Большевики приходят к власти: Революция 1917 года в Петрограде

The Bolsheviks #2

by Александр Рабинович

Книга известного американского историка, профессора Индианского университета Александра Рабиновича - одна из лучших книг, посвященных русской революции 1917 года. Таково общепризнанное мнение как зарубежных, так и российских исследователей. Секрет ее успеха в стремлении автора дать действительно полномасштабную картину революционного Петрограда, учитывая все нюансы острейшей политической борьбы за власть и настроения самых широких масс, вовлеченных в нее. Живое, яркое описание хода революции, замечательная галерея портретов политических деятелей различных лагерей, всесторонний анализ событий, основанный на огромном фактическом материале, - все это привлекает внимание как специалистов, так и всех тех, кто интересуется отечественной историей.

Genres: History, Russia, Nonfiction, Russian Revolution, Russian History, Soviet Union, Soviet History

416 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1976

Reviews

[Julio The Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this one during bus trips from Sao Paulo Brazil to Rio de Janeiro and back. What could be better than sun, beach and Bolshevism? Here's the one thing Trotsky and Stalin ever agreed on: No Lenin, no Revolution of 1917. Anti-communist historians, Robert Conquest, Robert Service, Harrison Salisbury et al take this to mean Lenin and his small band of Bolshevik brothers staged a coup in October 1917 against the legitimate government of Alexander Kerensky and imposed their will on a strongly anti-communist people. Alexander Rabinowitch, no Bolshevik himself, begs to differ. The Bolsheviks started out small, political dwarfs, when Lenin returned from exile in Switzerland to the Finland Station in Petrograd, perhaps counting only 3,000 in their ranks, but grew monumentally by tapping into the popular will expressed in food riots, mutinies on the war front, and the total incapacity of any other party to offer a solution to either. Revolutions are, to use an anachronism, black swan events. Against all predictions and expectations they triumph using small numbers at pivotal moments. Lenin was no genius, for good or evil, but a first-tier reader of the swings of fortune. He heard the hoof beats of the fast horse of history and jumped on. Bravo to Alexander for correcting the record on the turning point of the twentieth century.

[Tiarnán · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent, gripping, narrative history of the October Revolution as it unfolded in its native city of Petrograd. Confounds stereotypes of both Cold War left and right and leaves you with more questions than answers, like all transcendent historical writing. Most fundamentally: if (as Rabinowitch argues in his epilogue) October can be characterised as the singular outworking of a series of deeply peculiar dynamics within Russian society and politics at the end of the "long nineteenth century", where does that leave those 'Leninist' political traditions of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries that sought and seek to emulate it? To its great credit it might also provide an answer: moving beyond the rote clichés of "iron discipline", "democratic centralism" or verbally emulating Lenin's monomaniacal revolutionary zeal to instead seek inspiration in the Bolshevik party of 1917's mass, open, and fundamentally *democratic* character at all levels. For it was this uniquely demotic character in comparison to its political rivals which allowed the Bolsheviks to act as the "nervous system" of the Russian working class, successfully channeling the overwhelming consensus of its leading sections (and their allies in the revolutionary army) in favour of their simple programme of "peace, bread, land", leading in turn to the almost bloodless overthrow of the Provisional Government and its replacement by Soviet - i.e. direct, democratic administration of the popular classes - rule. That this world-historical achievement did not survive the catastrophes of the Civil War, followed by the horrors of Stalinism, robs it neither of its grandeur or pathos, nor its centrality as a model for anti-capitalists as to how the working class might take - and hold - political power in a period of revolutionary crisis.

[Cedric · Rating 5 out of 5]

Virtually a day by day account of the period between the July days and the storming of the Winter Palace in Petrograd in 1917. It is fascinating to read the detail of how much the Bolsheviks were actually being pushed from below, from the Petrograd workers and garrison soldiers. Of how physically isolated (and often politically ignored) Lenin; of how reluctant the Central Committee was to act most of the time. It's an impressive book written from a detailed examination of sources available in the 1970s - ie. all the published documents (minutes, agendas, resolutions etc) of the various Party and SOviet bodies; of all the newspapers and pamphlets and flyers from the era as well as from the massive memoir literature from the 1920s. Rabinovich directly challenges the Leninist myth of the united, disciplined, centrally controlled party dear to both sides of the Cold War era. Instead, he shows that the ultimate success of the Bolsheviks lay in its "relatively democratic, tolerant and decentralized structure and method of operation, as well as its essentially open and mass character" in which free and open discussion at all levels over the most basic theoretical and tactical issues occurred. As witnessed in the debates in the Central Committee on the night of the 24th October when the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet - dominated bt Bolshevik members, but operating independently of the party - was deploying its forces to overthrow the Provisional Government (defensively to prevent a counter-revolution in the offing). The CC was still debating whether to seize power or not and many members were still not convinced.

Rabinovich stresses that the later terrible development of the Bolshevik party and the USSR was an outcome more of the terrible Civil War in which everything changed; not least the structure and operations of the party itself. The revolution remains the outcome of a mass democratic social movement.

[Differengenera · Rating 5 out of 5]

absurdly detailed. Trotsky's history should be mandatory reading (for all readers, not just those interested in the Russian Revolution) but the more involved political and logistical detail evades Trotsky's necessarily more polemical swaggering tone. There are advantages and disadvantages here, this can often be hard going, but the rewards in terms of, what seems to me anyway, to be a clear and comprehensive view of the period at just over 300 pages, very much worth it

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

brilliant work, gives an extremely detailed account of exactly how october 1917 happened while still being well written and exciting.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hippity hoppity, abolish private property

[Önder Kurt · Rating 4 out of 5]

E.H. Carr’ın kabaca değindiği olayları mercek altına alan, adeta zooml’layarak Devrimin çok bilinmeyen detaylarını gözler önüne seren bir çalışma.

Bu detaylı inceleme, popüler algıdaki katı, merkezci, sekter Bolşevik Parti imajını da yerle bir ediyor. Devrimin sadece liderliğin değil, tabandaki çok yaygın kitlesel örgütlenmenin bir sonucu olduğunu ve parti içi demokrasinin ne derece yerleşmiş olduğunu gösteriyor. O kadar ki, alt organlar Temmuz yenilgisinde olduğu gibi, sorun yaratacak denli bağımsız hareket edebiliyor, Kamenev, Zinovyev’in açık, açık gizli parti kararlarını başka yayın organlarında ihbar edebiliyor ve yine de affedilebiliyorlar. Yazarın şu satırları durumu oldukça iyi ortaya koyuyor:

“Burada kastettiğim, ne büyük tarihsel önemi asla küçümsenmeyecek Lenin'in cesur ve kararlı liderliği, ne de Bolşeviklerin çok abartılmış da olsa o ünlü örgüt birlik ve disiplinidir. Daha çok, ben partinin, geleneksel Leninist modelin çarpıcı biçimde zıddı olan, kendi içinde nispeten demokratik, hoşgörülü ve merkezi olmayan yapı ve işleyiş yöntemiyle birlikte onun esasta gerçekten açık ve kitlesel olma özelliğine vurgu yapmaya çalışıyorum.”

Sonuç olarak Sovyet tarihi hakkında kanımca çok bilgilendirici, değerli bir eser. 5 yıldız vermemenin tek sebebi, sadece tarihsel olguları ortaya koyması, yukarıda alıntıladığım pasajda olduğu türden politik/teorik analizlere fazla girmemesi.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exhaustively researched account of the political and historical situations that led to the momentous 1917 "Red October" Uprising in Petrograd. Rabinowitch draws extensively from eyewitness records, newspaper accounts, and a seemingly endless stream of committee meeting minutes to trace the development, often hour-by-hour, of the insurrection over eight months. I found this to be a very compelling read, and one which refreshingly challenged many of my assumptions.

[Reid Flynn · Rating 3 out of 5]

extremely dense, dry & thorough—none of which are bad things, just requires very close, slow reading, mainly because of the sheer number of similar names of committees, factions, and actors and keeping track of who belongs to which cause. that's not the author's fault, though. all in all, quite fair and good

[Jonas · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good read of the 1917 revolution from the vantage of the Bolshevik party with a focus on the internal workings and debates.

[Nathan Levin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Millions must read.

[Kamran Motamedi · Rating 4 out of 5]

ترجمه این کتاب را مرتضی محیط انجام داده
رابینوویچ یکی از محققان و تاریخ‌نگارانی است که روی انقلاب اکتبر و بلشویکها زیاد کار کرده. او تا امروز ۴ جلد کتاب در این باره نوشته است. رویکردهای معمول به انقلاب اکتبر در یک تقسیم‌بندی عمده شامل دو دسته است. دسته اول شامل دو بخش: یکی تاریخ‌نگاری مرسوم شورروی/استالینی است و دیگری تاریخ‌نگاری غربی. هر دو اغلب بدردنخورند. اولی سراسر تحسین و عیب‌پوشی و دومی سراسر لعن و تحریف. دسته دوم اما روایتی از مارکسیست‌های لیبرتارین، آنارشیست‌ها، محققان، خود تروتسکی و … است. خواندن دسته دوم مفیدتر و آموزنده‌تر است. هرچند برای محقق متخصص خواندن کتبی از دسته اول هم شاید ضروری باشد.
این کتاب شرحی جالب و پر جزییات از رخدادهایی است که منجر به انقلاب اکتبر ۱۹۱۷ در روسیه شد. جزییات این روند اهمیت زیادی دارد و نویسنده سعی کرده با دسترسی و استناد گسترده به منابع آرشیوی جریان تحولات را شرح دهد. (جریانات فوریه تا اکتبر ۱۹۱۷ آنقدر مهم و پر جزییات است که نویسنده تنها یک کتاب درباره قیام جولای ۱۹۱۷ دارد. در این کتاب یک فصل درباره این رویداد است) برخی بخشها انگار که در حال خواندن کتابی کارآگاهی هستید آنقدر که سرعت تحولات بالاست و بازیگران باید به سرعت تصمیم گرفته و واکنش نشان دهند.
خواندن همین یک کتاب بسیاری مهملاتی که جریان اصلی و تاریخ‌نگاری مغرضانه غربی درباره لنین و نسبت او با حزب بلشویک میگوید را پنبه میکند. در عین حال ساختار دموکراتیک حزب بلشویک و پشتیبانی گسترده کارگری (دهقانان عموما هوادار اس آرها بوده‌اند) چه به طور گسترده در پتروگراد و همچنین در سراسر روسیه نشان داده میشود. « توده‌های مردم پتروگراد بر این باور بودند که تنها راه تضمین عدم برگشت به روشهای نفرت‌انگیز گذشته، احتراز از کشته شدن در جبهه و تامین زندگی بهتر و پایان دادن فوری به شرکت روسیه در جنگ بستگی به ایجاد دولتی با پایه‌های گسترده مردمی و یکدست سوسیالیستی، توسط کنگره شوراها خواهد داشت و این توده‌ها اعتقاد داشتند که بلشویکها نیز برای چنین خواستهایی مبارزه می‌کنند.» (ص.۴۶۴)
کم و بیش از اختلاف اس آرها و بلشویکها میگوید (هرچند هنوز برای خودم واضح نیست که چه شد لنین این همه با اس آرها دشمن شد. لطفا اگر کسی این را خواند و منبع خوبی برای این سوال داشت معرفی کند.)
واضح است که این کتاب به قدرت رسیدن بلشویکها را روایت میکند. بسیاری چیزها در لنین و حزب بلشویک بعد از پیروزی و در حین دو سال نیم جنگ خونین داخلی از بین رفته و از دست رفت.

گفتگویی کوتاه با رابینوویچ را اینجا بخوانید:
https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3615...

راهنمای مطالعه درباره انقلاب اکتبر:
https://naghd.com/2018/11/27/انقلاب-ر...

بهترین کتابهای انقلاب روسیه از دید طارق علی:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/201...

[DeterminedStupor · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5/5

[Turkish · Rating 4 out of 5]

Достаточно дотошное исследование периода прихода к власти большевиков. Книга рассматривает интервал между двумя революциями (февральской и октябрьской), так что о детальности можно и самому догадаться. Прежде всего понравилась относительной легкостью, не смотря на то, что это полноценный научный труд с огромным количеством использованного материала как русскоязычного, так и зарубежного. Также хотелось бы отметить важнейшее свойство книги — отношение автора к исследуемому периоду — отношение историка. Я не заметил попыток автора к мифотворчеству, сохраняя нейтралитет Рабинович скрупулезно приводит одна за другой справки и исторические документы. Хотя казалось бы биография автора располагает к умышленной дискредитации большевиков. Даже к неоднозначному дискуссионному вопросу по поводу финансирования большевиков Германией, автор становится на сторону Ленина и большевистской партии, указывая на то, что его исследования привели его к теории совпадения целей Ленина и Германии, прямого подкупа, говорит Рабинович, не было обнаружено.

[Cybermilitia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Üç nokta:

1) Alman ajanı suçlaması sırasında Bolşeviklerin bu suçlamayla birlikte kendi içlerindeki çözülmeyi yok saymış. Bu da bolşevikleri öne çıkaran şartları anlamamak demek. Yani Temmuz 1917'de, olanca enternasyonalist söyleme rağmen, onca "Devrimci yenilgici" fikre rağmen, nasıl olup da bazı bolşevikler hala "Alman ajanıymış sizinkiler" sözünü yiyebilirler?

2) Şu ikna meselesi. Lenin'in bu konudaki gücünü abartmış. Taktik yeteneklerini ise küçümsemiş.

3) Zinovyevlerin pozisyonunu idealist bir şekilde ortaya sermiş. Ekim Dersleri'ndeki Hegelyan tat yok.

[Fidel Castro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un livre magistral.

[A · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic. For some time, i found it a bit plodding- textbook-y... but i am glad i carried on, as this contains a most thorough, minute, day by day and sometimes hour by hour account on the critical Sept- Oct time frame in Petrograd. Author captures the vacillation and circumstantial aspect of "decisions" (not really decisions but drifts of some of the principals) made by the Bolsheviks (especially, though other parties too). One is struck repeatedly by the accidental nature of the developments (the trigger mainly being Kerensky's decision to try to send Petersburg troops to the front) of the revolt. Other than Lenin, it is hard to discern anyone pushing for the actual result, as all seemed to favor the socialist coalition gov't (that the Bolsheviks promoted as their goal). One feels Lenin boiling at this throughout - yes, yes - if you must say that go ahead as the bridge to the goal- but whatever else - Act! Act! Act! Now, tomorrow, yesterday. Produce a fait accompli and i will take care of the rest. What the author doesn't do (and it really isn't his job), is assess - who was right? Was Lenin correct to target w/o any distraction supreme authority, or were Kamanev / Zinoviev and others "right" to push for a socialist gov't that would address the core issue raised by the Bolsheviks (and everyone else): war, economy, gov't structure. Clearly author is sympathic to the overall direction - socialist - of both of these views, but i didn't feel it intruded too much into his judgements about what happened, why and when. Will be moving on the author's other major work: Bolsheviks in the July Days.

[Mansoor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Long book, goes very in depth with the actions of the Bolschevik party during the months of July and October. Elaborates intensly on the democratic nature of the party in the sense of the members having different views and not being afraid the argue them. Looking at you Zinoviev, Kamanev. The party wasn't a cult of Lenin.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

The last 100 pages were particularly thrilling.

[bautista · Rating 5 out of 5]

leído para la universidad.

[GreyAtlas · Rating 1 out of 5]

not accessible to average audience, focus on technical details, didn't like the narration voice, all blurred together