Explain the absence of revolution in Britain and Russia before 1890

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

Despite the appalling conditions endured by the lower classes and the writings of Karl Marx, there was no real revolution in Britain and Russia before 1890 because of the ineffective organisation of the oppressed classes and the ability of the ruling classes to neutralise class tensions at critical times. The only real form of revolution which could have occurred was a socialist revolution due to the influence of Marx’s writings before the 1890s. Marx declared that in order for some form of revolution to occur, the political and social conditions would have to be right. For example, Marx argued that a society would have to go through a capitalist system before reaching a socialist society, a society ruled by the working classes. Russia’s conditions were perhaps not ideal due to the fact that they were a feudal state, and seemed to be not moving towards capitalism as quickly as the other European nations, as their large peasant and small bourgeoisie population suggested. Britain’s conditions were not suitable also because the grievances of the oppressed classes were always shelved by other issues such as the British conquest of India. This essay will split the issue of why there was no revolution in each country by considering them separately and then drawing similarities between the two countries. Generally, no revolution occurred because of the ability of the ruling authorities in each country to not allow conditions to progress into the state which Marx pointed out and the inability of the oppressed classes to make a revolution due to the deficiencies in their organisation and support.

Perhaps one of the most important reasons why revolution never occurred in Britain or Russia was the quiescence of the working classes. John Merriman argues that the majority of the working classes in Britain did not want revolution because the socialist vision had not caught on with them; they were happy with the political system. However, this view is challenged by Robert Gildea when he claims that a ‘certain rigidity was observable in political life even in those countries where representative government survived’. However, it does seem like the working classes in Britain did not want a revolution. Although there were strikes due to discontent, Gildea’s argument is limited in that the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, a grievance of the working class for several years, proved to restore ‘social harmony’ as Merriman claims. This is perhaps true because the Conservatives had been quarrelling on the issue of the repeal of the laws for some time; only Peel was the true supporter of the repeal. This meant that the working class placed their trust in political reform brought about by the government due to the effort used to enable the reform.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Slightly different but similar to the working classes attitude in Britain, revolution never occurred in Russia because the middle classes leading the revolution were ill conceived about how to orchestrate revolution and the autocracy ensured that revolution could not occur through the work of revolutionaries. The ministry of education enforced a tight policy of censorship and repression through the political police because the 1848 revolutions had increased the determination of Russian autocracy to stifle internal dissent. Most of the Russian population were peasants who were illiterates, which meant the revolutionary message could not be spread as easily. Moreover, those who were perhaps capable of starting a revolution were ill conceived about the idea; they believed that the conditions in Russia were ideal for a revolution. The intellectuals reasoning that some form of ‘Westernisation’ had to be implemented for revolution to occur conflicted with their other ideas that they were not willing to accept mass industrialisation which would bring capitalism. Capitalism, as Marx suggested, would enable the working classes to revolt against the ruling classes. However, the intellectuals did not agree with this analysis because they believed Russia was already moving towards revolution soon due to the sizes of village communes.

The most important reason why revolution never occurred in Britain was the growth of the reforming state in Britain, which in particular brought about the reform bill of 1867. Geoffrey Best argued that the main form of revolutionaries, Chartists, believed that ‘a just social order could not be attained without radical reconstruction’. Similarly, Merriman concludes that most middle class Victorians had changed their minds about reform ‘providing resources for the poor for whom they did not work’. This meant that the Victorian attitudes to the oppressed in society had changed because they were willing to appease the demands of the early Chartists who had seemed to rather militant in their cause at times. The terms of the reform bill gave the Chartists faith in a fairer political system because it gave universal manhood suffrage to the head of each household, meaning that the Chartists believed they could improve their situation through legal means. This meant the goal of the Chartist campaign had been accomplished, which gave Chartists more impetus for political reform rather than revolution.

Similarly, revolution never occurred in Russia because of the recognition of Russia’s economic and political backwardness to the rest of Europe; the abolition of serfdom was a confession of the Russian autocracy that a more reforming state had to be established. Merriman argues that emancipation of serfs was the most ambitious attempt at reform in Russia during the nineteenth century, while Peter Zaionchkovsky complements this analysis by claiming that the autocracy realised after the Crimean War that the system of serfdom was the cause of Russia’s economic and political backwardness, which ruled out the development of industry and agriculture. The abolition of serfdom did create the foundations of a capitalist system, which Marx said would have been the penultimate stage for a socialist revolution. However, the maintenance of the structures of the old order stunted the development of capitalism because the abolition of serfdom required bourgeois reforms as the creation of zemstvos and the reorganisation of institutions such as municipal and military institutions. This reality meant that the conditions were not right for a socialist revolution, which meant those who would have favoured revolution, like the peasantry and intellectuals, could only settle for a ‘bourgeoisie monarchy’ as Zaionchkovsky explained.

Even more importantly, the Conservative revival ensured that there would be no chance of revolution before the 1890s in Britain because it saw that reform would become the fore of Tory policy. Merriman claims that the Tories were willing to develop a nation of ‘Tory workers’. This was certainly true because the Tories viewed that the support of the working class was vital to establishing their grip on British politics. The Conservatives therefore passed acts such as the Artisans’ Dwellings Act which aimed to improve the conditions of housing in Britain. Such reforms again made the oppressed believe that revolution was not necessarily worthwhile; conditions would get better due to the growing number of reforms and all they could do was be patient.

Revolution was also not allowed to occur before 1890 in Russia because the continued repression and new reform programme was established. In Britain, continued reform was weapon used to counteract possible revolution whilst similarly in Russia it was mainly increased repression with a few reforms. The oppressed in society began to believe that the abolition of serfdom would eventually lead to further important reforms just like in Britain, which leads to Merriman’s analysis that some revolutionaries looked upon peasantry as ‘Conservative peasant proprietors’. This was true to an extent because although there had to be two further assassination attempts on the Tsar Alexander II life, important reforms such as the formation of the consultative assembly gave the revolutionaries a platform to voice their concerns rather than violent insurrection used in the past. Therefore, they began to look to reform there society rather than to overhaul the whole political system.

In conclusion, it seems that the main reasons why revolution was averted in both Britain and Russia was because reforms were introduced to ease tension at times where revolution could occur, and then a programme of further reform seemed that the next step to counteract the further threat of revolution. Although Russia seemed to have more revolutionary influence than Britain, the emancipation of the serfs seemed to be a great political reform, even though it did not change the fundamental institutions of autocracy. This illustrates my further conclusion that the main revolutionaries such as the nihilists and populists could not decide how to orchestrate revolution. Nihilism’s differences and lack of compromise in beliefs with populism meant that revolutionary forces in Russia were divided rather than united. This made their appeal to seem limited and their cause weaker than it could have been. In Britain, revolution did not occur because the revolutionaries began become more patient by letting the programme of increased reform, such as the 1846 Corn Laws and the 1867 Reform bill develop.

Bibliography

J. Merriman, A History Of Modern Europe From The French

Revolution To The Present, Vol. 2 (1996)

R. Gildea, Barricades and Borders, Europe 1800-1914, 2nd Ed. Oxford

(1996)

G. Best, Mid-Victorian Briatin 1851-75 (1971)

D. Thompson, The Early Chartists (1971)

P. Zaionchkovsky, Ed. Susan Wobst The abolition of Serfdom (1978)