Biography of Lon Trotsky Essay

The early 20th century socialist revolutionary theorists Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg and Leon Trotsky believed that the withering away of the state and the removal of the capitalist mode of production was a necessary outcome if the individual was to ever realize their true nature as being free, equal and self-determining. This, however, could only be achieved through the development of the proletariat’s class consciousness and their defeat over the bourgeoisie. It is in this manner where both socialist revolutionary theory and practice share a dialectical relationship. However untied in their revolutionary visions of this international process, these theorists differ in what the role and functions of the revolutionary party should be in the historical development of the new socialist state.

Throughout historical times, the rule of Josef Stalin has been questioned due to his position as being one of the most popular and contentious leaders. Through the evaluation of his ruling within the Soviet Union, he can be seen as both a positive and negative ruler. His methods of changing the country following World War I were sudden, causing a complete change in societal ways of life in controversial ways. While his changes created one of the most powerful countries the world had ever seen at its’ time, they also caused for massive discontent within the citizens of Soviet Russia.

Trotsky’s leadership during the civil war was essential for the victory of the reds. His organisational skills and strong will transformed the red army into an effective fighting force. However a combination of factors also attributed to the Reds seizure of power , this includes; their geographical strength and control of industry and the weaknesses of their opponents.

Most modern historians agree that the peasants, workers and soldiers played a major part in the revolution and therefore it was the job of the Bolsheviks to capture this power and manipulate and use it for their own ends. This was made much easier as a result of Trotsky’s excellent rhetoric and Victor Serge, in ‘Memoirs of a Revolutionary’ (1945), recalled that ‘Trotsky was all tension and energy […] an orator of unique quality [whose voice] always infused with a truly spontaneous passion. He outshone Lenin through his great oratorical talent, through his organising ability, first with the army, then on the railways, and by his brilliant gifts as a theoretician. ’ Naturally, as a Bolshevik it was easier for Serge to agree with Trotsky and therefore, find his words inspiring and interesting. However, to make special note of his rhetoric suggests an unusually good quality to his work and this is further demonstrated by the number of people he managed to rally around his cause. Wood writes

Leon Trotsky, originally known as Lev Davidovich Bronstein, was born November 7th in the year 1879. Born to a Jewish-Russian family of wealthy but illiterate farmers, he was sent to school in Odessa by age nine. Although he was enrolled in a German school, during his studies there the school was “Russified” during the Imperial Government’s policy of Russification. The environment of the town of Odessa contributed greatly to the development of Trotsky’s revolutionary ideas and his international outlook. Later on in his life, by 1896, he quickly became involved in revolutionary activities after moving to the harbor town of Nkdayev. As a narodnik, also known as a revolutionary populist, he was first introduced to Marxism, but disliked the core

It is undeniable that Stalin had a profound impact on the Soviet Union following Lenin’s death. His rise to power within the Soviet Union has provided historians with a hotbed of political intrigue for many years. He was an opportunist, coming to dominance by manipulating party politics and influential figures in the politburo to eliminate his opposition by recognising and exploiting their weaknesses thus becoming the dominant leader of the Soviet Union. He was severely underestimated by other members of the Politburo about his potential within the party, leading to missed opportunities to ally and stand against him- a mistake that Stalin never made. He gained support from the public by exploiting the idea of ‘the Cult of Lenin’ in 1924 at Lenin’s funeral, and then adopting this concept for himself, thereby likening himself to Lenin; and, more importantly, gained support from other party members by following the wishes of Lenin, for example, initially supporting the continuation of the NEP and supporting the idea of factionalism. This essay will also argue that he was ideologically flexible as he was able to change his ideas for the party according to who he needed as an ally, in order to achieve dominant status in the party. He sought out which individual was the biggest threat, and eliminated them before they could stand against him.

The Russian Revolution is a widely studied and seemingly well understood time in modern, European history, boasting a vast wealth of texts and information from those of the likes of Robert Service, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Allan Bullock, Robert Conquest and Jonathan Reed, to name a few, but none is so widely sourced and so heavily relied upon than that of the account of Leon Trotsky, his book “History of the Russian Revolution” a somewhat firsthand account of the events leading up to the formation of the Soviet Union. There is no doubt that Trotsky’s book, among others, has played a pivotal role in shaping our understanding of the events of The Revolution; but have his personal predilections altered how he portrayed such paramount

In February 1917, Tsar Nicholas II, the monarch of Russia, abdicated and the socialist Alexander Kerensky became premier. At the end of October (November 7 on current calendars), Kerensky was ousted, and Vladimir Lenin, the architect of the Russian Revolution, became chief commissar. Almost immediately, as wars raged on virtually every Russian front, Lenin’s chief allies began jockeying for power in the newly formed state; the most influential included Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Gregory Zinoviev, and Lev Kamenev. Trotsky and Stalin emerged as the most likely heirs to Lenin’s vast power. Trotsky was a popular and charismatic leader, famous for his impassioned speeches, while the taciturn Stalin preferred to consolidate his power behind the

He is seen a true Belikov revolutionary, when I did everything. I followed Lenin before Trotsky even realized what liberalism meant. He is just a weak spineless liberal when I am the true revolutionary. I may be short, but my brainpower is not short. I am visionary, a revisionist who will save the proletarian and kill the bourgeoisie, but kill them slowly. In fact, I’ll torture them. I’ll force them to be my slaves, like what they did to me. I grew up with an empty and holes and my shoes, so I will make my former oppressors feel like that. Feel like I felt when I was a slave to the capitalist regime. Whereas, Leon Trotsky will not do that. He would never do that, because Leon had a good past. He grew up in a rich high income family that made sure his life was perfect. Vladimir hails Leon as the greatest, the one who sacrificed his status for the revolution, but I know better.

Ten years in exile had not swayed Lenin?s determination to create and direct a powerful revolution. Lenin returned to Russia from exclusion in February 1917, believing that the time was ripe to seize power. The Russian economy was in ruin after the army was nearly defeated and the people exhausted as a result of the First World War. The country was in an unstable state, suitable for a revolution (Levinthal 119). Around October 20, Lenin, in disguise and at considerable personal risk, slipped into Petrograd and attended a secret meeting of the Bolshevik Central Committee held on the evening of October 23. Not until after a heated 10-hour debate did he finally win a majority in favour of preparing an armed takeover. Now steps to enlist the support of soldiers and sailors and to train the Red Guards, the Bolshevik-led workers' militia, for an armed takeover proceeded openly under the guise of self-defense of the Petrograd Soviet. Even at great personal risk, Lenin was adamant in spurring a successful revolution.

The Tzar and the Tzarina had been greatly influenced by Rasputin, a man they believed to be a “man of God.” Trotsky discredits Rasputin to show that the Tzar and Tzarina lacked the resolve and intelligence to resist his influence or see reason when presented with his wrongdoings: “The bloom of Rasputin’s influence lasted six years, the last years of the monarchy.” (Trotsky, 30). Trotsky believes Rasputin’s influence led to the downfall of the Russian monarchy and sheds light on the monarchs’ indifference, lack of intelligence, and weak resolve in order to justify the Russian Revolution. “In February 1917, the autocracy collapsed in the face of popular demonstrations and the withdrawal of elite support for the regime.”

After examining the reasons for the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War, one can certainly say that it is due to the superior leadership, organization, and support that they achieved victory. Lenin and Trotsky provided the

A great man is defined by the manner in which he lived, and the legacy he leaves behind. Throughout history, many men have been labelled as great, these include the likes of Dwight Eisenhower, Napoleon Bonaparte, John F. Kennedy and many more. The one thing these men all left behind was a great legacy, and a motivation for others to achieve greatness just like themselves. Robert Green Ingersoll’s famous quote "In order to appreciate a great man […] we must understand the scope of the drama in which he played - the part he acted - and we must also know his audience” relates heavily to that of the life of Lev Davidovich Bronstein, most commonly known as Leon Trotsky. Leon Trotsky’s status as a ‘Great Man’ is without doubt, in question. The debate to whether or not the revolutionist

The aim of this essay is to discuss how successful Lenin’s policies were in his attempt to create an alternative modernity in Russia by his death in 1924. By scrutinizing his actions and their individual impacts in relation to the desired modernity, historians can assess whether Lenin achieved the socialist dream he sought for. I will break down the essay into three components from which I can individually conclude their successfulness as an alternative modernity. These shall be established in the introduction.

Introduction- Introduce Lenin and aims of the essay such as giving a balanced view of Lenin’s Legacy. Try to keep it short.