Here is an essay I wrote a year ago on the nature of control and power in Stalinist Russia. I booked at George Orwell's famous novel 1984 as a basis for establishing the meaning of control in the political climate.
The essay is a few thousand words long, so I will probably shorten it in the near future to provide a more concise, blog-friendly version of my argument. I also haven't looked at it in a year, so please be forgiving; as a 16 year old this was my first lengthy essay and the first essay whereby I conducted independent research and wrote the whole thing on my own. Since I wrote it in the space of a week and a half my research wasn't extensive, so some of the opinions are simplified.
The meaning and level of control in Stalinist Russia
To look into control in
Stalinist Russia, the meaning of total and complete control must first be
established. The political novel 1984 by George Orwell depicts a society in which
controlling the ideas and thoughts of the people is more important than a
physical repression of the opposition. Following this theory, if the thoughts
of an entire population are controlled completely, then absolute control exists.
If we take this as the definition of ultimate authority then it cannot exist,
even in a repressive regime such as that of Stalin. However 1984 very
effectively portrays a realistic society in which the people accept everything
without doubt or question. 1984 suggests that it is more important for the
ideas of a regime to be maintained than a single individual’s power. Therefore
the question the political novel raises is about the possibility of complete
control over a population, not in the hands of an individual but an ideology,
as Party member O’Brien reveals whilst torturing Winston:
Power
is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an
individual… Alone - free - the human being is always defeated… every human
being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can
make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can
merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and
immortal… power is power over human beings. Over the body but, above all, over
the mind. Power over matter - external reality, as you would call it - is not
important. Already our control over matter is absolute…We control matter
because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. [1]
This analysis of ultimate authority is important as it
encompasses the idea that control can only be considered total if it is
uninfluenced, and only if the authority controls by some method every single
member of the population. Most significantly it stresses the importance of
control of the mind; if the population of a country believe their leader has
absolute power then they automatically do. This version of absolute power is
perhaps the most extreme, as it requires almost unfeasible levels of repression,
control and indoctrination from a central power. This essay will argue that
Stalin achieved the highest level of control over his population in any society
before or since, and analyse the ways in which he tried to gain control and how
far he succeeded in achieving this.
The other problem in assessing whether absolute power is
possible is how, and if, power can be measured. Stephen J. Lee identifies two
ways of assessing power and control over a state when discussing the variants
of totalitarianism. In the ‘strong’ variant totalitarianism “achieves total
control over the population through conversion...the most important criterion
for success is the degree to which the ideology and objectives of the regime
are accomplished.”[2] However, he also remarks “the strong model
implies that the regime is always in control…[that] power…is a ‘top-down’
process”. On the other hand the ‘weak’ analysis “assess[es] the methods by
which the regime has tried to achieve conformity...[this] allows for the
existence of administrative confusion and influence of...the population on the
development of policy”. Clearly only the ‘strong’ variant of totalitarianism
could be the achievement of absolute power, however as Stephen J. Lee points
out there is no real way of accurately measuring how much a population really
follows and believes in a certain cause or ideology (as opposed to being
apathetic or too afraid to object).
Therefore, although it would seem that with recent
totalitarian regimes such as that of the Soviet Union the level of control and
indoctrination achieved was unprecedented (and therefore the central figure in
control held almost ultimate power), in reality it is very hard to measure how
far the public invested into the ideology and personality cult created by this
authority. An easier way to investigate the acquisition and maintaining of
control is to assess how far a central power was able to impose policies and
make decisions without any influence from the people themselves. However if we want to assess how far a leader
controls the minds of the people and therefore their reality we must try and
assess how far a leader manages to convince the population of their own
encompassing power.
As we have established before, control of the mind is
central to understanding what Stalin was trying to achieve in Russia. This
essay argues that Stalin had more control over the thoughts of the Russian people
than any other society in history. Stalin harnessed a frightening amount of control
over the minds of the Russian people, and achieved an unprecedented amount of
power over his own society. His personality cult and reign of terror both acted
as ways for him to stay in power by convincing most of the population that he
had total control.
Firstly, Stalin was the most powerful dictator of the
20th century, if not throughout history. His search for power was
total and he was ruthless in keeping it. He carried out frequent purges mainly
in the 30’s so he could gain power and control. These brought the number of
deaths up to more than seven million, not mentioning the millions more who died
from the famine of 1932-3. His uncompromising stance in terms of eliminating possible
threats to his power was unparalleled; he saw even latent future threats as
immediate problems. This level of brutality might suggest a strong leader who
was able to destroy any threats to his power (even imagined ones) and therefore
who was able to maintain a high level of control over his regime, almost
ultimate. By creating an atmosphere of fear and suspicion he was able to
control the population to a certain extent. However these purges also hint at the
fear Stalin possessed that his position would be challenged. Especially after
the Second World War with a re-instigation of terror, it can be argued that the
system of purges was restored not because of Stalin’s increasing power but
because of his heightened paranoia about losing control and therefore his
increasingly vulnerable position. Stalin was constantly afraid of losing his
power, and this could suggest he really was constantly under threat from those
in the government or military wishing to seize the position he had.
Why is this important? For this argument the most
important thing about the red terror is not the brutality itself but what it reveals
about Stalin and how much control he had over his peiole; to look at this we
must analyse how it came to happen, and especially, how Stalin maintained support
during and after this period. It is hard for us in modern society to see Stalin
without focusing on the terror he inflicted. However as Lewis and Whitehead
point out; “it would be wrong to see [Stalin] as a criminal psychopath, without
acknowledging his skills of manipulation, persuasion, endurance and – in
extremis – self-correction.”[3] It
was not that terror turned Soviet Russia into a country of terrified subjects
made loyal only be the iron fist; in fact the level of participation the common
public had in many of the arrests could show the terror was not the only factor
in Stalin’s control of his population. Hence what’s also interesting about
Stalin is how much popular support he maintained despite this red terror.
McCauley remarks upon a symptom of this, saying “many people...believed that
all the injustices of the 1930s were the fault of nasty and incompetent
officials. Some went to their deaths convinced that if only comrade Stalin had
known what was really going on he would have stepped in to right the injustice”[4]. This
inherent belief in Stalin’s fairness was due to his cult of personality, which
was crucial to Stalin’s dictatorship and to the control his regime had over the
people.
Stalin had built up his cult in stages, first
presenting himself as a disciple of Lenin and changing this image in steps to finally
make himself appear as more powerful and successful than Lenin, a leader who
would guide his people to success. As with other regimes of the time,
propaganda in the form of radio announcements, posters, films and parades was a
key element in creating this cult. However Stalin’s personality cult if
arguably the most elaborate in history. It aimed to make sure every last member
of the population was constantly reminded of Stalin and how he was a deity
leading them. Alexander Avdeyenko remembers “I now see that period as one of
sincere enthusiasm…and yet, as self-hypnosis in the first place from the
personality cult of Stalin… Man wants to believe in something great.”[5]
This manipulation of the people that Stalin accomplished was a key factor in
the success of his reign. It seemed that people honestly believed in Stalin’s
all-seeing power, which had two paradoxical effects.
The first effect of this is that the people believed that
Stalin was really the all-powerful, wise and guiding figure he projected
himself as. Therefore they put their trust in Stalin as a wise leader, and as
mentioned earlier many didn’t think to blame him for the thousands of incorrect
arrests carried out during the terror.
The second effect was that many people believed Stalin
was omniscient, almost like a god, and would know if they hid any piece of
information or tried to oppose the regime in any way. Although this doesn’t go
as far as the ideas of “Thought crime” present in 1984(in which thinking any
bad thoughts about the party leads to death), they are almost bizarrely close.
People could be arrested for a great deal of so-called ‘crimes’, and everyone
was encouraged to become an informer and show their loyalty to Stalin. Because
of this anyone could be reported and arrested for not responding in the right
way to a question or having the right attitude. N. Mandelstam states
“Denunciations poured into every institution on a quite unmanageable scale”[6]. The
fact that many people voluntarily denounced those they personally knew shows
their belief that Stalin was all-powerful and would know either way if someone
had ‘opposed’ the state. Perhaps some of them also did feel loyalty to Stalin
and therefore believed they were carrying out their duty as his supporter. It
is rumoured that around a million innocent people were imprisoned for their
‘crimes’ against the state.
This idea of different levels of support and tolerance
from the people is crucial to the argument; even if Stalin was not openly supported
by all the mass population they believed in the fact that “the very survival of
individuals and groups often depended on co-operation with the state.”[7] Although
this form of passive acceptance doesn’t seem very important, it is markedly
different from political apathy. Since the individual believes that they have
to obey the state in order to survive, they have also accepted that the ruling
party will know if they do not inherently cooperate. People under Stalin were
faced with the propaganda shouting out his greatness, his omnipresence and on
the other side saw people they knew and neighbours being taken away on a
frightening scale. Because of this manipulation most of the population either
maintained support for Stalin or felt that they had to completely obey him, as
he would somehow find out if they did not. Thus perhaps it didn’t matter that
not all of the population religiously advocated and believed in the cause of
Stalin’s communism, as a large proportion of those who didn’t still bought into
his image as an all-powerful, all-seeing dictator.
Although this bizarre mix of popular support and
terrifying repression in Stalin’s regime suggests he really did come close to
achieving a high level of power and control, it didn’t necessarily correlate
with a high level of control over the people. Some historians claim that Stalin’s
policies were carried out by local forces who were often were too vigorous in
implementing these policies (and would therefore have to be pulled back by
corrective action from the central authority). The huge purges that were
carried out may not have been intended to be so devastating, as Stephen J. Lee
points out; “the purges were … exacerbated by local forces which interpreted
Stalin’s orders in their own way…Stalin sought constantly to regain control.”[8]
One interpretation would conclude that this shows Stalin did not have complete level
of power as he only gave the order to implement a policy. It was up to the
officials at the local level to decide how they wanted to interpret this policy
and carry it out.
If Stalin’s rule is interpreted this way, it could be
said his control was more limited than it appeared as he wasn’t even totally in
control of his own party. Arch Getty remarks, “Even if one assumes Stalin’s
personality was the only or main factor in the initiation of policies, one must
still explain the obvious disparities between central orders and local
outcomes.”[9] This
view on Stalin’s actual power is interesting, as it challenges whether control correlates
with efficiency and successful carrying out of policies. Even if the
implementation of Stalin’s policies wasn’t very efficient and often led to the
policies being adjusted, did he still have a high level of control because he
created those policies in the first place? If a leader has to change and drop
policies because of the way they are carried out by the people perhaps he cannot
be said to have absolute control. However this essay argues that the very
flexibility is a sign that Stalin did hold vast amounts of power. If the local
authorities sought constantly to exceed the quotas they were given, surely this
shows they believed Stalin was all-powerful and would know if they didn’t try
to fulfil the quota. This is also discussed by Lee, who states “[the local
officials’] motive was sheer survival by trying to exceed central diktats.”[10]
This also raises the question about whether the
Communist party achieved a high level of power and control even though Stalin himself
may not have had ultimate control. Joseph Brodsky said of Stalin; "We are
not dealing with the tyranny of an individual but with the tyranny of a party
that has simply put the production of tyrants on an industrial footing.”[11]
Certainly the fact that the Party survived after Stalin’s death and continued
to have power supports this view. However the chaos within the Communist party
after Stalin’s death, as well as the de-Stalinization under Khrushchev show
what an impact Stalin had on the people.
Khrushchev’s speech “destroyed the myth of Stalin, the omnipotent
godhead of the revolution”[12],
whilst shocking all of those within the party who gathered to hear it. The
stunned reaction of the party was important as it shows how many, even within
the party, believed in the myth of Stalin’s power and wisdom and didn’t see
through the façade; that is, until Khrushchev revealed just how much Stalin had
a personal hand in the mass political terror during his reign. This bizarre
reversal of propaganda is effectively described by Bakradze who said “Stalin
was born to be two legends. They created one for him as a living god, flattered
by everyone, glorified by everyone. After his death they created another
legend, namely that he was Satan.”[13] The
fact that the party flipped Stalin’s image from saint to demon as soon as he
died showed they were afraid of his legacy becoming too powerful.
However the complaints about the democratic system
years later, under Gorbachev, and the failures of Perestroika(restructuring) show the level of faith some people had
in Stalin even in the 1980’s. A Soviet journalist wrote in a British newspaper
in 1989, “Many in the Soviet Union certainly yearn for a ‘strong hand’…One
popular grievance is that under Stalin there was enough soap, whereas now it is
rationed. Democracy, it is said, has spoiled the people.”[14]
Even under a more pragmatic form of Soviet rule some felt nostalgic for a
strong ruler, still believing in Stalin’s personality cult. This shows how
effective Stalin had been at maintaining control over his people. The
dissolution of the Soviet Union in the end of the 20th century also
suggests that that under Stalin the Soviet Union was the strongest. Therefore
perhaps a strong individual with a cult of personality is necessary to achieve
great control. Coming back to Stalin we have to address the fact that despite a
lack of complete control, he achieved a frightening degree of power over the
minds of the very people themselves.
Finally there are number of similar figures in the 20th
century that some say had the same level of control over their population, such
as Mao and Hitler, and therefore should be compared to Stalin. However none of
these rulers were on the same level as Stalin in terms of manipulation and
terror, which is why this essay on control focuses on Stalin alone. Hitler had
a huge cult of personality and also imposed an extreme ideology involving
systematic massacre of those not ‘racially pure’ such as the Jews and gypsies.
However as much as he appeared to control the minds of the population using
propaganda and organisations such as the SS and Gestapo, he did not achieve the
same effect on his people as Stalin. Many believed religiously in his cult but
many more were in opposition to him and not afraid to act out against him. The
number of undercover anti-Nazi organisations at the time and even movements
such as the Edelweiss Pirates from the very youth he aimed to indoctrinate show
this. This and the hiding of many Jews during the war despite knowledge of the
consequences (such as Oskar Schindler’s protection of a number of Jews working
in his factory[15]) show
that Hitler projected himself as a great and powerful ruler but failed to make
his population believe in his constant presence as an all-seeing god. Therefore
the meaning of control in Stalin’s Russia was much more omnipresent and
achieved a higher level of actual control than Hitler’s regime in Germany.
Mao could also be compared to Stalin in terms of his
aims of complete control, however again he did not have as much power as Stalin
did. Certainly, unlike Stalin, Mao did not have as much control over the
policies of his party as he appeared to. Also, and perhaps more significantly, Mao
did not stay as the chairman of the People’s Republic, agreeing to step down in
1958 during a period of political conflict that followed the failure of the
Great Leap Forward. J.A.G Roberts states “Although Mao remained chairman of the
party, he later claimed that after the Wuhan meeting he was treated like a
‘dead dinosaur’”[16].
Certainly the fact that the CCP stayed in power shows Mao was not as powerful
or necessary to the CCP as is commonly thought. Another argument claims that
the CCP party itself may be said to have as much control as Stalin as it still
stays in power today. However again the party did not and does not hold the
people’s minds in its own control. This is shown by events such as the
Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 and the other numerous demonstrations
uprisings that had to be forcefully put down by the government. The hushed
demonstrations still being carried out today are a sign of the Chinese
government’s lack of control. There is not the same level of fear or
omnipotence that Stalin maintained throughout his regime.
Martin McCauley said of Stalin; “[If] totalitarianism
demands that all institutions have to be controlled, that the ruling ideology
has to be totally pervasive, that control over the population has to be
complete, then no state on earth will qualify. Yet even in this definition
Stalin came nearer to creating the model totalitarian state than before or
since.”[17] The
novel 1984, used to define an interpretation of absolute power, was influenced
by him and Soviet Russia. Certainly there are many frightening similarities
between Orwell’s fictional world and the USSR. For example the slogan “2+2=5”
used in 1984 to show how the party controlled the population in its entirety
came from Stalin’s Five-Year plan, which he declared had to be completed in 4
years.
In conclusion, it cannot be said that Stalin achieved absolute
control during his lifetime even with his personality cult and terrifying
purges, but what he did achieve was frighteningly close. What matters most about
this is how he managed to convince his people that he was almost omnipresent;
and the extent to which he controlled the population so that many believed he
could hear and see everything they did. By this essay’s definition it can at
first be hard to see how such an extreme level of indoctrination (as depicted
in 1984) can be achieved. However Stalinist Russia in which he managed to seize
and maintain power over the population came surprisingly close to the
definition of complete control, even considering his regime’s many flaws and
problems. Stalin’s unprecedented and impressive indoctrination shows us that we
are never truly safe from being controlled by a single ruler. Stalinist Russia
is, if anything, an example of how frightening close a single ruler or group
can come to controlling an entire population.
[1] George Orwell, Nineteen
Eighty-Four, London, Secker and Walburg, 1949.
[2] Stephen J. Lee, European Dictatorships 1918 – 1945, (Oxon,
Routledge, 2008(Third edition)), p28.
[3] Jonathan Lewis & Philip Whitehead, Stalin: A time for judgement,( London, Methuen
London, 1990), p220.
[4] Martin McCauley, Stalin
and Stalinism, (Essex, England, Longman Group UK Limited, first published
1983),p43
[5] Alexander
Avdeyenko as quoted in Lewis and Whitehead, p92.
[6] N. Mandelstam as
quoted in McCauley, p92.
[8] Lee, p65.
[9] J. Arch Getty, ‘The Politics of
Stalinism’, in A. Nove The Stalin
Phenomenon ,(London 1993), p128
[10] Lee, p84.
[11] Joseph Brodsky, ‘On Tyranny’, as quoted in
Jonathan Lewis & Philip Whitehead, Stalin:
A time for judgement ,( London, Methuen London, 1990).
[12] Lewis and
Whitehead, p193
[13] Akaki Bakradze
as quoted in Lewis and Whitehead, p220.
[14] Mikhailov as
quoted in Lewis and Whitehead, p216.
[15]Herbert Steinhouse, “The real Oscar
Schindler”, http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/steinhouse.html,
13th March 2012
[16] J.A.G.
Roberts, A History of China, (second
edition published UK, Palgrave Macmillian, 2006)
[17] Martin McCauley, p44.
No comments:
Post a Comment