Lenin s contribution to the Russian Revolution after 1917 was at best ambiguous at worst destructive
‘Lenin’s contribution to the Russian Revolution after 1917 was at best ambiguous, at worst destructive? Discuss’ This essay will attempt to argue that post 1917 Lenin’s personal contribution to the Russian Revolution was in fact pragmatic and opportunist, while many decisions made in his name were in fact ambiguous due to strong politicians within the Bolshevik party and the responsiveness of the party to the mass mood (Acton 1990 p. ... However this sowed the seeds of Russian ascendancy post revolution. Lenin’s pragmatic nature was due to his intelligence in adapting Marxism to Russia and in particular baring in mind the succession of unforeseen events leading up to the revolution. Lenin’s politically opportunistic nature can be seen in the political situation building up to 1917. ... 12) between the Soviets, workers and soldiers who had incited the revolution and the Duma, the remaining parliament, it was in this environment that Lenin and the Bolsheviks began to emerge as a political force. ... Therefore Lenin did not create the situation he rather simply reacted to the situation created for him. Furthermore this can be highlighted by Lenin’s prior frustration and apparent realization that the revolution would never take place in his lifetime (Crouch 1989 p16). ... By the autumn of 1917 Bolshevik support had increased to around 200,000 and by then they made no secret of the fact they wanted to seize power in the name of the revolution (Crouch 1989 p17). ... Lenin was determined that this would be the right time to incite the revolution before the Soviet Congress met. ... Trotsky wanted them to wait until the congress was in session, so the revolution would be endorsed by congress (Acton 1990 p. ... Lenin would have thought that popular support was behind him, when it was not.