There were many factors in the survival of Tsarist rule from 1881 – 1905. The divisions among it's opponents played a part, as it meant that Tsarist opposition had no common goals, and couldn't work together to achieve it. The October Manifesto is another factor, it split up Nicholas' opposition even further by dividing the Liberals into two groups. Pobedonostsev & his repressive policies played a large part in the Survival of Tsarist autocracy, as he was able to keep the people down, not giving them enough ground to start a successful revolution. Lastly, Russia's backward society is one of the main reasons Nicholas II survived after 1905.
The areas to investigate include political, economic, social and military reforms from the Russian government in order to see if they are ‘reluctant reformers’ or not. Socially, Alexander II introduced arguably the most radical reform in 1861 by emancipating the serfs and granting peasants freedom. This is by far the reform that affected the population most widely in the period – by granting this, peasants were allowed to own themselves in body and soul and could dictate their own lives as far as they could. Class bias was reduced and education was given more widely across Russia, regardless of social standing. This certainly fights against the view that Alexander II was reluctant in his reforms on the surface – however, once investigated, the limits of emancipation are clear.
All of the rulers of Russia had similar priorities, although some were more forceful than others. The main ones were the retention of power, being an autocracy or a dictatorship and crushing opposition. The communist rulers had different priorities however to the Tsars in terms of political ideology and social aims. The Tsars were not uniform in their aims though as each one faced different situations and wanted a different kind of ruling. For example Alexander II was a humanitarian but Nicholas II mainly wanted modernisation for Russia.
To what extent was the lack of political representation the most significant cause of the 1905 revolution? There were a number of different causes that contributed to the start of the 1905 Russian revolution however some were more significant than others. One of the contributing factors was the lack of political representation due to the existence of an autocratic regime. Whilst this was an important factor, the most significant factors were the social and economical issues that caused unrest amongst the Russian population. The long-term policies of Russification imposed by the Tsar in the 1880s, caused a lot of political unrest within Russia and these contributed to the 1905 revolution.
Following, Marx ideas of socialism, the Social Democratic Party was set up in 1898. However, four years later in 1903 they spilt into 2 groups- the Bolsheviks (lead by Lenin) and the Mensheviks (lead by Martov). Lenin proposed that the party should be limited only to dedicated revolutionaries but Martov argued that membership should be open to anyone who accepted the party programme and was willing to follow the instructions of the party leaders. Lenin won the debate and his group was later called the Bolsheviks whilst Martov’s group was called the Mensheviks. This disagreement arose because of a profound difference in their beliefs of the role of the party.
During the revolution, members of the imperial parliament gained control of the country.The army leadership felt they did not have the means to suppress the revolution and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. It is argued that the social and economic factors were the most important catalyst and the main cause of the revolution. Others may argue that the military factors were the downfall and breaking point of the country. Although the military factors were important and did play a huge role, the social and economic factors were perhaps the more important reason. The military issues perhaps would not have escalated the way they did if it was not for existing social and economic problems at home.
Most Americans feared socialism; they linked it to trade unions, mass immigration and anarchy. Socialists believed in equality Big business leaders were afraid of organised labour; the growth of for ‘social justice’ including causes such as women’s suffrage, direct election to the senate and conservation. Some Progressives were pacifists and anti-imperialists but most were strong nationalists. The Progressive wing of the Republican party reunited with the mainstream party in 1916. Progressivism achieved very little as a separate party but at one time, it seemed that it could achieve national support.
The fact that peasantry took part in the 1905 revolution (also known as Bloody Sunday)shows that the suspicions of the peasants changing were true and to the Tsar and his government this could have appeared to be a threat because they always feared peasantry development, the Tsar and the Empress especially. However the peasants had not planned to overthrow the Tsar as they supported Tsardom, they only demanded for some changes that would reduce the working hours to 8 hours per day, allow workers to earn minimum wage of a rouble a day and to abolish overtime. From a point of view these demands would seem to be reasonable but to the soldiers these were perverse. When the 200,000 petitioners were instructed to retreat but didn’t because of the amount of people, the soldiers took it as if they were not cooperating and decided to open fire at the peaceful demonstrators. The reason why the soldiers were at liberty to shoot the demonstrators was because the Tsar was not present at the mass demonstration because after he was informed about the potential revolution the Tsar quickly decided to leave St Petersburg with his family to avoid trouble 15 miles away in Tsarkoe Selo.
They preferred a pretty strict construction of the constitution and look down on Hamilton’s ideas for a national bank and saw them as unconstitutional. The party promoted states' rights and they were threatened by the supposed, the far too powerful tendencies of the Federalist Party which they had seen before with Great Britain. These Democratic Republicans favored Agriculture and opposed the tariffs that Hamilton had proposed; for these supporters mostly included skilled workers, small scale farmers, and plantation owners. So it is safe to say the majority of these types of supporters were vast in the southern frontier states as opposed to their rivals in the northeastern states who were more on the business side of things. Democratic Republicans all in all wanted things to remain the same in the U.S government because they felt that giving more power to the national government by way of national bank or tax would slowly get rid of the people’s voice in politics creating a rerun of the previous outcome with Great Britain.
Politically, conversatism consisted of the hereditary monarchy, a democracy that was rejected, and political decisions made by the monarch and his personal advisors. Liberalism favored the governments that were based on constitutions and separation of powers. It was a supporter of a republican government, or a constitutional monarchy where the ruler is elected by the people. Socially, conservatism wanted social order, much like the Three Estates System, while liberalism defended the natural rights of all people to liberty, equality, and property. The Industrial Revolution was rejected by the conservatives because it brought more power to the bourgeoisie, who owned the means of production, while it weakened the nobles.