Social and political thought in the 19th century. Political thought of Russia (XIX - XX centuries)

In the 19th century 3 directions of socio-political thought are finally formed: conservative, liberal, radical.

Conservative direction were represented by thinkers who advocated the preservation of the existing order: absolute monarchy, serfdom, noble privileges. Famous historian N.M. Karamzin believed that any limitation of imperial power in Russia would result in social instability.

The idea of ​​unity between the king and the people was justified in the theory of the official nationality of the Minister of Education S.S. Uvarova . It was expressed by the formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.”

The development of conservative-monarchist political thought in Russia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. associated with names K.P. Pobedonostsev and K.N. Leontyev . Russian monarchical conservatism as a political ideology is formed under the influence of the traditional vision of “rule of people in Rus'” and Orthodox culture. Autocracy was perceived as a tradition sanctified by God, as a form of government that corresponds to the national make-up of the Russian people. Parliamentarism and electoral systems have been criticized because they cannot be effective in conditions of “declining morality”

Liberal direction included those who proceeded from the supremacy of individual rights and freedoms over the interests of the state and society. Supporters of this trend advocated reforms.

At first XIX century MM. Speransky developed a draft constitutional reform. It included reforms in the country, the gradual abolition of serfdom, a constitutional limitation of imperial power, the principle of separation of powers, freedom of the press, and public conduct of court cases. But Emperor Alexander I did not implement this project.

At the turn of the 30-40s. XIX century two currents of socio-political thought in Russia take shape - Westernism and Slavophilism. The impetus for the formation of two directions of social thought was the ideas P.Ya. Chaadaeva . In their "Philosophical Letters" he protested against autocracy and serfdom, but at the same time showed pessimism in assessing the present and future of Russia. According to Chaadaev, the Russian people found themselves outside the general logic of history, main reason what became the isolation from Catholic Europe. Later, he made a more optimistic conclusion: using the experience of other nations and learning from the mistakes of others, Russia will be able to solve many problems. social problems and answer the questions that occupy humanity.

Westerners were followers of the ideas of the Enlightenment. They criticized Russian reality and defended the need for its development along the Western European path. Among the famous Westerners of a liberal orientation were K.D. Kavelin and T.N. Granovsky .

Slavophiles associated the renewal of Russia with a refusal to copy the ideals of the West. The history of the West, from their point of view, is a history of violence, hostility, denial of freedom and spirituality. Russia's special path is determined by Orthodoxy, community and conciliarity. Conciliarity was understood as a special form of unity of the people, when all classes are united on the basis of love for God and each other. Famous Slavophiles include A.S. Khomyakov, brothers Aksakov and Kireevsky .

The ideas of Slavophilism cannot be given an unambiguous assessment. Slavophiles took a position of conservatism, advocating the preservation of autocracy and the peasant community. At the same time, the Slavophiles expressed ideas that were advanced for their time: the abolition of serfdom, the historical right of peasants to land, freedom of the press and speech, freedom of conscience. Slavophiles were supporters of the monarchy, but their ideas about the autocratic system differed from the official ideological doctrine. It was a kind of romantic conservatism. They idealized the monarchical foundations of pre-Petrine Rus', seeing in them the embodiment of the conciliar principle, and believed that the monarch received power from the people.

Founder protective liberalism was B.N. Chicherin . He defended the idea of ​​a constitutional monarchy, in which there is opposition, and called his political and legal concept conservative (protective) liberalism, since “where the people do not have long traditions of freedom, it must be introduced carefully and gradually,” step by step, “from above.”

I went a little further in my thinking P.I. Novgorodtsev , who developed the idea of ​​a welfare state. His main idea: the right to a decent human existence must be guaranteed by the state. According to Novgorodtsev, freedom is possible only if there are material conditions and its actual implementation.

At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. became widely known religious and moral concepts states and politics. Having modernized the ideas of Christianity in relation to new social tasks, the authoritative thinkers of this time - V.S. Soloviev, S.N. Bulgakov And ON THE. Berdyaev - substantiated their vision of the social ideal. Their positions were united by the non-acceptance of political radicalism and all forms of violence, the justification of the primacy of the moral principle over political sphere, consideration of social institutions, including the state, as the embodiment of personal, human and universal meaning.

Radical direction represented by those who, using radical methods (revolution, rebellion, etc.) tried to transform public life. The goal was, as a rule, socialism.

The first revolutionaries were the Decembrists, who rebelled in 1825. The Decembrists consisted of two movements. The moderate trend proceeded from the expediency of limiting autocracy by the constitution and legislative power. The ideologist of this trend was N.M. Muravyov , who compiled the project "Constitution". The radical direction demanded the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic. The main program provisions of this trend were outlined P.I. Pestel V "Russian Truth".

The most influential revolutionary doctrine of the second half of the 19th century. was populism . At its origins stood A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky , founders of Russian socialism. By socialism they understood the embodiment of the principles of social equality and justice, political democracy. Herzen and Chernyshevsky believed that Russia could bypass capitalism in its development, and the potential for socialist transformations lay in the peasant community. In other words, Russia’s special path is peasant, communal socialism. They assigned a special role to the intelligentsia in this process.

Populists 1860-70s tried to directly connect socialist ideas with practice. The populism of this period was represented by three directions: rebellious, propaganda and conspiratorial.

The rebellious version of populism is associated with the name M.A. Bakunin . He went down in history as the largest theoretician of anarchism. The state, in his opinion, should be immediately destroyed. Bakunin himself opposed the state to a new form of organization in the form of a federation of self-governing labor unions and communities. A follower of Bakunin was P.A. Kropotkin .

Ideologist propaganda movement populism was P.N. Lavrov . He believed that the revolution should be prepared by legal means, and called on revolutionary youth to go to the people to propagate revolutionary ideas.

The ideologist of the conspiratorial movement was P.N. Tkachev . He argued that propaganda must be preceded by a social revolution. The beginning of a social revolution should be the seizure of state power by a revolutionary minority (party) and the creation of a revolutionary state. Only after this, according to Tkachev, should propaganda be launched to involve the people in the revolutionary process.

Since the 90s. XIX century, Marxism spreads in Russia. The spread of Marxism in Russia and the Marxist concept of politics is associated with the name G.V. Plekhanov . Marxism spread in two variants: orthodox Marxism, oriented towards revolutionary struggle ( IN AND. Lenin ), and reformist, or so-called “legal” Marxism ( P.B. Struve ). After 1917, revolutionary Marxism became the official ideology of the USSR. After the Bolsheviks came to power, the development of political science in Russia was interrupted for a long time and was restored only in the late 1980s. Official recognition political science in the USSR as an independent science and educational discipline occurred in the late 80s - early 90s. XX century, after the official abolition of the leading role of the CPSU (sixth article of the USSR Constitution)

Thus, although Russian political thought began to develop later than Western European thought, it was not characterized by mechanical copying of the latter’s ideas. Russian thinkers created many of their own original concepts, which reflected the existing social, political and spiritual practice of Russia and the needs of the historical development of the country. As in the West, the political thought of Russia was aimed at searching for the most perfect form of power and public life.

The industrial society that emerged in the 19th century raised the most pressing problems of social existence. Neither the enlighteners nor the revolutionary upheavals of the previous century were able to resolve the contradictions in society that deepened at the dawn of the industrial era. In the new conditions, currents formed in different strata of society and embodied in socio-political thought proposed their own ways of solving the problem.

Thus, throughout the 19th century, a polarization of forces occurred in the Russian socio-political movement. The government, carrying out reforms in the socio-economic sphere, avoided transforming the medieval autocracy into a feudal monarchy. The weak and unformed liberal opposition was not in demand by the authorities, which made it possible for revolutionary elements to take over the consciousness of the masses.

Revolutionary populism, turning to terror tactics, was provoked by counter-reforms that put an end to populism. The tsarist government, unwittingly, cleared the way for the Marxists, who at the beginning of the next century put the Russian Empire on its hind legs.

Socio-political movements are a product of the industrial revolution

In Western European countries, there has been a demand from social groups to translate their aspirations into specific programs for transforming the state and society. The thinkers who responded to the request developed socio-political teachings in five main directions. Each of these currents had a special view on the path social development and ensuring individual rights.

The profound transformation of the European worldview was a consequence of the industrial revolution of the 19th century. All directions of socio-political thought that took shape during this period reflected significant changes in views on the state, politics and the role of the individual in history.

Features of the development of socio-political thought in Russia

Throughout the 19th century Russian Empire Attempts were made to first correct and then fully reform the social order and the age-old foundations of society. In the first quarter of the century, social movements arose and the main directions of national socio-political thought began to take shape.

In the middle and subsequent second half of the 19th century, domestic socio-political thought reached its peak. The coming industrial era brought colossal socio-economic changes, which prioritized the problem of reorganizing state power in the country.

In the first half of the 19th century, directions of social thought took shape that would retain their influence throughout the 19th century: official (conservative-monarchist), liberal (represented by the views of Westerners and Slavophiles) and revolutionary (socialist).

Conservative-monarchical the direction was expressed in the famous formula of the Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” Russia, according to this theory, is a unique country, the foundations of which are autocracy, the only form of government supported by the Russian people; Orthodoxy, the original embodiment of his spirituality and a reliable support for the monarch’s autocracy; a nationality that inextricably links the autocrat and society. The interests of the country and the people are concentrated in the monarchy, which is why it is necessary to strengthen it in every possible way, preserve the existing order, and not look at Europe, but fight against “sedition.”

The form of existence of liberal and revolutionary ideas in the 30-40s. there were a few mugs. It was in them that the ideology of the main trends of Russian liberalism of those years was determined - Westernism and Slavophilism. Both Westerners and Slavophiles rejected revolutionary methods of reorganizing the country, placing their main hopes on the strength of public opinion and the government’s readiness for change. Westerners(T.N. Granovsky, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin and others) argued that Russia is developing in the same direction and according to the same laws as European countries. It only lags behind them, and the task is to overcome this lag: abolish serfdom, introduce constitutional forms of government (Russia should become either a constitutional monarchy or a republic), and carry out judicial and military reforms. The ideal for Westerners is Peter I, who decisively moved the country onto the European path and tried to overcome its centuries-long lag.

Slavophiles ( Khomyakov, Samarin, Aksakovs, Kireevskys), on the contrary, were very critical of the personality and activities of Peter I. He violated the original identity of Russia. Unlike Europe, pre-Petrine Rus', in their opinion, did not know social discord and class struggle. The community ensured harmony and agreement in society, the norm of life of which was the superiority of the interests of the whole (collective, state) over the private interests of the individual. Orthodoxy was the spiritual basis of social harmony. As for the state, it served the interests of society without violating its independence in resolving issues important to it. Slavophiles considered it necessary to abolish serfdom, restore the lost connection between the people and autocratic power, revive Zemsky Sobors, support the peasant community, free it from the tutelage of landowners and officials.

The revolutionary direction of social thought in the 30s. developed under the influence of the ideas of the Decembrists (the circles of the Kritsky brothers, Sungurov, etc.). N 40s The character of revolutionary thought has changed. Socialist teachings became increasingly popular. The teachings of European utopian socialists A. Saint-Simon and C. Fourier penetrated into Russia. The ideas of Fourier were especially popular (the circle of M. V. Petrashevsky, crushed by the government in 1849; among its members were F. M. Dostoevsky, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, etc.). A. I. Herzen, who was also interested in the theories of Westerners, was deeply influenced by these teachings. Combining the idea that Russia should follow the European path with a critical attitude towards capitalist orders, Herzen came to the conclusion that it was Russia that had to pave the way to a fair social system - to socialism. In the early 50s, while in exile, he developed the theory of “Russian” or “communal” socialism. Russia has an advantage over European countries - a peasant community that will easily and organically accept the ideas of socialism.

Ticket 15 Reforms of Alexander II in the context of agrarian reforms in Europe, Asia, and the USA.

Reforms of Alexander 2. Reasons for reforms: The main reason that forced the autocracy to undertake reforms was the need for Russia to transition from a traditional, agrarian type of society to an industrial one, to eliminate the gap that had emerged from the advanced countries of Western Europe. Russian industry, which developed during the industrial revolution, needed free labor, which could not be obtained without modernizing the agricultural sector. The reason was also that there were crisis phenomena in the serf-dominated economy, which suffered from scarcity of land, low agricultural culture, frequent crop failures and lack of bread supply for the peasants. The reason for the reforms was the danger of a social explosion. Throughout the first half of the century, peasant uprisings took place. Defeat in Crimean War showed the authorities that it was no longer possible to delay reforms, since this would mean Russia’s renunciation of the role of a great European power. The power of the empire, all the powers of the autocracy, was constantly supported by military successes. The need to bring the judicial system, local governments, education, finance, armed forces into compliance with changed social and economic conditions. The growth of a social movement, social and national conflicts. The sentiments and wishes of liberal circles were taken into account on the introduction of new courts and local self-government, especially since after the liberation of the peasants the state could not raise the local economy on its own. Peasant reform in Russia- a reform carried out in 1861 that abolished serfdom in the Russian Empire. It was the first and most significant of the reforms of Emperor Alexander II; proclaimed by the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom of February 19, 1861. Main provisions of the reform: Peasants received personal freedom and the right to freely dispose of their property; Peasants received elected self-government, the lowest unit of self-government was the rural society, the highest - the volost. The landowners retained ownership of all the lands that belonged to them, but were obliged to provide the peasants with a house plot and field allotment for use; For the use of allotment land, peasants had to serve corvée or pay quitrent and did not have the right to refuse it for 9 years. The size of the field allotment and duties had to be recorded in charter documents, which were drawn up by landowners for each estate and verified by peace intermediaries; Rural societies were provided the right to buy out the estate and, by agreement with the landowner, the field allotment, after which all obligations of the peasants to the landowner ceased; preferential terms provided landowners with financial guarantees for receiving redemption payments, taking over their payment; peasants, accordingly, had to pay redemption payments to the state. University Charter 1863 - a legal act of the Russian Empire that determined the structure and procedures at the university. In historical science, the University Charter of 1863 is considered to be the most liberal in the field of education in pre-revolutionary Russia. Military reform January 1, 1874 . Developed by Minister of War Milyutin. Approved by the manifesto on universal conscription and the Charter on conscription. There was a transition from the principle of conscription in the army to all-class military service. The goal was to reduce the size of the army in peacetime while allowing it to be deployed during war. Contents of the reform: reduction in the size of the army by 40%; creation of a network of military and cadet schools, which accepted representatives of all classes; improvement of the military command system, introduction of military districts; abolition of corporal punishment in the army; rearmament of the army and navy, reconstruction of state-owned military factories; introduction of universal conscription in 1874 and reduction of service periods. According to the new law, all young people who have reached the age of 21 are conscripted, but the government determines the required number of recruits every year, and by lot takes only this number from the conscripts, although usually no more than 20-25% of conscripts were called up for service. The only son of his parents, the only breadwinner in the family, and also if the conscript's older brother is serving or has served his service were not subject to conscription. For those who have completed primary education, the period active service is reduced to 4 years, those who graduated from a city school - up to 3 years, a gymnasium - up to one and a half years, and those who had higher education- up to six months. City government reform of 1870 Target: attract the large financial and commercial bourgeoisie to the management of cities. Dumas were introduced in the cities of Russia - classless bodies of city self-government. They were elected once every 4 years by tax-paying townspeople who had a certain property qualification. The city government was also elected for 4 years, its functions were: managing the affairs of the city economy and public administration Collecting the necessary information for the Duma Drawing up city estimates Collection and expenditure of city fees, reporting to the Duma on its activities The city mayor was elected governor (in major cities- Minister of Internal Affairs) from among the public. Provincial cities had a new problem - according to the law, part of the income was directed to the maintenance of government agencies, the police and other government agencies. Because of this, they experienced some difficulties in solving urban problems. Judicial reform November 20, 1864. IN Russian historiography is considered the largest transformation on the path of modernization of the Russian Empire. The central element of the reform is the introduction of jury trials. The reform ensured openness, competitiveness and classlessness of legal proceedings. In accordance with the Judicial Statutes on November 20, 1864, the following liberal rules were established: principles of judicial system and legal proceedings : administration of justice only by the court; independence of courts and judges; separation of the judiciary from the prosecutorial power; irremovability of judges; lack of authority of the court; publicity of legal proceedings; adversarial nature of legal proceedings. Zemstvo reform of 1864 . Target: adapt the autocratic system of Russia to the needs of capitalist development, win liberals to the side of the tsar in the fight against the revolutionary movement. The “Regulations on Zemstvo and District Institutions” signed by the tsar reflected the various interests of noble groups. Provincial and district zemstvo assemblies and zemstvo councils were created. The basis electoral system elective, qualification and class principles were laid. Voters were divided into 3 curia: county landowners, city voters and elected representatives of rural societies. The workers, petty bourgeoisie, and intelligentsia were excluded from the elections. The election system ensured a significant predominance of landowners in the zemstvos. Zemstvo institutions were in charge of local economic affairs: the maintenance of communications, the construction and maintenance of schools and hospitals, “care” for the development of local trade and industry, etc. The zemstvo reform contributed to the development of local initiative, bourgeois economy and culture. In 1865 it was carried out press reform , censorship in book publishing and periodicals was significantly softened. The society was given the opportunity to discuss political and social issues on the pages of printed publications, in particular, the Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo magazines. The significance of the reforms of the 60-70s. The abolition of serfdom became a milestone in the history of Russia. Serfdom as a system of social relations ceased to exist, although many of its features and vestiges survived until 1917. Reformers wanted Russia to develop along the path of creating a constitutional monarchy. Nevertheless, the absolute monarchy still retained its viability, the highest state institutions retained their feudal character, although elected bodies with independent spheres of activity were created locally. The authority of Russia and the state power that abolished serfdom rose high in Europe. Russia quickly followed the path of socio-economic and social progress.

Ticket 16 Russia in the second half of the 19th century: socio-political thought and social movement.

In the social movement of Russia in the 2nd half of the 19th century. there was a struggle between various political movements, which determined the nature of social development. In the 60-70s. The radical intelligentsia united under the ideological banners of populism. The populists criticized capitalism, rejected the state as a political institution, and exaggerated the role of the individual in the historical process. There were three trends in populism. Rebellious, led by Bakulin, called for a rebellion that the peasants should commit, which, in their opinion, would lead to the establishment of socialism. The propaganda direction, led by Lavrov, believed that the people must be prepared for socialism through long propaganda. The conspiratorial trend, led by Tkachev, believed that power should be seized by a revolutionary party and socialism introduced into Russian life. In 1874, the populists began “going to the people,” trying to rouse the peasants to revolt. The government crushed this movement. In 1876, the revolutionary populist organization “Land and Freedom” arose. In 1879, it split into “People’s Will” and “Black Redistribution”. These organizations differed in their methods of struggle. On March 1, 1881, the populists killed Alexander II, which led to the defeat of Narodnaya Volya. By the mid-80s. she ceased to exist. In the 80s liberal populists tried to find a way out of the impasse and proposed leading the peasantry to socialism through long and peaceful work. Their slogan became “small deeds” - the establishment of schools, hospitals, economic and legal assistance to communities and artels. The liberal populists included: Vorontsov, Mikhailovsky. Reforms 60-70 19th century led to the emergence of noble liberalism. The ideologist of noble liberalism was Katkov. Liberals advocated freedom of private enterprise and a parliamentary monarchy. Late 70's - early 80's. 19th century The labor movement is emerging in Russia. In 1883, the “liberation of labor” group was created (Plekhanov, Axelrot), which spread Marxism among the workers. Marxist circles arise in Russia: in St. Petersburg, Kazan. In 1898, in Minsk, social democratic circles united into the RSDLP. Social movement in the second half of the 19th century. advocated the freedom of citizens, parliament, government reforms of Alexander II and criticized the old order.

Ticket 17 Features of Russia's development in the post-reform period. Alexander III.

Features of Russia under Alexander III. Reforms of the 60-70s caused an acceleration in the capitalization of the Russian economy. Over the forty post-reform years, the country has achieved significant results: the industrial revolution was completed, the volume industrial production over these years increased by 7 times, railway construction was carried out at a high pace, and marketability increased Agriculture. By 1900, Russia ranked fifth in the world in absolute volumes of industrial production. But despite the ongoing significant changes, the social structure of Russian society remained archaic in comparison with the societies of other industrial countries. The features of class were preserved, and there was a huge social and cultural gap between the “tops” and “bottoms” of society. At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. Russia remained an absolute monarchy. The counter-reforms of the 80-90s, carried out during the reign of Alexander III (1881-1894), turned out to be a serious obstacle to the modernization of the state system. As a result, autocracy, feudal statehood, feudal political culture received powerful legislative support.

The contradictions in the economic and socio-political development of Russia acutely raised the problem of choosing the paths of social development. A struggle developed between conservative guardians of the estate-monarchical system and supporters of modernization of the country. By the middle of the 19th century. In Russia, two currents of social thought took shape: liberal and revolutionary-democratic. The liberal movement was oriented toward the Western path of development, toward pan-European civic values. Its ideologists K.D. Kavelin and B.N. Chicherin defended the ideas of the value of human life, legal order, the priority of law over political power, and strived for civil harmony, against any attempts at violent change. The theoretical basis of the revolutionary democratic movement that was gaining strength was the idea of ​​Russian communal socialism (A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky), the possibility of non-capitalist development of Russia from the peasant community to socialism. In the 60s Populists begin revolutionary activities, create the first circles and secret societies. Their traditions are continued by the revolutionaries of the 70s, who can be divided into three movements: propaganda (P. Lavrov), conspiratorial (P. Tkachev) and rebellious (M. Bakunin). Mass revolutionary propaganda among peasants in the mid-70s. (“going to the people”) failed, and some of the populists moved on to creating secret revolutionary organizations that propagated and carried out individual terror in the hope of causing a revolutionary explosion. The assassination of Alexander II (March 1, 1881) resulted in the execution of the organizers of the assassination attempt, the defeat of revolutionary organizations and a deep crisis of revolutionary populism. The Marxist movement took shape from the moment Plekhanov created the “Emancipation of Labor” group (1883), which began promoting and disseminating Marxism and developing program provisions for Russian Social Democracy. As a result of the unification of disparate circles and groups in 1898-1903. The RSDLP was created, which soon split into two - extreme left radicals and moderate Marxists (Mensheviks). At the beginning of the twentieth century. a party of socialist revolutionaries arose, as well as the social democrats, advocating the violent destruction of the old political and social order, for the construction of a socialist society. However, these parties differed in their vision of the course of the revolutionary struggle, the construction of the socialist ideal, and socialism itself was understood differently.

Ticket 18 Russia at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. Causes, character, features of the first Russian bourgeois-democratic revolution. Reforms P.A. Stolypin. Third June Monarchy.

Russia at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. Russia experienced a severe economic crisis in 1900-1903, then a period of long depression in 1904-1908. In 1909-1913. The country's economy made a new sharp leap, industrial production increased 1.5 times. These same years saw a number of unusually fruitful years, which gave the country's economic development a solid basis. The process of monopolization of the Russian economy received a new impetus. At the same time, banks were strengthened and banking groups were formed. Despite the high pace economic development, Russia still failed to catch up with the leading Western countries. At the beginning of the 20th century. it was a moderately developed agrarian-industrial country with a clearly diverse economy. Leading positions in the country's economy by the beginning of the 20th century. occupied by the bourgeoisie. However, until the mid-90s, it actually did not play an independent role in the socio-political life of the country. Being dependent on the autocracy, it remained an apolitical and conservative force for a long time. The nobility, while remaining the ruling class-estate, also retained significant economic power. Despite the loss of almost 40% of all its lands, by 1905 it concentrated over 60% of all private land ownership and was the most important social support of the regime, although socially the nobility was losing its homogeneity, moving closer to the classes and strata of bourgeois society. A class of hired workers was formed. The political system of Russia is an absolute monarchy. Until 1905, the highest government bodies in the country were the State Council, whose decisions were advisory to the tsar, and the Senate, the highest court and interpreter of laws. The Russian Empire was a multinational state in which 57% of the population were non-Russian peoples who were subjected to one form or another of national oppression. However, the split in Russian society was mainly not along national, but along social lines. The standard of living of the Russian people was not higher, and often even lower, than other peoples. Bourgeois-democratic revolution. The main prerequisites for a powerful revolutionary movement were: the contradictions between the development of capitalism and the remnants of serfdom. By the beginning of the 20th century. In Russia, the contradictions between the peasantry and landowners, workers and capitalists, the autocracy and the national outskirts of the vast empire sharply intensified. Three main camps have emerged in the country's political arena: supporters of autocracy, the core of which were landowners and the big bourgeoisie; the liberal-bourgeois camp, which included mainly the middle bourgeoisie and intelligentsia; revolutionary democratic camp, which included proletarians, peasants, etc., who were the basis of the revolutionary ferment in the country. Objectives of the revolution: overthrow the autocracy, establish democratic freedoms; liquidation of landownership; the destruction of the class system and the proclamation of a democratic republic. Features of the revolution: Workers and peasants are the main forces of the revolution, the revolution was proletarian. Revolution 1905-1907 different from bourgeois revolutions by the role of the bourgeoisie in it. The most important task of the revolution was to solve the agrarian question. Stolypin's reforms. Agrarian reform. Goal: creating a wide layer of rich peasants, the emphasis was on the individual owner, and not on the community. They could dramatically increase the efficiency of their management. Stolypin believed that the wealthy peasantry would become the real support of the autocracy. An important part of the Stolypin agrarian reform was the activity of the credit bank. This institution sold land to peasants on credit, either state-owned or purchased from landowners. However, measures against defaulters were harsh: the land was taken away from them and put back on sale. Thus, the reforms not only made it possible to acquire land, but also encouraged people to actively work on it. Another important part of the reform was the resettlement of peasants. The main stage in resolving the labor issue was the work of the Special Meeting in 1906 and 1907, which prepared ten bills that affected the main aspects of labor in industrial enterprises. These were questions about the rules for hiring workers, insurance against accidents and illnesses, and working hours. He was a supporter of unification, not disunity, of the peoples of the country. He proposed creating a special ministry of nationalities that would study the characteristics of each nation. Stolypin believed that all peoples should have equal rights and responsibilities and be loyal to Russia. Third June Monarchy. The Tsar's power was now limited to the State Duma. Nevertheless, the small powers of the Duma were not a serious obstacle for the government. The Tsar continued his policy of suppressing revolutionary uprisings. The government tried to expand the support of the state system at the expense of large entrepreneurs and the wealthy peasantry. This policy of maneuvering between various political forces was called Bonapartism. The new policy appeared in the Third State Duma. This is the only Duma that served a full term. No party had absolute dominance, so it was impossible to single-handedly ensure approval of the bill during the vote. Perhaps there were two majorities - the right-Octobrist and the Octobrist-Cadet. All political forces understood the need for reforms.

Ticket 19 The First World War: causes, main theaters of military operations. Russian society and state during the First World War.

World War I. Causes: economic imperialism, territorial and economic claims, trade barriers, militarism and autocracy, balance of power, alliance obligations of European powers . Main theaters of military operations. 1. French theater of operations. was extremely dynamic. Large armies of both sides maneuvered actively and quickly, which was facilitated by the dense road network of the combat area. The deployment of troops did not always form a continuous front; the troops did not erect long-term defensive lines. 2. Russian theater of military operations. Clashes with the German army ended in favor of the Germans, and on the German part of the front Russia lost part of the territory of the Kingdom of Poland. The defeat of Russia in East Prussia was morally painful and was accompanied by heavy losses. But Germany was not able to achieve the results it had planned at any point; all its successes from a military point of view were modest. Meanwhile, Russia managed to inflict a major defeat on Austria-Hungary and seize significant territories. 3. Balkan theater of military operations. On the Serbian front, things were not going well for the Austrians. Despite their great numerical superiority, they managed to occupy Belgrade, which was located on the border. .Russian society in the First world war . The outbreak of war caused an explosion of patriotic sentiment in society. The growing wave of labor strikes immediately came to naught. The mobilization took place in an organized manner. The broad participation of the bourgeoisie and the public noticeably accelerated the initially slow transition of the economy to a war footing. However, from 1915 the revolutionary movement began to grow rapidly again. This was partly due to the deteriorating economic situation and military deprivations. The war brought enormous human casualties. As a result, up to 2.3 million people died, 2.4 million people were captured. Inflation began to rise in the rear, disruptions began in railway transport and food supplies to cities, and the population experienced numerous everyday difficulties. There was an unprecedented marginalization of society. Up to 16 million people went through the army during the war years, 5–7 million were evicted from the front line and evacuated to the east. In every major city, conflicts arose between the local population and refugees. However, contrary to still prevailing stereotypes, there was no acute economic crisis in pre-revolutionary Russia. The volume of industrial production was growing. The detonator of the turning point in mass sentiment was the heavy defeats at the front in 1915. They revealed the country’s unpreparedness for a long war, shocked the public with huge losses, dispelled illusions in a quick and victorious end to the war, and most importantly, undermined faith in the strength of the tsar and the viability of the state. The unprecedented discreditation of power became the main revolutionary factor. The point was not only in her lack of management, inability to provide timely supplies to the army and establish basic order in the rear, and stop theft and abuses unprecedented at that time. Russian society, not yet getting rid of the traditional authoritarian-patriarchal culture, longed for a strong hand. During the war, when centralization intensified and a mobilization economy was built, the need for strict management increased many times over. Even in democratic France, with the beginning of the war, a law on martial law was adopted, according to which the maintenance of internal order was entrusted to the military authorities, freedom of the press, meetings, and demonstrations was eliminated, censorship was introduced, strikes and demonstrations were actually prohibited, and parties ceased to operate. In Russia, the authorities demonstrated the absence of a clear course and strong will. State regulation of public life was weak and ineffective. There was inconsistency in the actions of military and civilian authorities. Since August 1915, Nicholas II took over the post of commander-in-chief. But the absence of the tsar in the capital only weakened the central government and led to even greater instability of the government. The authorities were neither respected nor feared. Moods of anger, apathy and despondency have spread throughout society. Since 1915, opposition sentiments and disbelief in the capacity of the authorities grew.

Ticket 20 National crisis in Russia. The nature and features of the February bourgeois-democratic revolution.

National crisis. Causes: Failure to complete the process of transformation of the Russian Empire into a constitutional monarchy: the lack of society’s ability to influence power, the limited capabilities of the State Duma and the lack of government control. Politics could not express the interests of not only the majority, but also any significant part of the population, which caused spontaneous discontent, and restrictions on public expression of protest led to the radicalization of even the parliamentary opposition. The war affected the system of economic ties, primarily between the city and the countryside. The food situation in the country has worsened, and the decision to introduce “food appropriation” only worsened it. Prices rose rapidly, outpacing the growth of household incomes. Rumors spread widely about treason that had penetrated to the pinnacle of power; Public opinion considered Empress Alexandra Feodorovna the main traitor. Rumors about an intimate relationship between the Empress and Rasputin were no less popular. Difficulties in supplying the city with bread, rumors about the imminent introduction of bread cards led to the disappearance of bread. Due to the resulting shortage of bread, local unrest of a non-political nature broke out. February 23 - March 3, 1917 in Russia there was February Revolution, as a result of which the king was overthrown, the monarchy was abolished, democratic transformations began, which grew into a revolutionary process and civil war. The driving forces of the February Revolution of 1917 had a dual nature: on the one hand, it was massive, spontaneous and folk character. In December 1916, the implementation of the conspiracy began. Rasputin was killed in Yusupov's house, which immediately deprived the tsar of internal support. Work was carried out among the officers of the Petrograd garrison to prepare a military coup. At the beginning of February 1917, a shortage of bread was created in Petrograd. The Petrograd garrison did not support the Tsar at the decisive moment. Events began to develop spontaneously: the cessation of grain supplies to Petrograd caused acute discontent and spontaneous demonstrations; on International Women's Day, a major strike began in Petrograd, the strike turned into a general one; the destruction of police stations, secret police, attacks on government officials, a split in the army; fraternization between the army and the residents of Petrograd begins; The district court, prisons, and police stations are being destroyed; on the same day the Temporary State Committee is created; power in Petrograd completely passes into the hands of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma and the Petrograd Council; Nicholas II signs the abdication of the throne for himself and for his son Alexei in favor of his brother, Mikhail Romanov. Dual power begins in Russia; Mikhail Romanov, the uncrowned Tsar Michael II, abdicates the throne - until the convening of the Constituent Assembly; The Provisional Government issues its first document - the Declaration of the Provisional Government to the citizens of Russia. As a result of the victory of the February bourgeois-democratic revolution in February - March 1917 in Russia: the monarchy was overthrown; the 304-year reign of the Romanov dynasty was actually ended; fundamental human rights and freedoms were proclaimed and became a reality for a short time; dual power began - the activities of the Provisional Government and councils; Revolutionary changes began, culminating in the Bolsheviks coming to power.

Ticket 21 Political processes of spring-autumn 1917. October Revolution of 1917. Second Congress of Soviets and its decisions.

Political thought Russia is unique in comparison with the European socio-political tradition. This uniqueness is due to two important circumstances. First of all, special geographical location Russia (between West and East), and, secondly, in comparison with the advanced countries of Europe, Russia was at an earlier stage of political development.

In our country, a market economy was combined with elements of a feudal system; politically, an absolute monarchy was preserved. The ideals of freedom, equality and fraternity contradicted the existing Russian life, therefore, the advanced strata of society demanded the liberation of the people from serfdom and tyranny. Around the idea of ​​freedom throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. The spiritual and moral foundations of the life of the Russian intelligentsia were formed.

These features of the evolution of Russian political thought were reflected in specific political theories and actions. At the beginning of the 19th century. For the first time, an organized group of Russian intellectuals of a radical orientation - the Decembrists - entered the arena of political struggle.

The basis of the Decembrists’ views on society and man were the ideas of the Enlightenment about natural equality, about slavery as a result of violation natural law. The Decembrists called for the creation of a civil society, basing it on respect for human and civil rights. In “Russian Truth” P.I. Pestel (1723-1826) put forward such far-reaching political and social ideas as the abolition of serfdom, the proclamation of Russia as a republic, the elimination of estates, freedom of the press and religion, the involvement of peasants in governing the country, and the inviolability of private property.

By 1840-1850 refers to reaching today dispute between Slavophiles and Westerners. The Slavophiles (I. Kireevsky, A. Aksakov, Yu. Samarin) proceeded from the idea of ​​Russian identity, in which they saw not only independence from the West, but also a condition for the revival of the Russian spirit.

In approaches to state structure In Russia, the Slavophiles proceeded from the need to preserve autocracy, the strength of which they saw in fidelity to popular principles - Orthodoxy and nationality. Negatively assessing the activities of Peter I as a pro-Western politician, the Slavophiles at the same time advocated for a strong autocrat similar to Peter. While remaining opponents of political violence, the Slavophiles believed that Peter introduced an element of violence into Russian history, divided the classes, and became the culprit of class enmity, previously unknown to Russian society.

An important feature of Slavophile ideology was the desire to reconcile the interests of all classes of Russian society and achieve social harmony. Some ideologists saw the basis of such agreement in Orthodoxy, others - in the general outlines of the Russian national character.

The basis of liberal thought in Russia was the ideas of Westernism (A. Herzen, V. Belinsky, etc.), which connected the future of Russian society with the assimilation of the achievements of Western civilization. Some Westerners proceeded from the possibility of reforming Russian reality from above, opposing the peasant revolution and generally rejecting the revolutionary idea. Another part of the Westerners took the position of revolutionary democracy.

The most significant role in the development of political thought in 1850-1860. played by A.I. Herzen (1812-1870). It is known that Herzen went through a difficult path of evolution of his political views, having survived in the late 40s. a kind of “spiritual drama” associated with the transition from the liberal camp to the revolutionary democrats. Herzen found a way out of this personal drama by understanding the idea of ​​“Russian socialism.” Herzen believed that socialism would provide the most correct and reasonable organization of economic life, and associated the establishment of socialism with the destruction of private property.

How did Herzen see the transition to socialism? Recognizing the desire for a “revolution without bloody means,” Herzen came to understand the need for a social revolution, thereby becoming one of the creators of populism.

Political thought of the early 20th century. was largely influenced by the idea of ​​reconciliation and harmonization of warring forces, the unity of the Russian intelligentsia and people for the benefit of Russia.

The ideas of non-violence, universal brotherhood based on the fusion of the intelligentsia with the people were developed in the works of the prominent Russian philosopher and public figure Nik. Fed. Fedorov (1828-1903). The thinker considered the unity of knowledge and action, theory and practice to be a condition for the transformation of social relations. Social structure Fedorov defined it as a “common cause”, as a kind of ideal human association, a large family, closely connected by the ties of common ancestors and a common destiny. Fedorov developed and regulated in detail inner life community - from birth and baptism for a “common cause”, upbringing carried out by the entire community, to marriage and burial.

The October Revolution of 1917 and the tragic events of Russian history that followed it led to the fact that Russian political thought began to develop in two main areas: 1) in Russian reality, the Bolshevisation of spiritual life after the seizure of political power; 2) in foreign conditions, where it was possible to preserve Russian independent political science and its spiritual and moral foundations. Public figures of the Russian diaspora raised in their works themes of great social and spiritual significance - the role of Orthodoxy in the development of Russian spiritual culture, the national self-awareness of the Russian people, i.e. addressed problems that were impossible to study in Soviet Russia.

Socio-political thought of the late 19th and early 20th centuries

Introduction 2

1. Revolutionary democracy 3

2. Anarchist-rebellious direction of populism. 4

3. Other directions 6

4. Fedorov's ideas 8

5. Early 20th century. 10

Conclusion 12

List of sources used 13

Introduction

The political thought of Russia was unique in comparison with the European socio-political tradition. This originality was dictated by two important circumstances. Firstly, the special geographical position of Russia, which combined a huge space with rich potential resources, and an intermediate position between Europe and Asia, West and East. The Russian ethnos was formed under the constant influence of these opposing civilizations. Secondly, in comparison with the advanced countries of Europe, Russia was at a lower stage of socio-economic and political development. Here, in production relations, the capitalist mode of production was combined with feudal-serfdom methods of farming; in political terms, the absolute monarchical form of government was preserved. Trying on European ideals of freedom, equality, and brotherhood, the Russian intelligentsia clearly realized the need to free the people from the shackles of serfdom and tyranny. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, the spiritual and moral foundations of the life of the Russian intelligentsia were formed around the idea of ​​freedom.

1. Revolutionary democracy

The socio-political thought of the revolutionary democrats of Russia reached its highest peak in creativity N, G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889). In his artistic and journalistic works “What is to be done?”, “Prologue”, “Letters without an address” and others, Chernyshevsky defended the ideas of eliminating the consequences of serfdom and the radical renewal of Russian society. Following Herzen and the Petrashevites, he considered it possible to use the surviving peasant community during the transition to socialism. Russia, according to Chernyshevsky, is on the threshold of a people's revolution that will lead to the power of the working people. The new government will be able to solve not only democratic, but also socialist tasks: to eliminate bourgeois private property, organize large-scale industrial production planned throughout the country, destroy the division of labor inherent in feudalism and capitalism, and on this basis achieve the development of the individual and his abilities. Overestimating the socio-economic capabilities of the rural community, Chernyshevsky considered it capable of resisting capitalism, and after the overthrow of the autocratic serfdom system, absorbing the achievements of technology, science, and culture, thereby shortening Russia’s path to socialism.

Chernyshevsky's hopes for the community were based on his confidence in the victory of the people's peasant revolution and the free transfer of land to the peasants. This was Chernyshevsky’s reassessment of the socio-political capabilities of the Russian peasantry as a revolutionary force. Chernyshevsky imagined the future society as a systematically organized large-scale production, consisting of industrial and agricultural partnerships, mutually providing each other with the products of their labor, capable of satisfying individual and social needs.

At the center of the socio-political struggle of post-reform Russia was the question of the form of government. The main form of the revolutionary movement, which sought to resolve it through revolutionary means, was populism. A whole page of political history is connected with populism - the ideology of peasant radicalism; many political and economic ideas of the populist leaders turned out to be tenacious and were adopted by the Bolsheviks. Thus, the populists defended the thesis of the abolition of private ownership of land and its transfer to public ownership. The populists considered the form of such transfer to be the division of land equally among peasants, the conduct of a “labor economy” without exploitation. The central idea of ​​populist socialism was the idea of ​​egalitarianism (equality), and the political basis for its implementation was the idea of ​​social revolution (populist ideologists differed in tactical approaches to the forms of implementing the idea of ​​revolution - how to raise the people to revolution, in relation to the state, etc.). The populists proceeded from the general idea of ​​the possibility for Russian society to bypass capitalism and make the transition to socialism through the peasant community. Back in 1851, Herzen characterized the content and main meaning of the future populist idea as follows: “The man of the future in Russia is a man, just like in France he is a worker.”

It is generally accepted to distinguish, depending on the forms of implementation of the socialist idea in Russia, three main trends in populism in the 1860-1870s. The first is propaganda, the main ideas of which are laid down in “Historical Letters” (1868).

2. Anarchist-rebellious direction of populism.

The anarchist-rebellious direction of populism was led for a long time by M.A. Bakunin. The ideas of Bakunism had rich social soil in Russia, especially among young people, finding a response among a significant part of society. Bakunin's reasoning was as follows: the state that existed in Russia is unjust and requires destruction. In the course of its destruction, the socialist-collectivist instincts of the Russian people will be developed and embodied in the people's revolution. Bakunin and his followers proceeded from the readiness of the people for revolution (poverty, slavery, the experience of peasant wars, the ideal of social order developed by the people). In order to rouse the people to revolution, Bakunin proposed creating initiative groups from revolutionary youth, called on students to leave gymnasiums and universities and go to the people for revolutionary work and preparation of an “all-crushing revolt.”

The attractive side of Bakunin's teaching was its criticism of the state. Any power, in his opinion, by creating centralization - bureaucracy and repressive bodies - becomes above society. Therefore, Bakunin denies any state, even a democratic, popular one, which essentially remains antisocial. In place of the state, Bakunin proposes community self-government, the task of which was to transfer the land to the people.

There was another direction in populism, which is usually characterized as conspiratorial. Its leader Ya.Ya. Tkachev went down in the history of the political movement as a Russian Blanquist whose goal was to prepare a conspiracy and seize power. Tkachev appealed to the Russian revolutionaries “not to be late” with the rebellion, since the development of capitalism, in his opinion, could hinder the implementation of the idea and strengthen the forces of reaction. Tkachev considered the seizure of power in the country comparatively simple matter: autocracy, in his view, has no roots in society; it can be overthrown by well-organized action. Tkachev also considered the basis of the transformations to be the peasant community, transformed into a commune on the basis of public property and collective labor. After the seizure of power, Tkachev proposed the expropriation and transfer of the instruments of production for the use of the entire society, the replacement of competition with the principle of “brotherly love and solidarity”, the introduction of universal public education, the destruction of the family based on the subordination of women, the development of community self-government with the weakening of central power

Modern political science, in addition to its practical reflection in the developing political life of society, also has its own ideological origins, which are nothing more than the concept of the political and socio-economic organization of society. In this regard, the Florentine school of political science, the concepts of democracy, laborism, Sovietology, Marxology, extremist political doctrines, their development and justification may be of particular interest to economists.

3. Other directions

In addition to revolutionary thought in Russia at the end of the 19th century. Liberal and conservative political trends developed. Among them are neo-Slavophilism, which in the 60s received the name pochvennichestvo, the socio-political views of V.S. Solovyov, which had a strong influence on subsequent thinkers of the early 20th century, the humanistic teaching of L.N. Tolstoy, the ideology of Orthodox thought (Yurkevich, Novitsky, etc.).

The socio-political content of the ideas of B.C. attracts the most attention today. Solovyov (1853-1900). Without going into the depths of the thinker’s philosophical views, we will dwell on his political views expressed in the works “Readings on God-Manhood”, “History and Future of Theocracy”, “Theocratic Philosophy”.

Over the course of many years, Solovyov came into conflict with the autocracy and the Orthodox Church, and condemned the desire of the ruling classes to enrich themselves, seeing this as the cause of many social evils. Soloviev criticized the vices of the bourgeois countries of Western Europe, where there is “exploitation of labor by capital, producing the proletariat with all its disasters...”.

However, Solovyov’s political liberalism was limited by his social theories, the main place among which belongs to the idea of ​​“divine humanity.” People, the scientist believed, are hostile to each other by nature. At the heart of this enmity is the struggle for existence, for maintaining the level of material life, and it will not disappear until humanity leaves the natural state and the external material interests associated with it. Soloviev argued that morality does not depend on the material human principle, on economic relations, just as it does not depend on the rational principle, expressed in legal and state relations. The basis of a normal society, wrote Solovyov, is a spiritual union, most fully embodied in the Church. All other types of social relations serve as a material environment for the implementation of the divine principle represented by the Church.

Solovyov did not idealize the dominant Orthodox Church in Russia. He considered it necessary to carry out its reform, which he understood as the creation of a “Universal Church” based on the unification of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The Vatican served as the prototype of the “Universal Church” for Solovyov. The unification of the Eastern and Western Churches should lead to the creation of a world monarchy based on the Russian autocracy. This was, according to Solovyov, the path to the formation of a “divine-human union”, or “a free theocracy capable of ensuring a genuine Christian world, true freedom and universal justice.”

Solovyov's social, philosophical and political views gave rise to a significant number of followers and imitators. Under the influence of Solovyov were S.N. and E.N. Trubetskoy, S.N. Bulgakov, P.A. Florensky and other thinkers. Solovyov’s influence was felt by the “Vekhi people” and many other socio-political movements of the early 20th century in Russia and the West.

Political ideas in Russia at the end of the 19th century, continuing previously established traditions, developed multifacetedly, in different theoretical directions, creating the theoretical basis for the evolution of socio-political views of the early 20th century.

Political thought of the early 20th century. was largely influenced by the ideas of reconciliation and harmonization of warring forces, the unity of the Russian intelligentsia and people for the benefit of Russia. Many prominent representatives of the Russian intelligentsia rightly warned about the danger of a nihilistic attitude towards Christian spiritual and moral ideals. True, for a long time this idea was interpreted quite primitively - in the spirit of slavish reconciliation with the autocratic system, renunciation of the revolutionary struggle. In fact, the idea of ​​humility meant pacifying one’s feelings in the name of gaining true inner freedom of spirit, one’s own “I” and freedom for others, working on oneself and for one’s people. Even Dostoevsky prophetically pointed out the tragic danger for the Russian people of diluting the ideas of revolutionary socialism with spiritual, moral, Christian moral and ethical ideals. These problems were deeply reflected in the philosophical and socio-political works of prominent thinkers N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov, V. Rozanov, S. Frank, P. Florensky and others.

4. Fedorov's ideas

The ideas of non-violence, universal brotherhood (kinship) based on the fusion of the intelligentsia with the people were developed in the works of the prominent Russian philosopher and public figure N.F. Fedorov (1828-1903). The thinker considered the unity of knowledge and action, theory and practice to be a condition for the transformation of social relations. Fedorov defined the social structure as a “common cause,” as a kind of ideal human association, a large family, closely connected by the bonds of common ancestors and a common destiny. Fedorov developed and regulated in detail the internal life of the community - from birth and baptism for the “common cause”, education carried out by the entire community, to marriage and burial. So detailed description intra-community life was necessary to maintain the mood of the entire human being to solve the problems of the “common cause.”

The idea of ​​freedom as the main thesis of the liberal movement is fundamental in the work of N.A. Berdyaev (1874-1948). According to Berdyaev, the meaning of human life is to create something new in the world, and creativity is an impulse towards freedom, the destruction of social necessity. Berdyaev saw in Marxism a humanistic principle that aimed at the liberation of humanity. But as a result of the implementation of the idea of ​​communism, the social collective, in which a person was supposed to gain freedom from violence and exploitation, became an enslaver of the human person.

Berdyaev called for “killing the beast of politics” and moving to non-political forms of human relations. “It is unjust to recognize politics as the center of life, to not spiritualize human flesh in any way, to subordinate all the riches of existence to it,” the scientist wrote. - The path of struggle of political parties, divorced from the center of life, from its meaning, is unjust... To bring politics as such to an extreme minimum, to the end of politics, to its dissolution in culture and religion - this is what should be our regulator, this is our desire, this is true liberation. Political liberation from politics. You cannot kill the beast of politics with a new statehood. It is necessary to oppose statehood, the violence of power, abstract politics with another principle, extra-state, a different, non-violent public, not new political violence, but the freedom of other paths.” Berdyaev did not see in the revolutionary movement an opportunity for a transition to higher spirituality, but only a reflection of existing evil.

Berdyaev chooses the assessment of Marxist socialism as a special religion (false religion) as the fundamental socio-political idea of ​​his work. Marxist socialism, in his opinion, contains all the basic elements of religious faith and religious enthusiasm: it has its own saints (“the people”, “the proletariat”), its own doctrine of the Fall (the emergence of private property), the cult of sacrifice (“in the name of happiness of future generations”), the thought-dream of establishing an “earthly paradise” (communism). However, Berdyaev notes the spiritual poverty of socialism as a religion. He reduces all the richness of human life to material contentment, where there is no place for happiness and freedom of the creative spirit.

Many of Berdyaev’s socio-political prophecies became the embodiment of Soviet reality, part of the existence of the Russian people, whose history and traditions the philosopher studied closely and deeply. Berdyaev wrote with indignation about the political system that existed in the USSR in the 30s, the atmosphere of extreme inhumanity that reigned in the country. Berdyaev saw the main weakness of communism in the inability to overcome hatred, and a person overwhelmed by hatred cannot be turned to the future. Russian intelligentsia of the early 20th century. (N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov, P. Struve, etc.) quite convincingly revealed Marx’s theoretical miscalculations, especially regarding the theory of class struggle.

5. Early 20th century.

A prominent representative of Russian liberal thought at the beginning of the 20th century was the famous historian and public figure P.N. Miliukov (1859-1943) - one of the leaders of the Cadet Party and the founder of the Russian white movement (he wrote the Declaration of the Volunteer Army). Miliukov is characterized by the desire to objectively evaluate the events of Russian history. October 1917 gave rise, in his opinion, to four “fatal political mistakes.” This is an attempt to solve the agrarian question in the interests of the local class; the return of the old composition and old abuses of the military bureaucracy; narrowly nationalistic tendencies in resolving national issues; predominance of military and private interests.

Having moved abroad in 1920, Miliukov clarified his assessment of the political processes in Russia: he sought to overcome the remnants of the ideology of the white movement and conducted propaganda against new attempts at intervention in Soviet Russia. “Having moved a certain distance from the events,” noted Miliukov, “we are only now beginning to understand... that collective folk wisdom was reflected in this behavior of the masses, inert, ignorant, downtrodden. Let Russia be ruined, thrown back from the twentieth century into the seventeenth, let industry, trade, city life, higher and middle culture be destroyed. When we look at the assets and liabilities of the enormous upheaval through which we are passing, we will probably see what the study of the French Revolution has shown. The classes were destroyed for the purpose, the tradition of the cultural layer was broken, but the people moved on to a new life, enriched with a store of new experience...”

Such an evolution of socio-political views is a phenomenon characteristic of many representatives of the Russian diaspora who captured the events of post-war and war Europe.

Social and political thought on the left flank of Russian democracy was represented by a variety of political trends: neo-populist parties and movements (SRs) arose here, the traditions of Russian anarchism continued and evolved in various ideological and political manifestations, the socialist idea made its political way in the forms of Bolshevism and Menshevism.

Conclusion

The October Revolution of 1917 and the tragic events of Russian history that followed led to the fact that Russian political thought began to develop in two main areas: in Russian reality - the Bolshevization of spirituality after the seizure of political power, and in foreign conditions, where it was possible to preserve the situation liberation of the origins of Russian science, its spiritual and moral foundations. Public figures of the Russian diaspora raised in their works themes of great social and spiritual significance - about the role of Orthodoxy in the development of Russian spiritual culture, the national self-awareness of the Russian people, about the national specificity of the Russian at different stages of the evolution of the Russian people, etc., i.e. addressed such problems of Russian intellectual history, the study of which in Soviet Russia after October 1917 became impossible. The socio-political thought of representatives of the Russian diaspora after the October period begins to flow into the single stream of the spiritual formation of the Russian people, their adaptation to the new conditions of the totalitarian regime.

XX centuryAbstract >> Sociology

Its place in the development of Russian sociological thoughts end 19 – started 20 century occupied by so-called legal Marxism... the complex spectrum existing at that time socially-political currents. Very informative and fundamental explanations...