entrepreneurship; economic utopia; identity; slavophile; patriotism; train building; banking; art patronage; 기업가; 경제적 유토피아; 정체성; 친 슬라브주의; 애국주의; 철도업; 금융업; 예술후원; entrepreneurship; economic utopia; identity; slavophile; patriotism; train building; banking; art patronage
대구사학, v.100, pp.465 - 504
This paper analyzes the character and limit of the economic utopianism which the Russian private entrepreneurs presented as the cause of their economic development in the late nineteenth century. Most of the private entrepreneurs had grown initially from a serf, tax farmer, peddlar or poor tradesman in the region of Moscow and central Russia from the early 19th century. In the 1840s they changed their business into cotton textile industry, bought their freedom and succeeded to accumulate the great wealth through the frugal and innovative entrepreneurship.
The entrepreneurs were shocked with the defeat in the Crimean War and the possibility of future crisis due from economic invasion by the strong and industrial England. From this the entrepreneurs became allied with the slavophile intellectuals for the cause of economic development for the Russian people and of saving the old Russian cultural tradition from the western influences. The patriotic feeling made the entrepreneurs finance the journalist business of the slavophiles. And they acquired the voice of defending their interests in the government through the periodicals.
The Moscow entrepreneurs entered into the train-building industry in the central, southern Volga, and northern Archangelsk regions. In contrast with Peterburg, they claimed to build trains only with the native, private and independent capital. Their successful enterprising activities let the impressed government provide variable subsidies, permissions and profitable tariff. Also the Moscow entrepreneurs were involved in the art patronage and philanthropic charity in order to get the honors and respect from the high society.
But the labor strikes in the 1880s were a never-expected challenge to the entrepreneurs, who indulged in the utopian dream of economic development and adhered to the paternalistic and patriarchical labor policy. With the repressive interference from the government, the enterprises regained the second expansion. Instead, they had to pay the government with silence in all the political problems. This made the private entrepreneurs be faced with the dilemma of choosing the liberalistic reformation movement or defending the reactionary tsarism.