What do you think?
Rate this book
El año I de la revolución rusa
El año I de la Revolución rusa es el relato apasionado de un militante bolchevique. Escrito entre 1925 y 1928, todavía en medio de la turbulencia revolucionaria, el texto se despliega como un torbellino que reproduce la agitación y la velocidad de los primeros doce meses de un acontecimiento que, como pocos, hace de parteaguas de la historia moderna. En sus páginas se analiza el golpe de octubre, las primeras decisiones del poder bolchevique, el comienzo de la guerra civil, del terror blanco y el terror rojo, los episodios iniciales del comunismo de guerra, hasta enlazar con la Revolución alemana de noviembre de 1918. Su testimonio es seguramente uno de los más informados y más penetrantes de su tiempo, también de los mejores escritos.
En una época que ha decidido ya su condena sobre la Revolución de 1917, esta edición trata de recuperar este importante hecho histórico a partir del relato de uno de sus protagonistas justamente en el año del primer centenario de la Revolución rusa.
En una época que ha decidido ya su condena sobre la Revolución de 1917, esta edición trata de recuperar este importante hecho histórico a partir del relato de uno de sus protagonistas justamente en el año del primer centenario de la Revolución rusa.
454 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1930
78 people are currently reading
1024 people want to read
About the author
Victor Serge
102 books229 followersVictor Lvovich Kibalchich (В.Л. Кибальчич) was born in exile in 1890 and died in exile in 1947. He is better known as Victor Serge, a Russian revolutionary and Francophone writer. Originally an anarchist, he joined the Bolsheviks five months after arriving in Petrograd in January 1919, and later worked for the newly founded Comintern as a journalist, editor and translator. He was openly critical of the Soviet regime, but remained loyal to the ideals of socialism until his death.
After time spent in France, Belgium, Russia and Spain, Serge was forced to live out the rest of his life in Mexico, with no country he could call home. Serge's health had been badly damaged by his periods of imprisonment in France and Russia, but he continued to write until he died of heart attack, in Mexico city on 17 November 1947. Having no nationality, no Mexican cemetery could legally take his body, so he was buried as a 'Spanish Republican.'
After time spent in France, Belgium, Russia and Spain, Serge was forced to live out the rest of his life in Mexico, with no country he could call home. Serge's health had been badly damaged by his periods of imprisonment in France and Russia, but he continued to write until he died of heart attack, in Mexico city on 17 November 1947. Having no nationality, no Mexican cemetery could legally take his body, so he was buried as a 'Spanish Republican.'
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
June 7, 2017
100 χρόνια μετά... Γραμμένο 10 χρόνια μόλις αργότερα από τα συνταρακτικά γεγονότα... Σχέδιο, χρόνος, πείσμα, θέληση, δυσκολιες κ πολλές θυσίες περιγράφονται με έξτρα λεπτομέρεια...Ένας λαός εξαθλιωμένος με πυγμή κατάφερε να πάρει την τύχη στα χέρια του... Ένας Σερζ επαναστάτης, προικισμένος με το γράψιμο, αποδίδει τον τρόπο και το ύφος των ημερών με εξαιρετική ματιά
September 6, 2023
Terribly underappreciated text. Despite the text's short timeline, Serge analyzes a surprisingly wide breadth of the revolution with impressive sharpness and clarity.
The first section provides one of the best general overviews of the Russian revolutionary movement that I've ever read. Covers the Narodniks, the Bolshevik-Menshevik split, and disagreements on the class nature of the Russian Revolution within the RSDLP in only 60 pages. Would recommend this chapter to anyone interested in the topic, especially as a primer before reading a deeper text (like Alan Woods's Bolshevism) for the first time.
The book also helped clarify lingering questions I had about the civil war. Serge gives a good look into the technical side of the conflict, which is not something many Marxists have written much about (This is probably owed to the fact that any Russian Marxist at the time was out there fighting it rather than analyzing it). He also summarizes the disagreements Lenin, Trotsky, and the ultra-lefts held in the early days of the regime with admirable simplicity. I was also impressed by Serge's impassioned defense of the Red Terror, which was surprising given that he later broke with Trotsky partially on the question of Kronstadt.
Still, he doesn't get full marks for political content. Some of his analysis is a bit vague and abstract. He also describes the 1923 Hamburg insurrection in Germany as a "well organized retreat", rather than the abject failure that it was. But these are mostly nitpicks.
All in all, very happy that I read this one. I recommend it to any Marxist.
The first section provides one of the best general overviews of the Russian revolutionary movement that I've ever read. Covers the Narodniks, the Bolshevik-Menshevik split, and disagreements on the class nature of the Russian Revolution within the RSDLP in only 60 pages. Would recommend this chapter to anyone interested in the topic, especially as a primer before reading a deeper text (like Alan Woods's Bolshevism) for the first time.
The book also helped clarify lingering questions I had about the civil war. Serge gives a good look into the technical side of the conflict, which is not something many Marxists have written much about (This is probably owed to the fact that any Russian Marxist at the time was out there fighting it rather than analyzing it). He also summarizes the disagreements Lenin, Trotsky, and the ultra-lefts held in the early days of the regime with admirable simplicity. I was also impressed by Serge's impassioned defense of the Red Terror, which was surprising given that he later broke with Trotsky partially on the question of Kronstadt.
Still, he doesn't get full marks for political content. Some of his analysis is a bit vague and abstract. He also describes the 1923 Hamburg insurrection in Germany as a "well organized retreat", rather than the abject failure that it was. But these are mostly nitpicks.
All in all, very happy that I read this one. I recommend it to any Marxist.
November 18, 2018
I'm reading this book and I love it.
It tells the truth about the historic revolution that knocked down the Tsar's immense wealth and wide-ranging system of hideous oppression -- from the barbaric massacres against Jews to the mass killing of people trying to deliver a petition or stage a peaceful demonstration, to landlords controlling hundreds of serfs who could scarcely feed themselves -- and replaced it with an egalitarian regime.
It is very detailed historically and also narrates the background to it. Without a doubt, it is factual, and the evidence put forward cannot be refuted.
Serge, the writer, was himself a participant. His political background was anarchist, libertarian, very concerned with the idea of individual freedom.
When he traveled to Russia - in the midst of the revolution - he did not side with the Bolsheviks there.
That soon changed, however, after Serge realized that the Bolsheviks were the only option to eliminate the oppressive system and improve the quality of life.
Serge tells the truth about the Bolshevik regime: an egalitarian government which had to use violence -- like any government -- to stay in power against all its violent enemies that vowed to restore tyranny, such as the White armies that hanged workers they could find at random in every town they conquered.
Serge, himself, seemed to dislike violence and was one of the rather humanistic people within the revolution. He understood, however, that violence was objectively necessary in order to stop even worse violence.
But he constantly tried to eliminate the worst excesses of violence, to save as many valuable human lives as he could.
Work within the revolution but work to reduce its unnecessary harm -- this, according to Serge, was the only right thing to do.
It is a great perspective on a great historical event.
Some may find the foreword by Peter Sedgwick, who translated the work to English, interesting: it brings evidence which unquestionably exposes the fundamental flaws of the major anti-Bolshevik arguments, that do not square with simple historical facts (such as the idea it was a mere coup not backed by the masses, etc.).
Nevertheless, Sedgwick himself also manipulates the historical facts in order to bring the Bolsheviks themselves into question; with arguments of the low quality that we would expect he himself to refute. He imposes his narrative on the book, and tells one what to believe -- as if one can't form one's own view of Serge, whose views are opposed to Sedgwick's.
Serge's very point is: side with the Bolsheviks, despite the negative aspects, that is the most important thing. Sedgwick says: avoid siding with the Bolsheviks, due to the negative aspects. He does not say it directly, but certainly hints it; he spreads fear and doubt by hysterically framing certain events. In order to appear legitimate, he portrays Serge as the great historical figure that he is, attempts to appear as a sympathetic person -- all to end up taking the positions which Serge disproved throughout the book, which do not stand the light of truth provided by Serge. I do not think the foreword is respectful of the author, and the work.
With the style of an arrogant elitist professor, he lectures on what to believe, and how you can't side with the Bolsheviks since they weren't all that good either, inserting his opinion where he wasn't called for. The fact that he resorts to citing British Empire propaganda as fact -- in the foreword to a communist book -- should speak for itself.
It tells the truth about the historic revolution that knocked down the Tsar's immense wealth and wide-ranging system of hideous oppression -- from the barbaric massacres against Jews to the mass killing of people trying to deliver a petition or stage a peaceful demonstration, to landlords controlling hundreds of serfs who could scarcely feed themselves -- and replaced it with an egalitarian regime.
It is very detailed historically and also narrates the background to it. Without a doubt, it is factual, and the evidence put forward cannot be refuted.
Serge, the writer, was himself a participant. His political background was anarchist, libertarian, very concerned with the idea of individual freedom.
When he traveled to Russia - in the midst of the revolution - he did not side with the Bolsheviks there.
That soon changed, however, after Serge realized that the Bolsheviks were the only option to eliminate the oppressive system and improve the quality of life.
Serge tells the truth about the Bolshevik regime: an egalitarian government which had to use violence -- like any government -- to stay in power against all its violent enemies that vowed to restore tyranny, such as the White armies that hanged workers they could find at random in every town they conquered.
Serge, himself, seemed to dislike violence and was one of the rather humanistic people within the revolution. He understood, however, that violence was objectively necessary in order to stop even worse violence.
But he constantly tried to eliminate the worst excesses of violence, to save as many valuable human lives as he could.
Work within the revolution but work to reduce its unnecessary harm -- this, according to Serge, was the only right thing to do.
It is a great perspective on a great historical event.
Some may find the foreword by Peter Sedgwick, who translated the work to English, interesting: it brings evidence which unquestionably exposes the fundamental flaws of the major anti-Bolshevik arguments, that do not square with simple historical facts (such as the idea it was a mere coup not backed by the masses, etc.).
Nevertheless, Sedgwick himself also manipulates the historical facts in order to bring the Bolsheviks themselves into question; with arguments of the low quality that we would expect he himself to refute. He imposes his narrative on the book, and tells one what to believe -- as if one can't form one's own view of Serge, whose views are opposed to Sedgwick's.
Serge's very point is: side with the Bolsheviks, despite the negative aspects, that is the most important thing. Sedgwick says: avoid siding with the Bolsheviks, due to the negative aspects. He does not say it directly, but certainly hints it; he spreads fear and doubt by hysterically framing certain events. In order to appear legitimate, he portrays Serge as the great historical figure that he is, attempts to appear as a sympathetic person -- all to end up taking the positions which Serge disproved throughout the book, which do not stand the light of truth provided by Serge. I do not think the foreword is respectful of the author, and the work.
With the style of an arrogant elitist professor, he lectures on what to believe, and how you can't side with the Bolsheviks since they weren't all that good either, inserting his opinion where he wasn't called for. The fact that he resorts to citing British Empire propaganda as fact -- in the foreword to a communist book -- should speak for itself.
February 22, 2010
So far, interesting to hear Serge's take on the Bolshevik revolution, as he only returned to Russia from france in 1919, and by the time he published this book in 1930 (in France, though he was in the USSR) the net was already ready to close on him and the Second Year of the Revolution never saw the light of day, confiscated in 1936. Just reminds me again how everyone is right from his or her own point of view, and life is a continuous showing of Rashomon.
December 19, 2021
A brutally honest historical account from a sympathetic, critically-minded participant-observer; alternatively inspiring, bracing and sad.
Read
December 10, 2025BANGER 🔥🔥🔥🔥
June 15, 2020
Sober, clear-eyed, and sympathetic; Serge's account combines historical detail, analysis, and an understanding of the underlying mood and sentiments that motivate revolutionary actions. Serge writes historical portraiture of the leading figures of the Russian Revolution borne of his first-hand experience, but doesn't dwell solely on anecdotes. His account is often compelling and sincere, but one can sometimes lose the forest for the trees and vice versa, depending on the author's mood in a given chapter; however, taken as a whole, the book gives a relatively fulsome picture of the dramas of the early Russian Revolutionary period.
His tragic post-script memorialises what he views as the dead (or dying) hopes of the Bolshevik ideals under Stalin, but puts forward a hopeful vision that inspires, even as it was disproven in the course of the 20th century. It should be read by Left radicals of all tendencies.
Recommended for those with an interest in revolutionary history, scientific socialism, or who wish to develop a keen eye for the journalistic style of history Serge employs.
His tragic post-script memorialises what he views as the dead (or dying) hopes of the Bolshevik ideals under Stalin, but puts forward a hopeful vision that inspires, even as it was disproven in the course of the 20th century. It should be read by Left radicals of all tendencies.
Recommended for those with an interest in revolutionary history, scientific socialism, or who wish to develop a keen eye for the journalistic style of history Serge employs.
October 27, 2023
I always tell people looking for a place to start with the Russian Revolution to read Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution, not just because it's a great source, but also because it's an incredible literary achievement; Trotsky was one of the greatest prose stylists of the twentieth century, in addition to being one of those vanishingly few human beings whose capacity to act upon history are empirically apparent (right up until it very much acted on him).
Going forward I'll be telling people to read Trotsky's 'History' and Serge's 'Year One'. I was expecting something a lot more dilettanish and perhaps essayistic given my experience of 'Memoirs of a Revolutionary', which is also fantastic and very detailed, but a memoir nonetheless. However, once Serge gets October behind him there is a properly extensive (if politically skewed) map of the unfolding of the battles as well as the broader dynamics of the Russian Civil War across most of the Empire, very impressive that he manages to accomplish this in such a (relatively) small number of pages.
Going forward I'll be telling people to read Trotsky's 'History' and Serge's 'Year One'. I was expecting something a lot more dilettanish and perhaps essayistic given my experience of 'Memoirs of a Revolutionary', which is also fantastic and very detailed, but a memoir nonetheless. However, once Serge gets October behind him there is a properly extensive (if politically skewed) map of the unfolding of the battles as well as the broader dynamics of the Russian Civil War across most of the Empire, very impressive that he manages to accomplish this in such a (relatively) small number of pages.
February 14, 2023
The great thing about reading Serge, especially his histories, is he was there. Now he wasn't there in 1917. He didn't arrive in Petrograd until 1919, but when he quote's Lenin or any one else, he is getting the quote from the secretary who was there. The source may be secondary, but it was a man who was in the room and that is cool. A lot of great information in this work for those who want to get past the West's version of the Red Revolution or Stalin's version of the same. Well written, well researched, and full of information on the Russian Revolution.
May 6, 2018
Serge provides a thorough analysis of the events of 1917-18 in Russia from the perspective of the working class and its party. Far from a dry history, the author's background in poetry in prose shines through the pages. This book highlights the successes and failures of the Bolsheviks' revolution that modern communists must learn from.
October 28, 2020
Um documento histórico vivido por um escritor/revolucionário de primeira água sobre a revolução bolchevique.
unread
July 14, 2022Status: have only read up to Chapter 3 The Urban Middle Classes against the Proletariat (p. 116).
November 30, 2023
Embora tenha relevância histórica, é de leitura difícil para quem não for um particular conhecedor e interessado na revolução russa de 1917.
February 1, 2020
“Year One of the Russian Revolution” by Victor Serge is the most interesting history book I have read, surpassing even William S. Prescott’s “History of the Conquest of Mexico”.
Serge was a Bolshevik himself and an eyewitness to much of the revolution. The skill with which the events are set out may be due in large part to the fact that Serge was a writer from the age of 15 or so. The facts are well-researched and footnoted.
Serge skillfully depicts the many factions, including the Allied powers and the Central (German) powers as well as numerous internal groups, wrestling for control or influence of a chaotic Russia during World War One. The eventual predominance of the Bolsheviks was a close-run thing and could not have happened without the genius and focus of Lenin and perhaps also Trotsky and others (but not especially Stalin) as well as dedicated support and heroic sacrifice from the proletariat, support and sacrifice without which the revolution would have died an early death.
Contrary to anti-Bolshevik propaganda during the revolution, the Bolsheviks initially were not a band of opportunists interested only in seizing power for themselves, but rather were committed to overthrowing the oppressive Tsarist power structure in effort to form a system operating in favor and with the support and full participation of the common Russian. During this first year, they used what power they could muster with admirable focus and restraint. [Not explained in this book: that the Bolsheviks beginning about 1919 brutally crushed the revolution in return for despotic control of Russia. Like Russia after 2000, for the Putin kleptocracy.]
Serge also started a book on the second year of the revolution, but after Serge crossed Stalin and departed the USSR, the GPU seized his manuscripts. Most of his relatives died in the gulag.
The first half of this book was most interesting and the second half, gripping. Highly recommended.
Serge was a Bolshevik himself and an eyewitness to much of the revolution. The skill with which the events are set out may be due in large part to the fact that Serge was a writer from the age of 15 or so. The facts are well-researched and footnoted.
Serge skillfully depicts the many factions, including the Allied powers and the Central (German) powers as well as numerous internal groups, wrestling for control or influence of a chaotic Russia during World War One. The eventual predominance of the Bolsheviks was a close-run thing and could not have happened without the genius and focus of Lenin and perhaps also Trotsky and others (but not especially Stalin) as well as dedicated support and heroic sacrifice from the proletariat, support and sacrifice without which the revolution would have died an early death.
Contrary to anti-Bolshevik propaganda during the revolution, the Bolsheviks initially were not a band of opportunists interested only in seizing power for themselves, but rather were committed to overthrowing the oppressive Tsarist power structure in effort to form a system operating in favor and with the support and full participation of the common Russian. During this first year, they used what power they could muster with admirable focus and restraint. [Not explained in this book: that the Bolsheviks beginning about 1919 brutally crushed the revolution in return for despotic control of Russia. Like Russia after 2000, for the Putin kleptocracy.]
Serge also started a book on the second year of the revolution, but after Serge crossed Stalin and departed the USSR, the GPU seized his manuscripts. Most of his relatives died in the gulag.
The first half of this book was most interesting and the second half, gripping. Highly recommended.
February 20, 2017
this book is so fucking good. if ur gonna read one on the russian revolution blah blah.
the language is totally compelling and serge gives a viewpoint no other historian could
the language is totally compelling and serge gives a viewpoint no other historian could
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews