When the Bolsheviks seized power in October 1917, they claimed to act in the name of Marx. Yet if we return to Marx’s own writings, especially his reflections on the Revolutions of 1848, a different understanding of revolution emerges. We come to know that Marx did not imagine socialism rising directly out of feudal or absolutist conditions. Instead, he believed that history moved in stages.
In 1848, revolutions swept across parts of Europe, and Marx observed them closely. These were not proletarian revolutions. They were bourgeois ones. They sought to dismantle feudal privileges, expand constitutional government, and create space for capitalist development.
Marx supported these movements because he saw them as necessary steps. A society had to move beyond feudal domination before a working-class revolution could become possible. Capitalism, in his view, created the social conditions in which the proletariat could develop class consciousness and political organization. Marx did not call for an immediate proletarian takeover in societies still burdened by feudal structures. He saw the overthrow of absolutism as a prerequisite.
Marx understood that the bourgeoisie could be unreliable allies. He warned that once in power, they might suppress workers’ demands. Still, he did not advocate replacing feudalism with a centralized party dictatorship. His strategy involved temporary alliances, democratic participation, and the gradual strengthening of the working class. To achieve this, he expected the proletariat to gain experience within democratic institutions. Through elections, representation, and political organization, workers would prepare for a future transformation. This framework differs sharply from what occurred in Russia after October.
The February Revolution of 1917 resembled what Marx described in 1848, and it overthrew autocracy and opened space for representative government.
The October takeover bypassed that stage, and instead of allowing democratic institutions to mature, the Bolsheviks concentrated power in a single party. They established centralized control instead of laying the foundation for a widespread socialist revolution. Marx’s theory placed a strong emphasis on the working class’s self-activity. Later theories by Lenin placed a strong emphasis on the disciplined vanguard’s leadership. There is a noticeable difference. One is based on the growth of democracy. Hierarchical organization is the foundation of the other.
Calling the October Coup a Marxist revolution obscures these distinctions. It suggests continuity where there was rupture. It implies that Marx’s stage-based analysis led naturally to a one-party state.
Understanding Marx’s position helps clarify why the Soviet system cannot be described as a realization of Marxist theory and also sheds light on how the language of socialism was used to justify centralized authority.
For readers interested in examining these arguments more closely and exploring how Marx’s ideas were reshaped in the Russian context,Contra Communism: The Soviet Union and Absolutism by Gunnar J. Haga offers a thoughtful and historically grounded study that invites careful reconsideration of both Marx and Lenin.
By carefully distinguishing between mass social change and elite political takeover, the book explains why the Soviet system developed into totalitarian absolutism rather than socialism, which was and still is very different from Europe.
Head to Amazon to purchase your copy: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FVWC11VM/.
