In November, 1917, Lenin organized the Constituent assembly which was demanded by people. Unfortunately for him, Bolsheviks got just one quarter of votes. Legitimately the Bolsheviks should have give up power, but Lenin ordered the Red Guards to disperse assembly by force.
According to Figes, one of the reasons why The Bolsheviks achieved kept power in their hand was their antiwar policy. People did not demand the victory in the war they demanded bread. I suppose many people could call them selves patriots, but under circumstances that Russians had during the World War I – majority would be concerned with the food not with the military success.
In 1918 Brest-Litovsk treaty was signed which announced German victory. With this treaty Russia lost vast territories including Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. But the treaty it self was humiliating for the non-Bolsheviks. Short after the civil war started where the Red defeated the Whites. There were several reasons why. First off all, the Bolsheviks were situated in the main cities were arms were produce. Ordinary peasants tended to support the Reds as they were afraid that the Whites wanted to recreate monarchy and to withdraw peasantry land. Furthermore, the ‘Whites’ were supported by the foreign countries and Russians had a sense of nationalism which made the Bolshevik government more attractive
Figes claims that the Russian civil war was one of the cruelest wars the humanity had ever seen. Russians suffered and the socialist system, which was supposed to liberate people from poverty, made life for people even harsher and around 6 million people died from starvation. Russia productivity fell down in all areas especially in agriculture. Strikes and rebellions started. One of them was from 1-17 of March 1921 by the old Bolshevik stronghold of Kronstadt. They demanded free election to the Soviets but was suppressed. Short after Lenin introduced the New Economical Policy in 1921. Lenin claimed that In order to take two steps forward, the communists should take one step backward. The N.E.P helped to get back from the economic crisis. In 1924 Lenin died and Stalin regime started.
- An overview of the historical, political and cultural context in which the revolution occurred, with a reflection on how this context shaped the revolution you are looking at.
It is said that Peter the Great broke the wall which was separating Russia from the Western Europe. He started to modernise rural Russia. He built up a city on the river Neva bank – St. Petersburg (Figes, 1996). However, more than a century after Emperors Peters death Russia still was backward from the rest of Europe. Europe at the beginning of XIX century was emancipated but all innovations lagged in Russia and it still had a strong feudal system.
The backwardness of Russia was its peasants. Although, serfs were emancipated in 1861 and granted a certain portion of the noble's estates, but nobles were to be compensated by the government. The land did not become freed serf property but it was to be kept by the village communities. The village communities would allot a share of the village land to each peasant; in return, each peasant was compelled to repay the annual sum to the government (Seton-Watson, 1967). But it was sort of first steps from feudal system made by the Tsar Alexander II. One of the innovations was zemstva – district and provincial assemblies which were dominated by the nobles. Primary education, public health, poor relief, local industry and elections were important every day aspects where people could feel involved.
After the diminishing defeat in Crimean war Russia needed innovations which were done by the Tsar Alexander II. Firstly, military reforms which helped to renovate Russia’s status as a great power after the victory against Turkey in 1878. Secondly, significant increase of railways export increased, especially grain. Tariffs were abolished and simplified. Also industrial output increased. Finally, the number of universities was allowed to give lectures on "European government” and philosophies were permitted and finally universities were given more autonomy. Censorship was reduced (Seton-Watson, 1967).
Pipes argued that Russian universities were the recruiting ground of revolution because students were very receptive of new ideas. Firstly, students took nihilism ideas. They believed that old regime including the Orthodox Church and the Tsar should be destroyed. But the tsar oppressed nihilists. Some of them were expelled from the universities and some even imprisoned. Nihilism was changed by populism. The essence of Populism was that the Russian peasantry would make a socialist revolution. Alter the revolution, the land of the nobles, the Tsar and the church would be confiscated and given to the peasant communities (Seton-Watson, 1967). Populists formed a ‘People’s Will’ Party which successfully assassinated Tsar Alexander II. But Seton-Watson argues that assassination of Alexander II was a big step back. The following monarchs - Alexander III and Nicholas II - suppressed innovations and increased censorship. Russia as a state became more centralized.
Although poor peasantry did not have any rights but they loved their ruler. The image of the Tsar was not just a king, mortal as a man but ruling with a divine right; like in the Western medieval traditions - he was fabricated as a God on earth. Time passed Russians seemed gradually to dispose this opinion especially after the 1905 ‘Bloody Sunday’ (Figes, 1996). Furthermore, Figes claims that people living in the St. Petersburg did not understand their nobles and their customs as St. Petersburg became a modern city with plenty museums, art galleries etc. The nobles were following modern European fashions but the masses did not understand their dressing code and even language as the nobility spoke in French.
Imperial Russian was at the similar stage ancient the Rome Empire in fifth century; it was depredating. Rumours such as sex orgies took place in the Tsars chamber also that Rasputin, a black magician, had bigger power than the Tsar or event that the Tsarina cheated with Rasputin (Figes and Kolonitski, 1999). All these rumours made the country and especially the Tsars’ authority weaker. In Russian customs father was a main family supporter and there was widely spread patriarchy. Moreover, according to Kolonitski and Figes Russia had influence not only on the Russian revolution but on the French also. There were rumours that pornographic satire stripped the Bourbon monarchy- Marie Antoinette uncontrollable libido, the kings impotence- increased political and moral degeneration of old regime.
Furthermore, after 1905 the Tsar decreased his power and moved toward limited monarchy. Russia in terms of state power became weaker as it was decentralized also level of censorship declined. Weaker censorship had a big matter for counter-government ideas to be spread. But even before that Karl Marx ‘Das Kapital’ arrived in Russia. I think once again comparing The French and Russian revolutions we can dig up another similarity. French revolutions ideas were based on Enlightenment thinkers whereas in Russia the main ideology was Marxism from which in the long run was developed Leninism. The end of XIX century represented in Russia a brake through of industrialisation and a rapid growth of proletariat class; due to French investment. However, the quality of life was terrible- people were working approximately 15 hours a day and living in communal barracks with no sanitary facilities. Mass strikes started. Main aims were not only economic improvement but also political reforms of the tsarist government (Pipes, 1992). The industrialization process also represented the creation of the working class, which according to Marx tend to upraise against the bourgeois.
From the last subdivision of Lithuanian-Poland kingdom in 1795 russification process started. The Russian language was enforced as the compulsory language in the Ukraine, White Russia, Lithuania, Poland and the Baltic provinces. But the underground organisation did not obey the new authorities and national morale in these parts of Russian empire grew with every year (Figes, 1996).
But all the scholars (Skocpol, 1979; Figes, 1996, Pipes, 1992) agree on one fact that main causations of the Russian revolution were its military losses in battlefields. Firstly, Russian ego was violated in Crimean war. Afterwards, war against Japan (1904 – 1905) where The Russian armies suffered a series of defeats in the battlefields because they were ill-equipped, badly-armed and poorly trained. It had a big impact on the 1905 revolution. After all these, loses Nicholas' desired to restore the prestige that Russia had lost during the Russo-Japanese and he joined the World War I. Unfortunately, Russians were losing against Germany, beside that, famine started. The Tsar paid more attention to the war than to the starving nation. Ultimately the revolution occurred because the people lost faith in their Tsar's competence to govern, and the revolt of the Petrograd garrisons, which would normally suppress such activity, is arguably the greatest evidence to this.
- A critical analysis of the ways in which the revolutionary framed the issues of contention.
After Tsar Nicholas II became a king he pulled Russia backwards. He increased censorship ant forbid any antigovernment activities and increased centralisation. In other words build up stronger state. Seton-Watson claims it was result of Alexander’s II assassination. Obviously, any government would not support antigovernment movement as it is threat for itself. As a result many students were expelled from universities for anti government movement or other collective actions. One of these students was Lenin. Universities lost their autonomy. Many soldiers and generals were discharged after the war against Japan in 1905. Workers were vastly exploited and their living standard was lowermost. The peasantry was unsatisfied – they still did not have their own property and had to give up a big part of their yield to the government even during famine (Figes, 1996).
All these major social forces grew their complaint and they wanted a big change. And 1905 revolution started. Tsar Nicholas II restrained revolution, but according to definition, lost absolute power and introduced parliament Duma with advisory power (but not legislative power). The cleavage was rooted in social, economic and cultural conflict between the Tsar and social forces. Social forces identify with each other for the same aim- the change in structure (Kimmel, 1990).
After the 1905 revolution and Tsar’s Manifesto which promised innovation and alleviation for the nation. People of all classes believed that a new Russia had been born, and that the country was now firmly on the path towards Western constitutionalism and liberal democracy. Indeed there was initially much to be optimistic about. For the first time, legislative power was to be shared and all classes, including the peasantry, were to have a direct say in this power (Figes, 1996).
Autocracy was theoretically at an end. While the creation of the Duma did, to some extent, sow the first seeds of a Western style democracy, the fact that it was created reluctantly in order to preserve autocracy rather than establish democracy ensured that its powers remained limited. No true liberal democracy could be created with such lack of support from the ultimate source of power. The Tsar let people to calm down and acted as he learned from his mistakes.
Furthermore, the cleavage between the Tsar and unsatisfied people grew. He did not follow his Manifesto. Although, I reckon he could have escaped revolution if he would had listen to proposals made by the Duma on how to respond to people needs. But he did not. As a result people lost their belief in the Tsar. I suppose according to the dimensions collective action frames I would put the Russian revolution next to prognostic dimension. Due to the nation started to follow political parties and their ideas. Labour movement preached workers and promoted the idea of social equality. The proletariat saw how capitalists grew their capital and even more how working class people were exploited by the bourgeois. People understood this movement as opportunity to make a change in the structure (Figes, 1996).
After 1905 revolution the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks (August, 1903, the Social Democratic Party was established) agreed to overthrow Tsars power, transform Russia into a democratic bourgeois republic and in turn overthrow it by a socialist revolution. The Bolsheviks, led by Lenin wanted a small party consisting of highly-disciplined and devoted professional revolutionaries. The Mensheviks wanted a mass party consisting of both active supporters and non-active sympathizers. This split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was formalized in 1905 and deepened in 1912 when the Bolsheviks expelled the Mensheviks from the party (Pipes, 2001).
Public dissatisfaction was at its zenith just before the 1917 revolution. Conteh-Morgan claims that all governments tend to hide inner country problems with external conflicts as in the Russian revolution case. Majority of government spending increased due to the World War I. The Tsar concentrated factories to produce guns and arms but not bread for starving nation. All these contentions between the Tsar and nation imply that social revolution started, which demanded rapid transformation of society. Many strikes occurred and showed dissatisfaction by the proletariat. Nicholas II demanded his garrison to repress social upheaval. But his garrison turn back on him and joint rebellions, the Duma refused to recognize Tsars authority. There were no bystanders everyone had to decide on whose side to be. Majority of people showed solidarity against monarchy (Figes, 1996).
After revolution there were disagreement how and who should governed the country. The Provisional government lacked of unity and it was a good opportunity for the Bolsheviks to absorb the power. After they did it Lenin understood that they can keep the power only by force. Firstly, they finished the war as the nation demanded it- due to it he won some time and peoples trust. But the other parties were not satisfied with new regime. They wanted democracy and some conservatives wanted to re-establish old monarchy (Figes, 1996). The contention between the ‘Reds’, who represented new soviet regime, and the ‘Whites’, old regime representatives, finished with the civil war and the ‘Reds’ victory and new regime with dictatorship anchored.
- A critical analysis of the action forms used by the actors involved, with reference to the concepts we have looked at.
The main actors of the Russian revolution were the Tsar who was supported by conservative nobles or bourgeois and Russian nation. The nation or social forces could be split in few major groups such as the peasantry, the soldiers, the proletariat as well political parties – social democrats, especially with Bolsheviks in the spotlight. Basically, during social revolution social forces were interacting with the Tsars authority with the aim to overthrow the power.
According to Giddens, actors have both discursive and practical consciousness. Their actions are partly conscious and rational, and partly based on reflexive and unacknowledged structural paradigms. Actors continuously monitor, rationalize, and reflexively adjust their actions to conform to their structural understanding, which in turn affects structure.
The peasantry depended on the local authorities which were governed by nobles. Land of peasants belonged to local communities. Noble had to collect part of their yield; it was especially severe during famine. According to Figes, first collective action of the peasantry was in 1891 during famine. They protested against taking a big part of their yield. Probably, it was not the only reason for a food riot to erupt the other one was that peasants sought to have their own land. There were lots of food riots and overtaking of land but the peasantry were acting not as one body. They did not have a big enough support as many peasants were afraid of suppression or consequences that could happen if their revolt was unsuccessful. Moreover, they lacked of leadership and education. A step towards uniting the peasantry was creation of the Social Revolutionary Party. Like the Social Democratic Party, the Social Revolutionaries believed in an imminent the subsequent overthrow of the bourgeois government by a socialist revolution. But the Social Revolutionaries differed from the Social Democrats in few aspects. Firstly, the SR party gave to the peasantry a greater and more independent role in the revolutionary process; secondly, the SR party thought that all land should be the property of the State and the State should parcel segment land to all peasants on the basis of their labour. Finally, they concentrated on assassination and other terrorist methods to achieve their goals. Although, the SR party did not succeed to overthrow power but it showed a determination of the peasantry (Figes, 1996).
Industrialisation in Russia started just around 1890s. It also marked the beginning of the working class. As Marx predicted precisely working class will create social revolution and will intercept power from bourgeois (Pipes, 2001). But he also said that social revolution will develop in the most industrialised countries. As it occurred he was wrong. But from the beginning of working class in Russia the proletariat was protesting against long lasting working day, small wages etc. They were widely exploited by the capitalists.
Usually, working class took example - form of collective action according to Tilly’s model. Workers were striking and boycotting although it was forbidden and severe punishments were given for it. Some workers held secret meetings to discuss revolutionary ideas. In the two and a half years before the outbreak of the war, there were more than six thousand strikes. Terrorism also revived. Russia's first political general strike, lasting from September to October 30th, appeared to be the climax of the revolution. Although strikes had been common in Russia in the years leading up to 1905, this powerful weapon of civil disobedience effectively paralysed the whole country. Wood describes the Great October Strike as "a spontaneous expression of the whole people's pent up frustration at the obstinacy of an intellectually and administratively bankrupt regime." Yet there was no organised leadership, no centrally-co-ordinated plan of action and no universally agreed programme of reform behind the movement.
Russian military army represented the last social force which was built to defend the state and to curb any threat against the state. But the Tsar was let down by them in 1917. But there was a chain of events which determined soldiers’ decision not to obey. Firstly after the wars Russia lost or was loosing the Tsar decided to dismiss several generals. Furthermore, Russia had strict position to punish deserters. Finally, many soldiers were from rural areas and had relatives there. Due to it they showed solidarity to rebellions – not to the Tsar. After the soviets mad coup d’état in 1921 a group of sailors and soldiers and their civilian supporters rebelled against the Bolshevik regime in Soviet Kronstadt. Their demands included freedom of speech, a stop to the deportation to concentration camps, a change of Soviet war politics and the liberation of the soviets (workers' councils) from Party control but the Communist answered by sending the army to Kronstadt, and the uprising was ruthlessly suppress (Figes, 1996).
The last group of most important actors was the Bolshevik party and Lenin. In 1903 was created the Social Democratic party. Majority in the SD party had the socialists then the Mensheviks and a small number of the Bolsheviks. But the socialist quickly split from the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. Mensheviks and Bolsheviks had the same goal – to overthrow Tsar’s power and to liberate people from capitalists by creating social revolution. Later in 1912 the Bolsheviks expelled the Mensheviks from the party. The Bolshevik represented the working people and party’s ideology was based on Marxism. It was party with a very well organised mechanism. As the leader - Lenin - was in exile but still the rest of Bolsheviks obeyed to his orders (Figes, 1996). Once again concerning Tillys collective action model I would classify the Bolshevik party as cosmopolitan and modular as by the definition the Bolsheviks were concerned with wider issues such as establish a new social structure and as a party/organisation it had easily transferable setting , targets and actors/ leaders. The Bolsheviks organised rebellions against government which were based on force and were violent. In the end they successfully overtook power from the Provisional government and established communist regime.
According to Pipes new regime had no alternatives but to turn dictatorship- but not the proletariat dictatorship but dictatorship over all classes. After the soviets was established new collective actions started against the new regime. Workers started to protest against new regime but communists quickly abandoned it. They claimed that workers cannot protest against the system which represented themselves (figes, 1996). Some soldiers and generals started a civil war against new regime, but they lost it. New censorship was introduced, people couldn’t gather together, did not have freedom of speech because the communist imprison in the Gulags. New underground movements started; due to it the soviets introduce Cheka- secret police- which was spying any gathering of people.
- A reflection on means and ends in relation to your case study, and on any ethical issues arising from its practices or its aims.
‘Means refer always to existing conditions as they are while the End refers to how things ought to be. But the means must be adequate to the ends; that is to say, the Means must be such that attaining the End will mean the fullest development and flowering of the Means’ this was how Leon Trotsky defined means and ends in his article ‘Their Morals and Ours’. (1938, pp 171)
The issue of means and ends is still contentious. Nowadays lots of scholar such as Sharp, Martin claim that outcomes or ends can be reached without outburst op violence. They give advantage to communication between two confronting sides. Sharp even gives 198 examples of non-violent actions or means which should influence the state. We may consider non-violent actions as powerful weapon against injustice but just to some extend. Williams himself stated, “Non-violence is a very potent weapon when the opponent is civilized, but non-violence is no repellent for a sadist” (p. 214) I agree with Williams and even more with Conteh – Morgan that it is impossible to make a non-violent revolution. If social movement aim is to change social system violence is vital. Furthermore, I would draw attention of time or epoch when the movement occurs. As nowadays non-violent movement has greater chance to achieve ends due to globalisation, mass media and international organisations.
During the Russian revolution the world was different – to take once life was easily justifiable. Usual justification was he was a threat to society. But I cannot claim that there were not any attempts of non-violent movement. Example of the 1905 revolution or as Lenin called it final rehearsal before 1917 revolution. People gathered together for a demonstration and were asking their beloved Tsar to finish the war and help the starving masses by giving the land. It ended up by a violent massacre when the Tsar gave an order to open fire on innocent people.
Obviously if we will take a look from the Tsar’s perspective his aim was to keep the power. His means were violent. From his point of view it was justifiable because he did not want to loose autocracy. Definitely, was excused by Machiavelli and his follower who justified any means used by monarch to keep their throne. But the outcomes of 1905 are defined in second part of portfolio. In short term Russia became limited monarchy in longer term- revolution changed Russian social structure.
But the main question is; did Bolsheviks means justify it ends? If we believe that creating communism through social revolution was the main goal of the Bolsheviks, then yes. Means were justified even though the means were brutal (murdering political opponents, judgement without a trial etc). But did the masses seek this kind of social system - a violent dictatorship over all classes as communism was? The answer would be no. The fact is that during revolution there is so much of sacrifice, so many deaths for the objective to be achieved. Russian masses fought and sacrificed their life for the utopian dream- social equality. Trotsky claimed ‘There is, therefore, no greater crime than deceiving the masses, palming off defeats as victories, friends as enemies, bribing workers” leaders, fabricating legends, staging false trials, in a word, doing what the Stalinists do’.
Analysing the Russia revolution it very hard to make ethical judgement on subjective used by the Bolsheviks to achieve their objective. From my point of view no one got the right to take someone’s life in any circumstances. However, revolution and civil war or any kind of war might be considered as different situation. As it was for the Bolsheviks they neither count life’s they took, nor they care about looses they had. They had a goal to be achieved. Rosebraugh claims violence and use of force during revolution or any other armed conflict can be promoted as a mean of self defence and could be moral. Probably to some extend we can agree that we could justify the means used by the Bolsheviks but it depends where we will put a margin between morality and amorality.
I suppose final quote will help you to make your own judgement ‘A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified, From the Marxist point of view, which expresses the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man’.( Trotsky, 1938, pg. 172)
- A consideration of the actual outcomes of the revolution you have looked at.
While I wrote and collected material for this portfolio I understood that there were two types of outcomes. First one is short run. I can claim these outcomes were from 1917 when people, not the Bolsheviks, rebelled and overthrew the Tsar power. It lasted to 1924 when Lenin died. The type was long run. It started when Stalin disposed his opponents and became the First Secretary of SSRS.
After the Russian masses made the revolution spontaneously without any leadership from the revolutionary parties and demolished the autocracy the Provisional government was established. But actually the state was in a stage of anarchy. The Provisional government which had support from the upper and middle classes could only prolong its rule by getting the support from the masses. According to Figes, the Provisional government was ruling together with the Soviets as workers were supporting them. But foreign recognized the Provisional Government because it advocated those democratic principles close to British or American. However, majority of people supported the Soviets.
When the Bolsheviks seized power they were small party and needed to adjust their policy to accord with the needs of the people in order maintain their position. He gave to people what they demanded; peasants- land, workers- 8 hour working day. Also the Bolsheviks renamed themselves to Russian Communist Party. According to Figes, the Communist decided to finish the war against Germany and signed Brest-Litovsk treaty. Russia lost vast territories to Germany including Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. To Turkey Russia lost territories in the Caucasus region (Figes, 1996). Germans also installed reparation of 6 billion marks.
One of the most important outcomes of the Russian revolution for some countries such as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia was independence in 1918. Also the other reason for their independence was - Germans lost the war against the allies.
The Bolsheviks started to create their socialist system, nationalised all industries and land. But they had many enemies such as the Social revolutionaries, the monarchy supporters, army officers and other capitalist – they were called the ‘Whites’. The ‘Whites’ were also supported by foreign countries as capitalists from those countries saw communism as a threat to their social system. According to Figes, the greatest crisis for the Bolshevik government came in the summer of 1919. Admiral Kolchak advanced from Siberia. General Denikin advanced from Southern Russia. General Yudenich advanced from the Ukraine to the outskirts of St. Petersburg. But these three movements were not well coordinated and were defeated by the ‘Reds’. But the Red Army withstood the ‘Whites’ assault and by the 1920 civil war finished. It was probably one of the cruelest civil war that history had ever seen. Figes claims that Russia during seven years in war lost around 15 million people.
Russians were exhausted from the war. The peasantry did not show any interest to grow crops the soldiers were coming to collect all yield. Also famine started people were starving around 6 million died from hunger, crime became widespread. There could have been even more victims but the American Relief Administration sent a relief to Russia (Figes, 1996). The proletariat was no satisfied with the new social system as they did not receive any cash just food vouchers. Production declined cruelly. People were going from the big cities back to rural areas barter economy as in medieval times started. After the Kronstadt Uprising of March 1921, Lenin saw that the situation was dangerous. The quality of the mass was too bad. Thus Lenin declared that everything must be set aside to increase production.
Russia issued a new rouble based on gold. Peasants were let to sell their production after they paid a tax. Small scale private industries were aloud to be established. Also the private industries were allowed to introduce piece-work rates, bonuses to stimulate the incentives of the employees. By the end of 1928 Russian economy reached 1914 level end still was growing. In the end Russia had re-built her diplomatic relations with the European countries. If the country wanted successfully to develop she had to trade. However, Russia had never given up long-term objective of world revolution.
The Comintern international communist organisation was found in 1919. The aim of this organisation was to replace World Capitalism by World Communism. All participants decided to set up communist parties in all countries of Europe and new communist parties should accept instruction from the Comintern. These new communist parties would try to attract the workers to overthrow power through a revolution (Pipes, 1990)
At the beginning of 1924, Lenin died. He had dedicated himself to the cause of revolution. I suppose Lenin’s death is the point from which scholars look at long term outcomes of Russian revolution.
Firstly, Stalin gained complete power for himself in 1927. There were several reasons which accounted for Stalin's success. He started a new regime. He got rid from all opponents and abandoned any anti-communist movement. Stalin’s regime was very cruel for resistance- majority of them ended up in Siberian Gulags. Also he successfully finished the N.E.P by the start of WW II the SSRS became the second strongest economy in the world (Skocpol, 1979). The SSRS participated in World War II after the victory shared with allies the soviets occupied even more territories than it lost after 1918 Brest-Litovsk treaty. Moreover, the SSRS helped and supported other socialist movements around the world some of the successfully erupted as a social revolutions. After the World War II the SSRS had their tanks on many of Eastern Europe soil. Many countries were forced to become satellites of SSRS. The confrontation between the western capitalists and eastern socialist/communist grew. Cold war started between the SSRS and the USA. Although, these two mega powers directly never faced each other in the battle field but they supported confronting sides during conflicts.
Basically, echoes from the social Russian revolution were visible to the beginning of 1990s. It was a revolution which affected the world structure for 70 years (Figes, 1996).
- A concluding statement on your learning from the case study and the course, including some reflections on its relevance to Peace Studies.
As I have mentioned in the introduction I have studied the Russian revolution before but not at the same level. This portfolio was like a view on the case of the Russian revolution from different angle. I had to collect not only historical facts but also use the social context based on social movements and relations between masses and the government (actor relation). And it made my analysis of this case study really interesting might be just for me but I feel that I gained from it. I understood the reasons for collective action and that not the people should serve the state but the state should serve to the people- otherwise the state might realise what a destructive weapon masses are.
Also I have changed my opinion about revolution. Firstly, I thought it was something that happens in a day. But now I could claim that every revolution had, has, will have old origins. Revolution demonstrates people or even masses intention to change the status quo. The roots of revolution might or may be hiding under the structure of the state or under the particular social group constraint given by the state. Of course revolution ideology also has a big role in revolution. Skocpol claims that every revolution was influenced by one or the other theorist. Firstly the French revolution was influenced by the thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment afterwards the Russian revolution by Karl Marx ideas. Moreover, the Russian revolution was a starting point and sort of proof that it is possible to change social structure.
I strongly agree with Skocpol’s and the other scholars’ statement that revolution had/has a similar model. Especially, when I was analysing the Means and Ends in ethical terms. I reckon it was the hardest part of portfolio because all revolutions are violent. Revolutions do not mercy anyone and any subject to reach the object is justifiable. But then I had to look at it from moral point of view – then everything turns up side down because every mean in revolution is amoral.
What I did not enjoy about the revolution was its outcomes. As revolution is very optimistic movement. People try to overcome the power of the state. The state it self is an organisation which created the structure. The authority has a power to control the police, the army and the jurisdiction. And the if social movement aims to changes the structure of country they have to overcome all obstacles ( example. such as police) which are legislative People were struggling and suffering; many were torched and millions died for what they believed was unjust, for the change in state structure. However, Russian revolution it happened the same as in the French or Chinese revolutions. The state became stronger, more centralized and the system even more unjust. Kimmel claims the paradigm case of revolution finishes post revolutionary reign of terror and its end, ‘Thermidor’. In particular Leon Trotsky refers to the rise of Stalin and the accompanying post-revolutionary bureaucracy as the ‘Soviet Thermidor’.
Finally, I agree with Kimmel who claims that ‘The study of revolution requires strategic analytic and intellectual choices and also the explication of our moral and political position’ (pg. 15). Moreover we have to study revolutions with engaging ourselves in the process and we cannot remain dispassionate. Generally, revolutions were cruel and there were no bystanders due to it we should not be indifferent about revolution.
Bibliography:
Conteh-Morgan E. Collective Political Violence: An introduction to the Theories and Cases of Violent Conflicts, London: Routledge, 2004
Goodwin, J. & Jasper, J. M. The Social Movements Reader: Editors’ Introduction: cases and concepts, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003, p.p. 3-7,
Figes, O. A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924. London : Jonathan Cape, 1996
Figes, O and Kolonitskii, B. Interpreting the Russian Revolution: the language and symbols of 1917, London: Yale University Press, 1999
Kimmel, M. Revolution : a Sociological Interpretation; Revolutions in the Sociological Imagination, , Cambridge: Polity Press. 1990, pp.1-14
Pipes, R. The Russian Revolution 1899-191, London: Fontana, 1992
Pipes, R. Communism : a brief history, London : Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2001
Rosebraugh C. On Political Violence, Burning Rage of a Dying Planet. Alternative Press; September 1, 2000
[accessed on 10 December 2007]
Seton-Watson, H. The Russian Empire, 1801-1917’, Oxford University Press, 1967
Skocpol T. States and Social Revolutions, A Comparative Analysis of France, Russian, and China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979
Tilly C. Social Movements, 1768-2004, London: Paradigm, 2004
Trotsky, L. Their Morals and Ours; In Memory of Leon Sedoff, The New International; Vol.4 No.6, June 1938, pp.163-173
[accessed 10 December 2007]
