IA Historiography
Soviet View (1917-91)
Historians in the USSR followed the line laid down by Soviet leadership and weren’t allowed to
deviate from it. Soviet interpretation claims Oct revolution was a popular uprising led and
carried out by working class with support from the peasants. Working class created the soviets
that acted as power base in order for revolution to be accomplished. They were able to do this
due to the weakness of the bourgeoisie in Russia. Bolshevik Party played a key role in guiding
working class to revolution and Lenin is also a key figure as he was the leader who directed the
party and made the crucial decisions.
Kukushkin claimed that “The Bolshevik party was waging a determined struggle to win over the
masses…Lenin’s speeches…inspired workers and soldiers…The Bolshevik Party’s membership
began to grow rapidly”.
Western Orthodox or ‘Liberal’ View
During 1930s and the Cold War when there was a lot of tension between the Western powers and
the USSR, the view held by Western historians such as Pipes was that the Oct revolution was
created by a tiny minority seizing power in a coup d’état. They then imposed their ideology and
revolution on the unwilling population. Lenin controlled an organized and disciplined
revolutionary party that directed the masses and operated at his command. He had the will,
personality and defined policies that caused the revolution.
Kerensky claimed the Bolsheviks succeeded “Only by way of conspiracy, only by way of a
treacherous armed struggle”
According to Richard Pipes “October was a classic coup d’état, the capture of governmental
authority by a small band…with a show of mass participation, but with hardly any mass
involvement”
Pipes claimed that Lenin “Belonged to that category of men…they know everything except what
one tells them. One either agreed with him or fought him”
Revisionist View
In 1970s, a new generation of historians challenged the orthodox ‘coup d’état’ view of the Oct
revolution. They looked more closely at Lenin’s role and the Bolshevik party in the revolution
and work out whether or not the masses played a significant part. They started to think of the
revolution as either ‘from above’ or ‘from below’. They claimed that the lower ranks of
Bolshevik party played a much more active role and that Lenin didn’t have as much control over
the Bolsheviks. Stephen Smith (Red Petrograd: Revolution in the Factories 1917-18, 1983) and
Sheila Fitzpatrick (The Russian Revolution 1917-1932, 1994) are two revisionist historians.
Fitzpatrick went even further to claim that it was the people – workers, soldiers and peasants –
who created the circumstances the Bolsheviks could operate in. They formed soviets and
committees before the Bolsheviks were there. This view reverts backs to the idea that the Oct
revolution was a popular one. However, the counter argument for the view that the people
supported the Bolsheviks is that in the elections held after the Oct revolution, the Bolshevik
Party lost heavily to the Social Revolutionaries (370 to 175 seats). If BP was so popular, why did
this happen?
Acton, E. (1990). Rethinking the Russian Revolution. Hodder and Stoughton. London UK
Alexander Berkman argues that the Oct revolution was accomplished “Not by a political party,
but by the people themselves”
Edward Acton wrote that due to “Its sensitivity to mass opinion, its ability to respond to
pressures from below, the [Bolshevik] party had established itself as the prime vehicle for the
achievement of popular goals.”
Post-Revisionist View
In more recent years, historians have tried to blend together the orthodox and revisionist view,
claiming that there is truth in both. They argue that Lenin was a key figure and without his drive
and persistence there probably wouldn’t have been an Oct revolution. Also, all the traits of a
coup were present in the manner that the Bolsheviks seized power. However, they agree that
there was a lot of independent action in the lower levels of the party and in the soviets. Also
believe that the situation greatly facilitated the Bolsheviks take-over as the increased radicalism
of the workers, soldiers, sailors and peasants must not be ignored. It is necessary to discover the
extent of their involvement in order to assess whether the Oct revolution can be called popular.
Arguing from a post- Revisionist perspective, Lee writes “Instead of forcing the pace of
revolution by exploiting popular grievances, they were adapting their policies to enable them to
move with a revolutionary current which already existed.”
Lee wrote that “The basic principle of the Bolsheviks was to have a fixed long-term objective but
a flexible short-term approach to it.”
Figes, O. (1997). A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924. Viking Press. New
York NY
Orlando Figes argues that “The October insurrection was a coup d’état…but it took place
amidst a social revolution, which was centred on the popular realization of Soviet power… The
political vacuum brought about by this social revolution enabled the Bolsheviks to seize power in
the cities.”
My Conclusion
Lenin was a key figure and without him there probably wouldn’t have been a Bolshevik takeover. He was responsible for the timing and for motivating the Bolshevik party into pursuing his
policies as stated in his April Thesis. As the desires of the people became more and more
desperate – for peace, land and food – Lenin adapted his policies to gain more popular support.
The other parties were unsure of their policies and the BP was advocating the radical policies
they wanted so they supported the party, but only temporarily until their preferred party (Social
Revolutionaries) had sorted themselves out. The socialist revolution came from above although
greater popular support enabled them to take power more easily. Without Lenin, the Bolshevik
Party would probably have cooperated with the Provisional Government like the other socialist
parties did and thus have made themselves responsible for their mistakes. Lenin was the one who
radicalized their policies by calling for a worldwide revolution and immediately transitioning
from the bourgeoisie ruling to the proletariat revolution, as well as refusing to cooperate with the
PG when he came back in April.
To what extent was Lenin’s rise to power the result of a popular revolution led by the Bolshevik
Party?
Revolution from Below (Revisionist, Post-Revisionist)
 Acton
 Berkman
 Fitzpatrick
 Smith
Revolution from Above (Orthodox)
 Pipes
 Service
 Kerensky
Mix of Views
 Lee
 Figes