Stalin's Rise To Power

Joseph Stalin was a callous dictator who governed the Soviet Union for nearly thirty years. He rose to power as the General Secretary of the Communist Party and became the dictator of Russia after Vladimir Lenin’s death in 1924. Stalin was known for his Marxist-Leninist ideology, but his policies soon became known as Stalinism. He rose through the ranks and became one of the most powerful leaders and communist revolutionaries that Russia had ever seen. A few of Stalin’s policies did in fact benefit the social, political and economic prosperity of the country, but overall, his leadership was detrimental to the Soviet Union and its people.

Joseph Stalin was the most controversial person in Russia who has come into power. This has come from his 5 year plan that he has assembled when Russia was in shambles, due to the civil war, the economy failing, and no industrial equipment. His job now was to restore Russia and make it into an industrial powerhouse.

"I believe in one thing only, the power of human will" said Stalin once. He certainly did have cause to believe in the power of a human's will as he experienced it in himself firsthand, having had extraordinary willpower and perseverance (He didn't call himself "Man of Steel" for nothing, folks), rising up from the lowly station of alcoholic's son in Georgia to one of the biggest monsters in human history, supposedly killing more than Hitler. Exactly how did he do this? Why? And how did his corruption reach such extents as to do all this for power?

How does a leader gain and maintain the love of his people when he is killing them in mass numbers? Joseph Stalin was successful in this by following the political tactic of using fear to gain love. A tactic that was highly valued by Nicolo Machiavelli in his work The Prince. “In Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, the main character, and Old Bolshevik, Nikolaiz Rubashov, declares that “Number one” (Stalin) kept Machiavelli’s The Prince as his favorite night-table book” (Tisemanean). Stalin’s strategy of leadership can be closely compared to the strategies that Machiavelli describes in The Prince. A work that received much controversy over the lessons it preached to political leaders. It coined the phrase “the end justify the means” which follows as a consequence of considering vice a virtue. Stalin used many vices to gain and maintain his state till the day he died. Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn work, The First Circle, showcased how even on death’s door Stalin still used traits treasured in a Machiavellian prince. This paper will assess how Stalin follows Machiavelli’s guidelines for a prince in the areas of war, fear, crime, and in dealing with the people.

Between 1924 and 1945, Joseph Stalin was able to emerge as the leader of the USSR and maintain what Kruchev described as “the accumulation of immense and limitless power”. Stalin's rise to power was a combination of his ability to manipulate situations and the failure of others to prevent him from taking power, especially Leon Trotsky. Stalin ruled the USSR from 1929 until his death in 1953. His rule was one of tyranny, a great change from the society that his predecessor, Lenin, had envisioned. During his time of reign, Stalin put into effect two self-proclaimed "five-year

Joseph Stalin, from the time that he was a low level revolutionary to the years that he spent as the dictator of the Soviet Union, always knew what he needed to do to achieve his goals. His organized rise to power allowed him to gain a steady flow of followers who would support him for decades to come. Stalin received a minor government position in 1917, but by the time a new leader was needed in 1924, he “had turned the largely routine post of Party general secretary into the most powerful office in the Soviet Union” (“Joseph Stalin) and “had built a personal empire for himself through his control over committee appointments at all levels . . . expand[ing] the leading Party organs with his supporters, who then voted against his rivals”

Almost everyone knows what a monster Adolf Hitler was, but most people do not know that one of the great ally leader of World War II, Joseph Stalin, had committed even greater atrocities than Hitler. Joseph Stalin was a ruthless and yet diligent dictator of the Soviet Union, whose rise to power influenced a multitude of major events in his country’s history. Due to Stalin’s impactful reign, he made the Soviet Union become a global superpower, underwent difficult hardships such as the Great Famine in the Soviet Union, and after his death, caused the Soviet Union to go through a process known as de-Stalinization.

Joseph Stalin greatly influenced Russia in the years 1924 through 1932. His rise to this power can be explained by the Russian Revolutionary experience that allowed him to gain authority in Russia. Although historians often refer to Stalin as a ruthless, mindless dictator, he redirected the Russian Revolution to major economic development. Stalin’s character in Russia during the Revolution catalyzed the many events that took place during the time period. Because of Stalin’s ability to both appeal to the masses, and take advantage of events, like Lenin’s death, Stalin was able to rise to power. Essentially, the Russian Revolution fostered the development of Stalin’s dictatorship leading the country into a state of economic growth and influence. The Revolution fostered Stalin’s ability to maintain a central leadership, use violence to gain control, and regenerate a previously disconnected economy.

Plato’s account of a tyrant is close to that of the “great” Soviet Leader, Joseph Stalin. In Book IX of the Republic, Glaucon notes that under a tyrannic rule, a city or state will be tragic and depressing; additionally, it is also stated that city will always experience more freedom and content under a king. (Bloom, 257). This account is a key factor in comparing Stalin with the Republic, as Stalin’s ambitions were similar with Plato’s descriptions. Using other descriptions from Plato’s Republic, it clear that Joseph Stalin fits Plato’s account of a tyrant. The Soviet regime under Joseph Stalin suffered greatly and the tyrant rule of Stalin was oppressive, restrictive, and produced great amounts of casualties. We are comparing how Plato’s account for a tyrant is accurate of the results of Joseph Stalin; that a city will experience freedom with kingship, as well as darkness and scrutiny under a tyranny.

In 1917, Tsar Nicholas ll is the current ruler of Russia. Russia’s economic growth is increased by the czar’s reforms of the production of more factories. Since, Russia desperately needed to keep up with the rest of Europe’s industry. This reform worked out perfectly, but the working conditions of these factories didn’t please factory workers. After the events of the Russo-Japenese War, “Bloody Sunday”, and WW1, all of Russia was in utter chaos under the czar’s ghastly leadership. With no signs of the czar’s attempt to solve the problems that kept coming up, all of Russia banded together and filled the streets with strikes and riots. A revolution was peaking among the peasants. The uprising brought Nicholas ll no choice but to abdicate

Life for citizens under Stalin’s rule was ruthless. Stalin’s policies and ideas proved that he probably was not a competent leader, which is why he resorted to full-blown communism or “Stalinsm.” Freedom was an idea dangled in front of citizens, but never was a real option. Stalin relied on fear and empty promises. Life under Stalin is interpreted different for everyone due to status and the classes they were divided into, but it was all about censoring them. Multiple sources support that life under Stalin’s rule was not the idea life style and the people did not always agree with Stalin himself, unless they benefited from his rule, but that is debatable as well.

From the 1920's onwards, Stalin set the stage for gaining absolute power, through a number of campaigns of repression against groups which opposed the Communist Party and Stalin himself. The use of terror became a central part to Stalin's rule during the 1930's with the launching of The Great Purges against opposition to Stalin. It can be seen that Stalin did effectively remove opposition to the exercise of his personal power until 1941 when Germany invaded Russia. The term 'purge' in Soviet political slang was an abbreviation of the expression 'purge of the party ranks.'

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.

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were two of the most disturbing and deadliest national leaders of their time. Although they were both born of unpretentious backgrounds, their interest was in radical political movements. Because it was during the most vulnerable time of WW1 and WW2, their rise to power was nearly effortless. Though they were formidable opponents, there was much that Stalin(leader of a Soviet Union) and Hitler(leader of the Nazi’s) had in common. As revolutionaries in the 1900’s, Europe's history has been affected due to their dreadful powers. Both promised modernism and progress in the average daily life of a countryman, but they were more troublesome with embellishing and broadening their power than to help an enormous dollop of unease people in their economy. Where Hitler's

Stalin has always been underestimated by many important bolsheviks because he was not well educated. Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev all saw themselves as the better choice to be Lenin’s successor but, they weren’t as popular as they believed and, Stalin was very popular with the ordinary Party