November 2005
Page
13
"any worthwhile
progress in human
society must come,
and can only come,
from the working
class"
progress in human
society must come,
and can only come,
from the working
class"
Russian Revolution ...continued
from page 12
As usual, as a result of hasty building to accommodate large numbers of workers sanitary conditions were practically non-
existent with open sewers in St Petersburg and Moscow and the consequent health risk, the usual concomitants of capitalism
in its early stages.
In 1903 the Social Democratic Labour Party held a conference in London to draw up fresh rules (largely to contain
the split in their ranks between those following Lenin and those supporting Martov). Lenin was insistent on the need
for a tightly integrated, disciplined party of professional revolutionaries. Martov was infavour of a more open, less disciplined party with much easier access to membership. The conference lead to a decisive split, roughly down the middle but with a slight edge to Lenin. From that time on these two sections were known by the name of Bolsheviks (majority) and
Mensheviks (minority), leading to open conflict between these groups, played out fifteen years later at the time of the
deposition of the Tsar and the Bolshevik rise to power.
So, at the turn of the century there existed a highly critical situation. An all powerful and inflexible, but nevertheless
weak, Tsar, a poorly organised and ill- developed native capitalist class, a peasantry in rebellious mood but non-
politicised, and a small as yet unorganised working class, not political, whose aims were confined to improving working
conditions. On the fringe a party of professional revolutionaries whose aim was to lead the proletariat as their
'vanguard', but as yet had minimal influence. Something had to give! In 1905 it did.
In 1904 Russia went to war against Japan, in a war that was partly territorial, and partly, as most Western historians seem
agreed, a bid by the Russian government to distract attention from current difficulties and unite the population in a patriotic
fervour with a resounding victory. Unfortunately for the Tsar it didn't work, as there was an even more resounding defeat.
The general public lack of support for the Tsar fell even lower. More large-scale strikes ensued, and then, in 1905, there
happened an event only too common in the struggles of the working class to gain justice.
Trade unions had been disallowed up till then in Russia but the government had been experimenting with police-led unions
in an attempt to take the heat out of workers discontent. One of these was a union led by a priest, Father Gapon. Father
Gapon thought it a worthy idea to lead a march in St. Petersburg to appeal to the Tsar, following the commonly-held belief
in countries with a very powerful head that their father figure is unaware of the sufferings of the population and will
intervene to put them right if only they can bring their problems to his attention. On Sunday 22 January some 150,000 people gathered in St Petersburg and marched on the Winter Palace where it was believed the Tsar was in residence. It was a peaceful protest, many were carrying icons, none were carrying weapons; they believed the Tsar would listen. They were
met by troops who opened fire. The death toll was estimated at 200 killed and 800 wounded, reminiscent of many other panic reactions by governing bodies to peaceful working class demonstrations, Peterloo, Tiananmen Square among them.
Support for the Tsar fell even further from then on.
Bloody Sunday, as it was thereafter called, opened the floodgates and the country was in turmoil. Strikes, demonstrations, outbreaks of violence were the order of the day. Eventually it was reluctantly agreed to inaugurate a constituent assembly called the 'Duma'.
This was set up and delegates were voted in, many of them peasants, but it never had any real power. In the mind of the Tsar it was only a sop which he intended to revoke as soon as the opportunity presented itself. The conservative reaction to this concession was extreme. A party was set up, the Octoberist party, which encouraged mob violence against supporters of the Duma. Government-inspired pogroms against Jews resulted in thousands of deaths and much homelessness. A wave of strikes broke out, peasant violence against their landlords escalated, similar to the French peasant violence and destruction of chateaux in another bourgeois revolution.
The country was approaching a civil war.The appointment of a new minister of the interior, Stolypin, brought some ease to the country. His reign of repression consisted of setting special courts, which would have no compunction about passing the death sentence. So many were hanged that the nickname 'Stolypin's neckties' became popular. He was eventually assassinated - at the opera, in front of the Tsar.
On the positive side, Stolypin initiated land reforms that were meant to be progressive but are generally agreed as
having no great effect. The country gradually settled down, though never completely, and from around 1908 to 1914
there was a mild boom, with an increase in capital development.
Was 1905 a revolution? Not really. It was more a revolt, by large sections of the population against savagely repressive
conditions, and by the nascent capitalist class to establish the freedom to operate.
But there was no proposal to change the basis of society and each element, the peasants, the bourgeoisie, the nobles were
paddling their own canoe. There was only one way they could go: capitalism. At best it was a rebellion, but one that had a
profound influence on a similar uprising twelve years later which did change the basis of Russian society by completely
uprooting Tsarism.
There are many lessons to be learned from this one episode in a period of violent change. One is that any worthwhile
progress in human society must come, and can only come, from the working class.
Relying on our rulers to initiate worthwhile change is as useless as the Russian peasants' reliance on the Tsar.
But above all is the fact that no force can cut short the natural development of society until it is ready for change.
CYRIL EVANS
As usual, as a result of hasty building to accommodate large numbers of workers sanitary conditions were practically non-
existent with open sewers in St Petersburg and Moscow and the consequent health risk, the usual concomitants of capitalism
in its early stages.
In 1903 the Social Democratic Labour Party held a conference in London to draw up fresh rules (largely to contain
the split in their ranks between those following Lenin and those supporting Martov). Lenin was insistent on the need
for a tightly integrated, disciplined party of professional revolutionaries. Martov was infavour of a more open, less disciplined party with much easier access to membership. The conference lead to a decisive split, roughly down the middle but with a slight edge to Lenin. From that time on these two sections were known by the name of Bolsheviks (majority) and
Mensheviks (minority), leading to open conflict between these groups, played out fifteen years later at the time of the
deposition of the Tsar and the Bolshevik rise to power.
So, at the turn of the century there existed a highly critical situation. An all powerful and inflexible, but nevertheless
weak, Tsar, a poorly organised and ill- developed native capitalist class, a peasantry in rebellious mood but non-
politicised, and a small as yet unorganised working class, not political, whose aims were confined to improving working
conditions. On the fringe a party of professional revolutionaries whose aim was to lead the proletariat as their
'vanguard', but as yet had minimal influence. Something had to give! In 1905 it did.
In 1904 Russia went to war against Japan, in a war that was partly territorial, and partly, as most Western historians seem
agreed, a bid by the Russian government to distract attention from current difficulties and unite the population in a patriotic
fervour with a resounding victory. Unfortunately for the Tsar it didn't work, as there was an even more resounding defeat.
The general public lack of support for the Tsar fell even lower. More large-scale strikes ensued, and then, in 1905, there
happened an event only too common in the struggles of the working class to gain justice.
Trade unions had been disallowed up till then in Russia but the government had been experimenting with police-led unions
in an attempt to take the heat out of workers discontent. One of these was a union led by a priest, Father Gapon. Father
Gapon thought it a worthy idea to lead a march in St. Petersburg to appeal to the Tsar, following the commonly-held belief
in countries with a very powerful head that their father figure is unaware of the sufferings of the population and will
intervene to put them right if only they can bring their problems to his attention. On Sunday 22 January some 150,000 people gathered in St Petersburg and marched on the Winter Palace where it was believed the Tsar was in residence. It was a peaceful protest, many were carrying icons, none were carrying weapons; they believed the Tsar would listen. They were
met by troops who opened fire. The death toll was estimated at 200 killed and 800 wounded, reminiscent of many other panic reactions by governing bodies to peaceful working class demonstrations, Peterloo, Tiananmen Square among them.
Support for the Tsar fell even further from then on.
Bloody Sunday, as it was thereafter called, opened the floodgates and the country was in turmoil. Strikes, demonstrations, outbreaks of violence were the order of the day. Eventually it was reluctantly agreed to inaugurate a constituent assembly called the 'Duma'.
This was set up and delegates were voted in, many of them peasants, but it never had any real power. In the mind of the Tsar it was only a sop which he intended to revoke as soon as the opportunity presented itself. The conservative reaction to this concession was extreme. A party was set up, the Octoberist party, which encouraged mob violence against supporters of the Duma. Government-inspired pogroms against Jews resulted in thousands of deaths and much homelessness. A wave of strikes broke out, peasant violence against their landlords escalated, similar to the French peasant violence and destruction of chateaux in another bourgeois revolution.
The country was approaching a civil war.The appointment of a new minister of the interior, Stolypin, brought some ease to the country. His reign of repression consisted of setting special courts, which would have no compunction about passing the death sentence. So many were hanged that the nickname 'Stolypin's neckties' became popular. He was eventually assassinated - at the opera, in front of the Tsar.
On the positive side, Stolypin initiated land reforms that were meant to be progressive but are generally agreed as
having no great effect. The country gradually settled down, though never completely, and from around 1908 to 1914
there was a mild boom, with an increase in capital development.
Was 1905 a revolution? Not really. It was more a revolt, by large sections of the population against savagely repressive
conditions, and by the nascent capitalist class to establish the freedom to operate.
But there was no proposal to change the basis of society and each element, the peasants, the bourgeoisie, the nobles were
paddling their own canoe. There was only one way they could go: capitalism. At best it was a rebellion, but one that had a
profound influence on a similar uprising twelve years later which did change the basis of Russian society by completely
uprooting Tsarism.
There are many lessons to be learned from this one episode in a period of violent change. One is that any worthwhile
progress in human society must come, and can only come, from the working class.
Relying on our rulers to initiate worthwhile change is as useless as the Russian peasants' reliance on the Tsar.
But above all is the fact that no force can cut short the natural development of society until it is ready for change.
CYRIL EVANS
Contents
Page 14
Socialist Party