Lenin's Legacy

The first section of Fitzpatrick’s essay discusses how Marxism was such an important part to creating classes during the Bolsheviks rule in the beginning of the 20th Century. She notes that this western belief system was popular with Russian intellectuals, especially on revolutionary left. (173) However, around the 1890’s industrialization was starting to catch up with the Marxist dreams, and the first soviets were founded in Moscow and Petersburg in 1905 helped bring down the tsarist regime in February 1917 (Suny 173).

The concoction of communist regime caused paranoia within the people which lead to riots. The history of the Soviet Union greatly contributed to this unjustified fear. During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx, a revolutionary socialist, wrote the “Communist Manifesto” which presented the idea of Communism. In this political ideal, property is publicly owned and workers are paid to extent of their abilities and needs. Nowhere does the theory state dictatorship or any type of totalitarian government. This revolutionary speculation remains as Russia’s greatest achievements in history and unforgotten. However when Vladimir Lenin took control of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1917,

Lenin grew up in a middle class family but was never fond of the political party and the class system. Having a Marxist political belief system, Lenin wanted the government to own and control everything. After taking control of the Soviet Union, Lenin wanted supreme power for himself and the government, with hopes to make all of the citizens’ equal. Throughout his reign, the Soviet Union was crowded with war, disease, and destruction. His idea of a perfect communist society was anything but

The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was the seizure of power by the radical Marxists led by Vladimir Lenin and was one of the pivotal moments of the 20th Century. The ramifications of the event, and the subsequent establishment of the world's first Communist regime were immediately obvious, but also had continuing repercussions for decades. This essay will argue that although Lenin and Stalin seemed to have conflicting views, in reality they shared very similar policies; Stalin just took these policies to an extreme.

Karl Marx was a communist researcher and coordinator, a key character in the historical locale of economic and hypothetical idea, and an awesome societal prophet. But it is as a sociological theorist that he commands our interest. Society, according to Marx, involved a moving equalization of contradictory powers that create social change by their strain and battle. Marx's vision depended on a transformative purpose of flight. For him, battle instead of quiet development was the motor of advance; strife was the father of all things, and social conflict the principal of historic process. This reasoning was in opposition with the greater part of the teachings of his eighteenth century antecedents, however tweaked in to much nineteenth century thought. To Marx the propelling power in history was the way in which men classify each other in their consistent battle to seize their work from nature. "The first historical act is . . . the production of material life itself. This is indeed a historical act, a fundamental condition of all history" (Bancroft and Rogers, 2010). A communist state would have the laborers possess the methods for generation and all would share the benefits similarly. The laborers would be working for themselves, not for the advantage of the business people. All types of government would gradually vanish, as the laborers comprehended the advantage of working for the benefit of each other. When this model situation happened, his optimal society that he called

1.Lenin and Stalin were in control of the Bolsheviks party. The beginning of the Bolsheviks’ Revolution Lenin’s words were yelled throughout the streets, “ All power to the soviets, Peace, Land, and Bread.” With the support of many city soviets, Lenin began to take power. The first thing Lenin does while in charge was distributing all farmland amongst the peasants. He let factories be controlled by the workers. The Bolsheviks party was all about helping the lower class. When people want to kill the czar, Lenin sees his opportunity to seize all power. The Russian Civil War ensues and the Bolsheviks take over. Lenine enforces the New Economic Policy which allows peasants to sell their surplus crop instead of handing it over to the government. When the Bolsheviks party was renamed the Communist Party, Lenin declared established a dictatorship. Lenin led the Communist party very successful, but as he got older he retired his position to Joseph Stalin. By 1924 Joseph Stalin received total control of the Communist Party. Stalin turned Russia into a police state, and turned against the Communist Party members. He concealed total control Soviet government. Lenin and Stalin transform Communist Party and Russia completely during their rule.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 set the country on a course that few other countries took in the 20th century. The shift from the direction of a democratic, parliamentary-style government to a one party communist rule was a drastic change that many did not and could not predict. Looking back on this key moment in Russian history, many historians ask the question ‘why did the political power in Russia shift to the Bolsheviks’? Since the revolution in 1905 Russia was becoming progressively more democratic, distributing power throughout the political sphere. This came to an abrupt halt when Vladimir Lenin was put into power by the Bolshevik takeover of the Provisional Government. Many authors have had different takes on this event. Two particularly interesting ones were Arthur Mendel and John D. Basil. Their pieces On Interpreting the Fate of Imperial Russia and Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution give various perspectives on the Russian Revolution and attempt to answer the question of the power shift. This key point in Russia’s history sets the tone for the next 100 years. Russia became a superpower, an enemy of the United States, started multiple wars directly and indirectly, and started using an economic system used by various countries around the world. Today we still see the effects of the 1917 Revolution. Looking at both Mendel’s and Basil’s attempt to answer why the power shifted to the Bolsheviks. Since both historian 's account of the events is different they cannot

Revolution followed shortly after in 1905, a failed attempt at ousting the Romanov royal family, that ultimately succeeded in pressuring Czar Nicholas II into ceding greater political freedoms unto the Russian people. Nonetheless, Russian blood had been spilt on Bloody Sunday, and not all Russians were so keen on forgetting how their tsar let loose his soldiers on innocent workers led by an Orthodox priest, and so revolutionary and socialist sentiment prevailed long after the Revolution of 1905. By then the redeeming features of tsarist Russia had long expired. Russia’s involvement in the Great War proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, as the dissatisfied subjects of Czar Nicholas II, refused his authority in favor socialist political parties, such as the Bolshevik Party led by Vladimir Lenin, who promised a Russian society ridden of inequality and injustice. The introduction of the Communist Party during the November Revolution of 1917 paved the way for radical economic and political change, as Russia emerged from near ruin as the world’s first communist state. However, progress once

Founding the Russian Communist Party and leading the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Vladimir Lenin was one of the most essential and controversial figures in the 20th century. Deeply believing in Marxism, Lenin devoted his Initiated for the undertaking of communism in Russia. However, although undoubtedly a great leader who made a significant contribution in politics and philosophy to the world, Lenin made considerable bad judgments in the field of economy. By analyzing the economic policies of Lenin through the lens of modern American politics—including the traditional capitalism theory, the politics of the democratic and the republican party, and a growing socialism in America—people can have a new understanding of Lenin 's policy and of the economics problems the modern society facing.

The Revolution did not meet its goals in that it was supposed to not be similar to the Tzar, yet Lenin found himself in an extremely similar position. “‘What enviable blindness…what propertied classes when they’ve long been abolished by the sense of previous decrees?’”(Pasternak 453). Lenin came to have total power, with no one

Russia under Stalin was a country that had just undergone extensive social and political change in an abrupt and intense manner, going from one extreme of governance – absolute monarchy - to another, communism. This violent shift in Russia’s societal infrastructure had created a major lack of movement and evolution in Russian industry, and Russia was lagging behind the rest of Europe in manners of trading, production and technology. Lenin had fostered a dream of having the entirety of Russia lit up by electricity and modern means of communication in ten years. However, this was not just a dream of an advanced society: Lenin was sure that without this lurch forward to meet and contend with the competition of other countries, they would not last, and this was echoed by Stalin when he came into power; “We are fifty of a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this lag in ten years. Either we accomplish this or we will be crushed.” After Lenin’s death, Stalin as the figurehead of communism and leadership in Russia now faced meet the promises of an untested system – a free, functioning Russia as spearhead of the communist movement.

The very definition of Karl Marx’s communism preaches for the abolition of government, opting for an autonomous, classless society. The truth is we have failed to construct a completely communist society. Many of Karl Marx’s ideas have re-emerged in recent years, albeit not under the name of communism. The common people, the poor and downtrodden masses are resurrecting Marx’s communism and revising the system to address the limitations and

Karl Marx, lived between 1818 and 1883, was a humanist, materialist, and a philosopher, not an economist, contrary to popular belief. “[…] a man engaged in endless internecine political and philosophical warfare” (Menand, 2016, pg. 2). He is the author to the popular text, “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848), where Marx defined communism, discussed how industrial capitalism is evil, alienation versus objectification, liberation from alienation, types of class struggles in society, dialectical materialism, and socialism. Marx have always been harshly criticized for his advocacy of communism, but often times, it’s only because people fail to understand Marx’s communism (Marxism). The communism that modern days’ people came to know of are through the political system of Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, among other communist countries, where it’s controlled through absolute dictatorship and human’s freedom is reduced; the rise of state capitalism and crude communism. In this essay, I will define communism based Marx’s definition in his text, “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, and explore why and how communism has been distorted for political purposes.

“Why were there two revolutions in Russia in 1917? Why did the Provisional Government exist for mere months, yet the Bolsheviks had consolidated their authority in the country by Lenin’s death in 1924?”

From the moment the Bolsheviks seized control of Russia in 1917 conflict with the Capitalist West was inevitable. The varied theories of its cause are subject to debate by historians across the globe, although certain key reasons have been, to some