Download Chapter 23: The Building of European Supremacy Europe`s

Chapter 23: The Building of European Supremacy
Europe’s population in 1900 was estimated to be one fifth of the world’s total population or about 401
million people (up from 266 million in 1850). In the nineteenth century, Europe would continue to
dominate the world as it had ever since the Age of Exploration and European political, economic and social
patterns took the shape that we understand today. Europeans were on the move as never before due to the
emancipation of so many Central and Eastern European peasants combined with railways, steamships and
better roads – and there were new worlds in the Americas, Australia and South Africa that invited a better
life. Within Europe itself, the migration from the countryside to the cities continued to increase. And it
would be migration and population growth that would help to feed the Second Industrial Revolution.
The Second Industrial Revolution
The first phase of the Industrial Revolution centered on textiles, iron and steel production and the steam
engine. Around 1850, accelerated innovation and efficiency changed whole nations and ushered in such
modern marvels as dynamite, electric power, incandescent lights, the internal combustion engine, the
automobile, the airplane, the camera, the phonograph, wireless communication and much, much more.
A good example of this acceleration took place in 1856, when Henry Bessemer built an efficient blast
furnace known as the Bessemer Converter, which made steel production cheaper and more efficient. By
end of the nineteenth century the industry had become so efficient that steel (which was stronger and more
resilient than iron) could be produced in greater quantities than iron. The result was another revolution as
machinery and tools became better and cheaper than ever before: higher, stronger and taller buildings
(including the first skyscrapers), better and larger ships, bridges and locomotives, more powerful engines and
machinery; not to mention higher quality nuts and bolts, rails, fittings, pipes and hand tools. In 1860, Great
Britain, Belgium, France and Germany combined produced 125,000 tons of steel and by 1913, the total had
risen to over thirty-two million tons.
During phase two of the Industrial Revolution, electricity replaced steam power. Electricity had been
known in the Ancient World. Thales of Miletus experimented with static electricity around 600 B.C. but
the study of electricity remained a curiosity until the Enlightenment. American schoolchildren learn that
Benjamin Franklin attached a metal key to the bottom of a kite string and observed a succession of sparks
jumping from the key to the back of his hand.
Electricity was finally harnessed however, when Alessandro Volta (1745-1827) developed the first modern
battery in 1800. In 1821, Michael Faraday (1791-1867) created the first electric motor (which is turned by
electric current) and the first dynamo (which creates electric current). In the 1870s, Thomas Alva Edison
(1847-1931) used electricity in his remarkable invention the incandescent light, or the light bulb. By the
1890s whole cities were illuminated by this new invention. Streetcars and subways were electrified.
Electricity was the most versatile (able to do many things) and transportable source of power. It could be sent
almost anywhere to run machinery in factories or appliances in homes and offices. In 1881, the first major
public power plant was constructed in Great Britain. Soon, electrical poles, power lines and generating
stations became part of the European landscape.
Advances in chemistry saw the development of hundreds of new products from aspirin and other medicines
to typewriters to dynamite invented in 1866 by the Swedish chemist Alfred Nobel. In 1861, Ernest Solvay
(1838-1922) discovered the Ammonia Soda Process for the production of soda ash which produced even
more chemical by-products ranging from sulfuric acid to laundry soap. New dyes and plastics were also
developed. It is important to note that in much of the area of chemical production, Germany led the way in
research and education
1|Page
In 1870, the French chemist Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) proved the germ theory when he linked the presence
of bacteria to certain diseases. He also discovered a process called pasteurization, in which raw milk is
heated just enough to kill harmful bacteria, but do no harm the quality of the milk. In the 1880s, a German
doctor, Robert Koch, identified the bacterium that caused Tuberculosis, even though it took fifty years to
find a cure. In the nineteenth century, hospitals were dangerous places. Many times a person would survive
surgery, but die a few days later from infection.
In 1867, Joseph Lister discovered how antiseptics prevent infections and demanded that doctors wash
their hands before surgery and use sterilized instruments. All this led to cleaner, more humane hospitals.
Among the greatest proponents of better hygiene was Florence Nightingale (a nurse made famous by her
care of soldiers during the Crimean War) whose famous dictum was, “The very first requirement in a hospital
is that it should do the sick no harm.”
In 1854, Nikolas Otto patented a gasoline powered internal-combustion engine and later in 1866, Karl
Benz built the first automobile. In 1885, Gottlieb Daimler (1835-1900) invented a perfected internalcombustion engine and by 1889 produced an automobile far better than Benz had built. But it was the
American Henry Ford (1863-1947) who invented the assembly line which, combined with standardized
parts, made automobiles affordable for most middle class families beginning with the Model T in 1909. It
is important to understand that the railroad and the steam engine dominated the nineteenth century but the
gasoline engine in cars, trucks and busses would dominate the twentieth century.
In 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright were credited with building the first airplane. Although in fact they
were not the first to experiment with heavier than air craft, their continually evolving flying machines led
to the first practical fixed-wing aircraft.
Communications were also transformed. In the 1830s, Samuel F. B Morse invented the telegraph which
could send electrical messages over wires and by the 1860s undersea cables were sending telegraph
messages across the Atlantic Ocean. In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell converted the human voice into
electronic signals and created the first practical telephone.
Since electricity and machinery were the building blocks of the second phase of the Industrial Revolution,
the raw material most needed was petroleum or oil which made its first major impact during the 1890s.
Companies that supplied this growing necessity are commonplace today: Standard Oil and Shell Oil.
Economic Difficulties
In spite of the mushrooming of the new inventions and businesses which led to increased farm production,
the economic path was often a bumpy one. From 1850 to 1873, there was increasing prosperity but the last
quarter of the century witnessed economic slowdown and bad weather which increased migration and
caused greater economic pressure on the working classes. Nevertheless, new farming regions rapidly grew
in the United States, Canada, Argentina, Australia and New Zealand but such was a mixed blessing
because with the coming of refrigerated ships, their farm products put pressure on European farmers.
Railroads also complicated the situations because they could cheaply haul grail great distances across
Eurasia.
In 1873, several large banks failed which caused The Long Depression, a worldwide economic recession
that lasted until 1879. At the time it was called the Great Depression but after the Great Depression of the
1930s, it was renamed the Long Depression. Great Britain was the hardest hit and in the United States
18,000 businesses went bankrupt, including hundreds of banks, and ten states. However in all the
industrialized countries, prices, wages and profits all fell so that real wages generally held firm. The word
Unemployment was coined at this time to identify areas that were hardest hit. The result was more strikes
and labor unrest along with the growth of trade unions and socialist political parties.
2|Page
Although the consumer society emerged in the late seventeenth century, the Second Industrial Revolution
dramatically increased the availability of consumer goods as seen in the development of Mail Order
Stores, Department Stores and Chain Stores which, for the first time, allowed people to buy an
astonishing variety of goods, (sometimes) all in one place, and making shopping a popular leisure activity.
Advertising as well was employed to drive consumer demand. Lower food prices made it possible for
people to spend more on consumer goods and urbanization created larger markets.
The great symbol of this Age of Consumerism was the London Great Exhibition of 1851, which was held
in the Crystal Palace, an incredible steel and glass exhibition hall, which displayed an astonishing variety
of goods. Among the more popular exhibits were textiles, porcelain, art works, technology and moving
machinery. One visitor noted that people "could watch the entire process of cotton production from
spinning to finished cloth. Scientific instruments … included electric telegraphs, microscopes, air pumps
and barometers, as well as musical, horological and surgical instruments."
The Age of the Middle Class
The latter half of the nineteenth century saw the middle class make great strides economically and in
political equality and so – after the Revolutions of 1848 – the Middle Class ceased to be a revolutionary
group. But it is also important to understand that the Middle Class was heterogeneous and consisted
of many groups from owners and managers of large businesses to small entrepreneurs and
professionals to the lower middle class of “white collar workers.”
The Captains of Industry or the most prosperous stood at the top of the middle class. They were owners
and managers of large banks and factories; and their wealth and style of living often rivaled that of the
aristocracy. In Great Britain, for example, W. H. Smith opened newsstands in in railway stations and not
only made a fortune and was rewarded by a seat in the House of Lords. The Krupps in Germany owned
huge steel and armament factories and became favorites of the Kaiser’s household.
The Professional People of the Middle Class included academics and teachers, social workers, engineers,
managers, nurses, and middle-level administrators. Their incomes allowed them to buy comfortable homes
filled with furniture, pianos, pictures and books; and allowed them to take vacations. Finally, there were
the Petite Bourgeoisie (or White Collar Workers) which included secretaries, retail clerks, and lower-level
bureaucrats in business and government. They often had lower class roots with aspirations to “better
themselves;” and they often pursued educational opportunities to raise their social standing.
There were often stresses and jealousies between the members of the Middle Classes. Small shopkeepers
resented large department stores and mail order catalogues that undercut their sales and profits. For
example in1848 Alfred Hammacher began the earliest surviving mail-order business, (now known as
Hammacher Schlemmer) and in 1872, Aaron Montgomery Ward of Chicago produced the first mail-order
catalogue for his Montgomery Ward mail order business. He bought goods and then resold them directly to
customers which removed the small shopkeepers and drastically lowered prices. And there is some
evidence that many professions were overcrowded making attainment of middle-class status more difficult
to attain.
Cities and Urban Life in the Late Nineteenth Century
In the second half of the nineteenth century, urbanization (or the moving of people from the countryside to
cities) continued to increase. Between 1850 and 1911, people living in the cities rose from 25 percent to 45
percent of the population in France and from 30 to 60 percent in Germany. These mass movements often
created new problems. Newly arrived city dwellers often faced poor housing (slums), social anonymity (a
feeling of isolation or loneliness) and a loss of their familiar social and family traditions.
3|Page
Often migrants did not possess the prerequisite skills for many types of employment and, coupled with
steep competition for the jobs available, they often faced enormous obstacles. Moreover, people from
different ethnic backgrounds might find themselves victims of racial or religious or ethnic prejudice.
Redesigning Cities
Urban migration also put strains on city resources and so cities began to develop new patterns; especially in
the central city where there were businesses, government offices, large stores and theatres dotted the
skylines but where fewer people were living. Cities were redesigned and rebuilt and the most famous
example was Paris. Like so many cities, Paris had grown over the centuries from a medieval core with little
design or planning. Great public buildings and squalid (filthy) tenements (crowded apartments of the poor)
existed side by side. The Seine River was an open sewer; the streets were narrow, crooked and crowded. It
was impossible to easily move from one section of the city to another either on foot or in a carriage and in
1850, there was not even an accurate map of the city. Napoleon III wanted things to change for sanitary
reasons, ease of transportation and his knowledge that crooked streets made the setting up of barricades
easy for radicals and revolutionaries, as was seen in the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848.
Napoleon III personally took charge in a complete redesigning and reconstruction of Paris. He appointed
Georges Haussmann (1809-1891) to oversee the massive undertaking. Whole districts of the city were torn
down to open the way for broad boulevards and streets that became the distinguishing features of modern
Paris. The rebuilding had twin purposes. First, it opened wide vistas dotted with majestic trees and
magnificent buildings. Second, it allowed for quick deployment of troops to put down riots. In addition,
parks and major buildings such as the Paris Opera House added to Paris’ beauty, while new jobs were
created for street sweepers, gardeners, other laborers along with government bureaucrats, office workers
and story employees which filled the new buildings. Many of these buildings were completed during the
early years of the Third Republic and by the later 1870s, electric trollies were operating – followed by a
subway system which began construction in 1895.
In 1889, the Eiffel Tower was built, originally as a temporary structure for the International Trade
Exposition that year. Between 1873 and 1914, the Roman Catholic Church began construction of the
Basilica of the Sacred Heart (Sacré Cœur) as an act of national penance for the sins that had supposedly
led to France’s defeat and humiliation in the Franco Prussian War. It is those two landmarks that
symbolized the political divisions between the Liberals (Eiffel Tower) and the Conservatives (Sacré Cœur) of
the Third Republic.
As a result of urban commercial growth, slum clearance (often to widen streets) and the increasing cost of
urban land and rents, both the middle class and the working class looked to the suburbs for housing.
Suburbs are residential areas (sometimes mixed residential and farming) that surround urban cities. Suburbs
first emerged on a large scale in the 19th century as a result of improved rail and road transport which led
to commuting from home in the suburb to a job in the city; and occurred in almost every European country.
The middle class wanted less crowded housing and more pleasant surroundings; the working classes
wanted more affordable housing. It is important to understand that cheap rail transport made commuting to
the suburbs possible.
Urban sanitation
Urban sanitation was almost nonexistent in the Early Modern World but began make dramatic
improvements by the middle of the nineteenth century. One of the great reasons for concern about
sanitation (or the need for cleanliness) came from devastating cholera epidemics of the 1830s and 1840s.
Cholera (a deadly and violent gastro-intestinal disease that comes from contact with water or food contaminated
with feces of an infected person) struck all classes of people but the middle classes demanded action.
4|Page
Bacteria were first detected by Antony van Leeuwenhoek in the 17th century when he observed the
plaque on his own teeth (“a little white matter” as he called it) under a microscope. During the 1840s, many
doctors and government officials began to connect the unsanitary conditions in cities (polluted water and
air) with disease, especially cholera. The French doctor, Louis René Villermé (in his Catalog of the Physical
and Moral State of Workers), the English social reformer, Edwin Chadwick (in his Report on the Sanitary
Conditions of the Laboring Population), and the laboratory investigations of the German doctor and
pathologist, Rudolf Virchow, all linked disease with substandard sanitary conditions and called for
sanitary reform.
The result was the construction of new sewer and fresh water systems; slowly at first in the capitals, then to
the larger cities. The sewer system of Paris was one of the most famous parts of Haussmann’s rebuilding of
the city. Moreover, Haussmann commissioned the engineer Eugène Belgrand with the creation of a new
system of water aqueducts. The Albert Embankment, built in the late 1860s along the Thames River in
London, allowed sewers to flow into the river and protected fresh water pipes from contamination.
Wherever these kinds of sanitary improvements were made, the mortality rate dropped. Governments now
began to pass sanitary laws and organize departments of public health to regulate the construction of new
water mains and sewers.
Housing Reform
After the Revolutions of 1848, more attention was also paid to working-class housing which was
deplorable. Large families might live in a single room with no privacy and almost no sanitation. The
tenement neighborhoods were dark and dirty. A single toilet might serve an entire block of tenement
houses. Middle class reformers thus believed that proper housing would solve many medical, moral and
political problems of European urban slums and bring about a good home life for the working poor. In the
1880s, there was such a flood of migrants to the cities looking for work that housing became a political
issue. In 1885, legislation in England lowered interest rates for companies that built worker housing.
France did the same in 1894. These were small steps but by the eve of the First World War most
governments recognized the problem that had to be resolved.
Women’s Issues in the late Nineteenth Century
During the late nineteenth century women of the upper classes (bourgeoisie and nobility) might live more
comfortably and exercise more influence that women of the working classes but still women faced
economic and social inferiority as compared with men.
Property
Until the last years of the nineteenth century, married women in most European countries were not allowed
to own property in their own names, no matter what their social class. With their marriages, their husbands
gained control of any property they might have owned or inherit or earn by their own labor. In effect, they
had no legal identity to the point that, if a married woman’s purse were stolen, it was legally her husband’s
property that was stolen.
In 1882 however, Great Britain passed the Married Women’s Property Act which allowed married
women to own property in their own right. In France, the process was slower. Until 1895, a married woman
could not open a savings account in her own name nor could French women gain possession of their wages
until 1907. In 1900, Germany allowed women to take jobs without their husbands’ permission, but, except
for her wages, a German husband retained control of most of his wife’s property. Similar norms were
found in the rest of Europe.
5|Page
Family Law
European Family Law was still rooted in the Code Napoleon which made the husband the head of the
household and wives subservient to the husbands. Divorce was difficult almost everywhere. In England
before 1857, each divorce required an individual act of Parliament. Most nations did not permit divorce by
mutual consent. Adultery was the most common reason for divorces but the rules made it more difficult for
women to prove than men. And the “double standard” was norm across Europe with a man’s extramarital
affairs tolerated much more than a woman’s. At any rate, divorce required court action and presentation of
legal proof which was very difficult and expensive for men and especially women.
The husband also had almost absolute authority over the children. He could take children away from their
mother and give them to someone else to raise. In most countries, a daughter needed her father’s
permission to marry and fathers often chose their daughter’s spouse, often ignoring their daughter’s
feelings. After a divorce, the husband was almost always granted custody over the children regardless of
his conduct that caused the divorce.
The issues of sexual and reproductive rights of women were not normally talked about in a society in
which the male dominated and the female followed. Until well into the twentieth century, both
contraception and abortion were illegal. Laws dealing with rape almost always favored the male (the double
standard again). The bottom line was that wherever women turned with the problems – to doctors or
lawyers or the police – women were confronted with a legal and social system dominated by men for the
benefit of men.
Education
Women generally had less access to education than men throughout the nineteenth century, so it is not
surprising that the literacy rate among women was much lower than men and that the education that most
literate women received was only enough for their domestic lives. University education was closed to
women until the 1860s when the University of Zurich admitted women. In 1878, London University
admitted women for degrees and although women’s’ colleges were founded at Cambridge and Oxford,
women were not granted degrees until the early 1920s. The Austrian Empire allowed women to earn
degrees in the mid-1890s and Prussia not until after 1900. Russian universities did not admit women until
1914. Italy was more open to both women students and instructors. The bottom line was that in spite of
many men’s fears about women receiving degrees, women slowly gained access to higher education as the
nineteenth century turned into the twentieth.
School teaching at the elementary level was seen as women’s work because of its association with
nurturing young children. Men rarely taught elementary children and women elementary teachers were
trained at colleges and institutions usually called Normal Schools. Nevertheless, even though they were
considered educated, elementary school female teachers were not considered as well educated as university
educated men with degrees.
Employment Patterns for Women
Employment patterns for women were driven by the Second Industrial Revolution and two major
developments: (1) the availability of new jobs and (2) withdrawal from the labor force. The Second
Industrial revolution created new governmental bureaucracies, large corporations and big businesses and
retail stores, all of which created new employment opportunities for women. Elementary schoolteachers
were also needed as compulsory primary education became more common. The typewriter and the
telephone also created new job opportunities for women. Women who became teachers, secretaries and
shop assistants required lower levels of training and, as a result, earned low wages. Thus women rarely
occupied prominent positions in the workforce and, unless women received support from a father or
husband, their wages were usually insufficient to survive or at least live in any reasonable comfort.
6|Page
Most women in the labor force were unmarried and upon marriage (and certainly upon the birth of the first
child) women almost always withdrew from the work force. This was not new and was continued because
there were fewer garment and textile jobs available and employers in offices and retail sales preferred
young, unmarried women to older, married women. Finally, as middle class prosperity increased, there was
less need for women to enter or remain in the work force. An older mode of employment in many Central
European countries was the Putting-Out System in which women worked in their homes or in small
“sweat shops” but rarely in a factory. In 1896 in Berlin, this system employed over 80,000 garment
workers.
Women who were unemployable, due to economic conditions or who came from families of unskilled
laborers or were orphans or had minimal skills and education often turned to prostitution. Although not
new, prostitution was clearly related to the difficulties of poorer women being unable to find employment.
On the continent, prostitution was generally legalized and regulated whereas in Britain, prostitution
received only minimal governmental regulation. Location along with poverty also played a role, as towns
with large military or naval bases attracted large numbers of prostitutes as opposed to manufacturing towns
or the suburbs where family life was more stable. Contrary to sensationalist newspapers stories of the time,
child prostitution was extremely rare. Moreover, it seems to be a myth that middle class employers
employed prostitutes or forced themselves on their female employees. The bottom line was that working
class men were the primary customers of prostitutes.
Middle Class Women
During the second half of the nineteenth century, middle class men came to be seen as the “bread winners”
so that, in many homes, men no longer did chores which were delegated with other menial tasks to women
and children. In upper and middle class families men gained enormous prestige in the family and the
community. Many professionals (doctors, lawyers, upper level bureaucrats and businessmen) adopted a
strong work ethic even though they now had free time for shorter working hours, relaxation and vacations.
They also sought self-improvement, especially reading or attending lectures. Moreover, they demanded the
same work ethic of their factory employees. Such attitudes resulted in a whole new ideal of respectability
and morality which was reflected in churches, schools and factories.
These attitudes led to the Cult of Domesticity in which women, if at all possible, did not work but limited
themselves to the roles of wife and mother. Home life now became a place of private refuge, detached
from business and the marketplace. During the first half of the nineteenth century, women of the middle
class contributed directly to their husband’s business and financial affairs but in the latter half of the
century, European (and American) culture began praise and endorse motherhood, domesticity (affairs having
to do with the home), taking part in religious activities (going to church and women’s prayer groups), and
helping the poor and less fortunate as proper roles for proper women. In many ways, such attitudes
paralleled in a subordinate or lesser role the rise in prestige of middle class men. Within the home, middle
class women mostly directed the household and much advertising reflected this new status. Nevertheless,
the Cult of Domesticity set strict limits on what was expected of middle class women and the husband was
still head of the household.
The Rise of Feminism
Up to the nineteenth century, it can be noted that liberal values were mostly male oriented and generally
did not improve the lives of women, particularly in the areas of suffrage and political accessibility. In
Catholic countries, for example, male liberals opposed female suffrage because they believed that
conservatively oriented priests held excessive (undue) influence over women and similar fears existed
regarding Anglican priests and Lutheran pastors. Consequently, anticlerical liberals often had difficulties
working with feminists.
7|Page
Women often created their own obstacles to equality and women were often reluctant to support feminist
causes for many reasons. Some women avoided feminism because feminism was an economic hindrance to
their class status and therefore their economic interests. Other women were more interested in supporting
patriotism and nationalist interests. Still other women opposed feminism because they could not approve of
the tactics used by feminists in their struggle for equality. (Tactical differences also often bitterly divided
feminists themselves and caused bitterness in their ranks – especially among Roman Catholic feminists who
opposed violence.) Except in England, it was often difficult for working class women and middle class
women to work together for common cause. And finally, women often disagreed each other about which
causes for improving their political and social conditions should be given the highest priority.
In Chapter 17, we saw that an English feminist, Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797), a self-educated woman,
published a 1792 influential essay, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, in which she argued that
women possessed all rights that men possessed. Moreover she argued that education for all women would
actually make them better mothers and wives and prepare them for professional occupations and even
participation in political life. In the nineteenth century, women continued to face barriers to political
equality and especially suffrage.
In 1869, the English philosopher (and supporter of Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy of Utilitarianism), John
Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill (1804-1858) published the highly controversial
The Subjection of Women in which they argued – much like Wollstonecraft and the emerging liberals of
the nineteenth century – that society would benefit (in efficiency and utility or usefulness) from educated
women. [Remember that nineteenth century liberals almost always came from the educated, relatively wealthy
people, usually associated with the professions, education and business.] Mill argued that everyone should have
the right to vote and that the moral and intellectual advancement of women would result in greater
happiness for everybody or, in other words, a better society.
Because of its unique history – from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to John Stuart Mill - Great
Britain became home to the most vigorous (powerful) of the feminist movements in Europe. The English
suffragist and feminist, Millicent Fawcett (1847-1929), was the leader of the moderate National Union of
Women’s Suffrage Societies. Fawcett, using the philosophy of English liberalism, believed that
Parliament would give women the vote only if they were convinced that women would use the vote
responsibly. Her husband, Henry Fawcett (1833-1884), was an economist and Liberal Party cabinet minister
in the Second Gladstone ministry, who campaigned vigorously for woman’s suffrage. Fawcett herself (who
outlived her husband by almost a half century) worked and campaigned for suffrage during her entire life and
was given much credit when women over thirty were given suffrage.
Emmeline Pankhurst (1858-1928) on the other hand, was much more radical. Her husband Richard was
older by twenty four years and died near the end of the century in 1898. He had been active in both labor
and Irish nationalist politics; and was involved in confrontational politics with the police over the right to
hold political meetings. In 1903, Pankhurst and her daughters founded the Women's Social and Political
Union which campaigned for women’s suffrage. In 1910, having failed to move the government, they used
violence and protests that included smashing windows and even arson. Pankhurst and her WSPU members
were known derisively as Suffragettes and were sentenced to repeated prison sentences, where they staged
hunger strikes (and – to the horror of the public – were force-fed by plastic tubes down the throat which was
extremely painful).
Pankhurst in her day was widely criticized for her violent tactics, and historians disagree about her
effectiveness, but her work is recognized as a key element in achieving women's suffrage in Great Britain.
She justified her tactics with the statement, “There is something that governments care for more than
human life and that is property; so it is through property we shall strike the enemy.”
8|Page
On the continent, the women’s movement moved more slowly and showed how advanced the women’s
movement was in Great Britain. In France during the 1880s, Hubertine Auclert (1848-1914) battled for
woman’s suffrage but stood virtually alone. Then during the 1890s, several women’s groups appeared. In
1901, the National Council of French Women (CNFF) was organized by upper middle class women but
did not receive much female support for several years. Almost all French feminists rejected violence or
even mass rallies; rather they preferred to work through the legal system, through leaders like JeanneElizabeth Schmahl who founded the French Union for Women’s Suffrage in 1909 and the Catholic
feminist, Marie Mauguet. In 1919, the French Chamber of Deputies passed a bill to give suffrage to
women but it was defeated in the French Senate in 1922. French women would not receive the vote until
after the Second World War.
In Germany, feminism was even more underdeveloped and, because German law forbade German women
from engaging in political activity, faced many more difficulties. Nevertheless in 1894, the Union of
German Women’s Organizations (BDKF) was founded and by 1902, it was supporting female suffrage.
But the BDKF’s main concern was improving social conditions for women such as increased access to
education and involvement in local governments. The BDKF also lobbied for child welfare, aid to the poor
and public health services. The German Social Democratic Party supported women’s suffrage but both
the German government and the Catholic Church authorities so despised the socialists that they blocked
any reforms towards women’s suffrage. It would be under the Weimar Government (in 1919, after World
War I), that women in Germany would receive the right to vote.
But the bottom line was that, up to and during World War I, women’s demands for political equality,
especially suffrage, fell on deaf ears. Only Norway in 1907, granted women the right to vote.
Jewish Emancipation
Jewish emancipation, (being given citizenship and social equality), came slowly and irregularly to Europe. In
1782, the Enlightened Despot and Hapsburg emperor, Joseph II, issued a decree that placed the Jews in his
empire under the same laws (more or less) as Christians. In 1789 in France, the National Assembly made
Jews French citizens. During the Napoleonic wars, Jewish communities in Germany and Italy were allowed
to mix (more or less) with the Christian population. These freedoms were always uncertain and often taken
away (or modified) by later governments. Often Jews were granted political rights but were forbidden to
own land and burdened with confiscatory (punishing or expropriating – code for stealing) taxes. But with the
exception of Russia where discrimination against Jews continued up to the First World War, the nineteenth
century saw Jews gain equal or close to equal citizenship
After the Revolutions of 1848, Jewish Emancipation picked up speed and Jews in Germany, Italy, the Low
Countries and Scandinavia gained full citizenship. After 1858, British Jews could sit in Parliament. After
1850, it became common for Jews to enter the professions and other occupations once closed to them.
Benjamin Disraeli, for example, was a converted Jew but “converted” meant nothing in people’s minds; to
most people, he was a Jew and Victoria’s Prime Minister. His example, nevertheless, helped lessen antiSemitic prejudice in Britain and to a lesser degree on the continent. After 1848, Jews also became more
active in the arts, music, science and education. And Jews were able in most countries to intermarry freely
with non-Jews, as laws prohibiting Jewish-Christian intermarriages were repealed.
Nevertheless, anti-Semitism grew in the 1880s and 1890s. Many Jews, especially from Russia and Poland
(where pogroms were still commonplace) emigrated to Western Europe and the United States. But even in
Western Europe, Jews often faced anti-Semitic discrimination. Anti-Semitism in Germany and the Dreyfus
Affair in France convinced many Jews that they could not be treated fairly anywhere in Europe and led to
the birth of Zionism which demanded a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.
9|Page
Labor-Force Movements
As the Second Industrial Revolution created further industrial expansion, the numbers of the urban
Proletariat grew dramatically. [The Proletariat were the wage-earners (especially industrial workers), who, in a
capitalist society, only had their labor to trade.] During the same years, the numbers of artisans and highly
skilled workers declined. After the Revolutions of 1848, European workers stopped rioting in the streets
and trying to revive the old guilds; and workers turned to new institutions and ideologies: trade unions,
democratic political parties and various types of socialism.
Trade Unionism
Trade Unions took form when European governments began to extend legal protections to unions during
the second half of the century. In 1868, Napoleon III, who in his authoritarian empire had used troops to
break up strikes, gradually allowed the formation of primitive labor unions as his power waned during his
liberal empire. In 1884, the Third Republic would fully legalize labor unions. In 1871, unions were
legalized in Great Britain. In Germany, unions were permitted after 1890. At first, unions were mostly
concerned about the wages and working conditions of skilled workers but by 1900, industrial unions for
unskilled workers were taking form. Unions were forced to engage in long strikes to convince employers to
agree to their demands and so employers were very hostile to these unions, especially for unskilled labor.
In the decade leading up to World War I, more and longer strikes took place by disgruntled (angry) workers
who wanted raises in order to keep up with rises in the cost of living. In 1910, union membership was still
relatively small (three million in Great Britain, two million in Germany and just under a million in France) but,
nevertheless, unions represented for workers a new form a collective association whose purpose was to
campaign for improved wages and working conditions.
Democracy and Political Parties
Except for Russia, all the major European states, even the German and Hapsburg empires, had some form
of democratic representation. As we saw in the last chapter, Disraeli brokered the Reform Act of 1867 (The
Second Reform Act) which doubled the number of voting males from one million to two million. Then
during the second Gladstone ministry, Parliament passed The Reform Act of 1884 (Third Reform Act)
which extended the 1867 concessions from the boroughs (villages/towns) to the countryside, creating an
electorate that totaled over five and a half million voters.
Otto von Bismarck brought universal male suffrage to Germany in 1871. By 1875, France’s Third Republic
had created a Chamber of Deputies elected by universal male suffrage. Universal male suffrage was made
law in Switzerland in 1879; in Spain in 1890; in Belgium in 1893; in the Netherlands in 1896; in Norway in
1898; and in Italy in 1908. The expanding of democratic suffrage meant that politicians and government
could not ignore workers and their grievances. It also meant the formation of political parties like those
which had already developed in the United States [Democrats and Republicans] and Great Britain [Liberals and
Conservatives].
At first, most European states had narrow electoral bases (small number of voters) that came from the
aristocracy or bourgeoisie. They knew what was at stake in the political process and so did not need much
political organization. But with the coming of democracy and the expansion of the electorate, the political
process was opened to a growing number of people whose level of political consciousness, awareness and
interest was marginal (low). This electorate had to be organized and taught about democratic power and
influence in the liberal democratic state. The creation (and organization) of political parties – with its
workers, newspapers, social life and party rules – was the vehicle that created new voters and the largest
single class of voter was the working classes.
10 | P a g e
This democratization process created the largest single political group in history and opened the doors for
socialists to gain support of the voters (i.e. workers) in their struggles against the ruling classes. But the
socialists generally opposed nationalism which most workers supported. Thus the socialists gained support
from the workers but not to the degree they might have had, had they supported nationalism. The major
question that faced socialists in the late nineteenth century was whether revolution or democratic reform
would improve the lives of the working class. This question divided almost all socialist groups and
especially those who followed the ideas of Karl Marx.
Karl Marx and the First International
In Chapter 21, we saw that Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) scorned the Utopian
Socialists and their desire to create ideal working communities (such as New Lanark in Scotland) as
“unrealistic venturers” that offered no real solution in a brutal world. As the Second Industrial Revolution
unfolded, Marx became keenly aware of the changing world created by that revolution. Although Marx
continued to predict the disintegration of capitalism which would inevitably result in a Dictatorship of the
Proletariat, his practical, public and political activity took a different approach.
In 1864, British and French trade unionists founded the International Working Man’s Association, or the
First International. Its members were socialists, anarchists, trade unionists, Irish and Polish nationalists
along with followers of Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Louis Auguste Blanqui. Its goal was to
unite its various groups; all of which supported the betterment of the working classes. Openly, Marx
approved of the First International and its member groups but privately he criticized their efforts. Marx was
much more impressed with Paris Commune of 1871 which he considered a true proletarian revolution.
But the Paris Commune also alarmed the French government which persecuted socialists and the First
International dissolved in 1873. Debates about its effectiveness kept labor groups from uniting but it was
clear that Marxism had become the dominate form of socialism. The scientific character of Marxism made
it attractive at a time when science was changing society.
Great Britain: Fabianism and Early Welfare Programs
Great Britain was an exception and neither Marxism nor any other form of socialism made much progress
in Great Britain, where trade unions grew steadily and whose members generally supported the Liberal
Party. In the 1890s, dockworkers, gas workers and other unskilled workers organized. In 1892, Kier
Hardie (1856-1915) a Scottish socialist and labor leader was the first working man to be elected to
Parliament. In 1893, the Independent Labour Party was founded but the socialist movement remained
weak. In 1901, the House of Lords decided that unions could be liable for loss of profits to employers that
were caused by union strikes. The Labour Movement was outraged and responded by founding the Labour
Party. In the 1906 elections, the new party sent twenty-nine members to Parliament. Their goals were not
yet socialist but at the same time the British labor movement became more militant. In the years leading up
to World War I, strikers fought for wages to meet the rising cost of living and the government became
more and more involved as a mediator - especially in the railway, dockyard and coal mine strikes of 1911
and 1912.
Non Marxist intellectuals on the other hand, were the driving force of British socialism, of which the
Fabian Society, founded in 1884, was the most influential. The society’s purpose was to advance the
principles of socialism in a slow but steady reforming of the government and as a result laid many of the
foundations of the Labour Party. Because the society favored gradual change rather than revolutionary
change, it was named Fabian in honor of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus (nicknamed
"Cunctator", meaning "the Delayer") who used harassment and attrition rather than head-on battles against the
Carthaginian army under Hannibal.
11 | P a g e
At the center of the Fabian Society were Sidney Webb (1859-1947) and Beatrice Webb (1858-1943) who
wrote about industrial Britain including A History of Trade Unionism which was a detailed account of the
roots and development of the British trade union movement. Other prominent members were the prolific
author, H G Wells (1866-1946), the Irish playwright, George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) and the sociologist
Graham Wallas (1858-1932). Most members of the society believed that problems created by the expansion
of an industrial society could be solved gradually, peacefully and democratically. They believed that they
could educate the country about the wisdom of socialism. They were especially interested in collective
ownership on the municipal (towns and cities) level - as in socialized gas and water ownership.
Both the Liberals and the Conservatives responded slowly. In 1903, Joseph Chamberlain (1836-1914), the
father of future Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, led the Tariff Reform League to lobby for tariff
reform. The plan was to increase duties (taxes) on imports and then use the money raised for social
reforms. The campaign split the Conservative Party and was the major factor in its landslide defeat in 1906
to the Liberals. After 1906, the Liberal Party under Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman (1836-1908) and then
Herbert Asquith (1852-1928) pursued a two pronged approach. First, the Liberals passed legislation to
ensure trade unions could not be liable for damages incurred during strike action; then they passed a social
agenda including establishing labor exchanges, regulating certain trades (such as tailoring and lace making)
and passed the National Insurance Act of 1911 which provided unemployment benefits and health care.
But the passing of the National Insurance Act (which was almost defeated in a bitter contest) created the
problem of how to pay for the reforms. The Liberal majority in the House of Commons wanted to tax the
upper classes but they were opposed by the Conservative dominated House of Lords. In 1909, David
Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed a deliberately provocative (aggressive) People's
Budget. It was perhaps the most controversial in British history, as it systematically raised taxes on the rich
(especially the landowners) to pay for welfare programs (and, as we shall soon see, for new battleships in the
Naval Race with Germany). Neither side would budge until King George V threatened to appoint hundreds
of Liberal members to the House of Lords. As a result the Lords passed the Parliament Act of 1911. Two
important points must be made. First, Britain became the first major nation to increase taxes in order to
take on an expanded role in the lives of its citizens and, second, that the House of Lords had lost its power
to have any control of finances in the British government.
French Socialism and the French Labor Movement
French socialism was never as united as socialism in other countries. The principal reason was that French
socialists divided into different factions. By 1900, Jean Jaurés (1859-1914) and Jules Guesde (1845-1922)
led the two major factions of French socialists. Jaurés believed that socialists should cooperate with middle
class radical ministers to gain the social legislation they wanted. Guesde, on the other hand, believed that
socialists could not in good conscience support a bourgeois cabinet which they were – in theory –
dedicated to replacing. The government’s pathetic response to the Dreyfus affair created more animosity
between the two groups. To try to unite the divided socialists, the French Prime Minister, René WaldekRousseau (1846-1904) appointed the socialist Alexander Millerand (1859-1943) to the cabinet.
After the failure of the First International in 1873, a Second International was founded in Paris on Bastille
Day, July 14th, 1889, in a new effort to unify nationalists, socialists and trade unionists. In 1904, The
Amsterdam Congress of the Second International debated the issue of “opportunism” or the opportunities
provided when socialists participated in government ministries. The Congress condemned opportunism and
ordered French socialists to form a single party. Jaurés accepted the decision; French socialists began to
work together, and by 1914, French socialists had become the second largest group in the Chamber of
Deputies. However, with the assassination of Jaurés and the outbreak of World War I in 1914, patriotism
caused French socialists to participate in the wartime cabinet. After the war, French socialists split and did
not again serve in a French cabinet until the Popular Front Government of 1936.
12 | P a g e
The French labor movement had its roots in anarchism and was generally not interested in politics or
socialism. French workers, however, usually voted socialist but unions, unlike those in Great Britain,
avoided participation in politics. The General Confederation of Labour (CGT) was founded in 1895
from the merger of two smaller unions. They sought to improve the working conditions of the laboring
classes by direct action and favored the strategy of Revolutionary Syndicalism as argued by George Sorel
(1847-1922) in his 1908 book Reflections on Violence which argues that the success of the proletariat in
class struggle depended on a catastrophic and violent revolution achieved through a general strike. His two
major themes are the concept of the social myth and the virtue of violence.
Thus, the general strike, the Marxist's revolution, the Christian's church militant and the legends of the
French Revolution are all social myths which, according to Sorel, are all expressions of a determination to
act. After World War I, Benito Mussolini reflected Sorel’s Syndicalism when he said, Men do not move
mountains; it is only necessary to create the illusion that mountains move. Stimulated by Sorel, French
unions conducted many strikes in the decade before World War I, many of which had to be suppressed by
government soldiers.
Germany: Social Democrats and Revisionism
The German Social Democratic Party
The German Social Democratic Party (SDP) was founded in 1875 and inspired by the labor agitation of
Ferdinand Lasalle (1825-1864) who wanted workers to participate in politics. Like the Second International,
the SDP was opposed to socialist participation in Bourgeoisie governments and it would be the SDP’s
organizational success that would keep Marxist socialism alive in Germany during the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. The party was substantially strengthened by Wilhelm Liebknecht (1826-1900) and
August Bebel (1840-1913) who were both Marxists that opposed reform politics (i.e., working with Bourgeoisie
governments) and advocated revolution.
Both Bebel and Liebknecht were detested by Bismarck. They were the only members who did not vote for
the large sums of money required for the Franco-Prussian War. Bebel was the only socialist who was
elected to the Reichstag in 1871, and he used his position to protest against the annexation of Alsace and
Lorraine and to express his full sympathy with the Paris Commune. Bismarck saw to it that both men spent
time in prison.
Bismarck believed that SDP would undermine German politics and society so he persecuted the SDP. He
used an assassination attempt on Kaiser Wilhelm I in 1878, in which the socialists had no involvement, to
maneuver antisocialist laws through the Reichstag. These laws suppressed the SDP, its meetings,
newspapers and any public activities. It meant that to belong to the SDP meant to be outside respectable
German life and in danger of losing one’s job. However, Bismarck’s tactics backfired. From the early
1880s, The German Social Democratic Party received more and more votes in Reichstag elections.
Although Bismarck was ruthless, he could also be pragmatic. His Realpolitik (politics or diplomacy based
primarily on power or practical and material factors) mentality (philosophy) realized that simple repression had
failed to weaken the hold of the SDP on the German working classes. So Bismarck adopted comprehensive
social welfare legislation. In 1883, the German Empire adopted health insurance; in 1884, accident
insurance. Finally in 1889, Bismarck sponsored old age and disability pensions. These programs, to which
both workers and employers contributed, represented a paternalistic and conservative alternative to
socialism. In effect, Bismarck made the state the organizer of its people’s welfare, thus making Germany
the first major nation to enjoy this kind of welfare program.
13 | P a g e
The Erfurt Program
It would be Kaiser Wilhelm II (r. 1888-1918), who would force Bismarck to resign in March of 1890,
(mostly over differences in foreign policy) and open the door for the German Social Democratic Party. The
new Kaiser allowed Bismarck’s old antisocialist legislation to expire because he hoped to gain new
political support from the working class. The single most important change was that socialists could now
sit in the Reichstag and that caused the Social Democratic Party to reevaluate its relationship with the
German Empire. The SDP, under the guidance of Bebel and the Czech-German philosopher, Karl
Kautsky (1854-1938), followed the Erfurt Program. As good Marxists, the Erfurt Program declared that
capitalism must collapse but that it was more important to secure benefits for workers than to work for the
revolution.
So the Social Democratic Party sent members to the Reichstag and worked with the government except for
voting in favor of military budgets. So, although in theory the SDP was hostile to the German Empire, in
practice its members participated in the empire’s governmental institutions. Moreover, they were able to do
so in good conscience because their members in the Reichstag refused to enter into any government cabinet
(to which they would never be invited anyway) and refused to vote in favor of any military spending.
Revisionism
Eduard Bernstein (1850–1932) was a German socialist, political theorist and politician, who was the
founder of Evolutionary Socialism and Revisionism. Evolutionary Socialism is the belief that gradual
changes through and within existing institutions in a society can ultimately change that society's
fundamental economic and political structures. Bernstein questioned whether Marx and his followers had
been correct in their pessimistic assessment of Capitalism and the inevitability of the revolution that had to
follow. This idea was heresy to the Marxists and Revisionism became a Marxist term that referred to
ideas or theories that significantly revised fundamental Marxist teachings.
In 1899, Bernstein, who had lived in Great Britain and was familiar with the Fabians, generated the most
important challenge within the socialist movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
when he published Evolutionary Socialism, in which he maintained that conditions in Europe did not meet
Marx’s criteria for an inevitable revolution. The standard of living was rising across Europe. Stockholding
was making ownership in Capitalist industries widespread. The middle class was not losing economic
ground and falling into the ranks of the working classes. Thus, the complications of Capitalism were not
evolving in the way the Marx predicted. Moreover, as more and more people were given the vote, more
people were able to effect change in governments that, in turn, would bring about needed social changes
without violet revolution. For Bernstein, social reforms through democratic institutions replaced violent
revolution as the path to a human socialist society.
Bernstein’s conclusions were hotly debated among German socialists who finally condemned them. His
critics argued that evolution towards social democracy might be possible in liberal Great Britain with its
Parliamentary system but not in authoritarian, militaristic Germany. The irony for German socialists was
that, even though they condemned Bernstein, the SDP still pursued a course of action similar to what
Bernstein advocated. Moreover, German workers prospered and wanted both to be good socialists and
patriotic Germans, not Marxists. So the SDP worked more and more for increasing its membership,
sending more of its members to the Reichstag and short term political and social reform. As a result, the
SPD prospered and became one of the most important institutions in imperial Germany. On the eve of
World War I, it was no surprise that SDP members of the Reichstag voted unanimously for war.
14 | P a g e
Russia: Industrial Development and Bolshevism
In the late 1800s, Russia finally entered the industrial age but because of deeply ingrained social problems
and her lateness in starting Russia faced particularly challenging problems which she would not be able to
resolve before the unthinkable devastation of the First World War and the terrible civil war that followed.
Industrialization under Witte
Tsar Alexander III (r.1881-1894) and his son Nicholas II (r. 1894-1917) were determined to make Russia – at
long last – a major industrial power. They believed (correctly but too late) that it was the only way Russia
could regain its position as a great power. They called upon a remarkable man, Count Sergei Witte (18491915) to accomplish this herculean task. After a career in railways, he was appointed first minister of
communication and finance minister in 1892. Witte pursued a policy of planned economic expansion,
protective tariffs, high taxes, putting Russia on the Gold Standard and ruthlessly making government and
business more efficient. He established financial relationships with France and made loans his
modernizations programs; all of which helped lead to a Franco-Russian alliance.
Witte concentrated on heavy industry and railway systems. Between 1890 and 1904, the Russian railway
system grew from 19,000 miles to 37,000 miles including the 5,000 mile long Trans-Siberian Railway,
stretching from Moscow to Vladivostok on the Pacific. Coal output more than tripled during the same
period and pig iron production increased from 928,000 tons in 1890 to 4,641,000 tons in 1914. During the
same period, steel production rose from 378,000 tons to 4,918,000 tons – an astonishing statistic. Textile
manufacturing and expansion of the factory system followed suit with textile manufacturing remaining
Russia’s largest single industry.
Nevertheless, rapid industrialization added to the social discontent in Russia just as it had in many other
countries. Landowners felt that foreign capitalists were taking too much profit. The peasants grew more
grain but resented the heavy taxes which burdened their lives. As industries grew, a small proletariat arose
in the cities amounting to about three million workers by 1900. They were often peasants drafted from the
country into the urban areas to work in factories. They enjoyed almost no protections from the state and
trade unions were illegal. In 1897, Even though Witte reduced the work day in factories to eleven and one
half hours, discontent and strikes multiplied.
Similar conditions exited in the countryside. After their emancipation, the serfs were burdened by
redemption payments in addition to national taxes. Moreover they did not own their own land as
individuals but as community or mir (village). A further disadvantage that often resulted in low production
was that the peasants farmed the land in strips or small plots. Sometimes a peasant’s allotted land was too
small to support his family so he had to work on large estates owned by the nobility or by a small group of
rich peasants called kulaks, who had prospered in spite of the conditions. Finally, between 1860 and 1914,
the population of European Russia grew from fifty million to around one hundred and three million, so that
hunger and lack of opportunity fueled frequent uprising.
Economic growth helped Russia but continuing social unrest brought political and intellectual changes. In
1901, the Social Revolutionary Party was founded. It traced its roots to Alexander Herzen and the
Populists of the 1870s. The Social Revolutionary Party opposed industrialism and looked to the communal
life of rural Russia as a model for the future. In 1903, the Constitutional Democratic Party or Cadets,
was formed. This liberal oriented party drew its members from those who participated in local councils,
called Zemstvos which Alexander II had established in 1864. The Cadets modeled themselves on the
liberal parties of Western Europe and wanted a constitutional monarchy under the parliamentary model.
15 | P a g e
Lenin’s Early Thought and Career
The situation Russian socialists faced was radically different form all other major European countries.
Russia had no national representative institutions (Zemstvos were local) and only a small working class (the
vast majority were peasants). What socialists accomplished in other countries was meaningless in Russia
and, coupled with the repressive policies of Alexander III and Nicholas II, brought the spirit of revolution
to Russian socialists. In 1898, The Russian Socialist Democratic Party was established and its leaders –
in exile - admired the German Social Democratic Party and quickly adopted its Marxist ideology.
The leading late nineteenth-century Russian Marxist was Georgi Plekhanov (1857-1918) who had written
about the necessity of the overthrow of the tsarist regime from exile in Switzerland. His chief lieutenant
was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (1870-1924) who later took the name Lenin. Lenin, who would become the
leader of the Communist Revolution, was the son of a high bureaucrat. His older brother, Alexander, while
a student at Saint Petersburg, had become involved in radical politics; he was arrested for participating in a
plot to kill Alexander III and executed by hanging in 1887. Lenin never forgot his brother’s death. In 1893,
Lenin moved to Saint Petersburg and studied law. Like his brother, he soon became involved with
revolutionary groups. He was arrested in 1895 and exiled to Siberia. In 1900, after his release, Lenin went
into exile to Switzerland – an exile that lasted seventeen years.
In Switzerland, Lenin became deeply involved in Marxist politics and debates which had little agreement
on how to create a revolution in rural Russia and how to structure their Marxist party. Moreover, they
looked backwards while the Social Democrats looked forward to modernization and industrial
development. Thus, most Russian Social Democrats, looking to the SPD model, believed that Russia must
develop a large proletariat before a Marxist revolution could take place.
Lenin disagreed with both the Social Democrats and the Marxists. In 1902, he published a political
pamphlet entitled What Is to Be Done? In it, he condemned any accommodations with the Bourgeoisie and
ruling classes as the German SPD did. He also criticized trade unionism which settled for short term gains
instead of true revolutionary change. He rejected any concept of a mass democratic party of workers. Most
controversially, he declared that revolutionary consciousness would not arise spontaneously from the
working class but people, “who make revolutionary activity their profession,” must carry that
consciousness to the people.
And only a small, tightly organized, elite party could lead the people into what they did not know they
actually wanted. Thus, Lenin rejected both Kautsky’s view that revolution was inevitable (had to happen)
and Bernstein’s view that democratic means could achieve revolutionary goals. So Lenin substituted a
small, professional, non-democratic revolutionary party for Marx’s proletariat as the instrument for
revolutionary change.
Bolsheviks and Mensheviks
In 1903, at the London Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party, Lenin forced a split in the
party ranks. He and his followers lost many votes on question put before the congress but near the close of
the congress, they managed to gain a slim majority. After that, Lenin’s faction took the name Bolsheviks
(meaning “majority”) while the other, more moderate faction came to known as the Mensheviks (meaning
“minority”). There was considerable propaganda value in the identification label of Bolshevik (i.e., it’s
meaning of majority) and in 1912, Lenin and his Bolsheviks organized themselves into a separate party. The
Mensheviks wanted a party with mass membership like the German Social Democratic Party (SDP) but
the Bolsheviks wanted a party run by a small, visionary elite. The bottom line was that Lenin believed
that a revolutionary party with wide membership would only delay the revolution.
16 | P a g e
More than other revolutionary, Lenin understood the deep unhappiness of the Russian countryside and so
he urged the unifying of the proletariat and the peasantry in a second pamphlet, Two Tactics of Social
Democracy in the Bourgeois-Democratic Revolution (1907). Lenin believed that the Russian government
probably would be unable to suppress an alliance of the workers and the peasants. But since 1907, Lenin
had been in exile and so the Bolsheviks found limited support in Russia. Moreover, they were also in the
background as far as most European socialists were concerned. But all that would change in 1917.
The Revolution of 1905
As Industrialization continued to cause resentment in Russia, Nicholas II dismissed Witte in 1903 (actually
he transferred him to the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, a post with no real power), hoping to
mollify criticism. The next year, Russia and Japan went to war over economic interests in Korea and
Manchuria. Nicholas not only hoped that war with Japan would unite Russia in a great patriotic effort with
himself as its principal hero, he also believed that Russia could easily crush tiny Japan, but the unthinkable
happened and Japan triumphed. The Japanese army not only defeated the Russian army but the Japanese
navy destroyed the Russian navy at the Battle of Tsushima which allowed Japan to seize Port Arthur,
Russia’s naval base on the Chinese coast which caused a political crisis in Russia.
On January 22, 1905, a Russian Orthodox priest, George Gapon, led several hundred workers to present a
petition to the Tsar to improve the conditions of the working class. The marchers deliberately placed
women and children in the front hoping to prevent what happened: the soldiers fired into the crowd and
killed 130 men, women and children. This caused great anger throughout the country and people felt that
the tsar (their “Little Father”) had betrayed them. The country was paralyzed and came to a standstill with
peasant uprisings, labor stoppages, student demonstrations and mutinies in both the army and navy.
This Revolution of 1905 is important because there were many groups of protesters that came together to
pressure the government: the military and the peasants wanted economic relief; the same was true for the
factory workers who also wanted better working conditions; the intelligentsia and liberals wanted civil
rights and more say in the government, and minority and national groups wanted political and cultural
freedom. Had these groups been better coordinated, Marx’s revolution of the proletariat might have come
twelve years sooner –without Lenin. At any rate, the most ominous outcome of the Revolution of 1905 was
that workers began to create councils known as Soviets to organize strikes and demand redress (justice).
The frightened Nicholas then issued the October Manifesto, promising freedom of person, conscience,
speech and assembly – and reluctantly permitting the establishment of a Duma or Russian Parliament
with two chambers. In early 1906, Nicholas announced the creation of the Duma but kept ministry
appointments, financial control, the military and foreign affairs under his control. Nicholas was determined
to retain his autocracy, so, just before the sitting of the 1st Duma in May 1906, he issued a decree, The
Fundamental Laws, which stated that the Tsar's ministers could not be appointed by and were not
responsible to the Duma - and that the Tsar could dismiss the Duma and announce new elections whenever
he wished. In essence, he betrayed his October Manifesto.
Then in April, elections sent a much more radical group of representatives to the First Duma. Nicholas
then forced Sergei Witte to resign as chairman of the Council of Ministers and replaced him with the more
conservative Peter Stolypin (1862-1911), who had little sympathy for constitutional government and had the
tsar dissolve the First Duma. A Second Duma was elected in 1907 and when it did not cooperate with the
tsar and Stolypin, Stolypin had the tsar dissolve it and manipulate the election of a Third Duma which was
dominated by the aristocracy and more amenable (agreeable) to the tsar’s autocratic views. Stolypin was
determined to crush all opposition. Secret police arrested thousands and many were exiled to Siberia. In
early 1907, special courts condemned seven hundred peasants to death and there was even had a special
name given to the hangman’s noose: Stolypin’s Necktie.
17 | P a g e
But there was another side to Stolypin, who realized that the financial burdens of the serfs must be solved.
So in later 1906, even before the crackdown of 1907, Stolypin had all remaining redemptive land payments
owed by the peasants cancelled. His goal was for the peasants to assume individual proprietorship of their
land and abandon the communal system of the mirs. Stolypin correctly believed that farmers would be
more productive, if they worked for themselves. He also encouraged educational programs to instruct
peasants on how to farm more efficiently; and his efforts greatly improved agricultural production in the
years leading up to the First World War.
It is also important to note that the Third Duma was not as reactionary or conservative as might be
expected. Moderate liberals in the Duma were able to approve new land measures and supported the ideas
of competition and individual land ownership. A group of Constitutional Democrats gently urged a more
parliamentary form of government but were restrained for fear of provoking revolutionary disturbances.
Even Stolypin realized the repression was not working and in 1911, introduced moderate reforms; but was
assassinated later that year by a leftist revolutionary (who may have been disguised as a police agent working
for the conservatives who were afraid that Stolypin might influence to tsar to moderate his autocratic views).
Stolypin was also hated by the empress, Alexandra Feodorovna (Alix of Hesse, 1872-1918), ever since he
became critical of the monk Grigory Rasputin who dominated the empress and her husband after he
claimed the power to heal their hemophilic son and heir, Alexis. What strange role and influence this
uncouth man actually played, no one can say for sure but his bizarre hold over the royal couple alienated
them (especially the empress) from government ministers, the aristocrats, reformers and revolutionaries
alike and the Russian people.
The combination of Stolypin’s assassination, the undue influence of Rasputin and continued resistance by
the tsar to any liberalizing reforms caused a great sense of national confusion; and Nicholas’ government
simply limped along, so that by 1914, on the eve of the First World War, Russia could best be described as
an autocracy dominated by the aristocracy, seething with discontent and revolution.
18 | P a g e