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 industrialising power with the highest economic growth rate in
Europe. However, Russia was industrialising, 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 20th
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 20th century, as in both cases, despite
brutal methods, a Communist state was brought about despite all the odds.