Year 12 Modern History HSC PDF

To what extent did Stalinism transform Soviet society, culture, and the economy? Introduction: To a large extent, the late twenties and early thirties were perhaps the most transformative years in Soviet history. It was during this period that Joseph Stalin consolidated power through his political...

To what extent did Stalinism transform Soviet society, culture, and the economy? Introduction: To a large extent, the late twenties and early thirties were perhaps the most transformative years in Soviet history. It was during this period that Joseph Stalin consolidated power through his political and economic system known as Stalinism. Countless academic sources confirm that to a high degree Stalinism acted as an increasingly extensive force in all aspects of Russian society; transforming society through its impact on Russia’s political landscape, due to its central principles & aims of centralization, totalitarianism, and ideal of communism. These aspects,underpinned by systematic trepidation induced a comprehensive transformation of the economic, social, and cultural aspects of Russia. Economy: Stalinism completely transformed the economic relations of Soviet society as, by 1937, almost everyone was an employee of the state in some capacity. Stalin’s economic transformation was a plan to expand industrialization and transition Russia from an agrarian state to a modern industrial superpower. Stalinism’s new policies focused on a centralised system of production which positively transformed Russia’s economy. At the 16th Party Congress (1929) Stalin announced that the Soviet Union lacked the minimum amount of grain needed by urban workers and thus, the collectivization of farms was the solution. Replacing small, privately owned farms with kolkhozes (collective farms) and the sovkhoz (state farm) transformed the economy. Stalin’s new policies seemed successful with approximately “60% of peasant farms” collectivized between December 1929 and March 1930. However, “It was during industrialization that the Soviet Union transformed to a truly totalitarian state.”investigative reporter Josh Keefe. Although successful, Staliinsm new policies resulted in heavy exportation of grain which caused food shortages and eventually a widespread famine. The Same year that 60% of farms were collectivised, “more than two million peasants took part in 13,754 mass disturbances” -Lynne Viola, scholar on the Soviet Union. Stalin attempted to maintain power by claiming the wealthy landowners (Kulaks) were withholding grain from the market. Thus, Stalin’s speech at the conference of Marxist students in 1929 spoke of “eliminating the kulaks as a class”.The Kulaks were violently arrested and many were deported to unpopulated lands in Siberia. However, this displacement combined with poor harvest transformed society further in the form of another widespread famine which killed six to eight million peasants, some even turning to cannibalism to survive. Thus, to a large extent Stalinism, through its transformation of the economic landscape of Russia, greatly impacted Soviet Society TLDR: - By 1937 everyone was employee of the state - Stalin’s eco transformation was plan to expand industrialization from agrarian state to modern industrial superpower - 60% of farms collectivised by dec 1929 March 1930 Culture: Additionally, Stalinism majorly impacted Soviet society through his total control of media and education which was achieved mainly through propaganda. As Stalin attempted to facilitate a radical cultural transformation of Russian society, he realised that in order to consolidate supreme authority his values would have to be indoctrinated into society. This manifested in a harsh system of censorship which controlled the media, and suppressed minority rights and freedoms. Russia's main methods of communication specifically, radio, film, and television were under state control and forced to propagate the glorification of Stalin and demonise opposition to the state. Propaganda posters such as Mikhail Reikh’s ‘For communism!’ (1948) and Vartan Arakelov’s ‘Stalin is the wisest of all people …’ depicted Soviet Society as smiling citizens under the rule of a wise and caring Stalin. However, Stalin’s economic reform has transformed society into one of widespread poverty and famine. This was not depicted in the media. Culture: Additionally, Stalinism transformed the artistic and intellectual areas of society, using art to promote his ideology. Society under Stalinism saw the development of Socialist realism, which became the predominant artistic style among many socialist countries. This art style was characterized by the glorification of communist values, aided Stalin’s cultural revolution through the reflection and praise of his values and policies becoming adopted into general society by means of artistic representation. Ilya Mashkov's Soviet Breads (1936) depicted the abundance of everyday life within the communist state; loaves of all shapes, designs and sizes, vying for attention beneath a traditional corn decoration surrounding an ornamental loaf incised with the hammer and sickle. However, at this time famine has killed approximately 10 million peasants and Russia was not in any abundance of food. Stalinism additionally, had significant impacts upon education which was utilised as a “weapon”. Stalinism Utilised mandatory schooling in order to instil communist values in the younger, more susceptible generation. Thus, it is evident that the cultural landscape of Russia was transformed between 1928 and 1941 as Stalinism became an integral component of religion, education, and didacticism. In conclusion, it is clear that Stalinism and economic reform, and control over Russia’s socio-cultural landscapes impacted Soviet Society to a great extent as it transformed society to Stalin’s control during the years of 1927-1953. Assess the significance of differing visions for the USSR in the leadership conflict between 1924 and 1929. Introduction: The differing visions for the USSR in the leadership conflict (1924-1929) were fundamentally significant as it allowed Stalin to manoeuvre between and eliminate all his political opponents and to gain complete control over the Party, allowing a single leader to emerge. Stalin’s manipulation of these differing visions enabled him to gain populist support with the Russian population, create divisions and build internal support within the party to tighten his grip on the party machine through his power of patronage. This is supported by Mary McAuley who believes all those involved in the power struggle were responsible for damaging party democracy since only the opinion of the top were given attention, allowing for a single leader to emerged with a centralised state apparatus. Most significantly, Stalin’s policy ‘Socialism in One Country’ in contrast to Trotsky’s ‘Permanent Revolution’, effectively isolated Trotsky from the Communist Party, the main contender to Stalin’s rule. The economic debate between a continuation of the NEP or implementation of rapid industrialisation allowed Stalin to foster his Party Machine, eliminating both Left and Right rivals within the party to gain complete control. Whilst the bureaucracy debate between Party Democracy and Party Leadership with his manipulation of the Ban on Factionalism and the Cult of Lenin enabled Stalin to establish and centralise power into his own hands to effectively emerge as a single leader with a state apparatus. Thus, the Stalin’s ability to manipulate these differing visions was fundamentally significant in eliminating all political opponents, to allow Stalin as a single ruler to emerge within the leadership conflict of 1924-1929. The differing visions between Stalin’s ‘Socialism in One Country’ and Trotsky’s ‘Permanent Revolution’ was fundamentally significant in the leadership conflict as it played a key role in Trotsky’s removal from the political party, leaving Stalin as a single leader As an international revolutionary, Trotsky emphasised his vision of a ‘Permanent Revolution’ for the USSR. This emphasised and prioritised the spread of Communist Revolution Worldwide since the Russian working class were too small and the economy undeveloped, with a need to obtain the support of the working class in more industrialised areas of Europe. - However, after seven years of continuous conflict with food shortages, this did not appeal to the Russian people who instead wanted to focus on the rebuilding of Mother Russia Stalin accounted for the mood and present instability in the Russian population by appealing to notions of nationalism and patriotism. Stalin’s policy ‘Socialism in One Country’ instead focused on domestically building and strengthening Russia’s socialist state before focusing on worldwide revolution. - This was particularly attractive amongst the war weary peasantry and working class as Stalin prioritised the survival and development of the Soviet Union and accounted for the present agricultural and industrial problems with food shortages. Thereby, Stalin used these vastly differing visions for the USSR to appeal to the peasantry and Bolshevik Party members to portray Trotsky as a rival and enemy of the Soviet Union. By reinforcing his vision for the USSR as following Lenin’s plans, Stalin was able to portray Trotsky’s image as an isolate and posturing Jewish intellectual threatening the security of the Soviet Union whilst Stalin was portrayed as protector of the Russian people - This was particularly effective since there was a constant fear of capitalist invasion and Trotsky’s lack of national identity and communication with the Party meant Trotsky became bitterly despised Thereby, the differing vision between ‘Socialism in One Country’ and ‘Permanent Revolution’ was fundamentally significant within the leadership conflict in isolating and portraying Trotsky as the enemy of the state whilst Stalin continued to assert himself as the single leader of the Soviet Union towards a state apparatus The differing vision between the continuation of the NEP or rapid industrialisation of the USSR was fundamentally significant in the leadership conflict as it allowed Stalin to eliminate Left and Right opposition within the Party. Through his control of the Party Machine, this allowed him to effectively gain control as a single leader towards a state apparatus. The NEP was originally introduced by Lenin as a ‘tactical measure’ to regain the support of the peasantry and rebuild the economy after the conflict of Civil War and War Communism in 1918. However, the Left Communists, led by Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev called for an end to the NEP towards rapid industrialisation and entailed the militarisation of labour, breaking the control, the peasantry had on the economy and coaxing them to produce more grain to pay for industrialisation. - Trotsky believed Russia needed to modernise and industrialise to build a strong industrial base and ensure USSR continued to survive Consequently, the Right Communists differed in their vision, calling for a continuation of the NEP to encourage the affluence of the peasantry and spend more on consumer goods to grow the manufacturing industry. - However, Stalin was able to manipulate Trotsky’s disagreement to the NEP as a way of undermining him as food shortages and struggles would continue under Trotsky’s rule. By appealing to the cult of Lenin, Stalin portrayed Trotsky as diverging away from Lenin’s leadership as Stalin continued to portray Lenin as a enemy of the state, degrading his chances of seizing leadership and power as Stalin continued to assert himself as a single leader following the leadership of Lenin and his ideas of Communism. Thereby, the fundamental significance of these differing visions lay in Stalin’s control of the Party Machine in which his manipulation of these visions allowed him to pitch the Left and Right communists against each other to assert himself as the single leader of the USSR - By isolating his potential rivals as Stalin took control of the claims and assertions of either side as they aimed to assert power, Stalin was able to eliminate all political opposition, leaving him as the single leader of the Party. It was from this instance on that Stalin began to implement his supporters within the Party to ensure all his policies were agreed upon, which allowed him to effectively take control of the ruling of the USSR. - This is supported by Orlando Figes assertion, “The party apparatus was, for the most part, an obedient tool in Stalin’s hands”, effectively showing how Stalin’s ability to pitch the differing visions of the development of the Soviet Union against each other was significant, resulting in the power of the running of the Party in Stalin’s hands. However, Stalin adopted Trotsky’s vision of forced industrialisation in his imposition of collectivisation and industrialisation in 1928. Therefore, Stalin’s ability to manipulate these differing visions was fundamentally significant in the leadership conflict as it allowed Stalin to effectively eliminate his political opposition whilst appealing to the needs of the Russian population, essential in his ability to establish his state apparatus. The differing visions over Party Bureaucracy were fundamentally significant in the leadership conflict as it allowed Stalin to foster his power of patronage and centralise power in his own hands, to effectively instil a state apparatus with Stalin as the single ruling leader. Trotsky condemned the centralising power from which Stalin had benefited, instead appealing for a return to ‘Party Democracy’ against bureaucratisation. However, Stalin portrayed this vision as a divergence away from Leninism with his Menshevik Past, especially since the Bolshevik Party has become increasingly bureaucratic since 1917 with many Party Members benefitting. This would increase party resentment towards Trotsky. Conversely, Stalin used his power of patronage through his accumulation of power as the Commissar of Nationalities (1919) and General Secretary of the Communist Party (1922) and manipulated the Ban on Factionism to continue to centralise and implement his power as a dictator towards bureaucratic practices. Stalin envisioned himself in Party Leadership by portraying himself through the Cult of Lenin in implementing Lenin’s Utopia - As the Party was now filled with Stalin’s supporters who benefited from Stalin’s leadership, Stalin manipulated the differing visions within the leadership or bureaucratisation of the Party to further centralise his power, which would arguably lead to a dictatorship. Since this vision benefited the Party Members, this would increase Stalin’s support base as the more beneficial outcome for the Soviet Union. This is supported by McAuley’s analysis that all people in the party were responsible for damaging party democracy, as only the opinions and policies of those at the top were given attention, which allowed a single leader to emerge with a centralised state apparatus. Stalin had successfully built up a “party machine of supporters”, which would ensure all Stalin’s policies were agreed upon, granting Stalin control over the running of the Party and consequently the Government as the central leader. Thus, these differing visions towards the running of the Party were fundamentally significant in the leadership conflict as it allowed Stalin to centralise power into his own hands and assert himself as the single leader of Russia, succeeding Lenin’s legacy in his establishment of a state apparatus Thus, the differing visions for the USSR were fundamentally significant in the leadership conflict as Stalin’s ability to manipulate these visions allowed him to eliminate all his political opposition and assert himself as the single leader of the Soviet Union with centralised power in his own hands. By embodying himself within the Cult of Lenin and accounting for the conditions of Russia after conflict, Stalin could implement his own supporters within the party to create a state apparatus in which his policies gained full support and implementation. As Michael Lynch asserts, “The grey blur was about to become the Red Tsar”