The peasant reform of 1861 concerned what kind of peasants. Defeat in the Crimean War
"The Peasant Reform of 1861." (Grade 8)
Lesson type: learning new material
The purpose of the lesson:analysis of the provisions of the Manifesto February 19, 1861
Tasks:
educational
- on the basis of the studied historical sources to find out the main provisions of the reform of 1861.
developing
- develop the mental activity of students
- develop skills in working with historical documentation
nurturing
- to form an interest in history, in one's past by studying historical documents
- cultivate respect for the history of their Fatherland
Means of education:
Textbook A.N. Bokhanov "History of Russia XIX in." , Moscow, "Russian Word" 2009.
Texts of documents for the lesson
Alexander's speech II in the State Council." (January 28, 1861)
2. "Manifesto on the liberation of landlord peasants from serfdom
3. "Regulations on peasants who emerged from serfdom"
Lesson plan:
reasons for the abolition of serfdom
the main provisions of the reform
the significance of the reform
consolidation
I . Opening speech:
The abolition of serfdom is an important event in the history of Russia. This year marks the 155th anniversary of the adoption of the peasant reform. It led to serious changes in the social and economic life of the country, became the impetus for subsequent reforms.
We will analyze issues related to the reform of the abolition of serfdom on the basis of documents and the text of the textbook
Let's discuss the reasons for the abolition of serfdom
What foreign policy event showed the economic backwardness of Russia? Defeat in Crimean War demonstrated to society the discrepancy between the requirements of the time of the socio-political and economic system.
Was the peasants interested in the results of their labor?
The serfs were not interested in the results of labor on the land of the landowner. Therefore, the level of agricultural production was low. The lack of workers hindered the development of production. The hired workers were otkhodnik peasants.
In the 1st half of the 19th century, the countries of Europe looked at Russia as a country where slavery existed. Therefore, the abolition of serfdom was required by the need to strengthen the international prestige of Russia.-
At the turn of the 50-60s of the 19th century, the peasant movement intensified in the serf village: 1857 - 192 performances, 1858-528, 1859-938.
Notebook entry:
Reasons for the abolition of serfdom
economic reasons (crisis of serfdom)
foreign policy (defeat of Russia in the Crimean War)
internal political reasons (growth of tension in society, threat to stability in the country)
Much preparatory work has been done to prepare the document.
Working with the document “From the speech of Alexander II in the State Council." (January 28, 1861) The text is given in the textbook p.164
DOCUMENT
FROM THE SPEECH OF ALEXANDER II IN THE STATE COUNCIL
The case of the liberation of the peasants, which was submitted for consideration by the State Council, due to its importance, I consider it a vital issue for Russia, on which the development of its strength and power will depend.
I am sure that all of you, gentlemen, are just as convinced as I am of the usefulness and necessity of this measure. I also have another conviction, namely, that this matter cannot be postponed; why I demand from the State Council that it be finished by them in the first half of February and that it could be announced by the beginning of field work; I place this on the direct duty of the chairman of the State Council.
I repeat, and it is my indispensable will that this matter be ended immediately. For four years now, it has been going on and arousing various fears and expectations in both the landlords and the peasants. Any further delay may be detrimental to the state.
Answer questions about the document.
1. What influenced Alexander's determination II free the peasants?
2. How does the emperor explain the need for reform as soon as possible?
3. What is the role Alexander II in the abolition of serfdom?
4. What features of the preparation and implementation of the peasant reform can be learned from the document?
Thus Alexander II "considered the cause of the liberation of the peasants as vital"
Think about what other documents you might need to study the topic?
1. "Manifesto on the liberation of landlord peasants from serfdom"
2. "Regulations on peasants who have emerged from serfdom"
II .The main provisions of the reform of 1861
Regulation February 19, 1861 includes 17 legislative acts, which describe in detail the entire procedure for release.
Work with the text of the document.
Fragment of the document from the "Manifestoon the liberation of landlord peasants from serfdom” from the “Ransom Regulations” February 19, 1861.
Manifesto on the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants
We began this work by an act of our trust in the Russian nobility, in the great experience of devotion to its throne and its readiness to donate to the benefit of the Fatherland. We gave it to the nobility itself, on their own call, and the nobles were supposed to limit their rights to the peasants and raise the difficulties of transformation, not without reducing their benefits. And our trust was justified. In the provincial committees, in the person of their members, endowed with the confidence of the entire noble society of each province, the nobility voluntarily renounced the right to the identity of serfs. In these committees, in order to collect the necessary information, assumptions were made about a new way of life for people in a serf state and about their relationship to the landowners.
By virtue of the aforementioned new provisions, serfs will in due course receive the full rights of free rural inhabitants.
The landowners, while retaining the right of ownership to all the lands belonging to them, provide the peasants, for the established duties, with permanent use of their estate settlement and, moreover, to ensure their life and fulfill their duties to the government, the amount of field land and other lands determined in the regulations.
Using this land allotment, the peasants are obliged to perform in favor of the landowners the duties specified in the regulations. In this state, which is a transitional state, the peasants are called temporarily liable.
At the same time, they are given the right to redeem their estate settlement, and with the consent of the landowners, they can acquire ownership of field lands and other lands assigned to them for permanent use.
In order to achieve this correctly, we recognized it as good to command:
1. To open in each province a provincial office for peasant affairs, which is entrusted with the highest management of the affairs of peasant societies established on landowners' lands.
2. In order to resolve local misunderstandings and disputes that may arise in the implementation of the new provisions, appoint conciliators in the counties and form them into county conciliation congresses.
4. Draw up, verify and approve for each rural society or estate a statutory charter, which will calculate, on the basis of the local situation, the amount of land provided to the peasants for permanent use, and the amount of duties due from them in favor of the landowner, as for land, as well as for other benefits from it.
6. Until the expiration of the period of 2 years, the peasants and householders should remain in their former obedience to the landlords and unquestioningly fulfill their former duties.
Peasants who have emerged from serfdom and have acquired land in their ownership on the grounds set forth in the Regulations are called peasant proprietors.
Peasants who have emerged from serfdom are subject to the general provisions of civil laws on family rights and obligations. On this basis, the permission of the landowners is not required for the entry of peasants into marriage and disposition in their family affairs.
Peasants who have emerged from serfdom are given the right, on an equal basis with other free rural peasants:
1) to carry out free trade,
2) open and legally maintain factories and various industrial, commercial and craft establishments;
3) enroll in workshops, produce handicrafts in their villages and sell their products both in villages and in cities;
4) join guilds, trade ranks and corresponding ones in a row.<...>
1. Define the document type.
2. Write out new concepts and terms from the document.
3. Analysis of the facts and events contained in the document
describe the legal status of the peasants after the abolition of serfdom;
highlight the main provisions of the Manifesto;
determine the interests of which social forces this document expressed
2. Working with written concepts
How did you understand the meaning of the new concepts? The teacher listens to the answers. Check the correctness by comparing with the definitions in the textbook. Writing in a notebook
Temporarily liable peasants - peasants freed from serfdom under the reform of 1861, who paid the landowner 20% of the ransom.
Free rural inhabitants - peasants, freed from serfdom under the reform of 1861 and redeemed their allotments.
Redemption payments - payment of peasants for land after the abolition of serfdom
Conciliators are officials appointed to approve statutory charters and resolve disputes between peasants and landlords.
Statutory charter - an agreement between the landowner and the peasants on the size of the allotment and the condition of the redemption operation.
reform provisions. Writing in a notebook
Personal liberation of the peasants.
Land allotment.
Redemption operation.
The provision of land to the peasants was subject to a number of conditions. By law, the landowner retained ownership of the land, but had to provide the peasant with an allotment for ransom.
In accordance with the legislative documents on the abolition of serfdom, Russia was conditionally divided into three zones - black earth, non-black earth and steppe - in each of which the minimum and maximum size of the peasant land allotment was established. The minimum amount is the one less than which the landowner was not supposed to offer the peasant, and the maximum is the one more than which the peasant was not supposed to demand from the landowner. In each specific case, the size of the allotment was determined by an agreement between the landowner and the peasant, drawn up in the form of a charter. In general, the peasants received 10-40% less land than the amount they used before the reform. The plots of land seized from the peasants were called "segments". "Segments" passed to the landowner.
Let's see how the redemption operation was organized. Work with the text of the document.
"Regulations on redemption by peasants who have emerged from serfdom"
64. When peasants acquire ownership of their allotment by mutual voluntary agreement with the landowner, the amount of payment for the acquired land depends solely on the discretion of the contracting parties, but not less than 20% of the redemption amount: the assistance provided by this government consists only in issuing land of a certain redemption loan.
65. To determine the amount of a redemption loan, a cash quitrent is accepted, appointed from the peasants in favor of the landowner according to the charter charter for the estate and field allotment provided to the peasants for permanent use.
66. The amount of dues for the acquired land is 80% and is paid by the state treasury.
113. Peasants who have acquired ownership of land through a redemption transaction are obliged to pay into the treasury annually in return for the dues that followed the landowner for this land, six kopecks per ruble from the redemption loan appointed by the government until it is repaid. Such payments are called ransom payments.
114. A redemption loan shall be repaid with a installment of redemption payments within forty-nine years from the date of issuance of the loan.
Tasks for the document: 1.
Determine the procedure for making a redemption transaction (the treasury immediately paid 80% of the redemption amount to the landlords, this is a redemption loan from the state to the peasants; the peasant had to reimburse it for 49 years, paying 6% per annum on the loan; the rest of the redemption amount - 20% - the peasants paid on their own; if the peasant paid this amount immediately, then he became free, if not, temporarily liable)
Tasks . (I propose to solve only in a strong class)
The amount of the ransom was determined by capitalization of the quitrent. Each peasant annually paid the landowner a quitrent. After the liberation of the peasants, the landlord stopped receiving this amount. At that time it was possible to place in the bank at 6% per annum. The peasant had to pay so much for the redeemed land that, having put this money in the bank at 6% per annum, the landowner would annually receive a profit equal to the amount of quitrent paid by the peasant before the reform..
- Calculate how much a peasant must pay for the land to the landowner, who annually paid a quitrent of 10 rubles?
(10 rubles × 100%: 6% = 166 rubles 67 kopecks)
It is known that the market price of 1 tithe of land in the 60s of the 19th century in non-chernozem provinces was 14.5 rubles, and average value redemption allotment - 8 acres. How much did the peasant overpay the landowner for the land? (14.5x8 = 116 rubles - the amount for which 8 acres of land could be bought on the market. 166.67 - 116 \u003d 50 rubles 67 kopecks - the amount that the peasant overpaid for the land as a result of the established redemption operation).
- Was the ransom amount fair?
III . Significance of the abolition of serfdom.
Work with the text of the textbook from 162-163
Write in a notebook the historical significance of the abolition of serfdom.
1. Eliminated the right of ownership of people.
2. Conditions have been created for intensive economic development of the country.
The reform caused discontent among both landowners and peasants. However, in spite of everything, the abolition of serfdom was of great importance for Russia. Now all Russians are free. The right of ownership of labor and personal freedom of people was destroyed. The country opened up the possibility of developing new economic relations. Alexander II for this historic reform received honorary title liberator king.
IV . Consolidation. Test
1. Mark the rights acquired by the peasants under the Regulations of February 19, 1861
a. peasants were given the right to own land
b. peasants could marry without the permission of the landowner
c.peasants could elect zemstvos
2.After the reform, the amount of land.
a. increased
b. decreased
c. has not changed
3. Segments are part
a. peasant allotments
b. landed estates
c. land of peasants taken in favor of the landowner
4. Peasants had to pay a ransom in order to
become personally free
b. become owners
in. leave the landlord
5. The amount of the ransom
exceeded the value of the land
b. reflected the real value
in. was less than the value of the land
6. Peasants were considered temporarily liable
before the buyout deal
b. after paying the ransom
in. before paying the debt to the state
7. Temporarily liable peasants
a. worked on landowner's land
b. belonged to the landowner
in. paid dues and performed corvée
8. The amount of duties
a. arbitrarily set by the landowner
b. approved by the peasant assembly
in. strictly regulated by law
Evaluation criteria: 8 correct answers - score "5", 7.6- - score "4", 5-"3", 4-"2".
The peasant question in the 19th century became central theme discussions in all sectors of society. Many understood the need to free the peasants from the almost unlimited power of the landowner, since, due to the existence of this system, all spheres of society suffered. So, the main reasons for the abolition of serfdom:
. The inefficiency of landlordism
Serfdom not only began to bring much less economic benefit to the state, but, considering the general trend, it can be noted that it even brought losses: the estates brought less and less income to the owners, some were unprofitable. Therefore, the state had to financially support the ruined nobles, who, however, provided the state with people for service.
. Serfdom hindered the industrial modernization of Russia
Serfdom prevented the formation of a free labor market, and, due to the low purchasing power of the population, hindered the development of domestic trade. As a result, there was no need for enterprises to upgrade equipment, and the country lagged behind not only in quantity, but also in the level of equipment of factories and manufactories.
. Defeat in the Crimean War
The defeat in the Crimean War also proved the failure of the serf system. The country was unable to give a worthy rebuff to the enemy, mainly because of the internal situation: financial difficulties, the country's backwardness in all sectors. After the defeat in the Crimean War, Russia was in danger of losing its influence on the world stage.
. Increased unrest of the peasants
The peasants were dissatisfied with the arbitrariness of the landowners (an increase in corvée, dues) and additional recruitment among the serfs. Their discontent manifested itself in the form of active and passive resistance. The first should mean open uprisings (arson of estates, murders of landowners), which, thanks to the developed local police system, were stopped quite quickly. Passive resistance was expressed in the deterioration of the quality of work, sometimes - non-payment of dues. This problem was impossible to cope with under the current conditions, as this phenomenon covered great amount peasants.
So, the abolition of serfdom was historically inevitable. In 1858, the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs was created, the program of which, however, provided for the mitigation of serfdom, but not its elimination. On December 4, 1858, a new peasant reform program was adopted: giving the peasants the opportunity to buy out land allotments and creating peasant public administration bodies. To develop a peasant reform in March 1859, Editorial Commissions were created under the Main Committee. The work of the commissions ended in October 1860. Further, the project of "reform in the peasant case" was discussed by the State Council (since January 1861). Finally, on February 19 (March 3), 1861 in St. Petersburg, Alexander II signed the Manifesto "On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants" and the Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom, which consisted of 17 legislative acts. The manifesto was promulgated in Moscow on March 5 (OS), 1861, on Forgiveness Sunday in churches after mass, in St. Petersburg, Moscow and other cities. In the Mikhailovsky Manege, the decree was read out to the people by the tsar personally. In some remote places - during March of the same year.
Considering the issue of the abolition of serfdom in Russia today, we continue to meet with the methodological assessments of the nature, causes and consequences of the reform of 1861 approved by Soviet historiography, we see the desire of scientists to adhere to the concept of reform outlined by the leader of Russian Marxists Ulyanov (Lenin) at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries.
It was presented in concentrated form in a series of articles written on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the abolition of serfdom in 1911.
Basically, the concept of the reform of 1861 proposed by Lenin boiled down to the following provisions:
The reform, as a "by-product of the revolutionary struggle," was the result of a crisis in feudal-serf relations, as well as a revolutionary situation that arose in 1859-1861.
The immediate cause that forced tsarism to abolish serfdom and embark on the path of democratic reforms was the Crimean War lost by Russia and peasant revolts, which "grew with every decade before liberation."
The reform was carried out "from above" by the tsarist government and the feudal lords themselves, and therefore turned out to be incomplete, massively dispossessing the land of the villagers and economically tying them to the landowners' farms.
The reform was carried out in the interests of the landowners, who, however, having received huge funds for the redemption of peasant allotments, squandered them, without rebuilding the economy on a capitalist basis and continuing to exploit the peasants economically dependent on them by semi-serf methods.
The reform opened a "valve" for the development of capitalism in Russia, primarily in trade and industry, which, having made a grand leap in a few decades, reached at the beginning of the 20th century. level corresponding to the advanced countries of Europe.
The reform was not completed. The mass dispossession of the peasantry, the preservation of the remnants of serfdom in the countryside led to the impoverishment of the bulk of the peasantry, its class differentiation, the emergence of the rural bourgeoisie (kurkulstvo) and the rural proletariat (the future ally of the working class in the socialist revolution), as well as the middle peasantry (also an ally of the proletariat, but in bourgeois-democratic revolution).
Assessing historical events century and a half ago from various methodological positions, it can be seen that a number of the "Leninist" provisions mentioned above require clarification from a scientific point of view.
Thus, the current level of knowledge allows us to evaluate differently the process of maturation of objective conditions for the abolition of serfdom, which dragged on for more than a hundred years. As is known, the problem dates back to the 18th century, and in the first quarter of the 19th century. feudal relations turned into a serious brake on the development of industry, trade and rural entrepreneurship, which even then fell under the influence of commodity-money relations. Previously, the crisis gripped those landowners' estates where corvée economy predominated and in which about 70% of all the serfs of the empire's peasants worked. A striking manifestation of the crisis was the emergence of new forms of corvée - "lesson" and "lunar", providing for a significant increase in feudal exploitation. Not in the best position were those estates in which the villagers were on dues. Starting from the 20s of the 19th century, arrears in the payment of contributions have been growing everywhere. The debts of the landlords are also growing, both to credit institutions and to private individuals, to whom they began to mortgage and re-mortgage their own "serf souls" more and more. The sum of the debt of the landowners, whose estates were mortgaged in credit institutions alone, amounted to 425 thousand rubles on the eve of the reform of 1861, which was twice the annual income of the state budget. However, even under such conditions, feudal-serfdom relations continued to dominate in the central regions of European Russia.
A completely logical question arises: at the expense of what resources did tsarism manage to maintain serfdom and quite successfully maintain trade and economic relations with the leading countries of Europe until 1861?
We find the answer to it from the Russian historian A. Presnyakov (1870-1929), who, characterizing the era of Nicholas I, used the term "Nikolaev imperialism".
Its essence was that, while still having enough strength at that time, tsarism compensated for the narrowness of the internal market in the central regions of the empire by expanding it on the outskirts through militaristic expansion into the Caucasus and Central Asia. Within the Ukrainian lands, the objects of such expansion, first military and then economic, have long been the territories of the south-steppe Ukraine, the Northern Black Sea region and the Crimea. However, the policy of artificial preservation of feudal relations, which was based on the strength of the army and military expansion, objectively could not ensure sustainable success.
The economic gulf between feudal Russia and the advanced countries of Europe with their highly efficient economies was supposed to lead to the collapse of "Nikolaev imperialism." This was confirmed by the defeat in the Crimean War. It not only demonstrated the economic backwardness of the empire, but, more importantly, it clearly marked the loss of its positions in the international arena. The army lost its power and in the future was no longer the mainstay of tsarism in solving the problems of foreign and domestic policy. As a result, the state power of the Russian Empire, its international authority and, finally, the system itself were under threat. government controlled. To overcome these crisis phenomena, it was necessary to reorganize the army, re-equip it and build modern means of communication (railroads) to move it. In this regard, it was necessary to create a new modern industry, which, in turn, needed civilian workers. But this was hindered by the legal dependence of the peasantry on the landowners. This dependence had to be eliminated as soon as possible. Ultimately, this set of facts decided the fate of serfdom in Russia. The government was no longer able to listen to the demands of the landowners to preserve serfdom and took the path of its abolition.
Another problem that requires serious revision is the presence of a revolutionary situation in 1859-1861, which, according to Lenin, seriously influenced the government's decision to abolish serfdom.
In The Collapse of the Second International, he outlined his vision of the revolutionary situation, the quintessence of which he considered an extremely upsurge in the revolutionary activity of the masses. In this case we are talking, first of all, about the masses of the serfs, who were more interested in the abolition of serfdom. That is why Lenin, recognizing the power of economic development, drew Russia into commodity-money relations, at the same time noted: "Peasant" riots "increasing with each decade before the liberation, forced the first landowner Alexander II to admit that it was better to free" from above ", rather than wait until they are overthrown “from below.” At one time, this expression served as one of the real confirmations of how much tsarism was afraid popular anger. Moreover, the terms "from below" and "from above" were read as political. Today, another reading of them is possible. The part of Alexander II’s speech to the Moscow nobility, transmitted by the Russian researcher R. Zakharova, reads as follows: “There are rumors that I want to announce the liberation of serfdom. such a time when sooner or later it must happen. [...] I think it's better for all this to happen from above than from below."
Upon careful reading of this quote, one can notice that here we are not talking about revolutionary events, but about the objective course of historical development, when the sprouts of new relations, developing in the bowels of the old society (that is, "from below"), objectively have already prepared the ground for the abolition of serfdom . And the government should only legitimize and lead this spontaneous process ("from above"). At the same time, going for reforms, Alexander II sought to preserve the existing form of state administration by adjusting it to new development trends and thereby strengthening both the internal power and the international authority of the empire, which had been shaken after the defeat in the Crimean War. What was the influence of the masses on the state policy in the field of the abolition of serfdom? Consider the dynamics of the peasant movement on the eve of the reforms of 1861.
The generalizing statistics of the mass peasant movement on the eve of the reform records that within the empire in 1857 there were 192 performances, in 1858 - 528, in 1859 - 938 and in 1860 - 354 performances.
The given data testify to the tendency to reduce the peasant movement on the eve of the abolition of serfdom. And its record figures within the Russian Empire, recorded in 1859 (938 speeches), achieved through the people's struggle against wine farming and high taxes on wine (636 out of 938 speeches). The same 1370 speeches that took place in the first half of 1861 took place after the proclamation of the manifesto on February 19 and the promulgation of the legislative acts of the reform and cannot be considered to have influenced the government's decisions to abolish serfdom.
The Manifesto of February 19, written on behalf of Alexander II, by the Moscow Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov), gave the serfs legal freedom. “Having called on God to help,” it said, “we decided to put this matter in motion. Through the provisions indicated above, the serf people will in due time receive the full rights of free rural inhabitants.” It also explained the obligatory endowment of the peasants with both the estate and the field land, which they had to redeem from the landowners. The norms of the manifesto were specified in a number of other legislative acts. The most important of them were: "General provisions on peasants who have emerged from serfdom", "Local regulations" for individual regions, "Regulations on the arrangement of courtyards", "Regulations" on the redemption of land allotments allocated to them by peasants and a number of other additional rules. A separate provision regulated the formation of bodies for managing peasant affairs and peasant self-government.
When reading the documents on the reform, it becomes clear that the process of emancipating the peasants had to take place gradually, stretching over years.
So, in the manifesto on February 19, in particular, it was stated that until the peasants were completely transferred for redemption, the landowner retained ownership of all land owned by the peasants, including peasant allotments. “Using this land ideal,” the manifesto noted, “for this, the peasants must fulfill in favor of the landowners the obligations stipulated in the provisions. In the state that is transitional, the peasants are called temporarily obliged,” i.e., the peasants remained temporarily liable until the conclusion of the redemption transaction. In fact, this meant for the peasants the preservation of dependence on the former feudal lords and the continuation of the execution of corvee in favor of the latter. And although the government demanded that the landowners complete the complete transition of the peasants to redemption over the next three years after the abolition of serfdom, i.e. until 1864, but in reality this period reached 9-25 years.
So, the abolition of serfdom became an urgent need of the time, an important government measure to restore the state power of the Russian Empire. As I. Gurvich noted, "the liberation of the peasants became a means of attracting domestic and foreign capital in Russian industry."
However, it was impossible to do this without affecting the interests of the nobility. In the current circumstances, Alexander II and his government, taking care of the interests of the state and maintaining the existing form of state government, decided to inflict a sensitive blow on the nobility: by abolishing serfdom, that is, freeing up labor for the future modernized industry, the government equally sacrificed the nobility in the interests of state, how much it sacrificed the peasants in the interests of the nobles.
serf war peasant reform
The reign of Alexander II (1856-1881) went down in history as a period of "great reforms". It was largely thanks to the emperor that serfdom was abolished in Russia in 1861 - an event that, of course, is his main achievement, which played a big role in the future development of the state.
Prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom
In 1856-1857, a number of southern provinces were shaken by peasant unrest, which, however, subsided very quickly. But, nevertheless, they served as a reminder to the ruling power that the situation in which the common people find themselves, in the end, could turn into grave consequences for it.
In addition, the current serfdom significantly slowed down the progress of the country's development. The axiom that free labor is more effective than forced labor manifested itself in full measure: Russia lagged far behind Western states both in the economy and in the socio-political sphere. This threatened that the previously created image of a powerful state could simply dissolve, and the country would move into the category of a secondary one. Not to mention the fact that serfdom was very much like slavery.
By the end of the 1950s, more than a third of the country's 62 million population was completely dependent on their owners. Russia urgently needed a peasant reform. 1861 was to be a year of serious changes, which should have been carried out in such a way that they could not shake the established foundations of the autocracy, and the nobility retained its dominant position. Therefore, the process of abolishing serfdom required careful analysis and elaboration, and this, due to the imperfect state apparatus, was already problematic.
Necessary steps for the coming changes
The abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861 was to seriously affect the foundations of life in a vast country.
However, if in states living under the constitution, before any transformations are carried out, they are worked out in the ministries and discussed in the government, after which the finished reform projects are submitted to the parliament, which makes the final verdict, then in Russia there are neither ministries nor a representative body. existed. And serfdom was legalized at the state level. Alexander II could not cancel it personally, as this would violate the rights of the nobility, which is the basis of autocracy.
Therefore, in order to promote reform in the country, it was necessary to create a whole apparatus, specially engaged in the abolition of serfdom. It was supposed to be made up of institutions organized locally, whose proposals would be submitted to and processed by a central committee, which in turn would be controlled by the monarch.
Since it was the landlords who lost the most in the light of the upcoming changes, for Alexander II it would be the best way out if the initiative to free the peasants came from the nobles. Soon such a moment turned up.
"Rescript to Nazimov"
In the middle of autumn 1857, General Vladimir Ivanovich Nazimov, the governor from Lithuania, arrived in St. Petersburg, who brought with him a petition for granting him and the governors of the Kovno and Grodno provinces the right to give freedom to their serfs, but without granting them land.
In response, Alexander II sent a rescript (personal imperial letter) addressed to Nazimov, in which he instructed the local landowners to organize provincial committees. Their task was to develop their own versions of the future peasant reform. At the same time, in the message, the king also gave his recommendations:
- Granting full freedom to serfs.
- All land plots must remain with the landowners, with the preservation of the right of ownership.
- Enabling the liberated peasants to receive land allotments, subject to the payment of dues or working off corvée.
- Give the peasants the opportunity to redeem their estates.
Soon the rescript appeared in print, which gave impetus to a general discussion of the issue of serfdom.
Creation of committees
At the very beginning of 1857, the emperor, following his plan, created a secret committee on the peasant question, which secretly worked on the development of a reform to abolish serfdom. But only after the "rescript to Nazimov" became public, the institution began to work in full force. In February 1958, all secrecy was removed from it, renaming it the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs, which was headed by Prince A.F. Orlov.
Under him, editorial commissions were created, which considered the projects submitted by the provincial committees, and already on the basis of the collected data, an all-Russian version of the future reform was created.
General Ya.I., a member of the State Council, was appointed chairman of these commissions. Rostovtsev, who fully supported the idea of abolishing serfdom.
Controversy and work done
In the course of work on the draft between the Main Committee and the majority of provincial landowners, there were serious contradictions. Thus, the landowners insisted that the release of the peasants be limited only to the provision of freedom, and the land could be assigned to them only on the basis of a lease without redemption. The committee wanted to give the former serfs the opportunity to acquire land, becoming full owners.
In 1860, Rostovtsev dies, in connection with which Alexander II appoints Count V.N. Panin, who, by the way, was considered an opponent of the abolition of serfdom. Being an unquestioning executor of the royal will, he was forced to complete the reform project.
In October, the work of the Editorial Committees was completed. In total, the provincial committees submitted for consideration 82 projects for the abolition of serfdom, which occupied 32 printed volumes in terms of volume. The result was submitted for consideration to the State Council, and after its adoption, it was submitted for assurance to the king. After familiarization, he signed the relevant Manifesto and Regulations. February 19, 1861 became the official day of the abolition of serfdom.
Main provisions of the manifesto February 19, 1861
The main provisions of the document were as follows:
- The serfs of the empire received complete personal independence, now they were called "free rural inhabitants."
- From now on (that is, from February 19, 1861), serfs were considered full-fledged citizens of the country with the corresponding rights.
- All movable peasant property, as well as houses and buildings, were recognized as their property.
- The landowners retained the rights to their lands, but at the same time they had to provide the peasants with household plots, as well as field plots.
- For the use of land plots, the peasants had to pay a ransom both directly to the owner of the territory and to the state.
Necessary Reform Compromise
New changes could not satisfy the desires of all concerned. The peasants themselves were dissatisfied. First of all, the conditions under which they were provided with land, which, in fact, was the main means of subsistence. Therefore, the reforms of Alexander II, or rather, some of their provisions, are ambiguous.
Thus, according to the Manifesto, throughout Russia, the largest and smallest sizes of land plots per capita were established, depending on the natural and economic characteristics of the regions.
It was assumed that if the peasant allotment had a smaller size than was established by the document, then this obliged the landowner to add the missing area. If they are large, then, on the contrary, cut off the excess and, as a rule, the best part put on.
The norms of allotments provided
The manifesto of February 19, 1861 divided the European part of the country into three parts: steppe, black earth and non-black earth.
- The norm of land allotments for the steppe part is from six and a half to twelve acres.
- The norm for the black earth belt ranged from three to four and a half acres.
- For the non-chernozem strip - from three and a quarter to eight acres.
In general, the area of the allotment in the country became less than it was before the changes, thus, the peasant reform of 1861 deprived the "liberated" more than 20% of the area of cultivated land.
Conditions for the transfer of land ownership
According to the reform of 1861, the land was not provided to the peasants for ownership, but only for use. But they had the opportunity to redeem it from the owner, that is, to conclude the so-called redemption deal. Until that moment, they were considered temporarily liable, and for the use of land they had to work out corvee, which was no more than 40 days a year for men, and 30 for women. Or pay rent, the amount of which for the highest allotment ranged from 8-12 rubles, and when assigning a tax, the fertility of the land was necessarily taken into account. At the same time, the temporarily liable did not have the right to simply refuse the allotment provided, that is, the corvée would still have to be worked out.
After the completion of the redemption transaction, the peasant became the full owner of the land.
And the state was not left behind
From February 19, 1861, thanks to the Manifesto, the state had the opportunity to replenish the treasury. Such an income item was opened due to the formula by which the amount of the redemption payment was calculated.
The amount that the peasant had to pay for the land was equated to the so-called conditional capital, which was deposited in the State Bank at 6% per annum. And these percentages were equated to the income that the landowner had previously received from dues.
That is, if the landowner had 10 rubles of quitrent per soul per year, then the calculation was made according to the formula: 10 rubles were divided by 6 (interest from capital), and then multiplied by 100 (total interest) - (10/6) x 100 = 166.7.
Thus, the total amount of dues was 166 rubles 70 kopecks - money "unbearable" for a former serf. But here the state entered into a deal: the peasant had to pay the landlord at a time only 20% of the estimated price. The remaining 80% was contributed by the state, but not just like that, but by providing a long-term loan with a maturity of 49 years and 5 months.
Now the peasant had to pay the State Bank annually 6% of the amount of the redemption payment. It turned out that the amount that the former serf had to contribute to the treasury exceeded the loan three times. In fact, February 19, 1861 was the date when the former serf, having got out of one bondage, fell into another. And this despite the fact that the amount of the ransom itself exceeded the market value of the allotment.
The results of the changes
The reform adopted on February 19, 1861 (the abolition of serfdom), despite its shortcomings, gave a fundamental impetus to the development of the country. 23 million people received freedom, which led to a serious transformation in the social structure of Russian society, and further revealed the need to transform the entire political system countries.
The timely Manifesto of February 19, 1861, the prerequisites of which could lead to a serious regression, became a stimulating factor for the development of capitalism in Russian state. Thus, the eradication of serfdom is, of course, one of the central events in the history of the country.
The most important reform of Alexander II throughout his reign was the Peasant Reform - the publication of the Manifesto on February 19, 1861 on the abolition of serfdom of the peasants of the entire Russian Empire. This reform was developed over a long period of time, first secretly, then openly at the All-Russian level. After the reform, the peasants became free and received civil rights, as well as land plots. However, the peasants had to pay for these land plots to the landowner, as well as to the state, which contributed most ransom payments for them. You will learn more about all this in this lesson.
Rice. 2. Alexander II calls on the Moscow nobles to free the peasants ()
However, it was rather difficult to move forward, since the members of the committee themselves were ardent supporters of the preservation of serfdom in Russia. Alexander decided to lead the process, and a chance helped him in this. In October 1857, an old friend of the emperor, the Vilna governor V.I., arrived in St. Petersburg. Nazimov (Fig. 3), who came to the capital in order to convey to Alexander II a petition from the nobles of the Vilna, Grodno and Kovno provinces. In it, the nobles asked for permission from the emperor to discuss with him the issue of the release of their peasants.
Rice. 3. V.I. Nazimov - Vilna governor, friend of Alexander II ()
Alexander decided to take advantage of the opportunity given to him and issued a rescript, according to which committees were to be created in the indicated provinces to discuss the project for the abolition of serfdom. During 1858 similar rescripts were issued for all provinces of the Russian Empire. After that, the discussion about the abolition of serfdom became official and practically nationwide.
This was followed by even more decisive steps. The Secret Committee was renamed the Main Committee, which was headed by a supporter of the peasant reform, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich. As part of the committee, a special body was singled out, more precisely, several bodies called the Editorial Commissions. These bodies were created in order to process various projects for the abolition of serfdom received from different parts of the Russian Empire and, on their basis, create a single optimal project. The person who led the Editorial Commissions was Ya.I. Rostovtsev (Fig. 4).
Rice. 4. Ya.I. Rostovtsev - Head of the Editorial Commissions ()
The result of the work of the above state bodies was the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom, published on February 19, 1861 (Fig. 5). In it Alexander IIannounced that from now on the peasants of the Russian Empire became free, received civil rights. In addition, they received land in limited quantities. The size of the land plots that the peasants received under the reform of 1861 ranged from 3 to 12 acres. The reason for this was the difference in the quality of land in different regions of the Russian Empire.
Rice. 5. Reading the Manifesto on February 19, 1861 on the liberation of peasants from serfdom ()
The above conditions for the liberation of peasants from serfdom were not optimal. In most provinces, the landlords managed to keep the best plots of land for themselves, while the peasants found themselves in worse conditions. In addition, the landlords could not transfer land to the peasants more than it was written in the Manifesto. Thus, even if the landowners were very eager to help their peasants, they could not do so by law.
Finally, a number of groups of peasants did not receive land at all:
- Assigned to manufactories
- Yard peasants
- Owned by landless nobles
An important part of the reform of the abolition of serfdom was the question of the redemption of land by the peasants. They could not redeem all the land at once, so the state provided for the following measures. Before the land was redeemed, the peasants were temporarily liable. This meant that such peasants had to bear a number of duties in favor of their landowner, such as corvée and dues. Under the law, for 9 years, the peasants remained temporarily liable, after which they could give up their allotment and go to the city. The landowners and their former serfs entered into agreements between themselves - charter letters, which they had to conclude within two years after the publication of the Manifesto on the emancipation of the peasants.
Redemption payments were made as follows. The peasants had to pay the landowner 20% of the value of the land provided to them. Another 80% of the cost for the peasants was paid by the state. However, the state did not do this free of charge, but it was believed that the peasants took this money from the state as a pledge, which had to be returned within 49 years after the publication of the Manifesto on February 19. Moreover, the peasants paid, in addition to the principal amount, 6% per annum of the payment amount.
The amount of redemption payments was determined as follows. According to Alexander II, nobles and landlords should not have lost their income. Therefore, the landowner put the money received from the peasant in the bank at the rate of 6% per annum and received the same amount that the peasant paid him before as dues. Thus, it was planned to prevent the ruin of Russian landlords.
The peasant reform of 1861 underwent five more changes: additional acts were issued, and the amount of redemption payments was actively discussed in society. Nevertheless, what was done in 1861 abruptly turned the entire course of Russian history. The reform to abolish serfdom was carried out.
Bibliography
- Zayonchkovsky P.A. The abolition of serfdom in Russia. - M., 1954.
- Zakharova L.G. Alexander II and the abolition of serfdom in Russia. - M.: ROSSPEN, 2011.
- Peasant reform in Russia in 1861. Collection of legislative acts. - M., 1954.
- Lazukova N.N., Zhuravleva O.N. Russian history. 8th grade. - M.: "Ventana-Count", 2013.
- Lyashenko L.M. Russian history. 8th grade. - M .: "Drofa", 2012.
- Tomsinov V.A. Preparation of the Peasant Reform of 1861 in Russia // Peasant Reform of 1861 in Russia / Comp., author of the preface. and intro. Art. V.A. Tomsinov. - M.: Zertsalo, 2012.
- Memoirs.ru ().
- Demoscope.ru ().
- Studopedia.ru ().
- Historicus.ru ().
Homework
- Tell us about the development of the reform on the abolition of serfdom. What prerequisites and reasons for this reform can you name?
- How was the reform of the liberation of peasants from serfdom carried out? How many stages did she go through?
- Explain how and under what scheme the peasants paid redemption payments.
The reform of 1861 was the starting point for Russia. After all, what is any reform at all, if not the most reactionary attempt to prolong the agony of an obsolete system through structural restructuring in the name of maintaining the power of the existing elite, which is a brake on social development? This is done against the interests of the majority of the people, at the cost of their impoverishment and death.
The reforms initiated by Alexander II were no exception.
Post-reform Russia was an ashes on which a predatory crow triumphed new class the rich - "grimy", as the populists called the wealthy plebeians. The reform of 1861, contrary to popular belief, ruined the majority of the peasants, let native Russia go around the world. It was during this period that the beginning of the depopulation of the central provinces - the backbone of the Russian nation.
The horrifying picture of the people's ruin was superimposed by a murderous national policy. Like all past and present Russian reformers, Alexander II hated the Russian people to the marrow of his bones, but he felt reverence for other, more "efficient" nationalities. Here is what the poet F.I. wrote to his daughter in 1870. Tyutchev: "In Russia, absolutism dominates, which includes the most distinctive feature of all - a contemptuous and stupid hatred of everything Russian, an instinctive, so to speak, rejection of everything national." Thanks to this policy, Russian wealth began to quickly flow into foreign hands.
There were conditions under which there was an unprecedented economic recession.
This rotten system supported its existence by constant lawlessness, violation of its own laws, arbitrariness, which Petrashevsky noted: “The vital principle (of government) is the principle of arbitrariness, which, due to the complicity of all state officials in it, makes a commercial company out of the state apparatus, having purpose of exploiting the country.
It was at the heart of this system that the blow was dealt. Tsar - chief official, the main culprit of people's suffering, the organizer and head of this "commercial company" - was struck down by the hands of the people's avengers.
Who opposed him and hundreds of thousands of his satraps? A handful of national intelligentsia, the best Russian youth. Belonging for the most part to the inhabitants of the cities, to the middle class, these young people were little aware of the real life of the people. According to the memories left by them, we can judge the effect that their acquaintance with the actual folk life had on them: “The veil fell from our eyes. what she gave to the people, and indignation seized us, "- this is the general feeling that united these youth. From this feeling a desire was born to help the people, to teach them elementary rules for protecting their own interests, methods of resisting the arbitrariness of an official and the extortion of an exploiter.
In this paper, we will try to analyze the justification of such an approach to the consideration of the peasant reform of 1861.
1. Background of the reform of 1861
There are two points of view on this issue:
1. a Serfdom is a brake on the country's economic development.
b. Forced labor is inefficient.
c. The economy is deteriorating.
d. The country was heading towards revolution, but the peasantry was not a revolutionary force, and therefore the revolution did not take place.
2. a Serfdom has by no means exhausted its resources. Serfdom could have existed for more than a dozen, maybe even a hundred years.
b. Russia could slowly but surely move to the capitalist way of doing business.
c. Serfdom looked immoral. AII, guided by world opinion, understood this. Therefore, for the world recognition of Russia's development, the abolition of the KP was required.
d. The Crimean War showed that militarily Russia could not compete with the developed industrial powers.
e. Unlike Western countries, in Russia everything happens from above, and the reforms carried out in other countries from below, during bourgeois revolutions, are carried out in Russia from above, by the state.
As mentioned above, the peasant reform of 1861 is one of such key, turning points in the history of our country. Firstly, serfdom was abolished in our country approximately 50 years after the last European country. The last country was Germany, where liberation took place during the Napoleonic wars, Napoleon, along with the banners of his regiments, carried the Napoleonic Code and the liberation of other countries from feudal fetters. If you delve into history, you can see that on the border between the feudal and agrarian economy and the economy of the industrial, free, capitalist, market economy, a moment arises when the countries passing through this period make a big breakthrough, as if a clot of energy splashes out, and countries rise to a completely new level of quality development. So it was in England. In fact, they got rid of serfdom in England - it was the first country in Europe - by the 15th-16th centuries there had already been fences, the peasants were freed from the land, and "the sheep ate the people," as they said then. And it all ended with the English Revolution, when Charles I was beheaded. But after that, England became a country completely free from feudal remnants. And this freedom, this emergence of the rule of law had a decisive influence on the fact that the country, which lies on the outskirts of Europe and has always been very insignificant in terms of population compared to continental countries, eventually became the "workshop of the world", the "mistress of seas", etc.
In fact, the same thing happened during the Great Agrarian Revolution, when the peasants get freedom, they get the opportunity to freely improve their lives, and this gives a huge impetus that is created not by the decrees of the Communist Party, but simply by freedom. And our country had the same potential. And just his release began with the Great Peasant Reform, as they said, after the tsar's manifesto on February 18, 1861. But, unlike the English or French version, we had a very limited one. The reform was carried out "from above", by the main reformers. The main people who insisted on reform were people from the highest aristocracy: Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, his wife Elena Pavlovna, a number of prominent aristocrats who convinced the tsar, and the tsar also became a supporter of the reform, although in the depths of his soul it was forever, of course , resistance. And it was necessary to reach a compromise between the peasants, between their interests and the interests of the feudal lords, the main landowners who owned the land, and the peasants themselves. The question was that simply giving freedom to the peasants is not enough, they should be able to live on something, which means they should have been given land. And then she found a scythe on a stone, they were looking for a compromise. There was a liberal party and a party of revolutionary democrats. They were close, but, of course, very different. These are people like, say, the liberals Kaverin and Chicherin, Samarin. From the side of revolutionary democracy, these are Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov. But at a certain point they came out together because they were pushing for radical reforms and clearing the way for the development of a free peasantry. Although, it must be said that none of them affected the community, because both the Slavophiles and the revolutionary democrats were convinced that the peasant community is such a feature of Russian society that will save Russia from the ulcer of capitalism. And at that time capitalism was in Europe. In England, our then leaders, society saw a huge difference between the rich and the poor, etc. - what we see now - and tried to largely avoid this, so somehow no one touched the community. But for freedom there was such a struggle that the peasants would receive land on the most favorable terms for themselves. And it ended with the fact that the conditions were very difficult. To a large extent, conditions acceptable to the nobles were accepted, which means that the peasants received land for redemption, the ransom was quite significant, that they still had to have certain duties to work for the landowner, a community was preserved in which they were bound by mutual responsibility for debts by buyouts.
The reasons for the reform of 1861 include:
. industrial revolution;
. change social structure Russian society (capitalists appear, the institution of hired workers is formed);
. the Crimean War (Russia was shown to be a second-class country);
. public opinion(condemnation of serfdom);
. death of Nicholas I.
It is impossible to deny the fact that the peculiarities of serfdom in Russia were also the basis for the implementation of the reform.
The features of serfdom in Russia were:
. There were no documents about serfdom. And if in the countries of Europe it disappeared naturally, then in Russia its elimination becomes a state task.
. In all European countries, serf relations were diverse, i.e. relations of serfdom were observed in different estates and, in accordance with this, serfs had different rights. In Russia, the state itself forms a single estate.
The emperor is trying to present his actions as a response to the proposals of the Baltic nobility. The solution was to create a secret committee, but the burden of work was transferred to the provincial committees, i.e. fieldwork is in progress. Committees were created in 45 provinces. In 1858, the main committee for peasant affairs was created, it was headed, according to Russian tradition, by the emperor. The leading role in organizing the work belonged to the Ministry of the Interior, under which a special Zemsky Sobor was created. 2 editorial commissions worked in the main committee, which prepared all the documents.
2. The content of the reform.
Having become emperor, Alexander II immediately began to restructure the entire socio-political and administrative system in Russia. most
his main reform was the peasant reform. Back in 1856 on one
from meetings in Moscow, Alexander II said his famous phrase: "Better
abolish serfdom from above rather than wait until the time when it
itself will begin to be canceled from below ... ", meaning by these words the possibility
peasant uprising. The news of the beginning of the peasant reform caused
enthusiasm in wide circles of Russian society.
The Manifesto for the Emancipation of the Peasants was signed on February 19, 1861. Per
his peasant reform, Alexander II was called the "Tsar Liberator".
Unlike other countries, peasants received land upon liberation. Per
the land they received from the landlords was paid by the state; state
the cost of the land had to be paid by the peasants themselves for 49 years.
85% of the peasants bought the land in 20 years. In 1905 the government
canceled the remaining peasant debt.
Peasants received land not in personal ownership, but in ownership
"communities" (villages or villages). The community was a small democratic
cell. All local issues in it were decided by a majority vote.
The most important task in the community was the fair distribution of "common" land
between individual farms. Large families received correspondingly more
land, small - less. But, as the composition of families changed, it was necessary
quite often redistribute the land. Thus, the peasant
farms did not have permanent land.
The general affairs of agricultural regions began to be decided by elective
representatives of communities and landlords. This organization was named
"zemstvo". Zemstvos carried out great and useful work in the villages. They are
built schools and churches, opened hospitals, organized agronomic
help.
The city administration, the system of popular
education and the military conscription system.
The basis of the pyramid of noble self-government was the county noble assemblies, at which candidates for peace mediators were outlined - persons who were to exercise direct and constant supervision over peasant communities. Mediators were elected only from the nobility, the lower limit of their land qualification was 150 - 500 acres of land (depending on the province). Then the lists of mediators were submitted to the governor and finally approved by the Senate.
The post of conciliator was not among the sinecures. There were many problems to be solved. The country was torn apart by conflicts of an unusual kind, the landowners were embittered and frightened, the peasants were confused and depressed. Most often, when choosing a peace mediator, the nobles appointed a wolf to oversee a herd of sheep. Indeed, among the local landowners there were very few who sympathized with the peasants and wished to alleviate their plight.
And the rights of the conciliator were considerable. He approved everything - from the elders and volost foremen elected at rural gatherings to the dates and times of the gatherings themselves. In addition, and not least, not a single transaction, not a single agreement between the landowner and the peasant society was considered valid without confirmation by the conciliator.
Problems that faced a number of peace mediators, or private problems of one mediator or another, were resolved at district congresses. The county world congress, according to the idea of the reformers, was supposed to limit the possible arbitrariness of world mediators, perpetrated in the interests of neighboring landlords, and also monitor relations within the peasantry of the volost. That is, the subjects of the department of the county world congresses include: firstly, disputes, misunderstandings and complaints arising from compulsory land relations between landlords and peasants, as well as complaints from peasants and societies against volost meetings and volost officials.
Peasant reform of the 60s. served as the main reason for the creation in Russia of an all-encompassing system of official signs. Previously, the country had almost no positions that did not have the appropriate uniform. The peasant reform brought to life many elected posts, the holders of which had to constantly clash with people, judge them, encourage or punish them. And in Russia, in order to perform such work, it was necessary to have a formal sign of the right to a position. And when this problem arose, in the very first documents that appeared on this occasion, one can see the concern with the psychological aspect of the problem.
So, the reform was carried out on the basis of the "Regulations" on February 19, 1861 (published on March 5). Peasants received personal freedom and the right to dispose of their property. The landowners retained ownership of their lands; The peasants were obliged to redeem the allotments received from the landlords, which in a number of places met with the resistance of the peasantry. Before the ransom, the peasants were called temporarily liable and carried duties in favor of the landowner. On the ground, the reform was carried out by peace mediators who controlled the drafting of statutory letters for each estate.
The reform on the emancipation of the serfs was carried out in the interests of the landlords. The serfs did not receive land free of charge. According to the law, they had to pay the landowner a lump sum for their allotment about a fifth of the stipulated amount. The rest of the landowners were paid by the state. However, the peasants had to return this amount (with interest!) to the tsarist government in annual payments for 49 years. As a result, having paid the landowners 550 million rubles, the tsarist government collected about two billion gold rubles from all the peasants!
It should be emphasized that after the reform, the peasants throughout the country had one fifth of the land less than it was before 1861.
To the greatest regret, the peasant reform turned out to be not at all what Herzen, Chernyshevsky and other revolutionary democrats dreamed of. And yet one cannot deny the enormous moral significance of the reform that put an end to centuries of slavery.
After the reform, the stratification of the peasantry intensified. Some peasants grew rich, bought land from landowners, hired workers. Of these, subsequently formed a layer of the kulaks - the rural bourgeoisie.
Many poor peasants went bankrupt and gave away their allotments to the kulaks for debts, and they themselves were hired as farm laborers or went to the city, where they became the prey of greedy factory owners and manufacturers.
Social contradictions between landless peasants and wealthy landowners (landowners and kulaks) were one of the reasons for the coming Russian revolution. After the reform, the issue of land became a burning problem in Russian reality. After all, freedom is not yet bread! Throughout Russia, 30,000 landowners owned the same amount of land as 10.5 million peasant households. In this situation, the Russian revolution was inevitable!
The peasant reform of 1861 had its own characteristics in various regions of the Russian Empire. So, together with the "General Regulations on the peasants who emerged from serfdom" were signed "Additional rules" on the peasants in the Land of the Don Army, in the Stavropol province, in Siberia and in the Bessarabian region. During the implementation of the reform, there was also a need to adjust general provisions for some areas.
On February 19, 1864, four decrees were signed defining the organization of peasants in the Kingdom of Poland: "On the organization of peasants", "On the organization of rural communes", "On the liquidation commission" and "On the procedure for introducing new peasant resolutions". The main reason for the rather serious concessions made by the government was the Polish uprising of 1863. If in the indigenous regions of the empire the autocracy did everything to ensure the interests of the nobility, then in the Kingdom of Poland, on the contrary, an attempt was made to rely on the peasantry (represented mainly by Belarusians, Ukrainians and Lithuanians ) in the fight against the Polish national liberation movement, in which Polish nobles widely participated.
The famous professor of literature, associate of Pogodin, Shevyrev wrote enthusiastic letters from Florence on April 13, praising the wisdom of the Russian people, and explained it by faith and love, without it, faith is dead, and his son, who was sitting in the village, simultaneously wrote from there that the peasants did not understand the Regulations, do not agree to any agreements, and everyone hopes to get it for free. The historian S. M. Solovyov, a man of a sober mind and the broadest outlook, summarized his impressions of how the people adopted the Reform in the following expressive words: “The peasants accepted the matter calmly, coolly, stupidly, as any measure that comes from above and concerning immediate interests - God and bread. Those only peasants rejoiced at the will, whose family and property were in danger - but these were not all peasants and not the majority.
This opinion of a contemporary historian characterizes the immediate, momentary attitude of the peasantry to the Reform - the attitude to the Manifesto itself, by no means the attitude of the peasants to the Provision in essence. It is impossible not to admit that the question of grain was essentially anew solved by these Provisions, isn't it? Earth! How does the new “will” deal with it? And here we have not bewilderment, indifference, stupidity in relation to new government acts, but a direct rejection of them - rejection of the “will” itself, since this will, in the view of the peasants, is paid for by the loss of land. Where the peasants are faced with the prospect of cutting off land, voices are sometimes heard: “No, it’s better as before! Who needs a will - you have a will. They would have asked us first ... We would have said: take it whoever wants it, but we don’t need it.
Sometimes this unwillingness to accept the will in the form in which it was offered to him took on a massive and incredibly stubborn character. The most significant in this respect was the so-called Bezdnensky case - the pacification of the peasants of the village of Bezdny, Kazan province, by the sovereign's messenger Count Apraksin.
But it would be a mistake to think that the peasantry, having abandoned active resistance, which had the character of open disobedience to the authorities, at the same time refused other forms of manifestation of its negative attitude towards the Reform.
Let the peasant disobedience not everywhere take on such a tragic character as in the Kazan or Penza provinces: general attitude peasants to the Regulations was the same everywhere. This was revealed from the very first reports of the aide-de-camp and retinue generals to the Sovereign. According to the instructions given to them, they had to directly inform the Tsar about the results of their activities, so that "His Majesty could always see the present state of the transformation being undertaken and the success of the measures indicated by the government." These reports, which for the first time became the subject of examination in the hands of A. Popelnitsky, testify to the fact that the peasantry did not take their will anywhere. A few days after the announcement of the Manifesto, the Sovereign received a deputation of peasants, who, in touching terms, declared to the Tsar that the peasantry "would not offend" Him with their behavior. "Everything will be in order - so that You never repent that You gave us by will." Reality has shown otherwise. The peasantry, however, continued to be monarchically loyal - but in relation to some fantastic Tsar, who controlled their imagination, the same real “will” that the real Tsar offered him, they resolutely and unanimously rejected, considering it false.
The officialdom of the Ministry of Internal Affairs "Northern Post" in the "Administrative and Legislative Review" for 1861, placed in the first issues of the newspaper for 1862, characterizes this sad phenomenon in the following, quite distinct terms.
“After the first impression of joy, another time came, the most difficult in peasant business: the acquaintance of 100 thousand landlords and 20 million peasants with the new Regulations, the introduction of new principles into the entire sphere of personal and economic relations that have developed over the centuries, but not yet assimilated, but already requiring immediate practical applications." The peasants from the Manifesto learned that a change for the better awaited them. But in what? It didn't show up right there and then. Naturally, the peasants were perplexed: what is the will? They began to turn to the landlords, priests, officials, seeking clarification. Nobody could satisfy them. The peasantry suspected deceit: there is a will, but it is hidden. It itself began to look for it in the Regulations. Literates appeared who, confusing the peasants, became instigators. "There were, although few, also examples of undeniable malice or self-interest." The peasantry also rushed along a different path. According to the apt expression of one provincial Presence, “it began, so to speak, to straighten its tired limbs, to stretch in all directions and try: to what extent it is now possible not to go to corvée with impunity, not to fulfill the assigned lessons, not to obey the patrimonial authorities.” Passive resistance began. Where the landlords realized that they had to give the people a chance to come to their senses and moderated their demands, misunderstandings were settled more easily. Where they saw the disobedience of the peasants as a manifestation of anarchy and, with the help of the authorities, resorted to strict measures, or where, indeed, there were difficult economic conditions, more serious clashes arose. The unrest sometimes grew to such an extent that it made necessary the use of vigorous measures. "These measures pacified the people, but they did not convince them." The peasants continued to believe that there would be both “pure freedom” and “land for free”, only they would receive it in two years ...
As you can see, the government did not hush up the tragedy that was revealed during the implementation of the Reform. It had the courage to openly declare that the measures of severity applied by it pacified the people, but did not convince them. Indeed, let the unrest subside sharply, let the riots begin to stop: the peasantry, having abandoned the offensive, only went on the defensive! It did not accept the position. This was expressed in the fact that the peasantry not only resolutely evaded signing the Statutory Charters, which were supposed to approve the mutual agreement their new relationship with the landlords and to secure for them the lands allotted to them, but - which was a complete surprise and seemed incomprehensible and inexplicable! - just as resolutely refused to replace corvée with dues. If we take into account the hatred that the peasants felt for corvée as a symbol of serfdom, especially if we take into account that - according to the general opinion - the main bewilderment of the peasants in their understanding of their declared will was the fact that corvee was preserved as something incompatible with will, it is really impossible not to admit that this stubbornness with which the peasants refused to liquidate it, acquired the character of a peculiar mystery. And, meanwhile, both of these phenomena, i.e., the refusal to switch to quitrent, and the refusal to sign the Statutory Charter, have become widespread and widespread.
As a result, the reforms prepared 19 legislative acts, which either related to individual territories or regulated individual issues (for example, the provision on redemption). Two main reform ideas:
. immediate implementation of laws after their publication;
. the decision on land plots was postponed, the peasants were transferred to a temporarily obligated state, relations with landlords (now only land) were regulated by charter letters, which fixed the rights and obligations of the parties, the conditions, size and terms of redemption.
The documents disappointed the population because:
. the land was not received by the one who did not have it. The landowners were allowed to take one tithe per capita from the peasants in return for ransom. The size of the allotment had a different price: the first tithes were more expensive, the larger ones were cheaper. This was done because the peasants would have more land left, since it was more profitable to buy more land.
. private ownership of the land was not established. Peasants had a special restriction of land rights.
But in general, the state consistently carried out measures to form a civil society, the entire population acquires almost uniform rights in society, although stratification was observed even among the peasantry.
The community in Russia had very deep roots. The most pressing questions for the study were: what is a community, land relations of the community, the role of the community as a social regulator, police and fiscal functions of the community, relations with the landowner and with the patrimonial administration. The community was divided into a rural community (public) and a volost community. The first was understood as the totality of peasants settled on the lands of one landowner and gravitating towards one church parish. The community performed police and fiscal functions, had self-government. She regulated important issues for the peasants:
. cases of land redistribution;
. layout and collection of taxes, the landowner himself did not collect taxes, he was paid by the head of the community;
. made lists of recruitment duty;
. a number of other less important points, for example, the settlement of relations between communities.
The community during the reform was not only preserved, but also strengthened. For the first time, laws were applied that regulated peasant self-government. In rural assemblies, the village headman dominated and was elected, in volost meetings (volost 300 - 2000 revision souls) - the volost board, headed by the volost headman and the volost court. The mechanism of encouragement for the position of hair elder is interesting. A volost headman who has served for 3 years is exempted from recruitment duty for the term of service, after 6 years he was absolutely exempt from recruitment duty, and after 9 years of service he could release from duty, at his choice, a relative
The organs directing the peasant reform took shape spontaneously. This system has been redesigned. In 1889 there was a peak of reforms: peace mediators, county congresses of mediators were liquidated and at this time the communities received autonomy. Zemsky district chief was always appointed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Nobles were appointed to this position from the age of 25 and the presence higher education. But often the second requirement was not met, because there were not enough qualified personnel. The functions of the district zemstvo chief are in many respects similar, but much wider in comparison with the county intermediaries:
. fully resolved the issues of peasant land management;
. exercised control over peasant self-government up to the possibility of suspending permanent rural gatherings;
. had police functions: they must stop riots and unrest.
Now the courts of first instance resolved petty criminal cases and civil suits up to 500 rubles.
3. Significance of the reform.
Our historical "science" is dominated by the view that of the totality of reforms, only the peasant reform of 1861 was of any significant importance, while the rest were concessions of tsarism to traitor liberals that were not of serious importance for the country, thirty pieces of silver of Judas the liberal. Objectively, this was the establishment of a "fifth wheel" in the rattletrap of the old autocracy. This point of view does not stand up to scrutiny. If we consider that for Russia in the 60s of the 19th century capitalism was progress, and, moreover, the only possible one, then political transformations turn out to be decisive for that time, and not the struggle for the amount of land for the peasant. The lack of land created by the reform of 1861, with the freedom to sell land, to leave at any time and anywhere, with civil liberty and equality in the country (at least to some extent), with even the most miserable parliament, constitution, legality, no case, it would not have become such a terrible scourge of the country as in the absence of all these political freedoms. Freedom and the possibility of resettlement in the eastern lands, an incomparably faster growth of industry (no one denies that the political remnants of feudalism and, in the first place, the monopoly leadership of the country by the bureaucracy were a terrible obstacle to capitalism), a much more intensive influx of capital from abroad (for there were guarantees for the West that nothing would happen to these capitals) - this alone would create additional demand for millions of workers. And the departure of these millions from the countryside would, in turn, be a colossal stimulus to the development of capitalism, for it would cause a new concentration of land in the countryside, an increase in the market for agricultural products in the city, etc. Finally, with political freedoms, emigration across the ocean would at a faster rate, which would be exceptionally advantageous for accelerating capitalist progress within (raising the price of labor, reducing Russia's colossal agrarian overpopulation, which was perhaps the most terrible and dangerous enemy of capitalism). The shortage of land was so terrible, firstly, because it was very difficult to leave the village, and secondly, because there was nowhere in particular to leave. Both of these were tied to politics.
Meanwhile, the people, the working people in the 60s were absolutely indifferent to political transformations, just like extreme revolutionaries like Chernyshevsky. And these reforms changed the face of Russia no less than the peasant reform. The result of political reforms was a complete change in the conditions of political life. Or rather, the emergence of this political life, parties with their ideologies, organizations, press and other propaganda tools, their struggle and the direct influence of this struggle on government policy. There was nothing like this before the reforms; it is impossible to consider the appearance of the works of Pushkin, Gogol, Belinsky, which did not directly, directly, not a single political issue, as political life. But besides these works and individual secret circles, there was nothing before the reforms. The political reforms gave opportunities, although very limited, for the political and cultural education of the nation, for the struggle for progress, against feudalism in Russia. After all, suffice it to say that since 1855, the Kolokol was read in Russia, the works of Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, Nekrasov, Shchedrin and magazines edited by these representatives of extreme, sharply radical, revolutionary trends were legally published; published the works of Marx and Engels.
As in Germany, in Russia in the 60s there was a real "revolution from above", it led to a turning point no less steep and sharp than in Germany, but since the starting positions were completely different levels in these two countries, the results were very different.
This internal coup radically changed Russia's foreign policy as well. The foreign policy of Nicholas I is the Congress of Vienna, an alliance with Prussia and Austria with the friendly support of the British conservatives in order to isolate "restless" France and stifle the revolution, in the expectation that these grateful allies will give up Turkey for the role of a European gendarme. Instead, the diplomacy of Alexander II already in 1859, during the Austro-French war, proclaimed neutrality friendly to France and Piedmont. During the wars for the reunification of Germany, Russia supports Bismarck (both in 1866 and 1870), thereby contributing to the reunification of Germany, Italy, the collapse and reform after this collapse of Austria. Finally, the position of Russia brought closer the end of Bonapartism, when it outlived itself in the late sixties. During the American Civil War, Russia quite openly supported Lincoln against the southerners supported by England and France. In general, the foreign policy of Alexander II for the first time (and the last until 1917) in the 19th century, and indeed a significant part of the 18th century, not only did not have a reactionary character, which seemed to be the constant essence of Russian foreign policy, but played a directly progressive role. Even Russia's desire for the straits, this eternal strong point of reaction in Russia of all ages and formations in foreign policy, now led to the liberation of Bulgaria and radical bourgeois-democratic transformations in it.
In peasant Russia, since the second half of the last century, agrarian transformations - reforms and revolutions - have become the main means of modernization and accelerating socio-economic development. From the beginning of the 1860s, they occupied - and still retain - a very special place in the historical process, they determined the nature of not only agrarian evolution, but also the general course of Russian history.
The historical destinies of the country of the second or even the third "echelon" of market modernization, associated with its socio-economic backwardness, pushed Russia onto the path of catching up development, strengthening the role of the already hypertrophied state power.
The suppression of society by the state power, limited opportunity spontaneous changes explain a lot in the course and outcome of Russian reforms. What is striking is the strong influence of extraneous interests of the state, ruling classes, etc.) - extraneous to the tasks that the reforms were called upon to solve. Characteristically, they are compelled by various kinds of political factors: military defeats, social conflicts, lagging behind in the "competition" of countries, ideological aspirations - autocratic-patriarchal, socialist or liberal.
These features were fully manifested in the reform of 1861, which marked the beginning of the elimination of the serf dependence of the peasants on the landowners. If we turn to historical realities, then we have a picture of a protracted process, indefinite in stages and forms, painful for the peasants. Of the many infringements of the peasants in favor of their former owners, "cut-offs" and "temporarily obligated state" were of decisive importance, which created a system of semi-serfdom with a strong admixture of bondage of exploitation of the peasants. The selfishness of the nobility, the inability to renounce the feudal "right to do nothing", economic mediocrity led to the freezing of the system of relations, which was conceived as transitional to the new, but turned out to be a continuation of the old. Crop failures, hunger strikes did not allow the peasants for the most part to start redemption payments. The "temporarily liable state" dragged on for a long time, until on December 28, 1881, a law was issued on mandatory redemption from January 1, 1883. The payment of "redemption" was calculated for 49 years and would continue until the beginning of the 30s.
With the termination of the "temporarily obligated state" the question arose of further ways and forms of development of rural life. It was then that the Minister of Finance, N.Kh. The implementation of this great reformist idea would be greatly facilitated by the measures already implemented by Bunge in 1882 - the abolition of the poll tax and, in particular, the establishment of a peasant bank, designed to promote "the spread of private land ownership among the peasants" by buying land from landowners and the state.
There are enough reasons to believe that the implementation of N.Kh. Bunge's proposals could be successful. Ahead was the time needed to lay the foundations for new socio-economic structures in the countryside, to embark on the path of spontaneous capitalist modernization of agriculture. However, this would have doomed the nobility to fairly rapid displacement from the economic life of the countryside. During the 20 years of the "temporarily obligated state" of the peasants, it understood nothing and learned nothing. N.H. Bunge's proposals were rejected. A period of counter-reforms began.
It is not customary to talk about the implemented and proposed measures by N.H. Bunge as a reform. Meanwhile, we have a major agrarian reform practically begun, aimed at creating conditions for the organic development of the processes of modernization of the peasant economy - the main form of agricultural production in Russia. It is characteristic that the counter-reforms were directed precisely against the new tendencies in the agrarian question. Counter-reforms for the village meant strengthening the power of the community over its members through the tightening of mutual responsibility and limiting the exit of peasants from the community. They were the actual attachment of the peasant to the land, which, according to the tsarist bureaucracy, was supposed to prevent the formation of the "ulcer of the proletariat" and the revolutionary threat associated with it. In 1893, even a very limited permit for the exit of peasants from the community, granted in 1861, was canceled. This fully corresponded to the economic interests of the landowners.
Of course, there is no need to go to extremes and argue that the country was indebted for reforms only to the government of Alexander II and the liberal nobility. They would have been carried out by a much more moderate government, but they would not have been quite the same reforms. It is enough to add to the reforms of Alexander II the "amendments" of his son in order to imagine another, very different version of the transformations. And these "amendments" could have appeared 20 years earlier, along with the reforms themselves. This did not happen only because the government interfered. And without twenty years of freedom, liberalism, the rapid growth of revolutionary organizations, the development of culture (it was the greatest twenty-five years in the history of Russian culture), 1905, not to mention 1917, would have been impossible.
The period from the Crimean War to March 1, 1881 began with Herzen's Kolokol and ended with Plekhanov's Socialism and the Political Struggle. This is the period to which Turgenev, Nekrasov, Shchedrin belong. Without the experience of this period, there would be no Leo Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Repin, Tchaikovsky. This is the period of the Sovremennik, the Russian Word, the Mighty Handful, the Wanderers. In short, in politics and economics, this quarter of a century cannot be compared with anything, and in cultural terms - only with all the previous one and a half centuries of development. In the field of revolutionary struggle, there is nothing to compare this time with. There has never been anything like it in terms of development.
In Western Europe, as a result of bourgeois revolutions, feudalism was replaced by capitalism. Peasants who worked on the lands of feudal lords - dukes, counts, barons, as well as church episcopates - after these revolutions became land owners - farmers. The fate of the Russian peasants was different. As a result of the purposeful actions of the princes and boyars, and then the tsars and nobles, feudalism turned into slavery, and the once free Russian peasants became slaves.
There are two concepts of slavery in historiography: exogenous and endogenous. Under exogenous slavery, slaves and slave owners belong to different nations. With endogenous - two antagonistic classes make up one people. Russian slavery was endogenous - the most cruel and inhuman. In the history of human civilization, this is the only case of turning one's own people into slaves!
After the abolition of slavery (that is, the abolition of serfdom), a radical democratic movement intensified in tsarist Russia. The first underground revolutionary organization, Land and Liberty, arose.
On April 4, 1866, a student of Moscow University, Dmitry Karakozov, shot at summer garden in Alexander II. However, the bullet flew past: a man who happened to be next to Karakozov pushed him by the arm. The shooter was captured and subsequently hanged.
In 1876, a new organization with the old name "Land and Freedom" arose, with the goal of preparing a people's socialist revolution. On April 2, 1879, Alexander Solovyov, a member of this organization, having tracked down the tsar during his walk along Palace Square, shot Alexander II five times, but missed ... He shared the fate of Dmitry Karakozov.
In August 1879, the Black Redistribution organization was created, headed by Georgy Plekhanov. A radical wing headed by Andrey Zhelyabov was formed in the organization "Land and Freedom", which became the core of the new organization - "Narodnaya Volya".
On August 26, 1879, at a secret congress in Lipetsk, the executive committee of the People's Will sentenced Alexander II to death.
February 27, 1881 Andrey Zhelyabov was arrested. The organization was headed by Sofya Perovskaya, the 28-year-old daughter of the former governor of St. Petersburg. On March 1, 1881, an attempt was made on the life of Alexander II, when his carriage was passing along the Catherine Canal. Narodnaya Volya member Nikolai Rysakov threw a bomb under the wheels of the carriage, but the emperor again remained unharmed. Only after getting out of the carriage, he was mortally wounded by another terrorist - Ignaty Grinevetsky, who died himself ...
On April 3, 1881, five Narodnaya Volya members were publicly hanged - Zhelyabov, Perovskaya, Rysakov, Mikhailov and Kibalchich.
The historical significance of the reform of 1861 can be expressed in the following theses:
1. it opened the way for the development of capitalism
a) in agriculture; Agriculture began to develop along the Prussian path in the Black Earth region (in Prussia, landlord latifundia were preserved and the peasants rented land from the landowners) and along the American path in the Non-Black Earth Region and, mainly, on the outskirts (that is, farms developed there). The landlords of the suburbs are also satisfied - the redemption operation stretched out for 20 years.
b) in industry: the emergence of new free workers.
2. The monarchy has strengthened the material base, having received millions of taxpayers. The redemption operation strengthened the finances of the state
3. the moral significance of the reform is great. Slavery is over. The beginning of the era of reforms, self-government, courts, etc.
But as noted above, the reform was undemocratic, pro-nobility in nature. The main vestiges are autocracy in the political sphere and landlordism in the economic sphere. The reform ruined the peasants. Segments from their lands reached 20%.
Conclusion.
In history, as well as in macroeconomics, two main alternative ways of modernization are usually distinguished: 1) modernization from above; 2) modernization from below. Although the official policy of President Putin seems to be oriented towards the second option, the final choice has not yet been made. The first option, albeit in a smoothed form, has many supporters and, in addition, Putin's economic policy has not yet been subjected to serious tests, which usually provoke a turn to power methods. Let us recall Stalin's turn from the NEP to the command system. Therefore, explaining the differences, features and consequences of the implementation of each of the options requires constant repetition.
The first path, modernization from above, is the path of increased influence of state power on achieving the goals of modernization. This means the redistribution of the gross product in favor of the state, the concentration in its hands of the resources necessary for massive state investments in the reconstruction of the national economy, as well as the large-scale use of power, administrative or even repressive resources to force people to act for modernization, for the "public good" in the interpretation of the authorities. This is a return to the mobilization economy that dominated Russia for more than 70 years and led it to collapse. This was the second large-scale attempt at modernization from above in Russian history. The first, carried out by Peter the Great, is considered canonically successful, indeed bringing the country into the ranks of modern powers, although it cost it a third of its population.
The temptation of modernization from above always exists when a serious gap arises in the economy and in society between the scale of tasks dictated by vital necessity and real development, which does not provide a solution to these tasks. At least that's how it seems to contemporaries.
This is precisely the situation in Russia today, which has arisen on the verge between stages I and II of the post-communist transformation. Therefore, the danger of the mobilization scenario remains.
However, it is precisely in the conditions of modern Russia that he is doomed to failure, which would become a real tragedy for her. It's about the conditions. Historical experience shows that modernization from above can be successful after a long period of quiet evolution without state interference, and visible success is sometimes achieved in relatively short periods of time, which enhances its attractiveness. And the upheavals caused by it usually turn out to be so distant that no one connects them with the modernization from above, long past and exalted by historians. Thus, it is recognized that the October Revolution was largely due to the half-heartedness of the peasant reform, but it is rarely remembered that Peter the Great's reforms strengthened the feudal order in Russia, while in Europe they were already abandoned, and thereby consolidated and aggravated socio-economic backwardness for a long time. countries. What under Peter was a source of strength, under Nicholas I became a source of weakness, and under Nicholas II - the basis of revolutionary upheavals.
But for Peter's modernization from above, the conditions were favorable: the country was ready for them, and apart from the will of the monarch, there was no other social force. A lasting positive effect was ensured by the relative susceptibility of the ruling classes to innovations, especially since their financial situation not only did not worsen, but, on the contrary, the opportunities for enrichment increased.
Stalin's modernization from above was qualitatively different: it relied on the potential of unfinished agrarian reforms and the expectations of the creative forces of the revolution, as well as on the rejection of former institutions, including morality and legality. But it took place in a country that was on the rise even without Marxist schemes. The destruction of the creative forces developing from below - the market, capitalism, led to a short life of the modernizing impulse and led to the exhaustion of the economic and social forces of society. Society turned out to be sick and certainly not ready for new experiments of new dictators.
It must be clearly understood that modernization from above, in order to achieve results that could at least at first be interpreted as positive, must ensure a colossal concentration of resources, will and power, primarily power, such as that of Peter and Stalin, and the authorities must be ready to suppress those who do not agree to sacrifice their own interests. And the suppression of one's own interests is the suppression of the energy and initiative of people who, under a different scenario, could themselves become the main force of modernization.
The second way is modernization from below, relying on the private initiative and energy of everyone. The prosperity of the economically developed countries everywhere, in the West or in the East, is based today on a free open economy. All of them have experienced modernization from below.
The state did not stand aside. But it did not itself decide for everyone what to do, what to build; it created conditions and institutions that promoted initiative and self-activity, which turned them into an uplifting force.
And in Russian history there is an experience of modernization from below. This is the peasant reform of 1861, these are the judicial, zemstvo, military reforms that followed it, which together gave a strong impetus to the development of the economy and society, made Russia one of the most dynamic countries that overcame the backlog from the countries that had gone ahead, while the country lived in complacency from an imaginary superiority of their social organization. This organization made it possible to implement Peter's reforms and defeat Napoleon, but has long been hopelessly outdated. Alexander II laid the foundation for its replacement, this was his modernization, through the liberation of the peasants and the formation of the beginnings of civil society. The baton of Alexander II was picked up by S.Yu. Witte and P.A. Stolypin. They did not win, they could not prevent a destructive revolution. But the work carried out by them showed the merits of the path of modernization from below, and its effectiveness in Russia as well.
Literature.
1) Kiryushin V. I. Key issues of agrarian reform. M., 2001
2) Danilov V.P. Agrarian reforms and peasantry in Russia. M., 1999
3) Gavrilenkov E. G. The economic strategy of Russia. M., 2000
4) Voropaev N. G. The abolition of serfdom in Russia. M., 1989
5) Krasnopevtsev L. V. The main moments of the development of the Russian revolutionary movement in 1861-1905. M., 1957
6) Archimandrite Konstantin (Zaitsev) Miracle of Russian History, M., 2002
D. Zhukovskaya