NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The two totalitarian states that can be most obviously compared in terms of similarities and differences are China and Russia. ? During the course of this essay I will attempt to compare and contrast the individual contributory factors that led to the setting up of these Communist states. ? Perhaps the most important similarity between the two revolutions is the ideology, Marxism, on which they claimed to be based. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Karl Marx was a German revolutionary who came up with a theory, Marxism, which was later used as a basis for the Communist states. He advanced the idea that the character of human society was determined by scientific laws that could be studied, understood and then applied. ?
His own perception of history was a continuous struggle between those who possessed economic and political power and those who did not. ? He referred to this continuous class struggle as the dialectic. ? Marx? s assertion that the contemporary industrial era marked the end of the dialectical class struggle was the grounds for revolution. ? Marx talked of a victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, a victory of the workers over the exploiting, capitalist class. ? However, Russia?
s social conditions were not those described by Marx, considered necessary for the creation of a Communist state. When we look at Russia in the context of social conditions before the revolution, we see a rapidly industrial ising power with the highest economic growth rate in Europe. However, Russia was industrial ising, and was not already industrialised. ? Socially, though, there was a dramatic shift from an entirely agricultural society, towards a fully industrialised, modern society. ?
This shift was conducive to revolutionary forces as the influx of workers headed for the city caused the cities to become overcrowded, working conditions were poor and wages were low. ? However, as peasants this had been tolerated. ? The difference was that in the cities political unrest developed more rapidly, when people were living in close proximity to one another, they realised that their were others who felt as they did about the way they were treated, this led to discontent among the workers who began to look towards revolutionary parties such as the Social Revolutionaries (SR? s), the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. ? The result of this was that these revolutionary parties rapidly gained and became stronger and more influential. ? The war also played a vital role in the people?
s discontentment. The grouping of soldiers together in close proximity to one another, watching as their compatriots died in agony before their eyes for no real benefit to them, led them to believe that the war was pointless, and with Bolsheviks in particular encouraging desertions, and with the promise of land at home, many of the peasant soldiers left the trenches for the farm land. ? In the case of Russia, the grouping of people in the cities and in the trenches led to a revolutionary spirit and a political consciousness that was difficult to suppress. Particularly in the years leading up to 1917, the people of Russia began to see the Tsar less as their? little father? and more as the weak, suppressive dictator he really was.
Mistakes such as taking direct control of the army, thereby causing himself to be blamed for any defeat led to a loss of faith in the ability of the Tsar to rule Russia. ? Perhaps for the first time, the population of Russia became interested in the running of their own country, and instead of leaving all government to the Tsar, began to look for alternative forms of government. ? This social change was demonstrated in the massive increase of party memberships during this time. In China, however, the social change was not so dramatic. ?
The GMD had overthrown the Manchu dynasty in 1911 amid a clamour of public opinion in favour of revolutionary political change. ? The result was that the Chinese Nationalist Party (the GMD) under Sun Yatsen came to power. ? In this way, the initial overthrow of the monarchy could be directly compared with that of Russia, the problem was that the regime was too conservative and reforms did not go far enough. However, the communist revolution came about in very different circumstances to that of Russia. ?
In contrast to Russia, China was still a very agricultural, economically backward, socially unchanged power in 1949 when the communists came to power. ? The industrial revolution seen in Russia in the early 20 th century was not repeated in China, and indeed it was not until after the communists came to power that anything like industrialisation took place. ? However, there was much discontent among the peasantry. ? Exploited for centuries by autocratic system of land ownership, they had become politically conscious and looked to revolutionary parties such as the GMD for the answers. ? However, under the GMD, little changed for the ordinary peasant. ? The autocratic land ownership still existed. ?
It was this that caused the communists to become so popular. ? The removal of land from the traditional control of the landowners whilst giving it to the peasantry built their power base in northern China. ? It was the support of the peasantry that allowed the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) to seize power in 1949, and although it had only involved limited social reform, the social reform implemented was that which was needed at the time. The revolution in China was made possible not so much by revolutionary change, but through the adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to fit the Chinese model. ? Marx believed that the revolution must begin with the proletariat or the workers. ? However, China was not sufficiently industrialised to allow a workers uprising. ?
The result was that Mao Zedong, the CCP leader from 1934, adapted the Marxist beliefs to fit the Chinese needs. ? The result was Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, a form of peasant communism, specifically designed for a Chinese revolution. Marxism was taken as a basis for revolution, but China only took from Marxism the aspects that were best suited to the Chinese situation, Marxism was adapted to fit a Chinese situation, as China could not adapt to fit a Marxist ideal. This adaptation of an ideology to be applied in China was vital to the communist success as it was only their peasant support base that allowed them to seize power in 1949. ? It was also significant that China did not follow the Russian model of communism. ? The CCP had a strong leadership that refused to adhere to the Russian model of communism where they felt the Russian model conflicted with the interests of the revolution in China.
Despite frustrating Comintern and Stalin, Mao realised that without adaptation, the Chinese revolution could not have possibly survived. ? Perhaps Mao? s greatest and most important realisation was that in order to create a revolution dependent upon the peasants, the peasants must understand what the revolution is about. ? The result was the simplification of communism into a form that could be easily understood by the peasants. Similarly in Russia, the conditions for a strictly Marxist revolution simply didn?
t exist. ? The result was that Lenin adapted Marxism to fit the Russian model, in a similar way to that in which Mao adapted Marxism to fit a Chinese model. ? Lenin spoke of the Bolshevik revolution of October 1917 being carried out by the Red Army on behalf of the workers. Lenin?
s view of the contemporary Russian working class was that its small size and lack of political sophistication meant that it could not achieve revolution unaided. ? Lenin saw the enlightened Bolshevik party as a guiding force, moving the proletariat towards its revolutionary destiny. ? The result was a new sort of political party, disciplined, exclusive, tightly structured and professional. ? This in turn led to a new sort of politician: self-confident, dismissive of other parties and ideologies, and extremely loyal towards the supreme leader. ?
Trotsky expressed Lenin? s ideology as follows: ? The party in the last analysis is always right, because the party is the only historical instrument given to the proletariat to resolve its fundamental tasks. ? Perhaps the most important factor, common to both revolutions was the strong leadership provided by Lenin and Mao Zedong. ? This leadership in both cases proved vital to the success of the revolution and its eventual outcome but in very different ways. ? In the case of Lenin, he was a brilliant ideologist and theoretician. ?
His ideas, rhetoric and charisma gave the regime the charismatic legitimacy that it needed to survive. ? He also brought determination, discipline and unity to the party transforming it from a small party in cooperation with others in the Soviet, into a powerful revolutionary party capable of seizing power. ? However, Lenin was not a strategist, and the plans for the seizure of power would not have existed had it not been for Trotsky. ? It was the combination of Lenin and Trotsky that enabled the revolution to occur. ? Lenin?
s charisma and theory was put into practise by Trotsky? s planning and organisation. ? His organisation of the Red Army during the civil war strengthened the Bolshevik grip on power, which without him may well have loosened and slipped. ? In Russia, therefore, it was very much the combined influence of Lenin and Trotsky that provided the required strong leadership, and allowed the revolution to take place. Mao Zedong, on the other hand, was a more complete revolutionary leader. ? He provided the charisma and enthusiasm to carry those around him along through a cult of personality, and similarly to Stalin, became a God-like figure to those who followed him. ?
However, he also maintained an effective, well-disciplined party with the clear objective of seizing power. ? The Red Army was an effective fighting unit, organised and disciplined. Certainly, there was no comparison between the Red Army and Chiang Kaishek? s ill-disciplined forces. ? However, like Lenin, Mao was an intelligent theoretician. ? His adaptation of Marxism-Leninism to fit a Chinese model showed insight and political realism, the realisation that China could not fit into the model of communism that had been used in Russia was vital to the survival of the revolution. ?
Through his sense of political realism, Mao also perceived what would appeal to an oppressed population. ? By virtue of his organising ability and his awesome power to inspire those around him, Mao won the loyalty of a large section of the population. ? His ability to adapt communism, simplifying Marxist principles into a set of guidelines for the peasants to follow showed a realisation of China? s real situation. ? It is arguable that without Mao, Communism would not have survived let alone triumphed in 1949. ? One would expect that China would have had an easier road to revolution with its neighbour Russia offering both monetary and military aid. ?
In actual fact, the reverse was true. ? China turned Communist against all the odds, not only did Russia offer no aid to the CCP, but they openly opposed them by supplying the opposition forces of the GMD. ? The GMD also received aid from the west, particularly from America. ? These armaments were stockpiled and used in the war against the Communists, instead of being used in the war against Japan as had been originally intended. ? The Communists, by contrast, received no foreign aid, and their weapons were obtained either by stealing from the GMD or through defeating the Japanese and taking weapons from Japanese bases in China. ? It was solely due to the disciplined, effective fighting unit, the Red Army that the CCP eventually triumphed. ?
It was the superior conditions, the better treatment of the soldiers, Mao? s excellent motivation of the troops and the more rigorous discipline that allowed the CCP to eventually defeat the GMD. In contrast, the GMD troops were ill disciplined, poorly motivated and badly treated by those in authority over them. The credit for this incredible feat must therefore be given to Mao and the leadership of the CCP. Similarly in Russia, the feat of revolution was achieved among open hostility from the Western European powers, America and Japan, who all sent troops into Russia to fight against the Communists. Again, the victory was partially due to the?
Red? s? disciplined, motivated approach towards the war, and partially due to the lack of organisation and discipline among the? White? s? . ? The victory in Russia can be attributed to Trotsky?
s motivational and disciplinarian approach to the war, in the same way that the victory in China can be attributed to Mao for similar reasons. ? Trotsky? s use of the railway was particularly effective in transporting troops quickly and effectively to where they were required. ? In both country? s, however, the revolution triumphed due to the absolute belief and dedication among those fighting for it. However, having said that the revolution in Russia had no impact upon the revolution in China would be inaccurate. ?
Although Stalin opposed the CCP in the civil war, Comintern had previously given instructions to the CCP regarding how the revolution should be conducted, and although Mao disregarded many of these instructions, some were clearly adopted, as there seem to be too many similarities between the two revolutions for China to have learnt nothing from Russia. ? For example, it is highly likely that the disciplined approach adopted by the Red Army in China was influenced in part by Trotsky? s Red Army in Russia and in the quick introduction of the five-year plans, successful in Russia under Stalin. ? Perhaps the most significant factor in both revolutions was the ruthless consolidation of power. ? In both China and Russia, after the civil war, a ruthless policy of purging was adopted. ?
In Russia, the CHEKA, a more disciplined version of the Tsarist Okhrana, and led by Felix Dzerzhinsky, a dedicated Bolshevik with no sense of compassion, was given the task of destroying the real or potential opponents to the regime. ? With Lenin? s full backing, the CHEKA established a reign of terror across the greater part of Russia. ? This effective form of repression succeeded in consolidating Bolshevik power by removing all those who opposed the regime, encouraging others to remain silent. ? Similarly in China, the policy of Land Reform often involved the violent removal of the landlords, and shortly after the Communist victory of 1949, an action was ordered against the counter-revolutionary threat (again possibly a lesson learnt from Russia) that resulted in the categorisation of?
friends? and? enemies? of the regime. ? This resulted in the?
removal? of all the elements in society considered to be? counter-revolutionary? , 140 000 were arrested as GMD supporters and 28 332 executions took place between October 1950 and August 1951. These two revolutions are similar in many ways; the opposition faced from the external and internal forces, the suppression of counter-revolutionary forces during the consolidation of power, and perhaps most obviously the presence of an inspirational, charismatic theoretician. However, this is not to say that the revolutions did not differ, perhaps that most apparent differentiation is the adaptation of Marxism to fit the different situations in China and Russia at the time of the revolution. ? The rapid industrialisation of the cities, but still comparative backwardness when compared to a truly industrialised state such as Germany led to Marxism being altered by Lenin who talked of a revolution carried out on behalf of the workers. ?
However, this was further adapted by Mao who simply took the principles of Marxism and converted it into a model applicable to the peasant dominated Chinese society. ? The support base for the CCP and the Bolsheviks were also completely different, the CCP relied heavily upon the support of the peasantry, whereas the Bolsheviks were more dependent upon the workers for their primary support base. ? There are certainly many more similarities than differences between the Chinese and Russian revolution, but their seems to be good reason for this as the Chinese took many ideas from the Russians in the way they attempted the seizure of power from the GMD. Although many adaptations had to be made for the revolution to be applicable to China, many of the similarities stem from the attempt to emulate the success of the Russian revolution. ? However, this should not detract from the very different, and perhaps more hostile conditions faced by Mao Zedong in his attempt to turn China into a Communist state. Although in some areas, he imitated the revolution in Russia, in many others, his ideology was all his own, resulting in a more successful version of Chinese Communism. ?
These two revolutions, in many ways similar, but yet very different, should be considered two of the greatest achievements of the 20 th century, as in both cases, despite brutal methods, a Communist state was brought about despite all the odds.
Free research essays on topics related to: 20 th century, red army, mao zedong, strong leadership, lenin
Research essay sample on 20 Th Century Mao Zedong
