Economical unrest is best shown through the peasants. They were heavy under the weight of redemption payments and oppressive taxes and their economic unrest was definitely evident preceding 1905, and throughout 1905 they vented their anger. “The ferment in the countryside grew in a menacing way”, is a good quote describing their movements as the word ‘menacing’ seems to suggest they were very dangerous and seems to have connotations supporting the large numbers that there were. The word ‘ferment’ supports the fact it peasant unrest had been building up. One major achievement I can see from the peasant uprisings was that they were organised by themselves, demonstrating their own political thought and this was cemented in July of the year when the ‘All-Russian peasants’ union’ was created.
After 9th January strikes flared up, people wanted something different. The mutiny of the ‘Potemkin’ epitomised the challenging of authority that swept across Russia. The Potemkin incident involved a murder of a spokesman for some disgruntled sailors caused thousands of people, showing their support for the Martyred man, to turn up at the docks to pay respects. Police then massacred these people in the night. 2000 people were killed and 3000 wounded. The event was extremely symbolic of how far the revolution had spread; even into his supposed protection, the military. All these uprisings and conflicts were shadowed and supported by the majority of the nation opposing a war with Japan. This was on going ironically because of the Tsar’s pride, something that 1905 did not do any good.
In this revolutionary climate that had been created you might of well expected a revolution but for one key factor. Everybody had different agendas that fragmented a potential overthrowing of the system.
At the bottom the peasants wanted basically a better life through lessened taxes, end to redemption payments, more land and some political and human rights. They attempted this by boycotting tax payments and a few different forms of protesting. They only had their demands met partially through reforms in November of 1905 but it quelled the revolutionary potential of a very large percentage of the population.
The working classes were arguably the loudest voices in 1905. They were the ones directly harmed through ‘Bloody Sunday’ and had a wide growing base of socialist thought through increasing industrialisation and through trade unions. Their main concern was generally better conditions, pay, hours, the end of the war and the creation of a constituent assembly. They demonstrated themselves by halting Russia’s ability to function through strikes as well as voicing concerns through the newly implemented soviets. They demonstrated their hunger for revolution, or change, when uprisings started to involve weaponry. They succeeded in their most of aims of their aims through the October manifesto giving them more civil and human rights but failed to achieve their constituent assembly until 1917, way beyond the apparent revolution in 1905. They did also achieve a Duma allowing more control to the people and significant to the people as it looked as if everything was slowly changing. It is debatable whether or not they achieved enough through the manifesto and Working Class activists through the Mensheviks believed the Tsar was hoodwinking the working class. Others believed it was definitely the way forward such as the liberal Octobrists, taking their name from the manifesto.
The middle class and the students represented the intelligentsia of Russia. They generally wanted more political freedoms, to voice liberal ideas and the students wanted university autonomy. They struck out by the use of Zemtvos and achieved even more voice when the radical union of union’s was formed and their liberal views could be heard in the public eye. The students achieved university autonomy in August 1905 and the universities became very important centres of revolutionary thought. Lenin believed the bourgeois liberals to have “political naivety” and incapable of revolution but I believe that the group probably harboured the most realist and democratic solution of a constituent assembly. Maybe if they had of had the leadership of someone such as Lenin, a powerful and driving force, they may of achieved a carefully planned political revolution through gradual reform. They wanted to be like the international middle classes, they were “increasingly assimilating the culture of the rest of the world”; unrest at the fact industry was modernising at a rate that did not allow for the social evolution of the country to keep up. If they wanted so much why did not they make a stronger attempt at revolution? They were afraid of the working classes and their viscous views on class barriers. One man said when the 1905 ended, “Thank God for the Tsar, who has saved us from the people”.
The gentry were still very pro-autocratic but even they were unhappy with the fact they were paying high taxes and disliked being in between systems. They either wanted it back to feudal rule or something more modern. They were close to the Tsar and the few that wanted change badly attempted to influence him. They were not that affective yet they were not as desperate as others were.
I have mentioned the military earlier in the case of the Potemkin. They were discontented not only at the Russo-Japanese war but also at their poor conditions in barrack communes. Most of their voices went hand in hand with the Peasants at many of them were originally or still Peasants. They could not however demonstrate themselves with ease as they had dedicated themselves to the Tsar and even minimal unrest in the army was dealt with severely and quickly.
The minority nationalities proved their hatred for the system when 9th January opened up the floodgates for revolution and within days thousands were striking in opposition of the Tsar. Many outer regions such as Poland demanded autonomy and in many places whole populations were involved in the protests. Nothing, significant was achieved however. I believe this to be as no Russians would join with those who were not their own.
The revolutionary desire was definitely alive in Russia. Students were even seen singing the French Revolution anthem, ‘la Bastille’ but there was no Bastille achieved for the Russian revolutionaries. Nothing solid was won for the people in the expanse of things, nothing changed. Although they achieved what seemed to be a lot in the way of political reform, if you look through this reform it was very transparent. As I mentioned earlier I could only decide if it was a revolution with the use of hindsight. In hindsight I can see that the changes that did occur were only there to quell the potentiality of a proper revolution and to stop the government, in this case the Tsar, being overthrown. The Tsar recognised his own hoodwinking when he ordered the St. Petersburg soviet arrested, as they were Mensheviks opposing the manifesto and the claimed to see through the manifesto. The freedoms given were to oversee legislation through a Duma, this Duma was in effect useless. it did not have any of the power it promised apart from it symbolising a say people did not actually have. This was shown when the Duma proposed the releasing of political prisoners, more trade union rights and better land rights that Nicholas II just refused and then dissolved the Duma, this was the first Duma meeting. The fact Nicholas did this suggested he has never had the idea of allowing the Duma power but only used it to keep the people quiet. He then issued fundamental laws and Stolypin, the Tsars later chancellor, easily used these laws to manipulate the Duma to his and the Tsar’s own use. The Duma was there and to the majority seemed an amazing step forward of Russia, the sceptical intelligentsia in the Menshiviks could see what it was really there for, a tool to quiet the masses.
In conclusion I believe 1905 was not a revolution. There was definite revolutionary thought present, yet the revolutionary acts of strikes and protests were fragmented and without co-ordination between classes. A revolution had to consequent in something solid and this was definitely not true in Russia where the Tsar gave false power to a people who all took the bait, but for the Menshevik Social Democrats, and fell into the Tsars trap until 1917. I will concede that in hindsight we can see 1905 was important in what has been called part of a ‘perpetual revolution’ and I believe that Lenin was right when he said 1905 was “the great dress rehearsal”. 1905 allowed the revolutionary groups such as the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks to learn what to do in 1917 and what to avoid, people could gain experience from their parts played in 1905.1905 was just a preliminary for the real thing. In the future there had to be less fragmentation through the classes, as the liberal bourgeoisie were the key class that seemed to shy away from revolution and aiding the working class with their higher education. A throne would topple a with a lot more ease when pushed from one point rather than everyone pushing from different directions as people would counteract each other; this was what happened in 1905.
A PEOPLE’S TRADGEDY – Orlando Figes
LATE IMPERIAL RUSSIA 1890-1917 – John F. Hutchinson
LATE IMPERIAL RUSSIA 1890-1917 – John F. Hutchinson
THE PEASENT RIOTS essay - Leon Trotsky
REACTION AND REVOLUTIONS: RUSSIA 1881- 1924 – Michael Lynch
OPEN ADDRESS TO THE TSAR – Leo Tolstoy