Revolutions: Russia 1905 and 1917
The Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 were watershed moments in the history of the
modern world. They did not merely transform Russia from an imperial autocracy to a
socialist state but also redrew global ideological boundaries and altered political trajectories
across continents. While the Revolution of 1905 failed to overthrow the tsarist regime, it
exposed deep fissures in Russian society and polity. The 1917 revolutions — in February and
October — brought the autocracy to an end and ushered in a period of radical socialist
governance under the Bolsheviks. This essay explores the causes, nature, and impact of both
revolutions, with Alan Wood’s The Origins of the Russian Revolution (2003) as the principal
guide, supplemented by other key interpretations such as Sheila Fitzpatrick, Orlando Figes,
Richard Pipes, and Leon Trotsky.
I. The Backdrop: Autocracy and its Contradictions
According to Alan Wood, the essential conditions for revolution in Russia were created by
the contradictions of tsarist autocracy, which governed a vast, economically
underdeveloped, and socially fragmented empire with inflexible, archaic institutions. Despite
sporadic modernisation — such as the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 — the socio-
political framework remained essentially autocratic. Wood argues that "the Revolution of
1917 was the product of generations of conflict between the upper and lower estates of
Russian society," with the monarchy representing the parasitic elite and the narod (people)
representing the suppressed majority (Wood, 2003, p. xi).
Peter I’s efforts at Europeanisation had produced a duality in Russian society. A thin veneer
of modernity among the intelligentsia and nobility sat uneasily atop a largely illiterate,
agrarian, and impoverished mass. This duality, Wood contends, was compounded by
“combined development,” a concept borrowed from Trotsky, wherein Russia simultaneously
experienced feudal and capitalist forms of development (Wood, 2003, pp. 4–5).
The Russian Empire was riddled with contradictions. It was a land of immense resources but
also enormous inequality. Urbanisation and industrialisation had generated new classes —
an urban proletariat and a capitalist bourgeoisie — but these classes were politically
disenfranchised. The zemstvo system introduced after 1864, while modernising local
governance to some degree, remained dominated by the nobility and excluded the
peasantry from meaningful participation (Wood, 2003, pp. 14–18). The autocracy
maintained an uneasy relationship with its subjects, suppressing dissent through censorship,
secret police (Okhrana), and violent repression, particularly against political radicals,
minorities, and Jews.
The failure of tsarism to evolve into a constitutional monarchy alienated reformist liberals,
while its economic and social injustices radicalised both workers and peasants. Despite
Alexander II’s reforms, including judicial reforms and educational expansion, the monarchy
could not accommodate the rising tide of popular participation, particularly after the
assassination of Alexander II in 1881 and the reassertion of conservative rule under
Alexander III and Nicholas II. This stagnation contributed to the revolutionary ferment that
culminated in 1905.
II. The 1905 Revolution: An Abortive Dress Rehearsal?
1. Causes
The Revolution of 1905 was catalysed by both structural grievances and immediate triggers.
The underlying issues included the lack of political representation, the oppressive conditions
of the peasantry, poor working conditions in urban centres, and the ineffectiveness of the
legal reforms. However, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05 was the key catalyst. Russia’s
defeat by Japan, a nation perceived as inferior by racial and imperial standards, exposed the
fragility and incompetence of the tsarist state.
Alan Wood emphasizes that this war shattered the regime’s prestige and emboldened social
and political groups to express dissent (Wood, 2003, p. 29). The urban working class, who
had already faced wage cuts and harsh working hours, were increasingly drawn to socialist
ideologies. Meanwhile, peasants were embittered by high taxes, redemption payments, and
land hunger. The emerging professional class (intelligentsia) resented their exclusion from
political power. These groups found a common cause in challenging the tsarist order.
The immediate spark was the Bloody Sunday massacre on 9 January 1905. Led by the
Orthodox priest Father Gapon, a peaceful procession of workers marched to the Winter
Palace to present a petition. The guards opened fire, killing hundreds. The event destroyed
the image of the Tsar as the “Little Father” of the people. According to Wood, Bloody Sunday
was a "psychological turning point" (Wood, 2003, p. 31). It unleashed a wave of strikes,
peasant uprisings, student demonstrations, and even military mutinies — notably on the
battleship Potemkin.
2. The Spread and Failure of the Movement
Throughout 1905, Russia witnessed unprecedented levels of unrest. Workers' councils or
soviets sprang up, particularly in industrial cities like St Petersburg and Moscow. The most
famous was the St Petersburg Soviet, led briefly by Leon Trotsky. These soviets represented a
novel form of proletarian self-government and would become central to the events of 1917.
Wood notes that their emergence reflected the working class's political maturity and
organisational capability (Wood, 2003, p. 33).
The unrest forced Nicholas II to issue the October Manifesto, promising civil liberties and the
establishment of a legislative Duma. However, these concessions were quickly undermined.
The Fundamental Laws of 1906 reaffirmed autocracy, and successive Dumas were dissolved
for being too radical. Richard Pipes argues that the 1905 revolution failed because it lacked
unity, coordination, and leadership; it was, in his words, a "spasmodic revolt" rather than a
revolution (Pipes, 1990, p. 213).
Nonetheless, the 1905 Revolution had lasting consequences. It politicised the masses,
radicalised political parties, and exposed the limits of autocratic reform. The lessons learned
by revolutionaries, especially the Bolsheviks, would be instrumental in 1917. As Wood
concludes, "1905 was not a failure; it was a rehearsal" (Wood, 2003, p. 38).
III. 1917: The February Revolution
1. Long-Term Structural Causes
By 1917, the tsarist state was in terminal decline. The socioeconomic pressures that had
provoked the 1905 uprising had only worsened. Industrial expansion without adequate
infrastructure led to food shortages, inflation, and urban overcrowding. The peasants
remained land-hungry, and the political system remained closed to meaningful reform. Alan
Wood argues that “the inertia of the autocracy in responding to long-standing demands for
change intensified the revolutionary potential of Russian society” (Wood, 2003, p. 50).
Moreover, the discontent was not limited to workers and peasants. Middle-class liberals,
professionals, and even some sections of the military had become disillusioned with the tsar.
The bureaucracy was corrupt and inefficient. Rasputin’s influence over the royal family,
especially after 1915, deepened the crisis of legitimacy. According to Figes, the monarchy
appeared to be "rotting from within" (Figes, 1996, p. 314).
2. The Role of the First World War
The impact of World War I cannot be overstated. Russia suffered massive casualties — over
six million by 1917. The economy was crippled by the demands of total war. Bread rationing,
fuel shortages, and transport collapses turned everyday life into a struggle for survival.
Wood highlights how the war “transformed discontent into mass action” (Wood, 2003, p.
42).
Nicholas II’s decision to take command of the army in 1915 left the government in the hands
of Tsarina Alexandra and Rasputin, both of whom were seen as incompetent and even
traitorous. The Duma's marginalisation and the breakdown of governance discredited the
regime beyond repair. By February 1917, strikes in Petrograd escalated into mass protests.
The refusal of troops to fire on demonstrators signalled the end of tsarist authority. Nicholas
abdicated on 2 March 1917.
3. Dual Power and the Provisional Government
The collapse of the monarchy gave rise to a dual power structure: the Provisional
Government, composed mainly of liberals and moderate socialists, and the Petrograd Soviet,
dominated by radical workers and soldiers. The Provisional Government had formal
authority, but the Soviet held real power, especially in the capital and military.
Wood points out the contradiction: “While the Provisional Government claimed to rule, it
did so only with the consent of the Petrograd Soviet, which increasingly undermined its
legitimacy” (Wood, 2003, p. 53). Order No. 1, issued by the Soviet, forbade the army from
obeying the Provisional Government without Soviet approval, effectively paralysing state
authority.
The Provisional Government’s decision to continue the war was a fatal mistake. Kerensky’s
June Offensive was a disaster, and the July Days — an abortive uprising by radicalised
workers and soldiers — further eroded the government’s authority. The Kornilov Affair in
August, in which a conservative military coup was thwarted by Soviet-aligned forces,
ironically strengthened the Bolsheviks. As Wood notes, "Kornilov's failed coup gave the
Bolsheviks a new mantle of legitimacy as defenders of the revolution" (Wood, 2003, p. 56).
IV. October 1917: The Bolshevik Seizure of Power
1. Bolshevik Strategy and Lenin's Role
Lenin's return to Russia in April 1917 marked a turning point. His April Theses rejected all
cooperation with the Provisional Government and called for "Peace, Land, Bread" and "All
Power to the Soviets." While initially controversial within the Bolshevik ranks, the theses
provided a clear and radical programme that resonated with the war-weary and
disenfranchised masses.
Wood credits Lenin with "political genius" for recognising the revolutionary mood and
reorienting the party accordingly (Wood, 2003, p. 54). Trotsky, who joined the Bolsheviks in
mid-1917, became instrumental in organising the Military Revolutionary Committee, the
body that would execute the October insurrection.
2. The October Uprising
On 24–25 October (Julian calendar), Bolshevik-led Red Guards seized key installations in
Petrograd. The Winter Palace was taken with minimal bloodshed. The Congress of Soviets
convened the following day and ratified the transfer of power. The Bolsheviks, now in
control, formed the Council of People's Commissars with Lenin as chairman.
The Bolshevik seizure of power was a coup in terms of method, but it was also a revolution
in terms of popular support. Wood argues that it was both: "The October insurrection was a
coup accomplished by a small, disciplined party — but one which had the support of the
most politicised sections of the working class and garrison" (Wood, 2003, p. 60).
Conclusion
The Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 were borne of structural contradictions in tsarist
Russia — an empire attempting to modernise without relinquishing autocracy. The 1905
Revolution, though ultimately unsuccessful, marked a turning point in Russia’s political
culture. The 1917 revolutions shattered the old order and replaced it with a radically new
system.
Alan Wood’s analysis foregrounds the importance of long-term socio-political tensions, the
impact of war, and the significance of revolutionary leadership. His nuanced perspective
bridges both structuralist and contingency-based interpretations, offering a balanced
understanding of how Russia transitioned from empire to Soviet power. The revolutions
were not merely events in Russian history; they inaugurated a new era in global politics, the
reverberations of which are still felt today.
