Lenins Power Essay - 1209 Words

Lenin was able to consolidate his power because of the weakness of his opponents. Find evidence to support or refute this statement. Chloe Tomlinson 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. There are four main topics in which Lenin was able hold on to his power; Trotsky’s organisation†¦show more content†¦War Communism was in favour of Lenin being able to consolidate power as the Bolsheviks used terror effectively. There was a six week period known as the Red Terror that saw any remaining aristocracy (most begun to flee the country after February revolution). Monarchists and riches middle class, were arrested, executed, exiled or stripped of their power, estates and privilege. Additionally, in March, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed with the Germans, was the Bolsheviks ending the war. Russia lost the Ukraine, its Polish and Baltic territories, and Finland. The treaty was hugely unpopular in Russia but necessary if the Bolsheviks were to establish control of Russia. Lenin believed that the revolution would soon spread to Germany and this would reduce the effect of the Treaty. A final point that supports the statement of Lenin consolidating his power due to the weakness of his opponents was due to the fact that Lenin had good leadership qualities. An example of this would be that the Bolsheviks were highly disciplined party that was fiercely loyal to Lenin and was also a politically astute man. Lenin was able to adapt Marxism to fit the changing situation, keeping Bolshevik support and popularising the parties polices. Furthermore, another advantage was that radical parties were very popular in Russia before the October Revolution and Lenin was skilfully able to take some of theShow MoreRelatedComparing Lenin s Manuscript, State And Revolution871 Words   |  4 Pages Lenin’s manuscript, State and Revolution, was written during the first inter-imperialist war and published on the eve of the Russian Revolution. This text can be seen as crucial to the socialist movement and the shift of 20th century Russian ideology. The whole of Lenin’s argum ent is a manifestation of Marx and Engels theories about the existence of the State and the role of government in society. State and Revolution is a purportedly theoretical reflection of how the State is an inherent tool forRead MoreHow Successful Was Lenins Attempt to Create an Alternative Modernity in Russia by 1929?830 Words   |  4 PagesHow successful was Lenin’s attempt to create an alternative modernity in Russia by 1929? Overview 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 individuallyRead MoreStalin‚Äà ´s rise to power and his Key Domestic Policies1327 Words   |  6 Pagesbroke out, resulting in the abdication of the Tsar, resulting in a provisional government being formed. This essay will look at Stalin’s rise to power and the success of his Domestic policies. In April, Lenin, leader of the Bolshevik party returned from exile. His April thesis was popular with the people through his communist ideology and popular slogans â€Å"All power to the soviets† and â€Å"Peace, Bread, Land.† In November a second revolution, organised by Trotsky overthrew the provisionalRead MoreWhy Did Stalin Come to Power and Not Trotsky1370 Words   |  6 PagesHistory Essay: Why Stalin Not Trotsky Stalin’s race to become the all mighty ruler fully started after Lenin died of a stroke on the 21st of January 1924. With Lenin gone, Stalin started to eliminate the other members of the Communist Party: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov, Tomsky and Bukharin. He very cleverly switched between the left wing and the right wing, by making alliances with one wing the suddenly breaking with them, only to join the other wing, going against everything that they hadRead MoreDid Lenin Lead to Stalin? Examine the Elements of Change and Continuity Within Soviet Russia 1917-1941.1369 Words   |  6 PagesThe 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was the seizure of power by the radical Marxists led by Vladimir Lenin and was one of the pivotal moments of the 20th Century. The ramifications of the event, and the subsequent establishment of the worlds first Communist regime were immediately obvious, but also had continuing repercussions for decades. This essay will argue that although Lenin and Stalin seemed to have conflicting views, in reality they shared very similar policies; Stalin just took these policiesRead Moreâ€Å"Stalin’s Position as General Secretary Explains His Success in Defeating His Rivals in the Years 1924-1929† How Far Do You Agree with This Statement?779 Words   |  4 PagesIn this essay I will discuss whether Stalins position as General Secretary was the most important factor in his seize of power. Stalins position as General Secretary was very important as it gave him control over the whole party machine. But there were also other factors that proved to be very important. This essay will attempt to assess the relative importance these factors. Stalins position as General Secretary proved to be very important in his seize of power for many reasons. One reason forRead MoreEssay #2. After The Russian Revolution, There Was A Lot1229 Words   |  5 PagesEssay #2 After the Russian Revolution, there was a lot of confusion on how to establish institutions strong enough to rebuild and hold the state and society together. An issue with Marxism is that it is is not a theory of governance, rather a theory of how to bring a socialist regime into power—hence explaining the lack of guidance. At this time, Lenin took control. But after his death, the Russians were once again faced with appointing a leader to direct them. The domestic and international conditionsRead MoreStalins Emergence as Leader Essay1091 Words   |  5 Pages Jan 21, 1924 Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilyich Lenin died at age 53 and a major struggle for power in the Soviet Union began. A triumvirate led by Joseph Stalin succeeded Lenin. By 1928, Stalin had assumed absolute power, ruling as an often brutal dictator until his death in 1953. But how is it that Stalin emerged as the new leader of the Soviet Union. In this essay I am going to explore the reasons to how and why this happened. Stalin held a very powerful andRead More‚Äà ºto What Extent Was the Rise to Power of Stalin Due to Personal Appeal and Ability‚Äà ¹?1222 Words   |  5 Pagesâ€Å"To what extent was the rise to power of Stalin due to personal appeal and ability†? Lenin died in January 1924 and Stalin emerged to power in 1929. Stalin has been described as a â€Å"grey blur† that rose to power. It’s quite hard to pin point the main reasons how Stalin got to power. Some historians may say that Stalin was lucky that he got to power and he benefited off events such as Lenin’s death and that his rival’s weaknesses such as Trotsky who was considered likely successor to Lenin, but TrotskyRead MoreComparing Vladimir Lenin s Eyes And A Capitalist Society1571 Words   |  7 PagesThe popular, the majority, the working class, the predominant, the masses. There are countless terms available to describe who has the most socio-political power, the most weathered; the proletariats. In Vladimir Lenin’s eyes, in a capitalist society a proletariat is the term used to describe the working class, the class that does not have ownership of any means of production(land and capital) and whose sole income source derives from labor. The minority, who own the majority of the wealth, the