The Antonian

THE ANTONIAN

foundational myth—the victory over fascism in World War II. After the end of the Soviet era, viewpoints in Russia and in the West in some ways converged. In both Russia and the West and in global history, October remained a decisive event, but one that warranted closer study— fresh research—on the social and political context to explain why it turned out as it did. The revolution came to be viewed as a process, less important for its immediate outcomes than for the way it had engaged the entire society over a long revolutionary era in the struggle for change. How did the Communist party end up gaining mass support and what was so appealing about its vision of the future which promised the transformation of social and cultural as well as political history? The revolution now tends to be viewed as a process over an extended time frame, as Peter Holquist wrote, as a “continuum of crisis.” 1 World War I and the succession of Civil Wars on the Eurasian land mass offer new parameters (see Jonathan Smele, The Russian Civil Wars, 1916-1926: Ten Years that Shook the World ; Oxford, Oxford University Press 2015). The vision is less Russia centred. Years of crisis beginning well before 1917 and lasting through much of the 1920s are seen not as discreet events, but as a protracted series of overlapping civil wars, including the gruelling Civil War in the former Tsarist heartland and borderlands, a violent state building process, the economic planning in the NEP and resistance to it, forced industrialization and even the harsh years of collectivization in early Stalinism. Depiction of an entire era of political and social upheavals shows interconnections between uprisings, social transitions and emerging ideologies. In the longer time frame, the rise of a new white- and blue-collar social order and a new Soviet bureaucracy became central to the Soviet project, empowered by industrialization and collectivization (modernization) of the country. In the long Soviet century, repeated episodes

of systemic violence as well as utopian idealism formed the foundational support for successive generations of revolutionaries. Evidence drawn from these decades shows this kind of support as sweeping emotional commitment to visions of the future, later commemorated as the country’s values. This emotional energy was used by the state to represent revolution itself, the banners and symbols of revolution as seen in works of art and films about October’s meaning. This book presents the diversity of contemporary opinion about the nature of the revolutionary process and its outcomes. To some, the Bolsheviks were driven by totalitarian principles and used decades-long suppression of rights and freedoms to serve state-driven production and the utopian endgame. To others, in contrast, the dominance of the Bolshevik party was achieved by their message for workers (and peasants), serving as a model and inspiration for the progressive forces of the whole world. Some, taking issue with that point of view, write how the progressive ideology was manipulated by Bolshevik propagandists; others about how participants in the revolution fully shared with the Bolsheviks the values and ideals of collectivism. One of the authors here suggests that the outcome represented the sheer weight of administrative responsibility taken on by the Bolsheviks, how, as the tasks of government grew, management space was entirely transformed until, following Lenin’s death (or even before), the party had taken over the government tasks of independent administration almost unconsciously, without any formal decisions to do so. In another contribution we see how historical conditions—in particular, the transportation revolution and the advancement of railroads—turned what were initially spontaneous strikes into an explosive spread of rebellion reaching from the industrial heartland across the entire

country in 1905 (a precursor of/rehearsal for 1917). Seeing the revolution as a process also engages authors in this collection to be concerned with the nature of revolutionary crowds and the undervalued and understudied role of rumour and intellectual currents as well as material conditions that inspired rebellion and brought people into the streets. This speaks to the emotional charge present in any Revolutionary situation. What emerges is not just a series of isolated events, but a vast tapestry of resistance that transcended borders, cultures, and eras. Revolutions do not just change governments; they transform societies, reshape economies, and reorder human relationships. Thus, the uniqueness of 1917 and Revolution as a distinct phenomenon is preserved even within the valid context of the continuum of crisis and global impact paradigms.

Carol S. Leonard and Daniel Orlovsky 3 January 2025

1 Peter Holquist, Making War, Forging Revolution: Russia’s Continuum of Crisis,1914-1922 Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press 2002

Click here to find out more about The Russian Revolution of 1917 - Memory and Legacy

Return to Contents Page

Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting