The definitive one-volume take on the Russian revolution

Review of A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924 by Orlando Figes

The Russian Revolution represents the most radical transformation of a society in the early 20^th Century, yet its mechanics and issues remain opaque. Why did it take place at the time it did? How did the Bolsheviks seize power so effectively? What happened to the other groups in Russian society? What unique aspects of Russian culture were at play? These were my questions as I read this book.

Figes begins the story with an analysis of the old regime, the last major one to survive in Europe. On top was the Tsar and the aristocracy, which dominated government and the bureaucracy. They owned most of the land, had the most education, and controlled the armed forces. There was a slim tranche that represented an urban middle class, a rising bourgeoisie that dominated commerce and the rudiments of a manufacturing industry, but they were too weak to have much political influence. Over 90% of the population were peasants in primitive villages, most of them illiterate; though serfs until the 1860s (bound to the land under the total control of the gentry), they had recently gained some legal rights, including minimal self governance; they were a mix of reactionary conservatives and the disgruntled, who carried a simmering rage.

Nicolas II, the Tsar, was so ill-suited to his role that the socio-political forces he faced led to complete catastrophe. Rather than take an interest in the reforms needed - or even in the practical tasks of governing - he chose to live in a dream world in which he imagined the “people” loved him as the eternal soul of the entire country. After a series of assassinations and violent uprisings, he indulged in the idea that autocracy was the answer for the Russian Empire, egged on by his German wife, who believed he should rule as Ivan the Terrible had done. Because Nicolas II was suspicious of anyone who challenged his authority, he actively undermined the government and bureaucracy, preferring the fawning nonsense of manipulative courtiers and religious figures, such as Rasputin. As the social situation worsened, he remained studiously unaware of what should be done to protect Russian institutions and his office. After the 1905 revolution, the Tsar agreed to establish a Parliament, the Duma, but he did not choose to nurture or work with it, losing a significant opportunity.

Had there been peace, less violent political change might have eventually come, but Nicolas II chose instead to join in the Great War as a Western ally. This war - the first fully modern one that required both an industrial capacity and more flexible institutions - brought the situation to a head. Not only was the aristocratic military revealed as incompetent and uncaring of the lives of its peasant foot soldiers, but the catastrophic conditions under which the war unfolded completely undermined the support of the masses for the Tsar's government. The result was a revolution that forced him to abdicate in favor of a new parliamentary democracy, which was soon identified with Kerensky.

One of the weaknesses of Figes’ coverage is the precise configuration of the institutions that emerged to fill the gap created by the collapse of the autocracy. First, the Duma remained unrepresentative and weak, particularly with the absence of any viable middle class. Second, there were the Soviets, which apparently were more spontaneous groupings that better reflected the revolutionary forces, though they varied widely in their composition and openness. It was here that the Bolsheviks (the “Reds”), Mensheviks, and various Social Democrats met to debate courses of action. Third, there were disparate groupings that might be seen as power centers, including conservative Aristocrats (the “Whites”) and many others, such as ethnic groups, but few added up to any coherent force. I was never clear on how these interacted or what their actual powers were.

Nonetheless, the politics of the situation is very well covered. As the rage of peasants was unleashed in a series of violent movements that attacked and disenfranchised the landed gentry, the Duma appeared impotent to restore order to the situation. Meanwhile, as the war wreaked havoc on the economy, the Bolsheviks emerged as the only ones who clearly opposed continuing to fight (as well as the only party to endorse the aristocracy's destruction as wholly desirable as well as the takeover of industries by workers). Their program won the political heart of many peasants, who identified the Reds as the only true force genuinely supporting the revolution. No one else seemed to understand these political facts in the civil war that erupted after the Bolsheviks seized power in the October 1917 coup - the Whites appeared to want to restore the monarchy and land rights of the aristocracy, which at this point was politically impossible and hence completely undermined their cause in the medium term.

It is at this point that the personal stories become important. Figes proves that Lenin was the dominant politician of his time, pushing the Bolsheviks to seize power and establish their own form of autocracy, improvising the whole time with decisions that would prepare the ground for the ambitious Stalin to take over the party apparatus and soon (with his ability to appoint cronies in key positions) the entire government. The portraits of these men and scores of others are compelling and fascinating in their quirky detail. Figes is of the opinion that, due to the institutions that Lenin set up, Stalin was an inevitable and natural outgrowth of all that followed, even though Lenin came to oppose him while on his death bed.

Once the Bolsheviks were in power, even though they withdrew Russia from the war (with great difficulty), they made a series of mistakes that plunged the country into famine, renewed civil war, and desperate anarchy that took years to set right. To keep themselves in power, they relied on terror in a similar manner to the Tsar, but with ideological purpose guiding their actions and a huge bureaucracy that they installed, often run by uneducated and inexperienced peasant revolutionaries. Figes covers this process well, but his explanations of the impact of Marxist theory were less than satisfying for me, perhaps due to my own ignorance of it (i.e. he goes on about the nonexistence of a capitalist society, an important phase for Marx in the transition to socialism, which Lenin had to skip).

Throughout the book, Figes exhibits an admirable skepticism, never indulging in romanticization of any of the characters or their ideas. Except for certain individuals, no class or group comes off well - not the peasants, not the revolutionaries, not representatives of the old regime. A very interesting analysis is offered regarding the mentalities of each group. Cut off as the vast majority was from the ideas in ferment to the west, there was a poverty of ideas under discussion, with few alternatives emerging organically from the society. Instead, the few ideas that did get into the country were viewed as exclusive panaceas rather than part of a mix that required compromise and negotiation; rather than an openness of mind, the lack of education and ignorance promoted rigid minds beliefs unable to question opinions once they were adopted. For their part, the Bolsheviks disdained the peasants and workers, in whose name they established their dictatorship. I cannot do justice to the subtlety of Figes' ideas here, but it was one of the most interesting cultural aspects of the book for me. (For example, he views the search for philosophical answers to everything as a key to the appeal of the great Russian novelists of the 19^th Century.)

This book is as satisfying an intellectual meal as the general reader could hope for. I simply could not stop reading it and almost never felt bogged down over its 800+ pages. It is an astounding achievement: for the first time in my life, I feel I truly grasp this revolution and all that it meant. While sometimes exhaustive in its detail, Figes never covers events to excess: there is always a purpose to his narrative, so that every single battle or political maneuver is not described; instead, significant or illustrative episodes are highlighted, a relief for lay readers.