RELEVANCE OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONS: 100 YEARS LATER
People often say that the Russian Revolution was a singular event, specific to that country, one that was particularly prone to political upheaval (afterall, it had just undergone a major revolution in 1905).
Indeed, at first glance, the historic conditions of Russia in the early 20th century seem far from those of our 21st century.
It was ruled by a tsar in an autocratic political system that afforded little political participation to most of the population save a few elites. Although a parliamentary structure existed, it did not have much power, and the tsar had broad authority to impose his will. He insulated himself from public opinion by surrounding himself with sycophants and those who reassured him that this was the best form of government for Russia.
His power was closely associated with an Orthodox Church that worked to support the regime so there was little in the way of separation of church and state.
The population was overwhelming rural peasantry and the economy was heavily dependent on agrarian production, the country having only just begun to undergo the processes of large-scale industrialization and modernization.
The standard of living was fairly low, as large swaths of the population lived at subsistence level, and many who lacked access to basic amenities such as indoor plumbing and electricity.
The level of education was very low, literacy rates were below 50%, many did not attend school beyond the elementary level.
There were large groups of non-Russian minorities who were subjects but did not have full rights of citizenship or representation.
Russia was embroiled in a devastating international war that it was losing, causing a high casualty rate and was significantly taxing its resources, causing tremendous hardships through massive inflation, shortages of basic necessities, and draining some of its workforce.
There was a small, but growing and increasingly vociferous radical movement, one that even engaged in violent acts of political terror to indicate their extreme displeasure with the regime, draw attention to their revolutionary aims, and worked to try to affect a complete overturn of the system.
By comparison, our society seems relatively stable, modern, educated, and politically represented, and even in the wake of recent events that have left the country divided. We look to reform and peaceful change rather than revolutionary upheaval, and even argue that such events could not occur here in the US. We have democratic processes, we have political stability, the conditions in the US are not nearly as dire as they were in Russia in 1917.
But are things so distant and different? Are there similarities that we can consider, to help us better relate to why Russia experienced two revolutions in 1917? Is what we see now in 2017 so alien to the world of Russia in 1917.
I would argue that indeed, in this centenary year of the Russian Revolution, there is a profound intersection and interaction between contemporary politics and historical experience. There are some, on both sides of the political spectrum, who see some strong parallels between our contemporary society and that of Russia 100 years ago, and those are interesting to consider.
This is not to suggest that the circumstances of the Russian Revolutions (remember, there were 2) in 1917 were not specific to its historical context, but instead, to help us better understand why the events occurred, and perhaps, to see them less as an historical accident, as some scholars depict, or, on the other side, as an historic inevitability, but rather as specific responses to a specific set of circumstances and conditions, but responses that are nonetheless explainable.
ECONOMICS
Russia in 1917 faced tremendous income inequality. The top 1% of society controlled most of the wealth, in terms of land ownership and commercial endeavors.
Meanwhile, more than 80% of the country were peasants who lived at basic subsistence level.
Compare that to today’s levels of income inequality. A recent study found that a quarter of all people in Europe, or 118 million, suffer from poverty or social exclusion. The poverty rate in Spain is 28.6 percent, and in Greece it is 35.7 percent. The number of unemployed young people worldwide rose to 71 million this year, increasing for the first time since 2013.
There are similar problems in the US as well. There has been a marked decline in living standards for many. According to a recent report by economists, the pretax share of national income received by the bottom half of the population in the United States has fallen from 20% in 1980 to 12% today, while—in an exact reversal—the share of the top one percent has risen from 12% to 20%.
For four decades, the real incomes of the bottom half have remained flat, while the incomes of the top one percent have risen by 205%, and for the top .001 percent by a staggering 636%.
Worldwide, the top 1% of the population controls 46% of the world’s wealth
Many younger generation of Americans are drowning are laden with debt, unable to make enough to start a family or move out of their parents’ homes. While in 1970, 92 percent of 30-year-olds made more than their parents did at a similar age, only 51 percent did so in 2014.
Millions of Americans are suffering from inadequate health care. For the first time in more than two decades, overall life expectancy fell in 2015 due to the rise in mortality from suicide, drug abuse and other manifestations of social crisis.
The Economist’s Adrian Wooldridge in the magazine’s preview of the New Year stated, “The similarities to the world that produced the Russian revolution are too close for comfort.” He writes: “This is a period of miserable centenaries.” He argues that “High levels of inequality are threatening stability.”
POLITICS
Pre-Revolutionary Russia also suffered from political problems. The elite also held near complete control of the political realm.
Most average Russians had little access to political power. Elected representatives came from the elite and seemed to exclusively represent their interests.
Numerous ethnic minorities who lived under the control of the Russian Empire had little power or ability to govern themselves.
The Duma, or Russian Parliament, which only just been established in 1905 as a result of a revolution that occurred in that year, did not really give representation to the majority of Russians. The tsar dissolved it each time elections brought in delegates he believed were too liberal and election laws were changed to increase property requirements until few but wealthy elites could be elected.
There was widespread frustration among many who were disenfranchised.
Compare this to gerrymandering, changes in ID requirements for voting, elimination of the Civil Rights Voting Act, combined with the powerful influence of wealth lobbyists who seem to work on behalf of corporate interests, all of which have produced the effect of making it more difficult for some people to vote and increased feelings of loss of political voice.
As American society has become more unequal, a number of observers argue that it is increasingly difficult to maintain the idea that truly representative democracy still prevails. Indeed, accusations of corporate oligarchy and “crony capitalism are often heard from the left and the right.
Moreover, the tsarist regime was also plagued by scandals, not the least of which were the rumors concerning the supposed influence of Rasputin, the “mad monk” on the royal family and even on governmental policy (which while largely unsubstantiated, contributed further to the notion that the tsar was not competent).
I guess I don’t need to say much about our current presidential administrations scandals.
RISE OF RIGHT: ULTRA-NATIONALISM, RELIGIOUS CONSERVATISM
In Russia during the last half of the 19th century, there had been a prolonged attempt to reform the system, including the introduction of a number of progressive measures in an effort to improve life. Some of these were successful, but others were not. But they were tied specifically to single administrations, such as that of Tsar Alexander II. Upon his death (at the hands of revolutionaries who desired to overturn the entire system, having lost faith in the idea that it could be reformed for the better), his son acceded to the throne, Alexander III, who then worked to undermine nearly every reform his father had implemented.
Under Alexander III, and subsequently Nicholas II, there was a steady rise of ideas from the right that sought to “Make Russia Great Again” by emphasizing conservative values, Orthodoxy, and ultra-nationalism.
A campaign to “Russify” non-Russian nationalities living in the Empire, of which there were approximately 200 (Russian Empire was not ethnically homogeneous) and a strong sentiment of “Russia for Russians” – meaning only those of Great Russian ethnicity – and strong xenophobic sentiments.
During the war even the tsarisna was accused of being a traitor, and anti-German sentiment was strong enough to compel the government to change the name of the capital city from the German-sounding “St. Petersburg” to the more Russophile “Petrograd” (this always reminds me of how after 911 when France refused to join our coalition against terror, the Senate cafeteria changed the name of “french fries” to “freedom fries”
A rise in anti-Semitismand tacit support of ultra-nationalist groups such as the Black Hundreds, who carried out violent attacks against Jewish communities in Russia called pogroms
As we have seen recently in many parts of the world, including the US, this kind of ultra-nationalism, accompanied by anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, and racist rhetoric has become increasingly frequent
CONFLICT
Of the course, the biggest difference was that Russia was embroiled in a vast international conflict, the First World War, which had devastating effects on the entire Empire. Indeed, this was the most important short-term cause of the Revolutions, both that of February, which brought down the tsarist administration that was directly blamed for the mismanagement of the war and the causation for suffering of millions, and the October (Bolshevik) Revolution, wherein the Bolsheviks were able to capitalize on the fact that the Provisional Government remained committed to fighting the war when the overwhelming sentiment of the Russian population was to end its participation.
But although we are not faced with a world war at the moment, there are some parallels that can be drawn.
Much of the world in engaged in military conflict. We are still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in a “war on terror.” The past year also witnessed the intensification of military tensions, to the extent that the possibility—even the likelihood—of a Third World War is openly discussed in countless books, journals and newspapers.
The innumerable regional tensions throughout the world are developing into an increasingly direct and open confrontation involving the major, nuclear-armed powers
THE ROLE OF WOMEN
I would also like to consider the role of women in the revolutionary process. The February Revolution (like the French revolution, by the way) was actually begun as a result of a women’s march in the capital city of Petrograd, when thousands came out on International Women’s Day to voice their desires for increased rights and opportunities. This demonstration soon turned into a mass protest against the tsar and the war, and within three days, had attracted the support of a huge number of people, workers, soldiers, and resulted in the tsar’s abdication.
The recent women’s marches all over the country and the world, where more than 3 million women came out into the streets, and were supported by many others, clearly expressed the frustrations many feel with lack of progress, or even regress, in terms of reproductive rights, opportunities, equal pay, sexual assault, and other issues that are not just women’s issues, but ones that impact many members of society. As a noted former presidential candidate has stated, “women’s rights are human rights.”
THE RISE OF SOCIALISM
Lastly, we must not ignore the fact that the second revolution that occurred in Russia in 1917, the October Revolution, was one that brought a socialist, specifically communist government to power under the Bolsheviks.
This might seem to be the hardest parallel to draw, considering our longstanding commitment to capitalism, private property and entrepreneurship, and the “free market” system.
Moreover, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 has been seen as a failure of the October Revolution that brought the Bolsheviks to power and an invalidation of the socialist ideology that propelled it. Many greeted the dissolution of the USSR in December 1991 as an indication that “we won” (i.e. democratic capitalism).
The October Revolution, they argued, was nothing more than an accidental departure from the normal, i.e. liberal-capitalist course of history. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there could be no thought of an alternative to capitalism, let alone one based on workers’ power and the socialist reorganization of world economy.
They dismissed the October Revolution and, for that matter, the revolutionary and counterrevolutionary upheavals of the twentieth century, as unfortunate accidents. The years between 1914 (which witnessed the outbreak of World War I) and 1991 (the dissolution of the Soviet Union) were a misguided “age of extremes” that comprised the “short twentieth century.”
Although they did not claim to know what the future would bring, or whether the twenty-first century would be short or long, they seemed certain of one thing: there would never again be a socialist revolution in any way comparable to the events of 1917.
But only has to think of the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, who many Americans strongly desired to see as their President and who advocated for many socialist measures: universal, single-payer health care, universal free higher education, redistribution of wealth.
People often say about the US is that the democratic process, which allows for peaceful transfer of power, the universal right to vote, a free press. That our Constitution Bill of Rights are built-in systemic features that protect us from tyranny and give us the ability to change our government when we are dissatisfied, therefore we don’t need to resort to revolution.
But consider a scenario wherein all of these problems continued and were exacerbated, and those in power were so entrenched and continued to seem to serve only their interest. At what point would Americans decide that they can no longer count on a reform of the system, that the entire system is corrupted, and losing faith, take to the streets to demand a complete change?
Would it be so far-fetched to enact the kind of measures that were attempted (but perhaps did not all succeed) after the revolutions of 1917: universal health, free higher education, income equality, gender equality, minority rights?
And can these things be achieved considering the now increasingly entrenched forces that resist them?
As the increasingly popular Frederick Douglas (he’s doing a great job!) is noted for saying, “Power concedes nothing with a demand. It never did and it never will.” In 1917, Russians took the streets to make that demand.