Kitabı oku: «The XXth Century Political History of Russia: lecture materials», sayfa 2
Theme 2
RUSSIA AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY: ITS SELF-IMAGE, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, AND CONTRADICTIONS OF ITS DEVELOPMENT
Russia
Russia entered the 20th century with confidence, based on its history and human, economic and political potential. Russia was second in the list of the largest countries with a territory of more than 22 million square kilometers, second only to the British Empire. The Eastern and Northern parts of the country bordered the Arctic Ocean, the Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea. Overland Southern and Western borders were interrupted by the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea. In the South, Russia bordered on oriental countries: Turkey, Persia, Afghanistan and China. One-third of the territory of the country (50 guberniyas of Russia, Northern Caucasia and The Kingdom of Poland) was European, two thirds was Asian (Southern Caucasia, Siberia and Central Asia).
The first population census in the Russian Empire was taken at the end of the XIX century (January, 1897). It recorded 125,640,021 persons, the number of women (50.3 % of the population) was bigger that that of men (49.7 %). Age composition in comparison with other countries differed substantially; there were more children and fewer people of working age and older. About a half of the population was under 20.
To understand the population density (taking into account natural environment and peculiarities of historic development), we have to compare it with that of other European countries. For example, in France population density was about 83.1 people per square kilometer, in Germany it was 118.6, in England 155.7, and in Russia in 1897 it was about 6.7 and in 1910 it was 8.5. This figure compares only with the population density of the USA.
The peoples of Russia spoke 146 different languages and dialects, but the majority of the population, almost 80 %, was representatives of five peoples. «Great» Russians (Velikorossy) made up 44.3 % of the population (55.7 million people), «Little» Russians or Ukrainians (Malorossy) accounted for 17.8 % (22.4 million) and Byelorussians for 4.7 % (5.9 million). All in all it was 66.8 % of the population of the country. In addition, in the Russian Empire there was a large population of Poles (6.3 %, or 7.9 million) and Jews (4.2 % or 5.1 million).
Migration and colonization in some regions led to a large mix of races. Fifty percent of the population of the 50 Russian guberniyas and Siberia were Russians, Ukrainians and Byelorussians, in the Caucasus they were only 34 %.
Concerning other peoples living in the Russia Empire, the majority (10.8 %, 13.6 million) were those who spoke Turkic languages, the Tartars, Bashkirs, Azerbaijani, Turkmen, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Kirghiz, Chuvash, Nogai, Yakuts and others.
The multinational population of Russia led to a complicated confessional composition. About 69.4 % of the population (Russians, Byelorussians, Georgians, Romanians, Finns and other northern nations) were Orthodox Christians. To the second group belonged Muslims (11.1 %) with Turko-Tartars and Caucasian mountaineers practicing this religion. To the third group belonged Catholics (9.1 %). They were Poles, Lithuanians and some of the Armenians. 4.2 % of the population practiced Judaism. To the group of small confessions belonged Lutherans, in particular Latvians, Germans, Finn, and Gregorian Armenians; Buddhists and Lamaists, Mongolo-Buryats, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and northern peoples.
The population census in 1897 estimated that there were 2.2 million Old Believers and others who did not accept church reforms of the 17th century. However, some specialists think that in fact they were more than 20 million. As they were pursued by the Police and the Court, they concealed their religion.
The result of a century’s cooperation between the state and the various confessions was a decree «On Strengthening the Basis of Religious Tolerance» adopted on April 17, 1905. It guaranteed the right to freely change from one religious community to another, and with certain conditions from Christianity to non-Christianity. Old Believers and other schismatics were given equal rights with all the other religious confessions. It was also officially was forbidden to call Buddhists and Lamaists «idolaters» and «pagans.»
(Actually, when the Provisional Government came to power in February 1917, confessional policy was re-targeted at building a secular society in a religiously neutral state. After October, 1917, an effort was made to eliminate religion not only at the level of the state and public life, but from private life as well).
The population of Russia was divided into 4 «statuses» (with different rights and liberties): nobility, clergy, urban dwellers and country inhabitants. Urban dwellers were subdivided into noble citizens, merchants, bourgeois, and craftsmen. Country inhabitants consisted of peasants, Cossacks, petit bourgeois and artisans. At the beginning of 20th century, two parallel processes were taking place. On the one hand, there was the overall unification of social classes, their coming together and strengthening as classes. On the other hand, the overall class structure was rapidly decaying.
In terms of social structure, we have to take into consideration the fact that at that time about 76.5 % of the population earned its living in agriculture, 5.7 % in trade and transport, 10 % in industry, and 7.8 % in non-industrial activity, including education, medicine, science, and state service. One of the particularities of Russian social structure was its polarization. The upper middle class and landlords were numerically insignificant, while the majority of the population was small-scale owners and semi-proletarian layers. They comprised about 60 % of the population, and if proletarians are included the number rises to almost 80 %. That could not help but aggravate social contradictions in the country.
As is well known, Russia was one of those states trying to catch up in terms of economic development, but it was quite late entering the path of modern industrial development. The basis of this development was the appearance of industrial factories that exploited the labor of serfs who worked under the quit-rent system. In search for the money to pay this tribute, the peasants either had to search for work in the city or were engaged in small-scale craft production in the villages. This is how the textile industry appeared. It was the textile industry that catalyzed organic and autonomous industrial growth of the country. By the turn of the 20th century, the expansion rate of the economy was relatively high from the point of view of global standards. Russia belonged to a group of countries with quickly developing economies like the USA, Japan and Sweden. At the turn of the century, Russia was fourth or fifth in iron ore, iron and steel smelting, mechanical production, industrial consumption of cotton and sugar production. Russia was the leading country in oil production due to the development of the Baku oil production complex. The length of the railway system was the second in the world to the USA.
The economic crisis of 1899–1903 temporarily interrupted economic growth. Many factories were closed, but several fruitful years gave a new impulse to industrial development. After the crisis, monopoly concerns began to develop as syndicates and cartels began working in close cooperation with banks.
Thus, Russia at the beginning of the 20th century can be defined a semi-industrial country – that is, agriculture dominated over industry. Colonial holdings of Western European countries were separated from the metropolis by the sea. Russia was an empire where the metropolis and under-developed colonies were united in one territory and in one state. The European territory of the country accounted for about nine tenths of industrial and agricultural production. Clearly, however, at the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was just beginning the transition to a predominately industrial society.
Russia managed to make progress because of foreign business and investment. In this regard, the Empire was not different from other countries that were rather late to enter the path of industrial development and enjoyed the support of their rich neighbors. While not deprecating foreign investments, it was still national capital that was the determining factor in the economic development of the country. One of the most significant features of Russian monopoly capitalism, however, was the leading role of the state. The state determined the amount and distribution of government acquisitions, fixed taxes and privileges and controlled banks.
Russia entered the 20th century as an autocratic monarchy. The head of state was Emperor (Tsar) Nicholas II, a member of the Romanov family – a dynasty that had occupied the throne since 1623. His power was not limited by formal norms or public institutions. The Tsar relied on the Council of Ministers (a consultative assembly of policymakers) and on the State Council (supreme legislative committee).
Administratively, Russia was divided into 78 guberniyas, 18 oblasts and the Island of Sakhalin. There were administrative units that consisted of several guberniyas. They were called general guberniyas and were established mainly on the outer periphery of the empire. The Tsar usually authorized the Minister of the Interior to appoint the governor (Head of the guberniya). Guberniyas consisted of counties, oblasts, and districts. Further division was specialized. There were volosts (districts) for autonomous peasants, lots for land captains, lots for judicial investigators and so on. By the 20th century local government (zemstvo) had already been introduced in 34 guberniyas in the European part of Russia, in all other parts everything was under control of the state. The zemstvos mainly dealt with economic issues. They consisted of guberniya and district representative councils and an executive board. Elections to zemstvos were held every three years.
Bureaucracy was one of the most important elements in a monarchical authoritarian system. Often, due to his power, an official had extensive opportunities for personal enrichment. In spite of popular conceptions about Russian bureaucracy, the number of officials was not that great. If we compare the number of inhabitants in 1897 (129 million people) to the number of the officials (146,000), we see that for every 800 citizens there was only one official. (To compare, in the 1980s there was one governmental official for every fifteen people).
The political construction of the country outlined above had a corresponding specific ideological doctrine. As far back as in the 1830s, Count Sergei Uvarov (Minister of Education) called this doctrine «official nationality theory.» It was based on a three principles: Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality. The patriarchal basis of Russian conservatism and monarchism reflected Uvarov’s metaphor, and such views faced increasing difficulties fighting against rational liberal and social concepts.
More than 150 political (all-Russian, regional and national) parties supported different ideologies. They fell roughly into three groups: Rightists, Liberals and Socialists. The bitter dispute among them sharpened the key contradictions in Russia; resolving these contradictions was important for the further development of all the events in the country.
The disjuncture between the modern and archaic sectors of the economy (industry versus agriculture) was obvious. Capitalism in rural areas developed much more slowly than in cities and towns. Agriculture was inefficient, and although its productivity was increasing, Russia produced half as much bread per head as the USA and three times less than Argentina. The underdevelopment of agriculture slowed down capital formation, while the artificial attachment of peasants to land prevented the formation of a large and qualified working class.
Changes in the economy and the increasing complexity of the social structure conflicted with the class system, exacerbating national and social conflicts. State control over and interference with industrial production affected the Russian middle class, making it passive and restricting its political freedom and maturity.
Energetic economic growth was accompanied by rapid population growth. British historians A. Milword and S. Soul wrote: «Russia was a country of extremes in climate, luxury, needs, in primitive agriculture and modern steel-casting industry in Europe. Its population was growing so fast that all the efforts that could have been a success in other circumstances did not take proper effect.» Production per capita in Russia was less (2.5–3 times) than in the leading industrial countries, and Russia also lagged behind in labor productivity.
All this affected the level of civilization. It was defined not only by the culture of labor and life, but also by the educational level of the population. Only one fifth of the population at the beginning of the 20th century was literate. Medical care was also poor, and the mortality rate was almost twice as high as in Europe.
The political and religious elite not only tried to draw the attention of the supreme governing power and society at large to these mounting contradictions, but also called on people to take dynamic actions and steps toward reform that could head off social tension and avoid the dangerous consequences of potentially serious clashes.
Theme 3
FESTIVAL OF THE OPPRESSED OR SOCIAL DISEASE? THE NATURE OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONS
The only way to decode a thousand years of Russian history is to first unlock its root «code» of Revolution.
The First Revolution of 1905–1907 was spawned by the social and political crisis which had arose as a consequence of the disastrous Russian war with Japan. After the massacre in Saint Petersburg on the 9th of January, 1905 («Bloody Sunday»), peasant unrest grew; workers striked; the army and navy rebelled. Soon liberal and conservative parties appeared on the national stage. While the bourgeoisie insisted on liberal political reforms, trade unions and the Soviet of People’s Deputies demanded more radical action. Revolutionary parties (Social Democrats and Social Revolutionaries) sought the destruction of the entire regime. The «All-Russian» (that is national) October political strike and liberal’s slashing attack on absolutism forced Nicholas II to publish the October 17 Manifest which promised to guarantee certain political liberties and to create a «representative» State Duma. These promises gave the government enough legitimacy to marginalize radical political groups and quell the armed rebellions of December 1905 as well as the worker rebellions, taking place in Moscow, Rostov-on-Don, Novorossiysk, and Ekaterinoslav. But the government was not destined to enjoy peace for long. In 1906, along with renewed labor strikes, the peasants, the armed forces, and several ethnic minorities began to rebel. The so-called «Putsch of June 3» caused the dissolution of the Second State Duma; the first Russian Revolution had ended. Absolutism created new institutions which would be more loyal to the monarchy such as the Parliamentary Representative Office. It also began massive agricultural reform – introduced by Prime Minister Arkady Stolypin – by permitting the peasants to leave the commune (obshchina) for private farmsteads, thereby; it was hoped, creating a middle class citadel against the revolution. Furthermore, Stolypin encouraged mass migration to Siberia as a means of discouraging revolutionary activity. These reforms encouraged the development of Russian capitalism.
The February Revolution of 1917 was concerned with overthrowing absolutism and establishing a democratic republic in Russia. The Revolution was sparked by a grave economic and political crisis. The crisis was exacerbated by the military disasters of the First World War, economic dislocation, and food shortages. On the 23 of February, lack of food in St-Petersburg (renamed Petrograd) provoked anti-war rallies, protests and massive strikes. The General Strike started on the 24–25 of February; on the 26 of February the strikes developed into an open struggle with the army in Petrograd. On the 27 of February, the General Strike grew into an armed rebellion. The troops took the side of the rebellions. The Union of Labor and Soldier Deputies was created along with the Interim Committee of the State Duma. This formed the basis for the new «Provisional» government. On the 2 (15) of March, Nicholas II was forced to abdicate.
The October Revolution of 1917 was the result of slow and inconsistent actions of the Provisional Government headed by Alexander Kerensky. Of course, he also faced a complicated context of agricultural labor crises and national conflicts. The fact that Russia continued to participate in the World War exacerbated the nationwide crisis. As a consequence, the influence of the radical Left increased in the centre of the country and the influence of the Nationalists in the periphery. The most active party was the Bolshevist Social Democratic Party. The members of the party espoused the ideals of a Socialist Revolution in Russia which they thought would give an impetus for the Worldwide Revolution. The Bolsheviks proclaimed popular slogans: «Peace, to the people», «Land, to the peasants», «Factories, to the labor class». At the end of August – beginning of September, the Bolsheviks gained the majority in the Soviets of Petrograd and Moscow and proceeded to prepare for an armed rebellion, towards the opening of Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets. On the night of 24–25 of October (November, 6–7), armed workers, soldiers of the Petrograd garrison and sailors of the Baltic Fleet stormed the Winter Palace and arrested the Provisional Government. The Congress (the majority of which was built up by the Bolsheviks and left-side socialists-revolutionary) approved the overthrow of the government, passed Decrees on Peace and Land and organized the government, the Council of People’s Commissars headed by Vladimir Lenin.
The oppositional forces loyal to the Provisional Government were soon crushed. Soon the Bolsheviks established predominance in most industrial cities. The main adversary – the Kadet Party was outlawed and the oppositional press was prohibited. Nevertheless, the Bolsheviks obtained only 25 % of the popular vote during the Constituent Assembly elections (November, 24 (12)). They dispelled The Constituent Assembly (Petrograd, January, 5 (18)) which refused to accept a number of demands of the Bolsheviks. This led to further splits and divisions in the Russian countryside, exacerbating the Civil War. The Soviet Government was firmly established in European Russia; it nationalized the banks and enterprises and wrapped up a truce with Germany. The Triple Entente countries tried to preclude Russia from disengagement and consolidation of Soviets authority. This is when the intervention of foreign countries started.
How do Revolutions begin? Theoretically, this is a trivial question. While searching for a non-trivial answer, it would be interesting to observe the behavior of the «leaders» on the eve of the revolution. For example, what happened during the Revolution of 1905? After much contemplation, Nicholas II signed the decree «The Outline for a Course of Government Perfection» on the 14 of December, 1904. In order to calm the nation after a number of defeats in the Russo-Japanese War Nicholas II promised to improve peasants life, to expand the rights of Zemstvos (district councils) and City Duma, to abolish press restrictions and to reduce the scope of emergency measures in inflamed regions of the Russian Empire (such as Finland). Nevertheless this document didn’t contain any information about real land reform, political liberties, or a new constitution. Several days before that, on the 9 of January, 1905, the Emperor and his advisors decided that people should be «taught a lesson» and be discouraged from complaining about lawlessness and hardships. It is well known that the rejection of the reforms turned into «Bloody Sunday», Moscow barricades and The Battleship «Potemkin».
Pavel Milyukov, a Liberal political leader and historian, was one of the main figures of the year 1917. He offered a scheme according to which the revolutions become inevitable:
– When the people urgently need a large-scale political or social reform;
– When the government is against peaceful settlement of the problem;
– When the government is no longer able to act by force;
– When the people not only stop fearing the government but also start despising it and laughing at it openly.
What Surprises Contemporaries in during Revolutions? All Russia’s Revolutions prove the famous Napoleonic phrase: «You cannot start or stop a revolution.» Therefore, it is little wonder that it is impossible to separate synthetically a political revolution from a social one. What is most surprising about revolutionary times is the rapid devaluation of democratic ideals, a phenomenon characteristic among both the «leaders» and the «masses.» There are clear reasons for this. For example, in 1917–1918 there were two forms of democracy: an «established» form which was based on Duma traditions and oriented towards European standards, and a soviet form which had never been practiced in history before. These two forms could not find any middle ground; first there was crisis and then they turned to ostensibly outdated systems of rule.
Thus the Soviet «democracy» turned to single-party rule based on military patterns. «Established» democracy, on the other hand, was forced to cooperate with and later comply to «white» generals with pseudo-fascist ambitions. As a result, the country had to choose not between two forms of democracy, but rather between «red» and «white» dictatorships.
But these realities were not well understood by contemporaries who analyzed events using highly emotional language to express their feelings about the revolution: «flood», «windstorm», «maelstrom», «hurricane», «explosion», and «ecstasy». «Purification» and «regeneration» – this is what was expected to be seen after the cataclysm. And even Lev Tolstoy, one of the most vigorous critics of violence, compared the revolution of 1905 with the birth of a new life and admitted that it was beneficial and creates an «abyss of good».
Thus, carried away by revolutionary enthusiasm, few paid any attention to the actions of The Black Hundreds or the appearance of a great number of adventurists – people without any past, with made-up biographies. But as time went on, the «dirty foam» of the revolution and the immorality of its participants moved to the forefront. The well-known Manifesto of the 17 of October, 1905 (which guaranteed Russia the main civil liberties and gave the country the Legislative Duma) evoked the massacres of «patriots» in hundreds of cities in 36 Russian provinces. During one month more than 4,000 people died and about 10,000 people were disabled in the course of The Black Hundreds pogroms. Universities and gymnasiums were under siege. Due to nonfeasance of the authorities and particularly Nicholas II, in many towns a terror set in.
During the months of February and March 1917, the cruel chaos grew: there were corpses of gendarmes with ripped open bellies in Petrograd, the mad chase of officers in Kronstadt, vigilante justice in Yelets. An officer Fyodor Stepun, a future philosopher and sociologist, described Petrograd of 1917:
«I thought that I would find it exasperate, magnificent, filled with revolutionary romantics… My impression was indeed strong but the opposite of what I expected. Petrograd – from the outside to the inside – presented an utter picture of dissoluteness, monotony and platitude. The town looked unusual and was definitely going through rough times. Endless red flags were fluttering in the air, but not as banners and colors of revolution, but, instead, they were hanging down along grey walls as dusty red pieces of cloth. A crowd of grey soldiers wearing shirts and greatcoats was drilling around grand squares and wide streets of the city, a picture obviously contradicting the scale and grandeur of the event. Occasionally, armored cars and trucks full of soldiers and workers passed by with noise: guns atilt, tumbled hair and angry, mad eyes. No, this is not the great idea of the revolution that I had heard about at the front, neither is it the nation desire to justify freedom, but its vile antithesis… This is a drunken joy that «the day is ours,» that we are making merry and not going to have to explain anything to anybody.»
«The source of true folk-spirit of the people» often produced something that didn’t comply with the primary ideas of the revolutionaries. The spontaneous socialism of the opposed contained not only constructive but also destructive principles. Those who had faced it were ready to put testify that the revolution «evokes in a person not only a beast but also a fool.» (Emigrant Sociologist Pitirim Sorokin).
One of the Bolsheviks’ leaders – while complaining about the economical crisis after October, 1917 – admitted regrettably that a worker turns into a pensioner of the state, into a parasite sponging on it. But this remark as well as many others was lost in the overall appetence to a new culture, a new man. Few indeed thought about the consequences and the costs of the revolution. There was no need to think about the past and the present when the old was being replaced by the new, when the «new man» was being formed.
The Russian Revolutions of the XX century have not avoided the destiny of The French Revolution: some people glorify them as a historical landmark in humanity’s liberation from oppression, others curse them as a catastrophe and crime; some consider the revolutionaries as saints, while for others they are monsters.
Is it Possible to Control a Revolution?
Sometimes a revolution is compared to an abdominal surgical operation, the charge that one has to pay for having rejected preventive routine treatment. At the same time drastic intervention can sometimes be the only guarantee of recovery.
The Twentieth century produced two paths towards revolution: either the current power regime quickly intercepts the initiative from revolutionists and extinguishes as soon as possible the flames of popular indignation, or revolutionists themselves fully bring their slogans to life. The revolution of 1905 made the government cast away its endless hesitation and doubts, stop talking and start doing. At that, a more radical reform project of a larger scale was chosen. The two greatest Russian reformers, Sergey Witte and Pyotr Stolypin, headed the Council of Ministers. During the revolution situation, they worked to simultaneously suppressed popular anger and rebellion, while conducting reform measures. In short, they followed the classical rule: if all forces are spent fighting the revolution, its consequences can be temporarily eliminated. But while, relying on force, if fundamental changes and reforms are implemented, the revolutions causes can be eliminated.
In 1905–1907, personal immunity, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of unions were declared, agrarian reform was put into practice, redemption of payments for peasants were cancelled, duration of military service was reduced, universities received their autonomy, fines for participating in economic strikes were abolished. But at the same time, there were dragoons and drum-head court martial to stifle mass rebellions.
After February Revolution of 1917, along with democratic changes the Provisional Government also initiated an institutional basis for forced measures. To settle the summer crisis of 1917 the Provisional Government instigated, for instance, armed food detachments, which withdrew bread from peasants in the villages. The Provisional Government based itself on the brutal examples of the recent past: food requisitions, on the basis of set prices in 1914; a bread allotment of November of 1916 on the initiative of Rittikh, the tsar’s land minister; and «soldier groups» for compulsory agricultural tasks. Thus brutality led to brutality.
The Bolsheviks having taken power in Russia continued orienting themselves towards world revolution – the new era, in which working people all over the world would unite in a single world-commune. From October 1917 until March 1918, Lenin and his entourage took pains to indicate the form of the new Soviet State system and its regime. This led not only to anarchy, but massive armed rebellions of an absolutely anarchical mood and vision.
A bewildering number of different institutions appeared («labor communes», federations of «labor communes»). Many of these institutions enjoyed some autonomy; they had their own councils of people’s commissars. Soon each of them considered itself the legitimate local power, accepting the decrees of the central power as they saw fit. The same slogan of expropriation of expropriators was understood as «steal what has been stolen», as an appeal to take piece by piece all national property back to one’s own houses, attics and cellars.
All of this could have been predicted. But in that case Nikolay Berdyaev could not have been amazed by the «superhuman efforts» of Lenin, who in the span of five months came from being a marginalized party functionary to leading a massive national transformation. He called for the communization of all property, discipline, responsibility, and a complete restructuring. He exposed revolutionary phrase mongering, anarchic tastes and making «conjurations over an abyss.»
Indeed the most pitiless truth was discovered in the spring of 1918: it was impossible to overcome the crisis in the situation when each province represented «an independent republic,» while there was individual and group egoism, and anarchy ruled the market. Nothing but strong central power was able to reestablish lost economic ties and revered tries with the countryside rehabilitate a broken financial system, establish order and discipline.
