REVOLUTIONARY DOCTRINES

As members of both these organizations are at present in power in revolutionary Russia, it may be quite appropriate to enunciate their fundamental principles.

The Russian Social Democrats, together with all the Socialist parties of the world, stand for a democracy that shall be economic or industrial as well as political. They contend that a nation, such as the United States, which is democratic in its political organization, but whose industries and natural resources are in private hands, is democratic only in appearance. They stand for the socialized state which, being controlled by the universal suffrage of its people, shall in its turn own and control the natural resources and the industries through which the people are supplied with their daily needs. Their first aim is to gain control of the political machinery of the state, then reorganize industry on a socialistic basis.

The aims of the Social Revolutionists are not so easily defined, for the reason that there is more diversity of opinion among the membership. Most of them are undoubtedly Socialists, and many again are Anarchists of the Kropotkin school. Temperamentally the Russian is much more an Anarchist than a State Socialist, more an individualist than a collectivist. It is the Jewish element which gives the Social Democrats their numerical superiority. As compared to the Social Democrat it may be said that the Social Revolutionist, taking the average, is opposed to the strongly centralized state and bases his scheme of reconstruction on the local autonomy of the small community. It is the same difference that may be found, or is supposed to exist, between the principles of the Republican and the Democratic parties of the United States. The Social Revolutionist is the Democrat of Socialistic Russia; the Social Democrat is the Republican.

The failure of the war with Japan proved a strong stimulus to the revolutionary movements in Russia. In fact, their activities compelled the Government to conclude a peace when further hostilities might have brought about the defeat of the Japanese. To bring this domestic unrest to a head before it should gain too wide a volume, the Government sent its own agitators among the workingmen and incited them to make demonstrations and other forms of disturbance, which should serve the police as a pretext for violent suppression. The first of these demonstrations occurred on January 21, 1905, a date which remains in: scribed in the pages of Russian history as "Red Sunday." The workingmen, some thousands in number, were led by Father Capon, a priest, who was at least under the influence of the Government, if not in its pay. Against the wishes of the Social Democrats, with whom his organization cooperated, he decided to lead a great army of his followers to the gates of the palace and petition the czar for constitutional government. When the unarmed demonstrators arrived at the palace they were shot down by the hundreds and trampled into the mud by the hoofs of the cavalry horses.

The outrage stirred the Russian people profoundly. The revolutionary elements now began to act in earnest, though they were not quite as prepared as they had wished to be. A general strike was organized, and so effectively was it maintained that the czar and his clique promised the people a constitution. But when the strike had been called off and the disturbances subsided, it soon became evident that the promises were not to be fulfilled. More than that, the police now began such a series of repressive measures that again the fires on the revolution were lighted. Most notable of these was the uprising in Moscow in December, 1905, when the people and the soldiers fought bloody battles in the streets. But the revolutionary forces lacked proper organization, and were finally crushed. Of all the promises which had been made only the Duma remained, amounting to little more than a debating club with absolutely no independent legislative power.

The first Duma at least served to give some conception of the coloring of public opinion in Russia. The majority of the deputies belonged to the Constitutional Democrats, a political party which appeared and represented the moderate progressives, those who wished a constitutional monarchy and progressive reforms. Their leader was Paul Milukov, a professor in the University of Moscow and at one time professor in the University of Chicago.

The Duma, though the restrictive election laws had minimized the revolutionary elements within it, clamored for the promised reforms until it was finally dissolved by the Government. A number of deputies went to Finland and there issued a manifesto with the object of rousing a general demonstration, but without success. The second Duma proved quite as progressive as the first and was also dissolved arbitrarily. Then the electoral laws were made still more restrictive, so that the landed nobility and the clergy should be more represented. The third Duma, as a result, proved quite innocuous, and for five years it sat, never attempting to initiate any changes, attracting very little attention.

During this period reaction regained all its former ascendency, within the Social Revolutionary organization it was discovered that the chief of the fighting organization, Eugene Azev, was nothing more than the paid agent of the secret police and that he had been delivering the members of the organization into the hands of his masters as they proved themselves most dangerous. The agent through whom the exposure had been made, by an ex-police chief, was an obscure Russian journalist, Vladimir Bourtsev, who at once rose to international prominence as the "Sherlock Holmes of the Russian Revolution." To maintain his reputation he began with much publicity further investigations and discovered a great number of smaller-fry spies in the organization, with the result that all mutual confidence of the members was broken and the organization went completely to pieces.

After this, 1907, little more was heard in foreign countries of Russian revolution. Within Russia itself the university students who had formed the best material for the working committees turned their energies in other directions, degenerating into the notorious "candle-light clubs" and other somewhat depraved practices with free love as a basis.

Nor had anything occurred to revive the hopes of the friends of Russian freedom when hostilities broke out between Russia and Germany in 1914, and the greatest of all wars was precipitated. Certainly not within revolutionary circles. Among the peasantry and the working classes, indeed, and of spontaneous origin, there had appeared a great economic movement, more directly revolutionary in character than the more picturesque terrorist organizations. This was the cooperative societies. In the towns and cities and the industrial centers they took the form of consumers' organizations in which the people combined their purchasing power and conducted their own stores for the supply of their daily needs. These local societies again federated into the Moscow Wholesale Society, which purchased in bulk for its constituents. In the rural districts the peasants organized for the purpose of marketing their produce jointly; this form of cooperation was especially marked in Siberia among the dairy farmers. Then there were the credit societies, cooperative banks which federated in the Moscow Narodni (People's) Bank, and so had millions of rubles at its disposal with which to finance more cooperative organizations. All these societies were much restricted by the police, but they gained enough headway to play an important part in the economic life of the nation after the outbreak of hostilities and to become a big element in the final revolutionary movement.

Closely akin to the cooperatives, and of much older origin, were the Zemstvos. These local governing organizations were established in 1864 by Alexander II to satisfy the desire of the peasants to express themselves in local politics. The local Zemstvo is charged with the administration of education, sanitation, medical relief for the poor, maintenance of highways, and other local matters outside the sphere of the central government. Naturally the Zemstvo was not intrusted with any power that was likely to prove dangerous to the Petrograd Government, but as the members were elected by popular suffrage, restricted by certain qualifications demanding the ownership of property on the part of the electors. The Zemstvos proved highly effective training schools in which the peasants could learn self-government and parliamentary procedure. The local Zemstvos, like the cooperative societies, federated into district Zemstvos, which sometimes had the control of large affairs on their hands.[Back to Contents]