Many people likely know the story of the Russian Revolution. The Tsar was overthrown, and Russia was converted from an autocracy to a communist dictatorship by the Bolshevik party. However, much less known are the events, and the identities, that originally sparked Russia’s descent into revolution and chaos. The Russian Revolution began with the protests that would come to be known as the February Revolution. The February Revolution was named so because it took place from February 23 to February 27, 1917 (BBC). On the modern calendar, these dates are from March 8 to March 12. On a side note, this discrepancy is due to Russia formerly using the Julian Calendar, but for the purposes of this paper the Julian dates will be used. Returning to the topic of the February Revolution, it took place in Petrograd, which is now known as Saint Petersburg. February 23, 1917 was International Women’s Day, and on that day urban, working class women from textile factories made the decision to go on strike to protest the shortage of bread (Hasegawa 217). They marched from factory to factory in Petrograd, rallying other factory workers to go on strike with them. These bold actions caused a cascade of events to occur, and each of these events escalated each day as more and more workers went on strike. Thousands of striking workers eventually filled the streets, clashing with police, and the Russian troops sent to quell the demonstrations revolted against the government as well, just as dissatisfied with the war, the government and the food shortage as everyone else. Ultimately, this led to the abdication of the Tsar, which would eventually lead to the more well known events of the Russian Revolution. The Russian Revolution was started by factory workers who had had enough of the government incompetence and the deteriorating quality of life, and the identity of urban, working class women was primarily articulated in the first days of the February Revolution. However, to understand this identity and how it was articulated, it is important to understand the historical and rhetorical context the February Revolution took place in.
The overall discontent of the Russian people, excluding the nobility and the clergy, had been building for quite some time before the events of 1917. This discontent was the result of the government of Russia itself, and the actions of its ruling class. For centuries, Russia had been under autocratic rule, led by the figure known as the Tsar. As defined by Korff in his book Autocracy and Revolution in Russia, autocracy is essentially one-man rule, but the supreme leader is accompanied by a ruling class. The Tsar was the supreme authority, with a clergy and nobility just underneath him. The Tsar had the final say on everything, and not even the nobility and the clergy could defy his authority openly. However, despite its size and power, Russia was “universally regarded as backward by comparison with Britain, Germany and France”, even by the twentieth century (Fitzpatrick 15). This was not only due to the fact that it was an autocracy, but also because of its feudal practices. Peasants had only been emancipated from serfdom in the 1860’s yet were still tied to the land of their former masters due to debt, they were late in industrializing and the citizens of Russia were still regarded as belonging to different estates based on their social and economic status, which primarily consisted of the nobility, the clergy, the merchants and the peasants. (Fitzpatrick 15). Russia was a backwards country, and the educated citizens not part of the nobility and clergy had become quite aware of this fact. These educated citizens, known as the intelligentsia, would eventually form several different social and political factions with various ideologies by the time of the February Revolution. However, all shared a common goal. They had taken upon themselves “the betterment of Russia”, drawing various plans for the future of Russia (Fitzpatrick 24). Among them, socialism was quite prominent, and all of them expressed frustration with the government and their own political and social limitations, as set by the Tsarist regime. As a result, there was a revolutionary upsurge in the late 1800’s, and the Populists assassinated Tsar Alexander II in 1881 (Fitzpatrick 25). This act of assassination demonstrated the anti-government sentiment that was spreading, especially among the educated. However, it would be after these incidents that the Marxist factions would rise, and the concept of the proletariat, or working class, would emerge.
By the early twentieth century, Russia had industrialized to the point of possessing an urban working class. In this respect, the backwardness of Russia actually had certain advantages. Industrializing late allowed Russia to “skip over some of the early stages” of industrialization by investing in foreign entities and having the state become heavily involved in industry (Fitzpatrick 19). By buying equipment and adopting concepts already created by other countries, Russia was able to modernize, especially in cities such as Petrograd and Moscow, much more quickly. However, this rapid modernization had its drawbacks. Due to the government’s stake in Russia’s industry, authorities were quick to call on troops to stop strikes against private enterprise (Fitzpatrick 20). This limited the workers’ right to have economic protests against employers, and this bred great resentment against the government often leading to the exploitation or underpayment of workers. In turn, this rapid increase in resentment and modernization also created a much less stable social, political and economic atmosphere. The Marxist factions that emerged, which would eventually become the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, took advantage of this, and chose the urban working class as their supporters. They educated the urban workers, and had success in organizing them (Fitzpatrick 29). This increased education of the workers contributed to the growing resentment towards the Tsar and the upper classes, and allowed the urban workers to learn about ways to stand up for the rights they believed themselves to be deserving of, including better wages and better working conditions. Also, it is important to note that “factories and workshops brought workers together, welding them into a cohesive, volatile class, and the concentration of workers in a few large cities, particularly St. Petersburg and Moscow, contributed to the rapid growth of class consciousness” (Hasegawa 7-8). The urban workers began to see themselves as a separate class. While not merchants, they had also distinguished themselves from the peasants in the sense that they were much more educated. Therefore, a new class not part of the traditional estates was born, and they would continually see themselves as a new and different class because the traditional estates alienated them from society in general. This allowed them to gain a sense of collective solidarity, as well as collective resentment. However, this resentment would boil over in 1905. By 1905, Russia had participated in a humiliating war with Japan that left the people even angrier with the government, which they now perceived as even more incompetent and inefficient (Fitzpatrick 33). Several movements had begun to take place against the government. Constitutional reform was being advocated, and numerous workers’ strikes, demonstrations and assassinations were occurring (Fitzpatrick 33). Reforms from various political groups were also being pushed, especially for a constitution. However, the 1905 Revolution would actually begin in January when Saint Petersburg workers peacefully protested, marching up to the Winter Palace to bring their economic grievances to the Tsar. Troops fired on the demonstrators, and the event would become known as Bloody Sunday (Fitzpatrick 33). This ignited the solidarity of the common Russian against the autocratic government, and they created chaos until Tsar Nicholas II conceded to their demands of creating a constitution and creating a national elected parliament, known as the Duma. The anger of the people was temporarily placated. However, the repeated efforts of the Tsar to maintain its power would begin to bring back the resentment of the people, and this resentment would grow further as World War I broke out.
When World War I began, the unresolved crisis of the constitution and the autocracy’s resistance to it were temporarily hidden. There was temporary patriotic fever when the Tsar declared war on Germany and brought Russia into World War I (Hasegawa 5). The Dumas and the common people gladly supported and worked with the Tsar. However, this support would soon begin to waver after the first year of the war. Russia suffered heavy losses against the Germans, and by the end of 1914, “nearly four hundred thousand Russian men had lost their lives and nearly a million had been wounded” (Steinberg 50). This bred even more resentment from the people. For instance, one of the Duma leaders sent a memorandum, in which he stated that “the Supreme Command does not know how to, or cannot organise a major operation” and that “the Supreme Command ignored the heavy losses, and does not care as it should for the welfare of the soldiers” (Katkov 43). The Duma leader blatantly called the Tsar, and by extension the government, incompetent and uncaring. The increased stress of the war, and poor leadership, contributed to the “depletion of the labour force through over-mobilisation” and the switching over of industry to wartime production harmed agriculture (Katkov 47). This would eventually lead to massive food shortages and famine that would breed the conditions for the February Revolution. In fact, by mid-1915, strikes began increasingly steadily in Petrograd, and there was also an increase in crime (Steinberg 51). The citizens were becoming desperate, and it was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain any semblance of a decent living. The War Industry Committee of Petrograd, formerly St. Petersburg, wrote a resolution, calling the government incompetent and stating that civil rights should be granted to the common people, including universal suffrage (Katkov 20). They also advocated for better conditions for the urban workers and continued spreading incendiary remarks about the government’s incompetency, demonstrating that even the labor committees were becoming increasingly embittered towards the government. All of the people, especially the labor groups and workers, were becomingly increased frustrated and losing all faith in the government at this point. This frustration and resentment would continue to grow as the war continued on, and the increasing shortage of food would bring the rage of urban women workers to a peak.
Now that the growing frustration of the people, especially the laborers and factory workers, has been established, it is time to examine the plight of the urban working class women of Russia. By the year 1917, Russia had been involved in the World War I for three years. As mentioned previously, the economy was failing. Industry was declining in areas of agriculture. Food, particularly bread, was becoming quite scarce, especially in Petrograd. Urban working women in Petrograd “worked from dawn to dusk” in factories to support the household in the absence of their husbands and sons, and earned “low wages that could not catch up with the ever increasing prices and after the long day they stood in long lines in the freezing cold for hours just to get a loaf of bread” (Hasegawa 217). Sometimes, these women weren’t able to get bread. These women were at their limit, and even a police officer noted that “some who were fortunate enough to be able to buy two loaves of bread cross themselves and cry from joy” (Hasegawa 217). In response to the progressive shortage of food and supplies, several riots had occurred since the first year of the war. Most importantly, these riots were primarily instigated by female factory workers. For instance, on October 1, 1915, thirty women workers employed by a textile factory in the town of Bogorodsk who had gone to the market to purchase sugar arrived to find that it was already sold out. Angry and upset, the women accused the merchant of underhanded trading and speculation. Although they were escorted away by police, they returned to the market and continued to harass traders while simultaneously attracting more and more workers to their cause. Primarily composed of women and youths, the thousands of rioters began destroying shops and the riots spread throughout the town. On October 4, Cossack forces arrived and fired into the crowd, killing two and injuring three people (Engel 696). These types of subsistence riots became normal occurrences throughout the war, and reflected the increasing dissatisfaction of the urban working class women, particularly with the persisting food shortage. Food shortages were the primary reason the urban women workers went on strike in Petrograd during the February Revolution. However, it is important to remember that the urban women did not always go on strike for food, and that they actually went on strike much more frequently than the male factory workers.
Popular interpretations of the working class conscious in Russia often portrayed it as a primarily masculine establishment. However, in contrast to that image, women appeared to have a much more combative strike record, and studies have found that there was a “positive correlation between strike prone industries and industries with a high proportion of female labour” (Smith 144). These strike prone industries include the textile industry, and the textile factories primarily employed female workers, with about 68.6% of their workers being female (Hasegawa 79). The women who began the original protests of the February Revolution in Petrograd worked in a textile factory. Another important note to make about urban, working class women is that these urban working class women tended to have more “literacy, access to the press, and a rich associational tradition” due to their involvement and interactions with industrial committees and labor groups (Koenker 605). This provided them with as much knowledge and competence as a male factory worker in regards to striking. As a result, as the food shortages became worse, these women were able to organize much better. This also allowed them air their grievances properly, just as men could. These women could utilize the strategy of the strike. Strike is defined as “to stop work in order to force an employer to comply with demands” (Merriam-Webster). In the context of labor, a strike is a form of protest in which employees cease working, often until their demands are met. With striking also comes the idea of confrontation, which the urban working class women were more than willing to use. In his essay, “Movements: Confrontation as Rhetorical Form”, Cathcart defines confrontation as “that form of human behavior labeled ‘agonistics’” which pertain to ritual conflict, and also defines it as “symbolic display acted out when one is in the throes of agon” (Cathcart 77-78). The act of confrontation is a symbolic display, often as a symbol of the individual’s separation from the current norms. These urban women were in the process of establishing themselves as different from the normally male dominated sphere of labor movement, and they were also establishing a space for their identities as urban working class women. These movement strategies would become important as the eve of the February Revolution came closer and the women became increasingly more agitated. However, they would be most important in articulating the identities of the urban, working class women during the February Revolution.
In the city of Petrograd, the atmosphere was quite tense. As observed by Meriel Buchanan, daughter of the British Ambassador at the time, “the bread shortage was reaching a critical point, and the complaints of the people increased” (Buchanan 90). Nothing was being done, and the anti government sentiment increased as people became hungrier. The resentment of the urban women finally reached a breaking point. On February 23, 1917, when the February Revolution began in Russia, it began with the decision of urban, female textile factory workers in Petrograd to have an illegal meeting on International Women’s Day. At this meeting, they decided to go on strike and protest the bread shortage along with the government’s inaction and incompetence regarding this issue (Hasegawa 217). This was the primary purpose of the original strikes, especially in the first day. The primary audience of these strikes was the government, other urban factory workers, and the police. However, these women transformed one of these audiences into protesters. The other urban workers, especially the male workers, would become participants in the strikes themselves. They achieved this by marching on other factories, shouting “Bread!” and attempting to convince the other factory workers across Petrograd to join them (Hasegawa 217). This strike, especially during the first day on February 23, 1917, is the object of protest, and it successfully articulates the identity of the lower class female, urban worker through effective use of ethos, pathos and logos.
Ethos is heavily established in several ways. First, the decision of the female textile workers to strike subverted the authority and credibility of the government to a degree almost immediately. A meeting was held the morning of February 23, 1917 in the textile factory where these women worked to decide this. However, the meeting was illegal (Hasegawa 217). The illegality of the meeting, and their determination to have it regardless, undermines governmental authority because it demonstrates that they have no respect for their leaders. Also, taking into account the already present frustrations with the government and the upper class, this could have also been taken as another sign of the incompetence of the Tsar. Second, the decision to strike, as well as the act of striking itself, establishes the authority of the urban, lower class female workers. During the Great War, most of the Russian men were on the battlefront, leaving their wives and daughters at home to carry the burden of providing for the household as well as supporting the war industry (Hasegawa 217). Becoming the provider of the household, and working in these factories, enabled these women to assert their authority in matters traditionally reserved for the male of the house. Therefore, choosing to go on strike has the affect of demonstrating and asserting their newfound, even if temporary, authority. This gives them much more credibility. The act of striking itself also provided credibility to the female factory workers in Petrograd. In order to come to fruition, strikes must have “some collective awareness or issue around which to revolve, a decision to proceed, and sufficient organization and communication to be enacted” (Nicholson 280). The female factory workers in Petrograd had all of these qualities, and it was these qualities that allowed their strike to appear organized and coherent to their audiences. Overall, the strike effectively established the incompetence of the government and the authorities while simultaneously establishing the credibility of the female workers.
Pathos played a large role in the strike of the female Petrograd workers as well. The most prominent expression of pathos was the use of anger. The women workers of Petrograd, and even the women workers outside Petrograd, had all developed a collective sense of anger and outrage towards the government and the traders for their handling of the economy and food. They were tired of waiting for hours in a line for bread, or not even getting bread at all (Hasegawa 217). They went on strike because they were furious and tired of what was going on. This anger had come to a boiling point by February 24 in Petrograd, and was best demonstrated by not only their decision to strike, but by their decision to repeatedly shout “bread!” as they marched from factory to factory in Petrograd (Hasegawa 217). This was a reminder as to why they were striking, and it was a reminder to their audience of why they were so enraged. Another contributor to their effective pathos was marching to the other factories and attempting to galvanize the workers of other factories into joining them, also shouting “Quit working! Join us!” (Hasegawa 219). Their cries about bread were also a way to evoke the sympathy of other workers from other factories in Petrograd. Finally, the fact that most of the textile workers were lower class urban women attempting to feed their children was effective pathos in itself. It produced an image that would have evoked sympathy. Many of the male workers in the other factories likely had wives or younger children that they were also struggling to provide for. This would have motivated many of the workers to join the women in their protests. Pathos was effectively utilized, particularly in the form of anger, to evoke feelings of anger and sympathy for the identities of the urban, lower class, working women of Russia.
Although it was not as prominent, logos played a crucial role in the February Revolution protests as well. Logically, the reasons behind the strike of the female workers made complete sense, especially to their worker audience. Their wages were quite terrible, they worked long hours, and food, especially bread, was becoming increasingly scarce (Hasegawa 217). Life in Russia, and in Petrograd, had become almost unbearable and bleak. Furthermore, the way the strike was carried out was also logical, and enabled the female, urban workers to properly demonstrate. Despite meetings being illegal, they met, planned and effectively carried out a strike. Carrying the strike out on International Women’s Day was also a logical decision, because it brought more attention to their identity as struggling women. Finally, the most logical aspect of the strike was marching on the factories around Petrograd to rally the male factory workers before taking any further action. Despite their solidarity as urban, working class women, they only came from a single industry, which was the textile industry (Hasegawa 217). In order for the strike to be effective, the women would have needed a majority of the other factory workers in Petrograd to join them in their strike. There was strength in numbers, especially as the strike continued over the course of several days. Also, gathering the support of the male factory workers would have enabled the female protesters to more effectively handle police efforts to suppress their strike activities. Overall, the logic the women followed in carrying out their strike enabled them to make it successful and spread throughout Petrograd, as well as effectively articulate their frustrations and their identities as urban, lower class, working women.
The original strikes of the February Revolution in Petrograd were performed by urban, lower class working women. They were essentially the leaders of this movement, at least for the first day of the strike. These women worked in textile factories, were paid poorly and were tired of food shortages, especially bread shortages, and they were struggling to provide for their respective households. This identity of the urban, lower class working woman in Russia was articulated effectively in these strikes though the effective use of ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos was effectively utilized by discrediting the government and building credibility for the women. Pathos was effectively used by evoking anger, sympathy and establishing collective experiences. Logos was effectively utilized by creating a logical strike, with logical reasoning and logical methods. The strike was implemented in such a way that it enabled the women workers to effectively articulate their identities and succeed in their goals. Overall, the strike of the female factory workers in Petrograd was successful because it achieved its purpose of bringing attention to the food shortages, and it also would become the catalyst for the abdication of the Tsar and the eventual conversion of Russia to the Soviet Union. Most of all, the strike effectively brought attention to the plight of working, lower class urban women in Russia.
Works Cited
1) Buchanan, Meriel. Petrograd, the City of Trouble: 1914-1918. London: W. Collins Sons, 1918. University of Arizona Libraries. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.
2) Cathcart, Robert S. "Movements: Confrontation as Rhetorical Form." Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest. By Charles E. Morris and Stephen Howard Browne. 3rd ed. State College: Strata, 2013. 77-84. Print.
3) "The Causes of the February Revolution." BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2015. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/russia/february/revision/2/>.
4) Engel, Barbara Alpern. "Not by Bread Alone: Subsistence Riots in Russia During World War I*." The Journal of Modern History J MOD HIST 69.4 (1997): 696-721. JSTOR. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
5) Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Russian Revolution. 3rd ed. Oxford: New York, 2008. Print.
6) Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. The February Revolution, Petrograd, 1917. Seattle: U of Washington, 1981. Print.
7) Katkov, George. Russia, 1917; the February Revolution. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Print.
8) Koenker, D., and W. G. Rosenberg. "Skilled Workers and the Strike Movement in Revolutionary Russia." Journal of Social History 19.4 (1986): 605-29. JSTOR. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.
9) Korff, S. A. Autocracy and Revolution in Russia. London: Macmillan, 1923.University of Arizona Libraries-HathiTrust Digital Library. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
10)Nicholson, Nigel. "The Psychology of Strikes." Journal of Occupational Behaviour 1.4 (1980): 275-84.JSTOR. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.
11)Smith, Steve. "Class and Gender: Women's Strikes in St Petersburg, 1895–1917 and In Shanghai, 1895–1927."Social History 19.2 (1994): 141-68. JSTOR. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.
12)Steinberg, Mark D. Voices of Revolution, 1917. Trans. Marian Schwartz. New Haven: Yale UP, 2001. Print.
