Research in recent years has highlighted the limits of the Stalinist state. Asidefrom the numerous forms of resistance, both physical and symbolic, which theyfaced, Soviet bureaucracies under Stalin often lacked the resources orco-ordination to provide a consistent and effective system of administration. Inbetween campaigns, as one commentator has noted of the countryside in the late1930s, ‘neglect by Soviet power was as characteristic as coercion, andperhaps sometimes even as much resented’. Despite these limitations, theStalinist state did have the capacity to mobilise its officials and to transformthe lives of its citizens. The most powerful state-sponsored campaigns overturnedtraditional modes of existence and effected reorganisations against which thecombined forces of armed rebellion and popular resistance would prove to be nomatch. Although some enjoyed the support of activists on the ground, the mostimportant campaigns of this kind were driven from above, usually from the verysummit of the political system. Some of the key turning points of this period,such as forced collectivisation, the Great Purges, and the onset of the Cold War,were the consequence of decisions taken by a small leadership group around Stalin.Although Stalin attracted the support of a variety of constituencies within Sovietsociety, he was never a mere cipher for these groups, but was rather a powerfuland independent force in a social order that would come to bear his name.Stalin’s personality left a giant imprint on the Soviet system.