I’m old! I’m not eighty or anything, but I am over sixty.
The result is, what I learned in school where history and civics (and other things as well) is concerned is not what a student going to school today is being taught.
To compound matters, my parents were both secondary or post secondary educators (my mother taught high school in Australia, but college in the United States, my father taught in a college or university setting).
I want to plainly state what I learned in my youth wasn’t more “pure” or correct than what is currently imparted to young folks in the modern day.
That said, one important reality is, because of the time in which I was coming up, the focus of my young life was obviously not the same as it is for young folks today.
Part of my reality was a Soviet Union with which the United States was in a “Cold War.”
It really was rather an odd thing.
Why do I say that? Because prior to, and even during the Second World War, the United States and Russia were at least loose allies. This is something about which even many people my age are blissfully unaware.
Regardless, in the course of time, the U.S. and the fledgling Soviet Union (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or USSR) came into sufficient conflict so as to have an “Iron Curtain” between the remainder of Europe and the USSR and its allies.
I wanted to take a moment to talk about the power of ideas where something prior to all of this is concerned though.
I wanted to discuss the idea of the “Bolsheviks.”
Most folks are entirely not read in on the idea of the “Bolsheviks” and the “Mensheviks.”
Back in the early days of the Russian Revolution against the Tsarist regime, there was a group who could be called (though in my mind not reasonably) Communists.
At some point, that group split—possibly into more than two groups, but at least into two.
The well known sects into which they split were the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.
A rough translation for “Bolshevik” is “the majority.” For the Mensheviks, the basic English is “the minority.”
Funnily, these were misnomers. It turns out that—if I understand correctly (and I may be confused)—both terms were coined by the Bolsheviks. Why did they do what they did?
It’s presumed they were attempting to paint their adversaries as the “lesser of the two.”
From everything I know, that was not even remotely the case.
What makes this even worse?
Though I cannot speak with assurance, it’s highly likely even if you combined the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks together they wouldn’t have been anything like the majority of Russians.
So to begin with, no, the Bolsheviks almost certainly were not the majority of supposed Communists. But they were equally pretty surely nothing like the majority of Russians.
In the best case, we could argue that the majority of Russians were in search of change (and probably change they thought would likely never occur). In the worst, it’s possible (and I would argue likely) most Russians weren’t even considering such things.
Chances are good most citizens of that nation were far too busy living life—trying to figure out how to feed the family, working to have a humble place to rest their weary bones—to worry about such pie-in-the-sky ideas.
Pivoting for just a moment, there was a Jewish radical politician who recently said something along the lines of, “You need a very small number of people involved in dissident activity to convince leadership of a given entity to buckle to even radical demands.”
I don’t recall the exact number, but what he said appears to be absolutely true.
Consider the tiny fraction of a percent of U.S. residents who count themselves “transgender” (a word with which I take serious exception—a matter for another day to be sure).
Ponder even those who support them. You’ll find that even with people who join their cause in furtherance of another, the number is likely extremely small.
Nonetheless, such people have made massive inroads into a changing perspective in government, and according changes in rules, regulations, laws, policies, and even perspectives.
You can readily argue that such changes are in aid of getting people on board with other more or less radical ones.
Regardless, such a perspective must be sufficiently visible even to be abused by those seeking to do so.
Getting back to the original idea. It’s not horribly significant that the Bolsheviks were in the majority, or a tiny, otherwise relatively insignificant minority. What matters is that people were willing to allow them a sufficient foothold to exploit the populace at large.
To simplify the matter, we must actively deal with and respond appropriately to all who seek to change the World—even in what appear to be insubstantial ways.
That’s not an easy thing to ask of many. Much like the Russian population, a large number are occupied in simple pursuits—like seeking food and shelter.
Such will allow others to run over them without much consideration.
A band named Midnight Oil put it like this, “The rich get richer. The poor get the picture. The bombs never hit you when you’re down so low.”
The problem? Midnight Oil was entirely incorrect in their perspective.
Who’s most likely to be affected by the Shakespearean “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune?”
It turns out those “lower on the totem pole” are far more likely to suffer, than those higher up the chain.
You may think your diminutive stature will protect you from the harms of things like radical changes on the political landscape. If so, I need to inform you of your (sadly) backward views.
Each and every one of us must fight against such things.
This—in my way of thinking—is why Jefferson warned of a need for an “informed electorate.”
Those who allow for that which sounds good as opposed to that which actually is good are unlikely to attain the success they seek to achieve in life.
You can agree or not, that’s your choice. That you now understand where I stand is a sign I’ve achieved my objective.
As usual, here’s hoping you’re well and happy. If not I pray you will become so in the not-too-distant future.