In the sociological explanation of the formation of the Russian statehood, the central mechanism is the functioning of the estate system, which, in comparison with the countries of Western Europe, had great specificity in Russia. As you know, estates are large social strata, whose position in society is fixed by law, and the privileges belonging to them are hereditary. The estate system both in the West and in our country took shape, first of all, under the influence of economic relations, but not without the intervention of the state. In Russia, his role was especially great. This remark is important for understanding the relationship between society and the state as a unified system for distributing the duties of various estates in relation to each other and to the state. After all, it was not enough to mechanically unite the lands. This formed only the body of the Russian state, but it was necessary to breathe soul into it - that is, to organize management, create the apparatus of a single state.
As an analysis of the main directions in the development of estate relations and the administrative apparatus shows, both of these lines are closely related to each other. The formation of estates takes place under the continuous influence of the state, and administrative institutions exist insofar as they ensure the functioning of this estate system. As a result, estates and the state seem to be intertwined with each other. It is difficult to distinguish between society and the state.
The Russian state took shape in the form of an estate-representative monarchy, where the main estates are:
feudal aristocracy,
Nobility,
Clergy,
Peasantry and townspeople (townspeople).
An isolated study of the history of individual estates does not allow us to reveal the mechanism of the functioning of society as a whole. Its understanding is possible only in the course of a systematic consideration of the place and role of various estates in connection with the social functions they perform.
During the formation of the Russian centralized state and its subsequent development, there were special prerequisites for the legislative consolidation of a specific system of class organization of society. The main one is related to the need for the speedy mobilization of economic and human resources in extreme conditions of economic disunity of regions, poor development of commodity-money relations, dispersed population in the face of constant struggle with external danger.
As a result, a special service system was created, a special type of statehood - a service state, where each estate pulled its own "tax" (a certain range of duties). The core of the organization is
set conditional land ownership - the provision of land (with peasants living on it) to service people - landowners subject to their military and civil service. So formed local system-theme, the main advantage of which was that the state could always have significant military forces without spending any money on their maintenance. The conditionality of such landownership consisted in the fact that, in principle, it was not hereditary and even lifelong, depending solely on the very fact of serving the state. The landowner not only had to go to work himself, but also bring with him a certain number of peasants with the appropriate equipment - "horse, crowded, and armed." As a system, land-ownership took shape by the end of the 15th century, when the government of Ivan III, and then Vasily III, introduced a significant array of new lands into local distribution. Already by the middle of the XVI century. the estate became the most common type of land ownership in the central counties. For the state, the local system was an important control and economic institution: not having a sufficient number of local officials, the government relied on landowners.
The whole logic of the development of the service state and the local system led to the gradual assignment to the estate of certain functions and the duties and rights associated with them. The general trend in the development of the bureaucracy was that the nobility was increasingly becoming a closed privileged class, the economic basis for the consolidation of which was the ownership of land and peasants.
Enslavement of the peasants. The reverse side of the process of consolidation of the ruling class and the strengthening of its economic power was the enslavement of the peasants, which was consistently carried out by the state from the end of the 15th century. and finally completed legally in the Code of 1649. The starting point of this process was the restriction of the right of peasants to transfer from one landowner to another. Sudebnik 1497 for the first time introduced a time limit for this transition - a week before and a week after St. George's day(November 26, old style). The Sudebnik of 1550 did not significantly change this situation, specifying only the amount that the peasant paid to the former owner for leaving him, the so-called "old", which made it possible for wealthy landowners to lure peasants to their place. In the future, the transition was completely canceled, and the peasants were left with only one illegal way to gain freedom - flight. The state, in turn, by a number of legal acts increased the period of possible investigation of fugitive peasants, and also improved the system of
Search. Finally, The Code of 1649 made the investigation indefinite, what does it mean-
lo completion of the process of enslavement of the peasantry.
True, it should be noted that the feudal system was never comprehensive. Serfdom did not cover the entire village.
Historian V.I. Semevsky, a connoisseur of Russia and especially agrarian history, cites the following data: the peak of the consolidation of the peasants was in the Petrine era, when the share of serfs in the total mass was 70%, subsequently it sharply decreases and by 1859 is only 46% (approximately 22 million peasants). At the same time, the share of legally free (according to the status of state) peasants is 45% /17, p.12/. These are tenants of state land.
The severity of serfdom was largely relieved by the peasant community. It was a kind of buffer between the state and the individual. In the community, the peasant retained a certain independence, his own will. It was limited by the collective of the community, but also protected by the same collective before the state. Interestingly, in the history of peasant unrest, it was not the serfs who were the carriers of rebellious moods, but most often the Cossacks. Traditionally, at all times, the authorities did not touch the community, and even often supported the latter in disputes between the landowners and the communities, demonstrating a certain flexibility.
Thus, all the main classes had strictly defined duties in relation to the state. The increasing regulation of all aspects of public life resulted in the strengthening of the role of the state and its administrative apparatus.
§ 2. Centralization of power through terror and the birth of autocracy*
Ivan IV - the first Russian tsar. At the turn of the XV-XVI centuries in the interior
Russia's early and foreign policy tied those knots that had to be unraveled throughout the 16th century. This:
Fight against the remnants of feudal decentralization;
Creation of the united state apparatus;
Expansion of the territory due to the weakened eastern and Baltic neighbors.
The successors of Ivan III and Vasily III were faced with the task of strengthening the state. But after the death of Vasily III, that is, from 1533, the centralization of the united Russian lands moved slowly and indecisively, the boyar groups of the Shuiskys, Belskys and Glinskys spent their strength on the struggle for power under the young Ivan IV (1530-1584). At the same time, the general weakness of state power caused significant popular unrest in Moscow, Ustyug, and Pskov. Hopes for the resolution of contradictions were associated with the beginning of the independent reign of Ivan IV.
* Autocracy (from Greek - autocracy, autocracy) - a form of government with unlimited uncontrolled sovereignty of one person (despots of the Ancient East, empires of Rome, Byzantium, absolute monarchies of the new time, fascist-type regimes).
What can be said about Ivan's personality? During the troubles that took place in his early childhood, the youth-sovereign received the most bad education. He had a highly nervous character and an extremely impressionable imagination. From a young age, he was taught that he was born by a higher being, that there is no one more powerful than him in the world. And at the same time, Ivan was constantly made to feel his powerlessness and humiliation. “I remember,” he later wrote, “that Prince Ivan Shuisky (the head of the government in 1538-1540, after the enemies poisoned Ivan’s mother Elena Glinskaya) treated me and brother Yuri like slaves. We had no will in clothes or food.”
Annoying the teenager with such actions, the boyars at the same time instilled in him the most bad habits: little Ivan amused himself by throwing cats off the roofs, and later he trampled and beat people, for which his guardians and saints praised him, saying: “It will be brave king." This is how the character of the future sovereign was formed. Childhood largely explains the subsequent behavior of Ivan IV. January 16, 1547 Ivan was married to the kingdom and took the title of king. On February 3, 1547, the tsar chose Anastasia, the 16-year-old daughter of the deceased okolnichii ∗ Roman Yuryevich Zakharyin, as his wife. The marriage did not change the character of the king, he continued a violent, disorderly life. Everything was run by his relatives, the Glinskys, their governors were sitting everywhere, there was no justice, arbitrariness and violence reigned everywhere.
In June 1547, a severe fire broke out in Moscow and almost the entire city burned down. Then the boyars, who hated the Glinskys (brother of the Empress Grigory, Prince F. Skopin-Shuisky, F. Nagoi, etc.), spread among the Muscovites who were in distress, without bread and shelter, the rumor that the Glinskys were the perpetrators of the fire. (Elena's brothers). It was not difficult to convince the people of this, since the Glinskys were not loved.
At a critical moment, when the crowd poured into Vorobyevo (the tsar’s suburban village) in search of victims, the priest Sylvester appeared before Ivan, confused and overwhelmed, (little is known about him from sources before these events). Sylvester inspired Ivan that the cause of all misfortunes is the vices of the king. To top it all off, Sylvester struck the cowardly Ivan with "miracles and signs." “I don’t know,” Prince A.M. later wrote. Kurbsky, - were they true miracles. Maybe the priest invented it to horrify the stupidity and childish disposition of the king. Ivan began to repent, wept and made a promise from then on to obey his mentor (Sylvester) in everything. The crowd was dispersed by gunfire.
Since then, the king was under the tutelage of Sylvester and at the same time became close to A.F. Adashev, one of the young men already known to the tsar. A.F. Adashev was a man of great intelligence and honesty. He
∗ Chin in the Boyar Duma
and Sylvester picked up a circle of people who, more than others, were distinguished by state thinking. These were the princes A.M. Kurbsky, Odoevsky, Vorotynsky, Sheremetevs and others. The state began to be controlled by a circle of favorites, which A.M. Kurbsky calls "The Chosen Rada". Without co-broadcasting with these people, Ivan did not take any serious steps.
Elected Rada was not limited exclusively to the circle of boyars and the time workers, she called for the assistance of the whole people. In 1549, the first Zemsky Sobor was convened - an advisory body in which various estates were represented: the aristocracy, service people, and the clergy. In the old days there were veche in separate lands, and this was a kind of veche of all Russian lands, veche of vech.
The relations of the state with the institutions of social control, such as class-representative institutions - Zemsky Sobors, the church, the Boyar Duma, should be considered in the context of the above-mentioned increasing regulation of all aspects of society and the strengthening of the role of the state. In comparison with similar representative institutions in the West - the Parliament in England, the States General in France and the Netherlands, the Reichstag and the Landtag in Germany, the Riksdag in the Scandinavian countries, the Cortes in Spain, the Sejm in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Zemsky Sobors in Russia played a less significant role. role, arose in a later period (they took shape in the 16th century and lost their significance by the 18th century). In the XVI-XVII centuries. they were usually convened in conditions of economic difficulties, wars, or to make responsible political decisions when the government needed support from the wider population. The period of the greatest prosperity of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia falls on the first half of the 17th century, when Zemsky Sobors were convened especially often. The right to convene them belonged to the government, and the decisions adopted by the Zemsky Sobor were not binding on the autocratic government. Therefore, about the estate-representative monarchy in Russia in the 16th - 17th centuries. one can speak only from a formal-legal point of view.
Reforms of the Chosen Rada. With the convening of the Zemsky Sobor in 1549, a decade of reforms began, which were inspired by the Chosen Rada, Prince A.M. Kurbsky, nobleman A.F. Adashev, Metropolitan Makari, Archpriest Sylvester. In 1550, a new all-Russian Sudebnik was adopted, which contributed to the strengthening of centralized power. The old one, adopted back in 1497 under Ivan III, was not only outdated, but apparently forgotten. The Code of Laws of 1550 was much better systematized, took into account judicial practice, and many articles were edited. For the first time, punishments were established for bribe-takers from clerks to boyars.
As a result of the reforms, a permanent archery army was created, and special bodies of state executive power arose - orders.
Orders(until the mid-1560s they were called "huts") - these are the central bodies of state administration. The role of the state in the mobilization of resources, the organization of the estate system, troops and administration made it necessary to have a large administrative apparatus, its constant improvement, associated with the expansion of functions and increased centralization. The main direction of improving the administrative apparatus was its gradual adaptation to new tasks as they arose. This explains the mechanical growth in the number of orders, giving them new, previously uncharacteristic functions, the widespread practice of creating temporary orders as the need arises for them. It is known that the prikaz system evolved spontaneously, gradually growing out of the archaic institutions of the grand duke's court as the centralized state took shape and developed. Already in this origin of the order system, a fundamental flaw was laid - a mixture of the functions of institutions, their competence and jurisdiction. And in the future, the order system developed along the lines that were initially outlined. By the end of the XVII century. the total number of orders has already exceeded 80-90, of which there were about 40 permanent ones.
The most important were the orders with national competence, which included the Discharge, Local Order, Yamskoy, Monastyrsky, Stone Affairs and the Secret Order. The discharge order had within its competence the management of service people, their appointment for service, the appointment of land (local) and monetary salaries, and was also in charge of their accounting. The local order ensured the functioning of the local system - he was directly in charge of the actual distribution of land (with peasant households) among service people, and processed all transactions for local lands. The Order of Secret Affairs, led directly by the king, exercised control over the activities of higher state institutions, ambassadors and governors. Diplomatic relations were in charge of the Posolsky Prikaz, military service, in addition to the Razryad, was handled by a number of institutions - Streltsy, Pushkar, Inozemsky, Reitarsky and Cossack Prikaz, which were in charge of the corresponding branches of the military.
The complexity and diversity of the Moscow administrative system, especially when viewed from modern positions, was, however, familiar to the people of that time. This system was distinguished by its stability, it undoubtedly managed to provide domestic and foreign political functions vital for the very existence of the state. How then to explain the abolition of the order system at the beginning of the 18th century? Answer
this question should be sought in the very nature of this system, where administrative activity is regulated more by custom and precedent than by a legal norm, and the practical implementation of power decisions acquires self-sufficient significance. The executive apparatus begins, in essence, to independently determine the acceleration or deceleration of the implementation of certain plans of power. The pace at which a certain policy is pursued, and sometimes even its fate, largely depends on how well it corresponds to the interests of the administration, at least of its highest echelons. When the traditional system realized itself in opposition to Peter's reforms, Peter I had no choice but to carry out a radical administrative reform.
The result of the reforms was the restriction of parochialism - the occupation of higher positions depending on the nobility and official position of the ancestors and the abolition of the feeding system. The feeding system (maintenance of officials at the expense of the local population) in 1556 was replaced by a general state tax, from which service people were paid. However, centralization was just beginning. At the disposal of the state there was still neither a cadre of administrators, nor money to pay salaries for civil service. Therefore, the administration of local power was entrusted to elected representatives of the population, and, so to speak, "on a voluntary basis" - for free. The nobles chose from their midst labial elders, while in counties where there was no private feudal land ownership, black peasants and townspeople also elected zemstvo elders in the suburbs. Tselovalnikov were chosen to help them (those who took the oath kissed the cross) and labial and zemstvo deacons, a kind of secretaries. True, these officials existed before, but their functions were limited. Now, however, representatives of local communities have become full-fledged administrators.
Church. Significant reforms were also carried out in the life of the church, which was also an institution that performed the functions of a kind of social control. If in the West the church in a number of countries represented a significant opposition to secular power, at times even subordinating it to its own interests, then in Russia the situation was different. The Orthodox Church, which adopted Byzantine traditions in this regard, did not act as a serious competitor to secular power, but supported centralization.
Church reforms were driven by the task of centralization. The point is that during the period of feudal fragmentation, each principality had its own, “locally venerated” saints. In 1549, the church council conducted the canonization of the “new wonderworkers”: local saints became all-Russian, and a single pantheon of saints was created for the whole country. In 1551 a new church council took place. The book of his decisions contains 100 chapters, which is why the cathedral itself is usually called hundred-domed. His tasks
there was a unification of church rites (gradually minor differences in the order of church services accumulated in different lands) and, most importantly, the adoption of measures to improve the morals of the clergy in order to increase their authority. The council sharply condemned the debauchery in the monasteries (there were monasteries where monks and nuns lived together), the drunkenness of the clergy. At the same time, the fathers of the cathedral, remaining realists, did not forbid drinking at all. Only vodka was strictly forbidden, the consumption of wines was limited to three bowls (although no one ever counted them). Thus, church reforms were also aimed at strengthening the state.
Boyar Duma.Along with the Zemsky Sobors and the church as an institution that in a certain way limited the monarchical power, historians sometimes consider the Boyar Duma. Indeed, in the political system of the Moscow State, the Duma should be recognized as the main institution, the evolution of which to a large extent reflects the entire dynamics of the process of centralization of power and administration. This is explained by the fact that its members constituted the top of the class pyramid of the Muscovite state. The entire ruling class of Russia in the pre-Petrine period was a hierarchy of ranks, the top of which was the so-called Sovereign's court. It was a corporate class organization of the ruling class, more precisely, its upper strata, which were directly involved in management. The sovereign's court develops into an independent institution of the socio-political structure of the ruling class around the end of the 15th century, develops and becomes more complex in the 16th and 17th centuries. and, finally, it dies off gradually at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries.
The basis of the official division of the Sovereign's court throughout its existence was the nobility, generosity of service people, which was the most important condition for appointment to positions of the appropriate level and consolidation in the system of parochialism. This system has long served as the main mechanism for maintaining power in the hands of the boyar aristocracy and at the same time as a means of regulating relations within the elite. The ruling elite consisted primarily of Duma ranks (members of the Boyar Duma) - boyars, okolnichie, duma, nobles and duma clerks.
In essence, the Boyar Duma performed the functions of an advisory body under the tsar, the activity of which was expressed by the formula - "the sovereign indicated and the boyars were sentenced." In accordance with this, the competence of the Boyar Duma included the most important issues of domestic and foreign policy, control of the administrative and judicial apparatus. The evolution of the Duma as the highest institution of the period under review makes it possible to reveal significant trends in the development of the entire estate system and, above all, the central contradiction of the political system - the boyar aristocracy and autocracy. This struggle runs like a red thread through all political conflicts from the period of formation of the Russian centralization
bathing state until the end of the 17th century, when this contradiction was gradually removed, and the Boyar Duma was in decline.
From this point of view, the desire of the grand ducal authorities to change the original composition of the Boyar Duma (boyars from among the landowning nobility, mainly princely families) becomes more understandable by attracting representatives of the less noble boyars and nobility. Since the time of Ivan III and Vasily III, more and more broad Duma nobles and Duma clerks, who served as the embodiment of the bureaucratic principle, began to participate in the work of the Duma. The course of the struggle can be traced especially clearly in the activities of the Duma during the reign of Ivan IV, when a series of political crises reveals the alignment of forces and groups, primarily the rival boyar families and the nobility. This line of struggle is reflected in the social composition of the Elected Rada, political groupings in the Duma and boyar conspiracies, the policies of Ivan the Terrible at various stages of his reign, the oprichnina, which from this point of view appears as an instrument of state centralization and the struggle for the security of the crown.
Oprichnina (1565-1572). The elected Rada acted decisively, and its reforms, although they did not complete the centralization of the state, went exactly in this direction. But the Chosen Rada, according to Ivan IV, did not act quickly enough, the pace of structural reforms did not suit the tsar. Different concepts of centralization among the king and his advisers became the main reason for the disgrace of Sylvester and A.F. Adasheva.
The break of the king with former associates was provoked by death
that they bewitched his beloved. “And what did you and your wife tell me about?” - asks Ivan A. Kurbsky in a letter. But this was only an external reason. The death of the queen was the pebble whose fall caused a collapse in the mountains. Only cooling to A.F. Adasheva and Sylvester could make the king believe the absurd accusations against them. Enemies of A.F. Adasheva and Sylvester gradually brought the king to the decision to throw off the guardianship of advisers.
The death of Grozny's beloved wife is a reason, but the reason for the gap is precisely in a different understanding of the ways of centralization. Structural transformations cannot be too hasty, as Ivan wanted. In the conditions of Russia in the 16th century, where the prerequisites for centralization had not yet matured, an accelerated movement towards it could only be on the path of terror. After all, the apparatus of power had not yet been formed, especially in the localities. And the newly created central departments - orders - were still operating in the traditions of patriarchy. The path of terror, which Ivan tried to replace the long and difficult work of creating a state apparatus, was unacceptable for the leaders of the Chosen Rada.
Not just two forces collided, but two worldviews. Naturally, the victory remained with the king, and not with his subjects. A real alternative to the oprichnina policy thus existed and was even carried out during the decade - the period of reforms. But in the second half of the XVI century. the choice between the two ways of the country's development, equally determined by the already accumulated traditions, was made in favor of terror. Sylvester was imprisoned in Solovki, two months after being taken into custody, he died of a fever. A.F. Adashev. Prince A.M. Kurbsky fled abroad (to some extent - the first Russian dissident).
Oprichnina is a central event in the history of Russia in the 16th century. Only 7 years out of 51 years spent by Ivan the Terrible on the throne (1565-1572) claimed tens of thousands of human lives. In Stalin's time, we used to count the victims in the millions, but we must take into account that in the 16th century. there was neither such a large population (only 5-7 million people lived in Russia), nor those perfect means of exterminating people that scientific and technological progress brought with it. So in the memory of people, the oprichnina of the 16th century. remained the same symbol of the human meat grinder, as in 1937.
What were the goals of the oprichnina? It was noted above that Tsar Ivan in such a violent way tried to centralize and ensure the security of the crown. But this is not the only point of view. There is no agreement among historians on this issue, but the phenomenon of the oprichnina, like no other, has long attracted the attention of historians and pre-revolutionary ones - N. M. Karamzin, S. M. Solovyov, V. O. Klyuchevsky, S. F. Platonov, and modern - S. B. Veselovsky, A. A. Zimin, R. G. Skrynnikov, L.N. Alshitz. The actual events of the oprichnina are described by them in great detail in a number of capital works. We will note those points that are directly related to the problem under consideration.
S. M. Solovyov considered the activities of Grozny as a step forward, towards the victory of "state principles." True, the great scientist condemned his cruelty. The followers of S.M. Solovyov abandoned moral assessments as extrascientific. An outstanding historian of the late XIX - first half of the XX centuries. S. F. Platonov in the 1920s formulated the idea that the oprichnina is a system of measures aimed at eliminating the boyars and boyar land ownership as the main brake on the path to centralization. The head of Marxist historians M.N. Pokrovsky, having fallen under the influence of S.F. Platonov, considered the oprichnina, almost as a noble revolution.
The approval of the Platonic concept in Soviet historical science was facilitated not only by its harmony and the authority of a scientist, but also by extra-scientific, political factors. I.V. liked the personality of Ivan the Terrible. Stalin was given an unspoken command to justify the terror of Grozny as a state necessity. From the beginning of the 1940s Ivan IV was already regarded as an outstanding statesman.
Unlike S.M. Solovyova, S.F. Platonov and M.N. Pokrovsky, V.O. Klyuchevsky considered the oprichnina not only unjustified, but also a senseless system of measures that caused great harm to the state. Student V.O. Klyuchevsky S.B. Veselovsky, historian-researcher of the 15th-16th centuries. Russia, in the 1940s. defended the point of view of V.O. Klyuchevsky and did not compromise with his conscience, for which he was persecuted in the press (1949).
After the XX Congress of the CPSU, which condemned the cult of I.V. Stalin, a revision of the attitude towards Ivan the Terrible began. One of the pioneers of new approaches to the study of the history of Russia in the 16th century. became A.A. Zimin. In the book “Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible” (1964), he gives the following definition: “Oprichnina
This is a policy directed against decentralization, feudal fragmentation, the separatism of Novgorod, and the independence of the Russian Church.” At the same time, of course, A.A. Zimin noted that the oprichnina was accompanied by unjustified cruelty, created a crisis in the economy, and gave rise to troubled times. R.G. Skrynnikov, in the popular book Ivan the Terrible, tried to combine two points of view on the oprichnina, to reconcile V.O. Klyuchevsky and S.F. Platonov. According to R.G. Skrynnikov, the oprichnina had two stages. The first is a completely conscious policy aimed at eliminating feudal land ownership (in the first 1.5 years), the second stage is senseless actions when the oprichnina began to draw more and more layers into the conflict - nobles, merchants. The oprichnina club began to deliver senseless blows to the left and right, and Ivan was forced to stop the oprichnina.
Leningrad professor D.N. Alshitz considers the oprichnina as a kind of policy of the autocracy throughout its existence, not limited to certain chronological frames. This idea is not so much historical as journalistic, although there is a certain reason for this: oprichnina is a system of measures to strengthen autocracy, the dictatorship of personal power. Finally, L.N. Gumilyov considered the attempts of historians of the 20th century to be fruitless in general. find some social meaning in the phenomenon of the oprichnina, believing that it was the policy of a madman.
In the historical literature there is no more vivid and vivid description of the oprichnina than that given by V.O. Klyuchevsky. Here it is: “It was some kind of order of hermits, like monks who renounced the earth and fought with the earth, as monks struggle with the temptations of the world. The very admission to the op-rich squad was arranged with either monastic or conspiratorial solemnity. Prince Kurbsky writes that the tsar gathered “bad people” from all over the Russian land and obliged them with terrible oaths not to know not only friends and brothers, but also with their parents, but to serve only him and on this he forced them to kiss the cross ... Thus arose among densely forested oprichnina capital with a palace surrounded by a moat and a rampart, with outposts along the roads. In this lair, the tsar made a wild parody of the monastery, covered these full-time robbers with monastic skullcaps, black cassocks, composed a charter for them, himself with the princes
in the morning he climbed the bell tower to ring for matins, in church he read and sang on the kliros and made such prostrations to the earth that bruises did not leave his forehead .., after dinner he liked to talk about the law, dozed or went to the dungeon to be present at the torture suspected."
Ivan the Terrible looked at the oprichnina he established as his private property, a special court or inheritance that he singled out from the state. Thus, the tsar literally cut the country into two parts - the land (zemshchina) and the oprichnina - each with its own government, with its own capital, with its own treasury and with its own army. Zemshchina was like a foreign conquered country, betrayed to the arbitrariness of the conquerors - guardsmen.
The political phenomenon of the oprichnina. The ugly part of Russia
ruled, as before, by the aristocratic Boyar Duma and its administrative apparatus, was, however, completely excluded from participation in political decisions and turned out to be, as it were, an absolutist island in the ocean of the surrounding oprichnina. Absolutist because the hidden restrictions of power continued to operate on the territory of the zemshchina (until the guardsmen invaded there), while they ceased to exist on the territory of the oprichnina. And in this - in the destruction of any restrictions on power - was, according to the historian A. Yanov, the meaning of the oprichnina as a political phenomenon. For from 1565 to 1572. oprichnina was a form of coexistence in one country of absolutism and despotism. From this point of view, the oprichnina was an attempt to turn the absolutist political structure into despotism, copied from the Byzantine and Tatar-Turkish models. When two powerful cultural traditions, European and Tatar, clashed and intertwined with each other in the heart of one country, the result was the collapse of Russian absolutism and the creation of autocracy.
The division of the country into zemshchina and oprichnina was necessary so that as a result of it a kind of laboratory model of total power was created, a model that required the abolition of all restrictions on power.
What are the results of the oprichnina? Has this policy achieved the goals mentioned above?
The oprichnina did not change the structure of feudal land ownership (that is, boyar land ownership was not destroyed). The personal, but not the social composition of the landowners has changed. At the same time, the opposition to Ivan IV, the power of the old, well-born boyars, was destroyed. The execution of Prince V.A. Staritsky and his family (no matter how heinous a crime it may be) led to the destruction of the last real appanage principality in Russia. The deposition of Metropolitan Philip (he tried to reason with Ivan in his letters, which the tsar disparagingly called “filthy letters”) turned out to be a step towards transforming the church from a
yuznitsy power in her maid. The barbarian pogrom of Novgorod buried the features of the political system of this city, rooted in the period of feudal fragmentation. It was to this extent that the oprichnina contributed to centralization and was objectively directed against the remnants of feudal fragmentation. Not thick, right? Now other consequences of the oprichnina are tragic for the country.
The nearest. A severe economic crisis. The country seemed to have survived the enemy invasion. More than half, and even up to 90 percent of the land remained uncultivated. Under these conditions, the peasant economy lost stability, the very first crop failure led to famine.
Remote. They left a lasting imprint on national history. Oprichnina approved the regime of personal power in Russia. The Russian autocracy owes much of its despotic character to the oprichnina - forced centralization without sufficient economic and social prerequisites.
Oprichnina also contributed to the establishment of serfdom in Russia. The first serfdom decrees of the early 1580s, which forbade peasants to legally change their owner at least once a year, were provoked by economic ruin. On the other hand, without a terrorist dictatorship, perhaps it would not have been possible to drive the peasants into the yoke of serfdom.
Oprichnina had a negative impact on national history. But did everything depend on Ivan the Terrible? The evil will of one person cannot turn history into a completely different path (although outwardly it may look like that). So, the oprichnina had some roots. Which?
The capitalists are disappearing. There are changes in the social composition of the working class. Before the revolution, the working class consisted of 1.5 to 3 million people. For the most part, they were unskilled. At the beginning of the 1930s, qualifications were also low. There were not enough workers, an organizational recruitment was made in the villages. They were first sent to construction (the lowest qualification). But the working class as a whole was very young.
Before the revolution, the stratification of the peasantry was very sharp. After the revolution, the percentage of different strata in the villages changed. The kulaks began to occupy only 3% of the total mass. During the transition to complete collectivization, the question arose of liquidating the kulaks as a class, an exploiter. To do this, it was necessary to determine the parameters of the fist. In 1927, the People's Commissariat of Justice turned to the Central Statistical Office. From there came the answer that there are no such parameters, depending on the area of residence. However, common options have been highlighted.
1) The presence of laborers on the farm.
2) Availability of quasi-industrial enterprises (oil churns) in the property.
3) The presence of shops.
4) Usury (kulaks and world eaters).
Back in 1925, two categories were distinguished: those who were hated by the whole village (they were given loans at interest, working off, etc.), and those who were obsessed with work (they spent the extra penny on themselves). There were also two categories of poor people (up to 20% of the total): idlers (drunkards) and poor people by coincidence (for example, one daughter in the family, separated from the peasant household).
The question arises of collectivization and dispossession (seizure of the means of production from the kulaks). This prospect was received in two ways. But before the mass collectivization in 1928, a demonstrative action was held: in Ukraine, the land was cultivated with tractors for free. The collective farm is not a state farm for you. To enter the collective farm, an entrance fee was required. Such was the dispossessed house of a neighbor in the village. The state has allies. Also, the confiscated property formed the basis of the material base for the creation of collective farms, because the equipment came only after 2 years to the collective farms.
To determine the fate of the kulaks, "troikas" of the UGPU were created. It included the head of the executive committee, a representative of the district executive committee and a representative of the local UGPU. A list of kulaks was presented, which were approved by the district executive committee and the UGPU. The kulaks were divided into three groups. The first were those who spoke with weapons in their hands. The second group included family members of the first group and those who were sharply against collectivization. The third included just fists. The areas of resettlement and eviction were established by order of the UGPU. To a large extent, who led the district played a role. The first group of kulaks were to be shot or sent to camps. The second group was subject to eviction to remote areas of Siberia and the Urals. The third group, as a rule, moved within the given area. Fists were used in the construction of iron works, the construction of collective farms, in Kazakhstan in open-pit coal mining. Persons over 60 years of age, pregnant women, children under 14 years of age were not subject to resettlement if there were relatives in their place of permanent residence who agreed to keep them. Settlers were allowed to take clothes and tools. During resettlement quite often (as a rule) these norms were not observed. The peasants were not given the opportunity to give property, the requirements for the resettled were not observed. The number of migrants increased.
The plan was given for 5% of the resettled, according to it food was given out. But the number of people resettled was 2 times higher, so the daily food ration decreased. Thus, the death rate of the settlers was very high. Simultaneously with the resettlement of the kulaks, the cities were cleared of petty criminals who fell from the same echelons with the settlers, which undoubtedly sharply worsened conditions. Fists taught the status of a special settler. They were deprived of all political rights and the right to travel outside the given area.
However, quite soon, after collectivization, the situation improved. Already in 1933, a decision was made to remove the status of special settlers from the resettled kulaks. But if special settlers came to the cities, they usually settled there and lived quietly. But when they returned to the village, they began to muddy the waters there. They also left the resettled places. Stalin, after the report, decided to return the status of special settlers. But in 1936 this status was removed by the new constitution.
During dispossession, according to the UGPU, 1,630 thousand peasants were dispossessed and resettled.
Detailed solution paragraph § 23 on history for students of grade 9, authors Arsentiev N.M., Danilov A.A., Levandovsky A.A. 2016
Question for paragraph 1. List the main government actions taken in the economic sphere. Give an assessment of the activities of I. A. Vyshnegradsky, N. Kh. Bunge, S. Yu. Witte.
All three ministers strengthened the country's economy as a whole and its industry in particular, strengthened its position in international markets and the purchasing power of the ruble.
Among the economic measures, the most important were:
Decreasing taxes in areas related to entrepreneurship in order to stimulate it, while raising taxes in some others;
Playing with treasury funds on foreign exchanges;
Direct stimulation of industry (including railway construction);
Stabilization of the ruble and the introduction of its gold standard.
Question for paragraph 2. What new features appeared in the 1880s. in the development of agriculture? What hindered its development?
New Traits:
New specialization of some regions of the country;
The transition to the capitalist mode of management with the hiring of workers and the purchase of new equipment (however, such innovations were far from being in all farms, such farms prevailed only in some provinces, in the majority the former labor-labor system dominated).
Slowed down development:
The fear of many landowners, despite the presence of large farms, to conduct business in a new way using agricultural machinery;
The relative high cost of new equipment, a significant part of which had to be brought from abroad;
Preservation of the labor system in many farms (the peasants, as under serfdom, worked on the master's field with their inventory);
The poverty of the bulk of the peasants, who did not even have money for fertilizers, especially for agricultural machinery;
Preservation of the rural community, which did not allow individual enterprising peasants to get rich.
Question for paragraph 3. Name the new social groups that appeared in Russian society in the second half of the 19th century. What factors were associated with their appearance?
The industrial revolution led, as in other countries, to the emergence of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat and the intelligentsia.
Question for paragraph 4. How did the position of the nobility change during the 1870s-1890s?
The role of the nobility in society was greatly reduced; it no longer constituted the majority either among officers or among officials. At the same time, a large number of people received hereditary nobility, which led to the erosion of the estate. Economically, individual nobles were able to farm in a new way. It was they who provided the main supplies of grain both to the cities and for export. Some others have invested in industry through joint-stock companies or otherwise. However, most of the nobles continued to grow poor, mortgage or even sell their estates. Thus, among the highest dignitaries, major financiers and other masters of life, there were still many nobles, but the class as a whole was poor and its importance was falling.
Question for paragraph 5. What strata of the population formed the Russian bourgeoisie? Why do you think there were people among the bourgeoisie who sympathized with the revolutionaries?
Basically, the bourgeoisie consisted of former merchants who, even before the reform, were accustomed to working for profit. Among its representatives there were many nobles who managed to properly invest their capital, as well as officials who initially provided administrative assistance to the business, and then turned out to be among its owners. But the peasants-Old Believers also became bourgeois, who, apparently, were helped by a community of fellow believers. There were both former Nikononian peasants and philistines among the bourgeoisie. That is, this class consisted of representatives of all classes, but in unequal proportions.
It does not appear that the big industrialists helped the revolutionaries because of their social background. Rather, they wanted to influence the government in this way. The most characteristic example is the Moscow bourgeois environment, which mainly consisted of former merchants. Before the reforms, Moscow merchants controlled a significant part of the domestic Russian market. But the development of the economy gradually produced their competitors in the regions. They hoped for greater government conservatism in the financial sphere, which, as before the reform, meant securing privileges for the richest and preventing smaller producers. And the upsurge of the revolutionary movement could have provoked such greater conservatism.
Question for paragraph 6. Name the features of the Russian proletariat. What facts testify to the influence of village life on the work of industrial enterprises?
Peculiarities:
Significant concentration of the proletariat in large enterprises;
Close ties between the proletariat and the countryside;
Frequent combination of working and agricultural activities (about half of the proletariat);
The multinationality of the proletariat.
We think, compare, reflect: question number 1. Why do you think the key economic positions in the government of Alexander III were occupied by reformers, while in domestic politics preference was given to conservative figures?
During the reign of Alexander II, statesmen were convinced that economic reforms were not possible without political ones, therefore they were carried out in a complex. Thus, the legislative foundations for the formation of capitalist relations and the completion of the industrial revolution were laid. Under Alexander III, the economy could already develop independently of politics, provided that the results of certain reforms, such as the abolition of serfdom, were inviolable.
Alexander III understood this. He also understood that liberal measures in the economy lead to an increase in government revenues. And the increase in state revenues increases the power of the state as a whole and the army in particular, because, as the ancient Greek historian Thucydides wrote: “In war, the main thing is not weapons, but money.” Therefore, the tsar was ready to put up with liberalism in the economy, as long as it did not affect the inviolability of the autocracy. At the same time, in the domestic policy, the inviolability of the autocracy, according to the ruler, could only be strengthened by conservatism, especially since at that stage it did not interfere with liberalism in the economy, which means an increase in state revenues. Alexander III did not pay attention to such labels as a liberal or a conservative, he selected people whose activities he considered useful for Russia.
We think, compare, reflect: question number 2. Compare the economic programs of N. Kh. Bunge, I. A. Vyshnegradskii, and S. Yu. Witte. What measures did each of them propose to boost the national economy?
N.Kh. Bunge was a classic liberal, convinced that the state should stimulate entrepreneurship and in no case interfere in economic life, even with direct subsidies. He regulated the economy exclusively by tax policy, and again, in the spirit of liberalism, he helped the development of entrepreneurship by lowering taxes. He understood that over time this would result in an increase in government revenues along with the growth of industry. In addition, in order to compensate for the losses of the treasury in the short term, he increased taxes not related to entrepreneurship.
I.A. Vyshnegradsky himself was a major financier. And he managed the state treasury partly like a bank. In particular, he carried out large transactions on foreign exchanges and, thanks to his experience, they turned out to be successful, he actively attracted foreign capital. The minister was concerned about the trade balance, because he increased exports, and also carried out direct stimulation of production so that the country had something to export. Thanks to all these measures, not only government revenues increased, but also the purchasing power of the ruble: Vyshnegradsky aspired precisely to this, because a strong ruble in itself increased the revenues of the treasury.
S. Yu. Witte generally continued the policy of his predecessors. He carried out measures of direct stimulation of the economy, especially railway construction. After the death of Alexander III in 1895-1897, he also carried out a monetary reform, introducing the famous gold rubles and the free exchange of paper money for precious metals.
We think, compare, reflect: question number 3. Do you agree with the statement that any nobleman, philistine or even peasant could become a representative of the bourgeoisie, but not any representative of the bourgeoisie could become a landowner or an intellectual? Explain your answer.
We cannot fully agree with this statement, it is only partly true. Among the bourgeoisie, indeed, there were representatives of all classes and a nobleman, for example, could well become an industrialist with the right investment of capital, but the same peasants, as a rule, passed this path not in one, but in several generations.
On the other hand, a representative of the bourgeoisie could become both a landowner and an intellectual, another thing is that he usually did not need this. The capitals of large industrialists completely allowed them to buy land, and sometimes hereditary nobility was also given for economic activity (in fact, they bought it). But all this was rarely done, because such financial expenses did not actually bring advantages - the bourgeois had a luxurious life without a noble rank, this title no longer gave significant advantages. In order to become an intellectual, education was required. The bourgeois could get it or supplement it. It is known that knowledge is absorbed worse with age, but in history there are examples of great scientists who came to science after 30 and even later (the same Ignaty Domeiko). However, education did not give a guarantee of work, therefore they were in no hurry to exchange their own entrepreneurial business for such a comparative chance to join intellectual labor.
We think, compare, reflect: question number 4. Compare the levels of economic development of the advanced countries of Western Europe, Russia, Asian countries by the end of the 19th century. How did the development of the economy affect the standard of living of the population?
The advanced countries of Western Europe, such as Great Britain and Germany, were at the forefront of progress. Thus, all spheres of industry actively developed, and active export of capital began (especially in the case of Great Britain). The development of industry led to urbanization and a significant improvement in the standard of living of the city dwellers (who gradually began to dominate the population of developed countries) due to technical innovations, such as running water, central heating, sewerage, electrification of houses, public transport, mass vaccination, etc.
Russia lagged behind them. Not all industries developed actively. The majority of the population remained rural, in addition, the poor and its impoverishment continued. However, Russia lagged behind only the advanced countries of Europe. In France, in the second half of the 19th century, the number of townspeople was approximately equal to the number of rural residents. And the comparison, for example, with Spain, Russia won.
Most Asian countries were colonies. Its own industry developed poorly there, while the influx of manufactured goods from Europe led to the decline of traditional industries. The conversion of agriculture to cash crops and the desire of the landowners to obtain maximum profit increased exploitation. All this led to a decrease in the standard of living of the population.
But among the Asian countries, the most advanced of them, Japan, was an exception. She actively followed the path of modernization, quickly catching up with even the advanced countries of Europe, especially Russia. Tokyo proved its advantage over the latter during the war of 1904-1905.
We think, compare, reflect: question number 5. Make a presentation-journey "Transsib - the road that connected Russia." Pay the main attention to the construction period and the first years of operation.
Title: Transsib - the road that connected Russia
Image: Transsib on the map of Russia
Text: Initially, the road from Vladivostok to Miass (Chelyabinsk region) was called the Great Siberian Way, about 7 thousand kilometers long. Already in Soviet times, it was merged with other roads to Moscow and became the Trans-Siberian Railway with a length of 9288.2 km (the longest in the world).
Image: portrait of Alexander II
Text: Talk about the need to build such a communication route arose from the beginning of the reign of Alexander II, when the railway network in Russia and in the European part was not very well developed. Various route options have been proposed. In 1872-1874, the first surveys were carried out to choose the optimal path, but back in 1885 the government decided that these surveys were not enough.
Image: Groundbreaking ceremony for the Trans-Siberian Railway by Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich in Vladivostok.
Text: Direct construction began only under Alexander III in 1891. It was assumed that 350 million gold rubles would be spent on it, although in the end the costs reached 1.5 billion. The heir to the throne, Nikolai Alexandrovich, opened the construction site, having taken the first wheelbarrow of earth.
Image: portrait of O.P. Vyazemsky
Text: Construction began in Vladivostok. As one would expect from such a large-scale project, construction was going on simultaneously on several sites. First of all, the laying of a route along the Ussuri Territory to Khabarovsk began. The site was erected in 1891-1897 under the guidance of engineer O.P. Vyazemsky.
Image: the first railway bridge across the Ob
Text: In parallel, in 1892-1896, under the leadership of K.Ya. Mikhailovsky, the West Siberian section was built from Chelyabinsk to the Ob. The most significant project here was the first railway bridge across the Ob. It is to him that Novosibirsk owes its appearance, which grew out of a station near it.
Image: Yenisei in its widest course
Text: At the same time (in 1893-1899), under the leadership of N.P. Mezheninov, the construction of the Central Siberian section from the Ob to Irkutsk was going on. Here, construction was hampered by a large number of wide rivers, over which bridges had to be thrown. So the length of the bridge across the Yenisei was 950 meters.
Image: Lake Baikal
Text: In 1895, the construction of sections of the second stage began, starting with the Trans-Baikal (1895-1900) under the leadership of A.N. Pushechnikov. Here the road ceased to be continuous: a train was transported across Lake Baikal for an average of 4 hours on a special ferry.
Image: portrait of S.Yu. Witte
Text: Initially, the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway was not planned, because it was laid outside the borders of the Russian Empire. But in the end, the project was approved at the insistence of the Minister of Finance S. Yu. Witte and implemented in 1897-1904. This road shortened the path to Vladivostok, and most importantly, it made it possible in the future to lay branches to the ports Dalniy and Port Arthur being built on the Kwantung Peninsula rented from China in 1898. The construction of this section clearly demonstrated Russia's plans for this part of China.
Image: railway tunnel
Text: The option of transporting a train by ferry across Baikal was initially considered not the best, but the construction of a road bypassing the lake was associated with great difficulties. As a result, in 1899-1905 these works were carried out under the direction of B.U. Savrimovich. With a path length of only 260 km, 39 tunnels, 47 safety galleries, 14 km of retaining walls, numerous viaducts, breakwaters, bridges and pipes had to be built.
Image: early 20th century train in motion
Text: The movement of trains along the Trans-Siberian Railway began on October 21 (November 3), 1901, after the "golden link" was laid on the last section of the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway. Regular railway communication between the capital of the empire, St. Petersburg, and the Pacific ports of Vladivostok and Port Arthur was established on July 1 (14), 1903.
Image: poster from the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905
Text: As a result of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, there was a threat of losing Chinese-controlled territories, so construction was continued so that the whole way to Vladivostok could be done through the territory of only Russia. Therefore, in 1908, the construction of the Amur section began. As a result, the construction of the entire road was completed in 1916, already at the height of the First World War.
Why did Alexander III actively deal with economic issues?
Why, in the economic sphere, did he entrust things not to conservatives, but to reformers?
What policy did the Ministry of Finance pursue under Alexander III?
What social groups was Russian society divided into? What is the reason for the emergence of new social groups?
What's new in Russian agriculture? What still hindered its development?
How to explain the rapid increase in population in the post-reform countryside? How did it affect the position of the peasants?
What role did the community play in the life of the peasants? What are its pros and cons?
What is the "communal psychology" of the peasantry?
What was the position of the working class?
What were the characteristics of the Russian proletariat?
How did the psychology of the workers differ from the psychology of the peasants?
How has the position of the Russian nobility changed?
Who bought up the lands of the ruined nobles?
What strata of the population formed the Russian bourgeoisie?
Why did representatives of the bourgeoisie sometimes sympathize with the revolutionaries?
What changes took place among the intelligentsia?
What tasks did the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway solve?
What are the main contradictions of the Russian economy in the second half of the 19th century?
Control questions on the topic "Social movement of the 1880s - 1890s":
What are the consequences of the liberals' refusal to open political struggle?
What is the difference between the ideology of social democrats and the ideology of populism? What do they have in common?
Why did Marxists announce their complete break with populism?
What are the reasons for the decline of revolutionary populism in the 1980s and 1990s? 19th century?
What's new in the conservative direction?
Control questions on the topic "Foreign policy of Alexander III":
Why did Alexander III receive the nickname "Peacemaker"?
What is new in the foreign policy activities of Alexander III in comparison with his predecessors?
Describe the main directions of the foreign policy of Alexander III.
Why did Russia play such a significant role in the Balkans? How did its relations with the Balkan states develop?
Why is Alexander III gradually moving away from Russia's traditional policy in the Balkans?
What did Alexander III do to preserve peace in Europe?
What are the reasons for the rapprochement between Russia and France? What was the benefit of such an alliance?
What contradictions in the eastern direction have been resolved and what new ones have come to replace them?
Control questions on the topic "Religious and national policy of Alexander III":
Tell us about the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the state during the reign of Alexander III.
Describe the views and policies of K. P. Pobedonostsev in the national question.
Why was the policy towards the Old Believers softened at the initiative of K. P. Pobedonostsev?
What policy did Alexander III pursue in Poland?
What was the policy of Alexander III towards the Jews?
From the representatives of what social strata were formed at the end of the 19th century. national elites?
Point out the similarities and differences in the national policy of Alexander II and Alexander III.
Control questions on the topic "Achievements of science and education in the second half of the 19th century":
How did the era of the Great Reforms affect the development of Russian culture?
How and why has the average literacy rate changed in Russia?
What was the difference between parochial and zemstvo schools?
As in the 2nd half of the XIX century. developed secondary and higher education in Russia?
What scientific discoveries were made in the second half of the 19th century?
What were geographers and travelers primarily interested in?
Tell us about the works of historians of the 2nd half of the 19th century.
How can one explain the discrepancy between the low level of literacy and the highest scientific achievements?
What, in your opinion, should have been done to make the entire population of the country literate?
CHANGES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM
Economic program of Malenkov. The inefficiency of the existing economic system was obvious even to Stalin's inner circle. Therefore, immediately after the death of the leader, serious changes were made to economic policy. At the suggestion of Beria, the construction of the largest and useless facilities was stopped: the Polar Railway, the Main Turkmen Canal, the Volga-Ural Canal, and others. Appropriations for military needs were significantly reduced. However, after the fall of Beria, all this was blamed on him as a "demagogic game of economy."
In August 1953, Malenkov came up with a new economic program. He stated that in the course of industrialization, the ratio between heavy and light industry has changed - the latter has become predominant. Malenkov urged, relying on the achieved level of heavy industry, to shift the focus to the development of the agricultural sector and light industry, which could in a short time improve the supply of the population with essential goods.
The task was set to increase productivity and strengthen the material interest of the peasants. To this end, the norms of mandatory supplies from the personal subsidiary plots of collective farmers were noticeably reduced. Monetary taxes from peasant farms were halved, and purchase prices for agricultural products were raised three times. Arrears on agricultural tax for the past years were removed.
All this led to the intensification of production.
The collective-farm peasantry accepted the new course with jubilation. The result of this was a sharp increase in the average annual growth rate of agricultural production - up to 7%.
After the removal of Malenkov from business, the reforms he proposed were gradually curtailed.
Khrushchev's agrarian policy. Khrushchev's economic approaches differed markedly from Malenkov's. Khrushchev considered the expansion of sown areas at the expense of virgin and fallow lands to be the main direction in the development of agriculture. This meant the continuation of the traditional - extensive path of development of agriculture.
The development of virgin lands began in the spring of 1954 in the east of the country: in the northern regions of Kazakhstan, in the south of the Urals and Western Siberia, in the Altai Territory. 30,000 party workers, more than 120,000 agricultural specialists, and hundreds of thousands of volunteers were sent here. Through their heroic efforts, 42 million hectares of new lands were developed in the first five years, and the gross grain harvest increased by 1.5 times throughout the country. It amounted to 125 million tons in 1956 against 82.5 million tons in 1953. But the authorities were unable to ensure the storage of this large crop: the grain that did not fit into the elevators was kept in an open field for almost a year, and then poured into ravines.
Soon the collective farms were given the right to amend their charters, taking into account local specifics. Collective farmers began to pay pensions, and then to issue passports. All these measures, without violating the existing system of economic management, included the factor of the peasants' personal interest. This provided a significant increase in agricultural production. For 1953-1958 the increase in agricultural production amounted to 34% compared with 1948-1952.
However, it was precisely these successes that gave Khrushchev confidence in the power of decrees and purely administrative measures. Ideological barriers also had an effect: the growth of the peasants' well-being gave rise to fears of a possible "degeneration" of them into the kulaks. And this was unacceptable in the conditions of "communist construction." A struggle began with the subsidiary plots of collective farmers. This was explained by the fact that in the transition to communism the private economy "loses its significance." The results were not long in coming: the peasants preferred to slaughter livestock and sell it on the market, and cut down fruit trees. Having ceased to produce meat, butter and milk, the peasant himself turned into a buyer. Food shortages again began to be felt in the country, and the government began buying grain from abroad. The lack of economic incentives for peasants to work led to the failure of the seven-year plan (1959-1965) for the development of agriculture. On June 1, 1962, a "temporary" increase in prices for meat (by 30%) and butter (by 25%) was announced. This caused not only mass discontent, but also rallies in a number of cities. The most serious were the events in Novocherkassk, where troops and tanks were used against a demonstration of seven thousand workers.
Industry development. Refusal to shift the center of gravity to the development of light, food industry and agriculture had sad consequences. By the beginning of the 60s. heavy industry enterprises accounted for not 70, but 75% of the total number of industrial facilities.
In 1957, in search of new methods of managing the economy, Khrushchev abolished sectoral ministries in order to eliminate departmental barriers and began the creation of territorial councils of the national economy (sovnarkhozes). This, on the one hand, strengthened the economic rights of local authorities, but on the other hand, it led to the strengthening of localism.
Nevertheless, the results of the fifth and sixth five-year plans were impressive. More than 8,000 large industrial enterprises have been put into operation. Electricity production for 10 years (1950-1960) increased by more than 3 times. Cherepovets, Karaganda, Transcaucasian metallurgical plants were put into operation. By the beginning of the 1960s, compared with 1945, the production of iron and steel increased 5.3 times, rolled products - 6 times, coal production - 3.4 times, oil - 7.6 times.
New industries developed. The production of jet aircraft and engines, helicopters, equipment for nuclear power plants, and computers was launched. The use of semiconductors and ultrasound began.
By the beginning of the 60s. The USSR entered a qualitatively new stage in its development: the economic foundations of an industrial society were created. This manifested itself, in particular, in a change in the structure of the country's economy (now it was not agrarian, as at the beginning of the century, and not industrial-agrarian, as before the war, but industrial); branches of production have emerged that reflect a new level of industrial development (petrochemistry, electric power industry, electrical engineering, production of artificial materials, etc.); in the leading branches of production, manual labor was replaced by machine labor; the ratio of the number of urban and rural population has changed in favor of cities; the rate of economic growth increased significantly (they exceeded the rate of population growth); conditions were created to improve the general educational and cultural and technical level of workers.
Scientific and technological revolution. The most important feature of the economic development of the USSR in the 50s. became a scientific and technological revolution. In 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant was put into operation in Obninsk. Three years later, the nuclear icebreaker "Lenin" was launched. In 1957, the USSR launched the world's first artificial Earth satellite. Regular flights of Soviet spacecraft to the Moon began. On April 12, 1961, Yu. A. Gagarin on the Vostok spacecraft made the first manned flight around the Earth in the history of mankind.
The most important contribution to the creation of space-rocket systems was made by M. V. Keldysh, S. P. Korolev, V. P. Glushko, M. K. Yangel. Major discoveries were made by the Soviet physicists N. N. Bogolyubov, V. I. Veksler, B. M. Pontecorvo, and G. N. Flerov. Physicists N. G. Basov and A. M. Prokhorov began developments in the field of laser technology. However, as before, the achievements of science were used mainly in the military-technical field.
Social politics. Despite all the costs and shortcomings, the economic policy of Stalin's heirs had a pronounced social orientation. Salaries in industry increased from year to year (for 1961-1965 - by 19%). Growing incomes of collective farmers. The retirement age was lowered and the minimum pension was increased. All types of tuition fees were abolished. The working week has been reduced from 48 to 46 hours. Introduced in the 20s were canceled. compulsory government loans.
The most striking social achievement of Soviet society in the 1950s - early 1960s. was a program of large-scale housing construction. For 1955-1964 housing stock in cities increased by 80%. This made it possible for every fourth inhabitant of the country (54 million people) to move from tents and barracks to new apartments. The housing standard itself also changed: families most often received not rooms in a communal apartment, but separate (albeit small) apartments (the so-called "Khrushchevs"). The construction of new schools, hospitals and institutes proceeded at a fast pace. They were equipped with new types of technical equipment.
The production of television sets, refrigerators, and radio receivers has grown significantly.
However, as economic difficulties increased, the tendency of the government to solve emerging problems at the expense of the workers became more and more pronounced. Tariff rates for production were reduced by almost a third, and prices for everyday products increased by 25-30%.
The leadership of the country began to realize more and more clearly that a more radical reform of the economy was needed using methods of economic stimulation.
What you need to know about this topic:
Socio-economic and political development of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Nicholas II.
Domestic policy of tsarism. Nicholas II. Strengthening repression. "Police socialism".
Russo-Japanese War. Reasons, course, results.
Revolution of 1905 - 1907 The nature, driving forces and features of the Russian revolution of 1905-1907. stages of the revolution. The reasons for the defeat and the significance of the revolution.
Elections to the State Duma. I State Duma. The agrarian question in the Duma. Dispersal of the Duma. II State Duma. Coup d'état June 3, 1907
Third June political system. Electoral law June 3, 1907 III State Duma. The alignment of political forces in the Duma. Duma activities. government terror. The decline of the labor movement in 1907-1910
Stolypin agrarian reform.
IV State Duma. Party composition and Duma factions. Duma activity.
The political crisis in Russia on the eve of the war. The labor movement in the summer of 1914 Crisis of the top.
The international position of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.
Beginning of the First World War. Origin and nature of war. Russia's entry into the war. Attitude towards the war of parties and classes.
The course of hostilities. Strategic forces and plans of the parties. Results of the war. The role of the Eastern Front in the First World War.
The Russian economy during the First World War.
Workers' and peasants' movement in 1915-1916. Revolutionary movement in the army and navy. Growing anti-war sentiment. Formation of the bourgeois opposition.
Russian culture of the 19th - early 20th centuries.
Aggravation of socio-political contradictions in the country in January-February 1917. The beginning, prerequisites and nature of the revolution. Uprising in Petrograd. Formation of the Petrograd Soviet. Provisional Committee of the State Duma. Order N I. Formation of the Provisional Government. Abdication of Nicholas II. Causes of dual power and its essence. February coup in Moscow, at the front, in the provinces.
From February to October. The policy of the Provisional Government regarding war and peace, on agrarian, national, labor issues. Relations between the Provisional Government and the Soviets. The arrival of V.I. Lenin in Petrograd.
Political parties (Kadets, Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks): political programs, influence among the masses.
Crises of the Provisional Government. An attempted military coup in the country. Growth of revolutionary sentiment among the masses. Bolshevization of the capital Soviets.
Preparation and conduct of an armed uprising in Petrograd.
II All-Russian Congress of Soviets. Decisions about power, peace, land. Formation of public authorities and management. Composition of the first Soviet government.
The victory of the armed uprising in Moscow. Government agreement with the Left SRs. Elections to the Constituent Assembly, its convocation and dissolution.
The first socio-economic transformations in the field of industry, agriculture, finance, labor and women's issues. Church and State.
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, its terms and significance.
Economic tasks of the Soviet government in the spring of 1918. Aggravation of the food issue. The introduction of food dictatorship. Working squads. Comedy.
The revolt of the left SRs and the collapse of the two-party system in Russia.
First Soviet Constitution.
Causes of intervention and civil war. The course of hostilities. Human and material losses of the period of the civil war and military intervention.
The internal policy of the Soviet leadership during the war. "War Communism". GOELRO plan.
The policy of the new government in relation to culture.
Foreign policy. Treaties with border countries. Participation of Russia in the Genoa, Hague, Moscow and Lausanne conferences. Diplomatic recognition of the USSR by the main capitalist countries.
Domestic policy. Socio-economic and political crisis of the early 20s. Famine of 1921-1922 Transition to a new economic policy. The essence of the NEP. NEP in the field of agriculture, trade, industry. financial reform. Economic recovery. Crises during the NEP and its curtailment.
Projects for the creation of the USSR. I Congress of Soviets of the USSR. The first government and the Constitution of the USSR.
Illness and death of V.I. Lenin. Intraparty struggle. The beginning of the formation of Stalin's regime of power.
Industrialization and collectivization. Development and implementation of the first five-year plans. Socialist competition - purpose, forms, leaders.
Formation and strengthening of the state system of economic management.
The course towards complete collectivization. Dispossession.
Results of industrialization and collectivization.
Political, national-state development in the 30s. Intraparty struggle. political repression. Formation of the nomenklatura as a layer of managers. Stalinist regime and the constitution of the USSR in 1936
Soviet culture in the 20-30s.
Foreign policy of the second half of the 20s - mid-30s.
Domestic policy. The growth of military production. Extraordinary measures in the field of labor legislation. Measures to solve the grain problem. Military establishment. Growth of the Red Army. military reform. Repressions against the command personnel of the Red Army and the Red Army.
Foreign policy. Non-aggression pact and treaty of friendship and borders between the USSR and Germany. The entry of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus into the USSR. Soviet-Finnish war. The inclusion of the Baltic republics and other territories in the USSR.
Periodization of the Great Patriotic War. The initial stage of the war. Turning the country into a military camp. Military defeats 1941-1942 and their reasons. Major military events Capitulation of Nazi Germany. Participation of the USSR in the war with Japan.
Soviet rear during the war.
Deportation of peoples.
Partisan struggle.
Human and material losses during the war.
Creation of the anti-Hitler coalition. Declaration of the United Nations. The problem of the second front. Conferences of the "Big Three". Problems of post-war peace settlement and all-round cooperation. USSR and UN.
Beginning of the Cold War. The contribution of the USSR to the creation of the "socialist camp". CMEA formation.
Domestic policy of the USSR in the mid-1940s - early 1950s. Restoration of the national economy.
Socio-political life. Politics in the field of science and culture. Continued repression. "Leningrad business". Campaign against cosmopolitanism. "Doctors' Case".
Socio-economic development of Soviet society in the mid-50s - the first half of the 60s.
Socio-political development: XX Congress of the CPSU and the condemnation of Stalin's personality cult. Rehabilitation of victims of repressions and deportations. Intra-party struggle in the second half of the 1950s.
Foreign policy: the creation of the ATS. The entry of Soviet troops into Hungary. Exacerbation of Soviet-Chinese relations. The split of the "socialist camp". Soviet-American Relations and the Caribbean Crisis. USSR and third world countries. Reducing the strength of the armed forces of the USSR. Moscow Treaty on the Limitation of Nuclear Tests.
USSR in the mid-60s - the first half of the 80s.
Socio-economic development: economic reform 1965
Growing difficulties of economic development. Decline in the rate of socio-economic growth.
USSR Constitution 1977
Socio-political life of the USSR in the 1970s - early 1980s.
Foreign Policy: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Consolidation of post-war borders in Europe. Moscow treaty with Germany. Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). Soviet-American treaties of the 70s. Soviet-Chinese relations. The entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. Exacerbation of international tension and the USSR. Strengthening of the Soviet-American confrontation in the early 80s.
USSR in 1985-1991
Domestic policy: an attempt to accelerate the socio-economic development of the country. An attempt to reform the political system of Soviet society. Congresses of People's Deputies. Election of the President of the USSR. Multi-party system. Exacerbation of the political crisis.
Exacerbation of the national question. Attempts to reform the national-state structure of the USSR. Declaration on State Sovereignty of the RSFSR. "Novogarevsky process". The collapse of the USSR.
Foreign policy: Soviet-American relations and the problem of disarmament. Treaties with leading capitalist countries. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Changing relations with the countries of the socialist community. Disintegration of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Warsaw Pact.
Russian Federation in 1992-2000
Domestic policy: "Shock therapy" in the economy: price liberalization, stages of privatization of commercial and industrial enterprises. Fall in production. Increased social tension. Growth and slowdown in financial inflation. The aggravation of the struggle between the executive and legislative branches. The dissolution of the Supreme Soviet and the Congress of People's Deputies. October events of 1993. Abolition of local bodies of Soviet power. Elections to the Federal Assembly. The Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 Formation of the presidential republic. Aggravation and overcoming of national conflicts in the North Caucasus.
Parliamentary elections 1995 Presidential elections 1996 Power and opposition. An attempt to return to the course of liberal reforms (spring 1997) and its failure. The financial crisis of August 1998: causes, economic and political consequences. "Second Chechen War". Parliamentary elections in 1999 and early presidential elections in 2000 Foreign policy: Russia in the CIS. The participation of Russian troops in the "hot spots" of the near abroad: Moldova, Georgia, Tajikistan. Russia's relations with foreign countries. The withdrawal of Russian troops from Europe and neighboring countries. Russian-American agreements. Russia and NATO. Russia and the Council of Europe. Yugoslav crises (1999-2000) and Russia's position.
- Danilov A.A., Kosulina L.G. History of the state and peoples of Russia. XX century.
16. Socio-economic development of Russia in the 17th century.
The ways of development of the state after the Time of Troubles were determined by the tasks of restoring the country. The restoration process after the turmoil took about three decades and was completed by the middle of the century.
Territory of Russia in the 17th century. in comparison with the 16th century, it expanded due to the inclusion of new lands of Siberia, the Southern Urals and the Left-Bank Ukraine, and the further development of the Wild Field. The territory of the country was divided into counties, the number of which reached 250. The counties, in turn, were divided into volosts and camps, the center of which was the village. In a number of lands, especially those that were recently included in Russia, the former system of administrative structure was preserved. According to the number of inhabitants, Russia within the borders of the 17th century. ranked fourth among European countries. In the 17th century, the position of Muscovite Russia was in many respects better than that of the European states. The 17th century for Europe is the time of the bloody Thirty Years' War, which brought ruin, famine and extinction to the peoples (the result of the war, for example, in Germany was a reduction in the population from 18 million to 4 million).
Economic development.
In the 17th century the foundation of the country's economy, as before, was agriculture, which had a natural character. The growth of agricultural production was achieved through the development of new lands, that is, extensive way. By the middle of the XVII century. the devastation and ruin of the time of troubles were overcome. And there was something to restore - in 14 districts of the center of the country in the 40s, the plowed land was only 42% of the previously cultivated land, and the number of the peasant population, who fled from the horrors of stagnation, also decreased. The economy recovered slowly in the conditions of preservation of traditional forms of farming, sharply continental climate and low soil fertility in the Non-Black Earth region of the most developed part of the country.
Agriculture remained the leading sector of the economy. The main tools of labor were a plow, a plow, a harrow, a sickle. The three fields prevailed, but the undercut also remained, especially in the north of the country. They sowed rye, oats, wheat, barley, buckwheat, peas, flax and hemp from industrial crops. The yield was sam-3, in the south - sam-4. The economy still had a natural character. Under these conditions, the growth of production volumes was achieved by involving new lands in the economic turnover. Chernozem, Middle Volga, Siberia.
At the same time, the growth of the territory, the differences in natural conditions gave rise to the economic specialization of the regions of the country.
It was with specialization that such an important process in the economy of the period under review as the development of commodity-money relations was associated. Specialization was observed not only in agriculture, but also in crafts. In the 17th century small-scale production is spreading, i.e., the manufacture of products not to order, but to the market. Pomorie specialized in the creation of wooden products, Pskov, Novgorod, Smolensk made linen fabrics, salt production developed in the North, etc.
Thus, the role of the merchants in the life of the country increased. Constantly gathering fairs acquired great importance: Makarievskaya near Nizhny Novgorod, Svenskaya fair in the region of Bryansk, Irbitskaya in Siberia, a fair in Arkhangelsk, etc., where merchants conducted wholesale and retail trade, large for that scale.
Along with the development of domestic trade, foreign trade also grew. Until the middle of the century, foreign merchants, who exported timber, furs, hemp, potash, etc., made huge profits from foreign trade. Suffice it to say that the English fleet was built from Russian timber, and the ropes for its ships were made from Russian hemp. The center of Russian trade with Western Europe was Arkhangelsk. There were English and Dutch trading yards. Close ties were established with the countries of the East through Astrakhan, where the Indian and Persian trading yards were located.
The Russian government supported the growing merchant class. In 1667, the New Trade Charter was issued, which developed the provisions of the Trade Charter of 1653. The New Trade Charter increased duties on foreign goods. Foreign merchants had the right to conduct wholesale trade only in border trading centers.
In the 17th century the exchange of goods between individual regions of the country expanded significantly, which indicated the beginning of the formation of an all-Russian market. The merging of individual lands into a single economic system began. Growing economic ties strengthened the political unity of the country.
On the basis of small-scale production, large enterprises are formed, based on the division of labor and handicraft technology - manufactories. Unlike Western Europe, where the formation of manufactory production took place in the privately owned sector, as capital was accumulated by the owners, in Russia the state initiated the creation of manufactories. In the 17th century in Russia there were approximately 30 manufactories. The first state-owned manufactories arose in the 16th century.
(Pushkarsky yard. Mint). In the 17th century metallurgical plants were built in the Urals and in the Tula region, leather enterprises - in Yaroslavl and Kazan, Khamovny (textile) yard in Moscow.
Usually, the first privately owned manufactory is considered to be the Nitsinsk copper smelter in the Urals, built in 1631.
Since there were no free hands in the country, the state began to assign, and later (1721) allowed to buy peasants for factories. Ascribed peasants had to work out their taxes to the state at a factory or factory at certain rates. The state provided the owners of enterprises with assistance with land, timber, and money. Manufactories founded with the support of the state later received the name "possession" (from the Latin word "possession" - possession).
Social development.
According to Vernadsky, the government needed a very large amount of money to restore the country. To do this, it was necessary to restore the old taxes and introduce a number of new ones.
All estates were obliged to serve the state and differed only in the nature of the duties assigned to them. The population was divided into service and tax people.
At the head of the service class was about a hundred boyar families - the descendants of the former Great and specific princes. They occupied the highest positions in the military and civil administration, but during the 17th century they were gradually pushed back by people from the middle service strata. There was a merger of boyars and nobles into one class of "state service people." In terms of its social and ethnic roots, it was notable for its noticeable diversity: initially, access to public service was open to all free people. As the state organization took shape, the service class became more and more closed.
The ability of the nobles to perform their military duties depended on the security of their estates with labor, on the transfer of peasants from one owner to another. In addition, the spontaneous mass migration of peasants to new lands (Ukraine, the Wild Steppe, Siberia) led to failures in the tax system. The government saw the stabilization of the situation in attaching the peasants to the land, that is, in enslavement 2 . Attachment to the land did not mean the enslavement of the peasants, they were still considered free people and could complain about the oppression of the landlords in court. However, the power of the landowners over the peasants gradually increased. More favorable was the position of the state and palace peasants, who did not obey the landowners.
The rural peasant population consisted of two main categories. The peasants who lived on the lands of estates and estates were called possessory or privately owned. They carried the tax (a set of duties) in favor of the state and their feudal lord. The landowner received the right to speak in court for his peasants, he also had the right to patrimonial court over the population of his estate. The state reserved the right to judge only the most serious crimes. A place close to privately owned peasants was occupied by monastic peasants.
Another large category of the peasant population was the black-haired peasantry. It lived on the outskirts of the country (Pomorsky North, Urals, Siberia, South), united in communities. The black-eared peasants had no right to leave their lands if they did not find a replacement for themselves. They carried the tax in favor of the state. Their position was easier than that of private owners. The Black Lands could be sold, mortgaged, or inherited.
The middle position between the black-eared and privately owned peasants was occupied by the peasants of the palace, who served the economic needs of the royal court. They had self-government and were subordinate to palace clerks.
Attachment to the tax also affected other classes, certain categories of the townspeople were fixed in the field. The nobles in Russia were no more free than the peasants and townspeople; they were bound by the obligation of lifelong service. Each social group in the national structure was assigned a certain place. Using flexible tactics, the central government managed to consolidate the Cossacks in the structure of the state. Moscow recognized the right of the Cossacks to self-government, to own land, and provided them with food, money and weapons. The Cossacks, for their part, pledged to serve on the borders of the Muscovite kingdom.
The influential estate in the 17th century was the clergy, which held a monopoly in the sphere of education, culture, and ideology. The Orthodox understanding of estate duties as a form of religious service led to the fact that the entire population was subject to universal state service: the nobles - personally, and the peasants and townspeople - through taxes on the upkeep of the army. A peculiar system of Russian state serfdom is being created.
In the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, changes were made to the judicial system. The Zemsky Sobor of 1649 developed a new code of laws, called the "Cathedral Code". The most important areas of the Code were the protection of the interests of nobles and townspeople against the background of some restrictions on the privileges of the boyars and the clergy, as well as protectionism in favor of Russian merchants and industrialists. Peasants were legally attached to the land.
Thus, there is a process of consolidation of estates, their social framework is more clearly outlined. The dominant role belonged to the boyars and nobles. Regardless of the form of land ownership, they had to perform military service. There is a convergence of the socio-political position of the nobility and the boyars. The difference between the estate and the estate is reduced to a minimum. A nobleman, even by selling or mortgaging the land to a monastery or a "non-serving person", could pull it back. The nobles owned most of the peasant households (57% according to the 1678 census).
The position of archers, gunners, state blacksmiths (the so-called "servicemen on the instrument") became more difficult. Their salaries were reduced, many of the servicemen were transferred to the category of townspeople and lost their former privileges (for example, the right to purchase land).
The number of townspeople - townspeople - grew. A significant part of the artisans worked for the state. Some artisans served the needs of landowners (patrimonial artisans). According to the Council Code of 1649, only townspeople could engage in craft and trade in the city. They were part of communities and carried various duties, paid taxes, the totality of which was called tax. The "best" people of the township - the merchants - led the township communities, became deputies of Zemsky Sobors, and were in charge of collecting taxes and duties.
The peasant class became more closed. The social strata of serfs and "children" of the monastery disappeared. The legal status of the privately owned peasants was approaching that of the state-owned black-farmed peasants, who were increasingly regarded as serfs.
As a result, by the middle of the 17th century, the ruin of the times of unrest was overcome.
By the second half of the 17th century, the economic situation had changed. The state needed money. Taxes were raised. The government of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich increased indirect taxes. raising in 1646, the price of salt by 4 times. However, the increase in the tax on salt did not lead to the replenishment of the treasury, as the solvency of the population was undermined. The salt tax was abolished in 1647. It was decided to collect arrears for the last three years. n. In 1648 it culminated in an open uprising in Moscow. The uprising in Moscow, called the "salt riot", was not the only one. For twenty years (from 1630 to 1650) uprisings took place in 30 Russian cities: Veliky Ustyug, Novgorod, Voronezh, Kursk, Vladimir, Pskov, Siberian cities.
According to the modern historian A.P. Toroptsev, the state had no other choice but to issue a copper coin into circulation. With this, the state wanted to save up silver to pay salaries to soldiers. This negatively affected the economy. Merchants tried not to take copper money for goods. As a result, there was a depreciation of money. In addition, counterfeiters appeared in Moscow. This led to a whole series of discontent and uprisings. In the summer of 1662, eight copper rubles were given for one silver ruble. The government collected taxes with silver, while the population had to sell and buy products with copper money. Salaries were also paid in copper money. The high cost of bread and other products that arose under these conditions led to famine. Driven to despair, the people of Moscow rose up in revolt.
Thus, by the middle of the 17th century, the state managed to overcome the consequences of the turmoil, but already in the second half of the 17th century, tax increases and exhausting wars waged by Russia exhausted the treasury. To which the state took a number of measures that caused a series of popular discontent.
What changes in the economy and social structure of Russia took place in the 1880s-1890s?
Answer
The industrial revolution ended in the 1880s. The Russian economy grew stronger, the empire became one of the world's largest exporters of raw materials (although, in order to maintain these positions, bread exports, for example, were not reduced even in lean years, often provoking famine in the country).
Such grain exports became possible due to the emergence of large farms, where fertilizers, agricultural machinery and other features of intensive farming were used. Usually they were owned by landlords, or entrepreneurs who bought the land from landowners.
Great changes were taking place in the social sphere. New classes of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia emerged and gained strength. The former estates did not disappear, but were greatly blurred. For example, many new people appeared among the nobles, in addition, the estate as a whole became significantly poorer and lost weight in society. The privileges of the merchants were destroyed by reforms: merchants were allowed to trade, but for entrepreneurial activity it was no longer necessary to belong to this class, merchants were free from recruitment sets, these sets themselves were canceled, and universal military service applied to merchants.
Increased mobility between classes. More and more people moved from the peasantry to the proletariat, although such a transition was still hampered by the preservation of the rural community. The intelligentsia was replenished with people who had received an education, and the bourgeoisie - with amassed capital. They could be from any class. In the officer and civil service, preference began to be given to education and personal qualities, and not to origin, therefore more and more people from the lower classes received high ranks in the armed forces and in the civil administration, and with them the personal nobility.
That is, Russia has completely changed since the time of Nicholas I, although there were more similarities with the reign of Alexander II.
Class: 8
Presentation for the lesson
Back forward
Attention! The slide preview is for informational purposes only and may not represent the full extent of the presentation. If you are interested in this work, please download the full version.
UMC: A.A. Danilov “History of Russia in the 19th century” 8th grade, M., “Enlightenment”, 2010, Workbook “History of Russia 19th century 8th grade” publishing house “Exam”, M.2013
Lesson type: combined
Lesson Objectives:
- educational: To form an idea of the personality of Alexander III, to show that the essence of the domestic policy of Alexander III is the adjustment of the reforms of the previous reign.
- Educational: to promote the formation of such qualities as the ability to listen to someone else's point of view, to form the ability to enter into a dialogue. To continue the formation of the value attitude of students to the moral qualities of outstanding statesmen.
- Educational: to promote the development of analytical thinking in students, to develop the skills of compiling the characteristics of a historical figure.
Formation of UUD
| Regulatory | Communicative | Personal |
| 1. Formation of the ability to set goals in educational activities as the ability to independently set new educational and cognitive goals and objectives. 2. The ability to plan ways to achieve goals based on an independent analysis of the conditions and means to achieve them |
1. Development of the skill of communicative reflection 2. Formation of one's own opinion and position 3. The ability to organize and plan educational cooperation with a teacher, peers, ways of interaction |
1. Formation of a holistic view of the reign of Alexander III 2. Formation of readiness and ability of students for self-development and self-education based on motivation for learning and cognition 3. Ability to work with various sources of information |
Teaching aids, including ICT: punched cards, projector, multimedia projector, presentation, document camera, literature on the topic, map “Russia in the post-reform period”.
Reproductive level:
- highlight the main measures of domestic policy;
- know terms and dates
Productive level:
- define the regime of Alexander III as authoritarian
- evaluate a historical figure
creative level: lead a discussion about the role of personality in history
Synchronization of the courses of general history and the history of Russia
Expected results:
- Students' knowledge of the main reforms of Alexander III
- The ability to analyze the personality of the king and its influence on the conduct of domestic policy (historical events)
- Explain the meaning of the studied historical concepts and terms;
Forms of control:
- value judgment
- Mark for the provided leading material
DURING THE CLASSES
Organizing time.(Students write down the date.) SLIDE 1
Teacher: Why do you think, before studying the activities of the king, the political leader, we examine in detail the personality itself?
Teacher: Based on your answers and topic “ Economic development during the reign of Alexander III”, set the goal of the lesson.
Students answer: goal: To form an idea of what character the policy of Alexander III was, and to understand what caused it. Different points of view of historians, but what was he really like?
Checking the assimilation of previously studied material (working with punched cards, see Appendix)
SLIDE 2 Students answer 5 questions by ticking the correct answer in the correct hole. At the end, the teacher, having collected the leaves, pierces with an awl in the right place and immediately informs the students of the grades.
1. To develop a draft peasant reform, Alexander 2 in 1857 created
A. The silent committee
B. Secret Committee
B. Editorial committee
D. Council of State
D. Holy Synod
2. Choose a reason for the abolition of serfdom
A. The military-technical backwardness of the Russian Empire from the advanced industrial powers
B. Social stratification of the peasantry
B. Formation of the labor market
D. the decline of the peasant movement against the oppression of the landlords
D. elimination of the threat of a possible revolutionary upheaval
3. The development of the project for the abolition of serfdom was led by
A. N. A. Milyutin
B. K. D. Kavelin
V. A. M. Unkovsky
SLIDE 3
4. Note which reform the historian R. Pipes wrote about: “It was, admittedly, the most successful of the Great Reforms and the only one that survived to the end of the tsarist regime without being shredded by all sorts of reservations.”
A. The abolition of serfdom
B. zemskaya
B. city government
G. judicial
5. Complete the definition: “Serfdom is…”
A. the duty of the peasants for the right to work on the land
B. the possibility of free care and moving from place to place in case of refusal of land
B. personal dependence of the peasant on the landowner, the possibility of being beaten, sold
D. the lack of a peasant of any property and all personal rights
Keys: 1-b, 2-a, 3-a, 4-d, 5-d.
3. Work on a new topic.
SLIDE 4 The story of a pre-prepared student about Alexander III using a presentation.
Alexander III Alexandrovich - an outstanding Russian emperor. Ruled the Russian Empire for less than fourteen years. During the years of his reign, Russia became a powerful and influential power. The coronation of Emperor Alexander III and Empress Maria Feodorovna became a real national holiday. SLIDE 5 A solemn procession proceeded through Red Square to the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin. In the cathedral, after reading the prayers, Alexander III was given the large and small imperial crowns, and he placed them on himself and on Maria Feodorovna. After the coronation ceremony, the tsar went out onto the Red Porch and bowed three times to the Russian people, whose father he now became not only at the behest of his soul and heart, but also according to the sacred law approved by the coronation ceremony. The celebrations lasted over two weeks. At the same time, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was consecrated in Moscow. The Cathedral of Christ the Savior was built in memory of the victory of the Russian people over Napoleon in the Patriotic War of 1812. Later, a monument to Alexander III, the emperor, under whom Russia reached the pinnacle of its development and greatness, was erected near the temple.
SLIDE 6 Alexander III coped with the difficulties. Contrary to the advice to raise taxes from the peasants, he abolished the poll tax. It seemed that the treasury would be left completely without money, but the tsar ordered the creation of a Peasants' Bank to help the peasants with loans to buy land from the landowners, and to reduce the redemption payments themselves, but to increase fees from the sale of vodka, tobacco, sugar and introduce new taxes on the sale of expensive property and on stock trading. To bewildered questions, Alexander III jokingly answered that he was a “peasant tsar”. The emperor believed that if the peasant was rich, Russia would also be rich. SLIDE 7 The writer Turgenev, after meeting and talking with the tsar, wrote that Alexander III would be the first Russian peasant tsar.
Alexander III did a lot for the development of Russian science and art. During the reign of the emperor, a brilliant scientist, Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev, lived and worked in Russia. SLIDE 8 Emperor Mendeleev knew him personally and often consulted with him, and when necessary, provided him with assistance and assistance. Always defended the scientist. He told ill-wishers: “I can’t do anything. I have only one Mendeleev.” Alexander III was delighted when he learned that Mendeleev, who was not elected an academician in Russia, was awarded an honorary doctorate degree from Oxford and Cambridge universities in England, which became world recognition of the achievements of Russian science.
SLIDE 9 Alexander III had a good ear for music. From childhood he studied music and played several instruments in an amateur orchestra. Upon learning that Tchaikovsky was in a difficult financial situation and was asking for a loan of three thousand rubles as a future fee, he immediately transferred this amount to him free of charge from his personal money. And then he gave an expensive ring and appointed a lifetime pension - three thousand rubles in silver. When Tchaikovsky died, his funeral was paid for by the emperor.
V.A. Zhukovsky was the tutor of his father Alexander II. He called Zhukovsky's poems "the poetry of a smart heart." The wife of Alexander III, Empress Maria Feodorovna, learned Russian from Zhukovsky's poems. To M.F. Dostoevsky, Alexander III was disposed by the writer's patriotism and service to the motherland. He invited Dostoevsky to his place for dinner at the Anichkov Palace. Later he provided material assistance to Dostoevsky. The writer was buried in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. The funeral was paid for at the state expense, and the widow was given a pension of two thousand rubles a year.
The emperor said that if Tolstoy is sincerely mistaken, then he needs to be sympathized with, and if his actions are caused by a desire to become famous, then he will answer for this before God. Alexander III emphasized more than once that Tolstoy, like Dostoevsky, was a brilliant Russian writer and that both of them glorified Russia all over the world with their work.
SLIDE 10 He did a lot for Russian painting. Supported artists - I.N. Kramskoy, I.E. Repin, V.A. Serov, V.D. Polenov, sculptor M.M. Antokolsky, V.I. Surikov, V.V. Vereshchagin, V.M. Vasnetsov and especially I.K. Aivazovsky. The emperor was personally present at the opening of the first Russian public art gallery of Pavel Mikhailovich Tretyakov and spoke of it with approval. Emperor Alexander III and Empress Maria Feodorovna collected a unique collection of paintings by Russian artists. This collection became the basis of the famous Russian Museum, named after Alexander III.
SLIDE 11 The emperor was an exemplary family man, the father of four sons and two daughters. He sincerely loved his wife and always found time to be with the children. His family life served as an example for his subjects. Alexander III spoke with disapproval of those who could not put things in order in their own families.
SLIDE 12 In 1888, at the Borki station, not far from Kharkov, a heavy royal train derailed poorly reinforced rails at high speed and collapsed down a slope. Alexander III and his family at that moment were in the dining car. So that the collapsed roof of the car would not crush his wife, children and servants, the king rested his hands on it and held this incredible weight until everyone got out of the car. Several dozen people died in the disaster, but everyone who happened to be next to the king survived.
SLIDE 13 A few years later, from bruises received during the disaster, Alexander III began to have inflammation of the kidneys. Doctors sent the emperor for treatment in the Crimea. Some time later, he died in his summer palace in Livadia. Russia bitterly mourned the death of its emperor. Peter I created the Russian Empire, under Catherine II it became a great power, and Alexander III made it rich and powerful.
In the course of the story students fill in the notebook scheme “Historical portrait of Alexander III”. As they further study the period of Alexander's reign, the children add the studied events to the scheme.
SLIDE 14 The teacher invites students to add to the historical portrait from the statements about Alexander.
“This heavy-lifting tsar did not want the evil of his empire and did not want to play with it simply because he did not understand its position, and in general did not like the complex mental combinations that a political game requires no less than a card game. The government directly mocked the society, told it: “You demanded new reforms - the old ones will be taken away from you too.” (V.O. Klyuchevsky)
Emperor Alexander III was of a completely ordinary mind, perhaps below average intelligence, below average abilities, below average education; in appearance he looked like a big Russian peasant from the central provinces. (S.Yu. Witte)
I notice a complete indifference to business. Classes are more professional than mental. - Admiral I.A. Shestakov about Alexander III
At Alexander Alexandrovich<...>never showed the slightest initiative. - E.A.Feoktistov, “Behind the scenes of politics and literature”
4. Students are invited to read the paragraph on their own №31 step 1, and then insert the missing data into the cluster. SLIDE 15
Discussion and verification. SLIDE 16
Self-acquaintance with point 2, filling in the missing data in the cluster SLIDE 17
Discussion and verification. SLIDE 18
Self-acquaintance with point 3, filling in the missing data in the cluster SLIDE 19
Discussion and verification. SLIDE 20
Teacher proposes to consider all three schemes and find similar and different features in the conduct of economic policies by finance ministers. A board is made up on the board. SLIDE 21
5. Consolidation of the studied.
With the help of a document camera, tasks are projected onto the screen (from the workbook "History of Russia in the 19th century, grade 8" publishing house "Exam", M. 2013). Independent performance by students of tasks.
Task 5.1.
- Alexander III came to the throne in ___________. (1881)
- Statesman, chief prosecutor of the Synod, educator of Alexander III, who enjoys strong influence at the court ______________. (Pobedonostsev K.P.)
- The law on the mandatory redemption of their allotments by peasants was adopted in ______ (12/28/1881)
- The abolition of the poll tax was carried out by the Minister of Finance ___________ (N.H. Bunge)
- The exit of peasants from the community was limited by law ____________ (1893 - preservation of the community)
- Night work of women and underage children was banned in _________ (1885)
- “Okhranka” was called __________ (departments for the protection of order and public security in the 80s)
- The Circular "On the Cook's Children" was adopted in ____________ (1887)
- The law on zemstvo district chiefs was adopted with the aim of _______ (1889, to control the self-governing communities of peasants, resolved land disputes, minor loans)
- A new city regulation, raising the property qualification, intensifying the intervention of the authorities in the affairs of city self-government, was published in ______ (1892)
Task 5.2.
- Note the directions in the policy of Alexander III that contributed to the economic development of the country.
- Establishment of the Peasants' Bank
- Creation of the “Department for the protection of order and public security” under the gendarmerie
- The law on the limitation of fines, the introduction of pass books that specified the conditions for hiring a worker
- Law on limiting the exit of peasants from the community
- "Purge" of libraries - the removal of books prohibited by censorship
- Decree on the mandatory redemption of allotments - the termination of the temporarily obligated state of peasants
- Construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway
- The new city regulation, which significantly increased the electoral qualification and declared the mayors and members of the councils to be in the civil service
- Excess of export of Russian goods over import of foreign
Keys: 1, 6, 7, 9
Task 5.3.
Which three of the following characteristics characterized the Industrial Revolution in Russia? Circle the numbers under which these lines are indicated.
- railway construction
- appearance of the first exchanges
- increase in state investments in science
- high rates of development of manufactories
- serfdom
- rapid pace of development of the textile industry
Keys: 1, 2, 6
Self-checking of completed tasks. The answers are projected onto the screen. Students give marks according to the criteria for correct answers:
- 8-12 – “3”
- 13-15 – “4”
- 16-17 – “5”
6. Summing up.SLIDE 22
The teacher asks you to answer the following questions:
How do you see the progressiveness of the economic reforms carried out during the reign of Alexander III? Which of the ongoing reforms confirm that the king was really "muzhik"? What other reforms would you suggest?
7. SLIDE 23 Homework:
- Setting the baseline: What are the features of the industrial revolution in Russia.
- Advanced level task: Compare the position of the Russian and French peasants in the second half of the 19th century. What were the main differences?
