Would it be valid to argue this? (1 Viewer)

[hiiitsme]

Hey,

For economic transformation, and then (separately) cultural transformation i.e. the two dot points in life under Stalin, would it be valid to argue that the economic transformation was to transform the economy to become totalitarian. Then additionally, for social and cultural change, would it be valid to posit the same that his change was to make the USSR more totalitarian?

Equally what were your theses for these dot points, I am interested. The only reason I ask is because I am trying to relate it to the dot point above so I can recycle evidence. Thanks and Happy history-ing

 

[B1andB2]

There are conflicting opinions on whether USSR was a complete totalitarian state or whether it merely emulated a form of rudimentary totalitarian rule. Collectively though, historians e.g Stephen Kotkin say that Stalinism is a more complex system where the government was more reactive than proactive.

I would personally stay away from the extremes since it allows for more depth and a more acute analysis, and instead argue that Stalin "maintains personal dictatorship" (as Theda Skocpol suggests)

It can definitely go both ways, as long as you back it up!

 

[hiiitsme]

So yes…

 

[B1andB2]

So yes…

history and english are basically the same no right or wrong, just back it up

a dictatorship is not a totalitarian state

 

[dasfas]

There are conflicting opinions on whether USSR was a complete totalitarian state or whether it merely emulated a form of rudimentary totalitarian rule. Collectively though, historians e.g Stephen Kotkin say that Stalinism is a more complex system where the government was more reactive than proactive.

I would personally stay away from the extremes since it allows for more depth and a more acute analysis, and instead argue that Stalin "maintains personal dictatorship" (as Theda Skocpol suggests)

It can definitely go both ways, as long as you back it up!

Not sure how the existence of a secret police and the fact that he executed pretty much all the military leaders isn't a totalitarian state? I'm not sure what specifically Kotkin refers to when calling the system reactive, but it seems to me like Stalin's decision to purge everyone was pre-meditated (proactive). Or am I mis-interpreting your point?