M_Rawlins
11th June 2004, 16:50
An essay which I wrote recently, as practice for my A-Level exams, any opinions would be helpful.
How far was Lenin responsible for the dictatorship of Stalin?
Stalin’s rule pf the Soviet Union has been condemned since his death, as Russian historians have sought to separate his crimes from the potential of communism. The purges, executions, and deaths from starvation and economic terror have given Stalin a reputation as a man singularly responsible for much of the misery experienced in the USSR since the 1920’s. The extent to which he acted as a clone of Lenin, or as a contrast is a point which has been debated since his death in 1953.
Stalinist history, written under the reign of Stalin, sough to link Lenin and Stalin together as master and protégé. Stalin was shown as the true follower of Lenin. Pictures were doctored to show Stalin next to Lenin, or to remove Lenin’s comrades from the picture. To this end, justifications that Lenin used in order to explain the economic dictatorship of War Communism or the need to destroy opposition parties until 1921 could simply be continued to legitimise the policies of collectivisation and the purges. Stalin was quick to create a personality cult around Lenin, and by worshipping him (and showing others to be hostile to Lenin), he would be shown as his successor. However this view is exclusive to Stalinist historians. Under the revisionist periods of Khrushchev, (who described Stalin as a “barbarian” and explained at the 20th party conference that Lenin had given the people of the Soviet Union rights, whilst Stalin had taken them away.), and Glasnost, Lenin’s reputation was cleansed by continuing his hagiography, whilst Stalin was criticised. In the period of Glasnost, it was recognised that Lenin was responsible for terror, although it only occurred as a counter revolutionary necessity, and that it took place under the leadership of Dzerzhinsky. However, Stalin’s terror, they argued was far more personal and obsessive.
Traditional western historians were happier to see the connections between Lenin and his successor, although not in the same light as the Stalinists. Based on the writings of exiles like Gorky and Kerensky, liberal historians during the cold war were able to show that Lenin and Stalin personified the natural dictatorship of Communism. Shapiro highlighted that the so-called victory of the revolution was one of the party rather than of the soviets. He goes on to say that Lenin was more interested in preserving his personal rule rather than sticking to doctrine, a view that can be equally attributed to Stalin. This is a typical view of the west in the 60’s. The anti-communist west sought to show the reality of communism, as a precursor to dictatorship, their evidence contained in the actions of Lenin and Stalin. Whilst Pipes described Lenin as a “psychopath” and Stalin as “occupying the place of the Tsar God.” Lenin established the Cheka as an instrument of terror, which was exemplified by the brutality of the civil war, including the execution of the royal family. From the beginning, Lenin accepted and encouraged the use of terror, and so Stalin’s purges and executions of his own people can be seen as a continuation of this policy. The dominance of the party began as early as 1903, when Lenin attempted to remove those who opposed his interpretation of Marxism. Also the structure of the party can be attributed as a fault of Lenin. His plan for party structure, as conceived in “What Is To Be Done?” was criticised by fellow communists as “Bureaucratically Centralist”, that the Central Committee would have unrestrained control. In addition to this, Lenin’s ban on factionalism in 1921 was used to Stalin’s advantage in his rise to power, and that Lenin’s dominance over the party was mirrored in style by Stalin. Even Service, a revisionist apologist of Lenin remarked that he “tugged Marxism around to the type of revolution he desired.” When the elections to the Constituent Assembly led to an SR victory, Lenin ordered its closure and threatened dissenters with death, and in the show trials in 1921 which led to the execution of leading SR’s and Mensheviks were justified as anti-counter revolutionary, this was the exact justification Stalin used for the show trials of the Bolsheviks.
Since the collapse of the USSR, and the increased availability of sources about Lenin, both western and Russian historians have attempted to reach a more informed analysis of the two leaders. Service sees Lenin as a brilliant leader, who truly wanted a socialist state which would result in Communism, but he was limited by the conditions in Russia. Service believes that he did wish for the state to wither away after the period of “State Capitalism” introduced by the NEP. Structuralist historians see the gap between what Lenin wanted and what the structure of Russia and the party would allow. Lenin can be forgiven for his failings, allowing the revolution to go wrong, his testament is evidence that he did not want Lenin to lead, but instead wanted an increase to democracy in the party. This shows the difference between Lenin and Stalin, Lenin seemed to have wanted terror and dictatorship to diminish whilst Stalin did everything he could to increase it.
Overall, Lenin could be blamed for allowing the revolution towards the path of Stalin, as he created a state dominated by one party rule and terror. However western historians who are critical of Lenin, ignore the amount of writing Lenin published which explained the need for terror to be followed by a withering of the state. Similarly soviets views deify him to the extent that he was faultless. In reality, Lenin did make mistakes, but he did have an ideology that he wanted fulfilled. Stalin on the other hand seemed to do nothing to allow the state to wither, and his obsessive purges reflect a man out to preserve his own power. As Service reflects, without Lenin there could have been no Stalin, but Lenin and Stalin were not the same.
How far was Lenin responsible for the dictatorship of Stalin?
Stalin’s rule pf the Soviet Union has been condemned since his death, as Russian historians have sought to separate his crimes from the potential of communism. The purges, executions, and deaths from starvation and economic terror have given Stalin a reputation as a man singularly responsible for much of the misery experienced in the USSR since the 1920’s. The extent to which he acted as a clone of Lenin, or as a contrast is a point which has been debated since his death in 1953.
Stalinist history, written under the reign of Stalin, sough to link Lenin and Stalin together as master and protégé. Stalin was shown as the true follower of Lenin. Pictures were doctored to show Stalin next to Lenin, or to remove Lenin’s comrades from the picture. To this end, justifications that Lenin used in order to explain the economic dictatorship of War Communism or the need to destroy opposition parties until 1921 could simply be continued to legitimise the policies of collectivisation and the purges. Stalin was quick to create a personality cult around Lenin, and by worshipping him (and showing others to be hostile to Lenin), he would be shown as his successor. However this view is exclusive to Stalinist historians. Under the revisionist periods of Khrushchev, (who described Stalin as a “barbarian” and explained at the 20th party conference that Lenin had given the people of the Soviet Union rights, whilst Stalin had taken them away.), and Glasnost, Lenin’s reputation was cleansed by continuing his hagiography, whilst Stalin was criticised. In the period of Glasnost, it was recognised that Lenin was responsible for terror, although it only occurred as a counter revolutionary necessity, and that it took place under the leadership of Dzerzhinsky. However, Stalin’s terror, they argued was far more personal and obsessive.
Traditional western historians were happier to see the connections between Lenin and his successor, although not in the same light as the Stalinists. Based on the writings of exiles like Gorky and Kerensky, liberal historians during the cold war were able to show that Lenin and Stalin personified the natural dictatorship of Communism. Shapiro highlighted that the so-called victory of the revolution was one of the party rather than of the soviets. He goes on to say that Lenin was more interested in preserving his personal rule rather than sticking to doctrine, a view that can be equally attributed to Stalin. This is a typical view of the west in the 60’s. The anti-communist west sought to show the reality of communism, as a precursor to dictatorship, their evidence contained in the actions of Lenin and Stalin. Whilst Pipes described Lenin as a “psychopath” and Stalin as “occupying the place of the Tsar God.” Lenin established the Cheka as an instrument of terror, which was exemplified by the brutality of the civil war, including the execution of the royal family. From the beginning, Lenin accepted and encouraged the use of terror, and so Stalin’s purges and executions of his own people can be seen as a continuation of this policy. The dominance of the party began as early as 1903, when Lenin attempted to remove those who opposed his interpretation of Marxism. Also the structure of the party can be attributed as a fault of Lenin. His plan for party structure, as conceived in “What Is To Be Done?” was criticised by fellow communists as “Bureaucratically Centralist”, that the Central Committee would have unrestrained control. In addition to this, Lenin’s ban on factionalism in 1921 was used to Stalin’s advantage in his rise to power, and that Lenin’s dominance over the party was mirrored in style by Stalin. Even Service, a revisionist apologist of Lenin remarked that he “tugged Marxism around to the type of revolution he desired.” When the elections to the Constituent Assembly led to an SR victory, Lenin ordered its closure and threatened dissenters with death, and in the show trials in 1921 which led to the execution of leading SR’s and Mensheviks were justified as anti-counter revolutionary, this was the exact justification Stalin used for the show trials of the Bolsheviks.
Since the collapse of the USSR, and the increased availability of sources about Lenin, both western and Russian historians have attempted to reach a more informed analysis of the two leaders. Service sees Lenin as a brilliant leader, who truly wanted a socialist state which would result in Communism, but he was limited by the conditions in Russia. Service believes that he did wish for the state to wither away after the period of “State Capitalism” introduced by the NEP. Structuralist historians see the gap between what Lenin wanted and what the structure of Russia and the party would allow. Lenin can be forgiven for his failings, allowing the revolution to go wrong, his testament is evidence that he did not want Lenin to lead, but instead wanted an increase to democracy in the party. This shows the difference between Lenin and Stalin, Lenin seemed to have wanted terror and dictatorship to diminish whilst Stalin did everything he could to increase it.
Overall, Lenin could be blamed for allowing the revolution towards the path of Stalin, as he created a state dominated by one party rule and terror. However western historians who are critical of Lenin, ignore the amount of writing Lenin published which explained the need for terror to be followed by a withering of the state. Similarly soviets views deify him to the extent that he was faultless. In reality, Lenin did make mistakes, but he did have an ideology that he wanted fulfilled. Stalin on the other hand seemed to do nothing to allow the state to wither, and his obsessive purges reflect a man out to preserve his own power. As Service reflects, without Lenin there could have been no Stalin, but Lenin and Stalin were not the same.