Lenin and his principals are the subject of a huge historiographical debate. The controversy surrounding Lenin's pragmatism in the face of social, political and economic instability begs the question: did Lenin compromise his principals in the race for survival? It is astonishing that surrounded by the turmoil that was Russia in the early 20th century Lenin actually survived for so long. During the years of 1917-18 he encountered food shortages, war and a vast amount of strikes. In 1921 he had to deal with civil war and a collapsing economy. Thus Lenin's primary task was survival which he accomplished. However one must question his method and in his quest for survival did he abandon his principals? .
To realise weather or not Lenin did actually abandon his principals we must first decide what those principals were. One of Lenin's most important principals was the idea of vanguardism - the elite. This was seen essential for the construction of the intelligentsia who could run the country in the name of the proletariat. Conformity through democratic centralism was also a key aspect. Lenin ensured a one party state. This would ensure the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Lenin saw himself not simply as representing the Russian working class but the whole of the international proletariat. Lenin dissolved the constituent assembly at gun point and he used one of his key principals as an excuse for this - class struggle. This was an integral part of his philosophy as he was partly a Marxist and thus saw history as the evidence of a never ending class struggle. In order to destroy the parliamentary elections that represented the whole country and replace them with representation through the soviets, the assembly had to be taken by force. Once Lenin realised that his party would not be able to govern effectively with just a quarter of the seats in the house he turned to violence in order to survive.