and striking in it, was the assertion of the self-sufficiency of the Russian Revolution. All the rest was a repetition of traditional Bolshevik truisms…[It] represented a radical revision of the party’s attitude. But the revision was undertaken in a manner that seemed to deny the very fact of revision and to represent it as straight continuation of an orthodox line of thought. We shall not lead the reader farther into the thick of this dogmatic battle. Suffice it to say that Stalin did his best to graft it on to the body of doctrine he had inherited from Lenin.” It can be seen then, that in the area of ideology the main difference between Lenin and Stalin is that Stalin was far greatly inclined to subjecting purity of doctrine to political expediency. It is true Stalin operated in an atmosphere that was a lot more highly charged in respect to his hold on power (as “Father of the Revolution” Lenin’s status was unchallenged) and with serious opponents like Trotsky, anything, even ideology could become a malleable weapon in the political battle. Certainly this would be something that Stalin would develop into an art form - one that peaked at the show trials of the mid 30’s. Every enemy was a “Bukharinite” or a “Trotskite” or some other political shade of heresy to the one true creed of Stalinism. We can only speculate how Lenin’s theorizing would have changed had he lived longer and possibly been faced with the challenges Stalin was. Ultimately the essential fact is that ideology is one thing and practice is another. One is theory and the other is reality and THEORY rarely translates too precisely into REALITY. Let us now examine and compare how Lenin and Stalin put into practice, that what they preached.Lenin’s political practice was characterized by the elimination of all opposition and entrenchment of the one-party police state, the institutionalization of vi...
