Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 10th, 2012, 02:29 AM   #1

Tudor chick's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2007
From: Australia
Posts: 1,729
Blog Entries: 2
Differences between Lenin and Stalin


What are the differences in leadership between Lenin and Stalin?
Both were Bolsheviks, but did they both follow the same Marxists principles?
Was Stalin leadership a continuation of Lenin policies?
Or did Stalin become very much removed from the original revolution ideals?

What do people think?
Tudor chick is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 10th, 2012, 11:07 AM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,449

Wrong forum. Stalin continued the same policies, but did get away from revolutionary ideals and made the system more repressive. Stalin also represented the more pragmatic less ideological factions in his conflict with Trotsky and he followed through on that approach.

Kruschev sort of was a reaction to Stalin and took things in a somewhat more liberal direction. Under Stalin many people were executed of sent to labor camp and it wasn't clear what they did. This was less true under Lenin, and much less true after Stalin. After Stalin people were imprisoned for political offenses or economic crimes that wouldn't be a crime in most countries, but usually they had to be actively involved in political activity rather than someone informed on them or they wrote something in a journal, or lost in some political infighting, or were part of the wrong group or something.

Last edited by betgo; April 10th, 2012 at 11:12 AM.
betgo is offline  
Old April 10th, 2012, 08:48 PM   #3

Tudor chick's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2007
From: Australia
Posts: 1,729
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
Wrong forum. Stalin continued the same policies, but did get away from revolutionary ideals and made the system more repressive. Stalin also represented the more pragmatic less ideological factions in his conflict with Trotsky and he followed through on that approach.

Kruschev sort of was a reaction to Stalin and took things in a somewhat more liberal direction. Under Stalin many people were executed of sent to labor camp and it wasn't clear what they did. This was less true under Lenin, and much less true after Stalin. After Stalin people were imprisoned for political offenses or economic crimes that wouldn't be a crime in most countries, but usually they had to be actively involved in political activity rather than someone informed on them or they wrote something in a journal, or lost in some political infighting, or were part of the wrong group or something.
Yes it is probs in the wrong one. One of the people from the forum who knows how to change it can do so.

So are you saying that because both leaders were communists both followed their polices but Stalin was a more harsh ruler? So therefore is a continuation of Lenins policies just harsher?

Didnt Lenin start the first concerntration camps?

I am in two minds if Stalin followed on from Lenin as they both followed communist rules and Stalin would not have come to power if not for the communist party. Or did Satlin remove himself to far away from the communist ethos of stamping out indivialism and profit making by allowing private ownership of factories and private profit making. I remember reading something along those lines.

Thoughts

Last edited by Tudor chick; April 10th, 2012 at 08:54 PM.
Tudor chick is offline  
Old April 12th, 2012, 05:23 PM   #4

St. Anselm's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Viceregal Residency, Calcutta, the Second City of the Empire.
Posts: 54
Blog Entries: 1
Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tudor chick View Post

I am in two minds if Stalin followed on from Lenin as they both followed communist rules and Stalin would not have come to power if not for the communist party. Or did Satlin remove himself to far away from the communist ethos of stamping out indivialism and profit making by allowing private ownership of factories and private profit making. I remember reading something along those lines.

Thoughts
I believe that it was Lenin who, realizing the disasters that War Communism had brought to the Russian people, allowed a kind of compromise in the years after the Russian Civil War, a "partial return" to Capitalism and the "old ways" (the Soviets regarded traditional village life as backward and primitive, reminiscent of Tsarist times, which was supposedly thrown out with the October Revolution), in his NEP, New Economic Policy.

As against War Communism, NEP had several quite different principles:

WAR COMMUNISM

War communism included the following policies:
  1. All industry was nationalized and strict centralized management was introduced.
  2. State monopoly on foreign trade was introduced.
  3. Discipline for workers was strict, and
    Strike_action Strike_action
    could be shot.
  4. Obligatory labour duty was imposed onto "non-working classes."
  5. Prodrazyorstka requisition of agricultural surpluses from peasants in excess of absolute minimum for centralized distribution among the remaining population.
  6. Food and most commodities were rationed and distributed in urban centres in a centralized way.
  7. Private enterprise became illegal.
  8. The state introduced military-style control of rail roads.


NATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY (NEP)


The new laws sanctioned the co-existence of private and public sectors such as middle class people, which were incorporated in the NEP, which on the other hand was a state oriented "mixed economy." Rather than repossess all goods produced,. the Soviet government took only a small percentage of goods. This left the peasants with a marketable surplus which could be sold privately.
St. Anselm is offline  
Old April 12th, 2012, 10:47 PM   #5

Tudor chick's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2007
From: Australia
Posts: 1,729
Blog Entries: 2

I agree with you that Lenin changed this policy. The War Communism caused economic disaster so had to be replaced. There were many in the Bolsheviks party that thought the NEP was going back to capitalism in the country side and opposed it.

In 1928 - 29 Stalin abandoned the NEP policy and embarked on a mass collectivization of the peasantry.
I have not read in depth about this yet, but it appears it was not in the best interest of the peasantry the Marxists policies were designed to help.
Im pretty sure Stalin allowed factories to become privately owned too?

Were both leaders protecting their own power or the interests of the country and people by straying away from Marxist policies?
Tudor chick is offline  
Old April 12th, 2012, 11:00 PM   #6

Tudor chick's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2007
From: Australia
Posts: 1,729
Blog Entries: 2

Stalin also went against the Decree of Self Determination which stated.
1) Equality and sovereignty of the peoples of Russia
2) The right to free self determination of peoples even to the point of separating and forming independent states
3) Abolition of each and every privilege or limitation based on nationality or religion.
4)Free development of national minorities and ethnographic groups inhabiting Russian territory.

Then it goes on to say,
All concrete measures appertaining to the above declaration are to be decreed immediately upon the formation of the special commission for nationalities.

It is signed
Stalin
Commissar for Nationalities
Lenin
President of Soviet Peoples Commissars.

I know Stalin went against this policy with his ethnic cleansing policies, so he did not stick to this Marxist theory.

Have to read more about Lenin's deeds now
Tudor chick is offline  
Old April 13th, 2012, 12:41 AM   #7

Lors's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,704
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tudor chick View Post
2) The right to free self determination of peoples even to the point of separating and forming independent states
It had been dropped by Lenin himself through invading everywhere from Finland and Poland to Georgia and Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus. That policy had been no more than populist claims.
Lors is offline  
Old April 13th, 2012, 06:10 PM   #8

Tudor chick's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2007
From: Australia
Posts: 1,729
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
It had been dropped by Lenin himself through invading everywhere from Finland and Poland to Georgia and Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus. That policy had been no more than populist claims.
What was the reason for these invasions. I could be wrong, but wasn't Finland Georgia, and Poland part of Russia then?

It appears some of the ideals of the Bolsheviks that have been mentioned here, just did not work out in reality and were changed to suit the parties needs at the time, by both Lenin and Stalin.

Would that be a fair comment?
Tudor chick is offline  
Old April 13th, 2012, 09:52 PM   #9

Lors's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,704
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tudor chick View Post
What was the reason for these invasions. I could be wrong, but wasn't Finland Georgia, and Poland part of Russia then?
The mix of so-called exports of revolution (pretext mostly) and common old-fashioned imperialism. At that time Russia, borders speaking, had been similar to nowadays Russia. Check
Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic
out.
Ukraine, Georgia and so on had been independent as now are. Not breakaway regions, but free states with Russia recognitions. Poland was the first state which had been reframed by Russians (Lenin himself) from "self determination of peoples" to "counter revolutionist", "bandits" and so on.
Lors is offline  
Old April 13th, 2012, 10:48 PM   #10

St. Anselm's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Viceregal Residency, Calcutta, the Second City of the Empire.
Posts: 54
Blog Entries: 1
Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
The mix of so-called exports of revolution (pretext mostly) and common old-fashioned imperialism. At that time Russia, borders speaking, had been similar to nowadays Russia. Check
Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia out.
Ukraine, Georgia and so on had been independent as now are. Not breakaway regions, but free states with Russia recognitions. Poland was the first state which had been reframed by Russians (Lenin himself) from "self determination of peoples" to "counter revolutionist", "bandits" and so on.
Right, right. In Lenin's own words: "Blood? Let there be blood, if it alone will save us from the return of the old jackals!"
St. Anselm is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
differences, lenin, stalin


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lenin as a spy of Germany? pnd-fullface European History 19 September 6th, 2011 01:22 AM
Lenin and democratic centralism vid European History 8 August 30th, 2011 05:23 AM
Lenin and Stalin Caro de Saint Preux History Help 0 May 25th, 2009 10:07 AM
Lenin and Trotsky LIVE!!! Stephen Speculative History 7 February 24th, 2009 04:09 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.