Lenin and Revolutionary Russia

Stephen J. Lee

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781134446001
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Histoire
• Subtopic: Histoire du monde

Lenin and Revolutionary Russia examines the background to and the course of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and Lenin's regime. It explores all the key aspects such as the development of the Bolsheviks as a revolutionary party, the 1905 Revolution, the collapse of the Tsarists, the Russian Civil War and historical interpretations of Lenin's legacy to Russian history.

1
WHY DO HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS DIFFER?

The study of history has two dimensions, which are revealed by the Latin and Greek words that form the roots of the term itself. One is the record or account of the past. The other is the explanation given to the story. It is a method of enquiry that seeks answers to questions and is derived from the Greek roots histor (learned, wise man) and oida (the verb to know).The most obvious changes occur in the methods of enquiry, although these do eventually affect the shape of the account or story.

CHANGES IN THE STYLES OF HISTORY

The main reason for this change is the constant evolution of history as an academic discipline. One of the earlier uses of history was as a means of interpreting human behaviour and human society. This would, in turn, be subject to broader laws, which the main purpose of history was to illustrate and exemplify. In the Middle Ages, for example, history showed the development of mankind during the temporal phase of its progression to eternity. What really mattered was the religious concept of salvation, which transcended human achievement but could be earned by following some of the lessons from the past while avoiding others. In this sense history served a higher purpose and had no separate justification; as a result, it tended to be prescriptive and moralising. Although religion gradually declined as a key influence on historical interpretation, it was replaced by other ‘systems’. One is particularly relevant to this book: the Marxist approach, which emerged during the nineteenth century and was given official political sanction and force after the Bolshevik Revolution. The Marxist approach was given an official slant – and sanction – by the Soviet regime and it is this particular version of retrospective determinism that provides the starting point for each of the following chapters.

Other forms of history have largely escaped deterministic influences, focusing on criteria related to the subject itself, rather than on broader ‘world views’ imposed from outside. Even here, however, there have been major changes over the past 150 years.These relate largely to academic concepts of what comprises history. A major connection with the nineteenth century can be seen in what Herbert Butterfield referred to as ‘Whig’ history. This is seen as a broad sweep of historical development, in which there are prominent landmarks and in which the overall trend is progressive. The key influence here is the nineteenth-century historian and politician Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–59), whose main focus was the development of the British political system since the Glorious Revolution of 1689. It is still possible to see elements of ‘Whig’ history, especially where there are value judgements, either open or implied, within a substantial timescale. It is not, however, a description that historians would particularly welcome, since Butterfield used it as a criticism.

The exact opposite was the emergence of what has sometimes been called ‘Tory’ history. This is normally associated with the methods used by Sir Lewis Namier (1888–1960), based on more detailed and meticulous examination of much shorter periods, without any intrusion of moral judgement. ‘Namierisation’ has provided the inspiration for a great deal of modern historical research, although it has been criticised for being largely unconcerned about broader perspectives. A third important development was the ‘Annales’ school of Marc Bloch (1886–1944) and Lucien Febvre (1878–1956). Their approach was to combine a broad sweep with detailed analysis, the latter covering economic, social and cultural – as well as political – history.

All this had considerable implications for the way in which history developed as a discipline during the twentieth century. At first the emphasis within the subject had been very much on political history, with the study of power and the formulation and impact of the policy of groups and key individuals. A second area had been economic history, concerned more with infrastructures than with policies and frequently studied separately from political history. A major development, however, was the expansion of social history. Although this had long been present, it had been the poor relation of political and economic history. Under the influence of the Annales approach, however, it produced a rich variety of historical studies that later included local, gender and ethnic issues. As a result of this diversity, history as a discipline has had to find a new centre of gravity. Although political history has tended to remain the predominant genre, its scope has widened in response to such studies.

All of these developments are apparent in the evolution of works of Western historians on the Soviet Union, especially on the Lenin and Stalin periods. Early assessments tended to be based firmly on the development of power structures by individuals and the use of those structures for certain specific objectives. They were, in other words, strongly political; economic and social developments were examined for the impact of the policies of those in control upon those who were being controlled. The same principle applied whether the controlling force was a revolutionary leader establishing a new movement (Lenin to 1917) or an established regime that was redesigning and restructuring (Lenin 1918–24 and Stalin 1929–53). Power came from above and the effects were received from below.

The changing emphasis of history as a discipline has had a huge impact on how this power is now seen. Not only is it imposed from above on those below; it can also be exercised from below as a collective force that pulls into line those above. This approach is certainly relevant to Russian history, especially to the way in which the Bolsheviks are seen in relation to the proletariat and peasantry. Detailed research in the field of social history has established the importance of small-scale organisations and radicalism among large sections of the population. Far from being inert and conservative, the peasantry were politically conscious; and the urban workers were certainly not a leaderless rabble awaiting organisation from above. The more complete the picture of the lower levels of society, the more likely it was that the perspective would change on the types of power and leadership traditionally considered the crucial factors. Social history has therefore redefined the scope of political and economic history qualitatively by drawing attention to the quantitative influence of humanity.

There is no reason to suppose that history as an academic discipline will not continue to change its shape and emphasis, bringing further reinterpretation to Russia and other areas in the future. There are three possible overall trends that could perhaps be given a cosmic metaphor. One is that history will expand ever outwards – diversifying and subdividing into a variety of new disciplines that are no longer considered to be formally connected to each other; history will simply disintegrate. Another is that history will retain some form of gravitational pull and that whatever changes of structure take place in the future, the various components will hold together. Or there may be a combination of the two: apparent disintegration followed by reintegration. Much will depend on the skill with which detailed and specialised studies can be synthesised within a more general structure. In this sense general histories will be of vital importance to ensure that history retains a force of gravity amid widespread changes.

INFLUENCES BEHIND RECENT CHANGES

These changes are driven and accelerated by historical research, for four main reasons. First, research keeps the discipline moving forward by introducing new material that prevents reassessment from being merely recycling.The discovery of new sources is a crucial factor here.This may be fortuitous or the result of a careful and painstaking search. There is often a political reason – such as the introduction of glasnost in 1987 and the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991; both of these led to a gradual opening of documentary archives that had previously been kept secret by the Stalinist regime and its successors. New documents have, for example, provided fresh insights into Lenin’s exercise of power and the extent to which his polices were opportunist.

Second, research accelerates the speed at which history moves.This is because research is an expectation within the higher academic levels: it has become a criterion for higher academic qualification. Since research requires originality of approach, depth of study and soundness of method, it is bound to contribute massively to the diversity of historical interpretation as well as historical detail. In this way, universities have created an environment that has to be sustained by continuous growth and change.

Third, research can exert more general influences on historical writing, establishing styles of investigation that can transfer from one country to another. An example is the spread of a particular form of analysis on Germany, developed in the 1960s and 1970s, to Russia in the 1980s and 1990s. The theory of ‘structured chaos’, originally used as a means of examining the Nazi regime by Fischer, Bracher, Broszat, Hildebrand and Kershaw, has now been applied to Lenin and Stalin by Arch Getty,Ward, Fitzpatrick and Swain.When applied in conjunction with ‘pressures from below’ this ‘structured chaos’ can be given further variations and generate a wide range of sub-debates.

Fourth, research generates the publication of academic monographs that, in turn, promote the spread of more general works. These are of several types.They may be symposia, or a selection of recent views for more accessible comparison. Alternatively, they may be a general synthesis drawn up by one of the historians engaged in research in the area – with the intention of making sense of complex issues to a wider public.These, in turn, inspire non-research-based syntheses, often for use in schools, colleges and further education, as textbooks. A change to an examination system or syllabus can further establish a link between the school, college and university sectors, thus generating further writing at a more general level.

Changes in political systems can also alter historical perspectives. This can happen in several ways. It may be direct or indirect, obvious or subtle. The most direct changes in interpretation occur when a regime that is in control of its historiography dictates a change in its history.The best example is the Soviet Union. After the death of Lenin, Stalin ordered that he should be written more firmly into the Russian Revolution as Lenin’s main comrade. Trotsky, by contrast, was to be classed a traitor. When Khrushchev replaced Stalin, the latter was written out of Soviet history altogether, while Trotsky remained a villain. Further changes occurred with the liberalisation of the Soviet system under Gorbachev’s glasnost. It has to be said, however, that Soviet versions of Lenin have remained remarkably consistent, even though they have changed in their interpretations of other Communist leaders.This reflects the special status accorded to Lenin as the founder of the regime.

Changes of regime in Russia have also affected Western interpretations. Khrushchev’s destalinisation campaign from 1956 provided further evidence of the terror inflicted under his rule, which, naturally enough, intensified the hostility of Western historians to him. This also affected Lenin, as many historians looked back from the Stalinist era into what they saw as its Leninist roots. Lenin came increasingly to be seen as the forerunner of Stalin. Both were effective leaders, but were fundamentally ruthless.The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 raised a major question. If the Soviet Union had survived in war only to die in peace, then what sort of regime had controlled it throughout its existance? This led to more negative perspectives on Stalin: he must have been less effective than had previously been maintained. In turn, there was some reassessment of the role played by Lenin: his part, too, was toned down, although in different ways.

Historians see their task as creative as well as analytical. There is a longstanding debate as to whether history is an art or a science. It is both, since it combines scrupulous concern for evidence with creative interpretation, although not to such a degree that distortion occurs. Inevitably, therefore, historians differ in their approaches to particular topics and often cultivate these differences in articles, journals, books, lectures and televised debates.

Questions

1. ‘History is made by historians.’ Is this true?

2. Do historians ‘liberate’ or ‘colonise’ the past?

3. Are historians the ‘product of the society in which they live’?

4. ‘Who can tell what is going to happen yesterday?’ Comment on this view.

2
OVERVIEW: THE BOLSHEVIK PARTY AND REGIME, 1903–24

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the first Analysis of this chapter is to provide a straightforward overall perspective of the origins of the Bolsheviks, their development to 1917, their role in the revolutions of 1917, their survival from 1918 and their transformation of Russia to 1924. The second Analysis provides an introduction to several different historical approaches to Lenin and the Bolsheviks, showing how controversial the topic has become.

The four Sources provided have a general theme and focus on the period as a whole. Since their scope is the overall perspective of the period they are, by definition, secondary sources. They have all been written since the events as retrospective interpretations of them.

ANALYSIS (1): HOW DID THE BOLSHEVIKS DEVELOP AS A REVOLUTIONARY PARTY BETWEEN 1903 AND 1917 AND AS A REGIME BETWEEN 1918 AND 1924?

1898–1903

The Bolsheviks originated as part of a broader Marxist political party, set up by Lenin, Martov and Plekhanov in 1898. Known as the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP), this united a number of smaller Marxist radica...

Table of contents

• QUESTIONS AND ANALYSIS IN HISTORY
• CONTENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• CHRONOLOGY
• 1 WHY DO HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS DIFFER?
• 2 OVERVIEW: THE BOLSHEVIK PARTY AND REGIME, 1903–24
• 3 THE ORIGINS AND GROWTH OF MARXISM IN RUSSIA TO 1905
• 4 THE BOLSHEVIKS BETWEEN 1903 AND MARCH 1917
• 5 THE BOLSHEVIKS AND THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION
• 6 THE BOLSHEVIKS AND THE RUSSIAN CIVIL WAR, 1918–22
• 7 THE BOLSHEVIK REGIME, 1918–24
• 8 WHICH LENIN?
• NOTES
• SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
• INDEX