Before any state can ascend to the status of superpower a shared philosophy, or general direction, must first be established. In this paper I plan to compare and contrast the ideologies behind the political and economic practice of Vladimir Ilich Lenin and Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. The similarities between the men are staggering: each followed the teachings of Socialism and Marxism, each had the tribulations of applying their methods during hostile resistance, war, economic collapse, and foreign invasion. Furthermore it must be brought to attention the staggering time differences in Lenin and Stalin's time in power (Lenin ruled for six years, while Stalin ruled for almost thirty). Light must also shine on the fact that Lenin oversaw the installation of the Bolsheviks from scratch while Stalin had Lenin's foundation and was left with continuing the work rather than starting it. Throughout the remainder of this paper I will examine the similarities and differences, between both the ideologies and the actual practice, of Lenin and Stalin's beliefs.
Lenin, who was the more accomplished theorist and author of the two, outlined the major points of his work in his most important work: "What is to be Done." This particular book dealt with the notion that the Russian peasantry was a viable revolutionary force, but lacked the capability of developing on its own. Lenin believed that an outside force was needed to guide the working class into revolution. His solution was a revolutionary party that would come from the bourgeoisie and be composed mainly of middle class intellectuals. Digging farther he describes the party as being a small, highly centralized, highly disciplined, conspiratorial band of professional revolutionaries. The usage of violence would be at the core of dissolving the old social order and creating a new one. Lenin identified the enemies of the working class as being priests, Imperial Army officers, large and small businessmen, landowners and anyone opposed to his rule.
Lenin could foresee Stalin's motives. ... And yet, Stalin started planning his rise to power before Lenin passed away. ... Lenin considered Stalin to be rude, and too tyrannical with his power. ... In addition to the Cult of Lenin propaganda, Stalin also never went against Lenin's philosophies unlike his rivals. ... This nationalistic ideologies helped Stalin gained more popularity than Trotsky as Lenin opposed this view. ...
Lenin died leaving Stalin in a position of power. ... Thus by Lenin's death, and more so by 1926, Stalin had huge support and loyalty in the party. ... The party had changed from "the elite party of Lenin to the mass party of Stalin". ... Stalin took great care to use the words "as Lenin said- whenever he spoke. ... Moreover, this showed Stalin to be the natural successor to Lenin, especially as Stalin was present at Lenin's funeral, and had arranged it so that Trotsky was not. ...
A precursor to Stalin's five year plans, Lenin is famously quoted in saying "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.... With Lenin's Death in 1924 Stalin (after a political battle for the party) took on the responsibility of seeing Lenin's vision of a economically strong communist Russia through. Like Lenin, Stalin was willing to use Terror, force and coercion to achieve his goals. ... Martin Amis argues that Stalin failed where Lenin succeeded; "Collectivisation was already a clear catastrophe by late February 1930. There were differences, ...
"Stalin owed everything to Lenin." Stalin's oppressive rule was legitimized by the "imprimatur of Lenin's creation and succession." Marx's theory became Lenin's doctrine and Stalin's creative justification. ... As a self-willed Lenin disciple, Stalin became a member of the Politburo, the inner council of Bolshevism . ... The Socialist cause was the authority that justified both Lenin and Stalin's ruthless regimes. ...
Once Stalin was in control, part ideology and leadership all came under his leadership. ... As a result, differing visions played a minor role, and is further elaborated as Lenin took upon the leadership role uncontested. ... Despite Trotsky's decision of reintroducing tsarist generals sparking debate, especially with Stalin, the necessity of it, and Lenin's control over the party, allowed for a decisive victory and in turn shaped Russian history, where leadership conflict played a very small role. ... Furthermore, Lenin introduced a ban on factionalism allowing for a more unified c...
"Stalin owed everything to Lenin." Stalin's oppressive rule was legitimized by the "imprimatur of Lenin's creation and succession." Marx's theory became Lenin's doctrine and Stalin's creative justification. ... As a self-willed Lenin disciple, Stalin became a member of the Politburo, the inner council of Bolshevism . ... The Socialist cause was the authority that justified both Lenin and Stalin's ruthless regimes. ...
The next major era after the rule of Lenin came with the emergence of Josef Stalin towards the top of the Soviet political. Stalin ruled with aniron fist?... Stalin enacted hisrevolution from above? ... When Lenin was in power, he was not alone. ... Beginning with Lenin, who obviously epitomized the ideology, then going to the hard-line, extremist Stalin, who lead to the reformist Khruschev, and then back to Brezhnev, the ideology was evident in various and alternating stages. ...
One must also remember that Stalin's path to power was not a simple accession to power when Lenin died and there were other candidates for leader. ... Stalin, in the 1930s, used terror to enforce the wholesale collectivization of agriculture to a much greater extent than Lenin in order to fund industrialisation, to quote Alex De Jonge, "..Stalin declared war on his peasants, calling for the immediate 'liquidation of the Kulaks as a class'. ... So Stalin's method of dealing with the peasant question was much more extreme than that of Lenin. ... The fact that Stalin rev...
