Both Stalin and Lenin in their approaches are seeking greater industrialization amidst the agricultural sector. They are likewise concerned with the threat of capitalism.
Lenin, in his New Economic Plan, is focused internally. In Lenin’s The NEP ‘A Strategical Retreat section, Lenin references a political crisis caused by the implementation of the party’s surplus-food appropriation program in the rural districts (pp. 4,5). To be clear this is a byword for unrest. When the peasantry is starving, they tend to get angry and revolt. Lenin is recognizing the desperate position which the party, i.e. the state, was in. Lenin further references the gravity of the situation citing the extreme disorder with which the party was forced to reverse this …show more content…
He introduces the New Economic policy as a means of addressing the peasants’ empty bellies, with a caveat given to the Congress of Political Education Departments that this policy would bring capitalism through the gates so to speak. Lenin argued that the only way to prevent capitalism from winning out, the average worker must not only be literate but must have some higher level of culture. In this Lenin is trying to cure the ‘cultural backwardness’ of the Russian people (pp. 12). Eliminating this backwardness is Lenin’s means of disarming the threat of capitalism invited into the country by the NEP, that is the internal threat of Capitalism. For Stalin, grain is also an important issue; however, it is to a lesser degree than Lenin. Stalin blames the grain shortage on unfavorable weather conditions (Stalin, pp. 11). If Stalin had not felt the State to be internally secure against a peasant uprising, he would not have been so dismissive of this famine. Essentially Lenin and Stalin try completely opposite approaches to the same problem. Lenin, albeit due to a forced hand, seeks to bring agricultural industrialization by re-introducing capitalistic practices, while Stalin wants to increase the State influence in the agricultural sector by using the model of large State-run farms to encourage peasants to join them to share in the profits brought by economies of …show more content…
Stalin calls these petty-bourgeoisies traitors to Marxism and capitalist puppets—all the while insisting that he, Stalin, is a Leninist. Claiming to be a Leninist while arguing against a policy implemented by Lenin involved quite the ideological sausage making; during this segment of the document Stalin both says that it was Lenin’s NEP that created the social conditions that fostered the “Right” and denied that Lenin ever instituted right or centrist policy. This exemplifies Stalin’s desires to move away from Leninist policies, meeting at the cross purpose of Stalin’s need to claim ideological continuity with
Lenin, in his New Economic Plan, is focused internally. In Lenin’s The NEP ‘A Strategical Retreat section, Lenin references a political crisis caused by the implementation of the party’s surplus-food appropriation program in the rural districts (pp. 4,5). To be clear this is a byword for unrest. When the peasantry is starving, they tend to get angry and revolt. Lenin is recognizing the desperate position which the party, i.e. the state, was in. Lenin further references the gravity of the situation citing the extreme disorder with which the party was forced to reverse this …show more content…
He introduces the New Economic policy as a means of addressing the peasants’ empty bellies, with a caveat given to the Congress of Political Education Departments that this policy would bring capitalism through the gates so to speak. Lenin argued that the only way to prevent capitalism from winning out, the average worker must not only be literate but must have some higher level of culture. In this Lenin is trying to cure the ‘cultural backwardness’ of the Russian people (pp. 12). Eliminating this backwardness is Lenin’s means of disarming the threat of capitalism invited into the country by the NEP, that is the internal threat of Capitalism. For Stalin, grain is also an important issue; however, it is to a lesser degree than Lenin. Stalin blames the grain shortage on unfavorable weather conditions (Stalin, pp. 11). If Stalin had not felt the State to be internally secure against a peasant uprising, he would not have been so dismissive of this famine. Essentially Lenin and Stalin try completely opposite approaches to the same problem. Lenin, albeit due to a forced hand, seeks to bring agricultural industrialization by re-introducing capitalistic practices, while Stalin wants to increase the State influence in the agricultural sector by using the model of large State-run farms to encourage peasants to join them to share in the profits brought by economies of …show more content…
Stalin calls these petty-bourgeoisies traitors to Marxism and capitalist puppets—all the while insisting that he, Stalin, is a Leninist. Claiming to be a Leninist while arguing against a policy implemented by Lenin involved quite the ideological sausage making; during this segment of the document Stalin both says that it was Lenin’s NEP that created the social conditions that fostered the “Right” and denied that Lenin ever instituted right or centrist policy. This exemplifies Stalin’s desires to move away from Leninist policies, meeting at the cross purpose of Stalin’s need to claim ideological continuity with