How do Revolutions begin? Theoretically, this is a trivial question. While searching for a non-trivial answer, it would be interesting to observe the behavior of the «leaders» on the eve of the revolution. For example, what happened during the Revolution of 1905? After much contemplation, Nicholas II signed the decree «The Outline for a Course of Government Perfection» on the 14 of December, 1904. In order to calm the nation after a number of defeats in the Russo-Japanese War Nicholas II promised to improve peasants life, to expand the rights of Zemstvos (district councils) and City Duma, to abolish press restrictions and to reduce the scope of emergency measures in inflamed regions of the Russian Empire (such as Finland). Nevertheless this document didn’t contain any information about real land reform, political liberties, or a new constitution. Several days before that, on the 9 of January, 1905, the Emperor and his advisors decided that people should be «taught a lesson» and be discouraged from complaining about lawlessness and hardships. It is well known that the rejection of the reforms turned into «Bloody Sunday», Moscow barricades and The Battleship «Potemkin».
Pavel Milyukov, a Liberal political leader and historian, was one of the main figures of the year 1917. He offered a scheme according to which the revolutions become inevitable:
– When the people urgently need a large-scale political or social reform;
– When the government is against peaceful settlement of the problem;
– When the government is no longer able to act by force;
– When the people not only stop fearing the government but also start despising it and laughing at it openly.
What Surprises Contemporaries in during Revolutions? All Russia’s Revolutions prove the famous Napoleonic phrase: «You cannot start or stop a revolution.» Therefore, it is little wonder that it is impossible to separate synthetically a political revolution from a social one. What is most surprising about revolutionary times is the rapid devaluation of democratic ideals, a phenomenon characteristic among both the «leaders» and the «masses.» There are clear reasons for this. For example, in 1917–1918 there were two forms of democracy: an «established» form which was based on Duma traditions and oriented towards European standards, and a soviet form which had never been practiced in history before. These two forms could not find any middle ground; first there was crisis and then they turned to ostensibly outdated systems of rule.
Thus the Soviet «democracy» turned to single-party rule based on military patterns. «Established» democracy, on the other hand, was forced to cooperate with and later comply to «white» generals with pseudo-fascist ambitions. As a result, the country had to choose not between two forms of democracy, but rather between «red» and «white» dictatorships.
But these realities were not well understood by contemporaries who analyzed events using highly emotional language to express their feelings about the revolution: «flood», «windstorm», «maelstrom», «hurricane», «explosion», and «ecstasy». «Purification» and «regeneration» – this is what was expected to be seen after the cataclysm. And even Lev Tolstoy, one of the most vigorous critics of violence, compared the revolution of 1905 with the birth of a new life and admitted that it was beneficial and creates an «abyss of good».
Thus, carried away by revolutionary enthusiasm, few paid any attention to the actions of The Black Hundreds or the appearance of a great number of adventurists – people without any past, with made-up biographies. But as time went on, the «dirty foam» of the revolution and the immorality of its participants moved to the forefront. The well-known Manifesto of the 17 of October, 1905 (which guaranteed Russia the main civil liberties and gave the country the Legislative Duma) evoked the massacres of «patriots» in hundreds of cities in 36 Russian provinces. During one month more than 4,000 people died and about 10,000 people were disabled in the course of The Black Hundreds pogroms. Universities and gymnasiums were under siege. Due to nonfeasance of the authorities and particularly Nicholas II, in many towns a terror set in.
During the months of February and March 1917, the cruel chaos grew: there were corpses of gendarmes with ripped open bellies in Petrograd, the mad chase of officers in Kronstadt, vigilante justice in Yelets. An officer Fyodor Stepun, a future philosopher and sociologist, described Petrograd of 1917:
«I thought that I would find it exasperate, magnificent, filled with revolutionary romantics… My impression was indeed strong but the opposite of what I expected. Petrograd – from the outside to the inside – presented an utter picture of dissoluteness, monotony and platitude. The town looked unusual and was definitely going through rough times. Endless red flags were fluttering in the air, but not as banners and colors of revolution, but, instead, they were hanging down along grey walls as dusty red pieces of cloth. A crowd of grey soldiers wearing shirts and greatcoats was drilling around grand squares and wide streets of the city, a picture obviously contradicting the scale and grandeur of the event. Occasionally, armored cars and trucks full of soldiers and workers passed by with noise: guns atilt, tumbled hair and angry, mad eyes. No, this is not the great idea of the revolution that I had heard about at the front, neither is it the nation desire to justify freedom, but its vile antithesis… This is a drunken joy that «the day is ours,» that we are making merry and not going to have to explain anything to anybody.»
«The source of true folk-spirit of the people» often produced something that didn’t comply with the primary ideas of the revolutionaries. The spontaneous socialism of the opposed contained not only constructive but also destructive principles. Those who had faced it were ready to put testify that the revolution «evokes in a person not only a beast but also a fool.» (Emigrant Sociologist Pitirim Sorokin).
One of the Bolsheviks’ leaders – while complaining about the economical crisis after October, 1917 – admitted regrettably that a worker turns into a pensioner of the state, into a parasite sponging on it. But this remark as well as many others was lost in the overall appetence to a new culture, a new man. Few indeed thought about the consequences and the costs of the revolution. There was no need to think about the past and the present when the old was being replaced by the new, when the «new man» was being formed.
The Russian Revolutions of the XX century have not avoided the destiny of The French Revolution: some people glorify them as a historical landmark in humanity’s liberation from oppression, others curse them as a catastrophe and crime; some consider the revolutionaries as saints, while for others they are monsters.
Is it Possible to Control a Revolution?
Sometimes a revolution is compared to an abdominal surgical operation, the charge that one has to pay for having rejected preventive routine treatment. At the same time drastic intervention can sometimes be the only guarantee of recovery.
The Twentieth century produced two paths towards revolution: either the current power regime quickly intercepts the initiative from revolutionists and extinguishes as soon as possible the flames of popular indignation, or revolutionists themselves fully bring their slogans to life. The revolution of 1905 made the government cast away its endless hesitation and doubts, stop talking and start doing. At that, a more radical reform project of a larger scale was chosen. The two greatest Russian reformers, Sergey Witte and Pyotr Stolypin, headed the Council of Ministers. During the revolution situation, they worked to simultaneously suppressed popular anger and rebellion, while conducting reform measures. In short, they followed the classical rule: if all forces are spent fighting the revolution, its consequences can be temporarily eliminated. But while, relying on force, if fundamental changes and reforms are implemented, the revolutions causes can be eliminated.
In 1905–1907, personal immunity, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of unions were declared, agrarian reform was put into practice,