Stalin did not betray Lenin's ideals

Very good. .. I must clarify that Lenin's use of terror and violence was not a mere practice or a coincidence, but rather, it was enshrined in the Bolshevik ideology. Lenin wrote in chapter two of The State and Revolution: "The overthrow of the bourgeoisie [i. e. capitalist class] can be achieved only by the proletariat [i. e. working class] becoming the ruling class, capable of crushing the inevitable and desperate resistance of the bourgeoisie, and of organizing all the working and exploited people for the new economic system. The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population - the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and semi-proletarians - in the work of organizing a socialist economy. " Source: . http://www.marxists.org...;The need for violence was essential for the revolution to succeed, dating back to Marx and of course, intepreted by Lenin in this case, was (and still is sometimes) a key concept among Communists. (A slight digression, the Marxist, and ultimately the Marxist-Leninist 'taste' for violence, was justified by the last paragraph of the Communist Manifesto:'The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their aims can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of the existing social conditions'Source: . http://www.jstor.org...;)Regarding the 'state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence. .. ', we return to Lenin's Cheka as well as Gosplan. If this is the only aspect of the Leninist agaenda, then Stalin certainly carried out the violence 'for the greater good'. For example, Stalin's liquidation of the so-called 'Kulaks' was not just for Stalin's own power, but also for the interest of the Party as well as for 'investment' into the Five Year Plans, by increasing the food rations of urban workers as well as to attract foreign imports. How is this related to Lenin's ideals? Lenin wanted a centralised state, as this blog article about Stalin stated:'The Bolsheviks believed in organizing the party in a strongly centralized hierarchy that sought to overthrow the Tsar and achieve power'Source: . http://aprilrussiastalin.blogspot.co.uk...; Furthermore, the same article quoted that:'In contrasting the social, economic, and political policies of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, it can be seen that Lenin and Stalin’s policies were alike in many ways, although Stalin’s were far harsher. ' That was exactly what Stalin did during the Five Year Plans, not just to enforce the plan but also as a mean of control and 'guidance'. The failed collectivisation campaign was Stalin's idealistic attempt to increase food production, as the Soviet Union's food production never exceeded that of 1913 (you said that it was exclusively the Stalinist era, but Stephen Lovell's Soviet Union: A Very Short Introduction stated that Soviet food production never reached the 1913 level). The BBC Bitesize revision note for GCSE History, which covers the topic of collectivisation, stated: 'In 1927, Stalin declared that the way forward was for people in each village to voluntarily unite their farms into one collective farm. This kolkhoz [Kolkhoz: A collective farm. ] would be able to afford machinery, be more efficient, and be able to create a surplus to send to the towns. 'Source: . http://www.bbc.co.uk...; Lenin also believed in, rather ironically, that workers will somehow unite to fulfill the Communist dream by cooperating with the plan, yet at the same time state coercion is needed. Returning to the topic of collectivisation linked the the idea of statism, Stalin followed Lenin's instruction to try to 'industrialise' Russia, to attempt to increase food production etc. The failure of Stalin to achieve these goals does not mean that he has failed to follow Lenin's ideas and his 'methods' for achieving Communism- afterall, I must reiterate that Gosplan was the brainchild of Lenin that became the trademark 'brand' of Stalinist progress and Stalinist terror. Also, repression of opponents, which Communists today always attribute to Stalinist abberation, this is one FAQ on the Communist Party of Britain's website: 'The crimes committed during the Stalin period cannot be ignored. But the first attempts to build a socialist society took place in a semi-feudal society facing the hostile forces of imperialism. A bureaucratic-command system of economic and political rule became entrenched. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the trade unions became integrated into the apparatus of the state, eroding working class and popular democracy. In the late 1930s in particular, severe violations of socialist democracy and law occurred as large numbers of innocent people were imprisoned and executed. Lessons have to be learnt from both the achievements and the failures of this period. 'Source: . http://www.communist-party.org.uk...;This is nothing short of a delusion. As we have discussed earlier, that the system of bureaucracy, Gosplan's commanding authority were all Lenin's works which Stalin had continued as part of his deluded campaign to build Communism, just as Lenin had wished. The 'socialist democracy and law' which he 'violated' were in fact vague laws which Stalin had made, were commonplace in Lenin's Russia in the form of 'counterrevolution' or 'enemies of the revolution', where more than 70% of the executions carried out was for the above mentioned 'crimes' (Ben Walsh, AQA GCSE History). I must address the argument that 'these are not Lenin's ideals, but his and Stalin's practice'. One must realise that Lenin's goals can only be realised by such brutal practice, and like I said earlier, Lenin demanded such brutal measures to be carried out in order to safeguard the revolution. Away from the socialist perspective, Friedrich Hayek also noted similar patterns in the development of this trend (including the Russian case) in his book, the Road to Serfdom. Similarly, Stalin used the same justifications for his crimes. Furthermore, Lenin once said 'all power to the Soviets'. Perhaps one should understand the context of the argument- Lenin believed that democracy is the rule by what he called 'revolutionary democrats' on behalf of the majority of the people. source: . https://www.marxists.org... can see how Stalin intepreted, or at the very least misintepreted that as a sign that the party should use repression, terror and control in order to achieve Communism. In other words, Stalin and Lenin's justification for the practice of their ideals are both essentially the same, 'the end justifies the means'. Moreover, both their 'democracies' are very similar- it will not be considered democratic by western standards, and that they claim that they have legitimacy to do anything because the party and the Communist ideal demand it. One phrase to sum up both Leninist and Stalinist 'democracy' would be 'democratic centralism'- in other words, power without limit repackaged as democracy. Also, Stalin's 'peace' would still be considered to be 'peace' by Lenin's standard. Stalin published an article entitled 'The People Do Not Want War' in 1946, as well as being nominated for the Nobel Peace Price, source: . http://www.nobelprize.org...;. As perverted as it seems, although Stalin was not considered to be a peaceful person, he at least tried to defend to Soviet Union and coexist with the West. The so-called 'war' Stalin declared is a low-redefinition of the meanin of the word 'war' to broaden the subjects that could be counted as war. Stalin's uneasy relationship with the west is comparable with Lenin's tension with the capitalist neighbours of the USSR, whereas the Korean war is analogous to Lenin's intervention in the Communist revolution in Mongolia in 1922. It is my judgement to say that although Lenin and Stalin seemed very different, largely due to Western wishful thinking as well as a mountain of Communist defense and Soviet propaganda. The similarities are not just superficial- the practice of the main tenets of the Leninist idea- central planning, top-down bureaucracy, democratic centralism, 'revolutionary justice' (i. e. terror) in the name of the Communist cause were continued, advocated if not enhanced by Stalinism. I might add that the April Theses, much like Stalin's Constitution of 1936, were essentially Communist window-dressing designed to give the sham of democratic accountability. The Soviet system, of Stalin's time and after, had always followed Lenin's ideals, which was refined by Stalinism. It was always the case of 'the end justifies the means', where the only difference is between the degree of implementation. As an ardent Communist and a faithful servant of the Party, Stalin not only believed in the final victory of the socialist revolution as Lenin had, but also in the Party's absolute legitimacy to carry out violence, all in the name of the cause. During Stalin's time, the Soviet people were expected to quote exerts from works of Marx and Lenin, then from his 'successor' Stalin. Lenin left behind a legacy of an empty dream, which Stalin expanded upon.