• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

'To what extent had Lenin merely held on to power in Russia between 1917-1924, rather than built socialism.'

Extracts from this document...


'To what extent had Lenin merely held on to power in Russia between 1917-1924, rather than built socialism.' Lenin's arrival to power in 1917 was supposed to mark the beginning of Socialism in Russia. However, as the title of the essay indicates, Lenin's aims didn't go according to plans. This essay will look at the reasons why and will also analyse whether Lenin was able to build a prosperous Socialist country, or whether he just clung on to power without establishing Socialism. To begin this essay it is probably best to define what was meant by and involved in Socialism. Socialist ideology taught that everybody was equal no matter what race, gender, age etc. Socialism would see an end to the class system as well as bringing an end to the gap in wealth between the rich and the poor. Wealth and goods would be produced by industry and would be shared out equally. It was in everyone's interest to work together for the good of the state. A disastrous mixture of economic, social and diplomatic conditions forced the Bolsheviks to change direction in 1921. At the end of the Civil War, the economic conditions in Russia were unimaginable. ...read more.


However, they could see no sign of conditions improving for peasants and the working class and no sign of a future Socialist nation. Divisions began to appear in the Bolshevik's reign. Kollantai and Shlyapkinov helped build a group called the Workers' Opposition. They wanted workers to be given more control of their own affairs and supported complaints about the reintroduction of single managers and the militaristic organisation of the workplace. They also heavily criticised Trotsky for his plans to make trade unions agencies of the state as well as the state appointing union officials. This debate caused furious arguments within the party by the end of 1920. The party's leadership position seemed very precarious at this point and it became obvious that not everyone shared the same view on Socialism within the party. In order to keep power Lenin realised that concessions to the peasants and some form of economic liberalisation had to be implemented. In order to regain lost support from the peasants and others such as the Kronstadt sailors, Lenin realised that War Communism had to be ended in order for this to happen, despite some stern opposition within the party. ...read more.


Lenin, however, did centralise the state between 1918 and 1924. This was an important aspect of Socialism and showed that the Bolsheviks were in a strong enough position to decide on how things should be run. It also showed that the Bolsheviks had a firm hold over Russia. Between 1918 and 1919, during the Civil War, Lenin was able to nationalise industries and brought them under the control of the Supreme Economic Council. Workers too were desperate for the nationalisation of industries so that factories were kept going and so therefore workers kept their jobs. The nationalisation of industries was a key feature in Socialist ideology. The Bolshevik party didn't want any private firms in Russia. Privatisation and profit making was seen as a Capitalist trademark, which the Bolsheviks detested. By the autumn of 1919, 80 per cent of all enterprises were part of a centrally directed economy. The rail system was another key aspect of Lenin's centralisation plans. Railways were vital for the war effort as it maintained food supplies to the major cities. However, the rail system was collapsing and Mensheviks who could not be trusted dominated the railway union. The Bolsheviks therefore decided that it needed to come under their control in order for the situation to improve. So, the railway system too become nationalised. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    Why did Stalin do this? * He wanted to destroy the reputations of the other Bolshevik leaders. This would explain why he had put them on trial and had them executed. * He picked on Trotsky in particular, because Lenin had chosen him as his successor.

  2. How did the Bolsheviks consolidate their power: 1917 - 1924?

    These decrees and constitutional changes were all steps along Lenin's path of consolidation of Bolshevik power. Lenin was beginning to control every facet of Russian life, from the smallest farm holder to factory workers and up through the lawyers and bankers.

  1. Russia and the Soviet Union 1917-1924

    But the provisional government wouldn't give them it. This was because they though that they should leave it to the properly elected government. People began to take land anyway. 4. The return of Lenin When Lenin returned it was a whole new start to the revolution.

  2. What methods were used by the Bolsheviks to maintain their power to 1924? How ...

    and the fact that the Bolsheviks got involved in a civil war showed the instability of the country and wasn't a strong point in their defence, once again showing a degree of success but also failure for the Bolsheviks. During the Civil war, Russia's economy was suffering horrendously.

  1. Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution.

    In addition, Trotsky was surrounded by numerous capable individuals, including A.A. Joffe, Anatole Lunacharsky, Moise Uritsky, D.Z. Manuilsky and M. Volodarsky. All of these men were, admittedly, intelligent, but so too were all of the most prominent Bolsheviks. It is true as well that the Mezharionsty lacked the organizational base

  2. To what extent were technological changes the biggest feature in the changing nature of ...

    So as a judgement military technology was the biggest change as old leadership and tactics didn't change to counteract these weapons. Non-military technology was another key change of warfare over the period, it changed methods of fighting and the structure of wars.

  1. Were the Bolsheviks a positive or negative force for change in Russia?

    If matters were not worse in March 1921, sailors from the Kronstadt naval base in the Baltic Sea, who had once fought to put the Bolsheviks in to power, now fought to put them out of power. This became known as the Kronstadt Revolt, and after ten days of fighting Trotsky and the Red Army put down the revolt (Howarth).

  2. The Holocaust was the result of Hitlers long held grand design to pursue a ...

    To fully comprehend the viewpoint of this school of history, it is vital we look at how the fragmented and opportunistic policies employed by the Nazis helped shape the racial policy, which, when failed, led to the far more extreme Judeocide.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work