Section XVI: Developments in Socialism, Contemporary Civilization (Ideas and Institutions 1848-1914 of Western Man) 1958 4. Lenin Robert L. Bloom Gettysburg College Basil L. Crapster Gettysburg College Harold L. Dunkelberger Gettysburg College See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/contemporary_sec16 Part of the Models and Methods Commons, and the Political History Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item. Bloom, Robert L. et al. "4. Lenin. Pt. XVI: Developments in Socialism, (1848-1914)." Ideas and Institutions of Western Man (Gettysburg College, 1958), 48-64. This is the publisher's version of the work. This publication appears in Gettysburg College's institutional repository by permission of the copyright owner for personal use, not for redistribution. Cupola permanent link: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/ contemporary_sec16/5 This open access book chapter is brought to you by The uC pola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The uC pola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 4. Lenin Abstract Marx' theory of revolutionary tactics, moreover, could not easily be applied to Russian conditions. After the revolutions of 1848 he had abandoned reliance on small, secret societies aimed at the immediate seizure of power, holding that they could not be successful without popular understanding and support. The askt , as he saw it, involved long-range preparations in which educating the working classes had to take precedence over organizing for violence. Consequently, Marx favored the creation of large political parties, functioning openly. Such an approach presupposed a relatively benign political environment, such as that of England. Where ideas could not be circulated freely, it could not be adopted. This was the situation in tsarist Russia. [excerpt] Keywords Contemporary Civilization, Lenin, Karl Marx, Socialism, Revolution, Capitalist System, Industrial Proletariat, Russia Disciplines Models and Methods | Political History | Political Science Comments This is a part of Section XVI: Developments in Socialism, (1848-1914). The Contemporary Civilization page lists all additional sections of Ideas and Institutions of Western Man, as well as the Table of Contents for both volumes. More About Contemporary Civilization: From 1947 through 1969, all first-year Gettysburg College students took a two-semester course called Contemporary Civilization. The ourc se was developed at President Henry W.A. Hanson’s request with the goal of “introducing the student to the backgrounds of contemporary social problems through the major concepts, ideals, hopes and motivations of western culture since the Middle Ages.” Gettysburg College professors from the history, philosophy, and religion departments developed a textbook for the course. The first edition, published in 1955, was called An Introduction to Contemporary Civilization and Its Problems. A second edition, retitled Ideas and Institutions of Western Man, was published in 1958 and 1960. It is this second edition that we include here. The opc y we digitized is from the Gary T. Hawbaker ’66 Collection and the marginalia are his. Authors Robert L. Bloom, Basil L. Crapster, Harold L. Dunkelberger, Charles H. Glatfelter, Richard T. Mara, Norman E. Richardson, and W. Richard Schubart This book chapter is available at The uC pola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/ contemporary_sec16/5 XVI p. 48 J (1900) , Amsterdam (1904), Stuttgart (1907)^ Copenhagen (1919), and Basle (1912). In 1900 an International Socialist Bureau was established at Brussels to coordinate the activities of the organi­ zation. Lastly, a journal was published in French, German, and English to encourage communication between the individual parties. If the Second International represented the growing power of the~^^so^ia1 i^ mo^ment, it also was a token of other TKTn^s« 'Ifwas composed of groups that stood for different versions of socialism in each QX,±h&,.membex-.-i::uxaiitxijes Moreoverj while Marx was "extoiled he was mpx&.„±i:.aa.Mently ignored in pr"acTice. Thus the various socialist parties generally were characterized by an inclination for reform, and not revolution, within their respective states. Crucial for the fate of the organization was the disparity between the professed ideal of uniting the International workilEig class"anH"'the ^ of nationalism. It was soon to be demon­ strated that the ties to individual countries could not be rent asunder when a choice had to be made between loyalty to nation and loyalty to the international socialist movement. On .ttig gve of World War I-^ the International sought in vain to concjert social- ist~~action, passingprgegj|eneraT ®trikes to prevent the onset. of hostilities, When this actTqn failed^- the indivijdual--parti^s- stood b^---iiieiji.~CQiintfT^, one ..by one coming to the -support-43f-nartie-Balr-w-a»i--e*j«6sts „ This marked the effective end.of.,tha. Second International, 4. Lenin Of all the socialist parties in existence before World War I, the RussiajL-jg-axxajUts -soeciaJL attentljQ^n^ UIS^MRlkly, it was fo"~cap- tiirp the-LaadfiiX-sliip of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and usher , in era "f Communism, a development regarded by many as~Tlie most important political transformation of the twentieth century. This alone would justify separate consideration of the earlier history of socialism in Russia. Yet, the events in Russia were significant for other reasons as well, for they proceeded contrary to the expe.rTatir>ns nf Marx and lnvolved_a-ji£x)artiipo- from his.Ttheory of revQlut-l-Qn. Since the Russian Revolution will be treated in a subsequent chapter, emphasis in this section will be placed on these latter aspects. In general, Marx had h^ld that socialism would rise out of a mature capitalist economy, as part of a fixAd nf phaq<g|=u in history. Revolution was to be based on the existence of a.-large industrial proletarian createdngy~TlTe~cap"rtraiist svst^, Conse­ quently Russia3 still Tn an essentially preindu.stxraX~stage ^f de-V-aLopment, seemed one of the least likely candidates for a social- ist reyplutipn during Marx' lifetime. Tfn7Tir§~TraTer years, he played XVI p„ 49 with the idea that Russia might leap from an agricultural economy a socialist onea but his tenta^i ^>p~^knowledgment o±" tliis' posslM^lwith several qualifications. Altogether, for Marx, the prospects for a successful transition to socialism in Russia remained small« ^arx- theory of revolutionary ta.c.tics. mnrfowiinm nr.t easily be applied to Russian conditions„ After the revolutions oT~l848 "He~"Tili'g"""alian9oneXrelTanc^ secret societies aimed ^ the immediate seizure of power^ holding that they could not be 'successful without popular understanding and support. The task, as he saw it , involved-.-lQagsxanga preparations J.ii_whi.c^-educaliiig ffie working classes had to take precedence'over organizing for. violence„ Consequently. Marx favored fEe creatTon oTnrar_ge^ tical parties, functioning openly. Such an approach presupposed a relatively benign political environment 5 such as that of England. Wl^re ideas could not be circulated freelv. it could not be adopted This During the centuries when democratic political institutions began to develop in Western Europe', a virtually unlimited auto­ cracy emerged and held sway in Russia. Under the person of the tsar, who claimed a God-given right to rule, an all-powerful state was erected over the body of a country held largely in a medieval mold. Ironically s, at the moment when feudal and manorial insti­ tutions were disappearing in the West^ serfdom was introduced in Russia, beginning in the fifteenth century. Society comprised a relatively fixed class structure of nobles^ landowners, and serfs, with a great gulf separating the privileged and the enserfed. The Orthodox church held special status^ its doctrines recognized as the official religion of Russiaj its clergy frequently appointed to governmental positions. Operating the administration was a vast corps of bureaucrats whose domain Included extensive state enterprises in agriculture and manufacturing, in addition to agencies of government. Where legal or traditional obligations required support by force, the army and police provided the necessary power. In the nineteenth centurys a far-flung network of secret police^ spies^ and agents was perfected, while dissent further was stifled by censorship of the printed word. Nevertheless, fojLces were-At^^y^j^jghich promised te modify the existing system. The course of liberal reform, noted in an igift-o Beginning with creation of provincial—councils (zemstvos) in 1864 3 the cause of popular self-government emerged as ^ possibi4i4i^I AnT apparelEitgain ciSiie in iSiOeT^when^he tsar, faced with ominous national unrest j, acceded to demands for a parliament (Duma). The new institution functioned under restrictions and increasingly lost significance. The Revolutions of 1917 cut short any possible evolution toward a more meaningful parliamentary democracy. Meanwhile> the social system underwent changes after the eman­ cipation of the serfs in 1861. Although still bound to the soil XVI p. 50 for economic reasons, the serfs had the prospect of eventual land ownership. Property remained concentrated in the hands of a minority of landlords, nobility, and well-to-do peasants up to the Revolution. Another potent force which was only just beginning was