Elmore- A Russian 9/11

As always, I feel the necessity to argue against the popular opinion.... so here it goes.

The October Revolution was a representation of the true needs of the Russian people. First, before I begin, I would like to make a comparison of the situation to something to which we may all relate. Imagine you are sitting in a room, and a teacher is not teaching properly. (Not pointing out any class in particular, just saying... :0) All of the students want the teacher to teach, but he refuses. Therefore, a single student convinces them to teach themselves. Sure, they may not be following the teacher's instructions and thereby violating their schema of order, but they are getting what they want: education.

The Russian Revolution presents a similar case. Under the Czarist rule, and then that of the provisional government, the common people were neglected, with a poor political stance, and a weak economy as a result of multiple policy changes (1). An example I found was from a speech made by the speaker of the provisional government in October 1917, Alexander Kerensky. I will label this website (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSnovemberR.htm) as source 5: "The policy of the Bolsheviki is demagogic and criminal, in their exploitation of the popular discontent. But there is a whole series of popular demands which have received no satisfaction up to now. The question of peace, land, and the democratization of the army ought to be stated in such a fashion that no soldier, peasant, or worker would have the least doubt that our Government is attempting, firmly and infallibly, to solve them. " Sorry for the length, but I felt that cutting would detract from the message. Anyway, does this seem like something that a stable government with satisfied people would say? No, it does not. The provisional government was failing, and the leaders new this was happening. They dismissed the Bolsheviks because they recognized that someone had the ability to seize power. However, why does this matter?

If the provisional government recognized the Bolsheviks as a threat to democracy, they obviously knew that there would be a reason for the people supporting such a "travesty" What I mean is, we learned that the Bolsheviks, au contraire to the name, were actually the minority (1). Lenin must have been offering the people something good, if the provisional government thought that the Bolsheviks had the ability to seize power. What was that advantage? Meeting the needs of the Russian people.

"Confiscation of private banks," "abolition of the police, army, and bureaucracy," were some of the plans of Lenin to satisfy the needs of the people. (4, i can't remember which source the April Theses are)It could be argued that these were merely attempts to get him into power, but I firmly believe that though Lenin is accused of abusing the power later, he really had the needs of the Russians in mind. A point to consider would be that he was very proud of his country; while in Switzerland, he still had the needs of his people in mind (1). Thus, if he loved his country so, why would he use violent tactics on the people whom he so loved? Something just doesn't add up...

Let's face it, the provisional government was sucking big time, and Lenin saw the chance to seize power. Yes, I admit this, as always, that there are points that both I, a supporter of the fact that the October Revolution was a representation of the needs of the Russian people, and pretty much everyone else, supporters of the fact that it was a coup d'etat by an extremist group, can agree upon. Lenin took the failures of another group, and by giving the people what they wanted and deserved, things such as a stable government, seizing land from the Bourgeoisie, and offering bread and peace (1) he successfully made a difference.

I feel as if I've been writing my T.o.K. essay for too long, for I am tempted to ask the question, "Are wrong acts done in the name of good still wholesome?" I think so,... Let's look at the classroom scenario one more time. Sure, Lenin may have hit the kids who weren't cooperating and made them cry, stolen their cookies even, but he did it to protect the peace. in the information packet, it talked about the acts he did in secrecy, such as creating the Cheka (3) As malicious as this sounds, do even the best nations in the world have to stop counter-productive acts? I also usually make a comparison to the United States, so here it goes. Look at the Patriot Act after 9/11; it violates some civil liberties and is thereby controversial, but does is it not done by means of protecting us? The Cheka had three goals (3)
1)Repress/liquidate counterrevolution
2) Hand over for trial all counterrevolutionaries and combat them
3)The Cheka carries out all preliminary investigation

This would be a good arguing point for most as the deception of Lenin, however, I see it differently. This mirrors anti-terrorist acts by countries of which we may relate today! Would it make any sense to finally give the people what they want, only to not enforce the stability you promised by not stamping-out revolutionaries? Keep the peace at all costs. Ironic statement, but it's true. Instability is not a thing the Russians needed.

Lenin represented the true needs of the Russian people. His April Theses, patriotism, and anti-counter-revolutionary acts once in office support that he initially had the best plan for Russia. After that, well, I won't go into that.... He was a leader, none the less, who did what he could to protect his people, in the form of an autocracy.