Changes in the economy and social structure of society. Presentation on the topic: Changes in the economy and social order, part 1 Changes in the economy and social order table
The capitalists disappear. Changes are taking place in the social composition of the working class. Before the revolution, the working class numbered 1.5 to 3 million. For the most part, they were unskilled. At the beginning of the 30s, the qualifications were also low. There were not enough workers; organizational recruitment was carried out in the villages. They were sent to the construction site first (the lowest qualification). But the working class in general was very young.
Before the revolution, the stratification of the peasantry was very sharp. After the revolution, the percentage of different strata in the village changes. The kulaks began to occupy only 3% of the total mass. With the transition to complete collectivization, the question arose of eliminating the kulaks as a class, exploiter. For this it was required to determine the parameters of the fist. In 1927, the People's Commissariat of Justice appealed to the Central Statistical Office. From there came the answer that there are no such parameters, depending on the area of residence. However, general parameters have been highlighted.
1) The presence of farm laborers.
2) Ownership of quasi-industrial enterprises (churns).
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, labor, etc.), and those who were obsessed with work (they spent an extra penny on themselves). There were also two categories of poor people (up to 20% of the total): loafers (drunkards) and poor people by coincidence (for example, one daughter in a family, separated from a peasant household).
The question arises of collectivization and dispossession (confiscation of the means of production from the kulaks). This prospect was met in two ways. But before the mass collectivization in 1928, a demonstration action was held: free of charge in Ukraine, tractors were cultivated with tractors. A collective farm is not a state farm for you. To join a collective farm, an entrance fee was needed. 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 2 years later 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 regional executive committee and a representative of the local USPU. A list of kulaks was presented, which were approved by the regional executive committee and the UGPU. Kulaks were divided into three groups. The first included those who performed with weapons in their hands. The second group included family members of the first group and those who strongly opposed collectivization. The third consisted of just fists. Areas of resettlement and eviction were established by order of the UGPU. To a large extent, who was in charge of the area played a role. The first group of kulaks was to be shot or sent to the camps. The second group was subject to eviction to remote areas of Siberia and the Urals. The third group, as a rule, moved within this area. Fists were used in the construction of iron works, the construction of collective farms, in Kazakhstan in open coal mining. Persons over 60 years old, pregnant women, children under 14 years old were not subject to resettlement if there were relatives in their place of permanent residence who agreed to keep them with them. The 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 people resettled increased.
The plan was given for 5% of the resettled, according to it they were given food. But the number of resettled people was 2 times higher, then the daily food rate decreased. Thus, the mortality rate of immigrants was very high. Simultaneously with the resettlement of the kulaks, the cities were cleared of petty criminals who fell from the same echelons with settlers, which undoubtedly sharply worsened conditions. The fists taught the status of a special settler. They were deprived of all political rights and the right to leave the 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 cities, they usually settled there and lived peacefully. But when they returned to the village, they began to muddy the waters there. They also left the relocated places. After the report, Stalin decided to return the status of special migrants. But in 1936 this status was removed by a new constitution.
During the period of dispossession, according to the USPU, 1,630 thousand peasants were dispossessed and resettled.
Detailed solution paragraph § 23 on history for 9th grade students, authors Arsentiev N.M., Danilov A.A., Levandovsky A.A. 2016
Question to paragraph 1. List the main actions taken by the government in the economic sphere. Give an assessment of the activities of I. A. Vyshnegradskiy, 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:
Reducing taxes in areas related to entrepreneurship for the sake of stimulating it with a simultaneous increase in taxes in some others;
Playing with treasury funds on foreign exchanges;
Direct incentives for industry (including railroad construction);
Stabilization of the ruble and the introduction of its gold standard.
Question to 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 a capitalist mode of management with the hiring of workers and the purchase of new technology (but such innovations were far from all farms, such farms prevailed only in some provinces, in the majority the former labor service system prevailed).
Hindered development:
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 technology, a significant part of which had to be transported from abroad;
Preservation of the labor system in many farms (peasants, as under serfdom, worked in the land of the master with their own implements);
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 entrepreneurial peasants to get rich.
Question to 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, proletariat and intelligentsia.
Question to paragraph 4. How did the position of the nobility change during the 1870-1890s?
The role of the nobility in society has greatly decreased; it no longer constituted the majority either among the officers or among the 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 run their household in a new way. It was they who provided the main grain deliveries both to the cities and for export. Some others have invested in industry through joint stock companies or in other ways. However, most of the nobles continued to become poor, mortgage or even sell estates. Thus, among the highest dignitaries, the largest financiers and other masters of life, there were still many nobles, but the estate as a whole was poor and its importance was declining.
Question to paragraph 5. From what strata of the population was the Russian bourgeoisie formed? 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 a profit. Among its representatives 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 peasants-Old Believers also became bourgeois, who, apparently, were helped by the community of co-religionists. In the bourgeoisie there were both former Nikononian peasants and petty bourgeoisie. That is, this class consisted of representatives of all estates, but in an unequal proportion.
Large industrialists do not seem to be helping revolutionaries because of their social background. Rather, they wanted to influence the government in this way. The most typical example is the Moscow bourgeois milieu, 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 bred their competitors in the regions. They hoped for greater government conservatism in the financial sphere, which implied, as before the reform, the consolidation of privileges for the richest and obstacles for smaller producers. And such a greater conservatism could have been provoked by the rise of the revolutionary movement.
Question to paragraph 6. What are the features of the Russian proletariat? What facts show the influence of village life on the work of industrial enterprises?
Peculiarities:
Significant concentration of the proletariat in large enterprises;
The close connection of the proletariat with the countryside;
Frequent combination of working and agricultural activities (about half of the proletariat);
The multinationality of the proletariat.
Thinking, comparing, reflecting: 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 leaders?
During the reign of Alexander II, statesmen were convinced that economic reforms were not possible without political ones, therefore they carried out them in a complex. Thus, the legal 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 some 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 an increase in government revenues increases the power of the state in general 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 he did not touch the inviolability of the autocracy. At the same time, in domestic politics, the inviolability of the autocracy, in the opinion of the ruler, could only be strengthened by conservatism, especially since at that stage it did not interfere with liberalism in the economy, and therefore an increase in state revenues. Alexander III did not pay attention to labels such as liberal or conservative; he selected people whose activities he considered useful for Russia.
Thinking, comparing, reflecting: question number 2. Compare the economic programs of N. Kh. Bunge, I. A. Vyshnegradskiy 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, helped the development of entrepreneurship by reducing 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 loss of the treasury in the short term, he increased taxes not related to entrepreneurship.
I.A. Vyshnegradskiy was himself 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, actively attracted foreign capital. The minister was concerned about the trade balance, so 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: Vyshnegradskiy was striving for precisely this, because the strong ruble itself increased treasury revenues.
S. Yu. Witte as a whole continued the policy of his predecessors. He carried out measures to directly stimulate the economy, especially railway construction. He also carried out a monetary reform after the death of Alexander III in 1895-1897, introducing the famous gold rubles and the free exchange of paper money for precious metals.
Thinking, comparing, reflecting: question number 3. Do you agree with the assertion that any nobleman, philistine or even a peasant could become a representative of the bourgeoisie, but not any representative of the bourgeoisie could become a landowner or intellectual? Explain your answer.
One cannot fully agree with this statement, it is only partly true. There were indeed representatives of all estates among the bourgeoisie and a nobleman, for example, could well become an industrialist with the right investment of capital, but the same peasants, as a rule, traveled 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 it. The capital of large industrialists fully allowed them to buy land, and hereditary nobility was sometimes 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 title, this title no longer gave significant advantages. Education was required to become an intellectual. The bourgeois could receive it or supplement it. It is known that with age, knowledge is acquired worse, but in history there are examples of great scientists who came to science after 30 and even later (the same Ignatius Domeyko). However, education did not provide a guarantee of work, therefore they were in no hurry to exchange their own entrepreneurial business for such a comparative chance to join intellectual work.
Thinking, comparing, reflecting: question number 4. Compare the levels of economic development of the advanced countries of Western Europe, Russia, and 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 developed actively, and an 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 townspeople (who gradually began to prevail in the population of developed countries) due to technical innovations such as water supply, central heating, sewerage, electrification of houses, public transport, mass vaccination, etc.
Russia lagged behind them. Not all industries were actively developing. The population for the most part remained rural, in addition, it was poor and its impoverishment continued. However, Russia lagged behind only the advanced countries of Europe. In France, even in the second half of the 19th century, the number of townspeople was approximately equal to the number of rural residents. And comparison, for example, with Spain, Russia won.
Most of the Asian countries were colonies. Their own industry developed poorly there, while the influx of industrial goods from Europe led to the decline of traditional industries. The conversion of agriculture to cash crops and the desire of landowners to maximize profits increased exploitation. All this led to a decrease in the standard of living of the population.
But among the Asian countries, the exception was the most advanced of them - Japan. It 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.
Thinking, comparing, reflecting: question number 5. Make a presentation-travel "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 Great Siberian Way was the name of the road from Vladivostok to Miass (Chelyabinsk region) with a length of about 7 thousand kilometers. Already in Soviet times, it was united 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: Discussions 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 options for a possible route were 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: Ceremony of laying 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 rubles. The heir to the throne Nikolai Alexandrovich himself opened the construction site, taking the first wheelbarrow of land.
Image: portrait of O.P. Vyazemsky
Text: Construction began in Vladivostok. As one would expect from such a large-scale project, construction proceeded simultaneously on several sites. First of all, the construction of a path along the Ussuriysky Territory to Khabarovsk began. The site was built 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 from Chelyabinsk to the Ob was under construction. 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 him.
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 underway. Here construction was hampered by a large number of wide rivers, over which bridges had to be thrown. So the length of the bridge over the Yenisei was 950 meters.
Image: Lake Baikal
Text: In 1895, the construction of the second phase sections began, starting with the Transbaikal (1895-1900) under the leadership of A.N. Pushechnikov. Here the road ceased to be uninterrupted: the 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 Sino-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, allowed in the future to lay branches to the Dalniy and Port Arthur ports being built on the Kwantung Peninsula leased 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 Lake 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 leadership of B.U. Savrimovich. With a track 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: a train of the early 20th century in motion
Text: Train traffic on 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 Sino-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 loss of the controlled Chinese territories, so the construction was continued so that all the way to Vladivostok could be done on 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 was Alexander III actively involved in economic issues?
Why in the economic sphere did he entrust the affairs not to conservatives, but to reformers?
What policy was pursued by the Ministry of Finance 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 was still holding back its development?
How can the rapid population growth in the post-reform village be explained? 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 specific features 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?
From what strata of the population was the Russian bourgeoisie formed?
Why did the representatives of the bourgeoisie sometimes sympathize with the revolutionaries?
What changes were taking place among the intelligentsia?
What tasks did the construction of the Transsib 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 refusal of liberals from open political struggle?
What is the difference between the ideology of the Social Democrats and the ideology of populism? What do they have in common?
Why did the Marxists announce their complete break with Narodism?
What are the reasons for the decline of revolutionary populism in the 80-90s. XIX 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 the Peacemaker?
What new can be distinguished in the foreign policy of Alexander III in comparison with his predecessors?
Describe the main directions of Alexander III's foreign policy.
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 advantage of such an alliance?
What contradictions in the eastern direction have you managed to resolve and what new ones have replaced 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, on the initiative of K.P. Pobedonostsev, was the policy towards the Old Believers softened?
What policy was pursued by Alexander III in Poland?
What was the policy of Alexander III towards the Jews?
From the representatives of which social strata were formed at the end of the XIX century. national elites?
Indicate the similarities and differences in the national policies of Alexander II and Alexander III.
Control questions on the topic "Achievements of science and education in the II half of the XIX century.":
How did the era of Great Reforms affect the development of Russian culture?
How and why has the average literacy rate in Russia changed?
What was the difference between parish and zemstvo schools?
As in the 2nd half of the 19th century. developed secondary and higher education in Russia?
What scientific discoveries were made in the 2nd 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 you explain the discrepancy between the low level of literacy and the highest scientific achievements?
What, from your point of view, had to be done to make the entire population of the country literate?
CHANGES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM
Malenkov's economic program. The inefficiency of the existing economic system was obvious even to Stalin's closest 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 unnecessary objects was stopped: the Polar Railroad, the Main Turkmen Canal, the Volga-Ural Canal, etc. The 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 presented a new economic program. He stated that in the course of industrialization, the ratio between heavy and light industry changed - the latter became predominant. Malenkov urged, relying on the achieved level of heavy industry, to shift the center of gravity to the development of the agrarian sector and light industry, which could in a short time improve the supply of the population with essential goods.
The task was to increase yields and increase the material interest of the peasants. For this, the norms of obligatory deliveries from the personal subsidiary plots of collective farmers were markedly reduced. Cash taxes on peasant farms were halved, and purchase prices for agricultural products were increased threefold. The agricultural tax arrears were removed for the past years.
All this led to the intensification of production.
The collective farm peasantry embraced the new course with glee. This resulted in a sharp increase in the average annual growth rate of agricultural production - up to 7%.
After Malenkov was removed from affairs, the reforms proposed by him were gradually curtailed.
Khrushchev's agrarian policy. Khrushchev's economic approaches differed markedly from Malenkov's. Khrushchev believed that the main direction in the development of agriculture was the expansion of cultivated areas at the expense of virgin and fallow lands. This meant the continuation of the traditional - extensive way of agricultural development.
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. There were sent 30 thousand party workers, more than 120 thousand agricultural specialists, hundreds of thousands of volunteers. Through their heroic efforts, in the first five years, 42 million hectares of new lands were developed, and the gross grain harvest across the country increased by 1.5 times. 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 harvest: the grain that did not fit into the elevators was kept for almost a year in an open field, and then poured into ravines.
Soon, collective farms were given the right to amend their charters, taking into account local specifics. Collective farmers began to receive pensions and then issue passports. All these measures, without violating the existing system of economic management, included the factor of personal interest of the peasants. This provided a significant rise in agricultural production. For 1953-1958 the increase in agricultural production was 34% compared to 1948-1952.
However, it was these successes that gave Khrushchev confidence in the power of decrees and purely administrative measures. Ideological barriers also affected: the growing prosperity of the peasants gave rise to fears of their possible "degeneration" into the kulaks. And this was unacceptable under the conditions of "communist construction". A struggle began with the subsidiary plots of collective farmers. This was explained by the fact that the personal economy "loses its significance" during the transition to communism. The results were not slow to show: the peasants preferred to cut livestock and sell on the market, fruit trees - to cut down. Having ceased to produce meat, butter and milk, the peasant himself turned into a buyer. The country began to feel food shortages again, and the government began purchasing grain 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 for 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 7,000-strong demonstration of workers.
Industry development. The refusal to shift the center of gravity to the development of the light industry, 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 economic management, Khrushchev abolished sectoral ministries in order to eliminate departmental barriers and began to create territorial councils of the national economy (economic councils). This, on the one hand, strengthened the economic rights of local authorities, but on the other, led to the strengthening of "localism".
Nevertheless, the results of the implementation of the fifth and sixth five-year plans were impressive. More than 8 thousand large industrial enterprises were commissioned. Electricity production for 10 years (1950-1960) increased more than 3 times. The Cherepovets, Karaganda, Transcaucasian metallurgical plants were put into operation. By the beginning of the 60s, compared with 1945, iron and steel smelting 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, 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 (it was now not agrarian, as at the beginning of the century, and not industrial-agrarian, as before the war, but industrial); branches of production appeared, reflecting a new level of industrial development (petrochemistry, electric power engineering, electrical engineering, production of artificial materials, etc.); in the leading industries, manual labor was replaced by machine labor; the ratio of urban and rural population has changed in favor of cities; the rates of economic growth have significantly increased (they have exceeded the rates of population growth); conditions were created to improve the general educational, 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 commissioned in Obninsk. The nuclear-powered icebreaker Lenin was launched three years later. 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 made the first manned flight around the Earth in the history of mankind on the Vostok spacecraft.
The most important contribution to the creation of rocket and space systems was made by M.V. Keldysh, S.P.Korolev, V.P. Glushko, M.K. Yangel. Major discoveries were made by Soviet physicists N. N. Bogolyubov, V. I. Veksler, B. M. Pontecorvo, G. N. Flerov. Physicists N. G. Basov and A. M. Prokhorov began development 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 disadvantages, the economic policy of Stalin's heirs had a pronounced social orientation. From year to year, salaries in industry increased (for 1961-1965 - by 19%). The incomes of collective farmers grew. The retirement age was lowered and the minimum pension increased. All types of tuition fees have been abolished. The working week has been reduced from 48 hours to 46 hours. Introduced back in the 20s were canceled. compulsory government loans.
The most striking social achievement of Soviet society in the 1950s and early 1960s. became a program of large-scale housing construction. For 1955-1964 housing stock in cities increased by 80%. This made it possible to move from tents and barracks to new apartments for every fourth inhabitant of the country (54 million people). The housing standard itself also changed: families most often received not rooms in a communal apartment, but separate (albeit small) apartments (the so-called "Khrushchebs"). The construction of new schools, hospitals and institutes proceeded at a rapid pace. They were equipped with new types of technical equipment.
The production of televisions, refrigerators, and radios has grown significantly.
However, as economic difficulties grew, the government's tendency to solve emerging problems at the expense of workers became more and more pronounced. The tariff rates for production were reduced by almost a third, and the 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 using methods of economic incentives is needed.
What you need to know on this topic:
Socio-economic and political development of Russia at the beginning of the XX century. Nicholas II.
Internal policy of tsarism. Nicholas II. Increased repression. "Police Socialism".
Russian-Japanese War. Reasons, course, results.
Revolution 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 on June 3, 1907
Third June political system. Electoral law June 3, 1907 III State Duma. The alignment of political forces in the Duma. The activities of the Duma. Government terror. The decline of the labor movement in 1907-1910
Stolypin agrarian reform.
IV State Duma. Party composition and Duma factions. The activities of the Duma.
The political crisis in Russia on the eve of the war. The labor movement in the summer of 1914 The crisis at the top.
The international position of Russia at the beginning of the XX century.
The beginning of the First World War. The origin and nature of the war. Russia's entry into the war. The attitude of parties and classes to the war.
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.
Economy of Russia during the First World War.
The workers 'and peasants' movement in 1915-1916 Revolutionary movement in the army and navy. Growth of anti-war sentiment. Formation of the bourgeois opposition.
Russian culture of the XIX - early XX century.
Aggravation of socio-political contradictions in the country in January-February 1917. The beginning, prerequisites and nature of the revolution. The uprising in Petrograd. Formation of the Petrograd Soviet. Provisional Committee of the State Duma. Order No. I. Formation of the Provisional Government. Abdication of Nicholas II. The reasons for the emergence 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 in relation to war and peace, on agrarian, national, labor issues. Relations between the Provisional Government and the Soviets. V. I. Lenin's arrival in Petrograd.
Political parties (Cadets, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks): political programs, influence among the masses.
Crises of the Provisional Government. An attempt at a military coup in the country. The growth of revolutionary sentiments among the masses. Bolshevization of the metropolitan Soviets.
Preparation and conduct of an armed uprising in Petrograd.
II All-Russian Congress of Soviets. Decisions about power, peace, land. Formation of bodies of state power and administration. The 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 dispersal.
The first socio-economic transformations in the field of industry, agriculture, finance, labor and women's issues. Church and State.
Brest peace treaty, its conditions and meaning.
The economic tasks of the Soviet government in the spring of 1918. Aggravation of the food problem. The introduction of the food dictatorship. Workers' food detachments. Comedies.
The revolt of the Left SRs and the collapse of the bipartisan system in Russia.
First Soviet Constitution.
The reasons for the intervention and the civil war. The course of hostilities. Human and material losses during the civil war and military intervention.
Domestic policy of the Soviet leadership during the war. "War Communism". GOELRO plan.
The policy of the new government in relation to culture.
Foreign policy. Agreements with border countries. Russia's participation 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 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 period 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.
Lenin's illness and death. Internal party 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.
A course towards complete collectivization. Dekulakization.
The results of industrialization and collectivization.
Political, national-state development in the 30s. Internal party struggle. Political repression. Formation of the nomenclature as a layer of managers. The Stalinist regime and the USSR Constitution of 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. Emergency measures in the field of labor law. Measures to solve the grain problem. Military establishment. The growth in the number of the Red Army. Military reform. Repressions against the commanding 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. Inclusion of the Baltic republics and other territories into the USSR.
The periodization of the Great Patriotic War. The initial stage of the war. The transformation of 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.
Guerrilla warfare.
Human and material losses during the war.
Creation of an anti-Hitler coalition. Declaration of the United Nations. The problem of the second front. Big Three conferences. Problems of the post-war peace settlement and all-round cooperation. USSR and UN.
The beginning of the cold war. The contribution of the USSR to the creation of the "socialist camp". The formation of the CMEA.
Domestic policy of the USSR in the mid 40s - early 50s. Restoring the national economy.
Social and political life. Science and culture policy. Continued repression. "The Leningrad Affair". Campaign against cosmopolitanism. "Doctors' case".
Socio-economic development of Soviet society in the mid-50s - first half of the 60s.
Social and political development: XX Congress of the CPSU and condemnation of the personality cult of Stalin. Rehabilitation of victims of repression and deportation. Internal party struggle in the second half of the 50s.
Foreign policy: the creation of the Department of Internal Affairs. The entry of Soviet troops into Hungary. Aggravation of Soviet-Chinese relations. The split of the "socialist camp". Soviet-American relations and the Cuban missile crisis. USSR and the countries of the "third world". Reduction of the size of the armed forces of the USSR. Moscow Treaty on the Limitation of Nuclear Tests.
USSR in the mid 60s - first half of the 80s.
Socio-economic development: economic reform 1965
The growing difficulties of economic development. Decline in the rate of socio-economic growth.
USSR Constitution 1977
Social and political life of the USSR in the 1970s - early 1980s.
Foreign Policy: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Securing post-war borders in Europe. Moscow treaty with the FRG. 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. Aggravation 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. Multiparty system. Aggravation of the political crisis.
Aggravation of the national question. Attempts to reform the national state structure of the USSR. Declaration on State Sovereignty of the RSFSR. "Novoogarevsky 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 Organization.
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 deceleration of the rate of financial inflation. Aggravation of the struggle between the executive and legislative branches. Dissolution of the Supreme Soviet and the Congress of People's Deputies. The October events of 1993 Abolition of local bodies of Soviet power. Elections to the Federal Assembly. Constitution of the Russian Federation 1993. Formation of a presidential republic. Aggravation and overcoming of ethnic 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. Relations of Russia with non-CIS countries. The withdrawal of Russian troops from Europe and neighboring countries. Russian-American agreements. Russia and NATO. Russia and the Council of Europe. Yugoslavian crises (1999-2000) and the position of Russia.
- 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 development paths of the state after the Troubles were determined by the tasks of rebuilding the country. The recovery process after the Troubles 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 in Siberia, the Southern Urals and Left-Bank Ukraine, and the further development of the Wild Field. The country's territory 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 incorporated into Russia, the former system of administrative structure was retained. By the number of inhabitants, Russia is within the boundaries of the 17th century. ranked fourth among European states. In the 17th century, the position of Muscovite Rus 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 decrease in the population from 18 million to 4 million).
Economic development.
In the XVII century. the foundation of the country's economy, as before, was agriculture, which was of a natural nature. The growth of agricultural production was achieved through the development of new lands, that is extensive by. By the middle of the 17th century. the devastation and devastation of the times of troubles were overcome. And there was something to restore - in 14 districts of the center of the country in the 40s, plowed land accounted for only 42% of the previously cultivated land, and the number of the peasant population, who fled from the horrors of timelessness, also decreased. The economy was recovering slowly in the conditions of preservation of traditional forms of farming, a 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 branch of the economy. The main tools were plow, plow, harrow, sickle. Three-field prevailed, but 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 3 itself, in the south - 4 itself. The farm still had a natural character. In these conditions, the growth of production volumes was achieved due to the involvement of new lands in the economic turnover. Chernozem, Middle Volga, Siberia.
At the same time, the growth of the territory, 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 consideration was associated, as the development of commodity-money relations. Specialization was observed not only in agriculture, but also in handicrafts. In the XVII century. small-scale production is spreading, that is, 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. Of great importance were the constantly gathering fairs: Makarievskaya near Nizhny Novgorod, Svenskaya fair in the Bryansk region, Irbitskaya in Siberia, a fair in Arkhangelsk, etc., where merchants conducted large-scale wholesale and retail trade.
Along with the development of domestic trade, foreign trade also grew. Until the middle of the century, foreign merchants derived huge benefits from foreign trade, exporting timber, furs, hemp, potash, etc. from Russia. Suffice it to say that the English fleet was built from Russian wood, and the ropes for its ships were made of Russian hemp. Arkhangelsk was the center of Russian trade with Western Europe. There were English and Dutch trading yards here. 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, a New Trade Charter was issued, which developed the provisions of the 1653 Trade Charter. The New Trade Charter raised duties on foreign goods. Foreign merchants had the right to conduct wholesale trade only in border shopping centers.
In the XVII century. the exchange of goods between different regions of the country expanded significantly, which indicated the beginning of the formation of the all-Russian market. The merging of separate lands into a single economic system began. Growing economic ties strengthened the country's political unity.
On the basis of small-scale production, large enterprises are formed, based on the division of labor and manual craft technology - manufactories... In contrast to Western Europe, where the formation of manufactory production took place in the private sector, as capital accumulated from the owners, in Russia the initiator of the creation of manufactories was the state. In the XVII century. there were approximately 30 manufactories in Russia. The first state-owned manufactories appeared in the 16th century.
(Pushkarsky Dvor. Mint). In the XVII century. metallurgical plants were built in the Urals and in the Tula region, tanneries in Yaroslavl and Kazan, and the Khamovny (textile) yard in Moscow.
Usually the first private-owned manufactory is considered to be the Nitsa Copper Smelter in the Urals, built in 1631.
Since there were no free workers in the country, the state began to assign, and later (1721) allowed to buy peasants from factories. The registered peasants had to work off their taxes to the state at a factory or plant at a certain rate. The state provided assistance to the owners of enterprises with land, timber, and money. Manufactories founded with the support of the state were later called "possession" (from the Latin word "possession" - possession).
Social development.
According to Vernadsky, the government needed a very large amount of money to rebuild the country. To do this, it was necessary to restore 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 servicemen and taxing people.
The service class was headed by about a hundred boyar families - the descendants of the former Great and appanage princes. They held the highest positions in the military and civil administration, but during the 17th century they were gradually ousted by immigrants from the middle service strata. The boyars and nobles were merging into one class of "civil servants". According to its social and ethnic roots, it was distinguished by a noticeable diversity: initially, access to public service was open to all free people. As the state organization took shape, the service class acquired an increasingly closed character.
The ability of the nobles to fulfill their military duties depended on the provision of their estates with labor, on the transition of peasants from one owner to another. In addition, the spontaneous mass migration of peasants to new lands (Ukraine, Wild Steppe, Siberia) led to disruptions in the tax system. The government saw the stabilization of the situation in the attachment of the peasants to the land, that is, in enslavement 2. The 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 landowners in court. However, the power of the landlords over the peasants gradually increased. The position of the state and palace peasants, who did not obey the landowners, was more favorable.
The rural peasant population consisted of two main categories. The peasants who lived on the lands of estates and estates were called proprietary or private. They bore a tax (a complex 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 of a patrimonial court over the population of his estate. The state reserved the right to judge only the most serious crimes. Monastery peasants occupied a place close to private peasants.
Another large category of the peasant population was the black-moored peasantry. It lived on the outskirts of the country (Pomor North, Ural, Siberia, South), united in communities. Black-moss peasants did not have the right to leave their lands if they did not find a replacement for themselves. They bore the tax in favor of the state. Their position was easier than that of private owners. "Black lands" could be sold, mortgaged, inherited.
The middle position between the black-haired and private peasants was occupied by the palace peasants who served the economic needs of the royal court. They had self-government and were subordinate to the palace clerks.
The attachment to the tax also affected other estates, certain categories of the townspeople were consolidated in the localities. The nobles in Russia were no more free than the peasants and townspeople; they were bound by the obligation of lifelong service. A certain place was assigned to each social group in the national structure. Using flexible tactics, the central government managed to consolidate the Cossacks in the structure of the state. Moscow recognized the Cossacks' right 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 Muscovy.
An influential class in the 17th century was the clergy, who held a monopoly in the field of education, culture, and ideology. The Orthodox understanding of class duties as a form of religious service led to the fact that the entire population was subject to universal state duty: 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.
During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, changes were made to the judicial system. The Zemsky Sobor in 1649 developed a new code of laws, which was named "Cathedral Code". The most important directions of the Code were the protection of the interests of the nobles and townspeople against the background of a certain limitation of the privileges of the boyars and clergy, as well as protectionism in favor of Russian merchants and industrialists. The 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 carry out military service. There is a convergence in the socio-political position of the nobles and the boyars. The difference between an estate and a fiefdom is minimized. A nobleman, even selling or mortgaging land to a monastery or "n" a servant, could pull it back. The nobles owned most of the peasant households (57% according to the 1678 census).
The position of archers, gunners, government blacksmiths (the so-called "servicemen on the device") became more difficult. Their salaries decreased, many of the servicemen were transferred to the category of townspeople and lost their previous 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 of the artisans served the needs of landowners (patrimonial artisans). According to the Cathedral Code of 1649, only the townspeople could engage in handicrafts and trade in the city. They entered communities and bore various duties, paid taxes, the totality of which was called tax. The "best" people of the posad - merchants - led the posad communities, became deputies of Zemsky sobors, were in charge of collecting taxes and duties.
The peasant class became more closed. The social strata of slaves and "children" of the monastery disappeared. The legal status of the private peasants approached the position of the state black-haired peasants, who were increasingly viewed as serfs.
As a result, by the middle of the 17th century, the ruin of the times of the Troubles 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. having raised the price of salt in 1646 by 4 times. However, the increase in the tax on salt did not lead to replenishment of the treasury, as the population's ability to pay was undermined. The salt tax was abolished in 1647. It was decided to collect arrears for the last three years. n. In 1648 it turned into an open uprising in Moscow. The uprising in Moscow, dubbed 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 the salaries of the soldiers. This negatively affected the economy. The merchants tried not to take copper money for the goods. As a result, there was a depreciation of money. In addition, counterfeiters appeared in Moscow. This led to a whole series of grievances and uprisings. In the summer of 1662, eight copper rubles were given for one silver ruble. The government collected taxes in silver, while the population had to sell and buy food 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 hunger. Driven to despair, the Moscow people 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, higher taxes, exhausting wars waged by Russia depleted the treasury. To which the state took a number of measures that caused a series of popular discontent.
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 a greater 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 state intervention. In Russia, his role was especially great. This remark is important for understanding the relations between society and the state as a unified system of distribution of responsibilities of different classes 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 the soul into it - that is, to organize management, to create the apparatus of a single state.
As the analysis of the main directions of development of class relations and the administrative apparatus shows, both of these lines are closely related. The formation of estates occurs under the continuous influence of the state, and administrative institutions exist insofar as they ensure the functioning of the given estate system. As a result, the 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:
Feudal aristocracy,
Nobility,
Clergy,
Peasantry and townspeople (townspeople).
An isolated study of the history of individual estates does not allow revealing 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 earliest possible mobilization of economic and human resources in the extreme conditions of economic disunity of regions, poor development of commodity-money relations, dispersal of the population in conditions of constant struggle with external danger.
As a result, a special service system was created, a special type of statehood - the service state, where each estate pulled its own "tax" (a certain range of duties). The core of the organization is
put conditional land tenure - the provision of land (with peasants living on it) to service people - landlords subject to their military and civilian service. So formed local system, the main advantage of which was that the state could always have significant military forces without spending any funds for their maintenance. The conditionality of such local land ownership was that it, in principle, was not hereditary and even lifelong, depending solely on the very fact of serving the state. The landowner not only had to go into the service himself, but also bring with him a certain number of peasants with the appropriate equipment - "horse, crowded, and armed." As a system of local land tenure, it took shape by the end of the 15th century, when the government of Ivan III, and then of Vasily III, introduced a significant array of new land into the local distribution. Already by the middle of the XVI century. the manor became the most common type of land tenure 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 entire logic of the development of the service state and the local system led to the gradual consolidation of certain functions and related duties and rights to the estate. The general trend in the development of the bureaucratic system was that the nobility increasingly became a closed privileged class, the economic basis of the consolidation of which was the ownership of land and peasants.
The 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 to transfer peasants from one landowner to another. Code of Law 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 court of law 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 "elderly", which made it possible for rich landowners to entice peasants to themselves. In the future, the transition was completely canceled, and the peasants, we were left with only one illegal way of gaining freedom - flight. The state, in turn, by a number of legal acts increased the period of possible search for fugitive peasants, and also improved the system of ro-
Search. Finally, The Code of 1649 made the search indefinite, what does it mean
the completion of the process of enslavement of the peasantry.
True, it should be noted that the serf system was never all-embracing. 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 peasants' consolidation was in the Peter the Great era, when the share of serfs in the total mass was 70%, subsequently it sharply decreases and by 1859 it is only 46% (approximately 22 million peasants). At the same time, the share of legally free (by the status of state) peasants is 45% / 17, p. 12 /. These are the tenants of state land.
The severity of serfdom was largely lifted 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 in front of the state. It is interesting that in the history of peasant unrest, the carriers of rebellious sentiments were not serfs, but most often the Cossacks. Traditionally, at all times, the authorities did not touch the community and even often, in disputes between landowners and communities, they supported the latter, demonstrating a certain flexibility.
Thus, all the main estates had strictly defined responsibilities in relation to the state. The increasing regulation of all aspects of social 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 is the first Russian tsar. At the turn of XV-XVI centuries.
The knots that had to be unraveled throughout the 16th century were tied in Russia's reign and foreign policy. It:
Fighting remnants of feudal decentralization;
Creation of the apparatus of a unified state;
Expansion of the territory at the expense of 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, since 1533, the centralization of the united Russian lands advanced slowly and hesitantly, the boyar groups of the Shuisky, Belsky and Glinsky spent their energy on the struggle for power under the minor Ivan IV (1530-1584). At the same time, the general weakness of state power caused significant popular unrest in Moscow, Ustyug, Pskov. Hopes for a resolution of the contradiction were associated with the beginning of the independent reign of Ivan IV.
* Autocracy (from the Greek - autocracy, autocracy) - a form of government with unlimited uncontrolled sovereignty of one person (despotism of the Ancient East, the empire of Rome, Byzantium, absolute monarchies of modern times, regimes of the fascist type).
What can be said about Ivan's personality? During the troubles that took place in his early childhood, the youth received the most bad education. He had an extremely nervous character and an extremely impressionable imagination. From a young age he was taught that he was born with a higher being, that there was no one in the world more powerful than him. 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 his brother Yuri like slaves. Neither in clothes, nor in food was there any will for us. "
Irritating 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 the guardians and saints praised him, saying: brave king. " This is how the character of the future sovereign was formed. Childhood largely explains the subsequent behavior of Ivan IV. On January 16, 1547, Ivan was crowned king and took the title of tsar. On February 3, 1547, the tsar chose Anastasia, the 16-year-old daughter of the deceased deceased * Roman Yuryevich Zakharyin, as his wife. The marriage did not change the character of the king, he continued a violent, disorderly life. Everything was ruled by his relatives, the Glinskys, their governors sat everywhere, there was no justice, arbitrariness and violence reigned everywhere.
In June 1547, a strong fire broke out in Moscow and almost the entire city burned down. Then the boyars, who hated the Glinskys (the brother of Tsarina Grigory, Prince F. Skopin-Shuisky, F. Nagoy, etc.), let the Muscovites, who were in distress, without bread and shelter, let the rumor that the blame for the fire were the Glinskys (brothers Elena). It was not difficult to assure the people of this, since the Glinskys were not loved.
At a critical moment, when the crowd rushed to Vorobyevo (the tsar's out-of-town village) in search of victims, priest Sylvester appeared in front of Ivan, confused and frayed, (little is known about him from sources prior to the named events). Sylvester instilled in Ivan that the cause of all misfortunes is the tsar's vices. To top it all off, Sylvester struck the little-sultry Ivan with "miracles and signs." “I don’t know,” Prince A.M. wrote later. Kurbsky, - were they true miracles. Perhaps the priest invented this to horrify the tsar's stupidity and childish disposition. " 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 tsar was under the tutelage of Sylvester and at the same time became close to A.F. Adashev, one of the young people already known to the tsar. A.F. Adashev was a man of great intelligence and honesty. He
∗ Rank in the Boyar Duma
and Sylvester selected a circle of people who were more distinguished by state thinking than others. These were the princes A.M. Kurbsky, Odoevsky, Vorotynsky, Sheremetevs and others. The state began to be governed 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.
Chosen Rada was not limited exclusively to a circle of boyars and temporary 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: aristocracy, service people, clergy. In the old days, veche existed in separate lands, and this was a kind of veche of all Russian lands, veche vech.
The relationship of the state with the institutions of social control, such as the estate-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 social life and the strengthening of the role of the state. In comparison with similar representative institutions in the West - the parliament in England, the general states in France and the Netherlands, the Reichstag and the Landtag in Germany, the Riksdag in the Scandinavian countries, the Cortes in Spain, the Seimas in the Czech Republic and Poland, the Zemsky Sobors in Russia played less significant 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 wider sections of the population. The period of the greatest flourishing 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 convocation 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 Macarius, Archpriest Sylvester. In 1550, a new all-Russian Code of Law was adopted, which contributed to the strengthening of centralized power. The previous one, adopted back in 1497 under Ivan III, was not only outdated, but was apparently forgotten. The Code of Law of 1550 was much better systematized, took into account judicial practice, many articles were edited. For the first time, punishments were established for bribe-takers from clerks to bo-yar.
As a result of the reforms, a permanent streltsy army was created, special bodies of state executive power - orders - arose.
Orders(until the mid-1560s they were called "huts") are the central government bodies. The role of the state in the mobilization of resources, the organization of the estate system, troops and management made a large administrative apparatus necessary, its constant improvement associated with the expansion of functions and increased centralization. The main direction of improving the management apparatus was its gradual adaptation to new tasks as they arise. This explains the mechanical growth of the number of orders, the division of them with new, previously unusual functions, the widespread practice of creating temporary orders as the need arises for them. It is known that the order system took shape spontaneously, gradually growing out of the archaic institutions of the grand ducal court as the centralized state took shape and developed. Already in this origin of the order system, a fundamental flaw was laid - the confusion 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 17th century. the total number of orders has already exceeded 80-90, of which there were about 40 permanent orders.
The most important were orders with national competence, which included the Discharge, the Local Order, Yamskaya, Monastyrsky, Stone Affairs and the Secret Order. The discharge order had in its competence the management of service people, their assignment to the service, the appointment of land (local) and monetary salaries, and also was in charge of their accounting. The local order ensured the functioning of the local system - it was directly in charge of the actual distribution of lands (with peasant households) among service people, and formalized all transactions for local lands. The Order of Secret Affairs, led directly by the king, exercised control over the activities of the highest state institutions, ambassadors and governors. Diplomatic relations were in charge of the Ambassadorial Prikaz; in addition to the Discharge, a number of institutions were involved in military service - the Streletskii, Pushkarskii, Inozemskii, Reitarskii and Cossack orders, in charge of the corresponding branches of the armed forces.
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, can we explain the abolition of the order system at the beginning of the 18th century? Answer
This question should be looked for in the very nature of this system, where administrative activity is regulated by custom and precedent rather than by 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 its fate, largely depends on how much it meets 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 other choice but to carry out a radical administrative reform.
The result of the reforms was the restriction of parochialism - the occupation of top 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. At the same time, 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 the elected representatives of the population, and, so to speak, "on a voluntary basis" - free of charge. The nobles chose from their midst the laborer elders, in the counties where there was no private feudal land tenure, and in the estates, black peasants and townspeople elected zemstvo elders. To help them, they chose kissers (those who took the oath, kissed the cross) and labial and zemstvo clerks, a kind of secretaries. True, these officials existed before, but their functions were limited. Now representatives of local societies have become full-fledged administrators.
Church. Significant reforms were 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 interests, then in Russia the situation was different. The Orthodox Church, which adopted Byzantine traditions in this respect, did not act as a serious competitor to the secular authorities, 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 revered" saints. In 1549, the church council conducted the canonization of the "new miracle workers": local saints became all-Russian saints, 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 a hundred-domed one. Its tasks
there was a unification of church rituals (in different lands, gradually, small differences in the order of church services accumulated) and, most importantly, the adoption of measures to improve the morals of the clergy in order to increase their authority. The council sharply condemned debauchery in monasteries (there were monasteries where monks and nuns lived together), drunkenness of the clergy. At the same time, the cathedral fathers, while remaining realists, did not forbid drinking at all. Only vodka was strictly forbidden, the consumption of wines was limited to three cups (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, historians sometimes consider the Boyar Duma as an institution that in a certain way limited monarchical power. Indeed, in the political system of the Moscow state, the Duma should be recognized as the main institution, the evolution of which largely reflects the entire dynamics of the process of centralization of power and administration. This is due to the fact that its members constituted the top of the class pyramid of the Moscow 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 Tsar's court. It was a corporate estate organization of the ruling class, or rather, its upper strata, directly involved in management. The sovereign court formed into an independent institution of the socio-political structure of the ruling class around the end of the 15th century, and developed and became more complex in the 16th and 17th centuries. and, finally, it dies out gradually at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th century.
The basis of the bureaucratic division of the Tsar's court throughout its existence was the nobility, generosity of service people, which was the most important condition for the appointment to positions of the corresponding 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 - a means of regulating relations within the elite. The ruling elite consisted, first of all, of the Duma officials (members of the Boyar Duma) - boyars, okolnichy, Duma, noblemen and Duma clerks.
In essence, the Boyar Duma under the tsar performed the functions of an advisory body, the activities of which were 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 consideration 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 the formation of the Russian centralized
state until the end of the 17th century, when this contradiction is gradually removed, and the Boyar Duma is on the decline.
From this point of view, the desire of the grand-princely power to change the original composition of the Boyar Duma (boyars from among the landowning nobility, mainly princely families) by attracting representatives of the less noble boyars and nobility becomes more understandable. Since the time of Ivan III and Vasily III, more and more 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 number of political crises reveal the alignment of forces and groupings, first of all - rival boyar families and nobility. This line of struggle is reflected in the social composition of the Chosen 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 fast enough, the pace of structural reforms did not suit the tsar. Different concepts of centralization among the tsar and his advisers became the main reason for the disgrace of Sylvestr and A.F. Adasheva.
The tsar's break with former associates was provoked by death
that they bewitched his beloved. "And what did you tell me about with your wife?" - asks Ivan A. Kurbsky in a letter. But this was only an external excuse. The death of the queen was the stone, the fall of which caused a landslide in the mountains. Cooling only to A.F. Adasheva and Sylvester could have made the king believe the absurd accusations against them. The enemies of A.F. Adasheva and Sylvester gradually brought the king to the decision to throw off the guardianship of the advisers.
The death of Grozny's beloved wife is the reason, the reason for the rupture is precisely in the different understanding of the ways of centralization. Structural transformations cannot be too hasty, as Ivan sought. In the conditions of Russia in the 16th century, where the prerequisites for centralization were not yet ripe, an accelerated movement towards it could only be on the path of terror. After all, the apparatus of power has not yet been formed, especially at the local level. And the newly created central departments - orders - operated in the tradition of patriarchy. The path of terror, with which Ivan tried to replace the long and difficult work of creating a state apparatus, was unacceptable for the leaders of the Chosen Rada.
It was not just two forces that collided, but also two worldviews. Naturally, the victory remained with the tsar, and not with his subjects. Thus, a real alternative to the oprichnina policy existed and even was carried out during the decade - the period of reforms. But in the second half of the XVI century. the choice between two ways of the country's development, equally conditioned by the already accumulated traditions, was made in favor of terror. Sylvester was imprisoned in Solovki, two months after his imprisonment, A.F. Adashev. Prince A.M. Kurbsky fled abroad (to some extent, the first Russian dissident).
Oprichnina is the 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 are accustomed to counting the victims as millions, but we must take into account that in the 16th century. there was not yet 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 the people of 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 carry out centralization and ensure the safety 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 oprichnina, like nothing else, 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 ones - S. B. Veselovsky, A. A. Zimin, R. G. Skrynnikova, L. N. Alshits. The actual events of the oprichnina are described in great detail by them in a number of major works. We will note those moments that are directly related to the problem under consideration.
SM Solovyov viewed 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. Soloviev, they rejected moral assessments as extrascientific. An outstanding historian of the late 19th - first half of the 20th 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 landownership, as the main brake on the path to centralization. The head of the Marxist historians M.N. Pokrovsky, falling 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. The personality of Ivan the Terrible was liked by I.V. Stalin was given an unspoken command to justify the terror of Grozny as a state necessity. Since 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 enormous harm to the state. Pupil V.O. Klyuchevsky S.B. Veselovsky, historian-researcher of the XV-XVI centuries. Russia, in the 1940s. defended the point of view of V.O. Klyuchevsky 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, began and a revision of the attitude towards Ivan the Terrible. 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 Ivan the Terrible" (1964), he gives the following definition: "Oprichnina
This is a policy directed against decentralization, feudal fragmentation, separatism in 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 the time of troubles. 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 deliberate policy aimed at eliminating feudal land ownership (in the first 1.5 years), the second stage is meaningless actions, when the oprichnina began to draw new and new layers into the conflict - nobles, merchants. The oprichnina club began to inflict senseless blows left and right, and Ivan was forced to stop the oprichnina.
Leningrad professor D.N. Alshits considers the oprichnina as a kind of policy of the autocracy throughout its entire existence, not limited to a certain chronological framework. This idea is not so much historical as it is journalistic, although there is a certain reason here: oprichnina is a system of measures to strengthen autocracy, the dictatorship of personal power. Finally, L.N. Gumilev considered the attempts of 20th century historians to be generally fruitless. to discover in the phenomenon of oprichnina some kind of social meaning, believing that it was the policy of a madman.
In the historical literature there is no more vivid and vivid description of oprichnina than the one given by V.O. Klyuchevsky. Here it is: “It was some kind of order of hermits, like monks who renounced the land and fought with the land, as monks struggle with the temptations of the world. The very reception in the oprichnaya squad was arranged with either a monastery or a 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 with friends and brothers, but also with their parents, but to serve only to him and on this he forced them to kiss the cross ... dense forests oprichnaya capital with a palace surrounded by a moat and a rampart, with outposts along the roads. In this den, the tsar staged a wild parody of the monastery, covered these regular robbers with monastic skufeikas, black robes, composed a charter for them,
in the mornings I climbed the bell tower to ring for matins, in church I read and sang in the kliros and made such earthly obeisances that blood-streaks did not leave his forehead ..., after dinner he liked to talk about the law, dozed off or went to the stasis to be present during torture suspected. "
Ivan the Terrible looked at the oprichnina established by him as his private property, a special court or inheritance, which he singled out from the state. Thus, the tsar literally cut the country into two parts - the land (zemstvo) and the oprichnina - each with its own government, with its capital, with its treasury and with its army. Zemshchina was like a foreign conquered country, betrayed to the arbitrariness of its conquerors - the guardsmen.
The political phenomenon of the oprichnina. A neo-bleak part of Russia,
ruled, as before, by the aristocratic Boyar Duma and its administrative apparatus, was, however, completely removed 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 latent restrictions of power continued to operate on the territory of the Zemshchina (until the guardsmen invaded there), while on the territory of the Oprichnina they ceased to exist. And this - in the destruction of any restrictions on power - was, according to the historian A. Yanov, the meaning of 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 transform 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 zemstvo 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 tenure (that is, boyar land tenure was not destroyed). The personal, but not the social composition of land owners has changed. At the same time, the op-position to Ivan IV, the power of the old, well-born boyars, was destroyed. The execution of Prince V.A. Staritsky with his family (no matter how heinous crime it was) led to the destruction of the last real appanage principality in Russia. The overthrow of Metropolitan Philip (he tried to bring Ivan to his senses in letters that the tsar disparagingly called "film letters") turned out to be a step on the path of transforming the church from
women of power into her servant. The barbaric pogrom of Novgorod buried the features of the political system of this city, rooted in the period of feudal fragmentation. This is how the oprichnina contributed to centralization and was objectively directed against the remnants of feudal fragmentation. Not a lot, right? Now other consequences of the oprichnina are tragic for the country.
Immediate. The most severe economic crisis. The country seemed to have survived an enemy invasion. More than half, or even up to 90 percent of the land remained uncultivated. Under these conditions, the peasant economy lost its stability, and the very first crop failure led to hunger.
Distant. They left a lasting imprint on Russian history. The oprichnina established a 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 preconditions.
The oprichnina also contributed to the establishment of serfdom in Russia. The first enslaving decrees of the early 1580s, which legally prohibited peasants from changing owners 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 a serfdom.
The oprichnina had a negative impact on Russian history. But did everything depend on Ivan the Terrible? The evil will of one person cannot turn history on a completely different path (although outwardly it may, and it looks like that). This means that the oprichnina had some roots. Which?
Slide 2: Lesson plan
1.Characteristics of economic policy. 2.N.H.Bunge. 3. N.A. Vyshnegradskiy. 4. The economic rise of the 90s. 5. Agriculture.
Slide 3: Assignment for the lesson
Compare the economic policies of Alexander II and Alexander III?
Slide 4: 1. Characteristics of economic policy
The consolidation of the Russian Empire was impossible without a powerful economic base. The emperor appointed N. Bun-ge, I. Vyshnegradsky, S. Yu. To key economic positions. Witte. They began to patronize the domestic industry, improved the tax system, and developed railroad construction. The agrarian sector was drawn into the market economy in the same way. 1.Characteristics of economic policy. Alexander III. Chromolithography. 1861.
Slide 5: The main directions of economic policy in the 80-90s. (r.t. 1)
1. The patronage of the domestic industry helped to protect it from foreign capital (protectionism) 2. Improving the collection of taxes and customs duties 3. Improving the monetary system in order to strengthen the ruble 4. Widespread attraction of foreign capital (Witte) 5. Development of railway construction
Slide 6: N.H.Bunge. (1881-1887) (r.t. 2)
In May 1881 N. Bunge became the Minister of Finance. He advocated accelerated economic development without direct government funding. As a result of the tax reform, redemption payments decreased and the abolition of the poll tax began. In return, excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, sugar, oil were introduced, customs duties increased, and the costs of the reduced army were reduced. N.H.Bunge. (1881-1887) (r.t. 2) N.H.Bunge
Slide 7: The main directions of economic policy N.Kh. Bunge (1881-1887)
1. Issue and implementation of laws favorable for the development of the economy 2. Reform of the tax collection system, weakening the tax collection for peasants (reducing redemption payments, abolishing the poll tax 3) Increasing state revenues due to the introduction of indirect taxes in the form of excise taxes on vodka, tobacco, sugar , oil, new taxes were imposed on city houses, real estate 4) Pursued a protectionist policy, i.e. increased customs tariffs on goods imported from abroad, which contributed to the competitiveness of domestic goods
Slide 8: N.A. Vyshnegradsky (1887-1892)
On 1.1.1887 N. Bunge left the rate. He was replaced by I. Vyshnegradskiy, who set a goal to improve the financial situation of the country. The Ministry of Finance accumulated large cash reserves and raised the ruble exchange rate. In 1891, a new customs tariff was introduced, which increased the duties on imported equipment. The state began to actively intervene in the economy and attract foreign loans. N.A. Vyshnegradskiy (1887-1892) N.A. Vyshnegradskiy.
Slide 9: The main directions of economic policy I.A. Vyshnegradsky (1887-1892)
1. The main task is to quickly improve the state of monetary circulation, the purchasing power of the ruble 2. He pursued an active protectionist policy and advocated the creation of the most favorable working conditions for domestic business in Russia (now customs duties were imposed not only on raw materials imported into Russia, but also on engineering products) 3. Maintaining a wine monopoly 4. Attracting foreign capital to Russia
10
Slide 10: 4: The Economic Boom of the 90s
In 1892 S. Witte became the Minister of Finances. His programs included: -strict tax policy, state monopoly on distilling, protectionism, financial reform, introduction of the gold system of the ruble, attraction of foreign capital. This program took shape after the death of Alexander III and caused an economic upsurge in 90. 4. Economic upsurge in the 90s. S.Yu. Witte
11
Slide 11: Main directions of economic policy S.Yu. Witte (since 1992)
1. A strict tax policy: heavy taxation of the peasantry, an increase in indirect taxes on consumer goods (primarily the state monopoly on vodka) - the necessary capital has been released to invest in industrial production and the extension of state orders to industrial enterprises 2. Strict protectionism - domestic industry shielded from foreign competition.
12
Slide 12: Main directions of economic policy S.Yu. Witte (since 1992)
3. 1897 - financial reform: the introduction of a system of unified security of the ruble in gold - the gold ruble - one of the most stable European currencies, the development of banking, the expansion of foreign investment. 4. Turning to foreign capital (in the form of direct investment in enterprises or in the form of government bond loans, which were distributed on the European securities markets). The largest growth in foreign investment was observed in the coal industry and metallurgy.
13
Slide 13: "Golden Decade". Which industries have developed
Metallurgy developed rapidly in the south. Most of the factories were owned by foreigners. After the monetary reform of 1897, the inflow of foreign capital increased sharply. In the 90s, oil production began in the Caucasus. Newly created enterprises used advanced technologies with cheap labor, which brought great profits. In 1891. construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway began. "Golden Decade". What industries have developed. Trans-Siberian Railway.
14
Slide 14: Results of economic policy S.Yu. Witte
1. Fast pace of development. Facts? For 13 years (1887-1900), employment in industry increased significantly. 2. The length of the railway network doubled. The construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway was completed, which contributed to the further development of this region. New railways were built. Since 1893 there has been a new railway boom. By the end of the century, Russia took 1st place in Europe and 2nd place in the world in terms of the length of railways. 1) What role did railway construction play in the further industrial development of the country? 2) What was the difference in the railway policy of Alexander 2 and Alexander 3? (document, p. 222)
15
Slide 15: Development of agriculture after the peasant reform (220-221)
1. List the characteristic features of the development of agriculture 2/2 19th century. 2. List the main features that characterize the landlord economy 2/2 19th century. 3. What new happened in the development of agriculture in the 80s of the 19th century (r.t. 6) 4. Capitalist or feudal features predominated in the development of agriculture? 5. Did agriculture develop intensively or extensively during the post-reform period? Why did the yield rise so slowly? Conclusion: the development of agriculture was dominated by feudal features with individual elements of capitalism.
16
Slide 16: Agriculture (rt 5.6)
Agriculture developed without government support. The impoverished peasants were hired by the landowners and used their tools. Capitalism prevailed in the Baltics, the Central Region and the Volga Region. In some areas, a mixture of the two systems was observed. The North specialized in industrial crops and milk, Ukraine and the Volga region - in the production of grain. Agriculture (r.t. 5.6)
17
Slide 17: Agriculture
Beef cattle breeding developed south of Moscow. The sown area increased by 25%, but the yield grew very slowly, which was explained by the low level of agricultural machinery used by the peasants. This led to frequent disasters, in 1891-92. More than 600,000 people died of hunger as a result of the drought. Agriculture. Distribution of bread to starving Peasants (1891-1892)
18
Slide 18: What are the features of industrial development in the late 80s-90s
1. The rapid pace of economic development, the transformation of Russia from an agrarian into an agrarian-industrial country (industrial production has doubled over the past 10 years, and the output of heavy industry has increased 3 times) 2. The high role of foreign capital in the development of industry. Why?
19
The last slide of the presentation: Changes in the economy and social order, part 1: What are the features of industrial development in the late 80s-90s
3. The high role of the state in the development of industry, especially railway construction 4. But capitalism developed mainly in industry, and in agriculture feudal features prevailed with individual elements of capitalism. The predominance of feudal features in agriculture hindered the development of capitalism in agriculture and throughout the country as a whole.
What changes in the economy and social structure of Russia took place in the 1880s-1890s?
Answer
The industrial revolution was completed in the 1880s. The Russian economy strengthened, the empire became one of the world's largest exporters of raw materials (although, in order to maintain these positions, grain exports, for example, were not reduced even in lean years, often provoking famine within the country).
Such grain export became possible thanks to the emergence of large farms, where fertilizers, agricultural machinery and other features of intensive farming were used. Usually they were owned by landowners, or entrepreneurs who bought land from landowners.
Great changes were taking place in the social sphere. New classes of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia have emerged and have grown stronger. The former estates did not disappear, but they were greatly eroded. For example, many new people appeared among the nobility, besides, the estate as a whole became significantly poorer and lost weight in society. The privileges of the merchants were destroyed by the 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 kits, these kits themselves were canceled, and universal conscription applied to merchants.
Increased mobility between estates. 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 by people who received education, and the bourgeoisie - who amassed capital. They could have come from any class. In the officer and civil service, preference was given to education and personal qualities, rather than 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.