What were the limits on Stalin's power?

Before one accepts the view of Stalin as an all-powerful dictator, it is important to consider the limits of his control. Personal limits. Even if he had wished to, Stalin would not have been able to decide and control every issue. Stalin may have read long into the night but it was impossible for him to survey all the material necessary to keep on top of events in a country as large as the Soviet Union. This situation required prioritising to enable Stalin to focus on those issues of direct concern to himself. Limits imposed from within the leadership. After the removal of the Left and Right Opposition groups during the debate over industrialisation, it is tempting to see the Politburo of the 1930s as a collection of Stalin's cronies. Individuals, such as Molotov, Kaganovich, Voroshilov and Kalinin, who were members of the Politburo, are often portrayed as dull, mediocre yes-men. There is undoubtedly a lot of truth in this view. Molotov remained loyal to Stalin even when his wife was imprisoned during the purges. There is, however, some evidence of the Politburo opposing Stalin's actions: In 1932, when Stalin wanted to execute Ryutin, who had denounced Stalin, the Politburo refused to agree and Ryutin was sentenced to ten years' in a labour camp instead. Stalin's ambitious targets for the second Five-Year Plan were considered too high for many both inside and outside the party. Even members of the Politburo felt the plan as it stood would result in chaos and opposition. Stalin was forced to accept a hurried redrafting of the plan with lower targets. Kirov, the popular leader of the party in Leningrad and member of the Politburo, may have represented a moderate faction within the leadership. He secured more votes than Stalin in the elections to the Politburo at the Party Congress of 1934. Did Kirov represent growing opposition to Stalin's policies? The evidence is unclear and the issue is confused still further by the possibility of Stalin being responsible for ordering his assassination later in the year. Some members of the Politburo expressed concern over Stalin's increasing use of brutality. Kuibyshev, head of Gosplan, may have expressed these concerns to Stalin but he died of a heart attack in 1935. Ordzhonikidze, Commissar for Heavy Industry, raised objections to the use of terror during meetings of the Politburo. Stalin tried to unnerve him by arresting and shooting his deputy. Ordzhonikidze cracked under the pressure: the cause of his death in 1937 was officially given as a heart attack but it was widely believed that he committed suicide. Other doubters included Voroshilov and Kalinin, both of whom became isolated in the Politburo. Politics within the Soviet leadership remained a secretive process and evidence of relationships within the Politburo is difficult to find and interpret. The evidence available suggests the limits imposed on Stalin by members of the Politburo were minor, and diminished as the 1930s wore on, yet they showed that some dissatisfaction with Stalin did exist and could, on rare occasions, make itself known. Stalin surrounded himself with his cronies, but to serve Stalin's purpose they needed to be able to exercise the power Stalin had given them. This allowed some of Stalin's gang to develop their own agenda and Yezhov, head of the secret police, seems to have done this when implementing arrests and executions during the Limits imposed from below. Recent evidence from social historians making use of sources that have become available since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has focused on the pressures exerted on Stalin and the leadership from rank and file party members. Party members were concerned about the continuing threat

from enemies at home and abroad, and pushed for policies that would strengthen socialism in the USSR. Thus, Stalin was merely following the wishes of rank and file party members in bringing about the rapid industrialisation of the country. The fact that Stalin gave out ambiguous orders from the top were often misinterpreted by the locals into their own interests of the sector. This showed Stalin could not exercise his control on local institutions due to the complexity of the political system and inefficiency. In 1930, Stalins statement Dizzy with Success can be seen as an attempt to bring over-zealous party officials, who were rapidly pushing through the policy of collectivisation, into line. There is also evidence of the purges at local level resulting from conflict between local party members and regional authorities. Stalin may have directed the purges at the top but their scale at local level was determined by local pressures over which Stalin found it difficult to exercise control. Local studies have shown the situation on the ground, away from Moscow, to be far more chaotic than the traditional view of a dictatorship has indicated. In summary Although there were limits to Stalins power, it is difficult to deny his importance in shaping events. Stalin was both a product of the situation inherited from Lenin and a force for using the opportunities presented in order to strengthen the system to his own advantage. Dissent in the party

There are indirect signs of several attempts to limit Stalin's powers in the early 1930s. Riutin. In the late 1920s he supported the Rightists, and in 1930 he criticised Stalin's policies in a personal interview with the leader. Stalin expelled him. However months later was reinstated and in 1932, circulated a document which criticised Stalin's policies. Stalin demanded Riutin's execution. However several members of the Politburu opposed Stalin and he got a 10 yr sentence. This implies that Stalin did not have full dictatorship of the party, and his position was still wavering. Almost 1/4 of the deputies voted against Stalin's election to the Central Committee

Collectivisation

This policy represented the greatest transformation of Russian society since emancipation (in 1861). It changed who owned the land, how the land was worked, and how the peasants lived. Collectivisation involved the elimination of private ownership of agricultural land, and its replacement with a system of state-owned and collectively-owned farms. Poorer peasants mostly tolerated collectivisation, but the wealthier ones (the kulaks) bitterly opposed it. Stalin branded the kulaks as class enemies, and eliminated them as a social class via starvation, imprisonment, execution and banishment to labour camps. 7 million people starved. Countless others died in the camps.
Rural life in Russia had been transformed socially, economically and politically. Socially, the human cost was undeniable. However, the socialist experiment in agriculture was also a failure economically, as total production did not recover to the 1928 level until ten years later. Collectivisation did not bring with it increased production. But it did give Stalin increased political control enough to allow him to exploit the peasants sufficiently to permit rapid industrial expansion.

Industrialisation
The impact of industrialisation on Soviet society, while nowhere near as profound as that of collectivisation, was still significant. Economically, the three Five Year Plans transformed Russia from a backward semi-developed nation to one which could match the West in industrial output.

However, working conditions were hard and living standards low. People had to work for seven days a week in many factories, and were not permitted to leave their jobs without government permission Unfortunately, workers received few rewards for their efforts. Living standards remained low, since few consumer goods were produced; instead, resources were channelled into heavy industry and the expansion of infrastructure. Only the most productive workers received wage increases, bonuses or special privileges Unfortunately, industrialisation and collectivisation created a new social class in Russia slave labourers. During the 1930s, there were 8 million people working in the labour camps, performing some of the hardest, most dangerous jobs in the country. Not surprisingly, many died of cold, malnutrition, disease and overwork. Another important social change in Russia during the 1930s was the increased pride people took in their nations achievements.

Society and Culture Stalin placed the emphasis firmly on discipline, imparting a mixture of traditional Russian Values and his own interpretation of Marxism. He took a "top-down" initiative, moving deliberately to the construction of a totalitarian state. This involved using traditions to strenghten his own power. Or could be seen as trying to revive radical policies yet lost some initiative to local forces. Stalin therfore tried to regain control using traditional policies. "bottom- up"

Social changes

The most basic of all changes concerned egalitarianism. Bolsehviks reduced social distinction, equality, and wage differentials, and undermined military ranks. Stalin went along at first, but the crisis caused by the extent of the early radicalism meant that Stalin revived distinctions. 2 reasons. 1. He needed to be more certain of the loyalty of subordinates and officials, which could be best guaranteed by a system of privlegde and rewards. Hence he introduced all the distinctions in the army rank. 2. Tried to implement equality caused chaos, which in turn impeded economic growth. He therefore ended the practice of "wage equalisation". Under Stalin it was not "from each according to his ability" but "each accordingly to his work" By increasing incentives, it did accelerate the momentum for industrial change. But incentives were highly selective. He intensified measures against the family as part of a drive for collectivisation in the late 1920s. But the social backlash, was so serious, he reverse policy and seeked refuge in traditionalism. He restored family to full status in society. In 1935 divorce was made more difficult and expensive for women to obtain and abortion was illegal in 1936. During the 1930s all religious denominations were affected by purges. The orthodox church re-established to provide focus for Russian patriotism. Education and culture: As well Stalin went forward with Lenins plan on education. However in 1934, he completely changed his course. He reintroduced formal learning, examinations and grades, and full authority of teacher. During the radical period from 1927 to 1931, there were huge increases in instiutions and enrolment. School increased from 118,558 in 1927-1928 to 166275 by 1933. Education was very important as it needed an educated population to read orders, count stats etc. Art and literature were used to publicise the 5 yr plans and collectivisation. He reduced all art forms to sate subservience. Painting was directly used for political propaganda. Architecture was even more directly controlled by state, since plans and designs could be rarely achieved without state funding. Priority was given to prestige projects which formed an integral part of the regime;s growing obsession with gigantomania. Overall, Stalin moved from an early acceleration of Bolshevik radicalism to a revival of past traditions. As the regime appeared increasingly ramshackle, he had to abandon radicalism and attempt to restore authority through reliable traditions. The fracturing of society by collectivisation and enforced industrialisation was predominantly negative, while the revival of traditional values provided greater stability for social and cultural developments.

Russia was transformed politically, giving Stalin the power he needed to unleash a reign of terror on those he perceived to be his enemies.