The Success of the Bolsheviks in Gaining Power in Russia by 1922

Analyzing the Bolshevik State compared to Marxism can be difficult because Marx, Engels and their followers gave relatively little thought to what the state would look like after a socialist revolution. Engels famously wrote, “the state is not ‘abolished,’ it withers away,” which highlights the hazy and unfixed nature of Marx and Engle’s writings on the ultimate, classless society they envisioned. Further, what they did write is subject to the differing interpretations by numerous socialist parties all claiming to be Marxist. As discussed earlier, Lenin claimed he simply reshaped Marxism to fit the conditions of Russia. Others argue his interpretation was not true Marxism at all. However, the basic principles of a socialist state in the eyes of Marx’s are outlined in the Communist Manifesto as follows:

From the initial seizure of power in 1917 until 1924, the Bolsheviks were confronted with a series of crises that threatened their ability to control and govern in Russia. The response and resolutions to these crises included Initial Reforms, Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Civil War, Red terror, War Communism and the NEP. Under the leadership of Lenin, the execution of these responses were made possible and the Bolsheviks were able to maintain and expand their power. The Civil War however was the direct consequence of the Bolshevik’s actions as they tried to maintain their grasp on power. The victory in the Civil War was extremely pivotal for the Bolshevik consolidation of power as it brought control and power but more importantly it eliminated

This demonstrates that since the stress of waging war was tremendous, it should be no surprise that the first war could be a primary cause of the Russian Revolution. Moreover, the major powers of Europe hurt Russia in World War I; yet, by 1917, all the combatants horrifically suffered from the strains of war economically, proving this to be a long-term cause. This was, to a great extent, considerable because the military defeats and social strains of World War I had created a crisis in Imperial Russia. Before, Russia had some military accomplishments and they were on their way to being successful. Nevertheless, their triumphs were not long-standing; hence, Russia was not able to be victorious due to the fact that Russia decreased in economy because of the limitations in Russia. Similarly, restraints included the shortage of food and the huge problems with getting the obligatory materials for the army during World War I, which shows that this was momentous. Along with Russia being defeated and having a scarcity of supplies, Russia also showed economic oppression due to the pressure in jobs workers faced.

In 1905, the social and economic tensions building up within Russia boiled over into Revolution. It was described by Lenin as the “Great Dress Rehearsal” for the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and may give us clues as to why the 1917 revolution started. The suggestion that Tsar Nicholas II and his actions were to blame for this revolution is debatable and there are many factors such as the repressive Tsarist system, the growth of opposition from the time of Alexander II and the defeat in the war with Japan to consider. These events can be separated into short and long term effects on the revolution. Bloody Sunday and defeat to Japan would be short term effects whereas the

Poor Living and Working Conditions as the Reason for Bolsheviks' Seizure of Power in 1917

During the 1900’s the Russian Government made it extremely hard for the Bolsheviks to progress which made them revolt against the government making this a prime matter for the start of the Revolution. The Czarist government was ostracized by the common people of Russia so Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown by the Provisional Government, whom later on were overthrown by Lenin and shortly after the Bolsheviks took control over Russia. Russia was hard to develop because of the major leaders who had control; Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky. Almost overnight an entire society was destroyed and replaced with one of the most radical social experiments ever seen. Poverty, crime, privileged and class-divisions were to be eliminated, a new era of socialism

Architecture should not be separated from the political and social life of human-beings. On the contrary, “throughout the history, architects have always been involved to some extent in politics, and have a nearly always sought positions of power and influence’’. Communist ideology in the Soviet Union had a huge impact on the architectural development of many modern nations: Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova and Azerbaijan. The amount of affected countries makes the topic of my analysis relevant and worth-discussing. My essay will be structured in a following way. I argue that communist ideology had an

In 1917, Russia was crumbling into pieces. The World War I was draining all of Russia’s resources. There was shortage of food throughout the country, which left people starving. At the battlefront, millions of Russian soldiers were dying, they did not possess many of the powerful weapons that their opponents had. The government under Czar Nicholas II was disintegrating, and a provisional government had been set up. In November of 1917, Lenin and his communist followers known as the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government and set a communist government in Russia. However, in 1924, Lenin died and Josef Stalin assumed leadership of the Soviet Union, which was the name for the communist Russia. Stalin was a ruthless leader who brought

Bolsheviks was due to the failure of the Provisional Government in response to land policies; their failure to gain support from the masses; the lack of ‘real’ authority of the Provisional Government and the military failure of the army. Secondly, the failure of the

Beset by internal and external enemies, the Bolsheviks were engaged in a desperate struggle for survival. Pre-1917, they had been spent in

The beginning of the 20th century brought radical changes to the social and political structure of autocratic Russia. It was a period of regression, reform, revolution and eradication. Eradication of a blood line that had remained in rule for over 300 years; the Romanov Dynasty. The central figure of this eradication was Tsar Nicholas II, often described as an incompetent leader, absent of the “commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” (Sir G. Buchman, British ambassador to Russia from 1910 in H. Seton-Watson, The

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

In 1917, in the midst of the Great War, Russia faced one of the biggest political shifts that the Tsarist-ruled country had ever known-the Bolshevik Revolution. There are two significant time frames associated with the Bolshevik Revolution. In the February revolution Tsar Nicholas II abdicated his throne and a Provisional Government took control. In the October revolution the Bolsheviks took power by overthrowing the Provisional Government. How did the October revolution become a reality? What factors facilitated the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917? Two important factors were the July event at Taurida Palace, and the Kornilov Affair. Richard Pipes describes in detail how Lenin influenced the Bolshevik party throughout the

The Failure of the Provisional Government and the Rise of the Bolsheviks i. Subject of investigation. How did the failure of the Provisional Government allow for the rise of the Bolsheviks? ii. Methods to be used. 1.

Lastly, and perhaps the most important factor in the Bolshevik victory, was the support of each side. Most peasants preferred the Bolshevik program of peace, land reform and worker control. With these ideas in mind it is obvious why four out of five peasants deserted the Whites and supported the Reds. While the Red army lost four million men up to 1921 their support base allowed them to replace these losses more easily than the Whites could. Control of the heartland of Russia gave the Reds control of the largest chunk of the population and most of the war industry. The Red Army had almost ten times as many troops as the White Army. Also, the vast majority of Bolshevik support was of the same ethnic composition, containing mostly “Great Russians”. On the other hand, the White’s support came mostly from ethnic minorities. Support was often given in the hope of gaining some form of independence in the future. According to James Graham, White leaders believed in a "Russia, one and indivisible." This created much internal bickering in the White organization with ethnic groups like the Cossacks often refusing to fight.