Term Paper

PLSC 302-B

M. Hamayun Khan (17-10561)

W. Ranjha

09/12/2016

Forman Christian College

(A Chartered University)
 2
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN MAOISM AND STALINISM

Comparative analysis between Maoism and Stalinism

The idea of Marxism was pictured by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the development

of each is the condition for the development of all. The notion was that the working class would

forcibly overthrow all the subsistent social conditions and finally a class less society would came

into existence. Initially, this ideology hypnotized many countries of the world particularly Russia

and China; both countries were agrarian economies in nature and were unable to make both ends

meet because of war and famine and underdeveloped industrial and technological sector.

Moreover, it would not be erroneous to say that idea of Marxism didn’t survive in any of the

country because of miscellaneous political and economical circumstances. They had absolutely

diverse political views as Stalin’s era in soviet Russia and Mao rule in China. It is crucial to

examine Stalin already had a functioning communist state while Mao Zedong won the revolution

and established a communist system. For instance, it was Stalin’s policies that impelled the

Soviet Union to become a bureaucratic state run by post revolutionary elite but Mao tried to

implement the Marxian thought of workers state. So, if we comparatively study these two

countries they merely represented the conception of genuine communism. And, communism has

in some way survived only in China.

First of all, Stalin dwelled more upon economic reforms in Soviet communism and brought

about first five year plan which resulted in state collectivization or state socialism. In addition,

these reforms procured rapid industrialization and private enterprises were completely

annihilated. Furthermore, millions of peasants were forced to give up their private lands and join

state run farms. Similarly, capitalist markets were completely eradicated and replaced by a

system of central planning. On the contrary, in China, the distribution of land was considered as

a social obligation. The government set certain production targets for farmers. Moreover, the
 3
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN MAOISM AND STALINISM
peasants were allowed to produce excess amount of output and no restrictions were applied unto

them so that they would have some surplus for the personal gain.

In addition, in China free market mechanism was in practice. Most importantly, it was free

market economy that played an indispensable role in eradicating poverty and strengthening the

political legitimacy of China. In addition, it was also at the helm of getting more benefits to

factories and strengthened their economy as well. On the other hand, the Soviet Union was

concerned more about the factor that they are being exploited by the western firms by giving

them cheap and bad quality raw materials and hence, restricted imports from these western

countries. As a result, the economy was moving towards low output level due to unavailability of

raw materials. Therefore, free market flourished more in China than that of Soviet Russia.

One of the foremost steps taken by Stalin was that he appointed his supporters in major

influential posts within the party apparatus simply to guarantee for sustainable power. The party

officials were not elected from below but rather appointed from above by a system known as

nomenklaturan and a kind of Political Stalinism was introduced which was more centralized. For

instance, any person found guilty of any sort of disloyalty and criticism on government was

brutalized by Stalin’s secret police, the NKVD. The party officials and state officials were

separate bodies and constitutionally secession was legal and no age limit was set. So, in Stalin’s

despotic rule the Elite class was one way or another flourished and facilitated. On the contrary,

China under Mao regime underwent the Cultural Revolution, formally the Great

Proletarian Cultural Revolution, was a sociopolitical movement that aimed to treat people

equally and abolish the conception of Elite Class. As a result, millions of people died including

Mao enemies and many of them died of hunger. Therefore, Maoism tries to promote the true
 4
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN MAOISM AND STALINISM
Marxist ideology by eliminating the bits and pieces of capitalist’s elements while Stalinism

flourished the elite class.

Another concise dissimilarity among these two states was that Stalin egg on the idea of

urbanization by establishing a platform for urban workers to work in cities. But, Mao conception

was totally different from Stalin’s approach. It was the actions of Mao that forced people to leave

the cities and spread to rural areas that resulted in the development of least developed areas as

well. So, Stalin’s policies emphasized greatly on economic determinism whereas Mao believed

that economy is not the sufficient condition for development.

Furthermore, in struggle to create a classless society of proletariat, Stalin in some way rejected

the masses belonging to diverse ethnicities due to paucity of sufficient method to identify their

national identity. On the other side, Mao adopted the ideology called Confucianism, to bring all

the ethnicities on the same page. Besides, the party and state was completely fused into each

other and without coordination it was impossible for these two elements to work together.

Keeping in view of all the differences between these two states both China and Stalin’s Russia

transformed into something obscure and failed to achieve the original idea of Marxist- Leninist

approach. The Soviet Russia metamorphoses into the totalitarian dictatorship of Stalin and fully

prioritizes the economic reforms over political reforms. The communist party of Soviet Russia

didn’t miss any chance in which they could flourish by hook or by crook. In China, through Mao

policies an apparent change was visible by trying to transfer Capitalism into Socialism during the

Culture Revolution and the Great Leap Forward. So, China was somehow embracing Capitalism.

On the whole, both the leaders failed to implement a true socialist utopian idea. But Mao policies

in China in some ways coordinated to lay out a gesture that could represent some of the attributes
 5
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN MAOISM AND STALINISM
of real Marxism. For instance, the method of distributing land by the government, political

legitimacy, endorsing free market and taking into account all the ethnicities are elements through

which China somehow bring about few of the features of communism. The political structure

and economic structure were totally different in both the states. In Stalin’s Russia, the economic

and political reforms were more exploitative and dictatorial than that of Mao’s rule in China.

Both followed the Marxist-Leninist approach but in a very different ways. Therefore, both the

leaders failed to deliver a socialist state.

 6
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN MAOISM AND STALINISM

Bibliography
Brown, A. (2009). Rise and Fall of Communism. Penguin Books.

Toohey, B. (2014). Establishment of communism in Russia and China.

Rutland, P. (2009). “Post-socialist states and the evolution of a new development model:. 165-
76.

Marlin Malia, "From Under the Rubble, What?" in Problems of Communism, January–April
1992; Peter Rutland, The Myth of the Plan (La Salle, TIL: Open Court, 1985).

Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Soviet Communism: A New Civilization? (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1936).

Strayer, R. (2001). “Decolonization, Democratization, and Communist Reform: The Soviet

Collapse in Comparative Persepectives. Journals of World History, 375-406.

Peter J. Boettke, The Political Economy of Soviet Socialism: The Formative Years 1918–1928
(Boston: Kluwer, 1990).

Dieter Heinzig, The Soviet Union and Communist China 1945-1950. The Arduous Road to the
Alliance (Armonk, New York, M.E.Sharpe, 2004, 531 p.)

Mount Holyoke College: Excerpt from Robert Strayer, Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse:
Understanding Historical Change (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1998), pp. 56-60