Basically communism before Stalin or "leninism" was an idealistic effort to turn Marxist ideals in political reality. After (and During) Stalin communism simply became a means to hold power, and of course eventually crumbled.
2007-04-17 09:59:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by John L 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
The main difference in the evolution of "communism" between the birth of the Soviet Union in 1917 and the death of Stalin in 1956 (I recall... check the date) would have to be the role of the state.
In the Communist Manifesto (1848) by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Communism arrives with "the withering away of the state." In other words, Communism cannot have a state. It is government by workers' committees.
And the Soviet Union, led by Lenin for its first seven years, was at leaset named after that idea. A "soviet" was a committee of workers.
Unfortunately, at least for those yearning for pure Marxist Communism, the Soviet Union was at war, and in order to fight, it needed the organs of state to survive. (Actually, these were developed in part during World War I and during the Russian Civil War.)
This was war communism, an adaptation. Not purely Marxist Communism. And war communism evolved into a permanent adjustment. I think this follows the adage that power corrupts. Once they tasted power, the Bolsheviks were reluctant to give it up in the service of their professed ideal - a stateless (i.e. communist) society.
This was under Lenin (1917-1924). After his death, Stalin expanded government powers to their scary extent - he was really the architect of the Soviet Union that Gorbachev and Yeltsin helped to disassemble.
"Uncle Joe" Stalin's USSR also has the tragic distinction of killing more of its own citizens than any previous government. A close rival was the People's Republic of China in the era of the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward.
---
certifiable history nut: http://www.myspace.com/umlando
2007-04-17 17:31:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by umlando 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Communism is a system in which the government controls just about everything. This was true before, during and after Stalin. The only thing that changed was the degree of political oppression. Under Lenin and Stalin USSR was extremely oppressive. After Stalin's death it was a bit less oppressive.
2007-04-17 17:07:21
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Always understand that Lenin murdered his opposition like Stalin did. Lenin was more of an ideolouge, but both were brutal. Stalin just took Leninisim to its logical and deadly next step. Then Mao killed even more.
2007-04-17 17:06:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Chairman LMAO 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
"The growth of modern communism" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#The_growth_of_modern_communism
"Stalinism" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Stalinism
The important thing is that Stalin was basically a buraucrat in a minor position, who was looked on with disdain and distrust by Lenin and Trotsky. But he was a better at political intrigue then at political strategy.
"Despite his formal position being originally without significant influence, and his office being nominally but one of several Central Committee Secretariats, Stalin's increasing control of the Party from 1928 onwards led to him becoming the de facto party leader and the dictator of his country."
"Stalin gained plenty of political power because of his popularity within the Bolshevik party. This took the dying Lenin by surprise, and in his last writings he famously called for the removal of the "rude" Stalin. However, this document was voted on as to its adoption by the Party in a Congress - and an unanimous vote to reject the document was taken by all members of the Congress as Lenin was at this time deemed very ill."
"After Lenin's death in January 1924, Stalin, Kamenev, and Zinoviev together governed the party, placing themselves ideologically between Trotsky (on the left wing of the party) and Bukharin (on the right). During this period, Stalin abandoned the traditional Bolshevik emphasis on international revolution in favor of a policy of building "Socialism in One Country", in contrast to Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution."
"In the struggle for leadership one thing was evident: whoever ended up ruling the party had to be considered very loyal to Lenin. Stalin organized Lenin's funeral and made a speech professing undying loyalty to Lenin, in almost religious terms.[7] He undermined Trotsky, who was sick at the time, possibly by misleading him about the date of the funeral. Thus although Trotsky was Lenin’s associate throughout the early days of the Soviet regime, he lost ground to Stalin. Stalin made great play of the fact that Trotsky had joined the Bolsheviks just before the revolution, and publicized Trotsky's pre-revolutionary disagreements with Lenin. Another event that helped Stalin's rise was the fact that Trotsky came out against publication of Lenin's Testament in which he pointed out the strengths and weaknesses of Stalin and Trotsky and the other main players, and suggested that he be succeeded by a small group of people."
"An important feature of Stalin’s rise to power is the way that he manipulated his opponents and played them off against each other. Stalin formed a "troika" of himself, Zinoviev, and Kamenev against Trotsky. When Trotsky had been eliminated, Stalin then joined Bukharin and Rykov against Zinoviev and Kamenev, emphasising their vote against the insurrection in 1917. Zinoviev and Kamenev then turned to Lenin's widow, Krupskaya; they formed the "United Opposition" in July 1926."
"In 1927 during the 15th Party Congress Trotsky and Zinoviev were expelled from the party and Kamenev lost his seat on the Central Committee. Stalin soon turned against the "Right Opposition", represented by his erstwhile allies, Bukharin and Rykov."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
2007-04-17 16:53:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by Erik Van Thienen 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
carl marx first came up with the idea and wrote his idea of it in his book called the communist manifesto later there was an attempt to establish it in prussia i think. it did not take . in britain the unions were able to deal with their bosses so it did not take there either. revolution then purges
2007-04-17 17:28:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by darren m 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
grr i just learned this today in class, and now i forgot it....
2007-04-17 16:55:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by Jess 2
·
0⤊
2⤋