Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - History Other Origin of the 1905 Russian Revolution Origin of the 1905 Russian Revolution Russia existed in turmoil at the close of the 19th century. This tumultuous atmosphere spilled over into the new century. This time period is a portrait of a country in a state of constant change. However, this change was far more problematic to Russia that similar progress of western European nations. An examination of the revolutionary period of 1905 presents the inevitability of such a revolution. Russia’s rapid industrialization and modernization had inherent problems. Typically, countries, which undergo rapid periods of industrialization, subvert the well being of the common individual in favour of the progress of the nation. This was the case in a rapidly industrializing Russian economy. The rise of capitalism led to an increase of inequality between the classes. In addition, the mistakes of the Russo-Japanese war loomed upon the horizon of the Russian political climate. These factors, in cooperation with the archaic autocratic government, led to civil unrest. Protests and strikes led to the formation of radical political parties. The Russian people were dissatisfied with their government and their way of life; and they were becoming increasingly vocal in their protests. The revolution of 1905 was a product of continued autocratic repression of the Russian people, and the inability of the autocracy to effectively represent and govern the vast nation of Russia. At the turn of the 20th century there were increasing social divisions in the social and political structure of Russia. The resulting inequalities left peasants and members of the proletariat at an increasing disadvantage. Abraham Ascher quotes P.N. Miliukov in an explanation of representative disorder within the political climate of Russia. He wrote that “There exist two Russias, one quite different from the other, and what pleases one is quite sure to displease the other…” One of these was the Russia of Leo Tolstoy, the great writer; the other … that of Plehve, the late minister of the interior. The former is the Russia of our ‘intellectuals’ and of the people; the other is an anachronism, deeply rooted in the past, and defended in the present by an omnipresent bureaucracy. The one spells liberty; the other, despotism. Throughout the history of Russia, its people have had the increasingly prevalent problem of representation. The peasant commune was essentially the only bastion of representative government in Russia. However, the peasant commune had little influence in any political forum above that of the village or farming community. The divining difficulty of Russia in this period was the power of Tsar Nicholas II. His ideals were rooted in the distant past of autocrats and despots. Though he wished his nation to modernize in its production and industrialization processes, he refused to accept political change. He continued to “impose his will on a vast empire of some 129 million people through a small imperial bureaucracy, which served at the sovereign’s pleasure.” These ancient political views were circumspect in a nation attempting to modernize and improve its status within the world community. Russian history has been characterized as an enduring line of revolution and reaction. In efforts to maintain the power of the autocracy, the Russian state spent an inordinate amount of effort to maintain this reality in the face of a changing Russia. An essential problem within the Russian governing body was that of individual political power. The aforementioned V.K. Plehve, Minister of the Interior, held a post which assumed immense power. The jurisdiction of Plehve’s ministry was vast. The ministry was composed of “various branches of the police, also various departments responsible for the peasant economy and rural life, mails and telegraph, medicine and statistics, non-Orthodox religions, the prison system, and censorship of the press.” The governors of the provinces also reported to Plehve, “who also exercised substantial authority over the zemstvos and city councils. Ascher surmises, “hardly any aspect of domestic policy remained outside the jurisdiction of the department.” With such a wealth of power consolidated within few individuals, personal prejudice is prevalent in state legislation and policy. The Minister of the Interior exemplifies this reality. He paid lip service to the winds of reform. In a manifesto of February 26, 1903, Plehve ambiguously promised both decentralization of authority and continued control over national affairs by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. He maintained his opinions that “Both the masses and the educated groups were inadequately trained for any role in government.” As The Minister of the Duchy of Finland, he issued a manifesto in 1899 that turned the Finnish Diet into a mere advisory body and made the Russian state council responsible for legislation in Finland. The Finnish army was abolished and Russian became the official language in the government of Finland. This clumsy policy of Russification smacked on 19th century reaction and was strongly resisted and criticized by Russian liberals. In addition Finnish reaction to this revocation of autonomy led to a protest movement that “developed within six years into a major irritant to the Russian government.” These policies of repression despite the appearance of willingness to reform bred distrust of the Russian government. With the evolution of political and intellectual writings and the Russian wish for reform and representation in government, governmental repression created an environment suited for revolution. In addition to political dissatisfaction, there were increasing problems of an agrarian nature within the peasant community. Despite the rapid expansion of industrialization, 115 million Russians were still dependant upon the land as a means of providing their primary livelihood. Problems of “land allotments” and “redemption dues” arose at the turn of the 20th century. At the time of their emancipation from serfdom, the government had planned to make of them an economically stable, and hence politically conservative, landholding class . To further this ideal the government had provided that “allotment lands” could be purchased from the nobility by the peasant commune. These lands were to be paid for through “redemption dues” over a period of decades. This idealistic theory proved incompatible with reality. Individual peasants were arbitrarily assigned strips of land according to the open-field system. Ideally, this was intended to allow all peasants equal opportunity to provide for themselves. However, the result was that none of the peasants could provide for their needs through this system because there was not enough land available. As a result, peasants needed to purchase additional lands from the nobility or seek work in cities. Despite their efforts they were still unable to reconcile their small earnings with the cost of living and “by the tenth year of the reign of Nicholas II, their total arrears in payments of taxes and dues 118 million rubles.” This sum was greater than the amount due annually from them. These factors contributed to the abject poverty of the peasant class. The dire economic situation of the Russian peasant class was augmented by bad harvests and crop loss. In the best of years, those with favourable harvests, there were millions of peasants in rural Russia on the verge of starvation. This meant that in years of adversity such as the major famine in 1891 and a series crop failures in 1897, 1898 and 1901 peasants were unable to prevent themselves from destitution. This poverty led to a breakdown of the land arrangement following the liberation of the serfs, and created massive poverty among the peasants. In these worst years, “hordes of ragged and hungry peasants roamed the country, searching for work, sometimes walking hundreds of miles to get it.” Members of the “barefoot brigade” became increasingly desperate, proving themselves capable of violence. In the provinces of Kharkov and Poltava in 1902, thousands of peasants burst into rebellious violence and destroyed and looted noble homes. The Russian peasantry could no longer feed itself from their lands. The responsibility for this suffering rested upon the shoulders of the Russian government. Civil unrest also originated in urban Russia with the suffering of the industrial labour force. Rapid industrialization typically occurs at the expense of the common worker. Greater profits and production are favoured over the well being of the worker. Russian industrialization was no exception to this trend. Most workers were exploited both physically and financially. These workers had no recourse but to endure or be terminated. In addition a period of industrial recession left many workers unpaid or laid off. The problem of labour unrest would become a major spark for revolution. Reports of official factory inspectors illustrated the inhumane conditions of the industrial workplace in Russia. Workers usually slept under their stations at night, “carpenters slept on their workbenches and weavers slept beneath their looms.” No precautions were taken to ensure the health and safety of workers. Employees in dye works slept all over the plant, even in rooms containing harmful fumes from bleach and other chemicals . In chemical factories, workers were exposed to toxic fumes from a variety of chemicals including mercury, which individuals sought to protect themselves against by means of a cloth held against their mouths. One inspector described the worst conditions of all in the tobacco factories, The shops where tobacco is chopped and dried are so filled with caustic dust and nicotine that each time [he] entered one of the rooms [he] had spasms in [his] throat and [his] eyes watered. If [he] stayed there very long [he] even became dizzy, though [he was] a smoker himself. He further observed women and children, some under the age of twelve, working under these conditions. The Russian industrial labourer in the pre-revolutionary period worked in a constant state of personal danger. Although there were regulations preventing this type of treatment, they were seldom enforced. Financially, the workers of industrial Russia were severely disadvantaged. The standard wages for industrial workers were minimal. Men were paid between sixteen and twenty-nine rubles monthly. Women were paid approximately half men’s wages, between nine and thirteen rubles monthly. Children were paid even less, between three and ten rubles monthly . However, fines, fees and other unscrupulous means were used to reduce and limit these standard wages. Workers were fined for offences ranging from a five ruble fine for singing in the courtyard after 9:30 pm, to a three ruble fine for the parents of a child who strikes another child. Some workers were required to pay for the rental of sleeping pallets, eventually paying far more than the real value of the crude straw mattress. In addition, most factories had irregular pay schedules. This allowed the employer to earn back an employee’s wages by forcing him to purchase goods on credit at the company store, which stocked items at inflated prices. In one factory wages are only paid twice a year, and even then the money is sent to the worker’s village elders for the payment of their taxes. These workers are left without money the entire year, forcing credit purchases and reducing their real wages. Russian workers were attempting to live on the lowest wages in Europe. Industrial workers could not earn a living wage with these exploitive restrictions. As a result of the industrial depression of 1900-1903, the worker’s dissatisfaction turned to desperation. They had no legal means by which to protest their treatment, or to seek improvement: the “protective” laws prohibited the organization of unions and forbade strikes of any kind. This situation of frustration allowed the radical ideas to gain a sympathetic ear within the labour community. Because of this influx of radical ideas, some were daring to defy constituted authority through illegal strikes. Initially the government reaction was typical arrests and more paternalistic legislation. However, in 1900 Sergei Zubatov introduced a new method for the reassurance of the Russian industrial worker. His method was so disasterous that at the end of 1903 he was dismissed as head of the Moscow security department. “Worker’s societies” were to be formed for the expressed purpose of “providing healthful, fraternal activities and opportunities for cooperative self-help together with “protection” from influences that might have an inimical effect on loyalty to job or country Trial groups were established in Moscow, Odessa, Kiev, Nikolaiev, and Kharkov. These societies attracted a large number of members. These members found the societies to be an ideal forum to plan and organize strikes, rather than a deterrent against striking. As a result of this organized environment, strikes became far more frequent. In the summer of 1903 – 225,000 various industries of southern Russia and Transcaucasia were on strike. Labour groups were beginning to show their real power in 1903, yet the tsar and his government made few concessions, preferring to suppress illegal strikes and arrest their organizers. The oppression of the labour class by employers and the government forced these oppressed workers to seek illegal means to facilitate change and improvement. In this charged political and economic environment, those means were revolutionary. These domestic factors were essential in the creation of a revolutionary environment. However, one significant matter of foreign policy served to warm the climate of revolution. The Russo-Japanese War was a military disaster for Russia. More so, it became a domestic disaster for Russia’s governing body. This conflict solidified the perception of the Russian autocratic government as “irresponsible, incompetent, and reckless.” The war with Japan did not result from fundamental conflicts over national interests. The basic cause of this war was Russia’s imprudent expansionist policies in the Far East. Russia had forced Japan to “pull back from positions on the Asiatic mainland on several occasions in the 1890’s.” These humiliating Japanese defeats had prompted a massive program of rearmament in Japan. The conflict came to its climax in 1904 when Russian interests in Manchuria and Japanese interests in neighbouring Korea came into conflict. The Japanese diplomatically “offered Russia predominance in Manchuria in exchange for Japanese predominance in Korea.” Russia responded incompetently and brusquely with Tsar Nicholas’ overconfident statement of Russia being “quite conscious of her strength and [having] a limit to her patience.” The cavalier attitude of Russia’s government and military experts extended so far that they light heartedly predicted if Japan was to assault the Russian naval base in southern Manchuria the only defence necessary would be “one flag and one sentinel, and the prestige of Russia [would] do the rest.” The Japanese attack on Russia’s military bases in Manchuria eliminated Russian overconfidence. On January 26, 1904, the Japanese attacked the Russian Naval bases of Port Arthur and Chelmulpo destroying over half of Russia’s naval fleet. This was a common theme of the Russo-Japanese war. The superior training and intelligence of the Japanese military led the Russians to several humiliating defeats. Japan laid siege to Port Arthur for 156 days, killing or wounding 28,000 Russians and forcing surrender in December 1904 . In March 1905, the Japanese infantry forces defeated the Russians at the Battle of Mukden. According to a Swedish military observer, who had observed the battle from the Russian side, “the confusion and rout of the Russians was indescribable; many of the officers never stopped in their flight until they got to Teiling … eighteen are said to be court-martialed.” By this time Japan had nearly exhausted its resourced and the 1905 revolution had begun in Russia. In August, U.S.A. president Theodore Roosevelt offered negotiations to end hostilities and both sides agreed. This war was a terrible blow to the Russian autocratic government. The military humiliations generated ill will to the manner in which the war was instigated and subsequently carried out. N.I. Astrov captured the mood of the Russian people writing “Impatience, feelings of resentment, indignation-these grew everywhere and became stronger. With each new defeat, with each new retreat to ‘previously prepared positions’ in ‘accordance with prior plans,’ indignation grew more intense and there took shape a mood of protest. There was no malicious joy. There was a feeling of burning shame and undeserved injury” The horrible character of this war actually “lent a noble, patriotic character” to the revolutionary movement. With every defeat the popularity of the war decreased, and since it had not been the most popular of wars at its inception morale was extremely low. The people of Russia saw their fathers and their sons sent to fight in a war instigated by bravado and pride. To the general population of Russia this was a primary demonstration of the incompetence of their government. Reform must occur, even if it occurs through the means of a revolution. The Russo-Japanese war was also damaging to the Russian economy. Russia had already endured an industrial depression from 1900 to 1903, as well as famines and crop failures at the turn of the century; this most recent economic slump could paralyse Russia. Ordinarily, wars tend to boost the domestic economy, but in the politically and financially mismanaged environment of Russia, the economy slumped. The decision by the Trans-Siberian railway to transport only military goods caused a decline of 25% in the silk industry and 15% in the production of wool . Similar recessions were observed in the production of chemicals and other industrial goods . Nationwide production declined significantly in all manufacturing and handicraft industries due to the call to arms of 1,200,000 reservists. Often the reservists were the most productive workers, which took an even greater toll on industry. The Polish Kingdom was especially deep into the recession. By September 1904, the industries of Warsaw had dismissed 25-30 percent of their workers, and wages had declined up to 50 percent . These circumstances left many in need of assistance. This assistance could not be provided, “consequently indigent families received much less help than they needed.” Revolutionary turbulence in Poland, due to these unfortunate circumstances, was understandably intense. The damage done to the Russian economy was essentially an unbearable burden for the impoverished and powerless people of Russia. The Russo-Japanese war displayed the true incompetence of the autocratic government and displayed, once again the necessity for reforms: by revolution if necessary. The final step in the inception of the revolution was the assassination of V.K. Plehve, Minister of Internal Affairs. Plehve had become “a symbol of the capriciousness and intransigence of the autocratic regime.” His death exposed the depth of despair of Russia and “opened new possibilities for popular agitation against the war and the government.” This extended period of social and political unrest opened the eyes of many Russians to the possibilities of reform through resistance. The growing inequality of governmental representation led to the alienation and persecution of the general population. Economic hardships of agrarian and industrial nature further alienate the peasant class and the proletariat. These gradual events were further boosted by the rapid developments of the Russo-Japanese War. The climate of revolution had been rising steadily throughout the turn of the 20th century. The immediate hardships forced upon the population by the autocracy through the Russo-Japanese War served as a catalyst for the growing reaction of the Russian people to their oppressive reality. The 1905 Revolution was an event instigated because of oppressive domestic policy and the inability of an autocracy to effectively represent and govern 129 million people. Bibliography: Bibliography Abraham Ascher, The Revolution of 1905: Russia in Disarray (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988) David Floyd, Russia in Revolt (London: Macdonald & Co., 1969) Sidney Harcave, First Blood: The Russian Revolution of 1905 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1965) Thomas Riha, ed., Readings in Russian Civilization, Vol II: Imperial Russia 1700-1917. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973) Word Count: 3158
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests