Communist Government: Establishing Communist Party Control, 1917–24 (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
Lenin's Legacy
Introduction: the transformation of Russia, 1917–24
Between 1917 and Lenin's death in January 1924, Russia underwent a dramatic transformation. Lenin successfully established a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which he argued was essential to defend the revolution from its enemies. However, this came at a significant cost: soviet democracy was destroyed and replaced with a one-party state characterised by centralisation, terror and bureaucratic control.
The institutions created immediately after the October Revolution of 1917 lost their power to new Party institutions that emerged during the Russian Civil War (1918–21). Most significantly, Sovnarkom (the Council of People's Commissars) ceased to be the main decision-making body, while the Politburo (Political Bureau) became the centre of real power in Russia. This shift marked a fundamental change in how Russia was governed.
The transformation from 1917 to 1924 represents one of the most rapid and complete political changes in modern history. Understanding this period is essential because the structures Lenin created became the foundation for the entire Soviet system that lasted until 1991.
From soviet democracy to one-party state
The destruction of soviet power
When Lenin seized power in October 1917, he famously proclaimed 'All power to the Soviets'. Initially, his government was genuinely based on the soviets – workers', peasants' and soldiers' councils that had sprung up across Russia. However, this soviet democracy proved short-lived.
Between October 1917 and April 1918, Bolshevik popularity declined. As support for the Bolsheviks fell, Lenin faced a crucial decision: allow democratic elections that might remove him from power, or suppress democracy to maintain Bolshevik control. Lenin chose the latter. In mid-1918, he refused to recognise the results of new elections to the soviets, effectively ending genuine soviet democracy.
Lenin's Critical Choice (mid-1918): When faced with declining popular support, Lenin chose to suppress democracy rather than accept potential electoral defeat. This decision fundamentally shaped the entire future of Soviet politics, establishing the precedent that maintaining power took priority over democratic principles.
The ban on opposition parties
Following the Civil War, Lenin took decisive steps to consolidate Communist control. He banned all opposition political parties, transforming Russia into a one-party state where only the Communist Party could legally operate. This meant that even socialist parties that had initially supported the revolution, such as the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, were now excluded from political life.
Opposition parties were systematically excluded from the soviets. By 1921, the All-Russian Congress of Soviets was completely dominated by the Communist Party. This was particularly significant because the Congress was supposed to be the supreme governing body of Russia, representing workers, peasants and soldiers across the country.
The ban on factions
Lenin went even further than banning opposition parties. In 1921, following the Civil War, he introduced a ban on factions within the Communist Party itself. This meant that Party members could no longer form organised groups around particular viewpoints or policies. Any disagreement had to be expressed individually rather than through collective action.
This ban on factions represented a further stage of political centralisation. It ensured that the Party leadership could maintain tight control over all Communist Party members, preventing the emergence of organised opposition even from within the Party's own ranks.
The ban on factions in 1921 is often overlooked but was extremely significant. It meant that even members of the ruling Communist Party lost the right to organise around different ideas. This created a system where only the Party leadership could effectively coordinate political action, concentrating enormous power in very few hands.
Centralisation and institutional change
The centralisation of power during the Civil War
The Russian Civil War (1918–21) had a profound impact on how Russia was governed. During this period, Russia became extremely centralised. The Bolsheviks believed that only through centralised control could they coordinate the war effort effectively and defeat the White forces and foreign intervention.
The communists won the Civil War using a combination of:
- Political centralisation – concentrating decision-making power in the hands of the Party leadership
- Economic centralisation – controlling the economy through War Communism
- Military discipline – creating the Red Army under strict Party control
- Terror – using the Cheka to eliminate opposition ruthlessly
The rise of the Politburo
The most significant institutional change during this period was the replacement of Sovnarkom by the Politburo as the effective government of Russia.
In October 1917, Sovnarkom was the main governing body. It was accountable to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which passed major laws. Local soviets governed local areas, and elections allowed workers, peasants and soldiers to choose their representatives.
By 1921, this structure had been fundamentally altered. The Politburo now made all the important decisions affecting Russia. Sovnarkom's role was reduced to merely approving decisions that the Politburo had already made. Real power had shifted away from the soviets and towards the Party apparatus.
Understanding the Institutional Shift:
The shift from Sovnarkom to Politburo represents more than just a change in which committee made decisions. It symbolises a fundamental transformation in the nature of government – from soviet-based governance (theoretically accountable to workers' councils) to Party-based governance (accountable only to the Party elite).
"Temporary" measures become permanent
Crucially, Lenin consistently argued that the authoritarian measures he introduced were "temporary". He claimed that:
- The ban on factions was temporary
- The ban on other parties was temporary
- The decreased role of the soviets was temporary
These measures, Lenin insisted, were necessary emergency responses to the Civil War and the threats facing the revolution. However, there was no sign before Lenin's death in 1924 that the government had any plans to make Russia more democratic. The "temporary" measures were becoming permanent features of the Soviet system.
The Myth of Temporary Measures: Lenin's claim that authoritarian measures were "temporary" was never backed by concrete plans for democratisation. This raises a crucial historical question: Did Lenin genuinely intend to restore democracy after the emergency passed, or was this merely political rhetoric to justify dictatorship? The evidence suggests the latter, as no preparations for returning power to the soviets were ever made.
The role of terror and the Cheka
The establishment of the political police
In 1917, Lenin created the Cheka (the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage) as the Bolshevik political police. Like other repressive measures, the Cheka was introduced as a "temporary measure" to protect the revolution during a time of crisis.
However, after the Civil War ended in 1921, the Cheka continued to play a significant role in Soviet Russia. Rather than being disbanded, the political police remained active, persecuting opposition political parties and anyone the government perceived as a threat.
A system without individual rights
Lenin created a system in which the political police operated above the law. The Cheka were free to persecute anyone that the government perceived as a threat, regardless of whether they had committed any actual crime. This meant that individuals had no rights that could protect them from arbitrary arrest, imprisonment or execution.
The Cheka and the Rule of Law: The Cheka's power to operate above the law destroyed any concept of individual rights or legal protection. This meant that in Soviet Russia, the state could arrest, imprison, or execute citizens without trial, evidence, or any form of legal accountability. This principle became a defining feature of Soviet rule throughout its history.
Violence as a principle
Perhaps most significantly, Lenin established the principle that violence was justified in order to protect the revolution. This was not simply a practical response to civil war conditions; it became an ideological position. Violence and terror were seen as legitimate tools of revolutionary government, not temporary necessities but ongoing methods of political control.
From workers' government to bureaucracy
The bureaucratisation of power
One of Lenin's most significant legacies was the replacement of a workers' government with a highly bureaucratic one. The original vision of the October Revolution was that workers, peasants and soldiers would govern themselves through the soviets. By 1924, this vision had been completely abandoned.
Soviets full of workers, peasants and soldiers were replaced by specialists and administrators, few of whom were from the working class. The government became staffed by professional bureaucrats, technical experts and Party officials rather than ordinary working people.
The irony of this transformation is striking: a revolution carried out in the name of workers led to a government where workers had less influence than under the Tsar. The new Soviet bureaucracy was larger, more powerful, and more removed from ordinary people than the Tsarist administration it replaced.
This represented a fundamental betrayal of the revolution's original promise. Instead of worker control, Russia had developed a bureaucratic dictatorship controlled by the Communist Party elite.
Government structure: 1917 compared to 1921
The transformation of Russian government between 1917 and 1921 can be summarised as follows:
October 1917:
- Russian workers, peasants and soldiers elected local soviets
- Local soviets sent delegates to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets
- The Congress elected Sovnarkom
- Sovnarkom governed Russia and was accountable to the Congress
- The Congress passed major laws
- Local soviets governed local areas
- Democratic elections operated at all levels
1921:
- Elections to soviets were postponed
- Opposition political parties were excluded from the soviets
- The Congress was dominated by the Communist Party
- Sovnarkom merely approved decisions made by the Politburo
- The Politburo made all important decisions
- Local Party branches issued orders to local soviets
- Democratic accountability had disappeared
The Contrast Between 1917 and 1921:
This comparison reveals how completely the political system had been transformed. What had begun as a system based on democratic soviets had become a Party dictatorship with power concentrated in the Politburo. Every element of democratic accountability present in 1917 had been eliminated or rendered meaningless by 1921.
Exam focus: understanding Lenin's legacy
Why Lenin's legacy matters
Understanding Lenin's legacy is crucial for explaining the development of the Soviet Union under Stalin and beyond. Many of the features of Stalinist totalitarianism – the one-party state, the political police, the use of terror, political centralisation – were established by Lenin between 1917 and 1924.
Key debate: continuity or change?
Historians debate whether Stalin simply continued Lenin's policies or represented a fundamental break from Leninism. To engage with this debate, you need to understand exactly what Lenin established:
- The principle that violence was justified to protect the revolution
- The one-party state with no legal opposition
- The ban on factions within the Party
- The role of the political police above the law
- The bureaucratic rather than democratic nature of government
- The concentration of power in Party institutions rather than soviets
Historical Debate: Lenin vs Stalin
This debate is not just academic – it goes to the heart of how we understand communism in practice. If Stalin was simply continuing Lenin's approach, then the terror and dictatorship of the 1930s were inherent in Bolshevism from the start. If Stalin represented a break from Lenin, then perhaps the revolution could have developed differently. The evidence from 1917-24 suggests significant continuity in methods and principles.
Common exam questions
You might be asked to:
- Assess the extent to which Lenin betrayed the ideals of the October Revolution
- Evaluate how far Russia changed between 1917 and 1924
- Analyse the reasons for the growth of Communist Party control 1917–24
- Explain why Lenin established a one-party state
For such questions, use the evidence from this period to construct analytical arguments. Don't just describe what happened; explain causes, assess significance, and evaluate the extent of change.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Lenin transformed Russia from a soviet democracy into a one-party state between 1917 and 1924, systematically destroying the democratic promise of the October Revolution.
-
The Politburo replaced Sovnarkom as the effective government during the Civil War, marking a shift of power from soviet institutions to Party institutions that proved permanent.
-
Lenin established the Cheka (political police) and the principle that violence was justified to protect the revolution, creating a system where individuals had no rights against state persecution.
-
The ban on factions (1921) and ban on opposition parties represented increasing political centralisation, which Lenin claimed was temporary but showed no signs of reversing before his death in 1924.
-
Lenin replaced a workers' government with a bureaucratic one, as soviets of workers, peasants and soldiers were supplanted by specialists and administrators who were not from the working class.