How were Stalin and Lenin alike?

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.