Many historians argue over the main causes of the Russian Revolution 1917

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Abstract
The 1917 Russian Revolution is a 20th-century event that transformed not only Russia’s future but also that of the world. The causes of this revolution remain to be a topic of discussion among historians. This paper uses different History books to analyze the views of Soviet, libertarian, liberal and revisionist historians regarding the causes of the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Soviet historians believe that the Bolshevik party, whose leader was Lenin, was the leading cause of the revolution. Lenin mobilized the masses and influenced them to resist a corrupt government. On the other hand, Libertarians believe that peasants, soldiers and ordinary workers started a revolution for their interest which included the need for self-management at the factories and necessary provisions. Further, according to liberal historians, World War I, the post-1905 emergence of a liberal democracy along Western ideals and a well-organized Bolshevik group, contributed to the revolution. Finally, this research indicates that the revisionists argue that the revolution was as a result of structural changes, Bolshevism, Russia’s polarization and the fall of the Tsarist regime.
Keywords: 1917 Russian Revolution, Soviet, libertarian, liberal, revisionist, Bolshevik

The Primary Causes of the Russian Revolution 1917
Introduction
The 1917 Russian Revolution refers to a 20th-century uprising that ended the Romano and Russian Imperial dynasties but paved the way for the rise of Bolshevism.

This event not only transformed Russia but also significantly shaped Europe and the world at large. Just like any other generation, historians also rewrite their history by reflecting on shared attitudes and values. As a result, historians have formed different perspectives and approaches on various historical issues, such as the contributing factors to the Russian Revolution. The causes of the Russian Revolution have created a serious and fierce debate among historians since each has their unique philosophical background, which shapes their view (Philips pg.104). These historians have argued on the leading causes of the 1917 Russian Revolution, using different schools of thought, namely, the libertarian, Soviet, liberal, and revisionist views.
The Libertarian View
The discussion on the libertarian view of the Russian Revolution is based on the book “Revolution in Russia: Reassessments of 1917” written by Edith Frankel, Baruch Knei-Paz, and Jonathan Frankel. The book is a compilation of essays by different scholars who contribute vital information regarding the events that led to the Russian Revolution of 1917.
The Loss of Liberty as a Result of Oppressive Rulers
Libertarians understand that human potential for individual fulfillment as well as social harmony caused the 1917 revolution. Arguably, both men and women are capable of aspiring for mutual cooperation and a measure of creativity if only they can overthrow all forms of oppression. Libertarians pay particular attention to the economic oppression as well as the exploitation of man to man which cause all other forms of oppression. Frankel et al. explain “the root of economic oppression, in the libertarian view, lies in the ‘relations of production’ in the way in which individuals and groups relate with one another in the process of producing wealth.” However, the problem arises during power distribution. Division in the society begins when those who produce wealth are subordinated by those who manage production as Frankel et al. explain in their book (pg.389). Thus, oppression can seize to exist through the self-management of those who create wealth.
Ordinary Men, Women, and Peasants Participated in the Revolution for Personal Interests
Contrary to the liberal and Soviet views, libertarians pay specific attention to the ordinary women and men, peasants, sailors and soldiers and not Lenin, Trotsky, Miliukov, and Kerensky in an attempt to understand the leading causes of the Russian Revolution of 1917. These individuals joined the revolution not because political parties influenced them but because of their personal goals. Libertarians argue that the ordinary people joined the movement as a response to the fulfillment of individual aspirations. According to the book by Frankel et al., peasants, soldiers, and workers in Russia felt oppressed by the Russian elites who managed production (pg.389). Therefore, they resorted to forming groups that fought against their oppression at the workplace. They wanted to adopt a system of self-management. This team wanted to be treated as autonomous and shown concern for human dignity. Additionally, libertarians believe that the ordinary Russian people revolted with the aim of gaining independence and a sense of direction. Workers, in the company of their wives and children, started to demonstrate on the streets with soldiers for lack of basic provisions and hunger. The masses also wanted the government to end the ongoing war and Tsarist regime which was responsible for the starvation and difficult life among the peasants and soldiers noted in the book by Frankel et al. (pg. 398).
The libertarian school primarily focuses on understanding the causes of the Russian Revolution in 1917 by analyzing the peasants and industrial workers and the extent to which they could control their lives. Case in point, Frankel et al. explored the causes of Bolshevik authoritarianism in attempt to support their argument that the party comprised of intellectual employees who were entirely different from the mass of industrial workers. Hence, the new class of intellectuals joined forces with the middle-ranking bureaucrats who belonged to the old Tsarist regime to form a new class that controlled both peasants and industrial workers. This force resulted in the development of a ruling class that treated both peasants and industrial workers the same way as before which led to the division between the industrial workers and the new Bolshevik government. Frankel et al. state “the intelligentsia sought through superior organizations and articulacy to draw a rigid line between manual and intellectual labor” (pg.398) Thus, the libertarians conclude that liberty was lost in Russian when the revolution exchanged a set of oppressive rulers for another.
Workers Demanded Better Working Conditions
Factory committees sprang up after the February Revolution in response to workers’ complaints against unfavorable working conditions. Workers initiated these committees for several reasons. First, they wanted to curb Tsarist governance in the factory which was authoritarian. Second, workers wanted to end the assaults that violated their human dignity. Lastly, the committees were established to create a platform where workers could express their interests and receive a positive as Frankel et al. explain (pg.393). Therefore, this panel was a body that played a vital role minimizing industrial chaos and creating the need for coordination and cooperation between the management and employees. Libertarians, therefore, believe that the factory committees were established to stop industrial mess due to poor working conditions that caused employees to revolt.
Russians Were against a Tsarist Society
The adoption of capitalism in Russia had eventually paved the way for a rise in a third-class which consisted of people who commanded knowledge that was either punished or rewarded for its ability to select priorities and define values. Some of the members of this group supported bureaucrats while others were concerned with the “marginal intelligentsia” who belonged to the Tsarist society. Notably, this team shared similar interests which were to forcefully modernize backward Russia and have power monopoly over wealth distribution in the society. The intelligentsia, therefore, worked towards ensuring that the old regime was dismantled entirely. The libertarians argue that the new class used superior organizations as well as articulacy means to create a rift between intellectual and manual labor. This new group of intelligent employees exploited peasants and workers even more than Western capitalists, thus, causing a revolt. The widening gap between the white-collar and blue-collar employees was a strong indication of the authoritarian nature of the ruling regime which Frankel et al. explain was “a reign of scientific intelligence-the most oppressive, arrogant and scornful of all regimes’ (pg.399).
Hence, libertarian historians hold the opinion that the ordinary people who included male and female workers, soldiers and soldiers were solely responsible for the causation of the Russian Revolution of 1917. They reject the arguments of Soviet and liberal historians since they believe the masses started the revolution in an attempt to accomplish their own goals which included a change in the current regime, to get provisions such as food and good working conditions, and to attain independence at the workplace through self-management.
Soviet View on the Main Causes of Russian Revolution of 1917
The analysis of the Soviet view of the Russian revolution is primarily based on the book “The Russian Revolution” by Sheila Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick has spent many years writing an analysis of the Soviet Union and Russia. In this book, she presents information regarding Lenin as an influential leader of the Bolshevik Party and why the Russian Revolution occurred.
Soviet historians have a different view of the revolution compared to the liberals and libertarians. Soviet school of thought present arguments which justify that it was indeed essential for the revolution to occur and to celebrate the triumph of communism. Furthermore, these historians focused on understanding the political nature of Bolshevik Party. They majorly provide evidence that strongly supports Bolshevik values as well as statements which reveal their sympathy to the party. According to this school of thought, Lenin and the Bolsheviks spearhead the Russian Revolution of 1917 as representatives of the working masses. The party and Lenin efforts helped to overthrow a bourgeois government that was corrupt. Hence, the Russian Revolution was an inevitable movement.
The Return of Bolshevik Leaders from Exile
A Soviet historian such as Sheila Fitzpatrick believes that the Russian Revolution of 1917 was caused by the return of Bolshevik leaders such as Lenin, Molotov, and Stalin who were against the Russian war as indicated in her book (Fitzpatrick pg.50). While the Soviet Union majorly focused on creating social unity as well as critical support for the new government, Lenin did not even acknowledge the February achievement, and he looked forward to overthrowing the bourgeoisie government that was corrupt. Unfortunately, Soviet leadership could not stand firm on their principles, hence succumbed to bourgeoisie influence. While most politicians took pride in associating themselves with the Soviet as an indication of promoting socialist unity, Lenin made attempts to expand the Bolshevik Party which continued to rise in popularity. By the beginning of 1917, he had influenced many members to join the group. The party was popular at the grassroots which included committees of soldiers, armed forces, worker’s factory committees as well as the local district Soviets. People joined the party despite the fact that its leader was a minority at the Congress of Soviets and it was still an informal movement that had not registered for massive recruitment of members. By the February Revolution, Bolshevik members had reached 24,000. “…a total of 350,000 members, including 60,000 in Petrograd and the surrounding provinces” had joined the revolution by October 1917 as noted in Fitzpatrick’s book (pg.53).
The Resistance of a Bourgeois Provisional Government and the Continuation of the Russian War
Petrograd Soviet pressurized the Provisional Government to end the ongoing war in Russia which was not only affecting the economy but also causing massive loss of lives. At the start of 1917, over 7 million men were armed with 2 million others being located in reserve. The February revolution by the Soviet gave hope to the soldiers, who comprised of peasants and a small portion of workers that the war would come to an end. Revolutionary leaders made these group of soldiers believe that the Provisional government belonged to the class of “masters” while their interests matched those of Petrograd Soviet and workers. Thus, Soviets managed to create antagonism between the soldiers and the government which continued to the resistance of the bourgeois Provisional Government. During the February Revolution, peasants, workers, and soldiers complained of a bad economy that was causing hunger, low wages, unemployment and long working hours that Fitzpatrick states “ which the Provisional Government rejected on the grounds of the wartime emergency” (pg.53).
The revolution gained power the moment the peasant’s soldiers stepped in to fight the German army which had weakened the Russian military and was taking over. This move undermined the Provisional Government’s credit and increased tension between the military leaders and the government. Lenin and other leaders took advantage of the situation to mobilize his members for demonstrations against the ruling regime under the slogan “All power to the Soviets” as stated in Fitzpatrick’s book (pg.64). Bolsheviks marched peacefully on the streets holding banners since Lenin had warned his members against handling the Present Soviet or the Provisional Government violently. Nevertheless, Lenin’s strategy to overthrow the current regime failed since the plan was ineffective.
Bolsheviks’ Plan to Control Russia
Soviet historians believe that Lenin started a revolution in Russia not only to resist governance by the current regime but to also overthrow it and take control. The party leaders aimed to ensure that workers had control in industries. Lenin’s plan was effected when Bolshevik Central Committee accepted Lenin’s request to cause an uprising that would result in the peaceful transfer of power. A successful coup in October 1917 by the party occurred to dual power ownership between the Bolshevik Party and the Petrograd Soviet. Fitzpatrick notes that despite the fact that other historians believe that the party intended to share power with the Soviet, she believes that Lenin expected the power to be transferred solely to Bolshevik Party. For this plan to succeed without causing chaos or resistance Fitzpatrick explains “He did not even want to use the Soviets as camouflage, but would apparently have preferred to stage an unambiguous coup” (pg.65). It is for this reason that Lenin was able to be selected as the leader of the new government while Trotsky as the Minister of Foreign Affairs was given to Trotsky. Soviet historians believed that the Bolsheviks did not have a problem with the Soviet having control at the local level if they were reliably Bolshevik. However, it is evidently clear that Soviet views on the primary causes of the Russian Revolution of 1917 are not very convincing since revisionists argue that the Bolshevik Party did not have widespread support as well as the mass agency.
Liberal View
The liberal view is represented in this book (“Lenin and the Russian Revolution”) by Steve Philips. Philips has a rich history of analyzing Russia’s history, and for this reason, he presented an unbiased view of key Russian facts. His book focuses on different perspectives regarding the history of Russia.
This school of thought was the most dominant approach used by historians for many years up until 1970. According to liberal historians, the primary cause of the Russian Revolution was World War I. Philips notes that “to the optimists (liberals), what destabilized the regime was the World War” (pg.105). These historians argue that the war significantly contributed to the collapse of the Tsarist regime and subsequently led to political extremes, such as Bolshevism. World War I caused unrest, which resulted in the revolution, due to food shortages and economic turmoil. The war further created a revolutionary feeling as it polarized the society. That is, because of the war, the societal classes began demanding and developing feelings of resentment, which later led to the revolution. For example, while the lower-class citizens required a share of noble estates, the working class became frustrated as the Tsarist regime restricted the formation of trade unions. What is worse, the administration introduced agricultural reforms, which further worsened the situation. From a liberal perspective, the revolution occurred because whenever a society suffers defeat or experiences destruction while having a group with some power, a revolution will most likely happen. Therefore, the liberal historians maintain that the 1917 revolution was a spontaneous upheaval that lacked organization.
Furthermore, the liberal historians view the post-1905 emergence of a liberal democracy along Western ideals, as another factor that led to the revolution. Various Russian liberal historians support this viewpoint. For instance, Philips posits “not surprisingly, P. Miliukov and M. Florinsky”, use their works to argue that the 1917 revolution represented a departure from their version of development. L. Schapiro and H. Seton-Watson also hold the same view as their colleagues (pg.105). Thus, from a liberal viewpoint, the 1917 Russian Revolution emerged due to Western influences on Russia.
According to these historians, Bolshevism was not the primary cause of the revolution. Liberal historians argue that the Russian Revolution emerged as a product of a resilient and brutal organization that took advantage of the October 1917 situation. “When considering the October Revolution, the liberal school vigorously disputes…that the Revolution was a popular rising” (Philips pg.111). These historians hold that the Russian Revolution was not inevitable as Vladimir Lenin used his personality and political capabilities to empower the Bolsheviks. In other words, because of Lenin, the Bolsheviks grew from a small group into a superior and well-organized organization, which seized power forcefully from the chaos of World War I. For example, Richard Pipes (one of the liberal historians), claims that Lenin significantly contributed to the unrest by taking a chance to encourage the Bolsheviks to seize power. According to these historians, Lenin argued that it was the Bolsheviks’ right to gain power (Philips pg.111). For this reason, liberal historians consider the Russian Revolution as an unavoidable rather than popular rising. The revolution arose due to the chaotic scene in 1917 and Lenin’s skills, which made the Bolsheviks powerful.
Additionally, liberal historians hold that the Bolsheviks also used manipulation to cause the revolution. The Bolsheviks relied on their growing power to manipulate the masses into creating the upheaval. It was easy for the Bolsheviks to manipulate the masses as they were not only ignorant but also unreasonable, radical and passive in their actions and demands. As Philips notes “where support is evident, it is viewed as due largely to the political backwardness of the peasants and workers” (pg.111). This manipulation made the Bolsheviks stronger and weakened the democratic provisional Russian administration, paving the way for the revolution. In particular, the manipulation and unrealistic demands from the peasantry created challenges, which the Russian government could not manage (Philips pg.111). Therefore, from a liberal perspective, the 1917 Russian Revolution was not democratic nor popular, but rather a well-organized effort by the Bolsheviks to seize and retain power.
Unlike other historians, the liberal historians do not consider revolutionary groups to have been the primary cause of the Russian Revolution. The revolutionaries played no role in the revolution as the Tsarist regime made considerable progress between 1905 and 1914. “Liberal historians have traditionally been classes as ‘optimists’ who see the Tsarist regime in the years 1905-1914” (Philips pg.104). This development led to significant reforms and modernization, which made the government more resilient, thereby limiting the force of revolutionary groups. A. Gerschenkron is an example of a liberal historian that supports this standpoint in some of his articles and books (Philips pg.105). From Gerschenkron’s perspective, the Tsarist regime achieved stability by developing efficient repression machinery, minimizing opposition and increasing Russia’s economic performance and growth. For example, Gerschenkron notes that the Stolypin land reforms helped thwart peasants’ efforts to join revolutionary groups (Philips pg.105). Consequently, this success and reforms reduced the probability of revolution for the Russian revolutionaries, while discouraging the outlook for change among numerous intellectuals and encouraging indifference among laborers.
Liberal historians have been categorized as optimistic because of the approach they have taken to assess the contributing factors to the Russian Revolution. These historians were under the influence of the dominant Western culture, which shaped the liberals’ view of religious and political liberty. Moreover, the liberal school of thought often interprets history as a phenomenon that occurs ‘from above.’ That is, liberal historians, pay attention to the role that prominent people have in historical events. Case in point, liberals have focused on the contribution of Lenin and other characters to the 1917 Russian Revolution.
Revisionist View
Apart from the book by Steve Philips, Nikolas K. Gvosdev and Brian D. Taylor also present the revisionist view in their works. Gvosdev’s book is a collection of different works by historians, which focuses on events in the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1991. The 1917 Russian Revolution is one of the events covered in this book. On the other hand, Taylor’s book assesses the role of the Russian military in political events. It finds out that the Russian armed forces might have contributed to the Russian Revolution.
Revisionist historians also take a unique neo-populist social approach to explain the causes of the Russian Revolution. According to this plan, structural changes within the society may have been responsible for upheavals, such as the Russian Revolution. “Revisionist’s emphasis has been on structural changes in society” (Philips pg.113). When looking at the 1917 Russian Revolution, revisionist historians argue that trade unions played a pivotal role in the emergence of the revolution. For example, revisionists like D. Mandel and H. Hogan argue that industrial workers and their unions could have supported revolutionary change due to the influence that Bolsheviks had over them (Philips pg.113). Similarly, research by other revisionist historians might have caused the revolution by supporting the Bolsheviks. In particular, S.A. Smith notes that employees’ demands, which were mainly economic, might have created a revolutionary feeling within the society. However, these revisionist historians also indicate that trade unions could have fought radical reforms and focus on capitalism, depending on social factors, such as education, level of skills and the type of industry. Consequently, according to these historians, the fall of communism and the rise of a capitalist democracy were not responsible for the revolution. The revisionists also maintain that it is misleading to assume that all workers formed a joint group, with similar interests that encouraged its members to join revolutionary organizations (Philips pg.113). Therefore, according to the revisionist school of thought, the 1917 Russian Revolution might have been a revolution resulting from the grassroots. In other words, the 1917 scene was a revolution that emerged from below.
These historians also claim that the Bolsheviks caused the Russian Revolution, but differently from what other historians presented. According to revisionist historians, the Bolsheviks played a role in the revolution by articulating revolutionary attitudes within laborers, rather than creating them. “What they were good at doing was making their aims coincide with those of the workers and peasants” (Philips pg.114). In other words, the Bolsheviks perfected the art of aligning their intentions with those of laborers and the peasantry. For instance, the Bolsheviks maintained healthy relations with the Russian public and continuously altered their strategies to meet their wishes. Nevertheless, revisionists maintain that this role was not that crucial since the Bolsheviks did not have unity or discipline as people thought. Case in point, as the Bolsheviks increased their membership in 1917, ex-SRs and ex-Mensheviks enrolled and came with disparate ideas, which further divided the group (Philips pg.114). The Bolsheviks’ leadership also had noticeable divisions, especially with regards to strategy, as the leaders differed on how to cause the revolution. The organization also faced problems, such as irregular and unreliable communication networks.
Despite these challenges, the Bolsheviks enjoyed considerable and growing support from the Soviets, which assisted them to play a role in the revolution (Philips pg.114). In fact, some revisionist historians like Professor Alexander Rabinowitch argue that the masses manipulated Bolsheviks and not the other way around. “The Bolsheviks were manipulated by them” (Gvosdev pg.97). Therefore, like the liberal historians, the revisionists believe that Lenin’s skills were crucial to the rise of the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks relied on the support from the Soviets and ability to take advantage of opportunities to cause the revolution.
Revisionist historians additionally argue that Russia’s polarization contributed to the revolution. “Recent so-called “revisionist” history has further demonstrated that the Russian state…The Russian society was dangerously polarized between the upper and lower classes in a manner that became evident in 1917” (Taylor pg.68). According to these historians, the Russian community experienced significant polarization between its societal classes, which later came to light in 1917. These historians also note that World War I further worsened this polarization, but did not cause it nor the revolution. Nonetheless, revisionists argue that the polarization within Russia was so high that it led to some events, which made the Tsarist regime weak (Taylor pg.68). Consequently, the revolution was bound to happen. One of the events that emerged and contributed to the Russian Revolution was internal conflict. Strikes took place before the revolution (1912 to 1914), as well as at the eve of the revolution (1916 to 1917), which weakened the Tsarist regime. Besides that, peasant unrest was also evident in 1917, which signaled the revolutionary feeling among the masses. Before the revolution, there had been few political unrests, but after demonstrating, the peasants felt that they had received justice, particularly in the ownership of property (Taylor pg.70). Therefore, according to revisionist historians, the 1917 Russian Revolution emerged because of Russia’s polarization and the masses’ response toward it. This factor appears to be a political aspect since it made the Tsarist regime increasingly unpopular and unable to engage in war or dispel rumors of treason.
Another cause of the 1917 Russian Revolution was the fall of the Tsarist regime. “The thesis that czarism was destined to fall from social strife was first advanced…at the dawn of the revisionist movement” (Gvosdev pg.95). Various revisionist historians, led by Leopold Haimson argue that once it was apparent that Tsarism was failing, the Russian masses began developing revolutionary feelings. Haimson claims that before the start of World War I, Tsarist’s industrial and urban centers were already disintegrating to the point that a revolution was imminent. This revisionist uses the increasing rate of industrial strikes to support his claim that Russia could not escape a revolution. Haimson’s view came just as the revisionist movement was commencing (Gvosdev pg.95). However, traditionalist historians dispute this claim by stating that despite that the industrial strikes occurred, they did not indicate social destabilization and thus, were not causes of the 1917 Russian Revolution. The traditionalist historians argue that the West also experienced similar strikes, but no revolution (Gvosdev pg.95). As a result, other historians maintain that while it might be normal for one to connect the strikes to the revolution, revisionist historians hold a logically incorrect assumption.
The revisionist argument on the primary causes of the 1917 Russian Revolution represents a departure from viewing the revolution as a product of the Tsarist regime, the Bolsheviks and the intelligent democratic community, which had the mandate to govern the state, but failed.
Conclusion
An analysis of different historical literature leads to the conclusion that the causes of the Russian Revolution of 1917 vary depending on the view of various historians. Soviet historians seek to understand the political nature of Bolshevik Party and applaud the revolution. They firmly believe that Lenin intended to lead the masses against a corrupt ruling regime. Liberals, on the contrary, think that the revolution was as a result of Lenin’s desire to overthrow the ruling government and take over the country as a dictator. Libertarians also hold a different view of events that led to the Russian Revolution of 1917. These historians believe that the masses were responsible for the revolution. The ordinary workers, soldiers, and peasants were already tired of the government which did little to end the war, ensure the public had necessary provisions and created a favorable working environment. Therefore, they started a revolution for their gains. Lastly, revisionist historians criticize both the works of liberals and soviets by using historical scholarly research. Revisionists support the idea that Lenin chiefly influenced the revolution since he commanded a huge following.

Works Cited
Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Russian Revolution. 2nd ed., New York, 2001.
Frankel, Edith R, et al. Revolution in Russia: Reassessments of 1917. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Gvosdev, Nikolas K. The Strange Death of Soviet Communism: A Postscript. Routledge, 2017.
Phillips, Steve. Lenin and the Russian Revolution. Vol. 12000. Heinemann, 2000.
Taylor, Brian D. Politics, and the Russian Army: Civil-Military Relations, 1689-2000. Cambridge University Press, 2003.