The Russian Revolution of 1917 brought about a significant shift of power, dismantling the centuries-old Tsarist rule and paving the way for a new era. However, this revolution also sparked a bitter conflict between the two opposing sides – the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists. Understanding the differences between these factions is crucial to comprehending the complexities of the revolution and its aftermath. This article delves into the nuanced distinctions that set the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists apart, shedding light on their contrasting ideologies, motivations, and ultimate objectives.
The White Forces, also known as the White Army, emerged as a coalition of anti-Bolshevik groups seeking to restore the monarchy and maintain the pre-revolutionary social order. Composed of diverse factions such as conservative monarchists, liberal democrats, and nationalist movements, the White Forces found common ground in their rejection of the Leninist vision of a proletariat-led state. They aimed to turn back the clock and rebuild a Russia resembling its former self, characterized by conventional social hierarchies, land ownership rights, and traditional values.
Conversely, the Anti-Leninist Socialists were a disparate collection of left-leaning factions that opposed Bolshevik authority, yet differed from the White Forces in their objectives and principles. Ranging from more moderate socialists to anarchists, their shared perspective was rooted in a rejection of Leninist authoritarianism and the concentration of power in the hands of the Bolshevik party. These factions believed in a more egalitarian society, one in which power was decentralized and dispersed among the working class, ensuring the emancipation of workers and structuring society based on cooperative principles.
Understanding the Differences: How Were the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists Different?
Ideological differences
The ideological differences between the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists played a significant role in shaping their respective movements.
A. White Forces’ support for capitalism and monarchy
The White Forces, composed of various anti-Bolshevik groups, were united by their opposition to the communist regime established by the Bolsheviks. They strongly supported capitalism and the reinstatement of a monarchical form of government. Their ideology was rooted in a conservative and traditionalist worldview that sought to preserve the social and economic hierarchy that had existed prior to the October Revolution.
B. Anti-Leninist Socialists’ advocacy for workers’ control and social democracy
In contrast, the Anti-Leninist Socialists, also known as the socialist opposition, rejected both the Bolshevik regime and the return to a capitalist system. Instead, they advocated for workers’ control of the means of production and the establishment of a social democratic society. They sought to create a system that would prioritize social justice, workers’ rights, and democratic governance.
IGeographical composition
The geographical composition of the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists differed significantly, reflecting the regional dynamics of the Russian Civil War.
A. White Forces’ concentration in the southern and eastern regions
The White Forces were primarily concentrated in the southern and eastern regions of Russia, including areas such as Siberia and Ukraine. These regions had a higher proportion of conservative elements, such as landowners and members of the aristocracy, who opposed the Bolsheviks’ radical reforms and the redistribution of land and wealth.
B. Anti-Leninist Socialists’ influence in urban centers and industrial areas
In contrast, the Anti-Leninist Socialists had a stronger presence in urban centers and industrial areas, where working-class movements and socialist organizations had historically been active. These areas provided a fertile ground for the dissemination of their ideas and attracted support from workers and other disenfranchised groups.
In the next section, we will explore the class composition of the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists, shedding further light on their divergent interests and objectives.
Understanding the Differences: How Were the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists Different?
IGeographical composition
The geographical composition of the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists played a significant role in shaping their respective ideologies and strategies during the Russian Civil War.
A. White Forces’ concentration in the southern and eastern regions
The White Forces, composed primarily of conservative and monarchist factions, found their strongest support base in the southern and eastern regions of Russia. This region encompassed areas such as Siberia, the Urals, and the Don, where anti-Bolshevik sentiments were particularly strong. The White Forces’ concentration in these areas allowed them to establish strongholds and effectively challenge the Bolshevik government. Additionally, they were able to exploit the vast land and natural resources in these regions to sustain their military forces.
B. Anti-Leninist Socialists’ influence in urban centers and industrial areas
In contrast, the Anti-Leninist Socialists, comprising a diverse range of leftist groups including Social Democrats, Mensheviks, and Socialist Revolutionaries, found greater influence in urban centers and industrial areas, such as Moscow and Petrograd. These regions were home to the working class and provided fertile ground for socialist ideologies and workers’ movements to flourish. The urban and industrial composition of their support base enabled the Anti-Leninist Socialists to mobilize significant labor and manpower for their cause.
The geographical differences between the White Forces and Anti-Leninist Socialists had significant implications on their military strategies and alliances. The White Forces, concentrated in the southern and eastern regions, had the advantage of controlling vast territories and benefiting from foreign interventions, particularly from Western powers. Their stronghold in these resource-rich areas allowed them to sustain their military efforts and prolong the civil war.
On the other hand, the influence of the Anti-Leninist Socialists in urban centers and industrial areas allowed them to rely on workers’ militias and forge alliances with left-wing groups. This guerrilla-style warfare, combined with their ability to mobilize the urban working class, provided them with a more flexible and dynamic approach to military engagement.
The geographical composition of the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists not only influenced their military strategies but also contributed to the development of their respective ideologies. The concentration of the White Forces in agrarian regions led to a conservative and pro-capitalist ideology aligned with the interests of the aristocracy and bourgeoisie. Conversely, the urban and industrial composition of the Anti-Leninist Socialists’ support base led to an emphasis on workers’ control and social democracy, as they recognized the significance of the proletariat in the advancement of socialist ideals.
In conclusion, the geographical composition of the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists in different regions of Russia shaped their strategies, alliances, and ideologies during the Russian Civil War. Understanding these differences is crucial to comprehending the complex dynamics of this historical conflict and its lasting impact on Russian politics and society.
Understanding the Differences: How Were the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists Different?
IClass Composition
The class composition of the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists played a significant role in shaping their ideologies, goals, and strategies during the Russian Civil War. While the White Forces primarily received support from the aristocracy, landowners, and bourgeoisie, the Anti-Leninist Socialists drew their backing from the proletariat and lower-middle class.
A. White Forces’ Affiliation with the Aristocracy, Landowners, and Bourgeoisie
The White Forces represented the interests of the traditional ruling classes in Russia. They were predominantly composed of the aristocracy, landowners, and bourgeoisie who wanted to preserve their economic privileges and social status. These groups felt threatened by the Bolsheviks’ call for land redistribution and nationalization of industries, which would have directly impacted their wealth and power. Consequently, the White Forces rejected the idea of social equality and workers’ control, instead advocating for the protection of private property and the restoration of the monarchy.
B. Anti-Leninist Socialists’ Support from the Proletariat and Lower-Middle Class
In contrast, the Anti-Leninist Socialists’ base of support came from the proletariat and lower-middle class. These groups faced significant socio-economic challenges under both capitalism and the Bolshevik regime. The workers, in particular, were disillusioned by the lack of improvements in their working conditions and the suppression of independent labor organizations by the Bolsheviks. The Anti-Leninist Socialists, therefore, offered an alternative vision that advocated for workers’ control, social democracy, and the improvement of living standards for the working class.
The class composition of the two factions heavily influenced their objectives in the Russian Civil War. While the White Forces sought to maintain the existing social and economic order, the Anti-Leninist Socialists aimed to fundamentally transform it, advocating for greater equality, workers’ rights, and social justice. The White Forces’ support from the aristocracy and bourgeoisie fueled their determination to crush the Bolshevik government and restore monarchy, while the Anti-Leninist Socialists’ reliance on the proletariat and lower-middle class led them to oppose Bolshevik autocracy and strive for democratic alternatives.
In summary, the class composition of the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists played a crucial role in determining their ideologies and objectives during the Russian Civil War. While the former represented the interests of the ruling classes and aimed to preserve the existing social and economic order, the latter drew support from the working class and sought to bring about greater social equality and democratic governance. This stark contrast in class composition underscored the deep-seated divisions within Russian society during this tumultuous period.
Understanding the Differences: How Were the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists Different?
International support
The fifth section of this article explores the international support received by the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists during the Russian Civil War. Both factions sought external backing to strengthen their positions and achieve their respective goals.
A. White Forces’ backing from Western powers and foreign interventions
The White Forces garnered significant support from Western powers, particularly countries such as Britain, France, and the United States. These nations were wary of the Bolsheviks and feared the spread of communism, prompting them to offer military assistance, supplies, and financial aid to the White Forces. Foreign interventions were also observed, with foreign armies, such as the Japanese and Czechoslovakian troops, lending support to the White Forces in their campaign against the Bolsheviks. This international backing further fueled the strength and resources of the White Forces, allowing them to sustain their fight against the Bolshevik government.
B. Anti-Leninist Socialists’ alignments with international socialist movements
In contrast, the Anti-Leninist Socialists sought alliances and support from international socialist movements and organizations. These socialist groups shared similar principles and objectives, which included advocating for workers’ control and social democracy. The Anti-Leninist Socialists aimed to build solidarity with like-minded movements around the world, collaborating on ideological development and strategizing for the establishment of a socialist society. Although they did not receive the same level of foreign assistance as the White Forces, their connections with international socialist movements provided them with ideological and moral support.
The international support received by the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists highlights the global dimensions of the Russian Civil War. The conflict became a battleground not only between internal factions but also between different international powers and ideological movements. The White Forces attracted support from capitalist nations aiming to suppress communism, while the Anti-Leninist Socialists sought solidarity with socialist movements around the world. The involvement of foreign entities further complicated the dynamics of the conflict and shaped its outcome.
In the next section of this article, we will delve into the military strategies and alliances employed by the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists, shedding light on their distinct approaches in the battlefield.
Understanding the Differences: How Were the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists Different?
Military strategies and alliances
The White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists utilized different military strategies and formed contrasting alliances during the Russian Civil War. These approaches were shaped by their respective ideologies and goals.
A. White Forces’ hierarchical military command and cooperation with foreign armies
The White Forces, consisting of various factions opposed to the Bolshevik regime, employed a hierarchical military command structure. They aimed to restore the monarchy and preserve the capitalist system in Russia. To bolster their forces and counter the Red Army, the White Forces sought support from foreign powers. They received military aid, including weapons, supplies, and troops, from countries such as Britain, France, the United States, and Japan. These foreign interventions aimed to undermine the Bolshevik government and protect foreign interests in the region.
B. Anti-Leninist Socialists’ reliance on workers’ militias and alliances with other leftist groups
In contrast to the centralized command structure of the White Forces, the Anti-Leninist Socialists relied on workers’ militias. These militias consisted of armed workers and volunteers who fought against the Bolsheviks and the White Forces. The Anti-Leninist Socialists comprised a broad spectrum of leftist groups, including the Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and Anarchists. Despite their ideological differences, they formed alliances based on their opposition to the Bolshevik regime.
The military strategies of the Anti-Leninist Socialists prioritized the involvement of workers in combat. They believed that workers’ militias, composed of individuals with direct economic grievances, would be more effective in achieving their objectives. This approach aimed to overthrow the Bolshevik government and establish a democratic socialist state that emphasized workers’ control and social justice.
The Anti-Leninist Socialists also collaborated with other leftist groups to increase their strength and influence. These alliances were formed on the regional and local levels, uniting diverse anti-Bolshevik forces under a common goal. The Anti-Leninist Socialists recognized the importance of solidarity and cooperation among leftist factions to counter the combined forces of the Red Army and the White Forces.
In summary, while the White Forces relied on a hierarchical military structure and foreign support, the Anti-Leninist Socialists embraced workers’ militias and formed alliances with other leftist groups. These differing military strategies and alliances reflected the distinct goals and ideologies of the two factions during the Russian Civil War.
Understanding the Differences: How Were the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists Different?
VApproach to land reform
In the turbulent years following the Bolshevik Revolution, the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists found themselves deeply divided on the issue of land reform.
A. White Forces’ resistance to land redistribution and preservation of large estates
The White Forces, comprising a coalition of counter-revolutionary groups, staunchly opposed any form of land redistribution. Aligned with the aristocracy, landowners, and bourgeoisie, they sought to preserve the existing social hierarchy and the privileges it entailed. Large estates owned by the elite were seen as the backbone of the traditional Russian society, and the White Forces were determined to protect this system at all costs.
Land reform was seen by the White Forces as a dangerous precursor to Communist ideals, undermining the traditional feudal structure. They feared that the redistribution of land to the peasants would lead to a loss of power and privilege for the ruling classes. Consequently, they resisted any attempts by the Bolshevik government to carry out substantial land reforms.
B. Anti-Leninist Socialists’ push for land reforms and redistribution to peasants
In stark contrast, the Anti-Leninist Socialists, comprising a diverse group of left-wing factions, were advocates for extensive land reform and the redistribution of land to the peasantry. Drawing support from the proletariat and the lower-middle class, they believed that land should be taken from the aristocracy and large landowners and distributed among the working class and peasants.
The Anti-Leninist Socialists saw land reform as crucial for achieving social justice and alleviating the extreme poverty experienced by the majority of Russians. They argued that the concentration of land and wealth in the hands of a privileged few was the root cause of widespread inequality and exploitation. By redistributing land, they aimed to empower the peasantry and create a more egalitarian society.
The issue of land reform became a significant point of contention between the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists. While the former sought to maintain the existing order, the latter saw land redistribution as a means to address social and economic inequities. Ultimately, these differing approaches to land reform reflected the broader ideological differences between the two factions and their visions for Russia’s future.
Understanding the Differences: How Were the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists Different?
VIRelationship with nationalities and ethnic groups
Throughout the Russian Civil War, the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists displayed starkly contrasting approaches towards nationalities and ethnic groups within their respective territories. This section will explore the distinct perspectives and policies adopted by these two factions in relation to promoting or suppressing the rights and identities of various minority communities.
A. White Forces’ promotion of Russian nationalism and suppression of minorities
The White Forces, predominantly comprised of monarchists, aristocrats, and conservative elements, heavily favored Russian nationalism and the advancement of a unified Russian identity. This approach led to the suppression of ethnic and national minority groups within their territories. They viewed these minority communities as a threat to their vision of a centralized and homogeneous Russian state. Consequently, the White Forces enacted policies that aimed to assimilate or suppress these identities, such as forbidding the teaching of minority languages and discouraging the celebration of cultural practices.
B. Anti-Leninist Socialists’ recognition of national self-determination and minority rights
In stark contrast, the Anti-Leninist Socialists recognized and advocated for the rights of nationalities and ethnic groups within their territories. Committed to principles of social democracy, they acknowledged the importance of national self-determination and sought to protect the rights of minority communities. The Anti-Leninist Socialists promoted inclusive policies that respected and celebrated diverse cultural identities. They encouraged the teaching of minority languages, supported cultural institutions, and enabled the expression of unique customs and traditions.
This divergence in approach led to a significant difference in the experiences of minority communities under the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists. While the White Forces enforced strict assimilation policies, the Anti-Leninist Socialists created an environment that fostered the preservation and flourishing of minority cultures.
In conclusion, the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists exhibited distinct attitudes towards nationalities and ethnic groups during the Russian Civil War. The White Forces prioritized Russian nationalism and actively suppressed minority identities, while the Anti-Leninist Socialists recognized the importance of national self-determination and advocated for minority rights. This difference in approach had a lasting impact on the experiences and legacies of minority communities within the territories controlled by these factions.
Reaction to the Bolshevik Revolution
A. White Forces’ aim to overthrow the Bolshevik government and restore monarchy
The White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists had contrasting reactions to the Bolshevik Revolution and the establishment of the Soviet government. The White Forces, composed of various anti-Bolshevik factions, aimed to overthrow the newly-formed Bolshevik government and restore monarchy in Russia.
The White Forces viewed the Bolshevik Revolution as a threat to the traditional social and political order. They believed that the Bolsheviks’ establishment of a communist state would lead to the destruction of the monarchy and the privileges enjoyed by the aristocracy and landowners. Therefore, their primary objective was to remove the Bolsheviks from power and reinstate the monarchy under the leadership of figures like Tsar Nicholas II or a suitable replacement.
The ideology of the White Forces was deeply rooted in the preservation of the old social hierarchy and the return to traditional values. They sought to eliminate revolutionary movements and restore a Russia ruled by the monarchy, guided by the principles of the Russian Orthodox Church. The White Forces believed that only through the restoration of the monarchy could Russia maintain its stability and regain its former glory.
B. Anti-Leninist Socialists’ opposition to Bolshevik autocracy and pursuit of democratic alternatives
In stark contrast, the Anti-Leninist Socialists, as their name suggests, opposed Lenin’s autocratic approach and aimed to challenge the Bolsheviks’ grip on power. They saw the Bolshevik Revolution as an opportunity to bring about a more democratic and inclusive society.
The Anti-Leninist Socialists, embracing the principles of social democracy, sought to establish a system where power was decentralized and shared among the people. They advocated for the participation and empowerment of workers, peasants, and the lower-middle class through democratic processes. Rather than restoring the monarchy, they aimed to create a government that would respect the rights and interests of all social classes.
The Anti-Leninist Socialists recognized the need for democratic alternatives to the Bolshevik regime, opposing its autocratic rule, suppression of political opponents, and restrictions on civil liberties. They believed that a more inclusive and participatory system would lead to the development of a just and equitable society.
In summary, while the White Forces sought to overthrow the Bolshevik government and restore the monarchy, the Anti-Leninist Socialists opposed Bolshevik autocracy and pursued democratic alternatives. The former aimed to preserve the old social order, while the latter sought to create a more inclusive and participatory society. These divergent reactions to the Bolshevik Revolution reflect the ideological and political differences between the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists.
Understanding the Differences: How Were the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists Different?
X. Propaganda and Media Control
During the Russian Civil War, both the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists employed propaganda and media control to shape public opinion and advance their respective agendas. However, their approaches and methods differed significantly.
A. White Forces’ Control of Mainstream Media and Anti-Communist Propaganda
The White Forces, backed by Western powers and foreign interventions, had control over mainstream media outlets. They utilized this advantage to disseminate anti-communist propaganda, painting the Bolshevik government as a threat to traditional values, private property, and social order. By controlling the narrative, the White Forces aimed to garner support from the conservative elements of society, including the aristocracy, landowners, and bourgeoisie, who regarded the Bolshevik Revolution as a threat to their privileges and stability.
B. Anti-Leninist Socialists’ Utilization of Agitprop and Alternative Media Outlets
In contrast, the Anti-Leninist Socialists relied on agitprop (agitation and propaganda) and alternative media outlets to counter the Bolshevik narrative. Recognizing the power of propaganda, they established their own newspapers, pamphlets, and leaflets to disseminate their ideals of workers’ control and social democracy. These alternative media channels aimed to rally support from the proletariat and the lower-middle class, who aspired for a more egalitarian society and opposed the Bolshevik autocracy.
The Anti-Leninist Socialists also employed agitprop tactics, including public rallies, street theater, and artistic performances, to engage and mobilize the masses. They used emotionally charged imagery and slogans to convey their message and inspire popular resistance against the Bolshevik regime. By utilizing such alternative means of communication, the Anti-Leninist Socialists sought to counterbalance the dominance of the White Forces in mainstream media and gain support from the urban centers and industrial areas, where their influence was stronger.
In conclusion, while both the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists recognized the importance of propaganda and media control during the Russian Civil War, their approaches differed significantly. The White Forces heavily relied on their control of mainstream media to disseminate anti-communist propaganda and garner support from the conservative classes. On the other hand, the Anti-Leninist Socialists utilized agitprop and alternative media outlets to counter the Bolshevik narrative and mobilize support from the working class. These divergent strategies in propaganda and media control reflect the ideological and sociopolitical differences between the two factions during this tumultuous period in Russian history.
Understanding the Differences: How Were the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists Different?
Economic policies
The economic policies adopted by the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists during the Russian Civil War were starkly different, reflecting their ideological divergence in managing the nation’s economy.
A. White Forces’ emphasis on laissez-faire capitalism and private ownership of industries
The White Forces, comprising a coalition of anti-Bolshevik factions, including Russian conservatives and monarchists, favored a capitalist economic system with minimal government intervention. They advocated for the protection of private property rights and promoted the free market principles of laissez-faire economics.
Under the White Forces’ economic policies, industries remained under private ownership, allowing individuals and corporations to operate with limited government interference. They believed that a free market would stimulate economic growth and restore stability in Russia.
B. Anti-Leninist Socialists’ advocacy for state intervention, nationalization, and planned economy
In contrast, the Anti-Leninist Socialists, also known as Mensheviks and other moderate socialist groups, proposed a different economic model. They called for state intervention in the economy, nationalization of key industries, and the establishment of a planned economy.
The Anti-Leninist Socialists aimed to curtail the power of the bourgeoisie and provide economic opportunities for the working class. They opposed the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and advocated for a fair redistribution of resources. The nationalization of industries would allow the state to regulate production and ensure equitable distribution of goods and services.
The planned economy proposed by the Anti-Leninist Socialists would prioritize the needs of the people and aim to address social inequalities. Through centralized economic planning, they sought to create a system where production and distribution were coordinated for the benefit of the entire society.
Conclusion
The economic policies pursued by the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists during the Russian Civil War exemplified their differing visions for the future of Russia. While the White Forces embraced laissez-faire capitalism and private ownership, the Anti-Leninist Socialists advocated for state intervention, nationalization, and the establishment of a planned economy.
These economic differences were emblematic of the broader ideological divergences between the two factions. Ultimately, the White Forces’ defeat and subsequent exile led to the consolidation of the Bolshevik government’s power and the establishment of a socialist state in the Soviet Union. However, the influence of the Anti-Leninist Socialists on the development of social democracy outside of the Soviet Union cannot be underestimated. Their ideas and principles would continue to shape political movements around the world for years to come.
Understanding the Differences: How Were the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists Different?
XLegacy and Impact
The legacy and impact of the White Forces and the Anti-Leninist Socialists were significant in shaping the political and social landscapes after the Russian Revolution. While the White Forces ultimately faced defeat and exile, the Anti-Leninist Socialists left a lasting influence on the development of social democracy outside of the Soviet Union.
A. White Forces’ Defeat and Exile:
The White Forces, composed of the aristocracy, landowners, and bourgeoisie, were ultimately defeated by the Bolshevik Red Army in the Russian Civil War. Many members of the White Forces were forced into exile, seeking refuge in various countries around the world. Their dream of restoring monarchy and capitalism in Russia was shattered, and their influence within the country diminished significantly.
B. Anti-Leninist Socialists’ Influence:
The Anti-Leninist Socialists, on the other hand, played a crucial role in the development of social democracy beyond the borders of the Soviet Union. With their advocacy for workers’ control and social democracy, they laid the foundations for the growth and spread of socialist movements globally.
The ideas and principles promoted by the Anti-Leninist Socialists resonated with workers and progressive intellectuals in other nations, leading to the formation and strengthening of socialist parties and labor movements. These movements adopted various aspects of the Anti-Leninist Socialists’ agenda, such as fighting for workers’ rights, advocating for social justice, and seeking democratic alternatives to authoritarian regimes.
Moreover, the Anti-Leninist Socialists’ recognition of national self-determination and minority rights was crucial in promoting inclusivity and diversity within socialist movements. Their emphasis on balancing the interests of different ethnic groups and nationalities contributed to the overall growth and acceptance of social democracy globally.
The legacy of the Anti-Leninist Socialists can be seen in the establishment of social democratic parties and governments in numerous countries, particularly in Europe. These parties have had a significant impact on shaping social and economic policies, promoting welfare states, and ensuring workers’ rights.
In conclusion, while the White Forces faced defeat and exile, the Anti-Leninist Socialists left a lasting impact on the development of social democracy worldwide. Their ideas, values, and principles continue to shape progressive politics, labor movements, and the fight for social justice in various countries. The differences between these two factions during and after the Russian Revolution highlight the diverse paths taken by those seeking alternatives to Bolshevik autocracy.