Russian Industrialization and possibilities

The thread is created to exchange knowledge on the process on industrialization of Russia in the 19th century. Pointed out by @alexmilman it could have been way better. The question on this matter is, how Russia can start better on industralization to rival at least Austria-Hungary, Italy or even France.

Normally, I wanted to know how Eastern Europe in general can develop better in terms of industrialization and what kind of social effects it will have on the socities of Eastern Europe. Considering I know more about the Ottomans than Russia, I avoid the former and keep the thread focussed on Russian Industrialization and how much Russian society would have in common with Western Europe? (Same kind of secularization possible? Which Western European State would it have the same resemblence; Germany, Italy? Would it be a Super Power like the USSR was 40-50 years earlier than 1949?)

The PoD you can work with is 1856, after the Crimean War.

Ready, set, go
 
Last edited:
The thread is created to exchange knowledge on the process on industrialization of Russia in the 19th century. Pointed out by @alexmilman it could have been way better. The question on this matter is, how Russia can start better on industralization to rival at least Austria-Hungary, Italy or even France.

Normally, I wanted to know how Eastern Europe in general can develop better in terms of industrialization and what kind of social effects it will have on the socities of Eastern Europe. Considering I know more about the Ottomans than Russia, I avoid the former and keep the thread focussed on Russian Industrialization and how much Russian society would have in common with Western Europe? (Same kind of secularization possible? Which Western European State would it have the same resemblence; Germany, Italy? Would it be a Super Power like the USSR was 40-50 years earlier than 1949?)

The PoD you can work with is 1856, after the Crimean War.

Ready, set, go

Not that I'm a great (or even just) a specialist in the area but here are my 2c worth based almost exclusively on the known mistakes:

In OTL post-CW Russia suffered from the 2 fundamental problems: (a) shortage of a capital for the investments and (b) shortage of the cadres needed for industrial development (aka, labor force).

Obviously, capital could not be obtained just by printing money so the reasonable way of getting it would be what Witte did: raise import/export tariffs so that the foreign companies would be interested in investing into the Russian industries rather than just exporting the natural resources. As a secondary source, trade with the even less developed countries could be beneficial. At that time active Western penetration into the Chinese markets already started (2nd Opium War 1856 - 60) so Russia may try to get a modest share of it (not to get in conflict with GB and France) and trading with Persia was also an option. Annexation of Bukhara and Khiva was happening in the early 1870s so speeding it by a couple years would not change things too much.

Not wasting money also would be great: war of 1877 - 78 cost 3 times more than construction of the Transsiberian Railroad or more than 2 annual revenues (and required a foreign loan on very harsh conditions); internal loans amounted to 700M rubles and 417M paper money had been printed with a resulting lowering of the course of paper currency from 85 to 50 gold kopeek. Total cost was estimated as 900M of the military expenses, 400M losses in trade and manufacturing and 100M losses in the Russian Caucasus territories due to the Ottoman attacks. As a "contribution" Russia got territory on the Danube lost in the CW and Batum but no money. The losses delayed construction of the TransSib and switch to the gold standard for at least 15 years. https://profile.ru/culture/skolko-stoilo-osvobozhdenie-bolgarii-9681/

For comparison, in 1877 state income from all sources amounted to 570M and expenses - over 600M while in 1894 (under Witte) income amounted to 1,004M and expenses 970M. http://istmat.info/node/47078

Then goes the only thing that was developing under AII: railroads. Until Witte was put in charge during the reign of AIII the system kept costing government considerable amounts of money but he managed to make it profitable (you can find details on Wiki) just by changing the existing regulations.

Now, as far as the labor force is involved, Serfs Emancipation was done following the classic Russian schema "had the best intentions in mind and ended up as always". Preservation of the communal land ownership and tax responsibility proved to be counter-productive on more than one account: there was no stimulus for technological improvements and innovations because the land was owned by a community, the loans had been given to the community, the losers had been responsibility of the community (those better off would end up paying their taxes) and without an individual ownership of the land there was no reason to invest into it (next year it could be given to another person). As a result, there was not enough completely destroyed peasants ready to join industrial work force while the productive peasants had been handicapped by the communal responsibilities, absence of a personal interest and difficulty (or impossibility) of turning themselves into the individual farmers.
On the other side of the equation creation of the big profitable agricultural enterprises also had been slow because on one hand most of the nobility had neither capital nor knowledge needed for accomplishing such a task while on the other, true capitalists had been facing problems with buying the big chunks of land: the reform produced fragmentation within the estates which were already not too big (due to the specifics of the Russian inheritance system the big landowners often had their lands in more than one place; quite often a single village was owned by more than one person with a permanent confusion and lawsuits regarding the precise borders).
 
@alexmilman Could the state improve crop yield by providing such cutting edge technology like wheat threshers to each peasant commune? and on that note, what other things do you think the state could have done in regards to land ownership and land reform if they were reformist?
 
@alexmilman Could the state improve crop yield by providing such cutting edge technology like wheat threshers to each peasant commune? and on that note, what other things do you think the state could have done in regards to land ownership and land reform if they were reformist?

Look, Russian Empire was a capitalist state, not the Soviet Union and it was not government’s function to provide its subjects with free stuff. There was specially created bank allowing peasant communities to make loans for the land purchases. If and when these communities felt need to buy some equipment they could do so. As the Soviet experience demonstrated, receiving equipment for free meant that it would be left to rot in expectation that the next year the government will give a new free toy. The big estates had been buying the modern equipment and using services of the specialists.

The most productive thing proved to be Stolypin reform which allowed to start creation of a new class of the Russian farmers interested in improving productivity of their farms. They could either buy the needed equipment or, AFAIK, hire specialists with the equipment when needed.

Then again, I’m talking strictly about the European Russia in a narrow meaning of the term. In Ukraine, AFAIK, communal ownership was much weaker and the same goes for the territory of the Army of Don. Program of settlement in Siberia was conducted on a strictly individual basis with the government providing an infrastructure, transportation and loans.
 
Last edited:
I think 1856 too far into the Industrialization. The momentum of progress that Russia makes only starts rolling from that point on, the chronic problem for the Administration is the Administration itself.

They had no state budget and little actual state activity prior to 1800 to which they had to build from that point forward. The sheer inertia of trying to move Russia would be a nightmare.

The lack of confidence in Administrative stability costs the state entrepreneurship that predicated early and rapid Industrialization, look at America. No confidence in state protections little risk taking actions.

The lack of critical infrastructure. The greatest strength and weakness of Russia is her vastness. The amount of infrastructure alone requires a enormous expenditure of resources which the state only recently got.

That same inertia propelled her into becoming the Soviet Union and most probably greater than the Soviet Union if she survived 1918.

Personally I call it the Russian stagnation between the two Greats, Peter and Catherine. The prior for planting the idea of the State and the latter for absolutely nothing else.

Stalin, Putin and Peter 1, were willing to institute a reign of terror to achieve their goals for Russia, to gain momentum for reform.

Thereby I see no other method by which Russian Industrializes faster without some Tsar willing to reap a bloody toll across Russia from this point forward.
 
Last edited:
just look at the development of poland where serfs were emancipated with less care for the nobility due to their noblility being polish, it developed at a much faster rate than european russia. Not saying that polands development can be easily replicated in european russia but i'd say a lot better can be done.

This might be controversial but id say a big defeat in the russo turkish war followed by a massive peasant revolt in the black soil region of russia would provoke massive land reform and as long as alexander the second lives potentially a duma thirty years earlier than OTL, that alone would kickstart modernisation.
 
I think 1856 too far into the Industrialization. The momentum of progress that Russia makes only starts rolling from that point on, the chronic problem for the Administration is the Administration itself.

An assumption that industrialization has to be conducted by the Administration is applicable to the dictatorial regimes and there was already an early attempt by Peter I which was a complete failure with the long-term negative consequences for the Russian economy. Industrialization required certain prerequisites which simply were not there during the earlier times, like class of the people willing to become industrial entrepreneurs and having a capital needed for that purpose. This class did not really exist even in 1856: its creation only started in the 1860s. Administration could create conditions favorable to creation of that class but it could not create it by issuing the orders: Peter I and Catherine II tried without a noticeable success.

Unlike Western Europe, Russia had very little in the terms of tradition in the area of industrialization and neither experience nor mentality (not to mention a needed capital) could be obtained overnight. Starting late was not critically important. What was important is to create favorable conditions and not to screw up the process (aka, stay out of the wars).

They had no state budget and little actual state activity prior to 1800 to which they had to build from that point forward. The sheer inertia of trying to move Russia would be a nightmare.

Not quite true about the state budget because even during the reign of Catherine I the state incomes and expenses had been discussed, just as the taxation policies. What did not exist until later period was a separate budget for the imperial family. As for the "little actual state activity prior to 1800", if Russia had noticeably more of it it would be left without a population: government was regulating pretty much everything down to the hire styles an fashions. What it did not succeed in was a change of mentality needed to convert the Russian merchants into their Western equivalents with a proper understanding of the credit and credit institutions, willingness to trade overseas (Russian seagoing merchant marine was pretty much non-existent until the late XIX even if the river traffic was steadily increasing).


The lack of confidence in Administrative stability costs the state entrepreneurship that predicated early and rapid Industrialization, look at America. No confidence in state protections little risk taking actions.

Even a superficial look at the reign of Peter I would tell you that state protection was tried and pretty much failed. The areas steadily growing were those to which government paid a little attention. Comparison with the US is inapplicable: the US was a part of the "Western" culture from the very beginning and Russia was not. Not sure what "Administrative stability" means: short of the XVIII coups, which changed little on administrative level, Russian Empire was quite stable state.


The lack of critical infrastructure. The greatest strength and weakness of Russia is her vastness. The amount of infrastructure alone requires a enormous expenditure of resources which the state only recently got.

An overwhelming majority of the population lived in the European part of the Russian Empire with the roads being quite adequate for the XVIII and even early XIX century and a lot of commercial traffic had been conducted over the riverways on which creation of the canal systems started in the early XVIII with the Volga-Baltic Waterway (Mariinsk Canal System) functioning since the early XIX.

Personally I call it the Russian stagnation between the two Greats, Peter and Catherine. The prior for planting the idea of the State and the latter for absolutely nothing else.

Idea of the State well predates Peter I and both he and Catherine II noticeably failed in the terms of industrialization. While during the reign of Catherine II Russian exports skyrocketed, Russia was exporting the natural products and iron in the pegs and importing the final products. In other words, as Witte put it, Russia was a semi-colonial state and remained such all the way to the late XIX.

Thereby I see no other method by which Russian Industrializes faster without some Tsar willing to reap a bloody toll across Russia from this point forward.

Had been tried by Peter (failure), Stalin (short term success with the catastrophic long term consequences) and Mao (failure). Progress by decree, unlike the real progress, is not working no matter how big the "bloody toll" is.
 
just look at the development of poland where serfs were emancipated with less care for the nobility due to their noblility being polish, it developed at a much faster rate than european russia. Not saying that polands development can be easily replicated in european russia but i'd say a lot better can be done.

This might be controversial but id say a big defeat in the russo turkish war followed by a massive peasant revolt in the black soil region of russia would provoke massive land reform and as long as alexander the second lives potentially a duma thirty years earlier than OTL, that alone would kickstart modernisation.

Please explain how the land reform that gives more land to the peasants ends up with the industrialization? Not that Poland (as 2nd Republic) was an industrialized state.

Then, of course, goes inevitable AII and the Duma (why so many people have this illusion is beyond me). To start with, he did not plan any kind of a Western-style Parliament. Program proposed by Loris-Melikov assumed creation of the temporary commissions to make proposals regarding the needed reforms and then inclusion of few loyal experts chosen by administration into the State Council in an advisory capacity. That's it. Not to mention that in OTL Duma had little to do with the Russian industrialization and it is unclear how exactly would it "kickstart" it. If anything, reign of AII demonstrated that the good intentions combined with a shortage of brains usually produce the result opposite to the intended. Speaking of which, in the terms of "brains" the Duma would hardly be a substantial positive addition.
 
Peter I could not attempt Industrialization since that had yet to exist. The reforms of Peter I were made to do away with the Feudal System and enter the Absolutist State which was undoubtedly a step forward. The extension of serfdom actually helped Russia and allowed to export food and minerals since labor was fixed, true they were basically slaves but with their own institutions and traditional rights, like petitioning the Tsar, which Catherine did away with.

There are prerequisites for Industrialization namely land, labor, capital and entrepreneurship ask Adam Smith. The nobility had a lot of land, labor, capital just no entrepreneurship because there was no consistency in creation and application of laws, too much risk too little reward. A consolidated and formalized tax code or Finance Ministry could have alleviated fears of arbitrary collection and implementation of taxes. The establishment of a State Bank again, this can alleviate capital problems and kick-start a financial industry. The class problem did not really exist since there was already a skilled urban middle class just the problem with the ad-hoc nature of Russian governmwnt.

18 coups a stable state? That is administrative stability, the ability of an administration to remain consistent after crises, such as inheritance, civil war or unrest, mainly saying previous ruler implements such and such, new ruler removes such and such and implements such and such contrary to previous ruler. That does not make investor, inventors, bankers, people in general feel secure in taking risks.

Catherine did make discussions for tax and laws but they ended with little to show for. The hair, beard etc. Tax is as stated arbitrary taxation and the simple fact she had to create committees just to attempt to formalize laws and taxes screams government incompetence.

The canal and waterways project started early 1800 but when did it finish? Russia had no sea access for a vast majority of its populated areas, food exports skyrocketed because Catherine expanded into the Black Sea to facilitate trade, but after that nothing more.

Any progress is progress degree is arbitrary, and if you can give examples of Russian leader who successfully lead Russia into progress without Hard Handed rule give me and example. I can give Peter I, Alexander III, Stalin, Putin. (The Stalin part is sad but somewhat truthful)
 
Peter I could not attempt Industrialization since that had yet to exist.

Peter was forcing development of the mining industry, metallurgy and general manufacturing. While this was not formally "industrialization" (how could he get ahead of the West!) it was an attempt to move in that direction. The problem was it failed in its purpose: Russia remained supplier of the natural resources.

The reforms of Peter I were made to do away with the Feudal System and enter the Absolutist State which was undoubtedly a step forward.

You are clearly confused on the subject. The "feudal system" was dead before Peter's reign and creation of the absolutist state in Russia started at the time of Ivan III and was completed before Peter was born.


The extension of serfdom actually helped Russia and allowed to export food and minerals since labor was fixed, true they were basically slaves but with their own institutions and traditional rights, like petitioning the Tsar, which Catherine did away with.

This extension killed any opportunity of industrialization for the next century and a half and as far as the "traditional rights" are involved within context of Peter's reign, there was a death penalty by hanging for the group petitions.

There are prerequisites for Industrialization namely land, labor, capital and entrepreneurship ask Adam Smith. The nobility had a lot of land, labor, capital just no entrepreneurship because there was no consistency in creation and application of laws, too much risk too little reward.

Knowledge of Adam Smith is not a substitution for ignorance in the Russian history. Nobility had land but did not have a capital. And as far as entrepreneurship was involved, except for the very few people on the very top, Russian nobility physically could not became entrepreneurs because until the reign of Peter III all males had to serve in the army or civic administration until they were permitted to retire due to an advanced age or because they became handicapped. Not to mention that in a "normal" society industrialization is supposedly associated with the capitalist class, not the nobility.

The merchant class in Russia had problems with becoming capitalists because the labor was in a short supply due to the Peter's "reform" of a serfdom and quite consistent policies of the following rulers all the way to AII.

A consolidated and formalized tax code or Finance Ministry could have alleviated fears of arbitrary collection and implementation of taxes.

The problem was not an absence of the formalized taxes but inability to collect taxes defined by the existing code.


The establishment of a State Bank again, this can alleviate capital problems and kick-start a financial industry.

The 1st state bank in Russia was created in 1768.

The class problem did not really exist since there was already a skilled urban middle class just the problem with the ad-hoc nature of Russian government.

Sorry, that "urban middle class" was skilled in what exactly if there were not industrial enterprises in the cities?

18 coups a stable state?

You have a well-developed imagination. The "coups" (and I'll be generous in definition) of the XVIII century:
1. Catherine I brought to power
2. Reign of Peter II - Menshikov removed from power; hardly a "coup" but let it be
3. Reign of Ivan VI - Biron removed from power;
4. Elizabeth took power
5. Catherine II took power
6. Paul I assassinated, Alexander I took power

It worth noticing that most of these coups changed noting in the terms of a broader administration and none of them changed fundamentals of the Russian empire so the state was quite stable.


That is administrative stability, the ability of an administration to remain consistent after crises, such as inheritance, civil war or unrest, mainly saying previous ruler implements such and such, new ruler removes such and such and implements such and such contrary to previous ruler. That does not make investor, inventors, bankers, people in general feel secure in taking risks.

Most of this is absolutely irrelevant to the subject including absence of the civil war in Russia between ToT and 1918. An implication that between XVIII and XIX century in Europe the next ruler was always following policy of a previous one does not stand up to any criticism. As far as Russia of the XVIII - mid-XIX was involved, there was very little in the terms of bankers and investors not because of the non-existent instability and unwillingness to take a risk but because the existing system by its stability was making creation of the truly capitalist enterprises quite difficult and serf-based economy was basically preventing creation of the modern industries with the shareholders, investors, etc.: a noble serf owner was creating an enterprise on his land with his serfs as a labor force. If person was not a noble, he could not own the serfs and personally free labor was in a short supply.


Catherine did make discussions for tax and laws but they ended with little to show for. The hair, beard etc.

Actually, the hair tax did not exist and beard tax existed in Peter's time. As for the rest, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Russia had a well developed taxation system well before Peter who, rather typically, managed to screw things up by his "innovations" like individual tax, but by the time of Catherine his experiments had been rolled back. To be fair, one of his money-extracting schemes did work: usage of the "eagled" paper for the official purposes.


The canal and waterways project started early 1800 but when did it finish?

Yawn. You really don't know what you are talking about: the first waterway projects had been started during the reign of Peter I (Ladoga Canal - 1719 - 30) and work on the waterways systems continued during most of the XVIII. Construction of Mariinskaya System started in 1799 and it was opened in 1810.

Any progress is progress degree is arbitrary, and if you can give examples of Russian leader who successfully lead Russia into progress without Hard Handed rule give me and example. I can give Peter I, Alexander III, Stalin, Putin. (The Stalin part is sad but somewhat truthful)

Peter I - reforms failed. Russia remained supplier of the natural products, no industrialization. Long-term effect: expansion of a serfdom made industrialization impossible for the next century and a half. Cost of reforms and war between 20 and 25% of the population.

Alexander III - did not force anything but industrialization started in a high rate due to the skillful attraction of the foreign capital and stimulating domestic developments. How exactly he (or rather Witte) qualifies as a "Hard Hand" I have no idea.

Stalin - did push industrialization through with the huge losses of a human life. Within less than 40 years Soviet economy created by him started crumbling due to the counterproductive model and by the late 1980s totally fall apart: unnatural methods do not produce the lasting results.

Putin is a strange example because, while being authoritarian, he does not have power compared to what Peter I or Stalin had and Russian 'progress' is rather narrow because it is too heavily relying on gas and oil exports.
 
Yet Russia was a leading exporter of iron and foodstuffs, sounds like a success for me, by his time those were the only two major industries.

The Table of Rank and conscription of nobility is absolutists, afterwards the nobility were no longer nobility and more servants of the State since enoblement can be given for exemplary service and was regularly given, the state became less aristocratic and more meritocratic.

The serfs by law were bound to the land, but by tradition and customs reserved many privileges, the right to petition the Tsar is one of those and a direct custom to air their grievances, the death by hanging is also a punishment for many a crime.

The first State Bank of Russia failed and took many years to attempt once again.

There was especially State Serfs and Central Russian region serfs, they had cottage industries like textiles etc. the black soil region serfs were less inclined to such since agriculture was productive in their area, there were migratory workforces in Russia moving from countryside to city on different cities.

Peter III died then Catherine strengthened nobility, removing many traditional rights of serfs especially right to petition the Tsar.

Catherine had dozens of peasant revolts and Pugachevs Rebellion for her long reign, the other usurpers regularly fought and suppressed these revolts because of disputed succession, that is not stable more the opposite in fact.

Exactly my point individual tax beard tax etc. How can you gain confidence with such, committes for laws and taxation would not be created by Catherine if it was effective, more importantly after they achieved little.

The same canals that are frozen or flooded for good parts of the year, Rasputitsa and general winter, makes infrastructure a nightmare especially for commerce that requires consistent and continuous movement of goods.

That was famine not Peter, the pre industrial nation can hardly solve it especially Russia due to geography. The French Monarchy primarily fell due to Famine.

Alexander III rolled back many previous reforms especially law, his personal and active hand in building Russia was testament to this, he built the Administration that the preceding Tsars would use.

Stalin was long term unsuccessful because he followed a flawed plan, the short term effects are clear though, the hardest choices require the strongest of wills.

Putin is relying on Gas export to pump living conditions, but Russia is growing even with the sanctions and heavy Propaganda against trade with them.

Russia is only effectively lead by the nose.
 
Please explain how the land reform that gives more land to the peasants ends up with the industrialization? Not that Poland (as 2nd Republic) was an industrialized state..

Industrialization demands greater mobility of peasantry. A reason why the Stolypin reforms had such great potential was because it moved from the peasants collective owned land to personally owning the land. This meant that peasant could sell his land, and move away with the money (often to try their opportunity in the cities), and other peasants could buy the land and invest in better tools and agricultural improvements. When we see the peasant being freed elsewhere than Russia in the 18-19th century, this was part of package deal. But in Russia after freeing the serfs, they still kept a collective ownership of the land, which meant agricultural investment demanded the entire community agreeing, which is far harder.

Early industrialization in countries with a large rural population and relative small urban population was also often pushed by already successful farmers, who established small scale manufacturing on their farms, where they hired rural worker or smaller farmers to work for them. This manufacturing sometimes grew into large industries, some good example of this would be IKEA and LEGO (to use more famous brand) both started in the middle of nowhere and still have a major presence these places. Of course both are 20th century examples of this, but we saw similar things in the 19th century.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Early industrialization in countries with a large rural population and relative small urban population was also often pushed by already successful farmers, who established small scale manufacturing on their farms, where they hired rural worker or smaller farmers to work for them
Those farmers also create domestic demand for nascent manufacturing. This is also the case in East Asian Tigers.
 
Industrialization demands greater mobility of peasantry. A reason why the Stolypin reforms had such great potential was because it moved from the peasants collective owned land to personally owning the land. This meant that peasant could sell his land, and move away with the money (often to try their opportunity in the cities), and other peasants could buy the land and invest in better tools and agricultural improvements. When we see the peasant being freed elsewhere than Russia in the 18-19th century, this was part of package deal. But in Russia after freeing the serfs, they still kept a collective ownership of the land, which meant agricultural investment demanded the entire community agreeing, which is far harder.

Early industrialization in countries with a large rural population and relative small urban population was also often pushed by already successful farmers, who established small scale manufacturing on their farms, where they hired rural worker or smaller farmers to work for them. This manufacturing sometimes grew into large industries, some good example of this would be IKEA and LEGO (to use more famous brand) both started in the middle of nowhere and still have a major presence these places. Of course both are 20th century examples of this, but we saw similar things in the 19th century.

That’s all correct but not related to what conversation was about: giving more land to the rural communities instead of the individuals.
 
Those farmers also create domestic demand for nascent manufacturing. This is also the case in East Asian Tigers.
The fundamental problem for Russia (in a narrow meaning of the term) was the sad fact that there was no historic tradition of the individual farmership. The peasants had been used to the communal style and majority of the Russian peasants preferred it even when Stolypin reforms provided a window of opportunity. Needless to say that the government supported communal system because collective responsibility made taxation easy.

Of course, this was not an uniform situation for all Russian empire. In what amounts to “historic” Ukraine individual landownership was reasonably common prior to Stolypin reforms and the same goes for some other parts of the empire.
 
Please explain how the land reform that gives more land to the peasants ends up with the industrialization? Not that Poland (as 2nd Republic) was an industrialized state.

Then, of course, goes inevitable AII and the Duma (why so many people have this illusion is beyond me). To start with, he did not plan any kind of a Western-style Parliament. Program proposed by Loris-Melikov assumed creation of the temporary commissions to make proposals regarding the needed reforms and then inclusion of few loyal experts chosen by administration into the State Council in an advisory capacity. That's it. Not to mention that in OTL Duma had little to do with the Russian industrialization and it is unclear how exactly would it "kickstart" it. If anything, reign of AII demonstrated that the good intentions combined with a shortage of brains usually produce the result opposite to the intended. Speaking of which, in the terms of "brains" the Duma would hardly be a substantial positive addition.


I have no illusions about the loris melikov scheme, i think with a disasterous defeat and a credible threat to government power, potentially a more radical scheme could be proposed.


The idea that land reform leads to a more modern economy that can industrialise quicker isnt a novel one, in the russian context freeing serfs from their neofeudal obligations to stay near where their landlords property would allow for migration to cities and a more mobile work force.

Poland was not industrialised by western standards but proportionally it was better developed than much of the rest of the russian empire, part was due to their succesful land reform which broke the power of the nobility, which leads to my next point.

Indtroducing a Duma wouldnt necessarily lead to industry but taking away the power of the nobility in influencing policy certainly is a step in the right direction. I'm not proposing that any of these things would immediately create industry out of thin air but russia achieved remarkable growth following the 1905 revolution and i think an earlier version of that revolution would be a good way to create earlier modernisation and potentially industrialisation.
 
I have no illusions about the loris melikov scheme, i think with a disasterous defeat and a credible threat to government power, potentially a more radical scheme could be proposed.


The idea that land reform leads to a more modern economy that can industrialise quicker isnt a novel one, in the russian context freeing serfs from their neofeudal obligations to stay near where their landlords property would allow for migration to cities and a more mobile work force.

Poland was not industrialised by western standards but proportionally it was better developed than much of the rest of the russian empire, part was due to their succesful land reform which broke the power of the nobility, which leads to my next point.

Indtroducing a Duma wouldnt necessarily lead to industry but taking away the power of the nobility in influencing policy certainly is a step in the right direction. I'm not proposing that any of these things would immediately create industry out of thin air but russia achieved remarkable growth following the 1905 revolution and i think an earlier version of that revolution would be a good way to create earlier modernisation and potentially industrialisation.

Well, more radical schema may or may not happen but let’s be realistic: within the existing historical framework you can’t easily jump over the natural stages of development (revolution excluding) and Russia circa 1860’s or even 1870’s was not necessarily well prepared for jumping into a full-scale constitutional monarchy. Even OTL Duma proved to be quite messy and not too helpful in solving the problems and revolution of February 1917 demonstrated that there were no brains capable of handling extraordinary situations.

The land reform definitely can be helpful for industrialization but the OTL reform of AII was based on the existing social framework and doing it Stolypin way could quite easily result in a big trouble on all levels because at that time it would break too many existing perceptions (even in OTL Stolypin reform caused a lot of protests from the people who were neither stupid nor reactionary, IIRC even Witte was against it).

An additional problem for AII was the fact that even the free to go peasants would not have were to go: the industrial enterprises did not exist and the merchant class did not have capital, experience or tradition of turning itself into the modern capitalists. Things like that are not happening overnight. Plus, regime of AII made things more difficult by its policy of the low tariffs: emerging Russian industry could not compete with the foreign imports (Witte removed this problem by raising import tariffs and thus attracting the foreign 8nvestments and expertise).

As for Poland, it was more developed than Russia proper even before AII and the direct parallels are not applicable (plus on the Polish territories there was a big Jewish population which helped a lot). Actually, there was a noticeable difference even between Ukrainians and Russians in the terms of entrepreneurship (see memoirs of baron Wrangel, father of the White general): the Ukrainians were much better in that area. The same goes for the Old Believers: AFAIK, they ended up as a disproportionally high percentage among the Russian big-scale enterprenurs.

I disagree with your assessment of Duma as anti-nobility tool. “Nobility” was not an unified powerful class and it’s influence was steadily going down, especially after the Emancipation. However, with or without Duma it amounted to a big portion of the educated class in Russia and its members would be represented in an elective organ. Actually, in the earlier Duma representation would be greater because there would be fewer non-noble educated people. As I said, nobility did not represent a single political block with the same interests and in OTL its members belonged to a wide specter of the political parties. One of the assassins of AII, Perovskaya, belonged to a high-ranking noble family, Felix Dzerginsky (Cheka) was from estate-owners family, etc. OTOH, General Denikin was from the peasants. AFAIK, OTL Duma was a mixed blessing because while it was addressing some of the labor-related problems (typical for the growing capitalism) it was also supporting insanities like blown out of proportion naval program and, IIRC, was in almost permanent opposition to Stolypin.

As for 1905, industrialization began on a high rate during the reign of AIII and 1905 was more reflective of the “problems of the growth” (capital-labor relations). Fixing some of them helped to improve process that was already under the way and Stolypin land reform allowed further improvements. However, don’t forget that “revolution” of 1905 was a series of loosely related events and that it failed. A successful revolution of February 1917 created nothing but mess and the following Bolshevik coup led to the civil war and a lot of short- and long-term disasters.
 
Top