Edmund Burke did in fact support the American Revolution while he condemned the French Revolution, but what would his opinion be regarding the removal of Czar Nicholas II of Russia? Would Burke have supported the removal of the Czar in 1917 that led to the establishing of the Soviet Union? I believe Burke would have supported his removal due to the fact that it actually strengthened Russia’s national identity.
Why is a national identity so important? According to Burke, a national identity is the most important aspect of any nation. Burke states, “There ought to be a system of manners in every nation which a well-informed mind would, be disposed to relish. To make us love our country, our country must be lovely” (Burke 517). Burke believes traditions within a nation create a national identity. A national identity acts as a unifying force. It acts as an agent of pride. This pride is what makes a country “lovely” according to Burke. It is what distinguishes one nation from another.
Of course, most are of the opposite opinion of my own. They believe that Burke would not have supported the removal of the Nicholas II. They recall Burke’s comments regarding successful revolutions, “Because among their massacres they had not slain the mind in their country.” “They aimed at the rule, not the destruction of their country” (510). “You had all these advantages in your ancient states, but you chose to act as if you had never been molded into civil society and had everything to begin anew. You begin ill, because you began by despising everything that belonged to you” (504). They believe that Nicholas II’s removal did “slay the mind” of Russia. To “slay the mind” is the complete denial of the monarchial and capitalist past of Russia in favor of a new, socialist future. But, did the Russian Revolution truly “slay the mind” of Russia and “begin Russia anew?”
According to those leading the socialist movement no. They were actually attempting to strengthen the national identity of Russia. Lenin states, “Sometimes, history needs a push.” In fact, Lenin and the socialist movement believed themselves to be continuing the prideful history of Russia. They were merely pushing it in a new direction. Marx, whose theories were essential to the socialist movement, states, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.” Although Marx and the socialist movement aren’t pleased that traditions “weigh” on the present, they agree with Burke that traditions can’t be changed or avoided. They can only be honored and better utilized to serve the populace. And the Russian Revolution did better utilize Russian traditions. It established a stronger, more “lovely” socialist government that created a national identity far greater than that under Nicholas II. Those who survived both the 1918 Civil War and Stalin’s 5 Year Plan retained a nationalism that outweighed past monarchial nationalism. This was evident in Russia’s successful completion of World War II by defeating Germany which they were unable to accomplish under the Czar in World War I.
So, “Were all these dreadful things necessary? Were they the inevitable results of the desperate struggle of determined patriots, compelled to wade through blood and tumult to the quiet shore of a tranquil and prosperous liberty?” (506). According to Burke, yes. The Russian Revolution established a stronger Russian identity which, according to Burke, makes Russia “lovely.”
Your thesis and essay are intelligent and thought-provoking, but I must ultimately disagree. Burke would not have supported the Russian Revolution for reasons that you touched on in the essay. It is true the Russian Revolution ultimately led to a much more powerful Russian state, but the same can be said for the French Revolution, yet Burke still deplored the radical destruction of tradition of this revolution, similar to what occurred due to the Russian Revolution. Burke disapproved of the French Revolution among other reasons because of its anti-religious effects, if anything greater in the Russian Revolution, and because it led to regicide and terror. The Bolsheviks famously killed Nicholas II and his family, an act Burke would surely have abhorred, and the other killings in Russia made the French Reign of Terror look paltry in comparison.
Though the Soviet Union ultimately became much more powerful than the former Czarist nation, it would be incorrect to look at the makers of the Russian Revolution as nationalists attempting to strengthen the “national identity” of Russia. Lenin and the other Bolsheviks instead made the revolution in hopes that it would be a catalyst for revolutions across the capitalist world, particularly in Germany. It was not until the later Stalin period that elements of Russian nationalism began to be a serious part of the Soviet regime. It seems to me mistake to read this later nationalism back on the revolution itself and use it as a reason that Burke might support it, as the nationalism had not manifested at that time.
Though Burke would have opposed the Russian Revolution, it seems likely to me that he would be similarly skeptical of the abolition of communism. Though Burke would likely been happy to see the new Bolshevik regime replaced by some form of more traditional rule in its early years, by the time the regime had existed for half a century, Burke might have felt that the regime had become conservative enough to be worth preserving. He would likely have opposed the capitalist-democratic revolutionaries such as Yeltsin, who eventually caused the full-scale destruction of the old order, and thrown his lot in with the more “conservative communist” tradition which favored preserving the old order, as imperfect as it was.
Well, I have to say that it’s the most interesting blog post i’ve read.
Author generally brings an idea that Soviet Union is not the ideal country that Marx want. As a matter of fact, it’s more
Burke like.
But I think if they really go with Marx, things will be totally be a total disaster.
China used to have a brand new country which will generate its own new culture. So Mao decided to launch the great Cultural Revolution to destroy all the bad cultral he thinks belong to capitalism or old society.
We now can clearly see that the aftermath of Cultural Revolution is destructive and anti-humanity, which bring up a puzzle that in which way can we actually create a brand new society.
Wow. I was really excited to comment on this until I read Ewan’s reply… which contained just about everything I wanted to say.
Either way, I still very much enjoyed reading your ideas.