October Revolution and the class character of the Russian Working Class

The October revolution of 1917 in Russia could not be seen simply as an example of political opportunism or as a bourgeois coup d'etat led by a small group of intellectuals. Instead, it was a historical intervention effected by the working class of Russia, mobilized via workers' and soldiers' councils—Soviets—and led by a party whose program was the defense of the interests of the proletariat: the Bolsheviks. Defining the class character of the revolution is therefore central for an understanding of both its immediate successes and its historical significance. This revolution did not signify the exchange of power among the elites; it meant the working majority imposing its interests over the hitherto dominant classes, the landowners, the capitalists, and the bureaucrats who had traditionally exercised command over Russian society.

In order to understand the particular features of the October Revolution, one should consider the situation prevailing in Russia in the year 1917. The country was seriously debilitated after living through three years of a brutal imperialist war. Hundreds of thousands of troops were dying at the frontlines, factories were collapsing under the strains of war mobilization, and the city dwellers were facing starvation. The February Revolution managed to overthrow the Tsarist autocracy and establish a provisional government. Nevertheless, the government, comprising largely bourgeois and moderate socialist elements, continued Russia's participation in the war and refused to adopt steps that would satiate the hopes of the working masses and peasants. As a result, the provisional government represented the interests of the dominant classes more than the wishes of the great majority of the population.

This context is fundamental for grasping the class nature of the October Revolution. The working class, who were congregated in the vast city centers such as Moscow and Petrograd, were fully radicalized. Their struggle was not for minor reforms or for chimerical democracy; it was for tangible material interests: peace, land, and industry control by the workers. Soldiers, conscripted primarily from the peasants but drilled and disciplined, entered the workers' councils, seeing their own survival and interests bound up with the working class struggle for power. The revolution took place as the response to the objective situation of the exploited masses: the state was no longer acting for their interests, and only through direct action were their needs going to be met.

The Bolsheviks created a systematic and structural basis for such a movement. Their leadership did not supplant the working class; it simply served the purpose of guiding it, and it gave the process of the seizure of power a clear strategy. The call for the full seizure of state power by the Soviets was a clear expression of the principle that the oppressed majority should control the organs of government. Soviets, which were worker and soldier councils, expressed the organizational form of the proletariat as a group. They were not advisory bodies or reform implements; they were the kernel of a new type of state where the working class exercised its political power.

The October Revolution took place mostly in Petrograd, where joint actions by sailors, soldiers, and workers were undertaken against the provisional government. Factory and communication center occupations took place, vital military locations were taken, and the Winter Palace, the seat of the provisional government, was surrounded and taken over. The seizing of power was decidedly systematic and hinged on mass participation. The victory of the revolution can never be accredited to isolated acts of bravery or clandestine plotting; it instead became the concrete expression of the working class voicing its status as an immense historical force.

The class dynamics of the revolution can be elucidated through an examination of the structures it aimed to dismantle. The provisional government persisted in its wartime efforts while safeguarding the interests of capitalists and landlords. In response, peasants called for the redistribution of land, workers sought control over production processes, and soldiers demanded an end to hostilities. The October Revolution directly confronted these discrepancies by transferring authority to the Soviets, which were capable of enacting policies that aligned with the majority's needs. Consequently, land was allocated to the peasantry, factories increasingly came under the management of workers, and Russia initiated negotiations for its withdrawal from World War I. These actions illustrated that the revolution represented not merely a transition in leadership but rather a profound transformation in the distribution of class power.

It is necessary to clarify the sense of the term "Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat," a principle central to the Proletarian Communist position. Contrary to what bourgeois interpretations sometimes suggest, it is not a question of a dictatorship involving autocratic rule of a single individual. It means the carrying out of political power by the working class, itself collectively mobilized for the purpose of suppressing the resistance offered by the former dominant classes and for reorganizing society for the advantage of the masses. The October Revolution was the advent of such a state: the Soviets were acting as tools of proletarian rule, and the Bolsheviks were acting as a vanguard for maintaining programmatic cohesion and clarity. The revolution proved that the working majority could seize the state, defend it against both interior and exterior enemies, and undertake the building of a society for the satisfaction of the masses rather than the privilege of a privileged few.

Resistance to the October Revolution underscores its fundamental class character. Liberal politicians, moderates among the socialists, and foreign interests attempted to resist the rising regime, fearful of losing their privileges. The first few months after the revolution were the beginnings of the Russian Civil War, where such elements attempted to reestablish bourgeois rule. Yet the revolution survived because it was grounded upon the material power and mass mobilization of the working class. The very elements who were most likely to gain the laborers, peasants, and soldiers forcefully held on to their newly gained power. Without such mass participation, the October Revolution would not have been able to reach its goals.

The revolution offers a fundamental observation into the nature of bourgeois institutions. The transitional government, acting under the precepts of parliament and law, failed to respond to the interests of the masses. In doing so, it confirmed the reality that reformist, bourgeois strategies were powerless to achieve the revolutionary interests of the working class. It was only through self-initiated activity, enabled through the instrumentality of organically held councils and seizure of the state authority, that the repressed masses could undertake actions geared toward their interests. In light of this, the October Revolution can be seen as a concrete expression of the working class acting toward its historical interests, as opposed to simply awaiting the concessions of the dominant powers.

Another aspect of the class character of the revolution is its relationship with the peasantry. Peasants were the dominant population of Russia; the peasants, however, were not the main driving motor of the revolution, but their aims for land reform were central. The Bolsheviks recognized the need for the support of peasant land seizures whilst simultaneously maintaining proletarian leadership of the state government. This relationship highlights one of the main precepts of Proletarian Communism: the need for the working class to lead the masses of the oppressed, even though it allies itself with other oppressed groups. As such, the October Revolution successfully brought together proletarian leadership and actions favoring the interests of supportive social groups, thus assuring both concrete rewards and political unification.

The revolution's achievements were not lasting nor unquestionable. The newly established Soviet state had serious trouble with the civil war, the economic blockade, and internal opposition. Nevertheless, even within such hardships, the class character of the October Revolution was still evident. Workers and the armed forces had control over manufacturing and politics within their allocated territories. Land seizures by peasants continued. The Soviet state actively safeguarded the revolution from the counter-revolutionary forces precisely because it represented the interests of the majority of the population and not some privileged few.

The lessons gleaned from October are critical for an understanding of both historical world and contemporary conflicts. First, they suggest that revolutions based on a specific class foundation-set firm upon the mobilization of the formally organized majority-have the potential for deconstructing extant systems of oppression. Secondly, they emphasize the factor of leadership; leadership, however, cannot compensate for the active involvement of the masses. Finally, they emphasize the necessity for protecting the revolution by establishing a state reflecting the interests of the working class, not for providing benefits to leaders, but for maintaining the accomplishments of the many and for reorganizing society. The October Revolution highlights the dangers involved with relying on reformist organizations. The inability of the provisional government to fulfill the dreams of workers, soldiers, and peasants reveals the limitations involved with bourgeois democracy under the conditions of a revolutionary explosion. Achievement of the program of the revolution was only possible through the self-activity of the working class. This lesson remains pertinent for contemporary movements: real fundamental change is not to be hoped for through bourgeois parliaments or organizations; it calls for the deliberate and organized action of the masses. In conclusion, the October Revolution of 1917 was a landmark action undertaken by the Russian proletariat. Its class character is clear: it was carried out by workers and soldiers, under the leadership of a revolutionary vanguard, and with the goal of resisting the interests of the ex-ruling classes. The revolution established the first Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a form of government where the majority could exert power, introduce reforms, and defend itself against counter-revolutionary dangers. The revolution revealed the ability of the proletariat to be a conscious and unified historical force, enjoying both short-term gains and laying the foundations for future advances. For the Proletarian Communists from 1918 until 1921, the October Revolution could not be taken simply as a historical relic; it is, instead, a timely example of the necessary class independence and organization for implementing revolutionary change. This revolution exemplifies the possibility of social change, geared toward the interests of the oppressed instead of the privileged few, only when the working class boldly asserts its leadership, supported by a clear agenda and an investment in protecting the interests of the many. The class character of the revolution inherently, its emphasis upon the leadership of the proletariat, and its commitment to favoring the interests of the many are lasting ideals that are still fundamental for any movement that hopes to bring about social change today.