The Russian Revolution of 1905, also known as the First Russian Revolution, occurred on 22 January 1905, and was a wave of mass political and social unrest that spread through vast areas of the Russian Empire. The mass unrest was directed against the Tsar, nobility, and ruling class. It included worker strikes, peasant unrest, and military mutinies. In response to the public pressure, Tsar Nicholas II enacted some constitutional reform (namely the October Manifesto). This took the form of establishing the State Duma, the multi-party system, and the Russian Constitution of 1906. Despite popular participation in the Duma, the parliament was unable to issue laws of its own, and frequently came into conflict with Nicholas. Its power was limited and Nicholas continued to hold the ruling authority. Furthermore, he could dissolve the Duma, which he often did.

The 1905 revolution was primarily spurred by the international humiliation as a result of the Russian defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, which ended in the same year. Calls for revolution were intensified by the growing realisation by a variety of sectors of society of the need for reform. Politicians such as Sergei Witte had succeeded in partially industrializing Russia but failed to reform and modernize Russia socially. Tsar Nicholas II and the monarchy survived the Revolution of 1905, but its events foreshadowed the 1917 Russian Revolution just twelve years later.

Many historians contend that the 1905 revolution set the stage for the 1917 Russian Revolutions, which saw the monarchy abolished and the Tsar executed. Calls for radicalism were present in the 1905 Revolution, but many of the revolutionaries who were in a position to lead were either in exile or in prison while it took place. The events in 1905 demonstrated the precarious position in which the Tsar found himself. As a result, Tsarist Russia did not undergo sufficient reform, which had a direct impact on the radical politics brewing in the Russian Empire. Although the radicals were still in the minority of the populace, their momentum was growing. Vladimir Lenin, a revolutionary himself, would later say that the Revolution of 1905 was "The Great Dress Rehearsal", without which the "victory of the October Revolution in 1917 would have been impossible".

Megathreads and spaces to hang out:

reminders:

  • 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
  • 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes struggle sessions over upbears
  • 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
  • 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can go here nerd

Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

Aid:

Theory:

Remember nerds, no current struggle session discussion here to the general megathread, i will ban you from the comm and remove your comment, have a good day/night :meow-coffee:

  • VenetianMask [any]
    ·
    2 years ago

    yeah because I hunted down the transcript and then added my thoughts. that took time and effort. i’m not gonna apologize to you for putting in time and effort and finding sources for my claims.

    that was one edit. then for half an hour you kept adding points on unrelated shit like India.

    Except he did cover it.

    No. He didn't. There's a difference between covering something and mentioning it. And you should be able to know that difference after listening to over a hundred episodes of him actually going into detail on the parts of history he did cover. How many episodes of him discussing when he's going to consider the revolution 'over' does he have to have?

    You can tell he didn't cover it because he summed it up based on what other people say instead of being able to offer his own take. This is the thing you're quoting and ranting about India over.

    dekulakization ended in 1933.

    Therefore.....?

    That last paragraph of yours, I can't even respond to. Are you actually a person acting like this?

    • Thomas_Dankara [any,comrade/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      that was one edit. then for half an hour you kept adding points on unrelated shit like India.

      I said Holodomor is capitalists projecting about shit they actually did. Like Churchill starving India. I related it back to the main point.

      No. He didn’t.

      bringing something up just for a few minutes to regurgitate reactionary lies is covering it. :cope:

      There’s a difference between covering something and mentioning it

      me at the beginning of this thread: Mike Duncan says X about holodomor

      you: no he didn't

      me: produce quotes

      you: well that's MENTIONING not COVERING

      you are now being incredibly pedantic. I started off by saying what he said, and then I proved he said it by producing a transcript. You said I misremembered. I didn't. I produced the quotes. Just because you want to split hairs about "coverage" versus "mention" doesn't mean anything.

      he summed it up based on what other people say instead of being able to offer his own take.

      you can tell what his own liberal take was by the fact that he presented "either the soviets were neglectful or they were genocidal" as the only credible options and he omitted the possibility of them being neither of those things.

      Therefore…?

      you asked the following : What years did ‘dekulackification’ happen, and why are you blaming something that happened in 1933 on them? to which I responded

      dekulakization ended in 1933.

      Meaning kulaks were still around in 1933. Meaning they were still resisting collectivization in 1933. Meaning I can blame stuff that happened in 1933 on them.

      Are you actually a person acting like this?

      Yes I'm actually a human being. Mike Duncan covered holodomor by presenting the main two anti-communist interpretations of it. The communist interpretation of it wasn't worth mentioning in his opinion because he's obviously anti-communist. Just because you disagree on what the word "coverage" means doesn't mean I "misremembered" what he said. I produced the quotes to prove it. You had to pivot the goalposts to what the fucking meaning of the word "coverage" is because you lack the humility to say "thanks for doing that research for me."

      • VenetianMask [any]
        ·
        2 years ago

        I read the part where you say "Lol my opinion repeated again!" and the cope emoji and decided this is a very stupid waste of time.

        We fundamentally disagree on what it means to 'cover' something. You desperately need to log off. That's all there was to get out of this conversation.

        • Thomas_Dankara [any,comrade/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          you said i misremembered. I proved he actually said what I said he said. then you split hairs. you need to desperately fuck off. next time get the transcript yourself before claiming i misremembered something.

          • VenetianMask [any]
            ·
            2 years ago

            You said he covered something. I said he didn't. The underlying disconnect wasn't what was said. It was what we defined terms as.

            Do you want to agree with me angrily again, or do you want me to actually fuck off?

            • Thomas_Dankara [any,comrade/them]
              ·
              2 years ago

              you said i misremembered. i produced the quote. you were wrong and instead of admitting it you started saying "coverage isn't coverage if it's brief"

                        • Thomas_Dankara [any,comrade/them]
                          ·
                          2 years ago

                          i'm the "debate bro" but you started the "debate" by claiming i "misremembered" something. I didn't. I proved I didn't, and instead of apologizing like an adult you felt the need to pivot the conversation from my memory to "coverage isn't coverage unless it's a certain length". What's your criteria for coverage? 4 paragraphs? 5? Does "brief coverage" not mean anything?

                          • VenetianMask [any]
                            ·
                            2 years ago

                            Rhetorical question: why are you still trying to bait me after I've made it clear I'm not engaging?

                            • Thomas_Dankara [any,comrade/them]
                              ·
                              2 years ago

                              Rhetorical question because I’m not going to read the reply: why are you still trying to bait me

                              I'm not baiting you. I'm directly responding to things you are actively saying to me.

                              after I’ve made it clear I’m not engaging?

                              You're responding to me right now. You're engaging in conversation with me right now. In fact, you began this entire exchange by claiming I "misremembered" something.

                              You also said you're "not going to read" and then edited that part out. Smug.

                              • VenetianMask [any]
                                ·
                                2 years ago

                                k

                                p.s. I did read it because it started with "I'm not baiting you" but then you just did the reddit debatebro thing where you reframe baiting so bleh

                                "lol I caught you cleaning up your comment to be less of a dick haha!" fair game you caught me. Maybe take it as an example instead of doing the opposite.

                                  • VenetianMask [any]
                                    ·
                                    2 years ago

                                    You forgot to log out of your sockpuppet

                                    edit: lol.. in a comment malding about being called a reddit debatebro no less :data-laughing:

                                    • Thomas_Dankara [any,comrade/them]
                                      ·
                                      2 years ago

                                      i logged out because I was legit mad, then i logged back in because i cared about the conversation and clicked and old auto-login i don't use anymore. i know you won't believe me but whatever. i try to make a new one on here every year because opsec. whatever. have a nice evening. all i cared about was what duncan said in that episode. not the meaning of the word 'coverage'

                                      • VenetianMask [any]
                                        ·
                                        2 years ago

                                        You lied about how long it took you to find that quote. I watched in real time as you found it before I finished my two sentence reply.

                                        You lied about the account being an older one that you don't use anymore. It's an account approximately the same age as yours, with no activity.

                                        You lied about caring about the conversation. You blew it up by being gleefully abusive. And continued to harass me after I made it clear I wasn't interested in engaging for over an hour.

                                        I think you act like this because you recognize you're a power user on this website and anyone who reacts can get banned. And you do it often enough that you can try to pull the same move twice on the same person after they had to make a new account. You get to edit your comments to add the sick burn you just thought of. I have to edit my comments because I let you get to me too much and a bit of anger peeked through.

                                        I genuinely hope you said at least one true thing in this comment. Your account is a year old now.

                                        Oh and if this is the last thing I get to say under this account - FUCK YOU