*disclaimer: again I have not read any of the post, so I’m sorry if I took someone’s idea.*
Lenin was a smart guy in my opinion. I believe he was aware of the motives for coming to power. However, for him to achieve that power, he would have to use the emotions of the citizens to maneuver his way through the Russian social hierarchy. Now looking back through the rule of Tsar Nicholas II the act of civil liberties were promised but never given to the people. Lenin used the act of civil liberties to reel in the people on the bandwagon to his ideology. First, he started off with the freedom of expression and freedom of the press [3]. These are just a sample of civil liberties that were given to the people, but they did not really have any affect on the people except for letting the people voice their opinions. His objection to this civil liberty is that he wanted to ensure that the voices of the middle class and the bourgeois were not heard [3]. This benefited him, because with the censorship of the bourgeois, they were less likely to have an influence on the people. However, the reason that Lenin probably was not “down” with bourgeois was because of his past exile (because of his radical ideas developed from Karl Marx), which could have stemmed his rise of power to be solely because of the bourgeois. By looking at the evidence more closely, I believe Lenin’s real motives behind his actions were not for the good of the people but for himself. By the bourgeois (the old tsarist rule) putting him in exile for the ideas, this was a way for him to seek is revenge and also spread the idea of socialism to the people. To take advantage of the people while the country was in dire need of stability. However, he could not do this alone, this time he wanted to use a group of people (the Bolsheviks, the Checka, etc.) help him slowly make his presence known.
ok Akevian, I didn't want to read this because of your font, it kind of makes my eyes hurt!! but i did anyway and here's what i tink:( I ment to spell it this way) I agree with you when you say that Lenin was a smart guy. This was the perfect time for him to come in and obtain the power that he already planned to gain. The people were in need of better leadership and a better life. Being a smart man, he took total advantage of this situation, getting them to believe that they were going to get this better life if they support him. Now here's a question for you!! Don't everyone who "campaigns" say this same thing, including our presidents. they all say "If you vote for me, this will happen..." "If you support me, there will be a better change.." So, do you think that all presidents take advantage of the bad situations that the people are left in from the previous presidents, to gain support and be the next leader. I hope you understood this. If they do, how can we believe anyone who wants to lead us?? How can we put our trust in someone, if they all pretty much say the same thing? Like Lenin, he didn't want to really help the people, he wanted to gain power and turn Russia into a communist dictatorship. But the people didn't know that. Do you think we have some people like that today. People who take advantage of bad situations to be the head, but then when they do become elected, or supported, they become a totally different person??? It's in your court Akevian!!! hahaha
ReplyDeleteAwesome post Akevian! I agree with most everything you said except for at the very end. You said "this was a way for him to seek is revenge and also spread the idea of socialism to the people." I dont believe that he was attempting to seek revenge but more or less give them a good ole slap in the face. In my opinion if he really wanted to get revenge he would exile all of the bourgoise, then he wouldnt have such an amount of conspirators. But anyways, since it was rather a slap in the face, he definitely delivered a good one since he nearly completely stripped them of power. Since the Provisional Government had held democratic elections in Russia and relied upon the bourgoise they definitely had weighted opinions(2). So when Lenin decided to step in he wanted to please the majority of the country and say, 'who needs the bourgoise to speak for you when the soviets know you and your needs the best?'
ReplyDeleteAlso another big slap in the face of the bourgoise was especially evident when Lenin returned from exile and had the backing of Germany(2). That really showed that, not only was the bourgoise going to regret thier decision but that the tables had turned and they were in for a rude awakening...but not revenge :)
Sorry Adam and Akevian...but i don't agree with you guys :( ! It is true that Lenin was a smart guy. After all, he used the failures of both the Czar and the Provisional Government to his advantage by using these failures to appeal to the people's desires in order for them to support the Bolsheviks. Although Lenin promised the people freedom of speech in his April Theses, he failed to administer this, just like the leaders before him. If I'm correct, I think you are implying that Lenin only cut off the civil liberties of the bourgeois and the middle class; but it merely began with them (3). Eventually, no one, including the peasants, where able to speak out without being killed, exiled, or confined to concentration camps (3).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think Lenin's intense focus on the downfall of the bourgeois was once again an attempt to appeal to the people, not as a means of revenge...and I don't believe them exiling him "stemmed his rise to power." In my opinion, Lenin wanted power (with nothing having to do with the bourgeois) simply because he felt his plan to accomplish a communist country was most effective. Second, I think he targeted the bourgeois because like the Bolsheviks, they were a minority. Therefore, many people disliked the bourgeois because they ultimately controlled Russia, leaving no say-so for the workers and the peasants. Therefore, Lenin knew that the people would be impressed if he showed that he disliked the bourgeois as much as they did. So once again, he wanted to show the people that he had a common interest with them; like how he promised them different things in his April Theses. Basically, I don't think Lenin's exile had anything to do with his targeting of the bourgeois. I believe he was simply trying to establish another common ground between him and the people.
Lenin's whole campaign was built around, as I said in my post, smoke and mirrors. He -said- they would get those liberties, but did they? Absolutely not, after all if people can use the freedom of speech to talk smack about you, you can be ousted from power (which is counter productive). Because of this, I don't think anything Lenin did was for the people except as a show. His dislike of the bourgeois was something for him as well, he hated them badly enough to send his cronies to murder as many of them as he could. He was definitely not your average politician..he was a murderer with an agenda.
ReplyDeleteYes Mr. Hinton Lenin was a smart man indeed. He gained the trust of the people when they were the most vulnerable. I believe that the reason Lenin took the voice away for the Bourgeoisie was that he wanted to gain the trust of the people. That fact that he got exile could have played a role in Lenin taking the voice away from the Bourgeoisie but I believe that he mainly did it for the trust of the people. Because when he cut of the press from the Bourgeoisie, gave some power to the working and lower class. I agree with Anitra with that he targeted the Bourgeoisie because he figured that if he targeted them he would get more people to hop on his side and gain the trust of the people. So do you believe that his drive for revenge made him take away the press from the middle class, or do you believe that he took press away for power and getting the people on his side.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anitra in disagreeing with Akevian. :) Lenin did not only take freedom of expression and press from the middle class and bourgeoisie but the lower class as well. Anyone who dared speak out against the government, let alone write it in a paper, were tracked down and killed. (3) This was not freedom at all. Instead a new wave of terror shook the lives of the people as they feared that one wrong slip of a word would end their lives. This was smart in the sense that by taking away the voice of the people, the public would not easily find out about his drastic methods of remaining in power, but he did not fully think through his decision that led to many rebellions. I also agree with Anitra that Lenin first openly took power away from the bourgeoisie to gain favor from the majority of the public by making it appear that Lenin was all for the people. With the majority fooled and supporting him, Lenin gained more power over Russia, hastening his success in a dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteFirst off I would like to comment on what Anitra said. I think it is a little foolish of us to COMPLETELY rule out the fact that some of his motivation was attributed to the fact that he was exiled for his beliefs. Lenin was obviously angered by the punishment he had been given. If this were me, I have no doubt that I would, even if only a little, would have motive to seek revenge on those who punished me. It for sure was not the only reason for his quest to take control of Russia.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to add that I feel as if, by saying that Lenin's motives were to get the trust of the people, we are failing to look at the big picture. Yes, Lenin said things that were intended to be taken by the people as promises for a happy life. These things were said to gain the trust of the people. However, it must be noted that there is another motive behind this action. These actions were all part of an elaborate scheme to take personal power at all costs.
Lastly, Latoya. You point out that all people who campaign tend to have a pattern of promising things. You question the fact if we should trust these people or not. Just because they promise certain things, does not they have an inferior motive as Lenin did. However, it must be said that knowing the History of civilization, there have been countless incidents where people have such inferior motives. This should be taken as a precaution, but not necessarily as a mandate to abandon all trust in politicians.
I think you made a good point akevian because its the same as mine. Lenin's rise to power was the result of a radical take over masked by the people's desires, but your post left me with several questions. You say that Lenin promised the people freedom of expression to win support of those that felt let down by the same promise made by the Tsar, but wasnt that the very first freedom Lenin took away when he seized control? Also how could he truly allow freedom of expression, but limit that right only to the peasants? If this were his plan, how would he go about deciding who did and did not get to speak their minds,short of making a list of requirements for each social class to see where each citizen fit in? Besides these questions though i completely agree with your assessment that it was a radical take over!
ReplyDeleteI think we all throw these terms around without truly understanding the value of the definition. (Mon Dieu, I think I just sounded like Mr. Koon)
ReplyDeleteSocialism, communism, and Marxism are thrown around, one in place of the other, but we really seem to have no understanding of the differences. Therefore, I'll lay it out.
Socialism is involvement of the people in government. Even democracies are seen as a form of socialism, because the people have a voice. It is usually not taken as extremist, because it is after all, only allowing the people to take part in their own government.
Marxism is more than a political ideaology, it is a view of the world. Marxists view the degeneration of the central authority, allowing a person to have control over his or her own life. Those who believe in Karl Marx, who wrote "The Communist Manifesto" which is, in my opinion, more philosophical than anything else.
Communism is an economic system which developed from the ideas of Karl Marx. It streses the numerical aspects of the Marxist philosophy, insisting that all people should be considered equal financially. It may or may not include a central leader, but basically it means, "We all work, we all get the same pay, and there is no clash between the upper and lower class. No one has too much, and no one has too little." It is a system which, ideaologically sounds just, but it has been usually interpreted as evil.
Let me repeat, Lenin did not establish communism in Russia! Akevian, you claim that the Bolsheviks were an extremist group. I don't think many, if any, have properly understood the question. Extremists copmletely change the current system. If you were an American living in Russia during the cold war, you would be seen as extremist, even though most of us consider democracy the "right" political formation. The Bolsheviks may have been violent, but what did they really change from the previous government? Let me make it more clear:
Things Attributed With the Previous Government:
1) A powerful leader
2) Unhappy peasants
3) Economic and political instability
What really changed? As we learned, Lenin came to power by means of autocracy (1). His April Theses were intended to fix the Russian political strife (4) but did not (2), and the peasants were still unhappy with the elimination of civil rights. Although I could, I am not, in this case, questioning your opinion about the topic, but merely the evidence by which you make your claim, and thereby a different interpretation of the question which we all answered.
Akevian, I have to disagree with you on one point; I think the main reason that Lenin didn't like the bourgeois is because of the fact that they wanted the Tsar as their ruler. They would want the old form of government. It wasn't a form of revenge, but rather, an opportunity to institute something that Lenin believed in, something that Lenin would be promoting even during exile, and was the cause of his exile.
ReplyDeleteHave to say Seth, though he disliked the Bourgeoise, it wasn't an act of murder because he disliked them, but rather a means for him to keep power, since the rich were helping the peasants at the time, giving them drink and food according to our book source. If the rich were able to convince the peasants that Lenin wasn't necessarily the best ruler, then Lenin's dreams of a Marxist type government would be crushed. He had to kill the bourgeoise for survival purposes.
Araam makes a good point to BOTH of you (since it's kind of the same thing, just different supporting factors). Let's say you have someone talking about you. Would you be angrier because the person is talking about you, or because this person's slanderous remarks are messing up your social opportunities and...pretty much upping your paranoia? I'd say the latter, but maybe that's just me (and Lenin). While having someone talk about you is bad, I'd say it's the underlying paranoia afterward that really gets to someone. So, I'd say that Lenin understood that the talking would make his rise to power problematic, and took actions to relieve this problem. Maybe it was a bit vengeful, but I didn't see a terribly large amount of evidence in our sources. More so just that Lenin wanted to protect his chances for a rise to power.
ReplyDelete