Russian Revolution

"The masses go into a revolution not with a prepared plan of social reconstruction, but with a sharp feeling that they cannot endure the old regime." ¹

The years 1881 to 1905 were ones of severe repression of the people of Russia following the assassination of Czar Alexander II, a moderate reformer. His son, Alexander III, felt that this was proof of the failure of reform, and he set about persecuting minority groups and dissidents. It was an offence to criticise the Czar, there were no political parties, and censorship of literature and the press was severe. Jews and Nationalist groups were portrayed as enemies of the Russian people and widely attacked.

Russia was at that time a nation well behind Western Europe in almost every respect. Lacking any representative body, the nation was ruled over by an autocratic Czar, and the functioning of the law at the local level was in the hands of police, appointed officials, and local landowners. The individual lives of ordinary people were controlled by the bureaucracy, an inefficient and unenlightened class of office workers. The Czar's authority was reinforced by the Russian Orthodox Church, which was independent of outside interference, opposed to political change and committed to the preservation of the Czarist system, which guaranteed the comfortable living standards of its top priests. These ruling clergy encouraged the belief in a divinely-appointed Czar and promised divine retribution if this assertion were challenged.

Russia's economy was behind the times and poor. An industrial revolution had failed to take place until the "great spurt" of the 1890s, and therefore an estimated 82% of the population were still peasants, most of them landless due to the high cost of property, others burdened with huge mortgages. Farming techniques were outdated and had been surpassed decades ago in Western Europe, and therefore not enough food was being produced to keep pace with an ever-burgeoning population. To combat this and the various other problems facing the economy, Ministers such as Sergei Witte and Peter Stolypin attempted to drag Russia "kicking and screaming" into the twentieth century, or at least the nineteenth. Witte was especially interested in industrial reform, including the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, which he believed would help modernise the economy. The economic "great spurt" of the 1890s is mostly attributable to his work as Minister of Finance. Stolypin was an agricultural reformer, intent upon ending the former inefficient farming practices and reorganising agriculture on more modern, Western lines, whilst at the same time "de-revolutionizing" the peasantry.

Although the policies of these men met with some success, they were hampered by the Czar and other members of government, who suspected that the reforms were designed to undermine them. The Czars had always feared their Ministers' desire for power, and therefore generally appointed incompetents to lead their government. Had the government and bureaucracy been willing to support Witte and Stolypin, who in fact were deeply loyal, they might have prevented the build-up of social tensions which culminated in the 1917 Revolution.²

The inefficiency of the Russian Army was reflective of the condition of the Russian nation as a whole. The great majority of its soldiers were forcefully recruited from the peasant classes, or they were condemned criminals, and the officers came solely from the aristocracy. As one might expect, the soldiers were poorly trained and the officers clueless. Conditions were so harsh that in the period 1825-55, one million soldiers died in peacetime. The officers were not necessarily professional soldiers, and they bought and sold their commissions as they pleased. 45% of the Government's revenue was spent on the army.

A variety of political groups were formed late in the nineteenth century following the emergence of the intelligentsia, who were for the most part political reformers, and the capitalists following the aforementioned "great spurt". As there was so much repression of thought and discussion by the secret police, political parties were driven underground. These organisations were split into right and left wing extremists, most following a program of violence. Moderates, who might have saved the Czarist regime in a modified form, gained little following as their message seemed to pale in comparison with the more extreme factions. The major groups included the Social Democrats - revolutionaries from which sprung the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions - and the liberals, who advocated reform to varying degrees, and who gained most from the October Revolution. Other groups favoured moderate reform, and some (the minority) were deeply rightist, supporting the status-quo and even more repressive government.

Discontent over the problems facing society came to a climax in 1905, during and following Russia's humiliation in the Russo-Japanese war. A series of protests and strikes known as the 1905 Revolution forced the Czar, Nicholas II, to compromise with the dissatisfied masses in order to ensure his own survival. In order to appease the bourgeois liberals, he agreed to the formation of a representative body, the Duma, as well as the lifting of several repressive laws. The peasants were easily bought off with a reduction and eventual cancellation of all outstanding mortgages on property. Only the demands of the industrial workers were ignored, as without the support of the other two major factions they were easy for the army to silence. That factory workers represented only 4% of Russia's population not only shows how little power they had, but also clearly evinces the backwards nature of the Russian economy.³

It soon became clear that these reforms were designed to do nothing more but quell dissent until the Czar, ensuring that he still had the support of the army, could recover from the shock and crippling damage of the Russo-Japanese war and crush opposition to regain absolute power. Having seen the manner in which dissatisfaction could so easily paralyze the Empire, the Czar would have been wise to swallow his pride and allow the rather moderate reforms to which he had agreed to stand. Instead, between 1907 and 1914, the powers of the Duma were slowly eroded. The first Duma, elected with a system designed to represent each social class, was dominated by liberals and reformists and a vocal critic of government policy, especially regarding the limits upon its own power. It responded angrily to the Czar's proclamation of the Fundamental Laws, which deprived it of any genuine legislative control⁴, and after being broken up by the czar, several hundred members urged the populace to undertake a campaign of civil disobedience. The government responded with arrests and executions. The second Duma was similarly disbanded following its criticisms of the armed forces, and the Czar modified the electoral system for the third and fourth Dumas, ensuring that although these bodies might criticise some areas of government policy, they were not especially harsh nor vocal. Despite this, the fourth Duma predicted towards the end of 1913 that the civil disturbances taking place in Russia and Europe could transform into war and Revolution.

The advent of World War I further augmented the problems facing Russia and served as a springboard to revolution. Both the military and the government were completely unprepared for the war, which exposed the inadequacies and incompetence of the regime. Troops were starving, freezing, and severely lacking in ammunition. The bad management of the army produced mass discontent, leading to desertion and mutiny on a far greater scale than was seen during the course of the Russo-Japanese war. Although the Russian Army was far greater in size than its opposition, it suffered huge defeats due to the poor organisation of supplies and training. The problems on the front were compounded by the strife at home. Workers and other urban inhabitants were starving, and a general wave of discontent was sweeping the nation, manifesting itself in riots. Remarkably, rather than concentrating on improving conditions and winning the war, the royal family devoted its attentions to a man called Gregory Rasputin, whose "...constant ignorant meddling in affairs of state...embittered all sections of the population not only against him but also against the Imperial family"⁵. The Czarina especially believed him to have mystical powers. This was a minor factor in the growing discontent with the current system, but combined with the war it played a part in convincing the populace that the Czar was out of touch not only with the people but with reality.

The problems on the front and at home provided ample ammunition for Vladimir Lenin's Bolsheviks and other revolutionary groups. They distributed their propaganda on the front, encouraging soldiers to desert and to return home to join the revolutionary cause, which many willingly did. Lenin himself was shipped from Germany to lead the Revolution by Kaiser Wilhelm I's government, who knew that the anti-war Bolsheviks would eliminate Russia as a threat.

The underlying reasons for the breakout of revolution date back to the beginnings of Czarism. Czars did not trust their ministers, and therefore, with a few exceptions, appointed small-minded and incompetent fools to run the country, ensuring the corrupt and inefficient management of the government. The more immediate causes of the revolution date back to 1881, to the beginning of an autocratic repression which would eventually fall back onto itself. This reactionary crushing of opposition, as well as the illogical repression when unity was needed (for example, towards the Jews and Nationalistic groups) is a prime example of the seemingly thoughtless autocracy of the Czars, demonstrating their ineptitude in successfully managing a changing nation. The Czar could have avoided revolution with a series of gradual political and economic reforms, but his shortsighted and selfish policies as well as the mediocrity of those he chose to serve him prevented this. The wishes of the people were ignored, with inevitable consequences.

Bibliography:
1. Margot Morcombe & Mark Fielding, The Spirit of Change, 1998, McGraw-Hill Book Co.
2. Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution, 1994, Oxford University Press
3. Michael Lynch, Reactions and Revolutions: Russia 1881-1924, 1992, Hodder & Stoughton
4. Michael Bucklow & Glenn Russell, Russia: Why Revolution?, 1981, Longman
5. Leon Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution, 1932, Gollancz

The information given in Famous drug addicts might go some way to explaining the Czar's incompetence.

The Russian Revolution

Years and years of discontent of the people concerning the social and political systems of Russia began building up before the 1900s. The people began to let their voices be heard and this time the government officials couldn't hide away. In 1905, a group of peaceful protesters marched to Czar Nicholas' Winter Palace in St. Petersburg then known as Petrograd. The people intended to get the Czar's attention concerning the status of the nation. They wanted change in working conditions. The people were led by Father Gapon. What they didn't know though, was that the Czar was not even at his palace that day. The crowd gathered around the palace gates just before the guards opened fire into the mass. Estimates of the death rate go as high as 5,000.

The middle class of Russian people was appalled by this tragedy. It did not help that Russia fought a costly battle with the Japanese during this time. The Russians eventually lost this war. Throughout all of this, the Czar seemed unknowing of the national sentiment towards him and his government. He continued to govern during this time.

As more and more people were becoming more and more discontent, Czar Nicholas II tried to counter it with increased repression. He maintained control with the growing unrest by worsening his relations with the population. Of course this made the people madder and more aggressive. There were many riots across Russia, in cities, and countrysides. Peasants were raiding manors and killing nobles all over the country.

Czar Nicholas II was aided in his decisions by his wife Alexandra Fyodorovna and a Siberian monk named Gregory Rasputin. He allowed both of them great governmental decisions. Nicholas's son Alexis was suffering from Hemophilia and Rasputin knew how to relieve the pain. Public opinion towards Rasputin was negative and he was regarded as being very evil.

In 1914 World War I began and Russia joined the British against the Germans. When Russia entered the war their country was in shambles because of the poor decision making of Czar Nicholas and his advisors. Russia's industry and military were very weak. These weaknesses lead to many Russian defeats and the loss of thousands and thousands of lives. The people of Russia were hitting a new peak of unrest, as they wanted to get out of the war before losing more lives.

In February 1917 riots broke out in St. Petersburg by workers and soldiers a like. They had had enough of the war and the czar and they wanted change. A provisional government was established to try to regain control of the country. Nicholas knowing he had no control abdicated the throne in favor of his brother Michael. The next day Michael renounced his claim.

Alexandr Kerensky led the provisional government after Nicholas abdicated the throne. He tried to gain control and establish its authority but was unsuccessful. Later that month on October 25th the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government. The Bolsheviks were lead by Communist Vladimir Lenin. The Bolsheviks immediately took Russia out of the war but with unfavorable terms. Then in 1918 the Bolsheviks executed the former Czar and his family. Also that year Lenin changed the name of Bolsheviks to the Russian Communist party. This government remained in power for years. They tried to change the social and economic status of the nation. For the most part the nation did not trust the Soviets, but they grew to join the party and rally behind them. Stalin was a profound torchbearer of the precedent made by these Bolsheviks, and the rest is, as they say, history.

The Bolsheviks came to power in Russia in 1917. Soon after gaining power of Russia, the Bolsheviks, changed the name of Russia to the Soviet Union and their name Bolsheviks. A man called Lenin headed this. They were communists, and became the only political party in the Soviet Union. This is what we call a One Party State. The key body in the communist party was the Politburo. If you were number one in the Politburo, you were number one in the country. Members of the Politburo held the key positions in government. In 1924 Lenin dies, and there becomes a leadership struggle amongst the members of the Politburo for the number one job.

The remaining members of the Politburo are

Trotsky Commissar for War

Bukharin Press and Propaganda

Tomsky Trade Unions

Kamenev Chairman of Politburo, Lenin's deputy

Zinoviev Chairman of Cominterm

Stalin General Secretary of the party

Rykov Chairman of Sovnarkom

The man out of all these who thought he was going to get the job was Trotsky. While Trotsky had already thrown his hat into the ring, (he was sure that the job was his) Stalin was going around being friendly to the other members of the Politburo. None of the members of the Politburo liked Trotsky, but they were starting to like Stalin, as he was being friendly towards them. Stalin was nicknamed comrade card index by the other members because of the position he held with in the Politburo. He was using administrative power and turning it into political power. He did this by telling Trotsky the wrong date of Lenin's funeral, this made it appear that Lenin had been snubbed by Trotsky. Stalin was targeting Trotsky as his number one rival.

Stalin starts to enrol his supporters into the party. They start to work their way up into power. Starting at the bottom, Party Conference--->Central Committee--->Politburo. Stalin kept useful information on everybody. He managed to out slogan Trotsky. Trotsky's slogan was " Permanent revolution" meaning we should work to spread communism around the world. Stalin said, "Trotsky's slogan was against Lenin's ideas. Stalin's slogan was "Socialism in one country" meaning we should build socialism in our own country first. Stalin was slowly making Trotsky look bad.

By pretending he was open, he managed to gain some support from other leading communists. Lenin's testament was to be read out to the Central Committee it said, "Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has unlimited authority in his hands and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand is distinguished not only by his outstanding ability. He is personally probably the most capable man in the present Central Committee, but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work." This probably would've finished Stalin. Zinoviev and Kamenev said, " Lenin's testament should not be read out". Trotsky didn't help his cause though, he was vein and arrogant presuming the job was his.

Stalin exploited the factions; they were split over how to develop the economy. Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev were in the left faction, while in the right faction was Bukharin. Luckily for Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev didn't like Trotsky personally. Without any support from his comrades, Trotsky was undermined by Stalin and on his way out. 1925 Trotsky gets thrown out of the Politburo. Now Stalin turns on Zinoviev and Kamenev in the left faction. He shifts his thoughts on the economy to those similar of the right faction. He uses the support of the new men he has moved into the party, eg Molotov. Isolated and out voted Zinoviev and Kamenev are on their way out. Stalin now turns on the right faction and adopts the ideas of the left faction. Bukharin saw the punch coming but by now it was too late. 1929 Stalin and his comrades he bought in are in charge of the Soviet Union.

Pushing the Revolution Forward: Lenin and the Bolsheviks' Vital Role During the Russian Revolution

The Soviet Union, like any other modern country, has faced much struggle and development as it slowly gained a foothold on its political and social stance in the global community. While under the constant rule of an oppressive czarist regime for much of its history, Russian citizens gradually grew intolerant of the tyranny and it would soon be evident that a predestined revolution was going to happen. And soon. This revolution, most commonly known simply as The Russian Revolution is to be seen as one of the most, if not the most important event in all of the country's history. The events of November and March of that seemingly bleak 1917 are immortalized in textbooks and high school history courses and are not soon to be forgotten. However, with a time that proved to be so undeniably significant, there is without doubt bound to arise some controversy and argument. One particular area of debate is the contributions - or lack thereof, so the argument goes - of the Bolshevik party, as led by one Vladimir Lenin. Clearly, anyone can see that these events were unavoidable, especially as the country passed through a time of hardship into and out of World War I. As the country's fragility and instability became more apparent, so did the inevitability of a revolution that would happen no matter who took charge. Herein lies the problem. Was Lenin's role in leading the Bolsheviks to a new Russia sufficient enough to claim responsibility for such a major affair? Or did he blatantly "ride to power"¹, as say may argue it, on a building state of anarchy in a socially and politically unstable country? It is with carefully structured research that this essay would hope to prove that Lenin simply was not so simply at the right place at the right time. It would take more than a relatively precisely timed presence to be called one of Russia's greatest political heroes and have his body, mummified, still for display for all to praise in glory to this day. This is just part of the full story.

It needs to be seen, as can often be easily misinterpreted, that the Russian Revolution - or also, The Bolshevik Revolution, as may be correct for this essay - was in simplest terms a two-step process. The March Revolution and the November Revolution. The foremost March Revolution was really the starting point for history to unfold and got the wheels of progress spinning. The current Czar of 1917, Nicholas II, was trying to play catch-up with the country