Η «ανώνυμη» Ρωσική Επανάσταση

by Neil Faulkner, Μανουέλα Έλενα Σκουλά (Translator)

Η Ρωσική Επανάσταση είναι το πιο παρεξηγημένο και παρερμηνευμένο γεγονός στη σύγχρονη ιστορία. Στην «Ανώνυμη» Ρωσική Επανάσταση ο Neil Faulkner ξεπερνάει τους μύθους και ξεφεύγει από τη μυθοπλασία, θέτοντας στο επίκεντρο της ιστορίας τον ρωσικό λαό που υπήρξε ο αληθινός ήρωας σε αυτή την ταραχώδη περίοδο. Εκατομμύρια άνθρωποι συναντήθηκαν σε ένα μαζικό κίνημα, διοργάνωσαν δημοκρατικές συνελεύσεις, κινητοποιήθηκαν για μαχητικές ενέργειες και ανέτρεψαν ένα τεράστιο καθεστώς ιδιοκτητών, κερδοσκόπων και πολεμιστών.

Ο Faulkner απορρίπτει τις καρικατούρες του Λένιν και των μπολσεβίκων ως αυταρχικών συνωμοτών ή ως προγόνων της σταλινικής δικτατορίας και ισχυρίζεται ότι η Ρωσική Επανάσταση ήταν έκρηξη της δημοκρατίας και της δημιουργικότητας, ότι συντρίφτηκε από αιματηρή αντεπανάσταση και ότι αντικαταστάθηκε με μια μορφή γραφειοκρατίας από τον κρατικό καπιταλισμό.

Βασισμένη σε ισχυρές μαρτυρίες από πρώτο χέρι, αυτή η ιστορία σηματοδοτεί την εκατονταετηρίδα της Επανάστασης με την αποκατάσταση της δημοκρατικής ουσίας της, προσφέροντας ένα τέλειο εγχειρίδιο στον σύγχρονο αναγνώστη.

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

304 pages, Paperback

First published January 11, 2017

About the author

Neil Faulkner FSA was a British archaeologist, historian, writer, lecturer, broadcaster, and political activist. Educated at King’s College, Cambridge and the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, Faulkner was a school teacher before becoming an archaeologist.

He was currently a Research Fellow at the University of Bristol, Editor of Military History Monthly, and Co-director of the Great Arab Revolt Project (in Jordan) and the Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project (in Norfolk, England). On 22 May 2008, he was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London

Reviews

[[Name Redacted] · Rating 1 out of 5]

Things I learned from Faulkner:
--"People" only means "urban industrial workers." Screw everyone else, especially farmers. They don't count as "people."
--The massacre of the Kulaks? Not worth mentioning. In fact, no massacre or mass deaths had anything to do with the Revolution. Except maybe at the beginning. Otherwise, it was all outsiders meddling...somehow.
--"Capitalism" is every system that doesn't agree with Faulkner's personal interpretation of Communism. Even the systems that are Communist or Socialist or Feudalist or etc. etc..
--All failures of all forms of Communism across the globe are the result of imperfect implementations or "false" Communism, not evidence that Communism as a system is fundamentally impractical and demonstrably disastrous.
--A simultaneous worldwide universal Communist "revolution" is the only way "true" Communism can come into being.
--The suffering of everyone under Communism is totally okay, no matter what, but the suffering of anyone under Capitalism is INEXCUSABLE!

[Evan · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 rounded up to 4, as a reflection of my general enjoyment of this.

Upshot is this: I didn't know much about the Russian Revolution, ashamedly and admittedly; other than maybe from some heroicized Eisenstein and Pudovkin films. Author Faulkner tells us straight up that there's nothing original in this rundown of the great event and those events leading up to it and its aftermath; and that Trotsky's own epic account is the primary source of this. With Faulkner's -- and my own - biases in mind I could enjoy this completely for what is it is: a clear, uncluttered beginner's primer to the historical event. That's exactly what I wanted and that's exactly what I got. Short, sweet, riveting and enjoyable.

I'll let the specialists duke it out over its deficiencies.

-e/k '19

[Dont · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not exactly the people's history one might expect. While there are glimpses of descriptive insight into the mundane and commonplace, China Mielville's "October" provides a far more compelling view from below. In some respects the two books make interesting companions. Faulkner's intentions seem far more oriented towards recuperating a Trotskyist perspective on the revolution. This, as others have noted, leads to several assertions with regards to the accidental and complex nature of rebellion/revolution and the role of "genius" leadership. There is also the constant insertion of Trotskyist chestnuts into the historical account. That said, as a brisk account of the revolution, the book would serve well anyone who wants to access a readable history. It just isn't the people's history suggested in the title - perhaps this was an invention of the publisher, trying to distinguish Faulkner's title from all the others hitting the market in time for the 100 year anniversary of the revolution. But one thing is certain; the story of the revolution remains hugely compelling perhaps because of the deeply contradictory perspectives from which the story is told and interrogated.

[Ezgi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hakların Rus Devrimi tarihi ortalama bir tarih çalışması. Başlangıç kitabı değil. Yazar yorumlarıyla çok fazla müdahale ediyor. Ama ele aldığı süreci iyi seçiyor. Dekabrist ve Narodnikler gibi Rusya’da filizlenen ilk isyan hareketlerinden başlatıyor. Bence devrim sürecini anlamak için bu hareketlerden başlamalı okur. Ama bu iyi seçimleri kadar kötü seçimleri de var. Yazar Troçkist. Haliyle bazı yorumlarını abartılı buldum. Bazı noktalarda Lenin bile geri planda kalıyor. Bunları görmezden gelirsek okunabilir bir çalışma olduğunu söyleyebilirim.

[Matt Wrafter · Rating 4 out of 5]

This mfer looovvveesss Trotsky.

In all seriousness, this is a really concise, readable introduction to the Russian Revolution. It is not unbiased; not just because t is written by someone on the left and therefore someone sympathetic to the goals of the revolution(s), but also because of its loyalty to an extremely specific faction within the Soviet story, ie. Trotskyism. I feel the need to read an alternative account after this (one that doesn’t imply the Russian revolution simply ended in 1921 and everything that came after was merely state capitalism).

Those unavoidable facts aside, this is a fantastic book that respects the Russian people and champions the fight for a better world. Definitely worth a read.

[Jeff Buddle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Who knew you could find a Trotskyist in the 21st Century? Cuz that's what we have here in the form of Neil Faulkner, a Trotskyist historian bent on proving that the Russian revolution was an exercise in participatory democracy, not a coup emanating from a small group of revolutionary cadres. And, like Trotsky, he makes an eloquent case in defense of his assertion.

Faulkner quotes Trotsky often, heaps praise on him, names him as one of the two 'geniuses' of the revolution. At the same time, however, he's claiming that, despite this leadership, the revolution was indeed one that originated from 'below.' It was the working class who led the fight. His eventual conclusion is that, yes, it was a groundswell of worker activity that precipitated the revolution, but they were fortunate that the Bolsheviks were so well organized.

It's a quick and compelling read from an entirely unique point of view. Faulkner intends the Russian Revolution to be a model for those to come. In that respect, "The People's History of the Russian Revolution" is an essential book.

[Breanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.7 stars

This book gave me exactly what I'd hoped, a clear outline, a beginner's introduction so to speak, of the Russian Revolution(s). This does not mean the book lacked details, but that the details didn't derail me from understanding what I was reading. Revolutions always have so many names, party factions, and so on that it can get confusing about where each party stands and who did what, that instead of learning anything one walks away confused. This book avoided leaving me confused, and I'm proud to say I learned a lot!

[Gordan Karlic · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can't say that this is a very objective book and there is a lot that the sky should actually get into the topic or at least should not be described to that extent, but a generally ok review of the October Revolution. I can’t say it’s not on the border of grade 3 because it really is, but it’s good enough.

[Yashar · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book harbors a profound paradox. On the one hand, at early chapters, it criticizes Mensheviks as reformers and counter-revolutionaries. On the other hand, the analysis made in the last two chapters shows that the degeneration of the Russian Revolution was due to the failure of revolutions in Europe during the 1920s, and the impossibility of the socialism in a single country. Thereby, the Soviet government should either render to a bourgeois-democratic state or a state-capitalist state. This analysis, in itself, justifies the position of the formerly criticized Mensheviks.

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whistle stop tour of the Bolshevik revolution and it's eventual degeneration ( marred by an almost obsessive compulsion to down play the role of the party )

[mohammad firouzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

برای شروع مطالعه انقلاب فوریه و اکتبر عالی است. احتمالا کتاب دیگه فالکنر (تاریخ مارکسیستی جهان) رو بعد از این بخونم

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very short and accessible history of Russian revolution, counter revolution and war. Immensely enjoyable.

[B Sarv · Rating 5 out of 5]

A People’s History of the Russian Revolution by Neil Faulkner
“Between the saints as the Church paints them and the devils as the candidates for sainthood portray them, there are to be found living people. And it is they who make history.” Leon Trotsky (p. 191).

Throughout my experience reading this book I could not help but remember the other revolutions I have read about recently. I hope to make links to some of the other reading I have done about revolutions. Before I begin I want to apologize: I am not an academic thinker nor am I an expert on political or economic theory, so if I step on any of my readers more qualified toes, I hope you will correct me.

Three books I recommend that relate to this book are:

“The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution” by C.L.R. James

“Maurice Bishop Speaks: The Grenada Revolution 1979-83” ed. Bruce Marcus and Michael Taber

“Che Geuvara: A Revolutionary Life” by Jon Lee Anderson

I knew a bit about the Russian Revolution, but not much. This book did give me a deeper understanding of the events of that era. I was struck by the scale of the oppression as well as the empty arrogance of the oppressors. They really seemed clueless as to the circumstances of the industrial class and the agricultural class of workers. This, combined with the same sort of clueless leadership in the military, made for the mass movement to overthrow the ruling class of industrialists, landlords, aristocratic military leaders and ultimately the monarchy. I learned there were two revolutions, one failed one in 1905 and then the October revolution in 1917. The 1917 revolution eventually failed as well and devolved into a “state-capitalist system” (248) with Stalin as a ruthless autocrat – and it had nothing to do with socialism or communism from early on.

One of the key elements that triggered the 1917 revolution was the entry of Russia into the First World War (WW I). As the war continued, oppression rose on all fronts: the agricultural peasants, the factory workers and the soldiers (who were drawn heavily from the peasants of the countryside). “Right-wing historians often describe October as a Bolshevik ‘coup’ made possible by the ‘anarchy’ into which Russia had fallen . . . .What looks to them like ‘anarchy’ was, in fact, the leaching away of state authority and the rise of new organs of popular power. What they describe as a ‘coup’ was, in fact, an expression of the democratic will of millions of workers, soldiers, sailors, and peasants” (p. 182)

Early efforts to suppress the rebellion took a form that is still familiar to the modern observer; it is much like the one we see in recent times with COINTELPRO and the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, the persecution of “Black Lives Matter” activists as “Black Identity Extremists,” and the U.S. led coup ousting Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti. Mr. Faulkner describes the situation: “State security worked hand in glove with industrialists to smash labor organization . . . .As wartime orders flowed in, the employers extended the working day, made overtime compulsory, scrapped health safeguards, and lobbied for the ‘militarisation of labor’. . . . War., profit and ‘patriotism’ formed an alliance to ratchet up the rate of exploitation.” (p. 102). This quote sounded so familiar, even though the circumstances of Russia at that time and our modern world are very different. It strikes me that the war, profit and patriotism formula is a tried and true means of ensuring that little is done to change any level of exploitation. This is as true today as it was then. What was different then was the gulf between the rich and poor was more like inter-galactic distances than the chasm that currently exists. There was no broad middle class buffer who would identify with and worship the aristocracy as our middle class worships the billionaire class in the modern corpratocracy. The two groups were living in such different worlds that the Russian aristocracy was not able to see how they were leaving the agricultural and industrial labor classes no choice but to rise up. At present the billionaires know very well how to keep exploited people divided and how to continue to keep the middle class living a fantasy that they too may one day be masters of accumulation of capital. The fruit that was ripe then is not even on the tree today.


Still, the revolution needed people who could guide and lead. One leader, Leon Trotsky, explained, “Against a numerous, disciplined, well-armed, and ably led military force, unarmed or almost unarmed masses of the people cannot possibly gain a victory.” Mr. Faulkner went on to explain: “Everything else is optional, but a minority ruling class cannot rule without armed force. They need this both to defend their property and profits from radical movements at home and to defend their empires and “national interests’ abroad” (p. 121). When I read this quote I thought specifically of the Haitian Revolution and the Grenada Revolution.

Although the two events bear marked differences in time and circumstances the foregoing can help us understand a little about why those two revolutions succeeded. First, the rebellion in Haiti was massive and the enslaved people were sufficiently armed that their movement was destined to succeed. Also, the ruling class was not a disciplined or well-armed group. Eventually, though, the Haitian rebels did face down two numerous and well-armed military forces numbering in the thousands from France and Britain. But it was the Haitians who were well-led, disciplined and determined to be free. The Grenadian Revolution did not face an opposing domestic military force which would have been able to stop the New Jewel Movement from its effort to restore power to the common person in Grenada; it was a mass movement. It took imperialist intervention to divide the movement and strike it down before it had time to take root.

Furthermore, neither of these Caribbean-based movements was truly radical, in spite of the propagandist characterizations. First, in Haiti what the enslaved people wanted, demanded and achieved was freedom from terror, slavery, murder, rape and oppression. (Who knows how many millions more would have been kidnapped from Africa and brought to San Domingo had the slaves not risen?) This was not and is not radical. This is humanity pursuing its natural state. In Grenada what happened was an effort to provide true democracy to the people by involving them in their own decision making and overthrowing a U.S. supported regime which held power based on fraud, fear, terror and insecurity. It seems many of the strides taken by the people of Grenada, in what was a mass movement by the people, were strides that disrupted the imperialist demands of the United States; demands which are driven by corporations.

As mentioned above, the October Revolution eventually failed. Faulkner explains, “If the socialist experiment was not underpinned by material security, the revolution would be consumed by the primeval backwardness of Old Russia” (p. 213). He adds, “There were three insuperable problems: the social weight of the peasantry; the economic collapse due to war; and the disintegration of the working class. . . . The working class is a collective because its labour is collective….The peasantry, on the other hand, is a class of individualists because every peasant’s aspiration is to be an independent farmer. The peasants will support urban revolutionaries who allow them to seize the land. But further cooperation depends on the ability of the towns to produce goods they can trade with the villages. If they fail in this, the peasants will not trade, and the towns will starve” (pp. 234-5). In this book details emerge about the efforts of external forces to destabilize the government coming out of the October Revolution. “So the counter-revolution was achieved not by violent overthrow, but by the relentless external pressure of economic and military competition” (p. 247).

It seems that the true and modern revolution would be to establish actual democracy, not the fraudulent corpratocracies that propagandize themselves as democracies. In fact, that should not be revolutionary at all due to the professed nature of many “democratic” countries. But democracy is an anathema to capitalism. This truth is clearest in the way that the democratically elected government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown by the United States and its accomplices. Corpratocracies have no interest in democracy because in a true democracy they will be expected to bear a fair burden, be subject to regulation, unable to continue the corporate criminal legal system and unable to maintain other current unjust regimes of hyper-acquisitiveness. Examining the world in the light of the Russian Revolution, as well as the revolutions in Haiti, Cuba and Grenada, we can learn some lessons and perhaps think about our own futures. For us to become those people Trotsky talks about, people who make history.

“The state is an apparatus of power based on social relationships. A combination of coercion and consent – force and fraud – it depends for its integrity, on the one hand, on the quiescence of the majority, and on the other, on the loyalty of the personnel of its repressive agencies.” (p. 124). When the state is owned by corporations the quiescence of the majority is ensured by consumerist propaganda and the repressive agencies are a militarized and venerated set of low level civil servants who do the will of the civil masters to “defend their property and profits from radical movements at home, and to defend their empires and “national interests’ abroad” (p. 121). Corporate ownership of the mechanisms of state power pushes people away from true democracy toward ever-growing means of ensuring a flow of material wealth from the many to the few.

The sorts of revolutions that occurred in Haiti, Russia, Cuba and Grenada were inevitable. People had had enough. But circumstances are not ripe for the kinds of revolutions witnessed in Haiti, Russia and Cuba. Maybe that’s okay, I don’t know. But there are certain things that are revolutionary that should not be revolutionary: democracy, food security, literacy and support for the poor. Why do I say these things are considered revolutionary? Let’s look at literacy. Four different examples of promotion of literacy bear examining: literacy programs were promoted by 1) Cuba during and after the revolution, 2) the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense 3) the New Jewel Movement in Grenada as it rose to and after it came to power and 4) Haiti by the Aristide government (which won by two-thirds in a democratic election widely recognized as free and fair). What do all of these have in common? Each movement or government was maligned, attacked and in three instances eliminated by the corporate imperialst powers. What about food security? Who can forget the BPPSDs program of free breakfast in the poor urban neighborhoods? Food for the poor was also an important part of the Aristide platform and Maurice Bishop’s New Jewel Movement. Where are they now? Who made sure they were terminated? If poor people are encouraged to grow their own food instead of buying imported food from the United States then the transfer of wealth from poor people and and nations to the corporate exporters of food would be harmed. Not even a small nation with a population of barely more than one hundred thousand could be left to determine its own way for literacy, food security and support for the poor. As Mr. Faulkner pointed out, “When a loaf can induce tears, revolution is close.” (p. 113)


So what of democracy? How about one vote for one person where a corporation is not defined as a person (a legal fiction)? In such a situation ensuring and working for the registration of all – actually finding people and helping them all register to vote – would be a top priority for the government in power in a democracy. Encouraging participation based on the fact that one is a citizen rather than based on money. Each citizen would have exactly the same political power; ending the regime of corporate lobbying. Mr. Faulker points out, “Formal democracy lags behind participatory democracy in giving expression to the will of the masses. Leaders elected in one phase of the revolution lag behind the radicalism of the masses in the next.” (p. 225) He was saying so in the context of one of the causes of the faltering of the October revolution. In reflecting on this I thought that maybe the “revolution” (which shouldn’t be a revolution but should be status quo) is to actually stop the fraud that portrays itself as democracy and have “formal democracy”.

In 1988 Tracy Chapman sang,

“Don't you know
They're talkin' bout a revolution
It sounds like a whisper
Don't you know
They're talkin' about a revolution
It sounds like a whisper


“While they're standing in the welfare lines
Crying at the doorsteps of those armies of salvation
Wasting time in the unemployment lines
Sitting around waiting for a promotion. . . .

“Poor people gonna rise up
And get their share
Poor people gonna rise up
And take what's theirs.”

Twenty years before her The Beatles sang,

“You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out. . . .

“You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow.”

Still, people like to associate themselves with Che’ Guevara’s likeness. I wonder what it symbolizes for them? My point here is that in popular culture these hit songs come and go, but revolution does not follow. Of course The Beatles weren’t really encouraging revolution. Armed revolution of the sort that occurred in Russia and Cuba will not follow these songs though. It only takes between three and five minutes to listen to a song on the radio. Che’ Guevara dedicated his life to change – whether one agrees with him or not one cannot doubt that. The Black Panther Party did not just sing, they acted upon what they saw was a need. The New Jewel Movement did not just sing, they too acted in an effort to instill an actual democracy. What is needed, for democracy, real democracy, is persistant, devoted, unfailing effort to ensure the end to corpratocracies and having them replaced with actual democracies. It is prudent to be aware of the cautionary tale of the Russian Revolution and of the others. There are lessons to be learned by reading about every revolution. I recommend this book.

[FirstName Bottom text · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written, a fast and interesting read, but the Trotsky glazing is a bit too much at points. ⛏

[Brian Bean · Rating 4 out of 5]

The virtue of this book is not that it has a unique take on the Russian Revolution. It is very reliant and quotes from a number of the other major historical works especially the definitive work by Trotsky and by Tony Cliff. The virtue of this book is it being a well written, very engaging history, accessible book that isn’t 900 pages like Trotsky or 3 volumes like Cliff. I would recommend this book to someone who is interested to know about the events of the Russian Revolution and wants to do so in less than 300 pages.

[Ethan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was very excited about this book. I have repeatedly seen Faulkner's book A Radical History of the World on shelves, and I have been meaning to dive into it for some time now. Because of the short length of this book, I thought I would give it a try first to see what it might foreshadow. My feelings are mixed, to say the least.

Without a doubt, I want to be straightforward with two facts here at the beginning of this review. The first is that I am most certainly a "People's" historian. Howard Zinn is not only one of my heroes, but I thoroughly enjoy the simple idea that he created. With that being said, I also acknowledge that his history was not perfect, nor was it meant to be; however, the mission behind it was simple and important--for working people and traditionally underrepresented groups throughout the US. In the same vein, Faulkner gives it a go here.

Secondly, I am a teacher in the social sciences and humanities, mostly focusing on World History. Because of this, I sought out a book with an alternative perspective to help usher the subject in my class because as anyone knows it is one of the most important events in world history. Though I have not read entire books dedicated to the subject until now, I thought I was versed well enough to be able to think critically about how this perspective weighed with the others. I was partially correct in this regard. Let me dive a little deeper into the nuance.

My chief complaint of the book, which eventually became my ultimate letdown, was how deeply it is entrenched in ideology, sometimes almost to the point of being half-assed rhetoric as opposed to an alternative historical analysis. While the irony here is that I do agree with some of this position, there is undoubtedly rabbit holes that Faulkner falls into that I can smell from miles away. It is here that the reader (and especially the teacher) need to be careful. With this in mind, it is clear from the beginning that Faulkner has a certain message that he wants to send, but at least he mentions this up front. It is this mission that both makes and breaks the book for me, which is perhaps a good thing.

His constant focus on how the Russian Revolution was truly a movement from the bottom up, the ultimate grassroots uprising, is something that I found not only personally inspiring but also the highlight of the book. He states early on that this is his mission, and he succeeds well in describing ways in which it truly was a people's movement. I have no complaints here. Elsewhere, though, it gets more complicated.

To help the reader, it must first be said that, yes, Faulkner, like many other academics, tends to pick favorites within the Bolsheviks and Communist Party. His line is a slightly more nuanced but somewhat defensible liberal defense: Stalin sucks, ruined the party but Lenin was the true idealist, if flawed and occasionally ruthless. Trotsky gets less flair in this reading that he is probably due, too. I believe Faulkner provides decent evidence for this position, but it is certainly one that any non-leftist refutes wholeheartedly with much stronger evidence, though when questioned critically they often fall into similar ideological traps because defining heroes is not only slippery business but is also messy. Not to mention that hero-making is one of my pet peeves in the classroom because I would rather focus on the narrative rather than just individuals.

Speaking of a larger story, the lay reader without much background knowledge can parse together a decent storyline with this book. I would not say that if you were to only read one book about the revolution that this should be the one, but I think it might be okay to claim that if you are interested in the revolution and know the basics that this might be one decent text to help you navigate the complicated yet fascinating history.

It is in this vein that I did find value, though. As a teacher, I am constantly searching for diverging and converging narratives to provide my students. Even if a book is flawed (ideologically or otherwise), this certainly does not mean that there is not value embedded within it. Just like how teaching Howard Zinn alongside a Patriot's History of the US would be a fascinating project, so too would it be to nuance the textbook with excerpts from this reading, which is exactly what I plan to do.

Overall, I am mixed about the text due to its staunch ideological pinning and relative briefness and omission of some important details. Still, though, I think it is a useful resource to shine light through a different lens on an often overlooked viewpoint of a very complex and important historical event.

Note: I listened to the audio version of the book, which I enjoyed and recommend.

[Jesse Slater · Rating 4 out of 5]

This avowed Trotskyist treatment of the Russian Revolution states in its introduction that the subject has rarely been handled well due to great ideological biases (both of Western capitalists and Russian Stalinists) as well as the mass censoring and destruction of information by Stalin and the later USSR. With the 1990s and the fall of the USSR, information has become more accessible. Faulkner seeks to give a more accurate portrayal of this tumultuous time than either predominant perspective, and from the onset is honest with his own ideological goals. He is a Marxist, he implores the reader to continue their reading with Trotsky's own history of the revolution, and he presents the revolution as vital to the practical knowledge of modern Marxists operating in today's world.

The narrative is as easy to follow as the convoluted, chaotic subject would allow. I feel I have a much better understanding of the broad image of 1880s-1940s Russia. Having listened to the audiobook, I of course missed out on some citations and many details didn't soak in as much as they may have otherwise. As this reading was me growing my knowledge of this topic, I can't say much regarding Faulkner's historiography or accuracy. It did come across as the perspective I was wishing to gain, and that the author had promised, however.

As for Faulkner's proposition that the Russian Revolution be applicable to the modern Marxist as a cautionary tale or course in what an actual revolution looks like (warts, chaos, and unanticipated problems all), he doesn't overtly editorialize and commentate on this as much as one might expect. The lessons are there for the reader, and the author presents them more implicitly than explicitly. This isn't a criticism, just something I noticed once done.

[Rosaleen Lynch · Rating 4 out of 5]

This story of the inspiration and ideas of people like Trotsky and the mass collective action which led to the events of 1917 not only informs and debunks myths but also admirably attempts to be a manifesto for future revolution. That the revolution was a kind of creative socialist democracy which may have worked had it not been defeated by a capitalist counter-revolution (led by greed and a hunger for power), gives us hope for another counter-revolution.

The book sadly does not go into depth on the possibilities of future revolution but does prompt thinking on how we might make the world a better, having learned from the collective action of the Russian revolution. Perhaps this time it may take a non-violent form, including past ideas from boycotting, non-compliance and worker strikes to its promotion in media and creative arts. Much as has been the case in Occupy campaigns, strikes, marches and social media campaigns enthusing our future generations to boycott, demonstrate and vote and using this kind of collective action promote change.

And if we think of money as control/power, how we understand, use and make money needs to be examined. If only the people who had the most money/power were so keen to re-distribute it because they would find a way - where there's a will there's a way. And that way will probably involve technology too. From electronic banking to social media, bring on the technological revolution!

[Danny Hicks · Rating 5 out of 5]

First, I'd like to start by saying that I found this a very compelling read. I've read a number of revolutionary histories about different movements, but I've always been fuzzy on the steps that took Russia from Tsar to Soviet. Mr. Faulkner's book has done an incredible job of walking the reader from point A to point B in a very clear manner without entirely losing nuance.

There are a number of reviews that condemn this book for the author's political viewpoint, but I feel like we should be over this idea at this point. Every writer tells a story from their own perspective and there is very little historical data that can be interpreted to develop a narrative without being guided by the perspective of the author or researcher. Mr. Faulkner is clearly a left leaning author, and that's fine. Let's be good, critical readers and not condemn the voice for having a voice. It's a very well written book and illuminates a period in our world history that has had profound effect upon the way we all view the world, and we don't all need to agree with Mr. Faulkner's perspective to gain a greater understanding of this period.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Easy-to-read, informative history of the Russian Revolution. Whilst Faulkner is obviously incredibly influenced in his analysis by Trotsky and its Cliffite tradition (as the hundreds of Trotsky citations attest to), his reading, in my opinion, is also incredibly class compositional in nature, and does well to re-affirm the importance of a communist politics 'from below'. Overall I would give it a 4.5/5 - it would probably have been a 5/5 if the book had been truer to its title of being a 'people's history' - whilst there was much focus on the importance of the proletarian base in shaping the events of the Russian Revolution, it had a tendency to focus on high-up figures within the Bolsheviks, and rely on their accounts a little more than I had hoped.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good description of Russian Revolution. Although much better than the hostile depictions, it remains tainted with a social-democratic conception of classless "democracy," overemphasizing this concept in his depiction. The preface and final chapter oversimplify the degeneration of the Russian Revolution, suggesting that a restoration of capitalism accompanied the consolidation of power in the hands of the state bureaucracy, with the state bureaucrats becoming "capitalists." This theory arose as social-democrats sought to distance themselves from the Soviet Union, but it does not accurately explain the economic and social relations within the Soviet Union. Otherwise, the description of the role of the Bolshevik Party and the leading figures is accurate and vividly presented.

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

An engaging, narratively written history of the Russian Revolution that clearly actively tries to link itself in rhetoric to the language of our contemporary social justice movements. This is a great introduction to the revolution that concentrates on the lead up to the October Revolution, starting with various abortive revolts throughout the 19th century. It's very disappointing how little I know about Russian history; this revolution which astonishingly ended centuries of brutally repressive, feudal imperial rule in my memory had just a few paragraphs (if even) dedicated to it in textbooks to explain why the Russians pulled out of World War I before it ended.

[Loki · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great little history of the Revolution; it had lots of things I never knew or had forgotten, and was a far cry from GCSE history, which was the last place I had learned about the Russian revolution. This book shows how much people really did come together and take the power away from people above them.

Unfortunately, they gave it back again. Maybe next time -- at least we know that our efforts, together, can achieve anything.

[Catherine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Living in a country which constantly goes back to it's past (sometimes to 1991, sometimes to 1941) it is essential to get your information about big events in world history from other sources, at least from time to time. It would be 5 stars if some of the key protagonists and their political journeys were described in more details, considering their influence in world history.

[Tema Frank · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting, unabashedly communist, view of the Russian Revolution. I found it fascinating to see how the author tried to rationalize the post-Revolution excesses of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Since I'm writing a book set in that era, I found it helpful to read this perspective, which doesn't typically appear in the history books.

[Tom O'Brien · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quick run through the events of 1917, in time for the centenary. The prose is functional and from a particular perspective, which the writer acknowledges. The events however are spectacular, surreal, sad, heartening and depressing to varying degrees, whatever lens they are viewed through.

[Samuel Fuente · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una buena visión crítica desde la óptica marxista, criticando a la misma interpretación marxista que adolece de la misma cuestión que el revisionismo liberal. Creo que contextualiza muy bien la Revolución, aunque desde el punto de vista marxista únicamente....

[Jakub · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting look on the Russian revolution with an upfront comparisons to today's political situation. This is not a comprehensive history of the revolution, but an angel on how the events preceding it link together.

[Ricky O'Steen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Concise and engaging, this felt like a good first read to fill in a rather large gap in my historical knowledge. The author wears his personal biases on his sleeve, and it leaves me curious to read an account from another perspective (and to fill in details this book glosses over).

[Robert Slater · Rating 4 out of 5]

While short, Faulkner gives a grand overview of the Russian revolution's victories and its unfortunate fall to Stalinism. Whole books could be written about what Faulkner has to cover in a single page, like the failed German Revolution or the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.