Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Russian Revolution
First russian revolution
Bolshevik revolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Russian Revolution
.That Tolstoy, owing to these contradictions, could not possibly understand either the working-class movement and its role in the struggle for socialism, or the Russian revolution, goes without saying. But the contradictions in Tolstoy’s views and doctrines are not accidental; they express the contradictory conditions of Russian life in the last third of the nineteenth century. The patriarchal countryside, only recently emancipated from serfdom, was literally given over to the capitalist and the tax-collector to be fleeced and plundered. The ancient foundations of peasant economy and peasant life, foundations that had really held for centuries, were broken up for scrap with extraordinary rapidity. And the contradictions in Tolstoy’s views must …show more content…
Tolstoy is great as the spokesman of the ideas and sentiments that emerged among the millions of Russian peasants at the time the bourgeois revolution was approaching in Russia. Tolstoy is original, because the sum total of his views, taken as a whole, happens to express the specific features of our revolution as a peasant bourgeois revolution. From this point of view, the contradictions in Tolstoy’s views are indeed a mirror of those contradictory conditions in which the peasantry had to play their historical part in our revolution. Ott the one hand, centuries of feudal oppression and decades of accelerated post-Reform pauperisation piled up mountains of hate, resentment, and desperate …show more content…
The whole past life of the peasantry had taught it to hate the landowner and the official, but it did not, and could not, teach it where to seek an answer to all these questions. In our revolution a minor part of the peasantry really did fight, did organise to some extent for this purpose; and a very small part indeed rose up in arms to exterminate its enemies, to destroy the tsar’s servants and protectors of the landlords. Most of the peasantry wept and prayed, moralised and dreamed, wrote petitions and sent “pleaders”—quite in the vein of Leo Tolstoy I And, as always happens in such cases, the effect of this Tolstoyan abstention from politics, this Tolstoyan renunciation of politics, this lack of interest in and understanding of politics, was that only a minority followed the lead of the class-conscious revolutionary proletariat, while the majority became the prey of those unprincipled, servile, bourgeois intellectuals who under the name of Cadets hastened from a meeting of Trudoviks to Stolypin’s ante room, and begged, haggled,
In the years leading up to World War I, social unrest among the Russian people was spreading rapidly. There was a huge social gulf between the peasants who were former serfs and the landowners. The peasants regarded anyone who did not work as a parasite. They had always regarded as all land belonging to them. They regarded any land retained by the landowners at the time serfs were freed as stolen and only force could prevent them from taking it back. By the time Russia entered the war, one peasant rebellion had already been suppressed and several socialist revolutionary movements were developing.
The readers discover that Tolstoy’s motivation for writing “Sevastopol in May” was to provide Russia with an honest war narrative, not a literary cornerstone or a piece of light reading material. This realization is the clean ending that gives readers the they closure desire. By including an explicit declaration of theme and purpose at the
After their “peasant economy [had] come to a full collapse and ruin, from which it will not recover in several years”, the peasants started getting furious (Document 5). They became frustrated as their living situation continued to decline rather than improve. Anton Chekhov, a physician, and short story writer, depicted in his short story “Peasants” the life of peasants. He wrote that “they lived in discord, quarreling constantly [...] Who keeps a tavern and makes people drunkards? A peasant.” (Document 7). Peasants were seen by many as the root of the problem and trouble makers. They were blamed for many of the problems in the society. After Nicholas II became Tsar and Russia started to industrialize, the peasants were believed to create more tension. Police Report 4894 to the Ministry of the Interior, claimed that “there has recently emerged a series of peasant disorders in the form of systematic damage to the noble’s fields and meadows” (Document 9). The Nobles were significantly favored over the peasants as the new image of them being the cause of the problems engraved the minds of the public. This was the case until Tsar Nicholas II created the Duma in
The Russian revolution of February 1917 was a momentous event in the course of Russian history. The causes of the revolution were very critical and even today historians debate on what was the primary cause of the revolution. The revolution began in Petrograd as “a workers’ revolt” in response to bread shortages. It removed Russia from the war and brought about the transformation of the Russian Empire into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, replacing Russia’s monarchy with the world’s first Communist state. The revolution opened the door for Russia to fully enter the industrial age. Before 1917, Russia was a mostly agrarian nation. The Russian working class had been for many years fed up with the ways they had to live and work and it was only a matter of time before they had to take a stand. Peasants worked many hours for low wages and no land, which caused many families to lose their lives. Some would argue that World War I led to the intense downfall of Russia, while others believe that the main cause was the peasant unrest because of harsh living conditions. Although World War I cost Russia many resources and much land, the primary cause of the Russian Revolution was the peasant unrest due to living conditions because even before the war began in Russia there were outbreaks from peasants due to the lack of food and land that were only going to get worse with time.
In conclusion, despite the Gentry’s keeping of former estates, Lenin and the Bolsheviks created a new society to a large extent after the October Revolution in 1917. The post October 1917 society can be regarded as radically and thoroughly transformed by the Bolsheviks, taking the removal of bourgeoisie’s privilege, the separation of Church and State, and the emergence of a new form of social justice supported by an anti-bourgeois legal system into account.
One of the most important parts when using a Marxist perspective to examine a piece of literature is the investigation of the various social classes that exist within the writing. Doing so enables the reader to achieve a more globalized perspective on the story, with factors such as economic advantages and hierarchical relations being taken into consideration. The social classes that are represented in Kate Chopin’s The Awakening are the Bourgeoisie, who control every aspect of society, and the Proletariat, whose oppression supports the lifestyles of the elite.
Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590
When first learning about the Russian Revolution, one of the most controversial and complex political transitionary periods in modern history, one may be completely overwhelmed with the wealth of information about the period that may be found, both in books and online. In her seminal short novel, The Russian Revolution, noted Russian historian Sheila Fitzpatrick provides the reader with a comprehensive history of the subject, ushering the reader back in time to pre-Soviet Russia, where the recently uprooting of the feudal system would eventually lead to the rise of Lenin . Fitzpatrick provides a thoughtful analysis of the pre-revolutionary conditions in Russia, which leads into her comparisons of the period against her “perfect” model of the typical
Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) was born a year before the emancipation of serfism in Russia took place. Although he was the grandson of a serf, Chekhov was able to attend the medical school at the University of Moscow and become a physician. Chekhov started writing in order to support his family economically, becoming a master in drama and short stories. His literature is characterized by the use of colloquial language which could be understood even by the less educated and recently liberated serfs. Social change is the main theme in ‘The Cherry Orchard’, a four-act play written in 1904. In this play the different characters portray how changes in Russia after the emancipation of 1861 were taking place and although the play is set several years after this, it is clearly seen how the play develops around this event. For peasants, the liberation of 1861 brought different consequences. Not all of them took advantage of their freedom, and for some, their lives were the same after being liberated. In this play, these differences can clearly be seen. A main character of this play is Yermolai Lopahkin. Being son and grandson of serfs, represents the young class of peasants who got advantage of the emancipation and achieved economic success. Also, we have minor characters that represent other side of liberated serfs, who did not have Lopakhin’s opportunities to success after emancipation.
Leo Tolstoy and Voltaire both wrote beautiful pieces of literature during two different time eras, but they wrote about similar themes in some of their works. In “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” by Tolstoy and “Candide” by Voltaire the theme of society and class play major roles in understanding both works. Tolstoy attacks the Russian middle class by creating numerous characters that belong to this class. These characters illustrate the pettiness, greed, and selfishness that the middle class came to embody. Voltaire portrays the corruption and meaninglessness of power and status. Both of these authors attack the social classes, but they differ on their reasons.
...iks and the Petty Bourgeoisie." Lenin Collected Works. Vol. 12. Moscow: Foreign Languages House, 1962. 179-83. Marxist Internet Archive. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
In the years leading up to the revolution, Russia had been involved in a series of wars. The Crimean war, The Russo-Turkish war, The Russo-Japanese war and the First World War. Russia had been defeated in all except the war with Turkey and its government and economy had the scars to prove it. A severe lack of food and poor living conditions amongst the peasant population led firstly to strikes and quickly escalated to violent riots. Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia with an iron hand while much of Europe was moving away from the monarchical system of rule. All lands were owned by the Tsar’s family and Nobel land lords while the factories and industrial complexes were owned by the capitalists’. There were no unions or labour laws and the justice system had made almost all other laws in favour of the ruling elite. Rents and taxes were often unaffordable, while the gulf between workers and the ruling elite grew ever wider.
A. The Epic of Russian Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1950. 309-346. Tolstoy, Leo. "
Alongside with these historical events, Tolstoy describes the different classes of Russian society in terms of their participation in the war and what kind of an impact war had on their lives. In the beginning of the novel, the Russian aristocratic class, which was in the czar’s circle, wanted Russia to participate in the war. They wanted a quick victory and pride for the Russian nobility. They did not anticipate that the war would destroy homes, agriculture, and take many Russian lives. This class is shown in Anna Pavlova Sharer’s salon, with it’s upper class aristocracy, who talk only in French, viewing the Russian language as uncivilized and useful only for peasants. They adopted French culture and wear French style clothing, and at the same time they want to fight Napoleon. However, the majority of this class doesn’t want to participate themselves in the war, but want to win the war with the hands of the peasants. These aristocrats, despite their high education and power, will do nothing to help win the war. They live like parasites on the body of Russia’s society. This is how Tolstoy describes this class in general, but he also depicts two representatives of this upper class, Andrew Bolkonsky and Pierre Bisuhov, who were the more intellectual ones, and whose lives and views of war and life changed as the result of the war.
Social change raced through Russia during this play, as “mankind is advancing, perfecting its powers.” (Chekhov 116) After feudalist Russia collapsed, members of the lower class became more motivated to increase their social standing. (Complex) Although it was a time of great joy and hope for the peasantry in Russia, this time period, roughly 1861-1917, was full of uncertainty. Russian peasants did not know how the government would support and defend their ability to grow higher in society. The Cherry Orchard reflects Russian peasants’ fears regarding these social changes. Lopakhin is the paragon (12) of a Russian peasant who rose from the ranks of peasantry to a successful businessman. (Simple) He notes, “I’m rich, plenty of money, but if you think it over and work it out, once a peasant, always a peasant.” (Chekhov 70-71), as he reminisces about his upbringing in the lower class. This way of thinking speaks for all the peasants in this time of social change; even if a peasant moved up in social standing, he or she would not forget or bury their past. Lopakhin remarks that at one time “my father was your [Lyubov] grandfather’s serf”, (Chekhov 85) which shows how muc...