the nature of the USSR under Stalin, including dictatorship and totalitarianism Flashcards
Present background information?
Stalin’s political system in the 1930s has traditionally been presented as the classic example of a totalitarian state
Recent research has attempted to place some doubt on the pervasiveness of the totalitarian model as applied to Stalin’s Russia.
Questions raised about the efficacy of the totalitarian model and its appropriateness for 1930s Russia.
Characteristics of a totalitarian state
Single all controlling party usually led by a charismatic leader. Other political parties are not allowed
Individual is subordinated to the will of the nation
An official ideology is promoted by the party
The state controls the economy
All aspects of mass communication are controlled.
No opposition or criticism is tolerated
There exists a system of terror and the police state
Process of law is corrupted
Moral and ethical codes that are a feature of a liberal democratic state are disregarded
The ideology and philosophy of the party in power are indoctrinated into all levels of society
apply stalinism to totalitarianism?
SINGLE PARTY LEADER
Only one legal political party allowed.
All effective opposition had come to an end after the CW.
Party banned factions.
Stalin had destroyed remaining party opposition by 1929.
RELIGIOUS-LIKE IDEOLOGY
Cynics might argue Stalin was only about power.
Ideology provided justification for Stalin’s actions and often served to motivate individuals.
The party also wanted ideology to supplant traditional religion.
PARTY LED BY A CHARISMATIC LEADER
Development of personality cult of Stalin.
Successfully presented Stalin as the nation’s strong reliable leader in troubled time.
Became the personification of the Soviet state.
PUBLIC OPINION & MEDIA COMMUNICATION
Party controlled all media – the press, cinema and the arts.
Education was controlled to present the party line and inculcate the correct thinking.
Socialist realism was the only acceptable style for the arts.
Media promoted the cult of personality around Stalin.
Stalin even had his people rewriting the past.
STATE TERROR
Collectivisation achieved through the use of state terror.
Industrial workers and managers had to be weary of breaking the rules.
The purges and the terror of the later 1930’s shows the willingness of Stalin to hurl the full weight of the state terror apparatus against enemies of the state, real or imagined.
INTRUSION INTO INDIVIDUAL LIFE
Where one worked, studied and lived was determined by the state.
The demands of collectivisation and industrialisation increased this control with the introduction of labour books and internal passports.
The fate of the Kulaks speaks for itself.
ALL INSTITUTIONS OF THE STATE
By the 1930’s, the party had come to dominate institutions in all areas of life ranging from the arts to sport the Komsomol and armed forces.
Participation in activities throughout the country was vetted by party officials and all organisations had party officials.
What did stalin not control
Transport links remained limited and unreliable was difficult to ensure that decisions made in Moscow were carried out across the country in remote ethnic enclaves.
Party organisations far from Moscow had a tendency to act of their own volition.
The greater the power Stalin exercised, the more difficult he found it to control the party’s institutions. Increasingly became the target of resentment. James Harris
Soviet citizens were not ‘automatons’ acting without free will. Many were enthused by Stalin’s policies
Though people conformed outwardly, they remained independent thinkers, sceptical of what the authorities said and indeed took risks in declaring their dissatisfaction with things. Sheila Fitzpatrick
Outline - Totalitarian - Post revisionist - revisionist
Totalitarian
Stalinism natural progression of Leninism
Dictatorship
Revolution from above
Coercion and repression
No social autonomy or individual agency
Rigid, conformity structure
Post revisionist
1990’s - Post Soviet Era access to archives
Stalinism an attempt to modernise society - situated in a broader international history
Authoritarian alternative to Liberalism and Fascism
Repression plus commitment
Party desperate for socialism
Social and cultural landscape varied and complex
Revisionist
1960’s
Focus on social history - ‘history from below’
Stalinism not the natural progression of Leninism but acknowledges commonalities
Fragmented dictatorship
Masses had more influence than previously thought
Dynamic yet constrained society
Irrational and divided party
