[000:00:00;00] roles, yes, so i look at faces, this is very important for me, i don’t know what i’m guided by , but i feel, this one is interesting, this one is not interesting at all, here is panomariov in the role of such a kind of future minifur, this is the future , but he’s not at all interesting, but well, but no, he’s this, this, this, this is not from this absolutely, i completely agree with you here. when i spoke, when i spoke about panomariov, it was not because of panomariov, but because of what is being done in washington, and what methods they allow themselves, based on this, that they choose such people there the type that, as they say, as i say, well, it’s not interesting for this role, in fact it’s not at all, by the way, if you really try, you can find

someone more interesting specifically for... this role, but this speaks of, in general, serious degradation here is the american bureaucracy and intelligence, apparently, and as they say, and political, which is a huge empire, i understand, a huge apparatus , some tasks are set, all this is already working on the fly, listen, we went through this in the soviet union, by the way, in the eighties years, that's all, then i was also in the big degree was degra, one of the reasons. the collapse of the ussr - this was, of course, the degradation of the soviet party bureaucracy. she was no longer at all the same as, than, than their predecessors there in the seventies, especially the sixties or fifties. this was one of the reasons, so, for example, i agree with you that i never believed that bush was involved in the collapse of the ussr or the americans in general, we would like this, but no, this is not their doing, unfortunately, this is our doing, what

now? i... completely agree with you, this was the work of the people in the soviet union first of all, and not washington loved , that's what to do now, the fact that they are so unprofessional and frivolous in washington, this does not mean that they cannot do something, they can do it, absolutely can, absolutely can , that is why it is necessary, it is necessary to find adequate answers to this politician. how it turns out that there are some things that we did not even notice, did not imagine that there could be a serious problem, and if we allow such blows to be suffered, which are often

inflicted, then you know, there may be some a pain point that we don’t even... know about, and frankly, we cannot and cannot know, but if you, if you put it on autopilot, it may end, absolutely true, but for this, let’s say, in my understanding, the same events in makhachkan, where i am, i have no doubt that all sorts of, so to speak, all sorts of things like panomarevo, who appropriated them there, had some influence, but, but i think, a large, large share , so to speak, these events lie in the sphere that some problems have apparently matured within dagestan, which we need to study, we need to study here, because in principle i believe that there is still a certain, a certain inertia in our national relations, the national question is always a very acute, complex question, and so

to speak, where... these problems arise, but it seems to me that this needs to be dealt with seriously, in fact, even in our country, as far as i understand, today there is no body that would deal with national issues, something there, for me this is a symptom of something inside us, first of all no, no , not unstable and something is allowed there somewhere mistakes, they need to be corrected, because, of course , external forces can take advantage of them, and people like who were there, but it seems to me that the source is still here, so i say, in order to resist this, we we must watch our society all the time, see where our pain points are, respond to them in a timely manner, react ourselves , do not wait until they react from there, then it seems to me that this will be the most correct, the correct reaction to the desire

to destroy us, it is possible to fall apart... only the one who who has certain internal prerequisites, but if there are no prerequisites , go away, you won’t do anything about it, when there are prerequisites, when there are some... internal unsolvable problems, this naturally serves as an opportunity for external forces to play on them , therefore, it seems to me that, first of all, we must be here internally, and the country’s leadership must carefully monitor in general what, what problems there are in the republics, in national, so to speak, regions, in relations with migrants there, that is, this is also becoming a serious problem here, we need to understand that they can play on this. of course, there are many problems in russia , in general in the united states, i am sure there are more problems when you look at the history of many countries, you see that there are periods when

the number of problems becomes very high, but not in every one of these cases does it arise it's not even a revolution, it's true. doesn’t know how to respond, how to take some preventive measures, when it begins to carry out reforms not preventively, from a position of strength, but under pressure from a position of weakness, that’s a revolution 905, they managed to cope with it, because at the head of the government were people who, on the one hand, were reformers. and on the other hand, very cruel, successful police officers. stalypin managed to suppress the revolution, again a reformer, but a very cruel man, who was talking about

confronting those who relied on violence. here you are, again, not only a analyst, but also a director, that’s how you see. if you like, i constantly compare my feelings with those that i had in ninety, eighty-nine, here

then i had an inner feeling, probably not only for me , maybe for you, i don’t know, for someone else, probably for many, that in general the situation was heading, so to speak, towards disaster, this inner feeling, for me then i can say that today, today i still don’t have any, and this is not because anyone tells me, well, you are behind the times there, so to speak, i basically work in production, i work with people, i feel a little bit of what is going on, as they say from below, i repeat, there are problems, there are many of them, but i don’t have the feeling that they are like that, have the character that you spoke about, that can turn into some kind of quality, so it seems to me, after all... today there is no reason to talk about some possible destabilization in russia, that’s why there are no serious leaders, that’s why there are such characters as panomariov, they are completely absent, but this does not mean that you need

to calm down, sleep, and as they say, this is the worst thing, i completely agree with you, and if you walked around moscow at the end the eighties, early nineties, and when you just walk around moscow and talk to people, today, well, completely different feelings, and this not only applies to moscow, yes, of course, but also to the vast majority of regions of the country, but on the other hand, it seems to me what is very important is to understand that this time they are really trying to destabilize russia, this is not fiction, this is an exaggeration, this is a fact. and i’m not suggesting panic about this, i’m not suggesting absolutely total repression about this, but it seems to me that this what needs to be kept in mind, and one

thing, from my point of view, is very important, it is very important that those people in washington who make these kinds of decisions that work, so that they, as far as russia has the opportunity, have a clear and distinct impression that action equals reaction. that the idea that you can do all this and get away with it, that this idea is vicious and dangerous, i believe that it is especially important to say this, show it, because i am convinced that this is the absolute truth, that if they do, they will fight these gates, then they will discover, that this is not a gate, but a stone wall, that you can really hurt your head.

your last word. i absolutely agree with you that in washington they must understand that for every action there is an equal reaction. while i must say, i do not have the feeling that, as they say, such opposition is fully occurring. maybe this is because, after all, the russian leadership has it all. there were either illusions, or some kind of hope that the situation could somehow, so to speak, soften, some kind of compromise can be found, but judging by the latest statements of both our president and the chairman of the security council there, mr. patrushev, apparently this, apparently this consciousness has already come unambiguously, apparently this is already an understanding already is present and now apparently i have a feeling that there will be some real

steps that will be implemented in the sense of these steps to counteract and demonstrate our capabilities, i have a feeling, to a certain extent there is information that it’s not that the russian leadership suddenly had some kind of unexpected insight, but that actually ... especially in washington, they began to change tactics, they began to allow things that were previously considered impermissible, and that these things are in moscow that, fortunately, they were seen in time, they began to talk about them in time, they began to think about how to prevent this kind of trends and how to find an adequate answer, which, by definition, in this area cannot be mirror, does not

necessarily have to be proportional, but must be reasonable and effective. koren, thank you so much, thank you, it was a great game, we'll see you on the air next week. our topic today is serfdom, well, at first glance, purely internal affairs , but remembering klyuchevsky, who said that russia fell behind the west precisely by serfdom, that is, how klyuchevsky calculated i don’t know how by 2 ,5th century. the topic , of course, is directly related to the west, because

everything in general in our relations with the west depended on this lag, so it is necessary of course, and this is about this, a number of historians believed that there was a special decree, 5 years before the introduction of the five-year nipple for fugitives in 1592 there was a special decree, but traces of this decree have not yet been found, the search for fugitives was introduced, then boris godunov temporarily weakened it. noose and allows exit to yuri on the day, why the famine of 1601, a monstrous famine, he allows exit. vasily shuisky in 1607 again raised the period of search for fugitives to 15 years, yes, then after the troubles, mikhail fedorovich again repeated the five-year search, in 1637 they introduced a nine-year investigation, in the forty-first ten-year or even fifteen-year, if one landowner took the peasants away from another landowner, finally... the cathedral code introduced an indefinite investigation

of the serf peasants. why is this happening in russia at this time? when they talk about the second edition of serfdom, this is a historical term, it occurs where the first edition actually did not exist, there is one , unfortunately, he is no longer alive, sociologist, historian emmanul wallerstein, who said that on periphery of western europe, in eastern europe, east of the elbe, it was there, first of all ... that the reason for the emergence of serfdom was formulated: forced labor for the market, because the economic division took place, eastern europe supplies western europe, where industry is developing. it’s interesting that in general they thought about the ineffectiveness of serfdom, even under anna ioanovna, taking into account the fantastic inactivity of that era,

they gave her some notes on the abolition of serfdom, i think that this clean. we need to somehow cope with this, that a free peasant will work more efficiently, well, naturally, anna ianovna, she did not answer the smaller questions, so to speak, to the requirements of the time, later they added, well, let’s say, reasoning, about the immorality of the serf rights, influenced in many ways by french philosophy. well, jean-jacques rousseau and so on, in general, a small but layer of freethinkers appeared who began to say that in general this was not only ineffective, but, so to speak, against conscience, so many people thought about it, well , the masons, for example, also thought about it,

by the way, they thought that in general it would be very good. and some even released their crosses altogether, but at the same time they said that, strictly speaking , neither the peasant nor society itself is ready for this, as far as i remember, they cited such a parallel, here is a bird that was raised in a cage, and which is accustomed to receiving food regularly, but if this bird is suddenly released into the wild, and there is frost and hunger, then she will die. therefore, and society must be cleaner, because otherwise this unfortunate peasant , who will be released into this dirty society, will simply corrupt him or ruin him, so to speak, so we must wait, we must do it, but

we must wait, this one the discussion about whether serfdom should be abolished, or is it not time yet, it lasted for a very very long time in russia , the year 1767, catherine ii, uses the phrase in relation to serfdom in the order, serfdom only appeared for the first time, but it also mentions slavery, calls serfdom itself slavery, proposes to abolish how the nobility reacts to this, my god, in no case, when catherine saw a similar reaction, of course, from similar ideas, educational ideas, she was brought up on the ideals of enlightenment. catherine immediately refuses these plans, well, when they discussed the famous order, when

a question suddenly arose, they discussed it very freely, i must say that catherine gave the opportunity to discuss any issues, and even asked. all sorts of orders from the provinces and so on, then there was this, well, probably the first truly meticulous analysis in our history, so to speak, of the situation, during the discussion of this order, when the topic of emancipation of the peasants arose, the conversation instantly went in completely the opposite direction, they asked, so to speak, to allow them to have serfs , merchants, cossacks, they also wanted a church there, and so on , that is... catherine perfectly understood that, well, she still didn’t feel like quite a russian empress, this also of course affected, she behaved very carefully, and in general i believed that her phrase

, no matter what we do, everything i won’t do is a drop in the ocean in russia, so to speak, so it’s very difficult to change something, russia is not ready, he acted for a very long time and under catherine herself serfdom is only becoming stricter, serfs are forbidden to complain about landowners, with whom? under catherine, yes , serfs can be given up as soldiers at the request of the landowner, this is a punitive measure, you can exile the most violent ones to syria at the request of the landowner, that is, without a corresponding court decision, in fact, this was also under catherine, that is , the truly golden age of serfdom, under her, moreover, they are often accused of tightening serfdom. without land, serfs first began to be sold under fyodor alekseevich, again under his predecessor, not immediately after the cathedral code, a little later, a generation later, right in the seventies, the beginning. century, and this continues, russian newspapers, in catherine the second, advertisements for the sale

of serfs without land, and this is really such semi-slavery, in fact, the first one trying to touch it, yes, symbolically, pavel, of course, yes, pavel, well, that is , he was the first to invade such a forbidden zone, yes , although, well, pavel had a lot of things, he tried to fight inflation, and so on, a very mythologized figure, by the way, it would also be very interesting to talk about personality, he was such a don quijodote, this is what would happen in spain if donquejode came to power, how many mills he would destroy, so to speak, and so on further, here is pavel, approximately our don quixote, although he was caricatured precisely among other things, for trying to touch on the christian issue, well, firstly, he really didn’t have time, and in fact, the measures that he proposed were, so to speak,

largely utopian for that time, then alexander ii, now you’re finally, nicholas ii mentioned this, who also believed that serfdom, he said that i don’t understand at all how it happened that they became slaves, so to speak, but at the same time he also perfectly understood that to touch on this topic , matter. steps were taken, paul i, firstly forced the christians to take an oath, that is, for the first time the christians, some kind of slaves who can be exiled, about whom it is forbidden to complain, because the story, remember, of the famous saltychikha who mocked the christians, she was eventually exiled and deprived of her rights for which ? because the other landowners reported on her, fearing that when the peasants came to slaughter her , already driven to complete despair by the perverted tortures that she inflicted, they too would... yes, yes, but not because

they said something, paul i gives them the opportunity to accept oath, and he tries to reduce the corvee, he issues a decree on a three-day corvee, which, of course, as we understand, remained on paper, alexander i decree on free farmers, yes, when it is possible to release serfs, an interesting story, in my opinion about sheremetyev, one from the richest people in russia, according to the decree on free farmers, it means that a peasant comes to him, a capitalist peasant, who in fact already has... a business, as we would say now, which is prosperous, knocking at his feet there, i don’t remember, how much is 10,000 rubles, gigantic the amount in those days, let the priest go free, he says, i don’t need your money , i have a reception, you give me an oyster in winter, deliver it, if you really want such cunning freedom, on carts, where oysters were transported in heated barrels, a little perhaps these oysters were brought from italy, and shrememetev received freedom, in general, this is such a wonderful exchange, barter? freedom on ustrytsa, brilliant, in russia there are only two classes, slaves, the sovereign,

the autocrat and the slaves of the farmers, so, only beggars and philosophers can be free in russia, spiransky said, i want to insert one more detail here, serfdom is primarily central russia, because speaking of alexander ii, we were already poland, finland was there, then there were, that is, the core of serfdom is central russia, in the west in asian, so to speak, additions to russia and even what national, so to speak, siberian places there, so when we need this simple note, when we say serf russia, we still need to imagine this geography, alexander i, after all and went to the experiment, it’s from... iceland or ireland, was canceled, and many then hoped that it was canceled, this was a rehearsal, and then there would be

a cancellation in russia, but no, yes, but no, which pushed for the abolition of serfdom, finally then, after all, nicholas was the first to really understand, he said that serfdom was evil, absolutely right, but to abolish it would be an even greater evil, he is afraid of the revolution, but attempts to restrain the revolution ultimately led russia to a severe defeat in the crimean war, russia from does not lose wars on its territory since peter ii, then loses there the war, and loses the war, everyone understands this, then in russia and for serfdom, alexander ii, the future tsar-liberator, sitting on these very secret committees, was in positions that were sometimes more conservative than his father, he was not brought up at all as a reformer, but after the disaster, if you call a spade a spade for the then crimean war in russia, russia is losing to whom, england and france, over time. weapons, with factory production, yes, russian infantry is dying from rifle fire on those distances at which it

cannot approach for its effective fire, respectively, the british have steamers. the french, a well-known story, the battle of sinopta, nakhimov destroys the turkish fleet, sank the turkish fleet, and with turkish coastal batteries, one boat escaped, an english steamship flying the turkish flag, yes, it must be cancelled, yes, yes, yes, well, you said about that, well, they were afraid of revolution, this is all true, and alexander ii, when he was forced after the crimean war to undertake all sorts of reforms, and when we... about the serf law, about the abolition of serfdom, you still need to understand that there , i don’t know, any decree, any order, go to freedom, there’s something like that, it didn’t work, so we spent a very long time developing the technology, everything this, and it was impossible to just take and let the peasants go, it was necessary to do something with these new free people, it was necessary

to help them, on the one hand, on the other hand there was security, therefore, when we say great reforms, the abolition of serfdom rights of 1861, this is only part of all these reforms, well, in general, in short, this is a whole complex of reforms, so when we talk about the reform of the abolition of serfdom, we need to complement everything, including glasnost, it was not under gorbachev that the word appeared, brother of alexander. konstantin, who led the restoration of the russian fleet after the crimean war, he wrote about the need for openness in his department in order to solve the problems of restoring this fleet, everything flows again really from this failure, the impetus was, of course, of course, first of all, why in order to to raise industry, especially the military, we need free workers, in the west

there is serfdom, which was finally finished off by napoleon. there it did not imply ownership of the personality of the peasant himself, and the peasants could still leave and become workers in the first manufactories, then factories and so on, our situation is different, in general capitalism develops in the presence of three conditions, and three markets, the capital market, the presence of free capital , the labor market of power and the sales market, in russia there are problems with all three of these things, free labor hands, serfs, the sales market, purchasing power... accordingly, the main source of capital of the merchants is too small - it is the state that should have given this impetus and should have launched these gigantic transformations, you are absolutely right that the abolition of serfdom is only the first, huge, but the first step , then it was necessary to reform the entire building of the russian empire, which happens during the great reforms, the main character of our program is the variety theater, which already at the end

of october opened its doors again with his viewers after a gigantic reconstruction, what are you talking about, what worries us about you, this is my home since childhood, my father went there to visit his friends, friends, i was a suitcase without a russian, i didn’t even have a name, he said , little one with me, kiss me, but i recognized a wonderful pianist with beautiful hair, it’s you, it’s him, leonov , we had a record of 16 days, 93 concerts, we were leaving yakutsk and we passed some house again packed, he didn’t... his voice broke, he said: another unreached daughter, i realized that so much watermelon was in vain, but it was too late, there are only big houses around, and there is no small house anywhere, leonid ilivich came up to our table and asked, i don’t understand whether you succeeded or not, the variety theater is my age, you see, i look good, excuse me, but the variety theater

looks today better, from what, from what, from what on saturday, montechoca cognac, a product of the stellar group, this is a historical podcast of russia the west is on the swing of history, today we are dealing with serfdom with the process of its abolition, i just thought of something, there is... such a parallel with peter the great, because - here peter's reforms were a forced matter, he created armies, and this pulled other reforms with them, the reforms of alexander ii were also forced, and one thing also leads to another, because well, a building, so to speak, without piles,

it cannot collapse, only load or unload from this side. and at the same time, an interesting point is that, well, at least for me, if peter’s reforms, i perceive them as some kind of greatness, a great thing. and the reforms of alexander ii, although in scale, so to speak, are quite comparable, and the reforms alexander ii, i somehow look at them, well, how can i tell you, with regret that they were partial, although the reforms of peter the great were also partial, i think the difference is

that peter the great, there is a huge difference between catching up and running the difference, i would still say that he fled rather from a possible external defeat, since during the crimean war the english admiralty was already making plans for the dismemberment of russia, and there was also a story that the british wanted to move the fighting after the crimea further into the territory russia, the french said no, you know, we already went deep once, in the twelfth year, so this is without us, and without an ally on the continent the british do not fight, so here with this, there is an interesting point that the people who abolished serfdom right - these were people who were formed in the nikolaev era, including in these very secret committees who looked at all this, who did not occupy the highest positions, but just

when this old nikolaev public was demolished by the very first resignations of alexander iigo, it was impossible to work with these people anymore, they were removed, another generation appeared, an interesting episode, one of the leaders of the editorial commissions that developed the project for the abolition of serfdom was yakov rostovtsev, the man who betrayed the decembrists to nicholas the first, but who apparently life was tormented by conscience, and who was considered a conservative, and he, when he took office, he began to lead the way in time for a more radical abolition of the reforms, and also some historians believe that his relatively early death, he did not lived to see the abolition of serfdom, led to the fact that they were abolished in a more conservative way than, for example, milyutin assumed and than yakov rostovtsov, respectively, that is, he thus atoned for the guilt. this is an interesting question, these reforms, this is the influence of the west, if we are talking about the west, or is this an example of the west

, i found here, the opinion of one analyst from the nineties, there was such a comrade, and he wrote the following, if you don’t go too deep into history and not disturb the shadow of peter the great, what are we doing with you? the beginning of our westernization is associated with the reforms of alexander ii. well, this is some kind of very radical point of view, because the nineties, well, the nineties, yes, westernization, relative, because the conditions under which serfdom was directly abolished are very important here. yes, let's remember these conditions, the conditions - after all, they caused massive discontent among the baptism. and when the decree was announced. about deliverance from serfdom, an imperial decree, then the troops in the russian empire were put on alert because they expected unrest, and unrest followed, for the russian peasant, freedom without land is like

freedom without air for us, the russian peasant does not think of this, but the peasant received the land for a ransom, and the ransom was determined, here is a very interesting scheme, not according to the market value of the land, but according to the size of the quitrent that the peasant paid to the landowner before the abolition of serfdom, the quitrent should... be capitalized based on 6% per annum, that is , one quitrent, you can draw a formula like this, yes, the annual quitrent is 6% of the ransom, respectively, if there was a dues, for example, 10 rubles, then the peasant had to pay 166 rubles 67 kopecks, because the peasants did not have such money, so the ransom that the peasants had to pay was paid for by the state, the peasant contributed only 20%, the rest was paid for him the state, and the state, now many viewers... will probably remember the mortgage, right? for 49 years, the peasants had to, well, from generation to generation , pay the same interest to the state, again the same,

and if they didn’t even have 20%, they stayed temporarily obligated only after the liquidation of the temporarily obligated state in 1881, they finally became free, if the peasant had a desire to immediately free himself, he could take a couple and leave the rest of the land to the landowner then, as he called it, he received this chicken allotment free, many christians did this , why, because they believed that this is not a real will, not a royal one, it will be a real royal will, they will give all the land, so now there is no need to agree to a buyout operation, and that’s not all, they didn’t give land to the christians, almost, how many of them there were 5-6% , remember firs in the cherry orchard, who said that there thunder was warm and lightning flashed before a great misfortune, before which, the interlocutor asks him, firs answers, before the will, for him, freedom is a problem, why, because he is a yard servant, the yard peasant landowner, well, just throw him out into the street, they will beg. should have, and

the best part of the land, one last detail, sections in the provinces, especially black earth ones, determined the maximum land that the peasants could get, this at most less than the land that the peasants had previously cultivated, and the fact that the excess was cut off from 20 to 25% of the peasants' lands, of course, the peasants were unhappy, i found it here, i just want to read something, this... from a letter in the name of alexander , prince boratynsky, this is 1871, and he wrote that the last word of the reform will be said when the complete liberation of the russian people reaches the individual, improve the private property of the peasants and you will strangle the birth of communism, strengthen family morality and lead the country along the path

progress. i saw this letter and responded through count shuvalov, he writes to the prince: i am happy that from now on i can predict the serious future of the great, useful idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe exercise of a second slavery, perhaps worse than serfdom, communal use of the land, i have no doubt that significant the majority are petersburg reds, who in this case will inevitably give a big battle, since all their future hopes will perish with the destruction of this social and socialist ulcer. it is interesting that already at this time we are talking about the reds, about

socialist ideas, about communism, the authorities understood, but, but did nothing , but did not do, did what they decided to do, they only preserved the community on the contrary , including, why, fiscal interests, taxes are easier to collect from the community, but only stalypin will reach the community, in the sense of attempting to abolish it, when from my point of view it will be to a large extent, it’s just too late, yes, according to the analysis of a number of western experts who... in a few years, if all this is realized at all, russia in general it will be invincible, as they believed, they wrote so, so stalepin in some way, in some sense, he won the battle, he lost the war, but god lost the war. today

we are dealing with the issue of the abolition of serfdom, this is a historical podcast russia-west on the swing of history. the main problem was that serfdom was abolished, but a whole series of, as they used to say, and indeed, this is a completely appropriate term, remnants of serfdom remained, they stretched like weights on the legs, strengthening the stratification in russian society. the problem was that they really , well, looked at all these issues completely differently, so to speak , even the most advanced, as they say now , individuals, i found here, there was such a moment, the landowner defended the interests of the nobility insisted that everything needs to be left as is. the economic index magazine recommended that the authorities follow

western experience. that is, he stood on the side of personal land ownership, influential contemporary magazines and russian conversation, advocated communal land ownership, but completely for various reasons, a contemporary saw in the russian community something like a western commune, which would perhaps allow russia to jump into socialism, bypassing the phase of wild capitalism, slavophiles from russian conversation saw communication as a kind of sacred umbilical cord that connects the russian people with their ancient slavic past, so satisfy everything , this is the diversity of opinions, it was simply impossible for everyone, you can turn to economics and see the results, but indeed, at first there will be some decline associated with the restructuring of economic life, but subsequently russia picks up the pace of economic growth thanks to the abolition of serfdom, having taken on capitalist rails, free labor appears

, by the way, it is important to add here that very cheap labor, russians received the least amount of work in europe, but thanks to this, thanks to these reforms, thanks subsequent financial and economic reforms , which... the development of capitalism, russia at the end of the 19th century took third place in the world in terms of economic growth rates, second only to the usa and germany, and sometimes even going head-to-head with germany on the nose, however, mina existed, lenin wrote at one time, yes, you can refer to the authority of vladimir ilyevich, that 1861 gave birth to 905, what did he mean that they demand christie in 905? cancellation of sections, land plots, because the peasant continued to believe that the land was no one's. god’s land, and god’s means christian, the land should belong only to the one who works on it, that’s what left these annoying things for the peasants, these segments, these redemption payments, canceled only as a result of the first russian revolution, before that moment, the peasants continued to pay and overpay, by the way, for the higher

market value of the land, this all led to the radicalization of the russian peasantry and led to the radicalization of the peasant youth, and yet russia at the end of the 11th, beginning of the 20th century was a demographic fact. this is a very young country, the average, average russian - who is this? this is a young peasant, 17-19 years old there, who understands that in the current situation, he has no prospects in life, in general, after the abolition of serfdom, such a thing began, well, i already said that alexander ii began to flee from the revolution, radical forces in russia began to flee to the revolution and this began... ' a race for survival to a large extent, because after the abolition of serfdom in connection with the discontent that you are talking about , populists, they were waiting, so to speak, for the peasant socialist revolution , that on the wave of discontent the peasants would begin

to speak out, at the christening, with all their discontent, nevertheless they were not ready to overthrow the father of the tsar, at that moment, faith in the good tsar was not going away, onku was not going away, so they called him peasants... and such passive material, and the idea arose of these little things that themselves did not want to flare up, to set fire with the help of terror, in fact, from there with those times - the story begins about attempts to rock russia using the most radical methods, i’m here. i completely agree, because after all, the reaction of terror appeared as a reaction to the very brutal suppression of going to the people, process 193, yes, when there is a part of the people who were justified by the consequences, this is a simultaneous process, strictly speaking, so this, in a significant place, to a large extent bore the character of some kind of revenge, of course, and this

too, the end of the reformer is known to us, as a result of the grenewitz bomb, and several attempts unsuccessful, then yes, a successful attempt , this period, or something, i would put an end here, because then the period of the outright freezing of alexander ii begins, this is a separate story, to a large extent, this is a continuation and a separate song, well, and the unsuccessful reign of the last russian emperor. the poor-bearers spread savina's wings over russia after the eighty-first year, so we understand that if it had not been for the abolition of serfdom, russia simply could not have existed, because the plans were corresponding, as we have already said, there were