Western Europe in the second half of the 19th century. History of Russia from antiquity to the present day
By the middle of the 19th century, most of the European countries embarked on the path of capitalist development; England, as before, held the leadership among them. The United States continued to develop intensively, especially after the Civil War, in which the northerners defeated the rebellious southern states. The second half of the 19th century is also characterized by the completion of the process of creation nation states in Europe, when the political fragmentation of Italy and Germany was eliminated.
Labor market and income distribution in countries of immigration. On a theoretical level, as for all economic indicators and for all markets, as well as for the labor market and employment, it will be necessary to reason in terms of comparing supply and demand for work. Even simply saying that labor markets in countries of immigration, economic theories and the political, naturally, saw the usual contradiction between neoclassical-monetarist and classical-Keynesian positions. Thus, ignoring the first, when the canons of the maximizing paradigm on a marginal basis are strictly pursued, in the classical Keynesian context, an approach according to which the labor market is exactly what it makes sense for, an ethical vision of economics.
The leadership of Europe and the United States in the economic and political spheres was finally determined. The unevenness of development was fully manifested in the 19th century. With regard to Asia, it can be said that here the leadership of Europe was determined, obviously, by the peculiarities of social organization, in which the very system of state structure, caste, social ranks, based on the initial belonging of a person to a particular stratum, did not allow people to fully manifest themselves. individuality and talents. In Europe, since the Renaissance, the stake was placed on the individual, on the freedom of his activities. It is no coincidence that it was the European continent that gave such a number of discoverers, missionaries, inventors, conquerors, industrialists, who, in fact, carried out the colonial expansion. It was during the Renaissance that the foundations were laid, which were fully manifested to late XIX century, when most of the globe submitted to the economic and political dictates of Europe. This is largely due to the incredible energy and entrepreneurial spirit of Europeans.
This, in particular, applies to the theory of income distribution and, above all, in relation to the definition wages in relation to profit. In this respect, instead of the principle of marginal productivity of labor versus capital in the classical Keynesian context, the thesis remains that the definition of wages - real or monetary, as the case may be - must be obtained outside the economy. while the profit is obtained accordingly. This is based on considerations in which they play a role, beyond the respective bargaining power of workers and companies, varying sensitivity to meta-economic type and, in particular, ethical order.
Foreign policy.
The Crimean War finally buried the Holy Alliance as well: Nicholas I, who, in fact, saved Austria in 1848-1849, found himself in such a difficult situation largely due to the hostile position of the Austrian emperor, who did not consider himself bound by either the obligations of the Holy Alliance or the feeling of an elementary thanks. Nobility finally disappears from the field of foreign policy, where only cold calculation and self-interests begin to rule. And this is also a sign of capitalism, it is no coincidence that in the most developed capitalist country, England, the saying was born that “Britain has no friends and no enemies, but only British interests”.
With regard to Catholic social doctrine, consider that work is not and cannot be viewed as an economic good like everyone else. On the other hand, on the demand side, they will always be informed about the behavior of companies and other agents who use the job, as well as to the criteria of economics, as well as to aspects of responsibility, humanity and solidarity.
However, national aspects are still considered common; and this is even in Europe, where forces and positions insist on a supranational, that is, European, vision of the whole problem. In the case of Italy, let us consider, in the meantime, that our economy has been in some kind of recession for at least two decades; so, in my opinion, the negative aspects associated with the current crisis and cycle should be added to the main ones in the medium and long term.
In the 50s - 60s of the XIX century, two new centralized states were formed in Europe: Italy and the German Empire. The unification of Italy is an interesting, from a historical point of view, process, when the interests of the Sardinian government of King Victor Emmanuel, led by the moderate Democrat Cavour, and such a staunch republican as Giuseppe Garibaldi coincided. The north of Italy was liberated as a result of the victory of the Piedmontese troops in alliance with the French, led by Emperor Napoleon III, over the Austrians during the war of 1859. The south of Italy was liberated as a result of the landing of Garibaldi's rebel army in Sicily in 1860, after which he overthrew the rule of King Francis II of Bourbon in a matter of months. The Kingdom of Naples also became part of Piedmont. In 1866 the Venetian Regions were annexed, and in 1870 the Papal Regions.
In particular, given its dual economic conditions, that is, with regard to the division between the industrially developed North-Center and the southern regions in the process of industrialization, it is clear that different dynamic processes still exist in its two macro-regions. So you cannot really understand the chauvinism and closings that also exist in different sectors of our country, even today. However, measures taken to tackle both the crisis and cyclical aspects such as those related to so-called safety nets and measures related to financial or tax subsidies for firms in distress need to be specifically aligned with macroeconomic , fiscal and financial measures aimed at stimulating growth or development, supporting investment and employment in the South or in selected sectors and companies in terms of technological solutions across the country.
The unification of Germany, which did not succeed in a revolutionary way in 1848-1849, took place under the rule of Prussia. The real political leader of Germany at this time was the Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who believed that the country could be united only with "iron and blood." The main instrument of unification, by virtue of this conviction, was the Prussian, and then the German army, led by Moltke the Elder. As a result of successive wars - 1864 with Denmark, 1866 with Austria, 1870 with France, all these countries opposed the united Germany for one reason or another - in 1871 the German Empire was proclaimed. An enormous role was played by the upbringing of German youth in an appropriate spirit; it was no accident that Bismarck said that the battle of Sedan (the decisive battle of the Franco-Prussian war) was won by a German school teacher. The elimination of the political fragmentation of Germany was undoubtedly a progressive event, but very soon, almost immediately after the victory over France and the abdication of Napoleon III, the government of the new state made it clear that its goals were by no means limited to this. The unity of Germany was perceived as the first stage in achieving hegemony in Europe and in the world. The difficult conditions of peace were presented to France, according to which Alsace and Lorraine were torn away from her; German troops also intervened in the internal affairs of France, helping the Versailles troops in the suppression in 1871 of the Paris Commune, the first government that tried to assert socialist ideals. The German Empire immediately took a course to redistribute the world, since it was late for the division of colonies. It must be said that the upbringing of the German man in the street, and young people in particular, was built precisely in this spirit. Most of the Germans were sincerely convinced that Germany was a “disadvantaged” side, that the Germans needed living space that could be obtained in the colonies and in the East, which naturally meant Russia. But while German policy was led by Bismarck, a staunch opponent of the war with Russia, Germany avoided aggravations with its eastern neighbor. But after the resignation of the old chancellor, in fact, direct preparations for the war began. As a result, Europe was divided into two blocks: the Triple Alliance, which included Germany, Austria and Italy, and Antanta, which unites Russia and France, to which Great Britain joined in 1907. Thus, the clash of the great powers was inevitable, this, in the end, and predetermined the development of events that led to the First World War.
This is to avoid the accumulation of conflicts in any case, which can also explode in wars between the poor. In my opinion, the decision cannot then be considered in the light of the premises mentioned above in relation to conditions that must always be recognized as aspects external to the economy and, in particular, those arising from prevailing moral values and norms that, they are inspired by an open and collaborative public morality. It is clear that Special attention must be given to both aspects; but it is also clear that concrete decisions must always be made based on a method of analysis that combines the needs of ethics with the needs of the economy.
Formation of the colonial system. The countries of Europe, having carried out modernization, have received huge advantages over the rest of the world. Therefore, already in the XVII-XVIII centuries. the colonialist expansion to the East of the most developed countries of Europe began.
At the first stage of colonization, Spain and Portugal were in the lead. They managed to conquer most of South America. But already in the middle of the 18th century. Spain and Portugal began to lag behind economically and as maritime powers were relegated to the background. Leadership in the colonial conquest passed to England. For almost a hundred years (starting in 1757), the British East India trading company captured almost the entire Indian subcontinent. Active colonization of North America began in 1706. At the same time, the development of Australia proceeded. The Dutch East India Company took over Indonesia. France established colonial rule in the West Indies as well as Canada.
In addition, the importance of taking into account the consequences of globalization also in the aspect of international labor migration cannot be avoided. Today, as in certain specific times, migration does not concern even large, but always limited groups of people who, in search of good luck, have moved from one region to another from one country to another, even from one continent to another, and have become an integrated and integral part cultures in the lands of the parish, essentially homogeneous with the lands of origin of people. Today, instead, international labor migration is reaching, as they say, truly biblical proportions, but above all, they show completely different sociocultural profiles compared to the past.
In the XVII-XVIII centuries. Europeans mastered only the coast of Africa. In the XIX century. Europeans moved far into the interior of the continent, and by the middle of the 19th century. Africa was almost completely colonized. In Southeast Asia, the French captured almost all of Indochina. By the middle of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire became the zone of active penetration of Western powers. During the same period, Iran lost not only economic, but also political independence. By the end of the XIX century. its territory was divided into spheres of influence between England and Russia.
Individuals, families, larger groups, perhaps even with variable groupings and several times in their lives, move from one territory to another, of course, looking for work and income, even in kind, but taking with them signs marked and specific to their culture, traditions, habits of life, religious confessions, which, most often, are very far from the territories of the parish. Therefore, the processes of acceptance and integration do not manifest themselves at all, as in the past, and require - as is widely discussed in Italy - moments and approaches of confrontation and dialogue that lead to new and interesting forms of multi-ethnic and multicultural societies; so looking at immigrants as a “labor force” is enough, and being reductive, cannot be considered extremely inhuman and immoral.
Thus, in the 19th century, almost all countries of the East fell into one form or another of dependence on the most powerful capitalist countries, turning into colonies or semi-colonies. For Western countries, the colonies were a source of raw materials, financial resources, labor, as well as sales markets. The exploitation of the colonies by the metropolises was of the most brutal and predatory nature. The wealth of Western countries was created at the cost of merciless exploitation and plunder, and the relatively high standard of living of their population was maintained.
Finally, with regard to procedures, the fundamental distinction must be renewed between what can and should be done internally and what cannot but require an international approach. It goes without saying that in both aspects the specific "prerequisites of value" are repeated as relevant, and therefore the precise "criteria of moral judgment" are already mentioned. This, in particular, affects the greater or lesser weight and role associated with the aspect of distributional equality, social solidarity, exchange of goods, but also - a note - in relation to the opportunities and conditions of work, in comparison with the development of production and income growth.
The world at the beginning of the 20th century.
-Industrialization (changing the infrastructure of national economies).
The first industrial revolution began in England in the 18th century .. It was supported by a significant increase in productivity Agriculture, which is called the British Agricultural Revolution, which ensured a significant increase in population and the liberation of the surplus population from the countryside, which turned out to be in demand by industry in cities.
In terms of technology, what separates the perspectives for manufacturing is the tendency to focus both on discoveries of new inventions and on solutions and procedures for innovation in large multinational and multinational companies; so this requires more decentralized, democratic and constructive ways of managing both inventions and innovations between different countries, including aspects of public funding for research and development of new technologies.
However, in my opinion, there is no need to dwell on a careful listing of the negative consequences of globalization, neglecting the positive ones regarding the potentials and opportunities for the development of production and employment in all areas and for many population groups on the planet; but taking into account the situation at different levels, it is necessary to take into account the inherent opportunities and ensure that they are managed and used at best for the general welfare of the largest number of people.
The low qualifications of new workers forced their employers to rationalize and standardize production operations. This is how the division of labor appeared in industry. The accumulation of capital allowed, over time, to make investments in highly mechanized and knowledge-intensive production, which ensured the further evolution of industrialization. The emergence of a class of relatively highly paid skilled workers in turn gave rise to a market for goods for workers, on the basis of which Fordism subsequently emerged.
Like rampant industrialism, it has in the past threatened to resolve itself into a progressive polarization of wealth and poverty in developed countries and societies, and this was intended and could be corrected, in particular, through all these critical judgments and social corrections. specifically mentioned by the Catholic social doctrine, therefore today - rejecting both the comprehensive and homologous logic of globalization and the so-called catastrophic view of globalization itself, which will lead to anti-static conflicts or even clashes of civilization - it will be necessary to renew with reference to the new global context, similar critical judgments and re-proposing appropriate social corrective measures.
The mechanization of production from Great Britain spread to other European countries and British colonies around the world, providing them with better living standards and the creation of the part of the world that is now called the West.
-New stage of colonialism.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, colonialism was no longer relevant for industrialized countries. Moreover, the underdeveloped colonies pulled huge funds from these countries for their own maintenance. The need for cheap labor in the twentieth century became much less, automatic robots began to be used everywhere in production.
As already noted, times are not ripe, maybe they do not yet exist or will not exist in the forms of interventions that are implemented in the field of public administration or, in any case, global control over the economy. However, today we cannot speak in specific conditions about the need for globalization without marginalization or solidarity of globalization, recalling the role at the world level of those convergence that the American moral philosopher John Rawls wished, starting with the so-called curtain of ignorance, “With the addition, however, that this is is connected with the inner dignity of each person, and not with any form of social contracts. "
And the colony could no longer provide other resources.
Therefore, the idea has outlived its usefulness.
-Anglo-Boer and Spanish-American Wars.
The Spanish-American War (Spanish: Guerra Hispano-Estadounidense, English Spanish-American War) was a military conflict between Spain and the United States in 1898. The first imperialist war for the redistribution of colonial possessions.
The second Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902 - the war of Great Britain against the Boer republics - the Republic of South Africa (Transvaal Republic) and the Orange Free State (Orange Republic), which ended with the victory of the British Empire. In this war, the British first used the scorched earth tactics on the land of the Boers and concentration camps, in which about 30 thousand Boer women and children, as well as an unknown number of black Africans, died.
A year before the start of the war, the April uprising broke out in Bulgaria. The sacrifice of the rebels and their brutal suppression has caused echoes in many countries. However, the uprising is not isolated despair, it is part of another crisis in Southeast Europe, the assistant professor said. As Serbia and Montenegro is ready to come to the aid of the rebels, there is a massive clash with the Ottoman Empire. The Bulgarian revolutionaries came to the conclusion that the time of the uprising was ripe.
Indeed, the hopes of the Bulgarian revolutionary intelligence turned mainly to Russia. But the success of the liberation movement was only after the intervention of Russia. That is why the leaders of the April uprising knew that without help from the side, Bulgaria could not restore its freedom. During the military campaign, dramatic moments and mass heroism take place: in the battles in Stara Zagora, Shipka Pass, in Pleven, during a difficult winter passage through the Balkans.
-Creation of blocks (Entente and Triple Alliance).
The Triple Alliance is a military-political bloc of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, formed in 1879-1882, which marked the beginning of the division of Europe into hostile camps and played an important role in the preparation and unleashing of the First World War (1914-1918).
The main organizer of the Triple Alliance was Germany, which concluded a military alliance with Austria-Hungary in 1879 (see: Austro-German Treaty). After that, in 1882, Italy joined them.
Bulgarians are actively involved: with the army Russian army, intelligence, combat troops, with economic and medical assistance. The Treaty of San Stefano, which ended the war, provided for the inclusion of land dominated by Bulgarians in the Bulgarian state. However, the treaty is preliminary and must be reconciled with the great powers. And they do not want to allow the creation of a great Slavic state in the Balkans. After the revision, Northern Bulgaria and the Sofia region form the Principality of Bulgaria.
The lands south of the Balkan Mountains become an autonomous province within the Ottoman Empire called Eastern Rumelia. The lands in Macedonia and Edirne Thrace are returning under the direct leadership of the Sultan. Thus, the national unification became the cause of the Bulgarian society. In the next century, our country is involved in several wars in the name of this cause. There are successes, experiences and disasters. Liberation, however, gives a powerful impetus to its development and modernization.
The creation of the Entente was a reaction to the creation of the Triple Alliance, the strengthening of Germany and an attempt to prevent its hegemony on the continent, initially from Russia (France initially held an anti-German position), and then from England.
The confrontation between the Entente and the Triple Alliance led to the First World War, where the opponents of the Entente and its allies were the Central Powers bloc, in which Germany played a leading role.
-Crises and wars in the Balkans.
1808-09 Bosnian crisis. The Serbian government headed for Russia after 1903. The economic blockade did not help the Austrians - treaties were concluded with other countries.
I Balkan War 1912-13 The Balkan Union was formed - Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro against Ottoman rule in the Balkans. Turkey's progressive weakness helped. In essence, an alliance is also against Austria. Bulgaria wanted Thessaloniki and access to the sea. Greece - South Macedonia, Crete and other islands, Serbia - a piece of Macedonia and Albania - access to the Adriatic. Austria traditionally viewed the liberation movement negatively, Germany opposed an attack on backed Turkey. Russia supported the alliance, England and France doubted.
II Balkan War of 1913 Open enmity between the allies immediately after the signing of the peace. Displeasure of Serbia - now demands from Bulgaria to give part of Macedonia. Greece claimed Thessaloniki and the Aegean coast. Romania also demanded concessions from Bulgaria. An anti-Bulgarian union was formed, which Turkey also joined. Attempts by Russia to reconcile former allies have failed. The forces in the war were unequal, the Peace of Bucharest and Constantinople (August 10 and September 29). Bulgaria lost acquisitions in Macedonia. Serbia got west and center. Greece - south and Thessaloniki, Aegean islands. Romania - Southern Dobrudja and Silistria. Turkey - Eastern Faction and Adrianople.
The balance of power in the region has changed - the rapprochement of Romania, Greece and Serbia with the Entente. Bulgaria goes over to the side of the Austro-German block. The contradictions between Italy and Austria for influence in the region grew.
That. the regional Balkan Wars became a world event - they brought the national liberation struggle to their logical conclusion and became the prologue to the First World War. Austria sees an adversary in Serbia, and their conflict can no longer be local. The intransigence of these wars resulted in heavy losses.
Great Britain: economic slowdown, policy of conservative and liberal cabinets.
End of the "Victorian era" - death of the queen in 1901 Edward VII. The clash of free trading and protectionism. Textile workers, coal miners, transport magnates are interested in free-trade. Heavy industry supported protectionism, as did landowners. The parties reacted contradictory. A split within the Conservative Party. J. Chamberlain promulgated a protectionist program - agrarian protectionism and imperial privileges. Ministerial crisis of 1903, resignation of the Minister of the Colonies Chamberlain.
Liberals united in a united front for the defense of free trade, they were popular because free trade is cheap bread for the lower strata. They offered a tax on large property.
As a result, in 1906 the Conservatives are defeated in the elections, the liberals have an absolute majority. The Labor Party (29 deputies) also announced the elections. The politics of social reformism. An active intrusion into the field of social relations, into the work question. "New Liberals" Gosbon, Hobhouse, Samuel. Studied the requirements of the trade unions and the bourgeoisie ready to make concessions.
David Lloyd George, Secretary of Commerce and Industry, 1908 Finance. Moderate reforms hailed as a breakthrough. The law on compensation of accidents, the reduction of the working day for miners to 8 hours, state pensions from the age of 70, labor exchanges were established. Further democratization of the state system - in 1911 the term of the parliament was reduced from 7 to 5 years, the salary of deputies.
1909-14 the struggle of the conservatives with the liberals intensified. Fighting around the "military" budget in 1909 Constitutional crisis, the question of reforming the House of Lords was raised, and its powers were curtailed.
The aggravation of the Irish question almost led to a civil war in 1912-14. The Liberals introduced a new Home Rule bill for Ireland. Conservatives are against extending it to industrial Ulster (since they cannot reject the entire bill). Conservative unionists prepared to provide armed resistance to Home Rule by gathering troops of volunteers in Ulster. In the south, detachments of Home Rule defenders began to form. Only the beginning of the world war postponed the clashes on the basis of "Home Rule", its introduction was postponed.
USA: monopoly, socio-economic policy, features of American democracy. T. Roosevelt, W. Wilson.
Mass movements of social protest against monopolies - broad strata of urban and rural population. Industrial workers are better organized.
Labor movement. The workers' main instrument is the strike struggle. 1902 - Pennsylvania coal miners' six-month strike. The rise of the movement in 1905-07 Union Complaints Bill - Demands to legitimize the 8-hour workday, repeal the ban on strikes, and apply the Sherman Act against trade unions. Attempts to create new trade unions based on the production principle instead of unions of the labor elite. Big business continued to occupy irreconcilable positions, the most severe measures were often used - for example, the "massacre at Ludlow" in 1914. Socialists opposed the reformism of the right wing, spoke of some real socialist alternative.
Democratic movements. Anti-imperialist League since 1898, anti-war and anti-colonial movement, initially against the Spanish-American War. Formation of public opinion, although this naive struggle could not bring concrete victories. The reform movement in the states for the limitation of monopolistic practices, for the provision of broad social guarantees and the democratization of the political system. The idealization of free competition. In a number of states, it was possible to achieve a result - a decrease in railway tariffs, an increase in taxes on large capital, elementary labor legislation. In 11 states in 1914 women were given the right to vote (also supported by suffragettes), "primary elections". Social Christianity - proclaimed the social mission of the Christian church, actively supporting reforms for equality. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People since 1909; and the Niagara Movement for Negro Rights.
Roosevelt's liberal reformism. The question of government regulation has become acute. Theodore Roosevelt, president since 1901 - a program of "new nationalism", a decisive rejection of the idea of a "passive state". Campaign Against Trusts - A series of lawsuits against monopolies but against the dissolution of trusts. Not destruction, but limitation of trusts. Mostly a propaganda effect. More effective regulation of railroad firms, food and medicine, and the fight against the plundering of the country's natural resources. President Taft continued his policy. In 1912, Roosevelt became the Progressive Party candidate. His opponent was Woodrow Wilson with the demagogic idea of "dissolving trusts" - and he won.
France: the main reforms of the radical cabinets and the peculiarities of the French liberal reformism of the early twentieth century.
The Cabinet of Progressives did not survive the crisis at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. The Dreyfus affair reflected the growth of nationalist sentiments and split society into "right" and "left" leaving no place for the center. The simplified procedure for creating parties has accelerated this process. Defeat of conservatives-nationalists in the elections of 1902. The left-republican party won, having formed a "left bloc" - a government of 7 radicals and 3 left-wing republicans led by Komb.
The separation of the church from the state in 1905, freedom of conscience and the exercise of all cults, no subsidies to the church, its property was transferred to "cult associations" of believers. Believers' speeches all over the country.
Reduction of the term of military service from 3 to 2 years. Cleansing the officer corps of persons associated with clerics and nationalists. Political confrontation is a decisive struggle against "reaction".
May 1906 election victory of the "left-republicans", the radicals could rule independently of the minority of socialists and nationalists. Clemenceau came to power. Growing contradictions. Syndicalist - trade union movement. The unified trade union center accepted the ideas of the anarchists. The use of general strikes for propaganda - the violent nature of the conflicts, violence against the factory administration, strikebreakers, the police. Clemenceau showed decisiveness - the use of army units.
Repressions against the strikers were condemned by the socialists - Zhores. The "left bloc" has disintegrated, the socialists are in clear opposition. Support for Clemenceau by the right-wing Republicans. Another blow to the "Left Block".
Social reforms - the reduction of the working day to 10 hours, collective agreements, workers' pensions - have been delayed, because laws were passed slowly.
-Italy: the problem of the South, J. Giolitti.
The course of liberalization prevailed. Giovanni Giolitti - Minister of the Interior in the new government since 1901. In 1903 he headed the cabinet and remained in power until 1914. "Liberal era".
In the ruling bloc, the influence of the conservative latifundists of the South was weakened, and business circles came to the fore. The working class was already an organized political force, it had to be reckoned with. Strengthening of socially oriented liberalism - recognition of the legality of trade unions and freedom to strike, the principle of non-intervention of the state in labor conflicts (i.e., not using weapons against strikers).
Reforms of 1901-04 The minimum age for children at work has been increased (12 years instead of 9), working hours for women are limited, and pregnancy benefits. Compulsory education in the amount of 6 classes. Industrial injury insurance. Creation of the Labor Office under the government. The aim was to reduce social tensions. Liberal reforms did not affect the increasingly lagging South. The suppression of peasant uprisings continued. And in the North, the rapid growth of the trade union movement, the number of strikes only increased. The General Political Strike of 1904 An aggravation of disagreements between the parties of the "Extreme Left" began, and they went to the elections separately. At the same time, the Pope’s ban on participation in elections for cats was lifted - the penetration of more conservative groups into parliament. Strong pressure on Giolitti on the right. In 1905, due to a railroad strike, Giolitti resigned, from where he returned in 1906.
1906-09 Giolitti is more attentive to the South, special commissions have been formed, construction of roads and ports, water supply, industrial development. Help in connection with natural disasters. But that was not enough - hence the powerful criticism of Giolitti. 1907 introduction of Sunday rest for workers. At the same time, the area where strikes were prohibited has been expanded. New retirement in 1909, last cabinet of Giolitti 1911-1914 Law on the state monopoly of life insurance - formation of a fund for old-age and disability pensions. Democratization of the electoral system (from the age of 21 they were literate and served in the army, from the age of 30 - all), the electoral corps has more than doubled. Salary to MPs. Attempts to prevent the socialists from playing on the new law - reliance on Catholics. 1913 elections under the new law. The position of the socialists did not weaken. They showed that the conflict between liberals and Catholics is no longer so strong, but class contradictions are growing, which Giolitti could not overcome with his liberal reformism.
27. Europe in the second half of the 19th century.
The nineteenth century began with the Napoleonic Wars. The great conqueror overthrew kings from the thrones one by one and managed to redraw the entire map of Europe. After the fall of Napoleon, its victors convened a Sacred Congress in Vienna (1815). They tried to get everything back. But the old regime returned by force did not last long. The most turbulent was the 19th century in France. In 1830, the July Revolution overthrew King Charles X. He was succeeded by Louis Philippe. In 1848 a new revolution began. She immediately responded to other European states: Austria-Hungary, Germany, Italy. The French king abdicated the throne, but this did not suit some of the revolutionaries, workers began uprising. Napoleon Bonaparte, the great commander's nephew, was elected president. In 1851 he made a coup and declared himself emperor. "Little Bonaparte", as he was called, tried to imitate his great uncle, but was completely devoid of his talents. France fought many wars, most of which were completely unnecessary. At the same time, Napoleon's domestic policies contributed to economic growth. In an effort to maintain a leading position in Europe, France tried to prevent the unification of Germany. This is how the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871) began. It ended with the complete defeat of France and the fall of the Second Empire, that is, the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte. A republic was established in France. In 1871, an uprising took place in besieged Paris, known as the Paris Commune.
For Germany, the question of the century was the question of its unification. The unification took place around Prussia. Its king, Wilhelm I, became the emperor of Germany in 1871. Industry began to develop rapidly in Germany, especially heavy industry. Due to the late unification, Germany was "late" for the division of the colonies. She considered herself offended and fought with France for primacy in European affairs. The unification was also important for Italy. By the early 19th century, part of the Italian land was under Austrian rule. The revival of the national spirit was inherent in the Risorgimento movement (translated from the Italian revival). In the detachments of the legendary Giuseppe Garibaldi, foreigners fought, as well as Russians. In 1861 Italy was able to unite around the Savoy dynasty.
The British Empire in the 19th century was the largest empire in the world. Having started the industrial revolution earlier than other European countries, it got ahead, but its heavy industry began to lag behind Germany. Britain did not regard France or Germany as its main rival, but Russia. In order to prevent the strengthening of Russia, in 1856 Britain launched the Crimean War against the Russian Empire. Most of the countries of Eastern Europe and the Balkans fought for state independence. In 1830, Greece achieved independence. In 1878, the peoples of the Balkans, with the help of Russia, freed themselves from the Turkish yoke. In all European countries, the rapid development of industry was accompanied by an intensification of the workers' struggle for their rights. A growing layer of the intelligentsia fought for freedom of speech and other freedoms. Many revolutionary organizations operated throughout Europe. But as governments expanded the range of freedoms, revolutionaries emerged from the underground. They created their own parties, became members of parliaments.
28. Reforms and counterreforms of the 60s - 90sXIXcentury.
Abolition of serfdom. The preparation of the peasant reform began in 1857. At first, for this purpose, the Secret Committee for Peasant Affairs was created, but in the autumn of the same year the veil of secrecy had to be lifted, and the Secret Committee was transformed into the Main Committee for Peasant Affairs. At the same time, editorial commissions and provincial committees were created. All these institutions consisted exclusively of nobles. Even representatives of the bourgeoisie were not admitted to them, not to mention the peasants.
The rise of the peasant movement forced the government to accelerate the preparation of the reform and reject the attempts of the reactionary serf circles to let the peasants "free" without land, and at least to slow down the reform. However, a number of proposals coming from these circles were taken into account by the government at the final stage of preparing the reform. Speaking at a meeting of the State Council when discussing the draft reform, the emperor stressed that "everything that could be done to protect the interests of the nobility has been done."
On February 19, 1861, the manifesto "General Provisions on the Peasants Released from Serfdom" and other acts on the peasant reform (17 acts in total) were signed by the tsar.
1) on the personal release of the peasants;
2) on the land plots and duties of the freed peasants;
3) on the redemption by the peasants of their land allotments;
4) on the organization of peasant administration.
Let's take a look at each of these questions. From the moment of the publication of the Manifesto on the emancipation of the peasants, the landowner's right to dispose of the personality of the peasant was terminated: to sell, buy, give as a thing, forcefully marry and give in marriage, move from place to place, give into service and work, punish arbitrarily at his own discretion. The peasants received personal and property rights, including the independent, without the permission of the landowner, marriage; conclusion of contracts and obligations with individuals and the treasury; free trade and industry; conducting their own court cases; participation in the work of public self-government bodies; admission to the service, to study; acquisition of movable and immovable property; inheritance of property, etc.
The law established a 2-year period for drawing up statutes, which determined the relationship between landowners and peasants.
It is characteristic that the charter letters were drawn up by the landowners, and their compliance with the law was certified by world mediators. The conciliators, in theory, were supposed to settle conflicts between landlords and peasants, but they themselves were appointed by the Senate on the proposal of the governors from among the local noble landowners. By the way, the charter was only read to the peasants at the village gathering, the signatures of the peasants under this charter were optional.
During these 2 years, the peasants were obliged to serve other duties (corvee, quitrent) in favor of the landowners, who retained the right of patrimonial police and guardianship. The right to sell peasants, hand them over to service or to correctional institutions, resettle peasants, and order their marital fate were immediately canceled. With the drafting of the charter, the peasants received land plots, but until the conclusion of the redemption deal they were considered "temporarily liable". This meant that all the land was still considered the property of the landowner, for the use of it the peasants bore obligations (corvee and quitrent). And only with the conclusion of the redemption deal and the payment of the first installment for the land, the peasants acquired the status of peasant-owners and received all the rights of free rural inhabitants. But even then there were survivals of their feudal incompetence. They remained a taxable estate, that is, they were obliged to carry a recruitment duty, paid a poll tax (tax), and could be subjected to corporal punishment (from which the privileged nobility and clergy were exempted, as well as honorary citizens - the bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia).
As already mentioned, during the liberation, the peasants were allotted land - a household plot and a field allotment (with the exception of the courtyards, that is, the courtyard servants of the landowner who were on the staff), and they were allotted without fail and could not even give up that land or transfer it within 9 years after the reform law. The establishment of this order was due to police considerations. The government sought to avoid the unwanted congestion in cities deprived of land, work and livelihood of former peasants capable of riots and uprisings.
As for the size of field land plots transferred to the peasants, and the size and procedure for their redemption from the landowners, all this was determined in the law, taking into account exclusively the interests of the landowners.
The provinces of Great Russian, left-bank and southern Ukraine, eastern Belarus, in which the reform was primarily carried out, were divided into 3 bands depending on the quality of the land: non-black earth, black earth and steppe. Each zone established its own norms for the allotment of land to peasants. These rates were, as a rule, less than the amount of land that the peasants actually used before the reform. Small-scale landowners who owned a small amount of land were given the right to allocate allotments to peasants less than the established rate. Finally, the peasants, by agreement with the landowners, could receive the so-called "free" allotment (without redemption) in the amount of 0.25 of the lowest rate. Therefore, in the course of the reform, part of the land was cut off from the peasants. In total, more than 5 million hectares of land were cut off, which amounted to an average of about 20% of peasant land in some provinces, the loss of peasants reached 40% of the land they used before the reform.
The size of the redemption payments was determined not by the value of the land, but by the size of the pre-reform peasant feudal obligations (quitrent). The capital was calculated, which, with an annual turnover, would bring in the form of 6% the amount of the previous annual quitrent. The size of the capital was the redemption amount. Thus, the size of the redemption payment was much higher than the value of the land; it actually included the value of the person of the peasants. It is characteristic that all allotment land at the then market price cost 544 million rubles, while the peasants had to pay 867 million rubles for it.
The peasants paid 20-25% of the redemption amount in cash, and the landlords received 75-80% from the state, which in turn collected this money from the peasants in installments for 49 years in the form of redemption payments (the redemption payment was 6% of the loan).
In just over 40 years, the peasants, together with interest, paid the state about 2 billion rubles, that is, four times more than the value of the land transferred to them.
In the main part of the country (Great Russia, most of today's Ukraine and Belarus), the communal form of land use was preserved. The community was the owner of the land, since it (and not every individual peasant) bought the land, and within the community, this land was periodically redistributed between peasant households. The community paid taxes and duties, distributed them among its members. All members of the community in relation to the payment of taxes, duties and, redemption payments were bound by mutual guarantee, and good payers paid for non-payers. But the community, in turn, could punish the defaulter up to a public flogging by the decision of a village gathering or forcibly give it to work. The retention of communal ownership of land, tying up the initiative of the peasants' entrepreneurship, seriously hampered the economic development of the countryside.
But at the same time, the community created a certain social security for the peasant against sudden ruin due to illness, death of the breadwinner, etc. This, to a large extent, explained the stability of the Russian community.
The bodies of peasant self-government in rural societies that united peasant householders in the villages were rural gatherings, which elected village elders and other officials. The gatherings resolved issues of the order of land use, dismissal from the community and admission to it, collection of arrears. Rural societies were united into larger units - volosts with a population of 300 to 2000 people. Elected officials of communities and volosts - village elders (during the period of the temporarily liable state they were actual assistants to the landowner), volost elders, volost judges ensured the correct payment of taxes and performed minor police functions. Their activities were controlled by world intermediaries. Thus, in place of the seignorial power of individual landowners, the power of representatives of the nobility - world mediators - was put in place. The general management of the activities of conciliators was carried out by the provincial peasant affairs, chaired by the governors.
In those regions where there was no communal land use before the reform (the former Kingdom of Poland, the Western Territory, the Baltic States, the North, Siberia, etc.), a courtyard-district order of hereditary land tenure was established. It made it possible for the peasant to dispose of the land more freely, although it could be alienated only with the consent of the village gathering and only after 9 years have passed since the announcement of the reform.
These were the conditions for the liberation of landlord peasants from serfdom, who accounted for up to 2/3 of the total mass of the peasantry. However, there were other categories of the peasantry:
Appanages (that is, belonging to the royal family and managed by the Department of Appanages);
State peasants;
Serf workers.
The appanage and state peasants received practically all the land that they used before the reform, on easier terms than the landlord peasants. Serf workers (mainly in the Ural factories) received estates, but a field allotment only if they had it before the reform
Local government reform
Demands for reforms in the state apparatus, in particular local government, the judicial system, police bodies, censorship bodies, were expressed by the liberal strata of the nobility even during the preparation of the peasant reform. After the introduction of the peasant reform, the government became convinced that these reforms could not be avoided, and began to prepare them.
One of the largest reforms was the institution of local self-government.
Zemskaya reform On January 1, 1864, Emperor Alexander II approved the "Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions." In accordance with this provision, provincial and district zemstvo assemblies were elected in each province and in each district. These assemblies, in turn, elected executive and administrative bodies - district and provincial zemstvo boards. Zemsky assemblies and councils were elected for a period of three years. Provincial zemstvo assembly was elected by members of county assemblies. The chairman of the county government was confirmed in office by the governor, the chairman of the provincial government - by the minister of the interior
The elections were wordless, but women, students, folk teachers, “in the service of private individuals” (this category included, along with servants, workers and employees of private industrial enterprises), etc., were excluded from participation in them. the army and the police, since they were considered outside of politics.
The population elected only members of county zemstvo assemblies, and the voters were divided into three electoral curiae: county landowners, city voters, and elected from rural communities. If for the voters of the first two curiae, who had a high property qualification, the elections were direct, for the peasants who elected from the third curia, the elections were multi-stage.
Provincial zemstvo assemblies were elected by deputies (they were called "vowels") of uyezd zemstvo assemblies. The electoral system was drawn up in such a way as to ensure the actual predominance of the nobility in the bodies of the zemstvo self-government, although formally these bodies were all-estates.
City reform. In 1870, the estate bodies of city self-government were created on the model of the zemstvo institutions. In accordance with the "City Regulations" on June 16, 1870, city Dumas were elected in cities for a period of 4 years, which in turn created executive and administrative bodies - city councils headed by the city mayor.
Only the payers of city taxes enjoyed the right to participate in the elections to the city Duma. All those who participated in the elections were divided into three electoral meetings: the first included the largest taxpayers, who paid a total of 1/3 of all city taxes; the second meeting was attended by smaller taxpayers who paid the second third of taxes; in the third meeting, all other small taxpayers who paid the remaining third of the total tax. This electoral system gave advantages in the city councils of the big bourgeoisie and the large nobility, who owned city manor houses. Thus, in Moscow, the first two curiae, who elected 2/3 of the members of the City Duma, accounted for only 13% of all voters. It should be borne in mind that the number of voters was small. For example, in St. Petersburg and Moscow it did not exceed 20-21 thousand people at that time, that is, 5% of the adult population of these cities. Considering that both in the zemstvo and in urban institutions the leading role was assigned to the nobility, local government bodies were not created in those areas where there was no nobility, as, for example, in Siberia, or it was non-Russian by nationality (Poland, Lithuania, Right-bank Ukraine, western regions of Belarus, Caucasus). And in the Russian provinces, the creation of zemstvo institutions lasted for many decades and was completed only after the revolution of 1905-1907.
The competence of the City Duma included questions: the appointment of elected officials, the establishment of city taxes, the addition of arrears, the establishment of rules for managing city property, the acquisition of city real estate, and loans.
The supervision of the activities of city councils and administrations was carried out by the provincial presence on city affairs, which consisted of officials, under the chairmanship of the governor. The Presence received complaints about the actions of the municipal authorities and monitored their economic activities.
The expenses of the Duma consisted of expenses for administration, for public buildings and premises, city loans, for educational and charitable institutions, for the maintenance of military units, police and prisons. The governor controlled the cost and income estimates.
The governors were given the right to suspend the decisions of self-government bodies, refuse to approve any official of local institutions (including in self-government bodies), close meetings of various private clubs, societies and artels. A characteristic detail: the decisions of the self-government bodies were supposed to be enforced by the police, but they did not obey them, but only carried out the orders of the governor. Consequently, the implementation of the decision of the local government directly depended on the governor.
But in general, the creation of new bodies of self-government contributed to the formation of social, political and cultural life, helped the commercial and industrial development of Russian cities.