The Bolshevik Revolution
At the turn of the 20th century, Russia was a vast empire. The country spanned across the entire northern half of Asia, from the Pacific coast in the east, and into Western Europe. Tsar Nicholas II ruled the country as it had been ruled by his family for centuries before. The strict feudal traditions were upheld with brutality; Tsarist policies prolonged the agony of the lower classes and supported the opulence of the royal family. In the early 1900s, the poor social and economic conditions coincided with the spread and increased study of Karl Marx’s communist philosophy. The Russian people, determined to establish a new government, initiated a chain of events that climaxed with the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917. The Bolshevik Revolution transformed Eastern Europe and Asia and had a significant impact on the entire world throughout the twentieth century. The fallout of the Bolshevik Revolution still impacts Russia and the rest of the world today.
There was no singular cause or event that sparked the Bolsheviks to take to arms in 1917, instead the action resulted from the culmination of a history of social, political, and economic issues. Prior to the Bolsheviks’ rise to power in October 1917, there were two Revolutions that set the stage for the Soviet takeover. The First was the revolution of 1905. This revolution resulted in Russia transitioning from a strict feudal system to a constitutional monarchy; the power of the Tsar was limited and new political framework began to usurp the old Russian system. In light of the Revolution that would take place later, in October 1917, two important movements originated following the Revolution of 1905. The first was the nature of the Revolution. Vladimir Lenin remarked that 1905 was a dress rehearsal for October 1917, and he was correct for the most part. “The 1905 Revolution did reveal and foreshadow…the moving forces of the successful movement of 1917: the mutinous armed forces, the turbulent workers, the landhungry peasants, the dissatisfied minor nationalities” (Chamberlin 63).
In addition to forecasting the role of the population in the 1917 revolution, the 1905 revolution revealed the establishment that would be the framework for revolution a decade later. Soviets, or councils, formed among different sectors and unified a majority of the urban population. The unity of the Soviets, usually localized urban workers banded together under revolutionary leadership, gave the citizens a unified voice and viable political structure. Though the Soviets did not have a lasting presence following the 1905 revolution because of their insurrections against the Tsar and his reactions to the politics following the actions in 1905, their ideology took hold across the population and reemerged significantly in 1917 (Wood 33).
The February Revolution that took place in 1917 also played a critical role in the events that would unfold in October of the same year. The February revolution, like the revolution of 1905, was characterized by mass civil unrest across the population. Striking workers, riotous peasants, and mutinous soldiers united under intellectual leadership to remove the Tsar and install a government that related to the people. The revolutionaries were resilient and their efforts effective; the Tsar was abdicated and completely removed from power before he could return from the front lines of World War I to quench the rebellion. The removal of the Tsar created a need for a new government and a scramble for power among the various political forces in Russia. Initially, a Provisional Government was formed from remnants of the legislature of the old system and shared power with a collection of Soviet leaders, primarily Mensheviks. With the newly obtained political freedom, Soviet gatherings once again gained momentum and the stage was set for the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917 (Hill 77).
In his book Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements, James DeFronzo lists five factors that can be applied to many revolutions, including the Soviets’ rise to power. These factors provide a framework to discuss and evaluate the causal issues present in Russia at the time of the October Revolution and their significance in outcome of the revolutionary actions taken.
The first of five factors that DeFronzo claims facilitate revolution is a mass frustration of the population that results in mass participation against the state. There are several examples of frustration of the Russian people in the years leading up to the October Revolution. Following the 1905 revolution and the passing of the October Manifesto, there were many political changes that benefited working class citizens. By February of 1917 and certainly by October, the peasants enjoyed better working conditions and job security, more income, and greater freedom than any previous time in Russian history, yet these changes did not satisfy their frustrations (Did the Russian 217). The peasants, making up approximately eighty percent of Russia’s population, openly demonstrated and rioted in an attempt to gain full ownership of all rural lands, something they felt was given to them in the constitution that followed the 1905 Revolution. Lenin claimed that this eighty percent of the population were only holding about thirty five percent of the land, though they were responsible for working all of the land that was owned by elite landowners and other members of the bourgeois (Hill 85). As a whole, the peasantry felt the new Provisional Government was indifferent towards their requests. They also grew increasingly frustrated with the Mensheviks and their lack of swiftness moving toward socialist reforms, causing the peasantry to increasingly support the more radical Bolsheviks as October drew near. By the end of summer, the peasant uprisings had reached the point of violence against bourgeois landowners and the peasantry was unified behind the Bolsheviks (MacKenzie and Curran 472).
The consequences of the peasants’ riots spread throughout the country quickly. The urban population was already in an unstable situation. There was confusion about the government, tension regarding the war, and general unrest in the industrial sectors due to strikes and lockouts. The actions of the peasants intensified the proletariat situation in two ways. First, the riots led to a shortage of food in the cities, which resulted in urban riots over food as hungry and discontented workers waited for meals. The food riots were amplified by inflation and lack of work. Secondly, the resilience of the peasants demonstrated the potential for revolution across the country. As Soviet participation grew exponentially in urban areas, the citizens realized that, rather than fighting one another, they could back the Bolsheviks who were in favor of worker owned factories (MacKenzie and Curran 472). In the months between February and the Revolution in October, a vast majority of the population participated in demonstrations and often violent uprisings against those supporting the Provisional Government.
DeFronzo also claims that dissidence between society’s elites is a necessary factor in a revolutionary movement (6%) and the October Revolution was certainly a product of such dissidence. Immediately following the February Revolution, a provisional government was formed to manage the State. On the same day, another center of authority emerged, The Petrograd Soviet, which would later become an Executive Committee of Soviet leaders, rivaling the power of the timid Provisional Government (Concise History 22%). While the Provisional Government formally took on all governmental responsibilities, their effective power was challenged by the Soviets, who represented and controlled the soldiers, peasants and urban workers. The Soviets, who supported the completion of the revolution, vied for power over the provisional government despite the supposed dvoevlastie (Dual Power) or that the provisional government agreed to (Russian Revolution 296). Despite their initial rise to power, the effectiveness of the Provisional Government rapidly declined until Alexander Kerensky took a leading role. Kerensky was also a leader within the Soviet movement and intended to vigorously promote the Soviet’s goals, but found it difficult to do so while still appeasing the more conservative of the members of the Provisional Government. Also, that April, Vladimir Lenin returned to Petrograd and his influence in the coming months would present much more serious challenged to the position of the Provisional Government (Concise History 23%).
The power struggle between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks was another source of dissidence between elite parties leading up to the October Revolution. At the time of Lenin’s return to Russia, The majority of the Petrograd Soviet consisted of Mensheviks; however, just before his return, the Executive Soviet Committee was encouraged to become a republic, allowing Soviets representing different parties to each have a chair on the committee. This move served the Bolsheviks well. Though they were a minority in the population of the State, with minimal worker support and no military support, they were allowed equal representation in the governing body (Russian Revolution 294). Upon Lenin’s return, though not solely due to his presence, the Bolsheviks gained an increased following and eventually became a majority within the Committee and enjoyed the support of an overwhelming percent of the population, including the military (MacKenzie and Curran 472-473). No party or organization took decisive control over the State following the February Revolution, leaving door open for resistance and power plays from every elite party in accordance with DeFronzo’s theory.
The unification of the population, across social barriers and class lines, in pursuit of a common goal is another factor DeFronzo attributes to successful revolutions (6%). Leon Trotsky, an early Bolshevik leader and commander of the Red Army, recognized this factor in a 1932 speech he gave in Denmark titled In Defense of October. He claims that “in order for the Soviet State to come into existence, it was consequently necessary for two factors of a different historical nature to collaborate” (7). The two factors Trotsky refers to were the peasantry and the proletariat. The peasants, historically dissatisfied with their positions and living conditions were already ripe for revolution, but they lacked political voice. The new conditions under the Provisional Government and the peasants’ general attitude since the 1905 Revolution drove them join forces with the proletariat (Trotsky). These urban workers had already developed a socialist foundation by establishing Soviets to unite against their bourgeois oppressors and already had considerable voice in the new government. The rural peasants found the proletariat to be an effective institution symbolizing leadership and ready to spearhead the Soviet takeover (Trotsky). The soldiers also joined alongside their civilian counterparts. Troops garrisoned in urban areas had already made their mark on the revolutionary movement during the February Revolution. In the spring and summer, word of the movement made its way to the front line soldiers of the war and they began to desert from the military to support the Soviet Revolution. They no longer felt compelled to fight because the Tsar had fallen and they largely agreed with the anti-war positions of the Soviets (Did the Russian 215). These parties each had their own historical motivations, but those motivations were all addressed simultaneously as they banded together to promote Marxism and Soviet ideology.
The paralysis of the state’s power to enforce its authority is another of DeFronzo’s key factors present in revolutionary movements. The fallout of the February Revolution left the practical authority of the government in disarray. As discussed above, the diarchy, or dvoevlastie (Dual Power), split the power of the State and left each party struggling for political power rather than concerning themselves with government operations. In addition, the Soviet Executive Committee made noteworthy military reforms, despite lacking approval from the Provisional Government. They took steps to “immaculate the officer’s corps, which socialist intellectuals, well versed in revolutionary history, saw as the main breeding ground of counter-revolution” (Concise History 23%). The military was ordered to form their own committees, in the image of the civilian Soviets, to command the troops. Delegates from the committees were also required to participate as representatives in the Petrograd Soviet. This placed control of the military in the hands of the anti-war Soviets and prevented the bourgeois Provisional Government from using military forces to extinguish further revolution (Russian Revolution 305-306). Another paralyzing factor was the make-up of the Petrograd Soviet. Because they organized so quickly after the February Revolution, they lacked structure and order at their meetings which greatly hindered their potential power. MacKenzie and Curran state that “the Petrograd Soviet, hastily formed and ill-defined in membership, powers, and procedure…was too large and noisy to do much real business” (464-465).
The fifth and final factor DeFronzo presents as vital to the occurrence and success of a revolution is a “permissive world context” (6%). At the time of the revolutions occurring in Russia in 1917, Russia’s neighboring countries, and the rest of the world for that matter, were far too preoccupied with the unfolding of World War I to be overly concerned about the situation in Russia. In actuality, World War I provided an encouraging context for the Russian Revolution on many levels. One example of how the war benefitted the revolutionaries was Lenin’s return to Russia in 1917. The Germans, entrenched on the western front against Russian forces, arranged for the exiled Bolshevik leader’s safe travel back into Russia from Switzerland at a critical time for the Bolsheviks. The German leaders were hopeful that his return would lead to a revolution, disrupting the normal order of the military and giving them an advantage on the front (Russian Revolution 390). “The German government…readily consented to send home socialists dedicated to overthrowing the pro-Allied government and ending Russia’s participation in the war” (MacKenzie and Curran 466).
The five factors described above, all of which came about between February and October 1917, created the social, political, and economic environment necessary for Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik party to seize a revolutionary opportunity. On the night of October 24th thru the day of October 25th, the Bolsheviks pulled the trigger on their coup d’état. After a month of internal arguing and days of hand-wringing and nervousness, Lenin’s plans proved successful and the Bolsheviks forcefully disbanded the Provisional Government and took full control of the Petrograd Soviet (Russian Revolution 491-492).
Lenin was able to assume a leadership position and pursue his ultimate goal of leading Russia towards an ideal state of communism according to Karl Marx’s theory. Marx and Engels, co-authors of the Communist Manifesto, take a historical approach when theorizing about the nature of revolutions. “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles” they state (1%). “The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society,” which describes pre-1917 Russia well, “has not done away with class antagonisms,… but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” (2%). Marx understood revolution as an event that necessarily occurs in response to class oppression; the eventual product of the revolutions will be a communist society in which there are no distinct classes. In modern, bourgeois, society, the capitalist business and land owners rule over their workers with as much oppression as the kings did in previous generations. They exploit their workers need for a paycheck in capitalist society, rather than enforce their reign through violence as was done in feudal and slave societies (10%).
Instead, Marx and Lenin alike agree that the “ever-expanding union of the workers” (27%) that result with each revolution will culminate to overthrow the bourgeois in power and take control of the State themselves (40%). Also, in accordance with Marx and Engels’ statement “in the beginning, [communism] cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads…and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the modes of production” (62%), “Lenin argued that only the dictatorship of the proletariat would make it possible to eliminate all the vestiges of feudalism” in Russia (Medvedev 93). Lenin took the role of the “proletariat dictator” and immediately began enforcing Marx’s list of necessary steps in an early communist society. He wrote a Decree on Peace which ended Russia’s involvement in World War I as soon as logistically possible, followed quickly by a Decree on Land, awarding all rural land to the Soviets of Peasants’ Deputies, to be distributed to the peasants to work according to the countries need and their ability (Medvedev 93). The workers were also given control of industry and all banks were nationalized, with all private accounts being confiscated. The Bolshevik government also renounced all foreign debts, declaring themselves wholly irresponsible for the actions of the previous governments (Chamberlin 355). The counter-revolutionaries, being the short lived Provisional Governments and the Mensheviks, shared many of their ideals with the Bolsheviks, but were markedly less extreme in their take on Marxism.
The Bolsheviks continued building their state, attempting to achieve communist ideals, but became much more radical than anyone anticipated. They instigated a Civil War within Russia that resulted in years of fighting between the Red, Bolshevik, Army and White Army, which represented all of the Bolsheviks’ enemies. Attempts were made on Lenin’s life in the summer of 1918 and as a result, and at the guidance of Joseph Stalin, the Red Terror was unleashed. The Red Terror was a series of terrorist attacks carried out by the Bolsheviks against all supposed enemies. Lenin signed execution orders daily, and it is widely believed that he also ordered the death of the former Tsar and the entire Romanov family. Shortly thereafter, Lenin became ill and eventually died of stroke in January 1924.
Stalin was able to immediately consolidate power and reign over Russia until his death in 1953, during which time Russia had a substantial impact on World affairs. The U.S.S.R., under Stalin, utilized intense industrialization policies to gain economic momentum, and after emerging victorious in World War II, was in a position of great world power. Communist countries began to appear around the world, often with substantial support from the U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R. also led communist nations against the United States in the Cold War from the mid-forties into the late eighties or early nineties. In 1991, the U.S.S.R. officially dissolved and Russia was once again an independent state, as were the fourteen other states that constituted the U.S.S.R. As a result of seventy years of communism and Soviet control, and the dissolution of the massive State, Russia and the States that make up the former U.S.S.R. suffer from intense economic and social problems that not only affect their own people, but the world economy (DeFronzo 17%)
The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, preceded by the February Revolution of 1905, followed both DeFronzo’s and Marx’s theories of revolution. As with any revolution, the scope and length of the revolutionary process is unforeseeable. The Russian Revolution changed the world’s political and economic climate for the rest of the century and the world’s history 1900s would be remarkably different if the Bolsheviks had not been successful in October 1917. Works Cited
Chamberlin, William Henry. The Russian Revolution, 1917-1918. Vol. I. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1987. Print.
DeFronzo, James. Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2011. Kindle Edition.
Hill, Christopher. Lenin and the Russian Revolution. London: English UP, 1961. Print.
MacKenzie, David and Michael W. Curran. A History of Russia and the Soviet Union. Homewood, IL: Dorsey, 1982. Print.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Public Domain, 2005. Kindle Edition.
Medvedev, Roy Aleksandrovich. The October Revolution. New York: Columbia UP, 1979. Print.
Pipes, Richard. A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. New York: Vintage, 1995. Kindle Edition.
Pipes, Richard. Did The Russian Revolution Have To Happen? American Scholar 63.2 (1994): 215-238. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
Pipes, Richard. The Russian Revolution. New York: Knopf, 1990. Print.
Trotsky, Leon, 1932, In Defense of October, speech delivered in Copenhagen, Denmark (November 1932), Marxists Internet Archive. Web. 25 Nov. 2011.
Wood, Alan. Russia, 1905: Dress-Rehearsal For Revolution. History Today 31.8 (1981): 28-33. World History Collection. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.