The Civil war however can not solely be looked on as negative in terms of Lenins role in it. He brought the Bolsheviks through the difficult situation of the Civil War showing that he was a capable leader of the Bolsheviks. I have previously said that Lenin went against the beliefs of his party from the start of there power but on the otherhand maybe he had to compromise his and the party's beliefs at the start of there rule so as to make sure that the Bolsheviks sustained power and could then build on there power introducing there true beliefs.
The Civil war although eventually won comfortably by the Red Army was not a certainty from the begging and Lenin had to work hard on making sure he had the right people in place to control the Army as well as trying to control Russia's situation from a political side. Lenin made Trotsky Commissar for War with the sole objective of making the Red Army victorious. When Lenin appointed Trotsky the Army was on the point of disintegration and Lenin new that Trotsky would restore discipline and professionalism to the Army and turn it into an effective fighting force. This meant that when others criticised Trotsky, Lenin gave him his full support as he new Trotsky was the right man to lead the Red Army to victory. The Civil War was not solely about winning the War on the battle field but also about the Bolsheviks winning the War with the Russian people in gaining there support. Talk about War Communism and how Lenin did the day to day running of the country. Find some sources.
NEP intro-
In 1921, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were on the edge of disaster. With the Civil War over, workers and peasants expected to see a n improvement in their standard of living and an end to wartime policies. Whatever the theory behind War Communism, it had clearly failed at a practical level. Lenin realised that the Peasants couldn’t be made to produce larger grain stocks and that instead they would have to be persuaded. Lenin told delegates at the 1921 Party Assembly ‘We must tryto satisfy the demands of the peasants who are dissatisfied, discontented, and cannot be otherwise. In essence the small farmer can be satisfied with two things. First of all there must be a certain amount of freedom for the small private proprietor; and secondly, commodities and products must be provided.’ In the Spring of 1921 the famine and the depressed economic situation in Russia led to delegates givig unaminous support to the NEP.
Negative
Although the NEP was passed unanimously there was a lot of party members reluctant to accept it and only did as Russia’s economic situation was in such a bad way that they felt anything must have been better than War Communism. Although from the outside it looked as though the party was united behind the NEP there were members who felt they had no choice but infact didn’t believe in it and this caused Party fractions and the break down of ‘Party Unity’ which was something Lenin strongly believed against. The NEP also went against basic Bolshevik beliefs which was the Marxist theories of Communism. NEP certainly wasn’t communist and was infact Capitalist which is what the Bolsheviks had promised to take the Russian people away from. The Key features of the NEP took Russia back from the advancements they had made towards Comunism under war Communism. Its key features were the abandonment of state requisitioning and the re-introduction of the market economy , which allowed the peasants to trade for private profit. This was hard for party members such as Trotsky and Preobrazhensky to accept as they felt the repressive measures of War Communism as the proper revolutionary starategy for the Bolshevik party to follow. This again caused big party divides. Lenin was so concerned on winning the Civil War that he had forgotten about the Russian people themselves which led to the collapse of the Economy and him not having any choice bu to follow a more Communist route to get Russia back on track. The table below shows the big jump in deaths, in Petrograd, during the Civil War and how instead of exampanding the Russian population to make the country more stronger and powerful, Lenin was actually making it weaker.
With the cities population falling by just under 2 million and the death rate rising by 75 per thousand of population in the four years the Bolsheviks were in power, surely Lenin had no choice and the NEP was just a reaction to a devastating situation and not a well thought out Economic plan as Lenin would like people to have believed.
Positive
Lenin in his choice to adopt NEP over War Communism actually showed what a clever leader he was and how he was looking to the future of the Bolsheviks rather than just there short term future. He realised that his policy of War Communism was not working and was a big enough man to accept this and change his policy. The NEP was intended primarily by Lenin to meet Russia’s urgent need for food. Lenin was aware that the NEP marked a retreat from the principle of State Control of the economy as it created a mixed economy in which Capitalism existed alongside Socialism. Lenin always said though that this was only a temporary concession to Capitalism, he added that he was prepared ‘to let the peasants have their little bit of capitalism as long as we keep the power.’ Lenin showed what a clever and practical leader he was as he demanded that political theory take second place to economic necessity. This is the kind of thinking that kept the Bolsheviks in power. They may have had to make some concessions, which Lenin appreciated, but surely this was better than not being in power at all. Through all this time and pressure on the party Lenin still tried to keep the party together. At the Tenth Party Congress in 1921 he introduced a resolution on ‘Party Unity’. The object of this resolution was to prevent groups of fractions within the party. All in all though the most conclusive evidence that the NEP was the right choice by Lenin is shown by the statistical data. The table below indicates the scale of growth in output and in wages.
The table above clearly shows that in all aspects the economy was improving and that Lenin had made the right choice even though it meant putting some of his and the Bolsheviks beliefs on the backburner while he got Russia into a condition that was acceptable for the people and that was acceptable for the Bolsheviks to govern and begin to introduce there more Communist beliefs.
Although the NEP was a system with Capitalism within it, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had no intention of letting the limited Capatilism of the NEP develop into a full scale restoration of Capitalism. As this may have meant the emergence of a political system based on Government by a number of political parties. As I have discussed earlier political liberalisation was never on the cards for Lenin. The NEP was simply a 'carrot' to buy of the peasants and Lenin saw that he may have to take 'one step backwards to take two fords' but all of these compromises were accompaned by political repression.
The Bolsheviks were obviously in alot of trouble by 1921, which can be seemed by the famine of 1921 which killed as amny as 5 million peple. It was blamed on the Bolshevik requistioning programmewhich had depleted the peasents reserve stock of grainand persuaded large numbers of peasants to to plant so much. The overall result was one of the worst famines of the twentieth century. Strong opposition to the Bolsheviks and Lenin can also be clearly seen from what is said in S. Fitzpatricks book 'The Russian Revolution 1917-1924' where 'The worst blow to the regime came in 1921 when, after an outbreak of workers strikes in Petrograd, the sailors of the nearby Kronstadt Naval base rebelled.' By itself then this could just be seen as another outbreak of people unhappy with there situation but taken in the context of the Bolsheviks seizure of power then a rebellion by the sailors at Kronstadt meant that the Bolsheviks had some serious opposition. The Kronstadters were seen as the heros of the July days and most importantly had supported the Bolsheviks in there seizure of power in the October Revolution. This meant that there core supporters were turning against them surely showing that Lenin was not helping the Bolsheviks aquire a healthy position in Russia. It is clear that during this time there was alot of opposition to the Bolsheviks from many sets of people but theer seemed to be litle opposition to the Bolsheviks politically. But why would this be, surely right wing opposition parties would see the state Russia was in and that opposition from the people was growing against the Bolsheviks and that this would be the perfect opportunity to try and take the power of Russia away from the Bolsheviks. There was no political opposition due to political repression by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks aim was for a democratic society and surely repressing peoples views was not democratic and even more evidence that Lenin was taking the Bolsheviks away from there beliefs. The Political repression included censorship of many Russian writers and scholars and some were even deported. There was strong political pressure on rival Socialist parties, the Bolsheviks arrested 5,000 Mensheviks in 1921 for counter-revolutionary activities. In short the Bolsheviks were making sure there was no other option then them for the people, going completely against there basic principles.
The lack of opposition was of course good for the Bolsheviks in the basic terms that it meant they would stay in power. Lenin new that the Bolsheviks would need to ride this rough period and get through to the other side to reach Eutopia. And that was what was important to Lenin, not how they got ther but that they did get there. If this meant violence, death and going against origianl Bolshevik beliefs then so be it as the end justified the means.
Lenin had many qualities that proved invaluable in pushing through the October uprising in 1917 and ruling Russia in the Post-Revolutionary period. He had great orgainisational abilities and leadership skills. Lenin never seeked personal gain from the Bolsheviks and always made decisions which he felt were best for the party, 'Lenin posses a devotion to the revolutionary cause which permeates his entire being', said by Chernov, the Socialist Revolutionary leader. Although according to the Russian writer Maxim Gorky 'Lenin's attitude was that who is not with us is against us.' Lenin had a strong streak of ruthlesness and cruelty. Lenin believed that revolutionaries had to be hard to carry out there role, which would inevitably meen attacks on the opposition. Lenin never had any doubt that he knew the right path and could lead the party along it.
When Lenin died in 1924 he left a huge gap at the top of the Bolshevik leadership. He had held the party together since 1917 and had been central to determining policy. Although he had complete control of the party on his death the party fell into feuding factions which led to a struggle for power which lasted for five years until eventually it was Stalin who suceeded Lenin. Lenin did leave the Bolsheviks in a healthy position within the country as by going against the Bolsheviks original beliefs he managed to improve Russia and by his death Russia was back on track. However the Bolshevik party itself was not in a healthy and vibrant position as seen by the feuding factions and the power struggle. Lenin made this happen as he did not stick to the Bolsheviks beliefs throughout his reign as leader and this would always mean that some within the party would not agree. I feel that Lenin was always going to have a choice. It was either to improve Russia or the Party and maybe if Lenin hadnt chose to improve the country the party may have not survived to his death.