Russia-October Revolution-Practice Essay

[simon_93]

Hey there everyone

In a few days, I have to submit an essay on the October Revolution in Russia, as part of my normal coursework assessment. As revs is the subject I am most uncomfortable with by far, I was wondering if people could give me some pointers and advice on what to fix/omit/include for the essay, which is as follows:

What role did ideas, leaders and movements play in the October Revolution?

The role of ideas, leaders and movements during the 1917 October Revolution in Russia has often been the subject of intense debate amongst historians. Their views mainly fall into one of four categories. Soviet historians believe that the success of the revolution hinged upon Lenin’s outstanding leadership and evaluation of the situation in Marxist terms. Libertarian historians consider it a true movement by the masses which was however, betrayed by the Bolsheviks.
On the other hand, Liberal historians view the takeover by the Bolshevik Party as a classic coup d’état carried out by a small, armed elite group.  Finally, Revisionist historians argue that in retrospect, the Bolsheviks gained power only because they were the group which seemed to best articulate the demands of the masses. Regardless of the means by which the Bolsheviks seized power, historians do agree that leaders, ideas and movements all contributed, in varying capacities, to the October Revolution.

In terms of the Russian revolution, key leaders involved include Lenin, Trotsky and Kerensky. Lenin’s role in the October revolution is highly debated, although most historians agree that he had an influence on the progression of the revolution, to a certain extent. Whilst in exile in Siberia, Lenin continued his Marxist studies, continuing to read and write. In 1902 he wrote ' What is to be Done', in which he argued for the creation of a disciplined, centralised, party composed of full time, dedicated revolutionaries who would lead the working class into revolution. Through his return and through the April Theses, Lenin argued that Russia was ready for the next stage of the Marxist revolution-including the transfer of all power to the Soviet. Whilst many Bolshevik leaders did not agree with Lenin’s view, Lenin was able to successfully persuade Bolshevik leaders to support him. Revisionist historians attribute this to what they believed to be Lenin’s willingness to respond to demands from below, as well as his prestige and position within the party itself. In addition, most historians agree that Lenin’s timing was precise and his orders directed at the right time as to make the most of the opportunity which arose in October. Upon returning to Petrograd in October, Lenin announced to the Central Committee that “an armed uprising is now inevitable, and that the time is fully ripe”. Soviet historians say about Lenin’s role and timing; “the brilliance of Lenin’s leadership… he chose the moment with consummate skill.” Revisionist historians by and large also agree with this assessment, with Acton stating the “October Revolution displayed to the full both the organisational strength of the Party and the brilliance of Lenin’s leadership”.

Despite Trotsky's claim that the revolution would not have occurred without Lenin, it was he who actually strategically and single-handedly organised the takeover. Trotsky possessed several things which would prove critical to the success of the revolution. He was an organised man who could exert a large influence over the workers as Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. Also, he was a key member of the Military Revolutionary Committee, as well as the leader of the Red Guards, a militia group formed in August 1917 to defend Petrograd from General Kornilov. He armed the Red Guard with arms stored in the Peter and Paul Fortress, and then implemented the takeover using a simple yet well devised plan, first capturing key communication centres like the telegraph station and post office, then capturing key installations and vantage points as well as all roads leading into the city.
Liberal historian Richard Pipes claims ‘That night the Bolsheviks took over all the objectives of strategic importance by posting pickets. It was a model of a modern coup d’état’.

Apart from the leadership successes demonstrated by Lenin and Trotsky, Prime Minister of the Provisional Government Kerensky also contributed to the revolution due to a few key mistakes.
After disposing of the Tsar in the February Revolution, Kerensky decided to continue fighting in the First World War. The military failure of the June Offensive caused his public image to suffer from considerable damage. To the frustration of the peasants and workers, the Provisional Government under Kerensky was unable to solve economic problems of rising prices and land redistribution.
Finally, he was seen by some as a representative of the old Tsarist regime, as he lived in the Tsar’s Winter Palace, used the Tsar’s desk and study, as well as travelled in the Tsar’s train.

The ideas behind the Russian Revolution of 1917 were largely founded upon the concept of Communism, as theorized and brought about by Karl Max and Frederick Engels during the middle of the 19th century. After being influenced by the writings of Marx and Engels in publications such as ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848), Lenin, along with other Bolshevik leaders became committed to bringing Communism to Russia through a full scale revolution. Whilst lacking initial success, the period of time after the July Days saw Bolshevik support increase drastically. Between the months of April and July, the Bolsheviks were actively expanding their sphere of influence. By September, a total of 76 different newspapers and journals were being published by the party. Party membership had increased from 24,000 in February to 350,000 in October and almost 60% of the new members were workers. Key ideological slogans were adopted, such as “peace, bread, land”. This slogan was a direct response to the demands of the Revolution’s supposed supporters, namely the soldiers, workers and peasants, respectively. These Marxist slogans have been treated with varying levels of cynicism by historians. Liberal Historians tend to believe that Marxist ideals were manipulated and used as a way to justify the actions of the Bolshevik Central Committee and later on, as a way of legitimising the October takeover. However, revisionist historian Edward Acton described the slogans as not “cynical deception” but rather “an enormous faith in the creativity and initiative of the masses”.

The military movements involved in the October Revolution and prior to it were largely influential to the success of the takeover, according to Soviet historians. In response to the threat posed by the Provisional Government by General Kornilov in August, the Bolsheviks were armed and freed by the Provisional Government to defend Petrograd. Trotsky immediately readied and trained a group of radical workers (estimated to be up to 40,000 men) known as the Red Guards, who then defended Petrograd from invasion by a former tsarist general.  According to Official Soviet records, Bolshevik support in the Army increased from April to October, 1917. The MRC included representatives from the Baltic Fleet and on the night of the October Revolution, Red Guard detachments including sailors and soldiers, who occupied key points. In November elections for the Constituent Assembly, the Bolsheviks gained an absolute majority among the 5 million soldier votes of the Armies of the Northern and Western Fronts and the Baltic Fleet, which serves to demonstrate that the military was strongly in favour of the Bolsheviks. However, other historians argue that soldiers had 'trench bolshevism'; i.e. they only possessed the most basic grasp of Bolshevik concepts, mainly through slogans and propaganda. According to revisionist historian Acton, Liberal historians believe that Bolshevik support in the army was “patchy and ephemeral”. The reasoning behind this assertion is that the Russian masses were politically naïve and ignorant, responding uncritically to the Bolshevik vision of a Utopian future.

With regard to peasant support for the Bolsheviks, there are a number of different viewpoints expressed by historians. The Official history of the Soviet Union argues that peasants did not begin to sway towards the Bolshevik Party until August after the Kornilov Revolt, when they “realised that only the Bolshevik Party could deliver them from the war, and that only this party was capable of crushing the landlords and was prepared to turn over land to the peasants." However, liberal historians tend to believe otherwise, believing the Bolshevik Party attempted to seem like they had the support of peasants, so as to justify and legitimize their claim to represent the will of the proletariat. At Lenin's speech to the Second All Russian Congress of Soviets after the Bolsheviks had seized power, he said that his party was "backed by the will of the vast majority of the workers, soldiers and peasants". However, the Executive Committee of Peasants Soviets 'refutes with indignation all participation of the organised peasantry in this criminal violation of the will of the working class.' Liberal historians argue that the one telling statistic showed where peasants, still the large majority of the population, placed their faith; in the November 1917 elections for the Constituent Assembly, the Socialist Revolutionary Party gained the largest number of seats (42.0%), not the Bolsheviks.

With regard to whether the Bolsheviks had the support of the masses, historians once again have come to different conclusions. The Liberal historians believe that as much as Lenin’s small tight knit nucleus of professional revolutionaries were responsible for the October Revolution, the masses were not heavily involved in the takeover at all. Libertarian historians believe that the mass movement beginning from the February Revolution was ultimately crushed by Lenin and his Party. The historian Richard Pipes commented ‘Communism did not come to Russia as a result of a popular uprising: it was imposed on her from above by a small minority hiding behind democratic slogans.’
Revisionist historians however, through studying the Revolution from below, assert that it was a mass movement that was more sophisticated than Liberal historians assume. According to revisionist historian Acton, the Bolsheviks were not a ruthless, elitist organisation, but rather a party which responded to the voice of the people and “accurately articulated the masses’ own goals”.

Whether or not the October revolution was also a product of popular movements or firm leadership is keenly debated amongst historians. The ideas behind the October revolution and whether it was a true Marxist revolution is also surrounded in controversy. However, the combined impact of the roles which leaders, movements and ideas played in the October Revolution ultimately culminated in the success of the Bolshevik takeover in 1917.

Thank you very much in advance for your help!