I'm reading this book and I love it.
It tells the truth about the historic revolution that knocked down the Tsar's immense wealth and wide-ranging system of hideous oppression -- from the barbaric massacres against Jews to the mass killing of people trying to deliver a petition or stage a peaceful demonstration, to landlords controlling hundreds of serfs who could scarcely feed themselves -- and replaced it with an egalitarian regime.
It is very detailed historically and also narrates the background to it. Without a doubt, it is factual, and the evidence put forward cannot be refuted.
Serge, the writer, was himself a participant. His political background was anarchist, libertarian, very concerned with the idea of individual freedom.
When he traveled to Russia - in the midst of the revolution - he did not side with the Bolsheviks there.
That soon changed, however, after Serge realized that the Bolsheviks were the only option to eliminate the oppressive system and improve the quality of life.
Serge tells the truth about the Bolshevik regime: an egalitarian government which had to use violence -- like any government -- to stay in power against all its violent enemies that vowed to restore tyranny, such as the White armies that hanged workers they could find at random in every town they conquered.
Serge, himself, seemed to dislike violence and was one of the rather humanistic people within the revolution. He understood, however, that violence was objectively necessary in order to stop even worse violence.
But he constantly tried to eliminate the worst excesses of violence, to save as many valuable human lives as he could.
Work within the revolution but work to reduce its unnecessary harm -- this, according to Serge, was the only right thing to do.
It is a great perspective on a great historical event.
Some may find the foreword by Peter Sedgwick, who translated the work to English, interesting: it brings evidence which unquestionably exposes the fundamental flaws of the major anti-Bolshevik arguments, that do not square with simple historical facts (such as the idea it was a mere coup not backed by the masses, etc.).
Nevertheless, Sedgwick himself also manipulates the historical facts in order to bring the Bolsheviks themselves into question; with arguments of the low quality that we would expect he himself to refute. He imposes his narrative on the book, and tells one what to believe -- as if one can't form one's own view of Serge, whose views are opposed to Sedgwick's.
Serge's very point is: side with the Bolsheviks, despite the negative aspects, that is the most important thing. Sedgwick says: avoid siding with the Bolsheviks, due to the negative aspects. He does not say it directly, but certainly hints it; he spreads fear and doubt by hysterically framing certain events. In order to appear legitimate, he portrays Serge as the great historical figure that he is, attempts to appear as a sympathetic person -- all to end up taking the positions which Serge disproved throughout the book, which do not stand the light of truth provided by Serge. I do not think the foreword is respectful of the author, and the work.
With the style of an arrogant elitist professor, he lectures on what to believe, and how you can't side with the Bolsheviks since they weren't all that good either, inserting his opinion where he wasn't called for. The fact that he resorts to citing British Empire propaganda as fact -- in the foreword to a communist book -- should speak for itself.