Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The term Stalinism in its proper sense denotes the essence of a specific social system that emerged in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s under the leadership of Premier Joseph Stalin. The term is also used to refer to (a) a specific way of behavior and thinking dominant in Soviet politics from the late 1920s to the mid-1950s or influenced by and similar to it, (b) a corresponding ideology or class of ideologies justifying Stalin's policies, or (c) constitutional arrangements and institutional designs typical of or similar to those developed under Stalin's leadership.

One of the first, if not the first, documented usage of the word Stalinism appeared in an article by Karl Radek published in December 1934 in Pravda, where he introduced the expression Marxism–Leninism–Stalinism. This initiative was short-lived. Neither Stalin himself nor party ideologists used the word, preferring Marxism–Leninismas the title of their ideology and socialism as a typical description for the social order developed in the Soviet Union. Since the mid-1950s, Stalinism essentially has become a derogatory term. Even its champions—with very few exceptions (see Sergeev's 1999 apology for “mystical Stalinism”)—avoid using the word. Furthermore, a word Stalischina emerged in Russian with essentially the same meaning as Stalinism but with much more offensive connotations.

Traditionally, interpretations of Stalinism vary between a limited focus on highly specific characteristics of Soviet politics, often attributed to Stalin's weird personal impact, and a shallow explanation of related phenomena as mere instances of totalitarianism. A more balanced view requires a combination of a still broader perspective with adequate reference to precise historical particulars and conditions of political developments.

Origins and Characteristics

By the beginning of the 20th century, the spontaneous development of European countries and their overseas colonies extended over great expanses and held sway over civilizations and cultures hardly ready to adjust to the modes and models of modern behavior. The world became integrated into a single interstate system of territorial rule that was internally divided by imperialist rivalry and structural disproportions. Political leaders had no institutional and intellectual resources to manage such development even on national levels, to say nothing of an international one. The worldwide expansion of modernization coupled with the imperialist enclosure of the entire surface of the globe into a single interstate system made the issue of control of development critical. The inability to adequately respond to that great challenge provoked World War I.

Postwar reconstruction implied a grand project to meet the challenge. The Entente winners relied on national self-determination and the creation of a universal quasi polity in the form of the League of Nations. This project proved too simplistic and straightforward, however, to be adequate. It immediately provoked an alternative one. During World War I, radical Marxists had called for transforming an imperialist war into a world revolution through a series of civil wars. The October Revolution and the civil war that followed seemed to prove the underlying logic. Thus, Soviet power and the Comintern emerged as an alternative grand project. This was the historical context for the first wave of democratization and the Soviet experiment that evolved into Stalinism, as well as for a number of national alternative projects that produced a variety of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading