Ideological currents and socio-political movements of the 19th century. The development of the radical movement in Russia in the 19th century

Home driving force revolution raznochintsy identified the peasants

In the 19th century, trips to Europe by educated Russian people were not uncommon. They returned with the conviction that the West was more civilized than Russia. Sorrowful thoughts about this have always been present in the minds of the advanced part of the Russian intelligentsia, but they manifested themselves with particular force after the defeat in the Crimean War, the change in the way the country was ruled from the rigidly authoritarian - Nicholas I to the relatively liberal - by his son Emperor Alexander II, carried out by him, as it seemed many - insufficient, half-hearted
The fermentation of minds was also facilitated by the entry onto the public stage of a new stratum - raznochintsy (from a combination of the words "different ranks"). The children of deacons, rural priests, merchants, and petty officials who managed to get an education and thus “get out into the people” knew the life of the common people better than the nobles, so the need to reorganize Russian reality was obvious to them. However, they did not have a clear, realistic plan for transformations.

Social movements of post-reform Russia

conservative

- church, faith, monarchy, patriarchy, nationalism - the foundations of the state.
: M. N. Katkov - publicist, publisher, editor of the Moskovskie Vedomosti newspaper, D. A. Tolstoy - since May 1882, Minister of the Interior and chief of gendarmes, K. P. Pobedonostsev - lawyer, publicist, chief prosecutor of the Synod

liberal

— constitutional monarchy, glasnost, rule of law, independence of church and state, individual rights
: B. N. Chicherin - lawyer, philosopher, historian; K. D. Kavelin - jurist, psychologist, sociologist, publicist; S. A. Muromtsev — jurist, one of the founders of constitutional law in Russia, sociologist, publicist

revolutionary

- building socialism in Russia, bypassing capitalism; a revolution based on the peasantry, led by a revolutionary party; overthrow of the autocracy; full allocation of land to the peasants.
: A. I. Herzen - writer, publicist, philosopher; N. G. Chernyshevsky - writer, philosopher, publicist; brothers A. and N. Serno-Solovyevich, V. S. Kurochkin - poet, journalist, translator

Revolutionary organizations of Russia in the late 60s - early 80s of the XIX century

"Great Russian" (proclamation)- in St. Petersburg in June, September and October 1861, three issues were published and one more issue in 1863. They required the transfer to the peasants without redemption of all the land that they used under serfdom, the complete separation of Poland, a constitution, and individual freedom. The hope of carrying out reforms in life was assigned to the king. The author of the proclamations remains unknown.
"Land and freedom" (1861-1864). tasks: to completely transfer the land to the peasants, the overthrow of the autocracy, the convening of the Zemsky Sobor to determine the form of democracy. Self-destructed from the fact that the hopes for an all-Russian peasant revolt in 1863 did not materialize
Revolutionary circle of N. A. Ishutin (1863-1866). Tasks: by organizing various workshops on an artel basis, an attempt to convince the people of the advantages of socialist production; demands for government reforms leading to socialism, and in the absence of reforms, a popular revolution. After a member of the organization D.V. Karakozov made an attempt on Alexander II in April 1866, the circle was defeated
"Smorgon Academy" (1867–1868) headed by P. N. Tkachev. Tasks: the creation of a secret centralized and conspiratorial revolutionary organization, the seizure of power and the establishment of the dictatorship of the "revolutionary minority". With the arrest of Tkachev, the society ceased to exist.
"Ruble Society" (1867-1868) headed by G. A. Lopatin and F. V. Volkhovsky. Tasks: revolutionary propaganda among the peasants. In 1868 most of the members of the society were arrested.
"People's massacre" (1869-1870) headed by S. G. Nechaev. Tasks: the unification of local peasant uprisings into an all-Russian uprising with the aim of the absolute destruction of the state system of Russia. Destroyed after the murder by Nechaev of one of the ordinary members of society, suspected of betrayal
Society of "Chaikovites" (1869-1874), by the name of one of the members of the society N.V. Tchaikovsky. The tasks are propaganda, educational: distribution among the people of legally published books by leading authors and printing of prohibited books and brochures. In 1874 the police arrested many members of the society

According to V. I. Lenin - 1861 - 1895 - the second period of the liberation movement in Russia, called raznochinsk or revolutionary-democratic. Wider circles of educated people, the intelligentsia, entered the struggle, “the circle of fighters has become wider, their connection with the people is closer” (Lenin “In Memory of Herzen”)

In the 19th century in Russia, a social movement rich in content and methods of action arose, which largely determined further fate countries.

In the first half of the XIX century. especially big historical meaning had a Decembrist movement. Their ideas have become the banner of Russian liberalism. Inspired by the progressive ideas of the era, this movement aimed at overthrowing the autocracy and abolishing serfdom. The performance of the Decembrists in 1825 became an example of civic courage and dedication for the youth. Thanks to this, the ideal of citizenship and the ideal of statehood were sharply opposed in the minds of an educated society. The blood of the Decembrists forever divided the intelligentsia and the state in Russia.

There were also serious weaknesses in this movement. The main one is the small number of their ranks. They saw the main support not in the people, but in the army, primarily in the guards. The performance of the Decembrists increased the split between the nobility and the peasantry. The peasantry did not expect anything from the nobles but evil. Throughout the 19th century the peasants linked their hopes for social justice only with the tsar. All the speeches of the nobles, and then the raznochintsy democratic intelligentsia, were perceived by them incorrectly.

Already at the beginning of the century, Russian conservatism was formed as a political trend, the ideologist of which was the famous historian, writer and statesman N. M. Karamzin (1766 - 1826). He wrote that the monarchical form of government most fully meets existing level development of morality and enlightenment of mankind. The sole power of the autocrat does not mean arbitrariness. The monarch was obliged to sacredly observe the laws. The estate of society is an eternal and natural phenomenon. The nobles were supposed to "rise" above other classes not only by the nobility of origin, but also by moral perfection, education, and usefulness to society.

The works of N. M. Karamzin also contained certain elements of the theory of official nationality, developed in the 1930s. 19th century Minister of Public Education S. S. Uvarov (1786 - 1855) and historian M. P. Pogodin (1800 - 1875). They preached the thesis of the inviolability of the fundamental foundations Russian statehood, which included autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality. This theory, which became the official ideology, was directed against the forces of progress and opposition.

By the end of the 1830s. among the advanced part of Russian society, several whole currents appear that offer their concepts historical development Russia and the program of its reconstruction.

Westerners (T. N. Granovsky, V. P. Botkin, E. F. Korsh, K. D. Kavelin) believed that Russia was following the European path as a result of the reforms of Peter 1. This should inevitably lead to the abolition of serfdom and the transformation of despotic state system into a constitutional one. The authorities and society must prepare and carry out well-thought-out, consistent reforms, with the help of which the gap between Russia and Western Europe will be eliminated.

The radically minded A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, and V. G. Belinsky in the late 1830s and early 1840s, sharing the main ideas of the Westerners, subjected the bourgeois system to the sharpest criticism. They believed that Russia should not only catch up with the Western European countries, but also take a decisive revolutionary step with them towards a fundamentally new system - socialism.

The opponents of the Westerners were the Slavophiles (A. S. Khomyakov, brothers I. V. and P. V. Kirievsky, brothers K. S. and I. S. Aksakov, Yu. M. Samarin, A. I. Koshelev). In their opinion, the historical path of Russia is fundamentally different from the development of Western European countries. Western peoples, they noted, live in an atmosphere of individualism, private interests, hostility of classes, despotism on the blood of built states. At the heart of Russian history was a community, all members of which were connected by common interests. Orthodox Church further strengthened the original ability of the Russian people to sacrifice their interests for the common ones. The state authorities took care of the Russian people, maintained the necessary order, but did not interfere in the spiritual, private, local life, sensitively listened to the opinion of the people, maintaining contact with them through Zemsky Sobors. Peter 1 destroyed this harmonious structure, introduced serfdom, which divided the Russian people into masters and slaves, the state under him acquired a despotic character. The Slavophils called for the restoration of the old Russian foundations of public state life: to revive the spiritual unity of the Russian people (for which serfdom had to be abolished); to get rid of the despotic nature of the autocratic system, to establish the lost relationship between the state and the people. They hoped to achieve this goal by introducing wide publicity; they also dreamed of the revival of Zemsky Sobors.

Westernizers and Slavophiles, being different currents of Russian liberalism, had heated discussions among themselves and acted in the same direction. Abolition of serfdom and democratization state structure- these are the primary tasks, with the solution of which Russia's exit to the new level development.

In the middle of the century, the most resolute critics of the authorities 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 journal Sovremennik became the ideological center of the young democrats, in which N. A. Nekrasov (1821 - 1877), N. G. Chernyshevsky (1828 - 1889), N. A. Dobrolyubov (1836 - 1861) began to play a leading role. Young people gravitated towards the magazine, standing on the positions of a radical renewal of Russia. The ideological leaders of the magazine convinced readers of the necessity and inevitability of Russia's rapid transition to socialism, considering the peasant community best form folk life.

The reformist intentions of the authorities initially met with understanding in Russian society. Magazines that stood on different positions - the Western-liberal "Russian Messenger", the Slavophile "Russian conversation" and even the radical "Contemporary" - in 1856-1857. advocated the interaction of all social movements, for the joint support of the aspirations of the government. But as the nature of the impending peasant reform became clearer, the social movement lost its unity. If the liberals, criticizing the government on private issues, continued to support it on the whole, then the publicists of Sovremennik - N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov - more sharply denounced both the government and the liberals.

A. I. Herzen (1812 - 1870), a brilliantly educated publicist, writer and philosopher, a true "Nineteenth century Voltaire", as he was called in Europe, took a special position. In 1847 he emigrated from Russia to Europe, where he hoped to take part in the struggle for socialist transformations in the most advanced countries. But the events of 1848 dispelled his romantic hopes. He saw that the majority of the people did not support the proletarians heroically fighting on the barricades of Paris. In his publications abroad (the almanac Polar Star and the magazine Kolokol, which were read in the 1950s by all thinking Russia), he exposed the reactionary aspirations of top dignitaries and criticized the government for its indecisiveness. And yet, during these years, Herzen was closer precisely to the liberals than to Sovremennik. He continued to hope for a successful outcome of the reform, followed with sympathy the activities of Alexander II. The authors of Sovremennik, on the other hand, believed that the authorities were incapable of a just reform, and dreamed of an imminent popular revolution.

After the abolition of serfdom, the split in the social movement deepened. The majority of liberals continued to count on the goodwill and reforming possibilities of the autocracy, seeking only to push it in the right direction. At the same time, a significant part of the educated society was captured by revolutionary ideas. This was largely due to major changes in its social composition. It quickly lost its estate-noble character, the boundaries between the estates were destroyed. The children of peasants, petty bourgeois, the clergy, the impoverished nobility quickly lost social ties with the environment that gave birth to them, turning into raznochintsy intellectuals, standing outside the estates, living their own, special life. They sought to change Russian reality as quickly and radically as possible and became the main base of the revolutionary movement in the post-reform period.

The radical public, inspired by N. G. Chernyshevsky, sharply criticized the peasant reform, demanded more decisive and consistent changes, reinforcing these demands with the threat of a popular uprising. The government responded with repression. In 1861 - 1862. many leaders of the revolutionary movement, including Chernyshevsky himself, were sentenced to hard labor. Throughout the 1860s. radicals tried several times to create a strong organization. However, neither the group "Earth and Freedom" (1862 - 1864), nor the circle of N. A. Ishutin (whose member D. V. Karakozov shot at Alexander II in 1866), nor "People's massacre" (1869) could become such. ) under the leadership of S. G. Nechaev.

At the turn of 1860 - 1870. the formation of the ideology of revolutionary populism. It received its final expression in the works of M. Bakunin, P. Lavrov, N. Tkachev. These ideologists pinned special hopes on the peasant community, regarding it as the germ of socialism.

In the late 1860s - early 1870s. a number of populist circles arose in Russia. In the spring of 1874, their members begin a mass campaign among the people, in which thousands of young men and women took part. It covered more than 50 provinces, from the Far North to Transcaucasia and from the Baltic to Siberia. Almost all participants in the walk believed in the revolutionary susceptibility of the peasants and in an imminent uprising: the Lavrists (propaganda direction) were waiting for it in 2-3 years, and the Bakuninists (rebellious direction) - “in spring” or “in autumn”. However, it was not possible to raise the peasants to the revolution. The revolutionaries were forced to reconsider their tactics and move on to more systematic propaganda in the countryside. In 1876, the Land and Freedom organization arose, the main goal of which was declared to be the preparation of a popular socialist revolution. The populists sought to create strongholds in the countryside for an organized uprising. However, "sedentary" activity did not bring any serious results either. In 1879, Zemlya i Volya split into Black Repartition and Narodnaya Volya. The "Black Repartition", whose leader was G. V. Plekhanov (1856 - 1918), remained in the old positions. The activities of this organization proved fruitless. In 1880 Plekhanov was forced to go abroad. "Narodnaya Volya" brought to the fore political struggle seeking to overthrow the autocracy. The tactics of seizing power, chosen by the Narodnaya Volya, consisted in intimidation and disorganization of power through individual terror. Gradually, an uprising was being prepared. No longer relying on the peasants, the Narodnaya Volya tried to organize students and workers and infiltrate the army. Since the autumn of 1879, they launched a real hunt for the king, which ended with the assassination of Alexander II on March 1, 1881.

In the 60s. the process of formalizing Russian liberalism as an independent social trend. Well-known lawyers B. N. Chicherin (1828 - 1907), K. D. Kavelin (1817 - 1885) reproached the government for the haste of reforms, wrote about the psychological unpreparedness of some sections of the population for changes, advocated a calm, without shocks "growing" of society into new forms of life. They fought both conservatives and radicals who called for popular revenge on the oppressors. At this time, Zemstvo bodies, new newspapers and magazines, university professors became their socio-political base. In the 70-80s. liberals are increasingly coming to the conclusion that deep political reforms.

At the end of the XIX century. the liberal movement was slowly on the rise. During these years, ties between zemstvos were established and strengthened, meetings of zemstvo leaders took place, plans were developed. The liberals considered the introduction of a constitution, representative institutions, glasnost and civil rights to be a transformation of paramount importance for Russia. On this platform, in 1904, the organization "Union of Liberation" arose, uniting the liberal Zemstvo and the intelligentsia. Speaking in favor of the constitution, the Union also put forward in its program some moderate socio-economic demands, primarily on the peasant question: the alienation of part of the landed estates for redemption, the liquidation of cuts, etc. characteristic feature liberal movement was still a rejection of revolutionary methods of struggle. The socio-political base of the liberals is expanding. The zemstvo and city intelligentsia, scientific and educational societies are becoming more and more actively involved in their movement. In terms of numbers and activity, the liberal camp is no longer inferior to the conservative one, although it is not equal to the radical democratic one.

Populism is undergoing a crisis in these years. The liberal wing, whose representatives (N. K. Mikhailovsky, S. N. Krivenko, V. P. Vorontsov, and others) hoped to embody Narodnik ideals in life by peaceful means, was significantly strengthened in it. In the environment of liberal populism, the "theory of small deeds" arose. She directed the intelligentsia to the daily work of improving the condition of the peasants.

The liberal populists differed from the liberals primarily in that socio-economic transformations were of paramount importance for them. They considered the struggle for political freedoms to be secondary. The revolutionary wing of populism, weakened by the repressions of the authorities, managed to intensify its activity only at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. In 1901, a party of socialist revolutionaries (Socialist-Revolutionaries) arose, who in their program tried to embody the ideals of revolutionary populism. They retained the thesis of the peasant community as the germ of socialism. The interests of the peasantry, the Socialist-Revolutionaries asserted, are identical with the interests of the workers and the working intelligentsia. All this is the "working people", the vanguard of which they considered their party. In the coming socialist revolution, the main role was assigned to the peasantry. On the agrarian question, they advocated the "socialization of the land", that is, the abolition of private ownership of it and the equal distribution of land among all who want to cultivate it. The Socialist-Revolutionaries advocated the overthrow of the autocracy and the convening of the Constituent Assembly, which would determine the nature of the state system in Russia. Along with broad agitation among the peasants and workers, they considered individual terror to be the most important means of revolutionary struggle.

In 1870 - 1880. the Russian labor movement is also gaining strength. And in St. Petersburg and Odessa, the first organizations of the proletariat arose - the Northern Union of Russian Workers and the South Russian Union of Workers. They were relatively few in number and were influenced by populist ideas. Already in the 80s. the labor movement has expanded significantly, and elements of what did at the beginning of the 20th century appear in it. labor movement one of the most important political factors in the life of the country. The largest strike in the post-reform years, the Morozov strike (1885), confirmed this position.

The ignorance of the needs of the working class by the authorities has led to the fact that supporters of Marxism rush into the working environment and find support there. They see the main revolutionary force in the proletariat. In 1883, the Emancipation of Labor group, headed by Plekhanov, appeared in exile in Geneva. Having switched to Marxist positions, he abandoned many provisions of the populist doctrine. He believed that Russia had already irrevocably embarked on the path of capitalism. The peasant community is increasingly split into rich and poor, and therefore cannot be the basis for building socialism. Criticizing the populists, Plekhanov argued that the struggle for socialism included the struggle for political freedoms and the constitution. The leading force in this struggle will be the industrial proletariat. Plekhanov noted that there must be a more or less long interval between the overthrow of the autocracy and the socialist revolution. Forcing the socialist revolution can lead, in his opinion, to the establishment of "renewed tsarist despotism on a communist lining."

The group saw its main task in promoting Marxism in Russia and in rallying forces to create a workers' party. With the advent of this group, Marxism in Russia took shape as an ideological trend. It ousted Narodism and, in a sharp struggle against it, inherited many of its features.

In the 80s. Marxist circles of Blagoev, Tochissky, Brusnev, Fedoseev appeared in Russia, spreading Marxist views among the intelligentsia and workers. In 1895, the "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class" was formed in St. Petersburg, headed by V. I. Lenin. Following his model, similar organizations are being created in other cities. In 1898, on their initiative, the First Congress of the RSDLP was held in Minsk, announcing the creation of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. But in fact the party was created only in 1903 at the Second Congress. At it, after heated debate, the program of the RSDLP was adopted. It consisted of two parts. The minimum program determined the immediate tasks of the party: the overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of democratic republic, an 8-hour working day, the return of cuts to the peasants and the abolition of redemption payments, etc. This part of the program was in no way more revolutionary than the Socialist-Revolutionary one, but in the agrarian question it was closer to the liberal one. The maximum program set as the goal the implementation of the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. These demands put the RSDLP in a special position, turning it into an extreme, extremist organization. Such a goal ruled out concessions and compromises, cooperation with representatives of other social and political forces. The adoption of the maximum program at the congress and the results of the elections to the central bodies of the party marked the victory of the radical wing of the RSDLP - the Bolsheviks, headed by V. I. Lenin. Their opponents, who after this congress received the name Mensheviks, insisted that the party proceed in its activities only from the minimum program. The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks became two independent currents in the RSDLP. They moved away, then approached, but never completely merged. In fact, these were two parties that differed significantly in ideological and organizational issues. The Mensheviks relied primarily on the experience of the Western European socialist parties. The Bolshevik Party, on the other hand, was built on the model of the People's Will and was aimed at seizing power.

As for the conservative camp, in the post-reform period it is experiencing an ideological disarray caused by a huge complex of the most complex economic and social problems that Russia faced in these years.

The talented journalist M. N. Katkov called in his articles for the establishment of a "strong hand" regime in the country. K. P. Pobedonostsev strongly warned the Russians against the introduction of a constitutional system. He considered the idea of representation to be false in essence, since not the people, but only its representatives (and not the most honest, but only clever and ambitious) participate in political life. Correctly noting the shortcomings of the representative system and parliamentarism, he did not want to recognize their enormous advantages. Conservatives, being critical of Russian reality, including the activities of jury courts, zemstvos, and the press (which were by no means ideal), demanded that the tsar appoint honest officials to leading positions, demanded that peasants be given only primary, strictly religious education, demanded ruthless punishment for dissent. They avoided discussing such issues as the shortage of land of the peasants, the arbitrariness of entrepreneurs, the low standard of living of a huge part of the people. Their ideas reflected, in fact, the powerlessness of the conservatives in the face of the formidable problems that confronted society at the end of the 19th century. At the same time, by the end of the century, there were already quite a few ideologists among them who sharply criticized government policy for being ineffective and even reactionary.

Questions for self-control

1. What were the features of the socio-economic and political development of Russia in the first half of the 19th century?

2. What were the reasons for the reforms in the 60s - early 70s. 19th century?

3. What changes have occurred in the position of the nobility and peasantry as a result of the abolition of serfdom?

4. What are the consequences and significance bourgeois reforms For Russia?

5. What impact did the counter-reforms of Alexander III have on the development of the country?

6. Russian and Western liberalism: general and special.

7. Historical fate of populism in Russia.

Literature

Great reforms in Russia. 1856 - 1874 - M., 1992.

Mironenko S.V. Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. - M., 1989.

Mironov B. N. Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX century). T. 1 - 2. - St. Petersburg, 2000.

National history: Anthology. - Kirov, 2003.

Pirumova N. M. Zemskaya intelligentsia and its role in public struggle until the beginning of the twentieth century. - M., 1986.

Russian autocrats. - M., 1992.

Semennikova L. I. Russia in the world community of civilizations. - Bryansk, 2002.

Solovieva A.M. Industrial revolution in Russia in the 19th century. - M., 1990.

Tarle E.V. Napoleon's invasion of Russia. - M., 1992.

Tomsinov V.A. The luminary of the Russian bureaucracy. Historical portrait of M.M. Speransky. - M., 1991.

Troitsky I.M. III branch under Nicholas I. - L., 1990.

Troitsky N.A. Russia in the 19th century. Lecture course. - M., 1999.

Fedorov V.A. Decembrists and their time. - M., 1997.

The disintegration of the feudal-serf system in Russia, the emergence and development of capitalist relations, the struggle of the masses against arbitrariness and despotism gave rise to the Decembrist movement.

This movement took shape on the basis of Russian reality, it objectively reflected and defended the interests of the emerging bourgeois society. In the conditions of the emerging crisis of the feudal-serf system, the Decembrists consciously advocated the abolition of serfdom with weapons in their hands. The tasks that they tried to solve met the interests of the majority of the masses, the progressive movement of the country.

Objectively, the Decembrists opposed feudal ownership of land. Fighting against serfdom, against the feudal exploitation of the peasants, the landowner's right to own the labor of serfs, they spoke in favor of transferring part of the land to the former serfs. The implementation of the Decembrists' project meant the transformation of the land into bourgeois property, therefore, all their activities were aimed at destroying the old system.

The Decembrist movement was entirely connected with the development of the liberation movement throughout the world in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Fighting against serfdom and autocracy, inflicting revolutionary blows on feudal property, they thereby undermined the entire feudal-serf system.

The Decembrist movement belongs to the period when all the advanced forces of mankind sought to solve the main historical task - the destruction of the already obsolete feudal-serf system of the national economy, to give scope to the productive forces of society, the progressive revolutionary development of society. Thus, the Decembrist movement fit into the framework of a single revolutionary process at the beginning of the 19th century, which began with a revolution in the USA and France at the end of the 18th century.

The Decembrist movement stands on the shoulders of progressive social thought in Russia. It was well acquainted with the views of Fonvizin, Radishchev and many other reformation ideologists.

The Decembrists believed that the people were the source of supreme power in Russia, that they could achieve liberation by raising an uprising against the autocracy. The political consciousness of the Decembrists began to awaken in the first decades of the 19th century. The Great French Revolution of the late 18th century, revolutions in Europe and the Patriotic War of 1812 had a certain influence on the formation of their worldview. It was the war, with all its depth, that raised the question of the fate of the Motherland before the Decembrists. “We were children of 12,” said D. Muravyov (one of the Decembrists).

The first secret society arose in 1816, which was called the Union of Salvation or the Society of True and Faithful Sons of the Fatherland. Then came the "Northern" and "Southern" societies, the "Union of Prosperity" and, finally, the "Society of United Slavs."

Already in the first secret society, the purpose of the movement was determined. The introduction of the constitution and the abolition of serfdom are the conclusions that served as the basis for the further development of the views of the Decembrists. The Union of Welfare brought to the fore the task of shaping public opinion, on the basis of which they expected to carry out a coup d'état. In order for advanced public opinion to put pressure on the ruling circles, to capture the minds of the country's leading figures, the members of the Welfare Union took part in many charitable societies, created councils, Lancaster schools, literary societies, conducted a wide propaganda of views, created literary almanacs, defended unfairly convicted, serfs were redeemed - talented nuggets.

At one of the meetings of the Union of Welfare, Pestel spoke, proving all the benefits and advantages of the republican system. Pestel's views were supported.

The ideological political struggle between the moderate and radical wings of the Union of Welfare, the desire to launch an active struggle against the autocracy forced the leadership of the Union to dissolve in 1821. him in order to free himself from moderate hesitant and casual fellow travelers and create a renewed, highly conspiratorial organization.

After 1821-22. there are two new organizations of the Decembrists - the "Northern" and "Southern" societies (These societies prepared an armed uprising on December 14, 1825). The “Northern” society was headed by Muravyov and Ryleev, and the “South” society was headed by Pestel.

Members of the society prepared and discussed two progressive documents: Pestel's "Russian Truth" and Muravyov's "Constitution". The most radical views were distinguished by Russkaya Pravda, which proclaimed the abolition of serfdom, the complete equality of all citizens before the law, Russia was proclaimed a republic, a single and indivisible state, corresponding to the federal structure of the state. The population had the same rights and benefits, equal obligations to bear all burdens. The Russkaya Pravda said that the possession of other people as one's own property, without prior consent, is a shameful thing, contrary to the essence of mankind, the laws of nature, the laws of Christianity. Therefore, the right of one person to manage another cannot exist in Russia anymore.

According to the provisions of Russkaya Pravda, when solving the agrarian issue, Pestel proceeded from the fact that land is a public property, that every citizen of Russia has the right to receive a land allotment. However, private ownership of land was recognized. Pestel did not want to destroy landownership, it should be limited.

"Russkaya Pravda" determined that the supreme legislative power should belong to the people's veche, which was elected in the amount of 500 people for 5 years. Executive power was exercised by the Sovereign Duma, elected by the people's council for 5 years, consisting of 5 people. Every year, 20% of the members of the People's Council and the State Duma were re-elected. The Chairman of the State Duma was the President of the country. The president was elected from among the members of the people's council, provided that the candidate for the presidency was in the people's council for 5 years. External control of power was to be carried out by the Supreme Council, which consisted of 120 people. Local legislative power was to be exercised by district, county and volost local assemblies, and executive power - by district, county and volost boards. Local bodies were to be headed by elected posadniks, volost assemblies - by the volost producer, elected for one year.

The “Constitution” of Russia developed by Muravyov proposed the elimination of autocracy and the class division of the population, proclaimed the universal equality of citizens, the inviolability of personal property and property, freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, movement and choice of profession. Muraviev's “Constitution” also proclaimed the abolition of serfdom. The peasants were endowed with land, and the peasants received 2 acres of land per yard. The land owned by the peasant before the introduction of the "Constitution" was automatically attributed to his personal property.

The conservatism of the "Constitution" was manifested in the issue of citizenship. A citizen of Russia could be one who was at least 21 years old, who had a permanent place of residence, possessed immovable property in the amount of at least 500 rubles or movable property in the amount of at least 1000 rubles, who paid taxes regularly and was not in anyone's home. service. The citizen had the right to vote. This property qualification made it impossible to participate in the political activities of the country most population.

Russia is a federal state, consisting of 13 powers and two regions. The powers were divided into districts.

The supreme legislative body of the state was a bicameral people's council, consisting of the Supreme Duma and the House of People's Representatives (lower house). 40 deputies were elected to the Supreme Duma. 450 deputies were elected to the House of People's Representatives, one person from 500,000 representatives of the male population of the country. Deputies were elected for 6 years. Every two years, 1/3 of the House is re-elected. Locally, the sovereign veche, elected for 2 years, was the legislative body. The highest executive power in the country belonged, according to the "Constitution", to the emperor, who was the supreme commander in chief, he appointed ambassadors, supreme judges and ministers. The salary of the emperor was determined in the amount of 8,000,000 rubles annually. The executive power in the State was exercised by the sovereign ruler, the governor, elected for 3 years by the people's council. The judicial bodies were the Sovereign and Supreme Courts. The judges were chosen and did not change.

In Russia, universal military service was introduced.

After the failed uprising of the Decembrists on December 14, 1825, members of the "Northern" and "South" societies were arrested and tried, five of whom were executed, and the rest were sent to hard labor.

But the cause of the Decembrists was not in vain, the Decembrists gave birth to a new galaxy of revolutionaries.

After the Decembrist uprising, the government responded with years of reaction. But even in these years, underground revolutionary organizations, circles arose, a liberal-bourgeois trend arose, which received the names of Slavophiles and Westerners. The Slavophils believed that it was necessary to rely on the people in achieving goals, and the Westerners - it was necessary to use the best practices of European states. In the 1940s, an organization appeared in Russia headed by Petrashevsky. They were the first to raise the question of the possibility of the existence of socialism in Russia.

The position of Russia in the second half of the 19th century remained extremely difficult: it stood on the edge of the abyss. The economy and finances were undermined by the Crimean War, and National economy bound by the chains of serfdom could not develop.

Legacy of Nicholas I

The years of the reign of Nicholas I are considered the most unsuccessful since the Time of Troubles. An ardent opponent of any reforms and the introduction of a constitution in the country, the Russian emperor relied on an extensive bureaucratic bureaucracy. the ideology of Nicholas I was based on the thesis “the people and the tsar are one”. The result of the reign of Nicholas I was the economic backwardness of Russia from the countries of Europe, the general illiteracy of the population and the arbitrariness of the small-town authorities in all spheres of public life.

It was necessary to urgently solve the following tasks:

In foreign policy- to restore the international prestige of Russia. Overcome the country's diplomatic isolation.
In domestic policy, to create all conditions for stabilizing domestic economic growth. Solve the sore peasant question. overcome the gap from Western countries in the industrial sector through the introduction of new technologies.
When solving internal problems, the government involuntarily had to face the interests of the nobility. Therefore, the mood of this class also had to be taken into account.

After the reign of Nicholas I, Russia needed a sip fresh air The country needed reforms. The new Emperor Alexander II understood this.

Russia in the reign of Alexander II

The beginning of the reign of Alexander II was marked by unrest in Poland. In 1863, the Poles revolted. Despite the protest of the Western powers, the Russian emperor brought an army into the territory of Poland and crushed the rebellion.

Social movements in the second half of the 19th century

The transformations of Alexander II contributed to the awakening of revolutionary and liberal forces in Russian society. Social movement second half of the 19th century is divided into three main currents :

conservative trend. The founder of this ideology was Katkov, later D. A. Tolstoy and K. P. Pobedonostsev joined him. The conservatives believed that Russia could develop only according to three criteria - autocracy, nationality and Orthodoxy.
Liberal movement. The founder of this trend was a prominent historian Chicherin B.N., later Kavelin K.D. and Muromtsev S.A. joined him. Liberals stood up for a constitutional monarchy, the right of the individual and the independence of the church from the state.
revolutionary current. The ideologists of this current were A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky and V.G. Belinsky. Later N. A. Dobrolyubov joined them. Under Alexander II, thinkers published the magazines Kolokol and Sovremennik. The views of theoretical writers were based on the complete rejection of capitalism and autocracy as historical systems. They believed that prosperity for all would come only under socialism, and socialism would come immediately bypassing the stage of capitalism, and the peasantry would help it in this.

One of the founders of the revolutionary movement was M.A. Bakunin, who preached socialist anarchy. He believed that civilized states should be destroyed in order to build a new world Federation of communities in their place. The end of the 19th century brought the organization of secret revolutionary circles, the largest of which were “Land and Freedom”, “Great Russian”, “People's Reprisal”, “Ruble Society”, etc. The introduction of revolutionaries into the peasant environment was promoted in order to agitate them.

The peasants did not react in any way to the calls of the raznochintsy to overthrow the government. This led to the split of the revolutionaries into two camps - practitioners and theorists. Practitioners staged terrorist attacks and cracked down on prominent statesmen. The organization "Land and Freedom", later renamed the "People's Will" issued a death sentence to Alexander II. The sentence was carried out on March 1, 1881 after several unsuccessful assassination attempts. The terrorist Grinevitsky threw a bomb at the feet of the tsar.

Russia in the reign of Alexander III

Alexander III inherited a state deeply shaken by a series of murders of prominent politicians and police officials. The new tsar immediately set about crushing the revolutionary circles, and their main leaders, Tkachev, Perovskaya and Alexander Ulyanov, were executed.

Russia, instead of a constitution almost prepared by Alexander II, under the rule of his son, Alexander III, received a state with a police regime. The new emperor began a systematic attack on his father's reforms.
Since 1884, student circles have been banned in the country, since the government saw the main danger of freethinking in the student environment.
The rights of local self-government were revised. The peasants again lost their vote in the election of local deputies. Rich merchants sat in the city duma, and the local nobility sat in the zemstvos.
Judicial reform has also undergone changes. The court has become more closed, the judges are more dependent on the authorities.
Alexander III began to spread Great Russian chauvinism. The favorite thesis of the emperor was proclaimed - “Russia for the Russians”. By 1891, pogroms of Jews began with the connivance of the authorities.

Alexander III dreamed of the revival of the absolute monarchy and the advent of the era of reaction. The reign of this king proceeded without wars and international complications. This made it possible to accelerate the development of foreign and domestic trade, cities grew, factories and factories were built. At the end of the 19th century, the length of roads in Russia increased. The construction of the Siberian Railway was begun in order to connect the central regions of the state with the Pacific coast.

Rice. 2. Construction of the Siberian Railway in the second half of the XIX century.

Cultural development of Russia in the second half of the 19th century

The transformations that began in the era of Alexander II could not but affect various spheres of Russian culture during second XIX century.

Literature . New views on the life of the Russian population have become widespread in the literature. The society of writers, playwrights and poets was divided into two currents - the so-called Slavophiles and Westerners. A. S. Khomyakov and K. S. Aksakov considered themselves Slavophiles. The Slavophiles believed that Russia had its own special path and there was and will not be any Western influence on Russian culture. Westerners, to whom Chaadaev P. Ya., I. S. Turgenev, historian S. M. Solovyov considered themselves, argued that Russia, on the contrary, should follow the Western path of development. Despite the differences in views, both Westerners and Slavophiles were equally worried about the future fate of the Russian people and the state structure of the country. At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, Russian literature flourished. F. M. Dostoevsky, I. A. Goncharov, A. P. Chekhov and L. N. Tolstoy write their best works.
Architecture . In architecture in the second half of the 19th century, ecletism began to prevail - a mixture of different styles and trends. This affected the construction of new stations, shopping centers, apartment buildings, etc. Also, the design of certain forms in the architecture of a more classical genre was developed. A. I. Shtakenshneider was a well-known architect in this direction, with the help of which the Mariinsky Palace in St. Petersburg was designed. St. Isaac's Cathedral was built in St. Petersburg from 1818 to 1858. This project was designed by Auguste Montferrand.

Rice. 3. St. Isaac's Cathedral. St. Petersburg.

Painting . The artists, inspired by new trends, did not want to work under the close tutelage of the Academy, which was stuck in classicism and was cut off from the real vision of art. Thus, the artist V. G. Perov focused his attention on various aspects of the life of society, sharply criticizing the remnants of the serf system. In the 60s, the work of the portrait painter Kramskoy flourished, V. A. Tropinin left us a lifetime portrait of A. S. Pushkin. The works of P. A. Fedotov did not fit into the narrow framework of academicism either. His works “Courtship of a Major” or “Breakfast of an Aristocrat” ridiculed the stupid complacency of officials and the remnants of the serf system.

In 1852, the Hermitage was opened in St. Petersburg, where the best works of painters from all over the world were collected.

What have we learned?

From the article briefly described, you can learn about the transformations of Alexander II, the emergence of the first revolutionary circles, the counter-reforms of Alexander III, as well as the flowering of Russian culture in the second half of the 19th century.

Topic quiz

Report Evaluation

Average rating: 4.5. Total ratings received: 192.

In the 19th century in Russia, a social movement unusually rich in content and methods of action was born, which largely determined the future fate of the country. The 19th century brought with it a sense of the uniqueness, originality of the Russian national-historical being, a tragic (according to P.Ya. Chaadaev) and proud (according to the Slavophiles) awareness of its dissimilarity with Europe. For the first time, history became a kind of “mirror” for educated people, looking into which one could recognize oneself, feel one’s own originality and uniqueness.

Already at the beginning of the century, Russian conservatism was formed as a political trend. His 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 pleasure of the autocrat, but this did not mean arbitrariness. The monarch was obliged to sacredly observe the laws. The division of society into estates was understood by him as an eternal and natural phenomenon. The nobility was obliged to "rise" above other estates not only by the nobility of origin, but also by moral perfection, education, and usefulness to society.

N.M. Karamzin protested against borrowing from Europe and outlined a program of action for the Russian monarchy. It involved a relentless search for capable and honest people to occupy the most important positions. N.M. Karamzin never tired of repeating that Russia needed not reforms of state bodies, but fifty honest governors. A very peculiar interpretation of N.M. Karamzin received in the 30s. 19th century A distinctive feature of the reign of Nicholas was the desire of the authorities to extinguish opposition sentiments with the help of ideological means. This goal was intended to serve the theory of official nationality, developed by the Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov (1786-1855) and historian M.P. Pogodin (1800-1875). They preached the thesis of the inviolability of the fundamental foundations of Russian statehood. They attributed autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality to such foundations. They considered autocracy the only adequate form of Russian statehood, and Russians' loyalty to Orthodoxy was a sign of their true spirituality. Nationality was understood as the need for the educated estates to learn from the common people loyalty to the throne and love for the ruling dynasty. Under the conditions of the deadly regulation of life during the time of Nicholas I, the significant “Philosophical Letter” by P.Ya. Chaadaeva (1794-1856). With a feeling of bitterness and sadness, he wrote that Russia had not contributed anything of value to the treasuries of world historical experience. Blind imitation, slavery, political and spiritual despotism, that, according to Chaadaev, we stood out among other peoples. The past of Russia was painted by him in gloomy colors, the present struck with dead stagnation, and the future was the most bleak. It was clear that the main culprits plight countries Chaadaev considered autocracy and Orthodoxy. The author of the "Philosophical Letter" was declared insane, and the magazine "Telescope", which published it, was closed.

In the 30-40s. sharp disputes about the originality of the historical path of Russia for a long time captured significant circles of the public and led to the formation of two characteristic trends - 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). The Westernizers declared about general regularities in the historical development of all civilized peoples. They saw the originality of Russia only in the fact that our Fatherland lagged behind the countries of Europe in its economic and political development. The most important task of society and government Westerners considered the country's perception of advanced, ready-made forms of social and economic life, characteristic of the countries of Western Europe. This primarily meant the elimination of serfdom, the abolition of legal class distinctions, the provision of freedom of enterprise, the democratization of the judiciary and the development of local self-government.

The Westerners objected to the so-called Slavophiles. This trend arose primarily in Moscow, in the aristocratic salons and editorial offices of the journals of the "first throne". The theorists of Slavophilism were A.S. Khomyakov, the Aksakov brothers and the Kireevsky brothers. They wrote that the historical path of Russia's development is fundamentally different from the development of Western European countries. Russia was characterized not by economic, or even more so by political backwardness, but by originality, dissimilarity to European standards of life. They manifested themselves in the spirit of communion, fastened by Orthodoxy, in the special spirituality of the people living in the words of K.S. Aksakov "according to the inner truth". Western peoples, in the opinion of the Slavophiles, live in an atmosphere of individualism, private interests, regulated by "external truth", i.e., possible norms of written law. Russian autocracy, the Slavophiles emphasized, arose not as a result of a clash of private interests, but on the basis of a voluntary agreement between the government and the people. The Slavophils believed that in pre-Petrine times there was an organic unity between the authorities and the people, when the principle was observed: the power of power - to the king, and the power of opinion - to the people. The transformations of Peter I dealt a blow to Russian identity. A deep cultural split occurred in Russian society. The state began to strengthen the bureaucratic supervision of the people in every possible way. The Slavophils proposed restoring the right of the people to free and open expression of their opinion. They actively demanded the abolition of serfdom. The monarchy was supposed to become "truly popular", taking care of all the estates living in the state, preserving the original mouths: communal orders in the countryside, zemstvo self-government, Orthodoxy. Of course, both the Westerners and the Slavophiles were different hypostases of Russian liberalism. True, the peculiarity of Slavophile liberalism was that it often appeared in the form of patriarchal-conservative utopias.

By the middle of the XIX century. in Russia, the attraction of educated youth to radical democratic, as well as to socialist ideas, begins to manifest itself. A.I. played an exceptionally important role in this process. Herzen (1812-1870), a brilliantly educated publicist and philosopher, a true "Nineteenth century Voltaire" (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 transformations in the most advanced countries. This was not accidental: there were quite a lot of admirers of socialism, 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 majority of the people did not support the proletarians who fought heroically on the barricades of Paris. Moreover, Herzen was struck by the desire of many people in Europe for material wealth and prosperity, and their indifference to social problems. With bitterness, he wrote about the individualism of Europeans, their philistinism. Europe, soon began to assert A.I. Herzen, is no longer capable of social creativity and cannot be updated on the humanistic principles of life.

It was in Russia that he saw what he did not find in essence, in the West - the predisposition of the people's way of 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 become a guarantee that Russia can pave the way to the socialist system. Russian peasants owned the land communally, jointly, and the peasant family traditionally received allotment on the basis of equalizing redistributions. The peasants were characterized by revenue and mutual assistance, a craving for collective work. Many crafts in Russia have long been carried out by artel, together, with the widespread use of equalizing principles of production and distribution. Numerous Cossacks lived on the outskirts of the country, who also could not imagine their life without self-government, without traditional forms joint work for the common good. Of course, the peasantry is poor and ignorant. But the peasants, having been freed from the oppression of the landlords and state arbitrariness, can and must be taught, instilled in them enlightenment and modern culture.

In the 50s. all thinking Russia read out in London, printed editions of A.I. Herzen. These were the almanac "Polar Star" and the magazine "Bell".

A major phenomenon in public life in the 1940s. 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 the publication of an encyclopedic dictionary, filling it with socialist and democratic content. In 1849 the circle was opened by the authorities and its members were severely repressed. Several people (among them was the future great writer F.M. Dostoevsky) experienced the full horror of waiting for the death penalty (it was replaced at the last moment by Siberian penal servitude). In the 40s. in Ukraine, there was the so-called Cyril and Methodius Society, which preached the ideas of Ukrainian identity (T.G. Shevchenko (1814-1861) was among the participants. 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, writers and journalists acted as the most resolute opponents of the regime. 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 board 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). Young people gravitated towards the magazine, standing on the positions of a radical renewal of Russia, striving for the complete elimination of political oppression and social inequality. The ideological leaders of the magazine tried to convince readers of the necessity and possibility of Russia's rapid transition to socialism. At the same time, N.G. Chernyshevsky after A.I. Herzen argued that the peasant community can be the best form of people's life. If the Russian people were liberated from the oppression of the landlords 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 the position of Sovremennik was different. Its authors believed that autocratic power was incapable of just reform and dreamed of an early people's revolution.

The era of the 60s. laid the foundation for 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 “growing” 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 (moreover, on the principles of social equality). The liberals were frightened by calls for popular revenge on the oppressors, heard from the camp of the radical raznochintsy intelligentsia.

At this time, Zemstvo bodies, more and more newspapers and magazines, and university professors became a kind of socio-political base for liberalism. Moreover, the concentration of elements in opposition to the government in zemstvos and city dumas was a natural phenomenon. The weak material and financial capabilities of local self-government bodies, the indifference to their activities on the part of government officials caused the Zemstvo residents to staunchly dislike the actions of the authorities. Increasingly, Russian liberals came to the conclusion about the need for deep political reforms in the empire. In the 70s-early 80s. Tver, Kharkiv, Chernigov Zemstvo most actively petition the government for the need for reforms in the spirit of the development of representative institutions, publicity and civil rights.

Russian liberalism had many different facets. With his left wing, he touched the revolutionary underground, with his right - the camp of the guards. Existing in post-reform Russia both as part of the political opposition and as part of the government (“liberal bureaucrats”), liberalism, in contrast to revolutionary radicalism and political protection, 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 practical absence of a "third estate" in it, i.e. quite numerous bourgeoisie.

All the leaders of the Russian revolutionary camp expected in 1861-1863. 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 demonstrations decreased, the most perspicacious of the radicals (A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky) stopped talking about the imminent revolution, predicting a long period of painstaking preparatory work in the countryside and society. Proclamations written in the early 1960s 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 intelligentsia, the variety of political recommendations, from addresses to Alexander II to demands for a democratic republic, confirm this conclusion. Such tactics of the revolutionaries are quite explicable, if one bears in mind their small numbers and poor organization. The Society "Land and Freedom" created by Chernyshevsky, Sleptsov, Obruchev, Serno-Solovyevich 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 more active in the revolutionary movement, who swore 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. Argiropulo distributed the proclamation "Young Russia", filled with threats and bloody prophecies addressed to the government and the nobility. Her 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 reasonably 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 Russia's only hope in this period was liberal reforms, and the only force capable of consistently implementing them was the government, based on the local government. nobility.

On April 4, 1866, a member of one of the St. Petersburg revolutionary circles D.V. Karakozov shot Alexander P. The investigation came to a small group of students led by N.A. Ishutin, the 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 attempt to put pressure on the emperor in order to slow down further reforms. The emperor himself at this time begins to alienate the supporters of consistent reformist measures, more and more trusting the 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. S.G. became its brightest representative. Nechaev, who created the society "People's Reprisal". Forgery, blackmail, unscrupulousness, unconditional submission of the members of the organization to the will of the "leader" - all this, according to Nechaev, should have been used in the activities of the revolutionaries. The trial of the Nechaevites served as the plot basis of the great novel by F.M. Dostoevsky's "Demons", which with brilliant insight showed where such "fighters for the people's happiness" can lead Russian society. Most radicals denounced the Nechaevs as immoral and dismissed the phenomenon as an accidental "episode" in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement, but time has shown that the problem is far more important than mere chance.

Revolutionary circles of the 70s. moved gradually to new forms of activity. In 1874, mass circulation to the people 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 conduct propaganda, or to raise a peasant to an uprising, or simply to get acquainted with the "people". You can relate to this in different ways: consider it a touch on the "origins", an attempt by the intelligentsia to get closer to the "suffering people", a naive apostolic belief that the new religion is love of the people, raised the common people to an understanding of the beneficialness of socialist ideas, but from a political point of view 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 populists.

Unorganized, without a single center of leadership, the movement was easily and quickly uncovered by the police, who inflated the case of anti-government propaganda. The revolutionaries were forced to revise their tactical methods and move on to more systematic propaganda activities. The theorists of revolutionary populism (and this political direction was already habitually called in Russia) still believed that in the foreseeable future it would be possible to replace the monarchy with a socialist republic based on a peasant community in the countryside and workers' associations in the cities. Persecution, harsh sentences for dozens of young people who participated in the “walking” and, in fact, did not commit anything illegal (and many diligently worked as zemstvo figures, paramedics, etc.) - hardened the populists. Most of them, engaged in propaganda work in the countryside, experienced their failures hard (after all, the peasants were not at all going to rebel against the government), they understood that small groups of young people could not do anything real yet. 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 of A.I. Zhelyabova and S. Perovskoy begin the hunt for Alexander II himself. On March 1, 1881, another attempt to assassinate the emperor was successful.

The Narodnaya Volya were often reproached (in the liberal camp), and even now these reproaches seem to have experienced a second birth because they frustrated the attempts of government liberals to begin the process of the country's transition to constitutional rule as early as 1881. But this is not fair. Firstly, it was revolutionary activity that forced the government to rush to such measures (ie, 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 terror of the Narodniks went through a series of stages. And their first terrorist actions were not a well-thought-out tactic, not even a program, but only an act of desperation, revenge for their fallen comrades. It was not in the intentions of the Narodnaya Volya to “seize” power. Interestingly, they only planned to get the government to organize elections in constituent Assembly. And in a clash between the government and the People's Will, no winner can be found. After March 1, both the government and the populist revolutionary movement found themselves in an impasse. Both forces needed a break, and such an event could provide it, which would drastically change the situation, make the whole country think about what is 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 advocates for peasant affairs. They talked about the need for “small” but useful deeds for the common people, about the illiteracy and oppression 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. So the clash of power with radical forces was delayed for 20 years (until the beginning of the 20th century), but, unfortunately, it was not possible to avoid it.

The revision by the revolutionaries 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 under the influence of populist propagandists and were relatively few in number.

Already in the 80s. The working-class movement expanded significantly and elements of what soon made (at the beginning of the 20th century) the working-class movement one of the most important political factors in the life of the country appear in it. The largest strike in the post-reform years, the Morozov strike, confirmed this position.

It took place in 1885 at the Morozov manufactory in Orekhovo-Zuyevo. The leaders of the uprising developed requirements for the owner of the manufactory, and also transferred them to the governor. The governor called in the troops and the instigators were arrested. But during the trial, an event occurred that literally struck Emperor Alexander III and his government like thunder, and echoed throughout Russia: the jurors acquitted all 33 defendants.

Definitely in the 80's and 90's. 19th century under the conservative rule of Alexander III and his son Nicholas II (began ruling in 1894), it was out of the question for the authorities to allow the workers to fight for their rights in an organized manner. Both emperors did not allow the thought to allow 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 decision of the government, labor disputes had to be settled by special officials - factory inspectors, who, of course, were more often influenced by entrepreneurs than cared about the interests of workers. The government's inattention to the needs of the working class has led to the fact that admirers of the Marxist doctrine rush into the working environment and find support there. The first Russian Marxists, who were in exile, headed by G.V. Plekhanov, the Emancipation of Labor group, began their activities with the translation and distribution in Russia of books by K. Marx and F. Engels, as well as writing brochures in which they proved that the era of Russian capitalism had already begun, and the working class had to fulfill a historical mission - to lead a nationwide 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. Deutsch and V.K. Ignatiev 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 the Plekhanov group that became the first Marxist organization to do a great job in emigration: they published at the end of the 19th century. over 250 Marxist works. The successes of the new doctrine in European countries, the propaganda of his views by the Plekhanov group led to the emergence in Russia of the first Social Democratic circles of D. Blagoev, M.I. Brusnev, P.V. Toginsky. These circles were not numerous and consisted primarily of the intelligentsia and students, but more and more often workers were now joining them. The new doctrine was surprisingly optimistic, it met both the hopes and the psychological mood of the Russian radicals. New class- the proletariat, rapidly growing, being exploited by entrepreneurs, not protected by law 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 be aware of its own (and, ultimately, universal) interests. Such a social force appeared in Russia in a historically short period of time and resolutely declared itself through strikes and strikes. To give the development of the proletariat the "correct" direction, to bring into it the socialist consciousness - this great, but historically necessary task was to be performed by the Russian revolutionary intelligentsia. She herself thought so. But first it was necessary to "destroy" the Narodniks ideologically, who continued to "reiterate" that Russia could bypass the stage of capitalism, that its socio-economic characteristics did 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 education, 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 discussion between those Marxists who tried to focus on the economic struggle of workers for their rights and, accordingly, placed their hopes on the reformist path of development of Russia, and those who did not believe in the possibility of tsarism. to ensure the progressive development of the country and pinned all his hopes on the people's revolution. IN AND. Ulyanov (Lenin) resolutely joined the latter.

All noted social movements represented different facets of political opposition. Russian Marxists, only at first glance, were faithful followers of the Western radical doctrine that developed in the conditions of the then early industrial society, where acute social inequality still dominated. But European Marxism at the end of the XIX century. is already losing its destructive anti-state attitude. European Marxists are increasingly relying on the fact 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 another matter. The fighting radical spirit of the previous generation of Russian populist socialists lived in him, who were ready for any sacrifice and suffering in the struggle against the autocracy. They saw themselves as tools of history, spokesmen for the true will of the people. Thus, the European idea of socialism was combined with a complex of purely Russian ideological moods, which were characterized by maximalism of goals and significant isolation from reality. Hence, Russian Marxists, just like the Narodniks, manifested a literally religious belief that as a result of a people's revolution in Russia, it is possible to quickly build a just state in all respects, where any social evil will be eradicated.

The huge complex of economic and social problems that Russia faced in the post-reform decades caused ideological confusion in the camp of Russian conservatives as well. In the 60-80s. the talented journalist M.N. tried to give the autocracy a new ideological weapon. Katkov. In his articles all the time there were calls for the establishment of a "strong hand" regime in the country. It meant the suppression of any dissent, a ban on the publication of materials of liberal content, strict censorship, the preservation of social framework in society, control over zemstvos and city dumas. The education system was built in such a way that it was permeated with the ideas of loyalty to the throne and the church. Another talented conservative, chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev resolutely warned the Russians against the introduction of a constitutional system, since it was something lower, in his opinion, in comparison with autocracy. And this superiority, as it were, consisted in the greater honesty of the autocracy. As Pobedonostsev argued, the idea of representation is essentially false, since not the people, but only its representatives (and far from being the most honest, but only clever and ambitious) participate in political life. The same applies to parliamentarism, since the struggle of political parties, the ambitions of deputies, etc. play a huge role in it.

It really is. But after all, Pobedonostsev did not want to admit that the representative system also had huge advantages: the possibility of recalling deputies who did not justify the trust, the possibility of criticizing the shortcomings of the political and economic system in the state, the separation of powers, the right to choose. Yes, the jury trial, the Zemstvos, the then Russian press were not ideal at all. But how did the ideologists of conservatism want to remedy the situation? Yes, in fact, no way. They are just, like the old N.M. Karamzin, demanded that the tsar appoint honest, and not thieving, officials to ministerial and gubernatorial posts, demanded that the peasants be given only an elementary, strictly religious in content, education, demanded that students, Zemstvo, 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 the peasants, the arbitrariness of entrepreneurs, the low standard of living of a huge part of the peasants and workers. Their ideas reflected, in fact, the powerlessness of the conservatives in the face of the formidable problems that confronted society at the end of the 19th century. In addition, among the conservatives there were already quite a few such thinkers who, advocating for Orthodox spiritual values, the preservation of national everyday traditions, fighting the onset of "Western" spiritual culture, sharply criticized government policy for inefficiency and even "reactionary".

The 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 "Asiaticism": domostroy, age-old habits of subordination to the state, indifference to legal forms, replaced by the "idea of arbitrariness." Therefore, although the educated layer in Russia showed a relatively high ability to assimilate elements of European culture, these elements could not gain a foothold in the thickness of the population, falling on unprepared soil, they rather caused a destructive effect; led to cultural disorientation mass consciousness(philistinism, tramp, drunkenness, etc.). From this, the paradox of the cultural process in Russia in the 19th century becomes clear, which consisted in a sharp gap between the developed stratum of the intelligentsia, the nobility, the raznochintsy and the working masses.

One of the essential features of the historical development of Russia was that in the 19th century, when the national bourgeoisie could not become the leading force in the liberation movement, the intelligentsia became the main subjects of the political process “from below”.