Stalinism: Tsarist Regime
now, but how it should continue. Economic policy became the cornerstone of this debate, as the Soviet economy was damaged from a near decade of war. It is here when Lenin began rolling back towards the state-assisted bourgeoisie that the Tsarist regime had attempted to implement, an implementation Engels noted for its dependency on keeping the state alive (On Social Relations in Russia 668). Lenin would not be able to form a system of economics and governance that would not necessitate a bureaucracy, without overindulging in legal procedures, something Lenin deemed an excess of the bourgeoisie (Ulam 452). The newly minted USSR had entered a standstill, not wanting to move forward towards what it would inevitably become, and not wanting to return
…show more content…
Stalinism could best be described as a state enforced revolution, one that was enforced by a party that had more control over daily life than even the autocratic Tsars (Skocpol 226). This is important to note, as Stalinism’s inclination towards totalitarianism, control over all aspects of life, would be a key point in its central theory. Totalitarian policies would lead however, to massive industrial successes, Stalin’s goal. Within the first Five Year Plan, Stalin’s policy of collectivization met with near total annihilation of the independent peasant, allowing the state to gain access to all the resources it needed to invest in heavy industry. Through these policies, heavy industry numbers flourished, with coal, oil, iron, and steel production doubling over the course of four years (Hoston Lecture Outline Week 9 “Stalinism and Forced Collectivization”). This came at the cost of the agricultural industry, which suffered immense shortages, however this was the intent of Stalinist policy. After all, it was through collectivization that Stalin justified the removal, essentially a pre-purge, of the entire “kulak” (rich peasant) class, who Stalin claimed held the revolution back (Skocpol 230). While this was not an entirely new belief, Engels would write in response to Tchakov’s pamphlet on Russian wealthy peasants as being bloodsuckers, it was an entirely new way of dealing with it (Engels, “On Social Relations in Russia” 672). No longer would revolution be coordinated through the people, the Soviets, or even collective leadership, it would be coordinated through the will of the Dictator, of
Stalinism could best be described as a state enforced revolution, one that was enforced by a party that had more control over daily life than even the autocratic Tsars (Skocpol 226). This is important to note, as Stalinism’s inclination towards totalitarianism, control over all aspects of life, would be a key point in its central theory. Totalitarian policies would lead however, to massive industrial successes, Stalin’s goal. Within the first Five Year Plan, Stalin’s policy of collectivization met with near total annihilation of the independent peasant, allowing the state to gain access to all the resources it needed to invest in heavy industry. Through these policies, heavy industry numbers flourished, with coal, oil, iron, and steel production doubling over the course of four years (Hoston Lecture Outline Week 9 “Stalinism and Forced Collectivization”). This came at the cost of the agricultural industry, which suffered immense shortages, however this was the intent of Stalinist policy. After all, it was through collectivization that Stalin justified the removal, essentially a pre-purge, of the entire “kulak” (rich peasant) class, who Stalin claimed held the revolution back (Skocpol 230). While this was not an entirely new belief, Engels would write in response to Tchakov’s pamphlet on Russian wealthy peasants as being bloodsuckers, it was an entirely new way of dealing with it (Engels, “On Social Relations in Russia” 672). No longer would revolution be coordinated through the people, the Soviets, or even collective leadership, it would be coordinated through the will of the Dictator, of