The Russian Revolution as a Direct and Indirect Cause of Fascism

The relationship between the Russian Revolution and the rise of fascism is distinct and marked. Both movements were revolutionary in their own way, and both were provoked to a certain extent by a Marxist inspiration. Lenin was one of the leaders of the Russian revolution and he was a committed Marxist. He did not want Russia to participate in any part of the war, but was the one who surrendered to German invasion.

When Lenin died, the gap that was left open in his death was quickly taken over by Stalin. Fascism was the outgrowth of a revolution that was meant to create more freedom, justice and equality. This is because the Russian revolution and the nation were vulnerable during this time of transition: this vulnerability meant that someone strategic could have the power to come in and corrupt the policies in place.

This paper will explore the nuances, events and changes in and around the Russian revolution that created a space for fascism to thrive. The Russian Revolution meant that large amounts of people were involved in politics—the times of the majority putting their heads in the sand around politics were long over. As Paxton explains one requisite for fascism was “…mass politics.

As a mass movement directed against the Left, fascism could not really exist before the citizenry had become involved in politics.”[footnoteRef:1] The Russian Revolution meant that there were now huge groups of people who were involved in politics, who understood the changes they wanted to see in society and how to articulate them. This meant that fascists had people they could more easily reach out to and manipulate, using the mutual knowledge that they shared.

“Unlike conservatives and cautious liberals, fascists never wanted to keep the masses out of politics. They wanted to enlist, discipline and energize them.”[footnoteRef:2] Hence, from a fascist’s point of view the Russian revolution was something that offered an opportunity to initiate the masses into politics. Fascists could then approach this now initiated mass and start to mold their way of thinking. [1: Robert O.

Paxton and Arthur Morey, The Anatomy of Fascism (New York: Knopf DoubleDay Publishing, 2017), 42.] [2: Paxton and Morey, Anatomy, 43.] The instability of Russia during this era and the fact that “large portions of the middle class were still struggling for the most elementary rights”[footnoteRef:3] was what gave communism a foothold. With that foothold, fascism was able to thrive ultimately as well.

As Paxton points out, “Fascism too, has historically been a phenomenon of weak of failed liberal states and belated or damaged capitalist systems rather than of triumphant ones.”[footnoteRef:4] Given the inequality that the existed in Russia at the time (and which had existed there for so long), it was no wonder that capitalism seemed like failed and wayward system, that made the nation ripe for fascist influence.

There are echoes of this notion buried in the Communist Manifesto, when it discusses the plight of Modern Industry and how it was turned the worker into a dehumanized slave.

This manifesto describes workers crowded into factories, “Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, of the bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself.”[footnoteRef:5] This was the discontent that pervaded society at the time and that fascism was thus able to gain a foothold in. Existence for most people was grim, and the future looked just as bad or worse.

[3: Ibid, 81.] [4: Ibid, 81.] [5: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (2018)] Discontent was pervasive, the Russian revolution had already happened, people were cognizant of politics, and the fascist party was organized, and willing to reach out to all.

“An essential step in the fascist march to acceptance and power was to persuade law-and-order conservatives and members of the middle class to tolerate fascist violence as a harsh necessity in the face of Left provocation.”[footnoteRef:6] The Russian revolution has already groomed people to thinking that violence was sometimes a necessity of important change. The majority was more comfortable with it and thus when fascists leaders engaged in such actions, it was not viewed as a red flag or even all that problematic.

However, this fascist violence was still able to intimidate and control others. [6: Paxton and Morey, Anatomy, 84.] Post-Russian revolution, the nation of Russia was weary, fascism could be viewed as a reaction to both this weariness, and a rejection of it.

“The years after the Russian revolution opened the process of colonial emancipation and decolonisation and introduced both the politics of savage counter-revolution (in the form of fascism…).”[footnoteRef:7] Fascism can be viewed in a nutshell, as attractive to so many because it was so different from what people were useful. It was a way of rebelling the rebellion in many respects. Furthermore, there was an aspect of literal “freshness” to it.

It’s important to acknowledge that in areas all over Europe, fascism was presented as a fresh perspective and possibly a hopeful move for the future, as it was youthful and different. “Fascists offered more than mere numbers. They offered fresh young faces to a public weary of an aging establishment that had made a mess of things.”[footnoteRef:8] [7: E.

J Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991 (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), 46.] [8: Paxton and Morey, Anatomy, 103.] One could argue that perhaps the fascists had a better clarity on where people were mentally and how they felt about society and the future in the post-Russian revolution world, and used this clarity to seduce people away from Marxism. “Long after Marx asserted that the working class had no homeland, conservatives had been unable to find any way to refute him.

None of their nineteenth century nostrums—deference, religion, schooling—had worked.”[footnoteRef:9] Fascists seduced people by suggesting that in the next time period the country would be stronger than the class that one was born into. As Paxton clarifies, this was indeed a seductive message, one which interested many people, as.