Political developments at the beginning of the 20th century concepts. Political and economic development of the countries of Europe and North America at the beginning of the 20th century

Socio-political movements of the second half of the 19th century
The socio-political life of post-reform Russia is marked by an important process - a change of generations of oppositionists from liberals to extreme radicals.
The incompleteness of reforms on the part of the authorities caused general discontent in the liberal camp, and the inconsistency of Russian post-reform reality and the harmful consequences of maintaining autocracy stimulated the development of the revolutionary movement in Russia.
In the 60-80s of the nineteenth century. Populism occupied a leading position in the social and revolutionary movement. The main provisions of the populist doctrine were formulated by A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky. According to their views, Russia could move to socialism through the peasant community. This teaching was further developed in the works of M.A. Bakunina, P.L. Lavrova, P. Tkacheva.
The ideology of populism had a direct influence on the tactics of the movement. In 1874, the so-called campaign among the people was carried out to propagate socialist ideas. In 1876, the populist organization “Land and Freedom” emerged, which then split into two organizations. After the assassination of Alexander II, populist organizations were practically destroyed.
In the second half of the 19th century in Russia, the ideas of liberalism were further developed, which were established in a number of zemstvos. Russian liberals saw the main goal in establishing constitutional government (I.I. Petrunkevich, D.N. Shipov, B.N. Chicherin). The labor movement is becoming an influential factor in socio-political life. In the 70s, the first attempts were made to create workers' organizations. Their participants advocated the overthrow of the autocracy, political freedoms, and social reconstruction. As a result of the crisis of populism and the growth of the labor movement, part of the intelligentsia turns to Marxism, the most radical Western ideology.
The creation of the “Emancipation of Labor” group in 1883 marked the turn of part of the Russian intelligentsia towards social democratic teachings. Subsequently, the “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class” (1895), led by V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin) put forward the idea of ​​an irreconcilable class struggle, a socialist revolution and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. As you can see, in Russian society at the end of the 19th century. there is a radicalization of views and sentiments. There were very few defenders of the bourgeois system and the associated process of modernization in Russia. And this is not surprising: the bourgeoisie, which in Western Europe played the role of the main striking force, was silent in our country; until 1905 it did not even have its own party. On the threshold of the bourgeois revolutions in Russia, a completely unique balance of forces took shape: the radical forces that spoke with the slogan of equalization were practically not opposed by the forces that defended the bourgeois system.

This text is an unedited version of the transcript, which will be edited in the future.

Story. 9th grade

Topic 1. Russia in 1900–1916.

Lesson 3. Political development: new trends and old approaches

Kobba D.V., Ph.D., history teacher, State Educational Institution “Gymnasium No. 1579”

07.07.2010

Political movements - group liberation of labor land and freedom, representatives of populism, union of struggle for the liberation of the working class

The topic of our lesson today is “Political development of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century,” the organization land and freedom, Russian liberals, trends of populism of the 19th century, trends of populism and the politics of post-reform Russia. On October 20, 1894, Emperor Alexander III dies. His son Nicholas ascends the throne, with whose arrival many in Russia associated a return to the liberal reforms begun by Emperor Alexander II. But Nicholas II did not live up to expectations. Being a man by nature soft and susceptible to influence, he spent almost the entire time of his reign balancing between various political groupings, including those in his circle. As an example, we can cite at least the confrontation between Finance Minister Witte and Interior Minister Plehve. The first believed that Russia first of all needed to decide economic problems and carry out deep modernization and industrialization of the economy. He considered this a political task, because by bringing Russia to the level of economically developed powers, we will solve both social and political problems. The second considered Russia to be a unique social, economic and everyday organization, interference in the culture of which would lead to the destruction of the entire system, and therefore, any liberal, Westernizing trends, and even more so a revolutionary infection, had to be nipped in the bud.

There was also a third point of view, which was proposed by the head of the Moscow security department, Colonel Zubatov, with the support of his uncle Nicholas II, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, the governor of Moscow. Zubatov proposed to consolidate and lead the labor movement. He believed that it was the union of workers and the broad masses that posed the greatest threat to the empire. To neutralize this threat, Zubatov proposed creating a wide network of workers' organizations, which would be headed by people controlled by the secret police. This policy was called “Zubatov socialism.”

However, all these actions and disputes within the highest echelons political power Russia took place against the backdrop of the active formation of underground, radical, political organizations. Let's name some of them. In March 1898, the 1st Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party took place in Minsk; only 9 people took part in it, and 8 participants were soon arrested. But in 1903, the 3rd Congress of the RSDLP took place in Brussels, and then in London, at which the party program and charter were already adopted. True, at the same congress there was a split in the party, since the RSDLP actually immediately split into two main factions - the Bolsheviks led by Lenin and the Mensheviks led by Martov. The dispute between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks was of a principled nature. The fact is that Lenin believed that the RSDLP should become the fighting force of the revolution. The Party must be very tightly controlled by the Central Committee and its membership must be limited. While Martov and, by extension, the Mensheviks believed that the party should be more liberal, it should be open to the general population, and most importantly, Martov believed that part of the bourgeoisie could be considered allies in relation to the working class, while how the peasantry was considered reactionary.

In 1902, scattered socialist cells, who considered themselves successors of the defeated People's Will party, created an underground organization, the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Chernov became its leader, under whose leadership the party program and charter were adopted in 1906. According to this document, the Socialist Revolutionary Party was to become the striking force of the revolution. According to the socialist revolutionaries, the Russian peasantry, workers, and intelligentsia constituted the working class, and therefore, they were antagonistic to the bourgeoisie and the Russian nobility.

In 1904, the Minister of Internal Affairs Plehve was killed, and a more liberal person was appointed in his place - Svyatopolk Mirsky. Svyatopolk Mirsky soon submits a note addressed to the Tsar, in which he proposes to carry out serious reforms government controlled. In particular, Mirskoy proposes to expand the powers of zemstvos and introduce zemstvo representatives into the State Council. But the tsar did not react properly to these proposals and considered it best to distract society with a victorious war.

Thus, Russian society at the beginning of the 20th century, in a political sense, it developed in two directions. On the one hand, it was a public policy associated with the activities of higher circles state power Russia. On the other hand, this is an underground, secret politics associated with the activities of illegal political parties, such as the RSDLP and the Socialist Revolutionaries.

Political development at the beginning of the 20th century. was characterized by the complication of the public administration system. The highest state body appointed by the emperor was the State Council (legislative functions). The Committee of Ministers and the Council of Ministers were involved in coordinating matters between departments. The Synod remained the governing body of the Orthodox Church. The Senate, having lost its significance as the highest state body, turned into a body for overseeing legality in the government and the highest cassation authority in judicial cases.

The leading positions are taken by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (internal security) and the Police Department. At the beginning of the 20th century. the Minister of the Interior became a kind of first minister of the government. The Ministry of Finance played an important role (control and distribution budget funds, management of trade and industry). The local administration consisted of governors-general, governors, mayors, and zemstvo chiefs.

A talented financier and statesman, S. Witte, having headed the Ministry of Finance in 1892, began carrying out economic reforms. He used methods of government intervention in the economy (protectionism). In 1894, a wine monopoly was introduced. In 1897, a monetary reform was carried out. Measures to increase taxes, increased gold production, and the conclusion of external loans made it possible to introduce gold coins into circulation instead of paper bills, which helped strengthen the country's monetary system. The commercial and industrial taxation reform carried out in 1898 introduced a trade tax.

The intensification of Russia's foreign policy in the Far East and the Pacific region has confronted it with Japanese interests in China and Korea. On January 27 (February 9), 1904, Japanese troops attacked the Russian Pacific squadron based in Port Arthur. Started Russo-Japanese War. After the battles for the port on December 20, 1904, the Mukden and Tsushima battles, during which the Russian fleet in the Far East was destroyed, the Portsmouth Peace was signed in August 1905, according to which Japan received half of the island. Sakhalin, Port Arthur and Dalniy port and the right of free fishing in Russian territorial waters.

At the beginning of the 20th century. In Russia, the prerequisites for revolution had developed: the absence of a constitution and guarantees of human rights, contradictions between the rapid growth of capitalism and the remnants of serfdom, the plight of non-Russian peoples, crop failures at the beginning of the 20th century, the economic crisis of 1900-1903, Russia’s defeat in the Russo-Japanese War.

Periodization and course of the revolution: 1st stage - initial (from January 9 to the fall of 1905). January 9, 1905 - shooting of a demonstration in St. Petersburg (Bloody Sunday). On May 1, a strike of workers began in Ivanovo-Voznesensk (the creation of the Council of Workers' Representatives). On May 12, 1905, a strike began in Ivano-Frankovsk. Peasant unrest swept the Black Earth Center, the Middle Volga region, Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states. In the summer of 1905, the All-Russian Peasant Union was formed. A major event was the armed uprising of sailors on the battleship Prince Potemkin Tauride. The growth of the revolution forced the tsarist government to make concessions - on August 6, 1905, a Manifesto appeared on the convening of the Duma, which did not take place due to the boycott of the elections. Stage 2 - culmination (autumn 1905 - December 1905). On October 17, 1905, the Tsar signed the Manifesto, according to which civil liberties were granted and legislative functions were granted to the State Duma. However, this did not stop the revolution. The strike that began in Moscow spread throughout the country and developed into the All-Russian October political strike. In October - November 1905, unrest among soldiers took place in Kiev, Warsaw, Kronstadt, and other cities. On November 11, 1905, an uprising began in Sevastopol under the leadership of Lieutenant P. Schmidt (on November 16, the uprising was suppressed). At this time, the Councils of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies arose, which became parallel (alternative) authorities. On December 7, 1905, the General Political Strike began, which grew in Moscow into the December armed uprising, which lasted until December 19, 1905. The third stage was the final one (January 1906 - June 1907). After the suppression of the December armed uprising in Moscow, the revolutionary wave began to subside. In 1906-1907 strikes, walkouts, peasant unrest, and protests in the army and navy continued. The government, with the help of severe repressions, regained control over the country by June 1907.

According to the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, the creation of a State Duma with legislative functions was envisaged in Russia. Elections to the First State Duma took place in March-April 1906. The main victory in them was won by the Cadets (1/3 of the total number of deputies). The First State Duma began its work on April 27, 1906. The agrarian question was at the center of the Duma's discussions. The “project of 42” cadets and the “project of 104” Trudoviks were brought up for discussion. Both projects provided for the formation of a state land fund to provide landless and land-poor peasants with land. However, the Trudoviks proposed the nationalization of land, and the Cadets - the purchase of land. The government did not approve of these projects and on July 9, 1906, dissolved the Duma.

The Second Duma turned out to be even more radical than the first. A total of 518 deputies were elected to the Second Duma, of which more than 400 belonged to the bloc of Trudoviks, Socialist Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks, and only 33 seats were held by the monarchists. On February 20, 1907, the opening of the Second State Duma took place. Wanting to prevent the dispersal of the Duma, the Cadets tried not to give the government a reason to dissolve it. The agrarian projects introduced by the government were not approved, so on June 3, 1907, the Tsar's Manifesto on the dissolution of the Second State Duma was published. The Ill and IV State Dumas supported all government bills.

On November 9, 1906, P. Stolypin achieved the signing of a decree abolishing the law on the inviolability of the community. Now the peasants received the right to leave the community with the assignment of the part of the communal land due to them into personal ownership. The creation of farmsteads and farmsteads was encouraged. The government also carried out a massive resettlement of landless and rebellious peasants to the eastern outskirts of the country. P. Stolypin's reforms were aimed at strengthening the peasantry without destroying landownership. The second step in resolving the peasant issue was the decree of October 5, 1906, which abolished the legal restrictions of peasants. Equal rights were granted upon admission to public service, the right to freedom of choice of place of residence was granted without community permission. Corporal punishment was abolished by the verdict of the volost peasant courts.

The reason for the First World War between the Triple Alliance (Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, later Bulgaria and Turkey) and the Entente (Russia, England, France, later Italy, Romania and the USA) was the assassination in Sarajevo (Serbia) on June 28, 1914. Austrian heir Franz Ferdinand. On July 10, 1914, an ultimatum was presented to Serbia. On July 30, mobilization was announced in Russia. On August 1, 1914, Germany declared war on Russia, and on August 6, Austria-Hungary. Military operations took place on the Western and Eastern (Russian) fronts.

To save the Allied armies, Russian troops had to launch an offensive without waiting for the completion of mobilization. Despite the defeat in East Prussia (August 4 – September 2, 1914), Russian troops managed to capture Galicia (September 1914). In September-November, two major battles took place on Polish territory - Warsaw-Ivangorod and Lodz. However, due to a lack of weapons and heavy losses, it was decided to suspend the offensive. The military actions of Russian troops at the beginning of 1915 forced the German command to regroup forces and transfer the main forces from the Western to the Eastern (Russian) Front. As a result of the German offensive, Russia lost the territories of Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine and Western Belarus. In February 1916, the offensive of Austro-German troops began on the Western Front (Verdun operation).

Allied calls for help forced the Russian command to launch a new offensive. On May 22, 1916, the offensive of the troops of the Southwestern Front began under the command of General A. Brusilov. As a result of a successful attack on the positions of the Austro-Hungarian troops along the entire front, the defenses were broken through. Russian troops managed to advance to a depth of 60-150 km (Brusilovsky breakthrough).

The internal political crisis that resulted in the February Revolution led to a weakening of Russia's position. The failure of the offensive operation of the Russian army, organized by the Provisional Government, in June - July 1917 in Romania and Ukraine led to the fact that Russia was forced to withdraw from the war. The Bolshevik government is forced to conclude the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany (March 3, 1918). The Entente did not recognize the new government and began preparations for intervention. Thus, Russia's participation in the war led to the death of two million people, and also contributed to the collapse of the empire and the establishment of Bolshevik power.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, imperialism began to win in the developed countries of the world, as the highest stage of capitalist development, based on an industrial base. At this time, virtually all markets, colonies, and spheres of influence were divided between the leading powers. In the era of intensive industrialization, the number of the working class - the proletariat - increased, which began to demand more and more material and other benefits. The antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie began to deepen more and more. By the beginning of the new twentieth century, two opposing military-political camps had almost completely emerged in the world, relations between which became more and more tense every year, which ultimately led to the First World War. This lesson is dedicated to the events of the early twentieth century.

Subject:Man among people

Lesson:Political and economic development countries of Europe and North America at the beginning of the twentieth century

At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. most developed countries human civilization were European countries and primarily - Great Britain, France, Germany, in North America - the USA; Russia stood apart, where the rate of economic development increased every year and approached the rate of developed countries.

Rice. 1. The bourgeoisie is in power. Caricature ()

In all these countries, remarkably similar specific processes could be observed, adjusted for national character, namely: the increasing growth of the industrial and other bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie in general and workers who went to the cities from the countryside and became proletariat- hired workers at certain bourgeois enterprises, often without almost any rights and having a rather small salary (see Fig. 1). Due to this contradiction ( antagonism) between these categories (or classes) of the population increased every year. To defend their rights, workers began to create trade unions (trade unions), who began to fight with the “owner” of the enterprise and the system as a whole. Due to the contradictions that have arisen in developed countries of the world, ideas have become increasingly popular social democracy, Marxism and social revolution, with which the official authorities struggled in every possible way. The concept of population migration. Hundreds and thousands of families in Western Europe and Russia (mainly the Jewish population from the Pale of Settlement) began to move to new countries - the majority in the USA, beyond the so-called. " American dream"(see Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Emigration to the USA ()

At the same time, the increase in the growth of the proletariat led to the emergence of new industrial facilities, and, consequently, to even greater enrichment of the bourgeoisie. Capital has become supranational. Created multinational companies and corporations that gradually “entangled” the countries of the world with their financial networks. The whole world has become a market. In conditions of fierce competition, individual companies emerged that became monopolists in their field. Thus, oil and oil products were associated with the family Rockefellers, sewing machines - with the company " Singer" etc. (see Fig. 3).

Rice. 3. Production of Coca-Cola. Early 20th century ()

The turn of the century was the time of the emergence and implementation of new discoveries. Electricity illuminated hundreds of cities in the developed world. Telephone, telegraph and radio connected countries and continents with each other. Aviation, airship, new types of steamships brought countries closer to each other. Appeared cinematograph(movie). Style dominated in art modern At the same time, new means of mutual destruction appeared - a machine gun, a tank, a submarine, an airplane with bombs, poisonous gases, etc.

Capital not only expanded beyond its own countries, it required more and more markets. Colonies and spheres of influence developed countries were no longer saved. Almost all countries have reached their highest limit of territorial development. To obtain new markets, a new redivision of the world was required, which threatened a new, already world war.

By 1914, at the beginning of the First World War, two opposing military-political camps had emerged in the world. On the one hand, these were Great Britain, France and Russia, whose union was called “ Entente”, which translated means “Hearty consent” and Triple Alliance, consisting of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. The essence of the confrontation came down to a new redistribution of the world and the acquisition of new lands and territories (on the part of Germany and the allies) and to the prevention of such a redistribution (on the part of the Entente).

In 1900-1914. Local, local conflicts occurred in Europe and the world (the Anglo-Boer War in South Africa, clashes in Iran (Persia), the Russian-Japanese War, two Balkan Wars (see Fig. 4), etc., in which one way or another otherwise (mostly behind the scenes) the “bloc” countries took part, as if testing each other out on third territory.

Rice. 4. First Balkan War. 1912 ()

Thus, by 1914 the world had finally entered new era, the logical outcome of which was the First World War.

1. Aleksashkina L.N. General history. XX - early XXI centuries. - M.: Mnemosyne, 2011.

2. Zagladin N.V. General history. XX century Textbook for 11th grade. - M.: Russian word, 2009.

2. Russian Party of Communists ().

1. Read Chapter 1 of the textbook by Aleksashkina L.N. General history. XX - early XXI centuries and give answers to questions 1 - 3 on p. 9.

2. Read Chapter 2 of the textbook by Aleksashkina L.N. General history. XX - early XXI centuries and give answers to questions 1 - 4 on p. 17.

3. Read Chapter 3 of the textbook by Aleksashkina L.N. General history. XX - early XXI century and give answers to questions 2 - 6 on p. 32.

Kapaev Andrey

The work examines the struggle between alternatives to political development at the beginning of the 20th century. The result of this struggle was the fall of the autocracy.

Download:

Preview:

Research project: “Political development of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century.”

Topic: “The struggle of alternatives at the beginning of the twentieth century”

Project implementers: Kapaev Andrey.

Class: 10

Scientific director: Natalya Petrovna Kotyakina, history teacher, Municipal Educational Institution “Secondary School in Zavolzhsky”

Objective of the project.

Explore the struggle of alternatives in the political development of Russia in the early twentieth century.

Project objectives:

1.Study theoretical material on this topic.

2.Draw conclusions about the responsibility of each person, contemporary

political events in the choice of political decisions.

Subject of study.

Political events of the early twentieth century.

Research methods.

Study and analysis of theoretical material, work with history. documents.

Relevance.

The mistakes of history teach us not to make them today.

Introduction

War is peace... Freedom is slavery... Ignorance is strength...

Here are slogans from George Orwell’s science fiction novel “1984,” which reveals the nature of a totalitarian state. The author depicted one of the possible alternatives to the political development of Europe in the twentieth century: the establishment of a police, non-democratic regime.

Lack of freedoms, fear and hatred consumed European society. And above him rises the all-seeing “eye” - Elder Brother....

“Those eyes follow you everywhere and the voice envelops you. In dreams and in reality, at work and while eating, on the street and at home, in the bathroom, in bed - there is no salvation... His face looked at people heavily, calmly, fatherly, a smile hidden in a black mustache. The words sound like a lead death knell: “War is peace... Freedom is slavery... Ignorance is strength...”

A surprisingly familiar portrait, a surprisingly familiar society.

No, Orwell's warning remains only in his wonderful book.

In 1984, democratic values ​​defeated utopian radical alternatives for the development of Western European society. Just don’t forget that in some European countries there was fascism and fear. There were world wars.

In the early 90s, Russia chose a democratic path of development. We are building a rule of law state. This is amazing. But we all understand how late we are. And in our history of the twentieth century there was “Big Brother”, fear, repression…

And if 100 years ago, participants in political events would have chosen a different path, what would our Motherland be like?

Reflections on the great responsibility of political choice in the fate of the state and the people prompted me to explore the struggle of alternatives to the political development of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, the result of which was the victory of radical forces, and the culmination of the Stalinist political regime.

Main part

The struggle of alternatives to social development

The beginning of the twentieth century is one of the tragic pages in the history of our Motherland. The political intensity of social development will result in revolutions, civil war, and will change the centuries-old way of social and political life.

Against the backdrop of all these events, a struggle between alternatives to social development is unfolding. Let's follow the script of this drama.

This period of the most difficult life in the history of our country fell to the lot of the last Russian Tsar - Nicholas II, who now became a Russian saint, since the last Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, together with Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, Tsarevich Alexei, the Grand Duchesses: Olga, Maria, Tatiana and Anastasia, were canonized as holy new martyrs.

40 years before this event, F.M. Dostoevsky wrote:“The revolt will begin with atheism and the robbery of all wealth, they will begin to overthrow religion, destroy churches and turn them into barracks and stalls, they will flood the world with blood and then they themselves will be afraid,” and F.I. Tyutchev rightly noted that the Russian people have always been saved by their history. And this is fair, because a people who does not know their past is deprived of a future.

Now, looking back into the past, we can state that the revolution, for which so much blood was shed, suffered a complete defeat in our country, from the point of view of its ideas, and from the point of view of the goals achieved, a complete victory, since the Sovereign was killed, and the State destroyed. This was well understood by A.S. Pushkin, who said: “The Romanovs are the hope of the Fatherland.” The House of Romanov existed for more than 300 years. When Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II abdicated the throne, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, one of the smartest and most educated women of her time, who could serve clear example virtues for modern women, she told her friend A. Vyrubova: “...you know, Anya, with the abdication of the Sovereign, everything is over for Russia...”. Her words were prophetic. This is a national tragedy of the Russian people. The Russian intelligentsia and St. Petersburg nobility, including the House of Romanov, played a significant role in these events. A special role in this belongs to the State Duma, which over the 11 years of its activity contributed to the events February revolution, the murder of Rasputin and the complete failure of Russia in the First World War.

Sovereign Nicholas II, who received the throne at the age of 26, was well educated and mastered 3 foreign languages and had two higher education: military and legal. He was raised in the Orthodox faith and great love for his Fatherland, so he considered his main duty to be to work conscientiously for the good of his Fatherland. Quite a lot of literature has now been written about the personality of this tsar, but here it is appropriate to recall the words of A. Solzhenitsyn about him: “constantly looking only at peace and harmony, the Sovereign did not accumulate thunderstorms in himself from any events.” Although he perfectly understood his role in the life of Russia, because he once said to P.A. Stolypin: “I am doomed to terrible trials.” Without understanding the role of the Tsar and his relationship to the State Duma, it is impossible to understand those events in our history.

In 1913, all of Russia and the entire reigning House of Romanov, which then numbered 69 people, was preparing to celebrate the anniversary - 300 years of the House of Romanov. Russia then ranked first in the world in terms of economic development and had the hardest currency in the world. In 1910, Russia produced 1/3 more bread than the USA, Argentina and Canada combined, and in 1912 we sold 68 million rubles worth of butter to England. The smallest salary for a laborer in Russia was 25 rubles, and a pound of meat cost 4 rubles 50 kopecks, a pound of bread - 2 rubles, and butter - 16 rubles. It is significant that from our then most powerful State in 1897, the Emperor addressed the whole world with a proposal to convene a conference against war in the future. Such a conference, at the insistence of Nicholas II, took place in The Hague a year later. So the idea of ​​world disarmament belongs to our Nicholas II. Now in New York, in the building of the UN Secretariat, in a place of honor, an original letter signed by Sovereign Nicholas II is displayed, calling on all countries to take part in the International Conference. At that time, a phrase said by P.A. spread around Russia. Stolypin: and ext.“Give the state 20 years of peace, internal and external , and you won’t recognize Russia.”Russia was dangerous because it was strong, because everything revolved around the Russian ruble. world economy and all of Europe was waiting for what would be said on any issue on the banks of the Neva. Strong Russia, as foreign diplomats later wrote, is one of the reasons for the First World War, which broke out on August 1, 1914.

The Emperor addressed the people with a manifesto declaring war on Russia from the balcony of the Winter Palace, and the crowd of thousands was unanimous in their impulse to fight to the bitter end. But this unanimity was short-lived, as it soon became clear that the 1905 manifesto was not in vain. The manifesto is so politicized social life country, that political passions began to boil in the upper strata of society and about 70 parties were formed, about 1 thousand newspapers were published, and it soon became clear that there was no longer any unity in the country, but there were individual people who had different views on the future fate of Russia.

150 million Empire, with its huge human and natural resources, lived in anticipation of change.

The climax of the Romanov family unfolds. The Tsar was the grandson of Nicholas I. His mother, Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna from the family of the Princes of Oldenburg, a kind and religious woman, had a huge, charitable influence on him. She lived on the road with her husband and ended her life in the Intercession Monastery in the city of Kyiv. Father, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich Sr., was the commander-in-chief of the Russian army in Russian-Turkish war, and although their relationship was very cool, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich Jr. began his service at his father’s headquarters as a General Staff officer on the Turkish front. A man of legendary courage, a professional military man who later graduated from the General Staff Academy with a silver medal, he failed to cope with the task of supreme commander-in-chief. By the way, he was among those who strongly insisted on signing the 1905 manifesto on democratic freedoms. From the very beginning of the war he was very popular in the army. The situation developed in such a way that Headquarters constantly interfered in the affairs of the government, which brought chaos, and the situation at the front also changed. Russia saved two allies - Serbia and France - from complete defeat, but this cost it enormous sacrifices: in the first year of the war, the best part of the career officers were killed, and in two years of the war - almost the entire guard.

When the situation at the front became catastrophic, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich was so depressed and confused that he was completely unable to control the situation. He was removed from the post of Supreme Commander-in-Chief and appointed commander of the Caucasian Front. There he learned about the abdication of Nicholas II and then swore allegiance to the Provisional Government, which removed all powers from him.

On August 23, Nicholas II became Supreme Commander-in-Chief. The army received this news with delight, and in the government, 6 ministers resigned as a sign of protest. The government is writing a collective letter, which was not signed only by Khvostov and Goremykin, who said: “When there is a catastrophe at the front, His Majesty considers it the sacred duty of the Russian Tsar to be among the troops with them either to win or to die... You will not persuade the Sovereign to abandon his plan with any arguments them a step. Neither intrigue nor anyone else's influence play a role in this decision. All that remains is to bow to the will of the King and help him.”

By 1916, the position of the Russian army had completely stabilized. Russia stood on the verge of victory in the war, ready for a great offensive. With this feeling, the Emperor went to headquarters on February 22, and February 23 February events began in the city. Having assumed command, Nicholas II robbed the enemy of the idea of ​​an agreement. Many modern researchers write that Germany tried with all its might to cause a revolution in Russia, which would lead to the overthrow of the Tsar, and this would lead to the collapse of the army. The Tsar united the Empire, the Army and the People. Revolutionaries of several generations, starting with the Decembrists, dreamed of getting rid of the Tsar. And then the murder of Alexander II, the Tsar Liberator, A. Ulyanov’s attempt to kill the Tsar Peacemaker Alexander III - everything speaks of the dream of the revolutionaries, who were real fanatics and did not spare anyone’s life for the sake of their chimera - socialism.

Revolutionary propaganda penetrated literally all layers of society. The State Duma was also infected. Nicholas II was opposed to the introduction in Russia of constitutional forms of government borrowed from the West. He believed that the best form of government for Russia was an autocratic monarchy. He could well have repeated the words of his grandfather, Alexander II: “I would sign any constitution if I had confidence that it would serve the benefit of Russia. But I know that if I did this today, then Russia would perish tomorrow.” Perhaps the king was wrong, but the prophecies came true.

To reduce unrest in the country, and wanting to involve her in governing the country the best people, Nicholas II signed a decree on the creation of the Duma and attended its grand openingApril 27, 1906.

11 years of the existence of parliament in Russia did not give it anything: the Duma turned out to be not only completely ineffective, but also a harmful institution. People simply nicknamed her “talker.” The Duma consisted of 2 chambers: the Upper - the State Council, half appointed by the Tsar, half elected, which confirmed or rejected the decision of the lower house, whose members were elected for a period of five years.

Women, military personnel, youth under 25, peoples leading a nomadic lifestyle were deprived of the right to vote. The elections were multi-stage. Voters were divided into curia: agricultural, two urban, one bourgeois, bourgeois and clergy, two - workers and peasants. 450 deputies were elected.

The elected representatives of the people who worked here had the right to discuss and adopt bills introduced by both the Duma and the government regarding the country's budget, issuing loans to the government for large projects, as well as make requests to the government regarding any events in the country and measures taken. True, even the bills adopted here and in the State Council might not become law if they were not signed by the emperor. The last word remained with Nicholas II, who always emphasized that they were passing various laws to the detriment of the country and would resign, and it was up to him to answer to God for the country. Therefore, with the creation of the Duma, Russia did not even become a constitutional monarchy, since the Tsar had the right to dissolve the session, and if political passions became heated, to completely dissolve the Duma. It is clear that this did not suit many people in Russia at that time. Actually this is what happened with the 1st and 2nd Dumas. The first, elected on the wave of revolutionary enthusiasm of the revolutionary upsurge of the Duma, worked in the Tauride Palace for 72 days, and the second a little longer. Deputies, using parliamentary immunity, were engaged in revolutionary activities aimed at undermining the state. P.A. Stolypin demanded that these powers be removed and proved their participation in a military conspiracy. Many deputies were arrested. Now the words of Stolypin addressed to the enemies of Russia are well known: “they need great upheavals, but we need great Russia" The confrontation between the Duma and Stolypin, who proposed his agrarian reform and was, without a doubt, the greatest politician of the twentieth century, ended with the murder of this figure, since if he had carried out his reform, the revolutionaries would have been completely deprived of the opportunity to speculate on the agrarian question and would have lost ground under their feet.

The reason for the dissolution of the State Duma was its demand to give land to the landowners without any ransom. The confrontation between the government and the Duma emerged quite quickly, so Nicholas II himself and the ministers tried to attend meetings as rarely as possible.

The Duma was elected in a new way. They elected 45 nobles, 22 peasants, 12 merchants, 10 people from the clergy, the remaining 11 including workers. This Duma worked for 5 years and adopted about 2.5 thousand bills. The absolute majority of deputies were no longer just representatives of any classes, but also representatives of certain parties. The most prominent and influential parties were the Union of the United Nobility and the Union of the Russian People, which represented the interests of large nobles and landowners. This is the right wing of the Duma. Prominent representatives of this party were V.P. Purishkevich, gr. Bobrinsky, Makarov, Doctor Dubrovin. The leader and organizer of the “Union of the Russian People” party was Vladimir Mitrofanovich Purishkevich /1870-1920/, actual state councilor, Bessarabian landowner, member of the second, third and fourth State Duma. A man of ideas and action, a champion of Orthodoxy and autocracy.

The commercial and industrial bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia created their own party on October 17. The Octobrists published their own newspaper, Voice of Moscow. Their leaders are bright representatives on the political horizon of the country. First of all, Alexander Ivanovich Guchkov, about whom Struve said “a virtuoso of intrigue and a genius of unprincipledness.” He was a Moscow manufacturer who fought in the Transvaal during the Anglo-Boer War on the island of the Boers, participated in the Macedonian uprising for the freedom of the Greeks, and was captured by the Japanese near Mukden. An inveterate duelist. From a young age he was attracted to military affairs. He headed the military-industrial committee of the Duma. The second person of this party is Mikhail Vladimirovich Rodzianko. A large landowner, he preferred to tell the truth face to face. A monarchist by conviction, he did not understand the Tsar and Tsarina, he believed rumors, believed that they were ruining the idea of ​​the monarchy, and did not like Guchkov. The Queen did not like both of them and considered them destroyers of the monarchy.

The Constitutional Democratic Party /Cadets/ was adjacent to the Octobrists. Their generally recognized leader is Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov. He is a Muscovite, a student of the historian Klyuchevsky, a private assistant professor at Moscow University, and a brilliant speaker. It was he who for the first time in Russia began to say “our parliamentarians.” By conviction he is a liberal. He had previously spent a long time abroad and was imbued with Western European ideas in spirit. Miliukov pursued a policy that served the interests of the Allies, sometimes to the detriment of the interests of Russia. The party showed great interest in foreign policy, interfered in the affairs of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was inclined towards a moderate constitutional form of government according to the English model, which is why Miliukov liked to address deputies in the English manner. During the war years, a split occurred in the party: some believed that civil peace with the government was needed at this time, while others believed that political confrontation with the government should continue. This was traditionally the center of the Duma. Later they were joined by the national liberal party /progressives/ with its leader, manufacturer Ryabushinsky. On many issues, the center and the right wing acted together, creating an impressive majority in the Duma.

The left wing consisted of representatives of the Socialist Revolutionaries and Social Democrats who had emerged from underground, mainly Mensheviks. There were only 4 Bolsheviks in the 3rd State Duma, as well as Trudoviks led by lawyer Kerensky.

Now a large amount of literature has appeared telling about the influence of the Freemasons on the events of February 1917, but this issue is very complex and requires special research.

In 1915, confrontation between the Duma and the government began to intensify. An open political struggle for power began. Deputies constantly vilified their government and their state. In this way, the so-called Progressive Bloc was formed in the Duma, which included Cadets, left Octobrists, and Trudoviks. The reason for this political event was the next one. The bourgeoisie saw and constantly said that the government was unable to organize the front and rear for victory and cope with the growing discontent of the people. Members of the government were subjected to constant harassment and slander through means mass media. The main thing was that there was a real war for military orders. In Petrograd, firms with mixed capital had great weight; joint-stock companies owned entire branches of metalworking, mechanical engineering, railways, construction, banks. In addition to the fact that the government placed very profitable military orders among St. Petersburg entrepreneurs, military orders began to be placed abroad. Not in England and France, but in America. Russian gold began to flow to the USA. The Duma expressed no confidence in the government, and the government could not work due to constant attacks from the Duma and demands for replacement of government members. No matter who the Tsar appointed in the government, the person was subjected to constant criticism from his own Duma. That’s when the demand was heard in the Duma to create a government of public trust. What did this mean? This meant that the government would be formed not by the Tsar, but by the Duma, and would report for its work to the Duma. Massive criticism of the ministers and their actions began.

The Tsar did not make the liberal concessions that were demanded of him, because he rightly believed that the time for this had not come and that it was dangerous to experiment with new reforms in the midst of a war. Everyone now knows what criticism and slander the Emperor himself and his entire family were subjected to.

The Duma especially hated the Minister of Internal Affairs, Alexander Dimitrievich Protopopov, who began his political career in the 4th Duma, becoming a comrade of the chairman of the Octobrist party. Then he became friends with Raputin and accepted the invitation to join the government, leaving the interests of Duma figures. He was eager to reconcile the Duma and the government for the benefit of Russia. For his activities, he was subjected to special criticism from liberals. In 1918 he was shot by the Cheka.

In response to such actions of the parliament, the government dissolved the next session of the Duma ahead of schedule. Passions were running high. On November 1, 1916, at the opening of the next session of the Duma, Miliukov made his famous speech. He spoke for 2 hours. He assessed the situation in the country at his own discretion, did not say anything about the Tsar, but his speech ended with the famous words: “What is this - stupidity or betrayal?” The next day the whole capital started talking about the fact that the queen was German...

The last Duma session opened on February 14, 1917, when powerful strikes were going on in the country. There is a difficult situation with bread in the capital, and the Duma itself provoked these conversations. She herself introduced a law on fixed purchasing prices for bread. In response to this, the peasants sharply reduced the sale of bread to the treasury. Prices were constantly rising. Small and large speculators took advantage of the shortage, bought bread from peasants and hid it until rationing was introduced for bread. Transportation was disrupted. The Duma again demanded a responsible government, and the Tsar promised to dissolve the Duma altogether. The Duma was dissolved, but it did not cease its activities. The Tauride Palace was filled with people gathering for private meetings.

On February 23, a revolution raged in the capital. It was in the Duma, where fiery speeches about love for the Motherland were constantly being made, that Guchkov had the idea of ​​the Tsar’s abdication.

Rodzianko at this time met with persons from the tsarist administration, with Grand Duke Mikhail, to whom they prophesied to give the throne, at the same time a draft manifesto on the granting of a constitution was drafted, and Duma figures Guchkov and Shulgin went to meet the Tsar at headquarters and in Pskov got him to renounce the throne in favor of brother Michael, who also abdicated. At this time, in his diary, the Tsar noted that “treason and cowardice and deception are all around.”

This was the alignment of political parties in Russia. A Provisional Committee was formed in the Duma, from which the Provisional Government grew. At the same time, the Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies was created, headed by the Menshevik Nikolai Chkheidze.

In Russia, a very rare phenomenon is dual power. 4 The State Duma was dissolved by the Provisional Government. Members of the Provisional Government turned out to be unable to govern the country, and, moreover, as a result of the revolution, the army was collapsed by order No. 1. Members of the Provisional Government argued about the situation in the country and hoped for the convening of the Constituent Assembly, which, according to the legislation of the country, was supposed to decide the future fate of Russia. The Constituent Assembly was dispersed by the Bolsheviks, who seized power into their own hands, trampling all laws. The Provisional Government was arrested and sent to the prison of the Trubetskoy bastion of the Peter and Paul Fortress.

“The tragedy of the Russian revolution became possible due to the fact that the individualization of instinct in Russia determined the individualization of the spirit, and historical events and trials demanded something different. World War 1914-1918 demanded from the Russian people extraordinary efforts and sacrifices, and most importantly, non-seduction and non-seduction by private profits: the will to victory was needed, and not to property redistribution; What was needed was state feeling and great-power understanding, and not class envy and hatred, not the vindictive memory malice that had been smoldering underground since the era of serfdom. Events again put the Russian people at a crossroads, as has happened more than once in history. And again there were two ways, two possibilities: either, in the words of the chronicle, “to carry out the cause” of Russia threateningly and honestly, or to begin “to carry out Rus'’s cause separately.” The Russian people could not stand the temptation, could not cope with the temptation and took the second path, suggested by the Bolsheviks... The future was predetermined by this" This is how the famous historian and philosopher Ivan Ilyin understood these events.

The fact that power in the country now belonged to the Bolsheviks can hardly be called an accident. Firstly, even before the start of the bloody events, in 1905, the holy righteous John of Kronstadt loudly said that if the Russian people do not come to their senses from their infatuation with democratic Western ideas and do not repent, the Orthodox Tsar will be taken away from them and the Russian land will be flooded with sorrows and blood. The Lord allowed the suffering of the Russian people for their departure from the Orthodox faith, for their betrayal and apostasy from the Tsar, God’s anointed. These beliefs can now be found in any Orthodox literature, especially appearing in connection with the canonization of the Martyr Tsar and his family.

If we ignore the Orthodox view of these historical events, it should be noted that the defeat in Russia during the First World War and the October coup are also a consequence of a worldwide conspiracy against a strong power. So in his book “The Secret of Russia” by Mikhail Nazarov, the author notes: “In our days, in retrospect. It is possible to better understand what happened in Russia between the World Wars. But in those years it was often necessary to judge by external signs, and neither the West (which obscured its betrayal of Russia) nor the Bolsheviks (who ascribed all the revolutionary laurels to themselves) were interested in an objective analysis of what happened. (Perhaps this is precisely what explains the hushing up of the Masonic topic in the Soviet school and historical science, which is simply surprising in comparison with the importance of Freemasonry in the formation of Western society). This topic is now being developed by many researchers. But almost everyone is unanimous in the idea that the organizers of the civil war in Russia were Ya. Sverdlov and V. Lenin, the ideal political line which was Nechaev. The phenomenon of Nechaevism was, however, condemned by Europe as the most cruel and inhumane, which in principle amounted to the physical destruction of all dissidents. It is no coincidence that F.M. Dostoevsky wrote his novel “Demons” precisely from the criminal case of Nechaev. At the trial, the revolutionary’s catechism was then read, which directly said: “This filthy society is to be fooled, fooled and with their own hands to destroy the state.” So, it is probably not by chance that a cabalistic inscription was discovered on the wall of the Ipatiev house: “Here, by order of secret forces, the Tsar was sacrificed to destroy the state. Of which all nations are informed."

But historians and all people still have such a historical legacy “the father asks to convey to all those who remained devoted to Him, and to those on whom they can have influence, so that they do not take revenge for Him, since He has forgiven everyone and prays for everyone, and so that they do not avenge themselves, and so that they remember that the evil that is now in the world will be even stronger, but that it is not evil that will defeat evil, but only love”...

Many scientists determined the fall of the monarchy in Russia without looking at its origins. Soviet science was especially guilty of this. A review of Soviet and perestroika literature does not provide a complete historical and in-depth scientific analysis of the events of the early twentieth century. But in the works of great Russian historians one can find answers to many questions.

The famous Russian historian Ivan Ilyin in the book “On the Coming Russia” (M. 1993), defining the reasons for the fall of the monarchy in Russia in the chapter “Why the monarchical system collapsed in Russia,” writes: “So, the monarchy in Russia collapsed - so unexpectedly, so quickly, so tragically helpless - because there was no real, strong monarchical rule in the country. In a difficult, decisive hour of history, the faithful, convinced monarchists found themselves far from the Sovereign, ununited, scattered and powerless, and the fake “multi-million-strong Union of the Russian People”, the stability of which the far-right leaders assured the Sovereign, turned out to exist only on paper.” Pointing out that the sovereign, according to the laws Russian Empire did not have the right to renounce the throne, i.e. he renounced his right and duty to guard the throne. To rule with authority to save his people in the hour of greatest danger, notes that in the state there is no right to abdicate the throne. Further, answering the question why the monarchy in Russia finally collapsed, he continues: “One of the basic formulas of this answer should be expressed like this: the Russian people had a Tsar, but forgot how to have him. There was a Sovereign, there were countless subjects; but their attitude towards the Emperor was decidedly not up to par. Over the past decades, the Russian people have weakened their monarchical legal consciousness and lost their willingness to live, serve, fight and die as befits a convinced monarchist.” Analyzing the activities of outstanding political figures of that time, he rightly notes that “there was no single and organized monarchist party that would guard the throne and be able to help the monarch.” That is why the monarchists could not only support the throne and dynasty, but also defend the integrity and life of the abdicated Sovereign. They could only please, praise, and assure of their devotion, but they did not become a support for the throne. “The monarchical system collapsed in Russia because the Russian imperial throne had a historical tradition of legal consciousness in the country, but did not have an ideological cadre that was far-sighted, united and capable of active speech. Russian monarchists are obliged to realize this, admit it with bitterness and sorrow, condemn themselves and not return to this “policy” of empty phrases and boastful propaganda. Real politics is not done with words, resolutions, enthusiasm, or congratulations; Moreover, it does not become empty words and deliberately incorrect assurances that “there are darkness, and darkness, and darkness among us”... This must be put to an end: the monarchist is guilty of his Sovereign not by boasting and deception, but by truth and threateningly honest service.”

So, having designated the Russian revolution as a catastrophe, the historian and thinker I. Ilyin admits the defeat of the monarchists and their guilt before the Emperor and history. He also notes that the revolution was prepared for decades, moreover, by people with a strong will, but short-sighted, who do not understand the greatest state difficulties, Christian culture and order, that statehood “is built and maintained by a simple national legal consciousness and that the Russian national legal consciousness rests on two foundations - on Orthodoxy and faith in the Tsar.” I. Ilyin called the Russian revolution madness.

Developing these thoughts of Ivan Ilyin, our contemporary Mikhail Nazarov, in his work “The Secret of Russia,” tries to consider the issue of the defeat of the monarchy in Russia in the context of the world Masonic conspiracy. “Since from these events,” he writes, “the entire history of the twentieth century grows up to the present day, even today few people are interested in an objective analysis. This leads, on the one hand, to extreme black-and-white interpretations, and on the other, to dismissing the entire problem as a “Black Hundred myth.” Therefore, even on the basis of impeccable sources, it is difficult to write on such a taboo topic in an almost telegraphic style, where each fact deserves a separate book.” It's hard to disagree with this. Considering the issues of “Westernism” and Freemasonry, M. Nazarov makes an attempt to consider the fall of the monarchy as a worldwide conspiracy against Russia. And he approaches this issue somewhat more broadly than I. Ilyin. “The “conspiracy” under consideration is part of the general entropic process of the New Age, which was not previously limited to order or national frameworks. The problem lies in the de-Christianization of the world, in its falling away from God - in apostasy. The Reformation, the Enlightenment, Freemasonry, Marxism, and Bolshevism lie in this direction.”

For example, in his debates about Freemasonry, N. Berdyaev wrote that the forces of evil in the world can act in a variety of ways and all evil in the world cannot be reduced to a political conspiracy. Both Berdyaev and Ilyin warned that this problem should not be simplified. Nazarov, analyzing the works of Ivan Ilyin, writes about two aspects of one problem: political and spiritual. They cannot be mixed.

From a purely political point of view, prof. examines the problem of the fall of the monarchy in Russia, as well as the entire history of our Fatherland. Yu. Begunov in his book “Secret Forces in the History of Russia.” His work is not so much political as it is pragmatic, even with an admixture of materialism, which seems erroneous. The author writes all his conclusions famous work concludes on only one thing: the worldwide Jewish-Masonic organization has destroyed Russia and is destroying the world. His work lacks the depth of research and understanding of the issue that was typical of other historians and thinkers.

One cannot help but say about the work of Ivan Solonevich “People's Monarchy”. It is consonant with the work of L. Tikhomirov “Statehood and Monarchy”, where this Russian tragedy - the fall of the monarchy - is revealed in all its historical completeness.

State power is constructed in three ways: inheritance, election and seizure: monarchy, republic, dictatorship. In practice, it all gets mixed up. The opinion of researchers on the subject of the disappearance of the monarchy is sometimes mixed. This is how I. Solonevich looks at this question: “Russia has disappeared into the USSR. The monarchy fell victim to a combination of external danger and unresolved social contradictions within the country. The main one of these social contradictions is within the country. The main of these social contradictions was that the country had endlessly outgrown its ruling layer, that this layer had degenerated socially, that the monarchy found itself without an apparatus of power, but found itself in a web of betrayal - betrayal against the Tsar and against the people.

Both February and October, and the defeats of all the White armies find their factual and logical explanation here.” At the same time, he concludes that the monarchy in Russia needs to be revived, but there is no single monarchical program, he regrets, and there cannot be.

Recently, people have begun to pay attention to the works of great Russian thinkers from the clergy. Analyzing the meaning of Russian history, priest Isaiah wrote“I would like to remind everyone who strives to see Russia as a great Orthodox power that the true revival of our Motherland does not depend on external circumstances - the balance of political forces, the struggle of parties, military or economic potential. It depends on each of us, on our prayers and pious life.”

Conclusion

The result of the struggle between alternatives for social development in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century was the fall of the autocracy in February 1917.

The imperial power surrendered state positions to the liberals.

The prospect of implementing a liberal-democratic model of society has opened up for the country. But the Russian people were not satisfied with the democratic rights and freedoms granted by the new government. Without going into ideological subtleties, the masses followed attractive slogans. The power of the most radical political forces was established in the country.

The seizure of power by the Bolsheviks led to a civil war, which was the result of battles between alternatives to the future structure of the country.

The consequence of the victory of Bolshevism in Russia was the loss of other prospects for political development. Very soon our country acquired socialism in its Stalinist interpretation.

Lack of freedoms and fear consumed Soviet society. And above him rises the all-seeing “eye” - Elder Brother....

“Those eyes follow you everywhere and the voice envelops you. In dreams and in reality, at work and while eating, on the street and at home, in the bathroom, in bed - there is no salvation... His face looked at people heavily, calmly, fatherly, a smile hidden in a black mustache.” (D. Orwell).

Bibliography

1. Ilyin I.A. About the coming Russia. M., 1993.
2. Massey R. Nicholas and Alexandra, or the Story of Love that Destroyed the Empire: Novel/Trans. from English V. V. Kuznetsova. – Petrozavodsk: Karelia; St. Petersburg: Golden Age, 1995.
3. Nazarov M. The Secret of Russia. Historiosophy of the twentieth century. M. 1999.
4. Orwell D. 1984, novel/Trans. from English V. Golyshev: M. 1989.
5. Russia at the turn of the century. Historical portraits. M., 1991.
6. Anniversary Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. Collection of reports and documents. M., 2000.

Political development at the beginning of the 20th century.

Features of democratization

Requirement of creation classes
representations in power to protect
their interests.
Causes:
State intervention in the economy and
social policy
Democratization has become global
trend at the turn of the century

Features of democratization

Political system of countries:
Republican monarchies
Parliamentary monarchy
The pace of democratization varied, so
depending on:
Historical traditions
The political forces dominant in that
or another country

Directions of democratization

Empowerment
representative authorities -
parliaments
Expansion of voting rights
Removing restrictions on political
and public organizations

Parties are becoming massive
Centralized, with party
apparatus
An ideology emerges, both of the party course and
party political struggle
Originally vector political
the struggle was as follows: conservatives-liberals; monarchists are republicans.
At the beginning of the 20th century: bourgeois parties -
socialist (capitalism vs.
socialism)

Political movements at the beginning of the century

Read the paragraph on page 26,
answer the questions:
List the main ideas
socialist movement?
What currents stand out in motion in
beginning of the 20th century, name their main ideas.
Talk about the differences within
socialist movement.

Political movements at the beginning of the century

Labor movement.
Unions
Strike movements
Requirements: salary increase,
improving working conditions.
The results were positive because
trade unions influenced the authorities,
achieving the necessary changes.

Political movements at the beginning of the century

Read the paragraph on page 27,
answer the questions:
List the main ideas of liberals
What changes have occurred in views
to power?
What policies did liberals pursue?
authorities in countries around the world?