Fitzpatrick: The Russian Revolution

Introduction Every revolution has to bear a semblance of nobility with regards to the slogans that characterize it. By extension, every person who claims to be a revolutionary, according to Fitzpatrick (2001), “dreams of creating a new world out of the old one, where injustice, corruption and elements of apathy are forever removed.” In this respect, it is, therefore, justified to insinuate, just as Fitzpatrick (2001) continues to afford, that revolutionaries constitutes enthusiasts and dogmatists, all of whom are in actuality utopians. Nevertheless, it is important to be cognizant of the fact that history does not provide that all revolutions have been successful. In fact, as Fitzpatrick (2001) states, the very nature of revolutions affords …show more content…
The starting point for the basis of some of the theories that explain the origins of the revolution as provided by Fitzpatrick, therefore, lies not in the outcome, but in the mere fact that the revolutionaries who were mainly Marxists, capitalized on the marginalization of the Russian public, especially the serfs who accounted for about 80% of the population, by substituting them with the proletariat. Fitzpatrick (2001) affords three separate motifs that characterize the occurrence of the revolution, and could therefore point to the true reason behind its benevolence. The first motif is that of modernization; the second is that of class differentiation; and the third is the consolidation of power under one party rule characterized by violence and …show more content…
In essence, the true outcome of the revolution was the beginning of dictatorship, which was founded on the widespread used of terror. According to Fitzpatrick (2001), the Bolsheviks used two types of terror and violence; against class adversaries outside the party, and those within the party. In the formative years after the civil war, the party greatly targeted class nemeses outside the party who were viewed as enemies of the revolution. Fitzpatrick (2001) continues to state that both Lenin and Trotsky ultimately, defended the use of terror and violence as an essential part of dictatorship on the part of the proletariat. In the words of Trotsky, socialism was unachievable in Russia in the absence of terror and violence of some kind (Fitzpatrick, 2001). Similarly, Lenin, too, decreed that it was treasonous to criticize the Bolshevik party and the Red Guards because this impeded the struggle for the attainment of