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. The problems in ideology could be seen to link to the problems with agriculture as it was the Kulak class that Stalin held responsible for hoarding the grain and demanding higher prices for it, thus if the ideology changed to rid Soviet society of such elements, then haste could be seen to be of importance. However this was not the only problem with Russian agriculture. Farming methods were
This was an economic concession that Lenin was forced to make due to the deteriorating economic conditions and the real threat of a revolt against the Bolshevik government. It was always intended as a temporary measure, and the question after Lenin’s death wasn’t whether it should continue or not, but how it should be put an end to. The debate lay between the left-wing, lead by Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev, who advocated a quick movement into rapid industrialisation, which would mean abandoning the New Economic Policy, militarising the labour forces and exploiting peasants for grain to fund the industrialisation; and the right-wing, led by Bukharin, who wanted to continue the New Economic Policy for another 20 years, which would mean peasants would grow wealthier and be encouraged to buy consumer goods, which in turn would lead to more products being made in factories and a gradual process of industrialisation. This became a passionate issue because economic policy was also at the heart of the debate of what a socialist society should look like. The growth of a rich super class led to activities such as property dealing, land speculation, gambling and prostitution, all of which conflicted greatly with the ideology of Communism.
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.
The military issues perhaps would not have escalated the way they did if it was not for existing social and economic problems at home. The revolution had began in Petrograd as a workers’ revolt in response to bread shortages, and was aimed at the Tsarist system because it was believed that the government was hoarding the bread in order to drive up prices. However a workers’ revolt, by itself, is very unlikely to result in the abdication of the Tsar, and a critical phase of the revolution was the mutiny of the Petrograd garrison, and the loss of control over Petrograd that the Tsar experienced. Marxist historians have exaggerated the extent of political involvement in the revolution, and it would be fair to say that only at a very late stage of the revolution did socialist political parties become involved. The Tsarist system fell for many reasons: the war against Germany meant that troops could not be deployed in force against the
This certainly fights against the view that Alexander II was reluctant in his reforms on the surface – however, once investigated, the limits of emancipation are clear. The 49 year redemption payments were a huge limiting factor in allowing peasants economic freedom to then have social freedom, and class was still a major issue even if it had been reduced. The highly inflated land prices that ensued meant that very few peasants could afford land, and Alexander II did nothing to resolve this. It does lend to the idea of his ‘radical’ reforms being fairly reluctant as he did not go further with them. Alexander III took an even more conservative view during his reign, repealing many of Alexander II’s social
Explain why Alexander II introduced further reforms after the emancipation edict of 1861 Emancipation opened many opportunities for further reforms and forced a change in the structure of the Russian society. Serfdom was abolished and the nobility could no longer control them which led to light being shed on other problems in society such as the law, industry and also the military. The most important reason for the introduction of further reforms is that they were a reasonable response to the emancipation of the serfs, but only in short term. The emancipation act gave the serfs power to control their own lives instead of being dictated by people of a higher status, such as the nobility. For this, rural councils known as the Zemstvas were set up in 1864 which offered the serfs a representative government; but they were mostly dominated by the nobility and professionals and many of them resented their loss of power over the serfs.
He believed there should be a smychka (alliance) between peasants and workers (didn’t want to create differences between them.) • Trotsky wanted to abolish the NEP- Resented the fact that much of the USSR’s industry was under the direct control of the government. Hated the NEPMEN (traders who made large profits from the NEP.) Wanted to end the inequality between poor peasants and kulaks. Wanted to abolish private farms and introduce collective farming.
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.
How is the success of the Bolshevik rising in October 1917 best explained? By October 1917 the Bolsheviks had successfully consolidated their power within the Petrograd soviet as well as over through the provisional government. In this essay I will try to explain how the success of the Bolshevik uprising is best explained putting into consideration actions, beliefs and circumstances. I believe that the circumstances as the time in Russia significantly affected the outcome of October and it influenced many of the beliefs people within Petrograd had as well the peasants and parties within the soviet. Furthermore, the circumstances allowed the Bolshevik actions to be successful, as well as, undermine any attempts of the provisional government to hold on to the little power they had.
Finally the failures of the Provisional Government made them vulnerable which coincidentally worked to advantage the Bolsheviks. Personally, I believe that the vulnerable position of the Provisional Government, timing of the governments mistakes, discontent of the soldiers as well as the workers and the occasional guidance from other Bolshevik leaders, was exploited by Lenin, alongside his popular policies and leadership skills he catalyzed the revolution that was inevitable, planning it in such a way that it would benefit long term and not short-term as it had done in 1905 and February 1917. In disagreement, the failures of the provisional government to make the correct decisions led to the Bolsheviks’ success because the Bolsheviks were efficient in using this time to take control of the vulnerability of the Provisional Government which had caused this upon itself. The first mistake was allowing Lenin return from Germany in April as a part of democracy terms, since Lenin, despite being