Describe the Russian proportional representation electoral system, the country’s major political parties and their platforms, and explain the dominance of the United Russia Party. Explain the consequences of this party’s dominance.

Describe the Russian proportional representation electoral system, the country’s major political parties and their platforms, and explain the dominance of the United Russia Party. Explain the consequences of this party’s dominance.

Comparative Political Systems

Dr. Holzhauer
Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism and Post-Stalinism

It’s impossible to properly understand the various Russian communist regimes that existed prior to 1991 (before the fall of communism) without an understanding of the political philosophy, Marxism-Leninism, which laid the foundation for them.
A quick word of caution is in order. The following is meant to provide you with a VERY BASIC overview of the major elements of the political ideology that most people think of when they say “communism,” namely Marxism-Leninism. Over the many decades of communist rule in this country, this ideology metamorphosized quite a bit although the basic framework remained relatively unchanged.
When discussing Marxism-Leninism as a political ideology, which provided the underpinnings of Soviet (and East European communist regimes), it is probably easiest to think of it in terms of five distinct phases: Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Post-Stalinism and Gorbachev’s attempts to redefine the ideology. This handout covers the first four of these phases. We will be discussing Gorbachev’s impact in class.

MARXISM refers to the economic and political ideas formulated by Karl Marx and his colleague Friedrich Engels, both political and economic theorists, during the mid and late 1800s. Nineteenth century Western Europe was characterized by laissez-faire economic policies that gave factory owners, and similar individuals, a free hand in setting wage levels and working conditions. The result was that the living and working conditions of the industrial working class were harsh and often inhuman: wages were typically low, child and female labor was commonplace, the working day often lasted 12 hours, the threat of unemployment was ever-present, workhouses for the indebted poor were a common sight, and many lived in overpopulated urban ghettos with little social or hygienic amenities. In contrast, the factory owners, and similar members of that class, lived in lavish homes and enjoyed almost untold prosperity. While it is perhaps impossible for many Americans to understand what life could have been like at this time, we are fortunate to have many excellent accounts of the times. See, for example, Dickens’ Hard Times, A Christmas Carol, or Oliver Twist. It was this environment that greatly shaped the thinking of Marx and Engels who developed a broad political and economic philosophy.

Marxism has five important tenets:
(1) Class as the primary unit of analysis. Marx argued that the basic unit of society is class. In other words, one’s class is more important than one’s religion, ethnicity or any other possible social cleavage. Marx understood the term class to refer to a group of people who hold a common economic position and therefore share similar working and living experiences. Marx went on to assert that society was increasingly being divided into two great classes facing one another—the bourgeoisie (i.e. capitalists and property owners who controlled massive economic [and thus, political] power) and the proletariat (i.e. the majority of society who must sell their labor in order to earn a wage and who have no control over the “means of production,” or those activities which create profit).
(2) Communalism. Like all political philosophers, Marx had a notion of human nature. Specifically, he argued that human beings are naturally social creatures capable of overcoming problems by drawing upon the power of a community rather than simply individual efforts. He went on to contend that selfish, acquisitive, materialist, and aggressive behavior was the product of a society that encouraged and rewarded such behavioral traits. In other words, human nature was corrupted by society.
(3) Social equality. This tenet is an extension of the former. Marx contended that all persons deserve equal treatment by the state and should have equal opportunities to develop themselves. Marx believed that a person could only develop within the context of social equality. Recall that Marx saw human beings as social creatures and as such saw many individual differences as socially produced. An example makes this clearer: while there is a natural difference among individuals regarding academic abilities, educational performance is more often than not a reflection of social factors such as access to full-time education, the quality of teaching, and the availability of resources.
(4) The State as a reflection of the economic powers of society. Marx contended that the state (i.e. government) was merely a reflection of the major economic powers within society. Formally, this is referred to as the base-superstructure distinction; the superstructure, or state, is reflective of the societal base, of which class is the most important element. Thus, in industrial capitalist societies, the state was a reflection of the capitalist class. This meant that the state exercised political power so as to benefit that class (e.g. making it easy to thwart strikes which were the only real instrument of political power workers could exercise). Still, despite this view of the state, Marx believed that the state could, if reflective of different economic forces that mirrored the interests of the working class, be capable of positive action; what prevented this from occurring was the imbalance of political power between classes.
(5) Class struggle and the dialectic. Marx asserted that history is a history of class struggle. This is known as Marx’s dialectical theory of materialism. According to this theory, history has progressed through a series of stages as each society collapsed due to the internal contradictions within it as reflected in class struggle. Marx noted that history has gone through several such stages so far with slavery giving way to feudalism, which, in turn gave way to industrial capitalism. Marx asserted that the current system—industrial capitalism—was doomed to fail because of its own internal contradictions (e.g. the factories make too much for the mass proletariat, which earns too little, to consume), and in its place would arise a communist society, i.e. one in which the productive wealth of society would be commonly owned by all. Marx thought that the process of history would have worked itself out with the victory of the working class, because now for the first time the dominant class would not be a minority but would include almost the whole population.
Overall, Marxism provided future political thinkers with some important concepts, such as class, and analytical tools, such as the dialectical theory of materialism, to pursue the study of politics.
In closing, it is worth noting that within Marx’s writing a number of (sometimes contradictory) lines of thought are present. This is not necessarily unusual; many political and economic theorists develop their ideas as a process and thus contradictions may be present if one tries to look at the whole of their work. For our purposes, the most important of these contradictions concerns Revolution vs. Evolution. This refers to the process whereby the dialectic would move forward towards communism. In some writings, Marx sounds very much like a revolutionary, calling for the violent overthrow of the system. Yet, at other times, it appears that Marx at least held out for the possibility that change could occur through more peaceful means, such as parliamentary change. Marx’s successors included not only Lenin, Mao and Castro, but also social democrats such as those in Western Europe. Why communism, as we typically think of it, took the revolutionary path has more to do with the actions and ideas of V. I. Lenin than with Marx.

LENINISM refers to the revisions made to classical Marxist thought by Lenin, the first leader of the Russian communist party and the first head of government for Soviet Russia (ruling from 1917-1924). It is crucial to understand that Lenin was first and foremost a revolutionary intent on overthrowing the Tsarist regime (a monarchial regime) of Russia. Marxist ideology was largely a tool for Lenin to accomplish this particular end.

Lenin made 4 revisions to classical Marxism:
(1) The concept of Permanent Revolution. It’s important to remember that Tsarist Russia was largely an agrarian, generally semi-feudal, society that had no significant working class. It was hardly the type of society in which Marx believed the revolution would occur. To explain why the revolution had not occurred, Lenin developed the notion of a permanent revolution. This idea, borrowed in part from Leon Trotsky (another Russian Bolshevik [communist] revolutionary), makes two contentions. First, Trotsky and Lenin argued that Russian development had been “uneven” and her bourgeoisie was not strong enough to establish a stable capitalist society. The bourgeoisie stage of development could thus be collapsed and Russia could move immediately from a capitalist to a socialist revolution led by her small but powerful proletariat. Second, and related to this, Lenin argued that, if left to its own devices, the working class would only develop what he termed “trade union consciousness,” referring to a demand for higher wages, better working conditions, etc.—demands that could be met within the capitalist system, if the bourgeoisie could find a way to do so without hurting their profits. Lenin asserted that this was accomplished through imperialism, or the development of colonial empires. Imperialism allowed capitalists to essentially throw a few crumbs to the workers within their own countries at the expense of their colonial subjects. Specifically, imperialism provided capitalists with cheap labor, cheap raw materials, and a captive market. Thus, through imperialism, the bourgeoisie was able to stave off the proletarian revolution.
(2) The notion of a vanguard party. Given that the Russian working class’s revolutionary consciousness was inhibited by both the uneven development of Russia and the natural tendency of the proletariat to develop merely trade class consciousness, Lenin went on to argue that what was needed was a new kind of party, a vanguard party. Rather than a mass party open to all workers, Lenin advocated an elite party of professional revolutionaries. These revolutionaries must spread the doctrine of revolution and mold the proletariat into a revolutionary strike force. That is, the party must be the vanguard of the proletariat. In the post-revolutionary regime, this party would be the natural leading political force and it would prepare the country for “true communism” in which a state would be unnecessary.
(3) The notion of dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin recognized that while it would be relatively easy for the vanguard party to overthrow the Tsarist system, it would be more difficult to lay the foundation for full communism given the relatively undeveloped consciousness of the working class. To this end, Lenin proposed that there would have to be a transition period—a dictatorship of the proletariat. Rather than the state withering away after the proletariat revolution (as loosely envisioned by Marx), a proletarian state, or workers’ state, would be established to replace the bourgeois state and would continue to exist until the class system was completely eradicated. Obviously, the vanguard party would be the leading political force of this dictatorship of the proletariat, because only the party would be able to perceive the genuine interests of the proletariat and only the party would be capable of providing a powerful defense mechanism against counter-revolutionary forces mounted by “class enemies,” such as the dispossessed bourgeoisie who wished to restore capitalism and the imperialist forces of countries who feared the establishment of a powerful and stable socialist regime.
(4) Democratic Centralism. Lenin argued that the vanguard party should operate according to the principles of democratic centralism. In other words, the party should be composed of a hierarchy of institutions, linking grass-roots cells to the party’s highest organs, its central committee and politburo. Democracy within the party required that each level of the party would be able to debate freely, make recommendations to higher organs and elect their delegates; however, centralism meant that minorities must accept the views of the majority, and that lower organs of the party obey the decisions made by the higher ones. The party had to be tightly disciplined and centrally organized in order to provide both the ideological leadership the proletariat needed and the defense against the enemies of the proletariat’s interests.
Overall, Lenin’s revisions were important for three reasons. First, he provided a mechanism whereby Marxist thought could be adapted to agrarian, relatively non-industrialized, societies; in this way, Leninism provides the foundation for future revolutionaries such as Mao in China, Castro in Cuba, and so on. Second, Lenin provided communist revolutionaries with a mechanism—the party—by which the revolution could be extended through a transitionary stage; in this way, Leninism provided the 20th century with the powerful notion—not limited to communism as witnessed by Hitler’s Nazi regime, the Peronistas of Argentina, the Franco regime in Spain and many others—of an autocratic single party-state working in the interests of the people. Finally, Lenin’s revisions and additions to Marxist thought provided the basic framework for what is properly termed Marxism-Leninism, or what most people think of when they think of “communism.”

STALINISM broadly refers to the revisions made by Josef Stalin (Lenin’s political successor who ruled from 1924-1953) to Lenin’s political ideas. While Lenin was chiefly concerned with developing an ideology that justified the winning of power and maintaining it against initial threats from within and abroad, Stalin was chiefly concerned with transforming society. To put it another way, Lenin was concerned with a political revolution, while Stalin was concerned with a social revolution.
Before discussing the tenets of Stalinism, some background information is in order. First, unlike Trotsky and Lenin, Stalin was not a political thinker, but rather a political doer; that is, he was less concerned with developing ideological tenets than with taking political action. Second, Stalin, more so than Lenin, was involved in much of the “dirty work” of the Bolshevik revolution and the subsequent Civil War that lasted until 1921; he headed the new regime’s secret police and was an instrumental leader of its military. Third, Stalin, by most accounts, was a paranoid individual obsessed with accumulating and maintaining personal power.

Stalin made several important revisions to Leninism:
(1) “Socialism in one country.” Unlike Trotsky, Stalin contended that the new Soviet Union had to succeed in building socialism in itself before any thought could be given to international revolution. As a practical matter, this meant that Stalin’s regime would concentrate upon internal development; the support of socialist revolutions abroad, or the development of socialist regimes elsewhere, would be conducted only within the context of providing protection and support for the Soviet regime.
(2) The abolition of the capitalist market. In 1921, 3 years before his death, Lenin introduced what he termed the New Economic Policy (NEP). The NEP established a mixed economy in which agriculture and small-scale industry remained in private hands while the state, ruled by the party, controlled what Lenin called “the commanding heights of the economy.” Whether or not Lenin saw the NEP as a short-term mechanism to appease peasants and other potential opposition elements to the Bolshevik regime, or as a long-term vision for the country’s economy is unclear. In any event, with the introduction of the First Five Year Plan in 1928, Stalin argued that socialism in one country necessitated the abolition of the capitalist market, replacing it with a system of state planning. In short, Stalin introduced what many see as the key element of communist society, the elimination of the capitalist market-based economy.
(3) The personalization of political power. Stalin exploited his position as General Secretary of the Communist Party (the leader of the party) to accumulate greater personal control over the political process of the regime. Largely this was accomplished by controlling the patronage and promotion processes of the party and the state, which allowed him to create a “circular flow of power” in which the party leader, himself, acquired greater and greater authority over the party and state apparatuses. Beginning in the 1930s and intensifying until his death in 1953, Stalin became increasingly brutal in his accumulation of power. Individuals suspected of disloyalty or criticism were removed through increasingly violent purges conducted by the secret police; many members of the Party, including all of the surviving members of Lenin’s Politburo, were killed; many political prisoners found themselves in gulags, or labor camps. Stalin justified this terror campaign by arguing that only a monolithic ruling party, controlled by a single individual, could accomplish the goal of socialism in one country.
(4) “Communization” of society. Under Lenin, many elements of societal life—religion, cultural expression, etc.—were permitted. However, increasingly Stalin’s regime saw a need to extend its political control into every aspect of social life; some observers have termed this the “communization of society.” Under Stalin’s regime, virtually every aspect of society was subjugated to communist ideology—science had to be amendable to communist thought; cultural expressions such as art had to be ideologically proper; religion was outlawed as being corruptive of communist development; etc. Related to this, the Stalin regime demanded the active participation and total commitment of the masses—state- and party-organized mass meetings, marches and demonstrations became the popular forms of expressing mass support for the regime; pervasive political propaganda and political agitation became the norm; individuals were expected to become members of the party’s various auxiliaries such as youth organizations, labor unions and the like. Whereas the Tsarist regime of old was quite content to repress political activity and to exclude the masses from politics, Stalin’s regime attempted to politicize the masses by mobilizing popular support and by subsuming societal forces to political doctrine. This “communization” of society was deemed necessary to ensure the creation of socialism in one country.
Overall, Stalinism is equated with totalitarianism, a conception of total power that not only involves a monopoly of political power but also the extension of political control over each and every aspect of social and personal life. Because of this, most analysts, depending largely upon their own political beliefs, see Stalinism as either an aberration of Marxism-Leninism or the natural outcome of those tenets. In any event, Stalinism is important for our purposes for two reasons. First, it provided the ideological underpinnings to justify the rapid and intensive modernization of the USSR; under Stalin, the Soviet Union went from a backwards, agrarian society to a world superpower in less than 20 years. Second, ironically, it was Stalinism, with its focus upon the development of socialism in one country, that provided the ideological justification for the development of the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe and its support of Communist liberation movements around the globe, e.g. Castro in Cuba.

POST-STALINISM refers to the development of communist thought following the death of Stalin in 1953. Stalin’s successors, especially Khrushchev (1953-1964) and Brezhnev (1964-1982), amended communism in several ways.
(1) They moved away from the personalization of power that was the hallmark of Stalin’s regime. While the communist party leader remained important in the political sphere, what develops after Stalin is a broader, more stable party with different centers of power. Some critics argued that the post-Stalin Communist party actually atrophied into a conservative force dedicated to remaining in power rather than completing the revolution. In any event, it is clear that this party became more complex, less centralized, and more conventional.

(2) Stalin’s successors largely eliminated the more brutal characteristics of the Stalinist regime. Certainly, political repression continued, however, open mass terror campaigns ended with the death of Stalin. Related to this, there were occasional “cultural thaws” in which certain forms of political and cultural forms of expression and criticism were permitted.
(3) Stalin’s successors became deeply committed to the maintenance of the external empire of the Eastern European bloc. Indeed, the Brezhnev Doctrine—stipulating that the USSR would take any means necessary to ensure the continued existence of communist regimes in the Warsaw Pact (the Communist equivalent to NATO) countries—made this commitment state doctrine. Whereas Stalin clearly saw the Eastern bloc as a defensive buffer zone, his successors saw it as an extension of their own territory.
Overall, the post-Stalin era (1953-1982) has come to be seen as an atrophying period in Soviet development. As a result, the period was characterized by few developments of significant political thinking. What was important about the era, however, was the development of an authoritarian regime, organized around a single ruling party and an official state ideology (otherwise called a single party regime), from a totalitarian system. (NOTE: authoritarian regimes are generally seen as being more moderate regimes as compared to totalitarian regimes.) Gorbachev’s later reforms need to be seen in the context of both an attack upon the type of social/political/economic system that developed in the post-Stalinist era as well as an attempt to revitalize communist thinking.


Last Completed Projects

# topic title discipline academic level pages delivered
6
Writer's choice
Business
University
2
1 hour 32 min
7
Wise Approach to
Philosophy
College
2
2 hours 19 min
8
1980's and 1990
History
College
3
2 hours 20 min
9
pick the best topic
Finance
School
2
2 hours 27 min
10
finance for leisure
Finance
University
12
2 hours 36 min