Maoism and Stalinism - Term Paper Example

? Maoism and Stalinism Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong were leaders of United Soviet of Russia and China respectively. Both of these leaders were greatly influential during their time: so much so that they left indelible marks in their countries and indeed the whole world (Steiner, 2008). They were molded in the communist and socialist concepts of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism- Leninism is the belief that the state should be sole owner of all means of production and the workers should be led a clique of enlightened persons who understand the proletariat's class-consciousness. The peasants and workers formed the revolutionary classes under this belief. Marxism-Leninism is a globally inclined ideology that was of the belief that the communist revolution was inevitable. It further advocated that once the revolution had happened in one country, then others will soon have their own revolutions. Thus, it was the duty of believers of Marxism-Leninism to try to export the revolution. Both Stalin and Mao tried to implement Marxism-Leninism in their countries albeit with some modifications to suit their present situations and personal convictions. The two leaders implemented “Five Year Plans” in their countries in order to spur development. Stalin’s First Five Year Plan (FFYP) begun early in 1926. His major focus was to transform the Soviet Union from an agrarian economy to a prominent industrial power. He argued that rapid industrialization was critical for the Soviet Union to flourish and survive as a world power. Stalin’s FFYP was presented as a Second Revolution and this helped him to mobilize the peasants as they perceived themselves to be in a class war with their previous oppressors (Keefe, 2009). Rather than follow Marxism-Leninism, the FFYP was a revolution from above; not from the masses. Stalin created a highly centralized command economy under the auspices of the State Planning Committee (Gosplan). The communist tenet of equality was disregarded as Stalin gave incentives to Managers and skilled workers. It should be noted that the FFYP put heavy emphasis on the heavy industry as massive resources were put in place to develop the oil and steel industry. Mao’s began implementing his First Five Year Plan (FFYP) in 1953. According to Friedman (2001), Mao’s core goal was to end Chinese dependency on agriculture and transform the country into an industrialized economy. Mao’s plan was very similar to Stalin’s since it also advocated for rapid industrialization so as to make China a world power. The Chinese relied on the assistance of the Russians both economically and technically. Mao reorganized his administration to reduce bureaucracy and increase the country’s labor force. This move was aimed at reducing the chances of derailing progress due to a long chain of command. The peasants were required to diversify from agriculture to industrial work. Although the effectiveness of the First Five Year Plans for both leaders was questionable, they nevertheless went ahead to launch their Second Five Year Plans (SFYP). Stalin implemented his SFYP beginning 1933. This plan utilized the industries built during the previous plan to increase productivity. The Second Five Year Plan gave more attention to consumer goods unlike its predecessor. In retrospect, this plan was much more realistic and achieved considerably better results. After Mao’s FFYP, he implemented a much more audacious policy in the Second Five Year Plan. Mao believed that China would develop more rapidly if all resources were used to develop both industry and the agricultural sector concurrently. He utilized the country’s cheap labor to provide services primarily to the grain and steel industry. However, poor workmanship resulted in the failure of the steel production projects. The steel plants were poorly planned and there was scarcity of qualified engineers to oversee the work (Mark, 2001). In order to reign on the agricultural sector, both Stalin and Mao implemented the policy of Collectivization. Under Stalin, one of the aims of Collectivization was to create a rural working class. Previously, the land was owned by the state but the peasants were allowed to farm the land as they wanted. Stalin changed this concept of Marxism- Leninism by making all the peasants essentially workers with zero equity on land ownership. The peasants were paid wages and they did not benefit from any profits from the farms. Although Stalin proposed this Collectivization as a way of making all people equal, the policy met huge resistance from the peasants as well as the wealthy landowners. Gill (2011) noted that: To counteract the food shortages, the FFYP organized peasants into collective units more easily controlled by the party leadership; all land and livestock were organized into collective farms and state farms, in which the party leadership could control the peasants’ movement and production, resulting in what was basically the reintroduction of a serfdom system. (p. 234). The resistance was so widespread that some peasants slaughtered their livestock rather than to give ownership to the state. The other aim of the policy of Collectivization was to modernize farming practices in order to increase production. The surplus food could be sold to other countries and earn the state foreign exchange. Modernized farming would also free up the manpower to serve the new factories that were meant to fuel industrialization. Finally, Stalin hoped that Collectivization would break the peasants as a political force that would threaten the regime. Stalin was not tolerant to the people who opposed his Collectivization policy and those that resisted were suppressed with brutality. Mao advocated for total government control of agriculture so as to finance industrial growth. He planned to create a de facto state monopoly on grain distribution and supply. Such a monopoly would enable the state to buy low and sell high thus making the money needed to finance industrial growth. The peasantry masses resisted the states’ advances but they were forced to join the collective farms as well as forming cooperative societies. Mao used persuasive techniques to convince the peasants that they had work for the people rather than the old system of capitalism (Bramall, 2006). By 1956, the agricultural sector had been almost completely reorganized into collective farms on initiative of the farmers themselves. However, both leaders faced setbacks in their collectivization policies. Under Mao, there was a famine in 1956. China faced a major grain deficit since most of the labor was channeled to industrial production. The country continued to export grain even though the people were starving. In the Soviet Union, there was low food production in 1932 that led to mass starvation. In spite of the low food production, the state kept almost all the output. Stalin exported the grain reserves in order to earn the country money for industrialization. In fact, he blamed the famine on the lazy and “idler” peasants who refused to work hard. Emphasis on massive infrastructural development was also a similar interest for both Mao and Stalin. Before Stalin took power, the Soviet Union was an ancient country with a poor infrastructural system. Most people lived in rural areas with no electricity and poor roads. The Five Year Plans implemented by Stalin exponentially increased the urban working class. Also, many places in the country were electrified and access roads were built. Curtis (2012) pointed out that the construction of industries modernized many parts of Russia placing it at a good position to become a major world power. Before Stalin’s plans, the natural resources in the Soviet Union such coal, iron and oil were underdeveloped. Stalin’s industrialization program enabled several industrial companies to be formed that exploited the natural resources. The development of industries in the Soviet Union was achieved rapidly without financial aid from other countries. In the same breath, Mao played a huge role in transforming China from silent agrarian economy to a major player in industrialized economies The Maoist plans enabled China to rapidly develop its infrastructure systems and reap the benefits of Industrialized nations. Mao believed that the agricultural economy had been eclipsed by time and that the only way China would rise to prominence was through Industrialization. Although their development plans suffered setbacks, the leaders were successful when viewed purely in economic terms. In as much both Maoism and Stalinism were based on Marxist-Leninist ideologies, there implementation differed. Stalin believed in the fundamental concept of Marxist- Leninism ideology that all historical development is as a result of struggle. He advocated for Socialism under one country. All Russians were called upon to play their role in developing a socialist union under one party dictatorship. Stalin hoped that once Russia succeeded in its revolution, other countries would follow suit hence triggering a chain reaction. Stalinism was based on a number of assumptions, including that of contradiction and struggle, which asserted that evolution is a process of struggle as inherent contradictions are exposed and overcome. He thus believed that class struggle was a necessary occurrence in the road of revolution from capitalism to communism. Stalin used terror and brutality to push his ideology. In the early 1930s, Stalin ordered the killing of those opposed to his policies and he eliminated all political threats. As such, he solidified his grasp on power and became a totalitarian dictator. Stalinism featured a destructive feature that the class struggle intensifies after a revolution. He thus believed that his party was bound to revolt against him. This paranoia led to mass killings of real and perceived enemies within the Communist party and the society at large in the 1930s (Curtis, 2012). Spying against the neighbors and the even family became the order of the day. The officials in the party ranks who were deemed not to be loyal faced brutal killings or demotions. The famine in the larger parts of the Soviet Union could also be attributed to the belief that they were revolting and hence deserved to die. Maoism made some modifications to the Marxists ideology to suit the needs of China. Mao believed in populism; politics based on the perceived interests of the ordinary people rather than small elite. Mao endeared himself to the peasants since he realized they formed the majority of the populace and the Chinese Revolution would only be possible through them (Mark, 2001). He ensured that the sophisticated elite to learn from the people and public officials had to go to the farms to learn the basic values of hard manual labor. He further argued that revolution was not a one-time event, rather a permanent process that had to be undertaken continually. Mao believed that the road to a socialist had to involve violence along the way. Progress could only be attained if through disrupting of the status quo and peace could only be attained by neglecting the spirit of revolution. The theories of populism and permanent revolution led Mao to deviate from Leninism ideology that on the party elite can lead the masses into revolution. He believed that people can strive for their own revolution if only they have the right ideological mindset. Mao resorted to mobilizing the masses every time that he needed support for his policies. Maoist ideology advocated that socialization of an economy in a rapid manner would be detrimental to the state. Therefore, he tolerated the few members of rich merchants’ class for some time in order to guarantee stability. After a period, he eliminated the merchants that had foreign ties first before finally doing away with all the merchants. In terms of guerilla warfare, Mao considered it to be composed of military and political parts. In the military part, the first strategy was to establish proper grounds for training and resting. The second part is dividing into small parts to attack the enemy. Finally, the entire team has to group together to attack and destroy the enemy completely. In the political aspect, Mao believed that a soldier should educate more than fight (Acton, 1990). Stalin and Mao are leaders who evoke extreme emotions among historians. There are some who opine that these two leaders helped their countries to rise to the status of economic powerhouses that they are today. Yet others claim that the major loss of lives during their leadership is a sign that they never cared for their people. In my opinion, it would be unfair to judge Mao and Stalin in retrospect without a proper grasp of the circumstances that they faced during their time. As the maxim goes, every great change or stride in the society has to meet resistance. Both Stalin and Mao had the best intentions of transforming their countries into economic powerhouses. And judging them purely in terms of economics, the plans that these leaders laid down were successful. The pertinent question is whether human life can be ignored in the quest for economic prosperity. Difficult as it may be, every great undertaking comes with a sacrifice-only that in some cases the people suffered. Also, a significant proportion of the people in these countries still adore these leaders. Imperatively, it means that they appreciate the work that they did for their counties. It can be argued that Russia and China would have not attained prominence were it not for the leadership of Stalin and Mao respectively. Notably, the industrialization in these countries occurred at a much faster rate than the development in Europe and USA. This could be a reason to appreciate the efforts of Mao and Stalin: the costs were high but the results were rapid. In conclusion, the choice of leadership ultimately lies with the people. The fundamental question is whether Stalin and Mao imposed their wills on the people or the people chose to support them. If the majority of the people could have been against these leaders, then would have not survived in power for long. It is logical to deduce that indeed Stalin and Mao did what they had to do to develop their countries and they were implicitly allowed to do so by the people they led. Bibliography Acton, E. (1990). Rethinking the Russian revolution. New York : Bloomsbury Professor Edward Acton is a renowned specializing in European History at the University of East Anglia. The book attempts to analyze the events during and after the Russian Revolution and their impact. Baradat, B.P., (2008 January 8). Principles of Maoism. Retrieved from http://ahmadrezataheri.blogfa.com/post/352 Professor Baradat analyzes the concepts behind Maoism and their impact on the economic development of China. Bramall, C., (2006). The last of the romantics: Maoist economic development in retrospect. The China Quarterly, 187, 686-692. The author highlights the economic achievements of the Mao Regime. The article shows that the growth of China as a global industrial giant was made possible by the rural workers working in the industries. Curtis, G. E., (2012 October 23). Russia: A Country Study. Retrieved from http://countrystudies.us/russia/ The author critically evaluates the evolution of Russia from the times of Stalin to the present day. The author has assembled articles from experts on Russia issues and has constructed the history of Russia both in social and economic perspectives. Friedman, E., (2001). After Maoism: Maoism and post Mao China. Tellos Publishing, 221, 34- 61. The article evaluates the impact of Maoism in China and how the post Mao China has reversed Maoist policies from socialism to dependent capitalism. Gill, G (2011), Symbols and Legitimacy in Soviet Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). This book discusses the Communist nature of the Soviet Union until its collapse. The main philosophies behind Communism such as Stalinism, Marxism and Leninism are discussed in detail. Keefe, R.J., (2009). Stalin and the drive to industrialize. Retrieved from http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/.../stalin-and-the-drive-to-industrialize... Stalin had such a huge drive to industrialize Russia that he was ready to pay any price in order to attain industrialization. The author, a scholar in Russian issues, uncovers the extent to which Stalin was willing to go in his quest for an industrialized Russia. Mark, L., (2001). Power restructuring in China and Russia. Boulder, Colo: Westview press. At the height of their powers, China and Russia were Communist countries. Yet the events in the world and setbacks forced subsequent leaders of these countries to re-evaluate the communist principles and modify them. Steiner, H.A., (2008). Maoism or Stalinism for Asia? Far Eastern Survey, v22, 56-87. Maoism offers a unique blend of the ideology of Communism. The article ponders the pertinent question on whether Asian region should adopt Maoism or Stalinism for economic prosperity. Read More