Russian Revolution

[Dimitri Molotov]

Hello comrades, I am a sophomore at my high school and I got the opportunity to teach my global history class for 2 days instead of the teacher, about the Russian revolution. My teacher and I are always getting in debates about communism and anarchy, and it usually ends with her running out of arguments and saying "well that is your opinion, but its wrong." We were arguing about Lenin today and she told me she wanted me to teach the class about Lenin and the Russian revolution, and I thought she was being sarcastic at first, but I talked to her and found out later she wasn't kidding, and actually has 2 days i can teach next week the whole period. I know a very small amount about the Russian revolution, and I was wondering what you guys could teach me, because as of right now, the only other source I could go to would be the bias teachers at my school, and I figured what better place to go than RevLeft!:thumbup: These are the subjects I will need help with:
1. Pretty much any general knowledge about the Russian Revolution
2. Anything at all about the Bolsheviks or Mensheviks
3. Lenin's policies, plans, and ideas
4. I need to know more about Leon Trotsky
5. Any kind of other information or topics I just didn't know about

The Russian Revolution is not my strong point in debate, I usually debate more on the theories and current events nowadays. I always try to strengthen my knowledge about something every week, and lucky for me this week is the Russian Revolution. Any advice on where to start would be helpful. Thank you very, very much Comrades!

[BIG BROTHER]

I recommend you this two books.

The book by Alan Woods: Bolshevism the Road to Revolution. Its a very easy to read book about the Russian revolution from a Marxist perspective. The only down part is that Alan Woods completely ignores the national question.
http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism-old/index.html


History of the Russian Revolution: Written by one of its main protagonists Bolshevik Revolutionary Leon Trotsky.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/

[BIG BROTHER]

Those two books should answer your points and more! By the way I admire you for arguing with your teacher I'm usually too lazy and pessimistic about bothering to do that myself and only get in debates when I'm out organizing and stuff.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here's a very short article on the Russian Revolutuon that might help you:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23895

Here's a short one on Trotsky:

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10712

You can find out more about him here:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUStrotsky.htm

Here is one on Lenin:

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10387

With a longer article here:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSlenin.htm

Finally, here is a short article on the Bolsheviks:

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9992

Hope that helps.

[Red Commissar]

Some stuff that was posted here by ComradeOm:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html

And his recommendation of books

http://www.revleft.com/vb/introducing-revleft-historical-t120423/index.html

You should introduce the roots and causes of the Russian revolution and what caused radical groups to get a lot of support, and ultimately the Bolsheviks. Talk about the divisions in the Civil War and reasons why it went the way it did. Popular support and social things would be a good thing to incorporate too, don't focus solely on warfare.

If you want to incorporate the students you could possibly assign them roles of parties, factions, individuals, etc in the Russian Revolution and try to have them compete with one another once you've introduced their positions. I don't know, but I remember when I was in high school in my European History class our teacher did this sometimes and it was amusing to see how dragged out it could be because it brought out a competitive spirit and people wanting to think they were right.

Remember they won't be as enthusiastic as you are about the Russian Revolution so it'll be up to you to introduce the concepts in such a way that is somewhat engaging and relevant. Don't go too far into a single component if you only have two days.

[Octavian]

One subject that you might want to touch on that foreshadow and motivated the revolution is Rasputin. He isn't always mentioned in explanations of the revolution or his role and the problems he caused I find, aren't elaborated on.

[Dave B]

I think the Russian revolution is fairly straightforward.

All Marxists both Bolshevik, Menshevik and Kautsky thought that the forthcoming Russian revolution would and should be a progressive capitalist bourgeois democratic revolution.

And opposed any reactionary Narodnik and anarchist ideas of introducing something else.

From Lenin in 1905;


6. FROM WHAT DIRECTION IS THE PROLETARIAT THREATENED WITH THE DANGER OF HAVING ITS HANDS TIED IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE INCONSISTENT BOURGEOISIE?





The new Iskra-ists thoroughly misunderstand the meaning and significance of the category: bourgeois revolution. Through their arguments there constantly runs the idea that a bourgeois revolution is a revolution which can be advantageous only to the bourgeoisie. And yet nothing is more erroneous than such an idea. A bourgeois revolution is a

page 43
revolution which does not go beyond the limits of the bourgeois, i.e., capitalist, social and economic system. A bourgeois revolution expresses the need for the development of capitalism, and far from destroying the foundations of capitalism, it does the opposite, it broadens and deepens them. This revolution therefore expresses the interests not only of the working class, but of the entire bourgeoisie as well. Since the rule of the bourgeoisie over the working class is inevitable under capitalism, it is quite correct to say that a bourgeois revolution expresses the interests not so much of the proletariat as of the bourgeoisie. But it is entirely absurd to think that a bourgeois revolution does not express the interests of the proletariat at all.

This absurd idea boils down either to the hoary Narodnik theory that a bourgeois revolution runs counter to the interests of the proletariat, and that therefore we do not need bourgeois political liberty; or to anarchism, which rejects all participation of the proletariat in bourgeois politics, in a bourgeois revolution and in bourgeois parliamentarism. From the standpoint of theory, this idea disregards the elementary propositions of Marxism concerning the inevitability of capitalist development where commodity production exists.


Marxism teaches that a society which is based on commodity production, and which has commercial intercourse with civilized capitalist nations, at a certain stage of its development, itself, inevitably takes the road of capitalism. Marxism has irrevocably broken with the ravings of the Narodniks and the anarchists to the effect that Russia, for instance, can avoid capitalist development, jump out of capitalism, or skip over it and proceed along some path other than the path of the class struggle on the basis and within the framework of this same capitalism.
page 44

All these principles of Marxism have been proved and explained over and over again in minute detail in general and with regard to Russia in particular. And from these principles it follows that the idea of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save the further development of capitalism is reactionary. In countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism.

The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of the old order which are hampering the broad, free and rapid development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working class. The bourgeois revolution is precisely a revolution that most resolutely sweeps away the survivals of the past, the remnants of serfdom (which include not only autocracy but monarchy as well) and most fully guarantees the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism.

That is why a bourgeois revolution is in the highest degree advantageous to the proletariat. A bourgeois revolution is absolutely necessary in the interests of the proletariat. The more complete and determined, the more consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more assured will be the proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie for Socialism. Only those who are ignorant of the rudiments of scientific Socialism can regard this conclusion as new or strange, paradoxical.


http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TT05.html (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TT05.html)

repeated in 1914 in;

LEFT-WING NARODISM AND MARXISM





Pipe-dreaming about a "different" way to socialism other than that which leads through the further development of capitalism, through large-scale, machine, capitalist production, is, in Russia, characteristic either of the liberal gentlemen, or of the backward, petty proprietors (the petty bourgeoisie). These dreams, which still clog the brains of the Left Narodniks, merely reflect the backwardness (reactionary nature) and feebleness of the petty bourgeoisie.

Class-conscious workers all over the world, Russia included, are becoming more and more convinced of the correctness of Marxism, for life itself is proving to them that only large-scale, machine production rouses the workers, enlightens and organises them, and creates the objective conditions for a mass movement.


page 373
When Put Pravdy reaffirmed the well-known Marxist axiom that capitalism is progressive as compared with feudalism,[* (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2042543#fnp373)] and that the idea of checking the development of capitalism is a utopia, most absurd, reactionary, and harmful to the working people, Mr. N. Rakitnikov, the Left Narodnik (in Smelaya Mysl No. 7), accused Put Pravdy of having undertaken the "not very honourable task of putting a gloss upon the capitalist noose".

Anyone interested in Marxism and in the experience of the international working-class-movement would do well to ponder over this! One rarely meets with such amazing ignorance of Marxism as that displayed by Mr. N. Rakitnikov and the Left Narodniks, except perhaps among bourgeois economists.

Can it be that Mr. Rakitnikov has not read Capital, or The Poverty of Philosophy (http://www.revleft.com/M&E/PP47.html), or The Communist Manifesto (http://www.revleft.com/M&E/CM47.html)? If he has not, then it is pointless to talk about socialism. That will be a ridiculous waste of time.
If he has read them, then he ought to know that the fundamental idea running through all Marx's works, an idea which since Marx has been confirmed in all countries, is that capitalism is progressive as compared with feudalism. It is in this sense that Marx and all Marxists "put a gloss" (to use Rakitnikov's clumsy and stupid expression) "upon the capitalist noose"!

Only anarchists or petty-bourgeois, who do not understand the conditions of historical development, can say: a feudal noose or a capitalist one -- it makes no difference, for both are nooses! That means confining oneself to condemnation, and failing to understand the objective course of economic development.

Condemnation means our subjective dissatisfaction. The objective course of feudalism's evolution into capitalism enables millions of working people -- thanks to the growth of cities, railways, large factories and the migration of workers -- to escape from a condition of feudal torpor. Capitalism itself rouses and organises them.


http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWNM14.html (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWNM14.html)

They hoped I suppose that it would end up with the bourgeois liberty of capitalist Switzerland were Marxist were free to propagate communism.

The Mensheviks wanted to have as little as possible to do with any provisional revolutionary government and didn’t want to get their hands dirty ushering in and governing capitalism.

The Bolsheviks had less scruples and advocated taking a leading role in the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

V. I. (http://www.revleft.com/1909/feb/12.htm)Lenin (http://www.revleft.com/1909/mar/23.htm)The Aim of the Proletarian Struggle in Our Revolution (http://www.revleft.com/vb/index.htm#i) 1909




.The establishment of a democratic republic in Russia will be possible only as the result of a victorious popular uprising, whose organ will be a provisional revolutionary government....

Subject to the relation of forces and other factors which cannot be determined exactly beforehand, representatives of our Party may participate in the provisional revolutionary government for the purpose of waging a relentless struggle against all attempts at counter-revolution, and of defending the independent interests of the working class." The Menshevik resolution read:
"...Social-Democracy must not set out to seize power or share it with anyone in the provisional government, but must remain the party of extreme revolutionary opposition."


It is evident from the above that the Bolsheviks themselves, at an all-Bolshevik Congress, did not include in their official resolution any such "formula" as the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, but stated only that it was permissible to participate in the provisional government, and that it was the "mission" of the proletariat to "play the leading role"


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/aim/i.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/aim/i.htm)

The counter revolution being some kind of backsliding into a compromise fusion of feudalism and capitalism.

When it came to the crunch the capitalist class failed in their historic mission to take over from feudalism and introduce the capitalism and the Bolsheviks stood up the plate and volunteered to do it themselves.


Going even further than what the innocent Mensheviks and some left Bolsheviks had previously suspected them off, from meddling to total control.


"LEFT-WING" CHILDISHNESS AND THE PETTY-BOURGEOIS MENTALITY

III



If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made by the "Left Communists" will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter. According to them, under the "Bolshevik deviation to the right" the Soviet Republic is threatened with "evolution towards state capitalism". They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these "Left Communists" repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . .

It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic



http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC18.html (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC18.html)


And perhaps it can only ‘provoke a smile’ that Alan Wood’s mentor, Ted Grant, in his seminal and ‘brilliant’ thesis against the theory of state capitalism had apparently read the said article, as the mischievous lying imp quoted from it, taking the piss out of his readers and baiting poor old Cliff.




"But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider the precise nature of the elements that constitute the various social-economic forms which exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question."
(Left wing childishness and the petty-bourgeois mentality. Collected Works, Volume 27, page 335)



http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/grant/works/4/9/reply_to_tony_cliff.html (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/grant/works/4/9/reply_to_tony_cliff.html)

[HalPhilipWalker]

If you're looking for critiques of the Russian Revolution from a Marxist perspective (and you don't want to read 800 pages), I would suggest The Russian Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg. It talks about the flaws of Lenin's policies and how some of Lenin's politics actually undermined his overall goals of revolution. She's one of the most respected Marxists in history and this book is a key work of hers, so you should read it whether you use it in class or not.

[ComradeOm]

Red Commissar has linked to the resources that I've put up on RevLeft. The essay was written to rebuff the specific charge that the Bolsheviks were some sort of monolithic elitist party acting in isolation of the Russian masses, but you should find it useful. If you don't have time to check out the bibliography then feel free to fire any questions my way

One thing I will say is that you should ignore any Marxist analysis of the Revolution for the purpose of this class. Ditto with going into detail on ideology. This should be used to sketch out the positions of the major parties/factions but isn't really needed in laying out a history of the Revolution. You certainly do not want to be quoting pamphlets from 1905. The events of 1917 were not shaped by Lenin or his polemics so focus on the actual events/trends

I would start off with a basic structure like the below. Just throwing out ideas here

Basic background to Russia in 1917. WWI and the failures of the Tsardom
Quick sketch of the major parties and their class bases
February 1917 and the introduction of dual power
Failings of the Provisional Government and July Days
Growth of Bolshevik popularity and October Revolution
Civil War
Legacy and degeneration of revolution. Construction of the Stalinist state

Obviously you're not going to get through a fraction of this in two days but it might help you structure the lessons. The important thing is that you follow the events/themes and introduce the likes of Lenin and Trotsky as historical actors rather than building lessons around them

[tbasherizer]

This is a great opportunity for you, OP! Since it's a high school class, I'd advise to getting into any hardcore marxist theory. Get the same ideas across, just using more accessible language. Also, emphasize the fact that socialism is about control of the means of production, not crude equality. I think when people look back at Lenin with the idea that he wanted absolute equality for everyone, they fail to grasp any kind of analysis of the events.

Those are just some more ideas. Excuse my lack of any additional info, but I think our comrades already provided enough up there ^^^.

[smk]

DON'T sound like you are praising the Russian Revolution!

Perhaps you should include a bit about contrasting true socialism with that crappy bolshevism.

Maybe it is just me, but I dont think that you are going to enlighten anyone about what communism really means by giving them a presentation of the Russian Revolution. If anything, this presentation will be deleterious to your cause unless you specifically point out the utter disgustingness of that revolution. If you dont do that you are basically teaching them that 'communism' is only possible with actions like those taken by the anti-democratic bolsheviks.

EDIT:
Unless you happen to have contradictory views to the ones I presented above

[ComradeOm]

Maybe it is just me, but I dont think that you are going to enlighten anyone about what communism really means by giving them a presentation of the Russian RevolutionI suppose that that depends on whether the "cause" is 'teaching children about the Russian Revolution' or 'preaching about your own political beliefs' :glare:

[Sixiang]

By the way I admire you for arguing with your teacher I'm usually too lazy and pessimistic about bothering to do that myself and only get in debates when I'm out organizing and stuff.

I'm the same way. I used to argue with my government teacher all the time, but eventually I just got sick of it because they always ended the same way: she would end it by saying that I'm just wrong and then taking control of the class again and returning to the material we need to go over. Now I don't really say much in class anymore.

I think it's cool that you stick with it and that your teacher even offered you to teach this. I agree that you shouldn't focus on ideology necessarily, but on historical facts and what not.

[Dimentio]

One subject that you might want to touch on that foreshadow and motivated the revolution is Rasputin. He isn't always mentioned in explanations of the revolution or his role and the problems he caused I find, aren't elaborated on.

He is overrated as a cause. The aristocrats and the government hated him, but the people were probably generally indifferent. In Bluth's film Anastasia, he caused the Revolution, but that is just... idiotic.

[southernmissfan]

I have a powerpoint that might be useful. It's kind of a basic outline of the revolution, from the Tsar to the Civil War and ultimately Stalin. Not sure how to upload it though.

[Sixiang]

I have a powerpoint that might be useful. It's kind of a basic outline of the revolution, from the Tsar to the Civil War and ultimately Stalin. Not sure how to upload it though.

You can attach the file in an email.

[southernmissfan]

You can attach the file in an email.

True enough. I was hoping to figure out a way using just RevLeft. But if OP would like it, just send me a pm with your email.

[Sixiang]

True enough. I was hoping to figure out a way using just RevLeft. But if OP would like it, just send me a pm with your email.

I found something. You can attach a file to a blog post.

[smk]

I suppose that that depends on whether the "cause" is 'teaching children about the Russian Revolution' or 'preaching about your own political beliefs' :glare:

If this presentation was purely based on history, why would the history teacher ask someone who knows nothing about the Russian Revolution to give a presentation on it? I'm guessing the teacher asked him because he knew his political stance would come into the presentation.