• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Liberalism was inappropriate for Russia." Do you agree? Illustrate your view with reference to Russian history in the period,1860-1917.

Extracts from this document...


"Liberalism was inappropriate for Russia." Do you agree? Illustrate your view with reference to Russian history in the period,1860-1917. One cannot say definitely that liberalism was inappropriate for Russia. To insist on this view is subjective and arbitrary. Liberalism had not been put into full practice in Russia in the period, 1860-1917, so no one can say decidedly that it was not appropriate for Russia. We can only make assumptions. By observing the history of Russia in this period, one can say that liberalism could not develop as a powerful or influential force because of the absence of favourable conditions, the most important one being the rise of a rich and strong middle class. Liberalism meant a plea for the liberty of the individual and his rights to self-expression. It showed itself in demands for constitutional rights such as the right to vote, the right to take part in the government and civil liberties. ...read more.


Another obstacle to the growth of liberalism in Russia was the extremely autocratic government. It would repress and suppress any demand for freedom. Although some of the czars came under liberal influence, they failed to keep it up and returned to repression after a brief period of liberalization. These were the cases of Alexander I and Alexander II. Alexander II had been considered the most liberal czar with his revolutionary measure of the emancipation of the serfs and other measures to modernize Russia. However, he did not go far enough. His reforms were not thorough enough and he fell back on repression after 01 years. Nicholas II had been forced to grant constitutional rule to the Russians by the 1905 Revolution. However, since he was autocratic at heart, he very soon withdrew his concessions. The Duma became a rubber stamp for the Czar. ...read more.


The Czarist regime had not been an efficient government. The peasants remained discontented after the end of serfdom because of the heavy redemption payments, the lack of land, heavy taxes. The government had not done much to help them. The workers in the cities were also suffering from low wages but long working hours and poor living conditions. The autocratic rule of the Czar had forced many to join the extreme groups. Under such conditions, it was very difficult for the liberals to capture their support. For all these reasons, we can say that liberalism could not develop into a powerful force in Russia. The circumstances were not favourable-the masses were ignorant and uneducated; the Czarist government was repressive; extreme ideas rose up against the government and they attracted the masses away from liberalism and there was a lack of a strong and rich middle class. However, one cannot just jump to the conclusion that liberalism was inappropriate for Russia. There was just a lack of favourable circumstances. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. To what extent did the key political ideas directly Influence change and development in ...

    success is easy to see as most are still in use today in all industrial countries. Over the past 150 years, it is quite clear that some of the political ideas have in some way or another influenced the change and development that has occurred in society.

  2. Is Liberalism compatible with democracy?

    He therefore insisted that elected politicians should speak for themselves rather than reflect the view of their electors, as it would be more accurate. He also proposed a system of plural voting that would disenfranchise the illiterate and allocate one, two, three or four votes to people depending upon their level of education or social position.

  1. Socialist uses of workers' inquiry

    What breaks are there during the working day? 33. Do you take meals at definite intervals, or irregularly? Do you eat in the workshop or outside? 34. Does work go on during meal times? 35. If steam is used, when is it started and when stopped?

  2. So, whats wrong with Anarchism?

    The other school of thought, mutualism, stands between individualist and collectivist approaches. This term was started by Proudhon who believed in a scheme that allowed individuals to exchange goods and secure credit without the need for political involvement or trade unions5.

  1. America Liberalism

    Peter's gates. Unlike the ideas of Catholicism, the Puritans did not believe that just anyone could go to heaven; they did not believe that the more virtuous a life you lead - the better chance you'd have at getting into heaven (The Puritan Millennium).

  2. Russia's Political Party System as an Obstacle to Democratization

    Opportunism played a part in the fragmentation of the party system. This was most evident during the 1995 election cycle when few reformists were willing to sacrifice their leadership to gain greater electoral success through coalition building. Purely self-centered motives are not the only explanation, however.

  1. Critical Analysis Essay"A manager's frame of reference is his/her most enabling asset".

    division in 1980's, "The world simply can't be made sense of, facts can't be organized, unless you have a mental model to begin with. That theory does not have to be the right one, because you can alter it along the way as information comes in.

  2. Examine the history of and different types of Anarchism

    Europe or traditional peasant communes such as the ?mir? in Tsarist Russia. They have also emphasised the non-hierarchical and egalitarian nature of tribal society. The anarchist objective of overthrowing the state and all forms of political authority is widely seen as impractical.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work