Journalism / Stalin Wasn't A Saint
‘LOOK, EVERYONE MAKES MISTAKES, STALIN WASN’T A SAINT BUT HE WAS A GREAT MAN WHO BUILT UP A STRONG STATE.’
- Lawyer Yuri Yassilyev
Joseph Stalin’s political manoeuvrings saw him emerge as the undisputed leader of the Communist Party in Russia. From there he went on to implement various economic and social measures in an effort to bring about rapid industrialisation and modernisation in Russia. These measures were aimed at safeguarding the revolution as well as ensuring that Russia would be adequately equipped to defend itself in the event of foreign conflict. To an extent, Stalin’s economic policies were beneficial for Russia but they came at a terrible cost. As well as this, the climate of terror that the paranoid Stalin maintained to consolidate his ceaseless quest for power eventuated in the deaths of countless more during what became known as the ‘Great Purge’ in the late 1930s. Yuri Vassilyev’s quote hints at the truth: Stalin did indeed build up a strong state. But at what cost? The negative aspects of the implementation of Stalin’s policies far outweighed the positives and the measures Stalin took to gain as well as maintain power had disastrous ramifications on the wider Russian community.
When Stalin came into power he found himself at the head of a struggling nation. In spite of the NEP, the Revolution appeared to be stalling with industrial output falling lower than that of many smaller countries. Stalin’s response was to launch the first of three Five-Year Plans, which was a change in direction of the economy compared to the revolutionary period’s NEP. The first plan (1928-32) focused on heavy industry and saw Russia achieve a six-fold and four-fold increase in coal and steel production, respectively. The second plan (1933-1937) focused initially on consumer goods before turning to armaments after the rise of Hitler in Germany. The third plan centred on the same but was interrupted by the outbreak of war in 1939. All the plans saw industrial success, the creation of many new, large industrial centres as well as an increase in the number of industrial workers, strengthening the Party’s hold on the nation’s economy. However, there were also numerous negative elements to the plans. The chaotic implementation of the plans bred corruption at higher levels whilst creating a decline in working conditions such as safety regulations and wages, which only served to breed further worker discontent. The introduction of a passport system to prevent workers from leaving their jobs only served to restrict their freedoms and exacerbate their discontent. It must be said however, that Stalin’s policy on industrialisation was one of his greatest, and possibly only, major successes when compared with his other policies and it is here that we see the truth behind Yuri Vassilyev’s statement. Many of Stalin’s other policies fall far short of achieving the success of his Five-Year Plans whilst also having widespread negative ramifications on the Russian people.
Collectivisation was seen as necessary as rapid industrialisation could only occur with an increase in agricultural productivity because, as well as needing food to feed her people, the Soviet Union needed food surpluses to export abroad in order to gain funds to further develop industry. An increase in the use of machinery under the policy of collectivisation would also ensure a development in farming techniques. Despite this, many peasants did not take too kindly to being corralled into collective farms and showed their displeasure by setting fire to their farms and killing their animals. In fact, cattle numbers halved between 1928 and 1933. Peasants were also reluctant to produce large quantities of grain as much of it was seized quite cheaply under the system of state procurements. This can be seen in the fall of grain production by 6.7 million tonnes from 1928 and 1934. But by far the worst outcome of forced collectivisation in the Soviet Union was the effect of the devastating famine of 1932-33. Because of the existing grain shortages in rural areas the famine’s effects were intensified. It is estimated that four million people died as a result of the famine in 1933 alone. Stalin succeeded in obtaining the grain required for industrialisation but in terms of the loss of human life, Stalin’s policy of collectivisation was a resounding failure.
The Five-Year Plans and Stalin’s policy of collectivisation had ideological goals; they were not solely economic measures. Stalinism is often compared with Leninism. Critics of Stalin focus on the differences in an attempt to demonstrate Stalin’s breakaway from the original ideals of the Revolution however it must be said that there were at least some links with the Bolshevik past. The desire to create a ‘classless’ society, essentially the central ideal of communism, is an aim that translated itself into Stalin’s Five-Year Plans as well as into his policy of collectivisation. In addition to fostering industrial growth, these measures were also aimed at removing the capitalist classes from the Russian community: the nepmen and kulaks. Dekulakisation, carried out by the Secret Police, saw the deportation of 5 million kulaks. The prison camp population also increased dramatically from about 30 000 in 1928 to over 2 million by late 1932. It is estimated that the total death count as a result of collectivisation including dekulakisation and the effect of the famine is well over 13 million, which is a catastrophic tragedy at any level. Stalin’s dekulakisation is similar to Lenin’s removal of the old order during the civil war; in this sense, Stalin was merely following a precedent set by Lenin and cannot be totally blamed for his actions. Stalin’s ideas on what constituted a Kulak however, does warrant some criticism. It appears that by the 1930s, the kulaks had virtually disappeared as a class anyhow, with there being very few rich peasants still in existence. Class hatred was stirred up in an effort to create a scapegoat for the mistakes of Stalin’s regime. This atmosphere of terror reduced the Russian peasantry to petty informers; a case of denounce before you yourself are denounced. A peasant, marginally better off than their peers, might be handed in to the Soviet authorities solely for the fact of owning a few more animals or a larger plot of land. Some even used Stalin’s policy of dekulakisation to settle old grudges with their neighbours. There are numerous examples of deviation by Stalin from Lenin’s policies and the severed links with the Bolshevik past: the extent of change as compared to the revolutionary period was quite substantial.
Stalin encouraged the formation of an ‘elite’ group of people, originally of working-class origin who had moved their way up and into managerial positions in the party. This is reminiscent of the formation of the kulaks under Tsarist rule and is one example of Stalin’s deviation from Lenin’s work. Another example was the introduction of various incentives to those who worked the hardest under the Five-Year Plans. Those workers who exceeded the set production targets could become ‘Stakhanovites’, entitling them to better housing, free holidays and cash prizes. Essentially, this was a form of merit-based wages, which ran directly opposite to communist ideas on egalitarianism. Arthur Koestler sums up his experiences on this aspect of Stalin’s rule quite well: ‘There has perhaps never been a society in which a rigid hierarchical order so completely determined every citizen’s station in life and governed all his activities.’ Both these changes under Stalin show the extent of change in post-revolutionary society as compared to that of the revolutionary period whilst also portraying Stalin’s betrayal of the ideals of the original Bolshevik Revolution.
The ways in which Stalin maintained power had disastrous ramifications on the Russian people. One important deviation from Lenin’s work by Stalin is that although Lenin may have established a precedent with his use of terror, it has been since justified because the civil war threatened the very existence of the regime; Stalin however used terror for his own ends. The use of purges was not new to the Communist Party, Lenin held ‘show trials’ of Socialist Revolutionaries as well as zealously targeting the church in the early 1920s, but Stalin took the use of purges to the next level. Following the suspicious death of popular party member Sergei Kirov, Stalin immediately pushed through the ‘Kirov Decrees’. These decrees gave the joint Commissariat of Internal Affairs and Secret Police (NKVD) the powers to hold closed trials and execute political prisoners within a few days. What became known as the ‘Great Purges’ (1934-38) resulted in millions of Russians, who were perceived as political threats, sent to labour camps or executed. By the end of the purges of the party, it has been estimated that over one fifth of the members had been expelled or shot. Although this reaffirmed Stalin’s position, it eliminated many of the talented members of the Soviet apparatus and replaced them instead with mediocre bureaucrats. The purges were to have serious consequences for the Soviet Union. Stalin’s post-revolutionary regime impacted on people’s lives by removing some of the most gifted minds from the country. Vassilyev is right in that a strong state was built, but I speculate as to whether it could have been stronger had Stalin refrained from expelling the many very capable and promising Russian citizens who fell victim during purges. Stronger and also longer lasting: if Stalin had the brains behind him, so to speak, the regime may have achieved a more humane, successful direction.
But a humane direction in policy was not achieved. Stalin’s programme of terror included the use of forced labour camps, managed by the government body, the Gulag. These camps, scattered across the Soviet Union, provided the dumping ground for all those who stood in Stalin’s way because of social reasons, in the case of the kulaks, religious reasons or of course, political reasons. Inmates in the camps provided the labour for the many new industrial projects arising as a result of the Five-Year Plans, a major one being the construction of the Belomar Canal. As well as providing labour for Stalin’s programs, the conditions inmates had to endure were horrendous. Disease, meagre rations, bitterly cold temperatures and insect infestations were just some of the challenges that faced the enemies of Stalin. This was clearly a very negative aspect of Stalinism. Life outside the labour camps wasn’t much better. The unrealistic goals set under the Five-Year Plans meant those working in factories and in the mines were worked incredibly hard and, as discussed above, the effects of collectivisation had a far from positive effect on those residing in rural areas. Although living standards rose throughout the 1930s, there were still shortages of food and other goods. Housing also remained a problem with only six percent of houses in Moscow having more than one room. Vassilyev is right that a strong state was achieved, but it came at the cost of deplorable living conditions and the subsequent deaths of millions.
The plight of women, having improved due to the efforts of such influential party women as Krupskaya, Lenin’s wife, and Alexandra Kollontai, the only woman on the former Sovnakom, actually regressed under Stalin. Women still needed to work to support rapid industrialisation but they were also expected to fulfil their domestic duties. The role of the family, which had suffered under Lenin came to the fore under Stalin: women were urged to have more children for the good of the state. This restoration of traditional family values culminated in divorce being made harder to achieve, restrictions being placed on abortion and a return of ceremonial marriages. This depravation of egalitarianism on the part of the women shows the extent to which Stalin corrupted the ideals of the Bolshevik Revolution. And more than that, those women of the Soviet State who had hoped for gender equality under Stalin would not find it.
Although the position of women regressed in Russian society, the same cannot be said for Stalin. Using the immense propaganda machine in Russia at the time to further his own position, Stalin betrayed the original ideals of the revolution. The Communists of the early 1920s used ‘agitprop’ trains to spread the messages of the Revolution amongst the Russian people, as well as detail what they were endeavouring to achieve in the future. These Communists encouraged experimentation in the arts, which spawned pioneering constructivist and futurist movements. Stalin put an end to this freedom, forcing artists to produce work that highlighted the achievements of the Soviet workers and peasant. The Soviet State soon evolved into a totalitarian society, one of the main features of which is the total glorification of the leader or the ‘cult of personality’. As well as emphasizing the achievements of the workers and peasants, Russian art began to focus on the cult of Stalin. This was a direct contradiction of the original Bolshevik ideals on leadership; Lenin was a modest man who despised power and disregarded the praise that was heaped upon him. The nature of the leadership in Russia changed during the post-revolutionary period with Stalin assuming cult status and using propaganda to reinforce this. In reference to Vassilyev’s statement, this had little to do with building a stronger state so much as ensuring a stranglehold on the hearts and minds of the Russian people.
Stalin died on the 5th of March 1953. Many welcomed his death but there were also those who grieved his passing. His Five-Year Plans brought about rapid industrialisation, which was the only reason Russia was able to defend itself so successfully against the invading Nazi forces during World War Two. The industrial powerhouse Stalin left behind was far removed from the primitive, struggling nation he found himself leader of twenty-seven years prior. In that sense, Vassilyev’s statement is quite accurate: Stalin did indeed build up a strong state. But the human cost of him doing so is unfathomable. For Vassilyev to excuse this with, ‘everyone makes mistakes’ is equally incomprehensible. Forgetting one’s car keys is a mistake. Mispronouncing someone’s name is a mistake. Being responsible for the deaths of nigh on 50 million is not a mistake. The ‘Great Purges’ weren’t a mistake; they were a calculated and highly effective system of murder. The scores of labour camps scattered across the Soviet Union weren’t mistakes so much as dumping grounds for Stalin’s enemies, both genuine and imaginary. The atmosphere of terror that the power-hungry Stalin created ensured that the Russian people lived in constant fear, always looking over their shoulder for the next NKVD raid, listening at the door for the knock that would expel them to a forced labour camp or worse… The unimaginable suffering of his people as well as the tragic death toll during his reign is testament to Stalin’s ineptitude as a leader. One peasant’s thoughts summate the plight of the Russian people over the period: ‘There’s no bread on the table, only Stalin on the wall.’ Stalin’s primary objective was to maintain power at whatever cost and in doing so he neglected his people to devastating effect. Essentially, this was his mistake. It may be so that he built up a strong state but Stalin, the ‘Man of Steel’, was certainly no saint.
You need to log in to urbis or create an urbis account to review this writing.
Reviews
Sort Reviews by Newest | Oldest | Highest Quality | Lowest Quality | Newest Comments |
This 181 word review has not been unlocked.
This 122 word review has not been unlocked.
First I have to say that I find the play on words between opening and ending brilliant. Last sentence was the punch line. (certainly no saint) You have kept command of this topic, built a foundation and then carried through with supportive paragraphs that contained, fact and just enough personal opinion to make it interesting to read. A very delicate topic and I am so glad that you showed were courageous and did not white wash this essay, for Stalin deserves no less than a scathing account of his atrocities. I must say that this is a very timely piece and well worth the read. Sometimes I think that we, as a nation, are out of touch with historical reality.
- add/view comments (0)
Wow I don’t want to waste your credits. All I can say is you did your home work. This is an interesting and thought proving piece. You have given both sides of the story. With out your own opinion clouding the issue. Hard thing to accomplish. I like the way you make the story your own, but keep the facts real. This is informative I did not know a lot of what you have written here. Like The plight of women. Very well thought out and written.
Showing 1 - 4 of 4
Review item
Add to faves
GENERAL
REVIEW QUEUE
Ratings & Rankings
