The Bolshevik revolution in October is commonly known now as ‘Lenin’s Revolution’ or the ‘Bolshevik revolution’ which gives us the obvious idea that he must have had much more of an influence in this revolution then he had in the last. S Nechayev, in his book ‘catechism of a revolutionary’ 1869 writes “The revolutionary is a dedicated man. He has no personal feeling, no private affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is subordinated towards a single exclusive attachment, a single thought and a single passion – the revolution.” Lenin had many personal qualities which helped him influence the revolution and by Nechayev’s standards it could be perceived that Lenin was the perfect revolutionary. He was an outstanding leader, who alone was able to hold the Bolshevik party together when it might have fragmented, this is best shown during the October uprising and his controlling of the Red army. No one but Lenin had the prestige and the standing to see them through these difficult periods. He held amazing organisational skills which was demonstrated during his role in war communism and when, with Sverdlov made virtually all the day to day business decisions. He was also flexible and pragmatic and gave inspirational speeches to the people, acknowledged by Kukushkin in 1981 ‘Lenin’s brilliant speeches inspired the workers and soldiers into a determined struggle.’ He was extremely good at convincing people about his views and used all his many attributes to glue the party together, without him it most probably would have crumbled and the revolution would have never gone ahead.
Lenin was a brilliant theorist and his adaptions of Marxist theory have now become known as Marxism-Leninism. His developments of Marxism affected the revolution in a few important ways. Firstly, his concept of a small, disciplined revolutionary party that could seize power of Russia as a vanguard, a group of people leading the way in new developments or ideas, on behalf of the Russian people in 1917 was vital for the power efforts. He also produced the idea that the war was caused by imperialist rivalries. It is most probable that the soldiers heard about these concepts and they may have contributed to them turning against the war and the government who had sent them there and made them begin to support the Bolsheviks. Also his development, along with Trotsky, of the idea that the proletariat, the working people, could carry through a socialist revolution without going through the so called ‘bourgeois-democratic class’ (the middle class) as it was too weak. The progression of this idea led to Bolshevik opposition of the Provisional Government, which many of the people liked as they were against the new government’s policies. This also led to Lenin writing up one of his most important piece of propaganda: The April Theses, and was a big contributor to the eventual October revolution.
The second Lenin heard the March Revolution was taking place he immediately returned to Russia from exile in Europe, via a specially provided train from the Germans who were hoping he might cause more chaos. When Lenin arrived at Petrograd station he set out the Bolshevik programme in his ‘April Theses’. This contained 2 very important and influential slogans: “peace, land and bread” and “all power to the soviets” which contrasted sharply with the cautious message of the provisional government. Support for the quick acting and appealing promises the Bolshevik’s were making rapidly increased, in particularly in the army and the soviets. However, an unknown Menshevik writer in 1917 said “The Bolshevik speaker would ask ‘do you need more land? Do you have as much land as the landlords? But will the Kerensky [provisional] government give you land? No, never. It protects the interests of the landlords… only our party, the Bolsheviks, will immediately give you land…’ Several times I tried to take the floor and explain that the Bolsheviks make promises which they can never fill. I used figures from farming statistics to prove my point; but I saw the crowded square was unsuitable for this kind of discussion.” This quote suggests and backs up with statistical evidence that the Bolsheviks and therefore Lenin were making promises that they could never fulfil just to rally the people onto their side just so they could gain power and then do what they wanted. In some aspects we can see Lenin, in his April theses, influenced the people onto his side by lying to them with idealistic opportunities that they could never actually achieve.
By September 1917, Lenin believed the Russian people were ready for a second revolution. However, there were a few leading Bolshevik’s like Zinoviev, Bukharin and Kamenev who still had memory of the failures of the July Days protests where many Bolsheviks were either killed or arrested and were not yet convinced about having another revolution. A secret meeting was held on October 10th and Lenin used his aforementioned personality and skills to persuade the others that it was in fact time, none of the people against Lenin could even come close to beating him in an argument. The debate went on through the night and in the morning a vote was cast going in Lenin’s favour by 10 votes to 2, the revolution then went ahead during the night of the 6th of November. If Lenin hadn’t of used all his powers of persuasion to persuade the doubters it is very possible they would have voted against a second revolution and it would have never happened. In this aspect Lenin was extremely significant figure in the uprising.
Although Lenin played a vital role in the cause of the revolution there were also many factors which he hardly or didn’t affect. Leon Trotsky whom “ no one else in the leadership [could come] anywhere near as a public speaker, and for much of the revolutionary period it was this that made Trotsky, even more so than Lenin, the best known Bolshevik leader in the country” (Orlando Figes) was also very influential on the revolution. He was the best speaker of his generation in Russia and could gain support using his speeches very easily. He had superb organisation and improvisational skills and took charge of the planning of the actual Bolshevik takeover at the end of October, to make sure all the important places in Petrograd were in Bolshevik hands. Lenin was known for his brains and a great planner but Trotsky was a great leader; together they were unstoppable, however if Trotsky wasn’t present it is very much conceivable that without him Lenin would have struggled to successfully revolutionise as well as they did. Other factors also contributed; the Provisional Government lost much support from its unpopular decisions to stay in the war and postponing land reform which allowed Lenin to attack it with these reasons. The soviets were very popular among the people as they were elected, Lenin jumped on to this popularity and his slogan “all power to the soviets!” became a very effective rallying cry. Economic problems including inflation, food shortages and the unsuccessful war increased discontent for the current regime and made it easier for Lenin to get the people on his side and in support. Even though Lenin did not cause these factors; he used them very much to his advantage in gaining support and then seeing through the revolution.
In Conclusion, In the February revolution Lenin played a very minimal role and hardly affected it at all, the only way he might have done is if his ideas written in Bolshevik newspapers had been being spread around, which is probable but not exactly certain and maybe only a small percentage of Russians even knew who he was. However his part in the November revolution was much more important. I believe that even though the November revolution was widely labelled as Lenin’s revolution it was not fully down to him and his sole contribution. Lenin certainly had a bigger role in the revolution than anyone else but great historical changes cannot be pinned down to individuals. I very much agree with historian Robert Service’s point written in 1990 that “there were other mighty factors at work as well in Russia in 1917… Lenin simply could not have or even co-ordinated everything.” He played very much so a catalytic role in the revolution by co-ordinating it, convincing doubters and planning the whole arrangement, his theories revolutionised the minds of the people and without him this sought of revolution would never gone ahead even if he did make up some promises he couldn’t fulfil along the way.
