Russia’s controversial development during the twentieth century is a popular topic of discussion among historians, because of the drastic and volatile effects that we are still experiencing today. In 1917, unrest amongst the people finally broke out into a revolution, during the ensuing chaos the Bolshevik party seized power. This was the beginning of the Russia we know today and according to historian David Hoffmann, was the political turning point for Russia.
Lenin and his Bolshevik party were firm advocates of Marxism, and Karl Marx’s communist manifesto. This was because in an era of imperialism and autocratic rule, communism offered an ideological and modern alternative, that would actually benefit the working class. The Manifesto itself highlights the ineffectiveness of Capitalism and describes it as ‘unstable’, this is why the Bourgeoisie as a class grow ever smaller and the Proletariat grow larger, because Communism is supposedly the natural conclusion of this class conflict. This is achieved by the uprising of the Proletariat through revolution, after they seize power they will destroy private ownership of property and classes will disappear. Lenin’s Bolshevik party focused their attention on the revolutionary-Marxism aspect of Communism, they tried to use the appealing nature of communism (such as redistribution of wealth) to incite a revolution as early as 1905. However it became evident that the working class didn’t have the ability to lead a revolution, and so Lenin’s ‘Vanguard party’ theory came about. The Vanguard Party was an idea that was developed by Lenin after the Bolsheviks seized power, it was not something that appeared in the Communist Manifesto. Because of this it seems pretty conclusive that Lenin’s perversion of Marxism, was a justification for his and the party’s actions. Not only this but Lenin’s approval of violence, is a far cry from Karl Marx’s original advocation of Communism.
Despite this in a book comprised of Stalin’s lectures and such, named ‘Leninism’, he claimed that leninism is the Marxist application to ‘the peculiar conditions of the situation in Russia’. In addition Donoso Anton wrote that in 1929, Stalin stepped into a dispute concerning interpretations on dialectical materialism. In this discussion Stalin complains that ‘theoreticians did not keep pace with the practical developments of Marxism in the Soviet Union’. This leads us to the fact that, the revolution Marx discussed was considered to occur in industrialised countries such as Britain or France, not the undeveloped feudal like country of Russia. So Lenin would have been justified and actually quite practical to have adjusted communism to Russian society, as Marxist Communism was quite clearly incompatible with Russian society. Stalin also claims Leninism differs from Marxism, because Marx wrote around century before the Russian revolution, meaning his theories were ‘pre-revolutionary’ and ‘pre-imperialism’. So again, Lenin has to adapt Marxism to Russia, which he does well all the while becoming a prominent figure on which the party begins to lean on.
On the contrary the use of violence, condoned by Lenin took root in Russian society and became apart of everyday life, destroying connections with the West during the mid century and suppressing and terrorising their own people through purges. This was not the true intention of Marxism. Bolshevism however is said by Richard Pipes to be a product of ‘an era in European intellectual life that was obsessed with violence… violence that strove for the destruction of every actual and potential opponent, was… the only way of dealing with problems’. The Russian people became ‘the first generation in Russian history which [do] not have predecessors. [They] are children without fathers’. In accordance to this notion of ‘children without fathers’, there are no role models or previous examples to imitate. This allows leaders like Lenin and Stalin to mould this new ideology to their will, creating the rules as they see fit, which unfortunately leads to mass deaths.
During the Stalin years this becomes most evident, everything from politics to art revolved around a centralised state. But due to Stalin’s insane paranoia, shown during the Berlin blockade, a totalitarian state emerged one that relied on terror and informats to keep a sense of stability. Historian Francis Fukuyama reasons that the Soviet Union at this point didn’t just take away a man’s freedom but ‘to make him fear freedom in favour of security and to affirm the goodness of his chains, even in the absence of coercion’. Stalin had converted Communism effectively from Leninism, however it became more of a government than an ideology. But under Stalin’s leadership in World War Two, he created the effective ‘Five Year plan’, which utilised industry and agriculture to suit the war effort. He managed to convey a communist agenda for this distribution. However during and after the war Communism (USSR) and Capitalism (USA), having just defeated the common enemy that was fascism, began to face off against each other starting the ‘Cold War’. For the latter half of the century, the concentration of these ideologies were being thrust upon conquered, allied and satellite nations. The USA and the USSR, became somewhat sponsors of smaller wars in Europe, such as Korea and Vietnam. This thus shows that even as late as 1991, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Marxist ideology had a heavy hand in the unique development of the Soviet Union as it caused eventual conflict with America, which in turn had global repercussions. The regime had survived for around seven decades after the 1917 revolution, through unfavourable circumstances like famine and brutal violence, proving a sense of acceptance from the Russian people for the regime. In addition to this, upon the death of Stalin many Russians generally mourned the death of their leader, suggesting it wasn’t as unpopular as it may have seemed.
Alternatively, the USSR’s unique development may originate from its pre-revolutionary unrest. George Kennan suggests that Imperialism in Russia pressured fast paced industrialism, which had negative effects of the nation as a whole. The 1850s Crimea war, showed Russia that it was incredibly undeveloped compared to its western counterparts, Britain and France. It had an inadequate army that was largely made up of peasants, this defeat seems to drive industrial revolution at an extraordinary rate. However, it seems that the modern economic growth and the political system of autocratic rule, were out of sync with one another. Industrial workers began demanding better working conditions and the new middle class wanted parliamentary voices. The Tsar of the time, Nicholas the second, was not suited to be Tsar and was fairly incompetent. This showed fairly quickly in his approach to dealing with these rising issues, not to mention his clear apathy towards victims of bloody sunday. But it seems that the failings of World War One, was the final blow to the Tsarist regime. With their anger and resentment, the two classes in which revolution usually comes from and Marx says should come from, became looking for alternative solutions to their problems. Many intellectually inclined people, such as the Ulyanov family (Lenin’s family), began joining revolutionary causes. In some extreme cases this lead to bomb plots, the notorious ‘Narodnaya Volya’/ ‘The people’s will’, engaged in such plots during the reign of Alexander the third. The plot failed and the Tsar Alexander had all captured associates executed, Lenin’s brother Aleksandr, was among those executed. Lenin is known to have been absolutely distraught about his brothers death, though it i worth noting before this time he had no affiliations or even known interest in revolutionary-Marxism or such associated agendas. Thus suggesting that Lenin’s involvement in the Marxist movement was purely to satisfy his own personal motive of revenge against the Tsar. If this holds true, Lenin is a man exploiting Marxism and his leadership and character are based on revenge not ideology. Because Lenin ‘had a profound effect on Russia that we are still feeling today’, Russian national identity is based on one man’s revenge, which would explain the violence and general apathy projected by the USSR.
In conjunction with the last point, the manipulation of Marxism seems evident in government agenda. Marxism seems to be worn as a cloak, an appealing ideology being used to disguise something sinister or innately selfish intent beneath. Leninism itself, cherry picks the aspects of Marxism that suit its needs. It is ever more evident in Stalinism, which as said earlier, is actually more like a form of government than an ideology. But because of this ‘cloak’ many of the peasants didn’t really offer opposition, although Vladimir Brovkin states that this changes when War communism is introduced in 1918, Lenin’s war with the Kulaks and Stalin’s 1930 farm collectivisation. This was probably because these are circumstances of clear deviation from Marxism.
On the whole many seemed to join the Marxist revolution due to personal reasons rather than following Lenin, according to Libertarian and Revisionist historians. They may have felt like there was no other choice other than to join the revolution, that it was absolutely necessary otherwise they would have been slowly crushed and suffocated by the clumsy Tsarist regime. Also, if the masses had truly believed in Marxism and the revolution they would have objected more ferociously to Stalin’s iron grip and looming state bureaucracy, as Leon Trotsky did. Being a prominent intellectual within the Bolshevik party, one that rivalled and surpassed Lenin as a great Marxist theorist, he did not approve of Stalin or his methods. He claims that Stalin invokes ‘poverty and cultural backwardness of the masses’, that he becomes ‘incarnate in the malignant figure of the ruler with a great club in his hand’. And finally he despairs that ‘the deposed and abused bureaucracy, from being the servant of society, has again become its lord’. This distress was common amongst true revolutionists like Trotsky, the fact that the masses didn’t seem to share this sentiment suggests it was never really a driving force for them.
All in all it seems that Revolutionary Marxism is massively influential in the unique development of the the USSR, however it was not used in its purest form it seems to have been manipulated and exploited as a means to an end by various individuals throughout the century. It was used to maintain order and drive the Russian people in a satisfactory direction, keeping them trapped and incapacitated.