Debated influence on Stalinism Some historians such as
Richard Pipes consider
Stalinism as the natural consequence of Leninism, that Stalin "faithfully implemented Lenin's domestic and foreign policy programs".
Robert Service notes that "institutionally and ideologically Lenin laid the foundations for a Stalin ... but the passage from Leninism to the worse terrors of Stalinism was not smooth and inevitable." Historian and Stalin biographer
Edvard Radzinsky believes that Stalin was a genuine follower of Lenin, exactly as he claimed himself. Proponents of
continuity cite a variety of contributory factors, in that it was Lenin, rather than Stalin, whose
civil war measures introduced the
Red Terror with its hostage-taking and
internment camps; that it was Lenin who developed the infamous
Article 58 and who established the autocratic system within the
Russian Communist Party. Proponents also note that Lenin put a
ban on factions within the party and introduced the
one-party state in 1921, a move that enabled Stalin to get rid of his rivals easily after Lenin's death and cite
Felix Dzerzhinsky, who exclaimed during the
Bolshevik struggle against opponents in the
Russian Civil War: "We stand for organized terror—this should be frankly stated." Other scholars have had a differing view and attributed the establishment of the one-party system in the Soviet Union to the wartime conditions imposed on Lenin's government and others have highlighted the initial attempts to form a coalition government with the
Left Socialist Revolutionaries. According to historian
Marcel Liebman, Lenin's wartime measures such as banning opposition parties was prompted by the fact that several political parties either
started armed uprisings against the new
Soviet government, or participated in sabotage,
collaborated with the deposed
Tsarists, or made
assassination attempts against Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders. Liebman also argued that the banning of parties under Lenin did not have the same repressive character as later bans enforced under the Stalinist regime. Conversely, Stalin's regime reversed Lenin's policies on social matters such as
sexual equality, legal restrictions on
marriage, rights of sexual minorities and
protective legislation. Historian
Robert Vincent Daniels also viewed the Stalinist period as a counter-revolution in Soviet cultural life which revived
patriotic propaganda, the Tsarist programme of
Russification and traditional,
military ranks which had been criticized by Lenin as expressions of "Great Russian chauvinism". Daniels also regarded Stalinism to represent an abrupt break with the Leninist period in terms of economic policies in which a deliberated,
scientific system of
economic planning that featured former
Menshevik economists at
Gosplan had been replaced with a hasty version of planning with unrealistic targets, bureaucratic waste,
bottlenecks and
shortages.
Revisionist historians and some
post–Cold War and otherwise
dissident Soviet historians, including
Roy Medvedev, argue that "one could list the various measures carried out by Stalin that were actually a continuation of anti-democratic trends and measures implemented under Lenin", but that "in so many ways, Stalin acted, not in line with Lenin's clear instructions, but in defiance of them." In doing so, some historians have tried to distance Stalinism from Leninism to undermine the
totalitarian view that the negative facets of Stalin were inherent in communism from the start. Critics include anti-Stalinist communists such as
Leon Trotsky, who pointed out that Lenin attempted to persuade the Russian Communist Party to remove Stalin from his post as its
General Secretary.
Lenin's Testament, the document which contained this order, was suppressed after Lenin's death. Trotsky also argued that he and Lenin had intended to lift the ban on the
opposition parties such as the
Mensheviks and
Socialist Revolutionaries as soon as the economic and social conditions of
Soviet Russia had improved. Various historians have cited Lenin's proposal to appoint Trotsky as a
Vice-chairman of the Soviet Union as evidence that he intended Trotsky to be his successor as head of government. In his biography of Trotsky, Polish-British historian
Isaac Deutscher says that, on being faced with the evidence, "only the blind and the deaf could be unaware of the contrast between Stalinism and Leninism." According to Stalin's secretary,
Boris Bazhanov, Stalin was jubilant over Lenin's death while “publicly putting on the mask of grief”. French historian
Pierre Broue disputed the historical assessments of the early Soviet Union by modern historians such as
Dmitri Volkogonov in which he argued had falsely equated Leninism,
Stalinism and
Trotskyism to present the notion of ideological continuity and reinforce the position of
counter-communism. Other revisionist historians, such as
Orlando Figes, whilst critical of the Soviet era, acknowledge that Lenin had actively sought to counter the growing influence of Stalin through a number of actions such as his alliance with Trotsky in 1922–23, opposition to Stalin on
foreign trade, the
Georgian affair and proposed party reforms which included the democratisation of the
Central Committee and recruitment of 50–100 ordinary workers into the lower organs of the party.
Nikita Khrushchev, Stalin's successor, argued that Stalin's regime differed profusely from the leadership of Lenin in his "
Secret Speech", delivered in 1956. He was critical of the
cult of the individual which was constructed around Stalin whereas Lenin stressed “the role of the people as the creator of history”. He also emphasized that Lenin favored a
collective leadership which relied on personal persuasion and recommended the removal of Stalin from the position of General Secretary. Khrushchev contrasted this with the “despotism” of Stalin which require absolute submission to his position and he also highlighted that many of the people who were later annihilated as “enemies of the party", "had worked with Lenin during his life”. Some Marxist theoreticians have disputed the view that the Stalinist dictatorship was a natural outgrowth of the Bolsheviks' actions as most of the original central committee members from 1917 were later eliminated by Stalin.
George Novack stressed the initial efforts by the Bolsheviks to form a government with the
Left Socialist Revolutionaries and bring other parties such as the Mensheviks into political legality.
Tony Cliff argued the Bolshevik-Left Socialist Revolutionary coalition government dissolved the democratically elected
Russian Constituent Assembly due to a number of reasons. They cited the outdated voter-rolls which did not acknowledge the split among the Socialist Revolutionary party and the assemblies conflict with the
Russian Congress of the Soviets as an alternative democratic structure. A similar analysis is present in more recent works such as those of Graeme Gill, who argues that "[Stalinism was] not a natural flow-on of earlier developments; [it formed a] sharp break resulting from conscious decisions by leading political actors." However, Gill notes that "difficulties with the use of the term reflect problems with the concept of Stalinism itself. The major difficulty is a lack of agreement about what should constitute Stalinism." Revisionist historians such as
Sheila Fitzpatrick have criticized the focus on the upper levels of society and the use of Cold War concepts such as totalitarianism, obscuring the system's reality. Russian historian
Vadim Rogovin stated that "Under Lenin, the freedom to express a real variety of opinions existed in the party, and in carrying out political decisions, consideration was given to the positions of not only the majority, but a minority in the party". He compared this practice with subsequent leadership blocs which violated party tradition, ignored proposals of opponents and expelled the
Opposition from the party on falsified charges which culminated with the
Moscow Trials of 1936–1938. According to Rogovin, 80-90% of the members of the Central Committee elected at the
Sixth through to the
Seventeenth Congresses were physically annihilated. The
Right Opposition and
Left Opposition have been held by some scholars as representing political alternatives to Stalinism despite their shared beliefs in Leninism due to their policy platforms which were at variance with Stalin. This ranged from areas related to
economics,
foreign policy and
cultural matters. == See also ==