LAVROV, PETER LAVROVICH(1823-1900) - Russian philosopher, sociologist, publicist, theorist of revolutionary populism. Pseudonyms - Arnoldi, Dolengi, Kedrov, Mirtov, Stoik, Stoletov, about 60 in total.

Born on June 2, 1823 in the village of Melikhovo, Velikolutsky district. Pskov province in a family of hereditary nobles. Having received a home education, he entered the St. Petersburg Artillery School, where he was considered best student M. Ostrogradsky, academician of military sciences. After graduating from college in 1842, he was left with him as a tutor, then as a teacher of mathematics. In 1844-1846 he taught mathematical subjects in the military institutions of St. Petersburg.

The revolutions of 1848-1849 in European countries became the stimulus for Lavrov's spiritual maturation. Under their influence, he wrote a number of anti-government poems ( Prophecy, To the Russian people), which he sent to London to A.I. Herzen, who immediately published them. Encyclopedically educated, from 1852 he began to publish articles on military equipment, physical mathematical sciences, natural sciences, pedagogy, philosophy. He lived by literary work and teaching history and foreign languages ​​as a home teacher, having lost his inheritance due to a quarrel with his father (he was unhappy with his marriage to a widow with two children).

Since 1857, he collaborated in the St. Petersburg publications “Domestic Notes”, “Library for Reading”, “ Russian word". His articles on acutely polemical issues of our time were published in Herzen's Kolokol, in which Lavrov wrote about the need to abolish serfdom and improve the situation of the peasants .

In 1858 he was promoted to colonel, received the degree of professor, became assistant editor of the Artillery Journal. As part of the development of his own “practical philosophy”, the basis of which, according to him, was “anthropologism” as a universal philosophical understanding of the world, based on criticism of religious idealism and focused on man as part of the universe, his articles were published: Hegelism(1858), Essays on issues of practical philosophy: personality (1860), Three conversations about modern meaning philosophy (1861).

In 1861 he took part in editing encyclopedic dictionary compiled by Russian scientists and writers; soon became its chief editor. Lavrov’s rapprochement with N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.K. Mikhailovsky and other revolutionary democrats, including the founders of the first organization “Land and Freedom”, also dates back to this time.

Having parted ways with the ideologists of Sovremennik on philosophical questions, Lavrov took part in the actions organized and carried out by them: he spoke at a student gathering in 1861, signed public protests against the arrest of the populist M.L. Mikhailov, against the draft university charter, which deprived universities of the right to autonomy. In the same year, he became one of the organizers and foremen of the literary "Chess Club", which became the center of meetings of the liberal intelligentsia.

In 1862, he became close with Chernyshevsky, N.V. Shelgunov, but he did not approve of their attempts to call the peasants to the revolution (“To the ax!”), Considering it possible to peacefully implement “the harmony of the interests of the individual from the ruling class and the interests of the majority of the subordinate class”, raised the question of implementation of the "laws of morality" in practice.

In 1864–1866 he was the unspoken editor of the Foreign Bulletin. In April 1866, after an assassination attempt by D.V. Karakozov on Alexander II, he was arrested, in 1867 he was exiled to Totma, and then to the city of Kadnikov, Vologda Province.

In 1868-1869, in the journal Nedelya, he published one of his most famous works - Historical letters, in which he formulated the "subjective method in sociology", which, according to contemporaries, became "the gospel of social revolutionary youth." He glorified "human thought as the only active force that transforms culture into civilization."

In February 1870, friends (G.A. Lopatin was among them) helped him escape from exile. He emigrated with his family to Paris, where he was accepted as a member of the Anthropological Society. In the autumn he joined the International Association of Workers (I International), in 1871 he became a member of the Paris Commune .

In 1871, on behalf of the Communards, he left for London, where he became close to K. Marx and F. Engels. Recognizing the proletariat as an important social force, Lavrov remained of the opinion that the peasantry played the main role in the development of Russia. In 1873-1875 he published a non-periodical publication "Forward", in 1875-1877 - a newspaper with the same name (published in Zurich and London). Lavrov's articles on "the real world outlook against the theological world outlook", on the "struggle of labor against the idle enjoyment of the blessings of life", on "equality against the monopoly" testified that he had become an established social egalitarian, a supporter of social equality.

He considered his main task to be the propaganda of the ideas of the revolution among the peasants, therefore, a direction close to him in populism is called, after V.I. Lenin, "propaganda". He shared populist views peasant community as the basis of the future social system, insisted on the priority of social problems over political ones, developed the idea of ​​originality and uniqueness of the historical path of Russia. Speaking out against anarchism, rebelliousness, revolutionary adventurism of M.A. Bakunin and conspiratorial tactics of P.N. Tkachev, Lavrov believed that “revolutionary violence is possible to a certain minimum.” At the same time, in his opinion, "the restructuring of Russian society should be carried out not only for the benefit of the people, not only for the people, but also through the people."

In 1878 he established contact with the Polish and Russian revolutionary underground, was the initiator of group meetings of the Russian revolutionary emigration, promoting "the practical actions of Russian socialists in Russia." Associated with 1879 and with the "Black Redistribution", and with " People's Will”, he took over the representation of the latter abroad. Believing that the social revolution in Russia would come out not from the city, but from the countryside, he called on intellectuals to train propagandists from the people, but he himself was also inclined to recognize terror as a method of combating the autocracy.

In 1882, together with V.I. Zasulich, he organized the "Red Cross of the People's Will", seeing in it "the only revolutionary party in Russia." He was expelled by the authorities from Paris, but under a different surname he returned to this city again. While living there, he constantly published in foreign and Russian magazines - “Notes of the Fatherland”, “Delo”, “Knowledge”, using various pseudonyms.

In 1883–1886 he was the editor of the Bulletin of the People's Will (together with L.A. Tikhomirov).

Maintained personal relations and correspondence with many Russian and foreign socialists from France, Poland, Germany, Serbia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, England, Scandinavian countries, USA. Together with G.V. Plekhanov, he participated in the organization of the populist “Russian Social Revolutionary Library”.

Since 1889 - a delegate from Russia at the International Socialist Congress in Paris, a participant in the creation of the "Socialist Library" of the Zurich Literary Socialist Foundation. In the same year he attended Paris Congress II International, where he made a report on the development of socialist ideas in Russia. In it, he was one of the first to point to the beginning of the mass proletarian struggle in the country.

In 1892–1896 he took part in the publication Materials for the history of the Russian social-revolutionary movement. Studying the history of socialist doctrines, he developed his own theory of working socialism, based on the principles of common property, universal labor and an autonomous secular community. He noted the role of Marxism in scientific socialism, but was skeptical of the activities of the Social Democrats in Russia and of Plekhanov's Emancipation of Labor group.

Having defined his worldview as "anthropologism", Lavrov considered himself the heir of the world socio-theoretical thought, starting with Protagoras and the ancient skeptics and ending with O. Comte, L. Feuerbach, G. Spencer, neo-Kantians. Later he was influenced by some of Marx's ideas.

In his writings of a philosophical nature ( Mechanical theory of the world, 1859; Practical Philosophy of Hegel, 1859; Essays on questions of practical philosophy, 1861) the spirit of “positive philosophy” reigns: the decisive importance of scientific knowledge, various forms of metaphysics are strongly criticized. Lavrov also criticized the "vulgar materialism" of the German naturalists (K. Büchner, L. Vocht and others), seeing in it, however, not so much a vulgarization of materialistic philosophy as one of its most consistent historical forms. Materialism, with its doctrine of a single substance independent of consciousness, was for him only one of the variants of metaphysical faith. The subject of philosophy, according to Lavrov, is the “whole person”, and therefore it can only be “philosophical anthropologism”. Only through a person, comprehension of his historical and individual experience, can one come to a truly scientific, philosophical understanding of external reality.

Seeing the whole person as its object, philosophy itself must have unity, which can be of exceptional importance not only in the field of knowledge, but also in the field of life and creativity. “Philosophy in knowledge is the construction of all information into a coherent system, the understanding of everything that exists as one, unity in understanding. Philosophy in creativity is the introduction of an understanding of the world and life into creative activity, the embodiment of the understood unity of all that exists in an image, in a harmonious form, the unity of thought and action. In Lavrov's teaching about whole person and integral philosophy, there is an ethical orientation, which is characteristic of Russian thought as a whole. Based, in order to avoid "metaphysical illusions", epistemology on the principle of skepticism ("the process of consciousness in itself does not make it possible to decide whether it is the result of real being, or real being is its product"), Lavrov made a fundamental exception for only one area - ethics. “The absence of a skeptical principle in the construction of practical philosophy,” he argued, “gives it special strength and independence from metaphysical theories.”

A person acting in history is aware of himself as a free person, and it is precisely this “consciousness of freedom” that, according to Lavrov, becomes the source of moral relations in society. “I proceed from the fact of consciousness of freedom, the fact of consciousness of ideals, and on the basis of these facts I build a coherent system of moral processes.” Although the "consciousness of freedom" does not prove the reality of free will, it (this consciousness) and the moral ideals formed on its basis are absolutely necessary for historical progress. In striving for the realization of ideals, a person creates himself as a person. Ultimately, everything depends on him, since no innate moral qualities does not exist. “Only the striving for pleasure is innate in man, and among the pleasures a developed person develops in himself the pleasure of a moral life ...”

In Lavrov's sociological concept, the true historical figures are "developed, critically thinking individuals" - progressive and revolutionary-minded representatives of the educated stratum of society. These individuals determine the criteria for progress, goals and ideals of social development. This approach leads to the recognition of the decisive role of the subjective principle in history. For Lavrov, it is the subjective method that operates in sociology: social changes are peculiar, unique, they are the result of the efforts of the individual, and objective scientific methods are not applicable here. Dreaming of socialist transformations in Russia, Lavrov, like other leaders of populism, pinned his hopes on the peasant community, on "the penetration of the principles of collective labor and collective property into the working masses", believed in the gradual involvement of the people in an active social and political life, in the initiative."

Lavrov was not an epigone of European positivism and materialism. His philosophical and sociological views were quite independent and original. At the center of his world outlook there was always a certain “critical-thinking personality”, capable of mastering new views and possessing a tough moral core. He considered the progressive intelligentsia - "a small group of individuals" - the engine of social progress, but rather vaguely imagined it striving "to be embodied in social forms of truth and justice." Believing that only the unity of the intelligentsia with the people can create “moral socialism,” he wrote: “We do not want a violent government to replace the old one ... The future structure of Russian society ... must translate into action the needs of the majority, which they themselves recognized and understood” . Socialism, in his opinion, was "the inevitable result of the modern process of economic life", and more than other concepts of the public good, corresponded to the moral ideal of mankind. But the “rural community and artel unions” were supposed to help make the transition to it. He called the Paris Commune a model of a socialist state.

The contradictory views of Lavrov became a kind of intermediate link from Chernyshevsky's materialism to Mikhailovsky's subjectivism. Lavrism was criticized by Plekhanov and Lenin. But the ranks of Lavrov's followers in Russia remained very close-knit; the Social Democrats, who retired from practical activities and engaged in so-called “culturalism” (propaganda), often switched to his position.

AT last years During his life he wrote a number of generalizing works: Experience in the history of modern thought(begun in 1898 and left unfinished); Populist propagandists 1873–1878(It was published after his death in 1907). Left unfinished The challenges of understanding history and History of thought with reflections on revolution and morality.

Lavrov died in Paris on January 25 (February 6), 1900, his funeral at the Montparnasse cemetery was accompanied by an eight thousand procession. The socialists of many countries spoke at the grave.

The collected works of Lavrov were published in 14 issues in 1917–1920.

In 1923 a street in St. Petersburg was named after him.

Irina Pushkareva, Lev Pushkarev.

LAVROV Pyotr Lavrovich (pseudonyms - Mirtov, Kedrov, Stoik, etc., more than 60 in total), Russian philosopher, sociologist, publicist, one of the ideologists of populism; colonel (1858). Nobleman.

He graduated from the Artillery School in St. Petersburg (1842), a student of M. V. Ostrogradsky. He taught mathematics there (1844-66), at the same time at the Mikhailovsky Artillery Academy (1855-66; professor since 1858) and the Konstantinovsky Military School. Since 1852, he published articles on military equipment, physical and mathematical sciences, natural science, and pedagogy.

In his youth, Lavrov became acquainted with the works of the French socialists C. Fourier, C. A. Saint-Simon, P. J. Proudhon, and later was influenced by the positivist philosophers O. Comte and G. Spencer. In 1841 he published the first poem "Bedouin", later he wrote freedom-loving poems (they differed in the lists; in 1856 he sent 5 poems to A. I. Herzen in London, including "Prophecy", "To the Russian people", which were published in the collection "Voices from Russia", 1857, book 4). The "New Song" ("Let's Renounce the Old World!...", 1875, later called the "Working Marseillaise") gained wide popularity. In his first publicistic article, Letters on Various Contemporary Issues (1857), Lavrov proclaimed the principle of the unity of knowledge and action, which became his life credo.

In the late 1850s and early 1860s, Lavrov actively participated in public life: in 1861 he was elected treasurer of the Society for Assistance to Needy Writers and Scientists (Literary Fund), signed public protests against the arrest of M. L. Mikhailov, spoke in defense of participants in student unrest in St. Petersburg, directed against the reforms of E. V. Putyatin. At the same time, he developed his “practical philosophy” (called it anthropologism) (articles “Hegelism”, 1858; “Essays on Practical Philosophy. 1. Personality”, 1860; “Three Talks on the Modern Significance of Philosophy”, 1861), in the center of which - a whole person, a person "in his real unity, as feeling and acting, as desiring and knowing." According to Lavrov, an "internally free" personality inevitably comes into conflict with an unjust society, its moral duty is to change this society, to participate in the historical movement. He represented the ideal social system in the form of "moral socialism", based on the principles of "social solidarity" and "justice", a voluntary union of free and moral developed personalities. Lavrov himself, having come to the conclusion about the truth of the socialist idea, considered himself "morally obliged" to seek its practical implementation. In the summer of 1862, Lavrov became close to the underground organization "Land and Freedom" of the 1860s, although, by his own admission, contacts with it were "insignificant." In the article "Gradually" (end of 1862), from a revolutionary-democratic position, he condemned the slow, in his opinion, course of government reforms.

Head of the editorial board of philosophical sciences, then editor of the Encyclopedic Dictionary Compiled by Russian Scientists and Writers (vols. 1-5, 1861-63). Since 1863, he actually headed the editorial office of the journal "Foreign Bulletin" (officially not approved in the position due to a negative review of the 3rd department of His Own Imperial Majesty's Chancellery). He maintained close ties with the leaders of the women's movement (member of the Women's Labor Society, etc.).

In April 1866, after the assassination attempt by D.V. Karakozov on Emperor Alexander II, Lavrov was arrested on charges of spreading "harmful ideas" and having connections with people "known to the government for their criminal direction", exiled to the Vologda province. In exile, Lavrov wrote one of his main works, Historical Letters (published in 1868-69 in the Nedelya newspaper, a separate edition in 1870; the 5th legal edition in 1917; repeatedly reprinted in the free and illegal press). In them, Lavrov distinguished the sciences into phenomenological (sociology, psychology and ethics), investigating the laws of existence of recurring phenomena and processes, and morphological (history), investigating the distribution of objects and forms in space and time, in a given, single set of phenomena. He believed that random modifications play a greater role in history than repeating and unchanging facts, isolated phenomena mean more than "copies" of a general law, the only one of its kind - more than recurring. Lavrov is considered the founder (along with N. K. Mikhailovsky) of the “subjective school” of the methodology of history. N. I. Kareev called him the first sociologist in Russia. The "Historical Letters" also give a "formula for progress". Its main driving force is a "critically thinking person" capable of mastering new views and possessing a moral core; such individuals become true workers of progress by uniting in a “party”, which gives their struggle “direction” and unity. The most important element of Lavrov's concept is the idea of ​​the intelligentsia paying its debt to the people, to whom it owes its "liberation from physical labor" in the name of mental improvement. Paying their debt to the people, the intelligentsia should enlighten and educate them, propagandizing the ideas of social equality and preparing the people for revolution in order to “reduce evil in the present and in the future” (Lavrov’s supporters are called “propaganda” in populism). This idea met with a lively response among the radical intelligentsia and had a significant impact on the formation of its worldview. According to contemporaries, the "Historical Letters" became "the gospel of the social revolutionary youth", ideologically prepared the "going to the people."

In 1870, with the help of G. A. Lopatin, Lavrov escaped from exile, emigrated to France, joined one of the sections of the 1st International, witnessed the French Revolution of 1870, as well as the Paris Commune of 1871 (summarized her experience in the book “March 18, 1871 ”, published in Geneva in 1880). He moved to Zurich, then to London (he became close to K. Marx and F. Engels), edited the non-periodical publication Vperyod! (1873-77) and a newspaper of the same name (1875-76). He published articles on "real worldview against theological worldview", on "equality against monopoly". He developed his doctrine of the party: he believed that the party cannot "cause" a revolution, its task is to "facilitate and accelerate the inevitable revolution" and minimize revolutionary violence; it must connect the intelligentsia with the people. Arguing with the supporters of M. A. Bakunin and P. N. Tkachev, Lavrov argued that “revolutionary violence is possible to a certain minimum”, that without careful preliminary preparation, a spontaneous popular “revolt” was started, if successful, would only lead to a redistribution of property, i. e. to the establishment of the bourgeois system. He condemned the "revolutionary itch" of the youth, because of which, as Lavrov believed, the future of Russia could be jeopardized. Unlike the anarchists, he justified the need to preserve the state for some time after the victory of the social revolution and the speedy transition from it to a free federation of self-governing communities. According to Lavrov, the peasantry is capable of accepting socialist ideas, since it has retained the real basis for the socialist reorganization of society - the peasant community and secular self-government.

Under pseudonyms, Lavrov continued to collaborate in the legal Russian press, published articles on the problems of the philosophy of art, literary-critical speeches, reviews, etc., but the main topic of Lavrov’s theoretical research remained philosophical problems: ”, 1872, No. 2), “Essays on Systematic Knowledge” (ibid., 1873, No. 6), the book “Experience in the History of Thought” (vol. 1, issue 1, 1875), “Experience in the History of Thought of Modern Times” (vol. 1, part 1-2, 1888-94), “Essay on the evolution of human thought” (1898), “The tasks of understanding history. A project for an introduction to the study of the evolution of human thought” (1898; under the pseudonym S. S. Arnoldi); the book The Most Important Moments in the History of Thought (1903; published posthumously under the pseudonym A. Dolengi), was a preparatory material for the generalizing encyclopedic work on the history of thought conceived by Lavrov (not implemented).

At the turn of the 1870s and 1880s, Lavrov's political views evolved towards greater radicalism. In 1878, he established contact with the Polish revolutionary underground, was the initiator of group meetings of the Russian revolutionary emigration, which promoted "the practical actions of Russian socialists in Russia." If the program "Forward!" Lavrov gave priority to socio-economic transformations over political ones, believing that in conditions of economic inequality there can be no true political freedom for everyone, then by the beginning of the 1880s he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to carry out a political coup in Russia as a matter of priority by the forces of the revolutionary intelligentsia itself. capable of creating a people's party after the overthrow of the monarchy and abolishing the economic domination of the bourgeoisie. In the early 1880s, Lavrov became close to Narodnaya Volya. In 1881, he participated in the creation of the foreign department of the "Narodnaya Volya" Red Cross Society. One of the editors of the Bulletin of the People's Will (1883-86). Sharing the socialist goals of Narodnaya Volya, Lavrov rejected the terrorist methods of its struggle, believing that socialists should act not against individuals, but against the system that gives rise to them.

Lavrov argued with Russian Marxists (G. V. Plekhanov and others): recognizing the proletariat as an important social force, Lavrov continued to adhere to the opinion that the peasantry plays the main role in the development of Russia.

In 1889, Lavrov represented Russia at the International Socialist Congress in Paris, which marked the beginning of the 2nd International. In 1892-96 he participated in the publication of the series "Materials for the History of the Russian Social-Revolutionary Movement", in which he published his work "Narodnik Propagandists 1873-1878" (Issue 1-2 and 3-4, Geneva, 1895-96; in Russia with censored exceptions published in 1907, in full in 1925) is one of the first essays on the history of the populist movement. Attempts to theoretically generalize the experience of the revolutionary movement in Russia in the 2nd half of the 19th century were made in the articles “A look at the past and present of Russian socialism” (“Narodnaya Volya Calendar”, 1883), “History, socialism and the Russian movement” (1893) and etc.

Lavrov's funeral at the Montparnasse cemetery was accompanied by a procession of many thousands. The socialists of many countries spoke at the grave.

Source: Materials for the biography of P. L. Lavrov. P., 1921. Issue. one; Lavrov. Years of emigration: Archival materials: In 2 volumes / Selected, supplied with notes and an introductory essay by B. Sapir. Dordrecht; Boston, .

Op.: Sobr. op. Ser. 1, 3-6. P., 1917-1920. Issue. 1.2, 5-9; Fav. op. on socio-political topics. M., 1934-1935. T. 1-4; Philosophy and sociology. Fav. works: In 2 t. M., 1965.

Lit .: Bogatov V.V. Philosophy of Lavrov. M., 1972; Pomper Ph. R. Lavrov and the Russian revolutionary movement. Chi., ; Semenkova T. G. Economic views of P. L. Lavrov. M., 1980; Volodin A. I., Itenberg B. S. P. L. Lavrov. M., 1981; Antonov V.F. Revolutionary creativity of P.L. Lavrov. Saratov, 1984; Itenberg B. S. P. L. Lavrov in the Russian revolutionary movement. M., 1988; Vasiliev A. V. At the turn of the third millennium: to the 125th anniversary of the publication of "Historical Letters" by P. L. Lavrov. M.; Mariupol, 1995; Kazakov A.P. The theory of progress in Russian sociology of the late 19th century: P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky, M.M. Kovalevsky. SPb., 2006.

R. A. Arslanov.

23. P.L. Lavrov and his historical and philosophical views.

In 1856 he met Herzen and began to correspond with him. This determined in many ways his views. Later to get acquainted with the organizers of the first populist circles.

Lavrov gave a "progress formula" - i.e. the development of the individual in the mental, physical and moral aspects is the driving force of progress, i.e. the personality moves history, and the people follow it (he writes in his “historical letters.” Lavrov speaks in these letters as a positivist.

From the point of view of Lavrov, the historian has only facts, and the connection between them is established subjectively by each himself. Denies the objectivity of knowledge in general.

Intelligentsia - an enlightening position in society In Russia, they are critical personalities, i.e. they move history. He does not have a word about the proletariat in his works.

The main feature of his mosaic worldview was positivistic agnosticism. As a historian and sociologist, Lavrov was an idealist and subjectivist. Process historical development he evaluated from the point of view of a subjectively chosen moral ideal. History is ultimately made by an educated and moral minority of their own free will ("critical thinkers").

Therefore, the first task of revolutionary leaders is to develop a moral ideal, towards the implementation of which they must strive in their practical activities. Lavrov gave the following formulation to his ideal: “The development of the personality in the physical, mental and moral attitude, the embodiment in social forms of truth and justice.

The moralizing and academic nature of Lavrov's socio-political program made him the leader of the right wing of the Russian revolutionaries of the 1870s. Revolutionary upsurge in the 1870s led to the rapid loss of his popularity by Lavrov and the transition of hegemony in the revolutionary movement to Bakuninism. Calling for the unity of all socialist trends, Lavrov sought to include elements of Marxism in his system. Despite this, Lavrov's socialism was typically populist in nature (the doctrine of special ways of development of Russia, of the peasantry as the bearer of the socialist ideal, etc.). However, the connection of the Lavrists with the international labor movement, their great attention to work among urban workers led to the fact that lavrism played a certain role in the training of personnel for the first social democratic circles in Russia.

Biography

By origin a nobleman. Educated at the Artillery School in St. Petersburg, he was a professor of mathematics at the Artillery Academy. In the 1860s

Crib: Lavrov Petr Lavrovich

took an active part in literature and social work and in the student movement, became close to Chernyshevsky, was a member of the first "Land and Freedom". After the assassination attempt on Karakozov, Lavrov was arrested and exiled to the Vologda province. In exile, Lavrov wrote his most famous work, Historical Letters.

In 1870, with the help of Lopatin, he fled to Paris, where he contacted the Western European labor movement and joined the First International. In order to organize assistance to the besieged Paris Commune, he traveled to London, where he met Marx and Engels. In 1873-1877. edits the Vperyod magazine and the two-week newspaper of the same name (1875-1876) - the organs of the direction of Russian populism headed by Lavrov, the so-called lavrism. After the assassination of Alexander II, he became close to the People's Will and in 1883-1886. edits, together with Tikhomirov, the Bulletin of the People's Will. Lavrov died in Paris, where he is buried. His last words: “Calling… live well. It is ending… my life is ending.”

P.L. Lavrov (1823-1900) and I.K. Mikhailovsky (1842-1904). The direction of sociological thought they developed was called ethical-subjective sociology. The focus of her attention was the development of the doctrine of society as a whole, the identification of patterns and directions of its development. Representatives of this trend paid considerable attention to the development of the theory of social progress. Progress was understood primarily as the reworking of culture, or rather, the reworking of traditional, stagnation-prone social forms into a "civilization" with flexible, dynamic structures and relationships. "Civilization" was interpreted as a conscious historical movement, which is carried out, first of all, by the critical thought of specific individuals.

Pyotr Lavrovich Lavrov (1823-1900)- a representative of the subjective direction in sociology - considered history as a process occurring on the basis of the realization of human needs: basic (biosocial - nutrition, security, nervous excitement), temporary (state-legal and religious forms of association), development needs ("historical life") . According to Lavrov, the historical process has a direction and is measured by the degree of development of social solidarity. The content of the historical process is the struggle of an enlightened and thinking minority for social progress. Ancestor of Russian sociology. Sociology is the science of the solidarity of conscious individuals.

Lavrov introduced into his understanding of history the problem of "morality", which he understood as a scientifically based system of values, a hierarchy of pleasures: "there is one (morality) that relies only on natural needs, on logical criticism and on rational human convictions." Thus, the role of science is not only in the knowledge of objective laws, but also in the creation of a scientifically based moral ideal, in accordance with which reality must change. Contradictions between the individual and society are generated either by the lack of self-esteem and the idea of ​​justice in the individual, i.e. ideas of equal rights of all people for all-round development, or an unfair, immoral structure of society. In the first case, society is obliged to develop the individual; in the second, the individual is morally obliged to rebuild society on the principles of "social solidarity and justice."

According to Lavrov, the leading force, the organ of progress, is a person characterized by a critical consciousness, a desire to change frozen social forms. Lavrov names custom, affects, interests and beliefs as motivating causes of human activity.

P. L. Lavrov

In his opinion, the historical life of mankind begins with the emergence of critically thinking individuals, progress begins with a person who can think critically and sympathize with the oppressed. Thus, society goes through the following phases of progressive development: the emergence of critically thinking and compassionate individuals; individual organized group actions in defense of the disadvantaged; the formation of political parties that set themselves the task of changing the existing system.

Lavrov called the intelligentsia the driving force behind social development and political struggle, since he believed that it was precisely its representatives who were capable of critical thinking.

Solidarity is a way of spiritual connection between people based on common habits, interests and beliefs, emotions.

Singling out three types of solidarity - based on habit, based on the similarity of affects and interests, and, finally, based on the unity of beliefs (as conscious solidarity), - Lavrov concludes that only from the moment of the appearance of conscious solidarity does the beginning of the historical life of mankind take place. Only those groups and peoples can be recognized as historical, among which conscious solidarity has emerged.

Considering objective research methods suitable only for natural sciences, Lavrov suggested using a subjectivist approach in sociology. The scientist put in the forefront not group forms of social organization, but a person who acts in society under the influence of subjective motives, and does not focus on external environmental factors.

Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky (1842-1904) held largely similar views. He argued that a sociologist cannot impartially build his science - the science of society, since the object of this science is a feeling person, a real person. The sociologist-observer cannot but put himself in the position of the observed. Personality and society, according to Mikhailovsky, complement each other: any suppression of the individual harms society, and the suppression of the public harms the individual.

Being a supporter of subjective teleologism, Mikhailovsky believed that the division of labor develops some human abilities at the expense of others, everyone has only a small particle of skills and knowledge. Specialization leads to the impoverishment of the individual, the impoverishment of human life. A "specialized" person does not exist as a whole person, he lives in a fragmented world. Development along the "organic" path with its division of labor turns a real person into a "toe". According to Mikhailovsky, society should take the path of "supraorganic" development, where the breadth and integrity of the individual are ensured not by the division of labor, but by "cooperation of simple cooperation."

Mikhailovsky believed that in sociology one should use not only the objective, but also the subjective method of research, the categories of moral and fair. Objectivism is the position of pure reason, subjectivism is the moral court of free will, and one does not exclude, but complements the other. Mikhailovsky's formula of progress includes a subjective-ethical moment, since only that which brings the personality closer to its comprehensive development and integrity is considered fair and reasonable.

⇐ Previous11121314151617181920Next ⇒

1. The concept of sociology P. L. Lavrov. Its tasks and methods.

The key to understanding the sociological views of Petr Lavrovich lies in his definition of sociology as a science. Here is the "alpha and omega", the "beginning and end" of his entire sociological theory. Almost all of his works were nothing more than the development, deployment of this definition, and his practical work was the implementation of the corresponding theoretical provisions arising from the latter. The question is, how did he define sociology? What area of ​​phenomena did he consider the subject of study of the latter? What tasks did he set for her? How did he resolve the issue of methods for studying sociological phenomena? How did you draw the architectonics of the entire sociological science? What departments of the latter did he develop and, finally, how consistently did he carry out his solution of this main issue in particular questions? From this posing of questions alone, we see that a characterization of Pyotr Lavrovich's views on this subject should immediately lead us to the very center of his sociology, to that dominant observational point from which perspectives open up on the entire theoretical field of Lavrov's works. Lavrov's concept of sociology is definite. It is stereotypically repeated by him in many works. Here it is in short.

- "Sociology studies and groups the recurring facts of solidarity between the individuals of human society and seeks to discover its laws." “It sets itself the theoretical task of understanding the forms of solidarity and the processes that take place when these forms change quantitatively” “Sociology is the study of the forms of solidarity of creative individuals, of the conditions for strengthening and weakening this solidarity with varying degrees of development of these individuals and forms of community life.”

In accordance with this definition, the very concept of society for P. L. is given only where solidarity is given. “People form a society when they are in solidarity in their habits, affects, beliefs, interests ... Outside of this solidarity in conscious acts, there is no society for us, but an accumulation of individuals.”

Such is the object of sociology. The question now is what is to be understood by the phenomenon of solidarity. This question has to be raised because the term "solidarity" is one of the most hackneyed and indefinite. Lavrov gives an answer to this question: “Public solidarity is the consciousness that personal interest coincides with public interest, that personal dignity is maintained only by supporting the dignity of all people who are in solidarity with us.” Otherwise, it is “a community of habits, interests, affects or convictions.”

Thus, according to Lavrov, sociology is the science of the solidarity of conscious individuals, or of the solidary forms of their interaction.

The condition of solidary interaction distinguishes society from a simple accumulation of individuals, which does not thereby directly constitute a sociological phenomenon, and the condition of consciousness of individuals excludes forms of solidarity or solidary communication of unconscious organisms from the field of sociology, in other words, it indicates the boundary line of social and biological phenomena, or sociology and biology.

Such, in its main features, is the object of study of sociology according to Lavrov.

The question now is, from what points of view the phenomena of solidarity are studied by this discipline? What tasks does she set in this regard? How does she study them?

The answer to these questions leads, first of all, to the division of sociology into theoretical and practical, in other words, to the definition of its theoretical and practical tasks.

A thinker can approach any phenomenon from two points of view: firstly, from the point of view of the existent (theoretical), and secondly, from the point of view of the proper (practical). In the first case, he studies the phenomena of interest to him as they are. He condemns nothing and praises nothing - he observes, studies, investigates phenomena, leaving aside any assessments. This is the main task of any science. In the second case, he approaches phenomena in a completely different way, having a certain ideal of what should be or a certain goal. Here he acts as an evaluating subject.

Lavrov, Pyotr Lavrovich

He considers what phenomena and processes are consistent with this ideal, what contradict it, what are the means that most easily and most successfully lead to the realization of the ideal in life, what conditions prevent this realization. Everything consonant with the ideal or goal, everything leading to their implementation will be a positive fact, “good”; everything that disagrees with them or interferes with their implementation will be a negative phenomenon, “evil”.

Lavrov posed both of these tasks to sociology. Moreover: he merged them together and considered them inseparable. Truth - Truth, from his point of view, is inseparable from Truth - Justice. “It is here (in sociology) that one has to state the characteristic feature of the doctrine of solidarity, or sociology, from all other sciences. It not only sets itself the theoretical task of understanding the forms of solidarity or the processes that take place when these forms are changed quantitatively and qualitatively, but it is equally inevitable that the practical task of realizing these concepts of form, firstly, to the extent that their objective understanding makes this realization possible, and secondly, in the sense in which they constitute the subjective element of the beliefs of a given person who has acquired a sociological understanding. For a developed person, the conviction that he has acquired poses an invincible dilemma: either you have not understood and are not striving to understand the truths of sociology, or the overall goal of your life and work should be the implementation or preparation of those forms of solidarity for which you objectively accepted that their implementation or preparation possibly. Understanding the tasks of sociology not only theoretically clarifying, but also practically obligatory, makes it possible to judge one's own actions. If this is the case, then the inevitable conclusion from this is the so-called "subjective method", as a method additional to the objective, just as inevitable as the first, just as legitimate and just as fruitful. The “objectivity” that is obligatory for the scientific nature of historical (and sociological) work in one part of it is replaced by an equally inevitable and therefore equally scientific subjectivity in another part of it. It would be unworthy of a scholar to distort the text of Marx or the barbarity of the "bloody week", or even deliberately keep silent about them in view of the distortion of facts; but no effort to be impartial can remove this inevitability for the historian to assess subjectively the comparative importance of one or the other of these facts, if only by the device that the historian devotes more space to one of them than to the other when mentioning them. This subjectivity is inevitable in at least three areas;

1) “in assessing the relative importance of a particular phenomenon or element of culture”,

2) “in recognizing one or another element of culture as healthy or pathological for a certain era”

3) the general possibility of taking place in a given era” (although they did not take place due to random reasons)

Purely subjective processes (for example, mental ones) can be studied objectively; and vice versa, “completely objective phenomena (for example, historical and sociological) for their scientific understanding require from the researcher a certain stage of general personal development, consequently, purely subjective conditions, without which this understanding is impossible” .

So, let's summarize what has been said. According to the concept of P. L. Lavrov:

1) sociology is the science of the solidarity of conscious individuals, its forms, the phases of its development and the conditions that strengthen, weaken and change solidarity;

2) sociology sets itself both purely theoretical tasks, which boil down to the knowledge of the outlined phenomena, and practical tasks, consisting in the development of ideal forms of community life, in indicating the means that most successfully implement them in life, and in the very realization of these ideals.

Truth - Truth and Truth - Justice are inseparable. Since in the area of ​​the first a purely objective method of cognition is inevitable and legitimate, insofar as in the area of ​​the second the subjective method of evaluating phenomena is just as inevitable and legitimate in a number of cases indicated above.

Such, in brief, are Lavrov's views on the subject, tasks, and methods of sociology. Let's go further and see how Lavrov developed this definition into a whole system of sociological science.

2. Problems studied by sociology from the point of view of P. L. Lavrov

This definition predetermined the nature and system of P.L. Lavrov's sociology, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, those main problems that were to concentrate his attention on themselves. Since the task of sociology is the study of solidarity, then the deployment of sociological theory - the concrete construction of the building of sociological science - should have been reduced to solving the following problems:

1) where, when and under what conditions phenomena of solidarity arise:

2) what are the main “morphological forms” of the latter and the morphological forms of the respective societies, what is the genetic-historical order of changing the identified forms of solidarity:

3) which form of these forms is the most important for the human world, and what is the basis for this importance:

4) what are the dynamic agents (“factors, forces”) that cause the appearance of solidarity, on the one hand, and the change of its forms, on the other;

5) what is the mechanism of this change, given in the historical process, and what is the limit to which the development of forms of solidarity tends.

Such is the program for the construction of sociological science, and such are the main problems that logically followed from the above-described understanding of sociology. And, indeed, it is precisely these problems that are the main points of Lavrov's sociology, it is they that were worked out most diligently by the latter, it is they that constitute the "backbone" of his system. This does not mean that in his sociological works Lavrov limited himself to studying only these problems. On the contrary, the very breadth and complexity of them inevitably forced him to touch upon dozens and hundreds of other questions required to solve the first. But these dozens and hundreds of problems, sometimes extremely interestingly solved by P. L. Lavrov, have the character of “auxiliary” questions. They play the role of "forests", although valuable in themselves, but necessary primarily for building the building of sociology. The latter is formed precisely by these questions, taken in their entirety.

After the abolition of serfdom in Russia, judicial, military and zemstvo reforms were carried out. All this created the conditions for the bourgeois development of the country. A new revolutionary force was taking shape - the raznochintsy populists. They fought for the allocation of land to the Russian peasantry, believed in the viability of the Russian rural community, believed that it could become a cell of socialism. The most prominent representatives of revolutionary populism in Russia in the 60-70s of the XIX century. were P.L. Lavrov, M.A. Bakunin, P.N. Tkachev.

Petr Lavrovich Lavrov (1823-1900) came from a noble family. He received a good education, taught mathematics at higher military educational institutions, at the age of 35 he became a colonel. This thinker went down in history as the leader of the propaganda trend in revolutionary populism. His publications, of which Historical Letters are best known, contain a scrupulous analysis of the current situation in Russia. Lavrov believed that in order to establish a new, just system in Russia, critically thinking individuals, revolutionaries, were needed, and he saw only one way to build a just society - a revolution. The social revolution, according to Lavrov, was to take place in the form of a complete economic revolution and the complete destruction of the old state structures.

Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (1814-1876) - hereditary nobleman. He received an excellent military education, in 1840 he left for Western Europe, where he spent his entire subsequent life. Bakunin was the founder and head of the anarchist trend in Russian populism. His book "Statehood and Anarchy" had a significant impact on the views of his contemporaries. The economic basis of the future ideal system, Bakunin believed, should be the transfer of all land in the state to peasant agricultural communities. As for the workers, the workers' associations, and not individual workers, were supposed, according to Bakunin's idea, to have all the means of industrial production at their disposal.

The leader of the so-called "conspiratorial" trend was Petr Nikitich Tkachev (1844-1885). A nobleman who received a good education at home, he spent most of his conscious life in the West. The main core of the transformed Russia, Tkachev called the peasant community - socialist in spirit. He was convinced of the "innateness" of communist institutions in the Russian peasant. Tkachev showed interest in contemporary Western economic theories, in particular, in Marxism, the teachings of Malthus, and others, and believed that the study of the social and economic processes of social life was extremely important 17 .

The main socio-economic idea of ​​early populism was to "avoid" capitalism while relying on spontaneous socialist tendencies among the peasantry. Representatives of the late, liberal, populism of the 80-90s (V.P. Vorontsov, S.N. Yuzhakov, N.F. Danielson, S.N. Krivenko and others) also argued that capitalism for Russia means regression, that he will lead her to ruin. Hence the idea of ​​holding back the development of capitalism. The late Narodniks considered the Russian economic structure to be fundamentally different from that of Western Europe. At the same time, they denied the objective laws of social development and believed that the conscious actions of narrow groups of people could change the very direction of this development.

The Narodniks argued that the need for a foreign market was conditioned by the laws of realization of the social product and surplus value. Following Sismondi, repeating "Smith's dogma", they believed that the value of the entire social product consists only of income - wages, profits and rent. In considering the constituent parts of value, they ignored constant capital. From this erroneous theory The populists drew equally erroneous conclusions: they believed that production should correspond to consumption, i.e. determined by income. They argued that it was impossible to realize surplus value inside the country and that therefore only external markets were needed.

In the liberal direction, professional economists stood out - representatives of university science - professors A.S. Posnikov, A.I. Chuprov 18 , N.A. Kablukov, I.V. Vernadsky. Let us dwell on the views of Chuprov and Vernadsky. Both of them were the most famous professors of Russian universities, passionate publicists, excellent historians of economic thought. Both were faithful Ricardians, but in many ways their views differed.

Ivan Vasilievich Vernadsky (1821-1884) was a supporter of classical liberalism. He constantly debated both with the right - the feudal lords, and with the left - the revolutionary democrats. He sharply criticized the socialist projects of N.G. Chernyshevsky. For Vernadsky, socialism is not a wonderful future, as with Chernyshevsky, but the result of the country's impoverishment, pauperism. And as labor productivity develops, the well-being of the Russian population improves, the scientist believed, interest in the ideas of socialism will decrease.

Alexander Ivanovich Chuprov (1842-1908), more than other Russian professors, was influenced by Western economics, primarily by the English classical political economy and Marxism. He believed that political economy is the science of the eternal and unchanging laws of management, he positively assessed the theory of labor value, he presented capital as the result of savings left over from consumption. Chuprov focused on the specific economic life of Russian society. He believed that the agriculture of Russia at the end of the 19th century. should be characterized as natural, and considered individual elements of capitalism in the agrarian sector to be small and not changing the overall patriarchal picture of rural life in Russia. Chuprov also noted the importance of utility theory, but assigned it a secondary place in determining the value of goods, since he found that it was based on subjective judgments about the useful properties of objects. The scientist believed that the exchange value of each item is determined by the amount of labor spent on its production.

A prominent economist and statistician, the creator of a special discipline - the economics of transport, a brilliant teacher, Chuprov for the first time introduced seminars on political economy at Russian universities. Unlike Vernadsky, he occupied more democratic, pro-populist positions. Chuprov considered communities, cooperatives and other associations of workers to be cells of the Russian state. He was attracted by socialist ideas, ideas of joint production activities, associations as opposed to bourgeois individualism.

Understanding the progressiveness of the development of market production, Chuprov, however, realized that it also contained a flagrant injustice - the possibility of ruining even rationally managed individual farms. He sees a way out of this in the development of cooperative farms. And later, already in the 20th century, Chuprov condemned Stolypin's reforms as a violent attempt to destroy collectivist modes of production in the Russian countryside. For a long time, Chuprov treated K. Marx with great respect, but after the revolution of 1905-1907. began to criticize the Marxists. He was one of the first Russian economists who, in the new conditions, was looking for a middle path for Russia - something like a "social market economy."

See also:

BROKHAUSE AND EFRON. Pavel Svinin. Domestic Notes

The revolutionary populists hoped that they would be able to save the Russian people from the capitalist economic system by overthrowing the autocracy and the landlords, and to establish people's power. While fighting for the liquidation of noble land ownership and the transfer of land to peasant communities, the Narodniks thereby fought for a peasant-bourgeois solution to the agrarian problem.
Populism proceeded from a belief in the communal structure of the peasant economy, in a special way of Russian folk life. Idealizing the peasant community, the populists viewed it as the germ of a future socialist society. At the same time, some populist ideologists, in particular P. L. Lavrov, noted the significant role of capitalism in preparing economic prerequisites socialism.
A characteristic feature of the economic teachings of the revolutionary populists was the desire to change the existing system by raising the peasant masses to revolt. A large role in preparing the peasants for the revolution was assigned to the enlightened part of the population - the students and the progressively minded intelligentsia. The Narodniks of the 1970s adopted the ideological heritage of N. G. Chernyshevsky, but also introduced new ideas into Russian economic thought. They gave an analysis of those new economic processes that arose as a result of the bourgeois peasant reform.
The ideologists of the main trends of revolutionary populism were M. A. Bakunin, P. L. Lavrov, and P. N. Tkachev.
At the end of the 60s, in an atmosphere of hatred for the tsar and the remnants of serfdom, inspired by the belief in the revolutionary nature of the people, circles of Nechaevs, Dolgushins and Bakuninists arose, whose representatives were convinced that it was only necessary to throw a spark into the people long ready for revolution. Supporters of M. A. Bakunin considered the Russian people a "born rebel", relied on peasant revolts. This trend of revolutionary populism adhered to anarchist and rebellious tactics.
Supporters of P. L. Lavrov considered the propaganda of the ideas of socialism to be the main thing in preparing the revolution. However, Lavrov and a number of his followers, convinced that propaganda was hindered by the despotism of the tsarist state system, changed their tactics.
The ideas of conspiratorial tactics were developed by a representative of the third trend in populism - P. N. Tkachev. Tkachev's supporters proceeded from the fact that the revolutionary intelligentsia could not wait for a "nationwide revolt", but should organize a revolutionary conspiracy and overthrow the state power, allegedly "hanging in the air."

Bakunism became a kind of revolutionary populism in the second half of the 19th century. Its founder was Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (1814-1876). He went beyond the "noble revolutionary" of the Decembrists, and then Herzen, and became a revolutionary democrat. Bakunin was a defender of the peasants, firmly believing in the revolutionary impulses of the common people and hoping for the appearance of a new Pugachev in Russia.
The popularity of M. A. Bakunin was explained by the fact that he, speaking out with criticism of serfdom and tsarism, called the youth to the revolution, he himself participated in the revolution of 1848-1849. in Western Europe, was a prisoner of the Peter and Paul and Shlisselburg fortresses, an ally of Herzen and Ogarev, stood up for the freedom and unity of the Slavic peoples. True, he put forward the slogans of anarchism, but in Russia it was predominantly the revolutionary democratic ideas and appeals of Bakunin that were perceived.
The main works of M. A. Bakunin: “People’s cause: Romanov, Pugachev, Pestel”, “Our program”, “In Russia”, “Federalism and socialism”, etc.
Bakunin's socio-economic views took shape during the preparation of the 1861 reform. Already in the 1850s, he predicted the inability of the Russian government to carry out a reform that would really improve the situation of the people. He argued that the shortcomings of the empire could not be touched without hurting the interests of the government.
A large place in the works of Bakunin was occupied by criticism of capitalism, which was of a progressive nature. Exposing the bourgeois order, he used a number of provisions of K. Marx set forth in the first volume of Capital. Bakunin described class contradictions in bourgeois society, the ruthless exploitation of the people by the bourgeoisie, whose prosperity, as he noted, is based “on poverty and on the economic slavery of the proletariat” 4 [Bakunin M.A. Knuto-German empire and social revolution // Izbr. op. T. 2. M.; Pg., 1919. S. 26-27]. Bakunin's views on property were predetermined by his theory of the abolition of the right to inherit. Bakunin waged a constant struggle with the defenders of capitalist society, emphasizing the class character of bourgeois science. Debunking the demagogic slogans of the bourgeoisie about freedom, he revealed the true essence of bourgeois freedoms: this is “nothing else but the opportunity to exploit the labor of workers by the power of capital” 5 [Bakunin M. A. Sleepers // Ibid. T. 4. S. 34]. He considered the source of “people's wealth” to be “people's labor”, which was given to the plunder of stock exchange speculators, swindlers, wealthy owners and capitalists.
Bakunin wrote about the division of labor into mental and physical and believed that in the future society people of mental labor "will turn ... the discoveries and applications of science to the benefit of all and, above all, to the facilitation and ennobling of labor, this only legitimate and real basis of human society" b [Bakunin M. A. Comprehensive education//Ibid. S. 49-50]. He advocated the organization of a "big community" in the future socialist society.
Bakunin's trend in populism had an anarchist tinge. Bakunin transferred his hatred for the tsarist monarchy and the bourgeois states of Western Europe to the state in general, declaring that any power breeds exploitation. Advocating the revolutionary destruction of the state, he pictured socialism as a loose federation of workers' associations and agricultural communities based on self-government and absolute freedom of the individual. Bakunin considered the peasantry, as well as the urban poor and the declassed elements, to be the driving force behind the revolutionary upheaval. Since, in his opinion, the people are always ready for an uprising, the impetus for the beginning of the revolution should be given by the rebel revolutionaries. In the mid-60s, Bakunin created the anarchist organization "International Alliance of Socialist Democracy", which in 1868 was admitted to the First International. In 1872 Bakunin and members of his organization were expelled from the First International for their subversive activities.
Under the conditions of Russia, Bakunin's revolutionary-democratic concepts were directed against serfdom and tsarist autocracy and had a progressive character. But in Western Europe, in countries with a developed labor movement, his anarchism acquired reactionary features. K. Marx and F. Engels exposed the bourgeois; essence of anarchist theories. V. I. Lenin characterized Bakuninism as one of the forms of non-proletarian pre-Marxist socialism, born of the despair of the petty bourgeoisie.

Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev (1844-1885) is a representative of the third trend of revolutionary populism, who pinned hopes on accomplishing a social revolution through the seizure of power, a political coup and the establishment of the dictatorship of the "revolutionary minority". Defender of the interests of the peasantry, which traditionally adheres to the "principles of communal ownership", Tkachev nevertheless believed that it could not play an active role in the social revolution. In this he differed both from the supporters of Bakunin and the supporters of Lavrov, who believed that the masses themselves would make the revolution. In 1861 for revolutionary activity Tkachev was expelled from the university and in 1873 emigrated to Western Europe, where he collaborated in the Vperyod! In the works “Statistical Essays on Russia”, “From Velikiye Luki”, “A Man in the Salons of Modern Fiction”, Tkachev subjected the economic backwardness of feudal Russia to crushing criticism. On the basis of statistical data, he revealed the causes of the plight of the peasantry, which he saw in the extremely low productivity of peasant labor. Speaking from traditionally populist positions, Tkachev idealized the peasant community and hoped that its improvement and further development would enable Russia to avoid the “miserable fate of capitalist Western Europe.
In a number of places, Tkachev correctly stated the inevitability of capitalism in Russia, but continued to look for ways of non-capitalist development. The name of the Nabat magazine fully corresponded to the tasks of Tkachev, who was going to save Russia by means of a revolution, until capitalism embraced the entire socio-economic system of the country. // Fav. op. T. 3. M 1932. S. 344] The fulfillment of this task seemed quite real to Tkachev, since he proceeded from the erroneous opinion that the tsarist government did not have a solid foundation in Russia.
Tkachev's economic views on Western European capitalism are a peculiar combination of correct ideas, reflecting the influence of the works of N. G. Chernyshevsky, partly K. Marx, and the views of bourgeois political economy. Tkachev believed economic factor"the main condition for the development of society and attached great importance to the economic struggle of individual classes, because "all modern Western European economic practice rests on rivalry, as medieval - on feudal land ownership" 20 [Tkachev P. N. Review of the book by N. Rozhdestvensky "On the meaning S. Milla // Ibid. T. 5. M., 1935. S. 320]. Tkachev was inherent in the psychological interpretation of competition: he concluded that it would not exist under socialism just because it was unreasonable.
Tkachev considered some categories of political economy. He found the basis of life and the development of society in work, believing that “only work determines the general happiness and well-being” 21 [See: P. N. Tkachev. Review of Becher’s book “Working Question” // Ibid. S. 444]. Tkachev constantly stated the existence of a contradiction between labor and capital under capitalism. He noted the exploitative nature of profit and argued that labor underlies the value of each item. However, Tkachev stopped short of the difficulties of measuring the quantity and quality of labor, which led him to try to determine the value using the vulgar theory of supply and demand.
Unlike Bakunin, Tkachev assigned an important role to the state after the victory of the revolution, although he erroneously justified it by the inability of the people to independent revolutionary creativity.
In general, Tkachev's ideas were progressive for their time. He called for an anti-feudal revolution and outlined its program, although he often wrote about socialism. F. Engels, who criticized Tkachev's populist views, noted, however, that they had big influence on the program and tactics of the revolutionary organization Narodnaya Volya. V. I. Lenin wrote that the attempt of the Narodnaya Volya to seize power prepared by Tkachev’s sermon was majestic.
After the 1970s, due to the change in the historical situation in post-reform Russia, and primarily the social nature of the peasantry, populism developed in two directions: one degenerated into petty-bourgeois liberalism, the other evolved towards social democracy.

The prominent economist VV Bervi (pseudo-N. Flerovsky) (1829-1918) was close to the revolutionary Narodniks in his economic views. He was the author of more than 50 works on socio-economic problems, the most important of which are The Condition of the Working Class in Russia (1869), The ABC of the Social Sciences (1871), Tax Reform and Public Institutions of Justice (1871), Three Political systems” (1897), etc. For his revolutionary activities, Bervi-Flerovsky was repeatedly arrested.
The economic views of VV Bervi were rather contradictory. Thus, under the influence of populism, he resolutely defended the interests of the peasantry, opposed the oppression of the landlords and the remnants of serfdom. In his opinion, capitalism in Russia was an accidental phenomenon, the development of which can be stopped by strengthening the decaying rural community.
It should be noted that the Bervi-Flerovsky critic landownership was given, as in Chernyshevsky, from the positions of the working peasantry 22 [Bervi-Flerovsky V.V. Worker of agricultural Russia // Izbr. economy prod. T. 1. M., 1958. S. 285]. But Bervy often tended to moderate reforms, such as buying out landowners' lands, imposing progressive taxes on landowners, prohibiting the right to inherit, etc. While advocating for the preservation of the rural community, he at the same time saw its decay and wanted to save this "great principle" for Russia.
Bervi-Flerovsky sharply criticized capitalism, drawing attention to the plight of the workers and the irreconcilability of class contradictions between workers and capitalists. He saw the progressivity of large-scale production, spoke of the growth of labor productivity and at the same time showed the negative influence of large-scale capitalist production on the position of the working class.
In the work of Bervi-Flerovsky "The Condition of the Working Class in Russia" a huge amount of factual material is collected. It shows the state of industry, handicrafts and agriculture. Flerovsky very accurately described the difficult, disenfranchised position of the peasantry and factory workers. He declared that capitalism, like feudalism, is an anti-popular society. This book has received appreciated K. Marx, who believed that this was the first work, “where the truth about economic situation Russia". On the whole, while approving Flerovsky's work, Marx stressed in a letter to Engels that it was the most significant book after The Condition of the Working Class in England. Marx also saw the shortcomings of Bervi-Flerovsky's book, pointed out that it ""in some places does not fully satisfy criticism from a purely theoretical point of view", "in some places there is a small dose of complacent idle talk" 23 [See: Marx K., Engels F Op. 16. S. 427-428; T. 32. S. 357-358].
One of these shortcomings is the idealization of small-scale production, Proudhon's illusions about leading role money credit, about the possibility of comradeship relations between workers and capitalists. As a petty-bourgeois socialist, Bervi-Flerovsky dreamed of a new, just society, emphasizing the original development of Russia. The ultimate ideal of Bervi-Flerovsky was a communist society in which there is no exploitation, labor is the main condition for the existence of all citizens, collective property dominates, high labor productivity ensures an abundance of products and their distribution according to needs. These ideas are intertwined with petty-bourgeois illusions and utopian hopes for a transition to a just society through reforms and educational activities of the state, oriented to all classes. But Bervi-Flerovsky has statements about the insufficiency of peaceful methods of combating the existing system. Thus, in the work "Three Political Systems" there are proposals in favor of revolutionary methods of struggle. The author says that a real constitution can only be obtained by the hands of the working people and at the expense of the blood of this people.

REVOLUTIONARY-DEMOCRATIC THOUGHT OF THE PEOPLES OF RUSSIA.

In the 19th century in the Baltic states, the process of transition from feudalism to capitalism was accompanied by the ruin and extreme impoverishment of the peasantry, which in turn led to a powerful rise in the class struggle. One of the main demands of the peasants was to obtain land. Therefore, the attention of progressive figures of that time was focused on the criticism of feudal relations.
Lithuania. The revolutionary-democratic trend in economic thought was formed here in the 30s of the 19th century. Methodological basis his was the doctrine of "natural law".
The Lithuanian revolutionary democrat S. Daukantas (1783-1864) criticized the system of feudal exploitation from all sides. He believed that feudal relations were contrary to natural law, common sense. Daukantas tried to show that these relations in Lithuania are temporary. At the same time, it was emphasized that the national economy of Lithuania had fallen into decay, and society was divided into rich and poor. The decline of economic life, wrote the Lithuanian thinker, led the country to political decay.
S. Daukantas tried to find out the reasons that contributed to the penetration of feudalism into Lithuania. He identified two main ones: 1) the desire of some people to dominate others and appropriate the work of others (innate egoism) and 2) foreign interference. Although Daukantas idealized the communal system, he emphasized that only the people who can enjoy the fruits of their labor are free, for labor is the creator of all human values. S. Daukantas, examining various species labor activity, gave a significant place to the analysis of trade, since it contributes to the exchange of goods. He recognized the emergence of money as the highest achievement of economic development. “Money in trade is like blood in the human body,” wrote S. Daukantas. However, money is not an end in itself, it is only a means of exchange. S. Daukantas described the history of the appearance of money, showed their importance in the life of society 10.
After the defeat of the uprising of 1830-1831. some of its participants - I. Goshtautas (1800-1871), K. Zabitis-Nezabitauskis (1779-1837) and others - analyzed the causes of the defeat and formulated a new program. These revolutionary democrats devoted all their creative energy to the analysis of social problems. Considering the national question as a part of the social one, they declared that without the destruction of feudal relations it was impossible to achieve national liberation. Thus, I. Goshtautas sharply condemned serfdom, called terrible the order in which one person is the property of another. Goshtautas was deeply convinced that the peasants did not actively participate in the uprising of 1830-1831, because its leaders did not announce their intention to abolish serfdom. He criticized the feudal tax system, since the entire burden of taxes fell on the poorest sections of society, he advocated a fair tax, because those who have a large income should give more to the state treasury.
A similar concept was developed by K. Zabitis-Nezabitauskis. He believed that social inequality is the result of the evil will of people, the monarchical system does not correspond to common sense and is not able to ensure the freedom of citizens. Zabitis-Nezabitauskis sought to prove that the slave-owning system and feudalism can exist only if everything in the country is based on the tyranny of monarchism, absolutism. When people understand their natural rights, they will rise up in arms against despotism and tyranny will be destroyed for all time. Then people will live like brothers.
In the 60s of the XIX century. The revolutionary-democratic current of economic thought in Lithuania paid much attention to the practical side of things, perceiving economic concepts that were then popular in Western Europe and Russia. The ideas of the Russian revolutionary democrats had a particularly serious influence.
On the eve of the uprising of 1863-1864. its future leaders M. Akelaitis, J. Daukshis, S. Serakovsky were well acquainted with the ideas of the Russian revolutionary democrats, some of them (M. Akelaitis, S. Serakovsky) maintained personal contacts with A. Herzen and N. Chernyshevsky, and Serakovsky collaborated in "Contemporary".
Lithuanian revolutionary democrats actively studied social problems, the solution of which, in their opinion, contributes to the growth of the revolutionary self-consciousness of the masses. True, they mistakenly believed that relations between people are determined by the degree of their education. This was a strong influence of the ideas of the French Enlightenment. Serakovsky was sure that society was developing, but unevenly. In one country, due to the growth in the level of education, he believed, social reforms are being carried out, in another this is not observed. In this case, a revolutionary struggle is necessary. The revolutionary consciousness of the masses, he declared, is the fruit of painstaking educational work. Apart from Serakovsky, M. Akelaitis, J. Daukšys, and others adhered to this opinion. There was no clear idea of ​​what the social system should be like in the event of an uprising victory. So, S. Serakovsky advocated socialism, but he did not give a clear formulation of what was understood by socialism.
Latvia. The revolutionary democrats of the early 1960s were associated with the Land and Freedom organization. They wanted to unite the peasant movement in Latvia with the revolutionary action of the Lithuanian and Polish peasants.
The Latvian revolutionary democrats agitated the peasants to raise an uprising against the landowners in the vicinity of Valmiera, Cēsis, Smiltene, and Vecpiebalga. For this purpose, handwritten proclamations and pamphlets were distributed, which spoke about the disenfranchised position of the peasantry.
The most famous Latvian revolutionary democrat was Petr Ballod (1839-1918). His views can be judged from the proclamations he wrote. So, during the arrest, an article “Warning” written by P. Ballod was found. It emphasized that a peasant revolution was approaching in Russia, that the popular masses were making the revolution. Riga, 1957, p. 60].
P. Ballod wrote and reproduced in 1862 the proclamation "Officers", in which he called on the officers to go over to the side of the revolution. In it, he briefly outlines his views on the tasks of the social reorganization of Russia. “Every Russian knows that for the good of his homeland it is necessary: ​​to free the peasants from the land, giving the landlords a reward, to free the people from officials, from whips and rods; to give all estates the same rights to develop their well-being; to give society the freedom to manage its own affairs, to establish laws and taxes through its elected ones” 12 [Ibid. S. 47] .
The program of economic and political reforms outlined by P. Ballod was close to the program contained in the Young Russia proclamation of 1862. As is known from the memoirs of P. Ballod, he was familiar with this program and supported the ideas set forth in it.
K. Marx, F. Engels in their work "The Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the International Workingmen's Association" gave a high appraisal of this program. They wrote: "This manifesto contained a clear and exact description the internal situation of the country, the state of various parties ... and, proclaiming communism, he concluded that a social revolution was necessary ”13 [K. Marx, F. Engels Soch. T. 18. S. 433].
Estonia. Mass peasant movement in the second quarter of the 19th century. intensified progressive social thought in Estonia.
Johann Christopher Petri (1762-1851) criticized the feudal system for its economic unprofitability and low productivity. Petri defended the interests of the peasants. He demanded their complete release, was a supporter of revolutionary methods of struggle 14[See: Essays on the history of economic thought in Estonia in the 19th century. Tallinn, 1956. S. 38, 42, 43].
In the second half of the last century, the struggle of the peasants for land became even more aggravated. This was also reflected in the economic concepts of progressive thinkers in Estonia. Thus, the activities of the democrat Johann Koehler (1828-1899) since the 60s were inextricably linked with the struggle for peasant interests. He saw the main reason for the difficult situation of the peasants in landlessness, emphasizing that the land is the historical property of the Baltic peasantry 15 [Literary Museum of the ESSR. Department of Manuscripts, f. 69, d. 13/7, l. 25; f. 69, d. 14/6, l. eight]. Later, he proposed to buy out the leased peasant lands for state money, transfer them to the peasants or establish lower prices for land, obligatory for landlords, as well as reduce the rental rates.
Democrat Carl Robert Jacobson (1841-1882) went even further in his demands. In the newspaper Sakala he published, he waged a struggle both with the landowners and with their allies among the Estonian bourgeoisie. In his political program, Yakobson put in the first place the struggle against the Baltic nobility with the aim of completely destroying its power.
The agrarian problem occupies the main place in Jacobson's economic views. He acted as a defender of the interests of the rural small producer, being convinced that agriculture was the most important branch of production. He developed this idea several times. His economic program proceeded from the needs of the peasantry, condemned the "Prussian path" of the development of capitalism, and considered the small producer independent of the landowner as an ideal. SPb., 1869. S. 12, 6]. Yakobson dreamed of allocating land to all peasants, including farm laborers and beavers, and sought the most favorable conditions for the peasants to purchase land. The main point of his program was the requirement to ration the marginal price for a peasant allotment. Jacobson insisted on the sale of land in small plots, was a supporter of internal colonization. He fought against the feudal redemption of peasant allotments, as well as against all noble privileges (freedom from taxation, hunting rights, etc.).
In the economic views of Yakobson, questions of agricultural technology occupied an important place. He was a supporter of the growth of the marketability of agriculture. He owns a number of pamphlets and articles devoted to agriculture 17 [See: Kebin A. K. R. Yakobson as the leader of the Estonian peasants. Tallinn, 1933, p. 88]. Yakobson pointed out the need to supply the peasants with agricultural implements and called for the creation of peasant societies to fight against the landlords. In fact, he was a supporter of the "American way" of the development of capitalism in agriculture. Great importance Jacobson attached to the development of trade and navigation, as he saw them primarily as industries serving agriculture. Yakobson, noting some of the contradictions inherent in capitalism, came to the conclusion that bourgeois development is not harmonious, but he did not reach the point of criticizing the economic system of capitalism 18[Sakala. 1881. No. 34. S. 49]. Jacobson hoped to eliminate the contradictions between the owners and farm laborers by educating the latter; op. S. 17, 18].
The economic views of K. R. Yakobson reflected the interests of the peasantry, already drawn into commodity production during the period of transition from feudalism to capitalism.

4. Kazakhstan en and Central Asia.

Economic ideas that affected the interests of the people and expressed the ideology of various classes in Kazakhstan and Central Asia were not presented by independent science. Economic thought has not yet separated from general knowledge about society; there were no special works on the history of economic thought. And yet, the statements of progressive figures, memoranda of rulers, diaries of travelers, materials of the periodical press are valuable sources of economic thought of the peoples of the region under consideration.
Kazakhstan. The ancestor of socio-economic thought in Kazakhstan is the outstanding Kazakh educator and democrat Ch. Valikhanov, who adopted the advanced ideas of Russian educators and revolutionaries. The democratic ideas put forward by Ch. Valikhanov were developed and continued by other Kazakh democrats - the poet Abai Kunanbaev and public figure Ibraem Altynsarin.
Chokan Valikhanov (1835-1865) was an original thinker who tried to explain social processes in his own way, to apply the provisions economic theory to the conditions of Kazakhstan. However, he did not accept the revolutionary theory of the Russian revolutionary democrats and had high hopes for reforms. The most important Kazakh educator considered economic and social reforms, directly related to the urgent needs of the people 40 [See: Valikhanov Ch. Sobr. op. T. I. Alma-Ata, 1961. S. 495].

Pyotr Lavrovich Lavrov (1828-1900) is known as one of the main ideologists of Russian populism. At one time he had a considerable influence on the formation of the revolutionary movement in our country. Of interest are his sociological and philosophical studies, which make it possible to understand the attitude of the intelligentsia to the socio-political situation that prevailed in Russia in the second half of the 19th century, as well as the prediction of the collapse of Bolshevism.

Family

Pyotr Lavrov came from a well-known noble family. His father, Lavr Stepanovich, served in the army and participated in the Patriotic War of 1812. He was friendly with the head of the Imperial Chancellery and Alexei Arakcheev, who enjoyed the boundless confidence of Alexander the Great. After the war, L. S. Lavrov retired with the rank of artillery colonel and married Elizaveta Karlovna Gandvig. The girl came from a Russified Swedish noble family and was excellently educated for her time. In 1823, their son Peter was born. At the time of his birth, the family lived in the Melehovo estate, located in the Pskov province.

Petr Lavrovich Lavrov: a brief biography (young years)

Like his other peers from the nobility, the future philosopher from childhood studied foreign languages. In particular, thanks to his mother and an experienced tutor, he mastered French and German very early.

In 1837, Pyotr Lavrov was sent to St. Petersburg, where he successfully passed the exam and entered the artillery school. During the years of study at this prestigious military university, the young man proved to be a diligent cadet and was considered the best student of Academician M. Ostrogradsky. His successes were so serious that after receiving his diploma, he was left to tutor at his native school. In parallel with the classes, Petr Lavrov independently studied the scientific literature on social science and economics, wrote poetry and did research in the field of mathematics. The works of utopian socialists made a great impression on him.

Later career

The young tutor of mathematical sciences soon received recognition from his colleagues and took the position of a military teacher at the Mikhailovskaya Artillery Academy in St. Petersburg, rising to the rank of colonel. In 1860 he was transferred to the Konstantinovsky military school, where he was a mentor-observer for several years.

Personal life

In 1847, Pyotr Lavrov married the beautiful widow A. Kh. Loveiko. Marriage with a mother of two children, and even a German by birth (maiden name Kapger) upset the plans of Lavr Stepanovich, who dreams of a brilliant party for his son. As a result, Peter was deprived of his parent's financial support. Over time, the couple had four more common sons and daughters, which made the financial situation of the family even more precarious. In order to somehow "get out", Lavrov was forced to earn extra money by tutoring "on the side" and writing special articles for the Artillery Journal. The situation has changed in better side after the death of his father and older brother, when Pyotr Lavrovich received a good inheritance.

Literary and scientific activity

Despite the hardships of life, the indefatigable Pyotr Lavrov found time to study the most famous works of European philosophers of his time, published poems by A. I. Herzen, participated in the creation of the Encyclopedic Dictionary, published articles on philosophy and sociology, as well as on problems of public morality , literature, art and public education.

In addition, in 1860 his first book was published. In this work, entitled Essays on Practical Philosophy, Lavrov argued that a moral person cannot help but come into conflict with a society in which injustice reigns. In his opinion, only a system based on a voluntary union of moral and free people can be an ideal society.

Arrest and exile

In the 1860s, Pyotr Lavrovich Lavrov, whose biography is presented above, was an active participant in the student and revolutionary movement. He became close with N. G. Chernyshevsky and became a member of the first organization "Land and Freedom".

On April 4, 1866, at the gates of the Summer Garden, D. Karakozov made an attempt on Alexander II. It was unsuccessful, but it was the reason for the repressions, the victim of which was, among other things, Pyotr Lavrov. He was arrested on charges of "spreading harmful ideas" and in contacts with Chernyshevsky, Mikhailov and Professor P. Pavlov. After a short stay in prison and a trial, he was sent to exile in There he lived from 1867 to 1870 and met the exiled participant in the Polish uprising A. Chaplitska, who became his common-law wife.

"Historical Letters"

His "Historical Letters" contained a call to the youth to wake up, and, understanding the tasks of the historical moment, as well as the needs of the common people, help them realize their strength. The appearance of this work was more than timely, as the revolutionary intelligentsia was in search of new opportunities for the application of their forces. Lavrov's "historical letters" became a "thunderbolt" and one of the ideological stimuli for organizing the practical activities of the revolutionary intelligentsia.

Biography (Pyotr Lavrov) after 1870

After returning from exile, the revolutionary managed to illegally leave the country and go to Paris. There he contacted representatives of the Western European labor movement and joined the First International. During the period of existence, he traveled to London in order to organize assistance to besieged comrades.

During his stay in the capital of the British Empire, Lavrov met Marx and Engels.

In 1873-1877, the revolutionary became the editor of the Vperyod magazine and the 2-week newspaper of the same name - the mouthpieces of the direction of Russian populism, called "lavrism". After the assassination of Alexander II, Peter Lavrovich became close to the People's Will. He even agreed to edit the Bulletin of the People's Will together with L. Tikhomirov.

At the same time, his international prestige grew. Suffice it to say that in July 1889, members of the Armenian Hunchak Party, the first socialist party with branches in Persia and the Ottoman Empire, authorized Pyotr Lavrov to represent it at the congress of the Second International.

last years of life

Up to their last days Pyotr Lavrov continued to maintain ties with the revolutionary movement. However, at the end of his life he was more interested in questions related to the history of philosophy. As a result of his scientific research, several theoretical works were written, including the monograph "Problems of Understanding History".

Pyotr Lavrov, whose main ideas were the basis of the Narodnaya Volya movement, died in Paris at the age of 72 and was buried in the Montparnasse cemetery.

After himself, he left an extensive literary heritage, including 825 works and 711 letters. He is also the author of several dozen political poems, among which the "Working Marseillaise", beginning with the words "Let's renounce the old world ...", was especially popular, to which music was later written. In the first two decades of the 20th century, this song was one of the most frequently performed during strikes, strikes, as well as congresses of revolutionaries, and in the early years Soviet power and people's deputies.

Philosophical views

In official science, it is customary to classify Lavrov as an eclectic. And this is quite justified, since in his positivistic-agnostic philosophy he tried to combine the systems of Hegel, F. Lange, Feuerbach, Comte, Proudhon, Spencer, Chernyshevsky, Bakunin and Marx.

In his opinion, history is made by a moral and educated minority of its own free will, therefore the first task of revolutionaries is to develop a moral ideal.

In the 1870s, Lavrov had ardent followers, the so-called tower group. In addition, he became the recognized leader of the right wing of the revolutionaries of the Russian Empire. However, this situation did not last long, and soon many supporters of his ideology turned towards more radical Bakuninism. Nevertheless, lavrism played an important role in preparing members for the future first social democratic circles.

Now you know who P. Lavrov was. Being one of the few representatives of the nobility who sincerely sought to improve the situation of workers and peasants, Pyotr Lavrovich was not forgotten by the authorities of the First State of Workers and Peasants in the World. In particular, Furshtatskaya Street in Leningrad was renamed in his honor. Thanks to this, today many St. Petersburg residents know the Palace of Peter Lavrov, where wedding ceremonies are held. And this is quite symbolic, since a famous philosopher once sacrificed financial well-being for the sake of marrying his beloved woman, and then lived with her for thirty happy years.