An essay I wrote for History class -
After Lenin’s death in 1924, Stalin rose to power and
corrupted the plans, vision and goals Lenin had worked toward during and after
the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Stalin
deified Lenin and himself, creating a ‘religion’ or cult of personality around
his rule. He changed the goal from
international communism and social revolution to a single socialist
country. He changed the government from
government by the workers to a dictatorial system ruled by him. He twisted and used the principles and powers
created by Lenin to enrich himself and protect his power.
Stalin was originally a ‘hanger on’, flirting around the
edges of the Bolshevik party and revolution of 1917. He came to greater power as Lenin rose to
power with Trotsky. Lenin had grand
visions and ideals for implementing world socialism and eventual communism
along the lines of Marx and Hegel.
However, the reality of governing the divisive Russian people led Lenin
to realize that more autocratic means were required to implement his
vision. He put in place things like the
secret police and government structures that were used by Stalin. Lenin died in 1924, possibly from stroke, possibly
from poisoning by Stalin. After his
death, Stalin rose to power against Lenin’s wishes as documented in his ‘Letter
to the Congress’ of 1922 (MacKenzie, p140).
Many views exist concerning the relationship between Lenin
and Stalin, and the continuity of their leadership. The official and contemporary Soviet view was
that Stalin was the direct descendant of Lenin’s power. An interesting point, though, is the official
party history refers to the original Bolsheviks as the “dregs of humanity”
(MacKenze, p144). This begs the question
how Stalin could be the true inheritor of the movement, if the original
creators of the movement were considered enemies. Dissident historians of the period, including
Roy Medvedev, call Stalin’s rule an “unlimited dictatorship”, and a “tyrant […]
cold bloodedly destroying millions of people” (ibid., p145). Medvedev referrers to Stalin’s rule as a cult
of personality. A Russian exile,
Alexander Solzhenitsyn considers Lenin, Stalin and the whole concept of the
Soviet system a repressive, totalitarian system that was never well suited to
the Russian people (ibid., p147).
How were Stalin and Lenin alike? They were both powerful men, both capable of
mastering internal Party intrigue, ruthless cruelty and hostility toward the
Western world (MacKenzie, p147). How
were such similar people capable of creating such a diversity of opinion? American specialist in Russian affairs,
George F. Kennan points out some critical differences. Lenin ruled autocratically to meet the needs
of the Bolshevik movement. He had the
confidence to seek the best ends for his party.
Lenin also wrote most of the theories of the new Communist party,
allowing him to speak from a position of authority (ibid.) Stalin had a much
ruder upbringing, and combined with his minimal role in early Bolshevik actions
led to a sense of inferiority. This
inferiority caused Stalin constant concern for the loyalty and respect of his
colleagues. Stalin was also paranoid and
power hungry. This created an atmosphere
of fear and divisiveness under Stalin that was not present in Lenin’s rule (ibid.,
p148). Under Lenin, the government and
foreign policy were of a movement, under Stalin the government and foreign
policy were of a single man.
Stalin betrayed the Communist movement, corrupting it and
turning it into a totalitarian system.
He used the principles and tools of Lenin for self aggrandizement and to
counter his deepset feelings of inferiority.
Lenin knew Stalin would be a poor leader and would corrupt his vision. Stalin proved him right. Among the diverse opinions about Lenin and Stalin,
the most compelling one is that Stalin used the institutions created by Lenin
for his own selfish ends. He corrupted
and twisted the vision Lenin left behind.
MacKenzie, D. & Curran, M. (2002). Russia and the USSR in the Twentieth Century (4th
ed.). Belmont:
Wadsworth/Thompson.
