How Successful Was Lenin's Attempt to Create an Alternative Modernity in Russia by 1929?

The instant consequences to the emancipation of the serfs left Russia crippled, ironic, when alleged that it intended to advance Russia’s status. Many historians argue that despite abolishing serfdom, the means in which it was carried out didn’t coincide with reality. Subsequently, there were many riots which caused a rise of political groups such as Narodnik movement whose existence proves that Russian society was changing. Disorder spread with calls for change within Russia like In May 1862 where a number of pamphlets were issued including the radical Young Russia. Such propaganda aimed to gain support and create challenging individuals which would pressure the Tsar to make further changes. One could argue that as a result this led to the 1905 revolution and the end of Tsardom.

Lenin was able to consolidate Bolshevik rule in Russia by combining popular policies and repression: To what extent do you agree with this statement.

The last Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 and was faced with a country that was trying to free itself from its autocratic regime. The serfs had recently been emancipated, the industry and economy was just starting to develop and opposition to the Tsar was building up. Russia was still behind Europe in terms of the political regime, the social conditions and the economy. Nicholas II who was a weak and very influenced by his mother and his wife had to deal with Russia’s troubles during his reign. In order to ascertain how successfully Russia dealt with its problems by 1914, this essay will examine the October Manifesto and the split of the opposition, how the Tsar became more reactionary after the 1905 revolution, Stolypin’s

In the 1915s the Western countries had advanced technologies, a better economy and were managed successfully. However, Russia was trying something new, Communism. Lenin believed that Communism would make the country better. Shortly after his death, the man of steal, otherwise known as Stalin took control. He claimed to have the same ambitions; create a strong army, build up the industrial strength in a socialist society (Kreis, 2012). Despite their similar goals the actions they took to achieve them were completely different; Lenin is known to be on of the greatest leaders of Russia and Stalin the worst.

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.

Following the timeline of Josef Stalin’s ruling as a leader of Soviet Russia, it can be seen that his positive accomplishments brought Russia from a period of

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 October 1917 Revolution is undoubtedly a momentous and extremely important event in Russia’s history, one that ousted the centuries-old Tsardom that ruled over the empire, in favour of the radical communist movement in the form of the Bolsheviks, headed by one Vladimir Iliych Lenin. However, did this sudden move from autocracy to a supposedly more progressive democracy actually bring about the modernisation of Russia industrially, agriculturally and culturally, or was it simply a rebranding of a totalitarian state that would continue to oppress the

Within a few days in February 1917, Tsarist Russia came to an end. The Romanov family, who had ruled Russia since the 17th century, were overthrown and the monarchy crumbled. Traditional historian Bernard Pares argues that incompetent ministers and weaknesses of Nicholas II is to blame. While traditionalist historian Edmund Walsh blames the incompetence of the Tsarina and her mysticism beliefs. There are however many factors contributing to the Russian revolution of February 1917, such as: World War 1, political and economic failures. Therefore this essay will consider the impact of each factor in order to assess whether the winter of 1916-17 was the final straw for the people of 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

Lenin's solution was a revolutionary vanguard party that would come not from the peasantry or proletariat, but from the bourgeoisie and be composed of mainly middle class intellectuals. (Strangely enough he seemed to fit this criteria quite snuggly!) This party, he postulated, would have to be a small, closely knit, highly centralized, highly disciplined, conspiratorial and quasi-military organization of professional

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

During Russia’s transition to communism in the early 20th century, conflict and unease permeated every part of life. Nothing was stable and very little of what the Bolsheviks had fought for had come to fruition by the time the USSR disbanded in 1991. The “classless society”, which was to work together for the prosperity of everyone, never became a reality. In the end, the majority of Russia’s 20th century was an utter failure on a grand scale. However, there were many amazing products of the system do to the great importance of education in Russian culture. Priceless novels were written, timeless movies were made, and great scientific endeavors were realized despite the rigid control placed upon Russian persons by the government. In

Modernity, throughout the semester has been a main theme of the class, but as the class has moved forward, so has the definition of the word. To this point in the semester Modernity is defined as a two way progression of man positive developments, and also negative. Marx and Dostoevsky both continue with that mindset as each one takes their own view of modernity respectfully. Both of the authors believe that change will occur, but both do not agree with how it will happen and who or what the results will affect. Marx focuses in the Communist Manifesto on society as whole and how modernity will occur, while Marx has to predict much of the modernity that will take place on an entire society. Dostoevsky decides to focus on one individual’s journey through modernity, Dostoevsky doesn’t predict what modernity does, as a reader Dostoevsky takes you on a trip through the narrator’s life so all of the mentioned modernity from Notes from the Underground are based off of the narrator’s life experiences. Both Marx and Dostoevsky offering their views on modernity could result in an important factor of how western society has been shaped as we know it, each in different ways more areas then others over time. Modernity can be tied into many things in regards to the development of man.

There were many different equally important reasons why Lenin and the Bolsheviks were able to hold on to their power. For Lenin, and the Bolsheviks, winning political power was relatively easy, compared with retaining it. They had many different objects to overcome, such as; Russia was in chaos, politically and economically, and normal government had broken down in large areas, yet despite all these problems Lenin was able to consolidate his power – and create the world’s first communist state.