Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin are preeminently known as the founding father's of Russian Bolshevism. Even though the objectifying issue of all three was the overthrow of Russian Imperialism, which lasted approximately 300 years, each in fact had a different outline on just how exactly the Communist Revolution was to be achieved, and later be sustained as a functional governing entity. This debate is not justifying any of the actions attained in the Russian Revolution of 1917, for Stalin would agree that the end justifies the means. However, I think Lenin, to a certain degree, would agree with the end justifying the means to attain a powerful central authority so long as once it was obtained, the central governing authority was once again put into the hands of all citizens as a true socialist nation, rather than a mafia-style political party controlling every aspect of its citizens affairs, as Stalin did. Trotsky, on the other hand, was quite unique. Nonetheless, he was still a radical revolutionary, albeit with a more intelligentsia attitude toward the Communist Revolution, which isolated himself from Lenin and Stalin, and no doubt was a cause of his banishment from the Soviet Union once Lenin died and Stalin became General Secretary. Even though Stalin was victorious in his mad dash for a Communist dictatorship as a superlative mass-murderer, historical research shows the possibility and potential of Communism vindicating itself to a degree had Lenin survived 10 years or more, or at the very least Trotsky being nominated as General Secretary instead of Stalin. This conscious debate will aim to state Lenin's, Trotsky's and Stalin's visions of the result of the revolution, and the failure of Stalin's version of Socialism in achieving Marx's version of a true Socialist nation which undoubtedly stained the image of communism itself; or, as Martin Luther King Jr. once wrote, "There is a great system of thought in our world today, known as communism. And I think that with all of the weakness and tragedies of communism, we find its greatest tragedy right here, that it goes under the philosophy that the end justifies the means that are used in the process (Mulvaney 437)."
Lenin, the first iconic image and leader of the communist doctrine put into practice, for all of his faults, was never able to fully implement his version of a true socialist country. Therefore, we can only speculate as to what we believe he would have tolerated in the sense of the end justifying the means. Nevertheless, I think Lenin held a romanticized belief in the revolution of 1917. For example, the French revolution, and still to this day for that matter, reciprocated back and forth between liberal and conservative ideologies from one generation to another; and, I think what Lenin was trying to achieve was in some sense very similar to the French model of revolution. This ideology of a never ending revolution for the will of the people, with Marx's "Communist Manifesto" as the base. My theory is Lenin wished to achieve this as Russia's model of revolution; however, he did not live long enough to implement his desired goals. In some sense, as Paris is known as the city of romance, so too did Lenin want Moscow or St. Petersburg to be known as the cities of socialist revolution. Had he survived 10 years or more, in some respect I think Lenin could have slightly vindicated Bolshevism, or at the very least inhibited Stalin's ambition to become General Secretary of the communist party. Trotsky, respectfully, could then have had the possibility of establishing the student movement to Russia's already uneducated masses.
It can be concluded that Trotsky then, was pushing for an intelligentsia movement, that would allow modern technology and educated Russians to spearhead the modern socialist movement. His idea, or model, of the revolution itself was a sort of never ending cycle of revolutions within a revolution. In the sense that he knew figures like Stalin were bound to appear, and it was therefore necessary to establish a highly educated population to sense this, and revolt within the revolution and maintain the integrity of the revolution itself. However, Trotsky did not believe in a national sense of pride, as Stalin or Lenin, or even Khrushchev did. He viewed the communist revolution from a globalist perspective, and that is where I believe he failed. He failed to believe, from a revolutionary's point of view, that people around the world have a distinct pride in their culture. He appealed very well to the masses, but was unable to push further for political control. Therefore, Stalin was able to bypass him and seize control of power. If Trotsky has been able to succeed Lenin, the annals of Russian history would have been drastically different. The communist theory, in my opinion, would have appealed to many more nations worldwide; yet, I also believe that the nation of Russia itself would not have been as strong-willed as when Stalin reigned supreme.
Once Stalin was elected General Secretary in 1923, the collapse of Lenin's foundation of Marx began, and the plan to liquidate Trotsky also was set in motion. Stalin's idea was an unbending political party loyalty, with him as the head of the party. Similar, in a sense, to the way a mafia is controlled, through fear, which is how Stalin climbed the rungs of power in the revolution. Stalin wholeheartedly believed in the theory of the end justifying the means. As a result, approximately 66 million Russians perished during his 30 years of dictatorship, either through execution, or sent to gulag forced labor camps that drove the Soviet Union's heavy industry and extraction of raw materials. It was not what Lenin envisioned, nor Trotsky; and, the only way Stalin is even remotely vindicated was the capitulation of Nazi Germany in WW2. Even then, modern sources of historical information suggest that Stalin was in part responsible for Hitler's response of revoking the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. Stalin, too, had plans to conquer Poland, and much of Western Europe. This newfound version of communism was not communism nor socialism, it was in fact Stalinism. And it was to play a part responsible for much of geopolitical strategy for the 50 years after Stalin was deceased.
This, therefore, was the end-game for communism. We do not know, but through history, how Lenin or Trotsky's would have implemented their grand visions of a Marxist utopia. We can even look to China's Mao Zedong's "Great Leap Forward." Another example of a Stalinist achieving the end through catastrophic means. But, we can speculate that not nearly as many lives would have been spent at the hands of Lenin or Trotsky as did through Stalin's iron fist, the superlative mass-murderer that he was. Therefore, the reputation of communism has been spoiled. All we can perceive is that Trotsky's or even Lenin's version of socialism could have drastically altered world history, and vindicated Russian communism.
Works Cited (sources)
Mulvaney, Robert J. Classic Philosophical Questions. Thirteenth Edition. Prentice Hall, 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment