Essay Qs Flashcards
To what extent did Western political liberalism influence movements opposing the state throughout the 19th century? (ALEX)
Thesis: Profoundly. Western Liberalism directly sparked/contributed to resistance against all three Tsars between Alex I-Alex II (can narrow down to specific kings too, or how did western influence EVOLVE over time)
ALEX I:
Early Reign -> experimenting with liberal constitutional reforms. Generates discussion around liberalism that can’t be silenced after he changes his mind.
- Himself a liberal reformer with the “Spirit of 93/89” in him. Soft exiled by Paul for having liberal tendencies, excitement among educated elites about him taking over.
- However still wants constitutional monarchy (steeped in tradition)
- First decade of reign sees unofficial committees on reformist issues unlike Paul -> discuss serfdom, constitution and draft some (need specific example)
- Overall propagates discussion on reforms and allows open debate of western ideals
- Creates ministry of education and broadens access to universities
- Works of Bentham, Smith (political economy), and other western thinkers read widely throughout reign. Generates proposals for emancipation Alex rejects -> kieslev’s (because didn’t guarantee land rights for peasants) and those involving self-redemption via making serfs buy their own freedom at high prices in order to create capital for landowners
- Widespread discussion on constitutional reform (Pestel, others including future decs draft their own versions in excitement)
- Tsar himself undertakes constitutional reforms (drafts) such as 1801 and 1809 initiatives inviting popular participation in representative assemblies with Speranskii, but abandons
Post 1812: -> exposure of troops to western democracies.
- 1812 sees military (educated noble officers) sweep across Europe in victory
- Stationed in foreign countries like France and UK. Exposure to parliaments and prosperous non-serf peasants. Most members of Southern Society had served here.
1. Trubetskoi: Cites end of war and watching French become a constitutional monarchy, Poland getting one -> cites Emperor’s speech after capture - Fervor for constitution/emancipation fuelled by 1818 Sejn speech by Alex promising constitution for Russia
- Disappointment when this not fulfilled, negative reaction to military colonies
- Decembrists mostly veterans. MUSIC OF CONSTITUTIONS 1818 -> Pestel coming up with own draft
Formation of secret societies
- N.I. Turgenev wanted explicitly British style governance that guarenteed proper rule of law from state
- Helps found Northern society
To what extent did Western political liberalism influence movements opposing the state throughout the 19th century? (NICK)
Still Profoundly, Intelligentsia found ways to subvert Nick’s repression and censorship.
Nick’s repression:
- 1826 censorship law following Decembrists. Overall streamlines state admin directly under Tsar control (sections/departments that report to him, etc)
- However, consolidated class of nobles and intellectuals feel stifled -> Superfluous men who now have no outlet to express anger for reform.
- Come together in literary circles / Kruhzkis and discuss possibility of reform
- NO UNIFIED THEORY whatsoever and NO REVOLUTIONARY INTENT but
- identified as OPPOSED TO STATE because no way to work with it
- Debated western reforms like American slavery equating it secretly with Serfdom. No room for critique
Magazine culture:
- Aesopian language in public, serious reform in private
- Journals explode under Nick 226 founded throughout reign including the Contemporary and Notes from the Fatherland
- Widespread consumption of books
- Literary circles around Herzen, Stankevich
Hegelianism:
- Nick surveills French tutors, overall restricts western ideals
- HOWEVER does let in German/Prussian literature because of his alignment via /marriage / military tradition.
- Works of Hegel leak in and have profound impact on revolutionary mindset
- Hegel -> Thesis is current stage, challenged by antithesis, new synthesis / thesis
- (Serfdom thesis, political economy/free labout antithesis -> conflict -> synthesis / new stage of development)
- Human societies “civilized” by moving in a rotating circle upwards. Everyone moving at own pace, so RUSSIA COULD CATCH UP TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION
- Also, individuals who possess this knowledge can become more effective ACTORS in history -> seeking to implement reforms
Petrashevsky:
- Members (especially Petrashevsky hismelf) radical Utopian Socialists in line with FRENCH ideals.
- Repression ensures 1848 doesn’t take off, but groups like this consolidate under failure of that movement and Nick’s insulation from Western ideals. While they were applying for Russian solutions / turning inwards (didn’t want constitutions/liberalism anymore) -> WERE inspired by French socialism.
- Bakunin had legit socialist plans and tsaricide ideals
1848:
- THREAT of western thoughts on revolution ironically causes clampdownwhich HARDENS opposition to the state for groups like Petrashevsky -> evidenced by their better / more stout handling of resistance under interrogation compared to decs/INT
- Nick wants to intervene and crush reforms
- THERFORE Threat allows transition from mass popular reform movements to cell structures and terrorism
- Was purging western thoughts specifically -> Second of April Committee/BUTURLIN COMMITTEE
- > silences intellectual dissent ->
- RETROACTIVE censorship laws ->
Alex II: Enlightened Bureaus being Hegelians, wanting liberal serf reforms.
- Turgenev spends life abroad, liberalism -> most popular writer w/ critical realism
How did state suppression influence resistance to Tsar authority throughout the century? (OR: what led to the eventual hardening of revolutionary groups?)
OVERALL/THESIS: state suppression from Alex I, Nick, and Alex II did nothing but solidify opposition against the state. This was because there were no outlets to agitate for reform WITH the state, so it had to be worked against.
Alex I:
- Initially reformist, liberal
- Allows public discussion of constitutions, partakes in reform himself
- Still the power of ABSOLUTISM overstating itself that in many ways -> prizes this over reform (Below examples of him scared of rebellion in shadow of French rev which characterized his reign)
- Military colonies -> maybe not oppression per se, but deeply unpopular with all classes. Infringement of peasant wellbeing and mobility -> seen as preventing them from carrying out traditional ways of life like farming because of mandatory uniforms, etc. -> REVOLTS BY PEASANTS SUPPRESED
- Semenovsky Regiment is cracked down upon harshly for a mutiny in what many saw as an act of paranoia on Alex’s part. Veterans join w/ Pestel in southern society to plot to overthrow Tsar seen as increasingly unhinged
- 1820: new censorship law enacted, academics also purged for anti-govt rhetoric
- 1822: Russian students studying abroad forced to leave unis. (exposure to radical ideas)
- 1822-beyond: clampdown on subversive groups/secret societies (Masonic lodges, etc) -> members look at other channels for reform and such -> rev plots to change government.
OVERALL: Alex initially liberal, “shares in errors” and then becomes suppressive in final years of reign. These initiatives cause dissillusionment among young noble generation / military who now plot against him
- NO CHANNELS TO WORK WITH REGIME. DISAPPOINTMENT OVER SEJN CONSTITUTION/FRANCE, -> SUPPRESSION AS ABOVE -> NEED TO WORK AGAINST IT
Nick and INT:
Reactionary from the start, but free thinking/state resistance is consolidated because of this. Worsened after 1848 and Petrashevsky.
- 1826 censorship law bans WESTERN TEXTS , public discourse and involvement of nobles in state affairs. Educated nobles (from Alex’s educational reforms) now “superfluous men” who, unlike passion of Decs, cannot do “good works” to help society by advocating for liberal reforms with the state. THEREFORE -> opposition to the state.
- Critiques banned but opposition continues through Aesopian book reviews. Circles meet to discuss literature and reform -> EVOLUTION -> secret societies to smaller, consolidated groups
- Nick pours resources into Bureaucracy, state departments. Gives impression no reform is being undertaken, so opposition hardens even more.
- DOES fund literature, but keeps strict censorship.
- NICK AND DECS -> reacts harshly, executes and exiles many. Extensive interrogations by military as opposed to civil courts.
Nick and Petrashevsky:
- After 1848, restrictions worsen for society
- Purging of universities’ philosophy departments of professors and foreign ideas/western thoughts
- Halts betterment of state peasant reforms
- RETROACTIVE state censorship with second of April Committee and such -> now can exile/prosecute based on past publications
- Shuts down the Contemporary and other journals.
- Context for Petrashevsky discovery: infiltrated groups he was paranoid could turn revolutionary -> Interrogates Petrashevsky himself
- Petrashevsky, Bakunin, Dostoevsky read banned literature, only had possibility of being revolutionary at some point, still tries w/ military courts to get harshest sentence AND so intent to distribute/etc can be a crime itself.
- However, 1848 suppression hardens such groups, evidenced by Petrashevsky’s resistance to admission of wrongdoing throughout interrogation.
- Tsar’s approach was to be benevolent autocrat by letting them live -> but could fuck you up so don’t revolt
- Reforms dry up -> shift from BETTERING CONDITIONS UNDER AUTOCRACY SO DEC REBELLION DOESN”T HAPPEN (serfs, states, legals) to direct anti-rebellion measures. Shows preservation of autocracy always paramount for Nick
Explain WHY each Tsar was motivated to undertake the extensive reforms they did (relationship between autocracy and reform)
Thesis: All three major tsars were primarily driven by the need to preserve autocracy when undertaking reform/this is what held them back sometimes)
Alex I:
- Wants constitutional reform but never drafts anything w/ Speranskii that would allow any threat to absolutist power
- Closest he got was one that allowed public to NOMINATE reps
- Influenced by Cat but still “divine monarch” or whatever
- Wants to resolve Peasant land question. Ultimately balks in face of nobles.
- Noble indiviudal property rights vs peasant ancestral rights -> WANTS to grant peasants these, but doesn’t want to erode support of nobility. Therefore allows Livland to slide into Baltic reform style system that favours nobility
- So Alex reformist, but ultimately autocratic.
- QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE -> forged with intent to secure autocracies abroad like Nick’s military interventions.
Nick:
-Reformist, but only with intent of preservign autocracy in mind
- Streamlined administration under bureucracy (noble incentives, education in unis doubling) in order to both counter noble influence and stop need for constitution (if state functioned better, wouldn’t complain)
- Also does this for legal reform (digest of accessible laws, overal codification, school of jurisprudence) for same reason
- Gradually pushes against nobility on serfdom (20s -> harder to move peasants to factories -> 30s -> military service reduced, anxiety -> 40s ultimately balks because of noble outcry to buying bankrupted estates/self liberation)
- Also wanted to consolidate state peasnats and make lives betrer to BE MORE PRODUCTIVE FOR STATE REVENUE (provincial officies, doctors/fire, land surveys)
- ALso official nationality -> cultural consolidation of autocracy and Russian People. Public marriage, state art exhibits, fatherly figure, education on conservative and stuff.
ALSO -> post 1848 interventions abroad to preserve other powers
- censorship laws to halt critical thinking
Alex II:
- If serfdom isn’t stopped, it will STOP ITSELF
- Encounters same issue as Alex / Nick with Noble knot, but just undertakes an offensive in a manner that does the least damage to nobles while asserting autocratic power
- Guise of noble involvement in emancipation via Lithuanian invitation to grant peasants some land w/emancipation, provincial committees headed by nobles even though reform itself mostly drafted by Enlightened Bureaucrats - Bureaucrats themselves as a continuation of EFFICIENCY of autocracy so people wouldn’t complain and there’d be less noble involvement obv
- State parades of “liberator Tsar” actions following emancipation -> like father/tsar image under Nick
Do you agree with there being a through-line for these revolutionaries? What unites or divides them across the expanse of time?
YES:
- Through-line exists which justifies some kind of coherent movement, each generation inspired by and building off each other. (Overall continues tradition of Alex’s free thinking policies, ultimately an anti-state endeavour? / Ultimately continuation of the liberal/reformist zeal that hardened into Decembrism)
- Presents not just a through-line, but a necessary evolution.
- Though no unified ideology, many key ideas endure across the decades.
- Liberal constitution / opposition to autocracy and absolutism.
- (music of constitutions, Muriviev, Pestel writing own, eventual Decembrists, NS and SS wanting different types of constitutions in official policies)
- (Westernizers such as Chaadaev wanting constitutions under Nick, Slavophiles strength of peasant commune over absolutism,
- Petrashevsky being Utopian socialists -> unified against absolutism (also included constitutional monarchs, etc).
Abolishment of serfdom
- Decs explicitly want abolishment of serfdom. Many stemmed from military and had been stationed in countries where serfdom abolished and peasantry prosperous. Thought immoral, and influenced by ideas of political economy from west.
- INT roundly want it abolished. Aesopian language used to discuss it at length in literary reviews / golden age of literature / censorship under Nick despite 1826 censorship law banning public discourse/involvement in govt affairs (American slavery, “women” question)
- Petrashevsky want it abolished too? Nature of Utopian socialism? At least reading of texts like Gogol’s banned ones condemning Serfdom - Secretive / subversive nature
- Continued traditions of being an inherently conspiratorial phenomenon (maybe not right word for INT)
- Decs -> (start with open debates in 1818 Union of WELFARE, splits into NS/SS secret societies with aims of revolution following Alex’s unpopularity. Not professional, but blindsides Nick
- INT despite Nick’s crackdown in 1826 banning public discussion, Aesopian language and explicit discussion remain in Kruzkhis. Never directly revolutionary, but secretive in that they must continue discussions and academic/free thinking tradition away from public eye. Clear resistance to state basically. Also descendents of Decs
- Petrashevsky -> Takes this to next step. Petrashevsky smuggling in literature from translator’s office. Worried about being found out even if not a revolutionary group. Also part of INT. Consolidate resistance against state and secret nature under interrogation, showed sophistication and evolution from Decs even if not openly revolutionary. Secret surveys too.
Chart the progression of emancipatory reforms under each tsar. What would you say the biggest reason for the abolition of serfdom was in the end?
Alex I: (wants best for peasants [w/land, can’t get this w/o sacrificing noble balance of power so delays)
- NO PRIOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ALEX’s REIGN
- BEGINS here. No concrete broad reforms, but experiments abroad, gives minor reforms, and overall contributes to discussion / acclimatization of nobility/society to emancipation
- WITHHELD BY NOBLES -> CAN’T infringe on personal property rights. Alex doesn’t want to compromise power base.
- Withheld by revolution -> fear granting reform too quickly would result in violence.
- Withheld by noble/peasant knot. Can’t undo it to preserve autocracy, nobles would be mad at losing capital, land, and property of serfs.
- Small reforms that don’t impact much. Bans ads, harder to move.
- Outside Russia and experiments -> Baltic reforms provide first steps / models
- Livland as radical, repealed in face of noble resistenc/preference for Estalnd style emancipation w/o land
- Political economy generates ideas and discussion that serfdom unprofitable -> needs to go
- OVERALL: generates discussion on why serfdom eventually needs to be abolished, and takes important steps to convince Russian Society to adopt gradualist approach
Nick (how does it feed in?)
- under Nick, serfdom actually diversifying despite political economy. LLs still exploiting labour, extracting capital. Labour of serfs diversifying as many experimented with production of textiles, etc in free time. Doesn’t matter, perception that it’s necessary to abolish carries on.
- CONTINUES provoking noble power base but ultimately keeps hitting a wall like Alex.
- Secret Committees on peasant question early in reign and throughout.
1820s made it harder for nobles to send peasants to Siberia / break up families
- 1830s reduced conscripted serf tenure from 25 years to 15 -> allowing them family life. Here pushes against noble fears of a mobilized peasantry, persists
- 1840s serfs can buy themselves off if estate goes up for auction from bankruptcy. Repealed almost immediately because of noble backlash / fears peasants would stop working
- INT PERCEIEVE he’s not doing anything but actually is
-INSTEAD -> focus on STATE PEASANTS (area w/ no LL stakeholders)
- Owned by state, 40% of pop
Establishes ministry of state affairs and places within responsibility
- Finance had ignored/left them in poor conditions and unproductive (no state revenue)
- Establishes provincial offices fore more direct engagement w/ peasant issues
- More funding for medical/firefighting services
- Extensive land surveys too to analyze territory of empire -> who owns what
- NEED EVIDENCE -> this becomes MODEL for later peasant reforms. Serfs had expected similar approach
Alex II:
- FINALLY pushes through nobles enough to break, but compromise pretty much hurts everyone.
- Secret committee on peasant question -> 1857 made public (to emphasize point) -> still handpicked by emperor, limited noble involvement
- Lithuanian nobles, invites them to set up committees with LAND for peasants
Case studies local committees -> reports to -> editing commission -> main (secret) committee
- Discussion of 40 meetings starts in 1860 after noble resistance/info gathered -> Alex involved heavily.
- Nobles want to trim and emasculate the law they knew they couldn’t directly oppose -> still hard because of Alex’s insistance -> Alex supported all main principles of Editorial Commissions, so how could you dispute anything?
- 1861 -> MC passes mic over to State Council for final approval. Here trickier to pass. Tsar couldn’t intervene as directly, Instead he resorts to addressing the State Council -> delays will only result in more peasnat revolts and the destruction of the gentry ->
doesn’t really work and State Council (nobles) successfully declaw a lot of the reforms -> beggarly Allotment -> peasants could only claim a quarter of the land they once could
OVERALLL:
- Alex I’s education reforms contribute to emancipation via creating enlightened nobles eventually and more educated public on political economy
- Nobles forced to eventually adjust to idea of serf emancipation
- Preservation of autocracy throughout. Preventing revolution via gradualist approach (and Alex II tying land down via peasant communes), preserving noble power base through not overstepping bounds, needing to adjust nobles to water temperature/convince them of involvement/necessity
What in your opinion was the biggest reason for the Tsar’s decision to emancipate serfdom?
How did the concept of the “free thinking individual” continue on despite restictions? (or, broadly, how did this cultural development influence opposition to the state?
Decs under Alex -> continues secretly w/ INT even if no concrete action (Nick propagates both through education, Hegel) -> enlightened bureaucrats work WITH the state and are able to fill purpose/altruism as opposed to INT/Petra -> Petrashevsky start to take direct action following 1848)
Whats the through line / legacy of the enlightened individual acting in interests of “the people” / against the state?
Decs:
- propagated under Alex
- Works of Benthem, Smith
- Education reforms, military bureaucratic officers as involved in state affairs
- Therefore have capacity, freedom, and education / outlet(bureaucracy) for helping the state/tsar and ENACTING CHANGE/reform AS INDIVIDUALS
- ONLY WHEN TSAR SEEMINGLY GIVES UP / turns repressive (Semenovsky, military colonies, Sejn failure/French const Trubetskoi) do they turn AGAINST THE STATE AS INDIVIDUAL ACTORS TRYING TO GET CHANGE
- No unified ideology save for opposition tototal absolutism
Int:
- hardened opposition AGAINST absolutism becasue of Nick’s repression
- Were educated because of Alex, Nick’s continued reforms (waiving class rights, offering incentives to non nobles, uni population doubling)
- No outlets to work with the state so consolidate against it -> again only unified (Slav/west) in opposition to total absolutism / Nick’s approach
- evidenced by continuing critiques in Aesopian language and western influences of liberalism like Hegelianism, slavery/serfdom, etc.
- hegelianism -> INDIVIDUAL CAN AFFECT HISTORY
Petrashevsky:
- Post 1848, turn to Russian based solutions
- Even more consolidated against the monarchy -> didn’t admit wrongdoing, weren’t actively subversive but did think they could bring about change by spreading propaganda and enlightening people on civil rights with covert dictionaries
- Western ideals of Utopian socialism
- Free thinking continues on dspite censorship BECAUSE OF ENLIGHTENED BUREAUCRATS UNDER NICK -> offers incentives, educates Petrashevsky but backfires because of translator job
- Don’t reveal printing press, resist wrongdoing -> therefore MORE CONFIDENT IN THEIR POSITION THAT STATE IS WRONG AND THEIR TAKES ARE RIGHT
Nihilism:
- Sunday schools trying to radicalize population and not WORK WITH STATE
- Against anything empirical -> traditional God given monarchy rights. Assertuveness of individual
ALSO MENTION LIFESTYLE OF FREEDOM -> RESPONSIBILITIES / LIVES OUTSIDE OF COURT AND MILITARY -> AGAIN EMPHASIZE DOING GOOD WORKS/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN STATE AFFAIRS. CONTINUES DESPITE DEC FAILURE AND HARDENS RESOLVE THAT YOU CANT WORK WITH STATE
