The XXth Century Political History of Russia: lecture materials. Gennady Bordyugov

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ 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 СКАЧАТЬ