Lesson 8a- Stalin's Rise to Power
Stalin's rise to power is complicated by the fact that any explanation must begin with an understanding of how the Bolsheviks came to power in 1917 and the difficult context in which they ruled until Lenin's death in 1924. Stalin became Chairman of the Communist Party in 1922, before state control over the economy was fully established and before the significance of the position of Chairman was fully appreciated.
The period after Lenin's death in 1924 saw Stalin gradually outmaneuvered his main rivals step by step. As a consequence, he was by 1928 the most powerful individual in the Party and he could begin to impose his vision on the country. |
|
Structure - Structural factors refer to the context that makes the rise to power of an authoritarian state more likely. Put simply, authoritarian regimes are unusual in countries that are rich, socially stable and that have a tradition of constitutionally limited, civilian government. If they do emerge in these sorts of countries, it is usually the result of a crisis situation, brought about by external factors such as war or international economic crisis. As usual with history, PESC (+) is a good way to go about organising the structural factors.
Political factors
The fact that modern Russia has probably only had a couple of genuinely democratical elections in its history (in the years of revolution 1917 and 1991) points to the deep rooted structural reasons for the prevalence of authoritarianism. That both the Tsarist state and the Provisional Government had been overthrown in violent revolution and that neither had governed according to the norms of democratic constitutionalism meant that the Bolsheviks inherited a political culture that was already authoritarian at its core. Lenin's interpretation of Marx's concept of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' provided ideological justification for the series of authoritarian measures that were enacted in the period after 1917. (See Matu 8, Lesson 7) The brutal Civil War that followed necessitated still further centralisation of social and political control and a politics of terror that as we saw resembled France between 1793 and 1794. Stalin was able to exploit this violent and chaotic context. Lenin admitted that Stalin's personality had been useful during difficult years of the revolution, the 'Rise of a Gangster' as historian Orlando Figes has recently explained. This context was also one which saw the triumph of Trotsky as a military and political leader par excellence, also alerted the Bolshevik elite of the threat to the revolution that such a Bonapartist figure might present. Stalin was to play on this threat along with the fears of Trotsky's ambitious plans for a permanent, global revolution as we will see below. (Agency). The Bolsheviks were so concerned with Trotsky that they didn't see Stalin - 'the grey blur' - coming.
The fact that modern Russia has probably only had a couple of genuinely democratical elections in its history (in the years of revolution 1917 and 1991) points to the deep rooted structural reasons for the prevalence of authoritarianism. That both the Tsarist state and the Provisional Government had been overthrown in violent revolution and that neither had governed according to the norms of democratic constitutionalism meant that the Bolsheviks inherited a political culture that was already authoritarian at its core. Lenin's interpretation of Marx's concept of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' provided ideological justification for the series of authoritarian measures that were enacted in the period after 1917. (See Matu 8, Lesson 7) The brutal Civil War that followed necessitated still further centralisation of social and political control and a politics of terror that as we saw resembled France between 1793 and 1794. Stalin was able to exploit this violent and chaotic context. Lenin admitted that Stalin's personality had been useful during difficult years of the revolution, the 'Rise of a Gangster' as historian Orlando Figes has recently explained. This context was also one which saw the triumph of Trotsky as a military and political leader par excellence, also alerted the Bolshevik elite of the threat to the revolution that such a Bonapartist figure might present. Stalin was to play on this threat along with the fears of Trotsky's ambitious plans for a permanent, global revolution as we will see below. (Agency). The Bolsheviks were so concerned with Trotsky that they didn't see Stalin - 'the grey blur' - coming.
Socio-economic factors
Social division is concerned with how divisions between groups of people in society make it difficult for the state to peacefully manage a community of competing interests. When the economy is weak, the social divisions are accentuated. In 1917 Russia was still a largely a peasant based agricultural society and illiterate peasants were not amongst the natural enthusiasts of the Bolshevists. During the Civil War the economic policy of War Communism saw the peasants victims of severe repression and grain requisitioning as the Bolsheviks desperately tried to feed the cities. In the cities, nationalisation and the beginnings of a command economy, resulted in a significant decline in industrial production and real wages, whilst at the same time inflation made paper money worthless. By 1921 public discontent - e.g. Kronstadt Rebellion - meant that the Bolsheviks increasingly relied on coercion to govern. Also importantly, with the state command economy growing, the number of communist bureaucrats grew (nomenklatura) and with it the size and importance of the Communist Party. This made the role of Communist Party Chairman increasingly important; a role Stalin assumed in 1922. As Lenin preciently observed in his Testament of 1923, 'Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution.' It is not surprising that when Stalin finally got his hands on absolute power in 1928, it was the model of War Communism that would inspire his First Year Plan and it was the peasants who would suffer most.
Social division is concerned with how divisions between groups of people in society make it difficult for the state to peacefully manage a community of competing interests. When the economy is weak, the social divisions are accentuated. In 1917 Russia was still a largely a peasant based agricultural society and illiterate peasants were not amongst the natural enthusiasts of the Bolshevists. During the Civil War the economic policy of War Communism saw the peasants victims of severe repression and grain requisitioning as the Bolsheviks desperately tried to feed the cities. In the cities, nationalisation and the beginnings of a command economy, resulted in a significant decline in industrial production and real wages, whilst at the same time inflation made paper money worthless. By 1921 public discontent - e.g. Kronstadt Rebellion - meant that the Bolsheviks increasingly relied on coercion to govern. Also importantly, with the state command economy growing, the number of communist bureaucrats grew (nomenklatura) and with it the size and importance of the Communist Party. This made the role of Communist Party Chairman increasingly important; a role Stalin assumed in 1922. As Lenin preciently observed in his Testament of 1923, 'Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution.' It is not surprising that when Stalin finally got his hands on absolute power in 1928, it was the model of War Communism that would inspire his First Year Plan and it was the peasants who would suffer most.
|
|
Cultural factors
The cultural climate of post-revolution Russia certainly favoured the rise to power of authoritarian government. The lack of a well-established ‘participant’ or democratic political culture meant that was little understanding of or support for the sort of liberal traditions and institutions to be found elsewhere in western Europe. The violence and deprivation of the Civil War years weakened still further the sentiments of peaceful toleration so essential to effective democracy. Democracies are what the Austrian–British philosopher Karl Popper called ‘open societies’, by which he meant societies that are open to and tolerant of, competing ideas and ways of living. Democracies, in theory, tolerate and even encourage minorities, because the social diversity that results is in itself a good thing. The cultural impact of Marxism, especially in its Leninist guise also had little time for democratic institutions which it considered to be bourgeois mechanisms for class control over the proletariat.
Democracies are what the Austrian–British philosopher Karl Popper called ‘open societies’, by which he meant societies that are open to and tolerant of, competing ideas and ways of living. Democracies, in theory, tolerate and even encourage minorities, because the social diversity that results is in itself a good thing. Karl Popper argued that ideological authoritarian states like communist Russia produce ‘closed societies’, because these ‘totalitarian ideologies’ require a quasi- religious, exclusive commitment to these ideas alone. Communism with its belief in the ‘historical destiny’ of the working class, was an example of what Popper called ‘historicism’; philosophies that claim to have uncovered ‘the “rhythms” or the “patterns”, the “laws” or the “trends” that underlie the evolution of history’. If an ideology claims to have uncovered the truth about the laws of historical development, if it knows there is a future utopia to be attained, there can be no place for those who get in the way of progress. Totalitarian regimes require the public to believe, and the state must be disciplined and ruthless with those ‘minorities’ who do not.
The cultural climate of post-revolution Russia certainly favoured the rise to power of authoritarian government. The lack of a well-established ‘participant’ or democratic political culture meant that was little understanding of or support for the sort of liberal traditions and institutions to be found elsewhere in western Europe. The violence and deprivation of the Civil War years weakened still further the sentiments of peaceful toleration so essential to effective democracy. Democracies are what the Austrian–British philosopher Karl Popper called ‘open societies’, by which he meant societies that are open to and tolerant of, competing ideas and ways of living. Democracies, in theory, tolerate and even encourage minorities, because the social diversity that results is in itself a good thing. The cultural impact of Marxism, especially in its Leninist guise also had little time for democratic institutions which it considered to be bourgeois mechanisms for class control over the proletariat.
Democracies are what the Austrian–British philosopher Karl Popper called ‘open societies’, by which he meant societies that are open to and tolerant of, competing ideas and ways of living. Democracies, in theory, tolerate and even encourage minorities, because the social diversity that results is in itself a good thing. Karl Popper argued that ideological authoritarian states like communist Russia produce ‘closed societies’, because these ‘totalitarian ideologies’ require a quasi- religious, exclusive commitment to these ideas alone. Communism with its belief in the ‘historical destiny’ of the working class, was an example of what Popper called ‘historicism’; philosophies that claim to have uncovered ‘the “rhythms” or the “patterns”, the “laws” or the “trends” that underlie the evolution of history’. If an ideology claims to have uncovered the truth about the laws of historical development, if it knows there is a future utopia to be attained, there can be no place for those who get in the way of progress. Totalitarian regimes require the public to believe, and the state must be disciplined and ruthless with those ‘minorities’ who do not.
The importance of war
As in all countries, soldiers struggled to return to normalcy after the war; the economic crisis and high unemployment often denied them a purpose to life which the army had provided. Many were attracted to the paramilitary organisations and the violent camaraderie they provided. In Russia, the impact of the First World War and Civil War on those who fought and suffered, created a culture almost akin to what Orwell later described as one of perpetual war. Soldiers and civilians who had been exposed to the reality of war can readily be dehumanised by the experience. Compromise and peaceful negotiation are quickly neglected when violent solutions offer apparently easy solutions. Spend time reviewing the context on our two earlier lessons on this content: how did the Bolsheviks consolidate their power and the Civil War. |
|
Human Agency
'Stalin, gave me the impression…of a grey blur which flickered obscurely and left no trace. There is really nothing more to be said about him.' (Menshevik politician Nikolai Sukhanov in his memoirs of the Russian Revolution of 1917).
Structural factors can only provide a context into which historical actors are able to take decisions and make things happen. The structural factors which enabled Lenin's revolution in 1917, did not mean it was bound to happen, let alone to be successful. As was the case with Mussolini and Hitler, the rise of power of Stalin was due to the successful actions of those who supported his rise to power but also the failure and miscalulation of those who opposed it.
'Stalin, gave me the impression…of a grey blur which flickered obscurely and left no trace. There is really nothing more to be said about him.' (Menshevik politician Nikolai Sukhanov in his memoirs of the Russian Revolution of 1917).
Structural factors can only provide a context into which historical actors are able to take decisions and make things happen. The structural factors which enabled Lenin's revolution in 1917, did not mean it was bound to happen, let alone to be successful. As was the case with Mussolini and Hitler, the rise of power of Stalin was due to the successful actions of those who supported his rise to power but also the failure and miscalulation of those who opposed it.
Stalin brilliantly exploited both his rising position within the Communist Party and the tendency of his rivals to underestimate him as a mere 'grey blur'. As Trotsky himself said 'To the leading group of the party (in the wider circles he was not known at all) he always seemed a man destined to play second and third fiddle'. Lenin, of course, realised too late the dangers that Stalin posed. For Stalin the most important act was to diffuse the ticking time bomb which was Lenin's Testament. The first film below provides you with eyewitness testimony of how he was able to do this.
The diagram to the right explains the gradual, political manouevering behind Stalin's rise to power. It begins by identifying the key posts that enabled Stalin to control the Party apparatus and increase his power of patronage.
|
It then outlines the three major power struggles which Stalin won to give him absolute power by 1929.
Trotsky was eventually murdered by Soviet agents in Mexico in 1940. All the other leader members of Lenin's Politburo were killed in the purges on the late 1930s. |
The Trial of the Sixteen (1936): This trial targeted key Bolshevik leaders, including Lev Kamenev, Grigory Zinoviev, and Lev Trotsky (in absentia). The Trial of the Twenty-One (1938): This trial included figures like Nikolai Bukharin, Alexei Rykov, and Nikolai Krestinsky, who were accused of plotting to overthrow the government.
Activity
The activity for this lesson will be a class based lecture. Make sure to put your notes - supplemented from here if necessary - in your OneNote.
The activity for this lesson will be a class based lecture. Make sure to put your notes - supplemented from here if necessary - in your OneNote.
Extension (essential for IB students.)
After Lenin and Mussolini this your third case study on the rise of an authoritarian state. As IB students you always need to be looking out for similarities and differences between the the examples you study. The approach of structure and agency I have used here is developed in more detail on these IB pages. I have also made three films to explain the key concepts (below).
After Lenin and Mussolini this your third case study on the rise of an authoritarian state. As IB students you always need to be looking out for similarities and differences between the the examples you study. The approach of structure and agency I have used here is developed in more detail on these IB pages. I have also made three films to explain the key concepts (below).
Structural factors - PESC
|
Structural factors - War
|
The role of agency.
|