Lenin had a greater impact on Russia’s economy and society than any other Ruler. How far do you agree with this view of the period from 1855 to 1964? Essay

Lenin had a capacious doctor on Russias thrift and community than whatever other Ruler. How out-of-the-way(prenominal) do you agree with this view of the finale from 1855 to 1964? Over the spot from 1855 to 1964, Russia proverb miscellaneous reforms and policies chthonic the Tsars and the communist leading that had ample reachs on its economy and society both(prenominal) unconditional and damaging. Lenin definitely implanted polices that changed society and the economy for example with war communism. provided whether his policies had the capaciousest furbish up is debatable and in this essay I will be assessing the view whether Lenin had the greatest feign on Russias economy and society than every other ruler betwixt the period from 1855-1964. The Russia economy in terms of manufacture fluctuated all over the period from 1855-1964. It is key to line of products that infra all the leaders, industrialisation and modernization was always seen as an essenti al scotch aim. Under horse parsley II, with Reutern as his parson of finance who adopted an approach that turn around go on railway construction, attractive feature of international expertise and foreign investment funds capital. As a result modernization and expansion occurred within the staples as vigorous as pertlyer industries which show the squeeze that horse parsley II made on constancy. Reutern achieved a s in timefold attach in the totality of railway and the capacity of railway to demand break bulk at secureness increase which gave a major cost increase to industrial widening Russia seemed to be at last moving towards industrialisation and defying up with the West. This approach was similar chthonic Nicolas II who also managed to suck up a great impact on Russias industrial economy. This was through the bailiwick of Sergei Witte whom at the prison term of his appointee the Russian economy even-tempered resolved predominantly around awkward deed fu rther present that chthonian Alexander II impacts was narrowed. Witte go along the appraisal of foreign expertise as headspring as taking out foreign loans, raising taxes and interest rates to wage hike on hand(predicate) capital for investment in labor.Another major development was the stance of the rouble on the gold measuring in 1897. The impacts of Wittes policies were great. Coal outturn doubled and that of iron and steel increased sevenfold while the total add together of railway track opened rose wine from 29,183 km to 52,612 km in 1901. a great deal of this stimulated the stupendous egress in capital abroad. there was an indication that income started to even catch up with other industrialised nations seen and incomeearned from industry rose from 42 jillion to 161 roubles by 1897. This period of industrial success has even been named the Great invent and the increase in industrial outturn of 7.5% far exceeded Russian achievement for any comparable period before 1914 which shows that Nicholas II had the greatest impact on the industrial economy than any other Tsar. This revolve about on heavy industry was keep beneath Stalin who implanted his five division plans industrialisation was to be stimulated through the setting production targets. The effects were great increase in industrial output which hard to toss offed estate specifically as often of the production figures were falsified. Khrushchev mostly keep Stains centralisation with greater diversion as he wanted to unwrap much consumer goods. There was as yet a slowdown in harvest-home chthonian Khrushchev but it wasnt a huge impact and illustrates a electro veto impact. This however didnt comp be to negative impacts seen under Lenin. By November 1917 Lenin stated apply War Communism by introducing state capitalism. This involved the state taking expel control over the economy until it could safely be handed over to the proletariat.communisation by itself did noth ing to increase production military needs were given priority so that resources to those industries not considered essential were denied. The site was made to a greater extent(prenominal) serious by the factories being deprived of manpower as a result of conscription. The problem for industry was deepened by hyperinflation. The governments insurance policy on continuing to print up-to-dateness notes effectively destroyed the value of funds and by the end of 1920 the rouble had travel to 1 per cent of its worthin1917. Although Lenins NEP started to impact industry coercively and indeed industrial output increased speedily it single if ever reached the level of output in 1914. Overall, the greatest positive impact on industry arguably is under Nicholas II. industrial output over doubled under him, railway construction expanded rapidly and his policies force the pack as intumesce battalion saw living standards increase unlike under Stalin that despite growth living standa rds actually deteriorated and Russia could eat up seen to be on its way to true industrialisation. Whilst under Lenin it is clear that he had the greatest negative impact on the industrial economy. There was no industrial growth and Lenin entirely benefited through tighter control of Russia through the economy. As well as impacts on industry it is also important to consider impacts on agri deliriumure. The issue of agri finishing ownership washstand be seen tobe handled differently under each leader. Alexander II, Lenin and Stalin all engage that effectively had negative impacts on agriculture. With the independence of the serfs in 1861 the peasants were free and no weeklong tied to the go through. The impacts however were reversal. Peasants were allocated poor role land and received less(prenominal) on average than they had been nation before emancipation.moreover peasants were superpowerd to pay redemption dues that were higher(prenominal)(prenominal) than what they co uld achieve. In the end, the impacts on the peasants were they were worse send off and able peasants had no incentive to produce surpluses and were reluctant to improve the land as decisions about what was to be produces and how crops were to be courteous were decided by the village Mir, which resulted in a slight fall in grain overall. These effects however were more severe under Lenin and Stalin as they want to increase grain production by coercion. While Lenin under War communism used grain requisitioning to forcefully hear peasant surpluses from them Stalin used collectivisation to force peasants to collaborate to produce as much provender as possible. Similarly in both cases the peasants refused to conform knowing that any surplus would be confiscated the peasant produced the barest stripped-down to feed themselves and their family and even less aliment was available for Russia. One of the greatest impacts were the famines that occurred in 1921 under Lenin where the gra in harvest produced less than half the marrow gathered in 1931 and Russia had international help from countries such as the USA. However these impacts were the greatest under Stalin. The amount of bread produced fell from 250.4 (kilograms per head) in 1928 to 214.6 in 1932. The impacts of collectivisation were at its switch in 1932-32 when occurred what more people describe as a self-made national famine. Stalins official silence of the situation meant it wasnt addressed and thus collectivisation killed between 10-15 million peasants and failed to increase unpolished output.though a similar devastating famine occurred under Alexander III in which he adopted the Peasant land banks to try and alleviate the impacts and encourage farming over again and in fact famines occurred over Russian history its severity was the worst under Stalin. Alexander IIs attempt to pacify the peasants to increase pastoral levels was as well adopted under Nicholas II through the reforms of Stolypin a nd further under Khrushchev. Stolypins wager on the backbreaking saw that in that period peasants were paying progressively higher taxes a signthat their new farming was producing higher profits. The purvey of land backs, abolition of redemption dues and being urged to exchange inefficient strip system created a wealthier group of peasants later labelled the kulaks by communist leaders signifying that Nicholas II enjoyed higher agricultural profits. The schemes for larger-scale voluntary resettlement of peasants are a continuation under Khrushchev whose saturated Land Campaigns encouraged the increase in the amount of land being complaisant. In 1950, 96 million acres of land were given over to the production of straw and by 1964 this increased to 165 million acres. His policies seem to surrender even impacted citizens as urban dwellers started to feel that their food requirements were at last being adequately met. Thus Khrushchev tail end be seen to return the greatest posi tive impact on agriculture as the Russian people had finally felt that the food was sufficient for them and the amount of land and grain cultivated increased. While the greatest negative impact was prominently under Stalin, his collectivisation was met by peasant unrest and grain and store destruction that lead to a beshrew national famine. two the Tsars and the Communist leaders had their impacts on the Russian society.Religion and the cerebration that the Tsar was Gods own appointed continued under all three Tsars, so there was no accepted impact by any on the tsars on devotion as they sought-after(a) to keep this religious through the aid of the Russian Orthodox Church the Russian people sincerely believed that the Tsar was appointed by God and referred to him as their little obtain. Despite Lenin coming into power and bare the decree on the separation of the perform and state which meant that the church building was no durable to have central organisation with berth over local organisations, religious teachings in schools being forbidden and the attempt to exterminate religion Peasants continued to pray and morality as their forebears had but they could no longer risk doing it so semipublicly.Hence showing the Tsars had a greater impact in terms of religion than the communist leaders as all their efforts to eradicate religion and enforce atheism effectively failed. Both the Tsars and the communist attempted to expand the provision of education at all levels. Alexander II is seen to make attempts that increased the sum up of Russians in education. In 1864 Alexander II introduced a major education reform. This had an prompt impact in the number of available school places, especially in more isolate places and raised the quality and potpourri of provision whichimproved.Such continuation sack be seen under Khrushchev who scrapped school fees and the macrocosm of specialist academies and the spread of correspondence courses sought to incre ase the quality of education in Russia. Nicholas II and Stalins educational policies can be seen as similar in that they both impacted society similarly by raising the number of students go to school. The number of uncreated schools rose from 79 one thousand in 1896 to 81 thousand in 1914 under Nicholas II ( work of the fourth duma) while in 1929 only 8 million pupils were attending primary school and in 1930 this rose to 18 million pupils. Furthermore under Stalin emerged the cult of personality that aimed to control all aspects of Russian biography. Censorship and propaganda increased drastically under Stalin however whether Stalin truly had an impact on the culture and the way of thinking is debatable. The cheers that greeted his every appearance in public is more likely to have been a matter of prudence than of real affection. In comparison to the leaders already point of reference Alexander III sought to limit university autonomy. Under him elections to the university cou ncils were scrapped and placed by an appointment system but nevertheless universities continued to flourish. Overall although Alexander II can be seen to have stimulated educational growth participation the greatest impacts were seen under Nicholas II and Stalin which participation increased immensely. Although the Communist leaders tried to eradicate the church from society many of the Russian community remained orthodox but secretly illustrating the strong impacts the Tars had over religion. In conclusion, it can be seen that different rulers had various impacts on many parts of the economy and society. Industrially Lenin did have the greatest negative impact as the Russia didnt see any real economic growth and saw a great famine. However under Nicholas II Russia enjoyed the great Spurt which arguably could have seen to have a greater positive impact as it even filtered to the Russian citizens that enjoyed better standards of living and many historians state that Russia was well on its way to industrialisation. Lenin again had a great negative impact on agriculture but that of Stalin was more severe and was worse on agricultural produce. Overall, though Lenin had great impacts of different aspects of life other rulers can be seen to have had a greater impact whether positive or negative and Lenin never truly managed to have a true impact on Russian society and culture though attempted.