- 03 Mar 2004 04:13
#310530
Revolution and revolt ought never to be mistaken for synonyms. The former consists of the overthrow of the existing order of things, of the existing State or society, and its thus a political or social act. The latter, while inevitably involving a transformation of the existing order, does not take such a transformation as its starting point. It starts from the fact that men are not at easy with themselves. It is not a strapping on the battle-armor, but an uprising of individuals, a rebellion that cares nothing for the institutions it is likely to spawn. The Revolution has new institutions as its objective. Revolt induces us to no longer let ourselves be governed, but rather to shift for ourselves. Revolt does not look to the “institutions†to come for any wonders. It is a fight against what already exists. Should it succeed, what already exists will collapse on its own. It merely sets my Ego free from the existing order of things. Which, from the moment that I bid it farewell, perishes and starts to rot.
Now, since it is not my aim to overthrow what already exists, my actions are in no way political or social: they have no object other than myself and my individuality: they are “selfish.†Institutions are a requirement of the Revolution. Revolt wants to see us rise up or stand up. The choosing of a constitution was the preoccupation of the revolutionary leaders: the entire political history of the Revolution seethed with the constitutional strife and constitutional issues, just as the talents of social reformers proved extremely fertile in social institutions (like the phalansteries and others). But revolt strives to wrestle free of any constitution.
A common denominator for any revolt in revolution in history is some kind of social turmoil, and Russia had very much of this; in 1905, February 1917 and October 1917. Both the 1905 revolution and the first one of 1917 were the outcome of the Tsar’s oppressive policies and his unwillingness to change the political system. Even though after the 1905 revolution the Tsar delivered the October Manifesto, and indeed tried setting up a Duma, his obstinate mindset on autocracy always made any attempt at change absolutely impossible. When the situation got too tense in 1905 with so many people demanding a constitutional monarchy, the Tsar made sure that in theory people saw changes, but sooner than later everything returned to the way it used to be. At first glance it may appear that in 1905, Russia indeed experienced a revolution, yet it takes a closer look to determine whether this term is abused my some historians and mere opinion takers. Was there a true Revolution in Russia in 1905?
The first step to take would be to come to a common characteristic or a common denominator on what a revolution is. Naturally, one would say, such a definition is impossible for all the subjectivities which are held to it, yet we can make our lives easier by comparing it to an event which is un-dubiously a Revolution, and in such case, there is no better scenario than the actual Bolshevik revolution of 1917. Again, at first thought this may seem preposterous for the bounteous amounts of difference between the two, but it requires a closer analysis to determine this with security.
Although both the revolutions of 1905 and February 1917 were productive in the sense that they brought about changes, both changes were temporary and by all means short lived. In 1905, as was already mentioned, the very longed for constitution and parliament appeared, but were quickly undermined and dissolved by the Tsar. Whereas in February 1917 the Tsar abdicated, but the new authority in charge, the Provisional Government, was made up of rich landowners who although were not the die-hard autocrats that the Tsar was, didn’t deliver the drastic change that Russia so desperately needed.
This is exactly what sets the revolution of October 1917 apart from the previous two; Lenin and his anything-but-discreet entrance in April. After delivering his April Thesis, and consolidating a strong and united foundation for supporting the Bolshevik Party in case of a revolution, everything changed. Lenin’s appearance, his leadership and his figure, were the push that the country needed to concentrate their efforts on a common cause instead of taking part in small, unsystematic uprisings that lead to no satisfactory result. By making people realize the emptiness of the Tsar’s promise and convincing them of the futility and continuity that the Provisional Government represented, he was able to motivate a revolution that would last for almost 80 years, and that in turn inspired many others.
The 1905 events were preceded by a difficult economic situation, which lead Sergei Witte to introduce his economic policy, which was a plan to make huge investments in industry to create a spiral of upward industrial growth: the more industry grew, the more demand there would be for other industrial products, which would lead to further growth, and so on. He placed much of his faith in the development of railways, for these could improve communications between cities. The money would come from foreign investment; huge foreign loans, and the peasantry, the latter being squeezed for taxes. The 1905 events occurred in the midst of the economic depression, in which the Tsar decided to turn attention towards a war with Japan, yet it backfired on him and created a massive discontent; it was the first time in history a European power lost a war against a Pacific-Asian country. At this point is where we find one of the most important sources of conflict for 1905, the mass discontent in Russia due to the Tsar’s ineptitude to deal with Russia’s problem, to many it seemed he was “at war with his own people.â€
Needless to say, the military fiasco of the Russo-Japanese war brought problems further than social angst to the government. Most of the taxes were being used for military purposes, and the revolts in the cities were difficult to hold back due to the lack of military power. It is important to note that by this time, revolution had moved from the country to the big cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg. The workers had many grievances about their terrible working conditions. They wanted higher wages and shorter hours; this had been an ongoing source of tension, and in the working place terrible atrocities were being committed against the working men.
Political dissatisfaction did not lack in this period either. Middle-class liberals demanded a Duma, or several liberal reforms, political changes for Russia. They were tired with the Tsarist autocratic method. At this point some changes were starting to be obvious, Industrial workers all over Russia went into strike and Trotsky (Whom at this point was a Menshevik) blocked the railway lines and thus in-communicating cities, which eventually led to the creation of the St. Petersburg Soviet (Soviet being the Russian word for Council) otherwise known as the Petrograd Soviet. Nicholas was forced to make concessions; he published the October Manifesto which granted freedom of speech (among others), no imprisonment without trial and the creation of a national Duma. It seemed that the effort of the Liberals to make a change to the monarchy was succeeding, and at this point people were very satisfied and considered this a victory to reformists. Yet this must be taken with a grain of salt. The so-called Parliament still had to answer to the Tsar, who also reserved the right to dissolve the Duma at any moment he pleased; he could appoint half the ministers, declare war or peace and kept control of the Russian Orthodox Church. The following Duma in 1907 didn’t last three months before the Tsar closed it down.
At this point we need to determine which factors existed in 1905 and which ones didn’t. There was a naval mutiny present, in Odessa, with the battleship Potemkin, which invoked other branches of the navy to revolt as well. There was no army mutiny, the army was loyal to the Tsar at all times, for reasons we will examine later. There were national strikes, in October 1905 Moscow was highly affected by a national general strike, and in December an uprising was crushed by the Semenovsky regiment in which 500 lives (more or less) were lost. There were public demonstrations, the middle class liberals preached for a constitutional monarchy, if not democracy, and other liberal reforms. There was indeed a political change, the Tsar indeed created the Duma (though it was not very parliamentary) and made his system more democratic, and his regiment a step closer to a constitutional monarchy. The peasant unrest leads to arson of manors, their lands were ruined by droughts. At first, outbreaks were sporadic and dispersed, by later; a National Peasants’ Union was formed. There was never a downfall of monarchy; never did the Tsar abdicate his throne. There was assassination of key figures; the Governor-General of Moscow, Grand Duke Sergei was assassinated in Moscow; he was the Tsar’s uncle. Most importantly, and a key difference with 1917, there was not a planned revolution. What’s labeled as the 1905 revolution is a sum of small revolts around the country, with a lack of leadership and a determined group.
There are three key points in the survival of the Tsar in 1905. The first one being the lack of a real leader with whom to negotiate. If, for a moment, we think that the Tsar at some point would’ve decided to grant concessions, there was no real leader he could deal with. Opposition was not consolidated nor did it have one key person that could assume leadership. On the same basis, there was not a clear revolutionary group. If we compare this to the revolutions around Europe in 1848, we see that the failed ones have something in common, the difference of objectives, not a common goal to which the masses could strive for. Our second point is the support of the aristocracy. Even though Nicholas had serious difficulties with the handling of Russia, he didn’t fail to keep the support of the rich and influential classes. We can again compare this to 1917, in which one of the key points is how Nicholas loses the support of the aristocracy due to his unwillingness to concede liberal reforms, and is forced to abdicate. This alone was a strong base for the Tsar, and his remaining power. The third key reason being the support of the army. After the Russo-Japanese war, and the peace between these two countries, Alexander promised payment and credit to those who remained loyal to him. This was one of his few good moves, since it allowed him to control the unrest in the big cities, were revolt was becoming difficult to handle. The Tsar never lost the support of the Army nor that of the aristocracy, which have to be kept in consideration.
Throughout all this, we are left with several interrogates to answer. Does a revolution need to succeed to receive the actual name of revolution? Is a revolt the preliminary stage of a revolution? Is a revolution the “dust settling down†of a revolt? And finally and most important, was there a revolution in Russia in 1905?
Note: The "dust settling down" analogy was contributed by Goldstein.
Now, since it is not my aim to overthrow what already exists, my actions are in no way political or social: they have no object other than myself and my individuality: they are “selfish.†Institutions are a requirement of the Revolution. Revolt wants to see us rise up or stand up. The choosing of a constitution was the preoccupation of the revolutionary leaders: the entire political history of the Revolution seethed with the constitutional strife and constitutional issues, just as the talents of social reformers proved extremely fertile in social institutions (like the phalansteries and others). But revolt strives to wrestle free of any constitution.
A common denominator for any revolt in revolution in history is some kind of social turmoil, and Russia had very much of this; in 1905, February 1917 and October 1917. Both the 1905 revolution and the first one of 1917 were the outcome of the Tsar’s oppressive policies and his unwillingness to change the political system. Even though after the 1905 revolution the Tsar delivered the October Manifesto, and indeed tried setting up a Duma, his obstinate mindset on autocracy always made any attempt at change absolutely impossible. When the situation got too tense in 1905 with so many people demanding a constitutional monarchy, the Tsar made sure that in theory people saw changes, but sooner than later everything returned to the way it used to be. At first glance it may appear that in 1905, Russia indeed experienced a revolution, yet it takes a closer look to determine whether this term is abused my some historians and mere opinion takers. Was there a true Revolution in Russia in 1905?
The first step to take would be to come to a common characteristic or a common denominator on what a revolution is. Naturally, one would say, such a definition is impossible for all the subjectivities which are held to it, yet we can make our lives easier by comparing it to an event which is un-dubiously a Revolution, and in such case, there is no better scenario than the actual Bolshevik revolution of 1917. Again, at first thought this may seem preposterous for the bounteous amounts of difference between the two, but it requires a closer analysis to determine this with security.
Although both the revolutions of 1905 and February 1917 were productive in the sense that they brought about changes, both changes were temporary and by all means short lived. In 1905, as was already mentioned, the very longed for constitution and parliament appeared, but were quickly undermined and dissolved by the Tsar. Whereas in February 1917 the Tsar abdicated, but the new authority in charge, the Provisional Government, was made up of rich landowners who although were not the die-hard autocrats that the Tsar was, didn’t deliver the drastic change that Russia so desperately needed.
This is exactly what sets the revolution of October 1917 apart from the previous two; Lenin and his anything-but-discreet entrance in April. After delivering his April Thesis, and consolidating a strong and united foundation for supporting the Bolshevik Party in case of a revolution, everything changed. Lenin’s appearance, his leadership and his figure, were the push that the country needed to concentrate their efforts on a common cause instead of taking part in small, unsystematic uprisings that lead to no satisfactory result. By making people realize the emptiness of the Tsar’s promise and convincing them of the futility and continuity that the Provisional Government represented, he was able to motivate a revolution that would last for almost 80 years, and that in turn inspired many others.
The 1905 events were preceded by a difficult economic situation, which lead Sergei Witte to introduce his economic policy, which was a plan to make huge investments in industry to create a spiral of upward industrial growth: the more industry grew, the more demand there would be for other industrial products, which would lead to further growth, and so on. He placed much of his faith in the development of railways, for these could improve communications between cities. The money would come from foreign investment; huge foreign loans, and the peasantry, the latter being squeezed for taxes. The 1905 events occurred in the midst of the economic depression, in which the Tsar decided to turn attention towards a war with Japan, yet it backfired on him and created a massive discontent; it was the first time in history a European power lost a war against a Pacific-Asian country. At this point is where we find one of the most important sources of conflict for 1905, the mass discontent in Russia due to the Tsar’s ineptitude to deal with Russia’s problem, to many it seemed he was “at war with his own people.â€
Needless to say, the military fiasco of the Russo-Japanese war brought problems further than social angst to the government. Most of the taxes were being used for military purposes, and the revolts in the cities were difficult to hold back due to the lack of military power. It is important to note that by this time, revolution had moved from the country to the big cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg. The workers had many grievances about their terrible working conditions. They wanted higher wages and shorter hours; this had been an ongoing source of tension, and in the working place terrible atrocities were being committed against the working men.
Political dissatisfaction did not lack in this period either. Middle-class liberals demanded a Duma, or several liberal reforms, political changes for Russia. They were tired with the Tsarist autocratic method. At this point some changes were starting to be obvious, Industrial workers all over Russia went into strike and Trotsky (Whom at this point was a Menshevik) blocked the railway lines and thus in-communicating cities, which eventually led to the creation of the St. Petersburg Soviet (Soviet being the Russian word for Council) otherwise known as the Petrograd Soviet. Nicholas was forced to make concessions; he published the October Manifesto which granted freedom of speech (among others), no imprisonment without trial and the creation of a national Duma. It seemed that the effort of the Liberals to make a change to the monarchy was succeeding, and at this point people were very satisfied and considered this a victory to reformists. Yet this must be taken with a grain of salt. The so-called Parliament still had to answer to the Tsar, who also reserved the right to dissolve the Duma at any moment he pleased; he could appoint half the ministers, declare war or peace and kept control of the Russian Orthodox Church. The following Duma in 1907 didn’t last three months before the Tsar closed it down.
At this point we need to determine which factors existed in 1905 and which ones didn’t. There was a naval mutiny present, in Odessa, with the battleship Potemkin, which invoked other branches of the navy to revolt as well. There was no army mutiny, the army was loyal to the Tsar at all times, for reasons we will examine later. There were national strikes, in October 1905 Moscow was highly affected by a national general strike, and in December an uprising was crushed by the Semenovsky regiment in which 500 lives (more or less) were lost. There were public demonstrations, the middle class liberals preached for a constitutional monarchy, if not democracy, and other liberal reforms. There was indeed a political change, the Tsar indeed created the Duma (though it was not very parliamentary) and made his system more democratic, and his regiment a step closer to a constitutional monarchy. The peasant unrest leads to arson of manors, their lands were ruined by droughts. At first, outbreaks were sporadic and dispersed, by later; a National Peasants’ Union was formed. There was never a downfall of monarchy; never did the Tsar abdicate his throne. There was assassination of key figures; the Governor-General of Moscow, Grand Duke Sergei was assassinated in Moscow; he was the Tsar’s uncle. Most importantly, and a key difference with 1917, there was not a planned revolution. What’s labeled as the 1905 revolution is a sum of small revolts around the country, with a lack of leadership and a determined group.
There are three key points in the survival of the Tsar in 1905. The first one being the lack of a real leader with whom to negotiate. If, for a moment, we think that the Tsar at some point would’ve decided to grant concessions, there was no real leader he could deal with. Opposition was not consolidated nor did it have one key person that could assume leadership. On the same basis, there was not a clear revolutionary group. If we compare this to the revolutions around Europe in 1848, we see that the failed ones have something in common, the difference of objectives, not a common goal to which the masses could strive for. Our second point is the support of the aristocracy. Even though Nicholas had serious difficulties with the handling of Russia, he didn’t fail to keep the support of the rich and influential classes. We can again compare this to 1917, in which one of the key points is how Nicholas loses the support of the aristocracy due to his unwillingness to concede liberal reforms, and is forced to abdicate. This alone was a strong base for the Tsar, and his remaining power. The third key reason being the support of the army. After the Russo-Japanese war, and the peace between these two countries, Alexander promised payment and credit to those who remained loyal to him. This was one of his few good moves, since it allowed him to control the unrest in the big cities, were revolt was becoming difficult to handle. The Tsar never lost the support of the Army nor that of the aristocracy, which have to be kept in consideration.
Throughout all this, we are left with several interrogates to answer. Does a revolution need to succeed to receive the actual name of revolution? Is a revolt the preliminary stage of a revolution? Is a revolution the “dust settling down†of a revolt? And finally and most important, was there a revolution in Russia in 1905?
Note: The "dust settling down" analogy was contributed by Goldstein.
- By Tainari88
- By Pants-of-dog