Revival of Popular Protest
Peasant grievances and the Lena Goldfields massacre
Located in north-eastern Siberia, the Lena Goldfields stretched over 100 000 square kilometres. Working conditions reflected the capitalist aim of large profits at the expense of the workers. In 1901, the goldfields came under the administration of a man named Belozerov. Under this regime, not only were workers and their families vulnerable to poor housing conditions, long hours for little pay, but were also victim to physical abuse.
The company in charge of the goldfields had created a system whereby they were able to take advantage of the workers. Workers were required to travel to the goldfields to apply for employments, with many being unable to afford the trip home if they disagreed with the conditions. Wages were not set depending on the hours, with workers being refused access to the logbooks that recorded their entitlements. Moreover, the Lenzoto company had complete control over basic necessities such as housing and food, raising the prices to make a further profit off the workers. Health services were inadequate for the number of people living there and the conditions in which they lived (many suffered injuries in the mines or gastro-intestinal illnesses as a result of the quality of food). These conditions were further exacerbated by the harsh climate, with temperatures ranging from -40⁰C to 20⁰C.
While there were government regulations on working hours and working conditions, these were scarcely enforced. As a result, many workers felt they had no other avenue for change other than protesting and striking. The 1912 strike began over the poor quality of meat, with the lenzoto company cutting off food supplies and evicting workers from their barracks despite the icy weather on the 9th of March. After some attempts at negotiations, with little if any changes in conditions, workers gathered in protest. Without warning, the police and soldiers sent to contain the crowd opened fire. The massacre resulted in the deaths of 230 people and 540 sustaining injuries.
Sympathy for the workers spread throughout Russia, with many seeing the conditions and the massacre as an example of the government’s failure to address the grievances of the average person. Strikes broke out across Russia as a response to the failures of the government to address the grievances of the peasants and the workers. Revolutionaries saw the event as an example of capitalist greed at the expense of the workers. The source below highlights the growing number of strikes from 1903-17 as a result of the inaction of the government.
The company in charge of the goldfields had created a system whereby they were able to take advantage of the workers. Workers were required to travel to the goldfields to apply for employments, with many being unable to afford the trip home if they disagreed with the conditions. Wages were not set depending on the hours, with workers being refused access to the logbooks that recorded their entitlements. Moreover, the Lenzoto company had complete control over basic necessities such as housing and food, raising the prices to make a further profit off the workers. Health services were inadequate for the number of people living there and the conditions in which they lived (many suffered injuries in the mines or gastro-intestinal illnesses as a result of the quality of food). These conditions were further exacerbated by the harsh climate, with temperatures ranging from -40⁰C to 20⁰C.
While there were government regulations on working hours and working conditions, these were scarcely enforced. As a result, many workers felt they had no other avenue for change other than protesting and striking. The 1912 strike began over the poor quality of meat, with the lenzoto company cutting off food supplies and evicting workers from their barracks despite the icy weather on the 9th of March. After some attempts at negotiations, with little if any changes in conditions, workers gathered in protest. Without warning, the police and soldiers sent to contain the crowd opened fire. The massacre resulted in the deaths of 230 people and 540 sustaining injuries.
Sympathy for the workers spread throughout Russia, with many seeing the conditions and the massacre as an example of the government’s failure to address the grievances of the average person. Strikes broke out across Russia as a response to the failures of the government to address the grievances of the peasants and the workers. Revolutionaries saw the event as an example of capitalist greed at the expense of the workers. The source below highlights the growing number of strikes from 1903-17 as a result of the inaction of the government.
References for this page
Alpha History (n.d). The Lena River Massacre. Retrieved from http://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/lena-river-massacre/
Anderson, M., Keese, I. & Low, A. (2001). Challenge, Change and Continuity. Milton, Qld: John Wiley & Sons.
Lynch, M. (1992). Access to History: Reaction and Revolution: Russia 1894-1924 Fourth Edition. London: Hodder & Stoughton Educational.
Alpha History (n.d). The Lena River Massacre. Retrieved from http://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/lena-river-massacre/
Anderson, M., Keese, I. & Low, A. (2001). Challenge, Change and Continuity. Milton, Qld: John Wiley & Sons.
Lynch, M. (1992). Access to History: Reaction and Revolution: Russia 1894-1924 Fourth Edition. London: Hodder & Stoughton Educational.