homework revolution

TED is supported by ads and partners 00:00

Homework revolution

Encyclopedia of Innovators and Innovations

Famous Inventors

Roberto Nevelis

His contributions to the educational system have shaped the way students engage with their studies and have had a profound influence on the way we perceive and approach homework.

Born on July 12, 1920 , in the small town of Vicenza , Italy, Roberto Nevelis grew up in a family that valued education and intellectual pursuits. From an early age, he demonstrated a keen interest in learning and a remarkable work ethic that would later define his legacy. Nevelis attended the renowned University of Bologna and pursued a degree in Educational Psychology .

During his studies, Nevelis became fascinated with the concept of reinforcing classroom learning through assignments and tasks that students could complete outside of school hours. He recognized the potential of homework as a means to extend the learning process beyond the classroom walls. Nevelis believed that through homework, students could deepen their understanding, reinforce key concepts, and develop essential skills through independent practice.

After completing his education, Nevelis embarked on a journey to revolutionize the educational landscape. In 1952 , he joined the faculty of the Instituto Tecnico Industriale in Vicenza as a teacher of psychology and pedagogy. It was during this time that Nevelis began implementing his groundbreaking ideas on homework.

Nevelis introduced a structured homework system that emphasized personalized learning and engagement. He meticulously designed assignments tailored to each student’s abilities and progress. By focusing on individual needs and strengths, Nevelis aimed to foster a sense of autonomy, responsibility, and self-motivation among his students.

Word of Nevelis’s innovative teaching methods quickly spread, and he gained recognition not only within his local community but also on a national level. In 1960 , Nevelis was invited to present his work at the National Congress on Education held in Rome . His presentation, titled “The Power of Homework: Unleashing the Potential of Independent Learning,” captivated the audience and sparked a nationwide conversation about the importance of homework in education.

Nevelis’s ideas resonated deeply with educators and policymakers, prompting the Italian Ministry of Education to adopt his homework model as a standard practice in schools across the country. Nevelis’s impact extended beyond Italy’s borders, as his work gained international acclaim and recognition.

Over the years, Nevelis continued to refine his homework system and published several influential books, including “Homework: Unlocking the Path to Academic Excellence” (1965) and “The Homework Revolution: Empowering Students Through Independent Learning” (1972). These publications became essential references for educators and researchers worldwide, solidifying Nevelis’s reputation as an authority in the field of education.

Nevelis’s contributions to the field of homework were not limited to theory and research. He also actively collaborated with other prominent educators and psychologists of his time, such as Maria Montessori , Jean Piaget , and Lev Vygotsky , to further advance the understanding and practice of homework. Together, they formed a formidable alliance that would shape educational methodologies for generations to come.

Nevelis’s legacy lives on today, as his ideas continue to inform and inspire modern educational practices. The concepts of personalized learning, independent study, and self-directed learning, which were central to his homework system, have become cornerstones of contemporary pedagogy. Nevelis’s influence can be seen in the widespread adoption of flipped classrooms, blended learning models, and the integration of technology in education.

In the digital age, Nevelis’s principles have been adapted and embraced in online learning platforms and educational technology tools. The flexibility and accessibility of online homework platforms have allowed students from all corners of the world to engage in meaningful learning experiences beyond traditional classroom settings.

Furthermore, Nevelis’s emphasis on personalized learning has inspired educators to recognize the unique needs and strengths of individual students. Today, teachers strive to design homework assignments that cater to different learning styles and abilities, fostering a more inclusive and supportive educational environment.

Nevelis’s revolutionary approach to homework has also sparked ongoing debates and discussions within the education community. Critics argue that excessive homework can lead to stress and burnout among students, while proponents maintain that homework serves as a valuable tool for reinforcement and skill development. These conversations continue to shape the evolution of homework practices and encourage educators to strike a balance between academic rigor and student well-being.

In recognition of his groundbreaking contributions, Roberto Nevelis received numerous accolades and honors throughout his career. In 1980 , he was awarded the prestigious International Education Prize for his exceptional contributions to the field of education. The award acknowledged Nevelis’s transformative impact on teaching and learning, cementing his position as a true pioneer in the realm of homework.

Tragically, Roberto Nevelis passed away on September 3, 1995 , leaving behind a rich legacy that continues to shape education worldwide. His unwavering commitment to empowering students through independent learning and his unwavering belief in the potential of homework have forever earned him the title of the “Father of Homework.”

Today, as students around the globe diligently complete their assignments outside of the traditional classroom, they owe a debt of gratitude to Roberto Nevelis. His vision, passion, and dedication have revolutionized the way we approach homework, transforming it into a powerful tool for intellectual growth and academic achievement.

From his humble beginnings in Vicenza, Italy, to his international acclaim as an educational visionary, Roberto Nevelis has left an indelible mark on the field of education. His legacy serves as a reminder that innovation can emerge from the most unexpected places, and that a single individual can shape the course of an entire discipline.

As we navigate the ever-changing landscape of education, let us remember the pioneering spirit of Roberto Nevelis and the enduring impact of his work. Let us continue to explore new possibilities, challenge traditional norms, and strive for educational practices that empower and inspire students to reach their full potential. In doing so, we honor the legacy of the remarkable man who forever changed the way we think about homework.

In conclusion, Roberto Nevelis’s contributions as the “Father of Homework” have had a profound and lasting impact on the field of education. His innovative ideas and unwavering dedication to the power of homework have transformed the way we approach learning outside the classroom. Nevelis’s emphasis on personalized learning, independent study, and self-directed learning has influenced educational practices worldwide, shaping modern pedagogy and inspiring educators to design homework assignments that cater to individual students’ needs and abilities.

Nevelis’s legacy extends beyond his theoretical contributions. His collaboration with renowned educators and psychologists of his time, such as Maria Montessori, Jean Piaget, and Lev Vygotsky, demonstrates his commitment to advancing the field of education through interdisciplinary cooperation. The continued relevance of Nevelis’s ideas is evident in the integration of his principles into contemporary educational methodologies, including online learning platforms, personalized learning approaches, and technology-enhanced assignments.

While Nevelis’s work has faced some criticism regarding the potential drawbacks of excessive homework, the ongoing debates surrounding homework practices reflect the significance of his contributions. These discussions encourage educators to strike a balance between academic rigor and student well-being, reevaluating and refining homework policies to create a supportive and effective learning environment.

Roberto Nevelis’s achievements have been widely recognized and celebrated within the educational community. His exceptional impact earned him prestigious honors, including the International Education Prize in 1980. Nevelis’s influential publications, such as “Homework: Unlocking the Path to Academic Excellence” (1965) and “The Homework Revolution: Empowering Students Through Independent Learning” (1972), continue to guide educators and researchers, further cementing his status as a pioneering figure in education.

As we move forward, it is crucial to remember Nevelis’s pioneering spirit and unwavering belief in the potential of homework. By embracing innovation, challenging traditional norms, and prioritizing student empowerment, we can build upon his legacy and continue to shape the future of education.

Reference List

Nevelis, R. (1965). Homework: Unlocking the Path to Academic Excellence. Educational Publishing Company.
Nevelis, R. (1972). The Homework Revolution: Empowering Students Through Independent Learning. Educational Publishing Company.
Montessori, M. (1949). The Montessori Method. Frederick A. Stokes Company.
Piaget, J. (1972). The Psychology of Intelligence. Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
National Congress on Education. (1960). Proceedings of the National Congress on Education. Rome, Italy: Educational Publications.
International Education Prize. (1980). Awarded to Roberto Nevelis for his exceptional contributions to the field of education.

Kary Mullis

Svante Arrhenius

Sign Up For Our Newsletter

Advertise With Us

Donald Rattner shares how the home will become more like the office and the office more like home in the coming years.

Almost one year ago exactly, this magazine published a piece I wrote forecasting the increasing adoption of resimercial design as a strategy for shaping workplace environments. I had good reason for my prognosis. Whether it was the growing popularity of domestically-inspired program elements, new product lines combining commercial durability with a residential feel, or employee survey data affirming the demand for a hybridized workplace, the future seemed bright for the resimercial approach.

What a difference a pandemic makes.

Today, the discussion has reversed course 180 degrees. For the time being, at least, we’re less preoccupied with how the workplace will be influenced by the home than on how the home will be influenced by the workplace. Industry professionals and companies have already pivoted to address the shift. Office furniture giant Herman Miller , for example, recently announced that it’s opening several bricks-and-mortar showrooms to market directly to the home office customer. Expect to see other brands follow suit.

Whether these kinds of initiatives will prove temporary or enduring is hard to say. After all, accurately predicting the future is notoriously difficult, as these past months have painfully reminded us. We have to start somewhere, though, and if there’s one thing nearly everyone seems to agree on, it’s that homework of the adult kind is here to stay . So is the office. To my mind, the critical issues the industry should be exploring are therefore 1) how the two will interrelate, and 2) what role the workplace designer has to play if the new workplace reality includes a domestic satellite.

One widely-held opinion is that the two domains will prove complementary. In this view, the office will continue to be the nexus for activities involving the kind of collaborative work best carried out when participants occupy the same three-dimensional space. Involving multiple parties in hands-on prototyping of physical products, for instance, does not translate well to a digital experience. Group brainstorming sessions are similarly hampered when people work remotely, whether because of constraints in their physical movement, the difficulty in picking up on subtle visual cues like body posture and facial expression, or the occasional toddler or family pet that strolls into the picture, demanding attention.

Another workplace strength that designers could capitalize on in the coming period is its role as a locus of social interaction. Numerous indicators show the lack of opportunity for colleagues to fraternize with each other to be among the top complaints of home-bound employees. Ironically, the resimercial workplace was already assuming the guise of social hub when the pandemic hit, thanks in part to its advocating for domestic amenities such as music, nap, exercise, shower, and recreation rooms. Continued investment in these kinds of spaces and amenities in the post-vaccine era could entice people to spend more time in the office environment than might otherwise be the case.

So where does this all leave the home? More specifically, what can workplace designers contribute to the home-based work setting?

Here we are wandering into unfamiliar territory, with little modern precedent to draw on. Still, a few possible strategies come to mind. The simplest would be for the workplace professional to cede the home to the residential practitioner. There are strong arguments for this approach. For instance, despite the blurring of boundaries implicit in resimercial design, work and home remain quite distinct environments in many respects, from planning to programming, from construction to character. Both typologies require years of training and practice to master. It would serve neither client nor professional to engage on a project that might tax firm expertise.

A second argument involves issues of scale and business models. A typical residential workspace entails a modest scope of work and often a set of unique conditions. It’s difficult to imagine a fee structure that would enable most commercial firms to realize a return on jobs of this size, unless it were folded into a larger undertaking, such as an extensive renovation or new build. In that case, it would presumably fall to a practice with strong residential credentials anyway. Moreover, while some companies are disbursing stipends to employees to help fund private workspaces, these are unlikely to cover the cost of a design professional, especially when executed on a one-off basis.

Nonetheless, there are steps workplace designers can and have begun to take to serve their principal clients as well as the public good in the new paradigm. Writing articles, white papers, and books for general and professional audiences on optimizing the home for work (my own contribution being a book about creative space ). Developing guidelines tailored to a specific organization and its employees. Delivering presentations at company gatherings or conducting continuing education courses for colleagues. Designing products that bridge commercial and residential markets. Conducting research .

“The future ain’t what it used to be,” opined the late great sage Yogi Berra (and a few other people ). That has never been truer than it is today. With a shift in fortune, however, comes opportunity, a chance to re-imagine the workplace from the ground up in order to meet the needs of a world greatly changed from the one we inhabited a year ago. The conversation as to what form the reconstituted workplace might ultimately take, and how it will connect to remote work, is well underway, thanks to forums like this. Only time will tell where it will ultimately lead.

See you next year.

2021 trends
Future of work
home office
remote work
remote work trends
resimercial design
work from home

Is working near home the new working from home, ai will shape the new era of employee performance metrics, art at work, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Latest Articles

How partners by design integrates brand identity into the workplace, the future of work will be personalized, does blockchain still have a role in the evolution of commercial real estate, purpose driven design – central square foundation by lyth design, the designer’s role amidst a climate crisis: how can we make a difference.

We empower teachers with tools that help students write their futures

OUR MISSION

The writing revolution (twr) aims to enable all students, especially those from historically marginalized communities, to become proficient writers, readers, and critical thinkers..

We train and support teachers and school leaders in implementing the Hochman Method©, an explicit set of evidence-based strategies for teaching expository writing.

We have a writing crisis.

Students universally struggle with poor writing. Overall, only 27 percent of students in both grades tested scored at or above the proficient level in 2011. The data also reveal some persistent achievement gaps. For instance, at the 12th-grade level, 9 percent of Black students and 12 percent of Latinx scored proficient or above, compared with 34 percent of white students.

Writing Proficiency

Less than 30 percent of students are proficient in writing

The COVID-19 pandemic-driven learning loss has affected virtually all students and caused students of color and students from low-income families to fall even further behind

No Preparation

71 percent of teachers indicate that they receive minimal to no preparation to teach writing

Challenging

Writing can impose an overwhelmingly cognitive burden

Why is the Hochman Method Revolutionary?

The method builds from sentences to compositions and is embedded in curricula across all content areas and grade levels. Schools and districts report that implementation brings consistency. The Hochman Method strategies can be used in all grades and subject areas, allowing schools and districts to implement a common, coherent approach to writing instruction.

We provide teachers and school leaders with the tools to implement effective writing instructional strategies in all subjects

Introductory courses.

Introductory courses introduce educators to the Hochman Method, an explicit set of sequenced strategies for teaching expository writing that can be used in any grade or subject.

Workshops deepen educators' understanding of the Hochman Method and provide best practices and strategies for classroom, school-wide, and district-wide implementation. An introductory course is a prerequisite for all workshops.

The Revolution is Growing

The daily growth of our global revolution encourages our vision of education equity

Heroes of the Revolution

Hear from our community

Manhattan Comprehensive Night and Day High School

New York, NY | 12th grade

Innovation Charter High School

A. Philip Randolph High School

New York, NY | 9th grade

P.S. 60 The Woodhaven School

Queens, NY | 5th grade

Queens, NY | 4th grade

Wossman High School

Monroe, LA | 11th grade

A. Philip Randolph Campus High School

Celebrate a decade of guiding educators in explicit writing instruction through the Hochman Method.

A style expert shares summer fashion upgrades starting at $15

TODAY Plaza
Share this —

Watch Full Episodes
Read With Jenna
Inspirational
Relationships
TODAY Table
Newsletters
Start TODAY
Shop TODAY Awards
Citi Concert Series
Listen All Day

Follow today

More Brands

On The Show

Kids stressed? Join the less-homework revolution

I used to be extremely pro-homework. In fact, I once wrote an article for this very magazine telling readers how to get kids to stop whining and knuckle down to work. Back then, I could afford to be smug: My second-grader was happily zooming through her ten minutes a night.

But a few years later, Allison started coming home with four hours of homework each night, and everything changed. Now there was not only whining but also begging, yelling, and crying — sometimes from both of us. The worst part: hearing my previously enthusiastic learner repeatedly swear how much she hated school.

I'd always assumed homework was essential. But when I finally looked into the research about it, I was floored to find there's little to support homework — especially in vast quantities. While not every child gets too much, many kids are now overloaded as early as kindergarten. I was appalled (I even cowrote a book about it, "The Case Against Homework"), so you can bet that this time around, you won't be getting any "how to be a good homework cop" tips from me.

Instead, I'm here to call you to action. You can change things for your child — even for the whole school. There are more and more frustrated parents and wised-up schools around the country, so why should your child keep suffering through hours of work? A less-homework revolution is brewing, and you can join it.

Taking back family time Like me, Christine Hendricks, a mother of three in Glenrock, WY, had always believed in homework. Then her daughter, Maddie, entered elementary school. "By the fourth grade, she had so much, there was no time for after-school activities, playing, or simply enjoying our evenings together. We were always stressed, and I knew many other families were also miserable."

Hendricks decided things had to change — and she had a unique advantage: She's the principal of Glenrock's Grant Elementary School. Together with her teachers, she looked into the research and found what I did: Homework's not what it's cracked up to be. "We decided to do an experiment and eliminate most homework," she says. The one exception: occasional studying for a test.

"This is only our second year without it, but there have been no backslides in the classroom or in test scores," says Hendricks. "Parents say their kids enjoy reading again because there's no pressure. In fact, there have been no negative effects whatsoever. And there's much less stress at our house, too." We're not all in a position to fast-track a solution as Hendricks did, but we still have power.

In Toronto, Frank Bruni decided to do something when a pediatrician told him that his 13-year-old son should exercise more. Says Bruni, "I thought to myself, 'And when would he do that?' " So Bruni organized other parents and lobbied the Toronto School District to hold public meetings, presenting the research behind homework. The result is a new policy that affects more than 300,000 kids, limiting homework to reading in elementary school, eliminating holiday homework, and stating the value of family time. Canada's education minister now wants all the country's school boards to make sure students aren't being overloaded. "It's so gratifying to know that this year, Toronto's kids are going to have a life," says Bruni. "It shows you just how much parents can do when they try."

Why it’s worth a fight Homework is such an established part of education, it's hard to believe it's not all that beneficial, especially in large quantities. But the truth is, a recent Duke University review of numerous studies found almost no correlation between homework and long-term achievement in elementary school, and only a moderate correlation in middle school.

"More is not better," says Harris Cooper, Ph.D., a professor of psychology and neuroscience who conducted the review. In fact, according to guidelines endorsed by the National Education Association, teachers should assign no more than ten minutes per grade level per night (that's ten minutes total for a first-grader, 30 minutes for a third-grader).

Pile on more and it can backfire.

"Most kids are simply developmentally unable to sit and learn for longer," says Cooper. Remember: Many have already been glued to their desks for seven hours, especially at schools that have cut gym, recess, art, and music to cram in more instructional time. If you add on two hours of homework each night, these children are working a 45-hour week. Some argue that we need to toughen kids up for high school, college, and the workforce.

But there are other ways to teach responsibility, such as the chores that parents often have to let slide because of studying. Too much homework also means that kids miss out on active playtime, essential for learning social skills, proper brain development, and warding off childhood obesity.

All this work doesn't even make educational sense. "It's counterintuitive, but more practice or the wrong kind of practice doesn't necessarily make perfect," says Kylene Beers, president of the National Council of Teachers of English and author of "When Kids Can't Read, What Teachers Can Do." For example, children are able to memorize long lists of spelling words — but many will misspell them the following week.

To learn more about the less-homework revolution, visit parenting.com

Forgotten password

Please enter the email address that you use to login to TeenInk.com, and we'll email you instructions to reset your password.

Poetry All Poetry Free Verse Song Lyrics Sonnet Haiku Limerick Ballad
Fiction All Fiction Action-Adventure Fan Fiction Historical Fiction Realistic Fiction Romance Sci-fi/Fantasy Scripts & Plays Thriller/Mystery All Novels Action-Adventure Fan Fiction Historical Fiction Realistic Fiction Romance Sci-fi/Fantasy Thriller/Mystery Other
Nonfiction All Nonfiction Bullying Books Academic Author Interviews Celebrity interviews College Articles College Essays Educator of the Year Heroes Interviews Memoir Personal Experience Sports Travel & Culture All Opinions Bullying Current Events / Politics Discrimination Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking Entertainment / Celebrities Environment Love / Relationships Movies / Music / TV Pop Culture / Trends School / College Social Issues / Civics Spirituality / Religion Sports / Hobbies All Hot Topics Bullying Community Service Environment Health Letters to the Editor Pride & Prejudice What Matters
Reviews All Reviews Hot New Books Book Reviews Music Reviews Movie Reviews TV Show Reviews Video Game Reviews Summer Program Reviews College Reviews
Art/Photo Art Photo Videos
Summer Guide Program Links Program Reviews
College Guide College Links College Reviews College Essays College Articles

Summer Guide

College guide.

Song Lyrics

All Fiction

Action-Adventure
Fan Fiction
Historical Fiction
Realistic Fiction
Sci-fi/Fantasy
Scripts & Plays
Thriller/Mystery

All Nonfiction

Author Interviews
Celebrity interviews
College Articles
College Essays
Educator of the Year
Personal Experience
Travel & Culture

All Opinions

Current Events / Politics
Discrimination
Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking
Entertainment / Celebrities
Environment
Love / Relationships
Movies / Music / TV
Pop Culture / Trends
School / College
Social Issues / Civics
Spirituality / Religion
Sports / Hobbies

All Hot Topics

Community Service
Letters to the Editor
Pride & Prejudice
What Matters

All Reviews

Hot New Books
Book Reviews
Music Reviews
Movie Reviews
TV Show Reviews
Video Game Reviews

Summer Program Reviews

College Reviews
Writers Workshop
Regular Forums
Program Links
Program Reviews
College Links
The Homework Revolution

The Homework Revolution MAG

In response to “The Homework Revolution” by Lauren Miller, I have no option but to agree. Hours of repetitive homework, when it's essentially nothing more than “busy work,” is damaging to a student's education. The article states that overloaded students can get sick as a result of homework. One of the illnesses mentioned was depression. I agree that homework can definitely cause depression, because if you are constantly in an environment you find discouraging and unmotivating, it is far easier to succumb to depression. Even high schoolers need time to go outside and get fresh air, play sports with friends, or just sit in the sun. Some students spend all day doing homework and projects. Large homework assignments are not necessary for students to learn. A smaller amount of meaningful work is far more effective. If students find homework has purpose and meaning, not only will they complete it, but they will learn from it. So, Lauren is on the right track: if less homework is effective, why do so many teachers give unreasonable amounts?

Share this on

Send to a friend.

Thank you for sharing this page with a friend!

Tell my friends

Choose what to email.

Which of your works would you like to tell your friends about? (These links will automatically appear in your email.)

Send your email

Delete my account, we hate to see you go please note as per our terms and conditions, you agreed that all materials submitted become the property of teen ink. going forward, your work will remain on teenink.com submitted “by anonymous.”, delete this, change anonymous status, send us site feedback.

If you have a suggestion about this website or are experiencing a problem with it, or if you need to report abuse on the site, please let us know. We try to make TeenInk.com the best site it can be, and we take your feedback very seriously. Please note that while we value your input, we cannot respond to every message. Also, if you have a comment about a particular piece of work on this website, please go to the page where that work is displayed and post a comment on it. Thank you!

Pardon Our Dust

Teen Ink is currently undergoing repairs to our image server. In addition to being unable to display images, we cannot currently accept image submissions. All other parts of the website are functioning normally. Please check back to submit your art and photography and to enjoy work from teen artists around the world!

Revolution Prep Review 2021

Revolution prep offers students, from kindergarten to college age, a wealth of academic and tutoring options as well as their years of experience, a simple to use platform and highly-qualified, full-time tutors..

Top Ten Reviews Verdict

With over 100 subject areas from kindergarten to college, Revolution Prep offers a flexible approach to learning that can suit most students' budgets and needs.

1:1 and group options available

Full-time tutors with a lot of training

Live tutoring, on-demand videos and drop-in options

Same tutor every time so you develop a rapport

Excellent reviews for test prep, which is priced competitively

Fewer subjects than competitors

Not 24/7/365

Minimum purchase of 5 hours+

Why you can trust Top Ten Reviews Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test .

How it works
Ease of use
Tutors and students
Should you choose?

Revolution Prep is a versatile online tutoring platform offering 1:1 private sessions for test prep and academic subjects, as well as group tutoring and group test prep options. There is also drop-in Homework Help seven days a week on a monthly subscription basis. The wealth of options in terms of private or group lessons already sets Revolution Prep apart from many competitors, the majority of which only offer 1:1 tutoring.

Revolution Prep also stands out from other online tutoring companies because of the commitment of its tutors, who are full-time employees rather than part-timers and who receive training throughout the year. In addition to personal and group tutoring, Revolution Prep is used in hundreds of schools across the country.

We rate it as one of the best online tutoring services you can get, thanks to all of the above. But it's not without it faults – read on for our full review.

See tutors available on Revolution Prep

Revolution Prep review: How it works

Revolution Prep is one of the leading online tutoring platforms which provides a range of services for those from Kindergarten through college, as well as extensive test prep for the PSAT, ACT and SAT.

The company has been in the business for decades: it was founded by two UCLA MBAs in 2002, Ramit Varma and Jake Neuberg, and has helped over 1 million students boost their scores and improve their grades.

Grades: K-college Price: From $39.80+ an hour for real-time live tutoring with up to three students in any subject; from $41.50 an hour for 12 hours of group test prep Subjects: over 100 academic subjects plus SAT/ACT/PSAT test prep Programs: 1:1 private live tutoring or test prep, 3:1 tutoring, group test prep (up to eight students) all available Times available: schedule-ahead tutoring, drop-in Homework Help, seven days a week

Revolution Prep’s main strength lies in its test prep help, which is accessible and personalizable depending on the student’s requirements. You can expect expert instruction, unlimited practice videos, mock tests and group class sizes of up to eight students. You can also choose from 12, 24 or 36-hour packages.

For those looking for 1:1 tutoring in a specific academic subject (from Pre-Calc to Japanese, Biology to Music Theory) or SAT/ACT test prep, private tutoring packages in 12, 24 or 36-hour blocks are also available. These include individualized instruction, a customizable schedule and tutoring with the same person, so the student develops a rapport over the lessons.

Live online sessions are also available for those who prefer a small group option of 3:1 students, where you can self-schedule lessons in a range of academic subjects (40+). These can be purchased in a block of five hours.

Revolution Prep review 2021: image shows boy balancing books on head

Finally, students in grades 6-12 can also pay a monthly fee for Homework Help, which includes guidance across 60+ academic subjects as well as access to SAT and ACT test prep resources. This works as a drop-in, office-hours type service, seven days a week.

Schools across the country like Deerfield Academy use Revolution Prep to offer their students additional tuition through 1:1 and group sessions, as well as access to an academic advisor to help match students with the tutor that suits them best.

Revolution Prep review: Ease of use

Revolution Prep couldn’t be easier to use: you just need to commit to a package, purchase it and then you can start signing up to sessions based on your availability and your tutors', using the Schedule tool on your dashboard.

Other than homework help, each package - whether you’re looking for 1:1 or group sessions, test prep or specific help in a particular subject like 10th grade English - comes with a set number of hours, from five hours for 3:1 classes to blocks of 12, 24 or 36 hours for 1:1s or group test prep.

Revolution Prep’s classes work through a combination of live, online sessions as well as on-demand videos students can access (for test prep). The platform offers numerous other resources like mock tests which are scored in detail across eight pages. There’s also mobile app grading and parents are given video updates on a student’s progress each month. Free online webinars on subjects of interest for those thinking about college are available on the site.

Revolution Prep Review 2021: image shows girl with laptop

Revolution Prep review: Tutors and students

Unlike some other online tutoring platforms, Revolution Prep’s tutoring time is typically bought in blocks of hours. Private 1:1 tutoring starts at $1,398 for 12 hours (it’s $2,399 for 24-hours and $3,599 for 36-hours, plus four bonus hours).

Group test prep courses with up to eight students start at $499 for 12 hours, $799 for 24 hours and $1,099 for 36-hours.

3:1 tutoring from Revolution Prep is $199 for five hours, while homework help costs $99 a month for the drop-in service seven days a week, which gives assistance across a range of 6-12 subjects.

This is all quite a bit more expensive than other platforms – on demand places like Preply have lessons which start at $4, and even websites that adopt a personalized approach to learning like eTutorWorld only charge $219 for 10 sessions. But this site does offer you the chance to get to know your tutor and learn with other classmates.

The company offers a money-back guarantee if the student is unsatisfied with their private tutoring or small group course during the first 30 days or six hours (whichever comes first).

Should I choose Revolution Prep?

Revolution Prep has a reputation that precedes it, with years of success stories and over 1 million students to date. It offers flexible options for students, whether they’re looking for test prep or 1:1 help with a particular academic area or subject. Tutors are full-time employees at the company, and reviewers are consistent in their praise of the service, especially when it comes to scoring higher on standardized tests like the ACT and SAT.

Revolution Prep review 2021: image shows school boy

Revolution Prep is also an option for less formal tutoring packages, from ad-hoc homework help to 3:1 tutoring. We like that there are on-demand videos and other resources, like practice tests, for students to use, as well as personalized feedback (marked tests, video message updates about progress and goals). The only downside to this platform is the price, as other services offer tutors at much lower rates.

See all tutors on Revolution Prep

Revolution Prep is one of our favorite online tutoring services, thanks to its approach to learning. The platform gives students the chance to get to know tutors and offers plenty of different payment packages, so you can learn in groups or solo.

Jennifer Barton Packer is a freelance writer and journalist, who regularly reviews online tutoring sites for Top Ten Reviews.

Hedge looking a little scruffy? You NEED this amazing deal on the Craftsman V20 Cordless Trimmer

EGO TR4204 Power+ 42in T6 Lawn Tractor review: a battery-powered riding lawn mower that can handle slopes and 1.5 acres on a single charge

Black + Decker BEMW472BH Electric Lawn Mower review: a corded electric lawn mower with easier steering

Most Popular

Revolution Prep For Schools

TERMS | PRIVACY | [email protected]

QUALITY + EQUITY + INTEGRITY

Revolution Prep’s Trusted Partners

Join our hundreds of partner schools providing academic and test prep tutoring to students.

Our Solutions

Make a difference for your students by choosing the right tutoring support for their needs.

SAT/ACT Readiness

✓ Oxford style teaching (small groups of 1-5 students)

✓ Recurring sessions 2-3 times per week for 30-60 minutes with the same tutor

✓ Curriculum collaboration

✓ Student-Teacher Ratio of up to 5:1

Revolution Live

High Impact Tutoring

✓ PSAT/SAT/ACT, AP, and more

✓ Students learn key testing strategies and application

✓ Flexible timing & delivery (e.g. during school day or after-school)

Revolution up

Deliver customized programs with research-based curriculum and instruction designed to help fill learning and homework gaps and boost student achievement for every student.

Let's have a conversation about how we can make a difference for your students by choosing the right tutoring support for their needs.

Growth Mindset

We focus on instilling confidence in students to achieve their full potential.

A team committed to equity and access by removing learning barriers for all students.

Customization

High-Availability

Flexible timing & delivery (during school day or after-school).

Dedicated tutors with vast experience, diverse academic backgrounds, and expertise in 100+ subject areas.

Online Learning

Leaders in virtual instructional technology and engagement for over a decade.

The Revolution Prep Difference

First, we assess.

Our approach, then, we diagnose., lastly, we customize..

Our expert tutors assess each student for learning needs and program considerations.

Each tutor will gauge the baseline for each student before customizing the learning plan.

Your cart is empty. Keep Shopping

The Moscow Trials

Part One: The Moscow Frame-Up Trials: 'Shoot the mad dogs!'

The ideas of Trotsky - which represent the continuation of Marxist thought since Lenin's death - are without question the most slandered set of ideas in history.

Together with Marx and Lenin, Trotsky has been subjected to a continual onslaught from capitalist commentators and academics, including the Russian 'democrats' of the Volkogonov type, for his alleged totalitarianism and subversive ideas. In reality, it is the revolutionary message of Marxism which poses a threat to their system - and they must attempt to discredit these ideas at every opportunity.

Added to this orchestrated bourgeois campaign of vilification has been the vitriolic attacks of the Stalinists on Trotsky. Before his death, Lenin formed a block with Trotsky to remove Stalin from office. Unfortunately, a series of strokes removed Lenin from political life until his death in 1924. From then on Trotsky led the struggle against Stalin and the emerging bureaucracy within the USSR. With the failure of revolution abroad, Stalin used his support within the apparatus to isolate and expel Trotsky from the Soviet Union.

Once Stalin had defeated Trotsky's Left Opposition, he turned on all his opponents, including his allies on the Right. The victory of the apparatus was to culminate in the infamous Moscow Trials of 1936-38 where the 'Old Bolsheviks', including Trotsky, who led the October Revolution, were accused of counter-revolutionary activity, sabotage, murder, and collaboration with fascism.

Most of the accused were subsequently broken by the secret police, the NKVD, forced to give to give false confessions about themselves and others, and then shot. By 1940, out of the members of Lenin's Central Committee of 1917, only Stalin remained. Trotsky himself was assassinated by a Stalinist agent in August 1940.

In the course of these Show Trials, Stalin attempted to mobilise world opinion against the accused. An international campaign was organised through the Communist Parties and their press to discredit and slander Trotsky and the other leaders of the Revolution. Trotsky was officially accused of being connected with the German Intelligence Service since 1921, and with British intelligence since 1926!

In the Indictment of the trial of the Old Bolsheviks Pyatakov, Radek, Sokolnikov, Serebriakov, Muralov and others, it states:

'The investigation has established that LD Trotsky entered into negotiations with one of the leaders of the German National Socialist Party with a view to waging a joint struggle against the Soviet Union... The principles of this agreement, as Trotsky related, were finally elaborated and adopted during Trotsky's meeting with Hitler's deputy, Hess...' (International Press Correspondence, p. 128, no 6, February 1937)

While the Moscow Frame up Trials unfolded, very few were to openly question their authenticity. While the charges appeared fantastic, the confessions seemed so clear and emphatic. In the West, a handful of Trotskyists fought bravely to mobilise opposition to the Stalinist machine. In 1937, an impartial Commission of Enquiry was established, made up of liberal-democratic people, under Prof. John Dewey to examine the charges made against Trotsky and his son Leon Sedov - the two principal defendants of the Moscow Trials. After a thorough investigation the Commission returned a verdict of not guilty and that the trials were a frame-up.

It was only in 1956, at the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, did Khrushchev finally reveal that the Trials were in fact fame-ups. This was done to place the blame for the crimes of Stalinism on Stalin himself. It was all down to him! The fact that Khrushchev and the others directly participated in the frame-ups while Stalin was alive was not mentioned. Neither Trotsky nor his son were rehabilitated. Despite the so-called de-Stalinisation, research into the Great Terror was taboo right up until the end of the 1980s.

With the collapse of Stalinism, and the opening up of the archives of the CPSU, new evidence has emerged about the Moscow Trials. One of the latest books to appear which analyses the new archive material from a Marxist perspective is '1937: Stalin's Year of Terror' by the Russian historian Vadim Z. Rogovin. This excellent book provides a graphic picture of the horrific preparation of the Trials.

The Great Purge and Terror were launched by Stalin not because he was insane. On the contrary, it was a conscious, well-prepared course of action to safe-guard the rule of the bureaucracy. Stalin arrived at the decision to destroy the 'Old Bolsheviks' not later than the summer of 1934, and then began to prepare his operation - beginning with the murder of Kirov in December of that year.

Trotsky explained Stalin's actions:

'It is time, my listeners, it is high time, to recognise, finally, that a new aristocracy has been formed in the Soviet Union. The October Revolution proceeded under the banner of equality. The bureaucracy is the embodiment of monstrous inequality. The revolution destroyed the nobility. The bureaucracy creates a new gentry. The revolution destroyed titles and decorations. The new aristocracy produces marshals and generals. The new aristocracy absorbs an enormous part of the national income. Its position before the people is deceitful and false. Its leaders are forced to hide the reality, to deceive the masses, to cloak themselves, calling black white. The whole policy of the new aristocracy is a frame-up.'

The situation by 1934 was giving rise for alarm amongst the Stalinist bureaucracy. There was profound discontent throughout the country after the debacle of forced collectivisation and the adventure of the first Five Year Plan. Opposition moods were wide-spread. Stalin feared that the Old Bolsheviks - although forced to repeatedly capitulate to Stalin - would become a focal point for opposition. Some had in fact made contact with Trotsky in exile.

Stalin used the assassination of Kirov to launch his plans. Originally the perpetrators of the murder were declared to be a group of 13 'Zinovievists', shot in December 1934. The former oppositionists Zinoviev and Kamenev - who had had earlier broken with Trotsky and capitulated - were then convicted in January 1935 with 'objectively' inflaming terrorist moods amongst their supporters. But this was only the beginning.

Stalin now realised his mistake in exiling Trotsky in 1928, which allowed him to freely criticise the Stalinist regime from abroad. Trotsky was the most important focal point of opposition to Stalin. He was a revolutionary leader that would not be broken. From then on Stalin prepared his assassination. Consequently, Stalin set about the fame-up of Trotsky and his supporters on charges of terrorism.

This job was given to the NKVD under Yagoda and then Yezhov, both Stalinist hangmen. They had to 'prove' the existence of an underground terrorist Zinoviev organisation which collaborated with secret Trotskyist network. In early 1935 a directive was given to the NKVD which demanded the 'total liquidation of the entire Trotsky-Zinoviev underground'. Arrests took place of suspected oppositionists and former-oppositionists. Then followed the interrogations and first 'confessions' - receiving terrorist orders from Trotsky.

After a year and a half in prison, Zinoviev and Kamenev were brought to Moscow for their interrogation. They had been repeatedly broken - morally crushed - by this time. As was Stalin's method, he had managed to sow mutual discord between the two men. Zinoviev wrote Stalin grovelling letters from his cell: 'My soul burns with one desire: to prove to you that I am no longer an enemy. There is no demand which I would not fullfil in order to prove this... ' (Rogovin, p. 5)

Kamenev bore himself with particular courage. He told his interrogator: 'You are now observing Thermidor in a pure form. The French Revolution taught us a good lesson, but we weren't able to put it to use. We don't know how to protect our revolution from Thermidor. That is our greatest mistake, and history will condemn us for it.'

Yezhov was ordered to prepare them for a public trial, and that they should slander themselves and Trotsky - for the sake of the revolution! Threats were made against their families, a number of whom were held by the NKVD. They were incarcerated and subjected to humiliating procedures. Zinoviev was the first to break, who then persuaded Kamenev to follow suite in return for their lives and those of their families and supporters. They were then brought before Stalin and Voroshilov. Zinoviev pleaded with them: 'You want to depict members of Lenin's Politburo and Lenin's personal friends to be unprincipled bandits, and present the party as a snake's nest of intrigue, treachery and murderers.' To this Stalin replied that the Trial was not aimed at them, but against Trotsky, 'the sworn enemy of the Party.'

Their pleas for their lives were met with Stalin's vow that all this 'goes without saying.' Stalin betrayed them, as he would betray the rest. It was in reality a betrayal of the Revolution in the interests of the ruling bureaucracy at whose head was Stalin.

Smirnov and Mrachkovsky both stubbornly refused to give confessions to the interrogators. According to the chief prosecutor, Vyshinsky, Smirnov's entire interrogation on 20 May consisted of his words: 'I deny this. I deny it once again. I deny it.' Mrachkovsky was taken before Stalin personally, but rejected his advances. He was then handed over to Slutsky, head of the NKVD's foreign department. According to him, he interrogated Mrachkovsky non-stop for almost four days. Mrachkovsky told Slutsky: 'You can tell Stalin that I hate him. He is a traitor. They took me to Molotov, who also wanted to buy me off. I pit in his face.' During the interrogation every two hours the phone rang from Stalin's secretary to ask whether he had managed to 'break' Mrachkovsky. After a lengthy interrogation he finally broke down in tears 'concluding everything was lost.' For a long time he refused to smear Trotsky with terrorist activity.

The first show Trial - the Trial of the Sixteen - sought to destroy the mythical Trotsky-Zinoviev Centre. Vyshinsky did not provide a shred of evidence against the accused - not one document, not a scrap of paper - only the confessions of the accused. The weakness of the prosecutor's case was demonstrated by the inconsistencies and falsehoods in the testimonies given at the trial. Goltsmam, for instance, testified he met Trotsky and Sedov in Copenhagen at the Hotel Bristol. Unbeknown to the prosecutors, the Hotel Bristol had been demolished in 1917! The Stalinist investigators had not done their homework.

At the conclusion of the Trial, Vyshinsky for the prosecution declared: 'I demand that we shoot the mad dogs - every single one of them!' Despite the pleas for mercy submitted by the Sixteen - which they were led to believe would be honoured - within a matter of hours they were taken out and shot.

Those who grovelled before the Stalinist dictatorship - throwing all kinds of slanders against their former comrades - could never satisfy Stalin. They would be eliminated after their allotted role was complete. New amalgams were being prepared. New Witch Trials would take place. As Leon Sedov explained: 'Stalin needs Trotsky's head - this is his main goal. To achieve it he will launch the most extreme and even more insidious cases.'

With the collapse of Hitler Germany in 1945 and the Nuremberg Trials, which laid bare the Nazi regime and their collaborators, not one word or document was found to prove the slightest connection between Trotsky and the Gestapo. It was not Trotsky who had an agreement with Hitler. It was Stalin who signed a Pact with Hitler in August 1939.

It is fitting to end this article by a quote from Leopold Trepper, the leader of the famous anti-Nazi spy network in Western Europe:

'But who did protest at the time? Who rose up to voice his outrage? The Trotskyites can lay claim to this honour. Following the example of their leader, who was rewarded for his obstinacy with the end of an ice-axe, they fought Stalinism to the death, and they were the only ones who did.

'Today, the Trotskyites have a right to accuse those who once howled along with the wolves. Let them not forget, however, that they had the enormous advantage over us of having a coherent political system capable of replacing Stalinism. They had something to cling to in the midst of their profound distress at seeing the revolution betrayed. They did not 'confess', for they knew that their confession would serve neither the party nor socialism.'

Part Two: The Moscow Trials - the greatest frame-up in history

"Why does Moscow so fear the voice of a single man? Only because I know the truth, the whole truth. Only because I have nothing to hide. Only because I am ready to appear before a public and impartial commission of inquiry with documents, facts, and testimonies in my hands, and to disclose the truth to the very end. I declare: if this commission decides that I am guilty in the slightest degree of the crimes which Stalin imputes to me, I pledge in advance to place myself voluntarily in the hands of the executioners of the G.P.U. That, I hope, is clear. Have you all heard? I make this declaration before the entire world. I ask the press to publish my words in the farthest corners of the planet. But if the commission establishes - do you hear me? - that the Moscow Trials are a conscious and premeditated frame-up, constructed with the bones and nerves of human beings, I will not ask my accusers to place themselves voluntarily before a firing squad. No, the eternal disgrace in the memory of human generations will be sufficient for them! Do the accusers of the Kremlin hear me? I throw my defiance in their faces. And I await their reply!" From Trotsky's summary speech before the Dewey Commission, April 1937.

In August 1936, the Old Bolsheviks Kamenev, Zinoviev, Smirnov, Mrachkovsky and twelve others were framed by Stalin, forced to confess to crimes they had not committed, and shot. In January 1937, other leading Bolsheviks, including Piatakov, Radek, Sokolnikov and Muralov, were also framed and either shot or murdered. In June 1937, Marshal Tukhachevsky and a group of the highest-ranking Red Army generals were executed. Finally, in March 1938, Bukharin, Rykov, Krestinsky, and others were also convicted of counter-revolution and shot. The men in the dock were all members of Lenin's Political Bureau, except for Stalin. Trotsky, though absent, was the chief defendant. They were all accused for plotting to assassinate Stalin and the other Soviet leaders, to wreck the country, and conspiring with the espionage services of Britain, France, Japan and Germany. They were also accused of entering into secret pacts with Hitler and the Mikado to annex vast slices of Soviet territory.

The frame-up trials were accompanied by a prolonged purge running into millions. Many victims were executed without trial because they refused to bear false witness. The forced confessions of the defendants in the public trials were the only basis for the proceedings and verdicts. Trotsky alone was beyond Stalin's reach and could not be silenced. At every turn, he denounced the monstrous actions of the Stalinist regime.

At the same time, the Communist Parties everywhere churned out propaganda against Trotsky and in favour of the trials. It was especially taken up with zeal by the British Stalinists. R. Page Arnot wrote in Labour Monthly: "Trotskyism is now revealed as an ancillary of fascism." Walter Holmes in the Daily Worker (4/9/36) wrote: "What are you worrying about? Everybody in our party has got enough sense to know they ought to be shot." John Gollan wrote a pamphlet entitled The Development of Trotskyism from Menshevism to Alliance with Fascism and Counter-revolution. The pro-Stalinist D. N. Pritt, KC wrote: "Once again, the more faint-hearted socialists are beset with doubts and anxieties," but "once again we can feel confident that when the smoke has rolled away from the battle-field of controversy it will be realised that the charge was true, the confessions correct, and the prosecution fairly conducted."

Meanwhile in Russia, the Stalinist regime was trampling over the corpses of the Old Bolsheviks. On 10 August 1936, Yezhov, a leading figure in the secret police, showed Piatakov the testimony given against him, pushing him to a nervous breakdown. Attempting to defend himself, Piatakov blamed the 'Trotskyists' for spreading slanders about him. Calling himself guilty of "not paying attention to counter-revolutionary work of his former wife, and of being indifferent to meetings with her acquaintances", Piatakov said he should be punished more severely, and asked "that he be granted any form of rehabilitation." With this in mind, he asked the CC "allow him personally to shoot all those sentenced to be shot in the (forthcoming) trial, including his former wife." He requested that a statement about this be published in the press.

"In reporting these events at the December Plenum of the Central Committee in 1936", writes Vadim Rogovin in his excellent book, 1937 - Stain's Year of Terror, "Stalin stated that Piatakov had prepared 'with pleasure' to play the role of prosecutor. 'But when we thought things over and decided that this wouldn't work. What would it mean to present him as public prosecutor? He would say one thing, and the accused would object by saying: "Look where you've managed to crawl, into the prosecutor's chair. But didn't you used to work with us?!" And what would that lead to? It would turn the trial into a comedy and disrupt the trial.'" (Rogovin, p. 69)

On the one hand, this showed how broken Piatakov had become, desperate to escape his inevitable end. He prostrated himself before Stalin. His plea to be allowed to become prosecutor was even cynically considered by Stalin but then rejected, fearing it would bring the trial into disrepute.

Stalin then coolly considered Piatakov's request to personally shoot the defendants, including his former wife, but then thought it unwise: "If we announce it, no one would believe that we hadn't forced him to do it. We said that this wouldn't work, no one would believe that you voluntarily decided to do this, without being coerced. Yes, and besides, we never have announced the names of the people who carry out sentences." (Quoted in Rogovin, p. 70).

When Tomsky's name was mentioned in Pravda, connected to the "Trotsky-Zinoviev Gang", he shot himself. He left a note to Stalin: "I never joined any conspiracy against the party." The interrogation of Radek, Skolnikov and Piatakov served to blacken their names. They admitted to the existence of the mythical 'centre' that Trotsky was supposed to have used to organise terrorism inside the USSR. At their trial they were found guilty. Piatakov was shot, and Radek and Skolnikov were imprisoned - and finally murdered in 1939 by other prisoners, apparently on the orders from the security organs.

At the beginning of 1935, Trotsky's son Sergei Sedov was arrested and sent into exile to the Vorkuta camps. New charges were brought against him for allegedly poisoning workers. He was sentenced to be shot on 29 October 1937. All of Trotsky's family - at least those the authorities could discover - were subsequently arrested. "The very sound of his name - Trotsky! - aroused a mystical horror in the hearts of the contemporaries of the Great Purge," notes Runin, the brother-in-law of Sergei. "And the fact that my sister had some kind of relation to that name automatically turned not only her, but our entire family, into state criminals, 'collaborators', 'spies', 'accomplices', in short, into 'agents of the greatest villain of modern times, into the most vicious opponent of Soviet power.'" (Quoted by Rogovin, pp. 152-53).

While there were those who confessed to crimes they did not commit under lengthy interrogation, there were many who did not. Most were shot. Some survived, such as D. B. Dobrushkin, an engineer in Moscow. He passed through a two-year investigation, during which he lost the sight in one eye. He was finally released in Beria's 'reverse flood'.

The witch-hunt atmosphere affected everyone, even the most fervent Stalinists. Ordzhonikidze, for example, committed suicide in early 1937, after constant harrassment from Beria of the G.P.U. In February-March, at the Plenum of the CC, a case was constructed again Bukharin and Rykov. They were forced to grovel before their tormentors. When Bukharin apologised for his political short-sightedness, Stalin interrupted "That's not enough, that's not enough!" He then begged the "CC once again to forgive me." After four days of interrogation, both Bukharin and Rykov were in a state of extreme exhaustion and despair. In the course of their speeches they were constantly interrupted and barracked. After Bukharin had spoken, there were shouts from the audience: "He should have been put in prison long ago!" Stalin urged them to "cleanse themselves" by testifying against themselves and others.

Stalin's agents were also busy internationally exposing Trotskyist "counter-revolutionaries." In Spain the G.P.U. under Alexander Orlov carried out reprisals and assassinations of Trotskyists and the anti-Stalinlists of the POUM. This included Trotsky's secretary in Norway, Erwin Wolf, and the POUM leader Nin, who was mercilessly tortured and his body secretly disposed of. In 1937, Ignace Reiss, a G.P.U. agent, publically broke from the Stalin and came over to Trotsky. He was hunted down and murdered. In 1938, Trotsky's son, Leon Sedov, was also murdered in Paris. In the same year, the decapitated body of Rudolf Klement - the movement's international secretary - was found in the river Seine. The net was closing in.

Trotsky knew his life was in constant danger. Trotsky would tell Natalia, "We have been spared another day." It was Trotsky's hope to be granted sufficient time to allow him to develop and educate a new cadre for the revolutionary events that would unfold during and after the war. Trotsky embodied the genuine traditions of revolutionary Marxism. For this reason, he was a deadly threat to Stalin. The discontent within the USSR, together with the revolutionary events in Spain, threatened to revive opposition within the country. That is why he launched the Purge trials. All potential opposition had to be eliminated.

Trotsky himself was assassinated by a Stalinist agent on 20th August 1940. But to kill a man, is not to kill his ideas. Stalinism has collapsed in the ex-Soviet Union. The Stalinist bureaucracy has gone over - as Trotsky had predicted - to the capitalist counter-revolution. The ranks of the Communist Parties internationally are in ferment. They have never been so open to Trotsky's ideas. The development of powerful Marxist currents world-wide now falls on the new generation of workers and youth. Trotsky has bequeathed a treasure house of ideas, which can help us in our task. A new period opens up before us of revolution and counter-revolution. On the basis of events, the traditional organisations of the working class will be transformed and re-transformed and open the way for the creation of mass Marxist tendencies internationally.

Trotsky was to defend his honour and faith in the socialist future of humankind to the bitter end. It was essential to maintain the spotless banner of revolutionary socialism.

"We will not hand this banner to the masters of falsification", stated Trotsky. "If our generation has proven to be too weak to establish socialism on this earth, we will give its unstained banner to our children. The struggle which looms ahead by far supersedes the significance of individual people, factions and parties. It is a struggle for the future of all humanity. It will be severe. It will be long. Whoever seeks physical repose and spiritual comfort - let him step aside. During times of reaction it is easier to lean on the bureaucracy than on the truth. But for all those for whom socialism is not an empty phrase but the content of their moral life - forward! Neither threats, nor persecution, nor violence will stop us. Perhaps it will be on our bones, but the truth will triumph. We are paving the way for it, and the truth will be victorious. Under the terrible blows of fate I will feel as happy as during the best days of my youth if I can join you in facilitating its victory. For, my friends, the highest human happiness lies not in the exploitation of the present, but in the preparation of the future."

Rob Sewell London March 2000 (this two-part article appeared first in Socialist Appeal )

'The Case of Leon Trotsky' Report of Hearings on the Charges Made Against Him in the Moscow Trials, Verbatim Transcript of Trotsky's Testimony Before the Dewey Commission, Coyoacan, Mexico, April 10-17, 1937 published by Merit Publishers, New York Note: unfortunately this book is out of print, but can probably be found in a well stocked library
'Not Guilty' A companion volume to the above publication, a complete report of the findings of the Commission, published by Pathfinder, can be ordered from WellRed Books
'1937: Stalin's year of terror' by Vadim Rogovin, published by Mehring Books, has recently come out and is also a very good account of Stalin's frame-up trials. Can be ordered from WellRed Books (�19.99 sterling)
The Moscow Trial by Max Shachtman, concentrates on the 1936 trials.
The Red Book by Leon Sedov, Trotsky's son. This is available and can be ordered from WellRed Books (�3.95 sterling). This is a good short account in which Sedov exposes the Moscow Trials.

[ Back to 2000 Trotsky Year]

V. I. Lenin

Lecture on the 1905 revolution [6].

Published: First published in Pravda No. 18, January 22, 1925. Written in German before January 9 (22), 1917. Signed: N. Lenin . Source: Lenin Collected Works , Progress Publishers, 1964 , Moscow, Volume 23 , pages 236-253 . Translated: M. S. Levin, The Late Joe Fineberg and and Others Transcription\Markup: R. Cymbala Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive 2002 (2005). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source. • README

My young friends and comrades,

Today is the twelfth anniversary of “Bloody Sunday”, which is rightly regarded as the beginning of the Russian revolution.

Thousands of workers—not Social-Democrats, but loyal God-fearing subjects—led by the priest Gapon, streamed from all parts of the capital to its centre, to the square in front of the Winter Palace, to submit a petition to the tsar. The workers carried icons. In a letter to the tsar, their then leader, Gapon, had guaranteed his personal safety and asked him to appear before the people.

Troops were called out. Uhlans and Cossacks attacked the crowd with drawn swords. They fired on the unarmed workers, who on their bended knees implored the Cossacks to allow them to go to the tsar. Over one thousand were killed and over two thousand wounded on that day, according to police reports. The indignation of the workers was indescribable.

Such is the general picture of January 22, 1905—“Bloody Sunday”.

That you may understand more clearly the historic significance of this event, I shall quote a few passages from the workers’ petition. It begins with the following words:

“ We workers, inhabitants of St. Petersburg, have come to Thee. We are unfortunate, reviled slaves, weighed down by despotism and tyranny. Our patience exhausted, we ceased work and begged our masters to give us only that without which life is a torment. But this was refused; to the employers everything seemed unlawful. We are here, many thou sands of us. Like the whole of the Russian people, we have no human rights whatever. Owing to the deeds of Thy officials we have become slaves.”

The petition contains the following demands: amnesty, civil liberties, fair wages, gradual transfer of the land to the people, convocation of a constituent assembly on the basis of universal and equal suffrage. It ends with the following words:

“ Sire, do not refuse aid to Thy people! Demolish the wall that separates Thee from Thy people. Order and promise that our requests will be granted, and Thou wilt make Russia happy; if not, we are ready to die on this very spot. We have only two roads: freedom and happiness, or the grave.”

Reading it now , this petition of uneducated, illiterate workers, led by a patriarchal priest, creates a strange impression. Involuntarily one compares this naïve petition with the present peace resolutions of the social-pacifists, the would-be socialists who in reality are bourgeois phrase-mongers. The unenlightened workers of pre-revolutionary Russia did not know that the tsar was the head of the ruling class , the class, namely, of big landowners, already bound by a thousand ties with the big bourgeoisie and prepared to defend their monopoly, privileges and profits by every means of violence. The social-pacifists of today, who pretend to be “highly educated” people—no joking—do not realise that it is just as foolish to expect a “democratic” peace from bourgeois governments that are waging an imperialist predatory war, as it was to believe that peaceful petitions would induce the bloody tsar to grant democratic reforms.

Nevertheless, there is a great difference between the two—the present-day social-pacifists are, to a large extent, hypocrites, who strive by gentle admonitions to divert the people from the revolutionary struggle, whereas the uneducated workers in pre-revolutionary Russia proved by their deeds that they were straightforward people awakened to political consciousness for the first time.

It is in this awakening of tremendous masses of the people to political consciousness and revolutionary struggle that the historic significance of January 22, 1905 lies.

“ There is not yet a revolutionary people in Russia,” wrote Mr. Pyotr Struve, then leader of the Russian liberals and publisher abroad of an illegal, uncensored organ, two days before “Bloody Sunday”. The idea that an illiterate peasant country could produce a revolutionary people seemed utterly absurd to this “highly educated”, supercilious and extremely stupid leader of the bourgeois reformists. So deep was the conviction of the reformists of those days—as of the reformists of today—that, a real revolution was impossible!

Prior to January 22 (or January 9, old style), 1905, the revolutionary party of Russia consisted of a small group of people, and the reformists of those days (exactly like the reformists of today) derisively called us a “sect”. Several hundred revolutionary organisers, several thousand members of local organisations, half a dozen revolutionary papers appearing not more frequently than once a month, published mainly abroad and smuggled into Russia with incredible difficulty and at the cost of many sacrifices—such were the revolutionary parties in Russia, and the revolutionary Social-Democracy in particular, prior to January 22, 1905. This circumstance gave the narrow-minded and overbearing reformists formal justification for their claim that there was not yet a revolutionary people in Russia.

Within a few months, however, the picture changed completely. The hundreds of revolutionary Social-Democrats “suddenly” grew into thousands; the thousands became the leaders of between two arid three million proletarians. The proletarian struggle produced widespread ferment, often revolutionary movements among the peasant masses, fifty to a hundred million strong; the peasant movement had its reverberations in the army and led to soldiers’ revolts, to armed clashes between one section of the army and another. In this manner a colossal country, with a population of 130,000,000, went into the revolution; in this way, dormant Russia was transformed into a Russia of a revolutionary proletariat and a revolutionary people.

It is necessary to study this transformation, understand why it was possible, its methods and ways, so to speak.

The principal factor in this transformation was the mass strike . The peculiarity of the Russian revolution is that it was a bourgeois-democratic revolution in its social content, but a proletarian revolution in its methods of struggle. It was a bourgeois-democratic revolution since its immediate aim, which it could achieve directly and with its own forces, was a democratic republic, the eight-hour day and confiscation of the immense estates of the nobility—all the measures the French bourgeois revolution in 1792–93 had almost completely achieved.

At the same time, the Russian revolution was also a proletarian revolution, not only in the sense that the proletariat was the leading force, the vanguard of the movement, but also in the sense that a specifically proletarian weapon of struggle—the strike—was the principal means of bringing the masses into motion and the most characteristic phenomenon in the wave-like rise of decisive events.

The Russian revolution was the first , though certainly not the last, great revolution in history in which the mass political strike played an extraordinarily important part. It may even be said that the events of the Russian revolution and the sequence of its political forms cannot be understood without a study of the strike statistics to disclose the basis of these events and this sequence of forms.

I know perfectly well that dry statistics are hardly suit able in a lecture and are likely to bore the hearer. Nevertheless, I cannot refrain from quoting a few figures, in order that you may be able to appreciate the real objective basis of the whole movement. The average annual number of strikers in Russia during the ten years preceding the revolution was 43,000, which means 430,000 for the decade. In January 1905, the first month of the revolution, the number of strikers was 440,000. In other words, there were more strikers in one month than in the whole of the preceding decade!

In no capitalist country in the world, not even in the most advanced countries like England, the United States of America, or Germany, has there been anything to match the tremendous Russian strike movement of 1905. The total number of strikers was 2,800,000, more than two times the number of factory workers in the country! This, of course, does not prove that the urban factory workers of Russia were more educated, or stronger, or more adapted to the struggle than their brothers in Western Europe. The very opposite is true.

But it does show how great the dormant energy of the proletariat can be. It shows that in a revolutionary epoch—I say this without the slightest exaggeration, on the basis of the most accurate data of Russian history—the proletariat can generate fighting energy a hundred times greater than in ordinary, peaceful times. It shows that up to 1905 mankind did not yet know what a great, what a tremendous exertion of effort the proletariat is, and will be, capable of in a fight for really great aims, and one waged in a really revolutionary manner!

The history of the Russian revolution shows that it was the vanguard, the finest elements of the wage-workers, that fought with the greatest tenacity and the greatest devotion. The larger the mills and factories involved, the more stubborn were the strikes, and the more often did they recur during the year. The bigger the city, the more important was the part the proletariat played in the struggle. Three big cities, St. Petersburg, Riga and Warsaw, which have the largest and most class-conscious working-class element, show an immeasurably greater number of strikers, in relation to all workers, than any other city, and, of course, much greater than the rural districts. [1]

In Russia—as probably in other capitalist countries—the metalworkers represent the vanguard of the proletariat. In this connection we note the following instructive fact: taking all industries, the number of persons involved in strikes in 1905 was 160 per hundred workers employed, but in the metal industry the number was 320 per hundred! It is estimated that in consequence of the 1905 strikes every Russian factory worker lost an average of ten rubles in wages—approximately 26 francs at the pre-war rate of exchange—sacrificing this money, as it were, for the sake of the struggle. But if we take the metalworkers, we find that the loss in wages was three times as great ! The finest elements of the working class marched in the forefront, giving leadership to the hesitant, rousing the dormant and encouraging the weak.

A distinctive feature was the manner in which economic strikes were interwoven with political strikes during the revolution. There can be no doubt that only this very close link-up of the two forms of strike gave the movement its great power. The broad masses of the exploited could not have been drawn into the revolutionary movement had they not been given daily examples of how the wage-workers in the various industries were forcing the capitalists to grant immediate, direct improvements in their conditions. This struggle imbued the masses of the Russian people with a new spirit. Only then did the old serf-ridden, sluggish, patriarchal, pious and obedient Russia cast out the old Adam; only then did the Russian people obtain a really democratic and really revolutionary education.

When the bourgeois gentry and their uncritical echoers, the social-reformists, talk priggishly about the “education” of the masses, they usually mean something schoolmasterly, pedantic, something that demoralises the masses and instils in them bourgeois prejudices.

The real education of the masses can never be separated from their independent political, and especially revolutionary, struggle. Only struggle educates the exploited class. Only struggle discloses to it the magnitude of its own power, widens its horizon, enhances its abilities, clarifies its mind, forges its will. That is why even reactionaries bad to admit that the year 1905, the year of struggle, the “mad year”, definitely buried patriarchal Russia.

Let us examine more closely the relation, in the 1905 strike struggles, between the metalworkers and the textile workers. The metalworkers are the best paid, the most class-conscious and best educated proletarians: the textile workers, who in 1905 were two and a half times more numerous than the metalworkers, are the most backward and the worst paid body of workers in Russia, and in very many cases have not yet definitely severed connections with their peasant kinsmen in the village. This brings us to a very important circumstance.

Throughout the whole of 1905, the metalworkers strikes show a preponderance of political over economic strikes, though this preponderance was far greater toward the end of the year than at the beginning. Among the textile workers, on the other hand, we observe an overwhelming preponderance of economic strikes at the beginning of 1905, and it is only at the end of the year that we get a preponderance of political strikes. From this it follows quite obviously that the economic struggle, the struggle for immediate and direct improvement of conditions, is alone capable of rousing the most backward strata of the exploited masses, gives them a real education and transforms them—during a revolutionary period—into an army of political fighters within the space of a few months.

Of course, for this to happen, it was necessary for the vanguard of the workers not to regard the class struggle as a struggle in the interests of a thin upper stratum—a conception the reformists all too often try to instil—but for the proletariat to come forward as the real vanguard of the majority of the exploited and draw that majority into the struggle, as was the case in Russia in 1905, and as must be, and certainly will be, the case in the impending proletarian revolution in Europe. [2]

The beginning of 1905 brought the first great wave of strikes that swept the entire country. As early as the spring of that year we see the rise of the first big, not only economic, but also political peasant movement in Russia. The importance of this historical turning-point will be appreciated if it is borne in mind that the Russian peasantry was liberated from the severest form of serfdom only in 1861, that the majority of the peasants are illiterate, that they live in indescribable poverty, oppressed by the landlords, deluded by the priests and isolated from each other by vast distances and an almost complete absence of roads.

Russia witnessed the first revolutionary movement against tsarism in 1825, a movement represented almost exclusively by noblemen. Thereafter and up to 1881, when Alexander II was assassinated by the terrorists, the movement was led by middle-class intellectuals. They displayed supreme self-sacrifice and astonished the whole world by the heroism of their terrorist methods of struggle. Their sacrifices were certainly not in vain. They doubtlessly contributed—directly or indirectly—to the subsequent revolutionary education of the Russian people. But they did not, and could not, achieve their immediate aim of generating a people’s revolution.

That was achieved only by the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. Only the waves of mass strikes that swept over the whole country, strikes connected with the severe lessons of the imperialist Russo-Japanese War, roused the broad masses of peasants from their lethargy. The word “striker” acquired an entirely new meaning among the peasants: it signified a rebel, a revolutionary, a term previously expressed by the word “student”. But the “student” belonged to the middle class, to the “learned”, to the “gentry”, and was therefore alien to the people. The “striker”, on the other hand, was of the people; he belonged to the exploited class. Deported from St. Petersburg, he often returned to the village where he told his fellow-villagers of the conflagration which was spreading to all the cities and would destroy both the capitalists and the nobility. A new type appeared in the Russian village—the class-conscious young peasant. He associated with “strikers”, he read newspapers, he told the peasants about events in the cities, explained to his fellow-villagers the meaning of political demands, and urged them to fight the landowning nobility, the priests and the government officials.

The peasants would gather in groups to discuss their conditions, and gradually they were drawn into the struggle. Large crowds attacked the big estates, set fire to the manor-houses and appropriated supplies, seized grain and other foodstuffs, killed policemen and demanded transfer to the people of the huge estates.

In the spring of 1905, the peasant movement was only just beginning, involving only a minority, approximately one-seventh, of the uyezds.

But the combination of the proletarian mass strikes in the cities with the peasant movement in the rural areas was sufficient to shake the “firmest” and last prop of tsarism. I refer to the army .

There began a series of mutinies in the navy and the army. During the revolution, every fresh wave of strikes and of the peasant movement was accompanied by mutinies in all parts of Russia. The most well-known of these is the mutiny on the Black Sea cruiser Prince Potemkin , which was seized by the mutineers and took part in the revolution in Odessa. After the defeat of the revolution and unsuccessful attempts to seize other ports (Feodosia in the Crimea, for instance), it surrendered to the Rumanian authorities in Constantsa.

Permit me to relate in detail one small episode of the Black Sea mutiny in order to give you a concrete picture of events at the peak of the movement.

“ Gatherings of revolutionary workers and sailors were being organised more and more frequently. Since servicemen were not allowed to attend workers’ meetings, large crowds of workers came to military meetings. They came in thousands. The idea of joint action found a lively response. Delegates were elected from the companies where political understanding among the men was higher. “ The military authorities thereupon decided to take action. Some of the officers tried to deliver ‘patriotic’ speeches at the meetings but failed dismally: the sailors, who were accustomed to debating, put their officers to shameful flight. In view of this, it was decided to prohibit meetings altogether. On the morning of November 24, 1905, a company of sailors, in full combat kit, was posted at the gates of the naval bar racks. Rear-Admiral Pisarevsky gave the order in a loud voice: ‘No one is to leave the barracks! Shoot anyone who disobeys!’ A sailor named Petrov, of the company that had been given that order, stepped forth from the ranks,load ed his rifle in the view of all,and with one shot killed Captain Stein of the Belostok Regiment, and with another wounded Rear-Admiral Pisarevsky. ‘Arrest him!’ one of the officers shouted. No one budged. Petrov threw down his rifle, exclaiming: ‘Why don’t you move? Take me!’ He was arrested. The sailors, who rushed from every side, angrily demanded his release, declaring that they vouched for him. Excitement ran high. “‘ Petrov, the shot was an accident, wasn’t it?’ asked one of the officers, trying to find a way out of the situation. “‘ What do you mean, an accident? I stepped forward, loaded and took aim. Is that an accident?’ “‘ They demand your release....’ “ And Petrov was released. The sailors, however, were not content with that; all officers on duty were arrested, disarmed, and locked up at headquarters.... Sailor delegates, about forty in number, conferred the whole night. The decision was to release the officers, but not to permit them to enter the barracks again.”

This small incident clearly shows you how events developed in most of the mutinies. The revolutionary ferment among the people could not but spread to the armed forces. It is indicative that the leaders of the movement came from those elements in the army and the navy who had been recruited mainly from among the industrial workers and of whom more technical training was required, for instance, the sappers. The broad masses, however, were still too naïve, their mood was too passive, too good-natured, too Christian. They flared up rather quickly; any instance of injustice, excessively harsh treatment by the officers, bad food, etc., could lead to revolt. But what they lacked was persistence, a clear perception of aim, a clear understanding that only the most vigorous continuation of the armed struggle, only a victory over all the military and civil authorities, only the overthrow of the government and the seizure of power throughout the country could guarantee the success of the revolution.

The broad masses of sailors and soldiers were easily roused to revolt. But with equal light-heartedness they foolishly released arrested officers. They allowed the officers to pacify them by promises and persuasion: in this way the officers gained precious time, brought in reinforcements, broke the strength of the rebels, and then followed the most brutal suppression of the movement and the execution of its leaders.

A comparison of these 1905 mutinies with the Decembrist uprising of 1825 is particularly interesting. In 1825 the leaders of the political movement were almost exclusively officers, and officers drawn from the nobility. They had become infected, through contact, with the democratic ideas of Europe during the Napoleonic wars. The mass of the soldiers, who at that time were still serfs, remained passive.

The history of 1905 presents a totally different picture. With few exceptions, the mood of the officers was either bourgeois-liberal, reformist, or frankly counter-revolutionary. The workers and peasants in military uniform were the soul of the mutinies. The movement spread to all sections of the people, and for the first time in Russia’s history involved the majority of the exploited. But what it lacked was, on the one hand, persistence and determination among the masses—they were too much afflicted with the malady of trustfulness—and, on the other, organisation of revolutionary Social-Democratic workers in military uniform—they lacked the ability to take the leadership into their own hands, march at the head of the revolutionary army and launch an offensive against the government.

I might remark, incidentally, that these two shortcomings will—more slowly, perhaps, than we would like, but surely—be eliminated not only by the general development of capitalism, but also by the present war... [3]

At any rate, the history of the Russian revolution, like the history of the Paris Commune of 1871, teaches us the incontrovertible lesson that militarism can never and under no circumstances be defeated and destroyed, except by a victorious struggle of one section of the national army against the other section. It is not sufficient simply to denounce, revile and “repudiate” militarism, to criticise and prove that it is harmful; it is foolish peacefully to refuse to perform military service. The task is to keep the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat tense and train its best elements, not only in a general way, hut concretely, so that when popular ferment reaches the highest pitch, they will put themselves at the head of the revolutionary army.

The day-to-day experience of any capitalist country teaches us the same lesson. Every “minor” crisis that such a country experiences discloses to us in miniature the elements, the rudiments, of the battles that will inevitably take place on a large scale during a big crisis. What else, for instance, is a strike if not a minor crisis of capitalist society? Was not the Prussian Minister for Internal Affairs, Herr von Puttkammer, right when he coined the famous phrase: “In every strike there lurks the hydra of revolution”? Does not the calling out of troops during strikes in all, even the most peaceful, the most “democratic”—save the mark—capitalist countries show how things will shape out in a really big crisis?

But to return to the history of the Russian revolution.

I have tried to show you how the workers’ strikes stirred up the whole country and the broadest, most backward strata of the exploited, how the peasant movement began, and how it was accompanied by mutiny in the armed forces.

The movement reached its zenith in the autumn of 1905. On August 19 (6), the tsar issued a manifesto on the introduction of popular representation. The so-called Bulygin Duma was to be created oil the basis of a suffrage embracing a ridiculously small number of voters, and this peculiar “parliament” was to have no legislative powers whatever, only advisory , consultative powers!

The bourgeoisie, the liberals, the opportunists were ready to grasp with both hands this “gift” of the frightened tsar. Like all reformists, our reformists of 1905 could not understand that historic situations arise when reforms, and particularly promises of reforms, pursue only one aim: to allay the unrest of the people, force the revolutionary class to cease, or at least slacken, its struggle.

The Russian revolutionary Social-Democracy was well aware of the real nature of this grant of an illusory constitution in August 1905. That is why, without a moment’s hesitation, it issued the slogans: “Down with the advisory Duma! Boycott the Duma! Down with the tsarist government! Continue the revolutionary struggle to overthrow it! Not the tsar, but a provisional revolutionary government must convene Russia’s first real, popular representative assembly!”

History proved that the revolutionary Social-Democrats were right, for the Bulygin Duma was never convened. It was swept away by the revolutionary storm before it could be convened. And this storm forced the tsar to promulgate a new electoral law, which provided for a considerable increase in the number of voters, and to recognise the legislative character of the Duma. [4]

October and December 1905 marked the highest point in the rising tide of the Russian revolution. All the well-springs of the people’s revolutionary strength flowed in a wider stream than ever before. The number of strikers—which in January 1905, as I have already told you, was 440,000—reached over half a million in October 1905 (in a single month!). To this number, which applies only to factory workers, must be added several hundred thousand railway workers, postal and telegraph employees, etc.

The general railway strike stopped all rail traffic and paralysed the power of the government in the most effective manner. The doors of the universities were flung wide open, and the lecture halls, which in peace time were used solely to befuddle youthful minds with pedantic professorial wisdom and to turn the students into docile servants of the bourgeoisie and tsarism, now became the scene of public meetings at which thousands of workers, artisans and office workers openly and freely discussed political issues.

Freedom of the press was won. The censorship was simply ignored. No publisher dared send the obligatory censor copy to the authorities, and the authorities did not dare take any measure against this. For the first time in Russian history, revolutionary newspapers appeared freely in St. Petersburg and other towns. In St. Petersburg alone, three Social-Democratic daily papers were published, with circulations ranging from 50,000 to 100,000.

The proletariat, marched at the head of the movement. It set out to win the eight-hour day by revolutionary action. “ An Eight-Hour Day and Arms! ” was the fighting slogan of the St. Petersburg proletariat. That the fate of the revolution could, and would, be decided only by armed struggle was becoming obvious to an ever-increasing mass of workers.

In the fire of battle, a peculiar mass organisation was formed, the famous Soviets of Workers’ Deputies , comprising delegates from all factories. In several cities these Soviets of Workers’ Deputies began more and more to play the part of a provisional revolutionary government, the part of organs and leaders of the uprising. Attempts were made to organise Soviets of Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Deputies and to combine them with the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies.

For a time several cities in Russia became something in the nature of small local “republics”. The government authorities were deposed and the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies actually functioned as the new government. Unfortunately, these periods were all too brief, the “victories” were too weak, too isolated.

The peasant movement in the autumn of 1905 reached still greater dimensions. Over one-third of all the uyezds were affected by the so-called “peasant disorders” and regular peasant uprisings. The peasants burned down no less than two thousand estates and distributed among themselves the food stocks of which the predatory nobility had robbed the people.

Unfortunately, this work was not thorough enough! Unfortunately, the peasants destroyed only one-fifteenth of the total number of landed estates, only one-fifteenth part of what they should have destroyed in order to wipe the shame of large feudal landownership from the face of the Russian earth. Unfortunately, the peasants were too scattered, too isolated from each other in their actions; they were not organised enough, not aggressive enough, and therein lies one of the fundamental reasons for the defeat of the revolution.

A movement for national liberation flared up among the oppressed peoples of Russia. Over one-half, almost three-fifths ( to be exact, 57 per cent ) of the population of Russia is subject to national oppression; they are not even free to use their native language, they are forcibly Russified. The Moslems, for instance, who number tens of millions, were quick to organise a Moslem League—this was a time of rapid growth of all manner of organisations.

The following instance will give the audience, particularly the youth, an example of how at that time the movement for national liberation in Russia rose in conjunction with the labour movement.

In December 1905, Polish children in hundreds of schools burned all Russian books, pictures and portraits of the tsar, and attacked and drove out the Russian teachers and their Russian schoolfellows, shouting: “Get out! Go back to Russia!” The Polish secondary school pupils put forward, among others, the following demands: (1) all secondary schools must be under the control of a Soviet of Workers’ Deputies; (2) joint pupils’ and workers’ meetings to be held in school premises; (3) secondary school pupils to be allowed to wear red blouses as a token of adherence to the future proletarian republic.

The higher the tide of the movement rose, the more vigorously and decisively did the reaction arm itself to fight the revolution. The Russian Revolution of 1905 confirmed the truth of what Karl Kautsky wrote in 1902 in his book Social Revolution (he was still, incidentally, a revolutionary Marxist and not, as at present, a champion of social-patriotism and opportunism). This is what he wrote:

“... The impending revolution ... will be less like a spontaneous uprising against the government and more like a protracted civil war .”

That is how it was, and undoubtedly that is how it will be in the coming European revolution!

Tsarism vented its hatred particularly upon the Jews. On the one hand, the Jews furnished a particularly high percentage (compared with the total Jewish population) of leaders of the revolutionary movement. And now, too, it should be noted to the credit of the Jews, they furnish a relatively high percentage of internationalists, compared with other nations. On the other hand, tsarism adroitly exploited the basest anti-Jewish prejudices of the most ignorant strata of the population in order to organise, if not to lead directly, pogroms —over 4,000 were killed and more than 10,000 mutilated in 100 towns. These atrocious massacres of peaceful Jews, their wives and children roused disgust throughout the civilised world. I have in mind, of course, the disgust of the truly democratic elements of the civilised world, and these are exclusively the socialist workers, the proletarians.

Even in the freest, even in the republican countries of Western Europe, the bourgeoisie manages very well to combine its hypocritical phrases about “Russian atrocities” with the most shameless financial transactions, particularly with financial support of tsarism and imperialist exploitation of Russia through export of capital, etc.

The climax of the 1905 Revolution came in the December uprising in Moscow. For nine days a small number of rebels, of organised and armed workers—there were not more than eight thousand —fought against the tsar’s government, which dared not trust the Moscow garrison. In fact, it had to keep it locked up, and was able to quell the rebellion only by bringing in the Semenovsky Regiment from St. Petersburg.

The bourgeoisie likes to describe the Moscow uprising as something artificial, and to treat it with ridicule. For instance, in German so-called “scientific” literature, Herr Professor Max Weber, in his lengthy survey of Russia’s political development, refers to the Moscow uprising as a “putsch”. “The Lenin group,” says this “highly learned” Herr Professor, “and a section of the Socialist-Revolutionaries had long prepared for this senseless uprising.”

To properly assess this piece of professorial wisdom of the cowardly bourgeoisie, one need only recall the strike statistics. In January 1905, only 123,000 were involved in purely political strikes, in October the figure was 330,000, and in December the maximum was reached — 370,000 taking part in purely political strikes in a single month! Let us recall, too, the progress of the revolution, the peasant and soldier uprisings, and we shall see that the bourgeois “scientific” view of the December uprising is not only absurd. It is a subterfuge resorted to by the representatives of the cowardly bourgeoisie, which sees in the proletariat its most dangerous class enemy.

In reality, the inexorable trend of the Russian revolution was towards an armed, decisive battle between the tsarist government and the vanguard of the class-conscious proletariat.

I have already pointed out, in my previous remarks, wherein lay the weakness of the Russian revolution that led to its temporary defeat.

The suppression of the December uprising marked the beginning of the ebb of the revolution. But in this period, too, extremely interesting moments are to be observed. Suffice it to recall that twice the foremost militant elements of the working class tried to check the retreat of the revolution and to prepare a new offensive.

But my time has nearly expired, and I do not want to abuse the patience of my audience. I think, however, that I have outlined the most important aspects of the revolution—its class character, its driving forces and its methods of struggle—as fully as so big a subject can be dealt with in a brief lecture. [5]

A few brief remarks concerning the world significance of the Russian revolution.

Geographically, economically and historically, Russia belongs not only to Europe, but also to Asia. That is why the Russian revolution succeeded not only in finally awakening Europe’s biggest and most backward country and in creating a revolutionary people led by a revolutionary proletariat.

It achieved more than that. The Russian revolution engendered a movement throughout the whole of Asia. The revolutions in Turkey, Persia and China prove that the mighty uprising of 1905 left a deep imprint, and that its influence, expressed in the forward movement of hundreds and hundreds of millions, is ineradicable.

In an indirect way, the Russian revolution influenced also the countries of the West. One must not forget that news of the tsar’s constitutional manifesto, on reaching Vienna on October 30, 1905, played a decisive part in the final victory of universal suffrage in Austria.

A telegram bearing the news was placed on the speaker’s rostrum at the Congress of the Austrian Social-Democratic Party just as Comrade Ellenbogen—at that time he was not yet a social-patriot, but a comrade—was delivering his report on the political strike. The discussion was immediately adjourned. “Our place is in the streets!”—was the cry that resounded through the hall where the delegates of the Austrian Social-Democracy were assembled. And the following days witnessed the biggest street demonstrations in Vienna and barricades in Prague. The battle for universal suffrage in Austria was won.

We very often meet West-Europeans who talk of the Russian revolution as if events, the course and methods of struggle in that backward country have very little resemblance to West-European patterns, and, therefore, can hardly have any practical significance.

Nothing could be more erroneous.

The forms and occasions for the impending battles in the coming European revolution will doubtlessly differ in many respects from the forms of the Russian revolution.

Nevertheless, the Russian revolution—precisely because of its proletarian character, in that particular sense of which I have spoken—is the prologue to the coming European revolution. Undoubtedly, this coming revolution can only be a proletarian revolution, and in an oven more profound sense of the word: a proletarian, socialist revolution also in its content. This coming revolution will show to an even greater degree, on the one hand, that only stern battles, only civil wars, can free humanity from the yoke of capital, and, on the other hand, that only class-conscious proletarians can and will give leadership to the vast majority of the exploited.

We must not be deceived by the present grave-like stillness in Europe. Europe is pregnant with revolution. The monstrous horrors of the imperialist war, the suffering caused by the high cost of living everywhere engender a revolutionary mood; and the ruling classes, the bourgeoisie, and its servitors, the governments, are more and more moving into a blind alley from which they can never extricate themselves without tremendous upheavals.

Just as in Russia in 1905, a popular uprising against the tsarist government began under the leadership of the proletariat with the aim of achieving a democratic republic, so, in Europe, the coming years, precisely because of this predatory war, will lead to popular uprisings under the leadership of the proletariat against the power of finance capital, against the big banks, against the capitalists; and these upheavals cannot end otherwise than with the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, with the victory of socialism.

We of the older generation may not live to see the decisive battles of this coming revolution. But I can, I believe, express the confident hope that the youth which is working so splendidly in the socialist movement of Switzerland, and of the whole world, will be fortunate enough not only to fight, but also to win, in the coming proletarian revolution.

[1] In the manuscript this paragraph is crossed out.— Ed .

[2] In the manuscript the four preceding paragraphs are crossed out.— Ed .

[3] In the manuscript the three preceding paragraphs are crossed out.— Ed .

[4] In the manuscript the four preceding paragraphs are crossed out.— Ed .

[5] In the manuscript this sentence is crossed out.— Ed .

[6] [103] The Lecture on the l905 Revolution was delivered in German on January 9 (22), 1917 at a meeting of young workers in the Zurich People’s House. Lenin began working on the lecture in the closing days of 1916. He referred to the lecture in a letter to V. A. Karpinsky dated December 7 (20), asking for literature on the subject.

IMAGES

The 10 Minute Homework Revolution!
Lesson 1C: Homework revolution
The Homework Revolution: Igniting Future Success Through Structured
The Benefits Of Homework: How Homework Can Help Students Succeed
The 10 Minute Homework Revolution!
2021 Trends: The Homework Revolution

VIDEO

Homefront: The Revolution PC Gameplay
How Do You Teach Revolutions?
Hessians: The German Soldiers of the American Revolution #shorts #viral #short
Calculus: Integrals 9
We. The Revolution ➤ Прохождение #2 ➤ ЛИЧНЫЙ ИНТЕРЕС
The Impact of Homework on Student Learning

COMMENTS

Homework revolution
www.tedxtelaviv.comProduced by GiladAdin.com Dr. Eyal Doron - thought leader, creativity mentor and facilitator of organizational and educational innovation...
PDF The Homework Revolution: Breaking Away From Traditional Paper and
THE HOMEWORK REVOLUTION 10 confuse them even more. Yet, studies on homework's impact on student achievement often fail to show positive results. It has been shown that the time parents spent helping their children with homework is unrelated to children's academic performance (Chen & Stevenson, 1989).
Eyal Doron: Homework revolution
Get a daily email featuring the latest talk, plus a quick mix of trending content.
Eyal Doron
Eyal Doron (born in 1969) is a lecturer and researcher in the field of creative thinking, author, executive coach and organizational consultant in Israel and worldwide, and head of the executive management program at the Reichman University.Formerly a TV and theater creator. In recent years Doron has been engaged in the field of creative education and the challenges of the new world of work in ...
Revolution Prep
Revolution's holistic and personalized approach to learning has been boosting student confidence, scores, and grades for more than 20 years. Our expert tutors have dedicated their careers to helping students achieve their goals. Choose between Academic Private Tutoring, Test Prep Private Tutoring, or Group Test Prep. ...
The Homework Revolution
The Homework Revolution MAG. June 12, 2009. By SpaceKing800 GOLD, Glen Rock, New Jersey. More by this author . SpaceKing800 GOLD, Glen Rock, New Jersey 15 articles 0 photos 228 comments.
Roberto Nevelis
May 26, 2023 karolis. His contributions to the educational system have shaped the way students engage with their studies and have had a profound influence on the way we perceive and approach homework. Born on July 12, 1920, in the small town of Vicenza, Italy, Roberto Nevelis grew up in a family that valued education and intellectual pursuits.
The Homework Revolution: Igniting Future Success Through ...
So, gather the textbooks, ready the stationery, and embark on the homework revolution. Within these rituals lies the scaffolding that will elevate your child to intellectual heights, and, in the ...
Key Lessons: What Research Says About the Value of Homework
Too much homework may diminish its effectiveness. While research on the optimum amount of time students should spend on homework is limited, there are indications that for high school students, 1½ to 2½ hours per night is optimum. Middle school students appear to benefit from smaller amounts (less than 1 hour per night).
2021 Trends: The Homework Revolution
2021 Trends: The Homework Revolution. By Donald M. Rattner, AIA. December 10, 2020. - Advertisement-. Donald Rattner shares how the home will become more like the office and the office more like home in the coming years. Left: Office commissary. Photography by Mengyi Hu. Right: Home office. Architecture by Dubinett Architects.
The Writing Revolution
The Writing Revolution (TWR) aims to enable all students, especially those from historically marginalized communities, to become proficient writers, readers, and critical thinkers. We train and support teachers and school leaders in implementing the Hochman Method©, an explicit set of evidence-based strategies for teaching expository writing.
Industrial Revolution
The Industrial Revolution is the name of the movement in which machines changed people's way of life as well as their methods of manufacture. ... Improved homework resources designed to support a variety of curriculum subjects and standards. A new, third level of content, designed specially to meet the advanced needs of the sophisticated ...
Kids stressed? Join the less-homework revolution
A less-homework revolution is brewing, and you can join it. Like me, Christine Hendricks, a mother of three in Glenrock, WY, had always believed in homework. Then her daughter, Maddie, entered ...
The Homework Revolution
In response to "The Homework Revolution" by Lauren Miller, I have no option but to agree. Hours of repetitive homework, when it's essentially nothing more than "busy work," is damaging to ...
Revolution Prep Review 2021
Revolution Prep is a versatile online tutoring platform offering 1:1 private sessions for test prep and academic subjects, as well as group tutoring and group test prep options. There is also drop-in Homework Help seven days a week on a monthly subscription basis. The wealth of options in terms of private or group lessons already sets ...
Revolution Prep For Schools
Revolution Prep's Trusted Partners. Join our hundreds of partner schools providing academic and test prep tutoring to students. ... Deliver customized programs with research-based curriculum and instruction designed to help fill learning and homework gaps and boost student achievement for every student.
Industrial Revolution
The Industrial Revolution was a period of major changes in the way products are made. It took place more than 200 years ago and greatly affected the way people lived as well as the way they worked. In earlier days, people made products by hand. They worked mostly in their own homes or in small workshops. During the Industrial Revolution, many ...
revolution
The word revolution means "turning around.". Politically, a revolution is a rapid transformation of society. It is distinguished from a coup d'état, a French term that signifies a sudden overthrow of government, usually by military means. A coup d'état may be part of a genuine revolution, or it may be a means of preventing one.
Revolution Prep's Homework Help: How It Works
The new landscape of remote learning continues to present new challenges, and you may find yourself feeling frustrated or unmotivated to complete your school work. It might be harder now to get in…
The Moscow Trials
The October Revolution proceeded under the banner of equality. The bureaucracy is the embodiment of monstrous inequality. The revolution destroyed the nobility. The bureaucracy creates a new gentry. ... The Stalinist investigators had not done their homework. At the conclusion of the Trial, Vyshinsky for the prosecution declared: 'I demand that ...
Digital History
Digital History ID 1234. Author: Ronald W. Reagan. Date:1988. Annotation: During a visit to the Soviet Union in 1988, President Ronald Reagan, a lifelong anti-communist, met with students at Moscow State University and delivered a stirring plea for democracy and individual rights. He told the students that no nation can thrive without ...
Revolution and Counterrevolution: Class Struggle in a Moscow Metal
"An excellent close examination of the revolution from below." —China Miéville, October "The most thorough investigation to date on working-class life during the revolutionary era, reviving the memory of the incredible gains for liberty and equality that the 1917 revolution brought about." -New Socialist. From the Publisher
HUMAN EVENTS: Columbia was a rare win for New York
Even before their farcical attempt at "revolution" was squashed like a grape, the students accused Columbia of "instituting a police state with military-style checkpoints, repressing and isolating students on campus, calling armed riot cops for the largest mass arrests on campus since 1968."
Lenin: Lecture on the 1905 Revolution
Lecture on the 1905 Revolution [6] Published: First published in Pravda No. 18, January 22, 1925. Written in German before January 9 (22), 1917. Signed: N. Lenin . Source:Lenin Collected Works , Progress Publishers, 1964 , Moscow, Volume 23 , pages 236-253 . Translated: M. S. Levin, The Late Joe Fineberg and and Others Transcription\Markup: R ...