By Nick D.

On 9 January 1905, Georgy Gapon, a Russian Orthodox priest, led a procession of demonstrators to the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg. They sought to present a petition to Tsar Nicholas II calling for the introduction of the eight-hour day, political freedoms and other reforms.

Outside the palace, police opened fire on the crowd. Up to one thousand demonstrators were murdered while many more were wounded. This event, commonly known as the Bloody Sunday massacre, sparked mass discontent throughout the Russian Empire. In his Lecture on the 1905 Revolution, Vladimir Lenin provides the following statistics about this first month:

“The average annual number of strikers in Russia during the ten years preceding the revolution was 43,000, which means 430,000 for the decade. In January 1905, the first month of the revolution, the number of strikers was 440,000. In other words, there were more strikers in one month than in the whole of the preceding decade!”

The number of people involved in political strikes alone increased from 123,000 in January, to 330,000 in October and finally to 370,000 in December. Workers Councils (Soviets) were established in industrial centres across Russia, the most important being the Petersburg Soviet of Workers Deputies formed in October. At its height, the Petersburg Soviet had 550 delegates, representing 250,000 workers.

 National liberation struggles also broke out against the Tsarist regime. In Poland, students burned Russian books and pictures of the Tsar while the Union of the Muslims of Russia was established in St. Petersburg. Crucially, the 1905 revolutionary upsurge saw the political awakening of the peasantry and revolt in the armed forces. Lenin recalls:

“The beginning of 1905 brought the first great wave of strikes that swept the entire country. As early as the spring of that year we see the rise of the first big, not only economic, but also political peasant movement in Russia…

The peasants would gather in groups to discuss their conditions, and gradually they were drawn into the struggle. Large crowds attacked the big estates, set fire to the manor-houses and appropriated supplies, seized grain and other foodstuffs, killed policemen and demanded transfer to the people of the huge estates…

The combination of the proletarian mass strikes in the cities with the peasant movement in the rural areas was sufficient to shake the “firmest” and last prop of tsarism. I refer to the army. There began a series of mutinies in the navy and the army. During the revolution, every fresh wave of strikes and of the peasant movement was accompanied by mutinies in all parts of Russia. The most well-known of these is the mutiny on the Black Sea cruiser Prince Potemkin, which was seized by the mutineers and took part in the revolution in Odessa.”

Under immense pressure, the Tsar agreed to a number of reforms such as lifting bans on political parties and promised a new constitution. The First Duma – at first a kind of advisory body – was permitted in August and later revised to include some limited legislative powers. Its opening session took place in April 1906.

In December 1905, an armed uprising began in Moscow which held out for nine days before being crushed by Tsarist authorities. In June 1907, the Second Duma – in which the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) held 65 seats – was dissolved. This was spearheaded by a coup d’état by Prime Minister Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin.

Under Stolypin, Russia entered a period of extreme reaction and repression. RSDLP parliamentary deputies were arrested and sentenced to hard labour in the Schlusselburg Prison in Siberia, newspapers were banned, and the Party entered a period of illegality. In his History of the Bolshevik Party, Grigory Zinoviev described the years 1907-1909 as “the days of hopeless breakdown, demoralisation and decline”.

Menshevik Tactics in 1905

In 1905, both wings of the RSDLP – which was divided into the Mensheviks (minority) and Bolsheviks (majority) after its Second Congress in 1903 – agreed on the main task of the revolution in Russia: overthrow the Tsarist autocracy.

The Mensheviks, however, argued that the Russian proletariat was too weak to play an independent role in the revolution. In backwards Russia, they argued, there needed to first be a sustained period of capitalist development which would increase the size and strength of the proletariat. This would open the possibility – many years in the future – of socialist revolution in Russia.

Given the relative weakness of the proletariat, Menshevik leaders like Georgi Plekhanov, Alexander Martynov and Julius Martov asserted that the revolution should be led by the anti-Tsarist liberal-bourgeois opposition. The Menshevik newspaper, Iskra, wrote in 1905:

“When looking at the arena of struggle in Russia, what do we see? Only two powers: Tsarist autocracy and the liberal bourgeoisie, the latter organised and of tremendous specific weight. The working masses are split and can do nothing; as an independent force we do not exist; and therefore our task consists in the support of the second force – the liberal bourgeoisie; we must encourage it, and on no account frighten it by putting forward the independent demands of the proletariat” (Quoted in G. Zinoviev, History of the Bolshevik Party: A Popular Outline).

According to this view, the proletariat movement needed to push the Russian bourgeoisie to support reforms that favoured the working class, such as the eight-hour day, but must submit to its leadership and do nothing to frighten it – i.e., anything that strengthens the workers. This was emphasised by Martynov in his 1905 pamphlet Two Dictatorships:

“…the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, by simply frightening the majority of the bourgeois elements, can have but one result—the restoration of absolutism in its original form … The struggle to influence the course and outcome of the bourgeois revolution can find expression only in the exertion of revolutionary pressure by the proletariat on the will of the liberal and radical bourgeoisie, and in the compulsion on the part of the more democratic ’lower strata’ of society to bring the ’upper strata’ into agreement to carry through the bourgeois revolution to its logical conclusion.” (Quoted in V.I. Lenin, Social Democracy and the Provisional Revolutionary Government).

The Mensheviks vehemently opposed attempts to seize power and argued that socialists should focus on organising workers in economic struggles while leaving political struggle to the liberal bourgeoisie. At a Menshevik conference held in 1905, a resolution was passed:

“Only in one event should Social-Democracy, on its own initiative, direct its efforts towards seizing power and holding it as long as possible—namely, in the event of the revolution spreading to the advanced countries of Western Europe, where conditions for the achievement of Socialism have already reached a certain degree of maturity.” (Quoted in V.I. Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution).

The ‘revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ 

For the Bolsheviks, the central task of the working class in 1905 was to carry out a bourgeois-democratic revolution against the Tsarist autocracy. In other words, the proletariat should lead a popular revolution to eliminate feudalism and tsarism, but one which does not immediately “destroy the foundations of capitalism”.

Crucially, in the Bolshevik formulation, the bourgeois revolution would not be led by the bourgeoisie but the proletariat in alliance with the peasantry. In Two Tactics, Lenin maintained that in general, the Russian bourgeoisie was too fearful of the popular classes and too linked to tsarism to play a truly revolutionary role:

“It is of greater advantage to the bourgeoisie if the necessary changes in the direction of bourgeois democracy take place more slowly, more gradually, more cautiously, less resolutely, by means of reforms and not by means of revolution; if these changes spare the “venerable” institutions of serfdom (such as the monarchy) as much as possible; if these changes develop as little as possible the independent revolutionary activity, initiative and energy of the common people, i.e., the peasantry and especially the workers, for otherwise it will be easier for the workers, as the French say, “to hitch the rifle from one shoulder to the other,” i.e., to turn against the bourgeoisie the guns which the bourgeois revolution will place in their hands, the liberty which the revolution will bring, the democratic institutions which will spring up on the ground that is cleared of serfdom.”

Rather than tail-ending the bourgeoisie, the Bolsheviks argued that the proletariat needed to take a leading role in the revolution and unite with the peasantry. Through an alliance of “millions of urban and rural poor”, Lenin asserted that the Tsarist autocracy could be overthrown and replaced with a “revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry”. In his 1909 article The Aim of the Proletariat in Our Revolution Lenin writes of the worker-peasant alliance:

“Our Party holds firmly to the view that the role of the proletariat is the role of leader in the bourgeois-democratic revolution; that joint actions of the proletariat and the peasantry are essential to carry it through to victory; that unless political power is won by the revolutionary classes, victory is impossible.”

In concrete terms, the “revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry” consisted of a provisional revolutionary government based on the power of the exploited classes in Russia which together could complete the tasks of the bourgeois revolution. These consisted of, for example, the establishment of a democratic republic, land reform, separation of the church and state, full political liberties, economic reform etc.

In his writings during 1905, Lenin continually emphasised that this impending revolution would not be a socialist revolution. In Two Dictatorships, Martynov had asserted that socialists must not participate in a potential provisional government because, once in power, the “party of the proletariat” would have no choice but to “put our maximum programme into effect, i.e., …bring about the socialist revolution”. In The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry, Lenin responded:

“This argument is based on a misconception; it confounds the democratic revolution with the socialist revolution, the struggle for the republic (including our entire minimum programme) with the struggle for socialism. If Social-Democracy sought to make the socialist revolution its immediate aim, it would assuredly discredit itself…For this reason Social Democracy has constantly stressed the bourgeois nature of the impending revolution in Russia and insisted on a clear line of demarcation between the democratic minimum programme and the socialist maximum programme.”

Even six years after the 1905 Revolution, the number of workers employed in factories, mills, mines and smelters was only 2.5 million in Russia, compared to 5.6 million in the United States. It was therefore crucial for the revolutionary proletariat to win over the peasantry (roughly 66% of the population) who above all wanted equal tenure of land and the destruction of feudalism – both of which are not socialist measures in that they can be carried out within the bounds of the capitalist social system:

“…at the present time the peasantry is interested not so much in the absolute preservation of private property as in the confiscation of the landed estates, one of the principal forms of private property. While this does not make the peasantry become socialist or cease to be petty-bourgeois, it is capable of becoming a wholehearted and most radical adherent of the democratic revolution…for only a completely victorious revolution can give the peasantry everything in the sphere of agrarian reforms—everything that the peasants desire, of which they dream, and of which they truly stand in need…in order to emerge from the mire of semi-serfdom, from the gloom of oppression and servitude, in order to improve their living conditions as much as it is possible to improve them under the system of commodity production” (V.I. Lenin, Two Tactics).  

The reason why social democracy would “discredit itself” by attempting to carry out a socialist revolution in the first instance was because the possibility of the proletariat actually winning and then retaining political power – in the face of the inevitable attempts at counter-revolution – depended on its ability to head a popular revolution i.e., one involving the mass of the population:

“If we, the revolutionary people, the proletariat and the peasantry, want to “fight together” against the autocracy, we must fight against it together to the last, finish it off together, and stand together in repelling the inevitable attempts to restore it! …If the Russian autocracy…is not only shaken but actually overthrown, then, obviously, a tremendous exertion of revolutionary energy on the part of all progressive classes will be called for to defend this gain. This “defence”, however, is nothing else than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry!” (V.I. Lenin The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry). 

A crucial aspect of the Bolshevik’s theory is that the first and second stages are not separate, but rather must proceed ‘uninterruptedly’. Lenin continues:

“…from the democratic revolution we shall at once, and precisely in accordance with the measure of our strength, the strength of the class-conscious and organised proletariat, begin to pass to the socialist revolution. We stand for uninterrupted revolution. We shall not stop half-way. If we do not now and immediately promise all sorts of “socialisation”, that is because we know the actual conditions for that task to be accomplished, and we do not gloss over the new class struggle burgeoning within the peasantry, but reveal that struggle.

At first we support the peasantry en masse against the landlords, support it to the hilt and with all means, including confiscation, and then (it would be better to say, at the same time) we support the proletariat against the peasantry en masse. To try to calculate now what the combination of forces will be within the peasantry “on the day after” the revolution (the democratic revolution) is empty utopianism. Without falling into adventurism or going against our conscience in matters of science, without striving for cheap popularity we can and do assert only one thing: we shall bend every effort to help the entire peasantry achieve the democratic revolution, in order thereby to make it easier for us, the party of the proletariat, to pass on as quickly as possible to the new and higher task—the socialist revolution.”

The speed at which this socialist stage could begin depended on the level of class consciousness and organisation of the masses and the ability of the revolution to provoke uprisings in other countries. As quoted above, it would also depend on the speed at which differentiation occurs within the peasantry, in particular between the poor and middle peasants (roughly 65% and 20% respectively of all peasant families) and rich peasants or ‘kulaks’ which constituted roughly 15% of all peasant families.

Lessons of 1905

In ‘Left-Wing’ Communism: An Infantile Disorder, Lenin famously described the 1905 Russian Revolution as the “dress rehearsal” without which “the victory of the October Revolution in 1917 would have been impossible”.

Although it failed to overthrow the Tsar and was ultimately crushed, the 1905 Revolution provided revolutionaries with a number of crucial lessons. These included the importance of the general strike as a tactic and the Soviet as an embryonic form of worker’s government.

It also revealed the counter-revolutionary character of the Russian ‘liberal’ bourgeoisie. Facing an increasingly powerful popular revolution, the ‘liberal’ sections of the bourgeoisie “shrunk back from the movement” – to use Zinoviev’s words – and essentially allied with Tsarism against the proletariat. 

An earth-shattering development of the 1905 revolution was that it proved that proletarian state power could be won in an “industrially backwards” country through an alliance of the working class and peasantry, to be led by the former. Having completed the ‘bourgeois’ phase of the revolution and established a “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry”, the proletariat would be in a position to ally with the rural semi-proletariat and lower strata of the peasantry to carry out a socialist revolution. While the first phase would destroy the semi-feudal autocracy, the second would sweep away capitalist social relations.

This lesson had far-reaching ramifications in the battle for socialism outside the imperialist core. In the Vietnamese context, Allen Myers writes, “Under Ho Chi Minh’s leadership, the Vietnamese Communist Party succeeded in applying Lenin’s strategy to the concrete conditions of Vietnam and thus leading the workers and peasants of that country to victory”. Indeed, Vietnamese revolutionary leader General Vo Nguyen Giap wrote in 1959,

“Viet Nam was a small, weak, colonial and semi-feudal country, covering a fairly small area, with a small population and an extremely backward agricultural economy. There was struggle of the people throughout the country, under forms of armed uprising and long-term resistance to overthrow imperialism and the reactionary feudal forces. The aim was to realise the political goals of the national democratic revolution…to recover national independence and bring land to the peasants, creating conditions for the advance of the revolution of our country to socialism” (See: People’s War, People’s Army).

In Russia, the tactics of a proletariat-peasant alliance ‘completing’ the democratic revolution and proceeding to the higher, socialist stage of revolution were realised during the summer and autumn of 1918. This process is explained in detail by Lenin in his 1918 work, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.

+++

If you would like to learn more about this history, there will be a session Lenin’s two stage theory of revolution: its importance today at Red Ant’s upcoming National Conference in September. If you would like to come along, just register here.