Theme: Assess the view that throughout 1855-1964, Russian rulers opposed change. To assess this view it is important to consider a number of areas including the role of opposition, and backwardness and poor state of the country. Trotsky described war as a ‘locomotive of change’ and Russian involvement in war throughout the period meant that this was very much the case. Russian rulers were also to some degree reluctant reformers who were opposed to change as most changes throughout the period were forced upon them and were usually followed with restrictions, such as the Fundamental Laws reducing the impact of the Duma. This was probably due to their authoritarian ideology.
These consist of firstly, his encouragement of the revolution in 1917 through his confidence in his theory and timing. He then, in January of 1918 supported Trotsky opposed to Lenin in the conscription of the Red Army rather than depending on volunteers and also dissolved his promised Constituent Assembly in his refusal to share power- crucial to succeed in their aim of dictatorship. In March of that year he, much to the rest of the country’s distaste due to the severe demands, insisted on the signing of the Treaty of Brest Litovsk on the back of their withdrawal from WW! ; knowing that peace was essential for their survival. Lenin then ensured their victory in the Civil War with his establishment of War Communism and the use of terror.
For example Alexander II was a humanitarian but Nicholas II mainly wanted modernisation for Russia. Alexander III just wanted to retain his power and keep in control to avoid the same fate as his father. Similarly, the communist rulers were not uniform either as they had different core aims, for example Khruschev’s main aim was destalinisation whereas Stalin’s was to create his own legacy. The Provisional Government and Lenin were alike in their policies in the fact that they both completely changed the system. 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.
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.
As foreign minister, Trotsky saw the importance of establishing peace, and so took steps towards this in order to fulfil the Bolshevik promise (‘Bread, Peace, Land’). However, his stance on the matter oscillated during the process, as he did not agree to the German’s harsh terms. In the end, it was Lenin who finalised the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and Trotsky resigned as foreign minister following this. Immediately being made commissar of war, he faced the formidable task of turning the military support for the Bolsheviks into a superior ‘Red Army’, which would protect the Bolshevik government against adversaries, both foreign and home-grown, in the inevitable civil war that was becoming more of a reality as time progressed. He was ruthless and used fear as his ally, or comrade.
After Lenin’s death, there was a dispute over the succession between Bukharin, Trotsky, Kamenev and Stalin. Trotsky could end the dispute and took power as the head of the Bolsheviks with Lenin's Testament, which criticized the oppositions Trotsky. However, he did not do it, and Stalin, using his position in the Bolshevik Party was able to get his men in high positions and policies through a swing, a union with his opposition to displace others, was able to take power in 1923 and the elimination of his violent Trotsky opposition, using a "ban on faction’’. In some cases, single-party leaders use a combination of legal and illegal methods to come to power. For Stalin, what he did was entirely legal.
For Lenin, the party was to be a group prepared to seize power as soon as possible yet on the other hand, for Martov, the main purpose of the party was to spread propaganda and raise the level of consciousness of the proletariat. This was because he did not believe that Russia was ready for a Marxist revolution for many years. Lenin believed that is the Mensheviks had their way, it would take years to start the revolution; they would just waste time on useless discussion and argument. Martov, replied that the revolution would fail if it did not have the support of the whole working class. The social democratic party remained spilt on the issue.
To begin with, before 1917, the Bolsheviks had spent their time planning for revolution. In spring 1917, the Bolsheviks seemed to be the most unlikely group to overthrow the Provisional Government. The Bolsheviks had claimed that they were acting on behalf of the Soviet who had shared political power with the government. The Bolshevik control of the MRC gave them the majority of their victory in the October Revolution. Once the Bolsheviks had come to power, it had announced two measures for the economic policy.
In reaction to this, he shut down the assembly in order to keep power for himself. In doing so it was one of the first actions he took which portrayed some similarities to that of the Tsar, but he defended his actions declaring Russia needed to be told what to do in order to live the communist ways, or as it was called ‘dictatorship of proletariat.’ However Lenin did manage to win some of the Russian approval. Another immediate effect of the revolution was on the 8th of November he made a speech in the hopes of gaining the support of masses throughout Russia in order to establish control everywhere. In his speech he promised the land was to be given to the peasants and seized from the rich. This pleased a lot of people as the population had 80% peasants.
To what extent was Lenin’s leadership the reason why Bolsheviks were able to consolidate their power between 1917-1924? By the early 1920's Russia was in the authoritarian grip of a one party dictatorship. The Communist Party as the Bolshevik's had become. It had a ruthless leadership which was ideologically motivated to hold on to power at any cost. This was a dramatic change from the Bolshevik party's position in 1917 when the party enjoyed widespread support amongst the peasants, workers and soldiers who saw in the Bolshevik's the best hope for popular revolution.