Ryska revolutionens orsaker och skillnader.

[Majsan]

Jag sitter här med historieboken i handen med en stor fråga som jag hoppas att någon här kanske kan hjälpa mig med så jag förstår lite bättre
Ryska revolutionen 1917 var ju egentligen 2 revolutioner, en i februari och en i oktober. Men vad var orsakerna till bägge revolutionerna och vad skiljer mellan dom?

[Probstner]

Feb: socialt medvetna anhängare av marknadsekonomin vill störta tsardömet (typ F 89).
Okt: bolsjevikfraktionen inom det socialdemokratiska partiet genomför en statskupp.

/ Probstner

[LasseMaja]

Orsakerna var väldigt lika, både under februari- och oktoberrevolutionen fanns ett enormt folkligt missnöje med den sittande regeringen. Man ville ha bröd, fred och förändring.

[Göstring]

Demografi har ju kommit tillbaka som förklaring till ekonomiska och sociala förändringar, så man kanske kan påminna om vad J. M. Keynes skrev i sin "The Economic Consequences of the Peace".


från
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/articles_of ... /ecp2.html

European Russia increased her population in a degree even
greater than Germany -- from less than 100 million in 1890 to
about 150 million at the outbreak of war;(3*) and in the years
immediately preceding 1914 the excess of births over deaths in
Russia as a whole was at the prodigious rate of two million per
annum. This inordinate growth in the population of Russia, which
has not been widely noticed in England, has been nevertheless one
of the most significant facts of recent years.
The great events of history are often due to secular changes
in the growth of population and other fundamental economic
causes, which, escaping by their gradual character the notice of
contemporary observers, are attributed to the follies of
statesmen or the fanaticism of atheists. Thus the extraordinary
occurrences of the past two years in Russia, that vast upheaval
of society, which has overturned what seemed most stable --
religion, the basis of property, the ownership of land, as well
as forms of government and the hierarchy of classes -- may owe
more to the deep influences of expanding numbers than to Lenin or
to Nicholas; and the disruptive powers of excessive national
fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of
convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of
autocracy.