Although Vladimir Lenin and Konstantin Pobedonostev spoke of western bourgeois society during different periods in Russian history, the critique of bourgeois democracy shared by both men is shown through their view of different aspects of such a society. Both Lenin and Pobedonostev describe an exploiting minority class seemingly controlling the majority of the population, under the false premise of pure freedom. With this “exploiting” minority class of elites comes numerous advantages in power and prestige, as both men feel such elites influence a lot of democratic decisions.
Ultimately, both men argue how freedom can never exist in a bourgeois society because of the presence of this powerful elite class. In addition, both men critique “liberalized” education, due to its individualistic nature and lack of enhancing a group ethos.
Overall, although of very different political backgrounds, VI Lenin and Konstantin Pobedonostev both share a consensus that western bourgeois democracy does not guarantee complete freedom. All the issues with this system, they argue, stem from a group of elite, the minority, holding the majority of the power over the remainder of the state, via “farce” elections, where freedom can really not exist. Further, both men see a flawed education system that does not assist in advancing the overall well-being of the collective family and society.
Konstantin Pobedonostev was the primary advisor to Russia’s Tsar Alexander III during his reign from 1881-1894. In his document, entitled “Reflections of a Russian Statesman,” Pobedonostev argues that in a bourgeois capitalist system, complete freedom can ultimately not exist. Pobedonostev states, regarding the lack of individual power in bourgeois systems, that the political parties are “ruled by five or six of its leaders who exercise all power.”
Pobedonostev believes that a specific candidate or party wins in an election because they are the best “persuaders” to garner the most “blocs of votes,” and the supporters of these candidates believe that these candidates will bring them the most freedom. However, Pobedonostev says that people do not even have such political power. The reason for this is because the only debate that occurs within each specific political party, once they are elected, is done through those who actually make the policies and carry out the power, and then their decisions are based on personal incentives and gain.
A modern day example is the United States Congress and the British Parliament. The representatives do not ask “the people” for their opinion, they simply debate and vote for the issues among themselves as the constituents do not at all restrict the opinions and actions of bourgeois representatives. Furthermore, in “Reflections of a Russian Statesman,” Pobedonostev argues that free elections do not favor the “intelligent and capable,” but favor the “punishing and impudent.”
Essentially, he is stating that the people who earn the representative jobs in a democracy are the best “actors,” not the ones who actually understand the role they are taking, therefore showing that the best-off in this society are the manipulators who are able to achieve lots of misinformed votes. Ultimately, these elected representatives may not be the most capable. Furthermore, Pobedonostev argues for a more collective education than offered in bourgeois society due to a lack of necessary skills.
Pobedonostev further states that, “The boy who wishes to become a bachelor or a master of arts must begin his studies at a certain age, and in due time pass through a given course; but the vast majority of children must learn to live by the work of their hands.”3 Pobedonostev is stating that the majority of Russian children must learn a manual skill because most of the people in Russia are peasants, and therefore the majority of the population must learn to work with their hands, as they will be doing for the rest of their lives.
In addition, Pobedonostev condemns not learning practical, manual labor jobs “by their hands” because it places a “burden upon the lives of the masses who have to struggle for their daily bread.” He is saying that pursuing an individualistic, specialized degree, separate from the population as a whole, is a burden and only can cause pain and suffering. This is because such individualism keeps you from pursuing the group ethos, by only bettering yourself, you are taking away from the group as a whole, your family, society, et cetera, and therefore taking away production and added societal benefit that could have occurred if you lived for the group.
This is something that is quite characteristic of the west, as a lot of young men, at this time, pursued specialized degrees in engineering, technology, et cetera, and Pobedonostev believes that it is crucial for education to be centered around helping some aspect of society. To further the attack on bourgeois -style democracy, Vladimir Lenin would also agree that this type of system also brings about small concentrations of power that is quite contradictory to the “textbook” definition of a democratic system.
Democracy, in a literal sense, is supposed to mean that the people are the chief decision- makers in a society. Essentially, the people decide what are “laws” and the various political happenings in a given society. V.I Lenin’s “armed dictatorship of the proletariat,” set up immediately following the overthrow of the Provisional Government in November 1917, clearly shows that he would most certainly agree with Pobedonostev’s negative view of western democracy.
To begin, according to Professor Kort, in his text, The Soviet Colossus, regarding Lenin’s view of free elections, he argues, “Lenin was uninterested in how the people of Russia might want to be governed and in fact feared that his Bolsheviks would be swamped in an election inevitably dominated by Russia’s peasant majority.” It appears Lenin is “uninterested” in the result of the election due to the population being about eighty percent peasant, and not proletariat, which relates back to Pobedonostev’s view of democracy. Because Lenin’s Bolshevik Party is in direct competition in this Constituent Assembly election with the Peasant Socialist Revolutionaries, it would be hard to win because of what Pobedonostev called “blocs of votes.”
The “SRS” are able to appeal to the majority of the population, and therefore are able to win the majority of the seats for this assembly, irrespective if the party leaders actually believe in “peasant socialism.” Lenin would further believe that the elite controls and easily exploits the majority of the population because of the working class’s acceptance of the economic situation. In Lenin’s “What is To Be Done?,” he argues that the “working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness.”
Lenin is stating that if the elite “policy makers” give incentives, such as trade unions and slightly higher wages, the proletariat in a democracy will accept their current situation and allow the system to continue with the elite on top because economic conditions may have improved. Lenin would also side with Pobedonostev because of his particular view of himself. Lenin, throughout his life, always thought that he was correct, and his way was the best and most accurate pathway for progress in any given situation.
Lenin would further agree with Pobedonostev’s opinion of free elections considering the fact that Lenin considers himself the utmost “capable” and “intelligent” man for the job of advancing communism. One would assume that he would find this election to be a farce because, in his mind, Lenin would have won if the election were truly in favor of the most intelligent man or group running. The agreements on the general distrust and hatred for democracy continue, as Lenin agrees immensely on the loosely defined term called “freedom.”
Democracy, when it is written about in textbooks today, is usually associated with a notion of “freedom.” This term is supposed to mean that the people are free to control and make changes to society because they have the power to do so, and everyone has this opportunity because everyone has the same basic rights and ability to make the most out of their lives.
However, V.I Lenin states, in his writing entitled, “The State and Revolution,” in regards to freedom in the west, that “Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners. Lenin is stating that in a western society, it is configured where the majority of the power is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, as stated by Pobedonostev, who actually make the majority of the decisions and control the political and economic laws that are put into place.
Lenin compares this analogy to the Greek Republics, as they were the wealthy elite that controlled the political system and they made up the majority of the representatives in the court, and basically dictated the laws to the majority of society of slave peasants, which, like the Soviet Union, was a vast amount of each culture’s respective population. Furthermore, Lenin and Pobedonostev both condemn the education system in the West; as both men see it: bourgeois education takes away from the larger, collective society as a whole.
Both Lenin and Pobedonostev believe that bourgeois society establishes an inefficient education system that is predominantly built on the notion of individualism, and not on practicality for the overall prosperity of society. Both share a belief in a general “group ethos” that drives the thinking in terms of how education should be established in society. Lenin also supports this notion of a group ethos.
For example, in his writing, entitled “Better Fewer, But Better,” he states, in respect to the education of the proletariat, that they “have not yet developed the culture required for this [revolution]; and it is culture that is required.” Because the workers have not yet “developed the culture” for this socialist movement, based on the principles of a collective ethos, they cannot move forward. Lenin feels that in order for the Highest Phase of Communism to be reached, where everyone works for an ultimate societal benefit, coined by the phrase “for each according to his ability, for each according to his need,” the proletariat must be taught, and educated in a way where they advance the prosperity of all in society.
The way to do this, Lenin argues, is to teach the proletariat to run factories for increased industrialization and provide for everyone in the nation. In accordance with Pobedonostev’s view of education serving an ultimate societal benefit, Lenin clearly would agree with this notion because, like Pobedonostev, Lenin believes that society will be best off when the workers in the given society are working for a societal benefit, not for individual people. This is the ideology Lenin sought to fuel his socialist revolution. A “liberal arts education” based on individuals will not further this idea of collectivism.
A liberal arts education, according to Pobedonostev, distracts the students from helping out a larger group, the family and society, from providing “daily bread.” This is because liberal arts educations do not necessarily bring money immediately into the nation or family because these academic fields are not associated with industrialization. Industrialization provides production of materials for profit or consumption. Liberal arts educations do not benefit the here and now.
Ultimately, Lenin agreed with this notion, according to Professor Kort, in The Soviet Colossus, as he states that the Bolshevik education system “stressed technical subjects and expertise in order to create skilled cadres for the new order.” Like Pobedonostev, Lenin believes that education’s main priority should be focused on “technical subjects” that ultimately leads to industrialization, because these subjects lead to skills and an increase in profit for the overall country as a whole, therefore leading to an increased well-being, or living standard, for the collective nation, and not just a well- being of individuals, without this inequality would result: exactly what Lenin was “fighting” against. The agreement further displays the connection and agreement between these very different men, furthering the complexity of Russian History.
Overall, Konstantin Pobedonostev, a tsarist advisor, and Vladimir Lenin, a Marxist revolutionary, would both surprisingly agree on their collective distaste for western bourgeois democracy, and the components and characteristics of this society. Both men agree that the minority elite control all aspects made in the society, such as elections, to the point where the term of “freedom” becomes an ultimate fallacy. In addition, the issue of bourgeois style “liberal arts” education, where technical skills are not stressed as the liberal arts teach students to think independently, and not for all of society, therefore hindering the overall well-being.
Both men ultimately stress the group ethos as the top priority and main reason why young men (in this time) should be educated. In conclusion, many people would expect these two men to be polar opposites in their view on democracy, and for some aspects this may be true. However, for the notion of western bourgeois democracy, the two men agree that this system does not guarantee freedom, just sets up a dictatorial elite and is not conducive to a collective well-being and ultimately distracts from providing for one’s collective society.
