test

2. The ideas of "communal socialism": Alexander Herzen, Nikolai Chernyshevsky, populists

European socialist ideas and Russian society. Second quarter of the 19th century was a time of rapid spread in Europe of socialist ideas, which gained strength in France, England and the German lands. Varieties of socialism found expression in the writings of thinkers, politicians and fashion writers. Proceedings of Saint-Simon, F. R. Lamennet, C. Fourier, V. Considerant, E. Cabet, B. Disraeli, R. Owen,

George Sand, later K. Marx and P. J. Proudhon were part of the reading circle of the enlightened public. The socialist idea was simple and attractive. It was based on the denial of the principle of private property, criticism of bourgeois relations and belief in the possibility of building a society where there would be no exploitation of man by man. Such a society was called communist. The objective basis of interest in socialism was the deep contradictions characteristic of the early bourgeois society, where free competition had no social restrictions, which gave rise to the deepest antagonism between the rich and the poor. The crisis of traditional society and the widespread collapse of the "old order" with their class certainty were perceived by many contemporaries as convincing evidence of the need for new social relations.

The ideas of socialism also penetrated into Russia. Exposing the imitation of the noble society, which was cut off from the Russian people by the reforms of Peter the Great, Khomyakov ridiculed the changeability of public moods from Catherine's to Nicholas' time. He correctly wrote about how the German-mystical humanists came to replace the French-style encyclopedists, who at the present moment are ready to be squeezed out by "thirty-year-old socialists." The initiator of Slavophilism concluded: “It is only sad to see that this precariousness is always ready to take upon itself the production of mental food for the people. It is sad and funny, yes, fortunately, it is also dead, and for that very reason it does not take root in life. Khomyakov's assertion that socialism is dead in Russia, that its ideas are alien to the common people, was rash. Chaadaev, who had amazing social vigilance, was more right when he asserted: "Socialism will win not because it is right, but because its opponents are wrong."

For Herzen, the European revolutionary upheavals became a prologue, a rehearsal for the future. In 1850, he addressed the Slavophiles as if on behalf of the Westerners: “Any day can overturn the dilapidated social structure of Europe and drag Russia into the turbulent stream of a huge revolution. Is it time to prolong the family quarrel and wait for events to get ahead of us, because we have not prepared either advice or words, which, perhaps, are expected of us? Don't we have an open field for reconciliation? And socialism, which so decisively, so profoundly divides Europe into two hostile camps, is it not recognized by the Slavophils just as it is by us? This is a bridge where we can give each other a hand.”

While building the edifice of "Russian socialism", Herzen, cut off from Russia, was mistaken about the Westernizers and Slavophiles. Socialism was alien to Khomyakov and Granovsky, Samarin and Kavelin. The peasant community, "discovered" by the Slavophiles, was for them not a prerequisite for socialism, as for Herzen, but a condition that ruled out the emergence of a proletariat in Russia. Herzen and the Slavophiles were related by the belief in the inviolability of communal foundations. Herzen was sure: "It is impossible to destroy the rural community in Russia, unless the government decides to exile or execute several million people."

communal socialism. He wrote about this in the article "Russia", in a series of works created at the height of the Nikolaev "Gloomy Seven Years". Borrowing a lot from the Slavophiles, Herzen turned to the community that has existed in Russia “from time immemorial” and thanks to which the Russian people are closer to socialism than the peoples of Europe: “I see no reason why Russia must necessarily undergo all phases European development, I also do not see why the civilization of the future must necessarily obey the same conditions of existence as the civilization of the past. This statement is the essence of Herzen's "Russian", or communal, socialism. For Herzen, the peasant community was the key to the moral health of the Russian people and the condition for its great future. The Russian people “has retained only one fortress that has remained impregnable through the ages - its land community, and because of this, it is closer to a social revolution than to a political revolution. Russia comes to life as a people, the last in a row of others, still full of youth and activity, in an era when other peoples dream of peace; he appears proud of his strength, in an age when other peoples feel tired even at sunset.

Herzen wrote: “We call Russian socialism that socialism that comes from the land and peasant life, from the actual allotment and the existing redistribution of fields, from communal ownership and communal management, and goes along with work, like no one’s artel, towards that economic justice, towards which socialism in general aspires and which science confirms.

Following the Slavophiles, he understood the economic principles of the peasant land community as equality and mutual assistance, the absence of exploitation, as a guarantee that "a rural proletariat in Russia is impossible." He especially emphasized that communal land ownership opposed the principle of private property and, therefore, could be the basis for building a socialist society. He wrote: “The rural community is, so to speak, a social unit, a moral personality; the state should never have encroached on it; the community is the owner and the object of taxation; she is responsible for everyone and everyone individually, and therefore autonomous in everything that concerns her internal affairs. The principles of communal self-government Herzen believed it possible to extend to urban residents and to the state as a whole. He proceeded from the fact that communal rights would not restrict the rights of individuals. Herzen built a social utopia, it was a kind of European utopian consciousness. At the same time, this was an attempt to develop an original socialist doctrine based on the absolutization of the historical and socio-political characteristics of Russia. Over time, on the basis of Herzen's constructions, theories of Russian, or communal, socialism developed, which became the essence of populist views.

Herzen paid special attention to the elimination of obstacles that prevent going "towards socialism." Under them, he understood the imperial power, which since the time of Peter I has introduced political and social antagonism into Russian life, and landowner serfdom, a “shameful scourge” that has weighed on the Russian people. He considered the liberation of the peasants to be the primary task, subject to the preservation and strengthening of communal land ownership. He proposed to show the initiative in liberation either to the Russian nobility or to the government, but more often he spoke about the liberating nature of the future social revolution. Here his views were not consistent.

Free Russian printing house. In 1853 he founded the Free Russian Printing House in London. He said: "If I do nothing more, then this initiative of Russian glasnost will someday be appreciated." The first edition of this printing house was an appeal to the Russian nobility “St. George's Day! St. George's day! ”, In which Herzen proclaimed the need for the liberation of the peasants. He was afraid of Pugachevism and, turning to the nobles, he suggested that they think about the benefits of "liberating the peasants with land and with your participation." He wrote: “Prevent great disasters while it is in your will. Save yourself from serfdom and the peasants from the blood they will have to shed. Have pity on your children, pity on the conscience of the poor Russian people.”

Outlining the foundations of a new doctrine - communal socialism, Herzen explained: "The word socialism is unknown to our people, but its meaning is close to the soul of a Russian person who lives out his life in a rural community and in a workers' artel." In the first work of the free Russian press, a prediction was expressed: "In socialism, Russia will meet with the revolution." In those years, Herzen himself was far from believing in the imminent onset of revolutionary events in Russia, his addressee, the Russian nobility, thought even less about it. In another leaflet, "To the Brothers in Russia," he called on the noble society and all advanced people to take part in the common cause of liberation. In Nicholas' time, this vague call was not heeded.

Herzen was the first to announce the possibility of victory in Russia socialist revolution, which he understood as a popular, peasant revolution. He was the first to point out that it was Russia that was destined to lead the path to socialism, along which, as he believed, the rest of the European peoples would follow it. At the heart of Herzen's foresight: the rejection of the Western "philistinism" and the idealization of the Russian community. His teaching, the foundations of which he outlined in the last years of Nicholas's reign, was a notable stage in the development of European socialist thought. It testified both to the commonality of those ideological searches that took place in Russia and Western Europe, and to the futility of the efforts of the Nikolaev ideologists, to the collapse of the Nikolaev ideocracy.

In a historical perspective, the desire of Nicholas I and his ideologists to establish complete control over society was inconclusive. It was during his reign that the liberal and revolutionary socialist trends arose and ideologically took shape. freedom movement, the development and interaction of which soon began to determine the fate of Russian thought, the state of public life and, ultimately, the fate of Russia.

A.I. Herzen - the creator of the Free Russian Printing House

Foreign policy USSR during the years of perestroika 1985-91.

The extremely difficult political situation was aggravated to the limit by the crisis of national relations, which ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR. The first manifestation of this crisis was the events in Kazakhstan at the end of 1986...

Decembrist uprising: historical accident or necessity

But, nevertheless, it seems to me that works related to the names of the historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky and the writer Alexander Ivanovich Herzen are worthy of a more detailed study. This is due to...

Ideological and political trends in Russian public thought first quarter of the 19th century

The beginning of the spread of the ideas of utopian socialism in Russia is associated with the activities of the circle of A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev at Moscow University in 1831-1834...

Ideological currents and socio-political movements in Russia in the second half of the 19th century.

There was a formation and ideology of the Russian revolutionary movement. It was associated primarily with the activities of A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogaryov. They organized a group of supporters of the republic and utopian socialism in the early 30s. In the 50s...

Social movement in Russia in the 30-50s of the XIX century

revolutionary democratic utopian socialism The emergence of interest in socialist teachings dates back to the early 1830s. and was associated with that attention ...

One of the circles that arose in the early 30s of the XIX century was the “Literary Society of the 11th Number”, headed by V.G. Belinsky. The majority in the circle were people from a heterogeneous environment, who sympathetically accepted what was written by young V.G ...

Social movement in Russia in the 30-50s of the XIX century

The emergence of interest in socialist teachings dates back to the early 1830s. and was connected with the attention with which the advanced layers of Russian society followed revolutionary change 1830-1831 in Western Europe...

Primitive era of mankind

Approximately in the V - IV millennium BC. e. decay has begun primitive society. Among the factors contributing to this, in addition to the Neolithic revolution, an important role was played by the intensification of agriculture, the development of specialized cattle breeding ...

Russia under Nicholas I deepening crisis of the feudal-serf system

Theories of the origin of the Kievan state

On the question of what kind of social organization the Eastern Slavs lived in immediately before their unification under the rule of the Russian princes, in historical literature varied opinions were expressed. To get to the truth...

2.1. The socialist utopia of Herzen and Ogarev

In a certain sense, the first step towards utopian socialism was taken by the Decembrists, who in their ideological searches doubted not only the expediency of the tsarist autocracy, but also the French Revolution. Many of them not only reflected on its experience, “trying on” its results to Russian realities, but they were also familiar, according to researchers of the Decembrist movement, with the ideas of the utopian socialists - C. Saint-Simon, C. Fourier, R. Owen. It can be said that in the 1920s, if not the teaching, then some of the ideas of Saint-Simon and the experiments of R. Owen in New Lanark, were, as they say, “on the lips” of the progressively minded Russian public.

Therefore, apparently, one should agree with Sakulin that, "taken in general", the worldview of the Decembrists can be regarded as one of the preliminary steps to Russian socialism. And in this case, the first experience of utopian modeling in this direction can well be considered “Russian Truth” by P.I. Pestel. Of course, Pestel was not a socialist, but without comprehending the experience of the December uprising of 1825 and the ideas of Russkaya Pravda, the interest in the ideas of socialism that emerged in the early 30s of the last century would hardly have arisen. The revolutionary practice of Europe, against this background, passion for the works of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, as we have already mentioned above, played an important role in this passion. However, the ideas of these thinkers had to lie in the ground, capable of not only accepting them, but also “cultivating them”.

Such soil was largely prepared by the Decembrist uprising - their ideological quest and tragic death. The questions posed by them worried more than one generation of fighters for social harmony, and more than once, in search of answers to these questions, they turned to the Decembrists as their spiritual mentors. In the history of ideas, it is much more important than the first ponder on this or that question than to be the first to find the correct answer to it. Pestel was one of those who thought first. I thought about the main thing that in one generation will determine the direction of intellectual and moral quests: what does capitalist civilization bring to mankind, is it an obligatory stage in the development of history? And if so, which ones? social balances” Her plagues can be invented by mankind in order to protect themselves from them.

Reflecting on the historical development of the West after the revolutionary storms that swept over it, Pestel came to the conclusion that the social order: "feudal aristocracy" was replaced by "aristocracy of wealth". With the latter, he associated an even greater corruption of morals than the one that disturbed him in Russia. And therefore, thinking about how Russia, advancing along the path of progress, can avoid the domination of the “monetary aristocracy”, Pestel takes a small step towards the socialist ideal, proposing in his Project not only the abolition of serfdom, but also a new agrarian law - the establishment of partly public ownership in the form of a public fund of land. This measure, aimed at the task of providing the poor with the necessary land allotment, according to Pestel's plan, was to create an economic barrier to the undivided domination of capitalism and guarantee political independence to citizens.

Pestel was far from denying the right to property in principle, moreover, he believed that the protection of the latter is "the sacred duty of the government." But the compromise proposed by him (the institution of private and public ownership of land) or, more precisely, the one associated with this compromise orientation views on the social structure brought him closer to the ideas of socialism. An essential component of this orientation was the orientation towards the preservation of the de facto peasant community, the communal way of life in the countryside. - Probably, the orientation was mostly subconscious, in any case little reasoned, but it is very remarkable for our consideration of the issue. To a certain extent, this was an anticipation of the formulation of the problem that would determine the essence of “Russian socialism” over time.

That is why, we repeat, in assessing the Project of Social Transformations proposed by Pestel, the general the direction of the proposed search. In this sense, one cannot but agree with A.I. Volodin, who notes that “it is not the idea of ​​a public fund of lands in itself that brings Pestel closer to utopian socialism, but the whole course of his thoughts” . - “The course of reflections”, which will soon become close to the socialist constructions of Herzen and Ogarev. And the most important thing in this course of reflection is the rejection of capitalist civilization in the light of assessing the results of European bourgeois revolutions, on the one hand, and on the other hand, a special vision of the socio-economic nature of the Russian peasant community. We think that this is precisely what subsequently allowed Herzen and Ogarev to call Pestel the first socialist in Russia, a utopian socialist, we will add, for the utopianism of Russkaya Pravda is obvious. One can even say about it that it is a classic utopia. As a project of social transformations, it did not adequately express the existing economic situation of the country, including the serf system, did not take into account the social realities of Russia, which determined its historical movement at that time. And the proposed social measures for the restructuring of Russian society, and in particular its economy, did not take into account the socio-economic reality in which the country lived, did not correlate with those trends that could lead to the desired and predictable changes. It can be argued with a high degree of probability that if the program outlined by Pestel had come true, then this would hardly have provided the necessary favorable conditions for the social and political transformations he had planned. But the Word was spoken, and it became the Prologue to the history of Russian socialism.

The beginning of Russian socialist thought is associated with a later time, and most importantly, with another historical generation of thinkers who declared themselves in the early thirties of the 19th century. This generation witnessed the July Revolution of 1830 and the Polish uprising of 1830-1831, which once again demonstrated the reactionary nature of the Russian autocracy. By this time, the opposition was virtually finished. The political reaction of Nicholas I crushed all the sprouts of free thought, planted fear, indifference and denunciation. But since the mid-1930s, the situation has acquired new features.

In appearance, Russia continued to stand still, and even seemed to be moving backward, but in essence everything was taking on a new look. Dissatisfaction with the policy of the tsarist autocracy grew, new young forces declared themselves: numerous student circles appeared (brothers V.M. and P.V. Kritsky, N.P. Sungurov, N.V. Stankevich, A.I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev), which discussed not only philosophical problems, but also the political situation in Europe and Russia. There is a mature public conviction that although new ways of struggle are not visible, the old ones are hardly possible either. The ideas of the socialist utopia of C. Saint-Simon, C. Fourier, R. Owen resonated. The educated public again turns to the ideas of the Enlightenment, the term itself becomes a key concept in the philosophical understanding of the past and future of the country. Enlightenment is regarded as a necessary spiritual basis for the development of the entire human civilization, and in the educational ideology they begin to see a force capable of forming the broad masses of the people, moreover, education and the corresponding upbringing are considered as a factor in the socio-political transformations of the country.

The orientation towards the ideas of the Enlightenment is quite understandable: if bourgeois revolutions had already thundered in the West and Europe was on the verge of the first proletarian uprisings, then Russia still largely retained feudal (serfdom) structures. Therefore, advanced social thought bore the features of a noble ideology, characterized, on the one hand, by sharp criticism of the existing order of things, on the other hand, by relative calm towards the ideas of civil society, rule of law, a constitutional guarantee of rights and political freedoms, i.e. to the demands of bourgeois democracy. The appeal to the socialist utopia was largely associated with the search for a way out of the dead ends of enlightenment thought that had emerged by that time. But that is precisely why utopian thought still in many respects bore the features of enlightenment. It was a time when the ideas of enlightenment had not yet exhausted themselves, and the ideas of socialism had not yet received a form adequate to their essence.

It cannot be said that the Russian public was ready to accept the ideas of socialism. (Even V.G. Belinsky at that time treated them generally negatively.) Nevertheless, socialism was already spoken of in Russia (V.S. Pecherin, V.P. Botkin, A.I. Turgenev, A.A. .Kraevsky). True, for the most part in correspondence with friends, in unpublished manuscripts that were distributed, in private disputes. The very ideas of the socialist ideal were of a very vague and poorly defined character. At that time, the ideas of socialism acted as a fact not so much of a public as of a narrow group consciousness, sometimes even taking on a religious, mystical character. It was a period, according to Sakulin, of romantic and even mystical socialism.

The transfer of the ideas of European socialism (in the form of Saint-Simonism) to Russian soil was carried out by A.I. Gertsen and N.P. Ogarev. Their enthusiasm for the ideas of socialism began in their student years. Recalling this time, Ogarev writes: “The first idea that sunk into our heads when we were kids was socialism. First we stuck our self to it, then they stuck it to our self, and main goal done: we will create socialism.” Loyalty to his ideas, as well as passion for Saint-Simonism, they carried through their lives. “Saint-Simonism,” Herzen wrote, “formed the basis of our convictions and invariably remained essential.”

The conceptual development of socialism, its conscious propaganda on the pages of the open press began in the 1940s. By this time, the circle of adherents of the socialist ideal had expanded significantly, and socialist ideas began to be widely discussed on the pages of domestic journalism (“Domestic Notes”, “Sovremennik”). In the 1940s, Russia had its own socialist literature. Interest in the ideas of socialism coincided (and to some extent was due) to the emerging new line in the development of Russian social thought. This line was associated with a heightened interest in France, which attracted the attention of all of Europe. The eyes of intellectual Russia were directed in the same direction, but not only at the moderate France of Louis Philippe and Guizot, but also at revolutionary France, which fought the Guizot regime and prepared the events of 1848. This France inspired hope and at the same time fear. Therefore, new sympathies took on some kind of exalted form. “The Russian intelligentsia fell in love not with modern, real France, but with some other - imaginary France, fantastic France,” wrote P.V. Annenkov. These sympathies were destined to push aside the old love of Russian intellectuals for philosophizing Germany. Interest turned towards the socialist research of the French. The themes of the social order began to be discussed vividly, the history of European civilization and abstract questions of the future were criticized. The interest shown earlier under the influence of Fichte and Schelling in philosophical metaphysics served as a kind of preparation for social metaphysics.

The quite natural rapprochement between these two philosophical forms that took place in Russia gave AI Herzen's philosophy of history based on scientific realism and at the same time connected with social utopia. It can be said without exaggeration that without the historiosophical ideas of Herzen it is impossible to understand the meaning of Russian socialism,(this stage of its history.

The formalization of the ideas of socialism into their own theory was preceded by criticism by its founders of French utopian socialism, which was reproached, on the one hand, for a weak philosophical study of the social ideal, and on the other hand, for being isolated from reality.

This criticism implicitly had two grounds. The first is the fascination with rationalism of German classical philosophy. In the early 1950s, Herzen recalled: “Socialism seemed to us the most natural syllogism of philosophy, the application of logic to the state.” The second is attempts to tie the socialist ideal to Russian life, to build bridges between it and historical reality, between the future and the present. Both of these determined the main feature of the socialist utopia: on the one hand, its rather strict conceptual elaboration based on the Hegelian doctrine of dialectics and Feuerbach's anthropological materialism, as well as on the materials of such social sciences as history and political economy, on the other hand, an attempt to connect the socialist doctrine with the fate of the Russian peasant community, in which an element of the future society was seen. Both moments were interconnected and determined each other, but most importantly, reflecting the state public consciousness and socio-economic situation in the country. Criticism of Western utopias marked a turning point in the worldview of adherents of socialism: in place of the passion for his ideas comes their conscious assimilation in order to turn the doctrine of socialism into “die Philosophie der That” (“philosophy of action”). This was already the first step towards moving away from education in matters of social modeling. And it was at this time, under the influence of European revolutions and certain disappointments in the former socialist utopias, that Herzen and Ogarev developed a theory that gave utopian thought a phenomenon called “ Russian socialism”, which combined free, free thought with the ideas of socialism, and eventually with the revolutionary democratic movement in Russia.

Initially, ideas about the coming social reorganization were very vague. But already in the early 1940s, their socialist views took shape conceptually and moved from letters and diaries to philosophical journalism. Herzen and Ogarev created a kind of historiosophical construction, which was a response to the socio-political demands of the country's national development. Two years before his death, Herzen gave her the following definition: “We Russian socialism we call that socialism that comes from the land and peasant life, from the actual allotment and the existing redistribution of fields, from communal ownership and communal management - and goes along with the workers' artel towards that economic justice towards which socialism in general aspires and which science confirms.

In search of a justification for the socialist ideal, Herzen and Ogarev, following the Saint-Simonist tradition, turn to the experience of the French Revolution. The central idea is the recognition of its historically logical nature: the French Revolution is seen as the result of a “disease in the political body of France”, which was “out of step with the century”. However, its spontaneous scope, the destructive nature of the consequences inspired the idea, rather, of its unreasonableness, rather than expediency, convinced of the perniciousness of violence as a means of solving social tasks. Already in his first article “On the Place of Man in Nature” (1832), Herzen defines the Jacobin dictatorship as “dark bloody terrorism”. Shortly before his death, in the letter “To an old comrade”, which was a kind of spiritual testament of the thinker to the next generations, Herzen confirmed his loyalty to this idea. “I do not believe in the seriousness of people who prefer breaking and brute force to development and deals. Sermon is needed by people - preaching, tireless, every minute, - preaching equally addressed to the worker and the owner, to the farmer and the tradesman. We need apostles before vanguard officers, before sappers of destruction - apostles who preach not only to their own, but also to opponents, ”he will say. This attitude towards violent methods of social transformation will later be transferred to the proletarian revolution. Although there is an objective basis for the destructive power of the latter: “the proletariat will measure it in the same measure in which it was measured,” Herzen will say; but that is precisely why the new commandments will appear “at the glow of burning palaces, on the ruins of factories and offices”. The proletarian revolution, as an element of violence, cannot become a bridge between the present and the future - its intentions are too destructive. In its fire with the capital collected by usurers, another capital may perish, in which "the chronicle of human life has been layered and history has crystallized." That is why the revolutionary cause appears for Herzen and Ogarev first of all as the Free Word, the fruitful effectiveness of which they will prove all their lives. The revolution should be carried out, in their opinion, by “developmental” activity. To such they attributed the propaganda of socialist ideas, criticism of the existing system, exposure of the ulcers of capitalism.

Such a consistent rejection of the revolution as a form of social reorganization also corrected the criticism of capitalism: a new aspect was revealed in it. Bourgeois society was not satisfied not only with the principles of the socio-economic organization of social life, but also with the principles that developed on their basis. way of life- bourgeois philistinism, individualism, “not curbed by acquisition”. Such a turn was not unexpected, if we recall the philosophical predilections of critics - we recall that they rested on Feuerbach's anthropologism and Hegel's dialectic. The person in the system of these views was considered as subject.

In accordance with this initial principle, Herzen's philosophy of history, which substantiates the natural-regular nature of the historical process, proceeded from the recognition that history, like nature, "does not go anywhere" - in the sense that it does not have a goal set by someone, and by virtue of this alone, it is “ready to go wherever it is pointed out,” and if it is possible, i.e. if nothing gets in the way. But people are “not dolls”, “not threads and needles in the hands of fate, sewing the colorful fabric of history”, and therefore they can “change the pattern of the carpet”, because “there is no owner, there is no pattern, there is only one basis”. The blind crowd, the philistinism, preoccupied only with the "dining room and bedroom," does not go anywhere and cannot lead anyone anywhere, it is not able to see the necessary "fairways of history." That is why the bourgeois way of life, by killing the activity of the subject in a person, also commits violence against history, because it deprives it of the main thing - the active human principle, thanks to which it acquires the ability to improvise, becomes a variable process, finds the most viable forms. Capitalist civilization did not suit the fact that it grounded human impulses and interests too much, thus preventing a person from understanding his “position as a helmsman”.

Let us note that for the same reason the former socialist Utopias did not suit thinkers either: they also killed a person - by their regulation and subordination to the service of the future. Both Herzen and Ogarev were active opponents of the utopian concept of progress, which saw the meaning of individual life in serving the future, in sacrificing it to the goal of its speedy approach. “If progress is the goal, then who are we working for? Who is this Moloch, who, as the workers approach him, instead of rewards, backs away and, as a consolation to the exhausted and doomed crowds that shout to him: Moriture te salutant, only knows how to answer with a bitter mockery that after their death it will be beautiful on earth ” . The present of each generation has its own value, its fullness, although this does not mean at all that a person should follow the lead of the present, allow him to suppress in him his natural calling to always remain free for volitional expressions. A person needs to be aware of himself free in any conditions. It was this consciousness that neither capitalist civilization nor the social ideal of the former utopians envisaged, Herzen and Ogarev believed. In this plane lay the main line of their opposition to both the capitalist present and the socialist future, as it was seen by their predecessors. Adhering to this line, however, was not always successful, sometimes the line of confrontation turned out to be too sharp, it was too difficult to draw it between the capitalist Scylla and the socialist Charybdis.

The rejection of capitalist civilization, its “bourgeoisness”, the desire to find for their country a path to the future, not infected with the ulcers of “bourgeoisness”, led to the “idea of ​​skipping” the stage of capitalism by Russia, which conceptually took shape in the theory of non-capitalist development. “We can and must go through the mournful, difficult phases of the historical development of our predecessors, but in the same way as the embryo goes through the lower stages of zoological existence,” wrote Herzen.

The idea was reinforced, firstly, by references to the social and economic prerequisites that were objective for this, which were associated with the peasant community, which was absent in the Western formula of development. In the appeal to the community, one can see a connection with Slavophilism (and not without reason), but this connection is still external, because the defense of communal principles (everyone's right to land, collective ownership of it, secular management) is subordinate to the doctrine of socialism and is dictated by a disinclination to cultivate national identity, but the desire to combine the achievements of Western civilization with the peculiarities of the life of the Russian people. In other words, however strange it may seem, there was more “Westernism” than “Slavophilism” in the very appeal to the community. It showed an obvious opposition to the latter, as conservative utopia. The task was seen as “... preserving all that universal human education taken from the West, which really took root in us and, therefore, should grow with us, to remove everything that did not take root, which amounted to an outgrowth of false institutions and false juridical concepts, and, consequently, liberate the popular principle of the public right of property and self-government so that it can develop without obstacles, in freedom.

Unlike the Slavophiles, Herzen and Ogarev, in their model of the historical development of Russia, proceeded from the fact of the internal inconsistency of the peasant community. On the one hand, by recognizing the equal right of everyone to the use of land, it affirmed the principle of collectivism, without which socialism is impossible. “In the hut of the Russian peasant, we found the germ of economic and administrative institutions based on the commonality of land ownership, on agrarian and instinctive communism,” Herzen is sure. On the other hand, the principles of communal life were seen as significant restrictions on the free development of a person, because the community "lulls a person, appropriates his independence."

In the removal of this contradiction - how to "develop the complete freedom of the individual, without losing the communal property and the community itself," in their opinion, "is the task of socialism." The defenders of the new utopia had no doubt that this contradiction could be overcome. To do this, it is necessary to free the community from the impurities introduced into it by Mongolism, bureaucracy, the German military, and serfdom. “Let the community develop freely,” Ogarev urged, “it will agree to determine the relationship of a person to the community, it will give the right to independence to a person.” True, it is difficult to say what this confidence was based on - whether on historical parallels, on speculative schemes, or on the historiosophical idea that any historically formed form carries a reasonable beginning. One thing is obvious - the community was conceived, under certain conditions, as capable of development and not interfering with the free development of the individual, and in this capacity it was considered as the embryo of a future society.

Note that it is not the community itself that is important, but its principles, which, by the way, are akin to a mobile “workers' artel” as a form that does not have monopoly rights, but is simply a union of free people of the same skill “for a common profit by common forces”. This predetermined the main conclusion, or rather, the main direction of all constructions, and with this - the chosen principles for modeling the future: Europe will go "by the proletariat to socialism, we - by socialism to freedom." The community was seen as the social structure that could link the present and future of the country with the least “costs”, ensuring the necessary rapid pace of economic and social development of Russian society for this. But even in defending this idea, Herzen and Ogarev remained convinced Westerners, for the task was seen in preserving the “people's principle” associated with “public property rights and self-government” and developing a “universal education” that had already taken root in Russia. The concept of “Russian socialism” pursued the goal not of a total negation of Western civilization, but of finding ways of development that corresponded to the historical features of Russia and, at the same time, did not exclude the accelerated assimilation of the achievements of this civilization by it. In the process of assimilation of the latter, the ideas of socialism should have played (and, as we know, have played) an important role. In this sense, Herzen was undoubtedly right when he said that “Russia has done its revolutionary embryogenesis in the European school /.../ We have served the people this service, painful, painful.”

Secondly, Russia's “jumping idea” through the capitalist phase of development was supported by references to the idea of ​​the advantage of “lagging behind” peoples. It should be noted that in substantiating this idea, the founders of “Russian socialism” completely lacked elements of social mysticism, as well as there was no emphasis on violent methods, which would be typical for the subsequent defenders of this idea - the Bolsheviks. “In some respects we are farther and freer than Europe because we are so far behind it... The liberals are afraid of losing their freedom - we have no 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 acquire them. In defending the idea of ​​a leap, the line of opposition to the liberal model is highlighted: in communal socialism there is no place for civil society, its problems do not seem to worry the defenders of the socialist utopia. True, the significance of these problems is not denied, but not for Russia in the era of autocracy. As long as autocracy exists, all talk about civil society, law and liberal freedoms is a utopia, the socialists believe, because at the beginning it is necessary to resolve issues related to ensuring the economic and political prerequisites for civil society and, above all, the elimination of serfdom and autocracy. In such a formulation of the problem, they, as it were, looked beyond the liberals, more precisely (they were more realistic. But in choosing the means of solving this problem, they were utopians.

The non-capitalist path of development involved the preparation of the necessary social and economic conditions, measures for the reorganization of the social economy. In this preparatory work, it is important to resist the temptation to "jump right away - out of impatience" (Herzen). Otherwise, the destroyed old system “will start again some kind of bourgeois world”, because it is “not finished inside” and because the new organization is not ready at first “to be replenished by being realized”. Herzen's warnings on this score are very important for understanding the following moments of the "jump idea". First of all, it not only did not exclude, but assumed the necessary preparatory work: the new organization should not be planted by coercive means, by the force of the authority of its immediate initiators, for it should have a real basis. Further, the “jump idea” did not contradict Herzen's philosophy of history, in particular, its initial premise about the natural course of history. The latter, within the framework of historical regularity, could vary its directions, if those did not run counter to its general logic. The non-capitalist path of development seemed to be just such a possible option, having objective grounds in the historically established Russian peasant community. It did not exist in the West - there were no prerequisites for a "jump" there, in Russia it was - and this gave it other chances for development. Perhaps these chances will lead to a dead end. And perhaps not. But in any case, the model of “peasant socialism” is a reality, although only “a special case of a new economic order, a new citizenship, one of their applications,” as Herzen emphasized, convinced that social ideas have a variety of forms of embodiment.

Thirdly, the idea of ​​“jumping” was justified by the “philosophy of chance”. We have already noted above that “Russian socialism” was inspired not only by the national and highly developed patriotic feelings of its founders. But at the same time, he obviously gravitated toward rationalistic justification, toward philosophically formulated scientistic arguments. Herzen’s historiosophical interpretation of chance is among such scientistic justifications for the possibility of Russia’s own path of development: the opportunity to get ahead is connected with the fact that the course of history is not rigidly predetermined, because its “formula” includes many changeable principles, including the possibility of chance, whereby she tends to to improvisation". “In the absence of a plan and a deadline, a yardstick and a clock, development in nature, in history, not only cannot deviate, but must constantly deviate, following every influence and due to its endless suffering, resulting from the absence of definite goals.” Therefore, history "rushes in all directions", creating "countless variations on the same theme." On this thesis - about the role of chance and the tendency of history to improvise due to the possibilities inherent in it to move in various directions - Herzen's idea of ​​\u200b\u200bsocialism in general and the rationale for its possibility in Russia are based. In an economically backward country like Russia, it may well take root as a result of historical improvisation. But, despite the obvious scientism of the initial premises, in the idea, and in its justification, there is a lot of room for utopianism. Noteworthy in this regard is the assessment of V.V. Zenkovsky, who believed that it was by including the category of chance in the model of historical development that “Herzen discovered for Russian thought a very fruitful and creative basis for various utopian and theoretical constructions” .

"Russian socialism" was an attempt to build bridges between the ideal and historical reality. The possibility of its implementation was associated with the installation of philosophical realism, which was recognized as the basis of socialist theory. Its essence is “the science of experience and calculation”, i.e. political economy theory and social practice adequate to it. “Undoubtedly, socialism is associated with the science of actual experience and calculation,” N.P. Ogarev wrote, “in turn, the science of experience and calculation ... is undoubtedly associated with philosophical realism, it cannot take another basis for itself without changing itself to yourself." Herzen had the same position: “The stronghold of property and capital must be shaken by calculation, double-entry bookkeeping, a clear balance of debit and credit.” The “science of experience and calculation” was directly related to economic issues, which were considered as the main, initial ones in any type of social modeling. “The science of social organization comes more and more to the need to take as its center economic relations society. Thus, the main problem passes from the indeterminacy of a too broad statement to more clearly defined limits. We reduce the formulation of the main task to the economic relations of society” .

The appeal to political economy, which is “strongly seated on the soil” (Ogarev), will force socialism to “ground” its ideas, which in turn will breathe air into political economy. The combination of political economy with socialism on the territory of the idea of ​​the role of communal landownership unfolded the socialist ideal to real life, strengthened it with the necessary “economic principle”. (A little later, from such a formulation of the problem, the so-called populist socialism will grow, which will close socialist theory to revolutionary practice, revealing a point of growth for another - Bolshevik - Utopia.

2.2. Economic rationale for a socialist utopia

At the end of the 1940s, almost simultaneously with Herzen and Ogarev, an economist who attracted attention, prof. Petersburg University V.A. Milyutin. Raising the question of overcoming the utopianism of socialist theories, he emphasized that the latter should address economic questions. Socialist theory must be united with political economy; this will give it the necessary philosophical and historical character, it will include knowledge of the objective laws of history. Milyutin accepts Utopia as a way of social modeling, considering it a necessary and natural form of "human thinking". If a person did not have this ability to oppose his ideal to reality, there would be no development, there would be no history. But it is important to put a limit on your ideal constructions, your imagination in time. This is possible on the territory of the philosophy of history, which, according to Milyutin, occupies a middle position between the “pure ideal” and “pure reality”. “It is nothing but an expression of their mutual relationship, a science that explains the way the ideal passes into reality and the development of reality in accordance with the ideal” .

As a positive and exact science, i.e. giving a rational foresight of the future, the philosophy of history frees Utopia from the elements of dreaminess and prophecy. The latter, fundamentally changing the relationship of the social ideal with reality, made possible the transition of Utopia little by little from an unrealizable dream into a completely practical idea, based on the knowledge that humanity cannot voluntarily, i.e. "without preparations", to pass from the existing state to the state of "complete and unconditional perfection". These preparations, Milyutin believed, are connected with the gradual improvement of the economic organization of society, and above all with the regulation of the relationship between labor and capital: “... as long as this relationship does not change, various necessary conditions and elements of progress will constantly be in disagreement and breakup.

The path to this is the development of industry, the improvement of property relations, the credit system, the organization of labor in a direction that makes it possible for the worker to participate "in the benefits of capital." Gradual improvement of modern economic organization - the immediate and immediate goal and tasks social science, including the theory of socialism (associated with the search for means and ways to achieve this goal. Appeal to this goal will make socialism a “true utopia”, that is, it will give it a social ideal, the presence of which determines any utopia as a special genre of intellectual creativity, features of rationality, will bring socialism into harmony with reality and its laws.

From these positions, Milyutin criticizes the contemporary socialist Utopia. Socialists, he believes, are concerned about the search for such an ideal device that will provide everyone with the enjoyment of all possible benefits, i.e. take "just as the only criterion of the possible." For Milyutin, a way out of this impasse (the legitimacy of the socialist ideal when it is inconsistent with the economic laws of development) is possible only with the help of political economy, which not only does not remove the character of dreaminess from Utopia, but also allows, bringing it closer to reality, to study and understand the latter in accordance with with its own tendencies and forces, thus bringing Utopia closer to life. The result of the fusion of socialism with political economy will be, according to Milyutin, new science about a society whose task was seen "in the application of open truths to life and in the transformation of the economic structure in accordance with the requirements of reason and the common good" . This will give socialism the character of "scientific formulas" and turn it from an unrealizable dream into an idea capable of moving from the "sphere of abstractions into the sphere of reality."

Milyutin's ideas were continued in the 1950s. in the doctrine of socialism N.G. Chernyshevsky. Back in 1848, he wrote that political economy and history “are now at the head of all sciences. Without political economy it is now impossible to take a step into scientific world. And it’s not just fashion, as others say, no, political and economic issues really now come to the fore both in theory and in practice, that is, both in science and in the life of the state. Like political economy, the content of socialism is limited to the economic side of life. Actually, between these two theories it is possible to put a sign of identity. Therefore, in modeling the future socialist society, Chernyshevsky pays attention primarily to questions of its economic and logistical prerequisites, its logical conditionality.

At this time, his works “Criticism of Philosophical Prejudices Against Communal Ownership” (1858), “Capital and Labor” (1860), “Essays on Political Economy (according to Mile)” (1861) were published in Sovremennik. The peculiarity of Chernyshevsky's modeling of the contours of socialist society lies in the fact that he substantiates the Future on the basis of identifying the leading trends of the present - the contemporary capitalist realities of Western Europe. AT public relations“Everything depends on the current state of affairs, no matter what events it stems from, old or recent. If society is imbued with the desire to change these relations, it does not look at any right of prescription; the matter is decided by which side the power is on and what are the current feelings of the side that has the upper hand. Based in his research on the ideas of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, Godwin, as well as some constructions of Louis Blanc, the thinker comes to the conclusion: socialism is the inevitable result of the socio-economic history of mankind, its movement towards collective property and the “principle of partnership” .

In order to overcome the “dogmatic anticipations of the future”, as he characterized the previous Utopias, Chernyshevsky makes the historical process at the point of transition from the old to the new, from “today” to “tomorrow” the object of his analysis. The search for this transition leads Chernyshevsky to the conviction that the historical movement of society is subject to objective laws. (Although it should be noted that, on the whole, his views on the historical process at that time did not yet go beyond the framework of the Enlightenment theory.)

The problems of the economic conditionality of socialism were most consistently developed by Chernyshevsky in connection with the translation and commenting on the works of D.S. Mil, in particular his “Fundamentals of Political Economy”. Analysis of the historical process and economic development capitalist civilization led Chernyshevsky to the conclusion that the vector of the latter is the growth of large-scale industry and the increase in the socialization of labor, which must necessarily lead to the elimination of private property. In this sense, Chernyshevsky is sure, “one should not fear for the future fate of labor: the inevitability of its improvement lies in the very development of productive processes.” But it's not just technology trends. industrial production, but also in the objective social orientation of social development, which is revealed in the fact that humanity is moving “to replace hostility, which takes the form of competition in industrial affairs, with camaraderie, alliance”.

The main thing in questions about the future is to see the direction in which the present is developing. And because the direction always expresses a regularity, i.e. the essential characteristic of the historical process, and because, following the direction, the thinker frees the model from particulars that are difficult to correctly predict, since “historical movement is carried out under the influence of ... a variety of different drives.” Such direction, according to Chernyshevsky, is the “industrial direction”. It is the objective basis of all the changes that humanity expects and which should be guided by preparing or implementing these changes. This is a necessary, in modern terms, paradigm of social modeling.

Chernyshevsky himself, not without a share of enlightenment romanticism, substantiates his position in this way: industry needs security; it also gives rise to some concern about the scope for the individual, because industry needs the unhindered circulation of capital and people /... / When industry develops, progress is assured. As we can see, even in this obvious appeal to the material basis of life, Chernyshevsky remained a utopian, because the last criterion of progress in accordance with his philosophical anthropologism for him is the adequacy of social relations and institutions to “human nature”, “needs of human nature”. In this regard, the following judgment is noteworthy: “If the independence of society should really be the goal of social theory, then it is obvious that this goal can only be achieved by patronizing everything that contributes to the development of independence - namely, concern for the eradication of poverty, the spread of education, the softening of morals and the destruction of those causes from which the character deteriorates and human inclinations receive a false direction.

Nevertheless, socialism appears in Chernyshevsky's teaching as an economic necessity, which capitalism once became, bringing higher forms of production. The roots of this need go back to the socio-economic basis of capitalist civilization, as it developed, “the tendency opposite to the unlimited right to private property began to come out stronger and stronger ... everywhere there is something similar to communism” . The conclusion drawn served to substantiate the idea of ​​the transient nature and historical limitations of capitalism, the reasons for which Chernyshevsky saw primarily in the fact of the separation of the direct producer from the means of production, i.e. in private ownership, which puts a limit to the development of production, the growth of labor productivity. This historical limitation of capitalism instills confidence in the doom of the private property system, in the reality of the situation "when separate classes of wage workers and employers of labor disappear, being replaced by one class of people who will be workers and owners together" .

Thus, capitalism in its historical movement comes to its own negation, brings closer its social antipode - socialism. The line of criticizing capitalism and drawing the future of society seemed to lead rather harshly to materialism. But this did not happen - did not lead. Sometimes the analysis of capitalist realities led away from utopia, but then the contours of petty-bourgeois socialism with its focus on the small owner-producer appeared on the horizon.

The conclusion about the economic conditionality of socialism, about its roots in the capitalist (industrial) civilization did not shake Chernyshevsky's faith in the peasant community, which largely explains why he remained on the positions of utopian socialism. He is also close to the latter by his adherence to the idea of ​​a “jump”, which, however, has received a slightly different, different from Herzen's, philosophical formulation. “We are concerned with the question: whether a given social phenomenon must pass through all logical moments in the actual life of each individual society, or can, under favorable circumstances, pass from the first or second degree of development directly to the fifth or sixth, skipping the middle ones, as happens in the phenomena of individual life and in processes of physical nature, ”Chernyshevsky asks a question and gives a positive answer to it. Moreover, the people, the society that “jumped” over the historical step has a chance to avoid or at least reduce the miscalculations, mistakes, failures of those who slowly climbed the steps of history. “Late peoples” not only overcome this path faster, but also more easily, they find themselves in “favor” with a story that “like a grandmother terribly loves her younger grandchildren” .

Chernyshevsky associated his social ideal with communal ownership, which he supplemented with “communal production”. Communal ownership, in his opinion, "is much better than private property, it strengthens the national wealth." But the main thing is that communal ownership corresponds to the “combination of the worker and the owner in one person”, which guarantees freedom - political, civil, spiritual. For Chernyshevsky, this is the main indicator of the development of society. Therefore, if under the conditions of public ownership of the means of production, labor productivity will lose in some way, you should not worry too much, because the growth of material, material wealth is not a goal, but only a means of social progress. “Which factory produces more products: a factory owned by one capitalist owner, or a factory owned by an association of working people? - Asks Chernyshevsky and answers - I do not know and do not want to know; I only know that partnership is the only form in which it is possible to satisfy the working people's striving for independence, and therefore I say that production must take the form of a working people's partnership. As we can see, in political and economic matters Chernyshevsky sometimes followed the orientations that bore the stamp of enlightenment socialism in the 1940s. Nevertheless, compared with his predecessors, he made a noticeable step forward.

Firstly, Chernyshevsky gave new features to the socialist utopia, bringing its rationale closer to materialist dogma based on political economic analysis and criticism of capitalism. The appeal to political economy, the study of the laws of history, gave him some advantages in drawing the future of society and, above all, its socio-economic contours. Chernyshevsky's socialism presupposes "the combination of labor and property in the same persons", the disappearance of the "class of hired workers and the class of employers of labour", the emergence of a class of people who will be "workers and masters together", the combination of rent, profit and wages in one and the same the same hands, the participation of workers in the management of production, etc.

Secondly, for Chernyshevsky, the achievement of socialism is connected with the successes of human civilization, the historical movement of which “gives independence to the individual person, so that in his feelings and actions he is more and more guided by his own motives, and not by forms imposed from outside” . In his utopia, which combined socialism with the anthropological principle (man is the measure of all things), attention was equally paid to both the principles of building society and the person, the individual. It is Chernyshevsky's Utopia that we owe to the type of people who excited the public in the 1960s, once again excited them with the ideas of socialism, forced them to talk about it not so much as a desired future, but as a proper present. His socialist ideas, as E. Chertkova rightly notes, have a pronounced ethical character. The heroes of his novel “What is to be done?” became the prototypes of those “new people” who, after some time, made up numerous detachments of Narodnaya Volya and with whose practical activities the further evolution of Russian utopian socialism would be connected.

Thirdly, Chernyshevsky's interpretation of the ways to achieve the socialist ideal is peculiar, the central idea of ​​which is the idea of ​​“transferring” from the future to the present “everything that can be transferred”. (In this connection, Vera Pavlovna's Fourth Dream, about which we have already spoken, is noteworthy.) How can this "transfer" be carried out? - Through moral self-improvement, cultivating a critical attitude towards the existing reality, self-education, efforts where and how it is possible to introduce into life - your own and the people around you - love for work and such forms of its organization, which, on the one hand, are based on partnership , on the other hand, cultivate “fair business” and the principle of competition. Chernyshevsky himself, apparently, understood that there was a lot of utopianism in such recommendations, especially when it comes to Russia, which had not yet really set foot on the capitalist path of development. What the West requires of its people - rivalry, competition, enterprise (could not be fully in demand in Russia, and therefore for her "practical acceptance by society of such a form of economic calculation that would be more satisfactory than rivalry is a very difficult matter" . And not only difficult, but also distant, Chernyshevsky had no doubt about this.Such an obvious contradictory position, testifying to internal doubts and complex searches, gives his socialist views its own face, endows him with features that generally distinguish him from the socialist Utopia of the 1940s. , and from the socialism of “effective populism” of the 60-70s.

Fourth by asking the question “What to do?” and forcing one to think about the difficulties of answering it, Chernyshevsky did not deny mass (for Russia - peasant) revolutionary actions as a way of approaching the Future. But they must be trained. He was an opponent of spontaneous, rebellious actions, convinced of their futility. A necessary condition for a successful people's revolution is the choice of its "proper direction", i.e. such as only organizations of revolutionaries can achieve - a group of enlightened, critically thinking people who, by their behavior and actions, are able to inspire the masses to fight. By these arguments (not by the idea of ​​revolution in itself!) Chernyshevsky opened the way for combining socialist theory with revolutionary practice, for transforming it from a fact of social thought into a fact of revolutionary struggle. It is true that these problems would be developed by him after the peasant reform of 1861, and it was from that time on that Chernyshevsky would write less and less about socialism. This was actually the “beginning of the end” of socialist utopian thought in Russia in its classical version, when the modeling of the future society is carried out in the sphere of consciousness and by means of consciousness. The ideas of socialism will migrate to the realm of practice. True, as historical experience has shown, this fact in itself did not at all free them from utopianism, for even practical actions can lead to "historical nowhere."

* * *

We examined the stage of development of Russian utopian socialism, associated with the beginning of the 60s - the end of the 70s of the last century, bringing it to the beginning of the revolutionary movement in Russia, when there was a transition to active propaganda of socialist ideas, which included such brilliant publicists as N A. Dobrolyubov, M. O. Mikhailov, N. V. Shelgunov, N. A. Serno-Solov'evich, D. I. Pisarev, P. G. Zaichnevsky. Through their efforts, the ideas of socialism were transferred to the level of applied developments, connected for the most part with the tactics and strategy of the revolutionary struggle. The socialist utopia has united with the Russian revolutionary liberation movement, and from now on they will act in one stream.

At this time, various trends arose within Russian socialism and the revolutionary movement, sometimes entering into irreconcilable relations with each other. But the dominant trend in both the liberation movement and socialist thought was "effective populism." "Effective populism" came out both against the remnants of serfdom, the tsarist autocracy, and against the bourgeois path of development of Russia. Its main ideologists were M.A. Bakunin, P.L. Lavrov, P.N. Tkachev, V.V. Bervi-Flerovsky, K.M. Mikhailovsky. The concepts of Herzen and Chernyshevsky were replaced by theories, in which the general theoretical, “involved in enlightenment”, foundations of the classics were concretized into programs of social action that focused on mass “going to the people”, which resulted in “a kind of familiarization with the source of what was recognized as the embodiment of justice and good ” . The Narodniks began talking about socialism in a different language, and in fact about a different kind of socialism, trying to suggest that the struggle for its realization is “the personal task of the individual”, which he must recognize as his inner duty. The new generation of its adherents was able to formulate the idea of ​​socialism as a political and moral principle, as a formula for direct action. Everyone was obsessed with the passion to "arrange the future."

At this time, the processes of differentiation manifest themselves more and more sharply in the socialist movement. Disagreements arise on questions of tactics and forms of revolutionary struggle: what should be given preference - strengthening the propaganda of socialist ideas among the people, calls for a revolt against the autocracy, mass terror against representatives of power structures (up to the extermination of the royal family)? The ideas of anarchism, the call of M.A. Bakunin to get together with the people in order to “rush along with them wherever the storm takes them,” receive a wide response. Defending the forms of public self-organization based on the principles of self-government, autonomy and free federation (of individuals, provinces, nations), Bakunin opposed the centralized bureaucratic state. “We want complete freedom for all peoples, now oppressed by the empire, with the right of complete self-disposition on the basis of their own instincts, needs and will, so that by federating from below upwards, those of them who want to be members of the Russian people could create together a real free and a happy society in friendly federal relations with similar societies in Europe and the whole world, ”wrote Bakunin.

It is this form of organization of people - based on will, on self-determination, which can be “captured”, according to Bakunin, and many of those who experienced the euphoria of freedom much later, can guarantee social equality and justice. Otherwise, equality will turn into slavery, and freedom - injustice. But history proves just the opposite. And the utopianism of the thesis is revealed in the proposed program of struggle for the realization of the ideal: the means of its realization was proclaimed to be the awakening of the instinctive impulses of the masses for freedom, aimed at the violent destruction of state structures. The utopianism of Bakunin's theory consisted in the reliance on the destructive power of mass actions, in the conviction that violence could give rise to harmony and social peace. He, like his followers, did not take into account the fact that the ideas of freedom learned by the crowd become ideas-passions of the uncontrollable crowd and acquire a destructive character. History has proved this more than once, moreover, it proves this to this day, we just do not accept its arguments in due measure. Maybe because, as V. G. Fedotova rightly notes, “will instead of freedom as the opposite pole of patience is a characteristic feature of the Russian consciousness.” This “will instead of freedom” still excites the minds of many today.

Among those who in the XIX century. opposed anarchist sentiments were G.A. Lopatin, M.F. Nereskul, P.L. Lavrov and - I.A. Herzen. Let us recall once again his letter “To an Old Comrade”, which was the result of long, painful reflections on the essence of socialism and revolution, on their “transformed forms” and the danger of not seeing the ideal itself behind the means of struggle. Herzen, as it were, “opened” the curtain of history and saw what would happen in a few decades. “It has been noticed that the opposition, which openly fights the government, always has something of its character, but in the opposite sense. And I am sure that there is a well-known reason for the fear that the Russian government is beginning to feel before communism - this is the Russian autocracy in reverse.

Herzen's "letter of warning" warned against revolutionary adventurism, blindly following the interests of the crowd, and manipulating its consciousness. Of particular concern was the reality of the degeneration of the ideas of socialism into barracks communism. Woe to the revolution, poor in spirit, which will turn from everything past and acquired into a boring workshop, the entire benefit of which will consist in one subsistence, Herzen warned. He also warned against attempts to build a new society by means of violence. In striking the old world, it is necessary to save everything that is worth saving. Along with the condemnation of anarchist sentiments, political adventurism, provoking the masses to spontaneous actions under the sign of a straightforwardly understood freedom, Herzen does not agree with the demands for the destruction of the state as a public institution of power. The state cannot be denied, Herzen argued, until the main condition for leaving it is reached - “the majority of the majority”. For “it is impossible for people to be liberated in the outward life more than they are liberated inside. Strange as it may seem, experience shows that it is easier for nations to endure the forcible burden of slavery than the gift of excessive freedom. The correctness of this thesis is confirmed by our current experience. “Labyrinths of freedom”, it turns out, also have their dead ends.

Herzen's testament closed the last page of peasant socialism, but, it is true, did not put an end to the evolution of Russian utopian thought. She did not go into oblivion, although she was so transformed that it was difficult to recognize her in those modifications that history had prepared. The peasant socialist Utopia gave way to the Bolshevik proletarian one. Initially, and even later, no one saw in it the features of the old utopianism - it was difficult to consider them in a theory based on a scientific worldview - a materialistic explanation of history. But this is a completely different topic and another page in the history of Russian utopia.

The entire land fund was proposed to be divided into two parts: - public, created by tearing away part of the landowners' estates, and private. The first was intended for free distribution for use by all those in need. The second was supposed to be the subject of sale.

There. S. 347.

Milyutin V.A. Proletarian and pauperism in England and France // He is. There. S. 162.

There. S. 380.

Chernyshevsky N.G. Letter to G.I. and E.E. Chernyshevsky on November 22, 1849 // He is. Full coll. op. In 15 vols. T. 14. M., 1948-1950. S. 167.

Chernyshevsky N.G. Footnotes to Mill's translation // Ibid. T. 9. S. 836.

In this connection, joining the point of view of A.I. What should the future society be like? Plekhanov G.V. Op. T. VI. M.-L., 1925. S. 70). It is the present that becomes for Chernyshevsky the starting point in the economic substantiation of the socialist ideal. (Cm.: Volodin A.I.

There. S. 237.

Bakunin M.A. Our program // Populist economic literature. Fav. works. M., 1958. S. 121.

Fedotova V.G. Anarchy and Order in Post-Communist Russia // At the Crossroads. M., 1999. S. 126.

Herzen A.I. On the development of revolutionary ideas in Russia // He is. Sobr. op. in 8 vols. T. 3. M., 1975. S. 971.

Herzen A.I. To an old friend // He is. Sobr. op. In 30 tons. T. 20, book. 2. S. 590.

Communal (peasant) socialism

The ideology of communal or peasant socialism is an exclusively Russian utopian project for the socialist reorganization of the country. Experience in the development of capitalism in the leading European countries with its sharp contradictions forced the Russian revolutionary democrats to look for other ways of social development. In their midst, the ideas of building a just society on the basis of a peasant community, in which they saw the prototype of socialism, matured. The most famous developers of this project were Herzen, Chernyshevsky and Ogarev, whose views were not only utopian, but also anarchist.

Alexander Herzen

Russian revolutionary democrat, outstanding materialist philosopher, economist, writer Alexander Ivanovich Herzen (1812-1870) is considered, along with Belinsky, the forerunner of Russian social democracy. Herzen was born in Moscow on the very day that Napoleon entered it. He was the illegitimate son of a wealthy landowner, I. A. Yakovlev, and a German woman, Perkhota Haak, who lived with Herzen's father all her life, but never became his legal wife.

In 1829, Herzen entered Moscow University, where he began a lifelong friendship with Nikolai Ogarev. At the university, friends created a student revolutionary circle. In 1934, Herzen graduated from the Physics and Mathematics Department of the University and plunged headlong into revolutionary activities.

In his works, especially in "Past and thoughts" he recreated a whole historical epoch, analyzed the contemporary economic system of Russia and Western countries. He was arrested several times, sent away from Moscow (Perm, Vyatka, Novgorod). However, in 1842 he returned to Moscow and immediately found himself in the center of the revolutionary struggle.

Gradually, Herzen became one of the central figures of Russian public life of that era, which was facilitated by his brilliant abilities as a polemicist, colossal erudition, talent as a thinker and artist. In 1838, he married Natalia Zakhar "їnіy", his cousin. Herzen's father did not give money to the young until the grandchildren were born. Herzen loved his wife, they had four children.

In 1847, Herzen went abroad, and the period 1848-1952 became very difficult for him and his family. His wife fell in love with the German poet Herweg, then his mother and son died tragically, then his wife also died. Herzen buried her in Nice, where he himself was subsequently buried.

In 1853, in London, Herzen created the Free Russian Printing House, and later the journals Polar Star and Kolokol, which published sharp articles on tsarism and the feudal system in Russia. Russian government declared him a criminal and Herzen lived abroad until the end of his life.

Herzen's economic views were integral part his revolutionary outlook. The focus of his attention was criticism of serfdom, the question of the economic and political conditions for its elimination. He sharply opposed the ownership of the landlords on the personality of the peasant, analyzed the essence and forms of exploitation. He considered serfdom the main reason for the backwardness of Russia, advocated the liberation of the peasants from it.

The main problem of his antikriposnitskoy concept was agrarian. He demanded at the first stage of reforms to transfer to the peasants the land for redemption, which was in their use. However, over time, his views became more radical and revolutionary. He did not accept the peasant reform of 1861 and demanded the transfer of all land to the peasants without any redemption and the complete elimination of landownership. Realizing that the implementation of his program is possible only in a revolutionary way, he acted as the ideologist of the peasant anti-kriposnitskoy revolution, criticizing the capitalist system at the same time.

In his writings, Herzen pointed out the sharp contradictions between the wealth of the capitalists and the poverty of the masses, between "pauperism and the impudent domination of money." He saw the way out in the revolutionary replacement of capitalism by socialism. Herzen also criticized classical political economy, believing that it perpetuates the capitalist system.

Herzen created the theory of non-capitalist development of Russia, trying to justify socialism economically, which distinguished him from Western utopian socialists. He considered the Russian peasant community to be the germ of socialism. In Herzen's views, socialist ideas merged with democratic ones and were the form of his anti-kriposnitskoy program. For its implementation, Herzen became one of the leaders of the underground organization "Land and Freedom".

Nikolai Ogarev

One of the first ideologists of "peasant socialism" was a well-known revolutionary democrat, economist, philosopher, publicist, post Nikolai Platonovich Ogarev (1813-1877). He was born into the family of a large landowner, studied at Moscow University, where he met and became friends with Herzen. His worldview was greatly influenced by the Decembrist uprising and the French Revolution. In 1834 Ogarev was arrested and exiled to Penza. In 1841-1847 he lived abroad, where he studied the philosophy of Hegel and Feuerbach, political economy. In 1856, he left for Great Britain, where, together with Herzen, he launched revolutionary journalistic and political activities.

Ogarev's views have gone from ideas nobility-revolutionary to peasant-revolutionary democracy. He developed the economic program of the peasant revolution, which was based on a sharp criticism of serfdom. He substantiated the thesis that the serf system dooms the landlord economy to stagnation and degradation, does not allow the use of new equipment, and increase labor productivity. The revolutionary democrat demanded the immediate liberation of the peasants from serfdom with the obligatory allocation of land and believed that these measures could be carried out peacefully. However, the wave of peasant uprisings, the half-hearted nature of the reform of 1861 overcame liberal illusions in him. In work "Consideration of a new serfdom" (1861) Ogarev sharply criticizes the peasant reform, and in his work "From where and where" (1862) substantiated the need to abolish landownership and called on the peasants to take possession of the land in a revolutionary way.

Ogarev attached great importance to the forms of land ownership. In the 1940s, he considered farms with hired labor to be the most progressive. Later, he fully supported Herzen's idea of ​​transferring all land to the ownership of peasant communities. He criticized Sismondi for idealizing small peasant farming, believing that this form of land ownership would lead most peasants to ruin and poverty, as happened in France. He considered the community an alternative to the development of capitalism.

Using the example of Great Britain and other countries, Ogarev saw that capitalism, in addition to progress, brings mass poverty and the ruin of the peasantry, and bourgeois democracy is of a formal nature. He considered capitalism a temporary form of social development, and considered socialism to be the ideal social structure and became an ardent supporter of "Russian communal socialism." Ogarev idealized the peasant community, considering it the seed of the future socialist development of Russia, and associated the transition to socialism with a democratic revolutionary upheaval.

Nikolai Chernyshevsky Prominent Russian revolutionary and thinker, writer, economist, philosopher Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky (1828-1889) was born into a family of a priest, studied at the Saratov Theological Seminary, and then at St. Petersburg University, from which he graduated in 1850. His worldview as a revolutionary democrat was formed during his student years under the influence of the European events of 1848-1849, the ideas of classical political economy, utopian socialism, the works of Belinsky, Herzen.

The revolutionary activity of Chernyshevsky was devoted to the struggle against tsarism, krіposnitstvom, propaganda of the ideas of socialism and the peasant revolution. At the beginning of 1859, Chernyshevsky became the recognized leader of the revolutionary democratic movement in Russia, and his journal Sovremennik became the organ of revolutionary democracy. His works are published in the magazine "Anthropological principle in philosophy" (1860), "Capital and Labor" (1860), "Remarks on J. S. Mill's Fundamentals of Political Economy" (1860) and others.

Along with Herzen, Chernyshevsky becomes one of the founders of populism.

In 1862, Chernyshevsky was arrested and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where he wrote the novel "What to do?". Then he was expected to be deported to Siberia, hard labor. Only at the end of his life he was allowed to settle first in Astrakhan, and then in Saratov.

The basis of his worldview concept was the principle of anthropological materialism. Based on the concepts of human nature, his desire for his own benefit, he draws revolutionary conclusions about the need to change social relations and forms of ownership.

Chernyshevsky recognized the objective nature of the laws of the historical process, the struggle between the new and the old, between progress and reaction. He recognized the role of economic factors in history - the material needs of people, their importance in their labor activity, was in search of an explanation for the laws of social development in the material production process. He noted the economic and political inequality in society, which give rise to class contradictions and the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed for their liberation. Chernyshevsky believed that economic science should serve the revolutionary transformation of society and opposed classical political economy with his own economic "theory of workers", which justifies the need to replace the then economic system with a communist one.

He saw the cause of all the vices of life in Russia in krіposnitstvі, the contradictions of which he showed with exceptional depth. He proved that serfdom does not ensure the growth of labor productivity and production, showed the fundamental difference between chins and capitalist rent. Chernyshevsky believed that the only progressive form of economy that could replace serfdom in Russia was a peasant economy free from landlord exploitation.

This position formed the basis theories of the peasant revolution Chernyshevsky, the purpose of which is the formation of a free independent peasant economy, and the means - the destruction of landowners' land ownership and economy. He understood that the Russian economy had already taken the path of development of capitalism, but argued that it could avoid the trouble of "proletariat". The revolutionary developed a socio-economic program, according to which, with the elimination of serfdom, statement capitalist relations, and a gradual transition to socialism will begin.

Chernyshevsky recognized the relative progress of capitalism, which encourages a fairly rapid development of production, but subjected it to harsh criticism, especially for the crisis nature of development, seeing the anarchy of production and competition as the reason for this. He criticizes J.S. Mill, who justified the possibility of improving the condition of workers under conditions of capitalist private property. The revolutionary saw the possibility of such an improvement only in the transition to the socialist system and creates an original doctrine, according to which the starting point of the movement towards socialism is communal property, which must be supplemented by social production, which is based on the use of machine technology.

As a theoretician of the peasant revolution, Chernyshevsky saw the decisive factors in the transition to socialism in the change in land tenure relations. He was the immediate forerunner of the social democratic movement in Russia, and his writings paved the way for further acceptance of Marx's theory by Russian revolutionaries.

Dmitry Pisarev

Outstanding representative of Russian revolutionary democracy, utopian socialist, publicist, literary critic Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev (1840-1868) graduated from St. Petersburg University, worked in various journals, in particular, in 1861-1866 he was the leading critic and ideological leader of the Russian Word. Among Pisarev's early articles, "Scholasticism of the 19th Century" (1862) stood out, directed against the ideology of the feudal lords and liberals. In the same year he was arrested and imprisoned for 4 and a half years in the Peter and Paul Fortress. It was there that he wrote his main works. "Essays from the history of labor (1863), "Realists" (1864), "The Historical Ideas of Auguste Comto" (1865).

Pisarev paid special attention to the analysis of economic issues. The core of the study of economic problems considered the question of work and the situation of the working population. He argued that the only source of wealth is labor, and the cause of social conflicts is the appropriation of someone else's labor. Considering the change in economic systems as a natural process, he argued that the entire history of mankind was one change in the forms of slavery by others.

Pisarev attached great importance to the economic problems of Russia. He argued that the preservation of napіvkrіposnitskie relations paralyzes the development of productive forces and demanded the elimination of landlord ownership of land. He saw that progress in Russia at that time could only be carried out in a capitalist form and said that to protest against the capitalist path "... would mean banging one's head against the unshakable wall of natural law." Pisarev advocated the development of capitalist industry, trade, railway communication, and the strengthening of the influence of science on production. Thus, he was a supporter of capitalist evolution in agriculture.

Unlike Chernyshevsky, Pisarev proposed to transfer only their full allotments to the peasants, and to develop capitalist farming on other land. But he argued that the coming capitalism, since it had insurmountable contradictions, therefore developed the "theory of realism" - its own version of the revolutionary democratic and socialist program. He set the task of forming thinking realists and fighters for socialism. To do this, he proposed to carry out the polytechnicization of the school, to organize a wide promotion of natural science knowledge. In his views there was no idealization of the Russian community and the peasant as the bearer of socialist relations.

Pisarev recognized decisive role masses of the people in the revolution, but he saw that in contemporary Russia the peasantry was not ready for revolution. On this issue, a controversy arose between Pisarev and the Sovremennik magazine.

Nikolai Flerovsky (Wilhelm Bervi)

Representative of Russian utopian socialism, economist, sociologist, publicist Nikolay Flerovsky (Wilhelm Wilhelmovich Bervi) (1829-1918) studied in Kazan as a lawyer, worked in the Ministry of Justice. For protests against certain actions of Emperor Alexander II, he was arrested in 1862 and was in exile until 1887. There he became close to the populist circle "Chaykivtsiv" and with their help he published works "The Condition of the Working Class in Russia" (1869) and "ABC of social sciences" (1871).

In 1873 he wrote a pamphlet-proclamation "How to live according to the law of nature and truth", in which he called for the social restructuring of society and preached a new religion of brotherhood and freedom. He actively collaborated with the democratic magazines Delo, Otechestvennye Zapiski, Znaniye, and many of his works were banned by censors. He sharply criticized the economic system of Russia, considering the remnants of serfdom, the dominance of landlordism, the lack of land of the peasantry, and high taxes as the main cause of backwardness.

Recognizing the progressive nature of factory production, Flerovsky criticizes the capitalist forms of exploitation, which. in his opinion, lead to extreme poverty of the population of the country.

He believed that the situation could be changed social upheaval, as a result of which the land should go into the use of peasant communities, and factories and plants into the hands of artels. Such a coup could take place both through a popular revolution and through reforms. Flerovsky considered the widespread dissemination of knowledge and education among the people as an important condition for progress.

Vladimir Milyutin

The views of a publicist, economist, lawyer, professor of law, representative of the socialist thought of Russia in the 19th century. Vladimir Alekseevich Milyutin (1826-1855) were formed under the influence of the ideas of Herzen and Belinsky. He took part in the work of the Petrashevsky Society. He published economic works in the journals Sovremennik and Otechestvennye Zapiski.

Analyzing bourgeois society, he denounced the fictitiousness of bourgeois equality and freedom, substantiated the irreconcilability of class interests, and affirmed the need for a radical change in the social system. The future classless society, in his opinion, could be created by the state on the basis of the unification of small private property of producers. He was a supporter of petty-bourgeois socialism, defended the interests of the peasantry and became one of the developers of the concept of "communal" socialism.

Milyutin made an attempt to understand the history of political economy from a democratic standpoint and criticized the theories of Say and Malthus, which, in his opinion, turned a blind eye to the social ills of the people. Criticizing the Western utopian socialists, Milyutin defended the progressive aspects of their doctrine from the views of Russian reactionaries.

Please note that V.A. Milyutin is only 29 years old.

Nikolai Dobrolyubov

Outstanding literary critic and publicist, Russian revolutionary democrat, philosopher Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836-1861) lived an even shorter life - only 25 years - but an extremely productive and vibrant life. He had spiritual and Teacher Education, but became an outstanding revolutionary democrat. Already at the age of 19, he published in the journal Sovremennik and, along with Chernyshevsky, became its leader. During 1856-1861, he wrote several hundred articles, reviews, reviews, which revealed a huge influence on the development of advanced social thought in Russia and a number of European states.

The economic views of Dobrolyubov are close to those of Chernyshevsky. He called political economy "the crown of all social sciences", since it studies the foundations of relations between people. He criticized bourgeois political economy, because it worries exclusively about the growth of capital, protects, in his opinion, the interests of the bourgeoisie and its wealth. He considered it necessary to create a new economic science, which should serve the interests of the working people, which should be based on the doctrine of labor.

Dobrolyubov extremely sharply criticized the feudal-serf system of economy, which he called "parasite" and "squanderer". He considered serfdom to be the cause of Russia's backwardness, its depletion, the weak development of industry, trade, transport, the degradation of agriculture and the extreme impoverishment of the peasantry.

He demanded the abolition of landownership, the liberation of the peasants from serfdom with the transfer without any redemption of their land. In writings "Robert Owen and His Community Service Attempts" (1859)", "From Moscow to Leipzig" (1859) Dobrolyubov analyzes the capitalist system of economy and notes its relative progressiveness in relation to the feudal system of Russia. He welcomed the emergence of machine production, the replacement of dependent labor with civilian wages, called for an industrial revolution in Russia, which would significantly change not only technology, but also socio-economic relations of classes.

At the same time, he emphasized that the bourgeoisie did not abolish exploitation, but made it "more elegant." Revealing the contradictions of capitalism, Dobrolyubov concludes that it is transient, therefore he believed that Russia should not follow the capitalist path. He tried to find such economic forms that would ensure the development of large-scale production, get rid of capitalist exploitation, and significantly improve the well-being of the population. Such a form, in his opinion, should have been industrial agricultural associations organized on the basis of peasant communities, which should gradually supplant capitalist enterprises.

The development of such associations leads to socialism, which Stans is possible after the people's revolution and the transfer of power to the working people. His reflections on the "rights and duties" of socialist labor, the growth of labor productivity, are considered sufficiently deep. Highly appreciating the socialist ideas of Owen, Dobrolyubov saw them as impracticable, since he did not resist the implementation of the revolution of the masses.

Dobrolyubov's concept of Russia's "facilitated" and "quick" path to socialism on the basis of a peasant community was utopian, but stirred up the development of socialist ideas.

Page 4

"Community socialism" A.I. Herzen and his work in Kolokol have left rich material for researchers. AT Soviet time a large amount of literature has been published about him. The works of N.M. Pirumova on revolutionary populism in general and on A.I. Herzen in particular. Her assessment of the thinker is interesting. In the book "Alexander Herzen: Revolutionary, Thinker, Man," she called "true humanism, inner freedom, dialectic thinking, an all-encompassing ability to understand, high courage and nobility" "truly inherent in Herzen."

Developed the theory of A.I. Hercena N.G. Chernyshevsky looked at the community differently. For him, the community is a patriarchal institution of Russian life, which is called upon first to fulfill the role of a "comradely form of production" in parallel with capitalist production. Then it will oust the capitalist economy and finally establish collective production and consumption. After that, the community will disappear as a form of industrial association.

Ideas A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky formed, as we have already said, the basis of the populist teachings of P.L. Lavrova, P.N. Tkachev and M.A. Bakunin. However, of course, not without changes.

P.L. Lavrov considered the peasant community and the peculiarities inherent in Russia to be a means of providing a non-capitalist path of development. He noted that the Russian peasantry, starting from the "Time of Troubles", did not cease to protest at every opportunity, and that the Russian peasantry was deeply convinced that all the land belonged to the people. Considering the history of the enslavement of the Russian peasantry, he explained that the peasantry had preserved the traditions of communal land tenure from ancient times. Most of all, Lavrov was interested in the problem of property relations within the peasant community. He believed that this was a closer form to socialist public property than private capitalist property.

Regarding the peasant reform P.L. Lavrov wrote that the circumstances that forced the autocracy to carry out reforms lay in the development of "oppositional thought" and not in the objective needs of the country's economic situation. Lavrov, like all populists, explained the reasons for the reform by the development of "humane" and "liberation" ideas in society. At the same time, he wrote about the plight of the peasantry: "Each improvement in the position of the propertied class corresponds to fatally new disasters for the people." And for all the payments that are taken from the peasants from the funds necessary to support the family, the people had nothing from the "caring government" except a tavern, the spread of diseases, periodic hunger strikes and unbearable taxes.

Echoed by P.L. Lavrov P.N. Tkachev, pointing out that the transfer of land to the peasants as a result of the reform did not improve the situation of the people, but, on the contrary, led to an increase in their exploitation, which took on more and more sophisticated forms. Tkachev believed that the reform touched upon more legal relations, but did little to change the economic, economic side of the life of the peasants: legal dependence disappeared, but poverty and misery remained.

Recognizing the community as a feature of Russian life, Tkachev believed that this feature was not the result of an original development inherent only in the Slavic peoples, but a consequence of Russia's slower progress along the same path that had already been taken. Western Europe.

From the correct premise about the similarity of the forms of communal ownership in different countries, Tkachev, like all revolutionary populists, drew the controversial conclusion that the community that survived in Russia created favorable conditions for the Russian peasants, compared with Western European countries, for carrying out a socialist revolution. Considering that the idea of ​​collective property is deeply fused with the entire worldview of the Russian people, Tkachev argued that "our people, despite their ignorance, are much closer to socialism than the peoples of Western Europe, although they are more educated than it."

Bakunin, regarding the community, is of the opinion that in the form in which it has developed in Russia, it supports "patriarchal despotism", kills individual initiative and generally absorbs the face of the "world". There is no freedom in it, and consequently, no progressive development. As an anarchist, Bakunin attributes all the negative features of communal life to the influence of the state, which, in his words, "finally crushed, corrupted the Russian community, already corrupted by its patriarchal principle. Under its yoke, communal voting itself became a fraud, and persons temporarily elected by the people themselves . turned, on the one hand, into instruments of power, and on the other, into bribed servants of rich peasant kulaks. Thus, Bakunin is far from idealizing the rural community, but, despite this, he does not reject the communal organization as such. However, unlike Chernyshevsky, who connected the building of socialism in Russia with the establishment of a democratic republic and saw in republicanism the most important condition for the development of the communal principle, Bakunin made the future of the community dependent on the complete destruction of the state and the exclusion of the principle of power from the life of the people. Regarding the position of the Russian peasantry, he wrote that they were unable to pay the excessive taxes and payments imposed on them. In order to collect tax and cover the arrears that the peasant cannot pay, the tools of his labor and even his cattle are sold. The peasants are so ruined that they have neither seeds for crops nor the opportunity to cultivate the land.

The copper ore base of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan and evidence of its use in the Late Bronze Age
In the first section of the chapter in short form the characteristic of the main deposits of Kazakhstan and Kirghizia is given. The ancient population of Kazakhstan had significant raw material resources of both copper and tin. In the Bronze Age, large deposits of Central Kazakhstan were developed - the Dzhezkazgan and Uspensky deposits. Also used...

Decembrist organizations
If the progressive youth thought about freedom, then the government did everything possible to keep the people in slavery, to extinguish the sparks of freedom and enlightenment. “Brought up under a drum,” as the poet said about him, Alexander I began to persecute the officers of the Suvorov-Kutuzov school. Dumb drill, beating soldiers, bullying brought the army back ...

Suzunsky coin complex. Siberian Coin
Siberian coins - coins issued in Siberia by the Kolyvan (Lower-Suzun) mint in 1766-1781. in denominations of a penny, money, kopeck, 2, 5 and 10 kopecks. Since the Kolyvan ores contained 135/96 gold spools and 313/96 silver spools per pound of copper mined from them, due to the high cost of extracting precious ...

The crisis state of feudal Russia in the 19th century.

Alexander Ivanovich Herzen (1812 - 1870) (born in Moscow in the family of a landowner; graduated from the Physics and Mathematics Department of Moscow University; organized an opposition student circle; arrested; exiled to Vyatka, where he served in the provincial office, transferred to Vladimir; returned to Moscow; served in St. Petersburg in the office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; retired; returned to Moscow; went abroad; founded a free Russian printing house in London, began to publish the almanac "Polar Star", and then the magazine "Bell" ( main topic- peasant reform, prospects for Russian statehood, Russian socialism)).

“Letters from France and Italy”, “From the Other Shore” (observations of the 40-50s; became an eyewitness to the revolution of 1848 in France; became disillusioned with Westernism (Western Europe had exhausted the potential of social creativity)).

"The Past and the Duma".

Origin of the State. (-).

Characteristics of the state (definition of the state).

He called serfdom an ulcer, a stain, an ugliness of Russian life (the process of enslavement was a historical crime) (he convinced the nobles and the government not to delay in liberation, to save the people and the country).

He supported the project of the redemption operation (liberation with land), which opposed the government project, which kept the peasants in debt for an indefinite period (the reform of 1861 is a compromise between these two projects).

He believed that despite the shortcomings of the reform of 1861, it helped the peasantry to legitimize their right to land.

The state (initially shared a passion for Hegelianism; later was influenced by anarchism (he took the ideas of decentralization and self-government from them, but distanced himself from anti-statehood); over the years began to look at it soberly and pragmatically (did not consider it an eternal attribute of civilization, but understood its need in the near future )).

The state is a form through which any human cohabitation passes, taking on significant dimensions (constantly changing with circumstances and adapting to needs) (a mechanism that can promote progress or slow it down; it does not have its own specific content, it serves both reaction and revolution, to that, with whose side is the strength).

Even against the background of Western Europe, Russia looked like an anachronism (in the mid-1950s, there was hope for a transformation - the reforms of Alexander II (deliberately distorted, curtailed by the mid-60s)).

Forms of the state (ideal state).

The idea arose of a body competent to rise above autocracy (it could be the Zemsky Sobor, which handed state power to the Romanovs in 1613; the idea of ​​reviving the Zemsky Sobors was borrowed from the Slavophiles).

Zemsky Sobor (the agrarian question should take the central place; other questions (on the development of elected self-government, on the organization of the court, on the procedure for levying taxes)).

The constitution should be built from below (from the sovereign and effective mechanism of local self-government; the self-government of communities was to develop into self-government of the district and region).

Future regions, independent in internal affairs and headed by regional dumas, are united into a federation, into a common union.

Elections (a critical attitude to direct elections - many deputies whom the population does not know and chooses indifferently or through bribery; the choice of a central government is possible only through elected regional ones).

There is no desire to destroy the central administrative apparatus (it must fulfill two conditions - the government cannot enforce any law that has not been approved by the Union Duma; it also does not violate regional rights and laws).

Executive power (should act within the legal framework determined by the Zemsky Sobor and the State Duma).

An ambiguous attitude towards forms of government (the French Republic during the presidency of Louis Bonaparte is worse than the English monarchy).

The concept of law (difference from law; types of law). (-).

Features of the theory.

Europe in the first half of the 19th century a wave of individualism swept over (the bourgeoisie freed itself and its property from all obligations to society, except for the maintenance of the state for its protection; a person who did not have property was impersonal (without social guarantees, his personality could become helpless, and constitutional rights could not be realized); social the question arose in the 19th century throughout Europe).

In Russia, this issue required a different solution (in the West there was the problem of the proletariat, in Russia - to prevent proletarianization; the proletarian demanded work and bread, the Russian peasant wanted land to grow bread).

He connected the future of progress not with militant individualism, but with solidarity and socialism (he highly valued the communal traditions of the Russian peasantry).

The theory of Russian socialism, which, from the recognition of the worker's right to tools of work, from the land and the people's principle of public property rights, from secular self-government and the industrial artel, will go towards economic justice.

He did not idealize the Russian countryside (but he believed that, having been freed and strengthened, rural communities would begin a new life, improve agriculture, develop industry and trade, build roads; their connections and horizons would expand, the mutual rights of man and society would be determined, patriarchy would disappear).

The means of implementing social transformations (did not rule out revolutionary paths; everything depends on the circumstances (the persistence of the reaction can lead to revolution; its weakening and agreement to convene the Zemsky Sobor can give a peaceful outcome); revolutionary slogans considered premature (reform efforts have not been exhausted).

Distinguished revolutions:

1) anti-feudal (goals are clear, definite and, in principle, achievable);

2) anti-bourgeois (the bourgeois world will revive again - the new organization of society is not yet ready for implementation).