POLITICAL TEACHINGS OF THE 19TH CENTURY
PREFACE
The 19th century is the era of the triumph of bourgeois relations in the advanced
countries of Europe and North America. Capitalism has given rise to enormous
many new socio-political and cultural phenomena, including
including industrialization and urbanization, scientific and technological revolution and
population explosion, colonial empires and democratic institutions
You. At the beginning of the 19th century, the costs of free capitalism had not yet been discovered.
competition, therefore socio-political thought was dominated by
«
bourgeois" movements - conservatism and liberalism. When, by the middle of the century,
anniversary, it became clear that wild capitalism gives rise to social polarization and
crises of overproduction, the idea of a fundamental
transformation of the existing socio-economic and political
building. Thus,«
The classical age confronted philosophers with
the problem of understanding the existing - recently emerged - order, its ways
renewal and possible alternative development options.
All political doctrines of the 19th century can be divided into three groups:
conservative, liberal and radical. Radicalism (primarily mar-
sism) provided for a radical transformation of capitalism, and conservatism
and liberalism (for all their differences) were united in their rejection of radical
views. Opposing Marxism and trying to explain (and justify) many
figurative Western political reality, liberalism and conservatism
evolved during the 19th century, acquired a new philosophical and methodological
logical basis - positivism.
In addition to those mentioned«
great" political doctrines, from the last third
19th century development begins«
private" political concepts, such as:
"crowd theory", "elite theory", " political psychology”, etc. Practically
each of these concepts claimed to become the decisive argument
ment in the theoretical and ideological confrontation of old doctrines. However
at the beginning of the 20th century, a fundamental transformation of the socio-economic and
political systems has led to a significant renewal of the intellectual
landscape of political thought in developed countries. Under the influence of such
powerful impulses such as world wars, reformism, real socialism and
information technology revolution political ideas"classic"
period were transformed first into modern ones, and then into"post-modern
exchangeable." But that is another story.
5
Conservatism is a conglomerate of various socio-political
teachings that have evolved and changed over time.
Therefore, conservatism is not any specific political doctrine,
A " mentality", a complex of certain basic ideological principles,
related all conservative concepts. For the first time these conservative
the principles were clearly formulated in the work of Edmund Burke, who considered
is, therefore, the founder of conservatism.
E. Burke (1729 –1797) – English thinker and politician.
In 1790 he published a pamphlet«
Reflections on the Revolution in France", which became
since then " the bible" of classical Western conservatism.
IN " Reflections...” E. Burke contrasted Britain as an ideal of social
political structure and revolutionary France as undesirable
telny, harmful alternative option for political development.
Comparing England and France, E. Burke is not just comparing two countries
or two national characters - he formulates the basic postulates of the con-
servatism (inherent, in his opinion, to the British) as opposed to the revolutionary
new principles (which«
confessed by the French").
So, what are the main revolutionary-conservative counter-narratives?
(contrasts) E. Burke?
Firstly, for a revolutionary, E. Burke believes, abstraction (generalization,
product of speculative thinking) acts as a motive and plan for re-
structure of society and state. Revolutionaries are ready for the sake of speculative
ideas, for the sake of a dream to destroy the existing socio-political system
and on its ruins to create a new one. This revolutionary principle of political
E. Burke contrasts actions with a conservative postulate: practice (and not
abstraction) should be a source of political action. Only
practice, the practical needs of the country should set goals for the political
tics. Respect for the existing order of things is the duty of politicians.
Secondly, E. Burke proves that the revolutionary is characterized by abstract
nal individualized rationalism. This principle of thinking
E. Burke contrasts tradition, which, in his opinion, is the quintessential
the essence of the practical experience of many generations. English thinker
develops the so-called«
apology for prejudices”, defending traditional norms,
who are French revolutionaries«
frivolously and complacently” third-
were treated as ignorance and prejudice. Tradition for E. Burke is a product of a collective
creative mind, tested in practice; whereas the individual mind is not
alien to delusions, and sometimes very dangerous delusions (that Burke
6 and demonstrated it using the example of France). Tradition, moreover, is a way
connections between generations, a means of accumulating positive experience. Tradition
transformed in a series of generations, each of which tests the effectiveness
the relevance of its norms in practice.
Thirdly, E. Burke points out that the revolutionary method of development
characterized by the destruction of continuity between different stages, uniform
the destruction of old forms of life for the sake of realizing an abstract ideal. E. Burke
contrasts revolution with evolution, which he calls" slow
progress". Conservatism, the English thinker emphasizes, does not reject
changes as such; but from the point of view of conservatism they are only possible
when practically necessary.«
Slow progress" suggests
continuity - borrowing all the best from the previous
stage, partiality of any reforms, etc. The criterion for the progressiveness of change is
The key for a conservative is practice, not the degree of closeness to the abstract
ideal (as for a revolutionary). Loyalty to traditions is exactly what
an anchor that prevents society and the state from slipping into the abstract
ny revolutionary experiments.
Fourthly, E. Burke believes that revolutionaries mistakenly identified
promote equality and justice, calling for maximum equality as
to the natural state of things. For a conservative, writes E. Burke, it is obvious
but that society is impossible without hierarchy. The natural order of things
Burke, - not absolute equality, but a hierarchy, where each person occupies
place assigned to him in accordance with his abilities, energy, will,
capital and origin. People are not equal by nature: making them equal is
means to give to some (the worst of people) what they do not deserve, and to take away from
others (the best) what belongs to them by right.
Fifthly, from the point of view of a revolutionary, freedom is an ahistorical value.
ical and universal, to which all people and nations strive at all times,
regardless of the level of development and cultural traditions. E. Burke believes
This approach is wrong. Freedom, in his opinion, is not some absolute ideal,
but a historical state that is suitable for some peoples at some times, and not
suitable (or even harmful) for other peoples in other eras.
Finally, sixthly, E. Burke condemns the revolutionaries for their contempt for the state
gift power as a threat to freedom. For E. Burke, the state is
freedom within the legal framework. The state is the bearer of tradition,
exponent of the collective mind of the people. The state must have power
coercion in order to be able to suppress the aspirations of individual
people and groups to change the existing order of things. Conservatives are
have respect for government institutions that stabilize society
and overwhelming " non-adaptive elements."
* * *
The stated postulates formed the basis of conservatism, which, by the way, turned out to be
became extremely flexible (despite its name). Specific content
7
the understanding of conservative theories has changed, concrete practical political
conservative programs were constantly rewritten, but conservative
the approach to understanding socio-political problems remained the same
and was based on the ideas of E. Burke. These ideas revealed one important
Their strength lies in their worldview, not their specific political character.
Conservatism, which has changed significantly, still remains influential
socio-political current.
In conclusion, it is necessary to warn against mixing (and even more so, distilling
destveniya) refined modernized (if you like - " b urzhuaze-
nogo") Western conservatism with medieval and (or) Asian tradition
onalism.
The end of the 18th century in Britain - the beginning of the industrial revolution, the period
strengthening the political power and socio-economic influence of the Bur-
juisie and bourgeois aristocracy. Early capitalism (« capitalism
free competition" or«
wild capitalism") has not yet turned into a mono-
political; the state at that time refrained from interfering in
economic life and social relations. Against this background took shape
socio-political teachings focused on the development and strengthening
bourgeois institutions.
It was English liberalism that became the banner of the rising class of its own.
parents Demands of law and order, democratization, integrity
property and non-interference of the state in the socio-economic
sphere - all these principles of liberal teaching made it very profitable
for the bourgeoisie and part of the middle class, that is, for those layers that were
interested in creating stable favorable conditions for their business
economic activity.
Liberal ideology, like conservatism, among other things, has become
the influence of bourgeois society on the left-radical concepts of the Great Française
Zuz revolution (Jacobinism, etc.). Educational concepts of general
of the social contract and natural rights, many liberals considered it dangerous
misconception because these ideas were«
discredited" during the revolutionary
tion-educational experiment in France.
Liberalism was modified throughout the 19th century, so
liberal concepts of the beginning of the century should be considered classical,"original-
mi." The English thinker played a major role in the development of liberalism
Jeremy (Jeremy) Bentham (1748 –1832). His works are the quintessence of classical
Russian liberalism. I. Bentham is the founder of the philosophical doctrine called
"utilitarianism".
8 S ts a
huh? end
n
a a
The political views of I. Bentham were the development of his ideas
about society and the individual.
The initial thesis of I. Bentham’s social concept: state and society
ism are divided and opposed. As a rule, the weaker the state,
the stronger the society, and vice versa.
Society consists of independent entities. The basis of their independence is the possession of property.
The main goal of members of society is the selfish desire for personal good,
extracting individual benefit (hence the name of the philosophical doctrine
I. Bentham - “y tilitarianism"). It is personal happiness, benefit (which are easier
all measured by the amount of personal income) are the basis of human mutual-
relationship. Therefore, the only connection that unites people is “ on the-
personal payment”, that is, market relations into which people enter for
exchange of services and goods in order to obtain mutual benefits.
Thus, I. Bentham absolutized individual freedom,
desire to realize private interests. Moreover, the public good is
He considered total happiness as a simple mathematical sum of happiness and
the benefits of each individual. Hence the conclusion followed: then O society is the most
comfortable and happy, in which the most favorable
conditions for the maximum realization of private egoistic interests.
This thesis is clearly not true. Followers
I. Bentham tried to revise this provision and find, within the framework of liberation,
ral doctrine, ways to harmonize private and general interests. One-
Let's return to I. Bentham himself.
P l t
h s a? end
n
a a
What is the role of the state in the system of ideas of classical liberation?
realism?
The state is a means of achieving personal happiness and increasing benefits
each and every member of society. An individual can achieve this happiness only on his own.
standing and only by being an independent subject of socio-economic
relationships. Therefore, any government intervention in social life
is perceived by I. Bentham as evil, because in any case it limits the individual
visual freedom and thus reduces the possibilities of achieving
private and general good. State intervention is only possible
«
lesser evil,” that is, as evil for the sake of preventing even greater evil.
The only function of the state, according to Bentham, is the protection of personal privacy.
independency and private property (as the basis of independence and freedom
y) from external and internal attacks. That's all. The state should not
interfere with private life, economic activity, social
relationships (for example, between workers and employers).
§ 1. Main directions of Western European political and legal thought
The socio-political life of Western Europe in the first half of the 19th century took place under the sign of the further establishment and strengthening of bourgeois orders in this region of the world, especially in such countries as England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Holland, etc. The most significant ideological movements that formed in those who declared themselves at that time defined themselves through their attitude to this historical process. French bourgeois revolution of the late 18th century. gave a powerful impetus to the development of capitalism in Europe.
He had many opponents. The establishment of a bourgeois, capitalist way of life was met with hostility by noble-aristocratic, feudal-monarchist circles, who were losing their former privileges and wanted the restoration of the old, pre-bourgeois order. The complex of their ideas qualifies as conservatism (in its various variants). Representatives of a social camp completely different from the conservatives also fiercely condemned the capitalist order. The latter consisted of the proletarianizing masses of workers, bankrupt small owners, etc. The capitalist system then plunged these layers into a disastrous situation. They saw salvation in a total rejection of the world of civilization, based on private property, and the establishment of a community of property. Socialism expressed this anti-capitalist position. The program of another ideological movement—anarchism—looked peculiar. Not all of his supporters were enemies of the bourgeoisie and private property. However, they almost unanimously opposed the state in general (of any type and any form), seeing in it the most important cause of all social evils. Accordingly, they rejected capitalist statehood, bourgeois legislation, etc.
The capitalist system that was establishing itself in Western Europe found its ideology in liberalism. In the 19th century it was a very influential political and intellectual movement. Its adherents were found in various social groups. But his social base, of course, was primarily business (industrial and commercial) circles, part of the bureaucracy, members of the liberal professions, and university professors.
The conceptual core of liberalism is formed by two fundamental theses. First: personal freedom, the freedom of each individual and private property are the highest social values. Second: the implementation of these values ensures not only the disclosure of all the creative potentials of the individual and his well-being, but at the same time leads to the flourishing of society as a whole and its state organization. Around this conceptual, meaning-forming core, other elements of liberal ideology are concentrated. Among them there are certainly ideas about the rational structure of the world and progress in history, about the common good and law, competition and control. Among such elements there are certainly the ideas of the rule of law, constitutionalism, separation of powers, representation, self-government, etc.
The peak of the spread of conservatism occurred in the first third of the last century. Unlike socialism and liberalism, conservatism did not have such a clearly defined and stable conceptual core. That is why political and legal ideas of a strictly conservative nature will not be considered here. Nevertheless, it is necessary to know those who at one time gained fame thanks to their nomination and development. In French political literature these are Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821) and Louis de Bonald (1754–1840), in German – Ludwig von Haller (1768–1854) and Adam Müller (1778–1829).
In descriptions of the general course of development of Western European political and legal thought of the 19th century. Usually a description of the views of the major French sociologist Auguste Comte (1798–1857) is also given. His views directly on the state and law are not of any significant interest. In his work “The System of Positive Politics” (1851–1854), he outlined his project for a desirable social organization of society, built on the principles of positivism, the creator of which O. Comte considered himself to be. Such an organization was to be an association, corporate in spirit and order. Spiritual authority in it would belong to philosophers, power and material opportunities would belong to capitalists, and the proletariat would be charged with the duty to work. Of the political thinkers of the past, O. Comte valued Aristotle and T. Hobbes most of all.
On social science of the 19th century. (including the science of state and law) were somewhat influenced (primarily in methodological terms) by Comte’s ideas about the need for a researcher to strive for strictly positive, fact-based knowledge, to identify the patterns of the historical process, and to study social institutions and structures. Useful in scientific and educational terms were Comte's understanding of society as an organism, an organic whole, the distinction between the laws of functioning and the laws of development of society, the search for factors of integration and stability of society, etc.
A holistic and complete picture of the evolution of Western European political and legal thought in the first half of the 19th century. much wider and more colorful than the one depicted in the most lapidary way on the previous pages. When getting acquainted with the main directions of this thought, each time we must consider each of them not in isolation from the others, since in reality they existed in the same historical time and influenced (directly or indirectly) each other.
§ 2. English liberalism
Last third of the 18th century. - a time when England was quickly turning, according to the main indicators of social development, into the leading capitalist power in the world. Many factors contributed to this circumstance and many characteristic phenomena accompanied it. English political and legal thought in its own way described, explained and justified the major socio-historical changes taking place in the country. The topic of the beneficial role of private property, its protection and encouragement, the topic of individual activism, guarantees of the inviolability of people’s private life, etc. has become almost central in social science.
The prevailing belief was that the actions of an individual as a private owner are driven by both spontaneous impulses and a deliberate, sober calculation to extract maximum personal benefit from his actions. The calculation could have a wide range: from the desire to satisfy a purely selfish, exclusively individual interest to the desire to intelligently combine one’s own position with the position of other individuals, other members of society in order to achieve the satisfaction of one’s own needs within the framework of achieving a joint, common good.
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) made a significant contribution to the development of this kind of ideas. He was the founder of the theory of utilitarianism, which incorporated a number of social and philosophical ideas of Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and French materialists of the 18th century. (Helvetia, Holbach). Let us note four postulates underlying it. First: obtaining pleasure and eliminating pain constitute the meaning of human activity. Second: usefulness, the ability to be a means of solving any problem is the most significant criterion for assessing all phenomena. Third: morality is created by everything that focuses on achieving the greatest happiness (good) for the greatest number of people. Fourth: maximizing universal benefit by establishing harmony of individual and public interests is the goal of human development.
These postulates served as pillars for Bentham in his analysis of politics, state, law, legislation, etc. His political and legal views are set out in the “Principles of Legislation”, in the “Fragment on Government”, in the “Guidelines of the Constitutional Code for all States”, “Deontology, or the Science of Morality”, etc.
Etc.................
The defeat of the Decembrists and the strengthening of the government's police and repressive policies did not lead to a decline in the social movement. On the contrary, it became even more animated. The centers for the development of social thought became various St. Petersburg and Moscow salons (home meetings of like-minded people), circles of officers and officials, higher educational institutions (primarily Moscow University), literary magazines: "Moskvityanin", "Bulletin of Europe", "Domestic Notes", "Contemporary" and others. In the social movement of the second quarter of the 19th century. The demarcation of three ideological directions began: radical, liberal and conservative. In contrast to the previous period, the activities of conservatives who defended the existing system in Russia intensified.
Conservative direction.
Conservatism in Russia was based on theories that proved the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom. The idea of the need for autocracy as a unique form of political power inherent in Russia since ancient times has its roots in the period of strengthening of the Russian state. It developed and improved during the XV-XDC centuries, adapting to new socio-political conditions. This idea acquired a special resonance for Russia after absolutism was ended in Western Europe. At the beginning of the 19th century. N.M. Karamzin wrote about the need to preserve the wise autocracy, which, in his opinion, “founded and resurrected Russia.” The speech of the Decembrists intensified conservative social thought.
For the ideological justification of autocracy, Minister of Public Education Count S.S. Uvarov created the theory of official nationality. It was based on three principles: autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality. This theory reflected enlightenment ideas about unity, the voluntary union of the sovereign and the people, and the absence of opposing classes in Russian society. The originality lay in the recognition of autocracy as the only possible form of government in Russia. Serfdom was seen as a benefit for the people and the state. Orthodoxy was understood as the deep religiosity and commitment to orthodox Christianity inherent in the Russian people. From these postulates, the conclusion was drawn about the impossibility and unnecessaryness of fundamental social changes in Russia, about the need to strengthen the autocracy and serfdom.
These ideas were developed by journalists F.V. Bulgarin and N.I. Grech, professors of Moscow University M.P. Pogodin and S.P. Shevyrev. The theory of official nationality was not only propagated through the press, but was also widely introduced into the education system.
The theory of official nationality caused sharp criticism not only from the radical part of society, but also from liberals. The most famous was the speech of P.Ya. Chaadaev, who wrote “Philosophical Letters” criticizing autocracy, serfdom and the entire official ideology. In the first letter published in the Telescope magazine in 1836, P.Ya. Chaadaev denied the possibility of social progress in Russia, did not see anything bright either in the past or in the present of the Russian people. In his opinion, Russia, cut off from Western Europe, ossified in its moral, religious, Orthodox dogmas, was in dead stagnation. He saw the salvation of Russia, its progress, in the use of European experience, in the unification of the countries of Christian civilization into a new community that would ensure the spiritual freedom of all peoples.
The government brutally dealt with the author and publisher of the letter. P.Ya. Chaadaev was declared crazy and placed under police supervision. The Telescope magazine was closed. Its editor, N.I. Nadezhdin was expelled from Moscow with a ban on engaging in publishing and teaching activities. However, the ideas expressed by P.Ya. Chaadaev, caused a great public outcry and had a significant influence on the further development of social thought.
Liberal direction.
At the turn of the 30-40s of the 19th century. Among the liberals opposing the government, two ideological movements emerged: Slavophilism and Westernism. The ideologists of the Slavophiles were writers, philosophers and publicists: K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, Yu.F. Samarin and others. The ideologists of Westerners are historians, lawyers, writers and publicists: T.N. Granovsky, K.D. Kavelin, S.M. Soloviev, V.P. Botkin, P.V. Annenkov, I.I. Panaev, V.F. Korsh and others. Representatives of these movements were united by the desire to see Russia prosperous and powerful among all European powers. To do this, they considered it necessary to change its socio-political system, establish a constitutional monarchy, soften and even abolish serfdom, provide peasants with small plots of land, and introduce freedom of speech and conscience. Fearing revolutionary upheavals, they believed that the government itself should carry out the necessary reforms.
At the same time, there were significant differences in the views of Slavophiles and Westerners. Slavophiles exaggerated Russia's national identity. Idealizing the history of pre-Petrine Rus', they insisted on returning to those orders when Zemsky Sobors conveyed the opinion of the people to the authorities, when patriarchal relations supposedly existed between landowners and peasants. One of the fundamental ideas of the Slavophiles was that the only true and deeply moral religion is Orthodoxy. In their opinion, the Russian people have a special spirit of collectivism, in contrast to Western Europe, where individualism reigns. By this they explained the special path of historical development of Russia. The struggle of the Slavophiles against servility to the West, their study of the history of the people and people's life had a great positive significance for the development of Russian culture.
Westerners proceeded from the fact that Russia should develop in line with European civilization. They sharply criticized the Slavophiles for contrasting Russia and the West, explaining its difference by historical backwardness. Denying the special role of the peasant community, Westerners believed that the government imposed it on the people for the convenience of administration and tax collection. They advocated broad education of the people, believing that this was the only sure way for the success of modernization of the socio-political system of Russia. Their criticism of serfdom and calls for changes in domestic policy also contributed to the development of socio-political thought.
Slavophiles and Westerners laid the foundation in the 30-50s of the 19th century. the basis of the liberal-reformist direction in the social movement.
Radical direction.
In the second half of the 20s and the first half of the 30s, the characteristic organizational form of the anti-government movement became small circles that appeared in Moscow and in the provinces, where police surveillance and espionage were not as established as in St. Petersburg. Their members shared the ideology of the Decembrists and condemned the reprisal against them. At the same time, they tried to overcome the mistakes of their predecessors, distributed freedom-loving poems, and criticized government policies. The works of the Decembrist poets became widely known. All of Russia was reading the famous message to Siberia by A.S. Pushkin and the Decembrists’ response to him. Moscow University student A.I. Polezhaev was expelled from the university and given up as a soldier for his freedom-loving poem "Sashka".
The activities of the circle of brothers P., M. and V. Kritsky caused a big stir among the Moscow police. On the day of Nicholas’s coronation, its members scattered proclamations on Red Square, with the help of which they tried to arouse hatred of the monarchical rule among the people. By personal order of the emperor, the members of the circle were imprisoned for 10 years in the dungeon of the Solovetsky Monastery, and then they were given up as soldiers.
Secret organizations of the first half of the 30s of the XIX century. were mainly educational in nature. Around N.V. Stankevich, V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev, groups were formed whose members studied domestic and foreign political works and propagated the latest Western philosophy. In 1831, the Sungurov Society was formed, named after its leader, a graduate of Moscow University N.P. Sungurova. Students, members of the organization, accepted the ideological heritage of the Decembrists. They opposed serfdom and autocracy and called for the introduction of a constitution in Russia. They not only engaged in educational activities, but also developed plans for an armed uprising in Moscow. All these circles operated for a short time. They did not grow into organizations capable of having a serious impact on changing the political situation in Russia.
The second half of the 1930s was characterized by a decline in the social movement due to the destruction of secret circles and the closure of a number of leading magazines. Many public figures became interested in the philosophical postulate of G.V.F. Hegel “everything rational is real, everything real is rational” and on this basis they tried to come to terms with the “vile”, according to V.G. Belinsky, Russian reality. 251
In the 40s of the XIX century. a new upsurge was emerging in a radical direction. He was associated with the activities of V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogareva, M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky and others.
Literary critic V.G. Belinsky, revealing the ideological content of the works under review, instilled in readers hatred of tyranny and serfdom, and love for the people. The ideal of a political system for him was a society in which “there will be no rich, no poor, no kings, no subjects, but there will be brothers, there will be people.” V.G. Belinsky was close to some of the ideas of Westerners, but he also saw the negative sides of European capitalism. His “Letter to Gogol” became widely known, in which he condemned the writer for mysticism and refusal of social struggle. V.G. Belinsky wrote: “Russia does not need sermons, but the awakening of a sense of human dignity. Civilization, enlightenment, humanity should become the property of the Russian people.” The “Letter,” distributed in hundreds of lists, was of great importance for the education of a new generation of radicals.
Petrashevtsy.
The revival of the social movement in the 40s was expressed in the creation of new circles. By the name of the leader of one of them, M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky, its participants were called Petrashevites. The circle included officials, officers, teachers, writers, publicists and translators (F.M. Dostoevsky, M.E. Saltykov Shchedrin, A.N. Maikov, A.N. Pleshcheev, etc.).
M.V. Petrashevsky, together with his friends, created the first collective library, consisting mainly of works on the humanities. Not only St. Petersburg residents, but also residents of provincial cities could use the books. To discuss problems related to the domestic and foreign policy of Russia, as well as literature, history and philosophy, members of the circle organized their meetings, known in St. Petersburg as “Fridays”. To widely promote their views, the Petrashevites in 1845-1846. took part in the publication of the “Pocket Dictionary of Foreign Words That Are Part of the Russian Language.” In it they outlined the essence of European socialist teachings, especially Charles Fourier, who had a great influence on the formation of their worldview.
Petrashevites strongly condemned autocracy and serfdom. In the republic they saw the ideal of a political system and outlined a program of broad democratic reforms. In 1848 M.V. Petrashevsky created the “Project for the Liberation of Peasants,” offering direct, free and unconditional liberation of them with the plot of land that they cultivated. The radical part of the Petrashevites came to the conclusion that there was an urgent need for an uprising, the driving force of which was to be the peasants and mining workers of the Urals.
Circle M.V. Petrashevsky was discovered by the government in April 1849. More than 120 people were involved in the investigation. The commission qualified their activities as a “conspiracy of ideas.” Despite this, the members of the circle were severely punished. A military court sentenced 21 people to death, but at the last minute the execution was commuted to indefinite hard labor. (The re-enactment of the execution is very expressively described by F.M. Dostoevsky in the novel “The Idiot.”)
Activities of the circle M.V. Petrashevsky marked the beginning of the spread of socialist ideas in Russia.
A.I. Herzen and the theory of communal socialism.
The further development of socialist ideas in Russia is associated with the name of A.I. Herzen. He and his friend N.P. Ogarev, as boys, swore an oath to fight for a better future for the people. For participating in a student circle and singing songs with “vile and malicious” expressions addressed to the Tsar, they were arrested and sent into exile. In the 30-40s A.I. Herzen was engaged in literary activities. His works contained the idea of the struggle for personal freedom, protest against violence and tyranny. Realizing that it is impossible to enjoy freedom of speech in Russia, A.I. Herzen went abroad in 1847. In London, he founded the “Free Russian Printing House” (1853), published 8 books in the collection “Polar Star”, on the title of which he placed a miniature of the profiles of 5 executed Decembrists, organized, together with N.P. Ogarev published the first uncensored newspaper "Bell" (1857-1867). Subsequent generations of revolutionaries saw the great merit of A.I. Herzen in the creation of a free Russian press abroad.
In his youth A.I. Herzen shared many of the ideas of Westerners and recognized the unity of the historical development of Russia and Western Europe. However, close acquaintance with the European order, disappointment in the results of the revolutions of 1848-1849. convinced him that the historical experience of the West is not suitable for the Russian people. In this regard, he began to search for a fundamentally new, fair social system and created the theory of communal socialism. The ideal of social development A.I. Herzen saw socialism in which there would be no private property and exploitation. In his opinion, the Russian peasant is devoid of private property instincts and is accustomed to public ownership of land and its periodic redistribution. In the peasant community A.I. Herzen saw a ready-made cell of the socialist system. Therefore, he concluded that the Russian peasant is quite ready for socialism and that in Russia there is no social basis for the development of capitalism. The question of ways of transition to socialism was resolved by A.I. Herzen is contradictory. In some works he wrote about the possibility of a popular revolution, in others he condemned violent methods of changing the political system. The theory of communal socialism, developed by A.I. Herzen, largely served as the ideological basis for the activities of the radicals of the 60s and revolutionary populists of the 70s of the 19th century.
In general, the second quarter of the 19th century. was a time of “outer slavery” and “inner liberation.” Some remained silent, frightened by government repression. Others insisted on maintaining autocracy and serfdom. Still others were actively looking for ways to renew the country and improve its socio-political system. The main ideas and trends that emerged in the socio-political movement of the first half of the 19th century continued to develop with minor changes in the second half of the century.
Conservative, liberal and radical movements in the Russian social movement in the second half of the 19th century
In the second half of the nineteenth century. Three directions in the social movement finally took shape: conservatives, liberals and radicals.
The social basis of the conservative movement was made up of reactionary nobles, clergy, townspeople, merchants and a significant part of the peasants. Conservatism of the second half of the nineteenth century. remained true to the theory of “official nationality”.
Autocracy was declared the foundation of the state, and Orthodoxy the basis of the spiritual life of the people. Nationality meant the unity of the king with the people. In this, conservatives saw the uniqueness of Russia's historical path.
In the domestic political sphere, conservatives fought for the inviolability of autocracy and against the liberal reforms of the 60s and 70s. In the economic sphere, they advocated the inviolability of private property, landownership and the community.
In the social field, they called for the unity of the Slavic peoples around Russia.
The ideologists of the conservatives were K.P. Pobedonostsev, D.A. Tolstoy, M.N. Katkov.
Conservatives were statist guardians and had a negative attitude towards any mass social action, advocating order.
The social basis of the liberal trend was made up of bourgeois landowners, part of the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia.
They defended the idea of a common path of historical development for Russia with Western Europe.
In the domestic political sphere, liberals insisted on introducing constitutional principles and continuing reforms.
Their political ideal was a constitutional monarchy.
In the socio-economic sphere, they welcomed the development of capitalism and freedom of enterprise. They demanded the elimination of class privileges.
Liberals stood for an evolutionary path of development, considering reforms to be the main method of modernizing Russia.
They were ready to cooperate with the autocracy. Therefore, their activity mainly consisted of submitting “addresses” to the tsar - petitions proposing a program of reforms.
The ideologists of the liberals were scientists and publicists: K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin, V.A. Goltsev et al.
Features of Russian liberalism: its noble character due to the political weakness of the bourgeoisie and its readiness for rapprochement with conservatives.
Representatives of the radical movement sought violent methods of transforming Russia and a radical reorganization of society (the revolutionary path).
The radical movement involved people from different walks of life (raznochintsy), who devoted themselves to serving the people.
In the history of the radical movement of the second half of the 19th century. Three stages are distinguished: 60s. - the formation of revolutionary democratic ideology and the creation of secret raznochinsky circles; 70s - formalization of populism, the special scope of agitation and terrorist activities of revolutionary populists; 80 - 90s - weakening of the popularity of populism and the beginning of the spread of Marxism.
In the 60s There were two centers of radical movement. One is around the editorial office of Kolokol, published by A.I. Herzen in London. He promoted the theory of “communal socialism” and sharply criticized the conditions for the liberation of peasants. The second center arose in Russia around the editorial office of the Sovremennik magazine. Its ideologist was N.G. Chernyshevsky, who was arrested and exiled to Siberia in 1862.
The first major revolutionary democratic organization was “Land and Freedom” (1861), which included several hundred members from different strata: officials, officers, students.
In the 70s There were two trends among the populists: revolutionary and liberal.
The main ideas of the revolutionary populists: capitalism in Russia is being imposed “from above”, the future of the country lies in communal socialism, transformations must be carried out by the revolutionary method by the forces of the peasants.
Three currents emerged in revolutionary populism: rebellious, propaganda and conspiratorial.
Ideologist of the rebellious movement M.A. Bakunin believed that the Russian peasant was by nature a rebel and ready for revolution. Therefore, the task of the intelligentsia is to go to the people and incite an all-Russian revolt. He called for the creation of a federation of self-government of free communities.
P.L. Lavrov, the ideologist of the propaganda movement, did not consider the people ready for revolution. Therefore, he paid most attention to propaganda with the aim of preparing the peasantry.
P.N. Tkachev, the ideologist of the conspiratorial movement, believed that the peasants did not need to be taught socialism. In his opinion, a group of conspirators, having seized power, will quickly draw the people into socialism.
In 1874, based on the ideas of M.A. Bakunin, more than 1,000 young revolutionaries undertook a massive “walk among the people,” hoping to rouse the peasants to revolt. However, the movement was crushed by tsarism.
In 1876, the surviving participants in the “walking among the people” formed the secret organization “Land and Freedom,” headed by G.V. Plekhanov, A.D. Mikhailov and others. The second “going to the people” was carried out - with the aim of long-term agitation among the peasants.
After the split of "Land and Freedom", two organizations were formed - "Black Redistribution" (G.V. Plekhanov, V.I. Zasulich, etc.) and "People's Will" (A.I. Zhelyabov, A.D. Mikhailov, S. L. Perovskaya). The Narodnaya Volya considered their goal to kill the Tsar, assuming that this would cause a nationwide uprising.
In the 80s - 90s. The populist movement is weakening. Former participants of the “Black Redistribution” G.V. Plekhanov, V.I. Zasulich, V.N. Ignatov turned to Marxism. In 1883, the Liberation of Labor group was formed in Geneva. In 1883 - 1892 In Russia itself, several Marxist circles were formed, which saw their task as studying Marxism and promoting it among workers and students.
In 1895, in St. Petersburg, Marxist circles united into the “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class.”
The 19th century developed under the sign of the Great French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, which marked the beginning of the formation of industrial society and the formation of its two main classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Their entry into the political arena inevitably entailed a crisis of the former feudal ideology. It is being replaced by two ideological movements: liberalism and socialism, expressing the interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, respectively.
Movement of social thought in Russia in the 19th century. was unique. The specificity was expressed in the fact that in Russia there was practically no bourgeoisie capable of fighting for its interests. Therefore, revolutionary ideology and understanding of the need to modernize the country took shape at the beginning of the 19th century. exclusively among the advanced part of the nobility, who opposed the interests of their class.
The rise of the social movement occurred after the victorious Patriotic War of 1812 and the foreign campaigns of 1813 - 1814. Having expelled the French, Russian troops marched throughout Europe, liberating countries captured by Napoleon. Young officers had the opportunity to become closely acquainted with the laws and customs of European countries.
Dissatisfaction with government policies among military officers of the War of 1812 led to the formation, for the first time in Russia, of a fairly large political opposition and the creation of a network of secret societies whose goal was to reorganize the country.
This is how an amazing and interesting phenomenon of Russia of that time took shape - the Decembrist movement. The desire to free the Fatherland from tsarist despotism led young officers and officials to the idea of a republican system and a constitutional monarchy.
History provided the Decembrists with a seemingly favorable opportunity. As a result of the abdication of Konstantin Pavlovich, brother of Emperor Alexander I, his younger brother Emperor Nicholas I ascended the throne. On December 14, they refused to swear allegiance to the new tsar. The behavior of ordinary participants in these events (about 3 thousand soldiers) was dictated not only by the orders of their commanders - members of the Northern Secret Society, but also by hopes for the abolition of serfdom and a reduction in military service.
Several hundred people were arrested in the Decembrist case. 130 of them were sentenced to lifelong hard labor, exile to Siberia, and demotion to soldiers without the right to seniority. Five people were hanged (although the death penalty in Russia was abolished in the middle of the 18th century): P.I. Pestel, K.F. Ryleev, S.I. Muravyov-Apostol, M.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin and P.G. Kakhovsky. The poet P. A. Vyazemsky wrote to his wife on July 17, 1826: “For me, Russia is now desecrated, bloodied: it’s stuffy and unbearable for me. I can’t, I don’t want to live peacefully on the execution stage, on the execution stage! How many victims and what an iron hand fell on them.”
The strengthening of the reaction in the country did not lead to a decline in the social movement. There was a clearer demarcation, and then the formation of the main ideological directions: conservative, liberal and radical revolutionary.
Conservative trend. It was formed already at the beginning of the 19th century, based on theories proving the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom. Its theorist N.M. Karamzin (1766 - 1826) wrote that the monarchical form of government most fully corresponds to the existing level of development of morality and enlightenment of mankind. Monarchy meant the sole power of the autocrat, which is not equivalent to arbitrariness. The monarch was obliged to strictly observe the laws. The division of society into classes was understood by Karamzin as an eternal and natural phenomenon. The nobility was obliged to “rise” above other classes not only by its nobility of origin, but also by its moral perfection, education, and usefulness to society. N.M. Karamzin protested against borrowings from Europe. During the reign of Nicholas I, conservatives strengthened their positions. The authorities sought to suppress all freethinking not only practically, but also ideologically.
The real pillar of the new official cultural policy was the Minister of Public Education S. S. Uvarov. The cornerstone of his doctrine was the idea of Russia's superiority over the dying liberal West. Uvarov proclaimed Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality as Russian national principles. The theory of the official nationality reflected educational ideas about unity, a voluntary union of the sovereign and the people.
He tried to give the autocracy a new ideological weapon in the 60-80s. talented journalist M.N. Katkov, supporter of establishing a “strong hand” regime in the country. He argued that the idea of representation is essentially false, since it is not the people, but only its representatives (and not the most honest, but only the clever and ambitious) who participate in political life. The same applies to parliamentarism, since the struggle of political parties, the ambitions of deputies, etc. play a huge role in it.
The strongest were pochvennicheskie sentiments with a belief in the originality and exclusivity of Russia. These views were expressed quite clearly in 1897 by a representative of the ruling bureaucracy, at that time Secretary of State V.K. Plehve. He stated: “Russia has its own separate history and special system” and “there is every reason to hope that Russia will be freed from the oppression of capital and the bourgeoisie and the struggle of classes.”
Liberal direction. In its ideological and political content, liberalism corresponded to bourgeois views, because it defended the interests of capitalist development.
In 1836, the first philosophical letter of P. Ya. Chaadaev was published in the Telescope magazine. It made a stunning impression, since its author actually denied the cultural and historical significance of Russia. According to Chaadaev, Orthodoxy, adopted by Kievan Rus, turned out to be a kind of trap, since this dead-end branch of Christianity cut off Russia from Western Europe. The intellectual integration of Europe has bypassed Russia in the same way as the latest economic, social and political processes.
Chaadaev's essay stimulated a debate that raged for two decades and split the Russian intelligentsia into two camps: Slavophile and Westernizer. Slavophiles and Westerners shared many things, and above all, their views on the fundamental question of the historical fate of Russia. Westerners (T. N. Granovsky, S. M. Solovyov, K. D. Kavelin and others) believed in the unity of human civilization and argued that Western Europe shows the right path for all humanity, most fully and successfully implements the principles of humanity and freedom. They believed that Russia had embarked on the path of universal cultural development only since the time of Peter I. The most important task of society and government, Westerners considered the country’s perception of advanced, ready-made forms of social and economic life characteristic of the countries of Western Europe.
Slavophiles (A. S. Khomyakov, brothers K. S. and I. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin, etc.), in contrast to Westerners, argued that a single universal civilization and, therefore, a single path of development for all nations do not exist. Each nation, or group of closely related peoples, lives its own independent, “original” life, which is based on the “national spirit” that penetrates all aspects of life. Unlike the West, Rus' lived by the principles of community and faith. The Orthodox faith is the original ideological source for Russia, which determined the character of the Russian people. Western peoples, according to the Slavophiles, live in an atmosphere of individualism, private interests, regulated by “external truth,” i.e. possible norms of written law. And this is their difference from the Russian people, who have a special spirituality, living, in the words of K.S. Aksakov, “according to inner truth.”
Despite all their ideological differences, Slavophiles and Westerners had much in common. They were united by a critical attitude towards serfdom and the existing form of government. Both of them were worried about the fate of Russia. “We, like a two-faced Janus, looked in different directions, but our heart beat the same,” Herzen would later say.
At the turn of the 50s - 60s. The ideology, program and tactics of liberalism are being formalized. The demand for “improving” the state system was substantiated - the introduction of constitutional principles and democratic freedoms, the expansion of the rights and functions of local self-government bodies (zemstvos), and the convening of an all-Russian elected body (Zemsky Sobor). In the economic field, the ideologists of liberalism were supporters of free enterprise, non-interference of the state in economic activities, and peaceful resolution of social conflicts.
It is characteristic that the ideas of liberalism were defended by an educated society, and not by a politically inert bourgeoisie. This is the reason for the weakness of Russian liberalism and at the same time its moral orientation.
In the 19th century Liberalism in Russia was not institutionalized and was manifested not in open political activity, but in the activity of zemstvos, liberal journalism, scientific research and discussions, and the reform efforts of the most progressive dignitaries. In the post-reform period, the activities of liberals took place mainly within the framework of the emerging zemstvos.
Radical direction. The main goal of the revolutionary democratic movement is the reconstruction of society in a revolutionary way. The main social support of the movement were commoners, people from different walks of life - students, partly officers and bureaucrats, as well as teachers and doctors.
Revolutionary democracy as an ideology of the peasantry, barely born, merged with socialism in Russia. A. I. Herzen and N. G. Chernyshevsky became prominent representatives of Russian utopian socialism. In their works, the theory of communal (folk, “peasant”) socialism was developed. “In the hut of the Russian peasant we found the embryo of economic and administrative institutions based on agrarian and instinctive communism,” wrote A. I. Herzen.
In the middle of the century, the most decisive opponents of the regime were writers and journalists. The ruler of the souls of democratic youth in the 40s. there was V. G. Belinsky (1811-1848), a literary critic who advocated the ideals of humanism, social justice and equality. In the 50s The editorial office of the Sovremennik magazine became the ideological center of the young democratic forces, in which N. A. Nekrasov (1821-1877), N. G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889), N. A. Dobrolyubov (1836-1861) began to play a leading role.
The revolutionaries hoped for an all-Russian peasant uprising in 1861 and 1863. However, as the number of mass protests decreased, the most eagle-eyed of the radicals (Herzen, Chernyshevsky and their like-minded people) stopped talking about an imminent revolution, predicting a long period of painstaking preparatory work among the people and society.
In the 70s and 80s. Revolutionary populism becomes the leading trend. His ideology developed at a time when capitalism had not established itself in the country, when the process of stratification of the peasantry had not yet manifested itself in the countryside. The ideological basis of the populist movement was the theory of communal socialism. Idealizing communal orders, the populists believed that capitalism had no basis for development in Russia, but was artificially imposed by the authorities from above. The revolutionary populists advocated the free transfer of all land to the peasants and dreamed of freedom and equality for the entire people.
There were three main directions in revolutionary populism: rebellious, propaganda and conspiratorial.
The ideologist of the rebellious trend was M. A. Bakunin. A revolutionary on a European scale, he proposed a model of stateless socialism, which was based on a federation of free organizations built “from the bottom up”: workers’ associations, communities, volosts, regions, peoples. The main task of revolutionaries, he pointed out, is the destruction of the state and any statehood. The tactics were based on the widespread use of rebellious methods.
The propaganda direction was associated with the name of P. L. Lavrov. It was he who expressed the idea of an “unpayable debt” to the people. Lavrov shared faith in a socialist utopia and a number of other populist illusions (the originality of the historical development of Russia, the community as the basis of its future system). But at the same time he criticized revolutionary adventurism and convinced that history should not be “rushed.” The revolution, Lavrov believed, should be prepared by the theoretical work of the intelligentsia and its tireless propaganda among the people.
The conspiratorial theorist was P. N. Tkachev. He, just like Lavrov, did not consider the peasantry ready for revolution. Believing that the autocracy in Russia has no social support and “hangs in the air,” it costs nothing to destroy it with the help of one organization.
In 1874, the “exodus to the people” began. Students and women students, dressed as peasants or under the guise of artisans, went to the villages to open the eyes of the people to their plight. The men at first listened to them with bewilderment, and then began to report them to the authorities, and in the end the entire army of fighters for the people's good, boys and girls, ended up in police stations and prisons. The main reason for the failure was the groundlessness of the populists’ faith in the primordial “communist instincts” of the peasant.
As G.P. Fedotov defined, this was undoubtedly “a feat of renunciation of all earthly joys, endless patience, all-forgiving love - for the people who betrayed them - one cannot help but exclaim: yes, saints, only a madman can deny this. None of the enemies could find a single spot on their robes of martyrdom.”
Subsequently, the populists tried to unite the efforts of supporters of various directions. In 1876, the centralized conspiratorial organization “Land and Freedom” emerged. The “Land and Freedom” program provided for the implementation of a socialist revolution by overthrowing the autocracy, transferring all land to peasants with the right of communal use, introducing lay self-government, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and creating agricultural and industrial associations. Revolutionary propaganda occupied the main place in the activities of the Land Volyas.
In 1879, as a result of internal disagreements on programmatic and tactical issues, the organization split into supporters of propaganda (“villagers”), who united under G. Plekhanov in the “Black Redistribution” group, and supporters of political struggle (“politicians”), who formed “ People's Will", whose active members were A. I. Zhelyabov, A. D. Mikhailov, S. T. Perovskaya. The immediate goals of the organization were: the revolutionary seizure of power, and in the long term - the construction of communal socialism. Individual terror became the main means of fighting the government.
The labor movement and the spread of Marxism in Russia. The formation of political parties begins.
As a result of the crisis of populism and the growth of the labor movement, part of the intelligentsia turns to Marxism. The first Russian Marxist organization was created in 1883 in Geneva, headed by G. V. Plekhanov. Plekhanov substantiated the conclusion that Russia cannot reach socialism without passing through capitalism. The main revolutionary force, in his opinion, was the proletariat, not the peasantry. All efforts of revolutionaries, he believed, should be aimed at the political education of the working class and the creation of a political party designed to lead the mass proletarian movement. The socialist revolution in Russia must be preceded by a bourgeois-democratic one.
Russian Marxists, only at first glance, were faithful followers of Western radical teaching, which developed in the conditions of the then early industrial society, where acute social inequality still prevailed. But European Marxism at the end of the twentieth century. is already losing its destructive anti-state attitude. European Marxists are increasingly hopeful that through the democratic constitutions that have been adopted in their countries, they will be able to achieve social justice in society. So they gradually became part of the political system.
Thus, conservatives sought to preserve the foundations of the existing system, liberals put pressure on the government to force it to carry out reforms, and revolutionaries tried to achieve profound changes by forcibly changing the political system of the country.
What are the reasons for the fact that revolutionary, radical tendencies in social development have prevailed in Russia?
Let's highlight some of them.
One of the significant features of the historical development of Russia was that in the 19th century. the national bourgeoisie failed to become the leading force of the liberation movement. Unlike the West, where liberalism became an expression of the interests of the bourgeois strata, liberal ideology was fundamentally alien to the Russian bourgeoisie. Her principles would not have provided her with the super profits that she had from an alliance with the autocracy. This largely determined the protective views of the Russian bourgeoisie and its apolitical nature.
A liberal course required support in society - the middle class, which did not exist or almost did not exist in Russia.
The era of Alexander II is considered to be the time, if not the birth, then the rapid formation of the “intelligentsia.” The romantics and idealists of the forties were quickly replaced by “realists” and “nihilists”, who were completely different from their dreamy predecessors. Most historians try to explain the gap between the views of the two generations of the intelligentsia by class or psychological reasons. The fathers of left-wing radical intellectuals for the most part came from landowner families. Their social position was so stable that they rarely had to endure poverty. From here the conclusion is drawn that, by virtue of their origin, the fathers could not be socially groundless and ideologically irreconcilable, as subsequent generations of the Russian intelligentsia became. Historians explain the emergence of radical revolutionaries and the hardening of political thinking by the fact that people from the lower strata began to be recruited into the subculture of intellectuals.
The duration and depth of development of bourgeois relations in Western Europe contributed to the fact that the intelligentsia there had a much higher social status and material well-being than people of intellectual labor in Russia. The lack of opportunity for Russian intellectuals to participate in political and social life, the authorities’ intolerance of free thought, the government’s indifference to the darkness and ignorance of the lower social classes led to the fact that social and political alienation from the state and contempt for holding power became characteristic of the democratically minded part of the intelligentsia. the reigning dynasty.
The main subjects of the political process “from below” were the intelligentsia. Since this essentially bourgeois layer appeared in a feudal-serf country, world history had no analogues to it. Social and political motives in the views of the Russian intelligentsia, including the revolutionary ones, were so intertwined with moral ones that they formed a new, very complex unity that left its mark on the entire Russian history.