A Study Of Thought And Practice On Cultural Revolution Between Lenin And Stalin

The problem of Cultural Revolution has a special role in the history of Soviet Union. The socialist system which was established by Bolshevik Party in the October Revolution does not abide by the'normal'discipline supposed by Marx and Engel's. The October Revolution was taken placed on the condition of the low level of the substance and culture in Russia. Through several years of the practice of socialism, Lenin had a deep understanding and impression about that. He realized that Russia has to improve its substance as well as culture. If the flaw of this has not been corrected, then Russia would not accomplish the mission of the transition to socialism, and would not establish the complete socialism. Thus, Lenin proposed the NEP and the strategies of the Cultural Revolution. After the death of Lenin, the Soviet Union regarded the industrialism, the collectivization and Cultural Revolution as the basic principles of the socialist construction. They were spread to other socialist countries. The strategy of Cultural Revolution has a significant meaning to other socialist countries.Generally speaking, although the study on the problem about Lenin and Stalin are still going on, and get some significant results, the study about Lenin and Stalin's thought and practice in Cultural Revolution is relatively fewer and there is even not a book about the comparison research.There are several similarities between China and Russia in the field of history and culture. We both established the socialism on the condition of the relatively backwards of the economic and culture. China was influenced by Russia in the policies of'one-side'as well as culture in the primary time of the founding of PRC. Therefore, author chooses this blank field in the history of Russia as a point to explore, expecting through the discussion of the Russian Cultural Revolution in 1920s to 1930s, to summarize the experience and the lessons of our cultural construction, to promote the cultural construction with the Chinese characteristics, in the meantime, to give some suggestions about the subject construction of the history of Russia.The Russian historian's study about this problem is blindly affirmative due to their ideology as well as dogmatism. And the historians in the west have class bias in this problem.Succeeding the results of the predecessors, abiding by the rules of the basic principles of materialism, using comparative research methods, I did a comparison between Lenin and Stalin's thought and practice in the Cultural Revolution from both horizontal and vertical trails. The time limit is between 1917 after the Cultural Revolution and 1938 with the publication of'History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) Short Course'.This article contains the thought and practice of Lenin and Stalin in the Cultural Revolution and the origin of these different thoughts and practice. Through the above discussion, we aimed to illustrate the basic conditions of thought and practice of Lenin and Stalin in the Cultural Revolution happened in Soviet Union in 1920s and 1930s; and to investigate and seek the origin of these differences and summarized the experience and lessons.Besides the introduction and the conclusion parts, this article can be divided into three chapters.Chapter One is the content of Lenin's thought in Cultural Revolution and its primary practice. After several years'practice of socialism in Russia, Lenin realized that the low level of the substance and culture in Russia is the great barrier in the socialist construction. In this aspect, in the early 1923, Lenin proposed his Cultural Revolution thought in his article'On Cooperative'. The content of Lenin Cultural Revolution thought is profuse: achieving the'focus shifted', making economic and culture development as the main point; consisting on the leading of the Party; establishing a Marxism world outlook; eradicating illiteracy and widespread the education; inheriting the cultural heritage, reusing the old intellectuals; energetically developing science and technology, prospering the literature and art and etc. In the instruction of Lenin's thought, the Soviet Union started the practice of Cultural Revolution in 1920s. Even after the death of Lenin, on the correct leadership of Bukharin and Lunacharski, the Soviet Union got a satisfied result in culture field; the western historian call this period'Golden Age'in Soviet Union history. However, in 1920s'Cultural Revolution, there are also several problems: in the process of suppressing anti-Soviet intellectuals, there existed some excesses. Moreover, in 1920's there existed some confusion of thought and social decadence due to the relaxed cultural policies.Chapter Two is the transition and practice of Stalin's thought in Cultural Revolution. In the early 1928, two important things happened in Soviet Union:'grain procurements crisis'and'Schacht cases'. These two issues aroused an inner-party political polemic leading by Stalin and Bukharin. In this polemic, Stalin proposed the theories of intensification of the class struggle and abandoned the idea of viewing the economic and cultural construction as the central task proposed by Lenin. He also used the ultra-industrialization and the overall collectivization to take place the NEP. Hereafter, he used the'grain procurements crisis'and'Schacht cases'as a breach to arrange an attack to his'class enemies'. In the early and middle 1930s, Stalin started the political trials, the suppressions, the criticism, and the purges of intellectuals twice in the cultural fields. In this process, there established the Stalin's cultural autocracy-personal worship sacred, the party's leadership for the centralization of the culture, administrative and the public opinion of a high degree of monopoly. They brought a serious consequence to the Soviet Union socialist cultural construction. In the aspect of Cultural Revolution, Stalin summarized the profuse thought of Lenin into only three aspects: popularizing education, bring up cadres and the ideological and political education of the masses. In fact, the accomplishments in the field of cultural education and science were also of great importance and we should not deny that. It is unfair that some scholars deny everything of Stalin including this.Chapter Three is the analysis of the origin of Lenin and Stalin's thought and practice. First, they have different cognitions on the essential feature of socialism. On the viewpoint of Lenin, the essential feature of socialism should be the profusion of substance and culture. He advocated the development of productive forces, increasing the labor productivity, and focusing on the science and technology, so the Cultural Revolution was of great accomplishment. While in Stalin's opinion, the essential feature of socialism was the extent of the means of the publication of production. He pursued the achievement of all the productions become public through the changing of the production relations, so he carried out the industrialism, collectivization and'focus shifted', not taking Lenin's Cultural Revolution as primacy. Secondly, they have different ways to achieve socialism. On the viewpoint of Lenin, in order to lead Soviet Union to a complete socialism, we should abide by the natural economic objective laws, using a moderate, roundabout, gradual way to achieve the transition to socialism. This way can be expressed by using NEP in aspect of economic, carrying out Cultural Revolution in aspect of culture. While in Stalin's opinion, Soviet Union can achieve a quick transition to socialism through the legal means. So he first abolished the NEP, then increased the industrialism by the politic means and popularized the collectivization. In culture aspect, he advocated the cultural autocracy. Thirdly, they are in the different domestic and international situation. Lenin thinks that at that time the class struggle was in a moderated condition and Russia was in a relatively stable situation, so the low level of the substance and culture in Russia is the main barrier of socialism. The Cultural Revolution is inevitable so as to increase the substance and culture level. At the international level, the international circumstances are relatively stable, and they were longing for the peaceful atmosphere which would benefit the economic construction. While Stalin thought that the process of class struggle was inevitable due to the development of socialism and the acuteness of the domestic class struggle. On the condition of the international situation, Stalin thought Soviet Union was surrounded by the capitalist world. So he developed the heavy industry and MIC one-sidely. Fourthly, they were brought up in different family circumstances, received different education and had different personal experience. Lenin was brought up in the harmonious family environment, received a good education and experienced the exile life. Those undergoing made him pay great attention to education. Stalin was grown in the bottom of the society and influenced by the thick feudal circumstances. He has to experience poverty and domestic violence. He hardly received education. On addition, he underwent the'underground'life in the early days of the Revolution. These are all the elements causing him advocated the cultural autocracy.Viewing the developing process of the thought and practice of Lenin and Stalin, we all enlightened profoundly: if the international and domestic circumstance allows, the countries which were established on the condition of the low level of economic and culture must keep the idea of viewing the economic and cultural construction as the central task in mind. This is the most important cultural heritage left by Lenin.