The Disagreement Between Lenin and Zinoviev/Kamenev
The disagreement between Lenin and Zinoviev and Kamenev was that Lenin
believed that Russia was ready for a Bolshevik revolution, whereas
Kamenev and Zinoviev did not. Zinoviev said that ' to stake on one
card not only the fate of our party … Russian and international
revolutions.' Here he is saying that a revolution attempt at this time
would in fact fail and that its failure would cause the Bolshevik and
Marxist movement, not only in Russia, but also across the world to
collapse.
Lenin on the other hands says that ' they wish to secure … one half of
the votes plus one. Such a guarantee history has never proffered,'
Lenin is suggesting that Zinoviev and Kamenev's view that the
Bolsheviks had to have a majority of the publics votes before
attempting a revolution was too cautious. He believed that they would
have to risk a revolution failure to have any chance of gaining power
because to have a majority of public support would not be possible.
Lenin goes on to say that 'the majority of people began quickly to go
over to the side of the Bolsheviks.' The Bolsheviks were becoming more
popular after the 'July Days' revolution and Lenin states that the
election results for Petrograd and 'borough councils in Moscow'
demonstrated this. Lenin believed that the Bolsheviks were already
popular enough for a revolution to be successful and that a majority
vote of fifty-one percent was not needed for the revolution to occur.
Zinoviev and Kamenev advised against this risk-taking, saying that '
Against this perilous policy we raise our voice in warning.'
2. Would you call Z/K's attitude 'cowardly'?
Z/K's opinion on revolution was that it was a risk and that to 'stake'
the 'fate of our party' on a revolution before a majority backing was
gained, could destroy the chance for a revolution ever again. Lenin
believed that to gain a majority vote was not necessary for a
successful revolution, and that in fact the support that the
In order to establish whether Lenin did, indeed lay the foundation for Stalinism, two questions need to be answered; what were Lenin’s plans for the future of Russia and what exactly gave rise to Stalinism? Official Soviet historians of the time at which Stalin was in power would have argued that each one answers the other. Similarly, Western historians saw Lenin as an important figure in the establishment of Stalin’s socialist state. This can be partly attributed to the prevailing current of pro-Stalin anti-Hitler sentiments amongst westerners until the outbreak of the cold war.
...ho were unable to escape. Leninism had demonstrated that it was opposed to a representative government designed with the wants of the workers in mind.
There are many people who have lived through and within the Bolshevik Revolution, so there are a multitudinous variety of perspectives, thoughts, and insights about the revolution. The Bolshevik Revolution is known for many things; some say that the revolution helped women become free of control, and others proclaim that it did nothing but continue to hold women captive of their desired rights. The Bolshevik Revolution article states the side of a history professor Richard Stites, who argues yes the revolution benefited the women whilst the other side is declared no the revolution did no justice for women at all, which was argued by a Russian scholar, Lesly A. Rimmel. The opposing arguments both create an effective view on the revolution, and
Eventually, nations collapse and kingdoms fail, termination can occur through many causes. Whether through being ruled by a sequence of out of touch men, engaging in war, having too many enemies, or an amalgamation: no nation is safe. Russia in the year of 1910 was in an immensely horrible situation, she had all of these problems. If it was not for Vladimir IIich Lenin, Russia would not have existed by 1920.
In 1902, Lenin wrote a pamphlet entitled What is to be Done? In it he
“Peace, Bread, Land” the Bolsheviks used this famous motto in their famous 1905 October revolution. The Tsar, Nicholas the second is weak, he ordered his men to fire on innocent protesters asking for change, we will force him to give up his power for the greater good. “Peace, Bread, Land” The Bolsheviks used this motto to define what they wanted to change in Russia. The peace in the front meant that Russia should not be involved in the first world war. The bread means that everyone should not be starving in Russia. Finally, the land means that everyone would not be living in the streets. The Bolsheviks held up their part of the bargain and made Russia a whole state.
Russia entered the 20th century as an oppressed tsarist state and the last of the Medieval European strongholds. The people were poor, starving and hopeless and, unlike the rest of Europe, had not experienced revolution. Eventually, however, a small group of revolutionaries emerged and overthrew the tsarist regime. Russia quickly devolved into anarchy and the resulting turmoil saw the rise of the Bolshevik Party and Vladimir Lenin. This was the beginning of the Russian Revolution, a prolonged event that deeply impacted Russia and the whole of Europe and the effects of which continue to be felt today.
On March 3, 1918 Russia lost 1/3 of its fertile farm lands, 1/3 of its
that his real aim was not to be in power but to lead the world to a
Introduction Russia is generally apportioned the benefit of having introduced a political phenomenon that basically provided an alternative to capitalism: communism. Since this concept was only set in motion at the turn of the 20th century, we can therefore deduce that, to a large extent, Russia is, to most people, synonymous with leaders such as Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev. This supposition is entirely based on the premise that the Russian revolution of 1914 inherently altered the socio-cultural and socio-political direction of the nation, bringing into birth a never before envisioned era where Russia was not ruled by the Tsars, but by simple men; men who spoke to and articulated the needs of the masses. To this extent, communism, therefore, is largely misconceived as having been the fulcrum of Russia’s civilization. Much of this misconception, as signaled earlier, is based on the growth and progression of the Russian society in the years after the revolution until 1990, when the Berlin wall fell, essentially bringing down with it decades of Soviet Union tradition based on communism.
The Russian Revolution was a turning point in history because it tried to use communism as its main principal. “Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution” (Marx Quotes: Quotes from Karl Marx and Frederick Engels). In a communist society, everyone in that society receives equal shares of the benefits derived from labor. In a communist nation, there would be a classless society, and everyone would be happy to share their wealth. The government would own all means of production, and the government would redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor. The Russian revolution started due to the lack of food in Russia, and the huge difference between the rich and the poor. The Russian people were also mad that Czar Nicholas II was keeping Russia in war. Thousands of Russian soldiers were being killed every week. At the end of the war, around 1,700,000 soldiers died (WWI Casualty and Death Tables). At least 1,500,000 Russians and possibly up to more than 5 million Russians were wounded. (WWI -- Russia).
Rule of Lenin vs the Tsar The beginning of the 20th century saw a great change in the political structure of the Russia. A country once led under an autocracy leadership. was suddenly changed into a communist state overnight. Dictatorship and communism are at separate ends of the political spectrum. This study so clearly shows both involve the oppression of society and a strict regime in which people are unable to voice their opinions.
Stalin on the other hand, saw the expansion of Communism, as the only right, after all hadn’t most of those who’d died during the world war come from Russia.
Isaac Murrin Mr. J. Pharion Freshman English 20 February 2013 The Similarities and Differences between Lenin and Stalin Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin were similar in what they claimed to be, but in actuality they were very different people. Although Stalin claimed that he followed Leninism, the philosophy that Lenin developed from Marxism, he often distorted it to follow what he wanted to do. While Lenin wanted to make a unified society without classes, with production in the hands of the people, while Stalin wanted to make Russia into a modern industrial powerhouse by using the government to control production. Lenin accomplished his goals through violence, because he thought achieving the Communist revolution was worth using violence, with a ‘The ends justify the means’ mentality. Stalin also used violence to accomplish his goals, however Stalin used much more violence than was often necessary to accomplish his goals.
“Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today.”