Professor Alan Kimball (EMAIL OR tel. x4813)
Office hours = Tue & Thur 11:30-1:30pm in McK 367 or by appointment

OREGON RESEARCH GROUP
ON THE HISTORY OF RUSSIAN POLITICAL CULTURE =
The Centennial of the Russian Revolution of 1905

Table of Contents =

Some Basic Bibliography

WEEKS ONE AND TWO
(WE WILL PLAN WEEK THREE TOGETHER AS WE GO) =

Exercise One =

Exercise Two =

Exercise Three =

-
Exercise Five =

Researcher	Reading (eventually including comments by researcher)
Michael Adams	Venturi,Franco. Roots of Revolution| One may believe that the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 was simply the culmination of the violence in the Great War and the subsequent public outrage at a seemingly endless and futile war effort. From this revolution, it may seem as if the overthrow and execution of the tsar was a simultaneous assault on the autocratic regime. But in actuality, this regicide had been done before and the idea and action had its roots in the decades prior. In Roots of Revolution by Franco Venturi, he succinctly portrays a Russia decades and decades before this overthrow that was ripening towards revolution. Over the 700 pages, Venturi is determined to objectively present the relation of the state with its people and the humanism on the side of both revolutionaries and reactionaries. This relation is important to understand for the same dynasty (the Romanovs) had been in charge for centuries, since before Peter the Great in the late 17th and early 18th century. By “humanism” I suggest that Venturi explains necessarily the rationale behind each side during the chaotic 19th century. What we get from this book is a pattern of revolutionary (though that term is misleading early on since most “revolutionaries” were more interested in constitutional monarchies rather than democracies) movements and reactionary legislation. For example, we have the Decembrist uprising in 1825 that is immediately subdued by the program of Official Nationality under the 30-year reign of Nicolas I. Also, we see the pattern where Alexander II was assassinated by terrorists which was followed by fierce reactionary legislation (led by Constantine Pobedonostsev) up until the forgotten revolution of 1905. The book essentially begins with the Decembrists and ends with the chaotic year of 1881. Both endpoints are a time in which power shifted from one tsar to another. The first two chapters introduce two major characters in the origins of populism in Russia: Herzen and Bakunin. The book continues at a solid temporal pace thoroughly mixing in the philosophy and subsequent action of both sides. The reader truly notices how revolutionary ideas among the educated elite progressed and why the government reacted the way it did. It allows the reader, whether an academic or simply a curious intellectual, to notice that the terrorist acts of the 1870s and 1880s and the so-called revolutions of the early 20th century were not simultaneous acts but decades of pent up frustration along with the efforts of the intelligentsia in educating and mobilizing the masses. “The People” did not all of a sudden decide to act out on behalf of their disgust for such an oppressive regime. For decades, the educated revolutionaries were educating the peasants on necessary changes within the backward governmental system. Venturi does a great job of mapping this revolutionary evolution out for the reader. It goes over the success and ultimate failures of each movement within the 19th century. But in those successes, we see how revolution was possible simply because the ideas remained for future generations (i.e. Kolokol, Great Reforms, student groups) even if their voices and actions failed at the time.
Irene Alderman	Reed,Christopher. Religion, Revolution, and the Russian intelligentsia, 1900-1912 The Russian intelligentsia of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a circle within the educated classes that was committed to creative work, critical thought and the addressing the conditions of the oppressed classes. By the 1890s, the majority of the intelligentsia had moved from populism to Marxism and had adopted a revolutionary stance which included atheism, socialism and within the Kadet Party, constitutionalism. There had been a euphoric response to the revolution of 1905 and the resulting October Manifesto but that response gave way to despair with the autocratic crack down in 1906. The intelligentsia was at a crossroads. No one accepted the status quo of the autocratic state and all were agreed in the goals of social justice but the intelligentsia was split over the tactics to accomplish the transformation of society. The Vekhi essays challenged the religious and philosophical presuppositions of the intelligentsia. Vekhi (Landmarks) was a small book comprised of seven essays written by previous Marxists who were critical of revolutionary solutions. The writers were: Berdyaev, Frank, Bulgakov, Izgoev, Kistyakovsky, Struve and Gershenzon. Read insists that this was not a conservative book but was often treated as one. The writers attempted to persuade the intelligentsia to re-examine their uncritical faith in the ability of socialism to transform society by changing social structures and institutions. Each writer, in his own way, proposed spiritual change (the individual’s inner life) as the source of revolutionary transformation of society. Most of the writers argued that Marxism was a religious position; the worship of the people, the saving of the people and ultimately (messianic qualities) the perfectibility of the people. This notion was called mangodhood or godbuilders. Vekhi insisted that this ideology of the intelligentsia was as religious, dogmatic, intolerant and fanatical as Orthodoxy. The Vekhi writers can be separated into three groups: the new religious consciousness, Kadet Party, and despisers of the revolutionary underground. In the first years, Vekhi sparked interest from liberals and socialist. The interest was almost entirely negative. Discussion groups packed meeting halls throughout Russia. Lenin used Vekhi for propaganda purposes. He connected Vekhi with the Kadet Party and accused them of counter revolutionary liberalism which only served the interest of the status quo. By 1910 the interest in Vekhi had waned. Many historians see Vekhi as an attempt to raise the political dialogue and construct an authentic political response to the times; one that acknowledged the religious quality of the Russian people and addressed the class oppression. There is a great deal of detail in this account. Read describes the various groups in the new religious consciousness. He goes into a lot of detail in his discussion of Berdyaev and Bogdanov and their concept of Godmanhood. He is able to demonstrate the ability Lenin had to keep the party focused and disciplined while being attacked from both the right and the left. Anyone interested in the political thinking of artists in this time period will enjoy reading excerpts from Gorky, Minsky and Merezhkovsky (pp.121-140.)
Stewart Bogart	Fischer,Ben. Okhrana the Paris operations of the Russian Imperial Police The publication consists of a preface written by Fischer which describes the story of the Okhrana in Paris and the recovered files. The rest is a series of organized essays written for the CIA counterintelligence by an unknown author. All of these articles had previously appeared in the journal called Studies in Intelligence, which was published by the CIA. These articles are detailed descriptions of the Okhrana’s operations in Paris and all of the actors involved. Finally, the conclusion consist of a letter and the preface that inspired it which discussed the idea the Joseph Stalin was an Okhrana agent. The preface, which is by Ben Fischer, discussed a number of issues surrounding Okhrana and the CIA. He also makes a number of conclusions with regard to the Tsarist regime and the Bolsheviks. One of Fischer’s first points states that the opening of the Paris Okhrana in 1883, “a sign of both success and failure on the part of the tsarist authorities”(pg 1). The statement made reflects that Fischer believed it was more of a failure on the part of the tsarist than a success of the revolutionaries. France, especially Paris, had become a haven for the many Russian revolutionaries that had been thrown out of Russia, and these revolutionaries were able to take advantage of the west’s liberties to conduct anti-regime activities. The main body of the book consist of seven different articles written by an unknown CIA analyst. The articles are all interrelated and discuss stories of the Okhrana, its agents, and the Bolsheviks counterintelligence operations. One of the articles testifies to a Okhrana double agent during World War I. An agent named Dolin had Russian revolutionaries and the Germans convinced that he was working for them, while all along working for Okhrana. The author makes certain conclusions about the success of this operation and the fruits that it bore. The agent was able to dissuade German and Bolshevik attacks on Russia while also would give, “Okhrana regular information on the enemy’s intentions, methods, and program”(pg.80). This article and statement testifies to the instructiveness of these articles and the usefulness that the CIA had for the Okhrana files. At the end of the publication there are to texts that discuss the idea that Josef Stalin was an Okhrana agent. They both only have circumstantial evidence that Stalin was a deep cover agent. This idea had been around for a long time and many hoped that the publication of these files would shed some light. Unfortunately the Okhrana kept no official record of their deep cover agents, so even if Stalin was ever an agent there would be no mention of him in Okhrana’s files in Paris or St. Petersburg. This publication provides a lot of insight into a subject that is typically very difficult to research. It provides a simple preface discussing the Okhrana and what it did while also providing detailed and interesting stories that are entertaining and educational.
Kevin Cavanaugh	Levin,Alfred. Third Duma, Election and Profile After the collapse of the Second Duma, Russia was a nation of changing ideas and many fundamentally different political philosophies. Among the large, frustrated peasant base was a growing call for Marxist and Socialist beliefs. Already viewing the parliamentary system as nothing more than a compromise with the people, the Tsar sought to assure that the Third Duma would be a more conservative body cleansed of these “untrustworthy elements” that had caused the dissolution of the previous two Dumas. With this purpose in mind he issued the Election Laws on June 3, 1907 to vastly limit the elections and, by means of a system of gerrymandering and limiting registration to property owners, create the envisioned conservative Duma. This law decreased the peasantry’s electoral strength by one half. This caused many people of the lower class to become apathetic of the political process now that there was little chance of getting their voice heard. The Law also had an effect on the political parties of Russia. There was a multitude of different political parties, yet most that were elected to Third Duma seemed to be struggling with the same problem: maintaining stability. While conservatives were struggling with maintaining the status quo, parties like the Octobrists were struggling with maintaining social stability in a time when liberals seemed to be creating a revolutionary situation in Russia. After June 3 1907 popular opposition to the government voiced by the Duma became “unthinkable”. As a result, while many in the Octobrists secretly wished for reforms, they instead spent most of their energy cooperating with the regime and limiting excessive speech that would hurt the image of the Duma. For this reason, among liberals, they were known as the party of “sad necessity”. Levin states that “Only Social Democrats stayed strongly opposed to the government”. Landlords mobilized under the idea of defeating the ideas of the reformers while many liberal parties struggled with intra-party struggles. Violations at the polls and low turnout from the lower classes aided the conservative victory, to the satisfaction of the Tsar. More than anything, the election and the election results clarified a growing problem in Russia: growing government repression and irreconcilable differences between the peasantry and Russian State.
Lyra Eisen-Proctor	Engelstein,Laura. Moscow,1905:Working-Class Organization and Political Conflict First, we must understand what life was like in urban 1905 Russia. Engelstein gives the statistics as 60% of the Moscow textile force housed in a factory with more than 500 workers, and 75% in St Petersburg under the same conditions. By no means was the number of Russian people who lived under these circumstances negligible. In addition to factory workers, the working class also included laborers, pharmicists, railroad workers, soldiers, clerks, printers, and numerous others. These people, both men and women, shared a life marked by 13-18 hour days, and were unable to vote, hold political office, or gather legally for political purposes. According to Engelstein, the political action of 1905 begins with the intelligentsia, not with the working class. Social Democrats, working under the principles of Marxism, have been trying to motivate the working class population to revolutionary political action with limited success. Before 1905, Social Democrats (and Anarchists) had engaged in a public awareness movement which included sending young radicals to “teach” groups of laborers. The fruits of this labor seem to be a politically aware minority among Russian workers, but certainly not the revolutionarily active majority which the Social Democrats had hoped for. Lack of central organization, fear of state violence, and unfamiliarity with strike politics seemed to keep most of Russia’s working class away from the politics of the labor movement. Engelstein cites the formation of Zubatov Councils as one reason for the changes in Russia’s work force. Zubatov Councils were typically paternalistic groups formed by the state as an outlet for worker’s grievances. These councils were unintentionally politicized when Father Gapon lead a group of members in a peaceful march towards the winter palace. The marchers were armed with a list of grievances to be addressed. In this incident, state forces fired on the marchers and onlookers without discretion, wounding or killing at least 1,000 in the crowd. This act of state repression helped to politicize the workers and gain sympathy for the cause among the Russian majority. This was January of 1905. But politicized workers are not necessarily organized workers, as Engelstein points out here. The sporadic outbreaks of strikes in January and February of 1905 fizzle due to lack of organization, experience, and unity. It seems that each person is striking for a different reason. The September and October strikes are the prelude to the December Uprising. The September strikes are initiated by printers, without planning by intellectuals. Demands center around hours and wages. Engelstein states that these strikes have no political motivation. However, in the ranks of strikers are men and women familiar with strike tactics from January involvement. In the streets, the strikers mix with students and middle class citizens, all of whom are the targets of state sponsored violence. Under these circumstances, Engelstein argues that the strike movement snowballs. In October, an important group of diverse workers joins the strike movement: the railroad workers. Within the railroad workers as a whole, the blue and white collar workers are united as a striking body. This striking body has the power to paralyze Russia, as Engelstien argues. Moreover, the railroad union has Social Democrats, Social Revolutionaries, Anarchists, and assorted other liberals at the helm, all co-existing. The December Uprising is a natural event, considering (as Englestein has) the factors of a newly politicized working class, a sympathetic population, and the attempted quashing of the labor movement by an increasingly conservative city council, and the random violence of the Black Hundreds.
David Evans	Zuckerman,Frederic. The Tsarist Secret Police in Russian Society, 1880-1917 Fredric Zuckerman is currently a Senior Lecturer in History at the University of Adelaide. He acknowledged that this volume began as a PhD dissertation under the guidance of Professor William L. Blackwell at New York University. Zuckerman acknowledged his debt to the Hoover Institution as the location of primary sources, makes a point of his use of a modified Library of Congress transliteration system, and includes a note on the Julian Calender used by Tsarist Russia that ran 12 days behind the Gregorian in the 19th century and 13 days behind in the 20th century. Additionally an introductory glossary and abbreviation guide is given that identifies the common terms used by historians and contemporaries. Zuckerman uses these subject specific terms and abbreviations through out the book and the inclusion of a glossary was very helpful. This volume is a comprehensive study of the political police system in late Imperial Russia based on a vast bibliography of primary and secondary sources, and on Zuckerman's research in the Hoover Intitution's Archives. The main focus of the work is on the operation activities of the tsarist police between 1900 and 1917. Zuckerman is not biased or prejudiced in any way and deals with persons and events in an evenhanded manner. The Tsarist police are themselves unique in history but the need for a modern state to protect itself and its citizens is understood as a common feature of the modern nation state. Many European states and even the U.S. examined the Russian experience when establishing their own political police. Introductory chapters give an overview of Russia's 19th century experience in dealing with political dissent and then examines the lives and working conditions of individuals who served within the tsarist system. A sociological view of the bureaucracy by the identification of distinct groups within the police; civil servants, gendarmes, and former revolutionaries (sotrudniki). These individuals are shown to have conflicts when forced to interact with each other and additionally the various departments are shown to conflict within the system as departments vie with each for power influence, and monies, as well as individual ministers have agendas of their own which often conflict for personal reasons or for tactical and strategic reasons. What follows the look at the make up the political police is a detailed chronological account of the failures and accomplishments of the Russian political police from 1900 to 1917. The story is highlighted by events and people that bring the revolutionary period into focus. The story follows the police efforts and infighting of the many ministers and police chiefs who came to their appointments through chance or as the result of a patronage / clientele system. Sometimes the best man available for a post comes into power, but as often as not a mediocre or unsuitable man is chosen to lead the most important section at the worst possible time. Another problem is the lack of a strategic vision that could coordinate a single department much less coordinate a number of departments that could work together to achieve a desired goal. While not specifically laying the blame at the feet of Nicholas II it is obvious that the fault is the Tsar's and the tsarist / imperial system. The volume concludes with a chapter that discuses the similarities between the tsarist and Soviet secret police. I found this interesting but perhaps out of place. Obviously Zuckerman draws on a vast knowledge and understanding but this chapter is speculative and without the academic rigor that was evident in the previous chapters. While reading the last few chapters I had a feeling that Zuckerman had more to say as he made statements that were not as circumspect as earlier in the book. Perhaps a publisher's constraint or deadline came into effect. I must admit though that I myself have been guilty of speculation at the end of a research paper when insights gained during research find themselves added regardless of their relevance to my topic and thesis, and so I gave the author the benefit of the doubt and forgave, but some readers may be taken aback during the final chapter. While I enjoyed the book enormously I would not recommend it as an introductory volume. Zuckerman presupposes a certain knowledge of his subject, and a historical familiarity with many personalities and politics of the period. On the other hand anyone who is interested in the period will benefit from the huge bibliography that can be used as a guide for further reading.
Taylor Gooch	Rosenberg,William. Liberals in the Russian Revolution This book provides an account of the non-soviet liberal movement following the Tsar’s resignation. Specifically, it provides a detailed analysis of the Kadet’s political actions and their positive and negative impacts on both their own party and the revolution as a whole. The Constitutional Democratic Party (Kadets), second only to the Soviets in influence in 1917, laid much of the framework for the 1917 Provisional Government. Despite being composed of the professional class, the Kadets consistently claimed to represent the struggle of all Russian Peoples. The party followed three basic principles: gosudarstvennost’, nadpartiinost’, and rule of law. Gosudarstvennost’, “state system,” represented the Kadets’ national philosophy that the individuals’ or even city’s needs must be subordinate to those of the state. Furthermore, it represented the belief that political changes must come before social changes. Nadpartiinost’ represented the Kadets’ political beliefs at the party level. The Kadets strongly believed that in order to create a strong state one must abandon the party system and simply vote or act upon one’s own conscience. The Kadets’ most important principle was its commitment to law. For this reason the Kadets believed that the governmental system could only have power if it was given to them by the constituent assembly. Without the constituent assembly, the Kadets believed that no major political or social reform could be acted upon (the constituent assembly was not elected till two months after the Provisional Government’s collapse). Over the eight months of the Provisional Government’s existence and the following civil war, these three principles would continually distance the Kadets from the revolutionary movement. Rosenberg argues that because the Kadets’ staunch commitment to Gosudarstvennost’and Nadpartiinost’ the Kadets were forced rightward in the political spectrum, distancing themselves from the radical movements within both the peasants and military. Rosenberg further explains that the major fault with the three coalition governments (joint cabinets formed of both Socialists and Kadets) was that the Kadets would not allow for any substantial social changes that were being demanded for by the peasants and military without the formation of a constituent assembly. This was viewed by the masses as further evidence of the failure of the current government regime, and would aid the Bolshevik’s recruitment. Special attention is directed towards Manuilov, the Kadet party head throughout the book.
Matthew Greene	Miliukov,Pavel. The Russian Revolution, vol. 1 The book begins with a good, though brief, introduction to the author, Paul Miliukov, giving the reader an idea of the perspective from which he is writing. This early section contains what I see as one of the most important lines of the book "Miliukov's attempt to maintain the distinction between historian and memoirist does not come off." (page xx) As a reader it is very important to keep in mind that Miliukov's writing has been called "False from beginning to end" (Trotsky).  Almost all historians acknowledge that he at least omits details which might prove critical of him or his pro-Romanov, or rather pro-strong government beliefs. This is the first volume in a three part series dealing with the 1917 revolution and the events which followed. This installment focuses on the events which took place in 1917 with a pair of chapters on the important events leading up to 1917, one covering the 1700's until 1905 and another from 1905 and 1907. One topic which is covered in depth throughout this book is the Duma. Miliukov being an influential political leader witnessed the inner workings of the Russian legislative body and gives some interesting insights as to the body's operations (the Duma's reaction to the appointment of Protopopov, pgs. 18-20, the failed attempt to dissolve the Duma, pg. 169).  Another topic discussed in some detail is the role of the military in the 1917 revolution. Beginning with the uprisings in Tauride Palace mutinies on Feburary 26 th (pg. 26) and continuing with the problems of morale amongst the men fighting at the front after the overthrow of the old government. (pgs. 97-108) There are also many descriptions of the role of the soldiers in the Bolshevik revolution which starts on about page 175 and goes throughout the rest of the book. One of the main actors of this period that Miliukov mentions at length is I.G. Tsereteli, a onetime Duma deputy from Georgia. He goes so far as to quote one as saying, "As a whole, the history of the Committee in terms of its organization and membership should be divided into two periods: before and after the arrival of Tsereteli " (pg. 52). Since there are two members in our group who are focusing their researching on the Okhrana I should note that there are only two references to the group in this book, both of which are brief. On Page 24 there is a mention of how the major proponent of a plan to march on the same day as the Duma reopened was in fact an Okhrana agent provocateur. On page 26 there is a mention that one of the first acts of the mutinying soldiers mentioned above was to burn the Okhrana headquarters at Tverskaia Street (pg. 26).
Derek Heath	Mehlinger,Howard, and John M. Thompson. Count Witte and the Tsarist Government...
Alan Kimball (I give here my review, as an example of the sort of 300-600-word essay that each researcher will write and send by email to me by the end of the third week)	Khristoforov,Igor G. “Aristokraticheskaia” oppozitsiia Velikim reformam.... In the era of “Great Reforms”, certain noble groups with economic roots in the countryside [pomeshchiki] organized for political purposes. They opposed massive reforms designed with state interests in mind rather than “class interests” of either provincial nobles or villagers. But Russian nobles wielded political power only via state service. Social estate itself granted no power; Table of Ranks did. Bureaucrats were the imperial ruling class. Yes, provincial gentry lorded over serfs, but that was the very power targeted by statist reform. For about 600,000 nobles, serf emancipation meant that the state expropriated half their land (with compensation) and nearly all their authority over village labor (with no compensation). Interior Minister Petr Valuev sought to mollify or co-opt them, most notably with Zemstvo institutions of local self administration. But ambitious and independent-minded “aristocrats” wanted more for themselves and, naturally, less for certain other interest groups. They mobilized in small but articulate and well-connected circles (i.e., in kruzhki rather than more open political parties). They sought to join the political fray, to create for the first time in modern Russian history something like an authentic political arena. However, these “aristocrats” had insufficient social/political organization or habit to sustain decisive opposition. It is more accurate to say that “aristocratic” opposition failed than that it was defeated. For one thing, it could never clearly distinguish its interests from those of tsarist administrators, nor could it conceptualize a workable relationship to the great mass of villagers. Nothing better expresses the complexity of this story than a brief “prosopography” of Khristoforov’s main characters. These are identified en masse in two places: first, a collection of 27 portraits of leading figures presented on 16 unnumbered pages sewn between pages 240 and 241, and, second, a biographical file with basic information on those who appear in the narrative (pp. 397-427). Sixteen of the 27 portraits are of high-ranking statesmen. Only four are representatives of what might be called “civil society” [ID]. Seven of the 27, however, bridge the domains of state and society. Biographical files include sixty main activists who sort themselves out in a similar fashion. Only 21 of these could be called “public figures”, as opposed to state servitors active also in public life (n=14) or purely governmental figures (n=25). This is a much needed account of non-urban establishmentarian conservatism in a struggle to carve out a political space for itself, independent of autocratic managerial authoritarianism and in a superior relationship to volost’-level or village organizations. Some might wish that Khristoforov were more skeptical about ideological taxonomies (his “isms”, as in liberalism vs. conservatism, or conservatism vs. socialism). Those thus disappointed can take heart from abundant attention to actual groups with ustav [bylaw] and sostav [membership list]. Here the most important are the editorial boards of Vest’ and Russkii mir, and the voluntary association Obshchestvo vzaimnogo pozemel’nogo kredita [Mutual Land Credit Society]. All readers will be pleased with the full and accurate publication here of Aleksandr Illarionovich Vasil’chikov’s manuscript essay “Tainaia politsiia v Rossii” [secret police in Russia], composed 1872-1874. Valentina Chernukha and others have dealt with this remarkable political tract, but Khristoforov does a great service to present it in full for the first time (320-81). Vasil’chikov was convinced, as is Khristoforov, that a genuine conservative political movement is doomed if it depends on the likes of Petr Andreevich Shuvalov, Chief Gendarme and Director of the Third Section of His Majesty’s Own Chancery [the infamous imperial secret police].
Joseph Lucas	Pares,Bernard. The Fall of the Russian Monarchy: A Study of the Evidence This book covers the years of the reign of Nicholas II of Russia. It gives a brief background of the years and events before his reign. His father is described as a firm autocrat with a powerful personality, coupled with a strong will. When Nicholas’s father came to power, he regulated the various reforms that had been put in place by the previous administration. These regulations so limited the reforms as to render them, in all practical sense null and void. The author, Bernard Pares, takes great care throughout the book to show that the prospect of revolution was always regarded by the monarchy as a continuous threat. The Revolution did not spring up out of nowhere, newly born as a fresh idea in the peoples’ mind. It was always there, just simmering underneath the surface, with the lid of an archaic class organization holding any liberal tendencies firmly in check. The class structure was based on an economy and infrastructure that had not truly entered into the 20th century. Russia was used to just ‘muddling through,’ a phrase or a similar variation of it that is found throughout the book, but that speaks volumes about the way things were handled. Nicholas II is faced with disruption and a possible major crises, which he averts by creating the Duma. The Duma is an organization that is supposed to be elected by the people to represent them as a governmental body, although the Emperor still has the last and final say. Disagreements arise and eventually the Duma is disbanded, and the members are prevented from running in future elections by Nicholas. The voting franchise is henceforth limited so that the Duma no longer is a true representative of the population, but it continues to question Nicholas and provide him with headaches and opposition. Nicholas runs his government in a seemingly haphazard fashion, nominating rivals, reactionaries, liberals, and personal enemies to different posts in government. This makes it so that petty squabbles for power, cutthroat and dirty politics become the way the government was run. The good and honest governmental officers were the exception, not the rule, and Nicholas was severely lacking in judging the character of men. This is extremely unfortunate, since the road to power and appointments was through him, and it was not based upon a merit system but simply through currying his personal favor. Rasputin is a perfect example of this, and the author goes into much detail in how Rasputin effectively helped ruin Russia and its administration. He especially goes into detail on the relationship between Rasputin and the Empress. The author gives the impression that he feels that the Emperor was controlled by his wife in certain respects, to the detriment of the country. Eventually the situation completely crumbles around the monarch, hastened by Nicholas’ decision to take command of the army, and the many bad appointments that he made. The men he picked did not do their jobs, and the population started to have a defeatist attitude. The main issue was that of food. It was not necessarily the lack of food supplies, but rather the lack of infrastructure and organization that was necessary to transfer the food were it was needed. The people eventually rioted, military regiments mutinied, and chaos was moving forward. The revolution had began. Nicholas II, faced with all this, abdicated the throne. He had truly believed God had appointed him to be the autocrat of Russia, so this was the most drastic move he could make. The idea of giving up the throne would never have occurred to him when he first took power. The world had changed, but Russia had failed to change along with it.
Eric Michel	Owen,Thomas C. Capitalism and Politics in Russia.... The merchant class of Russia developed into a class with a bit of political influence. The rise of the merchant class, as well as their influence, acted as a catalyst for many political as well as social struggles within Russia in the period before and during 1905. Before 1855, the Merchant class of Russia was based upon a system of patriarchal business tradition. The heads of merchant families conducted day to day business based on person to person relationships rather than practical commercial transactions. These men were the head of the family, which meant they had the last say in every matter that had to do with business or the family. Their educational background was based upon Orthodox religion rather than business or commercial practices. An obligation to run for public service and the potential to lose one’s trade license due to unpaid guild fees, discouraged the early merchant class from breaking with traditional business practices, which retarded the estate’s growth. However, a healthy backing and promise of protection from the Russian government helped the Russian merchants not fall to the competition of the European markets. In 1855 this all began to change. The old, traditional, patriarchal merchant class gave way to the sons of that generation who began to take over the head of the household. These new merchants were better educated, more savvy in the ways of business, and did not hold as true to the distrust of Western commercial technology. This catapulted the Russian merchants into a period of growth and innovation. Over the next 40 years, economic growth continued and the merchant class only grew stronger politically as the government realized that it needed to heed the merchants’ demands, since their economic growth was essential to national power. Signs of an emerging bourgeois were apparent. Merchants were becoming increasingly critical in Russian society because of the money they controlled. They would never become as powerful as the Western bourgeoisies, mainly because of their numbers, but nevertheless had vast wealth. The increase in industry and economy led to the emergence of a social class new to Russia, the paid laborer. Disputes arose between the lower classes and their employers and soon political lines were drawn. The merchants largely wished to rely on the repressive might of the government to put down disturbances, whereas the liberals were willing to cede concessions to the workers. These struggles and calls for social reform would continue all the way into the early 1900’s and would dominate Russian political culture for 50 years. “Capitalism and Politics in Russia” was an eloquent portrayal of the rise and development of the merchant class as a social and political force in the mid and late 19th century. Owen concentrates on the process of change the merchants go through from before 1855 into the early 20th century, but he also dedicates much of the book to the development of the political ideology within the merchant class and its effects on Russia and her social classes.

WEEK THREE

WEEKS FOUR AND FIVE : INDIVIDUAL CONSULTATION
WITH SENIOR RESEARCHER KIMBALL

HOUR	MON week 4	TUE week 4		MON week 5	TUE week 5
10:00	Kevan Cavanaugh	xxxxxxxxxxx		Kevan Cavanaugh	xxxxxxxxxxx
10:30	Taylor Gooch	xxxxxxxxxxx		Taylor Gooch	xxxxxxxxxxx
11:00		xxxxxxxxxxx			xxxxxxxxxxx
11:30	xxxxxxxxxxx			xxxxxxxxxxx	Eric Michel
12:00	xxxxxxxxxxx			xxxxxxxxxxx
12:30	xxxxxxxxxxx			xxxxxxxxxxx
1:00	Matt Greene			Matt Greene
1:30	Lyra Eisen-Proctor	Michael Adams		Lyra Eisen-Proctor	Michael Adams
2:00					Joey Lucas
2:30
3:00	Irene Alderman	Joey Lucas		Irene Alderman
3:30	Stewart Bogart			Stewart Bogart
4:00	David Evans			David Evans
4:30
5:00		Eric Michel
5:30

WEEKS SIX & SEVEN: brief oral presentations with group discussion

WEEK SIX =

Presenter	Topic	Interlocutor
Kevan Cavanaugh	Paul Miliukov and the Russian state, 1905-1906	Adams
Taylor Gooch	Paul Miliukov and the first weeks of the Russian Provisional Government	Lucas
Matt Greene	State & society: Milukov's Expectations (Russian & Its Crisis) and experience	Michel
Lyra Eisen-Proctor	Semen Kanatchikov and the political culture of the Russian factory	Cavanaugh
Irene Alderman	The Vekhi debate in the larger context of Russian political culture	Gooch
Stewart Bogart	Boris Savinkov and the justification and goals of political terror	Evans

 

WEEK SEVEN =

Presenter	Topic	Interlocutor
David Evans	Zubatov labor unions: governmental support or suppression of workers	Greene
Michael Adams	Lev Tikhomirov: From revolutionary to faithful subject of the tsar	Eisen-Proctor
Joey Lucas	The political acts of Emperor Nicholas II, 1904-1905	Alderman
Eric Michel	Industrialists and their political culture in the era of the 1905 Revolution	Bogart

WEEKS EIGHT, NINE AND TEN:  brief written précis [ID]

Presenter	Interlocutor
Cavanaugh	Lucas
Gooch	Bogart
Greene	Evans
Eisen-Proctor	Adams

WEEK NINE = The Research Group will do as in the previous list =

Presenter	Interlocutor
Alderman	Gooch
Bogart	Greene
Evans	Cavanaugh
Adams	Eisen-Proctor
Lucas	Alderman

WEEK TEN = The Research Group will do as in the previous list =

Presenter	Interlocutor