& # 8211 ; Lenin & # 8217 ; s Leadership Essay, Research Paper

How Important Was Lenin To The Successful Bolshevik Seizure Of Power In October 1917?

1 July 1998

Work forces make their ain history they do non do it

under fortunes chosen by them, but instead

under fortunes straight encountered, given

and transmitted from the yesteryear.

In any history of history, it is hard to find weather the important functions were played by persons or by historical forces beyond the control of any single. There is on one manus the statement that it is the actions of great persons that has created the turning points in universe history. Aligned with this is the historical statement that it was the activities of Lenin in October 1917, which explains why Russia was a communist state for so many decennaries. One the other manus it can be argued that history is directed by natural forces beyond the control of any human ; accidents, destiny, economic developments, mass motions and so on. In this instance it is hard to see historical figures as anything more than undistinguished histrions in the drama of fate, mere labels giving names and faces to events. Marx is normally credited with positions on indispensable impersonality of historical procedures.

I intend to reason this historical quandary with a close scrutiny of the events taking up to the October Revolution. This will be done in two parts, foremost, by demoing how without Lenin s presence in Petrograd in 1917, the October Revolution would ne’er hold taken topographic point and the Soviet Union would non hold existed as it did until its decomposition in 1989. Whilst on the other manus it was the political and societal conditions in 1917 that explain why really small force was required to exercise such an exceeding class of events to determine non merely Russian history, but universe history.

In order to efficaciously convey this point I will utilize the tool of conjectural analysis to set up the cardinal function that Lenin did play in the October Revolution. While I agree that this is non a widely recognized signifier of historical analysis, it is nevertheless a plausible method of analyzing the importance of cardinal persons in a historic event by inquiring would the same result have occurred had they non been present.

First lets examine the extreme of Lenin s influence by sing the fortunes of the revolution had Lenin non even been born. Had Lenin so non been born or non been turned to revolution by his brother s decease, the Bolshevik party would ne’er hold existed. Lenin himself founded the party in 1903 ; he wrote the major theoretical philosophy of Bolshevism ; he led the party from its construct in 1903 through until his decease in 1924. Above all, it was he entirely who repeatedly fought to keep the political independency of the party against moves to repair ties with the Mensheviks, which would hold seen the resignation of their political being, and without the Bolshevik party, the October Revolution is unthinkable.

What is secondly, Lenin was unable to return to Russia in 1917? With this premise the Bolshevik party would hold existed, but it would hold lacked his leading at this important point. This state of affairs is sensible plausible as the troubles faced by Russian in impersonal Switzerland seeking to traverse over enemy lines back to Russia are good documented. In this instance, it is about certain that the Bolsheviks would hold supported the Probationary Government, as the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries did, instead than subverting them. This is non at all bad, but supported by documented fact. The March 1917 revolution was described by socialists as a businessperson revolution, and it would hence be premature for the Soviet to try an overthrow of the middle class. The Bolsheviks, who at the clip were a bantam minority of the Soviet, hesitated for a short clip, but on return of Starlin and Kamenev from Siberia in mid March, they excessively supported the Probationary Government. Lenin, still in Switzerland at the clip, had no influence on the party policy straight.

On Lenin s return on April 3 1917, he announced his strong belief that the Soviet should subvert the capitalist authorities and take power in its ain name and for its people. The huge bulk of his party opposed him. Despite heavy resistance and ferocious statement against it, Lenin s April Thesis finally carried the twenty-four hours and the party agreed that the demand existed to press on toward an anti-capitalist revolution. The point to be stressed here is that the determination to prosecute revolution at the clip was against the bulk of the Bolshevik party and as such without the influence of Lenin, it seems clear that the party would non hold even attempted revolution in 1917.

Lenin s April theses are of import from another facet besides, in procuring the turning popular support for the Bolshevik party. Having perpetrating themselves to the overthrow of the Probationary Government, the Bolsheviks had refused to compromise with the capitalist/landowners of the Probationary Government, as all the other socialist parties had done.

Once they had joined the first alliance, the moderate socialists became identified in the popular head with the defects of the Probationary Government. Merely the Bolsheviks among the major political parties, remained stainless by association with the authorities and were hence wholly free to organize resistance to it, a state of affairs of which the party took full advantage.

The consequence of the new party line was a monolithic addition in the party rank, peculiarly in the big metropoliss. In January 1917 the party had merely 23 600 members. At the terminal of April 80 000 and at the terminal of July, 240 000. In February 1917, the Bolsheviks held merely 40 of the 1500 seats in the Petrograd Soviet, by September 1917, that figure had increased to supply a bulk in both the Petrograd and Moscow Soviets. It was this popular support that provided the footing for the October Revolution. This overpowering growing of support is unthinkable without Lenin s committedness to the program layed out in the April Theses.

When power fell into their custodies on October 25 1917, the Bolsheviks were ready to prehend it, but it is clear that without Lenin s continual prod, the party would hold missed its opportunity. Trotsky himself accepts this ju

dgement:

Had I non been present in 1917 in Petersburg, the October Revolution would still hold taken place- on the status that Lenin was present and in bid. I neither Lenin nor I had been in Petersburg, there would hold been no October Revolution ; the leadings of the Bolshevik party would hold prevented it from happening of this I have non the slightest uncertainty.

The 2nd portion to this statement that needs to be addressed is the inquiry of without the October Revolution, the Soviet Union would ne’er hold existed. This excessively can non be argued perfectly, but I do non see it as an unreasonable claim. In the November 1917 elections for the Constituent Assembly, consequences show that despite all the support in the towns for the Bolsheviks, they would non hold gained power through constitutional agencies. The Social Revolutionaries secured an absolute bulk, with the support of the huge peasant base, of 370 of 707 seats, while the Bolsheviks merely got 175 seats. Had the October putsch ne’er been attempted, it is likely that the Bolsheviks would ne’er hold held power. Lenin himself surely believed this. Rebellion must trust upon the turning point in the history of the turning revolution It is clearly true that if the Bolsheviks had non gained power, universe history would be really different.

As for the other statement, that Lenin was simply an histrion in events controlled by natural forces, there is several ways to support this statement. First Lenin was ne’er in a place to do a revolution and he knew it, saying We of the older coevals may non populate to see the decisive conflicts of this revolution. In the absence of a radical crisis neither he, nor any other person, could convey down the authorities that ruled over the largest state in the universe. Even in October, he spoke non as an single doing a revolution, but an timeserving hoping to prehend upon chances thrust up by forces far larger than himself.

There are two elements to the chance that allowed the Bolsheviks to achieve power ; a power vacuity and the being of two alternate authoritiess.

First the power vacuity. By October 1917, the power of the established authorization had diminished to such an extent, it allowed a group every bit little as the Bolsheviks to dispute it. The Revolution itself was merely a trial of truenesss, particularly of the assorted military units in the capitals. The Bolsheviks won basically because the orders of the Military Revolutionary Council of the Soviet were more frequently obeyed so those of Kerensky s constituted authorities.

There is one really clear ground for the Probationary Government s failing, it tried to derive the support of the two sides of society ; that being the old opinion categories and the working categories, and in making so estranging both sides and losing all support. By October 1917, the Probationary Government had neither the coercive power nor the popular support necessary for a feasible authorities.

The nowadayss of two distinguishable group capable of supplying the footing for a new authorities, if the Probationary Government prostration meant that its replacing would be aligned with merely one of the two constituencies, non both as the Probationary Government had attempted. As such the Bolsheviks had the chance to prehend power.

The most likely campaigner was likely the old opinion category, which had provided the dominant resistance to Tsar Nicholas II from 1905 onwards. This group included less than 10 % of the population, yet it was the most educated, affluent and politically experient sector of the population. They controlled industry, finance and the armed forces. By late 1917, many had discarded their broad semblances and were now in support of a strong right authorities.

The other chief component was that of the working category, of soldiers, provincials and urban labor, who were interested, in above all, stoping the war, bettering the status of life and work for the provincials and the urban workers. This constituency likely accounted for more than 75 % of the Russian population, the possible power of which was shown in 1905, when this alliance brought the Czarist authorities to its articulatio genuss.

It would be absurd to province flatly that the upper categories and the working categories were homogeneous groups. They were non. The state of affairs nevertheless between the two groups was nevertheless badly divided and as such the differences within the groups were, temporarily at least, unimportant.

In 1914, a unsafe procedure of polarization appeared to be taking topographic point in Russia s major urban Centres between an obshchestvo ( broad, educated society ) and a turning discontented and ill-affected mass of industrial workers & # 8230 ;

As the civil war showed, the divisions were cardinal, and as that war besides displayed, both sides were powerful plenty to put up authoritiess, field ground forcess and act as possible authoritiess. Any future authorities would hold to seek the support of one of these groups, but non both, for their involvements were incompatible. In October 1917, the balance of power was so even that a little advantage in leading could tip the graduated tables.

In returning to the original inquiry posed, an unusual state of affairs, one feature of radical crises, had emerged in October 1917. At which clip the opposing political forces were so precariously balanced that political action by a small-determined group could hold huge political effects. This chance was non something that an single such as Lenin could hold control over, but it however took really great personal qualities of nervus, political insight and penetration to non merely see, but take advantage of the chances thrown up by Russian circumstance. In this sense, Lenin s function was vastly of import.

Bibliography

1. Carr E.H. , What is History.

2. Cherniavsky. M. The Structure of Russian Society, 1970.New York.

3. Christian. D. Power and Privilege, 1994. Longman House. Melbourne.

4. Cliff. T. Lenin, 1976. Vol. 2. Pluto Press, London.

5. Marx. K. Collected Works 1971. Advancement Publishers, Moscow.

6. Rabinowitch. A. The Bolsheviks Come to Power.1976. Norton, New York.

7. Reed. J. Ten Days that Shook the World, 1966. Penguin, Harmondsworth.