About book The Russian Revolution 1917-1932 (2001)
This is a critical but not "commie-bashing" view of the leading up to and implementation of the Russian revolution. It's a quick, coherent read. I liked it. Leninists wouldn't. Stalinists would hate it. Here's what I wrote for class:Fitzpatrick articulates tThe major impediment the Bolsheviks had to grapple with in the lead up to the revolution, and between February and October of 1917, was the teleological nature of Marxism. As capitalism was not well-established in Russia they believed it was necessary for a revolution of the bourgeoisie to take place first in order to bring about widespread capitalism. Only then could a working class revolution occur to implement socialism and then communism.Yet events did not unfold in that manner. In the face of a teetering Provisional Government, a right-wing coup attempt and an increasingly militant and independently-mobilizing working class, the Bolsheviks had to act. After an internal debate, they opted for insurrection. Once they became the majority party in the soviets, they also had the legitimacy needed to act. In overthrowing the Provisional Government they either carried out a coup (Fitzpatrick) or defended the revolution against liberal and right-wing betrayal (Deutscher).Now in power, the Bolsheviks consolidated their rule, creating not a dictatorship of the proletariat but a dictatorship of the Bolshevik party, most of whom were part of the proletariat. They were forced to grapple with maintaining and expanding the revolution in the midst of World War One, fighting a civil war, dealing with economic distress and the realization that proletarian revolution in Europe was not right around the corner. This resulted in the New Economic Policy, followed by Stalin’s industrialization drive in order to establish socialism “in one country,” an effort to ensure Russia’s independence, sustainability and progress toward socialism in a time when no other socialist revolutions seemed likely. It also meant a vicious crackdown on opponents outside of the party, a stifling of intra-party dissent, and a tremendous toll on the peasantry in the seemingly never-ending quest for grain, workers, and socialism.
Actually it's a lie to say I finished this book, because I've left the last 50 pages; but I don't need to know about Stalin to teach my course, so I'm not spending the time reading it! Fitzpatrick is a superb historian and author who presents the issues and details of the Russian Revolution - its characters, problems, and historical context - very clearly. She also outlines some of the historiographical issues neatly, which I appreciated a lot; it's one of the most intriguing aspects of the whole thing, now, for me. I already know a fair bit about the Revolution, so I have no idea whether she is good for the beginner or not - I imagine that her clarity of style probably does make this quite approachable. In terms of her own politics, or perceptions, she does come down more on the libertarian side than I had expected - that is, she does think that the October Revolution had quite a proletariat backing, and that the Bolsheviks as a party did too, in contradiction to those Cold War Westerners (looking at you, Pipes) who see the Revolution as entirely driven by the Bolsheviks with little regard to the people, or even as entirely an egoboost for Lenin.
Do You like book The Russian Revolution 1917-1932 (2001)?
This book is a lucid and succinct short history of the Russian Revolution for those who might not be familiar with the causes, motivation, figures or timeline of this period in world history. As a person who never studied this topic in school, I found this book to be an excellent introduction to the revolution. I was pleased to find that the text isn't watered down and is dense with information but still very readable. If anyone is interested in learning about the Russian Revolution but isn't sure where to begin reading, I would highly recommend staring with this book.
—William March
The Russian Revolutionair in a nutshell. Fitzpatrick's tried to be objective but with a subject like this it's almost impossible. The Bolshevik Octobere Revolutionair was nothing but an ordinary coup. The necessity to get rid of the old Czar regime was gone, this happened already in February. There was already something developing as a democrazy.Saying Lenin was the good guy, things gone bad with Stalin is totaly untruth. The seed of oppression was plantend by Lenin. Fitzpatrick calmly writes it all down. Rather funny is it as she calls Stalins behaviour in the 30ties as treason revolution, the whole socalled revolution was treason against mankind.. Stalins atrocities are mentioned in the last 20 pages. The whole October Revolution was unnecessary. It's a shame the Germans financed and organized Lenin's return. The world would have been a better place without the October Revolution. Fitzpatrick rightly concludes that all revolutions inevitable end up in dictatorship and the consequential terror.Especially recommended for the naive romantic believers in revolutions .
—Maarten Mathijssen
I first read the second edition of Fitzpatrick's The Russian Revolution in an undergraduate course on Soviet history--at the time, I greatly appreciated its brevity. Reading the third edition, I continue to be impressed by the amount of material packed into roughly 175 pages of text (Fitzpatrick defines the Revolution to include the Stalin era through the Great Purges of the late 1930s), all without the sense that anything truly significant is being skirted over. Fitzpatrick's historical analysis is clear and focused--a great overview of the period.
—Ramsey
