Was Lenin "an heir to Russian tradition"?
To what extent was Lenin ‘heir to the Russian tradition of government’?
Since the tsar, Lenin has taken the ‘throne’ and along with the Bolsheviks proceeded to turn Russia into a one-party state. It can be argued that Russia has remained almost unchanged in terms of government policies and its traditions this is shown by Lenin's oppressive policies such as censorship. Lenin was not born into power and this shows he is in fact not an "heir" to Russian tradition. Similarly he had as little time for democracy as the tsars had, and as heir to the Russian tradition had followed the oppressive system and provided the continuation of the absolutist tradition in Russian. The Kronstadt revolt (1921) was a clear proof of the absolutism of the Bolshevik control and it is seen that rather than changing- Lenin ultimately replaced one form of state authoritarianism with another.
Some argue that, rather than following tradition, Lenin's actions were solely to ensure Bolshevik survival. The party was so focused on keeping power and the organisation of the revolution that in result, they had very few plans or policies after taking office. It is viewed that the dissolution of the constituent assembly at gun-point was an action of desperate measure to survive the Bolsheviks, and of no different to the actions of Alexander II's or Nicholas II's surrounding the Dumas. In this sense it is clear that Lenin's decisions reflect those of past leaders, these events put forward the idea of Lenin as an "heir to Russian tradition".
However, Lenin’s greatest achievements as a revolutionary was to reshape Marxism to fit Russian traditions. Within the Bolshevik party, Lenin has always seen careful to describe his policies as democratic, for him the term had a particular meaning. Democracy was a method of party rule not what others thought. Lenin’s aims were to direct the Revolution from lower classes, regardless of the scale of support. Many argue that Lenin's government, Sovnakom, showed
Since the tsar, Lenin has taken the ‘throne’ and along with the Bolsheviks proceeded to turn Russia into a one-party state. It can be argued that Russia has remained almost unchanged in terms of government policies and its traditions this is shown by Lenin's oppressive policies such as censorship. Lenin was not born into power and this shows he is in fact not an "heir" to Russian tradition. Similarly he had as little time for democracy as the tsars had, and as heir to the Russian tradition had followed the oppressive system and provided the continuation of the absolutist tradition in Russian. The Kronstadt revolt (1921) was a clear proof of the absolutism of the Bolshevik control and it is seen that rather than changing- Lenin ultimately replaced one form of state authoritarianism with another.
Some argue that, rather than following tradition, Lenin's actions were solely to ensure Bolshevik survival. The party was so focused on keeping power and the organisation of the revolution that in result, they had very few plans or policies after taking office. It is viewed that the dissolution of the constituent assembly at gun-point was an action of desperate measure to survive the Bolsheviks, and of no different to the actions of Alexander II's or Nicholas II's surrounding the Dumas. In this sense it is clear that Lenin's decisions reflect those of past leaders, these events put forward the idea of Lenin as an "heir to Russian tradition".
However, Lenin’s greatest achievements as a revolutionary was to reshape Marxism to fit Russian traditions. Within the Bolshevik party, Lenin has always seen careful to describe his policies as democratic, for him the term had a particular meaning. Democracy was a method of party rule not what others thought. Lenin’s aims were to direct the Revolution from lower classes, regardless of the scale of support. Many argue that Lenin's government, Sovnakom, showed