The Russian Revolution of 1917: Political Freemasonry, Economic Elites, and Popular Masses in Historical Perspective
By: Luiz Carlos Silva (LuCaS)
1. Introduction
The Russian Revolution of 1917 is considered one of the most
decisive events in contemporary history, not only because of the fall of
Tsarism and the rise of the Bolsheviks, but also due to the global impact it
had on political and economic elites as well as on the popular masses. The
study of this process reveals how different social and institutional forces
intertwined in a context of crisis and rupture, redefining Russia’s destiny and
influencing the 20th century.
According to Figes (1996), the Revolution should be
understood as a popular tragedy, marked by the active participation of the
masses and the failure of the elites to lead a moderate transition. Fitzpatrick
(1982) reinforces this perspective by highlighting that the Revolution was not
only a political movement but also a profound social transformation. Pipes
(1990), on the other hand, interprets the process as the result of
institutional fragility and the inability of Tsarism to adapt to modern
pressures.
The proposed analysis is justified by the need to understand
the Revolution through three fundamental axes: political Freemasonry, bankers
and industrialists, and the popular masses. Political Freemasonry, little
explored by historiography, played a decisive role in the articulation of the
February Revolution and in sustaining the Provisional Government (Hosking,
1973). Bankers and industrialists represented internal and external economic
interests, believing they could modernize Russia and integrate it into European
capitalism (Service, 1999). The popular masses (peasants, workers, and
soldiers), in turn, were protagonists of the October Revolution and the Civil
War, sustaining Bolshevik power but also bearing the greatest sacrifices
(Trotsky, 1932).
The general objective is to examine the Russian Revolution
in historical perspective, highlighting the role of these three axes in the
dynamics of events. Specifically, the aim is to analyze the crisis of Tsarism
and the Revolution of 1905 as antecedents, investigate the role of political
Freemasonry and bankers in the February Revolution, understand the Bolshevik
rupture in October and its economic consequences, evaluate the Civil War and
foreign intervention as expressions of the antagonism between socialism and
capitalism, discuss the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the fate of expropriated
elites, and interpret the Revolution as a global phenomenon and
historiographical object.
The methodology adopted is historical-interpretative in
nature, based on a bibliographic review of classical and contemporary authors
such as Trotsky (1932), Rabinowitch (1976), Pipes (1990), Figes (1996),
Fitzpatrick (1982), and Service (1999). The analysis privileges a qualitative
understanding of political, economic, and social processes in their
interdependence, articulating secondary sources and historiographical syntheses
to construct a critical narrative.
2. The Empire in Crisis (1905–1916)
Between 1905 and 1916, the Russian Empire went through a
phase of profound political, social, and economic instability that prepared the
ground for the revolutions of 1917. The defeat in the Russo-Japanese War in
1905 exposed the military and administrative fragility of the Tsarist regime,
sparking mass protests that culminated in the so-called “Bloody Sunday,” when
imperial troops opened fire on peaceful demonstrators in St. Petersburg. This
episode marked the beginning of the 1905 Revolution, which forced Nicholas II
to concede the creation of the Duma, a parliament with limited powers but one
that represented an unprecedented opening in Russian autocracy.
According to Hosking (1973), the Duma was conceived as an
attempt at political modernization, but its role was constantly curtailed by
the Tsar, reinforcing the perception that the regime was unwilling to carry out
deep reforms. In this context, political Freemasonry began to consolidate
itself as a network of coordination among parliamentarians, lawyers, and
liberal intellectuals, seeking to establish a constitutional monarchy or even a
parliamentary republic.
Bankers and industrialists also played a relevant role
during this period. Pipes (1990) notes that the partial modernization of the
economy, driven by foreign investment and railway expansion, strengthened
sectors of the bourgeoisie that sought greater integration into European
capitalism. However, dependence on external capital and internal inequality
kept the economy vulnerable. Service (1999) highlights that the financial elite
saw political liberalization as an opportunity to stabilize the business environment
and expand its influence.
Meanwhile, the popular masses (peasants and workers)
remained marginalized. Stolypin’s agrarian reform, initiated in 1906, sought to
create a layer of small landowners loyal to the regime, but it did not resolve
the land issue on a large scale. Fitzpatrick (1982) emphasizes that in the
cities, industrial growth brought precarious working conditions and recurring
strikes, keeping social discontent alive.
Russia’s entry into World War I in 1914 further aggravated
the crisis. Figes (1996) points out that military defeats, food shortages, and
the collapse of infrastructure intensified discontent. Political Freemasonry
saw the war as an opportunity to strengthen alliances with France and England,
while bankers and industrialists profited from military contracts but suffered
from growing instability. For the masses, the war meant hunger, misery, and
millions of deaths, amplifying the sense of revolt against Tsarism.
Thus, between 1905 and 1916, the Russian Empire accumulated
tensions that made rupture inevitable. Political crisis, economic fragility,
and social discontent created a scenario in which elites and masses would
confront each other directly, paving the way for the revolutions of 1917.
3. The February Revolution (1917)
The beginning of 1917 marked the definitive collapse of the
Tsarist regime. The combination of military defeats in World War I, famine in
the cities, and administrative disorganization created an unsustainable
environment. In February, spontaneous demonstrations in Petrograd, led by
workers and women demanding bread, turned into a general strike. The adhesion
of soldiers, who refused to repress the protests, was decisive for the fall of
Nicholas II, who abdicated in March.
According to Rabinowitch (1976), the February Revolution was
the result of the convergence between popular dissatisfaction and the inability
of Tsarism to respond to social and military demands. Fitzpatrick (1982) adds
that the spontaneity of the demonstrations demonstrates the popular character
of the movement, even though it was quickly channeled by liberal elites.
In this context, political Freemasonry played a central
role. Hosking (1973) notes that parliamentarians and lawyers linked to this
“conspiratorial network” had been articulating the transition since 1916,
taking advantage of the crisis to establish the Provisional Government.
Political Freemasonry symbolized the victory of the liberal elites, who
believed they could lead Russia toward a constitutional and parliamentary
order, bringing it closer to Western models.
Bankers and industrialists also assumed prominence. Pipes
(1990) highlights that figures such as Mikhail Tereshchenko, banker and
Minister of Finance, joined the new government, reinforcing the presence of the
economic elite in the management of the state. International support was
immediate: France, England, and the United States recognized the Provisional
Government, expecting it to keep Russia in the war and honor its financial
commitments. For bankers and industrialists, this was an opportunity to stabilize
the economy and consolidate integration into European capitalism.
The popular masses, however, had different expectations.
Trotsky (1932) emphasizes that workers and soldiers demanded immediate peace,
better living conditions, and land redistribution. The soviets—councils of
workers and soldiers—re-emerged as parallel power structures, directly
representing popular demands. This dual legitimacy (the Provisional Government
on one side, the soviets on the other) became the fundamental contradiction of
the period.
The February Revolution, therefore, was marked by the
victory of liberal and economic elites, articulated by political Freemasonry
and supported by bankers and industrialists. However, their inability to meet
the demands of the masses and to end the war would doom the Provisional
Government, opening the way for the radicalization that culminated in the
October Revolution.
4. The October Revolution (1917)
The October Revolution represented the definitive rupture
with the liberal project established in February. The inability of the
Provisional Government to meet popular demands—above all immediate peace, land
redistribution, and workers’ control of factories—opened space for the rise of
the Bolsheviks. Under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, the party organized
the seizure of power, relying on the soviets and the Red Guards, who became the
decisive military force in the insurrection.
According to Trotsky (1932), the October insurrection was
not a minority coup but rather the organized expression of the will of the
masses, who had already lost confidence in the Provisional Government.
Rabinowitch (1976) reinforces this interpretation by highlighting that the
Bolsheviks knew how to channel popular discontent, transforming it into
coordinated political action.
Political Freemasonry, which had been a protagonist in
February, was quickly marginalized. Hosking (1973) notes that its networks of
parliamentarians and lawyers lost relevance in the face of revolutionary
radicalization. The liberal project, which sought a constitutional and moderate
transition, was crushed by the Bolshevik logic of total rupture with Tsarism
and the economic elites.
Bankers and industrialists suffered the hardest blow. Pipes
(1990) emphasizes that banks and industries were nationalized, properties
expropriated, and foreign debts repudiated, nullifying financial commitments
assumed by the Provisional Government and by Tsarism. Many members of the
economic elite emigrated to the West, forming exile communities in Paris,
London, and Berlin, but with no prospect of return or influence over the new
regime.
For the popular masses, October was initially the victory of
their demands. Figes (1996) observes that Bolshevik decrees promised immediate
peace, land redistribution, and workers’ control, creating the expectation that
the historical demands of the population would finally be met. However,
Fitzpatrick (1982) reminds us that this victory came with enormous sacrifices,
as the Civil War and international isolation placed the population in the face
of hunger, violence, and repression.
Thus, the October Revolution consolidated the defeat of the
liberal and economic elites and inaugurated a new phase in Russian history,
marked by the construction of a socialist state. It was the moment when Russia
definitively broke with the international political and financial system,
asserting itself as the center of a revolution that would inspire and threaten
the entire world.
5. Civil War and Foreign Intervention (1918–1921)
Right after the October Revolution, Russia plunged into a
civil war that lasted until 1921, involving multiple internal and external
actors. On one side, the Red Army, organized by Trotsky, sought to consolidate
Bolshevik power and defend the revolutionary decrees. On the other, the
Whites—a heterogeneous coalition formed by monarchists, liberals, former
Tsarist officers, and sectors linked to the old economic elites—tried to
restore the previous order or at least prevent the consolidation of socialism.
Trotsky (1932) describes the Civil War as a moment of
extreme violence, in which the survival of the Bolshevik regime depended on
discipline and the mobilization of the masses. Pipes (1990) interprets the
conflict as a direct consequence of the October rupture, which had excluded the
economic and political elites from the historical process. Figes (1996),
however, emphasizes the popular character of the resistance, noting that
peasants and workers were both protagonists and victims of the war.
Political Freemasonry, which had been a protagonist in
February, disappeared as an organized force. Hosking (1973) observes that its
members, tied to constitutional liberalism, could not remain relevant in the
face of the radicalization of the conflict. Many aligned with the Whites or
sought refuge in exile, but their political influence was annulled by the
dynamics of war.
Bankers and industrialists, already expropriated in October,
saw in the civil war a possibility of recovering their assets and positions.
Pipes (1990) highlights that they financially supported the Whites and relied
on backing from foreign powers, which intervened militarily to try to reverse
the repudiation of debts and the nationalization of industries. France,
England, the United States, and Japan sent troops and resources, motivated both
by economic interests and by fear of socialism’s expansion. However,
Rabinowitch (1976) notes that foreign intervention proved fragmented and
incapable of defeating the Bolsheviks.
The popular masses were those who suffered the most during
this period. Fitzpatrick (1982) recalls that peasants and workers faced hunger,
violence, and forced displacements. The so-called Red Terror, conducted by the
Cheka, aimed to eliminate opponents and consolidate Bolshevik power, but also
targeted sectors of the population considered suspicious. At the same time, the
Whites carried out brutal repressions against peasant communities and national
minorities. Figes (1996) stresses that the civil war was marked by extreme
violence and by the sacrifice of the masses, who became both targets and
instruments of the different projects of power.
The victory of the Red Army consolidated the Bolshevik
regime and definitively ended hopes of restoring the liberal and economic
elites. Foreign intervention failed, reinforcing Russia’s isolation and its
rupture with the international system. The Civil War not only defined the
internal destiny of the Revolution but also symbolized the global antagonism
between socialism and capitalism, inaugurating a new phase of ideological
confrontations in the 20th century.
6. The New Economic Policy (NEP) and the Fate of the
Elites (1921–1928)
With the end of the Civil War, Russia was left devastated.
War Communism, adopted during the conflict, had imposed forced requisitions of
food, total nationalization of the economy, and strict state control, but
resulted in widespread famine, peasant revolts, and worker dissatisfaction. The
crisis reached its peak in 1921, when the Kronstadt revolt—led by sailors who
had been allies of the Bolsheviks in 1917—revealed the exhaustion of the regime
and the need for change.
According to Figes (1996), the Kronstadt rebellion was a
clear sign that the regime could not indefinitely maintain the War Communism
model without losing mass support. Fitzpatrick (1982) adds that popular
discontent forced Lenin to retreat strategically, creating the New Economic
Policy (NEP). The NEP allowed partial reopening of the economy, with the
legalization of small private businesses, the return of free trade, and the
possibility for peasants to sell their surpluses. The so-called nepmen—merchants
and entrepreneurs—prospered in this more flexible environment.
Pipes (1990) notes that this measure brought some immediate
relief, stabilizing agricultural production and reducing famine, but without
restoring the power of the old elites. Bankers and industrialists, already
expropriated in October and defeated in the Civil War, had no place in the new
policy. Service (1999) emphasizes that the NEP favored only small
entrepreneurs, while large banks and industries remained under state control.
Many members of the economic elite continued in exile, living in communities in
Western Europe and trying to keep alive the memory of a liberal and capitalist
Russia.
The popular masses experienced some relief with the NEP.
Peasants enjoyed greater economic autonomy, and workers gained access to
consumer goods that had previously been scarce. However, Fitzpatrick (1982)
reminds us that inequality between enriched nepmen and ordinary workers
generated new social tensions. Moreover, the NEP was conceived as a temporary
measure, not as a structural change.
Political Freemasonry, already extinct as an organized
force, had no role in this period. Hosking (1973) observes that its former
members remained in exile or had been absorbed by Bolshevik repression. The NEP
consolidated the definitive exclusion of the liberal elites from the Russian
scene.
Between 1921 and 1928, the NEP functioned as a strategic
pause, allowing the Bolshevik regime to recover strength and prepare the way
for the industrialization and forced collectivization that would be implemented
by Stalin. Trotsky (1932) interprets this period as a “tactical truce,”
necessary to ensure the survival of the regime in the face of crisis. It was,
therefore, a transitional phase: temporary relief for the masses, limited
survival for small entrepreneurs, and definitive exclusion of the traditional
elites.
7. The Russian Revolution as a Global Phenomenon
The Russian Revolution of 1917 was not confined to the
borders of the Empire. From its earliest moments, it was perceived as a
worldwide event, capable of inspiring revolutionary movements and, at the same
time, provoking fear among political and economic elites. The fall of Tsarism
and the rise of the Bolsheviks resonated intensely in Europe, Asia, and the
Americas, turning Russia into a mandatory reference point for debates on
socialism, capitalism, and democracy.
In Western Europe, socialist and communist parties saw the
Revolution as a model for action. According to Figes (1996), strikes and
uprisings, such as those in Germany and Hungary, were directly influenced by
the Russian example. At the same time, liberal and conservative governments
reacted with containment policies, fearing the spread of Bolshevism. Pipes
(1990) notes that the repudiation of foreign debts and the nationalization of
industries reinforced the perception that the Revolution represented a threat
to the international financial system.
In Asia, the impact was equally significant. Fitzpatrick
(1982) highlights that anti-colonial movements found inspiration in the Russian
experience, interpreting the Revolution as proof that it was possible to defeat
oppressive regimes and build new forms of power. China, in particular, absorbed
elements of Bolshevik strategy, which would influence the trajectory of the
Chinese Communist Party.
In Latin America, intellectuals and activists followed the
events of 1917 with enthusiasm. Service (1999) observes that the Russian
Revolution became a reference point for debates on social inequality, agrarian
reform, and political emancipation. Although contexts were distinct, the idea
that a popular revolution could radically transform society gained strength in
several countries.
International economic elites, in turn, reacted with
concern. Pipes (1990) recalls that the repudiation of debts and the
expropriation of foreign properties represented a shock for bankers and
industrialists, who began to see Bolshevism as a direct threat to their
interests. This perception fueled policies of isolation and intervention,
reinforcing the ideological division that would mark the 20th century.
Historiography also reflects this global dimension. Trotsky
(1932) interpreted the Revolution as the beginning of a worldwide
transformation, while Rabinowitch (1976) emphasized its internal and external
complexity. Figes (1996) and Fitzpatrick (1982) highlighted the role of the
masses and social contradictions, while Pipes (1990) offered a critical reading
centered on institutional fragility and the risks of radicalization.
Thus, the Russian Revolution must be understood not only as
a national event but as a global phenomenon. It inspired, threatened, and
divided societies across the world, becoming a symbol of rupture and historical
possibility. More than a century later, it continues to be an object of memory,
dispute, and reflection, reaffirming its centrality in modern history.
8. Conclusion
The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a complex historical
process that cannot be reduced merely to the fall of Tsarism or the rise of the
Bolsheviks. It must be understood as the result of the interaction among three
distinct forces: political Freemasonry, bankers and industrialists, and the
popular masses. Each played a fundamental role at specific moments, but only
the masses—organized in the soviets and mobilized by the Bolsheviks—were able
to sustain the radical rupture that transformed Russia and the world.
Hosking (1973) shows that political Freemasonry symbolized
the attempt to establish a liberal and constitutional transition, inspired by
European models. Its victory in February was brief, as it failed to meet social
demands or resolve the issue of war. Pipes (1990) and Service (1999) emphasize
that bankers and industrialists represented internal and external economic
interests, believing they could modernize Russia and integrate it into
international capitalism. October, however, marked their definitive defeat,
with nationalizations, expropriations, and the repudiation of debts.
The popular masses were the true driving force of the
Revolution. Trotsky (1932) stresses that peasants, workers, and soldiers
overthrew Tsarism, sustained the soviets, and supported the Bolsheviks.
Fitzpatrick (1982) reminds us that they paid the highest price: hunger,
repression, and sacrifices imposed by the Civil War, War Communism, and
collectivization. Their trajectory reveals both the emancipatory power of the
revolution and the human cost of its consolidation.
The Civil War and foreign intervention reinforced the
antagonism between socialism and capitalism, inaugurating an ideological
division that would mark the entire 20th century. The New Economic Policy
(NEP), as Figes (1996) notes, represented a strategic retreat but did not
restore the power of the traditional elites. The Russian Revolution
consolidated itself as a global phenomenon, inspiring revolutionary movements
and provoking fear among international elites, becoming a permanent object of
historiographical dispute (Rabinowitch, 1976).
More than a century later, the Russian Revolution continues
to be interpreted and debated. For some, it is proof that revolution is
possible; for others, a warning of the dangers of radicalization. What remains
indisputable is its centrality in modern history: an event that redefined not
only Russia’s destiny but also the course of world politics.
References
Figes, Orlando. A People’s Tragedy: The Russian
Revolution 1891–1924. London: Jonathan Cape, 1996.
Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Russian Revolution. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1982.
Hosking, Geoffrey. The Russian Constitutional Experiment:
Government and Duma, 1906–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1973.
Pipes, Richard. The Russian Revolution. New York:
Knopf, 1990.
Rabinowitch, Alexander. The Bolsheviks Come to Power: The
Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd. New York: W.W. Norton, 1976.
Service, Robert. A History of Twentieth-Century Russia.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Deixe aqui o seu comentário