HISTORY OF RUSSIA
Peter's reforms results
Results of Peter I's reforms
The main result of the whole set of Peter's reforms was the establishment of an absolutism regime in Russia, the crown of which was the change in 1721 of the title of the Russian monarch - Peter declared himself emperor, and the country became known as the Russian Empire.
Thus, what Peter had been striving for all the years of his reign was formalized - the creation of a state with a well organized management system, a strong army and navy, a powerful economy, influencing international politics.
As a result of Peter's reforms, the state was not bound by anything and could use any means to achieve its goals.
As a result, Peter came to his ideal of a state structure - a warship, where everything and everything is subject to the will of one person - the captain, and managed to bring this ship out of the swamp into the stormy waters of the ocean, bypassing all the reefs and shoals.
Russia became an autocratic, military bureaucratic state, in which the central role belonged to the nobility.
At the same time, Russia's backwardness was not completely overcome, and reforms were carried out mainly due to the most severe exploitation and coercion.
It is difficult to overestimate the role of Peter the Great in the history of Russia.
No matter how one treats the methods and style of his transformations, it is impossible not to admit that Peter the Great is one of the most prominent figures in world history.
We can quote the words of a contemporary of Peter Nartov: "... and although Peter the Great is no longer with us, however, his spirit lives in our souls, and we, who had the happiness to be with this monarch, will die faithful to him and bury our fervent love for the earthly god with ourselves.
We proclaim our father without fear, so that we learned noble fearlessness and truth from him."
The role of Peter the Great in the history of Russia.
Peter's reforms and the special way of Russia.
Modern aspects of reforms
Peter's Reforms and the Special Way of Russia
The concept of Russia was largely identified with the Russian State.
Russian Russian understanding itself, the Russian territory after the classical period of Kievan Rus was associated with the work of the state assembly.
The Russian ethnos in its modern understanding as something unified was essentially nurtured by the state in the process of mixing diverse human masses.
Russian Russian history, the state principle really looks like something that grew out of an idea that creates itself - the Russian ethnic group, territory and culture.
The formation of the main positive principle of development - the state, the struggle for its approval, etc. - was carried out at the expense of mass repressions, the destruction of entire lifestyles, due to further restrictions on individual freedom.
In Russia, in the conditions of the weakness or practical absence of civil society, the reforms that in Europe came from below, from society, as a result of the emergence of new ways of life, new types of production in the fight against the established ones, were carried out in the interests of the authorities in the face of external and internal threats, in particular, from their own society.
Therefore, these reforms were carried out primarily through the suppression of society, giving rise to the phenomenon of alienation of society from the authorities.
In Russia, there is a special, incomparable development, in which the movement forward is paradoxically intertwined with the suppression of freedom, and technical and other progress – with the alienation of society from the state.
As a result of historical development, a kind of "Russian way" has developed from modernization to modernization.
And since reforms from above, especially the introduction of a new one, require the strengthening of power, the development of productive forces in Russia, accompanied by a wave like strengthening of despotism at every turn of reforms, went towards the destruction of civil society, which was revived to some extent, however, after the era of reforms passed.
Peter's reforms froze the processes of emancipation of private property, especially at the most mass, peasant level.
This is confirmed by the destruction of the right of private ownership of land due to the introduction of an equalizing poll tax (instead of a land tax) on state peasants.
Over time, this tax led to the liquidation of private ownership, the redistribution of land by the community and to the increasing interference of the state in the affairs of the peasants.
Now, looking around the ruined country, which suddenly turned out to be poor and backward, as in ancient times, having felt itself facing the uncertainty of the future for the umpteenth time in our history, it is necessary to think, since our country carried with it through the revolutionary storms the age old tradition of creating a rigidly despotic regime of a special type, which in Russia was called autocracy, as a result of reforms.
The peculiarity of the historical path of Russia was that each time the reforms resulted in an even greater archaization of the system of public relations.
It was she who led to a slow flow of social processes, turning Russia into a country of catching up development.
The peculiarity also lies in the fact that catching up, basically violent reforms, the implementation of which requires strengthening, at least temporarily, the despotic principles of state power, ultimately lead to a long term strengthening of despotism.
In turn, the slow development due to the despotic regime requires new reforms.
And everything repeats again.
These cycles become a typological feature of the historical path of Russia.
This is how a special path of Russia is formed - as a deviation from the usual historical order.
Will the "change of the usual historical order" continue in our future - a special path that will once again plunge the country into a paroxysm of convulsive violent changes, giving nothing in return, except the prospect of repeating them in the future, already on the periphery of world development?
Or will the meaning of the word "reform" change in our history, and we will find the strength, opportunities and will to take a place worthy of a great culture in this world?
Only historians of future generations will be able to answer these questions, but I would like to affirmatively answer the second one.
Modern aspects of reforms
Reforms in Russia have been undertaken repeatedly, but all attempts have not been crowned with success.
The main reason for this is that the desire for change that periodically arose in the government focused not on changing society, but on reforming the state.
Human interests were ignored by all reforms without exception.
The rules of reform in Russia are completely different than in Western society.
In Russia, there was no social basis for reformism due to the dominance of traditional culture, focused on the ideal imperial power.
In order to implement reforms, it is necessary, at least, to formulate their ultimate goal.
Instead, Russia has always begun to imitate Western type countries in order to become a state capable of actively opposing the West.
In addition, the reform does not require a one time effort, their implementation involves a fairly long cycle - 2-3 generations - it is during this period that the stereotype of human consciousness completely changes.
The idea of the materialization of power became the basis of perestroika.
The bureaucratic nomenclature is tired of its unnatural state, when there is a lot of power, but there is no large property.
Even the benefits that they used could leave at any time along with the party card.
Perestroika reformism has purely "material" origins and it was precisely because of this that it came "from above".
The people were waiting for changes, but they were a "human factor"for the reformers.
And today the words of V. Klyuchevsky sound topical: "Russia was ruled not by an aristocracy and not by a democracy, but by a bureaucracy, that is, acting outside of society and deprived of any social appearance by a bunch of individuals of various origins, united only by chinoproduction.
Thus, the democratization of governance was accompanied by an increase in social inequality and fragmentation."
Conclusions
In his time, Peter I did a lot for his country.
And it's not his fault that not everything went smoothly: he didnot even get a more or less decent education.
Only personal enthusiasm, perseverance and will allowed us to make such a qualitative leap forward.
There are different points of view on this issue, however, I believe that, despite the infringement of human rights and the interests of the individual, Peter I led the country on a new path and for this we can only thank him.
Many people ask the question: what would have happened to the country if it had not been for Peter?
The answer is obvious: the situation of the country would have deteriorated so much (and in all spheres, and not only in the social sphere, as after Peter's reforms) that the country would have fallen into anarchy and would have been occupied by one of the neighboring countries.
Well, we know firsthand about the " features” of the colonial form of government on the example of the same England...
Another question – was the orientation to the West correct – was solved purely in Russian: why invent something new when you can take the example of a neighbor?
Moreover, there was no time to think, and the probability that illiterate Peter could come up with something especially original was steadily close to zero.
The ingenuity and talent of the emperor, who did not even receive a “primary” education, arouse respect to this day.
It seems to me that Peter was not a Westerner himself – he simply " took advantage at some stage” of the achievements of Western civilization, so that later, in a more favorable environment, the country would already go its own way.
Again, some argue that it was possible to adopt Western customs partially, but how do you know what is important in a foreign culture and what is not?
Especially when the fate of the country depends on it!
I think the choice of orientation is obvious: if there is time, you can think, choose your own method of solving problems that is characteristic of the nation, if there is no time, you need to look at how others have coped with it – the fastest and, often, the most effective method of solving the problem.
The choice of west east then depends on the specific situation: which is closer to the nation.
go to the beginning
HISTORY OF RUSSIA catalog of articles
The main menu of the Encyclopedia
* topics|concepts|occupation|discoveries|works|inventions|phenomena • * type of creativity|events|biographies|portraits|educational catalog|search in the encyclopedia •
Copyright © 2004 abc people.com Design and conception BeStudio © 2004
