Creating Revolutionary Justice

The first chapter provides the foundation for the rest of the book by charting the establishment of revolutionary justice. Although the Bolsheviks had a clear sense of the role of law in society and a clear desire to oversee legal reform, they did not have a coherent plan on exactly what they would do. Consequently, the new system emerged steadily through the year after October with the development of tribunals shaped by the Bolsheviks’ experiences of early trials and the intensifying civil war. This chapter examines the decrees that outlined the official role of tribunals, explores the experiences of the early trials, and looks at how tribunals started to operate in practice, both nationally and locally. It examines various reforms of the tribunal system and various types of tribunals, including press tribunals, provincial tribunals, and the Supreme Tribunal. From the start, tribunals were pitted against the secret police, the Cheka, and this too shaped how tribunals took shape. By late 1918, however, tribunals were firmly in place, with a structure that only changed minimally thereafter and a distinct role alongside the Cheka.

The Trial

Chapter 4 examines the trial, the focal point of the legal process, which provided a forum for both sides to discuss their version of events; produced the punitive sentence; and provided the basis for the educational message, whether in the courtroom or when publicized later. In doing so, it was the primary means by which tribunals projected the state’s authority and ideology, and formed the main distinction between revolutionary justice and revolutionary violence. Chapter 4 pieces together the trial process, examining how cases were brought to trial, the individuals involved (judges, lawyers, and others), the location, the trial procedure, and the sentences. A quantitative analysis of sentences reveals that they were far more varied than might be expected or that the authorities encouraged, revealing differing conceptions of counter-revolution and the nature of revolutionary consciousness, and more broadly the flexibility of law over violence. The chapter finishes by charting the move towards ‘model’ and then ‘show’ trials through an analysis of the preparations for the trial of the Socialist Revolutionaries in 1922—the first ‘show’ trial—and the Bolsheviks’ management of the process itself.

Conclusion

The Conclusion outlines the various assessments of the impact and role of tribunals during the civil war. Starting with contemporary publications celebrating the important role of law as a revolutionary and transformative tool, it moves on to later Soviet and post-Soviet assessments. Noting that tribunals did not conform to easy stereotypes, the conclusion then summarizes the chapters before revisiting the key themes discussed in the Introduction in light of the subsequent discussion, arguing for the importance of law in revolutions and for the significance of a form of law in the Russian Revolution and civil war—revolutionary tribunals—that operated at the intersection of law and violence. It finishes by exploring the legacy of revolutionary tribunals for the later terror and show trials in Russia and its impact on the relationship between state and society where such practices must have added to the tensions and grievances emerging from Russia’s brutal civil war.

Publicizing Revolutionary Justice

Chapter 6 discusses how all courts were, as officials liked to note, schoolrooms where people could learn about the revolution, the new proletarian state, and its ideals. Only a minority of people, however, were involved directly in tribunals or able to watch trials in person. The chapter analyses, therefore, the wider publicity surrounding trials, making extensive use of national and local newspapers, images, and newsreels to examine how tribunals were portrayed, the language and images used, and how this fitted in with broader agitational attempts to mobilize people. The chapter concludes with a systematic analysis of the publicity surrounding the trial of the Socialist Revolutionaries in 1922—the first ‘show’ trial—to explore how the Bolsheviks used various forms of media in tandem to convey their narrative of the trial, a major advance on previous efforts even if it still enjoyed mixed success among the population.

Categorizing Counter-Revolution

Chapter 3 examines how the Bolsheviks categorized counter-revolutionary crimes and, in doing so, exerted control over definitions of the revolution and sought to establish new ‘norms’. Initial conceptions of counter-revolution revolved around revolts, plots, or sabotage conducted by obvious political and social enemies, but the Bolsheviks faced an increasing array of problems as the civil war intensified, and more activities were soon included. The elasticity of the term ‘counter-revolution’ provided law and tribunals with much of their power, but this did not inevitably mean ‘lawlessness’ or ‘arbitrariness’; there may have been no formal law codes, but there were numerous decrees and tribunals targeting specific threats based on the state’s evolving fears and ambitions. Nevertheless, as the category of counter-revolution expanded, particularly with a growing focus on mass crimes and ‘shock’ campaigns, so too did the social backgrounds of counter-revolutionaries to encompass primarily lower-class ‘criminals’, which had significant implications for broader state–society relations. This chapter uses both quantitative and qualitative approaches before finishing with an analysis of the impact of the new law codes of 1922 on categories of crime.

Extending State Authority

Chapter 2 examines how the creation of a justice system, like other institution-building exercises, formed an important part of re-establishing central state authority during this period. The Bolsheviks inherited a shattered state and their weaknesses, alongside widespread opposition, exacerbated the problem initially. As political courts targeting a wide variety of counter-revolutionary crimes, staffed by party members who proactively targeted criminals, tribunals were better placed to convey the authority and objectives of the state than other courts. Law became the ‘emissary of the state’, extending the state’s reach across Russia. This chapter explores the steady expansion of tribunals, including the establishment of military tribunals, transport tribunals, and travelling sessions of tribunals, as a means of exerting state authority from the end of 1918. Gradual unification of the system followed, but the Bolsheviks had re-established the state by 1922, and this achievement, the end of the civil war, and the publication of new law codes rendered many tribunals obsolete. Law’s purpose changed in a more stable Soviet Union, moving from revolutionary consciousness to revolutionary legality, although this chapter finishes by exploring the legacy of exceptional forms of justice and its continuance in the military and in the form of show trials.

Introduction

The introduction outlines the key themes that underpin the book, from the role of law in revolution and Bolshevik understandings of law to the ambiguous relationship between law and violence. Arguing that historians have not appreciated the role of law in the Russian Revolution and Civil War in part because the role of law in revolution more generally has been understudied, it goes on to outline how the Bolsheviks understood this role and, then, how they saw this role as distinct from, and supplementary to, the role of violence. The introduction finishes by explaining the structure of the rest of the book.

The Logic of Mercy

Chapter 5 explores why many sentences from revolutionary tribunals were suspended, why there were frequent national amnesties, and why some offenders were released early—termed as ‘mercy’ by the Bolsheviks. These activities all emphasized the flexibility of law. Bolshevik legal theorists argued that, if the danger posed by the crime changed, then so should the sentence, and there was no point incarcerating people who could be safely rehabilitated into society. But there were also other logical reasons, from reinforcing the image of the justice system as independent and the state as humane to relieving pressure on overcrowded courts and prisons, to targeting social groups whose support or service was needed. This chapter focuses on cassation, amnesties, and early release to examine how the Bolsheviks utilized mercy. It also explores the dialogue on justice that emerged in appeals, and the strategies of appellants, and how their ‘involuntary complicity’ in revolutionary justice may have reinforced its legitimacy and, in turn, the authority of the state.