The defeat of the Decembrists and the strengthening of the police-repressive policy of the government did not lead to a decline social movement. On the contrary, it became even more lively. The centers for the development of social thought were various St. Petersburg and Moscow salons (home meetings of like-minded people), circles of officers and officials, higher educational establishments(primarily Moscow University), literary magazines: Moskvityanin, Vestnik Evropy. “Domestic Notes”, “Contemporary”, etc. In the social movement of the second quarter of the 19th century. the delimitation of three ideological directions began: radical, liberal and conservative. In contrast to the previous period, the activities of the conservatives, who defended the system that existed in Russia, intensified.
Conservatism in Russia was based on theories that proved the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom. The idea of the need for autocracy as a form of political power, peculiar and inherent in Russia since ancient times, has its roots in the period of strengthening the Russian state. It developed and improved during the XVIII-XIX centuries. adapting to new social and political conditions. This idea acquired a special sound for Russia after absolutism was done away with in Western Europe. At the beginning of the XIX century. N. M. Karamzin wrote about the need to preserve the wise autocracy, which, in his opinion, "founded and resurrected Russia." The performance of the Decembrists activated conservative social thought.
For the ideological justification of autocracy, the 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 refracted enlightening ideas about unity, the voluntary union of the sovereign and the people, about the absence of social antagonisms in Russian society. The originality of Russia consisted in the recognition of autocracy as the only possible form of government in it. This idea became the basis for the conservatives until the collapse of the autocracy in 1917. Serfdom was seen as a boon for the people and the state. The conservatives believed that the landlords carried out paternal care for the peasants, and also helped the government maintain order and tranquility in the countryside. According to the conservatives, it was necessary to preserve and strengthen the estate system, in which the nobility played a leading role as the main pillar of the autocracy. Orthodoxy was understood as the deep religiosity inherent in the Russian people and adherence to orthodox Christianity. From these postulates, the conclusion was drawn about the impossibility and uselessness of fundamental social changes in Russia, about the need to strengthen the autocracy and serfdom.
The theory of official nationality and other ideas of conservatives 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 promoted through the press, but also widely introduced into the system of enlightenment and education.
liberal direction
The theory of official nationality caused sharp criticism of the liberal-minded part of society. The most famous was the speech of P. Ya. Chaadaev, who wrote Philosophical Letters with criticism of autocracy, serfdom and the entire official ideology. In his first letter, published in the journal Teleskop in 1836, P. Ya. Chaadaev denied the possibility of social progress in Russia, he 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 severely cracked down on the author and publisher of the letter. P. Ya. Chaadaev was declared insane and placed under police supervision. The magazine "Telescope" was closed. Its editor, N. I. Nadezhdin, was expelled from Moscow with a ban on publishing and teaching. However, the ideas expressed by P. Ya. Chaadaev caused a great public outcry and had a significant impact on the further development of social thought.
At the turn of the 30-40s of the XIX century. Among the liberals opposed to the government, there were two ideological currents - Slavophilism and Westernism. The ideologists of the Slavophiles were writers, philosophers, and publicists: K. S. and I. S. Aksakov, I. V. and P. V. Kireevsky, A. S. Khomyakov, Yu. lawyers, writers and publicists: T. N. Granovsky K. D. Kavelin, S. M. Solovyov, V. P. Botkin, P. V. Annenkov, I. I. Panaev, V. F. Korsh and other representatives these currents were united by the desire to see Russia prosperous and powerful in the circle of all European powers. To do this, they considered it necessary to change its socio-political system, establish a constitutional monarchy, mitigate and even abolish serfdom, give the peasants 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 the Slavophiles and the Westerners.
The Slavophils exaggerated the peculiarity of the historical path of Russia's development and its national identity. The capitalist system that had taken root in Western Europe seemed to them vicious, bringing impoverishment of the people and a decline in morals. Idealizing the history of pre-Petrine Russia, they insisted on a return to those orders, when Zemsky Sobors conveyed the opinion of the people to the authorities, when patriarchal relations allegedly existed between landlords and peasants. At the same time, the Slavophils recognized the need for the development of industry, crafts and trade. 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. The struggle of the Slavophiles against servility to the West, their study of the history of the people and folk life had a great positive value for the development of Russian culture.
The Westerners proceeded from the fact that Russia should develop in line with European civilization. They sharply criticized the Slavophiles for opposing Russia and the West, explaining its difference by historical backwardness. Denying special role peasant community, Westerners believed that the government imposed it on the people for the convenience of management and tax collection. They advocated a broad education of the people, believing that this was the only true way for the success of the modernization of the socio-political system of Russia. Their criticism of the feudal order and the call for change domestic policy also contributed to the development of socio-political thought.
Slavophiles and Westerners laid in the 30-50s XIX years in. the basis of the liberal-reformist direction in the social movement.
radical direction
In the second half of the 1920s and the first half of the 1930s, circles, uniting no more than 20-30 members, became a characteristic organizational form of the anti-government movement. They appeared in Moscow and in the provinces, where police surveillance and espionage were not as strong as in St. Petersburg. Their participants shared the ideology of the Decembrists and condemned the reprisals against them. At the same time, they tried to overcome the mistakes of their predecessors, spread freedom-loving poems, and criticized government policy. The works of Decembrist poets gained wide popularity. All of Russia read the famous message to Siberia by A. S. Pushkin and the response of the Decembrists to him.
Moscow University became the center for the formation of anti-serfdom and anti-autocratic ideology (the circles of the brothers P. M. and V. Kritsky, N. P. Sungurov, and others). These circles were short-lived and did not grow into organizations that could have a major impact on change. political position in Russia. Their members only discussed domestic politics, made naive plans for reforming the country. However, the government dealt harshly with the members of the circles. Student A. Polezhaev was expelled from the university and sent to the army for his freedom-loving poem "Sashka". By personal order of the emperor, some of the members of the Kritsky brothers' circle were imprisoned in the Shlisselburg fortress and the casemate of the Solovetsky Monastery, some were evicted from Moscow and placed under police supervision. The court sentenced some participants of the "Sungur Society" to exile to hard labor, others - to being sent to the soldiers.
Secret organizations of the first half of the 30s of the XIX century. were mainly educational. Groups formed around N. V. Stankevich, V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, and N. P. Ogarev, whose members studied domestic and foreign political works and promoted the latest Western philosophy.
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 journals. Many public figures carried away by the philosophical postulate of G. V. F. Hegel “everything that is reasonable is real, everything that is real is reasonable” and on this basis tried to come to terms with the “vile”, according to V, G, Belinsky, Russian reality.
In the 40s of the XIX century. in a radical direction there has been a new upsurge. He was associated with the activities of V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky and others.
Literary critic V. G. Belinsky, revealing the ideological content of the works under review, instilled in readers hatred for arbitrariness and serfdom, love for the people. The ideal 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 the Westerners, but he also saw the negative aspects of European capitalism. Widely known was his "Letter to Gogol", in which he reproved the writer for mysticism and refusal to fight publicly. 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”, which was distributed in hundreds of lists, was of great importance for the education of a new generation of public figures of a radical direction.
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. Butashvich-Pstrashevsky - 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 and others).
M. V. Pegrasheveky, on a joint basis, created with his friends the first collective library, which consisted mainly of essays on the humanities. Not only Petersburgers could use books, but also residents of provincial towns. To discuss issues related to internal and foreign policy Russia, as well as literature, history and philosophy, the members of the circle arranged their meetings - the well-known "Fridays" in St. Petersburg. For the wide promotion of their views, the Petrashevites in 1845-1846. took part in the publication of the "Pocket dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language". In it, they expounded the essence of European socialist teachings, especially C. Fourier, which had a great influence on the formation of their worldview.
The 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 Emancipation of the Peasants”, proposing their direct, gratuitous and unconditional release of them with the plot of land that they cultivated. The radical part of the Petrashevists 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.
The circle of M. V. Petrashevsky was opened 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 replaced by indefinite hard labor. (The staging of the execution is very expressively described by F. M. Dostoevsky in the novel The Idiot.)
The activities of the circle of M. V. Petrashevsky laid the foundation for the spread of Western European socialist ideas in Russia.
AI Herzen and the theory of communal socialism. The creation of a domestic variety of socialist theory is associated with the name of A. I. Herzen. He and his friend N.P. Ogarev swore an oath to fight for a better future for the people when they were boys. For participating in a student circle and singing songs with "vile and malicious" expressions against the king, they were arrested and sent into exile. In the 1930s and 1940s, A. I. Herzen was engaged in literary activities. His works contained the idea of struggle for individual freedom, protest against violence and arbitrariness. His work was closely monitored by the police. Realizing that it was impossible to enjoy freedom of speech in Russia, AI Herzen went abroad in 1847. In London, he founded the Free Russian Printing House (1853). published 8 books of the collection "Polar Star", on the title of which he placed a miniature from the profiles of 5 executed Decembrists, organized, together with N.P. Ogarev, the publication of the first uncensored newspaper "The Bell" (1857-1867). Subsequent generations of revolutionaries saw the great merit of A. I. Herzen in creating a free Russian press abroad.
In his youth, A. I. Herzen shared many of the ideas of the Westerners, 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, just social order and created the theory of communal socialism. A. I. Herzen saw the ideal of social development in socialism, in which there will be no private property and exploitation. In his opinion, the Russian peasant is devoid of private property instincts, 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 was fully prepared for socialism and that in Russia there was no social basis for the development of capitalism. The question of the ways of transition to socialism was solved by A. I. Herzen inconsistently. In some works he wrote about the possibility of a popular revolution, in others he condemned the violent methods of changing the state 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 the revolutionary populists of the 70s of the 19th century.
In general, the second quarter of the XIX century. was a time of "external slavery" and "internal liberation". Some remained silent, frightened by government repressions. Others - insisted on the preservation of 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 developed in the socio-political movement of the first half of XIX century, with minor changes continued to develop in the second half.
The party congresses held in December stimulated the self-determination of Russia's political forces. This process proceeds most intensively on the democratic flank.
An article by Yevgeny Yasin (NG, November 15, 01) can be called a landmark, in which one of the SPS ideologists openly calls his party conservative. This position is interesting in that it differs sharply from the popular opinion (not alien to the members of the Union of Right Forces themselves), which identifies the rightists with the liberals. Yevgeny Yasin uses the term "conservatism" in its modern sense, which, like the modern understanding of liberalism, differs from the schemes of the century before last and the beginning of the last century.
Modern conservatism ("neo-conservatism"), embodied in the policies of Thatcher and Reagan, is a synthesis of traditional political values of conservatism and free market principles borrowed from nineteenth-century liberals. Modern conservatives seek to preserve and maintain an economic system focused on maximum market freedom and minimization of state intervention in it.
The SPS is indeed very close to neoconservatism. His Political Declaration says: "The state is obliged to support the weak - the elderly, disadvantaged children, the disabled, victims of wars, natural and man-made disasters. This list is exhaustive." It does not include the sick, the unemployed, the homeless, caregivers, the poor, and residents of regions with harsh climatic conditions.
It was neoconservative that was the ideology of the Russian reforms of the last decade. Meanwhile, the neoconservative ideology is quite at odds with the principles of modern liberalism.
From the middle of the last century, liberals began to realize that the theory of the "invisible hand" of the market, which distributes national wealth in the best possible way without any state assistance, leads to anti-liberal consequences: monopolism that suppresses competition and mass poverty, in which the majority of the population cannot enjoy the benefits of freedom. . Consequently, the hand of the market, to one degree or another, must be supplemented by the guiding hand of the state.
In the process of their ideological evolution, European liberals came to a new system of views, which in the scientific literature is usually called social liberalism. The meaning of this system is as follows. Building a free society is unthinkable without the participation of the state, which ensures the redistribution of part of the social product in favor of the weak. Unlike the liberals of the 19th century, who insisted only on observing the equality of citizens' rights, their modern followers put equality of opportunity at the forefront and call social justice among their basic values.
At present, the only Russian party following the course of modern liberalism is YABLOKO. The program documents of this party are based on the conviction that a free society in Russia can be built only if the majority of the population is interested in this.
The task of the state is to orient the free market towards the achievement of social goals, and not to force it to do so. YABLOKO calls such a system a social market, proclaiming its creation as its program goal.
As for the Union of Right Forces, it is not the only Russian party gravitating towards conservatism. Its main competitor in this field is the "party of power." An analysis of the behavior of the factions in the State Duma invariably reveals a more "social" bias of the democratic factions in comparison with the pro-Kremlin ones.
At the same time, the obvious readiness of the "party of power" to sacrifice democratic values in the name of pragmatic interests, the propensity for authoritarianism allow us to assert that in its person we have a more radical version of conservatism than that of the Union of Right Forces.
Why don't the Union of Right Forces and the "party of power", despite their obvious ideological similarities, have a more or less solid platform for unification? The fact is that the real political spectrum is being built today depending on the attitude of parties not so much to the problem of state regulation of the market, but to democratic values and institutions. In Russia today, only three main political camps can be identified. Communists oppose democracy in principle. Democrats uphold democratic values out of conviction. The party in power ("bureaucrats") is in the "center" between these flanks, because, unlike the first, it does not consider Western-type democracy unacceptable and, unlike the second, is ready to deviate from democratic norms to any extent that it deems necessary. The party in power is really the center, but not between the right and the left, but between democrats and non-democrats.
Since democratic values are more important for the Union of Right Forces than socio-economic conservatism, it is YABLOKO, and not the party in power, that is the closest political partner of the "rightists."
The differences in the positions of YABLOKO and the Union of Right Forces are not antagonistic: both parties have a common platform in the form of democratic convictions. A coalition between these parties, based on a common political platform, but not erasing ideological differences, is urgently needed today as a counterbalance to communist and authoritarian forces in Russian politics. It would not be an exaggeration to say that such a coalition could play the role of a guarantor of Russia's democratic development.
Conservatism- a set of diverse ideological, political and cultural currents based on the idea of tradition and continuity in social and cultural life. In the course of history, conservatism has acquired various forms, but in general it is characterized by adherence to existing and established social systems and norms, rejection of revolutions and radical reforms, advocacy of the evolutionary, original development of society and the state. In the context of social change, conservatism manifests itself in a cautious attitude towards breaking down the old order, restoring lost positions, and recognizing the value of the ideals of the past. During the period of the establishment of capitalism, conservatism in the West opposed liberalism and socialism.
In conservatism, the main value is the preservation of the traditions of society, its institutions and values.
As an ideology, it was formed as a reaction to the "horrors of the French Revolution". It opposes liberalism, which demands economic freedoms, and socialism, which demands social equality.
In Russia, the conservative movement actively developed in the 19th century. As a rule, they were against education in Europe, the “Europeanization” of Russia in general, and also against reforms. Despite the fact that under Alexander II they lost their place at court, after his death (1881) they managed to recover. This was facilitated by the Polish uprising of 1863, "Nechaevshchina", the terror of the people's will, the assassination of Alexander II.
Liberalism(from lat.liberalis - free) - a philosophical and socio-political movement that proclaims the inviolability of the rights and individual freedoms of a person, advocating minimization of state interference in the lives of citizens.
Liberalism proclaims the rights and freedoms of each person as the highest value and establishes them as the legal basis of the social and economic order. At the same time, the possibilities of the state and the church to influence the life of society are limited by the constitution. The most important freedoms in liberalism are the freedom to speak publicly, the freedom to choose a religion, the freedom to choose one's representatives in fair and free elections. In economic terms, the principles of liberalism are the inviolability of private property, freedom of trade and entrepreneurship. In legal terms, the principles of liberalism are the rule of law over the will of the rulers and the equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of their wealth, position and influence.
In Russia, Western bourgeois liberal ideas appeared in the 18th century and, having fallen on Russian soil, changed significantly during the 19th century.
The beginnings of liberal thought in Russia began to take shape in the 1920s and 1930s. 19th century
The Decembrists were among the first in Russia with liberal demands for granting society rights and freedoms and enshrining them in the Constitution.
In the 2nd floor. 19th century capitalism in Russia had just begun to develop, so Russian liberalism was formed under the strong influence of Western European liberal thought, but with adjustments for the peculiarities of Russian reality.
European liberalism of the 19th century put forward demands for the free development of man, the supremacy of the individual and his interests over collectivism, state-guaranteed human rights and freedoms, the right to property and free competition, etc.
Russian liberals, having absorbed the ideas of Slavophilism, tried to develop a theory of reforming the state while maintaining purely Russian traditions - the monarchy, the peasant community, etc.
They demanded the elimination of class privileges, the creation of a volost zemstvo, a reduction in redemption payments, a reform of the State Council, the involvement of zemstvos in legislative advisory activities, and so on.
These demands did not affect the foundations of the autocracy and were aimed only at its gradual reformation into a constitutional monarchy, the creation in Russia of civil society and the rule of law.
The bourgeoisie, as the main bearer of liberal ideas in the West, in Russia was still so weak and dependent on the authorities that it itself was afraid of radical reforms, and therefore occupied the right flank of the movement - the so-called liberal conservatism. Therefore, the main carriers of liberal ideas in Russia were the progressive nobility and intelligentsia, which only strengthened the pro-monarchist nuances of this socio-political movement.
A serious impetus to the development of the liberal movement was given by the reforms of Alexander II of 60-70.
The general emancipation of society led to the expansion of the liberal movement at the expense of the Russian intelligentsia, which made changes to the tactics of the movement. Preserving, for the most part, monarchist views, the liberal intelligentsia considered it necessary to increase pressure on the authorities. They used semi-legal methods: letters addressed to the highest name, propaganda of new ideas in student audiences, support for peaceful political actions (strikes, demonstrations, etc.).
The weakness of the Russian liberal movement was also in the fact that it remained divided, and therefore weak. They were unable not only to unite with the populists, but even to create a united liberal front.
The main significance of Russian liberalism in the fact that against the background of the activation of radical socialists and the strengthening of conservative reaction, he offered Russian society an evolutionary reformist path of development.
Russian liberalism in the mid-50s - early 60s.
The social atmosphere of the mid-19th century was such that conservatives, liberals, and part of the revolutionaries advocated the abolition of serfdom, softening the political regime and pinned their hopes on the new emperor. But each of these forces expected from the authorities such actions that would correspond to their own ideas about reforms. And when these ideas and the real steps of the government did not coincide, representatives of social forces tried to influence the ruling circles.
At the beginning of the reign of Alexander II, the first attempts were made to create policy documents and unite all liberal forces. In the mid 50s. prominent Western liberals K. D. Kavelin and B. N. Chicherin established ties with A. I. Herzen. In "Voices from Russia" they published a "Letter to the Publisher", which became the first printed program document of Russian liberalism.
The main provisions of this programs were:
Freedom of conscience;
- freedom from serfdom;
- freedom of expression of public opinion;
- freedom of printing;
- freedom of teaching;
- publicity of all government actions;
- publicity and publicity of the court.
There was only no demand for the introduction of a constitution in Russia.
Alexander II, starting to develop a peasant and other reforms, actually began to carry out the program of the liberals. Therefore, representatives of this movement began to support the government. A major success of the supporters of the reforms was the inclusion in the late 50s. many liberal figures to the Editorial Committees.
In addition, many liberals believed that the conditions were not yet ripe in Russia for the introduction of a constitution. And even if this was announced, they believed, it would either remain only on paper or increase the influence of the conservatives, since the majority of seats in parliament would inevitably be occupied by the nobles, and this could lead to the curtailment of liberal reforms.
But this did not mean that the Russian liberals abandoned the idea of adopting a constitution and introducing popular representation. They believed that the country needed to be prepared for this step: to carry out public administration reforms, improve local self-government, develop the economy, raise the material and cultural standard of living of the people, i.e. create the foundations of civil society.
The influential magazine "Russian Messenger", created in 1856 by M. N. Katkov. On its pages, the need to abolish serfdom and allocate peasants land, the introduction of an independent court and local self-government. As necessary condition implementation of reforms, the magazine put forward the principle of gradual transformation and opposed the revolutionary path of the country's development.
The contribution to the development of the liberal program was also made by the 1856 organ of the Slavophiles "Russian conversation", the editor-publisher of which was A. I. Koshelev. The magazine paid special attention to national problems, elucidation of the role and significance of "nationality" (Russian identity) in various spheres of society. And although the eyes of the Slavophiles were turned to pre-Petrine Russia, the examples for imitation they drew from that time were imbued with a liberal spirit. Recognizing Orthodoxy, autocracy and the peasant community as the primordial, necessary foundations of Russian life, they did not allow any interference by state power in private life and communal life, in religious matters they demanded complete freedom of conscience, and advocated freedom of speech. The political system advocated by the Slavophiles fit into the formula of K. S. Aksakov, contained in his note to Alexander II: the power of power should belong to the king, but the power of opinion should belong to the people.
Liberal ideas were also heard on the pages of Otechestvennye zapiski by A. A. Kraevsky, Library for Reading by A. V. Druzhinin and a number of other publications.
The main activity of the liberals of all directions in the late 50s. work began in the noble provincial committees to develop the conditions for the peasant reform. At committee meetings in open disputes with opponents of reforms, the skills of political struggle were acquired, the ability to defend one's views. It was then that the most radical version of the liberal program took shape. It differed in many respects from the requirements of Kavelin, Chicherin, Katkov.
The Tver province became the center for creating such a program. In 1857, the author of the liberal project for the abolition of serfdom, A. M. Unkovsky, was elected marshal of the local nobility. He managed to captivate the majority of the Tver Committee with his ideas. At the end of 1859, Unkovsky was exiled to Vyatka because the nobility of the province protested against the prohibition to discuss the peasant question in the press. In the future, Unkovsky continued his activities in the Tver province.
Zemstvo movement of the late 70s.
A new upsurge of the liberal movement came in the late 70s - early 80s. At this time, the young generation of zemstvo leaders overcame the admiration of their predecessors for the state, which embarked on the path of reforms. Zemstvos actively submitted liberal addresses demanding the expansion of their rights, the creation of central representative institutions, the introduction of civil liberties, etc.
Not finding understanding with the authorities, some radical representatives of the zemstvos (I. I. Petrunkevich, D. I. Shakhovskoy, F. I. Rodichev, P. D. Dolgorukov and others) drew attention to the “revolutionary possibilities of the masses” and took to arming illegal methods of struggle. In December 1878, at the suggestion of I. I. Petrunkevich, an attempt was made to conclude a kind of agreement with the revolutionary organizations. The basis for such an agreement could be the consent of the revolutionaries to “temporarily suspend all terrorist acts” in exchange for the obligations of the Zemstvo members “to raise an open protest against government domestic policy in broad public circles, and above all in Zemstvo assemblies. However, the agreement did not take place.
More successful was the attempt to unite the liberal forces themselves in order to organize public pressure on the government. In April 1879, a secret congress of zemstvo leaders in Moscow decided to organize performances of zemstvo assemblies demanding political reforms. In the same year, the Zemstvo tried to establish an illegal publication of literature.
Hopes for a return of trust between Zemstvo liberals and the government appeared after coming to power M. T. Loris-Melikova. He not only proclaimed a course of cooperation between the government and society, but also began to put it into practice. However, after the death of Alexander II, the chance for cooperation between the liberals and the government was lost.
Liberalism did not become the leading political force in the country. His support in society was very weak - the intelligentsia and a small part of the nobility.
The development of liberalism in Russia was hampered by illiteracy and communal forms of life for the bulk of the population. A major miscalculation of the liberals was that at the time of the abolition of serfdom, they did not seek the destruction of the community. In addition, the liberals failed to overcome the disunity of their ranks, to work out general program and achieve unity of action.
Conservatives.
Opponents of significant changes in the life of society found themselves in a difficult position: to defend the old in the late 50s and early 60s. no one dared. Therefore, the main aspirations of the conservatives were attempts to protect the imperial power from the influence of liberal officials and, if possible, prevent reforms from infringing on the interests of the nobility. The activity of the Conservatives had some success. The main developers of the peasant reform were gradually removed from the government. Alexander II hoped that such a step would lead to the reconciliation of the estates and soften the indignation of the nobles. In the future, the position of the conservatives was further strengthened. Count P. A. Shuvalov, an opponent of the abolition of serfdom and the implementation of other reforms, became the largest figure in the conservative direction. In 1866, he was appointed chief of the gendarmes and chief commander of the III department. Taking advantage of the unstable state of Alexander II, caused by attempts on his life, Shuvalov established complete control over the emperor, concentrating enormous power in his hands, for which he received the nickname Peter IV. At the suggestion of Shuvalov, until 1874, the removal and appointment of ministers and other senior officials took place. The ideologist and inspirer of the conservative course was a man very far from the royal court - a publicist and publisher, in the past a prominent liberal M. N. Katkov.
LECTURE XV
PUBLIC AND REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE XIX CENTURY
Conservatives and liberals. Revolutionary populism: ideology, organization, tactics. The birth of Marxism in Russia
Bound by well-known ideological principles, Soviet historians exaggerated the presence of a revolutionary situation in Russia in the 1950s and early 1960s. One-sided was the study of the social movement. The main attention was paid to the study of the radical revolutionary wing. Russian liberalism was viewed only from the negative side.
The dependence of historical science on ideological attitudes can be seen in the study of the populist movement. In the 1920s, the 50th anniversary of the People's Will was solemnly celebrated. The program of this organization and the theoretical provisions of P.N. Tkachev was considered by many authors as the predecessors of Bolshevism.
In the mid-1930s, a radical turn took place. With the publication of the "Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" an extremely negative attitude was established towards the populists as enemies of Marxism. Research into the populist movement came to a complete halt. It resumed only in the second half of the 50s, the existing prohibitions were lifted. Successes in this area of historical knowledge are significant: a number of monographs and a large number of articles have been published. However, many problems were considered from the point of view of V.I. Lenin. In recent years, interest in the liberal opposition movement has intensified, although it has been actively studied abroad for a long time.
In the socio-political movement of post-reform Russia, three main directions can be distinguished. First, conservative whose representatives opposed any changes and negatively assessed the reforms of the 60-70s, advocated their revision. Second, liberal opposition whose representatives fully supported the reformist path, sought to further political transformations. Third, radical revolutionary, whose representatives operated in the deep underground and tried to change the socio-political system of the country by force on the basis of the doctrine of socialism.
Russian conservatism united mainly the highest stratum of the service bureaucracy and the tsar's entourage, a significant part of the nobility and clergy, and the generals of the army. In the hands of conservatives government, so many of their ideas were embodied in government policy.
The most prominent ideologists and promoters of conservatism were the well-known statesman, lawyer K.P. Pobedonostsev; a publicist who, in his youth, joined the liberal trend of M.N. Katkov; adjutant general, and later minister of the imperial court and destinies, I.I. Vorontsov-Dashkov; count, diplomat, infantry general N.P. Ignatiev and others. The ideal of the conservatives was a "living people's autocracy" in the spirit of pre-Petrine times. Some even suggested moving the capital from Petersburg, corrupted by liberal ideas, back to Moscow.
The largest ideologist of conservatism at the end of the XIX century. was K.P. Pobedonostsev. Widely educated, K.P. Pobedonostsev had literary talent. After graduating from the School of Law, he was a professor at Moscow University for several years. His three-volume Course civil law” was reprinted many times and was a manual for students. Distinguished by extraordinary efficiency, accuracy, diligence and devotion to the regime, he quickly moved up the steps of the highest service bureaucracy. In 1872 he became a member of the State Council, and then for 25 years (1880-1905) he held the high post of chief prosecutor of the Synod. K.P. Pobedonostsev taught law courses to the heirs to the throne, the future emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II. This provided him with a high place in the environment of the king and influence on state policy.
K.P. Pobedonostsev was a conservative and an ardent reactionary. Even the slightest manifestation of liberalism aroused in him hatred. With particular bitterness, he criticized the jury, the “lawyer class”, which represented a danger to the state order, and zemstvo institutions.
Having unleashed his anger on Alexander II, K.P. Pobedonostsev sought to turn the heir to the throne against the reformist course of his father. In a letter dated December 14, 1879, i.e. written during the life of Alexander II, K.P. Pobedonostsev wrote that Alexander II was “a miserable and unfortunate man, in his hands power disintegrated and crumbled, and his kingdom, perhaps not through his fault, was the kingdom of lies and mammon, and not truth.”
Special hatred of K.P. Pobedonostsev was summoned by foreigners, mainly Poles and Jews. He was the inspirer of the anti-Polish campaign and Jewish pogroms. Like other conservatives, he saw the main danger for Russia in the ideas of European progressive political thought, European democracy.
The essence of Russian conservatism manifested itself in the persecution of the largest Russian writers L.N. Tolstoy, N.S. Leskov, philosopher V.S. Solovyov. Even F.M. Dostoevsky, who largely shared the opinion of the conservatives. Neither L.N. Tolstoy, nor V.S. Solovyov, nor N.S. Leskov were not opponents of the regime, but K.P. Pobedonostsev and other conservatives were disgusted by their free thought and wide popularity. At the post of Chief Prosecutor K.P. Pobedonostsev did everything possible to strengthen the position of the Orthodox Church: in the 1980s, 10 monasteries and 250 churches were opened annually. While the secular school was curtailing, the number of parochial schools for 1881-1894. increased 8 times. State appropriations for their maintenance have grown 40 times. In economic terms, conservatives were opposed to free trade. They insisted on strengthening the control of the state over private entrepreneurs and the development of those industries in which the government is interested. On the agrarian question, they advocated measures to protect landownership and to strengthen the communal structure of the countryside.
The reactionary policy of the conservatives interrupted the path of liberal reforms and was one of the reasons that hastened the revolutionary explosion.
The liberal opposition movement opposed conservatism and set the goal of gradually changing the autocratic-bureaucratic regime, turning Russia into a state of law based on the principles of political freedom and equality of citizens. The term "liberalism" comes from the Latin word "liberalis" (free). The focus of liberal political currents is a person with his individual characteristics and needs, the emancipation of the human personality, freedom of conscience, economic and political activity. Liberalism does not accept revolutionary methods, it advocates a legitimate and gradual path of transformation, compromise in politics, respect and tolerance for other views and ideas.
in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. there was no liberal opposition party. Circles of the liberal-minded intelligentsia were grouped around Zemstvos and magazines and newspapers that were popular at that time: Vestnik Evropy, Otechestvennye Zapiski, Russkiye Vedomosti. These publications were headed by prominent public figures and scientists - M.M. Kovalevsky, M.M. Stasyulevich, A.A. Kra-evsky. N.A. published their works on the pages of liberal publications. Nekrasov, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, I.S. Turgenev and other famous Russian writers.
Liberal currents were not united in their ideological positions. There were heated discussions between individual groups and individuals. But they were united by hostility to the authoritarian regime, bureaucracy and bureaucratic arbitrariness, the struggle for the continuation and deepening of reforms, the transformation of Russia into a democratic state of law. One of the main slogans of the liberals was the freedom of the individual, the non-interference of the state in the private life of citizens, the equality of all before the law and the elimination of estates, first of all, this concerned the unequal position of the peasantry. In the economic field, they were supporters of free enterprise, non-interference of the state in economic activity, a fair and peaceful solution to social conflicts.
Zemstvos became the backbone of liberalism. In many zemstvos there appeared tendencies of transformation into local self-government bodies, the grassroots cell of the future democratic structure of the country. The Chernigov and Tver zemstvos were especially distinguished by their reformist sentiments. The activities of one of the prominent ideologists and leaders of Russian liberalism unfolded in Chernigov late XIX- the beginning of the XX century. I.I. Petrunkevich. Since the end of the 60s, he has been the vowel of the Chernigov Zemstvo, and he published the pamphlet “The Main Tasks of the Zemstvo”. In the zemstvos, he saw the main cell of the future democratic structure of Russia. For this, he believed, it was necessary to make the elections of zemstvos without estates, without dividing voters into curiae; create zemstvo bodies in volosts with a predominance of the peasantry; expand the rights of zemstvos, turn them into local self-government bodies; involve zemstvo figures in solving national issues. At the end! 879, I.I. Petrunkevich was arrested and exiled, first to the Vyatka province, then to Smolensk. After his release, he continued his activities in the Tver Zemstvo.
In the post-reform period, the activities of "N. Chicherin, the largest scientist, historian of state and law, were clearly manifested. He considered the discussion of adopted laws with the participation of people's representatives, the cessation of extrajudicial reprisals against people for expressing their political views as the first real measures. B.N. Chicherin was elected a member of the Poltava zemstvo and actively participated in the zemstvo movement.In 1882 he was elected the mayor of Moscow.In his welcoming address to Alexander III, he mentioned the need for unity of power with society.This was enough to "by the highest order" dismiss him.
The liberals sought to influence the government, to convince the king of the need for reforms in order to stop the terror. At the same time, they tried to get the revolutionaries to at least temporarily stop the terror in order to enable the government to start reforms. In early December 1879, on the initiative of I.I. Petrunkevich, a meeting was convened in Kyiv. V. Osinsky, L. Volkenshtein and others participated in it from the Narodniks. However, the revolutionaries did not want to give up terror. The government did not respond to the exhortations of liberal politicians. With the assassination of Alexander II, the situation changed. The liberal and revolutionary currents of the social movement finally demarcated.
One of the fundamental problems of the discussions of that time was Russia and the West. Liberals were overwhelmingly Westerners. They called for the use for Russia of everything progressive that the culture and political life of Western Europe had developed, primarily its democratic principles and freedoms. But Russian liberals remained true patriots of their country and were opposed to blind imitation. They saw the future of Russia, its prosperity in the implementation of the ideals of freedom and order, overcoming the reigning bureaucracy, bureaucracy and arbitrariness in the country.
