February Revolution - Bourgeois?

[anti-authoritarian]

So I'm doing an essay for history on whether or not the February Revolution (i.e. 1917 Russia) can be called a 'bourgeois revolution' as defined (or rather not defined as I've found) from Communist Manifesto.

Currently I'm going along the lines of although Russia is economically backward the situation is markedly different from the other 'classic' bourgeois revolution in France. Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to stretch that out for another two thousand words so some help would be greatly appreciated (if there are any books/papers I can reference that would be great).

[Junius]

Hiya,

I might comment on this a bit later. There was a related debate (http://libcom.org/forums/history-culture/trotskys-history-russian-revolution-21102008) on this on libcom.

Good luck.

[ZeroNowhere]

Not really. It's main focus was anti-Tsarist. The leader of the provisional government was Kerensky, who was a member of the peasant-centered 'Socialist Revolutionaries', who would have probably won the elections that were to take place. I would hardly call that a 'bourgeois revolution', seeing as, really, the Provisional Government didn't really do anything, pretty much. It wasn't exactly lead by the capitalists either, though the 'Liberals' did have quite a lot of influence. However, the Soviets still had a lot of power over the Provisional Government. The bourgeois revolution in Russia came a bit later.

[anti-authoritarian]

Not really. It's main focus was anti-Tsarist. The leader of the provisional government was Kerensky, who was a member of the peasant-centered 'Socialist Revolutionaries', who would have probably won the elections that were to take place. I would hardly call that a 'bourgeois revolution', seeing as, really, the Provisional Government didn't really do anything, pretty much. It wasn't exactly lead by the capitalists either, though the 'Liberals' did have quite a lot of influence. However, the Soviets still had a lot of power over the Provisional Government. The bourgeois revolution in Russia came a bit later.
But wasn't the French revolution primarily anti-monarchist (or at least anti-Louis)? And doesn't the dual power merely indicate a rapid transition from the liberal/bourgeois government to power being vested in the soviets? I'm not disputing what you're saying I'm just trying to understand what you're saying here

[BobKKKindle$]

The February revolution was concerned mainly with bourgeois tasks such as carrying out land reform and introducing political democracy, but this does not mean it is appropriate to describe the event as a bourgeois revolution because in reality the revolution was conducted almost entirely by the proletariat in alliance with the peasantry, as the bourgeoisie was too closely tied to the remnants of the autocratic state as well as the interests of foreign capital and so was not strong enough to lead the revolution, and instead had an interest in maintaining the Tsarist state. If you want to get a better understanding of these processes and the class character of the revolution, Trotsky's works 'Results and Prospects' and 'Permanent Revolution' are very useful.

[Junius]

Trotsky also describes the law of uneven development at the beginning of the History of the Russian Revolution (google it, its available on-line). I am not a Trotskyist (duh), but perhaps that is a text you should consult since it would be quite relevant to your essay and the power-struggles involved in that revolution. Trotsky mocks a number of times the bourgeoisie leaders of the provincial government who were cowering from the revolution at the beginning, and then claiming they lead it the following week.

[Tower of Bebel]

To answer the question the law of uneven development must be considered. What kind of revolution was it? What kind of economic and social basis had this revolution? It was not simply a bourgeois revolution or proletarian revolution. History doesn't follow Kautskyan textbooks. Lenin and Trotsky experienced this first hand during both Russian Revolutions (1905, 1917).

The Russian economy was subjected to imperialism in such a way that feudal/asian modes of production were combined with capitalist production relations. both capitalism and feudalism were not separated from each other. One system kept the other alive and it was the collapse of feudalism during the war that initiated the collapse of capitalism in Russia. The former is necessary to start a successful bourgeois revolution while the lather initiates a proletarian revolution. But the characteristics of Russian capitalism during the epoch of imperialism made the full development of a Russian bourgeoisie almost impossible. Even worse, the collapse of Russian capitalism during the war and revolution made it impossible for the bourgeoisie to dominate the revolution. So the February Revolution was not simply a bourgeois revolution.

But Russia wasn't ready for a socialist revolution. The proletariat was the most radical force during the revolution, but it was not the strongest. Russia still had a peasant majority due to feudal backwardness. So if a socialist revolution were to succeed it needed help from abroad: Western Europe with its fully developed capitalism and a strong and sometimes very conscious proletariat. The paradox of the Russian Revolution could only be solved through internationalism.
At that time everyone knew that the Soviets needed a successful European Revolution to survive. Only during the twenties did the idea become "popular" that socialism in one country was possible.

I would advise you not to distinguish the February Revolution form the October revolution in such a way that one is bourgeois and the other is socialist. This is one revolution, yet it needed time to develop. The Russian capitalists could not forge a bourgeois Russia and the Bolsheviks could not create a socialist Russia. Only Europe could solve the question. It was socialism or barbarism, not socialism or liberalism.

[Valeofruin]

It was undoubtably a bourgeois revolution.

Stalin - Foundations of Leninism

[Valeofruin]

Trotsky also describes the law of uneven development at the beginning of the History of the Russian Revolution (google it, its available on-line). I am not a Trotskyist (duh), but perhaps that is a text you should consult since it would be quite relevant to your essay and the power-struggles involved in that revolution. Trotsky mocks a number of times the bourgeoisie leaders of the provincial government who were cowering from the revolution at the beginning, and then claiming they lead it the following week.


"The danger of the "Otzovist" tactics was that they threatened to detach the vanguard from the millions of its reserves.

The Party would have become detached from the working class, and the working class would have lost its influence among the broad masses of the peasants and soldiers, if the proletariat had followed the "Left" Communists, who called for an uprising in April 1917, when the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries had not yet exposed themselves as advocates of war and imperialism, when the masses had not yet realized from their own experience the falsity of speeches of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries about peace, land and freedom. Had the masses not gained this experience during the Kerensky period, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries would not have been isolated and the dictatorship of the proletariat would have been impossible. Therefore, the tactics of "patiently explaining" the mistakes of the petty-bourgeois parties and of open struggle in the Soviets were the only correct tactics." - J V Stalin

Really noone takes it to the petty bourgeois provisional government, as well as the Menshevik, Social Revolutionary, Opportunist, Trotsky (of course) and various other traitors to the Russian Proletariat and poor peasentry, quite like Stalin did in 'Foundations'.

[anti-authoritarian]

It was undoubtably a bourgeois revolution.

Stalin - Foundations of Leninism
Is there a similar quote from someone other than Stalin?

[KC]

The concept of labelling such a revolution as "bourgeois" or "proletarian" doesn't take into account the complexities of the issue or the dynamics involved in that historical event. It is only in understanding these intricacies can one actually extrapolate from those small pictures a larger one, where it is then appropriate to discuss the broader concepts based on the knowledge of these intricacies.

Many people fail to understand that history is complex and not so easily pigeonholed as Stalin and his followers would like you to believe.

[anti-authoritarian]

So quick question - are the crowds in St. Petersburg as 'solidly proletarian' as Trotsky suggests? I've found two historians which seem to contradict this.

[Yehuda Stern]

The February revolution was an attempt at a bourgeois revolution - however, it certainly wasn't one, and seeing as this stemmed from the bourgeois leadership of the uprising it clearly contradicts the notion that the bourgeoisie is capable of leading a revolution in the epoch of imperialist decay. The 'revolution' solved none of the question it was supposed to, and as Trotsky predicted, it took a socialist revolution to carry out the democratic revolution in Russia.

[anti-authoritarian]

And another very quick question (sorry about this... its getting late and I'm starting to tear my hair out :() - what are the main features of a bourgeois revolution in the classic sense? (i.e. 1789 France)

[Tower of Bebel]

the struggle for bourgeois demands that would guarantee the most favorable development of capitalism (freedom of press, freedom of speech, parliamentary democracy, property rights, ... all within the limits defined by capital). A normal bourgeois revolution is one where the bourgeoisie uses its economic power to secure a bourgeois class rule. In Russia we saw an incompetent bourgeoisie threatened by proletarian class rule.

[Yehuda Stern]

Rakunin, I'm going to have to disagree. Your general definition - that the revolution's role is to provide the conditions for the development of capitalism - is absolutely true, and property rights are part of that. I would add also an agrarian revolution. But the rest of the things you mentioned aren't an integral part of these conditions but concessions given to the masses by the ascending bourgeoisie to win their support. I may be splitting hairs here, but I think it's important to be clear here, otherwise we give the impression that capitalism is somehow inherently democratic.

[ZeroNowhere]

Many people fail to understand that history is complex and not so easily pigeonholed as Stalin and his followers would like you to believe.
That is bourgeois propaganda.

[KC]

And another very quick question (sorry about this... its getting late and I'm starting to tear my hair out :() - what are the main features of a bourgeois revolution in the classic sense? (i.e. 1789 France)

In general, a bourgeois revolution is a revolution whereby the bourgeoisie takes power and becomes a ruling class, or one where the bourgeoisie is able to consolidate its rule.


That is bourgeois propaganda.

You're bourgeois propaganda.

[Tower of Bebel]

Rakunin, I'm going to have to disagree. Your general definition - that the revolution's role is to provide the conditions for the development of capitalism - is absolutely true, and property rights are part of that. I would add also an agrarian revolution. But the rest of the things you mentioned aren't an integral part of these conditions but concessions given to the masses by the ascending bourgeoisie to win their support. I may be splitting hairs here, but I think it's important to be clear here, otherwise we give the impression that capitalism is somehow inherently democratic.
I forgot to mention the class struggle, since it is this struggle that defines and settles the limits of bourgeois democracy for the proletariat.