History of social movements of the 60s and 70s. History in stories

Social movement

60-70 years of the 19th century.

Narodnaya Volya.

(development of a history lesson)

Social movement in Russia in the 60-70s. XIX century

The purpose of the lesson : talk about the main directions of the social movement in the 60-70s.XIXcentury

Lesson plan:

Social upsurge of the 60s. XIX century

Zemstvo movement of the 60-70s. Liberal and conservative movement. The beginning of the raznochinsky stage of the Russian liberation movement. Student movement of 1861. Movement for the Constitution. Polish uprising of 1863. Democratic journalism of the mid-60s. The question of the constitution and reforms. Question about land.

Radicals and the government

“Land and Freedom” (1862-1864). Revolutionary circles of the second half of the 60s. Revolutionary populism of the 70s. Currents in populism. Outstanding representatives of populism: biographies and views. "Walking among the people." The trial of Vera Zasulich. “Land and Freedom” of the 70s. "Black redistribution". "People's Will". Attempts on Alexander's lifeII.

Notes on the board:

I .Important dates:

1863 - Polish uprising

1866 - assassination attempt on AlexanderIID. Karakozova.

1874-1875 - “going to the people”

1876 - creation of the revolutionary organization “Land and Freedom”

1878 – trial of Vera Zasulich

II . Prominent figures:

A.I. Herzen

N.G. Chernyshevsky

M.A. Bakunin

P.L. Lavrov

P.N. Tkachev

III . Basic Concepts

Conservatives

Liberals

Radicals

Populism

Raznochintsy

Lesson equipment:

Presentation

Materials with source text

Teacher's methods of activity
1. Using a presentation.
2. Supervision of laboratory work with documents and textbook text in order to solve cognitive tasks (lesson-seminar).
3. Formulation of the main conclusions on the topic in a supporting summary.

I . Learning new material .

The teacher reports :

During the liberal reforms, zemstvo and city self-government bodies were created. According to the liberals, the next step should have been the adoption of a constitution and the introduction of parliament. The liberals sent addresses to the tsar almost every year asking him to complete the creation of a system of representation.

However, conservative forces also increased pressure on the tsar. Repressions began to be used against representatives of the liberal movement (the imprisonment of peace mediators of the Tver province in the Peter and Paul Fortress, after they dared to criticize the government at their meeting and sent AlexanderIIaddress, which indicated the need to create an elected representative office to coordinate reforms).

Questions: 1.Who are liberals?

2. How do liberals differ from conservatives?

3. How do you think liberals should have viewed government reforms in the 60s and 70s?

Under AlexanderIIthe main ideologist and inspirer of the conservative course was M.N. Katkov, Russian publicist, publisher, literary critic, editor of the newspaper " ", the founder of Russian political journalism. The main task of this direction of social thought was to prove the destructiveness of liberal and even more so radical ideas that destroy the “nationality” and lead to revolution. Katkov also argued that the ongoing reforms were destructive for Russia. The main printed organ of the conservatives was the magazine “Russian Messenger” and the newspaper “Vest”. Katkov welcomed the suppression of the Polish uprising and considered it necessary to pursue a tough policy towards the Poles.

Question: The interests of which class were reflected by the conservative movement?

The social upsurge of the early 60s led to a sharp division between the revolutionary and liberal trends. The liberals, although they were in ideological opposition to the government, were still afraid of the revolution - their wishes boiled down to limiting the autocracy and carrying out further bourgeois reforms. At the beginning of 1862, the poet, public figure, one of the leaders

I.S. Aksakov, in the newspaper Den, came up with a project for the “self-abolition” of the nobility, aimed at destroying the class structure of society. But Russian liberals were not consistent in defending their beliefs, which were very moderate and controversial. So, liberal A.I. Koshelev in his brochures “What is the outcome for Russia from its current situation?” and “The Constitution, Autocracy and the Zemstvo Duma” spoke out for the convening of the Zemstvo Duma, compatible with the autocracy, and at the same time argued for the need for a decisive struggle against the revolutionary and peasant movement.

Questions: 1.What do you see as common ground between liberals and conservatives of the post-reform era?

2.What were the features of post-reform liberalism?

In 1863, a liberation uprising broke out in Poland. The Poles counted on the support of European states. Realizing the danger of external interference in the internal affairs of Russia, Minister of Internal Affairs P.A. Valuev proposed creating some kind of representative body. Valuev's project was approved in 1863. According to it, elected representatives from zemstvos were introduced into the State Council, but while maintaining the full power of the monarch.

Question: Do you think this meant the creation of a real representative body?

However, the Polish uprising was soon suppressed and the government abandoned the project. However, the liberal movement did not weaken. In 1865, representatives of first the Moscow Noble Assembly, and then the St. Petersburg Zemstvo Assembly, in addresses addressed to the emperor, insisted on the creation of an elected representation. Alexander did not agree and even temporarily dissolved the St. Petersburg Zemstvo Assembly.

Question: It is known that Alexander II was not a principled opponent of the constitution and the creation of a representative system. How then can we explain his reluctance to make concessions to the demands of society?

AlexanderIIfeared that with the limitation of autocratic power, Russia would plunge into the abyss of internal strife. A strong central government seemed to him the only guarantee against internal turmoil.

In 1861, a new, raznochinsky, stage of the Russian liberation movement began.

Raznochintsy - “people of different ranks and titles.” A commoner was a person who did not belong to any of the established classes: not assigned to either, nor, nor to, nor to, who did not have or spiritual. Commoners included people from the merchant class, the petty bourgeoisie, the peasantry, and petty officials. At that time, commoners were often contrasted with nobles. They were perceived not only as a social stratum, but also as bearers of a new ideology -,.

Questions: 1.What social processes led to the emergence of heterogeneity?2. Give the socio-psychological characteristics of the commoner.

A characteristic feature of the social movement in post-reform Russia was student unrest. The funeral service organized by Kazan students in April 1861 for the peasants shot in the village of Bezdna acquired a vivid political overtones.

Question: What were the reasons for peasant unrest after the abolition of serfdom?

In mid-1861, the government introduced new “temporary rules” aimed at limiting access to the university to commoner students. The exemption from tuition fees for needy students was cancelled, and student gatherings were prohibited. In response to government measures, mass student protests took place. On September 25, students of St. Petersburg University held the first street demonstration in Russia.

Questions: 1.What does “radical” mean? 2.What do you think was associated with the rise of the radical movement in Russia?

In the first post-reform years, the Kolokol magazine, published by A. I. Herzen in London from July 1, 1857, continued to enjoy great influence in Russia.

Question: Remember what you know about A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarevo.

Based on a detailed analysis of the “Regulations of February 19” N.P. Ogarev concluded: “In general, serfdom has not been abolished. The people have been deceived by the king!” In the fall of 1861, addressing student youth expelled from universities, A.I. Herzen put forward the slogan: “To the people! To the people! For revolutionary-minded youth, the words from N.P.’s article received a programmatic character. Ogarev, published in Kolokol and widely distributed throughout Russia as a proclamation: “The people need land and freedom.”

A new factor in the revolutionary movement were proclamations, leaflets and appeals, which from the second half of 1861 were distributed in St. Petersburg, Moscow and a number of other Russian cities. The proclamation campaign began with the famous appeal “Bow to the lordly peasants from their well-wishers!” At the center of the proclamation campaign was the Russian revolutionary and thinker, writer, economist, philosopher N.G. Chernyshevsky.

In June-October 1861, three issues of the Velikoruss leaflet appeared. The authors of Velikoruss addressed “society,” “enlightened people.” The authors of the leaflet combined sharp criticism of the peasant reform with the demand that all the land that they used before the reform be transferred to the peasants with a buyout “at the expense of the nation.” The political program of “Velikoruss” consisted of demanding a constitution, trial by jury, freedom of speech and press, and the elimination of class privileges. Also in 1861, proclamations “To the Young Generation,” written by N.V., were distributed. Shelgunov, and “Young Russia”, the author of which was P.G. Zaichnevsky. The emergence of “Young Russia,” which justified all sorts of means of fighting the existing system, coincided with enormous fires in St. Petersburg. Revolutionaries were blamed for the arson.

In June 1862, the magazines Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo were closed, and Sunday schools for adults, created on the eve of the reform, were banned. N.G. was arrested. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Serno-Solovyevich, D.I. Pisarev, some of the revolutionaries emigrated. Chernyshevsky was sentenced to hard labor; he spent 20 years in hard labor and exile in Siberia.

Question: How do such repressions fit in with the government's liberal reform agenda?

Despite the arrest of N.G. Chernyshevsky and an eight-month break, the leading organ of the democratic press remained the Sovremennik magazine. Since 1863, it was edited by N.A. Nekrasov and M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. The novel by N.G., published in the magazine, had a huge influence on revolutionary youth. Chernyshevsky “What to do?” Readers were attracted by the author's faith in the victory of the revolution and his ideal of a socialist society of the future.

Questions: 1. Why was N. G. Chernyshevsky the “ruler of thoughts” of the youth of the 60s?

2. How was his influence manifested?

The magazine “Russian Word” was popular among some of the young people of different origins. The leading employee of the magazine was D.I. Pisarev. In the mid-60s. There was a controversy between Sovremennik and Russkie Slovo (“the split about the nihilists”). After the assassination attempt by D.V. Karakozova on AlexandraIIboth magazines were closed.

After the activation of 1861, the revolutionary direction in 1862-1863. experienced a decline due to government repression. However, the will of the revolutionaries was not broken. In 1862, the underground organization “Land and Freedom” appeared. Its brothers N.A. were the first to lead it. and A.A. Serno-Solovyevich, then led by N.I. Utin and G.E. Blagosvetlov. The main task of the revolutionaries was to gather revolutionary forces into a single secret society in order to be ready for the peasant uprising, which was expected in the spring of 1863. “Land and Freedom” organized an illegal printing house in Russia to promote its ideas; it used the printing house of A.I. Herzen. N.P. Ogarev developed a detailed plan of action for the organization for 1863. The plan provided for the government to demand the convocation of the Zemstvo Assembly, and in case of refusal, a general uprising. But, setting itself the task of uniting all anti-government forces, “Land and Freedom” was unable to overcome ideological differences among the revolutionaries. The peasant uprising did not occur in 1863, and the organization did not have enough strength for an open speech.

Question: Why do you think a general peasant uprising did not break out in 1863?

In 1863, in Moscow, based on the community of Penza students, an illegal circle arose, the leader of which was student N.A. Ishutin. The members of the circle follow the example of the heroes of the novel “What is to be done?” organized various kinds of workshops - artels (bookbinding and sewing workshops, a school, an association of cab drivers, etc.). In 1865, they established connections with the St. Petersburg revolutionaries, led by I.A. Khudyakov. On April 4, 1866, circle member D.V. Karakozov shot AlexanderII. The attempt was unsuccessful. Karakozov was captured and then executed, the Ishutin circle was destroyed.

In 1867, the circle of G.A. was formed. Lopatin, whose members studied Western European revolutionary literature, read the works of K. Marx. Together with F.V. Volkhovsky Lopatin began to create a society named “Rublev” based on the size of the entrance fees. Members of the “Ruble Society” had to roam around Russia, educate the peasants with the help of specially written textbooks and books.

In 1869, after student unrest in St. Petersburg, most of the active participants in student protests were arrested. One of the student leaders, S.G. Nechaev, managed to escape abroad. Nechaev launched a publishing activity and published a number of appeals on behalf of the “People’s Retribution” organization. S.G. Nechaev compiled the “Catechism of a Revolutionary” - a set of rules that should have guided his supporters. For Nechaev, a revolutionary is a doomed person. He has no personal interests, affairs, feelings, attachments, property, not even a name. Everything in him is captured by one exclusive interest, one thought, one passion: revolution.” Returning to Russia, he tried to create “People’s Retribution” cells in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Seeking blind obedience, he forced the Moscow cell to agree to the murder of student I.I. Ivanov, who expressed dissatisfaction with Nechaev’s methods. Ivanov was killed. Nechaev again disappeared abroad. The resulting organization was destroyed. In 1872, Nechaev was extradited to Russia by the Swiss authorities, he was tried and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where he died 10 years later. The image of Nechaev was drawn by F.M. Dostoevsky in the novel “Demons”.

At the same time, in 1869, a revolutionary circle was formed in St. Petersburg, whose members (M.A. Nathanson, N.V. Tchaikovsky), without accepting Nechaev’s methods, set themselves the task of spreading self-education circles in Russia, where future revolutionaries were to be formed . By 1871, the circle had grown into an organization called the Great Propaganda Society.

Another major populist organization of the early 70s was the circle of A.V. Dolgushin, which arose in 1872 in St. Petersburg. In one of the villages near Moscow, the “Dolgushins” organized a secret printing house, constructing a primitive printing machine on which proclamations and appeals were printed. True, one day the peasants decided that they were printing counterfeit money, and Dolgushin had to convince them with a pistol.

In the 60s, the ideology of “nihilism” gained great popularity among young people, primarily among students. What was a typical nihilist like? Remember the type of nihilist captured in the image of Bazarov in Turgenev. “Nihilists” in the pre-reform period sought to acquire practical knowledge in the areas that they considered most useful: engineering, medicine, education, agronomy, etc. The choice of specialty was determined by the ideology of the “nihilists”: the desire to be useful to society. Young people were drawn to higher education, but the student unrest that rocked Russian universities shortly after the abolition of serfdom meant that many students were deprived of the opportunity, for various reasons, to complete their courses. They found themselves in zemstvo institutions, serving as doctors, teachers, and agronomists. Many of them followed the call of A.I. Herzen: “repay the debt to the people”, “repent” before the people. The image of a “repentant nobleman” serving the people in the village became very popular among young people. This is how “going to the people” began. This movement was called populism.

Question: Is there a connection between nihilism and heterogeneity?

The foundations of the ideology of populism were outlined in the works of A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky. The main theoreticians of revolutionary populism in the 70s. were M.A. Bakunin, P.N. Tkachev, P. L. Lavrov.

Social revolutionary direction

In historiography, this direction is also called “” or “”. The main theorists of the social-revolutionary current of Russian populism - and to a certain extent. Tkachev argued that in Russia he had no social support in any class of Russian society and could be quickly eliminated. To do this, the “carriers of the revolutionary idea,” the radical part of the intelligentsia, had to create a strictly conspiratorial organization capable of seizing power and turning the country into a large community-commune.

Liberal-revolutionary direction

The leading ideologists of this trend in populism (called “moderate” in Soviet historiography, and “moderate” in post-Soviet historiography) were N.K. Mikhailovsky.

Anarchist direction

If Tkachev and his followers believed in the political unification of like-minded people in the name of creating a new type of state, the anarchists disputed the need for reforms within the state. Their ideologists were also. Both of them were skeptical of any power, considering it to suppress the freedom of the individual and enslave it.

Bakunin considered the Russian person to be a rebel “by instinct, by vocation,” and the people as a whole, he believed, had already developed the ideal of freedom over the course of many centuries. Therefore, he believed that the revolutionaries only had to move on to organizing the whole people (hence the name “rebellious” in Marxist historiography for the wing of populism he led). The purpose of a rebellion according to Bakunin is not only the liquidation of the existing state, but also the prevention of the creation of a new one.

Kropotkin emphasized the decisive role of the masses in the reconstruction of society and called on the “collective mind” of the people to create communes, autonomies, and federations.

Questions: 1. What are the similarities and differences between M.A.’s views? Bakunina, P.L. Lavrova and P.N. Tkachev? 2. Whose ideas seem least utopian to you?

The Chaikovites, even before the defeat of their organization, after the severe famine of 1873-1874. initiated “going to the people”, expecting that in these difficult circumstances the people would be more receptive to propaganda. In many ways the movement was spontaneous. Two waves of propagandists moved partly to the Volga region, partly through the central provinces to the south. They dressed in peasant clothes, were hired as simple loaders and laborers using false passports, and agitated the people. In general, preaching the ideas of socialism among the peasants was not successful; it was not possible to raise an uprising anywhere. After the police began searching for propagandists, the action was effectively stopped. The remnants of the populists returned to the cities. By the fall of 1874, the movement was crushed, and the authorities arrested about a thousand people. The investigation, which lasted three years, ended with the famous “one hundred and ninety-three” trial, at which the populist I.N. gave a brilliant speech. Myshkin.

Questions:

1. Determine the characteristic features of populism?

2.What methods did the populists use in their practical activities?

3.What were the reasons for “going to the people”?

4.What were the features of this movement and its results?

5. Why did “going to the people” fail?

The largest secret society of populists of the 70s arose in St. Petersburg in 1876. During 1876-1879 it included revolutionary circles of the Volga region, Central Russia, Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine. Caucasus and Transcaucasia. The organization received the name “Land and Freedom” at the end of 1878, when a printed organ began to be published under the same name. For the first time, the organization openly announced its existence at the Kazan demonstration. On October 6, 1876, several hundred demonstrators, mostly students, gathered in front of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. A red flag with the inscription “Land and Freedom” was thrown over the crowd. The police dispersed the demonstration and some of its participants were injured.

Activists of “Land and Freedom” paid a lot of attention to developing the program and tactics of the organization. Initially, their program demands were to transfer all land to peasant communities, to divide the Russian Empire into parts, “according to local desires.” They considered it possible to implement these demands “only through a violent coup.” In later refinements of the program (May 1878), anarchy and collectivism were recognized as the final ideal. To disorganize the government, the revolutionaries had to work among the troops, attract “robber gangs” to their side, and publish “incendiary leaflets.” The “Land and Freedom” program was based on the ideas of M.I. Bakunin, revised taking into account the accumulated experience.

The leaders of “Land and Freedom” attached particular importance to the creation of a centralized combat organization. They consistently implemented the statutory requirements of centralism, secrecy, discipline, mutual comradely control, and subordination to the minority majority.

The first acts of disorganization by “Land and Freedom” were in the nature of revenge and self-defense. In January 1878 V.I. Zasulich shot at St. Petersburg mayor F.F. Trepov, who ordered corporal punishment for a political prisoner in prison. The jury acquitted Zasulich. An attempt by the police to arrest her as she left the courtroom was repulsed by revolutionary youth. The trial of V. Zasulich attracted the attention of Russian society to the struggle of the revolutionaries. In 1878-1879 individual landowners offered armed resistance during arrest and tripled attempts on government officials. In August 1878 S.M. Kravchinsky killed the chief of gendarmes N.V. with a dagger on the street of St. Petersburg. Mezentseva. Gradually, part of the Zemlye Volyas came to the idea of using terror to disorganize the government and cause a revolutionary explosion.

April 2, 1879 landowner A.K. Solovyov shot AlexanderII. The attempt was unsuccessful. Soloviev was hanged. To consider the issue of the terrorist struggle, it was decided to convene a congress of members of the Land and Freedom society. The congress met in June 1879 in Voronezh. The congress left the organization's program unchanged, but agreed with terror as one of the methods of waging political struggle. The congress participants spoke out in favor of regicide. In August 1879, a new congress met in St. Petersburg, where a split in “Land and Freedom” occurred. The “villagers”, those who advocated propaganda among the peasants, formed the “Black Redistribution” society, and the “politicians” who supported terror formed the “People’s Will”.

Questions:

1 . Give a description and assessment of the activities of the organization “Land and Freedom”.

2. What are the reasons for the collapse of the Earth and Freedom organization?

Subsequently, attempts by the leaders of the “Black Redistribution” (G.V. Plekhanov, P.B. Akselrod, O.V. Aptekman, M.R. Popov, L.G. Deich, V.I. Zasulich) to continue propaganda in the village in conditions of massive government repression ended in failure. Many of them, fearing arrest, went abroad, others joined Narodnaya Volya.

The programmatic and statutory foundations of “Narodnaya Volya” were set out in the documents: “Program of the Executive Committee”, “Preparatory work of the party”, Program of working members of the “Narodnaya Volya” party. “Narodnaya Volya” considered its immediate tasks to be the preparation of a political coup, the overthrow of the autocracy and the transfer of power to the people. Practical activities in the program were divided into propaganda and destructive. The Narodnaya Volya attached great importance to propaganda in the army and among the workers. The program of destructive activity was reduced to individual terror. The People's Will created an organization headed by the Executive Committee. The members of the executive committee were professional revolutionaries; The leading role among them was played by A.D. Mikhailov, A.I. Zhelyabov, N.A. Morozov, N.E. Sukhanov, S.L. Perovskaya, V.N. Figner, M.F. Frolenko. In 1880-1881 they carried out a number of unsuccessful attempts on Alexander's lifeII, including the explosion in the Winter Palace, which was carried out by Stepan Khalturin. On March 1, 1881, terrorists led by S. Perovskaya killed AlexanderII.

Questions:

1 . What differences do you see between the populists of the 60s and 70s?

2. Why did the populist movement become more and more radical?

3.What is your attitude towards the murder of Alexander II ?

4.Can it be said that the murder of Alexander II led the Narodnaya Volya members to their goal? Why didn't the assassination of the Tsar lead to a revolution in Russia?

5. Think about why the emperor, nicknamed the “Liberator,” who abolished serfdom and carried out liberal reforms in the country, was killed?

6. Using the example of “Narodnaya Volya”, determine the effectiveness of revolutionary terror.

II . Presentation on the topic of the lesson.

See Attachment.

III . Working with sources.

See Appendix 1.

Reading source materials. Discussion of what you read.

IV . Final test

In the late 1950s and 1960s, liberalism came to the fore. Liberalism finds expression in the works of Westerners. Russian liberalism was characterized by specificity in terms of its social base. In the West, liberalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie, but in Russia the bourgeoisie was very weak. Therefore, liberalism became widespread among the nobility. Chicherin. Kaverin. In general, in Russia it was forbidden to create organizations of any kind. The centers of liberalism were the journals "Bulletin of Europe", zemstvo institutions, voluntary non-political societies: legal, free economic, geographical. Ideas: expanding the rights of local governments, mitigating and eliminating censorship. The majority considered it necessary to preserve autocracy. As a last resort, the creation in Russia of a parliamentary type institution, but not legislative, but advisory. Noble constitutionalism.

In addition to the left-radical wing of the Russian social movement, in the 1860-70s the liberal squad made itself quite noticeable (penetration back in the 2/18th century: enlightenment → natural and inalienable rights of the individual, the rule of law; ideas of separation of powers, establishment of a constitutional system, creation of parliament ; government harr = education and civil service. Due to the discrepancy between ideas and Russian reality →Decembrist movement). The 1860s gave impetus to liberalism. Carriers: not just individual representatives of the ruling circles (nobility), but also persons who had nothing to do with the state apparatus (free professions such as journalists, doctors) = different from the West, there is the basis of BRZZ!

Liberals could not organize illegal circles, since they tried to act within the framework of the law (prohibition of political organizations). Program: largely individual views of individuals, differing from each other. In principle, they advocated the further implementation and more consistent implementation of the principles that formed the basis of the liberal reforms of the 1860-70s. Further weakening of censorship, in the future freedom of the press, strengthening the independence of the judicial system, expanding the rights of local governments, primarily zemstvo institutions, etc. The question of the constitutional reorganization of Russia: here are the differences → for a classical constitutional monarchy with parliament (z.f and limitation of autocracy ) almost no one spoke then. They advocated the creation of an advisory parliament in Russia that would not limit the tsarist power. Prominent ideologists of the liberal movement were prominent scientists, historians, jurists: Chicherin, Karenin, Petrunkevich and others. Speeches: in zemstvos, local governments; periodicals (Journal "Bulletin of Europe" since 1866, G "Russkie Vedomosti"), non-political societies ("VEO", "RGO"). Since the authorities did not develop the ideas underlying the reforms of the 1860s, the liberal movement found itself in opposition. There were no political demonstrations = an appeal to the authorities, primarily on behalf of zemstvo institutions, with requests for expanded powers. The reaction of the authorities was generally negative. Appeals remained without consequences, or even repressive measures were taken, such as a ban on engaging in zemstvo activities.

ABSTRACT

By course "History of Russia"

on the topic: “Social movement in Russia in the 60-70s. XIX century."

1. Constitution Movement

After the Manifesto of February 19, 1861, changes took place in government policy, not for the better. Alexander II was no longer able to resist pressure from part of the court circles, the old bureaucracy and serf owners. At their insistence, in April 1861 N.A. Milyutin was removed from the post of Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs. He left without completing the zemstvo reform project (it was finalized after his resignation). P. A. Valuev, the new Minister of Internal Affairs, tried to pursue a more cautious course.

However, the country's social upsurge, which began on the eve of the abolition of serfdom, continued. For the first time since the Decembrists, the question of convening people's representatives and a constitution arose. In February 1862, the Tver nobles at their provincial meeting declared that the government was showing complete insolvency. And in the address addressed to the emperor it was emphasized: “The convening of elected representatives from the entire Russian land is the only means for a satisfactory resolution of the issues raised, but not resolved by the situation of February 19.” A few days later, a meeting of world mediators took place in Tver. In an even more harsh form, they repeated the main points of the resolution of the noble assembly.

All 13 participants in the meeting of world mediators were imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress. The court sentenced them to imprisonment for a term of two to two and a half years. True, they were soon pardoned, but with a ban on holding elected positions.

At the beginning of 1863, an uprising broke out in Poland. Soon it spread to Lithuania and Western Belarus. Troops were sent against the rebels. Massive repressions were carried out in the area of the uprising. The leaders of the uprising tried to enlist the support of foreign powers and European public opinion. There was a danger of foreign intervention, and Russia at that time had not yet restored its military potential after the Crimean War. In such a situation, Valuev proposed introducing some semblance of a representative body in order to deprive the foreign public of a pretext for attacks on Russia.

In April 1863, Alexander 11 convened a meeting to discuss Valuev’s proposal. It was approved, and the minister was instructed to draw up a draft. It was planned to introduce elected representatives from zemstvos into the State Council while maintaining the full extent of autocratic power. But in November 1863, when the project was ready, the threat of foreign intervention had already passed. In Poland and Lithuania, the last centers of the uprising were burning out. The project was archived. Valuev himself did not remember him for 15 years.

But the arbitrariness and omnipotence of the bureaucracy caused irritation even in the highest strata of society. This strengthened the position of supporters of a representative system. In January 1865, the Moscow nobility addressed the Tsar with the following address: “Complete, Sovereign, the state building you founded by convening a general meeting of elected people from the Russian land to discuss the needs common to the entire state.” The acceptance of the address was preceded by a stormy meeting, at which heated speeches were made against the “oprichniki” surrounding the tsar.

Alexander was very dissatisfied with this address, but, not wanting to spoil relations with the influential Moscow nobility, he did not resort to repression. He limited himself to declaring in a rescript addressed to Valuev: “No one is called upon to accept petitions before me regarding the general benefits and needs of the state.” In a private conversation with one of the Moscow nobles, he said that he would willingly give “any constitution if he were not afraid that Russia would fall to pieces the next day.”

Apparently, Alexander II exaggerated. In 1906, when the constitution was introduced, the Russian Empire did not fall to pieces, although new problems inevitably arose with the introduction of the constitution. But the transition to a constitutional system is historically overdue, and no possible consequences should have stopped this matter.

In December 1865, the St. Petersburg Provincial Zemstvo Assembly raised the question of convening a “central zemstvo assembly.” This time the authorities again responded with repression. The chairman of the council, N.F. Kruse, was expelled from the capital, and the St. Petersburg Zemstvo was dissolved and did not function for about a year.

From that time on, the movement for the constitution moved from noble assemblies to zemstvo institutions. The government began to interfere with the zemstvos with endless nagging and restrictions.

2. Radicals and the government in the 60s.

At the end of 1861, M. A. Bakunin appeared at the editorial office of Herzen’s newspaper, having escaped from Siberian exile and reached England through Japan and the USA. Having escaped from a long captivity, he was obsessed with many brilliant, as it seemed to him, ideas. Herzen, with his many years of experience in public work, clearly saw that many of these plans were a gamble. But Ogarev, an incorrigible romantic, fell under the influence of Bakunin. Together they persuaded Herzen to support the impending Polish uprising. In October 1862, Herzen published an appeal to Russian officers in Kolokol, calling for assistance to Polish patriots. This step alienated Russian liberals from Kolokol, who rejected the method of armed struggle.

Dissatisfaction with the Bell also grew in the radical democratic movement. It seemed to many of its participants that Herzen took too moderate positions. At best, they showed him leniency. The popularity and circulation of "The Bell" quickly fell. In 1867 it ceased publication.

Herzen was unable to keep the once united opposition movement from splitting. And when liberals and radical democrats separated, there was no place for him with either of them, because he organically combined the features of a liberal and a democrat. And he could not cut off either one or the other from himself. Herzen died in Paris in 1870.

After the death of Dobrolyubov in 1861, N.A. Serno-Solovyevich became Chernyshevsky’s closest collaborator. Perhaps he participated in the release of underground leaflets “Velikorus”, distributed in the summer and autumn of 1861. “Velikorus” demanded the transfer to the peasants of all the land that they had used before 1861, freedom of speech and the press, and the introduction of a constitution. The “Velikorussa” program was designed for an alliance with the liberals. Apparently, Chernyshevsky also began to lean towards a temporary alliance with them, who was greatly impressed by the performance of the Tver nobles.

Chernyshevsky was an experienced and sober politician. But, despite his will, radical sentiments grew in the democratic camp. In the summer of 1861, Moscow student Pyotr Zaichnevsky was arrested on his father’s estate for propaganda among peasants. In prison, he wrote the proclamation “Young Russia”, which was widely distributed throughout the country. The author called for “a bloody, inexorable revolution that should radically change everything, without exception, the foundations of modern society and destroy the supporters of the current order.” It was planned to introduce a communist system with social production, public education of children, and the abolition of marriage and family. The appearance of the proclamation coincided with the enormous St. Petersburg fires in the summer of 1862. Several blocks burned down, hundreds of people were left homeless. The causes of the fires could not be determined. There was a rumor among the townsfolk that the city was being burned by nihilists.

Supporters of drastic measures took advantage of the current situation. In July 1862, N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Serno-Solovyevich were arrested. Sovremennik was suspended for several months. Chernyshevsky was credited with drawing up the proclamation “Bow to the lordly peasants from their well-wishers,” directed against the landowners and the tsar. Chernyshevsky spent about two years in the Peter and Paul Fortress while the Third Department was collecting incriminating material. At the trial, he calmly denied all the charges, especially since the evidence was shaky. However, the Senate sentenced him to seven years of hard labor.

Later, a trial took place over Serno-Solovyevich, who was sentenced to exile and died on the way to Siberia. The conviction of Chernyshevsky and Serno-Solovyevich strengthened radical sentiments among young people. Even before Chernyshevsky’s arrest, the first underground revolutionary organization, “Land and Freedom,” arose. The title was taken from Ogarev’s article “What do the people need?” At first, the organization was headed by Serno-Solovyevich. She managed to create her own branches in Moscow and a number of other cities, and organize the production of illegal literature. After the arrest of Serno-Solovyevich, the secret society was led by inexperienced students. They hoped that in 1863 there would be a peasant uprising. When these hopes were dashed, Land and Freedom dissolved itself.

The Moscow branch did not obey the decision to dissolve itself. It began to establish connections with other circles of the disintegrated “Land and Freedom”, trying to draw them into the new organization. It was led by students Nikolai Ishutin and his cousin Dmitry Karakozov. The Ishutinites set themselves the task of preparing a peasant socialist revolution. At first, their activities were dominated by a propaganda bias. Then some members of society began to lean towards tactics of individual terror. For this purpose, a specially secret group “Hell” was created -

On April 4, 1866, Alexander II walked in the Summer Garden. When he left the garden and was getting into the stroller, a shot was fired. The bullet flew past, because the man who was next to Karakozov managed to push him in the arm. Karakozov's shot made a stunning impression on society. Rumors of a “hellish” conspiracy spread. The rushing police grabbed the first ones they came across. In June 1866, Sovremennik was closed.

Minister of War D. A. Milyutin submitted a note to the Tsar, which proved that only consistent reforms could stop the revolutionary movement. The author of the note was Kavelin. But she was not successful. Shocked, Alexander II made a turn away from the reforms. Almost all liberal ministers were removed from the government. Only Milyutin remained in his place.

The post of Minister of Public Education was entrusted to D. A. Tolstoy. He placed universities under police control and made it difficult for low-income youth to enter them. The minister acted so defiantly that public indignation focused on him. Meanwhile, the head of the Third Department, P. A. Shuvalov, became the key figure in the government. Reporting on the dangers threatening the tsar, he did not allow him to deviate from conservative policies.

3. Populism

At the turn of the 50s - 60s. XIX century Among young people, the type of nihilist that was captured by Turgenev in the image of Bazarov developed. Rejecting noble prejudices and official ideology, the nihilist studied natural sciences, became a doctor, engineer, agronomist and brought concrete benefits to people, without big words and pompous declarations. Young people from different classes then reached out to higher education. However, after the student unrest of 1861, many students were expelled from universities.

It was then that Herzen wrote in “The Bell”: “But where can you go, young men, from whom science has been locked away?.. Shall I tell you where?.. To the people! To the people! - this is your place, exiles of science...” Many went “to the people” voluntarily, others were expelled by the police. When they first encountered the peasantry, they were shocked by its poverty, darkness and lack of rights. The image of the nihilist faded and faded into the background, and in the minds of democratic youth (from the nobles and commoners) the ideas of “returning the debt to the people” and selfless service to them began to take root. The “Penitent Nobleman” was a prominent figure in the late 60s and early 70s. XIX century

Boys and girls became rural teachers, doctors, and paramedics. And sometimes they completely went “to the people.”

Populism has developed into a powerful movement with its own ideology. Herzen and Chernyshevsky stood at its origins. From them, populism inherited its most noble features: protection of the interests of the common people, especially the peasantry, deep democracy.

In Herzen and Chernyshevsky, the populists also adopted a negative attitude towards the bourgeois system and faith in a socialist utopia. This gave rise to certain contradictions. Acting in the interests of the people, they sought to eliminate those remnants of serfdom that prevented the people from living. But the elimination of these remnants (for example, landowners' latifundia or peasant lawlessness) was supposed to open up space for the development of capitalist relations in the countryside. This means that the populists unwittingly acted in favor of what they denied. But they believed that Russia, relying on its communal traditions, would be able to “leap” over the period of the bourgeois system - straight into a “reasonably structured” socialist society.

The populists did not attach much importance to the struggle for the constitution and civil liberties. It was believed that social liberation (liberation from poverty and exploitation) would immediately solve all problems. If the populists participated in the struggle for civil liberties, it was because they hoped with their help to expand their propaganda in order to take power and introduce socialism. This was the shadow side of the ideology of populism.

Three currents in populism. The main ideologists of populism were P. L. Lavrov. M. A. Bakunin and P. N. Tkachev. They ideologically substantiated its three currents: propaganda, rebellious and conspiratorial.

Pyotr Lavrovich Lavrov (1823-1900) was a professor of mathematics at the Artillery Academy and had the rank of colonel. He was close to Chernyshevsky. In his early works he acted as a supporter of reforms. But, disillusioned with the changeable policies of Alexander II, seeing the arbitrariness reigning in the country, Lavrov came to the idea of revolution. In 1867 he was exiled to the Vologda province.

While in exile, Lavrov wrote his famous “Historical Letters”. It was he who expressed the idea of an “unpayable debt” to the people. Lavrov shared faith in socialism and a number of other populist ideas (the originality of the historical development of Russia, the community as the basis of its future system, the secondary importance of political issues over social ones). Having established himself in the idea of the need for a social revolution, he stood by this until the end of his days. But at the same time he criticized revolutionary adventurism. He pointed out that history should not be “rushed.” Haste in preparing a revolution will yield nothing but blood and unnecessary sacrifices. The revolution, Lavrov believed, should be prepared by the theoretical work of the intelligentsia and its tireless propaganda among the people. Violence in a revolution, he wrote, should be kept to a minimum: “We do not want a new violent government to replace the old one.” In 1870, Lavrov escaped from exile and came to Paris. Abroad, he published a magazine and newspaper under the general title “Forward!” At the end of the 19th century. Lavrov retired from political activity and devoted the rest of his life to research in the field of sociology.

M.A. After the Polish uprising, Bakunin concentrated his activities in the international socialist movement. The theory of destruction, which he had long nurtured, took shape in him into a complete anarchist teaching. All modern states, he said, are built on the suppression of man. No reforms will change their inhumane essence. They must be swept away through revolutionary means and replaced with free, autonomous societies organized from the bottom up. Bakunin demanded the transfer of all land to peasants, factories, factories and capital to workers' unions, the abolition of family and marriage, and the introduction of public education of children in the spirit of materialism and atheism.

Bakunin was a member of the First International since its founding. Within this organization he waged a struggle with K. Marx. In 1872, Marx managed to get Bakunin expelled from the International. But together with Bakunin, many workers' unions in southern European countries emerged from it. The International soon collapsed, and Bakunin concentrated on organizing a European anarchist movement. He achieved his greatest success in the south of Europe, primarily in Italy. The most unskilled layers of workers, as well as the lumpen proletariat, responded especially readily to the preaching of anarchism. Bakunin declared them the vanguard of the labor movement. In Russia, he pinned all his hopes on the peasantry. He considered the Russian peasant to be a “born socialist.”

Among poorly educated people, Bakunin believed, the most effective is “propaganda with facts,” that is, the organization of continuous riots, uprisings, unrest. Having the habit of confirming his theories in practice, he organized an uprising in Italy (near Bologna). The adventure ended in failure. He spent the last years of his life in great need. Bakunin died in 1876 in Bern (Switzerland) in a hospital for unskilled workers, where he was placed at his insistence.

Bakunin's followers operated in many countries. In Russia they formed a significant group of populists and sometimes actually tried to resort to “propaganda with facts.”

In 1869, former student Sergei Nechaev appeared among the revolutionary-minded youth in Moscow. He insisted that he had come on the instructions of a certain “Central Committee”, which supposedly unites all Russian revolutionaries. Decisive and immoral, Nechaev said that a revolutionary must suppress all human feelings in himself, break with the laws, decency and morality of the old society, that to achieve high goals all means are suitable, even those that are considered low.

Many young people then came under the influence of Nechaev. He managed to quickly put together the fragments of the Ishutin circle. Nechaev divided his organization into “fives” and built it in order of strict subordination. The lower “five” was subordinate to the higher one, knowing only one of its members, who conveyed orders from above to it and monitored their execution. The "Main Five" received orders from Nechaev as a member of the mythical "Central Committee". Nechaev suspected one of the members of the “main five,” student Ivan Ivanov, of apostasy and ordered to kill him in order to “cement his organization with blood.” It was not possible to cover up the traces of the crime, and Nechaev fled abroad.

The investigation revealed an unsightly picture of the Nechaev cases, and the authorities decided to use an open trial. There were 87 people in the dock. The court sentenced four members of the “main five” to hard labor, 27 people to imprisonment for various terms, the rest were acquitted.

The Nechaev trial alienated many from the revolutionary movement. F. M. Dostoevsky then wrote the novel “Demons”. The Nechaevshchina turned out to be not an accidental episode, but a sign of dangerous phenomena that were brewing in the revolutionary movement. In 1872, Switzerland extradited Nechaev to Russia as a criminal.

A member of the Nechaev organization was Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev (1844-1885). Convicted in the Nechaev case, he served his prison term and was deported to the Pskov province. From there he fled abroad, where he published the newspaper “Nabat”. Tkachev argued that the immediate goal of socialists should be to create a well-covered, disciplined revolutionary organization. Without wasting time on propaganda, she must seize power. After this, Tkachev preached, the revolutionary organization suppresses and destroys the conservative and reactionary elements of society, abolishes the old state institutions and creates a new statehood. Unlike the Bakuninists, Tkachev believed that the state (and a strong, centralized one at that) would survive the victory of the revolution.

Since the late 70s. Tkachev's ideas began to gain the upper hand in the populist movement. He himself fell ill with mental illness in 1882 and died three years later.

One of Tkachev’s ideological predecessors was Zaichnevsky, who dreamed of a “bloody, inexorable revolution.” But Tkachev drew his main ideas from Nechaev’s experience. He realized that the main thing in this experience was the creation of a powerful and obedient to the will of the leader of an organization aimed at seizing power.

4. Populist circles in the early 70s.

Since the beginning of the 70s. in St. Petersburg there were several populist circles, headed by M. A. Nathanson, S. L. Perovskaya and N. V. Tchaikovsky. In 1871, they united, and members of the underground society began to be called “Chaikovites,” after the name of one of the leaders. There was no strict subordination here. The work was based on the voluntary zeal of each and every one. Branches of the secret society “Chaikovites” arose in Moscow, Kazan and other cities. In total, this federation of circles consisted of about 100 people.

In 1872, Prince Pyotr Alekseevich Kropotkin (1842-1921), a geographer and later an anarchist theorist, joined the St. Petersburg circle of “Chaikovites.” With his arrival, the ideas of Bakunism began to spread in the circle, and before the circle stood on the positions of Lavrism. The main business of the Chaikovites was propaganda among the workers. Attempts were made to organize work in the villages. At the beginning of 1874, many “Chaikovites” were arrested.

But the arrests did not stop the “going to the people” planned for 1874. However, it was not even an organized event, but a spontaneous movement of radical youth. There have never been as many members in the Tchaikovsky circles as there were people who moved “to the people” in the spring of 1874 - from St. Petersburg, Moscow, Saratov, Samara.

Both Lavrists and Bakuninists went to the village: the former with the long-term goal of re-educating the people in a revolutionary spirit, the latter in the hope of rousing them to rebellion. The revolutionaries dressed in peasant clothes, stocked up with false passports, and were hired as carpenters, loaders, and peddlers. “Going among the people” reached a special scale in the Volga region. The main backbone of the traveling propagandists were former students, but there were also many retired officers and officials, and there were individual landowners and even aristocratic girls.

The peasants readily responded to conversations about land shortages and the burden of redemption payments. But the preaching of socialism was not successful. The haste with which propaganda was carried out at that time did not allow the populists to draw sober conclusions about whether socialist teaching corresponded to popular views.

It was not possible to start an uprising anywhere. The police became alarmed and began to catch all the suspicious people. 770 people were involved in the investigation. The surviving propagandists fled to the cities. “Going among the people” undermined the ideas of Bakunism and contributed to the spread of Tkachev’s ideas. Among the populists there was a growing conviction that in order to prepare for the revolution it was necessary to create a strong organization.

In 1876, a new organization arose with the old name - “Land and Freedom”. It included a number of participants in the “going to the people” who survived the arrests - M. A. Nathanson, G. V. Plekhanov and others. Later S. L. Perovskaya joined it. The organization had over 150 people. “Land and Freedom” was built on the principles of centralism, although still weak. Its core was the “main circle”. Society was divided into several groups. “Country workers” - the largest group - were sent to work among the peasants. Other groups were to carry out propaganda among workers and students. The “disorganization group” had the goal of causing disruption in the ranks of enemies and exposing spies.

The main goal of the society was to prepare a people's socialist revolution. Members of “Land and Freedom” were supposed to conduct explanatory work among the peasantry - both in verbal form and in the form of “propaganda with facts.” Terrorist activity was allowed only in individual cases for self-defense.

The society's program spoke of the transfer of all land into the hands of peasants and the freedom of secular self-government. The landowners learned a lesson from the recent “walking”, putting forward demands that were close and understandable to the peasants.

On December 6, 1876, “Land and Freedom” organized a demonstration in front of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. They hoped to gather several thousand people and march through the city with a red banner. But only 300-400 people gathered. The police set janitors, clerks, and loaders on them, and the beating began. About 20 people were arrested, others fled. Soon five were sent to hard labor, 10 people were exiled. Such a harsh reprisal against participants in a peaceful demonstration caused bewilderment and murmurs in society.

After an unsuccessful demonstration, the populists decided to once again focus on work in the countryside. Refusing “flying propaganda”, landowners settled in groups in the Volga region, Don and Kuban. It seemed to them that it was precisely where the traditions of the Cossack freemen and the legends about Razin and Pugachev were alive that it would be easiest to rouse the people to revolt.

“Settled” activity did not bring much success. The landowners lost heart, not realizing how naive their attempts to immediately rouse the people to revolt were. Populist settlements were tracked down by the police. By the autumn of 1877 there were almost none left. A serious crisis was brewing in “Land and Freedom”.

Literature

Gromakov S.G. Russian history. M., 2008.

Kramor A.K. The history of homeland. M., 2007.

Akaev A.L. Russian history. St. Petersburg, 2007.

Gryzlov K.V. History of Russia: from ancient times to the present day. M., 2006.

Social movement in Russia in the 60-70s. 19th century

History lesson in 10th grade (2 hours)

The purpose of the lesson : talk about the main directions of the social movement in the 60-70s. 19th century

Lesson plan:

Social upsurge of the 60s. 19th century

Radicals and the government

Notes on the board:

I. Important dates:

1863 - Polish uprising

1866 - assassination attempt on Alexander II by D. Karakozov.

1874-1875 - “going to the people”

1876 - creation of the revolutionary organization “Land and Freedom”

1878 – trial of Vera Zasulich

II. Prominent figures:

A.I. Herzen

N.G. Chernyshevsky

M.A. Bakunin

P.L. Lavrov

P.N. Tkachev

III. Basic Concepts

Conservatives

Liberals

Radicals

Populism

Raznochintsy

Lesson equipment:

Presentation
Materials with source text

Teacher's methods of activity
1. Using a presentation.
2.Management of laboratory work with documents and textbook text in order to solve cognitive tasks (lesson-seminar).
3. Formulation of the main conclusions on the topic in a supporting summary.

I. Learning new material.

The teacher reports:

However, conservative forces also increased pressure on the tsar. Repressions began to be used against representatives of the liberal movement (the imprisonment of world mediators of the Tver province in the Peter and Paul Fortress after they dared to criticize the government at their meeting and sent Alexander II an address in which they pointed out the need to create an elected representative office to coordinate reforms).

Questions: 1.Who are liberals?

2. How do liberals differ from conservatives?

3. How do you think liberals should have viewed government reforms in the 60s and 70s?

Under Alexander II, the main ideologist and inspirer of the conservative course was M.N. Katkov, Russian publicist, publisher, literary critic, editor of the newspaper "Moskovskie Vedomosti", the founder of Russian political journalism. The main task of this direction of social thought was to prove the destructiveness of liberal and even more so radical ideas that destroy the “nationality” and lead to revolution. Katkov also argued that the ongoing reforms were destructive for Russia. The main printed organ of the conservatives was the magazine “Russian Messenger” and the newspaper “Vest”. Katkov welcomed the suppression of the Polish uprising and considered it necessary to pursue a tough policy towards the Poles.

Question: The interests of which class were reflected by the conservative movement?

Questions: 1.What do you see as common ground between liberals and conservatives of the post-reform era?

2.What were the features of post-reform liberalism?

Question: Do you think this meant the creation of a real representative body?

Question: It is known that Alexander II was not a principled opponent of the constitution and the creation of a representative system. How then can we explain his reluctance to make concessions to the demands of society?

Alexander II feared that with the limitation of autocratic power, Russia would plunge into the abyss of internal strife. A strong central government seemed to him the only guarantee against internal turmoil.

In 1861, a new, raznochinsky, stage of the Russian liberation movement began.

Raznochintsy - “people of different ranks and titles.” A commoner was a person who did not belong to any of the established classes: not assigned to anynobility, nor merchants, neither to to the bourgeoisie, neither to peasantry, which did not have personal nobility or spiritual sana. Commoners included people from clergy, merchants, philistines, peasants, petty officials. INfiction And journalismAt that time, the commoners were often contrasted with the nobles. They were perceived not only as a social class, but also as carriers of a new ideology -liberal, democratic, progressive, revolutionary.

Questions: 1.What social processes led to the emergence of heterogeneity?2. Give the socio-psychological characteristics of the commoner.

Question: What were the reasons for peasant unrest after the abolition of serfdom?

Questions: 1.What does “radical” mean? 2.What do you think was associated with the rise of the radical movement in Russia?

In the first post-reform years, the Kolokol magazine, published by A. I. Herzen in London from July 1, 1857, continued to enjoy great influence in Russia.

Question: Remember what you know about A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarevo.

Question: How do such repressions fit in with the government's liberal reform agenda?

Questions: 1. Why was N. G. Chernyshevsky the “ruler of thoughts” of the youth of the 60s?

2. How was his influence manifested?

Question: Why do you think a general peasant uprising did not break out in 1863?

In 1863, in Moscow, based on the community of Penza students, an illegal circle arose, the leader of which was student N.A. Ishutin. The members of the circle follow the example of the heroes of the novel “What is to be done?” organized various kinds of workshops - artels (bookbinding and sewing workshops, a school, an association of cab drivers, etc.). In 1865, they established connections with the St. Petersburg revolutionaries, led by I.A. Khudyakov. On April 4, 1866, circle member D.V. Karakozov shot at Alexander II. The attempt was unsuccessful. Karakozov was captured and then executed, the Ishutin circle was destroyed.

The ideology of “nihilism” gained great popularity in the 60s among young people, especially among students. What was a typical nihilist like? Remember the type of nihilist captured in the image of Bazarov in Turgenev. “Nihilists” in the pre-reform period sought to acquire practical knowledge in the areas that they considered most useful: engineering, medicine, education, agronomy, etc. The choice of specialty was determined by the ideology of the “nihilists”: the desire to be useful to society. Young people were drawn to higher education, but the student unrest that rocked Russian universities shortly after the abolition of serfdom meant that many students were deprived of the opportunity, for various reasons, to complete their courses. They found themselves in zemstvo institutions, serving as doctors, teachers, and agronomists. Many of them followed the call of A.I. Herzen: “repay the debt to the people”, “repent” before the people. The image of a “repentant nobleman” serving the people in the village became very popular among young people. This is how “going to the people” began. This movement was called populism.

Question: Is there a connection between nihilism and heterogeneity?

Social revolutionary direction

In historiography this direction is also called “conspiratorial" or " Blanquist" The main theoreticians of the social-revolutionary current of Russian populism -P. N. Tkachevand to a certain extentN. A. Morozov. Tkachev argued thatautocracyin Russia has no social support in any class of Russian society and it can be quickly eliminated. To do this, the “carriers of the revolutionary idea,” the radical part of the intelligentsia, had to create a strictly conspiratorial organization capable of seizing power and turning the country into a large community-commune.

Liberal-revolutionary direction

The leading ideologists of this trend in populism (referred to in Soviet historiography as “propaganda”, and in the post-Soviet - “moderate”) wereP. L. Lavrov andN. K. Mikhailovsky.

Anarchist direction

If Tkachev and his followers believed in the political unification of like-minded people in the name of creating a new type of state, the anarchists disputed the need for reforms within the state. Their ideologists wereM. A. Bakunin And P. A. Kropotkin. Both of them were skeptical of any power, considering it to suppress the freedom of the individual and enslave it.

Bakunin considered the Russian person to be a rebel “by instinct, by vocation,” and the people as a whole, he believed, had already developed the ideal of freedom over the course of many centuries. Therefore, he believed that the revolutionaries only had to move on to organizing a nationwideriot(hence the name in Marxist historiography for the wing of populism he heads as “rebellious”). The purpose of a rebellion according to Bakunin is not only the liquidation of the existing state, but also the prevention of the creation of a new one.

Kropotkin emphasized the decisive role of the masses in the reconstruction of society and called on the “collective mind” of the people to create communes, autonomies, and federations.

Questions: 1. What are the similarities and differences between M.A.’s views? Bakunina, P.L. Lavrova and P.N. Tkachev? 2. Whose ideas seem least utopian to you?

Questions: 1. Determine the characteristic features of populism?

2.What methods did the populists use in their practical activities? 3.What were the reasons for “going to the people”?

4.What were the features of this movement and its results?

5. Why did “going to the people” fail?

April 2, 1879 landowner A.K. Solovyov shot Alexander II. The attempt was unsuccessful. Soloviev was hanged. To consider the issue of the terrorist struggle, it was decided to convene a congress of members of the Land and Freedom society. The congress met in June 1879 in Voronezh. The congress left the organization's program unchanged, but agreed with terror as one of the methods of waging political struggle. The congress participants spoke out in favor of regicide. In August 1879, a new congress met in St. Petersburg, where a split in “Land and Freedom” occurred. The “villagers”, those who advocated propaganda among the peasants, formed the “Black Redistribution” society, and the “politicians” who supported terror formed the “People’s Will”.

Questions: 1. Give a description and assessment of the activities of the organization “Land and Freedom”. 2. What are the reasons for the collapse of the Earth and Freedom organization?

The programmatic and statutory foundations of “Narodnaya Volya” were set out in the documents: “Program of the Executive Committee”, “Preparatory work of the party”, Program of working members of the “Narodnaya Volya” party. “Narodnaya Volya” considered its immediate tasks to be the preparation of a political coup, the overthrow of the autocracy and the transfer of power to the people. Practical activities in the program were divided into propaganda and destructive. The Narodnaya Volya attached great importance to propaganda in the army and among the workers. The program of destructive activity was reduced to individual terror. The People's Will created an organization headed by the Executive Committee. The members of the executive committee were professional revolutionaries; The leading role among them was played by A.D. Mikhailov, A.I. Zhelyabov, N.A. Morozov, N.E. Sukhanov, S.L. Perovskaya, V.N. Figner, M.F. Frolenko. In 1880-1881 they carried out a number of unsuccessful attempts on the life of Alexander II, including an explosion in the Winter Palace, which was carried out by Stepan Khalturin. On March 1, 1881, terrorists led by S. Perovskaya killed Alexander II.

Questions: 1. What differences do you see between the populists of the 60s and 70s?

2. Why did the populist movement become more and more radical?

3.What is your attitude towards the assassination of Alexander II?

4.Can it be said that the murder of Alexander II led the Narodnaya Volya members to their goal?Why didn't the assassination of the Tsar lead to a revolution in Russia?

5. Think about why the emperor, nicknamed the “Liberator,” who abolished serfdom and carried out liberal reforms in the country, was killed?

6. Using the example of “Narodnaya Volya”, determine the effectiveness of revolutionary terror.

II. Presentation on the topic of the lesson.

See Attachment.

III. Working with sources.

See Appendix 1.

Reading source materials. Discussion of what you read.

IV. Final test

Purpose of the lesson: talk about the main directions of the social movement of the 60-70s.

Lesson plan:

1. Movement for the constitution.

2. Russian conservatives;

3. Radicals and the government.

4. Populism.

Basic concepts: liberalism, populism.

The most important dates: 1863 - Polish uprising, 1867 - closure of the Kolokol magazine, 1866 - first attempt on the life of Alexander II.

Outstanding personalities: A. I. Herzen, N. G. Chernyshevsky, S. Nechaev, M. N. Katkov.

Lesson equipment: portrait gallery.

II. Learning new material

1. The teacher reports: During the liberal reforms, zemstvo and city self-government bodies of the lower and middle levels were created. The next logical step, according to the liberals, should have been the introduction of an all-Russian parliament and the granting of a constitution. Almost every year they sent addresses to the king asking him to complete the creation of a system of representation.

Note in notebooks:

Social upsurge of the early 60s.

However, conservative forces also increased their pressure on the tsar and the government soon after the adoption of the Manifesto of February 19, 1861. Shortly after the signing of the manifesto on peasant reform, the liberal N. A. Milyutin was dismissed from his post as Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs, who had not completed work on the zemstvo reform projects . Repressions began to be used against representatives of the liberal movement (the imprisonment of peace mediators of the Tver province in the Peter and Paul Fortress, after they dared to criticize the government at their meeting and sent Alexander II an address in which they pointed out the need to create a representative office of elected representatives from all over the land to coordinate the course of reforms ).

And in 1863, a liberation uprising broke out in Poland, spreading to Chita and Belarus. The Poles counted on the support of European public opinion and European states, which could have an effect on Russia, weakened by the Crimean War. The government also felt this danger of external interference in the internal affairs of the empire.

Point out to students that Alexander II was willing to grant a constitution and a parliament, but, concerned about the demands made during the Polish Uprising, he feared that granting a parliament and a constitution would lead to unrest and the collapse of the empire. Valuev’s project (creation of a representative body by introducing elected representatives from zemstvos into the State Council, while maintaining all the fullness of autocratic power). Valuev’s project, approved in 1863, intended to introduce elected representatives from zemstvos into the State Council, but while maintaining the full power of the monarch.

Do you think this meant the creation of a real representative body? (No, since the State Council was only a representative body. At the same time, the implementation of this plan would be a significant concession to society and a big step forward towards the liberalization of the political regime.)

Note in notebooks:

1863 Polish uprising, project by P. A. Valuev.

However, the uprising was soon suppressed, the danger of internationalization of the conflict passed, and the government abandoned the project.

However, the liberal movement did not weaken. In 1865, representatives of first the Moscow Noble Assembly, and then the St. Petersburg Zemstvo Assembly, in addresses addressed to the emperor, insisted on the creation of a central elected representation to discuss the general needs of the people. Alexander did not agree and even temporarily dissolved the St. Petersburg Zemstvo Assembly.

Note in notebooks:

1865 - addresses of the Moscow noble assembly and the St. Petersburg zemstvo assembly.

It is known that Alexander II was not a principled opponent of the constitution and the creation of a representative system, as he stated in private conversations. How then can we explain his reluctance to make concessions to the demands of society? (Alexander II feared that with the limitation of autocratic power, Russia would plunge into the abyss of internal strife and might even disintegrate. A strong central government seemed to him the only guarantee against internal turmoil.)

What is special about this (early) stage of the liberal movement? (It was aristocratic in composition.)

Starting from the address of the St. Petersburg zemstvo, the leading role in the movement for the constitution passes to zemstvo institutions. The peak of the zemstvo movement occurred in the late 70s - early 80s. In 1879, a secret congress of zemstvo representatives met in Moscow and decided to demand the continuation of political reforms. However, in general, the zemstvo movement could not become a truly nationwide movement. He was supported by enlightened landowners and intelligentsia.

How do you think liberals should have viewed the government reforms of the 60s and 70s? (In different ways, some of them were generally satisfied with the reforms, while the more radically inclined sought further constitutional reforms.)

Already in the 60s, a split occurred in the liberal environment based on attitudes towards reforms and government actions. The Polish uprising, which was brutally suppressed by the government, split the liberal camp especially strongly. Some of them condemned the brutal massacre, among them A. I. Herzen. Back in 1862, he published in Kolokol an appeal to Russian officers to assist Polish patriots.

Why were many liberals put off by Herzen's support for the Polish uprising? (They rejected the armed method of struggle.)

2. The teacher reports: Under Alexander II, the main ideologist and inspirer of the conservative course was M. N. Katkov. The main task of this direction of social thought was to prove the destructiveness of liberal and even more so radical ideas that destroy the “nationality” and lead to revolution. Katkoy also proved that even the reforms being carried out were destructive for Russia. The main organ of the conservatives was the magazine "Russian Bulletin".

Katkov welcomed the suppression of the Polish uprising; moreover, he considered it necessary to pursue a tough policy towards the Poles. It was thanks to Katkov’s brilliant articles, who sharply criticized supporters of Polish independence in Russian society, that the influence of the famous “Bell” of A. I. Herzen was undermined, and his popularity soon fades away. In 1867, the Bell ceased to exist.

The interests of which class were reflected by the conservative movement? (That part of the nobility that sought to return to old times - the times of serfdom.)

3. The teacher reports: Constitutional expectations were characteristic of moderate circles of the Russian intelligentsia. Radical oppositionists began to call for a decisive and immediate change in the political system in Russia. They did not rely on the good will of the government, believing that society itself should take into hand the matter of liberation from the shackles of autocracy. This led to the final demarcation of the only opposition. Among the liberal opposition, the most radical part stands out, following the calls of M. A. Bakunin, N. G. Chernyshevsky and others.

What do you think was responsible for the rise of the radical movement in Russia? (Largely due to the slowness and indecisiveness of the government in carrying out liberal reforms..)

Working with the textbook (§ 76, pp. 238-239), making notes.

P. G. Chernyshevsky, P. A. Serno-Solovyevich: release of underground leaflets “Velikorus” (1861). Demands: transfer all the land to the peasants, freedom of speech and press, constitution - a liberal program.

1861, Pyotr Zaichnevsky - proclamation “Young Russia”. A call for a bloody revolution. Introduction of communist orders (social production, common families, etc.).

In the modern social system, in which everything is false, everything is absurd - from religion, which forces one to believe in the non-existent, in the dream of a heated imagination - God, and to the family, the unit of society, not a single one of the foundations of which can withstand even superficial criticism, from the legalization of trade - this organized theft and until the position of the worker, constantly exhausted by work from which it is not he, but the capitalist, who receives benefits is recognized as reasonable; a woman deprived of all political rights and placed on a par with animals. There is only one way out of this oppressive, terrible situation that is destroying modern man, and against which his best forces are spent, - revolution, a bloody and inexorable revolution, a revolution that must radically change everything, without exception, the foundations of modern society and destroy the supporters of the current ok...

Proclamation “Young Russia”]

The proclamation identified the primary object of revolutionary terror:

Soon, soon the day will come when we will unfurl the great banner of the future, the red banner and with a loud cry “Long live the social and democratic Russian Republic!” Let's move to the Winter Palace to exterminate those living there. It may happen that the whole matter will end with one extermination of the imperial family, that is, some hundred or two people, but it may happen, and this latter is more certain, that the entire imperial party, as one person, will stand up for the sovereign, because here the question will be about whether she herself should exist or not. In this last case, with full faith in ourselves, in our strengths, in the sympathy of the people for us, in the glorious future of Russia, which was destined to be the first to carry out the great cause of socialism, we will utter one cry: “to the axes,” and then... ... then beat the imperial party, without sparing, just as it does not spare us now, beat in the squares, if this vile bastard dares to come out to them, beat in houses, beat in the cramped alleys of cities, beat on the wide streets of capitals, beat in villages and villages !…

1862 - rumors about the arson of St. Petersburg by nihilists.

1861 - proclamation “Bow to the lordly peasants from their well-wishers.” It explained in an accessible form the predatory nature of the reform. The proclamation convinced the peasants not to trust the tsar and to prepare for an organized uprising. Suspicion of the authorship fell on P. G. Chernyshevsky.

1863 According to Chernyshevsky, the preservation of quitrent and corvée and the associated position of temporarily obligated person left in force the practical power of the landowner over the peasant: “So that means you’ve been living as before in bondage to the landowner all these years.”:70. Believing that the landowner would not renounce his claims to the land and, instead of reducing them, would only increase his oppression over the peasants, Chernyshevsky wrote: “Well, the man will agree to everything that the master demands. So it will turn out that the master’s corvée will burden him with more than the current burden, or the quitrent will be heavier than the current one.”:72, he argued that the old serfdom would only be replaced by a new one: “It’s only in the words that the difference comes out, that the names change. Previously, they called you serfs or lords, but now they are ordering you to be called urgently obligated; but in reality there is either little or no change. These words are made up! Urgently obligated - you see, what stupidity! Why the hell did they put such words into their minds?<...>So this is how it is: live for two years, the king says, until the land is demarcated, but in reality the land will be demarcated for five or ten years; and then you live for another seven years in the same captivity, but in truth it will be released again for seven years, and maybe seventeen or twenty, because everything, as you yourself see, is going through a delay. So this means that you have been living as before in bondage with the landowner all these years, two years, yes seven years, that means nine years, as it is written in the decree, but with delays it will actually turn out to be twenty years, or thirty years, or more.” :70-71 .

1864 Chernyshevsky makes an attack on the higher authorities, claiming that the tsar “slandered” and “seduced” the peasants by granting freedom: “Didn’t the king know what kind of work he was doing? Yes, you can judge for yourself whether it is difficult to understand. So he knew. ...He lied to you, he seduced you" :74 .

1865 Trying in his proclamation to give the Russian peasant an example of how a free person should live, he reflects on “real will,” referring to the experience of European countries: “And here’s something else that both the French and the British have the will of: there is no poll tax... There are no parcel ports; everyone can go wherever he wants, live wherever he wants, he doesn’t need permission from anyone to do so...<...>And here’s another thing they have their will: no one has power over you in anything except the world. Everything is right in the world for them. Our police officer is either a police officer or some kind of clerk, but they don’t have any of this, but instead of everything there is a headman, who can’t do anything without the world and can give an answer to the whole world, but the world has power over the headman in everything... Is it a colonel, a general? Whether it’s with them, it’s all the same: he shakes his hat in front of the headman and must obey the headman in everything... With them, the king has no power over the people, but the people have power over the king.”:77. Chernyshevsky also connects freedom with the lack of recruitment, such as among the British: “Whoever wants to serve in the military is the same as our landowners serve as cadets and officers if they want. And whoever doesn’t want to, there is no coercion, and their military service is profitable, the soldier is given a large salary; This means that they go to serve of their own free will, however many people are required.”

1862 - creation of the underground revolutionary organization “Land and Freedom” (first head - Serno-Solovyevich). Release of illegal literature, counting on the General Peasant Uprising in 1863 (when ransom payments begin). the uprising did not occur -> self-dissolution of the organization in 1864

1863-1866 - organization of Ishutins (Nikolai Ishutin and Dmitry Karakozov) Moscow branch of “Land and Freedom”. The task of preparing the peasant revolution. The ideology is based on the ideas of N. G. Chernyshevsky.

Creation of a secret terrorist organization "Hell". 1864 - First attempt on the life of Alexander II. Shot by D. Karakozov.

Government reaction. 1866 - closure of Sovremennik; removal of Liberal ministers from government; universities are placed under police control. Key figures: conservatives, Minister of Public Education D. A. Tolstoy, head of the III department P. A. Shuvalov.

The teacher complements: Unlike the liberal movement, which was largely aristocratic in composition, the radicals were predominantly composed of commoners. This group included people from the clergy, merchants, tradesmen, peasantry, petty officials and impoverished nobility, who received an education and became detached from their previous social environment. With the fall of serfdom, commoners became the main social stratum - the basis for the formation of the intelligentsia.

4. The teacher reports: In addition to liberal and radical ideas, the ideology of “nihilism” has gained great popularity among young people, especially students. What was a typical nihilist like? Remember the type of nihilist impressed in the image of Bazarov in Turgenev. The “nihilists” of the pre-reform era sought to acquire practical knowledge in areas that they considered especially useful: engineering, medicine, education, agronomy, etc. The choice of specialty was determined by the ideology of the “nihilists”: the desire to be useful to society. Young people were drawn to higher education, but the student unrest that rocked Russian universities shortly after the abolition of serfdom meant that many students were deprived of the opportunity, for various reasons, to complete their courses. They found themselves in zemstvo institutions, serving as doctors, teachers, and agronomists. Many of them followed Herzen's call. In “The Bell,” addressing young people expelled from universities, he urged them to go serve the people in order to “repay the debt to the people,” to “repent” before the people. The image of a “repentant nobleman” serving the people in the village became very popular among young people. She also obscured the rebellious figure of the nihilist. This is how “going to the people” began. This movement was called populism.

Note in notebooks:

Populism -a powerful social society with its own ideology, based on the idea of enlightened people serving their people, “repaying the debt” of the people.

The teacher reports: At the origins of the movement were Herzen and Chernyshevsky. Among them, the populists adopted a negative attitude towards the bourgeois system and faith in the socialist essence of the Russian peasant community. They believed it was possible to “skip over” the stage of bourgeois society in Russia and immediately build a just socialist one. However, reality was to disappoint them: the Russian peasant turned out to be much more of an owner than expected. The men themselves handed over many populists to the police.

	Question of constitution and reforms	Question about land	Method
Liberals	The main question is that Russia needs a constitution, the creation of representative bodies of power (Parliament), deepening liberal reforms	They see the shortcomings of the peasant reform, but are generally satisfied with the reform	Evolutionary, the path of reform
Conservatives	Further liberal reforms are disastrous for Russia. Unlimited autocracy is a guarantee of the unity and prosperity of Russia and the people. Criticism of the government for inconsistency, concessions to liberals
Populists	This is a secondary issue for them. Reforms will still yield little; a radical restructuring of society is needed. However, in general, they advocate reforms, for the expansion of civil liberties - this is a condition for the expansion of revolutionary agitation	All land should become the property of the peasants working on it. The reform is unfair, it has robbed the peasants. The peasants must understand this and rise up	The path of revolution, a peasant uprising, which must be organized and led by the populists. Also the way to educate the people

III. Lesson summary