Marx believed that in a Capitalist society, the Bourgeois was dominant, which he believed to not make sense. He believed that the Proletariat did so much of the work for society, and made up the majority of the population is Russia that they should run the government. Therefore the main principle of Marxism was to make the Proletariat politically equal, and in
These views are expressed in his two key works, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution (published in 1995) and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime 1919-1924 (published in 1994). Pipe’s believes that Lenin was primarily responsible for the success of the uprising, even though Pipe’s recognizes Lenin’s role as the most important, he still hypocritically called Lenin’s April Theses “totally out of touch with reality, if not positively mad” despite the fact that this theses played a huge role in the Lenin and Bolshevik uprising. Pipe’s also believes that Trotsky just carried out Lenin’s commands. However the role or Trotsky and his actions before the October revolution were very evidently done on his own accord, with Lenin accompanying Trotsky in his decisions. In early October, 1917, Trotsky was elected
This disagreement arose because of a profound difference in their beliefs of the role of the party. The Bolsheviks believed that the revolution should be organised by a small group of dedicated and skilled revolutionaries who should lead the party and make all the decisions. On the contrary, the Mensheviks believed that the Party should be a mass party with as many working class members as possible. They argued it should be run democratically, with the members electing the leaders and deciding on its policies. 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.
Lenin’s contribution to the Bolshevik Party was an essential factor in their consolidation of power during 1917-1924, however; Lenin’s role was not the only factor contributing to their success. The Bolsheviks were regarded as a “minor feature of Russian political life” and it was not until Lenin’s return to Russia that the party became a key player. It can be seen that Lenin played a pivotal role in the consolidation of power due to his background which allowed Lenin to be influenced by a revolutionary upbringing. Through his upbringing, Lenin was able to develop a strong leadership, political insight and determination allowing the Bolsheviks to be lead into power. Whilst the Bolsheviks were in power, Lenin’s role in dealing with uprisings and anti-communist groups was significant as it allowed the Bolsheviks to remain in power.
Wanted to abolish private farms and introduce collective farming. (Any profits made by collective farms would be used to develop the USSR’s industry. • Stalin didn’t get involved in the debate over the NEP- this was a clever move because it meant be could win support both from those who backed Bukharin (‘right communists’) and those who back Trotsky (‘left communists’) Stalin as General Secretary: • Had complete control over the inner workings of the Communist party. • Used his position to promote his supporters and side-line his opponents. • Had access to secret files on party members that he received from the Cheka.
The death of the creator of the Soviet Communist Party and founder of the USSR, Vladimir Lenin, left the young Soviet Union craving the leadership from a man of the same stature. At first, the brilliant leader of the Red Army and also the appointed candidate by Lenin, Trotsky, seemed to be the one to take control of the USSR. Instead, Joseph Stalin took control of the Soviet Union, using many vindictive political moves and his position as General Secretary. As the leader of the Soviet Union, Stalin strengthened and stabilized the structure of the nation to become a world superpower and industrial colossus. In many ways, Stalin transformed himself to replicate Lenin by adopting his ideas and goals, although the way in which he met these goals are highly controversial by historians.
Assess the view that Lenin's rule between 1917 and 1924 was merely a brutal dictatorship 'Lenin the affable genius or Lenin the irascible tyrant" The two contrasting views which many historians still debate, whether Lenin was simply a mindless dictator or the soviet view which historian Read hints at by the words of "affable genius", in that Lenin's authoritarian rule was simply a way of maintaining control of the proletariat in order to further the socialist cause, and would then change back to communism when able to. Other historians take a different view and agree with Lenin himself when he said that the dictatorship was part of 'adaptations to the prevailing circumstances’, a reference to the substantial social, economic and political problems Russia faced such as extreme famine and the outbreak of civil war in 1918, but due to his strong marxist beliefs, it seemed that a brutal rule was the only option in taming the unrest throughout the country, particularly if he wanted to avoid a repetition of events such as the February revolution. Especially when putting into context, that up until 1917 Russia had endured a repressive tsar regime, which used brutality and force to maintain control, so the population were used to conforming by the threat of violence and judging by Lenins' statement of 'The soviet revolutionary republic will triumph no matter what the cost" it seems that Lenin felt it necessary to continue this ideology in order for Russia to function correctly. The level of brutality that Lenin used though is somewhat questionable, but in incidents such as Kronstadt, where the infamously barbaric Cheka were used to regain control, supports the view that rather that Lenin limiting the brutality of his regime " In fact he wanted the brutality to be as intense as possible in the short term so that it might not need to be unduly extended in time" so even
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.
How significant was the work of reforming leaders in changing the nature of Russian government and society in the period from 1856-1964? Intentionalist historians such as Westwood, would say that the most significant factor for changing the nature of Russian government and society was the work of reforming leaders, such as Alexander II who carried out the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861: “with the possible exception of Khrushchev, no other Russian ruler did so much to reduce the suffering of the Russian people”1. I agree with intentionalist’s views to an extent because reforming leaders did have a major impact in pushing reforms through however other factors of change must be considered. I also agree with a structuralist point of view, that the Russian people and key pressure groups like the Social Revolutionaries also played a significant part in changing the nature of Russian government and society. In addition, World War II introduced change through industrialisation, which was key to Russia’s success in the war.
 Stalinism usually defines the style of a government rather than an ideology. The ideology was "Marxist–Leninist theory", reflecting that Stalin himself was not a theoretician, in contrast to Marx and Lenin, and prided himself on maintaining the legacy of Lenin as a founding father for the Soviet Union and the future Communist world. Stalinism is an interpretation of their ideas, and a certain political regime claiming to apply those ideas in ways fitting the changing needs of society, as with the transition from "socialism at a snail's pace" in the mid-twenties to the rapid industrialisation of the Five-Year Plans. Sometimes, although rarely, the compound terms "Marxism–Leninism–Stalinism" (used by the Brazilian MR-8), or teachings of Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin, are used to show the alleged heritage and succession. arxism is an economic and socio-political worldview that contains within it a political ideology for how to change and improve society by implementing socialism.