By Nayim Mohammed
‘Lenin was the ruler who did most to
transform Russia in the period 1855-
1953’. How far do you agree?
By Nayim Mohammed
Tutor Group: Bronwen Conagham (BRW)
Word Count: 4,325
1
, By Nayim Mohammed
Russia underwent a vast transformation in the years 1855-1953, most evidently through the
displacement of the Tsarist Empire and feudal structure by the establishment of the Soviet Union
and communism. Russia’s civilisation in 1855 – a feudalistic country confined by the principles of
‘autocracy, orthodoxy and nationality’ – resulted in the restriction of society, resulting in a 37%
serf population and an educated class amounting to 1%1. Consequently, the contrasting nature of
the Soviet Union’s emergence from WWII as a global superpower can be deemed all the more
remarkable, and therefore identifying of the leader most responsible for the transformation all the
more significant.
Although the essay will assess the economic, political and social change, it is important to note
that certain areas of transformation hold more weight. This essay will place greater importance on
economic change, due to the fact that it overlaps with social transformation and was most
impactful on Russian society, however, this will not be used as a deciding factor. The political and
ideological transformation will also be assessed to give a final judgement. A common
misinterpretation would be to suggest that the tsarist rulers – Alexander II, Alexander III and
Nicholas II – were completely redundant in Russia’s transformation due to the outdated
institutions in which they governed by. However, their contributions – whether positively
transformative or restricting – shaped the eventual revolution of 1917, therefore are noteworthy.
However, for the most part, they viewed transformation as a restraint to their absolutist powers,
subsequently, neither can be adjudicated as the most transformative ruler. This allows for the
discussion to form a debate between the final two leaders; Lenin and Stalin. Lenin’s
transformation can be substantiated through his coordinating of the October revolution, political
modernisation and success in consolidating the revolution, arguably laying the groundworks for
his successor. Despite this, Stalin’s longer-lasting rule, the fulfilment of his principal objectives,
and his predecessor’s failure to finalise his changes meant that Stalin’s transformations
outweighed that of Lenin’s.
When considering transformation, it is necessary to outline the aims and outcomes of reforms.
Stalin’s economic aims were clear; match his communist state with the capitalist West through
rapid industrialisation and collectivisation of agriculture. His aims are evident from his speech to
Industrial Managers in February 1931, where he said, “We are 50 to 100 years behind the
advanced countries. We must make good this difference in 10 years or go under ”2. The occasion of
the source is noteworthy, as it took place in the third year of his first five-year plan, the most
pivotal year, and clearly resembles Stalin’s desire to catch up with the capitalist-West. Although
1
Moon, D., ‘The Russian Peasant 1600-1930’ (1999), pages 204-205
2
Service, R., ‘Stalin: A Biography’ (2004), page 273
2
‘Lenin was the ruler who did most to
transform Russia in the period 1855-
1953’. How far do you agree?
By Nayim Mohammed
Tutor Group: Bronwen Conagham (BRW)
Word Count: 4,325
1
, By Nayim Mohammed
Russia underwent a vast transformation in the years 1855-1953, most evidently through the
displacement of the Tsarist Empire and feudal structure by the establishment of the Soviet Union
and communism. Russia’s civilisation in 1855 – a feudalistic country confined by the principles of
‘autocracy, orthodoxy and nationality’ – resulted in the restriction of society, resulting in a 37%
serf population and an educated class amounting to 1%1. Consequently, the contrasting nature of
the Soviet Union’s emergence from WWII as a global superpower can be deemed all the more
remarkable, and therefore identifying of the leader most responsible for the transformation all the
more significant.
Although the essay will assess the economic, political and social change, it is important to note
that certain areas of transformation hold more weight. This essay will place greater importance on
economic change, due to the fact that it overlaps with social transformation and was most
impactful on Russian society, however, this will not be used as a deciding factor. The political and
ideological transformation will also be assessed to give a final judgement. A common
misinterpretation would be to suggest that the tsarist rulers – Alexander II, Alexander III and
Nicholas II – were completely redundant in Russia’s transformation due to the outdated
institutions in which they governed by. However, their contributions – whether positively
transformative or restricting – shaped the eventual revolution of 1917, therefore are noteworthy.
However, for the most part, they viewed transformation as a restraint to their absolutist powers,
subsequently, neither can be adjudicated as the most transformative ruler. This allows for the
discussion to form a debate between the final two leaders; Lenin and Stalin. Lenin’s
transformation can be substantiated through his coordinating of the October revolution, political
modernisation and success in consolidating the revolution, arguably laying the groundworks for
his successor. Despite this, Stalin’s longer-lasting rule, the fulfilment of his principal objectives,
and his predecessor’s failure to finalise his changes meant that Stalin’s transformations
outweighed that of Lenin’s.
When considering transformation, it is necessary to outline the aims and outcomes of reforms.
Stalin’s economic aims were clear; match his communist state with the capitalist West through
rapid industrialisation and collectivisation of agriculture. His aims are evident from his speech to
Industrial Managers in February 1931, where he said, “We are 50 to 100 years behind the
advanced countries. We must make good this difference in 10 years or go under ”2. The occasion of
the source is noteworthy, as it took place in the third year of his first five-year plan, the most
pivotal year, and clearly resembles Stalin’s desire to catch up with the capitalist-West. Although
1
Moon, D., ‘The Russian Peasant 1600-1930’ (1999), pages 204-205
2
Service, R., ‘Stalin: A Biography’ (2004), page 273
2
