Vladimir Lenin and Ethnic Minorities

Vladimir Lenin is one of the more complex figures in Russian History. In some Communist and Socialist circles, Lenin is venerated as a hero and given almost Saint-like attributes, while to many other people he was a bloodthirsty dictator who drove innocent people from their homes and established an oppressive regime that lasted for more than 60 years. There were many praiseworthy things to be said about Vladimir Lenin including his skills as an orator, his advocacy for the participation of women in politics, and his own personal ascetic lifestyle.

 However, it is abundantly clear that most material praising Lenin has emerged from Russia, and has inevitably been influenced by Soviet Propaganda, while some of the more unsavory opinions about Lenin were influenced by Western perceptions of the later Stalin regime. To truly understand Lenin we have to create a balanced narrative composed of both Eastern and Western Sources. In order to undergo such an endeavor, I have had to make use of online translating services (google translate) because I am not fluent or proficient in any of the Languages that were spoken in the Soviet Union or its client states. While some would attempt to paint a broad picture of Lenin as either a hero-figure or an evil dictator, such sweeping moralizations are outside of the context of this blog and its focus on ethnic minorities in the aftermath of the Russian Civil War.

The most revealing thing in my investigation of the Lenin regime was my research into Lenin's policy towards ethnic minorities. Following the Russian Civil War Lenin cracked down on minority groups that supported the White Army (the faction supporting the Russian Provisional Government which Lenin overthrew with the support of the popular Petrograd Soviet). This is especially apparent in the case of the Cossacks, a semi-nomadic Slavic group that lived in the Pontic Steppe (the flat grassy region of Southeastern Ukraine and the Caucasian part of Russia). The Cossacks had historically been granted autonomy in exchange for service in the Tsarist Army as cavalrymen. This agreement was beneficial to both parties, and in nearly every war the Russian Empire faced, the Cossacks fulfilled their end of the bargain.

                                         an exaggerated depiction of Cossacks in traditional garb

To the Soviet Government under Lenin however, the Cossacks were a problematic group because they fought in the White Army, had ties to the Orthodox Church, and in many cases were monarchist (even though some had been in the Red Army). In 1919, just two years after his establishment as dictator Lenin ordered massive reprisals against the Cossacks. Cossack political leaders were arrested and executed, Cossack churches were destroyed, and as many as ten thousand Cossacks were slaughtered in a matter of weeks. Unfortunately, much of the Cossack identity was lost following Decossackization because they had not traditionally been a record-keeping society.

"Conduct merciless mass terror" - Sergey Ivanovich Syrtsov

                                          The siege of the City of Bukhara under Communist forces

Such accounts were not limited to the Cossacks as many other groups also experienced repression under Lenin's rule including the Kalmyk people (distant cousins of the Mongols), and the inhabitants of Russias central Asian colonies. The Kalmyks had an arrangement with the Imperial Government that was similar to that of the Cossacks, and as a result, many of them were targeted by the Kremlin, and as many as 20,000 Kalmyks were forcibly relocated to frigid and inhospitable places in remote Siberia. In Central Asia the Soviet Government attempted to enforce the policy of State Atheism among the Muslim majority inhabitants in the region, along with the abolishment of Sharia Law, leading to a continuation of the revolt that had at first been directed against the Tsarist Government.

In conclusion, it is clear that many of Stalin's more infamous policies were predicated by the policies of Lenin, and it is also clear that we cannot understand the great tragedies of the 20th century without understanding the groundwork that was laid here. Many characters in history are in shades of grey, and Lenin certainly fits the bill considering his seemingly contradictory attitudes towards women and working-class Russians on one hand, and ethnic minorities on the other hand.

Sources:

https://yustysya.livejournal.com/30958.html#cutid1 (This source is in Russian (google translate))

 https://web.archive.org/web/20091210025518/http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/pressreleases/cossacks.htm  Dr.Shane O'Rorke

http://www.persee.fr/doc/cmr_1252-6576_1997_num_38_1_2486 
(introduction in French for an English language source)

http://www.sonin.mn/blog/Munkhbayar/21142 (This source is in Mongolian(google translate))

Robespierre and Lenin: The Dos and Donts of Revolution

Occurring more than a century apart, the French Revolution and Russian Revolution of 1917 have more in common than you might initially assume. Their commonalities may be most apparent in the grass roots of the revolutions themselves. As we well know, the origins of the French revolution, while definitely orchestrated by decades of the ruling elite’s power abuses, were combusted by the socioeconomic state of France’s impoverished peasantry (M625). The stark, survival conditions, as well as the multitude of complaints and suggestions lobbied by various working factions (i.e. cahiers for the French National Assembly), was closely mimicked in the political climate of pre-revolution Russia. Even the outcry for greater representation and democracy resulting in the formation of the Russian Duma, an incredibly disempowered version of parliament, mimes the function of France’s third estate prior to the initiation of the French Revolution (M622, M769). While many additional factors played into the respective revolutions, up to and including the exploding Socialist platform of the late 19^th and 20^th centuries, it can be evidenced that the social unrest required to fuel the movements emerged from mutual roots.

Distinctions arise primarily as a direct result of the leadership requisite to run either revolution. Robespierre for the French; Lenin for the Russians. Traditionally, as seen with Robespierre, the leadership of a revolution, though channeled through an empowered group of elites within the movement, was still functioning akin to a democracy (M849). They did not cut out the voice of the French people driving the revolution, and the party was far from being above public influence. There was some limited variety to the factions operating within France’s revolutionary movement’s principles. This tolerance obviously had its limits, as the French Terror can attest; nevertheless, compared to Lenin’s conception of the Bolshevik leadership, the French Revolution would have been seemingly democratic.

Vladimir Lenin entertained vastly different views on the management of a revolution, and he employed these policies from the start. The Russian Revolution of 1917 is considered novel to the proceeding revolutions because foundationally, Lenin formed a super-concentrated, highly elite and devoted leadership of intellectuals and full-time revolutionaries to run the movement (M849). This pure, focused leadership of the revolution would ensure that it remained true to the core tenets of socialism, and later communism, with little to no debate or delay. Like Robespierre and his contemporaries, Lenin’s early years in power would be characterized by a period of intense violence and oppression in the name of progress, the “Red Terror” (M854). Lenin also masterfully harnessed the energies of the Russian people to his reforms, perhaps even more effectively than the French, with the seizing of nobilities’ properties and factories (M851). However, rather than allow the slow dissolution of his revolutionary movement and power as occurred in France, Lenin continued the trend of his Bolshevik leadership style by pushing Russia towards the one-party state model (M852). This allowed for the rapid spread of socialist/communist reform while simultaneously rooting the focused, authoritarian administration that would characterize Russian politics for decades.

There are many similarities between the French and Russian Revolutions, but the most interesting comparisons lie in their differences. They might emerge from similar conditions, yet their courses diverged immensely after their initial successes. The French Revolution, while by no means devoid of blood or intolerance, was one more embodied, perhaps, in national discovery. It was a metamorphosis experienced by everyone, not the least among them Robespierre who led and fell to its blade. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was less a discovery and more a well-executed strike. The Russia which arose from that turmoil and the years of the “Red Terror” was one with little deviation from Lenin’s initial vision, and its cool efficiency would linger well beyond its birth.

Vera Figner: A Woman With Fight

Vera Figner was born in Khristoforovka, Russia in July of 1852. She is most widely known for her actions and leadership role in the Russian Revolutionary Populist Movement. Figner had hopes to pursue education in medicine, but Russia would not allow her to do so. She then moved to Zurich in 1872 to attend school. While she was in school, she kept a close eye on the feminist and populist movements that were going on back in Russia. In 1876, Figner dropped out of school to return home and join the revolutionary movements. Figner joined a group called, "People's Will," and this group focused on eliminating absolutism by assassinating political officials. On March 1, 1881, they did just that, by taking out Tsar Alexander II. Many arrests followed the assassination, leaving Figner as the only remaining original leader of the group.

Figner was later arrested in 1883 while trying to rebuild the People's Will group. A trial was held in the September of 1884 and Figner was the only arrested member allowed to speak during the trial. In her speech, Figner talks about the events that pushed her towards revolutionary activities, "They are logically and closely bound up with my whole previous life" (Moodle).  She focuses heavily on the thought of whether her life could have gone any other way and every time ends with the same answer, no. The speech that was given in front of the court proves the dedication and devotion Figner had towards the cause and her actions. This shows a true revolutionist who will stand for their beliefs until the last minute. Figner initially received the death penalty, but that sentence was later dropped to life in prison at the Schlusselberg Fortress. After serving twenty years, she was released in 1904.

Vera Figner was a voice for the less fortunate and aimed to help and educate the poor. She wished to break the false truth that so many peasants believed: that the tsar was their protector. In 1915 when she returned to Russia, she dedicated the rest of her life to writing and produced many accounts on the Russian Revolution and biographies on several of her comrades. These published works along with her memoir, are the reasons the name Vera Figner is taught in history classes today.





Sources:


Moodle Document: "Vera Figner - Revolutionary Activities in Russia.pdf (page 1 - 13)


"Vera Finger." Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn, New York. https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/dinner_party/heritage_floor/vera_figner


"Vera Nikolayevna Figner." The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. 2019. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vera-Nikolayevna-Figner

Suffrage for All

      Sisters of suffrage, without one, would the other have survived? The United Kingdom and the United States women fought eerily similar, within the same time period, for their right to vote. Their hopes for social peace and equal rights was what drove them to, sometimes, extreme measures in their fight. It is often debated that without one, would the other have made it? United Kingdom women were granted their limited suffrage in 1918, two years before United States women, but they had to continue fighting for 10 more years to gain universal suffrage. In the United States, women were granted full suffrage in the beginning. The fights played off each other quite a bit, showing many similarities, but there were big differences. This may explain why women in the United Kingdom had to fight longer for full suffrage.

      Within the United Kingdom suffrage was based on property, as well as, gender. This meant that they wanted to extend the vote to propertied women since non-propertied working-class men were still excluded from the vote. In the long run, in order to do this, they ended up first having to fight for the exclusion against men to be abolished. Once they had done that, two main suffrage groups were built. The National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) who were coined the “suffragists” and the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), termed the “suffragettes”. The WSPU was vastly different from any groups in the US, using militant campaigning by chaining themselves to fences, burning down buildings, and causing disturbances within public meetings.

      In the United States, the fight was against suffrage along with racism. Granting suffrage to all women, meant having to grant the right to vote not only to men of color but women as well. While some agreed with this, many did not. This meant, that instead of fighting the federal government, they went state by state instead, allowing them to overlook this. The

level of militancy in the United States did not compare to that of the UK. They performed more peaceful campaigning with mass demonstrations, picketing, and pageantry.

      Both countries experienced social unrest before WWI. It was also thought that bringing women out of their “natural” social spheres was wrong. With everything working against them though, the women pushed through, gaining their rights in similar ways. While they may have not had direct contact with each other during these reforms, they played off of each other, quite well. I do believe that without the other, there would have been a longer and harder fight. The symbol of women’s freedom still stands tall as a symbolic issue, that leads women to still fight for their rights in both countries today.

Citations:

http://ap.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/politics-reform/essays/sisters-suffrage-british-and-american-women-fight-for-vote

https://www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/the-campaign-for-womens-suffrage-an-introduction