The development of the radical movement in Russia in the 19th century. Ideological currents and socio-political movements of the 19th century

In the 19th century in Russia, a social movement rich in content and methods of action arose, which largely determined the future fate of the country.

In the first half of the XIX century. The Decembrist movement was of particular historical importance. Their ideas have become the banner of Russian liberalism. Inspired by the progressive ideas of the era, this movement aimed at overthrowing the autocracy and abolishing serfdom. The performance of the Decembrists in 1825 became an example of civic courage and dedication for the youth. Thanks to this, the ideal of citizenship and the ideal of statehood were sharply opposed in the minds of an educated society. The blood of the Decembrists forever divided the intelligentsia and the state in Russia.

There were also serious weaknesses in this movement. The main one is the small number of their ranks. They saw the main support not in the people, but in the army, primarily in the guards. The performance of the Decembrists increased the split between the nobility and the peasantry. The peasantry did not expect anything from the nobles but evil. Throughout the 19th century the peasants linked their hopes for social justice only with the tsar. All the speeches of the nobles, and then the raznochintsy democratic intelligentsia, were perceived by them incorrectly.

Already at the beginning of the century, Russian conservatism was formed as a political trend, the ideologist of which was the famous historian, writer and statesman N. M. Karamzin (1766 - 1826). He wrote that the monarchical form of government most fully corresponds to the existing level of development of morality and enlightenment of mankind. The sole power of the autocrat does not mean arbitrariness. The monarch was obliged to sacredly observe the laws. The estate of society is an eternal and natural phenomenon. The nobles were supposed to "rise" above other classes not only by the nobility of origin, but also by moral perfection, education, and usefulness to society.

The works of N. M. Karamzin also contained certain elements of the theory official nationality developed in the 30s. 19th century Minister of Public Education S. S. Uvarov (1786 - 1855) and historian M. P. Pogodin (1800 - 1875). They preached the thesis of the inviolability of the fundamental foundations of Russian statehood, which included autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality. This theory, which became the official ideology, was directed against the forces of progress and opposition.

By the end of the 1830s. among the advanced part of Russian society, several integral currents appear that offer their own concepts of the historical development of Russia and programs for its reorganization.

Westerners (T. N. Granovsky, V. P. Botkin, E. F. Korsh, K. D. Kavelin) believed that Russia was following the European path as a result of the reforms of Peter 1. This should inevitably lead to the abolition of serfdom and the transformation of despotic political system into the constitutional one. The authorities and society must prepare and carry out well-thought-out, consistent reforms, with the help of which the gap between Russia and Western Europe will be eliminated.

The radically minded A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, and V. G. Belinsky in the late 1830s and early 1840s, sharing the main ideas of the Westerners, subjected the bourgeois system to the sharpest criticism. They believed that Russia should not only catch up with the Western European countries, but also take a decisive revolutionary step with them towards a fundamentally new system - socialism.

The opponents of the Westerners were the Slavophiles (A. S. Khomyakov, brothers I. V. and P. V. Kirievsky, brothers K. S. and I. S. Aksakov, Yu. M. Samarin, A. I. Koshelev). In their opinion, the historical path of Russia is fundamentally different from the development of Western European countries. Western peoples, they noted, live in an atmosphere of individualism, private interests, hostility of classes, despotism on the blood of built states. At the heart of Russian history was a community, all members of which were connected by common interests. The Orthodox Church further strengthened the original ability of the Russian people to sacrifice their own interests for the sake of the common ones. The state authorities took care of the Russian people, maintained the necessary order, but did not interfere in the spiritual, private, local life, sensitively listened to the opinion of the people, maintaining contact with them through Zemsky Sobors. Peter 1 destroyed this harmonious device, introduced serfdom, dividing the Russian people into masters and slaves, the state under him acquired a despotic character. The Slavophils called for the restoration of the old Russian foundations of public state life: to revive the spiritual unity of the Russian people (for which serfdom had to be abolished); to get rid of the despotic nature of the autocratic system, to establish the lost relationship between the state and the people. They hoped to achieve this goal by introducing wide publicity; they also dreamed of the revival of Zemsky Sobors.

Westernizers and Slavophiles, being different currents of Russian liberalism, had heated discussions among themselves and acted in the same direction. Abolition of serfdom and democratization state structure- these are the primary tasks, with the solution of which Russia's exit to a new level of development was to begin.

In the middle of the century, the most resolute critics of the authorities were writers and journalists. The ruler of the souls of democratic youth in the 40s. was V. G. Belinsky (1811 - 1848), a literary critic who advocated the ideals of humanism, social justice and equality. In the 50s. The journal Sovremennik became the ideological center of the young democrats, in which N. A. Nekrasov (1821 - 1877), N. G. Chernyshevsky (1828 - 1889), N. A. Dobrolyubov (1836 - 1861) began to play a leading role. Young people gravitated towards the magazine, standing on the positions of a radical renewal of Russia. The ideological leaders of the magazine convinced readers of the necessity and inevitability of Russia's rapid transition to socialism, considering the peasant community best form folk life.

The reformist intentions of the authorities initially met with understanding in Russian society. Magazines that stood on different positions - the Western-liberal "Russian Messenger", the Slavophile "Russian conversation" and even the radical "Contemporary" - in 1856-1857. advocated the interaction of all social movements, for the joint support of the aspirations of the government. But as the nature of the impending peasant reform became clearer, the social movement lost its unity. If the liberals, criticizing the government on private issues, continued to support it on the whole, then the publicists of Sovremennik - N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov - more sharply denounced both the government and the liberals.

A. I. Herzen (1812 - 1870), a brilliantly educated publicist, writer and philosopher, a true "Nineteenth century Voltaire", as he was called in Europe, took a special position. In 1847 he emigrated from Russia to Europe, where he hoped to take part in the struggle for socialist transformations in the most advanced countries. But the events of 1848 dispelled his romantic hopes. He saw that the majority of the people did not support the proletarians heroically fighting on the barricades of Paris. In his foreign publications (the almanac Polar Star and the magazine Kolokol, which were read in the 1950s by all thinking Russia), he exposed the reactionary aspirations of top dignitaries and criticized the government for indecision. And yet, during these years, Herzen was closer precisely to the liberals than to Sovremennik. He kept hoping happy outcome reforms, followed with sympathy the activities of Alexander II. The authors of Sovremennik, on the other hand, believed that the authorities were incapable of a just reform, and dreamed of an imminent popular revolution.

After the abolition of serfdom, the split in the social movement deepened. The majority of liberals continued to count on the goodwill and reforming possibilities of the autocracy, seeking only to push it in the right direction. At the same time, a significant part of the educated society was captured by revolutionary ideas. This was largely due to major changes in its social composition. It quickly lost its estate-noble character, the boundaries between the estates were destroyed. The children of peasants, philistines, clergy, impoverished nobility quickly lost social ties with the environment that gave birth to them, turning into raznochintsy intellectuals, standing outside the estates, living their own, special life. They sought to change Russian reality as quickly and radically as possible and became the main base of the revolutionary movement in the post-reform period.

The radically minded public, inspired by N. G. Chernyshevsky, sharply criticized the peasant reform, demanded more decisive and consistent reforms, reinforcing these demands with the threat popular uprising. The government responded with repression. In 1861 - 1862. many leaders of the revolutionary movement, including Chernyshevsky himself, were sentenced to hard labor. Throughout the 1860s. radicals tried several times to create a strong organization. However, neither the group "Earth and Freedom" (1862 - 1864), nor the circle of N. A. Ishutin (whose member D. V. Karakozov shot at Alexander II in 1866), nor "People's massacre" (1869) could become such. ) under the leadership of S. G. Nechaev.

At the turn of 1860 - 1870. the formation of the ideology of revolutionary populism. It received its final expression in the works of M. Bakunin, P. Lavrov, N. Tkachev. These ideologists pinned special hopes on the peasant community, regarding it as the germ of socialism.

In the late 1860s - early 1870s. a number of populist circles arose in Russia. In the spring of 1874, their members begin a mass campaign among the people, in which thousands of young men and women took part. It covered more than 50 provinces, from Far North to Transcaucasia and from the Baltic to Siberia. Almost all participants in the walk believed in the revolutionary susceptibility of the peasants and in an imminent uprising: the Lavrists (propaganda direction) were waiting for it in 2-3 years, and the Bakuninists (rebellious direction) - “in spring” or “in autumn”. However, it was not possible to raise the peasants to the revolution. The revolutionaries were forced to reconsider their tactics and move on to more systematic propaganda in the countryside. In 1876, the Land and Freedom organization arose, the main goal of which was declared to be the preparation of a popular socialist revolution. The populists sought to create strongholds in the countryside for an organized uprising. However, "sedentary" activity did not bring any serious results either. In 1879, Zemlya i Volya split into Black Repartition and Narodnaya Volya. The "Black Repartition", whose leader was G. V. Plekhanov (1856 - 1918), remained in the old positions. The activities of this organization proved fruitless. In 1880 Plekhanov was forced to go abroad. "Narodnaya Volya" brought to the fore political struggle seeking to overthrow the autocracy. The tactics of seizing power, chosen by the Narodnaya Volya, consisted in intimidation and disorganization of power through individual terror. Gradually, an uprising was being prepared. No longer relying on the peasants, the Narodnaya Volya tried to organize students and workers and infiltrate the army. Since the autumn of 1879, they launched a real hunt for the king, which ended with the assassination of Alexander II on March 1, 1881.

In the 60s. the process of formalizing Russian liberalism as an independent social trend begins. Well-known lawyers B. N. Chicherin (1828 - 1907), K. D. Kavelin (1817 - 1885) reproached the government for the haste of reforms, wrote about the psychological unpreparedness of some sections of the population for changes, advocated a calm, without shocks "growing" of society into new forms of life. They fought both conservatives and radicals who called for popular revenge on the oppressors. At this time, Zemstvo bodies, new newspapers and magazines, university professors became their socio-political base. In the 70-80s. liberals are increasingly coming to the conclusion that deep political reforms.

At the end of the XIX century. the liberal movement was slowly on the rise. During these years, ties between zemstvos were established and strengthened, meetings of zemstvo leaders took place, plans were developed. The liberals considered the introduction of a constitution, representative institutions, glasnost and civil rights to be a transformation of paramount importance for Russia. On this platform, in 1904, the organization "Union of Liberation" arose, uniting the liberal Zemstvo and the intelligentsia. Speaking in favor of the constitution, the Union also put forward in its program some moderate socio-economic demands, primarily on the peasant question: the alienation of part of the landed estates for redemption, the liquidation of cuts, etc. characteristic feature liberal movement there was still a rejection of revolutionary methods of struggle. The socio-political base of the liberals is expanding. The zemstvo and city intelligentsia, scientific and educational societies are becoming more and more actively involved in their movement. In terms of numbers and activity, the liberal camp is no longer inferior to the conservative one, although it is not equal to the radical democratic one.

Populism is undergoing a crisis in these years. The liberal wing, whose representatives (N. K. Mikhailovsky, S. N. Krivenko, V. P. Vorontsov, and others) hoped to embody Narodnik ideals in life by peaceful means, was significantly strengthened in it. In the environment of liberal populism, the "theory of small deeds" arose. She directed the intelligentsia to the daily work of improving the condition of the peasants.

The liberal populists differed from the liberals primarily in that socio-economic transformations were of paramount importance for them. They considered the struggle for political freedoms to be secondary. The revolutionary wing of populism, weakened by the repressions of the authorities, managed to intensify its activity only at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. In 1901, a party of socialist revolutionaries (Socialist-Revolutionaries) arose, who in their program tried to embody the ideals of revolutionary populism. They retained the thesis of the peasant community as the germ of socialism. The interests of the peasantry, the Socialist-Revolutionaries asserted, are identical with the interests of the workers and the working intelligentsia. All this is the "working people", the vanguard of which they considered their party. In the coming socialist revolution, the main role was assigned to the peasantry. On the agrarian question, they advocated the "socialization of the land", that is, the abolition of private ownership of it and the equal distribution of land among all who want to cultivate it. The Socialist-Revolutionaries advocated the overthrow of the autocracy and the convening of the Constituent Assembly, which would determine the nature of the state system in Russia. Along with broad agitation among the peasants and workers, they considered individual terror to be the most important means of revolutionary struggle.

In 1870 - 1880. the Russian labor movement is also gaining strength. And in St. Petersburg and Odessa, the first organizations of the proletariat arose - the Northern Union of Russian Workers and the South Russian Union of Workers. They were relatively few in number and were influenced by populist ideas. Already in the 80s. the labor movement has expanded significantly, and elements of what did at the beginning of the 20th century appear in it. labor movement one of the most important political factors in the life of the country. The largest strike in the post-reform years, the Morozov strike (1885), confirmed this position.

The ignorance of the needs of the working class by the authorities has led to the fact that supporters of Marxism rush into the working environment and find support there. They see the main revolutionary force in the proletariat. In 1883, the Emancipation of Labor group, headed by Plekhanov, appeared in exile in Geneva. Having switched to Marxist positions, he abandoned many provisions of the populist doctrine. He believed that Russia had already irrevocably embarked on the path of capitalism. The peasant community is increasingly split into rich and poor, and therefore cannot be the basis for building socialism. Criticizing the populists, Plekhanov argued that the struggle for socialism included the struggle for political freedoms and the constitution. The leading force in this struggle will be the industrial proletariat. Plekhanov noted that there must be a more or less long interval between the overthrow of the autocracy and the socialist revolution. Forcing the socialist revolution can lead, in his opinion, to the establishment of "renewed tsarist despotism on a communist lining."

The group saw its main task in promoting Marxism in Russia and in rallying forces to create a workers' party. With the advent of this group, Marxism in Russia took shape as an ideological trend. It ousted Narodism and, in a sharp struggle against it, inherited many of its features.

In the 80s. Marxist circles of Blagoev, Tochissky, Brusnev, Fedoseev appeared in Russia, spreading Marxist views among the intelligentsia and workers. In 1895, the "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class" was formed in St. Petersburg, headed by V. I. Lenin. Following his model, similar organizations are being created in other cities. In 1898, on their initiative, the First Congress of the RSDLP was held in Minsk, announcing the creation of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. But in fact the party was created only in 1903 at the Second Congress. At it, after heated debate, the program of the RSDLP was adopted. It consisted of two parts. The minimum program determined the immediate tasks of the party: the overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of a democratic republic, an 8-hour working day, the return of cuts to the peasants and the abolition of redemption payments, etc. This part of the program was in no way more revolutionary than the Social Revolutionary, but in the agrarian question was closer to the liberal. The maximum program set as the goal the implementation of the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. These demands put the RSDLP in a special position, turning it into an extreme, extremist organization. Such a goal ruled out concessions and compromises, cooperation with representatives of other social and political forces. The adoption of the maximum program at the congress and the results of the elections to the central bodies of the party marked the victory of the radical wing of the RSDLP - the Bolsheviks, headed by V. I. Lenin. Their opponents, who after this congress received the name Mensheviks, insisted that the party proceed in its activities only from the minimum program. The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks became two independent currents in the RSDLP. They moved away, then approached, but never completely merged. In fact, these were two parties that differed significantly in ideological and organizational issues. The Mensheviks relied primarily on the experience of the Western European socialist parties. The Bolshevik Party, on the other hand, was built on the model of the People's Will and was aimed at seizing power.

As for the conservative camp, in the post-reform period it is experiencing an ideological disarray caused by a huge complex of the most complex economic and social problems that Russia faced in these years.

The talented journalist M.N. Katkov called in his articles for the establishment of a regime in the country " strong hand". K. P. Pobedonostsev strongly warned the Russians against the introduction of a constitutional system. He considered the idea of ​​representation to be false in essence, since not the people, but only its representatives (and far from being the most honest, but only clever and ambitious) participate in political life. Correctly noting the shortcomings of the representative system and parliamentarism, he did not want to recognize their enormous advantages. Conservatives, being critical of Russian reality, including the activities of jury courts, zemstvos, the press (which were by no means ideal), demanded that the tsar appoint honest officials to leading positions, demanded that the peasants be given only primary, strictly religious education, demanded ruthless punishment for dissent. They avoided discussing such issues as the shortage of land of the peasants, the arbitrariness of entrepreneurs, the low standard of living of a huge part of the people. Their ideas reflected, in fact, the powerlessness of the conservatives in the face of the formidable problems that confronted society at the end of the 19th century. At the same time, by the end of the century, there were already quite a few ideologists among them who sharply criticized government policy for being ineffective and even reactionary.

Questions for self-control

1. What were the features of the socio-economic and political development Russia in the first half of the 19th century?

2. What were the reasons for the reforms in the 60s - early 70s. 19th century?

3. What changes have occurred in the position of the nobility and peasantry as a result of the abolition of serfdom?

4. What are the consequences and significance of the bourgeois reforms for Russia?

5. What impact did the counter-reforms have on the development of the country Alexander III?

6. Russian and Western liberalism: general and special.

7. Historical fate of populism in Russia.

Literature

Great reforms in Russia. 1856 - 1874 - M., 1992.

Mironenko S.V. Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia in early XIX in. - M., 1989.

Mironov B. N. social history Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX century). T. 1 - 2. - St. Petersburg, 2000.

National history: Anthology. - Kirov, 2003.

Pirumova N.M. Zemskaya intelligentsia and its role in social struggle before the beginning of the 20th century. - M., 1986.

Russian autocrats. - M., 1992.

Semennikova L. I. Russia in the world community of civilizations. - Bryansk, 2002.

Solovieva A.M. Industrial revolution in Russia in the 19th century. - M., 1990.

Tarle E.V. Napoleon's invasion of Russia. - M., 1992.

Tomsinov V.A. The luminary of the Russian bureaucracy. Historical portrait of M.M. Speransky. - M., 1991.

Troitsky I.M. III branch under Nicholas I. - L., 1990.

Troitsky N.A. Russia in the 19th century. Lecture course. - M., 1999.

Fedorov V.A. Decembrists and their time. - M., 1997.

LECTURE 8

T.A. LEBEDINSKAYA

In the 19th century in Russia, a social movement rich in content and methods of action, which largely determined the future fate of the country. Public life in Russia in the 19th century. difficult to rigidly schematize, because it was the time of the formation of political movements, the search for their place among the social forces of the country. So A.I. Herzen, who stood on the positions of the Westerners, after the revolutions of 1848-1949. in Europe he became disillusioned with the Western social structure, became close to the Slavophiles in assessing the Russian community and peasantry, developed the theory of “Russian socialism”; during the preparation of the reforms of the 60s, he occupied liberal positions, and after 1861 he strongly supported the revolutionary democrats. It is impossible to give an unambiguous assessment of the socio-political views of V.G. Belinsky, N.G. Chernyshevsky, P.B. Struve, G.V. Plekhanov and many others.

However, the socio-political movement of Russia in the XIX century. can be divided into three main areas: conservative-monarchist, liberal and revolutionary. A similar division of social forces occurs in many countries, but in Russia there is an excessive development of extreme currents with a relative weakness of the center (liberals).

conservative camp Russian society of the XIX century. was represented primarily by government circles, especially during the reign of Nicholas I, Alexander III, major dignitaries, officials, a significant part of the capital and local nobility, whose goal was to preserve and strengthen the autocratic-serf system, the desire to prevent a radical reform of society, to protect privileges, the rights of the nobility. The “theory of official nationality” (“autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality”), developed in the 19th century, became the state ideology of autocracy. 30s Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov. Its meaning consisted in the totality of three theses: 1) autocracy is the support and guarantor of Russian statehood, its existence, power and greatness; 2) Orthodoxy - the basis of the spiritual life of society, its moral purity and stability; 3) “Nationhood” was understood as the unity of the people and the king, a steadfast faith in the Tsar - the spokesman for the interests of the people. In 1880 - 1890s. this theory was developed by the main ideologists of unlimited autocracy M.N. Katkov, K.P. Pobedonostsev. The conservatives, who stood on a rational-protective position, pursued a policy of counter-reforms, fought dissent, tightened censorship, limited or eliminated the autonomy of universities, and so on.

The need for fundamental changes in the sphere of socio-economic relations and the state system of Russia at the beginning of the 19th century becomes as obvious as the inability of the authorities to implement them. As a result, a part of society, at first small in number, and then more and more significant, becomes in opposition to the authorities, subjecting it to sharp criticism. Moreover, the “educated minority” (in the words of A.I. Herzen) more and more insistently declared their readiness to take an active part in the transformations.

In Soviet historical literature, under the influence of the Leninist periodization of the liberation movement First stage it is customary to attribute it to 1825 - the Decembrist uprising. The noble opposition of the end of the 18th century was left outside the framework of the liberation movement. N.I. Novikov, D.I. Fonvizin, A.N. Radishchev, who spoke out for the rights of citizens in a just and classless state. At the same time, unlike Novikov and Fonvizin, who did not call for an armed struggle against the autocracy, Radishchev recognized any actions of citizens in defense of their rights and freedoms.

The first organized protest against autocracy and serfdom in the history of Russia was associated with the Decembrists. Their worldview was formed under the influence of Russian reality, the ideas of the French enlighteners, revolutionary events in Europe, and Patriotic War 1812. “We are the children of 1812. To sacrifice everything, even life, for the good of the Fatherland, was the attraction of the heart. There was no egoism in our feelings, ”wrote the Decembrist M.I. Muravyov-Apostle. The liberal reform projects of Alexander I and M.M. had a great influence on future members of secret societies. Speransky.

The first secret society "Union of Salvation"- arose in 1816 and united only 30 people, mostly officers. The main goal of the society was the abolition of serfdom and the absolute form of government, the introduction of a constitution and civil liberties. In 1818, instead of the "Union of Salvation" was founded "Prosperity Union", it consisted of about 200 people. The main task of the Union was to educate the broad sections of the population of progressive public opinion, disseminate the "true rules of the morality of enlightenment", and active participation in public life. All this, ultimately, the Decembrists believed, would lead to the introduction of a constitution and the abolition of serfdom. In the early 1820s, the government of Alexander I abandoned the reform policy and switched to reaction. The "Union of Prosperity" is disintegrating. In 1821 - 1822. two new societies arose - the Northern in St. Petersburg and the Southern in Ukraine.

Projects outlined in "Russian Truth" P.I. Pestel(Southern Society) and "Constitution" N.M. Muravyov(Northern Society) about the future structure of Russia, the nature of government, the emancipation of the peasants, land reform, the relationship between individual rights and the powers of the state reflected not only liberal, but also revolutionary trends in the development of the social movement of this period. Russkaya Pravda posed two main tasks for the Decembrists. Firstly, to overthrow the autocracy and establish a republic in Russia (until power is strengthened new order, Pestel proposed to hand over power to a temporary supreme government with dictatorial powers), the People's Council was supposed to be the highest legislative body, the Sovereign Duma was the executive one, and the Supreme Council was the judicial one. Secondly, to abolish serfdom, the peasants were freed without a ransom and received 10-12 acres of land per family. The land was divided into two funds - public and private - the lands of the first fund could not be sold, the lands of the second fund were subject to free purchase and sale. Class privileges were abolished, democratic freedoms were guaranteed, and the equality of all the peoples of Russia in a single (unitary) republic was guaranteed.

"Constitution"Muravieva posed the same questions as in Russkaya Pravda, they were resolved less radically. Instead of autocracy, a constitutional monarchy in a federal form. The People's Council of two chambers was to become the supreme legislative body, and the supreme executive power was to belong to the tsar. December 14, 1825 members of the Northern Society, taking advantage of the dynastic crisis in the country, brought about three thousand people to the Senate Square. Later, troops led by members of the Southern Society marched in Ukraine. The uprisings were suppressed by the authorities, who then brutally cracked down on their participants: five were executed (P.I. Pestel, K.F. Ryleev, S.I. Muravyov-Apostol, M.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin and P.G. Kakhovsky, more than 100 Decembrists were exiled not to hard labor in Siberia in the Caucasus against the Highlanders.

Reasons for the defeat of the Decembrists traditionally explained in Lenin's words: "They were terribly far from the people." However, the Decembrists consciously did not want to rely on the masses and could not count on the support of the people. They feared a senseless and merciless rebellion, they were aware of the large, historically formed gap between the enlightened part of society and the extremely backward, politically undeveloped lower classes. As contemporaries testified, the people accepted the defeat of the Decembrists with approval: “The Tsar defeated the nobles, which means that soon there will be freedom.” The defeat of the Decembrists and the lack of political experience, organizational weakness, the psychological difficulty of fighting against “our own”, the comparative small number of their ranks, they represented an insignificant part of their class and only 0.6% of the total number of officers and generals, the solidarity of conservative forces predetermined the defeat of the Decembrists. And, finally, the views of the Decembrists, aimed at liberal development, were ahead of their time, since in Russia there were still no mature prerequisites for the transition to a new social system. Nevertheless, the historical merit of the Decembrists is undeniable. Their names and destinies remained in memory, and ideas in the arsenal of the next generations of freedom fighters. In the literature about the Decembrists, there are various assessments: from “a bunch of madmen alien to our holy Russia”, “without roots in the past and prospects in the future” (conservative-monarchist concept) “their program settings are the continuation of the reforms of Alexander I, and the uprising on December 14 is an explosion despair due to denunciations and the threat of reprisals” (liberal concept); “the greatness and significance of the Decembrists as the first Russian revolutionaries” (revolutionary concept).

The reign of Nicholas I A.I., which came after the defeat of the Decembrists, Herzen called the time of external slavery and “the time of internal liberation.” The second half of the 1930s was marked, on the one hand, by a decline in the social movement, repressions and persecution of its members, a state of uncertainty and disappointment reigned in society, on the other hand. strangle the liberation movement. These sentiments were reflected in "Philosophical Letters" P.Ya. Chaadaev. Chaadaev's letters, with their paradoxical unity of denying the intrinsic value of Russia's historical past and belief in the special role of a renewed Russia included in the Western Christian world, played an important role in revitalizing public life. Begins new stage in a social movement, represented primarily by liberal movement. Liberalism is an ideology and socio-political trend that unites supporters of the parliamentary system, democratic freedoms and freedom of enterprise.

The formation of Russian liberal ideology took place in two directions. In the 40s of the XIX century. emerging liberalism was represented by Slavophilism and Westernism. Westerners (P.V. Annenkov, T.N. Granovsky, K.D. Kavelin, S.M. Solovyov, V.N. Chicherin) recognized the common historical destinies of the peoples of Russia and the West, idealized the West, its culture, praised Peter I .

Slavophiles(brothers I.V. and K.V. Aksakov, I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, A.I. Koshelev, Yu.F. Samarin, A.S. Khomyakov) idealized pre-Petrine Russia, saw real development prospects countries in their original, primordially Russian line: the community, Orthodoxy, autocracy with class-representative institutions, the Zemsky Sobor, local self-government, had a negative attitude towards Peter I, who, in their opinion, directed Russia along the alien path of the West.

Despite disagreements, both of them rejected the revolution, preferring reforms from above to uprisings from below, opposed serfdom, the boundless despotism of the autocracy, firmly believed in the great future of Russia. The liberal and revolutionary-democratic forces could not unite into a strong opposition bloc, because too many things separated them: the socialist idea, views on the state structure of the future of Russia.

A certain part of the educated society was captured by revolutionary moods. This was due, firstly, to dissatisfaction with the course of reforms, and secondly, to serious changes in the social composition of this part of society, the emergence of a diverse intelligentsia. Raznochintsy - people of various ranks and ranks in late XVIII- 19th century inter-class category of the population, people from different classes, were carriers democratic and revolutionary ideology. A.I. Herzen, combining the European ideas of utopian socialism with the specific conditions of Russia, laid the foundation for the socialist tradition in the social movement of the country. The future socialist system in Russia, according to Herzen, based on the equality of all members, collective (communal) property, compulsory labor for all, should be established after the peasant revolution, the overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of a democratic republic. These ideas were further developed in the views of N.G. Chernyshevsky, revolutionary populism of the 60s - 70s.

Populism- the ideology and movement of the raznochintsy intelligentsia in the 1860s - 1890s. opposing serfdom and capitalist development, for the overthrow of tsarism by revolutionary means.

The main of these ideas boil down to the following: Russia can and must go over to socialism, bypassing capitalism, while relying on the peasant community as the germ of socialism; for this it is necessary to abolish serfdom, transfer all the land to the peasants, abolish landlordism, overthrow the autocracy and establish the power of the people.

Depending on the ratio of the goals and means of the struggle against the autocracy, three main directions are distinguished in the revolutionary populist movement of the 70s: propaganda, “rebellious” (anarchist) and terrorist (“conspiratorial”). The first (P.L. Lavrov) believed that intense propaganda work and enlightenment of the masses were necessary for the victory of the peasant revolution, the second (M.A. Bakunin) called for an immediate uprising (rebellion), the third (P.N. Tkachev) considered the organization of a conspiracy, the seizure of state power by means of an armed coup: “cut the ministers” and carry out socialist transformations from above.

In the spring of 1874, about 40 provinces of Russia were engulfed in a mass movement of revolutionary youth, called "going to the people." The appeals of the populists were met with a distrustful and often hostile attitude among the peasantry, moreover, the movement was poorly organized. It was not possible to raise an uprising, mass arrests followed, the movement was crushed.

In the 80s of the XIX century, a new factor in Russian public life was emergence of marxism, closely associated with the formation of the industrial proletariat and the growth of the labor movement, the first workers' organizations appear: "South Russian Union of Workers"(1875, Odessa) and "Northern Union of Russian Workers"(1878, Petersburg). The turn to Marxism was associated with the name of G.V. Plekhanov. In 1883, the first Marxist organization appeared in Geneva - the Emancipation of Labor group, headed by G.V. Plekhanov, who sharply criticized populist views, argued the advantages of Marxism, and distributed Marxist literature in Russia. The first social-democratic groups of this period in Russia by D. Blagoeva, P.V. Tochissky, M.I. Brusneva, N.E. Fedoseev were not numerous and consisted mainly of the intelligentsia and students. However, soon the work of the circles included workers who were impressed by Marxism with a sharp and justified criticism of capitalism, the proclamation of the proletariat as the main fighter against exploitation and the construction of a society of universal equality and justice. In 1895, the Marxist movement is going through an important stage: circles of St. Petersburg Marxists are united in a citywide "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class", who played a big role in uniting social democracy with the mass labor movement. In 1898 an attempt was made to unite all the forces of Russian Marxism. A congress was held in Minsk, proclaiming the formation Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP).

At the end of the 90s, there was an increase in the opposition movement, which led, along with other factors, at the beginning of the 20th century. to a political crisis, and then to the revolution of 1905-1907.

In the 19th century in Russia, a social movement unusually rich in content and methods of action was born, which largely determined the future fate of the country. The 19th century brought with it a sense of the uniqueness, originality of the Russian national-historical being, a tragic (according to P.Ya. Chaadaev) and proud (according to the Slavophiles) awareness of its dissimilarity with Europe. For the first time, history became a kind of “mirror” for educated people, looking into which one could recognize oneself, feel one’s own originality and uniqueness.

Already at the beginning of the century, Russian conservatism was formed as a political trend. His theorist N.M. Karamzin (1766-1826) wrote that the monarchical form of government most fully corresponds to the existing level of development of morality and enlightenment of mankind. Monarchy meant the sole pleasure of the autocrat, but this did not mean arbitrariness. The monarch was obliged to sacredly observe the laws. The division of society into estates was understood by him as an eternal and natural phenomenon. The nobility was obliged to "rise" above other estates not only by the nobility of origin, but also by moral perfection, education, and usefulness to society.

N.M. Karamzin protested against borrowing from Europe and outlined a program of action for the Russian monarchy. It involved a relentless search for capable and honest people to occupy the most important positions. N.M. Karamzin never tired of repeating that Russia needed not reforms of state bodies, but fifty honest governors. A very peculiar interpretation of N.M. Karamzin received in the 30s. 19th century A distinctive feature of the reign of Nicholas was the desire of the authorities to extinguish opposition sentiments with the help of ideological means. This goal was intended to serve the theory of official nationality, developed by the Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov (1786-1855) and historian M.P. Pogodin (1800-1875). They preached the thesis of the inviolability of the fundamental foundations of Russian statehood. They attributed autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality to such foundations. They considered autocracy the only adequate form of Russian statehood, and Russians' loyalty to Orthodoxy was a sign of their true spirituality. Nationality was understood as the need for the educated estates to learn from the common people loyalty to the throne and love for ruling dynasty. Under the conditions of the deadly regulation of life during the time of Nicholas I, the significant “Philosophical Letter” by P.Ya. Chaadaeva (1794-1856). With a feeling of bitterness and sadness, he wrote that Russia had not contributed anything of value to the treasuries of world historical experience. Blind imitation, slavery, political and spiritual despotism, that, according to Chaadaev, we stood out among other peoples. The past of Russia was painted by him in gloomy colors, the present struck with dead stagnation, and the future was the most bleak. It was obvious that Chaadaev considered the autocracy and Orthodoxy to be the main culprits of the country's plight. The author of the "Philosophical Letter" was declared insane, and the magazine "Telescope", which published it, was closed.

In the 30-40s. sharp disputes about the originality of the historical path of Russia for a long time captured significant circles of the public and led to the formation of two characteristic trends - Westernism and Slavophilism. The core of the Westerners was made up of groups of St. Petersburg professors, publicists and writers (V.P. Botkin, E.D. Kavelin, T.N. Granovsky). The Westernizers declared about general regularities in the historical development of all civilized peoples. They saw the originality of Russia only in the fact that our Fatherland lagged behind the countries of Europe in its economic and political development. The most important task of society and government Westerners considered the country's perception of advanced, ready-made forms of social and economic life, characteristic of the countries of Western Europe. This primarily meant the elimination of serfdom, the abolition of legal class distinctions, ensuring freedom of enterprise, the democratization of the judiciary and the development of local self-government.

The Westerners objected to the so-called Slavophiles. This trend arose primarily in Moscow, in the aristocratic salons and editorial offices of the journals of the "first throne". The theorists of Slavophilism were A.S. Khomyakov, the Aksakov brothers and the Kireevsky brothers. They wrote that the historical path of Russia's development is fundamentally different from the development of Western European countries. Russia was characterized not by economic, or even more so by political backwardness, but by originality, dissimilarity to European standards of life. They manifested themselves in the spirit of communion, fastened by Orthodoxy, in the special spirituality of the people living in the words of K.S. Aksakov "according to the inner truth". Western peoples, in the opinion of the Slavophiles, live in an atmosphere of individualism, private interests, regulated by "external truth", i.e., possible norms of written law. Russian autocracy, the Slavophiles emphasized, arose not as a result of a clash of private interests, but on the basis of a voluntary agreement between the government and the people. The Slavophils believed that in pre-Petrine times there was an organic unity between the authorities and the people, when the principle was observed: the power of power - to the king, and the power of opinion - to the people. The transformations of Peter I dealt a blow to Russian identity. A deep cultural split occurred in Russian society. The state began to strengthen the bureaucratic supervision of the people in every possible way. The Slavophils proposed restoring the right of the people to free and open expression of their opinion. They actively demanded the abolition of serfdom. The monarchy was supposed to become "truly popular", taking care of all the estates living in the state, preserving the original mouths: communal orders in the countryside, zemstvo self-government, Orthodoxy. Of course, both the Westerners and the Slavophiles were different hypostases of Russian liberalism. True, the peculiarity of Slavophile liberalism was that it often appeared in the form of patriarchal-conservative utopias.

By the middle of the XIX century. in Russia, the attraction of educated youth to radical democratic, as well as to socialist ideas, begins to manifest itself. A.I. played an exceptionally important role in this process. Herzen (1812-1870), a brilliantly educated publicist and philosopher, a true "Nineteenth century Voltaire" (as he was called in Europe). In 1847 A.I. Herzen emigrated from Russia. In Europe, he hoped to participate in the struggle for socialist transformations in the most advanced countries. This was not accidental: there were quite a lot of admirers of socialism, ardent critics of the "ulcers of capitalism" in European countries. But the events of 1848 dispelled the romantic dreams of the Russian socialist. He saw that the majority of the people did not support the proletarians who fought heroically on the barricades of Paris. Moreover, Herzen was struck by the desire of many people in Europe for material wealth and prosperity, and their indifference to social problems. With bitterness, he wrote about the individualism of Europeans, their philistinism. Europe, soon began to assert A.I. Herzen, is no longer capable of social creativity and cannot be updated on the humanistic principles of life.

It was in Russia that he saw what he did not find in essence, in the West - the predisposition of the people's way of life to the ideals of socialism. He writes in his writings at the turn of the 40-50s. XIX century, that the communal order of the Russian peasantry will become a guarantee that Russia can pave the way to the socialist system. Russian peasants owned the land communally, jointly, and the peasant family traditionally received allotment on the basis of equalizing redistributions. The peasants were characterized by revenue and mutual assistance, a craving for collective work. Many crafts in Russia have long been carried out by artel, together, with the widespread use of equalizing principles of production and distribution. Numerous Cossacks lived on the outskirts of the country, who also could not imagine their life without self-government, without traditional forms of joint work for the common good. Of course, the peasantry is poor and ignorant. But the peasants, having been freed from the oppression of the landlords and state arbitrariness, can and must be taught, instilled in them enlightenment and modern culture.

In the 50s. all thinking Russia read out in London, printed editions of A.I. Herzen. These were the almanac "Polar Star" and the magazine "Bell".

A major phenomenon in public life in the 1940s. became the activity of circles of student and officer youth, grouped around M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky (1821-1866). The members of the circle carried out energetic educational work and organized the publication of an encyclopedic dictionary, filling it with socialist and democratic content. In 1849 the circle was opened by the authorities and its members were severely repressed. Several people (among them was the future great writer F.M. Dostoevsky) experienced the full horror of waiting death penalty(she was replaced at the last moment by Siberian penal servitude). In the 40s. in Ukraine, there was the so-called Cyril and Methodius Society, which preached the ideas of Ukrainian identity (T.G. Shevchenko (1814-1861) was among the participants. They were also severely punished. T.G. Shevchenko, for example, was sent to the army for 10 years old and exiled to Central Asia.

In the middle of the century, writers and journalists acted as the most resolute opponents of the regime. The ruler of the souls of democratic youth in the 40s. was V.G. Belinsky (1811-1848), literary critic who advocated the ideals of humanism, social justice and equality. In the 50s. The editorial board of the Sovremennik magazine became the ideological center of the young democratic forces, in which N.A. began to play a leading role. Nekrasov (1821-1877), N.G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889), N.A. Dobrolyubov (1836-1861). Young people gravitated towards the magazine, standing on the positions of a radical renewal of Russia, striving for the complete elimination of political oppression and social inequality. The ideological leaders of the magazine tried to convince readers of the necessity and possibility of Russia's rapid transition to socialism. At the same time, N.G. Chernyshevsky after A.I. Herzen argued that the peasant community can be the best form of people's life. If the Russian people were liberated from the oppression of the landlords and bureaucrats, Chernyshevsky believed, Russia could use this peculiar advantage of backwardness and even bypass the painful and long paths of bourgeois development. If during the preparation of the "Great Reforms" A.I. Herzen followed the activities of Alexander II with sympathy, but the position of Sovremennik was different. Its authors believed that autocratic power was incapable of just reform and dreamed of an early people's revolution.

The era of the 60s. laid the foundation for the difficult process of formalizing liberalism as an independent social movement. Famous lawyers B.N. Chicherin (1828-1907), K.D. Kavelin (1817-1885) - wrote about the haste of reforms, about the psychological unpreparedness of some sections of the people for change. Therefore, the main thing, in their opinion, was to ensure a calm, shock-free “growing” of society into new forms of life. They had to fight both the preachers of "stagnation", who were terribly afraid of changes in the country, and the radicals, who stubbornly preached the idea of ​​a social leap and rapid transformation of Russia (moreover, on the principles of social equality). The liberals were frightened by calls for popular revenge on the oppressors, heard from the camp of the radical raznochintsy intelligentsia.

At this time, Zemstvo bodies, more and more newspapers and magazines, and university professors became a kind of socio-political base for liberalism. Moreover, the concentration of elements in opposition to the government in zemstvos and city dumas was a natural phenomenon. The weak material and financial capabilities of local self-government bodies, the indifference to their activities on the part of government officials caused the zemstvo residents to staunchly dislike the actions of the authorities. Increasingly, Russian liberals came to the conclusion about the need for deep political reforms in the empire. In the 70s-early 80s. Tver, Kharkov, Chernihiv zemstvo most actively petition the government for the need for reforms in the spirit of the development of representative institutions, publicity and civil rights.

Russian liberalism had many different facets. With his left wing, he touched the revolutionary underground, with his right - the camp of the guards. Existing in post-reform Russia both as part of the political opposition and as part of the government (“liberal bureaucrats”), liberalism, in contrast to revolutionary radicalism and political protection, acted as a factor in civil reconciliation, which was so necessary in Russia at that time. Russian liberalism was weak, and this was predetermined by the underdevelopment of the country's social structure, the practical absence of a "third estate" in it, i.e. quite numerous bourgeoisie.

All the leaders of the Russian revolutionary camp expected in 1861-1863. peasant uprising (as a response to the difficult conditions of the peasant reform), which could develop into a revolution. But as the number of mass demonstrations decreased, the most perspicacious of the radicals (A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky) stopped talking about the imminent revolution, predicting a long period of painstaking preparatory work in the countryside and society. Proclamations written in the early 1960s surrounded by N.G. Chernyshevsky, were not incitement to rebellion, but were a search for allies to create a bloc of opposition forces. The variety of addressees, from soldiers and peasants to students and intellectuals, the variety of political recommendations, from addresses to Alexander II to demands for a democratic republic, confirm this conclusion. Such tactics of the revolutionaries are quite explicable, if one bears in mind their small numbers and poor organization. The Society "Land and Freedom" created by Chernyshevsky, Sleptsov, Obruchev, Serno-Solovyevich in late 1861-early 1862 in St. Petersburg did not have enough strength to become an all-Russian organization. It had a branch in Moscow and connections with similar small circles in Kazan, Kharkov, Kyiv and Perm, but this was too little for serious political work. In 1863 the organization dissolved itself. At this time, extremists and dogmatists became more active in the revolutionary movement, who swore by the names and views of A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky, but had very little in common with them. In the spring of 1862, the circle of P. Zaichnevsky and P. Argiropulo distributed the proclamation "Young Russia", filled with threats and bloody prophecies addressed to the government and the nobility. Her appearance was the reason for the arrest in 1862 of N.G. Chernyshevsky, who, by the way, severely reproached the authors of Young Russia for empty threats and inability to reasonably assess the situation in the country. The arrest also prevented the publication of his "Letters without an address" addressed to Alexander II, in which Chernyshevsky admitted that Russia's only hope in this period was liberal reforms, and the only force capable of consistently implementing them was the government, based on the local government. nobility.

On April 4, 1866, a member of one of the St. Petersburg revolutionary circles D.V. Karakozov shot Alexander P. The investigation came to a small group of students led by N.A. Ishutin, the unsuccessful creator of several cooperative workshops (following the example of the heroes of the novel What Is to Be Done?), an ardent admirer of N.G. Chernyshevsky. D.V. Karakozov was executed, and government conservatives used this attempt to put pressure on the emperor in order to slow down further reforms. The emperor himself at this time begins to alienate the supporters of consistent reformist measures, more and more trusting the supporters of the so-called "strong hand".

Meanwhile, an extreme direction is gaining strength in the revolutionary movement, which has set the goal of the total destruction of the state. S.G. became its brightest representative. Nechaev, who created the society "People's Reprisal". Forgery, blackmail, unscrupulousness, unconditional submission of the members of the organization to the will of the "leader" - all this, according to Nechaev, should have been used in the activities of the revolutionaries. The trial of the Nechaevites served as the plot basis of the great novel by F.M. Dostoevsky's "Demons", which with brilliant insight showed where such "fighters for the people's happiness" can lead Russian society. Most radicals denounced the Nechaevs as immoral and dismissed the phenomenon as an accidental "episode" in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement, but time has shown that the problem is far more important than mere chance.

Revolutionary circles of the 70s. moved gradually to new forms of activity. In 1874, mass circulation to the people began, in which thousands of young men and women took part. The youth themselves did not really know why they were going to the peasants - either to conduct propaganda, or to raise a peasant to an uprising, or simply to get acquainted with the "people". One can relate to this in different ways: consider it a touch on the “origins”, an attempt by the intelligentsia to get closer to the “suffering people”, a naive apostolic belief that the new religion is love of the people, raised the common people to an understanding of the beneficialness of socialist ideas, but from a political point of view of view, "going to the people" was a test for the correctness of the theoretical positions of M. Bakunin and P. Lavrov, new and popular theorists among populists.

Unorganized, without a single center of leadership, the movement was easily and quickly uncovered by the police, who inflated the case of anti-government propaganda. The revolutionaries were forced to revise their tactical methods and move on to more systematic propaganda activities. The theorists of revolutionary populism (and this political direction was already habitually called in Russia) still believed that in the foreseeable future it would be possible to replace the monarchy with a socialist republic based on a peasant community in the countryside and workers' associations in the cities. Persecution, harsh sentences for dozens of young people who participated in the "walking" and, in fact, did not commit anything illegal (and many diligently worked as zemstvo figures, paramedics, etc.) - hardened the populists. Most of them, engaged in propaganda work in the countryside, were hard pressed by their failures (after all, the peasants were not at all going to rebel against the government), they understood that small groups of young people could not do anything real yet. At the same time, their comrades in St. Petersburg and other large cities are increasingly resorting to terror tactics. Since March 1878, almost every month they have been committing "high-profile" murders of major officials of the ruling regime. Soon the group of A.I. Zhelyabova and S. Perovskoy begin the hunt for Alexander II himself. On March 1, 1881, another attempt to assassinate the emperor was successful.

Narodnaya Volya members were often reproached (in the liberal camp), and even now these reproaches seem to have experienced a second birth because they frustrated the attempts of government liberals to begin the process of the country's transition to constitutional rule as early as 1881. But this is not fair. Firstly, it was revolutionary activity that forced the government to rush to such measures (ie, the development of projects to involve the public in the development of state laws). Secondly, the government acted here in such secrecy, and with such distrust of society, that practically no one knew anything about the upcoming events. In addition, the terror of the Narodniks went through a series of stages. And their first terrorist actions were not a well-thought-out tactic, not even a program, but only an act of desperation, revenge for their fallen comrades. It was not in the intentions of the Narodnaya Volya to “seize” power. Interestingly, they only planned to get the government to organize elections to the Constituent Assembly. And in a clash between the government and the People's Will, no winner can be found. After March 1, both the government and the populist revolutionary movement found themselves in an impasse. Both forces needed a break, and such an event could provide it, which would drastically change the situation, make the whole country think about what is happening. The tragedy of March 1 turned out to be this event. Populism quickly split. Some of the populists (ready to continue the political struggle), led by G.V. Plekhanov (1856-1918) continued in exile the search for the "correct" revolutionary theory, which they soon found in Marxism. The other part moved on to peaceful cultural work among the peasants, becoming zemstvo teachers, doctors, intercessors and advocates for peasant affairs. They talked about the need for “small” but useful deeds for the common people, about the illiteracy and oppression of the people, about the need not for revolutions, but for enlightenment. They also had harsh critics (in Russia and in exile) who called such views cowardly and defeatist. These people continued to talk about the inevitability of a revolutionary clash between the people and their government. So the clash of power with radical forces was delayed for 20 years (until the beginning of the 20th century), but, unfortunately, it was not possible to avoid it.

The revision by the revolutionaries of their positions was also helped by the fact that in 1870-1880. the Russian labor movement is also gaining strength. The first organizations of the proletariat arose in St. Petersburg and Odessa and were called, respectively, the Northern Union of Russian Workers and the South Russian Union of Workers. They were under the influence of populist propagandists and were relatively few in number.

Already in the 80s. The working-class movement expanded significantly and elements of what soon made (at the beginning of the 20th century) the working-class movement one of the most important political factors in the life of the country appear in it. The largest strike in the post-reform years, the Morozov strike, confirmed this position.

It took place in 1885 at the Morozov manufactory in Orekhovo-Zuyevo. The leaders of the uprising developed requirements for the owner of the manufactory, and also transferred them to the governor. The governor called in the troops and the instigators were arrested. But during the trial, an event occurred that literally struck Emperor Alexander III and his government like thunder, and echoed throughout Russia: the jurors acquitted all 33 defendants.

Definitely in the 80's and 90's. 19th century under the conservative rule of Alexander III and his son Nicholas II (began ruling in 1894), it was out of the question for the authorities to allow the workers to fight for their rights in an organized manner. Both emperors did not allow the thought to allow the formation of trade unions or other, even non-political workers' organizations. They also considered such phenomena to be an expression of an alien, Western political culture, incompatible with Russian traditions.

As a result, by decision of the government, labor disputes had to be settled by special officials - factory inspectors, who, of course, were more often influenced by entrepreneurs than cared about the interests of workers. The government's inattention to the needs of the working class has led to the fact that admirers of the Marxist doctrine rush into the working environment and find support there. The first Russian Marxists, who were in exile, headed by G.V. Plekhanov, the Emancipation of Labor group, began their activities with the translation and distribution in Russia of books by K. Marx and F. Engels, as well as writing brochures in which they proved that the era of Russian capitalism had already begun, and the working class had to fulfill a historical mission - to lead a nationwide struggle against the oppression of tsarism, for social justice, for socialism.

It cannot be said that before G.V. Plekhanov, V.I. Zasulich, P.P. Axelrod, L.G. Deutsch and V.K. Ignatiev Marxism was unknown in Russia. For example, some populists corresponded with K. Marx and F. Engels, and M.A. Bakunin and G.A. Lopatin tried to translate the works of K. Marx. But it was the Plekhanov group that became the first Marxist organization to do a great job in emigration: they published at the end of the 19th century. over 250 Marxist works. The successes of the new doctrine in European countries, the propaganda of his views by the Plekhanov group led to the emergence in Russia of the first Social Democratic circles of D. Blagoev, M.I. Brusnev, P.V. Toginsky. These circles were not numerous and consisted primarily of the intelligentsia and students, but more and more often workers were now joining them. The new doctrine was surprisingly optimistic, it met both the hopes and the psychological mood of the Russian radicals. The new class - the proletariat, rapidly growing, being exploited by entrepreneurs, not protected by law by a clumsy and conservative government, associated with advanced technology and production, more educated and united than the inert peasantry crushed by want - it appeared in the eyes of radical intellectuals as that fertile material , from which it was possible to prepare a force capable of defeating royal despotism. According to the teachings of K. Marx, only the proletariat can liberate oppressed humanity, but for this it must be aware of its own (and, ultimately, universal) interests. Such a social force appeared in Russia in a historically short period of time and resolutely declared itself through strikes and strikes. To give the development of the proletariat the "correct" direction, to bring into it the socialist consciousness - this great, but historically necessary task was to be performed by the Russian revolutionary intelligentsia. She herself thought so. But first it was necessary to "destroy" the Narodniks ideologically, who continued to "reiterate" that Russia could bypass the stage of capitalism, that its socio-economic characteristics did not allow the schemes of Marxist teaching to be applied to it. In the wake of this controversy, already in the mid-90s. V.I. stood out in the Marxist environment. Ulyanov (Lenin) (1870-1924), a lawyer by education, a young propagandist who came to St. Petersburg from the Volga region.

In 1895, with his associates, he created a fairly large organization in the capital, which managed to play an active role in some workers' strikes - the "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class" (several hundred workers and intellectuals participated in it). After the defeat of the "Union of Struggle" by the police, V.I. Lenin was exiled to Siberia, where, as far as possible, he tried to participate in a new discussion between those Marxists who tried to focus on the economic struggle of workers for their rights and, accordingly, placed their hopes on the reformist path of development of Russia, and those who did not believe in the possibility of tsarism to ensure the progressive development of the country and pinned all his hopes on the people's revolution. IN AND. Ulyanov (Lenin) resolutely joined the latter.

All noted social movements represented different facets of political opposition. Russian Marxists, only at first glance, were faithful followers of the Western radical doctrine that developed in the conditions of the then early industrial society, where acute social inequality still dominated. But European Marxism at the end of the XIX century. is already losing its destructive anti-state attitude. European Marxists are increasingly relying on the fact that through the democratic constitutions that have been adopted in their countries, they will be able to achieve social justice in society. So they gradually became part of the political system in their countries.

Russian Marxism is another matter. The fighting radical spirit of the previous generation of Russian populist socialists lived in him, who were ready for any sacrifice and suffering in the struggle against the autocracy. They saw themselves as tools of history, spokesmen for the true will of the people. Thus, the European idea of ​​socialism was combined with a complex of purely Russian ideological moods, which were characterized by maximalism of goals and significant isolation from reality. Hence, the Russian Marxists, just like the populists, manifested a literally religious belief that as a result of the people's revolution in Russia, it is possible to quickly build a just state in all respects, where any social evil will be eradicated.

The huge complex of economic and social problems that Russia faced in the post-reform decades caused ideological confusion in the camp of Russian conservatives as well. In the 60-80s. the talented journalist M.N. tried to give the autocracy a new ideological weapon. Katkov. In his articles all the time there were calls for the establishment of a "strong hand" regime in the country. It meant the suppression of any dissent, a ban on the publication of materials of liberal content, strict censorship, the preservation of social framework in society, control over zemstvos and city dumas. The education system was built in such a way that it was permeated with the ideas of loyalty to the throne and the church. Another talented conservative, chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev resolutely warned the Russians against the introduction of a constitutional system, since it was something lower, in his opinion, in comparison with autocracy. And this superiority, as it were, consisted in the greater honesty of the autocracy. As Pobedonostsev argued, the idea of ​​representation is false in essence, since it is not the people, but only their representatives (and not the most honest, but only clever and ambitious) who participate in political life. The same applies to parliamentarism, since the struggle of political parties, the ambitions of deputies, etc. play a huge role in it.

It really is. But after all, Pobedonostsev did not want to admit that the representative system also had huge advantages: the possibility of recalling deputies who did not justify the trust, the possibility of criticizing the shortcomings of the political and economic system in the state, the separation of powers, the right to choose. Yes, the jury trial, the Zemstvos, the then Russian press were not ideal at all. But how did the ideologists of conservatism want to remedy the situation? Yes, in fact, no way. They are just, like the old N.M. Karamzin, demanded that the tsar appoint honest, and not thieving, officials to ministerial and gubernatorial posts, demanded that the peasants be given only an elementary, strictly religious in content, education, demanded that students, zemstvo, supporters of national identity be mercilessly punished for dissent (and these movements are increasingly active manifest themselves at the end of the century), etc. The ideologists of the autocracy avoided discussing such issues as the shortage of land of the peasants, the arbitrariness of entrepreneurs, the low standard of living of a huge part of the peasants and workers. Their ideas reflected, in fact, the powerlessness of the conservatives in the face of the formidable problems that confronted society at the end of the 19th century. In addition, among the conservatives there were already quite a few such thinkers who, standing up for Orthodox spiritual values, the preservation of national everyday traditions, fighting the onset of "Western" spiritual culture, sharply criticized government policy for inefficiency and even "reactionary".

The pre-capitalist cultural traditions in Russia contained few prerequisites for the formation of a bourgeois personality type. Rather, they developed such a complex of institutions and ideas that N.G. Chernyshevsky called "Asiaticism": domostroy, age-old habits of subordination to the state, indifference to legal forms, replaced by the "idea of ​​arbitrariness." Therefore, although the educated stratum in Russia showed a relatively high ability to assimilate elements European culture, these elements could not gain a foothold in the thickness of the population, falling on unprepared soil, they rather caused a destructive effect; led to cultural disorientation of the mass consciousness (philistinism, tramp, drunkenness, etc.). From this, the paradox of the cultural process in Russia in the 19th century becomes clear, which consisted in a sharp gap between the developed stratum of the intelligentsia, the nobility, and the working masses.

One of the essential features of the historical development of Russia was that in the 19th century, when the national bourgeoisie could not become the leading force in the liberation movement, the intelligentsia became the main subjects of the political process "from below".

The 19th century entered the history of Russia as a period of socio-economic changes. The feudal system was replaced by the capitalist system and firmly established, the agrarian economic system was replaced by an industrial one. Fundamental changes in the economy entailed changes in society - new strata of society appeared, such as the bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia, the proletariat. These strata of society increasingly asserted their rights to the social and economic life of the country, and a search was under way for ways to organize themselves. The traditional hegemon of social and economic life - the nobility could not but realize the need for changes in the economy, and as a result - in the social and socio-political life of the country.
At the beginning of the century, it was the nobility, as the most enlightened stratum of society, that played the leading role in the process of realizing the need for changes in the socio-economic structure of Russia. It was the representatives of the nobility who created the first organizations that set themselves not just replacing one monarch with another, but changing the political and economic system of the country. The activities of these organizations went down in history as the movement of the Decembrists.
Decembrists.
The "Union of Salvation" is the first secret organization created by young officers in February 1816 in St. Petersburg. It numbered no more than 30 people, and was not so much an organization as a club that united people who wanted to destroy serfdom and fight the autocracy. This club did not have clear goals, let alone methods for achieving them. Having existed until the autumn of 1817, the Union of Salvation was dissolved. But at the beginning of 1818, the Union of Welfare was created by its members. It has already included about 200 military and civilian officials. The goals of this "Union" did not differ from the goals of its predecessor - the liberation of the peasants and the implementation of political reforms. There was an understanding with the methods of achieving them - propaganda among the nobility of these ideas and support for the liberal intentions of the government.
But in 1821, the tactics of the organization changed - I motivate by the fact that the autocracy is not capable of reforms, at the Moscow congress of the "Union" it was decided to overthrow the autocracy by force of arms. Not only tactics have changed, but also the very structure of the organization - instead of an interest club, conspiratorial, clearly structured organizations have been created - the Southern (in Kyiv) and the Northern (in St. Petersburg) societies. But, despite the unity of goals - the overthrow of the autocracy and the abolition of serfdom - there was no unity between these organizations in the future political structure countries. These contradictions were reflected in the program documents of the two societies - "Russian Truth" proposed by P.I. Pestel (Southern Society) and "Constitution" by Nikita Muravyov (Northern Society).
P. Pestel saw the future of Russia as a bourgeois republic, headed by a president and a bicameral parliament. The northern society, headed by N. Muravyov, proposed a constitutional monarchy as a state structure. Under this option, the emperor, as a state official, exercised executive power, legislature was at the bicameral parliament.
On the issue of serfdom, both leaders agreed that the peasants needed to be liberated. But to allocate them with land or not - this was the subject of controversy. Pestel believed that it was necessary to allocate, taking away the land and too large landowners. Muravyov believed that it was not necessary - vegetable gardens and two acres per yard would be enough.
The uprising on December 14, 1825 in St. Petersburg was the apotheosis of the activities of secret societies. In fact, it was an attempted coup d'état, the latest in a series of coups that succeeded emperors on the Russian throne throughout XVIII century. On December 14, on the day of the coronation of Nicholas I, the younger brother of Alexander I, who died on November 19, the conspirators brought troops to the square in front of the Senate, a total of about 2,500 soldiers and 30 officers. But, for a number of reasons, they could not act decisively. The rebels remained standing in the "square" on Senate Square. After fruitless negotiations that lasted all day between the rebels and representatives of Nicholas I, the "square" was shot with buckshot. Many rebels were wounded or killed, all the organizers were arrested.
579 people were involved in the investigation. But only 287 were found guilty. On July 13, 1826, five leaders of the uprising were executed, another 120 were sentenced to hard labor or settlement. The rest got off with a fright.
This coup attempt went down in history as the “Decembrist uprising”.
The significance of the Decembrist movement is that it gave impetus to the development of social and political thought in Russia. Being not just conspirators, but having a political program, the Decembrists gave the first experience of a political "non-systemic" struggle. The ideas set out in the programs of Pestel and Muravyov found a response and development among the next generations of supporters of the reorganization of Russia.

official nation.
The uprising of the Decembrists had another meaning - it gave rise to a response from the authorities. Nicholas I was seriously frightened by the coup attempt and during the years of his thirty-year reign he did everything to prevent it from happening again. authorities have established strict control over public organizations and mood in various circles of society. But punitive measures were not the only thing that the authorities could take to prevent new conspiracies. She tried to offer her social ideology, designed to rally society. It was formulated by S. S. Uvarov in November 1833 when he took office as Minister of Public Education. In his report to Nicholas I, he quite succinctly presented the essence of this ideology: “Autocracy. Orthodoxy. Nationality".
The author interpreted the essence of this wording as follows: Autocracy is a historically established and established form of government, which has grown into the foundation of the life of the Russian people; Orthodox faith- the keeper of morality, the basis of the traditions of the Russian people; Nationality is the unity of the king and the people, acting as a guarantor against social upheavals.
This conservative ideology was adopted as a state ideology and the authorities successfully adhered to it throughout the reign of Nicholas I. And until the beginning of the next century, this theory continued to successfully exist in Russian society. The ideology of the official nationality laid the foundation for Russian conservatism as part of socio-political thought. West and East.
No matter how hard the government tries to develop national idea, putting a rigid ideological framework of "Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationality", it was during the reign of Nicholas I that Russian liberalism was born and formed as an ideology. Its first representatives were interest clubs among the emerging Russian intelligentsia, which received the names "Westerners" and "Slavophiles". These were not political organizations, but the ideological currents of like-minded people, who in disputes created an ideological platform, later full-fledged political organizations and parties would arise on it.
Writers and publicists I. Kireevsky, A. Khomyakov, Yu. Samarin, K. Aksakov and others considered themselves Slavophiles. The most prominent representatives of the Westerners' camp were P. Annenkov, V. Botkin, A. Goncharov, I. Turgenev, P. Chaadaev. A. Herzen and V. Belinsky were in solidarity with the Westerners.
Both of these ideological currents were united by criticism of the existing political system and serfdom. But, being in solidarity in recognizing the need for change, Westerners and Slavophiles assessed the history and future structure of Russia in different ways.

Slavophiles:
- Europe has exhausted its potential, and it has no future.
- Russia is a separate world, due to its special history, religiosity, mentality.
- Orthodoxy is the greatest value of the Russian people, opposing rationalistic Catholicism.
- The village community is the basis of morality, not spoiled by civilization. The community is the backbone of traditional values, justice and conscience.
- Special relations between the Russian people and the authorities. The people and the authorities lived according to an unwritten contract: there is us and them, the community and the authorities, everyone has their own life.
- Criticism of the reforms of Peter I - reforming Russia under him led to a violation of the natural course of its history, violated the social balance (contract).

Westerners:
- Europe is the world civilization.
- There is no originality of the Russian people, there is its backwardness from civilization. Russia has long been "out of history" and "out of civilization".
- had a positive attitude towards the personality and reforms of Peter I, his main merit was considered Russia's entry into the bosom of world civilization.
- Russia is following in the footsteps of Europe, so it should not repeat its mistakes and adopt positive experience.
- The engine of progress in Russia was considered not the peasant community, but the “educated minority” (intelligentsia).
- The priority of individual freedom over the interests of the authorities and the community.

Common between Slavophiles and Westernizers:
- Abolition of serfdom. The liberation of the peasants with the land.
- Political freedoms.
- Rejection of the revolution. Only the path of reforms and transformations.
Discussions between Westerners and Slavophiles were of great importance for the formation of socio-political thought and liberal-bourgeois ideology.
A. Herzen. N. Chernyshevsky. Populism.

Even greater critics of the official ideology of conservatism than the liberal Slavophiles and Westernizers were representatives of the revolutionary-democratic ideological trend. The most prominent representatives of this camp were A. Herzen, N. Ogaryov, V. Belinsky and N. Chernyshevsky. The theory of communal socialism proposed by them in 1840-1850 was that:
- Russia follows its own historical path, different from Europe.
- capitalism is not a characteristic, and therefore not acceptable phenomenon for Russia.
- autocracy does not fit into the social structure of Russian society.
- Russia will inevitably come to socialism, bypassing the stage of capitalism.
- the peasant community is the prototype of a socialist society, which means that Russia is ready for socialism.

The method of social transformation is revolution.
The ideas of "communal socialism" found a response among the raznochintsy intelligentsia, which from the middle of the 19th century began to play an increasingly prominent role in the social movement. It was with the ideas of A. Herzen and N. Chernyshevsky that the movement was connected, which in 1860-1870 came to the fore of Russian social and political life. It will be known as Populism.
The aim of this movement was the radical reorganization of Russia on the basis of socialist principles. But there was no unity among the Narodniks as regards the methods of achieving this goal. There were three main areas:
propagandists. P. Lavrov and N. Mikhailovsky. In their opinion, social revolution should be prepared by the propaganda of the intelligentsia among the people. They rejected the violent way of reorganizing society.
Anarchists. The main ideologist M. Bakunin. Rejection of the state and its replacement by autonomous societies. Achieving the goal through revolution and uprisings. Continuous petty riots and uprisings are preparing a great revolutionary explosion.
Conspirators. Leader - P. Tkachev. Representatives of this part of the Narodniks believed that it was not enlightenment and propaganda that prepared the revolution, but that the revolution would give enlightenment to the people. Therefore, without wasting time on enlightenment, it is necessary, by creating a secret organization of professional revolutionaries, to seize power. P. Tkachev believed that a strong state is necessary - only it can turn the country into a large commune.
The heyday of the activities of populist organizations fell on the 1870s. The most massive of them was "Land and Freedom" created in 1876, it united up to 10 thousand people. In 1879, this organization split, the stumbling block was the question of the methods of waging the struggle. A group led by G. Plekhpnov, V. Zasulich and L. Deutsch, who opposed terror as a way of waging a struggle, created the Black Redistribution organization. Their opponents, Zhelyabov, Mikhailov, Perovskaya, Figner, advocated terror and the physical elimination of government officials, primarily the tsar. Supporters of terror organized "Narodnaya Volya". It was the members of the "Narodnaya Volya" who since 1879 made five attempts on Alexander II, but only on March 1, 1881 they managed to achieve their goal. This was the end of both Narodnaya Volya itself and other Narodnik organizations. The entire leadership of Narodnaya Volya was arrested and executed by court order. More than 10 thousand people were brought to trial in the case of the assassination of the emperor. Populism never recovered from such a defeat. In addition, peasant socialism as an ideology had exhausted itself by the beginning of the 20th century - the peasant community ceased to exist. It was replaced by commodity-money relations. Capitalism developed rapidly in Russia, penetrating ever deeper into all spheres of society. And just as capitalism came to replace the peasant community, so social democracy came to replace populism.

Social Democrats. Marxists.
With the defeat of the populist organizations and the collapse of their ideology, the revolutionary field of social and political thought did not remain unfilled. In the 1880s, Russia became acquainted with the teachings of Karl Marx and the ideas of the Social Democrats. The first Russian Social Democratic organization was the Emancipation of Labor group. It was created in 1883 in Geneva by members of the Black Redistribution organization who emigrated there. The Emancipation of Labor group is credited with translating the works of K. Marx and F. Engels into Russian, which allowed their teaching to spread rapidly in Russia. The basis of the ideology of Marxism was outlined as early as 1848 in the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" and by the end of the century had not changed: at the forefront of the struggle for the reorganization of society came new class- hired workers in industrial enterprises - the proletariat. It is the proletariat that will carry out the socialist revolution as an inevitable condition for the transition to socialism. Unlike the Narodniks, Marxists understood socialism not as a prototype of a peasant community, but as a natural stage in the development of society following capitalism. Socialism is equal rights to the means of production, democracy and social justice.
From the beginning of the 1890s, Social Democratic circles arose in Russia one after another, their ideology was Marxism. One such organization was the Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class, founded in St. Petersburg in 1895. Its founders were the future leaders of the RSDLP - V. Lenin and Yu. Martov. The purpose of this organization was to propagate Marxism and promote the workers' strike movement. In early 1897, the organization was liquidated by the authorities. But already in the next year, 1898, at the congress of representatives of social democratic organizations in Minsk, the foundation of the future party was laid, which finally took shape in 1903 at the congress in London in the RSDLP.

Reasons for the rise of the social movement. The main thing is the preservation of the old socio-political system and, above all, the autocratic system with its police apparatus, the privileged position of the nobility, and the absence of democratic freedoms. Another is the unresolved agrarian-peasant question. The half-heartedness of the reforms of the 60-70s and fluctuations in the government's course also activated the social movement.

A distinctive feature of the public life of Russia in the second half of the XIX century. there was a lack of powerful anti-government actions of the broad masses of the people. Peasant unrest that broke out after 1861 quickly subsided, the labor movement was in its infancy.

In the post-reform period, three directions in the social movement finally took shape - conservatives, liberals and radicals. They had different political goals, organizational forms and methods of struggle.

Conservatives. Conservatism in the second half of the 19th century. remained within the ideological framework of the theory of "official nationality". Autocracy was still declared the most important pillar of the state. Orthodoxy was proclaimed the basis of the spiritual life of the people and actively planted. Nationality meant the unity of the king with the people, which meant the absence of ground for social conflicts. In this, the conservatives saw the originality of the historical path of Russia.

The ideologists of the conservatives were K. P. Pobedonostsev, D. A. Tolstoy, M. N. Katkov.

Liberals. They defended the idea of ​​a common path of historical development of Russia with Western Europe.

In the domestic political field, the liberals insisted on the introduction of constitutional principles, democratic freedoms and the continuation of reforms. They advocated the creation of an all-Russian elected body (Zemsky Sobor), the expansion of the rights and functions of local self-government bodies (zemstvos). Their political ideal was a constitutional monarchy. In the socio-economic sphere, they welcomed the development of capitalism and freedom of enterprise.

They considered reforms the main method of socio-political modernization of Russia. They were ready to cooperate with the autocracy. Therefore, their activity mainly consisted in submitting “addresses” to the name of the tsar - petitions with a proposal for a program of transformations. The ideologists of the liberals were scientists, publicists, zemstvo figures (K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin. The liberals did not create a stable and institutionalized opposition to the government.

Features of Russian liberalism: its noble character due to the political weakness of the bourgeoisie and readiness to be close to the conservatives. They were united by the fear of the people's "rebellion".

Radicals. Representatives of this direction launched active anti-government activities. Unlike conservatives and liberals, they strove for violent methods of transforming Russia and a radical reorganization of society (revolutionary path).

"The Sixties". The rise of the peasant movement in 1861-862. was the people's response to the injustice of the February 19 reform. This activated the radicals, who hoped for a peasant uprising.

In the 60s, two centers of a radical trend developed, one around the editorial office of The Bell, published by A. I. Herzen in London. He propagated his theory of "communal socialism" and sharply criticized the predatory conditions for the liberation of the peasants. The second center arose in Russia around the editorial office of the Sovremennik magazine. His ideologist was N. G. Chernyshevsky, the idol of the Raznochinsk youth of that time. He also criticized the government for the essence of the reform, dreamed of socialism, but unlike A. I. Herzen, he saw the need for Russia to use the experience of the European development model.

"Land and freedom" (1861-1864). The landowners considered the article by N. P. Ogarev “What do the people need?”, Published in June 1861 in the Bell, as their program document. The main demands were the transfer of land to the peasants, the development of local self-government and preparation for future active actions to transform the country. Land and Freedom was the first major revolutionary democratic organization. It included several hundred members from different social strata: officials, officers, writers, students.

The decline of the peasant movement, the strengthening of the police regime - all this led to their self-dissolution or defeat. Some members of the organizations were arrested, others emigrated. The government managed to repel the onslaught of the radicals of the first half of the 60s.

Among the populists there were two trends: revolutionary and liberal. Revolutionary Populists. Their ideas - The future of the country is in communal socialism. Their ideologists - M. A. Bakunin, P. L. Lavrov and P. N. Tkachev - developed the theoretical foundations of three currents of revolutionary populism - rebellious (anarchist), propaganda and conspiratorial.

M. A. Bakunin believed that the Russian peasant was a rebel by nature and was ready for revolution. the task is to go to the people and incite an all-Russian revolt. Considering the state as an instrument of injustice and oppression, he called for its destruction. This idea became the basis of the theory of anarchism.

P. L. Lavrov did not consider the people ready for revolution. Therefore, he focused on propaganda with the aim of preparing the peasantry.

P. N. Tkachev, like P. L. Lavrov, did not consider the peasant to be ready for revolution. At the same time, he called the Russian people "a communist by instinct" who should not be taught socialism. | In his opinion, a narrow group of conspirators (professional revolutionaries), capturing state power will quickly draw the people into socialist reconstruction.

In 1874, relying on the ideas of M. A. Bakunin, more than 1,000 young revolutionaries undertook a mass "going to the people", hoping to raise the peasants to revolt. The results were negligible. The populists faced tsarist illusions and the possessive psychology of the peasants. The movement was crushed, the agitators were arrested.

"Land and freedom" (1876-1879). In 1876, the surviving participants in the “going to the people” formed a new secret organization, which in 1878 took the name “Land and Freedom”. Its program provided for the implementation of the socialist revolution through the overthrow of the autocracy, the transfer of all land to the peasants and the introduction of "secular self-government" in the countryside and cities. The organization was headed by G. V. Plekhanov, A. D. Mikhailov, S. M. Kravchinsky, IH. A. Morozov, V. N. Figner and others.

Some of the Narodniks again returned to the idea of ​​the necessity of a terrorist struggle. They were motivated to do so by government repressions and a thirst for active work. Disputes over tactical and program issues led to a split in the Land and Freedom.

"Black division". In 1879, part of the landowners (G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Zasulich, L. G. Deich, P. B. Axelrod) formed the Black Redistribution organization (1879-1881). They remained faithful to the main program principles of "Land and Freedom" and propaganda methods of activity.

"People's Will". In the same year, another part of the landowners created the organization "Narodnaya Volya" (1879-1881). It was headed

A. I. Zhelyabov, A. D. Mikhailov, S. L. Perovskaya, N. A. Morozov,

BN Figner and others. They were members of the Executive Committee - the center and headquarters of the organization.

The Narodnaya Volya program reflected their disappointment in the revolutionary potential of the peasant masses. They believed that the people were crushed and brought to a slave state by the tsarist government. Therefore, their main task was to fight the state. The program requirements of the Narodnaya Volya included: preparing a political coup and overthrowing the autocracy; the convocation of the Constituent Assembly and the establishment of a democratic system in the country; the destruction of private property, the transfer of land to the peasants, factories - to the workers.

The Narodnaya Volya carried out a number of terrorist actions against representatives of the tsarist administration, but considered the assassination of the tsar to be their main goal. They assumed that this would cause a political crisis in the country and a popular uprising. However, in response to the terror, the government stepped up its repression. Most of the Narodnaya Volya were arrested. S. L. Perovskaya, who remained at large, organized an assassination attempt on the tsar. March 1, 1881 Alexander II was mortally wounded and died a few hours later.

This act did not live up to the expectations of the populists. He once again confirmed the ineffectiveness of terrorist methods of struggle, led to an increase in the reaction and police arbitrariness in the country.

Liberal Populists. This direction, while sharing the idea of ​​the revolutionary populists about a special, non-capitalist path of development of Russia, differed from them in its rejection of violent methods of struggle. The liberal Narodniks did not play a prominent role in the social movement of the 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s, their influence increased. This was due to the loss of authority of the revolutionary populists in radical circles due to disappointment in the terrorist methods of struggle. The liberal populists expressed the interests of the peasants, demanded the destruction of the remnants of serfdom, the abolition of landlordism. They called for reforms to gradually improve the lives of the people. They chose cultural and educational work among the population as the main direction of their activity.

Radicals at 80-90sXIXin. During this period, radical changes took place in the radical movement. The revolutionary populists lost their role as the main anti-government force. Powerful repression fell upon them, from which they could not recover. Many active participants in the movement of the 1970s became disillusioned with the revolutionary potential of the peasantry. In this regard, the radical movement split into two opposing and even hostile camps. The former remained committed to the idea of ​​peasant socialism, the latter saw in the proletariat the main force of social progress.

Emancipation of Labor Group. Former active participants in the "Black Redistribution" G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Zasulich, L. G. Deich and V. N. Ignatov turned to Marxism. In this Western European theory, created by K. Marx and F. Engels in the middle of the 19th century, they were attracted by the idea of ​​achieving socialism through the proletarian revolution.

In 1883, the Emancipation of Labor group was formed in Geneva. Its program: a complete break with populism and populist ideology; propaganda of Marxism; struggle against autocracy; creation of a workers' party. They considered the most important condition for social progress in Russia to be a bourgeois-democratic revolution, the driving force of which would be the urban bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

The Emancipation of Labor group operated abroad and was not associated with the labor movement that was emerging in Russia.

The ideological and theoretical activities of the Emancipation of Labor group abroad and Marxist circles in Russia prepared the ground for the emergence of a Russian political party of the working class.

Workers' organizations. The labor movement in the 1970s and 1980s developed spontaneously and unorganized. The workers put forward only economic demands - higher wages, shorter working hours, abolition of fines.

The largest event was the strike at the Nikolskaya manufactory of the manufacturer T. S. Morozov in Orekhovo-Zuyevo in 1885 (Morozov strike). The workers for the first time demanded state intervention in their relations with the factory owners.

As a result, a law was issued in 1886 on the procedure for hiring and firing, streamlining fines and paying wages.

"Union of struggle behind liberation of the working class. In the 90s of the XIX century. in Russia there has been an industrial boom. This helped to increase the size of the working class and create more favorable conditions for its struggle. Strikes of workers employed in various industries began:

In 1895, scattered Marxist circles in St. Petersburg united in a new organization - the Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. Its founders were V. I. Lenin, L. Martov, and others. They tried to stand at the head of the strike movement, published leaflets and sent propagandists to workers' circles to spread Marxism among the proletariat. Under the influence of the Union of Struggle, strikes began in St. Petersburg. The strikers demanded that the working day be reduced to 10.5 hours. repressions on Marxist and workers' organizations, some of whose members were exiled to Siberia.

Among the Social Democrats who remained at large in the second half of the 1990s, "legal Marxism" began to spread. P. B. Struve, M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky and others, they advocated a reformist way of transforming the country in a democratic direction.

Under the influence of the "legal Marxists", a part of the Social Democrats in Russia switched to the position of "Economism". The "economists" saw the main task of the labor movement in improving working and living conditions. They put forward only economic demands

In general, among Russian Marxists at the end of the 19th century. there was no unity. Some (led by V. I. Ulyanov-Lenin) advocated the creation political party which would lead the workers to carry out the socialist revolution and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, others, denying the revolutionary path of development, proposed limiting themselves to the struggle to improve the living and working conditions of the working people of Russia.