The politics of the Soviet in 1917s was considered to be the most controversial. Many scholars have made the investigations of the initial background of the mentioned political techniques. They proved the fact that Lenin’s Theses were of radical nature and presupposed cruelty, as well as violence.
The main essence of the Lenin’s Theses was the change of the people mentality. By appealing to the working classes, Lenin aimed to get their sympathy. The Lenin’s Theses stated that the drawback of the existing power lied in the fact that the responsibilities were allocated by the bourgeoisie. There were people who did not notice the reality and did not take into consideration the desire of the working class. Furthermore, Lenin admitted that masses had to be the only revolutionary government. By taking into account the mistakes of the previous government, it would be possible to make the ideal power. One more important thing that Lenin’s Theses included was the nationalization of the individual property. Lenin stated that all the lands had to be under control of the Soviets of Agricultural Labors. It seems that the mentioned political ideas are effective and can bring the good results. Nevertheless, the politics of Sovietswere quite vague.
Personally I do not support any idea proposed in Lenin’s Theses, and there are some reasons for that. The first and the most important reason is the orientation of the politics. By allowing working classes to govern the country, the prosperity of it could be under serious threat. The representatives of the power should be highly educated people. They have to provide profound solutions to any problem. That is why the bourgeoisie was the right power at that time. The working class did not have the experience of ruling the country correctly. Consequently, they would not be able to bring the prosperity. The second reason is the issue of nationalization. I totally disapprove of it. Every individual has a right to have his/her private land. The government is not responsible for withdrawing the land form the owners. It is unfair. Furthermore, it leads to the appearance of the crime. People start stealing necessary products for their living, which was the case in Soviet Union at that time. The third reason is the excessive role of Lenin. He was a great defender of the working class, but his approaches sometimes were radical and ineffective.
I believe that the Lenin’s Theses did not illustrate the real desirre of the working class. It showed the Lenin’s desire to gain the power. Initially, the masses are a perfect tool in the struggle against the existing power. Lenin knew this and tried to persuade people that they can be the most influential citizens in the country. However, everyone can realize that working class had to be governed by someone. The mentioned class lacked the experience. Moreover, it lacked the knowledge of historical background of the country. Consequently, one may speak about the insufficiency of the Lenin reforms. Personally I stick to the point that if Lenin had not realized his Theses, the history of Soviet Union would have been totally different.
All in all, the politics of the Soviet Union is considered to be one of the most difficult to understand and perceive. On the one hand, Lenin’s Theses aimed to make the working class the most influential one in the country. Nevertheless, because of the lack of experience, as well as knowledge, working masses were not able to satisfy the initial Lenin’s desire to rule the country. The idea of nationalization of the land totally limited people’s actions. They became dependent and miserable. Consequently, it led to the increase in crime in the country.