V.I. Lenin is often considered one of the greatest revolutionary leaders and founders of the Soviet Union. At a young age he joined a secret political society. He became fully involved in political activities and was even arrested and eventually banished into exile. He soon became an ardent Marxist. At the same time, Russia was in the midst of political turmoil and instability. Millions of serfs were recently freed, but left with no economic certainty. The monarchy was under stress. Russia’s agrarian society was beginning to shift to one of industry, but could not keep up in competition with the rest of the more developed world. Finally, revolutionaries had visions of change but no direction or leadership.
Into this chaos stepped Lenin. He quickly became a forefront theoretician and strong organizer among the debating Marxists and Socialists over the soon coming Russian Revolution. In 1902 he published his infamous pamphlet entitled, What Is To Be Done? This pamphlet acts as a manual. It describes exactly how to overthrow old in support of the new. It contains his ideas on what revolutionists should be like and what strategies or tactics they should use. It also contained thoughts on the role of the worker. Lenin believed that because Russia was a largely agrarian society, the workers lacked the consciousness to bolster a revolution.
This leads to the central testimony of the pamphlet, the importance of revolutionary leadership. Lenin argued over and over for the need to grow, train, and allow prospering of “professional revolutionaries”. This small group of “comrades” as he called them, would lead, control, and command the revolution. He firmly believed that the population and masses were too common to understand the dynamics of starting a revolution or to seize power of their own doing. Therefore it was essential to have a core group of leaders who, though alienated from the elite, ruling classes, were still intellectual and connected with the people enough to make a change. Lenin believed that this type of centralization and top-down leadership was a key component of the Russian revolutionary movement. Though Lenin died before he could fully see the influence of his leadership, his legacy lived on in those who followed his example. His successor, leader of the Bolshevik Party, Stalin, praised What Is To Be Done? Likewise, Mao Zedong used Lenin’s ideas to fuel his own communist revolution. Though he died at an early age, Lenin’s influence and legacy on revolutionary leadership lived on.
Questions:
- What are your views on revolutionary leadership? Is Lenin correct in saying that power should be held by a core group of leaders?
- Are the people really not smart enough to lead their own revolution? Does this mean that power really does not belong to the followers or the people but really the leaders?
- What kind of power and influence does this give to leaders?
- Lenin’s views on revolutionary leadership and What Is To Be Done? has often been compared to the Jesuit Order ideals and the American democratic system and constitution. All believe in having an elite corp to lead the masses. Is this analogy true? Why or why not?
Leadership for Social Change | Saint Louis University 
Revolutions need a core group of “professional revolutionaries” like Lenin said. Now, that doesn’t mean that other leaders of smaller factions can’t hold influence either. My point is that people crave a rallying point, a leader that they can get behind. This fact can be found throughout history, from Alexander the Great to Martin Luther King Jr.
When something like a revolution or movement takes place, it’s often hard to spread governance widely. As seen from the current organization of the faculty here at SLU, it takes a lot of time and effort to get everyone on the same page and supporting the same methodology of revolution. With a core group of leaders, this doesn’t need to happen. Decisions can be made easily, quickly, and can thus be more effective. This makes a core group of leaders vital to revolutions and movements.
Revolutionary leadership is a different type of leadership all together. The leader must be passionate and able to gather a dedicated following. If he or she cannot then there cannot be a revolution, it will fail without passion and dedication. Therefore, the power of the revolution should be in a small group including the original leader and the most dedicated, or loyal followers. Without this group to guide and motivate the mass following for the revolution, nothing can be done, and mob mentality will take over ruining all chances of a successful revolution.
I think revolutionary leadership relies on in-the-moment action. In a revolution, decisions need to be made quickly and they need to have an impact right away. During these situations it is more efficient to have a core group of leaders to make the decisions rather than trying to take the vote of each and every member of the revolutionary process. This method has been adopted by our current government in the senate, house of representatives and the president him (or her) self. The people elect those they trust to make decisions for them. In most cases this type of leadership causes less problems, is more efficient in decision making, and allows the most informed people to make the best decisions.
In my opinion, Revolutionary leadership, like all leadership, requires a core group who will direct their followers. In this sense I completely agree with Lenin. Realistically without someone to organize and direct people, efforts for revolution would be inefficient and in general ineffective. However, I disagree that the reason for this is that people are too common or incapable. I think all people are inherently capable of doing great things. There are only a few however, that recognize the opportunities in front of them and even fewer that have the courage to take advantage. The simple ability to recognize the situation for revolution and the strength to follow through is the only thing that truly separates Lenin from the “common people” he led.
I think the key benefit of having that core group of leadership is that the followers as you said ” were still intellectual and connected with the people enough to make a change.” The leaders of a revolution must evolve out of the oppressed people in order for the oppressed people to want to follow them. Movements like these must occur out of some level of disgruntled anger against the rulers. Leaders must reflect the anger of the oppressed people but also be intelligent enough to utilize that anger and change it into passion of the people. This passion plays a tremendous role in any revolution–especially violent ones.
In my opinion, the people do hold the power in a revolution, but a small “core group of leaders” is necessary to organize and unite them. Without a “core group of leaders” the people will not be as successful in the revolution because they will be unorganized. However, I do not believe that the “core group of leaders” is needed because the people are “not smart enough to lead their own revolution.” In fact, i believe that the fact that the people are willing to accept a “core group of leaders” in the revolution illustrates their intelligence. The people themselves know that without a leader their revolution will not be as successful..
I agree with Gina, when she talks about the in-the-moment. A lot of times when one is planning a revolution things don’t always go as planned and it would be difficult to let all people know what is going on. I think that when implementing revolutionary leadership a core group of leaders is most effective, as long as the people agree with what they are doing. This helps things move smoother during the revolution.
I think everyone is intellectually capable of starting a revolution. Just because the common masses are not educated enough to solve a differential equation doesn’t mean that they cannot effect change. For example, Sojourner Truth was illiterate and often spoke in slang; however, this allowed her to relate to others and cause something to stir deep within her audiences.
I feel that power should not be held by a core group of leaders because in the end, one of those leaders will become greedy and try and break away from the group. My view is an all or nothing approach: there should either be one absolute ruler or rule by the people. I feel that oligarchs and other forms of government in which a small group rules are ineffective because egos would get in the way of progress.
I think all people do have the capability to start a revolution, otherwise this world would never see change. Every great leader started as an ordinary person. Yes, natural leadership qualities do help create a leader, but the passion for change is what truly motivates people to start a revolution. I do agree that a leader is essential to maintain focus and organization in a group, but the followers need to have the same motivation as the leader for change to happen. If a leader could make a change on their own, they would not be called a leader. They would just be an ordinary person. But when a lot of ordinary people are put together and given a passion, extraordinary things can happen.
I agree in stating that revolutionary leadership depends alot on the time. If the time is shaped in the need of a revolution, it has a much better chance to be successful. I also agree that revolutionary leadership is a type of leadership depending on many followers, but there does need to be a core group to organize everyone. Unless there are certain people dictating how to get the process started, continue it, and finalize it, there will be no overall progress with such a large following base.
I disagree that the common people are not intelligent enough to have a revolution. If people believe strongly in something, they will do everything in their power to make it happen. Even without education people would be able to pressure those in power to change. The problem with the common people having a revolution is the lack of direction and leadership. They need an organized leader, not because they lack the intelligence to have the revolution on their own but because with so many people there must be someone pushing them all in the same direction. The power is still with the followers but it is being directed by the leader.
V.I. Lenon was correct in saying that power should be held by a core group of leaders. Shared governance is a powerful tool that should be utilized by more organizations. The weight of leadership should be held by more than one governing body. Similarly at SLU, the weight of leadership is shared by the Board of Trustees, the President, the 6 vice presidents, and the Faculty Senate. I don’t believe that people aren’t smart enough to lead their revolution. It is the leader’s duty to gather the opinions of all the followers to provide a common voice. However, it is also the leader’s responsibility to be informed of the issue and common passion. Therefore, the voice can be seen as an educated and “smart” enough to lead a revolution.
I definitely think that people are “smart” enough to lead a revolution. They need leaders, just as any movement does, but they could definitely do it. I think the idea of power being held in a core of a few people is not a bad thing, and good in huge revolutions such as the communist revolution. However, the way that Lenin talks about it, it seems that those elite can never change and will forever be the same people. I don’t think that will be effective whatsoever. Movements need new ideas, they need new perspectives. If you have the same people leading for the entire movement, then it will go stagnant and not be able to progress further. I definitely think a core group, such as a board of trustees or something along those lines is helpful for leadership.
I think it would be a good idea to have a core group of leaders, because it would prevent one from rising to a dictatorial kind of leadership. Also, having a core group would allow different ideas to be presented to the group. I would not say that followers and people are not smart enough to start a revolution, but I do think it is necessary that they have organizers to bring them together. If a group of people want to start a revolution, but there is no one there to organize them, then there is little chance, in my opinion, for action to be taken.
I think revolutionary leadership requires a lot a passion and creativity. Revolutionary leaders have to be willing to fight for their cause and capable of thinking on their feet. I agree that a core group of leaders may be a good idea since it might lessen the odds of a dictator arising. I also think that it would be best for leaders to take charge of a revolution simply to bring order to the movement.
I can’t say that I really agree with Lenin’s views. They seem a bit radical and I’m not so sure aout placing all of the authority in the hands of a small group of people. When our government system was formed, the power was separated between branches so that one small select group of people never had too much power. I think that power of this magnification needs to be divided. It seems that it is almost impossible for people to have this much power without letting it get to their head or corrupt them somehow. It seems almost dangerous to give all of the power to such a small group.
I do agree, however, that in order for a revolution to happen, there needs to be a leader, or small group of leaders. The main reason for this is organization. A leader would simply be the person to direct efforts and give the crowd the next step, not a dictator or boss.
I somewhat agree with Lenin but also somewhat disagree. Lenin believed that there should be a small, core group of leaders with the power. My belief is that there should be a small, core group because this creates a sense of checks and balances. It isn’t simply one person making all the decisions but it also isn’t too many people that decisions can’t be made. However, I differ in belief from Lenin because I believe that this core group does not have all the power. They simply facilitate the power.
The idea of revolutionary leadership reminds me of Walking with the Wind. There was a core group of leaders to organize the efforts, which was necessary because otherwise people would just be forming little groups here and there, doing whatever they think is best. Chaos. A core group is necessary in this sort of wide-scale revolution, but the group isn’t necessarily elite, as John Lewis pointed out many times in his writing. They just have to be effective.
When all power is held by a core group, I think that group is too tempted to use the power for their own benefit. Even if they start with good intentions, they could easily be corrupted by this power. Leaders seem to be more effective when, at any point, they could lose their power. This keeps them focused on the needs of their followers rather than their personal wants.