The virtue of inevitable defeatsBefore 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, the majority of bourgeois revolutions succeed and it is a very interesting paradox. The very idea that proletarian revolutions fail by nature, but that bourgeois revolutions, taking into account that the vast majority of violent revolutions fail and counting only those that succeed, statistically achieve much better results. The principle of each 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 is important. The large gap in success rates means that the difference must have a considerable impact with each uprising. The second part of this question asks for the opposite claim: if we know that proletarian revolutions work so poorly, what was quite different about the Russian Revolution – and the Russian Civil War that followed it? – which 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 Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayProletarian revolutions are characterized by the working class working to restructure the government, while bourgeois revolutions usually involve overthrow of a dictator or the sole leader of a country to establish a democracy. It is precisely for this reason that bourgeois revolutions are often called bourgeois-democratic revolutions. It is important to note that bourgeois revolutions do not necessarily have to have been orchestrated by the bourgeoisie to be classified 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 they are still not benefiting enough and will attempt to take power, only to eliminate the middle classes and higher. Often, as in the Russian Revolution, this means taking a capitalist country and turning it communist. Not all communist countries are created by 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 joined with workers to exploit their large numbers to overthrow the usually dictatorial government in the case of a bourgeois revolution, counter-revolutions exploit the bourgeois by fighting for anti-worker democracy (Serge) . The reason why bourgeois revolutions tend to succeed is because they are not social revolutions in the same way as proletariat-led uprisings are. The difference between political revolutions, which are the most common type and what can best be described as a bourgeois revolution, and social revolutions is that the latter involve a change in 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 do not know how to create a society thatwill allow them to achieve this uncertain objective. The other major problem comes from the governments of other countries who do not want to let communism take over the world. This can be seen during the Cold War, when the United States promised to protect any country that fought against the spread of Bolshevism. This means that the working class must not only defeat the upper and middle classes of their 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 took place during World War I, which may seem helpful given that most of the world's powers were busy fighting among themselves, but it actually ended up harming the Bolsheviks. As the Germans invaded Finland at this time to fight communism, the Allied forces were informed by their ambassadors in Russia that the Bolsheviks were helping the Triple Entente and that if they wanted to win World War I, they would have to crush Russia. the forces too (Serge). This led the working class of Russia to fight against every powerful country in the world, as well as its own nobles. There are many examples of failed proletarian revolutions: the anarchist revolts during the Spanish Revolution of 1868-1873, the Russian populist movement. of the 1860s, the Chicago Anarchists of 1886, and a Polish social-revolutionary party called, aptly, “Proletariat” (Insarov). A parallel between these failed revolutions and the success of the Bolsheviks can be drawn with the Finnish Revolution of 1917, which occurred at the same time as the Russian Revolution – the notable difference being that the first revolution failed. This comparison shows exactly how different the Russian Revolution had to be from other failed uprisings in order to succeed. In December 1917, Social Democrats in the Finnish Parliament declared that their nation was independent of the Russian Provisional Government and that each country would therefore separately begin its journey towards a proletarian revolution. The middle class supported this separation, fearing that the Russian Bolsheviks would infect their country if they stayed together. In response, the Finnish Red Guard, which served as the working class, captured the capital, Helsinki, in late January 1918 and the proletarian revolution was officially declared (Tepora). The Finns did not have as many advantages as the Russians. did it though. Their leaders were not as strong as Lenin or Trotsky and they did not have a clear idea of ​​what would constitute success, which is the most important quality of a proletarian revolution. They had no other goal than to create a democratic parliament led by the working class. How they would achieve this was still unknown (Serge). It is important to note that they were trying to create a democracy – even if it was run by workers, which would make it more proletarian than bourgeois – which is not true communism as the Russians were trying to achieve. Since the Russians had a very clear idea of ​​creating a socialist government, they knew exactly what they wanted to accomplish and how to achieve it. The Finns might have been more successful if they had also followed this strategy. The other major problem the Finns faced was that 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. They were declared an independent republic from Russia in 1919 and the Germans claimed they had "saved"the working class from the disease of communism. In reality, a large part of the population lost their civil rights when they were released from the prisoner of war camps (Tepora). The Russian revolution began like any other bourgeois revolution. It was not always a proletarian uprising, and in fact it only achieved the goal of a working class-led society after the tsar fell from power. Russian citizens were angry with Tsar Nicholas II because he was too busy on the front, fighting World War I, to listen to their complaints – and they had plenty of them, especially regarding lack of food. In 1900, seventy percent of farmers owned land that was too small to support their families. While the pre-war Russian Empire was one of the five great powers of Europe, it was the only one to be a net importer of capital rather than an exporter (Serge). This left Russia virtually a colonized nation and, as with 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 "it is a campaign of hooligans, with boys and girls running around shouting that they cannot have no bread... all this will surely pass" (Baggins). Only after the Romanovs had been driven from power in favor of democratic leadership and the bourgeois revolution had been successfully completed, would the transition to a popular uprising begin. In this context, the Bolsheviks demanded a restructuring of the government, because the democratically elected Duma, which had been created in place of the royal family, was not functioning as they hoped. As one of the Bolshevik leaders, Bukharin, would declare: “Do you want a miserable little bourgeois parliamentary republic? In the name of the great Soviet republic of labor, we declare war to the death against such a government! Let the ruling classes and their servants tremble before the communist revolution. The workers have nothing to lose except their chains” (Serge). Much of their success came from their leadership and the outcome of this proletarian revolution would have been extremely different if Lenin and Trotsky had not been in charge. Even they feared that the revolution would be over if they were killed on the front lines. Lenin once confidently asked Trotsky: “Tell me, if the Whites kill you and me, do you think Bukharin and Sverdlov will be able to escape, okay? (Serge). It was extremely important for their cause that the counter-revolution could not find anyone to achieve this goal on the side of the bourgeoisie. Another important factor was location. The Bolsheviks controlled the central region 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 the majority of Russian citizens were located (especially since they controlled these two towns) and it was also, almost as important, the location of the region. majority of railways. They were also lucky because they held a majority in their parliamentary system – the Constituent Assembly – and were thus able to control other parties and political opponents. An example is the Social Revolutionaries or SRs who also believed in a revolution led by commoners but did not support all of Lenin's actions. THE..