Putin In 1984

Throughout its long history, Russia has been trapped in a continuous cycle of authoritarian regimes; only interrupted briefly with periods of tumultuous democratic transitions that were plagued by poor bureaucracy and weak institutions. Therefore, time and time again, Russia has turned towards authoritarianism. In the late 1900’s to early 2000’s, Russia again saw the fall of democracy coincide with the rise of a competitive authoritarian regime. This rise of competitive authoritarianism in Russia in the late 1900’s to early 2000’s was largely the result of the resource curse which granted Putin’s Administration false economic performance legitimacy. This in turn reinvigorated past strongman ideals, while at the same time solidified negative

As much as we citizens want to deny it, government corruption exists everywhere, whether it be a small group of greedy politicians or the system entirely. Is it shouted at the top of the mountains? Of course not, because it defeats the whole purpose of being corrupt, which is to quietly sweep away one’s imperfections and present themselves as honourable people. An appalling level of corruption and political power is described in the book 1984 written by George Orwell. Ingsoc, a political party, runs a totalitarian society, and with no resistance from their citizens, the government deceives them by changing the past and announcing fake news. Ultimately, they limit the thoughts and emotions of their citizens. Although 1984 tells a fictional

Joseph Stalin used his intellect, and power, to outmanoeuvre his rivals to become leader of the Soviet Union. Using carefully planned propaganda including, painting, statues, and a series of cultivated posters Stalin immortalised and glorified his leadership. These state-manufactured images created a ‘cult of personality' around him, subsequently, creating an image of a heroic worshipped figure, who was associated with every aspect of soviet society. Stalin controlled the media and according to the historian Moshe Lewin, Stalin single handily, ‘become the system,’ (Lewin in Pittaway, 2008, p.137.)

Soso Djugashvili, more commonly known as Joseph Stalin, ‘man of steel’, dictator of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) Russia, can be considered a ‘Red Tsar’ to an extent when features of Stalinism are compared to those of Tsarism and Russia ruled by Nicholas II’s autocratic regime from 1894 to 1917. A ‘Red Tsar’ is a communist leader whom follows similar principles followed under the leadership of a Tsar, that were influenced by few opinions allowing sole leadership and little opposition from others. Stalin can be considered a ‘Red Tsar’ to an extent as he ruled Communist Russia as a somewhat totalitarian state and was considered a ‘God-like’ figure sent to Earth to lead the nation and its people. From Stalin’s reign of terror from 1929 to 1953 there can be similarities seen in his regime to features of Tsarism as well as differences, this is why there are alternative interpretations for Stalin being considered a ‘Red Tsar’.

It is true that Stalin’s rule positively affected Russia, after all, the Soviet Union did become a major military superpower under his government, and the economy also thrived. However, to fulfill these achievements Stalin acted as a harsh and cruel dictator. He ruthlessly killed people who opposed his form of government in his Great Purges. And his execution countless kulaks cannot be forgiven. Instead of protecting

A shocking number of 40 million people were executed during Joseph Stalin’s reign of Soviet Russia between the years 1924 to 1953. Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, plays an important role in George Orwell’s novel 1984. Orwell’s novel depicts a totalitarian government that controls the lives of the people in Oceania by supplying false propaganda and monitoring their everyday life. As a matter of fact, Orwell writes his novel based on the events that occurred in Soviet Russia during the reign of Joseph Stalin. The author includes similar aspects to that of Soviet Russia in his novel to warn his audience the dangers of a totalitarian state. George Orwell’s dystopian society illustrates the negative effects that a totalitarian government

Following the timeline of Josef Stalin’s ruling as a leader of Soviet Russia, it can be seen that his positive accomplishments brought Russia from a period of

Stalin used the media in order to convince the Russian citizens that there were saboteurs and spies within Russian population. Stalin used the secret police and military forces to carry out the arrests of so called

In the book The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin, author Adam Hochschild entered Russia an interviewed people who had survived Stalinism. What he found was that despite the fact that Stalin has been dead for decades, he still lives as a tangible presence within the country. His memory functions as a reminder to all those who dare to criticize President Putin or other members of the current government about how bad things could be and this fear pushes them into

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.

Thus, the “Cult of Personality” was flourishing. Propaganda glorifying Stalin and Soviet ideals brainwashed the minds of Russian people. Stalin successfully impressed his socialist philosophies on millions of workers and peasants. Over time, socialism transformed into Stalinism, and it took hold. Stalin was able to hypnotize people towards one belief, the love of Stalin. When they saw Stalin being portrayed heroically everyday in the news or on posters, they began to idolize him. Stalin is like Big Brother; he was the main focus and had total power over the people and their actions.

It is undeniable that Stalin had a profound impact on the Soviet Union following Lenin’s death. His rise to power within the Soviet Union has provided historians with a hotbed of political intrigue for many years. He was an opportunist, coming to dominance by manipulating party politics and influential figures in the politburo to eliminate his opposition by recognising and exploiting their weaknesses thus becoming the dominant leader of the Soviet Union. He was severely underestimated by other members of the Politburo about his potential within the party, leading to missed opportunities to ally and stand against him- a mistake that Stalin never made. He gained support from the public by exploiting the idea of ‘the Cult of Lenin’ in 1924 at Lenin’s funeral, and then adopting this concept for himself, thereby likening himself to Lenin; and, more importantly, gained support from other party members by following the wishes of Lenin, for example, initially supporting the continuation of the NEP and supporting the idea of factionalism. This essay will also argue that he was ideologically flexible as he was able to change his ideas for the party according to who he needed as an ally, in order to achieve dominant status in the party. He sought out which individual was the biggest threat, and eliminated them before they could stand against him.

1984 and USSR 1984 is a book by author George Orwell written in 1948 that makes a bold prediction about what is to happen to the world in 1984. Orwell predicted a dystopian society where a figure of power controls everything in the society and demands absolute obedience from the citizens. Fortunately, this totalitarian government didn’t become a reality for the entire world, and most places remained as a democratic society. However, for the people living in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), this type of society became a reality and there were glaring similarities between society in the USSR and the world in 1984.

In Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?, Karen Dawisha relates Russian President Vladmir Putin’s rise to power. She overarchingly claims that Putin is an authoritarian leader who has obstructed and even reverted Russia’s path of democratization, citing, amongst many factors that enabled his ascension, his “interlocking web of personal connections in which he was the linchpin” (100), money-laundering to tax havens and personal projects, and the complicity of the West. With copious research, journalistic interviews, legal documents, and even sporadic informational diagrams, it is evident why her book is so popular amongst scholars and history enthusiasts. Unfortunately however, in spite of the grand yet oftentimes substantiated claims she generates, a more subtle yet noteworthy assumption is made: that the state is a protector, as Olson proffered. She employs this theoretical underpinning from the beginning, though is not representative of Putin’s actual authoritarian regime.

Joseph Stalin’s three decade long dictatorship rule that ended in 1953, left a lasting, yet damaging imprint on the Soviet Union in political, economic and social terms. “Under his inspiration Russia has modernised her society and educated her masses…Stalin found Russia working with a wooden plough and left her equipped with nuclear power” (Jamieson, 1971). Although his policies of collectivisation and industrialisation placed the nation as a leading superpower on the global stage and significantly ahead of its economic position during the Romanov rule, this was not without huge sacrifices. Devastating living and working standards for the proletariat, widespread famine, the Purges, and labour camps had crippling impacts on Russia’s social