Social movements in Russia after the December uprising. Public currents

Represent social movements. According to the definition of D. Della Porta and M. Diani, social movements are "informal networks based on values and solidarity shared by all their participants, mobilizing their participants on conflict issues through the regular use of various forms of protest."

social movements- this is a non-institutional type of collective action, and accordingly they should not be confused with social institutions. Social institutions are sustainable and stable formations, while social movements have an indefinite time cycle, they are unstable, under certain conditions they easily fall apart. Social institutions are designed to maintain a system of social relations, public order, and social movements do not have a stable institutional status, most members of society treat them indifferently, and some even with hostility.

Social movements are a special kind of social processes. All social movements begin with a feeling of dissatisfaction with the existing social order. Objective events and situations create conditions for understanding the injustice of the existing state of affairs. People see that the authorities are not taking steps to change the situation. At the same time, there are certain standards, norms, knowledge of how it should be. Then people unite in a social movement.

IN modern society can be identified various social movements: youth, feminist, political, revolutionary, religious, etc. A social movement may not be structurally formalized, it may not have a fixed membership. It can be a spontaneous short-term movement or a socio-political movement with a high degree of organization and a significant duration of activity (political parties are born from them).

Consider such social movements as expressive, utopian, revolutionary, reformist.

expressive movements

Participants in such movements create a mystical reality with the help of special rituals, dances, and games in order to almost completely separate themselves from the imperfect life of society. These include the mysteries of ancient Greece, ancient rome, Persia and India. Now expressive movements are most clearly manifested among young people: in associations of rockers, punks, goths, emo, bikers, etc. with their attempts to create their own subculture. As a rule, growing up, young people - participants in these movements - get a profession, work, get a family, children, and eventually become ordinary inhabitants.

Expressive movements also include various kinds of monarchist associations in Russia, movements of war veterans. The common basis in such associations is the traditions of the past, the real or imagined exploits of the ancestors, the desire to idealize the old customs and style of behavior. Usually these innocuous associations are busy with memories and the creation of memoirs, however, under certain conditions, it is they who, under certain conditions, can induce a previously passive population to act, can become an intermediate link between non-political and active political movements. In progress ethnic conflicts they can play an extremely negative role.

Utopian movements

Already in antiquity, Plato tried to describe the future perfect society in his dialogue "The State". However, the attempts of the philosopher to create such a society were unsuccessful. The movements of the first Christians, which were created on the basis of the ideas of universal equality, turned out to be more resilient, since their members did not strive for personal happiness and material well-being, but wanted to create ideal relationships.

Secular “perfect” societies began to appear on earth since the English humanist Thomas More wrote his famous book “Utopia” in 1516 (the word “utopia” (Greek) can be understood both as “a place that does not exist” and as "blessed country"). Utopian movements arose as attempts to create an ideal social system on earth with kind, humane people and fair social relations. The Münster commune (1534), the communes of Robert Owen (1817), the phalanxes of Charles Fourier (1818) and many other utopian organizations quickly disintegrated for many reasons, and above all because of the underestimation of the natural qualities of a person - the desire to achieve well-being in life, the desire to realize one's abilities to work and be adequately compensated for it.

However, one should not underestimate the desire of people to change the conditions in which they live. This is especially true of groups whose members consider the existing relationship unfair and, in this regard, seek to decisively change their social position.

revolutionary movement

Revolution- this is an unexpected, rapid, often violent, cardinal change in the social system, structure and functions of the main social institutions. The revolution must be distinguished from the top coup."Palace" coups are carried out by people at the helm of government, they leave unchanged

social institutions and the system of power in society, replacing, as a rule, only the first persons of the state.

Usually a revolutionary movement develops gradually in an atmosphere of general social dissatisfaction. The following typical stages in the development of revolutionary movements are distinguished:

the accumulation of social dissatisfaction over a number of years;
the appearance of motives for active actions, uprising;
a revolutionary explosion caused by the vacillation and weakness of the ruling elite;
access to active positions of radicals that capture
power and destroy the opposition; o period of the terror regime;
a return to a calm state, stable power and some patterns of the former pre-revolutionary life.

It was in this scenario that all the most significant revolutions proceeded.

reform movement

reforms are carried out with the aim of correcting the defects of the existing social order, in contrast to the revolution, the purpose of which is to destroy the entire social system and create a fundamentally new social order radically different from the previous one. Historical experience shows that the timely implementation of the necessary reforms often prevent a revolution, if the basis for social reforms the interests of the population are at stake. Where totalitarian or authoritarian rule blocks the movement of reform, the only way to remedy the shortcomings of the social system is a revolutionary movement. In traditionally democratic countries, such as Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, radical movements have few supporters, while at the same time totalitarian regimes repressive policies constantly provoke revolutionary movements and riots.

Stages of social movement

In any social movement, with all the features due to the specifics of the country, region, people, there are four identical stages: initial anxiety, excitement, formalization, subsequent institutionalization.

anxiety stage associated with the emergence of uncertainty among the population in tomorrow, feelings of social injustice, with a fragile system of values and habitual norms of behavior. Thus, in Russia, after the events of August 1991 and the official introduction of market mechanisms, millions of people found themselves in an unusual situation: without work, without means of subsistence, without the opportunity, within the framework of traditional ideology, to assess the situation, when the established norms of morality, rights were eroded, began to change values. This led to the emergence of strong social unrest among a significant part of the population and create the prerequisites for the formation of various social movements.

Excitation stage occurs if, at the stage of anxiety, people begin to associate the deterioration of their condition with real social processes to the point where they need to take action. Supporters of the movement come together to discuss the status quo. At spontaneous rallies, speeches are made, orators are put forward who are better than others at formulating the problems that concern everyone, agitators and, finally, leaders with an ideological organizational talent who outline the strategy and goals of the struggle and turn the masses of discontented into an effective social movement. The stage of excitement is very dynamic and quickly ends either with active actions, or with the loss of all interest in this movement among people.

A social movement that seeks to bring about fundamental change in society is usually organized to some extent. If the enthusiasm of the excited masses is not regulated and not directed to the achievement of certain goals, spontaneous street riots begin. The behavior of the excited crowd is unpredictable, its result is destruction: people set fire to cars, overturn buses, throw stones at the police, shout out threats. This is how football fans sometimes behave, provoking their opponents. In this case, the excitation usually passes quickly and there can be no talk of any organized and long-term movement.

On the formalization stages the movement takes shape (structuring, registration, etc.), ideologists appear for its theoretical justification, the formulation of clear and precise goals and objectives. Through agitators, the population is explained the reasons for the current situation, the prospects for the movement itself. At this stage, the excited masses turn into disciplined representatives of the movement who have a more or less real goal.

On the stages of institutionalization completeness and certainty are given to the social movement. The movement develops certain cultural patterns with a developed ideology, management structure, and its own symbols.

Social movements that have achieved their goal, for example, gained access to state power, turn into social institutions or organizations. Many movements fall apart under the influence of external conditions, internal weaknesses.

Causes of Social Movements

Why do social movements spring up in one society, revolutionary activity rages, riots appear, while another society lives without significant upheavals and conflicts, although there are also rich and poor, ruling and ruled? Apparently, there is no unequivocal answer to this question, since many factors, including civilizational ones, are at work.

In economically developed, democratically organized societies, the majority of the population feels a sense of relative security, stability, is indifferent to changes in public life, does not want to join radical social movements, support them, and even more so participate in them.

For changing unstable societies, elements of social disorganization, a state of anomie, are more characteristic.

If in traditional societies human needs are kept at a fairly low level, then with the development of civilization, the freedom of the individual from traditions, collective mores and prejudices, the possibility of personal choice of occupations and methods of action expand dramatically, but at the same time a state of uncertainty arises, accompanied by a lack of solid life goals, norms and patterns. behavior. This puts people in a dual social position, weakens the connection with a particular group and with the whole society, which leads to an increase in cases of deviant behavior. Anomie is particularly acute under conditions free market, economic crises and unexpected changes in socio-political constant factors.

The American sociologist R. Merton noticed some basic socio-psychological features in members of this kind of unstable societies. In particular, they believe that those who govern the state are indifferent to the desires and aspirations of its ordinary members. To the ordinary citizen it seems that he cannot achieve his basic goals in a society that he sees as unpredictable and disorderly. He has a growing conviction that it is impossible to count on any social and psychological support for the institutions of a given society. A complex of feelings and motives of this kind can be regarded as a modern kind of anomie.

In these cases, people are inherent in setting for social change. These attitudes become the basis for the formation of movements that cause counter-movements, identical in direction, but opposite in values. Movements and counter-movements always coexist where groups with different interests and goals are represented.

The most effective form of preventing social movements from colliding with opposing goals is to eliminate its causes at different levels.

At the general social level we are talking on the identification and elimination of economic, social and political factors that disorganize public and state life. Distortions in the economy, a gap in the level and quality of life large groups and segments of the population, political instability, disorganization and inefficiency of the management system are a constant source of large and small, internal and external conflicts. In order to prevent the emergence of radical movements, it is necessary to consistently pursue a social, economic, cultural policy in the interests of the whole society, strengthen the rule of law and the rule of law, and promote the improvement of the spiritual culture of people. Specified measures- this is a general "prevention" of any socially negative phenomena in society, including conflict situations. Restoring and strengthening the rule of law, eliminating the “subculture of violence” characteristic of many segments of the population, everything that can help maintain normal business relations between people, strengthen their mutual trust and respect, prevents the emergence of radical and extremist movements, and if they have already formed, contributes to softening their positions to a level acceptable to society.

In this way, social movements can be defined as a set of protest actions aimed at supporting social change, "a collective attempt to realize common interests or achieve a common goal through collective action outside the framework of established institutions" (E. Giddens). Important role expressive, utopian, revolutionary and reformist social movements played in the development of society. Practice shows that, reaching their goal, social movements cease to exist as movements proper and are transformed into institutions and organizations.

The Decembrist uprising prompted the opposition government part of the students to organize various kinds of circles and secret societies. In the 20-30s. 19th century the core of these organizations were mainly students of Moscow University. Circle of brothers P.M. and V. Kritsky at Moscow State University (1827) shared the program of the Decembrists; the circle of N.P. Sungurov (1830-1831) advocated a revolutionary coup; circles of V. G. Belinsky (1829), A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev (1831-1834), N. V. Stankevich (1833-1837) studied the theory of utopian socialism, Western European philosophy.

At the turn of the 30-40s. 19th century magazines and newspapers became the center of social and political life. The “Philosophical letter” by P.Ya. Chaadaev was extremely pessimistic about Russia's past, present and future. “Her past is useless, her present is vain, and she has no future,” he wrote. For this publication, the magazine was closed, and Chaadaev was declared insane by the highest command.

liberal direction

The defeat of the Decembrists showed that before embarking on a radical reorganization of Russia, it is necessary to understand what it is like - what is its place in world history, what forces direct its development. The appeal of society to such questions - historiosophical and philosophical - was also facilitated by the government itself, which harshly and promptly suppressed any attempts by representatives of society to engage in political activity. Centers of ideological life in the 1830-40s. become not secret societies, but secular salons, magazines, university departments.

By the end of the 1830s. in Russian society there were currents of Westerners and Slavophiles. Westerners (historians T.N. Granovsky, P.N. Kudryavtsev, lawyer and philosopher K.D. Kavelin, writers V.P. Botkin, P.V. Annenkov, V.F. Korsh, etc.) proceeded from the idea of the unity of the historical development of mankind, and, consequently, the unity of the historical paths of Russia and Europe. Therefore, the Westerners believed that in time the European order should be established in Russia. The ideal for them was Peter I and his reforms. In the field state structure they leaned towards a constitutional monarchy and regarded parliamentary England and France as models for Russia. The Westerners had a negative attitude towards serfdom and spoke in favor of reforms in all spheres of public life.

Other views on the historical path of Russia were held by the Slavic Philae (A.S. Khomyakov, brothers I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, brothers K.S. and I.S. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin). They believed that every nation has its own destiny and that Russia is developing along a path different from the European one. However, this did not make the Slavophils supporters of the government ideology: they were resolute opponents of serfdom, criticized the despotism and bureaucracy with which the autocracy of Nicholas I was associated. But the Slavophils did not intend to get rid of these vices by Europeanization. The power of the tsar should remain unlimited, the Slavophiles believed, but the people should at the same time receive the right to freely express their opinion - in the press and at Zemstvo councils, and receive freedom of conscience. Such a combination, according to the Slavophiles, corresponded to the original Russian principles: the Russian people never claimed to participate in political life, leaving this sphere to the state, and the state did not interfere in the spiritual life of the people and listened to their opinion. The basis of Russian life, according to the Slavophiles, was the communal principle and the principle of consent (in contrast to the European order, based on the confrontation of individualistic principles and formal legality). Deeply close to the Russian national character was, according to the Slavophiles, the Orthodox religion, which placed the general above the particular, calling primarily for spiritual perfection, and not for the transformation of the external world. The harmonious way of Russian life was, according to the Slavophiles, destroyed by the reforms of Peter I. Slavophiles associated “distortions” in Russian history with the activities of Peter I, who “having opened a window to Europe”, violated the agreement, the balance in the life of the country, knocked it off the path inscribed by God.

A.I. Herzen compared the Slavophiles and Westernizers with the two-faced Janus: they looked in different directions, but one heart beat in their chest. Indeed, the Westerners and Slavophiles were brought together by the defense of individual rights, public freedom, protest against despotism and bureaucracy, and serfdom. Common to Westernizers and Slavophiles was a resolute rejection of the revolution.

3. Social movements in Russia after the December uprising.

The uprising of the Decembrists, its brutal suppression and reprisal against the participants gave impetus to the differentiation of socio-political interests. A powerful, especially in the ranks of the highest bureaucratic bureaucracy, a conservative-protective direction was taking shape. His platform is to prevent further changes towards the Western system, to keep the “soil”, the community intact, to assert Orthodoxy, serfdom because it is beneficial for the peasants: the landowner is his own father. So L.V. Dubelt, who manages the 3rd department of his imperial majesty's office, believed: "Our people are smart because they are quiet, and quiet because they are not free." And further: “Do not touch this people, leave it in patriarchal simplicity and in all its natural greatness... Do not become infected with the senselessness of the West - this is a nasty garbage pit from which you will hear nothing but stench. Do not believe in sophistication; they will not lead you or anyone else to good.”

This platform was reflected in the theory of "official nationality", which served as a justification for the idea of Russia's identity and was based on three principles: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. Its author was S.S. Uvarov, Minister of Education. The Russian intelligentsia, brought up on European values, was outraged. S. Solovyov, accusing Uvarov of hypocrisy, wrote that he “invented these words: Orthodoxy - being an atheist, not believing in Christ, even in a Protestant way; autocracy - being a liberal; nationality - not reading a single Russian book in his life, writing constantly in French and German.

The platform of the liberal direction, focused on Western models, was - constitutional state and civil law for all, a constitution that approves the separation of powers and public control over power, the state system - a constitutional monarchy, peaceful means achieving the stated goals (reforms). In the environment of the bureaucracy, a layer of progressive-minded, intelligent people is being formed, united by the ideas of reforming the country. This is the so-called liberal bureaucracy, which was formed in cooperation with public figures, writers, and scientists. Ministries were the centers of its formation. Another trend that opposes the official doctrine - the liberal "youth Russia", received its spiritual development within the walls of Moscow University. A brilliant galaxy of liberal teachers has developed here: Kavelin, Solovyov, Granovsky and many others. Talented youth flocked here from all over Russia; studying at the university left an imprint on their whole future life. The university was the center around which "Westerners" - supporters of European models for Russia - Herzen, Korsh, Satin, Granovsky, were grouped. People are bright and talented, they have decorated the era of Nicholas I with their activities.

At the same time, even then, the features of Russian liberalism appeared. Many believed that the state is the only real force that creates history. And the mass of the people can manifest itself only in a fruitless anarchist revolt. At the same time, it became obvious that liberalism in Russia could not have broad social support. Its base is the owners, but there were few of them in the country. It remained to rely on the intelligentsia and the state bureaucracy. Therefore, the only force, according to the liberals, could only be power. The liberals did their best to find an approach to it and suggest directions for reforms.

In the epoch of Nicholas I, a radicalist revolutionary current emerged. She was represented by such names as M.A. Bakunin, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogaryov and others. Liberal and Slavophile ideas coexisted in this movement, the recognition of the historical necessity of violence and the power of power, the glorification of the revolution. However, it was quite heterogeneous. “In our country, all the elements are so confused that it is impossible to indicate from which side the hostile camp is,” A. Herzen wrote.

But only in the era of Alexander II were the most decisive steps taken towards the European type of development: glasnost came into the country, an amnesty for political prisoners was announced, the free issuance of passports, etc. was allowed. But the main thing is that the entire "soil" way of life has been reformed. It was she who determined the fate of Russia: either she would leave corporatism, collectivism and move closer to the European powers, or she would retain her former positions. The secret committee on peasant affairs developed a version of the reform of the landowner's village: 1) the preservation of large landowner farms; 2) the abolition of serfdom with the transfer of allotment (field) land to the peasants in exchange for redemption. This meant the transfer of the peasants to the farming path of development, the creation of a multimillion-strong layer of small proprietors.

4. Two views on the development of Russia.

Interestingly, some historians closely link both the revolutionary events in France and the events in Russia with the history of the Masonic movement. Many considered that by its humane aspirations, by its unshakable sense of the dignity of man, and by its principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, Freemasonry greatly contributed to the preparation of societies for new ideas. It is generally accepted that the whole of France was shrouded in lodges of the Masonic Order before the revolution, Masons everywhere held meetings in which progressive ideas were expounded and enthusiastically accepted. The proclaimed goals were: the liberation of peoples from the tyranny of princes and clergy, the liberation of peasants and workers from serfdom, from corvee, from craft guilds. It is believed that almost all the outstanding revolutionaries of that time belonged to Freemasonry. And it was precisely the intimate and fraternal communion, established even before the revolution in the Masonic lodges, that influenced the fact that at the beginning of the revolution the struggle between the parties did not take on a too fierce character. The activities of this secret order free masons is shrouded in mystery. But many researchers rank among them the leaders of the Decembrist societies and bearers of the ideas of socialism in Russia, Chaadaev, Herzen.

And here is what Kropotkin wrote about this organization: “Masons are, first of all, an all-world political force and an age-old organization ... They have more than once helped to destroy kings and overthrow monarchies, and our revolutionary movement will lose a lot if it doesn’t will be associated with Freemasonry, which has its threads in Russia and especially in St. Petersburg, in the most diverse areas. And indeed, many people of outstanding intelligence and high morals are usually ranked as Masons. And maybe the ideas of the brotherhood of all people and peoples, the community and unity of religions, serving the common good, combating prejudice, ignorance and inertia really brought to Russian land secret brothers of Masonic lodges. And, apparently, the same international ideas formed the basis October revolution. But quite a large part educated people In Russia, the influence of Freemasonry was considered pernicious and dangerous for the country, destroying the Orthodox faith, the traditional way of life, and the national identity of the Russian people.

In 30-40s. 19th century a huge rise in national-patriotic feelings was caused by deep pessimism in society and a feeling of backwardness of their country in comparison with Europe. This time is characterized by a reassessment of the experience of the Decembrists, a denial of the possibility of a direct transfer of Western forms of life, a search for historical patterns of development that cannot be reduced to educational improvement from the outside. “We have no need to run after others; we should honestly evaluate ourselves; to understand what we are, to get out of the lies and establish ourselves in the truth” - this was the main social idea of that time. The results of the search were expressed in one part of society - they are usually referred to as Slavophiles - in the exaltation of Russia, the recognition of its originality and special mission to the world. And for the other - Westerners - in national self-abasement and recognition of backwardness. The attitude towards Europe was ambivalent: on the one hand, the recognition of its superiority, on the other, the desire to find "spots in the sun." It is the "Westerners" who are often considered Russian Masons.

Each of these currents sought to build a holistic concept of the development of society. The first attempt belongs to Chaadaev. He perceives Russia as a dead and stagnant society that does not have its own cultural and creative past, exists only by thoughtless borrowing, vegetates in deep slavery. And he formulates the thesis: the backwardness of Russia is its huge advantage. He says that this is an advantage in the freshness, naivety of the integrity of the nation, unencumbered by age-old development, readiness to accept any new, to start immediately from the high phase of development achieved by other nations. Christian Europe and Eastern civilizations are already completing their historical path of development. Russia is ready for a rapid cultural start.

But it is clear that in the views of Chaadaev in a strange way contempt and belittling of everything Russian is mixed with faith in the historical progress of Russia.

Slavophiles question the idea of backwardness and emphasize the advantages of the Russian past and the merits of Russian civilization. A feature of Western civilization, they believe, is "the triumph of rationalism over the inner spiritual mind." This led the West to a loss of faith, universal egoism, individualism, possessiveness. In Russia, however, there has always been a primacy of faith over reason, reason over reason, community over the individual. “In the former life, literacy also existed here. ordinary people, and the jury, and the active monastic clergy. Our antiquity is an example and the beginning of everything good in private life, in legal proceedings, in relation to people among themselves. It is enough for us to resurrect and clarify the old, to bring it into consciousness and life. I think that these ideas unite various nationalist and monarchist currents.

The trend of socialists arose in Russia as a continuation of the work of the Decembrists and the development of the ideas of the French socialists. But it was not just borrowing ideas from Europe, but an attempt to find our own, Russian version. Socialism became essentially an alternative project of national development in Russia and was attractive to many. The fact that this movement originated in developed Europe, the fact that the distance between Russia and developed countries. Because these ideas are based on national traditions- the original collectivism and community of the Russian people.

Gradually, socialism turned into a very influential trend in the Russian political opposition. And he influenced all other trends in Russia.

Conclusion

In the history of any nation, a time inevitably comes when a significant change in the whole structure of its life becomes inevitable. And then two ways out seem possible: reform or revolution. There is always a moment in such cases when reform is still possible. But if this moment is not taken advantage of, if the rulers of the country, instead of meeting new demands, resist the aspirations and sprouts of new life and, as a result, blood begins to flow in the streets, then a revolution arises.

If you depict slow progress with a line on paper, it will be a line slowly rising up. A revolution begins - the line makes a sharp jump up, but a reaction sets in, and the line quickly falls. But again, little by little, it rises, and the rise takes place for more than high level and almost always it goes faster. How cool it will be for our country, I don't know. But I know that we have chosen the path of reforms. This means the path without the blood of the people. Although it is clear that it is not easy to take into account the interests of all.

Working on materials on the Great French Revolution made me think about many issues. Firstly, I saw that the real participants in the events, representatives of different trends, arguing so fiercely among themselves and denouncing each other, people sincerely root for their people, their homeland and want to improve life for their compatriots. And each has its own truth, its own examples, its own well-founded views. Everyone is right in their own way. I realized how difficult it is to make a choice and decide on which path the country can achieve the greatest prosperity. Secondly, the history of my country has become closer and clearer. Since the time of Peter the Great, the Russians have faced eternal question: how to make a leap in development? Whether to adopt Western options for life and government or make a leap forward at the expense of Russian identity. To be honest, it’s not so clear to me what our identity is, our roots, and what is so special about ourselves that will help our rapid development. What should we be proud of anyway? Famous writers, our history, our contemporaries? I think we still have to answer these questions.

While working on it, I often thought about why the French Revolution, no matter how they evaluate it, was called the Great?

And now I think I know the answer. The revolution, of course, did not come by chance. People are tired of living like this. Some people just couldn't bear it. Everyone wanted change. But they (the French) were also very lucky then. Nearby were the greatest scientists, philosophers, who gave the people great ideas for the reorganization of life. Economists public figures, the bourgeoisie - everyone thought about society, about the good of the nation, about the well-being of their people. Then it led to capitalism, individualism, the enrichment of certain people, the impoverishment of the other part. Welfare society still didn't work. But it was such a bright dream of mankind, such a global project! Already getting involved in the revolution, people saw blood, looting, deceit, all human meanness. The world has received a great disappointment in the idea of man! Great was the unified impulse of the whole people, which gave the world, other peoples great hope that you can want great changes and make them. And it seems to me that many moral laws were still understood. In the fact that destroying something, a person destroys himself. The fact that it is impossible to achieve the happiness of your people by destroying part of it. And the choice remained the same - to fight or to endure and forgive everything?

References:

1. L.I. Semennikova "Russia in the world community of civilizations"

2. The World History in 24 vol., vol. 16 "Europe under the influence of France"

3. T. Carrel “The French Revolution. History"

4. P.A. Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution. 1789 - 1793"

5. V.G. Khoros "Russian history in comparative light"

6. N.A. Berdyaev "The Meaning of History"

7. E.V. Sokolov "Culturology"

8. I.S. Glazunov "Russia Crucified"

But what do I care about most and what is the most

important is to take care to find out what I

it is necessary to be guided in life, and by no means fun

post what little I've learned...

René Descartes to the Reverend Father Mercen

The ideas of economists and political thinkers - both when they are right and when they are wrong - are much more important than is commonly thought. In fact, they are the ones who rule the world.

John M. Keynes

In any case, frying a person alive because of their conjectures means betraying them too high a price.

Montaigne "Experiences"

1. The themes of good and evil, justice and violence, freedom and dependence are the eternal themes of mankind, history sets them before every generation, and life before every person. Today we answer these questions. And we can choose the answers ourselves. But there are periods in history when the price of a mistake is life itself.

These are periods of upheavals and revolutions.

9. What is a revolution? More than two hundred years have passed since the French Revolution, but so much is still being invested in the word "revolution". different meanings how many people pronounce them.

Here is what P.A. wrote about her in his book The Great French Revolution 1789-1793. Kropotkin: “... A revolution is the rapid destruction of institutions and traditions established over the centuries, which seemed so unshakable before that even the most ardent reformers did not dare to attack them. This is the disintegration, the decomposition in a few years of everything that constituted the essence of the social, religious, political and economic life of the nation. This is the birth of new concepts of equality in relations between citizens, which soon become a reality and then the direction of its economic, political and moral development begins to spread.

Already getting involved in the revolution, people saw blood, looting, deceit, all human meanness. The world has received such a Great disappointment in the idea of man! Great was the unified impulse of the whole people, which gave the world, other peoples great hope that you can want great changes and make them. And it seems to me that many moral laws were still understood. In the fact that destroying something, a person destroys himself. The fact that it is impossible to achieve the happiness of your people by destroying part of it. And the choice remained the same - to fight or to endure and forgive everything?

“In some respects, we are farther than Europe and freer than it because we are so far behind it. Liberals are afraid of losing freedom - we don’t have freedom; they are afraid of government interference in the affairs of industry - our government interferes in everything anyway; they are afraid of losing personal rights We still need to buy them.

The advantage of backwardness lies in the readiness of the Russian people to immediately go for a "social revolution", to go over to socialism, because they, one might say, "have nothing to lose but their chains

In book. ON THE. Berdyaev, "The Meaning of History"

In book. E.V. Sokolov, "Culturology"

In book. T. Carlyle, “The French Revolution. History"

In book. World history in 24 volumes, v.16

In book. World history in 24 volumes, v16

In book. World history in 24 volumes, v. 16

In book. P.A. Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution. 1789 - 1793"

In book. L.I. Semennikova, "Russia in the World Community of Civilizations"

In book. L.I. Semennieva "Russia in the world community of civilizations"

In book P.A. Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution. 1789 - 1793"

In book. V.G. Khoros "Russian history in comparative light"

Ed., 1878; part of it, before 1795, was translated into Russian, St. Petersburg, 1863-1864) in particular, where he considered the revolution as an event not only French, but all-European. But we will consider all this in the main part of the abstract work in more detail. THE LIFE WAY OF HEINRICH VON SIEBEL Heinrich von Siebel (German: Heinrich von Sybel) was born on December 2, 1817 in Düsseldorf and died on August 1, 1895 ...

Orders. 3. The war with Austria and Prussia The revolution in France contributed to the rise of the anti-feudal struggle in other European countries. Sympathy for the French Revolution and its ideas on the part of the public in many countries became more and more obvious. This caused great hatred for revolutionary France of many European governments, whose states had worsened the internal situation. This...

Reforms of the 60-70s led to the growth of the liberation movement in society, the emergence of numerous circles; groups and organizations seeking to change the political regime in the country. The half-heartedness and incompleteness of many reforms caused disappointment in the progressive circles of society. In addition to internal reasons, great importance had revolutionary ideas, penetrating

who came to Russia from Europe, which were actively perceived by society in the conditions of widespread nihilistic views (nihilism as an ideological concept is characterized by hypertrophied doubt and denial of generally accepted values, absolutization of material and individual principles).

The liberation movement of the 60s - early 70s. The period of the early 60s. in the history of the Russian liberation movement was called the "proclamation period". Proclamations, issued in the form of appeals to various sections of society, were a response to peasant reform 1861 In these appeals, the authors of which were most often raznochintsy, students, members of various underground circles, the predatory meaning of the reform was explained, and a call was made to fight for rights and freedoms. Although most of the proclamations were of a relatively moderate nature, appeals appear calling for the violent overthrow of power, extremist actions, and the organization of a revolutionary dictatorship regime (the most famous of these proclamations was Young Russia, compiled in May 1862 by student P. Zaichnevsky) . At the end of 1861, an all-Russian revolutionary group "Land and Freedom" was formed in St. Petersburg. Its program was of a moderate nature: it included demands for the transfer to the peasants of those allotments that they owned before the reform, the replacement of government officials with elected ones, and the election of a central people's representation. The implementation of these provisions was to occur as a result of the peasant revolution, which, as expected, would come very soon. When the hope for an early uprising of the peasants did not materialize, the organization self-liquidated (beginning of 1864). In the second half of the 1960s and early 1970s, numerous revolutionary-democratic circles of the intelligentsia arose in Russia (primarily in university towns). The most famous among them were the circle of N.A. Ishutin, one of whose members is D.V. Karakozov - made an attempt on the life of Alexander II on April 4, 1866, and a circle of joint ventures. Nechaev, whose program was of the most radical nature. The organizer of this society S. Nechaev

created the so-called “Revolutionary Catechism”, in which he substantiated the need for the most extreme methods in the process of fighting autocracy: terror, blackmail, destruction, etc. For the first time, such a concept as revolutionary necessity is introduced, for the sake of which it was necessary to abandon the existing moral and moral norms . By the beginning of the 70s. most of these circles were opened and destroyed by the authorities.

Russian populism in the 70s - 80s. Narodism became the main direction of the liberation movement in post-reform Russia. Adherents of this ideology believed that the intelligentsia was indebted to the people and should devote themselves to delivering them from oppression and exploitation. Being socialists, the Narodniks believed that Russia would pass over to socialism, bypassing the capitalist stage; the peasant community, in which the populists saw socialist features, will serve as a support for this. There was no unity among the Narodniks on questions of the theory and tactics of the revolutionary struggle. There are three major currents in populism. The theorist of the so-called "rebellious current" was M.A. Bakunin. He argued that the Russian muzhik is a socialist and a rebel “by instinct”, there is no need to teach him this, only a call to rebellion is needed. M. Bakunin was one of the founders of Russian anarchism, believing that any government, even the most democratic, is "a source of exploitation and despotism." He opposed any form of state with the principle of "federalism", i.e. a federation of self-governing rural communities, industrial associations based on the collective ownership of tools and means of production.

The founder and theorist of the propaganda trend was P.L. Lavrov. He believed that the people needed to be prepared for revolution and socialism through long propaganda. P.N. Tkachev was the main ideologist of the so-called "conspiratorial trend". According to his theory, power was to be seized by a well-organized revolutionary party, which was then to introduce socialism into Russian life.

In the mid-70s, among the populists, the

the practice of "going to the people" was carried out. A number of active members of this organization moved into the countryside, trying to kindle a peasant revolt by means of revolutionary propaganda. However, the peasants were very wary of such calls and showed no desire to accept socialist ideas. The second trip to the people, in which the intelligentsia settled in the countryside, systematically agitating the peasants for the revolution, ended no more successfully than the first.

In 1876 the populists changed their tactics. A large revolutionary organization was created, which received the name "Land and Freedom". The organization was led by A.D. Mikhailov, G.V. Plekhanov, O.V. An-tekman, etc. It was a well-organized and well-guarded organization that had its branches (“communities”) in the provinces. The requirements of the transfer of all land to the peasants, the introduction of secular self-government, freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, etc. were considered as the program settings of the organization. The main activity of "Land and Freedom" was propaganda among various sectors of society. Terror was considered only as a means of self-defense or specifically directed retribution, but not as the main method of struggle. In 1879, a bitter struggle unfolded within the organization between supporters of terror tactics (A. Zhelyabov's group) and G. Plekhanov, who put propaganda at the forefront. The result of these disputes was the emergence of two new organizations - "Narodnaya Volya", which went over to a direct struggle against the autocracy, and "Black Redistribution", which stood on the same, land-based positions. The main goal of the Narodnaya Volya was regicide, which was supposed to be a signal for a general revolution. After a series of unsuccessful assassination attempts, on March 1, 1881, Alexander II was killed by a bomb explosion thrown by terrorist student I. Grinevitsky. The death of the king, contrary to expectations, did not cause a revolution and the collapse of the autocracy. Soon, most of the members of the "Narodnaya Volya" were arrested and executed, and the organization itself was defeated after an unsuccessful attempt on the life of Emperor Alexander III.

The beginning of the social democratic movement in Russia in the 80s - 90s. 19th century 80 - 90s in Russia were

time of enthusiasm for Marxism. This doctrine, penetrating from Europe, became the basis of the social democratic movement of the country's social thought. The first Russian Marxist group was the Emancipation of Labor organization founded by G. Plekhanov in 1883 in Switzerland. G. Plekhanov argued that the peasants were incapable of revolution. The driving force of the revolutionary movement of the future, in his opinion, should be the working class. From the mid-1980s, Marxist circles began to spring up in Russia as well. Their leaders - D. Blagoev, P. Tochissky, M. Brusnev and others - conducted Marxist propaganda among the workers, organized strikes, May Day meetings, and strikes. In 1895 in St. Petersburg V.I. Lenin and YL. Martov created the "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class", which was a large-scale social democratic association, which included about 20 circles. These organizations were a prerequisite for the creation of social democratic parties; within their framework, there was an increase in the political literacy of the workers, and the foundations for further revolutionary struggle were laid.

Liberal opposition movement. The liberal opposition, which operated in post-reform Russia as part of zemstvo institutions, expressed its dissatisfaction with the arbitrariness of the authorities, demanded the improvement of the state system (representative institution), but, at the same time, advocated a peaceful resolution of problems, fearing a revolutionary explosion. The opposition moods of the intelligentsia were reflected in the pages of such periodicals as Golos, Vestnik Evropy, and Russkaya Mysl. The zemstvo liberal opposition movement functioned in the form of illegal meetings of zemstvos, who developed and sent the so-called "addresses" to the tsar, in which proposals for various reforms were expressed.

In the 80s - 90s. Zemstvo movement has undergone a noticeable evolution: there is a convergence of liberal and legal Marxist ideologies. In 1899, the Conversation circle arose, which set as its goal the struggle against the bureaucracy for the freedom of local self-government. During these years, the foundations of liberal ideology were laid, political

chesky doctrines and concepts of Russian liberalism.

Thus, the activities of populist organizations and groups can be singled out as the core of the liberation movement in the second half of the 19th century. Despite their political immaturity and numerous misconceptions, the participants in this movement are becoming a real force that has a noticeable impact on the political development of the country. During this period, the authorities, relying on their punitive and repressive machine, could hardly cope with the revolutionaries. In general, the second half of XIX century can be characterized as a preparatory stage in the liberation movement. The main theoretical and practical foundations revolutionary activity. The role of a strong, well-knit organization with a unified will has noticeably increased.

All this, combined with the growth of political literacy and organization of the masses, especially the growing working class, largely influenced future events, becoming the basis of the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907.

From the 60s of the XIX century. Russia has entered a new revolutionary-democratic or raznochinsk stage in the liberation movement. During this period, neither the noble revolutionaries, who were defeated in December 1825, nor the bourgeoisie, which under the conditions of feudal Russia had not yet taken shape as a class, could lead the movement.

Raznochintsy (people from different classes of society, people of "different rank") - representatives of the democratic intelligentsia and in the 40-50s played a significant role in Russian social movement, but now they led this movement, which was aimed at eliminating feudal-serf remnants in the country.

Objectively, the ideology and tactics of the raznochintsy reflected the struggle of the peasant masses, and the main issue that stood in the 60s was participation in the people's revolution, which would put an end to autocracy, landownership, class restrictions. The task of preparing a revolutionary action required the unification and centralization of the democratic forces in the country, the creation of a revolutionary organization. In Russia, the initiative to create such an organization belonged to N.G. Chernyshevsky and his associates, abroad - A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev. The result of these efforts was the creation in St. Petersburg of the "Russian Central People's Committee" (1862), as well as local branches of the organization, called "Land and Freedom". The organization included several hundred members, and branches, except for the capital, existed in Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow, Tver and other cities.

In the opinion of the members of the organization, a peasant uprising was to break out in Russia in the spring of 1863, when the deadline for compiling charters expired. The activities of the society were aimed at agitation and propaganda, which were supposed to give an organized character to the future performance and stir up broad sections of the masses. Illegal publishing activities were established, a printing house was created in Russia, A.I. Herzen. Attempts were made to coordinate the Russian and Polish revolutionary movement. However, the Polish uprising of 1863-1864. ended in defeat, the peasant uprising in Russia did not occur, and the "Land and Freedom" was unable to organize a revolutionary uprising. Already in the summer of 1862, the autocracy went on the offensive. The magazines "Sovremennik" and "Russian Word" were closed, arrests were made in St. Petersburg, Moscow and other cities. Some of the revolutionaries, fleeing persecution, emigrated. N.G. Chernyshevsky, D.I. Pisarev, N.A. Serno-Solovyevich were arrested (Chernyshevsky, sentenced to hard labor, spent 20 years in hard labor and in exile).

In 1864, the society, weakened by arrests, but never opened, disbanded itself.

The defeat of insurgent Poland intensified the reaction in Russia, and the Polish uprising became the last wave of the revolutionary situation in the late 50s and early 60s. The first revolutionary situation in Russia did not end with a revolution due to the absence of the necessary subjective factor: the presence of a class capable of becoming the hegemon in the course of the impending bourgeois revolution. As a result of government repressions in the mid-1960s, the situation in the democratic environment changed significantly. There was an ideological crisis in the movement, which spilled over onto the pages of the democratic press. The search for a way out of the crisis led to discussions about the prospects of the movement (controversy between "Sovremennik" and "Russian Word"), the creation of new circles (N.A. Ishutina and I.A. Khudyakov, G.A. Lopatina). One of the members of Ishutin's circle, D.V. Karakozov, April 4, 1866 in St. Petersburg shot at Alexander II. However, neither the execution of Karakozov, nor the period of government terror that followed, interrupted the revolutionary movement. Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian state in 12 volumes. M .: INFRA, 2003.-487p.