The defeat of the Decembrists and the strengthening of police-repressive policies of the government did not lead to a decline in social movement. On the contrary, it even more revived. Various Petersburg and Moscow salons (home assembly of like-minded people), circles of officers and officials, higher educational institutions (first of all are in the first place. Moscow University), Literary magazines: "Moskvatik", "Journal of Europe", "Patriotic Notes", "Contemporary" and others. In the public movement of the second quarter of the XIX century. It began to disperse three ideological directions: radical, liberal and conservative. In contrast to the previous period, the activities of conservatives who defended the system existed in Russia were activated.
Conservative direction. Conservatism in Russia relied on the theory, proving the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom.
The idea of \u200b\u200bthe need for autocracy as a kind of political power inherent inherent in Russia, its roots leaves during the strengthening of the Russian state. For an ideological justification of the autocracy Minister of Folk Enlightenment Count S.S. Uvarov created the theory of official nationality. It was founded on three principles: autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nature. The serfdom was considered as a good for the people and the state. Orthodoxy was understood as the deep religiosity and commitment to orthodox Christianity inherent in the Russian people. From these postulates were concluded about the impossibility and impossibility of indigenous social changes in Russia, the need to strengthen autocracy and serfdom.
Liberal direction. At the turn of the 30-40s of the XIX century. Among the opposition government of Liberals, two ideological flows were developed - Slavophilism and Westernism.
Panayev, V.F. Korsh et al. Representatives of these flows united the desire to see Russia prosperous and mighty in the circle of all European powers. To do this, they considered it necessary to change its socio-political system, to establish a constitutional monarchy, soften and even cancel the serfdom, put the peasants with small launches of the Earth, introduce freedom of speech and conscience. Fearing revolutionary shocks, they believed that the government itself should carry out the necessary reforms.
At the same time, there were significant differences in the views of Slavophiles and Westerners. Slavophiles exaggerated the national identity of Russia. Idealizing the history of Doparyrovskaya Rus, they insisted on returning to those orders when the Zemskie Cathedrals came to power the opinion of the people, when there were patriarchal relations between landowners and peasants. One of the fundamental ideas of Slavophils was that Orthodoxy is the only true and deep moral religion. In their opinion, the Russian people inherent in the special spirit of collectivism, unlike Western Europe, where individualism reigns. They explained the special way historical Development Russia. The struggle of Slavophiles against low-planness in front of the West, the study of the history of the people and the people's life was a big positive value For the development of Russian culture.
Westerners proceeded from the fact that Russia should develop in line with European civilization. They sharply criticized the Slavophiles for opposing Russia and the West, explaining her difference in historically established retardation. The denying special role of the peasant community, Westerners believed that the government was imposed on its people for the convenience of managing and collecting taxes. They advocated a wide enlightenment of the people, believing that this is the only true way for the success of the modernization of the socio-political system of Russia. Their criticism of serfdom and call for change internal politicians Also contributed to the development of socio-political thought.
Radical direction. In the second half of the 20s - the first half of the 30s, small mugs appeared in Moscow and in the provinces were characterized by the characteristic organizational form of the anti-government movement, where the police supervision and espionage were established. Their members shared the ideology of the Decembrists and condemned violence with them. At the same time, they tried to overcome the mistakes of their predecessors, distributed winsted verses, criticized government policies. The works of the Decembrists poets acquired wide fame. All Russia read out the famous message to Siberia A.S. Pushkin and the answer to the Decembrists. Student Moscow University A.I. Polezhaev for the freedom-loving poem "Sasha" was excluded from the university and given to the soldiers.
Petrashevtsy. The revival of the social movement in the 40s was expressed in the creation of new circles. By name of the head of one of them - M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky - his participants were named Petrashev. The circle included officials, officers, teachers, writers, publicists and translators (F.M. Dostoevsky, M.E. Saltykovchenin, A.N. Mikov, A.N. Plescheev, etc.).
M.V. Petrashevsky on the pays created with his friends the first collective library, which consisted mainly from the compositions of humanitarian sciences. Not only St. Petersburgers, but also residents of provincial cities could use books. To discuss the problems associated with the internal and foreign Policy Russia, as well as literature, history and philosophy, members of the circle organized their meetings - famous in St. Petersburg "Friday". For the wide propaganda of their views Petrashevtsy in 1845-1846. Attached in the publication of the "Pocket Dictionary of Foreign Words, which included in the Russian language." In it, they set out the essence of European socialist exercises, especially S. Fourier, who had a great influence on the formation of their worldview. Petrashevtsy strongly condemned autocracy and serfdom. In the republic, they saw the ideal of a political structure and planned a program of broad democratic transformations. In 1848
Circle M.V. Petrashevsky was disclosed by the Government in April 1849, more than 120 people were attracted to the investigation. The Commission qualified their activities as a "plot of ideas". Despite this, the participants of the mug were cruelly punished. The Military Court sentenced 21 people to the death penalty, but at the last minute the shooting was replaced by a permanent carriage. (The execution of the execution is very expressively described by F.M. Dostoevsky in the novel "Idiot".) Activity Mug M.V. Petrashevsky marked the beginning of the spread of socialist ideas in Russia.
A.I. Herzen and the theory of community socialism. Further development Socialist ideas in Russia associated with the name A.I. Herzen. He and his friend N.P. Ogarev also gave the boys to the oath to fight for the best future of the people. For participation in the student circle and singing songs with "vile and malicious" expressions to the king, they were arrested and sent to the link. In the 30-40s, A.I. Herzen was engaged in literary activities. His works contained the idea of \u200b\u200bthe struggle for the freedom of personality, protest against violence and arbitrariness. Realizing that in Russia it is impossible to use freedom of speech, A.I. Herzen in 1847 left abroad. In London, he founded the "free Russian printing house" (1853), released 8 books of the Collection "Polar Star", on the title of which put the thumbnail from 5 executed Decembrists, organized together with N.P. Ogarem edition of the first unemployed newspaper "Bell" (1857-1867). Subsequent generations of revolutionaries saw a huge merit of A.I. Herzen in creating a free Russian press abroad.
In the youth of A.I. Herzen shared many ideas of Westerners, recognized the unity of the historical development of Russia and Western Europe. However, a close acquaintance with European orders, disappointment in the results of revolutions 1848-1849. convinced him that historical experience West does not fit the Russian people. In this regard, he started looking for a fundamentally new, just social device and created the theory of community socialism. The ideal of social development A.I. Herzen saw in socialism at which there will be no private property and operation. In his opinion, the Russian peasant is deprived of private-operated instincts, accustomed to public ownership of land and its periodic redistribution. In the peasant community A.I. Herzen saw the finished cell of a sopialistic building. So he concluded that the Russian peasant is quite 253 TOV to socialism and that in Russia there is no social foundation For the development of capitalism. The question of the ways of transition to socialism was decided by A.I. Herger contradictory. In some works, he wrote about the possibility of the People's Revolution, in others - condemned the violent methods of change state building. Theory of Community Socialism, developed by A.I. Herzenom, in many respects served as ideological foundation of the activities of radicals of the 60s and revolutionary populists of the 70s of the XIX century.
In general, the second quarter of the XIX century. There was a time of "outdoor slavery" and "internal liberation". Some were silent, frightened by government repressions. Others - insisted on the preservation of autocracy and serfdom. Third, they were actively looking for ways to update the country, the improvement of its socio-political system. The main ideas and directions that have developed in the socio-political movement of the first halves XIX. in., With minor changes continued to develop in the second half of the century.
Public and liberalism
The revolution of 1905-1907 completely changed the context of Russian politics. The intelligentsia and the public, whose previously there were only timid and artificially created contacts with few peasants and workers, suddenly turned out to be abandoned into mass policies. Within a few short months they had to create political parties, to draw up programs and represent them to the population, even less familiar to politics than themselves.
The decisive change came with the manifesto on October 17, 1905, which the king guaranteed a wide range of civil rights and announced the establishment of the Legislative Assembly, the State Duma, elected on a mass basis, including workers, peasants and non-Russian peoples. It was the celebration of most political activists of the public, which have long called for committing a self-adjustment.
The birth of a liberal movement was referred to the beginning of the 1890s and was associated with a surge of public opinion due to the reaction to hunger 1891-1892. The picture of the universal poverty and incompetence of the authorities first pushed many young representatives of the intelligentsia to offer their services to ensure starving food and treatment of diseases, and then to attempt to at least change something under conditions that caused such disaster. The natural isna for this kind of activity was the land that was responsible for the economic aspects of local life. Another autonomous scientific associations like the Moscow Society of Law and St. Petersburg Free Economic Society with its branches, St. Petersburg Committee of Literacy.
In 1890, the advisory meetings of professional associations took an increasingly pronounced political color. Most delegates were disturbed by barriers that separated peasants from the rest of society: administrative isolation at the volost level, the head of the Zemsky chiefs, the stigma of corporal punishment. Many have called for the introduction of universal primary education. Zemstvo also tried to combine their activities. In 1896, D. N. Shipov, Chairman of the Moscow Gubernskaya Zemskaya Government, during the Nizhny Novgorod Fair convened a meeting of colleagues to discuss problems, but when he tried to repeat this for the next year, the police did not give permission.
However, real unrest, as always, began at universities. In February 1899, students of St. Petersburg University refused to mention the traditional anniversary. Students ignored the ban, stating that they have "rights", and encountered a collision with a police that dispersed them by force. Students declared a protest strike and sent emissaries to other universities: after a few days, Moscow and Kiev students also boycotted lectures, urging to commit sufficient discipline and police cruelty. The authorities arrested the leaders of the strikers, but later, when the rest returned to classes, they were released.
The entire incident is typical for those intense relations that existed between the authorities and students. As Richard Pipes noted, "the government perceived the harmless manifestation of the youthful spirit as an act of rebellion. In response, radical intellectuals elevated the complaints of students for improper treatment by the police into the rank of complete denial of the "System".
As it turned out in the following years, it was just the beginning of chronic unrest in higher educational institutions.
The discontent increased both in the zemstvo, although not so violently expressed. In the first years of the 20th century, faced with the complete osnosis of the authorities, representatives of the "third class" in private conversations began to discuss the creation of illegal political movements capable of carrying out changes. In 1901, the liberal newspaper "Liberation" came out in Stuttgart, and the editor was the former Marxist P. V. Struve (he wrote the first program of the Social Democratic Party). For the next year, in Switzerland, twenty representatives of zemstvo and radical intelligentsia formed the "Union of Liberation", which aims to eliminate the autocracy and establishing a constitutional monarchy with parliament, elected on the basis of universal, direct, equal and secret ballot.
Following the failures in the Russian-Japanese war, the Soyuz began a more open campaign within Russia, spreading his newspaper and conducting "liberal banquets", on which opposition speeches sounded and money was collected for a common cause. On some of the banquets, the requirements of the convening of the Constituent Assembly, the requirements are more radical, as they left open questionwhether Russia is a monarchy or republic.
Although the "Union of Liberation" remained a liberal movement and opposed violence as a means of changing the regime, the conditions in which they had to act, the volley-noilies brought him closer to the revolutionary socialist parties. In October 1904, "Soyuz" in Paris held consultations with such parties. All those present agreed to act together in the name of common goals, at this stage in the elimination of self-adjusting and establishing a democratically elected legislative assembly responsible for the purpose of the government.
Thus, the liberals were in some rows with revolutionary, the public - with workers and peasants, and moderate - with terrorists. Inspection mixing of political views and methods continued most 1905. With all his differences, everyone converged on the fact that the priority task is to get rid of autocracy. Zemstvo activists began to demand a democratically elected parliament, then - the truth is not all - the Constituent Assembly, together with the releases, proclaiming the slogan "There is no enemies!". The Union Union, established in May 1905 to unite political campaigns of trade unions, was an example of this polymorphism. It was mostly part of the Association of Creative Professions, as well as one working union and two small groups of activists. Among his members were professors, school teachers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, journalists, pharmacists, veterinarians, accountants, railroad workers and Zemskie, "Association for Women's Equality" and "Association for Equality of Jews".
Circumstances accompanying the creation of the Union of Unions, gave the Russian liberal movement radicalism and even revolutionary, which painted the subsequent political activities and prevented by the achievement of fruitful working relations even with the reformist government configured to cooperate with the Duma. Subsequently, this trend has become even more strengthened as a result of elections to the first Duma, during which the liberal electorate showed its radical nature.
The bannames of Russian liberalism was the Constitutional Democratic Party, established in October 1905 under the leadership of Professor of the Russian History of Moscow University of P. N. Milyukov. The heavy title reflected the fact that the tone was asked by professors and lawyers, but soon it was reduced to the "Cadets". From the very beginning it was a real party, with a network of offices in the provinces where its members led the campaign work among the population, and regularly conducted congresses that determined the policy of the organization. Despite this, the cadets were never formally legalized by the regime, because they refused to condemn revolutionary terrorism.
At the first two congresses, the new party rejected the October Manifesta as insufficient and called for the establishment of a genuine "constitutional and parliamentary monarchy", based on universal electoral law. The program included forced alienation of landlord land (with compensation) and emphasis of peasants suffering from landlessness; replacement of indirect taxes by progressive income; warranty of civil rights; the introduction of universal free and mandatory primary education; Establishment of an eight-hour working day and insurance for workers; as well as self-determination for all the peoples of the Empire.
Almost no experience of political responsibility, the public in his views was always inclined to radicalism. Nevertheless, among landowners and trade bourgeoisie, a significant minority found the cadet program of the Bunlet and directed rather to undermining social order than on its preservation. These more conservative liberals founded the Union on October 17, which A. I. Guccov became the leader, the Moscow entrepreneur from the family of the Old Believers. Octobrists shared many cadet glances, but considered themselves moderate reformers and the main emphasis did to strengthen the state and private property. As applied from the name, the Octobrists did not claim the role of the political party and looked at themselves as a union of political groups united by common problems. Unlike the Cadets, they rejected and condemned revolutionary terrorism and took the political order provided for by the October Manifesto, counteracted the requirements of forced alienation of landlord land and advocated the conservation of the unity of the empire even to the detriment of the interests of ethnic groups.
With all the incompatibility of political opinions, in general, the public converged that after the October Manifesta, further attempts to the violent overthrow of the government are unjustified and should not be supported. Thus, the regime was able to achieve its goal and split opponents. Most workers and peasants and, of course, the socialist parties remained unsatisfied concessions who made the government, and were ready to continue violence. Even liberals and peace-loving cadet party did not find the forces to condemn it violence: feeling pressure from below, the cadets could not refuse the slogan "There are no enemies!".
Let's start with the allocation of the main generic features of revolutionary-democratic radicalism. We refer to them: 1) a leadout of the people's masses of the main, decisive role in the revolutionary transformation of society; 2) the priority of revolutionary values \u200b\u200bover state; 3) negative attitude to authoritarianism, dictatorial methods in public and party life; 4) the admission of political terror as an extreme measure with the electoral, individual orientation; 5) truncated liberalism, i.e. Partial recognition of the intrinsication of legal and humanistic principles, the assumption of the possibility of the reformist path in the implementation of radical social transformations.
The most prominent representatives of revolutionary-democratic radicalism, in our opinion, should be attributed to A.I. Herzen, V.G. Belinsky, N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubova, P.L. Lavrova, MA Bakunina, N.K. Mikhailovsky, P.A. Kropotkin. In the XX century This line continued the esters, anarchists and the right Social Democrats-Mensheviks.
Revolutionary-democratic radicalism as a course of social thought began to be issued in an independent ideological direction in the 30-40s. XIX century His appearance is connected with the penetration of Western socialist ideas into Russia and the emergence of intellectual need to adapt them to Russian reality.
Initially, the issues of socialist theory climbed into disputes of Westerners and Slavophiles and sounded in the context of the acute problem of choosing Russia of their historical path. Serious disagreements in relation to this problem led to ideological-political split inside the Russian opposition intelligentsia, as a result of which two camp opposing each other were formed - revolutionary-democratic and liberal.
Representatives of the first stood on the socialist and radical and revolutionarist positions, and the second on the bourgeois reformist.
From this time, a long period of confrontation of revolutionary and liberal directions in political and intellectual Russian jubia has occurred . At all its length, revolutionary democracy in the person of various representatives either completely ruined all relations with the liberal intelligentsia, or at certain moments was ready to partially divide her views and go to the Union with her (Herzen, Lavrov, Mikhailovsky, Plekhanov, etc.).
But what ideological turns did not occur in the history of revolutionary-democratic radicalism, always the idea of \u200b\u200bdemocratic socialism remained unchanged conceptual core.
Political and theoretical coloring of this idea could be different. She was checked in the natives ("peasant", "community") of socialism, it was connected with the social democratic concepts of Menshevism, oriented towards Western democracy.
The development of this idea led to the formulation of a complex problem - the compounds of the principles of democracy and socialism in the conditions of backward Russia.
Another problem that has become central for revolutionary Russian democracy was the question of the relationship of revolutionary-violentime reformist methods in the implementation of a social coup.
In contrast to the radicals of the Jacobinsky sense, which established the priority of violent methods, revolutionary-democratic radicals were ambiguous to solve this problem. At the same time, the position of the liberals, condemned any revolutionary violence, was very critical of revolutionary democrats, which often seen even the features of reaction.
In a number of main problems of revolutionary democracy, the place and role of the intelligentsia in the socialist revolution. This problem included the following aspects: 1) the objectives of the intelligentsia in the pre-revolutionary period and its role in the preparation of a political coup; 2) the tasks of the intelligentsia to ensure genuine democracy and freedom of personality in the course of revolutionary transformations; 3) the tasks of forming a new culture and a new person.
These issues in the environment of revolutionary democracy caused sharp discussions. This was half atemized Herzen, Bakunin Ilavrov, People and "Starley".
Let us consider in more detail the concept of some major representatives of the revolutionary-democratic direction of Russian radicalism.
Alexander Herzenunder the influence of Slavophiles and P. Haaadayev deeply penetrating the idea of \u200b\u200ba special path of development of Russia. Studying the revolutionary experience of Western Europe, Herzen strengthened in the thoughts that Europe in relation to such problems as the state and personality, power and freedom, communism and selfishness (in the broad sense of the word), "proposes a decision flawed and abstract."
The experience of all bourgeois republics, in his opinion, showed that they never embodied the sovereignty of the people, did not lead to genuine liberation, personality. "All revolutions failed in Europe because they did not touch the field nor the workshop, nor even family relations and were shot down from the road by mesh."
At the same time, Herzen believed that Europe's experience is very useful for Russia, because it can warn with possible political and theoretical errors and, moreover, enrich the revolutionary Russian idea with new knowledge that stimulates the search for other ways to the democratic device of society.
In Russia, according to Herzen, there is an important advantage over the West, because history gives it a chance to take advantage of European experience and thereby avoid the narrowness of bourgeois democracy. In one of the appeals to its European colleagues, he wrote: "We go to meet you in the future coup, we do not need to go through those fonds that you have passed ... Your efforts, your efforts - for us to teach. The story is very unfair, it is later coming, she gives no greatesties, but seniority of experience. "
The alternative to the "Meshchanskaya" of the civilization of the West Herzen saw in Russian socialism, to which Russia may come if I mobilizes all your national-cultural and intellectual potential. This potential of Herzen found not only in the peasant community carrier, in his opinion, the germ of the future socialist device, but also in the hidden spiritual and moral forces of the entire Russian people. "It seems to me - Herzen wrote in 1649, - that in Russian life there is something higher than the community, and stronger than power ... I am talking about that inner, but quite conscious of myself, which is so miraculized supported The Russian people under the IGG Mongolian Hordes and the German bureaucracy ... This force, regardless of all external events, and contrary to the Russian people kept and supported his uncomfortable faith in itself. "
At the same time, the Herzen did not idealize the people, conscious of how deeply in his psychology and life penetrated servility. The habit of slavery is one of the main obstacles to the Socialist Revolution. Nevertheless, in Russia, in his opinion, the transition to socialism will be easier to implement than in the West, thanks to the collectivist spirit of the peasant masses and the peculiarities of the device of the peasant community. The West will come to socialism as a result of the proletarian struggle. This thought of Herzen expressed in his famous phrase: "You are a proletariat for socialism, we are socialism to freedom. "
Russia's transition to socialism, in Herzen, can be carried out in various forms. Basically he considered three alternative options: either a spontaneous folk riot, or a peaceful "autocratic revolution", or a revolutionary revolution organized by the revolutionary intelligentsia, preferably bloodless.
Above the same triad options, Bakunin, who raised the question like this: "Romanov, Pugachev or Pestel?" "Romanov" is the reform "from above", "Pugachev" - the peasant riot, "Pestel" - a political revolution organized by a revolutionary minority.
Bakunin chose "Pugacheva" from all options. As for Herzen, his decision was not so unequivocal. The option "Pugachev" he considered the most likely if, in his political short-sightedness, the government will not free the peasants "from above".
Understanding, how terrible and unpredictable consequences can be the willingness of the peasants "take up the axes", Herzen tried to convince the king in the need for speedy reforms: "Toril! Save the peasants from future villains, save him from the blood, which he will have to shed. "
Although for Herzen was preferable to the peaceful path of radical transformations, he still believed that the tightening with the revolution "from above" could lead to much worse consequences for the country than the peasant riot. In one of the articles, analyzing this position, Herzen wrote "We are not lovers of uprisings and revolution for the revolution, and we think - and this thought pleased us - that Russia could make their first steps to freedom and justice without violence and rifle shots . Niche government was strong enough to start "from above" this revolution; But now it has lost its power ... Where do we go? Very perhaps - to the terrible jaccer, the mass rebellion of the peasants. We do not want it at all ... but, on the other hand, slavery and the state of painful unknown ... Even worse , than jacceria. "
Recognizing the positive historical role of the peasant uprising, Herzen, however, condemned the intellectual agitation calling for peasants to the topor. Before throwing such slogans to the masses, you need to prepare an organizational base and develop tactics. "I called on to the topor, I taught Herzen revolutionaries," to take advantage of the movement, it is necessary to have an organization, it is necessary to have a plan, strength and readiness to lie down by bones, not only climbing the handle, but also grabbing the blade when the ax is too diverting. "
Thus, Herzen believed that to achieve socialist purposes, it is necessary to make organizedness and plannedness in the natural peasant movement. It is necessary to create an organization that would prepare the uprising and led the revolutionary process.
The Jacobin version "Pestel" did not suit Herzen, as well as the option "Pugachev". The first is due to its conspiratorial tactics and extremism, the second - due to the spontaneousness and blood of the peasant rebellion. The big doubts also inspired the option "Romanov", which could not pass by the resistance of ruling tops. The peaceful path of radical reforms "from above" was unlikely.
Nevertheless, Herzen defined for itself the most acceptable paths of the socialist coup. The first - the path of organized preparation of the peasant uprising - was the best, in his opinion, in the event that there are no volatile revolutionary movements. The second is the path of the parliamentary development of Russia, possible in the strengthening of the democratic peaceful movement "below". The last - parliamentary - the option was modeled by Herzen in the purestial period. Under the impression of the Zemstvo reform, he wrote: "So, it remains to convene a" great collection ", representation without the difference of classes - the only means to determine the actual needs of the people and the provisions in which we are ... Whatever the first constituent meeting, the first parliament - We got freedom of speech, discussion and legitimate ground under your feet. With these data we can move forward. "
Thus, the search for ways of revolutionary transformations was given Herzen to the position, a peculiarly combined idea of \u200b\u200b"Russian socialism", revolutionary radicalism and liberal parliamentarism.
This position caused attacks from other Russian radicals, first of all, Jacobinians, as well as supporters of revolutionary-democratic radicalism - Bakunin and Chernyshevsky.
Herzen was accused of liberal oscillations, reconciliation with government bourgeois democratism. Bakunin reproached him ready to accept "Red Bureaucratism".
Herzen, half atemizing with Bakunin in a letter "To the Old Comrade" (1869), argued that the path of violence and terror does not lead to the creation of a new one. "Undermined by gunpowder, the whole world is bourgeois, when the smoke goes and wrecks will be cleared, again will begin with different changes to some bourgeois world ... No basis from those on which the modern order is resting, from those that must collapse and relate, not So the staff and is loosened that it was enough to snatch by force to exclude the course of life. "
Violence, argued Herzen, "You can only clear the place - no more." To new social institutions were durable, they should organically grow out of the old and "shoot" them. "Property, family, church, the state was huge educational forms of human liberation and development - they went out of need for per annum."
Jacobine, which is all responsible for old social misfortunes on representatives of the "former truth" and destroying them, in Herzen, there is "Velpaya injustice." To threaten the owners of the carure and ruin, to decline them to the voluntary poverty of a terrible picture of suffering - naivety. "From these funds Socialism has grown." The owner must make sure that it is much more profitable to go for certain concessions than it is meaningless to exhaust its strength in the fight against the revolutionary masses, for "what she is stubborn and longer, it will lead to great losses and death." It is necessary not to destroy the supporters of the old order, but to give them the possibility of salvation "through a compromise. "A new watering order," Herzen emphasized, "is not only a sword of chopping, but also by the power of the custody. Applying a blow to the old world, he not only needs to save everything that he is worthy of salvation, but to leave on his destiny everything does not interfere, diverse, peculiar. "
The revolutionary terror, according to Herzen, crushing the old forms of life, does not destroy prejudice and slave psychology. On the contrary, the fear of preservative , Robs even deeper into the inside, "suspends their excuse and does not concern the content." Hence the conclusion: "It is impossible to disengage more people in outdoor life than they are released inside."
Thus, Herzen believed that socialist transformations would not lead to the real liberation of the people if spiritual prerequisites were not matured for this in the very peoples if the slave state is more familiar for him than freedom. "Oddly enough, the experience shows that peoples are easier to endure violent slavery than the gift of excessive freedom." In this statement, Herzen is sorry, perhaps the most important sociocultural conflict, which will experience Russia for many decades, conflict, characteristic and our time.
Herzen thoughts on internal and external freedom bring it closer to the Russian liberal thinkers of the end of the XIX - early XX centuries.
Radicalism of Herzen, remaining overall revolutionary-democratic, at the same time included a number of liberal ideas and postulates. Herzen's publicistic activities tried to mitigate an increasing confrontation in the Russian educated society between revolutionary radicals and liberals. However, the confrontational tendency turned out to be stronger than the line of political compromise. The aggravation of the conflict between the two opposition flows was associated with the emergence of such a peculiar phenomenon in the public life, as the radicalism of the Sixtiets.
Sixtiets are the second generation of revolutionary-democratic radicals after Herzen, Ogarev and other representatives of the noble radicalism. Intellectual foundations they served: 1) Nihilistic concept D.I. Pisarev, who called on to leave all previous customs, moral standards and orders; 2) philosophical positivism and vulgar materialism; 3) ethics of "reasonable egoism"; 4) the utilitarian concept of culture; 5) Subjective Sociology; 6) the theory of "community" socialism.
At the beginning of the 60s. In the Russian radical environment, educational ideas were widespread. Pisarev urged to pour scientific knowledge into the people not only by "buckets", but also "forty barrels." Chernyshevsky claimed that the most important force public progress It is a science that enlightens the people's mind and raises the masses to the conscious struggle against public orders. In this regard, he believed that the word of the poet should be the slogan of the revolutionary-enlightement: "You get up, sleeping brother in the darkness!"
Figure Nikolaychernshevsky - The brightest and influential in the Radical "sixties". He is rightfully considered the ruler of the DUM of this generation.
One of the main features of Chernyshevsky radicalism is often called its anti-liberalism, which contributed to the complete rupture of Russian revolutionary radicals with a liberal flow and turn to legal nihilism.
The concepts of "Liberal" and "Democrat" Chernyshevsky considered as opposites. He wrote: "In the liberals and democrats, indigenous desires, main motives are significantly different." Liberals, in his opinion, seek primarily to political freedom, care about political rights, forgetting about the "mass welfare of the masses, which is the opportunity to implement the right." Democrats are (we are talking about revolutionary democrats) will not stop before "producing reforms with the help of material force", and for radical reforms are ready to "sacrifice and freedom of speech and constitutional forms."
Liberals, claimed Chernyshevsky, want transformations, but wish to introduce them gradually, "without any of the possibilities of concussions." They will always look for reasons in order to avoid indigenous fractures of the social device and lead their job through small corrections, in which no emergency measures are needed. Democrats believe that only "coup in material relations for the ownership of land, depending on capital precious for mass", for the necessary need for "versions" will be not prior to politics.
Liberals spend their political, lines in the interests of people financially independent and with developed mental abilities who are ready to consciously participate in the elections and work of the Parliament. Democrats, emphasized Chernyshevsky, express the interests of "commoners", whose life hinders "human well-being and condemns people on the darkness."
The main political question for the Chernyshevsky question is that the primary, social revolution, changing the material living conditions of the broad masses, or political liberal reforms that do not lead to indigenous changes in social insurance, resolved them in favor of the revolution, for which revolutionary democrats performed.
Chernyshevsky's controversy with liberals sometimes took such a fierce character that even Herzen made a protest against his attacks on liberal publicists. In No. 44 "Bells" (June 1, 1859), he published an article titled "Very Dangerous !!!" ("Very dangerous !!!"), where accused the authors of the "contemporary", and first of all, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov and Nekrasov, in the "empty tiping bale", in writing the first experiences of publicity, "who has not yet thars the hair on the floor head, Since she was recently sitting in Ostrog. "
The position of Herzen, a softer and tolerant, contained elements of political and pluralism and ideological and political tolerance. In the journalism Chernyshevsky, the spirit of the revolutionary sectarianism and intolerance towards opponents of the socialist revolution. From Herzen, the threads are not only for the people's socialism, but also to Russian liberals and to the Mensheviks. From Chernyshevsky - to revolutionary populists, esrams and the Bolsheviks.
However, despite different nature The radicalism of Herzen and Chernyshevsky, in their reflections on the ways of the reorganization of Russia there were a lot in common. For example, F. Dan believed that both thinkers worked on a difficult problem of the connection of socialism and democracy in the context of Russia and both, in his opinion, came to the same conclusion that for Russia a priority task is a socialist revolution that will open opportunities for the further democratization of the country.
20. The social and political movements in the Boreframe Russia - 60-70. 19th century (conservatives, liberals, radicals).
After the defeat of the Decembrists, various salons (home assemblies of like-minded people), circles of officers and officials, universities, literary journals were becoming the centers of the development of public thought: "Patriotic Notes", "Contemporary", etc. Three ideological directions: radical, liberal and conservative. Conservatism. In Russia, relied on theories, proving the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom. The idea of \u200b\u200binviolability autocracy developed during the 18-19 centuries. For an ideological justification of the autocracy Minister of Folk Enlightenment Count S.S. Uvarov created the theory of official nationality. It is based on three principles: self-verse, Orthodoxy, Nature. The essence of the theory in recognition of self-seed as the only possible form of government in Russia. The serfdom was considered as a good for the people and the state. Orthodoxy was understood as deep religiosity inherent deep religiosity. From these postulates were concluded about the impossibility and impossibility of indigenous social changes in Russia. These ideas developed by journalists F.V. Bulgarian and N.I. Half, professors my. University MP Pofodiny and S.P. Schevyrev. Liberalism. At the turn of the 30-40s of the 19th century, two currents were developed among the opposition rights of Liberals - Slavophilism and Western. Both trends wished to see Russia prosperous. For the change of socio-political. Building, for the constitutional monarchy, mitigation or cancellation of serfdom, endowing the peasants with small land. Freedom of conscience and words. The ideologists of Slavophiles were writers philosophers and publicists: Aksakov, Kireevsky. Homyakov, Samarin et al. They exaggerated the national identity of Russia. They insisted on the return of those orders when the Zemskie Cathedrals came to power the opinion of the people, when there were patriarchal relations between the landowners and peasants. Their idea is that the only true and moral religion. 10 Orthodoxy. In their opinion, the Russian people inherent in the special spirit of collectivism. This was explained by the special path of Russia. Fought worship with the West. Westerners for the development of Russia in the direction of European civilization. They explained the difference from the West with the historically established retardation of Russia. Died a special role of the peasant community. Agreed a wide enlightenment of the people. Radicals. In the second half of the 20s - the first half of the 30s, small circles appeared in Moscow and the province were organized by the organized form of the anti-government movement, where police supervision was developed. Their members shared the ideology of the Decembrists and condemned violence with them. They distributed winsted verses, criticized the government. Secret organizations of the 1930s of the 19th century had mainly educational character. Around Stankevich, Belinsky, Herzen and Ogarev, the groups were developed, the members of which were studied domestic and foreign polit, works, promoted the newest Western philosophy. In the middle of the 30s, the decline in societies. Movements due to the defeat of mugs by the police. In the 40s, there was a rise in connection with the activities of Belinsky, Herzen, Ogarev, Butashevich-Petrashevsky and others. Circles of Petrashevsky. He included officials, officers, teachers, writers, journalists (Dostoevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin). Petrashevtsy condemned the self-verse and serfdom. In the republic, they saw the ideal of politics, devices and scheduled a program of broad democratic transformations. The radical part of them came to the conclusion about the urgent need for the uprising, driving power which should have become peasants. The circle was revealed in 1849 by the Government
Conservatives, liberals and radicals of the second quarter of the XIX century.
The defeat of the Decembrists and the strengthening of police-repressive policies of the government did not lead to a decline in social movement. On the contrary, it even more revived. Various Petersburg and Moscow salons (home assembly of like-minded people), circles of officers and officials, higher educational institutions (first of all, Moscow University), Literary journals are steel (first and foremost, Moscow University), Literary Journals: "Moskvatik", "Journal of Europe", "Patriotic Notes", "Contemporary" and others. In the public movement of the second quarter of the XIX century. It began to disperse three ideological directions: radical, liberal and conservative. In contrast to the previous period, the activities of conservatives who defended the system existed in Russia were activated.
Conservative direction. Conservatism in Russia relied on the theory, proving the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe need for autocracy as a kind of political power inherent inherent in Russia, its roots leaves during the strengthening of the Russian state. It developed and improved during the XVIII-XIX centuries., Adapting to new socio-political conditions. Special sound for Russia This idea has acquired after in Western Europe, it was committed to absolutism. At the beginning of the XIX century. N.M. Karamzin wrote about the need to preserve the wise autocracy, which, in his opinion, founded and resurrected Russia. " The speech of the Decembrists has intensified a conservative public thought.
For an ideological justification of the autocracy Minister of Folk Enlightenment Count S.S. Uvarov created the theory of official nationality. It was founded on three principles: autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nature. This theory was elevated by educational ideas about the union, voluntary union of the sovereign and the people, about the absence of opposing classes in Russian society. The originality was recognized as an autocracy as the only possible form of government in Russia. The serfdom was considered as a good for the people and the state. Orthodoxy was understood as the deep religiosity and commitment to orthodox Christianity inherent in the Russian people. Of these postulates, it was concluded that the impossibility of indigenous social changes in Russia was made, on the need to strengthen autocracy and serfdom.
These ideas developed by journalists F.V. Bulgarian and N.I. Half, professors of Moscow University M.P. Pofodiny and S.P. Shevyrev. The theory of official nationality is not only promoted through the press, but also widely introduced into the system of education and education.
The theory of official nationality caused sharp criticism of not only the radically configured part of society, but also liberals. The greatest fame received a performance pl. Chaadaeva who wrote "philosophical letters" with criticism of autocracy, serfdom and all official ideology, in the first letter published in the magazine "Telescope" in 1836, pl. Chaadaev denied the possibility of public progress in Russia, did not see anything in the past, nor in the present Russian people are nothing light. In his opinion, Russia, torn off from Western Europe, heated in his moral and religious, Orthodox dogmas, was in the dead stuck. Salvation of Russia, its progress he saw in the use of European experience, in the unification of the Christian civilization countries into a new community, which will ensure the spiritual freedom of all nations.
The government brutally dealt with the author and the publisher of the letter. P.Ya. Chaadaeva declared crazy and gave under police supervision. The magazine "Telescope" was closed. His editor, N.I. Nadezhdin was expelled from Moscow to prohibit publishing and pedagogical activities. However, the ideas expressed by the PL. Chaadaev, caused a large social resonance and had a significant impact on the further development of social thought.
Liberal direction. At the turn of the 30-40s of the XIX century. Among the opposition government of Liberals, two ideological flows were developed - Slavophilism and Westernism. Ideologists of Slavophiles were writers, philosophers and publicists: K.S. and I.S. Aksakov, I.V. and P.V. Kireevskie, A.S. Khomyakov, Yu.F. Samarin et al. Ideologists of Westerners - historians, lawyers, writers and publicists: so-called. Granovsky, k.d. Cavelin, S.M. Solovyov, V.P. Botkin, P.V. Annenkov, I.I. Panayev, V.F. Korsh et al. Representatives of these flows united the desire to see Russia prosperous and mighty in the circle of all European powers. To do this, they considered it necessary to change its socio-political system, to establish a constitutional monarchy, soften and even cancel the serfdom, put the peasants with small launches of the Earth, introduce freedom of speech and conscience. Fearing revolutionary shocks, they believed that the government itself should carry out the necessary reforms.
At the same time, there were significant differences in the views of Slavophiles and Westerners. Slavophiles exaggerated the national identity of Russia. Idealizing the history of Doparyrovskaya Rus, they insisted on returning to those orders when the Zemskie Cathedrals came to power the opinion of the people, when there were patriarchal relations between landowners and peasants. One of the fundamental ideas of Slavophils was that Orthodoxy is the only true and deep moral religion. In their opinion, the Russian people are a special spirit of collectivism, in contrast to Western Europe, where individualism reigns. This was explained by the special path of the historical development of Russia. The struggle of Slavophiles against low-flapping before the West, the study of the history of the people and the people's life was a great positive importance for the development of Russian culture.
Westerners proceeded from the fact that Russia should develop in line with European civilization. They sharply criticized the Slavophiles for opposing Russia and the West, explaining her difference in historically established retardation. The denying special role of the peasant community, Westerners believed that the government was imposed on its people for the convenience of managing and collecting taxes. They advocated a wide enlightenment of the people, believing that this is the only true way for the success of the modernization of the socio-political system of Russia. Their criticism of serfdom and the call for a change in domestic policy also contributed to the development of socio-political thought.
Slavophiles and Westerners laid in the 1930s of the XIX century. The basis of the liberal-reformist direction in public movement.
Radical direction. In the second half of the 20s - the first half of the 30s, small mugs appeared in Moscow and in the provinces were characterized by the characteristic organizational form of the anti-government movement, where the police supervision and espionage were established. Their members shared the ideology of the Decembrists and condemned violence with them. At the same time, they tried to overcome the mistakes of their predecessors, distributed winsted verses, criticized government policies. The works of the Decembrists poets acquired wide fame. All Russia read out the famous message to Siberia A.S. Pushkin and the answer to the Decembrists. Student Moscow University A.I. Polezhaev for the freedom-loving poem "Sasha" was excluded from the university and given to the soldiers.
The majorist crossing of the Moscow police caused the activities of the Mug of Brothers P., M. and V. Cretan. His members on the day of Coronation Nikolai scattered on the Red Square of the Proclamation, with the help of which he tried to initiate hatred for monarchy rule. According to the personal command of the emperor, the members of the Mug were sharpened for 10 years in the caasemate of the Solovetsky Monastery, and then gave to the soldiers.
Secret organizations of the first half of the 1930s of the XIX century. They had mainly educational character. Around N.V. Stankevich, V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev has developed groups whose members studied domestic and foreign political work, promoted the latest Western philosophy. In 1831, the Sungurov Society was formed, named after his head, graduate of Moscow University N.P. Sungurov. Students, members of the organization, perceived the ideological heritage of the Decembrists. They opposed serfdom and autocracy, called for the introduction of the Constitution in Russia. They not only engaged in educational activities, but also developed plans for armed uprising in Moscow. All these circles acted a short time. They did not grow in organizations that could have a serious impact on the change in political situation in Russia.
For the second half of the 1930s, a decline in social movement is characterized due to the defeat of the secret circles, the closure of a number of advanced magazines. Many public figures were fascinated by the philosophical postulate of Hegel "All reasonable really, everything is real intelligent" and on this basis tried to reconcile with "Gnus", according to V.G. Belinsky, Russian reality. In the 40s of the XIX century. In the radical direction there was a new lift. It was associated with the activities of V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogareva, M.V. Butashevich-Petrashek and others.
Literary critic VG Belinsky, revealing the ideological content of peer-reviewed works, brought up hatred from readers to the arbitrariness and serfdom, love for the people. The ideal of a political structure for him was such a society in which "there will be no rich, there will be no poor nor kings, nor subjects, but there will be brothers, there will be people." V.G. Belinsky were close to some ideas of Westerners, but he saw and negative sides European capitalism. The "Letter to Gogol" acquired his widespread fame, in which he picked up the writer for mysticism and the refusal of public struggle. V.G. Belinsky wrote: "Russia does not need to sermons, but the awakening of the feeling of human dignity. Civilization, education, humanity should become a Russian man." Sewaged in hundreds of lists "Letter" had great importance To upbringing a new generation of radicals.
Petrashevtsy. The revival of the social movement in the 40s was expressed in the creation of new circles. By name of the head of one of them - M.V. Butashevich-Petrashekoy - his participants were named Petrashev. The circle included officials, officers, teachers, writers, journalists and translators (F.M. Dostoevsky, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, A.N. Mikov, A.N. Plescheev, etc.).
M.V. Petrashevsky on the pays created with his friends the first collective library, which consisted mainly from the compositions of humanitarian sciences. Not only St. Petersburgers, but also residents of provincial cities could use books. To discuss the problems associated with the internal and foreign policy of Russia, as well as literature, history and philosophy, members of the circle organized their meetings - famous in St. Petersburg "Friday". For the wide propaganda of their views Petrashevtsy in 1845-1846. Attached in the publication of the "pocket dictionary of foreign words, which included in the Russian language." In it, they set out the essence of European socialist exercises, especially S. Fourier, who had a great influence on the formation of their worldview.
Petrashevtsy strongly condemned autocracy and serfdom. In the republic, they saw the ideal of a political structure and planned a program of broad democratic transformations. In 1848 M.V. Petrashevsky created a "project on the liberation of peasants", offering direct, free and unconditional liberation of them with the laptop of the Earth, which they processed. The radical part of Petrashevtsev came to the conclusion about the urged need of an uprising, the driving force of which the peasants and the mining workers of the Urals were to become.
Circle M.V. Petrashevsky was disclosed by the Government in April 1849, more than 120 people were attracted to the investigation. The Commission qualified their activities as a "plot of ideas". Despite this, the participants of the mug were cruelly punished. The Military Court sentenced 21 people to the death penalty, but at the last minute the shooting was replaced by a permanent carriage. (The execution of the execution is very expressively described by F.M. Dostoevsky in the novel "Idiot".)
Activity Mug M.V. Petrashevsky marked the beginning of the spread of socialist ideas in Russia.
A.I. Herzen and the theory of community socialism. Further development of socialist ideas in Russia is associated with the name A.I. Herzen. He and his friend N.P. Ogarev also gave the boys to the oath to fight for the best future of the people. For participation in the student circle and singing songs with "vile and malicious" expressions in the address of the king, they were arrested and sent to the link. In the 30-40s, A.I. Herzen was engaged in literary activities. His works contained the idea of \u200b\u200bthe struggle for the freedom of personality, protest against violence and arbitrariness. Realizing that in Russia it is impossible to use freedom of speech, A.I. Herzen in 1847 left abroad. In London, he founded the "free Russian printing house" (1853), released 8 books of the collection "Polar Star", on the title of which put the thumbnail from 5 executed Decembrists from profiles, organized together with N.P. Ogarem edition of the first unemployed newspaper "Bell" (1857-1867). Subsequent generations of revolutionaries saw a huge merit of A.I. Herzen in creating a free Russian press abroad.
In the youth of A.I. Herzen shared many ideas of Westerners, recognized the unity of the historical development of Russia and Western Europe. However, a close acquaintance with European orders, disappointment in the results of revolutions 1848-1849. convinced him that the historical experience of the West does not fit the Russian people. In this regard, he started looking for a fundamentally new, just social device and created the theory of community socialism. The ideal of social development A.I. Herzen saw in socialism at which there will be no private property and operation. In his opinion, the Russian peasant is deprived of private-operated instincts, accustomed to public ownership of land and its periodic redistribution. In the peasant community A.I. Herzen saw the finished cell of the socialist building. Therefore, he concluded that the Russian peasant is quite ready for socialism and that there is no social foundation in Russia for the development of capitalism. The question of the ways of transition to socialism was decided by A.I. Herger contradictory. In some works, he wrote about the possibility of the People's Revolution, in others - condemned the violent methods for changing the state system. Theory of Community Socialism, developed by A.I. Herzenom, in many respects served as ideological foundation of the activities of radicals of the 60s and revolutionary populists of the 70s of the XIX century.
In general, the second quarter of the XIX century. There was a time of "outdoor slavery" and "internal liberation." Some were silent, frightened by government repressions. Others - insisted on the preservation of autocracy and serfdom. Third, they were actively looking for ways to update the country, the improvement of its socio-political system. The main ideas and directions that have established in the socio-political movement of the first half of the XIX century, with minor changes continued to develop in the second half of the century.
The problem of serfdom. Even the government and conservative circles remained aside from the understanding of the need to solve the peasant question (remember the projects of M.M. Speransky, N.N. Novosiltsheva, the activities of secret peasant committees, a decree of the obliged peasants of 1842 and especially the reform of state peasants 1837 -1841). However, the attempts of the government mitigate the serfdom, give the landowners a positive example of the control of peasants, to regulate their relationship turned out to be ineffective due to the resistance of serfs.
By the middle of the XIX century. Prerequisites, which caused the collapse of the serf system, ripe finally. First of all, she outlived herself economically. The landowner economy based on the work of the fortress peasants, and more declining. It was bothering the government, which was forced to spend huge funds to support landowners.
Objectively serfdom also prevented the industrial modernization of the country, as it prevented the folding of the market free work force, accumulation of capital invested in production, improving the purchasing power of the population and the development of trade.
The need to eliminate serfdom was determined by the fact that the peasants openly protested against him. In general, anti-refresh folk speeches in the first half of the XIX century. were rather weak. In the conditions of a police bureaucratic system created under Nicolae I, they could not pour into broad peasant movements, shaking Russia in the XVII-XVIII centuries. In the middle of the XIX century. Peasants dissatisfaction with their position was expressed in different forms: a refusal to work on the barbecine and payouts, mass shoots, arsons of landlord estates, etc., the unrest increased in areas with non-Russian population. Especially strong was the uprising of 10 thousand peasants of Georgia in 1857
People's movement could not not affect the position of the government, which understood that the fortress condition of the peasants is the "powder cellar under the state." The emperor Nicholas I in speech at a meeting of the State Council in the spring of 1842 acknowledged: "There is no doubt that the serfdom in the current position we have evil, for all the tangible and obvious, but now it would be even more delicate to touch him." This statement contains the whole essence of Nikolaev internal politics. On the one hand, an understanding of the imperfection of the existing system, and on the other, a fair fear that undermining one of the mains can lead to its complete collapse.
The defeat in the Crimean War played the role of a particularly important political prerequisite for the abolition of serfdom, as it demonstrated the backwardness and rottenness of the country's socio-political system. The new foreign policy situation has witnessed after the Parisian world indicated the loss of Russia of its international authority and threatened the loss of influence in Europe.
After 1856, not only radicals and liberals, but also conservative figures were openly performed for the abolition of serfdom. Bright example Serves a change in political views by M.P.Pogodina, who in the 40s was a ruger of conservatism, and after the Crimean War made a decisive criticism of the autocratic-serf system and demanded its reform. In liberal circles, numerous notes on the abnormality, amorality and economic disadvantage of the serf state of the peasants were developed. The greatest fame acquired the "note of the liberation of peasants", compiled by a lawyer and historian K.D. Caven. He wrote: "The serfdom is a stumbling block for any success and development of Russia." His plan provided for the preservation of landlord ownership of land, the transfer of small stationery peasants, the "fair" remuneration of landowners for the loss of workers' hands and the land provided by the people. To the unconditional liberation of the peasants called A.I. Herzen in "Bell", N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov in the magazine "Contemporary". Publicistic performances of representatives of different socio-political areas in the second half of the 50s gradually prepared the country's public opinion to the awareness of the uranial need to solve the peasant question.
Thus, the abolition of the serfs was due to political, economic, social and moral prerequisites.
Alexander II. The eldest son of Nicholas I joined the Russian throne on February 19, 1855. Unlike his father, he was well prepared for government management. As a child, he received excellent education and education. His mentor was the poet V.A. Zhukovsky. Compiled by the "Exercise Plan" Cesarevich was aimed at "education for virtue." Moral principles laid by V.A. Zhukovsky, significantly influenced the formation of the personality of the future king. Like all russian emperors, Alexander from a young age joined the military service and in 26 years old became a "full general". Traveling in Russia and Europe contributed to the expansion of the outlook of the heir. Attracting Cesarevich to the decision of state issues, Nikolai introduced it to the State Council and the Committee of Ministers, instructed him the management of secret committees in the peasant business. Thus, the 37-year-old emperor is practically and psychologically well prepared for the first person in the state to become one of the initiators of the freedom of peasants. Therefore, he entered the story as the king "liberator".
According to Umrew Nicholas I, "Alexander II received the" team is not in order. "The outcome of the Crimean War was clear - Russia went to the defeat. Society, dissatisfied with the despotic and bureaucratic rule of Nicholas, was looking for the causes of the failure of his foreign policy. Peasant unrest. Activated their The activity of the radicals. All this could not not make a new owner of the Winter Palace to think about the direction of their internal policy.
Preparation of reform. For the first time about the need to liberate the peasants, the new emperor stated in speech pronounced in 1856 to representatives of the Moscow nobility. His famous phrase The fact that "it is better to cancel the serfdom from above, rather than waiting until the time when it starts to cancel from below," meant that the ruling circles came, finally, to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe need to reform the state. Among them were members of the Imperial Familia (Alexander Konstantin's younger brother, aunt of the Tsar Great Princess Elena Pavlovna), as well as some representatives of the Higher Bureaucracy (Minister of Internal Affairs of S.S. Lanskaya, Acting Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs N.A. Milyutin, General Ya.I. Rostovtsev), public figures (Prince V.A. Cherkasi, Yu.F. Samarin), who played an outstanding role in the preparation and conduct of reform.
Initially, the foreigners of the peasants were developed in the secret committee traditional for Russia, created in 1857. "To discuss measures on the device of life of landlord peasants." However, dissatisfaction of the nobility, concerned about rumors about the possible abolition of serfdom, and the slowness of the secret committee, in every way those who traded the preparation of reform, led Alexander II to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe need to establish a new body aimed at preparing reform in conditions of greasic. He instructed a friend of children's years and Governor General V.I. Nazimov to turn to the emperor on behalf of the Lifelandsky nobility with a request to create commissions for the development of the draft reform. In response to the appeal on November 20, 1857, the Decree (Rescipt V.I. Nazimov) was followed about the creation of the provincial committees "to improve the life of landlord peasants." Soon, other governors generally received similar orders.
Reskipte V.I. Nazimov is considered the beginning of the official history of the preparation of peasant reform. In February 1858, the Secret Committee was transformed into the Head Committee on the Peasantius. His task was to develop a common government line in the liberation of peasants. Renaming meant a decisive change in the nature of the Committee's activities - she ceased to be a mystery. The government has resolved a discussion of reform projects and, moreover, prescribed the nobles to show the initiative in solving the peasant question. Having preparing the preparation of reforms in the hands of landowners, the government, on the one hand, actually forced them to engage in this issue, and on the other, he proposed to ensure maximum satisfaction of their interests. So the question was resolved on the combination of government policies and the desires of the dominant class. The peasants from the discussion of the draft reform were removed, since only nobles participated in the provincial committees.
In February 1859, editorial commissions were established at the head committee (Chairman - Ya. Rostovtsev). They had to collect and summarize all the projects developed by the provincial committees.
In the projects coming from projects, the size of peasant incidents and duties depended on the soil fertility. In the black earth areas, the landowners were interested in preserving the Earth and therefore were against the provision of her peasants. Under the pressure of the government and the public, they were ready to give peasants with small put on a high price per tenth. In the Non-Black Strip, where the land had no such value, local nobles agreed to convey to her peasants, but for a big ransom.
Projects summarized by the editorial commissions by the beginning of 1859 were enrolled in the Chief Committee. It even more reduced the size of peasant land plots, and the duty increased. On February 17, 1861, the draft reform approved the State Council. February 19 was signed by Alexander II. On the abolition of serfdom was announced by the manifesto "On the all-conspirator of the fasteners of the rights of the right of the state of free rural ordinary people ..." The practical conditions of liberation were identified in the "provisions" of the peasants who came out of the fortress dependence. The personifest and "provisions" concerned the three main issues: personal liberation Peasants, empowering their land and redeemed deal.
Personal liberation. Manifestus provided personal freedom to peasants and civil rights. From now on, the peasant could own driven and immovable property, to conclude transactions, act as a legal entity. He was released from the personal guardianship of the landowner, could be married without his permission to enter the service and in educational institutions, change the place of residence, to move in the estate of the bins and merchants. At the same time, the personal freedom of the peasant was limited. First of all, it concerned the community concerning. Community Property for Earth, Peredelov's redistribution, a patch (especially when paying taxes and implementing state contesions) to slow down the bourgeois evolution of the village. The peasants remained the only estate that paid the pillow to sue, carried the recruitous service and could be bodily punished.
Pasteners. "Provisions" regulated the ending of the peasants of the Earth. Dimensions of incidents depended on the fertility of the soil. The territory of Russia was conditionally divided into three stripes: black earth, non-black-earth and steppe. In each of them, the highest and lower sizes of the peasant field was put on (the highest - more "of which the peasant could not require the landowner, the lowest one whose landowner should not have to offer a peasant). Within these limits, the voluntary transaction of the peasant community with landowner was concluded. Their relationship Finally fastened statutory letters. Beliemen did not come to the agreement, then global mediators were involved in the settlement. Among them were mainly defenders of the nobles of the nobles, but some progressive public figures (writer L.N. Tolstoy, Physiologist I.M. Sechenov , biologist K.A. Timiryazev, etc.), becoming global intermediaries, reflected the interests of the peasantry.
When solving a land question, peasant puts were significantly cut. If before the reform, the peasant enjoyed put on the highest norm in each band, then this "surplus" was alienated in favor of the landowner. In the chernozem strip, cut from 26 to 40% of the Earth, in the non-black-earth - 10%. In general, in the country, the peasants received 20% of the Earth less than they were processed to reform. So the segments searched by landowners in the peasants were formed. Traditionally, considering this land of his own, the peasants fought for her return until 1917.
When the arable land, the landowners sought to ensure that their land was inclined into peasant nodes. So there was a minor, who forced the peasant to rent the land in the land, paying her cost or money, or field work (testing).
Redemption. Getting the land, the peasants were obliged to pay its cost. The market price of the land, transmitted to the peasants, really accounted for 544 million rubles. However, the formula for the calculation of the value of the land developed by the Government has increased its price to 867 million rubles, that is, 1.5 times. Consequently, both the empowerment and the redemption transaction was carried out exclusively in the interests of the nobility. (In fact, the peasants were paid for personal liberation.)
The peasants had no money necessary to buy land. In order for the landowners to receive redemptions at the same time, the state provided the peasants a loan in the amount of 80% of the value of the station. The remaining 20% \u200b\u200bof the peasant community paid the landowner herself. Within 49 years, the peasants had to return a loan to the state in the form of redemption payments with a calculation of 6% per annum. By 1906, when the peasants persistent struggle achieved the abolition of redemption payments, they have already paid about 2 billion rubles to the state, that is, almost 4 times the real market value of the Earth in 1861
The deposit of the peasants was stretched for 20 years. It gave rise to the specific temporal state of the peasants who had to pay for the lifts and perform some of the obligations until they fully repense their one. Only in 1881 a law was published on the elimination of the temporal position of the peasants.
The value of the cancellation of serfdom. The Great was called contemporaries to reform 1861. She brought freedom to many millions of fortress peasants, cleared the road for the formation of bourgeois relations.
At the same time, the reform was half character. It was a compromise between the state and the whole society, between the two main estates (landlords and peasants), as well as between various socio-political trends. The process of preparing the reform and its implementation allowed to preserve land in the land tenure, the Russian peasants were condemned for mallet, poverty and economic dependence on landowners. The reform of 1861 did not remove the agricultural issue in Russia, which remained the central and most acute in the second half of the XIX - early XX century. (On the impact of the reform on the economic and socio-political development of the country in the second half of the XIX century - see below.)
What you need to know on this topic:
The socio-economic development of Russia in the first half of the XIX century. Social population of the population.
Development of agriculture.
Development of Russia in the first half of the XIX century. The formation of capitalist relations. Industrial coup: Essence, background, chronology.
Development of water and highway communication paths. Start of railway construction.
The aggravation of socio-political contradictions in the country. Palace coup 1801 and the adoption of the throne of Alexander I. "Days of Alexandrov's excellent start."
Peasant question. Decree "On Free Bakery". Government measures in the field of enlightenment. State activities of M.M.Peransky and its plan of state transformations. Creation of the State Council.
Russia's participation in anti-armzuz coalitions. Tilzite peace treaty.
Patriotic War of 1812 international relations on the eve of war. Causes and start of war. The ratio of forces and military plans of the parties. M.B. Barklay de Tolly. P.I. Bagrition. M.I. Kutuzov. Stages of war. Results and value of war.
Foreign hikes 1813-1814. Vienna Congress and its decisions. Holy Union.
The inner position of the country in 1815-1825 Strengthening conservative sentiment in Russian society. A.A.Arakcheev and Arakcheevshchyna. Military settlements.
Foreign policy Tsarism in the first quarter of the XIX century.
The first secret organizations of the Decembrists are the "Union of Salvation" and "Union of Benencies". North and South Society. The main program documents of the Decembrists - "Russian Pravda" P.I.Testel and "Constitution" N.M. Muraviev. The death of Alexander I. International. Uprising on December 14, 1825 in St. Petersburg. The uprising of the Chernihiv regiment. Consequence and court over the Decembrists. The meaning of the Decembrist uprising.
Start of the reign of Nicholas I. Strengthening the autocratic power. Further centralization, bureaucratization of the state system of Russia. Strengthening repressive measures. Creation of the III branch. Censored charter. The era of censored terror.
Codification. MM Weransky. Reform of state peasants. P.D.Kislev. Decree "On the required peasants".
Polish uprising 1830-1831.
The main directions of Russia's foreign policy in the second quarter of the XIX century.
Eastern question. Russian-Turkish war 1828-1829. The problem of straits in the foreign policy of Russia 30-40s of the XIX century.
Russia and revolution 1830 and 1848. in Europe.
Crimean War. International relations on the eve of war. Causes of war. Military course. The defeat of Russia in the war. Paris world of 1856 International and internal consequences of war.
Attaching the Caucasus to Russia.
Folding of the state (Imamata) in the North Caucasus. Muridism. Shamil. Caucasian war. The value of the attachment of the Caucasus to Russia.
Public thought and social movement in Russia of the second quarter of the XIX century.
Formation of government ideology. Theory of official nationality. Mugs of the late 20s - early 30s XIX century.
Circle N.V.Stankevich and German idealistic philosophy. Circle A.I.Getzen and Utopic Socialism. "Philosophical letter" P.Ya. Schadaeva. Westerns. Moderate. Radicals. Slavophiles. M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky and his circle. Theory of "Russian Socialism" A.I. Herzena.
Socio-economic and political prerequisites of bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s of the XIX century.
Peasant reform. Preparation of reform. "Region" February 19, 1861. Personal liberation of peasants. Pasteners. Redemption. The subsidy of peasants. Temporary condition.
Zemskaya, judicial, city reform. Financial reforms. Reforms in the field of enlightenment. Censored rules. Military reforms. The value of bourgeois reforms.
The socio-economic development of Russia is the second half of the XIX century. Social population of the population.
Development industry. Industrial coup: Essence, background, chronology. The main stages of the development of capitalism in industry.
Capitalism development B. agriculture. Country community in the current Russia. Agricultural crisis of the 80-90s of the XIX century.
Public movement in Russia 50-60s of the XIX century.
Public movement in Russia of the 70-90s of the XIX century.
The revolutionary people movement of the 70s - early 1980s XIX century.
"Earth and Will" of the 70s of the XIX century. "Folk will" and "black convert". The murder of Alexander II on March 1, 1881, the collapse of the "People's Will".
Working movement in the second half of the XIX century. Stacked struggle. First workers organizations. The emergence of the working question. Factory legislation.
Liberal population of the 80-90s of the XIX century. The spread of the ideas of Marxism in Russia. Group "Liberation" (1883-1903). The emergence of Russian Social Democracy. Marxist mugs of the 80s of the XIX century.
Petersburg "Union of the struggle for the liberation of the working class". V.I. Ulyanov. "Legal Marxism".
The political response of the 80-90s of the XIX century. Epoch counter-reviews.
Alexander III. Manifesto on "inviolability" autocracy (1881). Policy of counter-reviews. Results and value of counter-reviews.
International Regulations Russia after the Crimean War. Changes in the country's foreign policy program. The main directions and stages of Russia's foreign policy of the second half of the XIX century.
Russia in the system of international relations after the Franco-Prussian war. Union of three emperors.
Russia and the oriental crisis of the 70s of the XIX century. Russian policy goals in eastern question. Russian-Turkish War 1877-1878: the causes, plans and forces of the parties, the course of hostilities. San Stefan peace treaty. Berlin Congress and its decisions. The role of Russia in the liberation of the Balkan peoples from the Ottoman IGA.
Russia's foreign policy in the 80-90s of the XIX century. Education of the Tripal Union (1882). Worsening relations between Russia with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Conclusion of the Russian-French Union (1891-1894).
- Buganov V.I., Zyryanov P.N. History of Russia: the end of the XVII - XIX century. . - M.: Enlightenment, 1996.
