I’m not advocating something similar to Ivan IV or Stalin, just a more measured approach to the social reforms and emphasis upon national economic well-being. By the time AII got the throne Russia definitely needed both social and economic reforms but “society” did not have any experience in either area so it is a small wonder that when the “gates” were widely open it run amok. And when economic situation became noticeably deterriorating it was easily attributed to the inadequacy of the social reforms, not in a faulty economic course. AIII stopped most of the social reforms but attended to the economic ones. The liberals kept being unhappy but this was not critical with the improving economic situation.
As I understand, something of a kind happened in Russia after the fall of the SU: economy was going down the tubes with the masses of people being impoverished and a huge crime wave and the progressives (especially those with the safe government jobs and those not impacted by general situation) had been keep talking about more “democratic” reforms. Small wonder that the whole scenario ended up with an authoritarian regime that offered certain degree of economic stability and law and order.
Of course, the law and order apparatus of the Russian Empire was not up to the tasks it was facing but there was no need to go all the way to Oprichnina or KGB.
Something of the kind did happen. Witte was promoting such programs and there was an objective stimulus as well: a qualified industrial worker had been getting salary 4-5 times higher than a low qualification worker on the same factory. But the problem with high education remained: too few engineers and too many those with a humanitarian education. The lawyers had been multiplying as the mushroom after the rain.
Last edited: