The main directions of development of socio-political thought in the XIX century. Labor movement in Russia
The nineteenth century was the heyday of Russian political thought, when representatives of various trends of liberalism, conservatism, revolutionary radicalism formulated and tried to answer the most pressing questions for the Russian public consciousness of that time: about the relationship between personality and power; on streamlining the state structure and the optimal form of government; on the ways of socio-economic development and methods of solving the agrarian issue; on the legal guarantees of the freedom of the individual and the role of the intelligentsia in the social process; about the historical fate of Russia and its relations with the West.
"The days of the Alexandrovs, a wonderful beginning" (A.S. Pushkin) was marked primarily by the triumph of "government" liberalism, represented by the largest statesman in the history of Russia, jurist and reformer M.M. Speransky (1772-1839). In his practical activity and political philosophy, which had two worldviews as its ideological sources - the philosophy of the Enlightenment and the Christian doctrine, the idea of evolutionism and the appeal to the reason of power occupy an essential place. Believing that imperfections and injustices in society, as well as the inefficiency of public administration, in which, in his opinion, bureaucratic arbitrariness and despotism reigned, could be corrected with the help of reasonable legislation and moral education of the authorities, Speransky believed in the possibility of a positive response from the supreme authority to the proposed reforms. The supreme power embodying reason and morality must protect society from disintegration, create a certain balance of interests and needs.
To implement these ideas, M.M. Speransky developed and proposed several constitutional projects for consideration by Alexander I. By October 1809, in his Introduction to the Code of State Laws, he presented a draft reform of the state system of Russia, which embodied the principle of separation of powers while maintaining the fundamental foundations of the empire. Speransky believed that "it is impossible to base the government on the law, if one sovereign power will both draw up the law and execute it." The essence of his plan was to create a bicameral parliament with a higher chamber - the State Council and a lower elected State Duma, as well as a strict delimitation of the activities of the legislature (four-stage, elected on the basis of the property qualification of the State Duma), the supreme court (Senate) and ministries. A special role belonged to the State Council - a collegiate legislative body established in 1810 under the emperor to coordinate the activities of all state structures.
In addition to the establishment of the State Council and the system of ministries that existed until 1917, the rest of Speransky's proposals from this plan were not implemented. At the same time, his undoubted merit was not only some limitation of autocracy and streamlining of the state administration system, but also the fact that it was Speransky who laid the foundations for the formation of a domestic enlightened bureaucracy, the codification of Russian legislation, the reform of state-church relations and the education system. His concept of "true monarchy", combining autocracy and legislative regulation of social relations, respect of members of society for the law and its supreme subject and guardian - the monarch, can be considered as the first comprehensive project of a constitutional state with the principle of separation of powers in Russia. The political philosophy of Speransky can be generally characterized as autocratic liberalism, which combines the characteristic features of the political mentality of the era of feudalism and the specifics of the political culture of the period of bourgeois civilization.
The 19th century, as the Decembrist writer Bestuzhev-Ryumin later wrote, rose over Russia "not as a pink dawn, but as a glow of military fires", primarily the Patriotic War of 1812, which not only sharpened the patriotic feelings of the Russian people, but also filled the social political situation with new problems that worried the progressive people of that time. "Children of 1812" considered themselves representatives of the Decembrist movement, which had a significant impact on Russian political thought in the 19th century.
Being heterogeneous in ideological and political terms (the first Decembrist organization "Union of Salvation", created in 1816, later split into two new secret organizations - the more radical Southern Society, headed by P.I. Pestel and the more moderate Northern Society, led by N. .M. Muravyov), the Decembrist movement nevertheless proceeded from the general democratic ideals of the Enlightenment and the rejection of the existing socio-economic and political conditions of life in Russia at that time, primarily autocracy and serfdom. The differences within this movement related mainly to the form of government and the path of the future development of Russia, an illustration of which is the content of program projects developed by the leaders of Decembrism - "Russian Truth" P.I. Pestel and the "Draft Constitution" N.M. Muraviev.
The disagreements between Pestel and Muravyov on the issue of the state structure consisted in various conclusions regarding the future development of Russia: if Muravyov advocated a bourgeois constitutional monarchy, arranged according to the federal principle (modeled on the North American States), then Pestel advocated the revolutionary establishment of republican government in the form of representative democracy according to the principle of unitarism, i.e. unity and indivisibility of Russia. Criticism of Muravyov's project was developed by Pestel in other directions as well. For example, he opposes encouraging the emergence of an "aristocracy of wealth", i.e. bourgeoisie, through the property qualification introduced by Muravyov for election to national bodies, defending in turn the civil and political equality of all citizens, as well as freedom of the press and religion. Developing his agrarian project, Pestel focuses on the fact that the liberation of the peasants should not be reduced to the granting of "imaginary freedom" that can cause the subsequent pauperization of the peasantry, so his project for solving the land issue initially introduced a mixed type of land tenure, which involved the division of all land into two parts. - public and private. All these points allow researchers to consider Russkaya Pravda the most radical project of the bourgeois reorganization of serfdom in Russia, created by the Decembrists.
In the conditions of the reaction that came after the suppression of the Decembrist uprising, P.Ya. Chaadaev (1794-1856) in his famous "Philosophical Letters" raised the problem of the discrepancy between the greatness of Russia and the insignificance of its everyday existence. He saw the causes of Russia's economic backwardness and spiritual vegetation in its "falling out" of world history, in its religious and national-cultural particularism, which arose as a result of the adoption of Orthodoxy. It is to Chaadaev that Russian social thought is indebted for the formulation of problems that have become cross-cutting for it in subsequent decades. "And much of what they changed their minds, re-felt, what they created, what the noblest minds of the era expressed - Belinsky, Granovsky, K. Aksakov, Iv. and P. Kireevsky, Khomyakov, then Samarin and others, - noted D.N. Ovsyanniko - Kulikovsky, - was, as it were, an answer to the "question" raised by Chaadaev. The challenge thrown by Chaadaev developed in the controversy between Slavophiles and Westerners about the ways of Russia's development, which determined the social and spiritual climate of Russian society in the 1940s and 1950s. 19th century The main vector of this controversy was the "Russia-Europe" opposition, which later acquired a more global meaning: "East-West".
Prominent representatives of Slavophilism (I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, K.A. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin and others) proceeded in their speeches from the idea of Russia's identity. In their opinion, the originality of the historical path of Russia is determined by the presence in its social practice of a unique formation - a peasant land community, the absence of traditions of class (estate) struggle, and finally, Orthodoxy as a spiritual and ideological dominant of the Russian people. Idealizing pre-Petrine Russia and being sharply critical of the reforms of Peter I, the Slavophiles opposed the assimilation by Russia of elements of Western European culture, primarily Western European forms of political life. And at the same time, they spoke in favor of the development of national industry, banking and joint-stock business, the construction of railways and other socio-economic projects. In parallel, they put forward such demands as the creation and development of influential public opinion, the elimination of censorship oppression, the establishment of a public court, the abolition of corporal punishment and the death penalty, the release of peasants with a plot of land through a ransom, but with the obligatory preservation of the community.
From the point of view of representatives of Slavophilism, Russian statehood, unlike the European one, is based not on conquests, but on the voluntary recognition of power. If the basis of Western statehood is violence, slavery and hostility, then the basis of the Russian state is voluntariness, freedom and peace (K.S. Aksakov). The "calling of the Varangians" laid the foundations for two principles that exist and operate almost independently of each other: "lands", i.e. the people, which gives the state full power and does not interfere in its affairs, and the state, which has absolute power in the sphere of politics, is called upon to protect the people from external enemies and undertakes to refrain from interfering in the life of the "land". The people retain complete freedom of inner life and thought, while the state retains complete freedom in the sphere of political life. Assessing the Russian people as a whole as stateless and apolitical, the Slavophiles did not believe that they were deprived of creative initiative: this initiative, in their opinion, is aimed not at achieving "external truth" through violence, but at searching for "internal truth" through loyalty to the primordial values of communal existence and self-improvement of spiritual life on the basis of Orthodoxy. At the same time, the best form of political power for Russia, taking into account its originality, was declared to be autocracy, built on the principle "to the tsar - the power of power, to the people - the power of opinion." Other forms of state power (constitutional monarchy, republic), somehow involving the people in political life, seduce them from the path of "internal truth" and form a "state machine of people" instead of the living people (K.S. Aksakov).
Slavophilism, which is one of the variants of a conservative utopia, nevertheless subsequently had a great influence on the development of the theory and practice of Russian liberalism: for example, the Zemstvo reform was one of the most important reforms of the 60s. 19th century - to a certain extent was the result of the propaganda of Slavophile ideas. On the other hand, in the post-reform period, under the direct influence of these ideas, such directions of Russian thought as neo-Slavophilism (N.Ya. Danilevsky) and soil (F.M. Dostoevsky, Ap. A. Grigoriev, N.N. Strakhov) developed.
Representatives of Westernism (V. G. Belinsky, T. N. Granovsky, A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, V. P. Botkin and others), who were open opponents of Slavophilism, raised the same questions as the Slavophiles , but solved them from opposite positions. Recognizing, unlike the Slavophiles, the positive meaning of the reforms of Peter I, the Westernizers idealized Western European culture and considered it a model for Russia. Its future was associated with the assimilation of the achievements of the European liberal civilization, its socio-economic and political institutions (private property, parliamentarism, etc.). At the same time, part of the Westerners (Granovsky, Botkin, and others), rejecting the revolutionary path of development, proceeded from the possibility of reforming Russian reality from above within the framework of a constitutional monarchy.
Other representatives of this trend (Belinsky, Herzen, Chernyshevsky), having taken the position of revolutionary democracy, developed socialist concepts, within which the idea of the need to synthesize the Western socialist idea with the peculiarities of Russian folk foundations and traditions was substantiated. Russia's path to socialism was considered, first of all, through the transformation of the peasant community into a cell of the future socialist society (the concept of "Russian socialism" by Herzen). The representatives of revolutionary democratism proposed to implement their political and socio-economic ideals in the course of the peasant revolution and advocated the establishment of a democratic republic based on the principles of democracy and individual freedom. But the peasant reform of 1861, carried out according to the type of "revolution from above", undermined the raznochinskaya faith in an early peasant revolution, thereby making the political utopianism of revolutionary democracy obvious.
Traditions of revolutionary democracy in the 40-60s. 19th century found their continuation and development in the ideology and practice of populism. Populism, which formed in Russia in the post-reform period, was not only a certain set of socio-economic, political and philosophical ideas and concepts, but also a political movement that united in its illegal organizations (the largest of them was Narodnaya Volya, which existed from 1879 to 1883). ), first of all, representatives of the Raznochinskaya intelligentsia and students. The logic of the development of this movement, which began with the implementation of the practice of "going to the people", naturally led its representatives to the practice of terror and violence of individuals, the apogee of which was the assassination of Emperor Alexander I (March 1, 1881).
In their ideological guidelines, the Narodniks proceeded from the general idea of the possibility of the transition of Russian society to socialism through the peasant community, bypassing the stage of capitalism. But unlike the revolutionary democrats, populism emphasized not only the strategy of the social revolution, but also the concretization of its tactics (how to rouse the people to the revolution?), and also spoke more specifically about the problems of state power and political practice. Therefore, differences between the various trends of populism were outlined, first of all, in questions of tactics and forms of implementing the socialist idea on Russian soil. It is generally accepted to single out three main trends in populism in the 1960s and 1970s: propaganda, headed by P.L. Lavrov, conspiratorial ("Russian Blanquism") led by P.N. Tkachev and anarchist, theorists of which were M.A. Bakunin and P.A. Kropotkin.
The main ideas of the first - propaganda - direction are set out in the "Historical Letters" by P.L. Lavrov (1823-1900), where he proposed the concept of "critically thinking individuals" who implement the subjective beginning of history in their activities: having comprehended the laws of social development, rising above the passive crowd, these individuals are called upon to move progress and lead the historical movement of society. In this context, Lavrov reminded the intelligentsia of their duty to the people, to whom they owe their position, and called on them to work among the people in the name of their spiritual and political liberation. Thus, as a preliminary stage in the course of preparing the social revolution, a stage of long-term socialist propaganda among the people was proposed. In part, these ideas were implemented in the practice of "going to the people", although later, especially after the assassination of Alexander II, Lavrov changed his attitude towards terror, recognizing its expediency.
The leader of the second, conspiratorial direction, P.N. Tkachev (1844-1885) went down in populist history as a Russian Blanquist who advocated conspiracy tactics and an immediate seizure of power. In his opinion, the autocracy had no roots in society, and to overthrow it, only the well-organized action of a group of revolutionaries - conspirators ("revolutionary minority") was necessary. Accepting, like all populists, the community as the "cornerstone" of the future social system, he considered it necessary after seizing power to transform the community into a commune based on the principles of socialization of property, collectivization of labor and its results, and also advocated the introduction of public education, the destruction of the family based under the control of a woman. The political ideas of Tkachev subsequently entered the ideological arsenal of Bolshevism, into the political consciousness of V.I. Lenin.
The founder of populist anarchism was M.A. Bakunin (1817-1876), who believed that the social ideas of the Russian people, recognizing only the power of communal self-government, correspond precisely to the anarchist ideal. “Our people,” he wrote, “deeply and passionately hate the state, hate all its representatives, no matter in what form they appear before it.” But mired in poverty and ignorance, the people need help from the intelligentsia ("intellectual proletariat"), so Bakunin called on her to "go to the people", to become the "organizer of the people's revolution", proposing for this purpose the creation of initiative groups from the revolutionary, first of all students, youth. His critique of the state in all its forms was based on the characterization of any power organized in a top-down system of bureaucratic control as antisocial and unjust. Defending the idea of the destruction of the state, Bakunin counterposes to it his ideal of stateless "anarchist socialism" based on the principles of self-government in the form of a federation of communities.
The theory of anarchism received in the late XIX - early XX centuries. its further development in the works of P.A. Kropotkin (1842-1921), who substantiated the concept of anarcho-communism, understanding anarchy as the violent overthrow of "power and capital" and the establishment of a communist system. Criticizing the inhumanity of bourgeois relations and the violation of individual rights by the state, the anarchist theorist proposed, as an alternative to the state, a non-political organization of mankind in the form of a federal planetary union of productive communities united on the basis of a free agreement. Kropotkin's communal-anarchist society is a decentralized self-governing society of equal people, within which private property is expropriated and the principle of distribution according to needs operates. After the October events of 1917, the thinker criticized the results of the "Bolshevik coup", speaking out against the tactics of imposing communism from above through mass terror and noting that the former authoritarian structures were practically restored in a new form.
In the 40s of the XIX century. in Ukraine, two main directions in socio-political thought are taking shape: liberal-democratic and revolutionary-democratic. The ideologists of the liberal-democratic direction were: Nikolay Kostomarov, Vladimir Antonovich, Mikhail Dragomanov and others, but the revolutionary-democratic Sergei Podolinsky, Taras Shevchenko, Ivan Franko, Lesya Ukrainka other. A clear demarcation into two leading directions was also manifested in the first secret political organization in Ukraine - in the activities of the Cyril and Methodius Association. This organization arose in Kyiv in late 1845 - early 1846. and set as its goal the creation of a Slavic democratic federation headed by Ukraine. The founders of the partnership were professors of Kiev University Nikolai Kostomarov, student Vasiliy Belozersky and official, governor general Nikolai Gulak. Taras Shevchenko took an active part in the activities of the association. The organization did not last long. The tsarist government uncovered and destroyed the Cyril and Methodius Association, and Taras Shevchenko was arrested for revolutionary activities and in 1847 was given to the soldiers.
The main ideas of the organization and its program provisions are set out in the "Book of the Ukrainian people" and "The Charter of the Slavic Association of Saints Cyril and Methodius." The partnership set as its task the national and social liberation of Ukraine: the elimination of serfdom, class privileges, the proclamation of freedom of conscience, etc. It was assumed that the Slavic federation would include Ukraine, Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Serbia, Bulgaria. The supreme legislative power was to belong to the bicameral Sejm, and the executive power to the president. The members of the partnership sought to reveal a political ideal, the implementation of which would bring, first of all, freedom to Ukraine.
In the second half of the XIX century. in the history of socio-political thought of Ukraine, a prominent place is occupied by creativity Mikhail Drahomanov(1841-1895). His socio-political concept combined the socialist ideas of social equality and justice with the bourgeois-democratic ideas of constitutional law, broad local self-government, the need for political struggle, and so on.
The essence of his program of political struggle for the Ukrainians was to achieve political reforms, democratization and federalization within Russia and Austria-Hungary, and Galicia was to become the center of this national struggle. He believed that national rights could be achieved on the basis of political freedoms - the more political freedoms, the more national rights.
One of the representatives of the revolutionary-democratic trend in the political thought of Ukraine was I. Franko(1856-1916). He was a socialist, but did not advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat, he focused not on class, but on universal values. Socialism, according to Ivan Franko, should be based on broad self-government. The thinker advocated the equality of all nations and believed that the best solution to the national problem would be the creation of state associations of a mixed (federal-confederal) type, the basis of which would be the solidarity of interests.
European political thought of the 19th (19th) century and received the best answer
Answer from Alexey Khoroshev[guru]
Political thought of the 19th century.
Its peculiarity lies in the fact that the political theories of this time, continuing the traditions of the previous century, claim to "explain everything" or "solve all problems." The 19th century is a period of rapid development of capitalism with its foundations (private property, free competition and private initiative). This entailed the creation of a new political and legal system
The leading direction of political thought in the first half of the XIX century. is liberalism. In the political field, liberalism is based on the recognition of human rights, the separation of legislative and executive powers, the freedom to choose occupations, and freedom of competition. Political liberalism is rooted in the politico-sociological teachings of the Enlightenment. Liberalism adopted Kant's idea of a morally free person, independent of violence from other people and at the same time bearing the burden of moral responsibility. Therefore, the freedom of the individual and his social responsibility are inseparable. This understanding of the individual corresponds to the idea of a legal state that embodies the above political principles.
The ideological, political and economic principles of liberalism formulated in the works of I. Bentham, G. Spencer, D. Mill and others were politically incompatible with the ideas of conservatism, which became widespread in the second half of the 19th century. as a political ideology. It focuses on the preservation and maintenance of historically formed forms of state and public life, primarily its moral and legal foundations, embodied in the nation, religion, marriage, family, property. The term "conservatism" was introduced by the French writer Chateaubriand during the French Revolution. Unlike liberalism, it does not have a stable ideological core and takes different forms in different historical periods. Conservatism, as a rule, begins to revive during periods of historical turns, sharp social changes, when public consciousness, focusing on the past, begins to distinguish it from the present. So it was in France, Germany, Russia, England. 19th century conservatism was not a reactionary trend, it is close to traditionalism, which is figuratively expressed in the concept of a "golden age" - an order that existed from the beginning, with which any order that arises in time should be correlated.
A significant contribution to the development of political science in the XIX century. was introduced by the French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), who studied the historical genesis and prospects of democracy. Like many thinkers before and after him, he was looking for a new social order, believing that it was impossible to survive in this monstrous world.
In the middle of the XIX century. a new direction in political thought was born, which had a huge impact on all subsequent political history - Marxism. Having critically comprehended the previous socialist theories, the philosophical ideas of Hegel, Feuerbach and others, K. Marx and F. Engels came to the following conclusions: politics, political relations, the state and law cannot be understood either from themselves, or from any spiritual or physical principles. They are rooted in the material conditions of life in class society; the anatomy of a class society, understood as the totality of a certain type of production relations, is included in the subject of political economy. Consequently, political theory, in solving the question of the relationship between class society and all political phenomena and processes, must be based on the study of production relations. At the same time, Marxism absolutizes the class nature of political relations. The state is regarded as a product of the alienation of labor, as a result of the dominance of private property. Marxism is characterized by a destructive view of the problem of political power and bureaucracy. It is based on the notion of the temporality of the bureaucracy, subject to immediate elimination after the conquest of political power by the proletariat. Bourgeois democracy must be replaced by proletarian democracy.
After the defeat of the Decembrists, Russia is going through a period of political reaction. In the 1830s only in a few circles of student youth an independent spiritual life glimmers. They from neither - the circle of the Kritsky brothers (1827) and the circle of Sungurov (1831) - tried to continue the work of the Decembrists and were mercilessly crushed by the government .. Consistently pursued the authorities and those organizations that adopted the new ideas of utopian socialism: ) and the Petrashevsky Society in St. Petersburg (1845-1840). More peaceful was the existence of Stankevich's (1833-1839) circle, far from politics, whose members were fond of German idealistic philosophy.
By the end of 1830s. as a result of the intense spiritual quest of the advanced part of Russian society, several currents manifest themselves, which offer their own concepts of the historical development of Russia and a program for its reorganization.
Westerners (T.N. Granovsky, V.P. Botkin, E.F. Korsh, K.D. Kavelin) believed that Russia was following the European path, having entered it belatedly, as a result of the reforms of Peter the Great. The movement "To the West" must inevitably lead to the replacement of serf labor by free labor and the transformation of the despotic state system into a constitutional one. The main task of the “educated minority” under these conditions is to prepare Russian society for the idea of the need for reforms and to influence the authorities in the proper spirit. It is the authorities and society, in active cooperation, who must prepare and carry out reforms with the help of which the gap between Russia and Western Europe will be eliminated.
Radical A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev, and V.G. Belinsky in the late 1830s - early 1840s. shared the main ideas of the Westerners. However, the radicals subjected the bourgeois system to the sharpest criticism. From their point of view, Russia in its development should not only catch up with the Western European countries, but also take a decisive revolutionary step with them towards a fundamentally new social system - socialism.
From the point of view of the Slavophiles (A.S. Khomyak, brothers I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, brothers K.S. and I.S. Aksakov, Yu.M. Samarin, A.I. Koshelev). Russia for a long time followed a completely different path than Western Europe. The history of the latter was determined by the constant struggle of egoistic individuals, classes hostile to each other, despotism on the blood of the built states. At the heart of Russian history was a community, all members of which were connected by common interests. The Orthodox religion further strengthened the original ability of the Russian people to sacrifice their own interests for the sake of the common ones. The state power took care of the Russian people, protected them from external enemies, maintained the necessary order, but did not interfere in the spiritual, private, local life. The authorities were autocratic in nature, but at the same time they sensitively listened to the opinion of the people, maintaining contact with them through Zemsky Sobors. As a result of Peter's reforms, this harmonious structure of Russia was destroyed. It was Peter who introduced serfdom, which divided the Russian people into masters and slaves. He also tried to instill Western European customs in the gentlemen. Under Peter, the state acquired a despotic character. The Slavophiles called for the restoration of the old Russian foundations of public and state life: to revive the spiritual unity of the Russian people (for which serfdom should be abolished), to get rid of the despotic nature of the autocratic system, to establish the lost relationship between the state and the people. The Slavophils hoped to achieve this goal by introducing broad publicity; they also dreamed of the revival of Zemsky Sobors.
Thus, creating concepts for the development of Russia, representatives of various currents of social thought in the 1930s and 1940s. acted in the same direction. The abolition of serfdom and the reorganization of the despotic state system - these are the primary tasks, with the solution of which Russia's exit to a new level of development was to begin.
17. Development of capitalism in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. Its features.
The abolition of serfdom in 1861 and the bourgeois reforms of the 60s and 70s of the 19th century contributed to the development of capitalism in the Russian economy, thereby creating the necessary economic and social prerequisites for this. At the end of the 19th century Russia is experiencing a rapid rise in industrial production. Due to the rapid growth of new industrial regions - Donbass and Baku - a powerful fuel base is being created in the country. Heavy industry is developing at a fast pace: the output of ferrous metallurgy and mechanical engineering is increasing threefold. The railway network is being extended almost twice. By the end of the 19th century the system of Russian capitalism is finally taking shape.
One of the characteristic features was the appearance in Russia of large, technically well-equipped enterprises employing thousands of workers. By the degree of concentration of production in Russia by the 20th century. came out on top in Europe. This process was encouraged in every possible way by the government, which was interested in creating large enterprises capable of fulfilling state, primarily military, orders - they received loans and subsidies from the government, and enjoyed tax benefits. The high concentration of production led to the formation of monopolies. The first monopolistic associations in Russia arose as early as the 1880s and 1890s. At the beginning of the 20th century the process of monopolization has intensified markedly. Monopolies appeared in almost all branches of production. The concentration of banking capital in Russia went parallel to the concentration of industrial production. At the beginning of the 20th century the five largest banks controlled the bulk of the financial resources. These funds they willingly invested in industry, largely subordinating it to their control. This is how the financial oligarchy was formed, acquiring huge financial resources and basic industrial capacities.
All this testified to the fact that already at the end of the 19th century. capitalism in Russia has entered a fundamentally new stage of its development. At the same time, Russian capitalism retained its pronounced differences from Western European capitalism. First, the financial oligarchy turned out to be closely connected with the state power here, receiving constant support from it. As a result, the big bourgeoisie develops an ambivalent attitude towards the autocratic-bureaucratic system. On the one hand, it begins to strive for political power and thus finds itself in opposition to autocracy. On the other hand, financial support from the ruling bureaucracy, state orders, etc. made this opposition rather inconsistent. Another feature was that domestic production in Russia was largely based on foreign capital. The profit that the foreign bourgeoisie received from the importation of capital into Russia went mainly abroad. Therefore, in the rich Western European countries, the bourgeoisie could defuse social conflicts at the expense of this profit. The possibilities of the Russian bourgeoisie in solving them were not great. The Russian working class remained the most oppressed, the poorest in Europe. The percentage of the "working aristocracy" was insignificant here, the vast majority of workers were in equally bad conditions. As a result, the proletariat in Russia fully preserved its social integrity and was open to revolutionary agitation.
And finally, one should especially note such a feature as the terrible backlog of the countryside. The gap between industry and agriculture widened more and more. Capitalist relations began to take root in the deren, but the remnants of serfdom greatly hampered their development. The backward peasant economy was still strangled by exorbitant payments. A significant part of the landlords ran their households in the old fashioned way, at the expense of working off or gave out land for rent, taking an increasing part of the income received. Such a situation fettered the growth of new relations in agriculture and inflamed the hatred of the peasants for the landlords with ever greater force. The situation in the Russian countryside was heating up.
The transformative aspirations of the authorities at first met with understanding in Russian society. Magazines that occupied various socio-political positions, the Western-liberal Russian Bulletin, the Slavophile Russian conversation, and even the radical Sovremennik in 1856-1857. advocated the interaction of all social forces, for the joint support of the reformist intentions of the government. However, as the nature of the impending peasant reform became clearer, the social movement lost its unity. In the second quarter of the 19th century in Russia there were 3 main directions of social and political thought: 1. Conservative. 2. Liberal. 3. Democratic.
conservative: Based on the theory of "official nationality." The emperor himself invented it. "Some preservation of the Russian people." Formulated the ideas of officially nationality: Grafvarov. It was expressed in the slogan: "for the faith of the king and the fatherland."
1. Faith was expressed in Orthodoxy. "Without love for the faith of the ancestors, the people must perish," said Uvarov.
2. Autocracy. This is the main condition for the political existence of Russia. "There will be no autocracy, there will be no Russia"
3. Nationality. "Preserving inviolable the presence of popular concepts" (honesty, decency, etc.)
liberal: It was carried out by Westerners and Slavophiles. Westerners: these are the followers of Peter the Great, they are for the Western way of life, against England, against Great Britain. Performed by: Granovsky, Botkin. Slavophiles: For them, the main thing is self-improvement, the spiritual part. “Perth is the first pest. We need to live the way we lived before him” Carried out by: brothers Oksakov, Kireevsky, Khomyakov. “Russia has always lived and developed in its own way” is the conclusion of Westerners and Slavophiles as a whole.
Democratic: Belinsky, Herzen, Butashevich Petrashevsky.
Belinsky has a moderate demand:
Strict enforcement of laws
Guarantee of property rights,
To end police brutality.
Liquidation of landed estates
For the introduction of peasant self-government,
For the strengthening of the peasant community
Butashevsky:
For the equality of all citizens.
Freedom of speech and press.
For recognizing the possibility of an armed uprising.
For the abolition of autocracy
45. Expand the content of the reforms carried out during the reign of Alexander II, indicate their significance for the modernization of the country.
2. 1863 - 1864 education reform was carried out.3. Zemstvo reform of 1864.
4. 1870 "City Reform" 5. 1864. Judicial reform.
6. 1874. Military reform. There was also financial, etc.
1. Peasant reform. Reasons for the abolition of serfdom: 1. Economic:
Serfdom interfered with the management of the households of the landowners (low production of forced labor).
Crepe. Right. It interfered with the peasants (the lands decreased, and the corvée and dues grew)
-KP. Interfered with the industrial modernization of Russia.
There was no free labor market. 2. Political:
Defeat in the Crimean War (1853 - 1856)
Russia's backwardness from advanced European countries. 3. Social:
The growth of anti-serfdom sentiments. - The refusal of the peasants to perform their duties.
Escape, arson of estates
The documents determined the legal status of the peasants:
The personal dependence of peasants on landowners was abolished (peasants cannot be given, bought, etc.)
The peasant received the right to own property, engage in crafts, and marry.
Restrictions: - Peasants were not accepted for civil service. - Corporal punishment has not been abolished. There was also the allotment of land to the peasants.
2. Zemstvo reform(bodies of local self-government): Zemstvo assemblies were created in the bridles and provinces. There were curias, and they collected the z.sobr of the Zemstvo and were engaged in schools, hospitals, roads, and so on.
3. Urban reform: was carried out in the image and likeness of the zemstvo. BUT in the city - thought. She chose the city council, the head of the city.
4. Judicial reform. On November 20, 1864, new judicial charters were adopted. They proclaimed the principles of legal proceedings: - publicity, - the creation of a jury, - the independence of judges. -Equality of all before the law. - competitiveness of the parties. 3 categories of ships:
1. World. (Small criminal and civil cases with damages up to 500 rubles) They were chosen by district zemstvo assemblies and State Dumas, and approved by the Senate.
2. General. They are divided into: -The district was in the provinces, -The Judicial Chamber. One for several provinces (state and political) - the Senate is the highest judicial body. The judges of the general courts were appointed by the emperor.
5. Education reform:-Different types of primary schools (zemstvo, state, parochial.). - Public institutions were allowed to open schools. - gymnasiums were created to prepare for admission to universities. - Real gymnasiums (in technical universities). - 1862 - women's gymnasiums.
6. Military reform 1862-1874. Author: Milyutin. Goal: "elimination of military backwardness" Measures: a) the transformation of the army into a mass one. b) all-class military service was introduced. c) The terms of military service were reduced. 6 years in active service, 9 years in reserve. In the Navy from 25-10 years old. d) Educational benefits were presented. D) 15 military districts were formed.
Outcome: - the introduction of military regulations
Rearmament of the army (small arms, steam fleet)
The abolition of the recruiting system for completing the army and the introduction of military service
Reducing the number ( increasing combat capability)
Changing the service life
The best general staff academy in Europe has been created
The network of military educational institutions has expanded.