Essay Sample on Everyday Life Under Dictatorships: Stalinism

Introduction

In the modern day world, most of the countries around the world have accepted the concept of democracy as a way of promoting good governance by allowing the citizens to elect the government. In most states, national elections are held after every 4-10 years; each election marks the end, start or continuation of a new regime government. However, in some democracies, elections do not signify any radical changes in how the government and the affairs of the country are managed and fulfilled. Communism and socialism economies promote a form of dictatorship system of governance (Lute, 2016). This is because, despite elections selecting various individuals to various elective governance positions, the method of governance remains the same whereby the government owns all factors of production.

In such economies, the government has the primary and fundamental mandate of providing all services to its citizen. Unlike in capitalist economies where the primary government mandate is regulating and providing policies on how to allocate the scarce resources. Advocates of socialism and communism claim that capitalist economies promote corruptions while capitalists accuse socialist of dictatorship. The debate between socialism and capitalism has been a subject of interest for many scholars over the years. The objective of this paper is to seek a comprehensive understanding of everyday life under dictatorships by reviewing and contrast the views of historians. In this paper, the following books will be the subject of review:

• Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s.
• Sarah Davies, Popular Opinion in Stalin's Russia: Terror, Propaganda and Dissent, 1934-1941
• Steven Kotkin, Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism and a Civilization

A dictatorship is a form of government which is characterized by a single or a group of leaders whereby there are one major party and other weak parties which have no control or say on how the government manages the affairs of the country (Lute, 2016). Dictatorship discourages opposition in government systems by not providing avenues where the debate can thrive and question government actions. Over the past decades, tyranny has been a widespread type of government which especially dominated during the world wars. Moreover, these types of government were mainly led and governed by a single leader. A classic example of such a leader is Joseph Stalin, the former leader of the Soviet regime.

The desire by the citizens to have a better life and a powerful nation are some of the main reasons why the people cooperate and support doctoral regimes and hence enabling the system to thrive for decades. According to Marxist theory, capitalist societies promote class conflicts because of contradictions that arise due to ownership of material interests. It is common for some members of the community to feel oppressed and exploited and hence inflicting division in otherwise a well-functioning society. A class of laborers has to work for an elite class who owns factors of production.

Contrary, socialism eliminates the problem of society contradictions because society itself owns the material interest and not individuals. Russia and China are socialist countries, and they are classic examples of everyday life under dictatorships. The Soviet Union was an umbrella of more than ten independent nations, together; the union had vast resources and making the economy of the union very strong. Under the regime, the citizens enjoyed widespread and accumulated benefits from the government, and they had no reason not to want a system that provided a desirable life for the citizens. It is critical to note that, the collusion between majorities is the reason why most of the dictatorship regimes exist and thrive.

Oppression and violence are often regarded as the main signs and symptoms of the new dictatorship, but in reality, there are many forms of totalitarianism. Information is power, and some governments have been known to regulating and interfering with freedom of the press. This is a form of dictatorship because; the media and other mass media platforms are primary sources of information. With information, the citizens are empowered in making their decisions, and also they gain a better understanding of what the government is doing for its citizens. When information is regulated, filtered and omitted by government agencies, the citizens are denied one of the most important fundamental rights of information. This is a classical form of dictatorship because; the people have little or no option but take government information without questioning its validity and legitimacy.

Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s.

In the introductory part of this book, various instances reveal the authoritarian government which existed during the reign of Stalin. It is described that a "state classificatory system" is what determined the rights and obligations of different citizens and groups. Furthermore in the Soviet society class was a significant attribute that established a citizen's relationship with the government whereby the details of an individual were indicated in the passport. The details included nationality, sex, age as well as the social estate where they lived which was classified as that of peasants and urban estates and service nobility members (Fitzpatrick, 2000). Notably, the residents of service nobility enjoyed rampant resources as they had access to closed stores, access to use chauffeur-driven government cars and dachas whereas the residents who were living in Stalinist estates had a little to enjoy like the right to trade at Kolkhoz market. In contrast, peasant who lived in Stalinist society was not even entitled to passports. This set was supposed to be followed by every citizen without any questions even if it significantly discriminated some groups while favoring others.

Secondly, the book has demonstrated that, dictatorship is a process which is being inherited from one generation to another. Ideally, chapter two clearly indicates that the soviet rule in 1930 was definitely acquiring some nontraditional characteristics which existed in 1917. A specific example was the "proletarian" dictatorship which seemed to evolve into personal autocratic rule exercised by Stalin's rule through communist party and also secret police. The book goes ahead to describe that the Soviet society had no leader principles but rather leader practice which proves an aspect of dictatorship. Moreover, Stalin's personality reflected a presentation of the previous leaders like Fascist dictators, Hitler and Mussolini as well as the aspect of Russian's tradition of the "little-father Tsar" portrayed in Stalin's image as "father of the peoples."

Paternalism cast which is a form of dictatorship was also exercised not only by Stalin but also by religion party officials who received many humble petitions and obedient subjects by traditional fatherly benevolence. However, the official's interest was to protect the state from weaker and less advanced topics like the children, peasants, women, and member of "backward" ethnic group who was people belonging to traditional Russian culture. Ideally, "backward" group practices comprised of peasant farming, small scale private trade and petty bourgeois which was however urbanized, industrialized and turned into a socialist giant through modern technology and literate workforce.

Sarah Davies, Popular Opinion in Stalin's Russia: Terror, Propaganda and Dissent, 1934-1941

During the Soviet Union, journalists, scholars and other people seeking information about the Soviet Union were intrigued by lack of avenues /platforms to dig up information. There existed little or no information about government operations, and more importantly, scholars and journalists wanted to understand the feeling and experiences of Soviet Union citizens. Sarah Davies got the unique opportunity as one of the earliest researchers to access Soviet Union archives. In her book, Davies widely claims that the government operatives controlled how information flowed and reported. She also argues that the validity of some of the reports cannot be guaranteed because, NKVD were the primary collectors of information, and at times, they omitted and distorted statements to meet the basic requirements that promoted the interest of the regime (Davies & Davies,1997).

Davies in her books relies on reports made by the NKVD informants who collected information on behalf of the state - assuming that what the informants reported was accurate. It is evident that the citizens of the Soviet Union were sharply divided on the ideas of socialism. The peasants and workers complaints in this book are a sign of disappointment of the government failure in committing to promises embodied in socialism. Davies strongly claims that the Stalinist propaganda failed in eradicating autonomous of the current public opinion. This means that, regardless of the government efforts to control and limit information flow, people still found alternatives to showcasing their disappointment. Davies supports the claims that the society remained very active despite the extreme repression and the power of the central authorities remained circumscribed. There were widespread anti-regime jokes which Davies views a sign of dissatisfaction with the regime. Davies in her book observes that regardless of the repression and people's sentiments against the government; most of the people did not have a clear vision of the kind of leadership system that would be applicable and functional for them. For those who had the capability of imagining different models of leadership, authoritarian leadership seemed to be a more viable option. However, according to Davies, it is clear that, if the people had a chance and real power, they would have opted for a capitalist society rather than socialism.

Steven Kotkin, Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism and a Civilization

In the 1930's the people of the Soviet Union embarked on a fascinating journey by embracing socialism over capitalism. The violent upheaval started by actively suppressing capitalism by promoting socialism in housing, urban culture, education, values, economy, population movement and anything the socialists could think of an ideal value that enhanced the interests of socialism. Stephen Kotkin in his book uses the case study of Magnitogorsk to demonstrate the ideas of socialism and the problems encountered in fulfilling the goals of creating a new Soviet man, new industrial civilizations and economic structures (Kotkin, 1997). The book mainly focuses on the designs implemented by Stalin to create a model socialist country as well as achievement of the utopian vision of a planned economy.

Kotkin argues that Stalinism in itself offered the opportunity for enlightenment because the utopia presented new dawn for civilization. Kotkin demonstrates that, initially, the citizens and the government worked for hand in hand for the achievement of the common goal which was transforming the economy. It is worth noting that, Kotkin in his book stated some interconnected problems that are linked to a planned economy. Managerial corruption, lack of accountability, growing bureaucracy and culture of blame shifting were the main inhibitors of socialism. Despite the alarming issues, Kotkin argues that the great depression in a way promoted and contributed to people maintaining faith in the socialist economy even though the state had failed in carrying out the intended actions.

Conclusion

According to the narration given by the three authors, it is evident that dictatorship in socialism is a common phenomenon and it is the main reason that triggered the author...