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.
How far was Lenin responsible for the Bolsheviks’ growing hold on power in the years 1917-1924? To a fairly large extent, Lenin was responsible for the Bolsheviks’ growing hold on power from 1917-24. Lenin had, of course, led the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution, the reason the Bolsheviks had any power in the first place, and it was Lenin who dissolved the Constituent Assembly. He also managed to hold on to power by introducing War Communism during the Civil War. On the other hand, it can be argued that Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army during the Civil War was just as, or even more important in the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power, as was the image of the Bolsheviks as being patriotic heroes fighting against Tsarist leaders and foreign invaders.
The main reason that Stalin was able to rise to power was his ingenious defeats of both the left and right wings of the Party. The key figure Stalin had to take down from the left wing was Leon Trotsky. Trotsky was important because in effect, it was his leadership of the Red Army during the Civil War that had won the war for the Reds. If it hadn’t been for Trotsky, the Bolsheviks may not have been in the position they were by 1924. The first step Stalin took towards removing the threat of Trotsky was to lie to him about the date of Lenin’s funeral.
Plekhanov did not believe in terrorist ideas but rather supported a more social idea, working with industrial workers and peasants. After closely interacting with many Marxist groups, the Social Democratic Labour Party was formed, with the 'father of Russian Marxism' as its leader. Like Marx, Plekhanov believed that it was the industrial proletariat who would bring about a socialist revolution; he stated that a successful revolution to overthrow the Tsarist regime was too early to take place in Russia. Despite his popularity at the start of the campaign, many members soon became too impatient with their leader; demanding for a more active programme to be formed. Vladimir Ulyanov was one of the members that constantly criticised the theories of
All Russian governments in this period faced strong opposition to their regime with the period as a whole punctuated by riots, disturbances and revolutions. Political change was expected in Russia during this period, particularly during the Tsarist regime where the growth of the revolutionary intelligentsia, ironically an effect of the Great Reforms, led many to question the need for a Tsar or a royal family at all. The first main success of political opposition is widely considered to be the assassination of Alexander II at the hands of the People’s Will in 1881. Although they assassinated their Tsar, it is very likely this did not actually lead to their desired outcome, it being greater political freedom/democracy. Many historians have said Alexander II was considering the formation of a parliament in Russia.
‘While Lenin traditionally receives all the praise, Trotsky was actually the primary reason why there was a Bolshevik revolution in 1917 and thus deserves the most credit.’ Leon Trotsky, along with Vladimir Lenin played a fundamental role in the 1917 Russian Revolution. There have been many attempts to distort and even to deny the role of Trotsky, especially on the part of the official tyranny historians. Right wing historians such as Richard Pipes see Trotsky as just another demanding leader much the same as Lenin and Stalin. However, the left wing view of Trotsky consists of those who still accept the Stalinist version of events. Isaac Deutscher is one historian who has the contrasting views of the right wing historian, Pipes.
Explain why the opponents of the Tsars from 1855 to 1917 were more successful than those who opposed the Communist regime from 1917 to 1964. The opponents of the Tsars were more successful – as they achieved vastly more change – than those of the Communists for a number of reasons, not least because of the legal status of opposition, the strength of the regime, the nature of the opposition, the repression imposed by the leader of the day, and the unity and organisation of the opposition. Indeed, this question is being asked simply because the Romanov dynasty was ousted in February 1917; the Communists, on the other hand, were not. However, this question is slightly misleading: not all of the opponents of the Tsars were in fact successful – the Poles, the Peoples Will and the Narodniks all failed when attempting to attain change in Russia; indeed, it can be seen that, in reality, the only regime in which opposition was truly successful was that of Nicholas II. One reason why the opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those of the Communists was the fact that, under the Tsars, opposition attained a legal status.
It was Stalin’s position as General Secretary and other factors that that contributed to his success. Stalin may have lacked brilliance, but he had great ability. His particular qualities of perseverance and willingness to undertake laborious administrative work were ideally suited to the time. After working his way up the ladder within the party since 1917 when he became People’s Commissar for Nationalities, he gained respect and trust from other members of the Party. He evolved from being in charge of just the officials in the regions and republics that made up the USSR to being rewarded with the highest position as General Secretary in 1922.
How far was the Communist dictatorship under Lenin different from the Tsarist autocracy in the reign of Alexander the III ? By 1922, Vladimir Lenin's plan to create a Communist revolution based on his own interpretation of Marxism had succeeded through the bloody civil war of 1918-1921, and Russia was firmly in his grasp. However, historians have looked back at this new totalitarian state of the USSR, and drawn a number of similarities between Lenin's dictatorship and the autocratic rule of Tsar Alexander III. In this essay, I will look at how far the rule of the two differs and are similar, and come to a conclusion based on this if Lenin's rule really was the revolution against oppression he claimed it to be, or whether he was simply a “Red Tsar” in disguise. One way in which the Communist dictatorship of Lenin and the Tsarist autocracy in the reign of Alexander the III were similar was in the respect of governmental power.
How far do you agree that Trotsky’s leadership of the red army was responsible for the survival of the Bolshevik government? In October 1917 the Bolshevik’s took control of Russia after staging a revolution. However they faced many dangers/threats while in power from the years 1917-1924 such as a civil war and the economic crisis it caused. The leadership of the red army by Trotsky is a very important reason that the Bolsheviks got into power as his red army implanted the revolution but also to the survival of the Bolsheviks as the red army overcame the Bolsheviks biggest threat of the civil war. However there are other reason which just as or more important than Trotsky’s leadership such as the ideas and sacrifices made by Lenin during the year’s 1917-1924 such as signing the harsh treaty of Brest-Litovsk and enforcing the New Economic Policy or NEP, to create economic sacrifices rather than political ones which allowed the Bolsheviks to remain in power.