Zinoviev and Kamenev advised against this risk-taking, saying that ‘ Against this perilous policy we raise our voice in warning.’
2. Would you call Z/K’s attitude ‘cowardly’?
Z/K’s opinion on revolution was that it was a risk and that to ‘stake’ the ‘fate of our party’ on a revolution before a majority backing was gained, could destroy the chance for a revolution ever again. Lenin believed that to gain a majority vote was not necessary for a successful revolution, and that in fact the support that the Bolsheviks had, coupled with the ‘ fact that a majority of peasant Soviets… had expressed itself against the Provisional Government.’ meant that the Bolsheviks had a good chance of seizing power from the PG without the fifty-one percent majority that Z/K claimed was needed.
While it was in fact Lenin’s risk-taking that paid off, with a successful revolution, it is unfair to consider Z/K as ‘cowardly’. To undertake in a revolution is as they said, staking everything ‘on one card’. Therefore, their views are more cautious than ‘cowardly’, and they are considering the general progress of the party. However, a revolution cannot be successful if risks aren’t taken and Z/K wanted a certain victory by waiting until the Bolsheviks were the most popular party in Russia. They believed that if they were patient and the party continued to progress as it was, ‘ The influence of the Bolsheviks is increasing’ then they could secure victory. This could not be obtained in a country with eighty-five percent of the population being peasants, and not city-dwellers.
Even though it was not possible for a revolution with Z/K’s cautious attitude, it was not ‘cowardly’ as said before, simply unrealistic.
3. Explain carefully whether the city election results support:
- Just Lenin’s argument
- Just Zinoviev and Kaminev’s argument
- Both arguments
The results for the Petrograd August 20th elections and the Moscow elections in 1917 supports both Lenin’s and Z/K’s arguments.
Z/K claim in their argument that ‘the immense growth of our party in the cities’ will mean that the Bolsheviks will become ‘impossible for the bourgeoisie to obstruct’. The city election results support this statement the Bolsheviks support was growing. Lenin also stated that ‘the majority of people began quickly to go over to the side of the Bolsheviks. This was demonstrated by the August 20th elections in Petrograd,’ which can be confirmed also by the city election results in document 3. Z/K use the increase in support to back up their argument that a revolution is not necessary, and shouldn’t be done until the support grows to a majority. They say that the ‘influence of the Bolsheviks is increasing’ and that the Bolshevik ‘programme will become know to broader and broader masses.’ The election results support Z/K’s argument that the Bolshevik party is gaining a stronger hold in Russia, and that if the party is patient, the majority needed to secure revolution, will be won. Z/K say that it is not necessary for the Bolsheviks to risk everything on a revolution now, because if the Bolsheviks continue to gain popularity as shown in the city election results, then a revolution will be certain.
Lenin’s argument that the Bolsheviks already had enough popularity to seize power from the PG is also supported by the city election results, because the city election results from both Petrograd and Moscow show that the Bolsheviks popularity was increasing.
4. Why is Lenin reluctant to accept the verdict of the ballot box? Do you think his argument is satisfactory?
Lenin claims that he will not accept the election results of January 1918 because the elections were ‘conducted under the bourgeois yoke,’ Lenin is suggesting that the elections were not entirely democratic and that the system was suited more to the bourgeoisie. However this is not a particularly satisfactory argument because the Social Revolutionaries won the elections, not a bourgeois party, but a peasant party.
Lenin then goes on to justify closing down the elections because ‘the proletariat must first overthrow the bourgeoisie and conquer the power of the state, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat’ this was the belief of Karl Marx, whom Lenin borrowed his Bolshevik ideology from. Therefore this argument is a justified one from a Marxist point of view. If social justice is the prime criteria, then Lenin’s argument is not satisfactory. However if a Marxist revolution is the primary goal, then this argument could be seen as satisfactory.
