Revolutions in the Russian Empire

Revolutions in the Russian Empire
As Russia progressed into the sixteenth century, it became one of the most diverse and extensive empires in history. Geoffrey Hosking identifies that this particular undertaking, conquering efforts, defending, and the administration of such a large complex mixture of the people and territories led to the exhaustion of the ordinary people’s productive powers and weakened the civic institutions. There was an inability of the church and state to project a nationalistic image which would potentially unite both the elites of the Russian society and the masses as people of one Russia. The gap between the elitist Russians and the peasants continued to grow, widened further by the Orthodox messianic repudiation of the Tsarist state through into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This myth was founding the empire, of the mismanagement of the mass civilian affairs, would later on come through the revolutionary movement that would sweep the Tsarist Empire. Social and economic upheavals would be exacerbated, and the 1917 revolutionary year would destroy the monarchy, uproot the empire, and ultimately lead to the formation of a communist state. This paper discusses the motivating factors that drove the revolutionary process up to this end of the empire. It highlights the individuals, groups, and places that drove the process; participation terms in the process for those involved; the various visions of the revolution; and the progress of the revolution.

It especially describes the role of peasants as the main driving force towards the revolution.
The period between 1914 and 1917 marked a critical moment in the history of redefining the Russian Empire. The start of war seemed to have temporarily brought together the many conflicting classes and nations of the Empire (Basil, 505). Mobilization to form a formidable standard front encountered hostility tied to the ban of a majority of alcohol sales almost simultaneously. Social unrest inevitably subsided, and the initial success stories would seemingly turn into defeats, as dents within the social status began to arise (Eudin &Fisher, 41). Deportations, retreats, and refugees would start to cause chaos from early 1915(Hosking, 15-18). Some strikes would start increasing in 1915, and many of these were xenophobic. Factories were burnt in the capital Moscow in anti-Germany riots that took place sequentially. Strikes among the female textile workers would pose that German prisoners had better supplies than themselves. The wives of the soldiers would become frequent in demonstrations, with a demand for material support from the government to compensate for the absentee husbands’ lost labor. These people would form the basis and grounds, laying the foundation for the revolutionary moments to come.
Amidst these growing internal and external upheavals, the Fourth Duma, sort of parliament with limited powers, and elected based on the unequal highly franchise that had the preference to property owners got alarmed that if this apparent growing cataclysm were not thwarted, a dispossession would happen by a revolution (Hosking, 21). To avert this, they thought such social unrest would be prevented if political reforms were enacted. Most members of the Duma and some from the ultra-conservative state council created the Progressive Bloc to establish fundamental constitutional rights, especially equality among all the ethnic and national groups. The Russian Emperor, Nicholas II, dismissed all their claims, sacking most ministers and taking personal command of the army. Much as some brief success was acclaimed till late in 1916, that crisis catapulted the last era of the autocratic regime. Starting August, the Duma became marginalized, whereas the government increasingly became inept and subject to ever consistent interventions from the tsar. Russia virtually became a military dictatorship. The high command exhibited much incompetence. Secret police intelligence in late 1916 became more alarming, with suggestions that it could get worse than it was in the 1905 revolution (Hosking, 28-32). The peasants, factory workers, soldiers, and other people who seemed to be delineated by the ruling class would rise up to defend their civil liberties and have a democratic space where all people would have a voice in running the affairs of the country.
The end would come faster than anticipated and unexpected. The people of the capital, pressured by the declining wages and persistent shortage of food, took to the street to demonstrate, and strikes loomed all over (Hosking, 34). On February 26, according to the Russian calendar, the troops fired at the police and sided with the demonstrating masses. There was hesitancy among the authorities, the process gained momentum, and control of Moscow city was lost. A Provisional Committee was formed on February 27 and on March 2 a Provisional Government from the Progressive Bloc. They demanded the abdication of Nicholas II hoping that the demonstrators would be appeased and normalcy in the city would be returned to the elites. Although the tsar, Nicholas II abdicated, this ambition failed, and the monarchy collapsed. The Duma was rivaled by the Petrograd Soviet that arose between February 27 and 28. The masses, especially the peasants who were in their numbers, had marked their intent of driving the revolutionary process by themselves, having lost faith in their government.
From the fall of the monarchy in February to the Bolshevik takeover in October would be characterized by overlapping, complex, and diverse set of revolutions that would emerge and develop (Hosking). The newly-found freedoms in February caused a significant surge in the capacity of the ordinary people to arrange themselves, to the contrary against the common notion that Russian people are passive to the demands of their rulers doing whatever they are told. There was a robust explosion of groups of individuals coming together to help themselves, among the workers, the soldiers, sailors, and the peasants, each group with their demands (often exaggerated). The peasants viewed the February revolution as the opportunity to correct what seemed to them an injustice that spanned through the ages, that most of the land where they used to work never belonged to them. A resolution from the province of Samara declared that “The land must belong to those who work it with their hands, to those whose sweat flows” (Hosking 37-38). The peasants were themselves ready to support the then Provisional Government as much as it seemed to actively promote the land ownership transfer to them. However as time passed by and the Provisional government seemed not to do anything, the peasants lost interest and turned their efforts to direct action (Eudin &Fisher, 41). They would take the entire process head-on, because force, determination, and zeal seemed the only available option for them to achieve their goal of justice and ideal society where they all felt a part of.
Fundamental divisions among the elites further seemed to fuel the revolutionary path. There was a severe disharmony between the capitalist class and the landowners as regards to how the common goal or defense of their property could be achieved. The liberals thought it wise to have a representative democracy, while the right-wing believed that a rigid authoritarian rule, even military dictatorship would help. The number of revolutions seemingly increased, from among the Ukrainians, Poles, and the Finns. A majority of the minorities underwent complex revolutions within themselves upon the nationalistic ideals expressed from the left-wing, right-wing, and centralistic ideals. Coupled with the ongoing social, gender, religious, and social revolutions, and truly, this was a season of revolutions. The centrist forces such as the Kerensky and Progressive Government that tried to establish a unified nationality were isolated as time went by (Hosking, 36-37). The peoples’ voice was echoing across the nation, and the peasants demanded change. Those in power had to side with the people.
In the rural areas, the peasants gradually encroached the land of the capitalists and pre-occupied it. They pastured their animals there while stealing of firewood and sowing their grain on lands that were fallow took the lead. As of mid-year, they started to exert a veto on asset management. In the urban areas, the workers were primarily concerned with improved working conditions and better remuneration. The employees would concede to paying commensurate wages and a typical 8-hour workday. However, the increased need to produce weaponry for war and massive inflation would soon swallow this up, and a new wave of strikes would be up. The sailors and soldiers were more concerned with peace and military discipline, as their lives were hinged on this. There was a proliferation of political party membership, trade unions, and local Soviets. The peasants would set up their parish and village groupings, workers factory committees, and the naval battleship committees. These would link up locally and nationally, with the army committees leading. Buoyed by the masses holding shared values regarding social justice over the moneyed elite, the consciousness would rise to create a revolutionary spirit. The ‘lowly’ in the society had made their voices clearly heard and understood.
The armed forces became politically divided, either to the left or the right. Majority sided with workers and peasants. Right-wing officers increasingly became isolated within the army. Although pressure groups such as the Union of Towns and Union of Landowners would emerge, the conservative officers would remain resolute and yielded power and command in the right. The Bolsheviks regrouped. In through August and September, the left retreated, and the right started asserting itself (Daniels, 91-93). Troops would be called to suppress the peasants. Right-winged lobby groups began to pressure the Progressive Group. Troops led by Lavr Kornilov would move towards Petrograd in late August, with the intention of suppressing the Petrograd Soviet to no success. The PG would become almost powerless despite the failed military coup attempt. The central command had been dissipated. The masses would react to the army coup with a sort of defensive radicalization. The peasants started to seize land in September and October, with the attitude that that was the time, or never would it happen again. It was either a do-or-die, and they (the peasants) would take no chance.
The Bolshevik Central Committee would be alarmed by the renewed determination of one Lenin to grasp power in the soviet’s name from Helsinki (Daniels, 95). He enjoined his party, giving no support to the PG, mainly keeping the Bolsheviks from any collaboration with the government. The Bolsheviks would remain consistent critics of the Processional Government, despite the prevailing wave where other leading factions of Soviet parties such as Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries were assimilated into the PG. Since the PG failed to deliver the aspirations of the people regarding land redistribution to the masses, entrenching social democracy and stabilizing standards of living among the urban populace, its favorability among the people declined. The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries would be swallowed by it. The minority dissidents would identify with the Bolsheviks who swam by the popular will. They adopted slogans that identified with giving the land back to the peasants, power to the people, peace and bread much as they were against their principles, to gain a massive following and appeal (Daniels, 95). The peasants had now driven even the large Bolsheviks to believe and champion their ideals, and they (the Bolsheviks) had no option than to share in the popular will.
The Bolsheviks would have greater support among the urban populace and military establishments in NW Russia (Daniels, 97). On August 31, the Petrograd Soviet would elect an executive committee with a majority Bolshevik. The Moscow Soviet turned toward the Bolsheviks on September 5, and their support would grow rapidly. A Bolshevik Central Committee meeting on October 10 proposed an armed uprising. This would however not augur well among majority key party supporters. Actual power seizure by the Petrograd Soviet through the Military Revolutionary Committee (MRC) would bypass the Central Committee. Government troops would take over the Bolshevik press located in Petrograd on October 24, with additional ones sent to guard strategic points in the city. This would provoke countermeasures. The MRC gave an order to its loyal forces to capture the high vantage points from the government troops on the same day. Lenin would emerge from his Petrograd house in the process, and by the time he arrived at the Soviet headquarters later on that day, an attack had started. The Petrograd Military District headquarters and key government installations would be captured, and the Winter Palace was captured, and the ministers arrested on October 25. Lenin would declare Soviet power the morning of October 25 (Lenin, 21-25). The power of the peasants (and other interest groups) had been made manifest, and the revolution would have now taken place. Their dream had come to fruition.
As a result, the Bolsheviks drafted legislation which seemed to actualize the dreams of the key interest groups of the Revolution (Basil, 507). Institutions were strengthened by which the workers, soldiers, and peasants would gain a greater control of their fate and running the country’s affairs. The October 26 degree would abolish all private land ownership, with no compensation, and requested the rural district and village committees to have the land redistributed, and thus the peasants would have it secured. This met most of the demands of the peasants at the time, with no mention of the end-goal of the Bolsheviks who aimed to nationalize the land. A November 14 declaration would give the elected factory committees the power to exercise control within the commercial and industrial enterprises. Decrees made in November and December would abolish ranks, hierarchies, and insignia within the army. All military formations were subjected to elected committees of the troops. A November 22 declaration would replace the judicial framework with the “people’s courts.”
The peasants (and other interest groups such as factory workers) would have now gained the changes they wanted, and the government that could take care of their interests was now in power. Laws were made to favor them, and they had control over the management of their affairs in the workplaces. The peasants had their land secured through the cancellation of all private land ownership. Indeed, the peasants drove the entire revolutionary process by their will, zeal, and determination from its conception to the final revolution that hounded the authoritarian regimes out of power.
References
Hosking, Geoffrey. 1993. The First Socialist Society. March 1993.
Eudin, Xenia Joukoff & Fisher, Harold H. Soviet Russia and the West. A documentary survey.
Basil, Dmytryshyn. Durnovo’s Memorandum. Imperial Russia, A source book, 1700-1917.
Lenin, V.I. Tasks of the Youth Leagues (Bourgeois and Communist Morality).
Daniels, Robert V. A Documentary History of Communism: Communism in Russia, The Bolshevik Revolution (1917-1921).