Same Party, Different Views

Despite being of the same political party, Stalin and Lenin express very different opinions on the Soviet Union’s issues. Stalin’s document “Concerning the Presentation of the National Question” from May 8th 1921 describes the differences of the national questions as given by the Communists in relation to the national question adopted by the leaders of the Second and Two and-a-Half Internationals, Socialists, Social-Democrats, Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, and other parties. He explains that they differ in four points, then goes on to explain those points. First, Stalin explains the merging of the National question with the general question of the liberation of the colonies as a whole. Secondly, Stalin determines the vague slogan of “the rights of nations to self-determination” to mean a nation’s right to autocracy. Thirdly, he explains a connection between national and colonial questions of the rule of capital. He explains that in order to “win the war” there is a need to revolutionize enemies. Lastly, Stalin describes the need for equality of nations and not just “national equality of rights”.

Lenin criticizes Stalin’s Presentation of the National Question in his own writings “On the Questions of the Nationalities or of Autonomization” on December 30th of 1922. He declares the question of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics to be the question of autotomizing. He outwardly criticizes Stalin’s want for autonomization and claims it to be “wrong and untimely”. He also questions Stalin’s explanation behind the want for autonomization. Lenin goes on to explain that Stalin did not show enough concern in taking measures to defend those from other nations, and outwardly declares the Soviet’s fatal role to be Stalin and his preoccupation with the administrative aspect and by his rage against social-nationalism.

One common thread in both documents is that both Stalin and Lenin declare imperialism as the common enemy. However, other than having a common enemy, Lenin throughout his writing makes a great effort to show his disagreement with Stalin’s actions and opinions. He even goes as far as questioning Stalin’s understanding of “nationalism”.  Lenin also seems to find Stalin’s actions and explanations behind his actions to be unsound. With that, Stalin’s document provide some insight into his arguably irrational mindset in some areas, as Lenin points out. Lenin sheds light on these issues by asking why Stalin believes autonomy to be the best option, and why then? Also, Lenin’s outward disapproval of Stalin and of his positions and actions acts as a harbinger to Stalin’s abusive years ahead. If the epitome of the Communist party was feeling weary about Stalin, that should have been warning enough for his turbulent years ahead in power.

ACLAIM – Imperialism

Author: The author is John Hobson, a classically educated English economist. Throughout his life, Hobson became known as a critic of Imperialism, to a point where people began to frown upon how open his criticisms were.

Context: This piece was written in 1902, at a time where the British economic system was experiencing a stark downturn. They were no longer the clear superpower in the world, with countries such as the United States and Germany steadily gaining economic and military strength.

Language: The language used is very complex in structure and in tense – the reader can tell that it was composed by an educated author. His writing mentions economics on a wide scale, but it still easy enough to read if you don’t posses an economic back ground.

Audience: The intended audience is that of a rich, educated populace – people who know what they are reading and have the ability to do something with their newly acquired knowledge.

Intent: To show how imperialism has destroyed the economic system of England. He explains how it has caused overproduction and underconsumption, therefore leading to a inefficient method of production. He wants to educate people on how a good economic system works – it isn’t necessarily all about cheap goods, there has to be a sustainable demand for those goods as well.

Message: Nationalism should take over as the prevailing foreign policy of the nation. If the country is more inward based, it would spur on national production and make for a more autonomous (and productive) people.