The Least of all Evils.

This is my response to the following question:

In your opinion is the Bolshevik “revolution” attributable more to the ideology of Marxism/Leninism or the upheaval of total war?

The success of the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917 can be attributed to both the ideological aspects of the Marxist/Leninism and the condition of the Russian state brought about by involvement in the First World War. I use the term “seizure of power,” one often associated with the Nazi party in 1933 Germany, because the course of revolution is not enough to tip the scales in Russia. The combination of Russia’s long history of peasant disenfranchisement, coupled with the destructive degradation of the war and the infusion of the social conscience with Socialist rhetoric and revolutionary propaganda served to create an inflammatory mix, destined to bring the house of Democracy down in a splendid conflagration.

The root of the Bolshevik “revolution” lies within the social framework of the working and peasant classes. As Russia lagged behind in the second industrial revolution, it lagged further behind in social revolution. Western Europe had already benefited from the fruits of the French Revolution and its conception of man’s inherent free-will and reason. As Perry and Berg point out, however, Russian peasantry, while emancipated, still existed within “an autocratic structure that was as ineffective as it was antiquated.” Democracy had bypassed the Russian masses much like technology was doing. By the time Russia entered the First World War, the Russian Army, composed mostly of peasants and lower-class workers felt completely isolated from any sort of control over their own destiny within Russia. This mentality is shown with absolute clarity in the Sketches of Peasant Life by Tian-Shanskaia. In her writing, she states that the peasantry “have a deep affection for the land . . .” and “have not acquired the habit of intensive labor; they are deprived of the light of knowledge, and they suffer an oppressive poverty. The problem seems to be that whatever goal a peasant entertains, be it merely the acquisition of a pint of vodka or a pair of galoshes, it is beyond his reach, no matter how hard he works.” Laboring under this sort of existence in a time of peace, there is little left to the imagination of the historian when confronting the issue of Russian soldiers mutinying in 1917.

The First World War had the same psychological and morally destructive impact on the soldiers of Russia that it had on veterans of other belligerent nations. It is the gap between the fighting man and the authority waging war, far greater in Russia than in the west, that creates a receptive mentality for the Bolshevik rhetoric to take root and grow. The Maxist/Leninist conception of fraternity and equality was undoubtedly appealing, despite concessions made by the Provisional Government. “Bread, Peace, and Land,” as espoused by Lenin and his party held far more attractive options to the war-weary and disenfranchised masses of Russia. The failure of the Provisional Government to extricate the nation from war in addition to its failure to conduct land reform turned the populace against it, viewing the Imperialistic tendencies as offering little more than the Tsars. The Bolshevik party promised a new direction and had a clear agenda, more so than any of their political opponents, thus granting Lenin and his party the necessary leverage and support it needed to assume power in Russia and stave of complete social, economic, and political collapse.