‘Lenin was the ruler who did the most to transform Russia in the period 1855-1956’. How far and to what extent do you agree?
In response to the question one must consider what types of change lead to transformation; this can be political, economic, social, industrial or martial change. During the period 1855-1956 Europe changed dramatically. Industry was developing and trade unions were mobilising, while the World Wars changed the way warfare was carried out. Lenin drastically changed Russia in these years by encouraging the revolution and taking advantage of the chaos in late 1917 to seize and consolidate power. This can be shown through economic policies, leadership, use of aggression within the party and his ability to undermine his opposition and appeal to the needs of the people. On the other hand, it can be argued that Stalin revolutionised Russia by introducing collectivisation and politicising terror. However, Stalinism was ultimately a product of Leninism, suggesting that Lenin still did the most to transform Russia from 1855-1956.Lenin first transformed Russia by changing popular opinion towards the Bolshevik party and placing them in a position of power. He did this through his unique employment of propaganda which mobilised people to revolt and simultaneously gain support for the party. This unique employment of propaganda can be seen in Lenin’s April Thesis delivered in April 1917. Lenin used the slogan ‘peace, bread and land’ [1]to villainise the provisional government as it exposed the changes the provisional government neglected. Lenin highlighted the government’s failure to end the war, deliver food to the workers in the cities and distribute land amongst the peasants. This use of propaganda contributed to the working classes forming the resistance against the Provisional Government. Lenin’s use of propaganda having a transformative nature is further evidenced by the surge in Bolshevik popularity by June 1917. The Bolsheviks had gone from a small party to gaining a 25% majority in the First all Russian Congress of Soviets. Lenin’s persuasiveness can be seen again on October 16th 1917 when he convinced the party that it was time for revolution[2] stating the party ‘can and must take state power into their own hands’. In doing so, Lenin made himself a catalyst for the coup d’état. Moreover, by seizing key communication points such as railway stations, post offices and telephone wires the Bolsheviks were able to control what information would become accessible to the public, allowing the Bolsheviks to gain dominance in the second largest city in Russia. As a result, Lenin can be seen as the leader who did the most to transform Russia as his unique use of persuasion and propaganda propelled the Bolshevik party to a position of power despite their unpopularity.Lenin’s manipulation of propaganda to create transformative action is seen in his speech on October 25th 1917. During his address to the citizens of Petrograd Lenin states ‘Comrades! The revolution of the workers and the peasants, which the Bolsheviks have always supported, has been achieved ...this cause has been won’[3]. The timing of the speech is significant as the Provisional Government had been displaced leaving a power vacuum. By leading this speech Lenin imposes himself as a figure head of the revolution and through his attempt to rally together workers and peasants; one can see Lenin’s motivation to fill the power vacuum. In this speech Lenin shows an awareness of his audience and his need to persuade the peasants to side with the Bolsheviks in order for him to secure power. Lenin needed to appeal to the peasants’ sense of comradry and bring them together. To achieve this, the speech’s tone is welcoming and attempts to bring together ‘The workers and the peasants’. By bringing together the two groups Lenin is attempting to use words to create action from the lower classes emphasising his transformative nature as a leader. Fundamentally, the source is valuable as it presents Lenin as a forceful leader who was able to impose himself as a figure head of the revolution and transform Russia through his employment of propaganda to mobilise action.Lenin brought about political transformation by turning Russia into a one party state and destroying leftist opposition. The constituent assembly in January 1918 exposed the weaknesses in the Bolshevik party. By winning a 38% majority, The Socialist Revolutionary Party proved they had the support of the majority of the peasants[4], showing the Bolsheviks lacked universal popularity. Lenin took action and took full control by dissolving the constituent assembly at gunpoint, the Kadets, socialist revolutionaries and the Mensheviks were all suppressed. By July 1918 all opposition both right and left had been crushed which set an example to successive Communist regimes. This trend for the suppression of opposition became essential within the management of the party, demonstrating that Lenin did the most to transform Russia. The forceful suppression of leftist opposition can be conveyed by Trotsky’s attitudes towards other parties as he stated on October 25th 1917 ‘You’re finished, you pitiful bunch of bankrupts. Your role is played out. Get out of here to where you belong – in the dustbin of history’[5]. The timing of this source is significant as the Bolsheviks were attempting to become the dominant party in Russia after the revolution, and undermine their ‘leftish opposition’. The tone is forceful and aggressive as illustrated by Trotsky’s view on the opposition belonging in the ‘dustbin of history’. The phrase ‘pitiful bunch of bankrupts’ makes their main opposition seem significantly weaker both financially and physically in comparison to the Bolsheviks in the eyes of the public. The source highlights the Bolshevik determination to undermine other parties and secure themselves as the only foundation of leadership in the country. This brought about political transformation as the Bolshevik exclusion of opposition reflects a Bolshevik need to introduce one party control. Lenin supervised the Bolshevik’s attempts to secure a one party system by eliminating leftist opposition, suggesting he played a central role in transforming Russia. Lenin’s transformative nature can be assessed by observing whether or not he directly influenced Stalin’s regime. Russian philosopher Alexander Tsipko argues Stalin was an exception to previous communist leaders, whose use of terror was an irregularity against traditional communist leadership. Historian Richard Pipes counters this by maintaining that Stalin was a product of Leninism.Tspiko’s argues in 1989 that ‘Stalin’s own ideas of a collectivist society are opposed to the way that Marx, Engles and Lenin conceived socialism’[6]. Access to the soviet archives has allowed historians to counter Tspiko’s idealised view of Lenin’s reign. Writing after the opening of the soviet archives Historian Richard Pipes argued that ‘Every ingredient of Stalinism... [was] learned from Lenin and that includes mass terror’[7]. By arguing that Stalinist ‘mass terror’ was learnt from Lenin, Pipes contends that Stalin adopted his violent methods from his predecessor. This continuity reinforces the notion that Lenin did most to transform Russia. Pipes was writing after the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1991 so his writing would not be edited to be in line with soviet censorship or propaganda. Due to the later date Pipes was writing one could say he is less likely to offer a distorted view in comparison to Tspiko therefore Pipes’ account is more accurate. Pipes is an expert historian who wrote academic books on Russia covering a large time period, thus giving him a well rounded outlook on the events he is commenting on. On the other hand, Tsipko was a philosopher therefore he would have a greater focus on the concepts of Marxist rule and how the leader practices Communist ideology over the physical historical events. The events are an important thing to consider as while claiming to be a traditional Marxist Lenin was willing to commit carnage on the working class without mercy. This can be shown in the crushing of the Kronstadt rebellion. As a result, one can say that terror was a product of Leninism. Tspiko’s view reflects a sympathy towards the USSR since Krushev began the process of destalinisation. The process of destalinisation consisted of releasing adverse information about Stalin’s use of terror while simultaneously linking Khrushchev’s regime to ‘Leninist values’. Due to the cult of Lenin that was being created during the time where Tspiko was writing one could say the view that he is presenting is distorted. In contrast to this, Richard Pipes having not grown up in the USSR, was not influenced by soviet propaganda unlike Tsipko who was surrounded by it for much of his life and worked as a consultant for the Communist Party. Moreover, Tsipko was writing under Gorbochev. This is important as Gorbochev was trying to uphold Leninist ideals as a foundation for reform therefore Tspiko would be complimentary towards Lenin[8] . These factors present the idea that Pipes would offer a less distorted view on each ruler’s contribution to the transformation of Russia. Pipes was writing about Lenin’s rule with additional material, a larger span of knowledge and he had not been influenced by propaganda growing up. Pipes was the first non-Russian historian to have access to Lenin’s archives. Pipes would be less likely to be sympathetic towards Lenin in comparison to Tspiko who was working under a Russian government. Due to this one could say that Pipes’ is more convincing as his view would be more well-rounded due to lack of political loyalty that he would have to display to the Russian government unlike Tspiko. In light of Pipes’ viewpoint, one could say that Stalin’s terror was strongly influenced by Lenin resulting in Lenin doing the most to transform Russia.On the other hand, one could say that Stalin did the most to transform Russia by politicising terror and introducing barbarity from the outset of his reign. From the 17th party congress Stalin began suppressing his opposition. After having won more votes than Stalin, Kirov was killed. This political oppression then expanded as at the beginning of 1935, 843 associates of Zimonivmev and Kamenev were arrested[9]. The introduction of show trials created an atmosphere of intimidation. In 1936 both Zinoviev and Kamenev alongside 14 others were put on trial and executed. These trials were significant as it was the first purge of Bolsheviks who belonged to the central committee. In January 1937 the Deputy Commissar for heavy industry was purged[10], seemingly as a Scapegoat for industrial failings following the five year plans. The most dramatic show trial came about in 1938 as the purged Deputy Commissioner Bukarin was one of Stalin’s closest comrades. This reinforced the idea that no one was safe. The purge also expanded into the army with 512 out of the 767 members of the high command being shot and 10,000 officers being arrested and 23,000 being dismissed[11]. The purpose of the purges was to destroy anyone suspected of disloyalty. The terror soon expanded itself with a total of 1.2 million people being killed as a result of the Terror. This transformed Russia politically as the Bolsheviks were now securing loyalty by fear. Workers were encouraged to meet their quotas to avoid being killed whilst politicians and military leaders were encouraged to be loyal to Stalin to avoid death. This allegiance through terror set a new precedent for leadership, which transformed Russia politically. Consequently, it can be argued that Stalin did the most to transform Russia. The idea that terror and fear were a necessity can be shown in the biography of Lev Kopelev, an active Bolshevik and Stalin Enthusiast who stated that in order to ‘free ourselves from barbarity we were forced to resort to barbaric methods and in repulsing cruel and crafty foes we could not do without cruelty or craftiness’[12]. The source was written in 1978 and the author is looking back in retrospective at the methods used by Stalin in order to enforce control. The use of retrospective is significant as the speaker is able to assess the outcomes of the actions which took place. The speaker Lev Kopellev is reflecting on his time supervising the collectivisation process in Ukraine. This is significant as Stalin’s enforcement of collectivisation in Ukraine was seen as particularly brutal with between six to seven million people dying from famine from 1932-1933[13]. However, despite being aware of the high death toll as he is looking back in retrospective Kopellev still states that the ‘barbaric methods’ were necessary in order for the people to ‘free themselves from barbarity’. The tone of this speech is matter of fact further reinforcing the idea that brutality was necessary under Stalin. By introducing brutality against his own people through both political terror and barabarity to further his own regime, one could argue that Stalin did the most to transform Russia. However, the extent of Stalin’s transformation can be questioned due to the temporary nature of his actions. This loyalty through fear was temporary as Khrushchev sought to reduce the trend for terror. The secret speech marked a process of destalinisation, in the 10 months that followed 617,000 prisoners were rehabilitated[14]. This marked a step away from Stalinist movement, thus concluding that Stalin’s transformation didn’t have that great an impact on Russia due to the fact is wasn’t long lasting. This is demonstrated by the secret speech as Krushev stated that ‘there were many negative phenomena that was generated by the cult (of Stalin)’. The audience of the secret speech is significant as it was directed at the party congress, made up of previously loyal followers to Stalin. By appealing to them and renouncing Stalin’s former politics, Krushchev is limiting the extent of Stalin’s transformative nature. As a result, Stalin did not do the most to transform Russia as his transformation was limited. The argument that Stalin introduced terror against one’s comrades is undermined by the fact that Stalin was a product of Leninism. Stalin’s actions could be deemed as a more extreme comparison to Lenin’s response to the Kronstadt mutiny. The Kronstadt sailors were fierce Bolshevik supporters however following the mutiny 10,000 were killed[15], thus concluding that turning the gun to one’s own comrades was current before Stalin, moreover under Lenin there was an estimate of 1.5 million deaths during red terror. Thus concluding that though Stalin consolidated the idea of loyalty through fear, it was in fact Lenin who introduced it and Stalinism was a product of Leninism. As a result Lenin did the most to transform Russia in the Period 1855-1956. This was reinforced at the 10th party congress as Lenin stated during his speech that ‘all members of the Russian communist party who are in the slightest degree suspicious or unreliable...should be got rid of’[16]. The timing of the speech is significant as it occurred shortly after the Kronstadt Mutiny; the Bolsheviks had turned on their fiercest supporters. Lenin was at risk of facing criticism due to this as critics could accuse him of turning on members of his own party. The tone of the speech is both persuasive and aggressive as the speaker (Lenin) is attempting to persuade the party members to be loyal while simultaneously justifying the 12,300 Bolshevik supporters killed in the Kronstatd mutiny. The idea that Lenin is attempting to justify the exclusion and killing of his own comrades reinforces the idea that Stalin was not the first leader to introduce violence against his own people, and Stalin’s actions were a product of Leninism. The social and economic changes made during Lenin’s leadership show that Lenin did the most to transform Russia. Edward Acton argued that ‘No Russian government had ever been more responsive to pressure from below’ than the Bolshevik government. This responsiveness can be shown through the Bolshevik decrees during their first few months in power. October 1917 saw decrees for a maximum working day of 8 hours, social insurance, a decree on peace and a decree on land. In November class distinctions were abolished while in December church influence was reduced and the army was democratised[17]. By appeasing the workers and peasants Lenin gained support for the Bolsheviks while simultaneously creating a bedrock for Bolshevik policies which were soon to come, Lenin’s decrees introduced a principle of a ‘fairer society’. These principles can be shown in Khrushchev’s reign, in 1956 as the minimum wage was seen to rise sharply while there was major expansion in the pension scheme[18]. Lenin did the most to transform Russia as he adapted socioeconomic policies in order to benefit the people, even if this meant going against his political ideology, this can be shown in the NEP. Post-civil war Russia was in a crisis state, the country had been through World War one, two revolutions and a civil war and socioeconomic conditions reflected this. By the end of 1920 industrial production had fallen by 85%, industry production was valued at 836 million roubles despite a pre war level of 6.059 billion roubles. During the war Petrograd lost 72% of its population and Moscow had lost 53%[19]. Moreover before the people’s bank was abolished mass inflation occurred with the amount of currency in circulation increasing from 225 billion roubles to 1.17 trillion roubles. In order to recover from this Russia needed to be transformed. The need for transformation was further emphasised by the Kronstadt uprisings. The Transformation came in the form of the NEP. From an economic standpoint the NEP was a success. Production from industries began to reach pre-World War one levels, the production of coal and textiles doubled the amount of land under cultivation increased by 50% from 1921-1927. The increase in income meant infrastructure was able to improve with over 1000 new engines being introduced into the transport system and food prices fell resulting in disinflation. This helped to transform Russia as it repaired the economy after crisis thus strengthening the regime, though the NEP was a movement away from the communist principles, it allowed Russia to transform itself from economic ruin. This can be shown in the improvements in farming and transport. Due to the reparation of the economy post crisis one could argue that from a socioeconomic standpoint Lenin did the most to transform Russia. Lenin facilitated transformation through creating a flexible ideology, which he adapted to suit the needs of the people. Lenin introduced transformation in Russia as he proved that ideology could be flexible to benefit the people. ‘Consequently we must seize power and keep it, make no political concessions but we must make economic ones’ [20]suggests a transformative nature of the Russian government as one sees the Bolshevik government making concessions for the sake of the people. The timing of this speech is significant as it came shortly after the Volga famine where around 5 million people died[21]. The tone of the speech is again persuasive as many people in the country were becoming discontented with the Bolshevik management of power due to the famine so it was essential for Lenin to introduce change. However, the economic concessions were not well received as the NEP allowed private trading, this was against Bolshevik political ideology as a result Lenin had to persaude the other party members to support the idea. By going against his political ideology in order to improve his parties standing one could say that Lenin was transformative. This transformative nature can be reinforced by the fact Lenin’s predecessors were very reluctant to introduce political change in order to benefit the people. This is shown through the Tsarina’s letters to her husband in 1915 ‘you are an autocrat they dare not forget’ [22] which completely juxtaposes Lenin ‘concessions’ that he is willing to make towards his people. The timing of the letter is significant as it came during 1915 when the Tsar was on the front line and the country was in chaos. Yet, despite this the tone of the speech is forceful suggesting an unwillingness to change. This perpetuates the idea that remaining autocratic and enforcing divine right was more important than the welfare of the people. This reinforces the idea that Lenin did the most to transform Russia as he improved the economy and introduced a government that was willing to conform for the people, unlike the policies of his predecessors. However, without Alexander introducing partial improvement to socio-economic conditions there would be no foundation on which to build the NEP on. As a result, one could argue that it was Alexander II who was responsible for doing the most to transform Russia. This can be shown with the emancipation of the serfs in February 1861 which showed Alexander’s willingness to respond to the needs of the people. This is further reinforced by Alexander’s other reforms that aimed to create a fairer society. Zemstov’s were introduced as elected councils giving a higher number of people a say in government, educational reforms were introduced providing primary education to all children and in the army conscription was introduced across all classes as opposed to just peasants. Alexander II’s wish to transform the government to benefit the people is revealed in his speech to Moscow nobility on March 30th 1856, where he states ‘it is better to begin abolishing serfdom from above than to wait for it to begin abolishing itself from below’[23]. The audience of this speech is significant as he is addressing the nobility in order to introduce change and take substantial steps towards creating an equal society for the first time in Russia. Arguably this introduced the idea of equality in society which became popular during the revolutions much later; due to introducing social reform to Russia one could argue that Alexander II did the most to transform Russia. However, this is destabilized by the fact that unlike Lenin there is very little evidence consolidating the fact that Alexander II’s reforms made any notable impact on society. Russian farming was still on the decline and produced only 25% of what Britain did in 1900. The Zemstov’s were dominated by the nobles with a 70% majority in the provincial councils meaning little concessions were made in favour of the peasants. Despite the education edict little was done to put it into effect and while the army was deemed more ‘fair’ it was still inefficient as weapons were introduced slowly and with reluctance. As a result, despite his attempts, Alexander’s transformation of Russia was unsuccessful. Thus, Lenin did more to change Russia.In response to the question it can be said that Lenin did the most to transform Russia in the years 1855-1956. Lenin’s unique use of propaganda allowed a new system of government to emerge. The impact of this political transformation can be seen through the increase in Bolshevik power despite the party not being the most popular. However, it does need to be acknowledged that the changes were not just political; one can see that Lenin’s rise to power saw the emergence of both economic and social change as well. The social change can be defined through the rise of terror. Although events such as Bloody Sunday in January 1905 show the Tsars were not afraid to use violence against their own people, events such as the Kronstadt Mutiny and Stalin’s purges show a readiness to commit crimes against one’s own in order to ensure loyalty, thus emphasising the fact that Lenin did transform Russia. Finally, there was a large amount of economic change which Lenin can be credited for. The NEP allowed Russia to repair itself after World War 1, the revolutions and the Civil war. In addition, Lenin crucially adapted his ideology to suit the needs of the people, which was a stark contrast to the Tsars’ absolutist principles. Lenin had a political, social and economic impact on Russia, which directly affected Stalin’s regime and his successors. Due to this, it can be agreed that Lenin did the most to transform Russia. [1] http://1917russianrevolution.weebly.com/bolshevism.html[2] Revolutionary Russia, 1891-1991 Orlando Figes (Pelican Books) p.127[3] Lenin, October 25 1917. Quoted in, Russia, a 1,000-year chronicle of the wild east Martin Sixsmith (Random House, 2011) p. 206.
[4] Revolutionary Russia, 1891-1991 Orlando Figes[5] Leon Trotsky, 25 October 1917. Quoted in Orlando Figes, A People’s Tragedy: the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924, (Pimlico; new edition, 1997) pp. 490-491 or[6] From ‘The Roots of Stalinism’ a series of essays produced by Alexander Tsipko between 1988-89, condensed and translated in ‘A Documentary History of Communism in Russia: From Lenin to Gorbachev’ p.366 (Vermont, 1993)
[7] A concise history of the Russian Revolution, Richard Pipes (Vintage Books, 1997)[8] Peter Bruhn GLASNOST IN THE SOVIET LIBRARY From: MAGAZINE FOR LIBRARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY. - Frankfurt am Main, Jg.36.1989, Issue 4, p.360-366.[9] Tsarist and Communist Russia (Hodder Education) p. 209[10] Reforming the Russian Legal System Gordon B Smith (Cambridge University Press 1996) p. 38[11] Tsarist and Communist Russia (Hodder Education) p. 209[12] The Education of a True Believer (New York: Harper and Row, 1980; originally published inRussian, 1978), pp. 122-23.
[13] https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ukra.html[14] Gulag: A history of the Soviet Camps, Anne Applebaum Chapter 25[15] Revolutionary Russia, 1891-1991 Orlando Figes[16] Quoted in The Russian Revolution, Sheila Fitzpatrick, p. 102.1[17] http://russianrevolution.blogspot.co.uk/2005/05/bolshevik-policies-in-their-first.html[18] Tsarist and Communist Russia 1855-1954 (Hodder Education) P 274
[20] “The New Economic Policy of Soviet Russia”, a lecture to the delegates of the Third World Congress of the Comintern in Moscow, delivered on July 8th, 1921, on the significance of the new economic policy of Soviet Russia. [21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921%E2%80%9322[22] June 1915, quoted in Orlando Figes, A People’s Tragedy: the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924, (Pimlico; new edition, 1997) p. 276.
[23] George Vernadsky et al. (eds), A Source Book for Russian History from Early Times to 1917. Vol. 3 Alexander II to the February Revolution (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 589.In response to the question one must consider what types of change lead to transformation; this can be political, economic, social, industrial or martial change. During the period 1855-1956 Europe changed dramatically. Industry was developing and trade unions were mobilising, while the World Wars changed the way warfare was carried out. Lenin drastically changed Russia in these years by encouraging the revolution and taking advantage of the chaos in late 1917 to seize and consolidate power. This can be shown through economic policies, leadership, use of aggression within the party and his ability to undermine his opposition and appeal to the needs of the people. On the other hand, it can be argued that Stalin revolutionised Russia by introducing collectivisation and politicising terror. However, Stalinism was ultimately a product of Leninism, suggesting that Lenin still did the most to transform Russia from 1855-1956.Lenin first transformed Russia by changing popular opinion towards the Bolshevik party and placing them in a position of power. He did this through his unique employment of propaganda which mobilised people to revolt and simultaneously gain support for the party. This unique employment of propaganda can be seen in Lenin’s April Thesis delivered in April 1917. Lenin used the slogan ‘peace, bread and land’ [1]to villainise the provisional government as it exposed the changes the provisional government neglected. Lenin highlighted the government’s failure to end the war, deliver food to the workers in the cities and distribute land amongst the peasants. This use of propaganda contributed to the working classes forming the resistance against the Provisional Government. Lenin’s use of propaganda having a transformative nature is further evidenced by the surge in Bolshevik popularity by June 1917. The Bolsheviks had gone from a small party to gaining a 25% majority in the First all Russian Congress of Soviets. Lenin’s persuasiveness can be seen again on October 16th 1917 when he convinced the party that it was time for revolution[2] stating the party ‘can and must take state power into their own hands’. In doing so, Lenin made himself a catalyst for the coup d’état. Moreover, by seizing key communication points such as railway stations, post offices and telephone wires the Bolsheviks were able to control what information would become accessible to the public, allowing the Bolsheviks to gain dominance in the second largest city in Russia. As a result, Lenin can be seen as the leader who did the most to transform Russia as his unique use of persuasion and propaganda propelled the Bolshevik party to a position of power despite their unpopularity.Lenin’s manipulation of propaganda to create transformative action is seen in his speech on October 25th 1917. During his address to the citizens of Petrograd Lenin states ‘Comrades! The revolution of the workers and the peasants, which the Bolsheviks have always supported, has been achieved ...this cause has been won’[3]. The timing of the speech is significant as the Provisional Government had been displaced leaving a power vacuum. By leading this speech Lenin imposes himself as a figure head of the revolution and through his attempt to rally together workers and peasants; one can see Lenin’s motivation to fill the power vacuum. In this speech Lenin shows an awareness of his audience and his need to persuade the peasants to side with the Bolsheviks in order for him to secure power. Lenin needed to appeal to the peasants’ sense of comradry and bring them together. To achieve this, the speech’s tone is welcoming and attempts to bring together ‘The workers and the peasants’. By bringing together the two groups Lenin is attempting to use words to create action from the lower classes emphasising his transformative nature as a leader. Fundamentally, the source is valuable as it presents Lenin as a forceful leader who was able to impose himself as a figure head of the revolution and transform Russia through his employment of propaganda to mobilise action.Lenin brought about political transformation by turning Russia into a one party state and destroying leftist opposition. The constituent assembly in January 1918 exposed the weaknesses in the Bolshevik party. By winning a 38% majority, The Socialist Revolutionary Party proved they had the support of the majority of the peasants[4], showing the Bolsheviks lacked universal popularity. Lenin took action and took full control by dissolving the constituent assembly at gunpoint, the Kadets, socialist revolutionaries and the Mensheviks were all suppressed. By July 1918 all opposition both right and left had been crushed which set an example to successive Communist regimes. This trend for the suppression of opposition became essential within the management of the party, demonstrating that Lenin did the most to transform Russia. The forceful suppression of leftist opposition can be conveyed by Trotsky’s attitudes towards other parties as he stated on October 25th 1917 ‘You’re finished, you pitiful bunch of bankrupts. Your role is played out. Get out of here to where you belong – in the dustbin of history’[5]. The timing of this source is significant as the Bolsheviks were attempting to become the dominant party in Russia after the revolution, and undermine their ‘leftish opposition’. The tone is forceful and aggressive as illustrated by Trotsky’s view on the opposition belonging in the ‘dustbin of history’. The phrase ‘pitiful bunch of bankrupts’ makes their main opposition seem significantly weaker both financially and physically in comparison to the Bolsheviks in the eyes of the public. The source highlights the Bolshevik determination to undermine other parties and secure themselves as the only foundation of leadership in the country. This brought about political transformation as the Bolshevik exclusion of opposition reflects a Bolshevik need to introduce one party control. Lenin supervised the Bolshevik’s attempts to secure a one party system by eliminating leftist opposition, suggesting he played a central role in transforming Russia. Lenin’s transformative nature can be assessed by observing whether or not he directly influenced Stalin’s regime. Russian philosopher Alexander Tsipko argues Stalin was an exception to previous communist leaders, whose use of terror was an irregularity against traditional communist leadership. Historian Richard Pipes counters this by maintaining that Stalin was a product of Leninism.Tspiko’s argues in 1989 that ‘Stalin’s own ideas of a collectivist society are opposed to the way that Marx, Engles and Lenin conceived socialism’[6]. Access to the soviet archives has allowed historians to counter Tspiko’s idealised view of Lenin’s reign. Writing after the opening of the soviet archives Historian Richard Pipes argued that ‘Every ingredient of Stalinism... [was] learned from Lenin and that includes mass terror’[7]. By arguing that Stalinist ‘mass terror’ was learnt from Lenin, Pipes contends that Stalin adopted his violent methods from his predecessor. This continuity reinforces the notion that Lenin did most to transform Russia. Pipes was writing after the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1991 so his writing would not be edited to be in line with soviet censorship or propaganda. Due to the later date Pipes was writing one could say he is less likely to offer a distorted view in comparison to Tspiko therefore Pipes’ account is more accurate. Pipes is an expert historian who wrote academic books on Russia covering a large time period, thus giving him a well rounded outlook on the events he is commenting on. On the other hand, Tsipko was a philosopher therefore he would have a greater focus on the concepts of Marxist rule and how the leader practices Communist ideology over the physical historical events. The events are an important thing to consider as while claiming to be a traditional Marxist Lenin was willing to commit carnage on the working class without mercy. This can be shown in the crushing of the Kronstadt rebellion. As a result, one can say that terror was a product of Leninism. Tspiko’s view reflects a sympathy towards the USSR since Krushev began the process of destalinisation. The process of destalinisation consisted of releasing adverse information about Stalin’s use of terror while simultaneously linking Khrushchev’s regime to ‘Leninist values’. Due to the cult of Lenin that was being created during the time where Tspiko was writing one could say the view that he is presenting is distorted. In contrast to this, Richard Pipes having not grown up in the USSR, was not influenced by soviet propaganda unlike Tsipko who was surrounded by it for much of his life and worked as a consultant for the Communist Party. Moreover, Tsipko was writing under Gorbochev. This is important as Gorbochev was trying to uphold Leninist ideals as a foundation for reform therefore Tspiko would be complimentary towards Lenin[8] . These factors present the idea that Pipes would offer a less distorted view on each ruler’s contribution to the transformation of Russia. Pipes was writing about Lenin’s rule with additional material, a larger span of knowledge and he had not been influenced by propaganda growing up. Pipes was the first non-Russian historian to have access to Lenin’s archives. Pipes would be less likely to be sympathetic towards Lenin in comparison to Tspiko who was working under a Russian government. Due to this one could say that Pipes’ is more convincing as his view would be more well-rounded due to lack of political loyalty that he would have to display to the Russian government unlike Tspiko. In light of Pipes’ viewpoint, one could say that Stalin’s terror was strongly influenced by Lenin resulting in Lenin doing the most to transform Russia.On the other hand, one could say that Stalin did the most to transform Russia by politicising terror and introducing barbarity from the outset of his reign. From the 17th party congress Stalin began suppressing his opposition. After having won more votes than Stalin, Kirov was killed. This political oppression then expanded as at the beginning of 1935, 843 associates of Zimonivmev and Kamenev were arrested[9]. The introduction of show trials created an atmosphere of intimidation. In 1936 both Zinoviev and Kamenev alongside 14 others were put on trial and executed. These trials were significant as it was the first purge of Bolsheviks who belonged to the central committee. In January 1937 the Deputy Commissar for heavy industry was purged[10], seemingly as a Scapegoat for industrial failings following the five year plans. The most dramatic show trial came about in 1938 as the purged Deputy Commissioner Bukarin was one of Stalin’s closest comrades. This reinforced the idea that no one was safe. The purge also expanded into the army with 512 out of the 767 members of the high command being shot and 10,000 officers being arrested and 23,000 being dismissed[11]. The purpose of the purges was to destroy anyone suspected of disloyalty. The terror soon expanded itself with a total of 1.2 million people being killed as a result of the Terror. This transformed Russia politically as the Bolsheviks were now securing loyalty by fear. Workers were encouraged to meet their quotas to avoid being killed whilst politicians and military leaders were encouraged to be loyal to Stalin to avoid death. This allegiance through terror set a new precedent for leadership, which transformed Russia politically. Consequently, it can be argued that Stalin did the most to transform Russia. The idea that terror and fear were a necessity can be shown in the biography of Lev Kopelev, an active Bolshevik and Stalin Enthusiast who stated that in order to ‘free ourselves from barbarity we were forced to resort to barbaric methods and in repulsing cruel and crafty foes we could not do without cruelty or craftiness’[12]. The source was written in 1978 and the author is looking back in retrospective at the methods used by Stalin in order to enforce control. The use of retrospective is significant as the speaker is able to assess the outcomes of the actions which took place. The speaker Lev Kopellev is reflecting on his time supervising the collectivisation process in Ukraine. This is significant as Stalin’s enforcement of collectivisation in Ukraine was seen as particularly brutal with between six to seven million people dying from famine from 1932-1933[13]. However, despite being aware of the high death toll as he is looking back in retrospective Kopellev still states that the ‘barbaric methods’ were necessary in order for the people to ‘free themselves from barbarity’. The tone of this speech is matter of fact further reinforcing the idea that brutality was necessary under Stalin. By introducing brutality against his own people through both political terror and barabarity to further his own regime, one could argue that Stalin did the most to transform Russia. However, the extent of Stalin’s transformation can be questioned due to the temporary nature of his actions. This loyalty through fear was temporary as Khrushchev sought to reduce the trend for terror. The secret speech marked a process of destalinisation, in the 10 months that followed 617,000 prisoners were rehabilitated[14]. This marked a step away from Stalinist movement, thus concluding that Stalin’s transformation didn’t have that great an impact on Russia due to the fact is wasn’t long lasting. This is demonstrated by the secret speech as Krushev stated that ‘there were many negative phenomena that was generated by the cult (of Stalin)’. The audience of the secret speech is significant as it was directed at the party congress, made up of previously loyal followers to Stalin. By appealing to them and renouncing Stalin’s former politics, Krushchev is limiting the extent of Stalin’s transformative nature. As a result, Stalin did not do the most to transform Russia as his transformation was limited. The argument that Stalin introduced terror against one’s comrades is undermined by the fact that Stalin was a product of Leninism. Stalin’s actions could be deemed as a more extreme comparison to Lenin’s response to the Kronstadt mutiny. The Kronstadt sailors were fierce Bolshevik supporters however following the mutiny 10,000 were killed[15], thus concluding that turning the gun to one’s own comrades was current before Stalin, moreover under Lenin there was an estimate of 1.5 million deaths during red terror. Thus concluding that though Stalin consolidated the idea of loyalty through fear, it was in fact Lenin who introduced it and Stalinism was a product of Leninism. As a result Lenin did the most to transform Russia in the Period 1855-1956. This was reinforced at the 10th party congress as Lenin stated during his speech that ‘all members of the Russian communist party who are in the slightest degree suspicious or unreliable...should be got rid of’[16]. The timing of the speech is significant as it occurred shortly after the Kronstadt Mutiny; the Bolsheviks had turned on their fiercest supporters. Lenin was at risk of facing criticism due to this as critics could accuse him of turning on members of his own party. The tone of the speech is both persuasive and aggressive as the speaker (Lenin) is attempting to persuade the party members to be loyal while simultaneously justifying the 12,300 Bolshevik supporters killed in the Kronstatd mutiny. The idea that Lenin is attempting to justify the exclusion and killing of his own comrades reinforces the idea that Stalin was not the first leader to introduce violence against his own people, and Stalin’s actions were a product of Leninism. The social and economic changes made during Lenin’s leadership show that Lenin did the most to transform Russia. Edward Acton argued that ‘No Russian government had ever been more responsive to pressure from below’ than the Bolshevik government. This responsiveness can be shown through the Bolshevik decrees during their first few months in power. October 1917 saw decrees for a maximum working day of 8 hours, social insurance, a decree on peace and a decree on land. In November class distinctions were abolished while in December church influence was reduced and the army was democratised[17]. By appeasing the workers and peasants Lenin gained support for the Bolsheviks while simultaneously creating a bedrock for Bolshevik policies which were soon to come, Lenin’s decrees introduced a principle of a ‘fairer society’. These principles can be shown in Khrushchev’s reign, in 1956 as the minimum wage was seen to rise sharply while there was major expansion in the pension scheme[18]. Lenin did the most to transform Russia as he adapted socioeconomic policies in order to benefit the people, even if this meant going against his political ideology, this can be shown in the NEP. Post-civil war Russia was in a crisis state, the country had been through World War one, two revolutions and a civil war and socioeconomic conditions reflected this. By the end of 1920 industrial production had fallen by 85%, industry production was valued at 836 million roubles despite a pre war level of 6.059 billion roubles. During the war Petrograd lost 72% of its population and Moscow had lost 53%[19]. Moreover before the people’s bank was abolished mass inflation occurred with the amount of currency in circulation increasing from 225 billion roubles to 1.17 trillion roubles. In order to recover from this Russia needed to be transformed. The need for transformation was further emphasised by the Kronstadt uprisings. The Transformation came in the form of the NEP. From an economic standpoint the NEP was a success. Production from industries began to reach pre-World War one levels, the production of coal and textiles doubled the amount of land under cultivation increased by 50% from 1921-1927. The increase in income meant infrastructure was able to improve with over 1000 new engines being introduced into the transport system and food prices fell resulting in disinflation. This helped to transform Russia as it repaired the economy after crisis thus strengthening the regime, though the NEP was a movement away from the communist principles, it allowed Russia to transform itself from economic ruin. This can be shown in the improvements in farming and transport. Due to the reparation of the economy post crisis one could argue that from a socioeconomic standpoint Lenin did the most to transform Russia. Lenin facilitated transformation through creating a flexible ideology, which he adapted to suit the needs of the people. Lenin introduced transformation in Russia as he proved that ideology could be flexible to benefit the people. ‘Consequently we must seize power and keep it, make no political concessions but we must make economic ones’ [20]suggests a transformative nature of the Russian government as one sees the Bolshevik government making concessions for the sake of the people. The timing of this speech is significant as it came shortly after the Volga famine where around 5 million people died[21]. The tone of the speech is again persuasive as many people in the country were becoming discontented with the Bolshevik management of power due to the famine so it was essential for Lenin to introduce change. However, the economic concessions were not well received as the NEP allowed private trading, this was against Bolshevik political ideology as a result Lenin had to persaude the other party members to support the idea. By going against his political ideology in order to improve his parties standing one could say that Lenin was transformative. This transformative nature can be reinforced by the fact Lenin’s predecessors were very reluctant to introduce political change in order to benefit the people. This is shown through the Tsarina’s letters to her husband in 1915 ‘you are an autocrat they dare not forget’ [22] which completely juxtaposes Lenin ‘concessions’ that he is willing to make towards his people. The timing of the letter is significant as it came during 1915 when the Tsar was on the front line and the country was in chaos. Yet, despite this the tone of the speech is forceful suggesting an unwillingness to change. This perpetuates the idea that remaining autocratic and enforcing divine right was more important than the welfare of the people. This reinforces the idea that Lenin did the most to transform Russia as he improved the economy and introduced a government that was willing to conform for the people, unlike the policies of his predecessors. However, without Alexander introducing partial improvement to socio-economic conditions there would be no foundation on which to build the NEP on. As a result, one could argue that it was Alexander II who was responsible for doing the most to transform Russia. This can be shown with the emancipation of the serfs in February 1861 which showed Alexander’s willingness to respond to the needs of the people. This is further reinforced by Alexander’s other reforms that aimed to create a fairer society. Zemstov’s were introduced as elected councils giving a higher number of people a say in government, educational reforms were introduced providing primary education to all children and in the army conscription was introduced across all classes as opposed to just peasants. Alexander II’s wish to transform the government to benefit the people is revealed in his speech to Moscow nobility on March 30th 1856, where he states ‘it is better to begin abolishing serfdom from above than to wait for it to begin abolishing itself from below’[23]. The audience of this speech is significant as he is addressing the nobility in order to introduce change and take substantial steps towards creating an equal society for the first time in Russia. Arguably this introduced the idea of equality in society which became popular during the revolutions much later; due to introducing social reform to Russia one could argue that Alexander II did the most to transform Russia. However, this is destabilized by the fact that unlike Lenin there is very little evidence consolidating the fact that Alexander II’s reforms made any notable impact on society. Russian farming was still on the decline and produced only 25% of what Britain did in 1900. The Zemstov’s were dominated by the nobles with a 70% majority in the provincial councils meaning little concessions were made in favour of the peasants. Despite the education edict little was done to put it into effect and while the army was deemed more ‘fair’ it was still inefficient as weapons were introduced slowly and with reluctance. As a result, despite his attempts, Alexander’s transformation of Russia was unsuccessful. Thus, Lenin did more to change Russia.In response to the question it can be said that Lenin did the most to transform Russia in the years 1855-1956. Lenin’s unique use of propaganda allowed a new system of government to emerge. The impact of this political transformation can be seen through the increase in Bolshevik power despite the party not being the most popular. However, it does need to be acknowledged that the changes were not just political; one can see that Lenin’s rise to power saw the emergence of both economic and social change as well. The social change can be defined through the rise of terror. Although events such as Bloody Sunday in January 1905 show the Tsars were not afraid to use violence against their own people, events such as the Kronstadt Mutiny and Stalin’s purges show a readiness to commit crimes against one’s own in order to ensure loyalty, thus emphasising the fact that Lenin did transform Russia. Finally, there was a large amount of economic change which Lenin can be credited for. The NEP allowed Russia to repair itself after World War 1, the revolutions and the Civil war. In addition, Lenin crucially adapted his ideology to suit the needs of the people, which was a stark contrast to the Tsars’ absolutist principles. Lenin had a political, social and economic impact on Russia, which directly affected Stalin’s regime and his successors. Due to this, it can be agreed that Lenin did the most to transform Russia. [1] http://1917russianrevolution.weebly.com/bolshevism.html[2] Revolutionary Russia, 1891-1991 Orlando Figes (Pelican Books) p.127[3] Lenin, October 25 1917. Quoted in, Russia, a 1,000-year chronicle of the wild east Martin Sixsmith (Random House, 2011) p. 206.
[4] Revolutionary Russia, 1891-1991 Orlando Figes[5] Leon Trotsky, 25 October 1917. Quoted in Orlando Figes, A People’s Tragedy: the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924, (Pimlico; new edition, 1997) pp. 490-491 or[6] From ‘The Roots of Stalinism’ a series of essays produced by Alexander Tsipko between 1988-89, condensed and translated in ‘A Documentary History of Communism in Russia: From Lenin to Gorbachev’ p.366 (Vermont, 1993)
[7] A concise history of the Russian Revolution, Richard Pipes (Vintage Books, 1997)[8] Peter Bruhn GLASNOST IN THE SOVIET LIBRARY From: MAGAZINE FOR LIBRARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY. - Frankfurt am Main, Jg.36.1989, Issue 4, p.360-366.[9] Tsarist and Communist Russia (Hodder Education) p. 209[10] Reforming the Russian Legal System Gordon B Smith (Cambridge University Press 1996) p. 38[11] Tsarist and Communist Russia (Hodder Education) p. 209[12] The Education of a True Believer (New York: Harper and Row, 1980; originally published inRussian, 1978), pp. 122-23.
[13] https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ukra.html[14] Gulag: A history of the Soviet Camps, Anne Applebaum Chapter 25[15] Revolutionary Russia, 1891-1991 Orlando Figes[16] Quoted in The Russian Revolution, Sheila Fitzpatrick, p. 102.1[17] http://russianrevolution.blogspot.co.uk/2005/05/bolshevik-policies-in-their-first.html[18] Tsarist and Communist Russia 1855-1954 (Hodder Education) P 274
[20] “The New Economic Policy of Soviet Russia”, a lecture to the delegates of the Third World Congress of the Comintern in Moscow, delivered on July 8th, 1921, on the significance of the new economic policy of Soviet Russia. [21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921%E2%80%9322[22] June 1915, quoted in Orlando Figes, A People’s Tragedy: the Russian Revolution, 1891-1924, (Pimlico; new edition, 1997) p. 276.
[23] George Vernadsky et al. (eds), A Source Book for Russian History from Early Times to 1917. Vol. 3 Alexander II to the February Revolution (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 589.
