Many historians have said Alexander II was considering the formation of a parliament in Russia. Furthermore, the assassination caused Alexander III to rule in reactionary nature in which many counter-reforms were created to limit the impact of the Great Reforms done by his father. This supports the view that the People’s Will were highly unsuccessful, even in the taking out of Alexander II. It can be said that the only example in this period of effective political opposition was the October 1917 revolution, where, unquestionably, the Bolsheviks took power and let their political vision be known. They were extremely successful in both the short term and the long term.
During this revolution, Lenin didn’t play any important role, however, just as well as the 1905 Revolution, he was using this experiences to make something more carefully planned. In the October Revolution, Vladimir Lenin wrote and announced what is known as the April Thesis, in which he attacked Bolsheviks for supporting the Provisional Government. Lenin accused those Bolsheviks who were still supporting the Provisional Government of betraying socialism and suggested that they should leave the party. Some people took Lenin`s advice, arguing that any attempt at revolution was certainly going to fail and would lead to another repressive, authoritarian Russian government. Because of his April Theses, the October Revolution and the July Days would have never sparked up.
The effectiveness of these groups can be judged in terms of the outcomes of their actions. The first type of opposition to consider is opposition from groups within Russia. In the earlier years of Alexander II’s reign opposition to the Russian government existed within the peasantry. In between 1800-1861 there had been 1467 uprisings and in 1861 alone there were 400 instances of revolt amongst the peasantry. This basic form of opposition was never truly effective as their actions were simply put down by the government partly due to their failure to unite and lack of ideology and political demands.
As an individual Lenin was extremely important in the October revolution. After he had been forced into temporary exile in Finland the remainder of the Bolshevik party leadership didn't seem to to press for an armed uprising. In fact they had attended a democratic congress, much to Lenin's chagrin, to maybe consider joining the Provisional Government (PG). After Lenin's return and the success of placing an armed revolution on the Central Committee's agenda some leading Bolsheviks still had grave doubts about whether this was a good idea; in fact Ziniovev and Kamenev went as far as to speak out against Lenin in a newspaper article, which alerted Kerensky to the imminent danger. What this shows is that without Lenin at their front haranguing them, the other Bolsheviks weren't so keen to rise up and take power.
This was probably due to their authoritarian ideology. It can be considered a fact that for the majority of the 1855-1964 period, the Russian citizens had little if any political freedom. Despite the legalization of political parties in 1905, this was a very short lived concession as Lenin revoked this in 1920. A similar approach was taken by Alexander III in reversing the reforms of Alexander II, including a reduction in power for the Zemstva. 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 led to the taking over of railway stations, and post and telegraph offices, meaning that the PG was left totally defenseless, allowing the Bolsheviks to seize control. The most crucial factor, however, was timing, where the Bolsheviks were able to take this power behind the veneer of Soviet control, minimizing chance of opposition. It is arguable, nonetheless, that even without this planning, seizure would still be within easy reach, due to the infamy of the Provisional Government and the other political parties, such as the Kadets, Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, failing to act. But nevertheless, this organizational brilliance from Trotsky was an assured way for secure control, as the Bolsheviks were only relatively known in the cities, compared to most of rural Russia, where their support dwindled in the wake of more popular
Both Russia and China's revolution began as a struggle for a change in power. The initial revolution of China in 1911 was for the ousting of the Qing dynasty. Similarly, the 1917 revolution in Russia was instigated by the Bolsheviks revolution against the Tsarist government. The outcomes of Russia and China's revolution were similar as were the goals to establish a new government because both eventually led to the formation of a communist country. However, China's revolution differed because the initial democratic establishment led to opposition from the Communist party while the formation of the U.S.S.R faced minimal opposition.
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.
Causes of the Russian Revolution, Feb 1917 With a complex dynamic such as that of 1917 Russia there cannot be one single cause, we must examine whether it was the long term, medium term or short term causes that was the biggest catalyst in causing the revolution. The Tsarist Autocratic system had failed to industrialize Russia and prevented it from becoming a major European power. In 1905 the Russian people were not happy with every aspect of their life, which caused social unrest leading to a year of “revolution”. The war was not going well for Russia and with the Tsar in charge of the army, leaving the Tsarina to rule at home matters were only made worse. The War also had massive social and economic impacts on Russia that resulted in a strike that ended with a revolution.
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.