Authors

Konstantin Tarasov¹;  ¹ Personal capacity, Russian Federation

Discussion

This paper delves into the cultural mechanisms that legitimized violence during the Revolution of 1917. While researchers have extensively examined the political, social, and national factors, this study seeks to further investigate the cultural preconditions of the Civil War. I consider what terms used to describe the civil war and political opponents. These factors created a discursive framework that constrained the prospects of civil peace amid the conditions of the revolution. Just after the February Uprising the term “civil war” subsequently became an important tool of political manipulation. Early on, the Bolshevik Party was accused of intentions to incite a civil or class war. The return of Lenin from exile intensified this agitation even more. The April Crisis witnessed attempts to exploit the fear of civil war against political opponents. "Leninists" labeled as a force advocating violence and class warfare, while moderate socialists were censured for allegedly "endorsing" the Bolsheviks and the prospect of civil war. "Bourgeois" parties were accused of fearmongering with the specter of civil war to quell the revolution. The July days were characterized as the eruption of civil war. Terms like "Leninists", "Bolsheviks", and "anarchy" were solidified in the political lexicon to denote imminent threats. The Kornilov Affair, perceived by many as either a manifestation of civil war, had a similar impact on liberal parties. During this crisis, even moderate socialists, supporters of cooperation with the "bourgeoisie", employed the language of civil war. Additionally, new terms like "Kornilovists" and "Kornilovshchina" emerged and gained new connotations as they were used during the conflict. The conclusions drawn by various parties from the Kornilov Affair diverged significantly. The Cadets argued that a new coalition government would stave off civil war, whereas some socialists contended that only a government excluding the Cadets could prevent such a scenario. Surprisingly, both the Bolsheviks and the extreme right proclaimed to their supporters that civil war was already underway and immediate action was imperative. By the autumn of 1917, the image of the political opponent had transformed into an existential threat, leading to an escalation in efforts to combat these perceived enemies. The political destruction of an enemy was presented as a means to resolve the crisis. The language of conflict became entrenched, significantly limiting the possibilities for political dialogue and compromise. This linguistic transformation contributed to processes of dehumanization and deindividuation of the enemy, ultimately creating a distinct framework within which various political actors were compelled to operate.