The Role of Communism in Stalin's Rise to Power

Stalin, a true believer in communism, sought to build a better world by infusing communist ideology into his country and potentially the whole world. His desire for power and personal gain were significant factors in his rise to power, but they were not the only driving forces behind his actions. Stalin was also driven by ideals, particularly the idea of building a powerful state that would be a bastion of communism.

Stalin's ability to communicate his vision to the people and his willingness to take action to achieve it were key factors in his success. He was able to tap into widespread sentiments among the Russian people who shared his admiration for Stalin's dedication to communist ideals and his ability to enact them. However, not everyone around Stalin shared these ideals, and he often resorted to manipulation, violence, lies, and slander to eliminate potential rivals and consolidate his power.

Despite his questionable methods, Stalin justified his actions by appealing to communism and Soviet patriotism. He saw himself as the only one who could be trusted to build a better world, and he was willing to do whatever it took to achieve this goal. This included using underhanded tactics such as sabotage and assassination to eliminate perceived threats to his rule.

The Context of Stalin's Rise to Power

During the interwar period between World War I and World War II, capitalism was in a state of crisis. The Great Depression had led to widespread unemployment, poverty, and disillusionment with the capitalist system. Fascism, Nazism, and Imperial Japan were also on the rise, leading to a sense of uncertainty and fear among many people.

In this context, communism held some appeal, particularly within the Soviet Union. However, even outside of the Soviet Union, the image and reality of capitalism had become increasingly negative, and many people saw communism as potentially a better option. Stalin's rule was seen by some as a possible alternative to the harsh realities of capitalism during this period.

However, this perception was short-lived. After World War II, the context changed significantly. Capitalism had undergone a significant transformation, becoming more successful and prosperous. The Soviet Union struggled to compete with this new reality, and Stalin's regime faced increasing pressure from within and outside.

The Decline of Communism

Communism as an ideology is based on an alternative to capitalism, and if that alternative is not superior, there is no reason for communism to exist. However, during Stalin's rule, the Soviet Union had failed to live up to its promises, and capitalism had emerged from the ashes of World War II as a more successful and viable system.

The widespread disillusionment with communism that followed Stalin's death marked a significant turning point in the history of communism. The Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 was a direct result of this decline, as the regime's inability to compete with capitalism became increasingly evident. Today, communist ideology is no longer considered a viable alternative to capitalism, and its appeal has largely faded.

Stalin's Legacy

Stalin's legacy is complex and multifaceted. He was a true believer in communism who sought to build a better world through his ideology. However, he was also driven by a desire for power and personal gain, which often led him to use underhanded tactics to achieve his goals.

Despite his questionable methods, Stalin remains an important figure in modern history. His rule marked the culmination of the Soviet Union's early years, and his actions had far-reaching consequences that continue to shape the world today. However, his legacy serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of totalitarianism and the importance of upholding democratic values and human rights.

The Rise of Capitalism

After Stalin's death, capitalism emerged from the ashes of World War II as a more successful and prosperous system. The late 1940s to the 1970s saw a period of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity, which created a middle class in many societies. This new reality made it increasingly difficult for communism to compete with the ideals of democracy, freedom, and human rights.

As capitalism rose from the ashes, Stalin's rule became less relevant, and his ideology was slowly dismantled. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the final demise of communism as a viable alternative to capitalism. Today, the world is dominated by capitalist economies, and the ideals of democracy and freedom have become the accepted norm.

In conclusion, Stalin's rise to power was shaped by a complex interplay of ideological, economic, and historical factors. His commitment to communism and his willingness to use any means necessary to achieve his goals were key factors in his success. However, his legacy is also marked by questionable methods and a lack of democratic values, which serve as a reminder of the dangers of totalitarianism.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enfirst of all you've described a fascinating thought which is Stalin as having amassed arguably more power than any man in history she's an interesting thing to think about but can you tell about his journey to getting that power after the Russian Revolution how does that perhaps echo to the our current discussion about institutions and so on and just in general the story I think is fascinating of how one man is able to get more power than any other man in history it is a great story not necessarily from a moral point of view but if you're interested in power for sure it's an incredible story so we have to remember that Stalin is also a product of circumstances not solely his own individual Drive which is very strong but for example World War one breaks the Czarist regime the Czarist order Imperial Russia in the state Stalin has no participation whatsoever in World War one he spends World War one in exile in Siberia until the downfall of the Czarist autocracy in February 1917 Stalin is in eastern Siberian exile he's only able to leave eastern Siberia when that regime Falls he never fights in the war he's called up briefly towards the end of the war and is disqualified on physical grounds because of physical deformities from being drafted the war continues after the Czar's regime has been toppled in the capital and there's been a revolution the war continues and that war is very radicalizing the peasants begin to seize the land after the Czar Falls essentially destroying much of the gentry class Stalin has nothing to do with that the peasants have their own revolution seizing the land not in law but in fact de facto not desert land ownership so there are these really large processes underway that Stalin is alive during but not a driver of the most improbable thing happens which is a very small group of people around the the figure of Lady melanin announces that had in a seized power now by this time in October 1917 the government that has replaced the Tsar the so-called provisional government has failed and so there's not so much power to seize from the provisional government what Lenin does is he does a coup on the left that is to say Soviets or councils as we would call them in English which represent people's power or the masses participating in politics a kind of radical grassroots democracy are extremely popular all over the country and not dominated by any one group but predominantly socialist or predominantly leftist Russia has an election during the war a free and fair election for the most part despite the war at the end of 1917 in December 1917 and 3/4 plus of the country votes socialists in some form or another so the battle was over the definition of socialism and who had the right to participate in defining socialism not only what it would be but who had the right to decide so there's a coup by Lenin's group known as the Bolsheviks against all the other socialists and so Lenin declares a seizure of power whereby the old government has failed people's power the council's known as the Soviets are going to take their place and Lenin seizes power in the name of the Soviet so it's a coup against the left against the rest of the left not against the provision government that has replaced the Tsar which has already failed and so Stalin is able to come to power along with Lenin in this crazy seizure of power on the left against the rest of the left in October 1917 which we know is the October Revolution and I call the October coup as many other historians call the October Revolution happened after the seizure of power what's interesting about this episode is that the leftists who seized power in the name of the Soviets in the name of the masses in the name of people's power they retain their hold many times in history there's a seizure of power by the left and they fail they collapse they're cleaned out by an army or what we call forces of order by counter-revolutionary forces Lenin's Revolution Lenin's coup is successful it is able to hold power and not just seize power they win a civil war and they're entrenched in the heart of the country already by 1921 Stalin is part of that group Lenin needs somebody to run this new regime in the kind of nitty-gritty way Lenin is the leader the undisputed leader in the Bolshevik Party which changes their name to communists in 1918 he makes Stalin the General Secretary of the Communist Party he creates a new position which hadn't existed before a kind of day-to-day political manager a right-hand man not because Lenin is looking to replace himself he's looking to institutionalize a helpmate a right-hand man he does this in the spring of 1920 to stall and his name to this position which Lenin has created expressly for Stalin so there's been a coup on the Left where by the Bolsheviks who become communists have seized power against the rest of the socialists and the Anna guests and the entire left and then there's an institutionalization of a position known as General Secretary of the Communist Party right-hand man of Lenin less than six weeks after Lenin has created this position and installed Stalin Lenin has a stroke and a major stroke and never really returns as a full actor to power before he dies of a fourth stroke in January 1924 so a position is created for Stalin to run things on Lenin's behalf and then Lenin has a stroke and so Stalin now has this new position general-secretary but he's the right hand of a person who's no longer exercising day-to-day control over affairs Stalin then uses this new position to create a personal dictatorship inside the Bolshevik dictatorship which is the remarkable story I tried to tell so is there anything nefarious about any of what you just described it seems conveniently that the position is created just for Stalin there was a few other brilliant people arguably more brilliant installing in the vicinity of Lenin why was Stalin chosen why did Lenin all of a sudden fall ill as perhaps a conspiratorial question but is there anything nefarious about any of this historical trajectory to power that Stalin took in creating the personal dictatorship so history is full of contingency and surprise after something happens we all think it's inevitable it had to happen that way everything was leading up to it so Hitler seizes power in Germany in 1933 and the Nazi regime gets institutionalized by several of his moves after being named Chancellor and so all German history becomes a story of the Nazi rise to power Hitler's rise to power every trend tendency is bent into that outcome things which don't seem related to that outcome all of a sudden get bent in that direction and all the trends that were going on are no longer examined because they didn't lead to that outcome but Hitler's becoming Chancellor of Germany in 1933 was not inevitable it was contingent he was offered the position by the traditional conservatives he's part of the radical right and the traditional right named him Chancellor the Nazi Party never outright won an election that was free and fair before Hitler came to power and in fact it's votes on the eve of Hitler becoming Chancellor declined relative to the previous election so there's contingency in history and so Lenin's illness his stroke the neurological and blood problems that he had were not a structure in history in other words if Lenin had been a healthier figure Stalin might never have become the Stalin that we know that's not to say that all history is accidental just that we need to relate the structural the larger structural factors to the contingent factors why did Lenin pick Stalin Stalin was a very effective organizer and the position was an organizational position Stalin could get things done he would carry out assignments no matter how difficult he wouldn't complain that it was hard work or too much work he wouldn't go off womanizing and drinking and ignore his responsibilities Lenin chose Stalin among other options because he thought Stalin was the better option once again he wasn't choosing his successor because he didn't know he was gonna have this stroke Lenin had some serious illnesses but he had never had a major stroke before so the choice was made based upon Stalin's organizational skills and promise against the others for in the regime now they can see more brilliant than Stalin but he was more effective and I'm not sure they were very brilliant well he was exceptionally competent actually at the tasks for running a governor of the executive branch rate of a dictator yes he turned out to be very adept at being a dictator yes and so if he had been chosen by Lenin and had not been very good he would have been pushed aside by others you can get a position by accident you can be named because you're someone's friend or someone's relative but to hold that position to hold that position in difficult circumstances and then to build effectively a superpower on all that bloodshed all right you have to be skilled in some way you can't be just the accident that brings you to power because if accident brings you to power it won't last just like we discovered with Putin he had some qualities that we didn't foresee at the beginning and he's been able to hold power not just be named and now Putin and Stalin are very different people these are very different regimes I wouldn't put them in the same sentence my point is not that one resembles the other my point is that when people come to power for contingent reasons they don't stay in power unless they're able to manage it and Stalin was able to build a personal dictatorship inside that dictatorship he was cunning he was ruthless and he was a workaholic he was very diligent he had a phenomenal memory and so he could remember people's names and faces and events and this was very advantageous for him as he built the machine that became the Soviet state and bureaucracy one of the things maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong with you've made me realize is this wasn't some kind of manipulative personality trying to gain more power soli like kind of an evil picture of a person but he truly believed in communism the the you know as far as I can understand again you can correct me if I'm wrong but he wanted to build a better world by building by having infusing communism in debt into into the country and perhaps into the the whole world so maybe my question is what role does communism as an idea as an ideology play in all of this in his rise to power and the people of the time in the Russian people actually just the whole 20th century you're right Stalin was a true believer and this is very important he was also hungry for power and for personal power but just as you said not for powers sake not only for power he was interested in enacting communism in reality and also in building a powerful state he was a statist a traditional Russian statist in the Imperial sense and this won him a lot of followers the fact that they knew he was a hardcore true believing communist won him a lot of followers among the communists and the fact that he was a hardcore defender of Russian state interests now in the Soviet guys also won him a lot of followers sometimes those groups overlapped the Communists and the Russian Patriots and sometimes they were completely different groups but both of them shared an admiration for Stalin's dedication through those goals and his abilities to enact them and so it's very important to understand that however thirsty he was for power and he was very thirsty for power that he was also driven by ideals now I don't necessarily think that everyone around Stalin shared those ideals we have to be careful not to make everybody into a communist believer not to make everybody into a great status Russian Patriot but they were widespread and powerful attractions for a lot of people and so Stalin's ability to communicate to people those that he was dedicated to those pursuits and his ability to drive towards them were part of his appeal however he also resorted to manipulation he also resorted to violence he lied he spoke out of all sides of his mouth he slandered other people he sabotaged potential rivals he used every underhanded method and then some in order to build his personal dictatorship now he justified this as you said by appeals to communism and to Soviet father himself as well too to himself and to others and so he justified it in his own mind and to others but certainly any means right were were acceptable to him to achieve these ends and he identified his personal power with communism and with Russian glory in the world so he felt that he was the only one who could be trusted who could be relied upon to build these things now we put ourselves back in that time period the Great Depression was a very difficult time for the capitalist system there was mass unemployment a lot of hardship fascism Nazism Japan in period J pan there were a lot of associations that were negative with the kind of capitalist system that was not a hundred percent not a monolith but had a lot of authoritarian incarnations there was imperialism colonies that even the democratic rule of law capitalist states had non democratic non rule of law colonies under their rule so the image and reality of capitalism during that time period between World War one and World War two was very different from how it would become later and so in that time period in that interwar conjuncture after World War one before World War two communism held some appeal inside the Soviet Union for sure but even outside the Soviet Union because the image and reality of capitalism disappointed many people now in the end communism was significantly worse many more victims and the system of course would eventually implode but nonetheless there were real problems that communism tried to address it didn't solve those problems it was not a solution but it didn't come out of nowhere it came out of the context of that inner war period and so Stalin's rule some people saw it as potentially a better option than imperialism fascism and Great Depression having said that they were wrong it turned out that Stalin wasn't a better alternative to markets and private property and rule of law and democracy however that didn't become clearer to people until after World War two after Nazism had been defeated Imperial Japan had been defeated a fascist Italy had been defeated and decolonization had happened around the world and there was a middle-class economic boom in the period from the late 40s through the 70s that created a kind of mass middle class in many societies so capitalism rose from the ashes as it were and this changed the game for Stalin and communism communism is about an alternative to capitalism and if that alternative is not superior there's no reason for communism to exist but if capitalism is in foul odor if people have a bad opinion a strong critique of capitalism that can be appealed to alternatives and that's kind of what happened with Stalin's rule but after World War two the context changed a lot capitalism was very different much more successful not a non-violence compared to what it was in the interwar period and the Soviet Union had a tough time competing against that new context youfirst of all you've described a fascinating thought which is Stalin as having amassed arguably more power than any man in history she's an interesting thing to think about but can you tell about his journey to getting that power after the Russian Revolution how does that perhaps echo to the our current discussion about institutions and so on and just in general the story I think is fascinating of how one man is able to get more power than any other man in history it is a great story not necessarily from a moral point of view but if you're interested in power for sure it's an incredible story so we have to remember that Stalin is also a product of circumstances not solely his own individual Drive which is very strong but for example World War one breaks the Czarist regime the Czarist order Imperial Russia in the state Stalin has no participation whatsoever in World War one he spends World War one in exile in Siberia until the downfall of the Czarist autocracy in February 1917 Stalin is in eastern Siberian exile he's only able to leave eastern Siberia when that regime Falls he never fights in the war he's called up briefly towards the end of the war and is disqualified on physical grounds because of physical deformities from being drafted the war continues after the Czar's regime has been toppled in the capital and there's been a revolution the war continues and that war is very radicalizing the peasants begin to seize the land after the Czar Falls essentially destroying much of the gentry class Stalin has nothing to do with that the peasants have their own revolution seizing the land not in law but in fact de facto not desert land ownership so there are these really large processes underway that Stalin is alive during but not a driver of the most improbable thing happens which is a very small group of people around the the figure of Lady melanin announces that had in a seized power now by this time in October 1917 the government that has replaced the Tsar the so-called provisional government has failed and so there's not so much power to seize from the provisional government what Lenin does is he does a coup on the left that is to say Soviets or councils as we would call them in English which represent people's power or the masses participating in politics a kind of radical grassroots democracy are extremely popular all over the country and not dominated by any one group but predominantly socialist or predominantly leftist Russia has an election during the war a free and fair election for the most part despite the war at the end of 1917 in December 1917 and 3/4 plus of the country votes socialists in some form or another so the battle was over the definition of socialism and who had the right to participate in defining socialism not only what it would be but who had the right to decide so there's a coup by Lenin's group known as the Bolsheviks against all the other socialists and so Lenin declares a seizure of power whereby the old government has failed people's power the council's known as the Soviets are going to take their place and Lenin seizes power in the name of the Soviet so it's a coup against the left against the rest of the left not against the provision government that has replaced the Tsar which has already failed and so Stalin is able to come to power along with Lenin in this crazy seizure of power on the left against the rest of the left in October 1917 which we know is the October Revolution and I call the October coup as many other historians call the October Revolution happened after the seizure of power what's interesting about this episode is that the leftists who seized power in the name of the Soviets in the name of the masses in the name of people's power they retain their hold many times in history there's a seizure of power by the left and they fail they collapse they're cleaned out by an army or what we call forces of order by counter-revolutionary forces Lenin's Revolution Lenin's coup is successful it is able to hold power and not just seize power they win a civil war and they're entrenched in the heart of the country already by 1921 Stalin is part of that group Lenin needs somebody to run this new regime in the kind of nitty-gritty way Lenin is the leader the undisputed leader in the Bolshevik Party which changes their name to communists in 1918 he makes Stalin the General Secretary of the Communist Party he creates a new position which hadn't existed before a kind of day-to-day political manager a right-hand man not because Lenin is looking to replace himself he's looking to institutionalize a helpmate a right-hand man he does this in the spring of 1920 to stall and his name to this position which Lenin has created expressly for Stalin so there's been a coup on the Left where by the Bolsheviks who become communists have seized power against the rest of the socialists and the Anna guests and the entire left and then there's an institutionalization of a position known as General Secretary of the Communist Party right-hand man of Lenin less than six weeks after Lenin has created this position and installed Stalin Lenin has a stroke and a major stroke and never really returns as a full actor to power before he dies of a fourth stroke in January 1924 so a position is created for Stalin to run things on Lenin's behalf and then Lenin has a stroke and so Stalin now has this new position general-secretary but he's the right hand of a person who's no longer exercising day-to-day control over affairs Stalin then uses this new position to create a personal dictatorship inside the Bolshevik dictatorship which is the remarkable story I tried to tell so is there anything nefarious about any of what you just described it seems conveniently that the position is created just for Stalin there was a few other brilliant people arguably more brilliant installing in the vicinity of Lenin why was Stalin chosen why did Lenin all of a sudden fall ill as perhaps a conspiratorial question but is there anything nefarious about any of this historical trajectory to power that Stalin took in creating the personal dictatorship so history is full of contingency and surprise after something happens we all think it's inevitable it had to happen that way everything was leading up to it so Hitler seizes power in Germany in 1933 and the Nazi regime gets institutionalized by several of his moves after being named Chancellor and so all German history becomes a story of the Nazi rise to power Hitler's rise to power every trend tendency is bent into that outcome things which don't seem related to that outcome all of a sudden get bent in that direction and all the trends that were going on are no longer examined because they didn't lead to that outcome but Hitler's becoming Chancellor of Germany in 1933 was not inevitable it was contingent he was offered the position by the traditional conservatives he's part of the radical right and the traditional right named him Chancellor the Nazi Party never outright won an election that was free and fair before Hitler came to power and in fact it's votes on the eve of Hitler becoming Chancellor declined relative to the previous election so there's contingency in history and so Lenin's illness his stroke the neurological and blood problems that he had were not a structure in history in other words if Lenin had been a healthier figure Stalin might never have become the Stalin that we know that's not to say that all history is accidental just that we need to relate the structural the larger structural factors to the contingent factors why did Lenin pick Stalin Stalin was a very effective organizer and the position was an organizational position Stalin could get things done he would carry out assignments no matter how difficult he wouldn't complain that it was hard work or too much work he wouldn't go off womanizing and drinking and ignore his responsibilities Lenin chose Stalin among other options because he thought Stalin was the better option once again he wasn't choosing his successor because he didn't know he was gonna have this stroke Lenin had some serious illnesses but he had never had a major stroke before so the choice was made based upon Stalin's organizational skills and promise against the others for in the regime now they can see more brilliant than Stalin but he was more effective and I'm not sure they were very brilliant well he was exceptionally competent actually at the tasks for running a governor of the executive branch rate of a dictator yes he turned out to be very adept at being a dictator yes and so if he had been chosen by Lenin and had not been very good he would have been pushed aside by others you can get a position by accident you can be named because you're someone's friend or someone's relative but to hold that position to hold that position in difficult circumstances and then to build effectively a superpower on all that bloodshed all right you have to be skilled in some way you can't be just the accident that brings you to power because if accident brings you to power it won't last just like we discovered with Putin he had some qualities that we didn't foresee at the beginning and he's been able to hold power not just be named and now Putin and Stalin are very different people these are very different regimes I wouldn't put them in the same sentence my point is not that one resembles the other my point is that when people come to power for contingent reasons they don't stay in power unless they're able to manage it and Stalin was able to build a personal dictatorship inside that dictatorship he was cunning he was ruthless and he was a workaholic he was very diligent he had a phenomenal memory and so he could remember people's names and faces and events and this was very advantageous for him as he built the machine that became the Soviet state and bureaucracy one of the things maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong with you've made me realize is this wasn't some kind of manipulative personality trying to gain more power soli like kind of an evil picture of a person but he truly believed in communism the the you know as far as I can understand again you can correct me if I'm wrong but he wanted to build a better world by building by having infusing communism in debt into into the country and perhaps into the the whole world so maybe my question is what role does communism as an idea as an ideology play in all of this in his rise to power and the people of the time in the Russian people actually just the whole 20th century you're right Stalin was a true believer and this is very important he was also hungry for power and for personal power but just as you said not for powers sake not only for power he was interested in enacting communism in reality and also in building a powerful state he was a statist a traditional Russian statist in the Imperial sense and this won him a lot of followers the fact that they knew he was a hardcore true believing communist won him a lot of followers among the communists and the fact that he was a hardcore defender of Russian state interests now in the Soviet guys also won him a lot of followers sometimes those groups overlapped the Communists and the Russian Patriots and sometimes they were completely different groups but both of them shared an admiration for Stalin's dedication through those goals and his abilities to enact them and so it's very important to understand that however thirsty he was for power and he was very thirsty for power that he was also driven by ideals now I don't necessarily think that everyone around Stalin shared those ideals we have to be careful not to make everybody into a communist believer not to make everybody into a great status Russian Patriot but they were widespread and powerful attractions for a lot of people and so Stalin's ability to communicate to people those that he was dedicated to those pursuits and his ability to drive towards them were part of his appeal however he also resorted to manipulation he also resorted to violence he lied he spoke out of all sides of his mouth he slandered other people he sabotaged potential rivals he used every underhanded method and then some in order to build his personal dictatorship now he justified this as you said by appeals to communism and to Soviet father himself as well too to himself and to others and so he justified it in his own mind and to others but certainly any means right were were acceptable to him to achieve these ends and he identified his personal power with communism and with Russian glory in the world so he felt that he was the only one who could be trusted who could be relied upon to build these things now we put ourselves back in that time period the Great Depression was a very difficult time for the capitalist system there was mass unemployment a lot of hardship fascism Nazism Japan in period J pan there were a lot of associations that were negative with the kind of capitalist system that was not a hundred percent not a monolith but had a lot of authoritarian incarnations there was imperialism colonies that even the democratic rule of law capitalist states had non democratic non rule of law colonies under their rule so the image and reality of capitalism during that time period between World War one and World War two was very different from how it would become later and so in that time period in that interwar conjuncture after World War one before World War two communism held some appeal inside the Soviet Union for sure but even outside the Soviet Union because the image and reality of capitalism disappointed many people now in the end communism was significantly worse many more victims and the system of course would eventually implode but nonetheless there were real problems that communism tried to address it didn't solve those problems it was not a solution but it didn't come out of nowhere it came out of the context of that inner war period and so Stalin's rule some people saw it as potentially a better option than imperialism fascism and Great Depression having said that they were wrong it turned out that Stalin wasn't a better alternative to markets and private property and rule of law and democracy however that didn't become clearer to people until after World War two after Nazism had been defeated Imperial Japan had been defeated a fascist Italy had been defeated and decolonization had happened around the world and there was a middle-class economic boom in the period from the late 40s through the 70s that created a kind of mass middle class in many societies so capitalism rose from the ashes as it were and this changed the game for Stalin and communism communism is about an alternative to capitalism and if that alternative is not superior there's no reason for communism to exist but if capitalism is in foul odor if people have a bad opinion a strong critique of capitalism that can be appealed to alternatives and that's kind of what happened with Stalin's rule but after World War two the context changed a lot capitalism was very different much more successful not a non-violence compared to what it was in the interwar period and the Soviet Union had a tough time competing against that new context you\n"