[D66] Hooligan Violence vs. Revolutionary Action: Lessons from the Russian Revolution

[René Oudeweg]

**Hooligan Violence vs. Revolutionary Action: Lessons from the Russian 
Revolution**

Violence has often been a tool of expression in times of social unrest, 
but not all forms of violent behavior carry the same meaning or purpose. 
A key distinction can be drawn between *hooligan violence*, which is 
chaotic, purposeless, and often rooted in personal gain or destruction, 
and *revolutionary action*, which is organized, ideologically motivated, 
and aimed at transforming political and social structures. The Russian 
Revolution of 1917 provides a striking case study for understanding this 
difference.

**Hooligan Violence**
Hooliganism is violence for its own sake—street fighting, looting, 
vandalism, and other acts that do not serve a larger political vision. 
In pre-revolutionary Russia, hooliganism was widespread in urban 
centers, especially in Petrograd. Tsarist police reports from the early 
20th century complained that gangs of young men engaged in petty crime, 
drunken brawls, and assaults on passersby. These actions frightened 
ordinary people and disrupted daily life but had no coherent program for 
change. Importantly, even during moments of revolutionary upheaval, 
hooligan violence sometimes reappeared, undermining broader social 
movements. For example, in February 1917, as demonstrations against food 
shortages escalated, some crowds broke into shops and looted them. While 
this reflected genuine desperation, such behavior was often dismissed by 
revolutionaries as “hooliganism” because it lacked political 
organization or strategic purpose.

**Revolutionary Action**
Revolutionary action, by contrast, is violence—or the threat of 
violence—channeled toward collective political goals. In Russia, the 
February and October Revolutions demonstrated how workers, soldiers, and 
peasants used strikes, armed uprisings, and mass protests not just to 
vent frustration but to topple old regimes and create new systems of 
power. The February Revolution, for instance, involved mass 
demonstrations against the Tsar, mutinies by soldiers, and strikes by 
workers. These actions were coordinated, rooted in demands for bread, 
peace, and representation, and culminated in the abdication of Nicholas 
II. Similarly, the Bolshevik-led October Revolution was a deliberate 
seizure of state power. The storming of the Winter Palace, though 
violent, was not random destruction—it was a calculated step to transfer 
authority from the Provisional Government to the Soviets.

**Blurring the Lines**
Yet the distinction between hooligan violence and revolutionary action 
was not always clear-cut. Revolutionary leaders like the Bolsheviks 
often struggled to channel spontaneous street violence into disciplined 
political action. Looting or mob attacks could weaken revolutionary 
legitimacy or give authorities a pretext to repress dissent. On the 
other hand, what authorities called “hooliganism” was sometimes a label 
used to discredit genuine revolutionary activity. The line between the 
two, therefore, depended not only on the behavior itself but on its 
organization, goals, and interpretation by participants and observers.

**Conclusion**
The Russian Revolution illustrates the crucial difference between 
purposeless hooligan violence and purposeful revolutionary action. While 
both forms of unrest involve disruption and sometimes bloodshed, the 
former is chaotic and self-serving, while the latter is structured, 
collective, and aimed at systemic transformation. Understanding this 
distinction helps explain how Russia in 1917 moved from scattered unrest 
to the overthrow of an empire and the birth of a new political order.

---