Hannah Arendt 1917 Revolution Analysis

For many people, the 1917 revolution heralded a new age, much as the French revolution had. But instead of bringing on an age of secular republics, and liberalism, it brought on an age of oppressive states based on the Soviet Union’s model of government. To the untrained 20th century eye, the 1917 revolution’s model of state organization was something truly new, bizarre and intriguing. Yet, a brief synopsis of Russian history would quickly reveal that there were more similarities between the Soviet and Tsarist governments than Stalin or any other Soviet official would have cared to admit; the revolution was not as revolutionary as it seemed. This paper will use Hannah Arendt’s definition of revolution to demonstrate that the 1917 Bolshevik

We begin by interpreting this definition.

Hannah Arendt identified several key features that she believed were integral for a movement to qualify as truly revolutionary. She presented these features in her book, On Revolution, when she wrote “Violence is no more adequate to describe the phenomenon of revolution than change; only where change occurs in the sense of a new beginning, where violence is used to constitute an altogether new body politic, where liberation from oppression aims at least at the constitution of freedom can we speak of revolution” (Arendt, pg 25). Hannah Arendt’s definition of revolutions can be boiled down two parts. The first is the creation of a new body politic, which can be understood as the founding

Though it existed for over 70 years, many of the Soviet Union’s structures were put in place before and during Stalin’s reign. Milovan Djilas succinctly summarized the general Soviet system in his book, The New Class when he wrote “There is no fundamental difference in the Communist system between governmental services and party organizations, as in the example of the party and the secret police. The party and the police mingle very closely…the difference between them is only in the distribution of work” (Djilas, pg 73). The system Djilas described was one where the Bolshevik party was in absolute control of the government and all its functions. This included the bureaucracy, and secret police, as well as the military. As a result, the Bolshevik party was in total control of all the Soviet Union’s levers of power. It was effectively an autocracy of the Communist party, at the head of which rested Joseph Stalin, whose power was absolute and as close to god-like, as anyone had ever had. Nikita Khrushchev testified to Stalin’s autocratic power in his book, Khrushchev Remembers, when he wrote, “Stalin adapted all methods of indoctrination to his own purposes. He demanded unthinking obedience and unquestioning faith” (Khrushchev, pg 8). Khrushchev was undoubtedly politically biased against Stalin, but his statement seems to be in line with the latter’s record of achievements. The purges of