Lenin Disappointment in Brezhnev

Lenin Disappointment in Brezhnev

If Vladimir Lenin, whose embalmed body is kept at the mausoleum on Red Square, were to come back to life in the 1980s miraculously, his reaction would be utter disappointment and anger. His reaction would be justified because it was during the rule of Leonid Brezhnev that the Soviet Union was facing a period of economic stagnation among other problems that saw the country fall behind America in terms of technological achievements during the Cold War. Vladimir Lenin was the leader of the Bolsheviks, who opposed the oppressive regime of Tsar rule in Russia during the Russian Revolution of 1917. He envisioned a country where resources were distributed. Equally, people had access to education and also a place where workers and laborers were paid and treated fairly as well as revoke Russia’s participation in the First World War. He would be highly disappointed and angry Brezhnev’s governance and leadership decisions that affected the country to stray away from the vision he had of the country. However, he would be proud to see that his ideologies are still impactful generations later.

One of the major features of Brezhnev’s governance that would have disappointed Lenin after his miraculous return to the land of the living would be the economic condition of the country. Lenin had envisioned a country that would have been at its economic peak decades later after his death. Lenin’s government had strived to make resources available to all members of society because he believed that this would improve the country’s economy. However, this was not the case during the Brezhnev era. The economy of the Soviet Union was not growing and had remained stagnant even though the country seemed promising. Hence, the period was referred to as the Brezhnevian stagnation. This meant that that the economy of the country had remained stagnant for quite some time since Brezhnev had become president. Apart from this, the country started to experience rampant corruption from greedy and wealthy people in business. Lenin did not support corruption because he believed all members of society are equal. Thus, Brezhnev’s bad decisions and vices that supported corruption and the misuse of resources led to the economic stagnation experienced by the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

Apart from the poor economic conditions that the country was facing, Lenin would have been disappointed by the issue of war and the heavy militarization process that the Soviet leader Brezhnev had conducted. Leonid Brezhnev was the leader of the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War between the USSR and the USA. As such, he put a lot of funds on the expansion of the country’s military and the military weapons to spread communism across Europe. Brezhnev abused the ideas of Lenin on the importance of communism and how it would benefit the country’s economic, social, and political sectors. As shown in the lecture notes, the country invaded Czechoslovakia because Brezhnev believed that communism was under threat.[1] According to an article by the Moscow Times, “In the Brezhnev era, the Leninist doctrine became an alibi for the abuses of massively centralized power.”[2] Going through an economic crisis, the decision to allocate too much funding to the military and funding of communist countries in order to try to win the Cold War affected other sectors of the economy. Economic sectors that were affected included infrastructure, social services, education, and the medical sector. Brezhnev’s militarization ensured that the Soviet Union was able to expand its territory across Eastern Europe. Thus, Lenin would be disappointed at the government for abusing his doctrines as well as ensuring that the country’s need for territory overpowered the needs of the people.

Although Lenin would have been disappointed in some of the decisions and accomplishments of Brezhnev, he would have been proud of some of the changes he would have seen in the country. For starters, he would have been proud that the socialist and communist ideas were still in effect even after his death. His legacy of a socialist country is still in effect, and the government is trying to pursue his communist ideologies. Even after his death, people believed in the myth of the two kings; the mortal and the immortal king. The mortal king was referencing his tenure as a leader of the Soviet Union while the immortal king referenced his socialist ideologies. According to an article by Riegel, “The propaganda slogan – ‘Lenin is dead! Leninism lives! Leninism will triumph!” was an embodiment of this ideology of two kings.[3] The realization that future generations are still utilizing his ideologies and doctrines after his death would be heartwarming and make him proud.

Indeed, if Vladimir Lenin were to miraculously return to life in the 1980s during the reign of Leonid Brezhnev, he would be disappointed that how his vision of the country never came to pass, but would still be proud to acknowledge that some of his communist ideologies still have an impact to future generations. Lenin would have been disappointed by the abuse of power that Brezhnev demonstrated. Under his reign, there was rampant corruption and mismanagement of resources that led to the stagnation of the economy—also, the abuse of his doctrines for the spread of communist ideals in eastern Europe. However, Lenin would be proud to find out that his communist ideologies are still being practiced to better the country’s economy, political, and social sectors.

Bibliography

Innes, Abby. “Boris Johnson: The Brezhnev Years.” The Moscow Times. Last modified September 12, 2019. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/09/12/boris-johnson-the-brezhnev-years-a67255.

Lecture. “History 135C.”

Riegel, Klaus‐Georg. “Marxism‐Leninism as a political religion.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 6, no. 1 (2005): 97-126.

[1] Lecture 14. “History 135C,” Slide 3

[2] Abby Innes, “Boris Johnson: The Brezhnev Years,” The Moscow Times, last modified September 12, 2019, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/09/12/boris-johnson-the-brezhnev-years-a67255.

[3] Riegel, Klaus‐Georg. “Marxism‐Leninism as a political religion.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 6, no. 1 (2005): 97-126.