The Nikolaev regime, with its severity, strengthened the opposition of society, developing and complicating it. Along with supporters of revolutionary changes, more moderate elements appeared in it, who believed that revolutions are a disease of society that can be prevented or cured.
S.S. Uvarov proclaimed the famous triad: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality, which became the motto and program of the monarchists until the beginning of the 20th century. In his opinion, autocracy was the best and only form public administration, because, firstly, it was sanctified by religion, and secondly, it exactly corresponded to popular aspirations and traditions. The main features of the nationality, according to the theory of the “official nationality,” were considered adherence to the Orthodox faith and patriarchy (subordination of the younger to the elder), which found its most vivid expression in the peasant community.
The liberal trend that appeared in Russia manifests itself especially clearly after the publication of a “philosophical” letter by P. Ya. Chaadaev in the Telescope magazine. In this letter, the paradoxical and extraordinary thinker tried to analyze the historical path traveled by Russia. According to Chaadaev, Orthodoxy, adopted by Kiev, turned out to be fatal choice. It isolated Rus' from the world of that time, deprived it of a unique universal human conciliarity (spiritual unity), and plunged it into the sin of spiritual individualism. The greatest danger in such a situation is that divine truths (in the field of politics, economics, culture), as the thinker argued, are revealed not to individual peoples, but to the human community, from which Russia finds itself on the sidelines.
It cannot be said that Chaadaev set out to denigrate the history of Russia and its future. Such a number of troubles that befell one country, its obvious dissimilarity with the West and the East, forced the thinker to assume that the unusual fate of Russia is the unsolved providence of Providence. Another thing is that the implementation of this craft, the exit from the civilizational labyrinth seemed unrealistic to him under the Nikolaev regime.
Chaadaev’s last remark was shared by other figures in the liberal camp. The origins of liberalism lie in the circles of the 1930s. Under the pressure of censorship and spying, the independent movement of Russian thought largely took place outside of literature and university science, in philosophical and friendly circles. The significance of these circles is still not sufficiently appreciated. The fact is that, along with the Decembrists, the philosophy of the Enlightenment as the basis of opposition doctrines disappears from the political arena of Russia. Any ideology is based on certain philosophical ideas. The difficult, painstaking search for a new philosophical foundation for the opposition movement became the main task of the circles of the 30s and 40s.
These searches led to the works of German philosophers - Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel. The choice of Hegelianism as a new philosophical doctrine of the social movement was made in the circle of N.V. Stankevich.
In circles of the 30s and 40s. A heated dispute broke out between two branches of the liberal camp - Westerners and Slavophiles.
Westerners led by T.N. Granovsky, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin, S.M. Solovyov defended the European version of Russia's development. In other words, they argued that there was nothing unique in the history of Russia; it was a European country that lagged behind the Western European powers in development. Its further development will lead to the establishment in Russia of a constitutional monarchy or a bourgeois republic. However, this was a matter of the future, while Westerners advocated the abolition of serfdom, the development of a system of local self-government, reform of the judicial system, and the introduction of democratic freedoms for at least part of the population.
Real life made its own adjustments to the plans of the Westerners. Opposing autocratic despotism, they recognized that in Russia there is no other political force for carrying out liberal reforms other than the monarch. Protesting against communal land ownership, they believed that private land ownership in our country is a direct path to “Sinism,” that is, poverty for the majority of the population. Champions of the ideas of European law and order, they advocated for the originality of the form of Russian statehood. Such inconsistency in the position of the Westerners was not a consequence of their ideological softness, illegibility, or fear of repression. This was the behavior of sober politicians.
Slavophiles(A.S. Khomyakov, the Kireevsky brothers, the Aksakov family, Yu.F. Samarin) defended a special path of development for Russia. Their conclusions were based on the works of historians (especially M.P. Pogodin) and their own scientific research. According to their views, traditional state orders were violated during the necessary, but too drastic reforms of Peter the Great. The views of the Slavophiles had a significant impact on the development of social thought in Russia. They, simultaneously with Belinsky, proclaimed the idea of the primacy of social tasks over political ones, supported the tradition of the Decembrists regarding the need to educate a progressive and enlightened public opinion. The Slavophiles wanted to avoid repeating the path of Europe, primarily because it was the path of revolutions, fraught with human and material losses.
They, of course, were monarchists, but somewhat different from the Westerners. For the latter, the monarchy was a tool for achieving liberal goals. For Slavophiles, the monarchy is a manifestation of the sovereignty of the people, their free will. In their opinion, this government remains progressive as long as it serves the cause of faith and the people. It is supra-class, and therefore it is impossible to identify the king and officials (his servants). The connection between the government and the people can and should be strengthened by convening elected representatives from the whole earth (Zemsky Sobor).
In real politics, their views meant: a) an attempt to create an unusually democratic system under the slogan: “The power of power is for the king, the power of opinion is for the people”; b) an attempt to eliminate everything that was splitting Russian society; c) the salvation of the peasant community as a model of general government system and as a traditional structure that taught and forced peasants to live in accordance with Christian commandments. In other words, the Slavophiles were ready to support Uvarov’s triad, but their concept of nationality included the Zemsky Sobor, freedom of personality, freedom of conscience, and the public court.
The government of Nicholas I was particularly partial to the activities of the Slavophiles, leaving Westernism somewhat out of its sight. This is understandable. Unlike the Westerners, the Slavophiles worked “in the field” occupied by the government, threatening to disrupt the harmony and logic of Uvarov’s formula, to “twist” it in their own way.
Theoretically, both Westerners and Slavophiles could count on the successful implementation of their programs; there was, perhaps, nothing out of the ordinary in them. In practice, the plans of the liberals in Russia hovered in a vacuum; they did not have any strong support, no mass allies. Russian liberals were forced to rely only on the favor of the supreme power.
Circle M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky. The government's reprisal against its participants. The first revolutionary circles during the reign of Nicholas I appeared in the mid and late 20s. among students. The most famous of them are the circle of the Kritsky brothers and the circle of Sun-gurov. They consisted mainly of students from Moscow University and were followers of the Decembrists. The members of these circles hoped to carry out a coup with the help of the army, although they also hoped to attract the masses. However, all these circles were few in number, poorly organized, and therefore did not manage to actually do anything.
Gradually, the nature of the revolutionary movement changed; the ideas of French utopian socialism penetrated more and more widely into Russia, finding a sufficient number of supporters here. By the end of the 40s. The ideas of Charles Fourier, who in his works gave a brilliant criticism of contemporary capitalism and painted a picture, are becoming especially popular happy life humanity in phalansteries (communes).
One of the most ardent admirers of Fourier’s ideas in St. Petersburg was Foreign Ministry official M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky and the “non-employee landowner” N.A. Speshnev. It all started with meetings of Petrashevsky’s friends and acquaintances at his place on Fridays. At these meetings, Fourier's works and literary novelties were discussed, and speeches were made condemning serfdom and political despotism, plans were made for the transformation of Russia. Petrashevsky himself tried to move from words to deeds, to settle his peasants in a phalanstery house built for them, but they did not understand their happiness and burned down the new building. Speshnev approached the matter differently, proposing to rebel the Ural workers and move with them to St. Petersburg, raising up the serfs along the way. F.M. took part in meetings of Petrashevites. Dostoevsky, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, A.G. Rubinstein, P.P. Semenov (Tian-Shansky).
Both Petrashevsky’s phalansteries and Speshnev’s “revolution” were pure fantasy, remaining only on paper, but this did not save the Petrashevites from reprisals. Their activities were classified as a conspiracy of ideas, punishable by death. A military court sentenced 21 Petrashevites (including Dostoevsky) to death. On December 22, 1849, a re-enactment of their execution took place on the Semenovsky parade ground in St. Petersburg. People were dressed in shrouds and tied to poles; a platoon of soldiers took their guns at the ready - at that moment the adjutant wing of Nicholas I announced the replacement of execution with hard labor and soldiering. However, the tightening of reprisals against revolutionaries did not lead to the extinction of the revolutionary movement.
After the massacre of the Decembrists, the entire public life of Russia was placed under the strictest supervision by the state, which was carried out by the forces of the 3rd department, its extensive network of agents and informers. This was the reason for the decline of the social movement.
A few circles tried to continue the work of the Decembrists. In 1827, at Moscow University, the brothers P., V. and M. Kritsky organized a secret circle, the goals of which were the destruction of the royal family and constitutional reforms in Russia.
In 1831, the tsarist secret police discovered and destroyed the circle of N.P. Sungurov, whose members were preparing an armed uprising in Moscow. In 1832, the “Literary Society of Number 11” operated at Moscow University, of which V.G. Belinsky was a member. In 1834, the circle of A.I. Herzen was opened.
In the 30-40s. Three ideological and political directions emerged: reactionary-protective, liberal, revolutionary-democratic.
The principles of the reactionary-protective direction were expressed in his theory by the Minister of Education S.S. Uvarov. Autocracy, serfdom, and Orthodoxy were declared the most important foundations and a guarantee against shocks and unrest in Russia. The proponents of this theory were Moscow University professors M.P. Pogodin and S.P. Shevyrev.
The liberal opposition movement was represented by the social movements of Westerners and Slavophiles.
The central idea in the concept of the Slavophiles is the belief in a unique path of development for Russia. Thanks to Orthodoxy, harmony has developed in the country between different layers of society. Slavophiles called for a return to pre-Petrine patriarchy and the true Orthodox faith. They particularly criticized the reforms of Peter I.
Slavophiles left numerous works on philosophy and history (I.V. and P.V. Kirievsky, I.S. and K.S. Aksakov, D.A. Valuev), in theology (A.S. Khomyakov), in sociology , economics and politics (Yu.F. Samarin). They published their ideas in the magazines “Moskovityanin” and “Russkaya Pravda”.
Westernism arose in the 30-40s. 19th century among representatives of the nobility and various intelligentsia. The main idea is the concept of the common historical development of Europe and Russia. Liberal Westerners advocated a constitutional monarchy with guarantees of freedom of speech, the press, a public court and democracy (T.N. Granovsky, P.N. Kudryavtsev, E.F. Korsh, P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin). They considered the reform activities of Peter I the beginning of the renewal of old Russia and proposed to continue it by carrying out bourgeois reforms.
The literary circle of M.V. Petrashevsky gained enormous popularity in the early 40s, which over the four years of its existence was visited by leading representatives of society (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, F.M. Dostoevsky, A.N. Pleshcheev, A.N. .Maikov, P.A.Fedotov, M.I.Glinka, P.P.Semenov, A.G.Rubinshtein, N.G.Chernyshevsky, L.N.Tolstoy).
Since the winter of 1846, the circle became radicalized; its most moderate members left, forming the left revolutionary wing led by N.A. Speshnev. Its members advocated a revolutionary transformation of society, the elimination of the autocracy, and the liberation of the peasants.
The father of the “theory of Russian socialism” was A.I. Herzen, who combined Slavophilism with socialist doctrine. He considered the peasant community to be the main unit of the future society, with the help of which one can reach socialism, bypassing capitalism.
In 1852, Herzen went to London, where he opened the Free Russian Printing House. Bypassing censorship, he laid the foundation for the Russian foreign press.
The founder of the revolutionary democratic movement in Russia is V.G. Belinsky. He published his views and ideas in “Notes of the Fatherland” and in “Letter to Gogol,” where he sharply criticized Russian tsarism and proposed the path of democratic reforms.
Populism of the 70s-80s of the 19th century.
Reforms of Alexander II.
In the middle of the 19th century. In Russia, an acute socio-economic and political crisis began, which was based on the backwardness of the feudal-serf economic system. This slowed down the development of capitalism and determined Russia's general lag behind the advanced powers. The crisis manifested itself with particular force in the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War.
The persistence of feudal-serf exploitation led to increased discontent among the peasantry, unrest and their flight from forced labor. The need for change was recognized by the liberal part of the nobility.
In 1855-1857 63 notes were submitted to the emperor proposing the abolition of serfdom. Gradually, Alexander II came to the conclusion that it was better to free the peasants by a voluntary decision “from above” rather than wait for a rebellion “from below.”
These events took place against the backdrop of strengthening radical revolutionary-democratic sentiments in society. The ideas of N.A. Dobrolyubov and N.G. Chernyshevsky found increasing support among the nobility.
The magazine Sovremennik gained enormous popularity, on the pages of which a discussion about the future of Russia unfolded. The Bell and the Polar Star, published in London, were imbued with hope for the initiative of the autocracy in the abolition of serfdom in Russia.
Having strengthened his decision to abolish serfdom, Alexander II began preparing a project for peasant reform. In 1857-1858 provincial committees were created that developed projects for future reform and sent them to the drafting commissions. These committees included progressive and educated representatives of the nobility (Ya.I. Rostovtsev, N.A. Milyukov, etc.). The commissions developed the final version of the reform. However, the bulk of the nobility and landowners opposed the abolition of serfdom and sought to preserve their privileges as much as possible in the face of impending changes. Ultimately, this was reflected in the draft laws prepared by the commissions.
On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed the Manifesto and the “Regulations on peasants emerging from serfdom.” It said: “Serfdom for peasants established on landowners’ estates and for domestic servants is abolished forever” and they are granted “the rights of free rural inhabitants.”
In accordance with the manifesto, peasants received personal freedom and general civil rights, which were incomplete in comparison with other sectors of society. The lands that belonged to the landowners were recognized as their property, and the peasants were allocated a plot of land for which they paid a ransom. Until the ransom was paid, the peasant was considered temporarily obligated and was forced to fulfill his previous duties.
The state treasury began to pay landowners the cost of lands transferred to peasant plots. After this, the peasant had to repay his debt to the state within 49 years. The peasants made redemption payments and all taxes together, as a whole. Each peasant was assigned to his own community.
The average size of the allotment was 3.3 tithes per capita. The allocated plots were not enough for the peasants, and they rented part of the land from the landowners, paying them in money or labor. This preserved the dependence of the peasant on the landowner and caused a return to previous feudal forms of exploitation.
The abolition of serfdom was of great importance for the development of capitalist relations and the creation of a free labor market, which made it possible to develop industrial production in Russia. However, the situation of the Russian peasant still remained extremely difficult.
The remnants of serfdom, debts to landowners, and state taxes placed a heavy yoke on the peasantry and acted as a brake on the development of agriculture.
The peasant community, with its right to land, became the bearer of unitary relations that fettered the economic initiative of its most proactive members.
The abolition of serfdom contributed to the development of capitalism in Russia and created the need for reforms in all areas of public life.
The most significant and progressive was the judicial reform of 1864, since the old Nikolaev courts handed down sentences without public control, were biased, and committed arbitrariness and bribes. The preparation of the reform was led by Minister of Justice Zamyatin and State Secretary Zaprudny.
The new court was based on classless principles, the irremovability of judges, the independence of the court from the administration, publicity, orality and adversarial proceedings were proclaimed (the prosecution represented by the prosecutor and the defense represented by the lawyer considered the circumstances of the case, and the final decision on the case was made by jurors who were chosen from various estates). A progressive innovation was the creation of prosecutorial supervision and jury trials.
The new judicial system corresponded to developing bourgeois relations and the principles of democracy, which caused acute discontent on the part of the autocracy. For this reason, in the 60-70s. 19th century judicial reform was revised.
After the peasantry gained freedom, the need arose to create all-class local self-government bodies. On January 1, 1864, the “Regulations on provincial and district zemstvo institutions” was published, according to which zemstvos or zemstvo assemblies were created in counties and provinces. Zemstvo assemblies formed zemstvo councils (executive bodies). The competence of zemstvos was limited to resolving issues of public life (economy, education, medicine, collecting taxes for local needs).
In 1870, the “City Regulations” were published, which introduced all-class local government in cities.
City dumas were classless and were elected from the local environment. They performed the same functions as zemstvo institutions in rural areas.
Russia's defeat in the Crimean War showed imperfection and backwardness Russian army. Its basis was soldiers recruited through conscription. The army reform that began in 1855 did not produce tangible results until the outstanding General D.A. Milyukov was appointed to the post of Minister of War in 1861. He was a patriot who understood the historical need to reorganize the military system of the Russian state. Having reduced the total number of troops, Miliukov carried out a series of military reforms. Instead of recruitment kits, a universal conscription. A 6-year service life has been established, which applies to men who have reached the age of 20, regardless of class. Russia was divided into 15 military districts, which were subordinate to the Minister of War. New types of weapons were put into service with the army. Much attention was paid to the training of military personnel, and new military schools were opened. The army abolished drill and the cane system, and the education and training of soldiers became more humane. Representatives of various classes were given the opportunity for promotion, which put an end to casteism in the officer corps. The reform contributed to increasing the combat effectiveness of the Russian army.
In 1863, a new university charter was issued, according to which universities received ample opportunities in self-government. The Council of University Professors was given the opportunity to select all officials of the university administration and professors for vacant positions. The school reform of 1864 contributed to the democratization of primary and secondary education. The quantity has been increased educational institutions and the teaching corps was reorganized.
In 1865, a press reform was carried out, and censorship in book publishing and periodicals was significantly softened. The society was given the opportunity to discuss political and social issues on the pages of printed publications, in particular, the Sovremennik and Russian Word magazines.
By 1830-40 In Russian society, beginning to get tired of the consequences of the reaction that befell the state after the suppression of the Decembrist uprising, 2 movements were formed, whose representatives advocated the transformation of Russia, but saw them in completely different ways. These 2 trends are Westernism and Slavophilism. What did representatives of both directions have in common and how did they differ?
Westerners and Slavophiles: who are they?
Items for comparison | Westerners | Slavophiles |
|---|---|---|
Current formation time | ||
What strata of society were they formed from? | Noble landowners - the majority, individual representatives - rich merchants and commoners | Landowners with an average level of income, partly from merchants and commoners |
Main representatives | P.Ya. Chaadaev (it was his “Philosophical Letter” that served as the impetus for the final formation of both movements and became the reason for the start of the debate); I.S. Turgenev, V.S. Soloviev, V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev, K.D. Kavelin. The defender of the emerging ideology of Westernism was A.S. Pushkin. | A.S. Khomyakov, K.S. Aksakov, P.V. Kireevsky, V.A. Cherkassky. S.T. is very close to them in worldview. Aksakov, V.I. Dahl, F.I. Tyutchev. |
So, the “Philosophical Letter” of 1836 was written, and controversy flared up. Let's try to understand how much the two main directions of social thought in Russia in the mid-19th century differed.
Comparative characteristics of Westerners and Slavophiles
Items for comparison | Westerners | Slavophiles |
|---|---|---|
Ways for further development of Russia | Russia must move along the path already taken by Western European countries. Having mastered all the achievements of Western civilization, Russia will make a breakthrough and achieve more than the countries of Europe, due to the fact that it will act on the basis of the experience borrowed from them. | Russia has a completely special path. It does not need to take into account the achievements of Western culture: by adhering to the formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality,” Russia will be able to achieve success and achieve an equal position with other states, or even a higher position. |
Paths of change and reform | There is a division into 2 directions: liberal (T. Granovsky, K. Kavelin, etc.) and revolutionary (A. Herzen, I. Ogarev, etc.). Liberals advocated peaceful reforms from above, revolutionaries advocated radical ways to solve problems. | All transformations must be done peacefully. |
Attitude to the constitution and the socio-political system necessary for Russia | They advocated a constitutional order (following the example of the constitutional monarchy of England) or a republic (the most radical representatives). | They objected to the introduction of a constitution, considering unlimited autocracy to be the only thing possible for Russia. |
Attitude to serfdom | Mandatory abolition of serfdom and encouragement of the use of hired labor - these are the views of Westerners on this issue. This will accelerate its development and lead to the growth of industry and economy. | They advocated the abolition of serfdom, but at the same time, they believed, it was necessary to preserve the usual way of peasant life - the community. Each community must be allocated land (for a ransom). |
Attitude to economic development opportunities | They considered it necessary to rapidly develop industry, trade, and build railways - all this using the achievements and experience of Western countries. | They advocated government support for the mechanization of labor, the development of banking, and the construction of new railways. In all this we need consistency, we need to act gradually. |
Attitude to religion | Some Westerners treated religion as a superstition, some professed Christianity, but neither one nor the other put religion at the forefront when it came to solving state issues. | Religion was of great importance to representatives of this movement. That holistic spirit, thanks to which Russia is developing, is impossible without faith, without Orthodoxy. It is faith that is the “cornerstone” of the special historical mission of the Russian people. |
Relation to Peter I | The attitude towards Peter the Great especially sharply divides Westerners and Slavophiles. Westerners considered him a great transformer and reformer. | They had a negative attitude towards Peter's activities, believing that he forcibly forced the country to move along a path alien to it. |
Results of the “historical” debate
As usual, all the contradictions between representatives of the two movements were resolved by time: we can say that Russia followed the path of development that the Westerners proposed to it. The community died out (as Westerners expected), the church turned into an institution independent of the state, and autocracy was eliminated. But, talking about the “pros” and “cons” of Slavophiles and Westerners, one cannot unequivocally say that the former were exclusively reactionary, while the latter “pushed” Russia onto the right path. Firstly, both had something in common: they believed that the state needed changes and advocated the abolition of serfdom and economic development. Secondly, the Slavophiles did a lot for the development of Russian society, awakening interest in the history and culture of the Russian people: let us recall, for example, Dahl’s “Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language”.
Gradually, there was a rapprochement between Slavophiles and Westerners, with a significant predominance of the views and theories of the latter. Disputes between representatives of both directions that flared up in the 40s and 50s. XIX century, contributed to the development of society and the awakening of interest in acute social problems among the Russian intelligentsia.
In the early 30s. XIX century an ideological justification for the reactionary policy of the autocracy was born - theory of “official nationality”. The author of this theory was the Minister public education graph S. Uvarov. In 1832, in a report to the Tsar, he put forward a formula for the foundations of Russian life: “ Autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality" It was based on the point of view that autocracy is the historically established foundation of Russian life; Orthodoxy is the moral basis of the life of the Russian people; nationality - the unity of the Russian Tsar and the people, protecting Russia from social cataclysms. The Russian people exist as a single whole solely insofar as they remain faithful to the autocracy and submit to paternal care Orthodox Church. Any speech against the autocracy, any criticism of the church was interpreted by him as actions directed against the fundamental interests of the people.
Uvarov argued that education can not only be a source of evil, revolutionary upheavals, as happened in Western Europe, but can turn into a protective element - which is what we should strive for in Russia. Therefore, all “ministers of education in Russia were asked to proceed exclusively from considerations of the official nationality.” Based on all of the above, we come to the conclusion that tsarism sought to solve the problem of preserving and strengthening the existing system.
According to the conservatives of the Nicholas era, there were no reasons for revolutionary upheavals in Russia. As the head of the Third Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own office, A.Kh. Benckendorf, “Russia’s past was amazing, its present is more than magnificent, as for its future, it is above everything that the wildest imagination can draw.” In Russia it became almost impossible to fight for socio-economic and political transformations. Attempts by Russian youth to continue the work of the Decembrists were unsuccessful. Student circles of the late 20s - early 30s. were few in number, weak and subject to defeat.
Russian liberals of the 40s. 19th century: Westerners and Slavophiles
In conditions of reaction and repression against revolutionary ideology, liberal thought received widespread development. In reflections on the historical destinies of Russia, its history, present and future, two most important ideological movements of the 40s were born. XIX century: Westernism and Slavophilism. Representatives of the Slavophiles were I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, Yu.F. Samarin and many others. The most outstanding representatives of Westerners were P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, A.I. Goncharov, T.N. Granovsky, K.D. Kavelin, M.N. Katkov, V.M. Maikov, P.A. Melgunov, S.M. Soloviev, I.S. Turgenev, P.A. Chaadaev and others. On a number of issues they were joined by A.I. Herzen and V.G. Belinsky.
Both Westerners and Slavophiles were ardent patriots, firmly believed in the great future of Russia, and sharply criticized Nicholas' Russia.
Slavophiles and Westerners were especially harsh against serfdom. Moreover, Westerners - Herzen, Granovsky and others - emphasized that serfdom was exclusively one of the manifestations of the arbitrariness that permeated all Russian life. After all, the “educated minority” suffered from unlimited despotism and was also in the “fortress” of power, of the autocratic-bureaucratic system. Criticizing Russian reality, Westerners and Slavophiles sharply diverged in their search for ways to develop the country. The Slavophiles, rejecting contemporary Russia, looked at modern Europe with even greater disgust. In their opinion, the Western world has outlived its usefulness and has no future (here we see a certain commonality with the theory of “official nationality”)
Slavophiles defended historical identity Russia and singled it out as a separate world, opposed to the West due to the peculiarities of Russian history, religiosity, and Russian stereotypes of behavior. Slavophiles considered it the greatest value Orthodox religion, opposed to rationalistic Catholicism. Slavophiles argued that Russians have a special attitude towards the authorities. The people lived, as it were, in a “contract” with the civil system: we are community members, we have my life, you are the government, you have my life. K. Aksakov said that the country has an advisory voice, the power of public opinion, but the right to make final decisions belongs to the monarch. An example of this kind of relationship can be the relationship between the Zemsky Sobor and the Tsar during the period of the Moscow State, which allowed Russia to live in peace without shocks and revolutionary upheavals, such as the Great french revolution. Slavophiles associated the “distortions” in Russian history with the activities of Peter the Great, who “cut a window to Europe,” violated the agreement, the balance in the life of the country, and led it astray from the path outlined by God.
Slavophiles often ᴏᴛʜᴏϲᴙt to political reaction due to the fact that their teaching contains three principles of “official nationality”: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. It should be noted that the Slavophiles of the older generation interpreted these principles in a different sense: by Orthodoxy they understood a free community of Christian believers, and they viewed the autocratic state as an external form that allows the people to devote themselves to the search for “inner truth.” Under this, the Slavophiles defended the autocracy and did not attach much importance to the cause of political freedom. Despite all this, they were convinced democrats, supporters of the spiritual body of the individual. When Alexander II ascended the throne in 1855, K. Aksakov presented him with a “Note on the internal state of Russia.” In the “Note” Aksakov reproached the government for suppressing moral freedom, which led to the degradation of the nation; he pointed out that extreme measures can only make the idea of political freedom popular among the people and generate a desire to achieve it through revolutionary means. In order to prevent such a danger, Aksakov advised the tsar to grant freedom of thought and speech, and also to bring back to life the practice of convening Zemsky Sobors. The ideas of providing the people with civil rights and the abolition of serfdom occupied an important place in the works of the Slavophiles. It is not surprising because censorship often subjected them to persecution and prevented them from freely expressing their thoughts.
Westerners, unlike the Slavophiles, Russian originality was assessed as backwardness. From the perspective of Westerners, Russia, like most others Slavic peoples, for a long time was, as it were, out of history. They saw the main merit of Peter I in the fact that he accelerated the process of transition from backwardness to civilization. Peter's reforms for Westerners are the beginning of Russia's movement into world history.
With all this, they understood that Peter’s reforms were accompanied by many bloody costs. Herzen saw the origins of most of the most disgusting features of contemporary despotism in the bloody violence that accompanied Peter's reforms. Westerners emphasized that Russia and Western Europe are following the same historical path, therefore Russia should borrow the experience of Europe. We should not forget that they saw the most important task in achieving the liberation of the individual and creating a state and society that would ensure this liberation. Westerners considered the “educated minority” to be a force capable of becoming the engine of progress.
Despite all the differences in assessing the prospects for Russia's development, Westerners and Slavophiles had similar positions. Both of them opposed serfdom, for the release of peasants from the land, for the introduction of political freedoms in the country, and the limitation of autocratic power. They were also united by a negative attitude towards the revolution; they performed for the reformist path solutions to the main social issues of Russia. In the process of preparing the peasant reform of 1861, Slavophiles and Westerners entered into a single camp liberalism. The disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles were of great importance for the development of socio-political thought. It is worth noting that they were representatives of the liberal-bourgeois ideology that arose among the nobility under the influence of the crisis of the feudal-serf system. Herzen emphasized the commonality that united Westerners and Slavophiles - “a physiological, unaccountable, passionate feeling for the Russian people” (“The Past and Thoughts”)
The liberal ideas of Westerners and Slavophiles took deep roots in Russian society and had a serious influence on subsequent generations of people who were looking for a path to the future for Russia. In disputes about the paths of development of the country, we hear an echo of the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles on the question of how the special and universal things fit together in the history of the country, what Russia will be - a country destined for the messianic role of the center of Christianity, the third Rome, or a country that is part of of all humanity, part of Europe, following the path of world-historical development.
Revolutionary democratic movement of the 40s - 60s. XIX century
30s - 40s of the 19th century. - the time of the beginning of formation in Russian socio-political life revolutionary democratic ideology. Its founders were V.G. Belinsky and A.I. Herzen.
Illustration 10. V.G. Belinsky. Lithograph by V. Timm based on a drawing by K. Gorbunov. 1843
Illustration 11. A.I. Herzen. Artist A. Zbruev. 1830s
It is worth noting that they sharply opposed the theory of “official nationality”, against the views of the Slavophiles, argued for the common historical development of Western Europe and Russia, spoke out for the development of economic and cultural ties with the West, and called for the use of the latest achievements of science, technology, and culture in Russia. At the same time, recognizing the progressiveness of the bourgeois system in comparison with the feudal one, they acted against the bourgeois development of Russia, replacing feudal exploitation with capitalist one.
Belinsky and Herzen become supporters socialism. After the suppression of the revolutionary movement in 1848, Herzen became disillusioned with Western Europe. At that time, he came to the idea that the Russian village community and artel contained the beginnings of socialism, which would find its realization in Russia sooner than in any other country. Herzen and Belinsky considered the main means of transforming society class struggle And peasant revolution. Herzen was the first in the Russian social movement to embrace the ideas utopian socialism, which became widespread at that time in Western Europe. Herzen's theory Russian communal socialism gave a powerful impetus to the development of socialist thought in Russia.
The ideas of a communal structure of society received further development in looks N.G. Chernyshevsky. The son of a priest, Chernyshevsky in many ways anticipated the appearance of raznochintsy in the social movement of Russia. If before the 60s. In the social movement, the main role was played by the noble intelligentsia, then by the 60s. arises in Russia common intelligentsia(raznochintsy - people from various classes: clergy, merchants, philistines, minor officials, etc.)
In the works of Herzen and Chernyshevsky, a program of social transformations in Russia was essentially formed. Chernyshevsky was a supporter of the peasant revolution, the overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of a republic. It provided for the liberation of peasants from serfdom and the abolition of landownership. The confiscated land was to be transferred to peasant communities for its distribution among the peasants according to fairness (the egalitarian principle). The community, in the absence of private ownership of land, periodic redistribution of land, collectivism, and self-government, was supposed to prevent the development of capitalist relations in the countryside and become a socialist unit of society.
In 1863, on charges of writing a leaflet “To the lordly peasants from their well-wishers...” N. G. Chernyshevsky was sentenced to seven years of hard labor and permanent settlement in Siberia. Only towards the end of his life, in 1883, was he released. While in pretrial detention in Peter and Paul Fortress, he narrated the famous novel “What is to be done?”, which, due to a censor’s oversight, was published in Sovremennik. More than one generation of Russian revolutionaries was later brought up on the ideas of this novel and the image of the “new man” Rakhmetov.
The program of communal socialism was adopted by the Narodniks, the Socialist Revolutionary Party. A number of provisions of the agrarian program were included by the Bolsheviks in the “Decree on the Land”, adopted by the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets. The ideas of Herzen and Chernyshevsky were perceived differently by their supporters. The radically minded intelligentsia (primarily students) regarded the idea of communal socialism as a call to immediate action, while the more moderate part of it regarded it as a program for gradual advancement.
In the second quarter of the 19th century, as a reaction to the Decembrist movement and revolutionary movements in Europe (revolutions of the 1820-30s), the official ideology of autocracy took shape, which was called "the theory of official nationality "(protective ideology), the theoretical basis of which was N.M. Karamzin’s “Note on Ancient and New Russia.” The main content of this “theory” boiled down to the affirmation of the political, social and religious identity of Russia. Traditionalism, conscious opposition to everything new, the desire to preserve established forms of the state - these are the distinctive features of protective ideology.
The social thought of Russia in these same years was greatly influenced by the widespread German classical philosophy, European liberalism, English political economy, and French utopian socialism. Philosophical circles emerged, mainly consisting of enlightened noble youth. Members of the circles paid special attention to the issues of understanding Russian reality on the basis of existing philosophical movements, as well as the problem of non-revolutionary changes in the existing political system. A significant role in this was played by the first “Philosophical Letter” of P. Chaadaev, published in 1836, in which the author tried to create a concept of the paths of development of Russia, completely contradicting the theory of the “official nationality”.
Chaadaev Petr Yakovlevich(1794-1856) was born into a noble family, lost his parents early, was brought up in the houses of the princes Shcherbatov (mother was the daughter of M.M. Shcherbatov). From 1808 to 1811 he studied at Moscow University. Participated in the Patriotic War and foreign campaigns. In 1814 he joined the Masonic lodge. In 1819 he became a member of the Union of Welfare, in 1821 - of the Northern Society, although he was never an active figure in them, and was very skeptical about the activities of the Decembrists themselves. Left in 1821 military service. In 1820-23 Chaadaev has a spiritual crisis and is completely immersed in the study of mystical literature. In 1823 he went abroad for treatment (England, France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany), where he remained until 1826. Upon returning to Russia, he was interrogated at the border in connection with the Decembrist case. In Moscow he led a reclusive life. In 1836 he published his first “Philosophical Letter”, after which he was declared insane by the highest order and subjected to house arrest with a complete ban on any publications. However, Chaadaev continued to study literary activity. Died almost all alone in Moscow in 1856
Major works: “Philosophical Letters”, “Apology for a Madman”.
P. Ya. Chaadaev in his works mainly examines the problems of the historical development of Russia. He claims that Russian history is “empty” and divorced from the history of other peoples. He saw the cause of all troubles in Orthodoxy with its idea of submission and renunciation from the world. He believed that any European version of Christianity could bring Russia more benefit than Orthodoxy, and cites as an example Catholicism, with its characteristic “life-giving principle of unity,” calling for the fight for the truth. As a result of the search for this truth, Western countries were able to “find freedom and prosperity.” Chaadaev argued that the Russian people did not make any significant contribution to human culture. But later, in his work “Apology for a Madman,” written as a response to accusations regarding this thesis, Chaadaev nevertheless expressed faith in the historical mission of Russia, which he saw in uniting the civilization of East and West.
“Philosophical Letters” of P. Chaadaev became the prologue of the “great controversy” Slavophiles and Westerners about the past, present and future of Russia, about its place in the world.
Slavophilism, as an independent ideological movement of Russian philosophical and social thought, took shape in the late 1830s. in Moscow. Its main representatives were A. S. Khomyakov, brothers K. S. and I. S. Aksakov, I. V. and P. V. Kireevsky, Yu. F. Samarin and others.
Theoretical basis– European romanticism, German classical philosophy in general, Russian Orthodoxy and the historical structure of Russia.
Key ideas:
1. They denied the need to borrow Western European forms of government based on popular representation and recognized Russia’s special, “original” path of historical development, free from the shortcomings and contradictions of the history of Western countries. They saw the identity of the Russian people in the spirituality of Orthodoxy (as opposed to Catholicism and Protestantism), in autocracy based on fair legislation.
2. They treated the individual features of Western culture that had already developed in Russia as a temporary evil that penetrated us from the era of Peter. Slavophiles called on society to fight this evil, seeing a complete opportunity for Russia to enter the path of independent development in the future and open a new era in the history of mankind.
3. On the issue of the origin of the Russian state, they were supporters Norman theory: the state was formed as a result of a voluntary agreement and the invitation of the leader of a foreign tribe.
4. Slavophiles are characterized by a moral approach to resolving political issues, an intention to reconcile the interests of all classes, and achieve social harmony.
5. Relations between the government and the people should be built on the principles of mutual non-interference, the state is obliged to protect the people and ensure their well-being, and the people are obliged to fulfill state demands.
6. They contrasted the full rights of the “individual” in the West with the subordination of the individual to society in Russia, and the principle of social unity, the embodiment of which they saw in the peasant community, against the struggle of classes.
By hyperbolizing certain national traits of the Russian people, the Slavophil movement objectively contributed to the isolation of Russia and the belittling of its status in the historical and cultural community of European states.
Westerners- liberal ideological movement of the 1840s-early. 1860s in Russia. The beginning of its formation dates back to 1839, when the Moscow circle of T. G. Granovsky was formed, which included K. D. Kavelin, P. Ya. Chaadaev, P. V. Annenkov, B. N. Chicherin and others.
The names “Westerners” and “Westernism” arose in the course of polemics with Slavophiles and were initially perceived by the Westerners themselves as an offensive nickname. The worldview of the Westerners differed sharply from both the “originality” of the Slavophiles and the prevailing theory of the “official nationality.”
Theoretical basis- views of Renaissance humanists, ideas of the European Enlightenment, German classical philosophy, recognition of the leading role of reason in knowledge, necessity philosophical understanding in the practical development of the surrounding reality.
Key ideas:
1. Orientation towards the European model of the state (which did not exclude their critical attitude towards the Western way of life and political system). This model was perceived by them only as a guideline for development, and not as an object of blind imitation. They considered it expedient to establish a constitutional monarchy in Russia.
2. They understood the historical process as a chain of irreversible, qualitative changes in individuals and society as a whole from worse to better. Therefore, Westerners considered Peter I one of the main figures Russian history, who led the country along the path of progress.
3. Upholding basic liberal values: freedom of speech and press, personal independence, publicity of government actions, openness of legal proceedings.
4. Negative attitude to the use of revolutionary violence to change the existing system, the implementation of urgent reforms by the state itself (most Westerners were monarchists).
5. Rejection of the idea of patriarchal unity of landowners and peasants, as well as the paternalism of the state in relation to its subjects.
Common features in the teachings of Slavophiles and Westerners. Representatives of both movements rejected violent methods of action and sought peaceful ways to transform Russian society. At the heart of their concepts was the desire for social and individual freedom, the achievement of which could only be achieved through peaceful reforms and reasonable compromises. They considered the main condition for the transformation to be the abolition of serfdom and the introduction of popular representation.
The circles of Slavophiles and Westerners disintegrated after the reforms of the 60s due to the fact that the main goal - the abolition of serfdom - was realized by the government, and the severity of disagreements lost its fundamental significance.