1. Reasons for the fall of the provincial govt.

Provisional government collapsed because it was unable to resolve the burning issues of the day: war, land reform,
and autonomy for the national minorities.

1) The question of participation in the war

●The peasant soldiers were tired of fighting in a war that was dragging on for the third year, with no end in sight.

●By contrast, members of the provisional government, who represented the privileged classes, firmly believed that
Russia had to remain faithful to her allies. The officers in the army and the politicians failed to understand the depth
of dissatisfaction among peasant soldiers.

●The leading figures in the soviet recognized that the war could not be stopped simply by Russian soldiers’ leaving
the battlefields. They took a “defensist” position: they favored the continuation of the war as long as Russian
territory was occupied, but opposed a policy of annexing foreign territories and demanding indemnities from the

defeated.

●The combined effects of the July disturbances in Petrograd and the Kornilov affair were disastrous for the
provisional government.

2)Question of land reform

●Peasant disturbances of 1917 is hard to describe because because the peasants possessed no national leadership
that articulated goals and coordinated revolutionary acts. Nevertheless, the role of the peasants in preventing the
consolidation of liberal rule was every bit as important as that of the workers.

●The peasants had long been preoccupied with a desire for land.

●In 1917, when the central authority collapsed, the peasants wanted to make their own revolution, which to them
meant above all a redistribution of land.

●However, the Government did not oppose the idea, but also did not do much. And Because of this inaction the
peasants ever more decisively turned against the provisional government. So why was the government inactive?
❖Carrying out land reform during war, would have ended the effectiveness of the troops

❖The government did not possess the machinery to carry out an inevitably complex process.

❖The liberal ministers took it for granted that landlords had to be compensated for their property.

●Now, peasants possessed a degree of self-government they had never had before.

●Throughout the revolution, it was the peasant communes themselves that orchestrated forced land seizures. These
communes served as rural counterparts to urban soviets, without which the peasant revolution would not have been
successful.

●Socialist and liberal academics viewed the commune to be a vanishing relic of the past prior to the revolution.
However, these institutions found fresh life as the peasants gained some control over their own lives. The peasant
communes, rather than lone individuals, confiscated the land from the landlord and distributed it among their
members.

3) increasing desire of the national minorities for autonomy

2. Success of the Bolsheviks after the October revolution of 1917.

3. As already discussed, the
Bolsheviks had remained on
the sidelines during the March
4. Revolution. But they were able
to strengthen their position in the
soviets after Lenin returned
5. in April. Other Bolshevik
leaders - Molotov, Trotsky and
Stalin- returned around the same
6. As already discussed, the
Bolsheviks had remained on
the sidelines during the March
7. Revolution. But they were able
to strengthen their position in the
soviets after Lenin returned
8. in April. Other Bolshevik
leaders - Molotov, Trotsky and
Stalin- returned around the same
9. As already discussed, the
Bolsheviks had remained on
the sidelines during the March
10. Revolution. But they were able
to strengthen their position in the
soviets after Lenin returned
11. in April. Other Bolshevik
leaders - Molotov, Trotsky and
Stalin- returned around the same
12. ime. Lenin emerged as the
dominant figure in the Bolshevik
party. His ideas were radical
13. and ruthless. But he kept them
deliberately flexible. Realizing
what the peasants were asking
14. for, he gave up the slogan of
‘land nationalization’ and began
to talk of ‘land socialization’.
15. He stopped calling for
‘socialist dictatorship’ and
began to talk of ‘workers’
control’.
16. Trotsky had been a leader of
the St. Petersburg Soviet in the
1905 Revolution. He played an
17. important role in the
Bolshevik party in 1917 and
showed genius for
revolutionary
18. improvisation in the
administrative and military
fields. Kerensky’s efforts to
weaken the
19. Bolsheviks were foiled
because of Kornilov’s plot. It not
 only made Kerensky dependent
on
20. the support of the Bolshevik
Party but also made the
people, who began to fear
counter-
21. revolutionary conservative
forces, support the Bolsheviks.
By the middle of September, they
22. got majority of seats in the
Moscow Soviet and Trotsky
was elected President of the
23. Petrograd Soviet.
Bolsheviks had remained on the sidelines during the March Revolution, But they were able to strengthen their
position in the soviets only after Lenin returned in April. Other Bolshevik leaders - Molotov, Trotsky and Stalin-
returned around the same time. Lenin emerged as the dominant figure in the Bolshevik party. His ideas were radical
and ruthless. But he kept them deliberately flexible. Realizing what the peasants were asking for, he gave up the
slogan of ‘land nationalization’ and began to talk of ‘land socialization’. He stopped calling for ‘socialist dictatorship’
and began to talk of ‘workers’ control’. Trotsky had been a leader of the St. Petersburg Soviet in the 1905 Revolution.
He played an important role in the Bolshevik party in 1917 and showed genius for revolutionary improvisation in the
administrative and military fields. Kerensky’s efforts to weaken the Bolsheviks were foiled because of Kornilov’s plot.
It not only made Kerensky dependent on the support of the Bolshevik Party but also made the people, who began to
fear counterrevolutionary conservative forces, support the Bolsheviks. By the middle of September, they got majority
of seats in the Moscow Soviet and Trotsky was elected President of the Petrograd Soviet. The Second All-Russian
Congress of Soviets was scheduled for 7 November. Trotsky wanted to use this occasion to seize power peacefully.
Others wanted to wait for the elections for the long-promised Constituent Assembly and use the popularity of the
party for winning these elections. A proposal for insurrection too was put forward. But many feared that such a step
could be used by right-wing forces to attempt a coup to come to power. Lenin managed to persuade the top
leadership that time was ripe for seizing power. After a hot debate, it was decided, in principle, that preparations
should be made for an armed insurrection and, for this purpose, Military Revolutionary Committee was established.
Lenin was one leader who had consistently insisted that power should be seized before the Congress of Soviets met
on 7 November.

On 6 November, Kerensky tried to close Bolshevik newspaper. This galvanized pro-Soviet soldiers and the Red Guards
and provoked an armed struggle during which the Bolsheviks took over important buildings, bridges and key
positions in Petrograd. By 7th morning they established control over the whole city except the Winter Palace, then
the headquarters of the Provisional Government. On the same day, at 10.40 in the evening, the Second All-Russian
Congress of Soviets opened at the headquarters of the Bolshevik Party in Petrograd. As it began deliberations, sounds
of canons firing at the Winter Palace were heard and this enabled Lenin to report that power was in the hands of the
Bolsheviks. Last minute efforts were made by the Social Revolutionary and Menshevik members to form a broadly
representative socialist government. Very soon it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little intention of sharing
power and that they would not form a coalition. Finding that troops in Petrograd were not supporting him, Kerensky
fled the city. The Provisional Government was declared deposed and Bolsheviks assumed power. On the morning of 8
November, members of the Provisional Government were arrested. Thus on 7 November, the Bolsheviks had
acquired power suddenly.

Before them was an enormous struggle for consolidating the power of their party, converting their party into a
regime and of establishing a permanent government. To gain legitimacy and acceptance for the new government,
their first act on 8 November was pass decrees on peace, land and workers’ control over factories. With these, it
seemed that they were ready to offer solutions to the three major problems that the Provincial Government had
failed to tackle. The decree on peace dubbed the ongoing War as a ‘monumental crime against humanity’ and called
for ‘a just and democratic peace’. Another decree nationalized all land without compensation. The THIRD decree
placed industries under workers’ surveillance. This merely put an official stamp on what the workers were doing any
way. The government also appealed to the workers to keep production going. The Bolsheviks formed a new
government made up entirely of their own party. They called it the Council of People’s Commissars with Lenin at the
head, Trotsky as Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, and Stalin as Commissioner for Nationalities. With the help of the
Red Guards, the Bolsheviks threw Social Revolutionary and Menshevik members out of the Soviet leaving Bolshevik
members in control. Thus, an astonishing sequence of events quickly placed a small group of quarrelling leaders in-
charge of the largest country on earth. It is interesting that during this revolution, there were no street
demonstrations. Yet this government was very insecure.

Elections had to be held for the Constituent Assembly because Lenin had been criticizing Kerensky for repeatedly
postponing them. Lenin realized that the Bolsheviks were unlikely to get a majority. Elections were held in the last
week of November. Lenin’s worst fears were realized. Bolsheviks won about 25 percent of seats while Social
Revolutionaries got almost a majority. Lenin was determined not to let power slip out of his hands. The Constituent
Assembly opened on 18 January 1918. Next day Lenin had the Assembly forcibly dispersed by Bolshevik Red Guards.
It was not allowed to meet again. The struggle between the Soviet and the Constituent Assembly was thus brought to
an end forcibly. Dispersal of the Constituent Assembly was, as Wade says, ‘one of the most fateful decisions that
Lenin was ever to take’. (Wade, 2000: 297) It made it clear that the Bolsheviks were determined to rule alone. It
made clear that the Bolsheviks would not give up governmental authority peacefully through elections. The
opponents of the regime would have either to retire or to take up arms against the Bolsheviks. A brutal Civil War
followed. It also made it clear that the government that would be established would be a dictatorial one. Thus the
dispersal of the Constituent Assembly had profound consequences for Russia and the world. No fair elections would
be held in Russia until 1990.

The Bolsheviks had seized power and they were determined to rule Russia. At the seventh party congress held in
March 1918, Lenin proposed that the name of the party be changed to the Communist party. He argued that the new
name would indicate that the aim of the Bolsheviks would be to achieve communism as outlined by Marx and Engles
in their treatise ‘The Communist Manifesto’. The Bolshevik Party was thus renamed the Communist Party. Lenin
remained the most powerful member of the Soviet government and the party until his death in January 1924.

Bolshevik party under its farsighted leader, Lenin, planned and engineered the entire scheme of the Russian
Revolution and led the masses to victory. In the West, writing on the Russian Revolution reflected intrinsic distrust for
soviet regime and historians tended to portray Lenin as an ambitious and unscrupulous conspirator who exploited
the masses to win power for himself and his party. On the basis of recent research, one can say the reasons for the
success of the Bolsheviks were: the social and political turmoil that followed the fall of Tsarist regime and the inability
of the Provisional government to provide an alternative, the revolutionary activism of the masses; and the
organization and strategy of the Bolsheviks under Lenin’s leadership.

Factors responsible for downfall of Tsarist autocracy/ Changes in the Russian towns and countryside from the
second half of 19th century. Role of peasants, workers and soldiers play in the downfall of the tsarist autocracy?

Russia had witnessed a revolution in 1917, which for the first time witnessed the establishment of the dictatorship of
the proletariat. This revolution was accomplished in two stages: the first stage was the ‘February Revolution’, which
saw the overthrow of the Tsarist Autocracy and the second was the ‘Great’ October Revolution of 1917 which
brought the Bolsheviks to power under V.I. Lenin. In addition to these revolutions, the Revolution of 1905 is
extremely important in the understanding of the 1917 revolution as it acted as a ‘stepping stone’ for the events of
1917. There is a great deal of debate regarding the factors that led to the outbreak of this revolution of 1917 and it
would not be possible to understand its origins by focusing only on factor. The reasons for the overthrow of the
Tsarist autocracy and the rise of the Bolsheviks were deeply rooted in the history of Russia and in the problems that it
encountered in the economic, political and social spheres.

ECONOMICS

1. Emancipation of serfs 1861

The peasants were freed and became an independent holder of his allotment of land. However, it didn't bring
about any significant change in the condition of the peasants as it had been cautiously framed to minimize the
change and spread it over time. The amount of land made available to them was, on average, less than that
which they had tilled for their own subsistence under serfdom. Moreover, the allocation of land also led to the
problem of “cut-off” land as the landlords kept the best lands for themselves. The burden on the peasants had
increased as they were required to compensate the landlords for the dues and services which they no longer
received. The peasants also lost the right to use of commons, like forests, pasture lands etc. Peasant did not
acheiev any real personal freedom as land was held by Village Commune and peasants were not allowed to leave
his village without authority of community. Due to periodic redistribution of land was divided into into smaller
and smaller strips, making the modernization of agriculture extremely difficult and prevented the peasants from
expanding or improving their strips of land. Thus, the peasant sense of ‘justice’ was offended, and a sense of
moral outrage prevailed. The struggle in the village was transferred to a considerable degree within the
Commune. In fact, there was a great degree of solidarity among the peasants as a group, as is reflected in the
major peasant movements of the time.

2. Countryside

When the revolution of 1917 reached the countryside, it played an important role in land seizures and violence
against landlords. Russia had witnessed the beginning of industrialization by the 2nd half of the 19th century
through massive state intervention. There was a rise in the worker population as a result of which the few major
cities of Russia like St. Petersburg and Moscow swelled with overcrowding. The shortage of accommodation
pushed up the rents; the absence of labour laws resulted in poor working and living conditions that were
characterized by lack of a proper water supply, sewage system of hygienic quarters. This was in addition to the
low wages, long working hours, child labour and excessive exploitation of the workers by the employers.
Moreover, since most the industries were run by foreigners or foreign capital, who had no concern for the
workers and were only interested in making profits. The lack of state protection to the workers had given rise to a
great deal of discontent among the workers.

3. Workers

According to Patrick, it was the peasant involvement in the working class movement that seems to have made it
more revolutionary as the Russian peasantry had a strong tradition of violent and anarchic rebellion against
landlords and officials, which was further intensified by the failure of the Act of 1861. Moreover, most of the
peasants, who had migrated to the towns were young and moved by the emergent radical ideas of the time
could not take to the discipline that comes with factory life. A trade union movement had started as early as the
 1870s. Urban centers saw considerable labor unrest from the early 1890s onwards. A succession of citywide St.
Petersburg strikes in 1896-97 rocked the aloof stability of the royal family and the autocratic establishment with
their size, scope, organization, leftist rhetoric, and considerable effect on Russian industry. Large-scale strikes
were frequent and the workers showed considerable solidarity against management and state authority. For
instance, in 1914 the Workers’ Strike movement in St. Petersburg assumed such threatening dimensions that
some observers believed that the government could not take the risk of declaring general mobilization for war.
Patrick has once again argued that these strikes saw demands that were both economic as well as political as it
became evident during the 1905 revolution. In reaction to the strikes, reforms again came grudgingly from
above. But the efforts failed to please the enraged workers. The tsarist government was reluctant to improve the
conditions of the workers through factory legislation. Thus, it can be seen that the economic conditions in Russia
since the last quarter of 19th century that had led to a progressive deterioration in the lives of the peasants and
the workers had given rise to a strong tradition of political unrest and protests, which had been constantly
pecking at the existing autocratic regime.

Scholars like Laura Engelstein, Diane Koenker, and Steven Smith etc. have tried to highlight that the Russia workers
were not merely ‘irrational, poorly educated and incapable of independent participation in the political process.
Engelstein has argued that the workers were not simply ‘malleable’ i.e. manipulable and manipulated by the radical
intelligentsia and were in fact guiding their own course and destiny. Smith suggests that it was the struggles of the
workers in the world of work, and the activities of work-based organizations, such as the factory committees and
trade unions, which were of central importance in promoting revolutionary consciousness in 1917. However, the
crisis in the countryside and the problems created by the First World War also played a part, along with agitation, in
articulating revolutionary consciousness.

On January 9, 1905, 150,000 striking workers organized a mass march on the Winter Palace of the Tsar, under the
guidance of a popular priest Gapon, holding a petition for the Tsar to ask him to improve the conditions of the
workers. Nicholas, however, wasn’t there and his troops fired upon the peacefully marching unarmed crowd
including women and children. Over one hundred were killed and nearly five times as many were wounded. This day
became known as Bloody Sunday. The massacre dramatically turned public opinion against the Tsar and his
government, and primed the country for revolutionary action. There were strikes and protests in over 30-odd cities
and urban workers also formed strike committees, which in September 1905 coordinated a nationwide general strike,
originating with the Moscow printers. The strike led to the formation of the St. Petersburg soviet (council) in October,
with other cities and towns following the model. It was to be an instrument to achieve power.

However, this revolution had made the Tsar realize the importance of granting certain reforms and thus, the 1905
revolution had been brought to an end by a combination of coercion and concessions. However, these reforms had
failed to bring about any significant change or satisfy the masses.

POLITICAL

As for the political reasons for the Revolution of 1917 are concerned, many scholars have pointed to the autocratic
nature of the Tsar being a responsible factor. Ever since the Romanov dynasty was established the Tsar had ruled over
the Russian Empire on the premise that he had a divine right to rule over the Russians and thus, exercised limitless
powers. The Russian Empire was ruled by the personal will of the tsar, who, according to Warren Walsh ‘could
override laws, reverse judicial or other decisions and generally interfere with administration’. There was no rule of
law or constitutional measures to restrict the activities of the Tsar. Such trends had become even more stringent and
prevalent during the reign of Tsar Alexander III and Tsar Nicholas II, whose reign saw the end of the Romanov
dynasty.

It is in this regard that the concessions granted after the Revolution of 1905 become extremely important. The
magnitude of the revolution had compelled Nicholas II to give in and make concessions. Nicholas issued his
October Manifesto, promising to create an elected legislative body (elected quite unequally, based on restricted
suffrage), to grant civil and religious liberties, and to legalize the organization of unions and political parties. But
this was too little, too late especially as it managed to placate only a small band of moderates. In 1906, the first
State Duma was established. But it had limited powers as it was elected on a restricted franchise. But more
importantly it was to act only as a consultative body and thus, could not enact the reforms that the rebels most
 cherished. Also, it could be dissolved by the Tsar as and when he pleased. Moreover, after the war with Japan
was over, Nicholas attempted to reverse the new freedoms, and his government became more reactionary than
ever. Popular discontent gained strength, and Nicholas countered it with increased repression, maintaining
control but worsening relations with the population. According to Patrick, this was a repetitive pattern in the
history of the Russian Tsars as they were not willing to grant reforms that could dilute their authority.

MILITARY

For the country's military leaders, the root of the problem lay in the army’s dismal record in the 19th century,
which many of them blamed on the policies of the government. This seems to have reached its climax with the
Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05, which was a big blow to the prestige of Russia as a military power as she
suffered the humiliation of being the first European power to be defeated by an Asian opponent. The war was
also a blow to the credibility of the Tsar and the Russian State and it dissolved the tenuous support held by
Nicholas' already unpopular government. Moreover, the army also gradually lost its place at the top of
government spending priorities as resources were diverted towards the modernization of the economy. This
treatment of the army provoked growing resentment among Russia’s military elite. Officers dedicated to the
modernization of the armed services were bitterly critical of the government and opposed the appointment of
aristocrats loyal to the Tsar to the top command posts. Their grievances forced them into politics. While arguing
for increased spending on the army and the navy, they also wanted military reforms, including the transfer of
certain controls from the court to the Duma and the government. Slowly but surely, the Tsar was losing his
authority over his military elite, which was to have a disastrous effect when the revolution broke out.

WORLD WAR 1

On the eve of WW1, Russia was in the midst of a profound social and political crisis. The peasants and the
workers were still unhappy as the reform measures had failed to bring about a significant change in their life.
Thus, there had been a resurgence of strikes post-1905 that were more militant in nature and the demands for
political reforms had also increased steadily. Moreover, as already seen above the relations of the Crown with its
traditional support base had been breached for a number of reasons. Thus, in such a situation, the disastrous
consequences of the First World War on Russia proved to be the final straw, leading to the downfall of the Tsar.

Russia was quite unprepared for such a long war, and on such a large-scale. The economy was unable to cope
with the strain and soon there was complete physical breakdown of the system. Agricultural production fell and
land under cultivation was reduced by a fifth. More than 80% of the factories were taken over to supply war
needs. But there was no rise in production because the new labour force, recruited from farms, was unused to
factory work. Skilled workers were replaced by unskilled. Salaries did not keep up with the prices, because the
influx of workers from the countryside kept wages down. Output fell by about 30%. Industry was no longer able
to take care of civilian requirements and produce consumer goods. The overloaded transport proved incapable of
supplying factories with the necessary quantity of fuel and raw material. The war not only swallowed up the
whole current national income, but seriously began to cut into the basic capital of the country. Moreover, there
was a severe shortage of labour as most of the peasants and workers were forcefully conscripted into the army to
fight for Russia in the War. Thus the back of the Russian economy was broken. There were shortages of essential
items like fuel in cities as well. There was also no proper ‘exchange’ between the towns and the countryside.
Unable to buy industrial products, the peasants tended to ‘hold back’, which led to food shortages. This led to
rationing and black marketing in the urban areas. People began to move to the countryside in search of food,
leading to chaos and a collapse of the production system.

As the war progressed the military weakness of Russia came to the forefront. The constant war reversals and
increasing casualties along with the general atmosphere of incompetence shook the faith of the people in the
regime.

The middle-class and the Russian intelligentsia, i.e., students, writers, professionals etc. were isolated from official
Russia by its politics and from peasant Russia by its education. But they were acutely conscious of their wealth and
privilege, and this ‘guilt’ led them to the revolution. They formed a self-image as the righteous champions of the
‘people’s cause’ and felt that it was their duty to educate the whole of the society. The newly risen middle class
comprising of professionals like doctors, engineers, lawyers etc may not have been active revolutionaries themselves
but had inherited enough of the old intelligentsia tradition to feel sympathy and respect for the committed
revolutionaries and lack of sympathy for the regime. Thus, the rise of these new groups had created a favourable
environment for the revolutionary ideas to flourish.

POPULIST

This was the period when a number of political groups and parties were being formed advocating radical and
revolutionary ideas that also played a major role at this point of time. Populism was the mainstream of Russian
radical thought during the 1860s to the 1880s that essentially advocated the view that industrialization and
capitalism should be avoided at all costs since it had led to the Human degradation, impoverishment of the
masses and the destruction of the social fabric in the west. The populists wished to save the Russian peasants’
traditional form of village organization, the commune from the ravages of capitalism as they believed that
through the commune, which was an egalitarian institution Russia might find a separate path to socialism. In the
early 1870s, the idealization of the peasantry had encouraged the spontaneous mass movement- the ‘going to
the people’ of 1873-74, in which thousands of students and members of the intelligentsia left the cities to go to
villages with the hope of enlightening them or conducting revolutionary organization and propaganda. However,
such movements lacked a proper direction and failed to achieve anything significant.

There was an upsurge of revolutionary terrorism in the late 1870s, which was motivated partly by the populist
desperate hope that a well-placed blow might destroy the whole superstructure of the regime and partly by the
frustration caused by the failures of the reforms initiated by the Tsar.

While, this populist tradition may not have found much success or support among the masses or the other
radicals, it had left behind its legacy in the form of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (1901), whose most noted
leader was Victor Chernov. This party was committed to the defense of the peasants’ interests, advocated the
overthrow of the existing tsarist order, the establishment of a classless socialist society. The Socialist
Revolutionaries indulged in terrorist activities taking cue from the earlier organizations of this type and murdered
important officials.

MARXIST

It was in the 1880s, that the Marxists emerged as a distinct group within the Russian intelligentsia, repudiating
the utopian idealism, terrorist tactics and peasant orientation that had previously characterized the revolutionary
movement. The Marxists led by Georgii Plekhanov argued that capitalism was inevitable in Russia argued that
capitalism constituted the only path towards socialism and that the industrial proletariat produced by capitalist
development was the only class capable of bringing about a true socialist revolution. They chose the urban
working class as their base of support, which distinguished them from the populists and also from the liberals,
who were trying to bring about a bourgeoisie revolution. The liberals were another important faction that had
emerged from the Marxists, who stood for a ‘liberal reform movement’. This faction was headed by Petr Struve,
who had lost interest in the ultimate goal of the socialist revolution and was advocating the modernization of the
country.

Initially the Marxists had restricted themselves to educating the workers. This had a significant impact on them
as stated by Patrick, who argued that this education helped the workers to imbibe a modern, urban sense of the
possibility of ‘bettering themselves’. However, the Marxists soon organized themselves into the Russian Social-
Democratic Labour Party (1898) and were more directly involved with political labour organization, strikes and in
the 1905 revolution. According to Patrick, by 1914 the party had ceased to be an elitist group of intellectuals and
had actually been converted into a working class movement.

MENSHEVIKS

However, this was no longer a unified organization as during the Second Congress (1903) the RSDLP was split into
the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The latter that included Plekhanov, Trotsky and Martov emerged as the more
orthodox in their Marxism. They were less inclined to force the pace of events towards revolution and less
interested in creating a tightly organised and disciplined revolutionary party. By 1914, they had in fact lost the
support of the working class in Russia to the Bolsheviks as they had become more militant and thus, wanted to
be with a more revolutionary party.
 BOLSHEVIKS

The Bolsheviks were led by Lenin, who was to ultimately lead the October Revolution in 1917. The Bolsheviks
came to represent a small, tightly-knit organization that was characterized by a high degree of commitment and
ideological unity. The Bolsheviks and their organization was defined to a large extent by Lenin’s ideas and
personality. Lenin in his pamphlet “What is to be Done?” had laid down the blueprint of the Communist Party
that was to seize power after 1917. In this pamphlet he had rejected the notion of ‘Economism’, which essentially
argued that political protests should be left to the bourgeoisie, while the workers should be roused only to
demand economic reforms. He believed that the workers left to themselves would not be able to develop into a
class; develop a sufficiently strong revolutionary character or play a significant political role. Lenin wanted the
educated people to guide the workers on the path of political consciousness. This, according to him, could be
achieved only through a coherent, strictly controlled party of dedicated professional revolutionaries as a basic
necessity for a revolution. Thus, for him the chief ingredients for a revolutionary party were strict centralization,
discipline and ideological unity.

FEBRUARY REVOLUTION

The February Revolution started when a group of women seized the opportunity of International Women's Day
to stage bread riots throughout the capital, breaking into bakeries, taking bread, and leaving only the amount of
money they thought the stores deserved. This soon got transformed into a general strike. As more and more
units of the Petrograd garrison defected to the side of the revolutionaries, the united workers and soldiers took
control of the capital, culminating in the arrest and imprisonment of Tsar Nicholas II's ministers of government on
February 28. With his government all but disintegrated, Nicholas tried to regain power by dissolving the Duma
and reasserting his throne. But at the urging of his generals and allied Duma politicians, Tsar Nicholas II abdicated
his throne on March 3, 1917 in favour of his brother, who refused, ending over three centuries of uninterrupted
Romanov rule in the Russian Empire.

Once the Monarchy was ended it was decided that the country’s future form of governance would be decided by
a constituent assembly and in the meantime a ‘Provisional Government’ was to run the country. However, this
came to be a highly unpopular body as it derived its legitimacy from the last duma, which itself was elected on a
limited and restricted franchise. The second important body that exercised power was the Petrograd Soviet of
Workers’ Deputies, which although not established legally represented the revolutionary elements and was thus
more popular than the Provisional Government. The purpose of the Soviet, dominated by the moderate socialists
was to keep a check on the Bourgeoisie Provisional Government. This dual system of government was unable to
achieve anything significant as they differed on important issues and were constantly trying to seize power from
the other body. Thus, the relations between the two factions were quarrelsome and intense. Moreover, the new
system did not end the war, land reforms were not enacted, the economy was still in a rut and the working
conditions of the workers were not improved. As a result, the resentment and discontent among the workers and
peasants had increased manifold and this period saw a large number of strikes and demonstrations all
demanding an end to the Provisional Government as it was dominated by the Bourgeoisie. It was this rising
discontent among the peasants and the increasingly militant mood of the workers that was exploited by the
Bolsheviks led by Lenin in the summer of 1917.

1) The Duma, the Russian Parliament ●Had been last elected in 1912 on the basis of a restrictive suffrage. ●It became the
best forum for criticizing the policies of the tsar and his government. ●Prominent politicians time and again had demanded
a government responsible to the legislature and a general (though limited) democratization of the political system. ●An
unofficial meeting of deputies took place on February 27 in which representatives of he right refused to participate. This
meeting elected a provisional committee that was to be the parent body of the future provisional government. Most liberal
politicians hoped that the monarchy could be saved one way or another. ●Contrary to the desire of most liberals, the tsar
abdicated on March 2, and the provisional committee formed itself into a government in order to prevent anarchy ●The
liberals regarded themselves as natural successors to the defunct government, and expected to stay in power until a
constituent assembly could be called. ●Since the meeting that elected the provisional committee had been unofficial, and
the ministers had more or less named themselves, the legitimacy of the provisional government was open to question. ●
Russia’s new government was dominated by people who had made reputations in the Duma during and before the war,
demanding liberal reforms. ●Politicians from the two main liberal parties, the Kadets and the Octobrists,got the most
important portfolios. 2)Petrograd Soviet of Workers Deputies ●The other center of power that would dominate the
political landscape during the coming months was the Petrograd Soviet of Workers Deputies. ●The soviet was established
almost at the same moment as the provisional committee of the Duma. ●Although at the outset in 1905 the soviets,were
genuine working-class organizations, radical socialist intellectuals had gradually come to play a dominant role in them. ●At
first, Socialist Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders were the most influential. ●The importance of the Petrograd Soviet
was out of proportion to the number of soldiers and workers it represented, because it was in a position to put pressure on
the government. ●It was a loose organization, Procedures were haphazard. ●Given the large number of deputies and
disorganized procedures, the executive committee acquired dominant influence. It was through the executive committee
that socialist politicians exercised their influence over the genuine worker and soldier delegates. ●On March 1 the
Petrograd Soviet issued its famous Order Number One, according to Trotsky the single worthwhile document of the
February revolution. Although the order was addressed only to the Petrograd garrison, its impact was soon felt by the
entire army. ❖It called on the soldiers to form soviets in every military unit down to the size of companies; it asked the
soldiers to obey orders of the Military Commission of the State Duma (the provisional government had not yet been
formed) only if they did not contradict orders from the Petrograd Soviet. ❖it abolished old forms of address of officers ❖it
conferred on soldiers all rights of citizenship, including full participation in politics, when off duty. ❖ Although undoubtedly
this order was conceived in a spirit hostile to officers, its significance should not be exaggerated. It expressed the hostility
that soldiers felt, rather than created it. ❖In February 1917, the officers lost control over their soldiers, and they could
never reestablish their authority. ❖The majority of the officers believed that it was Order Number One that was most
responsible for destroying the fighting capacity of the army. Instead of evaluating their situation realistically, they preferred
to blame the socialists for their frustrations. Thus out of the February revolution a novel constitutional situation arose:
●The country now had a government that was quickly and enthusiastically recognized by all foreign allied powers. This
government took charge of the old administrative machinery of the tsarist state without difficulty and had the support of
the high command of the army. The government, however, had less actual power than the Petrograd Soviet of Workers and
Soldiers’ Deputies. ●Although the socialist politicians who led the soviet by no means directed the revolution, nonetheless
the masses recognized this institution as their own. The soviet in Petrograd, unlike the provisional government, could call
on workers and soldiers to demonstrate and to carry out revolutionary actions. The ministers well understood that they
held their offices at the tolerance of the socialists in the soviet. The question arises: Why did the moderate socialists not
take all power into their own hands when their opponents were not in a good position to resist? ●Lenin blamed them for
timidity. ●The socialists, many of them freshly out of jail, had trouble thinking of themselves as ministers; to them it
seemed natural that the liberals should be entrusted with power. ●They lacked that will to power that Lenin so obviously
possessed. Discord was bound to arise between those who had authority but no power, and those who could command
the workers and soldiers but had no formal responsibility.