Talk:October Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia Portal
October Revolution is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
October Revolution is part of WikiProject Soviet Union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Soviet Union. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the class scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Date

The traditional date for this event is October 25th of 1917 (Julian calendar), by the Gregorian calendar (adopted after the Revolution) it´s November 7. There´s no doubt about it, and all references agree.Freivolk 02:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Films

I'v removed the sentence ", more Russians were killed in the film than in the actual storming of the Winter Palace," because the title of "the film" is never mentioned. Provided this is supplied, however, this fact is appropriate to mention, I think. --209.43.8.17 04:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviets

What's clearly missing here is any discussion of the "Soviets", translated from the Russian meaning "councils", local community assemblies of people. The Soviets first emerged during the 1905 revolution. In 1917 this tradition reemerged after the February revolution which erupted on International Womens Day in 1917. These institutions developed into expressions of "dual power" with the "Provisional Government" that came to power after the abdiction of Nicholas II in February 1917. Initially, the Soviets were a somewhat modest and conservative force while machinations were underway as to the character of the Provional Government, initially under Prince Lvov. Thereafter, as the horrors of World War I continued to accumulate, the Soviets came more under the influence of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Majority "Bolshevik"). Nonetheless, In October 1917, a congress (or convention) of the Councils of Workers and Soldiers Deputies convened in St. Petersburg (aka Leningrad) initially under the influence of the Russian Social Democartic Labor Party (Minority "Menshevik"). Kerensky, an attorney, from the right wing faction of the Social Revolutionary Pary ("SRs"), replaced Prince Lvov as Prime Minister. As losses and hardship mounted, radicalization escalated resulting in the the Left Wing SRs (a rural peasant, or farmer, based party with certain roots in the radical Narodnoki, "People's Will" student movement of the late 19th Century), tied in with the Anarchists, also emerged further, as did a radical faction of the Mensheviks under Julius Martov and Leon Trotsky.

When the Second All Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers and Soldiers Deputies convened in Petrograd in October 1917. (more later, see "Ten Days That Shook the World" by John Reed).

[edit] Usage of "coup"

Clearly not a NPOV - nonsensical to describe the Bolshevik seizure of power as a 'coup' (i.e. seizure of power by an unrepresentative clique). The Bolshevik party had gained majorities in the Soviets, and Russia was in a state of revolutionary ferment. Suggest the use of a neutral term such as "uprising" or "insurgency". ( left by user:Jonesy, 02:05, March 8, 2004)

Until 1930s bolshevik's offical term was "October Coup" - Октябрьский переворот. Mikkalai 17:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The word "переворот" has a lot of meanings. It is a literal translation of Latin "revolutio": "re-" - "пере-"; "volvere" - "вращать", "воротить". --Achp ru 13:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
From what I've gathered through various sources the Bolsheviks were a "unrepresentitive clique". It certainly is true that revolutionary thought was widespread, but most people were not Bolsheviks, most people were much more moderate, more represented by some factions of the Whites (which consisted of many non-royalist socialists), and even the Menshevik wing of the Reds were actually, despite the name given to them by the Bolsheviks were actually a majority of Red supporters (they were called "minority" because they were a minority of the top-tier leadership, but who nonetheless enjoyed the support of most rank-and-file party members.)--Brentt 04:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fluid speaker of russian, but I'm fairly sure that term can mean revolution as well as coup. At least, that's what it said when I looked it up in my dictionary to be sure. Even if they did call it a coup, I believe that's the wrong word to use - after all, the power was given to the second all-russian soviet congress, which had several parties. That most of the opposing parties chose to withdraw was their decision, but it's not a coup if those behind don't take power for themselves. I've seen nothing to suggest that the social revolutionists and menscheviks were forced out of the congress.

Another note: After visiting wikipedias article on "coup", I find that it says that in a coup the political system is not radically changed, it's just that the existing elite is replaced by a new elite. I think it's safe to say that the political system WAS radically changed by the October Revolution, and with this in mind I believe the term should be changed to either "uprising" or "insurgency". If noone objects, I'll do this when I get time. (unsigned by anon 23:21, July 26, 2005)

Of course, informally "revolution" and "coup" are interchangeable. Wikipedia coup article splits hair and I am not shure whether in a commonly acceptable and absolutely decisive way. I will look into this. mikka (t) 01:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

(Me again). During the October (November) 1917 events, the Bolsheviks did not take power for themselves, but they did change the system radically. Considering those 2 things, I fail to see how it could be a coup in any definition. They did gradually take complete control of the new system, but it was not by way of an "October Coup". If they had banned the other parties right away it would have been a different matter, but that didn't happen until after certain later events.

(Me one last time). Coup changed to insurgency since no new arguments have been brought to light.

Reverted. "Insurgency" is completely improper in this context. Provisional government was something very weak. It was hit from both sides: monarchists and bolsheviks. What bolsheviks did in October was it all respects similar to a palace coup: they simply beheaded the state. Concerning the formal applicability, you are advised to know that before the October there country was in the state of so-called "double power" ("dvoevlastie"): upper echelon was Provisionary Government, local power mostly in the hands of Soviets. And the majority in Soviets were Mensheviks, by the way. And this is a traditionally used term, although criticized. And FYI, Lenin was very smart in political terminology and certainly knew the difference between words "revolution" (революция) and coup (переворот), and he used the latter term: "Oktyabrski perevorot"

So please stop playing semantic games. mikka (t) 22:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yet another time. Your translation is not correct. The Latin word "re-volutio" literally translates into English "over-turn" and Russian "пере-ворот". "Переворот" has a lot of senses, not only political, by the way: a physical exercise on horizontal bar is called "переворот" (because the body "переворачивается", gets overturned), and in geology "переворот" means "cataclysm".
In social life and politics, the word "переворот" has a broader meaning than just "coup". Yes, the word "coup" translates into "переворот", but the opposite is not necessarily true. Consider sentence "глубокий переворот в жизни общества". Can you translate it into English as "profound coup in the social life"? Sounds silly, doesn't it? In fact, the word "переворот" not only includes "coup", but also "revolution", "overturn", "social upheaval".
Why did Bolsheviks use the word "переворот"? Their propaganda addressed people of labour, workers and peasants, of whom many couldn't even read, and for whom the sense of strange Latin-rooted "революция" would be obscure. The Slavic-rooted "переворот" would be most clear for everyone.
--Achp ru 05:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a long standing rule of historical research to treat terms not only in their proper/modern context, but in their contemporary one as well. In order to avoid confusion, I suggest usig "переворот" in the way it was used by Trotsky (for example in his History of Russian Revolution, (non-Russian speakers may refer to the to London 1933 edition) meaning "insurrection", or "armed uprising" a term totally compatible with Bolshevik and later Communist phraseology and rhetoric until the mid-30s. What is more, it is also entirely in accordance with Marxist-Leninist theory on Revolution, its stages and agents. GeorgiosKR

Concerning the majority in the Soviets, I have to remind the previous editor that the Bolshevik party enjoyed a complete majority in the Petrograd Soviet after the deputies reelections in fall 1917. Patterns of the spread of the Revolution also indicate quite clearly the Bolshevik party enjoyed a majority in the Central Industrial Region in the North and East of Moscow and in the Urals. It also has to be noted that wherever Bolsheviks did not have a clear majority, they had little trouble obtaining it after the 25th October Manifesto was distributed (I am not suggesting a causal relationship, merely providing a temporal milestone); see for example the central Volga river cities (Kazan, Samara, Saratov) and Vladimir and Tver in the CIR. GeorgiosKR

While true that the Bolshevik party was strong in Petrograd, nationally it was a distant third among the radical parties. THe Socialist Revolutionaries and Mesheviks were far larger. 24.94.232.13 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Martin

[edit] Section: Criticism of October Revolution

IMO this section is out of topic. THis criticism is related to the Sovieu Union or Communism or whatever, but it cannot be criticim of an event. How can you criticise an event? You can criticize opinions, not facts. I say, this section must be moved into a more appropriate article (although I strongly suspect that the "appropriate articles" are full of criticism already, so just delete). Mikkalai 17:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed (its copy is below). Please find an appropriate place for it. One cannot criticize history. Mikkalai 00:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree very much. I am sorry, I didn't notice your note above of January 16th. I could have deleted it myself, instead of putting time into stupid work. /Tuomas 00:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Bolshevik Revolution

For many Western Conservatives and Liberals, the Bolshevik Revolution marked a threatening development, potentially the first step towards world revolution In their eyes, the Bolshevik Revolution echoed the atrocities of the French Revolution and signified the rise of what former U.S. President Ronald Reagan ultimately called an "evil empire". Conservatives, Liberals, and many Social Democrats saw this regime as one that needed to be rolled back if Western democracies, or the Free World, were to survive. This was maybe most clearly expressed by ardent Anti-communists of authoritarian, semi-fascist, fascist, and nazi organisations, who considered democracy and parliamentarism as the first steps on the roads towards Communism. Such organizations came to play political roles in the neighbouring countries but also in Hungary, Croatia, Italy, Germany, and Spain; however, ardent anti-communism occured also in for instance Britain, France, and Scandinavia.

The victorious WWII alliance between the Soviet Union and UK/US led to a brief reverse of anti-communism, that however soon would be restored by the Cold War and McCarthyism. During the Cold War, the components of geo-political competition between the Soviet Union and the US-led Western World was combined with the previous more ideological aversion against Communism. Socialists were in the West countered by criticism against their support for a Socialist revolution, or reforms, that according to the critics couldn't be combined with democracy and necessarily would lead to totalitarianism, just as the example of the October Revolution proved.

A perceived Soviet expansionism was met by a policy of containment and isolation; and in democracies where Socialists had risen to threatening political power, these democracies were often overtrown by anti-communists receiving different degrees of support from the West. At the end of the Cold War the "Reagan Doctrine", was carried out by US support to insurgent groups fighting Soviet client states, many of which groups were similarly authoritarian or fascist in their ideological views, as had many anti-communist organizations of the interbellum been.

Mikkalai 00:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trotsky's shout

In the article, it says "yes, walk out, go ahead, leave, you are entering the dust heap of society.". Wasn't it "yes, walk out, go ahead, leave, you are entering the dust heap of HISTORY?

According to Trotsky's My Life: Go to the place where you belong from now on the dust-bin of history!”

Exact quote as it appears in Shukhanov's, The Russian Revolution (non-Russian speakers may refer to the 1955 London edition, pretty much certain it is in vol. II in there as well): "you are miserable bankrupts, your role is played out, go where you ought to be: into the dustbin of history" GeorgiosKR


        Come on, does it really matter? The words portray the same meaning - the Menshiviks are out and the Bolsheviks in.

Besides, with translations going on, the words are not going to be exact. Secondly, who can say that there was a reliable primary source at the time to confirm either?

[edit] Led by Trotsky:

see article Lev Trotsky ... and was Chair of the Revolutionary Military Committee that planned and implemented the October Revolution.

While your point is interesting and deserves proper attention, please keep in mind that being chair of some committee does not mean being main leader. In military the chief of General Staff (what in fact was RMC) is not at all the main commander, it is simply the position of the chief advisor to the commander. I am "spoiled" by Soiet propaganda, so I don't know to what degree you are right (the role of Trotsky was severely downgraded), and I will not change your change now, but I bet some others will find it suspicious. Mikkalai 16:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, some will find it suspicious, indeed. Actually, Lenin arrived in Petrograd in October 24th, after three-and-half months exile in Finland. Lenin was not even a member of the Revolutionary Military Committee.

You got it wrong. Lenin returned from emigration on April 16. Finland was part of Russia, and it was in 2 hours away from Petrograd. And it was not "exile", just hiding in the bushes. 17:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I figured it out at last: it was someone's erroneous guesswork about the Revolutionary Military Council in Trotsky's article. Mikkalai 16:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin was not actually involved in the uprising itself - he turned up afterwards. The Bolsheviks subsequently propagated that Lenin 'led' the Russia people. Article needs editing --86.0.220.125 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The date

Doesn't October 25, 1917 in the Julian calendar correspond to November 7, 1917 in the Gregorian calendar?? What am I missing? Lupo 10:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since this has apparently gone unnoticed for two years, I have added a "contradict" template. As to the facts, I have no idea. Other web sites mention both dates. --208.76.104.133 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coup

was the bolshevik coup achieved by lenins work or trotskys work, or was it the events such as the kornilov affair which allowed the bolsheviks to seize power. Undoubtedly lenin was an important factor but it was more trotsky's work in october that allowed them to take power

[edit] Bureaucratic dictatorship

Was there really that terrible "bureaucratic dictatorship"? That's just a bugaboo. --Achp ru 14:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Communism Vs. Democracy--not quite

First let me preface this by saying I am not a communist or a communist sympathizer, I think the Soviet Union created a horrible government as did most other attempts at communism, and I think capitalism works if done right. That being said the language of some parts of the article imply that the Cold War was a struggle of democracy against communism. For example this sentence (my emphasis):

With time, the October Revolution was seen as a hugely important global event, the first in a series of events that lay the groundwork for an epic Cold War struggle between the Soviet Union and Western democracies, including the United States.

The issue was not communism vs. democracy it was communism vs. capitalism. The leaders of Western countries did not hold to an ideal of democracy no more than the Soviet Union did. There were several instances in which democratically elected communist or socialist governments were either directly forcfully ousted by the US, or unpopular revolutions supported to ensure that socialism did not take root.

Communism is not inheretly undemocratic, nor is capitalism inherently democratic (there have been countless dictators who had a hands off approach to the economy--well the in theory kind of "hands off" approach anyway). Communism and capitalism are economic philosophies, not philosophies on who should have legal authority. Democracy and autocracy and republic etc. are philosophies about who should have legal authority over what and where authority should be derived from. Comparing economic philosophy and philosophies on authority is misleading. The language of the article should be changed not to reflect this common misunderstanding of the conflict (and I'm purposefully refraining from belaboring the difference between a democracy and a republic--to my knowledge there does not exist any real democracies in the world today). Actually even the Soviet Union had democratic ideal. They held elections every few years, and did have far higher voter turn out than the US ever did--the problem was there was only one party allowed to run. But that aside, the Cold War was emphatically not about "communism vs democracy" (countless conflicts would not have taken place if that were the case) but about "communism vs capitalism". --Brentt 06:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

When somebody say "communism vs democracy" it is US or Nazi propaganda the Soviet are the democraty.--Jaro.p 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, propaganda, eh? Anyhow, about this discussion. I think Brennt's edit to

lay the groundwork for an epic Cold War struggle between the Soviet Union and Western democracies, including the United States.

is right on. But when I read it, it doesn't really explain anything of importance. I mean, what groundwork did it the October revolution lay? Did it pit two different cultures against one another, help create a movement (and eventually a superpower, but how?) that would eventually clash against another? Adding some info about this in the sentance would help with the important effects the october revolution has had today.
  • On second thought, maybe it's wrong to impose a meaning from 20/20 hindsight instead of just leaving the revolution to what it was today, like the Orange or the Rose revolution from this century. We have no idea where it's going to lead, and neither did they, so why should it be included as a cause-effect statement of fact that it laid the groundwork (pretty heavy language) for the Cold War, like it would never have happened has this exact revolution never existed. Enough. Discuss. --User:rhetth 22:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Expert Work on the Communist Takeover

I request that an expert create a chart with links like the one for World War II that tracks the stages of the Communist takeover from 1917 to 1922.Patchouli 12:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

elo every1

The Article is severely Vandalised. There is nothing but some mumbo-jumbo word i don't even understand Pls protect this article

[edit] as was Kerensky's wife

"Kerensky's reputation was "irretrievably damaged" (as was Kerensky's wife)" - WTF? Is this vandalism or something else? Why was kerensky's wife damaged? Is this implying that she had an affair with Kornilov? Wikipedia is a discrace, I've seen better moderation on a turd and I feel that it is an unreliable source of information serving only as a distributer of anti-semitic propoganda and as a home for aspergers children. --Fatcud

[edit] "First Marxist Revolution in history"

I've just removed a line from the article which said that this revolution was the first Marxist revolution in history. This statement is open to debate, so if it's going to be in the article a section is needed which outlines this debate.

Some starting points include the fact that in many ways the October revolution was not a Marxist revolution at all, in that it took place in a non-industrialised country - for Marx, industrialisation was a prerequisite for the revolution out of capitalism. Also, Trotsky's concept of permanent revolution suggests that the October revolution was in fact a bourgeois revolution, that could be continued to become a proletarian revolution. --Jim (Talk) 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Their reasoning was that they were a new government"

The Wikipedia article on Leon Trotsky offers more insight into their reasoning:

"On December 2(1905), the Soviet issued a proclamation which included the following statement about the Tsarist government and its foreign debts:[8]

The autocracy never enjoyed the confidence of the people and was never granted any authority by the people. We have therefore decided not to allow the repayment of such loans as have been made by the Czarist government when openly engaged in a war with the entire people."

Their reasoning apprears to be that the people of the newly developing nation had never democraticaly authorized any actions of the previous government, and therefore, as representatives of the people the soviet government should not be responsible for the debts of the autocracy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.62.42 (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

Please add information on importance and international consequences.--Dojarca (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by Drabj

User:Drabj replaced the article by text taken exclusively from the article from Great Soviet Encyclopedia mirrored on some website (in Russian). The Soviet Encyclopedia is an inadmissible source for wikipedia due to its heavily biased point of view.

The text is reverted. Please use modern historical sources. There are plenty of them. `'Míkka>t 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately your assertion that Russian language scholarly sources from the Soviet period are inadmissable is not a view held by every historian on revolutionary and 20th century Russia. Almost every western scholarly work on 20th century Russia utilizes Russian language sources regardless if they were published in Russia or abroad. The best scholarly works published in the English language by such historians as E.H. Carr, W.H. Chamberlain, and others rely exclusively upon Russian language sources published in Russia. To sum up, any knowledge on Russia comes from sources published in the Russian language. I find a serious lack of good faith in your edits. Drabj (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not against Russian language. Please dont' misinterpret my explanations. Once again, "Soviet encyclopedia" is commonly acknowledged as an inadmissible source for political information due to its communist bias. `'Míkka>t 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Yes, my good faith towards Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev, etc. expired some time ago. `'Míkka>t 00:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That article in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia was written by two notable Russian historians who utilized a great deal of primary and secondary sources. The work of Soviet scholars on the Russian Revolution have been utilized by almost all western historians on revolutionary Russia. In the western scholarly community, Richard Pipes is acknowledged as a notoriously biased historian. Yet, Pipes' articles are found in many Wikipedia articles. If Pipes is to be cited in Wikipedia, then it would only be consistent to cite his polar opposites like the notable RSFSR historian Isaac Mints. I'm not familiar of a Wikipedia policy prohibiting the use of sources just because of the biases of an author. Drabj (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
These "notable" historians are notable to arbitrarily twist facts in accordance with the "Party Line". There is a policy about reliable sources. Sources that produce falsehoods are inadmissible. Wikipedia articles cannot be completely rewritten to a bias of a single author while deleting the previous text. `'Míkka>t 06:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I must agree with Mikkalai here. We have a huge variety of sources on this subject. We should select the most reliable of them per WP:Verifiability. It means modern scholarly secondary sources. Recent books by notable Western historians would certainly qualify, whereas old tertiary propaganda sources (like Soviet Encyclopedia) do not.Biophys (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You would have a point if only every single English-language work of history on 20th century Russia did not utilize sources in the Russian language published in Russia from the period 1917-91. The comment added by Míkka does not help enhance this article but only represents a point of view that is not found in the scholarly community. Wikipedia's stated mission is that it is not in the business of analyzing and disputing facts but rather is supposed to represent the views of competent scholars on the relevant subject. The assertion by the user Biophys that only "modern scholarly secondary sources" can be used unfortunately does not conform to the reality present in Wikipedia where there are many hundreds of citations of works dating from a period (post-1950s) which he strangely considers to be outdated. Feel free to add opposing points of view, but do not delete thoroughly detailed information from sources that are on par if not superior to any other writing on the subject. While I am inclined to agree that the writing of some RSFSR scholars does represent some bias in favor and against some sides, this is not a sufficient reason to dismiss the work of professional historians.
Concerning the article in the Russian encyclopedia it presents by far the most detailed and comprehensive account of Russia between February-October 1917. The purpose of my additions was merely to provide a complete account of the events between February-October such as the April, June, and July anti-government demonstrations in Petrograd, the Kornilovschina, and details concerning the October armed insurrection in Petrograd. Drabj (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If you simply want to describe chronology of events, you can easily use other sources. "Soviet Encyclopedia" is almost as bad propaganda source as would be the "Brief history of VKPB" or "Secret war against Soviet Russia". Yes, we are not in the business of analyzing and iterpreting facts, but we are in a business of selecting best available sources.Biophys (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The simple fact is that history about Russia is always superior when it is written by Russian citizens. The world scholarly community has long established the precedent of utilizing sources published in the RSFSR for the analysis of history; thus, you cannot possibly say that anything published during the RSFSR is "bad propaganda." because these sources you deride are used by all non-Russian scholars writing about Russia. While you are entitled to your opinion of what is and is not a biased source, your subjective point of view ought not to dictate the content of this article. If you feel that the article is biased, then feel free to add an opposing point of view from a competent historian. Please do not indiscriminately delete sourced text in the future, for such behavior is obstructive and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Drabj (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Responding to wp:3 request. Modern historical sources are to be preferred. I most strongly disagree with the statement "The simple fact is that history about Russia is always superior when it is written by Russian citizens.", which is not necessarily the case, neither for russia, nor any other nation. I believe there is nothing wrong with using "Soviet Encyclopedia" as a source (with care) as it's a rather bad idea to discard a work of such magnitude as a whole, but that one should rather consider each case separately. Please, Drabj, do not delete already present, sourced material! Martinor (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)