Reviews for The Russian Revolution

The average rating for The Russian Revolution based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-03-11 00:00:00 Kathleen G Dreusike This is a critical but not "commie-bashing" view of the leading up to and implementation of the Russian revolution. It's a quick, coherent read. I liked it. Leninists wouldn't. Stalinists would hate it. Here's what I wrote for class: Fitzpatrick articulates tThe major impediment the Bolsheviks had to grapple with in the lead up to the revolution, and between February and October of 1917, was the teleological nature of Marxism. As capitalism was not well-established in Russia they believed it was necessary for a revolution of the bourgeoisie to take place first in order to bring about widespread capitalism. Only then could a working class revolution occur to implement socialism and then communism. Yet events did not unfold in that manner. In the face of a teetering Provisional Government, a right-wing coup attempt and an increasingly militant and independently-mobilizing working class, the Bolsheviks had to act. After an internal debate, they opted for insurrection. Once they became the majority party in the soviets, they also had the legitimacy needed to act. In overthrowing the Provisional Government they either carried out a coup (Fitzpatrick) or defended the revolution against liberal and right-wing betrayal (Deutscher). Now in power, the Bolsheviks consolidated their rule, creating not a dictatorship of the proletariat but a dictatorship of the Bolshevik party, most of whom were part of the proletariat. They were forced to grapple with maintaining and expanding the revolution in the midst of World War One, fighting a civil war, dealing with economic distress and the realization that proletarian revolution in Europe was not right around the corner. This resulted in the New Economic Policy, followed by Stalin's industrialization drive in order to establish socialism "in one country," an effort to ensure Russia's independence, sustainability and progress toward socialism in a time when no other socialist revolutions seemed likely. It also meant a vicious crackdown on opponents outside of the party, a stifling of intra-party dissent, and a tremendous toll on the peasantry in the seemingly never-ending quest for grain, workers, and socialism.

Review # 2 was written on 2017-11-25 00:00:00 Derek Ferrari Although Sheila Fitzpatrick does not speak as a socialist or leftist, she is definitely not malicious towards the Soviet history and her approach is scientific (I can't say ''neutral'', because such a thing in my opinion does not exist). There are interpretive lines with which I disagree (she repeats the story that the Bolshevik takeover was a coup d'etat, there is also too simplistic equalization of party discipline and unity with authoritarian tendencies, she develops a theses of the continuity between Lenin and Stalin etc.) But actually much can be learned from the book and it's very interesting author's reference to the complexity of the situation (for example with regard to the structure of the Bolshevik Party which was not at all homogeneous and in its dynamics showed variations of the stand and the heterogeneous internal factions etc.)