Mr

Did Stalinism have its roots in Leninism?

The pervasive influence of communism upon the world was felt heavily during the 20th century. This movement initiated by philosopher Karl Marx was later developed by revolutionary leaders in the form of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin. Debate still ranges as to whether there was a historical continuity between the two leaders and their policies. The interpretations of weather Leninism led to Stalinism fall into two distinct categories. The first falls under the right conservative opinion which is shared by Richard Pipes who accounts for continuity and argues both leaders were pragmatic but proposed radical policies. There are a number of similarities which lie within their domestic policies that could be used to characterise both Lenin and Stalin as radicals and claim continuity. First, Lenin who used “War Communism” as a means to demolish the capitalist economic system and build communism and second, Stalin who introduced the catastrophic collectivisation and five year plans in an attempt to speed up industrialisation which had a devastating social impact and led to famine. In contrast to this view a second interpretation in provided by left socialist supporters namely Robert Tucker who argues for discontinuity from Lenin to Stalin as Stalin heavily promoted the idea of nationalism which was opposed by Lenin who followed Marx closely, had a disregard for the bourgeoisie and was against the idea of nationalism as it characterised the capitalist era. Furthermore, Stephen Cohen argues that Stalin was more radical and less sympathetic than Lenin and Stalin’s more intensive radical behaviour is shown through his extensive use to terror. Stalin used terror to gain greater personal power, and used terror not only to kill his adversaries, but also members of his own party. This heavy use of terror internally and externally would have been heavily opposed by Lenin. Additionally, discontinuity is also apparent through their contrasting personalities. Stalin used heavy propaganda to promote himself for a stronger personal position; this is evident through his “cult of personality” which made Stalin the centre of a mass worship. This would have been opposed by Lenin who wished to embed socialism within the USSR and Stalin’s “cult of personality” showed Stalin higher than the party and the classes. This not only went against the ideals of socialism but created factions within the party which Lenin opposed. In order to devise a decisive conclusion as to whether Stalinism had its roots in Leninism it is imperative to understand whether the radical domestic policies used by both Lenin and Stalin is evidence enough to suggest continuity between the two leaders.

There is evidence which suggests continuity from Lenin to Stalin in the form of their radical domestic policies used during their years in power. Lenin’s policy known as “War Communism” was introduced as a means to provide the Bolsheviks with adequate rations to tackle the escalating Civil War within the USSR. It was an emergency measure put in place to uphold the socialist doctrine. “War Communism” nationalised production, requisitioned grain, attempted to control the lives of millions of peasants and ultimately attempted to demolish currency as a means of exchange within the USSR. The reason why “War Communism” is judged so harshly in history is due to the catastrophic failure of the policy. It led to the economy of the USSR being weaker than it had been pre 1914 and requisitioning of grain meant that over thirty percent of northern USSR suffered famine. Additionally foreign allies of the USSR blockaded and refused to trade with the Bolsheviks leading ceasing of foreign exchange. “War Communism” was a domestic and foreign failure and has been repeatedly compared to Stalin’s collective farming policy which had similar disastrous results. Collectivisation was introduced by Joseph Stalin in what he called the “Era of Industrialisation”. Collectivisation combined land and labour into collected farms and compensated labour not through wages but a net produce from the output of these farms. It was a means to boost the process of industrialisation within ten years, by requisitioning grain from the peasants to feed industrial workers, ultimately destroying a farming economy creating an industrial base. Collectivisation caused both social and economic failures which remained apparent until the end of Stalin’s reign. Economically there was a decline in crops and livestock which led to famine, resultant of oppressed peasants who burnt their crops and killed their livestock in objection to the harshness of Stalin’s policy. Socially collectivisation caused problems between peasants and industrial workers separating them into social classes. The catastrophes of Lenin’s “War Communism” and Stalin’s collectivisation have led to historians and scholars claiming continuity from Lenin to Stalin.

Although many conservative historians have been able to provide a reasonable analysis claiming some continuity from Lenin to Stalin through their shared radical policies, a second opinion is provided by Cohen who argues although Lenin’s “War Communism” was harsh and resulted in social unrest and famine, Lenin and the Bolsheviks intended to build socialism with no economic agenda from the outset. Stalin’s collectivisation was set as a means to fuel the capitalist train through industrialisation and furthermore it created classes between the peasants and industrial workers which ran counter to the socialist beliefs. Additionally “War Communism” was a response to an emergency situation where the Bolsheviks were fighting to imbed socialism within the state. Stalin faced no such problem. Stalin’s collectivisation was set as a means to accomplish his economic goal of achieving industrialisation at any cost, whilst neither Lenin nor any Bolshevik could predict the horrors of “War Communism”. Thus the Lenin’s “War Communism” and Stalin’s radical policies show no continuity.

Whilst effectively denouncing continuity from Lenin to Stalin within their economic and domestic policies discontinuity is also apparent when analysing their views on nationalism. The idea of nationalism was carried out heavily under Stalin and this is comprehendible when analysing his speech “impromptu” on the 8th of November which shows Stalin attempting to create a complete Russian nation.