reflection

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Wilson vs. Lenin - 1

The First Russian Revolution 1917 Wilson & Lenin

Russia: an Allied Power unlike other Allied Powers Russia fought on the Allied side in World War I. Yet Russia was distinct from other important Allied Powers. When the war began in 1914, Allied Powers like Great Britain, France, and the United States were similar because all three were

• industrialized

• developing increasingly democratic forms of government

• influenced by the ideology modern liberalism Unlike these other Allied Powers, Russia in 1914 was still in the early stages of industrialization. It did have big factories in major cities like St. Petersburg and Moscow, but Russia was still mostly an agricultural society. Over 75% of its population still worked in agriculture – compared to only 30% in France and about 15% in Britain. Unlike France, Great Britain, and the United States, Russia in 1914 was not developing an increasingly democratic form of government. Nor was the ideology of modern liberalism influential in Russia’s government. Instead, Russia was a multi-national empire ruled by an emperor, Czar Nicholas II. It had a parliament called the Russian Duma, but the Duma did not exercise real authority. Most authority remained with the Czar.

Russia in World War I: The First Revolution of 1917 World War I did not go well for Russia. The Russian military had more than 12 million soldiers – four times the number of German soldiers. Yet Russia’s military was inferior to Germany’s military. That was because Russia’s economy was inferior to Germany’s economy. In 1914, the Russian government owned much of the Russian economy. It owned most of the nation’s railroads, many of its coal mines, and thousands of its factories. It set prices and regulated profits. But the Russian government’s control of the economy was grossly inefficient. In fact, the Russian economy struggled to produce enough supplies for the war and enough food for the people. Shortages of food and supplies were already common in Russia after just one year of the war. The military constantly lacked enough artillery, guns, and vehicles. Replacement soldiers were sent to the front with no rifles! By 1916, Russia’s ability to feed its population and supply its army was breaking down. Over a million Russian soldiers deserted in 1916 alone. By early 1917, the city of St. Petersburg – renamed Petrograd – was facing starvation. It had less than a two-week supply of flour and almost no meet left. People stood in line for hours hoping to get a loaf of bread. Such food

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Wilson vs. Lenin - 2

shortages were common in cities like Petrograd, which were overcrowded with poor living conditions and with factory workers forced to work long hours. The situation in Russia grew worse by early 1917. In February (by the Russian calendar; March by the western calendar), mass demonstrations broke out in Petrograd. The demonstrations began by protesting food shortages and included tens of thousands of women, students, and striking workers. But as the demonstrations continued for days, they grew more aggressive and violent. Some began rioting, attacking public buildings and destroying a police station. They were emboldened by the government’s lack of response. When Czar Nicolas did respond by ordering troops to retake control of Petrograd, the only troops left in the city were poorly trained conscripts (better trained troops were fighting or killed in the war). Petrograd troops disobeyed orders and joined the demonstrators. It was a military mutiny. Battles erupted across the city as mutinous soldiers broke into government arsenals and distributed guns. Leading Russian Generals informed Czar Nicholas that his government no longer controlled the capital, Petrograd, and that his family’s safety was no longer secure. “If it is necessary, for Russia’s welfare, that I step aside, I am prepared to do so,” Nicholas informed them. And that’s what Czar Nicholas did. He stepped aside; he abdicated the throne; he gave up being emperor. The old Russian government was dead. But what would replace it? What would the new system look like? And who would create it? Members of Russia’s parliament, the Duma, stepped into the power vacuum. They formed a committee of twelve members called a “Provisional Committee of Duma Members for the Restoration of Order in the Capital.” This committee became known as the provisional government. The Czar stepping aside and the formation of this provisional government was the first Russian Revolution of 1917. The provisional government began to enact some legal reforms. The reforms included

• granting women the right to vote

• ending discriminatory laws against minorities such as Jews

• reforming the criminal justice system to end arrest for peaceful political activities

Wilson & Lenin – Intellectuals Woodrow Wilson was the American president in 1917. Vladimir Lenin was an exiled Russian living in Switzerland when the first Russian Revolution of 1917 began. Wilson and Lenin had different ideologies. Wilson was a modern liberal. Lenin was a revolutionary socialist. Yet Wilson and Lenin still shared things in common. Both Wilson and Lenin saw World War I as an opportunity. Each viewed the destruction caused by the war as setting the stage for a transformation of world politics. Each imagined himself to be the central player in that transformation – a moral leader in world change.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Wilson vs. Lenin - 3

Let’s pause and make sure we understand. Both Wilson and Lenin were intellectuals. Both had attained their status – Wilson as president and Lenin as revolutionary leader – by doing what intellectual do: talk and write about ideas. Neither had attained their status by producing things people want like goods and services. Neither had invented new technology or discovered new medicine or started a new business. They were intellectuals who lived in the world of ideas.

• Both had a high opinion of themselves and their ability to use ideas to change the world.

• Both saw themselves as having a world-historical mission. They each thought they should provide moral leadership in transforming world politics.

The moral leadership each wanted to provide was based on their ideologies. They each had an ideological vision for how the world should be. They each rejected the existing world order. That existing order was based on nations pursuing their own interests through treaties and alliances, like the alliances of World War I. Instead, each sought to create a new world order – an order based on international solidarity which they thought would lead to global peace, justice, and freedom.

• As a modern liberal, Wilson thought the new world order would be based on the spread of democracy. He thought the freedom of each people to express their will through their own nation State would naturally lead to international cooperation among democratic States. He thus saw his mission as the spread of democratic principles.

• As a revolutionary socialist, Lenin thought the new world order would be based on the “victory of socialism.” He thought working classes around the world rising up to destroy capitalists and capitalism would naturally lead to international cooperation among socialist societies. He thus saw his mission as the spread of socialist principles.

• Each, therefore, was an idealist. Each sought to replace existing world politics – nations pursuing their own interests through treaties and alliances – with a new kind of world politics. The new politics would be based on the international solidarity of peoples – solidarity among democratic nations in Wilson’s case and solidarity among international socialists in Lenin’s case. They both thought they could lead the world to a new era of international peace, justice, and freedom.

They were both wrong. Their attempts to transform world politics and to spread their own versions of peace, justice and freedom – democracy or socialism – did not lead to a new and better era. Instead, Wilson’s and Lenin’s efforts often led to more conflict and new dictatorships after World War I. Dictatorships emerged in the 1920s in places like Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Japan, Poland, Czechoslovakia as well as Austria, Hungary, and several Latin American countries. Dictatorship would also soon follow in Germany. Both Wilson and Lenin had too high an opinion of themselves. They overestimated their own abilities to make the world a better place. And – as if often true of people who seek to impose their grand vision on others – they liked their own power too much. We will return to their

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Wilson vs. Lenin - 4

failures to create a better world later. For now, let’s continue our discussion of Wilson and Lenin in the context of World War I.

Wilson, Russia & the World In the spring 1917, President Wilson wanted the United States to enter World War I on the Allied side. He went to Congress to ask for a declaration of war on Germany. In his speech to Congress, Wilson talked about Russia. He described the first Russian Revolution of 1917 like this:

• “assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia.”

Notice Wilson did not mention the military mutiny and violent uprising in the streets of Petrograd. He did not want to describe the first Russian Revolution that way. Rather, he referred to the “wonderful and heartening things that have been happening” in Russia. And he described these “things” not just as events in Russia, but as part of some larger transformation which adds “to our hope for the future peace of the world.” Wilson described events in Russia as part of some larger transformation because he wanted to portray World War I as a fight for democracy. He described the war as one side fighting for democracy and the other side fighting against democracy. Wilson’s description of the war was like this:

Modern Liberal Democratic Allies

• Great Britain

• France

• United States

• Russia

The Old Empires of the Central Powers

• Germany

• Austria-Hungary

• Ottoman Empire

When the war began in 1914, no one described the war as a fight for democracy. No one could present the Allies as fighting for democracy because a leading Ally – Russia – was a multi- national empire led by an Emperor. Even Allied countries which were developing increasing democratic forms of government – Great Britain and France – did not go to war in 1914 for democracy. Great Britain and France went to war because they worried about Germany’s power. They formed an alliance with each other (and Russia) to balance their power against Germany’s. Great Britain and France also had colonies in Africa and Asia which they wanted to maintain. Indeed, the decades leading up to World War I (1880 to 1914) were a new age of imperialism – a time when European countries like Great Britain and France as well as the emerging Asian power Japan acquired foreign territories, often through war and conquest. Let’s pause to discuss this new age of imperialism. It will help us see why Wilson’s description of World War I as a fight for democracy was largely an imaginary description of his own making.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Wilson vs. Lenin - 5

Let’s discuss the imperialism of Great Britain, China, France, and Japan.

Great Britain

Britain had been building an empire for centuries. It had long ago colonized parts of India as a source of goods like tea and cotton. But the voyage between Britain and India was over 12,000 miles because ships had to sail around Africa. That changed when Egypt’s Suez Canal opened in 1869 – see map here. The Canal cut the voyage from Britain to India to about 7,000 miles – see map here. Protecting the canal thus became British priority. As a result, Britain took control of Egypt in 1882 and then began to expand its control of northeast Africa. British forces killed thousands of Sudanese in taking control of Sudan in East Africa in 1898 – see map of Africa here. Britain also began to expand its control in Southeast Asia by annexing Malaysia and Burma in the late 1800s, areas which were sources of important resources like oil and rubber.

China

Like Great Britain, China had been building an empire for centuries. Under the Qing or Manchu dynasty, China expanded its empire in the 1600s and 1700s in Central and East Asia (Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet, and Taiwan). See maps here and here. The leaders of the Qing were Manchus (or Manchurians) who oppressed many of the people they conquered such as Hans and Tibetans. China also controlled what was called Indochina in Southeast Asia (Vietnam and Laos). But by the new age of imperialism in the late 1800s, China was a declining power. It had not industrialized like Great Britain, Germany, France, and Japan.

France

France also had a long history of empire building stretching back to the 1600s. More recently, it had begun occupying parts of Algeria and Senegal in Africa in the early 1800s. France then expanded its empire in the new age of imperialism starting in the late 1800s. France fought the Chinese for control of Indochina in Southeast Asia in the 1880s. It fought to control the Ivory Coast in West Africa in 1890. By World War I, France also controlled Morocco in North Africa as well as a large territory called French West Africa – see map here.

Japan

Japan built most of its empire during the new age of imperialism. In 1904-05, Japan fought Russia in the Russo-Japanese war. At stake was control of parts of East Asia. Japan won and, as a result, took control of Korea and Manchuria. Controlling Manchuria meant Japan was encroaching on Chinese territory. Japan’s treatment of its subject people was often harsh and oppressive. Japanese empire building continued over the next several decades. See map here. Other countries, too, participated in the new age of imperialism. Belgium created the Belgian Congo, killing and exploiting many Congolese people in the process. These events

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Wilson vs. Lenin - 6

are dramatized in Joseph Conrad’s novel The Heart of Darkness (1899). Germany colonized Pacific Islands as well as German East Africa. Attempts at imperialism did not always succeed. When an Italian army tried to colonize Ethiopia in East Africa, Ethiopian forces beat the Italians back in 1898.

These examples of imperialism highlight how Allied Powers like Great Britain and France, as well as Japan, were not thinking about spreading democracy in 1914 when World War I began. These countries had spent the decades leading up to the war building empires, often exploiting the people they conquered. They did not go to war to spread democracy. They fought World War I to defeat Germany and to maintain their empires. In fact, they increased their empires during the war by taking Germany’s colonies. Japan took Germany’s Pacific Island colonies, and France took Germany’s African colonies.

Let’s now return to our point about Woodrow Wilson and World War I. Wilson knew these facts about the Allied Powers and imperialism. He knew the Allied countries did not go to war in 1914 to spread democracy. He knew their focus was on defeating Germany and maintaining their empires. Yet Wilson still described the war as a fight for democracy. Remember, President Wilson was an intellectual who wanted to transform world politics with his ideas. He had a high opinion of himself and his ability to impose his vision on others. He thought he could use his ideas to make people to think of the whole war differently, to envision the war as an opportunity for a larger transformation about spreading democracy and beginning a new era of world peace. So when the First Russian Revolution of 1917 began, Wilson described Russia in a way that fit his vision about spreading democracy. He did not talk about the military mutiny and violent uprising in Petrograd. He did not mention that Russia never had anything close to a democracy in its history. Rather, Wilson described Russians as “democratic at heart.” And he presented them as part of larger “forces” fighting for democratic justice and peace. As he said, the “Russian people have been added to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace.” Wilson insisted that democracy was spreading because he wanted the U.S. to enter the war. That’s why he gave the speech to Congress asking for a declaration of war on Germany in April 1917. Wilson wanted to lead a democratic transformation in world politics. And he could not do this from the sidelines of the war. The U.S. would have to enter the war so Wilson could fulfill what he saw as his historical mission – to lead the spread of democratic principles and thus the beginnings of a new era of international justice and peace. To be clear,

• Wilson’s vision was not just about Russia becoming democratic.

• Wilson expected the destruction of the other multi-national empires, and in their place the emergence of new nations in Central and Eastern Europe like Poland, Hungary, and

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Wilson vs. Lenin - 7

Czechoslovakia. Wilson expected these newly independent countries to become democratic as well.

• And once Germany and Austria were defeated, he expected these too would become democratic.

• Though Wilson did not mention China in his speech to Congress, he knew the Chinese Empire had collapsed right before the war and there were opportunities for democracy to spread there too.

The war, Wilson insisted, was “to make the world safe for democracy.” It was an opportunity to open a new era of international solidarity of peoples, a new era of cooperation among democratic States.

Lenin, Russia & the World In early 1917, the Russian Vladimir Lenin was living in exile in Switzerland. He gave a speech to a small group of young socialists in the city of Zurich. In the speech, Lenin presented World War I as an opportunity – an opportunity for the transformation of world politics. On this, he agreed with Wilson. But Lenin envisioned a different kind of transformation than Wilson. He envisioned not the spread of democracy, but the violent uprising of working classes against capitalists and capitalism. Lenin described the coming transformation to the young socialists this way:

• “the coming years, precisely because of this predatory war, will lead to popular uprisings under the leadership of the proletariat against the power of finance capital, against the big banks, against the capitalists.”

Lenin envisioned these violent uprisings as leading to the destruction of capitalists and the victory of socialism. As he explained,

• “these upheavals cannot end otherwise than with the expropriation [destruction] of the bourgeoisie, with the victory of socialism.”

Lenin’s speech in Zurich was a bit misleading. Lenin was serious about a worldwide socialist revolution. But he did not really think the revolutionary uprisings would be led by the working- class proletariat. That’s what Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had predicted back in 1848, that the industrial working class would rise up and destroy capitalism in a socialist revolution. But this didn’t happen through the rest of the 1800s. And Lenin didn’t think it was going to happen in 1917 either. Back in 1902, Lenin had published a book called, What Is to Be Done? He borrowed the title from a novel he had read, Nikolai Chernyshevsky’s What Is to Be Done? (1863). Chernyshevsky’s book was a bit juvenile. It was a utopian fiction which portrayed unselfish intellectuals leading a revolutionary transformation of society. It had a big impact on Lenin. In his 1902 book, Lenin argued that socialist revolution was going to be led by trained revolutionary intellectuals, not the working class. These intellectuals, Lenin said, “shall devote to the revolution not only their spare evenings but the whole of their lives.” What Lenin had in mind was a relatively small group of elite trained revolutionaries. It was this intellectual elite which would speak for and

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Wilson vs. Lenin - 8

lead the working class. Only by such intellectuals, Lenin argued, “can the masses be trained in political consciousness and revolutionary activity.” So despite what he said in Zurich about the “leadership of the proletariat,” Lenin did not really anticipate the working class leading a revolution. Rather, he envisioned himself leading an elite group of trained revolutionary intellectuals who would use the chaos of World War I as an opportunity to seize political power and to speak for the working class. Lenin called his revolutionary elite “Bolsheviks.” The term Bolshevik means majority. It is a common strategy for revolutionaries to portray themselves as representing the majority. That’s why Lenin chose the term. But Lenin’s Bolsheviks were not actually the majority of anything. The Bolsheviks were not even the majority of revolutionary socialists during World War I. Many other socialists rejected Lenin’s elite revolutionary approach. Lenin, though, stuck with the name Bolshevik to create the perception that his group represented the majority. When the first Russian Revolution of 1917 happened, Lenin returned to Russia. Many socialists already in Russia supported the first Revolution. They thought Russia’s new provisional government was a first step in developing a socialist society over time. Some of these socialists were called Social Revolutionaries and some were called Mensheviks. Some were part of the provisional government itself. Lenin rejected their approach.

• Lenin rejected the idea of working with other socialists in Russia’s provisional government to develop socialism over time.

• Lenin wanted the complete transformation of society now. He planned for a second Russian Revolution of 1917.

• But he wanted the second Revolution to be led by his trained Bolshevik intellectuals, not by the working class or other socialists. Referring to the leadership of his elite Bolsheviks, Lenin announced in April 1917: “The law of history imposes our leadership, because it is through us that the proletariat speaks.”

April 1917 was the same month President Wilson spoke to Congress half way around the world. Wilson wanted the U.S. to enter World War I so he could lead a democratic transformation of world politics. Lenin made a parallel argument using a different logic. He argued Russia should withdraw from the war so he could lead a socialist transformation of world politics. Lenin’s position was known as “defeatism.” The idea was for Russia to withdraw from the war and accept defeat because existing world politics did not matter. What mattered was the coming socialist transformation which would create a new socialist world order. Lenin’s vision, like Wilson’s, was not just about Russia. Lenin’s vision, like Wilson’s, was global.

• Lenin thought socialist transformation would begin in Russia and would be like a spark that set off worldwide revolution.

• Lenin also expected the destruction of the other multi-national empires, and in their place the emergence of new nations in Central and Eastern Europe like Poland, Hungary, and

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Wilson vs. Lenin - 9

Czechoslovakia. Lenin hoped to spread revolutionary socialism to these newly independent countries as well.

• And in the chaos of the war, he hoped to spread revolutionary socialism to Germany and Austria too.

• Lenin was also aware of China. He knew that the collapse of the Chinese Empire provided an opportunity to spread revolutionary socialism there.

The war, Lenin thought, opened a great opportunity. But that opportunity was not to spread democracy, as Wilson wanted. In fact, Lenin wrote a book called State and Revolution (1917) in which he mocked Wilson’s promotion of democracy. Lenin sarcastically described people like Wilson as “liberal professors” and “petty bourgeois opportunists” – meaning people without principles. As Lenin argued,

• “progress does not march onward, simply, smoothly, and directly, to greater and greater democracy, as the liberal professors and petty bourgeois opportunists would have us believe.”

Though Lenin mocked Wilson’s promotion of democracy, Lenin sought to appropriate the term “democracy.” He presented the Bolsheviks as representing “true” democracy. He described their revolutionary socialism as “democracy for the poor, democracy for the people.” Let’s end this lecture by considering what Lenin meant by “democracy for the poor, democracy for the people.” Revolutionaries often portray themselves as representing “the poor” and “the people,” similar to how they claim to represent the majority. Lenin helps us understand what these phrases mean. He said about the Bolsheviks that “it is through us that the proletariat speak.” Trained revolutionaries claim to speak for the poor and for the people. That means they – the revolutionaries – must gain and maintain political power. They view it as their historical mission to have power. As Lenin claimed, “The law of history imposes our leadership.” But if elite revolutionaries speak for the poor and for the people, then democracy cannot mean the freedom to engage in political activities. Democracy cannot mean political parties, campaigns, and elections. Think this through:

• Political activities like political parties, campaigns, and elections express various opinions and have uncertain outcomes – different people could get elected.

• But revolutionaries like Lenin have already declared that they speak for the people. They’ve already claimed that it is “through us” that the people speak. Such revolutionaries thus see political parties, campaigns, and elections as interfering with “democracy for the people” – i.e., interfering with the rule of the revolutionaries.

• Not surprisingly, then, Lenin mocked the idea political parties, campaigns, and elections as “petty bourgeoisie” democracy.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Wilson vs. Lenin - 10

Similarly, Lenin’s “democracy for the poor, democracy for the people” does not mean freedom of speech, freedom of press, or the right peaceably to assemble.

• It might mean those freedoms for the revolutionaries and their supporters. But not for everyone else because the trained revolutionaries already claim to speak “for the people.”

• Follow the logic: If the revolutionaries speak “for the people,” then anyone with different opinions must be against the people. There can be no dissent.

• Thus revolutionaries often deny these freedoms to large parts of the population they seek to rule.

Lenin denounced all these kinds of political freedoms as mere “capitalist” or “bourgeois” freedoms. He and his trained revolutionaries also rejected due process. Due process includes

• protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by government

• the presumption of innocence when accused of a crime

• the need for evidence to prove guilt

• the right of the accused to cross-examine witnesses

• trial by jury Lenin viewed these due process protections as “capitalist” and “bourgeois.” They were not part of “democracy for the poor, democracy for the people.” Lenin said “The only interesting question in life is Who, whom?” By this, he meant the only question is who exploits whom. For Lenin, society is a zero-sum conflict between an oppressor class and an oppressed class – two groups which share nothing in common. Marx and Engels made the same point back in 1848 when they said that society is divided between two kinds of groups, “oppressor and oppressed.” In this way of thinking, individuals are not viewed as individuals, but only as members of groups. There are no rights which each individual has as an individual. There are no due process protections for each individual as an individual. Society does not include individuals, but only groups. And there are only two kinds of groups – oppressor and oppressed – which are hostile adversaries and which share nothing in common. The only question for Marx and Engels, and for Lenin, is which group will exploit and oppress which group. They do not see any principles which allow for peaceful co-existence. It’s a survival of the fittest mentality. For Lenin, his trained revolutionaries – the Bolsheviks – needed to crush the “bourgeoisie,” the “capitalist.”