The Historiography of the Russian Revolution 100 Years On

Abstract

As we edge toward centenary of Russian Revolution, it is a good time to ask how recent historiography is shaping our understanding of that momentous event. Our times are not especially friendly to idea of revolution. In West, scope of politics has narrowed since 1970s with onset of neoliberalism, collapse of communism, upsurge in concern for human rights, and boundaries of politics defined by free markets, good governance, and individual rights. Talk of has not entirely disappeared, but it is, in words of Arno Mayer, the celebration of essentially bloodless revolutions for human rights, private property, and market capitalism. (1) One might add that color revolutions in Eastern Europe and Caucasus or those of Arab Spring have hardly been good copy for those who would effect political change by violent means. It is in this perspective that following survey of historiography is situated. I suggest that while our knowledge of Russian Revolution and Civil War has increased significantly, in key respects our ability to understand--certainly to empathize with--the aspirations of 1917 has diminished. This article seeks to identify trends and analytical issues that have exercised historians since roughly beginning of 21st century. The focus is on period from 1914 to consolidation of a new Soviet order in 1922, rather than solely on two revolutions of 1917. The essay begins by sketching certain interpretive trends that have been influential in recent historiography and goes on to map some of topics that have attracted most scholarly interest. It makes no claims to comprehensiveness: in particular, it does not attempt to cover huge volume of scholarship on non-Russian regions of empire or discuss many excellent collections of primary source material that have appeared, especially in Russia. (2) The first post-Soviet decade--the 1990s--saw opening of archives and fierce public debate in Russian Federation about significance of Soviet era for Russia's future. Among professional historians there was vigorous rejection of ideological stereotypes that had structured historiography in Soviet era, centered on myth of Great October Socialist Revolution, and a rush to research hitherto forbidden topics and blank spots. Since turn of 21st century, public debate in Russian Federation about Soviet era has quietened somewhat but has by no means disappeared. Among professional historians detailed research, using new documentation, is flourishing, range of topics being studied has widened, and tone of scholarly exchange has become more dispassionate. Among Western scholars, working mainly in United States, Germany, and United Kingdom, volume of historical research on and Civil War has shrunk in comparison with 1970s and 1980s. The opening of archives in early 1990s caused them to turn toward Stalin era--the era about which historians knew least--drawing energy away from study of revolution, where source base had never been as exiguous as it was for period after 1921. In addition, decline in interest in social history in Western academy--and in labor history especially--had effect of reducing amount of research done on 1917, much of which had been animated by interest in revolution from Finally, marginalization of political Left internationally, following collapse of communism and rise of neoliberalism, created a climate in which revolutions were no longer looked on with much sympathy, historians being interested less in what went wrong with Bolshevik and more in demonstrating inevitability of a minority leading to totalitarian dictatorship. Despite this, Western scholarship on has by no means dried up, and some of best work is touched on below. …