By David Eacker
Joseph Stalin led the Soviet Union from the 1920s until 1953. Examining the totalitarian features of his rule reveals the differences between two rival ideologies: communism and fascism.
Our website uses cookies to understand content and feature usage to drive site improvements over time. To learn more, review our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
![Communism in the Soviet Union (1) Communism in the Soviet Union (1)](https://i0.wp.com/www.oerproject.com/-/media/WHP-Origins/HTML-Articles/Unit8/WHPOrigins-8511-Article--Communism-in-the-Soviet-Union--1-cover.jpg?h=1480&iar=0&w=2000&hash=C0A96B608E2829E41B3843094F7CBFF9)
Introduction
Soviet Russia occupies a central place in twentieth-century history. It was led by Joseph Stalin from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953. During that time, the Soviet military played a leading role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II (1939–1945). Yet millions of people died as a consequence of Stalin’s reign. Consider terms like gulag: a system of cruel labor camps established by Stalin. It has become shorthand for the brutality of communist authoritarianism. Here we will consider the Soviet state in the 1920s and 1930s. Specifically, we will evaluate it in terms of totalitarian and authoritarian rule. These terms are often applied to the Soviet Union and other states of this period.
The rise of Stalin
![Communism in the Soviet Union (2) Communism in the Soviet Union (2)](https://i0.wp.com/www.oerproject.com/-/media/WHP-Origins/HTML-Articles/Unit8/WHPOrigins-8511-Article--Communism-in-the-Soviet-Union--2.jpg?h=2000&iar=0&w=1987&hash=FCB21F9AEE38DA6CCCB1E057E2A6E9DD)
Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Soviet Union took form during a period of deep crisis. Its first Premier1 was Vladimir Lenin. He and the Bolshevik (communist) leadership faced big challenges. They had to guide Russia out of World War I (1914–1918). They also faced the famine of 1921–1922. Meanwhile, they needed to nationalize an economy that lagged behind its Western rivals. It was a difficult to-do list. To get out of the war—goal number one—Lenin had adopted “hardline War Communism.” This emergency policy gave the government direct control of the economy. Its strict measures went over badly with peasants and many others. So when he got to goals two and three, Lenin was forced to reconsider his approach.
The result was Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1921. It combined state control of the economy with elements of free-market capitalism. The NEP loosened the central government’s grip on private business and agriculture. For a time, the economy became more flexible and profitable. This “state capitalism” had some positive effects. It freed up workers from direct government interference in their enterprises. The policy also injected some life into the Russian economy. Lenin’s willingness to adapt proved successful, at least in the short term.
This shift showed that the Bolsheviks were flexible in the Soviet Union’s early years. They had a lot of political and ideological enthusiasm. But, they could be realistic and experimental. However, the rise of Joseph Stalin and Stalinism changed that.
![Communism in the Soviet Union (3) Communism in the Soviet Union (3)](https://i0.wp.com/www.oerproject.com/-/media/WHP-Origins/HTML-Articles/Unit8/WHPOrigins-8511-Article--Communism-in-the-Soviet-Union--3.jpg?h=1340&iar=0&w=2000&hash=5847718A58B64A723C7019AEE6EF27FD)
Stalin took power after Lenin’s death in 1924. He immediately returned the state to an authoritarian stance. He wanted complete command of the Soviet economy and society. He demonstrated his hardline approach during a food crisis in 1927–1929. Stalin argued that grain was a vital national resource. He then used state power to seize it from individual farmers. Stalin also waged class warfare against wealthy peasants, or kulaks. Whether they resisted or not, they faced a grim fate. Many were killed. Forced collectivization2 in Ukraine took place during a famine there in 1932–1933. It resulted in the deaths of about four million Ukrainians. Historians refer to this as the Holodomor, regarded as one of the great moral disasters of the time. But Stalin and party elites still pursued a command economy. They stopped at nothing to achieve a “revolution from above” in which a centralized state used its power to control all of society. And that state was controlled by the Communist Party and Stalin.
The expansion of state power under Stalin wasn’t just about agriculture and industry. The whole economy was organized through a system of Five-Year Plans. As the 1930s wore on, Soviet leadership pushed for extreme forms of centralization. Stalin tried to ensure people’s loyalty through “purges.” He used this program of political suppression to eliminate anyone suspected of disloyalty. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens were sent to the gulags. Hundreds of thousands died.
This system didn’t work entirely as planned. Outwardly, it concentrated power in an authoritarian and totalitarian way. But historian Ronald Grigor Suny has argued that the reality was not so straightforward. In this period, he writes, the state was like a “disorganized, inefficient, and unresponsive” sea monster. In other words, it was powerful but very clumsy. With this in mind, we can think of Stalin’s Soviet Union in the 1930s as striving to become totalitarian. However, it failed to “totally” get there.
Social history affects how we understand the nature of Stalin’s rule. The state may have been as poorly run as Suny claims. Still, it had a big impact on how people there actually lived. State involvement at so many levels of everyday life did link people’s daily lives to politics and government policies. To get food and work, folks had to learn how to deal with the state authority, no matter how badly run. They had no choice. To do this, they developed a range of skills.
The main point here is that the state and the people adapted to each other. The state forced people to adopt certain behaviors to survive. People responded with innovations that the state did not anticipate. The state made its own adjustments to the workarounds of its people. The Soviet state in the 1930s may have strived to be totalitarian. However, we must consider the role of regular citizens in the shaping of the Soviet system. The Soviet people’s ability to adapt does not diminish the destructiveness of Stalinist rule. But it does make us reflect on the limits of totalitarianism.
Communism and Fascism
People often compare communism under Stalin with the fascism of Nazi Germany. Although the two systems opposed each other, they had similarities.
- Both exhibited an authoritarian impulse. Both sought to bring their people into line with the aims of the state.
- Both sought to install a totalitarian system. In other words, the central government wanted complete control of society.
- Both used violence to achieve political ends.
- Both rejected liberalism: individual freedom, free elections, and equality before the law.
- The fascist “new man” even resembled the “new Soviet man.” Each was a symbol of their movement’s values.
At the same time, fascism and Soviet communism differed in significant ways:
- The Soviets embraced left-wing socialist internationalism; fascists embraced right-wing ethnic nationalism.
- In theory, the Soviets rejected racism and ethnic nationalism. These doctrines were central to fascism.
- Soviet communism had official policies meant to erase class and gender inequalities. In contrast, fascists wanted to emphasize such social distinctions. For example, women’s roles were limited to marriage and motherhood. Fascists also celebrated a violent cult of masculinity.
In general, the Soviets continued to express the idea that humans could work together to create a better society. Their background and race did not matter. Fascists rejected any such idea.
Conclusion
Under Stalin, the Soviet Union tried to build a command economy. That goal faced many obstacles in the late 1920s and 1930s. The need to modernize the economy and food shortages drove Stalin and Soviet leaders toward more extreme policies. By the late 1930s, they also faced the threat of war with Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union that emerged from this period was deeply flawed. Stalin may have wanted a finely tuned totalitarian government. It proved impossible, however.
We can perhaps think of Stalinism in the 1930s as basic totalitarianism: a system on the way to becoming totalitarian. Its authoritarian and totalitarian features invite comparisons to fascism. Soviet Communism’s official position of pursuing a fair, non-racist society was deeply flawed. However, it was fundamentally different from fascism.
![Communism in the Soviet Union (4) Communism in the Soviet Union (4)](https://i0.wp.com/www.oerproject.com/-/media/WHP-Origins/HTML-Articles/Unit8/WHPOrigins-8511-Article--Communism-in-the-Soviet-Union--4.jpg?h=2000&iar=0&w=1333&hash=6E9D965020D03BEABCB5FA30036E8DEA)
1 A premier is a head of a government, like a prime minister.
2 Collectivization is the idea that, within a state, nothing can be privately owned because everything is meant to be shared with all members of the state.
Sources
Fitzpatrick, Sheila. "Revisionism in Soviet History," History and Theory, vol. 46, no. 4, Theme Issue 46: Revision in History (diciembre de 2007), páginas 77-91.
Hosking, Geoffrey. "Patronage and the Russian State," The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 78, no. 2 (abril de 2000), páginas 301-320.
Kotkin, Stephen. Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as a Civilization. Paperback ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Mazower, Mark. Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century. New York: Vintage Books, 2000.
Suny, Ronald Grigor. The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
David Eacker
David Eacker is a Ph.D. student in History at Indiana University–Bloomington. His research focuses on modern Europe with an emphasis on Germany and Britain from 1789 to 1918. He is currently working on a dissertation about missionaries, theology, and empire in the 18th and 19th centuries. David has worked for two academic journals, Theory and Society and The American Historical Review.
Image Credits
This work is licensed under CC BY 4.0 except for the following:
Cover: UNSPECIFIED - AUGUST 30: Propaganda poster: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Lenin and Stalin, 1953, © Photo by Apic/Getty Images.
Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin at Gorky, 1922. Public domain. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vladimir_Lenin_and_Joseph_Stalin#/media/File:19220900-lenin-and-stalin-at-gorki-2.jpg
Soviet agents seizing grain hidden by a Ukranian peasant in a graveyard. From the RIA Novosti archive, CC BY-SA 3.0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RIAN_archive_79113_Seizing_grain_from_kulaks.jpg
Poster of Azerbaijan, 1936—Labor Ethics. The words at the bottom of this idealized Image of Labor Equality translate to “We do it like Stakhanov.” Alexey Stakhanov was a “Hero of Socialist Labor” and his pro-socialist work ethic was publicized in this campaign to increase worker productivity. Public domain. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Posters_of_Azerbaijan_Soviet_Socialist_Republic#/media/File:Poster_of_Azerbaijan_1936._Labour_ethics.jpg
Articles leveled by Newsela have been adjusted along several dimensions of text complexity including sentence structure, vocabulary and organization. The number followed by L indicates the Lexile measure of the article. For more information on Lexile measures and how they correspond to grade levels: www.lexile.com/educators/understanding-lexile-measures/
To learn more about Newsela, visit www.newsela.com/about.
The Lexile® Framework for Reading evaluates reading ability and text complexity on the same developmental scale. Unlike other measurement systems, the Lexile Framework determines reading ability based on actual assessments, rather than generalized age or grade levels. Recognized as the standard for matching readers with texts, tens of millions of students worldwide receive a Lexile measure that helps them find targeted readings from the more than 100 million articles, books and websites that have been measured. Lexile measures connect learners of all ages with resources at the right level of challenge and monitors their progress toward state and national proficiency standards. More information about the Lexile® Framework can be found at www.Lexile.com.