The composition of the Provisional Government was determined by the evening of March 2. It included: minister-chairman Prince G. E. Lvov, cadets P. N. Milyukov, A. A. Manuilov, N. V. Nekrasov, Octobrists A. I. Guchkov and I. V. Godnev, and other bourgeois politicians. The only socialist there was A.F. Kerensky.
Go for peace”, consolidation of “all classes and elements of the people”, “final strengthening of political freedom and people’s government in Russia”. And the working masses gave their sympathies to them, and not to the Bolsheviks with their frightening call for peaceful inhabitants to continue the struggle until the formation of a “Provisional Revolutionary Government” in the country and the transfer of this struggle to the international arena - in alliance with the “proletariat of the warring countries” against the “oppressors and enslavers , against the tsarist governments and capitalist cliques" (Manifesto of the Central Committee of the RSDLP(b) dated February 27, 1917).
In domestic feature films, he built a film factory and a number of cinemas in Moscow. Among the first feature films were “The Queen of Spades” and “Father Sergius” directed by Y. A. Protazanov.
Problems of physical culture of the population and the development of sports also attract public attention. The first sports clubs (fencing, speed skating, swimming, sailing and rowing) appeared in large Russian cities back in the mid-19th century. But they had a closed, noble-elite character. Only at the end of the century did sports societies accessible to the general population and gymnastic classes for young people begin to emerge. All-Russian unions for various sports were established and the first championships began to be organized. Russia was one of the 12 countries that made a historic decision at the Paris Congress in 1894 to revive the Olympic Games and create the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The national team of the country began to participate in these games in 1908 and immediately gained the first domestic Olympic champion - figure skater N. A. Panin-Kolomenkin. In 1912, the All-Russian Football Union was formed in St. Petersburg, which became part of the International Football Federation (FIFA, created in 1904). Chess player M.I. Chigorin won a number of brilliant victories at international tournaments, thereby laying the foundations of the future famous Russian chess school. The glory of the great Russian wrestler I. M. Poddubny thundered throughout the country.
Beginning of the 20th century was marked by the intensive growth of periodicals and book publishing in Russia. The Manifesto of October 17, 1905 introduced, albeit incomplete, freedom of the press. She was exempt from preliminary censorship and was retroactively subject to judicial and administrative prosecution for anti-government publications. Although the concept of “anti-government” was interpreted extremely broadly by the authorities, the prospects for publishing activity have now become much more attractive than before.
If at the beginning of the 20th century. There were 125 legal newspapers published in the country, then in 1913 - more than 1000. The number of magazines by this time had reached an even larger figure - 1263. At the same time, along with traditional “thick” magazines designed for the educated strata of society, there were more and more “subtle” ones are starting to come out - purely entertaining, “for family reading”, women’s, for children and youth, etc. Some of them were very popular and were published in large quantities.
The production of books expanded significantly: in terms of the total amount of published literature, Russia at that time took third place in the world (after Germany and Japan). A notable phenomenon of Russian culture is the activity of many book publishers, among whom I. D. Sytin, A. S. Suvorin and
A. F. Marx. Sytin became famous for publications accessible to the mass reader: popular print books, various brochures, school textbooks. Suvorin and Marx acted in the same vein, publishing works by Russian and foreign writers, books on art, and popular science works in mass editions. Publishing houses emerge, for example, the Sabashnikov brothers, specializing in the publication of serious scientific literature.
At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. Russian science is reaching the forefront. At this time, scientists appeared in various areas of the world, whose discoveries changed traditional ideas about the world around us. In the field of natural sciences, such a revolutionary role was played by the works of physiologist I. P. Pavlov, who developed a fundamentally new method for studying living organisms. For his discoveries in the field of digestive physiology, Pavlov, the first among Russian scientists, was awarded the Nobel Prize (1904). Another Russian naturalist, I.I. Mechnikov, became a Nobel laureate for research in the field of comparative pathology, microbiology and immunology. The foundations of new sciences (biochemistry, biogeochemistry, radiogeology) were laid in the late 19th - early 20th centuries.
V. I. Vernadsky.
Ahead of their time, scientists worked who devoted themselves to the development of fundamentally new areas of science. N. E. Zhukovsky, who played a huge role in the development of aeronautics, laid the foundations of modern hydro- and aerodynamics. In 1902, under his leadership, a wind tunnel was built - one of the first in Europe; in 1904, the first aerodynamic institute in Europe was created. The brightest phenomenon not only of Russian, but also of world science were the works of K. E. Tsiolkovsky, who laid the foundations of the theory of rocket propulsion and theoretical cosmonautics.
Revolutionary situation in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. was accompanied by a rise in general interest in politics, the humanities, history, philosophy, economics, and law. These sciences were transformed from “armchair” sciences into journalistic ones, and a number of scientists began to engage in political activities. At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. Religious philosophy, the foundations of which were laid by V. S. Solovyov, acquired special significance. With extreme force and persuasiveness, he opposed the materialism that dominated Russian science, trying to enrich philosophy with ideas drawn from Christianity. Following Solovyov, such remarkable philosophers as N. A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov, P. A. Florensky, S. N. and E. devoted themselves to the search for ways on which humanity could draw closer to the Lord and create a truly Christian society. N. Trubetskoy, S. JI. Frank et al.
At this time, a number of striking works appeared related to various areas of historical research: “Essays on the history of Russian culture” by P. N. Milyukov, “Peasant Reform” by A. A. Kornilov, “History of Young Russia” by M. O. Gershenzon. Economic problems are attracting more and more attention from historians. Serious studies on the history of the Russian economy were created by the “legal Marxists” M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky and P. B. Struve. A unique indicator of the high level of Russian historical science was the brilliant lecture course on Russian history by Moscow University professor V. O. Klyuchevsky, published at the beginning of the 20th century.
The names of Russian linguists F. F. Fortunatov, A. A. Shakhmatov, N. V. Krushevsky are associated with the development of a number of fundamental issues of general linguistics and the emergence of linguistics as a science. In literary criticism, the most prominent figure was A. N. Veselovsky, one of the founders of the comparative historical school, who worked on comparing monuments of different eras and peoples.
Literature and art. Literature of the late XIX - early XX centuries. existed and developed under powerful forces
the impact of the crisis that gripped almost all aspects of Russian life.
The great realist writers of the 19th century, who were ending their creative and life paths, managed to convey their sense of the tragedy and disorder of Russian life of this time with enormous artistic power: JI. N. Tolstoy (“Resurrection”, “Living Corpse”) and A. P. Chekhov (“Ionych”, “House with a Mezzanine”, “The Seagull”, etc.). Continuers of realistic traditions I. A. Bunin, A. I. Kuprin, JI. N. Andreev, A. N. Tolstoy, in turn, created magnificent examples of realistic art. However, the plots of their works became more and more disturbing and gloomy from year to year, the ideals that inspired them became more and more unclear. The life-affirming pathos that was so characteristic of Russian classics of the 19th century gradually disappeared from their work under the weight of sad events.
To a certain extent, similar features were inherent in the works of M. Gorky, the most popular realist writer at that time. A sensitive observer, he extremely expressively reproduced in his stories, short stories, and essays the dark sides of Russian life: peasant savagery, bourgeois indifferent satiety, the unlimited arbitrariness of power (the novel “Foma Gordeev”, the plays “The Bourgeois”, “At the Depths”). Much less creatively convincing were attempts to find a force capable of resisting this life, first among the rebel tramps (the story “Chelkash”), then among the revolutionary proletariat (the novel “Mother”).
UDC 1:3+930.1
Gadelshina A.I.
PROSPECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN CIVILIZATION
Bashkir State University. Sterlitamak branch
The work presents an analysis of the prospects for the development of modern civilization, characterizes the main concepts and forecasts that offer different visions of the future of humanity.
Key words: civilization, information society, post-industrial society, modernity.
The paper presents an analysis of prospects for the development of modern civilization,described the basic concepts and forecasts that offer a different vision for the future of mankind.
Key words: civilization, information society, postindustrial society, modernity.
Rapid and profound evolutionary changes in modern civilization associated with globalization processes have led to the need for theoretical research into ways of its further transformation and development opportunities. The increasing risk of a civilization-wide catastrophe, generated by the exacerbation of global problems, also stimulates the development of concepts devoted to the analysis of the content and consequences of globalization.
Of great importance for understanding the possible prospects for the development of modern civilization are the works of Z. Bauman, I.M. Wallerstein, V.I. Vernadsky, E. Toffler, S. Huntington, A.L. Chizhevsky, F. Fukuyama, and other scientists, both offering an analysis of the mechanisms of interaction between countries (differing in the nature of socio-economic, political and cultural development), and developing forecasts for the further evolution of humanity.
The problems of rapid population growth, lack of resources and environmental pollution have led to the need to analyze the prospects and possibilities for the further development of modern civilization. The analysis of these prospects was expressed in the activities of representatives of the Club of Rome. So, in the first report "Limits to Growth" authors concluded that “if current trends of population growth, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue, the world will approach growth limits over the next century, experiencing sudden and uncontrollable population declines and sharp declines in economic output.”D. Meadows noted that only limiting the use of non-renewable resources, limiting the birth rate, and “zero growth” of production could save humanity.
However, this conclusion, made on the basis of a computer model of the dynamics of resource use that was perfect for that time, turned out to be inaccurate for the reason that “since the time of T. Malthus, new technologies that increased production efficiency and provided alternatives to scarce resources dispelled the threat of their depletion.” Despite this inaccuracy, with all the shortcomings and errors, the first report “Limits to Growth” gave impetus to experimental research into the future, identifying problems that were practically not considered at that time.
The concept of environmentally sound development ("organic growth"), presented in the second report to the Club of Rome, was based on the recognition of the diversity of parts and regions of the world, including nation-states and the idea of limiting resource consumption at the expense of the so-called industrially underdeveloped countries. Thus, the concept of “zero growth” was replaced by the concept of “organic growth” - differentiated development of different parts of the world system, which ultimately leads to the balanced development of the entire population of the earth.
One of the pressing issues of our time has become the question about the possibility of a third world war. The increasingly worsening crisis in interstate relations allows us to talk about the threat of a hypothetical global military conflict. The Cold War and the arms race were one of the reasons for the accelerated development of research in the field of developing weapons of mass destruction, which led to a significant increase in the danger of war. However, it should be noted that currently there is a concept according to which the Third World War has already taken place in the form of the “Cold War” and in the modern world we should talk about the problems of the emergence of the fourth world war: “The Third World War, or “Cold” War, occupies the period from 1946 year (or from the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945) to 1985-1990. It was a big world war, consisting of many local wars. And, like all the others, it ended with the conquest of territories and the destruction of the enemy." Bearing in mind that an increasing number of countries are becoming possessors of nuclear weapons, and at the same time the integration of countries and organizations into large systems is increasing, it can be noted that the possible prospect of a new world war is currently beyond doubt.
The emergence of the so-called “consumer society”, in which “the emphasis is on the process of consumption itself, and not on preserving what has been acquired, when, after using his purchase for some time, a person gets tired of it and strives to get rid of the “old” thing and buy the latest model” , on the one hand, and the problem of poverty in the modern world, on the other, speaks of possible prospect of armed conflict between world leaders for energy So and food resources. So, for example, K.V. Simonov notes that “Hydrocarbon hunger is what is pushing the world today towards a global conflict. What forces strong states to once again engage in the colonization of weak ones... The modern world is not so much romantic as it is highly competitive.”
The ever-increasing threat to the existence of modern civilization associated with the growth of the Earth's population, environmental and climate changes, and destructive human activities leads to the need to develop marine territories, emergence of projects floating cities "arks", suitable for the further existence and development of humanity. For example, the global rise in sea levels over the past decades has led to the need to create a project that solves the problem of “ever rising water”. One of the options for solving the problem was the project of the architect V. Callebaut “Lilypad”, which is a concept of a self-sufficient floating city (Ecopolis), capable of accommodating 50 thousand inhabitants. Japanese engineers are proposing a project to create artificial islands in the Pacific Ocean, with skyscrapers in the center. Skyscraper floats will be able to accommodate from 10 to 50 people.
The study and development of the World Ocean, direct exploration of its depths, predetermine the possibility of creating states on the ocean floor, which represents another possible prospect for the further development of modern civilization. So, for example, already in 1961, in England, a project was created for a large city for 30 thousand inhabitants, which would be built in the sea in the form of a huge 16-story amphitheater on stilts; the project for a deep-sea city was also created by American engineers.
The development of underwater territories seems possible due to the creation of “terrestrial” conditions at depth. As V.I. Lenin noted, “... technology is developing with incredible speed these days, and lands that are unsuitable today can be made suitable tomorrow if new techniques are found... if large investments of capital are made.” And even now, the improvement of high technologies allows scientists to create deep-sea vehicles, bathyscaphes.
We believe that the construction of both surface and underwater cities directly depends on the level of development of ground technology and represents a real prospect for the further development of modern civilization.
The development of science and high technology has led not only to the possibility of modern civilization spacewalk, but also to the emergence of future prospects settlement in it.
Second half of the 20th century was marked by humanity's entry into outer space and the development of a new branch of science and technology - astronautics, which makes it possible to explore outer space with the help of automatic and manned vehicles.
Flights into space have made it possible to obtain a more complete understanding of the surface of the Earth and other planets. Projects for space exploration and colonization appeared. Among the most popular, the following should be noted: project A.E. Yunitsky on the creation of a general planetary vehicle (GVT), project by Yu.N. Artsutanov about the creation of a space elevator, a project to irrevocably send people to Mars with the aim of colonizing the planet, and other hypothetical astro-engineering projects created with the aim of finding new opportunities for the survival of humanity. Space exploration and the development of astronautics are currently one of the priority areas in the development of science. The prospect of space exploration and the possibility of using the planets of the Solar System for the life support of mankind thus seems to be a possible prospect for the development of modern civilization.
Thus, we can say that in the scientific community there are different interpretations of the prospects for the development of modern civilization: the possibility of the outbreak of a third world war; the need to develop marine territories in order to create floating cities - “arks”, or states at the bottom of the seas; prospects for creating cyborgs, going into space and settling in it, moving to a new stage of evolution.
However, it should be noted that attempts to make long-term forecasts are not always effective due to the increasingly accelerating pace of development of modern civilization. Science, of course, “can predict the consequences of choosing one or another path of development. Combined with the use of mathematical models and statistical methods, these forecasts help to identify the inevitable trade-offs that society must make." ...and "there have been recent positive developments in lawmaking, governance, and investment. Concepts such as the unemployment rate, budget deficit and gross national product, introduced by analysts in the 30s and 40s. XX century, today they are used everywhere. Governments have largely learned to control the dramatic ups and downs in the economy that became commonplace in the 19th and early 20th centuries.” , but such problems as: preserving the environment, public safety, protection from terrorism, predicting the consequences of introducing new technologies are too complex and unpredictable for scientists to make “reliable long-term forecasts.”
In 2004, a group of specialists was created, called the Copenhagen Consensus. According to members of this group, making long-term forecasts in a constantly changing world is quite difficult and ineffective. The scientists came to the conclusion that “we should deal with those urgent problems whose solutions are clear. The same long-term problems, the solutions and even the scale of the threat of which are not clear (climate change), were considered secondary.”
However, it should be noted that despite this, there is an urgent need to prevent possible threats, following the so-called “precautionary principle”, according to which, if there is reasonable doubt about the safety of a new technology, those who created and intend to use it must present convincing arguments for her safety.
For example, in international environmental law, as well as in the agricultural and environmental law of the European Union, the precautionary principle runs like a red thread. According to the Kyoto Protocol, the first global environmental agreement (which was signed by almost all countries except Afghanistan, Somalia, Andorra, Vatican City, Armenia, San Marino and Kazakhstan), countries need to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, the consequences arising from the effects of which are not yet known.
In the modern world, therefore, there is an intense search for new ways of development, the fundamental foundations of human existence. And, completing the analysis of modern civilization and the prospects for its development, we came to the following conclusions:
The development of modern civilization is a complex and contradictory process associated with the exacerbation of global problems and the transformation of the world, affecting the foundations of society. Difficulties in understanding the ways of further development of modern civilization lead to the need to create concepts that represent new paradigms for theoretical research and forecasting of a new world order.
The difficulty of making long-term forecasts for the further development of modern civilization leads to the need to unite the efforts of different countries to solve urgent problems facing humanity and to create agreements on the use of technologies, the consequences of which can be tragic for the entire planet.
Literature:
1. Kyoto Protocol. // New Newspaper. − No. 72. dated July 8. 2009 http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/072/11.html (accessed 09/05/11).
2. Morell R. They are preparing for an expedition to Mars in the mountains of Spain. [Electronic resource]. // BBC Russian, April 25, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/science/2011/04/110425_mars_training.shtml (access date: 09.09.11).
3. Lenin V.I. Full collection op. − T. 27, ed. 5th, Gospolitizdat, 1962, − 642 p.
4. Limits to growth. Report on the project of the Club of Rome “The Difficult Situations of Humanity” / Meadows D.H., Meadows D.L., Randers J., Burns V. - M.: Moscow publishing house. University, 1991. – 207 p.
5. Popper S., Lempert R., Banks S. Shaping the future. // In the world of science. − 2005. − No. 7. P. 45-49. - ISSN 0208-0621.
6. Simonov K.V. Global energy war. − M., 2007. – 272 p. − ISBN 978-5-9265-0496-2.
A brochure by K.D. was dedicated to the fate of the Russian nobility in connection with the peasant reform. Kavelin “The nobility and the liberation of the peasants” (1862). Kavelin admitted in it that the reform plunged the nobility into a miserable state, both economically and morally. The majority, financially upset and embittered against the government, is faced with the question: “What will happen now to the nobility?” “The position of this class is truly critical now,” wrote Kavelin. - A sharp revolution is taking place in it, such as it has never experienced. We are not talking about a momentary upset, but about the further existence and fate of the class, which until now has always been at the head of education and all success in Russia.” At the same time, the reform also had a huge positive significance, because it placed the nobility in conditions that promised them the happiest future. The situation on February 19 prevented the catastrophe that was threatening from below - this, firstly. Secondly, the reform gave the nobility the opportunity to “correct old mistakes, link their interests with the benefits and benefits of other classes, take a firm and honorable social position in the country and return to their former, now weakened, influence on the life of the state.”
Kavelin had no doubt that the Russian nobility, if desired, could consolidate its first place among other classes. The very fact of the existence of class inequality did not seem reprehensible to him. “Natural properties and property,” he believed, “are the ineradicable, eternal source of inequality among people and the differences between higher and lower classes in all human societies, at all times, at all stages of development.” The reason for the struggle of classes that filled the history of peoples was not the presence of higher classes in society, but the short-sightedness of their behavior. Exclusivity, privilege, selfishness - these, according to Kavelin, are the pitfalls over which the upper classes in most states collapsed.
The peasant reform made inevitable the transition of the nobility from the position of a privileged, hereditary and closed class to a class of landowners, enjoying the same civil rights as other classes. The only significant feature and characteristic feature of the nobility will remain large landholdings. Small landowners of noble origin will therefore become close to owners of small land property from other classes and, over time, will form one class with them. Large non-noble landowners will join the ranks of the nobility in the same way.
The new grouping of classes according to property and land ownership, which opened up the possibility of transferring from one class to another, was supposed to bind them into one whole and prevent disastrous disunity. “As a result of this,” wrote Kavelin, “the entire people will form one organic body, of which each will occupy the highest or lowest step of the same ladder; the higher class will be the continuation and completion of the lower, and the lower will serve as a nursery, foundation and starting point for the higher. What the whole world marvels at in England, what constitutes the source of its strength and greatness, what it is so rightly proud of before other peoples, is precisely the correct, normal relationship between the lower and upper classes, the organic unity of all national elements, which opens up the possibility of endless peaceful development through gradual reforms, making revolution of the lower classes against the upper classes impossible - all this will happen with us, if only the nobility understands its current situation and uses it prudently.”
Kavelin tried to instill the idea that by the liberation of peasants with land, which caused indignation of the nobility against the government, the class of large landowners was placed in ideal conditions. Allocating land to peasants created, in his opinion, an unprecedented type of social relations. “The vast majority of the people, with the most insignificant exceptions, the entire people,” wrote Kavelin, “will be involved in the benefit of land ownership. By this we are in advance and forever getting rid of the hungry proletariat and the theories of property equality inextricably linked with it, from irreconcilable envy and hatred of the upper classes and from their last result - the social revolution, the most terrible and inevitable of all, shaking the national organism in its very foundations and in in any case disastrous for the upper classes.” No successes of industry and trade in Russia were capable of changing its agrarian, agricultural character, or creating a bourgeoisie and proletariat in contrast to the landowning classes. Landowners will forever remain the dominant class.
History, therefore, contrary to the will of the nobility itself, prepared exceptionally favorable conditions for it. “The endowment of all peasants with land gave him a granite, indestructible foundation; communication with other classes will make him the legitimate representative of the country; and the predominance of landowning and agricultural interests will bind him with inextricable ties with the majority of the population, who have the same interests, and will forever preserve for him the significance of the upper class.”
The nobility could take advantage of the advantages bestowed by history and preserve itself as the upper class only if it meekly accepted the foundations of the peasant reform, showed a sincere desire to get closer to the other classes and tried to gain the greatest possible influence on the course of local affairs and local government. The program defined by Kavelin in the article “The nobility and the liberation of the peasants” required, in addition, that the nobility take serious care of preserving their estates.
One of the “most important” conditions for the revival of the Russian nobility, according to Kavelin, was their resettlement from cities to their estates. This step promised many good consequences. “The permanent presence of the majority of nobles on estates would open up the opportunity for the nobility to retain them for themselves, would give them practical direction and useful activities; At the same time, from such a resettlement the provinces would be revived in all respects: they would be filled with decent, enlightened people, the habits and demands of education would spread in them, local social life and local interests would develop, the absence of which Russia suffers so much.”
After Herzen's death, in the 70s, Kavelin was forced to sharply change his initially optimistic assessments of the reform of 1861 and the prospects for the degeneration of the nobility. In Kavelin’s correspondence and oral statements on these issues, the formulas and words previously used by the publishers of Kolokol seem to come to life again. “The whole system of orders and habits among the peasants and landowners,” he writes in 1876 from the village of K.K. Grotto, is purely serf-like, which was only scraped off externally by the Regulations of February 19, but is firmly entrenched in morals. The fortress structure is slowly eroding. Actually, the labels have changed, not the essence of the matter.” Reporting in October 1881, D.A. Milyutin about the purchase of landowners' lands by peasants "little by little on a huge scale", Kavelin already compared the future of the upper Russian class with the fate of the chronicles: "No one will notice how it will disappear from the face of the earth, drowning in the rising waves of the Russian people." The nobility now seems to him “a kind of raid that has slowed down for so long and now continues to slow down the development of the masses.”
In a series of articles published in the pages of the magazine “Bulletin of Europe” in 1881, and then published as a separate book entitled “The Peasant Question. A study on the importance of peasant affairs in our country, the reasons for its decline, measures to improve agriculture and the life of the villagers,” Kavelin focused on the analysis of “the peculiar features by which our social and state life differs from the life of the rest of Europe.” Calling Russia a “peasant kingdom,” he believed that this definition “very aptly designates Russia according to its most characteristic feature...” It is important to emphasize that, according to Kavelin, “an unprecedented and unprecedented type of rural village state” is not so much a historical reality , as much as an opportunity “for the actual implementation of this new combination of social elements.”
Thanks to the reforms of the 1860s, “the vast majority of the population of the empire, long suppressed and obscured by a thin layer of ruling classes, rose from the ground to human and civil existence.” But, according to Kavelin, this was only the beginning of a long and complex process of “organizing, providing for and raising our peasantry, since the present situation and future destinies of the Russian state and the Russian people most of all depend on their material well-being, mental development and moral state...
Without its improvement,” Kavelin warned, “everything we do will be built on sand, the first wind will blow away everything we worked on like houses of cards, no matter how much manpower, skill, talent and dedication we put into our work.” ".
Throughout the pre-revolutionary period, the class system and class status in various aspects were preserved. The class system gradually begins to erode, and at the same time classes of capitalist society are formed. Estates and status classes often do not coincide, and the estate system becomes less adequate to reality over time.
Estates are a social group whose representatives have certain rights and responsibilities that are legislated and inherited. Class affiliation is difficult to change
Classes are a social group whose representatives differ from each other in their place in the system of social production and in relation to the means of production. Class status is not clearly fixed in laws, the class does not have certain rights and responsibilities, and class status is not inherited.
In Russia, the class system was officially legalized (nobility, clergy, petty bourgeoisie, merchant class, peasantry + specific classes - honorary citizens, Cossacks, foreigners, military service class). The importance of the merchants ¯, in the post-reform period, a number of entrepreneurs of peasant origin were in no hurry to join the ranks of the merchants. In the merchant class, along with traditional merchants, there was a layer of the capitalist type - capitalist businessmen. The philistinism is stratified into the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, the traditional petty bourgeoisie, some are declassed and sink to the social bottom.
The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are being formed, the middle class began to form during the years of Stolypin’s reforms, in the post-reform period the middle class was in its infancy, heterogeneous, small in number and uninfluential. In part, the middle class was formed from the bourgeois class.
The noble class was small in number; by the end of the 19th century. 1.5-3% (the issue with personal nobility is unclear). Formally, the nobility remains the dominant class, because:
1. has economically profitable monopolies - distilling and sugar production
2. the nobles retained political privileges, only they could head zemstvo councils, only representatives of the nobility headed school councils.
3. nobles undoubtedly prevailed in zemstvos, since 1890 - officially
4. had the position of zemstvo chiefs (1889)
5. Retained privileges in class educational institutions (page corps, Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum)
It was generally easier for nobles to serve thanks to family ties, but in general, the class did not represent a single whole. The small estates went bankrupt immediately after the reform, the middle estates after some time, the number of landless nobles. Some of the nobility are proletarianized, some become the bourgeoisie. Not all nobles could afford to engage in business; many joined the ranks of the intelligentsia, and some were sent as engineers or workers to industrial or railway facilities. As a result, there is a significant imbalance between status and economic position; the nobility loses its leading role in agriculture, leaving political influence for itself.
The bourgeoisie as a class is formed from representatives of various classes. It is divided into large, medium and small. The middle bourgeoisie is poorly represented; the large and petty bourgeoisie are more visible. The petty bourgeoisie is multi-ethnic, multi-confessional, very heterogeneous in its composition; The Russian petty bourgeoisie itself is traditionally represented by the petty bourgeoisie and other very different social categories (sometimes of the pre-capitalist type) in urban and administrative trade. The petty bourgeoisie is partially capitalized, loses its traditional character and integrates into the capitalist system. There is a significant proportion of Germans (Especially in the Baltic states, Poland, Novorossiya and Transcaucasia). The German burghers were significantly integrated into capitalist relations. In the West and South of Russia there was a significant part of the Jewish petty bourgeoisie - half of all Russian traders, fully integrated into capitalism ® clashes on ethno-confessional grounds. In Transcaucasia, a significant proportion of the petty bourgeoisie belonged to small nationalities (traditional way of life). In Central Asia, the petty bourgeoisie conducts pre-capitalist activities - trade and crafts. In the Volga region, the Urals, and Siberia, local, mostly semi-traditional occupations are noticeable. Occupation of the petty bourgeoisie: trade (shopkeepers, artisans, artisans). This layer is noticeable in Moscow (Okhotny Ryad). Okhotnoryad residents have great difficulty adapting to capitalism (rapid growth of competition). Entrepreneurs supported the existing system due to their traditional worldview, and saw tsarism as a stronghold of stability.
The middle bourgeoisie has little influence and is mainly rural residents.
The big bourgeoisie is multi-ethnic: in Poland, the Baltic states - Germans, in the West and South - Jews (Lodz region - 50:50 Germans and Jews), in Transcaucasia - Armenians (Mantashevs, Leanozovs), Azerbaijanis (Tashevs, Nibievs), in Central Asia Large The bourgeoisie was just beginning to emerge.
The scientist Gindin (?) divided the big bourgeoisie into 2 types (conditionally): St. Petersburg, Moscow.
Common features:
The presence of a significant layer of foreigners (Tsindal, Knop - St. Petersburg, Hartmann, Tukhon, Broley)
Widespread use of new machines and equipment (especially among industrialists)
Rapid development, widespread use of capitalist techniques, rapid reproduction of banking operations and banking system organization (financiers)
Various methods of exploiting workers, synthesis of intensification and extensification of management methods.
Differences:
| Moscow bourgeoisie | St. Petersburg bourgeoisie |
| Entrepreneurs of Russian origin - a significant role of the peasantry and merchants who laid the foundation for entrepreneurship (Guchkovs, Konovalovs, Tretyakovs, Prokhorovs, Morozovs, Ivanovs, Zubkovs). Old Believers by faith, family business. | Russians come from the bureaucracy, technical engineers (Putilov, Vyshnegradsky, Gubonin). Nikonian direction of Orthodoxy by confession. They preferred joint-stock forms of enterprises. |
| Investment in the light industry, especially the textile industry ® greater focus on the consumer, less dependence on the state and orders. | Greater dependence on government orders. |
| Widespread charity and patronage of the arts. Created museums, exhibitions, educational institutions, cultural institutions (MKhAT) | Do not overestimate your moral weight in society |
| The dual position on the labor issue was harsh methods of exploiting workers; on the other hand, Moscow entrepreneurs were interested in increasing the purchasing power of the population. They were interested in the social policy of the state and wages. | They were tough on the labor issue from a purely rational standpoint; they were ardent opponents of any concessions. |
| They felt disadvantaged by the economic policies of the autocracy and were interested in creating a representative body. At the beginning of the 20th century. The Moscow bourgeoisie financed parties and strike movements. | There was a close connection between them and the railway, industrial (heavy industry) business. The industries were actively supported by the state. |
| Economically powerful, but politically blind. | Loyal to autocracy |
In general, the Russian bourgeoisie did not find understanding and support in society, because bourgeois values and thinking were not rooted in society. In Russia, a bourgeois revolution was impossible - 3 ways:
I. Imperial modernization
II. Socialist revolution (subject to the emergence of a strict authoritarian regime)
III. Anti-bourgeois anti-autocratic counter-revolution.
15. The Russian proletariat of the post-reform era: sources and conditions of formation, social status and position.
It is difficult to separate proletarians from artisans and handicraftsmen, especially in the first post-reform decade. Lenin estimated the number of workers at 10 million people:
3.5 million – agricultural workers (seasonal workers)
1 million – construction workers (seasonal workers)
2 million – homeworkers
2 million are employed in forestry, handicrafts, and crafts.
1.5 million – actually working (mining, factory, railway) – 15%. Fairly rapid growth Sources of formation: artisans, philistines, nobility, peasantry (main source)
Many workers retained their connection with the land; there was a high turnover of labor (in the spring, some workers left their enterprises); by the beginning of the 20th century. their share¯. They fulfilled the dual role of both factory proletarians and peasants. They left the land as a safety net; they weren’t particularly afraid of layoffs. In a number of industries that require a continuous cycle, the number of permanent workers is gradually increasing. By the beginning of the 20th century. the share of hereditary proletarians did not exceed 40%.
The bulk of the proletarians were unskilled ® large concentration of labor. The share of highly qualified people is small. There was no labor aristocracy. The Russian proletariat was highly marginalized - people from the countryside, forced to work, found themselves in a different social environment with different working conditions (the same intensity of work). Over time, the connection with the earth was lost. And the working class, due to its lack of integration into capitalist relations, had a completely different situation in Western Europe. The working masses, being marginal, were susceptible to socialist ideas. The marginal character made the proletariat combustible material; moreover, living and working conditions were indeed very difficult (especially in the first post-reform decade).
The proletariat was well organized. Workers' artels were created, headed by elders (in the image and likeness of a rural community). Artels could organize strikes; the very presence of artels made it easier to carry out a strike. Despite the fact that the working environment was heterogeneous, it was easily subjected to skillful, competent socialist propaganda. It was possible to skillfully paralyze the activities of several factories at the same time. The workers were susceptible to all kinds of slogans and socialist agitations.
But on its own, the working class was politically helpless and amorphous.
Nobility and bourgeoisie
The abolition of serfdom and other liberal reforms could not but affect the social structure of Russian society and, in particular, the nobility. It played a huge role in the development of Russian statehood, military affairs, as well as culture and, in general, in the flourishing of the country’s intellectual life in the 19th century. The majority of educators, major collectors, philanthropists, collectors, and many artists, architects, and performers came from among the nobility. Great Russian literature for a significant period of its history in the 18th-19th centuries was almost exclusively of the nobility.
The nobles also formed the basis of the Russian intelligentsia, which was being formed at this time and which they entered by vocation, wanting to “serve the people” as zemstvo doctors, teachers, and engineers. Most of the revolutionaries initially came from the nobility. It was the nobility that first absorbed the ideas of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, formed the secret societies of the Decembrists, and intellectual circles of the 1830s–1850s. Outstanding reformers of the time of Alexander II emerged from among the nobility (including the higher nobility). Nevertheless, the revolutionary organizations “Land and Freedom”, “Narodnaya Volya”, and then Marxist circles included many nobles who broke with their class. The most striking example was the nobleman Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin).
And although many Russian thinkers of the first half of the 19th century (including A.S. Pushkin) considered the nobility the main source of intellectual strength, a stronghold of honor and the supporting force of the state, the time of noble exclusivity began to pass from the middle of the 19th century. And already at the end of the 18th century, the influence of a new stratum was increasing in the life of Russian society - the so-called “raznochintsy”, people from different strata of Russian society. Talented, capable children of priests, merchants, soldiers, peasants, and “foreigners” rise to the top and begin to play an increasingly prominent role in the intellectual, cultural and even political life of the country. In the era under review, more adapted than the nobles to the harsh conditions of the struggle for survival, having received education in Russia and abroad, they become leading engineers, writers, form a new intellectual elite of Russia, and acquire economic independence and wealth.
However, the abolition of serfdom led not only to the decline of the nobility, not only to the extinction of noble nests and families, but also became an incentive for the development and renewal of the Russian nobility in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Deprived of income from serfs, the most capable noble offspring rushed to get an education. And by the end of the 19th century they were successfully competing with commoners in a variety of professions - from engineers and doctors to publishers and writers. The share of people from the nobility among the figures of Russian culture of the Silver Age is very significant, and their influence is enormous.
The nobles by origin were not without entrepreneurial spirit. Gradually, the bourgeoisie is formed from the most diverse layers of the former feudal society. In the 18th century, its development was hampered by government policies, which, on the one hand, strongly encouraged entrepreneurial activity through the free transfer of land, mineral resources, and even serfs to industrialists, but, on the other hand, regulated their entrepreneurial activities in every possible way, preventing competition and the development of the free market goods and labor. As a result, for a long time after Peter’s reforms, which at first glance led to an unprecedented rapid development of industry, to the figurative “industrialization” of the country, the Russian bourgeoisie, in realizing its place in society and its strength, did not rise above the level of merchants. Russian entrepreneurs of the 18th – first half of the 19th centuries were either carriers of the consciousness of the merchants with their narrow demands, or they sought to obtain the nobility and merge with the ruling class. Such is the fate of the talented entrepreneurs of the 17th-18th centuries, the Stroganovs and Demidovs, who already in the second or third generation lost the traditions and way of thinking of their enterprising ancestors.
But this situation is gradually changing. The rapid development of capitalism in the second half of the 19th century favored the introduction of people of non-noble origin, commoners, and merchants into entrepreneurship, industrial and railway construction, and banking. The owners of the largest banking houses in Russia at that time, the Ryabushinsky brothers, came from Old Believers, the Barons Gintsburg, and the “railway king” Samuil Polyakov came from traditional Jewish families. In general, the development of banking capital was decisive for the expansion of production. The first banks in St. Petersburg appeared under Empress Elizabeth Petrovna. Even then, two main directions of banking activity were determined - support for merchants and entrepreneurs and support for the nobility to preserve land ownership.
However, as in other areas of life, the 1860s became a turning point for banking. The main feature of the changes of those years was the formation of many private, joint-stock banks and banking houses, focused on credit operations, various financing of industrial, railway construction and trade (mainly through corporatization). Bill offices, mutual credit societies, savings banks, loan chambers and other financial institutions arose in large numbers, which built new buildings sparkling with mirrored glass and striking with exquisite decoration.
The Exchange, founded in 1703, continued to play an important role, which changed its location several times until in 1816 it moved into the famous new building on the Spit of Vasilievsky Island. In 1910, the Exchange was divided into the Stock Exchange and the Commodity Exchange. Both were closed in 1917.
The bourgeoisie that was emerging in Russia was largely indecisive and obedient to the authorities, on which its well-being largely depended in Russian conditions.
The Exchange building in St. Petersburg.
But gradually, as capitalist relations developed in the country, the wealth of the bourgeoisie grew, and its ability to influence the economy and politics increased, a certain “critical mass” of demands and aspirations of the bourgeoisie arose, which during the years of the State Duma (1905-1917) resulted in quite clear ideological programs, in the formation of bourgeois parties, the promotion of leaders who played an important role during the revolution.
Political processes reflected shifts in the economy. Throughout the 19th century, the country's economic development was not uniform. On the one hand, new factories opened, many of which later became the glory of Russian industry (only in St. Petersburg: 1841 - the piano factory of J. D. Becker, 1842 - the Faberge jewelry company, 1856 - the Baltic Shipyard, 1857 - the Metal factory). But, on the other hand, the development of industry was affected by the general crisis into which the country entered by the middle of the 19th century. The crisis was caused by the conservative policy of the government of Nicholas I. Of course, even under him, new equipment was imported from England to Russian enterprises and steam engines were used. However, Russia did not know the rapid industrial revolution that England, France and other European countries were experiencing at that time. Only after the defeat in the Crimean War, with the beginning of the reforms of Alexander II, fundamental changes in the economy began to occur. In the 1860s, industrial and commercial construction experienced an extraordinary boom. This affected the textile and heavy industries especially noticeably. In 1862, the Ludwig Nobel plant was founded (now the Russian Diesel plant); in 1868, engineer N. I. Putilov bought a state-owned iron foundry and turned it into an advanced enterprise at that time - the Putilov plant (now Kirovsky). In St. Petersburg, Moscow, the Urals, and other places, one after another, a variety of heavy and light industry enterprises, numerous trading firms and houses, credit partnerships, joint-stock and insurance companies, etc. arose one after another. St. Petersburg almost immediately became a city of mechanical engineering, and then electrical, chemical and other developing industries. Particularly high rates of industrial construction were noticeable in the years 1900–1913. The development of capitalism in Russia in the second half of the 19th century, the emergence of an extensive market for hired labor, free capital, active industrial construction, many very complex machines, without which industrial production was no longer possible - all this led to the formation of the working class. In the 1880s, the basics of labor legislation were adopted. Gradually, by the 1910s, a skilled working class emerged in large industrial centers, a trade union movement emerged and took shape, and the eternal struggle of entrepreneurs and hired workers for changes in terms of employment began. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, many charitable and educational organizations, “Sunday” and other schools arose, helping to educate workers and form their own idea of their place in society. Among the workers, there is a “labor aristocracy” - the most qualified, experienced workers and craftsmen who lived no worse than employees. But there were very few such workers. Russia was not an industrialized country at that time; Most of the workers were recent immigrants from the villages, sometimes closely connected with the land, bringing to the city a typical peasant psychology, far from the psychology of a real proletarian - a hired worker not in the first generation. It was this mass that during the years of the revolution became the driving force and at the same time a weapon in the struggle of radical political parties for power.
From the book Daily Life of Florence in the Time of Dante by Antonetti Pierre From the book The Origins of Totalitarianism by Arendt Hannah From the book Jewelry Treasures of the Russian Imperial Court author Zimin Igor Viktorovich From Richelieu's book. Savior of France or insidious schemer? author Nechaev Sergey YurievichAppendix 2 RICHELIEU AND THE BOURGEOISIE But here is an equally interesting opinion about Cardinal de Richelieu by the sociologist and publicist of the 19th century N.K. Mikhailovsky: “This inflexible man, who found that the venality of positions has the good side that it eliminates people of low
From the book August 1, 1914 author Yakovlev Nikolay NikolaevichThe bourgeoisie was creeping into power. The murder of Rasputin, Miliukov wrote with disgust, was an attempt to eliminate the danger “in the Byzantine way, and not in the European way.” In the same spirit, the queen insisted, Nicholas II should act. She tries in every possible way to convince her husband that he must be beheaded.
author Kertman Lev EfimovichThe bourgeoisie and the new nobility in power For 11 years after the establishment of the republic, power was undivided in the hands of bourgeois-noble groups. “Rump” of the Long Parliament, continuing discussions and formalizing the will of the ruling powers with parliamentary acts
From the book Geography, History and Culture of England author Kertman Lev EfimovichThe victorious bourgeoisie The parliamentary reform of 1832, the abolition of the Corn Laws in 1846, the victory of the principles of free trade, the defeat of the Chartist movement - these were the main milestones in the rise of the English bourgeoisie during the first half of the 19th century. Far ahead of everyone else
From the book History of France in three volumes. T. 1 author Skazkin Sergey Danilovich From the book Who Are the Popes? author Sheinman Mikhail MarkovichPapacy and the imperialist bourgeoisie The Pope, like the highest princes of the church of all religions, is closely connected with the imperialist bourgeoisie. The modern church organization in capitalist countries is part of the state apparatus of the bourgeoisie, since
From the book Another Look at Stalin by Martens LudoThe Western bourgeoisie and the purges In general, the purges of 1937–1938 achieved their goal. They brought a lot of harm, many mistakes were made, but this could hardly have been avoided, taking into account the internal party situation. Most of the Nazi fifth columnists died
author Lenin Vladimir IlyichThe well-fed bourgeoisie and the hungry bourgeoisie The newspaper “Le Temps” is one of the most influential organs of the conservative French bourgeoisie. It is waging the most desperate campaign against socialism, and it is rare that you will not see in its columns the names of Marx, Bebel, Guesde, Jaurès with the most
From the book Complete Works. Volume 11. July-October 1905 author Lenin Vladimir IlyichThe sleeping bourgeoisie and the awakened bourgeoisie Topic for the article Imagine that a small number of people are fighting a blatant, ugly evil, which the mass of sleeping people are unaware of or indifferent to. What is the main task of the fighters? 1) wake up as many as possible
From the book Complete Works. Volume 26. July 1914 - August 1915 author Lenin Vladimir IlyichThe bourgeoisie and war In one respect, the Russian government did not lag behind its European counterparts: just like them, it was able to deceive “its” people on a grandiose scale. A huge, monstrous apparatus of lies and intricacies was put into action in Russia,
From the book Complete Works. Volume 23. March-September 1913 author Lenin Vladimir IlyichBourgeoisie and peace The conference of French and German parliamentarians in Bern, held last Sunday, May 11 (April 28, O.S.), once again recalls the attitude of the European bourgeoisie to war and peace. The initiative to convene the conference belonged to the Alsace-Lorraine and
From the book Complete Works. Volume 24. September 1913 - March 1914 author Lenin Vladimir IlyichLiquidators and the bourgeoisie If anyone were to doubt this, they should first of all pay attention to how bourgeois politicians and the bourgeois press regard liquidationism, its ideas and its struggle with the Marxist workers’ organization. Anyone who becomes familiar with
From the book Complete Works. Volume 22. July 1912 - February 1913 author Lenin Vladimir IlyichBourgeoisie and reformism Rech's discussions on the pressing issue of strikes deserve the enormous attention of the workers. The liberal newspaper provides official data on the strike movement: Let us note in passing that the figures for 1912 are clearly understated: political