The virtue of inevitable defeats Before the Russian revolution, there was not a single successful proletarian revolution. Many previous attempts – such as the German Revolution of 1848, the Paris Commune of 1871, and the Finnish Revolution of 1917 – all ended in failure. However, most bourgeois revolutions are successful and this is a very interesting paradox. The very idea that proletarian revolutions inherently fail, but bourgeois revolutions, taking into account that the vast majority of violent revolutions fail and counting only those that succeed, statistically do much better. The principle of every type of insurrection is the same: the masses fight against an established power. This raises the question of what the difference is between these two types of revolution and why it matters. The wide gap in success rates means that the difference must make a dramatic difference every time an uprising occurs. The second part of this question asks for the opposite statement: if proletarian revolutions are known to have had such negative results, what was different enough about the Russian Revolution – and the Russian Civil War that followed – that allowed the Bolshevik Party to take power and, surprisingly, keep it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Proletarian revolutions are characterized by the working class's attempt to restructure the government, while bourgeois revolutions typically involve the overthrow of a dictator or a country's sole leader to establish a democracy. Bourgeois revolutions are often called bourgeois-democratic revolutions for this very reason. It is important to note that, however, bourgeois revolutions do not necessarily have to be orchestrated by the bourgeoisie to be classified in this way. In many cases, a revolution will start in a bourgeois way – and succeed in creating a democratic society – and the working class will realize that it is not yet receiving enough benefits and will attempt to gain power, only to be eliminated by the middle and upper classes. Often, as in the case of the Russian Revolution, this means taking a capitalist country and turning it communist. Not all communist countries arise from a proletarian revolution and not all proletarian revolutions end in communism, but there is certainly a direct correlation. The very idea of ​​a proletarian revolution comes from the middle class, which originally supported the working class, deciding to take up arms against it. Just as the middle class united with the workers to exploit their broad masses to overthrow the usually dictatorial government in the case of a bourgeois revolution, counterrevolutions exploit the bourgeois by fighting for an anti-worker democracy (Serge). Revolutions tend to be successful because they are not social revolutions in the same way that proletariat-led revolts are. The difference between political revolutions, which are the most common type and as a bourgeois revolution can best be described, and social revolutions is that the latter involve changing the fundamental structure of government (Davidson). The reason this distinction is important is because such a big change scares people. Most leaders of proletarian revolutions do not know exactly what they hope to create and therefore are unsure how to create a society that will allow them to achieve this uncertain goal. The other big problem comes from governments in other countries who are unwilling to let communism destroy the world. This can be seen during the Cold War, as the StatesUnited promise to protect any country that is fighting against the spread of Bolshevism. This means that the working class must not only defeat the middle and upper classes of its own country, but also those of any other country that wishes to get involved. This is one of the main reasons why the Finnish revolution of 1917 failed, as you will see. The Russian Revolution occurred during World War I, which might seem helpful since most of the world powers were busy fighting each other, but it actually ended up hurting the Bolsheviks. While the Germans were invading Finland at the time to fight communism, the Allied forces were informed by their ambassadors in Russia that the Bolsheviks were aiding the Triple Entente and that if they wanted to win World War I, they would have to crush the Russians. even the forces (Serge). This led to the Russian working class being forced to fight against all the powerful countries of the world, as well as against their own nobles. There are many examples of failed proletarian revolutions: anarchist uprisings during the Spanish Revolution of 1868-1873, the Russian narodnik movement of the 1860s, the Chicago anarchists of 1886, and a Polish social revolutionary party called, appropriately enough, “ Proletariat” (Insarov). A parallel between these failed revolutions and the success of the Bolsheviks can be seen with the Finnish revolution of 1917, which occurred at the same time as the Russian one; the notable difference is that the previous revolution failed. This comparison shows exactly how the Russian Revolution had to be different from other failed uprisings to be successful. In December 1917, the Social Democrats in the Finnish parliament declared their nation independent of the Russian provisional government, and each country would then begin its path to proletarian revolution separately. The middle class supported this separation, fearing that the Russian Bolsheviks would infect their country if they remained together. In response, the Finnish Red Guard, acting as the working class, captured the capital Helsinki in late January 1918 and the proletarian revolution was formally declared (Tepora). The Finns didn't have as much to offer as the Russians. it did, however. Their leaders were not as strong as Lenin or Trotsky and did not have a clear idea of ​​what constituted success, which is the most important quality of a proletarian revolution. They had no real goal beyond creating a democratic parliament led by the working class. How they would accomplish this was still unknown (Serge). It is important to note that they were trying to create a democracy – albeit a worker-led one, which would lead to it being more proletarian than bourgeois – which is not true communism as the Russians were trying to achieve. Since the Russians had a very clear idea that they wanted to create a socialist government, they knew exactly what they wanted to accomplish and how they would get there. The Finns could have been more successful if they had followed this strategy. The other main problem the Finns faced was that the German soldiers, fighting to stop the spread of Bolshevik ideals, supported the middle class. Once their country became just another theater of World War I, the Finnish proletariat was doomed. An independent republic from Russia was declared in 1919, and the Germans claimed to have “saved” the working class from the disease of communism. In reality, a huge part of the population lost their civil rights when they were released from prison camps (Tepora). The Russian Revolution began just like any other bourgeois revolution. It wasn't always oneproletarian revolt and, indeed, achieved the goal of a society managed by the working class only after the fall of the Tsar's power. Russian citizens were angry at Tsar Nicholas II because he was too busy on the front lines, fighting World War I, to listen to their complaints – and they had many, especially regarding the lack of food. By 1900, seventy percent of farmers owned land too small to support their families. Although the pre-war Russian Empire was one of the five great powers of Europe, it was unique in being a net importer of capital rather than an exporter.(Serge). This meant that Russia was practically a colonized nation and, as in many other bourgeois revolutions, lack of food was the main concern of the working class. They just wanted someone to stop them from starving. Unfortunately for the royal family, they refused to listen to these requests. The Tsar's wife, Alexandra, sent a letter to her husband on the Eastern Front telling him that "this is a campaign of hooligans, with boys and girls running hither and thither shouting that they have no bread... all this will surely pass" ( Baggins). Only after the fall of the power of the Romanovs in favor of a democratic leadership and after the successful completion of the bourgeois revolution would the transition to a popular uprising begin. In this context, the Bolsheviks called for a restructuring of the government, since the democratically elected Duma, which had been created in place of the royal family, was not functioning as they had hoped. As one of the Bolshevik leaders, Bukharin, would say: “Is what you want a miserable little bourgeois parliamentary republic? In the name of the great Soviet labor republic we declare deadly war on such a government! Let the ruling classes and their servants tremble before the communist revolution. The workers have nothing to lose but their chains” (Serge). Much of their success comes from their leadership and the outcome of this proletarian revolution would have been extremely different if Lenin and Trotsky had not been at the helm. They too feared that the revolution would end if they were killed on the front lines. Lenin once asked Trotsky in confidence: “Tell me, if the whites kill you and me, do you think Bukharin and Sverdlov will succeed?” (Serge). For their cause it was extremely important that the counterrevolution could not find anyone to serve this purpose on the side of the bourgeoisie. Another important factor was location. The Bolsheviks controlled the central area of ​​Russia after the October Revolution, which stretched from Petrograd to Moscow. This was by no means the majority of the county, but it was the most crucial part: it was where most of the Russian citizens were located (especially since they controlled those two cities) and it was also, almost as importantly, the location of the majority of the railways . They were also lucky because they had a majority in their parliamentary system – the Constituent Assembly – and were able to control other parties and political opponents in this way. An example is the Social Revolutionaries or SRs who also believed in a revolution led by the common people but did not support all of Lenin's actions. The Bolsheviks banned them from meeting (BBC). Overall, however, this revolution would not have been possible even without “the fullest and most unreserved support from the entire mass of the working class” (Riggins) and everyone involved in a leadership role was only too aware of this . : This is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay The first proletarian revolution would have taken place in Russia but not.