Lena Zuxin Lei

Hist 104g
Professor Lerner
Fall 2013
Marxism: Politics and Revolution
In wake of the 20
th
century, Marxism for Russia was, in part, a model for economic
development, but more importantly, it was a significant influence in inspiring revolution for the
Russian people.
What Marx and Engels meant for the Russian people, was what enlightenment thinkers
such as Voltaire and Rousseau meant for the third estate in pre-revolutionary France; the writings
of Marx and Engels focused on the social condition of the proletariat and The Communist
Manifesto by Marx and Engels, in particular, provided the framework for Lenins political and
revolutionary agenda. To understand why Marxism was so significant for Russia, it is imperative
to observe what Russian society was like prior to the revolutions of 1917. Russia had long had a
history of serfdom and though the serfs were emancipated in 1861
1
the conditions they were
emancipated under meant they were encumbered by financial obligations and still had no rights
to the land. Not unlike France where the Third Estate made up the majority of the people, the
peasants accounted for 84% of the Russian population
2
but despite this, the small percentage of
nobles in Russia lived lavish lives inspired by Western European culture and most nobles served
as the Tsars political advisers and filled high ranking positions in Russian society by which they
were rendered social and economic privileges by the Tsar
3
. The disparity between the rich and
poor was exacerbated by the Tsars intentions of transforming Russia into an industrial power as
it gave rise to two prominent social classes: the bourgeoisie, who were industry heads and owned
factories, and the proletariat, since an abundant labour force (which were mainly comprised of
peasants) was necessary to fuel these very factories.
4
The transition of Russia into an industrial
power had dire consequences on the workers which were subject to unsanitary, disease blighted
environments and the fees and taxes workers had to pay to the factory were backward policies
reminiscent of serfdom years
5
. The juxtaposition between the conditions of the working class
and the nobility make sense of the inequality that would subsequently give rise to the popularity
of Marxism as the proletariat bourgeoisie struggle was voiced by Marx and Engels in texts
such as The Communist Manifesto, and was relatable to the Russian people. The inefficiency of
the Tsars autocrat government to cater to a population that compromised so much of the Russian
population, but garnered such little representation, rendered it inevitable that an opposing
political movement would rise to directly address the concerns of the proletariat and for Lenin,
the only way to do this was through Marxism; in The April Theses, Lenin states that The Soviets
of Workers Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government, and therefore our
task is to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an
explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.
6
Lenins political agenda
included economic policies inspired by Marxism because the bourgeoisie-proletariat struggle
was characterized by liberalism that was dominated by free-market, capitalist theories which
only caters to the individual and concentrated capital and land in a few hands.
7
Under
Marxism, Lenin aimed to establish a collectivist society in absence of social classes and remove
power from the bourgeoisie who abused it to exploit the proletariat and redistribute wealth from
the hands of a few to everybody equally, thereby ending capitalism and inequality. How Marx
and Engels make sense of the proletariat-bourgeoisie dynamic make it evident that the only way
Marxism can be implemented is for the proletariat to rise up to their oppressors in the form of
revolution. Revolution is a necessary and natural conclusion to class struggles and is overtly
stated in The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels writes that of all the classes that stand
face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The
other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of modern industry; the proletariat is its
special and essential product.
8
Essentially what Marx and Engels are saying is that the
proletariat is a by product of the bourgeoisie, so long as there is work to facilitate the
development of industry, then the proletariat not only increases in number but becomes
concentrated in greater masses
9
thus in the theme of Marxism and the cycle of history, the
bourgeoisie has created the very population that will lead to its demise as the proletariat have the
means to overthrow their oppressors and in the case of Russia, the masses needed to unite and be
led by an intellectual who could adequately usher in Marxism. The necessity of revolution is
affirmed by Marx and Engels in the statement that the proletariat openly declare that their ends
can be attained only by forcible overthrow of existing social conditions. The proletariat have
nothing to lose but their chains.working men of all countries, unite!
10
It is evident that Lenin
followed the Marxist model for revolution as outlined in The Communist Manifesto; Marxism
was appropriate for the Russian condition in wake of the events that ushered in the 20
th
century,
because the injustice of the proletariat at the hands of the bourgeoisie showed the destructive
nature of bourgeoisie liberalism and how the Tsar was ineffective in addressing the concerns of
the overwhelming proletariat and peasant population in Russia. Liberalism theories that
encouraged free market economics and the put an emphasis on self-interest and profit manifested
itself in Russias industrial ambitions and in order to change the status quo at the time, change in
social and economic attitudes of Russia was necessary. To usher in this very change, power of
the oppressors had to concentrate in the hands of the proletariat, which in turn, would create
wealth and equality for everyone, as communism pushes forward all others as opposed to
liberalism which showed the dire consequences of solely focusing on the individual and profit.
For the Russians, if the bourgeoisie liberalism was the problem, then Marxism was the solution
and it had to come about through revolutionary means.
In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels begins with, The history
of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"
11
and with this opening
statement, Marx and Engels pave the rest of the way for the narrative. Throughout the Manifesto,
Marx and Engels details the struggles of the proletariat at the hands of the bourgeoisie and how
economic motives evidently come at the expense of the proletariat; the underlying social
implications of the text demonstrates how The Manifesto transcends of merely being an
economic model but also assumes the role of being a social model for a classless, communist
state that can only be achieved by overthrowing the bourgeoisie via revolution. For this reason,
Marxism was especially attractive to the Russian people and it served not only as an economic
model but also was as an important model for revolution for the Russian people in the 20
th

century.


Notes
1. Loch K. Johnson, Seven Sins of American Foreign Policy (University of Georgia:
Pearson, 2007), 253.
2. Loch K. Johnson, Seven Sins of American Foreign Policy (University of Georgia:
Pearson, 2007), 117.
3. David Patrick Houghton, The Decision Point: Six Cases in US Foreign Policy
Decision Making (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 10.
4. Joyce P. Kaufman, A Concise History of U.S Foreign Policy (Oxford: Rowman &
Littleman Publishers, 2006), 14.
5.
6.