The Soviet Leaders as Joseph Stalin, Khrushchev, Merman - Essay Example

Stalin) In his speech to the All-Union Conference of Socialist Industry, the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin made the clear point that the overall goal of the his 1930-31 initiatives was “a total increase of industrial output by 45 per cent” (Tasks 1998). It is important to remember the historical context in which Stalin made this speech. The whole of the industrialized West was mired in a grave economic depression. Thus Stalin’s various economic initiatives and plans sought, in the main, to provide jobs and industrial growth and to provide a viable alternative to Western capitalism. Through the use of propaganda, the Soviet Communist Party used all means at its disposal to demonize capitalist countries. It sought to convince the peoples of Russia and Eastern Europe that the plans and policies of the Soviet government were working in their interests. This propaganda centered on what Stalin called “the class enemy”. There were, lurking everywhere, enemies of the Soviet proletariat who were doing all they could to arrest the Soviet initiatives and the proletarian revolution. The main reasons Stalin cited first involved the need for growth. He spoke of the “disease of capitalism” as being something the USSR should avoid. His growth initiatives were necessary because the Soviet people deserved “a government desirous and capable of utilizing these immense natural resources for the benefit of the people…and that this government should enjoy the support of the vast masses of workers and peasants” (Task 1998). To fulfill the “objective possibilities” (the potential industrial growth estimates if planning and labor worked with prefect efficiency) the USSR needed “a party sufficiently solid and united to direct the efforts of all the best members of the working class.” The other main reason involved “our obligations to the world proletariat…The working class of the U.S.S.R. is part of the world working class. We achieved victory not solely through the efforts of the working class of the U.S.S.R., but also thanks to support of the working class of the world.” (Task 1998). Stalin wanted to internationalize the efforts and policies of the Soviet government for propaganda purposes. In his eyes, the results of the First Five Year Plan were a stunning success (no surprise there). Most significant for him and for history was his claim that the USSR had been converted from an agrarian nation into an industrial country…” (Results 1998). To some extent this was true, Stalin did greatly increase industrial output, without which the Soviets could never have fought Hitler in the way that they did. Stalin also mentioned several figures and percentages as being symbolic of the plan’s success. He claimed that industrial output had grown 3 times in volume compared to pre-1917 levels. As well, he claimed that the country had been “modernized.” This was a long-standing Soviet obsession: to emulate and supersede the capitalist West. Krushchev) In his now famous 1956 speech denouncing Stalin and his policies, Krushchev listed several of Stalin’s crimes against the Soviet Union. Mainly he mentioned the many repressions and “putsch” which resulted in the murder and death of thousands of Party members and supposed “enemies of the state.” “Whoever opposed this concept or tried to prove his viewpoint, and the correctness of his position was doomed to removal from the leading collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation…prominent party leaders and rank-and-file party workers, honest and dedicated to the cause of communism, fell victim to Stalin’s despotism” (Secret 2009). Krushchev constantly contrasted Stalin’s “excesses” with Lenin’s more righteous policies and decisions. One major crime which Krushchev laid at Stalin’s feet was his development and dissemination of a “cult of personality.” Under Stalin’s rule, photos and slogans praising him were ubiquitously spread and posted all over the Soviet Union. “In practice Stalin ignored the norms of party life and trampled on the Leninist principle of collective party leadership” (Secret 2009). Stalin had diverged from proper Communist principles. The reasons that Krushchev offered to explain Stalin’s actions were that they resulted from his own personality flaws. He quoted Lenin as saying that Stalin was “excessively rude, that he does not have a proper attitude toward his comrades, that he is capricious and abuses his power…” Basically Stalin was a power-hungry fiend who was completely obsessed with himself. Krushchev said that Stalin’s wasting of time on repressions against the innocent weakened the country in the later fight against Hitler. “Had our industry been mobilized properly and in time to supply the army with the necessary material, our wartime losses would have been decidedly smaller” (Secret 2009). Krushchev very shrewdly sought to link himself and his claims back to Lenin. Stalin was portrayed as having deviated from the “true socialist path.” Lenin had set the example and Stalin had corrupted it. He had to make sure that he did not criticize socialism but still was able to denounce Stalin. By speaking of true socialism as set forth by Lenin, he avoided any potential “heresies.” Merriman) The reasons that European Communism began to unravel in the 1980’s are several in number, but there are some main ones. According to Merriman the decline and end of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries related to a mixture of poor leadership and industrial decline and decrepitude. In the early 1980’s under the leadership of Party Secretaries Andropov and Chernenko, the Soviet government had sought to maintain a sense of policy freeze. Starting in the 1970’s the government had been able to improve the quality of life of its people by engaging in international trade and by borrowing from Western countries. Under Brezhnev, structural problems related to the Soviet economy were ignored and allowed to fester. When in the 1980’s Andropov and Chernenko were running things a lack of will and a desire to maintain the status quo prevented any meaningful economic reforms. As well, the ability of a utopian ideology to convince and move the masses had lost its appeal. The people in the Eastern bloc no longer trusted anything the government said. As such, many in power feared making any reforms because this would signal that traditional socialist ideology was being questioned and consequently the political breakdown could be accelerated. In addition, the world economy, of which the Soviet Union in the 1980’s was very much a part, had changed. The ability of a state like the USSR to maintain control over such a vast territory and plurality of people was no longer viable. The technological advances being made in the West could not possibly be matched by the USSR. The actual end came with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. As people openly challenged Communist governments throughout the Warsaw Pact countries and the former Soviet Union, these regimes quickly began to collapse. Gorbachev chose not to use violence and repression to put down the uprisings. Boris Yeltsin began to assert Russian independence and one by one all of the former communist governments gave way. Today many post-communist countries have had to adjust to living in a market economy. Many people, especially initially, had become accustomed to having the government provide them with work, housing, healthcare, and pensions. The idea of having to provide for oneself was a relatively novel one. All these countries had to create modern currencies and stock markets and literally fire scores of government workers. As well, people had to learn to live in consumer society. State-owned enterprises had to be sold and private entrepreneurship encouraged. New American Century Project The Project for a the New American Century’s proposals sought to exploit the favorable position the United States held at the end of the 1990’s towards the goal of spreading American values and democracy. The stated principles were to increase defense spending so as to modernize the armed forces, to strengthen our ties to democratic nations and criticize non-democratic ones, promote economic and political freedom across the world, and use America’s unique power and role to strengthen global security and prosperity (New 1997). As optimistic and laudable as these claims may seem, the legitimacy and foundations of their logic are suspect in my opinion. The idea that acting on these principles can provide for a better world in the post-Cold War world is questionable given historical precedent and recent examples. The United States many times throughout the twentieth century claimed to be working in the interests of the world when in reality it was working in its own interests (and not just the general interests of the country but rather in those of its elite). President Wilson took us to war in 1917 so that American could be “the arsenal of democracy.” He claimed that America’s part in that war was purely humanitarian. The fact that he himself had invaded several countries in Latin America so as to further the interests of American corporations received little mention. The influence of the British was something Wilson never mentioned. The extent to which democracy was protected in the decades after World War One speaks for itself. When Johnson and Kennedy took us into Vietnam they spoke of the need to stop the advance of Communism, the fact that defense companies were making money hand over fist hardly detracted from their overall vision. As such the principles laid out by the Project for the New American Century are largely just a rehashing of past American imperialism and greed. The fact that they call for growing the military is but a form of government-speak for giving billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to defense companies. “Acting on these principles” usually means something quite different in real life than when it first appears on paper. How have we strengthened ties to democratic regimes when it is publicly acknowledged that the US actively supports dictatorships provided they oppose terrorism (an example was Tajikistan during the Bush years). The extent to which the neo-Conservative project has created a better world for all is laughable. Opinion of the United States around the world is at an all time low. “The better world” that was created involved an unprovoked invasion of Iraq based upon what turned out to be completely false claims and a protracted war in Afghanistan with no end in sight. Only through a supreme act of myopia and/or cognitive dissonance can someone still believe that these “principles” will create a better world. Works Cited “The New American Century Statement of Principles.” July 3, 1997. Project for the New American Century. December 12, 2009 http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm “The Results of the First Five-Year Plan.” Editor David J. Romagnolo. February 1998. Foreign Languages Press. December 12, 2009 http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/RFFYP33.html “The Secret Speech – On the Cult of Personality.” Editor Paul Halsall. July 1998. Internet Modern History Sourcebook. December 12, 2009 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1956khrushchev-secret1.html “The Tasks of Economic Executives.” Editor David J. Romagnolo. February 1998. Foreign Languages Press. December 12, 2009 http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/TEE31.html Read More