Analysis of This is Moscow Speaking

Angst! Peur! Miedo! Страх! Fear! Regardless of what language it is said in, fear carries the same meaning. As some may say, fear is what can be seen throughout the United States of America as President Trump takes his first days in the White House. This fear has come from the idea that the social transformation Barack Obama has begun since his first day in office, eight years ago, may be coming to an end. Disregarding what may happen next in politics, fear has helped to expose the problems that today’s society has related to human rights. It can be seen in today’s news that; this exposure has motivated people to join arms and push for change. Jaswinder Bolina is one of those people. In his article “Writing Like a White Guy” Bolina dives

“The Communist threat inside the country has been magnified and exalted far beyond its realities”(273). Accusations have been made, irresponsible citizens are spreading fears. Multiples of suspicions had been made. Innocents are being considered as disloyalty. “Suspicion grows until only the person who loudly proclaims the orthodox view, or who, once having been a Communist, has been converted, is trustworthy” (273). Suspects are those who are unorthodox, who does not followed military policymakers. The fear has driven citizens to the folds of the orthodox. The fear was to be investigated, to lose one’s job, etc. These fears have driven many people to sorrow. These fears have effected younger generations. “This pattern of orthodoxy that is shaping our thinking has dangerous implications” (274). Douglas believes the great danger if we become victims of the orthodox school. They can limit our ability to change or alter. Douglas believes a man’s mind must be free.

Soso Djugashvili, more commonly known as Joseph Stalin, ‘man of steel’, dictator of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) Russia, can be considered a ‘Red Tsar’ to an extent when features of Stalinism are compared to those of Tsarism and Russia ruled by Nicholas II’s autocratic regime from 1894 to 1917. A ‘Red Tsar’ is a communist leader whom follows similar principles followed under the leadership of a Tsar, that were influenced by few opinions allowing sole leadership and little opposition from others. Stalin can be considered a ‘Red Tsar’ to an extent as he ruled Communist Russia as a somewhat totalitarian state and was considered a ‘God-like’ figure sent to Earth to lead the nation and its people. From Stalin’s reign of terror from 1929 to 1953 there can be similarities seen in his regime to features of Tsarism as well as differences, this is why there are alternative interpretations for Stalin being considered a ‘Red Tsar’.

Joseph Stalin once said during his rule over Russia, “Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed” (“Joseph Stalin Quotes”). In George Orwell’s book, 1984, Orwell mirrors the events of Stalin’s Russia using the government called the Party to show the similarities between the two. In 1984, the Party is in control of everything; just as Stalin’s government was when he was in power. George Orwell demonstrates what was going in Russia in his book through the Party’s glorification of their leader and through the control of education.

One country is comparable to the United States of America in terms of world power and prominence. Russia makes their name known beginning in World War 2 (WW2), later in the Korean War, Cold War, and today’s proxy war in the Syria. Russia’s culture, environment, politics, military, and economy do not just make Russia a regional powerhouse, but slowly becoming a region of influential power to surrounding countries with the end state of a global superpower. All the factors that make Russia the powerhouse that it is slowly becoming, highlights the impressive trend that supersedes the previous Soviet Union and past leaders.

Throughout historical times, the rule of Josef Stalin has been questioned due to his position as being one of the most popular and contentious leaders. Through the evaluation of his ruling within the Soviet Union, he can be seen as both a positive and negative ruler. His methods of changing the country following World War I were sudden, causing a complete change in societal ways of life in controversial ways. While his changes created one of the most powerful countries the world had ever seen at its’ time, they also caused for massive discontent within the citizens of Soviet Russia.

On December 5, 1936, the Soviet Union adopted a new constitution to reform the government. It replaced the 1924 constitution that was ratified shortly after the death of Vladimir Lenin. The 1936 constitution lasted until 1977, when a new constitution was adopted. According to a former kulak named Andrei Arzhilovsky, people celebrated on the streets when the constitution was ratified, and everyone called it the “Stalin Constitution”. Rightfully so, it deserved the name because Josef Stalin was heavily involved in the creation of the new constitution. Indeed there were good reasons for Soviet citizens to celebrate the adoption of the new constitution, because it granted rights that were previously denied to the people. Among the rights that were provided were: (1) universal rights for all Soviet citizens including kulaks (2) freedom of religion (3) preservation of the rights of all ethnic groups. In this paper, I will argue that the 1936 Soviet Constitution did not achieve its goal of providing universal rights to all Soviet citizens,

The concept of Stalinism, being the ideologies and policies adopted by Stalin, including centralization, totalitarianism and communism, impacted, to an extent, on the soviet state until 1941. After competing with prominent Bolshevik party members Stalin emerged as the sole leader of the party in 1929. From this moment, Stalinism pervaded every level of society. Despite the hindrance caused by the bureaucracy, the impact of Stalinism was achieved through the implementation of collectivization and the 5-year plans, Stalin’s Political domination and Cultural influence, including the ‘Cult of the Personality’. This therefore depicts the influence of Stalinism over the Soviet State in the period up to 1941.

Khrushchev was desperate to present himself as a reformer, completely breaking away from the reliance of ‘fear into submission’ tactics of the Stalinist era, by presenting

Were it a testimony to the rigors and cruelness of human nature, it would be crushing. As it is, it shatters our perception of man and ourselves as no other book, besides perhaps Anne Franke`s diary and the testimony of Elie Wiesl, could ever have done. The prisoners of the labor camp, as in Shukhov?s predicament, were required to behave as Soviets or face severe punishment. In an almost satirical tone Buinovsky exclaims to the squadron that ?You?re not behaving like Soviet People,? and went on saying, ?You?re not behaving like communist.? (28) This type of internal monologue clearly persuades a tone of aggravation and sarcasm directly associated to the oppression?s of communism.

Indeed, the telegraph demonstrated many of the characteristics one might expect from a Soviet document degenerating the United States. Not only did Novikov accuse the United States of desiring “world domination,” for example, but he also criticized America’s reliance on unfair “monopoly capital[ism],” which in his view permitted U.S. expansion into Eurasia. A deeper analysis, however, reveals hidden suggestions into how the Soviets saw themselves in the world. In fact, some parts of Novikov’s response almost appear to portray the USSR as an underdog overcoming an imperialistic power – a portrayal strikingly similar to the Marxist idea of the downtrodden proletariat overcoming the disproportionately overpowered bourgeois. Just as Cold War America may have understood its place in the world thanks to Manifest Destiny, the founding ideals of Marx and Lenin may have also defined how Cold War Russia viewed

It is undeniable that Stalin had a profound impact on the Soviet Union following Lenin’s death. His rise to power within the Soviet Union has provided historians with a hotbed of political intrigue for many years. He was an opportunist, coming to dominance by manipulating party politics and influential figures in the politburo to eliminate his opposition by recognising and exploiting their weaknesses thus becoming the dominant leader of the Soviet Union. He was severely underestimated by other members of the Politburo about his potential within the party, leading to missed opportunities to ally and stand against him- a mistake that Stalin never made. He gained support from the public by exploiting the idea of ‘the Cult of Lenin’ in 1924 at Lenin’s funeral, and then adopting this concept for himself, thereby likening himself to Lenin; and, more importantly, gained support from other party members by following the wishes of Lenin, for example, initially supporting the continuation of the NEP and supporting the idea of factionalism. This essay will also argue that he was ideologically flexible as he was able to change his ideas for the party according to who he needed as an ally, in order to achieve dominant status in the party. He sought out which individual was the biggest threat, and eliminated them before they could stand against him.

The Russian Revolution is a widely studied and seemingly well understood time in modern, European history, boasting a vast wealth of texts and information from those of the likes of Robert Service, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Allan Bullock, Robert Conquest and Jonathan Reed, to name a few, but none is so widely sourced and so heavily relied upon than that of the account of Leon Trotsky, his book “History of the Russian Revolution” a somewhat firsthand account of the events leading up to the formation of the Soviet Union. There is no doubt that Trotsky’s book, among others, has played a pivotal role in shaping our understanding of the events of The Revolution; but have his personal predilections altered how he portrayed such paramount

Throughout his novel Everything Flows, Vasily Grossman provides numerous occasions for defining freedom. In the midst of attempting to give meaning to freedom, Grossman greatly invests in wrestling with the issue of why freedom is still absent within Russia although the country has seen success in many different ways. Through the idea and image of the Revolution stems Capitalism, Leninism, and Stalinism. Grossman contends that freedom is an inexorable occurrence and that “to live means to be free”, that it is simply the nature of human kind to be free (200-204). The lack of freedom expresses a lack of humanity in Russia, and though freedom never dies, if freedom does not exist in the first place, then it has no chance to be kept alive. Through Grossman’s employment of the Revolution and the ideas that stem from it, he illustrates why freedom is still absent from Russian society, but more importantly why the emergence of freedom is inevitable.

Vladimir Men’shov’s Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears (1979) is a Soviet melodrama that focuses on the fate of three working-class women in the glamorous city of Moscow. The film reflects the socialist ideologies by telling the story of the individual characters and their struggles in life. Liuda, Katia, and Tonia once lived in the same workers’ dorm, but when they grew older, they led different paths of lives. The results of their lives are determined by their attitude and their contribution to the society.