The politics of conservatism during the reign of Nicholas I. Social movements
It was experiencing a period of great historical turn from a dying agrarian society to an industrial society. Therefore, the main issue in public life became the question of the direction of the country's further development. Everyone understood it in their own way. The social movement in those years had several characteristic features:
It developed under conditions of tightening political regime after the Decembrist uprising;
- there was a final break between revolutionary direction and government reformism;
- for the first time, the conservative movement received its own ideology;
- liberal and socialist currents of social thought took shape;
- participants in the social movement did not have the opportunity to put their ideas into practice; they could only prepare the consciousness of their contemporaries for future changes.
Conservative movement.
The development of the ideology of Russian conservatism is the merit of the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Count S.S. Uvarov, who later became the Minister of Public Education. He considered Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality to be the original foundations of Russian life. These features, in his opinion, fundamentally distinguished Russia from the West. He thought of autocracy as the unity of the tsar and the people and considered it the basis of the life of Russian society. By Orthodoxy, Uvarov understood the traditional orientation of Russian people not towards personal, but towards public interest, the desire for the common good and justice. The nationality expressed the unity of the people united around the tsar without dividing it into nobles, peasants, townspeople, etc. Between the people and the monarch, Uvarov believed, there has always been an inextricable spiritual unity, which was and will be the guarantor of the successful development of Russia.
The largest theoreticians of the conservative trend were also historians N. G. Ustryalov and M. P. Pogodin, playwright and poet N. V. Kukolnik, writers F. V. Bulgarin, N. I. Grech, M. N. Zagoskin. They proved the exclusivity of Russia's historical path and considered it the only correct one.
Liberal movement. Westerners and Slavophiles.
Russian liberalism was represented in those years by Westerners and Slavophiles. The formation of the ideology of Westernism and Slavophilism dates back to the late 30s - early 40s.
Representatives of Westernism were historians T. N. Granovsky and Soloviev, lawyer K. D. Kavelin, writers P. V. Annenkov, V. P. Botkin, I. S. Turgenev. Westerners believed that world civilization is united and the isolation of any country from it leads not to good, but to decay. They believed that Russia became a civilized state only thanks to transformations Petra The Great, who for the first time tried to instill in his people the features of European education. Russia’s task, in their opinion, was to join the West and form together with it “a single universal cultural family.”
Slavophiles, on the contrary, defended the idea of the identity of each people, including the Russian. Speaking about Russia, they emphasized the features of its state and social life, Orthodox faith. From this point of view, Slavophiles negatively assessed the activities of Peter I, believing that his reforms led Russia along the path of unnecessary borrowing from the West. This, in their opinion, became the cause of social unrest. The main task facing the country in the middle of the 19th century, the Slavophiles considered returning it “to its old, original state.” They even proposed to exclude foreign words that had entered Russian speech from use. Theorists of Slavophilism were the publicists A. S. Khomyakov, brothers I. V. and P. V. Kireevsky, brothers K. S. and I. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin, A. I. Koshelev.
Despite many important differences between Westernism and Slavophilism, these currents of social thought also had common features:
Negative attitude towards serfdom, the omnipotence of officials, the suppression of individual rights and freedoms;
- conviction in the need for fundamental changes;
- hope that the reforms will be initiated by the supreme power, relying on the support of the progressive public;
- the expectation that reforms will be gradual and cautious;
- confidence in the possibility of peaceful implementation of reforms;
- faith in Russia, in the possibility of its rapid and confident movement towards prosperity.
Mugs from the 20s and 30s.
In addition to the emergence of liberal movements, revolutionary ideology also became widespread in Russia. Student circles of the 20s and 30s played a major role in its origins, in which both future liberals and future supporters of revolutionary ideas participated.
In a Moscow living room of the 40s. XIX century From a painting by artist B. M. Kustodiev. On the left are V. P. Botkin and D. L. Kryukov talking with M. S. Shchepkin; V. G. Belinsky entering greets the owner of the house A. A. Elagin, sitting at the table (from left to right) are P. Ya. Chaadaev, T. N. Granovsky, K. S. Aksakov, I. V. Kireevsky, standing behind them A. S. Khomyakov and P. V. Kireevsky; on the right - A. P. Elagina is sitting, A. I. Herzen and A. I. Turgenev are standing
Late 20's - early 30's. can be called the circle period of the Russian social movement. Small circles were quickly discovered by the police, without having time to develop into secret organizations and develop their own program. The composition of the circles has changed. If during the time of the Decembrists these were military youth, people from upper strata, now the circles included representatives of the most diverse walks of life.
In 1827, the authorities discovered the circle of the Kritsky brothers at Moscow University, and in 1831 - the circle of N.P. Sungurov, whose participants were hatching plans for an armed uprising.
One of the associations in which future Westerners, Slavophiles, and future revolutionaries were represented was a circle created in 1833 by the young philosopher and writer N.V. Stankevich. It included such different people, like T. N. Granovsky and K. S. Aksakov, V. G. Belinsky and M. A. Bakunin.
In 1834, the circle of A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev was destroyed. The mugs were opened in Vladimir, Nezhin, Kursk, and at Ural factories.
Revolutionary movement. The revolutionary movement in Russia arose in the 40-50s. XIX century It originated not only in the center of Russia, but also in a number of national regions. Here the ideas of revolutionary protest were combined with the demands of national liberation. One of the most famous revolutionary organizations was the Cyril and Methodius Society in Ukraine (1846-1847). Its founder was the famous historian N.I. Kostomarov. Later, the outstanding Ukrainian poet T. G. Shevchenko became one of the leaders of the organization. The society advocated the abolition of serfdom and class privileges. The society's members considered their main goal to be the creation of a federation (equal association) of the Slavic republics of Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Croats, and Bulgarians. On the question of methods of struggle for the implementation of their ideals, members of society were divided into two camps - supporters of moderate measures (led by Kostomarov) and adherents of decisive actions (led by Shevchenko).
The ideology of the Russian revolutionary movement was also being formed. It was associated primarily with the activities of A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev.
Alexander Ivanovich Herzen (1812-1870) was the illegitimate son of the Moscow rich man I. A. Yakovlev. Herzen considered himself the spiritual heir of the Decembrists. Together with his friend N.P. Ogarev, in 1827 he took an oath to “avenge those executed.” In 1829, Herzen entered the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow University, where around him and Ogarev in the early 30s. A circle of like-minded people formed who opposed the feudal-serf system. In 1834, Herzen was arrested and exiled to Perm for publicly performing “libelous songs.” In subsequent years he was on public service and was engaged in scientific and writing activities. In 1847 he went abroad and refused to return to Russia. In 1852, Herzen settled in London and in 1853, with money inherited from his father, he founded the Free Russian Printing House there, which published the almanac “Polar Star”, the newspaper “Bell”, the collection “Voices from Russia”, etc. widely distributed in Russia.
In the 50s Herzen developed the basic principles of the theory of “communal” or “Russian” socialism. According to Herzen’s teachings, socialism will certainly arise in Russia and its main “cell” will be the peasant land community. Peasant communal land ownership, the peasant idea of the equal right of all people to land, communal self-government and the natural collectivism of the Russian peasant were to become the basis for building a socialist society. Herzen considered the main conditions for this to be the liberation of the peasants and the liquidation of the autocratic political system.
Another major theoretician of the revolutionary trend was Vissarion Grigorievich Belinsky (1811 - 1848). At the verbal department of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow University, a circle called “Literary Society of the 11th Number” formed around him. Belinsky was soon expelled from the university. In 1833, he joined the circle of N.V. Stankevich, and from 1834 he headed the literary criticism department in the magazines “Telescope” and “Molva”. In 1834, his article “Literary Dreams” was published in Molva. In it, the author sharply criticized the ideas of S.S. Uvarov.
In the early 40s. Under the influence of Herzen, Belinsky became an adherent of revolutionary socialist transformations in Russia. His views were especially clearly manifested in critical articles published in the Sovremennik magazine, published by N. A. Nekrasov. In them, Belinsky acted as one of the recognized spiritual leaders of the nascent revolutionary camp. Belinsky's ideas were most clearly presented in his “Letter to N.V. Gogol” (1847). This letter sharply criticized autocracy and serfdom. Belinsky saw the main tasks of the social movement in “the abolition of serfdom, the abolition of corporal punishment, the introduction, if possible, of strict implementation of at least those laws that already exist.” Belinsky's letter to Gogol was distributed throughout Russia in hundreds of copies and became the basis for shaping the worldview of a significant part of educated youth.
In the 40s. the first ones were created revolutionary organizations socialists. These include, first of all, the society that formed in 1845 in St. Petersburg around M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky, an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Writers, teachers, and officials who shared revolutionary democratic ideas gathered weekly for Petrashevsky’s “Fridays.” Among them were young writers M.E. Saltykov and F.M. Dostoevsky, poets A.N. Pleshcheev and A.N. Maikov, geographer P.P. Semenov, pianist A.G. Rubinstein. They discussed pressing issues in the life of Russia, condemned serfdom and autocratic power. The Petrashevites studied the socialist teachings of that time and the possibility of their implementation in Russia. Under the influence of the events of the 1848 revolution in Europe Among the members of the circle, thoughts were expressed about the need to prepare for a revolution in Russia.
In 1849, the circle was crushed, and 39 Petrashevites were arrested. 21 people were sentenced to death, commuted to hard labor and exile.
Many revolutionaries of the 40-50s. Over time, they revised their views on revolution and socialism. For example, F. M. Dostoevsky became disillusioned with socialist teaching.
In general, the revolutionary movement in Russia was precisely in the 40-50s. received a powerful impetus for development, caused not only by internal reasons, but also by revolutions in Europe.
The main features of the revolutionary ideology of this period were:
Loss of hope for reforming Russia “from above” as a result of cooperation between the supreme power and society;
- justification of the legitimacy and necessity of revolutionary violence in order to bring about changes in society;
- promotion as an ideological basis future revolution and the structure of the country's life after the victory of the revolution of socialist teachings.
Revolutionary movement of the 40-50s. became an important reason pushing the authorities to reform society.
P. Ya. Chaadaev.
A special place in social thought and social movement of the 30-50s. occupied by Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev (1794-1856) - thinker and publicist. A participant in the Patriotic War of 1812 and the Northern Society of Decembrists, he was in 1823-1826. lived abroad, where his philosophical and historical views took shape. In his “Philosophical Letters” (1829-1831), Chaadaev spoke about the “exclusion” of Russia from world history(“alone in the world, we have given nothing to the world, taught it nothing”), about “spiritual stagnation” in Russia and “national complacency” that hinder its historical development. For publishing the first of his letters in the Telescope magazine (1836), he was declared insane, and the magazine itself was closed. Responding to these accusations in “Apology of a Madman” (1837), Chaadaev expressed faith in the historical future of a renewed Russia, included in the Western Christian world.
The main result of the development of the social movement of the 30-50s. liberal and revolutionary sentiments among the intelligentsia. The vices of the autocratic-serf system became obvious to the advanced part of Russian society, which, without waiting for changes from the authorities, began its struggle for transformation.
? Questions and tasks
1. In what direction did the social movement develop after the death of Alexander I? What reasons determined this direction?
2. What are the features of the social movement of the 30-50s. do you think are the main ones? Why?
3. What's new in the conservative movement?
4. What were the differences in the views of Westerners and Slavophiles? What united them?
5. How can one explain the intensification of revolutionary sentiments in Russian society?
6. What are the main ideas of the socialist teachings of A. I. Herzen?
7. What do you see as the peculiarities of P. Ya. Chaadaev’s position in the social movement of the 30-50s?
Documentation
From the memoirs of B.I. Chicherin
The Pavlov House on Sretensky Boulevard was at that time one of the main literary centers in Moscow. Nikolai Filippovich was in short relations with both parties into which the then Moscow literary world was divided, with Slavophiles and Westerners. Of the Slavophiles, Khomyakov and Shevyrev were his close friends; I had an old friendship with Aksakov. On the other hand, he had the same friendly relations with Granovsky and Chaadaev... Lively debates took place here until late at night: Radky with Shevyrev, Kavelin with Aksakov, Herzen and Kryukov with Khomyakov. The Kireevskys and the then young Yuri Samarin appeared here. Chaadaev was a regular guest, with his head as bare as a hand, with his impeccably secular manners, with his educated and original mind and eternal pose. This was the most brilliant literary time in Moscow...
The rivals appeared fully armed, with opposing views, but with a reserve of knowledge and the charm of eloquence...
The very isolation disappeared when people of opposite directions, but appreciating and respecting each other, came together on a common list...
From “Notes” by S. M. Solovyov
The Western party at the [Moscow] university, that is, the party of professors who were educated in Western universities, was dominant. The party was vast, it had many shades, so it was broad and free; I, Chivilev, Granovsky, Kavelin belonged to the same party, despite the fact that between us there was a big difference: I, for example, was a religious person, with Christian beliefs; Granovsky paused in thought regarding the religious question; Chivilev was very careful - only later did I find out that he did not believe in anything; Kavelin did the same, and did not hide it; in terms of political convictions, Granovsky was very close to me, that is, very moderate, so that less moderate friends called him an adherent of the Prussian scientific monarchy; Kavelin, as a terribly passionate person, did not shy away from any extreme in social transformations, nor even from communism itself, like their common friend, the famous Herzen. I did not know the latter from home, but I saw him at Granovsky’s and in other meetings; I loved listening to him, because this man’s wit was brilliant and inexhaustible; but I was constantly repelled from him by this harshness in expressing my own convictions, indelicacy regarding the convictions of others... the intolerance was terrible in this man...
From an article by A. S. Khomyakov. 1847
Some magazines mockingly call us Slavophiles, a name composed in a foreign manner, but which in Russian translation would mean Slavophiles. For my part, I am ready to accept this name and admit it willingly: I love the Slavs... I love them because there is no Russian person who does not love them; There is no one who is not aware of his brotherhood with a Slav and especially with an Orthodox Slav. Anyone can inquire about this, even from Russian soldiers who were on the Turkish campaign, or even in the Moscow Gostiny Dvor, where a Frenchman, a German and an Italian are accepted as foreigners, and a Serbian, Dalmatian and Bulgarian as their brothers. Therefore, I accept ridicule of our love for the Slavs just as readily as I accept ridicule of the fact that we are Russians. Such ridicule testifies only to one thing: the poverty of thought and narrow-mindedness of people who have lost their mental and spiritual life and all natural or reasonable sympathy in the dapper deadness of salons or in the one-sided bookishness of the modern West...
Questions for documents: 1. How can you explain the existence of salons like Pavlov’s house, where both Westerners and Slavophiles could gather and have discussions?
2. What features of Herzen did S. M. Solovyov dislike most and why?
3. What quality of Slavophiles A. S. Khomyakov considered the most important?
PLAN: 1. Classification of social movements in the second quarter of the 19th century. 2. Mugs x years. XIX century. 3. Slavophiles and Westerners.
Questions for comparison Conservative direction Liberal direction Revolutionary-democratic direction WesternersSlavophiles Composition of participants BureaucracyIntellectuals Youth, students Main representatives F.V. Bulgarin, M.P. Pogodin T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin I. V. Kireevsky, I. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin, A. S. Khomyakov M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky, A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev Basic ideas Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality Russia is developing along the same path as Western Europe, therefore a constitutional monarchy must emerge in Russia. Russia is developing along a path different from the West. Autocracy can be preserved, but the people have the right to express their own opinions ( Zemsky Sobors) Elimination of autocracy and serfdom Ways to achieve goals Strengthening the foundations of autocracy Peaceful implementation of reforms Peaceful path, reforms from above Reforms from above
Mugs x y. 19th century educational revolutionary
Educational circles of the 1980s Name of the circle, place and years of existence Leaders Program and activities Circle of the Kritsky brothers, Moscow Peter, Mikhail, Vasily Kritsky, 6 people in total. An attempt to continue the Decembrist ideology and tactics. Propaganda of revolutionary ideas among students, officials, officers. Regicide must be a prerequisite for revolutionary change. Literary Society 11th issue, Moscow V.G. Belinsky Reading and discussion literary works. Discussion of problems of Russian reality.
Revolutionary circles Name of the circle, place and years of existence Leaders Program and activities Herzen and Ogarev Circle, Moscow A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev N.M. Savin, M.I. Sazonov Studied the works of French enlighteners. Followed revolutionary events in the West. Circle of Petrashevites, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Rostov M.P. Butashevich-Petrashevsky, F.M. Dostoevsky, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin and others Criticism of autocracy and serfdom. Propaganda of revolutionary ideas through the press. The need to overthrow the autocracy and introduce democratic freedoms.
Ideological views of Westerners and Slavophiles Differences 1. Views on the historical development of Russia. 2. Views on the political system SIMILARITIES The need for changes in Russian reality. The need for changes in Russian reality. Abolition of serfdom. Abolition of serfdom. Hope for the peaceful and evolutionary nature of transformations under the leadership of the supreme power. Hope for the peaceful and evolutionary nature of transformations under the leadership of the supreme power. Belief in the possibility of Russia moving towards prosperity. Belief in the possibility of Russia moving towards prosperity.
Conclusion The era of political reaction under Nicholas I was not an era of spiritual hibernation and stagnation for Russian society. On the contrary, in the second quarter of the 19th century, Moscow became the main center of intellectual life in Russia. Behind the external slowness and everyday conservatism of the second capital, there was hidden an intense ideological search conducted by representatives of the “educated minority.” Almost every day “friends” - “enemies” Westerners and Slavophiles gathered to cross each other in the next ideological dispute. The defeat of the Decembrist organizations significantly weakened the revolutionary movement in Russia, but it was not completely destroyed. During the reign of Nicholas I, a number of associations of radical youth emerged, who considered themselves heirs of ideas and continuers of the work of the Decembrists. The defeat of the Decembrist organizations significantly weakened the revolutionary movement in Russia, but it was not completely destroyed. During the reign of Nicholas I, a number of associations of radical youth emerged, who considered themselves heirs of ideas and continuers of the work of the Decembrists. As B.N. Chicherin noted in his memoirs, “the stuffy atmosphere of a closed circle, no doubt, has its disadvantages; but what to do when people are not allowed on Fresh air? These were the lungs with which Russian thought, squeezed from all sides, could breathe at that time.” As B.N. Chicherin noted in his memoirs, “the stuffy atmosphere of a closed circle, no doubt, has its disadvantages; but what to do when people are not allowed into the fresh air? These were the lungs with which Russian thought, squeezed from all sides, could breathe at that time.”
The first half of the nineteenth century became a unique era of maturation of the Russian social movement. At this time, the country was ruled by Nicholas I (1825-1855). During this period, the positions of the most popular political camps are being finally concretized. A monarchical theory is formed, and a liberal movement also appears. The circle of revolutionary figures is expanding significantly.
The social movement during the reign of Nicholas 1 said goodbye to the philosophy of fashionable enlightenment as the basis of ideology. Hegelianism and Schellingianism come first. Of course, these German theories were applied taking into account the peculiarities Russian state and mentality. The revolutionaries not only mastered what came from Europe, but also put forward own idea community. The government's indifference to these new trends and the struggle of power circles against the freedom of expression of living thought became a catalyst that released dangerous and very powerful forces.
Social movement during the reign of Nicholas 1 and social life
Like any direction of philosophical and political thought, freethinking in Russia was characterized by certain features characteristic only of this period of time. The social movement during the reign of Nicholas I developed under an authoritarian and extremely tough regime, which suppressed any attempts to express their opinion. The movement took place under the significant influence of the Decembrists. The idea of the first noble revolutionaries and their bitter, tragic experience, on the one hand, disappointed, and on the other, inspired them to search for new ways to improve the philosophical spirit.
The realization begins to come that it is necessary to attract the broad masses of the population, including peasants, because the main goal of all movements was the equality of all classes. The social movement during the reign of Nicholas 1 was started mainly by nobles, but later commoners also joined it. During these years, completely new trends took place. These are Slavophiles, Westerners and Narodniks. It became very popular. All these concepts fit into the norms and principles of liberalism, conservatism, socialism and nationalism.
Since there was no opportunity to freely express one’s opinion, the social movement during the era took mainly the form of circles. People secretly agreed on the place and time of the meeting, and to gain access to the society they had to give one or another password, which was constantly changing. Painting, art, and literary criticism became much more important than in previous eras. It was at this time that a clear relationship between power and culture was observed.
The German philosophers Hegel, Fichte and Schelling had a huge influence on social thought. It was they who became the progenitors of many political trends in Russia.
Features in the 30-50s of the nineteenth century
If we consider this period, it should be noted that after the events of December 14, 1825, the power of the intelligentsia was extremely weakened. After the brutal reprisal of the Decembrists, the social movement in Russia under Nicholas 1 practically stopped. The entire flower of the Russian intelligentsia was either crushed or sent to Siberia. Only ten years later the first university circles began to appear, in which the younger generation was grouped. It was then that Schellingism became increasingly popular.
Causes of social movements
Like any other, this direction had its own compelling reasons. They were the reluctance of the authorities to admit that times have changed and it is no longer possible to stand still, as well as strict censorship and the suppression of any resistance, even expressed peacefully.
Main directions of movements
The defeat of the Decembrists and the introduction of a regime of repression led only to a temporary lull. The social movement during the reign of Nicholas 1 revived even more a few years later. The centers for the development of philosophical thought became the St. Petersburg and Moscow salons, circles of officials and officers, as well as the highest educational establishments, Moscow University first of all. Magazines such as Moskvityanin and Vestnik Evropy are becoming increasingly popular. The social movement during the reign of Nicholas 1 had three clearly defined and divided branches. This is also radicalism.
Conservative direction
The social movement during the reign of Nicholas 1 was associated with the development of several political and social movements. Conservatism in our country was based on the theories of autocracy and the need for strict rule. The importance of serfdom was also emphasized. These ideas arose as early as the 16th and 17th centuries and reached their apogee at the beginning of the 19th century. Conservatism acquired a special meaning when absolutism was practically done away with in the West. Thus, Karamzin wrote that autocracy should be unshakable.
This trend became very widespread after the bloody massacre of the Decembrists. In order to give conservatism an ideological status, Count Uvarov (Minister of Public Education) developed the theory of official nationality. In it, autocracy was recognized as the only possible and correct form of government in Russia. was considered a benefit both for the people and for the state as a whole. From all this, the logical conclusion was made that no changes or transformations were needed. This theory caused sharp criticism among the intelligentsia. P. Chaadaev, N. Nadezhdin and others became ardent oppositionists.
Liberal direction
In the period between the 30s and 40s of the 19th century, a new movement arose, which became the opposite of conservatism. Liberalism was conventionally divided into two camps: Slavophiles and Westerners. The ideologists of the first direction were I. and K. Aksakov, A. Khomyakov, Yu. Samarin and others. Among the leading Westerners one can name such outstanding lawyers and philosophers as V. Botkin, P. Annenkov, K. Kavelin. Both of these directions were united by the desire to see Russia modern and civilized in a circle European countries. Representatives of these movements considered it necessary to abolish serfdom and allocate small plots of land to peasants, as well as to introduce freedom of speech. Fearing reprisals, both Westerners and Slavophiles hoped that the state itself would carry out these transformations.
Features of the two currents of liberalism
Of course, these directions also had differences. Thus, the Slavophiles attached excessive importance to the identity of the Russian people. They considered the pre-Petrine foundations to be the ideal form of government. At that time, zemstvo councils conveyed the will of the people to the sovereign, and there were clearly established relations between landowners and peasants. Slavophiles believed that Russian people were naturally characterized by a spirit of collectivism, while individualism reigned in the West. They fought against the widespread idolatry of European trends.
The social movement under Nicholas I was also represented by Westerners who, on the contrary, believed that it was necessary to adopt best practices developed countries. They criticized the Slavophiles, arguing that Rus' lags behind Europe in many ways and must catch up with it by leaps and bounds. They considered universal education to be the only true path to enlightenment.
Revolutionary movement
Small circles arose in Moscow, where, unlike the northern capital, espionage, censorship and denunciations were not so developed. Their members supported the ideas of the Decembrists and deeply felt the reprisals against them. They distributed freedom-loving pamphlets and caricatures. So, on the day of Nicholas’s coronation, representatives of the circle of the Kritsky brothers scattered leaflets across Red Square calling on the people for freedom. Activists of this organization were imprisoned for 10 years, and then forced to perform military service.
Petrashevtsy
In the 40s of the 19th century, the social movement was marked by a significant revival. Political circles began to emerge again. This movement was named after one of their leaders, Butashevich-Petrashevsky. The circles included such outstanding personalities as F. Dostoevsky, M. Saltykov-Shchedrin, etc. Petrashevites condemned absolutism and advocated the development of democracy.
The circle was discovered in 1849, more than 120 people were involved in the investigation, 21 of them were sentenced to death.
Nicholas I Pavlovich, brother of Alexander 1, who became emperor in 1825, was in power for 30 years (until 1855). The 30-year era of Nicholas 1, who came to power on the day of the Decembrist uprising, was distinguished by extreme conservatism and reactionaryness. Nicholas I was convinced of the harmfulness of any revolutionary and reform processes and saw the salvation of the country in stability and conservatism, the strengthening of autocracy. During the reign of Nicholas I, the following major political steps were made:
His Imperial Majesty's own office was created; - a powerful bureaucratic structure that has taken control of various areas inner life countries.
Codification of legislation was carried out;
Education reform has been carried out; - all schools were divided into three types strictly according to the class principle, parish schools - for peasants, district schools - for townspeople, gymnasiums - for nobles; - in 1835, a new University Charter was introduced, as a result of which university education was strictly subordinated to the state, educational programs were cleared of free-thinking ideas, and the universities themselves actually moved to a barracks position. - Landownership was improved; - a secret committee was created to consider options for resolving the peasant issue, headed by P.D. Kiselev; - P.D. Kiselev raised the question of the abolition of serfdom, but he did not find the support of the emperor and the nobility; - a compromise was the decision not to extend serfdom to the extreme western regions of Russia - Poland, Finland and the Baltic states, as well as the right of the landowner to give "freedom" to some peasants in his own way discretion (for the first time the possibility of officially liberating part of the peasants was created); - the position of the landowners also improved - taxes were reduced; landowners and nobles were exempted from corporal punishment, which became widespread under Paul I.
Censorship has been introduced.
The defeat of the Decembrists and the strengthening of the government's police and repressive policies did not lead to a decline in the social movement. On the contrary, it became even more animated. Various St. Petersburg and Moscow salons (home meetings of like-minded people), circles of officers and officials, higher educational institutions (primarily Moscow University), and literary magazines: “Moskvityanin”, “Vestnik Evropy” became centers for the development of social thought. “Domestic Notes”, “Contemporary”, etc. In the social movement of the second quarter of the 19th century. The demarcation of three ideological directions began: radical, liberal and conservative. In contrast to the previous period, the activities of conservatives who defended the existing system in Russia intensified.
Conservative direction. Conservatism in Russia was based on theories that proved the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom. The idea of the need for autocracy as a unique form of political power inherent in Russia since ancient times has its roots in the period of strengthening of the Russian state. It developed and improved during the 18th-19th centuries. adapting to new socio-political conditions. This idea acquired a special resonance for Russia after absolutism was ended in Western Europe. IN early XIX V. N. M. Karamzin wrote about the need to preserve the wise autocracy, which, in his opinion, “founded and resurrected Russia.” The speech of the Decembrists intensified conservative social thought.
For the ideological justification of autocracy, the Minister of Public Education, Count S.S. Uvarov, created the theory of official nationality. It was based on three principles: autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality. This theory reflected enlightenment ideas about unity, the voluntary union of the sovereign and the people, and the absence of social antagonisms in Russian society. The uniqueness of Russia lay in the recognition of autocracy as the only possible form of government in it. This idea became the basis for conservatives until the collapse of the autocracy in 1917. Serfdom was seen as a benefit for the people and the state. Conservatives believed that landowners provide fatherly care for the peasants, and also help the government maintain order and tranquility in the village. According to conservatives, it was necessary to preserve and strengthen the class system, in which the nobility played a leading role as the main support of the autocracy. Orthodoxy was understood as the deep religiosity and commitment to orthodox Christianity inherent in the Russian people. From these postulates, the conclusion was drawn about the impossibility and unnecessaryness of fundamental social changes in Russia, about the need to strengthen the autocracy and serfdom.
The theory of official nationality and other ideas of conservatives were developed by journalists F.V. Bulgarin and N.I. Grech, professors at Moscow University M.P. Pogodin and S.P. Shevyrev. The theory of official nationality was not only propagated through the press, but was also widely introduced into the education system.
Liberal direction. The theory of official nationality caused sharp criticism from the liberal-minded part of society. The most famous was the speech of P. Ya. Chaadaev, who wrote “Philosophical Letters” criticizing autocracy, serfdom and all official ideology. In his first letter, published in the Telescope magazine in 1836, P. Ya. Chaadaev denied the possibility of social progress in Russia and saw nothing bright either in the past or in the present of the Russian people. In his opinion, Russia, cut off from Western Europe, ossified in its moral, religious, Orthodox dogmas, was in dead stagnation. He saw the salvation of Russia, its progress, in the use of European experience, in the unification of the countries of Christian civilization into a new community that would ensure the spiritual freedom of all peoples.
The government brutally dealt with the author and publisher of the letter. P. Ya. Chaadaev was declared crazy and placed under police supervision. Telescope magazine was closed. Its editor, N.I. Nadezhdin, was expelled from Moscow with a ban on engaging in publishing and teaching activities. However, the ideas expressed by P. Ya. Chaadaev caused a great public outcry and had a significant influence on the further development of social thought.
At the turn of the 30-40s of the 19th century. Among the liberals opposing the government, two ideological trends emerged - Slavophilism and Westernism. The ideologists of the Slavophiles were writers, philosophers and publicists: K. S. and I. S. Aksakov, I. V. and P. V. Kireevsky, A. S. Khomyakov, Yu. F. Samarin and others. The ideologists of the Westerners were historians, lawyers, writers and publicists: T. N. Granovsky, K. D. Kavelin, S. M. Solovyov, V. P. Botkin, P. V. Annenkov, I. I. Panaev, V. F. Korsh and other representatives These movements were united by the desire to see Russia prosperous and powerful among all European powers. To do this, they considered it necessary to change its socio-political system, establish a constitutional monarchy, soften and even abolish serfdom, provide peasants with small plots of land, and introduce freedom of speech and conscience. Fearing revolutionary upheavals, they believed that the government itself should carry out the necessary reforms. At the same time, there were significant differences in the views of Slavophiles and Westerners.
Slavophiles exaggerated the peculiarity of the historical path of development of Russia and its national identity. The capitalist system that had established itself in Western Europe seemed to them vicious, bringing impoverishment of the people and a decline in morals. Idealizing the history of pre-Petrine Rus', they insisted on returning to those orders when Zemsky Sobors conveyed the opinion of the people to the authorities, when patriarchal relations supposedly existed between landowners and peasants. At the same time, the Slavophiles recognized the need to develop industry, crafts and trade. One of the fundamental ideas of the Slavophiles was that the only true and deeply moral religion is Orthodoxy. In their opinion, the Russian people have a special spirit of collectivism, in contrast to Western Europe, where individualism reigns. The struggle of the Slavophiles against sycophancy before the West, their study of the history of the people and folk life had great positive value for the development of Russian culture.
Westerners proceeded from the fact that Russia should develop in line with European civilization. They sharply criticized the Slavophiles for contrasting Russia and the West, explaining its difference by historical backwardness. Denying the special role of the peasant community, Westerners believed that the government imposed it on the people for the convenience of administration and tax collection. They advocated broad education of the people, believing that this was the only sure way for the success of modernization of the socio-political system of Russia. Their criticism of serfdom and calls for changes in domestic policy also contributed to the development of socio-political thought.
Slavophiles and Westerners laid the foundation in the 30-50s of the 19th century. the basis of the liberal-reformist direction in the social movement.
Radical direction. In the second half of the 20s - the first half of the 30s, characteristic organizational form The anti-government movement became circles that united no more than 20-30 members. They appeared in Moscow and in the provinces, where police surveillance and espionage were not as established as in St. Petersburg. Their participants shared the ideology of the Decembrists and condemned the reprisal against them. At the same time, they tried to overcome the mistakes of their predecessors, distributed freedom-loving poems, and criticized government policies. The works of the Decembrist poets became widely known. All of Russia was reading the famous message to Siberia by A.S. Pushkin and the Decembrists’ response to him.
Moscow University became the center for the formation of anti-serfdom and anti-autocratic ideology (the circles of the brothers P. M. and V. Kritsky, N. P. Sungurov, etc.). These circles operated for a short time and did not grow into organizations capable of having a serious impact on changing the political situation in Russia. Their members were only discussing domestic policy, made naive plans for reforming the country. However, the government brutally dealt with the circle participants. Student A. Polezhaev was expelled from the university for his freedom-loving poem “Sashka” and given up as a soldier. By personal order of the emperor, some of the members of the circle of the Cretan brothers were imprisoned in the Shlisselburg fortress and the casemate of the Solovetsky Monastery, some were evicted from Moscow and placed under police supervision. The court sentenced some members of the Sungurov Society to exile to hard labor, others to conscription as soldiers.
Secret organizations of the first half of the 30s of the XIX century. were mainly educational in nature. Groups formed around N.V. Stankevich, V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev, whose members studied domestic and foreign political works and promoted the latest Western philosophy.
The second half of the 1930s was characterized by a decline in the social movement due to the destruction of secret circles and the closure of a number of leading magazines. Many public figures were carried away by the philosophical postulate of G.V.F. Hegel “everything rational is real, everything real is rational” and on this basis tried to come to terms with the “vile”, according to V.G. Belinsky, Russian reality.
In the 40s of the XIX century. a new upsurge has emerged in a radical direction. He was associated with the activities of V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, M. V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky and others.
Literary critic V. G. Belinsky, revealing the ideological content of the works under review, instilled in readers hatred of tyranny and serfdom, and love for the people. The ideal of a political system for him was a society in which “there will be no rich, no poor, no kings, no subjects, but there will be brothers, there will be people.” V. G. Belinsky was close to some of the ideas of the Westerners, but he also saw negative sides European capitalism. His “Letter to Gogol” became widely known, in which he condemned the writer for mysticism and refusal social struggle. V. G. Belinsky wrote: “Russia does not need sermons, but the awakening of a sense of human dignity. Civilization, enlightenment, humanity should become the property of the Russian people.” The “Letter,” which was distributed in hundreds of lists, was of great importance for the education of a new generation of public figures of a radical direction.
Caucasian War 1817-1864.
Russia's advance into the Caucasus began long before the 19th century. So, Kabarda back in the 16th century. accepted Russian citizenship. In 1783, Irakli II concluded the Treaty of Georgievsk with Russia, according to which Eastern Georgia accepted the patronage of Russia. At the beginning of the nineteenth century. all of Georgia became part of Russian Empire. At the same time, Russia continued its advance in Transcaucasia and Northern Azerbaijan was annexed. However, Transcaucasia was separated from the main territory of Russia by the Caucasus Mountains, inhabited by warlike mountain peoples who raided lands that recognized Russian rule and interfered with communications with Transcaucasia. Gradually, these clashes turned into a struggle of the mountaineers who converted to Islam under the flag of ghazavat (jihad) - a “holy war” against the “infidels.” The main centers of resistance of the mountaineers in the east of the Caucasus were Chechnya and Mountainous Dagestan, in the west - the Abkhazians and Circassians.
Conventionally, we can distinguish five main periods of the Caucasian War in the 19th century. The first - from 1817 to 1827, associated with the beginning of large-scale military operations by the governor in the Caucasus and commander-in-chief of the Russian troops, General A.P. Ermolov; the second – 1827–1834, when the formation of a military-theocratic state of the highlanders in the North Caucasus was underway and resistance to Russian troops intensified; the third - from 1834 to 1855, when the movement of the highlanders was led by Imam Shamil, who achieved a number of major victories over the tsarist troops; fourth - from 1855 to 1859 - the internal crisis of the Shamil Imamate, the strengthening of the Russian offensive, the defeat and capture of Shamil; fifth – 1859–1864 – end of hostilities in the North Caucasus.
With the end of the Patriotic War and the foreign campaign, the Russian government intensified military operations against the highlanders. The hero of the Patriotic War and very popular in the army, General A.P., was appointed governor in the Caucasus and commander of the troops. Eromolov. He abandoned individual punitive expeditions and put forward a plan to advance deep into the Northern and Eastern Caucasus with the goal of “civilizing” the mountain peoples. Ermolov pursued a tough policy of ousting the rebellious mountaineers from the fertile valleys into the highlands. For this purpose, construction began on the Sunzha line (along the Sunzha River), which separated the breadbasket of Chechnya from the mountainous regions. The long and exhausting war became fierce on both sides. The advancement of Russian troops in the highlands, as a rule, was accompanied by the burning of rebellious villages and the resettlement of Chechens under the control of Russian troops. The mountaineers made constant raids on villages loyal to Russia, seized hostages, livestock and tried to destroy everything that they could not take with them, constantly threatening Russian communications with Georgia and Transcaucasia. The advantage of Russian troops in weapons and military training was offset by complex natural conditions. Impenetrable mountain forests served as good protection for the mountaineers, who were well versed in familiar terrain.
From the second half of the 20s. XIX century Muridism, a doctrine that preached religious fanaticism and “holy war with the infidels” (gazavat), was spreading among the peoples of Dagestan and the Chechens. On the basis of muridism, a theocratic state - the imamate - began to form. The first imam in 1828 was Gazi-Magomed, who sought to unite all the peoples of Dagestan and Chechnya in this state to fight the “infidels.”
At the same time (1827), General Ermolov, who managed to significantly stabilize the situation in the Caucasus, was replaced by I.F. Paskevich. The new commander decided to consolidate Ermolov’s success with punitive expeditions. The actions of the latter and the formation of the theocratic state of the mountaineers again led to an intensification of the struggle. The government of Nicholas I relied mainly on military force, constantly increasing the number of Caucasian troops. The mountain nobility and clergy, on the one hand, with the help of muridism, tried to strengthen their power and influence among the mountain peoples; on the other hand, muridism made it possible to mobilize the mountain people to fight the newcomers from the North.
The Caucasian War took on a particularly fierce and stubborn character after Shamil came to power (1834). Having become an imam, Shamil, who had military talent, organizational skills and a strong will, managed to establish his power over the highlanders of Dagestan and Chechnya and organize stubborn and effective resistance to Russian troops for 25 years.
The turning point in the struggle came only after the end Crimean War(1856). The Caucasian Corps was transformed into the Caucasian Army, numbering 200 thousand people. The new commander-in-chief A.I. Baryatinsky and his chief of staff D.A. Milyutin developed a plan for waging a continuous war against Shamil, moving from line to line in summer and winter. Shamil’s Imamate also experienced depletion of resources and a serious internal crisis. The denouement came in August 1859, when Russian troops blocked the last fortification of Shamil - the village of Gunib.
However, for another five years the resistance of the mountaineers of the North-Western Caucasus - Circassians, Abkhazians and Circassians - continued.
In 1862 – 1864 Russian troops occupied the entire territory along the northern slope Caucasian ridge, May 21, 1864 - the Kbaada tract (Krasnaya Polyana) - the last center of resistance of the Circassian Ubykh tribe. This day is considered the official day of the end of the Caucasian War, although in fact military operations continued in a number of mountainous areas until the end of this year. The Caucasian War ended under the new royal governor and commander-in-chief, Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolaevich Romanov. At the beginning of October, the Abadzekh elders came to Evdokimov and signed an agreement according to which all their fellow tribesmen who wanted to accept Russian citizenship pledged no later than February 1, 1864 to begin moving to the places indicated by him; the rest were given 2 1/2 months to move to Turkey.
After the defeat of the Decembrists, Russia experienced a period of political reaction. In the 1830s. Only in a few circles of student youth is there a glimmer of independent spiritual life. Some of them - the circle of the Kritsky brothers (1827) and the Sungurov circle (1831) - tried to continue the work of the Decembrists and were mercilessly crushed by the government. The authorities consistently persecuted those organizations that adopted the new ideas of utopian socialism: the Herzen circle in Moscow (1833 - 1834) and the Petrashevsky society in St. Petersburg (1845 - 1849). The existence of Stankevich's circle (1833 - 1839), far from politics, was calmer, whose members were fond of German idealistic philosophy.
By the end of the 1830s. as a result of the intense spiritual quest of the advanced part of Russian society, several integral movements manifest themselves here, offering their own concepts historical development Russia and its reconstruction programs.
Westerners(T.N. Granovsky, V.P. Botkin, E.F. Korsh, K.D. Kavelin) believed that Russia was following the European path, having entered it belatedly, as a result of the reforms of Peter the Great. The movement “in a western direction” must inevitably lead to the replacement of serf labor with free labor and the transformation of the despotic state system into a constitutional one. The main task of the “educated minority” in these conditions is to prepare Russian society for the idea of the need for reforms and to influence the authorities in the proper spirit. It is the government and society, in living cooperation, that must prepare and carry out well-thought-out, consistent reforms, with the help of which the gap between Russia and Western Europe will be bridged. Radically tuned by A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev and V. G. Belinsky at the end of 1830 - beginning. 1840s shared the main ideas of the Westerners. However, the radicals criticized the bourgeois system most harshly. From their point of view, Russia in its development should not only catch up with Western European countries, but also take, together with them, a decisive revolutionary step towards a fundamentally new system - socialism. From point of view Slavophiles(A. S. Khomyakov, brothers I. V. and P. V. Kireevsky, brothers K. S. and I. S. Aksakov, Yu. M. Samarin, A. I. Koshelev), Russia for a long time took a completely different path than Western Europe. The history of the latter was determined by the constant struggle of selfish individuals, classes hostile to each other, and despotism on the blood of built states. At the heart of Russian history was community, all members of which were connected by common interests. Orthodox religion further strengthened the original ability of the Russian person to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of common ones. Government looked after the Russian people, protected them from external enemies, maintained the necessary order, but did not interfere in spiritual, private, local life. The government was autocratic in nature, but at the same time it listened sensitively to the opinion of the people, maintaining contact with them through Zemsky Sobors. As a result of Peter's reforms, this harmonious structure of Rus' was destroyed. It was Peter who introduced serfdom, which divided the Russian people into masters and slaves. He also tried to instill Western European morals in the gentlemen. Under Peter, the state acquired a despotic character. Slavophiles called for the restoration of the old Russian foundations of social and state life: to revive the spiritual unity of the Russian people (for which it is necessary abolish serfdom); to overcome the despotic nature of the autocratic system, to establish the lost relationship between the state and the people. The Slavophiles hoped to achieve this goal by introducing widespread glasnost; They also dreamed of the revival of Zemsky Sobors.
Thus, when creating concepts for the development of Russia, representatives of various currents of social thought of the 30s and 40s. acted in one direction. The abolition of serfdom and the reorganization of the despotic state system - these are the primary tasks with the solution of which Russia’s entry into new level development.
