At the turn of the 30-40s of the 19th century. Two ideological trends emerged - Slavophilism and Westernism. Representatives of the Slavophiles were writers, philosophers and publicists: Aksakovs, Kireevskys, Khomyakov, Samarin. Representatives of the Westerners were historians, lawyers, and writers: Granovsky, Kavelin, Solovyov, Botkin, Annenkov. Representatives of these movements were united by the desire to see Russia prosperous and powerful among all European powers. To do this, they considered it necessary to establish a constitutional monarchy, soften and even abolish serfdom, provide peasants with small plots of land, and introduce freedom of speech and conscience. Fearing revolutionary upheavals, they believed that the government itself should carry out the necessary reforms.

At the same time, there were significant differences in the views of Slavophiles and Westerners. Slavophiles exaggerated Russia's national identity. They insisted on returning to those orders when the Zemsky Sobors conveyed the opinion of the people to the authorities. The struggle of the Slavophiles against servility to the West, their study of the history of the people and people's life had a great positive significance for the development of Russian culture.

Westerners proceeded from the fact that Russia should develop in line with European civilization. They advocated broad education of the people, believing that this was the only sure way for the success of modernization of the socio-political system of Russia.

Slavophiles and Westerners laid the foundation in the 30-50s of the 19th century. the basis of the liberal-reformist direction in the social movement.

The beginning of the labor movement in Russia.

Reforms of the 60s - 80s of the 19th century. Their role

In Russian capitalism.

The agrarian-peasant question by the mid-19th century. has become the most acute socio-political problem in Russia. Among European countries serfdom remained only in it, hindering its economic and socio-political development.

The manifesto provided peasants with personal freedom and general civil rights. A peasant could own movable and immovable property, could act as a legal entity, could freely marry, enter the service and educational institutions, change place of residence, move to the class of burghers and merchants. However, the peasants remained the only class that paid a poll tax, carried out conscription duties and could be subjected to corporal punishment. The size of plots given to peasants depended on the fertility of the soil. Russia was conditionally divided into three zones: black earth, non-black earth and steppe. It was not given to the peasants for free. The peasant had to pay 20% of the cost of the land immediately. 80% of the land was paid for by the state, but accordingly, not out of its own pocket, and the peasants were given a loan for 49 years at 6% per annum (this is a rip-off). The peasants would repay this loan until 1906. But by this time the peasants had overpaid by as much as 4 times. Those peasants who could not pay 20% of the cost of the land were given a plot 4 times less than the established norm.

The reform of 1861 brought freedom to many millions of serfs and cleared the way for the establishment of bourgeois relations.

The main goal: bringing the entire life of society in line with new, capitalist relations. Reforms were carried out in the 60-70s.

Zemstvo reform. Zemstvo institutions (zemstvos) were created in provinces and districts. These were elected bodies from representatives of all classes. The high property qualification ensured the predominance of landowners in them. Zemstvos were deprived of any political functions. The scope of their activity was limited to economic issues of local importance. Zemstvos were under the control of central and local authorities.

Urban reform. In cities, a city duma was created - an all-class body. She dealt with the improvement of the city and the care of trade. In city councils, the leading role belonged to the big bourgeoisie.

Judicial reform. The Senate became the highest court. The court becomes all-class and public. The question of the guilt of the accused was decided by the jury. The competence of different judicial authorities was strictly delineated. Minor civil cases were tried in the magistrate's court, criminal and serious cases in the district court. Particularly important state and political crimes were tried in the judicial chamber.

Military reform(Milyutinskaya). Universal conscription for men over 20 years of age is introduced. Service life in ground forces up to 6 years, in the navy - up to 7 years. Persons who had higher education They served for only six months. In the 60s, the rearmament of the army began. There appeared rifled small arms, rifled artillery and steam ironclad fleet. To train officers, military gymnasiums, specialized cadet schools and the academy.

Education reform. The independence of universities is being introduced. The principle of equal education for all classes is introduced. Censorship has been almost completely eliminated.

Thus, bourgeois reforms, although they were not decisive, at the same time allowed capitalist relations to develop rapidly.

The 19th century occupies its own special place in the history of Russian social thought. During this period, the destruction of the feudal-serf system and the establishment of capitalism proceeded at a rapid pace. The country was in the process of realizing the need for fundamental changes and searching for ways to implement them. The question of the inevitability of change really arose before both society and the supreme authorities.

However, the autocracy and Russian society had significantly different ideas about the paths of change. Three main trends in the development of social thought and social movements have formed in Russia: conservative, liberal and revolutionary.

Conservatives sought to preserve the foundations of the existing system, liberals put pressure on the government to force it to carry out reforms, revolutionaries sought profound changes by forcibly changing the political system of the country.

When studying this period in the history of Russia, it is important to see the entire spectrum of progressive, democratic, revolutionary forces. Characteristic feature development social movement at the beginning of the 19th century is that in both the liberal and revolutionary movements of this time, the nobility dominates over all other classes. However, a political struggle also took place within the nobility between supporters and opponents of change.

True, the hegemony of the nobility in the revolutionary movement was less durable than in the liberal one. How to explain the leading role of the nobility? First of all, the fact that among the nobility an intelligentsia was formed, which was the first to begin to realize the need for reforms in the country and put forward certain political doctrines.

The Russian bourgeoisie during this period did not actively participate in the social movement. In the era of primitive accumulation, the merchant, industrialist, railroad businessman, and rich peasant were exclusively absorbed in profit, the accumulation of wealth. At this stage this class was not interested in politics and had no need for it. He did not need political reforms, but administrative and legislative measures that would promote the development of capitalism. The bourgeoisie was quite happy economic policy tsarism, aimed at developing capitalism from above: encouraging railway construction, protective customs duties, government orders, etc. In addition, the bourgeoisie at that time had not yet developed its own intelligentsia. The realization that knowledge and education are also capital was a relatively late phenomenon. Therefore, the political capacity of the Russian bourgeoisie lagged far behind its economic power.

The bourgeoisie entered the political struggle, nominated its leaders, created its organizations at a time when the Russian proletariat was already playing an active role in the socio-political struggle, creating its own political party.

Beginning of the 19th century was a time of great hope in the life of Russian society. However, the reforms were not implemented. State power ended up actually in the hands of A.A. Arakcheeva. MM. Speransky was sent into exile. This refusal of reforms was associated with quite powerful resistance from the majority of the noble class. So, in 1811, alarmed by persistent rumors about a “radical state transformation” being prepared by M.M. Speransky, the famous historian N.M. Karamzin, an ideologist of autocracy, presented Alexander I with a “Note on Ancient and new Russia“, in which he wrote: “Russia was founded by victories and unity of command, perished from disagreement, and was saved by a wise autocracy.” Karamzin saw autocracy as a guarantee of the well-being of the Russian people. The task of the sovereign, he believed, was to improve the existing system, avoiding serious changes Karamzin argued that instead of all the innovations, it would be enough to find fifty good governors and give the country worthy spiritual shepherds.

At a time when the authorities are abandoning reforms, a revolutionary political trend is clearly manifested among the nobility. This was the Decembrist movement. The main factor in its occurrence was the socio-economic conditions of the country's development. Of no small importance in the formation of the revolutionary views of the Decembrists were the strengthening of serfdom oppression, the anti-serfdom movement of the masses after Patriotic War 1812 The Decembrists called themselves "children of 1812." and they emphasized more than once that it was 1812 that was the starting point of their movement. More than a hundred future Decembrists took part in the war of 1812, 65 of those who would be called state criminals in 1825 fought to the death with the enemy on the Borodin field (Memoirs of the Decembrists. Northern Society. M., 1981. P. 8). They saw that victory in the war was ensured, first of all, by the participation of the common people, suffering from the tyranny of the feudal landowners and having no prospects for improving their position in the conditions of the autocratic serfdom state.

The first secret organization of future Decembrists, the “Union of Salvation,” was created by young noble officers in St. Petersburg in 1816. This organization was small and aimed at the abolition of serfdom and the fight against autocracy, but the methods and ways of achieving these tasks were unclear.

On the basis of the “Union of Salvation” in 1818, the “Union of Welfare” was created in Moscow, which included more than 200 people. This organization set itself the task of promoting anti-serfdom ideas, supporting the liberal intentions of the government, creating public opinion against serfdom and autocracy. It took 10 years to solve this problem. The Decembrists believed that solving this problem would help avoid horrors French Revolution and make the coup bloodless.

Government refusal reform plans and the transition to reaction in the external and domestic policy forced the Decembrists to change tactics. In 1821 in Moscow, at the congress of the Union of Welfare, it was decided to overthrow the autocracy through a military revolution. It was supposed to move from the vague “Union” to a conspiratorial and clearly formed secret organization. In 1821-1822 Southern and Northern societies emerged. In 1823, the organization “Society of United Slavs” was created in Ukraine, which by the fall of 1825 merged with the Southern Society.

In the Decembrist movement throughout its existence, there were serious disagreements on the ways and methods of implementing reforms, on the form government structure countries, etc. Within the framework of the movement, one can trace not only revolutionary tendencies (they manifested themselves especially clearly), but also liberal tendencies. The differences between members of the Southern and Northern societies were reflected in the programs developed by P.I. Pestel ("Russian Truth") and Nikita Muravyov ("Constitution").

One of the most important issues was the question of the state structure of Russia. According to the "Constitution" of N. Muravyov, Russia turned into a constitutional monarchy, where executive power belonged to the emperor, and legislative power was transferred to a bicameral parliament, the people's council. The “Constitution” solemnly proclaimed the people to be the source of all state life; the emperor was only “the supreme official of the Russian state.”

The suffrage provided for a fairly high voting qualification. Courtiers were deprived of voting rights. A number of basic bourgeois freedoms were proclaimed - speech, movement, religion.

According to Pestel's "Russian Truth", Russia was declared a republic, power in which, until the necessary bourgeois-democratic transformations were carried out, was concentrated in the hands of the Provisional Revolutionary Government. Next, the supreme power was transferred to a unicameral people's council, elected for 5 years by men from the age of 20 without any qualification restrictions. The highest executive body was the State Duma, elected for 5 years by the people's council and responsible to it. The president became the head of Russia.

Pestel rejected the principle of a federal structure; Russia had to remain united and indivisible.

Second the most important issue there was a question about serfdom. Both “The Constitution” by N. Muravyov and “Russian Truth” by Pestel resolutely opposed serfdom. “Serfdom and slavery are abolished. A slave who touches the Russian land becomes free,” read § 16 of N. Muravyov’s Constitution. According to the "Russian Truth" serfdom was immediately abolished. The liberation of the peasants was declared the “holiest and most indispensable” duty of the Provisional Government. All citizens had equal rights.

N. Muravyov proposed that the liberated peasants retain their homestead land “for vegetable gardens” and two acres of arable land per yard. Pestel considered the liberation of peasants without land completely unacceptable and proposed solving the land issue by combining the principles of public and private property. The public land fund was to be formed through the seizure without redemption of landowners' lands, the size of which exceeded 10 thousand dessiatines. From landholdings of 5-10 thousand dessiatines, half of the land was alienated for compensation. From the public fund, land was allocated to everyone who wanted to cultivate it.

The Decembrists associated the implementation of their programs with a revolutionary change in the existing system in the country. Taken as a whole, Pestel’s project from the point of view of the development of bourgeois relations in Russia was more radical and consistent than Muravyov’s project. At the same time, both of them were progressive, revolutionary programs for the bourgeois reorganization of feudal Russia.

The uprising on December 14, 1825 in St. Petersburg on Senate Square and the uprising of the Chernigov infantry regiment, raised on December 20, 1825 by members of the Southern Society, were suppressed. The tsarist government brutally dealt with the participants in the uprisings, which had a very serious significance for the development of social thought and social movement in the country. Essentially, an entire generation of the most educated, active people was torn out of the country's public life. However, the ideas of the Decembrists continued to live in the circles of free-thinking youth. Decembrism carried a variety of directions in the social movement from liberal to ultra-revolutionary, which affected the development of the social movement in the country.

Wandering from one extreme to another is not unusual for Russia. Therefore, one should not be surprised at the growth of radicalism in the liberal 19th century, rich in revolutionary upheavals. Russian emperors Alexander, both the first and second, inactively indulged moderate liberals, and society, on the contrary, was ripe for radical changes in all spheres of the country's life. The emerging social demand for radicalism led to the emergence of ardent adherents of extremely decisive positions and actions.

The beginning of radicalism with a revolutionary overtones was laid by the secret societies of the Decembrists, which appeared in 1816. The creation within the framework of the organization of the Northern and Southern societies, which developed program documents (radical republican “Russian Truth” by Pestel and moderate-monarchical “Constitution” by Muravyov) of revolutionary transformations, led to the preparation of a coup d’etat.

The action on December 14, 1825 to seize power, introduce a constitutional system and announce the convening of the Russian Great Council, with an agenda about the future fate of the country, failed for a number of objective and subjective reasons. However tragic events developed in the growth of Russian radicalism in subsequent periods national history XIX century.

Communal socialism of Alexander Herzen

V.I. Lenin noted that “the Decembrists woke up Herzen” with the ideas of the radical P. Pestel.

A. I. Herzen called his idol “a socialist before socialism” and, under the influence of his views, created the theory of “Russian communal socialism.” According to Alexander Ivanovich, this radical theory could provide a transition to socialism, bypassing capitalism.

The peasant community was to play a decisive role in such a revolutionary leap. Herzen believed that the Western path of development had no prospects due to the lack of a real spirit of socialism. The spirit of money and profit, pushing the West onto the path of bourgeois development, will ultimately destroy it.

Utopian socialism of Petrashevsky

The well-educated official and talented organizer M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky contributed to the penetration of the ideas of utopian socialism into Russian soil. In the circle he created, like-minded people heatedly discussed radical revolutionary and reform ideas and even organized the work of a printing house.

Despite the fact that their activities were limited only to conversations and rare proclamations, the gendarmes discovered the organization, and the court, under the supervision of Nicholas I himself, sentenced the Petrashevites to cruel punishment. Rational grain utopian ideas Petrashevsky and his followers consisted of a critical attitude towards capitalist civilization.

Revolutionary Populist Movement

With the beginning of the “Great Reforms,” Russian public consciousness underwent a significant split: one part of the progressive public plunged into liberalism, the other part preached revolutionary ideas. In the worldview of the Russian intelligentsia, the phenomenon of nihilism began to occupy an important place, as a certain form of moral assessment of new social phenomena. These ideas are clearly reflected in the novel “What to Do” by Nikolai Chernyshevsky.

Chernyshevsky’s views influenced the emergence of student circles, among which the “Ishutinites” and “Chaikovites” shone brightly. The ideological basis of the new associations was “Russian peasant socialism”, which passed into the phase of “populism”. Russian populism of the 19th century went through three stages:

1. Proto-populism in the 50-60s.
2. The heyday of populism in the 60-80s.
3. Neo-populism from the 90s to the beginning of the 20th century.

The ideological successors of the populists were the socialist revolutionaries, known in popular historiography as the “Socialist Revolutionaries.”

The basis of the doctrinal principles of the populists were the provisions that:

• capitalism is a force that turns traditional values ​​into ruins;
• the development of progress can be based on the socialist link - the community;
• The duty of the intelligentsia to the people is to induce them to revolution.

The Populist movement was heterogeneous; there are two main directions in it:

1. Propaganda (moderate or liberal).
2. Revolutionary (radical).

According to the level of increase in radicalism in populism, the following hierarchy of trends is built:

• Firstly, conservative (A. Grigoriev);
• Secondly, reformist (N. Mikhailovsky);
• Thirdly, revolutionary liberal (G. Plekhanov);
• Fourthly, social revolutionary (P. Tkachev, S. Nechaev);
• Fifthly, anarchist (M. Bakunin, P. Kropotkin).

Radicalization of populism

The idea of ​​paying the debt to the people called upon the intelligentsia to a missionary movement known as “going to the people.” Hundreds of young people went to the villages as agronomists, doctors and teachers. The efforts were in vain, the tactics did not work.

The failure of the mission of “going to the people” was reflected in the creation of the revolutionary organization “Land and Freedom” in 1876.

Three years later, it split into the liberal “Black Redistribution” and the radical “People’s Will” (A. Zhelyabov, S. Perovskaya), which chose the tactics of individual terror as the main tool for promoting the social revolution. The apotheosis of their activity was the assassination of Alexander II, which entailed a reaction that emasculated populism as a mass movement.

Marxism is the crown of radicalism

Many populists, after the defeat of the organization, became Marxists. The goal of the movement was to overthrow the power of the exploiters, establish the primacy of the proletariat and create a communist society without private property. G. Plekhanov is considered the first Marxist in Russia, who cannot with good reason be considered a radical.

True radicalism was brought to Russian Marxism by V. I. Ulyanov (Lenin).

In his work “The Development of Capitalism in Russia,” he argued that capitalism in Russia last decade XIX century has become a reality, and therefore the local proletariat is ready for the revolutionary struggle and is able to lead the peasantry. This position became the basis for the organization of a radical proletarian party in 1898, which turned the world upside down twenty years later.

Radicalism as the main method of social transformation in Russia

The historical development of the Russian state created the conditions for the emergence and development of radicalism in the process of social transformation. This was greatly facilitated by:

• extremely low standard of living for the majority of the country's population;
• the huge income gap between rich and poor;
• excess privileges for some, lack of rights for other groups of the population;
• lack of political and civil rights;
• arbitrariness and corruption of officials and more.

Overcoming these problems requires decisive action. If the authorities do not dare to take drastic steps, then radicalism as a political movement will again take a leading position in the political life of the country.

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

Legacy of Nicholas I

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

It was urgent to solve the following problems:

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

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

Russia during the reign of Alexander II

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

TOP 5 articleswho are reading along with this

The manifesto on the abolition of serfdom on February 19, 1861 immortalized the name of Alexander. The law equalized all classes of citizens before the law and now all segments of the population bore the same state duties.

• After a partial solution to the peasant question, local government reforms were carried out. In 1864, the Zemstvo reform was carried out. This transformation made it possible to reduce the pressure of the bureaucracy on local authorities and made it possible to solve most economic problems locally.
• In 1863, judicial reforms were carried out. The court became an independent body of power and was appointed by the Senate and the king for life.
• Under Alexander II, many were discovered educational institutions, Sunday schools were built for workers, and secondary schools appeared.
• The transformations also affected the army: the sovereign changed the 25 years of military service from 25 to 15 years. Corporal punishment was abolished in the army and navy.
• During the reign of Alexander II, Russia achieved significant success in foreign policy. The Western and Eastern Caucasus and part of Central Asia were annexed. Having defeated Turkey in the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878, the Russian Empire restored black sea fleet and captured the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits in the Black Sea.

Under Alexander II, industrial development intensified, bankers sought to invest money in metallurgy and in the construction of railways. At the same time, in agriculture there was some decline, as the liberated peasants were forced to rent land from their former owners. As a result, most of the peasants went bankrupt and went to the city to earn money along with their families.

Rice. 1. Russian Emperor Alexander II.

Social movements in the second half of the 19th century

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

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

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

The peasants did not react in any way to the calls of the commoners to overthrow the government. This led to a split of revolutionaries into two camps: practitioners and theorists. Practitioners carried out terrorist attacks and killed prominent statesmen. The organization “Land and Freedom”, later renamed “People’s Will”, passed a death sentence on Alexander II. The sentence was carried out on March 1, 1881 after several unsuccessful attempts. The terrorist Grinevitsky threw a bomb at the Tsar's feet.

Russia during the reign of Alexander III

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

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

Alexander III dreamed of the revival of the absolute monarchy and the advent of the era of reaction. The reign of this king proceeded without wars or international complications. This allowed foreign and domestic trade to develop rapidly, cities grew, factories were built. IN late XIX century, the length of roads in Russia has increased. The construction of the Siberian Railway began to connect the central regions of the state with the Pacific coast.

Rice. 2. Construction of the Siberian Railway in the second half of the 19th century.

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

The transformations that began in the era of Alexander II could not but affect various spheres of Russian culture in the second 19th century.

• Literature . New views on the life of the Russian population have become widespread in the literature. The society of writers, playwrights and poets was divided into two movements - the so-called Slavophiles and Westerners. A. S. Khomyakov and K. S. Aksakov considered themselves Slavophiles. Slavophiles believed that Russia had its own special path and there was and never will be any Western influence on Russian culture. Westerners, to whom Chaadaev P.Ya., I.S. Turgenev, historian S.M. Solovyov considered themselves, argued that Russia, on the contrary, should follow western path development. Despite the differences in views, both Westerners and Slavophiles were equally concerned about the future fate of the Russian people and the state structure of the country. The end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries saw the heyday of Russian literature. Their best works write F. M. Dostoevsky, I. A. Goncharov, A. P. Chekhov and L. N. Tolstoy.
• Architecture . In architecture in the second half of the 19th century, ecleticism began to predominate - a mixture of different styles and trends. This affected the construction of new train stations, shopping centers, apartment buildings, etc. The design of certain forms in the architecture of a more classical genre also developed. A widely famous architect of this direction was A. I. Stackenschneider, with whose help the Mariinsky Palace in St. Petersburg was designed. From 1818 to 1858, St. Isaac's Cathedral was built in St. Petersburg. This project was designed by Auguste Montferand.

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

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

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

What have we learned?

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

Test on the topic

Evaluation of the report

Average rating: 4.5. Total ratings received: 258.

The 19th century entered the history of Russia as a period of socio-economic changes. The feudal system was replaced by the capitalist system, and the agrarian economic system was replaced by an industrial one. Fundamental changes in the economy entailed changes in society - new layers of society appeared, such as the bourgeoisie, intelligentsia, and proletariat. These layers of society increasingly asserted their rights to the social and economic life of the country, and a search was underway for ways to organize themselves. The traditional hegemon of social and economic life - the nobility - could not help but realize the need for changes in the economy, and as a consequence - in the social and socio-political life of the country.
At the beginning of the century, it was the nobility, as the most enlightened layer of society, that played the leading role in the process of realizing the need for changes in the socio-economic structure of Russia. It was representatives of the nobility who created the first organizations that set themselves not just replacing one monarch with another, but changing the political and economic system of the country. The activities of these organizations went down in history as the Decembrist movement.
Decembrists.
"Union of Salvation" is the first secret organization created by young officers in February 1816 in St. Petersburg. It consisted of no more than 30 people, and was not so much an organization as a club that united people who wanted to destroy serfdom and fight the autocracy. This club had no clear goals, much less methods for achieving them. Having existed until the autumn of 1817, the Union of Salvation was dissolved. But at the beginning of 1818, its members created the “Union of Welfare”. It has already included about 200 military and civilian officials. The goals of this “Union” did not differ from the goals of its predecessor - the liberation of the peasants and the implementation of political reforms. There was an understanding of the methods for achieving them - propaganda of these ideas among the nobility and support for the liberal intentions of the government.
But in 1821, the tactics of the organization changed - citing the fact that the autocracy was not capable of reforms; at the Moscow congress of the “Union” it was decided to overthrow the autocracy by armed means. Not only the tactics changed, but also the very structure of the organization - instead of a club of interests, clandestine, clearly structured organizations were created - the Southern (in Kyiv) and Northern (in St. Petersburg) societies. But, despite the unity of goals - the overthrow of the autocracy and the abolition of serfdom - there was no unity between these organizations in the future political structure of the country. These contradictions were reflected in the program documents of the two societies - “Russian Truth” proposed by P.I. Pestel (Southern Society) and “Constitutions” by Nikita Muravyov (Northern Society).
P. Pestel saw the future of Russia as a bourgeois republic, led by a president and a bicameral parliament. Northern society, led by N. Muravyov, proposed a constitutional monarchy as a state structure. With this option, the emperor, as a government official, exercised executive power, while legislative power was vested in a bicameral parliament.
On the issue of serfdom, both leaders agreed that the peasants needed to be freed. But whether to give them land or not was a matter of debate. Pestel believed that it was necessary to allocate land by taking away land and too large landowners. Muravyov believed that there was no need - vegetable gardens and two acres per yard would be enough.
The apotheosis of the activities of secret societies was the uprising of December 14, 1825 in St. Petersburg. In essence, it was an attempt at a coup d'etat, the latest in a series of coups that replaced emperors on the Russian throne throughout XVIII century. On December 14, the day of the coronation of Nicholas I, the younger brother of Alexander I who died on November 19, the conspirators brought troops to the square in front of the Senate, a total of about 2,500 soldiers and 30 officers. But, for a number of reasons, they were unable to act decisively. The rebels remained standing in a “square” on Senate Square. After fruitless negotiations between the rebels and representatives of Nicholas I that lasted all day, the “square” was shot with grapeshot. Many rebels were injured or killed, all the organizers were arrested.
579 people were involved in the investigation. But only 287 were found guilty. On July 13, 1826, five leaders of the uprising were executed, another 120 were sentenced to hard labor or settlement. The rest escaped with fear.
This attempt at a coup d'état went down in history as the “Decembrist uprising.”
The significance of the Decembrist movement is that it gave impetus to the development of socio-political thought in Russia. Being not just conspirators, but having a political program, the Decembrists gave the first experience of political “non-systemic” struggle. The ideas set out in the programs of Pestel and Muravyov found a response and development among subsequent generations of supporters of the reorganization of Russia.

Official nationality.
The Decembrist uprising had another significance - it gave rise to a response from the authorities. Nicholas I was seriously frightened by the coup attempt and during his thirty-year reign he did everything to prevent it from happening again. authorities established strict control over public organizations and the mood in various circles of society. But punitive measures were not the only thing the authorities could take to prevent new conspiracies. She tried to offer her own social ideology designed to unite society. It was formulated by S.S. Uvarov in November 1833 when he took office as Minister of Public Education. In his report to Nicholas I, he quite succinctly presented the essence of this ideology: “Autocracy. Orthodoxy. Nationality."
The author interpreted the essence of this formulation as follows: Autocracy is a historically established and established form of government that has grown into the way of life of the Russian people; The Orthodox faith is the guardian of morality, the basis of the traditions of the Russian people; Nationality is the unity of the king and the people, acting as a guarantor against social upheaval.
This conservative ideology was adopted as a state ideology and the authorities successfully adhered to it throughout the reign of Nicholas I. And until the beginning of the next century, this theory continued to successfully exist in Russian society. The ideology of the official nationality laid the foundation for Russian conservatism as part of socio-political thought. West and East.
No matter how hard the authorities tried to develop a national idea, setting a rigid ideological framework of “Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationality,” it was during the reign of Nicholas I that Russian liberalism was born and formed as an ideology. Its first representatives were interest clubs among the nascent Russian intelligentsia, called “Westerners” and “Slavophiles.” These were not political organizations, but ideological movements of like-minded people who, in disputes, created an ideological platform, later on which full-fledged political organizations and parties would emerge.
Writers and publicists I. Kireevsky, A. Khomyakov, Yu. Samarin, K. Aksakov and others considered themselves Slavophiles. The most prominent representatives of the Westerners camp were P. Annenkov, V. Botkin, A. Goncharov, I. Turgenev, P. Chaadaev. A. Herzen and V. Belinsky were in solidarity with the Westerners.
Both of these ideological movements were united by criticism of the existing political system and serfdom. But, being unanimous in recognizing the need for change, Westerners and Slavophiles assessed the history and future structure of Russia differently.

Slavophiles:
- Europe has exhausted its potential, and it has no future.
- Russia is separate world, due to its special history, religiosity, and mentality.
- Orthodoxy is the greatest value of the Russian people, opposing rationalistic Catholicism.
- The village community is the basis of morality, not spoiled by civilization. The community is the support of traditional values, justice and conscience.
- Special relationship between the Russian people and the authorities. The people and the government lived according to an unwritten agreement: there are us and them, the community and the government, each with their own life.
- Criticism of the reforms of Peter I - the reform of Russia under him led to a disruption of the natural course of its history, disrupted the social balance (agreement).

Westerners:
- Europe is the world civilization.
- There is no originality of the Russian people, there is their backwardness from civilization. For a long time Russia was “outside history” and “outside civilization.”
- had a positive attitude towards the personality and reforms of Peter I; they considered his main merit to be Russia’s entry into the fold of world civilization.
- Russia is following in the footsteps of Europe, so it must not repeat its mistakes and adopt positive experience.
- The engine of progress in Russia was considered not the peasant community, but the “educated minority” (intelligentsia).
- The priority of individual freedom over the interests of government and the community.

What Slavophiles and Westerners have in common:
- Abolition of serfdom. Liberation of peasants with land.
- Political freedoms.
- Rejection of the revolution. Only the path of reforms and transformations.
Discussions between Westerners and Slavophiles were of great importance for the formation of socio-political thought and liberal-bourgeois ideology.
A. Herzen. N. Chernyshevsky. Populism.

Even greater critics of the official ideologist of conservatism than liberal Slavophiles and Westerners were representatives of the revolutionary democratic ideological movement. The most prominent representatives of this camp were A. Herzen, N. Ogarev, V. Belinsky and N. Chernyshevsky. The theory of communal socialism they proposed in 1840–1850 was that:
- Russia is following its own historical path, different from Europe.
- capitalism is not a characteristic, and therefore not acceptable, phenomenon for Russia.
- autocracy does not fit into the social structure of Russian society.
- Russia will inevitably come to socialism, bypassing the stage of capitalism.
- the peasant community is the prototype of a socialist society, which means that Russia is ready for socialism.

The method of social transformation is revolution.
The ideas of “community socialism” found a response among the various intelligentsia, with mid-19th century, which began to play an increasingly prominent role in the social movement. It is with the ideas of A. Herzen and N. Chernyshevsky that the movement that came to the forefront of Russian socio-political life in 1860–1870 is associated. It will be known as Populism.
The goal of this movement was a radical reorganization of Russia on the basis of socialist principles. But there was no unity among the populists on how to achieve this goal. Three main directions were identified:
Propagandists. P. Lavrov and N. Mikhailovsky. In their opinion, the social revolution should be prepared by the propaganda of the intelligentsia among the people. They rejected the violent path of restructuring society.
Anarchists. Chief ideologist M. Bakunin. Denial of the state and its replacement by autonomous societies. Achieving goals through revolution and uprisings. Continuous small riots and uprisings are preparing a big revolutionary explosion.
Conspirators. Leader - P. Tkachev. Representatives of this part of the populists believed that it is not education and propaganda that prepares the revolution, but the revolution will give enlightenment to the people. Therefore, without wasting time on enlightenment, it is necessary to create a secret organization of professional revolutionaries and seize power. P. Tkachev believed that a strong state is necessary - only it can turn the country into a large commune.
The heyday of populist organizations occurred in the 1870s. The most massive of them was “Land and Freedom”, created in 1876, it united up to 10 thousand people. In 1879, this organization split; the stumbling block was the question of methods of fighting. A group led by G. Plekhpnov, V. Zasulich and L. Deych, who opposed terror as a way of fighting, created the organization “Black Redistribution”. Their opponents, Zhelyabov, Mikhailov, Perovskaya, Figner, advocated terror and the physical elimination of government officials, primarily the tsar. Supporters of terror organized the People's Will. It is the members People's Will“Since 1879, they made five attempts on the life of Alexander II, but only on March 1, 1881 they managed to achieve their goal. This was the end both for Narodnaya Volya itself and for other populist organizations. The leadership of "Narodnaya Volya" in in full force was arrested and executed by court order. More than 10 thousand people were brought to trial for the murder of the emperor. Populism never recovered from such a defeat. In addition, peasant socialism as an ideology had exhausted itself by the beginning of the 20th century - the peasant community ceased to exist. It was replaced by commodity-money relations. Capitalism developed rapidly in Russia, penetrating ever deeper into all spheres of social life. And just as capitalism replaced the peasant community, so social democracy replaced populism.

Social Democrats. Marxists.
With the defeat of the populist organizations and the collapse of their ideology, the revolutionary field of socio-political thought was not left empty. In the 1880s, Russia became acquainted with the teachings of K. Marx and the ideas of the Social Democrats. The first Russian social democratic organization was the Liberation of Labor group. It was created in 1883 in Geneva by members of the Black Redistribution organization who emigrated there. The Liberation of Labor group is credited with translating the works of K. Marx and F. Engels into Russian, which allowed their teaching to quickly spread in Russia. The basis of the ideology of Marxism was set out back in 1848 in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” and by the end of the century it had not changed: at the forefront of the struggle for the reorganization of society was new class- hired workers at industrial enterprises - the proletariat. It is the proletariat that will carry out the socialist revolution as an inevitable condition for the transition to socialism. Unlike the populists, Marxists understood socialism not as a prototype of a peasant community, but as a natural stage in the development of society following capitalism. Socialism is equal rights to the means of production, democracy and social justice.
Since the beginning of the 1890s, Social Democratic circles have emerged one after another in Russia; Marxism was their ideology. One of these organizations was the Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class, created in St. Petersburg in 1895. Its founders were the future leaders of the RSDLP - V. Lenin and Yu. Martov. The purpose of this organization was to promote Marxism and promote the workers' strike movement. At the beginning of 1897, the organization was liquidated by the authorities. But already in the next year, 1898, at the congress of representatives of social democratic organizations in Minsk, the foundation of the future party was laid, which finally took shape in 1903 at the congress in London in the RSDLP.