Creation Of Totalitarian States Essay Research Paper

Creation Of Totalitarian States Essay, Research Paper

The two totalitarian states that can be most obviously compared in terms of

similarities and differences are China and Russia.? During the course of this essay I will attempt to compare and

contrast the individual contributory factors that led to the setting up of

these Communist states.? Perhaps the

most important similarity between the two revolutions is the ideology, Marxism,

on which they claimed to be based. ??????????? Karl Marx

was a German revolutionary who came up with a theory, Marxism, which was later

used as a basis for the Communist states. He advanced the idea that the

character of human society was determined by scientific laws that could be

studied, understood and then applied.?

His own perception of history was a continuous struggle between those

who possessed economic and political power and those who did not.? He referred to this continuous class

struggle as the dialectic.? Marx?s

assertion that the contemporary industrial era marked the end of the

dialectical class struggle was the grounds for revolution.? Marx talked of a victory of the proletariat

over the bourgeoisie, a victory of the workers over the exploiting, capitalist

class.? However, Russia?s social conditions were not those

described by Marx, considered necessary for the creation of a Communist state.

When we look at Russia in the context of social conditions before the revolution,

we see a rapidly industrialising power with the highest economic growth rate in

Europe. However, Russia was industrialising, and was not already

industrialised.? Socially, though, there

was a dramatic shift from an entirely agricultural society, towards a fully

industrialised, modern society.? This

shift was conducive to revolutionary forces as the influx of workers headed for

the city caused the cities to become overcrowded, working conditions were poor

and wages were low.? However, as

peasants this had been tolerated.? The

difference was that in the cities political unrest developed more rapidly, when

people were living in close proximity to one another, they realised that their

were others who felt as they did about the way they were treated, this led to

discontent among the workers who began to look towards revolutionary parties

such as the Social Revolutionaries (SR?s), the Bolsheviks and the

Mensheviks.? The result of this was that

these revolutionary parties rapidly gained and became stronger and more

influential.? The war also played a

vital role in the people?s discontentment. The grouping of soldiers together in

close proximity to one another, watching as their compatriots died in agony

before their eyes for no real benefit to them, led them to believe that the war

was pointless, and with Bolsheviks in particular encouraging desertions, and

with the promise of land at home, many of the peasant soldiers left the

trenches for the farm land.? In the case of Russia, the grouping of people in the

cities and in the trenches led to a revolutionary spirit and a political

consciousness that was difficult to suppress. Particularly in the years leading

up to 1917, the people of Russia began to see the Tsar less as their ?little

father? and more as the weak, suppressive dictator he really was. Mistakes such

as taking direct control of the army, thereby causing himself to be blamed for

any defeat led to a loss of faith in the ability of the Tsar to rule

Russia.? Perhaps for the first time, the

population of Russia became interested in the running of their own country, and

instead of leaving all government to the Tsar, began to look for alternative

forms of government.? This social change

was demonstrated in the massive increase of party memberships during this time. In China, however, the social change was not so

dramatic.? The GMD had overthrown the

Manchu dynasty in 1911 amid a clamour of public opinion in favour of

revolutionary political change.? The

result was that the Chinese Nationalist Party (the GMD) under Sun Yatsen came

to power.? In this way, the initial

overthrow of the monarchy could be directly compared with that of Russia, the

problem was that the regime was too conservative and reforms did not go far enough.

However, the communist revolution came about in very different circumstances to

that of Russia.? In contrast to Russia,

China was still a very agricultural, economically backward, socially unchanged

power in 1949 when the communists came to power.? The industrial revolution seen in Russia in the early 20th

century was not repeated in China, and indeed it was not until after the

communists came to power that anything like industrialisation took place.? However, there was much discontent among the

peasantry.? Exploited for centuries by

autocratic system of land ownership, they had become politically conscious and

looked to revolutionary parties such as the GMD for the answers.? However, under the GMD, little changed for the

ordinary peasant.? The autocratic land

ownership still existed.? It was this

that caused the communists to become so popular.? The removal of land from the traditional control of the

landowners whilst giving it to the peasantry built their power base in northern

China.? It was the support of the

peasantry that allowed the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) to seize power in

1949, and although it had only involved limited social reform, the social

reform implemented was that which was needed at the time. The revolution in China was made possible not so

much by revolutionary change, but through the adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to

fit the Chinese model.? Marx believed

that the revolution must begin with the proletariat or the workers.? However, China was not sufficiently

industrialised to allow a workers uprising.?

The result was that Mao Zedong, the CCP leader from 1934, adapted the

Marxist beliefs to fit the Chinese needs.?

The result was Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, a form of peasant communism,

specifically designed for a Chinese revolution. Marxism was taken as a basis

for revolution, but China only took from Marxism the aspects that were best

suited to the Chinese situation, Marxism was adapted to fit a Chinese

situation, as China could not adapt to fit a Marxist ideal. This adaptation of

an ideology to be applied in China was vital to the communist success as it was

only their peasant support base that allowed them to seize power in 1949.? It was also significant that China did not

follow the Russian model of communism.?

The CCP had a strong leadership that refused to adhere to the Russian

model of communism where they felt the Russian model conflicted with the

interests of the revolution in China. Despite frustrating Comintern and Stalin,

Mao realised that without adaptation, the Chinese revolution could not have

possibly survived.? Perhaps Mao?s

greatest and most important realisation was that in order to create a

revolution dependent upon the peasants, the peasants must understand what the

revolution is about.? The result was the

simplification of communism into a form that could be easily understood by the

peasants. Similarly in Russia, the conditions for a strictly

Marxist revolution simply didn?t exist.?

The result was that Lenin adapted Marxism to fit the Russian model, in a

similar way to that in which Mao adapted Marxism to fit a Chinese model.? Lenin spoke of the Bolshevik revolution of

October 1917 being carried out by the Red Army on behalf of the workers.

Lenin?s view of the contemporary Russian working class was that its small size

and lack of political sophistication meant that it could not achieve revolution

unaided.? Lenin saw the enlightened

Bolshevik party as a guiding force, moving the proletariat towards its

revolutionary destiny.? The result was a

new sort of political party, disciplined, exclusive, tightly structured and

professional.? This in turn led to a new

sort of politician: self-confident, dismissive of other parties and ideologies,

and extremely loyal towards the supreme leader.? Trotsky expressed Lenin?s ideology as follows: ?The party in the last analysis is always right,

because the party is the only historical instrument given to the proletariat to

resolve its fundamental tasks.? Perhaps the most important factor, common to both

revolutions was the strong leadership provided by Lenin and Mao Zedong.? This leadership in both cases proved vital

to the success of the revolution and its eventual outcome but in very different

ways.? In the case of Lenin, he was a

brilliant ideologist and theoretician.?