Compare and contrast the contribution of Lenin and Trotsky to the establishment and consolidation of a communist state in Russia between 1917-1924
IBDP Examination from November 2004 Paper 2, Question 14
Lenin died on the 21st of January 1924, as the leader of the communist state that was Russia at the time. Despite his high position, he was not responsible for all the successes that the Bolsheviks had seen in the past seven years. The three key successes during this time, which secured the establishment and consolidation of this communist state in Russia between 1919 and 1924, were: the October Revolution, the Civil War, and the New Economic Policy. Thus, in order to understand the extent and nature of these two mens’ contributions to the establishment and consolidation of the regime, it is vital to analyse their roles in these three main events.
The October Revolution itself occurred rather rapidly on the 25th-26th of October 1917; therefore it is valuable to look back over the years leading up to this revolution to identify how much Lenin and Trotsky had done to prepare and consequently carry out the October Revolution. According to Isaac Deutscher, a writer well known for his biographies of Trotsky and Stalin, Trotsky did not contribute to the revolution as much as did Lenin. He states “the years between 1907 and 1914 form in [Trotsky’s] life a chapter singularly devoid of political achievement… In this time, however, Lenin assisted by his followers, was forging his party,”. This theory does hold significant ground; after all, Lenin spent the years 1901 and 1902 writing and publishing his book “What is to be Done?” which established the need for a “vanguard” that he would create in the following years and would significantly assist him in achieving the October Revolution. Lenin also published his April Thesis on the 4th of April 1917 containing the slogan “Peace, Bread, Land” (in lay-man terms). This accumulated a large amount of support for the Bolsheviks amongst the peasants, especially in the regions of Russia, which before 1861 had the highest incidence of serfdom, according to the Russian émigré historian Golovin. Thus it could be argue that it was mainly Lenin’s work and his publications that enabled a successful revolution and hence the commencement of the establishment of a communist state in Russia.
However, Trotsky is also seen by many as the main instigator of the revolution, even according to Lenin’s right-hand man at the time, Lunacharsky, who claims “of all Social-Democratic leaders of 1905-1906 Trotsky undoubtedly showed himself, despite his youth, to be the best prepared.” This shows itself mostly in the last months approaching the October Revolution. Trotsky managed to become chairman of the Petrograd Soviets between September and October of 1917, providing an essential source of support for the Soviets as the Petrograd Soviets shared what Lenin called “Dual Authority” with the Provisional Government, which was in power at the time. Ever since the February Revolution the Petrograd Soviets had established their power in Petrograd by issuing ‘Order Number One’ on the 1st of March 1917. This determined that all workers should follow the Provisional Government’s orders unless instructed otherwise by the Petrograd Soviets. Having such power over as wide an audience as Petrograd’s workers gave the Bolsheviks a clear advantage in graining support during the October Revolution. Thus Trotsky fed into the efforts of the revolution in a more practical way than did Lenin. He extended these efforts by creating the Military Revolutionary Committee, the MRC, an army of 500 men that acted as the militarily wing of the Bolsheviks on the day of the revolution. Though 500 men are not a lot in a country of 150 million, as the Petrograd Garrison had abandoned the Provisional Government by this point, the MRC provided the Bolsheviks with 500 more soldiers than had the Provisional Government. Hence, the MRC assisted the Bolsheviks in achieving the revolution in a physical matter, whilst Lenin’s work fueled it at a more ideological level.
Whilst Trotsky’s Red Army is often seen as the saviour of the Civil War, Lenin is seen as the man who imposed War Communism. War communism was a more economic side of the war, through which peasants were forced to give the government their grain at very cheap prices, this was known as “grain requisition”. Most peasants hated this tactic, but it allowed the Soviets to provide more food to the workers, although this amount in itself was still extremely low. Whilst Lenin contributed to the War in this manner, otherwise remaining in hiding most of the time due to the paranoia he developed after being shot twice at the beginning of the war, Trotsky had a more prominent role in the battlefields. As the War Commissar and infamous for his harsh ways Trotsky was extremely effective in defeating the Whites and foreign interventionists through the use of his Red Army. His ruthlessness in war is apparent in his application of logic in many situations for example in the execution of the Tsar and his family. According to Trotsky himself, “the execution of the Tsar and his family was needed not only to frighten, horrify and instill a sense of hopelessness in the enemy, but also to shake up our own ranks, to show that there was no retreating,”. This underlines the nature of his actions during the war, which though brutal created an unbeatable, organized and ruthless Red Army with high morale. Trotsky himself travelled 70 000 miles during the Civil War on his “special train”, securing all rail lines for the Bolsheviks, which was a vital advantage they maintained over the Whites. As well as this he collected volunteers for the Red Army (both forcibly and voluntarily) from villages all over Russia, rapidly increasing the Red Army to 3 million men within the first year of the Civil War. From these facts it is evident that if either of these two men should be responsible for the success of the Reds in the Civil War, it was certainly Trotsky who played a more important role. And this arguably secured the establishment of a communist state of Russia and thus allowed for its consolidation.
Finally, it was the New Economic Policy, established by Lenin, that allowed for an improvement of Russia’s economy between 1921 and 1924. The NEP was introduced in March of 1921 at a time when grain harvests were half of what they had been in 1913 and even Pravda, the official communist newspaper, admitted that 1 in 5 of the population was starving. Lenin’s NEP was seen as a breech of communism and Trotsky and Bukharin supported an extension of War Communism, which they believed to be ‘true socialism’ as it squeezed the peasants and gave power to the workers. However, due to the horrible conditions of hunger and suffering in Russia, which War Communism had created, Lenin gradually decided to “serve the peasants” as his critiques labeled it. However, even Lenin initially supported War Communism, and even though there were many protests and revolts against his government during this time, he continued to pursue this policy. Nevertheless, it was the uprising of the Kronstadt Sailors, men who Trotsky had previously described as “heroes of the revolution”, that Lenin decided that change was necessary and created the NEP. Even so, Lenin’s NEP assisted the communist consolidation of power much more than the War Communism that Trotsky supported. Although Russian historians such as Volkogonov (who was a committed Stalinist and Marxist-Leninist for most of his career but came to repudiate communism and the Soviet system within the last decade of his life) argues “the Leninist promise of great progress turned into great backwardness.” The results of the NEP reject this argument as Soviet statistics show that between 1921 and 1924 value of factory output and worker’s wages went up by 200%. Though these statistics may have been blown up for propaganda purposes, the mere fact that the NEP abolished grain requisition means that it enabled the communists to get less hatred from the peasants, and the peasants began growing crops in larger quantities again as they were not afraid of it being taken away from them. Therefore, in the economic sense Lenin seemed to have been more effective and humane then Trotsky, and this allowed the communists to gradually consolidate their power by improving Russia’s economic conditions and decreasing hunger.
In conclusion, though both Lenin and Trotsky played major roles in the establishment and consolidation of a communist state in Russia, the nature of Lenin’s role was more bureaucratic and organizational while that of Trotsky was more hands on and physical.
MARKSCHEME:
This question has several parts to it and it is important that candidates include all of them if they are to receive top marks. The first part deals with the Revolutions in Russia in 1917, the eventual overthrow of the Provisional Government and the development of Bolshevik Russia by 1918. The contributions of both Trotsky (Chairman of the MRC, his military contributions) and Lenin (ideological base, oratory, single-mindedness) need to be evaluated. The second part encompasses the Civil War, economic changes, and the direction Bolshevism should take. Here again the respective roles/policies/aims of the two men need to be compared and contrasted. There is disagreement among historians as to the importance of Lenin and Trotsky so it is important that candidates’ responses are evaluated on the basis of the quality of their arguments and the degree to which these are supported by well-selected evidence. If only one leader is included award no more than [8 marks]. If only the establishment or the consolidation of the state are included award up to [12 marks] if Lenin/Trotsky have been compared/contrasted.
[0 to 7 marks] maximum for uncritical accounts of events in Russia.
[8 to 10 marks] for some mention of events with only passing connection between these and
Lenin/Trotsky.
[11 to 13 marks] for answers that include a more detailed account of events and a better-developed line of reasoning with implicit comparison/contrast although the analysis might not be fully developed.
[14 to 16 marks] for details, explicitly linked to Lenin/Trotsky, with a more fully developed analysis.
[17+ marks] for answers that carefully select those policies/events/actions which demonstrate comparison/contrast and which provide a clear analysis of the similarities/differences between Lenin/Trotsky.
This question has several parts to it and it is important that candidates include all of them if they are to receive top marks. The first part deals with the Revolutions in Russia in 1917, the eventual overthrow of the Provisional Government and the development of Bolshevik Russia by 1918. The contributions of both Trotsky (Chairman of the MRC, his military contributions) and Lenin (ideological base, oratory, single-mindedness) need to be evaluated. The second part encompasses the Civil War, economic changes, and the direction Bolshevism should take. Here again the respective roles/policies/aims of the two men need to be compared and contrasted. There is disagreement among historians as to the importance of Lenin and Trotsky so it is important that candidates’ responses are evaluated on the basis of the quality of their arguments and the degree to which these are supported by well-selected evidence. If only one leader is included award no more than [8 marks]. If only the establishment or the consolidation of the state are included award up to [12 marks] if Lenin/Trotsky have been compared/contrasted.
[0 to 7 marks] maximum for uncritical accounts of events in Russia.
[8 to 10 marks] for some mention of events with only passing connection between these and
Lenin/Trotsky.
[11 to 13 marks] for answers that include a more detailed account of events and a better-developed line of reasoning with implicit comparison/contrast although the analysis might not be fully developed.
[14 to 16 marks] for details, explicitly linked to Lenin/Trotsky, with a more fully developed analysis.
[17+ marks] for answers that carefully select those policies/events/actions which demonstrate comparison/contrast and which provide a clear analysis of the similarities/differences between Lenin/Trotsky.
