Vladimir Lenin was a 20th century revolutionary who replaced Georgi Plekhanov as leader of the Russian Marxists. While in power, Lenin developed various policies to rule Russia more efficiently. Though Lenin used Marxism as a means of justification for his governing methods, he often strayed away from the actual tenants of Marxism in his practices (Kort 57).
Throughout Lenin’s rule, he experienced a great deal of opposition to his policies. Even officials from before Lenin’s time had many contradicting outlooks on Lenin’s strategies for directing Russia. An example of this would be the differences between Lenin and Russian statesmen Konstantin Pobedonostsev’s perspectives on democracy. These men lived in different centuries, but their time period was not the dominant distinction between them. These Russian officials had values that did not agree in relation to parliamentarianism and its place in Russian society. There was a great disconnect in their point of views when it came to issues involving democracy. Of these discrepancies, the main concerns that arose were the majority’s influence in democracy, the way elections were carried out, and the place parliament actually had in a democracy.
Pobedonostsev’s opinions did not agree that Lenin could actually bring his far-reaching aspirations to life. He would also think that a majority of Lenin’s goals were purely idealistic. His perspective would criticize Lenin’s plans as concentrated on theoretical solutions, whereas Pobedonostsev was fixated on what events were actually taking place. For example, Pobedonostsev harshly criticizes parliamentarianism within democracy because he rationalizes that it is supposed to be a body where the people make the laws and elect officers to carry out the majority’s will. This often does not happen the way it is planned, though, because the ministers are “autocratic” and overshadow the actual will of the people. Parliament is not the influential body that it should be because of this reality. Pobedonostsev continues to refute his support of parliament by mentioning that is a selfish institution that exists to serve its members only (Pobedonostsev 4).