Essay, Research Paper: Comparing Russian Revolutions

How does the Russian Revolution of 1917 compare with the Revolution of 1989?

This essay will be structured into three separate parts for comprehensibility. Firstly, I shall explain the factors leading up to the 1917 revolution and the revolution itself, and secondly, I shall do the same with the Revolution of 1989. Finally, to round everything together, there will be a comparison of the similarities and differences between the two revolutions. Onward:

For as long as anyone alive during the 1917 revolution could remember… for many hundreds of years, in fact, Russia was ruled by czarist regimes. The czar was considered to be the autocrat… the absolute ruler. An individual's power was based on how many serfs and peasants he (for it was always a he) owned. The majority of the population was severely repressed, and faced with terrible living conditions… economic, social, you name it. As you could imagine, no commoner would want to live under such conditions and indeed, no one did… several attempts at insurrections against the czarist government occurred during the 19th and 20th centuries, but it was not until 1917 that the people succeeded in their goals1… but to what end? Read on…
The people of Russia have spent many decades malcontented, but in 1917 the wars that were going on… WW1 and the war Russia waged against Korea… were the proverbial straws that broke the camel's back. Russia, though it had many people and potential soldiers, had not been industrialized enough to arm and equip them for battle, and czar Nicholas the 2nd (a rather weak leader, although he did have strong intentions3) diverted a large amount of the nation's wealth toward the war effort… so much so that he forgot to pay attention to the commoners who were suffering due to his lack of support. The majority of the population was horrendously poor, infant and maternal mortality was horrendously high, starvation was rampant (food was scarce, since the large amounts of mobilizing troops took people away from agriculture) and simple social services such as health and education were forgotten4. Despite the amount of money that was being diverted towards them, Russian soldiers still were lacking many essentials. Many soldiers starved in the trenches, and most soldiers lacked all the simple provisions other armies were entitled to. All in all, due to a lack of supplies as well as motivation, the Russian army in WW1 suffered more casualties than any other army in any other war ever. 1 The wife of Nicholas, Alexandra, was selected as the scapegoat for all of this… she was a good target because she represented the imperial autocracy and had German (enemy) heritage. 4
When everything became too much to bear, workers in what was then the capital, Petrograd (which you may now know as St. Petersburg) officially went on strike, though things proceeded to become more violent… on February 25th, 1917, citywide violence between police and workers broke out, and the odds really were in the workers' side. Cossack troops who had been summoned to help the czar and his police helped, but not very enthusiastically. On the 26th of February, soldiers arrived in the city and fired upon many workers… as time progressed, however, the soldiers realized the plight that both the workers and themselves were in and stopped firing so adamantly. On the 27th, the workers (armed with weaponry stolen from the police) and the soldiers joined forces together and, with their combined power, seized control of the capital. 5 Czar Nicholas was abdicated, his ministers were arrested and replaced with commissars from the Duma, and the crown was handed over to his brother, the Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich… though not for long. Basically, real power belonged to two different factions… the "Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies", comprising of the revolutionary leaders, and the "Provisional Government", comprising of what once was the Duma. The "Order 1" was issued by the Petrograd Soviet, which stated that

"The soldiers of the army and the sailors of the fleet were to submit to the authority of the Soviet and its committees in all political matters; they were to obey only those orders that did not conflict with the directives of the Soviet; they were to elect committees that would exercise exclusive control over all weapons; on duty, they were to observe strict military discipline, but harsh and contemptuous treatment by the officers was forbidden; disputes between soldiers' committees and officers were to be referred to the Soviet for disposition; off-duty soldiers and sailors were to enjoy full civil and political rights; and saluting of officers was to be abolished "

Surprisingly, the revolutionaries then in power did not cease the war effort, due to many political complications… but more on that later. The revolution that occurred in Petrograd spread like a wave through many other cities, usually occurring in the exact same sequence… the imperial leaders could no longer find security in the troops that protected them. Like Petrograd, all cities created two parallel government systems - the Soviets and the Provisional Government. Throughout the country, the provisional governments disbanded all of the police from Nicholas' era, permitted freedom of opinion and the press, called off all the laws discriminating against various ethnic and religious groups, and granted the state of Poland freedoms… although it could do this, the Provisional Government claimed that they had no real power, so they could not confiscate all the country's land and distribute it equally to the peasants… changes like that, they said, were to be postponed until a constituent assembly could be elected, but that election could not yet take place because, due to the war, many areas of the country were under enemy occupation.1 Whether or not this was a convenient excuse for the members of the Provisional Government, most of whom were aristocrats before the revolution, to preserve their land is debatable.
On the 6th of March, the Provisional Government (from now on referred to as the "PG") announced that it had no intentions of pulling Russia out of the war… the Soviets, on the other hand, believed that war was the last thing Russia should be doing at the time, and attempted to convince the people of WWI-involved countries to "force" their governments into a peaceful agreement. This rift between the Soviets and the PG caused some conflict… but nothing *too* major, of course.
All in all, things still weren't where the revolutionaries thought they would be after Nicholas' abdication. Most of the nation's energy was still being devoted to war (which the people detested with a passion), and living conditions, though improved, were nothing near ideal.5 The Bolsheviks, at that time a small minority in Petrograd, continually spread propaganda telling the people that the Soviets should seize complete control and the war effort should be completely dissolved… eventually, the people swayed to their side and believed that only the Soviets could "liberate" them. 1

On the third of April, 1917, Vladimir Ilich Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik party who was until that point hiding in Switzerland, returned to his homeland and to the helm of his party. He adamantly expressed his views that the war and the PG were not in Russia's best interest, and that a proletarian dictatorship should be established… through propaganda, at first, to "soften" the public up to the idea. Aside from that, other policies of the Bolsheviks included the distribution of land to the peasants and the control of industries by the workers. Due to the war and the social conditions it brought unto the people, the Bolsheviks won more support than ever before… although they were still a relative minority in Petrograd and all of Russia. 1
So WW1 waged on. On the 16th of July, Kerensky (the nation's war minister) made a grave error and issued a series of orders resulting in the complete defeat of the army. Most of Russia's military forces abroad broke up, suffering from complete loss of morale, and millions of soldiers streamed back home. Kerensky's accident was another example of reasons why war should be stopped, and Bolshevik support grew some more. The Soviets disbanded the Duma (the political base of the PG), thanks to the growing demand for peace, and set the date for the Constituent Assembly to be elected by as September 30th. It was near this time that a large rally occurred in the streets of Petrograd, conducted by nearly half a million people supporting Bolshevism. The people marched to the steps of the Soviet Congress and attempted to convince them to assume sole power… it was the people themselves making the demands, while Bolshevik leaders such as Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin simply stood back and insured the rally remained a peaceful one. The Soviets within the congress did not appreciate this Bolshevik show of affection… they thought Lenin's desire for dictatorship was counter-revolutionary, in fact, and troops were summoned to disperse these demonstrators. The Kerensky government (he had now assumed the title of prime minister) didn't like these demonstrations one bit either… to show that he was serious, he called off several land committees and reinstated (but didn't enforce) the death penalty… plus, the date for the election of the constituent assembly was pushed back all the way into November. Lenin was denounced by the government as an agent working for Germany, and he fled off to Finland… Trotsky and his political friends, meanwhile, were arrested. Bolshevism was effectively "swept under the carpet" again - although meetings still continued, they continued at the degree they did before Lenin arrived in April and began making waves.1

Living conditions were very similar to those experienced after the fall of Nicholas, once again. The government made no attempt to improve the commoners' economic situations, and unrest continued as usual. 5 In a rather naive attempt, a branch of the government known as the Kadets, under the leadership of Kornilov, made it clear that they wished to seize control of the capital and create a military dictatorship. As Kornilov's troops marched closer (for no railway personnel would grant them passage), armed militias began surfacing as defense in the capital. The few Bolsheviks within these militias began spreading waves, and eventually their propaganda was accepted by the people again… by the time Kornilov's army arrived, the defensive militias convinced the troops to join them and arrested Kornilov, but that doesn't really matter. The important thing is the fact that we now have, in Petrograd, an armed and organized group of workers with Bolshevism in mind. 1
Lenin arrived again in October, and told the Bolshevik committee that it was now time to seize control. In the events known as the October Revolution, which occurred between the 24th and 25th of October, 1917, the Winter Palace was stormed and, with surprisingly little bloodshed, conquered. On the 25th, Trotsky announced that the Provisional Government was no more, and its ministers were subsequently arrested.
On November 8th, Lenin began the construction of the new socialist order he planned on upholding. As well as changing the name of the Bolsheviks to the Russian Communist Party, he abolished war, declared that all land was national property "protected" by land committees and peasants, and made the congress of Soviets the nation's supreme power, with Lenin at their helm. 1
Lenin's decisions were supported the country over, although pulling out of WWI Russia was forced to sign a contract giving up Ukraine and its Baltic States. The people were a bit angry at this, and the Communist Party decided to respond by beginning its "red terror" - basically, the arrest and execution of all "whites" within the country, or people who did not support communism. On the 30th of December, 1922, the Communist Party had complete control, the whites were vanquished, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was officially formed. Thus ends the first revolution I shall be explaining, and thus begins the second. 1

Compared to the revolution of 1989, the one that occurred in 1917 is relatively easy to comprehend. When revolting workers and soldiers overthrew Czar Nicholas that fateful February, their intentions were relatively simple, humanistic ones… our lives suck, lets try to make them better. If you want to understand the revolution of 1989 which ended in the dissolving of the USSR, however, there are many geopolitical factors you have to take into the balance and, to put it simply, it's really really complicated. At least, that's the way I found it. Basically, the USSR crumbled because it just got to big to function efficiently as a centrally planned economy, and the various republics thought they would succeed much more were they sovereign. But more on that later… Mikhail Gorbachev is probably the first thing that needs discussing…
One of the first things Gorbachev attempted at the beginning of his leadership was, like his contemporaries Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, a "crackdown" on corruption and laziness among the people… the Chernobyl accident and the "incompetence" demonstrated by the workers there was what made him so fervent about this… this policy really was no big deal. His later decisions, however, were a bit more controversial. Among other things, Gorbachev legalized individual entrepreneurship in the then communist USSR, allowed democratic-style elections to congress (he himself was elected as the first chairman), and instituted USSR presidency, appointing himself to "presidential" status. Finally, and perhaps the most importantly, he stopped the USSR from intervening in Eastern Europe as it did in the past… due to this decrease in attention paid to them by the soviets, various movements in Eastern Europe began to end communism… many of these succeeded, and the ultimate symbol of that is the tearing down of the Berlin wall. Citizens of the USSR saw these protests going on in other parts of the world, and decided that they themselves should protest too… and Gorbachev made little or no attempt to stop them. 2
Though Gorbachev may have been weakly attempting to appeal to everyone with his string of policies and tolerance for protesters, he turned out to not be as successful as he thought he might. Extreme supporters of communism believed he was undermining everything the party had been working for, and were insulted by his not stopping protesters with his formidable force. Democrats, however, believed that if he wanted to be pro-democratic, he should be that all the way, giving up his position and running for democratic presidency.2 In this sad state of affairs, many operations were disrupted, Russia's GNP fell for the first time in many years5, consumer shortages abounded and worker strikes were aplenty. The major problem with "consumer shortages" was this: As the USSR was a centrally planned nation, its people were supplied with goods and services based on what the central planning committee, over which Gorbachev had control, decided they needed. Social conditions in Moscow (and especially in the surrounding republics, because they were simply further distanced from the central decision-making hub) were impacted by this system of governing already - the commoners, who already were not faced with the greatest of economic situations, were often granted rations of things they already had too many of when something else was in dire need. The people were occasionally subjected to starvation and infant mortality.
It was at this time, when Moscow was at its weakest, that the USSR's various republics thought it would be wise to challenge for sovereignty. Their newly elected governments promoted nationalism toward the republic, and all in all they believed they would function much better if they could economically control themselves rather than be centrally planned, as before. One by one, each republic divorced the USSR, leaving Russia alone…2
Gorbachev eventually resigned his post, and democratic Boris Yeltsin took over his position, leading a new, capitalist Russia. On New Year's Eve, 1991, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics officially ceased to exist.

I believe that the comparisons between the two revolutions really are quite apparent. Although they both followed different courses as to how they were carried out, both revolutions occurred because, basically, the people were not satisfied with their living conditions. Most revolutions occur for this very fact… the people are not satisfied and are attempting to improve the situation that they're in. Whether or not the end product of a revolution is usually an improvement per se can be left to your own discretion at this point, for we aren't here to talk about that.
Since the roots of both revolutions lie in the majority of the people (read: the middle and lower classes) were unsatisfied and felt improvements could be made, I shall simply compare and contrast the reasons that were given for the unsatisfactory state of affairs - to be conventional, I will split them into three separate groups - social, political and economic.
Socially, the state of affairs before the 1917 revolution was dismal, at best. As I said earlier, the autocratic czarist regime was, as most regimes are, very beneficial to the higher classes and horrible to the lower (and more populous) ones. The poorest individuals were riddled with such problems as starvation, premature mortality, and living conditions which, to be polite, could be described as "squalid"… the serfs, toiling under the rule of their master only to die poor, miserable, young, and no better off for their years of work. Combine all of this with a complete lack of education, health care and other social services that we in Canada vitally take for granted, and you've got a recipe for one not-so-nice country… and a definite reason for the people to want a revolution to take place. 4
Leading up to and during the revolution of 1989, although some of the living conditions, especially in the extending republics of the USSR, were not as grand as grand could be, they were certainly better than those of past czarist days - mortality and starvation were not nearly as rampant, and social services were readily available to those who required their assistance.3 I previously explained how a government, partially inefficient due to Mikhail Gorbachev's many policies which were contrary to communist doctrines of the past, could not efficiently run a centrally planned economy. The distribution of exactly what the people need in exactly the right quantities so as not to spoil nor squander is a formidable task, and one that no government as of yet has managed to accomplish. In more cases than not, a committee centrally planning the vast nation was not able to properly live up to its requirements, leading to discontent amongst the people… the various republics divorced their motherland for the precise reason that they felt they would be more efficient were they allowed to govern themselves however they wanted… today, many of them have taken different routes, but that is another story. The point I have been trying to make is this: Personal resources were not exactly at their peak, and people were suffering because of it.

Politically, during both revolutions, change was desired as well. Both revolutions occurred during a sort of "uprising" of a certain government type… by this I mean that types of governments were talked about and considered by the people as viable alternatives to their current ones a bit too much, and eventually they began to desire them. The workers who marched and fought during the revolution of 1917 certainly found the propaganda Lenin and his Bolshevik friends were spreading appealing, because it instantly gratified the things at the top of their head. A war was going on, which no one approved of… Lenin simply saying that peace was part of the communist way was enough to win followers already.1 Indeed, a Marxist uprising was occurring during that initial Bolshevik overthrow and the establishment of the USSR. During those days in February leading up to Czar Nicholas' abdication, while the poor were demonstrating because of their social conditions, the middle class were marching for these largely political motives.4
Similarly, during the 1989 revolution people were seeing and hearing about capitalism and democracy a lot more than previously. Gorbachev's permitting elections for congressional spots whetted their appetite, and seeing all of the de-communization taking place in Eastern Europe (the Berlin Wall was the example I gave at first, and the Berlin Wall shall be the example I give again) as a result of the USSR taking their focus of interest elsewhere left them thirsty for more… it is for this reason that Yeltsin became the next leader, he appealed to that.2
I suppose that I can include wars as part of the "political" section too, because they are largely political conflicts. I did not find evidence of a war that was actively involving Russia during the 1989 revolution (though I'm sure there was one, somewhere… the Crimean war, perhaps?), WWI was certainly a motive during the revolution of 1917… their own personal under-equipped and under-fed living conditions in the trenches were probably the thing that possessed all the soldiers to join the workers and stop firing upon them because the czar told them so.1 Read the earlier, history sections for more details…

Finally, we come to the economic reasons for revolution. Preceding the 1917 revolution, the common people were given even less money and services than before because Nicholas II was dedicated to using that money finishing wars his father got the country into… it was this waste of resources and money that was chiefly responsible for the poor living conditions detailed in the "Social" section. Poverty among the common people was affected as well by the damned-if-you-do system in place which only made the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. For example: Unlike his father, Czar Nicholas II allowed industrialization, which meant those who were rich and high enough to afford it could build factories. The workers who toiled away in these factories, however, were given little or no money by the owners, who would rather themselves keep the profit to build more factories, to get more profit, to build more factories, etc. etc. A sick little version of capitalism, it was… no wonder revolts and strikes took place.4 By comparison, the time preceding the 1989 revolution was not quite so bad… as always, the rich gained more and more money as the poor lost theirs or, in a best case scenario, stayed on a plateau.3 The treasury was not, however, bankrupt and the majority of the money was not being squandered into various conflicts… there still was enough to afford some social services for the people, and that is extremely better than nothing.

There were some similarities and differences between the Revolution of 1917 and that of 1989, but in the end the intents were very similar: the revolutionaries just wanted better lives for themselves and their kin… better living conditions, in all three(social, economic, political) categories. Although situations did improve from the nation's czarist days, looking at Russia today does make it seem like another revolution ought to take place… but would it be justified? I'll leave that to another report…