Revolution 1917 years in Russia.

Late 1916-early 1917. were marked by folding revolutionary situation in Russia, which promptly led to a revolution. They talked a lot about this revolution, they frightened the authorities with it, trying to convince them to go for liberal reforms.

Reasons for the revolution:

The economic crisis caused by World War I and its negative consequences: rising prices, inflation, hunger, a sharp rise in the strike movement, the activation of the opposition(Nicholas stubbornly refused to understand that it was possible to continue the war in a crisis only by uniting society, and for this it was necessary to make concessions);

The conservative policy of Nicholas II, which only aggravated the situation ( The liberals, represented by the Progressive Bloc, were ready to cooperate with the monarchy and offered to form a "government of trust", but instead of rapprochement, the emperor fought with them, depriving himself of the last force capable of saving the monarchy, at least in a constitutional form).

Unresolved all pre-existing problems.

In addition to these objective reasons, many also cite the subjective reason expressed by the liberal leaders Milyukov (the Cadets) and Kerensky (the Trudoviks) about Germany's role in deepening the political crisis in Russia. Fighting on two fronts, Germany was interested in Russia's exit from the war, and therefore financially supported those Russian forces that advocated Russia's exit from the war, or rather, the Bolsheviks (there were Bolshevik printing houses in Germany, in addition, it was the German command that helped Lenin urgently in April 1917 to return through the Baltic occupied by the Germans to Petrograd).

Based on this, the liberal Provisional Government subsequently accused Ulyanov (Lenin) of spying for Germany and issued an order for his arrest.

Stage 1. February Revolution 23.02. - 03/02/1917.

18th of Febuary the workers of the fire monitor and stamping workshop of the Putilov plant went on strike, putting forward only economic demands so far. The ensuing dismissal of the strikers sent the entire factory on strike, to which the administration February 22 announced a mass lockout(English lock out, literally - lock the door on someone) - a form of struggle of the owners of factories and factories against workers, expressed in the closure of enterprises and the mass dismissal of employees in order to exert economic pressure on them, prevent strikes .. In solidarity with the workers of the Putilov factory, other enterprises of Petrograd also went on strike, spontaneous pogroms of shops and street disorder.

February 23 the strikers took to the streets, they were joined by students, artisans, employees, intellectuals, etc. 25 February the strike turned into general strike, which moved from economic demands to political ones: “ Down with autocracy!», « Down with the war!».

The government turned to reaction: mass arrests were carried out, troops were rushed against the demonstrators, and in the clashes that began, the victims numbered in the hundreds.

However, the soldiers were not the most reliable defense of the autocracy.

Many units refused to participate in punitive operations against the population, and cases of fraternization between soldiers and workers became more frequent. The workers armed themselves and the general strike turned into armed uprising. The military units, one by one, hung red ribbons on bayonets and hats, and went over to the side of the rebels.

February 26 the king publishes Decree on the dissolution of the IV State Duma, missing the last opportunity to pass through the parliamentary way to a constitutional monarchy and calm the masses. February 27 armed detachments of workers and soldiers captured all the strategic points of the capital (bridges, railway stations, government offices, etc.), which marked the victory of the February Revolution. An atmosphere of anarchy has formed in the capital - the old government is paralyzed, and the new one has not yet been formed. When Petrograd fell into the hands of the rebels, new organs of power began to be feverishly created.

Dual power:

The first authority

The liberals, striving to keep the revolution within the framework of the bourgeois-democratic, formed provisional government, which in its composition repeated " trust government”, offered to Nicholas II back in 1916.

Prince at the head of the government Lviv, the key positions were occupied by:

war minister - Guchkov(Octobrist);

Foreign Secretary - Milyukov(cadet);

Minister of Justice - Kerensky(trudovik).

Second authority.

The left, the socialists, following the example of the revolution of 1905-07. created Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, the central place among which was occupied by the Metropolitan Council - Petrosoviet ( The Bolsheviks did not yet have much authority, and the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks dominated the Petrograd Soviet, who took control of the post Chairman of the Petrosoviet(occupied by the Menshevik Chkheidze) and dictated further policy). The socialists were not a defenseless opposition, they had their own real force - armed groups of workers red guard. In order to gain influence in the army, the Petrograd Soviet issued Order No. 1 on the Petrograd garrison, proclaiming democratization of the army:

empowering soldiers with political rights;

the creation in the army of elected soldiers' committees, which received the right to control the actions of the command.

The Petrograd Soviet opposed the monarchy in any form, demanding the proclamation of the Republic.

The liberal Provisional Government considered it possible to preserve the monarchy in a constitutional form by changing the monarch.

On behalf of the Provisional Government Guchkov and Shchulgin went to Nicholas II with a proposal to abdicate in favor of the 13-year-old heir Alexey under the regency of the younger brother of the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. This proposal was joined by the commanders of the fronts, fleets and Headquarters. March 2, 1917. the emperor signed Act of renunciation”, but not in favor of Aleksey, a patient with hemophilia, on whom he did not want to take on a burden that he could not handle himself, and whom he did not want to leave as a hostage of the revolution, but in favor of his brother Mikhail, although he did not agree to this.

March, 3rd Mikhail announced his renunciation of the throne, which formally destroyed the monarchy in Russia. Michael's renunciation of the throne came as a complete surprise to the monarchists. Liberal parties were forced to urgently change their programs and repaint themselves as Republicans.

The nature of the revolution: bourgeois, because official power was concentrated in the hands of the provisional government and the bourgeois system was established.

The February Revolution revealed a whole bunch of contradictions:

class: between peasants and landowners; workers and bourgeoisie;

regional: between the outskirts and the Center;

national: between national minorities and the Great Russian government;

religious: between national religions and the state religion.

Such contradictions led to the formation of many parties, public organizations and movements, which during the revolution solved only their own narrow problems. So we can say that in February in Russia there was not one, but many small independent revolutions - social, regional, national, religious, etc., which made it difficult to determine the nature of the revolution.

The leaders of both the right and the left immediately after February began to use the term " Great Russian (Russian) Revolution».

Modern historiography characterizes the February Revolution according to its results:

Political- the autocracy was destroyed and a republic was proclaimed, which followed the path of democratization.

Economic- the destruction of the remnants of feudal remnants and the establishment of a bourgeois system.

Stage 2. From February to October. 2 ( 15 ) March 1917 - October 26 (November 8), 1917

Associated with the activities of the Provisional Government. Provisional government- the highest legislative and executive body of state power in Russia in the period between the February and October revolutions.

Main activities.

Press committees, police and gendarme departments have been liquidated.

The abolished posts and institutions were replaced by commissars of the Provisional Government.

A program of activities of the ministry for the near future has been created: the revision of criminal, civil, judicial and judicial laws. In particular, "Jewish equality in its entirety", granting women political rights. Subsequently, a special commission of inquiry was also established to investigate and bring to justice former officials and private individuals.

On March 2, Kerensky issued a decree instructing the country's prosecutors to release all political prisoners (and convey to them congratulations on behalf of the new government).

On March 6, a general amnesty was announced in Russia. About 90 thousand prisoners were released, among which were thousands of thieves and raiders, popularly nicknamed "Kerensky's chicks".

April 18 (May 1), 1917 - May 5 (18), 1917 - the first government crisis, culminating in the formation first coalition government with the participation of socialists.

April Crisis. It was caused by the general social tension in the country. The catalyst was P. N. Milyukov’s note dated April 18 to the governments of England and France (in it, Milyukov declared that the Provisional Government would continue the war to a victorious end and would fulfill all the agreements of the tsarist government). This led to popular indignation, which spilled over into mass rallies and demonstrations demanding an immediate end to the war, the resignation of P. N. Milyukov and A. I. Guchkov, and the transfer of power to the Soviets. After P. N. Milyukov and A. I. Guchkov left the government. On May 5, an agreement was reached between the Provisional Government and the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet to create a coalition

June and July crises. The June crisis of 1917, the second (after the April crisis of 1917).

Caused by irreconcilable contradictions between the masses of the people and the imperialist bourgeoisie on questions of peace and land, on the struggle against economic ruin. The First All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies on June 3-24 (June 16 - July 7), which was dominated by the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, supported the bourgeois Provisional Government and rejected the Bolsheviks' demand for an end to the war and the transfer of power to the Soviets.

The July Crisis of 1917 is the third (after the April and June) On July 3, the delegation of the Provisional Government, headed by ministers Tereshchenko and Tsereteli, recognized the autonomy of the Ukrainian Central Rada. In protest against these actions, on July 2 (15), 1917, the Kadet ministers resigned. . On July 4 (17), 1917, the Provisional Government introduced martial law in Petrograd, began the persecution of the Bolsheviks, disbanded the units that had taken part in the demonstration on July 3 (16), 1917, and introduced the death penalty at the front.

In the midst of the July crisis, the Finnish Sejm proclaimed Finland's independence from Russia in internal affairs and limited the competence of the Provisional Government, demanding recognition of the "inalienable rights of Finland." On July 3 (August 6), 1917, a second coalition government was formed. Kerensky became chairman of the government. He pursues a policy of maneuvering between the main political forces of the country ("Bonapartism"), which, however, causes discontent in both camps.

Kornilov's speech ("case", "putsch", "conspiracy", "mutiny", "uprising") - an unsuccessful attempt to establish a military dictatorship on August 27-31 (September 9-13), 1917, undertaken by the Supreme Commander of the Russian Army of the General Staff, General from infantry by L. G. Kornilov in order to put pressure on the Provisional Government to force him:

1. Exclude from its composition those ministers who, according to the available [gen. Kornilov] according to information were obvious traitors to the Motherland; 2. Reorganize so that the country is guaranteed a strong and firm government.

According to some reports, the purpose of the Kornilov speech was to prevent the radical left (Bolsheviks) from coming to power with the help of military force; according to other sources, Kornilov did not distinguish left socialists from right ones at all, and since April he considered the Petrograd Soviet, which at that time was headed by right socialists, Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, as his sworn enemy.

Stage 3. October Revolution (full official name in the USSR - Great October Socialist Revolution , alternative names: October coup , Bolshevik coup , third Russian revolution ) - the stage of the revolution that took place in Russia in October 1917.

As a result of the October Revolution, the Provisional Government was overthrown and a government formed by the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets came to power, the absolute majority of the delegates of which were the Bolsheviks and their allies, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, also supported by some national organizations, a small part of the Menshevik internationalists, and some anarchists. In November, the new government was also supported by the majority of the Extraordinary Congress of Peasants' Deputies. The provisional government was overthrown during an armed uprising on October 25-26 (November 7-8, according to a new style), the main organizers of which were V. I. Lenin, L. D. Trotsky, Ya. M. Sverdlov and others. The uprising was directly led The Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet, which also included the Left SRs.

At 22:40 the 25th of October ( November 7 ), opened Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies , on which the Bolsheviks, together with the Left SRs, received a majority, were proclaimed: "Decree on Power", "Decree on Peace", "Decree on Land".

Event that happened October 25, 1917 in the capital of the then Russian Empire, Petrograd, became just an uprising of the armed people, which stirred up almost the entire civilized world.

A hundred years have passed, but the results and achievements, the impact on the world history of the October events remain the subject of discussions and disputes among numerous historians, philosophers, political scientists, specialists in various fields of law, both in our time and in the past twentieth century.

In contact with

Briefly about the date October 25, 1917

Officially in the Soviet Union, this ambiguously assessed event today was called - the day of the October Revolution of 1917, it was a holiday for the entire vast country and the peoples inhabiting it. It brought about a radical change in the social and political situation, transformation of political and social attitudes on the position of peoples and each individual individually.

Today, many young people do not even know what year the revolution took place in Russia, but it is necessary to know about it. The situation was quite predictable and brewed for several years, then the significant main events of the October Revolution of 1917 took place, the table briefly:

What is the October Revolution in the historical concept? The main armed uprising led by V. I. Ulyanov - Lenin, L. D. Trotsky, Ya. M. Sverdlov and other leaders of the communist movement in Russia.

The revolution of 1917 is an armed uprising.

Attention! The uprising was carried out by the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet, where, oddly enough, the Left Socialist-Revolutionary faction represented the majority.

The success of the coup was ensured by the following factors:

1. Significant level of popular support.
2. The provisional government was inactive and did not solve the problems of Russia's participation in the First World War.
3. The most significant political aspect compared to previously proposed extremist movements.

The faction of the Mensheviks and the Right SRs could not organize a more or less real version of an alternative movement in relation to the Bolsheviks.

A little about the causes of the October events of 1917

Today, no one refutes the idea that this fateful event practically turned not only the whole world upside down, but also radically changed the course of history for many decades to come. Far from being a feudal, bourgeois country striving for progress, it was practically turned upside down directly during certain events on the fronts of the First World War.

The historical significance of the October Revolution, which took place in 1917, is largely determined by the termination. However, as they see it modern historians there were several reasons:

1. The influence of the peasant revolution as a socio-political phenomenon as an aggravation of the confrontation between the peasant masses and the landowners who remained at that time. The reason is the “black redistribution” known in history, that is, distribution of land to the needy. Also in this aspect, the negative impact of the redistribution of land allotments on the number of dependents had an effect.
2. Working sections of society experienced significant city ​​government pressure on the inhabitants of rural areas, state power has become the main lever of pressure on the productive forces.
3. The deepest decomposition of the army and other power structures, where most of the peasants went to serve, who could not comprehend certain nuances of the protracted hostilities.
4. revolutionary fermentation of all sections of the working class. The proletariat at that time was a politically active minority, constituting no more than 3.5% of the active population. The working class was largely concentrated mainly in the industrial cities.
5. The national movements of the popular formations of imperial Russia developed and reached their climax. Then they sought to achieve autonomy, a promising option for them was not just autonomy, but a promising autonomy and independence from the central authorities.

To the greatest extent, it was the national movement that became the provoking factor in the beginning of the revolutionary movement on the territory of the vast Russian Empire, which literally disintegrated into its constituent parts.

Attention! The combination of all causes and conditions, as well as the interests of all sections of the population, determined the goals of the October Revolution of 1917, which became the driving force behind the future uprising as a turning point in history.

Popular unrest before the start of the October Revolution of 1917.

Ambiguous about the events of October 17

The first stage, which became the basis and the beginning of a worldwide change in historical events, which became a turning point not only in the domestic, but also on a global scale. For example, the assessment of the October Revolution, Interesting Facts which lie in the simultaneous positive and negative impact on the socio-political world situation.

As usual, every significant event has objective and subjective reasons. The overwhelming majority of the population had a hard time experiencing wartime conditions, hunger and deprivation peace became necessary. What were the conditions in the second half of 1917:

1. Formed in the period from February 27 to March 03, 1917, the Provisional Government headed by Kerensky didn't have enough tools to solve all problems and questions without exception. The transfer of land and enterprises into the ownership of workers and peasants, as well as the elimination of hunger and the conclusion of peace, became an urgent problem, the solution of which was inaccessible to the so-called "temporaries".
2. The prevalence of socialist ideas among the general population, a noticeable increase in the popularity of Marxist theory, the implementation by the Soviets of the slogans of universal equality, the prospects for what the people expected.
3. The emergence of a strong opposition movement led by a charismatic leader, which was Ulyanov-Lenin. This party line at the beginning of the last century became the most promising movement for achieving world communism as a concept for further development.
4. In the conditions of this situation, they became as much as possible in demand radical ideas and the problems of society requiring a radical solution - the inability to lead the empire from the thoroughly rotten tsarist administrative apparatus.

The slogan of the October Revolution - "peace to the peoples, land to the peasants, factories to the workers" was supported by the population, which made it possible to radically change the political system in Russia.

Briefly about the course of events on October 25

Why did the October Revolution happen in November? The autumn of 1917 brought an even greater increase in social tension, political and socio-economic destruction was rapidly approaching its peak.

In industry, financial sector, transport and communication systems, agriculture a complete collapse.

Russian multinational empire broke up into separate nation-states, contradictions between representatives of various peoples and intra-tribal disagreements were growing.

Significant influence on the acceleration of the overthrow of the Provisional Government had hyperinflation, rising food prices Against the backdrop of lower wages, increased unemployment, a catastrophic situation on the battlefields, the war was artificially dragged out. Government of A. Kerensky did not submit an anti-crisis plan, and the initial February promises were practically abandoned.

These processes in the conditions of their rapid growth only increased influence leftist political movements throughout the country. These were the reasons for the unprecedented victory of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution. The Bolshevik idea and its support by the peasants, workers and soldiers led to the deputy majority in the new state system- Soviets in the First Capital and Petrograd. There were two directions in the plans for the Bolsheviks to come to power:

1. Peaceful diplomatically conditioned and legally confirmed the act of transferring power to the majority.
2. The extremist trend in the Soviets demanded armed strategic measures, in their opinion, the plan could only be implemented power grab.

The government, created in October 1917, was called the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. The shot of the legendary cruiser "Aurora" on the night of October 25 gave signal to start the assault Winter Palace, which led to the fall of the Provisional Government.

October Revolution

October coup

Consequences of the October Revolution

The consequences of the October Revolution are ambiguous. This is the coming to power of the Bolsheviks, the adoption by the Second Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies of the Decrees on Peace, Land, the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of the Country. Was created Russian Soviet Republic, later the controversial Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed. In various countries of the world, pro-Bolshevik governments began to come to power.

The negative aspect of the event is also important - the protracted that brought more destruction crisis, famine, millions of victims. The collapse and chaos in a vast country led to economic destruction of the global financial system, a crisis that dragged on for more than a decade and a half. Its consequences fell heavily on the shoulders of the poorest segments of the population. This situation has become the basis for a decrease in demographic indicators, a lack of productive forces in the future, human casualties, and unplanned migration.

Year of historical accident? You need to understand that this question is divided into three: were they inevitable in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century; whether a new revolution was inevitable or very likely after the events of 1905-1907; and how accidental the emergence of the revolution was precisely at the beginning of the year. First of all, the question arises: was it possible to bypass the revolution in Russia at all?

It is known that some countries managed to do without revolutionary upheavals during modernization, that is, during the transition from a traditional agrarian society to an industrial urbanized one. But this is the exception rather than the rule. In order to avoid a revolution, a group of reformers must be formed in the ruling classes who are capable not only of carrying out filigree reforms in advance - as a rule, in a deteriorating social situation - but also of overcoming the egoism of the ruling strata. And this happens very rarely. Historians are vigorously discussing whether Russia could have done without a revolution. Some point to the success of modernization, others point to its social costs.

At the same time, even the successes of modernization can lead to a revolution, because the transition from a traditional agrarian society to an industrial urban one is always painful. Many people are losing their usual living conditions, old problems are exacerbating and new ones are being added. The disintegration of the old social strata occurs faster than it becomes possible for them to adapt to the new conditions of life. New social strata are also formed unevenly - the system of industrial society does not take shape all at once in its entirety.

And taking into account the fact that the old layers are not going to just give up their positions and change their way of life, the situation becomes even more tense. The speed and effectiveness of overcoming this crisis depend on how quickly the socio-economic and socio-political structure changes: how industry and cities grow, capable of employing an ever-increasing percentage of the population; whether vertical mobility in the elite is facilitated, feedback between the authorities and different social strata, including both the majority of the working people and the new middle strata - the intelligentsia, technocracy. At first glance, the future of Russia was optimistic due to relatively rapid industrial growth. However, with other conditions of modernization, things were worse.

Successes in the modernization of Russia in the late XIX - early XX century. were limited, on the one hand, by the inconsistency of the reform of 1861, and, on the other hand, by the peripheral place of the Russian economy in the world division of labor. From time to time, part of the peasantry and the urban population found themselves in a situation of starvation - in the event of either a shortage of food or a temporary loss of sources of income. At the beginning of the twentieth century. the transition to an industrial society accumulated "fuel" for a social explosion, and the ruling elite was not ready for serious transformations. So in one form or another, the revolution at the beginning of the twentieth century. was inevitable. At the beginning of the 20th century, the main crises faced by the country were called “issues”.

The main reasons for the beginning of the revolutions in 1905 and 1917. Workers' and agrarian questions became aggravated by the lack of effective feedback between the government and society (the problem of autocracy). An important role was also played by the crisis of interethnic relations (“the national question”). Revolution 1905-1907 and subsequent reforms did not resolve these contradictions sufficiently to prevent a new revolution, the task of which was to solve these "questions" in one way or another. The lack of land of the peasants was not preserved in the trees, the peasants were looking for work in the city, knocking down the price of labor. The dissatisfaction of the urban lower classes was combined with the protest of the middle strata, primarily the intelligentsia, against the bureaucratic and aristocratic orders.

The Stolypin reforms that followed the revolution of 1905-1907 proceeded from the need to preserve both landownership and the broad powers of the emperor and his bureaucracy. These reforms could neither solve the problem of the extremely acute lack of land of the peasants associated with the landlord system and low labor productivity in the countryside, nor cope with the social consequences of the agrarian crisis in the city. As a result of the revolutionary events of 1905, the State Duma was created, but the powers of even this representative body of power, elected on an unequal basis, were too small to change the situation. The insignificance of opportunities to influence the policy of the imperial bureaucracy irritated part of the political elite and the social forces behind them, primarily the middle urban strata.

The emperor's entourage was subjected to sharp criticism in the press. The authority of the autocracy was undermined both by the tragedy of "Bloody Sunday" on January 9, 1905, and by a more fundamental process of desacralization of the monarchy in the process of enlightenment and modernization of culture. In 1909, after a long depression in Russia, an economic recovery began. But it was linked to the cyclical recovery of the global economy. Such booms usually last only a few years and then give way to new crises. Thus, the consequences of the revolution of 1905-1907. did not guarantee the further evolutionary development of Russia, and a new revolution was very likely and most likely inevitable. But the “choice” of the time for the start of a new revolution was of great importance. The revolution could have taken place in peace if the world war had not broken out in 1914. Obviously, in this case it would be a different revolution.

Russia would be more likely to avoid a large-scale civil war. The protracted war became a revolutionary factor. It is no coincidence that for Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia the war ended in revolution. You can talk as much as you like about such "causes" of the revolution as the intrigues of the opposition and the intrigues of the enemy's spies, but all this was also in France and Great Britain, and there were no revolutions. However, Russia differs from Germany in that it was in a coalition of potential winners, such as Italy. After the war, Italy also experienced destabilization social system, but not as intense as in Russia, Germany and the heirs of Austria-Hungary. Thus, the possibility of a more moderate revolution depended on whether the Russian Empire could “hold out” until the end of the war.

World War I 1914-1918 destabilized the financial system, there were disruptions in transport. Due to the departure of millions of peasants to the front, agriculture reduced food production in conditions when it was necessary to feed not only the city, but also the front. The military budget reached 25 billion rubles in 1916 and was covered by state revenues, internal and external loans, but 8 billion was not enough. The “dry law” also dealt a blow to the budget. It was necessary to print more money than both the supply, provoking an increase in prices. By 1917 they had more than doubled.

This destabilized the economic system and increased social tensions in the cities. There was a drop in the standard of living of workers. The imperial bureaucracy could not solve these most complex tasks. The military burden on the economy as a whole was too heavy. As early as 1916, before the start of the revolution, production began to decline in a number of industrial branches. Thus, the productivity of the Donbass miners decreased from 960 poods per month in the first half of 1914 to 474 poods at the beginning of 1917. Iron smelting in southern Russia decreased from 16.4 million poods in October 1916 to 9.6 million poods in February 1917. Tellingly, after the start of the revolution in May 1917, it grew to 13 million poods. The production of consumer products was reduced, as industrial capacities were loaded with military orders.

The production of basic necessities fell by 11.2% compared with 1913. Transport could not withstand the load. In 1913-1916. loading increased from 58 thousand to 91.1 thousand wagons per day. The growth in the production of railcars lagged behind, although it also grew (in 1913-1915 - from 13,801 to 23,486). The shortage of wagons led to problems with the supply of raw materials for industry and food to the cities and to the front. At the same time, the front consumed 250-300 million poods out of 1.3-2 billion poods of marketable grain. This shook the food market. But at the end of 1916, the supply of food for the army was 61% of the norm, and in February 1917 - 42%. At the same time, after heavy losses in 1915-1916. Masses of recruits entered the army who were not prepared for army life. The barracks "reforging of characters" was painful, and the popularity of the war fell, the goals of the endless "slaughter" were incomprehensible to the broad masses of the population.

The soldiers who had been fighting since 1914 were already extremely tired of the trenches. By 1917, more than a million soldiers had deserted from the army. At the beginning of 1916, “the censors noted a sharp increase in anti-war sentiment among the soldiers. The gigantic losses in the war - about a million killed alone - had a demoralizing effect on the population of Russia. The tsarist bureaucracy tried to deal with the food crisis, but this only made things worse. On September 9, 1916, fixed food prices were introduced. During the preparation of this measure, contradictions between consumers and food producers were discovered. Moreover, according to the Minister of Agriculture A. Rittich, "completely unexpectedly" for the government, "contradictions between the interests of producers and consumers" arose.

From now on, these "oppositions" will be one of the most important features of the country's development. Prices were set somewhat below market prices, which naturally increased the deficit. Food requisitions in favor of the army alerted the owners of commodity stocks of food. The Ministry could hardly create a relatively small stock of 85 million poods. On November 29, 1916, the government introduced a food allocation, that is, mandatory norms for the delivery of bread at fixed prices for the regions.

But the state apparatus could not effectively implement this policy. The government did not have an apparatus for seizing grain, and the grain merchants were in no hurry to sell it at fixed prices. There was also no apparatus for distributing the harvested bread. Officials fought jealously against the Zemstvo and city self-government, instead of relying on them. A fair share of disorganization was brought about by the militarization of administration in the frontline provinces. In 1914, food prices rose by 16%, in 1915 by 53%, and by the end of 1916 they were 200% of pre-war prices.

The cost of housing in cities rose even faster. This seriously worsened the social position of the urban lower classes, including workers, whose real wages fell by 9-25%. For the low-paid sections of the workers, the high cost was a real disaster. With inflation, workers could not save up for a rainy day, which put the family on the brink of disaster if they were fired. Moreover, according to the data working group Central Military Industrial Committee (TsVPK), as a rule, the working day was extended to 12 hours or even more (plus mandatory Sunday work). The working week has increased by 50%. Overexertion led to an increase in diseases. All this worsened the situation in the cities. As early as October 1916 there were serious unrest among the workers in the capital. Management errors and the disorganization of transport led to disruptions in food supplies to large cities.

There was a shortage of cheap bread in the capital, and long queues - "tails" lined up for it. At the same time, it was possible to buy more expensive bread and confectionery. But the workers did not have sufficient income to purchase them. On February 22, there was a lockout at the Putilov plant in Petrograd. The agitation of the socialists, timed to coincide with the international day of working women on February 23, also played a role in the beginning of the unrest (hereinafter, until February 14, 1918, dates are given according to the Julian calendar, unless otherwise specified). On this day, strikes and demonstrations of workers began in the capital, accompanied by the destruction of bakeries and clashes with the police.

That this happened on February 23rd was an accident, but the reasons for the unrest were deep, and they would have happened with a high degree of probability earlier or later. Thus, both due to long-term systemic causes and due to the circumstances of the world war, it was practically impossible to avoid a revolution. If such a minimal chance existed, the authorities did not take advantage of it and reduced it to nothing.

Literature: Buldakov V.P. Red Troubles: The Nature and Consequences of Revolutionary Violence. M., 2010; The State Duma. 1906-1917. Verbatim reports. M., 1995; Leiberov I.P., Rudachenko S.D. Revolution and bread. M., 1990; Kyung P. A. Mobilization of the economy and private business in Russia during the First World War. M., 2012; Mironov B.N. Welfare of the population and revolution in imperial Russia: XVIII - early XX centuries. M., 2010; On the Causes of the Russian Revolution. M., 2010; Shubin A.V. The Great Russian Revolution: from February to October 1917. M., 2014.

Shubin A.V. The Great Russian Revolution. 10 questions. — M.: 2017. — 46 p.

Causes of the October Revolution of 1917:

• war weariness;
• industry and agriculture of the country were on the verge of complete collapse;
• catastrophic financial crisis;
• the unresolved agrarian question and the impoverishment of the peasants;
• delaying socio-economic reforms;
• the contradictions of the dual power became a prerequisite for a change of power.

On July 3, 1917, unrest broke out in Petrograd demanding the overthrow of the Provisional Government. Counter-revolutionary units, by government decree, used weapons to suppress the peaceful demonstration. Arrests began, the death penalty was restored.

The dual power ended with the victory of the bourgeoisie. The events of July 3-5 showed that the bourgeois Provisional Government did not intend to fulfill the demands of the working people, and it became clear to the Bolsheviks that it was no longer possible to seize power by peaceful means.

At the VI Congress of the RSDLP (b), which took place from July 26 to August 3, 1917, the party took a guide to the socialist revolution through an armed uprising.

At the August State Conference in Moscow, the bourgeoisie intended to announce L.G. Kornilov as a military dictator and time the dispersal of the Soviets to coincide with this event. But the active revolutionary uprising frustrated the plans of the bourgeoisie. Then Kornilov on August 23 moved troops to Petrograd.

The Bolsheviks, carrying out great agitation work among the working masses and soldiers, explained the meaning of the conspiracy and created revolutionary centers for the struggle against Kornilovism. The rebellion was suppressed, and the people finally understood that the Bolshevik Party is the only party that defends the interests of the working people.

In mid-September, V.I. Lenin worked out a plan for an armed uprising and ways to carry it out. The main goal of the October Revolution was the conquest of power by the Soviets.

On October 12, the Military Revolutionary Committee (MRC) was created - a center for preparing an armed uprising. Zinoviev and Kamenev, opponents of the socialist revolution, gave the terms of the uprising to the Provisional Government.

The uprising began on the night of October 24, the day the II Congress of Soviets opened. The government immediately succeeded in isolating it from the armed units loyal to it.

October 25 V.I. Lenin arrived at Smolny and personally led the uprising in Petrograd. During the October Revolution, the most important objects such as bridges, telegraph, government offices were seized.

On the morning of October 25, 1917, the Military Revolutionary Committee announced the overthrow of the Provisional Government and the transfer of power to the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. On October 26, the Winter Palace was captured and members of the Provisional Government were arrested.

The October Revolution in Russia took place with the full support of the masses of the people. The alliance between the working class and the peasantry, the defection of the armed army to the side of the revolution, and the weakness of the bourgeoisie determined the results of the October Revolution of 1917.

On October 25 and 26, 1917, the II All-Russian Congress of Soviets was held, at which the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) was elected and the first Soviet government, the Council of People's Commissars (SNK), was formed. V.I. was elected Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars. Lenin. He put forward two Decrees: the "Decree on Peace", which called on the warring countries to stop hostilities, and the "Decree on Land", expressing the interests of the peasants.

The adopted Decrees contributed to the victory of Soviet power in the regions of the country.

On November 3, 1917, with the capture of the Kremlin, Soviet power also won in Moscow. Further, Soviet power was proclaimed in Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, in the Crimea, in the North Caucasus, in Central Asia. The revolutionary struggle in Transcaucasia dragged on to the end civil war(1920-1921), which was a consequence of the October Revolution of 1917.

The Great October Socialist Revolution divided the world into two camps - capitalist and socialist.

OBJECTIVE CAUSES OF THE 1917 REVOLUTION

DONE

STEPANTSOV PAVEL MIKHAILOVICH

MYTISHI

2004 INTRODUCTION.

The 1917 revolution is one of the most important events Russian history. The system that existed for centuries was completely broken, Soviet power was established, and a nationalization of public property unprecedented anywhere before was carried out.

The theme of the revolution of 1917 is relevant even now, when, after seventy years of existence, the Soviet system collapsed and the development of capitalism began in the country. Having understood the reason for the revolution of 1917, having realized the reason why the country took the path of socialism, and not capitalism, we will be able to better navigate the current situation, when the state has embarked on the capitalist path of development, we will be able, perhaps, to eliminate some of the problems of Russian socio-economic life that existed then and are relevant now.

For many years the revolution of 1917 was viewed from the angle of Marxist-Leninist teaching. Now, when there is a rethinking of the entire history of the twentieth century, it is very important to objectively and impartially identify the causes of this historical event. Only by tracing all the objective prerequisites for the October Revolution of 1917, it is possible to build any generalizations and theories that explain what happened.

The purpose of this work is to find the objective causes of the October Revolution of 1917 and to clarify the circumstances due to which the bourgeoisie could not take power into their own hands, but lost it.

RUSSIA TO THE XX CENTURY

RUSSIA AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURIES

The end of the 19th century brought many changes to the socio-economic life of Russia. As a result of the reforms carried out under Alexander II and Alexander III, objective prerequisites were created for the transition from feudal socio-economic to capitalist. The abolition of serfdom led to the partial resettlement of peasants in the city, which contributed to the creation of a market for hired labor, necessary for the development of capitalist production.

Under Alexander III, who understood the need for the development of heavy industry, industry was invested, both at the expense of the state and with the help of foreign capital. The state, which received money from the redemption payments that the peasants paid after the reform of 1861, mainly invested them in industry. Thus, there was a kind of redistribution of capital from the agricultural sector to the industrial one.

Foreign capital also contributed to the development of industry. There is a common opinion that foreign capital is a certain brake on the development of the state, but this view is somewhat one-sided. Foreign capital does have certain obstacles to the development of the economy, associated with the need to export part of the income abroad, in addition, there is an increase in external public debt, but the beneficial effect that it has on the development of industry far exceeds these negative effects. Investing in industry leads to an increase in production, the introduction of new technologies, and, consequently, a reduction in the cost of products. Thanks to these factors, goods become competitive both in the domestic and foreign markets, which leads to a significant inflow of funds from abroad, which after a while not only cover the export of a certain part of the income abroad, but also the possibility of paying off external debt . We can observe the favorable influence of foreign capital on the economic development of the state on the example of England of the 16th-17th centuries, where Dutch capital was used in fairly large quantities.

The consequence of these two factors, necessary for the development of capitalist production, was the intensive development of industry, which was observed at the end of the 19th century.

But alongside the advanced capitalist productive forces there existed feudal relations of production that had already become obsolete. This somewhat hindered forward movement countries forward. But the feudal relations of production, which still prevailed in the social sphere, could not be replaced by capitalist ones in a revolutionary way, i.e., as it mainly happened in the countries of Western Europe, since the class of the emerging bourgeoisie was weak to take power. At the same time, the nobility, which for three centuries had been the backbone of the monarchy, had already exhausted its potential as a class, since it no longer met the interests of the socio-economic life of the country, and was soon to die out along with feudal remnants. It also no longer served as a reliable support of power for the reasons described above.

Thus, Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was in a difficult position. The change in socio-economic formations, the lack of a reliable support for the existing government, the absence of a strong class in society - all this gave rise to internal instability. Wise and decisive actions "from above" were required in order to solve the current problem through peaceful internal political transformations and reforms. Otherwise, there was a threat of revolutionary struggle "from below", which, in the absence of a strong bourgeois class capable of taking power, could lead "to the beginning of the senseless and merciless excesses of the most terrible of all anarchist revolutions."

AUTOCURATOR OF ALL-RUSSIAN NICHOLAS II.

In 1896 Nicholas II ascended the Russian throne. Society, always expecting changes for the better with the advent of a new government, had high hopes for it, primarily related to the implementation of progressive reforms. Let's see how grounded these hopes were.

The son of Alexander III, a king with a strong will and character, did not inherit these qualities from his father. Well-bred, afraid to offend people with a sharp “no”, could he carry out in these difficult times that require quick and decisive action those liberal reforms that were expected of him?

More a family man than a statesman, could he rule himself, and not allow all sorts of advisers to power?

Having adopted the character of an autocrat from his father, feeling his responsibility for the fate of autocracy in Russia, could he be aware of the need for changes in the socio-economic life of society?

And the hopes pinned on him dissipated almost immediately. On January 17, 1895, he said: "I ... will protect the beginnings of autocracy as firmly and steadily as my unshakable parent guarded him."

Thus, it was obvious that the contradictions between the capitalist and feudal socio-economic formations that began at the end of the century under Nicholas II had little chance of being resolved "from above", by concessions to the power of the bourgeoisie.

THE FIRST DECADE OF THE 20TH CENTURY

RUSSIAN INDUSTRY BY THE BEGINNING OF THE XX CENTURY

CRISIS 1900-1903

As a result of favorable objective circumstances, such as the creation of a market for hired labor, investment in industry in Russia at the end of the 19th century, the rapid development of capitalist production begins.

But this process had its own features that were different from similar processes in Western European states. First, Russia was already involved in international trade, which made the Russian economy dependent on the world economic situation.

Secondly, at that stage of the development of industry, the achievements of scientific and technological progress were still of little use, the consequence of which was the greater use of cheap labor and the growth of factories.

Thirdly, due to the lack of sufficient domestic funds that could satisfy the needs of industry in the economy, money flows from Western European countries are actively sent to Russia. Foreign capital, as mentioned above, had a favorable effect on the development of Russian production, especially since it was given at a relatively low interest rate. It is a mistake to think that he made Russia dependent, both economically and politically, on the Western European countries. Foreign firms, companies, banks did not conduct an independent economic policy in Russia, they did not have the opportunity to influence the political decisions made.

Fourthly, and most importantly, the Russian economy developed in the context of a contradiction between advanced industrial production, and the remaining remnants of feudalism (autocracy, large landownership and serf methods in agriculture), which led to a conflict between capitalist productive forces and feudal production relations. .

All this had an impact not only on the economic sphere, but also on the socio-political one, since the conflict between the new class of the bourgeoisie and the old class - the nobility adversely affected Russian society, giving rise to instability and fermentation in it.

The consequence of the fact that the Russian economy was affected by the world market was that it could not avoid world economic crises. The first such crisis was the crisis of 1900-1903.

In 1899, as a result of rapid industrial development in the countries of Western Europe, the tightness of the money market was increasingly felt, which caused a rapid increase in the discount rate. The financial crisis developed into an industrial one, engulfed all of Western Europe and immediately crawled into Russia.

The economically developed countries of Western Europe survived the crisis quite easily, but the underdeveloped Russian economy received a serious blow. The first signs of a breakdown in the economic life of the country were the bankruptcy of large engineering and railway firms and the crisis of monetary values ​​in St. domestic market, falling prices for them and declining shares of industrial enterprises. The first such economic crisis began in the country.

The crisis dealt a severe blow to the fragile economy of the country, especially to heavy industry. Industrial production in Russia during the crisis of 1900-1903. decreased by 5%, iron smelting decreased by 15%, rail rolling - by 32%, production of steam locomotives and wagons - by 25-37%, the construction of railways was reduced seven times compared to 1899 (1899 - 5248 km, 1903 - 763 km). During these three years, more than 3,000 enterprises were closed, employing 112,000 workers.

If the crisis did not have a tangible negative impact on the countries of Western Europe, then Russian economy he hit hard. Practically until 1909 there were no tangible leaps forward in the development of industry, although the progressive development of capitalism did not stop.

But, in addition, the crisis had a negative impact on the social sphere. During the crisis, the situation of the workers especially worsened: unemployment increased, wages were sharply reduced, which caused a rise in the revolutionary movement among the workers.

RUSSIAN-JAPANESE WAR.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the capitalistically developed countries of Western Europe began to feel the need for new raw material bases and sales markets, which at that time served as colonies. In order to capture those, they turn their attention to the countries of East Asia and, first of all, to China. By this time, China had already lost its former power, so the seizure of territories was not difficult. Neither China paid attention nor Russia. But she had to face a new competitor - Japan, a country with rapidly developing capitalism. Japan was supported by England and the United States, who were not interested in strengthening Russia in this region, while France and Germany acted on the side of Russia, striving to prevent the appearance of the first in China.

Since 1894, for 10 years, there has been a division of spheres of influence in China with the participation of all interested parties: England, France, Russia, the USA, Germany and Japan. By 1904, as a result of constant clashes of interests in this region, diplomatic relations between Japan and Russia reached their climax, and in January 1904 Japan began hostilities by attacking Russian land and sea military forces.

It should be noted that Japan began to prepare for war long before it began, which cannot be said about Russia. As a result, the Japanese troops amounted to 330,000 people, 1068 guns of various calibers. At the beginning of the war, Russia had ground forces in the amount of 100,000 people scattered at a considerable distance from Baikal to Port Arthur. Russia by that time had 7 battleships, 4 armored cruisers, 7 light cruisers, 6 gunboats, 2 mine cruisers, 32 destroyers in the Far East as part of the navy. In comparison with the Japanese fleet, Russia was inferior to it in all respects: both in the number and quality of ships, and in their artillery weapons.

The advantage almost during the course of the entire campaign was on the side of the Japanese, which was partly due to ill-conceived actions on the part of the Russian command, and partly to the worst weapons. By the beginning of the summer of 1905, the continuation of hostilities became unprofitable for both the Japanese side and Russia. For the first, because a long, protracted war with Russia would have exhausted all her strength, and in the second, a revolution began. Japan turns to the United States with a request for mediation in peace negotiations, to which it received consent. As a result, the Treaty of Portsmouth was concluded, according to which Russia got off with minimal territorial losses: the southern part of Sakhalin Island.

Such an unsuccessful military campaign for Russia had a great impact on the internal situation in the country. Firstly, it showed that the Russian troops are not combat-ready, because they lag behind the advanced armies, both in terms of technical equipment and in terms of the quality of the senior command staff. Secondly, it had a serious impact on the domestic political situation. The constant failures at the front had the exact opposite effect that Plehve expected from the “small victorious war”. Dangerous situation after the crisis of 1900-1903. exacerbated by discontent in society and the fall in the authority of the authorities in the eyes of public opinion.

Russo-Japanese War- the most unsuccessful military campaign for the Russian fleet, which proved the need for a complete re-equipment of not only the ground forces, but also the country's naval forces.

REVOLUTION OF 1905.

The revolution of 1905 is the first Russian revolution directed against the autocracy, which was so large in scope and which had such rather serious consequences. Revolutions are a sign of deep socio-economic contradictions in society, which indicate either the failure of the policy pursued from above, or the lack of "understanding" of each other in power and society. Let's see what objective reasons were at the heart of the 1905 revolution.

As noted above, from the end of the 19th century, the development of capitalist productive forces began in Russia. However, if in the countries of Western Europe this process was accompanied by the disintegration of the feudal socio-economic structure and the creation of representative bodies of government through which the bourgeoisie received power, then in Russia the situation was different. Although the feudal socio-economic formation has long outlived its usefulness and did not satisfy both modern economic requirements (low-income peasant production) and domestic political requirements (the nobility class could not serve as a reliable support for power), but autocratic the monarchy continued to artificially restrain the process of decomposition of the remnants of feudal relations. Secondly, there were no representative bodies of government, so the bourgeoisie could not get power. Hence the contradiction between the developing and gaining strength of the bourgeois class and the autocratic monarchy. This did not mean that the monarchy should be abolished - it could be limited to a parliamentary monarchy, where the bourgeois class would participate in governance, which was, for example, in England.

In addition, a new class appeared on the Russian domestic political arena - the industrial proletariat, which was more revolutionary active than the peasantry. In the developed capitalist countries of Western Europe, the bourgeois class served as a counterbalance to the proletariat, which, having state power, both suppressed outbreaks of strikes and strikes, and, if necessary, made some concessions. In Russia, the bourgeoisie did not have state power, therefore, she could not respond so fruitfully and promptly to the outbreak of uprisings among the workers. The government, although it defended the interests of the bourgeoisie in this matter, could not adequately control the situation. Therefore, in Russian society there was no strong counterbalance to the proletariat class.

Others no less important issue was agricultural. The peasant reform of 1861 did not completely destroy feudal relations in agriculture. Russia entered the 20th century with pronounced remnants of feudalism in the agrarian sector, which hindered the development of capitalism in agriculture. The main obstacles to this process were landownership, the obligation of the peasants to redeem the land from which they were liberated, and the peasant himself had to pay 1/5 of the amount to the landowner immediately, and 4/5 was paid by the state. Then the peasants paid this part of the amount to the state with interest. This led to the fact that most of the money was not retained by the peasants, but passed to the state, thereby preventing the expansion of the peasant economy. Those who could not immediately pay even 1/5 (and there were a lot of them) became temporarily liable and worked for the landowner, and in one way or another became dependent on him. In addition, the existing peasant community, which was a relic of primitive communal relations, artificially equalized the peasants, helping the poor at the expense of the wealthy, which to some extent prevented the stratification of the peasantry into rich and poor and protected from the start of a revolutionary movement in the countryside. But at the same time, such a policy prevented the selection of the most industrious peasants from the general mass. Thus, we see that the main contradictions in the agricultural sector were:

n the contradiction between the peasantry and the landlords

n the contradiction between the developing new capitalist order and the old feudal and primitive communal ways

n growing contradiction between the wealthy peasantry and the poor

n there was an acute issue of redemption payments that the peasants paid to the state for land

Russia by 1905 remained an agrarian country, and the agrarian issue has always been very acute in Russian society. Therefore, a speedy resolution of this issue was necessary.

All of the above were objective prerequisites that created the danger of a revolution in Russian society. Now consider the circumstances that contributed to the beginning of radical action.

The unsuccessful course of the war with Japan, the constant defeats of the Russian troops gave rise to discontent in Russian society and a fall in the authority of the authorities. But Bloody Sunday hit the authority of the autocratic power especially hard. On January 3, in response to the dismissal of several workers at the Putilov factory, a strike broke out. Priest G. A. Gapon decided to organize a peaceful procession to the Winter Palace to submit a petition to the tsar about the needs of the workers. On the morning of January 9, festively dressed workers moved towards the Winter Palace, but the access was blocked by chains of police and troops, who opened fire on a peaceful demonstration. On the night after the execution, Gapon told the workers: "The bullets of the tsarist soldiers ... killed our faith in the tsar ...". But Nicholas II knew nothing about the victims. Only in the morning he was informed that, due to mortal danger, the troops were forced to open fire to protect the palace. “The troops were supposed to shoot, there were many dead and wounded in different parts of the city. Lord, how painful and hard!” he writes in his diary.

But meanwhile, the revolutionary movement received an impetus. On January 10, the entire working class of the capital went on strike. In the spring, a strike took place in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, which lasted 72 days, and already at the beginning of summer the revolution passed into military units - on July 14, 1905, there was an uprising on the battleship Prince Potemkin-Tavrichesky. And, finally, the “general October strike”: for several months (from September 19 to October 19), which completely stopped production in the country, the workers went on strike.

At that time, many already believed that the days of the monarchy were numbered. There was no one to suppress the revolution - the army was in Manchuria, and meanwhile the situation was getting worse. But here Witte comes up with a proposal to give the people a constitution and carry out reforms: “Russia has outgrown the forms of the existing state structure ... While there is still an opportunity, we must grant a constitution, otherwise the people will tear it out ...”

Nikolai understood that the situation was critical: either the constitution, or a complete collapse. And he agreed to the constitution. But what did these concessions mean to Nicholas? The Romanov dynasty ruled Russia autocratically for almost 300 years. At that time, vast territories were annexed to the country, Russia became a great world power, Russian generals made brilliant campaigns that glorified the Russian army. And he? And in one day he was going to destroy the autocracy, that is, as he believed, to blow everything that his ancestors had been creating for so long? All these liberals with their talk about a legal society, the legal society itself - this was so alien and incomprehensible to him! He ascended the throne as an autocrat - which means that his heir should become an autocrat - not out of personal ambitions, but out of a sense of deep responsibility to the country and the dynasty.

Yes, he made concessions, because he understood that the situation was so critical that otherwise this revolutionary wave would sweep away him, the dynasty, and the entire existing system. He created the Duma, but the elections were not universal: women, military personnel and youth under 25 could not participate in them. And according to the electoral law, 1 vote of the landowner was equated to 3 votes of the bourgeoisie, 15 votes of peasants and 45 votes of workers. The Duma was opposed by the State Council, which was the upper legislative chamber. Half of the members of the State Council were appointed by the tsar, and half were elected from among the large landowners, the bourgeoisie, the clergy, professors and academics. The Council hindered the legislative activity of the Duma. In addition, the Duma submits all bills to the emperor for signature, and he himself had enormous powers for a constitutional monarch: he led foreign policy, the army and navy, could create laws in between sessions of the Duma and dissolve it after a 5-year term of its activity.

The manifesto of October 17 did not immediately stop the revolutionary struggle - the country still had to go through the December armed uprising in Moscow, but the revolution had already begun to decline. This time, making concessions, the monarchy managed to survive, but the question is different: to what extent did the revolution of 1905 help the ruling elite realize the need for urgent transformations and reforms?

RESULTS OF THE REVOLUTION OF 1905

As mentioned above, the main prerequisites for the revolution of 1905 were three factors: the agrarian question, the contradictions between the developing capitalist productive forces and the remnants of feudal production relations, and the absence in the domestic political arena of a counterbalance to the proletariat, which was set up much more radically than the peasantry. Now let's see how the revolution solved the accumulated problems.

To destroy feudal remnants, it was necessary to solve both economic and political problems. The economic ones mainly consisted in eliminating the diversity in the economy, supporting the domestic industry by attracting investments, introducing new technologies into production so that Russian goods were competitive on the world market and the development of agriculture. All this could not be solved in a revolutionary way.

As for the political tasks, they boiled down to obtaining power by the bourgeoisie. But this was not achieved either. The Duma was created, but it did not give power to the bourgeoisie, because the true purpose of its convocation was not the creation of governing bodies of a legal society, but only the calming of the revolutionary movement. And a few months later the First State Duma ceased to exist.

In the agrarian question, things were a little better. Redemption payments were abolished, land rents were reduced, and the minimum wage for agricultural workers was raised. But the main questions remain unresolved. Most of the land fund was still in the hands of the feudal lords, and the peasants continued to live in the peasant community.

Without resolving the deep socio-economic contradictions, the government, in order to stabilize the situation, makes concessions to the workers and peasants. The working day was reduced to 8 hours, the minimum wage was raised, the right to create trade unions that defended the interests of the working class was given, strikes with economic demands were allowed, etc. But this was only a solution to superficial problems that did not affect deep socio-economic contradictions .

Thus, we can conclude that the revolution did not solve all the pressing problems, and the reforms that the tsarist government went for were rather carried out in order to calm the society and were not taken seriously. Three main contradictions remain in Russian society:

Moreover, if the first two were to a greater or lesser extent characteristic of a feudal society, then the latter - for a capitalist one. And for lack of political power, the bourgeoisie was the most dangerous, because the proletariat at that time was the most revolutionary-minded class.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA IN 1905-1909

The Revolution of 1905 and the Russo-Japanese War had an adverse effect on the country's economic sphere. In the fight against the revolution, the owners of enterprises often went to the curtailment of production and lockouts. It should be noted that during the war, on the one hand, military orders contributed to the development of industries related to the production of ammunition, but on the other hand, the constant costs of waging war led to a deterioration in the country's financial system and a state budget deficit.

As a result, after a brief revival of economic life in 1907, a new economic crisis began. In fact, since the crisis of 1900-1903. The Russian economy was in a state of stagnation. But new trends are already beginning to emerge in Russian industry. After the crisis of 1900-1903. Russian industry is becoming more receptive to technical innovations in production, for a more stable position in the market and better marketing of products, enterprises are beginning to unite into monopolies. The most common type of monopolistic association in Russia was syndicates - industrial enterprises that jointly sell products.

Thus, we conclude that the crises and social unrest in Russian society showed the industrialists the need for integration, which led to the creation of large industrial associations, as was the case at that time in the capitalist countries of Western Europe. But Russian monopolies differed from Western European ones. If the latter were created as a result of the complication and rise in the cost of production technologies after the II scientific and technological revolution, then the former, on the contrary, were distinguished by the use of a large number of workers due to the lack of advanced technologies in production and the cheapness of labor. But in order to enter the world market, domestic industry required the use of the latest production technologies, since only in this case Russian goods could be obtained relatively cheap, produced at the right speed and be competitive on the world market. Therefore, the main task in the industrial sector was the introduction of advanced technologies into production.

AGRARIAN REFORM STOLYPIN

The achieved level of economic development did not allow Russia to compete with advanced countries. Since 1905, agriculture has become a priority direction of the country's development. Russia still remained an agrarian country: in the total volume of production, agriculture occupied a dominant place, 3/4 of the population was employed in agricultural production. The share of the peasantry in the social structure of Russian society was 84%.

It is clear that in such a socio-economic situation, agriculture and its development played a huge role for the country. Consider the situation in the agrarian sector before Stolypin's reform.

By the beginning of the 20th century, landowners remained the largest owners of land. In the centralization of land in the ownership of individuals, Russia ranked first in the world. By 1905, 47% of marketable grain was produced on landowner farms, and the vast majority of them (80.6%) used hired labor, and the larger the farm, the greater the percentage of hired labor. Model farms arose with a large area of ​​land, organized in a capitalist way and specializing in the production of grain. But on the whole, large-scale landownership played an unfavorable role in the development of capitalism in agriculture, since the landowners received rents that amounted to 81% of the net income from one acre of land. Therefore, the majority of landowners did not seek to restructure their farms on a capitalist basis.

In the peasant environment, however, there was a process of stratification. There was a washout of the peasantry, from which, on the one hand, a rich stratum stood out, and on the other, a wider layer of poor peasants who left in search of work in the city or in the landowners' farms. Of the 137 million acres of land available for communal use, 64 million belonged to 2.1 million rich peasant households, and 73 million belonged to 10.5 poor. A rather strong restraining influence on the development of capitalism in agriculture was exerted by the peasant community, which, through the redistribution of land, helping the poor at the expense of the wealthy, restrained the process of separating the rich elite from the peasant mass. “Studies carried out even before the first Russian revolution and the Stolypin agrarian reform showed that Russia is undergoing a process of transition to private land use, resettlement on farms and cuts on the initiative of the peasants themselves, without any pressure from the government, and even vice versa, despite the obstacles." Here we are talking, of course, about prosperous peasants who, in an effort to overcome the restraining oppression of the community, sought to leave it and build their own independent economy.

But still, peasant agricultural production was also irrational. Peasant farms and even farms were far from the farms of Western Europe, which was primarily due to the small area of ​​land on average per capita. In 1905, the size of the per capita peasant allotment was 2.6 acres, and 53.5 million peasants had an allotment from 1 to 1.75 acres of land per capita. The shortage of land did not allow the majority of peasants to use the achievements of scientific and technological progress in their economy. Often the peasants had to rent land from the landowner.

From the foregoing, we can conclude that the country's agricultural sector did not meet the requirements for capitalist farms. The yields were low, especially on the farms of the bulk of the peasants (for example, the yield of wheat per tithe was 55 poods in Russia, 157 poods in Germany, and 168 poods in Belgium), and the growth of agricultural production was slow and extensive.

Stolypin's agrarian reform had 2 goals: economic and political. As has been repeatedly noted above, Russia at the time of the reform remained an agrarian country, therefore, the economic well-being of the state depended on the development of agriculture. Agriculture itself was subject to the general economic trends of the economic life of society, and its development was closely connected with the development of industry.

The economic aspects of the reform were based on the fact that without a solid agrarian foundation, Russian industry is doomed to a stunted existence. Stolypin understood the restraining influence of the community, that the preservation of this remnant of the primitive communal system would have a detrimental effect on the development of capitalism in agriculture, therefore, a stake is placed on the individual peasant owner. "Strong and strong" were to be freed from the care of the community and bypass the "wretched and drunk."

With the development of agriculture, the domestic market was to expand, after which an increase in production was to follow. In addition, the agrarian reform provided for the splash into the labor market of millions of former poor peasants who were not able to feed themselves through agriculture. Such a sharp increase in the labor market of cheap wage labor was also to lead to the development of industry.

Thus, the economic aspect of Stolypin's agrarian reform had as its task to promote the development of not only agriculture, but also industry.

Political tasks mainly boiled down to the fact that it was necessary to create a stable class of Russian society that would not be revolutionary active. And again, the bet is placed on the sole proprietor, who does not want to rise to the revolution. But at the same time, another political task provided for the preservation of landownership, because otherwise a blow would be dealt to the class of the nobility, which at that time was the backbone of the autocracy.

Summarizing the above, we can single out the main tasks of agrarian reform:

n destruction of the peasant community

n creating a class of smallholders

n while maintaining landownership

n raising the level of agricultural development

The solution of the above tasks was to lead both to the economic development of the country and to the creation of a stable domestic political base.

The beginning of the reform was laid by a decree of November 9, 1906, which, after discussion in the State Duma, the State Council and approval by the emperor on June 14, 1910, became law. In accordance with the law, “every householder who owns allotment land on a communal right may at any time demand that the portion of the land assigned to him be secured for his personal property.” The law was supplemented by a decree according to which all communities where there had been no redistribution over the past 24 years were considered to have switched to hereditary land use, and the peasants became the owners of the plots they had.

From 1905 to 1916 about 2.5 million households separated from the community, which accounted for 22% of all peasant households, which owned 14% of all communal land. Moreover, both wealthy peasants and poor peasants left the communities. The first - for obvious reasons, and the second were interested in securing landed property for them with a view to its further sale. In total, 60% of those who stood out (1.2 million) sold their plots. These peasants then went to the city and became the labor force, as expected. This process had a favorable effect on the development of industry in the state.

One of the problems that the reformers faced was that in Central Russia most of the land fund belonged to the landowners, so another component of the agrarian reform was the mass resettlement of peasants from the inner provinces beyond the Urals. This measure contributed to the development of new lands (more than 30 million acres), the development of capitalism, the construction of new villages and villages. In the period from 1905-1910. 3 million people moved, and the state provided the settlers with cash subsidies in the amount of 200 rubles. per family, and upon arrival, the latter received a plot at the rate of 15 hectares for the head of the family and 15 hectares for other members. True, due to difficulties in the new place, relatively high mortality on the way, ruin, etc., many peasants returned back. (See Appendix 1.1 for more details)

The instrument for implementing the Stolypin reform was the operation of buying and selling land carried out by the Peasants' Bank. This contributed to the redistribution of land from landowners (77.4%), merchants (14.2%), peasants who were breaking with agriculture and leaving for the city (1.7%) and other estates into the hands of the prosperous peasantry. As a result, by 1917 the landowners had only a little more than half of the land that belonged to them according to the regulations of 1861.

The Stolypin agrarian reform did not give the desired results: in 1915, farms accounted for only 10.3% of all peasant households. This testified that it was not possible to destroy the peasant community and create an estate of peasant farmers. But it is impossible to talk about its complete collapse. 30 million acres of new land were developed, sown areas increased by 10% in general, and in areas where peasants left the community the most - by 150%, grain exports increased by a third, the amount of fertilizers used doubled, and purchases increased almost 3.5 times. agricultural machines by peasants. Among the peasants, cooperation developed, but this was already a prototype of the capitalist association, since it had as its goal the joint management of the economy and profit. The poor peasants, who sold their land and went to the city, caused an increase in hired labor, which, in turn, led to an increase in the rate of industrial development. In general, the economic aspect of the reform produced relatively favorable results. In the words of Stolypin, "Give the state 20 years of inner and outer peace, and you will not recognize today's Russia." Too little time has passed for an objective analysis of the results of the reform, and this has led to relatively low quantitative indicators of the growth in the number of capitalist farms.

With political tasks, things were worse. The class of "strong individual owner" was not created. Most of the peasants continued to remain in the community, which they failed to destroy. For economic indicators, this was normal - the class of peasant owners was constantly replenished, and the poor went to work in the city, where they became workers, although this process was relatively slow. But from the point of view domestic policy, 10.3% of farms could not be a guarantor of the stability of society. In addition, the main issue was not resolved - the peasants were still striving to get the landlords' land - the contradictions between the peasants and the landowners remained.

Thus, we conclude that Stolypin's agrarian reform

n partially resolved the contradictions between developing capitalism in agriculture and the peasant community

n contributed to the use of agricultural technology and mineral fertilizers, which was the reason for the increase in yields

n caused an increase in the number of hired labor, which gave an increase in the pace of industrial development and generally had a rather favorable effect on the country's economy

n did not resolve the contradictions between the greater mass of the peasantry and the landowners

And if in the economic aspect things were relatively favorable, then in the socio-political situation remained tense.

THE LAST SEVEN YEARS OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA IN 1909-1913

In 1909, after almost 10 years of stagnation, a new industrial boom began, which continued until the outbreak of the First World War. During this period, industrial production increased by 1.5 times. The economic upsurge was characteristic of all branches of industry.

A number of objective factors contributed to this process. During the revolution of 1905, the workers achieved a 15% increase in wages, the peasants - the abolition of redemption payments, which led to an increase in the purchasing power of the population. In addition, the development of the domestic market (trade turnover increased by 1.5 times) also had a favorable impact on the economy in general and industry in particular.

Stolypin's agrarian reform was, perhaps, one of the most important prerequisites for this rise. The general development of agriculture led to an increase in the export of grain to the foreign market, where the price of bread increased by 35%, which caused an influx of money from abroad to Russia. No less important was the migration of the population from the countryside to the city, which led to an increase in the number of workers, and, consequently, the development of industry.

But let's see what causes of the industrial rise were singled out by contemporaries. “The country is currently going through a transitional state . In agriculture, in the very system of land use, a huge revolution has begun(italics mine), the results of which are still only outlined, but cannot be counted. In industry, after a number of years of crisis and stagnation, a strong upsurge and revival began. But at the same time it turned out that this rise was insufficient, that demand for industrial products in a number of industries is growing faster than supply(emphasis mine), and, dissatisfied with domestic production, is covered by foreign imports” and further “The present economic situation can be characterized as follows. After almost a decade of stagnation, or, in any case, the weak development of industry and trade, Russia in 1910-1911. quickly entered a period of economic growth as under the influence of a favorable harvest two years in a row(emphasis mine), and as a result of the huge government appropriations(italics mine) for the fleet, for military needs, for port building, for the locking of some rivers, the construction of elevators and for strengthening railway construction; at the same time, there was an increase in construction in cities, an increase in mechanical engineering, etc. .

As you can see, almost all the factors that we have indicated above are reflected in this document. But it is interesting to note one more fact - "government appropriations". The fact is that, recalling the beginning of the development of capitalist production in such countries as Germany, France, England, we will stumble upon large state orders from the bourgeoisie, which had a particularly favorable effect on the development of heavy industry. It is precisely as large industrial orders from the bourgeoisie, which contributed to the development of production, that these "appropriations" must be regarded.

Thus, it is possible to single out four objective factors that contributed to the development of industry in 1909-1913.

n development of the domestic market

n growth in demand for industrial products, both due to the expansion of the domestic market and thanks to large industrial orders from the government.

n increase in grain imports

Growth rates in a number of industries were noticeably higher than during the boom years of the 1990s. In 1909, the total increase in industrial output was 2.9%, and the very next year it was 17.6%. Especially the growth of industrial output during this period was noticeable in the sectors producing the means of production (85.6%) than consumer goods (40.8%). The enterprises of the South of Russia, a new industrial region, overcame the crisis faster, which was due to their equipment with modern technology (the power-to-weight ratio is 3.3 times higher than the average), and, consequently, cheaper production. State orders contributed to the development of the military industry.

For a more detailed look at growth dynamics industrial production in the period under review, let's turn to the tables given in Appendix Part 1.2, which shows the indicators for the most important industries for 1909-1913. As seen, special success reached the ferrous metallurgy and mechanical engineering, which was due to the rapid pace of industrialization of the country. Less impressive were the indicators of the coal industry - over the years of growth, production increased by only 38%.

As noted above, light industry developed at a slower pace than heavy industry, so the country's industrial sector acquired a somewhat "heavy" character. In light industry, the leading position was occupied by the textile and food industries. The cost of food industry products in 1913 amounted to 1861 million rubles, and textile - 1855 million rubles.

It can be concluded that the growth rate of industrial development in Russia during the years of economic growth in 1909-1913. were very high (the highest in the world).

But along with this, there were also shortcomings in the economic development of Russia, the main of which were the uneven distribution of industrial enterprises across the country and the underdevelopment of communication systems between different regions of the state. As for the first problem, it is possible to single out 6 areas of concentration of large-scale industry: Central Industrial, North-Western, Baltic, South Polish and Ural. 79% of all factory workers were concentrated here. In Siberia, there was a very low level of development of industrial production, which was the reason that the vast territories were not involved in industrial production, which created an imbalance in development. European Russia and eastern part of the Russian Empire.

Another problem - the lack of means of communication, often led to the difficulty of transporting goods from one part of the state to another, and sometimes even impossible. But during the years of industrial upsurge, railway construction was actively carried out. In 1911-1913. 3.5 thousand miles of roads were built. An important role was also played by river transport, numbering about 31,000 ships.

Having survived 2 economic crises, Russian industry began to gravitate towards the centralization of production. Monopolies occupy an ever greater proportion in the industrial sphere, and in Russia more than in other capitalist countries (if in the USA enterprises with more than 500 workers employed 33% of workers, in Russia - 54%). This was due primarily to both global trends and the peculiarities of the Russian economy, which was characterized by instability, and large associations were more likely to stay afloat during the next crisis. The process of merging financial capital with industrial capital and the formation of financial and industrial groups begins. The result of this process was the formation of a financial oligarchy.

With the beginning of the economic recovery, foreign capital again poured into Russia, but due to the appearance of Russian investors, its share in the total amount of fixed capital decreased.

The economic boom of 1909-1913 is the most favorable period in the entire economic history of Russia. In terms of growth rates, the country comes out on top in the world. Internal economic processes, such as the formation of monopolies, the merger of financial and industrial capital, etc., are identical to world economic processes; it can be said that the most favorable trends over the past few centuries have begun to be seen in the economic sphere of the state.

However, the country still lags behind in quantitative terms. In terms of industrial production, Russia ranks 4th in Europe and 5th in the world. In 1913, Russia produced 14.5 times less than in the USA, 5.9 times less than in Germany and 4.5 times less than in England, and per capita figures are even lower: 21 4 times less than the USA, 14 times less than England, 13 times less than Germany. This state of affairs is explained by the fact that Russia began its rapid economic development much later than the above countries. But judging by the growth rates - Russian empire had great prospects for reaching the world championship. It must be remembered that in Russia there were no bourgeois revolutions, after which the rapid development of industry begins, so the latter here proceeded progressively and required a fairly large amount of time. Let us recall the words of Stolypin: "Give the state 20 years of inner and outer peace, and you will not recognize today's Russia." The French economist Edmond Thery commented on the current and future situation in Russia: “None of the European nations has such results ... by the middle of the century(italics mine) Russia will dominate Europe.” Yes, Russia's economic prospects were enormous. But things were not so well in the social sphere.

SOCIO-POLITICAL SITUATION IN RUSSIA IN THE PERIOD OF THE INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY 1909-1913

As we could see above, in the economic sphere Russia has made a number of important achievements and embarked on the path of development of capitalist production. But a number of profound contradictions have matured in the social sphere of Russian society. Most of them remained after the revolution of 1905: the contradictions between capitalist production and the remnants of feudalism, such as absolute monarchy (the State Duma was rather more formal than taking any real part in the government), the lack of power among the bourgeoisie, etc. .; contradictions between the peasantry and the landowners, based on the question of land ownership; socio-economic conflict, which is already inherent in capitalist society, between the industrial proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

But it is important to note that the proletariat in the domestic political arena is becoming more and more dangerous, because it is the most revolutionary and active class of Russian society, which is understandable - the peasants who could not find a place in the countryside and moved to the city became workers. Already in themselves they were embittered, and the poor living conditions of the working class led to an even greater aggravation of the situation.

The above created objective preconditions for social upheavals.

Consider now the position of the government. Any power must have a class in society, which will be its support and whose interests it will represent. Tsarist power could rely on two classes: the bourgeoisie and the nobility. But the first was not satisfied with the existing political structure - an absolute monarchy, which did not give her the opportunity to participate in the government of the country, so the Russian bourgeoisie could not be the basis of such power. And so, there remains the nobility, which indeed has always been the support of the monarchy all over the world. But the Russian nobility as a class has exhausted itself and has already begun to decay. The landowning, which served as a reliable support of the Romanov empire for 300 years, had weakened by the 20th century and could no longer be a guarantor of stability. The line between the nobility and the bourgeoisie is becoming more and more blurred - on their estates, some landowners organize their economy in a capitalist way. From the foregoing, we conclude that the nobility could not serve as a reliable support for the government.

Thus, we have: on the one hand, deep socio-economic conflicts in Russian society, which created the danger of social upheavals, and on the other, the precarious position of the government. The perfect time to start a revolution. All that was needed was a pretext for public discontent - and it itself would develop into a revolution.

The unwillingness of the government to understand the danger of the situation, the need for changes and fundamental changes in the social sphere of society - all this only aggravated the situation, and against the background of the rapid economic development of 1909-1913, serious social upheavals were brewing.

WORLD WAR I

By the beginning of the 20th century, changes had taken place in the alignment of world forces, connected, first of all, with the advancement of “new” capitalist countries, such as Germany, the USA, Japan. But if the US had enough territory, mineral resources and markets for their products, Germany and Japan needed more territories. Therefore, their policy was aggressive and predatory in nature. Germany sought to seize the colonies, which would be both raw material bases and sales markets, as well as some territories in Europe. The ultimate goal of Germany was to become the most powerful power at least in Europe. But here its interests collide with the interests of England and France, which were the countries of the "old" capitalism. The inevitability of the largest military conflict in Europe is becoming increasingly clear.

Russia, due to its great weight in the world political arena, could not stay away from the impending war, although the latter was not only not needed for its further development, but, as we saw above, it was dangerous. In addition, weapons that did not meet modern requirements, a lack of ammunition and weapons, and poor training of senior officers left little chance for a successful campaign.

But still, bound by treaties with England and France, Russia entered the war.

The conduct of the war required great strain on the economies of the warring countries. The Russian economy, with its many feudal vestiges, found itself in a particularly difficult situation. Although, thanks to the industrial boom of 1909-1913, rather favorable trends began to be observed in the economic sphere of the state, Russia still could not catch up with such capitalist developed countries as Germany, France and England in its development.

Stocks of shells were used up in the first four months of the war, and the lack of weapons had a detrimental effect on the combat capability of the army. In 1914, the government increases state military orders for the production of weapons by large private enterprises. In total for 1914-1917. 11.7 thousand barrels of all guns, 3.3 million rifles, 65 million shells were produced. But such a mass production of weapons for the front led to the curtailment of the production of peaceful products. About 80% of textile industry products were sent to the front. By the end of 1916, 4,500 enterprises were producing military products, employing 2.2 million workers, and 3,800 enterprises employing 1.6 million workers. But still, the shortage of weapons at the front remained acute, which forced the government to turn to orders Abroad. On average, a war day cost 50 million rubles.

A number of branches of industry already at the beginning of the war began to experience a decline. Agriculture was upset, which was caused by the mass conscription of the most able-bodied workers into the army. The sown area decreased by 10 million acres. The grain harvest fell from 2.8 billion poods in 1913 to 2.2 billion poods in 1916-1917. There were also problems with transport, which was unable to meet the needs of the front and rear.

The fragile developing Russian economy could not withstand the test of the war and fell into disarray, which aggravated the supply of goods to the rear - during the First World War, Russia first learned what queues were.

Meanwhile, the situation in the social sphere of society is aggravated. After some initial internal unity in the public life of the country, caused by patriotic enthusiasm and the first successful months of the war for Russia, a rise in public discontent began, which was due to several factors.

As noted above, the presence in Russian society of numerous social contradictions and conflicts could, under certain circumstances, cause a revolutionary movement. One such circumstance was the war.

The lack of goods in the rear, the famine had a particularly hard effect on Russian society, accustomed to abundance, which also gave rise to discontent.

Again, the agrarian question arose especially sharply. The soldiers, who were recruited from among the peasantry, had no incentive to fight because they had no land to go to defend. And constantly receiving letters from home about the plight of families led to desertion, which corrupted the army from the inside.

And, finally, constant failures at the front led to a fall in the authority of the authorities. There were rumors of treason in the upper circles throughout the country. And when Miliukov, in his famous speech, trying to prove the mediocrity of the command staff, says: “The name of the Empress is increasingly repeated with the names of the adventurers surrounding her ... What is this - stupidity or treason?”, The country will be convinced - “Treason!” Although there was no actual betrayal and could not be, the authority of the authorities was ruined in the eyes of public opinion.

Summarizing the above, we can conclude that the situation in Russian society at that time was almost identical to the situation on the eve of the 1905 revolution. The same socio-economic contradictions, the unsuccessful conduct of the war, the fall in the authority of the authorities in the eyes of public opinion. The position of autocratic power was so precarious that it is hardly possible to name any peaceful measures that could quickly stabilize the situation, since autocracy itself was in the eyes of the majority of society some kind of evil, the destruction of which is possible only by revolutionary means.

If we talk about the impact of the First World War on the domestic political life of Russia, then it was a kind of catalyst for radical revolutionary processes in society, and, one might say, was one of the main causes of the February Revolution of 1917.

THE FEBRUARY REVOLUTION OF 1917

At the beginning of 1917, no one doubted the beginning of the coming revolution. The autocracy in general, and the Romanovs in particular, were so unpopular in society that everyone understood that the days of the monarchy were numbered. The Minister of Internal Affairs Protopopov receives reports with more and more disturbing news:

January 9: "The anxious mood of the revolutionary underground and the general propaganda of the proletariat."

January 28: "Events of extreme importance, fraught with exceptional consequences for Russian statehood, are not far off."

February 5: "Bitterness is growing ... Spontaneous actions of the masses will be the first and last stage on the way to the beginning of the senseless and merciless excesses of the most terrible of all anarchist revolutions."

But the government is not taking any serious action to stabilize the situation, but is looking at what is happening with a surprisingly strange calmness. The immediate reason for the indignation of the people of Petrograd was the sharp deterioration in the supply of food to the capital. The situation was so critical that any careless step by the government could cause a social explosion. Mass riots began with the dismissal of several workers who went on strike at the Putilov factory. And the riots that began at the end of February turned into a revolution. On February 25, 80% of the workers went on strike, and on February 27, the soldiers of the regiments stationed in the capital began to go over to the side of the rebels. On February 28, the commander of the Petrograd Military District, General S. S. Khabalov, ordered the last defenders of the old system, in view of the fact that the situation could no longer be stabilized in any way, to lay down their arms.

The situation is even more critical than in 1905: the army at the front, and even that one is weakened, decomposed from within and cannot be a defense of autocratic power. The tsar is no longer in Petrograd, and it is no longer possible to improve the situation in the rebellious city. Meanwhile, the revolution had taken on such a scale that it was unlikely that any peaceful settlement measures could solve the situation.

At this time, the imperial train was on sidings at Dno station. The emperor was told that it was necessary to sign the abdication, and on March 2, 1917, Nicholas II decides to "abdicate the Throne of the Russian State and lay down the supreme power." The 300-year-old Romanov empire ceased to exist.

FROM FEBRUARY TO OCTOBER

Nicholas II abdicated in favor of his brother Mikhail, but the mood of the masses, clearly directed against the Romanovs, proved the impossibility of Mikhail's accession to the throne. And, obeying common sense, he also abdicates the throne. There was no leader in the country who would become the representative of the new unified power, because there was no single power as such - there was a state called dual power. Power was essentially distributed between the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies and the Provisional Government. From the very beginning, the Petrograd Soviet had real power, because the army was on its side. The provisional government, although it was created, was not as influential as the Soviet.

The Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies was dominated by moderate socialists who were unanimous in their assessment of what was happening: "This is a bourgeois revolution in the classical sense of this concept ...". It is precisely as a result of the confidence that the February Revolution was bourgeois that the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries partially hand over power to the bourgeoisie by creating a Provisional Government, although the Petrograd Soviet remains the most powerful organ of power. But it should be noted that there was a huge difference between the bourgeois revolutions taking place in the countries of Western Europe and the February Revolution of 1917.

During the bourgeois revolutions in England and France in the XVII - XVIII centuries. the bourgeoisie, especially the townspeople-proprietors, represented a fairly large class and herself participated in the revolution, after which she received power. In the 19th century, the big industrial bourgeoisie found reliable support in numerous small owners both in the countryside and in the city. For these owners, the further continuation of the revolution was unprofitable, since they were interested in the development of capitalist production and the preservation of their property. Therefore, they were the guarantor of the stabilization of the situation after the accomplishment of the bourgeois revolution and did not allow the further continuation of radical revolutionary actions. But things were quite different in Russia.

In Russia, it has historically developed that the predominant form of ownership was large-scale property. But the class of large proprietors cannot be numerous and constitutes a small proportion of the total population. And the class of small proprietors was not numerous and could not represent a real force, and, moreover, a support of the bourgeoisie. This was the weak point of the social structure of Russian society.

At first, the policy of the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies was relatively popular, since it met the interests of the majority of the country's population. But later, when it became clear that the government was not going to end the war, and the land question was being postponed until the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, discontent again began to brew in society.

In April 1917 Lenin returned to Russia from Switzerland via Germany together with 300 Bolshevik emigrants. Having already despaired of surviving before the revolution, he, seeing the internal political situation of the country after February 1917, understands: now or never. And he rushes to Russia to fulfill the old dream of the Marxist-Communists.

Lenin outlined the political tasks of the Bolsheviks in the April Theses. Their essence was as follows: the destruction of the Provisional Government, the transfer of all power into the hands of the Soviets and their Bolshevization. In general, having completed these tasks, the Bolsheviks were supposed to come to power. True, Lenin understood that in order to achieve these goals, he would need real strength, that the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, who had power in the Petrograd Soviet, and the bourgeoisie, represented by the Provisional Government, would not give up power to the Bolsheviks just like that. The Bolsheviks needed strong social support, based on which they could come to power. “In fact, the Bolsheviks did not have, and could not have had, in March 1917, a ready political army. The Bolsheviks only created such an army (and finally created it by October 1917).

But Lenin immediately saw the weaknesses of the Russian social situation - he realized that the class of the big industrial bourgeoisie did not have a sufficiently reliable support, and the poor were ready to take any radical action to improve their financial situation. It is on the poor that Lenin makes his bet.

Meanwhile, the division of society deepened. The bourgeoisie strove to continue the war, proceeding from the fact that Germany's position was critical and she would not be able to hold out for a long time. And on April 18, P. N. Milyukov, Minister of Foreign Affairs, declares to foreign allies that Russia is not going to withdraw from the war, and on June 18, Russian troops began active operations on the Southwestern Front. Later, separate units of the Northern Western and Romanian fronts joined them. But soon the offensive faltered, and the army, with heavy losses, was forced to retreat, yielding territories held back until the June offensive.

The poor peasants, and especially the soldiers, were against the continuation of the war and wanted an early conclusion of peace. And the unsuccessful June operation further increased the bitterness in the poor sections of society. The Bolsheviks understood that the continuation of this line by the existing government would only lead to an aggravation of the situation. Therefore, they wait until the discontent of the people reaches the point where they can be roused to revolution.

A dangerous signal for the existing government was the speeches on July 2-4 in Petrograd with the political slogans "All power to the Soviets!". State debts, the general economic crisis, the war, the constant rise in prices, etc., led to the result expected by the Bolsheviks. By autumn, the poor were ready for radical action. “The October Revolution ... had the undoubted support of the peasant the poor(italics mine) and most of the soldiers who were hungry for peace and land." Here it is - an echo of the unresolved political task of Stolypin's reform! Lenin correctly calculated - it was the "peasant poor" who supported the Bolsheviks. The poor peasants supported them because they promised land, that is, what the former had unsuccessfully sought to obtain since the peasant reform of 1861. in many ways was the reason that the big industrial bourgeoisie could not stay in power. It was the peasant proprietors who could play for the bourgeoisie the role of that necessary social basis, which would be the basis for building a liberal-bourgeois state. The absence of the former led to the precarious position of the big industrial bourgeoisie.

As a result, the Bolsheviks carried out the October Revolution of 1917 with relative ease. Having, on the one hand, dissatisfaction with the domestic and foreign policy being pursued among the masses, and on the other, a weak class of the industrial bourgeoisie that did not have social support, it was not difficult to overthrow the Provisional Government.

Having come to power, the Bolsheviks immediately understood the main mistake of the Provisional Government - its excessive liberalism in the conditions of anarchy. Knowing in detail the events of the European revolutions, they know that the destruction of anarchy in the country and the real seizure of power is possible only by force. Therefore, in their policy, the Bolsheviks will rely only on brute force and fear, which, perhaps, was the main reason that they stayed in power.

SUMMING UP

In order to better understand what happened in October 1917 and what caused it, one must first consider impartially the objective causes of the October Revolution of 1917, and only then make any generalizations. The most important prerequisites that caused the revolution were considered above. Now, in order to draw up a general picture, it is necessary to trace the causal relationship between them.

As a result of favorable circumstances, at the end of the 19th century, capitalist production began to develop in Russia. The low-income serf production, which prevailed until the middle of the century, began to be replaced by industrial production. The heavy industry, including metallurgical and mining, received a particularly noticeable development.

But along with the favorable and fairly rapid development of the country's economic sphere, especially its industrial sector, a huge number of various remnants of feudalism remain in the state, which both hinder the faster development of industry and create numerous contradictions in the social sphere. The main and most detrimental effects on the pace of Russia's development were:

n the preservation of large landownership, which prevented the creation and development of farms, and also created contradictions between the landlords and the peasantry

n the existence of a rural community, which, artificially equalizing the peasants, helping the poor at the expense of the rich, etc., prevented the strongest and most able-bodied peasant families from being singled out from the general peasant mass

n autocracy and the absence of representative government prevented the bourgeoisie from coming to power, which created contradictions between existing form of government(and not a monarchy at all ) and the big industrial bourgeoisie

n the obligation of peasants to pay redemption payments, which led to the impoverishment of most of the population and the narrowing of the domestic market. In addition, redemption payments caused discontent among the peasantry.

n the industrial boom caused the desire of the bourgeoisie to expand production, and, in the absence of the most modern technologies, this process was achieved by hiring more cheap labor. Low-paid work aroused the discontent of the workers and led to sharp conflicts between them and the bourgeoisie.

These five factors were the most serious ulcers of Russian society, hindering its socio-economic progress. Their resolution was one of the most urgent tasks that needed to be resolved as soon as possible, since the existence of these contradictions could lead to a split in Russian society and a social explosion.

But the government was inert and did not want to understand the need for change. Therefore, it was not going to take any action that could defuse the situation. On the contrary, the tsarist government continues to seek support from the already decaying nobility, which by this time had lost its power in the domestic political arena and could not be a guarantor of the stability of society.

The unresolved problems described above were a prerequisite for the revolution of 1905. The catalyst for the beginning of discontent in society and its further development into radical actions was the unsuccessful Russo-Japanese War. It was possible to stop the revolution only by making concessions, namely: by creating the State Duma and satisfying some of the demands of the workers and peasants. But the revolution destroyed for the most part only the consequences, and not the root causes of social contradictions. The main contradictions in the socio-economic sphere remained unresolved:

n between peasantry and landowners

n between developing capitalism and existing feudal remnants

n between the industrial proletariat and the bourgeoisie

n between rich peasants and the poor supported by the community.

The revolution of 1905 showed how precarious the position of power was and that it is necessary to take measures that will not only resolve the social contradictions and conflicts described above, but will also be able to somehow strengthen the position of the government. The establishment of the State Duma by the Manifesto on October 17 could not be such a decision, especially since the emperor was not going to create a Duma to lay the foundation of a legal society and limit his power, but saw this only as a measure to resolve the situation. At the first opportunity, he will dissolve the First State Duma without making Russian society legal.

But attempts to strengthen the social position of the authorities were still made. Stolypin's agrarian reform, which had both economic and political underpinnings, was the most thoughtful and real move that could not only strengthen the position of power, but also create objective prerequisites for the further progressive development of the country.

The economic tasks boiled down to the fact that it was necessary to raise the level of development of agriculture, to promote the development of capitalism in the agricultural sector and to single out the most powerful and enterprising peasants. With the beginning of progress in agriculture, development in the industrial sector should have begun, since favorable trends in the countryside will immediately and directly affect the development of industry.

The main political task was to create a class of small owners who would be inert and would not take radical actions, were solved by partially destroying the peasant community and resettling the peasants beyond the Urals.

In general, Stolypin's agrarian reform had a favorable impact on the development of the country's economy, although too little time had passed for it to have any tangible quantitative indicators. Therefore, her main achievements were:

n The increase in agricultural production caused an increase in exports, which led to the inflow of funds from abroad into the country.

n the domestic market was expanded by increasing the purchasing power of the population

n peasants who did not find a place for themselves in the village could separate from the community, sell their land and go to work in the city (60% of those who separated from the community sold the land). This led to an increase in the number of hired labor

n tangible progress has been made in the development of agriculture. The use of machinery and mineral fertilizers in private farms has become widespread, which has significantly increased productivity.

The above achievements were the objective reasons for the beginning of the industrial boom of 1909-1913. It can be said with full confidence that Stolypin's agrarian reform justified itself from an economic point of view.

As for the political aspect, where it was required to create a support class for the government as soon as possible, the situation here was worse. A large estate of peasant proprietors was not created (farmers accounted for only 10.3% of all peasant households), which was due to the short time period that had passed since the beginning of the reform. And the process of formation of owners is quite lengthy. And if from an economic point of view, the progressive development that had begun was a good sign, then it did not satisfy political needs. The necessary inert class, due to the dangerous internal political situation, could not be created for a long time. Therefore, the political task of agrarian reform was not solved.

Since 1909, after a rather long stagnation in economic life, which lasted 9 years, the Russian economy again experienced a revival associated with the beginning of an industrial boom that lasted until the outbreak of the First World War. In many respects, the industrial boom was due to the favorable impact on the country's economy of Stolypin's agrarian reform. There are four main factors that were its objective prerequisites:

n growing demand for industrial products

n development of the domestic market

n increase in grain imports

n urban population growth and overall population growth

It should be noted that the pace of development of the state's economy during this period was the highest in the world. Increasingly, equipment is being used in production; railways, enterprises are growing, etc. The industrial boom of 1909-1913. proved that in the economic sphere, Russia has finally embarked on the path of development of capitalism.

But against the backdrop of a favorable economic situation, deep conflicts continue to brew in the social sphere of society. The revolution of 1905 did not solve most of them, destroying only their visible consequences. Just as acute is the question of power, which the bourgeoisie did not receive with the creation of the Duma. Despite the relatively favorable results of the Stolypin reform, the issue of land remains an urgent problem, especially in Central Russia, etc. But, obscured by rapid development, these contradictions are not yet so noticeable.

The existing power did not have a reliable support in society. The class of landowners, which for 300 years served as a kind of core in Russian society and on which the autocracy rested, gradually left the domestic political arena, partly turning into a large rural bourgeoisie, partly decaying. A new class is emerging - the big bourgeoisie, striving for power and not supporting the autocracy. Although there was no autocracy officially since 1905, power was still concentrated in the hands of the emperor and his entourage, which did not suit the bourgeoisie, who wanted to have a “ministry responsible to the Duma”, that is, something like a parliamentary monarchy in England.

But the emperor could not understand the changes that had taken place in society. He still believes that autocratic power is the only possible one in Russia. Therefore, Nicholas II not only does not go for liberal reforms, but also prevents them in every possible way. As a result, a dangerous conflict was brewing in society - the authorities and the people did not understand each other.

Starting in August 1914, the First World War played the role of a catalyst for the start of a radical movement. The initial unity in all sectors of society, caused by a patriotic upsurge, was soon replaced by deep disappointment with the course of hostilities. The war found Russia unprepared. Despite the industrial boom and high growth rates, the Russian Empire did not have time to catch up with the advanced countries of Europe in terms of its economic development. The lack of armaments, the means of communication, which were not capable of adequately supplying either the front or the rear, etc., were primarily the result of precisely the still weak development of the economy. And although the output of military products grew rapidly during the war years, this was not enough. The Russian army suffered defeat.

The increase in the output of military products occurred to the detriment of civilian production, and the constant recruitment of soldiers into the army had a detrimental effect on the development of agriculture. In addition, problems with transport caused the difficulty of transporting manufactured products. In connection with these problems, hunger and a shortage of civilian products began in the country, which led to an aggravation of the social split. By 1917, discontent had reached its climax. Widespread conspiracies, secret societies, etc. testified to the imminent beginning of social upheavals. In February 1917, a strike that began at the Putilov factory grew into a revolution. The monarchy was overthrown.

For a short time the bourgeoisie came to power. But she did not have a social base on which her power could be based, therefore, having held power for a little more than six months, she loses it. The Bolsheviks who came to power immediately realized that it was possible to keep it and suppress the anarchy that reigned in the country only by force. And from the first steps, they forcefully suppress any discontent and speeches, which was the reason that they stayed in power.

Summing up, we can conclude that the October Revolution of 1917 was not the result of a momentary dissatisfaction of society with the government, but was caused by deep socio-economic contradictions. The main conflict in Russian society was between the big industrial bourgeoisie, striving for power, and the existing state system, under which they could not get this power. It followed from this that the bourgeoisie did not support the government, but was interested in changing the socio-political structure. The nobility was weakened and could not be a reliable support for the government. Therefore, in Russian society at the beginning of the 20th century there was no class that could be a guarantor of relative stability, and it was not possible to create one. Meanwhile, the rapid economic development that began in 1909 and was the most promising option for Russia to enter the leading powers of the world could continue only in conditions of stability.

But the accumulated social contradictions created objective prerequisites for social upheavals that could begin under certain circumstances. Therefore, the First World War, putting the country in the face of famine and causing discontent in all sectors of society, made the danger of a revolution real. But the government did nothing to defuse the situation. A ministry responsible to the Duma was not created, the question of land was not resolved, that is, the main requirements imposed by the society on power were not met. And the accumulated irritation, dissatisfaction with the policy pursued and the defeats at the front resulted in the February Revolution of 1917. For a short time the bourgeoisie came to power. But the society was too revolutionized, anarchy reigned in the country and the new government could not take control of the situation. In reality, the Provisional Government did not enjoy the support of the majority of society, which was represented by the peasant poor and the proletariat and was interested in the redistribution of property. This created the possibility of a new proletarian revolution that brought the Bolsheviks to power.

APPENDIX

1. STOLYPIN'S AGRARIAN REFORM

Settlers

Installed

% of the number of resettled

returned

% of the number of resettled

Left unsettled