This book is not just another apocalyptic warning. It presents the concept crisis state modern civilization from the position of ecologists. Humanity is a systemic element of the biosphere, and the only way to avert the impending catastrophe - to weaken the anthropogenic pressure from which all living things on Earth suffer. Based on the theory of biotic regulation developed by Russian scientists environment, the authors debunk the technogenic concept of the noosphere. No human technology can replace living nature - this, according to the authors, is the strategic nerve of what is commonly called sustainable development.
We present to your attention some materials.
Environmental equivalents
modern man
In order to get a more visual quantitative idea of what it costs nature to support the life support of the average inhabitant of the planet, let us turn to the concept ecological equivalents of modern man, which today's science operates on.
Per capita, the world today extracts and transports an average of about 50 tons of raw material per year. 800 tons of water are spent annually on its extraction and processing (similar to the technologies of life itself, most of modern technologies can be called “wet”) and constantly consumes 3.6 kW of energy power. This generates 48 tons of waste and 2 tons of final products, which are essentially deferred waste.
Is it a lot or a little? To better imagine such scales, let’s at least try to mentally draw a diagram of three concentric circles, inside the smallest of which is a human figure.
This man is a city dweller, and the smallest of the circles represents that small territory that corresponds to his living space - his home, streets and squares, his workplace, trade and public catering establishments, administrative and cultural institutions, etc. This area of 0.1 hectares in size is like the epicenter of environmental disturbance; natural ecosystems on it have been completely destroyed.
The next circle is larger, it displays the area required to provide our city dwellers with food, natural fibers and wood. Its value varies depending on the region. For a resident of the Baltic basin, for example, it ranges from 0.55 ha (Scandinavia, Denmark, former West Germany) up to 0.69 hectares (countries of the former socialist camp).
And finally, the largest circle corresponds to a territory that is not occupied by anything and does not produce anything for our city dwellers, but is experiencing anthropogenic pressure due to the removal of human waste and the release of nutrients, including CO 2. The area of this territory ranges from 4 to 10 hectares, and its ratio to the area of the source of disturbance (the urban area itself and agricultural land) ranges from 7: 1 to 15: 1, respectively.
This last territory of 4-10 hectares should be considered true ecological space, necessary for the life support of one modern city dweller.
Now let’s do a little arithmetic calculation: let’s multiply the minimum area required to support the life of our average city dweller, that is, the mentioned 4 hectares, by the number of all urban inhabitants of the planet, which today reaches half of its total population. The territory that we will end up with is 170 million km2, which is larger than the entire land surface!
But we did not take into account another 3 billion rural residents, we also did not take into account the disturbances caused by industry aimed at improving the comfort of life, and much more.
Of course, in different countries and regions, human environmental equivalents vary significantly, which is associated with the level of their economic development and, in particular, with the level of consumption.
In developed countries, these values are approximately 5 times higher than the world average (per person, 250 tons of raw materials are extracted per year and 16 kW of energy is constantly consumed). In developing countries they are 5 times lower than the world average (10 tons of raw materials and 0.64 kW of energy per person), and in the poorest countries they are 10 times lower. That is, a resident of Ethiopia, for example, is 500 times (!) inferior in its environmental equivalent to a French or American. And this glaring inequality in the consumption of life’s goods is, in essence, the basis of the foundations of that socio-political destabilization modern world, which he has to pay for the current prosperity of economically successful countries.
“National colors” of sustainable development
In the 10 years since the Rio conference, more than a hundred states have published their own agendas and programs, modeled after the Agenda 21 adopted there, reflecting their vision of sustainable development, as well as the specific steps they plan along this path.
The key to sustainable development “American style” is the same growth and economic prosperity, and they are designed to pay for environmental pollution and waste disposal. But how, one may ask, does such development differ from what already exists and from the environmental economy that has been operating in developed countries for more than two decades, but has only resulted in a worsening of the global environmental situation (the US contribution alone to increasing the concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere amounted to 4.4% of its total annual growth in 1990-1994).
The US Sustainable Development Goals are not much different from everything that guided the leaders of this country in previous years and that they promised during their election campaigns. So if we remove the term “sustainable development” from this text, it will be difficult to discern anything fundamentally new in it. And the intention to “take a leadership role in the development and implementation of global sustainable development policies, standards of conduct, trade and foreign policy” speaks of the continuing desire for leadership in a unipolar world and in the future.
But the world expects something completely different from the United States. A developing countries They also claim to repay their environmental debt, rightly believing that this is one of the central points in achieving international agreement. And how can we talk about economic or social justice if one resident of industrialized countries today consumes as many resources as 20 people from the developing world? And the energy consumption of one American is equivalent to the consumption of 14 Chinese, or 36 Indians, or 280 Nepalese, or 531 Ethiopians.
Accordingly, the damage caused to the environment here per capita is 7 times higher than in third world countries. And while 1.5 billion people on Earth live on one dollar or less a day, the United States spends $20 per person annually to combat the effects of overeating.
Yet by ignoring these dismal statistics, the US Sustainability Strategy continues to focus on economic growth at the expense of the rest of the world. In essence, this is the same nature-wasting mechanism, only supplemented with measures to intensify production, save resources and combat pollution.
However, sustainable development in a single country is completely hopeless, and the authors of the report seem to understand this. Because in the section “Global Changes Affecting Everyone,” you can also read this casually thrown phrase: “The lives of Americans are increasingly being impacted by planetary environmental changes.” Logically, this should mean that national tasks should be derived from global ones, or at least coordinate the former with the latter.
But between the lines of the “Strategy...” something completely different shines through: yes, the world needs, sparing no effort, to take vigorous measures to protect and restore the environment, but to do this under the leadership of the United States in the interests of their prosperity and sustainability. As for sustainability in other regions of the planet, it is, of course, also desirable, but with prosperity and social justice- that’s how it turns out.
If the USA is a typical representative of the “golden billion” and the world leader in resource consumption and waste production (24% of global energy consumption and 30% of raw material consumption), then China is a “third world” superpower whose contribution to processes of a global nature is expected , will increase over time. Therefore, it is especially interesting to use his example to trace what specific expectations are associated with sustainable development in countries of the opposite pole.
China has also developed a sustainable development program called China's Agenda 21 - White Paper on China's Population, Environment and Development in the 21st Century. This document, although continuing the traditions of socialist five-year plans, was drawn up for a longer term. In some cases, prospects up to 2020 and beyond are considered.
The choice of Chinese strategy is obvious: it is intensive the economic growth, but taking into account environmental protection and population regulation. “China is a country with a large population and weak infrastructure,” the document says. “Only by maintaining relatively rapid economic growth can poverty be eradicated, living standards raised and lasting peace and stability achieved.”
Indeed, who else but China knows what the problem of overpopulation is. There are only 0.11 hectares of arable land per person, and over the past 10 years its area has decreased by 360 thousand hectares, and the harvest is less than 400 kg per capita. In this regard, the program provided for the further dissemination of family planning methods, which began in the 1980s, and control of the population size and its composition. And its annual growth was planned to be reduced to 1.25%.
Like other centralized economies, China has not paid attention to environmental problems, and now, for the first time in many years, the country is turning to face them. It was decided, in particular, to take control of environmental pollution and achieve partial improvement environmental situation in big cities. Special sections of the program are devoted to the protection and economical use of natural resources, the conservation of biodiversity, the fight against desertification (a particularly painful problem for China), as well as solid waste disposal and atmospheric protection.
But all this, so to speak, is the immediate reality, the tasks of today or tomorrow. Do the authors of the White Paper have any more general strategic guidelines of a global nature?
Yes, there is, and the United States serves as such a guideline for them, whose version of sustainable development, as soon as it is implemented, they would like to extend to the whole developing world. “The United States,” the document says, “must first develop an effective domestic policy to achieve sustainable development, to demonstrate that there is another, smarter path to progress.”
And since the advantage of the experience they have accumulated “follows from the wealth of the country, its power, technical capabilities and history itself,” the “damned” question immediately arises: how can those countries that do not have American wealth and economic power, nor technical capabilities? Having previously repeated historical path US in terms of unprecedented consumption and depletion of natural resources? But this is the most the right road to a global environmental disaster.
Thus, China is choosing, in principle, the same strategy as the United States, albeit taking into account local characteristics, but with even higher rates of economic growth.
It is with growth that hopes are pinned on finding funds for environmental protection, which in this gigantic country is only taking its first timid steps. But, alas: even its economic growth of 9% per year will still not bring China one step closer to the United States. After all, the American 3% per year is much “heavier” than the Chinese 9%, and with simultaneous economic growth, the absolute gap between them will only increase. And over a decade, another 30% will be added to the financial and economic power of the United States.
Such is the general outline the position of two flagships of the modern world system. The first embodies typical features economically developed, the second - the developing world.
The 1989 G7 Economic Declaration states: “...To achieve sustainable development, we must ensure that economic growth and development are compatible with environmental protection.”
But it was economic growth that led the developed countries to their current conflict with nature. And with all the successes of the intensive economy, at least 50% of the world's energy and up to 80% of raw materials are consumed there. Accordingly, these countries account for 2/3 of the world's waste and more than 50% of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere (almost half of which comes from the United States).
Germany is one of the most advanced states in this group in terms of environmental protection, having even included the principle of sustainable development in its Basic Law. And among its most important goals is, in particular, the preservation of environmental balance.
But is this possible in a country where 54% of the land is occupied by agriculture, 29% by buildings and infrastructure, and the remaining 17% by cultivated and secondary forests? Is this possible where the population density is 228 people per 1 km 2 (that is, 0.45 hectares of land per person) and where, against the background of a decrease in the consumption of materials and fuel per unit of production (409 kg of fuel in 1995 versus 833 kg in 1960), the trend of absolute growth in consumption of both continues. And isn’t this a complete separation of ideas from reality?
Sustainable development refers to the same familiar strategy of recent decades. True, taking into account environmental problems (primarily waste and pollution), but without serious restrictions on economic growth, without strict environmental frameworks for the production sector, and most importantly, without recognizing the fact of a global collision between humanity and the natural environment.
Translated into common language, this means: do better, act more efficiently, perhaps more carefully, but, in principle, the same as usual. That is, within the framework of the same paradigm of economic growth, which ultimately led to the current global crisis.
But if in the strategies of industrially developed countries one can still trace a certain bias towards environmental protection (the principle of payment for pollution, attention to the remaining natural ecosystems, investing in environmental technologies), then the national programs of poor third world countries, as a rule, lack even this, and unsupported declarations on environmental protection are still nothing more than declarations. And without further ado, betting on economic growth, they hope to achieve their goals along the same path that their economically more successful partners took in their time. But this is the way to destroy nature.
The conclusions, unfortunately, are not very encouraging.
First of all, the global change program has not yet been adequately reflected in national plans sustainable development and especially not implemented in practice. Both developed and developing countries continue to live by inertia, planning their future to a large extent as a spontaneous continuation of the present. Some measures (anti-pollution, introduction of environmental technologies, resource conservation) actually fit completely within the framework of what has already been tested by the developed world since the late 1960s, but have not in the least mitigated the threatening environmental situation. And they are trying to pass this off as sustainable development, misleading others and themselves!
Exactly 20 years ago, land reform began to be implemented in the region. The lands of collective farms and the state became shared. What did the village ultimately gain from such rapid changes?Talk about this withmember of the Academy of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Volgograd publicist and expert on land management Alexander VOROBYOV.
Better than nothing
- Alexander Vasilyevich, many villagers still remember collective farm life with warmth. Why do they fear private property?
It is not private property or the lack thereof that is scary. It’s scary when millions of hectares of arable land, pastures, and hayfields are abandoned, overgrown with weeds, and not cultivated. This almost happened to us in the 90s, when the old forms of management could no longer work effectively, and new ones were just being created.
At one time I studied the history of land relations in various countries peace. Collective farms with exclusive state ownership of land existed only in the Soviet Union and Mongolia. Therefore, the statement that there is nothing better in the world than collective farms is nonsense. Today in the Russian village there are all the signs of diversity, competition between different forms of management, and their forced “hybridization.” Life itself suggests how to work on the earth effectively and sustainably. The main thing is to create a clear legislative and regulatory framework. And do not apply such barbaric experiments to the village as was the case throughout the entire 20th century.
- During perestroika, the first farmers appeared. Was there nothing stopping them from working? Alexander Vorobyov was born in 1949 in the North Ossetian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Professor of the Department of Land Management and Land Cadastre of VSAU, Ph.D., Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. For 17 years he headed the land management service of the region, headed the committee on land resources and land management. Author of more than 40 research papers, 10 books and reference guides. Honored Land Surveyor of the Russian Federation.
Under Yeltsin, every peasant was given the right to leave the collective farm to organize his own farms, take land from the redistribution fund. There were a lot of curiosities! It took years for the legal literacy of the majority of participants in land relations to move from zero, and for the authorities themselves to begin offering peasants well-developed legal mechanisms for managing land.
In general, there were many serious mistakes at the origins of land reform. The laws adopted were of a declarative nature, so adjustments were constantly made to them - some repealed others. The farmers had to endure a lot! But the main thing was achieved - the land was not concentrated in one hand. She did not go to the “shadow agricultural barons”, as was the case in a number of regions of Russia.
- They say that the farming or small-scale type of farming is a dying nature. What will replace it? And when?
Single peasant farms even where the owner is a knowledgeable and talented person, they do not always prove their effectiveness. More often, success is achieved by those producers who unite in primary associations, agricultural cooperatives, etc., expanding their plots to 1 thousand or more hectares. There is no point in farming 50 - 80 hectares: the costs will not pay off. We need various forms of cooperation among farmers, the creation of joint “inter-farm” complexes, partnerships for technology, logistics, and sales.
Over the past 50 years (since the beginning of Khrushchev’s consolidation of collective and state farms and the liquidation of “unpromising” settlements), more than a thousand farms have been erased from the map of the region. But the land, the conditions remained! On the basis of such farms, it is necessary to create enlarged compact tracts of farms, form land funds from abandoned arable land, reanimate infrastructure, and revive settlements. Moreover, there is such experience in the country. In the central regions of Russia, “family farms” of a new type have appeared, where the entire infrastructure was created literally from scratch. Farmers independently choose the place where they want to build a family farm in order to optimally cultivate the surrounding land. In the neighboring Voronezh region there is a program for the support and development of small settlements. Need to study!
- In areas such as Ilovlinsky, Kalachevsky, Chernyshkovsky, etc., there are huge tracts of abandoned land. They dropped out of circulation due to extreme desolation. How to lure new residents there?
The lands you are talking about have become centers of natural protected parks. Here, with the support of the state, it is necessary to develop agrotourism, sport hunting and fishing, and grazing livestock. That is, return these lands to economic use in a different capacity. Where there is no point in engaging in crop production - the semi-desert region beyond the Volga, the steep slopes of the Don region - it is worth developing alternative types of farming to crop production.
Today, many are beginning to understand that talk about continuing land reform is not just talk. Moreover, Pyotr Stolypin’s main dream has not yet been realized. More than a century ago, he wrote: “Our agricultural production is not intensive and cannot seriously compete with the world’s producing centers.” The recent years of reform of land relations inspire some optimism. And first of all, because our peasant is unusually talented and tenacious, he is in no way inferior to either the American, or the Dutch, or any other farmer.
In Khrushchev’s times, our region was visited by Dmitry Polyansky, a member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee. The Volgo-Don state farm near Kalach was then famous for its successes. They decided to show it to the distinguished guest. The road went through the dacha areas of Volgograd residents. Polyansky looked and then asked: “What is this?” “Dachi,” they answered him. "Whose?" - followed the question. Local escorts suggested: “Workers from chemical and other enterprises.” The distinguished guest, returning to Volgograd, caused a real defeat and accused the local authorities of “indulging bourgeois habits.” He demanded that the dachas be razed to the ground with bulldozers. True, neither Nikita Khrushchev himself nor the leadership of the Volgograd Regional Committee supported such an extreme. Sanity prevailed.
REX news agency experts discuss Georgy Malinetsky’s forecast about the possible disintegration of Russia into zones of influence of other civilizations
Deputy Director of the Institute of Applied Mathematics for scientific work, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Professor, Georgy Malinetsky several years ago, he spoke in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper about the forecasts of his scientific institution on the prospects of the Russian Federation until 2030.
“Our institute, based on dynamic information theory, made a geopolitical forecast for Russia for 2030. If things continue as they are, according to the inertial scenario, then even without external intervention, Russia will likely disintegrate into zones of influence of other civilizations. The Far East will be divided by China and Japan. Kamchatka, Chukotka and Siberia will go to America. A Muslim enclave and a Northwestern entity will appear in the European part. This is consistent with the forecasts made by the CIA, where Russia is seen as a zone of crisis and instability. Some American researchers predict the collapse of Russia into 5-8 states within 10-15 years. Loss vital activity a significant part of the population is an important parameter in this scenario. Another option is self-organization at the elite level post-Soviet republics and understanding of the need for a close union, highlighting a common area of responsibility. It is natural to have friends close and enemies far, and not vice versa. A new confederal union around Russia may emerge. In another scenario, self-organization from below will occur, but it will be difficult to manage due to the many factors that give rise to social instability. A harsh change of elites and revolutionary upheavals cannot be ruled out. If you put in extra effort, you can restore a historical community in the Eurasian space - the Soviet people with the still desired type of life structure. This is evidenced by surveys of German sociologists: the most unpopular politicians over the century in Russia are Yeltsin and Gorbachev, and the most popular are Putin, which is normal for the current leader, Stalin and Brezhnev,” the expert noted.
Are the predictions coming true? What path is development taking in the post-Soviet space?
Sandra Novikova, journalist and blogger:
I am suspicious of these kinds of predictions. The fact is that everyone knows that Russia must once again become one of the world centers of power - otherwise it will be divided between other centers of power. This is the state of affairs, this is the situation: Russia can only exist as an empire.
What does a patriot do in this situation? He persistently, without losing heart and without giving up, to the best of his strength and capabilities, works in the field of restoring the Russian center of power - the Eurasian Union. And, of course, he tries, again to the best of his strength and capabilities, to help the authorities - after all, the authorities in Russia are now working on the revival, reunification, revival of the Russian world.
What will the enemy do? And the enemy will put a spoke in the wheels in every possible way - for example, spreading all sorts of gloomy predictions. They are needed in order to sow fear, apathy, despair, disbelief in the future in the souls of people and, ultimately, turn a simply gloomy prediction into a self-fulfilling prediction.
A self-fulfilling prophecy is “a prediction that appears to be true, but in fact is not, can significantly influence people's behavior in such a way that their subsequent actions themselves lead to the fulfillment of the prediction...”.
That is why I prefer positive predictions, charging people with optimism and giving an attitude towards goodness, love, joy and generally a bright future. At the same time, a positive prophecy should not look like a beautiful fairy tale in rose-colored tones, but, on the contrary, should be based on specific historical facts.
Andrey Kuprikov, political scientist, co-chairman of the Volgograd regional office"Business Russia":
The collapse of Russia is excluded, already due to physical laws, when centrifugal forces are replaced by centripetal forces. The period of collapse ended in 1999 with the departure of Yeltsin. The USA and the EU are weakened and are no longer able to implement such a large-scale plan, while China prefers quiet expansion, this is a different worldview. Most likely, we will witness the formation of new centers of influence with the participation of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, and it is possible that Ukraine will join it. China will remain an independent stratum, but will increase its influence in the region.
Russia in the middle of the 19th century (1825-1855) Team of authors
Which path should Russia take?
Which path should Russia take?
In the 30–40s of the 19th century, debates about the paths of development of the country did not subside in Russian society. By the middle of the century, the main directions of social thought were formed, based on the need for transformations in the state: Slavophiles, Westerners and revolutionaries.
SLAVICHILISM- social movement of the 1840s–1860s. 19th century, defending the idea of Russian national identity.
The founders of Slavophilism are considered to be A.S. Khomyakov and I.V. Kireyevsky. The Slavophile circle also included P.V. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov, I.S. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin, A.I. Koshelev, D.A. Valuev, V.A. Panov, F.V. Chizhov, A.N. Popov and others. The Slavophile circle arose after discussing a handwritten article by A.S. Khomyakov “About old and new”. It became a kind of manifesto of the Slavophiles. I.V. Kireevsky responded to this speech with his article “In response to A.S. Khomyakov." The ideas expressed by Khomyakov and Kireevsky received support, and soon, in the winter of 1839, a Slavophile circle was formed in Moscow.
Slavophiles believed that the development of Russia was possible only along a path different from the European one. They saw the uniqueness of Russia in the communal structure of the village and in Orthodoxy, which, in their opinion, was true Christianity. Russian people, unlike Westerners, are not infected with individualism and acquisitiveness. In the future, Russia was to realize the ideal of a society based on solidarity and Christian brotherhood. To achieve this ideal, it was necessary to restore, on the basis of Orthodoxy, the social and cultural unity of the Russian people, disrupted by the reforms of Peter I, and return Russia to the path of its original development.
Slavophiles called on the intelligentsia to get closer to the people and study their language and culture. Slavophiles idealized pre-Petrine Rus', talked about its patriarchy, the unity of the king and the people. But at the same time, they considered it necessary to develop trade and industry, to build railways, use machines, open jars.
Several times a week the Slavophiles gathered and argued with each other and with Westerners. Gradually, the Slavophiles began to move to widespread propaganda of their ideas in society. Slavophile articles began to appear in the magazine “Moskvityanin”, which was edited by M.P. Pogodin, professor of history at Moscow University. In addition, the circle tried to annually publish “Moscow collections” with articles written in the Slavophile spirit. But after the release of the first issue, “Moscow Collection” was banned, since censorship saw dangerous anti-government ideas in its articles. In 1856, the Slavophile magazine “Russian Conversation” began to be published under the editorship of
A.I. Koshelev, who also promoted the ideas of the Slavophiles.
The activities of the Slavophiles during the preparation received public recognition. peasant reform. Samarin, Koshelev, Cherkassky were among the figures who prepared the peasant reform. They offered to provide land to peasant communities for a ransom. Unfortunately, the founders of the circle did not live to see this moment. I.V. Kireevsky died in 1856, and A.S. Khomyakov and K.S. Aksakov - in I860. After their death, the activity of the Slavophile circle began to gradually subside, and in 1864 it disintegrated.
Philologist V.I. Dal and playwright A.N. were close to the Slavophiles. Ostrovsky, poets A.A. Grigoriev, F.I. Tyutchev and others. In the 2nd half. 19th century The ideas of the Slavophiles were developed in “pochvennichestvo” and in Russian conservative thought. I.V.
KHOMYAKOV Alexey Stepanovich (05/01/1804–09/23/1860) - poet, Slavophile philosopher, one of the founders of Slavophilism.
A.S. Khomyakov was born in Moscow. The Khomyakovs belonged to an old noble family. This surname was first mentioned in the beginning. 16th century The Khomyakov family was closely connected with many representatives of the highest circles of the noble elite.
Alexey got good home education, which allowed him to subsequently enter the mathematics department of Moscow University and receive a Ph.D.
In his early youth, Khomyakov showed decisive character and a thirst for achievement. In 1821, he tried to flee to Greece to take part in the uprising against the Turkish yoke. In 1822, Khomyakov, at the insistence of his parents, entered service in the Astrakhan cuirassier regiment. But him creative nature Military discipline was alien to him, and he soon resigned. Until 1826, he lived in Paris, where he painted and wrote the tragedy “Ermak”. He traveled to Italy and Eastern Europe, where he felt unity Slavic world.
Returning from abroad, he plunged into literary life Moscow. In the 1830s. Khomyakov becomes famous poet and playwright. In con. 1830s he began to write works on theology, philosophy, history, and became the main theoretician of Slavophilism. His handwritten article “On the Old and the New” is considered a kind of manifesto of the Slavophiles.
In the 1840s–1850s. Alexey Stepanovich was engaged in active propaganda of the new teaching, defended the idea of the original development of Russia, and asserted the special significance of Orthodoxy as the only true direction in Christianity. Khomyakov believed that Orthodoxy through Russia could lead to the restructuring of the entire world culture on the basis of true Christianity. Khomyakov was the first to formulate the concept of “conciliarity” - the unity of believers based on love for God and each other. He saw another manifestation of conciliarity in the Russian community, where peasants built their lives together. Subsequently, the concept of “conciliarity” became one of the cornerstones of Russian philosophical thought. Based on his teachings, Khomyakov created an original concept of the history of world civilizations.
A.S. Khomyakov was actively involved in developing his own estates. He transferred his serfs to rent. The wealth of Khomyakov's peasants increased, and his own income increased. Khomyakov organized several small factories and was engaged in invention. He came up with the ideas for a long-range gun, a steam engine, which he called “Moskovka,” and an original sugar-making technology. Khomyakov treated peasants with homeopathic medicines developed by himself.
A.S. Khomyakov was a supporter of the liberation of serfs. In the 2nd half. 50s he made proposals regarding the preparation of peasant reform, secretly advised his like-minded people - Samarin, Cherkassky and Koshelev, who worked in provincial committees on the peasant issue. Khomyakov did not live to see the day of the abolition of serfdom. In September I860, he died of cholera, contracted from the peasants he treated. He was buried in Moscow in the St. Daniel Monastery. I.V.
KIREEVSKY Ivan Vasilyevich (03/22/1806–06/11/1856) - literary critic, philosopher, one of the ideologists of Slavophilism.
I.V. Kireyevsky was born in Moscow into an old noble family. In 1812, Kireevsky’s father gave his own estate for the hospital. While caring for the sick, he contracted typhoid and died. All worries about raising six-year-old Ivan, his brother Peter and sister Maria fell on the shoulders of their mother, Avdotya Petrovna. In 1813, she invited her uncle, poet V.A. Zhukovsky, to be a mentor to his young children. Under the influence of Zhukovsky, Ivan Kireevsky chose literary activity as the main work of his life.
He received an excellent education at home and supplemented it by attending lectures at Moscow University and studying with professors. Kireevsky passed university final exams and in 1824 he entered the service of the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Soon he entered the circle of “lyubomudrov”, consisting of educated young men who dreamed of creating an original Russian philosophy. In 1828 I.V. Kireevsky published his first literary critical article, “Something about the character of Pushkin’s poetry.” In 1830, Kireevsky in Germany listened to lectures by German philosophers G. Hegel, F. Schelling and others.
Returning to Russia, he founded the magazine “European”, around which the best writers in Russia immediately united. Soon Nicholas I banned the publication: he saw its articles as propaganda of the constitution. The ban on the magazine became a difficult ordeal for Kireyevsky. For nine years he did not write a single article and was exclusively engaged in the study of philosophy. Being an Orthodox thinker, he created the “philosophy of the believing mind.” Kireyevsky believed that Russia was following a special path, which was determined by Orthodoxy.
To the active literary and social activities of I.V. Kireevsky returned only in 1839. Together with A.S. Khomyakov, he became the founder of Slavophilism. Kireyevsky considered the task of original Russian philosophy to be the reworking of “European education” in the spirit of Orthodoxy. He put forward the idea " ideal personality", whose mind, faith and feelings are in harmony, so she can join reality. Kireyevsky believed that in the West, spirit and thinking are so separated that their harmony is unattainable. Russian people, in his opinion, are characterized by a special mindset, and this can become the basis of an ideal society. In the 2nd half. 40 - beginning 50s 19th century Kireevsky spent a lot of time in the Kozelskaya Vvedenskaya Optina Hermitage, talking with the Optina elder Macarius and studying patristic literature. IN last years throughout his life he was engaged in translations and publications of the works of the holy fathers Orthodox Church. Kireyevsky was buried in Optina Pustyn. I.V.
KIREEVSKY Pyotr Vasilyevich (02/11/1808–10/25/1856) - Slavophile, collector of Russian folklore, brother of I.V. Kireevsky.
P.V. Kireyevsky was born into a wealthy noble family. Peter lost his father early, who died of typhus in 1812. Mother Avdotya Petrovna and her uncle, the poet Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky, who had a great influence on the brothers, Peter and Ivan, took care of raising the children.
In 1822 the Kireevskys moved to Moscow. Peter and Ivan found themselves in an atmosphere of literary and philosophical quests characteristic of the educated part noble society. The brothers entered the circle of “lyubomudrov”, studied European philosophical thought and dreamed of creating an original Russian philosophy.
In con. 20s Pyotr Kireevsky went to study in Germany, in University of Munich. In 1831, after returning to Russia, he entered service in the main archive of the College of Foreign Affairs. Then he began collecting Russian folk songs and fairy tales. He managed to attract many Russian scientists and writers to this. After his death, a collection of folk songs was prepared and published by P.A. Bessonov. This publication retains scientific and cultural value to this day.
Kireyevsky was one of the first Slavophiles. Back in the 1st half. 30s he defended views, many of which later formed the basis of the so-called. Moscow direction. Under his influence, his brother Ivan switched to Slavophile positions. Subsequently, P. Kireevsky always kept “in the shadow” of his older brother. Sharing all the main provisions of the Slavophil teaching about the special path of development of Russia, he was a supporter of the abolition of serfdom, emphasizing that peasant reform should become part of the measures for the reconstruction of Russia. I.V.
AKSAKOV Konstantin Sergeevich (04/10/1817–12/19/1860) - literary critic, philologist, one of the prominent figures of Slavophiles.
K.S. Aksakov is the eldest son of the writer S.T. Aksakov, brother of I.S. Aksakova. In 1832, K Aksakov entered the literature department of Moscow University and upon graduation received the title of candidate of literature and the rank of 10th grade official. Aksakov was not attracted civil service, he preferred journalism and literary criticism.
In the beginning. 40s under the influence of A.S. Khomyakov and I.V. Kireyevsky became a Slavophile. In 1847 he defended his master's thesis on the literary activity of M.V. Lomonosov.
Among the Slavophiles K.S. Aksakov was considered an authority in the field of the Russian language, ancient Russian literature and history. In con. 40 - beginning 50s 19th century he published a number of articles on Russian history, in which he challenged the “theory of tribal life” by S.M. Solovyova. Aksakov argued that ancient Russian history should be viewed not as an arena of struggle between “tribal” and “state” principles, but as a union of “land” and “state”, which persisted until the reforms of Peter I. Aksakov believed that it was after Peter’s reforms that the “state” parted ways with the “land” and betrayed it. He believed that the revival of Russian identity would soon begin. Aksakov considered the peasant community to be the basis of the “land,” on which the Orthodox state should rely. The theory of “land and state”, created by K.S. Aksakov, became an expression of Slavophile views on Russian history.
In the 2nd half. 50s Aksakov actively participated in the preparation of the peasant reform. In 1855, he submitted a note to Emperor Alexander II “On internal position Russia", in which he proposed to convene Zemsky Sobor and formulated his vision of the relationship between government and society: “The power of power for the king is the power of opinion for the people.” In the note, he expressed the opinion that Russian people are not interested in politics and will never raise their hand to state power. The note remained without due attention from the authorities.
In the newspaper “Molva,” which Aksakov secretly edited, he published his passionate articles. During the era of the Great Reforms, they were addressed to the people, peasants and nobility who despised everything Russian. For the article “The public is the people. Experience of synonyms”, the official editor of “Rumor” was reprimanded. “In the public there is dirt in gold, among the people there is gold in dirt,” wrote Aksakov. Soon the newspaper was closed by the government, because Aksakov enjoyed a reputation as unreliable in ruling circles.
In 1859, Aksakov’s father, whom he loved very much, died. This death completely crippled Konstantin Sergeevich. In a year, he turned from a strong and healthy man into a hunched old man. His family advised him to go abroad for treatment, but the treatment did not help. December 19, 1860 K.S. Aksakov died on the deserted Greek island Zante for sudden and transient consumption. He was buried in the Moscow Simonov Monastery. I. I
AKSAKOV Ivan Sergeevich (September 26, 1823–January 27, 1886) - journalist, publicist, Slavophile.
I.S. Aksakov - younger son writer S.T. Aksakov, brother of K.S. Aksakova. In 1838–1842 Ivan studied at the Imperial School of Law, then until 1851 he served as an official of the 6th (criminal) department of the Senate, later moved to the Kaluga Criminal Chamber, then to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In addition to his service, he was engaged in literary activities. After retiring, I.S. Aksakov, under the influence of his brother, joined the circle of Moscow Slavophiles. After the death of his father Sergei Timofeevich and brother Konstantin, Aksakov felt himself the only continuer of the work of the Slavophiles. In 1852 I.S. Aksakov prepared for publication the “Moscow Collection” with articles by A.S. Khomyakova, I.V. Kireyevsky and other figures of the Slavophile circle. He spoke critically of arrogant bureaucratic Russia and saw the future in a moral people's zemstvo life. Censorship banned the collection, and Aksakov himself was deprived of the right to edit any publications for a long time.
During the Crimean War 1853–1856. Aksakov enlisted in the Moscow militia, but his squad never took part in the hostilities. In 1858, Aksakov returned to literary activity and became the unofficial editor of the Slavophile magazine Russian Conversation. In 1861–1865 published the newspaper "Day" in 1867–1868. - the newspaper “Moscow”, on the pages of which he defended Orthodox faith and the idea of Russian nationality, criticized the West and the St. Petersburg bureaucracy. For the directness and harshness of its judgments, the Moscow newspaper was closed by personal order of Alexander II.
In 1866, Aksakov married Anna Fedorovna Tyutcheva, daughter of the poet F.I. Tyutcheva.
In 1872–1874 Aksakov headed the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, and in 1875 became chairman of the Moscow Slavic Committee. Aksakov did especially a lot for the Slavic world during the Russian-Turkish War of 1877–1878. He collected and sent detachments of volunteers to the Balkans, supervised the collection of funds, the purchase and delivery of weapons, uniforms and equipment for the Bulgarian militia squads. Aksakov gained extreme popularity and respect among the Balkan Slavs. During the Berlin Congress in 1878, Aksakov made a speech in which he called Russia’s consent to the division of Bulgaria a betrayal. (Part of the territory of Bulgaria went to Turkey.) One of the central streets of the capital of Bulgaria, Sofia, still bears his name today.
In the 1880s. I.S. Aksakov began publishing the newspaper “Rus”, which defended Orthodoxy and criticized Westerners and nihilists. Aksakov died suddenly in Moscow. I.V.
SAMARIN Yuri Fedorovich (04/21/1819–03/19/1876) - statesman, philosopher, one of the ideologists of Slavophilism.
Born in St. Petersburg into an aristocratic family close to imperial court. His father, F.V. Samarin, a participant in the anti-Napoleonic wars, held a court position under the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna.
Yuri was educated at home and in the fall of 1834 he entered the literature department of Moscow University. In 1844, he successfully defended his master's thesis “Stefan Yavorsky and Feofan Prokopovich as Preachers.” At the same time, Samarin met K.S. Aksakov and A.S. Khomyakov and became a member of the Slavophile circle.
Immediately after defending his dissertation Yu.F. Samarin entered the service. He first served in the Senate, and from 1846 - in the Ministry of the Interior. All this time, Samarin did not break ties with the Slavophiles. In 1848 for the composition of “Letters from Riga”, in which Yu.F. Samarin condemned German dominance in the Baltic states, he was arrested and spent 12 days in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Although he was released after the personal suggestion of Emperor Nicholas I, his reputation as an unreliable person remained for a long time.
In 1853, Samarin retired and began managing his father’s estates in the Samara and Simbirsk provinces. At this time he began to work on a project for the liberation of peasants. Samarin's ideas were in demand during the preparation of the peasant reform of 1861. He worked hard, wrote notes, articles, projects, and participated in the work of the Samara Provincial Committee and Editorial Commissions.
In the 2nd half. 60s Samarin returned to his studies in philosophy and theology. In the last years of his life, he worked on the essay “Outskirts of Russia,” dedicated to issues of national politics. In this essay, he warned the government about the need to counteract the growth of German influence in the Baltic states. "Outskirts of Russia" was banned by censorship. I.V.
Occidentalism- a social movement of the 1840–1850s that arose in opposition to Slavophilism. Westerners viewed Russia as part of European civilization and sought to spread Western culture in Russia.
The circle of Westerners formed ca. 1840 around the professor of history of Moscow University T.N. Granovsky. The circle included A.I. Herzen, V.G. Belinsky, K.D. Kavelin, V.P. Botkin, E.F. Krosh, M.A. Bakunin, M.N. Katkov and other Westerners were united by a passion for the system of the German philosopher G. Hegel, which they considered as the highest achievement of the intellectual development of Europe. They created their historical and socio-philosophical constructions based on the Hegelian system. Westerners resolutely rejected the idea of a special path of development for Russia, which was defended by the Slavophiles. Historians Soloviev and Kavelin believed that main role In the history of Russia, the state played that the development paths of Russia and Western Europe differ little from each other, but factors unfavorable for Russia (harsh nature, vast territory, lack of access to the seas) led it to lag in economic development.
According to Westerners, until the beginning. 18th century Russia was on the sidelines of the process of world-historical development. They associated its entry into this process with the reforms of Peter I. Then Russia began to become acquainted with the achievements of European civilization. However, Russia continued to lag behind the West. To overcome the backlog, it was necessary to educate and carry out reforms in Russia. T.N. Granovsky and other members of the circle were supporters of the abolition of serfdom; they supported the ideas of freedom of speech and the introduction constitutional monarchy. Westerners published their articles in the magazines Sovremennik, Otechestvennye zapiski, and Russkiy Vestnik.
All R. 40s 19th century Serious contradictions emerged within the Westernizing circle. A.I. Herzen began to become interested in utopian socialism and revolutionary ideas. V.G. Belinsky preached socialist ideas. Disagreements within the circle led to a serious crisis and split within it. From the end 40s the activity of the circle began to fade, and after the death of T.N. Granovsky in 1855 it broke up.
The activities of the circle of Westerners marked the beginning of the emergence of liberalism in Russia as political trend, who is in opposition to the authorities and defends the need to carry out liberal-bourgeois reforms in Russia according to the Western model. I.V.
GRANOVSKY Timofey Nikolaevich (03/09/1813–10/04/1855) - historian, head of the Westernization circle of the 40–50s. 19th century
Born in Orel into a wealthy noble family. As a child, his mother Anna Vasilievna had a great influence on the boy. Granovsky always spoke of her with warmth and tenderness. In 1826, 13-year-old Timofey was sent to Moscow to the Kister boarding school “for a proper education.” After graduating from the boarding school, he did not find use for his abilities in his native Orel and in 1831 he moved to St. Petersburg. There Granovsky entered the service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. His new acquaintances from N. Stankevich’s circle drew the attention of Count S.G. Stroganov, trustee of the Moscow educational district, for a capable young man. In 1835, Granovsky went to Germany “at public expense” to continue his education. Returning to Russia, in 1839 he began giving lectures on ancient and medieval history Europe at Moscow University. The young professor quickly gained authority among students. He based his lectures on the Hegelian scheme of historical development.
The young professor's popularity grew rapidly. His public lectures, given in 1843, became a real event in the public life of Moscow. They were discussed on the pages of newspapers and magazines, and soon the name of Granovsky became known throughout Russia.
In the beginning. 1840s a circle of “Westerners” arose, which included A.I. Herzen, V.P. Botkin, E.F. Korsh, M.S. Shchepkin, N.F. Pavlov and others. Westerners conducted polemics with Slavophiles about the paths of development of Russia. Granovsky spoke about the Slavophiles that they want to “restore ancient Rus' with all its homogeneity." In the beginning. 1840s the entire Westernizing circle shared Political Views its leader, who dreamed of the abolition of serfdom, freedom of speech and a constitution. At this time, in his works T.N. Granovsky defended the idea of the unity of the world-historical process and advocated the development of enlightenment and education in Russia.
To the beginning 1850s around Granovsky at Moscow University a whole scientific school. In May 1855, he was unanimously elected dean of the Faculty of History and Philology. He began work on a textbook on general history and was going to publish his articles in Herzen's Polar Star, but he suddenly died after a short illness.
Granovsky's funeral resulted in a real demonstration of gratitude - students carried the coffin in their arms from the university church of St. Tatiana to the Pyatnitskoye cemetery. I.V.
BOTKIN Vasily Petrovich (12/27/1811–10/10/1869) - writer, literary critic, publicist.
Born in Moscow, into a wealthy merchant family. His father, Pyotr Kononovich Botkin, a merchant of the 1st guild, was the owner of a large company that traded tea. The Botkin family was widely known in Moscow business circles.
All R. 1830s Botkin met Moscow University student N.V. Stankevich and began to frequent his circle. Botkin was interested philosophical system Hegel, and soon he became an ardent supporter of the teachings of the German thinker. In the beginning. 1840s after Stankevich’s death, Botkin joined T.N.’s circle. Granovsky - historian, professor at Moscow University.
Botkin gained literary fame thanks to critical articles on literature, music, painting, and theater. Botkin actively defended the ideas liberal Westerners. In his articles published in the journal Otechestvennye zapiski, he developed the ideas of bourgeois development of Russia, promoted the social structure, culture, and life of European peoples. He authored the articles “Russian in Paris”, “Letters about Spain”, “Two weeks in London”, etc.
In 1853, after the death of his father, Vasily Petrovich took over management of the entire Botkin family business. At the same time, he continued to work in the literary field. In the 1850s He actively collaborated in the Sovremennik magazine. Remaining a convinced Westerner, Botkin very sharply criticized N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov for their excessive radicalism.
At the end of his life, Botkin’s views underwent changes: conservative and monarchical shades appeared in them. He gradually withdrew from literary activities and devoted himself entirely to the affairs of the company. Before his death, Botkin bequeathed 70 thousand rubles. (a huge sum at that time) for the maintenance and development of Russian science and art. I.V.
HERZEN Alexander Ivanovich (03/25/1812–01/09/1870) - Russian thinker and public figure, author of the theory of “peasant socialism”.
A.I. Herzen was born in Moscow. He was the illegitimate son of a wealthy landowner Ivan Alekseevich Yakovlev and a German woman, Henrietta Louise Haag. The father gave his son the surname Herzen - from the German word “Herz” - “heart”. Although Alexander was officially considered only a “pupil” in the Yakovlev house, his father did everything to provide his son with a good education and career. In 1826, during the coronation of Emperor Nicholas I, Herzen, together with his friend and distant relative Nikolai Ogarev on Vorobyovy Gory, vowed to fight the tsarist regime all their lives and avenge the executed Decembrists.
In 1830, Herzen entered the physics and mathematics department of Moscow University and graduated three years later. Since 1831, the young man was fascinated by Western European theories of socialism - the teachings of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Lamennais. Gradually around him and N.P. Ogarev formed a small friendly circle, which included N. Satin, N. Sazonov, N. Ketcher, V. Passek and others. In 1834, the police dispersed the circle. Herzen was sentenced to death penalty, which was later replaced by a link to Vyatka. Ogarev also ended up in exile for a long time.
After 6 years of exile, Herzen returned to Moscow, where he joined the “Westerners” and headed their radical wing. Since 1836, Herzen published his science articles and literary works under the pseudonym Iskander. In the novel "Who's to Blame?" and the story “Doctor Krupov” he sharply criticized the serfdom system.
In 1846, Herzen's father died and left him a large fortune. In 1847, Herzen decided to leave for Italy to restore the strength of his wife, who had lost three children. But troubles haunted Herzen: his mother and son drowned during a shipwreck, and a few months later his wife and child died
The defeats of the revolutions in Europe (1848–1849) caused Herzen to be disappointed in “Westernism,” and he came to the idea of special place and the role of Russia in history. He developed the theory of “Russian socialism”, which was adopted by the populists. In 1849–1854 he wrote several works: “On the development of revolutionary ideas in Russia”, “Russia”, “Russian people and socialism”, which became classics in socialist literature.
In 1853, Herzen created the “Free Russian Printing House” in London and began to harshly criticize the Nicholas regime.
In 1856, Ogarev came to London and proposed publishing a revolutionary newspaper. A year later, the newspaper “Bell” began to be published, which denounced the autocracy and put forward a demand for the abolition of serfdom. The Bell was read not only by the democratic intelligentsia, but also by major government officials. Copies of the newspaper even appeared on the desktop of Emperor Alexander I. Herzen stood on the side of revolutionary democracy and contributed to the creation of the secret society “Land and Freedom.”
Herzen had a significant influence not only on the ever-increasing circle of Russian emigrants abroad, but also on public opinion in Russia itself. Along with the growth of Herzen's authority, the influence of the ideas of socialism that he preached increased. He believed that Russia could come to socialism through the community, which should become a unit of a new socialist society. He disagreed with M. Bakunin that it was necessary to “revolt” the people. Herzen believed that he needed to be “taught”, and revolutions would not lead to creation, to success. He was convinced of this by the example of European revolutions.
In the 1860s. Herzen's journalism was addressed mainly to Western European readers.
A.I. died Herzen in Paris from pneumonia. During the last years of his life (1852–1864), Herzen wrote the autobiographical work “The Past and Thoughts” - a true masterpiece of memoir literature. I.V.
OGAREV Nikolai Platonovich (11/24/1813–05/31/1877) - Russian public figure, poet, publicist.
N.P. Ogarev was born into the family of a wealthy landowner. Ogarev’s worldview was formed under the influence of the ideas of the Decembrists. At sunset one of the summer days of 1826 on the Sparrow Hills, young Herzen and Ogarev took an oath to sacrifice their lives “for our chosen struggle.”
Since 1830 N.P. Ogarev studied at Moscow University. A student circle formed around Ogarev and Herzen, whose participants became acquainted with the ideas of utopian socialism. In the summer of 1834, Ogarev and Herzen were arrested, and in April 1835, Ogarev was exiled to the Penza province.
In 1839, Ogarev received permission to live in Moscow. In 1840 in the magazine “Domestic Notes” and in “ Literary newspaper"His first poems appeared. Together with V.G. Belinsky and A.I. Herzen Ogarev belonged to the most radical wing of Westerners. In 1840–1841 he wrote the first two parts of the poem “Humor,” in which he criticized the modern structure of Russian life. Under the influence of the 1848 revolution in Europe, he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to fight the existing system in Russia.
In 1841–1846 he mainly lived abroad, where he studied the German classical philosophy of G. Hegel, L. Feuerbach, and was engaged in the natural sciences. From the end 1846 Ogarev returned to his Penza estate. In 1850 he was again sent to prison, but was soon released.
In 1856, Ogarev emigrated to Great Britain, where, together with Herzen, they created the Free Russian Printing House. At Ogarev’s suggestion, Herzen began publishing “The Bell” (1857–1867). In his work “Note on a Secret Society” (1857), Ogarev presented a detailed plan for a radical transformation of the political system of Russia. Like Herzen, Ogarev substantiated the theory of Russian communal socialism.
After the abolition of serfdom in 1861, Ogarev began to openly call for a peasant revolution. To directly promote it among the people, he published the newspaper “General Assembly” (1862–1864). He actively participated in the preparation and creation of the “Land and Freedom” society, supported Polish uprising 1863–1864
In 1865, the Free Russian Printing House moved from London to Geneva. Ogarev also moved to Switzerland. In 1873 he returned to Great Britain again. In the last years of his life he became close to P.L. Lavrov. N.P.
FREE PRINT- illegal revolutionary publications of 1849–1917. They were published mainly abroad, were not censored and were delivered to Russia secretly.
The free press arose as a result of opposition sentiments to the official course of the Russian government. Using censorship, it harshly suppressed any critical publications, which is why illegal publications arose in Russia. Since they did not depend on either the authorities or censorship, they were called the free press.
A.I. is considered the creator of the free press. Herzen. On June 22, 1853, he opened the first Free Printing House in London. Herzen published propaganda literature - the magazine " polar Star"and the newspaper "Bell". The main direction of the entire free Russian press during this period was the struggle for the liberation of peasants from serfdom and the propaganda of the ideas of peasant socialism.
In the 1860s–1870s. The largest publications of the free press were populist publications. In the 1860s. they were printed mainly in Switzerland. Since 1868, in Geneva, a group of revolutionaries (N. Utin and M. Bakunin) published the magazine “People's Business”. The magazine and newspaper “Forward” were edited by the populist P.L. Lavrov. Under the heading “What’s happening in the homeland,” materials about events in Russia were published there. The magazine “Alarm” was published under the editorship of P. Tkachev.
In con. 1870s The newspapers “Nachalo”, “Land and Freedom”, “Narodnaya Volya”, “Black Redistribution” and others began to be published. Their publishers also took the position of the populists. In addition to the newspapers that raised peasant theme, the populists also tried to publish newspapers for workers - “Rabotnik” (1875), “Workers’ Newspaper” (1880–1881), “Grain” (1880–1881). But these endeavors were less successful.
The illegal workers' press in Russia developed somewhat separately. The first workers' newspaper was Rabochaya Zarya, the organ of the Northern Union of Russian Workers. On February 15, 1880, the only issue of the newspaper was published, which was a small sheet with an appeal to the working reader. The publication's circulation was almost entirely confiscated by the police, but a few copies survived and were distributed among workers.
Leaflets, brochures, and books were also printed abroad. There, for the first time, the “Notes of Catherine II”, materials about the assassination of Paul I, and the censored poems of A.S. were published. Pushkina, M.Yu. Lermontov, Decembrists. Outside Russia, “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” by A.N. was published. Radishcheva. In 1869 it was published in Geneva Russian edition Manifesto Communist Party K. Marx and F. Engels translated by M. Bakunin.
Since 1883 in Switzerland, the “Emancipation of Labor” group began publishing the “Library of Modern Socialism”, then the “Workers' Library”. In Switzerland they printed their own policy documents theorists and propagandists of Marxism: V.I. Lenin, G.V. Plekhanov and others. In 1900, the first issue of the newspaper Iskra was published abroad, the editorial board of which included V.I. Lenin, G.V. Plekhanov and other figures of the Social Democratic movement.
The free press played a significant role in the formation in Russia revolutionary ideology and the emergence socialist organizations. D.Ch.
BELINSKY Vissarion Grigorievich (05/30/1811–05/26/1848) - literary critic, philosopher, publicist.
Born in the city of Sveaborg in the family of a naval doctor. In 1829 he entered the literature department of Moscow University. In 1830 he was a member of the university circle " Literary Society 11 numbers”, and then, from the autumn of 1833, to the circle of N.V. Stankevich. The first literary work of V.G. Belinsky - the drama “Dmitry Kalinin” was directed against serfdom and was written under the influence of “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” by A.N. Radishcheva. In 1832 he was expelled from the university because he almost did not attend classes due to illness.
Belinsky began to collaborate in the magazines “Telescope” (and in its appendix, the newspaper “Molva”) (1833–1836), “Moscow Observer” (1838–1839), “Notes of the Fatherland” (1839–1846). ) and Sovremennik (1847–1848), where he led the departments of literary criticism.
In 1834, the first article by V.G. was published in Molva. Belinsky's "Literary Dreams", which attracted attention with its bold overthrow of old authorities. In it he called the realistic works of N.V. Gogol is an example of contemporary Russian literature.
Worldview of V.G. Belinsky changed several times during his life. In the beginning. 30s he was characterized by educational views, in the middle. 30s he became interested in German classical philosophy. During this period, he viewed the world from the position of objective idealism. Human society and consciousness were for him the embodiment of a higher, absolute idea. At the same time, he considered the limitless development of nature and society, the progress of culture and education, to be natural. Idealistic views of V.G. Belinsky was led to his “reconciliation with reality” (autumn 1837).
In con. 1839 - beginning 1840 Belinsky turned to utopian socialism and revolutionary democracy. In July 1847, in Salzbrunn, he wrote a passionate “Letter to Gogol” regarding “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends” (1846), in which he called on the writer to return to the path of realism and satire. At the end of his life he switched to materialistic positions.
Belinsky considered man an active force capable of changing natural phenomena and social life. He sought to create a new literary criticism based on philosophical aesthetics (mainly under the influence of the ideas of F. Schelling and G. Hegel). Belinsky developed new principles of materialist aesthetics: about the unity of content and form in art, in which the leading role is played by content, about the artistic image as a means of understanding reality, about artistic truth, which is achieved by typing the phenomena of reality.
Putting criticism first existing reality, he developed the principles of the “natural school” - a realistic trend in Russian literature, the head of which he considered N.V. Gogol. In annual literature reviews, in articles about A.S. Pushkin (11 articles, 1843–1846), M.Yu. Lermontov and others, the publicist gave a specific historical analysis creativity of writers, revealed national identity, nationality, humanism as the most important criteria for the artistry of their works. Historical views V.G. Belinsky were formed in the 40s, this was facilitated by polemics with the Slavophiles. He divided Russian history into ancient ( specific period and the time of the Horde yoke), middle (the period of formation and strengthening of the Moscow state) and new (after the reforms of Peter I).
Belinsky was an opponent of the Norman theory, he believed that Russian state was created by the Slavs themselves. Decisive factor strengthening Rus', he considered the victory of the autocracy over the boyars - the main opponent of a single, strong centralized state. He highly appreciated the activities of Ivan FV, whom he considered the predecessor of Peter I. In his opinion, the transformations of Peter I were historically conditioned and prepared by the course of the historical development of the country. Belinsky advocated a radical reorganization of Russian life based on the destruction of serfdom and autocracy. N.P.
CHERNYSHEVSKY Nikolai Gavrilovich (07/12/1828–10/17/1889) - writer, literary critic, philosopher, publicist of the revolutionary-democratic direction.
N.G. Chernyshevsky was born in Saratov into the family of a priest. In 1842–1846 he studied at the Saratov Theological Seminary, and in 1846–1851 at St. Petersburg University. During his student years he became imbued with socialist ideas, atheism and materialism. In 1851, Chernyshevsky returned to Saratov and began teaching literature at the local gymnasium. In 1853 he moved to St. Petersburg. Here he met N.A. Nekrasov and became an employee of the Sovremennik magazine. In his articles, he immediately declared himself to be a revolutionary democrat. In 1855, Chernyshevsky defended his dissertation “Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality,” in which he argued that the purpose of art is the reproduction of life and its explanation. For this he received a master's degree.
In 1855–1856 Chernyshevsky published one of his most famous critical works, “Essays on the Gogol Period of Russian Literature,” in Sovremennik. In it he traced the history of literature and social thought of the 1st half. 19th century In 1856 Chernyshevsky met N.A. Dobrolyubov, who later became his friend and colleague.
From the end In 1857, he turned all his attention to discussing issues of peasant reform and advocated the transfer of land to peasants without any ransom. In June 1859, Chernyshevsky secretly visited A.I. in London. Herzen, with whom he discussed issues related to the development of the liberation movement in Russia. Along with Herzen, Chernyshevsky became one of the ideologists of populism. Summer 1861 - spring 1862 Chernyshevsky was an adviser and inspirer of the Land and Freedom organization. In Letters Without an Address (1862), he put forward an alternative to the government: abandonment of autocracy or popular revolution.
In the 1860s. N.G. Chernyshevsky formulated the theory of the Russian path to socialism bypassing capitalism (“Russian socialism”). According to Chernyshevsky, Russian peasant community could become the basis for the creation of a socialist society in Russia without private property and operation. But Russia will need the support of advanced European countries that have already come to socialism. Chernyshevsky believed that there was a prospect of an imminent socialist revolution there.
Fearing the influence of Chernyshevsky's ideas, as well as on suspicion of revolutionary propaganda, the police arrested him and sent him to prison. Peter and Paul Fortress. Here, in solitary confinement, he wrote the novel “What is to be done?”, which was soon published and became reference book revolutionary-minded youth.
In 1864 N.G. Chernyshevsky was sentenced to seven years of hard labor followed by settlement in Siberia. Before being sent to hard labor, on May 19, 1864, Chernyshevsky was subjected to public " civil execution"on Mytninskaya Square in St. Petersburg. On the scaffold he was chained to a pillory and his sword was broken over his head, which meant deprivation of all civil rights. However, the act of public condemnation did not work out; thousands of admirers of the revolutionary came to the square and even threw flowers on the scaffold. Then he was taken to the Kadai mine, and after the end of his term of hard labor he was transported to the Vilyui prison. There Chernyshevsky was placed in an empty prison, where he was greatly oppressed by the lack of communication and spiritual loneliness.
In 1874 N.G. Chernyshevsky was promised release if he applied for a pardon, but he refused. Revolutionary populists G.A. Lopatin and I.N. Myshkin tried to rescue him from Siberia, but failed. In the summer of 1883, negotiations took place between the “Holy Squad” and representatives of the “ People's Will» through the mediation of journalist N.Ya. Nikoladze. The parties came to an agreement: the government undertook to return Chernyshevsky from Siberia in exchange for the Narodnaya Volya promise to renounce terror during the coronation of Alexander III. Soon N.G. Chernyshevsky was transferred to live in Astrakhan under police supervision. In 1889, shortly before his death, he was allowed to move to Saratov. V. G.
NIKITENKO Alexander Vasilyevich (03/12/1804–07/21/1877) - Russian writer, historian of Russian literature, censor.
A.V. Nikitenko was born into the family of a serf - a senior clerk in the estate office of Count Sheremetev (Sloboda-Ukrainian province). He received his first education at the Voronezh district school. Then he lived in Ostrogozhsk, giving private lessons. In 1822, a branch of the Bible Society was opened there, and Nikitenko became its secretary.
In 1824 Nikitenko, at the request of the poet K.F. Ryleev received his freedom. In 1825 he entered St. Petersburg University. For several months before the uprising on December 14, 1825, he lived in the apartment of the future Decembrist E.P. Obolensky. He gave lessons to his younger brother, and therefore came under suspicion from the authorities. In 1828 A.V. Nikitenko graduated from the Faculty of History and Philosophy of the University. He became the secretary of the trustee of the St. Petersburg educational district K.M. Borozdin and, on his instructions, wrote notes to the new censorship regulations. In 1833 A.V. Nikitenko was appointed censor. He was known as the most liberal censor. True, A.S. Pushkin, who was offended by Nikitenko’s severity, once called him a “kicking donkey.” Since 1834, he became a professor in the department of Russian literature.
In 1839–1841 A.V. Nikitenko edited the magazine “Son of the Fatherland”. In 1836 he received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy for his dissertation “On the Creative Force in Poetry or Poetic Genius.” He was the author of the scientific works “Speech on Criticism” (1842), “An Experience in the History of Russian Literature” (1845). Since 1853 - member St. Petersburg Academy Sci.
Nikitenko warmly welcomed the beginning of the “era of Great Reforms.” In con. 1850s he edited the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. Confirming his reputation as an enlightened censor, in 1861 Nikitenko defended the publication of several poems by N.A. Nekrasova. But for his willingness to agree with the opinions of higher authorities and the ability to adapt to new trends, his enemies dubbed him “progressive moderation”,
Since 1859, Nikitenko was a member of the temporary committee that controlled the activities of censorship. He defended the rights of writers and sought to transform the temporary committee into a permanent main directorate of censorship under the Ministry of Public Education; the main directorate was created, but in 1863, to Nikitenko’s indignation, it was subordinated to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Chapter 7 On the way to democratic Russia
From the book Russian Nation [Ethnonational and civil identity of Russians in modern conditions] author Abdulatipov Ramazan§ 2. Search for the “Russian path” in Russia: truth and extremes Those who have arrogated to themselves the right to speak on behalf of the Russian people, more often, unfortunately, are politicking national chauvinists, destroyers of Russia, because they are against its multinational unity, as well as
From the book Mister Velikiy Novgorod. Did the Russian land come from Volkhov or the Volga? author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich2 2. Along what river route did Novgorod trade on the Volkhov? Considering modern Novgorod on Volkhov a place of lively international trade in the Middle Ages, historians never tell us through which seaport did Novgorod trade with Europe? See fig. 41. Yaroslavl
From the book Victories and Troubles of Russia author Kozhinov Vadim Valerianovich1. A FEW CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE PATH OF RUSSIA What I am about to express is not at all my personal “discovery”. The main thing was formulated back in 1991 in the report “The Social and Socio-Political Situation in the USSR. Status and prognosis”, prepared under
From the book Ancient America: Flight in Time and Space. North America. South America author Ershova Galina GavrilovnaHow did the New World develop? As is known, civilizational centers have a single direction and stage of their development - an alternation of similar processes is observed in the southeastern region (Indus Valley, China), in the near-Mediterranean region, moving from the south
From the book Fundamental differences between Russia and the West. Idea against the law author Kozhinov Vadim ValerianovichA few thoughts on Russia's current path What I am about to express is not at all my personal “discovery”. The main thing was formulated back in 1991 in the report “The Social and Socio-Political Situation in the USSR. Status and prognosis”, prepared under
From the book St. Petersburg Arabesques author Aspidov Albert PavlovichOn what occasion was the Singing Bridge built? There is a well-known anecdote told about an unexpected loop on a straight railway line between St. Petersburg and Moscow, about how the Tsar’s finger accidentally ended up on the design line, the highest drawn between
From the book Seven Samurai of the USSR. They fought for their homeland! author Lobanov Dmitry ViktorovichRussia needs to go its own way D. V. Lobanov: Pavel Alexandrovich, what was the Soviet Union for you? P. A. Lysov: The country in which I was born, grew up, and of which I was proud. D. V. Lobanov: Please tell me, the Soviet Union was a world superpower, a strong state with
From the book Historical Culture Imperial Russia. Formation of ideas about the past author Team of authorsIN AND. Chesnokov Paths of formation and characteristic features of the university system historical education in pre-revolutionary Russia The origins of university education in Russia go back to the 18th century and are genetically connected with the activities of Moscow University. However, how
From the book Fundamentals of Nationalism [collection] author Kozhinov Vadim ValerianovichA few thoughts on the future path of Russia What I am about to express is not at all my personal “discovery”. The main thing was formulated back in 1991 in the report “The Social and Socio-Political Situation in the USSR. Status and prognosis”, prepared under
From the book War for Justice, or Mobilization Foundations of the Russian Social System author Makartsev Vladimir MikhailovichChapter II Search for social facts as sources of a special path
From the book Voices from Russia. Essays on the history of collecting and transmitting information abroad about the situation of the Church in the USSR. 1920s – early 1930s author Kosik Olga VladimirovnaWhich development path? Russia will go in the coming years, what risks and challenges await her along this path?
Member of the Presidium of the Association of Lawyers of Russia Mikhail Barshchevsky and member of the State Duma Committee on Budget and Taxes, political scientist, president of the Politika and Unity in the Name of Russia foundations, executive director of the Russkiy Mir Foundation Vyacheslav Nikonov tried to find answers to pressing questions.
The wallet will lead to democracy
Mikhail Barshchevsky: Quite often, some European structures do not recognize the legitimacy of elections in Russia. But when the time comes to sign the next gas contract, the Europeans willingly sign it. It turns out that they are ready to trade with an illegitimate government?
Vyacheslav Nikonov: In fact, Europeans have not recognized any elections in the Russian Federation as free and fair, except for 1996, when Boris Yeltsin was elected. True, it is the result of those elections that is being questioned in Russia itself, and in my opinion, they were the most dishonest.
Ratings always depend on installation. When elections were held in Libya, according to Euronews, everyone should have been happy for Libyan democracy. And this despite the fact that there were not even voter lists. When George W. Bush told Vladimir Putin about the triumph of democracy in Iraq, elections were being held there under occupation and also without voter lists.
Unfortunately, very often observers come not only to observe. They often arrive with ready-made reports. And even if no serious violations are detected at the polling stations, reports indicate that the elections are not free and unfair. Because someone was not registered, someone was given less time on television, and so on.
Barshchevsky: Is it possible to say that Bolotnaya, Sakharov and Poklonnaya are the point of no return in those times and the transition to new ones, which we call developed democracy?
Nikonov: May be. There is a theory of democratic transit, how states turn into democracies. Initially, there was no democracy - it began to appear in late XVIII century, developed a little in the 19th century, and in the 20th century it more or less began to find its feet. Although, again, before the Second World War in Europe, only five countries held at least some kind of elections. Not to mention free and clean. Using the example of primarily East Asian countries, it was found that democracy becomes possible only when society reaches a certain level economic development. For example, South Korea and Taiwan realized their economic miracle under the conditions of a brutal dictatorship, and then, having reached a certain level, primarily per capita income, transitioned to democracy. In East Asian countries, this level was about 6 thousand dollars per capita.
Barshchevsky: How much do we have now?
Nikonov: In Russia, according to the forecast of the Economist magazine for 2012, it will be 13.8. Gaidar once said that with 15 thousand dollars a radical change would begin in Russia. We have come very close to the border beyond which democratic procedures begin.
The problem with Russia is that we have very large social inequality. It will complicate our movement towards democracy, because social inequality provokes class contradictions. But it seems that the authorities have already paid attention to this problem.
No longer poor, not yet rich
Barshchevsky: I was very pleased with the initiative of young lawyers to create an Observer Corps. A lawyer studies to become a professional and enforce the law. And ensuring the most important law on elections, the Constitution, is the main task of a lawyer. That is, the guys already begin to practice a real profession when they are still students.
Nikonov: And thank God. Because very often many of our lawyers saw their task a little differently - to defend unjust acts that were happening in government and commercial structures. That is, they served the system. Serving the law and being educated in this spirit is an inoculation for their future work, so that they serve the law, and not your Excellency.
Barshchevsky: Don't you think that agrees economic prerequisites and the principle of the pendulum is as follows political cycle will it be for the right and not for the left? It is known that when the economy is bad, the right wins.
Nikonov: I would agree if we had middle class was the majority. Not yet. In general economic indicators Russia is a middle class country. But due to enormous social differentiation, this is not the case. Our middle class is a maximum of 30%. The rest, in terms of their standard of living and mentality, are people focused on social support, paternalism and leftist values. Russia in its own way value orientations very leftist country. The right will lose in situations that depend on the opinion of the majority.
Barshchevsky: What about in big cities?
Nikonov: This is no longer the case in large cities. There really critical mass There is a middle class, and this explains the difference in sentiment and voting between the capitals and the rest of Russia.
Foreign countries look askance
Barshchevsky: What dangers await Russia in the near future?
Nikonov: If passions continue to escalate, Russia will face many dangers, and even a revolution is quite real. In February 1917, stock markets were growing by leaps and bounds, no one was withdrawing money from the country, and everything was going great. But then somehow it happened within two days that we still cannot bring the country together either mentally, physically, or from a cultural point of view. The biggest danger is that the situation goes beyond the legal framework, because we do not know what could happen next. Think, political struggle will continue, perhaps even worsen, and none of the possible events can be ruled out.
There is a great charge of danger in our relations with the West. I’ve been reading American and English newspapers and magazines all my life, and I don’t remember such intensity of anti-Russian sentiment in them as there is now. Moreover, we are no longer talking about dissatisfaction with Putin or dishonest elections. Publications have already begun to appear that Russia is generally an illegitimate country: everything that Yeltsin did is illegitimate, the Constitution is illegitimate and the entire political system is illegitimate. And this is a very unpleasant turn of events.
Barshchevsky: Why is this happening?
Nikonov: There are situational things related, for example, to the position on Syria. On the other hand, the way Russia is developing does not completely suit Western countries. And democratic institutions have nothing to do with it. Now the main US allies in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia and Qatar have nothing to do with democracy. Americans are not interested in their elections, which never happened and never will happen.
I think if Russia behaved like Poland, supplied troops to Afghanistan or Iraq at the first whistle, and allowed complete control over its economy, this would suit everyone. In Eastern Europe, all banks, large enterprises, shipyards already belong to Western corporations, and we ourselves are building a foreign policy line; Putin speaks about Russian interests. This causes misunderstanding and concern in the West. At the same time, Europeans are quite lazy and non-aggressive. But I wouldn’t blame the Americans for laziness - they are seriously engaged in arranging the whole world, at the same time playing on all boards without exception.
Barshchevsky: What about the Chinese?
Nikonov: The Chinese are of course becoming a big problem for everyone. But today Russian-Chinese relations the best of all time. It is obvious to me: the Chinese are looking to the East, trade is going on with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region. Challenges, security problems, the Chinese economy - everything is in the Asia-Pacific region. In the next 5-10 years, China does not pose a threat to us. On the contrary, he is interested in Russia as a calm rear.
Key Question
Barshchevsky: What would you change in administrative structure authorities?
Nikonov: I would raise the budget process to the presidential level. A country's budget should be made where policy is made. In the structure of the US presidential administration, half is allocated to the Office of Management and Budget. If strategic decisions are made by the president, then he, and not one of the ministries, should have the budget.
Barshchevsky: Don't you have the feeling that since television, newspapers, and radio are concentrated in large cities, it is their tone that creates a certain fashion?
Nikonov: I agree with this. Indeed, the media is much more liberal than the public consciousness. Moreover, they are even more liberal than the capital’s public consciousness. But it’s not this that worries me, but the fact that today 62% of the media in our country are not owned by Russian citizens. We are an absolutely information-permeable country: we are very vulnerable to any trends that may run counter to our national interests, and such trends do exist.