Question on Totalitarianism (1 Viewer)

[reuder]

hi guys, please help.

For Mod.His. I have a question, assess the extent to which the soviet under stalin could be viewed as totalitarianism.

I kind of know what to do, I just need some ideas and how the structure the whole essay. PLEASE HELP THANKS IN ADVANCE

 

[Ziff]

Firstly you need to know what totalitarianism is

Some of the things you should look at/research:
- Cult of Personality surrounding Stalin
- Secret Police (OGPU, NKVD)
- Work camps
- Political prisoners (especially cultural workers)
- "Kulaks" and "sub-Kulaks"
- Government's complete control over the press/media (cinemas, filmmaking, commissioning of certain films, censorship, ownership of the press etc etc)
- Government's control of cultural workers
- Purges and show trials (1937/8) of the Communist Party and the Red Army
- How the Communist Party was set up: Stalin had complete control and power (how/why)
- The 1936 Soviet Constitution (which basically said "err yes... we have democracy" but one of the clauses in it totally invalidated anything of the sort lol)
- School textbooks which presented a pro Marxist-Leninist view of history which elevated Stalin to a godlike status

That's all that I can think of off the top of my head, I'm not going to go into detail because you will remember the information related to these better if you research it yourself. http://www.wikipedia.org is a very good place to start researching (and at times can be the be all and end all of your investigations!).

You should also know what assess means in regards to the HSC (make a judgement of value, quality, size, outcomes etc etc)...

You can structure it either chronologically or the preferred method which is by concepts. So control of the press and indoctrination in schools etc etc can be grouped together with political (purges, persecution of kulaks etc) grouped together as well and how all of these events/issues collaborate in your judgement of the USSR under Stalin being a totalitarian regime. Don't forget to define totalitarianism (at least to some extent) in the introduction!

Happy hunting

 

[tWiStEdD]

what is totalitarianism?

it depends on who you listen to; Arendt, Brzezinski, Friedrich or whoever else throws their hat into the ring (i.e. me for example)

attached is my major work for extension history, perhaps you could look at some of the sources mentioned. Both Arendt's and Brzezinski+Friedrich's books cover the Russian government under Stalin, and to what extent they are totalitarian.

enjoy.

 

[| n i s s y |]

to describe Stalinism as anything other than Stalinism is a simplification and a distortion.
historians Sheila Fitzpatrick and Christian argue that totalitarianism through the tucker model is adequate in describing Stalinism but not enough in accounting for or explainining the success of this phenomena.
Stalin did not display total power. Even through collectivisation, the Peasants retained a remarkable degree of independence. This was demonstrated by the fact that many peasants still retained their religion (totally un communist like)and thus had a divided loyalty to something other than the State. Other peasant reasons why Stalinism wasnt totally totalitarianism:

2. Peasants worked within regulations to their own advantage. Eg. They ‘informed’ the government to remove officials they didn't like They used the system against itself
3.Out of sight and out of mind. They didn't get policed with the same amount of vigilance as in the cities. Thus…
a. Black-market flourished
b. Peasants kept some produce
c. They ran their own small capitalist system themselves
d. They were not bound to a single ideology
4.Values: Condition in model – ideological commitment.
a. Peasants exhibit, as Jillian Collishaw (anthropologist) states ‘ an oppositional culture’
i. A persecuted group develops a culture which adheres to its own independent set of values in defiance of the values which has been imposed on them by its own state.
5. Collishaw, Christian, Fitzpatrick and pipes and most contemporary historians say that the peasants retain so much independence which is directly at odds to the idea of totalitariatism.

 

[tWiStEdD]

you didnt mention Arendt, Friedrich or Brzezinski...

 

[The Nick]

If Stalin wasn't totalitarian, why was there not an opposition successful at raising its voice within the Soviet Union?

Would anyone like to field that question?

 

[Ziff]

Umm I think Nissy described characteristics more inline with the period known as the "NEP" (1921-1927/8). What you describe are the characteristics of this time period, this is not Stalinism.

I don't think that the "Urals-Siberian Method" (1928+) and forced collectivisation into Kolkhozy could be constituted as peasants having control. They had to work to quotas fixed by the central government, though they did get a small alottment later on, this is negligible and was mostly used to feed themselves.

If we're talking about Stalinism (1928-1953, but '45 for the purposes of the syllabus) then you must take into consideration these things:
- His power over the party aparatus
- The unique system between the party aparat and the government
- The 1936 Consitution (giving all power to not only Stalin but the secret police)
- The use of the secret police to quell all subversive elements (plus Stalin's abuse of it - the trials and purges)
- The forcing of Writers to amalgamate under the RAPP in Apr. 1934, they were then made to adhere to "Socialist Realism" with themes of Heroism (e.g. Russia as Hero-Nation and Stalin as the Supreme-Hero)
- Censorship, all non-Bolshevik parties were banned and only official newspapers allowed
- The Cult of Personality
- Many more examples exist as I pointed out earlier
- Religion was outright banned UNTIL 1942/3 when Stalin realised that it could be used for propaganda purposes
- Nationalism and patriotism were brought back during the 1930s and the war as Stalin realised these forces were more emotionally appealing to the Russian people than the international revolution


Though Stalin's system was it's own, so was Musolini's, Hitler's and Kim il-Jong etc. They are all different but can be lumped together as totalitarianism just as European, American and Commonwealth democratic systems are all different - but they are still considered democracy.

 

[clerisy]

- The 1936 Consitution (giving all power to not only Stalin but the secret police)

Do you mind expanding as to the Constitution (Okay, not pages, but a brief description)? I have all of one line on it, and I had the impression it was a load of lies about democratic rights...


As to totalitarianism, it's completely debateable. A lot of historians say it is, and so you can just discuss the aspects of Stalinism that made the government so penetrating in every aspect of life and society to back it up. If you follow the Arendt or Friedrich or another model, though, it'll be a bit more discussionary (is that a word?) because Stalinism doesn't entirely fit in with every criterion. Or you could go Nissy's way and argue Stalinism is Stalinism-- I hadn't heard all that stuff about the peasants during Stalin's time, it was my impression that he was so successful because he could cotrol the peasants, but if you have the facts and understanding to back it up... there's no definitive answer on totalitarianism, you've just got to decide for yourself and work the evidence in to support you.