The Bolshevik Revolution - Essay Example

QN. 11. THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION I defend the assertion that the Bolshevik Revolution also referred to as the Russian Revolution has significant similarities and dissimilarities to the French revolution. To the history of the world, it remains one of the most essential revolutions. I will personally place it in the third place after the French and American revolutions. The Russian Revolution bears close resemblance to the French Revolution; both these two revolutions were in opposition to economic oppression. To add to this, the Russian Revolution just like the French revolution started as a rebellion against undemocratic principles. Fundamentally, in the 20th century Russia was an exceedingly subjugated country managed by the Czars. Ruled by feudal tenets of dictatorship, the citizens’ of Russia were terribly oppressed, cold, poor, and starving, in addition they had no authentic course or hope. In essence, Russia had never undergone any open-minded revolutions, which were occurring in other parts of the globe. This made Russia remain as one of the real last remnants of the medieval European-American society. The rebels through acts of rebellion, revolutionist, and terrorism overthrew the Czars government. To start with, the Bolsheviks and Lenin were outside Russia when the revolution took place. Some of them were Russians while others were not Russians. They were socialists and Marxists revolutionaries existing in Europe studying sociology, science, economics, history, and many more from a Marxist viewpoint. The Bolsheviks did not necessitate the removal from power of the Russian government, after the coup, they came in with the intention of putting Marxist hypothesis and ideology to practice. Their major plan was to develop Russia into a social state through social revolution and spread their ideologies to Europe, America and eventually the whole world (Wiesner-Hanks & Wheeler 2007, 67). This portrays a major difference between the French revolution and the Russian revolution. Foreigners played a major role in the Russian revolution while only the French participated in the French revolution. Eventually, the Bolsheviks managed to overthrow the residual powers of Czars authoritarianism in October revolution. They began reforms through establishing legislative assemblies called the Soviets. The same way the French came up with representative units called the constituencies. These soviets consisted of openly elected officials who were in charge of the affaires of the citizens including peasants, soldiers, and workers. To add to that, they launched attacks on private belongings and other social and economic crimes to the population that angered the rest of the world. In addition, they publicized all the surreptitious files that were contained in the government archives. They also, exposed all the clandestine treaties that the former government had prepared with a variety of neighboring states. They were doing this to please their public and brainwash their thinking, that their form of governance was open, independent, and straightforward. This compares to the democratic governance system established by the French after they threw out the monarch system of government in the French revolution. Furthermore, Pipes (1996, 87) goes ahead to say, these types of actions by the Bolsheviks’ only gravitated international pressure and resistance to the Russian authorities. At the end of World War I, more than twenty countries across the world including America, and Europe began sustaining the counteraction of the revolution in Russia attempting to topple the Bolshevik administration. Russia entered a period of civil war, now with the Whites and the Reds. Leon Trotsky led the Red soldiers’ while the Czars supported by external countries like the America led the White army. The Reds took a direction known as War Communism, which in simple terms mean to be additionally authoritarian and extremely militant as a self-protective measure. The same way Napoleon Bonaparte usurped the dictatorial system of government after brainwashing the public of being a democrat and transparent transformational leader. To add to that, according to Trotsky (1980, 113) he further illustrates that, Woodrow Wilson, by then the American president sent 12,000 soldiers to help the White army fight then Red army. Fascinatingly, the American soldiers suffered greater casualties from the White army than the Red army. The American army commanders in the battlefield said that the Czarist supremacy of terror was too terrific and destabilizing the proceedings of the Red army. American soldiers also found out that a grater majority of the Russians sympathized with the Bolsheviks, in this regard supported the revolution. American soldiers went back home at the end of the war, without any appreciation. This military project was well thought-out as one of the mainly unfortunate interventions of American troops that ever took place in the American History. Major General Graves who led the American troops was blamed for being a Red supporter and was generally dishonored back home. Argumentatively, Napoleon in the French revolution blamed the resistance to the revolution in the neighboring countries supporting the monarch. Moreover, D’Agostino (2010, 79) says that, several things emerged from this struggle, among them; Russia was unable to undergo a social revolution, which according to Marxist theory, Russia would foremost set up a capitalist system to expand its economy. The contrasting view was that a socialist state ought to be forced upon Russia and that it is supposed to lead by example. Stalin was an enthusiastic supporter of this-national socialism, which contradicted opinions of a majority of the Bolsheviks, including Trotsky and Lenin, two of the chief leaders in the Bolshevik Revolution. The Marxist supposition of socialism stated that, socialism would not be probable in a solitary state, but that it required a worldwide revolution to make sure that all states worked together in order to sustain each other through collective resources, labor and supply services and goods to satisfy all the demands of their people and citizens. This affirmed the fundamental similarity to the French revolution, due to the expansionist tendencies of Napoleon Bonaparte military strategy. In this regard, this was the most fundamental similarity in ideologies between the two revolutions. To support my views further, Figes ( 1998, 167) gives an account that, in 1921, Lenin was shot but not killed by a woman known as Fanya Kaplan, a socialist who thought that Lenin had betrayed their struggle by not promoting socialism. As Lenin’s physical health deteriorated, Stalin by then the General Secretary began building his influence in the party. Stalin began replacing his political enemies in the Soviets’ and took a dictatorial position. At this point, Lenin tried getting the assistance of Leon Trotsky in opposing Stalin but was in vain. Stalin had by then consolidated enough power. Before his death from a stroke in 1924, Lenin had warned the Russians against the headship of Stalin and proposed that the Soviets become more democratic and open. Napoleon engaged the same methods as Stalin in the management of government affairs in the formative stages of their leadership, that of being democratic and transparent. In 1928, Stalin’s first five-year roadmap went into effect. Under his control, fast industrialization took place. Although, he was an authoritative leader, the developments that took place in Russia during his reign shocked the world. The same thing happened in France, when Napoleon initiated developmental projects that improved the livelihood of their citizens. However, the 17th Soviet Congress of the 1928 voted out Stalin’s leadership. He managed to steal the votes although Sergei Kirov had won the elections. He went further and murdered Kirov and other 1300 members of the 17th Congress who were entirely communists. He also eventually assassinated Leon Trotsky while in exile in Mexico. Russian considered Stalin a deserter of socialist revolution, while the French referred to Napoleon as a traitor of democratic principles later on in his leadership. In addition, according to Pipes (1991, 45) the Russian Revolution just like the French Revolution, the clergy and the churches supported the Czars of Russia. This was because of a cordial relationship among the Russian Orthodox and the Czars; just the same, way there was a good relationship between the Catholic Church and the French Crown preceding the French Revolution. Furthermore, more similarities are seen, because, the two scenarios had their beginning in a main new political principle, which had different mythical heroes for the Russian Communism it was Karl Marx while for the French Republicanism it was Voltaire. Both revolutions find their force in peasant classes who were struggling to make ends meet in corrupt and undemocratic governments. In both cases, the civil turbulence aimed at monarchy itself, which was living a luxurious lifestyle while the rest of the population was in abject poverty. The following blood-spattered aftermath, was atrocious and spared nobody including the royal family. In the two revolutions, both leaders are very intelligent politicians. Stalin in Russia and Napoleon in France, both managed to quietly usurp authoritarian leadership without a representative form of government being elected. Both leaders have good military strategies as they managed to overthrow the previous regimes without much difficulty. Without a radiant leader the French Republic would have been easily defeated, the same applies to Stalin in Russia. Nevertheless, the two revolutions have several differences in terms of citizenship, religion, and role of women in the community. The Russian Revolution in 1917 was more radical as compared to the French Revolution. In the Russian Revolution women rights was a huge worry to the Bolsheviks’ as compared to the French Revolution. This struggle culminated just a year after the Bolsheviks ascended to power in 1918 by submitting a brand new family code, which helped protect families and women, a policy never seen anywhere else in the entire globe that time (Coffin & Stacey 2009 85-87). The family code had everything from divorce, marriage, abortion; alimony, land privileges and most uniquely stated that women’s social rights were equivalent to that of men. If you compare it to the French Revolution, citizenship and other benefits accorded to the men because they were the soldiers who took part in the struggle. In sum, the Bolshevik Revolution in the provisions of religion was additionally thorough because it looked for the deep-seated power structure in the church and condemned the religious institutions that were corrupt while at the same time carrying out structural adjustments in the institutions framework. In France, a limited effort was used, to tame and intimidate the church, which only brought anger and chaos. In conclusion, the French Revolution was superior in terms of long lasting goals. The Russians had numerous powerful strategies and actions that were not passed the 1930’s, which left the nation broken. The French had inadequate ideas but they continued building up in the coming years, and they ended up having the best long-term strategies, which have even contributed to the modern world today. However, acknowledgement of the importance and contributions of the Russian Revolution to civilization and the entire history of the globe is undeniable. Bibliography Coffin, Judith and Stacey, Robert. Western Civilization. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 2009. D’Agostino, Anthony. The Russian Revolution, 1917-1945. Weston Connecticut: Praeger, 2010. Figes, Orlando. A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1991-1924. London: Penguin, 1998. Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Russian Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Pipes, Richard. The Russian Revolution. New York: Vintage; 1st Vintage Books, 1991. Pipes, Richards. A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. New York: Vintage, 1996. Trotsky, Leon. History of the Russian Revolution. Chicago: Pathfinder, 1980. Wiesner-Hanks, Merry and Wheeler, Bruce. Discovering the Western Past: Look at the Evidence, Volume II, Since 1500. Wardsworth Publisher, 2007. Read More