Russian Nationalism and the Soviet Revolution
Russian Nationalism and the Soviet Revolution It would be futile to try to attribute the Russian revolution to one factor. The road leading to the revolutions of October and February was a long one, with many contemporary and deep-rooted contributing factors. The social, economic, and political climates all pointed to revolution. With the rise of industry and the emancipation of serfs in the 19th century, urban centers were becoming over-crowded and unsanitary. The working conditions were appalling, resulting in riots and strikes. Food became scarce and famine was prevalent in many of the country’s centers. The strikes and famine directly led to civil unrest and eventually revolution. By 1917 the effects of rebellions from years prior were beginning to be felt again. Many rejected the lifestyle of the court and idealized the peasant’s way of life, the “Russian way of life.” The progressive group known as the Slavophiles emerged; they had much in common with a group of soldiers who had revolted against Nicholas I, known as the Decembrists. Considered warriors for the “Old Russia,” the Slavophiles opposed Peter the Great‘s desire to create a more westernized version of Russia. Both ancient and contemporary causes came to fruition in the Russian Revolution; the contemporary being instability in the economy and political unrest, but most importantly, from the deep-rooted nationalist idea of what it means to be “Russian.” Each of the many ‘nationalities’ of Russia has a separate history and complex origins. The historical origins of the Russian state, however, are chiefly those of the Eastern Slavs, the ethnic group that eventually became the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian peoples. The major state systems of the East Slavs (in order) were Kievan Rus, Muscovy, and the Russian Empire. Aside from these Eastern Slavic states, Poland, Lithuania, and the Mongol Empire also played crucial roles in the historical development of Russia. The first East Slavic state, Kievan Rus', emerged along the Dniepr River valley, where it was a major trading center as it controlled the route between Scandinavia and the Byzantine Empire. Kievan Rus' adopted Christianity from the Byzantine Empire in the tenth century, beginning the synthesis of Byzantine and Slavic cultures that would grow to define Russian culture for about the next thousand years. Kievan Rus' ultimately disintegrated as a state because of the armed struggles among members of the princely family that collectively possessed it. The Mongol invasion in the thirteenth century was the final blow to completing this Kievan disintegration. Following this disintegration, a number of states claimed to be the heirs to the throne of Kiev and thereby would be in dominant position of Kievan Rus'. One of those states, Muscovy, was a predominantly Russian territory located at the far northern edge of the former cultural center. Muscovy gradually came to dominate neighbouring territories, forming the basis for the future Russian Empire.The militaristic state of Muscovy had significant impact on the civilizations that followed, and they adopted many of its characteristics. Most notable of these being immobilizing serfdom and the subordination of the individual to the state. Richard Hellie wrote:The first restrictions were made … sometime between 1455 and 1462 in granting the Troitse Sergiev monastery the right to recover those peasants who had moved or fled. This
control, originally granted to a monastery, but soon extended to private proprietors, was the beginning of a long, complex process culminating in the Ulozhenie (Law Code) of 1649 in which restrictions of peasant mobility, combined with an alteration of the peasant’s juridical status, was to convert the peasant into an object akin to the lord’s personal property; a position somewhat comparable to that of the slave, to whom similar measures were applicable. (1)This immobility of peasants, and slave-like nature of serfs lasted for hundreds of years after the Muscovy state. The idea of the dominant state was derived from the ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
control, originally granted to a monastery, but soon extended to private proprietors, was the beginning of a long, complex process culminating in the Ulozhenie (Law Code) of 1649 in which restrictions of peasant mobility, combined with an alteration of the peasant’s juridical status, was to convert the peasant into an object akin to the lord’s personal property; a position somewhat comparable to that of the slave, to whom similar measures were applicable. (1)This immobility of peasants, and slave-like nature of serfs lasted for hundreds of years after the Muscovy state. The idea of the dominant state was derived from the Slavic, Mongol, and Byzantine heritage of Muscovy, and it later manifested itself in the unlimited power of the tsar. Both individuals and institutions, even the Russian Orthodox Church, were to be subordinate to the state as it was represented in the person of the autocrat. The secondary characteristic of Muscovy-inherited tradition has been continual territorial expansion. Beginning with Muscovy's efforts to consolidate Russian territory as Tatar control weakened in the fifteenth century, expansion soon went beyond ethnically Russian areas. By the eighteenth century, the principality of Muscovy had become the huge Russian Empire, stretching from Poland eastward to the Pacific Ocean. Size and military might made Russia a major power, but its acquisition of large territories inhabited by non-Russian peoples began an enduring pattern of nationality problems.Expansion westward sharpened Russia's awareness of its apparent inferiority to its western neighbours and shattered the isolation in which the initial stages of expansion had taken place. Muscovy was able to develop at its own pace, but the Russian Empire was forced to adopt Western technology to compete militarily in Europe. Peter the Great (in power from 1682 to 1725) and subsequent rulers attempted to modernize the country. Most of these efforts struggled with indifferent success to raise Russia to European levels of technology and productivity. The technology that Russia adopted brought with it Western cultural and intellectual currents that changed the direction in which Russian culture developed. As Western influence continued, native and foreign cultural values began a competition that still survives in vigorous form. The nature of Russia's relationship with the West became an enduring obsession of Russian intellectuals.As an intellectual movement, Slavophilism was developed in the 19th-century Russia. In considering the Slavophiles, it becomes apparent that there was not one, but many branches of Slavophile movements. Some were to the left of the political spectrum, noting that progressive ideas such as democracy were intrinsic to the concept of Russian-ness, as proved by what they considered to be the rough democracy of medieval Novgorod. Others were to the right of the spectrum and pointed to the centuries old tradition of the autocratic Tsar as being the true essence of the Russian governmental nature. In short, the Slavophiles were determined to protect what they believed were unique Russian traditions and culture. In doing so they rejected individualism. According to Yale Richmond, “the controversy has been between those that believed in Europe and those that believed in Russia.” (66) The role of the Orthodox Church in Russia was seen by them as more significant than the role of the state, unlike in the West. Socialism was opposed by Slavophiles as an alien thought, and Russian mysticism was preferred over "Western rationalism". Rural life was praised by the movement, opposing industrialization as well as urban development, while protection of the peasant community was seen as an important measure to prevent growth of the working class. (Richmond, 65)The doctrines of the Slavophiles had a deep impact on Russian culture. The doctrine of “Sobornost” (the term for organic unity and integration) was coined by Ivan Kireevsky and Aleksey Khomyakov. (Morcombe/Fielding, 76) This was to underline the need for cooperation between people, at the expense of individualism. Most Slavophiles ardently supported the emancipation of serfs, which was finally realized in 1861. Press censorship, serfdom, and capital punishment were viewed as baneful influences of Western Europe. Their political ideal was a parliamentary monarchy, as was the case hundreds of years prior, in the medieval Zemsky Sobors. In a more militant style of Slavophilism, there was the movement for the unification of all Slavic people under leadership of the Russian tsar and for the liberation of the Balkan Slavs from the Ottoman yoke. The Russo-Turkish War, (1877-78) is usually considered a high point of this militant Slavophilism. The general attitude towards other nations with Slavic origins varied, depending on the group involved. Still, classical Slavophiles believed that "Slavdom" (the common identity given to all people of Slavic origin) was based on Orthodox religion; as Martin E. Lewis notes, "classical Russian Slavophiles often conflated language and religion, equating Slavdom with Orthodoxy" (230)The problem with the Slavophile unification effort was that the Russian Empire, besides containing Russians, ruled over millions of Ukrainians, Poles and Belorussians, who each had their own national identities, traditions and religions. While Slavophiles praised the leadership of Russia over other nations of Slavic origin, the Poles' very identity was based on Western European culture and values, and thus resistance to Russia was natural. As a result Slavophiles were particularly hostile to the Polish nation, often attacking them in their writings. Dmitry Shlapentokh wrote:Poland was transformed into a "sharp wedge" into the very heart of the Slavonic soul with the aim of "splitting it into fragments." Nikolai Ia. Danilevsky, the late Slavophile, dubbed Poland the "Jesuitical gentry state of Poland" and that "Judas of Slavdom," which he compared to a hideous tarantula greedily devouring its eastern neighbour but unaware that its own body is being eaten by its western neighbours. Fedor I. Tiutchev, one of the leading Russian poets, also called Poles "Judas of Slavdom." (1)Towards Ukrainians and Belarussians, the Slavophiles developed the view that they were part of the same "Great Russian" nation. Slavophile thinkers believed that both nations should be ruled under Russian leadership and were an essential part of the Russian state, and at the same time they denied the separate cultural identity of Ukrainian and Belarussian people. As Volodymyr Potulnytskyi wrote, “The Malorussian question does not exist because this question is All-Russian, popular, the question of the all Russian land... Ukraine and Belorussia is not a conqueror land, it is a part of the living body of Russia; here is not a place for the question or for the dispute." (8) Further, the Slavophiles believed their national as well as language and literary aspirations were a result of "Polish intrigue" that aimed at separating them from Russians. (Von Mohrenschildt, 137) Other Slavophiles like Ivan Aksakov recognized the right of Ukrainians to use the Ukrainian language, however seeing it as completely unnecessary and harmful.Russia's defeat in the Crimean War (1853-56) triggered another attempt at modernization, including the previously mentioned emancipation of the peasants who had been bound to the land in the Russian system of serfdom. Despite major reforms enacted in the 1860s however, agriculture remained inefficient, industrialization proceeded slowly, and new social problems emerged. According to Rex Wade, “the average worker struggled daily not only to find employ, but they did so in an environment that would contribute only to poverty and illness.” (14) This is clearly a very telling passage that is in no small way connected to the general discontentment the population felt at the time. In addition to masses of peasants seeking land to till, a new class of industrial workers (the proletariat) and a small but influential group of middle-class professionals were dissatisfied with their positions. The non-Russian populations resented periodic official ‘Russification’ campaigns and struggled for autonomy; particularly the Poles and the Belorussians. This is evidenced by what Kevin O’Connor dubbed “ill-fated uprisings against the Russians,” that caused Tsar Nicholas I “to centralize the institutions of the Russian Empire; his government implemented a Polish policy aimed at repressing Polish political and cultural life.” (56) Keeping in mind the Slavophile hatred of the Poles, it is quite obvious why the Russification efforts generally failed in Polish circles. The Poles responded with further uprisings and relatively small-scale revolts. Successive regimes of the nineteenth century responded to these pressures with a combination of half-hearted reform and repression, but no tsar was willing to cede autocratic rule or share power. Gradually, the monarch and the state system that surrounded him became isolated from the rest of society. In the last decades of the nineteenth century, large groups of intellectuals became more radical, and factions of professional revolutionaries emerged.In spite of its internal problems, Russia continued to play a major role in international politics. In a revolution in 1905, professionals, workers, peasants, minority ethnic groups, and soldiers demanded fundamental reforms. Reluctantly, Nicholas II responded to the first of Russia's revolutions by granting a limited constitution, but he increasingly circumvented its democratic clauses, and autocracy again took command in the last decade of the tsarist state. Meanwhile, Russia attempted to be non-partisan in wars that were ravaging the Baltic countries, but due to simple geography and trade relations, there was no legitimate way of doing so and retaining public approval. As Robert Service wrote:Tsarism, which paraded itself as the protector of Serbs and other Slavs, looked weak and ineffectual. It looked as if the monarchy was failing the country… In 1912 Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece declared war on the Ottoman empire. In this instance Russia refused to back Serbian efforts to obtain access to a sea-port, and a crisis in Russo-Austrian relations was avoided. Unfortunately this sensible decision was seen as yet another sign of Nicholas II’s weakness of will. (24,25)This time of extreme tensions left the tsar in a losing scenario, and only encouraged seditious thought in and around Russia. As the government proved unable to deal with deteriorating conditions, war weariness and revolutionary pressures increased, and the defenders of the autocracy diminished even further.The history of Russia between 1922 and 1991 is essentially the history of the Soviet Union (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; USSR). This ideologically based empire ended up being geographically similar to the Russian Empire, whose last monarch, Tsar Nicholas II, ruled until 1917. The Soviet Union was established in December 1922 by the leaders of the Russian Communist (Bolshevik) Party. At that time, the new union included the Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, and other, smaller republics.A spontaneous popular uprising in Petrograd, in response to the wartime decay of Russia's physical well-being and morale, culminated in the toppling of the imperial government in February (Gregorian calendar, March in the Julian calendar) 1917. Replacing the autocracy was the Provisional Government, whose leaders intended to establish democracy in Russia and to continue participating on the side of the Allies in World War I. At the same time, to ensure the rights of the working class, workers' councils (known as Soviets) sprang up across the country. The radical Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Ilyich. Lenin, were a strong force for socialist revolution in the soviets and on the streets. They seized power from the Provisional Government in November 1917. Only after the long and bloody Civil War of 1918-21, which included combat between government forces and foreign troops in several parts of Russia, was the new communist regime secure.From its first years, government in the Soviet Union was based on the one-party rule of the communists, as the Bolsheviks called themselves beginning in March 1918. After unsuccessfully attempting to centralize the economy (in accordance with Marxist ideology) during the Civil War, the Soviet government permitted some private enterprise to coexist with nationalized industry in the 1920s. Debate over the future of the economy provided the background for Soviet leaders to contend for power in the years after Lenin's death in 1924. By gradually consolidating his influence and isolating his rivals within the party, Joseph Stalin became the sole leader of the Soviet Union by the end of the 1920s.Though it is impossible to say that there was one sole cause to the Russian revolution, the idea of Russian Nationalism, and the sense of patriotism in each of the soviet nations is clearly the largest contributor. The road leading to the revolutions of October and February was a long one, with many contemporary and deep-rooted contributing factors. The Slavophiles were determined to protect what they believed were unique Russian traditions and culture. Effects of dozens of revolts and rebellions preceding 1917 were culminated in the February revolution. The people rejected the lifestyle of the court and had come to revere what they thought to be the traditional, simple, “Russian way of life.” When the Slavophiles emerged, they pushed the social and ideological norms of Russia in to a state of national hyper-pride. Being warriors for the “Old Russia,” the Slavophiles intensely pursued unification of all Russian and Slavic people. In this pursuit of unification and a sort of traditional nationalistic nostalgia, it becomes clear that hundreds of years of Russian history are relevant to an examination of the Revolution. Truly, the sense of “being Russian” is one that is not easily earned, and is undoubtedly one of the strongest nationalist identities the world has ever seen. Nanjo Tambo.
