Mariam Imam
1
“The Bolshevik Revolution occurred and succeeded because of the weakness of
the Provisional Government.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
The Provisional Government was Russia’s official government from the day Tsar
Nicholas abdicated on March 2nd 1917 to the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power on October
25th. Regarding the occurrence and success of the Bolshevik Revolution, there are two
widely held positions: the first is that strong Bolshevik organization, leadership and
competence led to the success of the revolution; the second that external conditions
such as the Provisional Government led to the Revolution and its success. This essay
will analyze the weaknesses of the Provisional Government and in turn, examine the
opposing stances regarding its effect on the Bolshevik Revolution.
To understand the weaknesses of the Provisional Government, one must first
address the conditions that led to its existence. The February Revolution, fueled by food
shortages and a deteriorating economy, triggered the Tsar’s abdication. When the
Provisional Government officially replaced the monarchy, the people expected it to
address their grievances. They wanted to improve living conditions, an end to the war,
or at least a stop to offensives since casualties were at 6 million at that point. There was
famine, food shortages and insufficient resources while Russia’s economy declined. The
Government ostensibly took the monarchy’s place, but it still represented the
bourgeoisie. It consisted of former Duma politicians and did not institute the right
reforms. The Government was loyal to its treaties with the Allies and continued the War
even with considerable losses. Kerensky, the Minister of War, issued the July offensive,
which resulted in nearly 60,000 casualties. It issued reforms such as freedom of press,
release of political prisoners and the abolition of the death penalty but these were not
the reforms the people wanted. Additionally, the Government did not genuinely have
power. When a rationing system was introduced in April, it had still not been
Mariam Imam
2
implemented two months later. It could not actually carry out reforms, only to issue
them. Due to the Government’s only ostensible authority, refusal to issue appropriate
reforms, insistence on fighting the War and bourgeoisie nature, the problems that
helped bring down the Tsar worsened and Russia was in chaos. There was greater
industrial decline, shortage in fuel and economic decline than there was during the
February Revolution.
The “socialism by default” argument goes that all the above weaknesses led to
the occurrence and success of the Bolshevik Revolution, that the Revolution was due
more to the Government’s failure than to Bolshevik competence and leadership. When
the Government failed to address and contributed to the people’s grievances it created
the opportunity for radical parties to rise and set the stage for the Bolsheviks. Even the
Petrograd Soviet, which consisted of the Social Democrats, Kadets and Mensheviks,
became associated with collaborating with the Government and therefore less popular.
When the Bolsheviks entered the scene as a party untainted with collaboration with the
Government and completely detached from its failures, the people responded with
support. The Bolshevik Party became all the more appealing because of the
incompetence of the Government and its failure to mollify the people through the right
reforms. It seems that the main reason he Bolsheviks found success was because they
did right what the Government did wrong. While the Government banned land seizures,
the Bolsheviks advocated redistribution of land. While the Government failed to fill the
power vacuum created by Nicholas’ abdication, Lenin’s prominence as party leader was
promising. While the former represented the middle class and bourgeoisie, Lenin
wanted power to the proletariat. Furthermore, there was no blood spilt on the night the
Bolsheviks seized power; the Government’s “power” was easily taken. The distinct
Mariam Imam
3
contrast between the Government’s failures and the Bolsheviks’ policies led to the
occurrence and success of the Bolshevik Revolution.
Conversely, the “socialism by design” stance maintains that regardless of the
Government’s weakness, the Bolsheviks seized power due to their competent
leadership and organization. On October 23rd, the Bolsheviks’ Central Committee voted
for a resolution stating that “an armed uprising is inevitable and that the time for it is
fully ripe.” This resolution had been rejected before but when Lenin himself came to
persuade the Committee, it passed. Lenin was absolutely dedicated to violent
revolution. It was he who decided to seize power. His oratory and charisma convinced
the Committee even when they thought the conditions were not right. Therefore, the
decision was not made collectively; the general consensus did not acknowledge that it
was the opportune moment to stage an uprising. Furthermore, the Mensheviks and the
Social Democrats had controlled the people until Lenin’s arrival to Russia. According to
Graham Darby, the Mensheviks and the SRs controlled the soldiers’ committee, the
peasants and the Labor Unions. These two parties represented socialism in the
Petrograd Soviet and if the people’s dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government led
them to socialism, these two parties had greater support. However, the Bolsheviks set
themselves apart. Lenin’s April Theses explicitly stated the Bolsheviks’ anti-war and
pro-proletariat position. The Bolsheviks recruited workers and soldiers to effectively
preach their cause. They distributed land in some areas and recognized the people’s
grievances. Additionally, there were 900 soviets by October 1917 and amid the division
in the Government and soviets, the Bolsheviks had a clear leader with the potential to
fill the power vacuum. The Bolsheviks won a majority in the Petrograd and Moscow
Soviets in August and September because of their policies and effective leadership.
Lenin’s position as Party leader led him to make all the decisions, even if the Party did
Mariam Imam
4
not agree. Therefore, the Bolsheviks’ policies and effective leadership were the primary
reasons for the Revolutions occurrence and success.
To conclude, it is quite unlikely that the Bolsheviks would have risen to power if
the Provisional Government had not been such a complete failure. The Bolsheviks’
distinct leadership and policies played a considerable role in their seizure of power,
although it would have probably not sufficed without the Government’s failures to
contrast to. And so the latter’s weakness was the primary cause of the Bolshevik’s
seizure of power and its success.