Social movement at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. Sociocultural aspects of Czech ideology

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Moscow State Institute of Electronics and Mathematics (Technical University) Department of History and Political Science POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES OF THE XIX – XX CENTURIES. LIBERALISM. CONSERVATISM. SOCIALISM Guidelines to study the courses “Political Science”, “Global Conflicts of New and Contemporary Times”, “ National history » Moscow 2004 2 Compiled by: Associate Professor, Ph.D. Larionova I.L. Political ideologies of the 19th – 20th centuries. Liberalism. Conservatism. Socialism: Method. recommendations for the courses “Political Science”, “Global Conflicts of New and Contemporary Times”, “National History” / Moscow. state Institute of Electronics and Mathematics; Comp. Associate Professor, Ph.D. Larionova I.L. M., 2004. P. 27. Recommendations are given for studying the topic “Political ideologies of the 19th – 20th centuries.” The recommendations can be used by students to prepare for seminars, tests and exams in the courses “Political Science”, “Global Conflicts of Modern and Contemporary Times”, “National History”. ISBN 5-94506-071-2 http://fe.miem.edu.ru 3 Liberalism. Conservatism. Socialism. General characteristics Liberalism, conservatism and socialism represent the “big” political worldviews of the 19th and 20th centuries. This means that any political doctrine of the designated period can be attributed to one of these ideologies - with a greater or lesser degree of validity. In any case, any political concept or party platform, any socio-political movement can be comprehended through a certain combination of liberal, conservative and socialist ideas. The “big” ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries were formed in the process of gradual erosion of traditional political worldviews – realistic, utopian and theocratic, which were the form of existence and development of specific political concepts since the 2nd millennium BC. to the 18th century. This erosion and, accordingly, the formation of new worldviews occurred during the 17-18 centuries, during the period of bourgeois revolutions - the English, North American and Great French. Therefore, liberalism, conservatism and socialism, which emerged in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. in Western Europe, represent different ways of understanding social reality as it developed in Europe and North America as a result of revolutions and the industrial revolution, and offer ways to improve bourgeois society or replace it with another socio-political system. Industrial and post-industrial societies, as stages of development of modern Western civilization, owe many of their features to the conscious efforts of liberal, social democratic, conservative (indirectly communist) parties, which transformed the world, trying to implement their political platforms. and programs. Thus, the concepts of liberalism, conservatism and socialism have many meanings. As a worldview, each of them has a certain philosophical basis and represents a certain way of understanding the world as a whole, first of all, society and the ways of its development. In this sense, the worldview of the 19th and 20th centuries. play a methodological role in the social sciences, acting as a tool for understanding political concepts and party platforms. As political ideologies, liberalism, conservatism and socialism paint a picture of the desired future and the main ways to achieve it. In other words, each ideology offers a certain model for the development of society, which seems optimal to its creators and supporters. It should be emphasized that political ideology is not a system of views in the strict sense of the word. It is a more or less interdependent set of concepts, principles and ideas that usually underlie the platforms of political parties. It follows that liberalism, conservatism and socialism are also a political program and political practice. So, the “big” http://fe.miem.edu.ru 4 political ideologies of the 19th-20th centuries are simultaneously methodology, theory, program and practice. There is a certain correspondence between this or that ideology, on the one hand, and the interests of certain classes and social strata, on the other. However, this correspondence is neither rigid nor immutable. Conservatism usually expresses the aspirations of large property owners, as well as broad sections of the population, the stability of whose social position is threatened as a result of certain changes that have occurred or are impending. Socialism represents the interests of the most disadvantaged part of society, or those who earn their living primarily through their labor. Liberalism is the ideology of political centrism. As a rule, broad sections of the bourgeoisie – middle and petty – adhere to liberal views. In a modern post-industrial society, where class affiliation ceases to determine a person’s place in life, the wealthiest are often conservatives, while the less wealthy share the principles of socialism. At the same time, all modern political parties usually claim that they express the interests of the people as a whole, offering a constructive program for rapid economic development and general welfare. Liberalism, conservatism and socialism have gone through a long path of development. Let's consider their main types and types. Liberalism The concept of “liberalism” appeared at the beginning of the 19th century. Initially, liberals were the name given to a group of nationalist deputies in the Cortes, the Spanish parliament. Then this concept entered all European languages, but with a slightly different meaning. The essence of liberalism remains unchanged throughout the history of its existence. Liberalism is an affirmation of the value of the human person, its rights and freedoms. From the ideology of the Enlightenment, liberalism borrowed the idea of ​​natural human rights, therefore, among the inalienable rights of the individual, liberals included and include the right to life, liberty, happiness and property, with the greatest attention paid to private property and freedom, since it is believed that property ensures freedom, which in turn is a prerequisite for success in the life of an individual, prosperity of society and the state. Freedom is inseparable from responsibility and ends where the freedom of another person begins. The “rules of the game” in society are fixed in laws adopted by a democratic state, which proclaims political freedoms (of conscience, speech, meetings, associations, etc.). The economy is a market economy based on private property and competition. Such an economic system is the embodiment of the principle of freedom and a condition for the successful economic development of the country. http://fe.miem.edu.ru 5 The first historical type of worldview containing the above-mentioned set of ideas was classical liberalism (late 18 - 70-80s of the 19th century). It can be considered as a direct continuation of the political philosophy of the Enlightenment. It is not for nothing that John Locke is called the “father of liberalism,” and the creators of classical liberalism, Jeremy Bentham and Adam Smith, are considered the largest representatives of the late Enlightenment in England. Throughout the 19th century, liberal ideas were developed by John Stuart Mill (England), Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville (France), Wilhelm von Humboldt and Lorenz Stein (Germany). Classical liberalism differs from the ideology of the Enlightenment, first of all, in the lack of connection with revolutionary processes, as well as a negative attitude towards revolutions in general and the Great French Revolution in particular. Liberals accept and justify the social reality that has developed in Europe after the Great French Revolution, and actively strive to improve it, believing in limitless social progress and the power of the human mind. Classical liberalism includes a number of principles and concepts. Its philosophical basis is the nominalistic postulate about the priority of the individual over the general. Accordingly, the principle of individualism is central: the interests of the individual are higher than the interests of society and the state. Therefore, the state cannot trample on human rights and freedoms, and the individual has the right to defend them against attacks by other individuals, organizations, society and the state. If we consider the principle of individualism from the point of view of its correspondence to the actual state of affairs, it should be stated that it is false. In no state can the interests of an individual be higher than public and state interests. The reverse situation would mean the death of the state. It is curious that this was first noticed by one of the founders of classical liberalism, I. Bentham. He wrote that “natural, inalienable and sacred rights have never existed” since they are incompatible with the state; “...citizens, demanding them, would ask only for anarchy...”. However, the principle of individualism played a role in highest degree progressive role in the development of Western civilization. And in our time, it still gives the individual the legal right to defend their interests in the face of the state. The principle of utilitarianism is a further development and concretization of the principle of individualism. I. Bentham, who formulated it, believed that society is a fictitious body consisting of individual individuals. The common good is also a fiction. The real interest of society is nothing more than the sum of the interests of its constituent individuals. Therefore, any actions of politicians and any institutions should be assessed solely from the point of view of the extent to which they contribute http://fe.miem.edu.ru 6 to reducing suffering and increasing the happiness of individual people. Constructing a model of an ideal society, according to I. Bentham, is an unnecessary and dangerous activity from the point of view of possible consequences. Nevertheless, based on the principles of individualism and utilitarianism, classical liberalism proposed a very specific model of society and state as optimal. The core of this model is the concept of social self-regulation developed by A. Smith. According to A. Smith, in a market economy based on private property and competition, individuals pursue their selfish interests, and as a result of their collision and interaction, social harmony is formed, which presupposes the effective economic development of the country. The state should not interfere in socio-economic relations: it is more likely to disrupt harmony than to contribute to its establishment. The concept of the rule of law corresponds to the concept of public self-regulation in the sphere of politics. The goal of such a state is formal equality of opportunity for citizens, the means is the adoption of relevant laws and ensuring their strict implementation by everyone, including government officials. At the same time, the material well-being of each individual person is considered his personal matter, and not the sphere of concern of the state. Alleviation of the extremes of poverty is expected through private charity. The essence of the rule of law is briefly expressed by the formula: “the law is above all.” The rule of law is a low-functional state, which is expressed in the concepts of “small state” or “minimum state.” Such a state ensures public order, that is, it fights crime and organizes the country’s defense from external enemies. In other words, this is a kind of “night watchman” who exercises his powers only in extraordinary situations. In the course of normal daily life and economic activity, the “small state” is invisible. “Minimum state” does not mean a weak state. Rather, on the contrary, only a sufficiently strong system of power is capable of ensuring strict observance of the “rules of the game” in society. But most of the creators of classical liberalism did not consider a strong state a value, since the totality of their views was largely directed against the violent social regulation, corporate and state, characteristic of feudal society. A legal “small state” must be secular. Classical liberalism advocated the separation of church and state. Supporters of this ideology considered religion to be a private matter of the individual. We can say that any liberalism, including classical liberalism, is generally indifferent to religion, which is not considered either a positive or a negative value. The programs of liberal parties usually included the following demands: separation of powers; approval of the principle of parliamentarism, that is, the transition to such forms of state organization in which the government is formed by parliament; proclamation and implementation of democratic rights and freedoms; separation of church and state. From the end of the 18th century to the first two decades of the 20th century, the initiative for social reform in the countries of Western civilization belonged to liberals. However, already at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, a crisis of liberalism began. Let's consider its reasons. The theory of social self-regulation has never fully corresponded to reality. The first crisis of overproduction occurred in England in 1825, that is, immediately after the completion of the industrial revolution. Since then, crises of this type have occurred periodically in all developed capitalist countries and have become an integral part of industrial society. Social harmony was also not observed. The struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie began in the 20s of the 19th century in England. Its first form was the Ludist movement, directed against the mechanization of production. Starting from the 30s of the 19th century, the forms of class struggle became more rational and diverse: economic and political strikes, the Chartist movement for the expansion of suffrage, armed uprisings in Leon and Silesia. Industrial society already in the first half of the 19th century showed itself to be deeply conflict-ridden and economically unstable. The contradictions between objective reality and liberal theory became obvious at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, when the capitalist mode of production moved into the monopoly stage. Free competition gave way to the dictates of monopolies, prices were determined not by the market, but by large firms that subjugated competitors, crises of overproduction became longer and more destructive, simultaneously affecting a number of countries. Working class struggle for decent life became more and more organized and efficient. Starting from the 60s of the 19th century, this struggle was led by social democratic parties, which initially declared their goal to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and the elimination of private ownership of the means of production. The need for state regulation of the economy and social conflicts became increasingly obvious. Under these conditions, the initiative for social reform began to gradually move to social democracy, which managed to develop in the 90s of the 19th century a fundamentally new program for improving bourgeois society, presupposing the rejection of dictatorship proletariat and the liquidation of private property. Another reason for the crisis of liberal ideology was, paradoxically, the success of liberal parties in realizing their political demands. At the end of the 19th and first decades of the 20th century, all the provisions of the political program of these parties were implemented and ultimately accepted by all major political forces and parties. Therefore, we can say that the undoubted merits of liberalism and liberal parties in establishing the basic principles and institutions of the modern democratic system contributed to the refusal of support for liberal parties from society: liberals had nothing to offer voters. Under these conditions, liberalism changed significantly and the second stage of its development began, associated with the emergence of social liberalism as a new historical type of liberal ideology. Social liberalism (late 19th – 70th years of the 20th centuries) absorbed some social democratic ideas, and, as a result, there was a rejection of some of the postulates of classical liberalism. The creators of social liberalism were such political thinkers as J. Hobbson, T. Green, L. Hobhouse (England), W. Repke, W. Eucken (Germany), B. Croce (Italy), L. Ward, J. Crowley , J. Dewey (USA). First of all, social liberalism included in the liberal doctrine the social-democratic idea of ​​state regulation of the economy (the economic concept of state regulation was developed by J.M. Keynes and is not socialist, although it was also used by social democrats), since under conditions of domination monopolies, the requirement of unlimited freedom of competition was adopted by the monopolists and acquired the function of protecting the interests of privileged segments of the population. Already at the end of the 19th century, liberal governments of European countries, one after another, began to pass antitrust laws prohibiting excessive concentration of property. The global economic crisis of the late 20s - mid-30s of the 20th century finally made the idea of ​​the possibility of an effective economy without regulatory government intervention a thing of the past. The second idea, borrowed by social liberalism from social democracy, is the idea of ​​social justice, understood as the right of everyone to a decent life. A concrete way of its implementation was also the broad social programs proposed by the Social Democrats, which involved the redistribution of profits from the rich to the poor through the system of state taxes. Social insurance for illness, unemployment, old age, insurance medicine, free education, etc. – all these programs, gradually introduced and expanded in http://fe.miem.edu.ru 9 countries of Western civilization during the late 19th - 70th years of the 20th century, existed and continue to exist thanks to the introduction of a progressive tax scale. This tax system means that people with more income or capital pay a higher percentage of that income or capital than people with less means of living. Social programs simultaneously promote economic development because they expand effective demand. Throughout the 20th century, liberal, and from the second half, social democratic or coalition (including social democrats and liberals) governments, steadily pursued policies aimed at raising living standards and increasing social protection of workers, which resulted in the creation of developed countries Western civilization of the so-called “welfare state”, from two thirds to three quarters of the population of which are able to satisfy all their reasonable needs. The rejection of the concept of public self-regulation inevitably led to a revision of ideas about the role of the state in society. The ideas of the “minimum state” and the “night watchman” state are a thing of the past. The concept of the rule of law has been transformed into the concept of a social state, which assumes that the state not only obeys existing laws and creates formally equal opportunities for all citizens, but also assumes social obligations: ensuring a decent standard of living for the population and its steady growth. The emergence of social liberalism did not mean overcoming the crisis of liberal ideology and liberal parties. Liberalism only adapted to new conditions. The popularity of liberal parties in Europe invariably fell throughout the 20th century, and after the Second World War, the initiative for social reform passed to the social democrats not only ideologically, but also in fact: the social democratic program for improving bourgeois society began to be implemented by social democratic or coalition governments. In the USA, liberals have not lost their positions. There, the corresponding program was carried out by the democratic (liberal) party. The beginning of the implementation of a program of this type is associated with the “new course” of President F. Roosevelt, who laid the foundations for the most constructive option for overcoming the crisis of the liberal social model . Since government regulation of the economy and social programs were carried out in the United States by a party of a liberal rather than a socialist type, the values ​​of solidarity and social justice were not as widespread in this country as in Europe, and partial nationalization of industry was never carried out, as a result of which The USA, unlike European countries, completely lacks a public sector of the economy. http://fe.miem.edu.ru 10 In the 70s of the 20th century, the model of society, which involved state regulation of a market economy based on private property, found itself in a state of crisis. Since the development of the basic principles of this model and its implementation were associated with the activities of social democrats and liberals, the ideology of social democracy and liberalism turned out to be responsible for the decline in economic growth, inflation and unemployment, and the initiative for social reform passed to the neoconservatives who managed to propose a new social model. As a result, liberal ideology changed again, this time under the influence of neoconservatism. Modern liberalism has emerged (from the late 70s of the 20th century to the present day), represented by social liberalism, which has adopted a number of neoconservative ideas, and neoliberalism, which can be defined as the resurrection of the basic principles of classical liberalism in the conditions of the late 20th century. The ideological basis of modern liberalism is the concept of social self-regulation developed by the founders of classical liberalism and adopted by neoconservatives. The leading direction of liberalism at present is modern social liberalism, the most famous representative of which is the German sociologist and political scientist R. Dahrendorf. Similar ideas are developed in their works by the German liberals F. Schiller and F. Naumann. This ideological and political construction generally occupies a middle position between social democracy and neoconservatism. There remains a commitment to such important postulates of social liberalism as state regulation of the economy and state programs of social assistance to the poorest segments of the population. Moreover, many representatives of this current of modern liberal thought believe that only state intervention in the economic and social spheres can smooth out social, class and ethnic conflicts and protect society of the late 20th and early 21st centuries from revolutionary upheavals. At the same time, realizing Negative consequences overly expanded bureaucracy and excessive state regulation in the socio-economic sphere, modern social liberals advocate stimulating market mechanisms while simultaneously reducing the regulatory role of the state, which corresponds to the principles of neoconservatism. However, advocating a certain limitation of government intervention in non-political spheres of public life, modern adherents of social liberalism certainly emphasize that the desire to solve economic problems without taking into account the social component is not social liberalism, but social Darwinism. Eco- http://fe.miem.edu.ru

Development of political ideas at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries

The political teachings that emerged during this period formed the basis of modern Western political science, which cannot be imagined without the ideas, theories, and concepts of the German sociologist M. Weber (1864-1920).

M. Weber considered bureaucracy to be the most effective system of state organization. Its effectiveness is based on a strict division of responsibilities, professionalism and discipline. He highlighted the characteristic features of the ideal type of bureaucracy: 1) division of labor determined by rules and laws; 2) the order of subordination of lower-level officials to higher-level ones; 3) appointment of employees on the basis of professional qualifications, as indicated in the diploma, and not election of them; 4) salaries of employees corresponding to their rank; 5) work in a government agency is the main occupation of employees; 6) the employee is not the owner of the institution in which he works; 7) removal of an employee from a position is the prerogative of a superior, etc. the presence of such rules ensures uniformity in activities government agencies, clearly defines the responsibility of each state institution. These rules limit the arbitrariness of a boss in relation to a subordinate and eliminate personal hostility, resentment, and sympathy from official relations.

It should be noted that the rational bureaucracy is just the social group that carries out in practice the executive, managerial function of the state. Its task is not to make political decisions, but to carry out the orders of the political elite. In those cases when the bureaucracy managed, focusing exclusively on its own interests, to monopolize and concentrate state power in its hands, it turned from a rational one into a totalitarian bureaucracy, as evidenced by the history of many countries not only in antiquity, the Middle Ages, and modern times, but also already in the 20th century. As a result, fascist, Nazi, militaristic, etc. were established in a number of countries. dictatorship (its specific form depended on what forces this or that totalitarian bureaucracy relied on and what ideology it used to justify its dominance).

Main directions of development of Russian political thought

The noticeable lag in the development of political theory and practice in Russia from advanced Western countries does not at all mean the absence of original political ideas and teachings in the centuries-old history of the country. History of Russian and Western political thought has both similarities and significant differences. These differences were determined by the cultural environment in which Russian political thought developed, as well as by the influence of a number of other factors, such as geographical location, climatic conditions, external environment, etc. The choice of topical issues of public life, the search for ways and means of solving them were determined by the specific vision of the world that has developed in Russian culture.

This special worldview was associated with Orthodoxy. The divine nature of power in Orthodoxy was organically combined with the unique Russian tradition - conciliarity, which was generated by the very conditions of existence and development of ancient Russian society. The basis of the social organization of society was the community. Sobornost presupposed a collective search for truth, the sovereignty of the majority, and excluded the existence of an autonomous individual. Thus, conciliarity fueled the authoritarian nature of the prince’s power, since strong power was needed to suppress opposition to the opinion of the majority. Consequently, the strength of government and the state was determined not only by their divine character, but also by the agreement between rulers and subjects.

By virtue of geographical location country (Russia is located between the West and the East), Russian political thought in its development experienced a noticeable, sometimes decisive influence of Western and Eastern thought: initially - Byzantium, and starting from the 17th century. - west. The influence of Western ideas was expressed in the emergence of the ideological and political movement of “Westerners”, in their borrowing of many liberal values. However, this did not mean at all that Russia did not try to find its own original path of political, and more broadly, historical development. The symbol that expressed the identity of the people and at the same time served their cohesion and unity was the Russian idea. It became one of the central ideas of political theories, which was reflected in the formation of a wide movement of Slavophiles.

The influence of the ideas of the French Enlightenment. From the 17th century the influence of the religious worldview on the development of political thought is gradually weakening, it is becoming more independent. This process was affected by a certain influence of the ideas of the French Enlightenment, although it was not absolute. Many ideas of the Enlightenment, and above all such as the ideas of separation of powers, social contract, natural individual rights, etc., could not take root in Russian public consciousness. However, the rationalization of political thought and its rapprochement with science became an increasingly noticeable trend in its development. First of all, this was reflected in the fact that power was no longer considered solely as a Divine gift.

From the point of view of supporters of the idea of ​​enlightened absolutism V.N. Tatishcheva (1686-1750), I.T. Pososhkov (1652-1726) and others, the state is a means of ensuring the common good, the main condition for the preservation of life and the continuation of the human race. The state listens to the intelligence of its subjects and rules based on a well-developed and strictly enforced set of laws. True, they still placed the supreme bearer of power (the monarch) above citizens and classes, justifying any of his actions. However, they explained this justification by the fact that the ruler himself is an enlightened monarch, the ruler is a sage.

An associate of Peter I, a prominent church figure, Feofan Prokopovich (1681-1737), tried to combine the divine essence of power with its reasonable use to realize the natural rights of the people. In his opinion, the state is the result of a conscious unification of people; at the inspiration of God, the people themselves transferred power to the monarch. And since God has placed the monarch above the people and the law, then no one has the right to limit his power or terminate the agreement between the monarch and the people. F. Prokopovich considered the best form of government to be an absolute monarchy, which can be either hereditary or elective. More effective, in his opinion, hereditary form, since the reigning monarch sought to pass on a prosperous state to his heir.

However, not without the obvious influence of Enlightenment ideas, criticism of the concept of enlightened absolutism grew. It was accompanied by the emergence of ideas of limiting absolute power, introducing the principles of constitutionalism and parliamentarism. Therefore, in the development of political thought in Russia, three directions can be distinguished: liberal, conservative and radical.

Liberal political thought. Liberalism as a political ideology was based on the supremacy of individual rights and freedoms over the interests of the state and society. In Russia, the socio-economic (the presence of an independent individual, the middle class) and political-legal (civil society, the rule of law) conditions for the development of liberalism were absent during the period under review. This explains the specific forms of its evolution and the limited nature of its influence on political thought and practice of Russian statehood. Liberalism in Russia was represented by various directions.

The founder of protective liberalism was law professor B.N. Chicherin (1828-1904). Actively developing the liberal idea of ​​the rule of law, he advocated the rule of law, which limits all power. However, B.N. Chicherin did not share the idea of ​​natural and inalienable rights, since, as he imagined, this could lead to anarchy. He believed that rights were given by the state. His political ideal was a constitutional monarchy, created by borrowing the principles and forms of political institutions from the West.

Moscow University professor P.I. went somewhat further in his thinking. Novgorodtsev (1866-1924). He developed the idea of ​​a welfare state, as he was convinced that the right to a decent human existence should be guaranteed by the state. According to the scientist, freedom is possible only if there are material conditions for its actual implementation. P.I. Novgorodtsev was one of the founders of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Russia (Kadets).

Russian conservatism. Orientation towards Western values, the desire for reforms of the advanced part of Russian society (entrepreneurs, intellectuals) also gave rise to the opposite trend - increased conservatism. Conservatism reflected the desire to preserve traditions, customs, and identity. The ideological and political movement, whose participants tried to substantiate the fundamental differences in the development of Russia and the West, was called “Slavophiles.” Representatives and supporters of this movement idealized the historical past of the country, the Russian national character, and the uniqueness of the historical path of Russian society, which they explained by the presence of a common idea (the Russian idea). But the content of the Russian idea was interpreted differently by its various adherents. Accordingly, two directions in Slavophilism can be distinguished: 1) orthodox-reactionary and 2) reform-oriented.

Representatives of the first direction were the Minister of Education, Count S.S. Uvarov (1786-1855), historian N.M. Karamzin (1766-1826), chief prosecutor of the Senod K.P. Pobedonostsev (1827-1905).

The merit of defining the principles of the concept of Slavophilism belongs to Count S.S. Uvarov, who expressed the meaning of Slavophilism with the formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” The Slavophiles justified their confidence that it was impossible to transfer Western political institutions to Russia and implement reforms by the deep religiosity of the people, moral unity, and devotion to the autocracy. Order in the country, they believed, rests on faith in power. If faith disappears, then the state will disappear. That is why it is necessary to preserve autocracy.

The main ideologist of the second, reform-oriented direction in Slavophilism was A.S. Khomyakov (1804-1860). Representatives of this trend (I.V. Kireevsky, P.V. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov, I.S. Aksakov, A.I. Koshelev) did not deny the need for reforms, advocated the abolition of serfdom, the provision of certain freedoms to Russian citizens, in particular, free expression of public opinion, and some others. However, they considered the European way of transforming society to be disastrous for Russia, since, as they argued, it would destroy the spiritual unity of its people. A. S. Khomyakov connected the originality of the Russian people with conciliarity, which, in his opinion, ensures the spiritual integrity of the Russian state, internal harmony and unanimity in it, and people’s love for each other. Subsequently, writer F.M. Dostoevsky (1821-1881) noted forgiveness, asceticism, universal love, and humility among the distinctive features of the Russian people.

Political radicalism. Faith in the independence of Russia and its special path of development as a whole did not contradict the idea of ​​​​a revolutionary reorganization of society. The conditions for the spread of radical ideas of social transformation in Russia existed: a low standard of living for a significant mass of the population, a noticeable gap in the incomes of various groups of society, class privileges for some and restrictions for others, lack of civil and political rights, etc. The idea of ​​a revolutionary overthrow of the autocracy has been brewing for a long time, and it was first formulated in the form of a theory by the writer and philosopher A.N. Radishchev (1749-1802) - the founder of the revolutionary tradition in Russia, a supporter of the establishment of a republican democratic system.

Instead of a monarchy, he proposed popular government in the form of a voluntary federation of free cities, following the example of ancient Novgorod and Pskov. Democratic people's government, according to A.N. Radishchev, corresponds to “human nature”, since it is based on the principles of popular sovereignty and the inalienability of natural individual rights. In his opinion, the federation should be headed by worthy people nominated by the people.

After A.N. Radishchev's idea of ​​revolutionary reconstruction was sought to be realized by the Decembrists. Monarchy, according to the project of P.I. Pestel (1793-1826), must give way to republican rule, guaranteeing natural rights and individual freedoms. He denied the principle of separation of powers, but believed that the highest bodies of power (People's Assembly, State Duma, Supreme Council) should be formed through universal suffrage.

In the second half of the 19th century. Russian political thought was significantly influenced by European socialism and anarchism. This activated those forces in Russia that denied the established forms of statehood. However, now representatives of radical political thought began to pay more attention not so much to the formation of ideals of government, but to the determination of means of realizing their ideals.

Revolutionaries - democrats V.G. Belinsky (1811-1848), A.I. Herzen (1812-1870), N.G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889), D.I. Pisarev (1840-1868) insisted on armed uprising as the only means of achieving autocracy.

They argued that it should be a peasant revolution whose goal was to establish a "social republic" with the people supreme. The revolutionary democrats considered the peasant community to be the basis of the future economic and political system, although, we note, even at that time it did not represent unified education, but delaminated. According to N.G. Chernyshevsky, in a “social republic” legislative power should belong to the people, and the government should be responsible to them. The people, represented by the People's Assembly, control the executive branch.

Dislike of Western liberalism and constitutionalism that have developed state institutions, autocracy is clearly visible in Russian anarchism. The most famous representatives of anarchism M.A. Bakunin (1814-1876) and P.A. Kropotkin (1842-1921) proceeded from the thesis: the state is evil because it interferes with the natural existence of people.

Anarchy, according to M.A. Bakunin, is “a free union of agricultural and factory workers’ partnerships, communities, regions and peoples and, finally, in the more distant future, a universal brotherhood, triumphant on the ruins of all future states.” Therefore M.A. Bakunin criticized K. Marx's idea of ​​the dictatorship of the proletariat, considering it only a new form of suppression of one part of society by another.

P.A. Kropotkin called the ideal of the future structure of society “anarchist communism,” by which he understood a free union of self-governing communities. In his opinion, such a union should be based on free mutual agreements of people, over whom no supreme central power dominates. Anarchists sharply criticized the ideas of state socialism, emphasized the corrupting influence of power on the individual, and demanded justice and respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual. It is this criticism that determines their significance in the history of Russian political thought in the period under review.

Main features of the development of industrial civilization.

In the 19th century, the world developed under the influence of the industrial revolution, which radically transformed the productive forces of society and ensured the acceleration of its socio-economic progress. Europe, which carried out this revolution first, took a dominant position in the world, subjugating all continents. It remained as an economic and political center until the middle of the 20th century, when the modern scientific and technological revolution took place.

The Industrial Revolution in the West also gave rise to its own ideology. It included various theories of political and economic liberalism, which were based on the equality of all people before the law; the absolute value of the human person; property and freedom of action within the framework of the law; protection of private life from government interference, etc. The economic doctrine of liberalism was based on the ideology of free competition and hoarding.

The Industrial Revolution in European countries took place in different time. It provided for a transition from an economic system based on agricultural production and partly trade, to an industrial-type economy, which is characterized by the predominance of urban industry (squeezing out manual labor machine, achieving a higher level of division of labor, factory production instead of manufacturing).

The factory system brought with it the intensification of labor, an increase in working hours, a decrease in wages due to the widespread involvement of women and children in production, and complete lack of rights for workers. Hence their craving for utopian ideas and sectarian ideology. Under the influence of the contradiction that arose between wage labor and capital in the 40s. the first attempt is made to connect the growing labor movement with scientific theory - Marxism.

The 19th century can be defined as the era of the unconditional victory of capitalism in developed countries. Already in the first half of the century, the possibilities of economic development inherent in capitalism were clearly manifested, which allowed K. Marx and F. Engels to write in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848): “The bourgeoisie in less than a hundred years of its class rule has created more numerous and greater productive forces than all previous generations put together." In the 19th century The steamship and railway, automobile and airplane, radio and telephone, telegraph appear, and scientific discoveries of the last third of the century led to the creation of new industries - electrical engineering, chemical industry, mechanical engineering, oil production and oil refining. Thus, technological progress, based on scientific discoveries, for the first time became a direct factor in economic development. At the same time, the internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production became increasingly clear. Partial crises of overproduction in individual industries were replaced by cyclical ones, covering all industry, trade and financial sector. The first such crisis erupted in England in 1825, ushering in a history of regularly recurring crises.

From the point of view of the modern theory of modernization, developed by Western scientists in the conditions of scientific and technological revolution, the 19th century should be called the century of modernization, that is, the time of transition of society from a traditional agrarian state to a modern industrial one. The concept of political modernization is usually called the process of formation of a representative democratic system and the rule of law, under which in the 19th century. was understood as a state that recognized “the totality of freedoms inherent in the parliamentary system” and “with limited access to the lower classes to participate in the elections of legislators.”

The process of political modernization in Europe in the 19th century. It was difficult, it depended on many factors and had different results in different countries. In countries such as England, the USA, partly France, Belgium and Sweden in the 19th century. Elements of civil society and representative democracy have established themselves, although political modernization has yet to achieve decisive victories. And in countries such as Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, it was just beginning. This process is world-historical, since sooner or later all countries are included in it. Based on the chronology, intensity and effectiveness of industrialization, they are divided into three echelons of capitalist development. The first echelon includes Western countries, the second - countries of average development (including Russia, in particular), the third - countries of the so-called third world.

Russia entered the 19th century as the first European power in terms of population. According to the census of 1795, on an area of ​​17.4 million square meters. km lived 37.4 million people belonging to different national and religious groups. Ukrainians, Belarusians, Turkic-speaking and Finno-Ugric peoples lived side by side with the most numerous Russian people. Russia was an agrarian country with an archaic economic system and feudal-serf relations. About 90% of the total population were peasants, approximately 2% were nobles. The Russian economy was extensive. The brake on the path of the country's socio-economic development was not only the serfdom system, but also objective factors: natural, climatic, geographical and demographic. The colonization of ever new territories, low population density, and the unsuitability of many lands for agricultural production slowed down and complicated the processes that took place in the West under more favorable conditions.

Socio-political movements and parties of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in Russia.

The process of industrialization was contradictory. The extremely increased regulatory role of the state under Alexander III, which corresponded to the political doctrine of the emperor, resulted not only in support of private initiative, but often became an obstacle to the natural development of domestic entrepreneurship. And started in the 80s. The political reaction led to counter-reforms, which were a unique form of stagnation, when reforms not only did not develop, but were preserved. This caused concern among a significant part of society, which could cause a social explosion in the country.

The most prominent advocate of the idea of ​​a liberal renewal of autocracy,” which constituted an entire era in the history of Russian political thought, K. D. Kavelin wrote in 1882: Almost everyone is convinced that the autocracy has ended its days... A new period of Russian history begins in illness and pain!

Indeed, post-reform Russia has become a school of citizenship and a new political culture. Belief in the historical destiny of Russia, combined with the assimilated and reworked ideas of Western European socialist thought, served as the basis for populism - the Russian version of peasant socialism.

The founder of Russian socialism, as is known, was A. I. Herzen, who saw in the peasant community the embryo of a just structure of future life. This position was further developed by P. G. Chernyshevsky, who in many ways anticipated the emergence of the “new people” of Russia - commoners. However, the ideas of communal socialism needed to be developed in conditions of increasing opposition among the intelligentsia / the term appeared in Russia in the 1960s. XIX century/ and students. The revolutionary populism of the 60-70s tried to develop this task. The ideologists of its three directions - P. L. Lavrov /propagandists/, “apostle of anarchism” M. A. Bakunin /rebels/, P.N. Tkachev /conspirators/ were looking for new approaches in developing the problem of implementing a social revolution in Russia.

A significant role in the development of the theory of populism, which for many years became dominant in the liberation movement, was played by the intense polemics between Slavophiles and Westerners. Their clash over the cardinal issue of that time: which path Russia should take into the future - using the experience of its thousand-year development or taking into account the achievements of Western culture - served as a prerequisite for the synthesis of populist views. It should be noted that despite all the differences in approaches to this issue, both Westerners and Slavophiles were united in one thing - patriotism, ardent love for the Motherland, and the desire to find an ideal social order.

Having gone through a long and difficult process of formation and development, populism made a contribution to the world socio-political system.

The ideas of proletarian socialism were developed by Marxists. The capitalist development of post-reform Russia, the disintegration of the community, the downtroddenness and lack of culture of the peasantry encouraged thinking people to study Marxist theory. In 1883, the first Russian Marxist group, “Emancipation of Labor,” emerged in Geneva under the leadership of G. V. Plekhanov, which set the goal of promoting and spreading Marxism in Russia. Number of supporters Marxist theory grew more and more in the country, which led to the organization of the first social democratic circles: in the capital, D. N. Blagoev created the “Party of Russian Social Democracy /1884-1885/.” P. V. Tochissky - “Association of St. Petersburg Craftsmen” /1885-1888/.

Along with this, works began to appear in the press, causing lively debate between Marxists and populists. “Legal Marxist” P. B. Struve wrote an openly apologetic article in which he called for people to go to the rescue of capitalism. The most thorough criticism of “legal Marxism” from the standpoint of left-wing populists was given by N.K. Mikhailovsky on the pages of the magazine “ Russian wealth“He wrote: “... Russia will develop its capitalist production with all its internal contradictions, with the devouring of small capitals by large ones,” and in the meantime, the peasant cut off from the land will turn into a proletarian, “socialize” and the matter will be in the bag, which is all that remains to put on the head of happy humanity." At the same time, Mikhailovsky did not rule out that “..this Russian Marxism in a very short time... will give way to other, healthier trends. And his prediction came true. Already at the end of 1894, a young, little-known V. I. Ulyanov came forward with his interpretation of Marx’s theory. The focus of his attention was on the same questions that at one time were posed but not resolved by Plekhanov: capitalism in Russia, the fate of various classes, estates, socio-political theories in the conditions of the capitalist development of the country (and it was an objective reality). In the mid-90s. Lenin creates the “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class” in St. Petersburg.

In 1898, at the 1st Congress of Russian Social Democrats in Minsk, the creation of an all-Russian party was announced instead of scattered Social Democratic circles. However, the party was not tactically organized, since its charter and program were not developed and adopted. Therefore, Lenin took up the task of creating a party, starting the publication of the illegal all-Russian newspaper Iskra, the first issue of which was published abroad in Stuttgart on the very eve of the twentieth century, in December 1900. Groups of like-minded people united around Iskra, which created in 1903 g. “Russian Social Democratic workers' party(RSDLP).

In May 1990, at the First All-Russian Monarchical Congress in Moscow, the Orthodox Russian Monarchical Order-Union (PRAMOS), which had been in force since 1924, was legalized. His main task in the new conditions was “to conquer the majority of today’s structures of political power in a peaceful, non-violent way to convene a Zemsky Sobor, which will call the “legitimate” Sovereign of the Russian House of Romanov to the Kingdom with all the rights of the Supreme Power.” The concept of “Russia” does not mean the Soviet RSFSR, but the single and indivisible Russian Empire. Only Orthodox believers are accepted into the party.

At the same time, members of PRAMOS do not recognize the Russian Orthodox Church, declaring their adherence to the right-wing monarchist foreign Orthodox Church, “not tainted by collaboration with the Bolsheviks.” Leader of PRAMOS - S. Engelhard - Yurkov.

In parallel with PRAMOS, the Orthodox Constitutional-Monarchical Party of Russia (PKMPR) was created. The Manifesto adopted at the congress puts forward three main tasks of the party: the revival of Russian Orthodoxy, the Orthodox Russian kingdom and a single and indivisible Russian Empire. The governing body of the party is the Synclite. The printed organ is the magazine “Orthodox Kingdom”.

The political movement “Marchical Rus'” arose in June 1991 in Moscow. The participants of the constituent assembly - representatives of national-patriotic and monarchist groups - in the adopted declaration appealed to Russians to “support the movement to restore historical justice in Rus'.” At the meeting, the question was raised about inviting Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich (proclaimed by the center-left, radical bloc of Russian Tsar Vladimir I) to come to Russia for his coronation. The leader of the movement was the chairman of the Russian National Monarchist Party, “regent of the Russian monarchy” A. Brumel. In subsequent years, the activity of the movement was reduced mainly to the distribution of certificates of noble dignity to certain political and public figures.

All of the above requires a deep and critical understanding of the history of the monarchical movement, an analysis of the objective reasons for its departure from the historical scene.

The territorial scope of the study includes the whole of Russia. Significant differences in the demographic, socio-economic and administrative nature of its individual regions make it possible to see the different strength of the Black Hundred movement within each region.

The chronological scope of the study covers the period from 1903 to the February Revolution of 1917. During the revolution of 1905-1907, the main political parties of a monarchical orientation were created, from the extreme right to the liberal-monarchist. During this period, the forces of the Black Hundred orientation were developing, interacting with the tsarist government, and developing forms and methods of influencing the masses. With the victory of the February Revolution, significant changes took place in the party forms of the Black Hundreds, their methods of struggle and tactical guidelines.

In medieval Rus', the “Black Hundred” was the name given to the tax-paying townspeople. Since ancient times, the trading and craft population of Russian cities was divided into hundreds, which were military-administrative units. They were called black because the properties that belonged to the Grand Duke as the head of state bore such a name. This name did not have any negative connotation. The derogatory nuance appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century, when, after almost two centuries of oblivion, this name reappeared. Representatives of right-wing monarchist organizations that had different programs, but whose main goal was the preservation of Russian autocracy, began to call themselves Black Hundreds. By calling themselves the “Black Hundred,” they thereby emphasized that they were defending statehood.

The sources from which the Black Hundreds emphasized their ideology had nothing to do with revolutionary ideas. The extreme right relied on the well-known three-part formula - “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality” - and used a number of postulates of Slavophilism. The most important thing that the extreme right took from the Slavophil teaching was a sharp contrast between Russia and the West, which meant Catholic and Protestant civilizations. Whereas Russia, in their opinion, is the creation of sovereigns and people based on the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

In contrast to the government’s policy aimed at the industrial modernization of the country, the extreme right argued that “economic policy should have as its guiding principle a view of Russia as a predominantly peasant and landowning country.” Democracy seemed to the Black Hundreds the most terrible evil that the Western world gave birth to. The extreme right was characterized by an absolute distrust of democratic values. Monarchists did not share the belief that individual freedom was paramount. In their view, a person has always been part of a community - a community, class, people. The Black Hundreds were skeptical of socialists of all directions who criticized bourgeois freedoms and promised the victory of true democracy after the socialist revolution. In contrast to democratic institutions, the Black Hundreds put forward the principle of absolute, individual power.

The first Black Hundred organizations appeared in Russia during the maturation of the first revolution. At that time they did not yet call themselves Black Hundreds, were not massive and existed illegally or semi-legally. Following the example of the revolutionaries, they reproduced their leaflets using the hectographic method. Information about illegal right-wing organizations is found in police reports along with information about revolutionary organizations and circles. As a party, the Black Hundreds emerged at the end of 1905, later than all other parties. Thus, the nobility reacted to the consolidation of other classes.

The government was not interested in grassroots initiatives, even right-wing ones. Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Plehve did not approve of Zubatov’s enthusiasm, much less the enthusiasm of organizations that were not accountable to anyone. They were not persecuted, but they were not cultivated either. The finest hour of the “Black Hundreds” came in 1905-1906 - the time of mass spontaneous movements. When previous methods - arrests, exile, prisons, even mass executions - no longer brought the desired results, the government decided to strangle the popular movement with the hands of the people themselves.

The closest allies of the Black Hundreds, as well as their patrons, were conservative government circles, courtiers, and right-wing members of the State Council. The Black Hundreds maintained close contacts with the Permanent Council of the United Nobility, formed in May 1906, and its leader, Count A. A. Bobrinsky. Cooperation with nationalists was also intense.

According to the Black Hundreds, Russia had three enemies that needed to be fought - the foreigner, the intellectual and the dissident, and they were perceived as inseparable. In a multinational empire it is impossible to fight the revolution without fighting the national liberation movement. It is impossible to hate the intelligentsia and at the same time love advanced ideas. The image of a foreigner was constantly maintained, but before it was a Pole, but now it has become a Jew. True, the Pole was considered an “unreliable” nation, but anti-Semitism became the dominant direction of right-wing ideology.

In the 19th century, a powerful liberation movement took place in Poland, and at the turn of the century there were massive national liberation movements of many peoples. And in Russia, the nation that was among the first to enter the stage of capitalism turned out to be the most powerless. Even V.V. Rozanov, who cannot be accused of loving the Jews, agreed with the intolerable situation of the Jews. It was because of this that Jewish youth were most involved in the national liberation movement, which also explained their interests: only after the overthrow of the autocracy and the conquest of democratic freedoms could Jews count on equal rights with other peoples. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the far-right camp believed that Jews were the main culprits of the revolutionary unrest, and the fact that there were Russians in this movement was explained by the strong influence of Jews. However, it must be taken into account that the influx of Jews into the advanced movements of the era was directly related to the assimilation process. During the “People's Will” there were not many revolutionaries of Jewish nationality, and all were Russified people.

Hatred of Jews was inextricably linked with hatred of one’s own Russian intelligentsia. Calling themselves “Russian patriots”, shouting at every step about their love for Russia, the Black Hundreds could not come to terms with the fact that they were not the ones serving the fatherland most brightly and talentedly. In turn, the intelligentsia, with its “softness” and humanity, could not accept the Black Hundred ideology. There is even a known case when in one of the provincial gymnasiums, students tried in a friendly court two high school students who took part in the pogrom. They were sentenced to leave the gymnasium, and both boys submitted to the harsh decision because it was a matter of honor.

But then there were people who could not give up their principles - the intelligentsia. None of the outstanding figures of Russian culture joined the Black Hundreds. But the anger against them was strong. “Christ-sellers, traitors to Russia, intellectual riffraff, Jewish lovers” - such “compliments” were awarded in the right-wing press to L. Tolstoy, A. Chekhov, M. Gorky, D. Merezhkovsky, L. Andreev.

The Black Hundred press was characterized by elements of age-related conservatism: distrust of youth, hostility to their tastes and sympathies. The Black Hundreds opposed the passion for progressive ideas, against decadence, and sometimes against education, especially foreign education. Age conservatism was characteristic not only of the Black Hundreds, but every successive Black Hundreds had a low opinion of the youth of his day. The simplicity with which all troubles were attributed to the “internal enemy” made the Black Hundred ideology convenient for the philistine consciousness. The Black Hundreds offered nothing and promised nothing except to beat Jews, revolutionaries, liberals, and intellectuals. Therefore, the Russian peasantry turned out to be almost unaffected by the Black Hundred movement, since they understood that even if they killed all the Jews without exception, the land would still remain in the hands of the landowners. Besides, where can we find them, Jews, in the Pskov region or near Ryazan? Even in the western provinces, where there was more fertile ground for national discord, the Black Hundred movement began to decline towards the end of the revolution of 1905-1907. But still, the main bet of the Black Hundreds on the primitive incitement of interethnic hatred yielded results - pogroms began.

In the terrible days of the pogroms of 1905-1907, the Russian intelligentsia did not escape the blow that fell on the “enemies of Russia.” Intellectuals were beaten and killed in the streets, sometimes along with Jews. It was not difficult to identify the “traitors”: the youth wore student uniforms, and the adults wore departmental uniforms. For example, in Yekaterinburg, in October 1905, a crowd hostile to Jews and students attacked a group of young people organizing another peaceful rally. As a result of the massacre, 2 people were killed and 22 were wounded. Moreover, out of 24 victims, only 4 were Jews. The motives for the attack are known, which indicate the spontaneous nature of the crowd’s actions.

Contrary to popular belief, not all pogroms were prepared by Black Hundred organizations, which were still very small in number at that time. The feeling of preparedness for pogroms arose among contemporaries due to the massive nature of the riots and the inaction of the authorities, observed everywhere.

Although pogroms did not take place with equal activity throughout Russia. The Union of Black Hundreds - the Union of the Russian People - was active only in areas with a multinational population. In the provinces of the Central Black Earth Region, only less than one tenth of a percent of the population was included in the structures of the RNC, since there were no foreigners there and, therefore, objects of persecution. There was nothing for the Black Hundreds to do in Finland, Central Asia, the Baltic states and Transcaucasia: there the chauvinistic Great Russian propaganda was obviously doomed to failure. The RNC was most active in regions with a mixed population - in Ukraine, Belarus and 15 provinces of the “Pale of Settlement” more than half of all members of the RNC were concentrated. Here speeches of the following type were used: “... The Russian people, with open ears, listen to Jewish speakers and open their arms wide to them. The Russian intelligentsia, which sees itself as the leader of the Russian people, especially the young students, who have nothing in common with the bitter factory worker and the village plowman, but who fell under Jewish influence, also drew young people from the people into the midst of troublemakers...”

The source of all Russian troubles, according to the RNC, was the activities of Peter the Great and the foreign infection he brought.” Through the cut window, a through wind of the oldest European negation, paganism and rationality blew from the West into Europe... There is not or should not be a nationality, like-bloods and co-religionists, tribalism... - but there is cosmopolitanism; and millions of leaflets, and the thousand-mouthed propaganda of Europeans and Jews darken and fog the Russian people's consciousness... From now on, not everyone in your house has become your brothers, sons, fathers and grandfathers: you are deceived by a foreigner, oppressed by a foreigner, offended by a foreigner. The time has come to defend yourself at home...” In other words, to put an end to “the web in which monarchs and peoples, empires and republics are suffocating, exhausted, the life juices of which are being sucked out by ruthless and greedy spiders: the Jewish Freemasons.”

As you know, all parties and movements were famous for their special favorite tactics: the Socialist Revolutionaries - with individual terror, the Social Democrats - with strikes, the Cadets - with speeches in the State Duma. The Black Hundreds have a monopoly on pogrom tactics. It was the pogroms that were the culminating moments of all their actions, the main review of forces and the most radical means of fighting the revolution.

It was impossible to completely extinguish the people's anger in 1905-1906, but replacing the object of hatred and directing the anger in a different direction was salutary for the monarchy. Pogroms had occurred in Russia before, but only in the 20th century did they acquire political overtones, and only in the 20th century did they become a tactic of a political movement. The most common were Jewish pogroms, but in the Caucasus the “duties” of Jews were performed by Armenians, and in deep Russia by Russian intellectuals and students. For example, at the beginning of February 1905, a brutal Armenian pogrom broke out in Baku, followed by beatings of students and high school students in Moscow, Tambov, Kazan, Kursk, Pskov and other cities.

The Socialist Revolutionary Party occupied one of the leading places in the system of Russian political parties. It was the largest and most influential non-Marxist socialist party. Its fate was more dramatic than the fate of other parties. 1917 was a triumph and a tragedy for the Socialist Revolutionaries. In a short time after the February Revolution, the party became the largest political force, reached the millionth mark in its numbers, acquired a dominant position in local governments and most public organizations, and won elections to the Constituent Assembly. Its representatives held a number of key positions in the government.

Her ideas of democratic socialism and a peaceful transition to it were attractive. However, despite all this, the Social Revolutionaries were unable to resist the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks and organize a successful fight against their dictatorial regime.

Features of the protection of historical monuments at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.

The protection of historical monuments at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries is of no small importance in preserving the cultural heritage of our country. Historical and architectural monuments of that era are currently in danger. Urbanization, ecological problems, intensive construction, and “tourist load” sometimes jeopardize the very existence of historical monuments.

Many historical monuments of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries were damaged as a result of world and civil wars, local conflicts and terrorist attacks.

Some architectural monuments often find themselves in areas of active development, demolition and redevelopment, or are used as residential and non-residential assets, which also threatens their safety.

Historical documents and material assets of that era are mainly found in museums, but they also often end up in private hands through auctions and antique shops.

“Russian culture of the 19th century” - Attempts are being made to introduce color into sculpture. Cinema was part of everyday life. The science. Manifesto October 17, 1905 introduced, albeit incomplete, freedom of the press. Many literary trends were born and developed. Kazansky railway station in Moscow. IN late XIX- early 20th century Russian science reaches the forefront.

“Russian culture of the 19th century” - Choose from the following names of the Russian writer, author of the novel “Demons” V.G. Korolenko; I.S. Turgenev; F.M. Dostoevsky; L.N. Tolstoy. Task No. 4. Task No. 3. Russian composer, author of popular romances of the second half of the 19th century: Dargomyzhsky; Borodin; Mussorgsky; Chaikovsky. Round #2. N.M. Przhevalsky; G.N. Potanin; P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky; P.A. Kropotkin.

“Art of the 19th 20th century” - Symbolism. Impressionism in literature: Characteristic signs. French - P. Vchshen, Goncourt brothers, J.-C. Style: from French (impression - impression) originates in French painting. Modernism was one of the main movements of the first half of the 20th century. Henrik Ibsen is a Norwegian playwright. Creator of a new socio-psychological drama.

“Culture of the 19th century” - Tretyakov Gallery. Serov V. A. (1865-1911). Sculpture. "Above eternal peace." "Ship Grove". New in architecture. "Alyonushka." "Taj Mahal Mausoleum in Agra." The Russian artist is an outstanding master of landscape. Portrait of the writer A.I. Herzen. "Tea drinking in Mytishchi." Mansion of engineer Klodt. Itinerant plein air landscapes.

"Research of the 19th Century" - 1.1st Russian round-the-world expedition. I. Aivazovsky. F.F. Bellingshausen. Ice mountains in Antarctica. Russian history. I.F.Kruzenshtern. 4.Research Far East. Around the world expeditions made by V. Golovin-1807-11, F. Litke-1826-29 and compiled 50 cards. Russian America. M.P. Lazarev. G.I. Nevelskoy.

“Germany XIX-XX centuries” - PARLIAMENT (Reichstag). German Empire at the end XIX - early XX century. Bismarck Otto von Schönhausen (1815-1898). Lesson plan. The predominance of the export of capital rather than goods. New story. Modernization in the economy. Upper house. Imperialism is the highest stage of development of capitalism. Political structure of Germany.

Economic development of Russia at the beginningXXcentury. Social structure of Russian society at the beginning of the 20th century. The abolition of serfdom contributed to the rapid capitalization of the country and industrial development. The influence of reforms on the development of industry begins to be felt gradually by the 70-80s. But these bourgeois reforms could not be decisive and consistent because the ruling class was the feudal nobility, which had little interest in bourgeois reforms and their replacement. The main socio-economic issue - about land - was resolved not in favor of the largest layer of producers - the peasants. The robbed and ruined masses of the peasantry poured into the cities, exacerbating to the extreme the contradictions between labor and capital. A revolutionary situation arose. The slogan of the elimination of landownership became the slogan of the three Russian revolutions that followed.

Revolution 1905-1907 belongs to the late bourgeois revolutions, lasted 2.5 years and went through three stages: January-September 1905 - development of the revolution along an ascending line; October-December 1905 - the rise of the revolution; January 1906 - July 3, 1907 - retreat of the revolution. The revolution began on “Bloody Sunday” - January 9, 1905, when the government of Nicholas II shot a peaceful demonstration of thousands of workers in St. Petersburg. During this revolution, a new workers' power arose - the Soviets. Revolutionary sentiments spread to the peasantry, army and navy (June 1905 - uprising on the battleship Potemkin; uprising of the crew of the cruiser Ochakov, etc.).

The revolution of 1905 forced tsarism to make concessions and 6 August 1905 Nicholas II announced the establishment State Duma(Bulyginskaya - named after the Minister of Internal Affairs A.G. Bulygin). But this turned out to be insufficient and in the fall of 1905 the revolution entered the highest stage of its development. An All-Russian strike was organized. The total number of participants was 2 million people. No country in the world has seen such a grandiose performance. In a number of large industrial centers, the strike was accompanied by armed clashes between workers and police and troops. Panic began in the ruling circles. The councils of workers' deputies became the headquarters of the uprising and the organs of the new revolutionary government. However, the government managed to suppress scattered pockets of revolution.

In January 1906, the third stage began - the retreat of the revolution. As it progressed, the need arose to create organizations capable of fighting independently. Socialist parties were the first to be formed. In 1898, the First Congress of the RSDLP - the Russian Social Democratic Party, then the Lithuanian and Latvian Social Democratic Parties. Along with them, national parties began to emerge on the outskirts of the country, which put forward general democratic demands on the national question - Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Armenian, Georgian, Jewish. The emergence of Russian social democracy as an ideological movement is associated with the “Emancipation of Labor” group, created under the leadership of G.V. Plekhanov in 1883 in Geneva. In Russia in 1895, the “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class” was created, capable of leading the liberation struggle of the proletariat. The process of uniting Marxist organizations into a single party of the working class was completed II Congress of the RSDLP(Russian Social Democratic Labor Party) in 1903., at which a Program was adopted, in the spirit of the class struggle of the proletariat.

Revolution 1905-1907 was bourgeois-democratic in nature: the elimination of autocracy, landownership, the class system, inequality of nations, the establishment of a democratic republic, ensuring democratic freedoms, easing the situation of the working people.

The uniqueness of this revolution was that it was bourgeois revolution era of imperialism, and therefore it was headed by the working class, and not the bourgeoisie, which in many ways gravitated towards an alliance with the autocracy; The bourgeois content of the revolution is combined with the popular character of the driving forces with a large role for the peasantry.

The driving forces of the revolution were the working class, the peasantry, the liberal bourgeoisie, the democratic layer of the population (intelligentsia, employees, representatives of oppressed peoples, students).

The social forces of the revolution came out in three camps: government (autocracy: landowners, tsarist bureaucracy, big bourgeoisie), liberal (bourgeoisie, part of the peasants, employees, intelligentsia - constitutional monarchy, methods of struggle are peaceful, democratic), revolutionary-democratic (proletariat, part of the peasantry, the poorest segments of the population - democratic republic, revolutionary methods of struggle) .

Reasons for the defeat: lack of a strong alliance of workers and peasants; lack of solidarity and organization among the working class; disorganization, dispersion and passive nature of the actions of peasants; lack of unanimity among the working people of oppressed nationalities; the army remained largely in the hands of the government; the counter-revolutionary role of the liberal bourgeoisie; financial assistance from foreign countries; untimely conclusion of peace with Japan; lack of unity in the RSDLP.

Transformation of autocracy into a constitutional monarchy; democratic freedoms; improving the position of the working class; the revolution awakened millions of people to political life and became a school of political education for them; The revolution split society and marked a divide between society and the state. Russia in 1905 ended the peaceful period of development of capitalism and had a powerful influence on the growth of the labor movement in Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, England, and Italy. East - the growth of the national liberation movement. The Russian Revolution became the detonator of the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist struggle in the East.

Thus, the revolution of 1905-1907 and the reforms that followed did not resolve the existing deep-seated contradictions. Russia turned out to be the focus of such acute contradictions as the contradiction between feudalism and capitalism as the source of the bourgeois revolution. Three types of revolutions came together in one country at the same time. And all this was superimposed by the contradictions between the leading imperialist powers that broke out in World War I.

Russian parliamentarism dates back to 1906.(the parliamentary traditions of many European countries have evolved over centuries). I Duma was established 6 August 1905 Mr. Nicholas II. On July 8, 1906, Nicholas II dissolved the Duma, accusing it of encroaching on the rights of the monarch. II Duma (January-February 1907.) was even more radical than the previous one, but was also not effective. Conservative parties united to prevent the adoption of an agrarian law aimed against landowner property. The Duma was dissolved and a new electoral law was published ( June 3, 1907.). The dissolution of the Duma and the new electoral law were in fact a coup d'etat, which fully reflected the temporary victory of the counter-revolution. During the election campaign, deception, falsification of voter lists, arrests, and “seizures” of undesirable candidates were widely practiced. The representation of the nobility and big bourgeoisie in III State Duma. in autumn 1912 elections were held in IV State Duma. A feature of the elections was the defeat of the Octobrists, the strengthening of the Black Hundreds, Progressives and Cadets. The radicalism of the Fourth Duma meant that social contradictions had again intensified and new revolutions were approaching.

Thus, the Duma was dispersed twice by the government, it had four convocations and existed for 12 years, until the fall of the autocracy. In such a short period of time, the Duma could not be realized as a traditional parliamentary structure. She was shackled by the anti-democratic norms regulating her work, and by the anti-democratic election law. However, the Duma established an open and transparent procedure for discussing and adopting laws, control, albeit truncated, over public finances and the actions of the authorities. The Duma became the center of legal political struggle. In the course of Duma tactics, each party made mistakes, miscalculations, and admitted delusions. But denunciation and criticism of the supreme power developed traditions of democratic resolution of important state issues. Russian parliamentarism played a positive role in the democratization of Russian society, but did not stop the brewing revolutionary explosion. By 1914, a revolutionary situation began to emerge in the country again.

February revolution. During the First World War, the anti-people foreign policy of tsarism suffered a complete collapse, which led to a decrease in the role and importance of the Russian empire as a world power. Russia was the most backward of the European powers at war, and every day of the war consumed 50 million rubles. In the summer of 1915, a general political crisis began. Reasons for the revolution:

Unsolved problems of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia;

The Russian political system lags behind European countries;

Military failures, famine, rising prices, speculation, decreasing purchasing power of the ruble. The national debt grew during the war from 8.5 to 35 billion rubles.

One of the manifestations of the crisis is the conflict between tsarism and liberals. Even the landowner nobility turned away from tsarism. The warning to the tsar was the murder of the tsar's favorite G. Rasputin in December 1916. In addition to the legal bourgeois opposition in the State Duma, those created in 1906-1910 had a significant influence on the political life of the country. Masonic organizations, whose members were many prominent political figures. The Masons prepared plans for coups “over the top”, the elimination of the monarchy without a popular revolution. They had their organizations in 16 of the country's largest centers. The Duma Lodge of Masons was especially influential.

In February 1917, the bourgeois-democratic revolution broke out. It was unexpected for the government and political parties. The revolution won quickly and painlessly and led to the overthrow of the 300-year-old feudal Romanov dynasty.

The revolution began with an uprising in Petrograd. On February 23 (March 8), rallies were held in honor of International Women's Day. They grew into strikes and demonstrations. The strike became general. The attempt to shoot the demonstration and the shed blood caused a change in the mood of the soldiers and Cossacks. From February 26, they began to go over to the side of the workers, disarming police officers and officers. The soldiers destroyed the arsenal, armed the work detachments, and freed political prisoners. On February 28, the garrison of the Peter and Paul Fortress and ship crews went over to the side of the revolution. The post office, telegraph and telephone were busy. On February 24 and 25, at a number of factories, following the experience of the 1905 revolution, workers began to elect their representatives to the city Council of Workers' Deputies.

On February 27, in the Tauride Palace, where the State Duma met, the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' Deputies was created. The Executive Committee was headed by the leaders of the Social Democratic faction of the State Duma, Mensheviks N. Chkheidze and M. Skobelev, Socialist Revolutionary A. Kerensky, Bolshevik A. Shlyapnikov. The majority in the Council was among the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, since the elections were held not on a party basis, but on a personal basis, and the workers knew the Mensheviks who worked legally better than those who operated underground and were subject to repression by the Bolsheviks. In total, about 600 Soviets arose in the country. Nicholas II, who was at Headquarters near Mogilev, sent an army corps to the capital to suppress the uprising, but it was stopped in front of Petrograd and disarmed. The Tsar decided to move to the capital himself, but was unable to get there and returned to Pskov.

On February 27, by royal decree, the IV State Duma was dissolved, but the deputies decided not to disperse and formed a transitional administrative body - the Provisional Committee of the State Duma (chaired by the Octobrist Rodzianko). He held negotiations with the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet and two of its members, A. Kerensky and N. Chkheidze, became members of the Provisional Committee of the Duma. Thus, two authorities arose in the country. On February 28, the Provisional Committee announced to the people that it was taking over the government of the country. On February 27, the Manifesto of the Central Committee of the RSDLP “To all citizens of Russia” appeared. He declared the revolution victorious and called on the workers to continue the revolutionary struggle against tsarism until the creation of a revolutionary government, for the proclamation of a democratic republic, an 8-hour working day, the confiscation of landowners' lands, and an immediate end to the war.

On March 1, 1917, the Council of Soldiers' Deputies was formed, which merged with the workers' council of the capital. On this day, Order N1 of the Petrograd Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies was issued, which announced that in political speeches, military units were subordinate not to officers, but to the Soviets, the class titles of officers were abolished in the army, the election of commanders was introduced, soldiers were granted civil political rights, in companies, Soldiers' committees were created in the regiments. This order spread throughout the country, on all fronts. Thus, the army was removed from the subordination of the old government and subordinated to the Soviets, which influenced the further course of the revolution. On March 2, a delegation of the Provisional Committee of the Duma arrived in Pskov. Nicholas II abdicated the throne for himself and for his heir in favor of his brother Mikhail, who in turn renounced the crown. Thus the 300-year-old autocracy of the Romanovs collapsed.

Victory of the October Socialist Revolution. The February Revolution resolved the issue of power in the form dual power: Provisional Government, Petrograd Soviet. The provisional government did not have the main attribute of power - armed force. By order of the Petrograd Soviet No. 1 on the creation of soldiers' committees, officers were deprived of the right to access weapons. Discipline collapsed, and the councils acquired enormous military power. The dual power lasted 4 months until July 4th. The Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, which had enormous influence among the working people and the army, and the bourgeois Provisional Government, which relied on the support of bourgeois parties, but lacked armed support. A characteristic feature of dual power was that it was a temporary balance of two socio-political forces. Each of them did not have the opportunity to take full power and take decisive steps like European democracy. Another feature of dual power is the further development of the revolution along an ascending line, without mass violence against the people.

The February Revolution changed the balance of class and socio-political forces in the country, dividing them into conservative, liberal-democratic and radical camps, which defended their options for the development of the country.

The failure of the Russian army's offensive resulted in mass protests in July 1917. As a result, the Bolsheviks were driven underground, and the Provisional Government introduced the death penalty at the front. After July 4, the dual power ended in favor of the bourgeoisie, which took a leading place in the country's political system. At the end of July - beginning of August 1917, the Bolsheviks held the VI Congress of their party (without Lenin, who was in hiding), which decided that the peaceful development of the revolution was over and headed for an armed uprising to conquer Soviet power. In September-October 1917, the labor movement rose to a new level and took on the character of revolutionary actions against the bourgeoisie. The struggle of the peasant masses, who never received land, became more and more active and decisive. An obvious manifestation of the national crisis was the ever-increasing revolutionary upsurge in the army and navy. The provisional government understood the danger of a new revolutionary coup in the country. Russia was on the verge of a new revolution.

In September 1917, Lenin sent two letters from Finland to the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b): “Marxism and uprising” and “Advice from an outsider,” in which he indicated that conditions had developed in the country for an armed uprising. There was a political crisis. The provisional government had been meeting almost continuously since mid-October to thwart the revolution.

The uprising began on October 24, the day before the opening of the Second Congress of Soviets. And by the end of the day, most of the capital was under the control of the rebels. By the morning of October 25, train stations, bridges, a telegraph office, and a power station were captured. On the evening of October 25 (November 7), the Second Congress met. Of the 650 elected deputies, 390 were Bolsheviks. The congress decided that all local power would pass to the Soviets. On October 26 (November 8), the congress adopted decrees on peace, on land, which included a peasant mandate, and created the Council of People's Commissars - the Soviet government headed by Lenin. Legislative power was concentrated at the Congress of Soviets, which elected the permanent All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies. Among the 101 members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, elected by the Second Congress of Soviets, there were: 62 - Bolsheviks, 29 - Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, 6 - Social Democrats (Mensheviks, internationalists), 3 - Ukrainian socialists, 1 - Socialist-Revolutionary-maximalist. This is how the first Soviet parliament arose. In December 1917, the government became multi-party: it consisted of 11 Bolsheviks and 7 Left Social Revolutionaries. But after the revolt of the left Socialist-Revolutionaries in July 1918, who tried to seize power, the Socialist-Revolutionaries were removed from the government, and the Council of People's Commissars became a one-party state.

Thus, on October 25 (November 7), 1917, as a result of an armed uprising, the power of the Soviets, representing the power of the working people, was established in the country. The Bolshevik Party became the ruling party. The October Revolution meant the creation of a new type of state - a socialist one.