Our new issue, “After Bernie,” is out now. Our questions are simple: what did Bernie accomplish, why did he fail, what is his legacy, and how should we continue the struggle for democratic socialism? Get a discounted print subscription today !

Once upon a time, General Lavr Kornilov and Alexander Kerensky were thought of as heroes in Russia. Conservative historians describe Kornilov as an honorable patriot and professional soldier while liberal historians tell us about the eloquent, idealistic lawyer Kerensky, who wanted to transform Russia into a vibrant, democratic republic. After Tsar Nicholas II’s abdication, the two joined forces — Kerensky as the head of the Provisional Government, Kornilov as commander-in-chief. Both wanted to guide their nation to a better future. As historians of all stripes have recorded, the two heroes had a falling out in August 1917, setting the stage for the Bolshevik Revolution. Historians disagree, however, on what precisely precipitated this split. By some accounts, Kornilov was planning a coup, which Kerensky foiled by mobilizing socialist and working-class groups. The unscrupulous Bolsheviks, it’s argued, took advantage of the confusion and seized power. Others say that Kerensky invented the coup in order to remove Kornilov, unwittingly paving the way for the all-too-real Bolshevik takeover. This interpretation begs the question: why would Kerensky turn on his top military commander and undermine his own power? The answer lies in the fact that Kornilov planned two coups in 1917: one with Kerensky against the Bolsheviks, and the other against the Provisional Government itself. His ultimate failure reminds us that history on the scale of the Russian Revolution is not made by heroes but by social forces, which create the context within which individuals act.

From Uprising to Repression Most readers can already recount the conditions that produced the Russian Revolution. Since the late nineteenth century, the country’s rigid semi-feudal monarchy had been blending with modern, industrial capitalism. These strange bedfellows generated incredible tension between the laboring majority — mostly peasants but with a dynamic and growing minority of industrial workers — and the elite — the hereditary aristocrats and industrial capitalists. World War I ratcheted this instability up to explosive proportions. In February, the workers, responding to revolutionary appeals from a variety of socialist groups, staged a mass insurgency, demanding peace and bread. More profoundly, they called for full land redistribution, an end to autocratic rule, equal rights, and better living conditions. The democratic workers’ and soldiers’ councils set up after the uprising reflected its values. These soviets not only coordinated the revolution but remained in place to oversee the political and social transition the uprising demanded. Meanwhile, more “pragmatic” types — liberal, conservative, and moderate-socialist politicians — had formed a Provisional Government. Its leaders praised the workers, peasants, and soldiers, complimented the soviets, and deployed all kinds of democratic and populist rhetoric that promised peace, bread, and land. But peace could only come with honor, bread would have to wait until the crisis ended, and land redistribution should still respect landowners’ rights. The soviets, initially inclined to go along with this seemingly well-intentioned government, nevertheless established constraints designed to guide it toward the original revolutionary goals. Kerensky, with his socialist credentials, put himself forward as a bridge between the soviets and the Provisional Government, ultimately becoming the president. Though many believed Kerensky was destined to build a democratic Russia, those who knew him well had doubts. “In Kerensky everything was illogical, contradictory, changing, often capricious, imagined, or feigned,” wrote Socialist Revolutionary (SR) leader Victor Chernov, who served as minister of agriculture. “Kerensky,” he went on, “was tormented by the need to believe in himself, and was always winning or losing that faith.” While still claiming to represent the soviets’ interests within the Provisional Government, Kerensky began to side with other establishment politicians against the councils, which were undermining his government’s authority. Moderate socialists, including many Mensheviks and SRs, insisted that the soviets should support the Provisional Government to help establish a capitalist democracy, which they saw as a lengthy but necessary prelude to eventual socialist transition. In contrast, the more radical Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, insisted that the insurgent masses’ demands could only be secured through a second revolution that pushed aside the Provisional Government and gave “all power to the soviets.” This, alongside the spread of revolution to other countries, would launch a socialist transformation. More and more frustrated workers were joining the Bolsheviks — even the SR and Menshevik left wings found Bolshevik arguments convincing. Leon Trotsky, a brilliant leader in the 1905 revolutionary upsurge, became the Bolsheviks’ most famous recruit. A crescendo of working-class anger in July culminated in a revolutionary demonstration. Militants in Petrograd, not under party control but with Bolshevik support, initiated the uprising. The ensuing violence gave the government a pretext for repression. As Left SR Isaac Steinberg recounted, “[t]roops of officers, students, Cossacks came out on the streets, searched passers-by for weapons and evidence of ‘Bolshevism,’ committed atrocities.” The Provisional Government outlawed the Bolshevik party, raided and wrecked its headquarters, and arrested or drove out its leaders and most visible militants.

Kornilov and Kerensky In the wake of the July Days, Kerensky appointed Kornilov commander-in-chief of the Russian army. Both hoped to counter the pressure from “unreasonable” workers, who were setting up factory committees to take control of workplaces and organizing their own “red guard” paramilitary groups to maintain public order and protect the revolution against reactionary violence. Kerensky found such radicalism disturbing, but right-wingers like General Kornilov thought moderates like Kerensky were just as distasteful. Traditional politicians — liberals as well as conservatives — began viewing a military dictatorship as the only way to stabilize the nation. In his memoirs, Kerensky quotes this message from Kornilov, which displays Kornilov’s contempt for all socialists, even moderates: I feel sure … that the spineless weaklings who form the Provisional Government will be swept away. If by some miracle they should remain in power, the leaders of the Bolsheviks and the Soviet will go unpunished through the connivance of such men as Chernov. It is time to put an end to all of this. It is time to hang the German spies led by Lenin, to break up the Soviet, and to break it up in such a way that it will never meet again anywhere! Kerensky reveals that he “agreed to this but did not take part in working out the details.” He believed that Kornilov would allow him to remain the head of the government, but one of the general’s emissaries revealed to the Duma’s conservative and liberal leaders that “everything was ready at Headquarters and the front for the removal of Kerensky.” Or so Kerensky claimed. Historians have debated whether or not Kornilov really conspired to replace Kerensky with a military dictatorship. Evidence suggests a comedy of errors, miscommunications, and misunderstandings. Most agree, however, that both men planned to wipe out the Bolsheviks and crush the soviets.