Causes Of Reform In Russia 18001917 Essay

Causes Of Reform In Russia 1800-1917 Essay, Research Paper

I believe that throughout history, the Tsars felt threatened. They so reformed in order to remain in power, and to remain in for power entirely. However, this mentality merely had an consequence when the Tsar & # 8217 ; s power was threatened. Nevertheless, I believe that to happen the factors that had an consequence on the Russian system of authorities, one must look for the ground why felt threatened. Here war was an of import factor, nevertheless it was non the lone factor. Otherwise reform would non hold occurred without war. I believe that if these other aforementioned factors were of import plenty to do political alteration, so they must rank alongside war in footings of importance. However it was non & # 8220 ; the engine of history & # 8221 ; . i Together with discontent in the public, and its manifestations ( work stoppages, radical activity, and blackwashs ) , I believe War constantly changed the Russian political system. I believe war had an impact for several grounds. Throughout the period described Russia took portion in three wars, in which they were crushed. First, when a state fails in war, some would see it as being a mark that the state is less advanced in general. First, the realization that one & # 8217 ; s state was rearward and prone to invasion threatened the Tsar & # 8217 ; s power, which so induced political alteration. He realised that if something was non done to better and modernize that external enemies could be more of a danger than internal 1s. I have chosen an illustration to exemplify this. After the 1854-6 Crimean War, Alexander II initiated the emancipation of the Serfs, the creative activity of the Zemstvos, the Dumas, and the independent bench. He was even compelled to see releasing a ample proportion of his power to the public, but died before being able to implement these thoughts. This was as a direct consequence of Alexander holding the aforesaid realization. Second, war has the inevitable effects on the public. Unlike Bismark, the Tsars did non hold the political clout necessary to guarantee that a war was decently prepared for. Subsequently, the long drawn out wars easy demoralised the Russian people and resulted in discontent. Aside from destructing any pride they had in the & # 8220 ; system & # 8221 ; , they were subjected to witnessing the decease of their companions and the draining of their state. However, war when carried out fleetly and with success can hold positive benefits for the popularity of a swayer. Bismarck & # 8217 ; s foreign policy showed this. But the wars in which Russia was involved in merely served to weaken the resoluteness of the people, and the power of the Tsar. The staggering war attempt was a factor in the Bloody Sunday, the October Manifesto and the first revolution of 1917. Yet there were other factors in these political turbulences and others, as I have said before. The other chief factor I believe was of import was the discontent of the public. Ultimately, the Tsar & # 8217 ; s power rested on support from below. When this support was non at that place, he had to move to recover it, as he felt threatened. The loss of public support came approximately for a figure of grounds. First, I would wish to turn to the grounds why the Tsar sometime lost the support of the peasantry, and the consequence this had. I believe that the provincials and labor lost religion in the Tsar, really bit by bit because while & # 8220 ; privileged Russia & # 8221 ; had worked indefatigably to go more westernised, the state of affairs of the & # 8220 ; dark multitudes & # 8221 ; had become fossilized. The lone Russia that had existed was in the five-mile radius of their shantytown. Beforehand most provincials were politically incognizant. However the consequence of factors such as instruction, war and hapless life conditions was to mak

e them more politically aware. Under the shiny veneer of a happy, hard-working peasant lay a bitter hatred of the upper classes. All moves to industrialisation and urbanisation had been done without regard to him or his expense. He felt useless and was disenchanted with his country and situation, but did not realise what he could do about it. However when these factors arose, a political consciousness came with it. It was ultimately the humble peasant who caused the single most important political change in this period. The realisation that things could be better manifested themselves as strikes, revolts, assassinations and revolutionary activity, which then served to initiate political reform. These strikes and the spread of revolutionary activity then served to spread these ideas. This then resulted in the metaphorical vicious circle of strikes, which subsequently formed more strikes. The major factor I mentioned in the development of a “class consciousness” was the poor living standards. If we accept the notion that “man is an objective, natural, physical, sensitive being, he is a suffering, dependent and limited being, … that is, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, independent of him, but are the objects of his need, indispensable and essential for the realization and confirmation of his substantial powers… The first historical fact is the production of the means to satisfy these needs.”ii Thus while Russia remained a backward, agrarian society, with production and efficiency too low to satisfy the demands of the populace, discontent was likely to be rife. And in the cities where the close proximity of each worker to the other, combined with Dickensian working conditions, discontent was likely to have occurred much faster. However, here ends the parallel with Marx. The fact is that people were unhappy, and realised that their conditions were worse, inferior to what they could be, as in Western Europe. Thus they pushed for change, in the form of a revolt. Education only served to heighten the number of revolts. By educating the masses, a new intelligentsia formed. The “four-tier system of schools from primary to the university level”iii, and then subsequently the universal primary education in 1908 took the “dark masses” from being an indifferent class to one that was more revolutionary and literate. The massive support for the leftist revolutionary groups in the 1906 and 1907 Duma elections, (who managed to receive sixty-four percent of the voteiv despite a suffrage system weighted against them), showed that the peasants were not revolutionary. I would argue that education had a role to play in this. My logic is that because the workers knew that things could be better, and that they were being exploited, that they could subsequently improve their situation by pushing for reform, through strikes or even through revolution. These factors were of paramount importance in the Bloody Sunday rising of 1905 and the subsequent October Manifesto, and later the February revolution. Because the peasantry had become more revolutionary, they supported the middle class that had emerged in the push for more power. If Father Gapon and the Provisional government had not carried with them the support of the populace, then something similar to the abortive Kapp Putsch in Germany, 1919 would have occurred. However, the workers and even the soldiers were behind them, which meant that reform was very necessary to keep the populace in check. i Leon Trotsky ii Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 iii Encyclopaedia Britannica (1998) iv Based on data from Access to History: Reactions and Revolutions: Russia 1881-1924, Lynch, 1992. Page 50