Yes, There is a Difference Between Lenin and Stalin

By David Starr

 

Anti-communists, in particular, the right-wing and neoliberals, have obsessively declared that Lenin and Stalin were in the same ideological mold and thus both were “totalitarian.” This is a simplistic B/W claim that has proven to be untrue. 

 

While it’s true that Lenin was harsh toward his enemies, Stalin was simply harsh on anyone who even criticized him. Under normal circumstances, Lenin allowed discussion, debate and criticism. But the civil war between the Reds and Whites made that difficult sometimes. Not only that, the Western colonial/imperial powers and imperial Japan invaded the Soviet Union in the aftermath of the 1917 October Revolution.

 

The Soviet government, and thus the Soviet Union itself, was in a life-or-death struggle. Eventually, the Soviet Union overcame these threats and survived.

 

Contrary to the claim that Lenin and Stalin were close associates, the reality says otherwise. With the formation of the Soviet Union, as Serhii Plokhy writes in History, “How exactly to define that new, post-imperial state precipitated a heated showdown between the two political titans trying to midwife the process: Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin.

 

“Theirs was a clash of not only political vision and statecraft, but of personal insults and grudges.”

 

The nationalities question came up, with the former territories of the Russian empire being debated on what kind of status they would have. Plokhy writes, “in the midst of revolution and civil war,” an agreement was signed by Russia and in what became the other Soviet republics which gave them the authority to make government decisions. But Russian authorities tried to garner all the decision-making powers from the other Soviet republics.

 

Based on the agreement, Russian authorities had no right to dictate decisions without getting the republics’ approvals first. In Georgia, for example, communists “cried foul, insisting on their rights as members of an independent republic.”

 

But Russia’s “authority triggered the negotiations that resulted in the formation of the USSR.”

 

Stalin, along with his associate Sergo Ordzhonikidze, “formed a special commission to recommend a new model of relations between the Party’s Central Committee, Russia and the republics.” Stalin called his model “autonomization” where the republics would have autonomy but into the Russian federation and with the Russian government as the central decision-making body.

 

“The republics rebelled. The Georgians led the charge against Stalin’s model, claiming the whole unification idea was premature. Ukrainians expressed a preference for the status quo. The Belarussians said they would mimic whatever model the Russians and Ukrainians developed.”

 

Stalin, however, refused their input and was about to impose “autonomization–only to be stopped in his tracks by Lenin, who sided with the Georgians and Ukrainians. Lenin thought that the inclusion of the republics into the Russian federation, “especially against the will of their leaders, would put the Russians into the position of imperial masters, undermining the idea of voluntary union of nations.”

 

Stalin was indeed harsh to the point of bullying people. A major incident occurred when Stalin insulted Lenin’s wife, Krupskaya, over the telephone. For Lenin, that was the last straw. He wrote a letter to Stalin in a tone of anger, strongly objecting to Stalin’s behavior towards Krupskaya, and demanded an apology. Lenin added that if Stalin didn’t apologize, their “friendship” would end.

 

While Lenin was alive, Stalin was hampered by Lenin’s efforts to try and establish change, i.e., reforms not only for the Soviet Union’s survival but for it to improve the population’s conditions.

 

Stalin, however, used his cunning to eventually play off one tendency of Bolsheviks against another, and visa-versa. Stalin was gradually accumulating power by sometimes playing the “moderate,” going along with Lenin’s proposals.

 

Lenin and other Bolsheviks introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP) which implemented some degree of capitalism but under the rule of socialism. As a result, there were improvements in the economy. Things were beginning to be more stable.

 

This went on until 1927 after Lenin died (in 1924) and Stalin was continuing to accumulate even more power. It got to a point where Stalin had the leverage to abolish the NEP.

 

From there, Stalin continued with his ulterior motives and finally attained absolute power. He established, or imposed, his agenda which unfortunately set a precedent for how “socialism” should be “practiced.” However, there were opponents of Stalin’s efforts from Communist Party members and others who recognized that Stalin’s approach was harmful to the Soviet Union, its reputation, and harmful to the ideas of Marx and Engels. 

 

But there were many in the population who supported Stalin based on getting rid of “enemies of the people,” and lulled into thinking that Stalin’s efforts were justifiable. But those in opposition feared retaliation by Stalin if they were to even criticize him. 

 

The political atmosphere among the population was also characterized by a fear of retaliation: being arrested, tortured, shot; being deported to other areas in the USSR; being “assigned” to harsh working conditions.

 

If Lenin were to live a full life, the consequences from Stalin’s handiwork probably would not have succeeded. 

 

But despite the handiwork, the USSR rapidly industrialized, having really no choice in the matter due to capitalist encirclement. The credit should go to the Soviet people for this accomplishment, rather than Stalin himself. 

 

The propaganda from anti-communists–the right-wing and neoliberals–has this idea that if Stalin was bad, then Lenin was bad, then Marx and Engels were bad. It doesn’t hold up to intellectual scrutiny. There is the B/W, and there are the shades of gray. 

 

Soviet history is more complicated than how anti-communists make it out. But they have an agenda: oppressing any alternative to the current capitalist world order and the fear that an alternative would be more viable than capitalist rule.