Hey everyone,
This is my first post and I was wondering if anyone had the time to be able to provide feedback on my paragraph. It's a part of a larger essay but I haven't finished it yet. In the actual essay, I'm going to have one paragraph on peasants, the proletariat and then short term factors (Bloody Sunday, Russo-Jap war) so below is my peasant paragraph. The topic is: How significant was economic hardship in causing the 1905 revolution?
All feedback is welcome, good or bad. Thanks!
The severe economic hardship that plagued all levels of the Russian empire was extremely significant in causing the 1905 revolution due to the consequential social and political problems. This is apparent when examining long-term factors of the 1905 revolution, like the peasantry and the proletariat, and short-term factors such as the Russo-Jap war and Bloody Sunday.
Economic hardship was a vital factor in peasant dissatisfaction, creating revolutionary tension in Russia’s villages and causing numerous socio-political problems. Russian peasants, as per the terms of their emancipation in 1861, were obliged to compensate the government for their freedom in the form of 49 redemption payments. The payments totalled nearly 2,000,000,000 rubles and were the origin of much of the peasant’s anger. Furthermore, in Witte’s pursuit of modernisation, the peasantry was taxed heavily in order to sustain Russia’s economic growth. However, Witte neglected the peasants in regard to modernisation, evident in the Russian peasants’ use of the wooden scratch plough, compared to iron in western Europe. Figes argues that this was the reason that ‘Russian farmers produced yields barely half that of the rest of Europe’, which resulted in a clear economic loss. Ponomarev contends that the redemption payments and taxation ‘not infrequently exceeded the income of the peasant household, ruin[ing] the peasants’. In order to solve their economic problems, all that was required was the cancellation of the widely resented redemption payments. The peasants believed that the land belonged to them, and as Westwood argues, it appeared as though ‘...they were being compelled to buy their own property”, increasing their anger. In addition to this, the peasants housed a deep desire for land, which Figes described as ‘the most tempting solution’ to their troubles. Most of all, the peasantry longed for the nobles’ land. Despite only accounting for 1% of the population, the nobility owned 25% of the land, something that vexed the peasants. However, Tsar Nicholas II was reluctant, as always, to take action and mollify peasant resentment. This resulted in peasant unrest, characterised by the 3,000 peasant uprisings in 1905. Westwood postulates that “The 1905 rebellion was preceded by several years in which peasant disorders were more widespread than usual”, emphasising the role of economic hardship in the 1905 revolution. Moreover, economic hardships generated a plethora of socio-political problems, the most prominent of which being the proletariat. Faced with the dismal prospect of village life, many peasants abandoned their allotments and ventured into the cities, triggering a population influx and creating a new class; the proletariat. The proletariat would become a thorn in the autocracy’s side, essential for the 1905 revolution. Economic hardship was a crucial factor in the 1905 revolution, as it manifested itself in the form of social and political problems, as illustrated by the peasant class, paving the way to revolution.
Thanks again!
Home
Help
Search
Login
