Autocracy at the beginning of the 19th century. Russian autocracy in the second half of the nineteenth century

"Autocratic Power in Russia at the Beginning of the 19th

(structure of the contractor's organization)"

Introduction

§ one . Autocracy at the beginning of the 19th century. Transformations of the political system

§2 Law at the beginning of the 19th century

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The history of Russia for many years is inextricably linked with the autocracy. The beginning of the 19th century was the time when transformations began to take place in the state system. The emperor came to power, aimed at reforms. It seemed that Russia would not pass by the transformations taking place in Europe.

This period is controversial in the history of Russia and requires special study. Transformations in the state system provided for transformations in the system of law. At the same time, problems in the legal system itself were brewing for a long time, the issue of the abolition of serfdom was especially acute, the issue of introducing a Constitution was brewing, which meant limiting autocracy. All this did not happen, and the reasons for this require study.

The topic of this work is relevant, since it was this period that could become significant in the history of Russia, marked by a change in the course of the country, its entry onto a democratic path. But instead of all this, the autocracy remained in its positions, all power still remained in the hands of the emperor.

The purpose of this work is to study autocracy at the beginning of the 19th century. To do this, I have set the following tasks:

Give a short description of the autocracy, make an analysis of its development in Russia;

Investigate the transformations carried out in this period;

Explore the changes carried out in the law of the early nineteenth century.

In the course of my work, I used the following sources: the legislation of the first quarter of the 19th century, the course of Russian history written by Klyuchevsky V.O., Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F. Review of the history of Russian law, Isaev I.A. History of the state and law of Russia.

§ 1. Autocracy at the beginning XIX century. Transformations of the state system.

Autocracy is usually understood as a monarchical form of government, in which all power belongs to one person - the king (emperor). This is the supreme right in legislation (approval of bills), in supreme administration (appointment and dismissal of senior officials, supreme leadership of central and local institutions and governments, supreme command of the army and navy, management of finances), in the highest court (approval of sentences, pardons). Two stages can be traced in the history of autocracy: 1) 16th - 17th centuries, when the monarch exercised his rights together with the Boyar Duma and the boyar aristocracy 2) 18th - early 20th centuries - absolute monarchy. During this period, Zemsky Sobors ceased to be convened, the Boyar Duma was liquidated, and the process of subordinating the church to the state intensified. In the system of the state apparatus there is no body that in any way limited the power of the monarch.

In the first half of the 19th century, Russia remained an absolute monarchy in the form of government. The crisis of serfdom, the growth of capitalist relations, the strengthening class struggle in the country - all this forced tsarism to pay considerable attention to strengthening the state apparatus, to adapt to new conditions.

At the head of a large, ramified state apparatus, as before, was the emperor, endowed with all the attributes of an absolute monarch. The sovereignty of the emperor did not mean that he alone carried out activities to manage the state. The tsar relied on a large army of officials, on an extensive administrative apparatus.

During this period received further development Council under the emperor. It was an advisory body with a narrow membership. It often changed its name. Until 1801, the Council at the Highest Court operated, then an indispensable council of 12 people with purely advisory functions was created. It functioned until the creation of the State Council.

The State Council was established by the tsar's manifesto in 1810 and existed with some changes until 1917. The initiator of the creation of this body was M.M. Speransky. The State Council was created as a legislative body that develops draft legislative acts that receive legal force after approval by the emperor.

The Emperor was the Chairman of the State Council; in his absence, the meetings were chaired by a member of the Council appointed by him. The body's membership ranged from forty to eighty members (the State Council lasted until 1917). Members of the Council were appointed by the emperor or were part of it ex officio (ministers).

The State Council considered and prepared various legal acts: laws, charters, institutions. The main goal of his legislative activity was to bring the entire legal system to uniformity.

The State Council consisted of five departments: the department of laws (in which the main work on drafting bills took place), military affairs, civil and spiritual affairs, state economy and affairs of the Kingdom of Poland (created after the uprising in Poland in 1830-1831).

The work of the State Council was carried out either in the form of general meetings or in the form of departmental meetings. All office work was concentrated in the office, which was headed by the Secretary of State.

There were also general meetings of the State Council. Office work was carried out by the office, which was headed by the Secretary of State.

The State Council carried out its main task (preparation of bills) for a short time. A little bit later. In the second quarter of the 19th century, bills began to be developed in royal office ministries, special committees. discuss them in State Council became formal.

The role of the Senate in the early 19th century began to decrease. The Senate basically retained the role of the country's highest judicial institution. Its departments became the highest appellate courts for the provincial courts. The Senate was subordinated to the boards, granted the right to report to the tsar on the inconsistency and contradiction of newly issued decrees with other existing laws. However, the senate soon lost this and a number of other rights, remaining mainly the highest judicial body.

The trend towards further centralization and bureaucratization of the state apparatus intensified. The collegiate system did not provide the necessary control of the country for tsarism. The lack of personal responsibility also had a negative impact on the activities of the central office. Ministries were already operating in many Western European countries at that time. At the beginning of the 19th century, ministries came to replace collegiums in Russia as well. In 1802, a manifesto was adopted on the establishment of ministries, which marked the beginning of a new form of sectoral administrative bodies. Unlike collegiums, ministries were more efficient in management matters, they increased the personal responsibility of leaders and executors, and expanded the importance and influence of offices and office work. In accordance with the royal manifesto in 1802, eight ministries were created: military ground forces, maritime forces, foreign affairs, justice, internal affairs, finance, commerce, public education. Two of them were new and had no predecessors - the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Public Education. The Ministry of the Interior, in addition to maintaining “order” in the country, was entrusted with the responsibility of managing state industry and construction. The Ministry of Education solved the problems of ideological indoctrination of the masses, educating them in the spirit of devotion to tsarism, and also training personnel for the state apparatus. It was subordinated to: the Academy of Sciences, universities and other educational institutions, private and public printing houses, libraries and museums, it carried out censorship of published literature.

The tasks of the ministries included: organization of relations on the ground, preparation of information on current affairs and reports. They acted on the basis of the instructions prepared for them, summarized the work done and prepared long-term plans for the future. Ministers were required to submit annual reports on their activities to the Senate.

The publication in 1811 of the "General Institution of Ministries", compiled with the direct participation of M. M. Speransky, completed the formation of the ministerial system of government in Russia. The ministers were entrusted with executive power within the limits of the activities of the ministries entrusted to them. It was established that all ministers were “directly subordinate to the supreme authority”, i.e. emperor. The ministers and their assistants, called comrades of the minister, were appointed by the king, other high officials were approved by the emperor on the proposals of the ministers, and the lower ones were appointed by the ministers. The apparatus of the ministries was subdivided into departments and offices headed by directors. The most important grandfathers were considered by the Council at the Ministry by an advisory body, which included the minister's comrades and directors of departments.

The number of ministries and equivalent institutions increased. Were created: the Ministry of Police (soon abolished), the State Treasury, the Audit of State Accounts (state control), the Main Directorate of Railways, the Main Directorate of Spiritual Affairs of various confessions

With the creation of ministries, a new body began to take shape - the Committee of Ministers. In the Manifesto of 1802 there was no clear regulation of its activities, but only mentioned that ministers could come together to resolve complex issues. The powers and forms of activity of the Committee of Ministers were developed in practice. The Committee of Ministers considered issues within the competence of several ministries and therefore required a joint discussion of the ministers. The Emperor presided over its meetings.

Russia at the end of the 19th century

The internal policy of the autocracy at the end of the XIX century.

Ideologists and conductors of the internal political course that determined the entire reign Alexander III(1881 - 1894), there were staunch conservatives: Chief Prosecutor of the Synod K. P. Pobedonostsev, publisher of Moskovskie Vedomosti M. N. Katkov and Minister of Internal Affairs D. A. Tolstoy. All these figures had a negative attitude towards the reforms of the 1860s and 1870s, hoping to neutralize their impact on Russian life through counter-reforms. The most significant of the measures taken by the government in this direction were the creation of a new local administration in the person of zemstvo chiefs (1889) and the zemstvo counter-reform (1890). The zemstvo chief stood at the head of the zemstvo section (there were 4-5 such sections in each county). These officials were appointed by the Minister of the Interior exclusively from among the local hereditary nobles - landowners. The peasantry fell into their full and unconditional power. Monitoring the observance of order, the collection of taxes, etc., the zemstvo chiefs widely used the right granted to them to fine the peasants, put them under arrest and subject them to corporal punishment. As a result of the zemstvo counter-reform, the property qualification for the landowning curia was halved, while for the city curia it increased significantly. After that, the predominance of landowners in the zemstvos became even more significant. The peasant electoral curia generally lost the right of independent choice: the final decision on its candidacies was made by the governor. Thus, the autocratic power tried to strengthen the position of the noble landlords in local government as much as possible. In addition, the government also provided financial support to the local nobility: in 1885, the Noble Bank was established, which gave loans on preferential terms secured by estates. In the very first year of its activity, the bank lent almost 70 million rubles to the landowners. Cash injections slowed down the process of impoverishment of the local nobility, but they could not stop it.

Supporting the nobility, the ruling bureaucracy at the same time sought to strengthen its position as much as possible. August 14, 1881 Alexander III approved the "Regulations on measures to protect state security and public peace”, according to which a state of emergency could be declared in any locality. The local administration got the opportunity to arrest everyone it considered necessary, exile without trial for up to 5 years to any part of the Russian Empire, and bring them to a military court. She was given the right to close educational institutions and press organs, to suspend the activities of zemstvos, etc. "Position" until 1917. was widely used by the authorities in the fight against the revolutionary and social movement. In the 1880s the government took a number of harsh measures against the educated part of society, in which it saw its main enemy: it tightened censorship, increased administrative supervision of higher educational institutions, and made it difficult for representatives of the "lower classes" to access education.

Nicholas II (1894 - 1917) at first also tried to follow his father's reactionary course. During his reign, a unified network of security departments was created - highly professional bodies of political investigation. The tsarist courts worked at full capacity. It has become commonplace to use not only the police and gendarmerie, but also the troops to combat "riots". The weak attempts of some representatives of the highest bureaucracy, primarily the Minister of Finance S. Yu. Witte, to carry out bourgeois transformations associated with the destruction of the community and the strengthening of the layer of the prosperous peasantry, did not find support from the tsar.

Social movement in the late XIX - early XX century.

At the end of the XIX century. Zemstvo bodies were still the focus of the liberal opposition, and its main slogan was "positive work in the field." 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 the constitution 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 for 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. A characteristic feature of the liberal movement was still the rejection of revolutionary means.

Populism is undergoing a severe crisis during these years. The liberal wing, whose representatives (N. K. Mikhailovsky, S. N. Krivenko, 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, aiming the intelligentsia at daily work to improve the situation of the peasants - in zemstvo schools, hospitals, volost boards, etc. The liberal populists differed from the liberals primarily in that socio-economic transformations were of paramount importance for them. The introduction of a constitution, political freedoms, etc., seemed to them secondary. The revolutionary wing of populism, weakened by the persecution of the Okhrana, managed to intensify its activities only at the end of the 19th century. In 1901, the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) appeared, which in its program tried to embody the ideals of revolutionary populism. The most important part of the Socialist-Revolutionary program was the socialization of the land, i.e. the abolition of private ownership of land and its transfer to the communities. The Social 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. While trying to conduct broad agitation among the workers and especially the peasants, the Socialist-Revolutionaries at the same time considered individual terror to be the most important means of revolutionary struggle. The militant organization of the party committed a series of terrorist attacks in 1903, killing the ministers of internal affairs Sipyagin and Plehve, the Moscow governor-general led. book. Sergei Alexandrovich.

At the end of the XIX century. Marxism is becoming more and more widespread in Russia, the supporters of which see the main revolutionary force in the proletariat. In 1883, in exile in Geneva, the Emancipation of Labor group, headed by Plekhanov, appeared, whose members translated into Russian and wrote the works of a Marxist nature themselves. A number of circles appear in Russia - Blagoev, Tochissky, Brusnev, Fedoseev, spreading Marxist views among the intelligentsia and workers. And in 1895, the "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class" appeared in St. Petersburg, headed by V. I. Lenin; similar organizations are being created in other cities following its model. In 1898, their members made an unsuccessful attempt to create their own party at a congress in Minsk. Only in 1903, at the Second Congress in Brussels, was the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party established. In the course of stormy debates, the program of the RSDLP was adopted, which included two parts. The minimum program determined the immediate tasks of the party: in the sphere of political transformations - the overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of democratic republic; in a working question - an 8-hour working day; in the peasant - the return of cuts to the peasants and the abolition of redemption payments. On the whole, this part of the program of the RSDLP was in no way more revolutionary than that of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and in the agrarian question it was closer to the liberal one. But on the other hand, the maximum program, which was aimed at establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, placed 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 marked the victory of the radical wing of the RSDLP - the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin. Their opponents, who after this congress received the name Mensheviks, insisted that the party proceed in its activities only from the minimum program.

Culture of the second half of the XIX century.

In the post-reform period, the need for engineers, teachers, doctors, etc., increased sharply. The old system of education is being transformed. In the field of primary education great importance acquire local schools. An important role in the development of secondary education was played by the new charter of gymnasiums (1864), which abolished their class-noble character. According to this statute, gymnasiums were divided into classical ones, based on teaching - the study of ancient languages, and real (later schools), where mathematics and natural science were in the foreground. In 1863, a new university charter was adopted, reviving the former autonomy. Since 1862, women's gymnasiums began to open in Russia, and from the 70s. - higher courses for women. These measures contributed to the democratization of education, which began to cover ever wider sections of the population. However, in the era of the reaction of Alexander III, real schools were transformed into technical schools who trained the lower technical staff; in the gymnasium it was forbidden to accept children of the "lower classes"; in 1883, a decree was adopted that restored the power of the trustees of educational districts.

The process of democratization also captures Russian literature: more and more writers appear in it, whose works were more of a journalistic than artistic nature, satisfying the reader's urgent need for clear answers to the burning questions of our time. The most striking figure among them was N. G. Chernyshevsky, whose novel What Is To Be Done? enjoyed popularity among the raznochintsy intelligentsia. Second half of the 19th century gave writers who worthily continued the traditions of their brilliant predecessors. Some of them adhered to the democratic direction, standing out for their talent and skill - the brilliant satirist M.E. Shchedrin, the creator of truly folk-spirited poems N.A. Nekrasov, the penetrating researcher of peasant life G.I. Uspensky. Others - I. S. Turgenev, I. A. Goncharov, A. F. Pisemsky, adhering to more moderate views, managed to give in their works a wide panorama of Russian life, depicted with amazing talent. A special place in this series is occupied by the brilliant creations of L. N. Tolstoy and F. M. Dostoevsky, who, starting from everyday reality, managed to rise to “ eternal questions about God, about the soul, about the meaning of life.

For Russian painting, the second half of the XIX century. also flourished. The main event in its history was the organization in 1870 of the Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions, which brought together realist artists who sought to make art accessible to the broadest masses. This desire was expressed both in the creative manner of the Wanderers, in the themes of their paintings, and in the constant organization of their exhibitions in different cities of Russia. Many Wanderers were worried about the most topical subjects (V. E. Makovsky - “Condemned”, “Prisoner”, “Party”; N. A. Yaroshenko - “Cursist”, “Student”; G. G. Myasoedov - “Zemstvo is having lunch” and etc.); attracted images of working people - peasants and workers (Myasoedov. "Mowers"; Yaroshenko. "Stoker"; V.M. Maksimov. "At his strip"). They did not shy away from “eternal”, including gospel themes (I. N. Kramskoy. “Christ in the Desert”; N. N. Ge. “What is Truth”; V. D. Polenov. “Christ and the Sinner” ). Among them were remarkable masters of historical painting (V. I. Surikov. “Morning of the Stelets execution”, etc.), magnificent masters of landscape (A. K. Savrasov. “The Rooks Have Arrived”; I. I. Shishkin. “Forest Wilderness”, "Rye", "Oak Grove"; A. I. Kuindzhi. "Ukrainian Night"), outstanding portrait painters (V. G. Perov, Kramskoy, Yaroshenko). Even in this extraordinarily talented environment, I. E. Repin stood out, creating with equal brilliance in all genres (“Barge haulers on the Volga”, “Princess Sophia”, “They didn’t wait”, etc.).

The national Russian school in musical culture is finally taking shape: just as in painting, a kind of creative community played a decisive role here. mighty bunch”, which united composers close in their artistic ideals: M. A. Balakirev, M. P. Mussorgsky, A. P. Borodin, N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov. All of them in their work were close to folk melos, the Russian song element, just like P. I. Tchaikovsky, who worked outside this circle.

For architecture, this period was the least fruitful. The overwhelming majority of buildings of that time - factories, stations, "profitable houses" - were created for purely practical reasons, without any architectural refinement. In construction, new materials were widely used - cement, sand, reinforced concrete structures.

The formation of the capitalist system. The fall of serfdom, formalized by government acts on February 19, 1861, is the boundary of the change in Russia from the feudal-serf formation to the capitalist one. The abolition of serfdom and other bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s. created the conditions for the faster development of capitalism. Bourgeois reforms gradually adapted the socio-political system of Russia to the requirements of the emerging capitalist economy. The bourgeois reforms carried out by tsarism bore a clear imprint of the feudal system, and feudal remnants (autocracy, landowner latifundia and related work-offs, etc.) hampered the socio-political development of post-reform Russia. But the leading process that determined the shape and nature of the country's evolution was the development of capitalism.

The transformation of Russia into an agrarian-industrial power. In the first half of the 80s. in the conditions of the growth of capitalist relations, he abolished the poll tax, lowered the redemption payments of the peasants, carried out financial reforms. Thanks to active economic policy Alexandra III Russia turned into an agrarian-industrial power. From a backward agrarian country, Russia by the beginning of the 20th century. became an agrarian-industrial power (82% employed in agriculture). In terms of industrial output, it entered the top five countries (England, France, the USA and Germany) and was increasingly drawn into the world economic system.

Features of monopoly capitalism in Russia. The political system of autocracy with its powerful bureaucratic apparatus and the relative weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie predetermined the active intervention of the state in the formation of monopoly capitalism. A system of state-monopoly capitalism (GMK) has developed in Russia. This was expressed in legislative regulation and the government's patronizing policy in the creation of monopolies and financial support. The process of formation of monopoly capitalism was also characteristic of Russia. It affected her economic, social and political life. Along with the manifestation of general patterns in Russia, there were some peculiarities of monopoly capitalism. This was due to a number of factors:

First, historical - it switched to capitalism later than many European countries.

Secondly, economic and geographical - an immense territory with various natural conditions and its uneven development.

Thirdly, socio-political - the preservation of autocracy, landlordism, class inequality, political lack of rights of the broad masses, national oppression.

Fourth, national - the different level of economic and socio-cultural state of the numerous peoples of the empire also predetermined the originality of Russian monopoly capitalism.

Industrial-financial groups.- Union industrial enterprises with financial institutions on the basis of economic and financial interaction. Monopolies: large economic associations that have concentrated in their hands most of the production and marketing of goods. The main forms of monopolies:

Cartel: participants retain production independence, while jointly solving issues of production volume, sales of products, profit is distributed according to the share of participation;

Syndicate: production and legal independence of enterprises is preserved, the volume of products, prices, terms of sale are determined; sales are centralized;

Trust: participants lose their production, and often legal viability; most often arise in industries that produce homogeneous products;

Concern: a diversified association with independence in management, but with complete financial dependence

Monetary reform 1895-1899 In 1895-1897, a monetary reform was carried out in Russia, the author of which was the Minister of Finance S. Witte. Paper banknotes were replaced by hard currency. Gold circulation and free exchange of the credit ruble for gold (its market rate was lowered by a third - to 66.6 kopecks in gold) for a long time, until 1914, made the Russian currency one of the most stable in the world.

financial oligarchy. The corporatization of enterprises went on at a high pace, all kinds of associations and business unions were created, which at the beginning of the 20th century. developed into powerful monopolies. In parallel, there was a concentration of banking capital. The five largest banks in the country controlled almost all financial resources. Banks willingly invested in the development of industry, and as a result, financial and industrial capital merged, and a financial oligarchy arose. This guaranteed the stability of industrial production, banking stability and overall large dividends. Often one person was at the head of the factories and the bank. Thus, the chairman of the board of the Russian-Asian Bank A. Putilov was simultaneously the chairman of 12 largest joint-stock companies and a member of the board of 38 other companies. The financial oligarchy was closely connected with tsarism, which led to a mutually beneficial domestic and foreign policy.

Government policy in the labor and agrarian question. In 1896, Witte withdrew his support for communal land ownership. In 1898, he made the first attempt to achieve a revision of the agrarian course in the committee of ministers, which was thwarted, however, by V. K. Plehve, K. P. Pobedonostsev, and P. N. Durnovo. By 1899, with the participation of Witte, laws were developed and adopted to abolish mutual responsibility. Stolypin made the destruction of the community the top priority of his reform. It was assumed that the first stage of the striped strengthening of allotments by individual householders would violate the unity of the peasant world. The peasants, who had land surpluses against the norm, had to hurry with the strengthening of their allotments. Stolypin said that in this way he wants to "drive a wedge" into the community. After that, it was supposed to proceed to the second stage - the breakdown of the village allotment into cuts or farms. The latter were considered the most convenient form of land tenure, because it would be difficult for peasants dispersed over farms to raise revolts.

The policy of "police socialism". the policy of "police socialism", one of the methods of struggle of the tsarist government against the labor movement in Russia on the eve of the revolution of 1905-1907. It consisted in planting false legal workers' organizations operating under the tutelage of the Okhrana, designed to distract the proletariat from the political. struggle against the autocracy, directing the labor movement into the mainstream of narrow economic. requirements. The initiator of the creation and the head of these police organizations was made in 1901-03 by the beginning. Moscow security department S. V. Zubatov.

"Liberal Spring" P.D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. The new Minister of the Interior announced the need to establish trust between the government and society. He abandoned the repressions against the liberal press, tried to cooperate with the zemstvos. The culmination of Svyatopolk-Mirsky's activity was the Draft Political Program of the Government, submitted to the Tsar in November 1904. The Draft was supposed to elect representatives from zemstvos and cities to the State Council, to extend the Zemstvo reform to those regions of the country where it had not been carried out in the 60s, to give voting rights in elections to zemstvos and city self-government bodies to wider sections of the population, to increase the class rights of peasants, to begin solving the national question, etc.

Features of the socio-political system. In Russia at the end of the 19th century, unlike Western European countries, there were no mechanisms for regulating the relationship between various social groups and the impact of society on government policy. The society was divided into estates (groups of the population with a special legal status), the autocratic form of government was preserved, there was practically no dialogue between the authorities and society (there were no representative bodies, freedom of the press, political activity was prohibited).

regime of political powerlessness. Tsarism, despite the concessions of the 60-70s. of the last century continued to pursue the germs of political dissent, resorting to repression against the workers' and peasants' movement, exile and prisons against revolutionaries, surveillance and persecution of even moderate Russian liberals.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATIONFEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

State educational institution of higher vocational education

"SIBERIAN STATE GEODETIC ACADEMY"

department humanities

Test

Discipline:National history

On the topic: Russia in the late XIX - early XX centuries

Novosibirsk 2013

Introduction

Russia's place in world civilization as a "second echelon" country

The political system in the late XIX - early XX centuries

Social class structure of society

Features of the development of capitalism in Russia

The agrarian question in Russia

Domestic and foreign policy of tsarism

Reforms S.Yu. Witte

Bourgeois liberal movement

Crisis of autocracy. The Formation of the Third Revolutionary Situation

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Each time for the history of Russia was fateful in its own way. However, some periods can be called determined the further life of the people of the country for many years. One of the most important stages of Russian history was the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.

Bright and strong historical figures acted on the historical scene during this period, holding various socio-political views, reflecting all the colors of the then rather motley political spectrum. And without knowing these people, it is impossible to understand the deep essence of the processes taking place in the country.

It is impossible to determine one's attitude towards all those who were in the royal environment, the government, pursued the policy of tsarism in the provinces; especially interesting are those people who made a significant contribution to the solution of the main issue for tsarist Russia - the agrarian one. The brightest personalities of that time, of course, were S. Yu. Witte and P. A. Stolypin.

The agrarian question is the main question of Russian history. This issue has become the cause of controversy between historical and public figures, who sometimes offered diametrically opposed solutions to it. In the history of our country there were many political movements, whose representatives considered the main goal of their activity to be the solution of the painful issue of land.

The question of land has repeatedly arisen throughout the history of Russia, but it became especially acute in the 19th century. The unresolved agrarian question hampered the development of the country and caused Russia to lag behind the leading capitalist powers.

And this was understood by both our sovereigns and other political figures. Alexander I and Nicholas I recognized the seriousness and urgency of this issue and paid attention to it. A hundred years ago, the "Stolypin agrarian reform" began. This is a worthy occasion to talk about this outstanding event in the history of Russia. The reform is remarkable, first of all, because a hundred years ago, the Russian authorities for the first time recognized the majority of their subjects as equal citizens, equal partners. Let's take a closer look at this historical fact.

1. The place of Russia in world civilization as a country of the "second echelon"

Late XIX - early XX century. marked a turning point in national history. The country entered a period of large-scale political upheavals, the causes of which were largely due to the peculiarity of its social economic development. After the abolition of serfdom in Russia, capitalism was established at an accelerated pace, and already from the end of the 19th century. signs of its transition to a monopolistic stage were outlined. However, the process of Russia's capitalist development in many essential parameters differed markedly from the classical, Western European version of the formation of bourgeois structures. The idea that the history of Russia demonstrates a different type of capitalist evolution, unlike the Western model, was expressed by a number of Soviet researchers back in the 60s.

Representatives of the so-called new direction in Russian historiography (P.V. Bolobuev, I.F. Gindin, K.N. Tarnovsky and others) in their works on the Russian economy on turn of XIX-XX centuries, raised the question of the type of capitalist evolution in Russia, considering it inextricably linked with the problem of multiformity formulated by them (the interaction of Russian monopoly capitalism with pre- and early capitalist social structures).

The results of the relevant research turned out to be very fruitful and, in particular, contributed to a deeper understanding of the prerequisites and nature of the three Russian revolutions. However, in the early 1970s, the "new direction" was declared anti-Marxist and was subjected to a real administrative defeat. A comprehensive study of the socio-economic history of Russia in the late 19th - early 20th centuries carried out within the framework of this direction. actually stopped. The situation began to change only in the mid-1980s. Now the ideas formulated at one time by the supporters of the "new direction", although remaining, however, still the object of heated discussions, are becoming more and more firmly established in science. Enriched with new provisions of a general theoretical and concrete historical nature, they open up broad prospects for further research into the key problems of Russia's development at the turn of the two centuries.

The mechanism of formation and evolution of bourgeois structures in different countries, indeed, was not universal.

A different situation developed in the countries of the second model (Russia, Japan, Turkey, the Balkan states, etc.), which demonstrated a special type of capitalism. The formation of bourgeois structures in these states began later than in the countries of the first model, but was carried out more intensively (under the influence of an impulse that came not so much from inside as from outside, i.e. the need to overcome the lag behind Western societies, which in this case also acted as sample, and as an external threat).

“Immediately” arose what the West had been moving towards for centuries (railroads, heavy industry). Under these conditions, capitalist evolution in the countries of the second model proceeded more conflicted than in the countries of the first model. In particular, the need for an accelerated overcoming of economic backwardness led to a tightening of tax exploitation and an increase in social tension. The transfer of advanced forms of economic life to national soil, insufficiently prepared for their independent reproduction, gave rise to the most acute problem of adapting broad sections of the population to new requirements, the synthesis of traditional values ​​and the values ​​of a bourgeois, industrial society, which in the countries of the second model, in contrast to Western countries, are natural did not work out in order. Of course, the difficulties that arose in the process of capitalist modernization of societies of the second model were not fundamentally insurmountable, as evidenced primarily by the example of Japan. Borrowing the advanced experience of the countries of "early capitalism" not only gave rise to problems, but was also a kind of "advantage of backwardness." The success of the most complex and painful process of the bourgeois transformation of societies of the second model largely depended on subjective factors (the ability of the ruling elite to pursue a balanced economic and social policy) and, to a greater extent, on the readiness of the local cultural tradition to perceive new values.

Finally, another model of the formation of bourgeois structures is demonstrated by the states of Asia, Africa, partly Latin America found by the beginning of the 20th century. in the position of colonies and semi-colonies of the great powers.

In the socio-economic development of Russia at the turn of two centuries, the patterns inherent in the countries of the second echelon were clearly manifested. The autocracy, in the name of protecting its international positions and creating a powerful military potential, pursued a policy aimed at speeding up the industrialization of the country. Russian capitalism grew both naturally "from below" and was intensively planted "from above".

Its development was extremely uneven, focal in nature, both in sectoral and territorial terms. The various phases of capitalist evolution were condensed to the limit. Russian capitalism, which began at the end of the 19th century. to move into a monopolistic stage, did not know a pronounced period of free competition.

Separate stages in the development of the bourgeois system, as it were, "superimposed" on each other.

The capitalist structure itself, interacting with the pre-capitalist elements of the economic structure, not so much destroyed them as conserved them, widely using archaic forms of profit making (commercial and usurious exploitation of the population). All this deformed the process of Russia's capitalist evolution and made it very painful for the broad masses of the people, which contributed to the aggravation of social antagonisms.

The situation was aggravated and becoming by the end of the XIX century. an increasingly tangible discrepancy between the form of organization inherited from the feudal era political power(represented by the autocracy) to the changed socio-economic relations. In addition, the very cultural tradition of Russia turned out to be incompatible with the values ​​of a capitalist, industrial society. The traditional way of Russian life, which was formed under the influence of Orthodoxy, did not fit in any way, for example, the pursuit of profit, individualism. " Business people” as such were not heroes in the public mind, examples to follow. Such sentiments were inherent, in particular, in completely Europeanized layers, whose culture did not at all resemble the traditional one. One of the prominent representatives of the business world of Moscow at the beginning of the 20th century. P.A. Buryshkin wrote in his memoirs that "both in the nobility, and in the bureaucracy, and in the circles of the intelligentsia, both right and left, the attitude towards" moneybags "was, in general, unfriendly, mocking and a little" condescendingly. ", and in Russia "there was no that" cult wealthy people, which is observed in Western countries. The values ​​of the bourgeois society, according to the observations of modern researchers, falling on unprepared cultural soil, "caused rather a destructive effect, led to disorientation of the mass consciousness."

First World War- a natural result of the rivalry of the great powers - became the most difficult test for the country and, having extremely exacerbated all the accumulated contradictions of its development, caused a social explosion, which eventually interrupted the process of Russia's capitalist evolution.

2. The political system in the late XIX - early XX centuries

political capitalism autocracy reforms

The problem of modernization, i.e. radical renewal of all spheres of life from the economy to the state system arose again before Russia at the turn of the century. The reforms of the 60s - 70s were not completed and were stopped by the counter-reforms of the 80s - 90s. Modernization had to be carried out in a vast area, in a country with many feudal remnants and stable conservative traditions.

Domestic policy was based on great-power principles. Growing social tensions rapid development new economic forms. The conflict between the landlord and peasant sectors of the economy deepened. The post-reform community could no longer contain the social differentiation of the peasantry. The growing Russian bourgeoisie claimed a political role in society, meeting opposition from the nobility and state bureaucracy. The main support of the autocracy - the nobility, was losing its monopoly on power.

The autocracy hardly made concessions to the police, the transition from reforms to repressions. System supreme bodies power and control was intended to strengthen the power of the emperor.

The revival and development of commodity-money relations, the formation of a market for goods, raw materials, finance and work force demanded a restructuring of the political and state system. In the political sphere, supporters and opponents of industrial modernization and political reforms emerged (the former was represented by S.Yu. Witte, the latter by V.K. Plehve).

The state encouraged private enterprise: in 1891 a protectionist customs tariff, in 1900 - 1903 significant subsidies were allocated to entrepreneurs.

The government sought to influence the emerging workers' and peasants' movement. Under the auspices of the police, workers' societies were created in large industrial centers; in 1902, a "Special Conference on the Needs of the Agricultural Industry" was formed. These semi-state organizations had the goal of exercising control over the social movement.

The defeat in the war with Japan contributed to the growth of the revolution. After the murder by the Socialist-Revolutionaries V.K. Plehve, the "Era of Trust" began, proclaimed by the new Minister of the Interior P.D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. The events of January 9, 1905 interrupted this period. In February 1905, two mutually exclusive government acts were published: a decree allowing the population to submit projects on improving the state system and a manifesto asserting the inviolability of the autocracy.

In May 1905, a draft on the creation of a legislative advisory body (the "Bulygin Duma") was submitted for consideration by the ministers. The government tried to maneuver. The result of this policy was the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which marked the beginning of bourgeois constitutionalism in Russia.

The extreme reaction to government concessions was the performance of right-wing forces, expressed in pogroms. In the political sphere, the formation of parties of the government camp began, which opposed the democratic and liberal camps.

In December 1905, an armed uprising in Moscow was suppressed. The government refused a number of concessions made during the revolution. By the Manifesto of February 20, 1906, the State Council was turned into Legislature, the upper house of the Russian parliament, the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire were revised in an expedited manner.

3. Social class structure of society

The situation in Russia at the turn of the century was extremely tense. The complex tangle of contradictions that have arisen - economic, political and social - between the autocracy and the liberal intelligentsia, landlords and peasants, factory owners and workers, the central government and the national outskirts could be resolved without social upheavals only with a global reform. It was necessary to democratize the country and capitalize the countryside.

The period from the 1880s to the early 1920s entered the history of Russian culture under the name of the "Silver Age". S. Makovsky (the author of this image) imagined it as a cold, shimmering radiance, in contrast to the sunny, bright golden age. The unprecedented flourishing of culture touched all types of creativity, gave rise to new trends in art: symbolism, acmeism, futurism, modernism, avant-garde and neo-antiquity. A galaxy of brilliant names appeared, which became the pride of not only Russian, but also world culture. However, Russian religious philosophy, the highest in its achievements, gave a special flavor to the culture of the Silver Age.

The events of this period of Russian history and culture are described and analyzed by many of their eyewitnesses and participants*.

The revolution and civil war left their mark on the study of this period, since everything was perceived only through the prism of the class interests of the victorious proletariat.

Perestroika and the events that followed it led to the fact that now we can perceive our history by studying the numerous publications of recent years.

By the end of the XIX century. Russia was a huge world power that influenced the course of world affairs. At the turn of the century, the tsarist government was concerned about only one thing - to preserve the autocracy at all costs.

The country's economy also had its own specifics and differed significantly from the economies of other countries. Russia was faced with acute problems of modernization, i.e. radical renewal of the most important spheres of society. The difficulty lay in the fact that none of the previously implemented reforms was carried out comprehensively and consistently - reforms, as a rule, were followed by counter-reforms. It should also be taken into account that the severity of the emerging problems was due to the socio-political crisis, rivalry in the international arena, and the uneven nature of economic development. At the beginning of the XX century. capitalist modernization in Russia intensified. The relatively high rates of industrial growth, the monopolistic restructuring of large-scale industry, transport and credit have placed it on a par with the advanced countries of the West in terms of the level of capitalist socialization of these industries. However, capitalism that had established itself in the economy was not able to completely transform the pre-capitalist structures. In particular, the capitalist transformation of agriculture was not completed, private ownership of land did not finally establish itself as the dominant form of landownership, and communal landownership continued to play an enormous role. On the whole, the lack of a mass social base and authority among the people doomed it to political impotence, deprived it of the opportunity to modernize social order.

The politically dominant class remained the landowners - the backbone of the autocracy, which primarily expressed their interests.

4.Features of the development of capitalism in Russia

Capitalism is an economic abstraction that allows you to highlight the characteristic features of the economy at a certain stage of its development, discarding less significant ones.

The reform of 1861, which marked Russia's entry into the capitalist stage of development. However, the formation of capitalism in Russia in the post-reform era took place in conditions when the country retained the strongest remnants of serfdom, which in every possible way hampered the development of capitalism. Russia continuously developed along the capitalist path, its economy and its entire life were reorganized on a capitalist basis.

Commodity production has become the dominant form in all sectors of the economy. Labor has also become a commodity. Industry and part of agricultural production was based on the use of labor. From 1865 to 1890, the number of factory and railway workers, according to Lenin's estimates, doubled - from 706 thousand to 1438 thousand people. The wide distribution of hired labor was the most important indicator of the development of capitalism in the country.

grew steadily urban population, concentrating on major cities. From 1863 to 1883, the urban population grew - from 6 million to almost 10 million people. If in 1863 27% of the country's urban population lived in cities with a population of 50 thousand or more, then in 1885 41% of the total urban population lived in them. “The tremendous growth of large industrial centers and the formation of a number of new centers,” Lenin wrote in his article “The Development of Capitalism in Russia, “is one of the most characteristic symptoms of the post-reform era.”

The organization of the credit system of the bank, joint-stock companies, which is necessary condition capitalist transformation of the national economy. Along with the State Bank, established in 1860, private banks, mutual credit societies, joint-stock companies, etc., appeared and continuously grew. From 1864 to 1873, 39 private commercial banks, 242 city public banks and 54 mutual credit societies arose. The deposits of all commercial banks for 15 years (from 1864 to 1879) almost quadrupled, and the amount of loans issued increased by 27 times over the same years. The network of savings banks is growing: in 1881 there were 76 of them, in 1893 there were already 2439, and the amount of deposits was 250 million rubles.

But for the agriculture of the post-reform era, as a whole, movement forward is characteristic. The closed natural character of the economy was undermined by entering the domestic and foreign markets. The stagnation of the agricultural community was broken. The mobility of the rural population increased, its activities expanded and intensified. However, there were many obstacles in the way of the broad development of capitalism in agriculture, the main of which were landlordism and the autocratic system.

The process of social differentiation of the village was also important for the development capitalist industry. The decomposition of the peasantry created conditions for the expansion domestic market. The economically growing rural bourgeoisie increased the demand not only for consumer goods, but also for agricultural machinery, for rural luxury and fashion items. The rural poor were forced to reduce their economy to a minimum and drag out a half-starved existence. Ancillary sectors of the economy (for example, home dressing of linen and other coarse fabrics, the manufacture of felt boots), which previously supplied the peasant family with basic necessities, became unprofitable, the poor began to resort more and more to buying cheap chintz, shoes and other items on the market. The middle peasant went the same way. Money powerfully invaded the village. The monetary part of the budget of the peasant family increased from year to year. The second consequence of the process of social differentiation of the peasantry was "de-peasantization", the creation of a labor market, the creation of an industrial army of labor from that part of the rural poor who were forced to look for work on the side, in the city, at the factory, at the factory. The departure from the countryside, despite the constraint caused by the survivals of serfdom, increased from year to year and made it possible for the entrepreneur to receive cheap labor. Thus, Russia was still an agrarian country. “The World Industrial Exhibition of 1882 confirmed the backwardness of Russian industry. However, in terms of growth in industrial production, the country was ahead of not only Europe, but also the United States.

The development of capitalism in Russian industry passed through three main stages:

Small commodity production, represented by small, mainly peasant crafts;

capitalist manufacture;

Factory (large machine industry).

Capitalism in Russia received great development after 1861 (the abolition of serfdom), and reached its apogee in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. After the Bolsheviks came to power as a result of the October Revolution of 1917 and began to build communism, the development of capitalism in Russia was stopped. At the end of the 20th century, state-monopoly capitalism revived in Russia.

The Russian village at the turn of the century remained the focus of the remnants of the feudal era. The most important of them were, on the one hand, latifundist landownership, large landowner estates, widely practiced working off (a direct relic of corvee), on the other hand, peasant land shortages, medieval allotment landownership. The rural community was preserved with its redistribution, striped stripes, which hindered the modernization of the peasant economy. All these reasons together led to the impoverishment of most peasant households, and were the basis of bondage in the countryside. The peasantry was subjected to property differentiation, albeit at a slow pace.

In the 60-80s, capitalist elements began to emerge in the countryside - about 20% of all peasant farms. By renting and buying in their hands, they concentrated almost all the land subject to sale and purchase, and a third of the allotment land. In their hands there were more than half of all working livestock, agricultural machines, the bulk of agricultural wage workers worked for them. At the same time, the bulk of the peasantry was dispossessed of land. The difficult economic situation, civil and political lack of rights, repressions and persecution caused an ever-increasing emigration from Russia. Masses of peasants rushed to work in the border states, and then to the USA, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and even Australia.

The participation of Russian entrepreneurs in international unions was also insignificant. Russia joined in the redistribution of spheres of influence in the world, but at the same time, along with the interests of the Russian bourgeoisie, the military-feudal aspirations of tsarism played a significant role in these processes. On the whole, despite the high rates of economic development, Russia still failed to catch up with the leading countries of the West. At the beginning of the XX century. it was a moderately developed agrarian-industrial country with a pronounced mixed economy. Along with the highly developed capitalist industry, a large share in it belonged to various early capitalist and semi-feudal forms of economy - from manufacturing, small-scale commodity to patriarchal subsistence.

5. The agrarian question in Russia

At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was a moderately developed country. Along with a highly developed industry in the country's economy, a large proportion belonged to the early capitalist and semi-feudal forms of economy - from manufacturing to patriarchal subsistence. The Russian village became a concentration of remnants of the feudal era. The most important of these were large landed estates, and working off was widely practiced, which is a direct relic of corvée. Peasant shortage of land, the community with its redistribution hampered the modernization of the peasant economy.

The social class structure of the country reflected the nature and level of its economic development. Along with the formation of classes in bourgeois society (bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, proletariat), class divisions continued to exist in it - a legacy of the feudal era.

The bourgeoisie occupied a leading role in the country's economy in the twentieth century; before that, it did not play any independent role in the social political life country, since it was completely dependent on the autocracy, as a result of which they remained an apolitical and conservative force.

The nobility, which concentrated more than 60% of all lands, became the main pillar of the autocracy, although in social terms it was losing its homogeneity, moving closer to the bourgeoisie.

The peasantry, which accounted for 3/4 of the country's population, was also affected by the social stratification of society (20% - kulaks, 30% - middle peasants, 50% - poor peasants). Contradictions arose between its polar layers.

The destruction of the peasant community was facilitated not only by the decree of November 9, 1906, but also by other laws of 1909-1911, which provided for the dissolution of communities that had not been divided since 1861, and the possibility of it being carried out by the decision of a simple majority, and not two-thirds of the members communities as before. The authorities in every possible way contributed to the fragmentation and isolation of peasant farms.

The main and main task in agrarian policy was the fundamental reorganization of land use and land ownership by the peasantry. The monarch had long seen the perniciousness of the existence of a community where there was a desire to equalize everyone, to bring everyone to the same level, and since the mass cannot be raised to the level of the most capable, most active and intelligent, the best elements must be reduced to understanding, to the aspiration of the worst, inert the majority. This was seen both in the difficulty of inculcating agricultural improvements in the communal economy and in the difficulty of often arranging the acquisition of land by the whole society with the help of the Peasants' Bank, so that deals favorable to the peasants were often upset.

Not the improvement of a significant part of the peasantry has long been concerned about Nicholas II. When in the fall of 1905 the cabinet of S.Yu. Witte, the emperor set him the main task: to improve the situation of the peasants. At a meeting of the Council of Ministers on November 3, 1905, the head of government proposed to save the peasants from redemption payments. The king declared, “that he finds the measure completely insufficient and resolutely spoke out for the transition from words and promises to major measures “to improve the situation of the peasants, without wasting time, so that the peasantry is convinced that the government actually cares about them, and called for achieving this goal “not to be embarrassed by the victims and not to stop before the very strong measures. The Cabinet of S.Yu. Witte failed to take any “strong measures”, although preliminary work in this area was carried out both in 1905 and at the beginning of 1906. When the First State Duma met, it immediately became clear that the authorities had no time reserve no more. The burden of labor-intensive reform of peasant land management was taken over by the cabinet of P.A. Stolypin and especially his head. It was necessary to solve two closely interrelated organizational, legal and economic problems. Firstly, to remove all unreasonable and archaic legal restrictions on the rights of the peasantry and, secondly, to create conditions for the development of private small-scale agricultural farming. The preservation of the power of the community led to the decline of peasant agricultural production, contributed to the poverty of the largest group of the population.

The Stolypin reform in most cases was implemented by royal decrees, which guaranteed the efficiency of its implementation. It was based on the principle of the inviolability of private ownership of land, which could not be forcibly alienated in any form. The most important of the complex of reforms conceived by Stolypin, of course, was the agrarian reform. In contrast to the Duma projects, the essence of which (for all their differences) ultimately boiled down to the transfer of all or part of the landowners' land to the peasants, i.e. resolving the agrarian crisis at the expense of the landowners, the essence of the Stolypin reform was to keep the landownership intact, to resolve the agrarian crisis by redistributing communal peasant lands among the peasants.

While maintaining landownership, Stolypin protected the social stratum of the landlords as the most important pillar of tsarism, given that as a result of the revolution of 1905-1907. the peasantry was no longer such a support.

Stolypin hoped, by stratifying the peasantry through the redistribution of communal lands, to create a layer of new owner-farmers as a new social pillar of power. In other words, one of the most important goals of the Stolypin reform was, ultimately, to strengthen the existing regime and royal power.

The reform began with the issuance on November 9, 1906 of the Decree on amendments to certain provisions of the current law concerning peasant land ownership and land use. Although formally the Decree was called additions to the resolutions on the land issue, in fact it was a new law that radically changed the structure of land relations in the countryside.

By the time this law was issued, i.e. by 1906, there were 14.7 million peasant households in Russia, of which 12.3 million had land plots, including 9.5 million on communal law, mainly in central regions, the black earth belt, in the North and partly in Siberia, 2.8 million households - on a household right (in the Western and Privislinsky territories, the Baltic states, Right-Bank Ukraine). The policy of tsarism before the Decree of November 9, 1906 was aimed at preserving the community as a form of peasant self-government, providing administrative and police control (through zemstvo chiefs) over the peasantry, and as a fiscal unit that facilitated the collection of taxes and fees, since the peasant households that were part of the community were bound by a mutual bond.

With the abolition of mutual responsibility, the community ceased to be a fiscal unit. And the law of October 5, 1906, which expanded the peasants' freedom of movement and entry into service and study, limited the administrative and police control by the zemstvo chiefs.

The abolition of redemption payments turned the peasants into owners of allotment land, but on a communal or household basis, i.e. the legal owners of the land were either peasant communities (with communal land use), or peasant households (with household land use), i.e. collective owners. The exceptions were the Baltic States, the Privislinsky and Western regions, where private individual ownership of land by householders - the heads of peasant households - dominated. In some places, private ownership of peasant lands, as an exception, took place in other regions.

The Stolypin Decree of November 9, 1906 provided the peasants with the right of free exit from the community, with the strengthening of the property of individual householders, passing to personal possession, plots of worldly allotment.

Those leaving the community were assigned lands that were in their actual use, including those leased from the community (in excess of allotments), regardless of changes in the number of souls in the family.

Moreover, in communities where there were no redistributions for 24 years, all land was fixed free of charge. And where redistributions were made, surpluses of land, in excess of those due to cash men's souls, were paid for original average buyout price , i.e. much cheaper than market prices. These rules were aimed at encouraging the most prosperous peasants, who had surpluses of allotment and leased land, to leave their communities as soon as possible. Households who left the community had the right to demand that the land due to them be allocated in one piece-cut (if the distinguished yard remains in the village) or farm (if this yard transfers the estate outside the village). At the same time, two goals were pursued: firstly, to eliminate the striped land (when the allotment lands of one peasant household were located in separate plots in different places) - one of the most important reasons for the backwardness of agricultural technology; secondly, to disperse, to disunite the peasant masses. Explaining the political meaning of the dispersal of the peasant masses, Stolypin wrote that a wild, half-starved village, not accustomed to respecting either its own or other people's property, not afraid, acting in peace, of any responsibility, will always be combustible material ready to explode on every occasion . Considering that the lands allocated to yards leaving the community by one cut or farm in most cases infringed on the interests of the other community members (therefore, the communities could not agree to the allocation), the Decree of November 9 provided for the right to demand the strengthening of part of the communal land into personal property, which must be satisfied by the community within a month. If this is not done within the prescribed period, then the allocation of land can be formalized by order of the zemstvo chief, regardless of the will of the community, i.e. forcibly.

Not hoping to get approval of the Decree of November 9, 1906 by the II State Duma, Stolypin issued its publication in accordance with Art. 87 Fundamental Laws without a Duma.

Indeed, the Decree received support only in the Third Duma, elected after the June 3 coup d'etat, 1907, under the new electoral law. Relying on the votes of the Rights and the Octobrists, the government finally secured its approval on June 14, 1910, in the form of a law. Moreover, the Right-Octobrist majority of the Third Duma supplemented this law with a new section, which stated that those communities in which redistributions had not been made since 1863 should be considered as having switched to precinct-household hereditary land use. In other words, the law on June 14, 1910 forcibly dissolved.

6. Domestic and foreign policy of tsarism

Domestic policy of tsarism.

The peasant reform of 1861 led to changes in the economic structure of society, which necessitated the transformation of the political system. New bourgeois reforms wrested from the government during the period of democratic upsurge were a by-product of the revolutionary struggle. Reforms in Russia were not the cause, but the consequence of the development of socio-economic processes. At the same time, after implementation, the reforms objectively had the opposite effect on these processes.

The ongoing transformations were contradictory in nature - tsarism tried to adapt the old political system of autocracy to new conditions without changing its class essence. The reforms (1863-1874) were distinguished by half-heartedness, inconsistency and unfinished character. They were designed during the years of the revolutionary situation, and some of them were carried out after 10-15 years in an atmosphere of a recession of the revolutionary wave.

Tasks of the organization local government had to decide the Zemstvo and urban reform. In accordance with the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions" (1864), elected bodies of local government - zemstvos - were introduced in uyezds and provinces.

Formally, Zemstvo Institutions consisted of representatives of all estates, but suffrage was conditioned by a property qualification. Members of the zemstvo assemblies (vowels) were elected by three curiae: landowners, city voters and elected from rural societies (in the last curia, the elections were multistage). The leader of the nobility was the chairman of the meetings. Executive bodies were also created - provincial and district zemstvo councils. Zemstvos did not have political functions and did not have executive power, they mainly solved economic issues, but even within these limits they were controlled by governors and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Zemstvos were introduced gradually (until 1879) and not in all regions of the empire. Already at this time their competence was more and more limited by the government. However, despite the restrictions, the zemstvos in Russia played a significant role in solving both economic and cultural issues (enlightenment, medicine, zemstvo statistics, etc.).

The new system of institutions of city self-government (city dumas and councils), created on the basis of the "City Regulations" (1870), was based on the bourgeois principle of a single property qualification. Elections took place according to curiae, created in accordance with the amount of tax paid. The overwhelming majority of residents who do not have an established property qualification turned out to be excluded from the elections.

As a result of the reform of local self-government bodies, the dominant position in the zemstvos (especially at the provincial level) was occupied by the nobility, and in the city dumas by representatives of the big bourgeoisie.

City self-government bodies were also under unremitting control of the government and mainly dealt with issues related to the management of the city economy.

The foreign policy of tsarism.

Among the factors that determined the direction of Russia's foreign policy in the second half of the 19th century, one should single out, first of all, shifts in the country's socio-economic development and significant changes in the international situation. The defeat in the Crimean War had a severe impact on international positions Russia, which, although it remained a great power, was noticeably losing its influence on international affairs. Russian authority in Europe turned out to be undermined. In the Middle East, the influence of France and especially England increased, which achieved a monopoly in world trade and strengthened its maritime hegemony. Russia's foreign policy in post-war Europe was restrained, at the same time the government tried, at least in part, to compensate for the failures with successes in Asia.

It should be borne in mind that with the development of capitalist relations in the country, foreign policy gradually assumed a bourgeois character, objectively reflecting the interests of both the landlords and the developing bourgeoisie.

Considering the foreign policy of post-reform Russia, it is necessary to distinguish two periods: the first - from the defeat in the Crimea to the Franco-Prussian war and the abolition of the restrictive articles of the Treaty of Paris (1870-1871) and the second - from the beginning of the 70s to the formation of the Russian-French alliance (1891 -1894).

The main goal of Russian diplomacy in the 50-70s was the abolition of the restrictive articles of the Paris Peace, which humiliated the national dignity of Russia, contradicted its economic and political interests. Russian diplomats led by A.M. Gorchakov, who headed the Foreign Ministry, solved this problem using the contradictions between England, France and Austria. However, it was impossible to achieve success alone.

Initially, it seemed that France, which did not receive territorial benefits in the Crimean War and dreamed of expanding its borders by annexing the left bank of the Rhine, Nice and Savoy, could become Russia's ally. During the meeting between Napoleon III and Alexander II in Stuttgart (1857), cooperation between the two countries in Italy and the Balkans was initiated.

Relations between Russia and France, however, clearly worsened during the Polish uprising of 1863. Modern historians have convincingly shown that the short-sighted policy of Napoleon III towards Russia in resolving the Eastern and Polish issues further led to the isolation of France during the Franco-Prussian conflict.

In the second half of the 60s - early 70s of the XIX century. in Europe, the process of unification of Germany is completed. Its fate was decided in an open military clash between Prussia and Austria. In 1866, Austria was defeated, and in 1867 the North German Confederation was created, with the Prussian king as president.

The development of German events soon began to cause fears of neighboring France, which was trying to stop the territorial claims of Prussia. In July 1870, the Franco-Prussian war began, which a few months later (in September of the same year) ended in a brutal defeat of the French near Sedan. In 1870, Russia managed to use the circumstances caused by the defeat of France in the war, which essentially destroyed the foundations of the "Crimean system". By a circular dated October 19, 1870, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia A.M. Gorchakov informed the governments of all states that signed the Treaty of Paris about the abolition of the neutralization of the Black Sea. After a diplomatic struggle, the London Conference of 1871 legitimized this decision.

The rapprochement that began with the German Empire formed after the Franco-Prussian war continued in subsequent years and, ultimately, led to the emergence in 1873 of the Union of the Three Emperors "(Russia, Germany, Austria). This Union was not strong, as it was rather determined fear of mutual reinforcement than common interests. During the new aggravation of Franco-German relations (1875), Russia made it clear that it would not allow the defeat of France. It should be noted that the question of the reasons for the increase in the aggressiveness of Prussia, previously interpreted by a number of foreign historians mainly as a consequence of Russia's benevolent neutrality.

7. Reforms S.Yu. Witte

Witte had a significant influence on the domestic and foreign policy of the Russian government, actively promoted the development of Russian capitalism and tried to combine this process with the strengthening of the monarchy. Witte made extensive use of scientific and statistical data in his work. On his initiative, major economic events were carried out.

Under Witte, state intervention in the economy significantly expanded: in addition to customs and tariff activities in the field of foreign trade and legal support entrepreneurial activity, the state supported individual groups of entrepreneurs (primarily those associated with the highest state circles), softened the conflicts between them; supported some areas of industry (mining and metallurgical industry, distillation, railway construction), and also actively developed the state economy.

Special attention Witte paid attention to personnel policy: he issued a circular on the recruitment of persons with higher education, sought the right to recruit personnel on the basis of practical work experience. The management of industry and trade was entrusted to V. I. Kovalevsky.

In general, on the initiative of Witte, major economic measures were carried out:

Strengthening the role of the state in the economy:

introduction of uniform tariffs on railways;

state regulation domestic and foreign trade through the first system of taxes;

the concentration of most of the railways in the hands of the state;

expansion of the public sector in industry;

revitalization of the activities of the State Bank;

the introduction of a state monopoly on the sale of alcohol; 2) strengthening private enterprise:

flexible tax legislation;

fight against the budget deficit;

strengthening of the national currency (the monetary reform of 1897 abolished bimetallism and introduced the gold equivalent of the ruble);

moderate protectionism towards foreign investors.

Witte proposed a number of measures aimed at the destruction of the community and the transformation of the peasant into the owner of the land, as well as at improving the situation of the workers. Witte's program did not find proper support in the immediate environment of the guy.

Despite the far from complete implementation of his plans, Witte did a lot to turn Russia into an industrial country. Under him, the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, the CER was started, finances were significantly strengthened, and the budget deficit was reduced. The authorities did not have enough foresight to follow the path of reforms "from above" and carry out the political modernization of the country. The next attempt to change the face of Russia was made "from below", during the revolution of 1905-1907.

8. Bourgeois-liberal movement

Liberalism as a special ideological and political trend arose in Russia during the crisis of the feudal system in the middle of the 19th century. In its ideological and political content, liberalism was a bourgeois phenomenon, for it reflected the interests of the country's capitalist development. Its composition is heterogeneous: liberal landlords, the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie, and the bourgeois intelligentsia. At different stages of their evolution, these social forces played different roles. A characteristic feature of the development of liberalism in the first decades after the reforms was that the main carriers of liberal ideas were the bourgeois layers of the nobility and intelligentsia, and their activities took place mainly within the framework of zemstvo institutions. The bourgeoisie, which grew up under government orders, was politically inert.

In the 60-70s. zemstvo liberals sought to expand the scope of zemstvo institutions in local economic and cultural life, to gain the right to participate in public administration. Since the mid 70s. until the mid 90s. The main manifestation of liberalism was the submission of addresses and petitions outlining the main requirements: the need to convene a Zemsky Sobor, reform the State Council, expand the rights of local governments, establish bourgeois freedoms in Russia, abolish estate privileges, etc.

There are two currents: the radical (constitutional), represented by one of the leaders of the Tver Zemstvo I. I. Petrunkevich (1843-1928), and the moderate, headed by the chairman of the Moscow Zemstvo Council D. N. Shipov (1851-1920) Zemtsy -constitutionalists, having submitted a letter to Nicholas II, hoped for understanding on his part. But the tsar called the calls of the liberals "meaningless dreams." The bourgeois-liberal camp that had taken shape stood in opposition to autocratic power and demanded its limitation, and at the same time was ready to come to an agreement with tsarism.

9. Crisis of autocracy. The Formation of the Third Revolutionary Situation

The turn of the century turned out to be a fatal verge in the political history of the empire. Dissatisfaction with the supreme ruler in the most diverse circles began to intensify especially quickly after formidable signs of the near end of the "quiet times" appeared. Already the student riots in February 1899 pointed to the growth of tension in the country, about which he wrote to his nephew from Moscow with the greatest anxiety. Grand Duke Sergey Aleksandrovich. The emperor, unlike him, was convinced of the former "calm of our vast Russia", seeing in the discontent of the students only the usual youth ferment. However, the next few years showed that "Uncle Sergei" judged what was happening more insightfully than his crowned nephew.

The new century opened with threatening events. February 14, 1901 shot former student Karpovich to the Minister of Public Education N. P. Bogolepov announced the return of political terror, which seemed to have been over for a long time. In April of the following year, the Socialist-Revolutionary Balmashev killed the Minister of the Interior, D.S. Sipyagin, walking in military uniform into the building of the State Council. In a letter to his mother, Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, Nikolai wrote: “For me, this is a very difficult loss, because of all the ministers I trusted him the most, and also loved him as a friend. even his enemies "However, in a society that was more and more imbued with the mood of the liberal opposition to power, to any of its undertakings and to all its representatives, Sipyagin's death was perceived almost as a celebration of freedom. Among lawyers, professors, journalists, not to mention young students, sympathy for the murderer of the minister was openly expressed. In the twenty years that have passed since the explosion on the Ekaterininsky Canal, society's views on terror have changed radically and irreversibly.

The year foreshadowed new social upheavals. The imperialist war continued. Russia has already spent most of its national wealth on its maintenance.

Direct military spending amounted to 50 million rubles a day. The economic disruption caused by the war reached catastrophic proportions.

The general decline in production continued, especially in the fuel, metallurgical and machine-building industries. The output of consumer goods has halved. Transport was hit the hardest. Due to deterioration and an acute shortage of rolling stock, the railways could not cope with the transportation of the most important national economic and even military goods. Impending paralysis railway transport threatened to break the existing industrial ties between the regions and cause a complete collapse of the economy. Agriculture was in deep crisis. In connection with the chronic shortage of labor, draft power and agricultural tools, there is a further reduction in the area under crops and the number of productive livestock. The marketability of agricultural production is falling. The export of bread to the world market is stopped. The population of cities and the army begin to lack food.

The matter was aggravated by the fact that, due to the disruption of transport, it became difficult to export grain from the producing regions.

The disorganization of the financial system had extremely negative consequences for the entire national economy and the living standards of the people. By the beginning of 1917. spending on the war was three times higher than the ordinary revenues of the treasury. The lack of funds was covered by increased emission, which led to the depreciation of money. Purchasing power the ruble fell, in the end, to 14 pre-war kopecks. The internal and external debt of the state was constantly growing. The payment of only interest on it annually amounted to an amount that, according to I.I. Mints, exceeded half of the usual revenues of the pre-war budget. All this was accompanied by a systematic decline in the living standards of the working people. During the war years, the cost of basic necessities has risen several times.

The war brought the village to ruin. The death in the war and the return of crippled men intensified the hatred of the peasants for the royal power. In 1915 the peasant movement became even more active. The peasants demanded a reduction in rents, arbitrarily plowed up the landlords' lands, burned the landowners' estates. The peasant movement reached its greatest extent in 1916. Mobilization, requisitions, unsustainable taxes increased the impoverishment of the peasants, which led to a change in the nature of peasant uprisings.

From spontaneous fermentation, the peasants moved on to active, more organized performances, which began to be not only economic, but also political in nature.

The foundations of tsarism also shook on the outskirts of Russia. The largest uprising took place in 1916. in Central Asia and Kazakhstan. The main reason for it was the unbearable double oppression of the working masses by the Russians and local exploiters. Russian merchants willingly gave goods on credit, for which the poor were then forced to give up their livestock and wool at cheap prices.

Revolutionary ferment intensified in tsarist army. Cases of refusal of entire units to go into battle became more frequent. Posters “We want peace!” appeared in the trenches. In the autumn of 1915 on the destroyer "Pobeditel" and the battleship "Gangut" sailors' uprisings broke out. In October 1916 two infantry regiments sent to Petrograd to break up the strikes refused to fire on the workers and turned their weapons against the policemen.

Conclusion

Humanity in the XIX - XX centuries. passed through different crises, the bands of which are separated from each other by decades of evolutionary development. The history of mankind has shown that all these crises were growth crises; normal and inevitable stages in the development of human society.

Russia was not a poor country. The prosperity of the people, of course, was far away. But the standard of living in it was quite comparable with the standard of living in other countries. Poverty has become a way of life. No matter how much and no matter how hard a person works, he will not live richly and securely. In addition, poverty and its constant companion - the deficit had a purely practical value. With their help, the people became out of politics, it is easier to regulate the consciousness of the poor. Such traits as envy, hatred of the more fortunate have become widespread.

In order for the people to become rich, they must have the most important thing - economic freedom. Because only freedom makes it possible to awaken dormant forces, talents, and activity. Only free labor can create economic miracles.

Bibliography

1.L.A. Katzva. "Russian history. XVI - XVIII centuries. Publishing house "ROST". Moscow, 1997

.S.A. Kislitsyn. History of Russia in Questions and Answers. Phoenix Publishing. Rostov-on-Don, 1999

.A.N. Myachin. "The World of Russian History". Publishing house "Veche". Moscow, 1997

.N.I. Pavlenko. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. Publishing house " high school". Moscow, 2001

.B.G. Pashkov. "Rus. Russia. The Russian Empire". Publishing house "CenterCom". Moscow, 1997

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

autocratic monarchy. At the end of the XIX century. Russia remained an autocratic monarchy. The head of state was the emperor, who held the highest position in the country. For centuries, the prerogatives of the monarch in Russia were based on customary law. Only by 1716, under Peter I, who abolished the patriarchate and Boyar Duma and having concentrated in his hands absolutely by her the fullness of the supreme power, a formal legal justification of the royal prerogatives appeared.

Although since the time of Peter I the principle of full-fledged supreme power has formally remained unchanged, the nature of the essence of the supreme state administration under the last tsar, Nicholas II, has changed. If the autocracy of Peter I can be considered despotic with sufficient reason, then the Russian autocracy of the late 19th century. looked different. The system has been changed.

Despite the fact that the tsar retained the God-given right to make any decisions, all of them of any significance were taken only after a serious discussion of the problem by a circle of officials at various levels. The most important cases were certainly considered in the commissions of the State Council and at general meeting Council.

The general provisions of the state structure were recorded in the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. They determined the prerogatives of the supreme power, the structure and competence of the State Council, the Senate, the Committee of Ministers. This volume of fundamental laws also included dynastic legislation - a collection of acts that constituted the so-called Establishment of imperial family. Russian dynastic law was one of the most strictly regulated in the world.

Royal power was unconditionally hereditary, passed from father to son. The heir (cesarevich) became emperor immediately after the death of his predecessor. It was, so to speak, an earthly institution.

But there was also a ritual of church consecration of royal power. Its necessity was stipulated by the law: “After accession to the throne, the sacred coronation and chrismation take place according to the order of the Orthodox Greek-Russian Church. The time for this solemn rite is appointed according to the Highest discretion and announced in advance to the nationwide news. The ceremony always took place in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.

The Romanov dynasty, which had been on the throne since 1613, had close family ties with many dynasties of Europe. By the end of the XIX century. family unions included the largest sovereign houses of Great Britain, Germany, Holland, Greece, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Norway, Romania, Sweden. By this time, the royal dynasty of the Romanovs consisted of about 50 people.

Any statute became law in Russia only after it was signed by the monarch. The emperor's signature could be put on a document after discussion in the State Council, the Committee of Ministers, at special meetings, etc.