The Fate of the Bolshevik Revolution by Lara Douds;James Harris;Peter Whitewood;

Author:Lara Douds;James Harris;Peter Whitewood;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Bloomsbury UK

Self-determination versus party centralization: The Bolsheviks and the civil war

During the pre-war years, Lenin was greatly engaged in polemics with other European socialists over the national question, perceiving its solution as being closely linked to an anticipated European war. Lenin expected that such a conflict would lead to a defeat of the great empires, especially the tsarist monarchy, this ‘most reactionary and barbarous of governments,’ and thus contribute to the socialist cause of proletarian emancipation.3 According to him, the immediate support to national struggles within the empire’s borders would help the proletarian revolution in the long-term. This prompted him to introduce popular slogans of national self-determination into the Bolsheviks’ programme and proclaim the national question an inherent part of the international revolutionary movement. As explained in April 1916, the task of the proletariat could not be achieved ‘unless it champions the right of nations to self-determination.’4

Indeed, Lenin’s approach was reflective of the wartime zeitgeist: nationalist movements were on the rise worldwide and national elites kindled patriotic feelings and national pride among their fellow countrymen. Such movements also thrived in the former Russian Empire. Nonetheless, the Provisional Government, while condemning the restrictive tsarist regime, declaring the equality of all citizens and ensuring cultural autonomy, failed to respond to the demands of regional separatists. The final decision on the national question was postponed until the convocation of a Constituent Assembly, the elections to which were scheduled for late-November 1917. Such a moderate response corresponded to the horizon of expectations of the political leaders in Ukraine, however. The first legal act-declarations of Tsentral’na Rada (Central Council), the national legislative authority established in Kyiv on 4 March 1917, proclaimed Ukraine’s autonomy and reassured its non-separation from Russia ‘in order that we and all her peoples might jointly strive toward the development and welfare of all Russia and toward the unity of her democratic forces.’5

The October Revolution, however, changed this mainstream autonomous orientation. Local elites, often with foreign help, quickly reacted to the events in the former imperial capital and started making provisions for independence. Those actions did not contradict the announced Bolshevik position on the national question: ‘The Declaration of Rights of the People of Russia’, issued shortly after the Bolsheviks had taken power in Petrograd, guaranteed equality and sovereignty for all peoples within the former Russian Empire, ranging from self-determination to complete independence. The declaration had an explosive effect on the former Romanov Empire. By 1920, Poland, Finland and the Baltic states were fully independent while national movements had emerged in the Caucasus and Central Asian provinces, leading to the formation of separate republics in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. In Ukraine, where neither the socialist-oriented Ukrainian People’s Republic nor the German-controlled conservative Ukrainian State was able to consolidate their power, the demands for self-determination were voiced by left radicals. Members of both the Bolshevik and non-Bolshevik communist parties articulated plans of a sovereign Soviet Ukraine and its own self-standing communist party.

However, the threat of complete disintegration of the former empire and subsequent loss

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.