Asses how convincing the argument in these extracts are in
-
relation to the development of opposition in Russia in the 1870’s
In Extract A, it claims “the populist found little support amongst the peasants” this was very true as Romas, one out
of 4000 Narodniks, in the “go to the people” movement sold cheap manufactured goods to peasants to show the
peasantry a new form of living. However the peasants couldn’t understand the cheap costs and refused to buy from
him, later murdering his assistants and bombing the store, as well as blaming him for a re forcing him to ee for
his life. This was due to peasantry still lacking education and being under the strict belief that the tsar is the “father
of the people” and therefore were against revolting in such a radical way for such a controversial system, further
supported by “workers rarely shared, or even understood, the objectives of the propagandists”. It was believed by
many that the peasantry and Narodniks have opposite and contradicting ideas as stated by Aptekman, a Narodnik.
This led to the populist movement having little support or respect from the peasantry. Therefore, Extract A’s
argument regarding the populist movement having a small membership was very accurate in the 1870’s due to a
lack of co-operative from Russias largest section of the population.
However, Extract A states that most of the peasantry “tended to adhere to monarchist ideals and their major
concerns were economic not political”. This can be argued to be inaccurate as many of the peasantry fought,
especially for emancipation, for freedom of poverty but they also fought for many political rights too. As although a
section of the peasantry wanted further representation, a higher political voice, legal rights of their own property
and choices they make as an individual. It can be argued that even economic desires are political under Russia,
serfdom limited the peasantry’s economic gain due to social and political controls, which they fought to get out of.
Additionally, with the Education reforms of 1862-63 some universities still kept fees for those in poorer
backgrounds, this would lead to opposition by the peasantry for economic but also political change. This was due
to the fact that although political freedoms were gained, their economic position stopped the peasantry accessing
such liberties and therefore wanting the political system of fees to change as well as having more economic
opportunities. Therefore, Extract A’s argument regarding the peasantry’s opposition can be seen as not convincing
as all their desires can be viewed as political when it is against the Tsarist government and the unequal treatment
they face compared to the nobles.
In Extract B, it states that the “populist movement gathered pace in 1860’s and 1870’s” which is supported as the
group begun to develop itself into various groups from the Narodniks to Land and liberty 1877 that split into Black
Repartition 1879 and The Peoples will 1879. Many more Narodniks were joining these radical opposition groups due
to their dissatisfaction with Alexander II reforms not going far enough as well as owning “a sense of responsibility
to improve the lives of the peasantry”. As more of the Russian population was becoming educated, more were
turning to radicalism of western ideas through the use of Alexander II early reforms of education, the emancipation
edict 1861 and the relaxation of censorship. This was due to being able to understand the abuse and exploitation the
peasantry and other sections of society was suffering by those in power, whilst being able to compare it to the
democratic systems of the west. The popularisation of these groups is supported through the “go to the people”
movement where 4000 Narodniks joined together to try and gain peasantry support, and other increasing activism
highlights their increased membership showing Extract B’s statement to be convincing.
However, Extract B claims that the “states harsh repression of Narodnik activities, including arrest and exiles” was
impactful, which can be argued as inaccurate in the case of show trials introduced by Pahlen, the minister of justice.
Such as ‘trial of 50’ and ‘trial of 193’ which were put in place to attempt to ridicule and demonise the populist
movements. However, this back red as the judges felt sympathy for those accused and acquitted most of the
populist and gave the rest a lenient sentence, this exempli es the “harsh repression…including arrests” to be false.
This example shows that repression was obviously ineffective as high ranking members of society, such as judges,
would arguably be the rst to support the tsarists regime out of fear or respect. The fact that they were instead
supporting the Narodniks shows that the repression of such groups cannot be considered as harsh or they would
fi fi fi
-
relation to the development of opposition in Russia in the 1870’s
In Extract A, it claims “the populist found little support amongst the peasants” this was very true as Romas, one out
of 4000 Narodniks, in the “go to the people” movement sold cheap manufactured goods to peasants to show the
peasantry a new form of living. However the peasants couldn’t understand the cheap costs and refused to buy from
him, later murdering his assistants and bombing the store, as well as blaming him for a re forcing him to ee for
his life. This was due to peasantry still lacking education and being under the strict belief that the tsar is the “father
of the people” and therefore were against revolting in such a radical way for such a controversial system, further
supported by “workers rarely shared, or even understood, the objectives of the propagandists”. It was believed by
many that the peasantry and Narodniks have opposite and contradicting ideas as stated by Aptekman, a Narodnik.
This led to the populist movement having little support or respect from the peasantry. Therefore, Extract A’s
argument regarding the populist movement having a small membership was very accurate in the 1870’s due to a
lack of co-operative from Russias largest section of the population.
However, Extract A states that most of the peasantry “tended to adhere to monarchist ideals and their major
concerns were economic not political”. This can be argued to be inaccurate as many of the peasantry fought,
especially for emancipation, for freedom of poverty but they also fought for many political rights too. As although a
section of the peasantry wanted further representation, a higher political voice, legal rights of their own property
and choices they make as an individual. It can be argued that even economic desires are political under Russia,
serfdom limited the peasantry’s economic gain due to social and political controls, which they fought to get out of.
Additionally, with the Education reforms of 1862-63 some universities still kept fees for those in poorer
backgrounds, this would lead to opposition by the peasantry for economic but also political change. This was due
to the fact that although political freedoms were gained, their economic position stopped the peasantry accessing
such liberties and therefore wanting the political system of fees to change as well as having more economic
opportunities. Therefore, Extract A’s argument regarding the peasantry’s opposition can be seen as not convincing
as all their desires can be viewed as political when it is against the Tsarist government and the unequal treatment
they face compared to the nobles.
In Extract B, it states that the “populist movement gathered pace in 1860’s and 1870’s” which is supported as the
group begun to develop itself into various groups from the Narodniks to Land and liberty 1877 that split into Black
Repartition 1879 and The Peoples will 1879. Many more Narodniks were joining these radical opposition groups due
to their dissatisfaction with Alexander II reforms not going far enough as well as owning “a sense of responsibility
to improve the lives of the peasantry”. As more of the Russian population was becoming educated, more were
turning to radicalism of western ideas through the use of Alexander II early reforms of education, the emancipation
edict 1861 and the relaxation of censorship. This was due to being able to understand the abuse and exploitation the
peasantry and other sections of society was suffering by those in power, whilst being able to compare it to the
democratic systems of the west. The popularisation of these groups is supported through the “go to the people”
movement where 4000 Narodniks joined together to try and gain peasantry support, and other increasing activism
highlights their increased membership showing Extract B’s statement to be convincing.
However, Extract B claims that the “states harsh repression of Narodnik activities, including arrest and exiles” was
impactful, which can be argued as inaccurate in the case of show trials introduced by Pahlen, the minister of justice.
Such as ‘trial of 50’ and ‘trial of 193’ which were put in place to attempt to ridicule and demonise the populist
movements. However, this back red as the judges felt sympathy for those accused and acquitted most of the
populist and gave the rest a lenient sentence, this exempli es the “harsh repression…including arrests” to be false.
This example shows that repression was obviously ineffective as high ranking members of society, such as judges,
would arguably be the rst to support the tsarists regime out of fear or respect. The fact that they were instead
supporting the Narodniks shows that the repression of such groups cannot be considered as harsh or they would
fi fi fi
