LECTURE 8. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL MOVEMENTS OF RUSSIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY
T.A. Lebedinskaya
In the 19th century in Russia, a social movement rich in content and methods of action, which largely determined the future fate of the country. Social life of Russia in the 19th century. difficult to rigidly schematize, because it was the time of the formation of political movements, the search for their place among the social forces of the country. So A.I. Herzen, who stood in the position of Westerners, after the revolutions of 1848 -1949. in Europe, he became disillusioned with the Western social system, became close to the Slavophiles in his assessment of the Russian community and peasantry, and developed the theory of “Russian socialism”; during the preparation of the reforms of the 60s, he took liberal positions, and after 1861 he strongly supported the revolutionary democrats. It is impossible to give an unambiguous assessment of the socio-political views of V.G. Belinsky, N.G. Chernyshevsky, P.B. Struve, G.V. Plekhanov and many others.
However, public political movement Russia 19th century can be divided into three main areas: conservative-monarchical, liberal and revolutionary. A similar division of social forces occurs in many countries, but in Russia there is an excessive development of extreme movements with the relative weakness of the center (liberals).
| Conservative-monarchical movement |
Conservative camp Russian society of the 19th century. was represented primarily by government circles, especially during the reign of Nicholas I, Alexander III, major dignitaries, bureaucrats, a significant part of the capital and local nobility, whose goal was to preserve and strengthen the autocratic serf system, the desire to prevent radical reform of society, to protect privileges, rights of the nobility. The state ideology of autocracy became the “theory of official nationality” (“autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality”), developed in the 19th century. 30s Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov. Its meaning lay in the combination of three theses: 1) autocracy is the support and guarantor of Russian statehood, its existence, power and greatness; 2) Orthodoxy is the basis of the spiritual life of society, its moral purity and stability; 3) “Nationalism” was understood as the unity of the people and the Tsar, a strong belief in the Tsar - the spokesman for the interests of the people. In the 1880s - 1890s this theory was developed by the main ideologists of unlimited autocracy M.N. Katkov, K.P. Pobedonostsev. Conservatives, who took a rational-protective position, pursued a policy of counter-reforms, fought against dissent, tightened censorship, limited or eliminated the autonomy of universities, etc.
The need for fundamental changes in the sphere of socio-economic relations and the state system of Russia at the beginning of the 19th century became as obvious as the inability of the authorities to implement them. As a result, a part of society, initially small and then increasingly significant, becomes in opposition to the authorities, subjecting them to sharp criticism. Moreover, the “educated minority” (in the words of A.I. Herzen) more and more insistently declared their readiness to take an active part in the transformations.
In Soviet historical literature under the influence of Leninist periodization liberation movement its initial stage is usually attributed to 1825 - the Decembrist uprising. The noble opposition of the late 18th century was left outside the framework of the liberation movement. N.I. Novikov, D.I. Fonvizin, A.N. Radishchev spoke out for the rights of citizens in a fair and classless state. At the same time, unlike Novikov and Fonvizin, who did not call for an armed struggle against the autocracy, Radishchev recognized any actions of citizens in defense of their rights and freedoms.
| Decembrists |
The first organized protest against autocracy and serfdom in Russian history was associated with the Decembrists. Their worldview was formed under the influence of Russian reality, the ideas of French enlighteners, revolutionary events in Europe, as well as the Patriotic War of 1812. “We are children of 1812. To sacrifice everything, even life, for the good of the Fatherland, was the desire of the heart. There was no egoism in our feelings,” wrote the Decembrist M.I. Muravyov-Apostol. The liberal reform projects of Alexander I and M.M. had a great influence on future members of secret societies. Speransky.
The first secret society - "Union of Salvation"- arose in 1816 and united only 30 people, mostly officers. The main goal of society was the destruction of serfdom and the absolute form of government, the introduction of a constitution and civil liberties. In 1818, instead of the "Union of Salvation" was founded “Union of Welfare”, it consisted of about 200 people. The main task of the Union was to educate broad sections of the population of progressive public opinion, disseminate “true rules of moral education,” and active participation in public life. All this, ultimately, the Decembrists believed, would lead to the introduction of a constitution and the abolition of serfdom. In the early 1820s, the government of Alexander I abandoned the policy of reform and switched to reaction. The “Union of Welfare” is falling apart. In 1821 - 1822 two new societies arose - Northern in St. Petersburg and Southern in Ukraine.
Projects outlined in “Russkaya Pravda” P.I. Pestel(Southern Society) and “Constitution” N.M. Muravyova(Northern Society) about the future structure of Russia, about the nature of government, the liberation of peasants, land reform, the relationship between individual rights and the powers of the state reflected not only liberal, but also revolutionary trends in the development of the social movement of this period. “Russian Truth” set two main tasks for the Decembrists. First, to overthrow the autocracy and establish a republic in Russia (until the power gets stronger new order, Pestel proposed to entrust power to a temporary supreme government with dictatorial powers), the highest legislative body was supposed to be the People's Council, the executive - the Sovereign Duma, the judicial - the Supreme Council. Secondly, serfdom was abolished, the peasants were freed without ransom and received 10 - 12 acres of land per family. The land was divided into two funds - public and private - the lands of the first could not be sold, the lands of the second fund were subject to free purchase and sale. Class privileges were abolished, democratic freedoms were guaranteed, and the equality of all peoples of Russia in a single (unitary) republic was guaranteed.
"Constitution"Muravyova raised the same questions as in Russkaya Pravda, but they were resolved less radically. Instead of autocracy, there is a constitutional monarchy in a federal form. The highest legislative body was to become the People's Assembly of two chambers, and the highest executive power was to belong to the tsar. Serfdom was abolished, peasants received 2 tithes per family, and landownership was preserved. December 14, 1825 members Northern Society, taking advantage of the dynastic crisis in the country, they brought about three thousand people to Senate Square. Later, troops led by members of the Southern Society marched in Ukraine. The uprisings were suppressed by the authorities, which then brutally dealt with their participants: five were executed (P.I. Pestel, K.F. Ryleev, S.I. Muravyov-Apostol, M.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin and P.G. Kakhovsky, More than 100 Decembrists were exiled to hard labor in Siberia in the Caucasus against the Highlanders.
Reasons for the defeat of the Decembrists traditionally explained in Lenin’s words: “They were terribly far from the people.” However, the Decembrists deliberately did not want to rely on the masses and could not count on the support of the people. They feared a senseless and merciless rebellion and were aware of the large, historically established gap between the enlightened part of society and the extremely backward, politically undeveloped lower classes. As contemporaries testified, the people accepted the defeat of the Decembrists with approval: “The Tsar defeated the nobles, which means there will soon be freedom.” The defeat of the Decembrists was predetermined by the lack of political experience, organizational weakness, the psychological difficulty of fighting against “their own”, the comparative small number of their ranks, they represented an insignificant part of their class and only 0.6% of the total number of officers and generals, and the cohesion of conservative forces. And, finally, the views of the Decembrists, aimed at liberal development, were ahead of their time, since in Russia there were still no mature prerequisites for the transition to a new social system. Nevertheless, the historical merit of the Decembrists is undeniable. Their names and destinies remain in memory, and their ideas are in the arsenal of the next generations of freedom fighters. In the literature about the Decembrists, there are various assessments: from “a bunch of madmen alien to our holy Rus'”, “without roots in the past and prospects for the future” (conservative-monarchist concept) “their programmatic guidelines are a continuation of the reforms of Alexander I, and the uprising of December 14 - the Explosion despair due to denunciations and the threat of reprisals” (liberal concept); “the greatness and significance of the Decembrists as the first Russian revolutionaries” (revolutionary concept).
The period of reign of Nicholas I A.I. that followed the defeat of the Decembrists. Herzen called the time of external slavery and “the time of internal liberation.” The second half of the 30s was marked, on the one hand, by the decline of the social movement, repression and persecution of its participants; a state of uncertainty and disappointment reigned in society, on the other hand. The Nikolaev reaction failed strangle the liberation movement. These sentiments were reflected in "Philosophical Letters" P.Ya. Chaadaev. Chaadaev's letters, with their paradoxical unity of denial of the intrinsic value of Russia's historical past and belief in the special role of a renewed Russia included in the Western Christian world, played an important role in reviving public life. A new stage in the social movement begins, represented primarily by liberal movement. Liberalism is an ideology and socio-political movement that unites supporters of the parliamentary system, democratic freedoms and freedom of enterprise.
The formation of Russian liberal ideology occurred in two directions. In the 40s of the XIX century. the emerging liberalism was represented by Slavophilism and Westernism. Westerners (P.V. Annenkov, T.N. Granovsky, K.D. Kavelin, S.M. Solovyov, V.N. Chicherin) recognized the common historical destinies of the peoples of Russia and the West, idealized the West, its culture, and praised Peter I .
Slavophiles(brothers I.V. and K.V. Aksakov, I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, A.I. Koshelev, Yu.F. Samarin, A.S. Khomyakov) idealized pre-Petrine Russia, saw real prospects for development countries in an original, primordially Russian way: community, Orthodoxy, autocracy with estate-representative institutions, the Zemsky Sobor, local self-government, had a negative attitude towards Peter I, who, in their opinion, directed Russia along the alien path of the West.
Despite their differences, both of them rejected the revolution, preferring reforms from above to uprisings from below, opposed serfdom, the boundless despotism of the autocracy, and firmly believed in the great future of Russia. The liberal and revolutionary democratic forces could not unite into a strong opposition bloc, because They were separated by too many things: the socialist idea, views on the state structure of the future of Russia.
A certain part of educated society was captured by revolutionary sentiments. This was due, firstly, to dissatisfaction with the progress of the reforms, and secondly, to serious changes in the social composition of this part of society, the emergence of various intelligentsia. Raznochintsy - people of different ranks and ranks at the end of the 18th - 19th centuries. interclass category of the population, people from different classes, were carriers democratic and revolutionary ideology. A.I. Herzen, combining European ideas of utopian socialism with the specific conditions of Russia, laid the foundation for the socialist tradition in the country's social movement. The future socialist system in Russia, according to Herzen, based on the equality of all members, collective (community) property, and compulsory labor for all, should be established after the peasant revolution, the overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of a democratic republic. These ideas received further development in the views of N.G. Chernyshevsky, revolutionary populism of the 60s and 70s.
Populism- ideology and movement of the various intelligentsia in the 1860s - 1890s. opposing serfdom and capitalist development, for the overthrow of tsarism by revolutionary means.
The main of these ideas boil down to the following: Russia can and must move to socialism, bypassing capitalism, while relying on the peasant community as the embryo of socialism; To do this, it is necessary to abolish serfdom, transfer all the land to the peasants, destroy landownership, overthrow the autocracy and establish the power of the people.
Depending on the relationship between the goals and means of the struggle against autocracy in the revolutionary populist movement of the 70s, three main directions are distinguished: propaganda, “rebellious” (anarchist) and terrorist (“conspiratorial”). The first (P.L. Lavrov) believed that the victory of the peasant revolution required intense propaganda work and education of the masses, the second (M.A. Bakunin) called for an immediate uprising (rebellion), the third (P.N. Tkachev) considered the main thing organizing a conspiracy, seizing state power through an armed coup: “cutting off the ministers” and carrying out socialist transformations from above.
In the spring of 1874, about 40 provinces of Russia were caught up in a mass movement of revolutionary youth, called “going to the people.” The calls of the populists were met with distrust and often hostility among the peasantry; moreover, the movement was poorly organized. It was not possible to start an uprising, mass arrests followed, and the movement was crushed.
| Spreading Marxism in Russia |
In the 80s of the 19th century, a new factor in Russian social life became emergence of Marxism Closely connected with the formation of the industrial proletariat and the growth of the labor movement, the first workers' organizations appeared: “South Russian Workers' Union”(1875, Odessa) and “Northern Union of Russian Workers”(1878, St. Petersburg). The turn to Marxism was associated with the name of G.V. Plekhanov. In 1883, the first Marxist organization appeared in Geneva - the “Emancipation of Labor” group led by G.V. Plekhanov, who sharply criticized populist views, proved the advantages of Marxism, and distributed Marxist literature in Russia. The first social democratic groups of this period in Russia D. Blagoeva, P.V. Tochissky, M.I. Brusneva, N.E. Fedoseev were few in number and consisted mainly of the intelligentsia and students. However, soon workers who were impressed by Marxism with its sharp and justified criticism of capitalism, the proclamation of the proletariat as the main fighter against exploitation and the construction of a society of universal equality and justice, were included in the work of the circles. In 1895, the Marxist movement experienced an important stage: circles of St. Petersburg Marxists united in a citywide “Union of Struggle for Liberation working class”, who played a major role in connecting social democracy with the mass workers' movement. In 1898, an attempt was made to unite all the forces of Russian Marxism. A congress took place in Minsk, proclaiming the formation Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP).
At the end of the 90s, there was a growth in the opposition movement, which led, along with other factors, to the beginning of the 20th century. to the political crisis, and then to the revolution of 1905 - 1907.
In the 19th century A social movement, unusually rich in content and methods of action, was born in Russia, which largely determined the future fate of the country. The 19th century brought with it a sense of uniqueness and originality of Russian national-historical existence, a tragic (among P.Ya. Chaadaev) and proud (among the Slavophiles) awareness of their dissimilarity with Europe. History for the first time became a kind of “mirror” for educated people, by looking into which one could recognize oneself, feel one’s own originality and originality.
Already at the beginning of the century, Russian conservatism was emerging as a political movement. Its theorist N.M. Karamzin (1766-1826) wrote that the monarchical form of government most fully corresponds to the existing level of development of morality and enlightenment of mankind. Monarchy meant the sole power of the autocrat, but this did not mean arbitrariness. The monarch was obliged to strictly observe the laws. He understood the division of society into classes as an eternal and natural phenomenon. The nobility was obliged to “rise” above other classes not only by its nobility of origin, but also by its moral perfection, education, and usefulness to society.
N.M. Karamzin protested against borrowings from Europe and outlined a program of action Russian monarchy. It involved a tireless search for capable and honest people to occupy the most important positions. N.M. Karamzin never tired of repeating that Russia does not need reforms government agencies, but fifty honest governors. A very unique interpretation of N.M.’s idea. Karamzin received in the 30s. XIX century Distinctive feature Nicholas's reign was the desire of the authorities to extinguish opposition sentiments with the help of ideological means. The theory of official nationality, developed by the Minister of Public Education S.S., was intended to serve this purpose. Uvarov (1786-1855) and historian M.P. Pogodin (1800-1875). They preached the thesis about the inviolability of the fundamental foundations of Russian statehood. They included autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality among such foundations. They considered autocracy to be the only adequate form of Russian statehood, and loyalty to Orthodoxy among Russians was a sign of their true spirituality. Nationality was understood as the need for the educated classes to learn from the common people loyalty to the throne and love for the ruling dynasty. In the conditions of the deadening regulation of life during the times of Nicholas I, the significant “Philosophical Letter” of P.Ya. made a huge impression on Russian society. Chaadaeva (1794-1856). With a feeling of bitterness and sadness, he wrote that Russia had not contributed anything valuable to the treasuries of world historical experience. Blind imitation, slavery, political and spiritual despotism, this is how, according to Chaadaev, we stood out among other peoples. He portrayed Russia's past in gloomy tones, the present struck him with dead stagnation, and the future was the most bleak. It was obvious that Chaadaev considered autocracy and Orthodoxy to be the main culprits for the country’s plight. The author of the Philosophical Letter was declared insane, and the Telescope magazine, which published it, was closed.
In the 30-40s. heated debates about the uniqueness of Russia's historical path captured significant circles of the public for a long time and led to the formation of two characteristic directions- Westernism and Slavophilism. The core of the Westerners was made up of groups of St. Petersburg professors, publicists and writers (V.P. Botkin, E.D. Kavelin, T.N. Granovsky). Westerners declared general patterns in the historical development of all civilized peoples. They saw the uniqueness of Russia only in the fact that our Fatherland lagged behind in its economic and political development from European countries. Westerners considered the most important task of society and government to be the country's perception of advanced, ready-made forms of social and economic life characteristic of Western European countries. This primarily meant the elimination of serfdom, the abolition of legal class differences, ensuring freedom of enterprise, democratization of the judicial system and the development of local self-government.
The so-called Slavophiles objected to the Westerners. This movement arose primarily in Moscow, in the aristocratic salons and editorial offices of the “mother throne” magazines. Theorists of Slavophilism were A.S. Khomyakov, Aksakov brothers and Kireevsky brothers. They wrote that the historical path of development of Russia is radically different from the development Western European countries. Russia was not characterized by economic, or even less political, backwardness, but by its originality and dissimilarity to European standards of life. They manifested themselves in the spirit of community, cemented by Orthodoxy, in the special spirituality of the people living according to the expression of K.S. Aksakov “according to inner truth.” Western peoples, according to the Slavophiles, live in an atmosphere of individualism, private interests regulated by “external truth,” i.e., possible norms of written law. The Russian autocracy, the Slavophiles emphasized, arose not as a result of a clash of private interests, but on the basis of voluntary agreement between the authorities and the people. Slavophiles believed that in pre-Petrine times there was an organic unity between the government and the people, when the principle was observed: the power of power goes to the king, and the power of opinion goes to the people. The transformations of Peter I dealt a blow to Russian identity. A deep cultural split has occurred in Russian society. The state began to strengthen bureaucratic supervision of the people in every possible way. The Slavophiles proposed restoring the right of the people to freely openly express their opinions. They actively demanded the abolition of serfdom. The monarchy was supposed to become “truly popular”, taking care of all classes living in the state, preserving its original principles: communal order in the countryside, zemstvo self-government, Orthodoxy. Of course, both Westerners and Slavophiles were different forms of Russian liberalism. True, the originality of Slavophil liberalism was that it often appeared in the form of patriarchal-conservative utopias.
By the middle of the 19th century. In Russia, educated youth are beginning to show a craving for radical democratic, as well as socialist ideas. In this process, A.I. played an extremely important role. Herzen (1812-1870), a brilliantly educated publicist and philosopher, a genuine “Voltaire of the 19th century” (as he was called in Europe). In 1847 A.I. Herzen emigrated from Russia. In Europe, he hoped to participate in the struggle for socialist transformation in the most advanced countries. This was not accidental: there were quite a lot of fans of socialism and ardent critics of the “ulcers of capitalism” in European countries. But the events of 1848 dispelled the romantic dreams of the Russian socialist. He saw that the proletarians who heroically fought on the barricades of Paris were not supported by the majority of the people. Moreover, Herzen was struck by the desire of many people in Europe for material wealth and prosperity, and their indifference to social problems. He wrote with bitterness about the individualism of Europeans and their philistinism. Europe, A.I. soon began to assert. Herzen is no longer capable of social creativity and cannot be renewed on the humanistic principles of life.
It was in Russia that he saw what he essentially did not find in the West - the predisposition of the people's life to the ideals of socialism. He writes in his writings at the turn of the 40-50s. XIX century, that the communal order of the Russian peasantry will be the guarantee that Russia can pave the way to a socialist system. Russian peasants owned land communally, jointly, and the peasant family traditionally received an allotment on the basis of equalizing redistributions. Peasants were characterized by revenue and mutual assistance, and a desire for collective work. Many crafts in Rus' have long been carried out by artisans, together with the widespread use of equalizing principles of production and distribution. On the outskirts of the country lived a large Cossack community, who also could not imagine their life without self-government, without traditional forms of joint work for the common good. Of course, the peasantry is poor and ignorant. But the peasants, having been freed from landlord oppression and state tyranny, can and should be taught, enlightened and modern culture instilled in them.
In the 50s all thinking Russia read the printed publications of A.I. published in London. Herzen. These were the almanac "Polar Star" and the magazine "Bell".
A major phenomenon in the social life of the 40s. became the activity of circles of student and officer youth, grouped around M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky (1821-1866). The members of the circle carried out energetic educational work and organized a graduation encyclopedic dictionary, filling it with socialist and democratic content. In 1849, the circle was discovered by the authorities and its participants were subjected to severe repression. Several people (among them was the future great writer F.M. Dostoevsky) experienced all the horror of waiting for the death penalty (it was at the last moment replaced by Siberian hard labor). In the 40s in Ukraine there was the so-called Cyril and Methodius Society, which preached the ideas of Ukrainian identity (among the participants was T. G. Shevchenko (1814-1861). They were also severely punished. T. G. Shevchenko, for example, was sent to the army for 10 years old and exiled to Central Asia.
In the middle of the century, the most decisive opponents of the regime were writers and journalists. The ruler of the souls of democratic youth in the 40s. was V.G. Belinsky (1811-1848), literary critic who advocated the ideals of humanism, social justice and equality. In the 50s The editorial office of the Sovremennik magazine became the ideological center of the young democratic forces, in which N.A. began to play a leading role. Nekrasov (1821-1877), N.G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889), N.A. Dobrolyubov (1836-1861). The magazine was gravitated toward young people who stood for radical renewal of Russia, striving for the complete elimination of political oppression and social inequality. The ideological leaders of the magazine convinced readers of the necessity and possibility of Russia's speedy transition to socialism. At the same time, N.G. Chernyshevsky following A.I. Herzen argued that the peasant community could be best shape folk life. In the event of the liberation of the Russian people from the oppression of the landowners and bureaucrats, Chernyshevsky believed, Russia could use this peculiar advantage of backwardness and even bypass the painful and long paths of bourgeois development. If during the preparation of the “Great Reforms” A.I. Herzen followed the activities of Alexander II with sympathy, but Sovremennik’s position was different. Its authors believed that autocratic power was incapable of fair reform and dreamed of a quick popular revolution.
60s era marked the beginning of the difficult process of formalizing liberalism as an independent social movement. Famous lawyers B.N. Chicherin (1828-1907), K.D. Kavelin (1817-1885) - wrote about the haste of reforms, about the psychological unpreparedness of some sections of the people for change. Therefore, the main thing, in their opinion, was to ensure a calm, shock-free “growth” of society into new forms of life. They had to fight both the preachers of “stagnation”, who were terribly afraid of changes in the country, and the radicals who stubbornly preached the idea of a social leap and rapid transformation of Russia (and on the principles of social equality). Liberals were frightened by calls for popular revenge on the oppressors that were heard from the camp of the radical raznochin intelligentsia.
At this time, zemstvo bodies, all new newspapers and magazines, and university professorships became a kind of socio-political base of liberalism. Moreover, the concentration of elements opposed to the government in zemstvos and city dumas was a natural phenomenon. The weak material and financial capabilities of local governments and the indifference to their activities on the part of government officials aroused persistent hostility among the Zemstvo residents towards the actions of the authorities. Increasingly, Russian liberals came to the conclusion that deep political reforms were needed in the empire. In the 70s and early 80s. Tver, Kharkov, and Chernigov zemstvo residents are most actively petitioning the government for the need for reforms in the spirit of developing representative institutions, openness and civil rights.
Russian liberalism had many different facets. With his left wing he touched the revolutionary underground, with his right - the guardian camp. Existing in post-reform Russia and as part of political opposition and within the government (“liberal bureaucrats”), liberalism, as opposed to revolutionary radicalism and political security, acted as a factor in civil reconciliation, which was so necessary in Russia at that time. Russian liberalism was weak, and this was predetermined by the underdevelopment of the country’s social structure, the virtual absence of a “third estate” in it, i.e. a fairly large bourgeoisie.
All the leaders of the Russian revolutionary camp expected in 1861-1863. a peasant uprising (as a response to the difficult conditions of the peasant reform), which could develop into a revolution. But as the number of mass uprisings decreased, the most perspicacious of the radicals (A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky) stopped talking about an imminent revolution and predicted a long period of painstaking preparatory work in the countryside and society. Proclamations written in the early 60s. surrounded by N.G. Chernyshevsky, were not incitement to rebellion, but were a search for allies to create a bloc of opposition forces. The variety of addressees, from soldiers and peasants to students and intellectuals, the variety of political recommendations, from addresses addressed to Alexander II to demands for a democratic republic, confirm this conclusion. Such tactics of the revolutionaries are quite understandable, if we keep in mind their small numbers and poor organization. The “Land and Freedom” society, created by Chernyshevsky, Sleptsov, Obruchev, Serno-Solovievich in late 1861-early 1862 in St. Petersburg, did not have enough strength to become an all-Russian organization. It had a branch in Moscow and connections with similar small circles in Kazan, Kharkov, Kyiv and Perm, but this was too little for serious political work. In 1863 the organization dissolved itself. At this time, extremists and dogmatists became active in the revolutionary movement, swearing by the names and views of A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky, but had very little in common with them. In the spring of 1862, the circle of P. Zaichnevsky and P. Argyropoulo distributed the proclamation “Young Russia”, filled with threats and bloody prophecies addressed to the government and the nobility. Its appearance was the reason for the arrest in 1862 of N.G. Chernyshevsky, who, by the way, severely reproached the authors of Young Russia for empty threats and inability to rationally assess the situation in the country. The arrest also prevented the publication of his “Letters without an address” addressed to Alexander II, in which Chernyshevsky admitted that the only hope for Russia in this period was liberal reforms, and the only force capable of consistently implementing them was the government, relying on local nobility.
On April 4, 1866, a member of one of the St. Petersburg revolutionary circles D.V. Karakozov shot at Alexander P. The investigation turned to a small group of students led by N.A. Ishutin, an unsuccessful creator of several cooperative workshops (following the example of the heroes of the novel “What is to be done?”), an ardent admirer of N.G. Chernyshevsky. D.V. Karakozov was executed, and government conservatives used this assassination attempt to put pressure on the emperor to slow down further reforms. The emperor himself at this time began to alienate supporters of consistent reformist measures from himself, increasingly trusting supporters of the so-called “ strong hand».
Meanwhile, an extreme direction is gaining strength in the revolutionary movement, which has set the goal of the total destruction of the state. Its brightest representative was S.G. Nechaev, who created the “People's Retribution” society. Fraud, blackmail, unscrupulousness, unconditional submission of members of the organization to the will of the “leader” - all this, according to Nechaev, should have been used in the activities of revolutionaries. The trial of the Nechaevites served as the plot basis for the great novel by F.M. Dostoevsky’s “Demons,” who with brilliant insight showed where such “fighters for the people’s happiness” could lead Russian society. Most radicals condemned the Nechaevites for immorality and considered this phenomenon an accidental “episode” in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement, but time has shown that the problem is much more significant than a simple accident.
Revolutionary circles of the 70s. gradually moved to new forms of activity. In 1874, a mass outreach began, in which thousands of young men and women took part. The youth themselves did not really know why they were going to the peasants - either to carry out propaganda, or to rouse the peasants to revolt, or simply to get to know the “people”. This can be viewed in different ways: consider it a touch to the “origins”, an attempt by the intelligentsia to get closer to the “suffering people”, the naive apostolic belief that the new religion is love of the people, raised the common people to understand the beneficialness of socialist ideas, but from a political point of view From the point of view, “going to the people” was a test for the correctness of the theoretical positions of M. Bakunin and P. Lavrov, new and popular theorists among the populists.
Unorganized and without a single center of leadership, the movement was easily and quickly discovered by the police, who inflated the case of anti-government propaganda. The revolutionaries were forced to reconsider their tactical methods and move on to more systematic propaganda activities. The theorists of revolutionary populism (as this political trend was already commonly called in Russia) still believed that in the foreseeable future it would be possible to replace the monarchy socialist republic, based on a peasant community in the countryside and workers' associations in the cities. Persecution and harsh sentences to dozens of young people who participated in the “walk” and, in fact, did not commit anything illegal (and many diligently worked as zemstvo workers, paramedics, etc.) - embittered the populists. Most of them, engaged in propaganda work in the village, were very upset by their failures (after all, the men were not at all going to rebel against the government), they understood that small groups of young people could not yet do anything real. At the same time, their comrades in St. Petersburg and other large cities are increasingly resorting to terror tactics. Since March 1878, almost every month they have been committing “high-profile” murders of major officials of the ruling regime. Soon the group A.I. Zhelyabova and S. Perovskaya begin the hunt for Alexander II himself. On March 1, 1881, another attempt to assassinate the emperor was successful.
The People's Will were often reproached (in the liberal camp), and even now these reproaches seem to have experienced a rebirth for the fact that they thwarted the attempts of government liberals to begin the process of the country's transition to constitutional rule already in 1881. But this is not fair. Firstly, it was revolutionary activity that forced the government to rush with such measures (i.e., the development of projects to involve the public in the development of state laws). Secondly, the government acted here in such secrecy, and with such distrust of society, that practically no one knew anything about the upcoming events. In addition, the Narodnik terror went through a number of stages. And their first terrorist actions were not a well-thought-out tactic, much less a program, but only an act of despair, revenge for their fallen comrades. It was not the Narodnaya Volya’s intention to “seize” power. It is interesting that they only planned to get the government to organize elections to the Constituent Assembly. And in the clash between the government and the Narodnaya Volya it is impossible to find a winner. After March 1, both the government and the populist revolutionary movement found themselves at a dead end. Both forces needed a break, and it could be provided by an event that would radically change the situation and make the whole country think about what was happening. The tragedy of March 1 turned out to be this event. Populism quickly split. Some of the populists (ready to continue the political struggle) led by G.V. Plekhanov (1856-1918) continued in exile the search for the “correct” revolutionary theory, which they soon found in Marxism. The other part moved on to peaceful cultural work among the peasants, becoming zemstvo teachers, doctors, intercessors and defenders on peasant affairs. They talked about the need for “small” but useful things for the common people, about the illiteracy and downtroddenness of the people, about the need not for revolutions, but for enlightenment. They also had harsh critics (in Russia and in exile), who called such views cowardly and defeatist. These people continued to talk about the inevitability of a revolutionary clash between the people and their government. Thus, the clash between the authorities and radical forces was delayed for 20 years (until the beginning of the 20th century), but, unfortunately, it was not possible to avoid it.
The revolutionaries’ revision of their positions was also helped by the fact that in 1870-1880. The Russian labor movement is also gaining strength. The first organizations of the proletariat arose in St. Petersburg and Odessa and were called, respectively, the Northern Union of Russian Workers and the South Russian Union of Workers. They were influenced by populist propagandists and were relatively few in number.
Already in the 80s. the labor movement has expanded significantly and elements of what soon made (at the beginning of the 20th century) the labor movement one of the most important political factors in the life of the country appear in it. The largest Morozov strike in the post-reform years confirmed this situation.
It took place in 1885 at the Morozov manufactory in Orekhovo-Zuevo. The leaders of the uprising developed demands for the owner of the manufactory, and also conveyed them to the governor. The governor called in the troops and the ringleaders were arrested. But during the trial, an event occurred that literally struck Emperor Alexander III and his government with thunder, and echoed throughout Russia: the jury acquitted all 33 defendants.
Of course, in the 80-90s. XIX century Under the conservative rule of Alexander III and his son Nicholas II (who began to rule in 1894), there was no question that the authorities would allow workers to fight for their rights in an organized manner. Both emperors did not even think about allowing the formation of trade unions or other, even non-political workers' organizations. They also considered such phenomena to be an expression of an alien, Western political culture, incompatible with Russian traditions.
As a result, by government decision, labor disputes had to be settled by special officials - factory inspectors, who, of course, were more often influenced by entrepreneurs than caring about the interests of workers. The government's inattention to the needs of the working class has led to the fact that fans of Marxist teachings flock to the working environment and find support there. The first Russian Marxists, who formed in exile led by G.V. Plekhanov group “Emancipation of Labor”, began their activities with translations and distribution in Russia of the books of K. Marx and F. Engels, as well as the writings of pamphlets in which they argued that the era of Russian capitalism had already begun, and the working class had to fulfill a historical mission - to lead a national struggle against the oppression of tsarism, for social justice, for socialism.
It cannot be said that before G.V. Plekhanov, V.I. Zasulich, P.P. Axelrod, L.G. Deitch and V.K. Ignatiev's Marxism was unknown in Russia. For example, some populists corresponded with K. Marx and F. Engels, and M.A. Bakunin and G.A. Lopatin tried to translate the works of K. Marx. But it was Plekhanov’s group that became the first Marxist organization to do enormous work in exile: they published late XIX V. over 250 Marxist works. The successes of the new teaching in European countries and the propaganda of its views by the Plekhanov group led to the emergence in Russia of the first Social Democratic circles of D. Blagoev, M.I. Brusneva, P.V. Toginsky. These circles were not numerous and consisted primarily of the intelligentsia and students, but workers were now increasingly joining them. The new teaching was surprisingly optimistic; it met both the hopes and the psychological mood of Russian radicals. A new class - the proletariat, rapidly growing, subject to exploitation by entrepreneurs, not protected by legislation by a clumsy and conservative government, associated with advanced technology and production, more educated and united than the inert peasantry, crushed by need - it appeared in the eyes of radical intellectuals as that fertile material , from which it was possible to prepare a force capable of defeating royal despotism. According to the teachings of K. Marx, only the proletariat can liberate oppressed humanity, but for this it must realize its own (and, ultimately, universal) interests. Such a social force in historically short term appeared in Russia and decisively declared itself with strikes and walkouts. To give the development of the proletariat the “correct” direction, to introduce socialist consciousness into it - this great, but historically necessary task had to be carried out by the Russian revolutionary intelligentsia. That's what she thought herself. But first, it was necessary to ideologically “defeat” the populists, who continued to “reiterate” that Russia could bypass the stage of capitalism, that its socio-economic characteristics do not allow the schemes of Marxist teaching to be applied to it. In the wake of this controversy, already in the mid-90s. V.I. stood out in the Marxist environment. Ulyanov (Lenin) (1870-1924), a lawyer by training, a young propagandist who came to St. Petersburg from the Volga region.
In 1895, with his associates, he created a fairly large organization in the capital, which managed to play an active role in some workers’ strikes - the “Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class” (several hundred workers and intellectuals participated in it). After the defeat of the “Union of Struggle” by the police V.I. Lenin was exiled to Siberia, where, as far as possible, he tried to participate in a new debate between those Marxists who tried to focus on the economic struggle of workers for their rights and, accordingly, had hopes for a reformist path of development in Russia, and those who did not believe in the possibility of tsarism ensure the progressive development of the country and placed all hopes on the people's revolution. IN AND. Ulyanov (Lenin) decisively sided with the latter.
All noted social movements represented different facets of political opposition. Russian Marxists, only at first glance, were faithful followers of Western radical teaching, which developed in the conditions of the then early industrial society, where acute social inequality still prevailed. But European Marxism at the end of the 19th century. is already losing its destructive anti-state attitude. European Marxists are increasingly hopeful that through the democratic constitutions that have been adopted in their countries, they will be able to achieve social justice in society. So they gradually became part of the political system in their countries.
Russian Marxism is a different matter. In him lived the fighting radical spirit of the previous generation of Russian socialist populists, who were ready for any sacrifice and suffering in the fight against the autocracy. They saw themselves as instruments of history, exponents of the true will of the people. Thus, the European idea of socialism was combined with a complex of purely Russian ideological sentiments, which were characterized by maximalism of goals and significant isolation from reality. Hence, the Russian Marxists, as well as the populists, manifested a literally religious belief that as a result of the people's revolution in Russia, it would be possible to quickly build an in all respects just state, where any social evil would be eradicated.
The huge complex of economic and social problems that Russia faced in the post-reform decades caused ideological confusion among Russian conservatives. In the 60-80s. The talented journalist M.N. tried to give the autocracy a new ideological weapon. Katkov. His articles constantly called for the establishment of a “strong hand” regime in the country. This implied the suppression of any dissent, a ban on the publication of materials with liberal content, strict censorship, the preservation of social boundaries in society, control over zemstvos and city dumas. The education system was built in such a way that it was permeated by the ideas of loyalty to the throne and the church. Another talented conservative, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev strongly warned Russians against introducing a constitutional system, since it was something inferior, in his opinion, compared to autocracy. And this superiority seemed to lie in the greater honesty of the autocracy. As Pobedonostsev argued, the idea of representation is essentially false, since it is not the people, but only their representatives (and not the most honest, but only the clever and ambitious) who participate in political life. The same applies to parliamentarism, since struggle plays a huge role in it political parties, ambitions of deputies, etc.
This is true. But Pobedonostsev did not want to admit that the representative system also has enormous advantages: the possibility of recalling deputies who have not lived up to the trust, the possibility of criticizing the shortcomings of political and economic system in the state, separation of powers, the right to choose. Yes, the jury, zemstvos, and the Russian press of that time were not at all ideal. But how did the ideologists of conservatism want to correct the situation? Yes, in essence, no way. They are only, like N.M. of old. Karamzin, demanded that the tsar appoint honest, and not thieving, officials to ministerial and gubernatorial posts, demanded that peasants be given only an elementary education, strictly religious in content, demanded that students, zemstvo residents, and supporters of national identity be mercilessly punished for dissent (and these movements are increasingly active manifest themselves at the end of the century), etc. The ideologists of the autocracy avoided discussing such issues as the lack of land of peasants, the arbitrariness of entrepreneurs, the low standard of living of a huge part of the peasants and workers. Their ideas essentially reflected the powerlessness of conservatives in the face of the formidable problems that faced society at the end of the 19th century. In addition, among the conservatives there were already quite a few thinkers who, while advocating for Orthodox spiritual values, the preservation of national everyday traditions, fighting the onslaught of “Western” spiritual culture, sharply criticized government policies for ineffectiveness and even “reactionaryism.”
Pre-capitalist cultural traditions in Russia contained few prerequisites for the formation of a bourgeois personality type. Rather, they developed such a complex of institutions and ideas that N.G. Chernyshevsky called “Asianism”: house-building, centuries-old habits of subordination to the state, indifference to legal forms, replaced by the “idea of arbitrariness.” Therefore, although the educated stratum in Russia showed a relatively high ability to assimilate elements of European culture, these elements could not gain a foothold in the population, falling on unprepared soil, they rather caused a destructive effect; led to cultural disorientation of mass consciousness (philistinism, tramping, drunkenness, etc.). This makes clear the paradox of the cultural process in Russia in the 19th century, which consisted of a sharp gap between the developed stratum of the intelligentsia, nobility, commoners and the working masses.
One of the significant features historical development Russia was that in the 19th century, when the national bourgeoisie was unable to become the leading force of the liberation movement, the intelligentsia became the main subjects of the political process “from below.”
©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2016-04-11
2 periods!
1. First half of the 19th century
At the beginning of the 19th century, a new phenomenon emerged in Russian history - a revolutionary movement. Their main content is the desire for a radical restructuring of social and political institutions. This happened mainly as a result of the liberal regime established during the reign of Alexander 1. In the 17th and 18th centuries, revolutions took place in England, France, and some other European countries. This accelerated the development of these countries. Therefore, despite the fact that revolutions were accompanied by violence, they generally had a progressive significance for European countries.
Secret societies began to be created after World War II. Revolutionary thought and the revolutionary movement in Russia arose in the first quarter of the 19th century. This was due to a number of facts of both its internal development and pan-European processes of that time.
Alexander 1, having rejected the liberal aspirations of the first years of his reign, after the war of 12, sought to preserve the old social and political state institutions (strengthening the autocracy and serfdom). He became convinced that society was not yet ready for such revolutions and that there were no decisive people.
The origin of the Decembrist movement is associated with internal processes in Russia itself. The old, autocratic-serf system was a clear brake on the development of production forces, on historical progress and the overall modernization of the country.
The influence of the Patriotic War of 1812, foreign campaigns of 1813-15. Having visited Germany and France, the future Decembrists were convinced that the absence of serfdom ensured their progression. The worldview of the Decembrists was formed on the basis of the advanced ideas of the French Enlightenment. The ideas of European revolutionaries and Decembrists largely coincided. The circle of revolutionaries is very limited - mainly from representatives of the highest nobility and the officer corps.
After the foreign campaign in 1816, the first secret society was the “Union of Salvation,” and from February 1817, the “Society of True and Faithful Sons of the Fatherland.” Pestel, Ants, Trubetskoy, after - Ryleev, Yakushkin, Lunin, Muravyov the Apostle. The Salvation Union is considered the first political organization in Russia. After two years of existence, I became stronger and gained experience. The plan is to force the new tsar, when the emperors change, to give Russia a constitution.
"Union of Prosperity" - 200 people. Nobles. Muravyovs, Muravyov-apostles, Pestel, Yakushkin, Lunin + new programs and charter - “Green Book”. The overthrow of the autocracy, the abolition of serfdom, the introduction of a constitution, and most importantly, revolution, those violence. - this is an illegal immigrant, and a legal immigrant is an attempt to form a progressive public opinion in Russia. The self-disintegration of the union at the beginning of 1821 due to ideological and tactical differences.
Active preparation for revolution - Northern and Southern society.
Yuzhnoye - in March 1821 in Ukraine. Pestel is an ardent republican.
Northern - in 1822 in St. Petersburg. Muravyov, Ryleev, Trubetskoy, Lunin.
Both societies thought of acting together. The main document discussed was Muravyov’s constitution and Ryleev’s Russian truth. Muravyov for a constitutional monarchy, executive power to the emperor, and legislative power to parliament. Pestel - the legislative branch is the unicameral parliament, and the executive branch is the “Sovereign Duma”. But they are unanimous in favor of the abolition of serfdom and the personal liberation of peasants. Muravyov proposed to transfer the ownership of a personal plot and two acres of arable land per yard to the peasants, which was not enough. According to Pestel, part of the landowners' land was confiscated and transferred to a public fund for the allocation of workers.
The program documents of the Decembrists reflected the most advanced democratic ideas of that time. As before, they relied on the army.
In November 1825, Alexander 1 died. Nicholas 1 became the new Tsar. On December 14, the Senate took the oath, and the Decembrists of the northern society wanted to read to Nicholas then, on behalf of the Senate, a “manifesto to the Russian people.” There - the destruction of autocracy, the abolition of serfdom and the introduction of democratic freedoms. But with the army of St. Petersburg they were late to Senate Square, the Senate swore allegiance. They crowded together senselessly and arrested everyone. The first revolutionary movement was defeated. Pestel, Ryleev, Muravyov the Apostle, Kakhovsky were hanged. Hard labor, exile.
Despite the defeat, the Decembrist movement was a significant phenomenon in Russian history. For the first time, an attempt to change the social and political system of Russia, the revolution program of transformation and plans for the future structure of the country.
The failure of the reforms of Alexander 1 and the threat of revolutions after the Decembrists caused an increase in conservative sentiments in Russian society. The government realized that they had to be resisted. The prominent statesman Uvarov tried to solve this. Chaadaev’s reaction to this was his statement that Russia has nothing to be proud of in front of the West; on the contrary, it has not made any contribution to world culture. Russian society turns to the works of German philosophers who sought to reveal the deep patterns of the historical process and considered society as an organism developing under the influence of factors inherent in it.
By the end of the 30s, the movements of Westerners and Slavophiles had emerged.
Westernism - Granovsky, Kudryavtsev, Soloviev. We are confident that European orders will be established in Russia. Chaadaev believed that if we take all the experience from Europe, we will be able to save Europe itself from moral chaos and socialist materialism. Russia's past is dark. Orthodoxy is not the best choice - Russia is isolated from Europe and has adopted the spirit of eastern despotism from Byzantium. This spirit extinguishes public initiative and increases long-term tolerance. Their hope is that the intelligentsia and bourgeoisie will be able to carry out the necessary reforms.
The specific plans of the Westerners are the abolition of serfdom, reduction of the army and administration, freedom of speech and conscience, and the development of entrepreneurship.
Slavophiles. Koshelev, Aksakov brothers, Kireevsky brothers, Samarin. Rich landowners, representatives of old noble families. Attention to the ancient historical roots of Russia. They argued that European democratic models are unacceptable to Russia. A special path of development. Autocracy is based on the unity of faith and authority, religion and power. Slavic Union - southern and Eastern Europe and Russia. They saw the uniqueness of Russia in the long-term preservation of the communal way of life in peasant life. The community will prevent the onset of capitalism, save Russia from the proletariat, and eliminate the possibility of revolution.
Both the Westerners and the Slavs were supporters of enlightening the people, the abolition of serfdom and all possible relief of the lot of the peasantry
2. Second half of the 19th century
Conservatives. Social basis This trend consisted of the reactionary nobility, clergy, philistinism, merchants and a significant part of the peasantry. Conservatism second half of the 19th century V. remained within the ideological framework of the theory of “official nationality”. Autocracy was still declared the most important pillar of the state, ensuring the
prestige and glory of Russia. Orthodoxy was proclaimed as the basis of the spiritual life of the people and was actively inculcated. Nationality meant unity
disagreement between the king and the people, which implied the absence of soil for
social conflicts. Conservatives saw this as unique
historical path of Russia.
In the domestic political sphere, conservatives fought for the unshakable
leniency of autocracy, against liberal reforms
60-70s, and in subsequent decades they sought to limit
of their results. In the economic sphere, they advocated non-
independency of private property, preservation of the landowner's land
possessions and communities. In the social field, they insisted on strengthening
understanding the positions of the nobility - the basis of the state and preserving
class division of society. In foreign policy they developed
the ideas of Pan-Slavism - the unity of Slavic peoples around Russia.
In the spiritual sphere, representatives of the conservative intelligentsia
the principles of the patriarchal way of life, religiosity,
unconditional submission to authority. The main target for their criticism
became the theory and practice of nihilists who denied traditional rights
ral principles. (F. M. Dostoevsky in the novel “Demons” exposed
immorality of their activities.)
The ideologists of the conservatives were K. P. Pobedonostsev, D. A. Tol-
stop, M. N. Katkov. The spread of their ideas was facilitated by officials
no one's bureaucratic apparatus, the church and the reactionary press.
M. N. Katkov in the newspaper “Moskovskie Vedomosti” pushed activists
the government's tendency in a reactionary direction, formulated the main
new ideas of conservatism and formed public opinion in this spirit
Conservatives were statist guardians. They denied
treated any mass social actions prudently,
Thuya for order, tranquility and tradition.
Liberals. The social basis of the liberal direction is co-
put up by bourgeois landowners, part of the bourgeoisie and intellectuals
Gentiles (scientists, writers, journalists, doctors, etc.).
They defended the idea of a common path of history with Western Europe.
ric development of Russia.
In the domestic political sphere, liberals insisted on introducing
constitutional principles, democratic freedoms and continuation
Research Institute of Reforms. They advocated the creation of an all-Russian elective
body (Zemsky Sobor), expansion of the rights and functions of local organ-
self-government gans (zemstvos). Their political ideal was
a constitutional monarchy. Liberals advocated maintaining a strong
executive power, considering it a necessary factor in the
stability, called for measures to promote stability
the development of the rule of law and civil society in Russia.
In the socio-economic sphere, they welcomed the development
capitalism and freedom of enterprise, advocated the preservation
reduction of private property, reduction of redemption payments. Required
the desire to eliminate class privileges, recognition of inviolability
the importance of the individual, his rights to free spiritual development were
the basis of their moral and ethical views.
Liberals stood for evolutionary path development, considering reform
We are the main method of socio-political modernization of Russia.
They were ready to cooperate with the autocracy. Therefore they
activity mainly consisted of submitting “addresses” to the tsar
owls" - petitions proposing a program of reforms. Nai-
more “left” liberals sometimes used conspiratorial councils
of their supporters.
The ideologists of the liberals were scientists, publicists, zemstvos
figures (K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin, V. A. Goltsev, D. I. Shakhov-
skoy, F. I. Rodichev, P. A. Dolgorukov). Their organizational support
there were zemstvos, magazines (“Russian Thought”, “Bulletin of Europe”) and
scientific societies. Liberals have not created a sustainable and organizational
formalized opposition to the government.
Features of Russian liberalism: its noble character
due to the political weakness of the bourgeoisie and the readiness for rapprochement
with conservatives. They were united by the fear of popular “revolt” and
vii radicals.
Radicals. Representatives of this direction deployed active
new anti-government activities. Unlike conservative
rovs and liberals, they strove for violent methods of transformation
development of Russia and a radical reorganization of society (revolutionary
onny path).
In the second half of the 19th century. the radicals did not have a broad social
no basis, although objectively they expressed the interests of the working people
(peasants and workers). People from different backgrounds took part in their movement.
layers of society (raznochintsy), who devoted themselves to serving the people.
Radicalism was largely provoked by reactionary politics
government and the conditions of Russian reality: police-
tyranny, lack of freedom of speech, assembly and organization.
Therefore, in Russia itself only secret organizations could exist.
tions. Radical theorists, as a rule, were forced to emigrate
to move and act abroad. This contributed to strengthening
connections between Russian and Western European revolutionary movements.
In the radical direction of the second half of the 19th century. gentlemen
the current position was occupied by the current, the ideological basis of which was
there was a theory of special, non-capitalist development of Russia
and "communal socialism".
In the history of the radical movement of the second half of the 19th century. highlight
There are three stages: the 60s - the formation of revolutionary-demo-
cratic ideology and the creation of secret raznochinsky circles;__
70s - formalization of the populist doctrine, special scope
propaganda and terrorist activities of revolutionary organizations
lutionary populists; 80-90s - activation of liberal
narodniks and the beginning of the spread of Marxism, based on
which the first social democratic groups were created;
in the mid-90s - the weakening of the popularity of populism
and a short period of widespread enthusiasm for Marxist
ideas of democratically minded intelligentsia.
"Sixties". The rise of the peasant movement in 1861-
1862 was the people's response to the injustice of the reform on February 19-
rala. This activated the radicals who relied on the peasants
Russian uprising.
In the 60s, two centers of radical trends emerged.
One - around the editorial office of “The Bell”, published by A. I. Herzen
in London. He propagated his theory of “community socialization”
ma" and sharply criticized the extortionate conditions for the release of the peasants
yang The second center arose in Russia around the editorial office of the magazine “Sovre-
"mennik". Its ideologist was N. G. Chernyshevsky, the idol of raznochin-
noah youth of that time. He also criticized the government for
the essence of the reform, dreamed of socialism, but unlike A.I. Ger-
price saw the need for Russia to use the experience of European
development models. In 1862, N. G. Chernyshevsky was arrested,
Therefore, he himself could not take active part in public
war, but based on his ideas in the early 60s, it was formed
several secret organizations. They included N.A. and A.A. Serno-
Solovyevich, G. E. Blagosvetlov, N. I. Utin and others. “Left” radicals
set the task of preparing a people's revolution and for this purpose deployed
zero active publishing activity. In the proclamations of “Barsky
bow to the peasants from their well-wishers", "To the younger generation",
“Young Russia”, “What should the army do?” etc. they explained
tasks of the upcoming revolution to the people, substantiated the need
the elimination of autocracy, the democratic transformation of Russia,
a fair solution to the afar issue.
"Land and Freedom" (1861-1864).
"Land and Freedom" was the first major revolutionary democracy
cultural organization. It included several hundred members from different
different social strata: officials, officers, writers, students.__
The organization was headed by the Russian Central People's Committee.
Revolutionary populists. The main ideas of the revolutionary na-
Rodnikov: capitalism in Russia is being imposed “from above” and in Russian
soil has no social roots; the future of the country lies in communal socialism, since peasants can accept socialist ideas;__
transformations must be carried out by a revolutionary method, by the forces of the peasantry, led by an organization of revolutionaries. Their
ideologists - M. A. Bakunin, P. L. Lavrov and P. N. Tkachev -
They were designed theoretical basis three currents of revolutionary
Populism - rebellious (anarchist), propaganda and conspiratorial were arrested.
"Land and Freedom" (1876-1879)
Its program provided for the implementation of a socialist revolution by overhauling
the creation of autocracy, the transfer of all land to peasants and the introduction
"secular self-government" in the countryside and cities. At the head of the organization
tion stood G.V. Plekhanov, A.D. Mikhailov, S.M. Kravchinsky,
N. A. Morozov, V. N. Figner and others.
"People's Will" (1879-1881). It was headed
A. I. Zhelyabov, A. D. Mikhailov, S. L. Perovskaya, N. .A. Morozov,
V.N. Figner and others. They were members of the Executive Committee
tet is the center and main headquarters of the organization.
The Narodnaya Volya program reflected their disappointment in the revolution.
tion potential of the peasant masses. They believed that the people were
oppressed and reduced to a slave state by the tsarist government.
Therefore, they considered their main task to be the fight against the state.
The People's Will carried out a number of terrorist actions against the pre-
appointees of the tsarist administration, but considered their main goal
murder of the king. They assumed that this would cause political
crisis in the country and popular uprising. However, in response to terror
the government intensified repression. Most of the Narodnaya Volya members were
arrested. S. L. Perovskaya, who remained at large, organized
wounded and died a few hours later.
This act did not live up to the expectations of the populists. In general
the activities of the Narodnaya Volya were significantly slowed down
the possibility of evolutionary transformation of Russia.
"Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class." In the 90s
XIX century There has been an industrial boom in Russia. This is a facilitation
significant increase in the size of the working class and the creation of more
favorable conditions for his struggle. Workers' strikes began
sneezes employed in various industries: textile workers, miners, foundries
kov, railway workers. Strikes in St. Petersburg, Moscow, the Urals,
in other regions of the country the economic and spontaneous
character, but became more widespread in the number of participants.
In 1895 in St. Petersburg, scattered Marxist circles united
fought in new organization- "Union of Struggle for Liberation"
working class." Its creators were V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin),
Yu. O. Tsederbaum (L. Martov)
Social movement in the second half of the 19th century. Unlike
the previous time became an important factor in the political
life of the country. The diversity of directions and currents, views on
ideological, theoretical and tactical issues reflected the complexity
social structure and the severity of social contradictions, characteristics
thorny for the transitional time of post-reform Russia. In society
military movement of the second half of the 19th century. the direction didn’t work out,
capable of carrying out the evolutionary modernization of the country. However
socio-political forces emerged that played the main
role in the revolutionary events of the early 20th century, and the foundations were laid
new for the formation of political parties in the future.
Related information.
Socio-political movements in Russia in the 19th century.
PLAN
1. Decembrist movement
2. Ideology of autocracy. The formation of liberalism. Slavophiles and Westerners
3. Revolutionary democratic movement of the 40-90s.
4. Literature.
1. Decembrist movement
The 19th century occupies its own special place in the history of Russian social thought. During this period, the destruction of the feudal-serf system and the establishment of capitalism proceeded at a rapid pace. The country was in the process of realizing the need for fundamental changes and searching for ways to implement them. The question of the inevitability of change really arose before both society and the supreme authorities.
However, the autocracy and Russian society had significantly different ideas about the paths of change. Three main trends in the development of social thought and social movements have formed in Russia: conservative, liberal and revolutionary.
Conservatives sought to preserve the foundations of the existing system, liberals put pressure on the government to force it to carry out reforms, revolutionaries sought profound changes through violent change political system countries.
When studying this period in the history of Russia, it is important to see the entire spectrum of progressive, democratic, revolutionary forces. A characteristic feature of the development of the social movement at the beginning of the 19th century. is that in both the liberal and revolutionary movements of this time, the nobility dominates over all other classes. However, a political struggle also took place within the nobility between supporters and opponents of change.
True, the hegemony of the nobility in the revolutionary movement was less durable than in the liberal one. How to explain the leading role of the nobility? First of all, the fact that among the nobility an intelligentsia was formed, which was the first to begin to realize the need for reforms in the country and put forward certain political doctrines.
The Russian bourgeoisie during this period did not actively participate in the social movement. In the era of primitive accumulation, the merchant, industrialist, railroad businessman, and rich peasant were exclusively absorbed in profit, the accumulation of wealth. At this stage this class was not interested in politics and had no need for it. He did not need political reforms, but administrative and legislative measures that would promote the development of capitalism. The bourgeoisie was quite happy with the economic policy of tsarism, aimed at developing capitalism from above: encouraging railway construction, protective customs duties, government orders, etc. In addition, the bourgeoisie at that time had not yet developed its own intelligentsia. The realization that knowledge and education are also capital was a relatively late phenomenon. Therefore, the political capacity of the Russian bourgeoisie lagged far behind its economic power.
The bourgeoisie entered the political struggle, nominated its leaders, created its organizations at a time when the Russian proletariat was already playing an active role in the socio-political struggle, creating its own political party.
Beginning of the 19th century was a time of great hope in the life of Russian society. However, the reforms were not implemented. Government ended up actually in the hands of A.A. Arakcheeva. MM. Speransky was sent into exile. This refusal of reforms was associated with quite powerful resistance from the majority of the noble class. So, in 1811, alarmed by persistent rumors about a “radical state transformation” being prepared by M.M. Speransky, the famous historian N.M. Karamzin, an ideologist of autocracy, presented Alexander I with a “Note on Ancient and New Russia,” in which he wrote: “Russia was founded by victories and unity of command, perished from discord, but was saved by a wise autocracy.” Karamzin saw autocracy as a guarantee of the well-being of the Russian people. The task of the sovereign, he believed, was to improve the existing system, avoiding serious changes. Karamzin argued that instead of all the innovations, it would be enough to find fifty good governors and give the country worthy spiritual shepherds.
At a time when the authorities are abandoning reforms, a revolutionary political trend is clearly manifested among the nobility. This was the Decembrist movement. The main factor in its occurrence was the socio-economic conditions of the country's development. Of no small importance in the formation of the revolutionary views of the Decembrists were the strengthening of serfdom oppression, the anti-serfdom movement of the masses after the Patriotic War of 1812. The Decembrists called themselves “children of 1812.” and they emphasized more than once that it was 1812 that was the starting point of their movement. More than a hundred future Decembrists took part in the war of 1812, 65 of those who would be called state criminals in 1825 fought to the death with the enemy on the Borodin field (Memoirs of the Decembrists. Northern Society. M., 1981. P. 8). They saw that victory in the war was ensured, first of all, by the participation of the common people, suffering from the tyranny of the feudal landowners and having no prospects for improving their situation in the conditions of the autocratic serfdom state.
The first secret organization of future Decembrists, the “Union of Salvation,” was created by young noble officers in St. Petersburg in 1816. This organization was small and aimed at the abolition of serfdom and the fight against autocracy, but the methods and ways of achieving these tasks were unclear.
On the basis of the “Union of Salvation” in 1818, the “Union of Welfare” was created in Moscow, which included more than 200 people. This organization aimed to promote anti-serfdom ideas, support the liberal intentions of the government, and create public opinion against serfdom and autocracy. It took 10 years to solve this problem. The Decembrists believed that solving this problem would help avoid horrors French Revolution and make the coup bloodless.
The government's abandonment of reform plans and a transition to reaction in foreign and domestic policy forced the Decembrists to change tactics. In 1821 in Moscow, at the congress of the Union of Welfare, it was decided to overthrow the autocracy through a military revolution. It was supposed to move from the vague “Union” to a conspiratorial and clearly formed secret organization. In 1821-1822 Southern and Northern societies emerged. In 1823, the organization “Society of United Slavs” was created in Ukraine, which by the fall of 1825 merged with the Southern Society.
In the Decembrist movement throughout its existence, there were serious disagreements on issues of ways and methods of implementing reforms, on the form of the country's government, etc. Within the framework of the movement, one can trace not only revolutionary tendencies (they manifested themselves especially clearly), but also liberal tendencies. The differences between members of the Southern and Northern societies were reflected in the programs developed by P.I. Pestel ("Russian Truth") and Nikita Muravyov ("Constitution").
One of the most important issues was the question of the state structure of Russia. According to the "Constitution" of N. Muravyov, Russia turned into a constitutional monarchy, where executive power belonged to the emperor, and legislative power was transferred to a bicameral parliament, the people's council. The “Constitution” solemnly proclaimed the people to be the source of all state life; the emperor was only “the supreme official of the Russian state.”
The suffrage provided for a fairly high voting qualification. Courtiers were deprived of voting rights. A number of basic bourgeois freedoms were proclaimed - speech, movement, religion.
According to Pestel's "Russian Truth", Russia was declared a republic, power in which, until the necessary bourgeois-democratic transformations were carried out, was concentrated in the hands of the Provisional Revolutionary Government. Next, the supreme power was transferred to a unicameral people's council, elected for 5 years by men from the age of 20 without any qualification restrictions. The highest executive body was the State Duma, elected for 5 years by the people's council and responsible to it. The president became the head of Russia.
Pestel rejected the principle of a federal structure; Russia had to remain united and indivisible.
The second most important issue was the question of serfdom. Both “The Constitution” by N. Muravyov and “Russian Truth” by Pestel resolutely opposed serfdom. “Serfdom and slavery are abolished. A slave who touches the Russian land becomes free,” read § 16 of N. Muravyov’s Constitution. According to “Russian Truth”, serfdom was immediately abolished. The liberation of the peasants was declared the “holiest and most indispensable” duty of the Provisional Government. All citizens had equal rights.
N. Muravyov proposed that the liberated peasants retain their homestead land “for vegetable gardens” and two acres of arable land per yard. Pestel considered the liberation of peasants without land completely unacceptable and proposed solving the land issue by combining the principles of public and private property. The public land fund was to be formed through the seizure without redemption of landowners' lands, the size of which exceeded 10 thousand dessiatines. From landholdings of 5-10 thousand dessiatines, half of the land was alienated for compensation. From the public fund, land was allocated to everyone who wanted to cultivate it.
The Decembrists associated the implementation of their programs with a revolutionary change in the existing system in the country. Taken as a whole, Pestel’s project from the point of view of the development of bourgeois relations in Russia was more radical and consistent than Muravyov’s project. At the same time, both of them were progressive, revolutionary programs for the bourgeois reorganization of feudal Russia.
The uprising on December 14, 1825 in St. Petersburg on Senate Square and the uprising of the Chernigov infantry regiment, raised on December 20, 1825 by members of the Southern Society, were suppressed. The tsarist government brutally dealt with the participants in the uprisings, which had a very serious significance for the development of social thought and social movement in the country. Essentially, an entire generation of the most educated, active people was torn out of the country's public life. However, the ideas of the Decembrists continued to live in the circles of free-thinking youth. Decembrism carried a variety of directions in the social movement from liberal to ultra-revolutionary, which affected the development of the social movement in the country.
2. The ideology of autocracy. The formation of liberalism. Slavophiles and Westerners
After the defeat of the Decembrist uprising, a series of reactions began in the country. Nicholas I, who came to power in December 1825, during his thirty-year reign (1825-1855) constantly sought to strengthen autocratic power and suppress all freethinking. The Nikolaev regime relied on a certain social base- landowners and bureaucracy of all ranks and ranks. A vivid idea of the worldview of the privileged classes is given by the notes of one of the largest figures of the Nicholas era - the manager of the III department, Leonty Vasilyevich Dubelt.
In his notes, L.V. Dubelt wrote that “the first duty of an honest man is to love his Fatherland above all else and to be the most faithful subject of his sovereign.” For Dubelt, the concepts of Fatherland and autocracy completely merged: without a tsar, in his opinion, there could be no Russia. Dubelt considered serfdom to be the key to the prosperity of Russia, along with autocracy. “God forbid,” he writes, “that serfdom should be abolished: the “peasant” may be happy at first, but then, having lost his head over the magic word “freedom,” he will want to try his luck in another place, go wandering around the cities where he will lose his holy morality, and he will perish...” At the same time, he recognized the need for enlightenment. True enlightenment, in his opinion, should be based on religion.
Dubelt saw one of the most important tasks of the supreme power in a ruthless fight against any manifestations of “false” Western enlightenment; he proposed to isolate himself ideologically, to establish an impenetrable quarantine for “foreign teachings” seeking to penetrate Russian society and corrupt it.
In the early 30s. XIX century An ideological justification for the reactionary policies of the autocracy was born - the theory of “official nationality”. The author of this theory was the Minister of Public Education, Count S.A. Uvarov. In 1832, in a report to the Tsar, he put forward a formula for the foundations of Russian life: “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality.” At its core is the point of view that autocracy is the historically established foundation of Russian life; Orthodoxy is the moral basis of the life of the Russian people; nationality - the unity of the Russian Tsar and the people, protecting Russia from social cataclysms. The Russian people exist as a single whole only insofar as they remain faithful to the autocracy and submit to paternal care Orthodox Church. Any speech against the autocracy, any criticism of the church was interpreted by Uvarov as actions directed against the fundamental interests of the people.
Uvarov argued that education can not only be a source of evil and revolutionary upheavals, as happened in Western Europe, but can turn into a protective element. Therefore, all “ministers of education in Russia were asked to proceed exclusively from considerations of the official nationality.” Thus, tsarism sought to preserve and strengthen the existing system.
In Nikolaev Russia it became almost impossible to fight for socio-economic and political transformations. Attempts by Russian youth to continue the work of the Decembrists were unsuccessful. Student circles of the late 1820s - early 1830s. were few in number, weak and subject to defeat.
In conditions of reaction and repression against revolutionary ideology, liberal thought received widespread development. Thinking about historical destinies Russia, its history, its present and future, gave birth to two of the most important ideological movements of the 40s. XIX century: Westernism and Slavophilism. Representatives of the Slavophiles were I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, Yu.F. Samarin, K.A. Aksakov and many others. The most prominent representatives of Westerners were P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, A.I. Goncharov, I.S. Turgenev, P.A Chaadaev and others. On a number of issues they were joined by A.I. Herzen and V.G. Belinsky.
Both Westerners and Slavophiles were ardent patriots, firmly believed in the great future of their Motherland, and sharply criticized Nicholas's Russia.
Slavophiles and Westerners were especially harsh against serfdom. Moreover, Westerners - Herzen, Granovsky and others emphasized that serfdom was only one of the manifestations of the arbitrariness that permeated the entire life of Russia. After all, the “educated minority” suffered from unlimited despotism and was also in the “fortress” of power, of the autocratic-bureaucratic system.
While converging on criticism of Russian reality, Westerners and Slavophiles sharply diverged in their search for ways to develop the country. The Slavophiles, rejecting contemporary Russia, looked at modern Europe with even greater disgust. In their opinion, the Western world has outlived its usefulness and has no future (here we see a certain commonality with the theory of “official nationality”).
Slavophiles defended the historical identity of Russia and singled it out as a separate world, opposed to the West due to the peculiarities of Russian history, Russian religiosity, and Russian stereotypes of behavior. The Slavophiles considered the Orthodox religion, opposed to rationalistic Catholicism, to be the greatest value. For example, A.S. Khomyakov, wrote that Russia is called to become the center of world civilization; it strives not to be the richest or most powerful country, but to become “the most Christian of all human societies.” Special attention Slavophiles paid attention to the countryside, believing that the peasantry carries within itself the foundations of high morality, that it has not yet been spoiled by civilization. Slavophiles saw great moral value in the village community with its gatherings making unanimous decisions, with its traditional justice in accordance with customs and conscience.
Slavophiles believed that Russians had a special attitude towards the authorities. The people lived, as it were, in a “contract” with the civil system: we are community members, we have our own life, you are the government, you have your own life. K. Aksakov wrote that the country has an advisory voice, the power of public opinion, but the right to make final decisions belongs to the monarch. An example of this kind of relationship can be the relationship between the Zemsky Sobor and the Tsar during the period of the Moscow State, which allowed Russia to live in peace without shocks and revolutionary upheavals such as the Great French Revolution. Slavophiles associated the “distortions” in Russian history with the activities of Peter the Great, who “opened a window to Europe” and thereby violated the agreement, the balance in the life of the country, and led it astray from the path outlined by God.
Slavophiles are often classified as a political reaction due to the fact that their teaching contains three principles of “official nationality”: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. However, it should be noted that the Slavophiles of the older generation interpreted these principles in a very unique way: by Orthodoxy they understood a free community of Christian believers, and they viewed the autocratic state as an external form that allows the people to devote themselves to the search for “inner truth.” At the same time, the Slavophiles defended autocracy and did not attach much importance to the cause of political freedom. At the same time, they were staunch democrats, supporters of spiritual freedom of the individual. When Alexander II ascended the throne in 1855, K. Aksakov presented him with a “Note on the Internal State of Russia,” in which he reproached the government for suppressing moral freedom, which led to the degradation of the nation. Extreme measures, he pointed out, can only make the idea of political freedom popular among the people and generate a desire to achieve it through revolutionary means. In order to prevent such a danger, Aksakov advised the tsar to grant freedom of thought and speech, as well as to bring back to life the practice of convening zemstvo councils. The ideas of providing the people with civil liberties and the abolition of serfdom occupied an important place in the works of the Slavophiles. It is not surprising, therefore, that censorship often subjected them to persecution and prevented them from freely expressing their thoughts.
Westerners, unlike the Slavophiles, assessed Russian originality as backwardness. From the point of view of Westerners, Russia, like most other Slavic peoples, was, as it were, outside of history for a long time. They saw the main merit of Peter I in the fact that he accelerated the process of transition from backwardness to civilization. Peter's reforms for Westerners are the beginning of Russia's entry into world history.
At the same time, they understood that Peter's reforms were associated with many costs. Herzen saw the origins of most of the most disgusting features of contemporary despotism in the bloody violence that accompanied Peter’s reforms. Westerners emphasized that Russia and Western Europe were following the same historical path. Therefore, Russia should borrow the experience of Europe. They saw the most important task in achieving the liberation of the individual and creating a state and society that would ensure this freedom. Westerners considered the “educated minority” to be a force capable of becoming the engine of progress.
Despite all the differences in assessing the prospects for Russia's development, Westerners and Slavophiles had similar positions. Both of them opposed serfdom, for the liberation of peasants with land, for the introduction of political freedoms in the country, and the limitation of autocratic power. They were also united by a negative attitude towards the revolution; they advocated a reformist path to solving the main social issues of Russia. In the process of preparing the peasant reform of 1861, Slavophiles and Westerners entered into a single camp of liberalism. The disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles were of great importance for the development of socio-political thought. They were representatives of the liberal-bourgeois ideology that arose among the nobility under the influence of the crisis of the feudal-serf economic system.
The liberal ideas of Westerners and Slavophiles took deep roots in Russian society and had a serious influence on subsequent generations of people who were looking for a path to the future for Russia. Their ideas continue to live today in disputes about what Russia is - a country destined for the messianic role of the center of Christianity, the third Rome, or a country that is part of all humanity, part of Europe, which is following the path of world-historical development.
3. Revolutionary democratic movement of the 40-90s.
30-40s XIX century - the time of the beginning of the formation of revolutionary democratic ideology in Russian socio-political life. Its founders were V.G. Belinsky and A.I. Herzen. They sharply opposed the theory of “official nationality”, against the views of the Slavophiles, argued for the common historical development of Western Europe and Russia, spoke out for the development of economic and cultural ties with the West, and called for the use of the latest achievements of science, technology, and culture in Russia. However, recognizing the progressiveness of the bourgeois system in comparison with the feudal one, they opposed the bourgeois development of Russia, the replacement of feudal exploitation with capitalist exploitation.
Belinsky and Herzen become supporters of socialism. After the suppression of the revolutionary movement in 1848, Herzen became disillusioned with Western Europe. At this time, he came to the idea that the Russian village community and artel contained the rudiments of socialism, which would find its realization in Russia sooner than in any other country. Herzen and Belinsky considered the class struggle and peasant revolution to be the main means of transforming society. Herzen was the first in the Russian social movement to embrace the ideas of utopian socialism, which at that time became widespread in Western Europe. Herzen's theory of Russian communal socialism gave a powerful impetus to the development of socialist thought in Russia. The ideas of the communal structure of society were further developed in the views of N.G. Chernyshevsky, who in many ways anticipated the appearance of commoners in the social movement of Russia. If before the 60s. In the social movement, the main role was played by the noble intelligentsia, then by the 60s. in Russia, a diverse intelligentsia emerges (raznochintsy - people from various classes, clergy, merchants, philistines, petty officials, etc.).
In the works of Herzen and Chernyshevsky, a program of social transformations in Russia was essentially formed. Chernyshevsky was a supporter of the peasant revolution, the overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of a republic. It provided for the liberation of peasants from serfdom and the abolition of landownership. The confiscated land was to be transferred to peasant communities to be distributed among the peasants according to fairness (equalization principle). The community, in the absence of private ownership of land, periodic redistribution of land, collectivism, and self-government, was supposed to prevent the development of capitalist relations in the countryside and become a socialist unit of society. The program of communal socialism was adopted by the Narodniks, the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRs). A number of provisions of the agrarian program were included by the Bolsheviks in the “Decree on Land” adopted by the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets.
The ideas of Herzen and Chernyshevsky were perceived differently by their supporters. The radically minded intelligentsia (primarily students) regarded the idea of communal socialism as a call to immediate action, while the more moderate part of it regarded it as a program for gradual advancement.
In 1861, a secret revolutionary society of commoners “Land and Freedom” was created (existed until 1864), uniting various circles. Land and Freedom considered propaganda to be the main means of influencing peasants. The rather moderate program of "Land and Freedom" did not find a response among the radically minded part of the youth.
The fall of serfdom and the intensification of class struggle in the post-reform period contributed to the rise of the revolutionary movement, which brought to the fore the revolutionary populists. The populists were followers of the ideas of Herzen and Chernyshevsky, ideologists of the peasantry. The populists resolved the main socio-political question about the nature of the post-reform development of Russia from the position of utopian socialism, seeing in the Russian peasant a socialist by nature, and in the rural community - the “embryo” of socialism. The populists denied the progressiveness of the country's capitalist development, considering it a decline, regression, an accidental, superficial phenomenon imposed from above by the government. Unlike Chernyshevsky, who considered the masses to be the main driving force of progress, the populists of the 70s. The decisive role was assigned to “heroes,” “critically thinking” individuals who directed the masses, the “crowd,” and the course of history at their own discretion. They considered the common intelligentsia to be such “critically thinking” individuals, who would lead Russia and the Russian people to freedom and socialism. The populists had a negative attitude towards the political struggle and did not connect the struggle for the constitution and democratic freedoms with the interests of the people. They underestimated the power of autocracy, did not see the connections of the state with the interests of classes, and concluded that social revolution in Russia was an extremely easy matter.
The ideological leaders of revolutionary populism in the 70s. were M.A. Bakunin, P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky, P.N. Tkachev. Their names personified three main directions in the populist movement: rebellious (anarchist), propaganda, conspiratorial. The differences were in the definition of the main driving force revolution, its readiness for revolutionary struggle, methods of struggle against autocracy.
The ideological positions of populism were significantly influenced by the anarchist views of M.A. Bakunin, who believed that any state hinders the development of the individual, oppresses her. Therefore, Bakunin opposed all power, viewing the state as a historically inevitable evil. M.A. Bakunin argued that the peasantry was ready for revolution. Therefore, the task of heroes from the intelligentsia, “critically thinking” individuals, is to go to the people and call them to an uprising, to rebellion. Individual outbreaks of peasant uprisings, Bakunin believed, “need to be merged into the general all-consuming flame of the peasant revolution, in the fire of which the state must perish” and create a federation of free self-governing peasant communities and workers’ artels.
The ideologist of the second direction in populism - propaganda - was P.L. Lavrov. He outlined his theory in “Historical Letters,” published in 1868 - 1869; He considered the intelligentsia capable of critical thinking to be the leading force of historical progress. Lavrov argued that the peasantry was not ready for revolution. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare propagandists from educated “critically thinking” individuals, whose task is to go to the people not with the goal of organizing an immediate rebellion, but in order to prepare the peasants for revolution through long-term propaganda of socialism. Lavrov spoke about the need to create a revolutionary organization and expressed the idea of a mass party based on the principles of democratic centralism. Lavrov paid great attention to the moral character of the revolutionary, believing that party members should be devoted to the idea, to be people of crystal purity. Lavrov considered it necessary for the party to engage in polemics on fundamental issues and reject any attempts to create a cult of infallibility. P.N. Tkachev, an ideologist of the conspiratorial trend, did not believe in the possibility of carrying out a revolution by the forces of the people, and pinned his hopes on the revolutionary minority. Tkachev believed that autocracy has no class support in society. Therefore, it is possible for a group of revolutionaries to seize power and transition to socialist transformations. The conspiratorial policy led to the appearance in the ranks of populism of figures like S.G. Nechaeva. S.G. Nechaev was the organizer of the secret society "People's Retribution", the author of the "Catechism of a Revolutionary", which stated that the revolutionary goal justifies the means. Nechaev used methods of mystification and provocation in his activities. In 1869, in Moscow, he personally killed student I.I. on suspicion of treason. Ivanov and disappeared abroad. In 1872, he was extradited by the Swiss authorities, sentenced to 20 years of hard labor, and died in the Alekseevsky ravelin of the Peter and Paul Fortress.
Nechaevism revealed the influence of the lumpen element generated by the collapse of traditional structures, which led to the emergence of leaders of a politically criminal type. Nechaevism was condemned by the First International and rejected by Russian revolutionaries.
The practical activities of the populists began in the 70s. the creation of circles of student youth and intellectuals throughout the country.
In the spring of 1874, the “going to the people” began, the goal of which was to cover as many villages as possible and rouse the peasants to revolt, as Bakunin proposed. However, going to the people ended in failure. Mass arrests followed and the movement was crushed.
In 1876, the populist underground organization “Land and Freedom”* was created, the prominent participants of which were S.M. Kravchinsky, A.D. Mikhailov, G.V. Plekhanov, S.L. Perovskaya, A.I. Zhelyabov, V.I. Zasulich, B.H. Figner and others. Its program boiled down to the demand for the transfer and equal distribution of all land among the peasants. During this period, the populists, according to Lavrov’s idea, moved to organizing “settlements among the people” as teachers, clerks, paramedics, and artisans. The populists thus sought to establish strong ties with the peasants in order to prepare a popular revolution. But this attempt by the populists ended in failure and led to mass repression. “Land and Freedom” was built on the principles of strict discipline, centralism and conspiracy. Gradually, a faction formed in the organization that supported the transition to political struggle through the use of the method of individual terror. In August 1879, "Land and Freedom" split into two organizations: "People's Will" (1879-1882) and "Black Redistribution" (1879-1884). The Black Frontiers (among the most active members are G.V. Plekhanov, P.B. Axelrod, L.G. Deich, V.I. Zasulich and others) opposed terror tactics, for carrying out extensive propaganda work among the masses of peasants. Subsequently, part of the Black Peredelites, led by Plekhanov, moved away from populism and took the position of Marxism.
The people (the Executive Committee of the People's Will included A.D. Mikhailov, N.A. Morozov, A.I. Zhelyabov, S.L. Perovskaya and others) took to arm the terrorist struggle. "People's Will" prepared seven attempts on the life of Tsar Alexander II, and on March 1, 1881, Alexander II was killed. However, the expected overthrow of tsarism did not happen. The reaction intensified in the country, reforms were curtailed. The revolutionary trend of populism itself entered a period of prolonged crisis.
In the 80-90s. XIX century The reformist wing of populism is strengthening, and liberal populism is gaining significant influence. This direction was focused on the reconstruction of society through peaceful, non-violent means.
His right wing is V.P. Vorontsov, S.N. Krivenko, S.N. Yuzhakov and others - called on the intelligentsia to abandon the struggle for political freedom, since it would strengthen the bourgeoisie, and to concentrate entirely on the search for means of improvement economic situation people. Left - N.K. Mikhailovsky, N.F. Annensky, V.G. Korolenko and others - recognized the need for political changes, but in a peaceful, reformist way.
The great merit of the populist economists N.F. Danielson, V.P. Vorontsov is an analysis of the post-reform development of Russia. In the 90s the growth of capitalism and the labor movement was evident. The Narodniks abandoned the thesis that capitalism is not developing in Russia, and did not deny the fact of the growing role of the working class. However, they argued that capitalism in Russia is developing and implanted artificially. The works of populist economists analyzed the influence of the reform of 1861, the initial accumulation of capital on the development of the Russian village, and showed the process of impoverishment of the village and its stratification. Danielson and Vorontsov revealed the dependence of Russian capitalism on protectionist policies. Speaking about the plight of the country, Danielson and Vorontsov sought to prove the impossibility of solving this problem by bourgeois society.
autocracy, government orders, contracts, etc. They were the first to raise the question of agrarian overpopulation and concluded that it was impossible for Russia to follow the path of capitalist evolution. Vorontsov, for example, considered the very development of capitalism to be an anomalous phenomenon, contrary to the structure of economic life and the traditions of the peasant worldview.
The Narodniks defended their concept of Russia's transition to socialism on the basis of "people's production." Main role in this they assigned the peasantry, believed in the possibility of using the village community for the transition to socialism. The populists believed that it was impossible to focus on the labor movement, since the working class is a product of capitalism, and capitalism in the country is artificially implanted.
At the end of the 19th century. The polemic between populists and Marxists became very acute. The populists considered Marxist teaching unacceptable for Russia. The heir to the populist ideology was the illegal party of socialist revolutionaries, created in 1901 from disparate populist groups.
The party had a left-radical bourgeois-democratic character. Its main goals were: the destruction of the autocracy, the creation of a democratic republic, political freedoms, the socialization of the land, the abolition of private ownership of land, its transformation into public property, the transfer of land to peasants according to equalizing standards.
Content. I. Social and political development of Russia in the first half of the 19th century. Choosing the path of social development 1. Social movements in Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century. 2. Decembrist movement. 3. Social movements in Russia in the second quarter of the 19th century. 4. National liberation movements II. Socio-political development of Russia in the second half of the 19th century. 1. Peasant movement 2. Liberal movement 3. Social movement 4. Polish uprising of 1863 5. Labor movement 6. Revolutionary movement in the 80s - early 90s. | | |Social and political development of Russia in the first half of the 19th century. Choosing a path | |social development | | | | | | | | Social movements in Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century. | | | |The first years of the reign of Alexander I were marked by a noticeable revival | | public life. Current issues of domestic and foreign policy | |states were discussed in scientific and literary societies, in student circles| | and teachers, in secular salons and in Masonic lodges. In the center | | public attention was related to the French Revolution, serfs | |law and autocracy. | |Lifting the ban on the activities of private printing houses, permission to import books | |from abroad, the adoption of a new censorship statute (1804) - all this had | | significant influence on the further spread of European ideas in Russia | |Enlightenment. Educational goals were set by I. P. Pnin, V. V. | |Popugaev, A.Kh. Vostokov, A.P. Kunitsyn, who created Volnoye in St. Petersburg | |society of lovers of literature, sciences and arts (1801-1825). Being under | |strongly influenced by Radishchev's views, they translated the works of Voltaire, Diderot, | |Montesquieu, published articles and literary works. | |Supporters of various ideological trends began to group around new | |magazines. “Bulletin of Europe”, published by N.M., was popular | | Karamzin, and then V. A. Zhukovsky. | |Most Russian educators considered it necessary to reform | | autocratic rule and abolish serfdom. However, they were only | |a small part of society and, in addition, remembering the horrors of the Jacobin terror, | |expected to achieve their goal peacefully, through education, moral | | education and formation of civic consciousness. | |The bulk of the nobility and officials were conservative. Views| |most are reflected in N.M.’s “Note on Ancient and New Russia” | | Karamzin (1811). Recognizing the need for change, Karamzin opposed | |plan for constitutional reforms, since Russia, where “the sovereign is alive | |law”, what is needed is not a constitution, but fifty “smart and virtuous | |governors.” | |The Patriotic War played a huge role in the development of national identity| | 1812 and foreign campaigns of the Russian army. The country was experiencing a huge | |patriotic upsurge, hopes for broad | |transformation, everyone was waiting for changes for the better - and there was no wait. First | |peasants were disappointed. Heroic participants in battles, saviors of the Fatherland, they | |hoped to gain freedom, but from the manifesto on the occasion of the victory over Napoleon | |(1814) heard: | |“Peasants, our faithful people, may they receive their reward from God.” By country | | there was a wave of peasant uprisings, the number of which in the post-war | | period has increased. In total, according to incomplete data, about 280 | | peasant unrest , and approximately 2/3 of them - in 1813-1820. Especially | | long and fierce was the movement on the Don (1818-1820), in which there was | | more than 45 thousand peasants are involved. Constant unrest was accompanied by | | introduction of military settlements. One of the largest was the uprising in Chuguev in the summer | |1819 | | Discontent also grew in the army, which consisted for the most part of those recruited through | |recruitment sets of peasants. An unheard of event was the indignation of the guards | |Semyonovsky regiment, whose chief was the emperor. In October 1820, soldiers | |regiment, driven to despair by oppression from their regimental commander | |commander F.E. Schwartz, filed a complaint against him and refused to obey his | |officers. By personal order of Alexander I, nine “most guilty” were driven away | |through the ranks, and then exiled to Siberia, the regiment was disbanded. | |The strengthening of conservative-protective principles in the official ideology was manifested in| |return to the traditional image of Russia as a Christian power. Religious | | the autocracy tried to oppose dogma to the influence of revolutionary ideas | |West. The personal mood of the emperor also played a big role here, | |who attributed the success of the war with Bonaparte to the intervention of the supernatural | |divine powers. It is also significant that the State Council, Senate and | |The Synod presented Alexander I with the title of the Blessed. After 1815 the emperor, and | |following him, a significant part of society is increasingly immersed in | |religious and mystical moods. A peculiar manifestation of this phenomenon | |became the activities of the Bible Society, created at the end of 1812 and by 1816| | received an official character. A huge role in the activities of the Biblical | |society played by him.President, Minister of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education A. | |N. Golitsyn. The main goal of the society was translation, publication and distribution in | | people of the Bible. In 1821, the New Testament was published in Russian for the first time in Russia | |language. However, the ideas of mysticism became widespread among members of society. | |Golitsyn contributed to the publication and distribution of books of mystical content, | |provided patronage to various sects, was a supporter of the union | |Christian faiths, the equation of Orthodoxy with other religions. All | |this caused opposition to Golitsyn’s course among numerous church hierarchs, which| |Headed by Archimandrite Photius of the Novgorod Yuryev Monastery. In May 1824 | |followed by the disgrace of Prince Golitsyn and the cooling of Alexander I to activity | |society. At the end of 1824, the new president of the society, Metropolitan Seraphim | |presented a report to the emperor on the need to close the Bible Society as | |harmful, in April 1826 it was liquidated. | | | | | |Decembrist movement | |The government's abandonment of the policy of change and increased reaction caused | | the emergence of the first revolutionary movement in Russia, the basis of which was | | progressively minded military men from the liberal strata of the nobility. One of | |The origins of the emergence of “freethinking in Russia” were the Patriotic War. | |In 1814-1815 The first secret officer organizations emerge (“Union of Russian | | Knights”, “Sacred Artel”, “Semyonovskaya Artel”). Their founders are M.F. | | Orlov, M. A. Dmitriev-Mamonov, A. and M. Muravyov - considered unacceptable | |preservation of the serfdom of peasants and soldiers who committed civil | | feat during the Napoleonic invasion. | |In February 1816 in St. Petersburg, on the initiative of A.N. Muravyov, N.M. Muravyov, | |M. and S. Muravyov-Apostolov, S. P. Trubetskoy and I. D. Yakushkin, the Union was created | |rescue. This centralized conspiracy organization included 30 | |patriotic young military men. A year later, the Union adopted a “statute”| | - program and charter, after which the organization became known as the Society | |true and “faithful sons of the Fatherland. The goals of the struggle were declared to be the destruction of | |serfdom” and the establishment of constitutional government. These requirements | |was supposed to be presented at the time of the change of monarchs on the throne. M. S. Lunin and I. | |D. Yakushkin raised the question of the need for regicide, but N. Muravyov, I. G. | |Burtsov and others opposed violence, for propaganda as the only way| |actions. | | Disputes about ways to achieve the goals of society have caused the need to adopt a new | | charter and program. In 1818, a special commission (S. P. Trubetskoy, N. | | Muravyov, P. P. Koloshin) developed a new charter, named after the color of the binding | |“Green Book”. The first secret society was liquidated and the Union was created | |prosperity. Before the members of the Union, which could become not only the military, but | | and merchants, townspeople, clergy and free peasants, the task was set during | |about 20 years to prepare public opinion for the need for change. | |The ultimate goals of the Union - a political and social revolution - are not in the “Book” | |declared because it was intended for wide distribution. | |The Welfare Union had about 200 members. It was led by Korennaya | | government in St. Petersburg, the main councils (branches) were located in Moscow and | |Tulchin (in Ukraine), councils arose in Poltava, Tambov, Kyiv, Chisinau, in | | Nizhny Novgorod province. Educational societies were formed around the Union | | semi-legal nature. Officers - members of society implemented the ideas of “Green | |books” in practice (abolition of corporal punishment, education in schools, in the army). | |However, dissatisfaction with educational activities in conditions of growth | |peasant unrest, protests in the army, a number of military revolutions in Europe | | led to the radicalization of part of the Union. In January 1821, a congress convened in Moscow | |Indigenous government. He declared the Welfare Union “dissolved” to facilitate | | weeding out “unreliable” members who opposed the conspiracy and violent measures. | |Immediately after the congress, almost simultaneously, the secret Northern and Southern | |societies that united supporters of the armed coup and prepared | | uprising of 1825 | |The Southern Council of the Union of Welfare in Tulchin became the Southern Society. | |P.I. Pestel (1793-1826) became its chairman. He was a man of enormous | | talents, received an excellent education, distinguished himself in the battles of Leipzig, | |at Troyes. By 1820, Pestel was already a staunch supporter of the republican | |forms of government. In 1824, the Southern Society adopted the program he compiled | |document - “Russian Truth”, which put forward the task of establishing | | republican system. “Russian Truth” proclaimed the dictatorship of the Provisional | | supreme rule for the entire duration of the revolution, which, as Pestel assumed, | |will last 10-15 years. According to Pestel's project, Russia was supposed to become united | |centralized state with a republican form of government. | |Legislative power belonged to the People's Council consisting of 500 people, | | which was elected for a period of 5 years. Became an executive body | | the State Duma, elected at the assembly, consisting of 5 members. Higher control | | body was the Supreme Council of 120 citizens elected for life. Estate | | division was eliminated, all citizens were endowed with political rights. | |Serfdom was destroyed. The land fund of each volost was divided into | | public (inalienable) and private half. From the first half of the ground | |received by liberated peasants and all citizens who wished to engage | | agriculture. The second half consisted of state and private estates and | |subject to purchase and sale. The project proclaimed the sacred right of personal | |property, established for all citizens of the republic freedom of occupation and | |religions. | |Southern society recognized armed action in | | capital, accordingly, the conditions for membership in the society were changed: now | |only a military man could become a member of it," a decision was made on the strictest | N.I. Turgenev, M.S. Lunin, S.P. Trubetskoy, E.P. Obolensky and I.I. Pushchin. Subsequently, the composition of the society expanded significantly. A number of its members moved away from | |republican decisions of the Root Council and returned to the idea of a constitutional | |monarchy. The program of the Northern Society can be judged by Nikita Muravyov's constitutional | |project, which, however, was not adopted as an official | | document of the society. Russia became a constitutional-monarchical | |state. A federal division of the country into 15 " powers". Power | |was divided into legislative, executive and judicial. The highest legislative | | body was the bicameral People's Council, elected for a period of 6 years on | | the basis of a high property qualification. Legislative power in each “power” | | performed by the bicameral Sovereign Assembly, elected for 4 years. To the Emperor | | belonged to the executive power, he became the “supreme official”. | |The highest judicial body of the federation was the Supreme Court. Class system | |canceled, civil and political freedoms were proclaimed. Serfdom| |destroyed in latest version Constitution N. Muravyov provided | |providing freed peasants with land (2 dessiatines per yard). Landowner | | property was preserved. | |However, a more radical movement was gaining more and more strength in Northern society,| | whose head was K.F. Ryleev. His literary | | |activity: the satire on Arakcheev “K | | temporary worker” (1820), “Dumas”, glorifying the fight against tyranny. Into society he | |joined in 1823 and a year later was elected its director. Ryleev | | adhered to republican views. | |The most intense activity of Decembrist organizations occurs | |1824-1825: preparations were made for an open armed uprising, | |hard work to harmonize the political platforms of the North and South | |society In 1824, it was decided to prepare and | |hold] a unification congress, and in the summer of 1826 carry out a military coup.| |In the second half of 1825, the forces of the Decembrists increased: to the Vasilkovsky council| |The Society of United Slavs joined the Southern Society. It originated in 1818| |g. as a secret political “Society of First Consent”, in 1823 | |transformed into the Society of United Slavs, the purpose of the organization was to create | | powerful republican democratic federation of Slavic peoples. | |In May 1821, the emperor became aware of the Decembrist conspiracy: he was informed about | |plans and composition of the Union of Welfare. But Alexander I limited himself to the words: “Do not | |I should execute them.” | |Uprising on December 14, 1825. Sudden death of Alexander I in Taganrog, | | which followed on November 19, 1825, changed the plans of the conspirators and forced them | |to perform ahead of schedule. | |Tsarevich Constantine was considered the heir to the throne. November 27 troops and | | the population was sworn in to Emperor Constantine I. Only on December 12 | | 1825 from Konstantin, who was in Warsaw, an official message about | |his abdication of the throne. A manifesto on the accession of the emperor immediately followed | | Nicholas I and a “re-oath” was scheduled for December 14, 1825. Interregnum | |caused discontent among the people and the army. The moment to realize your plans | |secret societies was extremely favorable. In addition, the Decembrists became | |it is known that the government received denunciations about their activities, and on December 13 | | Pestel was arrested. | |The coup plan was adopted during meetings of society members | |at Ryleev’s apartment in St. Petersburg. Decisive importance attached to success | | performances in the capital. At the same time, troops were supposed to move out in the south of the country,| |in the 2nd Army. One of the founders of the Union was elected dictator of the uprising | |salvation, S.P. Trubetskoy, Colonel of the Guard, famous and popular among | | soldier On the appointed day, it was decided to withdraw troops to Senate Square, | | prevent the oath of the Senate and the State Council to Nikolai Pavlovich and from them | | name to publish the “Manifesto to the Russian people”, proclaiming the abolition of | | serfdom, freedom of the press, conscience, occupation and movement, introduction | | universal conscription instead of conscription. Government | | declared deposed, and power passed to the Provisional Government until | | the adoption by the representative Great Council of decisions on the form of government in Russia. | |The royal family had to be arrested. Winter Palace and Petropavlovskaya | |the fortress was supposed to be captured with the help of troops, and Nicholas was killed. | |But it was not possible to carry out the planned plan. A. Yakubovich, who should have | |command the Guards naval crew and the Izmailovsky regiment during the capture | |Winter Palace and arrest the royal family, refused to carry out this task from | |fear of becoming the culprit of regicide. Moskovsky appeared on Senate Square | | Life Guards Regiment, later it was joined by sailors of the Guards | |crew and life grenadiers - in total about 3 thousand soldiers and 30 officers. Bye | | Nicholas l pulled troops to the square, Governor General M. A. Miloradovich | |turned to the rebels with a call to disperse and was mortally wounded by P. G. | |Kakhovsky. It soon became clear that Nikolai had already sworn in the members | | Senate and State Council. It was necessary to change the plan of the uprising, but | |S.P. Trubetskoy, who was called upon to lead the actions of the rebels, did not appear on the square.| |In the evening, the Decembrists elected a new dictator - Prince E. P. Obolensky, but | | time was lost. Nicholas I, after several unsuccessful cavalry attacks, gave | |order to fire grapeshot from cannons. 1271 people were killed, the majority | | victims - more than 900 - were among the sympathizers and | |curious. | |December 29, 1825 S.I. Muravyov-Apostol and M.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin succeeded | |raise the Chernigov regiment, stationed in the south, in the village of Trilesy. Against the rebels | |were sent government troops . January 3, 1826 Chernigov regiment | |was defeated. | |579 officers were involved in the investigation, which was led by Nicholas I himself, 280| | of them were found guilty. July 13, 1826 K. F. Ryleev, P. I. Pestel, S. I. | |Muravyov-Apostol, M.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin and P.G. Kakhovsky were hanged. | |The rest of the Decembrists were demoted, exiled to hard labor in Siberia and | |Caucasian regiments. Soldiers and sailors (2.5 thousand people) were tried separately. Part | | of them was sentenced to punishment with spitsrutens (178 people), 23 with sticks and | |with rods. Others were sent to the Caucasus and Siberia. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Social movements in Russia in the second quarter of the 19th century. | |In the first years of Nikolai Pavlovich's reign, his desire to restore order in | | government institutions, eradicate abuses and establish the rule of law | |instilled in society hopes for changes for the better. Nicholas I was even compared to | |Peter I. But the illusions were quickly dispelled. | |In the late 20s - early 30s. becomes the center of social ferment | |Moscow University. Among his students, circles arise in which | |plans are being developed for conducting anti-government agitation (the circle of the | |Critsky brothers), an armed uprising and the introduction of constitutional government (the circle | | N. P. Sungurov). A group of supporters of the republic and utopian socialism | |united around themselves in the early 30s. A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev. All these | |student societies did not exist for long; they were discovered and destroyed. | |At the same time, student at Moscow University V. G. Belinsky (1811-1848) | |organized the “Literary Society of Number 11” (by room number), in which | |discussed his drama “Dmitry Kalinin”, issues of philosophy and aesthetics. In 1832 | |g. Belinsky was expelled from the university “due to limited abilities” and | |due to “poor health”. | |The circle of N.V. Stankevich existed somewhat longer than others, also in | |Moscow University. He was distinguished by liberal political moderation. | |The circle members were interested in German philosophy, especially Hegel, history and | |literature. After Stankevich left for treatment abroad in 1837, the circle | |gradually disintegrated. Since the late 30s. liberal direction took shape | |ideological trends of Westernism and Slavophilism. | |Slavophiles.-. mainly thinkers and publicists (A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. and P.V. | |Kireevsky, I.S. and K.S. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin) idealized the pre-Petrine | |Rus, insisted on its originality, which they saw in the peasant | |community, alien to social hostility, and in Orthodoxy. These features, in their opinion, | | will ensure a peaceful path of social transformation in the country. Russia should have | |return to zemstvo cathedrals, but without serfdom. | |Westerners - mainly historians and writers (I.S. Turgenev, T.N. | |Granovsky, S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin) were supporters of | | European path of development and advocated a peaceful transition to parliamentary | |building. However, in the main, the positions of the Slavophiles and Westerners coincided: they | | advocated for political and social reforms from above, against | | revolutions. | |The radical movement was formed around the magazines “Sovremennik” and | |“Domestic Notes”, in which V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen and N. spoke. |A. Nekrasov. Supporters of this direction also believed that Russia would follow | | European path, but unlike the liberals, they believed that the revolutionary | | shocks are inevitable. | |Herzen, dissociating himself in the late 40s. from Westernism and having adopted a number of ideas | |Slavophiles, came to the idea of Russian socialism. He considered the community and the artel | | the basis of the future social order and assumed self-government in | |on a national scale and public ownership of land. | | P. Ya. became an independent figure in the ideological opposition to Nicholas’ rule | |Chaadaev (1794-1856). Graduate of Moscow University, participant of Borodino | |battles and “battles of nations” near Leipzig, a friend of the Decembrists and A.S. Pushkin, he | |in 1836 he published the first of his “Philosophical | |letters,” which, according to Herzen, “shocked all thinking Russia.” Chaadaev gave | |a very gloomy assessment of Russia's historical past and its role in the world | |history; he was extremely pessimistic about the possibilities of social progress | | in Russia. The main reason Russia's separation from the European historical tradition | |Chaadaev considered the abandonment of Catholicism in favor of the religion of slavery - Orthodoxy. | |The government regarded the “Letter” as an anti-government speech: magazine | | was closed, the publisher was sent into exile, the censor was fired, and Chaadaev was declared | |crazy and placed under police supervision. | |Significant place in the history of the social movement of the 40s. occupies society, | | developed around the utopian socialist M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky. Since 1845 | |g. Acquaintances gathered with him on Fridays to discuss philosophical, | |literary and socio-political issues. F.M. has been here | | Dostoevsky, A. N. Maikov, A. N. Pleshcheev, M. E. Saltykov, A. G. Rubinshtein, P. | |P. Semenov. Gradually, around the Petrashevsky circle in St. Petersburg, | | individual illegal groups of his supporters. By 1849, part of the Petrashevites, | | pinning their hopes on a peasant revolution, began to discuss plans for creating | |secret society, the purpose of which would be the overthrow of the autocracy and destruction | | serfdom. In April 1849, the most active members of the circle "were | |at the last moment it was announced to the condemned that the death penalty would be replaced by hard labor,| |prisoner companies and exile to the settlement. | |The period called by A.I. Herzen, “the era of excited mental interests,” | | ended. There was a reaction in Russia. A new revival came only in 1856 | |g. | |The peasant movement during the reign of Nicholas I was constantly growing: if during| | the second quarter of the century on average there were up to 43 performances per year, then in the 50s | |gg. their number reached 100. The main reason, as reported to King III | | secession in 1835, which caused cases of disobedience among the peasants, was “the thought of | |liberties.” The largest performances of this period were the so-called | |“Cholera riots.” In the fall of 1830, the uprising of Tambov peasants during | |the epidemic marked the beginning of unrest that engulfed entire provinces and continued | | until August 1831. In cities and villages there are huge crowds, fueled by rumors about | |deliberate infection, destroyed hospitals, killed doctors, police officers and | | officials. In the summer of 1831, during the cholera epidemic in St. Petersburg, daily | |up to 600 people died. The unrest that began in the city spread to | | Novgorod military settlements. State indignation was large | |peasants of the Urals in 1834-1835, caused by the intention of the government | |transfer them to the specific category. In the 40s mass unauthorized people began | | resettlement of serfs from 14 provinces to the Caucasus and other areas that | |The government barely managed to stop it with the help of troops. | |The unrest of the serf workers acquired significant proportions during these years. Of 108 | | labor unrest in the 30-50s. approximately 60% occurred among sessional | |workers. In 1849, more than half a century of struggle between Kazan cloth workers | | ended with their transfer from the sessional state to the civilian state. | | National liberation movements | |Polish uprising 1830-1831 Accession of Poland to the Russian Empire | |strengthened the opposition movement, which was led by the Polish nobility and the goal of | | which was the restoration of Polish statehood and the return of Poland to | |borders of 1772 Violations of the constitution of the Kingdom of Poland of 1815, arbitrariness | | Russian administration, the influence of the European revolutions of 1830 created in Dolshe | |explosive situation. November 17 (29) members of a secret society that united | |officers, students, intelligentsia, attacked the residence of the Grand Duke | |Constantine in Warsaw. Townspeople and soldiers joined the conspirators | | Polish army. The Provisional Government was formed, the creation of | | National Guard. On January 13 (25), the Sejm proclaimed the dethronization (removal from the Polish throne) of Nicholas I and elected a National Government headed by A.| |Czartoryski. This meant a declaration of war on Russia. - | |Soon a 120,000-strong Russian army entered the Kingdom of Poland under | | command of I. I. Dibich. Despite the numerical superiority of Russian troops | |(the Polish army numbered 50-60 thousand people), the war dragged on. Only 27 | |August (September 8) the Russian army under the command of I.F. Paskevich (he replaced | |Diebmcha, who died of cholera) entered Warsaw. The Constitution of 1815 was | |cancelled. According to the Organic Statute adopted in 1832, Poland became | |an integral part of Russia. | |Caucasian War. Ended in the 20s. XIX century joining Russia | |The Caucasus was brought to life by the separatist movement of the Muslim mountaineers of Chechnya, Gorny| |Dagestan and North-West Caucasus. It took place under the banner of Muridism | | (novitiates) and was headed by local clergy. Murids called on everyone | |Muslims to a holy war against the “infidels”. In 1834 Shamil became the imam (leader | |of the movement). On the territory of mountainous Dagestan and Chechnya, he created | |theocratic state - imamate, which had connections with Turkey and received | |military support from England. Shamil's popularity was enormous, he succeeded | |gather up to 20 thousand soldiers under your command. After significant successes in the 40s. | |Shamil, under pressure from Russian troops, was forced to surrender in 1859 in the village of Gunib. | |Then he was in honorable exile in Central Russia . In the North-West | |In the Caucasus, fighting was carried out by the tribes of the Circassians, Shapsugs, Ubykhs and | |Circassians, continued until the end of 1864, when the Kbaada tract was taken| |(Krasnaya Polyana). | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Social and political development of Russia in the second half of the 19th century. | | | |Peasant movement | | | |Peasant movement since the late 50s. fueled by constant rumors about | | impending release. If in 1851-1855. there were 287 peasants | | unrest, then in 1856-1859. - 1341. The deep disappointment of the peasants in | |the nature and content of the reform was expressed in massive refusals to implement | | duties and from signing “statutory charters”. Widespread among | |peasant rumors about the falsity of the “Regulations of February 19” and about the preparation | | government of “real will” by 1863 | |The greatest number of unrest occurred in March - July 1861, when there was | | registered disobedience of peasants on 1,176 estates. In 337 estates for | |military teams were used to pacify the peasants. The largest | |clashes occurred in the Penza and Kazan provinces. In the village of Bezdna, | |became the center of peasant settlements that covered three districts of Kazan | |province, troops killed 91 people and wounded 87. In 1862-1863. wave | |peasant protests have subsided noticeably. In 1864, open unrest among peasants | |were registered in only 75 estates. | |Since the mid-70s. the peasant movement is again beginning to gain strength under | | the influence of scarcity of land, the severity of payments and duties. The consequences also affected | |Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878, and in 1879-1880. poor harvest and shortage of food | | became the cause of famine. The number of peasant unrest grew mainly in | |central, eastern and southern provinces. Ferment among the peasants intensified | |rumors have arisen about an upcoming new redistribution of land. | |The largest number of peasant protests occurred in 1881-1884. | |The main reasons for unrest were the increase in the size of various duties and| |appropriation of peasant lands by landowners. Peasant sentiment has noticeably increased | | movement after the famine of 1891-1892, with peasants increasingly resorting to | | armed attacks on police and military detachments, to seizures of landowners | |property, collective forest felling. | |Meanwhile, in its agricultural policy the government tried to regulate | |peasant life to preserve its patriarchal way of life. After the abolition of serfdom | | law, the process of disintegration of the peasant family was rapidly progressing, the number of family | |sections. The 1886 law established the procedure for carrying out family division only with | |consent of the head of the family and 2/3 of the village assembly. But this measure only led to growth | |illegal divisions, because it was impossible to stop this natural process. | |In the same year, a law was passed on the hiring of agricultural workers, | | obliging the peasant to sign a contract to work with the landowner and | |providing for severe punishment for unauthorized departure from him. | |In its agricultural policy, the government attached great importance to the preservation of | |peasant community. The law adopted in 1893 prohibited the mortgage of allotments | |land, allowed their sale only to fellow villagers, and early redemption of peasants| | lands, provided for by the “Regulations of February 19, 1861,” allowed only with | | agreement of 2/3 of the meeting. In the same year, a law was passed whose purpose was | | eliminate some of the disadvantages of communal land use. Was limited | | the right of the community to redistribute the land, and the plots were assigned to the peasants. For | | redistribution from now on at least 2/3 of the assembly had to vote, and the interval between | |redistributions could not be less than 12 years. This created conditions for improvement | | quality of land cultivation, increasing productivity. The laws of 1893 strengthened | |positions of the wealthy peasantry made it difficult for the poorest to leave the community | |peasants and consolidated land shortages. For the sake of preserving the community, the government, | |despite the abundance of free land, the resettlement movement was held back. | | | | | |Liberal movement | |Liberal movement of the late 50s - early 60s. was the widest and had | |many different shades. But one way or another, the liberals advocated | | establishment by peaceful means of constitutional forms of government, for political and | |civil liberties and education of the people. Being supporters of legal forms, | |liberals acted through the press and the zemstvo. The first to outline the program | | Russian liberalism historians K.D., Kavelin and B: N. Chicherin, who in their | |“Letter to the Publisher” (1856) spoke in favor of reforming the existing order | |“from above” and proclaimed the “law of gradualism” as the main law of history. | |Widespread in the late 50s. received liberal notes and projects| | reforms, liberal development | |journalism. Tribune of liberal Westerners! ideas has become a new magazine | |“Russian Messenger” (1856-1862>,| founded by M. N. Katkov. | |The liberal Slavophile A.I. Koshelev published the magazines “Russian Conversation” I| and| |“Rural improvement”. In 1863, production of one of the | | the largest Russian newspapers - “Russian Vedomosti”, which became a liberal organ | |intelligentsia. Since 1866, the liberal historian M. M. Stasyulevich founded the magazine | |“Bulletin of Europe”. | |A peculiar phenomenon of Russian liberalism was the position of the Tver | |provincial nobility, which is still in the period of preparation and discussion | |peasant reform] came up with a constitutional project. And in 1862 | | Tver noble assembly recognized the unsatisfactory “Provisions 19 | |February”, the need for immediate redemption of peasant plots with the help of | |states. It spoke out for the abolition of estates, reform of the court, and management | | and finance. | |The liberal movement as a whole was much more moderate than the demands of the Tver | |nobility and focused on the introduction of a constitutional system in Russia as a| |distant perspective. | |Trying to go beyond local interests and associations, liberal figures | |carried out in the late 70s. several general zemstvo congresses, to which the government | | reacted rather neutrally. Only in 1880 leaders of liberalism S. A. Muromtsev, | |V.Yu. Skalon, A. A. Chuprov appealed to M. T. Loris-Melikov with a call to introduce | | constitutional principles. | |In the conditions of the political crisis at the turn of the 50s and 60s. intensified their | |activities of revolutionary democrats - the radical wing of the opposition. | |The magazine “Sovremennik” became the ideological center of this trend in 1859, | | which was led by N. G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889) and Y. A. Dobrolyubov | |(1836-1861). | |A. I. Herzen and N. G. Chernyshevsky in the early 60s. formulated the concept | |revolutionary populism (Russian socialism), combining social utopianism| | French socialists with the rebellious movement of the Russian peasantry. | |The intensification of peasant unrest during the period of the reform.G861 inspired | |radical figures hope for the possibility of a peasant revolution| | in Russia. Revolutionary democrats distributed leaflets and proclamations in | | which contained appeals to peasants, to students, soldiers, | | dissenters to prepare for the struggle (“To the Barsky peasants from their well-wishers | | bow”, “To the younger generation”, “Velikorus” and “Young Russia”). | |The agitation of the leaders of the democratic camp had a certain impact on | |development and expansion of the student movement. In Kazan in April 1861 | |there was a speech by students of the university and theological academy, who | |held a demonstrative memorial service for the peasants killed in the village of Bezdna Spassky | | district of Kazan province. In the fall of 1861, the student movement swept | |Petersburg, Moscow and Kazan, street demonstrations took place in both capitals | |students. The formal reason for the unrest was internal issues | |university life, but their political character manifested itself in the struggle against | | authorities. | |At the end of 1861 - beginning of 1862 by a group of revolutionaries-populists (N.A. | |Serno-Solovyevich, M.L. Mikhailov, N.N. Obruchev, A.A. Sleptsov, N.V. Shelgunov)| |the first conspiratorial revolutionary was created after the defeat of the Decembrists | |organization of all-Russian significance. Its inspirers were Herzen and | |Chernyshevsky. The organization was named “Land and Freedom”. She was studying | |distribution of illegal literature, led preparations for the uprising, | |appointed in 1863 | |In mid-1862, the government, with the support of liberals, launched | |broad repressive campaign against revolutionary democrats. “Contemporary” | | was closed (until 1863). Recognized leaders of radicals - N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. | |A. Serno-Solovyevich and D.I. Pisarev were arrested. Accused of compiling | | proclamation and preparation of anti-government speeches; Chernyshevsky was | | sentenced in February 1864 to 14 years of hard labor and permanent settlement in Siberia. | |Serno-Solovyevich was also exiled forever to Siberia and died there in 1866. Pisarev| |served four years in the Peter and Paul Fortress, was released under supervision | |police and soon drowned. | |After the arrest of their leaders and the failure of plans for an armed uprising, | |prepared by the branches of “Land and Freedom” in the Volga region, its Central People’s | | the committee in the spring of 1864 decided to suspend the activities of the organization. | |In the 60s. on the wave of rejection of the existing order among students| |the ideology of nihilism spread. Denying philosophy, art, morality, | | religion, nihilists called themselves materialists and preached “selfishness, | |based on reason.” | |At the same time, under the influence of socialist ideas, the novel by N. G. Chernyshevsky | |“What should I do?” (1862) artels, workshops, and communes arose, hoping to | | development of collective labor to prepare the socialist transformation | |society. Having failed, they disintegrated or went illegal | |activities. | |In the fall of 1863 in Moscow, under the influence of “Land and Freedom,” a circle arose under | |led by commoner N.A. Ishutin, who by 1865 had become quite| |a large underground organization that had a branch in St. Petersburg (headed by I.A. | |Khudyakov). On April 4, 1866, Ishutin resident D.V. Karakozov committed an unfortunate act | |attempt on Alexander II. The entire Ishutin organization was destroyed, | |Karakozov hanged, nine members of the organization, including Ishutin and Khudyakov, | | sent to hard labor. The magazines “Sovremennik” and “Russkoe Slovo” were closed. | |In 1871, Russian society was outraged by the murder of student Ivanov, a member of | |radical underground organization “People's Retribution”. He was killed for | | disobedience to the head of the organization S. G. Nechaev. Nechaev built his | |“Massacre” on the basis of personal dictatorship and the justification of any means in the name of | | revolutionary goals. The era of political | |processes (more than 80 in total) that became an integral part of public life before | |early 80s | |In the 70s Several similar trends of utopian socialism have emerged, | |referred to as “populism”. The populists believed that thanks to | |peasant community (“cell of socialism”) and the qualities of a peasant community member | |(“revolutionary by instinct”, “born communist”) Russia will be able to directly | |go. to the socialist system. The views of the theorists of populism (M. A. | | Bakunin, P. L. Lavrov, N. K. Mikhailovsky, P. N. Tkachev) differed on issues | |tactics, but they all saw the main obstacle to socialism in the state| | authorities believed that the secret organization, the revolutionary leaders should raise | | people to revolt and lead them to victory. | |At the turn of the 60-70s. Numerous populist circles arose. Among them | | the society of “Chaikovites” stood out (N.V. Tchaikovsky, A.I. Zhelyabov, P.A. | |Kropotkin, S.L. Perovskaya and others). Members of the society carried out propaganda among | |peasants and workers, and then led the “going to the people.” | |In the spring of 1874, thousands of participants in populist organizations went to | | villages. Most of them aimed at speedy preparation | |peasant uprising. They held meetings, talked about the oppression of the people, | |called to "not obey the authorities." The "walking among the people" continued for | response, peasants often betrayed propagandists to the authorities. Government | | hit the populists with a new wave of repression, and in October 1877 - January 1878 | |g. The trial of the populists took place (“the trial of the 193s”). | |At the end of 187.6, a new, centralized all-Russian organization emerged | |populists “Land and Freedom”. Kekspirative-. center (L. G. Deich, V. I. Zasulich, | | S. M, Kravchinsky, A. D. Mikhailov, M. A. Nathanson, S. L. Perovskaya, G. V. | | Plekhanov, V. N. Figner) led the activities of individual groups of “Land and Freedom” | |in no less than 15 major cities of the country. Soon the organization had two | |currents: some were inclined to continue propaganda work, others believed | |the only means of bringing the revolution closer is terrorist activity. B | |August 1879 the final collapse occurred. Propaganda supporters | |united into the “Black Redistribution”, adherents of terror into the “People's Will”. | |“Black redistribution”, which united circles in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities, | | existed until 1881. By this time, all its members had either emigrated | |(Plekhanov, Zasulich, Deitch), either moved away from the revolutionary movement or switched | |to “People's Will”. | |“People's Will” united circles of students, workers, and officers. In strictly | |conspiracy leadership included A.I. Zhelyabov, A.I. | |Barannikov, | |A.A. Kvyatkovsky, N. N. Kolodkevich, A. D. Mikhailov, N. A. Morozov, S. L. | |Perovskaya, V.N. Figner, M.F. Frolenko. In 1879, the Narodnaya Volya, hoping | |cause a political crisis and raise the people, committed a number of terrorist | |acts. Death sentence to Alexander II Executive Committee “People's | |will”, issued in August 1879. After several unsuccessful attempts on March 1| | 1881 in St. Petersburg, Alexander II was mortally wounded by a bomb thrown | | Narodnaya Volya I. I. Grinevitsky. | |The social movement during the reign of Alexander III experienced a decline. 3 | | conditions of government persecution and repression against dissent are great | |influence was gained by the editor of “Moskovskie Vedomosti” and “Russian Vestnik” M. N. | |Katkov. He is in the 40-50s. was close to moderate liberals, and in the 60s he became an ardent | | adherent of the protective direction. Fully sharing political ideals| |Alexandra III, Katkov in the 80s. reaches the zenith of its fame and political | |power, becoming the ideological inspirer of the new government course. Speaker| | the editor of the magazine “Citizen”, Prince V.P., was also of the official direction | |Meshchersky. Alexander III patronized Meshchersky, providing unspoken | |financial support for his magazine. | |The inability to resist the protective policy of the autocracy manifested itself | |weakness of the liberal movement. After March 1, 1881, liberal leaders in | |address to Alexander III condemned the terrorist activities of the revolutionaries and | |expressed hope for “the completion of the great work of state renewal.” | |Despite the fact that the hope was not justified and the government went on the offensive| |on the liberal press and on the rights of zemstvo institutions, the liberal movement is not | | turned into opposition. However, in the 90s. gradual | | disengagement within the Zemstvo-liberal movement. Democratic forces are strengthening | | mood among zemstvo doctors, teachers, statisticians. This led to | | constant conflicts between zemstvos and local administration. | | Social movement | |Democratization of the public education system, the emergence of a large number of | |specialists with higher education of nobles and commoners significantly | | expanded the circle of the intelligentsia. Russian intelligentsia is a unique phenomenon | |social life of Russia, the emergence of which can be attributed to the 30-40s. XIX| |c. This is a small layer of society, closely associated with social groups, | |professionally engaged in mental work (intellectuals), but not merging| |with them. The distinctive features of the intelligentsia were high ideology and | |principled focus on active opposition to traditional | |state principles, based on a rather peculiar perception | | Western ideas. As N.A. Berdyaev noted, “what was scientific in the West | | theory subject to criticism by hypothesis or, in any case | |case, relative truth, partial, not claiming universality, | | Russian intellectuals turned into dogmatism, into something like religious | |inspiration.” In this environment, various directions of social | |thoughts. | |In the second half of the 50s. glasnost became the first manifestation of the “thaw”, | | which came shortly after the accession of Alexander II. It was closed on December 3, 1855 | |Higher Censorship Committee, censorship rules have been weakened. Widespread | |received in Russia publications of the “Free Russian Printing House” created by A. I. Herzen| |in London. In July 1855, the first issue of the collection “Polar Star” was published, | |named by Herzen in memory of the almanac of the Decembrists Ryleev and | |Bestuzhev. In July 1857, Herzen, together with N.P. Ogarev, began publishing | |review newspaper “Bell” (1857-1867), which, despite the official | | ban, large quantities were illegally imported into Russia and had a huge | |success. This was greatly facilitated by the relevance of published materials and | |literary skill of their authors. In 1858, historian B. N. Chicherin stated | |To Herzen: “You are strength, you are power in the Russian state.” Proclaiming an idea | | liberation of the peasantry, A. I. Herzen stated: “Will this liberation | |“from above” or “from below” - we will be for him,” which caused criticism from both liberals, | | and revolutionary democrats. | |Polish uprising of 1863 | |In 1860-1861 a wave of mass protests swept across the entire Kingdom of Poland | | demonstrations in memory of the anniversary of the 1830 uprising, one of the largest | |became a demonstration in Warsaw in February 1861, to disperse which | | the government used troops. Martial law was introduced in Poland, | |mass arrests were carried out. At the same time, certain concessions were made: | |the State Council was restored, the university in Warsaw was reopened, etc. p. | |In this situation, secret youth circles arose, calling on the urban strata| | population to an armed uprising. Polish society was divided into two | |party. Supporters of the uprising were called “Reds”. “White” - | | landowners and big bourgeoisie - hoped to achieve restoration | | independent Poland through diplomatic means. | |In the first half of 1862, the circles were united into a single rebel | |organization headed by the Central National Committee - conspiratorial | | center for the preparation of the uprising (Ya; Dombrovsky, 3. Padlevsky, S. Serakovsky and | | others). The program of the Central Committee included the liquidation of estates, the transfer | | peasants of the land they cultivate, the restoration of independent Poland in | |borders of 1772 with the provision of rights to the population of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine | |decide your own destiny. | | The uprising in Poland broke out on January 22, 1863. The immediate cause | |was the decision of the authorities to hold in mid-January 18b3 in Polish | |cities and towns, according to pre-prepared lists of recruitment of persons, | | suspected of revolutionary activities. Central Committee of the Reds | |decided to set out immediately. Military operations developed | |spontaneously. The “whites” who soon came to lead the uprising relied on | | support of Western European powers. Despite the note from England and France with | |demand to stop the bloodshed in Poland, suppression of the uprising | |continued. Prussia supported Russia. Russian troops under command | | General F. F. Berg entered the fight against rebel troops in Poland. B | |Lithuania and Belarus troops were led by the Vilna Governor-General M.N. | |Muravyov (“The Hangman”). | |Alexander II on March 1 abolished the temporary obligations of peasants and reduced them by | |2.0% dues in Lithuania, Belarus and Western Ukraine. Taking as a basis | |agrarian decrees of the Polish rebels, the government during hostilities | | announced land reform. Having lost the support of the peasantry as a result, | |The Polish uprising suffered a final defeat by the autumn of 1864. | |Labor movement | | | |Labor movement of the 60s. was not significant. Cases of passive | |resistance and protest - filing complaints or simply fleeing factories. Because of | |feudal traditions and the lack of special labor legislation | |a strict regime of exploitation of hired labor was established. Over time, workers all | | strikes began to be organized more often, especially at large enterprises. Regular | |the demand was to reduce fines, increase wages, improvement | | working conditions. Since the 70s The labor movement is gradually growing. Along with | |unrest not accompanied by a cessation of work, collective filings | | complaints, etc., the number of strikes covering large industrial | |enterprises: 1870 - Nevsky paper spinning mill in St. Petersburg, 1871-1872| |gg. - Putilovsky, Semyannikovsky and Aleksandrovsky factories; 1878-1879 - | |New paper spinning mill and a number of other enterprises in St. Petersburg. Strikes were suppressed | |sometimes with the help of troops, workers were put on trial. | |Unlike the peasant labor movement, it was more organized. Noticeable| |the activities of the populists played a role in the creation of the first workers' circles. Already in | |1875 under the leadership of former student E. O. Zaslavsky, | |“South Russian Union of Workers” (destroyed by the authorities at the end of the same year). Under | | under the influence of St. Petersburg strikes and unrest, the “Northern Union of Russians” took shape | |workers” (1878-1880) led by V.P. Obnorsky and S.N. Khalturin. Unions led | | propaganda among the workers and set as their goal a revolutionary struggle “with | |the existing political and economic system” and the establishment of | |socialist relations. “Northern Union” actively collaborated with “Zemlya-i | |by will.” After the arrest of the leaders, the organization disintegrated. | |Industrial crisis of the early 80s. and the depression that replaced it gave rise to a massive | |unemployment and poverty. Business owners widely practiced mass | | layoffs, lower prices for work, increased fines, worsened | | working and living conditions of workers. Widely used cheap women's and children's | | labor There were no restrictions on the length of the working day. Occupational safety | | was absent, which entailed an increase in accidents. At the same time not | |there were no benefits for injuries, no insurance for workers. | |In the first half of the 80s. government trying to prevent surge | | conflicts, took on the role of mediator between hired workers and | |entrepreneurs. First of all, the most malicious ones were eliminated by law. |forms of exploitation. On June 1, 1882, the use of labor was limited | | minors, and to supervise the implementation of this law, a factory | |inspection. In 1884, a law appeared on schooling children working on | | factories. On June 3, 1885, the law “On the Prohibition of Night Work | |minors and women in factories and manufactories.” | |Economic strikes and labor unrest in the early 80s. generally did not go beyond | | framework of individual enterprises. An important role in the development of the mass labor movement| |strike took place at Morozov's Nikolskaya manufactory (Orekhov-Zuyevo) in January 1885| |g. About 8 thousand people took part in it. The strike was in advance | |organized. The workers presented demands not only to the owner of the enterprise | |(changes in the system of fines, dismissal procedures, etc.), but also for the government | |(introduction of state control over the situation of workers, adoption of | |legislation on conditions of employment). The government took measures to stop | |strikes (more than 600 people were deported to their homeland, 33 were put on trial) and | | at the same time put pressure on the owners of the manufactory, seeking | |meeting individual work requirements and preventing future ones | |unrest. | |The trial of the leaders of the Morozov strike took place in May 1886 and revealed the facts | | gross arbitrariness of the administration. The workers were acquitted by a jury. Under| | under the influence of the Morozov strike, the government adopted the law “On | |supervision of industrial establishments and mutual relations | |manufacturers and workers.” The law partially regulated the hiring procedure and | |dismissal of workers, somewhat streamlined the system of fines, established measures | | punishments for participation in strikes. The rights and responsibilities of the factory were expanded | | inspections and provincial presences were created for factory affairs. Echo | |Morozov strike was a strike wave at industrial enterprises | |Moscow and Vladimir provinces, St. Petersburg, Donbass. | | | |Revolutionary movement in the 80s - early 90s. | |Revolutionary movement in the 80s - early 90s. characterized primarily by | |decline of populism and the spread of Marxism in Russia. Disconnected groups| | Narodnaya Volya continued to operate even after the defeat of the Executive Committee | |“Narodnaya Volya” in 1884, defending individual terror as a means of struggle.| |But even these groups included social democratic ideas in their programs. So| |there was, for example, a circle of P. Ya. Shevyrev - A. I. Ulyanov / who organized March 1 | |1887 unsuccessful assassination attempt on Alexander III. 15 members of the circle were arrested | |and put on trial. Five, including A. Ulyanov, were sentenced to death. | |The idea of a bloc with the liberals is becoming increasingly popular among the populists, | |refusal of the revolutionary struggle. Disappointment with populism and learning from experience | |European social democracy led some revolutionaries to Marxism. | |September 25, 1883, former members of the “Black Redistribution” who emigrated to Switzerland| |(P. B. Axelrod, G. V. Plekhanov, L. G. Deich, V. I. Zasulich, V. I. Ignatov), | |created the Social Democratic group “Emancipation of Labor” in Geneva and | |September of the same year announced the start of publication of the “Library of Modern | |socialism.” The Liberation of Labor group laid the foundations of the Russian | | social democratic movement. Large role in the spread of Marxism | |the activities of G.V. Plekhanov (1856-1918) played a role among the revolutionaries. In 1882 | |g. he translated the “Manifesto” into Russian Communist Party" In their | |works “Socialism and Political Struggle” (1883) and “Our Disagreements” (1885) G.| |V. Plekhanov criticized the views of the populists and denied Russia's readiness for | |socialist revolution and called for the creation of a social democratic party,| | preparation of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the creation of | | socio-economic prerequisites of socialism. | |Since the mid-80s. the first social democratic circles emerge in Russia | |students and workers: “Party of Russian Social Democrats” by D.N. Blagoev (1883- | |1887), “Association of St. Petersburg Craftsmen” by P.V. Tochissky | |(1885-1888), group of N. E. Fedoseev in Kazan (1888-1889), | | “Social Democratic Society” by M. I. Brusnev (1889-1892). | |At the turn of the 80-90s. social democratic groups existed in Kyiv, | |Kharkov, Odessa, Minsk, Tula, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Vilna, Rostov-on-Don, | | Tiflis and other cities. |
To add a page "Social movements in Russia in the 19th century" to favorites click Ctrl+D
