Ideological rejections of the regime were also present. The nihilists who were against the existing institutions and moral values, were in favour of a non-restricted individual freedom. In a novel written by Turgenev, it said: “A nihilist is a man who does not bow before any authorities, who does not accept a single principle on trust". (1862) This clearly explains the way these people thought at that time and had no will to follow any rules. This quote was written in the book “Father's and Sons”. The novel creates a picture of the older generation of Russia, which was unwilling to accept reforms, and the idealistic youth. The central character is Bazarov, he is a classical portrait of the mid-nineteenth century nihilist. Mikhail Bakunin was a political philosopher and anrchist and he preached into overthrowning the regime with violence because he wanted to replace it with a self-government.
There was also a Slavophile argument against Western capitalism: linked to what was previously said, the ideological rejection disagreed with the development towards greater industrial technology and centralised state power along the Western lines. Instead, they put forward, as a goal of the future, to preserve the old Russian institution of the mir (the Populists). The political opposition had radical demands for a national parliament and a written constitution. This would have then limited autocracy and increased the chance for the people to have a greater political role.
Populism began in the 1870's, they saw themselves as the educators of peasantry to therefore prepare them for the revolution that they would lead. The educated Populists went from universities to the countryside, to live for a short time with the peasants in attempt to incite them in a revolution. However, this had little success, the peasants either did not accept, or did not understand, the revolutionary message being sent to them. In despair, some turned to terrorism, as they thought it was the only way in achieving their aims. In 1897, a group called “People's Will” was founded with the intention of murdering members of the major powers, the ruling class. This group had no more than 400 members and was responsible for tha assassination of Alexander II in 1881. However, this act of violence did not strenght the movement, but instead, weakened the movement. The importance of this group was not the ideas, but the method it was using. Its concept of using peasants to start a revolt seemed unrealistic. The peasantry were highly distrustful as they very conservative, religious and illiterate. This movement although gave an example to all the revolutionaries of the late nineteenth century, they were influenced and if not inspired, by them challenging Tsardom.
The nobility also had a reason for opposing tsardom; this included the Emancipation of the serfs. They wouldn't accept their loss of a third of their land; though they were compensated for this, much of it went off to pay debts. Nobles were also against the fact that they had now also lost their great social influence and prestige. Their financial and social status depended on the serfs and therefore opposed the idea of losing their wealth in favour of the peasants. Peasants also resented this reform. Theoretically, each serf was guaranteed a minimum size allotment, at least 80% of the size was considered necessary to feed a peasant family, but more than 72% received allotments which were reduced by 20%. Freed serfs were also to pay the state “redemption payments” over a course of 49 years. Then, the local Mir was established; this was in charge of collecting the redemption taxes, which took considerable control over each peasant. State serfs were granted the same terms as well, although the transition period was over 5 years and not 2 and they generally received large pieces of land. Household serfs fared the worst; they got no land but just their freedom. This left peasants with less land than before, paying redemption taxes larger than the production of the land, for territory which they thought was theirs by right. Furthermore, the domestic serfs who hadn't previously worked on land didn't receive any land at all. Emancipation actually worsened the wealth and living standard of the serfs in many aspects. These were the reasons to why freed serfs, peasants and nobles opposed tsardom; 647 incidents of peasant rioting were recorded. To the Russian intelligentia, the limited nature of reform showed that Alexander II was incapable of meeting the needs of everyday Russians, this therefore caused a more revolutionary activity against the state.
The educated and the middle class acted in an intellectual, exclusive and secretive way; university students and the idealistic youth of the narodniks also helped. The peasantry riots were unorganised with no specific goal. The 647 incidents of peasant rioting that was mentioned before were done over a course of 4 months after the emancipation edict of 1861; showing there was no clear goal.
Such oppositions were in need of remaining secretive and underground in order to survive. It is difficult to accurately understand their success. Most of the opposing movements ranged from a couple hundred to a few thousand members. Judging their aims that they hoped to achieve, their opposition movements during the reign of Alexxander II and III were ineffective. Even though they succeeded in killing the Tsar, little was achieved in terms of reducing the power of autocracy or gaining the support from the peasants in order to have a revolution. These opposition groups were although significant as they encouraged opposition against the Tsar for later revolutionaries. They also managed to make the later oppositions question themselves about how effective the revolutions were, and if not how they should improve. Such as: if the peasants were ready for a revolt, if political violence should be used againsts the state and who should be leading the revolution. Clearly, such considerations had an impact on Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
The nature of the oppositions were secretive, which meant that the revolutionary oppositions could not mobilise peasant discontent which was the greatest threat to stability. There was a lack of political tradition in Russia which meant that the opposition's thinking tended to be utiopian in character rather that following the realities of how a state should be governed. There was no clear or united groups in the oppositions, but instead very different, and often conflicting, thoughts of “what is to be done”. The conservative interests were too strong, even if the nobility were angry with Alexander II and III, they still weren't going to support the revolutionaries against him. The people might have been successful in killing Alexander II in 1881, but this surely did not lead to a greater reform or revolution. Instead, it strengthened the ways to put down opposition, as it was seen in the harsh treatment against the revolutionaries during the reighn of Alexander III.
by
bebepreppie (student)
