1. Why did the revolutionaries of the 1870s called populists? What ideals did they preach?
Revolutionaries of the 1870s They were called populists because it was based on representatives of the various intelligentsia: people from the peasants, bourgeoisie, clergy and impoverished nobility. They opposed the remnants of serfdom and the capitalist path of development of Russia. They believed that Russia had its own unique path to socialism, that a socialist society could be built without going through the capitalist stage. They idealized the peasantry, but the main thing revolutionary force they considered the intelligentsia, whom the peasants should blindly follow.
2. Name the reasons that prompted the populists to switch to terrorist methods of struggle against the autocracy.
The most basic reason for the populists, which prompted them to switch to terrorist methods of struggle, was disappointment in the possibility peasant revolution, after which they began to switch to terrorist methods of fighting the autocracy, to Marxism in terms of ideology.
4. Assess the internal policy of Alexander III.
The new government of Alexander III, taking a fundamentally different course, aroused strong opposition. The Emperor led the fight against revolutionary, socialist, and liberal unrest. It started with universities, where a new charter was put into effect, which practically nullified autonomy: rectors were now appointed by the government, they received the right to dismiss professors, etc.
Then new trends affected the press, where certain changes took place and restrictions were introduced. The network began to expand parochial schools, and at the same time, a system of classical education was introduced in the gymnasium, which did not seem complete to contemporaries, although it played its role because it contributed to the widespread knowledge of languages among the educated public. Those who managed to comprehend wisdom Greek language and Latin, easily coped with living languages.
So, the internal policy of the new emperor can be characterized as conservative. We are very fond of calling this policy reactionary. She was undeniably protective. Alexander III was a very consistent and firm person, he believed that autocracy is the only system, thanks to which the country exists, that the autocracy has a natural ally within the country - the nobility. But other classes could also be allies, which is why he pursued a corresponding policy, which the liberal intelligentsia considered reactionary. The most interesting thing is that precisely with this reactionary politics Science, industry, and trade (both internal and external) flourished.
5. Tell us about the labor movement in Russia after the Reform of 1861. Compare it with the labor movement in European countries.
After the reform of 1861, a working class emerged. The labor movement emerged due to the fact that workers were infringed on their rights. They fought to improve their situation: promotion wages, reduction of working hours, etc. In European countries labor movement it was more organized.
6. What did the emergence of the Marxist movement in Russia and the creation of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party indicate?
The emergence of the Marxist movement in Russia and the creation of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party indicated that workers continued to fight for their rights and the labor movement became more widespread.
Test work “Social movement in the 19th century”
Option 1
Part A
1. What was common in the views of Khomyakov and Granovsky was
A) confidence in the existence of a special Russian path of development
B) idealization of the peasant community
B) rejection of serfdom
2. Conservative course of the 30-40s. was presented
A) "Theory of communal socialism" B) "Theory of Slavophiles" C) "Theory of official nationality"
A) Khomyakov B) Soloviev C) Herzen
4. Slavophiles were called representatives of the social movement, whose views included, in particular, the position of
A) the need to preserve serfdom
B) negative consequences reforms of Peter I
B) military coup as the main means of reform
5.The main political demands of “Land and Freedom” were
A) establishment of a constitutional monarchy B) convening of the Zemsky Sobor
B) establishment of a democratic republic
6. The leaders of “Land and Freedom” believed that mass peasant uprisings would occur in 1863, since this year
A) the deadline for signing Charter Charters between landowners and peasants was expiring
B) the temporarily obliged state of peasants was introduced
B) the assassination of Alexander II was planned
7. In 1866, D. Karakozov made an attempt on the life of Alexander II in St. Petersburg. What organization did Karakozov belong to?
A) to Ishutin’s circle B) to the organization “Land and Freedom” C) to the “Northern Union of Russian Workers”
8. When the populists undertook “going to the people”
A) 1861 B) 1874 C) 1881
9. Who was the ideologist of anarchism in Russia
A) A. Herzen B) M. Bakunin C) N. Chernyshevsky
10. Gain revolutionary movement after the reform of 1861 it was determined
A) weakening political regime in post-reform Russia
B) moderation of reforms and inconsistency of the authorities in their implementation
B) the elimination of class barriers
11. Which direction? social thought included B. Chicherin, K. Kavelin, who defended the introduction of a constitution, democratic freedoms and the continuation of reforms
A) liberal B) conservative C) radical
12. Which organization was involved in terrorist activities in Russia?
A) “Black redistribution” B) “People’s Will” C) “Northern Union of Russian Workers”
13. The first printed program document of Russian liberalism of the 50s and early 60s. 19th century was called
A) “Russian conversation” B) “Notes of the Fatherland” C) “Letter to the publisher”
14. A prominent ideologist of conservatism under Alexander II was
A) A. Herzen B) M. Katkov C) S. Muromtsev
15. The assassination of Alexander II by Narodnaya Volya occurred A) March 5, 1880 B) March 1, 1881 C) March 1, 1887
Part B
1. Read an excerpt from “Notes” by A.I. Koshelev and name the current of the social movement in Russia
XIX century in question
“This circle, like many others like it, disappeared without a trace from the face of the earth, if among its participants there was not one person... A.S. Khomyakov... Unconditional devotion to Orthodoxy... love for the Russian people, high the opinion and conviction about him is that the study of his history and present life alone can lead us to originality in thinking and life..."
2.Which of the following provisions relate 1) to the theory of “communal socialism”, and which 2) to the ideas of the Slavophiles
A) community is the basis of the unique development of Russia B) community is the basis of a socialist society
B) it is necessary to prevent the development of capitalism and the emergence of the proletariat, and to extend peasant self-government to cities and states as a whole
D) Russia is a distinctive country that should be proud of its past
D) ideal - a society in which there is no exploitation of man by man; social equality and justice are affirmed
G) it is necessary to abolish serfdom
Test work “Social movement in the 19th century”
Option 2
Part A
1. Russian liberalism 30-40 years. was presented
A) Westernism B) Russian socialism C) conservative movement
2. Composition of participants in circles of the late 20-30s
A) representatives of the upper strata of Russian society B) military youth
B) students
3. The formation of the ideology of the Russian revolutionary movement is associated with the activities
A)A. Herzen, V. Belinsky, M. Petrashevsky B) N. Ustryalov, M. Pogodin, F. Bulgarin
V)M. Petrashevsky, N. Ogarev, S. Uvarov
4.Who are Westerners
A) representatives of the Catholic faith
B) representatives of Western European countries who invested their funds in the development of Russian industry
C) supporters of the Western European path of development of Russia
5.Which of the following was a Slavophile
A) N. Chernyshevsky B) K. Aksakov C) A. Herzen
6.Name the famous Russian thinker-philosopher, author of “Philosophical Letters”
A) P. Chaadaev B) K. Ushinsky C) T. Granovsky
7. In 1862, the nobility of the city turned to Alexander II with an address to renounce all class privileges...
A) Moscow B) Yaroslavl C) Tver
8.What was the purpose of “going to the people”
A) train peasants in various specialties B) cause a revolutionary explosion in the village
C) explain to the peasants the meaning of the abolition of serfdom
9.Which active participant in the populist movement expressed the idea of replacing the state with free autonomous societies by revolutionary means?
A) P. Tkachev B) P. Lavrov C) M. Bakunin
10.What was the name of the first populist organization in Russia
A) “Land and Freedom” B) “Emancipation of Labor” C) “People’s Will”
11. A movement that unites supporters of the parliamentary system, civil and economic freedoms
A) socialism B) liberalism C) conservatism
12.The main provisions of revolutionary populism were
A) an immediate socialist revolution based on the peasant community
B) support for reforms “from above” C) the desire to preserve the traditional foundations of Russia
13. In what year was the 1st “Land and Freedom” formed?
A) 1856 B) 1860 C) 1861
14. What organizations did “Land and Freedom” split into in 1879?
A) “Black redistribution” and “People’s will” B) “People’s will” and “People’s reprisal”
B) “Black redistribution” and “Liberation of labor”
15. Which organization prepared and carried out the assassination attempt on Alexander II A) “Black Redistribution” B) “People’s Will” C) “Emancipation of Labor”
Part B
1.Which of the above provisions are characteristic of 1) Westerners, and which of 2) Slavophiles
A) the originality of Russian history B) the abolition of serfdom
B) bourgeois order is the ideal D) opposition of Russia to the West
E) denial of revolution as a method of reorganizing society E) development of Russia according to the laws of world history G) negative attitude towards the reforms of Peter1 3) positive attitude towards the reforms of Peter1 I) A. Khomyakov, Aksakov brothers, Y. Samarin K) I. Turgenev, K . Kavelin, T. Granovsky
2. Determine which socio-political movement of the 20-30s of the 19th century (Westerners, Slavophiles, socialists, conservatives) the following statements belong to
A) “At first, Russia was in a state of wild barbarism, then gross ignorance, then ferocious and humiliating foreign domination and, finally, serfdom... in order to make a move forward... the main thing is to destroy the slave in the Russian.”
B) “Russia’s past was amazing, its present is more than magnificent, and as for the future, it is above everything that the wildest imagination can imagine.”
C) “Our antiquity provides us with an example and the beginning of all that is good... Western people have to put aside everything that was previously bad and create everything good in themselves; it is enough for us to resurrect, to understand the old, to bring it into consciousness and into life.”
D) “The community is the one surviving civil institution of all Russian history. Take it away, nothing will remain; from its development a whole civil world can develop.”
Answers
Option 1
Part A
1.B
2.B
3.B
4.B
5.B
6.A
7.A
8.B
9.B
10.B
11.A
12.B
13.B
14.B
15.B
Part B
1) Slavophiles
2) 1-B, C, D, F
2 - A, G, G
Option 2
Part A
1.A
2.B
3.A
4.B
5 B
6.A
7.B
8.B
9.B
10.A
11.B
12.A
13.B
14.A
15.B
Part B
1) 1 - B, C, D, E, Z, K
2 - A, B, D, D, G, I
2) A - Westerners
B - conservatives
B - Slavophiles
G - socialists
The Russian-Turkish War caused a rise in patriotic sentiment in society. On this wave, the liberal movement revived. Referring to the constitution developed for Bulgaria, the liberals asked: why does the government refuse to introduce a constitution in Russia? Does it really believe that the Russian people are less ready for a constitution than the Bulgarian people?
The government forbade zemstvo leaders from attending all-Russian meetings and even meeting in individual regions. Therefore, Zemstvo residents began to hold secret congresses. They kept secrets no worse than the revolutionaries, and the police never found out about some of the congresses. At the end of the 70s, an illegal "Zemstvo Union".
In 1878, the government, concerned about the strengthening of the revolutionary movement, issued an appeal to the public calling for help in the fight against "a gang of villains". But the appeal did not contain promises to change policies and resume reforms, and therefore it did not find public support.
Zemstvo leaders, having gathered for a congress in Kyiv, tried to come to an agreement with the revolutionaries about joint actions. They set a renunciation of terrorist acts as an indispensable condition. The negotiations were not successful, and the Zemstvo residents developed their own plan of action. The Kharkov zemstvo was the first to speak, declaring that without change domestic policy government, no assistance from society is possible. The Minister of Internal Affairs immediately ordered a ban on discussing and accepting such statements at zemstvo meetings.
Therefore, the vowel of the Chernigov zemstvo, I. I. Petrunkevich, who began to read the draft address addressed to the tsar, was rudely interrupted by the chairman. Petrunkevich did not obey and, supported by the meeting and the audience in the choir, continued reading. Then the chairman called the police and with their help closed the meeting. This was one of the first political speeches Ivan Ilyich Petrunkevich (1844-1928). He subsequently became one of the most prominent and most respected figures in the liberal movement. After the incident in the zemstvo assembly, Petrunkevich was exiled to the city of Varnavin, Kostroma province.
The Tver, Poltava and Samara provincial zemstvo assemblies also made demands for a constitution. The Tver zemstvo declared that the Russian people should enjoy the same benefits of constitutional freedoms that the Bulgarian people received.
In 1879, an illegal zemstvo congress took place in Moscow, which was attended by about 30 representatives from 16 zemstvos. It was decided to begin widespread propaganda in zemstvos and the publication of literature abroad. Soon after this, the program of the Zemstvo Union was published in Austria-Hungary, which included three main points: freedom of speech and press, guarantees of personal integrity and the convening of a Constituent Assembly.
In the summer of 1877, St. Petersburg mayor F. F. Trepov, while visiting the prison, noticed that one of the prisoners did not take off his cap when he appeared. It was Bogolyubov, a participant in the demonstration in front of the Kazan Cathedral, sentenced to hard labor. The enraged Trepov ordered him to be whipped. The prisoners made a noise, but they were quickly pacified, and Trepov’s order was carried out. By law, he could not demand that the hat be taken off in front of him. Corporal punishment in this case it was also illegal. But the mayor was confident of his impunity.
On January 24, 1878, a young populist, Vera Zasulich, came to see Trepov and shot him with a revolver. Trepov was seriously wounded, but survived. At the time of the assassination attempt, Zasulich was not a member of any revolutionary organization. The public was unaware of the connection between the assassination attempt and the Bogolyubov incident. Conservative newspapers portrayed Trepov as a victim call of duty. The government, hoping for the same success as in the Nechaev story, sent the Zasulich case to a jury trial.
The case was heard on March 31, 1878. There were many people from high society in the hall, headed by A. M. Gorchakov, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. At first, the mood of the public was not in favor of the defendant, but as the proceedings progressed, it changed dramatically. The jury found Zasulich not guilty, and the court, chaired by A.F. Koni, dismissed the case. The audience gave a standing ovation. Upon leaving the hall, the police tried to arrest Zasulich in order to send her into administrative exile. But the youth fought her off, and that same evening she fled abroad.
Vera Ivanovna Zasulich (1849-1919) at the end of her life she became a principled opponent of the death penalty and political assassinations. She defended her opinion without fear of the wrath of the Bolsheviks who came to power. But then, in 1878, her shot had dual consequences. On the one hand, he is in the most dramatic form drew public attention to the fact that the authorities commit lawlessness at every step. But on the other hand, it shook the negative attitude of society towards terror. The extreme revolutionaries, who had long insisted on terror, decided that the public sympathized with it.
Schism in "Land and Freedom". At the end of the 70s, a tense internal political situation developed in Russia. The students were worried. The voice of supporters of the constitution became louder and louder. After Zasulich’s shot, a wave of terrorist attacks swept across the country. The executions of terrorists increased the general tension and caused new assassination attempts. There were signs of a revolutionary situation.
But the village remained calm. And this drove propagandists from "Land and Freedom". Disillusionment with their work grew among them. One of them, Alexander Solovyov, appeared in the spring of 1879 "main circle" and declared that he wanted to kill the king. After heated debate, management "Land and Freedom" the majority of votes were against the assassination attempt. But on April 2, Solovyov still tracked down the tsar while walking on Palace Square and rushed at him with a revolver. Alexander was not taken aback and ran, making zigzags. Soloviev shot five times, but wounded only the policeman who arrived in time. The captured terrorist shared the fate of Karakozov (in 1866 he shot Alexander II and was then hanged).
Illustration. Assassination attempt on Solovyov on Palace Square.
"Land and Freedom" turned into a terrorist organization. Some of its members protested, citing the program. Then supporters of terror demanded its revision. We decided to gather at a congress in Voronezh to look for a compromise. But by this time "disorganization group" became so isolated that it gathered for its own congress - secret not only from the police, but also from the rest of the "Land and Freedom".
A.I. Zhelyabov
Supporters of terror gathered in Lipetsk in June 1879. The most prominent figure among them was A. I. Zhelyabov. He said that socialists, in principle, should not demand political changes and civil liberties. This is the job of liberals, but in Russia they are flabby and powerless. Meanwhile, the lack of freedoms prevents the launch of agitation among the peasants. This means that revolutionaries must take on this task too - to break despotism, in order to then begin preparing social revolution. Participants in the Lipetsk congress decided not to break with "By earth and will", but to conquer it from within.
But at the Voronezh congress, Zhelyabov failed to gain the upper hand, and a compromise was reached. Without revising the program, they decided to intensify the fight against the government, responding with terror to the executions of revolutionaries. Only Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov (1856-1918) resolutely protested against terrorism.
The son of a small nobleman, he once graduated from a military gymnasium here in Voronezh, but then refused military service, studied at the Mining Institute, participated in a demonstration at the Kazan Cathedral. When the compromise resolution was adopted, Plekhanov stood up and said: “In that case, gentlemen, I have nothing more to do here.”— left the congress.
The compromise did not strengthen the organization. Each side interpreted it differently. In August of the same year, at the St. Petersburg congress, the factions finally split. "The Villagers" led by Plekhanov created an organization "Black redistribution". She tried to establish propaganda among peasants and workers, but in the context of the war that broke out between the government and terrorists, nothing came of it. In 1880, Plekhanov was forced to go abroad.
Plekhanov at a meeting of the organization.
"Narodnaya Volya" and its program. Zhelyabov's supporters united in the organization "People's Will". The Narodnaya Volya were justifiably dissatisfied with the existing order in the country, but were unscrupulous in the means to achieve their goals. The organization was led Andrey Ivanovich Zhelyabov (1851-1881), a native of serfs, and Sofya Lvovna Perovskaya (1853-1881), the daughter of an important official, the former St. Petersburg governor. These were brave, determined people. Under their leadership "People's Will" became a well-secret, ramified and disciplined organization. It was headed by the Executive Committee, which had almost unlimited powers. Local circles and groups were subordinate to him.
She considered her main task to be a political coup and the seizure of power. Following this should have come socialist revolution. It was supposed to convene constituent Assembly and propose to him a program of measures to transfer land to peasants, and factories and factories to workers.
The tactics of seizing power chosen by the Narodnaya Volya consisted of intimidation and disorganization of power through individual terror. An uprising was gradually being prepared. No longer relying on the peasants, the Narodnaya Volya tried to organize students, workers, and penetrate the army. In some military academies and schools, and then in the troops stationed in the provinces, officer circles of People's Will appeared. Besides the ideological side "People's Will" attracted young officers with the discipline and unity of command they were accustomed to.
Since the fall of 1879, the Narodnaya Volya launched a real hunt for the Tsar. They were not embarrassed by the number of possible victims, even accidental ones. Twice they planted mines under the rails, lying in wait royal train. Once the explosive mechanism did not work, another time the wrong train was derailed by mistake.
During one of the searches, the police found a plan Winter Palace. The royal dining room was marked with a cross on it. However, the gendarmes did not think to inspect the palace and check all the people working in it. On February 5, 1880, a ceremonial dinner in honor of the Bulgarian prince was supposed to take place in this dining room. Everyone gathered for the grand entrance royal family, and only one person hesitated somewhere. Alexander, who loved punctuality, began to get angry when suddenly a terrible explosion shook the building. People's Volunteer Stepan Khalturin, who worked in the palace as a cabinetmaker, planted a huge charge of dynamite in the basement under the dining room and left the palace in advance. Eight soldiers were killed.
The multimillion-dollar peasantry of Russia met great reform 1861 with an explosion of indignation. Having received freedom almost without land, the peasants refused to believe what had happened, saying: “We have been deceived! There is no freedom without land!” The “minute of disappointment” that Alexander II foresaw lasted for years and resulted in an unprecedented rise in the peasant movement.
There were various forms of peasant protest. Many people did not believe in the authenticity of the tsar’s “Regulations of February 19,” believing that they were forged, replaced by bars, which allegedly hid the real tsar’s charter. Some peasant interpreters argued that in the tsar's "Regulations" there was an article ordering the flogging of anyone who reads the landowner's falsehood and believes it. As true, “truthful” “Regulations”, fake manifestos were circulating with the following clauses: “During the harvest, do not go to work with the landowner, let him harvest the grain with his family” - and even: “The landowner is left with an arable plot of land for his family is the same as for a peasant, and nothing more.”
While there was talk about the real and false “Regulations,” the peasants almost everywhere refused to work for the landowners and obey the authorities, and in some places, especially in the first months after February 19, when disappointment in the reform was still fresh, they rose up in uprisings. The strongest of them broke out in the Penza and Kazan provinces. In April 1861, the peasants of the Chembar and Kerensky districts of the Penza province rebelled. The center, “the very root of the rebellion,” according to the governor, was in the village of Kandeevka. The revolt swept up to 14 thousand former serfs and went down in history under the name “Kandeyevsky uprising” as the loudest protest of peasants against the reform of 1861 /227/ Thousands of crowds of Kandeyevsky rebels with a red banner then rode on carts through the villages of Penza and neighboring Tambov provinces, proclaiming everywhere: “The land is all ours! We don’t want rent, we won’t work for the landowner!” The peasant leader Leonty Yegortsev never tired of repeating that the tsar sent the peasants a “true” letter with complete liberation them from the landowners, but the landowners intercepted it, after which the Tsar, through him, Yegortsev, ordered: “All peasants must fight their way out of the landowners by force, and if anyone does not fight back before Holy Easter, he will be anathema, damned.”
Experienced, having experienced all the hardships of serf life, rods, prison and exile, 65-year-old Yegortsev, even before appearing in Kandeevka, according to search data, “called himself Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich (he had died long ago, 30 years before.- N.T.) and outraged the peasants of various estates" on the border of the Penza and Tambov regions. The rebellious peasants idolized Yegortsev. All the surrounding villages sent troikas for him, and the most enthusiastic admirers led him arm in arm and carried a bench behind him.
The Kandey uprising was crushed on April 18 (just before “Holy Easter”) by regular troops under the command of the adjutant wing of the royal retinue A.M. Drenyakina. Dozens of peasants were killed and wounded, hundreds were flogged and sent to Siberia for hard labor and settlement. Yegortsev himself managed to escape (the peasants fearlessly walked under bullets and on the rack, but they did not extradite him). However, a month later, in May 1861, this colorful leader of the peasant freemen died.
Simultaneously with Kandeevsky, another peasant uprising broke out - in the Spassky district of the Kazan province. It covered up to 90 villages with its center in the village of Bezdna. Here, too, an authoritative leader emerged, a kind of ideologist of the uprising - the young Bezdnaya peasant Anton Petrovich Sidorov, who went down in history as Anton Petrov. He interpreted the “Regulations of February 19” as desirable for the peasantry, i.e. put into them a meaning opposite to the one they contained: there is no need to obey the authorities, pay quitrents and go to corvée, but we need to drive the landowners out of the peasant land; “For the landowner, the land is mountains and valleys, ravines and roads and sand and stones, there is no twig for him in the forest; he takes a step from his land - drive him away kind words If you don’t listen, cut off his head and you will receive a reward from the king.”
The peasants flocked to Petrov in droves and, even on his instructions, began to change local authorities. When punitive troops arrived in the Abyss under the command of the adjutant wing of Count A.S. Apraksin, the peasants, having prudently removed /228/ women from the village, stood up strongly to Petrov’s defense and did not want to hand him over. The Kazan nobility, frightened by the uprising, declared Anton Petrov “the second Pugachev” and demanded drastic measures from Apraksin. Apraksin used his weapon. More than 350 peasants were killed and wounded. Anton Petrov came out to the soldiers with the text “Regulations of February 19” above his head.
Alexander II, on Apraksin’s report about the execution of the Bezdnensky peasants, noted: “I cannot but approve of the actions of Count Apraksin.” The Tsar ordered Anton Petrov to be “judged according to the field criminal code and the sentence carried out immediately,” thereby predetermining Petrov’s conviction on death penalty. On April 17, Petrov was sentenced to death and executed on the 19th.
Less significant than Kandeevskoe and Bezdnenskoe, but also crowded and persistent protests of peasants against the reform of 1861 took place in many Great Russian, as well as Ukrainian and Belarusian provinces. The authorities managed to suppress some of them only with military forces. So, on May 15 in the village. Samuylov, Gzhatsky district in the Smolensk region, troops attacked a crowd of two thousand peasant rebels, who, as evidenced in the official act, “rushed at the soldiers with frantic enthusiasm, revealing their intention to take away their guns,” and 22 peasants were killed. The punitive forces and the peasants of the village were pacified with iron and blood. Rudni of the Kamyshinsky district of the Saratov province, where another wing-adjutant, Yankovsky, acted as the main pacifier.
The year 1861 brought an unprecedented number of peasant protests in Russia. But also in 1862-1863. the struggle of the peasants unfolded with enormous force, although less than in 1861. Here are comparative data on the number of peasant unrest:
1861 - 1859
1862 - 844
1863 - 509
It is significant that before the announcement of the reform, from January 1 to March 5, 1861, there were only 11 unrest, and from March 5 to the end of the year - 1848. A larger number will only give the year 1905.
The scale of the peasant movement of 1861-1863 was unprecedented in the entire 19th century. discovered his weaknesses, obvious even to his contemporaries. It was spontaneous, without clear leadership and organization (such leaders and even “ideologists” as Leonty Yegortsev and Anton Petrov were exceptions). The peasants were guided by naive (often tsarist) illusions. Finally, the movement was local, capturing sporadically /229/ thousands of villages, while hundreds of thousands of others (sometimes neighboring ones) remained submissive.
Nevertheless, tsarism, with considerable difficulty, suppressed the resistance of the peasants, dispatching against them, in addition to the internal guard troops, another 64 infantry and 16 cavalry regiments regular army. Alexander II clearly burdened his adjutants with punitive functions. Herzen therefore ironically suggested that he knock out the following medal on the occasion of the liberation of the peasants from serfdom: on one side there is a wreath of rods tied by the adjutant aiguelle, and on the other - the inscription: “Hereby I free!” Only from the end of 1863 peasant movement sharply declined:
1864 - 156 disturbances
1867 - 68
1865 - 135
1868 - 60
1866 - 91
"Hydra of rebellion", as they used to say royal court, was crushed.
This did not mean at all that the Russian peasantry had come to terms with the reform of 1861. Liberal publicist F.P. Elenev (Skaldin) and at the end of the 60s testified to the “universal expectation among the peasants of a new or pure will,” the peasant masses were filled with rumors about the upcoming redistribution of land and continued to fight for their right to life with at least minimal income. Peasants of different provinces in pitiful petitions to the Minister of Justice K.I. Palen, Minister of Internal Affairs A.E. They appealed to Timashev and to the Tsar himself for the provision of land “somewhere,” for the replacement of inconvenient lands with convenient ones, for protection from the arbitrariness of the authorities. The governors reported to the Minister of Internal Affairs, and the Minister to the Tsar, about ever new forms of peasant protest against their economic strangulation. Almost everywhere, peasants refused to make unaffordable redemption payments, numerous taxes - quitrent, per capita, zemstvo, secular, fine and other - fees. Since 1870, they began to refuse even allotments due to the discrepancy between their profitability and the payments established for them. Perm peasants formed a special “sect of defaulters,” which declared it sinful to collect exorbitant taxes from the working people. All this kept the Russian village of the post-reform years in a state of chronic tension, fraught with new riots.
Although the material (as well as legal) situation of the Russian peasantry after 1861 became better than before the reform, it still remained for a civilized country, great power intolerant. Suffice it to say that even after liberation the peasants for the most part they lived in “chicken” (or “black”) huts. He described them colorfully peasant son, populist E.E. Lazarev /230/ (prototype of Nabatov in L.N. Tolstoy’s novel “Resurrection”). The smoke in such a hut “from the stove brow had to pour straight up to the ceiling, filling the entire hut almost to the very floor, and go out through the open door (and in the summer and through the windows) outside. This was the case in summer, and so it was in winter. As a result This is why in the mornings, while firing the stove, the inhabitants of these dwellings usually walked bent over, with tears in their eyes, groaning, puffing and clearing their throats, swallowing from time to time fresh air close to the floor." This was called "black heating." In such huts, peasants lived in large families, and in winter, "the two-legged population was joined by a four-legged population - calves and lambs, to whom their mothers came in the mornings and evenings to feed them milk. In the frosty winter mornings, cows themselves came to the hut to be milked, squeezing through the narrow hay and hut doors with the unceremoniousness of the original family members...".
Meanwhile, the working class was formed and began to fight for its rights. The conditions of his life and even the nature and methods of struggle had much in common with the situation of the peasantry. The workers of the 60s still maintained close relations with the village. Statistical surveys of three industrial districts of the Moscow province showed that 14.1% of workers over the age of 18 and 11.9% between the ages of 14 and 18 went out seasonally for field work. The so-called rural workers, who performed auxiliary operations in factories and factories, sought to receive an allotment sufficient for food and leave the enterprise.
The workers suffered no less (if not more) than the peasants. Until 1897, the working day in industry was not standardized and, as a rule, was 13-15 hours, and sometimes reached 19 (as at the Struve machine-building plant in Moscow). At the same time, workers worked in unsanitary conditions, without basic safety precautions. “Once my friends, weavers, took me to a factory while working. My God! What hell this is!” recalled an eyewitness about one of the St. Petersburg factories. “In a weaving shop, out of habit, it is not possible to hear, behind the roar of the machine, two steps away from a person not only what he says, but also shouts. The air is impossible, the heat and stuffiness, the stench from human sweat and from the oil with which the machines are lubricated, from the cotton dust floating in the air, you get a peculiar kind of haze.<...>It is inevitable that you have to stand, since you are not supposed to sit, and there is nowhere to sit except on the windowsill, and you cannot sit on the windowsill - “you’ll block out the light” - it is not allowed. I stayed at the factory for no more than two hours and came out crazy, with a headache."
The weavers of this factory worked while standing on at least both legs. But here is the testimony of V.G., a worker at the Krenholm manufactory in Narva. Gerasimova: “We were woken up for work at 4 o’clock in the morning. I worked on water machines, and I had to /231/ stand on one leg all the time, which was very tiring. This hellish work lasted until 8 o’clock in the evening.” Work in such conditions was all the more “hellish” because workers were forced to fulfill prohibitive production standards. Thus, the mechanics of the railway depots in Kaluga complained that the owners gave them such “lessons” that “a horse is not able to learn.”
With difficult “lessons,” young Russian capitalists strangled not only adult men, but also children and women. Women's labor was widely exploited in light industry(in St. Petersburg in the 70s, women made up 42.6% of workers involved in the processing of fibrous substances) and was even used in metallurgy. Children and teenagers from 10-12 years old (sometimes from 8 years old) worked literally everywhere. According to data from the 70s, at the Izhevsk Arms Plant, minors aged 10 to 18 years old made up 25% of all workers, and at the Tver Morozov factory - 43%. The newspaper "Russian Vedomosti" in 1879 wrote about the work of minors in the factories of the city of Serpukhov, Moscow province: "The situation of children, because of a 4-5 ruble salary, doomed to grueling 12-hour work, in highest degree sad. Unfortunately, these emaciated, pale, bloodshot-eyed creatures, dying physically and morally, still do not enjoy adequate protection from the law. Meanwhile, this young workforce represents a very significant percentage of all forces employed in local factories; Thus, up to 400 children work at one factory in the city of Konshin.”
Payment for such hard work of workers in the first decades after the “great reforms” was a pittance. Sporadic wage increases lagged far behind price increases. M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky cited the following data for one of the largest industrial regions in Russia, the Ivanovo-Voznesensky industrial region: wages for all types of labor increased by 15-50% by the beginning of the 80s compared to the end of the 50s, and the price of rye bread by 100%. , oils - by 83%, meat - by almost 220%.
Moreover, the owner took a significant part (up to half!) of the already pitiful wages from the worker in the form of fines. Before the law on fines was passed in 1886, employers fined workers unrestrainedly and cynically. For example, " General terms hiring" in the "pay book", which was issued to its workers by the office of Lopatin's calico manufactory in the Vladimir province, read: "Factory workers and artisans of both sexes and of all ages must report to work no later than ten minutes after the bell rings, under the fear of being recorded in this pay book for penalties from them of that /232/ payment that is due to them for the whole working day." So, for 11 minutes of late they were supposed to work the whole day for free! From other points of the same "conditions" it is clear that the owner could fine the worker for any reason, and for " "bad behavior" can be fired at any time. Of course, the owner could use the excuse of "bad behavior" to let down any of the employees he dislikes.
Hellish labor with pittance wages did not allow workers to secure even a basic human existence. They lived with their families in poverty, mostly in barracks and barracks, unsuitable “even for a stall for a cow or a horse, not only for a human dwelling,” or in basements like the one described by the inspector of the zemstvo council of the St. Petersburg district, who examined the living conditions of the capital’s proletariat for 1878: “Representing a depression in the ground of at least 2 arshins, it (basement - N.T.) is constantly flooded, if not with water, then with liquid from a nearby latrine, so that the rotted boards that make up the floor literally float, despite the fact that its residents are diligently engaged in draining their apartment, scooping out several buckets every day. In such and such a room with a content of 5 1/3 cubic meters. fathoms of deadly air in itself, I found up to 10 residents, of which 6 were minors." V.V. Bervi-Flerovsky, who thoroughly studied the situation of Russian workers in the 60s, came to the conclusion: the living conditions of the worker "are such that he must refuse either from existence or from human dignity."
All this forced the workers to think critically about their situation. Vasily Gerasimov testified: “I often thought about these facts, drawing a parallel between the conditions that surrounded us and the conditions under which our factory owners lived, feeding on our blood, eating up our lives in the literal sense of the word. I was aware of the abnormality, the injustice of this order of things<...>I just didn’t know how to get out of this situation.”
The first steps of the labor movement in Russia after 1861 were relatively timid (complaints, “humble petitions,” escapes, sometimes riots and strikes), but they were distinguished by a proletarian orientation - against fines and excessive “lessons,” for a reduction in working hours and an increase in wages. Some of them already contained symptoms of political protest. Thus, the workers of Maltsev’s Lyudinovo plant in the Kaluga province said at the inquiry that the factory owner was taking revenge on them because they did not come to him with bread and salt in honor of the announcement of the reform of 1861. As the workers became increasingly disillusioned with /233/ the consequences “great reforms”, their struggle intensified: if in the 60s 51 workers’ actions (strikes and unrest) were counted, then in the 70s there were already 329.
The tsarist government followed the protests of the workers with alarm and tried to calm them down with the appearance of guardianship, without, however, offending the factory owners. The following example is typical: in July 1869, Moscow authorities banned work in factories and factories in holidays, passing final decision on this issue to the manufacturers, and they decided to leave everything as before.
In those cases when workers resorted to “unrest”, to a strike or riot, tsarism helped the owners to crush the dissatisfied mercilessly. The “ringleaders” and “leaders” were shackled and sent to prison (as at Maltsev’s Lyudinovo plant in April 1861), and sentenced to lashes and exile to hard labor (as at the Lysvensky plant in the Perm province in the same spring). Until the mid-80s, there was no labor legislation in Russia at all, and existing laws protected the rights not of workers, but of their employers. A strike, like a “rebellion against the supreme power,” was considered a state crime, and workers were subject to criminal and administrative prosecution for participation in it. Symbolic for the 70s was the statement of the chief of police to the workers of the St. Petersburg workshops of the Main Society of Russian railways in response to their economic demands: “Everyone has their own position: the priest serves mass, the doctor treats, and I came to strangle you<...>I know that you have ten or twenty instigators. I will snatch them from you, snatch them, and send them to Siberia. If I want, I’ll send 100 people to Siberia!”[See: Tugan-Baranovsky M.I. Russian factory in the past and present. M., 1938. T. 1.S. 349.
. Bervi-Flerovsky V.V. The situation of the working class in Russia. M., 1938. P. 442.
Community. 1878. N° 3-4. pp. 27, 28.
Labor movement in Russia in the 19th century. Sat. doc. and materials. M., 1950. T. 2 Part 1. P.
