In the case of the Provisional Government they changed it from autocratic to democratic and Lenin changed it to a one party state; although the result was different the basis was the same. In some cases all of the rulers passed reforms that they had no choice whether to or not, it was simply necessary. All of the Tsars wanted to uphold their autocratic position, Alexander III most of all due to what happened to his father, so keeping absolute control was essential. Nicholas II was the only tsar to make any major political reforms due to the Tsar’s wanted to keep their power. However, Nicholas II had no choice to create the Duma because of the 1905 revolution; so he reluctantly did so he did not completely lose his position.
During the civil war, he was consistent in disobeying orders made from Lenin and Trotsky, as they were the main organisers. However, after Lenin’s death, he was elected politburo, in which now he had central power over the Bolshevik party. Trotsky was expected to take power on the death of Lenin but was not as
A recurring theme throughout the period is the regime’s desire to maintain autocracy, which Lenin’s disregard for democracy in any area and opposition shows. This point is further emphasized by Alexander III’s belief that change was a risk and not necessary, as he argued by criticizing his father and also practically demonstrated by reducing the powers of the Zemstva. Repression was increased substantially to deal with opposition and apart from Nicholas II under whom it was briefly paused, this set the basis for Russian rule in the rest of the period. Despite Khrushchev’s easing of repression, the damage had been done under his predecessors Lenin and Stalin in removing any threat posed by opposition and ensuring that their rule remained untouched, in a further demonstration of their opposition to change.
Communists do not stand apart from other workers, but are made up of the most advanced political sections of the working class. Marx says that Communists have been "reproached" for desiring to abolish the "right" of acquiring private property through the fruits of one's labor. However, he points out laborers do not acquire any property through their labor. Marx said " we communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally……..to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.” (374) Marx wanted to abolish all individuality freedom, and independence. Marx argument was against the "infamous" communist proposal of abolishing the family.
What this shows is that without Lenin at their front haranguing them, the other Bolsheviks weren't so keen to rise up and take power. This was also shown early in the year, before Lenin's return to Russia from Switzerland. The Bolsheviks in Russia had printed in 'Pravda' (their newspaper) that their members and followers should support the Provisional Government, and also that they had given serious thought to the idea of combining with the Mensheviks. This was all very contrary to what Lenin wrote in his 'April Theses' which clearly laid out his views and beliefs on the subject. A key point of his 'April Theses' was "No Support for the Provisional Government", yet without him his party were preposing just that; tentative support for the Provisional Government.
This was one of the party’s policies that were based on Lenin’s April thesis. To be exact the April thesis included legitimating the peasant’s seizure of land. The Land decree states further that land could not be bought sold or rented as it belonged to the entire people. Although the peasantry has been taking over these estates anyway, it was still a good strategic move to make by Lenin because he got the peasants by his side and it makes him credible. The next decree that the Sovnarkom (of whom Lenin was the chairman) passed was the Workers Control Decree, which gave the workers total control over the factories, which was also Lenin’s plan and was stated in his April Thesis.
* Lost terriorty in Poland & Western Russia – PG were blamed for losses just like the Tsar was when took charge. * War made finical problems – Inflation still a problem and food shortages were high. * Russia expected these things to be stored out – PG short-lived because they were full of empty promises. Promised land reform to the peasants ( made up a large amount of the population , Bolshevik priority was to keep them on their side) no action was taken * Couldn’t guarantee food supplies as because soviet controlled the railways. * Political reform also promised political reform in an attempt to stop the revolutionaries but no action was taken.
The fact that the legislation freed the sheer number of people that it did, makes it the most defining moment in Russian history. (Zenkovsky). The situation of serfdom was becoming increasingly tense, and was not beneficial to the country but actually encumbering its progress. 44% of Russia were sub-servant serfs(8). An excerpt from the emancipation manifesto states that landed proprietors, while they shall retain all the rights of ownership over all the lands now belonging to them, shall transfer to the peasants, in return for a rent fixed by law.
This led to the taking over of railway stations, and post and telegraph offices, meaning that the PG was left totally defenseless, allowing the Bolsheviks to seize control. The most crucial factor, however, was timing, where the Bolsheviks were able to take this power behind the veneer of Soviet control, minimizing chance of opposition. It is arguable, nonetheless, that even without this planning, seizure would still be within easy reach, due to the infamy of the Provisional Government and the other political parties, such as the Kadets, Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, failing to act. But nevertheless, this organizational brilliance from Trotsky was an assured way for secure control, as the Bolsheviks were only relatively known in the cities, compared to most of rural Russia, where their support dwindled in the wake of more popular
Lenin was able to consolidate his power due to the weakness of his opponents, how far do you agree with this statement? Lenin was able to take advantage of the PG’s weakness’s and the confession that reigned in Russia at the time due to not being used to anything but an autocracy, Lenin was able to take advantage of this relatively easily but he faced many problems with holding onto power . There were many reasons why a large amount of people thought Lenin’s form of control would be a failure, he faced problems including World war 1 , enemy occupation, inflation and unemployment and although the Bolsheviks were strong in cities such as Petrograd or Moscow they did not have mass support across the country and a big threat to power was the Constituent assembly which was promised by the Provisional government which Lenin felt too vulnerable to cancel. Solving these problems was a seemingly impossible task and therefore his success is regularly put down to the weakness of his opposition, however I do not agree with the statement completely as I would conclude there were many other reasons why Lenin was successful in solving the problems he faced and in starting the first communist dictatorship. Forming a new government was one of Lenin’s biggest breakthroughs on consolidating his power, he faced a major problem that none of the Bolsheviks had any experience of governing or administration, and the situation made worst when government officials went on strike and the state bank refused to release any funds to the new government.