Social and political thought in the 19th century. Political thought of the 19th century

After the defeat of the Decembrists, Russia experienced a period of political reaction. In the 1830s. Only in a few circles of student youth is there a glimmer of independent spiritual life. They, the circle of the Kritsky brothers (1827) and the Sungurov circle (1831), tried to continue the work of the Decembrists and were mercilessly crushed by the government. The authorities consistently persecuted those organizations that adopted the new ideas of utopian socialism: the Herzen circle in Moscow (1833 - 1834 ) and the Petrashevsky Society in St. Petersburg (1845-1840). The existence of Stankevich's circle (1833-1839), far from politics, was calmer, whose members were fond of German idealistic philosophy.

By the end of 1830. As a result of the intense spiritual quest of the advanced part of Russian society, several movements are manifesting themselves, offering their own concepts historical development Russia and the program for its reconstruction.

Westerners (T.N. Granovsky, V.P. Botkin, E.F. Korsh, K.D. Kavelin) believed that Russia was following the European path, having entered it belatedly, as a result of the reforms of Peter the Great. The “Western” movement must inevitably lead to the replacement of serf labor with free labor and the transformation of despotic political system into the constitutional one. The main task of the “educated minority” in these conditions is to prepare Russian society to the idea of ​​the need for reforms and to influence the authorities in the proper spirit. It is the government and society, in living cooperation, that must prepare and carry out reforms that will help bridge the gap between Russia and Western Europe.

Radical-minded A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev, and V.G. Belinsky in the late 1830s - early 1840s. shared the main ideas of the Westerners. However, the radicals criticized the bourgeois system most harshly. From their point of view, Russia in its development should not only catch up with Western European countries, but also take, together with them, a decisive revolutionary step towards a fundamentally new social system - socialism.

From the point of view of the Slavophiles (A.S. Khomyakom, brothers I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, brothers K.S. and I.S. Aksakov, Yu.M. Samarin, A.I. Koshelev). For a long time, Russia followed a completely different path than Western Europe. The history of the latter was determined by the constant struggle of selfish individuals, classes hostile to each other, and despotism on the blood of built states. At the heart of Russian history was a community, all members of which were connected by common interests. The Orthodox religion further strengthened the original ability of the Russian person to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of common interests. State power looked after the Russian people, protected them from external enemies, maintained the necessary order, but did not interfere in spiritual, private, local life. The government was autocratic in nature, but at the same time it listened sensitively to the opinion of the people, maintaining contact with them through Zemsky Sobors. As a result of Peter's reforms, this harmonious structure of Rus' was destroyed. It was Peter who introduced serfdom, which divided the Russian people into masters and slaves. He also tried to instill Western European morals in the gentlemen. Under Peter, the state acquired a despotic character. Slavophiles called for restoring the old Russian foundations of social and state life: reviving the spiritual unity of the Russian people (for which serfdom should be abolished), eliminating the despotic nature of the autocratic system, and establishing the lost relationship between the state and the people. The Slavophiles hoped to achieve this goal by introducing widespread glasnost; They also dreamed of the revival of Zemsky Sobors.

Thus, creating concepts for the development of Russia, representatives of various currents of social thought in the 30s and 40s. acted in one direction. The abolition of serfdom and the reorganization of the despotic state system were the primary tasks with the solution of which Russia was supposed to begin reaching a new level of development.

17. Development of capitalism in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. Its features.

The abolition of serfdom in 1861 and the bourgeois reforms of the 60-70s of the 19th century contributed to the development of capitalism in the Russian economy, thereby creating the necessary economic and social prerequisites for this. At the end of the 19th century. Russia is experiencing rapid growth industrial production. Due to the rapid growth of new industrial regions - Donbass and Baku - a powerful fuel base is being created in the country. Heavy industry is developing rapidly: the output of ferrous metallurgy and mechanical engineering products is increasing threefold. The network is almost doubled in size railways. By the end of the 19th century. The system of Russian capitalism is finally taking shape.

One of its characteristic features was the emergence in Russia of large, well-equipped technical enterprises that employed thousands of workers. By the degree of concentration of production, Russia by the 20th century. reached number one in Europe. This process was fully encouraged by the government, which was interested in creating large enterprises capable of fulfilling government, primarily military, orders - they received loans and subsidies from the government, and enjoyed tax breaks. High concentration of production led to the formation of monopolies. The first monopolistic associations in Russia arose back in the 1880s – 1890s. At the beginning of the 20th century. the process of monopolization has noticeably intensified. Monopolies appeared in almost all industries. Concentration bank capital went in Russia parallel to the concentration of industrial production. At the beginning of the 20th century. The five largest banks controlled the bulk of financial resources. They willingly invested these funds in industry, largely subordinating it to their control. This is how a financial oligarchy took shape, taking control of huge financial resources and basic industrial capacities.

All this indicated that already at the end of the 19th century. capitalism in Russia has entered a fundamentally new stage of its development. At the same time, Russian capitalism retained its pronounced differences from Western European capitalism. Firstly, the financial oligarchy turned out to be closely connected with state power, receiving constant support from it. As a result, the big bourgeoisie develops an ambivalent attitude towards the autocratic-bureaucratic system. On the one hand, she begins to strive for political power and thus finds herself in opposition to autocracy. On the other hand, financial support from the ruling bureaucracy, government orders, etc. made this opposition quite inconsistent. Another feature was that domestic production in Russia was largely based on foreign capital. The profits that the foreign bourgeoisie received from the import of capital into Russia mostly went abroad. Therefore, in rich Western European countries, the bourgeoisie could use these profits to discharge social conflicts. The possibilities of the Russian bourgeoisie in solving them were small. The Russian working class remained the most oppressed, the poorest in Europe. The percentage of the “labor aristocracy” here was insignificant; the vast majority of workers were in equally poor conditions. As a result, the proletariat in Russia fully retained its social solidity and was open to revolutionary agitation.

And finally, special mention should be made of such a feature as the terrible lag of the village. The gap between industry and agriculture increasingly widened. Capitalist relations began to take root in the village, but the remnants of serfdom greatly hampered their development. The backward peasant economy was still stifled by exorbitant payments. A significant part of the landowners ran their farms the old fashioned way, through workings, or rented out land, taking an increasing part of the income received. This situation hindered the growth of new relations in agriculture and with increasing force incited the hatred of the peasants towards the landowners. The situation in the Russian village was heating up.

The nineteenth century became the heyday of Russian political thought, when representatives of various movements of liberalism, conservatism, and revolutionary radicalism formulated and tried to give answers to the most pressing questions for the Russian public consciousness of that time: about the relationship between personality and power; on the streamlining of government and the optimal form of government; about the ways of socio-economic development and ways to solve the agrarian issue; about legal guarantees of individual freedom and the role of the intelligentsia in the social process; about the historical destinies of Russia and its relations with the West.

“The wonderful beginning of the Alexandrov days” (A.S. Pushkin) was marked primarily by the triumph of “government” liberalism, the representative of which was the greatest statesman in the history of Russia, jurist and reformer M.M. Speransky (1772-1839). In his practical activities and political philosophy, which had its ideological origins in two worldviews - the philosophy of the Enlightenment and the Christian faith, the idea of ​​evolutionism and an appeal to the reason of power occupied a significant place. Believing that imperfections and injustices in society, as well as the ineffectiveness of public administration, in which, in his opinion, bureaucratic arbitrariness and despotism reigned, could be corrected with the help of reasonable legislation and moral education of the authorities, Speransky believed in the possibility of a positive response from the supreme power to the proposed reforms. The supreme power that embodies reason and morality must protect society from disintegration and create a certain balance of interests and needs.

To implement these ideas M.M. Speransky developed and proposed several constitutional projects for consideration by Alexander I. By October 1809, he presented in his “Introduction to the Code of State Laws” a project for reform of the Russian state system, which embodied the principle of separation of powers while preserving the fundamental foundations of the empire. Speransky believed that “it is impossible to base government on the law if one sovereign power will both draw up the law and implement it.” The essence of his plan was to create a bicameral parliament with a higher chamber - the State Council and a lower elected State Duma, as well as a strict delineation of the activities of the legislative branch (four degrees, elected on the basis of the property qualification of the State Duma), the supreme court (Senate) and ministries. A special role belonged to the State Council - a legislative advisory collegial body established in 1810 under the emperor to coordinate the activities of all state structures.

Apart from the establishment of the State Council and the system of ministries, which existed until 1917, the rest of Speransky’s proposals from this plan were not implemented. At the same time, his undoubted merit was not only some limitation of autocracy and streamlining of the system of public administration, but also the fact that it was Speransky who laid the foundations for the formation of the domestic enlightened bureaucracy, the codification Russian legislation, reforming state-church relations and the education system. His concept of a “true monarchy”, combining autocracy and legislative regulation of social relations, respect of members of society for the law and its supreme subject and guardian - the monarch, can be considered as the first comprehensive project of a rule-of-law state with the principle of separation of powers in Russia. Speransky’s political philosophy can be generally characterized as autocratic liberalism, which combines characteristics the political mentality of the era of feudalism and the specifics of the political culture of the period of bourgeois civilization.

The 19th century, as the Decembrist writer Bestuzhev-Ryumin later wrote, rose over Russia “not with a pink dawn, but with the glow of military fires,” especially the Patriotic War of 1812, which not only sharpened the patriotic feelings of the Russian people, but also filled the social political situation with new problems that worried the progressive people of that time. Representatives of the Decembrist movement, which had a significant influence on Russian political thought in the 19th century, considered themselves “children of 1812.”

Being heterogeneous in ideological and political terms (the first Decembrist organization, the Union of Salvation, created in 1816, later split into two new secret organizations - the more radical Southern Society led by P.I. Pestel and the more moderate Northern Society led by N. M. Muravyov), the Decembrist movement nevertheless proceeded from the general democratic ideals of the Enlightenment and the rejection of existing socio-economic and political conditions the existence of Russia at that time, first of all, autocracy and serfdom. The differences within this movement related primarily to the form of government and the path of future development of Russia, which is illustrated by the content of program projects developed by the leaders of Decembrism - “Russian Truth” P.I. Pestel and the “Draft Constitution” by N.M. Muravyova.

The disagreements between Pestel and Muravyov on the issue of government structure consisted of different conclusions regarding the future development of Russia: if Muravyov advocated a bourgeois constitutional monarchy organized on a federal principle (modeled on the North American States), then Pestel advocated a revolutionary institution republican government in the form of representative democracy according to the principle of unitarianism, i.e. unity and indivisibility of Russia. Criticism of Muravyov’s project was developed by Pestel in other directions. For example, he opposes encouraging the emergence of an “aristocracy of wealth,” i.e. bourgeoisie, through the property qualification introduced by Muravyov for election to national bodies, in turn defending the civil and political equality of all citizens, as well as freedom of the press and religion. Developing his agrarian project, Pestel focuses on the fact that the liberation of the peasants should not be reduced to the granting of “imaginary freedom” that could cause subsequent pauperization of the peasantry, therefore his project for resolving the land issue initially introduced a mixed type of land ownership, which involved the division of all land into two parts - public and private. All these points allow researchers to consider “Russian Truth” the most radical project of the bourgeois reorganization of serf Russia, created by the Decembrists.

In the conditions of the reaction that occurred after the suppression of the Decembrist uprising, P.Ya. Chaadaev (1794-1856) in his famous “Philosophical Letters” raised the problem of the discrepancy between the greatness of Russia and the insignificance of its everyday existence. He saw the reasons for Russia's economic backwardness and spiritual vegetation in its “falling out” of universal history, in its religious and national-cultural particularism, which arose as a consequence of the adoption of Orthodoxy. It is to Chaadaev that Russian social thought owes the formulation of problems that became cross-cutting for it in the following decades. “And much of what they changed their minds, felt, what they created, what the noblest minds of the era expressed - Belinsky, Granovsky, K. Aksakov, Iv. and P. Kireevsky, Khomyakov, then Samarin and others,” noted D.N. Ovsyanniko “Kulikovsky,” was, as it were, an answer to the “question” raised by Chaadaev.” The challenge posed by Chaadaev was developed in the polemics between Slavophiles and Westerners about the paths of development of Russia, which determined the social and spiritual climate of Russian society in the 40-50s. XIX century The main vector of this controversy was the opposition “Russia-Europe”, which later acquired a more global meaning: “East-West”.

Prominent representatives of Slavophilism (I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, K.A. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin, etc.) based their speeches on the idea of ​​Russian identity. In their opinion, the originality of Russia's historical path is determined by the presence in its social practice of a unique formation - the peasant land community, the absence of traditions of class (estate) struggle, and, finally, Orthodoxy as the spiritual and worldview dominant of the Russian people. Idealizing pre-Petrine Rus' and being sharply critical of the reforms of Peter I, the Slavophiles opposed Russia’s assimilation of elements of Western European culture, primarily Western European forms of political life. And at the same time, they spoke out for the development of national industry, banking and joint stock businesses, the construction of railways and other socio-economic projects. In parallel, they put forward such demands as the creation and development of an influential public opinion, the elimination of censorship, the establishment of a public court, the abolition of corporal punishment and the death penalty, the release of peasants with an allotment of land through redemption, but with the obligatory preservation of the community.

From the point of view of representatives of Slavophilism, Russian statehood, unlike the European one, is based not on conquest, but on the voluntary recognition of power. If the basis of Western statehood is violence, slavery and enmity, then the basis of the Russian state is voluntariness, freedom and peace (K.S. Aksakov). “The Calling of the Varangians” laid the foundations of two principles that exist and operate almost independently of each other: “earth”, i.e. the people, who grant the state full power and do not interfere in its affairs, and the state, which has absolute power in the sphere of politics, called upon to protect the people from external enemies and undertakes to refrain from interfering in the life of the “earth.” The people retain complete freedom of internal life and thought, and the state retains complete freedom in the sphere of political life. Assessing the Russian people as a whole as stateless and apolitical, the Slavophiles did not believe that they were deprived of creative initiative: this initiative was aimed, in their opinion, not at achieving “external truth” through violence, but at searching for “internal truth” through fidelity to the primordial values ​​of the community existence and self-improvement of spiritual life based on Orthodoxy. At the same time, the best form of political power for Russia, taking into account its originality, was declared to be autocracy, built on the principle “for the king - the power of power, for the people - the power of opinion.” Other forms of state power (constitutional monarchy, republic), one way or another involving the people in political life, seduce them from the path of “internal truth” and instead of a living people form a “state machine of people” (K.S. Aksakov).

Slavophilism, which is one of the variants of a conservative utopia, nevertheless subsequently had a great influence on the development of the theory and practice of Russian liberalism: for example, the zemstvo reform is one of the most important reforms of the 60s. XIX century - V to a certain extent was the result of the propaganda of Slavophile ideas. On the other hand, in the post-reform period, under direct influence These ideas gave rise to such directions of domestic thought as neo-Slavophilism (N.Ya. Danilevsky) and pochvenism (F.M. Dostoevsky, A. A. Grigoriev, N.N. Strakhov).

Representatives of Westernism (V.G. Belinsky, T.N. Granovsky, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev, V.P. Botkin, etc.), who were open opponents of Slavophilism, raised the same questions as the Slavophiles , but solved them from opposite positions. Recognizing, unlike the Slavophiles, the positive meaning of the reforms of Peter I, Westerners idealized Western European culture and considered it a model for Russia. Its future was associated with the assimilation of the achievements of European liberal civilization, its socio-economic and political institutions (private property, parliamentarism, etc.). At the same time, some Westerners (Granovsky, Botkin, etc.), rejecting the revolutionary path of development, proceeded from the possibilities of reforming Russian reality from above within the framework of a constitutional monarchy.

Other representatives of this trend (Belinsky, Herzen, Chernyshevsky), taking the position of revolutionary democracy, developed socialist concepts, within the framework of which the idea of ​​the need to synthesize Western socialist ideas with the peculiarities of Russian folk foundations and traditions was substantiated. Russia's path to socialism was considered, first of all, through the transformation of the peasant community into a cell of the future socialist society (Herzen's concept of “Russian socialism”). Representatives of revolutionary democracy proposed to realize their political and socio-economic ideals during the peasant revolution and advocated the establishment of a democratic republic based on the principles of democracy and individual freedom. But the peasant reform of 1861, carried out according to the type of “revolution from above,” undermined the common faith in an imminent peasant revolution, thereby making obvious the political utopianism of revolutionary democracy.

Traditions of revolutionary democracy of the 40-60s. XIX century found their continuation and development in the ideology and practice of populism. Populism, which formed in Russia in the post-reform period, was not only a certain set of socio-economic, political and philosophical ideas and concepts, but also a political movement that united in its illegal organizations (the largest of which was “People’s Will”, which existed from 1879 to 1883). ), primarily representatives of the common intelligentsia and students. The logic of the development of this movement, which began with the practice of “going to the people,” naturally led its representatives to the practice of terror and violence of individuals, the apogee of which was the assassination of Emperor Alexander I (March 1, 1881).

In their ideological guidelines, the populists proceeded from general idea about the possibility of the transition of Russian society to socialism through the peasant community, bypassing the stage of capitalism. But unlike the revolutionary democrats, populism emphasized not only the strategy of social revolution, but also the specification of its tactics (how to raise the people to revolution?), and also spoke out more specifically regarding the problems of state power and political practice. Therefore, differences between the various directions of populism have emerged primarily in matters of tactics and forms of implementation of the socialist idea on Russian soil. It is generally accepted to distinguish three main directions in populism of the 60-70s: propaganda, led by P.L. Lavrov, conspiratorial (“Russian Blanquism”) led by P.N. Tkachev and anarchist, theorists of which were M.A. Bakunin and P.A. Kropotkin.

The main ideas of the first - propaganda - direction are set out in the "Historical Letters" of P.L. Lavrov (1823-1900), where he proposed the concept of “critically thinking individuals” who implement the subjective beginning of history in their activities: having comprehended the laws social development Having risen above the passive crowd, these individuals are called upon to advance progress and lead the historical movement of society. In this context, Lavrov reminded the intelligentsia of their duty to the people, to whom they owe their position, and called on them to work among the people for the sake of their spiritual and political liberation. Thus, as a preliminary stage in the preparation of the social revolution, a stage of long-term socialist propaganda among the people was proposed. In part, these ideas were implemented in the practice of “going to the people,” although later, especially after the assassination of Alexander II, Lavrov changed his attitude towards terror, recognizing its expediency.

The leader of the second, conspiratorial, direction P.N. Tkachev (1844-1885) went down in the history of populism as a Russian Blanquist who advocated the tactics of conspiracy and immediate seizure of power. In his opinion, autocracy had no roots in society and to overthrow it, only a well-organized action of a group of revolutionaries - conspirators (the “revolutionary minority”) was necessary. Accepting, like all populists, the community as the “cornerstone” of the future social system, he considered it necessary, after seizing power, to transform the community into a commune based on the principles of socialization of property, collectivization of labor and its results, and also advocated the introduction of public education, the destruction of the family based subordinate to women. Tkachev’s political ideas subsequently entered the ideological arsenal of Bolshevism and the political consciousness of V.I. Lenin.

The founder of populist anarchism was M.A. Bakunin (1817-1876), who believed that the anarchist ideal corresponds to the social ideas of the Russian people, who recognize only the power of communal self-government over themselves. “Our people,” he wrote, “deeply and passionately hate the state, hate all its representatives, no matter in what form they appear before them.” But mired in poverty and ignorance, the people need help from the intelligentsia (the “mental proletariat”), so Bakunin called on them to “go among the people,” to become “an organizer.” people's revolution", proposing for this purpose the creation of initiative groups from revolutionary, primarily student, youth. His criticism of the state in any of its forms was based on the characterization of any power organized in a top-down bureaucratic management system as antisocial and unfair. Defending the idea of ​​​​the destruction of the state, Bakunin contrasts him with his ideal of stateless “anarchist socialism”, based on the principles of self-government in the form of a federation of communities.

The theory of anarchism received its name at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. yours further development in the works of P.A. Kropotkin (1842-1921), who substantiated the concept of anarcho-communism, understanding anarchy as the violent overthrow of “power and capital” and the establishment of a communist system. Criticizing the inhumanity of bourgeois relations and the violation of individual rights by the state, the anarchist theorist proposed, as an alternative to the state, a non-political organization of humanity in the form of a federal planetary union of productive communities united on the basis of free agreement. Kropotkin's communist-anarchist society is a decentralized self-governing society of equal people, within which private property is expropriated and the principle of distribution according to needs operates. After the October events of 1917, the thinker criticized the results of the “Bolshevik revolution,” speaking out against the tactics of imposing communism from above through mass terror and noting that the previous authoritarian structures had practically been restored in a new form.

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. Solovyov criticized the vices of bourgeois countries Western Europe, where there is “the 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. Such a detailed description of intra-community life was necessary to maintain the spirit 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...

The main directions of socio-political thought in Russia in the first half of the 19th century.

Social movement in the 19th century.

Lecture 2.

2. Revolutionary-democratic movement in the 40-80s of the 19th century. Populism.

1. The main directions of socio-political thought in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. The growing understanding of Russia's lag behind Western European countries led to the rise of a social movement. Its distinctive feature in Russia in the first half of the 19th century was that the struggle for essentially bourgeois transformations was led by the nobles. The Russian bourgeoisie was still weak; being at the stage of formation, it cared only about increasing capital.

In the second quarter of the 19th century, three directions emerged in the Russian social movement: conservative, liberal-democratic and revolutionary-democratic. Conservatives insisted on preserving the foundations of the existing system; liberals recognized the need for reform and put pressure on the government to force it to begin reforms; the radicals insisted on a radical change in the existing system.

At the beginning of his reign, Alexander I pursued a liberal policy. In 1801, under the emperor, a Secret Committee was formed, which included his friends - Count P. Stroganov, Count V. Kochubey, Prince Czartoryski and Count N. Novosiltsev. The committee discussed pressing issues of Russian life - serfdom, public education and others. In 1803, a decree on free cultivators was issued, according to which landowners received the right to free peasants with land for a ransom. And although the practical significance of this decree is small - the landowners set a very high ransom amount - it had an important legal significance: the right of the peasants to become free people was recognized. In an effort to somehow disguise serfdom, the government prohibited the printing of advertisements in newspapers about the sale of serfs, the trading of peasants at fairs, and the exile of peasants to hard labor.

In 1803, a new regulation on the organization of educational institutions was approved. Continuity was introduced between schools at different levels. In addition to Moscow, five universities were founded: Dorpat, Kharkov, Vilna, Kazan, St. Petersburg. Universities were independent in choosing a rector and professors, and independent in many other matters.

In 1802, Peter's collegiums were replaced by ministries. Initially, eight ministries were established: military, naval, foreign affairs, justice, internal affairs, finance, commerce, and public education. In subsequent years, the number of ministries increased, and their functions were even more clearly delineated. As a result, a system of sectoral management was established in the country. The unity of command of ministers and their direct subordination to the emperor contributed to the strengthening of autocracy and centralization of power. The role and powers of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod have been strengthened.

In 1810, under the emperor, the State Council was established - the highest legislative body. The creation of the State Council was an integral part of the public administration reform project developed by M. Speransky (and became its only result). The project provided for the principle of separation of powers, the convening of a representative State Duma and the introduction of elected courts.

Speransky's plans aroused sharp criticism from the conservative nobility. The famous historian Karamzin became the ideologist of the conservatives. In “Note on Ancient and new Russia”, addressed to the tsar, N. Karamzin argued for the need to preserve autocracy, argued that Russia’s prosperity would be brought not by reforms, but by selection worthy people to leadership positions. As a result, M. Speransky was removed from business and exiled.

But Alexander I did not abandon the thought of reforms. In 1815, a Constitution was introduced in the Kingdom of Poland, which became part of Russia after the defeat of Napoleon. Legislative power belonged to parliament - the Sejm, executive power - to the emperor. The principles of the Polish constitution were used in the Charter Russian Empire", prepared on behalf of the Tsar by the Minister of Justice N. Novosiltsev. Projects for the abolition of serfdom were also developed. But they all remained on paper.

In 1815-1825 In Alexander's politics, a conservative tendency began to intensify. It found expression in the creation of military settlements, the destruction of Moscow and Kazan universities, and military and police brutality. In the last decade of the reign of Alexander I domestic policy a conservative trend was increasingly felt. After the name of its guide, it was called “Arakcheevshchina”.

Disappointment in Alexander's liberalism became one of the prerequisites for the formation of the ideology of the Decembrists, which laid the foundation for a radical trend in the country's socio-political thought.

The Decembrist movement was caused by the objective conditions of the country's socio-economic development, an understanding of the disastrous nature of maintaining serfdom and autocracy for the future fate of the country. Patriotic War 1812, in which main role played by the people, and the subsequent foreign campaign of the Russian army convinced the Decembrists of the need to improve the lot of the peasantry. The growing anti-serfdom struggle of peasants and the international situation, the revolutionary events of the late 18th century in Europe, training in advanced educational institutions and familiarity with the ideas of advanced French educators also contributed to the formation of revolutionary ideology

The first political secret society - “Union of Salvation” - was founded in 1816 by P. Pestel, A.N. Muravyov, M.I. Muravyov, S. Trubetskoy. The goals of the society were the abolition of serfdom, the elimination of autocracy, and the introduction of representative government in Russia. However, the means to achieve the goal were rather vague, and the number of members of the society was very limited - about three dozen.

In 1818, the “Union of Welfare” was created, uniting about 200 people. The society was led by A. and N. Muravyovs, S. and M. Muravyov-Apostles, P. Pestel, M. Lunin and others. The “Union of Prosperity” had the same goals as the “Union of Salvation” and carried out broad propaganda, educational and charitable activities, trying to form public opinion against serfdom. Members of society freed their serfs, bought them from landowners, and set free the most gifted peasants. However, there were sharp ideological and tactical disagreements within society, which became the reason for the organization’s self-dissolution in 1821. Thus, it was decided to get rid of random people and create a carefully clandestine organization to prepare for a revolutionary uprising.

In 1821-1822 On the basis of the dissolved “Union of Welfare”, the Southern and Northern societies arose. They were interconnected, their members considered themselves members of a single organization. The founder and leader of the Southern Society was P. Pestel, the leader of the Northern Society was N. Muravyov. In 1823, the “Society of United Slavs” was created in Ukraine, which subsequently merged with the Southern Society.

The struggle between the radical and moderate trends within the Decembrist movement found expression in the program documents of the organizations - “The Constitution” by N. Muravyov and “Russian Truth” by Pestel. Both documents provided for the abolition of serfdom and the destruction of the autocracy, the introduction of democratic freedoms in the country, the abolition of class restrictions, i.e. carrying out bourgeois-democratic reforms. However, the “Constitution” was distinguished by moderation in resolving basic issues. Muravyov advocated a constitutional monarchy, in which legislative power in the country belongs to parliament (the People's Assembly), and executive power to the emperor. The suffrage of citizens was limited by a 500-ruble property qualification. The “Constitution” provided for the allocation of land to peasants in the amount of 2 dessiatinas and declared the right of private ownership of land sacred, which guaranteed the inviolability of landowners’ lands.

Pestel, a staunch republican, spoke out for the destruction of the autocracy and the proclamation of Russia as a republic. The Russkaya Pravda provided for the introduction of universal suffrage for men over 20 years of age. Pestel put forward the principle of distributing land according to labor standards to ensure a living wage. For this purpose, it was envisaged to create a public land fund from state, monastery and part of the landowners' land.

Despite the differences, both documents were programs for the bourgeois-democratic transformation of society.

The conspirators planned to set out in the summer of 1826, but the unexpected death of Alexander I changed their plans. Members of the Northern Society decided to take advantage of the interregnum that had arisen due to the fact that Constantine, the brother of Alexander I, was to inherit the throne. Only his relatives knew about his abdication in favor of his brother Nicholas, so initially the state apparatus and the army swore allegiance to Constantine. When it became known about Constantine’s abdication of the throne, the re-oath of the Senate to Nicholas was scheduled for December 14.

At a secret meeting on December 13, 1825, it was decided in the morning to withdraw troops to the square in front of the Senate and demand that the senators not swear allegiance to the emperor, accept and publish the “Manifesto to the Russian People,” prepared by the Decembrists and containing their main demands. S. Trubetskoy was appointed leader of the uprising.

On December 14, 1825, at 11 a.m., the Moscow Life Guards Regiment, led by A. and M. Bestuzhev and D. Shchepin-Rostovsky, came to Senate Square. In the afternoon, sailors of the Guards naval crew and a company of the Life Grenadier Regiment arrived - about 3 thousand people in total. They were waiting for the leader, but Trubetskoy never came to the square. It also turned out that the senators had already sworn allegiance to Nicholas and left. The rebels were in confusion, which Nicholas I took advantage of. General M. Miloradovich, a hero of the war of 1812, popular among the soldiers, addressed those gathered in the square with a call to disperse. Realizing the danger of his words, P. Kakhovsky mortally wounded the general. Units loyal to the government began shelling. The rebels tried to escape from artillery shot on the ice of the Neva. The uprising was suppressed. Arrests of society members began.

On December 29, 1825, members of the Southern Society S. Muravyov-Apostol and M. Bestuzhev-Ryumin raised the Chernigov regiment in an uprising, but the uprising in the south was also suppressed.

579 people were involved in the investigation into the Decembrist case. Of these, 289 people were found to be involved in secret revolutionary societies, and 131 people were found guilty.

Five people - P. Pestel, K. Ryleev, S. Muravyov-Apostol, M. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, P. Kakhovsky - were executed. The rest were exiled to hard labor, sent to settlements, exiled to serfdom, demoted to the ranks of soldiers and transferred to the active army in the Caucasus.

The defeat of the Decembrists was a consequence of the inconsistency of their actions, the reliance on a conspiracy, a military coup. But the main thing is that society was not ready for transformation.

Despite the defeat, the Decembrists went down in history. Novels are written about them, poems are dedicated to them, films are made. The historical significance of the Decembrist movement is that they, the foremost representatives of the ruling class, were the first to develop a program for the revolutionary reorganization of society and the first to try to implement it. The ideas of the Decembrists contributed to the formation of independent public opinion aimed at eliminating autocracy and serfdom.

The reign of Nicholas I, which began with a brutal reprisal against the Decembrists, was marked by the triumph of reaction. The ideological justification for the reactionary policy of the autocracy, a kind of manifesto for the conservatives, was the theory of the official nationality of the Minister of Public Education, Count S. Uvarov. It was based on three principles: autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality. Autocracy was seen as the only true and possible form of government for Russia. Orthodoxy was declared to be the basis of the spiritual life of the Russian people, understood as the deep religiosity and commitment to orthodox Christianity inherent in the Russian people. Nationality meant the unity of the people with the tsar, the tsar’s caring care for his subjects and the absence of social upheavals in the country. Devotion to the autocracy was declared the civic duty of everyone. An integral part of the theory of official nationality was the conclusion about the impossibility and unnecessaryness of fundamental changes in Russia.

Ideas about the beneficial influence of autocracy and serfdom on the situation in the country, protecting from social upheavals in contrast to the “rotting West,” were instilled from church and university departments, in schools and army barracks, and were propagated through the press. Its active conductors were journalists F. Bulgarin and N. Grech, professors of Moscow University M. Pogodin and S. Shevyrev. The government of Nicholas I tried to fit the country's social thought into the Procrustean bed of the theory of official nationality. However, it was not possible to drown out free thought in this way.

P. Chaadaev sharply criticized the official ideology. The relative stability of the internal political situation in Russia was, in his opinion, evidence of dead stagnation, the inertia of social forces. “Russia has nothing to be proud of in front of the West,” Chaadaev said, “on the contrary, it has not made any contribution to world culture and has remained uninvolved in the most important processes in the history of mankind.” The reason for this, Chaadaev believed, was Russia’s separation from Europe and especially the Orthodox worldview.

For this statement, Chaadaev was declared insane and put under house arrest. But his ideas had a great influence on the further development of social thought.

Indirect evidence of the rejection of the official ideology was the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles - representatives of various ideological movements among liberals opposed to the government. The ideologists of the Slavophiles were K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, A.S. Khomyakov, Yu.F. Samarin, I.V. and P.V.Kireevsky and others. The Western direction was represented by P.V.Annenkov, V.P.Botkin, T.N.Granovsky, K.D.Kavelin and others.

Westerners defended the idea of ​​common historical paths of development of Russia and Europe and believed that Russia should learn from the West, adopt all the best and most advanced. They were supporters of a constitutional monarchy. Slavophiles, on the contrary, spoke about a special path of development for Russia and exaggerated its national identity. Of particular value to the Slavophiles were the Orthodox religion and the peasant community, which determined the basic principles of Russian life - the communal principle and the principle of consent (in contrast to Western individualism and rationalism). Slavophiles rejected and Nikolaev Russia, and the modern Western world. Their views were turned to the past - the Slavophiles idealized pre-Petrine Rus' and believed that Peter I, with his reforms, destroyed the harmonious way of Russian life. Slavophiles were supporters of autocracy, but advocated the revival of the practice of convening Zemsky Sobors and the introduction of civil liberties.

Despite the differences between Westerners and Slavophiles, representatives of these movements were united by the recognition of the need to abolish serfdom, introduce political freedoms - freedom of speech, conscience, etc., and develop entrepreneurship. The historical merit of liberals is that with their discussions they prepared the ground - public opinion - for liberal reforms.

2. Revolutionary-democratic movement in the 40-80s of the 19th century. Populism. After the defeat of the Decembrist uprising, a characteristic form of the anti-government movement became small circles, whose members shared the ideology of the Decembrists and criticized the government. Secret organizations of the first half of the 1830s were mainly educational in nature. Groups formed around N. Stankevich, V. Belinsky, A. Herzen and N. Ogarev, whose members studied the political works of domestic and foreign authors and promoted the latest Western philosophy. In the 1840s, the spread of socialist ideas (Petrashevtsy) began in Russia. Their further development in Russia is associated with the name of A. Herzen.

In the 1830-1840s, A. Herzen was engaged in literary activities. His works contained a protest against violence and tyranny, the idea of ​​personal freedom. In his youth, A. Herzen shared the ideas of Westerners and recognized the unity of the historical path of the West and Russia. In 1847, A. Herzen went abroad and witnessed the European revolutions of 1848-1849. Close acquaintance with the capitalist order convinced him that the experience of the West was not suitable for the Russian people. Socialism became the ideal of social structure for A. Herzen. A. Herzen founded the “Free Russian Printing House” in London, and together with N. Ogarev published the almanac “Polar Star” and the newspaper “Bell”. A. Herzen created the theory of “community socialism”, which formed the basis for the activities of revolutionaries in the 1860-1870s. In the 1860s, the editorial office of Kolokol became one of the centers of the radical trend in Russia. A. Herzen propagated his theory of “communal socialism” and exposed the predatory conditions for the liberation of peasants.

Another center of the radical trend developed around the editorial office of the Sovremennik magazine and its leading publicist N. Chernyshevsky. A supporter of socialism and democracy, he sharply criticized the government for the essence of the reform of 1861, and saw the need for Russia to use the experience of the European development model. Based on Chernyshevsky’s ideas, several secret organizations were formed, whose members began preparing for a people’s revolution. In the magazine “Land and Freedom”, in the proclamations “Bow to the lordly peasants from their well-wishers”, “To the younger generation”, etc., they explained to the people the tasks of the upcoming revolution, substantiated the need for the elimination of autocracy and the democratic transformation of Russia, a fair solution to the agrarian question.

At the turn of the 1860-1870s, largely based on the ideas of Herzen and Chernyshevsky, populist ideology took shape. There were two trends among the populists: liberal and revolutionary. The ideas of the revolutionary populists were that capitalism has no social roots in Russia; the future of the country lies in communal socialism; peasants are ready to accept socialist ideas; transformations must be carried out in a revolutionary way.

In revolutionary populism itself, three trends are distinguished: rebellious (leader M. Bakunin), propaganda (P. Lavrov), conspiratorial (P. Tkachev). M. Bakunin believed that the Russian peasant is a rebel by nature and is ready for revolution. Bakunin saw the task of the intelligentsia as going to the people and inciting an all-Russian revolt.

P. Lavrov, on the contrary, believed that the people needed to be prepared for revolution and therefore saw the task of the intelligentsia as going to the people and promoting socialism among the peasants.

P. Tkachev also believed that the people were not ready for revolution. At the same time, he called the Russian people “communists by instinct,” who do not need to be taught socialism. In his opinion, a narrow group of conspirators (professional revolutionaries), having seized power, would quickly involve the people in a socialist reconstruction (it was this option that was implemented by the Bolsheviks in October 1917).

In 1874, based on the ideas of Bakunin, the populist revolutionaries organized a mass “walk among the people” with the aim of rousing the peasants to revolt. However, the peasants remained deaf to the revolutionaries' calls. The movement was crushed.

In 1876, the surviving participants in the “walking among the people” formed the secret organization “Land and Freedom”. Its program provided for the implementation of a socialist revolution by overthrowing the autocracy, transferring all land to the peasants and introducing “secular self-government” in cities and villages. The organization was headed by V. Plekhanov, A. Mikhailov, V. Figner, N. Morozov and others. The Zemlyovoltsy undertook the second “walk among the people.” Preparing to conduct long-term agitation among the peasants, they settled in villages. However, this time too the people remained deaf to the calls of the revolutionaries. (Remember in this regard the Decembrist uprising. Could they count on the support of the people in 1825?)

In 1878, some of the populists returned to the idea of ​​the terrorist struggle. Disputes over tactical and programmatic issues led to a split in the organization. In 1879, on the basis of “Land and Freedom”, the “Black Redistribution” (G. Plekhanov, L. Deitch, P. Axelrod, V. Zasulich) and “People’s Will” (A. Zhelyabov, A. Mikhailov, S. Perovskaya) arose , N. Morozov). The Black Peredelites remained faithful to the program principles and methods of action of “Land and Freedom,” while the Narodnaya Volya, disappointed in the revolutionary potential of the peasants, set a course for preparing a political coup and overthrowing the autocracy, establishing a democratic system in the country, and destroying private property. They carried out a number of terrorist attacks against the Tsar and senior government officials, as a result of one of which Alexander II was killed. However, the populists’ expectations did not come true, which confirmed the ineffectiveness of terrorist methods of struggle and led to an intensification of the reaction in the country. In the 1880-1890s, the influence of liberal populists, who rejected violent methods of struggle, increased in the social movement.

3. Labor movement in Russia. Formation of the RSDLP. Russia's entry onto the path of capitalism was accompanied by the emergence of the labor question. The beginning of the labor movement in Russia dates back to the 1860-1880s. During these years it was characterized by spontaneity and disorganization. Workers could beat up the hated foreman, break windows in the administration building, or break machines. The workers' struggle was economic in nature - they demanded higher wages, shorter working hours, streamlining and abolition of fines. In May 1870, the first strikes took place at the Nevsky Paper Spinning Mill, and in 1872 at the Krenholm Manufactory in Narva. In the mid-1870s, the first workers' organizations arose - the "South Russian Workers' Union" (1875) and the "Northern Union of Russian Workers" (1878). Working environment nominated its leaders - S. Khalturin, P. Alekseev, Obnorsky, P. Moiseenko.

The most significant performance initial period The labor movement was a strike at the Nikolskaya manufactory of the manufacturer T. Morozov in Orekhovo-Zuevo in 1885 (“Morozov strike”). The workers stopped work in an organized manner, elected a group of representatives to negotiate with the administration, and demanded government intervention in their relations with the factory owners. An investigation into the causes of the strikes revealed monstrous exploitation of workers. The growth of the strike movement forced the government to develop labor legislation. In 1886, a law was passed on the procedure for hiring and firing, and the regulation of fines. Night work for teenagers and women was prohibited.

In the 1880s, Marxism began to spread in the country. Former members of the “Black Redistribution” group G. Plekhanov, V. Zasulich, L. Deitch, V. Ignatov turned to Marxism. In 1883 in Geneva they formed the “Liberation of Labor” group. Members of the group translated the works of K. Marx and F. Engels into Russian, promoted Marxism in the Russian revolutionary environment, and sharply criticized populist theory. In Russia itself, circles were formed to study Marxism and promote it among workers, students and minor employees (circles of D. Blagoev, N. Fedoseev, M. Brusnev, etc.). Both the “Emancipation of Labor” and the Russian Marxist circles were cut off from the labor movement, but with their activities they prepared the ground for the emergence of the Social Democratic Party in Russia.

In 1895 in St. Petersburg, scattered Marxist circles united into the “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class.” V. Lenin, L. Martov and others played an active role in the “Union...” Similar organizations were created in Moscow, Kyiv, Ivanovo-Voznesensk. These organizations laid the foundation for the connection of the labor movement with Marxism (they published leaflets and carried out propaganda of Marxist ideas among the proletariat).

The first social democratic parties began to emerge in the 1880-1890s of the 19th century in the national regions of Russia: Finland, Poland, Armenia. In 1898, an attempt was made to create the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP). The First Congress of the RSDLP was held in Minsk, at which the creation of the party was announced. However, neither the party program nor the Charter were adopted. In addition, only 9 delegates were present at the congress, 6 of them were arrested on their way back home.

The real unification of disparate circles and organizations was facilitated by the publication of the newspaper “Iskra” (1900) on the initiative of G. Plekhanov, L. Martov, V. Lenin. In fact, the history of the RSDLP dates back to 1903, when the Second Congress of the RSDLP took place, at which the program and the Party Charter were adopted. The party program consisted of two parts: a minimum program and a maximum program. The minimum program provided for solving the problems of the bourgeois-democratic revolution (elimination of autocracy, introduction of an 8-hour working day and democratic freedoms). The maximum program is the implementation of a socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Already at the Second Congress, the party split into Bolsheviks (supporters of Lenin) and Mensheviks (supporters of Martov). The Bolsheviks sought to transform the party into a narrow organization of professional revolutionaries. The Mensheviks believed that Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution, opposed the dictatorship of the proletariat, and allowed the possibility of cooperation with all opposition forces. Despite the split, the party set a course for preparing a revolution.

For the ideological justification of autocracy, Minister of Public Education Count S.S. Uvarov created the theory of official nationality. It was based on three principles: autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality. The originality lay in the recognition of autocracy as the only possible form of government in Russia. Serfdom was seen as a benefit for the people and the state. The theory of official nationality was not only propagated through the press, but was also widely introduced into the education system.

The theory of official nationality caused sharp criticism not only from the radical part of society, but also from liberals

At the turn of the 30-40s of the 19th century. Two ideological trends emerged - Slavophilism and Westernism. The desire to see Russia prosperous and powerful among all European powers. To do this, they considered it necessary to establish a constitutional monarchy, soften and even abolish serfdom, provide peasants with small plots of land, and introduce freedom of speech and conscience. Fearing revolutionary upheavals, they believed that the government itself should carry out the necessary reforms. At the same time, there were significant differences in the views of Slavophiles and Westerners. Slavophiles exaggerated Russia's national identity. They insisted on returning to those orders when the Zemsky Sobors conveyed the opinion of the people to the authorities. The struggle of the Slavophiles against sycophancy before the West, their study of the history of the people and people's life were of great importance positive value for the development of Russian culture. Westerners proceeded from the fact that Russia should develop in line with European civilization. They advocated broad education of the people, believing that this was the only sure way for the success of modernization of the socio-political system of Russia. Slavophiles and Westerners laid the foundation in the 30-50s of the 19th century. the basis of the liberal-reformist direction in the social movement.

22. Peasant reform 1861: reasons for the abolition of serfdom, content and consequences of the reform.

The agrarian-peasant question by the mid-19th century. has become the most acute socio-political problem in Russia. Among European states, serfdom remained only in it, hindering its economic and socio-political development. By the middle of the 19th century. the preconditions that led to the collapse of the serfdom system had finally matured. First of all, it has outlived its usefulness economically. Thus, the abolition of serfdom was determined by political, economic, social and moral prerequisites. February 19, 1861 - Alexander II signed the Manifesto on the abolition of serfdom.

The manifesto provided peasants with personal freedom and general civil rights. A peasant could own movable and immovable property, could act as a legal entity, could freely marry, enter the service and educational establishments, change place of residence, move to the class of burghers and merchants. However, the peasants remained the only class that paid a poll tax, carried out conscription duties and could be subjected to corporal punishment. The size of plots given to peasants depended on the fertility of the soil. Russia was conditionally divided into three zones: black earth, non-black earth and steppe. It was not given to the peasants for free. The peasant had to pay 20% of the cost of the land immediately. 80% of the land was paid for by the state, but accordingly, not out of its own pocket, and the peasants were given a loan for 49 years at 6% per annum - this is a rip-off. The peasants will repay this loan until 1906. But by this time the peasants had overpaid by as much as 4 times. Those peasants who could not pay 20% of the cost of the land were given a plot 4 times less than the established norm. The reform of 1861 brought freedom to many millions of serfs and cleared the way for the establishment of bourgeois relations. At the same time, the reform was half-hearted. The reform made it possible to preserve landownership and doomed Russian peasants to land shortages, poverty and economic dependence on the landowners. The reform did not eliminate the agrarian question in Russia, which remained central and most acute in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries.