Bolshevik Systems of Governance - Assignment Example

Question Identify the main characteristics of the tsarist and Bolshevik systems of governance. Would you emphasize continuity or change across thetwo time periods? Explain. In your answer, you should refer to the readings, documents, lectures, and discussions. (1,200 words) It is abundantly clear that many of the main characteristics between the czarist regime and the Bolshevik system of government were fundamentally different. However, simply stating this is not sufficient towards identifying what elements were different and what ways. As a function of understanding this issue to a further and more complete degree, the following analysis will engage with some of the key differentials and commonalities that involved under these respective levels of control/governance. Perhaps, the biggest and most brazen differential that exists between these two systems is predicated upon the way in which power is structured. The czarist system was predicated upon a system of governance not unlike what Western Europe had experienced for many centuries prior to the 1800s. Ultimately, the system was one in which the divine right of a king/monarch/tsar was respected within the system and esteemed as coming directly from the mouth of God. Not surprisingly, this level of top down organizational structure created a system in which broad inequality, injustice, and disparity were witnessed at nearly every juncture of society. Moreover, due to the fact that an absolute level of control allowed the Czar to impact upon the development of society in almost every imaginable way, the class structure that was exhibited under such a system and allowed for an undifferentiated representation.1 For instance, those individuals that had the greater level of access to the Royal court, the Czar, and those in positions of decision-making power, were invariably those individuals that held nearly complete and total control over the nation’s wealth. By means of contrast in comparison, individuals that did not have a level of access to Royal favor or interaction were bereft of rights, titles, wealth, and/or land.2 Although key changes with respect to the way in which czarist Russia was administered took place in the latter years of the 20th century, these changes were ineffective, halfhearted, and ultimately too late to the flow of discussed and revolution that were tearing at the very fabric of Russian society.3 By means of comparison and contrast, the Bolshevik formulation of power and governance was one that was, at least initially, predicated upon the will of the people. Although individuals are quick to point to the fact that later representations of communism within Soviet Union were invariably undemocratic, the representations of communism that existed within the Bolshevik revolution, and the manner through which advisory councils and peoples committees were able to formulate decisions based upon the future of their respective groups, and on the future of Russian in general, were necessarily democratic.4 Naturally, by means of comparison, the czarist government was fundamentally fearful of the impacts that an increased level of democracy could bring to the system as a whole. Because of this, the vacillating nature of Czar Nicholas II reforms within the Duma caused a situation in which individuals within Russian society soon began to lose faith in the fact that any level of Democratic reform could be brought by a totalitarian and autocratic level of leadership; as exhibited by Czar Nicholas II. However, the information that is thus far been related has been contingent upon contrasting methods through which the Bolshevik interpretation of governance and power differentiated from those of the Czar. Yet, stakeholders within the Bolshevik camp began to realize that an unfettered level of democracy within the peoples committees and advisory councils created a situation in which no productive gains could be evidenced. Breaking away from the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks engaged in an approach that was decidedly more authoritarian; lending the reader to recognize a distinct level of similarity with respect to the way in which the Bolshevik forces organized themselves as compared to the way in which the czarist government had organized itself.5 Whereas it is true that strong leadership did not immediately emerge and all deference was directed towards a solitary individual, as was done within the czarist era, strong organizational culture came to be created that began to diminish the impact that individuals could have with regards to future changes and course that the movement would exhibit. Naturally, it was during this very period that individual such as Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and several other dynamic figures within the movement began to make their respective names known and their impacts felt.6 Many individuals who have analyzed and measured the similarities and differences between the czarist government/organization and Bolshevik government/organization have come to an understanding of the fact that culture ultimately played a profound role in shaping mechanisms through which these two systems of governance were exhibited. What is by this has to do with the fact that hundreds of years of autocratic leadership created fertile ground, as well as a broadly understood social dynamic/culture, which ultimately expected leadership to be controlling, definitive, and without question. Naturally, the brutality and cruelty that was exhibited within the subsequent exhibition of the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, and can easily be understood within such a cultural definition/understanding of power/authority/structure that was instilled over hundreds of years. Yet, returning to a level of contrast between these two systems, the stakeholders that the czarist system was most interested in appeasing as compared to the stakeholders towards which the Bolshevik were most interested in engaging could not have been more dissimilar. Even a cursory level of understanding reveals the fact that the czarist era was predicated upon seeking to promote the needs of the landed aristocracy; enlarging their wealth, mediating disputes, and ensuring that uprisings did not boil over into a full-fledged Civil War. Within such an interpretation, it can readily be denoted that the overall level of concern with respect to the plight of the serfs was hardly ever engaged.7 Whereas it is true that certain czars sought to address this issue so that Russian society could become more reflective/representative of the norms of society it were developing throughout Western Europe, the reactionary czars that invariably came after such a forward thinking czars, quickly reversed this course and continued in the path of appeasing the landed aristocracy and wealthy first and foremost. In direct contrast to this, the Bolshevik level of approach was one that was predicated upon addressing the needs of the people first and foremost. Naturally, this idyllic goal was oftentimes overshadowed with self-promotion, greed, avarice, and outright corruption. Nonetheless, as compared to the czarist system, that is previously been discussed, the Bolshevik system was one that at least attempted to address the needs of the poorest individuals within society and promote the general welfare of all individuals; irrespective of class, level of wealth, or prior pedigree. As can be seen from the previous level of analysis, the short answer to whether or not there was a seamless thread of similarity between the czarist era and the Bolshevik era cannot easily be answered. Effectively, cultural norms and interpretations of power had a profound impact with regards to the way in which the governmental organization of both of these structures was exhibited. However, the ultimate focus, and stakeholders, towards whom these representations of power were intended to affect, could not have been more dissimilar. Word count for Question 1 = 1343 Question 2. How and why did the Bolsheviks come to power between November 1917 and the end of the Russian Civil War? In your answer you should consider both long and short term factors, and refer to the readings, documents, lectures, and discussions. (900 words) There are several reasons for why the Bolshevik Revolution took place when it did. The first of these reasons has to do with the fact that the Russian Empire was quite literally exhausted from years of fighting on the Eastern front during the First World War; a period that for the Russian Empire extended from 1914-1917. The ineffective nature of Russian military strategy, the realization that life was expendable, at least in terms of high-level strategists and leadership, and a loss of faith with respect to sacrificing one’s life for an increasingly distant and ineffective leader caused many of the soldiers that fought this war to play a prominent role in fighting for the overthrow of such system. Seeing the overthrow of the Czar, in March of 1917, as an effective means of disengaging from this endless conflict, many individuals were encouraged to lessen the sufferings of their fellow man, and of the Empire at large, by integrating with the Bolshevik cause. Rather than viewing the victory of Bolshevism over the autocracy of the Russian Empire as proof that the Bolshevik cause was more enlightened, the following discussion will instead be concentric upon discussing the rhetoric of both sides. In such a manner, the promises and hope that the Bolsheviks were able to give can easily be understood as a fundamental mechanism that helped them to achieve ultimate victory; as compared to the backward looking and clearly failed approach that the monarchists continued to promote. Yet, war weary soldiers were not the only individuals that actively took part in protests that eventually helped to oust the Czar. Hundreds of thousands of men and women soon took the streets and protested against the miserable conditions that existed within the Russian Empire at the time. They were fundamentally unsatisfied with sacrificing everything they had for a war that continue to be mired in the feet and hopelessness, these individuals demanded bread, a dissolution of the autocracy, and return of their sons and husbands from the frontlines. Spurred on by firebrands such as London, individuals throughout the Russian Empire soon began to see the official government is merely another representation of all things they hated; representative of autocracy, inefficiency, and continued bloodletting on the frontlines of the First World War. However, the picture that has been painted thus far only tells part of the story. Ultimately, Lenin, as well as fellow leaders within the Bolshevik party, was able to effectively convince and promote individuals to the understanding that the revolutionary gains could not be accomplished in a short period of time. This was not only partially true; it was a masterful fabrication that allowed individuals who participated within the post-revolution to forever see ultimate victory as more of an ideal as compared to a reality. In such a way, even as production all but halted and starvation came to be an ever present reality during, and briefly after, the Civil War. Within the Russian Empire, Lenin was able to spur on his supporters with the promise and hope that the ideal society required further effort. The underlying reason for why the Russian revolution took place when it did cannot discount the impact and power that a dynamic leader such as Vladimir Lenin had upon organizing resistance and continually encouraging population that would otherwise giving up hope on such an ideal to provide further manpower, resources, and energy in the hopes of creating such a society in the future. A further reason for why the Bolsheviks were ultimately able to prevail was the fact that no viable third path existed for people during this time. Ultimately, it was clear and apparent that the czarist faction could not and would not leverage the interests of the people against the interests and desires of a moneyed aristocracy. Furthermore, the prospect of a return to the czarist era did not hold happy memories or the hope of societal advancement for individuals that were not born without money, land, or a title. By means of contrast in comparison, the Bolsheviks held a litany of promises for those individuals that fought for the revolution. Whether or not any of these premises ultimately came to pass is an issue for analysis. However, these promises and defining levels of organization that helped the Bolsheviks to take power and defeat the czarist’s cannot and should not be understated; as they continue to capture the imagination, zeal, and energies of tens of thousands of individuals throughout the Russian Empire during and after the Civil War (which extended from 1917-1922.8 As with any movement or revolution, the level of public relations that the Bolsheviks were able to represent to stakeholders within society was also more effective as compared to the level of public relations and understanding that the czarist’s were able to represent. Bringing a message of enlightenment, hard work, sacrifice, hope, and the dream of a better future, the Bolsheviks had a far more effective public relations mechanism as compared to the czarist. As the Bolsheviks could promote the development of a region, people, and an entirely new political system, the czarist were left repeating the same often used excuses for why a single autocratic family should continue to forge the destiny of tens of millions of people. Naturally, seeing this rational as pointless and useless, more and more individuals began to flock to the Bolshevik cause; regardless of what drawbacks it engendered, it promised to provide a brighter and more hopeful future than the regressionist policies and point of view that the Tsarists continued to promote. Word count for Question 2 = 945 Question 3. Briefly describe bolshevism. To what extent do you think that the Bolsheviks established such a system under Lenin and Stalin? Be sure to address the differences between Lenin’s and Stalin’s reigns. In your answer, you should refer to the readings, documents, lectures, and discussions. (900 words) In brief, Bolshevism, within the period of the early 20th century, can be understood synonymously alongside Soviet communism. However, defining one term by another is not fully helpful to elucidate what either one of these terms represents. Ultimately, both of Bolshevism and Soviet communism is representative of an ideology that promoted the creation and establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Furthermore, Bolshevik and/or Soviet communism advocated the creation of a communal state that fundamentally reintegrated understandings of wealth, social class, private property, and the ownership of capital.9 Rather than providing an all-encompassing understanding of what Bolshevism represented, it must be understood that the growth and evolution of this term was all but something that individuals, even during the time in which it was taking place, could agree upon. As such, schisms, disagreement, and violence were advocated by and against elements within the Bolshevik party that sought to promote a different ideology or understanding of core tenets as compared to another group/bloc. This level of disagreement was ultimately what allowed one of the more radical elements within the party to come to a level of power and prominence; thereby helping to define the fate of the Soviet Union up until its collapse in the early 1990s. In terms of discussing the extent to which the Bolsheviks ultimately were able to establish such a system under linen or Stalin, it is the strong belief of this particular analyst that an incomplete success is the very best way that this particular question could be answered. The ideology of the Bolsheviks was indeed a lofty. However, the situation that ultimately transpired, under Lenin and Stalin, was one that required the formulation of an idyllic system that was not corrupted by the greed and personal ambitions of individuals within leadership. Moreover, the system that the Bolsheviks hoped would be affected was one that was predicated upon the “soviets”; or advisory councils that people created. Naturally, as individuals within authority began to express their power in a more and more definitive manner, the impact that these advisory councils and peoples committees could affect upon the direction of communism within the Soviet Union was drastically limited. Furthermore, as the power of dynamic leaders such as Lenin and Stalin came to dominate Soviet political reforms, daily life, and ideology to a more pervasive degree, a clear division can be noted between the way in which the Bolsheviks might have envisioned their movement progressing and the manner through which the leaderships of Soviet communism ultimately engaged.10 As it was realized that the effective capacity of the people’s committees was limited with regards to providing “advice” to leadership, the democratic power that such institutions had was largely negated. Whereas Russian Bolshevism did not start as an autocratic power that sought to suppress and disregard democratic expression, the eventuality that soon came to develop was one in which leadership saw these manifestations as little more than a formality that could be contravened and ignored as the situation demanded. Such a point of view came to be further reinforced as the movement of Bolshevism gave way into an actual representation of soviet communism within the USSR. Yet, it cannot be understood that both the Lenin and Stalin approached Marxist ideology from the same standpoint. For instance, soon after Lennon was faced with the reality that many of the reforms that he intended to affect would further weaken the nascent Soviet Union, Lenin chose to push these reforms back and allow for a reconsolidation of power to take place prior to engaging them further. Whereas there is a certain level of similarity with regards to the way in which both Lenin and Stalin administered the Soviet Union, a core differential can be seen with regards to the importance of ideologies that Lenin held as compared to Stalin. Stalin, on the other hand, was less concerned with the nuances of a worldwide revolution of the proletariat and far more concerned with solidifying his grip on total and complete control. Many individuals have attributed this focus to the belief that Stalin suffered from a particularly severe form of paranoia. However, whatever the reason might have been, Stalin administered the Soviet Union, conducted purges, and even had trusted friends and comrades executed at the slightest notion that they may come to challenge his grip on power. However, even though Stalin was no doubt maniacal, he utilized this paranoia as a means of spreading the revolutionary tenets of Lenin. Instead of focusing on spreading the revolution around the globe, Stalin instead focused upon solidifying the support he held within the Soviet Union and ostracizing, purging, executing, and banishing any of those that might oppose his plans for developing the Soviet system any further. A core understanding that must be had with respect to the representation of Bolshevism and/or the leadership of Joseph Stalin as compared to V.I. Lenin has to do with the fact that the student should not be lulled into understanding that a core thread of commonality was exhibited between these two leaders. Whereas it is true that they were both representative of the early formation of Russian Communism within the former Soviet Union, the approach and the tactics that both of these men employed could not have been more dissimilar. Word count for Question 3 = 911 Bibliography Cohen, Aaron. “Long Ago and Far Away: War Monuments, Public Relations, and the Memory of the Russo-Japanese War in Russia, 1907-14,” Russian Review 69 (2010), 388-411. Daly, Jonathan. “Bolshevik Power and Ideas of the Common Good,” Modern Age 54 (1-4) (Winter-Fall 2012), 77-88. Engel, Barbara. “Not by bread alone: Subsistence riots in Russia during World War I,” Journal of Modern History 69 (4) (1997), 696-721. Gaida, Fedor. “The Provisional Government’s Mechanism of Power,” Russian Studies in History 41 (2003), 52-72. Lohr, Eric. “The Russian Army and the Jews: Mass Deportation, Hostages, and Violence during World War I,” Russian Review 60 (2001), 404-419. Memos, Christos. "Anarchism and Council Communism on the Russian Revolution." Anarchist Studies 20, no. 2 (November 2012): 22-47. Political Science Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 18, 2014). Partlett, William. "The Legality of Liberal Revolution." Review Of Central & East European Law 38, no. 3/4 (January 2014): 217-237. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 18, 2014). Patenaude, Bertrand. “Peasants into Russians: The utopian essence of war communism,” Russian Review 54 (1995), 552-570. Remington, Thomas. “Institution Building in Bolshevik Russia: The Case of ‘State Kontrol’,” Slavic Review 41 (1982), 91-103. Sanborn, Joshua. “Unsettling the empire: Violent migrations and social disaster in Russia during World War I,” Journal of Modern History 77 (2) (2005), 290-324. Read More