Historians have disagreed about the causes of the Russian Revolution of 1917
What is your view about the causes of the Russian Revolution of 1917?
With reference to 3 chosen works:
- Analyse the ways in which interpretations of the question, problem or issue differ
- Explain the differences you have identified
- Evaluate the arguments, indicating which you have found most persuasive and
explaining your judgements
Introduction
The Russian Revolution was a period of the political and social revolution which took place in the
former Russian Empire in 1917. This essay will mostly refer to the 2 main intertwined events of the
February Revolution and the Bolshevik October Revolution, which brought about the transformation
of the Russian Empire into the USSR, replacing traditional Tsarism with the world’s first Communist
state and paving way for Communism.
There are three dominating historical schools of thought in relation to this debate. Firstly,
Christopher Hill, a Marxist Historian, expresses his discontent with the lack of democracy and follows
the view that the Revolution was led by Lenin and the Bolsheviks on behalf of the working masses.
Secondly, Leonard Schapiro, a Liberal Historian, provides a contrasting view influenced by the
prevailing Western culture. Thirdly, Sheila Fitzpatrick, a Revisionist Historian, looks more in-depth at
the roles of Lenin and the Bolshevik party and holds a view, contrasting the Liberal view, that it was
the people who created the circumstances that the Bolsheviks made use of to obtain their power in
the end. It is clear to see that the 3 schools of thought vary from one another due to their different
focus and external influences. The key to evaluating this debate is to effectively determine whether
the Revolution was influenced by pressures from above or pressures from below. My personal view
about the causes of the Russian Revolution of 1917 follows most similarly with the Revisionist school
of thought, where the people were the major causal factor which in turn prompted the Bolshevik
seizure of power.
Christopher Hill (Soviet/Marxist)
Christopher Hill’s view of the causes of the Russian Revolution 1917 is a sensible way to start the
debate. Hill was a Marxist historian, co-founder of the Communist Party Historians Group in 1946,
and remained in the Party until 1956. Marxism focuses on the struggle of social classes and argues
for a worker’s revolution against capitalism in favour of communism. Likewise, in ‘Lenin and the
Russian Revolution,’ Hill alludes to the class consciousness during the February Revolution, which
Lenin later on exploited in organising the October Revolution, as well as the First World War. These
events are explained to be interconnected.
Right from the beginning, Hill clearly shows awareness of the role of the February Revolution in
which ‘Russian people dethroned the Tsar’1 and the First World War, in causing the October
Revolution. If we take a look at the socioeconomic composition of Russia under the Tsarist regime,
around 80% of the Russian population belonged to the peasant class and only 6% consisted of the
middle and working class. Power was concentrated in the hands of a minority, while the majority
1
Hill, C., Lenin and the Russian Revolution, Page 3, Chapter 1
, had extremely limited rights and property. Hill correctly states that ‘The Russian proletariat…
rapidly came to consciousness of itself in conditions most favourable… of a mass revolutionary
movement’2, which follows nicely in line with Marxist ideology; a worker’s revolution would take
place to overthrow capitalism. From here, Hill’s main argument centres around the appeal of Lenin’s
policies towards a mass population now interested in the politics of their country. Following the
abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, Lenin returned to Russia, where there was an opportunity for him to
rise to power. Lenin’s strategy can be seen as successful. The peasantry made up approximately 82%
of the Soviet Union’s population in 1917, and gaining their support was a priority. Hill explains how
the exploitation of ‘less fortunate neighbours’3 by the Kulaks meant that poorer peasants were
‘ready to follow the middle-class lead’4. Hence Lenin introduced his April Theses in 1917, advocating
for land redistribution. As a result of Lenin’s actions, resistance was encouraged against the
prominent capitalism in the countryside which would have been popular with the majority of poorer
peasants, incentivising support to be drawn towards the Bolshevik Party. From this, an inference of
the importance of the people is also briefly highlighted, however, this aspect of Hill’s argument
revolves around the idea that it was Lenin who exploited the opportunity to mobilise them, leading
to the cause of the 1917 Revolution. It is noticeable that Hill had included fairly limited criticisms of
Lenin, limiting the credibility of his account. The effectiveness of Lenin’s analysis and organisation in
the lead up to the revolution was praised to be ‘remarkable’5, with Hill stating how Lenin clearly
understood the ‘agrarian problem’6 and used Soviets as ‘platforms for protests and [spreading]
propaganda’7. However, I understand the Bolsheviks to be less structurally organised than
traditionally accepted. In 1917, around 82% of the population were peasants living in the
countryside, many lacking any formal education. It would have been challenging for the spreading of
propaganda to have had much of a significant effect on a population that only had a 50% literacy
rate. Moreover, peasant revolts and petitions resulted in the tactical adjustment of the April Thesis
and subsequent pronouncements on land ownership. Such adjustments would not have been seen
as inline with Marxist collectivism, a clear indicator of the bottom-up influence mentioned. Hill later
on also refers to the war, which only ‘acted as an accelerator in the development of such
revolutionary crisis’8, in the sense that the war was a short-term trigger that only exposed many of
Russia’s internal weaknesses already present. This deviates from traditional Marxist ideology, which
mainly focuses on the long term. Taking this into account, Hill viewed the World War to have had an
undeniable impact on the revolution, adding a degree of validity to his argument. Without it, the
state may not have crumbled in the same manner. With the input of new problems arising from the
war, most notably inflation, protests from the masses increased on a large scale. Russia’s response
to the war majorly impacted national politics, resulting in the division of parties of the left, and
leaving those opposing the war and the Provisional Government to be led by the Bolshevik party.
Overall, Hill views the causes of the Russian Revolution to have stemmed from the war and the rise
of class consciousness which provided Lenin with an opportune time to exploit the support of the
masses. While Lenin presented as crucial in causing the Revolution by Hill being relatively true, the
failure to acknowledge the potential weaknesses in the Party renders the account to be lacking in
some respects. Therefore, one would be gullible to fully accept Hill’s Marxist view of the causes of
the Russian Revolution of 1917 to be highly convincing, as he had not expressed this aspect in much
depth, or at all.
Leonard Schapiro (Liberal)
2
Hill, C., Lenin and the Russian Revolution, Page 7, Chapter 1
3
Hill, C., Lenin and the Russian Revolution, Page 87, Chapter 4
4
Hill, C., Lenin and the Russian Revolution, Page 87, Chapter 4
5
Hill, C., Lenin and the Russian Revolution, Page 95, Chapter 4
6
Hill, C., Lenin and the Russian Revolution, Page 83, Chapter 4
7
Hill, C., Lenin and the Russian Revolution, Page 104, Chapter 5
8
Hill, C., Lenin and the Russian Revolution, Page 11, Chapter 1
