Causes Of Vladimir Lenin

Over the period from 1855 to 1964, Russia saw various reforms and policies under the Tsars and the Communist leaders that had great impacts on its economy and society both positive and negative. Lenin definitely implanted polices that changed society and the economy for example with war communism. However whether his policies had the greatest impact is debatable and in this essay I will be assessing the view whether Lenin had the greatest impact on Russia’s economy and society than any other ruler between the period from 1855-1964.

The first section of Fitzpatrick’s essay discusses how Marxism was such an important part to creating classes during the Bolsheviks rule in the beginning of the 20th Century. She notes that this western belief system was popular with Russian intellectuals, especially on revolutionary left. (173) However, around the 1890’s industrialization was starting to catch up with the Marxist dreams, and the first soviets were founded in Moscow and Petersburg in 1905 helped bring down the tsarist regime in February 1917 (Suny 173).

The concoction of communist regime caused paranoia within the people which lead to riots. The history of the Soviet Union greatly contributed to this unjustified fear. During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx, a revolutionary socialist, wrote the “Communist Manifesto” which presented the idea of Communism. In this political ideal, property is publicly owned and workers are paid to extent of their abilities and needs. Nowhere does the theory state dictatorship or any type of totalitarian government. This revolutionary speculation remains as Russia’s greatest achievements in history and unforgotten. However when Vladimir Lenin took control of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1917,

Trotsky’s overall role in the Soviet Union is indisputable as his strategic leadership skills enabled him to play a fundamental role in the organisation and implementation of the November 1917 Bolshevik seizure of power and the Civil War of 1918-21. However, the importance of Lenin’s role must also be taken into account to achieve a more balanced portrayal, as many of Trotsky’s successes were based on Lenin’s initiatives. Although Lenin held authority over the Bolshevik’s, it

Lenin grew up in a middle class family but was never fond of the political party and the class system. Having a Marxist political belief system, Lenin wanted the government to own and control everything. After taking control of the Soviet Union, Lenin wanted supreme power for himself and the government, with hopes to make all of the citizens’ equal. Throughout his reign, the Soviet Union was crowded with war, disease, and destruction. His idea of a perfect communist society was anything but

In 1917 Russia was the most populous country and also the largest in the entire world yet, Russia's government was facing many problems that needed to be resolved such as a shortage of food and fuel.At this time, Russia was also only starting the process of industrialization when it had entered into World War One, both of these and demand some kind of change from it. The Tsarist government started to collapse and the entire country was ready for some kind of change. The Russian government could not fix any of these problems and this made the people want change.Two causes of the Bolshevik revolution were, food and fuel shortages coupled with World War One going very poorly for Russia

The Russian Revolution of 1917 set the country on a course that few other countries took in the 20th century. The shift from the direction of a democratic, parliamentary-style government to a one party communist rule was a drastic change that many did not and could not predict. Looking back on this key moment in Russian history, many historians ask the question ‘why did the political power in Russia shift to the Bolsheviks’? Since the revolution in 1905 Russia was becoming progressively more democratic, distributing power throughout the political sphere. This came to an abrupt halt when Vladimir Lenin was put into power by the Bolshevik takeover of the Provisional Government. Many authors have had different takes on this event. Two particularly interesting ones were Arthur Mendel and John D. Basil. Their pieces On Interpreting the Fate of Imperial Russia and Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution give various perspectives on the Russian Revolution and attempt to answer the question of the power shift. This key point in Russia’s history sets the tone for the next 100 years. Russia became a superpower, an enemy of the United States, started multiple wars directly and indirectly, and started using an economic system used by various countries around the world. Today we still see the effects of the 1917 Revolution. Looking at both Mendel’s and Basil’s attempt to answer why the power shifted to the Bolsheviks. Since both historian 's account of the events is different they cannot

Vladimir Lenin played a significant role in the replacement of the monarchical Russian Empire with the ‘people-governed’ Soviet Union. Driven to act by the desperate situation present in Russia under the rule of Czar Nicholas II, he fought for the victory of the Marxist ideals. Despite being opposed and even exiled, Lenin managed to rise to the head of the Bolshevik party and secure his position as the head of the government. He used his power to attempt to organize, modernize, and reform the Soviet Union. His policies were necessary for the Soviet Union to regain strength and to return to the world map as a formidable power.

There were many factors that contributed to the survival of the Bolshevik Government, ranging from Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army to the failings of the Bolsheviks’ rivals for power. This essay shows that the main reason for the Bolsheviks’ continued survival through the period was not Trotsky’s great leadership of the Red Army, but the opposition’s mistakes and failings. This will be demonstrated by analysing the key factors leading to the survival of the Bolshevik Government: Trotsky’s leadership; Lenin’s leadership; The Bolsheviks’ geographical advantage; and finally the Bolsheviks’ enemies’

The Bolshevik revolution heavily damaged the Russian economy, making it clear that the country will have to find support from the outside (4). But, destroyed economy did not worry Lenin and Trotsky, who were ready to conquer new territories because they thought that their “revolution would expire

The fight for communism began “in the early evening of October 24, [the Military Revolutionary Committee] used small bands of troops loyal to their cause or the Red Guards… to take control of the railway station, telephone exchange, electricity plants, post offices, the state bank, and key bridges” (Gellately 37). Although there were a small amount of revolutionaries, the Russian government was without proper defense and they quickly took control of key areas in the state (Gellately 37). Lenin had to convince his Bolshevik constituents that a quick revolution was the proper course of action, he was met with much resistance at first, but his persistence convinced his comrades. Through his leadership a small revolutionary army was able to secure the majority of Russia. Subsequent to the revolution, an election was held in which Lenin and his Bolshevik party “managed only 24 percent of the vote” while the social revolutionaries won the election with “40 percent of the ballots” (Gellately 39). However, Lenin had expected an electoral defeat and “had no intention of letting the Constituent Assembly meet”(Gellately 39). Despite his previous promises, Lenin believed that he was the one who would lead Russia to prosperity through Marxism and “In December 1917, Lenin made the case for forcing through a vanguard dictatorship, in full defiance of the

Karl Marx is undoubtedly one the the most influential and controversial writers in modern history; Robert Tucker, a noted political scientist at Princeton University, once asserted, “[Marx] profoundly affected ideas about history, society, economics, ideology, culture, and politics [and] about the nature of social inquiry itself. No other intellectual influence has so powerfully shaped the mind of modern left-wing radicalism in most parts of the world.” (9). Indeed, his innumerable works, in particular, the Manifesto of the Communist Party, inspired political upheaval and violent uprisings which, to this day, continue to influence the structure of governments and society in countries around the world. The theory behind “The Communist Manifesto” is a simple one: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”— but, Marx believes, history could take a new direction if guided by the disinterested equalizing force of communism. In the first chapter of his great manifesto, Marx argues that as the bourgeoisie, motivated by ruthless capitalism and industrialization, accrued more and more wealth, the proletariat would gain class consciousness and move from being a class in itself to a class for itself; in essence, the growth of capitalism would paradoxically be its own undoing.

The promises of state socialism and with it Communism were nothing short of fantasy turned reality for the deeply impoverished working classes of the Russian empire at the beginning of the twentieth century. The uneducated and desperate people of the Russian empire were eager to believe in a social and political system that promised to finally deliver them from the crushing burdens placed on them by the aristocrats, capitalism and the class system. Unfortunately for them the reality of these new systems would be far from the promised utopian society of continuous prosperity and absolute equality. There would not be the freedom from the class system as promised by Communist propaganda instead in its place would be a less obtrusive and more industrialized version the class system that had existed before. Everyone would not share evenly the prosperity and wealth as promised either, instead those who were controlling the government would reap the greater rewards such as choice of living arrangements and top pick of academic endeavors. Those who had seized the government in the interest of the working class would not completely fulfil their promise to educate their working-class comrades to a level sufficient to take control of the government.

The double political uncertainties confronted by the socialist movements were: one is the decrease of its mass character; the other, the abandonment of its goal. Vladimir Lenin dialectically blended both challenges in his thought of an interventionist organization of revolutionaries–one that participates and tries to provide leadership in the day-to-day struggle to be able to win broader layers of workers to the revolutionary overthrow of the system when the appropriate conditions arose.

Since the spring of 1916 when Lenin wrote his pamphlet Imperialism, that work has been a focal point of discussion by both Marxists and non-Marxist political economists. Many critics have attempted to prove that Lenin’s analysis of contemporary capitalism is essentially incorrect; others that it is partially incorrect, but not outdated. Lenin’s “official” defenders in Moscow have tried to prove that every word written in 1916 is still totally valid today, while