Every major social phenomenon consists on various levels, is produced by myriads of causes and produce myriad effects and the forces that animate it are constantly crossing, clashing and cooperating one with another. That is, by no means, a radical or an unprecedented epistemology or explanation. Social sciences have long ago adopted similar explanations, that focus in the complexity and compoundness of every social phenomenon. Nevertheless, that methodological stance will help us to easily clear the way from inadequate, outdated and one-sided interpretations. For example, besides the political implications that might still be useful, the epistemological utility of the totalitarian theories is of little worth. The notion that every collective attempt for emancipation is doomed to lead into state or collective totalitarianism is guilty of reductiveness and simplisticness. But the same can be said about the two, favorable towards the Revolution, interpretations of the Russian Revolution; the one that sees the Revolution as the outcome, at the end, of the Bolsheviks’ coup d’ etat and the other that offers an a posteriori justification for the monopoly of power by the Party.
But, things, as it can be imagined, are never so simple: «anarchists in Russia who actively participated in the Bolshevik seizure of power and then in a variety of administrative positions which were contributions to the establishment of Soviet power and a socialist state. Although it is not well known, the fact is, in spite of the obvious ideological contradiction involved, that more anarchists were directly involved in the running of a state during the Russian revolutionary era than in any other single instance in the modern era». That obvious contradictionary stance may be well explained, due to necessity, but sole necessity cannot explain this: «[Trotsky] discussed with Lenin more than once the possibility of allotting to the anarchists certain parts of the territory for the carrying out, with the consent of the population, of their stateless experiment».
What really happened during the first stages of the Revolution? Do our interpretations mirror the events in all their complexity? In what way necessity shocked the ideological systems and how did ideologies respond to the unavoidable necessity? And, finally, if ideological reflection was a crucial response to the pressing reality, does the same critical reflection must be applied to our current interpretations of the Revolution?