I am so sorry I clicked the wrong button, I don't know if this will get published twice or not. SorrySorrySorry. T.T
Hokay. Dobiry vecher, first of all. Let that Russian carry us into this blog post and beyond, or whatevs.So, I think that a lot of what Lenin and the Bolsheviks promised was truly a reflection of the people's needs. "Peace, Land, Bread" and such was about as honest and straightforward as you get. As Coach Belk pointed out in class, Lenin was making no promises he couldn't keep. And after all the hoopla the Russian citizens had gone through, they weren't looking for (and didn't need) any grandiose or elaborate schemes by another ring of elites that were out of touch with what was needed in the 'real' world. And, let me stop to say this much- in this post I want to be clear the difference of a want and a need. Because often they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. And when some people say that the Bolsheviks were just a nutjob group that used the guise of being the people's advocate to get power, it sort of gets me irate. Because I think a lot of what Lenin did was address the needs of the people, rather than the immediate wants. And, to be fair, he got the job done. They weren't starving, they were going to be taken out of a endlessly draining war, and they could make a true break from feudalism. To clean the immediate mess up, there were more important things than, say, civil liberties- and, jeez, the citizens had gone without those for so long they truly weren't missed. To use Lenin's words, 'It's true that liberty is precious. So precious it must be carefully rationed.' And it is commonplace for citizens to give up certain things in order for a peaceful government to succeed, even today. Social Contract or the like, I do believe. Wants of citizens can be placed after the needs have been sorted out.
Also, if there was no or little public support of the Bolshevik aims, then they wouldn't have held onto power. The people of Russia managed to overthrow a centuries old dynasty, and I think that if they had the inclination, a fledgling political group would have been no problem to topple. Let's remember the size of the 'majority' in comparison to other groups like the Menshiviks and Kadets: they were smaller. (Not to mention younger- especially in the case of Lenin's protégée faction) How did they come to power if the people didn't think they could handle it and give them the things they needed? I guess, to be fair, the later evolution of the party (Around the Stalin era, for a roundabout estimate) could have strayed from the original platform- but that was after the initial needs had been taken care of AND it was 'under new management.' (Because, p.s- Lenin did not want Stalin as a successor, and didn't think he could continue doing things in a Marxist-Leninist tradition. Cited Below!) Also, that has nothing to do with the current question at hand, so POOF with that.
I realized writing this, p.s., that I have a knee-jerk reaction to defend Lenin. Oh my.
Spasibo! :) Kayla
Books Used:
(I'm a nerd for Russia, leave me be.)
Lenin: A Biography. Robert Service
Lenin: Genesis and Development of a Revolutionary. Rolf H.W. Theen
Lenin and the Russian Revolution. Christopher Hill
and
Great Blunders in History: Russian Civil War. (This one is an audiobook)
Once again Kayla, I am going to disagree with you. You failed to mention the Cheka, the Red Army, or his internment camps, which I believe is neither a want nor need of the Russian people. Lenin addressed the needs of the people in order to keep power, in source 3 on page 41, it says "It was widely recognized that without peace, Lenin and his comrades would not hold power for long." And so he ended the war, not for the people but for the power of the Bolshevik party. I also do not believe it is common place for social contracts to include death penalties enforced without trial on any offence.
ReplyDeleteThe Bolshevik party was small, and as you said "… if there was no or little public support of the Bolshevik aims, then they wouldn't have held onto power." You were in some ways correct, this is why he did the things he did with the "decrees on land, the workplace and one party rule."(Source 3 pg 41) But his take over also included locking the rest of the constituent assembly out of the government building and killing all those opposed to him. Fledgling and unstable or not, with secret police with the right to kill, Lenin's power was secure. His takeover was a rise of the Bolshevik party (which sounds a lot like a word we aren't allowed to use, and applies very nicely) not a reflection of the peoples needs or wants however you define them.
This is becoming a pattern, I think.
ReplyDeleteI think the Cheka and Red Army were necessary to maintain peace.(Anyway, the Secret Police had existed as the Ohksana under the Tsar and Provisional Government so that was nothing new to the Bolsheviks. In some ways the Ohksana were even more brutal than the Cheka, but we won't go into that...) Internment camps, too, were harsh, but it got the job done. ;0
I KID I KID. Sort of, anyway. The methods he used could be taken in the way you just described, but I'm still a believer that he had the people's interests in mind.
I can't think of a revolution that didn't include bloodshed...and with the Feb. Revolution being so bloodless (relatively) it was like the calm before the storm. Lenin did what needed to be done to obtain peace for his people...But then again there wasn't really a point to this since I have a hunch you'll keep your opinion and I'll keep mine. Mar har har.
Yeah, I'd have to agree with Rob on this one, Kayla. A revolution without bloodshed? Of course I'll agree, I can't especially think of one either. HOWEVER, what I see differently about this revolution in particular (along with a few others) is that Lenin was pretty much covering his own tush. You said something about the Peace Love and Bread being an example of Lenin going for the people's needs. And...I see the word Peace in there. So...those concentration camps, the Red Scare...I didn't think those were peaceful.
ReplyDeleteAnd I feel like maybe the people didn't think so, either. :P
I mean, in some ways I agree with you. By what I saw in Source 3, Lenin used the concentration camps on the opposing side (if we're talking the current gov't. versus the people (Lenin's supposed side)) for the most part, which seems to be pretty much in line with keeping the people in peace. But the death penalties for anyone who spoke or moved against the Bolsheviks, like Rob said, sound like they would go severely against the grain of peacefulness. (PART OF MY COMMENT JUST ERASED ITSELF. ARRGH.)
The thing that most convinces me that you most definitely have a valid argument is the fact that Lenin outright said that he didn't think people needed much freedom. The Russians seemed to be cool with that. And, it's my understanding that the Checka were there to make sure no one acted or spoke against Lenin or the Bolsheviks. That being said, the Checka wouldn't have been any bother, as long as the people didn't expect anything like freedom of speech.
Now I feel like I just said I agreed with Rob, then supported Kayla.
Oh well!