The October Revolution: Coup or Social Uprising?
Historians along the century have questioned the veracity of the narrative the Bolsheviks fed to the people of Russia and the rest of the world. These historians claim that the communist party has distorted the facts of said revolution to control masses during the Soviet reign. The overthrow of the Provisional Government in October 1917 was both a Bolshevik-engineered coup d’état and a popular revolution. Chroniclers have debated this statement owing to the fact that said people come from different socio-political backgrounds and the varying historiographies of individual authors.
To understand the factual purpose of the Revolution, one must understand the words used to describe them. The definition …show more content…
The term was later known as Leninism, and its ideology was so powerful it reformed the nation in such way people believed it was a new religion. Marxism enforced the idea that a social transformation had to occur for the government to treat the popular masses with equal and basic rights, rather than with “capitalist exploitation, inhuman toil, [and] lack of all rights” (Hasegawa). The Soviet viewpoint of the Russian Revolution incarnates the paragon of the imperfect idea that was Marxism. Historians that reinforce the Soviet view of the Revolution claim that Lenin conquered the proletariat because the provisional government was not ensuring and perpetuating what the working class petitioned for. Its leaders were associated with the middle class, which brought discomfort and doubts. How could a government lead its people if it had nothing in common with them? They refused to give land in rural areas to peasants and decided to maintain the country in the War, which disquieted the people. They believe that “instead of being a destructive force, it seemed [that the Bolsheviks] were the only party in Russia with a constructive program and the power to impose it on the country” …show more content…
As a matter of fact, many authors in both cases surmise the totality of the Revolution. The October Revolution was the pinnacle of one of the most established mass campaigns ever known, yet it is true, they followed the Bolsheviks ignorantly and blindly seeing that "few had read a word of Marx 's writings [and] most sympathized with Lenin, [helping] impose a deadly fraud on the world." ("Book Review: How Bolsheviks"), commencing the start of the Soviet Union and its
Historians along the century have questioned the veracity of the narrative the Bolsheviks fed to the people of Russia and the rest of the world. These historians claim that the communist party has distorted the facts of said revolution to control masses during the Soviet reign. The overthrow of the Provisional Government in October 1917 was both a Bolshevik-engineered coup d’état and a popular revolution. Chroniclers have debated this statement owing to the fact that said people come from different socio-political backgrounds and the varying historiographies of individual authors.
To understand the factual purpose of the Revolution, one must understand the words used to describe them. The definition …show more content…
The term was later known as Leninism, and its ideology was so powerful it reformed the nation in such way people believed it was a new religion. Marxism enforced the idea that a social transformation had to occur for the government to treat the popular masses with equal and basic rights, rather than with “capitalist exploitation, inhuman toil, [and] lack of all rights” (Hasegawa). The Soviet viewpoint of the Russian Revolution incarnates the paragon of the imperfect idea that was Marxism. Historians that reinforce the Soviet view of the Revolution claim that Lenin conquered the proletariat because the provisional government was not ensuring and perpetuating what the working class petitioned for. Its leaders were associated with the middle class, which brought discomfort and doubts. How could a government lead its people if it had nothing in common with them? They refused to give land in rural areas to peasants and decided to maintain the country in the War, which disquieted the people. They believe that “instead of being a destructive force, it seemed [that the Bolsheviks] were the only party in Russia with a constructive program and the power to impose it on the country” …show more content…
As a matter of fact, many authors in both cases surmise the totality of the Revolution. The October Revolution was the pinnacle of one of the most established mass campaigns ever known, yet it is true, they followed the Bolsheviks ignorantly and blindly seeing that "few had read a word of Marx 's writings [and] most sympathized with Lenin, [helping] impose a deadly fraud on the world." ("Book Review: How Bolsheviks"), commencing the start of the Soviet Union and its