Asides from the obvious ideological differences between the Tsars and the communists, they do not differ all that much in other ruling aspects such as use of repression and the role of themselves as a ruler. Over the 100 year period between 1855 and 1964 all Russian leaders used state repression to some extent. From the definition of Communism it would be suggested that post 1917 Russia would have become less repressive as it would have formed a democratic society however this was not the case which indicates that Russia did simple exchange one form of autocracy for another. The secret police, although used under various names by the Russian rulers, was a reoccurring factor of repression used by all the Russian leaders over this period. Nicholas was debatably the least repressive Russian
Second, alongside their possibly harsher economic conditions, the peasantry became socially (but not politically) freer, partially because of Emancipation but also due to a decline in religious attachment. Arguably, these factors were relatively unaffected by the Russian Revolution, with the Communist rulers actually intensifying trends which began under the Tsars. These two changes, taken together, amount to a transformation in the condition of the peasantry because they affected peasant working practices and their personal freedom significantly. The significance of this transformation should not, however, be over-exaggerated, because over the period peasant living conditions were consistently poor and farming prosperity was never achieved. Thus, an element of continuity pervaded and there is only limited evidence that the situation of the peasants improved, but this does not mitigate the different economic and social conditions facing peasants in 1964 as opposed to 1964.
It would push Russia further onwards in terms of a state free from private trade and ownership. However ideology is often seen as Stalin’s weak point however, since he is often thought of as frequently changing policies to further his political aspirations. The leadership challenge of 1925 – 1928 showed how Stalin changed his policies to decimate both the left and right wing of the party and strengthen his position over the party, by varying his beliefs in order to outmanoeuvre his political opponents. On the other hand, some historians (such as Viola) argue that the NEP was causing extensive discontent within the party, and that rather than being as capricious as is often presumed, he can be seen as a pragmatist in the face of the will of the party. His “Great Turn” can be seen as a realistic and attractive policy, suited to the rank and file of the party, that he did not adopt earlier in the 20’s since it was not a fitting policy at the time.
A study of Russian governments in the period 1855 – 1964 suggests that Russia simply exchanged one form of autocracy for another after 1917. How far do you agree? When the February revolution brought an end to Tsarist rule, there was a strong belief that the instatement of the Provisional Government would lead to a more democratic Russia. However in deposing the Provisional Government, the October Revolution had removed any such hope. The totalitarian Government of the Communist Party continued and intensified many aspects of the Tsarist regime including use of the secret police and an intolerance for opposition and democracy in general.
However, there is not much evidence to suggest the USSR’s was pursuing expansionist aims at this point, and in fact was simply securing its borders. In addition, although the USSR agreed to maintain ‘democracy’ in war conferences, a clear definition of democracy was never specified and from this confusion, hostility regarding broken promises arose. Nevertheless, regardless of intentions, the consequence of Russia’s treatment of Eastern European states as WW2 ended is a key reason for the
Importance of Lenin in the Russian Revolution During 1917 way up north in the freezing cold Russia, there was a period of time in which the Russian politics and ideology were in chaos and the governmental power was unbalanced and disorganized. These period of time was known as the Russian Revolution. However besides this, the Russian Revolution itself was a series of revolutions that destroyed the Tsarist autocracy and led to the creation of the Soviet Union. Many leaders influenced the development of this revolution, however, in this occasion, I’m going to evaluate the importance of Lenin in the Russian Revolution. The Russian Revolution was divided into two other revolutions, The February Revolution and The October Revolution.
With no “firemen” or local order, towns could do little to inhibit the ubiquitous threat of fires (Bankers, “The Middle Ages”). The social and political system of the time, feudalism, also repressed the development of civil society and an egalitarian culture. Feudalism involved the parceling of land by the king to his most powerful supporters. These supporters carried many titles, such as duke or baron, and controlled a given parcel, known as a fief. All who lived under the head of a fief, the overlord, was known as a vassal.
The first social revolution came about during a period of great change not only in Russia but throughout Europe. These changes developed across a wide spectrum, such as from religion to politics, from economic development and from changes in the societies of Europe as a whole. A lot of the change occurred on the back of the industrial revolution and the competition between the various powers in Europe to be the best, the strongest and the most advanced, both socially and technologically. This essay will try to give and insight into the background of the socialist revolution; what were the main triggers or causes which eventually led to the conflict, what were the main challenges which the Russian empire faced at the time. This will be explored alongside the ways in which developments in revolutionary methods were to the fore throughout Europe during this period.
There were many short and long term effects of the Russian revolution. Firstly the short term effects following the Russian revolution were that Lenin hoped the constituent assembly (parliament) would show the rest of Russia how good the Bolsheviks could be for the Russian nation and how popular their leadership was. However they only gained 161 seats, compared to the social revolutionaries who won 267 seats. Obviously the Bolsheviks had become popular in Petrograd, but beyond the capital the population hadn’t been more in favour of the social revolutionaries and hadn’t been convinced by Lenin’s promise yet. In reaction to this, he shut down the assembly in order to keep power for himself.
In the short time that Snowball had authority over Animal Farm, he seemed to be a righteous head of power. On closer inspection though, it is revealed Snowball is not completely honourable. Ultimately, it is hard to know whether Snowball would have carried on his moral leadership, due to his brief time in power. Snowball, in contrast to Napoleon, is conveyed as having more integrity. Snowball’s control of Animal Farm is seen as decent, whereas Napoleon’s is corrupt.