(1800)A Marxist and Weberian Analysis of the Formation of the Stalinist State and the Communist Bureaucracy of the Soviet Union
This economic and sociological study will define the Marxist and Weberian perspectives on the rise of the Stalinist State and the rise of the communist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union. Weber’s definition of “rational-legal authority” in the traditional bourgeoisie capitalist state defines the social traditions of government that Lenin and Stalin sought to eradicate in the formation of a communist bureaucracy. For Weber, the Soviet Union was formed on the principles of the legal state authority of the proletariat (the workers) that rose up against the traditional czarist bourgeoisie to form a communist government …show more content…
However, Marx viewed the Soviet revolution as an economic process of “historical materialism” that sought to overthrow capitalism and class conflict by installing a proletariat government that would take control of the land, industry, and modernization. Marx’s theory defines the removal of private ownership of industry and the economy from the capitalist bourgeoisie to the state, which would now manage the economy through the collectivist government of the proletariat. Transitional communist policies, such “war communism” were part of Lenin and Stalin’s “purge” of capitalist modes of industry and class orientation that Marx sought to enforce the communist state. In essence, the development of the communist bureaucracy and …show more content…
The exercise of power emerged from the consolidation of bureaucratic leadership under the influence of Stalin over the Communist party. Ironically, this does not sound a collectivist form of governance, since Stalin was eventually held responsible for the starvation of many Russian farmers after he had taken back private ownership rights for the landowners. More so, Stalin enforced a draconian set of rules and regulations that forced the peasant classes to follow the Soviet bureaucracy or be forced into exile or imprisonment. Certainly, these are the dangers of the “modern state” that Weber defines as part of Stalin’s own singular use of force to achieve a more dominant bureaucracy in the late 1930s: “Ultimately, one can define the modern state sociologically only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it, as to every political association, namely, the use of physical force” (Weber, 2015, p.1). Technically, Stalin did achieve the goal of nationalizing the greater portion of the Soviet economy as part of the communist methods of governance that controlled the economy and modernization through the state apparatus. In contrast to Weber’s sociological view of the “traditional” and “charismatic” leadership under Stalin, Marx defines the important aspects of a non-patriarchal social trends in Russian industry that allowed
This economic and sociological study will define the Marxist and Weberian perspectives on the rise of the Stalinist State and the rise of the communist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union. Weber’s definition of “rational-legal authority” in the traditional bourgeoisie capitalist state defines the social traditions of government that Lenin and Stalin sought to eradicate in the formation of a communist bureaucracy. For Weber, the Soviet Union was formed on the principles of the legal state authority of the proletariat (the workers) that rose up against the traditional czarist bourgeoisie to form a communist government …show more content…
However, Marx viewed the Soviet revolution as an economic process of “historical materialism” that sought to overthrow capitalism and class conflict by installing a proletariat government that would take control of the land, industry, and modernization. Marx’s theory defines the removal of private ownership of industry and the economy from the capitalist bourgeoisie to the state, which would now manage the economy through the collectivist government of the proletariat. Transitional communist policies, such “war communism” were part of Lenin and Stalin’s “purge” of capitalist modes of industry and class orientation that Marx sought to enforce the communist state. In essence, the development of the communist bureaucracy and …show more content…
The exercise of power emerged from the consolidation of bureaucratic leadership under the influence of Stalin over the Communist party. Ironically, this does not sound a collectivist form of governance, since Stalin was eventually held responsible for the starvation of many Russian farmers after he had taken back private ownership rights for the landowners. More so, Stalin enforced a draconian set of rules and regulations that forced the peasant classes to follow the Soviet bureaucracy or be forced into exile or imprisonment. Certainly, these are the dangers of the “modern state” that Weber defines as part of Stalin’s own singular use of force to achieve a more dominant bureaucracy in the late 1930s: “Ultimately, one can define the modern state sociologically only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it, as to every political association, namely, the use of physical force” (Weber, 2015, p.1). Technically, Stalin did achieve the goal of nationalizing the greater portion of the Soviet economy as part of the communist methods of governance that controlled the economy and modernization through the state apparatus. In contrast to Weber’s sociological view of the “traditional” and “charismatic” leadership under Stalin, Marx defines the important aspects of a non-patriarchal social trends in Russian industry that allowed