Russia and the communism doctrines
Contrary to every assertion, Communism can not adequately be described by its doctrine owing to the fact that the doctrine is a reflection on history in the past, the present and in the future. The doctrine beyond any reasonable doubt is not an honest approach to the apprehension of realism but an opinionated imposition .The movement was an interface of the ideas of Marx and the political and rational environment of Russia before the evolution. Marx sounded a trumpet that was embraced by scores of Russians: according to his credence, there was a lot of influence from the west and their revolutionary ideas were religiously followed by the Russians. The intellectual sensation of Marxism however had nothing to do with its reasonable relevance; it was just a logical rationale crafted for emotional reasons: just a set of ideas without a true basis to adequately defend the interests of a community.
Lenin having grown up with a surging revolutionary ambition embraced and implemented Marxism religiously without considering its congruence in Russia. Due to his dogmatism, Lenin totally became devoted to the principles, though he however, was capable of revising the Marxism principles to suitable revolutionary diplomacies. In essence, Lenin was not a Marxist: he came up with his own set of beliefs as a spiritual continuity from Marx, although his doctrines-Leninism –had intense effect in shaping the Communism Movement. Lenin’s opinionated thinking was grounded on two well-built ideologies: one, that history is made in the last analysis by the political will of leaders and ideas
and two that the dedication to the predictable revolution as a moral supremacy was a worthwhile endeavor (Blanc, P.L 77-101).
Stalin, a staunch follower of Lenin sought to pursue compromise of economic leniency and firm party control a move that was greatly opposed by the Trotskyists citing that this was in favor of the petty Bourgeois. Stalin’s stand brought a major change in the function of the Communist doctrine. He also had his own ideals: Stalin on the State and the Intelligentsia- in March 1939, Stalin undertook to enlighten the subjects on the role of the Soviet State both in protecting her interest against Capitalist encroachment and in her own development. In his view, in order to completely overcome capitalism, they were to remove the Bourgeois from power and also to destroy their military arsenal- the old army, to smash its system of government. The greatest achievement of democracy by the Proletarians is credited to the Stalin Constitution: this saw the greatest accomplishment of socialism, the greatest Soviet socialist law and a sound historical act all that reflected the will of the people of the Soviet Union.
Leninism considered the party to be vital if they were to achieve their goals: the party was to be their strength for the revolution to occur, against all opposition, the party would overcome the unreasonable principles and deliver conquest which would otherwise not be realized. Lenin had a lot of ideas: Democratic Centralism-this prescription became the official doctrine in the communist organization though it contradicted the party’s’ statutes. The principle of Democratic Centralism and autonomy of local institutions simply meant the freedom of criticism-complete and in all sectors- as long as this did not mean compromise on already formulated laws, also the criticism was not to interfere with or frustrate the unity of action.
The second idea was on –The Vision of the Revolutionary State-after the abortive uprising of
the July days, Lenin fled to Finland and composed ideas viewed as his major contribution to political
theory. This suggested that the Bourgeois state be completely destroyed and replaced by a totally new radical state: the idea behind this was to exclude all systems of government and partiality and finally overcome the resistance of the intellectuals. This was finally integrated in the bureaucrat communist theory and most of Lenin’s disciples took this ideal very seriously (Cowling, M & Carver, T 144-146).
Lenin on Economic Expediency-after a long period of instability, the Russian Republic finally had an opportunity to concentrate on a more important aspect of the Socialist revolution, namely, organizational relationship. This was however just to be achieved if the population engaged in creative work in the production and distribution of produce in order to build an independent and a new society. This was comfortably achieved by the specialists in Bourgeois who solved the problems of accounting and organizational control on a national level at very high costs for the services they provided. The Soviet Republic realized that building socialism meant the success of combining the Soviet power and organization of management coupled in achieving capitalism; this therefore meant that they had to adopt this at all costs if they were to achieve developments in science and technology.
Lenin on Revolutionary Purism-faced with heavy criticism on his policies, Lenin delivered an aggression against those who opposed compromises as agents of Capitalism. He wanted to achieve a smooth transition from Capitalism to Socialism (the lower stage of Communism). According to communists, negation of party principles meant to disable the Proletariat in the interest of the Bourgeois which by extension was to destroy the Proletariat revolutionary movements. The other idea was on the creation of the Secret Police: this was commenced with the creation of a commission to fight all forms of counter-terrorism and political antagonism. A special tribunal was formed to act as a jury to the counter terrorists, prior to that, the commission would conduct preliminary investigations on terrorists and those found guilty would face confinements, confiscations and their names would also be published (Ellner.S & Salas, M.T. 186-188).
Hugo Chavez’s regime in Venezuela compares to that of Lenin in quite a number of ways. In 1958, the two dominant parties in Venezuela (Democratic action-AD) and (Independent Electoral Political Organizing Committee) decided to share power. In 1992, the country faced two abortive coup de tats and Hugo who was a participant in the coup ended up winning elections in 1998 hence promising good governance and political restructuring. This however just led to decrease in popularity of the Democratic Action-AD party and a change in the relations between the United States and Venezuela, so like Lenin’s, Hugo’s reign also led to the decrease in Democracy in Venezuela
Hugo Chavez is also seen to have adopted Marxism ideas when he openly declared –in a world forum of intellectuals and artists in Venezuela-that Capitalism must be transcended. According to Hugo, there was need to study the origin of Socialism principle and its errors; he referred to the Russian Revolutionary Leon Trotsky’s ideas (implying that it was not possible to find national solutions to global problems).
The chavista Revolution sought to bring major improvement in the social and economical development for the people. Hugo remained popular in his country though the popularity of his governance was questionable: this separation between the leader of government and the governments operations led to sharp opposition that had to attach the performance of the regime to Hugo himself. In fact, when the country experienced decline in petroleum revenue in 2001, Hugo was closely linked with the results of his government. It can be concluded with much accuracy that the popularity Hugo enjoyed at home was more due to lack of political opposition than neither the credibility of his governance nor the success of the Chavista Revolt. In the same tune, Lenin’s governance was also characterized by social, economical and political transformations that more often led to mistrusts and more rebellions (Sarkar, S.15-16).
Chavez often relied on the use of armed forces to drive his agenda for change: through frequent referenda, Hugo legitimated the abolition of the Venezuelan congress and the Supreme Court (just like Lenin dissolved the parliament in the Soviet Union), enacted a new constitution and elected and empowered new legislative and judicial performers. The use of military symbolism to consolidate his position and bureaucrats to key positions in his administration poses questions over prospects for democracy for Venezuela. Overall, Hugo and Lenin’s regimes are comparable in scores of ways: they all were marred by revolutions and movements, they all had plans for transformations that never were, there was the use of military force in governance and they were all characterized by silent mockeries of democracy.
Blanc, P.L Marx, Lenin, and the revolutionary experience: studies of communism and
radicalism in the age of globalization.CRC Press, 2007.
Cowling, M and Carver, T The Communist manifesto: new interpretations
Edinburgh University Press, 1998.
Ellner.S and Salas, M.T. Venezuela: Hugo Chávez and the decline of an “exceptional
democracy”.Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.
Sarkar, S. The Revolution Betrayed
Aakar Books, 2006.