They All Want to Change the World

In support of my fellow blogger Andra's opposition (here) to JED's assertion that "[The Bolsheviks] are almost like Mensheviks in that they waited for the perfect moment to start a revolution instead of forcing a revolution." (here): I have to agree with Andra on this one. Wasn't the thing that differentiated Mensheviks/Bolsheviks basically that the former thought the society would progress naturally toward Communism while the latter believed that a revolution could be ignited by a person/group of people/incident? The Mensheviks weren't waiting for a "perfect moment" during which they might assist Russia on its way to Communism. They thought that when Russia achieved a fully mature capitalist society it would (following traditional Marxism) begin to shift towards Communism. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, insisted that the moment was NOW, that Russia was READY, and truly seized (and "encouraged" others to seize) their moment amidst the chaos and mass discontentment during WWI.

A Russian Debate

Ah, the joys of debating!

I was finally able to put to use my previous knowledge of the Bolsheviks (courtesy of Russian Literature with Scott) in a constructive way. After reading Charlie's blog post which (I feel) accurately portrays the debate that went on during 3rd period, I have arrived at much the same conclusion. It was sort of inevitable that the Bolsheviks would win the debate, though I do have much respect for the Octoberists. More importantly, their paramount task of attempting to convince us that the Tsar would magically surrender his power made me think about a conversation we had a few weeks ago while talking about Italian nationalism, specifically, when talking about Garibaldi ceding power to the king in order to unify Italy. This is an example of a man surrendering power, even though he was not a "conservative absolutist ruler giving up power voluntarily to a liberal or socialist public." I still thought of him, while debating.

Similarly, as of late I've been thinking about communism and so-called "communist" countries which, somehow, have fallen by the wayside into despotism. Cuba. North Korea. China. All have moved away from traditional Marxist communism and I must wonder why. What changed? Wasn't the original intent of communism to give the government to the people? To give everything to the people? I think it's ironic that in removing capitalism (and the absolutist rulers) which stood in the way of the glorious communism, the very revolutionaries who sought to overthrow the system instead have managed to establish their very own dictatorships.

Tradition!

Interestingly, when titling this blog post, I instantly thought of "Fiddler on the Roof". I planned on starting off with "Although my title is completely anachronistic", but when I Googled the musical, 'lo and behold, "Fiddler on the Roof is set in the small Jewish village of Anatevka, Russia, in 1905" (source here). How apt.

Both last night's reading and the debate today in class caused me to think a lot about tradition. Danielle's blog post questioned why a Tsar (Alexander II, III, or Nicholas II) didn't try to stave off revolution with reform. My admittedly weak answer is: tradition.

Specifically the book says, "Alexander II claimed his people had been nurtured on mystical piety for centuries and would be utterly lost without a strong autocratic system" (Western Civilizations, 844). I would agree with this. I see no other reason for the lack of reform and enhanced repressive tactics, than tradition. Russia had, more or less, always been governed by a single great leader (think Catherine or Peter the Great). Any previous time there had been stirrings of revolution (Decembrist Revolt), the autocrat had managed to put down the rebels. Why should this instance in the early 1900's have looked any different to the Tsar? Why would he have thought to reform or try a new tactic other than enhancing his level of control? Perhaps he did not realize the extent of popular discontent, or did not recognize that the people saw the loss of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) as a sign of his own weakness. In any case, Tsar Nicholas II elected to maintain tradition, and look where it got him.

Ironically, a similar situation was paralleled among the peasants. As we learned in class, they'd always thought of the Tsar as a father-like figure, to whom they could air their grievances and expect nominal change. Bloody Sunday in 1905 was a slap in the face. It broke the news that the Tsar was not their father, would not listen to them, and would not be swayed by 200,000 peasants protesting in St. Petersburg. Traditional beliefs had once again been misleading; however, for the peasants this violent wake-up call was not the end. This was really only the beginning.