PC: Alexander II Lives = No 1891 Famine

If Tsar Alexander II survives the 1881 attempt on his life and governs for at least another decade, what does that mean for the Russian response to their food crisis in 1891? And what does that, in turn, mean for political culture in Russia (eg OTL's rise of Marxism)?
 
The butterflies are fucking massive, as are the knock-ons. For one, he was planning on instituing a real duma days after he was killed.

It's really hard to say, as his death had a huge psychological impact on his son and grandson, who both went hardline reactionary. Without that, you might see Alex III following in his father's footsteps, and by the time of Nick II Russia could be a functioning democracy.
 
Well, if Russia is a democracy by the 1890's that would certainly help forestall the spread of revolutionary marxism in said decade, especially considering the policies in 1891 are apt to be much more competent, or at least in touch, than OTL. Could it be, by 1920 or so, Russia is as capitalist (or at least no more socialist) than the US?
 
Well, if Russia is a democracy by the 1890's that would certainly help forestall the spread of revolutionary marxism in said decade, especially considering the policies in 1891 are apt to be much more competent, or at least in touch, than OTL. Could it be, by 1920 or so, Russia is as capitalist (or at least no more socialist) than the US?

It's quite hard to say. A democratic Russia would still be on a path for conflict with both Japan and Austria, and would still have Britain as an enemy. The First World War as we know it would be butterflied away (probably), so we don't know if Russia will receive the same massive external shocks that so crippled it in 1905 and 1917.
 
Alexander II WI’s have come up a few times here, and others have tempered the ostensible benefits of his survival by suggesting that an 1881 Duma would not really be much more sovereign than 1905 Duma i.e. the tsar would retain significant veto power (which, unlike the UK monarch, is likely to be exercised much more actively) amongst other things. Apparently Alexander, while relatively enlightened, was still something of a ‘true believer’ in autocracy. This is the man who forcibly deported hundreds of thousands of Circassians for ethnic cleansing purposes, so it is hard to picture him as willingly taking a back seat to democracy. What will he do when something inevitably goes against his wishes in the Duma: will he be smart enough to turn the other cheek, or will his first instinct after a lifetime of being ‘unshakable autocrat’ be to just prorogue it in the manner Charles I? Much will depend on Alexander’s personality and political aptitude.

Another issue is that intangible factor of ‘political culture’. Aside from the obvious heavy currents of authoritarianism present at this time, the only other experience the country has had with mass, organised political institutions has been with populist socialists. Russia in 1881 has no real liberal tradition to speak of, and to say that by the 1890s a moderate party akin to the British Liberals or Conservatives could be in power seems optimistic. It should be noted that even today, partiality to autocratic government, along with deep suspicion and contempt for western institutions like democracy are prevalent in Russia. Almost a quarter century after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has yet to create a true, stable & efficacious democracy in large part due to a political culture whose last experiment with democracy before 1905 was during the day of Kievan Rus.

A Duma might prove, as in OTL, to be illegitimate and largely ignored, with the centre of politics being constituted elsewhere. Or it might become swamped with socialists intent on radical reform, causing the tsar to turn against it. There are just too many variables to predict with certainty what will happen. However, I agree that this is probably Russia’s last best chance to set up some kind of parliamentary system before a revolution breaks out. But it will be precarious and there is no guarantee of easy success. The key question will be whether or not, and to what extent, a diverse cross section of the Russian population will engage constructively with this institution.
 
Another issue is that intangible factor of ‘political culture’. Aside from the obvious heavy currents of authoritarianism present at this time, the only other experience the country has had with mass, organised political institutions has been with populist socialists.

Wait, I thought the socialists started becoming popular in the 1890's after the 1891 famine?
 
You may well be right; I'm not the most well versed person in Russian history and the rise of genuine grassroots support for groups like the S-Rs may date from the 1890s.

Nevertheless, it appears that the Narodniks, who might best be described as proto-agrarian socialists, were politically active by the 1870s, going into the countryside in groups and preaching revolution to the peasants, and it was this early political education to which I was referring. All the Narodniks need to do to improve their platform's appeal is adopt the whole 'land to the peasants' land redistribution plan like the SR's did, and they have the potential to be a very potent force in Russian politics, as history showed the Socialist Revolutionaries were perhaps the only party that ever developed genuine widespread support.
 
Last edited:
Nevertheless, it appears that the Narodniks, who might best be described as proto-agrarian socialists, were politically active by the 1870s, going into the countryside in groups and preaching revolution to the peasants, and it was this early political education to which I was referring.

Well yes, but there's a difference between being "politically active" and being "politically successful"; as it is, I've read the "socialist opposition" was "dormant" in OTL's 1880's. It has to be remembered that the Nardoniks had a lot of trouble connecting with the peasants and workers in their earlier years, as the middle and upper class activists found the traditionalist workers heavily religious and loyal to the Tsar. If Russia moves toward democracy before they succeed, then socialism and populism likely take longer to emerge as a potent force in even underground Russian politics.

As to whether Alexander II would allow a "real" democracy in Russia -- I think we have the standard here shouldn't be whether he defers to the Duma and let's the legislature govern (that's unlikely, and he'll remain an active force in Russian politics for as long as he can), but whether the new democratic institutions effectively represent the Russian people and their political culture (for example, the Russian franchise after 1907 would be an example of this done poorly). Because even if the Tsar still governs over the say so of the "people's representatives", if the latter can act as an effective reflection of Russia's political mood, his government is more or less guaranteed to be more politically competent than without them.
 
Well yes, but there's a difference between being "politically active" and being "politically successful"; as it is, I've read the "socialist opposition" was "dormant" in OTL's 1880's. It has to be remembered that the Nardoniks had a lot of trouble connecting with the peasants and workers in their earlier years, as the middle and upper class activists found the traditionalist workers heavily religious and loyal to the Tsar. If Russia moves toward democracy before they succeed, then socialism and populism likely take longer to emerge as a potent force in even underground Russian politics.

Point taken. Though with that mass of deeply parochial peasants, one wonders about the direction Russian politics will develop in. RE your point about representation, that is another big question. A Duma in 1881 is likely to be a restricted franchise since it is not being conceded as the result of a popular revolution. Or if the franchise is broad, it will probably have a strong upper house.
 
Last edited:
Point taken. Though with that mass of deeply parochial peasants, one wonders about the direction Russian politics will develop in.

It's a very enticing thought, but one I admittedly have no idea how to expand on. The one thing I'm inclined to think: if the Duma is established earlier, under this kind of politics, the franchise is likely to expand by 1910 or so to greater extents than OTL, even if it starts out being very limited.
 
Top