A Concise History of the Russian Revolution, A

by Richard Pipes

The author of the classic two-volume study, The Russian Revolution and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, now distills those works into an authoritative new chronicle of Russia between 1900 and the death of Lenin. "A deep and eloquent condemnation."--The New York Times.

Genres: History, Russia, Nonfiction, Politics, Russian History, Russian Revolution, European History

431 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1995

About the author

Born in Poland, Richard Pipes fled the country with his family when Germany invaded it in 1939. After reaching the United States a year later, Pipes began his education at Muskingum College, which was interrupted in 1943 when he was drafted into the Army Air Corps and sent to Cornell to study Russian. He completed his bachelor's degree at Cornell in 1946 and earned his doctorate at Harvard University four years later.

Pipes taught at Harvard from 1950 until his retirement in 1996, and was director of Harvard's Russian Research Center from 1968-1973. A campaigner for a tougher foreign policy towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War, in 1976, he led a group of analysts in a reassessment of Soviet foreign policy and military power. He served as director of Eastern European and Soviet affairs at the National Security Council from 1981 until 1983, after which he returned to Harvard, where he finished his career as Baird Professor Emeritus of History.

Reviews

[Adam A · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book should have been named "A Criticism of the Russian Revolution."

From the onset, Pipes uses his "Concise History" to vent his personal feelings about the failings of the Revolution, going on a multi-page screed against intellectuals, whom he criticizes as having no real mandate from people to foment revolutions; to this end, invoking the French and Russian revolutions, though stopping just short of the American one, in spite of the many similarities.

Were this attitude in presentation to remain relegated to even a few opening chapters or even kept in brief at chapters' ends, I could forgive Pipes his clearly neo-conservative exuberance, but these tangential rants pepper the entire book. It seems he can't go a full chapter without going off the rails. Note to author: if you're straying from the history to add your viewpoints at greater length than the relation of the events themselves, you're not being concise. Or historical. Quite the opposite in both, in fact.

I'm told his other book, The Russian Revolution, is more measured and objective and I'd like to believe that because it's obvious the man knows his Russian History. And that's the real shame here: Richard Pipes is clearly knowledgeable and articulate and maybe even smart enough to let people draw their own conclusions or even add his criticisms to other sections of the book. But what is also clear is that Pipes wants to leave nothing to chance, he wants the reader to come away with the narrative of the book: the Communist Revolution was an abject failure in principle, forced upon people and then quickly, inevitably corrupted [by design] to serve an autocratic regime.

As such, I recommend this book to anyone looking for a Reaganite's perspective on the Russian revolution and there is plenty to cobble together here to help you understand not only the American perspective on the Russian Revolution and how it's been branded by America's intellectuals (see what I did there?) but also as a counter point to any other, more objective history on the subject you come across.

[Alex Zakharov · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brutally painful book to read and at times just genuinely hard to process. The history of 1917-23 nightmare that Russia was subjected to under Lenin and the Bolsheviks has no precedent in history, and at times it reads like a caricature of a mad theory. But theory it was not. From dictatorship of proletariat and red terror to war communism, collectivization and largest European famine since Black Death the book describes the practice quite systematically.

What makes this history particularly poignant is that to this day, I still detect a surprisingly common tendency to frame Stalin as a monster who perverted a slightly naïve but otherwise well-intentioned vision of Lenin’s communism. Pipes’ work will disabuse one of any such notion, and if only for that reason alone it is a must read. Lenin was the true mastermind of Soviet tragedy: he setup the Soviet system and had no illusions about its methods and intent. In fact by many accounts Lenin was more inhumane than Stalin, but Lenin’s time was limited, while Stalin had 30 years to take Lenin’s system and run it on a mass scale.

The rest are side notes to self, feel free to skip.

- Need vanguard professional intellectual class to morph protests/revolts into actual revolutions. Alleged “beneficiaries” of revolutions (e.g. peasants, workers) are typically perfectly content with sensible incremental reforms.
- Russian revolutionaries took the ideas of progress and humans as blank slates in the face of environment to their logical conclusions (Locke and Helvetius on steroids)

- Stolypin reforms and handling of Duma transitions had its challenges but largely stabilized the country by 1910, assassinated in 1911.
- Great War and tensions between Nicolas II and Duma, Duma using the war to weaken the monarchy. Kerensky, Milyukov.
- Post February 1917 “dual power” of Soviets (appointed) and Provisional Gov’t (elected).
- War was supported by all parties besides Bolsheviks who needed it to consolidate power.
- Lenin heavily assisted and sponsored by Germans who wanted Russia to withdraw from the war. Meanwhile in internal meetings Lenin openly advocated transforming imperial war into civil war between classes.
- September 1917 Kornilov affair. Kornilov – popular, patriotic general, ready to take control of the war. Kerensky feared his popularity and feared a coup from the right. Manipulates Kornilov and charges with treason, and then on top of it releases Bolsheviks from jail! Lenin is ecstatic and can’t believe his luck.

- February ’17 revolution is simply a putsch by Lenin allegedly in the name of the Soviets who in theory represent the people. Calling it a farce is charitable. SRs, Mensheviks and Bolsheviks in cahoots technically but Lenin outmaneuvers them all pretty rapidly.
- First in history totalitarian regime through one-party dictatorship (imitated later by the Nazis). Lenin/Bolsheviks takes over all shared political organizations in 2 weeks! Rule by decree just like the tsar before 1905 revolution. Calls constitutional assembly, Bolsheviks loose the elections, so declares them illegal. By Jan 1918 it is all over – all power officially and unofficially is in Bolshevik’s hands.

- March 1918 Brest-Litovsk peace with Central Powers and Germany, massive loss of territory and people.
- But later after Central Powers are defeated, Lenin renounces the treaty gains territory back.
- 1922 Germany-Russia Rapallo Treaty restores pre-war boundaries and sets framework for massive economic and military cooperation. Kybosh on cooperation only in the 30s with Hitler’s rise to power.

- 1918-21 War Communism. Was never meant as an emergency measure (as later claimed), but a deliberate set of policies to destroy capitalism. Abolition of money, market, private property. Nationalization across the board. Predictable results – inflation, huge loss in productivity, massive loss in output, rapid de-industrialization. (Ironically, Bolsheviks actually boasted about their inflation rate, proclaiming they beat the French in currency erosion)
- Lenin’s war against the village, failed attempt at crop extraction and class warfare inducement (kulaks). See more below, under NEP.
- Pipes “Lenin’s hatred for bourgeoisie can only be compared with Hitler’s hatred for the Jews.”

- Red Terror of 1918 (50-140K dead). Kicked off with murder of tsar and family (no charge, no trial naturally).
- Cheka created by Lenin with explicit mandate for terror.
- State outlaws law! Rule by “revolutionary conscious”. Terror must be indiscriminate. Creation of concentration camps.

- Civil War. Reds - ethnic Russians, united, centralized, unified ideology. Ran by ex-Tsar generals (Budyonny, Tukachevsky) and staffed by ex-tsar military men, reluctantly recruited and/or forced by the Bolsheviks (Trotsky, Kamenev)
- Whites - ethnic minorities, peripheral fronts, no central command or ideology, outnumbered and outgunned (Denikin, Kolchak, Wrangel, Udenich). Fighting for Provisional Govt and Constitutional Assembly, not monarchy.
- Whites were bad tacticians, who unlike Reds didn’t use situation on the ground to their advantage. Alienated Finns and Poles. In contrast Reds promised Finns and Poles whatever they wanted but of course reneged on all promises after the war.
- Antisemitism. Tsar-time pale of settlement dies with revolution and appearance of hated Reds is conflated with sightings of the Jews in rest of country; locals (especially Cossacks and Ukrainians) hate both. 50K-100K die in pogroms.
- “Foreign Intervention” Mostly Brits and soon even they withdrew their support. Churchill the only one aggressively advocating to fight the Reds and presciently warning of future Bolshevik danger.

- Empire. Turn of century Russia about 12 ethnic minorities of political significance. Prior to 1905/6 little drive for independence, after 1906 seeds of nascent nationalism.
- Feb 1918 Lenin advocates “self-determination” and Poles, Ukrainians, Finns, Baltics, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan all take off, not without some influence by Germany, Austrian and Ottoman Empire.
- Later on Lenin shifts to “federalism” and quickly reacquires Armenia/Azerbaijan/Georgia (Georgia welcomed it due to being attacked by the Turks at the time). Ukraine is occupied and reacquired during civil war. So from 1918-39 Soviet Union is 6 republics (Arme/Azer/Geo/Ukraine/Belor/Russ)

- Exporting communism. Lenin views Russia as a springboard for world revolution. Establishment of “Comunist International” (1919-43). Failures to export to Germany (Rosa Luxemburg), Hungary (Bela Kun), or Austria.
- Polish-Soviet war, initiated by Poland to make independent Ukraine (Pilsudksi-Petlura); Russia should have won but miserably failed at offense, a significant signal for Lenin to avoid using Red Army in international arena.
- ComIntern split communists from socialists in Europe, weakening the latter and providing for fertile ground for nationalism and fascism. Maybe. Here I’m also sympathetic to Karl Polanyi thesis of early 20th tension between increasingly disjoint spheres of market economy and political power within a modern state serving as a catalyst for fascism to emerge.
- Reliance on “fellow travelers” and “useful idiots” in ideological warfare. That practice is still with us today, just watch Oliver Stone’s “Putin Interviews”. Huge subsidies to foreign “friendly” press plus internal TASS monopoly. Systematic propaganda.

- Culture/Religion (18-22). Lunacharski. Culture converted to propaganda. First decree – abolition of free press. Futurism and Constructivism very much in line with early communism. Agit-theater blending reality, fantasy and propaganda. Irony of culture having zero effect on intended audience (peasant, workers) who came from conservative religious background.
- “Separation” of church in state in the form of church’s possessions being appropriated by the state. Clergy shooting and breakup from within.

- Crises. Tail end of civil war and war communism – economic collapse, food shortages etc. Peasants blame Bolsheviks who in turn respond with crop extraction attempts. Massive revolts (Tambov) – civil war morphs into class war with peasants (guerilla warfare, chemical weapons, terror, concentration camps). Gov’t waging war on its citizens. Tambov rebellion (1920-21) resulted in more casualties than civil war itself! In the end crop extraction was subverted, collectivization would have to wait till Stalin…
- Kronshdat mutiny against the Bolsheviks. Demanded elections, freedom of press, right of assembly. Brutally suppressed.
- In the face of economic collapse plus Tambov and Kronshdat uprisings Lenin has to institute NEP (soft economic liberalization).
- NEP as a false “Thermidor”. Unlike French it was self-initiated and limited to liberalization of economy only. But coupled with increased repression of politics, culture, law (e.g. due process gone).
- War communism plus Lenin’s collectivization attempt brings us 1921-23 famine, 5M dead. Till then it was possibly the worst disaster in European history since Black Death (other than wars). Hoover’s massive relief effort saves 9M people.

- Pipes concluding thoughts/remarks:
- Lenin: always treated politics as literal warfare, promised everything to everybody, mastermind of first totalitarian regime.
- Views Bolsheviks as non-utopian. Once they realized the goals are unattainable they resorted to violence and continued.
- Views Bolsheviks as non-Marxist, unlike say Mensheviks. This is a stark contrast with Martin Malia who views Lenin’s program as the only practical implementation of Marxism.
- Finds perfect parallels between Lenin’s and Tsar’s regimes (autocracy, ownership of resources, ownership of people, extensive police state)
- Lenin and Stalin main difference: scale. Also Stalin’s outgroup was wider, systematically killed fellow communists. Aaron Haspel suggests that both of these differences are simply a function of Lenin’s historical time constraints.

[Robu-sensei · Rating 2 out of 5]

Here you may find lots of useful information about the Russian Revolution, the events leading up to it, and the subsequent Civil War, if you're willing to invest some time in extracting it from the author's constant editorializing. I can only guess that Dr. Pipes spent much of his youth being beaten up by intellectuals, since he clearly hates them even more than Communists—and boy, howdy, does he ever hate him some Commies. Never does he mention intellectuals (and by this I believe he refers to political thinkers, and not, say, Harvard professors of history), even in passing, without a jab at their arrogance and naïveté. Of course the Bolsheviks had some world-class assholes for leaders, but we would be more effectively convinced of that if their actions were allowed to speak for themselves; we don't need to be beaten over the head incessantly with remarks about how single-mindedly evil they were. Despite the author's obviously encyclopedic knowledge, I have to wonder how much his anticommunist bias has warped his treatment of the subject.

[M. Nolan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Remarkable. With the centennial coming up in October, I wanted an accessible and thoughtful survey of the Russian Revolution. Needless to say, "A Concise History of the Russian Revolution" did not disappoint. Pipes, unquestionably the preeminent American scholar of this period, pulls together in this volume the key insights and information of his vast bibliography. The final product flows like a political drama, with many lessons for the challenges we face today.

Some unsophisticated reviewers have criticized Pipes for the passion that he brings to the book. But to quote an otherwise moderate Aristotle on historical method, "For those who are not angry at things they should be angry at are deemed fools." With an estimated 20+ million dead as a result and the emergence of totalitarianism that followed, any account of the Russian Revolution that lacked such passion would be a waste of your time. Pipes' refusal to fein detachment in the face of such horror emboldens his analysis and deepens the reader's understanding and care, elevating what might have been a detached restatement of facts into a work that delves deep into the nature of political power, human nature, and ideology.

[Ashok Sridharan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book covers major political events in Russia from the turn of the 20th century- the final years of the Tsarist regime- to the death of Lenin in January 1924, by which time the communist regime was fairly well established and the Soviet Union was already in existence. It is, in short, a chronicle of the tragic events that liberated Russia from an oppressive, archaic and tyrannical regime only to replace it with one that was far worse.

From the failed revolution of 1905, the constitutional experiment, the disillusionment of the intelligentsia, the first world war, the February revolution, the provisional government, the October revolution, the civil war to the final victory of Lenin and his Bolsheviks, the events are described in considerable detail, allowing the reader to gain a nuanced understanding of the Russian revolution.

A Concise History of the Russian Revolution is an outstanding scholarly work by Richard Pipes, who has not only researched the subject in considerable depth, but also describes the events of the period in a lucid, gripping manner that keeps you engrossed throughout. Having read several works on that period, my personal view is that this is the best for those who have little knowledge of the Russian Revolution.

[Al · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am always struck by the idea that so many people can be controlled by so few. This realization makes me alert, but not paranoid, regarding corruption in our representative bodies of the West. I remember how fearful we were that the Soviet Communist movement would subvert our societies. In hind sight, that seems almost comical. Our house has endured many problems, but the Soviet house was always in total dysfunction. I am very hopeful that the World will remember the failures of centralized, and totalitarian, governments. I am not just referring to those established by the followers of Marxism, but by oppression in any name. This is the only way that our species will finally be able to rid ourselves of this great plague. The governments that best represent the people will surely have the strongest roots. This is the underlying message of this book.

[Michael Lundgren · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Russian Revolution was one of the most consequential events of the 20th century, there's no denying it. It paved the way for the rise of Stalin and served as the kindling for the Cold War. Can there be kindling if the war is cold? I don't know... Either way, it was a monumental event and Richard Pipes Concise History of the Russian Revolution makes this clear. I enjoyed the way he described life under the rule of Nicholas II and how he laid out the various events that slowly led to his abdication. I thought that Pipe's exploration of the failures of the interim government to act decisively in the October coup shows the incompetence of Russia's democratic politicians and the sheer luck of the Bolshevik party, considering that they commanded such a small number of troops. I also found his observation of the Russian people being unconcerned and uncaring of the events happening around them to be astute.

It was also eye-opening to realize just how much support the German government gave the Bolsheviks as keeping them in power was critical so that Germany could swing all of its forces to the Western Front and defeat the allies. Pipe's takes the time to explore every aspect that led to the revolution, how it happened, and how it stayed alive during its most precarious moments. But he also lays out life after the Soviet government had been established and the great terror that it inflicted on the Russian people. Overall I felt that Pipes did a great job in exploring the Russian Revolution and the impact it has on us still to this day. I found some of his language and ideas to be a little outdated and Cold Warish, but all things considered, it was an insightful read.

[Braden Turner · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great read for anyone interested in Russian history or the Soviet experiment (as long as you don't mind some conservative grandstanding).

I was really torn between three and four stars on this one. Pipes provides excellent details about the fall of the Tsarist regime, the subsequent rise of communism, and the initial colossal failures of Lenin's government. Essentially, Pipes presents a strong criticism of Lenin and the revolution in general.

But where Pipes loses me is in his dedication to fulfilling the role of an ideologue. Not only is he fiercely opposed to soviet communism, but also to Enlightenment thinking and social experimentation in general. His "history" ends up becoming nothing more than a Burkeian propaganda piece against leftism in general. To some degree he picks and chooses his facts, downplaying anything that could dampen the conservative lens he's writing his history through. Because of this, I don't know when to be skeptical and when to be genuinely shocked at some terrifying anecdote about Lenin or Trotsky, for example.

In short, Pipes presents a fascinating history (with many merits), but he makes no attempt at political objectivity, and he says as much in the conclusion, "Reflections on the Russian Revolution."

[Willy Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Richard Pipes é muito preciso em seu relato. Ele consegue fazer uma história tão sangrenta ser leve de ler. Seu resumo é mais histórico do que analítico, e mesmo sendo conciso, ele não deixa escapar os principais acontecimentos.
Partindo do declínio do Czarismo, ele aborda as revoluções de 1905, e as de fevereiro e outubro de 1917. Desembocando no assassinato da família real e no golpe contra o governo provisório, golpe perpetrado pelos bolcheviques.
Pipes relata também a aproximação entre a Rússia e Alemanha no contexto da Primeira Guerra. No "exílio" de Lênin na Alemanha, e na influência direta que a Alemanha teve na subida de Lênin ao poder.
Ainda que de forma breve, mas o autor passa também pelo Terror Vermelho, e fala como os camponeses foram massacrados e deixados à fome pela política utópica dos comunistas.
O livro finaliza com a morte de Lênin, e a subida de Stálin ao poder, tudo isso, sem deixar de mencionar o papel de Trótski, em todas essa história.
Recomendo.

[Marsha Altman · Rating 2 out of 5]

I saw this book in my parents' house and thought, "Hey, I remember that from high school! I'll give it a fresh look." Turns out I remembered it because it was SO SO boring and difficult to get through.

[Anton Jansson · Rating 5 out of 5]

En djupgående skildring om den ryska revolutionen som ger insikt i hur fasansfullt och fanatiskt Lenin och boljevikerna var i jakten på att skapa ett kommunistiskt samhälle.

Boris Jeltzin till amerikanska kongressen:

"Världen kan dra en lättnadens suck. Kommunismens spöke som överallt spridit samhällelig split, fientlighet och exempellös brutalitet, och som ingjutit skräck i mänskligheten, har gått under. Det har gått under och ska aldrig återuppstå"

[Tommy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dr. Pipes seems to be channelling Waclaw Machajski but through a dull, conservative, victimological medium.

[Jules · Rating 2 out of 5]

this did not feel concise at all and it took so goddamn long to read

as a text in general, I did not think it was bad and if I were not on a deadline and exhausted by this point in the semester, I probably would've enjoyed it

[Dan Walker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Early in this book Mr. Pipes makes the stunning declaration that the Russian Revolution was THE seminal event of the 20th century. On the face of it, that's ridiculous. A century that saw such events as WWI and II, man walking on the moon, etc.; surely the Russian Revolution qualifies as nothing more than one of the many spinoffs of these central events!

I didn't have to read much further before I agreed with Mr. Pipes. The reason is that the Revolution lays to rest many half-truths, myths, and outright lies of the past AND of the present. This review will explore the ones the resonated with me.

First off we can dispense with the hoary notion that Communism was about helping the poor worker against the evil Capitalist, an idea that resonates to this day. For one thing, Russia barely had any poor capitalist "slaves." For another, the political theories of the Bolsheviks themselves precluded such a notion. Poor capitalist slaves simply don't have the time or capacity to understand their plight or the solution, therefore they must be led to freedom by enlightened leaders who selflessly think of the masses first.

The lack of true capitalist slaves perhaps explains the most outstanding characteristic of the Bolsheviks: their willingness to kill anyone and everyone who stood in their way. Their party could truly claim to represent only a fraction of a fraction of the Russian population. Unlike the socialists that they elbowed aside, the Bolsheviks were willing to kill to get what they wanted. After all, they had to lead the masses to salvation, and that justified anything.

Which brings us to the next question: just where do you get such brutal people? Turns out that as always, Lenin didn't spring full-grown from the ground. Revolutionaries like him were, um, professionals. That's right, the genesis of such men is traced back to at least the French revolution, of which Lenin was an avid student. Europe had been growing such men for at least a century, and in Russia they were finally able to fully implement their theories.

I say theories, because Lenin and the Bolsheviks represented the best of the best: intellectuals at the apex of the society of ideas. Such men have all the answers to life's challenges: just ask them.

intelligentsia - book knowledge, no practical knowledge
coup versus revolution
pacifism
economic ideas: central planning, no money
intellectuals
Herbert Hoover
Ford
FDR
The Enlightenment; the French Revolution
The anarchism of the peasants

[Becky Blackmer · Rating 2 out of 5]

The title gives it all, yet at the same time it doesn't. The book describes itself as giving a shortened yet detailed telling of the events prior to and during the Russian Revolution. Instead, it is mainly told from a biased perspective. Although it is hard to not get too political when talking about the Russian Revolution, that's basically all this is. I had picked up this book because at first glance and quick skim, it seemed related to my topic of societal downfall. However, I want to look at these downfalls from a historical perspective, not a political one. This is an interesting and a highly informational read, but it needs something different in the way it is written.

It's written in a way where it tells more of the impact of the Revolution on the government and those involved in it as opposed to the impact on the country as a whole. Although it tries to speak for reactions in the voice of the country as a whole, the bias and information given portray it as only from the government's perspective.

Giving more bias than a book like this probably should, it does give more insight to the political downfall of Russia at this time. I would recommend this if only looking for more information and if extremely interested in politics.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Maybe Pipes knows his history. Maybe it's the translator at fault for forgetting the footnotes and references. But probably there are no footnotes and references. Pipes is old school. He is certain things were like that because he has the academic titles. And that stack of governmental papers gives him the authority to cut though complicated issues like a hot knife through butter. Pipes knows what was in Lenin's head. He knows what Stalin was planning. And with the power of hindsight he can trace a simple and clear line from the late 20th century to the early 20th century. Which, to me sounds just like another white old man weaving his conspiracy theory.

This is a fairy tale that should be only taken in context with other books on the same theme.

[Orlando Tosetto · Rating 4 out of 5]

A tese do livro é esta: todas as monstruosidades praticadas por Stálin já estavam antecipadas na conduta de Lênin e (um pouco menos) Trotsky entre 1917 e 1923. E se comprova. A quantidade de vezes que o autor usa a frase "essa foi a primeira vez em que..." se fez tal ou qual monstruosidade, se contou tal ou qual mentira, se usou tal ou qual método assassino para se resolver um problema arrepia. O comunismo se ergueu mediante a mentira e se afirmou mediante o assassinato. Demonstrado. De lambuja, o autor ainda mostra o papel ativo dos alemães na indústria bélica russa, e a colaboração mais do que estreita entre os dois até 1933. Dá vertigem. Leiam.

[Chad · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this book should be required reading in all high schools. It shows the danger of ideology and extremism. I think most publicly educated people have a basic understanding of totalitarian fascism, from Nazis and WWII, but no clue what preceded it (and to a large extent caused it) with totalitarian communism. Reading this book as a young person would inoculate you against a lot of the common talking points made by today's leftists (and rightists too).

[Esther Kozakevich · Rating 5 out of 5]

MUST. READ. There was so much I didn’t know about the Russian Revolution in here and Pipes has such a way of formulating the events in a concise and fascinating way. I was literally gripped by the book! To the people saying it was too anti-commie …… literally goodbye. Pipes backs up every single claim he makes in the book and more.

[Calm · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent overview. The book reads like a lecture. There are a lot of "X thought this", "X felt that...", and the like. I would rather Dr. Pipes had just quoted the characters and let me decide how they felt and thought.

[Brandon Minster · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was reading this book one evening when I had to call the cops because our neighbor wouldn't turn down his television.

[Ricardo Kruger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sensacional....e impressionante como existem pessoas que veneram Lenin, Trótski e Stalin.

[Tiago Massoni · Rating 4 out of 5]

Muito bem escrito, de quem estudou isso a vida toda. Não há como esconder.

[Leandro Chiaretto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Não é uma leitura fácil mas é muito interessante!!

[Daniel Bastian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard Pipes’ primer covers the waning years of tsarism in Russia and the deposition of Nicholas II, the ensuing Bolshevik Revolution and Lenin’s rise to power, and the re-constituted Russian state under Lenin. The book's contents conclude shortly after Lenin's death in 1924, aged 54. Naturally, the main "characters" here are Vladimir Lenin, the theoretical basis of Bolshevism, and the longstanding traditions of Russian society—the canvas on which Leninism was superimposed. Toward the end we do get some brief remarks on Stalin, including the historical responsibility due Lenin for the deeds of his successor, but this serves as more of an entrée that's left for later Russian chronologies to flesh out.

One of the more controversial issues surrounding this era concerns the connection between Marxism and Leninism as implemented under the Bolshevik regime. Here I can report the author surprised me. Given his Reaganite credentials, not to mention his family's status as Polish refugees following Germany's invasion at the onset of the Second World War, I expected him to hew rather closely to the views of Martin Malia and other staunchly anti-communist historians who insist that Lenin- and Stalin-esque regimes are more or less a natural consequence of Marxist-socialist philosophy. Instead, Pipes argues quite persuasively that the events of the October Revolution and the regime that took the place of tsarism were a unique function of the cult of personality around Lenin combined with the legacy of patrimonialism and other structural factors native to Russian society.

In effect, Pipes shows that the Bolsheviks were not very good Marxists, despite rhetorical protestations to the contrary from the leading acts. A key feature of Marxism is the transfer of power from the bourgeoisie (capitalist ruling class) to the proletariat (the unwealthy subjects that comprise the working class). Yet at seemingly every opportunity, the Bolsheviks altogether ignored the needs of the working class, instead prioritizing the needs of the Party and the retention and accretion of power at all costs. If the interests of Lenin & Co. happened to coincide with those of the proletariat underclass, that was all the better, but where the two were in conflict, the former saw fit to hang the latter out to dry.

“If Marxism means anything, it means two propositions: that as capitalist society matures it is doomed to collapse from inner contradictions, and that this collapse (“revolution”) is effected by industrial labor (“the proletariat”). A regime motivated by Marxist theory would at a minimum adhere to these two principles…[the Bolsheviks] distorted Marxism in every conceivable way."

Some historians and philosophers go further and argue that we shouldn’t refer to the Bolshevik Revolution as a ‘revolution’ at all since it was more akin to a putsch or a coup by an extreme ideological minority. In contrast to the National Socialist Party in Germany, which attained influence by means of democratic consent thanks to right-leaning factions with which Hitler's overtures primarily resonated, the Bolsheviks yielded only slim representation in government until their proximity to power improved through the use of force and subterfuge and they began stacking the deck in their favor. The peasant class, which made up some 80 percent of the Russian population at the time, was for the most part passively ambivalent about tsarism and harbored a deep mistrust of the Bolshevik intelligentsia behind the seizure of power that set Russia on a new path.

“The so-called “October Revolution” was a classic coup d'état. The preparations for it were so clandestine that when Kamenev disclosed in a newspaper interview a week before the event was to take place, that the party intended to seize power, Lenin declared him a traitor and demanded his expulsion. Genuine revolutions, of course, are not scheduled and cannot be betrayed.”

“[The philosopher Nicholas] Berdiaev, who viewed the Revolution primarily in spiritual terms, denied that Russia even had a Revolution: “All of the past is repeating itself and acts only behind new masks.”

In practice—from the perspective of the evidence from the regimes with which they're associated, the recorded words, deeds, and policies of its leadership, and the documented effects on Russian society—Leninism-Stalinism or Bolshevism shared precious little in common with the philosophy it purported to embody, and is best viewed historically as a perversion of Marxist thought.

“Indisputably, the theories underpinning bolshevism, notably those of Karl Marx, were of Western origin. But it is equally indisputable that Bolshevik practices were indigenous, for nowhere in the West has Marxism led to the totalitarian excesses of Leninism-Stalinism…A cause that yields different results in differences circumstances can hardly serve as a sufficient explanation.

Marxism had libertarian as well as authoritarian strains, and which of the two prevailed depended on a country’s political culture…Marx’s notion of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” was sufficiently vague to be filled with the content nearest at hand, which in Russia was the historic legacy of patrimonialism. It was the grafting of Marxist ideology onto the sturdy stem of Russia’s patrimonial heritage that produced totalitarianism. Totalitarianism cannot be explained solely with reference to either Marxist doctrine or Russian history; it was the fruit of their union.

In view of these facts, ideology has to be treated as a subsidiary factor—an inspiration and a mode of thinking of the new ruling class, perhaps, but not a set of principles that either determined its actions or explains them to posterity. As a rule, the less one knows about the actual course of the Russian revolution, the more inclined one is to attribute a dominant influence to Marxist ideas.”

In the end, Leninism conformed strikingly closely to its predecessor, tsarism. This suggests that Lenin and his fellow travelers borrowed from familiar themes and practices employed by tsarist autocracy as well as gradually created the conditions to stretch them further. In doing so, they supplanted one form of totalitarianism with another, and in several respects eclipsed the repressive nature of earlier regimes.

“Tsarist patrimonialism rested on four pillars: (1) autocracy—that is, personal rule unconstrained by either constitution or representative bodies; (2) the autocrat’s ownership of the country’s resources, which is to say, the virtual absence of private property; (3) the autocrat’s right to demand unlimited services from his subjects, resulting in the lack of either collective or individual rights; and (4) state control of information. A comparison of tsarist rule at its zenith with the Communist regime as it looked by the time of Lenin’s death reveals unmistakable affinities.”

Finally, the relationship of Leninism to Stalinism, including how best to apportion responsibility for Stalin's stint as potentate and the carnage that ensued, is among the most hotly debated issues by historians and philosophers alike. I think it’s fair to say from the available evidence that a substantial portion of the blame for Stalin can be placed at Lenin’s feet. After all, Stalin was Lenin’s protégé, with the latter virtually handing the former a “free and clear” dictatorship on a silver platter.

Their governance style, moreover, differed more in terms of degree than substance or practices. Both were uncompromising despots, but Stalin's outgroup was wider. Where Lenin tried to court ethnic minorities during his rule (even if his doing so amounted to insincere gestures layered in pretext), Stalin outright anathematized those same groups and incorporated them into his systematic persecution of political dissidents.

“That in the last months of his active life Lenin developed doubts about Stalin and came close to breaking off personal relations with him should not obscure the fact that until that moment he had done everything in his power to promote Stalin’s ascendancy…Stalin was the only person who belonged to all three of the ruling organs of the Central Committee: the Politburo, the Orgburo, and the Secretariat… Lenin ensured that the man who controlled the central party apparatus controlled the Party and through it the state. And that man was Stalin…There is no indication that he ever saw Stalin as a traitor to his brand of communism.

Beyond the strong personal links binding the two men, Stalin was a true Leninist in that he faithfully followed his patron’s political philosophy and practices. Every ingredient of what has come to be known as Stalinism saved one—murdering fellow Communists—he had learned from Lenin, and that includes the two actions for which he is most severely condemned: collectivization and mass terror. Stalin’s megalomania, his vindictiveness, his morbid paranoia, and other odious personal qualities should not obscure the fact that this ideology and modus operandi were Lenin’s. A man of meager education, he had no other model or source of ideas.”

Whereas the belief that German history would have taken the same course sans Hitler is far from assured, the case for Russia leaving a fundamentally different mark on world events without Stalin at the helm is less straightforward, to say the least. Had Lenin lived longer, we have almost every reason to believe that another two or three decades in power would have produced outcomes not unlike the history we have now. Lenin, after all, was the mastermind behind the Soviet Union and laid the foundations for the escalating inhumanity and cruelty Stalin later brought to fruition.

Note: This review is republished from my official website.

[Jaak Ennuste · Rating 4 out of 5]

Who wants it the most, wins. The Russian Revolution was led by a small group of radicals who wanted power at any cost. Hiding behind slogans of "fighting for the people", the Bolsheviks had no interest in the common good of the people. The sole aim was getting power, and they would not stop at anything. That was a winning formula during turbulent times.

What followed their rise to power was an unmitigated disaster: tanking of the economy, famines, complete suppression of independent thought, inhumane killing and terror in order to keep the populace "under control". All the while European nations were looking at it on the sidelines, thinking that such an extreme regime cannot last for long. Last it did, for 70 years.

Reading about the Russian Revolution is worthy of your time, no matter where you lived and what your background may be. It destroys any illusion you might have if you think that nothing too extreme can last for long because people do not want it, or that under severe regimes the economy will falter and eventually no one will accept a diabolical regime. Cruel terror can last, and everything from the past can be erased. And this can be driven by a very small group of people, if the existing orders enters a stage of disorder. It is one of the most important case studies of history.

I leave off with the data that shows the impact from 1917 to 1926.
Died of famine: 5m
Combat and epidemics: 2m
Emigration: 2m
Total population decrease: 9m

This is not to count the psychological terror and near deaths that occurred.

Lesson of history, if there is one: any atrocity can and will happen if you do not stop the extremists in their tracks, early on. There were many times when the Bolsheviks could have been stopped. But back then people did not know what we know now.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Até que ponto a busca por uma “sociedade igualitária” justifica a opressão e a violência?

Richard Pipes, em sua História Concisa da Revolução Russa, oferece uma análise densa e polêmica sobre um dos eventos mais transformadores do século XX. O autor, conhecido por sua visão crítica sobre o socialismo e o comunismo, desenha um panorama que não apenas narra os acontecimentos, mas também interpela os leitores a refletirem sobre os limites entre utopia e realidade.

Pipes é um historiador que escreve com clareza e contundência. Ele parte da premissa de que a Revolução Russa foi menos uma inevitabilidade histórica e mais um projeto político (e é difícil não concordar com ele), liderado por uma elite revolucionária disposta a moldar o destino de milhões a partir de suas ideologias.

Embora Pipes seja admirável em sua capacidade de sintetizar um tema tão vasto, seu trabalho não está isento de críticas. A narrativa muitas vezes assume um tom abertamente anticomunista, o que pode levar o leitor a questionar a imparcialidade de sua análise. Para quem busca compreender a Revolução Russa sob múltiplos ângulos, este é um alerta importante: a obra reflete mais o ponto de vista do autor do que uma tentativa de isenção.

No entanto, a riqueza de detalhes, o rigor das fontes utilizadas e a coragem de Pipes em fazer perguntas incômodas tornam este livro uma leitura fundamental. Ele nos lembra que a história, embora feita de ideais, é vivida no terreno da realidade – um lugar cheio de contradições. A Revolução Russa, em sua grandiosidade e tragédia, permanece como um espelho de ambições e limites enquanto sociedade.

Como em toda obra histórica, é preciso confrontar a leitura com outras perspectivas. Contudo, é inegável que Pipes nos desafia a repensar os rumos de qualquer revolução: afinal, quanto custa um sonho de igualdade? É neste paradoxo que reside a força do livro.

[Matthew · Rating 1 out of 5]

Purports to be "concise" yet takes the time to explain the author's pet, absolutely unfounded theory that revolutions are always top-down, led by an "intelligentsia" of malcontent academics. The lower classes themselves, in this bizarre construction, have no motivation to rise up without this leadership - and yet this leadership is fatally flawed, because the intelligentsia are not only grievously out of touch, they are also selfish and just want power for themselves. So in short, there's just no point in ever trying to have a revolution of any kind. How convenient!
These pro-status quo arguments take many forms - from Jordan Peterson's idiotic essentialism to Freakonomics' "finding" that poor people are actually just stupid and self-destructive, to Steven Pinker's Panglossian bullshit. The implicit message is always the same - things are fine as they are, don't agitate for change. Or in some cases, things WERE fine and we need to go back to that. In every case the arguments are either based on cherry-picked data, or consist of some fantasy nonsense pulled out of thin air. I would put Richard Pipes' assertions about how revolutions happen in the latter category.
Coincidentally Vladimir Putin, like Pipes, believes that the people never revolt or resist of their own volition, and that they are always manipulated into doing so by malign external influences. Putin locates that influence in western nations while Pipes blames academe. Either way, it's an indefensible, condescending, and disgusting position.

[Socrate · Rating 3 out of 5]

La începutul secolului XX, Rusia era o ţară a contrastelor izbitoare. Un călător francez din epocă, Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu, o compara cu „unul dintre acele castele, construite de-a lungul a mai multe epoci, în care vezi alăturate stilurile cele mai discordante, sau cu o casă, ridicată la întâmplare şi suferind mereu adăugiri, lipsită de caracterul unitar şi de confortul locuinţelor construite după un plan definitiv”. Optzeci la sută din populaţie era formată din ţărani, care duceau în provinciile Marii Rusii o viaţă nu foarte diferită de aceea a strămoşilor lor din Evul Mediu. La cealaltă extremă a spectrului social se aflau scriitorii, artiştii, compozitorii, oamenii de ştiinţă, perfect familiarizaţi cu stilul de viaţă occidental. O economie capitalistă viguroasă – Rusia era cel mai mare producător de ţiţei şi principalul exportator de grâne din lume la momentul respectiv – coexista cu un regim al cenzurii politice şi al arbitrariului poliţienesc. Rusia aspira la statutul de mare putere, egală a Franţei democrate, dar menţinea un regim autocratic, în care oamenii nu aveau niciun cuvânt de spus în guvernarea ţării şi care sancţiona cu asprime orice expresie a nemulţumirii faţă de starea de lucruri existentă. Era singura dintre marile puteri care nu avea nici constituţie, nici parlament.

[Gayla Bassham · Rating 3 out of 5]

On the plus side, this book is well-written and well-researched. I learned a ton. On the minus side, though, Pipes does struggle with restraining himself from interjecting his own political opinions: by which I mean that he is conservative to the point of frequently sounding wistful for a tsarist autocracy. He also harbors a disdain for "intellectuals" which I found puzzling for someone with degrees from Harvard and Cornell. More puzzling still, at the end of a book spent fulminating against what the "intelligentsia" had wrought in Russia, he writes in the conclusion that "The less one knows about the actual course of the Russian Revolution, the more inclined one is to attribute a dominant influence to Marxist ideas." So it wasn't the intelligentsia's crazy ideas that caused all the trouble then? It sounds contradictory to me.

Still, I do recommend this book, with the qualification that it's not going to feel like a neutral narrative. I am at some point going to seek out another account that will balance out the scales a bit.