Russian Westerners created it in the 19th century. Social movements in Russia in the 19th century

Russian philosophy of the 19th century: the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles.

Some ideas of the doctrine of knowledge and truth

The organic world differs from the inorganic world by the ability to create, form new forms, invent, and invent. And this is a manifestation of the will to power.

All organic beings that are endowed with will, consciousness and thinking create their own little worlds around themselves. Moreover, the way to create these little worlds is interpretation, interpretation, and this is also a manifestation of the will to power. There are no facts in themselves, but only interpretation. The laws of nature discovered by man are only an interpretation. Our concept of knowledge is not entirely adequate to the process of interpretation. Nietzsche emphasizes that many, even countless, interpretations are possible for any text; it is not possible to single out the more true one.

Truth concept. According to Nietzsche, truth is one of the types of error, without which we, however, cannot exist. Truth performs a tool, instrumental function: it helps us create the worlds in which we live.

Nietzsche has a positive attitude towards science, considering it a tool of human domination over nature. At the same time, scientists often strive for knowledge of the unconditional. However, the slave also strives only for the unconditional and understands only the tyrannical. Therefore, one who believes in science and its ability to solve all problems has a slave soul.

The worlds that the organic creates, in particular, different people, are different worlds. The world of the scientist, whom Nietzsche interprets as a herd animal in the world of knowledge, is one world, the world of the ruler is another world, the world of the superman is the third world.

There were two categories of Westerners: moderate - liberals and radical - revolutionary democrats. Liberals - Granovsky, Annenkov, Kavelin, Redkin, Chernyshevsky (not everyone classifies him as a Westerner); extreme Westerners (revolutionary-democratic direction) - Belinsky, Herzen, Ogarev.

Under liberalism in philosophy and in the socio-political aspect, emphasizing the merits of an individual person, protecting individual human freedom from any collectivity and state pressure was and is understood. Westerners defended private property, were for a market economy and minimal government intervention in the economy. They had a desire to transform Russia along the Western path, towards Europeanization and the embodiment of Western ideas.

The differences between liberals and extreme Westerners were in the understanding and methods of this Europeanization. Radical Westerners advocated the implementation of the ideas of Western European socialism in Russia, liberals - for capitalization, for the development of the capitalist mode of production, and for legal protection.

Slavophiles
Main representatives: Khomyakov, Kireevsky, Samarin, Aksakov brothers. Khomyakov and Kireevsky mainly dealt with philosophical issues and developed the basic principles and concepts of this philosophical and socio-political direction. Samarin was mainly concerned with the peasant issue. The Aksakov brothers dealt with socio-political ideas.

From the title itself it is clear that we are talking about those people who love the Slavs. In fact, the social part of their philosophy is directly opposite to the social ideas of Westerners.

The basic concepts of the Slavophiles are life science, conciliarity and community. True truth, from the point of view of Khomyakov, Kireevsky and their followers, is not grasped either with the help of sensory experience or reason separately. The real truth, from the point of view of the Slavophile, is grasped in the “science of life.” According to Khomyakov, life science (as well as what would later be called “whole view” by Kireevsky and “whole knowledge” by Solovyov) is an organic synthesis of sensory experience, rational thinking and mystical intuition. Moreover, truth is not the property of an individual, but it is the property of the collective consciousness of people united on the basis of the principles of freedom and love.

In the 40-50s. XIX century In Russian society and philosophical thought, two directions appeared - Slavophiles, who began to talk about the “special path of Russia” and “Westerners”, who insisted on the need for Russia to follow the path of Western civilization, especially in the field of social structure, civil life, and culture.

The word “Slavophile” was first used in an ironic sense to designate a certain social type by the poet Konstantin Batyushkov. The term "Westernism" first appeared in Russian culture in the 40s. XIX century, in particular, in “Memoirs” of Ivan Panaev. It began to be used frequently after Aksakov’s break with Belinsky in 1840.

Archimandrite Gabriel (Vasily Voskresensky) stood at the origins of Slavophilism. His “Russian Philosophy,” published in 1840 in Kazan, became a kind of barometer of the emerging Slavophilism.

The views of the Slavophiles were formed in ideological disputes that intensified after the publication of Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letter”. Slavophiles came out with a justification for the original path of historical development of Russia, fundamentally different from the path of Western Europe. The uniqueness of Russia, according to Slavophiles, lies in the absence of class struggle in its history, in the Russian land community and artels, in Orthodoxy as the only true Christianity.

The main role in developing the views of the Slavophiles was played by writers, poets and scientists Khomyakov, Kirievsky, Aksakov, Samarin. Prominent Slavophiles were Koshelev, Valuev, Chizhov, Belyaev, Hilferding, Lamansky, Cherkassky. Writers Dal, Ostrovsky, Grigoriev, Tyutchev, Yazykov were close to the Slavophiles in their social and ideological positions. Historians and linguists Buslaev, Bodyansky, Grigorovich paid great tribute to the views of the Slavophiles.

The center of the Slavophiles in the 1840s. there was Moscow, the literary salons of the Elagins, Sverbeevs, Pavlovs, where Slavophiles communicated and debated with Westerners. The works of Slavophiles were subjected to censorship, some of the Slavophiles were under police surveillance and were arrested. Due to censorship obstacles, the Slavophiles for a long time did not have a permanent press; they published mainly in the magazine “Moskvityanin”. After some easing of censorship in the late 1850s. they published the magazine "Russian Conversation", "Rural Improvement" and the newspapers "Molva" and "Parus".

On the question of the path of historical development of Russia, the Slavophiles spoke out, in contrast to the Westerners, against Russia’s assimilation of the forms of Western European political life. At the same time, they considered it necessary to develop trade and industry, joint stock and banking, the construction of railways and the use of machinery in agriculture. Slavophiles advocated the abolition of serfdom “from above” with the provision of land plots to peasant communities.

The philosophical views of the Slavophiles were developed mainly by Khomyakov, Kireevsky, and later Samarin and represented a unique religious and philosophical teaching. The true faith, which came to Rus' from the Eastern Church, determines, according to the Slavophiles, a special historical mission of the Russian people. The beginning of “sobornost” (free community), which characterizes the life of the Eastern Church, was seen by the Slavophiles in Russian society. Orthodoxy and the tradition of communal life have formed the deep foundations of the Russian soul.

Idealizing patriarchy and the principles of traditionalism, the Slavophiles understood the people in the spirit of conservative romanticism. At the same time, the Slavophiles called on the intelligentsia to get closer to the people, to study their life and way of life, culture and language.
The ideas of the Slavophiles were uniquely refracted in the religious and philosophical concepts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Soloviev, Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Karsavin, Florensky, etc.).

Westerners - a direction of Russian anti-feudal social thought of the 40s of the 19th century, opposing the Slavophiles. The initial organizational base of Westerners was the Moscow literary salons. Ideological disputes in Moscow salons are depicted by Herzen in Past and Thoughts. The Moscow circle of Westerners included Herzen, Granovsky, Ogarev, Botkin, Ketcher, Korsh, Kavelin and others. Belinsky, who lived in St. Petersburg, had a close connection with the circle; Turgenev was also a Westerner.

The general features of the ideology of Westerners include rejection of the feudal-serf system in economics, politics and culture; demand for socio-economic reforms along Western lines. Representatives of Westerners considered it possible to establish a bourgeois-democratic system peacefully - through education and propaganda to form public opinion and force the monarchy to bourgeois reforms; they highly appreciated the transformations of Peter I.

Westerners advocated overcoming the social and economic backwardness of Russia not on the basis of the development of original cultural elements (as suggested by the Slavophiles), but through the experience of Europe that had gone ahead. They focused attention not on the differences between Russia and the West, but on the commonality in their historical and cultural destinies.

In the mid-1840s. A fundamental split occurred among the Westerners - after the dispute between Herzen and Granovsky, the Westerners were divided into the liberal (Annenkov, Granovsky, Kavelin, etc.) and the revolutionary-democratic wing (Herzen, Ogarev, Belinsky). The disagreements concerned the attitude towards religion (Granovsky and Korsh defended the dogma of the immortality of the soul, the democrats and Botkin spoke from the positions of atheism and materialism) and the issue of methods of reform and post-reform development of Russia (the democrats put forward the ideas of revolutionary struggle and building socialism). These disagreements were carried over into the sphere of aesthetics and philosophy.

The philosophical research of Westerners was influenced by: in the early stages - Schiller, Hegel, Schelling; later Feuerbach, Comte and Saint-Simon.

In post-reform times, under the conditions of capitalist development, Westernism as a special direction in social thought ceased to exist.

The views of Westerners were developed in Russian liberal thought of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In Russia in the middle of the 19th century, two philosophical trends clashed - Westernism and Slavophilism. The so-called Westerners firmly believed that the country should adopt the European model of development, basing it on liberal democratic values. The Slavophiles, in turn, believed that Russia should have its own path, different from the Western one. In this article we will focus our attention on the Westernization movement. What were their views and ideas? And who can be counted among the main representatives of this direction of Russian philosophical thought?

Russia in the first half of the 19th century

So, Westerners – who are they? Before answering this question, it is worth getting at least a little familiar with the social, economic and cultural situation in which Russia found itself in the first half of the century before last.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Russia faced a difficult test - the Patriotic War with the French army of Napoleon Bonaparte. It had a liberation character and provoked an unprecedented rise in patriotic feelings among the broad masses of the population. In this war, the Russian people not only defended their independence, but also significantly strengthened the position of their state in the political arena. At the same time, the Patriotic War claimed thousands of lives and caused serious damage to the Russian economy.

Speaking about this period of Russian history, one cannot fail to mention the Decembrist movement. These were mainly officers and wealthy nobles who demanded reforms, fair trials and, of course, the abolition of serfdom. However, the Decembrist uprising, which took place in December 1825, failed.

Agriculture in the first half of the 19th century in Russia was still extensive. At the same time, active development of new lands begins - in the Volga region and in the south of Ukraine. As a result of technological progress, machines have been introduced into many industries. As a result, productivity increased two to three times. The pace of urbanization accelerated significantly: the number of cities in the Russian Empire almost doubled between 1801 and 1850.

Social movements in Russia in the 1840-1850s

Social and political movements in Russia in the second quarter of the 19th century revived noticeably, despite the reactionary policies of Nicholas I. And this revival was largely due to the ideological legacy of the Decembrists. They tried to find answers to the questions they posed throughout the nineteenth century.

The main dilemma that was hotly discussed in those days was the choice of development path for the country. And everyone saw this path in their own way. As a result, many directions of philosophical thought were born, both liberal and radical revolutionary.

All these directions can be combined into two large movements:

Westernism.
Slavophilism.

Westernism: definition and essence of the term

It is believed that Emperor Peter the Great introduced a split into Russian society into so-called Westerners and Slavophiles. After all, it was he who began to actively adopt the ways and norms of life of European society.

Westerners are representatives of one of the most important trends in Russian social thought, which was formed at the turn of the 30s and 40s of the 19th century. They were also often called “Europeans.” Russian Westerners argued that there was no need to invent anything. For Russia, it is necessary to choose the advanced path that has already been successfully traversed by Europe. Moreover, Westerners were confident that Russia would be able to go much further along it than the West did.

Among the origins of Westernism in Russia, three main factors can be distinguished:

Ideas of the European Enlightenment of the 18th century.
Economic reforms of Peter the Great.
Establishing close socio-economic ties with Western European countries.

By origin, the Westerners were predominantly wealthy merchants and noble landowners. There were also scientists, publicists and writers among them. Let us list the most prominent representatives of Westernism in Russian philosophy:

Peter Chaadaev.
Vladimir Solovyov.
Boris Chicherin.
Ivan Turgenev.
Alexander Herzen.
Pavel Annenkov.
Nikolai Chernyshevsky.
Vissarion Belinsky.

Basic ideas and views of Westerners

It is important to note that Westerners did not at all deny Russian identity and originality. They insisted only that Russia should develop in the wake of European civilization. And the foundation of this development should be based on universal human values and personal freedoms. At the same time, they considered society as a tool for the realization of an individual.

The main ideas of the Westernization movement include the following:

Adoption of the main values of the West.
Reducing the gap between Russia and Europe.
Development and deepening of market relations.
Establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Russia.
Abolition of serfdom.
Development of universal education.
Popularization of scientific knowledge.

V. S. Soloviev and his phases

Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900) is a prominent representative of the so-called religious Westernism. He identifies three main phases in the course of general Western European development:

Theocratic (represented by Roman Catholicism).
Humanitarian (expressed in rationalism and liberalism).
Naturalistic (expressed in the natural scientific direction of thought).

According to Solovyov, all these phases can be traced in the same sequence in the development of Russian social thought in the 19th century. At the same time, the theocratic aspect was most clearly reflected in the views of Pyotr Chaadaev, the humanitarian aspect in the works of Vissarion Belinsky, and the naturalistic aspect in Nikolai Chernyshevsky.

Vladimir Solovyov was convinced that the key feature of Russia was that it was a deeply Christian state. Accordingly, the Russian idea must be an integral part of the Christian idea.

P. Ya. Chaadaev and his views

Far from the last place in the social movement of Russian Westerners was occupied by the philosopher and publicist Pyotr Chaadaev (1794-1856). His main work, Philosophical Letters, was published in Telescope magazine in 1836. This work seriously stirred the public. The magazine was closed after this publication, and Chaadaev himself was declared crazy.

In his “Philosophical Letters” Pyotr Chaadaev contrasts Russia and Europe. And he calls religion the foundation of this opposition. He characterizes Catholic Europe as a progressive region with strong-willed and active people. But Russia, on the contrary, is a kind of symbol of inertia, immobility, which is explained by the excessive asceticism of the Orthodox faith. Chaadaev also saw the reason for the stagnation in the development of the state in the fact that the country was not sufficiently covered by the Enlightenment.

Westerners and Slavophiles: comparative characteristics

Both Slavophiles and Westerners sought to turn Russia into one of the leading countries in the world. However, they saw the methods and tools of this transformation differently. The following table will help you understand the key differences between these two movements.

Finally

So, Westerners are representatives of one of the branches of Russian social thought of the first half of the 19th century. They were confident that Russia in its further development should be guided by the experience of Western countries. It should be noted that the ideas of Westerners were subsequently transformed to some extent into the postulates of liberals and socialists.

Russian Westernism became a noticeable step forward in the development of dialectics and materialism. However, it was never able to provide any specific and scientifically based answers to pressing questions for the public.

Russia in the first half of the 19th century

So, who are the Westerners? Before answering this question, it is worth getting at least a little familiar with the social, economic and cultural situation in which Russia found itself in the first half of the century before last.

Social movements in Russia in the 1840-1850s

All these directions can be combined into two large movements:

Westernism.
Slavophilism.

Westernism: definition and essence of the term

Among the origins of Westernism in Russia, three main factors can be distinguished:

Ideas of the European Enlightenment of the 18th century.
Economic reforms of Peter the Great.
Establishing close socio-economic ties with Western European countries.

By origin, the Westerners were predominantly rich merchants and noble landowners. There were also scientists, publicists and writers among them. Let us list the most prominent representatives of Westernism in Russian philosophy:

Boris Chicherin.
Ivan Turgenev.
Alexander Herzen.
Pavel Annenkov.
Nikolai Chernyshevsky.
Vissarion Belinsky.

Basic ideas and views of Westerners

The main ideas of the Westernization movement include the following:

Adoption of the main values of the West.
Reducing the gap between Russia and Europe.
Development and deepening of market relations.
Establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Russia.
Abolition of serfdom.
Development of universal education.
Popularization of scientific knowledge.

V. S. Soloviev and his phases

Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900) is a prominent representative of the so-called religious Westernism. He identifies three main phases in the course of general Western European development:

Theocratic (represented by Roman Catholicism).
Humanitarian (expressed in rationalism and liberalism).
Naturalistic (expressed in the natural scientific direction of thought).

Vladimir Solovyov was convinced that the key feature of Russia was that it was a deeply Christian state. Accordingly, the Russian idea must be an integral part of the Christian idea.

P. Ya. Chaadaev and his views

Far from the last place in the social movement of Russian Westerners was occupied by the philosopher and publicist Pyotr Chaadaev (1794-1856). His main work, Philosophical Letters, was published in Telescope magazine in 1836. This work seriously stirred the public. After this publication, the magazine was closed, and Chaadaev himself was declared crazy.

Westerners and Slavophiles: comparative characteristics

Criterion of difference	Westerners	Slavophiles
Relation to Peter the Great	Positive. Peter I - the savior of Russia	Negative. The reforms of Peter I led Russia astray
Form of government	Constitutional monarchy, parliamentary system	Monarchy with advisory popular bodies
Desired development path	Western, European	Your own and special way
Agricultural development	Encouragement of private property	Development of the peasantry based on communal farming
Science and religion	The need for the development of science and technology, legal education of the population	Orthodoxy is the main support of Russia

Finally

When analyzing literary works, polemicizing and debating, we often refer to the opinions of literary critics and provide quotes from their works. Indeed, Russian literary critics of the 19th century raised their skills to unprecedented heights. They helped to see in literary works what was hidden from the reader's eyes. Sometimes writers understood themselves better after becoming acquainted with the opinion of a famous critic. Among such critics, in addition to V.G. Belinsky, belonged to V.N. Maikov (1823-1847), who discovered Tyutchev the poet and was one of the first to give a brilliant analysis of the early works of F.M. Dostoevsky, A.V. Druzhinin (1824-1864) and P.V. Annenkov (1813-1887). The latter not only worked as a literary secretary for Gogol himself during the creation of Dead Souls, but later became a true ally of Turgenev and Nekrasov, who considered him an exceptionally gifted critic. In any case, it was Turgenev who gave the completed works to him to read before sending them to print. Annenkov was also an excellent biographer. Read his book “Pushkin in the Alexander era” (1874) and you will literally become imbued with the life of the Russian Empire of that era, look at many things known to you from the textbook through the eyes of the great poet and feel the atmosphere in which he grew up.

After Belinsky's death in 1848, literary criticism was left without its leader-tribune, but the seeds of future literary criticism had already been sown. Subsequent critics, especially those who would later be classified as revolutionary-democratic, increasingly analyze ideas in isolation from literary mastery, connect images directly with life, and talk more and more about the “usefulness” of a particular work. This disregard for form became deliberate, reaching the point of declaring “war on aestheticism” and “the fight against pure art.” These beliefs prevailed in society. On the eve of the reforms and in the first post-reform years, the very prestige of tradition fell. Dynasties were interrupted, children looked for other paths, different from those chosen by their parents. This also concerned changes in literary tastes and preferences.

In the future you will see how great novels grew as if from life itself, becoming great works of literature. Critics of the new wave saw in them new interpretations of Russian life, and this gave literary works a meaning unexpected for their authors!

Slavophiles and Westerners

Slavophilism and Westernism are trends in Russian social and literary thought of the 40-60s of the 19th century.

In 1832, the Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov put forward the doctrine (theory) of the official nationality. It consisted of a simple formula of three words: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” Orthodoxy is the moral basis of Russian life. Autocracy is the foundations, the order of Russian life, which has developed historically. Nationality is the unity of the people and the father-king. All together this constitutes the invincible unity of the Russian people. Everything that does not correspond to this formula is a threat to the well-being of Russia. Count Uvarov did not reject enlightenment; he only argued that its correct organization was protective for the autocracy, and not destructive, as happened in Europe shaken by revolutions.

Inspired by this theory, which became mandatory for Russian officials, the head of the Third Department of the Imperial Chancellery A.Kh. Benckendorff said: “Russia’s past was amazing, its present is more than magnificent, and as for its future, it is beyond anything that the wildest imagination can draw.”

It was impossible to talk seriously about the present and future of Russia within the framework of the theory of official nationality. Various intellectual circles began to appear in Russia, in which possible ways of development of Russia were discussed. Despite the differences, sometimes irreconcilable, these circles were united by hatred of serfdom, rejection of the Nicholas regime, love for Russia and faith in its historical mission.

V.G. Belinsky first used the term “Slavophiles” in the article “Russian literature in 1843,” which was published in the January issue of Otechestvennye Zapiski for 1844. Here is a quote from his article: “We have champions of Europeanism, there are Slavophiles and others. They are called literary parties.” Although the Slavophiles considered this term inaccurate and did not call themselves that, it stuck. However, it was not Belinsky who introduced this word into the Russian language; it appeared during the struggle between the Karamzinists and the Shishkovists in Batyushkov’s poem “Vision on the Shores of Lethe” (1809).

The Slavophiles called their opponents Westerners.

The historical merits of both “literary parties” were obvious.

Slavophiles A.S. Khomyakov, brothers I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, K.S. and I.S. Aksakov, as well as Yu.F. Samarin criticized serfdom and bureaucracy, fought for freedom of opinion, for the spiritual openness of society. Although they did not reject the “official nationality,” their views were more democratic. The struggle for “Russianness” became their banner. Under this slogan they spoke in their magazines “Moskvityanin”, “Moscow collections”, “Russian conversation”, in the newspapers “Molva”, “Parus”, “Den”.

Slavophilism took shape as an ideological movement from 1840 to 1847. It existed until the beginning of the era of reforms. At the turn of the 1850-1860s, the theoreticians of Slavophilism died one after another, and the abolition of serfdom, coupled with the subsequent reforms, opened the way to capitalism in Russia. Russia entered the Western path of development, which the Slavophiles sincerely hated and considered harmful for Russia. Slavophiles stood up for community, “peace,” considering this a feature of the Russian way of life, Russian civilization. They believed that Russian people are characterized by “humility” and “community”; There is no initial rebellion or revolutionary spirit in them, there is no backwardness from Europe either, it’s just that Russia has its own special path of development.

The Slavophiles did not form an art school. Their work looked relatively pale in comparison with the works of such Westerners as Turgenev, Herzen and Belinsky. However, the outstanding Russian philosopher of the 20th century N.A. Berdyaev believed that it was “Slavophiles, and not Westerners, who struggled with the riddle of what the creator thought about Russia and what path he prepared for it.”

Westerners include people of very different make-up: P.Ya. Chaadaeva, T.N. Granovsky, M.A. Bakunina, S.M. Solovyova, K.D. Kavelina, N.A. Ogareva, V.P. Botkina, N.A. Melgunova, A.V. Nikitenko.

In the first half of the 1840s, the main printed organ of Westerners was the journal Otechestvennye zapiski, ideologically headed by Belinsky. Later, in 1846, Belinsky moved to Sovremennik, where he worked until the end of his life (1848).

Westerners, in contrast to the Slavophiles, recognized reason, not faith, as the basis of personality and society. They placed man at the center of their thoughts about the future, emphasizing the intrinsic value of each person as a bearer of reason, contrasting the idea of a free personality with the idea of the “conciliarity” of the Slavophiles. They argued that Russia, albeit belatedly, should move in the same direction of historical development as Western European countries, and believed that Russia needed Europeanization. Westerners advocated a constitutional-monarchical form of government with limitations on autocracy, with guarantees of freedom of speech, a public court and personal integrity. Westerners had a negative attitude toward the police-bureaucratic order of Nicholas Russia, but, like the Slavophiles, they advocated the abolition of serfdom “from above.”

Despite differences in views, Slavophiles and Westerners had much in common: they belonged to the most educated part of the noble intelligentsia - their circle included writers, publicists, and scientists. Both of them were opponents of the Nikolaev political system, and both of them were worried about the fate and paths of development of Russia. “We, like a two-faced Janus, looked in different directions, but our hearts beat the same,” wrote Herzen.

Slavophilism."Philosophical Letter" P.Ya. Chaadaev was accelerated by the division of Russian social thought into Slavophiles and Westerners. In the 30s The first groups opposed to the government policy arise, the main feature of which was, according to A.I. Herzen, a feeling of alienation from official Russia, from the environment that surrounded them. In the circles of the liberal nobility at the turn of the 30s and 40s. an ideological movement arose, called Slavophilism, the major representatives of which were writers, scientists, and public figures: A.S. Khomyakov, brothers I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky and I.S. and K.S. Aksakovs, Yu.F. Samarin, A.I. Koshelev and others. All of them came from the local nobility.

The Slavophiles put forward the thesis: “The power of power is for the king, the power of opinion is for the people.” This meant that the Russian people should not interfere in politics, giving the monarch full power. But the ruler must rule the country without interfering in the internal life of the people, taking into account their opinion.

Slavophiles were brought closer to representatives of the official nationality:
position on the identity and national exclusivity of the Russian people;
his messianic predestination;
rejection of most Western European standards of life;

defense of Orthodoxy and conservative public institutions.

One of the main ideologists of the Slavophiles A.S. Khomyakov began promoting Slavophile ideas from the late 30s. The main provisions of his Slavophil doctrine were first set forth in the article “On the Old and the New,” which was not intended for publication. He is an ardent defender of Orthodoxy, which alone, in his opinion, preserves the true Christian spirit. With the integrity of the worldview of A.S. Khomyakov, his socio-political views were distinguished by a certain inconsistency. A supporter of autocratic power, he advocated the convening of the Zemsky Sobor and the implementation of a number of liberal reforms (free expression of public opinion, abolition of the death penalty, the establishment of an open trial with the participation of juries, etc.). A.S. Khomyakov demanded the abolition of serfdom, but at the same time proposed preserving the foundations of noble land ownership. Based on Schelling's teaching about the "national spirit", he developed the idea of the opposition of the fundamental principles of Russia and Western Europe. In the Russian community, he saw a union of people united on Orthodoxy, on “internal law, i.e. mutual agreement between the state and the people. Western European states with their “bloody coups” (revolutions) are based, according to Khomyakov, on “external law "(on violence), rationalism, subordination of the church to the state. (See additional textbook material.) Since the late 40s, as the government course strengthened, the Slavophiles increasingly showed conservative signs, they lost their opposition. In preparation and conduct they took an active part in the peasant reform. The magazine of Slavophiles "Russian Conversation" (editor-in-chief - A.I. Koshelev) contributed to the development of a liberal program on the eve of the abolition of serfdom. The magazine paid special attention to national problems, clarifying the role and meaning of "nationality" in public life.

Westernism. The opponents of the Slavophiles were the so-called Westerners. The Moscow circle of Westerners took shape in 1841-1842. Contemporaries interpreted the concept of “Westernism” very broadly, classifying as Westerners all those who opposed the Slavophiles in ideological disputes. Westerners, along with such moderate liberals as P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, enrolled V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev. However, in his disputes with the Slavophiles V.G. Belinsky and A.I. The Herzens called themselves “Westerners.” By their position and social origin, most Westerners, like the Slavophiles, belonged to the noble intelligentsia. Publicists and writers, historians and lawyers: P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, T.N. Granovsky, K.D. Kavelin, S.M. Soloviev, B.N. Chicherin and others acted as ideologists of liberalism and sought to ensure that Russia became an advanced power. Unlike their opponents, Westerners argued that Russia was following the same path as Western European countries, advocated the Europeanization of Russia and spoke out for rapprochement with European countries. But they criticized the Russian serfdom, advocated the superiority of wage labor over serf labor, and sought to accelerate the abolition of serfdom while preserving landownership. Westerners were supporters of civil liberties, constitutional monarchy, market relations, entrepreneurship, and the development of education and scientific knowledge. The Westerners' political ideal was

the institutional order of the monarchies of Western Europe, primarily England and France.

Professor of History at Moscow University T.N. Granovsky argued in his lectures that Russia and Western European countries are united by common patterns of historical development. Following the path of these countries, Russia, according to the scientist, should have come to limit autocracy and introduce civil liberties. T.N. Granovsky and his like-minded people advocated the establishment of a parliamentary system through reforms in the form of a constitutional monarchy. It was then that a version of the liberal program emerged, which differed in many ways from the proposals of K. Kavelin and B. Chicherin. As you know, the Tver province became the center for the development of such a program. Leader of the local nobility A.M. Unkovsky became the author of a liberal project for peasant reform. In 1862, the Tver nobility sent an address to the tsar, which stated that it was renouncing class privileges, and stated that “all transformations remain unsuccessful because they are accepted without demand and without the knowledge of the people.” Liberal government officials reacted negatively to the address of the Tver residents; their position was shared by K.D. Kavelin and B.N. Chicherin. Thus, a step was taken towards divisions in the liberal movement.

Westerners believed that Peter I “saved Russia”, and they considered all his activities as the first period of renewal of the country. The second period must begin with reforms from above. R which were famous educators and revolutionary democrats A. Herzen and N. Ogarev. The specificity of the revolutionary ideology was a combination of various ideas of Slavophilism, Westernism and European socialism. The main goal of revolutionary ideology was to build socialism - a society of social justice. The most consistent promoter of socialist ideas was A.I. Herzen. In 1847, he left for the West, which attracted him with its democratic traditions (so it seemed to him). But terror towards participants in the revolutionary events of 1848-1849. raised doubts in Herzen about the prospects for the development of Western society. In the 50s he developed the main provisions of the theory of “Russian socialism”, set out in his works “The Old World and Russia”, “Letter from a Russian to Mazzini”, “Russian People and Socialism”, “On the Development of Revolutionary Ideas in Russia”. Herzen believed that in Russia, where bourgeois relations had not developed, socialist ideas could be implemented more easily than in Western Europe. V o

He sees communal ownership of land as the “embryo of socialism,” the development of which is possible only under the condition of improving community self-government and complete human freedom, that is, with the abolition of the serfdom. He hoped that Russia could bypass the bourgeois path of development. The socialist ideal, while remaining utopian, becomes an expression of the revolutionary demands of the Russian peasantry. According to Herzen, “the man of the future in Russia is a man.”

While in London, Herzen, together with Ogarev, organized the Free Russian Printing House, where the almanac "Polar Star" and the newspaper "Bell" were printed - the first uncensored publications that were transported to Russia. under the influence of A. Herzen, in the 40s. became a supporter of revolutionary changes in Russia. Belinsky's views were most fully reflected in his critical articles published in the Sovremennik magazine, which was published by the Russian poet N.A. Nekrasov, as well as in “Letter to N.V. Gogol” (1847). In the letter, he sharply criticized the foundations of autocracy and serfdom, which present a terrible spectacle, “where people trade in people..., where... there are not only no guarantees for personality, honor and property, but there is not even a police order, but there are only huge corporations of various official thieves and robbers." V.G. Belinsky identified the main tasks facing Russia: the abolition of serfdom, the abolition of corporal punishment, and the implementation of those laws that already exist. Belinsky's letter played a significant role in shaping the worldview of a significant part of educated Russian youth.

In the 40s. XIX century The first revolutionary organizations appeared in Russia, among which should be included the established society in 1845 around the official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky. Representatives of the intelligentsia, among whom were F.M., gathered at his apartment on public “Fridays.” Dostoevsky, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, pianist A.G. Rubinstein, poets A.N. Maikov and A.N. Pleshcheev and others. At their meetings, the Petrashevites discussed mainly theoretical issues, and in circles they discussed questions about the organization of a secret revolutionary society, the preparation of a peasant uprising, and the creation of an underground printing house. They prepared propaganda literature for the people. The Petrashevites were representatives of different views, and gradually two directions emerged among them - revolutionary and liberal.

Thus, in the 40s. the registration process was underway evolutionary-democratic ideology, which reflected the interests of the peasant masses. The revolutionary-democratic direction of Russian social thought has not yet separated from the liberal one. V.G. Belinsky and A.I. Herzen spoke out together with Western liberals against Slavophilism. Later, revolutionary democrats also opposed Westerners and developed the ideas of revolution and socialism.

At the end of the 50s. The popularity of "The Bell" by Herzen and Ogarev was very great. In order to facilitate the distribution of this publication, the newspaper was printed on thin paper of a small format and secretly transported to Russia. At first, Herzen showed hesitation between democracy and liberalism, but the revolutionary in him prevailed, and he took the revolutionary path of struggle for the liberation of the peasants.

Attitude of N.G. Chernyshevsky's approach to the government campaign on the peasant issue changed as the essence of the reform became clearer. Beginning in 1857, he regularly covered the economic and political aspects of the topic, arguing for the need to liberate peasants with land, without ransom or with minimal ransom, to preserve the community, and to establish peasant local self-government. He outlined his views on the future socialist structure of society, on new principles of morality and morality in the novel “What is to be done?”, which had a huge impact on the entire social life of Russia.

The most important feature of the post-war period of the reign of Alexander I was the growth of the social movement in the country. The "Thunderstorm of 1812" united Russian society, but only for a while. The people, heroically defending their Fatherland from Napoleon, hoped to receive liberation from serfdom. Foreign campaign of the Russian army in 1813-1814. introduced a significant part of the officers to the socio-political changes in Europe after the French Revolution of the late 18th century. and enriched them with new impressions, ideas and practical experience. Liberal Westernizing ideas aggravated the feeling of protest among representatives of noble families, giving rise to such a phenomenon as Decembrism.

The first decades of the 19th century. - a time of grandiose events in the life of Europe. The huge Napoleonic empire arose and collapsed, against which the European peoples rose up. The development of the liberation struggle was evidence of the process of disintegration of old feudal relations. The performance of the Decembrists in Russia also belongs to this historical period. The socio-economic development of Russia followed basically the same path as other European states. Liberation from autocracy and serfdom began in the 19th century. the main task of national development.

The emergence of a revolutionary movement in Russia, the formation of a revolutionary ideology and the creation of the first secret organizations were due to a whole complex of economic, social, domestic political and international reasons:

The feudal-serf system in Russia became a brake on the country's historical progress.
The best representatives of the state understood that the preservation of serfdom and autocracy was disastrous for the further development of the Russian state;
general deterioration in the situation of the masses (hunger, impoverishment of the countryside), growing unrest in the army and people;
the enormous significance of the events of the Patriotic War of 1812 (having defeated the French, the country retained national independence, the war raised the people's forces, activated the national self-awareness not only of the Russians, but also of other peoples of the country and Europe: “We were all children of 1812,” said the Decembrist N . Muravyov;
the growth of the revolutionary movement in many countries of the world.

Young officers, returning from abroad, became consistent opponents of autocracy and serfdom and began to create secret societies whose purpose was to prepare and carry out reforms in Russia. The emergence of such societies was also facilitated by the fact that during their stay in Europe the officers became acquainted with Freemasonry and became members of Masonic organizations. In the Russian Empire by the beginning of the 20s. there were about 220 Masonic lodges (Mason organizations), uniting more than 3 thousand people.