed as the hero of the revolution. Through the usage of propaganda, Stalin was able to maintain an image of almost being ‘saintly’, elevated to the level of a deity of sorts. This is evident from the changing of the town of name of Tsaritsyn to Stalingrad, as well as numerous parades, songs and plays proclaiming Stalin’s greatness. Posters were also used to great effect, portraying Stalin as a down-to-earth man who looked like the ordinary proletariat, as well as highlighting him as a champion of the people. Propaganda in Stalin’s hands, was a useful tool that depicted him as great leader. However, this was not it’s only use, as it was also through propaganda, that Stalin discredited rivals. Stalin frequently had images doctored, with opponents like Kamenev, Zinoviev and Trotsky taken out of the picture (literally) leaving him alone. A famous example is a picture of Lenin leading a parade, being cheered on by the crowd with Trotsky in the background, but in a doctored photo, Stalin had himself placed inside and Trotsky taken out. It was through the use of similar measures that Stalin was able to erase traces of opponents he had purged, as well elevating his own status, contributing significantly to his unobstructed rise to power. Stalin’s utilization of propaganda could therefore clearly be seen to be one of the successes.

        What then about Stalin’s failures? Stalin, as with any other leader(or rather, ruler) had his share of failures too, namely the policy of collectivization as well as the carrying out of the purges. Collectivization was a policy that was pursued by Stalin between 1928 and 1940 in a bid to overcome the problem of grain shortage that the USSR faced as a result of the rapid industrialization. Huge surpluses were required in order to pay for imported technologies that were necessary for the rapid industrialization, as well as to feed the growing industrial workforce. However, peasants living in rural did not see the point in increasing production for the ‘greater good’ as they had enough for self sustenance. The increase in demand for grain thus led to a shortage, which prompted the reintroduction of requisitioning. The seizure of grain discouraged the peasants from producing grain, acting as a disincentive instead. The proposed to solution to this problem? Collectivization, whereby the peasants were forced into collective farms, called kolkhozes. Kulaks, or rich, land owning peasants who resisted where deported either to gulags, executed as examples to the people, and forced to work in agricultural labor camps against their will. The rest of the peasants who remained were then tasked to work on collective farms, with unrealistic targets and expectations set for them.

         Due to these high government quotas, peasants discovered themselves earning less for their labour as compared to pre collectivization, resulting in widespread opposition and dissent, whereby grain and livestock production fell by 25% between 1928 and 1940. Stalin in retaliation, cut off rations to regions where there was opposition to collectivization. Corruption also exacerbated this problem, with regional authorities projecting unrealistic harvests for personal benefit (their promotion/bonus), compounding the vicious cycle as officials reporting realistic figures pale in comparison and are penalized, leading them to follow and report higher than actual harvests. This leads to an increased quota requisitioned from the peasants, which in conjunction with the lack of food for sustenance (lack of rations) resulted in widespread starvation, and in turn, the famine of 1932-1933. The failure to increase agricultural production, in addition to the heavy social and human costs behind collectivization mark it as a prominent failure during Stalin’s rule. The price of collectivization was so high that Stalin himself called for a temporary halt to the process, citing that they had become “dizzy with success”. In 1945, Stalin even confessed to Churchill that 10 million people had died during the course of collectivization. These two examples thus serve as an indication that Stalin himself knew that the process had failed, reaffirming it as a a monumental failure during Stalin’s role.

        Another poignant example of Stalin’s failures could be the purges. Some might argue that the purges were a resounding success with regards to its assurance that Stalin was unopposed and that any and all obstacles in Stalin way were removed. While this might be true, the purges were largely a failure due to its consequences. Stalin, citing the removal of dissidents anti-soviet elements had carried out his purges in a series of executions  as well as show trials, culminated in events such as the trial of the twenty-one, whereby Stalin put twenty-one prominent old bolsheviks including his previous ally Nikolai Bukharin and ex-premier Alexei Rykov, the assassination of Sergei Kirov and the assassination of Leon Trotsky. In a display of paranoia, Stalin also removed numerous commanding experienced commanding officers from the army, replacing them instead with younger, more inexperienced junior officers that he viewed as loyal. This removal of experienced people from their positions, as well as intellectuals and politicians in Stalin’s bid to remove all competing threats left Russia debilitated and impaired. This was displayed most prominently when Germany first invaded Russia. The decimated Soviet officer corps and high command with just 6/90 surviving generals from the Purges, weakened with the execution of 30000 military personnel, and resulted in 75% of the Red Army officers having held their posts only for a year or less. This weakness when compared to the German therefore precipitated in the huge losses suffered by the Soviets at the start of Operation Barbarossa. Also, within 3 months, the Germans had been able to push to within 90 miles of Moscow, due to the inefficacy of the Russian army despite their superior technological numbers. The German army was eventually slowed greatly by the onset of Russian winter, which gave Russia a chance to consolidate it’s forces and launch a counter-offensive. Thus Stalin’s purges had greatly reduced the Red Army’s ability to repel the German offensive, which could hence be taken as a failure.

        In conclusion, one can see how through the carrying out and implementation of various policies and actions undertaken, Stalin had his share of hits and misses, with some succeeding and others failing. Successes include his five-year plans, usage of propaganda and socialism in one country, while failures include collectivization and the purges. Though Stalin brought about large social and human costs, he had also aided the developments and betterment of Russia, elevating it to the status of a world superpower, leading me to say that Stalin, as a ruler, had more successes than failures.