u/AtomicKitten771

Can anyone give feedback and a ball park of where I’m at right now please :). I picked up the subject this year and this is a practice response I did in class.

The question: “The most significant consequences of the Bolshevik
Revolution were the social and cultural transformations it
brought to everyday life, rather than the political violence
used to consolidate power.
To what extent do you agree? Use evidence to support your
response.”.

My answer (it’s a bit different from what I wrote in the prac sac but oh well close enough):
The Bolshevik Revolution produced sweeping social and cultural transformations that fundamentally altered everyday life in Russia through changes to education, gender equality, religion, and class structure. However, while these transformations were highly significant, they ultimately relied upon the systematic use of political violence and repression to eliminate opposition and consolidate Bolshevik authority, therefore making political violence a consequence that was more significant to a large extent.
Firstly, the social and cultural transformations brought by the revolution were undoubtedly significant products of the Revolution, rather than consequences. Immediately after the October revolution of 1917, the Sovnarkom issued pragmatic decrees intended to fundamentally alter everyday life, such the Workers' Decrees, which restricted an eight-hour day of work per day. Furthermore, initiatives in women’s rights led by Alexandra Kollontai resulted in radical legislative changes, including the legalisation of abortion in 1920, improving the quality of women's rights compared to other European nations. Education was similarly transformed, with by 1926, literacy rates reached 51% as the regime sought to create a more capable population for the state. Artistic experimentation through movements like Constructivism further attempted to bring revolutionary culture into everyday life, the state encouraging expression which overwise would have been nonexistent. Historian Sheila Fitzpatrick argued that the Bolsheviks sought to create a “new Soviet person,” highlighting how these reforms were intended not merely to change laws, but to fundamentally reshape social values, behaviour, and identity according to socialist ideology.
However, the political violence used to consolidate power was a significant and definitive consequence because it established the authoritarian framework of the Soviet state. Historian Richard Pipes argues that the Bolsheviks were “born into violence,” suggesting that repression was not a temporary response to instability, but central features of Bolshevik ideology and governance from the outset. This was evident in the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918, which marked the destruction of democratic opposition and demonstrated that the regime would prioritise a one-party state over popular representation. The founding of the Cheka under Felix Dzerzhinsky further institutionalised state terror, leading to the Red Terror, which claimed approximately 200,000 lives and entrenched political repression as a permanent feature of governance. Similarly, historian Sheila Fitzpatrick contends that the “practices of militarisation and centralised control” during “crises” became a defining “feature of Soviet rule”, reinforcing the notion that violence was a fundamental consequence in order to consolidate Bolshevik power.
Political violence is further highlighted by the way it shaped and controlled social and cultural life, ultimately undermining many of the social changes introduced by the new state, particularly during the Russian Civil War (1918–1921). The radical policy of War Communism was adopted to ensure military survival, but its consequences were an economic and social disaster. Forced grain requisitioning triggered the 1921 Famine, which affected 25 million people and caused five million deaths and directly contradicted revolutionary promises of “Bread.”. This social catastrophe revealed the extent to which the regime was willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of its population, (the very workers and peasants it claimed to represent), to maintain political control. Historian Orlando Figes observes that this era created a "siege mentality" that legitimised coercion as an essential tool for defending power. The human cost of this violence was so profound that it led to the Kronstadt Revolt in 1921, where formerly loyal sailors condemned the Bolsheviks for turning Russia into an "all-Russian penal colony". While the subsequent New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921 provided a "breathing spell" and restored some social stability, it was accompanied by a further political crackdown. ——

(It is cut short as I didn’t finish in the time limit and I think this is where I was at)

Politics sac tomorrow

Revs feedback

VCE brain fog

History revs help

Look what vce did to me 🥀

Safe to say Lewis’s career has reached new heights