This podcast discusses Chapter 1 of Guillotine at Work. You can find its notes here: https://www.classwithmason.com/2025/01/chapter-1-lenins-road-to-power-notes.html
All right, so today we're going to dive into some really fascinating stuff about Lenin.
Oh, yeah.
His rise to power. And specifically, we're going to be looking at the contrast between what he was promising before the revolution and kind of what happened afterward, the actions that were taken. Yeah. And our main source for this is... is going to be Gregory Maximoff's guillotine at work.
OK.
Specifically, chapter one, which is all about Lenin's road to power.
And it is a fascinating road. It is. You know, one of the things that that Maximoff points out is that, you know, the Russian Revolution actually started as a bloodless revolution.
Really?
Yeah. And you think about that.
It's kind of counterintuitive to how we think about this.
Yeah.
Usually it's associated with a lot of violence and bloodshed.
Yeah. But but the the initial kind of overthrow, if you will, was it was actually bloodless. And, you know, when you think about Russia as a country, historically, there's a lot of humanism. You know, in the literature and absolutely in the legal system leading up to the revolution, you know, really focused on on human rights and compassion and all that.
So it's really interesting how a movement that seems to start with these humanist ideals ends up giving rise to, you know, we often associate with with Lenin, which is this brutal authoritarian regime.
Yeah. How do we how do we get from A to B?
That is the question. And that's where Maximoff's analysis of Lenin's political Marxism comes in. And Maximoff, you know, makes a pretty bold claim. He actually calls the Communist Manifesto a reactionary document.
Wow. That is bold because it's kind of the foundation of communist ideology, isn't it?
Yeah, it's one of the core texts. And so for Maximo, for revolutionary himself to kind of label it that way is is quite a statement.
Why would he do that?
Well, he points to some of the specific demands that are outlined in the manifesto and how he believes that that lays the groundwork for an authoritarian system. OK, so he talks about. the demand for a dictatorship of the proletariat, the call for absolute centralization, and the formation of industrial armies, particularly in agriculture. So this vision of a highly controlled society where
individual liberties take a backseat to the needs of the state is what he sees as ultimately leading down that path toward what another prominent socialist figure at the time, Karl Kautsky, called state slavery.
State slavery. That is a chilling phrase.
It is.
Yeah. It makes you think about, you know, I don't know if if our listeners have ever considered You know, what happens when an ideology, no matter how well intentions goes to its extreme. Right. It goes to its logical conclusion.
Absolutely.
It can have some really scary consequences.
And I think it's worth noting that this isn't just Maximoff's opinion. You know, this concern about state slavery was shared by others within the socialist movement who were seeing where things were headed in Russia.
So we have this backdrop of Russia's inherent humanism. And this revolutionary movement with all this energy behind it and this figure Lenin kind of coming to the forefront.
Yeah.
But here's where things get really interesting. According to Maximoff, Lenin actually comes to power by temporarily distancing himself from those very ideas in the Communist Manifesto. It's almost like he knew that those ideas wouldn't resonate with a population that was yearning for freedom.
Right.
Not less.
He was a brilliant tactician.
Yeah.
Maximoff argues that, you know, Lenin was a very shrewd and in some ways Machiavellian political player. He understood the power of appealing to people's desires. And so instead of focusing on the more authoritarian aspects of the Communist Manifesto, he cleverly utilized ideas from another one of Marx's pamphlets, The Civil War in France.
So kind of a strategic repositioning.
Exactly.
OK, so what was so different about the civil war in France? Why would that be more appealing to the people in Russia at the time?
Well, the civil war in France advocated for things like decentralized power, individual liberties, a government that was accountable to the people. You know, this is a much more appealing message for a population that had just overthrown a czar.
So it was more in line with their lived experience.
Yeah, absolutely. And it was a way for Lenin to kind of, you know, get the trust of the masses.
So it was a way to build a following to say, hey, look, what I'm offering is really what you want.
Exactly. And, you know, Maximoff even quotes Lenin later on, kind of admitting to this tactic in 1922.
Oh, really?
He essentially says, you know, look, we had to start somewhere. We had to make promises. We had to kind of paint a picture of a future that people would believe in. We couldn't have launched the revolution any other way.
So he's acknowledging that, you know, sometimes you got to you got to, you know, kind of fudge the truth a little bit.
Right. We often forget that revolutions are political movements.
Right.
They require strategy. They require persuasion.
Yeah.
And sometimes a little bit of, you know, we'll we'll call it deception.
Yeah. And think about the context. Right. Russia's in the middle of World War One. There's economic instability. Right. There's food shortages.
Yeah.
There's growing discontent with how things are.
Right.
And then this guy comes along and he's charismatic.
Yeah.
And he's offering a brighter future. He's saying, look, I got freedom. I got quality. I got true democracy.
Yeah.
It's no wonder people started to follow him.
He was tapping into a deep well of discontent. Right. And offering a seemingly viable path forward.
Yeah.
And Maximoff goes into detail about the specific promises that Lenin made.
Okay. Let's hear some of those promises.
Yeah.
What did he offer that was so compelling?
Well, first and foremost, he promised a republic.
OK.
Of workers, peasants and farm laborers with power vested in local Soviets.
Wow.
So a highly decentralized system where communities would have control over their own affairs.
So really putting the power in the hands of the people.
Exactly.
OK. What else?
He also promised to abolish the standing army and police. Wow. To be replaced by an armed populace.
OK.
So radical shift in power dynamics there.
It's like this grassroots approach to defense and security.
Exactly.
So it's not top down. It's really coming from the ground up. That's right. OK. What else?
He also pledged to eliminate the bureaucracy and privileged officialdom that had plagued the czarist regime.
Right.
And in their place, there would be elected and importantly, recallable delegates.
Recallable. So if you don't like how someone's doing, you just get rid of them.
That's right.
Wow.
Real accountability built into the system.
That's amazing.
Yeah.
I could see why people would be drawn to that.
Absolutely.
Especially after living under a czar where your voice didn't matter.
Right.
Okay. Is there anything else?
Yes, a really important one. He guaranteed freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of demonstration.
So the cornerstones of a free society.
Exactly.
Where dissents actually encouraged. So he's painting this picture of truly democratic Russia with power distributed amongst the people.
Yes.
A government that's accountable and individual liberties protected. Yeah. I mean, compared to what they were living under, this sounds pretty good.
It does. And those promises resonated deeply with the Russian people. They were ready for change. And Lenin seemed to be offering a path toward a more just and equitable society. But as we know, the reality of his rule turned out to be quite different.
That's putting it mildly.
Yeah.
And that's what we're going to explore in the rest of this deep dive.
Yeah.
We're going to unpack the stark contrast between These inspiring promises and the sometimes harsh realities of Lenin's post-revolution actions.
Yeah, it's a fascinating story of ambition ideology, the complexities of power.
You're going to love it.
It's amazing how quickly those promises unravel.
Like, oh, right.
You know, those grand pronouncements of freedom and democracy.
Yeah.
It's almost like a bait and switch, isn't it?
It really is. You go from this hopeful rhetoric to some pretty harsh realities. Yeah. And one of the most glaring examples that Maximoff points out is the death penalty.
Oh, yeah.
Here's Lenin before the revolution railing against capital punishment.
Right.
Using it as a tool to criticize the provisional government. Right. And then almost immediately after seizing power.
Yeah.
He's pushing for its return.
Maximoff actually describes this moment where Lenin learns that the death penalty has been abolished and he is furious. Really? Yeah. It's this complete 180.
Wow.
And it really reveals, I think, something about his underlying views on on violence and the use of state power.
It makes you wonder what was going through his mind.
Right.
Was it just pragmatism?
Yeah.
You know, like we're in a chaotic situation. We need to restore order. Right. Or was it something more calculated, more in line with those authoritarian tendencies that Maximoff sees in political Marxism?
Yeah. I think that's the question, isn't it? And Maximoff suggests that it wasn't simply a matter of circumstance. You know, he argues that Lenin, despite his rhetoric, always saw terror as a kind of essential tool for building the kind of state he envisioned.
So it wasn't just about restoring order. It was about consolidating control, eliminating any potential threats.
That's right.
And that brings us to another broken promise, the coalition's socialist government.
Right.
Before the revolution, Lenin talks about different socialist parties working together, finding common ground, wielding a government that represents a broad spectrum of views.
Right, a coalition. Yeah.
Yeah. But then when he has the chance to actually form such a government.
Yeah.
He rejects it.
He does. And that rejection of the coalition is I think a pivotal moment.
I think so too.
It speaks volumes about Lenin's real intentions. Yeah. He had the opportunity to create a more inclusive system. Right. A more collaborative system. But he chose dictatorship over cooperation.
Yeah, he wanted absolute control.
It seems clear that that's what he wanted, and he wasn't willing to share power with anyone who might challenge his vision.
Makes you wonder if that decision actually prolonged the Civil War.
It's possible.
You know, pitting socialist against socialist, further dividing an already incredibly fractured country.
Yeah, that's a point that Maximoff raises as well.
Really?
He suggests that Lenin's rejection of the coalition wasn't just about consolidating power within the government, but it was also a strategic move to eliminate his political rivals.
Wow. So he's thinking long game? Using the revolution as a springboard to establish this totalitarian state.
Yeah. And it kind of goes back to those ideas in the Communist Manifesto. You know, despite his earlier pronouncements, it seems like that's the direction he was always headed in.
Almost Machiavellian.
It is.
You know, this idea that he was playing this long game.
That's exactly what Maximoff argues.
Wow.
He sees those early promises of freedom and decentralization as a deliberate deception, a tactic designed to mask Lenin's true intentions.
And the evidence really does point in that direction when you look at how those promises unraveled once he was in power.
Absolutely.
So let's go back to those specific promises and kind of see how they played out in reality.
Yeah.
We talked about the death penalty. We talked about the rejection of the coalition government.
Right.
What are some other examples of this disconnect between rhetoric and action?
Let's take the promise of empowering local Soviets. Lenin talked about this decentralized system where communities would have genuine autonomy, you know, power flowing from the bottom up.
Right.
But what happened in practice was quite different.
Yeah.
He very quickly moved to undermine the power of the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets.
Oh, wow.
Concentrating more and more power in his own hands and within the Bolshevik Party.
Okay.
It was a highly centralized and increasingly authoritarian regime.
So much for all power to the Soviets.
Right. Yeah.
It seems like it was more like all power to Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
Exactly.
What about his pledge to abolish the standing army and police?
Yeah.
Did that actually happen?
Not at all. In fact, one of the first things Lenin did was to create a new, very powerful centralized military force, the Red Army.
Okay.
Which he used ruthlessly to crush any opposition. Wow. Both from within and outside the Bolshevik party.
So instead of empowering the people.
Right.
He created a tool of state control.
Yeah.
A way to enforce his will and suppress any dissent.
Absolutely.
And what about those guaranteed freedoms of the press assembly demonstration?
Yeah.
Those core tenets. of a free and open society that he promised to uphold?
Those were very quickly suppressed.
Oh, wow.
Independent newspapers were shut down. Opposition groups were outlawed. And any form of dissent was met with brutal repression.
It's a far cry from the democratic ideals he espoused before the revolution.
It is.
It's a pretty devastating contrast, wouldn't you say?
Yeah. I mean, he promised freedom.
Right.
But he delivered oppression. Yeah. He promised democracy, but he delivered dictatorship.
And what's so tragic about it is that, you know, Maximoff points out that the Russian people at their core really did have this deep belief in humanism and compassion. Right. They were yearning for a better world, for a more just society.
And Lenin was able to exploit that yearning.
Yeah. He used their hope and their idealism to build a system based on fear and control.
Yeah, it's a real cautionary tale.
It is.
It's a reminder that revolutions, even those with the most noble intentions, can easily go astray when those in power become intoxicated by their own authority and begin to prioritize control over freedom.
Makes you wonder if there's something inherent in the dynamics of power that just leads to this kind of corruption, regardless of the ideology.
It's a question that's haunted revolutionaries and thinkers for centuries.
Yeah. Can you really achieve a just and equitable society through force and coercion? Do those methods inevitably undermine the very ideals that they claim to uphold?
It's something to think about, and it's something that we'll continue to grapple with as we delve deeper into Maximoff's analysis and explore the long-term consequences of Lenin's choices.
You know, it's like there's this inherent tension between these lofty ideals and the greedy reality of actually getting power and then holding on to it.
Absolutely.
You start with these brand visions, but then you've got to make compromises. You've got to make these tough choices.
You've got to get your hands dirty.
Yeah, and all of a sudden you find yourself drifting away from those goals.
Right. And and what's really interesting is that Lenin himself seemed to recognize this tension. You know, Maximoff quotes a passage where Lenin talks about the necessity of a strong centralized government, especially once the state becomes, you know, in his words, proletarian.
So he's saying that even after the workers have control, they still need a strong state.
Right, a strong centralized state.
That seems to contradict everything he was talking about before the revolution.
It does seem contradictory, and that's precisely what Maximoff is getting at. He argues that Lenin's ultimate goal wasn't truly about liberating the working class or creating a genuinely equitable society. It was about establishing a new form of state power, one that was controlled by the Bolsheviks. Right. And used to shape society according to their ideology.
So in a way, it wasn't really freedom for all.
Right.
It was power for the party.
Yeah, that's a good way to put it. And this is where, you know, that concept of political Marxism that we talked about before really comes back into focus. Maximoff sees this ideology as inherently authoritarian, as fixated on, you know, capturing and wielding state power as the primary means of achieving its ends.
So almost like the ends justify the means.
Yeah. And even if it means, you know, compromising those initial promises of freedom and individual liberty.
It's like the revolution was just a way to get to that ultimate goal of having the party elite in control.
That's right. And it really challenges us to to kind of think critically.
Yeah.
About how these revolutionary movements evolve. You know, we often romanticize these things. Oh, yeah. You know, as these spontaneous uprisings of the people are all coming together. Right. But Maximoff is suggesting that they can also be very carefully orchestrated by individuals.
Yeah.
With very specific agendas, agendas that might not actually align with the desires of the people that they claim to represent.
So what does this all mean for us today? I mean, this all happened a long time ago.
It did.
The world is a very different place.
Yeah. But I think there are some important takeaways that still resonate.
Okay. Like what?
Well, first, I think it's a stark reminder that power is seductive.
Okay.
And even those who claim to fight for freedom and equality can be corrupted by it.
That's true.
Second, it really highlights the danger of utopian thinking. This belief that you can create a perfect society through force or ideology. And often, you know, at the expense of individual rights and freedoms.
That's a good point. It's a cautionary tale about the allure of power.
Right.
And the importance of those checks and balances, no matter what your political system is.
Yeah, I think the final takeaway and maybe the most crucial is that it underscores the importance of critical thinking, of questioning those in power, of holding them accountable to their promises.
Yeah.
Regardless of how inspiring their rhetoric might be.
That's right. We can't just take things at face value.
Right.
Especially in times of big change and upheaval.
Yeah, we have to be vigilant.
Yeah, we have to evaluate their actions, their motivations, and whether those actions actually line up with their values.
Absolutely. And that's something that Maximoff himself emphasizes. His work isn't just a historical account. It's really a call to action, an invitation to engage with history, not as passive observers, but as active participants in shaping the world we want to live in.
That's a good point.
Yeah.
On that note.
Yeah.
I think we'll wrap up this deep dive into Lenin's rise to power.
I think that's a good place to stop.
Yeah. We hope you found it fascinating and thought provoking.
Me too.
As always, we encourage you to continue exploring these ideas.
Yeah.
Questioning those assumptions.
Absolutely.
And diving deep into the complexities of history.
That's what it's all about.
Until next time.