“Without revolutionary theory, there can be no Revolutionary Movement.”

― Vladimir Lenin

The Russian Revolution fundamentally altered Russian society and global power dynamics held between nations. While the most visible events of the rebellion occurred in 1917, decades of previous unrest and societal tension laid roots to the eventual revolt. Throughout this chapter, the origins and milestones of the Russian Revolution will lead into the discussion of two theorists—Karl Marx and Barrington Moore—and situate those theories to answer the question of what leads societies to revolt. Some of the factors that Marx and Moore specify in their theories directly apply to the Russian Revolution in terms of its development and outcomes, while other aspects of the Russian Revolution continue to challenge theorists’ postulations.

History & Revolutionary Context

Though the Russian Revolution’s main events commenced in 1917, the origins of this rebellion trace back to 1649 with the establishment of serfdom in the state. Under serfdom, the lowest social class of Russian society, the serfs, experienced severe poverty, hunger, and other maladies (DeFronzo 2019, 40). Because of this system, Russia was impoverished and lagged behind other industrialized European countries throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century, creating a society of hyper-inequality (Lindert and Nafziger 2014, 767-798). It was not until 1861 that serfdom was officially abolished in Russia, making it seem like modernization, industrialization, and freedom was near. Abolition of serfdom did not provide these things, especially that of freedom, as former serfs paid sums of money so large that many fell into more difficult economic hardships than they were facing before the abolition of serfdom (DeFronzo 2019, 42). The abolition of serfdom, however, did provide peasants with a newfound freedom to organize and become better educated about the world around them, which would later aid in creating a successful revolution. Also, the peasants’ extreme discontent and anger from 1861 forward and their neglect by the Russian government would play a crucial role in the revolution that would break out in 1917.

As Russian industrialization began to take place at the end of the nineteenth century, many elites decided to attain a modern education, which meant an introduction to many new socio-economic concepts greatly influenced by Western Europe (DeFronzo 2019, 242). These concepts and ideas would contribute to the development of new organizations and groups that would challenge the rule of Czar Nicholas II. Despite the consensus regarding the poor treatment of Russians at the hands of Czar Nicholas II and his government, no concrete agreement as to how the social injustices should be dealt with existed. Many of the elites involved in the movement towards revolution suggested that peasants required education about the benefits that revolution promised. Other revolutionary elites thought that violence and organized attacks against the Czar’s government would prove to be more effective. Neither of these efforts were successful in bringing about revolution. Peasants lacked receptiveness to elites trying to educate them, while the violence that groups like the “People’s Will” carried out only led to more brutal police repression and further alienation of citizens who did not condone the use of violence (DeFronzo 2019, 43).

The first attempt at revolution in Russia came in 1905. This attempted revolution was a result of rising discontent regarding the Czar’s dictatorship. An increase in strikes, protests, riots, and assassinations of government officials, led to Czar Nicholas II deciding to enter into war against Japan. He believed that war would bring an end to these domestic tensions concerning wages and working conditions. However, Czar Nicholas’ choice to enter into war backfired as Japan defeated Russia, leading to Russian humiliation (DeFronzo 2019, 46-47). The intensification of the people’s discontent with the government led to even more demonstrations to voice their discontent. One peaceful protest in particular recognized as “Bloody Sunday” saw many unarmed protesters killed by Russian police, which sparked the attempt at revolution in 1905 (DeFronzo 2019, 46). The 1905 revolution did not succeed because there was a lack of coordination among the mobilized three revolutionaries. Most government forces remained loyal to the Czar’s government, and the movement lost the necessary support of the elites after Czar Nicholas II promised reform to the dictatorial style of government that existed (DeFronzo 2019, 47-48).

In 1912, the Social Democratic Party of Russia split into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks supported Vladimir Lenin, who believed that socialism could be implemented in Russia directly following the overthrow of the Russian government. The Mensheviks, meanwhile, opposed Lenin and believed that socialism would occur over time as society was ready for change (DeFronzo 2019, 45). By August of 1914, Czar Nicholas II decided for Russia to join in on World War One. Entering into World War One proved to be a terrible mistake, with Russian casualties extremely high, food and fuel shortages all too common, and the economy further devastated. These factors contributed to the reignited anger and resentment that the Russian people had against Czar Nicholas II and the Russian government. Even soldiers and sailors began to defect and join the revolutionary movement, which shows just how far-reaching the Czar’s government oppression and injustice occurred. Although the Bolsheviks did not support Russia’s involvement in World War One, the group accurately saw it as an opportunity for success in revolution because of the discontent and vulnerability that it would create in Russia’s citizens (DeFronzo 2019, 48).

In 1917, Russians carried out the February Revolution, which saw Czar Nicholas II abdicate his throne. The throne was then quickly taken over by leaders from Russia’s bourgeois capitalist class. Not long after, the October Revolution of 1917 transferred power from the bourgeoisie to the Bolsheviks and Lenin (DeFronzo 2019, 49). The 1917 Russian Revolution was successful because of three factors. The people’s ability to coordinate and establish new four government structures. Two, Russia’s weakened state due to World War I, compounded by the support of sailors, soldiers, and other elite, also aided in victory. Third and finally, Czar Nicholas II’s refusal to provide the Russian people with other freedoms allowed a successful revolt (DeFronzo 2019, 84). Lenin called for the creation of a government consisting of soldiers, peasants, and workers. However, in the end, Lenin betrayed these values and became the first dictator of a communist state. After the Bolsheviks seized power, a civil war ensued. The Red Army and the White Army fought over what type of government Russia would become. The Red Army defended Lenin’s Bolshevik government, while the White Army favored a democratic socialism form. This civil war in Russia concluded in 1923 with the Red Army defeating the White Army and officially establishing the Soviet Union (DeFronzo 2019, 55).

The Russian Revolution was not a spontaneous event. Over centuries, political and social structures developed that allowed for tensions among the populace to mount and ultimately lead to the events seen from 1917 to 1923. World War I and Czar Nicholas II’s fallible leadership catalyzed the outbreak of violence and upheaval, though, with the rising tensions seen in events like 1905’s Bloody Sunday, a revolution was perhaps inevitable. Theorists, including Karl Marx and Barrington Moore, provide specific postulations on this predestination. Furthermore, the Russian Revolution’s outcomes highlight the victories and shortcomings of the six-year power struggle.

Revolutionary Outcomes

Although the Russian Revolution is considered the first successful Marxist revolution, political outcomes following the hallmark events betray original values and pursuits. Vladimir Lenin was a primary orchestrator of the Russian Revolution and subsequently became the first leader of the new Soviet Union. Under Lenin’s leadership, the revolution appeared successful, and the new regime seemed to be on a path towards growth and economic prosperity. However, on January 24, 1924, Lenin’s death sowed chaos and discord in the Communist Party over the future of leadership. By the time of his death, Lenin had failed to name a successor, leaving a vacuum of power with many scrambling to assume Lenin’s role. Yet, Leon Trotsky stood out as the most obvious successor. Trotsky was a revolutionary who served as Lenin’s right-hand man, although Trotsky’s personality starkly contrasted with Lenin’s. Moreover, Trotsky had political experience under Lenin as Commissar of Foreign Affairs, starting in 1917 (Rubenstein 2011, 105).

Despite Trotsky’s accolades and previous recognition within the party, it was Joseph Stalin who ultimately succeeded Lenin and completed the transformation of the Communist Party into an authoritarian regime. Stalin, whom Lenin had appointed as General Secretary of the Party, used political strategy and internal party alliances to overtake Trotsky’s succession. Two theories attempt to explain why the Russian Revolution failed to guard against the authoritarian takeover under Stalin. One theory posits that the new government’s political structures were weak and prone to exploitation, allowing for a seamless takeover upon the arrival of determined figures. The other theory suggests an actor-oriented idea, describing the transition as a struggle between supporters of Stalin and supporters of Trotsky, where continued wrangling for power allowed usurpation to a totalitarian reign. Though neither of these theories are definite, nonetheless, they provide possibilities for how Joseph Stalin altered the political affairs of Russia.

With the creation of new governments, divided politics consume the state. The Soviet Union was no exception to this rule. Early in the transition process, two of Lenin’s revolutionary counterparts—Gregori Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev—emerged in opposition to Trotsky, fearing his military record and ambition. Zinoviev and Kamenev allied with Stalin, who had quickly ascended through the ranks of the Communist Party and was then appointed as General Secretary of the Party. This rise to power came despite Lenin, in his final days, expressing deep regret over Stalin’s appointment (Dawsey, 2018). From this high-ranking party position, Stalin appointed supporters to influential positions, and built a base from which to stage his opposition against Trotsky. Stalin, who is also often described as charismatic and ambitious, used these traits to his advantage. Trotsky by comparison lacked charisma and had created several political enemies during his time since the revolution. With his carefully crafted influence, Stalin set out to redefine the USSR’s future, a vision that garnered considerable support.

Stalin appealed to a broad sense of nationalism within the party by announcing a plan of “socialism in one country” in 1924. This plan committed the USSR to the pursuit of socialism, despite the international context that disfavored such a system. Under Stalin’s proposal, ideas of a worldwide Marxist revolution were largely abandoned and then associated with Trotsky. This new plan also alienated his former allies Zinoviev and Kamenev, who then pledged allegiance to Trotsky against Stalin. Stalin’s grip on political absolute authority grip, demonstrated as he exiled Trotsky in 1929 (Dawsey, 2018). Moreover, in the following years of Stalin’s reign, other calamities overtook Russia. The Great Terror commenced in the later 1930s, a governmental effort to repress and eliminate lower-class people, ethnic minorities, and anyone else considered unfavorable to the regime (Kuromiya 2007, 713). Stalin was the central and lead figure over this brutal campaign. These events directly contradicted previous aspirations envisioned by Lenin.

Evident by his disagreements with Stalin towards the end of his life, Lenin had envisioned a more egalitarian-socialist society than the one offered up by Stalin. This final revolutionary outcome demonstrates the vulnerability of new revolutionary states to ambitious power actors if no political structures are established with particular care and safeguards. This particular emphasis on the influence of actors lends credence to the validity of the aforementioned actor-oriented theory. Nevertheless, the outcomes of the Russian Revolution in following decades show the fragility of the newly developed government, and how projections by rebels can shift into new realities over time.

Karl Marx: Theory Application

The theories of Karl Marx apply to the events leading up to and consisting of the Russian Revolution. This is largely due to the fact that the writings of Marx had much influence over the Russian Revolutionaries who carried out the socialist overthrow. Marx’s theories spoke directly to these revolutionaries because they perceived many of the concepts and events that Marx described happening in the world around them. Concepts and issues such as class antagonism, capitalism, and poverty drove Russian citizens to the writings of Marx as they searched for solutions to solve the injustices in their society. (Marx 1955, 3).

Marx built his theories around the idea of class antagonism and how the disparity between economic classes is the driving force behind revolution. Capitalism and the inevitable inequality that results from it split the populace into two groups: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie represents the elites and the Czar while the proletariat consists of the oppressed peasants, sailors, and soldiers (DeFronzo 2019, 40-42). Marx outlines in his theories how capitalism forces the proletariat to be a slave of labor and wages, while the bourgeoisie controls the means of production and therefore keeps the proletariat in a cycle of economic oppression. With the arrival of the industrial revolution in Russia, the proletariat problems worsened as the means of production became all-consuming in the actions of the bourgeoisie. As machines become advanced, it becomes easy to manufacture products through the exploiting. Additionally, as proletariat efficiency increased, more of the proletariat population became unnecessary, limiting the availability of work. These problems inevitably cause an uprising among the proletariat as it is their only option to liberate themselves in a situation such as the one Marx has laid out.

The nature of capitalism forces the bourgeoise to shrink its own numbers, by suppressing some of its own members to the proletariat class, further stratifying the populace. Once the bourgeois is small enough, and the proletariat has grown large enough, an uprising will be impossible for the bourgeoisie to stop. Factors like these support Marx’s claim of revolution being inevitable, as the more time passes and the more powerful the proletariat become, the weaker and smaller the bourgeoisie will be. Marxist theory suggests that the proletariat should spread its message to individual laborers, uniting them and spreading the proletariat’s message to others in the working class about how a socialist revolution could benefit their own lives and the country as a whole (Marx 1955, 6).

In the context of the Russian Revolution, we can see how the people of Russia were unhappy under the reign of the Czars and the elites. Industrialization occurred in Russia simultaneously with mass food shortages and poverty that the Russian government continuously ignored. By 1917, mass bloodshed at Bloody Sunday, the Russo-Japanese War, and World War I was fresh in Russian citizens’ minds (DeFronzo 2019, 46). Much of the proletariat was dissatisfied with the continuation of poverty, unacceptable working conditions, and the Russian government’s inability to meet the people’s needs. These are key points that Marx would point to in developing a revolutionary situation. Something that Marx would not have foreseen in contributing to the Russian Revolution’s revolutionary situation is how Russia was a peasant state at the time of revolution (DeFronzo 2019, 41). Figures such as Lenin had traveled and learned of the theories of Marx and saw how he could use them to overthrow the rule of the Czars in his own country. Many of those who were elites in 1905 had now become part of the proletariat class in 1917 as problems have only worsened since the first uprising. Eventually, as the bourgeoisie shrunk in 1917 and Russia was weakened from the WW1 war effort, the tipping point was reached, and the February Revolution took place and Czar Nicholas abdicated the throne ending Czar rule in Russia. The provisional government would not last long though, as in November of that year, Lenin would lead an almost bloodless coup against the Dumas government and put in place a system that placed him as its dictator (DeFronzo 2019, 54-55).

Barrington Moore: Theory Application

In addition to Karl Marx, the theories of Barrington Moore apply to assessing how the Russian Revolution formulated and transpired. Moore expanded on Marx’s ideas, fashioning himself as a neo-Marxist. However, Moore positioned himself as more materialistic than Marx, 10 which draws distinctions into perceptions of how the Russian Revolution unfolded. Yet, even with the differences between the two political theorists, their general ideas are in alignment. As discussed in previous chapters, Moore’s theories explore how agrarian societies do or do not transform into industrialized settings; Moore continues on this idea by situating how various states establish democratic governance, under the slogan of “no bourgeois, no democracy.” Another wording of this phrase could be “no middle class, no democracy” (Moore, 1966).

Moore’s theories establish three trajectories for how societies emerge in the modern world. The influence of Marx is prominent when observing Moore’s work: both theorists put forth the idea of natural tracts and how societies will, by default, follow them. The first track Moore ascribes is the “Capitalist-Democratic,” the second “Capitalist-Reactionary,” and the third as “Communist” (Pavone, 2016). The Russian Revolution directly aligns with the tract of the Communist route (as does the Chinese Revolution). At the inception of this route, the peasantry (working class) catalyzes bringing about social change and revolution, within a state that has failed to modernize/industrialize. Critical to an effective peasantry is the ability to unite and dissolve stratification levels. If the peasantry has any caste system or varying degrees of power within, unity is unattainable. From this, the peasantry unites based on a dislike or disapproval of an overarching central figure (whether that figure is an individual or a set of government infrastructure): an elite. The peasantry then can issue demands or proceed with a revolution of the state. Disapproval could originate from economic struggles, social power discrepancies, or a combination of many factors. Often, there is a disconnect in communication and relatability between the assumed peasantry and the assumed elite. Since the elite lacks a connection with the peasantry to suppress insurrection, the elite crumbles as the revolt continues to gain influence 11 and momentum (Pavone, 2016). What results is a Communist state, fueled from the bottom (economically and politically) levels of society (Moore, 1966).

From reading the history of the Russian Revolution, this Communist track fits neatly into how events manifested. First, under the reign of the Czars, dissatisfaction permeated Russian culture. Failure to modernize in the early twentieth century aggravated the general populace, leading to protests (this frustration unfolded further with embarrassment following Russia’s loss in war against Japan). Following mass bloodshed of citizens in 1905, in which troops helmed by Czar Nicholas II massacred hundreds of protesting Russian citizens, the government promised reform, but lacked substantive execution. Russian workers continued protesting en masse, fomenting social disruption and economic turbulence across the empire. Over the next twelve years, heightened frustration with the Czar mounted, as Nicholas opted to become involved with World War I, further straining resources and national pride. Leading into the 1917 Russian Revolution, these previous events exhibit an appetite for overthrowing the elitist Czar institution. Extending to 1917, workers still found the Czar regime unresponsive to their basic needs: food, economic stability, political reforms. Yet, the Czar’s response was inadequate for the demands of a disconnected people, leading to his abdication of power (and execution later on). Continuing the path of the previously mentioned history, Russia’s demolition of the old government establishments led to the birth of a Communist state, as Moore predicted would happen when a state followed the third trajectory.

Conclusion

The Russian Revolution was not spontaneous; decades of tension and resentment towards the Czar regime led figures like Lenin to demand a radical change of Russia’s government. Events like Bloody Sunday, Russo-Japanese War, and World War One only solidified resentment that continued occurring over the following decade. Theorists like Marx and Moore posit different routes for how Russian society reacted. Marx creates the dichotomy between the elite bourgeoisie and the working class, the proletariat. As the bourgeoisie oppressed the proletariat, the working class rises and takes back power. Meanwhile, Moore situated a similar path: a sharp disconnect between the elite and the peasantry, with the peasantry demanding reform, lest rebellion ensues. Together, both theorists suggest that societies, given certain conditions, will inevitably rebel.

Works Cited

Dawsey, Jason. “Trotsky’s Struggle against Stalin: The National WWII Museum: New Orleans.” The National WWII Museum | New Orleans. The National World War II Museum, September 12, 2018. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/trotskys-struggle-against-stalin.

DeFronzo, James. 2019. “The Russian Revolutions and Eastern Europe.” In Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements, 39-87. New York: Routledge.

Granger. “1905 – Bloody Sunday in Saint Petersburg, Beginning of the 1905 Revolution.” History Bytez, 22 Jan. 2016. Public Domain. historybytez.com/2016/01/22/1905-bloody-sunday-in-saint-petersburg-beginning-of-the1905-revolution/

Kuromiya, Hiroaki. 2007. “Stalin and His Era.” The Historical Journal 50, no. 3 (April): 165–76.

Lindert, Pete and Steven Nafziger. 2014. “Russian Inequality on the Eve of Revolution.” The Journal of Economic History 74, no. 3: 767-798.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1955. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Moore, Barrington. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Pavone, T. 2016. “Barrington Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy.”

Rubenstein, Joshua. 2011. Leon Trotsky: A Revolutionary’s Life. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Image Attribution

St. Petersburg – Museum ship Aurora – symbol of the October Revolution of 1917 — Museum ship Aurora – symbol of the October Revolution of 1917 by giggel is licensed under CC BY 3.0