For most people the events of January 1905 in St. Petersburg struck
suddenly and without warning. The Assembly of Russian Workers re-
mained unknown to most residents of the city, and even revolution-
aries, who generally knew about it, for the most part misjudged it,
failing to grasp the political significance of its widespread popularity
among workers until the January strike overtook them. Official Peters-
burg viewed it as a harmless set of tearooms and social clubs, and op-
positionist Petersburg as a repellent and dangerous experiment in po-
lice unionism. Practically no one outside Gapon's inner circle realized
the Assembly's potential for mass political mobilization, and even
some intimates had scoffed at the priest's grandiose plans.

Not surprisingly, therefore, many contemporaries and historians
have regarded working-class activity in January (and to some de-
gree throughout 1905) as "spontaneous." This characterization is, of
course, partly accurate if taken to describe activity that was relatively
autonomous, self-initiated, and without external prompting. But the
term has also been used to describe activity thought to be undertaken
out of transient enthusiasms and misguided motives rather than as a
result of a conscious and consistent political outlook. Social Demo-
cratic and, later, Soviet authors in particular have too often sim-
plistically contrasted the "spontaneity" of most workers with the "con-
sciousness" of the party and its Marxist viewpoint. This has led to a
neglect of the historical and dialectical development of working-class
politics. "Conscious" views are contrasted with "unconscious" ones, as
if people cannot behave in a revolutionary manner unless they possess
the "correct" understanding of the situation, as if motives and out-

-154-