The concept of Stalinism, being the ideologies and policies adopted by Stalin, including centralization, totalitarianism and communism, impacted, to an extent, on the soviet state until 1941. After competing with prominent Bolshevik party members Stalin emerged as the sole leader of the party in 1929. From this moment, Stalinism pervaded every level of society. Despite the hindrance caused by the bureaucracy, the impact of Stalinism was achieved through the implementation of collectivization and the 5-year plans, Stalin’s Political domination and Cultural influence, including the ‘Cult of the Personality’. This therefore depicts the influence of Stalinism over the Soviet State in the period up to 1941.
In the period before 1941,
…show more content…
The 3 5-year plans focused on heavy industry, as well as an emphasis on electricity, coal, oil and steel. The latter sections of industry greatly increased including coal (million tons) rising to 128 in 1937. Although during this time period, famine and forced labour occured, the 5-year plans were a success. Through the implementation of Collectivization and the 5-year plans, it can be seen how Stalinism impacted upon the economy, and thus the Soviet State.
Although collectivization and the 5 year plans were a success, Stalinism faced its primary negative impact through these polices; the Bureaucracy. This is a system of government in which lesser members of political parties make most of the important decisions or control the happenings of the state. The peasants were the ones carrying out Stalin’s policies; however, they were working for nothing, which resulted in quotas not being met, forcing the Bolshevik in charge of that sector to lie. Plans were developed to try and contain the bureaucracy. Alexei Stakhanov allegedly cut 16 times the normal amount of coal in one shift. Stalin and the government used this to provide ideological incentive for the workers, thus inventing the ‘Stakhanovites’. Despite this however, the bureaucracy was to remain, serving as the foremost negative impact to Stalinism.
Stalin’s unquestionable dominance over the Bolshevik party and their actions highlights the impact of Stalinism
Lenin believed that until he obtained European support and the ensuing transition to a communist society was complete, laws were necessary “to suppress the resistance of classes hostile to the proletariat.” This acting law became a “dictatorship of the proletariat; [Lenin] instructed his followers to ‘use both corruption and the threat of general extermination’” to ensure the authority of the temporary dictatorship. Still under Lenin, Stalin proposed a policy later known as Stalinism, a theory that sanctioned an unlimited and no longer temporary Soviet dictatorship with the radical intent of employing Socialism in a single country. Stalin appealed to that “Great Russian chauvinism” and to the Bolsheviks and many citizens who retained a fervent Communist idealism . The Socialist cause was the authority that justified both Lenin and Stalin’s ruthless regimes. “Marxism gave [the dictators] a monopoly upon the truth, and possession of the truth meant for Bolsheviks ‘everything was permitted’. The Party would never forget that it had taken power as an enlightened minority acting on behalf of a majority ignorant of its best interests. It was ideology, not a mandate, that legitimized the party.”
Following Lenin, Stalin played the biggest party in changing the party influence, both political and socially. During Stalin’s time in power, up to 1945, the influence of the party plummeted significantly, resulting in the RCP having no say in the country’s activities. Due to Stalin’s original ‘façade’ of communism, until reaching power, and his actions once dictator, the party lost the ideological influence of the public. The RCP was in fact fully in charge of the country, however the party was fully controlled by Stalin, thus undermining their influence; this is shown by the ‘Great Purge’ of 1937, where Stalin “cleaned out’ the party. Thus, during Stalin’s rule, contrary to the façade of power, both the political and social influence of the RCP plummeted to rock bottom.
Between 1928 and 1954 Joseph Stalin was the supreme dictator of Russia and ruled with unchecked authority. Stalin initiated many drastic reforms within his first few years in office concerning the fields of industrialization, agriculture, culture and education. Although the changes in education and industrialization produced some benefits for the Soviet state and its populace, there were flaws. The reforms in agriculture and culture were detrimental to the people and therefore on the Soviet state as a whole. Stalin had a devastating impact on the people but limited damage on the Soviet Union as a whole.
The virtues of one are inherently found in the other, the downfalls of one, inherently found in the other as well. Lenin’s own realization of this near the end of his life, his insistence on trying to prevent any one man from taking power in the USSR, proves that while attempting to prevent Stalinism, Lenin’s own foundational government set the path for it. Leninism was naturally led to Stalinism, and that must be addressed lest it be used to justify, misleadingly, the same once
This investigation analyses the successes and failures of collectivisation in the Soviet Union, specifically looking at the impact it had on the peasants of Russia and whether it aided in satisfying the Soviet Union’s economic needs. In order to assess the extent to which collectivisation was a success, this investigation examines and evaluates the first few years of collectivisation, assessing collectivisation’s impact on the economy of the Soviet Union and the people, as a stronger economy would greatly improve the livelihood of the masses. Ultimately this investigation assesses the wisdom of Stalin’s decision to partake in collectivisation. This analysis does not assess Stalin’s abilities as a leader, the
In Russia societies are split into Stalinists and anti-Stalinists. But is outdated now. According to sociologists the majority of Russians represented in 60 percent , have two apparent mismatching images of Stalin: a cruel dictator who killed or caused the death of millions of people and a wise statesman who led the Soviet Union to prosperity and richness. The perception
Stalinism or Stalinization refers to the influence that Stalin had over the Russian people and economy. It spread through the power of a special secret police and several intelligence agencies. Stalin generated intelligence networks across Europe, to further communist political propaganda and support communist actions. He believed in and imposed violence to integrate public activities. Propaganda was one of the key aspects to the success of Stalin’s regime, as the people of Russia accepted Stalin as their leader. It was so cleverly exposed, that any picture of Stalin made him look to the best of his ability, and always portrayed him in a good light with the use of airbrush techniques that were very modern for the industry of Russia at that time. The public was never fully aware of a situation taking place in Russia, as Stalin had control over the media. The people only were informed on what Stalin and the Communist part wanted them to hear, making it very easy to convince them what the best thing for the country was. He generated a cult of personality around Lenin and himself. Towns and villages were renamed after him, institutions were set up in his honor, grandiloquent titles were adopted and an attempt was made to rewrite Soviet history, pinpointing Stalin as the hero of the Russian Revolution. Stalin even included his name in the Soviet national anthem. Stalinization of Russia made the leader the focus of
Stalin’s rule lasted almost thirty years, from the middle of the 1920’s until his death in 1953. His rule deeply transformed the USSR and destalinization is still not fully achieved today. While Stalinism and Nazism are often compared because they were the two totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, the Stalinist regime lasted for decades while Nazism collapsed after 12 years, thus raising several questions concerning the particular nature of the Stalinist Society. What were the key features of Stalinism, thus differentiating Stalin’s policy from Lenin’s and Marx’s theory? Was Stalinism a logical outcome of the Marxist theory or a betrayal of communism? In this perspective, one must analyze Stalin’s key policies, collectivization,
Why does Trotsky legitimize the Stalinist regime as being linked to the Bolsheviks? Trotsky’s assessment of the of the Stalinist phenomenon certainly seems unexpected considering that any link between the two systems would certainly seem to undermine Trotsky’s creditably as the appropriate successor of Lenin.
This investigation seeks to evaluate the extend of the success of Stalin’s collectivization in Russia during 1928 and 1940.Collectivization was one of the most important economic policies introduced in Russia because it can be described and evaluated from different angles, economic growth on the one hand,and the social cost of the policy,on the other. The main body of this investigation outlines Stalin’s aims, when and how the policy was implemented and whether it was a successful policy or not. To achieve my aim, I am going to consult a series of sources and later analyse them by doing an overall evaluation. I will use primary and secondary sources. Two of the five sources used in this research, “Dr Kiselev’s
Joseph Stalin and USSR Under the leadership of Josef Stalin, U.R.S.S. has become fast an industrialized state, and having won the Second World War, a super power. In the same time, though, Stalin’s tyranny has brought the ruin of the Russian society. Even before the death of the Soviet ruler Lenin, the leaders of the Communist Party have begun the fight for succession. Controlling the party meant in fact holding control of the whole country – the first socialist country, giant but extremely uninvolved.
Stalinism has been used to describe a variety of political ideologies and social methods, but often is associated with dictatorial or totalitarian control of the state by a leader, or a small leadership group. Through a totalitarian approach Stalin controlled all aspects of life in Russia. He controlled the output of artists, musicians, and ideas in general, collectivized the economy so it was state controlled, created a persona of himself and used the Great Terror as a way to ensure he would have no opposition. This is how Stalin remodeled the Soviet State successfully into a stronger nation, in his eyes, where the stats influenced all aspects of the economy, society and politics. He issued five year plans and created the Great Break, which abandoned the NEP and started the collectivization and industrialization. He also incorporated command economy which is a pillar for Stalinism. Stalin controlled the economy and politics, which intertwined closely, with an iron fist using the totalitarian and dictatorial ideology, but he was able to succeed with his control of power by world events, timing, and power. The task of this paper is to explain why Stalinism was so successful and why it lasted as long as it did.
Following the death of Lenin in January 1924, Joseph Stalin emerged as the vital dictator of Russia in February; he ruled the Soviet Union like a personal fiefdom. He aimed to transform the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) from a backwards agriculture society into a great industrial totalitarian nation, which he believed was essential if Russia was to survive in a world of powerful and hostile capitalist states (Todd Allan 2001). Stalin claimed that
Vladimir Lenin was a Marxian idealist who devoted the majority of his adult life to bringing about a Socialist state in Russia. His years committed to the cause would culminate in the October Revolution of 1917, during which the Lenin-led Bolshevik party would seize upon a weakened political regime and institute themselves as the ruling authority of Russia. With Lenin leading the Bolshevik party, eager to usher in the doctrine he had faithfully subscribed to and expounded upon for decades, his dream of a Russian Socialist state was now a humbling yet exciting reality. How, then, did such a Marxian purist fall well short of the utopian vision promised by his political ideology? Lenin’s inability to successfully implement the policies which would bring about the ever-elusive socialist utopia can be directly attributed to a variety of factors stemming from three root causes. The first, and most damning, predictor of imminent failure was that, though Russia was ripe for revolution at the time of the Bolshevik takeover, the economy of Russia was not yet ripe for the implementation of Socialist ideals and practices. The second and third root causes of Lenin’s ultimate failure are byproducts of the issues that arose from the initial root cause just stated. Due to the impracticality of full-scale implementation of Socialist policies in Russia at the time, Lenin made the reprehensible, though practical, choice to utilize dictatorial tactics of repression and force, often by way of
Collectivisation is debatably Stalin’s most important policy and the pinnacle of Communism. Causing drastic changes for the Russian people, it could be argued that collectivisation was very significant in Russia up to 1940. It was a successful tool used to reaffirm Stalin’s power and spread Socialism; it fueled industrialism, turning Russia into a global superpower once more; but most tragically, could be named the greatest agricultural and social disaster ever experienced in Russia. However others may argue that collectivisation was extraneous: industrialisation was the main cause of Russia’s rising power; production did not increase; and it was the Great Purges and shows trials that