Opposition to Alexander II´s Reforms
Activities
Activity 1 – Source Analysis
a. Why do you think these ideas were appealing in the context of Tsarist Russia? Who do you think
they appealed to?
b. To what extent do you see these ideas as a viable revolutionary platform? Justify.
CATECHISM OF A REVOLUTIONIST (1869)
by Sergei Nechaev and Mikhail Bakunin
The Duties of the Revolutionist to Himself
1. The revolutionist is a person doomed [obrechennyi, in older usage signifying also
"consecrated"]. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no
property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single
passion for revolution.
2. The revolutionist knows that in the very depths of his being, not only in words but also in deeds,
he has broken all the bonds which tie him to the civil order and the civilized world with all its laws,
moralities, and customs, and with all its generally accepted conventions. He is their implacable
enemy, and if he continues to live with them it is only in order to destroy them more speedily.
3. The revolutionist despises all doctrines and refuses to accept the mundane sciences, leaving
them for future generations. He knows only one science: the science of destruction. For this
reason, but only for this reason, he will study mechanics, physics, chemistry, and perhaps
medicine. But all day and all night he studies the vital science of human beings, their
characteristics and circumstances, at every possible level of social existence. The object is
perpetually the same: the surest and quickest way of destroying the whole filthy order.
4. The revolutionist despises public opinion. He despises and hates the existing social morality in
all its manifestations. For him, morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the
revolution. Anything that stands in its way is immoral and criminal.
5. The revolutionist is a person doomed. He is merciless toward the state and toward the whole
formal social structure of educated society [soslovno-obrazovannogo obshchestva]; and he can
expect no mercy from them. Between him and them there exists, declared or concealed, a
relentless and irreconcilable war to the death. He must accustom himself to torture.
6. Tyrannical toward himself, he must be tyrannical toward others. All the gentle and enervating
sentiments of kinship, love, friendship, gratitude, and even honor, must be suppressed in him and
give place to the cold and single-minded passion for revolution. For him, there exists only one
pleasure, one consolation, one reward, one satisfaction -- the success of the revolution. Night and
day he must have but one thought, one aim -- merciless destruction. Striving cold-bloodedly and
1
indefatigably toward this end, he must be prepared to destroy himself and to destroy with his own
hands everything that stands in the path of the revolution.
7. The nature of the true revolutionist excludes all sentimentality, romanticism, infatuation, and
exaltation. All private hatred and revenge must also be excluded. Revolutionary passion, practiced
at every moment of the day until it becomes a habit, is to be employed with cold calculation. At all
times, and in all places, the revolutionist must obey not his personal impulses, but only those
which serve the cause of the revolution.
Activity 2 - Source Analysis
Compare and contrast the views of these sources on the threat that terrorism posed to Russia.
A. From the Manifesto of “People’s Will” (Jan. 1880)
The purpose of terroristic activities is to break the spell of government power, to give constant
proof of the possibility of fighting against the government, to strengthen in this way the
revolutionary spirit of the people and its faith in the success of its cause, and, finally, to create
organizations suited and accustomed to combat.
B. From the Tsar’s emergency decree (April, 1879)
Recent events have clearly demonstrated the existence in Russia of a gang of evildoers which, if
not very numerous, nonetheless persists in its criminal delusions and strives to undermine all the
foundations of the structure of state and society. Not confining themselves to propagating, by
means of secretly printed and circulated proclamations, the most revolting doctrines aimed at
subverting religious teachings, family ties, and property rights, these scoundrels have made
repeated attempts on the lives of the highest dignitaries of the Empire.
Activity 3 - Essay writing skills
a. Justify the vision presented on your book on page 70 (in the paragraph that starts with “In
carrying through a number of reforms…”)
b. Comment and grade the following essay by the student “Amy”, taking into account IB mark
bands:
2
“Alexander II did not effectively deal with political opposition from 1855-1881″ Assess the
validity of this view
Alexander II was known as the Tsar of Great reforms, began with the Emancipation of the Serfs in
1861. Opposition seemed to grow from all sides against the Tsar, who seemingly couldn’t really
have done anything to stop such growth. As reform angered the right, conservatism angered the
left and there was no way to move around this issue. The reform wasn’t even enough for the left,
with the likes of the intelligentsia and populist movements growing throughout the reign of
Alexander II.
The peasantry that became a popular target for revolutionaries seeking followers, in reality, was
always loyal to the Tsar. The Tsar’s tactic of removing opposition by removing free thought was
quite successful in the peasantry. The peasants remained a God fearing monarchist people right
up until the Tsar’s assassination in 1881. The Tsar’s emancipation gave the people new freedoms
and gave them more reason to trust that their leader was the right one. If a peasants’ uprisings
had occurred the Tsar’s dealings with political opposition could be considered disastrous, but this
was not the case. The Russian Orthodox Church fed people Tsarist propaganda and the army was
always a looming threat should anyone step too far out of line. However the emancipation of the
serfs came with its own share of evils, as the peasants were given this new freedom economically,
they couldn’t be blamed for therefore seeking the same freedom politically. There were cases of
3
civil unrest in all but one province affected by this reform and of 647 incidents, 449 needed
military interventions. The military did its job effectively, and so as the statement suggests this
opposition was dealt with in that fashion, however, along the way more opposition was formed
that wouldn’t be so easy to quell. The emancipation may have been needed for economic growth,
but it certainly wasn’t all good for the regime. People attacked the reform for not going far enough
and others, like the peasants, attacked the reform for going too far and changing things that they
didn’t really want changing. The idea that the Tsar couldn’t please everybody, but ended up
pleasing no one is a recurring theme throughout Alexander II’s reign.
The intelligentsia posed a smaller threat to the Tsar than a peasants’ revolt as their organisation
was reasonably small. The intelligentsia believed in nihilism, wanting to start fresh, without the
Tsar. This group was, however, strengthened by increased repression and did destroy over 2,000
shops in 1862. The Tsar could do nothing against these young people as they had come to the
point where they would die for their cause. These people were free thinking, often aware of the
prosperity in the west after visiting, or studying there. This group spread propaganda and grew.
The intelligentsia was responsible for the first attempt on the Tsar’s life in 1866 by Dmitri
Karakozov, which in effect led to the end of large scale reforms by the Tsar. The police did
apprehend him and he was executed, but the damage was already done, the Tsar had almost been
killed despite his reforming nature. He chose to stop reforms which simply led to increased
opposition from the left, like the Populists.
The populist movement grew from the gentry who aimed to use the peasants to overthrow the
Tsar. Once this type of opposition began, the Tsar would find it difficult to actually remove them.
After becoming Land and Liberty the populists split in 1879 into the more radical People’s will and
the Black partition. Censorship laws adopted by the Tsar began to increase restriction following
the 1866 attempt on Alexander’s life. These laws were ineffective as some radical texts like
Chernyshevski’s “What is to be done?” were still published. Opposition was aware of their
thoughts being oppressed and with no real outlet for these thoughts in the media; the populists
were forced underground. The movement became unregulated. The People’s will continued to
commit to revolutionary action being responsible for the assassination of the Tsar and General
Mezemtsev in 1881. Moreover, the Tsar’s Third Section, responsible for the removal of political
opposition was infiltrated by the People’s will. This shows the ineffective nature of the institutions
set up by the Tsar to maintain his autocratic rule as they were also infested with opposition. There
came a time in the Tsar’s leadership when there was no way the people would accept him as their
leader anymore. Autocracy had become its own poison and no amount of secret police or reform
could change that. The reforms in fact gave this type of opposition more ammunition to throw at
the Tsar’s inadequacy to rule or understand the people’s needs. The very fact that the Tsar was
assassinated proves that he did not deal with political opposition in an effective manner.
The Tsar used varies methods of control, such as his large prison systems and the exile of
prisoners. Prisons were overcrowded, and trials could take 4 years to end. Political prisoners were
subject to solitary confinement, an effective way of stopping the spread of dissidence throughout
all law breakers. Exile was often the next stage of imprisonment, which wasn’t as effective
because there are reports of criminals having better living standards in Siberia than they had
before they were imprisoned. This would create more opposition against the Tsar as criminals are
shown better living conditions in a place where they have been sent to be punished and therefore
4
want to spread their discovery and also return with such standards. The political trials were a
farce, for example, the “trial of the 193” led to 90 political criminals being acquitted because of a
sympathetic jury. This type of open trial simply gave political opposition a platform with which to
spread their cause and explain its reasons for opposition. These trials were ineffective at making
an example of opposition, rather it made them look better, or the regime look backward and
repressive.
Overall I think that Alexander II did not effectively deal with opposition, he was unable to stick to
one policy direction (reform or repressive) which confused the people and his inner circle.
Opposition would have grown against any Tsar in this situation as autocracy would never have
survived with the modern world looming at Russia’s borders. The Tsar dealt with opposition the
best he could, but failed to relinquish enough of his own power to quell the growing grumbles
from groups like the Populists. The assassination success showed that Alexander himself wasn’t
protected enough against opposition, never mind the entire country. The prison system was, in
some ways effective, keeping political opponents apart so they couldn’t inspire new followers..
The trials allowed further spreading of opposition. Alexander II was a great reformer but couldn’t
move toward removing repression without opposition growing. Should he have remained
repressive like his heir Alexander III did or even gone for reform on leadership, he may even have
died a natural death.
Activity 4 – Source Analysis: “Message Conveyed” skill
What are the messages conveyed by these images?
a.
A 19th century cartoon of
Alexander II, as he plunges into an
abyss
on
a
sled
labeled
"despotism"
b.
5
A London newspaper printed this cartoon in 1863, imagining a meeting between Lincoln and
Alexander II (a meeting that never happened).
The cartoon was part of an exhibit of 2011 in Moscow called “The Tsar & The President, Alexander
II & Abraham Lincoln: Liberator & Emancipator.”
6